Agh. I hadn't seen that there was an article link right below the 'Read Full Comment Text' link. Change your Max Comment Size in the Comment preferences to 65535 -- problem solved.
Really big aerials can hear really weak signals. I know 4 year olds who have grasped that I call bull shit on that, or at least the fact that 10 minutes after you tell them what's what that he'd remember anything about aerials, a frames, wip's, omni, line of sight, or any other type of antenna/directional capabilities of anything including your home phone. He didn't mention anything about all that. You're basically explaining: "See that huge antenna? That works better than a small antenna. Bigger is better." And what kid won't understand that?
As anyone who's watched ST:TNG knows, a cheek swab isn't completely reliable. You need to have a long needle going into your abdomen in order to get pure enough DNA to make a clone.
P.S. In Russia, Gary Kasparov is a joke. Would it be correct to assume he's at least respected for his chess-playing skills but considered a joke for his opinions/behavior outside the chess board?
00:00 [b]Bush:[/b] Hey, Cheney, get in here! I need you to help me figure something out here. 00:10 [B]Cheney:[/b] What is it now? 18:40 [B]Bush:[/b] That's brilliant! Get right on top of it! 18:41 Slashdot: Why is some idiot posting bbcode?
I get tired of this distinction between "basic human rights" and... what? Make-believe rights? Unimportant rights that it's OK to trample on? I think the word you're unable to come up with is privilege.
BSA: "We have reliable evidence from a confidential source [read: disgruntled (ex-)employee] that you don't have valid licenses to the software you use." Company: "You don't have any authority over us. GTFO." BSA: "Fine."
[BSA starts suit against company, submits evidence to a judge, and during the discovery period requests complete documentation of all software being run on company systems, along with licenses and date of purchase. If company fails to provide, BSA files for a motion to compel or some such legal mumbo-jumbo that basically gives the BSA the judge-approved legal right to take apart every computer and really ruin their day.]
BSA: "According to what we found, it appears you're liable for tens of millions of dollars of damages according to current copyright fines." Company: "Err... gosh, maybe we overlooked purchasing a few hundred software licenses here and there. Our bad. Say, do you have any kind of compliance deal for companies like ours who accidentally used unlicensed software on every computer we own and where we don't have to admit guilt?" BSA: "Sure, just fork over $90,000 on top of paying our legal bills and purchasing licenses for all that software we discovered, you admit no wrongdoing, but you also agree to annual audits from here on." Company: "Yeah, again, our bad... hey, who should we make this payable to?"
[Company makes the payment, BSA cashes it, company buys licenses to all software, and BSA files motion to dismiss suit.]
Well, I don't know if you're American or not... I'm not.
... but the US Constitution says, and I quote "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Limited times. Repeat that three times, would you? Disney spent millions getting Congress to change the law, so they wouldn't lose the rights to Snow White and Mickey Mouse. Clearly, the fact that Shakespeare and Milton are freely available is of great benefit to the English speaking world. So why should Pinocchio be protected? Who cares about Snow White, Mickey Mouse, or Pinocchio? If you're that opposed to the current copyright regime, stop supporting the industry that keeps increasing the copyright duration. I think children would get much more value out of Aesop's Fables, Shakespeare, Milton, or others... depending on their age.
Say, for example, that it was illegal for women to go outdoors without a man, as it is in some countries; and some women rightly disputed this law, but didn't want to put their lives on the line to engage in an act of public civil disobedience, so instead they dressed up as men and secretly went out to conduct whatever business they had. They would be breaking the law, but not flaunting the law; they would be secretly breaking it. But if such a laws are unjust, as I hope you'll agree they are, then would you say that those women who sneak out are just like heroin addicts, "addicted to going outside alone", and only do so secretly because they know it's wrong and are ashamed? Or would you acknowledge that, just maybe, they rightly believe that there's nothing wrong with it, and are only hiding it because a lot of powerful people do think there is something wrong with it and would hurt them if they got caught? I understand your point, but where it breaks down is that going outside is considered to be a basic human freedom. Whether or not someone becomes a martyr for it is indeed not relevant. Downloading and watching a movie that someone else created is nowhere near a basic human right. Rather than spending hours downloading a movie -- against the wishes of its creator -- just to spend more hours watching it... one could instead, for example, go outside and enjoy the fresh air.
You could also just be opposed to copyright and want to share copyrighted material without risk of being sued, and many people do. If you're really opposed to copyright, why not just avoid works where the creators assert copyright law against you rather than using it in your benefit such as GPL, Creative Commons, etc.? Your downloading of copyrighted materials is not an act of civil disobedience unless you do it publicly. It's almost like a drug user saying they secretly and anonymously do heroin because they're against the current drug laws. That's bullshit -- they're just addicts. It sounds like you're addicted to the movies you download because you can't get enough public domain content to satisfy your entertainment cravings.
Speeds are slower than bittorrent etc., but that is to be expected - you never get something for nothing. Why would you need an anonymous network when you're only sharing files licensed under Creative Commons and the like?
Everyone will meet in the local town or city center at sunset to form a mob, and then proceed to the local observatory! Please be considerate and shield your torches from excess light pollution by enclosing the flame in red-tinted glass. Thanks, and remember to stop by the lobby for refreshments and souvenirs.
Fire is usually first on scene, which is fine because as the officer put it - they are trained as paramedics, and if it's a crime in progress most criminals flee when they hear sirens, let alone several large guys with axes running up the driveway. I hadn't thought of that last one... big red diesel truck, sirens blaring, men with axes... yeah, with the exception of gang warfare and the like, that would take care of any crime-related situation.
Well, disingenuous/dishonest/unethical, yes. I guess I didn't worry too much about which I meant, since distinctions between such words tend to matter most to people trying to avoid them:) A very good point! I'll have to remember that one.
It's slim, and the angularness of it is less obvious in person than on the web, unless you look at it from the end. Are the angles comfortable for holding? Because it seems strange that it's built that way. When I visited the product page, the angle that the photo was taken at (especially the still image for the upper-left video where it's on top of the New York Times) makes the device look about two or three inches thick... which immediately turned me off until I saw it from other angles.
Well, personally I would say that they should fire their marketing department for not being capable of marketing honestly. But that's another issue. Do you mean honest or ethical? It's not dishonest to receive shipment of a limited stock and then legitimately claim that you sold all units.
So no. I think the policy is just a myth. And saying there's a blanket policy for North America is just plain crazy. There might be such a policy in your particular metropolitan area, but that's about it. It happened in our office though. One of the sales guys was dialing long distance and you have to dial 9 to get to an outside line. So, he dials 9, followed by a 1 for long distance, then accidentally dialed another 1 and hung up before he realized the call was connected. As the number it's dialed out of doesn't get answered (it goes to a generic voicemail service) we had two police officers show up and grill us (politely) about the incident. So yeah, they don't send out all three services in my area, but the police are the most sensible to send as if it's a criminal activity they can respond, if it's a fire eventually they'd be getting calls from other people, and if it's a medical issue the police are trained in emergency medical procedures and/or can drive you to an emergency facility if it's more serious.
Unlike that article about the guy who sues spammers in his spare time which made sense assuming one has a basic comprehension of English and an attention span longer than a gnat's genitalia, this is definitely one of those WTF moments. Having read the article, I can figure out what his idea is... but the summary is just so out-of-this-world.
1. Assume pink unicorns exist. 2. Bunch of wild-ass conclusions you derive regarding people and unicorns. 3. ??? 4. Profit!
Taking the control of the keyboard away from the OS *is* the super special security that they are asking you to install.. you said yes. The summary *and* the article are poorly worded. Rather than simply asking "Do you want to use our extra-secure connection?" (as in, this could be a somewhat slower but more secure 256 bit standard SSL protocol) the question should have been phrased as "Do you want to download and install this executable software to enable our extra-secure connection?". In that light, the rest of the discussion actually somewhat makes sense... however much you agree or disagree with the rest.
Amateur. Thanks to the magic of the Underrated mod, you can (and I have!) end up at +5, Troll. Actually, I don't remember if I ended up at +5, Troll or +5, Flamebait or +5, Offtopic, but it was one of those. I don't think it's possible anymore. The mods tried their hardest with this one post I made, but despite the countless underrated mods, I never saw it go above +2.
Yes, but I would guess user-agent is the same for all iPhones. The IMEI isn't. I then refer you back to my original post... ... which appears to claim that requiring a string on a URL is impossible to duplicate on non-iPhones, thus providing an excellent security measure.
Slashdot Mirror
#!/bin/sh
/sys/class/scsi_disk/*; do
for i in
if [ "`cat "$i/device/model"`" = "FreeAgentDesktop" ]; then
echo Return for refund immediately!
fi
done
There... fixed your script.
As anyone who's watched ST:TNG knows, a cheek swab isn't completely reliable. You need to have a long needle going into your abdomen in order to get pure enough DNA to make a clone.
Well what if we paid $999 for a complete DNA scan and sent it in?
00:10 [B]Cheney:[/b] What is it now?
18:40 [B]Bush:[/b] That's brilliant! Get right on top of it! 18:41 Slashdot: Why is some idiot posting bbcode?
It goes like this:
BSA: "We have reliable evidence from a confidential source [read: disgruntled (ex-)employee] that you don't have valid licenses to the software you use."
Company: "You don't have any authority over us. GTFO."
BSA: "Fine."
[BSA starts suit against company, submits evidence to a judge, and during the discovery period requests complete documentation of all software being run on company systems, along with licenses and date of purchase. If company fails to provide, BSA files for a motion to compel or some such legal mumbo-jumbo that basically gives the BSA the judge-approved legal right to take apart every computer and really ruin their day.]
BSA: "According to what we found, it appears you're liable for tens of millions of dollars of damages according to current copyright fines."
Company: "Err... gosh, maybe we overlooked purchasing a few hundred software licenses here and there. Our bad. Say, do you have any kind of compliance deal for companies like ours who accidentally used unlicensed software on every computer we own and where we don't have to admit guilt?"
BSA: "Sure, just fork over $90,000 on top of paying our legal bills and purchasing licenses for all that software we discovered, you admit no wrongdoing, but you also agree to annual audits from here on."
Company: "Yeah, again, our bad... hey, who should we make this payable to?"
[Company makes the payment, BSA cashes it, company buys licenses to all software, and BSA files motion to dismiss suit.]
... but the US Constitution says, and I quote "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Limited times. Repeat that three times, would you? Disney spent millions getting Congress to change the law, so they wouldn't lose the rights to Snow White and Mickey Mouse. Clearly, the fact that Shakespeare and Milton are freely available is of great benefit to the English speaking world. So why should Pinocchio be protected? Who cares about Snow White, Mickey Mouse, or Pinocchio? If you're that opposed to the current copyright regime, stop supporting the industry that keeps increasing the copyright duration. I think children would get much more value out of Aesop's Fables, Shakespeare, Milton, or others... depending on their age.Unlike that article about the guy who sues spammers in his spare time which made sense assuming one has a basic comprehension of English and an attention span longer than a gnat's genitalia, this is definitely one of those WTF moments. Having read the article, I can figure out what his idea is... but the summary is just so out-of-this-world.
1. Assume pink unicorns exist.
2. Bunch of wild-ass conclusions you derive regarding people and unicorns.
3. ???
4. Profit!
Taking the control of the keyboard away from the OS *is* the super special security that they are asking you to install.. you said yes. The summary *and* the article are poorly worded. Rather than simply asking "Do you want to use our extra-secure connection?" (as in, this could be a somewhat slower but more secure 256 bit standard SSL protocol) the question should have been phrased as "Do you want to download and install this executable software to enable our extra-secure connection?". In that light, the rest of the discussion actually somewhat makes sense... however much you agree or disagree with the rest.