I agree that serial numbers are a good way of adding good faith to the sale, but they can just as easily be forged/fudged/made up, and only someone very familiar with the product might catch an oddball serial number. Either way, they're not the grand solution it seems like at first glance.
It wouldn't necessarily be the buyer confirming the serial number, but victims of theft who know what they're looking for that check them out. So no, it's not really the serial number that's giving the purchaser reassurance; its the fact that the serial number was published, and the sale hasn't been taken down yet that gives the faith.
As to the registration argument, the only reason I've registered any of my devices is to streamline warranty claims, which isn't really applicable, since you still need the busted device to claim warranty.
Actually, it would be quite beneficial if listing the serial # of items on eBay became a de facto SOP. If legitimate traders started including identifying information, such as serial #s, as a way of verifying that the goods were not stolen, other merchants would be pressured into doing the same. Listings without a serial number would be regarded as suspicious, so people wouldn't get burnt dealing with crooks.
Sorry - forgot to change to Plain Old Text format:
It seems to me, the root of the problem is the original design of the domain naming system. When DNS was first created, they had a handful of TLDs - net for network infrastructure, org for non-profits, edu for educational, gov, edu, mil, etc. This was way before the potential of the internet was even beginning to be understood - particularly its commercial potential. With those initial segregations they've got a relative handful of government sites spread over gov, mil, edu, etc, and everyone else crammed into.com. Of course, then the problem was that this segregation was not enforced -.orgs are not necessarily non-profits,.coms are not necessarily commercial sites, etc.
Here in Australia, one of the nice things is that the TLDs are fairly well controlled. You need an ABN (Australian Business Number) to register a.com.au domain. You need to be a registered non-profit to register a.org.au. So these TLDs actually retain a useful meaning, unlike.com,.net and.org in the US. I think it would be useful to have the.com namespace segregated a bit more - including into an "adult material" domain. But the opportunity for that has passed. Refusing to let someone register a domain is much easier than forcing them to change domains later, and public awareness has already settled on.com as the only real TLD.
The problem was that they tried to amalgamate the concepts of a unique identifier and a descriptive taxonomy. Due to the lack of foresight setting up the taxonomy (which they can't really be blamed for - nobody forsaw the way the internet grew), the internet outgrew the taxonomy, and it became useless. So now we have a system that is only really used for unique identification, saddled with the remnants of a defunct taxonomy.
An ideal solution (IMO) would be some sort of authenticated tagging mechanism, where certain agencies had the authority to tag websites, keeping that system totally divorced from the system used to uniquely tie IP addresses to human-readable names. Even if the tagging system was managed by an industry body (e.g. the XXX tag administered by the adult industry), I imagine many porn sites would tag themselves voluntarily - having that sort of tag would likely help boost the search engine rankings for porn-related searches, which I'm sure they'd be more worried about than their accessibility to minors (most of whom wouldn't have credit cards to pay them, anyway).
It seems to me, the root of the problem is the original design of the domain naming system. When DNS was first created, they had a handful of TLDs - net for network infrastructure, org for non-profits, edu for educational, gov, edu, mil, etc. This was way before the potential of the internet was even beginning to be understood - particularly its commercial potential. With those initial segregations they've got a relative handful of government sites spread over gov, mil, edu, etc, and everyone else crammed into.com. Of course, then the problem was that this segregation was not enforced -.orgs are not necessarily non-profits,.coms are not necessarily commercial sites, etc.
Here in Australia, one of the nice things is that the TLDs are fairly well controlled. You need an ABN (Australian Business Number) to register a.com.au domain. You need to be a registered non-profit to register a.org.au. So these TLDs actually retain a useful meaning, unlike.com,.net and.org in the US. I think it would be useful to have the.com namespace segregated a bit more - including into an "adult material" domain. But the opportunity for that has passed. Refusing to let someone register a domain is much easier than forcing them to change domains later, and public awareness has already settled on.com as the only real TLD.
The problem was that they tried to amalgamate the concepts of a unique identifier and a descriptive taxonomy. Due to the lack of foresight setting up the taxonomy (which they can't really be blamed for - nobody forsaw the way the internet grew), the internet outgrew the taxonomy, and it became useless. So now we have a system that is only really used for unique identification, saddled with the remnants of a defunct taxonomy.
An ideal solution (IMO) would be some sort of authenticated tagging mechanism, where certain agencies had the authority to tag websites, keeping that system totally divorced from the system used to uniquely tie IP addresses to human-readable names. Even if the tagging system was managed by an industry body (e.g. the XXX tag administered by the adult industry), I imagine many porn sites would tag themselves voluntarily - having that sort of tag would likely help boost the search engine rankings for porn-related searches, which I'm sure they'd be more worried about than their accessibility to minors (most of whom wouldn't have credit cards to pay them, anyway).
Microsoft is probably trying to avoid another Eolas fiasco. Microsoft has already been stung by the US patent insanity, and with their patent tied explicitly to Vista and IE, there's not really much harm they can do with it. And as a web developer whose had to deal with the fallout of the Eolas case, I actually find myself supporting Microsoft when they're trying to avoid it happening again. I certainly don't want to have to find another crappy javascript hack to work around a stupid, obvious patent.
There seems to be some weird compulsion for nerds to tear down anything popular or mainstream (possibly because they themselves are generally neither). For some reason, they also seem to be accusing JKR of milking her books for money, even though it was indicated from the very first book that there would be seven of them, and despite the fact that JKR has written two books with all proceeds donated to charity. What were they expecting her to do, stop writing mid-series when she'd made enough money? A real storyteller won't stop midstory, because they enjoy telling the story as much as others do reading it.
Plots don't have to be complex to be good. And books don't even necessarily need "good" plots to be good books. It all depends on what the book is trying to do. If you're writing a romance, the plot doesn't need nearly as much work as the characters and their relationships. If you're writing horror, atmosphere is likely to be a bigger concern than plot. Having a complex plot can even be a detriment when your audience isn't after a complex plot - they just want to read more about the characters, but are being forced to wade through stuff they don't care about to get it.
Harry Potter is a coming-of-age story in an epic-fantasy cross boarding-school setting. It's plot has always been straightforward, but the focus has more been on the setting and character development than the plot. And that's not a bad thing. If you're after cryptic, complex plots, then go watch Memento, or read some cyberpunk. Just the same as if you're after complex character relationships and development, you probably shouldn't be reading Clive Cussler. Horses for courses.
- very responsive client for reading mail
- very responsive client for writing mail
- effective communication between client and server that doesn't require the user to wait
Those requests are about as useful as asking for them to make the internet go faster. You want to store all your messages on the server? Fine. There's a drawback to that. It's called latency. You want speed and responsiveness? Then you're stuck with local.
Similarly, Thunderbird strikes me as a really good attempt at producing a product idea that is fundamentally flawed. We should be working to phase out monolithic email clients.
Comparing Thunderbird to Office is absurd. In what way is it "monolithic"? It does the very basic requirements needed by an email client, and provides an extension mechanism for optional increases in functionality. If you wanted an example of a monolithic email client, I'd point you in the direction of Outlook, which bundles calendar and task management into an email app. Oddly enough, though, Outlook seems to be one of Microsoft's most popular offerings. Could it be possible that people that aren't you actually prefer their "monolithic" clients? I know I'd hate you forever if you forced me to use webmail, or connect to the internet whenever I wanted to check my stored mail.
Don't use it if you don't like it, but Thunderbird's doing most of what I want it to do now, and I'd certainly rather use it than the centralized system you propose.
should deal only with plain text - non plain text should be flattened to plain text. It would be nice to automatically bounce office files with a message to tell the person to send stuff as PDF or plain text.
Good luck with that. Once you've got that generally accepted you should start campaigning to make lynx the default browser.
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."
Awesome. Let's book kids who sneak some booze when they're underage with the same charge as heroin dealers. They're probably just building up the courage to do something more serious. Of course, there's always the whacky notion that the punishment should fit the crime that was actually committed rather than what we think they might do in the future.
You're an idiot. The RIAA is a cartel of all major labels. As a group, those labels have a monopolistic presence in the music distribution industry.
MacHeist took on risk in exchange for a flat fee. They paid these developers a set amount. If MacHeist had done poorly, they would have lost money. If they did ok, they would break even. If they did well, they would profit. If they did extremely well, they would make an extreme profit. Their current profits are due to the risk they took in the first place.
Assuming there has been no sudden, unrelated spike in interest in these products, these sales are purely the result of MacHeist's marketing efforts. If the individual author's thought they could make more doing their own marketing, they wouldn't have signed on.
So when you have small changes over a small period of time, is believing that over a large period of time you could have large changes really that unreasonable?
It's the nature of those changes that is key. "Micro evolution" (if you want to use that term) involves the spread of a trait throughout a population. In this case, lactose tolerance. Lactose tolerance was already present in the population, just to a small degree. When man domesticated cattle, his environment shifted. Lactose tolerance became favourable, and thus spread throughout the population. Even prior to this, infant lactose tolerance was present; it would only be a small jump to say that whatever is responsible for turning off that tolerance failed to function. Natural selection doesn't suddenly generate traits due to environmental pressure - it takes traits that are already there, and spreads them throughout the population.
What this doesn't say anything about is how the trait arose in the first place, which is what people who make that distinction would classify as "macro" evolution. Creationists explain evolution as a winnowing-down. Dogs, for example, were created with a whole lot of unnecessary genetic material. As they spread out, different parts were dropped out. The dogs who ended up in Mexico were selected for small size and large upright ears to cope with the temperature, and evolved into the chiououa. Dogs who ended up in the arctic were selected for long, thick coats and physical strength, and evolved into the malamute. Darwinism explains evolution as a building up - organisms started simple. Over time, mutations arose which gave rise to new traits. Most new traits were harmful, and died off. Some new traits were beneficial, and spread. The confluence of multiple traits eventually leads the organism to diversify into a new species. Both are logical progressions, but Creationism is predicated upon the assumption of a Creator (obviously). If you don't buy in to the idea of a creator, then you're never going to believe creationism.
Great argument. "Religion is evil, if you want proof, look at history!" Nice as rhetoric, lousy as an argument. I could just as easily say "Patriotism is evil, just look at the history of international conflict!" Or I could say "Trade as evil, look how many wars have started over trade issues!" I can't find a batman villain to compare you to though, you've got me there.
I'm not the original poster, but as I seem to have similar opinions, I'll bite.
First off, the law in the Bible has always been for the people of God. In the Old Testament, that was the Jews. After Jesus, it expanded to include Christians. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that non-believers should be made to follow the law (In the OT, the Jews were told to kill certain unbelievers, and in the NT Christians are called to convert them, but they're never told to force them to follow the law). Biblically, you don't get saved by following the law (or rather, you would, but nobody ever manages to keep it 100%). You get saved by following Jesus. Going around forcing people who don't follow Jesus to act as if they did accomplishes nothing except to get them really annoyed. It's not going to save anyone, and it's counterproductive.
Since, as the grandparent said, we don't live in a theocracy, the government should not necessarily be bound to obey the laws of God. I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I believe the government shouldn't be making laws about morality. Governments should make laws to provide for the security and freedom of its citizens - anything else is (or should be) out of its scope. If it's an issue of morality, then it should be in the hands of the church (as the rules of the church apply only to its followers). So allow gay marriages - as long as you don't force me to partake in one, or force my church to officially sanction it. Allow prostitution and drug use - as long as you don't force me to foot the bill to treat the addicts, or allow people to use being "under the influence" as a means to escape their actions. These are consensual activities, and are issues purely of morality, and should not be prohibited by the government. As long as the government doesn't stop me practicing my religion, it should allow everyone else to do whatever they like, as long as it does not significantly impact other's freedom or security.
On the other hand, things like murder, rape and theft have an impact on the citizen's freedoms and security. The government should forbid them. The current abortion debate (and the therepeutic cloning debate) are essentially a definitions debate, determining when a developing human should be given the same protections as a fully developed human.
As an aside, Mary Magdalene wasn't a prostitute - Rahab was though, and she was judged as righteous. Not because of her profession, but in spite of it. The Bible isn't defending prostitution as a moral choice, it's saying nobody (including prostitutes) is beyond redemption.
How did that work? The accelerator would still have to fetch the image before it recompressed it, unless it proxied all images through Opera's server, or something.
Not always. I've never used any of the latest generation, but way back in my dial-up days, I used to have a web accelerator that actually provided some benefit. What it did was skim a webpage for links, and load those links up in the cache, so when I clicked on one, I got an instant response from the cache rather than having to wait for my connection to do the work. It took advantage of the fact that when browsing the web, your modem was generally idle while you were reading. These days, with broadband reducing the time lag significantly, with the huge number of links generally on each page, and with people often downloading/torrenting in the background, that sort of accelerator probably wouldn't be as helpful.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that serial numbers are a good way of adding good faith to the sale, but they can just as easily be forged/fudged/made up, and only someone very familiar with the product might catch an oddball serial number. Either way, they're not the grand solution it seems like at first glance.
It wouldn't necessarily be the buyer confirming the serial number, but victims of theft who know what they're looking for that check them out. So no, it's not really the serial number that's giving the purchaser reassurance; its the fact that the serial number was published, and the sale hasn't been taken down yet that gives the faith.
As to the registration argument, the only reason I've registered any of my devices is to streamline warranty claims, which isn't really applicable, since you still need the busted device to claim warranty.
Actually, it would be quite beneficial if listing the serial # of items on eBay became a de facto SOP. If legitimate traders started including identifying information, such as serial #s, as a way of verifying that the goods were not stolen, other merchants would be pressured into doing the same. Listings without a serial number would be regarded as suspicious, so people wouldn't get burnt dealing with crooks.
Sorry - forgot to change to Plain Old Text format:
.com. Of course, then the problem was that this segregation was not enforced - .orgs are not necessarily non-profits, .coms are not necessarily commercial sites, etc.
.com.au domain. You need to be a registered non-profit to register a .org.au. So these TLDs actually retain a useful meaning, unlike .com, .net and .org in the US. I think it would be useful to have the .com namespace segregated a bit more - including into an "adult material" domain. But the opportunity for that has passed. Refusing to let someone register a domain is much easier than forcing them to change domains later, and public awareness has already settled on .com as the only real TLD.
It seems to me, the root of the problem is the original design of the domain naming system. When DNS was first created, they had a handful of TLDs - net for network infrastructure, org for non-profits, edu for educational, gov, edu, mil, etc. This was way before the potential of the internet was even beginning to be understood - particularly its commercial potential. With those initial segregations they've got a relative handful of government sites spread over gov, mil, edu, etc, and everyone else crammed into
Here in Australia, one of the nice things is that the TLDs are fairly well controlled. You need an ABN (Australian Business Number) to register a
The problem was that they tried to amalgamate the concepts of a unique identifier and a descriptive taxonomy. Due to the lack of foresight setting up the taxonomy (which they can't really be blamed for - nobody forsaw the way the internet grew), the internet outgrew the taxonomy, and it became useless. So now we have a system that is only really used for unique identification, saddled with the remnants of a defunct taxonomy.
An ideal solution (IMO) would be some sort of authenticated tagging mechanism, where certain agencies had the authority to tag websites, keeping that system totally divorced from the system used to uniquely tie IP addresses to human-readable names. Even if the tagging system was managed by an industry body (e.g. the XXX tag administered by the adult industry), I imagine many porn sites would tag themselves voluntarily - having that sort of tag would likely help boost the search engine rankings for porn-related searches, which I'm sure they'd be more worried about than their accessibility to minors (most of whom wouldn't have credit cards to pay them, anyway).
It seems to me, the root of the problem is the original design of the domain naming system. When DNS was first created, they had a handful of TLDs - net for network infrastructure, org for non-profits, edu for educational, gov, edu, mil, etc. This was way before the potential of the internet was even beginning to be understood - particularly its commercial potential. With those initial segregations they've got a relative handful of government sites spread over gov, mil, edu, etc, and everyone else crammed into .com. Of course, then the problem was that this segregation was not enforced - .orgs are not necessarily non-profits, .coms are not necessarily commercial sites, etc.
Here in Australia, one of the nice things is that the TLDs are fairly well controlled. You need an ABN (Australian Business Number) to register a .com.au domain. You need to be a registered non-profit to register a .org.au. So these TLDs actually retain a useful meaning, unlike .com, .net and .org in the US. I think it would be useful to have the .com namespace segregated a bit more - including into an "adult material" domain. But the opportunity for that has passed. Refusing to let someone register a domain is much easier than forcing them to change domains later, and public awareness has already settled on .com as the only real TLD.
The problem was that they tried to amalgamate the concepts of a unique identifier and a descriptive taxonomy. Due to the lack of foresight setting up the taxonomy (which they can't really be blamed for - nobody forsaw the way the internet grew), the internet outgrew the taxonomy, and it became useless. So now we have a system that is only really used for unique identification, saddled with the remnants of a defunct taxonomy.
An ideal solution (IMO) would be some sort of authenticated tagging mechanism, where certain agencies had the authority to tag websites, keeping that system totally divorced from the system used to uniquely tie IP addresses to human-readable names. Even if the tagging system was managed by an industry body (e.g. the XXX tag administered by the adult industry), I imagine many porn sites would tag themselves voluntarily - having that sort of tag would likely help boost the search engine rankings for porn-related searches, which I'm sure they'd be more worried about than their accessibility to minors (most of whom wouldn't have credit cards to pay them, anyway).
Because writing an "OS" in a language designed for document markup is such a great idea.
I think Hanlon's Razor is more applicable:
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Microsoft is probably trying to avoid another Eolas fiasco. Microsoft has already been stung by the US patent insanity, and with their patent tied explicitly to Vista and IE, there's not really much harm they can do with it. And as a web developer whose had to deal with the fallout of the Eolas case, I actually find myself supporting Microsoft when they're trying to avoid it happening again. I certainly don't want to have to find another crappy javascript hack to work around a stupid, obvious patent.
There seems to be some weird compulsion for nerds to tear down anything popular or mainstream (possibly because they themselves are generally neither). For some reason, they also seem to be accusing JKR of milking her books for money, even though it was indicated from the very first book that there would be seven of them, and despite the fact that JKR has written two books with all proceeds donated to charity. What were they expecting her to do, stop writing mid-series when she'd made enough money? A real storyteller won't stop midstory, because they enjoy telling the story as much as others do reading it.
Plots don't have to be complex to be good. And books don't even necessarily need "good" plots to be good books. It all depends on what the book is trying to do. If you're writing a romance, the plot doesn't need nearly as much work as the characters and their relationships. If you're writing horror, atmosphere is likely to be a bigger concern than plot. Having a complex plot can even be a detriment when your audience isn't after a complex plot - they just want to read more about the characters, but are being forced to wade through stuff they don't care about to get it.
Harry Potter is a coming-of-age story in an epic-fantasy cross boarding-school setting. It's plot has always been straightforward, but the focus has more been on the setting and character development than the plot. And that's not a bad thing. If you're after cryptic, complex plots, then go watch Memento, or read some cyberpunk. Just the same as if you're after complex character relationships and development, you probably shouldn't be reading Clive Cussler. Horses for courses.
Actually, they recommend Intel processors. The stuff about AMD is just fluff text at the start.
Those requests are about as useful as asking for them to make the internet go faster. You want to store all your messages on the server? Fine. There's a drawback to that. It's called latency. You want speed and responsiveness? Then you're stuck with local.
Comparing Thunderbird to Office is absurd. In what way is it "monolithic"? It does the very basic requirements needed by an email client, and provides an extension mechanism for optional increases in functionality. If you wanted an example of a monolithic email client, I'd point you in the direction of Outlook, which bundles calendar and task management into an email app. Oddly enough, though, Outlook seems to be one of Microsoft's most popular offerings. Could it be possible that people that aren't you actually prefer their "monolithic" clients? I know I'd hate you forever if you forced me to use webmail, or connect to the internet whenever I wanted to check my stored mail.
Don't use it if you don't like it, but Thunderbird's doing most of what I want it to do now, and I'd certainly rather use it than the centralized system you propose.
Good luck with that. Once you've got that generally accepted you should start campaigning to make lynx the default browser.
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."
- James Madison
Awesome. Let's book kids who sneak some booze when they're underage with the same charge as heroin dealers. They're probably just building up the courage to do something more serious. Of course, there's always the whacky notion that the punishment should fit the crime that was actually committed rather than what we think they might do in the future.
You're an idiot. The RIAA is a cartel of all major labels. As a group, those labels have a monopolistic presence in the music distribution industry.
MacHeist took on risk in exchange for a flat fee. They paid these developers a set amount. If MacHeist had done poorly, they would have lost money. If they did ok, they would break even. If they did well, they would profit. If they did extremely well, they would make an extreme profit. Their current profits are due to the risk they took in the first place.
Assuming there has been no sudden, unrelated spike in interest in these products, these sales are purely the result of MacHeist's marketing efforts. If the individual author's thought they could make more doing their own marketing, they wouldn't have signed on.
The judge explicitly said during the appeal that the sentance was based on harm done to the copyright owners.
Not to mention the fact that when you burn hydrogen, you get your water back. It's not like it's lost forever, it's only lost until it's used.
And I'd say crusading/jihading religion is evil - that doesn't necessarily generalise to "all religion is evil and should be expunged".
So when you have small changes over a small period of time, is believing that over a large period of time you could have large changes really that unreasonable?
It's the nature of those changes that is key. "Micro evolution" (if you want to use that term) involves the spread of a trait throughout a population. In this case, lactose tolerance. Lactose tolerance was already present in the population, just to a small degree. When man domesticated cattle, his environment shifted. Lactose tolerance became favourable, and thus spread throughout the population. Even prior to this, infant lactose tolerance was present; it would only be a small jump to say that whatever is responsible for turning off that tolerance failed to function. Natural selection doesn't suddenly generate traits due to environmental pressure - it takes traits that are already there, and spreads them throughout the population.
What this doesn't say anything about is how the trait arose in the first place, which is what people who make that distinction would classify as "macro" evolution. Creationists explain evolution as a winnowing-down. Dogs, for example, were created with a whole lot of unnecessary genetic material. As they spread out, different parts were dropped out. The dogs who ended up in Mexico were selected for small size and large upright ears to cope with the temperature, and evolved into the chiououa. Dogs who ended up in the arctic were selected for long, thick coats and physical strength, and evolved into the malamute. Darwinism explains evolution as a building up - organisms started simple. Over time, mutations arose which gave rise to new traits. Most new traits were harmful, and died off. Some new traits were beneficial, and spread. The confluence of multiple traits eventually leads the organism to diversify into a new species. Both are logical progressions, but Creationism is predicated upon the assumption of a Creator (obviously). If you don't buy in to the idea of a creator, then you're never going to believe creationism.
Note how he didn't say he thought those things were good, he said the government has no business outlawing them. That's not the same thing.
Great argument. "Religion is evil, if you want proof, look at history!" Nice as rhetoric, lousy as an argument. I could just as easily say "Patriotism is evil, just look at the history of international conflict!" Or I could say "Trade as evil, look how many wars have started over trade issues!" I can't find a batman villain to compare you to though, you've got me there.
I'm not the original poster, but as I seem to have similar opinions, I'll bite.
First off, the law in the Bible has always been for the people of God. In the Old Testament, that was the Jews. After Jesus, it expanded to include Christians. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that non-believers should be made to follow the law (In the OT, the Jews were told to kill certain unbelievers, and in the NT Christians are called to convert them, but they're never told to force them to follow the law). Biblically, you don't get saved by following the law (or rather, you would, but nobody ever manages to keep it 100%). You get saved by following Jesus. Going around forcing people who don't follow Jesus to act as if they did accomplishes nothing except to get them really annoyed. It's not going to save anyone, and it's counterproductive.
Since, as the grandparent said, we don't live in a theocracy, the government should not necessarily be bound to obey the laws of God. I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I believe the government shouldn't be making laws about morality. Governments should make laws to provide for the security and freedom of its citizens - anything else is (or should be) out of its scope. If it's an issue of morality, then it should be in the hands of the church (as the rules of the church apply only to its followers). So allow gay marriages - as long as you don't force me to partake in one, or force my church to officially sanction it. Allow prostitution and drug use - as long as you don't force me to foot the bill to treat the addicts, or allow people to use being "under the influence" as a means to escape their actions. These are consensual activities, and are issues purely of morality, and should not be prohibited by the government. As long as the government doesn't stop me practicing my religion, it should allow everyone else to do whatever they like, as long as it does not significantly impact other's freedom or security.
On the other hand, things like murder, rape and theft have an impact on the citizen's freedoms and security. The government should forbid them. The current abortion debate (and the therepeutic cloning debate) are essentially a definitions debate, determining when a developing human should be given the same protections as a fully developed human.
As an aside, Mary Magdalene wasn't a prostitute - Rahab was though, and she was judged as righteous. Not because of her profession, but in spite of it. The Bible isn't defending prostitution as a moral choice, it's saying nobody (including prostitutes) is beyond redemption.
I so agree. If everyone stopped complaining about things and trying to make them better, we could all be living like the Amish!
How did that work? The accelerator would still have to fetch the image before it recompressed it, unless it proxied all images through Opera's server, or something.
Not always. I've never used any of the latest generation, but way back in my dial-up days, I used to have a web accelerator that actually provided some benefit. What it did was skim a webpage for links, and load those links up in the cache, so when I clicked on one, I got an instant response from the cache rather than having to wait for my connection to do the work. It took advantage of the fact that when browsing the web, your modem was generally idle while you were reading. These days, with broadband reducing the time lag significantly, with the huge number of links generally on each page, and with people often downloading/torrenting in the background, that sort of accelerator probably wouldn't be as helpful.
Except that that makes it no different from instinct...