You have way too much confidence in high school kids. Let's face it, they are still kids. I don't see what's so wrong with this. As long as the kids live at home, the parents should have a say in what the kids eat, what they wear and so on.
You just said it. The parents should have a say and when I was a child they DID. It's a thing called obedience, a thing that is sadly lacking in many children today. An obedient child will not eat foods that his/her parents specifically prohibit and will not eat more of a food than allowed by his/her parents.
If a child is not obedient, then the child may have some sort of behavioral psychosis. Otherwise, the parents are just simply failing at raising obedient children. My parents didn't need a fancy lunch item authorization system. If they said to eat dirt... I ate dirt. When I was old enough that I was unwilling to follow their rules I was old enough to move out and make my own way in life. Of course my parents would never have asked me to eat dirt or do anything else that was clearly not good for me.
Mine were loving parents and I think that's key to successfully instilling obedience. Children are a lot more likely to be obedient when they know that their parents are making decisions in the child's best interest, even when the child doesn't really understand. A loving parent will normally have children who trust them to make decisions both in the child's best interest and with wisdom that surpasses that of the child. If your children don't obey you except when you're present, then you're doing something wrong. If you have serious doubts as to whether or not they obey you when you're not present, again you're doing something wrong.
I agree. I think more attention should first be placed on reproducing the self-healing/self-building aspects of biological beings. Would it really be that hard to build a robotic system controlled by a computer, with the primary purpose of the robot being to monitor the entire system (computer and robot components) and repair it as needed? Can't we build robots capable of soldering, replacing chips, building new robotic tools, etc.? Wouldn't that be a good place to start? Then, from there, the ability to add new chips, new connections, new robotic building tools, etc. could be added. Finally introduce AI (or the closest thing to true AI that we have) to allow the robot to determine what to repair/add next. It could determine the bottleneck of any given process and then add new components to make it less of a bottleneck. It could also keep track of where failures occur and then build additional redundancy into those subsystems, thus increasing reliability, possibly even determine why the failures occur and make adjustments accordingly. That's over simplified, but you get the idea.
Yes, Jonathan Coulton also has other nerdy songs too like 'That Spells DNA' and 'Mandelbrot Set' that are actually very good. Not all of his music is nerdy, but I really enjoy most of it. All of his songs are free to listen too and many are free to download as MP3s. Good stuff. Link to his songs page
Also, does your stalker know where YOU are? Someone could hide THEIR phone in your car or something and track YOU as well. They'd just need to pick the phone up later, which wouldn't be difficult to find!... Small world, huh? Fancy meeting you here... again... and again... and here... and there. Yes, indeed. It IS a VERY small world.
Despite what the Internet would like to believe, mere emails and forum posts don't have much clout.
In other news: The Internet is capable of both liking and believing. Emails and forum posts (as opposed to those who write them) gain potential to have clout. Nice.
For example, really how large a whack from a body with the right vectors is needed to send pluto escaping off in some mad direction?
Since you stipulated that the body would have the right vectors (relative speed and direction) the whack need only be calculated in terms of mass. According to my careful and precise calculations it would take a whack with the mass of exactly 733433 Volkswagens per Pluto. This is to send Pluto escaping off in some direction. Further calculation is needed to determine if said directions would in fact be mad... or just slightly annoyed.
I grew up in Indiana and was hunting (and playing with guns in general) starting at a very young age. Probably too young, but it was fun and no one got seriously hurt... not sure how.
Anyway, the difference between getting shot with a 20-gauge and a 12-gauge is increasingly noticeable as the size of the shot goes down. For example, there is a huge difference when comparing bird shot from 20 and 12 gauge shotguns. Move to a larger shot and the difference deminishes. Both are capable of shooting dear slugs as well (assuming the proper barrel). You stand at a reasonable range (which isn't so far for a shotgun) and let me shoot you with a dear slug out of a 20-gauge shotgun. Results may vary slightly (not much), but I guarantee your reaction won't be 'Stop shooting me, man!'
While I generally agree with you, I think you might want to rephrase your 'definition'. It consists of five imperatives (commands). Have a look at a dictionary and try to find even one definition for anything that has even one imperative... any luck?
For example, instead of '1. Don't be afraid.' try something like '1. Having a lack of or ability to overcome fears concerning computers or computing.' Instead of '2. Learn the rules.' you might try something like '2. Aware of the generally accepted rules about computing and the reasoning therefore.'
To illustrate, consider this definition for 'literate' taken from dictionary.com
1.
a. Able to read and write.
b. Knowledgeable or educated in a particular field or fields.
2. Familiar with literature; literary.
3. Well-written; polished: a literate essay.
Consider how silly this would be in imperative form.
1.
a. Read or write something.
b. Learn something in a particular field or fields.
2. Familiarize yourself with literature; be literary.
3. Write something well; polish it.
Now THAT was informative. Thank you, seriously. Please excuse me if at some point in the future I mistakenly refer to the UK, England, or Great Britain by the wrong name. Likewise, I will excuse those who refer to USA as 'America' (which includes Canada, Mexico and all the countries in Central and South America). In the USA 'America' is generally accepted as a synonym for 'USA', but I can understand the offense taken by those living in other countries in the Americas when it is used as such, or when 'American' is used to mean of or from the USA. Still, I promise never to call anyone an idiot for referring to the USA as 'America'. That would just be rude. I might explain the difference, much like you did (I appreciate that). I wouldn't call anyone an idiot though, as did the AC to whom my I replied. That having been said, I'm not even the one who called the UK Britain. I was just commenting on the uselessness of a reply that did nothing but call the offenders idiots as opposed to explaining the difference.
I won't argue because I don't really know the difference. I do know this: Your point would have been better taken if you explained the difference. You might have thrown 'UK' in on your explanation as well. As it is, many American readers still don't know the difference and will continue to use 'England', 'Britain' and 'UK' interchangeably (mostly UK when writing because it's shorter). You don't think anyone read your post and subsequently bothered to go study up on their English history, do you? Or would they study up on their British history... UK history? See what I mean?
Don't take it personally. Most Americans also don't know the difference between Holland and the Netherlands. Hell, you might be surprised to find out how many don't know the difference between Switzerland and Sweden. At least misunderstandings about the identity of UK/Britain/England don't usually involve confusion with other countries. So... what IS the difference between England/UK/Britain? As far as we can tell from your post, you don't know either, just that England != Britain... and that we're all idiots for not knowing (or caring).
Mike: Hey look! A lion!
Tom: That's not a lion. That's a tiger.
Mike: Oh. I've never seen a lion. What does a lion look like?
Tom: Well,... a lion is not a tiger, you idiot!
Mike: Wow, you're so smart. Hey look! A lion!
Tom: That's not a lion. That's a Puma.
Mike: Oh. I've never seen a lion. What does a lion look like?
Tom: Well,... a lion is not a Puma, you idiot!
Mike: Wow, you're so smart. Hey look! A lion!
Perhaps they could use ferrofluid instead of water. The same electromagnetic field would cause far more flow and with a lot more force. Particulates in ferrofluid are on a nano scale and are kept from agglomerating by use of a surfactant, which should help prevent clogging in the channels. The additional force of the fluid would not only increase flow (and thus cooling) dramatically, it should also help keep the channels clear as the force pulling the fluid through the channels would probably be sufficient to sweep any larger particles through what would otherwise become a clog. I'm sure there's a reason they didn't use ferrofluid. Surely they thought of that as they chose the appropriate liquid to use... right?
So, you're basically saying that because a government is well known for taking action against those things that threaten it, then only an idiot would do those things. By that logic, only idiots harbored and read books during the third reich....
Not quite. The US wasn't suppressing this British guy quite to the extent that the third reich suppressed its citizens. Ya think? Also, reading books != hacking networks that belong to foreign countries. Not your neighbor who forgot or doesn't know to secure his AP, no, a foreign government... that happens to be at war... and a little on edge at the moment. That's stupid. Are you refuting that?
Third reich? You gotta be kidding me. You belittle the plight of the Jewish people, gays and other minorities who lived and died in nazi Germany when you make that comparison. It was a plight to which the US came to aid I might add. Oh yes, that sounds like a good analogy: US is to nazis as brit haxor is to beaten, raped, starved minorities facing genocide. Seriously? Come on.
So the important question is, "what should the UK do?" Right now the UK is standing between the bear and the man. Knowing that the Bear might kill the man, and being responsible for his welfare as one of their citizens should they give him to the US? I think they absolutely should not. Until the US adopts reasonable human rights laws in compliance with international agreements why risk handing him over? Just convict him in the UK. If the US wants any extraditions to go forward in the future when there is any doubt about US laws and behaviors then they can fix the bloody problem. Why encourage a country to act like an rabid animal? The UK should seriously consider whether or not they should hand him over. If they do, it should be with guarantees that he will be treated in accord with accepted international humans rights agreements as monitored by an independent third party.
I agree that the US should be required to guarantee that he will be treated in accord with accepted international human rights agreements. Still, if the UK wants anyone who attacks the UK in the future to flee to (or stay in) the US knowing that the US will offer safe haven then fine, otherwise they should hand the guy over. Either way, regardless of how it turns out, it was still a stupid thing to do.
And if a grizzly bear tears a man's head off, other men hunt that grizzly bear down and shoot it dead.
Unless of course the bear has the bigger and better guns. Then there's the whole problem of determining who's more willing to use those guns, the bear or those who wish to shoot it dead. Trust me when I tell you that the bear has no quams using it's guns. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. Ignoring this is not a wise way to deal with it.
And any nation that tries to sustain itself by fear, shall be overwhelmed with fear itself: it happened to Soviet Russia, and it will happen to the USA as well, unless you guys wise up and get rid of the current administration and replace it with one that values the things that used to make America great - respect for human rights, respect for freedom.
I'm certainly no fan of the current administration. I'm certainly not denying that the US could eventually suffer the same fate as did Solviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or the Roman Empire. What I'm saying is that when some person, nation, or group of nations decides that they're ready to take on the 'well-armed bear' then their decision to do so may or may not be wise at that time. Until then taunting the bear is still just stupid. What did this guy think, that he was going to take the US down? I seriously doubt it. The closer a person or group comes to doing so without succeeding, the more he/she/they are likely to suffer.
Keep in mind that the current US administration is well aware of the fact that they are generally not well liked. In light of that they've gone to great lengths to prepare to defend themselves (and the US) aginst any threats. Again, I'm not saying any of this is right. I'm just saying that's the way it is and it's not going to be changed single-handedly by some guy hacking their networks. He knew that. He knew they wouldn't like it. He knew how they get when they've been threatened. Thus, he's an idiot to have done it. That's all.
And am not exactly a fan of the Us Government, but you've got to be a bit of an idiot to 'test weaknesses'/hack the Us government's property. they're not gonna take it lying down are they?
I agree with parent completely. I mean, whether or not you agree with the US's tendencies to be (overly) vengeful, you're still an idiot to ignore those tendencies when deciding whether or not to 'piss them off', no? This holds true for other governments, terrorists, etc. as well. Like the US or not you're still an idiot to intentionally piss them off. Now, don't tell me the guy didn't think this would upset those responsible for the US gov. networks that he allegedly hacked. Please! What did he expect?
If you poke a grizly bear in the ribs with a stick is it a fair response for the bear to tear your head off? No, that's not fitting to the offense at all, but if you know the bear will react that way and you poke the bear in the ribs anyway... that's just stupid. The US enjoys power driven at least in part by fear. If they overlook offenses against them that fear goes away. Do you think the US is going to send that message and give up that power? No, they like being feared and the power that goes with it.
If you pronounce the "&" as the Latin "et" (from which the & letterform was based) it's "How et Ser Moving Company". And they don't even force Latin on the MIT students any more.
Also, 'Howe and Ser' (when ran together) reads a lot like 'How we answer' which is more apparent when you see it as an email address like this shirts@howeandser.com as seen here.
That would mean an "image" would have about as much clarity as, say, one of the falling mushrooms from an original Centipeded game.
The original Centipede has no falling mushrooms. Those are fleas. Mushrooms stay in place until you shoot them (4 times to destroy the whole thing).
-L-E-It
You do realize that the word is not used just to avoid using the word 'porn', don't you? It's used to distiguish printed porn from porn online. PrOn = porn online. If we just refer to it all as porn we loose the distinction when talking specifically about ONLINE porn.
Tom: I really like BMWs.
Dick: Why do you always have to call them BMWs? Why can't you just call them cars like everyone else? How old are you anyway?
Tom: Oh... Uh... Sorry. I really like... cars.
You do realize that the word is not used just to avoid using the word 'porn', don't you? It's used to distiguish printed porn from porn online. PrOn = porn online. If we just refer to it all as porn we loose the distinction when talking specifically about ONLINE porn.
Tom: I really like BMWs. Dick: Why do you always have to call them BMWs? Why can't you just call them cars like everyone else? How old are you anyway? Tom: Oh... Uh... Sorry. I really like... cars.
I had one (zd8000) too up until recently. I loved it for the hefty processor, the kickin' vid card, wide screen, ports for EVERYTHING, etc. I did get tired of lugging it around though. It and the power brick are very heavy for 'portable' equipment. It was really a bit of overkill for me. I used it, yes, and enjoyed the performance, but more often than not I do my computing at my desk at work or at home, where I have desktops. I'll buy a lighter (and cheaper) laptop when I get a new one. It's a great rig for someone who'd use it as their only (or primary) computer though,... well except that it comes with an internal wireless card that uses a Broadcom chipset for which they don't supply a Linux module(driver). Other than that...
-elliot
Sheesh! Haven't you been paying attention? The dupe will both be the first story and not be the first story... at the same time, just as this post is both the first post and not the... ahhh, forget it! You're obviously reading this, which means you're not reading this, so why am I bothering?
Slashdot Mirror
You just said it. The parents should have a say and when I was a child they DID. It's a thing called obedience, a thing that is sadly lacking in many children today. An obedient child will not eat foods that his/her parents specifically prohibit and will not eat more of a food than allowed by his/her parents.
If a child is not obedient, then the child may have some sort of behavioral psychosis. Otherwise, the parents are just simply failing at raising obedient children. My parents didn't need a fancy lunch item authorization system. If they said to eat dirt... I ate dirt. When I was old enough that I was unwilling to follow their rules I was old enough to move out and make my own way in life. Of course my parents would never have asked me to eat dirt or do anything else that was clearly not good for me.
Mine were loving parents and I think that's key to successfully instilling obedience. Children are a lot more likely to be obedient when they know that their parents are making decisions in the child's best interest, even when the child doesn't really understand. A loving parent will normally have children who trust them to make decisions both in the child's best interest and with wisdom that surpasses that of the child. If your children don't obey you except when you're present, then you're doing something wrong. If you have serious doubts as to whether or not they obey you when you're not present, again you're doing something wrong.
I agree. I think more attention should first be placed on reproducing the self-healing/self-building aspects of biological beings. Would it really be that hard to build a robotic system controlled by a computer, with the primary purpose of the robot being to monitor the entire system (computer and robot components) and repair it as needed? Can't we build robots capable of soldering, replacing chips, building new robotic tools, etc.? Wouldn't that be a good place to start? Then, from there, the ability to add new chips, new connections, new robotic building tools, etc. could be added. Finally introduce AI (or the closest thing to true AI that we have) to allow the robot to determine what to repair/add next. It could determine the bottleneck of any given process and then add new components to make it less of a bottleneck. It could also keep track of where failures occur and then build additional redundancy into those subsystems, thus increasing reliability, possibly even determine why the failures occur and make adjustments accordingly. That's over simplified, but you get the idea.
Yes, Jonathan Coulton also has other nerdy songs too like 'That Spells DNA' and 'Mandelbrot Set' that are actually very good. Not all of his music is nerdy, but I really enjoy most of it. All of his songs are free to listen too and many are free to download as MP3s. Good stuff.
Link to his songs page
In other news: The Internet is capable of both liking and believing. Emails and forum posts (as opposed to those who write them) gain potential to have clout.
Nice.
For example, really how large a whack from a body with the right vectors is needed to send pluto escaping off in some mad direction?
Since you stipulated that the body would have the right vectors (relative speed and direction) the whack need only be calculated in terms of mass. According to my careful and precise calculations it would take a whack with the mass of exactly 733433 Volkswagens per Pluto. This is to send Pluto escaping off in some direction. Further calculation is needed to determine if said directions would in fact be mad... or just slightly annoyed.
I grew up in Indiana and was hunting (and playing with guns in general) starting at a very young age. Probably too young, but it was fun and no one got seriously hurt... not sure how.
Anyway, the difference between getting shot with a 20-gauge and a 12-gauge is increasingly noticeable as the size of the shot goes down. For example, there is a huge difference when comparing bird shot from 20 and 12 gauge shotguns. Move to a larger shot and the difference deminishes. Both are capable of shooting dear slugs as well (assuming the proper barrel). You stand at a reasonable range (which isn't so far for a shotgun) and let me shoot you with a dear slug out of a 20-gauge shotgun. Results may vary slightly (not much), but I guarantee your reaction won't be 'Stop shooting me, man!'
Dear Tomoaki Arimura (pictured in the linked article), As a general rule, the tip of one's tie should come to about the edge his pants.
Off-topic of course, but I couldn't help it. Is he trying to polish his shoes with that thing, or...? Sorry, mod me down if you really need to.
Oh, fuel cells are cool. Your car wants one.
While I generally agree with you, I think you might want to rephrase your 'definition'. It consists of five imperatives (commands). Have a look at a dictionary and try to find even one definition for anything that has even one imperative... any luck?
For example, instead of '1. Don't be afraid.' try something like '1. Having a lack of or ability to overcome fears concerning computers or computing.' Instead of '2. Learn the rules.' you might try something like '2. Aware of the generally accepted rules about computing and the reasoning therefore.'
To illustrate, consider this definition for 'literate' taken from dictionary.com
1.
a. Able to read and write.
b. Knowledgeable or educated in a particular field or fields.
2. Familiar with literature; literary.
3. Well-written; polished: a literate essay.
Consider how silly this would be in imperative form.
1.
a. Read or write something.
b. Learn something in a particular field or fields.
2. Familiarize yourself with literature; be literary.
3. Write something well; polish it.
Make any sense?
Now THAT was informative. Thank you, seriously. Please excuse me if at some point in the future I mistakenly refer to the UK, England, or Great Britain by the wrong name. Likewise, I will excuse those who refer to USA as 'America' (which includes Canada, Mexico and all the countries in Central and South America). In the USA 'America' is generally accepted as a synonym for 'USA', but I can understand the offense taken by those living in other countries in the Americas when it is used as such, or when 'American' is used to mean of or from the USA. Still, I promise never to call anyone an idiot for referring to the USA as 'America'. That would just be rude. I might explain the difference, much like you did (I appreciate that). I wouldn't call anyone an idiot though, as did the AC to whom my I replied. That having been said, I'm not even the one who called the UK Britain. I was just commenting on the uselessness of a reply that did nothing but call the offenders idiots as opposed to explaining the difference.
ENGLAND IS NOT BRITAIN, you idiots
I won't argue because I don't really know the difference. I do know this: Your point would have been better taken if you explained the difference. You might have thrown 'UK' in on your explanation as well. As it is, many American readers still don't know the difference and will continue to use 'England', 'Britain' and 'UK' interchangeably (mostly UK when writing because it's shorter). You don't think anyone read your post and subsequently bothered to go study up on their English history, do you? Or would they study up on their British history... UK history? See what I mean?
Don't take it personally. Most Americans also don't know the difference between Holland and the Netherlands. Hell, you might be surprised to find out how many don't know the difference between Switzerland and Sweden. At least misunderstandings about the identity of UK/Britain/England don't usually involve confusion with other countries. So... what IS the difference between England/UK/Britain? As far as we can tell from your post, you don't know either, just that England != Britain... and that we're all idiots for not knowing (or caring).
Mike: Hey look! A lion!
Tom: That's not a lion. That's a tiger.
Mike: Oh. I've never seen a lion. What does a lion look like?
Tom: Well,... a lion is not a tiger, you idiot!
Mike: Wow, you're so smart. Hey look! A lion!
Tom: That's not a lion. That's a Puma.
Mike: Oh. I've never seen a lion. What does a lion look like?
Tom: Well,... a lion is not a Puma, you idiot!
Mike: Wow, you're so smart. Hey look! A lion!
Perhaps they could use ferrofluid instead of water. The same electromagnetic field would cause far more flow and with a lot more force. Particulates in ferrofluid are on a nano scale and are kept from agglomerating by use of a surfactant, which should help prevent clogging in the channels. The additional force of the fluid would not only increase flow (and thus cooling) dramatically, it should also help keep the channels clear as the force pulling the fluid through the channels would probably be sufficient to sweep any larger particles through what would otherwise become a clog. I'm sure there's a reason they didn't use ferrofluid. Surely they thought of that as they chose the appropriate liquid to use... right?
So, you're basically saying that because a government is well known for taking action against those things that threaten it, then only an idiot would do those things. By that logic, only idiots harbored and read books during the third reich....
Not quite. The US wasn't suppressing this British guy quite to the extent that the third reich suppressed its citizens. Ya think? Also, reading books != hacking networks that belong to foreign countries. Not your neighbor who forgot or doesn't know to secure his AP, no, a foreign government... that happens to be at war... and a little on edge at the moment. That's stupid. Are you refuting that?
Third reich? You gotta be kidding me. You belittle the plight of the Jewish people, gays and other minorities who lived and died in nazi Germany when you make that comparison. It was a plight to which the US came to aid I might add. Oh yes, that sounds like a good analogy: US is to nazis as brit haxor is to beaten, raped, starved minorities facing genocide. Seriously? Come on.
So the important question is, "what should the UK do?" Right now the UK is standing between the bear and the man. Knowing that the Bear might kill the man, and being responsible for his welfare as one of their citizens should they give him to the US? I think they absolutely should not. Until the US adopts reasonable human rights laws in compliance with international agreements why risk handing him over? Just convict him in the UK. If the US wants any extraditions to go forward in the future when there is any doubt about US laws and behaviors then they can fix the bloody problem. Why encourage a country to act like an rabid animal? The UK should seriously consider whether or not they should hand him over. If they do, it should be with guarantees that he will be treated in accord with accepted international humans rights agreements as monitored by an independent third party.
I agree that the US should be required to guarantee that he will be treated in accord with accepted international human rights agreements. Still, if the UK wants anyone who attacks the UK in the future to flee to (or stay in) the US knowing that the US will offer safe haven then fine, otherwise they should hand the guy over. Either way, regardless of how it turns out, it was still a stupid thing to do.
And if a grizzly bear tears a man's head off, other men hunt that grizzly bear down and shoot it dead.
Unless of course the bear has the bigger and better guns. Then there's the whole problem of determining who's more willing to use those guns, the bear or those who wish to shoot it dead. Trust me when I tell you that the bear has no quams using it's guns. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. Ignoring this is not a wise way to deal with it.
And any nation that tries to sustain itself by fear, shall be overwhelmed with fear itself: it happened to Soviet Russia, and it will happen to the USA as well, unless you guys wise up and get rid of the current administration and replace it with one that values the things that used to make America great - respect for human rights, respect for freedom.
I'm certainly no fan of the current administration. I'm certainly not denying that the US could eventually suffer the same fate as did Solviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or the Roman Empire. What I'm saying is that when some person, nation, or group of nations decides that they're ready to take on the 'well-armed bear' then their decision to do so may or may not be wise at that time. Until then taunting the bear is still just stupid. What did this guy think, that he was going to take the US down? I seriously doubt it. The closer a person or group comes to doing so without succeeding, the more he/she/they are likely to suffer.
Keep in mind that the current US administration is well aware of the fact that they are generally not well liked. In light of that they've gone to great lengths to prepare to defend themselves (and the US) aginst any threats. Again, I'm not saying any of this is right. I'm just saying that's the way it is and it's not going to be changed single-handedly by some guy hacking their networks. He knew that. He knew they wouldn't like it. He knew how they get when they've been threatened. Thus, he's an idiot to have done it. That's all.
And am not exactly a fan of the Us Government, but you've got to be a bit of an idiot to 'test weaknesses'/hack the Us government's property. they're not gonna take it lying down are they?
I agree with parent completely. I mean, whether or not you agree with the US's tendencies to be (overly) vengeful, you're still an idiot to ignore those tendencies when deciding whether or not to 'piss them off', no? This holds true for other governments, terrorists, etc. as well. Like the US or not you're still an idiot to intentionally piss them off. Now, don't tell me the guy didn't think this would upset those responsible for the US gov. networks that he allegedly hacked. Please! What did he expect?
If you poke a grizly bear in the ribs with a stick is it a fair response for the bear to tear your head off? No, that's not fitting to the offense at all, but if you know the bear will react that way and you poke the bear in the ribs anyway... that's just stupid. The US enjoys power driven at least in part by fear. If they overlook offenses against them that fear goes away. Do you think the US is going to send that message and give up that power? No, they like being feared and the power that goes with it.
If you pronounce the "&" as the Latin "et" (from which the & letterform was based) it's "How et Ser Moving Company". And they don't even force Latin on the MIT students any more.
Also, 'Howe and Ser' (when ran together) reads a lot like 'How we answer' which is more apparent when you see it as an email address like this shirts@howeandser.com as seen here.
That would mean an "image" would have about as much clarity as, say, one of the falling mushrooms from an original Centipeded game.
The original Centipede has no falling mushrooms. Those are fleas. Mushrooms stay in place until you shoot them (4 times to destroy the whole thing). -L-E-It
You do realize that the word is not used just to avoid using the word 'porn', don't you? It's used to distiguish printed porn from porn online. PrOn = porn online. If we just refer to it all as porn we loose the distinction when talking specifically about ONLINE porn.
Tom: I really like BMWs. Dick: Why do you always have to call them BMWs? Why can't you just call them cars like everyone else? How old are you anyway? Tom: Oh... Uh... Sorry. I really like... cars.
You do realize that the word is not used just to avoid using the word 'porn', don't you? It's used to distiguish printed porn from porn online. PrOn = porn online. If we just refer to it all as porn we loose the distinction when talking specifically about ONLINE porn.
Tom: I really like BMWs.
Dick: Why do you always have to call them BMWs? Why can't you just call them cars like everyone else? How old are you anyway?
Tom: Oh... Uh... Sorry. I really like... cars.
I had one (zd8000) too up until recently. I loved it for the hefty processor, the kickin' vid card, wide screen, ports for EVERYTHING, etc. I did get tired of lugging it around though. It and the power brick are very heavy for 'portable' equipment. It was really a bit of overkill for me. I used it, yes, and enjoyed the performance, but more often than not I do my computing at my desk at work or at home, where I have desktops. I'll buy a lighter (and cheaper) laptop when I get a new one. It's a great rig for someone who'd use it as their only (or primary) computer though,... well except that it comes with an internal wireless card that uses a Broadcom chipset for which they don't supply a Linux module(driver). Other than that... -elliot
I got almost a third more spam in 05 than 04. I guess I exist outside the bell curve on this one.
Actually, wouldn't this put you in one of the tails of the curve (upper tail), not outside of it? I'm just sayin'.
the dupe could be the first story!
Sheesh! Haven't you been paying attention? The dupe will both be the first story and not be the first story... at the same time, just as this post is both the first post and not the... ahhh, forget it! You're obviously reading this, which means you're not reading this, so why am I bothering?
Then it's your second post, jackass.