Good art requires the viewer to think. What is more indicative of the state of social consumerism and the temporary nature of anything, than a document that allows precisely one viewing then removes itself from the page. Not to mention the indirect commentary on the transitory nature of language as a communication mechanism. It doesn't matter what the theme of the poem was, the art was the action of allowing one reading then visibly degrading the communication to the point where it was no longer communicating anything other than loss. What is poetic about a sunset ? The scientific fact that the sun is merely being hidden by the rotation of the earth ? Or the mental notion of the day coming to an end, time passing, out with the old, everything dies, sadness, hope etc. ?
I would see Gibsons work as deliberately demonstrating the sadness of work being published, read, then being removed from view and denying future readings. Very nice work considering the date it was first published, and our current problems with DRM and copyright.
What seems to be missing from your post and the previous you replied to, is that all the previous "grand masters" worked to commission. ie. they were paid to produce a work for the commissioner. That is not true of the current situation, where artists are paid to produce work for organisations whose sole purpose in commissioning the work is in order to re-sell it at a profit. Therefore they over-produce and complain when the consumers don't consume.
If I paid for an artist to write a song then I would be foolish if I didn't listen to it. If the artist produces a song ahead of time, then complains because no-one wants to listen to it then the artist is the fool. No, you can't draw a direct parallel to the "music business" of the last 40 years, but that's where the whole analogy falls down. Michaelangelo didn't have a 'human' right to make money by painting the Sistine Chapel, but he did have a commission (a contract) which promised him payment in exchange. If he had just turned up and done the work before the agreement then he would have been pretty stupid.
In short, get the money or contract sorted out before you work. Then no-one gets between you and payment. Mass produced art is the same as mass produced anything. You are putting the cart before the horse, by claiming that you are owed money for work that no-one asked you to produce. The music "industry" have placed themselves in the position of supermarkets. They don't produce anything, they take the risk of buying from a producer then hope they can generate a market for that stock. Whoops, misjudged the market, gotta eat those losses. Nothing to do with art whatsoever.
I installed a recent version of Damn Small Linux on a new Intel Atom board (D945GCLF) and there were no drivers for it. Apparently a later kernel update fixed it. Doesn't mean there WERE drivers when I found the problem. And if it's a live distro it's harder to upgrade (RO media). Yes you can do it, but still.
I found the same issue when I tried to install on FC4. Ok, FC4 is old, but it works just fine for my purposes and upgrading will be more of a complete re-install. This is trying to install firefox 3 as downloaded from the mozilla site. I don't use the Fedora distros version of firefox.
None of the urls you just posted are the same. Are you complaining that google indexes your site ? To do that they have to visit the various separate pages. Maybe if you didn't run everything through a couple of PHP scripts, they wouldn't put so much load on your server. Yahoo has been guilty of large amount of spidering on my sites, but google is only once every week or so. But then I don't use php so much. If you don't like google doing what you see, then script a robots.txt file that changes according to the day/date whatever. Crontab might be your friend.
So buggy whip manufacturers and Ostlers suffered no decrease in "value" of their products when the automobile became the preferred mode of transport ? That is not growth, it is substitution. Growth requires retention otherwise all you have is an expanding shell which collapses when the shell becomes too thinly stretched around the vacuum left by everything moving outwards. Financial growth appears to rely on the notion that value is not a fixed commodity and can be expanded at will. Which leads to financial vehicles which are wholly based on the current perception of value, not on whether that perception will last. As soon as the perceived value disappears, so does the entire vehicle. How can that be considered growth ? You appear to have ignored the part of my post dealing with pyramid schemes. The really wealthy people/organisations are not stupid enough to keep their money in financial vehicles any longer than it takes to maximise the profit and transfer that profit to REAL commodities, like land, buildings, gold etc. When boom turns to bust, they may not have the same "value" in dollars, but the relative value has been maintained, there is only so much land for instance. Putting your faith in an economic system that desires the intangible over the real, is asking to be ripped off by those who invented the system. Being a middle man for those who take the real profits is a poor defence. I have a flight ready 1 stage to orbit aircraft that I am willing to share profits on. Just buy some shares in the company. If confidence is good then we all make money. As soon as it becomes clear that there is no such aircraft, everybody with shares loses their investment. Of course, I knew there was no aircraft so I took as much money as I considered possible and headed for the hills. The whole thing was a lie designed specifically to get people to give me money for nothing. You call it growth, I call it theft.
I'll lend money to people who have no chance of keeping up repayments. But we''ll pretend they will honour their debts, and that means there is a revenue stream. I can borrow against that revenue stream, maybe even 1000 times the streams real value. Other people borrow the money I already borrowed and the revenue is vastly multiplied. But as soon as the original debtors start defaulting the whole premise for the vast revenue stream evaporates. Tell me that whole scenario isn't based on a lie creating an illusion of value, and leaving anybody who believed in the lie with massive debts secured on a non-existent property. Only those who initiated the lie and have now moved on, made any real profit. That is not growth, that is taking from your pocket and putting it into mine. Nothing extra has been created other than debt. That's the thing about leverage. When you put too much weight on the top of the lever, the small rock the lever is working against isn't enough to stop the lever falling to earth. It is inherently unbalanced, and doomed to failure. Only the person selling the lever makes any real value from the situation.
I really don't see how Amazon have any claim to make here. The Amazon site is not being changed in any way whatsoever. The Firefox addon only modifies the way the page appears to the user of the browser where that addon is installed. They can't claim breach of copyright as no unlicensed distribution has taken place, and it has nothing to do with trademark law as there is nothing claiming to be Amazons property. The domain name (Pirates-of-the-Amazon.com) they chose to distribute the addon was the only possible flaw. The addon itself doesn't capitalise the word amazon so cannot be considered breach of trademarking, and *the* amazon is a natural feature. Nobody buys stuff from The Amazon - The Amazon.com website sure, but the latter statement has been qualified.
Amazon may as well make it a condition of using their site that you may NOT maximise your browser. Mind your own f*kin business. Whatever I choose to do with information legally obtained, after it gets to my machine, is my business, and my business alone. They should go after Opera the browser too. After all, you can make Amazons websites text be rendered in any font you like using CSS preferences. And Opera is a commercial venture, so they may be able to pay.
Hah, so the tool is more important than the subject you need the tool for ? Astronomers study the stars, their tools are telescopes (amongst others). The stars will still exist even without telescopes. Computer scientists study the application of logic in order to solve problems, and their tools are computers. The logic will still exist even if a computer were never built. But a specific high level language is pointless without a computer. An elegant solution is elegant whichever computer language or OS it uses.
A pyramid scheme only works when the people involved have faith in the system. Also, when a pyramid scheme collapses it is only the ones at the top who get to make for the hills with all the cash. Perpetuating a system that is designed specifically to move money to the top then allows them to fuck off with it leaving everybody else in the shit is not acceptable in a supposedly democratic state. Boom and Bust benefits only those at the top. Occasionally a few others might catch the wave and get out before it breaks but they really are in the minority.
I have great difficulty taking seriously, any system that regards continuous growth as a given state of affairs. Nothing is infinite, so that growth has to come from some other part of the budget. As we have recently seen, what happens is growth is fuelled by debt, which ultimately collapses, resetting the "growth" clock which then allows future "growth". Increasing the money supply is not growth if it is borrowed from somewhere else. Especially if it is borrowed from me, then pissed up the wall leaving me worse off.
In short, capitalistic systems going through boom and bust are only normal and accepted by those who have a vested interest in allowing them to collapse. Real growth requires that you hold on to what you've got and build, not place your bets, follow the lady. Or do you deny the markets are a gamble ?
When the bank puts my mortgage up because they're short of money, how is that my fault ? Do we allow the addicted gambler to forcibly take funds from people just to cover his debts ? That is one abusive relationship.
If I write cout >> $something is that ok ? You may or not know what it means but the fact is that it is wrong. So we can write anything we like, and leave it all open to the readers own understanding of a subject, because that's what science is all about - ambiguity and inaccuracy. Just because I know what I meant doesn't mean somebody else does. Communication isn't supposed to cater only for the knowledgeable, it defines how we see the world. If anybody can make up their own rules then communication will become less and less efficient and meaningful and slowly die. See the "Tower of Babel".
Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Don't expect others to "fill in the blanks". The mere fact that you responded to someone who told you of your mistake by insisting you were correct shows how little you know of the subject, and now your response to me shows that you don't care that you were wrong. Maybe you should work for NASA, I mean - what does it matter if you use imperial rather than metric, they should know what you mean from the context right ?
And to suggest that I get any satisfaction out of spending MY time trying to educate somebody who obviously doesn't have the first clue is laughable. And besides, not all communication is art. Poetry, prose, haiku, fine. Written words intended to establish a point about the real world are not art, they are science. How can you define anything scientifically if you cannot rely on the meaning of the words ? Do you understand the words in the way I understand the same words ? If not, then we are not communicating, one of us is having to second guess your meaning. We get around this by agreeing to use terms with previously established meanings. You obviously don't agree so I may as well be writing in chinese. On the other hand, you are correct in that you didn't learn anything useful past elementary school. Can you see the irony in your comment yet ?
ps. regarding that link - so if I write H20 or CO2 or Pb or Fe, or Cu you have absolutely no idea what I'm referring to ? Just because you don't want to learn something doesn't make it useless to you. I'm not a chemist or a biologist, but I recognise the terms they use which gives me some idea of what they are talking about. You, it seems, prefer to remain ignorant, after all it's easier to say "I don't know" rather than participate intelligently (or at the very least stay out of the discussion).
It is the best mentality to have. I always change the settings to notify and nothing else. I choose what goes on my pc not microsoft. I have never downloaded the Malicious Software tool. I have never downloaded the WGA shit. Then again my XP pc has never been infected with anything either, so my actions aren't crazy.
If you are willing to dance to microsofts tune then carry on. Doesn't make you clever in any way. Or maybe you misunderstood the "auto" part of auto update.
If you are going to be a grammar nazi, do it properly. Passed is a verb (and was used properly), where past can be a noun, adjective or adverb.
Maybe if you had stopped in as you passed school you may have learnt something. "Outside of math classes (which are electives after sophomore year) nothing of use was taught to me passed elementary school." Only the bit in bold relates to the word 'passed'. Just read that bit and it doesn't make sense. The elementary school is used as a marker point beyond which nothing of use was taught. You can pass(verb) a marker point, and then you can say you have passed (verb past tense)it, but NOW you are(verb) past(noun) that point. Don't use it as a verb when the verb already existed (taught) in the sentence. http://www.surrey.ac.uk/Skills/pack/english/past.html
Just strip all unnecessary clutter from the sentence and see if it makes sense. nothing was taught passed elementary school. Did "nothing was taught" REALLY pass elementary school ?
When a clueless user leaves a log file to grow so large that they can't log in any more, how are they going to change permissions to get rid of the file ?
What really annoys me is the assumption that Linux should become an appliance just because some guy doesn't like to get his hands dirty. If that's what he wants, he can build his own system. He'll be famous I'm sure. But leave me out of it. I like using a linux os precisely because it's not tied down so tightly that it's unusable except for anything the distributor wanted (or thought of) - that's why I don't use windows. But then I'm not calling for the world to change to the way I want it. It's laughable that most windows installations are 32 bit when just about all processors support 64 bit, and RAM (one of the most noticeable improvements you can make to any system) is cheap. They are selling new vista laptops ATM, with 3GB of RAM, just because the OS can't see/use any more.
I find all this "Ready for the Desktop" stuff pretty boring when I've been using linux exclusively for "My Desktop" about 4 years. I did my first install of SuSE back when win98 was new. I still have XP on a laptop, which it came with, I have XP running the tv as a legacy device, I also have xp64 on a workstation, but that was mainly to see if worked properly. All my day to day stuff, coding, documentation, web browsing, video watching is done either with FC4 (also my media server) or F10 workstation. As far as I'm concerned, keep it up guys, I'm not suffering for any lack of consistency or stability. The guy with the list of problems had better get coding if he wants his issues addressed, considering how much he's already apparently happy with and got for nothing.
I thought there was a universal packaging system for linux -./configure./make install clean the software usually runs better that way too. But then I like having a General Purpose computer, rather than an appliance.
Consider this as my challenge to your statement: Go to work for the next week in female attire appropriate to your work environment and tell me how well that works for you. Decline to answer questions about why, simply do so and then try and carry on with your job.
So you are asking someone to deliberately make themselves stand out from normal for no reason and then be expected to be treated the same way ?
This is what pisses me off about your type. You don't want equality of anything. You want inequality because you would have nothing to complain about otherwise. If everybody was equal, you would want to be given special mention because you were gay, or pregnant, or disabled. It has nothing to do with the facts, just your desire to be seen as special for no reason other than your circumstances. There is a reason you have separate races in the 100m for men and women. If they were to run together, then the women would always have to complain about how unfair it all was. They would want a 50m head start, and if they didn't win then it would be down to some other perceived slight.
I'm all for equality of status. But the minute *you* introduce a perceived inequality to game the system, then there can be no equality in your mind. I have nothing against homosexuals, but why do they feel the need to tell everybody at every opportunity ? It has no bearing other than to gain an advantage. Do we have a heterosexual parade every year ?
It seems to me that you have the issues, believing that your achievements are DESPITE being who you are, not BECAUSE of who you are. For all we know you are a man anyway, that's the thing about the net, you can be anybody you want. And yet you choose to stand out and argue things that don't matter here. One thing I learned early on in my life was - If you stick your head up, you get it shot off. It doesn't make it right, but complaining about it makes you look stupid. Especially if you have no reason to stick your head up except to deliberately stand out.
You would fight to be given a task and argue you should be allowed to because you are female. If you fail at that task, you would then blame everybody else saying it was because you are female and it's not your fault. Make your mind up. Start acting as an equal and you'll find you get treated as an equal. This isn't the 19th century any more, you don't have to chain yourself to anything.
BTW, the holocaust was precisely about genocide. The Jews have been marginalised since history began, because they marginalised themselves. They set up the ghettos, not the rest of the people. Hitler simply decided to get rid of them permanently. And that was largely due to control of money. Jews were originally the only people whose religion allowed them to charge interest on loans. Hence people in business used them yet simultaneously hated them for the simple fact they couldn't do without them. You bang on about history yet you appear to have read only those bits you find offensive to you. Did you realise that the universal right to vote was not even extended to MEN until 1928 ?
Electoral reform continued through the 19th century and into the 20th century. The Reform Act of 1867 extended the right to vote to 13 adult men out of every 100.
In 1872, an act was passed that introduced voting by secret ballot, which was an important advance.
Then there were the Representation of the People Acts of 1884 and 1918. The 1918 act was momentous in that some women at last had the vote after years of fighting by the Suffragettes.
In 1928, uniform voting rights were granted to all men and women over the age of 21. Some 99 adults out of every 100 could now vote.
So all your bleating about men v women in Nightingales time is more accurately described as rich v poor, and that is what still needs to be addressed, not whether a person wears a skirt.
This from an exfriends mother impersonating a cute boy. Just like a sexual predator, grossly misrepresenting herself for personal gratification.
NO IT WASN'T !
It was Grills who was posting the "offensive" comments, NOT Lori Drew. She merely set up the account, and allowed it to be used by Grills. The number of people arguing eloquently and at length about how Drew committed all these foul deeds are just making themselves look stupid.
-1 Mob rule.
IMHO, it's the mother* of the 'victim' who should be prosecuted for failing to care for her child. If she had let her kid have free unsupervised access to a loaded gun should we be blaming the NRA ? The world is full of assholes, a parents job is to protect their child until they are old enough to look after themselves. Allowing them unmonitored use of the internet is akin to kicking them out of the car at dawn in NYC and expecting them to come home at sunset unscathed.
Think about it. Who was in the best place to see if their daughter was emotionally damaged ? Seeing that situation would you continue to let that girl access the myriad possible "nasties" available on the internet ? It amuses me that everybody here clamours for free speech, even "hate" speech, but when that speech hurts someone, everybody switches tack and tries to blame the speaker. So which is it ? No-one forced the girl to read that shit, especially not Lori Drew. There was however only one* person who could have prevented her from reading it (or soothed the hurt feelings post reading)- her mother (the bill payer and legal guardian). Of course they'll never prosecute the mother but that doesn't mean they should prosecute $anybody further down the line instead.
The following examples may help to clarify the difference between the new and old math.
1960: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of this price. What is his profit?
1970 (Traditional math): A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. What is his profit?
1975 (New Math): A logger exchanges a set L of lumber for a set M of money. The cardinality of set M is 100 and each element is worth $1.
(a) make 100 dots representing the elements of the set M
(b) The set C representing costs of production contains 20 fewer points than set M. Represent the set C as a subset of the set M.
(c) What is the cardinality of the set P of profits?
1990 (Dumbed-down math): A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Underline the number 20.
1997 (Whole Math): By cutting down a forest full of beautiful trees, a logger makes $20.
(a) What do you think of this way of making money?
(b) How did the forest birds and squirrels feel?
(c) Draw a picture of the forest as you'd like it to look.
I left school the year before they merged GCE (General Certificate of Education) and CSE (Certificate of Secondary Education) into GCSE. The CSE syllabus was taught to those who were less academically capable (as evidenced by their past results). In my opinion, GCE taught how to calculate an answer, whereas CSE taught how to recognise an answer from a group of candidates. But that wasn't "fair" so everybody had to learn at the lowest common level.
That is the problem. I do have experience of both types as although I did GCEs at school, I also went to college to learn car mechanics where I had to take basic English (Communication Skills) and Maths (Numeracy) as part of the course. Having already got GCEs in both, I pissed the college courses with distinctions. The top grade in CSE was only ever a C in GCE. The laughable thing from this recent article is that you can pass with around a 20% score.
There's no doubt efficient transportation is necessary in general not just for large events but I'm not clear on what that has to do with the congestion charge.
What is more efficient ? A 55 mile queue of cars with 1 person inside each or a 6 mile (recycling) queue of buses each with 50 people in. If you don't use your car you don't pay the congestion charge. You also don't have to pay for parking, you don't need as much space to park all the vehicles, you use less fuel, you emit less CO2, you use less materials the list goes on. Assuming the people who won't pay the charge don't enter the city, then they obviously didn't really need to anyway - so the congestion charge removes unnecessary traffic. If they do still enter the city but by bus (or train/tube) then they are using a more efficient method and taking up less space for parking etc as well.
So you tell me, what benefits to efficiency doesn't the congestion charge have ? IMHO, they could take all the money raised by the congestion charge and throw it in the river, but its benefit to the efficiency of the road system would still exist. Building more roads does not increase efficiency, it just gives more temporary breathing room. Using existing roads in a better way is more efficient.
Photography - Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre - French
Radio - Hertz - German
TV - Paul Nipkow (mechanical) German, Karl Braun (electronic CRT) German
Phone - Antonio Meucci Italian
Car - Nicholas Joseph Cugnot (Steam) French, Alphonse Bear de Rochas (ICE otto cycle) French
The last three are derivatives of everything else, the internet is electronic communication, space flight is an extension of Von Braun (German) and the Russians were there first, and a modern understanding of physics is so vague as to be useless. But Einstein was not an American citizen until the war came and he was already 53 years old.
Boris (don't look at the hands, look at the eyes) Johnson, has scrapped the western extension to the London Congestion charge. He asked a survey of 28000 what they wanted and apparently between 67 % and 86% of businesses wanted it scrapped. Sounds democratic, but I think that mob rule better fits the bill. Since the extension was introduced, roughly 30,000 fewer vehicles a day have passed through that zone. That's a line of cars over 55 miles (90km) long that haven't been clogging the streets on their way somewhere else. If you take into account the reduction caused by the original zone (70,000 vehicles), and you can add 131 miles (210km) to that figure. 186 miles of traffic NOT entering an area roughly 10 miles in diameter every day. I would have thought that was a good thing, but apparently not. What about the other 250,000 vehicles who still enter the area daily ?
Still, as long as he's popular...
I worked the distances out using 1 car = 3 metres long. If some of those were trucks, then the line gets longer, and most cars are longer than 3m anyway. Yes this is relevant to the Olympics. Efficient transportation is kind of essential at large events.
No, the links say they think the feed is in HD. They bought an HD set and so they think that they have HD. As simple as that. My family have an HD TV (not full HD, 720p) and they have NEVER watched any (true) HD content on it. I have set it up to display the upscaled content from a dvd player/DVB receiver, and it looks cleaner, but it is not true HD. I hear many people bragging about buying an HD set, but none of them have Bluray or HDVD. It is only relatively recently that there were any HD feeds available anyway.
It is a similar concept to when they all got widescreen TVs and then bitched because they were still getting black bars at top and bottom. Your average person doesn't understand aspect ratios and Hi Def and think that because the device says it's an HD TV or widescreen, then that's what they'll get. When you say "can't tell" what you should be saying is "not looking". They already assume they have it.
This brings me on to a pet peeve at the moment. They are running ads on the TV, saying that when the analogue TV signal gets switched off, if they haven't upgraded, then their tv set may not work properly. The key words are "may not". I think they should be saying "will not". There will be no analogue channels left, so unless they buy a STB or get a DVB capable set, then they will not get a signal. It's probably political, don't startle the proles or they may realise we're forcing them to do something that costs them money.
I was going to mod you troll, but I'll bite instead.
What about MY bandwidth ? Fuck the website, if they don't want to do it they don't have to. But why should I sit there with the progress bar at 60% for 5 minutes (or for ever) just so they can show me an ad I WILL NEVER CLICK ? Advertising is not revenue. Content brings revenue, not slimy deals with crappy spammers. Where you get macdonalds from, I don't know. You know in advance that you will pay for something while you're there, and you don't get spammed for related purchases from their "trusted partners". Have you been brainwashed ? Maybe you ought to start a fishing lake where the fish are trained to bite the first hook they see. I guess you are also a fan of the "previews" at the cinema, and user prohibited operations on DVDs.
There are too many web sites whose entire business model consists of pretending to have content, but really they are just fronts for spam. If they fail, tough.
So why is the botnets domain still resolving ? You can't seriously believe that we know all about this botnets c+c but don't know what domains it's using. Just blacklist the domain.
Slashdot Mirror
Good art requires the viewer to think. What is more indicative of the state of social consumerism and the temporary nature of anything, than a document that allows precisely one viewing then removes itself from the page. Not to mention the indirect commentary on the transitory nature of language as a communication mechanism. It doesn't matter what the theme of the poem was, the art was the action of allowing one reading then visibly degrading the communication to the point where it was no longer communicating anything other than loss. What is poetic about a sunset ? The scientific fact that the sun is merely being hidden by the rotation of the earth ? Or the mental notion of the day coming to an end, time passing, out with the old, everything dies, sadness, hope etc. ?
I would see Gibsons work as deliberately demonstrating the sadness of work being published, read, then being removed from view and denying future readings. Very nice work considering the date it was first published, and our current problems with DRM and copyright.
What seems to be missing from your post and the previous you replied to, is that all the previous "grand masters" worked to commission. ie. they were paid to produce a work for the commissioner. That is not true of the current situation, where artists are paid to produce work for organisations whose sole purpose in commissioning the work is in order to re-sell it at a profit. Therefore they over-produce and complain when the consumers don't consume.
If I paid for an artist to write a song then I would be foolish if I didn't listen to it. If the artist produces a song ahead of time, then complains because no-one wants to listen to it then the artist is the fool. No, you can't draw a direct parallel to the "music business" of the last 40 years, but that's where the whole analogy falls down. Michaelangelo didn't have a 'human' right to make money by painting the Sistine Chapel, but he did have a commission (a contract) which promised him payment in exchange. If he had just turned up and done the work before the agreement then he would have been pretty stupid.
In short, get the money or contract sorted out before you work. Then no-one gets between you and payment. Mass produced art is the same as mass produced anything. You are putting the cart before the horse, by claiming that you are owed money for work that no-one asked you to produce. The music "industry" have placed themselves in the position of supermarkets. They don't produce anything, they take the risk of buying from a producer then hope they can generate a market for that stock. Whoops, misjudged the market, gotta eat those losses. Nothing to do with art whatsoever.
I installed a recent version of Damn Small Linux on a new Intel Atom board (D945GCLF) and there were no drivers for it. Apparently a later kernel update fixed it. Doesn't mean there WERE drivers when I found the problem. And if it's a live distro it's harder to upgrade (RO media). Yes you can do it, but still.
I found the same issue when I tried to install on FC4. Ok, FC4 is old, but it works just fine for my purposes and upgrading will be more of a complete re-install. This is trying to install firefox 3 as downloaded from the mozilla site. I don't use the Fedora distros version of firefox.
None of the urls you just posted are the same. Are you complaining that google indexes your site ? To do that they have to visit the various separate pages. Maybe if you didn't run everything through a couple of PHP scripts, they wouldn't put so much load on your server.
Yahoo has been guilty of large amount of spidering on my sites, but google is only once every week or so. But then I don't use php so much. If you don't like google doing what you see, then script a robots.txt file that changes according to the day/date whatever. Crontab might be your friend.
The URL bar is showing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
So buggy whip manufacturers and Ostlers suffered no decrease in "value" of their products when the automobile became the preferred mode of transport ? That is not growth, it is substitution. Growth requires retention otherwise all you have is an expanding shell which collapses when the shell becomes too thinly stretched around the vacuum left by everything moving outwards.
Financial growth appears to rely on the notion that value is not a fixed commodity and can be expanded at will. Which leads to financial vehicles which are wholly based on the current perception of value, not on whether that perception will last. As soon as the perceived value disappears, so does the entire vehicle. How can that be considered growth ?
You appear to have ignored the part of my post dealing with pyramid schemes. The really wealthy people/organisations are not stupid enough to keep their money in financial vehicles any longer than it takes to maximise the profit and transfer that profit to REAL commodities, like land, buildings, gold etc. When boom turns to bust, they may not have the same "value" in dollars, but the relative value has been maintained, there is only so much land for instance. Putting your faith in an economic system that desires the intangible over the real, is asking to be ripped off by those who invented the system. Being a middle man for those who take the real profits is a poor defence. I have a flight ready 1 stage to orbit aircraft that I am willing to share profits on. Just buy some shares in the company. If confidence is good then we all make money. As soon as it becomes clear that there is no such aircraft, everybody with shares loses their investment. Of course, I knew there was no aircraft so I took as much money as I considered possible and headed for the hills. The whole thing was a lie designed specifically to get people to give me money for nothing. You call it growth, I call it theft.
I'll lend money to people who have no chance of keeping up repayments. But we''ll pretend they will honour their debts, and that means there is a revenue stream. I can borrow against that revenue stream, maybe even 1000 times the streams real value. Other people borrow the money I already borrowed and the revenue is vastly multiplied. But as soon as the original debtors start defaulting the whole premise for the vast revenue stream evaporates. Tell me that whole scenario isn't based on a lie creating an illusion of value, and leaving anybody who believed in the lie with massive debts secured on a non-existent property. Only those who initiated the lie and have now moved on, made any real profit. That is not growth, that is taking from your pocket and putting it into mine. Nothing extra has been created other than debt. That's the thing about leverage. When you put too much weight on the top of the lever, the small rock the lever is working against isn't enough to stop the lever falling to earth. It is inherently unbalanced, and doomed to failure. Only the person selling the lever makes any real value from the situation.
I really don't see how Amazon have any claim to make here. The Amazon site is not being changed in any way whatsoever. The Firefox addon only modifies the way the page appears to the user of the browser where that addon is installed. They can't claim breach of copyright as no unlicensed distribution has taken place, and it has nothing to do with trademark law as there is nothing claiming to be Amazons property. The domain name (Pirates-of-the-Amazon.com) they chose to distribute the addon was the only possible flaw. The addon itself doesn't capitalise the word amazon so cannot be considered breach of trademarking, and *the* amazon is a natural feature. Nobody buys stuff from The Amazon - The Amazon.com website sure, but the latter statement has been qualified.
Amazon may as well make it a condition of using their site that you may NOT maximise your browser. Mind your own f*kin business. Whatever I choose to do with information legally obtained, after it gets to my machine, is my business, and my business alone. They should go after Opera the browser too. After all, you can make Amazons websites text be rendered in any font you like using CSS preferences. And Opera is a commercial venture, so they may be able to pay.
Hah, so the tool is more important than the subject you need the tool for ? Astronomers study the stars, their tools are telescopes (amongst others). The stars will still exist even without telescopes. Computer scientists study the application of logic in order to solve problems, and their tools are computers. The logic will still exist even if a computer were never built. But a specific high level language is pointless without a computer.
An elegant solution is elegant whichever computer language or OS it uses.
A pyramid scheme only works when the people involved have faith in the system. Also, when a pyramid scheme collapses it is only the ones at the top who get to make for the hills with all the cash. Perpetuating a system that is designed specifically to move money to the top then allows them to fuck off with it leaving everybody else in the shit is not acceptable in a supposedly democratic state. Boom and Bust benefits only those at the top. Occasionally a few others might catch the wave and get out before it breaks but they really are in the minority.
I have great difficulty taking seriously, any system that regards continuous growth as a given state of affairs. Nothing is infinite, so that growth has to come from some other part of the budget. As we have recently seen, what happens is growth is fuelled by debt, which ultimately collapses, resetting the "growth" clock which then allows future "growth". Increasing the money supply is not growth if it is borrowed from somewhere else. Especially if it is borrowed from me, then pissed up the wall leaving me worse off.
In short, capitalistic systems going through boom and bust are only normal and accepted by those who have a vested interest in allowing them to collapse. Real growth requires that you hold on to what you've got and build, not place your bets, follow the lady.
Or do you deny the markets are a gamble ?
When the bank puts my mortgage up because they're short of money, how is that my fault ? Do we allow the addicted gambler to forcibly take funds from people just to cover his debts ? That is one abusive relationship.
Yeah right, so you've learned nothing.
If I write
cout >> $something
is that ok ? You may or not know what it means but the fact is that it is wrong. So we can write anything we like, and leave it all open to the readers own understanding of a subject, because that's what science is all about - ambiguity and inaccuracy. Just because I know what I meant doesn't mean somebody else does. Communication isn't supposed to cater only for the knowledgeable, it defines how we see the world. If anybody can make up their own rules then communication will become less and less efficient and meaningful and slowly die. See the "Tower of Babel".
Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Don't expect others to "fill in the blanks". The mere fact that you responded to someone who told you of your mistake by insisting you were correct shows how little you know of the subject, and now your response to me shows that you don't care that you were wrong. Maybe you should work for NASA, I mean - what does it matter if you use imperial rather than metric, they should know what you mean from the context right ?
And to suggest that I get any satisfaction out of spending MY time trying to educate somebody who obviously doesn't have the first clue is laughable. And besides, not all communication is art. Poetry, prose, haiku, fine. Written words intended to establish a point about the real world are not art, they are science. How can you define anything scientifically if you cannot rely on the meaning of the words ? Do you understand the words in the way I understand the same words ? If not, then we are not communicating, one of us is having to second guess your meaning. We get around this by agreeing to use terms with previously established meanings. You obviously don't agree so I may as well be writing in chinese. On the other hand, you are correct in that you didn't learn anything useful past elementary school. Can you see the irony in your comment yet ?
ps. regarding that link - so if I write H20 or CO2 or Pb or Fe, or Cu you have absolutely no idea what I'm referring to ? Just because you don't want to learn something doesn't make it useless to you. I'm not a chemist or a biologist, but I recognise the terms they use which gives me some idea of what they are talking about. You, it seems, prefer to remain ignorant, after all it's easier to say "I don't know" rather than participate intelligently (or at the very least stay out of the discussion).
It is the best mentality to have. I always change the settings to notify and nothing else. I choose what goes on my pc not microsoft. I have never downloaded the Malicious Software tool. I have never downloaded the WGA shit. Then again my XP pc has never been infected with anything either, so my actions aren't crazy.
If you are willing to dance to microsofts tune then carry on. Doesn't make you clever in any way. Or maybe you misunderstood the "auto" part of auto update.
When the government removes your right to privacy, only criminals will have privacy.
Maybe if you had stopped in as you passed school you may have learnt something.
"Outside of math classes (which are electives after sophomore year) nothing of use was taught to me passed elementary school."
Only the bit in bold relates to the word 'passed'. Just read that bit and it doesn't make sense. The elementary school is used as a marker point beyond which nothing of use was taught. You can pass(verb) a marker point, and then you can say you have passed (verb past tense)it, but NOW you are(verb) past(noun) that point. Don't use it as a verb when the verb already existed (taught) in the sentence.
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/Skills/pack/english/past.html
Just strip all unnecessary clutter from the sentence and see if it makes sense.
nothing was taught passed elementary school.
Did "nothing was taught" REALLY pass elementary school ?
Root is God
./configure ./make install clean
When a clueless user leaves a log file to grow so large that they can't log in any more, how are they going to change permissions to get rid of the file ?
What really annoys me is the assumption that Linux should become an appliance just because some guy doesn't like to get his hands dirty. If that's what he wants, he can build his own system. He'll be famous I'm sure. But leave me out of it. I like using a linux os precisely because it's not tied down so tightly that it's unusable except for anything the distributor wanted (or thought of) - that's why I don't use windows.
But then I'm not calling for the world to change to the way I want it. It's laughable that most windows installations are 32 bit when just about all processors support 64 bit, and RAM (one of the most noticeable improvements you can make to any system) is cheap. They are selling new vista laptops ATM, with 3GB of RAM, just because the OS can't see/use any more.
I find all this "Ready for the Desktop" stuff pretty boring when I've been using linux exclusively for "My Desktop" about 4 years. I did my first install of SuSE back when win98 was new. I still have XP on a laptop, which it came with, I have XP running the tv as a legacy device, I also have xp64 on a workstation, but that was mainly to see if worked properly. All my day to day stuff, coding, documentation, web browsing, video watching is done either with FC4 (also my media server) or F10 workstation. As far as I'm concerned, keep it up guys, I'm not suffering for any lack of consistency or stability. The guy with the list of problems had better get coding if he wants his issues addressed, considering how much he's already apparently happy with and got for nothing.
I thought there was a universal packaging system for linux -
the software usually runs better that way too. But then I like having a General Purpose computer, rather than an appliance.
So you are asking someone to deliberately make themselves stand out from normal for no reason and then be expected to be treated the same way ?
This is what pisses me off about your type. You don't want equality of anything. You want inequality because you would have nothing to complain about otherwise. If everybody was equal, you would want to be given special mention because you were gay, or pregnant, or disabled. It has nothing to do with the facts, just your desire to be seen as special for no reason other than your circumstances. There is a reason you have separate races in the 100m for men and women. If they were to run together, then the women would always have to complain about how unfair it all was. They would want a 50m head start, and if they didn't win then it would be down to some other perceived slight.
I'm all for equality of status. But the minute *you* introduce a perceived inequality to game the system, then there can be no equality in your mind. I have nothing against homosexuals, but why do they feel the need to tell everybody at every opportunity ? It has no bearing other than to gain an advantage. Do we have a heterosexual parade every year ?
It seems to me that you have the issues, believing that your achievements are DESPITE being who you are, not BECAUSE of who you are. For all we know you are a man anyway, that's the thing about the net, you can be anybody you want. And yet you choose to stand out and argue things that don't matter here. One thing I learned early on in my life was - If you stick your head up, you get it shot off. It doesn't make it right, but complaining about it makes you look stupid. Especially if you have no reason to stick your head up except to deliberately stand out.
You would fight to be given a task and argue you should be allowed to because you are female. If you fail at that task, you would then blame everybody else saying it was because you are female and it's not your fault. Make your mind up. Start acting as an equal and you'll find you get treated as an equal. This isn't the 19th century any more, you don't have to chain yourself to anything.
BTW, the holocaust was precisely about genocide. The Jews have been marginalised since history began, because they marginalised themselves. They set up the ghettos, not the rest of the people. Hitler simply decided to get rid of them permanently. And that was largely due to control of money. Jews were originally the only people whose religion allowed them to charge interest on loans. Hence people in business used them yet simultaneously hated them for the simple fact they couldn't do without them. You bang on about history yet you appear to have read only those bits you find offensive to you. Did you realise that the universal right to vote was not even extended to MEN until 1928 ?
http://bygonederbyshire.co.uk/articles/1800s:_Rioting_over_the_right_to_vote
So all your bleating about men v women in Nightingales time is more accurately described as rich v poor, and that is what still needs to be addressed, not whether a person wears a skirt.
NO IT WASN'T !
It was Grills who was posting the "offensive" comments, NOT Lori Drew. She merely set up the account, and allowed it to be used by Grills. The number of people arguing eloquently and at length about how Drew committed all these foul deeds are just making themselves look stupid.
-1 Mob rule.
IMHO, it's the mother* of the 'victim' who should be prosecuted for failing to care for her child. If she had let her kid have free unsupervised access to a loaded gun should we be blaming the NRA ? The world is full of assholes, a parents job is to protect their child until they are old enough to look after themselves. Allowing them unmonitored use of the internet is akin to kicking them out of the car at dawn in NYC and expecting them to come home at sunset unscathed.
Think about it. Who was in the best place to see if their daughter was emotionally damaged ? Seeing that situation would you continue to let that girl access the myriad possible "nasties" available on the internet ? It amuses me that everybody here clamours for free speech, even "hate" speech, but when that speech hurts someone, everybody switches tack and tries to blame the speaker. So which is it ? No-one forced the girl to read that shit, especially not Lori Drew. There was however only one* person who could have prevented her from reading it (or soothed the hurt feelings post reading)- her mother (the bill payer and legal guardian). Of course they'll never prosecute the mother but that doesn't mean they should prosecute $anybody further down the line instead.
(*Is there a father anywhere in this case ?)
The following examples may help to clarify the difference between the new and old math.
1960: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of this price. What is his profit?
1970 (Traditional math): A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. What is his profit?
1975 (New Math): A logger exchanges a set L of lumber for a set M of money. The cardinality of set M is 100 and each element is worth $1.
(a) make 100 dots representing the elements of the set M
(b) The set C representing costs of production contains 20 fewer points than set M. Represent the set C as a subset of the set M.
(c) What is the cardinality of the set P of profits?
1990 (Dumbed-down math): A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Underline the number 20.
1997 (Whole Math): By cutting down a forest full of beautiful trees, a logger makes $20.
(a) What do you think of this way of making money?
(b) How did the forest birds and squirrels feel?
(c) Draw a picture of the forest as you'd like it to look.
I left school the year before they merged GCE (General Certificate of Education) and CSE (Certificate of Secondary Education) into GCSE.
The CSE syllabus was taught to those who were less academically capable (as evidenced by their past results). In my opinion, GCE taught how to calculate an answer, whereas CSE taught how to recognise an answer from a group of candidates. But that wasn't "fair" so everybody had to learn at the lowest common level.
That is the problem.
I do have experience of both types as although I did GCEs at school, I also went to college to learn car mechanics where I had to take basic English (Communication Skills) and Maths (Numeracy) as part of the course. Having already got GCEs in both, I pissed the college courses with distinctions. The top grade in CSE was only ever a C in GCE. The laughable thing from this recent article is that you can pass with around a 20% score.
How many people will get trampled to death ?
assholes.
What is more efficient ? A 55 mile queue of cars with 1 person inside each or a 6 mile (recycling) queue of buses each with 50 people in. If you don't use your car you don't pay the congestion charge. You also don't have to pay for parking, you don't need as much space to park all the vehicles, you use less fuel, you emit less CO2, you use less materials the list goes on.
Assuming the people who won't pay the charge don't enter the city, then they obviously didn't really need to anyway - so the congestion charge removes unnecessary traffic. If they do still enter the city but by bus (or train/tube) then they are using a more efficient method and taking up less space for parking etc as well.
So you tell me, what benefits to efficiency doesn't the congestion charge have ? IMHO, they could take all the money raised by the congestion charge and throw it in the river, but its benefit to the efficiency of the road system would still exist. Building more roads does not increase efficiency, it just gives more temporary breathing room. Using existing roads in a better way is more efficient.
Photography - Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre - French
Radio - Hertz - German
TV - Paul Nipkow (mechanical) German, Karl Braun (electronic CRT) German
Phone - Antonio Meucci Italian
Car - Nicholas Joseph Cugnot (Steam) French, Alphonse Bear de Rochas (ICE otto cycle) French
The last three are derivatives of everything else, the internet is electronic communication, space flight is an extension of Von Braun (German) and the Russians were there first, and a modern understanding of physics is so vague as to be useless. But Einstein was not an American citizen until the war came and he was already 53 years old.
You're welcome - The Rest of The World.
Boris (don't look at the hands, look at the eyes) Johnson, has scrapped the western extension to the London Congestion charge. He asked a survey of 28000 what they wanted and apparently between 67 % and 86% of businesses wanted it scrapped. Sounds democratic, but I think that mob rule better fits the bill. Since the extension was introduced, roughly 30,000 fewer vehicles a day have passed through that zone. That's a line of cars over 55 miles (90km) long that haven't been clogging the streets on their way somewhere else. If you take into account the reduction caused by the original zone (70,000 vehicles), and you can add 131 miles (210km) to that figure. 186 miles of traffic NOT entering an area roughly 10 miles in diameter every day. I would have thought that was a good thing, but apparently not. What about the other 250,000 vehicles who still enter the area daily ?
...
Still, as long as he's popular
I worked the distances out using 1 car = 3 metres long. If some of those were trucks, then the line gets longer, and most cars are longer than 3m anyway.
Yes this is relevant to the Olympics. Efficient transportation is kind of essential at large events.
No, the links say they think the feed is in HD. They bought an HD set and so they think that they have HD. As simple as that. My family have an HD TV (not full HD, 720p) and they have NEVER watched any (true) HD content on it. I have set it up to display the upscaled content from a dvd player/DVB receiver, and it looks cleaner, but it is not true HD. I hear many people bragging about buying an HD set, but none of them have Bluray or HDVD. It is only relatively recently that there were any HD feeds available anyway.
It is a similar concept to when they all got widescreen TVs and then bitched because they were still getting black bars at top and bottom. Your average person doesn't understand aspect ratios and Hi Def and think that because the device says it's an HD TV or widescreen, then that's what they'll get. When you say "can't tell" what you should be saying is "not looking". They already assume they have it.
This brings me on to a pet peeve at the moment. They are running ads on the TV, saying that when the analogue TV signal gets switched off, if they haven't upgraded, then their tv set may not work properly. The key words are "may not". I think they should be saying "will not". There will be no analogue channels left, so unless they buy a STB or get a DVB capable set, then they will not get a signal. It's probably political, don't startle the proles or they may realise we're forcing them to do something that costs them money.
I was going to mod you troll, but I'll bite instead.
What about MY bandwidth ? Fuck the website, if they don't want to do it they don't have to. But why should I sit there with the progress bar at 60% for 5 minutes (or for ever) just so they can show me an ad I WILL NEVER CLICK ? Advertising is not revenue. Content brings revenue, not slimy deals with crappy spammers. Where you get macdonalds from, I don't know. You know in advance that you will pay for something while you're there, and you don't get spammed for related purchases from their "trusted partners". Have you been brainwashed ? Maybe you ought to start a fishing lake where the fish are trained to bite the first hook they see. I guess you are also a fan of the "previews" at the cinema, and user prohibited operations on DVDs.
There are too many web sites whose entire business model consists of pretending to have content, but really they are just fronts for spam. If they fail, tough.
So why is the botnets domain still resolving ? You can't seriously believe that we know all about this botnets c+c but don't know what domains it's using. Just blacklist the domain.