Actually, my whole car was stolen with the transponder stuck on the window. When the police recovered the car a couple of days later, the engine, wheels, and entire interior had been stripped out, but the transponder was just laying on the floor. I'm guessing that even the car thieves know the transponders make them pretty easy to track.
Re:Rational decision by school administration?
on
Ontario School Bans Wi-Fi
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Obviously not, and there's a certain level of sarcasm there. But the underlying point is valid - you don't want to make decisions just because the irrational minority makes a lot of noise.
In this case it's probably not worth dealing with them over something as insignificant as WiFi, but figuring out when something is important enough to fight for is the difficult question.
Re:Rational decision by school administration?
on
Ontario School Bans Wi-Fi
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Then you would have them ban immunizations for children based on the same logic?
Grocers have a limited amount of floor space, so they need to be picky about what they stock. It costs Apple nearly nothing to stock every app available, and they make money on all of them.
Buried at the bottom of the BBC article is this other side of the story link that tries to make a similar point.
Our cameraman, correspondent and producer spent the day looking into the story. They discovered that much of the material is faked - though a lot is extremely convincing.
Of course, the rational view doesn't play as well, so no major headlines for that.
While.xxx will make these sites easier to find or filter, as someone mentioned above, the hard part is deciding which sites should get forced to have a.xxx domain.
The government would probably suggest getting the FCC involved, and then slashdot.org would become slashdot.xxx because someone found a few goatse links...
"Star Trek is a waste of screen time and latex ears... but I love the revolutionary science fiction stories in Lucas' Star Wars series, especially the newer ones."
Yes, but the latex ears seemed to counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor of the Humanity of the writer's compassionate soul, which contrives through the medium of the verse structure to sublimate this, transcend that, and come to terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other, and one is left with a profound and vivid insight into whatever it was the show was about.
There don't seem to be many companies doing this. I found one Austrailian
company. They don't explicitly say that it's MythTV, but the screenshots give it away.
How is preventing someone from saying "fuck" not censorship?
From dictionary.com:
censorship: The act, process, or practice of censoring.
censor: to examine (as a publication or film) in order to suppress or delete any contents considered objectionable.
Preventing someone from saying "fuck" is just that: Supressing contents considered objectionable. The question is, who is allowed to say what is objectionable? If it doesn't offend me, what right does anyone have to block my access to it?
For the record, I hate Howard Stern, Mancow, and the like. So I just don't listen.
Without hacking it, you can't get the recorded video out of a Tivo. There are versions that combine a DVD recorder and a Tivo, but I imagine they're pretty pricey (I haven't looking into it myself.)
My gut feeling is that Windows Media Center records things in a "secure" MS format, so you probably can't copy them, either. I have no real information on that, it just seems like a Microsofty thing to do.
It's not cheap, but building a MythTV box will give you all this, and if you have cheaper, lower horsepower boxes lying around, they can run the myth frontend to connect to the "server" machine. The frontend machine does everything the X-Box add-on says it does, with no MS hoops to jump through.
But isn't the reason that they regulate devices that can cause interference is that they are themselves transmitters?
I don't actually know if they have any authority over receiver hardware or not, but it might only be that most receiver hardware is capable of transmitting in some form (if only via interference.)
We seem to have tons of hacked windows boxes out there spewing spam and everything else out into the wild. How come no one has made some sort of P2P zombie that shares (or at least proxies) tons of music from all over the net? That would either get the RIAA to sue the owner of every unpatched windows box in the world, or make it pretty much impossible to prove that anyone knew they were sharing. Either result seems like it would be fun to watch.
Slashdot Mirror
I read the title as referring to insect farmers who are edible. I'm not sure if that's better or worse.
"Buy all means" sounds like a new communist advertising slogan.
Actually, my whole car was stolen with the transponder stuck on the window. When the police recovered the car a couple of days later, the engine, wheels, and entire interior had been stripped out, but the transponder was just laying on the floor. I'm guessing that even the car thieves know the transponders make them pretty easy to track.
Obviously not, and there's a certain level of sarcasm there. But the underlying point is valid - you don't want to make decisions just because the irrational minority makes a lot of noise.
In this case it's probably not worth dealing with them over something as insignificant as WiFi, but figuring out when something is important enough to fight for is the difficult question.
Then you would have them ban immunizations for children based on the same logic?
Mr. Burns already built the sun blocker. http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi1590099993/
Grocers have a limited amount of floor space, so they need to be picky about what they stock. It costs Apple nearly nothing to stock every app available, and they make money on all of them.
Even if everything you say is true of these websites, Kentucky still has no jurisdiction to remove them from the internet.
I don't see anything about copyright on the US Dollar.
e .jpgo ne_dollar_bill%2C_reverse.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_%241_obvers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:United_States_
Of course, the rational view doesn't play as well, so no major headlines for that.
I haven't tried it with gmail specifically, but putting a password on your outer zip file usually prevents the scanning and lets it go through.
I truly hope that "meta-wank" is the next word added to the dictionary. It seems to go well with "podcast".
I think that's an Obligatory Offensive Partitioning Scheme
While .xxx will make these sites easier to find or filter, as someone mentioned above, the hard part is deciding which sites should get forced to have a .xxx domain.
The government would probably suggest getting the FCC involved, and then slashdot.org would become slashdot.xxx because someone found a few goatse links...
"Star Trek is a waste of screen time and latex ears... but I love the revolutionary science fiction stories in Lucas' Star Wars series, especially the newer ones."
Yes, but the latex ears seemed to counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor of the Humanity of the writer's compassionate soul, which contrives through the medium of the verse structure to sublimate this, transcend that, and come to terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other, and one is left with a profound and vivid insight into whatever it was the show was about.
Sounds like an idea for the next slashdot poll
Even if you assume they are correct, if Bush lost 300,000 votes, he still won Florida by 100,000 votes.
Read articles? You must be new here.
There don't seem to be many companies doing this. I found one Austrailian company. They don't explicitly say that it's MythTV, but the screenshots give it away.
How is preventing someone from saying "fuck" not censorship?
From dictionary.com:
censorship: The act, process, or practice of censoring.
censor: to examine (as a publication or film) in order to suppress or delete any contents considered objectionable.
Preventing someone from saying "fuck" is just that: Supressing contents considered objectionable. The question is, who is allowed to say what is objectionable? If it doesn't offend me, what right does anyone have to block my access to it?
For the record, I hate Howard Stern, Mancow, and the like. So I just don't listen.
Without hacking it, you can't get the recorded video out of a Tivo. There are versions that combine a DVD recorder and a Tivo, but I imagine they're pretty pricey (I haven't looking into it myself.)
My gut feeling is that Windows Media Center records things in a "secure" MS format, so you probably can't copy them, either. I have no real information on that, it just seems like a Microsofty thing to do.
It's not cheap, but building a MythTV box will give you all this, and if you have cheaper, lower horsepower boxes lying around, they can run the myth frontend to connect to the "server" machine. The frontend machine does everything the X-Box add-on says it does, with no MS hoops to jump through.
But isn't the reason that they regulate devices that can cause interference is that they are themselves transmitters?
I don't actually know if they have any authority over receiver hardware or not, but it might only be that most receiver hardware is capable of transmitting in some form (if only via interference.)
We seem to have tons of hacked windows boxes out there spewing spam and everything else out into the wild. How come no one has made some sort of P2P zombie that shares (or at least proxies) tons of music from all over the net? That would either get the RIAA to sue the owner of every unpatched windows box in the world, or make it pretty much impossible to prove that anyone knew they were sharing.
Either result seems like it would be fun to watch.
In soviet russia, Google searches for you!
And why did they not include OGG and FLAC support? OGG plus the battery life were the main selling points that got me to buy the Karma.