And yet these people are spending all of this time and energy on the most benign thing that I've mentioned - circumcision.
Part of my penis was sliced off when I was a child. The fact that there are more important things in the world than the integrity of my genitalia does not make your use of the word "benign" any more appropriate.
P.S. in case by some chance my parents ever find and read this: Understand that I don't have any hard feelings towards you about this. I'm arguing against this being The Way Things Are Done, not that individual parents are automatically bad people for failing to go against the flow -- I understand that the strength of cultural norms is huge, even when they are stupid.
The only effective way I've found to actually get records is to tell them I want records faxed to another doctor... at a number I receive at.
I am actually noting this trick for future use -- do you ever have to give an explanation of why you have another doctor / who it is? And if so, what's your excuse?
Thankfully we split up last week
I don't know if your smiley is serious or pained, but good for you. *standard grumble about women and grasp of reality*
I would call it a great idea. If it's too harsh you can always tune the 30 days down to something lower. Also remember when looking for "good SSL certificates" to check the issuer, though I assume you are already doing that. Otherwise they can always self-sign one...
As a Googler who was present at the talk, I did get the distinct feeling that the guy is just this side of crackpot, and is a little too slick for his own good.
That said, the science sounds mildly promising, and I don't get the impression he's a scammer -- I think he genuinely believes in a fusion method that may have promise, but is probably a dead end. And I think trying it out just to be sure is probably not an awful idea. The fact that he got himself banned from Wikipedia means he is dangerously close to thinking like a crackpot -- "I have to defend my ideas against all the people wronging them" -- but it's also not very hard to do, especially if you don't like idiots, are impatient or hot-tempered, or are having a bad day. (And I say this as someone who strongly supports Wikipedia.)
And even if he is a little bit too strong in the support of an idea in the face of some evidence, I don't get the impression that his research area has been proven or demonstrated impossible yet, so why not have someone working on it? Nobody's demonstrated to me that the idea is so improbable as to make funding it actively harmful.
P.S. I obviously do not speak for Google, or anyone but myself. I don't even think I gained much insight by seeing the talk in person, rather than on the Internet. I just wanted to mention it because it was neat.:-)
Interesting. I guess we got grandfathered in -- when we first signed up, all they had were static IPs. Of course, I think we may still be paying the higher price, too -- it looks like what they did was offer a dynamic IP discount, but leave the static packages where they were in price.
For those in areas where it's possible, I'd strongly suggest dropping Speakeasy and switching to DSLExtreme. That's who I use, and much like Speakeasy they offer free static IPs and no restrictions on the usage of your line.
which particular brand of crack their counsel are smoking.
I can only imagine it went something like this:
Diebold exec:... so we want to sue them because they went with our competitors, and, uhm, that's not fair. Because we always win. And, like, why should someone else get to win? It's not fair.
Diebold lawyer: *stifling laughter* That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Diebold exec: We're paying you how much?
Diebold lawyer:......... we'll get right on it.
Grandparent is full of shit. First of all, the replicated images are NOT AT THE SAME PLACE relative to the gridlines as the original. That totally negates all the bullshit about humans not editing in powers of two. Secondly, there's no way that dust/scratch removal would stretch the column of smoke upwards in the way it was done in the doctored image. An entire section of the image was displaced upwards, including a whole giant mess o' 16x16 areas. Explain to me what business scratch removal software has doing that?
Forget hosting and start Bittorrenting the documents! They're almost certainly public record at this point, so it's not like MS can prosecute you for it. If you're really worried about that, dump them on Freenet. These documents are critical historical records -- they need to be distributed as widely as possible.
Hmm, you're right... perhaps I shouldn't have said "most people." But I _would_ say that, if you asked most people what the difference is between the "right" to instellectual property and the right to real property, they wouldn't be able to tell you -- certainly few people understand the "bargain" inherent in intellectual property, and that the ultimate beneficiary of the bargain is supposed to be the public domain (and hence the public), not the copyright holder.
Sadly, although you are right on, I have found that espousing such a view will get people to look at you as though you have a third eye. Much as most people believe in a right to "intellectual property", everyone also seems to believe in an inherent human right to form corporations, and they cry out in horror when you suggest that granting the privilege of incorporation unfettered is a bad idea. I can only conclude from this that people are idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of my penis was sliced off when I was a child. The fact that there are more important things in the world than the integrity of my genitalia does not make your use of the word "benign" any more appropriate.
P.S. in case by some chance my parents ever find and read this: Understand that I don't have any hard feelings towards you about this. I'm arguing against this being The Way Things Are Done, not that individual parents are automatically bad people for failing to go against the flow -- I understand that the strength of cultural norms is huge, even when they are stupid.
I like my sex and so do all of us circumcised US males. Speak for yourself, asshole.
The only effective way I've found to actually get records is to tell them I want records faxed to another doctor... at a number I receive at. I am actually noting this trick for future use -- do you ever have to give an explanation of why you have another doctor / who it is? And if so, what's your excuse?
At the risk of downmodding, let me just reply with a hearty Sig Heil!
Thankfully we split up last week I don't know if your smiley is serious or pained, but good for you. *standard grumble about women and grasp of reality*
I would call it a great idea. If it's too harsh you can always tune the 30 days down to something lower. Also remember when looking for "good SSL certificates" to check the issuer, though I assume you are already doing that. Otherwise they can always self-sign one...
Wow -- I was expecting a RickRoll, but that was even more hilarious. :-D
I am not a native english speaker, so please bear with my broken english. Just FYI in case you read the replies to this, your English is flawless. :-)
... oh, _sleep_! I thought it said "sheep".
"All programs attempt to expand until they can read mail. Those that can't are replaced by those that can." -- Jamie Zawinzki
I did, actually.
But it's already well established that there's something wrong with me.
How about 'boob'? Although I agree with the earlier commenter that 'Dvorak' would be a good second choice.
As a Googler who was present at the talk, I did get the distinct feeling that the guy is just this side of crackpot, and is a little too slick for his own good.
:-)
That said, the science sounds mildly promising, and I don't get the impression he's a scammer -- I think he genuinely believes in a fusion method that may have promise, but is probably a dead end. And I think trying it out just to be sure is probably not an awful idea. The fact that he got himself banned from Wikipedia means he is dangerously close to thinking like a crackpot -- "I have to defend my ideas against all the people wronging them" -- but it's also not very hard to do, especially if you don't like idiots, are impatient or hot-tempered, or are having a bad day. (And I say this as someone who strongly supports Wikipedia.)
And even if he is a little bit too strong in the support of an idea in the face of some evidence, I don't get the impression that his research area has been proven or demonstrated impossible yet, so why not have someone working on it? Nobody's demonstrated to me that the idea is so improbable as to make funding it actively harmful.
P.S. I obviously do not speak for Google, or anyone but myself. I don't even think I gained much insight by seeing the talk in person, rather than on the Internet. I just wanted to mention it because it was neat.
Maybe we can avoid a repeat of this...
I can't find anything on DSLExtreme's site suggesting that they offer no-dialtone service. I've never actually asked, though. But I suspect not.
Interesting. I guess we got grandfathered in -- when we first signed up, all they had were static IPs. Of course, I think we may still be paying the higher price, too -- it looks like what they did was offer a dynamic IP discount, but leave the static packages where they were in price.
For those in areas where it's possible, I'd strongly suggest dropping Speakeasy and switching to DSLExtreme. That's who I use, and much like Speakeasy they offer free static IPs and no restrictions on the usage of your line.
I can only imagine it went something like this:
Diebold exec: ... so we want to sue them because they went with our competitors, and, uhm, that's not fair. Because we always win. And, like, why should someone else get to win? It's not fair.
... ... ... we'll get right on it.
Diebold lawyer: *stifling laughter* That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Diebold exec: We're paying you how much?
Diebold lawyer:
Grandparent is full of shit. First of all, the replicated images are NOT AT THE SAME PLACE relative to the gridlines as the original. That totally negates all the bullshit about humans not editing in powers of two. Secondly, there's no way that dust/scratch removal would stretch the column of smoke upwards in the way it was done in the doctored image. An entire section of the image was displaced upwards, including a whole giant mess o' 16x16 areas. Explain to me what business scratch removal software has doing that?
There are already people who agree with you...
Forget hosting and start Bittorrenting the documents! They're almost certainly public record at this point, so it's not like MS can prosecute you for it. If you're really worried about that, dump them on Freenet. These documents are critical historical records -- they need to be distributed as widely as possible.
Hmm, you're right... perhaps I shouldn't have said "most people." But I _would_ say that, if you asked most people what the difference is between the "right" to instellectual property and the right to real property, they wouldn't be able to tell you -- certainly few people understand the "bargain" inherent in intellectual property, and that the ultimate beneficiary of the bargain is supposed to be the public domain (and hence the public), not the copyright holder.
Sadly, although you are right on, I have found that espousing such a view will get people to look at you as though you have a third eye. Much as most people believe in a right to "intellectual property", everyone also seems to believe in an inherent human right to form corporations, and they cry out in horror when you suggest that granting the privilege of incorporation unfettered is a bad idea. I can only conclude from this that people are idiots.
Well I got it, at least. :-)
I think this is a hoax, pure and simple... it's just too far out to be true. Anyone confirm or deny?