>If this ever reaches court (who knows, let's hope not), and Microsoft can show 400 postings which say "fuCk yOU mICRo$oft", it won't help too much. Keep calm, keep thinking.
> build an H-bomb, because I like to look at it. My use may be purely for aesthetic and educational" uses, but that does not mean society should allow this. The better test is, what is the net effect on society? If it is overall positive, then it should be allowed. If it is negative, then it should not.
The source code would be the equivelent of the instructions for making an H-bomb - which I believe are legal and protected under free speech - the compiled binary would be the actualy bomb - and as far as I'm aware, there is no analogous program with the destructive potential of an H-bomb. (ok, none of you wise-asses say anything about certain microsoft products...;-))
>You will have the same chance as everyone else, provided you live in the USA or Canada. The rest of the world will have to wait until the second phase beta.
>Of course we have the crusades, the various civil wars, holy causes, and of course the Inquisition. All fought with low tech. All fought more or less hand to hand. And many weapons were designed to kill someone only at very close range--such as a double-handed long sword, whose primary purpose was to dismember a knight in shiny armor in much the same way you pull apart a cooked lobster.
Hate to nitpick you to death, but the primary use of the broadsword was to bludgeon the peasents...a 'knight in shining armor' was practically invincible...until he fell of his horse, and was beaten to death by the feet/hooves/whatever as the battle raged about (and right over) him. And 'bludgeon' is fairly accurate...even if the sword was sharp when the knight rode into battle, it didn't stay that way for very long.
Why should linux have to be able to do something that windows can't? Both OSes run on the same hardware(i386, plus linux will run on many, many other platforms)...everything feature-wise is just a matter of programming. Linux is better for many people because it's open source, it's more stable, it runs on more hardware platforms, it's more secure, it is more easily remote administered...etc...etc...
But as far as functionality, there's nothing linux can do that windows can't, with the right software. Macintosh comps can't do anything that windows boxen can't either.
So let me see if I can get this right...the cDc releases information about a security risk in a certain company's operating system, thus causing said company to deny there is a problem, blame in on the cDc, and finally, fix it...eventually. Therefore, the cDc is a bunch of evil hackers because they provided this information.
When a group of respected scientists point out a security vulnerability, they're the good guys, for pointing out a vulnerability that 'hackers' might exploit.
If you're on a winders box, hold down the 'ALT' key (either one) while you type the ASCII code on your numeric keypad (with numlock) on. If you don't have a chart, most of the interesting ones are 127..255. resumè is ALT-138 for instance. How to do it on a Linux/Beos/whatever box? I don't have a clue. Let me know if you find out.
Hey, you didn't even mention the fact that whenever a NASA mission goes wrong, or starts to look like it's going wrong, the news-dweebs start quoting the mission price - giving the reader the impression that NASA is just wasting money left and right. (Of course, I'm sure they *are* wasting money...they are a government agency.)
I thought major portions of Chernobyl were still radioactive, and would be for another 50 years or so? I seem to remember some sort of 'discovery channel' type program about it.
>So does this mean that if I am an Australian and I detect a network intrusion that comes from a government machine, I am supposed to spread my legs and bend over?
No, no, no!
You're supposed to spread 'em, and LIKE IT! Or else.
Computer manufacturers like Gateway, Dell, Micron, et al. aren't going to have remarked cpu's in their computers...the profit is far outweighed by the almost-certain cost. The big computer builders buy their CPU's either from Intel, or from a major reseller that's well-known and trusted. The computer builder wouldn't knowingly put remarked chips in their machine, because a scheme widespread enough to affect the bottom line at all is almost sure to be discovered (at least with computers that aren't 'sealed box' systems), and the resulting class-action suit is sure to cost more than they saved using the remarked cpus in the first place. The reseller they purchased the cpus from won't do it for similar reasons...their business is built on trust. A major computer maker isn't likely to buy from an untrusted source, or a fly-by-night company. The other source of remarking would be Intel itself....and they wouldn't remark their own cpu's...they test them beforehand, and if they run reliably at the rated speed, then they sell them that way...unless they need a batch of slower chips, in which case they just mark them down...not up (hence the possibility of overclocking). Now one or two might slip through the cracks, but big companies don't like playing russian roullette. Not that they wouldn't screw you if they thought they could get away with it. But they know they couldn't get away with it. Small local companies, on the other hand, are much more susceptable to this sort of thing...they tend to purchase from cheaper suppliers, and often don't ask question about *where* the chips came from.
Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I thought that government agencies weren't allowed to take out patents...I seem to remember that Pro-NASA types say things like 'Well, if NASA had been allowed to patent teflon, then they would be able to pay for themselves.' Is this a double-standard, or am I hallucinating again?
"That is a contradiction. Perhaps they are capable of independant though, but Christian religion itself discourages independant thought. Christianity tells one what to think, what to do, even what to love." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What to love?
Mathew 12:29
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
12:31
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
(King James Version)
I can live with that...I just pray to have the strength to follow such a simple rule.
As I understand it, the rule is there because if a player makes a bad move, the other player will often let something slip in his facial expression to indicate that the move was a poor one as soon as the player commits himself by releasing the piece. I don't know the specifics of the game in question though. -RN
Doesn't that sound a lot like the name of a Bond Girl(TM)? (No offense to the lady in question)
Also, a quick perusal of the portaits of the analysts will show that Irina definately has the most professional-looking (and attractive) photo. Might I suggest that this may have played a role in her moves being selected almost every time? The picture of Mr. Felecan is just awful. Mr. Bacrot and Ms. Pätz look a bit better in their photo's, but I think that most would agree that Ms. Krush looks a lot more professional and attractive. In a game where experts of approximately equal skill disagree, it seems unlikely that 'The World' would have a clue who's move is really 'better'. I think it is more likely that the analysts charisma played more of a role in deciding who's move was selected than anything else.
Also, if you take a peek at msn's main page, you will notice that while there was almost always a link to the match previously, there is none now. I found a link to it after a few minutes of clicking, but the match is definately no longer being played up as much as it was. Sounds like microsoft is trying to sweep it under the table and let this whole thing die a quiet death.
Slashdot Mirror
Much faster than the mirrors I've tried - check it out.
>If this ever reaches court (who knows, let's hope not), and Microsoft can show 400 postings which say "fuCk yOU mICRo$oft", it won't help too much. Keep calm, keep thinking.
Two down, 398 more to go!
> build an H-bomb, because I like to look at it. My use may be purely for aesthetic and educational" uses, but that does not mean society should allow this. The better test is, what is the net effect on society? If it is overall positive, then it should be allowed. If it is negative, then it should not.
;-))
The source code would be the equivelent of the instructions for making an H-bomb - which I believe are legal and protected under free speech - the compiled binary would be the actualy bomb - and as far as I'm aware, there is no analogous program with the destructive potential of an H-bomb. (ok, none of you wise-asses say anything about certain microsoft products...
>You will have the same chance as everyone else, provided you live in the USA or Canada. The rest of the world will have to wait until the second phase beta.
A.K.A. 'release'
-RN
>Of course we have the crusades, the various civil wars, holy causes, and of course the Inquisition. All fought with low tech. All fought more or less hand to hand. And many weapons were designed to kill someone only at very close range--such as a double-handed long sword, whose primary purpose was to dismember a knight in shiny armor in much the same way you pull apart a cooked lobster.
Hate to nitpick you to death, but the primary use of the broadsword was to bludgeon the peasents...a 'knight in shining armor' was practically invincible...until he fell of his horse, and was beaten to death by the feet/hooves/whatever as the battle raged about (and right over) him. And 'bludgeon' is fairly accurate...even if the sword was sharp when the knight rode into battle, it didn't stay that way for very long.
Why should linux have to be able to do something that windows can't? Both OSes run on the same hardware(i386, plus linux will run on many, many other platforms)...everything feature-wise is just a matter of programming. Linux is better for many people because it's open source, it's more stable, it runs on more hardware platforms, it's more secure, it is more easily remote administered...etc...etc...
But as far as functionality, there's nothing linux can do that windows can't, with the right software. Macintosh comps can't do anything that windows boxen can't either.
-RN
Damn. Wish I had some mod. points for that one!
So let me see if I can get this right...the cDc releases information about a security risk in a certain company's operating system, thus causing said company to deny there is a problem, blame in on the cDc, and finally, fix it...eventually. Therefore, the cDc is a bunch of evil hackers because they provided this information.
When a group of respected scientists point out a security vulnerability, they're the good guys, for pointing out a vulnerability that 'hackers' might exploit.
Well, I guess that's fair.
If you're on a winders box, hold down the 'ALT' key (either one) while you type the ASCII code on your numeric keypad (with numlock) on. If you don't have a chart, most of the interesting ones are 127..255. resumè is ALT-138 for instance. How to do it on a Linux/Beos/whatever box? I don't have a clue. Let me know if you find out.
Hey, you didn't even mention the fact that whenever a NASA mission goes wrong, or starts to look like it's going wrong, the news-dweebs start quoting the mission price - giving the reader the impression that NASA is just wasting money left and right. (Of course, I'm sure they *are* wasting money...they are a government agency.)
Your goat? Jeez, I can't say I really have a problem with gay geeks, but a goat?!?!
Everyone knows if you want a real news website, you go to The Onion.
Oh, I didn't say I bought the eco-freak propaganda, but I had heard that the area around chernobyl would be uninhabitable until 20xx..guess not...
(*after crawling back out from under my desk*)
I thought major portions of Chernobyl were still radioactive, and would be for another 50 years or so? I seem to remember some sort of 'discovery channel' type program about it.
>So does this mean that if I am an Australian and I detect a network intrusion that comes from a government machine, I am supposed to spread my legs and bend over?
No, no, no!
You're supposed to spread 'em, and LIKE IT! Or else.
Computer manufacturers like Gateway, Dell, Micron, et al. aren't going to have remarked cpu's in their computers...the profit is far outweighed by the almost-certain cost. The big computer builders buy their CPU's either from Intel, or from a major reseller that's well-known and trusted. The computer builder wouldn't knowingly put remarked chips in their machine, because a scheme widespread enough to affect the bottom line at all is almost sure to be discovered (at least with computers that aren't 'sealed box' systems), and the resulting class-action suit is sure to cost more than they saved using the remarked cpus in the first place. The reseller they purchased the cpus from won't do it for similar reasons...their business is built on trust. A major computer maker isn't likely to buy from an untrusted source, or a fly-by-night company. The other source of remarking would be Intel itself....and they wouldn't remark their own cpu's...they test them beforehand, and if they run reliably at the rated speed, then they sell them that way...unless they need a batch of slower chips, in which case they just mark them down...not up (hence the possibility of overclocking). Now one or two might slip through the cracks, but big companies don't like playing russian roullette. Not that they wouldn't screw you if they thought they could get away with it. But they know they couldn't get away with it. Small local companies, on the other hand, are much more susceptable to this sort of thing...they tend to purchase from cheaper suppliers, and often don't ask question about *where* the chips came from.
Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I thought that government agencies weren't allowed to take out patents...I seem to remember that Pro-NASA types say things like 'Well, if NASA had been allowed to patent teflon, then they would be able to pay for themselves.' Is this a double-standard, or am I hallucinating again?
I'm seeing a Tux, sitting crosslegged, a hammer+chisel in his hands, looking at Michaelangelo's (sp!?) David.
Have her change the shell=Explorer.exe line in system.ini to shell=progman.exe.
-RN
Maybe you should let Webster know when you find out...
As far as advertising goes, I guess AMD still needs to work on the tech sector...since you misspelled 'Athlon' about 10 times in your post... ;-)
"That is a contradiction. Perhaps they are capable of independant though, but Christian religion itself discourages independant thought. Christianity tells one what to think, what to do, even what to love."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What to love?
Mathew 12:29
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
12:30
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
12:31
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
(King James Version)
I can live with that...I just pray to have the strength to follow such a simple rule.
The radical right is, as you so eloquently put it, 'whacked'.
Happy now?
;-)
As I understand it, the rule is there because if a player makes a bad move, the other player will often let something slip in his facial expression to indicate that the move was a poor one as soon as the player commits himself by releasing the piece. I don't know the specifics of the game in question though. -RN
Doesn't that sound a lot like the name of a Bond Girl(TM)? (No offense to the lady in question)
Also, a quick perusal of the portaits of the analysts will show that Irina definately has the most professional-looking (and attractive) photo. Might I suggest that this may have played a role in her moves being selected almost every time? The picture of Mr. Felecan is just awful. Mr. Bacrot and Ms. Pätz look a bit better in their photo's, but I think that most would agree that Ms. Krush looks a lot more professional and attractive. In a game where experts of approximately equal skill disagree, it seems unlikely that 'The World' would have a clue who's move is really 'better'. I think it is more likely that the analysts charisma played more of a role in deciding who's move was selected than anything else.
Also, if you take a peek at msn's main page, you will notice that while there was almost always a link to the match previously, there is none now. I found a link to it after a few minutes of clicking, but the match is definately no longer being played up as much as it was. Sounds like microsoft is trying to sweep it under the table and let this whole thing die a quiet death.