Nonsense. The primary definition for 'difficult' is basically something that requires considerable effort. It's quite reasonable to say that it's a contradiction in terms to say that something can be one but not the other, unless you specify the meaning of 'difficult' as one of the lesser-used.
Here in UK there've been a few "ecstacy deaths", last a few years ago, that turned out not to be the ecstacy as such, but drinking too much water to avoid dehydration and overcompensating.
Mmm, but Leah Betts died from drinking about 7 litres of water. This story says this woman drank about 2. I'm quite amazed she died. I could probably drink 2 litres of water and be OK. Never tried it, though.:-)
It's not difficult to learn other languages, it just requires effort.
I think you need to learn some vocabulary.
difficult adj. 1. Hard to do or accomplish; demanding considerable effort or skill; arduous: "To entertain is far more difficult than to enlighten" (Anthony Burgess).
Have they managed to invent code yet that will actually allow them to insert a new item without it costing them money? Maybe then they'd be able to drop a listing fee for the privilege of serving some a customized HTML page to their visitors.
I'm as anti-DRM as the best of them, but this sounds a bit weird. Why would they bother sending you high-quality content just so Vista could degrade it? Wouldn't they just send you crap quality content in the first place (jokes about most Hollywood/RIAA content being crap anyway aside)?
But, as you've acknowledged, this is just an iptables wrapper and so not as useful as an application-level firewall (as I call them) that allows you to actually control network access on an application-by-application (or per-binary) basis. Sadly, I haven't come across one Linux firewall that can do that. I'd love to bookmark one if I could find one.
Suse Linux used to be a popular distro round here until they got bought out and had their soul sold by Novell. I'm worried that if I use a popular distro, it could get bought out by another rich US company and buggered up. How can you reassure me that that won't happen? Is there some list of distroes out there that are more community-owned and less likely to get 'bought out'?
What about a Linux software firewall? Any recommendations?
I've yet to find a Linux 'application level' firewall like you can get for Windows. These (eg. ZoneAlarm, Sygate, etc.) allow you to control which _applications_ are able to connect out or receive connections, popping up a dialog every time a new app tries to. This I find to be extremely useful, far more so for a desktop than just opening/closing ports, which is as far as iptables (or firewalls based on that) allows you to go. Malicious software could, after all, just use a commonly open port to connect out.
If you're going to link to nothing but a chart and say that it's of any worth whatsoever, it should at least have all its units specified. What are those anonymous numbers on the left supposed to mean?
Yeah, but god is omnipotent and could instill us with that spiritual growth from birth. Whilst god is omnipotent and omniscient, I can't see how you can win an argument about why we're 'here'.
What's the moral difference between leeching someone's content and using AdBlock to leech most sites' content? Most Slashdotters seem to have no problem with the latter. No, I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I see virtually no difference. The argument in both cases is either, "view what the content creator wanted you to see" or "view what the hell the 'net allows you to". Make your collective minds up.
Free will is NO problem when it comes to Abrahamic religions. According to most Abrahamic religions, god is Omnicient (Spelling?). Meaning he knows all, everything, and there is no limit to his knowledge. He is also merciful, more than any other living being. The problem is us mere mortals don't know the extent of the evil we commit when we sin, so we don't see the leway god would give us on a daily basis. Onicience would mean that this god would have no limit to his knowledge, which means that time cannot limit his knowledge. So though we have a choice, and have choices laid before us constantly. He knows which choices we are going to make and why we would make this choice.
Actually that's a pretty nonsense argument; why are we on Earth? There is absolutely no purpose. He knows who is naughty and who is nice (maybe he's Santa too), everyone can be put straight into hell or heaven. Unless Earth is a 'test' of one's character and faith, in which case God isn't omniscient. Which is it?
shining example of the intelligence of people in my party. It's not bad enough we have this yahoo [washingtonpost.com] blocking phones to Democratic numbers used for providing people rides to polls on election day, or this putz [federalnewsradio.com] who embezzled state money, let alone the chimp in charge who has flip-flopped every which way on Iraq, but now this incompetent asshole.
I'm sorry, but often, the line between 'attack' and 'defend' is to blurry for me to tell which is which. That's your own personal problem, which actually has nothing to do with this debate.
No, it's got something do do with it, because we were discussing whether this right was a 'negative' one, which it isn't if it can be deemed to infringe upon somebody else's territory.
True. I'll give you that one. But I guess generally rape is considered worse than being forced to listen to someone else's views on whatever topic for a few seconds or a minute.
Still, you must retract your earlier point about 'all rights being negative'.
Heh. The irony in that is pretty funny.
What I missed out that I meant to say was 'written down over 2000 years ago and never changed (certain selective removals from the text notwithstanding)'.
history has shown us that current human authority really hasn't done much to improve things over what various religions gave us hundreds or even thousands of years ago
I shall not rethink that point, because I'd far rather be living in a liberal Western society today than in the Middle East 2000 years ago. Abolished death penalty (in Europe), legalized drugs (in the Netherlands), more freedom of speech (Quran occasionally mentions murdering infidels, although is inconsistent), etc. And as previously mentioned, religious texts are indeed inconsistent. At least modern texts can be changed if they are inconsistent, making the principle of defining our current morality by them far more sound. And yes, human morality does change over time, perhaps as we discover new knowledge or just plain evolve. I don't really see that as a problem.
If you're really not going to pay the licence fee, welcome! Check out www.bbcresistance.com - and don't be holding your breath for that TVL inspector anytime soon. They send extortion letters to everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, some people think everyone in society should walk around with a handgun on them!
:-)
*ducks*
Nonsense. The primary definition for 'difficult' is basically something that requires considerable effort. It's quite reasonable to say that it's a contradiction in terms to say that something can be one but not the other, unless you specify the meaning of 'difficult' as one of the lesser-used.
Here in UK there've been a few "ecstacy deaths", last a few years ago, that turned out not to be the ecstacy as such, but drinking too much water to avoid dehydration and overcompensating.
:-)
Mmm, but Leah Betts died from drinking about 7 litres of water. This story says this woman drank about 2. I'm quite amazed she died. I could probably drink 2 litres of water and be OK. Never tried it, though.
Speak for yourself.
- Brit who only learnt French at GCSE level, and got a B.
It's not difficult to learn other languages, it just requires effort.
I think you need to learn some vocabulary.
difficult
adj.
1. Hard to do or accomplish; demanding considerable effort or skill; arduous: "To entertain is far more difficult than to enlighten" (Anthony Burgess).
Would that be a US pint, or a UK pint?
I was at Best Buy yesterday and they were still out of Wii
I'm sure a short visit to the toilet later, they would be back in stock.
For those of us who don't get this joke, could someone please explain what is funny about it??
Obligatory link.
Have they managed to invent code yet that will actually allow them to insert a new item without it costing them money? Maybe then they'd be able to drop a listing fee for the privilege of serving some a customized HTML page to their visitors.
I'm as anti-DRM as the best of them, but this sounds a bit weird. Why would they bother sending you high-quality content just so Vista could degrade it? Wouldn't they just send you crap quality content in the first place (jokes about most Hollywood/RIAA content being crap anyway aside)?
Microsoft, if they were trying to win a war-of-hearts-and-minds over Google?
But, as you've acknowledged, this is just an iptables wrapper and so not as useful as an application-level firewall (as I call them) that allows you to actually control network access on an application-by-application (or per-binary) basis. Sadly, I haven't come across one Linux firewall that can do that. I'd love to bookmark one if I could find one.
Suse Linux used to be a popular distro round here until they got bought out and had their soul sold by Novell. I'm worried that if I use a popular distro, it could get bought out by another rich US company and buggered up. How can you reassure me that that won't happen? Is there some list of distroes out there that are more community-owned and less likely to get 'bought out'?
What about a Linux software firewall? Any recommendations?
I've yet to find a Linux 'application level' firewall like you can get for Windows. These (eg. ZoneAlarm, Sygate, etc.) allow you to control which _applications_ are able to connect out or receive connections, popping up a dialog every time a new app tries to. This I find to be extremely useful, far more so for a desktop than just opening/closing ports, which is as far as iptables (or firewalls based on that) allows you to go. Malicious software could, after all, just use a commonly open port to connect out.
Comparing a general-purpose computer's operating system to a hammer is stupid.
If you're going to link to nothing but a chart and say that it's of any worth whatsoever, it should at least have all its units specified. What are those anonymous numbers on the left supposed to mean?
Yeah, but god is omnipotent and could instill us with that spiritual growth from birth. Whilst god is omnipotent and omniscient, I can't see how you can win an argument about why we're 'here'.
What's the moral difference between leeching someone's content and using AdBlock to leech most sites' content? Most Slashdotters seem to have no problem with the latter. No, I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I see virtually no difference. The argument in both cases is either, "view what the content creator wanted you to see" or "view what the hell the 'net allows you to". Make your collective minds up.
by 'providing' material to which he doesn't hold a copyright
Link, ffs?? Why don't they put links to the relevant pages in Slashdot articles? They're talking about some guy's content but not linking to it!!
Free will is NO problem when it comes to Abrahamic religions. According to most Abrahamic religions, god is Omnicient (Spelling?). Meaning he knows all, everything, and there is no limit to his knowledge. He is also merciful, more than any other living being. The problem is us mere mortals don't know the extent of the evil we commit when we sin, so we don't see the leway god would give us on a daily basis.
Onicience would mean that this god would have no limit to his knowledge, which means that time cannot limit his knowledge. So though we have a choice, and have choices laid before us constantly. He knows which choices we are going to make and why we would make this choice.
Actually that's a pretty nonsense argument; why are we on Earth? There is absolutely no purpose. He knows who is naughty and who is nice (maybe he's Santa too), everyone can be put straight into hell or heaven. Unless Earth is a 'test' of one's character and faith, in which case God isn't omniscient. Which is it?
shining example of the intelligence of people in my party. It's not bad enough we have this yahoo [washingtonpost.com] blocking phones to Democratic numbers used for providing people rides to polls on election day, or this putz [federalnewsradio.com] who embezzled state money, let alone the chimp in charge who has flip-flopped every which way on Iraq, but now this incompetent asshole.
Penn? Is that you?
No, it's got something do do with it, because we were discussing whether this right was a 'negative' one, which it isn't if it can be deemed to infringe upon somebody else's territory.
True. I'll give you that one. But I guess generally rape is considered worse than being forced to listen to someone else's views on whatever topic for a few seconds or a minute.
Still, you must retract your earlier point about 'all rights being negative'.
Heh. The irony in that is pretty funny.
What I missed out that I meant to say was 'written down over 2000 years ago and never changed (certain selective removals from the text notwithstanding)'.
history has shown us that current human authority really hasn't done much to improve things over what various religions gave us hundreds or even thousands of years ago
I shall not rethink that point, because I'd far rather be living in a liberal Western society today than in the Middle East 2000 years ago. Abolished death penalty (in Europe), legalized drugs (in the Netherlands), more freedom of speech (Quran occasionally mentions murdering infidels, although is inconsistent), etc. And as previously mentioned, religious texts are indeed inconsistent. At least modern texts can be changed if they are inconsistent, making the principle of defining our current morality by them far more sound. And yes, human morality does change over time, perhaps as we discover new knowledge or just plain evolve. I don't really see that as a problem.
128 bytes of memory?! When I was a kid, we had to carry each bit of memory uphill, both ways, before playing - and we were greatful for it!!
If you're really not going to pay the licence fee, welcome! Check out www.bbcresistance.com - and don't be holding your breath for that TVL inspector anytime soon. They send extortion letters to everyone.