But the issue is that alone by having typed in that domain, they have made money for its owner.
Yes, but that money didn't come from their pocket, did it? It came from the advertisers and was wasted because they ignore the ads and go away. Yes, some sleazeball made a fraction of a cent, but it came from another sleaseball, so who really cares?
Please note that I specified that we don't know if the percentage reported has remained stable or not, and your post shows exactly why I made that qualification. Thanx for spelling it out for those who may not have understood the significance.
That depends. Even if only a small percentage of all web attacks are reported, if that percentage stays stable then a rise in the number reported implies a rise in the total number of attacks. Of course, we don't know if, in fact, the precentage has remained stable or if it's simply that a larger percentage are being reported.
ONE of those elements is that a contract must be reduced to writing as defined under s. 4 of the Statute of Frauds - eg. you must write it down and sign it to prove you have a contract.. otherwise it could be fraud.
Not so. I was once on a jury in a civil suit based on a verbal contract. A verbal contract is just as binding as a written one. In this case, we had several things to decide, and the first one was whether or not a contract existed, because if it didn't, the rest became moot. The question was easy to decide, because neither side tried to deny that the contract existed, but it did need to be formally stated. (It concerned a severl-year-long business relationship based on a verbal contract; without that contract, the relationship made no sense.)
This is just a special case of a general prinicple in jurisprudence: the court is always entitled to consider precedents from other countries, if appropriate, but they're not binding. That is, an Austrailian court can take into consideration what a US court has done in an Internet-related case, but doesn't have to do the same if it decides otherwise.
In this case, of course, US law was partially derived from British common and statute law. Examining it can help a court deturmine just what the law is, and how it should apply. That doesn't mean that this centuries-old British statute is binding in the US, just that it's useful as a guide to understanding current contract law.
Another great program for when (not if) your machine's acting weird is hijackthis. It tells you everything that runs when your computer boots, even programs called from other programs, and allows you to delete any you don't want running. You can even run it from a CD, although it will complain that it can't write a log file (It only writes to its own folder.) so it's easy to use at on friend's box.
"difficult" implies that you disapprove of a person's interation with other people, "challenging" says you don't care, you just want to get the best out of your staff.
I see it a bit differently. They both imply "hard to work with," but "challanging" also implies, "...but well worth the effort."
When I did tech support for an ISP, I was probably considered challanging. I was very senior, far more than my supervisors. There were many things I could do without a moment's thought that almost nobody else knew because they applied to legacy versions of our software that most techs had never seen. I tended to get a bit impatient with junior techs that missed "obvious" solutions and maybe a tad arrogant, although I hope not. (I was, however, happy to answer sensible questions about these things and teach others what I knew. The more I taught, the less I had to do myself. Alas, so few ever bothered to ask.) Good supervisors quickly learned to give me enough freedom to do my job the way I knew was right, with enough supervision to rein me in if I went too far. (Hey, I'm only human!) They learned where my strengths were, and sent calls to me (or callbacks) that let me use them, rather than wasting my time on trivial calls while somebody else struggled with the hard ones. Bad supervisors just treated me like a cog in the machine and wondered why their team's numbers were so bad.
You can't understand them because you don't possess the knowledge they do. They can't understand you because they don't possess the knowledge you do.
And both sides like it that way.
Just because global temperatures are rising, does not mean that global warming exists.
I know you're being sarcastic, but oddly enough you're right. For all we know, we might just be leaving an era of global cooling. Not that I believe it, mind you, but we don't know enough yet to be sure. More than anything else, we need to find out just what's happening before we start making sweeping, draconic changes.
Just because they put a disclaimer on it doesn't mean they're not responsible. Back in the '50s, you started to see those "not responsible" signs in parking lots because the owners were tired of paying damages when people's cars were hit. The law hadn't changed, they were (I don't know if they still are) legally liable, but people believd the signs and stopped making claims. Same thing here. If they say they won't accept liability, most people won't try for compensation, even if they're eligable.
This administration is all about foxes guarding the henhouse.
It could also be argued that the administration is picking people who know something about what they're regulating and understand the issues. Mind you, I don't say you're wrong, just that there's more than one interpretation of this.
Don't worry, I'm not going to email him with a link to your earlier post, and if I did, I doubt he'd care. He's a lot more easy going than you'd think. Now, if you'd left Harlan's name out...
Volcanos add to global warming by releasing CO2, and to cooling by releasing clouds of ash. Sometimes one predominates, sometimes the other. It can go either way.
I take it you don't live in Los Angeles, as I do. First Stage Smog Alerts are rare, now, because the air is much cleaner. Also, the air over the LA Basin wouldn't be clean even without having a city there because of something called an inversion layer that keeps the air from circulating freely. As evidence, the Indian name for the area translates as "the land of smoky air."
I think, if you check, you'll find that Larry Niven had something to do with it. In fact, if you check carefully, you'll find that Larry and Jerry called in Mr. Flynn (I don't use his first name because I don't know him personally, unlike the other two authors.) because they were having problems make it jell.
I'd fine them $1 for every violaton of the act. Doesn't sound like much does it? Iet's see. Joe Spammer sends connects to his ISP's SMTP server and uploads 1,000,000 spams at once. One violation. No, each spam email is a seperate violation, meaning that he's just violated the act 1,000,000 times all at once. Considering the number of times he's done it, he'll never get out from under because you're not allowed to clear fines or civil judgements with bankrupcy. He'll be living in a one-room apartment on ramen for the rest of his life because everything else will be grabbed by the government to help pay the fine. Works for me!
Then you stand in direct contrast to the examples that IDers provide.
Of course I do. To quote a friend, "ID is just Creation Science with the serial numbers ground off and Creation Science is just Cretionism with the serial numbers ground off."
ID is a stupid pseudoscientific "theory," used by luddites that can't admit they were always wrong and always will be. My point was that it's possible to believe in both God and evolution. Please not that there's nothing in what I believe that claims that God set things up so that we'd look exactly like we do. I simply believe that he set up the universe so that inteligent life could eventually evolve and left the details to chance and evolution.
Of course if you believe in God, then you must beklieve in ID.
Or does your god just hang around and not effect ther universe in any way?
Not so. I can, and do believe that God caused the universe to come into existence with a set of laws that would eventually allow us to come into existence. It's rather like an extension of the Antropic Principle: we observe the universe to be as it is because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here, and God made sure it was.
But I don't see how VOIP software makes any better target than, say, a web browser.
I never said it made a better target, and I didn't mean to imply it. What I was getting at is that VOIP is another target, and that this wasn't even mentioned in the article.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's say you want to go to www.omgponies.com and typo it as omg!ponies!.com. Where do you end up going, and do you really deserve to be there?
Yes, but that money didn't come from their pocket, did it? It came from the advertisers and was wasted because they ignore the ads and go away. Yes, some sleazeball made a fraction of a cent, but it came from another sleaseball, so who really cares?
Please note that I specified that we don't know if the percentage reported has remained stable or not, and your post shows exactly why I made that qualification. Thanx for spelling it out for those who may not have understood the significance.
I just upgraded and no, it doesn't, at least on my machine.
That depends. Even if only a small percentage of all web attacks are reported, if that percentage stays stable then a rise in the number reported implies a rise in the total number of attacks. Of course, we don't know if, in fact, the precentage has remained stable or if it's simply that a larger percentage are being reported.
Not so. I was once on a jury in a civil suit based on a verbal contract. A verbal contract is just as binding as a written one. In this case, we had several things to decide, and the first one was whether or not a contract existed, because if it didn't, the rest became moot. The question was easy to decide, because neither side tried to deny that the contract existed, but it did need to be formally stated. (It concerned a severl-year-long business relationship based on a verbal contract; without that contract, the relationship made no sense.)
In this case, of course, US law was partially derived from British common and statute law. Examining it can help a court deturmine just what the law is, and how it should apply. That doesn't mean that this centuries-old British statute is binding in the US, just that it's useful as a guide to understanding current contract law.
Another great program for when (not if) your machine's acting weird is hijackthis. It tells you everything that runs when your computer boots, even programs called from other programs, and allows you to delete any you don't want running. You can even run it from a CD, although it will complain that it can't write a log file (It only writes to its own folder.) so it's easy to use at on friend's box.
I see it a bit differently. They both imply "hard to work with," but "challanging" also implies, "...but well worth the effort."
When I did tech support for an ISP, I was probably considered challanging. I was very senior, far more than my supervisors. There were many things I could do without a moment's thought that almost nobody else knew because they applied to legacy versions of our software that most techs had never seen. I tended to get a bit impatient with junior techs that missed "obvious" solutions and maybe a tad arrogant, although I hope not. (I was, however, happy to answer sensible questions about these things and teach others what I knew. The more I taught, the less I had to do myself. Alas, so few ever bothered to ask.) Good supervisors quickly learned to give me enough freedom to do my job the way I knew was right, with enough supervision to rein me in if I went too far. (Hey, I'm only human!) They learned where my strengths were, and sent calls to me (or callbacks) that let me use them, rather than wasting my time on trivial calls while somebody else struggled with the hard ones. Bad supervisors just treated me like a cog in the machine and wondered why their team's numbers were so bad.
3. FreeCell An even better, much more addictive game.
You can't understand them because you don't possess the knowledge they do. They can't understand you because they don't possess the knowledge you do. And both sides like it that way.
I know you're being sarcastic, but oddly enough you're right. For all we know, we might just be leaving an era of global cooling. Not that I believe it, mind you, but we don't know enough yet to be sure. More than anything else, we need to find out just what's happening before we start making sweeping, draconic changes.
If so, Edgar Rice Burroughs was more accurate than he thought. If so, there's a lot of grand adventure waiting for us on the Hidden Planet!
Repeat after me: "Correlation does not equal causation."
Just because they put a disclaimer on it doesn't mean they're not responsible. Back in the '50s, you started to see those "not responsible" signs in parking lots because the owners were tired of paying damages when people's cars were hit. The law hadn't changed, they were (I don't know if they still are) legally liable, but people believd the signs and stopped making claims. Same thing here. If they say they won't accept liability, most people won't try for compensation, even if they're eligable.
To help the Girl Scouts get undressed.
It could also be argued that the administration is picking people who know something about what they're regulating and understand the issues. Mind you, I don't say you're wrong, just that there's more than one interpretation of this.
Don't worry, I'm not going to email him with a link to your earlier post, and if I did, I doubt he'd care. He's a lot more easy going than you'd think. Now, if you'd left Harlan's name out...
Volcanos add to global warming by releasing CO2, and to cooling by releasing clouds of ash. Sometimes one predominates, sometimes the other. It can go either way.
I take it you don't live in Los Angeles, as I do. First Stage Smog Alerts are rare, now, because the air is much cleaner. Also, the air over the LA Basin wouldn't be clean even without having a city there because of something called an inversion layer that keeps the air from circulating freely. As evidence, the Indian name for the area translates as "the land of smoky air."
I think, if you check, you'll find that Larry Niven had something to do with it. In fact, if you check carefully, you'll find that Larry and Jerry called in Mr. Flynn (I don't use his first name because I don't know him personally, unlike the other two authors.) because they were having problems make it jell.
I'd fine them $1 for every violaton of the act. Doesn't sound like much does it? Iet's see. Joe Spammer sends connects to his ISP's SMTP server and uploads 1,000,000 spams at once. One violation. No, each spam email is a seperate violation, meaning that he's just violated the act 1,000,000 times all at once. Considering the number of times he's done it, he'll never get out from under because you're not allowed to clear fines or civil judgements with bankrupcy. He'll be living in a one-room apartment on ramen for the rest of his life because everything else will be grabbed by the government to help pay the fine. Works for me!
Of course I do. To quote a friend, "ID is just Creation Science with the serial numbers ground off and Creation Science is just Cretionism with the serial numbers ground off."
ID is a stupid pseudoscientific "theory," used by luddites that can't admit they were always wrong and always will be. My point was that it's possible to believe in both God and evolution. Please not that there's nothing in what I believe that claims that God set things up so that we'd look exactly like we do. I simply believe that he set up the universe so that inteligent life could eventually evolve and left the details to chance and evolution.
Or does your god just hang around and not effect ther universe in any way?
Not so. I can, and do believe that God caused the universe to come into existence with a set of laws that would eventually allow us to come into existence. It's rather like an extension of the Antropic Principle: we observe the universe to be as it is because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here, and God made sure it was.
I never said it made a better target, and I didn't mean to imply it. What I was getting at is that VOIP is another target, and that this wasn't even mentioned in the article.