And I have great grades. It's nice if the professor is being boring, and instead of day dreaming you can go off and entertain yourself until they get back to the important stuff. Also, taking notes on a laptop helps me stayed more organized.
Sometimes, I start reading these articles, and about 1/3 of the way through I start to realize that it probably could have been summed up in about... OH 1 Paragraph! Sometimes I actually read the whole thing out of pure boredom.... SOMETIMES... actually most of the time I think people write these long articles to simply as a way to show everyone how clever they are. You're not fooling me pal. STOP BEING RETARDS! That is all.
Seriously, I do not care anymore. Crazy? Perhaps! Pick up a guitar and learn how to play your own music. We'll get a hell of a lot better music out there with more people playing then the current slop that's out there. That is, until they start figuring out how to make us start paying to write our own songs. =P
You do make good points, however this is still an attempt at creating an affordable computer available for people with extremely low income. Perhaps they won't give them all away, but people will be able to purchase them as well. If that is the case, then I believe people will be far less likely to sell their computer that is significantly less than others.
Well, I don't agree with your analogy. Google is a tool that searches the web and indexes information. It does this without bias, as it is impossible to recognize personal information that someone does not want anybody to see contrasted with information users want people to see that is public. A good example would be someone's homepage that has the name of their dog or teddy bear... One would only assume that the person posted the information on the website publically wanted everybody to know what the name of their favorite teddy bear is. Is there a way the user can "opt-out" of being on this webpage? The answer is yes!!! It is called robots.txt and has been around for a long long time. Having robots.txt in your directory is an "opt-out" of being listed on the search engine, problem solved! This information will not be indexed by google! What about a site other than homepages that list people's private information without concent? Shame on those sites! It is not Google's job to police the internet, therefore they are not responsible for how other sites use the information they have. Perhaps if we continue to use analogys we will talk ourselves in circles, and I respect and understand your opinion... but I disagree with it =). Analogies just tip toe around the real issue, and that is that Google is a phonebook. You can be unlisted with a simple file in your home directory, or they have a process for removing links as well. It would be near impossible for Google to distinguish information that should and shouldn't be listed on their site, and if you can figure out a way read people's minds, you are smarter (and will be richer) than I.
Could they not shock the people using their own names? Using someone elses name and publishing it is a sleazy act. In my opinion they are using their power irresponsibly. How would you feel if you were the person of which whose information was made public? Would you be happy being the target of this shock value? Ahh... but it was for a worthy cause... to inform the public... at your expense! When bugtraq posts a vulnerability do they give a list of the people who are vulnerable to a bug? No, they tell you what the problem is, and how to fix it. I understand your point of view, but to do this was crossing the line.
You can make a statement without disclosing someone's personal information. While I understand they were going for shock value by using someone from Google, they could have done searches on themselves to prove a point... Infact, I find it rather cowardly that they used him as an example. He did not give them permission to publish this information, and while this is still legal, it's tacky. I would do the same if I was in Google's shoes.
Exactly! BUT, there was no point to publishing this information, other than saying "Look what we can do." It's a commonly known fact that you can find this kind of information if you REALLY want it. What I don't agree with is publishing his personal information for the sake of saying they can find it.
The issue isn't that the information was freely available, it's that Cnet chose to diclose the information to the masses. While most people can go out and look up this information themsleves, they aren't going to publish it in a newspaper or magazine article.
It is important. He is implying that the government is not truthfully reflecting the situation in Iraq. I happen to believe the government, so I want to know what the basis for his statements are.
The United States is reacting to what they think is a threat. Of course we weren't running down civilians with our tanks for sport as you suggest, but we declared a war and there are guaranteed casualties! We didn't send a jumbo jet into a large city, or flat out nuke them. We are attacking these governments because they harbor and support these terrorists that hurt/kill civilians ON PURPOSE... Not because we simply object to their way of life.
As for sponsoring petty dictatorships, which countries? Do you know people that live in these countries? Have you been to these countries?
But why do you compare The United States to terrorists? Can you think of a specific example where this is true? Maybe I'm wrong, give me an example... Otherwise your argument has no merit....
I don't understand your thought process. I assume that you're not from the United States given your analogy of the United States being terrorists to the world. The United States is protecting itself from a perceived threat while a terrorist will outright kill civilians. Terrorists attack those who cannot defend themselves... they attack civilians who may not even be aware of the issues they are fighting for, and not those trained in the military who represent the government they oppose. They do this because they are cowards, plain and simple. To imply that The United States is a terrorist organization is a gross exaggeration, and an ill-informed statement. Perhaps instead of the rest of the world criticizing the United States, they would help contribute to our fight against terrorism.
Hmmm, if you're talking about grammar, C* would be any number of C's to infinity, or no c's. C* = Empty or C or CC or CCC or CCCC..... etc... Maybe that's what he meant....
If anyone remembers back in the day when Quake 2 came out, there was no built in COOP Mode. Within days of the release people were releasing their own COOP modes. ID Software realized the big demand for coop mode, and incorporated it into their next point release (as well as removing cd protection). Perhaps the same thing will happen with Doom III?
Slashdot Mirror
I have one if you're interested in purchasing one =)
And I have great grades. It's nice if the professor is being boring, and instead of day dreaming you can go off and entertain yourself until they get back to the important stuff. Also, taking notes on a laptop helps me stayed more organized.
Sometimes, I start reading these articles, and about 1/3 of the way through I start to realize that it probably could have been summed up in about... OH 1 Paragraph! Sometimes I actually read the whole thing out of pure boredom.... SOMETIMES... actually most of the time I think people write these long articles to simply as a way to show everyone how clever they are. You're not fooling me pal. STOP BEING RETARDS! That is all.
Seriously, I do not care anymore. Crazy? Perhaps! Pick up a guitar and learn how to play your own music. We'll get a hell of a lot better music out there with more people playing then the current slop that's out there. That is, until they start figuring out how to make us start paying to write our own songs. =P
You do make good points, however this is still an attempt at creating an affordable computer available for people with extremely low income. Perhaps they won't give them all away, but people will be able to purchase them as well. If that is the case, then I believe people will be far less likely to sell their computer that is significantly less than others.
Absolutely great! I LOVE this program, and more involvement from anybody is a good thing!
Holy crap, twenty pages?
Well, I don't agree with your analogy. Google is a tool that searches the web and indexes information. It does this without bias, as it is impossible to recognize personal information that someone does not want anybody to see contrasted with information users want people to see that is public. A good example would be someone's homepage that has the name of their dog or teddy bear... One would only assume that the person posted the information on the website publically wanted everybody to know what the name of their favorite teddy bear is. Is there a way the user can "opt-out" of being on this webpage? The answer is yes!!! It is called robots.txt and has been around for a long long time. Having robots.txt in your directory is an "opt-out" of being listed on the search engine, problem solved! This information will not be indexed by google! What about a site other than homepages that list people's private information without concent? Shame on those sites! It is not Google's job to police the internet, therefore they are not responsible for how other sites use the information they have. Perhaps if we continue to use analogys we will talk ourselves in circles, and I respect and understand your opinion... but I disagree with it =). Analogies just tip toe around the real issue, and that is that Google is a phonebook. You can be unlisted with a simple file in your home directory, or they have a process for removing links as well. It would be near impossible for Google to distinguish information that should and shouldn't be listed on their site, and if you can figure out a way read people's minds, you are smarter (and will be richer) than I.
Could they not shock the people using their own names? Using someone elses name and publishing it is a sleazy act. In my opinion they are using their power irresponsibly. How would you feel if you were the person of which whose information was made public? Would you be happy being the target of this shock value? Ahh... but it was for a worthy cause... to inform the public... at your expense! When bugtraq posts a vulnerability do they give a list of the people who are vulnerable to a bug? No, they tell you what the problem is, and how to fix it. I understand your point of view, but to do this was crossing the line.
You can make a statement without disclosing someone's personal information. While I understand they were going for shock value by using someone from Google, they could have done searches on themselves to prove a point... Infact, I find it rather cowardly that they used him as an example. He did not give them permission to publish this information, and while this is still legal, it's tacky. I would do the same if I was in Google's shoes.
Exactly! BUT, there was no point to publishing this information, other than saying "Look what we can do." It's a commonly known fact that you can find this kind of information if you REALLY want it. What I don't agree with is publishing his personal information for the sake of saying they can find it.
The issue isn't that the information was freely available, it's that Cnet chose to diclose the information to the masses. While most people can go out and look up this information themsleves, they aren't going to publish it in a newspaper or magazine article.
It's called emo man.
It is important. He is implying that the government is not truthfully reflecting the situation in Iraq. I happen to believe the government, so I want to know what the basis for his statements are.
The United States is reacting to what they think is a threat. Of course we weren't running down civilians with our tanks for sport as you suggest, but we declared a war and there are guaranteed casualties! We didn't send a jumbo jet into a large city, or flat out nuke them. We are attacking these governments because they harbor and support these terrorists that hurt/kill civilians ON PURPOSE... Not because we simply object to their way of life.
As for sponsoring petty dictatorships, which countries? Do you know people that live in these countries? Have you been to these countries?
But why do you compare The United States to terrorists? Can you think of a specific example where this is true? Maybe I'm wrong, give me an example... Otherwise your argument has no merit....
I don't understand your thought process. I assume that you're not from the United States given your analogy of the United States being terrorists to the world. The United States is protecting itself from a perceived threat while a terrorist will outright kill civilians. Terrorists attack those who cannot defend themselves... they attack civilians who may not even be aware of the issues they are fighting for, and not those trained in the military who represent the government they oppose. They do this because they are cowards, plain and simple.
To imply that The United States is a terrorist organization is a gross exaggeration, and an ill-informed statement. Perhaps instead of the rest of the world criticizing the United States, they would help contribute to our fight against terrorism.
Hmmm, if you're talking about grammar, C* would be any number of C's to infinity, or no c's. C* = Empty or C or CC or CCC or CCCC..... etc...
Maybe that's what he meant....
Ducks? Ducks? Where? Oh my god ducks! NOOOO!! NOT DUCKS! NOOOO!!!!
Point break, perhaps one of the greatest movies in the world. A quote from it should give you an automatic +5 in my book ;).
The "Love" part. It combines a "knowitallness" with a dash of "aren't you a dumbass." Very Nice...
If anyone remembers back in the day when Quake 2 came out, there was no built in COOP Mode. Within days of the release people were releasing their own COOP modes. ID Software realized the big demand for coop mode, and incorporated it into their next point release (as well as removing cd protection). Perhaps the same thing will happen with Doom III?
The average man thinks about sex 5 times a day. You do the math. This could be disastrous at work with autopr0n popping up every couple of minutes.
offtopic, but do you have a deep, unwavering belief in your sig?