Considering the size of the consumer lobby for electronic services, I won't hold my breath.
Not that many people understand the issues enough(except those who are paid to lobby for companies) and that kind of numerical disadvantage can only help those slimey companies out to make a quick buck.
Until the clueful gain more control over what gets bought, those out to exploit the clueless will win.
(But the fact that the clueless hate the clueful's gut helps noone, least of all the clueless.)
You'll also notice that the one thing that might also decrease violent crime, or at least, increase the chance of catching more crooks, is almost never discussed. We discuss laws on what to do with criminals once they are caught. But rarely do we try to support the people who do the catching(especially in the face of violent threats to their persons from organized crimes). Nor are economic crimes all treated equally. Public office fraud can steal literally billions, but how many millions are spent trying to even detect it? And how much of it is caught? The fact that those who do catch criminals(or prosecute them) have upward mobility to become politicians should worry us a lot more than it does...
Err, Casinos are places that exist to make money. If they encouraged skill, they would make less money. There is a darwinian pressure on them not to encourage skill.
Does the settlement even include any clause that says Microsoft can't do it again? *shady overtones of the antitrust settlement, in which they promised not to do it again, and whose premise was practically laughable*
Err Canada isn't standardised on Imperial, thank you. You're about 30 years late... We're metric-standard, with some guidelines and double-indiced signs to help with those who think 30 years isn't enough to get used to metric.
Paper sizes is probably the most common occurence of measuring size in inches Canadians will see, for one example.
But doesn't making your own standard to avoid patent royalties automatically make you incompatible? I mean even a compatible standard would be encumbered by patent royalties, considering that a lot of network communication patents cover connection methods and the like(Patenting an idea for the exchange of information, not the implementation of that exchange)?
Don't the chinese just pay the rightful price for their independance from big business? (Not that I blame them for it, it's a "You pay your money and you make your choices kinda thing") After all, if anyone could make a compatible and free implementation of something patented, the patent holder's rights would be moot. Hence, that's illegal. It's part of the social contract that the patent holder is the first one to profit from his invention. China's saying that the patent holders in some cases are too greedy.
Of course, the fact that many of the current patent laws are based on a basically Colonial-time view of the world(each little country with its own laws and very little interaction between countries) doesn't help the problem. The global village we are in is the wrong paradigm for such isolationism, and punishes countries with open borders for not updating laws quickly enough to follow suit. We know a lot of countries have a lot of laws that need to be brushed up, and some of those laws have to be globalized (I'm thinking about trademarks, specifically, since Internet trademarks, especially, tend to be both global AND local, and some kind of tracking needs to be done at the global level as well, and I don't mean ICANN.)
I noticed a disturbing trend in alternative power sources. They're all developed/tested, in unpopulated area. With the growth of population being the way it is, that means alternative power will become more and more anti-green. Because it takes away habitat from other species, to preserve "human" habitat.(If you're curious, I was seeing a show about the controversy surrouding the marine wind turbines being discussed in Massachusetts.)
Then it struck me, why can't we reuse urban areas for power production? Say tear down some uninhabited buildings to make a solar farm, or some abandoned harbor for tide power. Or my favorite, why not put wind turbines on the tops of skyscrapers. We already know the wind higher up is more powerful, and can cause buffeting near the base of the building. With careful design, we can limit or eliminate buffeting, and transform the force of that buffeting into power.
*tongue in cheek humor mode* Humans need to use better the land we have, not take more away from baby tigers, nuff said *end tongue in cheek*
I think the poster meant: catastrophic PERSONAL reason
as in, their income taxes would touble, or increase by 10000$/year whichever is more, unless they use efficient vehicles.
For that matter, why not just revise the law that makes SUVs legal to drive, being that inefficient? Not sure why it makes any sense to have trucks, for that matter, who tend to do more mileage per year of life, than any other, be the most inefficient/polluting of the bunch, for that matter.
The fact that Microsoft hasn't sued over Mono is irrelevant. The fact that they legally can sue anyone over it, and have not, taken legal steps to remove their right to sue is.
The fact that Mono hasn't yet captured enough minds to justify the expense yet might be the likely cause they haven't sued, for that matter.
Think of this scenario:
You are medium-sized ISP example.com, you want to grow big, and offer a spam solution based on Microsoft's offering. The standard doesn't interoperate with the IETF's proposal. Fine you say, as long as you are a Medium ISP only, Microsoft doesn't sue you. The minute you sign up your 1000000th client, Microsoft sues you for a billion dollars. Did you do the right thing?
No, you should have expected this from Microsoft(they've done similar, yet not identical things, many times before). You deserve to lose your job.
Did Microsoft do anything particularly reprehensible? Not really, they've done worse, and only got a little slap on the wrist for it. Why should they stop?
P.S. I don't work for redhat, I'm self employed. I believe Microsoft already controls too much of I.T. and should forcefully lose that control, either by having to pay for it, or by giving it to other parties, so the IT world gets rebalanced again. I especially mind Microsoft's business model, because despite having been found in violation of trade laws, they still OWN the parts that were in violation. It's like a huge dealer that gets caught smuggling cocaine into the USA on his boat, and the DEA seizes his boat, but leaves him his cocaine...
As much good as a software platform might be, I can't condone anyone using it unless there's some guarantee it won't increase Microsoft's control. This is principle, on my part, not business. You appear to have different motivations, more power to you.
the app itself, and what's included in it, is "mandatory" to the function of the software, even if a plugin could somehow overrule the core app, the core app will still be behind the scenes, taking up resources.
The plugins are optional, not included in the default install, and very few people are ever saddled with them without their knowledge.
Why is that distinction important?
Well let's see, by having a minimal, lean, high speed core, whatever plugins you choose will run fast, be nimble, and by virtue of the overall system(core+plugin) being simple, probably easily debugged, and debugged faster.
Having a heavy core means developers have to work harder, end-users can see more bugs they don't want to see, and third-party plugin developers have heavier apis to learn, to support, and more chance of harmful interactions with either the core, or some second plugin that's also included.
Having a lean core benefits everyone in terms of speed and freedom, provided the API/SDK is defined precisely, and is complete enough to satisfy all plugin developers. It's better because: users only see the bugs for the pieces of code they actually run developers only need to debug interactions for the smaller core, and any problematic third party that walks in on their turf Documentation is easier to write for the core, and the third party modules are each responsible for their own stuff.
I know about trekkies, and so do you, and notice I did say "may" but I'll mention to you that the trekkies (the rabid, hyperactive type) weren't that visible in 1977. They became more and more visible as conventions became more commonplace though.
How much of its impact on cinematic culture was the movies themselves? and how much was that at the time, no sci-fi(in the broadest sense, Star Wars is not as sci-fi as say Blade Runner) movie explored the same themes?
The question "Can it be saved?" also brings up the question: "From what?" From being overmarketed? Nothing can save it from that. From being light fluff, with low content, and being fixated on characters we know from the other movies, and yet have a darker feel to it? Not sure it can be saved from this last one, because...
because...
because that's probably the best that can be hoped for from this movie.
Read that again,
IMO Empire strikes back was the darkest of the original trilogy, and it certainly brought new elements to the trilogy the other two movies didn't. It was the most content-rich of the two, as it explored the Jedi in detail, as well as Darth Vader, and his relationship to Luke, it also fleshed out important characters, introduced new ones that would become important in the third movie, and was generally the more developed(plot/character wise) of the three. It went somewhere(to a big cliffhanger to be specific), and added a lot of "deep thinking" material(is Lando trustworthy, what's gonna happen to XYZ, etc...)
It basically left no stone unturned in the Star Wars universe. That's why Return of the Jedi could be so light on content, and had to be action-driven, the work had already been done, and it would have been redundant to develop nearly as much characters/situations/worlds. So ROTJ was a localized plot, with galaxywide repercussions.
As for the first movie, its impact was probably most measurable under the special effects category, of which Lucas could be considered "Core Developer" if not "maybe-not-so-Benevolent Dictator" to use the Linux term. Noone had really used special effects to that degree before 1977(to my knowledge) and he certainly influenced the Hollywood adoption of
1) derived products 2) sequels
He may also have created the first american Otaku (fanboys).
Can any of this be expected of the sixth movie in the series, especially since it's a "prequel" where we might not know the details, but we certainly know the ending.
It can be good entertainment, if they work at it. And the work I'm talking about isn't an ILM, it's in the script department, and hence, it might be a heck of a lot too late to "save" that particular movie, since the plot part was set in stone ages ago... They can try to avoid fluff, as much as possible in the third movie, and keep it gritty, the-real-world-is-a-bad-place-especially-that-Jedi s-are-being-killed-all-over-now. But they can't really "save it" to the point of making it a better prequel movie than the movies in the IV-V-VI position. Better special effects, yes, a good enough plot? Maybe, for those who haven't seen the original movie, but not for the hardcore fans. That's the third "weakness" of this movie, it's a wide-audience movie, but with entrenched fans who have a great deal of influence, by disseminating(and tainting) information about the coming movie, interesting people with less first-hand knowledge of the series. That the last movie in the trilogy came out in theatres in 1988 means people less 21 years of age won't remember the theater version of the movie either. Another "chink" in the third movie's armor.
Maybe they should have tried for the original set of sequels(it was meant as a nine-movie set, at one point), despite the fact that Anakin Skywalker was probably the most interesting, complex character in the bunch.
that "stovetop espresso maker" aka the Machinetta, is actually the same process(steam going through packed coffee) as the more expensive machine. I've never heard it described as "not espresso" before, and that includes when I went to Italy.
the problem with Fair Trade coffee is that the coffee sellers discovered that some people were willing to overpay to "not be unfair", and that it was better for them to allow them to do so, than let them hollar for a boycott of their product. It's merely a mean to make money in many cases, especially if the seller also sells "not fair trade" coffee. Someone who's doing it for principle wouldn't sell any other type.
I think the ideal thing to do is replace "them" with something that actually works, not oversee "them". Just a thought.
It's also interesting to note that an appendage of the department of commerce is acting more and more like the ruling body of a cartel, and changes to the ICANN structure/ruling entities would actually help liberate a captive market from big-player pressures, expressed outside that market, through ICANN.
Thanks for clearing that up. That would explain the "let's get rid of them" attitude. Maybe you can explain how making sure they are carried all over the place so they can be burned, if they are THAT hard to destroy, is justifiable then, considering that if the "transform-to-fuel" parts miss some prions, we have an infection agent being carried all over the place.
Or maybe that was the point "cost-effective" doesn't include the cost of the risks? (In the geopoliticolegal environment of the USA, as seen from Canada, it sure looks that way sometimes). It also explains only partway why cow brains are more interesting as fuel(despite their proteic nature) than methane(a highly efficient hydrocarbon, aka Natural Gas)
What about the exhaust given off from cars that are burning Mad Cow Fuels?"
Just what's so magical about this bacterium/virus that it can survive(and pass through to the final airborne infection factor) a) a filtering b) liquefaction c) sedimentation d) combustion of its now liquid base e) any other prevention methods we should think of before using potentially infected biofluids as fuel
And still be considered a threat? Is that one of those weaponized biotoxins, instead of (the latest information I had) a cow virus transmissible only through bone marrow/spinal fluid exchange between bovines(and in some cases, the exact transmission rate not known, or at least, not spoken of in the non-specialist literature) humans...
Is this another case of FUD?
For that matter, why is there research into brains, which are not fit for consumption(and therefore have to be disposed of). Instead of using methane, which are also cowbyproducts, and which another study showed made cows a strong source of greenhouse gases? Why not recuperate methane(major component of natural gas) and use it instead?
It reminds me of that research that said fluor was chosen to purify water instead of chlorine not because of its price or abundance of efficiency(at the time, the text didn't mention later studies) but because it was a common by product of aluminum extraction?
Is the western corporate world so desperate about industrial "clean up bills" as that?
Errr wouldn't that be an admission of Error, and open them to criminal liability of sorts, under the various laws of the USA, specially California, who has new laws to that effect?
As long as they can put a bounty on guilty people who aren't Microsoft, the bounty is doing it's job, because Microsoft can say it's doing something to catch the bad guys. That also means that de-facto, it isn't them.
The fact that Microsoft is trying to use a PR tactic to solve a technical security problem should tell you just where Microsoft's interest is, as well as its strengths.
Most likely he's one of those people who think forms that send email are the dominant form of email now, or that a web interface controlling a mailman or other mailing list controller, gives apache "control" over the flow of mail.
Or else, it was just a typo over "email" meaning "http traffic". Because of greater fragmentation of the smtp server area, and greater specialisation of some of the parts, as well as several interpretations of much more complex standards(IMAP is certainly a standard with an awful lot of variance built it), there is no smtp server as dominant as apache httpd, nor would that server cover as much of the transaction between the client and the server.
Lots of universities have some kind of system to accreditate "life experience" when relevant, to pre-graduate students. There are also lots of "honorary" doctorates going around. But do degrees as job requirements fulfill their basic tenet: "Only let someone competent do a job?"
Even with a real degree, I'd certainly have doubts.
Second, I don't believe it would be a niche market at all. Instead, it would help grade the difference of mature cinema even more and give the director a more subtle brush with which to paint. As it is, most films are being stripped down and released as PG-13 to capture the TRUE moviegoer market that pulls in all the tickets.
I disagree with your statement, it IS a niche market, mostly because it turns away moviegoers(a large number of them) without creating the "elite" feel that would allow movie theaters to charge more for being part of the elite, hence, market economics are going to drive them out.
Now common sense demands that before movie theaters charge more for adults-only film, we force them to charge less for insipid, bad-quality movies. Will that happen? time will tell, moviegoers of the world, unite!
I constantly saw parents taking their young children in to see movies like "leathal weapon 4". I don't think it was out of ignorance, I think it's more indifference.
You certainly are making points for the people who say "desentivisation to violence" is a lot worse than showing violence.
I'd put in a caveat however, desentivisation to violence is less likely to occur with movies like "Passion" which show everything(the bad, ugly consequences of violence) than more mainstream, gangster-type movies which only show their good side(i.e. noone ever gets crippled for life by violence/dies on the ambulance in high pain).
Desentisation occurs when people see the "glamour" of something without its price.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering the size of the consumer lobby for electronic services, I won't hold my breath.
Not that many people understand the issues enough(except those who are paid to lobby for companies) and that kind of numerical disadvantage can only help those slimey companies out to make a quick buck.
Until the clueful gain more control over what gets bought, those out to exploit the clueless will win.
(But the fact that the clueless hate the clueful's gut helps noone, least of all the clueless.)
You'll also notice that the one thing that might also decrease violent crime, or at least, increase the chance of catching more crooks, is almost never discussed. We discuss laws on what to do with criminals once they are caught. But rarely do we try to support the people who do the catching(especially in the face of violent threats to their persons from organized crimes). Nor are economic crimes all treated equally. Public office fraud can steal literally billions, but how many millions are spent trying to even detect it? And how much of it is caught? The fact that those who do catch criminals(or prosecute them) have upward mobility to become politicians should worry us a lot more than it does...
Err, Casinos are places that exist to make money. If they encouraged skill, they would make less money. There is a darwinian pressure on them not to encourage skill.
Any questions?
Does the settlement even include any clause that says Microsoft can't do it again? *shady overtones of the antitrust settlement, in which they promised not to do it again, and whose premise was practically laughable*
Err Canada isn't standardised on Imperial, thank you. You're about 30 years late...
We're metric-standard, with some guidelines and double-indiced signs to help with those who think 30 years isn't enough to get used to metric.
Paper sizes is probably the most common occurence of measuring size in inches Canadians will see, for one example.
But doesn't making your own standard to avoid patent royalties automatically make you incompatible? I mean even a compatible standard would be encumbered by patent royalties, considering that a lot of network communication patents cover connection methods and the like(Patenting an idea for the exchange of information, not the implementation of that exchange)?
Don't the chinese just pay the rightful price for their independance from big business? (Not that I blame them for it, it's a "You pay your money and you make your choices kinda thing") After all, if anyone could make a compatible and free implementation of something patented, the patent holder's rights would be moot. Hence, that's illegal. It's part of the social contract that the patent holder is the first one to profit from his invention. China's saying that the patent holders in some cases are too greedy.
Of course, the fact that many of the current patent laws are based on a basically Colonial-time view of the world(each little country with its own laws and very little interaction between countries) doesn't help the problem. The global village we are in is the wrong paradigm for such isolationism, and punishes countries with open borders for not updating laws quickly enough to follow suit. We know a lot of countries have a lot of laws that need to be brushed up, and some of those laws have to be globalized (I'm thinking about trademarks, specifically, since Internet trademarks, especially, tend to be both global AND local, and some kind of tracking needs to be done at the global level as well, and I don't mean ICANN.)
I noticed a disturbing trend in alternative power sources. They're all developed/tested, in unpopulated area. With the growth of population being the way it is, that means alternative power will become more and more anti-green. Because it takes away habitat from other species, to preserve "human" habitat.(If you're curious, I was seeing a show about the controversy surrouding the marine wind turbines being discussed in Massachusetts.)
Then it struck me, why can't we reuse urban areas for power production? Say tear down some uninhabited buildings to make a solar farm, or some abandoned harbor for tide power. Or my favorite, why not put wind turbines on the tops of skyscrapers. We already know the wind higher up is more powerful, and can cause buffeting near the base of the building. With careful design, we can limit or eliminate buffeting, and transform the force of that buffeting into power.
*tongue in cheek humor mode*
Humans need to use better the land we have, not take more away from baby tigers, nuff said
*end tongue in cheek*
I think the poster meant:
catastrophic PERSONAL reason
as in, their income taxes would touble, or increase by 10000$/year whichever is more, unless they use efficient vehicles.
For that matter, why not just revise the law that makes SUVs legal to drive, being that inefficient?
Not sure why it makes any sense to have trucks, for that matter, who tend to do more mileage per year of life, than any other, be the most inefficient/polluting of the bunch, for that matter.
The fact that Microsoft hasn't sued over Mono is irrelevant. The fact that they legally can sue anyone over it, and have not, taken legal steps to remove their right to sue is.
The fact that Mono hasn't yet captured enough minds to justify the expense yet might be the likely cause they haven't sued, for that matter.
Think of this scenario:
You are medium-sized ISP example.com, you want to grow big, and offer a spam solution based on Microsoft's offering. The standard doesn't interoperate with the IETF's proposal. Fine you say, as long as you are a Medium ISP only, Microsoft doesn't sue you. The minute you sign up your 1000000th client, Microsoft sues you for a billion dollars. Did you do the right thing?
No, you should have expected this from Microsoft(they've done similar, yet not identical things, many times before). You deserve to lose your job.
Did Microsoft do anything particularly reprehensible? Not really, they've done worse, and only got a little slap on the wrist for it. Why should they stop?
P.S. I don't work for redhat, I'm self employed. I believe Microsoft already controls too much of I.T. and should forcefully lose that control, either by having to pay for it, or by giving it to other parties, so the IT world gets rebalanced again. I especially mind Microsoft's business model, because despite having been found in violation of trade laws, they still OWN the parts that were in violation.
It's like a huge dealer that gets caught smuggling cocaine into the USA on his boat, and the DEA seizes his boat, but leaves him his cocaine...
As much good as a software platform might be, I can't condone anyone using it unless there's some guarantee it won't increase Microsoft's control. This is principle, on my part, not business. You appear to have different motivations, more power to you.
Let's just take one short step back:
the app itself, and what's included in it, is "mandatory" to the function of the software, even if a plugin could somehow overrule the core app, the core app will still be behind the scenes, taking up resources.
The plugins are optional, not included in the default install, and very few people are ever saddled with them without their knowledge.
Why is that distinction important?
Well let's see, by having a minimal, lean, high speed core, whatever plugins you choose will run fast, be nimble, and by virtue of the overall system(core+plugin) being simple, probably easily debugged, and debugged faster.
Having a heavy core means developers have to work harder, end-users can see more bugs they don't want to see, and third-party plugin developers have heavier apis to learn, to support, and more chance of harmful interactions with either the core, or some second plugin that's also included.
Having a lean core benefits everyone in terms of speed and freedom, provided the API/SDK is defined precisely, and is complete enough to satisfy all plugin developers. It's better because:
users only see the bugs for the pieces of code they actually run
developers only need to debug interactions for the smaller core, and any problematic third party that walks in on their turf
Documentation is easier to write for the core, and the third party modules are each responsible for their own stuff.
Anyone see why a lean core benefits everyone yet?
I know about trekkies, and so do you, and notice I did say "may" but I'll mention to you that the trekkies (the rabid, hyperactive type) weren't that visible in 1977. They became more and more visible as conventions became more commonplace though.
How much of its impact on cinematic culture was the movies themselves? and how much was that at the time, no sci-fi(in the broadest sense, Star Wars is not as sci-fi as say Blade Runner) movie explored the same themes?
i s-are-being-killed-all-over-now. But they can't really "save it" to the point of making it a better prequel movie than the movies in the IV-V-VI position. Better special effects, yes, a good enough plot? Maybe, for those who haven't seen the original movie, but not for the hardcore fans. That's the third "weakness" of this movie, it's a wide-audience movie, but with entrenched fans who have a great deal of influence, by disseminating(and tainting) information about the coming movie, interesting people with less first-hand knowledge of the series. That the last movie in the trilogy came out in theatres in 1988 means people less 21 years of age won't remember the theater version of the movie either. Another "chink" in the third movie's armor.
The question "Can it be saved?" also brings up the question: "From what?" From being overmarketed? Nothing can save it from that. From being light fluff, with low content, and being fixated on characters we know from the other movies, and yet have a darker feel to it? Not sure it can be saved from this last one, because...
because...
because that's probably the best that can be hoped for from this movie.
Read that again,
IMO Empire strikes back was the darkest of the original trilogy, and it certainly brought new elements to the trilogy the other two movies didn't. It was the most content-rich of the two, as it explored the Jedi in detail, as well as Darth Vader, and his relationship to Luke, it also fleshed out important characters, introduced new ones that would become important in the third movie, and was generally the more developed(plot/character wise) of the three. It went somewhere(to a big cliffhanger to be specific), and added a lot of "deep thinking" material(is Lando trustworthy, what's gonna happen to XYZ, etc...)
It basically left no stone unturned in the Star Wars universe. That's why Return of the Jedi could be so light on content, and had to be action-driven, the work had already been done, and it would have been redundant to develop nearly as much characters/situations/worlds. So ROTJ was a localized plot, with galaxywide repercussions.
As for the first movie, its impact was probably most measurable under the special effects category, of which Lucas could be considered "Core Developer" if not "maybe-not-so-Benevolent Dictator" to use the Linux term. Noone had really used special effects to that degree before 1977(to my knowledge) and he certainly influenced the Hollywood adoption of
1) derived products
2) sequels
He may also have created the first american Otaku (fanboys).
Can any of this be expected of the sixth movie in the series, especially since it's a "prequel" where we might not know the details, but we certainly know the ending.
It can be good entertainment, if they work at it. And the work I'm talking about isn't an ILM, it's in the script department, and hence, it might be a heck of a lot too late to "save" that particular movie, since the plot part was set in stone ages ago... They can try to avoid fluff, as much as possible in the third movie, and keep it gritty, the-real-world-is-a-bad-place-especially-that-Jed
Maybe they should have tried for the original set of sequels(it was meant as a nine-movie set, at one point), despite the fact that Anakin Skywalker was probably the most interesting, complex character in the bunch.
that "stovetop espresso maker" aka the Machinetta, is actually the same process(steam going through packed coffee) as the more expensive machine. I've never heard it described as "not espresso" before, and that includes when I went to Italy.
If I may intrude, only problem I ever had going cold turkey was the sleepless nights...
Ain't that a shocker...
the problem with Fair Trade coffee is that the coffee sellers discovered that some people were willing to overpay to "not be unfair", and that it was better for them to allow them to do so, than let them hollar for a boycott of their product. It's merely a mean to make money in many cases, especially if the seller also sells "not fair trade" coffee. Someone who's doing it for principle wouldn't sell any other type.
You're explaining by courage what can best be explained by terminal cluelessness about the technical issues here.
You're giving away undeserved karma.
It's also interesting to note that an appendage of the department of commerce is acting more and more like the ruling body of a cartel, and changes to the ICANN structure/ruling entities would actually help liberate a captive market from big-player pressures, expressed outside that market, through ICANN.
Thanks for clearing that up. That would explain the "let's get rid of them" attitude. Maybe you can explain how making sure they are carried all over the place so they can be burned, if they are THAT hard to destroy, is justifiable then, considering that if the "transform-to-fuel" parts miss some prions, we have an infection agent being carried all over the place.
Or maybe that was the point "cost-effective" doesn't include the cost of the risks? (In the geopoliticolegal environment of the USA, as seen from Canada, it sure looks that way sometimes). It also explains only partway why cow brains are more interesting as fuel(despite their proteic nature) than methane(a highly efficient hydrocarbon, aka Natural Gas)
Just what's so magical about this bacterium/virus that it can survive(and pass through to the final airborne infection factor)
a) a filtering
b) liquefaction
c) sedimentation
d) combustion of its now liquid base
e) any other prevention methods we should think of before using potentially infected biofluids as fuel
And still be considered a threat? Is that one of those weaponized biotoxins, instead of (the latest information I had) a cow virus transmissible only through bone marrow/spinal fluid exchange between bovines(and in some cases, the exact transmission rate not known, or at least, not spoken of in the non-specialist literature) humans...
Is this another case of FUD?
For that matter, why is there research into brains, which are not fit for consumption(and therefore have to be disposed of). Instead of using methane, which are also cowbyproducts, and which another study showed made cows a strong source of greenhouse gases? Why not recuperate methane(major component of natural gas) and use it instead?
It reminds me of that research that said fluor was chosen to purify water instead of chlorine not because of its price or abundance of efficiency(at the time, the text didn't mention later studies) but because it was a common by product of aluminum extraction?
Is the western corporate world so desperate about industrial "clean up bills" as that?
this is from memory, but I believe dd is for data dump
It deals with raw files and devices, but there never was some fixation with files.
On another note, for those who think dd is lacking in features, this might just do the trick.
Errr wouldn't that be an admission of Error, and open them to criminal liability of sorts, under the various laws of the USA, specially California, who has new laws to that effect?
As long as they can put a bounty on guilty people who aren't Microsoft, the bounty is doing it's job, because Microsoft can say it's doing something to catch the bad guys. That also means that de-facto, it isn't them.
The fact that Microsoft is trying to use a PR tactic to solve a technical security problem should tell you just where Microsoft's interest is, as well as its strengths.
Most likely he's one of those people who think forms that send email are the dominant form of email now, or that a web interface controlling a mailman or other mailing list controller, gives apache "control" over the flow of mail.
Or else, it was just a typo over "email" meaning "http traffic". Because of greater fragmentation of the smtp server area, and greater specialisation of some of the parts, as well as several interpretations of much more complex standards(IMAP is certainly a standard with an awful lot of variance built it), there is no smtp server as dominant as apache httpd, nor would that server cover as much of the transaction between the client and the server.
--
You pays your money and you make your choices
Lots of universities have some kind of system to accreditate "life experience" when relevant, to pre-graduate students. There are also lots of "honorary" doctorates going around. But do degrees as job requirements fulfill their basic tenet: "Only let someone competent do a job?"
Even with a real degree, I'd certainly have doubts.
I disagree with your statement, it IS a niche market, mostly because it turns away moviegoers(a large number of them) without creating the "elite" feel that would allow movie theaters to charge more for being part of the elite, hence, market economics are going to drive them out.
Now common sense demands that before movie theaters charge more for adults-only film, we force them to charge less for insipid, bad-quality movies. Will that happen? time will tell, moviegoers of the world, unite!
You certainly are making points for the people who say "desentivisation to violence" is a lot worse than showing violence.
I'd put in a caveat however, desentivisation to violence is less likely to occur with movies like "Passion" which show everything(the bad, ugly consequences of violence) than more mainstream, gangster-type movies which only show their good side(i.e. noone ever gets crippled for life by violence/dies on the ambulance in high pain).
Desentisation occurs when people see the "glamour" of something without its price.