https doesn't prevent anyone from finding out that you made an https request to a particular IP address, and it was preceded by a dns request for a "terrorist" web site that resolves to that IP address. It just keeps them from finding out exactly what you were looking at on that server.
doesn't matter. If elections are in just one month, he doesn't need to get this law passed, he doesn't even need to actually flesh out the details of the law, he's just making noise.
And he (probably rightly) assumes that his target audience assumes that muslim and terrorist are synonyms and their favorite websites would not be counted.
And now we have this story that a player won big (really big) at the Tropicana. How many people visiting Atlantic City are going to pick the Tropicana to gamble at from a (perhaps unconscious) idea that they can win big too (when they lack the real prerequisite here, having enough money to be considered a high-roller)
For evolution, it's simple - find a modern rabbit fossil in the precambrian.
That doesn't prove anything. God used evolution to create the human race. He's just a joker and stuck some fossils in the wrong place to screw with us.
I think the fear is that the people writing the curricula are not good scientists and will use this law as an excuse to "disprove" evolution to the children.
"Teaching the Controversy" could be a fruitful exercise as it gives the students tools to argue with creationists. "Ah yes, my teacher addressed that argument, turns out it's not valid because of X, Y, and Z" or "Yes, we learned about that in school, but these pieces of evidence support evolution..."
Using Significant figures to track the propagation of errors is Significantly easier than the other methods, though. They're a good first method to teach students about how to think about precision.
Just like you start teaching things like the Ideal Gas Law. There are better gas laws, but they're harder for a beginning student to learn.
I think some of the losses probably are due to piracy, but I don't think we should just assume that they all are. What else has happened in the last 10 years? I bet the gaming industry funneled away a lot of the money that once went to RIAA members. And generally the internet has provided a lot of other distractions. Plus, technology has improved so that it's possible to produce music without the help of a label, so many fans may be bypassing the RIAA members and getting music directly from the source.
And there's that whole recession, isn't consumer spending in general down? People without jobs can't buy as much music...
The Neutral Arbitrator will be chosen by Netflix. If that arbitrator does not regularly decide in Netflix's favor, they will be replaced by a different "neutral" arbitrator.
Part of the point was that people didn't really need encyclopedias anyway. The few times I actually used them, I was in the library anyway, so I used theirs (which were much more up to date than the 20-30 year old ones we had at home).
So now you can get a cheap encyclopedia on disc and you don't have to worry about neglecting Junior's education by not having an expensive Encyclopedia filling up a whole shelf. It doesn't matter whether Junior ever uses Encarta at all.
Patents are supposed to support the development and spread of new technologies. What GOOD are they if you can implement a technology on your own and have to sit and wonder if you've violated any patents?
"Unlimited upsides" is a very good plus for continuing with the project. Hard to do a ROI calculation that way, I'm just suggesting there are projects (not necessarily any of the ones that Google is studying) that are either so expensive to pursue, have limited potential return or seem to be such an incredible long shot that they may not be worth doing.
I wouldn't go that far. You have to get some idea of how much the project will cost vs how much it will likely bring in if successful and how likely it is to be successful (or how much useful knowledge/tools will come about as a side-effect...)
How do you answer the question without mentioning religion? It's a definite answer to the first question. Yes, there are non-Christians who have been voted into office. The second question? Can someone run for office without religion being mentioned? I'd say probably not. I don't particularly remember anyone making a big deal about Joe Lieberman's religion, but I'm sure someone must have mentioned it at some point. I'm sure someone mentioned he had gray hair. I'm not sure we'll ever get to the point where no one would even "mention" religion in a political race.
I fondly remember the old-school Usenet readers and their laughable warning that my post could cost hundreds or thousands of dollars as it is copied and sent around the world.
Most of the backers here basically prepaid for a copy of the game (There were some exceptions, like the ones mentioned who gave 10k). We went in giving what we thought was a decent price for a game from a proven developer. None of the backers expected to get access to the source, they're not being robbed of anything.
I missed the part where the Slashdot community signed up for a total open-source at all times stance on software licensing.
Slashdot Mirror
A yankee? I was going to blame the Tolkien estate for this, but apparently it's even more ridiculous.
https doesn't prevent anyone from finding out that you made an https request to a particular IP address, and it was preceded by a dns request for a "terrorist" web site that resolves to that IP address. It just keeps them from finding out exactly what you were looking at on that server.
doesn't matter. If elections are in just one month, he doesn't need to get this law passed, he doesn't even need to actually flesh out the details of the law, he's just making noise.
And he (probably rightly) assumes that his target audience assumes that muslim and terrorist are synonyms and their favorite websites would not be counted.
And now we have this story that a player won big (really big) at the Tropicana. How many people visiting Atlantic City are going to pick the Tropicana to gamble at from a (perhaps unconscious) idea that they can win big too (when they lack the real prerequisite here, having enough money to be considered a high-roller)
Fundamentalists would just take that as proof that the Pope is an agent of Satan.
For evolution, it's simple - find a modern rabbit fossil in the precambrian.
That doesn't prove anything. God used evolution to create the human race. He's just a joker and stuck some fossils in the wrong place to screw with us.
Luckily the "lesson" on creationism is pretty quick. "Some people believe an intelligent being, such as a God, created the Earth. Next lesson"
I think the fear is that the people writing the curricula are not good scientists and will use this law as an excuse to "disprove" evolution to the children.
"Teaching the Controversy" could be a fruitful exercise as it gives the students tools to argue with creationists. "Ah yes, my teacher addressed that argument, turns out it's not valid because of X, Y, and Z" or "Yes, we learned about that in school, but these pieces of evidence support evolution..."
Like, if you're Catholic, you're not Christian; which baffles me as to why Rick Santorum is doing so well among Evangelicals.
Because apparently the only thing Santorum knows about Catholicism is that birth control and abortion are bad.
Using Significant figures to track the propagation of errors is Significantly easier than the other methods, though. They're a good first method to teach students about how to think about precision.
Just like you start teaching things like the Ideal Gas Law. There are better gas laws, but they're harder for a beginning student to learn.
I think some of the losses probably are due to piracy, but I don't think we should just assume that they all are. What else has happened in the last 10 years? I bet the gaming industry funneled away a lot of the money that once went to RIAA members. And generally the internet has provided a lot of other distractions. Plus, technology has improved so that it's possible to produce music without the help of a label, so many fans may be bypassing the RIAA members and getting music directly from the source.
And there's that whole recession, isn't consumer spending in general down? People without jobs can't buy as much music...
The Neutral Arbitrator will be chosen by Netflix. If that arbitrator does not regularly decide in Netflix's favor, they will be replaced by a different "neutral" arbitrator.
Sorry, I don't have any points to mod you down with.
I expect that Brittanica insisted they be paid the same for each copy of the digital version as the cover price of the print version.
Part of the point was that people didn't really need encyclopedias anyway. The few times I actually used them, I was in the library anyway, so I used theirs (which were much more up to date than the 20-30 year old ones we had at home).
So now you can get a cheap encyclopedia on disc and you don't have to worry about neglecting Junior's education by not having an expensive Encyclopedia filling up a whole shelf. It doesn't matter whether Junior ever uses Encarta at all.
or buy my Lady Gaga brand pet rocks
Patents are supposed to support the development and spread of new technologies. What GOOD are they if you can implement a technology on your own and have to sit and wonder if you've violated any patents?
This was all about just 278 articles?
I predict they will be bought by the startup LeftHaven, which will continue where RightHaven left off.
"Unlimited upsides" is a very good plus for continuing with the project. Hard to do a ROI calculation that way, I'm just suggesting there are projects (not necessarily any of the ones that Google is studying) that are either so expensive to pursue, have limited potential return or seem to be such an incredible long shot that they may not be worth doing.
I wouldn't go that far. You have to get some idea of how much the project will cost vs how much it will likely bring in if successful and how likely it is to be successful (or how much useful knowledge/tools will come about as a side-effect...)
That was 50 years ago. Nowadays a lot Republicans who consider religion important in a candidate are choosing a Catholic over Mitt Romney.
How do you answer the question without mentioning religion? It's a definite answer to the first question. Yes, there are non-Christians who have been voted into office. The second question? Can someone run for office without religion being mentioned? I'd say probably not. I don't particularly remember anyone making a big deal about Joe Lieberman's religion, but I'm sure someone must have mentioned it at some point. I'm sure someone mentioned he had gray hair. I'm not sure we'll ever get to the point where no one would even "mention" religion in a political race.
I fondly remember the old-school Usenet readers and their laughable warning that my post could cost hundreds or thousands of dollars as it is copied and sent around the world.
Most of the backers here basically prepaid for a copy of the game (There were some exceptions, like the ones mentioned who gave 10k). We went in giving what we thought was a decent price for a game from a proven developer. None of the backers expected to get access to the source, they're not being robbed of anything.
I missed the part where the Slashdot community signed up for a total open-source at all times stance on software licensing.