That's an interesting idea. But I think it's likely that for any kind of "chances", three turns out to be a good number. Whether it's strikes or convictions or whatever, one is an accident, two is a coincidence, and three is a pattern of behavior. In other words, three strikes in baseball and three strikes in other things have the same root.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Every one of those changes would require just about as much conversion energy as switching to IPv6 does now. If we're going to have to go through that, we sure aren't going to do it just to add another octet. And then do it again. And again.
I don't know where the idea comes from that a conversion to a smaller address space is less of a pain than conversion to a big address space.
NAT wasn't re-invented, it was UN-invented, which is a *good thing*. In any case it's still possible. DHCPv6 is certainly available for you to use, although you now have the option of not needing it.
The US is one of the few countries, maybe the only one, which charges domestic taxes on income earned overseas. Everywhere else, that money is taxed only once, but here we expect it to be taxed twice.
It's like the politicians are trying to get them to play accounting games, or simply pick up and leave, in order to have something to decry.
What a ridiculous system. It's a wonder we have any multinationals based here at all.
Re:Whether a file has changed = complex?
on
Linux 2.6.36 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Have you tried using a distribution, instead of throwing random versions of different software onto a system and hoping it magically all works together?
"Linux on the desktop" will happen (and does happen) through distributions.
Could you rephrase? That sounded rather like: "Now correct me if I'm incorrect, but was I told it's untrue that people in Springfield have no faith? Was I not misinformed?"
What's wrong with "incite"? The only reason anybody uses "incentivize" is because he is ignorant of "incite". That's the primary reason that "incentivize" is awful.
If it's 20 light years away, and this is a reaction to us, then it would have to be from 1970. Not sure where you're getting 1980. 1990 would have been the easy error.
The "laws of supply and demand" would tell us that if the price is made artificially low, as you apparently advocate, then there will be a shortage. And look, that's exactly right!
An excellent point. Anybody who smokes is an idiot, but anybody who thinks it's the place of government to regulate whether or not it can be done in a private establishment is MUCH worse.
Not only that, you now have to be careful even when you do the right thing.
My dad knows a guy who left a bar, got a couple of blocks away (as you did), and realized that he was not in any condition to drive. He pulled off the road (I'm not clear whether it was the shoulder or a parking lot or what, but my understanding is it was done safely) and went to sleep.
Wakes up some hours later to a cop knocking on his window, and he's arrested for DUI, get this, because the keys were in the ignition. Apparently if he'd dropped them out the window he'd have been fine.
Effectively he was severely punished for NOT driving home drunk, and on a technicality at that. How messed up is that.
I'm not sure why so many people think this struggle against basic economics is a normal thing. Why should people be prevented from buying and reselling an item simply because Apple's pricing is stupidly low?
Same story with "price gouging" laws. Here's a hint: there's no such thing as price gouging.
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever an HTTP element (of any kind) on an HTTPS page is loaded, a big hairy warning message pops up.
A trademark?
Um, you mean, especially if you make $100 million a year or so. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
That's an interesting idea. But I think it's likely that for any kind of "chances", three turns out to be a good number. Whether it's strikes or convictions or whatever, one is an accident, two is a coincidence, and three is a pattern of behavior. In other words, three strikes in baseball and three strikes in other things have the same root.
We have the 6to4 transition mechanism, which is basically what you're describing: an IPv4 address encoded in an IPv6 address.
"must of thought" - this doesn't parse.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Every one of those changes would require just about as much conversion energy as switching to IPv6 does now. If we're going to have to go through that, we sure aren't going to do it just to add another octet. And then do it again. And again.
I don't know where the idea comes from that a conversion to a smaller address space is less of a pain than conversion to a big address space.
NAT wasn't re-invented, it was UN-invented, which is a *good thing*. In any case it's still possible. DHCPv6 is certainly available for you to use, although you now have the option of not needing it.
Yes.
Actually that's true of many areas, not just taxes; it's basically impossible for a productive citizen to know what's legal and what's not.
The US is one of the few countries, maybe the only one, which charges domestic taxes on income earned overseas. Everywhere else, that money is taxed only once, but here we expect it to be taxed twice.
It's like the politicians are trying to get them to play accounting games, or simply pick up and leave, in order to have something to decry.
What a ridiculous system. It's a wonder we have any multinationals based here at all.
Have you tried using a distribution, instead of throwing random versions of different software onto a system and hoping it magically all works together?
"Linux on the desktop" will happen (and does happen) through distributions.
It's always funny to watch governments charge in and take the high road about collection of data.
Do they think the dog is sentient?
There were two instances of "lousy"; I meant the latter. The one in the final sentence which also contained "who's".
How do you know this?
Could you rephrase? That sounded rather like: "Now correct me if I'm incorrect, but was I told it's untrue that people in Springfield have no faith? Was I not misinformed?"
That should be "whose" (and "lousily").
What's wrong with "incite"? The only reason anybody uses "incentivize" is because he is ignorant of "incite". That's the primary reason that "incentivize" is awful.
Joe Stack popped that building in Austin.
That's "incited". There's no "incentivized" and no need for one; there's a perfectly good word already.
If it's 20 light years away, and this is a reaction to us, then it would have to be from 1970. Not sure where you're getting 1980. 1990 would have been the easy error.
It's an economic model of reality.
The "laws of supply and demand" would tell us that if the price is made artificially low, as you apparently advocate, then there will be a shortage. And look, that's exactly right!
An excellent point. Anybody who smokes is an idiot, but anybody who thinks it's the place of government to regulate whether or not it can be done in a private establishment is MUCH worse.
Not only that, you now have to be careful even when you do the right thing.
My dad knows a guy who left a bar, got a couple of blocks away (as you did), and realized that he was not in any condition to drive. He pulled off the road (I'm not clear whether it was the shoulder or a parking lot or what, but my understanding is it was done safely) and went to sleep.
Wakes up some hours later to a cop knocking on his window, and he's arrested for DUI, get this, because the keys were in the ignition. Apparently if he'd dropped them out the window he'd have been fine.
Effectively he was severely punished for NOT driving home drunk, and on a technicality at that. How messed up is that.
In my world, food and water will exist; they may be expensive as you describe, but it will be possible to get them.
Price-gouging laws ensure that such goods aren't available. At all. Is that an improvement?
Thank you!
I'm not sure why so many people think this struggle against basic economics is a normal thing. Why should people be prevented from buying and reselling an item simply because Apple's pricing is stupidly low?
Same story with "price gouging" laws. Here's a hint: there's no such thing as price gouging.