Maybe The Da Vinci Code uses the Sang Raal and Mary Magdalene theory, but the theory is more than just the plot of the book. The idea has been explored in various sources for many years.
I had already heard the theory. If that's the only plot of the book, then there would be no point in my reading it, which I highly doubt.
Winny was written in the wake of a WinMX arrest and designed for the purpose of safely illegally trading works. If it had just been $RANDOM_P2P_SOFTWARE it would've been a problem; this, however, was made to violate copyright.
There are three reasons guns are still legal. It's protected in the Bill of Rights, and that because if necessary we'd like to be able to defend ourselves; and many people already own guns.
If P2P gets really popular, it'll not be restricted, just like guns.
It's been done before. (Like any parody except "All your baked potato taste like peanut butter" hasn't been done....)
In A.D. 2001 war was beginning. ARAB: What happen ? ARAB 2: Somebody set up us the bomb. ARAB 3: We get signal. SADDAM: What ! ARAB 3: Main screen turn on. SADDAM: It's you !! GWB: How are you gentlemen !! GWB: All your no fly zone are belong to us. GWB: You are on the way to destruction. SADDAM: What you say !! GWB: You have no chance to survive make your time. GWB: Ha ha ha ha.... SADDAM: Take off every 'MiG'!! SADDAM: You know what you doing. SADDAM: Move 'MiG'. SADDAM: For great Allah.
Yeah, call yourself Darl bin McBride of Al'Sco, and everyone will ignore you. Or pay you $699. Either way you win. After all, only the real McBride is going to court.
You missed something. There's an important difference.
You are using multiple IP addresses. This means you're using a hub, not a router. Multiple IPs are commonly extra priced.
You want to use multiple devices with NAT. Buy a proper router and plug it in, then plug your devices into there. They'll all use the same IP, and Comcast will be happy.
The only mistake on their part is not stating that multiple computers must share one IP.
Yes. That's the job of law enforcement: to watch EVERYBODY for evidence of a crime.
Perhaps in 10 years, we'll have automated systems look up our financial background (for terrorist links) because we bought a 5 lb bang of fertilizer for our lawns (and we all know terrorists use fertilizer to make bombs!)
And other than the unnerving feeling you get, what exactly is the problem with that, legal or moral?
Part 1: straw man. Terrorist-lords like UBL work by hiding in mountains, spreading propaganda, and getting dumb 20-somethings to actually do the attacks.
Part 2: roughly a post hoc. Simply because the FBI was corrupt during that time it does not mean it is still corrupt; investigations are not bad solely because they have been used for bad purposes.
Logical fallacies refuted. Poink. Your overly dramatic post vanishes.
One, the occupation of America by the colonists and the atrocities committed against the existing occupants were most definitely illegal.
Two, in the phrase "secure our borders." Can you find a system to secure our borders while still allowing "legal immigration"? How do you determine if a particular immigrant is good-intentioned or not? If the immigrant will turn angry and violent after passing checks? How do you investigate every immigrant without running investigations?
Besides, it's xenophobic to assume immigration is more dangerous to our country than self-destruction.
Would you rather the land of the free to mess with underground tunnels providing infrastructure? I'm sure this student had no evil intent, but the government can't be as sure, and can't hold the liability if he were plotting something.
Nobody ever said the student was guilty of anything.
No, you are innocent until proven guilty. There's only one way to prove stuff; investigation. God forbid we declare everyone permanently innocent and unfair to even think they might be guilty. The Catholic Church got it with the Devil's Advocate; he attempts to find any negative information about a beatified person on track to sainthood. That's not BS, that's common sense: humans will be human.
The only government here that tried to secure borders were the Indian nations. As far as they were concerned, we were terrorists and invaders taking their land forcing our ways and our religion upon theirs.
People who file requests for random information may be the bad seed that entered our borders or were bred here (stopping immigration at any point other than our founding years wouldn't have stopped McVeigh). Besides, it makes more sense, logically and economically, to investigate suspicious activity than to investigate everyone.
As far as I know, it's possible to take an.aac file and copy it to whatever medium you like. No public, common hard disk driver enforces DRM. You won't be able to play the files on multiple machines, granted, but you will have the data. If that fails, you can back up the whole hard drive, which has the benefit of backing up the iTunes copy that unlocked the file.
Hmm...can someone who uses iTunes tell me if it's possible to make multiple bit-level copies of the.aac file so that each machine you move it on to thinks it's only the 2nd one?
A word is defined by how it is most commonly used. Nobody can arbitrate a word's meaning. I don't mind using "hacker"/"hack" verb for what many call "crackers"/"crack", so I use "hack" (the noun), "break into" unless it's technically interesting in which case it's a "hack" for a crack, and "good hacker" or some such.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe The Da Vinci Code uses the Sang Raal and Mary Magdalene theory, but the theory is more than just the plot of the book. The idea has been explored in various sources for many years.
I had already heard the theory. If that's the only plot of the book, then there would be no point in my reading it, which I highly doubt.
STFU!
Actually, this is pretty novel. Most of how Windows works isn't that clear...
And exactly why wouldn't you check with the oil industry how legislation aiming to affect it would affect it?
They keep it secret from people who would, as you did, spin it as a bad thing.
It's pretty hard for virgins to get STDs, though. And even if you count birth and blood transfusions, I assume the virus spreads that way, too.
So tablet anti-HIV is only useful if there be tablet HIV.
Most of the dialog resources are smaller due to "ja" vs. "yes".
Winny was written in the wake of a WinMX arrest and designed for the purpose of safely illegally trading works. If it had just been $RANDOM_P2P_SOFTWARE it would've been a problem; this, however, was made to violate copyright.
There are three reasons guns are still legal. It's protected in the Bill of Rights, and that because if necessary we'd like to be able to defend ourselves; and many people already own guns.
If P2P gets really popular, it'll not be restricted, just like guns.
It's been done before. (Like any parody except "All your baked potato taste like peanut butter" hasn't been done....)
....
In A.D. 2001
war was beginning.
ARAB: What happen ?
ARAB 2: Somebody set up us the bomb.
ARAB 3: We get signal.
SADDAM: What !
ARAB 3: Main screen turn on.
SADDAM: It's you !!
GWB: How are you gentlemen !!
GWB: All your no fly zone are belong to us.
GWB: You are on the way to destruction.
SADDAM: What you say !!
GWB: You have no chance to survive make your time.
GWB: Ha ha ha ha
SADDAM: Take off every 'MiG'!!
SADDAM: You know what you doing.
SADDAM: Move 'MiG'.
SADDAM: For great Allah.
Yeah, call yourself Darl bin McBride of Al'Sco, and everyone will ignore you. Or pay you $699. Either way you win. After all, only the real McBride is going to court.
I wouldn't call what they sell "pizzia" either.
You missed something. There's an important difference.
You are using multiple IP addresses. This means you're using a hub, not a router. Multiple IPs are commonly extra priced.
You want to use multiple devices with NAT. Buy a proper router and plug it in, then plug your devices into there. They'll all use the same IP, and Comcast will be happy.
The only mistake on their part is not stating that multiple computers must share one IP.
Otherwise we are ALL potentially suspects.
Yes. That's the job of law enforcement: to watch EVERYBODY for evidence of a crime.
Perhaps in 10 years, we'll have automated systems look up our financial background (for terrorist links) because we bought a 5 lb bang of fertilizer for our lawns (and we all know terrorists use fertilizer to make bombs!)
And other than the unnerving feeling you get, what exactly is the problem with that, legal or moral?
Show me how the 9/11 terrorists did anything illegal as far as getting into the country.
Immoral/illegal is a nit for picking. If they had committed these actions today, they would have violated the laws of war.
Part 1: straw man. Terrorist-lords like UBL work by hiding in mountains, spreading propaganda, and getting dumb 20-somethings to actually do the attacks.
Part 2: roughly a post hoc. Simply because the FBI was corrupt during that time it does not mean it is still corrupt; investigations are not bad solely because they have been used for bad purposes.
Logical fallacies refuted. Poink. Your overly dramatic post vanishes.
One, the occupation of America by the colonists and the atrocities committed against the existing occupants were most definitely illegal.
Two, in the phrase "secure our borders." Can you find a system to secure our borders while still allowing "legal immigration"? How do you determine if a particular immigrant is good-intentioned or not? If the immigrant will turn angry and violent after passing checks? How do you investigate every immigrant without running investigations?
Besides, it's xenophobic to assume immigration is more dangerous to our country than self-destruction.
Would you rather the land of the free to mess with underground tunnels providing infrastructure? I'm sure this student had no evil intent, but the government can't be as sure, and can't hold the liability if he were plotting something.
There are a lot of smart young people in one place at a university.
Nobody ever said the student was guilty of anything.
No, you are innocent until proven guilty. There's only one way to prove stuff; investigation. God forbid we declare everyone permanently innocent and unfair to even think they might be guilty. The Catholic Church got it with the Devil's Advocate; he attempts to find any negative information about a beatified person on track to sainthood. That's not BS, that's common sense: humans will be human.
The only government here that tried to secure borders were the Indian nations. As far as they were concerned, we were terrorists and invaders taking their land forcing our ways and our religion upon theirs.
People who file requests for random information may be the bad seed that entered our borders or were bred here (stopping immigration at any point other than our founding years wouldn't have stopped McVeigh). Besides, it makes more sense, logically and economically, to investigate suspicious activity than to investigate everyone.
In Soviet Russia, CNN prints old Slashdot news!
As far as I know, it's possible to take an .aac file and copy it to whatever medium you like. No public, common hard disk driver enforces DRM. You won't be able to play the files on multiple machines, granted, but you will have the data. If that fails, you can back up the whole hard drive, which has the benefit of backing up the iTunes copy that unlocked the file.
.aac file so that each machine you move it on to thinks it's only the 2nd one?
Hmm...can someone who uses iTunes tell me if it's possible to make multiple bit-level copies of the
Who made hacker into a good word?
A word is defined by how it is most commonly used. Nobody can arbitrate a word's meaning. I don't mind using "hacker"/"hack" verb for what many call "crackers"/"crack", so I use "hack" (the noun), "break into" unless it's technically interesting in which case it's a "hack" for a crack, and "good hacker" or some such.
Money for anyone who can once and for all get my X Window configuration files working.
There, now there's another X prize.
The intraweb? You have Slashdot as part of your LAN's WWW system!? A true l33t one, indeed....
Honestly. If you're going to abuse words don't abuse other innocent words too.