My mother was so infuriated that she couldn't get something to print, she proceeded to completely rip the keyboard and mouse out of the sockets and throw them out the window." Brian, Scotland
And that's so much more impressive than only partially ripping them out of the sockets. As far as I can tell, all she really did was forcefully unplug the keyboard and mouse (and then threw them out the window.)
But there's so much emphasis on the "completely rip... out of the sockets." And yet that specific event isn't quite as exciting as the wording leads you to believe. Hmph.
saying that there was a big bang and all of the universe just came into being is just ridiculous though. something had to have been there first. how do you explain that? is the universe infinitely old? that's something that i won't believe until they can prove it.
My version: Saying God has always existed is rediculous, though. Something had to have been there first. How do you explain that? Is God infinitely old? That's something I won't believe until they can prove it.
See?
At this point, you have to believe that something has always been: A) The miniscule particles that started the big bang, or... B) A thinking, all-powerful entity capable of designing and creating the entire universe out of nothing.
The two are on completely opposite sides of the spectrum. One is essentially nothing, the other is everything. If one had to mysteriously come into being, I think I'd believe the one that seems least illogical.
Well, I think persons under the age of 18 cannot generally be held to such a contract.
Therefore, an electronic contract stating, "I am at least 18, and wish to view this site," is essentially pointless.
If they're under 18, they can't be held to it, so there's no reason not to lie.
Only when they've reached the age of 18 can they be held to it, but at that point, they'd be telling the truth to say they're 18, and it'd therefore have no use.
So the only ones that can legally be bound to this contract are those who it doesn't apply to anymore. And thus this predicament.
I'm by no means anti-religion*, but I do object to the presence of "one nation under God" in the pledge.
Especially considering that "under God" was added after the fact. And it's not actually that I object to the words themselves; were the pledge simply a poem or some other form of expression, the inclusion of "under God" is perfectly okay by me.
But because the pledge is more-or-less sanctioned by the government (and also general social properness), I feel the inclusion of those words is a misuse of authority.
They're as unfair as "under Jesus," as unfair as "under many gods," and as unfair as "under no gods."
They're also as unfair as "one nation, whose citizens have blonde hair, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
We don't have things like that in it; they apply to everybody. So why do personal beliefs have to be a part of it? Why can't we simple be "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?"
* I think everyone has the right to believe what they wish, and that nobody else has a right to dictate that.
Okay, it's crazy enough that Microsoft was ordered to pay $521 Million for a period of two years, especially when you consider that this is free software. (I realize it's highly important to Microsoft in that it killed Netscape, but they don't actually charge money for it.)
But to then pay licensing fees on top of that? It's a little absurd, and just makes Eolas look like opportunists.
And I especially love this line: Eolas has also calculated that Microsoft owes it about $111 million in interest on that award.
21.3% interest on $521 Million. What are they, a credit card company?
Suppose you were under a repressive government. Suppose your home and workplace were bugged, and there was no place to discuss secret matters, such as overthrowing the government. Yes, overthrowing the government is a crime, but who makes it a crime? The repressive government. So by normal standards, it is a noble if illegal goal.
The protagonist of 1984 retreats to the unwatched proletarian areas, in which he plots with fellow rebels. This works, because, unless someone follows him, nobody knows where he is. But were there a system to monitor transportation, it may raise a red flag when someone notices that every Thursday, for example, unrelated to his business, he leaves his section of town for hours at a time.
They would spot that, and they could also identify people with similar transportation schedules as possible accomplices.
So is there a right to anonymity, if not privacy, in a public place? There should be. Moreover, who really needs to know?
I suppose it could help in solving a murder or something. If a body is found somewhere, they can then check their records to see who traveled in the area, and who unusually changed their traveling habits. But that can only be done so at the cost of making potential criminals out of millions of innocent people.
It's all fine and good when public transportation is optional, but what if public transportation becomes so normal that walking somewhere looks suspicious? Then there is no safe, anonymous way to travel anywhere.
So, I guess to summarize, it doesn't really matter now, but that doesn't mean that it won't in the future. And if we surrender the rights we don't think we need right now, soon we may notice that we have no rights.
1. The events of history and culture are driven by the engine of collective social mood. Social mood temporally and logically precedes social events, and is the cause of social events. War and terrorism don't cause distressed people; distressed people create the conditions and events that lead to and comprise war and terror. A booming economy does not create ebullient people; ebullient people produce more, consume more and participate in and contribute to market manias.
I don't understand where the submitter is coming from with this. I think, generally, a booming economy CAN affect someone's mood.
Knowing that the economy is doing well can be enough to cause a person to be happier. Certainly it could cause them to be a bit looser with their purse-strings. Case in point, the dot-com era. With the tech boom, people would to spend more, knowing the economy was good, and there would be more where that came from.
I'm not saying that ebullient people don't contribute to a booming economy, but what creates a collective ebullience?
Good economy = Happy people Happy people = Good economy
But what would the hash be of? Would each line of code be a separate hash, or would lines be combined?
Wouldn't altering one letter in the code completely change the hash? If so, all you would need to do to avoid detection would be to make a few changes to minor things, and you would appear to have different hashes, even if the source code were essentially the same.
Slashdot Mirror
My mother was so infuriated that she couldn't get something to print, she proceeded to completely rip the keyboard and mouse out of the sockets and throw them out the window."
Brian, Scotland
And that's so much more impressive than only partially ripping them out of the sockets. As far as I can tell, all she really did was forcefully unplug the keyboard and mouse (and then threw them out the window.)
But there's so much emphasis on the "completely rip... out of the sockets." And yet that specific event isn't quite as exciting as the wording leads you to believe. Hmph.
saying that there was a big bang and all of the universe just came into being is just ridiculous though. something had to have been there first. how do you explain that? is the universe infinitely old? that's something that i won't believe until they can prove it.
My version:
Saying God has always existed is rediculous, though. Something had to have been there first. How do you explain that? Is God infinitely old? That's something I won't believe until they can prove it.
See?
At this point, you have to believe that something has always been:
A) The miniscule particles that started the big bang, or...
B) A thinking, all-powerful entity capable of designing and creating the entire universe out of nothing.
The two are on completely opposite sides of the spectrum. One is essentially nothing, the other is everything. If one had to mysteriously come into being, I think I'd believe the one that seems least illogical.
Well, I think persons under the age of 18 cannot generally be held to such a contract.
Therefore, an electronic contract stating, "I am at least 18, and wish to view this site," is essentially pointless.
If they're under 18, they can't be held to it, so there's no reason not to lie.
Only when they've reached the age of 18 can they be held to it, but at that point, they'd be telling the truth to say they're 18, and it'd therefore have no use.
So the only ones that can legally be bound to this contract are those who it doesn't apply to anymore. And thus this predicament.
We don't have things like that in it; they [don't] apply to everybody.
I'm by no means anti-religion*, but I do object to the presence of "one nation under God" in the pledge.
Especially considering that "under God" was added after the fact. And it's not actually that I object to the words themselves; were the pledge simply a poem or some other form of expression, the inclusion of "under God" is perfectly okay by me.
But because the pledge is more-or-less sanctioned by the government (and also general social properness), I feel the inclusion of those words is a misuse of authority.
They're as unfair as "under Jesus," as unfair as "under many gods," and as unfair as "under no gods."
They're also as unfair as "one nation, whose citizens have blonde hair, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
We don't have things like that in it; they apply to everybody. So why do personal beliefs have to be a part of it? Why can't we simple be "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?"
* I think everyone has the right to believe what they wish, and that nobody else has a right to dictate that.
I don't think he is CEO of mp3.com anymore.
It's sort of like saying "Paul McCartney of the Beatles."
It's not a dupe. The previous article involved third-party batteries, which Nokia could blame for being faulty.
What's scary this time is that, apparently, this was an original, first-party battery.
Okay, it's crazy enough that Microsoft was ordered to pay $521 Million for a period of two years, especially when you consider that this is free software. (I realize it's highly important to Microsoft in that it killed Netscape, but they don't actually charge money for it.)
But to then pay licensing fees on top of that? It's a little absurd, and just makes Eolas look like opportunists.
And I especially love this line: Eolas has also calculated that Microsoft owes it about $111 million in interest on that award.
21.3% interest on $521 Million. What are they, a credit card company?
Interesting, that.
I think Washington State was just designed to be confusing.
Say "Washington," and most people think Washington, D.C.
(Especially people from other countries. You just have to tell them it's the other Washington, over by California.)
And then say "Vancouver," and most people think B.C.
So if you're from Vancouver, Washington, you're dually screwed. "B.C.? D.C.?"
See, it's a conspiracy!
Using 1984 as an example:
Suppose you were under a repressive government. Suppose your home and workplace were bugged, and there was no place to discuss secret matters, such as overthrowing the government. Yes, overthrowing the government is a crime, but who makes it a crime? The repressive government. So by normal standards, it is a noble if illegal goal.
The protagonist of 1984 retreats to the unwatched proletarian areas, in which he plots with fellow rebels. This works, because, unless someone follows him, nobody knows where he is. But were there a system to monitor transportation, it may raise a red flag when someone notices that every Thursday, for example, unrelated to his business, he leaves his section of town for hours at a time.
They would spot that, and they could also identify people with similar transportation schedules as possible accomplices.
So is there a right to anonymity, if not privacy, in a public place? There should be. Moreover, who really needs to know?
I suppose it could help in solving a murder or something. If a body is found somewhere, they can then check their records to see who traveled in the area, and who unusually changed their traveling habits. But that can only be done so at the cost of making potential criminals out of millions of innocent people.
It's all fine and good when public transportation is optional, but what if public transportation becomes so normal that walking somewhere looks suspicious? Then there is no safe, anonymous way to travel anywhere.
So, I guess to summarize, it doesn't really matter now, but that doesn't mean that it won't in the future. And if we surrender the rights we don't think we need right now, soon we may notice that we have no rights.
Maybe I'm just paranoid?
1. The events of history and culture are driven by the engine of collective social mood. Social mood temporally and logically precedes social events, and is the cause of social events. War and terrorism don't cause distressed people; distressed people create the conditions and events that lead to and comprise war and terror. A booming economy does not create ebullient people; ebullient people produce more, consume more and participate in and contribute to market manias.
I don't understand where the submitter is coming from with this. I think, generally, a booming economy CAN affect someone's mood.
Knowing that the economy is doing well can be enough to cause a person to be happier. Certainly it could cause them to be a bit looser with their purse-strings. Case in point, the dot-com era. With the tech boom, people would to spend more, knowing the economy was good, and there would be more where that came from.
I'm not saying that ebullient people don't contribute to a booming economy, but what creates a collective ebullience?
Good economy = Happy people
Happy people = Good economy
Meanwhile, Heath7 breathes a sigh of relief, quietly uninstalls KaZaA, and vows to never pirate music again.
So, uh... When are they changing their name to Oceania?
New Zealand, perhaps?
I mean, I don't live there, and haven't, in fact, ever even been there... But it may be something to look into.
(If you want a real country, though, as opposed to, say, an island, I guess I'd suggest Canada.)
But what would the hash be of? Would each line of code be a separate hash, or would lines be combined?
Wouldn't altering one letter in the code completely change the hash? If so, all you would need to do to avoid detection would be to make a few changes to minor things, and you would appear to have different hashes, even if the source code were essentially the same.
I was actually gonna ask on here why AoE or RoR aren't ported on Linux... But DUH! Now I realize that this is Mirosoft we're talking about...