"The #1 feature I want in a browser is a check box that says "Delete all cookies when quitting browser". Actually, I would really love more fine-grained control, but just this one feature would be enough."
You should try installing something like GuardDog. It allows you to review all of the cookies placed on your machine when you close your browser and lets you delete certain ones or delete all of them. It is pretty killer. I love it.
The FCC is the Federal Communications Commission and it regulates just about anything from radio, TV, and cell phone manufacturing (it sets rules for certain technologies which MUST be part of a particular item, among other things) to what can and cannot be broadcast via those media. It is a government agency here in the US and has a LOT to do with what can be said via broadcast media.
Look to the right bottom portion of the letter key area of the keyboard. There are second Ctrl and Alt keys. If you were using those with your right hand it would be Alt+Ctrl+Del... although you wouldn't really say it as such.
winkey+r pulls up the run box winkey+e pulls up windows explorer winkey+f pulls up the find box
I have gotten so used to it on my windows box that I get annoyed when I end up at a windows machine which has a kb without one.
In addition to these winkey comments I would like to say that Gore should really hang out with some geeks for a while before he tries to use the lingo further. alt-control-delete is simply pathetic.
I was not by any means suggesting that MS stock will NOT fall. On the contrary, I believe the release of this decision will have a fairly significant impact on its price.
However, although I believe this decision will affect the stock market I do not believe this had anything to do with when the Justice Department decided to release it.
Call me crazy, call me misguided... but I simply do not think the conspiracy theorists need to hop on this one quite yet.
So you are saying that the legal system is worried about whether or not MS stock goes down?
Come on... conspiracy theories are fun and all... but they should actually be plausible.
"The legal decision was released this Friday because I am throwing a Bash Microsoft party tonight and Judge Jackson wanted to make sure my party guests had something about which they could talk."
You may want to make some reference to the following (which was posted above by an Annonymous Coward and which could prove very, very useful when e-mailing "dummy" lawyers):
"15 U.S.C. s 1125(c) governing trademark dilution provides at subsection (4)(B): "The following shall not be actionable under this section: . . . Noncommercial use of a mark." Hosting an archive of a discussion group at a noncommercial user group website cannot constitute dilution"
I will give you that one... I had forgotten all about good ol' Ave.
3)Non-US "Christian" nations have had female leaders.
Well, I guess I didn't specifically mention that I was primarily refering to the US. There are many nations in the world where Christianity isn't quite the bane of humanity's existence and where Christians ARE really persecuted and where they don't care if you are queer, one-eyed, obese, a worshiper or satan, or are female. The US, however, is not one of those places.
"3). Has there been a female president? Well, obviously not, but I don't think you can blame the Christians on this one."
I wasn't mentioning gays, buddhists, and women in order to point out that Christians repress them (although that too is questionable)... but instead to make comparisons to truly persecuted groups.
1). Would George Bush have ever been elected president if he had been Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist dare I suggest... GAY?
2). Has there ever been a president who has been of a religion other than a Christian-based one?
3). Has there been a female president?
What you are neglecting to recognize when you say "Christians are being persecuted" is that it is VERY difficult to persecute a group on a national scale when that group is very squarely in the majority and very clearly holds the support of the population. You may be mocked, you may be ridiculed, and you may be taunted by \.ers for a blind belief in your God, but you most certainly are not a victim who has been persecuted for your beliefs. In fact, \. is likely the ONLY place where you are forced to defend your beliefs in ANY way. I am sure you feel no shame or fear when walking down the street wearing a cross around your neck, whereas Americans who are gay or who are black can honestly be afraid of major persecution.
I know it is easy to call yourself a victim these days, but please take a look at the situation and be honest, if only with yourself.
...and people pestering their doctors for antibiotics and then not taking the full course.
Not only not taking the full course... but people pestering their doctors for antibiotics when they have a VIRUS. People have gotten far too accustomed to "taking something" to make them better when they are sick and this has lead to many doctors prescribing antibiotics when the problem is not bacterial at all.
Antibiotics are useful in killing a bacterial infection and they serve no other purpose. People need to be educated about this fact and doctors need to act appropriately by explaining this to their patients.
"I agree that responsible parents will supervise their children when they're online, but if a website offers enough of an incentive, a child will always find a way to do it without consent."
Precisely. This legislation actually does nothing other than to make businesses enact absolutely absurd (not to mention potentially expensive) tactics to extract the "consent" of parents. More likely what this will allow for is business getting not only information about children but about their parents (who do, after all, hold the purse strings).
If, as you say, most kids know more about computers than their parents, wouldn't it hold true that a child could easily find a way around a business having to email their parent for permission? Couldn't a child easily "forge" such forms and petty annoyances?
Now to address the issue that parents are incapable of supervising their children. If there is a computer which parents cannot control via software (for whatever reason: lack of technical knowledge; don't have proper OS) those parents have the responsibility to find another way to control access, if that is their desire. Put a lock on the door. Buy a case which requires a key. There are MANY other ways outside of legislation for parents to supervise their kids.
It is sad that our governmental agencies are being drug down to the level of raising our children.
"Example: If a web site aimed at kids asks an 'innocent' question such as "Do you go home to an empty house after school?" and the answers were matched up with the address and name, that could lead to robbery and maybe kidnapping if the right person got a hold of the info."
There are already laws against kidnapping and there are already laws against robbery. Why not enforce those laws instead of coming up with yet another reason for the government to interfere.
So the solution to this problem, rather then educating parents and children about issues, is to legislate? We teach kids not to open the door when their parents aren't home and we teach them not to give out their address over the phone and we tell them not to tell phone callers that they are home by themselves. Parents are responsible for this sort of problem and making it the responsibility of the business is ridiculous. It is yet another step in making the government the surrogate parents and letting parents off the hook for what their children do.
We don't even regulate GUNS IN PEOPLE'S HOMES, for fuck's sake... but we are going to regulate businesses which gather the "personal information of children"? Which do you think is more dangerous?
"Seriously, though. If web sites have to have parental concent for kids under 13, doesn't that mean that they have to validate everyone's age?"
No. The regulation specifically says that this parental consent is only necessary if the site is already requiring people to state their age and if the age of the person in question is 12 or under.
In fact, I am considering starting my own marketing company which will specifically target the PARENTS of these kids. Screw the kids, they don't have any cash to spend anyway.
"And what about a host? An elephant? And is the DNA in tact?"
There was mention of elephants as possible (and pretty much the only potential) hosts. There was also mention that the DNA might not be in tact but that if it is an elephant egg would likely be used.
Original post says thousands of mammoths found in Siberia. Original post says, "How the hell did thousands of mammoths all freeze at the same time?".
I then say, "Dude, you are missing steps in logic. Cuz thousands of mammoth remains were found in Siberia, and this particular mammoth was found frozen solid in one piece does not necessarily lead to LOGICALLY to the assumption that ALL of the mammoths were frozen solid after they died in ponds and it snowed quickly thereafter."
I concede that thousands of mammoths have been foudn in Siberia. I concede that some of them froze. I even concede that it is possible that a "bunch" froze. I DO NOT concede that they all fell dead at once and that they all soon thereafter froze solid.
A similar (although different) leap of logic can be illustrated with your ice cubes. Over the years I am sure you have frozen thousands of ice cubes, and I am sure that you have also found all of those ice cubes in your freezer. Does that mean your freezer can hold thousands of ice cubes? No.
Slashdot Mirror
"The #1 feature I want in a browser is a check box that says "Delete all cookies when quitting browser". Actually, I would really love more fine-grained control, but just this one feature would be enough."
You should try installing something like GuardDog. It allows you to review all of the cookies placed on your machine when you close your browser and lets you delete certain ones or delete all of them. It is pretty killer. I love it.
~m(antis)
http://www.fcc.gov/
The FCC is the Federal Communications Commission and it regulates just about anything from radio, TV, and cell phone manufacturing (it sets rules for certain technologies which MUST be part of a particular item, among other things) to what can and cannot be broadcast via those media. It is a government agency here in the US and has a LOT to do with what can be said via broadcast media.
~m
Welp... my kb doesn't have the aforementioned "menu" key... therefore I assumed the winkey was being referenced.
Look to the right bottom portion of the letter key area of the keyboard. There are second Ctrl and Alt keys. If you were using those with your right hand it would be Alt+Ctrl+Del... although you wouldn't really say it as such.
I use that win key all the time!!
winkey+r pulls up the run box
winkey+e pulls up windows explorer
winkey+f pulls up the find box
I have gotten so used to it on my windows box that I get annoyed when I end up at a windows machine which has a kb without one.
In addition to these winkey comments I would like to say that Gore should really hang out with some geeks for a while before he tries to use the lingo further. alt-control-delete is simply pathetic.
~m
I was not by any means suggesting that MS stock will NOT fall. On the contrary, I believe the release of this decision will have a fairly significant impact on its price.
However, although I believe this decision will affect the stock market I do not believe this had anything to do with when the Justice Department decided to release it.
Call me crazy, call me misguided... but I simply do not think the conspiracy theorists need to hop on this one quite yet.
~m
So you are saying that the legal system is worried about whether or not MS stock goes down?
Come on... conspiracy theories are fun and all... but they should actually be plausible.
"The legal decision was released this Friday because I am throwing a Bash Microsoft party tonight and Judge Jackson wanted to make sure my party guests had something about which they could talk."
~m
You may want to make some reference to the following (which was posted above by an Annonymous Coward and which could prove very, very useful when e-mailing "dummy" lawyers):
"15 U.S.C. s 1125(c) governing trademark dilution provides at subsection (4)(B): "The following shall not be actionable under this section: . . . Noncommercial use of a mark." Hosting an archive of a discussion group at a noncommercial user group website cannot constitute dilution"
2) Abraham Lincoln,
I will give you that one... I had forgotten all about good ol' Ave.
3)Non-US "Christian" nations have had female leaders.
Well, I guess I didn't specifically mention that I was primarily refering to the US. There are many nations in the world where Christianity isn't quite the bane of humanity's existence and where Christians ARE really persecuted and where they don't care if you are queer, one-eyed, obese, a worshiper or satan, or are female. The US, however, is not one of those places.
~m
"3). Has there been a female president?
Well, obviously not, but I don't think you can blame the Christians on this one."
I wasn't mentioning gays, buddhists, and women in order to point out that Christians repress them (although that too is questionable)... but instead to make comparisons to truly persecuted groups.
~m
Please try to honestly answer these questions:
1). Would George Bush have ever been elected president if he had been Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist dare I suggest... GAY?
2). Has there ever been a president who has been of a religion other than a Christian-based one?
3). Has there been a female president?
What you are neglecting to recognize when you say "Christians are being persecuted" is that it is VERY difficult to persecute a group on a national scale when that group is very squarely in the majority and very clearly holds the support of the population. You may be mocked, you may be ridiculed, and you may be taunted by \.ers for a blind belief in your God, but you most certainly are not a victim who has been persecuted for your beliefs. In fact, \. is likely the ONLY place where you are forced to defend your beliefs in ANY way. I am sure you feel no shame or fear when walking down the street wearing a cross around your neck, whereas Americans who are gay or who are black can honestly be afraid of major persecution.
I know it is easy to call yourself a victim these days, but please take a look at the situation and be honest, if only with yourself.
~m
"When your in the lake of fire screaming for mercy,"
,"?
Shouldn't that read... "When you're in the lake of fire screaming for grammar
Just wonderin'.
~m
"You cannot register a domain name that could be confused w/ someone else's? Physical addresses are confusing, but they're allowed to look similar."
This cracked me up and made me think of what would happen if cities were allowed to sue because another city had taken its name.
PORTLAND, MA- "Here in Portland, Maine we are suffering because Portland, Oregon gets much more attention than we do... but WE HAD THE NAME FIRST!"
PORTLAND, OR- "But we made the name popular! Sure, you had the name first... but what were you DOING with it?"
Talk about cry babies.
~m
So, Poopie... when are you gonna run for your seat in the Senate? I will vote for ya.
~m
Not only not taking the full course... but people pestering their doctors for antibiotics when they have a VIRUS. People have gotten far too accustomed to "taking something" to make them better when they are sick and this has lead to many doctors prescribing antibiotics when the problem is not bacterial at all.
Antibiotics are useful in killing a bacterial infection and they serve no other purpose. People need to be educated about this fact and doctors need to act appropriately by explaining this to their patients.
~m
Probably in a situation where your parents have to register you at birth. Similar to getting a social security number, I would think.
:)
~m
"I agree that responsible parents will supervise their children when they're online, but if a website offers enough of an incentive, a child will always find a way to do it without consent."
Precisely. This legislation actually does nothing other than to make businesses enact absolutely absurd (not to mention potentially expensive) tactics to extract the "consent" of parents. More likely what this will allow for is business getting not only information about children but about their parents (who do, after all, hold the purse strings).
If, as you say, most kids know more about computers than their parents, wouldn't it hold true that a child could easily find a way around a business having to email their parent for permission? Couldn't a child easily "forge" such forms and petty annoyances?
Now to address the issue that parents are incapable of supervising their children. If there is a computer which parents cannot control via software (for whatever reason: lack of technical knowledge; don't have proper OS) those parents have the responsibility to find another way to control access, if that is their desire. Put a lock on the door. Buy a case which requires a key. There are MANY other ways outside of legislation for parents to supervise their kids.
It is sad that our governmental agencies are being drug down to the level of raising our children.
~mantis
"Example: If a web site aimed at kids asks an 'innocent' question such as "Do you go home to an empty house after school?" and the answers were matched up with the address and name, that could lead to robbery and maybe kidnapping if the right person got a hold of the info."
There are already laws against kidnapping and there are already laws against robbery. Why not enforce those laws instead of coming up with yet another reason for the government to interfere.
So the solution to this problem, rather then educating parents and children about issues, is to legislate? We teach kids not to open the door when their parents aren't home and we teach them not to give out their address over the phone and we tell them not to tell phone callers that they are home by themselves. Parents are responsible for this sort of problem and making it the responsibility of the business is ridiculous. It is yet another step in making the government the surrogate parents and letting parents off the hook for what their children do.
We don't even regulate GUNS IN PEOPLE'S HOMES, for fuck's sake... but we are going to regulate businesses which gather the "personal information of children"? Which do you think is more dangerous?
~mantis
"Seriously, though. If web sites have to have parental concent for kids under 13, doesn't that mean that they have to validate everyone's age?"
No. The regulation specifically says that this parental consent is only necessary if the site is already requiring people to state their age and if the age of the person in question is 12 or under.
~mantis
It would certainly be damn handy, wouldn't it?
In fact, I am considering starting my own marketing company which will specifically target the PARENTS of these kids. Screw the kids, they don't have any cash to spend anyway.
~mantis
That's what I thought.
~mantis
Super. So that is 2 wooly mammoths who could have easily frozen in the same freeze.
Are we going to speculate that all of the other thousands of carsasses out there met the same fate?
~mantis
"And what about a host? An elephant? And is the DNA in tact?"
There was mention of elephants as possible (and pretty much the only potential) hosts. There was also mention that the DNA might not be in tact but that if it is an elephant egg would likely be used.
~mantis
Ok... you don't eat people... but what do you have to say to the trampling, hmmmmm?
~mantis
Ok, kids... let's review:
Original post says thousands of mammoths found in Siberia. Original post says, "How the hell did thousands of mammoths all freeze at the same time?".
I then say, "Dude, you are missing steps in logic. Cuz thousands of mammoth remains were found in Siberia, and this particular mammoth was found frozen solid in one piece does not necessarily lead to LOGICALLY to the assumption that ALL of the mammoths were frozen solid after they died in ponds and it snowed quickly thereafter."
I concede that thousands of mammoths have been foudn in Siberia. I concede that some of them froze. I even concede that it is possible that a "bunch" froze. I DO NOT concede that they all fell dead at once and that they all soon thereafter froze solid.
A similar (although different) leap of logic can be illustrated with your ice cubes. Over the years I am sure you have frozen thousands of ice cubes, and I am sure that you have also found all of those ice cubes in your freezer. Does that mean your freezer can hold thousands of ice cubes? No.
~mantis