Doesn't putting your key on a tangible medium introduce a weak link? To have security, you now need to have sufficient time to completely and utterly destroy your key. At least with a memorized phrase, they need to go through the trouble of the attack.
I disagree. Said blog would have to be proven to be a credible and imminent incitement to violence, that is, that the speech is a "clear and present danger" (that's from the SCOTUS case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. Mere advocacy of violence or subversion is still protected.
Though I was pissed at the time, as time as passed, I have more and more begun to think that Bill Watterston (Calvin and Hobbes) did the right thing, in quitting as soon as he felt like it had become work, not fun. As a result, they are all good.
Revenue is roughly the same as receipts, that is, how much money came in through the door. Profit what is left after you subtract how much money went out through the door. So Microsoft certainly may not be profiting on Xbox sales, but they sure are counting on revenue!
iPod, iTune, iTunes Music Store, and MP3 is your best bet - period!
Well - it depends. What OP needs to do is decide which pay-for-play model they like more. If they'd rather pay a lot per track and own the files indefinitely, then iTMS is definitely the way to go (and then you need an iPod.) But if, like me, they'd rather download lots of music and aren't very concerned with losing the tracks if they cancel the service, then the all-you-can eat WMA stores are from them (and the iPod is useless). If they primarily buy CD's and rip and/or download illegally copied or uncopyrighted mp3 files, either format will work about as well as the other.
Just buy a small form-factor cable/DSL router. Plug into one of its network ports to have your test PC receive an IP address, or plug into its WAN port to have it request an address from your test PC. It responds to ping. It's got a built-in webserver to configure the network/IP settings to your liking, and will usually log activity for you. Best of all, you can pick one up for around $20 on sale.
No, but heat rises, and if a console has another powered-down console on top of it, it cannot dissipate heat out the top as efficiently. I think the 360 may have resolved this somewhat by the concave design - if you stack something on top of it, the endpoints become the contact points but the concavity leaves space for air to flow through.
Well, at least I took the time to lay out a logical argument, rather than just saying "you're wrong!", insulting your intelligence, and imputing motives of bad faith to you.
"The signal of the total 24 gigabits per second was divided into 161.5 Gbps HD-SDI signals to sent using the DWDM (dense wavelength division multiplex) method."
What color ray is that disc going to need? I'm guessing puce.
It's not the same, so I don't see any inconsistency.
You can own the right to use a specific mark (trademark). But trademarks have no signficant knowledge value.
You can own the copyright to a specific work that you create - this could even be a collection of facts, as long as there is some editorial value added. But just because you own the copyright of, say, an atlas, doesn't mean that you own the knowledge of the geography! You can't sue somebody for violation of your copyright because they in turn sell that knowledge (as distinguished from the maps themselves). Another example: I learn law from law books. But copyright cannot prevent me from using that knowledge to bill legal clients, because the knowledge and facts contained in that copyrighted work cannot themselves be owned.
Finally, patents allow you to own the right to profit from some invention. But note: the knowledge encompassed by those patents is publicly available, and mere facts and knowledge can not be patented in the first place.
Therefore, I do not believe there is any conflict between my (limited) support of IP and my belief (and the legal reality) that facts and knowledge cannot be owned. I think this is important, too - that facts cannot be owned has been a major factor in strong First Amendment protections of free speech.
Instead America has come across as a little child that won't let anyone else play with their toy.
Typical. We get absolutely not one iota of gratitude for our immense generosity in access to the DNS infrastructure, and accomodation of worldwide requests through ICANN. Instead, all we get is a demand for more! more! more! In fact, it's because of our openness with the networks, that we are now told we are bad guys for not giving it up completely.
I'm sorry, but I do not believe anybody who tells me that other countries will like the US more if we do what they say, if we just give away our blood, treasure, and influence with no expectation of anything in return. I've heard it over and over again, and it has never been true, because as soon as the very next disagreement comes up, everything we've done inthe past is forgotten like it never happened. As for the root servers, I say MOLON LABE!
What is so hard to understand about this? It's NOT the fact that we invented it. It's an interesting historical footnote, but of little relevance. What is important is that we built and own the DNS infrastructure. Those root servers are our property, and like the good Lockeans we are, we have a big problem with somebody else coming and trying to take our property away. How about this? If you want the root servers so bad, why not make us an offer? How about a voluntary exchange? In the end, the internet is cooperative. It is voluntary. If you don't like the way that it is, well, nobody is forcing you to participate. The mere fact that it is inconvenient for those who have relied on our largesse is not a sufficient justification for abrogation of our soveriegn rights.
We might be willing to see things your way, if we had any confidence whatsoever that ICANN under UN control would continue to function in as free, objective, and efficient a manner as it has thus far. However, due to the hostility, corruption, and outright incompetence of the UN bureaucracy, we do not.
I can't help but think that more choices are better and that's why I've always been so baffled by folks who root for Apple to go out of business.
I'll tell you the reason, so you don't have to wonder: it's just to spite the arrogant, self-important pricks who seem to gravitate to the Mac userbase.
What is the straw man? I maintain that campaign finance reform in general is nothing more than an attempt to equalize the ability to speak (or to be heard, depending on your point of view), a goal that (for reasons well illustrated in the alluded-to short story) is pure folly. This is a cogent and direct response to your implied argument that CFR is necessary to prevent a scenario where people with more money have louder voices.
So, what, they shouldn't research operating system fundamentals until their commercial product is stale? Or would it be okay if they conducted valuable research, as long as they kept it secret and didn't share the results with anybody? What the hell is your problem?
No. Unlike the previous MacOS, there is really nothing wrong with the NT kernel. It is a good core. It's Windows' sup-par shell, userland, and especially third-party device driver code that can be so friggin' annoying/insecure/unreliable.
That doesn't give enough credit, I think. Good sub-pixel rendering of arbitrary vector alogrithms on an RGB display (and one that works well with color combinations other than white-on-black) is a significantly greater challenge than the bitmapped sub-pixel fonts that the Apples used. Though the concepts are similar in theory, the innovations in going from one to the other are, IMO, quite substantial and deserve more than your derision.
Ah. So folks with more money should have a louder voice? They have a greater right to have their opinions heard?
No. They simply have a greater ability to have their opinions heard. Why is this so hard for you to understand? If you don't see the folly of trying to equalize ability through government legislation, I suggest you ask Mr. Harrison Bergeron about it.
I don't agree with your analysis, because hosting a web site does in fact require expenditures. Remember, there are not just restrictions on receipts but also expenditures. The more popular the website, the more it costs to host it. If the website is promoting a certain party or candidate with those expenditures of cash, those expenditures could easily be characterized as "in-kind" contributions, just like independent groups that pay money to broadcast political advertisements. Therefore, I do think it will affect a large number of blogs.
Often, it does. Feelings of hunger and thirst are largely psychological, and only loosely linked to actual body chemistry needs. For example, if you are very hungry, you don't stop being hungry as soon as you have eaten enough; it may take a little while for your hunger feelings to be affected by food input. The result is that you eat way more than you need to because you still feel hungry as you are eating. For whatever reason, drinking a large glass of water often has temporary suppressive effects on appetite, with the result that after 15 or so minutes, during the time that you are eating, you don't feel nearly so hungry. As a result, you probably stop eating much sooner, and then you stay full as hunger feelings stay sated by the food in your stomach.
As far as the font rendering. It turns out Microsoft doesn't actually render fonts correctly.
Ah, well, whether it renders them "correctly" or not, they look much, much better and are (I find) much easier to read. (My biggest gripes with most Linux font rendering have to do with inconsistent stroke weights and character spacing, not to mention the antialiasing which straddles the line between ugly and intolerable.) I say, if the correct way looks like ass, better to do it the wrong way.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't putting your key on a tangible medium introduce a weak link? To have security, you now need to have sufficient time to completely and utterly destroy your key. At least with a memorized phrase, they need to go through the trouble of the attack.
I disagree. Said blog would have to be proven to be a credible and imminent incitement to violence, that is, that the speech is a "clear and present danger" (that's from the SCOTUS case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. Mere advocacy of violence or subversion is still protected.
Though I was pissed at the time, as time as passed, I have more and more begun to think that Bill Watterston (Calvin and Hobbes) did the right thing, in quitting as soon as he felt like it had become work, not fun. As a result, they are all good.
Revenue is roughly the same as receipts, that is, how much money came in through the door. Profit what is left after you subtract how much money went out through the door. So Microsoft certainly may not be profiting on Xbox sales, but they sure are counting on revenue!
Well - it depends. What OP needs to do is decide which pay-for-play model they like more. If they'd rather pay a lot per track and own the files indefinitely, then iTMS is definitely the way to go (and then you need an iPod.) But if, like me, they'd rather download lots of music and aren't very concerned with losing the tracks if they cancel the service, then the all-you-can eat WMA stores are from them (and the iPod is useless). If they primarily buy CD's and rip and/or download illegally copied or uncopyrighted mp3 files, either format will work about as well as the other.
Just buy a small form-factor cable/DSL router. Plug into one of its network ports to have your test PC receive an IP address, or plug into its WAN port to have it request an address from your test PC. It responds to ping. It's got a built-in webserver to configure the network/IP settings to your liking, and will usually log activity for you. Best of all, you can pick one up for around $20 on sale.
No, but heat rises, and if a console has another powered-down console on top of it, it cannot dissipate heat out the top as efficiently. I think the 360 may have resolved this somewhat by the concave design - if you stack something on top of it, the endpoints become the contact points but the concavity leaves space for air to flow through.
Looks like I've been trolled.
What color ray is that disc going to need? I'm guessing puce.
You can own the right to use a specific mark (trademark). But trademarks have no signficant knowledge value.
You can own the copyright to a specific work that you create - this could even be a collection of facts, as long as there is some editorial value added. But just because you own the copyright of, say, an atlas, doesn't mean that you own the knowledge of the geography! You can't sue somebody for violation of your copyright because they in turn sell that knowledge (as distinguished from the maps themselves). Another example: I learn law from law books. But copyright cannot prevent me from using that knowledge to bill legal clients, because the knowledge and facts contained in that copyrighted work cannot themselves be owned.
Finally, patents allow you to own the right to profit from some invention. But note: the knowledge encompassed by those patents is publicly available, and mere facts and knowledge can not be patented in the first place.
Therefore, I do not believe there is any conflict between my (limited) support of IP and my belief (and the legal reality) that facts and knowledge cannot be owned. I think this is important, too - that facts cannot be owned has been a major factor in strong First Amendment protections of free speech.
1. The avian flu actually is a serious issue that should not be ignored.
2. Bush is divested, so oil company profits do not provide him with additional income.
3. Notwithstanding #2, there are other, independent grounds for killing people other than money.
4. Not all who were killed were innocents.
5. Notwithstanding #1-#5, it is a logical fallacy to reason that the existence of larger wrongs negates the existence of lesser wrongs.
I don't believe anybody should be able to "own" facts. That's all we're talking about. Facts. Statistics. You can't own knowledge.
Typical. We get absolutely not one iota of gratitude for our immense generosity in access to the DNS infrastructure, and accomodation of worldwide requests through ICANN. Instead, all we get is a demand for more! more! more! In fact, it's because of our openness with the networks, that we are now told we are bad guys for not giving it up completely.
I'm sorry, but I do not believe anybody who tells me that other countries will like the US more if we do what they say, if we just give away our blood, treasure, and influence with no expectation of anything in return. I've heard it over and over again, and it has never been true, because as soon as the very next disagreement comes up, everything we've done inthe past is forgotten like it never happened. As for the root servers, I say MOLON LABE!
What is so hard to understand about this? It's NOT the fact that we invented it. It's an interesting historical footnote, but of little relevance. What is important is that we built and own the DNS infrastructure. Those root servers are our property, and like the good Lockeans we are, we have a big problem with somebody else coming and trying to take our property away. How about this? If you want the root servers so bad, why not make us an offer? How about a voluntary exchange? In the end, the internet is cooperative. It is voluntary. If you don't like the way that it is, well, nobody is forcing you to participate. The mere fact that it is inconvenient for those who have relied on our largesse is not a sufficient justification for abrogation of our soveriegn rights.
We might be willing to see things your way, if we had any confidence whatsoever that ICANN under UN control would continue to function in as free, objective, and efficient a manner as it has thus far. However, due to the hostility, corruption, and outright incompetence of the UN bureaucracy, we do not.
I'll tell you the reason, so you don't have to wonder: it's just to spite the arrogant, self-important pricks who seem to gravitate to the Mac userbase.
What is the straw man? I maintain that campaign finance reform in general is nothing more than an attempt to equalize the ability to speak (or to be heard, depending on your point of view), a goal that (for reasons well illustrated in the alluded-to short story) is pure folly. This is a cogent and direct response to your implied argument that CFR is necessary to prevent a scenario where people with more money have louder voices.
So, what, they shouldn't research operating system fundamentals until their commercial product is stale? Or would it be okay if they conducted valuable research, as long as they kept it secret and didn't share the results with anybody? What the hell is your problem?
No. Unlike the previous MacOS, there is really nothing wrong with the NT kernel. It is a good core. It's Windows' sup-par shell, userland, and especially third-party device driver code that can be so friggin' annoying/insecure/unreliable.
That doesn't give enough credit, I think. Good sub-pixel rendering of arbitrary vector alogrithms on an RGB display (and one that works well with color combinations other than white-on-black) is a significantly greater challenge than the bitmapped sub-pixel fonts that the Apples used. Though the concepts are similar in theory, the innovations in going from one to the other are, IMO, quite substantial and deserve more than your derision.
No. They simply have a greater ability to have their opinions heard. Why is this so hard for you to understand? If you don't see the folly of trying to equalize ability through government legislation, I suggest you ask Mr. Harrison Bergeron about it.
I don't agree with your analysis, because hosting a web site does in fact require expenditures. Remember, there are not just restrictions on receipts but also expenditures. The more popular the website, the more it costs to host it. If the website is promoting a certain party or candidate with those expenditures of cash, those expenditures could easily be characterized as "in-kind" contributions, just like independent groups that pay money to broadcast political advertisements. Therefore, I do think it will affect a large number of blogs.
The difference is that the PS2 has enough marketshare to make the extra work worthwhile.
Often, it does. Feelings of hunger and thirst are largely psychological, and only loosely linked to actual body chemistry needs. For example, if you are very hungry, you don't stop being hungry as soon as you have eaten enough; it may take a little while for your hunger feelings to be affected by food input. The result is that you eat way more than you need to because you still feel hungry as you are eating. For whatever reason, drinking a large glass of water often has temporary suppressive effects on appetite, with the result that after 15 or so minutes, during the time that you are eating, you don't feel nearly so hungry. As a result, you probably stop eating much sooner, and then you stay full as hunger feelings stay sated by the food in your stomach.
Ah, well, whether it renders them "correctly" or not, they look much, much better and are (I find) much easier to read. (My biggest gripes with most Linux font rendering have to do with inconsistent stroke weights and character spacing, not to mention the antialiasing which straddles the line between ugly and intolerable.) I say, if the correct way looks like ass, better to do it the wrong way.