They attacked the WTC because they hate freedom and democrocy. al-Qaeda also threatened the Iraqis from voting as it would "wash the streets with blood".
You don't get it do you? The war isn't just about stopping islamic fundamentalism, it's about eliminating the oppression it emboddies.
BTW, Bin Ladin has been given "OK" by the Sheik to use a nuclear to kill millions of Americans. But...I'm sure that sand your head it stuck in is nice and safe huh?
How about launching a retro rocket into space toward the astroid belt. Then, have it attach itself to an astroid and redirect it for a collision course with say...Iran. What better way to whack out a city and claim the event as an act of God? Plus, no nuclear fallout.
The thing is, to make a distro usable by grandmas, you need to dumb it down to a point where I wouldn't let it within a mile of my servers.
*throws hands in the air* Awwww fuck it then!!! We might as well just call it quits.
Rather then complain about other peoples computers, why don't you just concentrate on keeping YOUR server safe. Don't expect joe-shmoe to ever be as tech savvy as everyone else on Slashdot. It just isn't going to happen. Computers are supposed to be just a tool for the public, not a software experiment.
Because in the ISP business, upload bandwidth is a commodity. You can have your download dirt cheap. But you gotta PAY for the upload. So unless you want to pay through the nose, fogettaboutit!
What spyware? I've got the latest build of Skype installed on my XP machine. When I run Ad-Aware, it finds no spyware. 0, zero, ziltch, nadda, NOTHING!
You may be joking, but there is more truth to this then you may realise. Based on my casual talks with women (mid 20s to early 30s), they would rather date and have sex with strong/*tall men. But, would rather marry a geek with money to care for their children as it provides security.
*Note*: a mans hight is perportional to his income and his success with women. If your tall, you have been blessed for life with the majority of the worlds riches.
I'm not sure what you exactly wrote about. But I will say this. The world does not need historical revisonists (those trying to rewrite history to fit their world POV).
If what you wrote about is withen the context of why the turned bad or misguided, then I would say that is a resonable topic. But, if you are writing that the Nazis were not a bad group and/or did nothing wrong...then that would be just pure wrong.
The Nazi movement was not just about Germany turned evil, but rather how dark and immoral the human species can be. I only pray that we never test that boundary again.
Captialism works best with an uneducated population.
How, please explain?
Capitalism is a two-way street that involves both the selling and buying of goods and services. Thus, capitalism works best WITH educated people. Remember, someone who buys your product also must be educated enough to work and earn the money from another corporation whom him/her works for (or self employeed).
Or maybe as a prisoner, it would be best to call yourself a "Christian" then an "Atheist" when it comes to trial by jury and parole.
If you commited a crime, you would get far more sympathy from the public if you stated yourself as being Christian. If you regard/state yourself as an atheist, you might be looked apon as a heartless bastard and thus would not be in your favor to reclaim freedom.
Since this demographic cannot afford the legal option, they never were a possible customer.
Obviously, you can't claim a loss to someone who can't afford your product*, but I'm betting the distributors will anyway.
I'm sorry, but I have to cry BS on that statement of yours. Just because a consumer does not find it worth any value does NOT mean they cannot afford it. Case in point; I want to buy a new 2005 Mustang GT. Obviously I cannot afford it yet, but I am in the process of saving some money in the bank so I can make the purchase at a later time.
Shell and Exxon will not only survive, they will lead the changes once they pour all of their R&D into these new hydrogen producing technologies. Their shareholders will demand it once the wells start running dry and before it reaches $80 a berrel. After all, who would invest in a starup company with no previous history? At least the oil companies and all the gas stations can convert to E85 fuel and/or hydrogen. You cant start rebuilding fuel stations, pipelines, and refineries all over again. It's just not cost/effective.
Companies like Shell and Exxon will NOT and NEVER will go away anytime soon. If anything, they will reinvest their capitol on a hydrogen based infrastructure or even bio-fuels. Either way, the world still demands energy packed into something delivered in a nice package.
The fact is, nothing yield more energy per unit like hydrocarbons. It's breaking those bonds into CO2 and H2O that provide the energy. Also, it's the cheapest and most effective way to store energy.
So whose fault is it? Corporations, or the people that pay for their goods and services?
Rather then harp on the cold-hearted motivations of corporations; why not educate the very people who empower them?
If you're an environmentalist, why fight momentum (such as the oil industry) when you would be for more effective in redirection. For example, take your engineering skills and apply them in the oil industry allow this industry to be more clean an efficient. Putting up political roadblocks is only going to piss people off and get your agenda nowhere fast.
Seriously! If you're going to develop game with Nazi-like DRM, why not just provide an encrypted USB dongle at the cost of 2 dollars extra? I would rather pay that then have my game locked up tight to the mercy of the Internet.
No, it's the environmentalist whackos that are being taken too seriously. Meanwhile, TRUE science is being swept under the rug in favor for media media hype and ratings.
No, he says we have no proof that it was never there to begine with.
You do know that Ozone is created by UV rays ionizing O2 in the upper atmosphere right? Well guess were the LEAST amount of light strikes Earth. Could be be...the poles?
Just like SCO, when a company start whipping out the lawsuits it's good sign the company is in deep shit! No company would risk bad PR unless it was their last gasp of air to maintain market share.
Just goes to show, when a company is about to go under, they at least go down fighting.
I botched that post up. I ment to bold the second bulletin that states...
If the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, the provider must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the activity.
Keep in mind that Google generates its revenue from advertisement.
Limitation for Information Location Tools
Section 512(d) relates to hyperlinks, online directories, search engines and the like. It limits liability for the acts of referring or linking users to a site that contains infringing material by using such information location tools, if the following conditions are met:
The provider must not have the requisite level of knowledge that the material is infringing. The knowledge standard is the same as under the limitation for information residing on systems or networks.
If the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, the provider must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the activity.
Upon receiving a notification of claimed infringement, the provider must expeditiously take down or block access to the material.
So according to the DMCA, which provision in bold takes precedence over the other?
"Technically" google could prevent this by not using web-bots and instead just accept manual and verifiable URLS. Obviously this would not be a practical solution for a dynamic search engine. BUT, practicality is not an excuse to circumvent the law. So basically, google would be forced to drop the dynamic search engine and go with static.
Slashdot Mirror
They attacked the WTC because they hate freedom and democrocy. al-Qaeda also threatened the Iraqis from voting as it would "wash the streets with blood".
1 2/20041112_170400_flash2.htm
You don't get it do you? The war isn't just about stopping islamic fundamentalism, it's about eliminating the oppression it emboddies.
BTW, Bin Ladin has been given "OK" by the Sheik to use a nuclear to kill millions of Americans. But...I'm sure that sand your head it stuck in is nice and safe huh?
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/11/
How about launching a retro rocket into space toward the astroid belt. Then, have it attach itself to an astroid and redirect it for a collision course with say...Iran. What better way to whack out a city and claim the event as an act of God? Plus, no nuclear fallout.
I call it...Project Black Chariot of Doom
Muhahahahha!!! Call me Dr Evil!
to hang myself.
Instruction: How to restrict your Linux box from yourself.
I second that! Keep work at work, and leave the drama at home.
The thing is, to make a distro usable by grandmas, you need to dumb it down to a point where I wouldn't let it within a mile of my servers.
*throws hands in the air* Awwww fuck it then!!! We might as well just call it quits.
Rather then complain about other peoples computers, why don't you just concentrate on keeping YOUR server safe. Don't expect joe-shmoe to ever be as tech savvy as everyone else on Slashdot. It just isn't going to happen. Computers are supposed to be just a tool for the public, not a software experiment.
Because in the ISP business, upload bandwidth is a commodity. You can have your download dirt cheap. But you gotta PAY for the upload. So unless you want to pay through the nose, fogettaboutit!
You've never downloaded Bit-Torrents have you?
What spyware? I've got the latest build of Skype installed on my XP machine. When I run Ad-Aware, it finds no spyware. 0, zero, ziltch, nadda, NOTHING!
Please people, stop spreading FUD!
You may be joking, but there is more truth to this then you may realise. Based on my casual talks with women (mid 20s to early 30s), they would rather date and have sex with strong/*tall men. But, would rather marry a geek with money to care for their children as it provides security.
*Note*: a mans hight is perportional to his income and his success with women. If your tall, you have been blessed for life with the majority of the worlds riches.
I'm not sure what you exactly wrote about. But I will say this. The world does not need historical revisonists (those trying to rewrite history to fit their world POV).
If what you wrote about is withen the context of why the turned bad or misguided, then I would say that is a resonable topic. But, if you are writing that the Nazis were not a bad group and/or did nothing wrong...then that would be just pure wrong.
The Nazi movement was not just about Germany turned evil, but rather how dark and immoral the human species can be. I only pray that we never test that boundary again.
You didn't get a bad grade for thinking, you got a bad grade for being WRONG!
Remember, the Nazis were bad. Thinking they were good is insanity as history clearly points out they were not.
Captialism works best with an uneducated population.
How, please explain?
Capitalism is a two-way street that involves both the selling and buying of goods and services. Thus, capitalism works best WITH educated people. Remember, someone who buys your product also must be educated enough to work and earn the money from another corporation whom him/her works for (or self employeed).
I'm not a criminal prosecutor, but isn't the state of your religious convictions part of your legal record along with age, sex, hight...etc?
Or maybe as a prisoner, it would be best to call yourself a "Christian" then an "Atheist" when it comes to trial by jury and parole.
If you commited a crime, you would get far more sympathy from the public if you stated yourself as being Christian. If you regard/state yourself as an atheist, you might be looked apon as a heartless bastard and thus would not be in your favor to reclaim freedom.
Since this demographic cannot afford the legal option, they never were a possible customer.
Obviously, you can't claim a loss to someone who can't afford your product*, but I'm betting the distributors will anyway.
I'm sorry, but I have to cry BS on that statement of yours. Just because a consumer does not find it worth any value does NOT mean they cannot afford it. Case in point; I want to buy a new 2005 Mustang GT. Obviously I cannot afford it yet, but I am in the process of saving some money in the bank so I can make the purchase at a later time.
Shell and Exxon will not only survive, they will lead the changes once they pour all of their R&D into these new hydrogen producing technologies. Their shareholders will demand it once the wells start running dry and before it reaches $80 a berrel. After all, who would invest in a starup company with no previous history? At least the oil companies and all the gas stations can convert to E85 fuel and/or hydrogen. You cant start rebuilding fuel stations, pipelines, and refineries all over again. It's just not cost/effective.
Companies like Shell and Exxon will NOT and NEVER will go away anytime soon. If anything, they will reinvest their capitol on a hydrogen based infrastructure or even bio-fuels. Either way, the world still demands energy packed into something delivered in a nice package.
The fact is, nothing yield more energy per unit like hydrocarbons. It's breaking those bonds into CO2 and H2O that provide the energy. Also, it's the cheapest and most effective way to store energy.
So whose fault is it? Corporations, or the people that pay for their goods and services?
Rather then harp on the cold-hearted motivations of corporations; why not educate the very people who empower them?
If you're an environmentalist, why fight momentum (such as the oil industry) when you would be for more effective in redirection. For example, take your engineering skills and apply them in the oil industry allow this industry to be more clean an efficient. Putting up political roadblocks is only going to piss people off and get your agenda nowhere fast.
Seriously! If you're going to develop game with Nazi-like DRM, why not just provide an encrypted USB dongle at the cost of 2 dollars extra? I would rather pay that then have my game locked up tight to the mercy of the Internet.
No, it's the environmentalist whackos that are being taken too seriously. Meanwhile, TRUE science is being swept under the rug in favor for media media hype and ratings.
No, he says we have no proof that it was never there to begine with.
You do know that Ozone is created by UV rays ionizing O2 in the upper atmosphere right? Well guess were the LEAST amount of light strikes Earth. Could be be...the poles?
Yeee haw!!!
I only give a shit because I see your mom in the photos.
Just like SCO, when a company start whipping out the lawsuits it's good sign the company is in deep shit! No company would risk bad PR unless it was their last gasp of air to maintain market share.
Just goes to show, when a company is about to go under, they at least go down fighting.
I botched that post up. I ment to bold the second bulletin that states...
If the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, the provider must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the activity.
Keep in mind that Google generates its revenue from advertisement.
The provider must not have the requisite level of knowledge that the material is infringing. The knowledge standard is the same as under the limitation for information residing on systems or networks.
If the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, the provider must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the activity.
Upon receiving a notification of claimed infringement, the provider must expeditiously take down or block access to the material.
So according to the DMCA, which provision in bold takes precedence over the other?
"Technically" google could prevent this by not using web-bots and instead just accept manual and verifiable URLS. Obviously this would not be a practical solution for a dynamic search engine. BUT, practicality is not an excuse to circumvent the law. So basically, google would be forced to drop the dynamic search engine and go with static.