I don't think that we're going to find billions dumped into internet advertising,
I don't think that's the point. The point (in my opinion) is why are they going to allow online donations to be unlimited (under a particular circumstance), but in the same circumstance offline it isn't allowed to be unlimited? It's crazy.
When will the government stop treating everything "online" as something completely different and therefore subject to completely different laws? I'm surprised "accepting campaign donations online" hasn't been patented yet.
Does this device have end to end strong encryption to prevent anyone from easdropping on your conversation?
What the fuck are you talking about on the phone that you're afraid someone might overhear? Seriously. People go on about encrypting e-mails and whatnot all the time. What are you talking about over the phone that you don't want other people to hear?
I hate things that require my computer be on to work.
Oh I agree completely. There's this thing called Firefox, I've heard it's all the rage among the online community. But I've heard you have to actually turn on your computer for it to work. Well fuck that I say. I'll continue to use IE, and yeah. It requires me to turn on my computer, but only because it's tied in with Windows XP so much.
I was going to buy a tablet so I could draw. But again, the fucking thing requires me to turn on my computer. Well fuck that.
I don't know whose designing these computer-tools, but they really need to re-think this whole "computer is on" business.
I think I'll stick with my landline phone for now. To buy a phone that will only work with one particular proprietry network, which I have to pay for voice mail with, along with every call I make except those few I make to other Skype users, I'm not going to be saving money anytime soon (depending on phone making habits).
If I do decide to go for a VOIP system, I'll do so with one that fits my needs (and is preferably open source), not the most popular one.
They may not encourage it, and they may have legal mumbo-jumbo about connecting to their service with a non-MSFT client, but (in a technical sense) there was never any lock-out.
Why would this be better than all of them starting to use Jabber/XMPP (which is an IETF standard anyway), if interoperability is all they want?
Because they want interoperability, amongst themselves and no-one else. XMPP allows anyone to set up a server that allows anyone to talk to anyone else. Right? So if I register on serverWoo and I want to talk to my friend whose registered at serverBoo I can. But serverBoo forces it's users to get ads, I won't see those ads because I'm on serverWoo, who don't make me see them (and I use a client that doesn't display ads). If they were interoperatable with any client and any server, then there'd be a hell of alot of people talking to their customers, that aren't seeing annoying ads. That isn't a good thing, because word will get round and people will eventually move to the non-ad servers.
By combining their protocols they get to show a united front against non-Microsoft-Yahoo clients (such as Trillian) and people who won't help support them by annoying their customers as much as Microsoft and Yahoo annoy their own.
You can gurantee if Microsoft and Yahoo were the only IMs left in the world, they would not have combined in this manner.
Compete in features you offer in your IM clients, but for heavens sake unify the networks.
That's a good point, but there's a problem. Microsoft and Yahoo aren't going to agree upon an open standard for their merged IM protocol (assuming it is a merged protocol they're talking about and not a trillian-type deal). They will then use their closed protocol to work on shutting out non-Microsoft-Yahoo approved clients (i.e. every other client not made by the two companies). If everyone agreed to only use one IM protocol, then it's going to have to be a closed standard because (based on past performance), Microsoft isn't willing to agree on an open standard, at least not for it's IM program. They will be able to use that to make it more difficult for the competition, the only competition they'll allow are Microsoft approved(TM) competitors (yup, if Microsoft has control of the standard they'll be able to decide who compete's with them) and keep changing the protocol in an attempt to lock-out non-approved competitors. And Microsoft's dislike for the GPL ensures they won't approve any GPL clients to use their protocol.
In the past both Yahoo and Microsoft have shown a habit of locking out third party clients, so this combination makes sense for them.
If Microsoft and Yahoo and everyone else were willing to agree on an open standard for IM communication, then that would be great and I'd whole heartedly support it. I just can't see Microsoft doing that anytime soon.
Why? Because they're making a pact with the devil? That's bullshit. Judge the IM clients based on their capabilities and your needs, not based on whose making them.
Having said that, I have never liked the IM client for Yahoo, and have always wavered between like and dislike on the msn client.
Ever heard of an agenda? I'm sure some of these scientists are simply looking for some kind of "missing link" between humans and monkeys (or whatever you want to call it), and they are going to see only what they're looking for.
No, no, no. That is so wrong it's actually funny (no offense intended). In fact, most people would probably be inclined to think you're trolling.
Not only do scientists not completely believe in the traditional missing link, they believe that the split happened long before the Flores beings existed, and that the Flores beings are most definitely of the homo genus (the homo genus happened after any split).
If there is any agenda. It's to make a name for themselves and to prove humans co-existed with other hominids (and did so in a manner that wasn't a detriment to the other species of hominid). Wherever humans appear, the previous versions of hominid didn't last too long. An agenda that may exist with those claiming the Flore's beings are a different species, is to prove that humans didn't always kill off the other hominids they encountered (some are attempting to prove this by pointing to legends of pygmy-like people in the area in human mythology and saying that those legends were based on dealings with the Flores people).
I'm not saying such an agenda exists, only that if an agenda does exist, that is the more likely one.
As for whether I believe the Flores beings are a sub-species, a seperate species or merely dwarves. I haven't made up my mind. But I'm following the developments closely.
Agreed. All this says is "it's okay to bundle spyware, if you stop just before you're sued." It's like police giving coke dealers a warning. Anyone can be a coke dealer, as long as they stop once they get that warning.
Like with Google ads, if I have to live with ads, I much prefer directed ones with at least some research behind them than undirected ones.
Google doesn't connect me with my credit card number and name. It also does this up front, not going around to your house and going through your garbage.
Although it seems simple to me, pay cash, don't give any stores your name, phone number or postcode. If they insist, lie or stop shopping there.
It would be substantially easier to fake the photo and supply some tissue samples
When you say tissue sample, you DO mean the long tail right? Unless there's lots of tailless puma's walking around in zoo's, I'd say it's safe to assume it's authentic (if he has the means to obtain a tail other then from the wild, I'd say he has the means to obtain the entire carcass).
Sure dragging it back to your vehicle would be a chore, but he obviously must have had some plan for doing so since he was hunting deer.
Depends what he wanted the deer for. If he wanted it for meat, he would have obtained what he wanted and then left (it's much easier to carry some edible meat then an entire carcass). If he wanted a skin, I'd say he would have skinned it in the bush. If he wanted a trophy he would have beheaded the creature and walked home.
At the very least, he could have left it somewhere to be easily recovered.
It most likely would have been eaten by wild animals before anyone got a chance to get to it (especially if he was going hunting for a few days).
Neither should humans. They've caused the most damage to the Australian wildlife. I know, let's kill all the humans as well. All I'm asking is that before we go on a killing rampage, see if they CAN be kept here (in some sort of condition) that won't be harmful to the environment or humans. I'm not saying we MUST, merely that we should consider it.
No , not at all . There have been numerous examples found over the years . As the article says
"Hundreds of sightings have been reported over the years and a leaked government document revealed 59 sightings had been reported in Gippsland between 1998 and 2001.
The cats are said to be descendants of animals that either escaped from zoos or circuses or were released by US airmen who kept them as mascots while stationed in Australia in World War II."
Oh and because it's in a government report it MUST be true. Here's a question for you, oh gullible one, have scientists accepted that there are big cats going around? Or has the lack of proof (up until now) made everyone investigate it, but come back with inconclusive results.
While the cats may not be endangered on Earth, could they be endangered in Australia (as in the number of them in Australia is at a dangerous level for the cats to continue without becoming extinct)? If so, should they be protected? While having pumas (assuming that's what this is) roaming around Australia near populated areas isn't a good thing to have, shouldn't the government now step in and assess their affect on the environment, and if possible (while keeping humans and the environment at large safe) allow the population of the puma's to grow to a level where they won't be threatened with extinction? I'm not saying it CAN be done (they're a wild animal so they're dangerous to humans and they're not native to Australia so it's quite likely they'll have a large impact on it), it should at least be considered before the hunters of Victoria are let loose.
It might be a bit of a jump to say they're population in Australia is endangered, but if they are escaped creatures that were once captive, there can't be too many of them out there, so to me it's logical that they would be faced with extinction.
Thank god they didn't decide to go the route of Sony with a special format (such as UMD) that can only be played on a tiny machine. It's just a cash-cow for sony, and I hope that it doesn't work (I'd hate to see yet another competing video format, one that isn't even for the main television, it would be like getting movies on gameboy cartridges).
Slashdot Mirror
including a refund up to the purchase price of another phone which, interestingly enough, is a lot easier to hack.
How about Verizon just stop crippling their customers and unlock the locked features?
Lesson: before teaching others, learn yourself first!
Ever heard of the word irony? Might want to look it up (if your humour hasn't been surgically removed already).
I don't think that we're going to find billions dumped into internet advertising,
I don't think that's the point. The point (in my opinion) is why are they going to allow online donations to be unlimited (under a particular circumstance), but in the same circumstance offline it isn't allowed to be unlimited? It's crazy.
When will the government stop treating everything "online" as something completely different and therefore subject to completely different laws? I'm surprised "accepting campaign donations online" hasn't been patented yet.
When are submitters/posters will even know the distinction!
Its "will" - not "are". When will submitters/posters even know the distinction!
When are submitters/posters will even know the distinction!
Its "?" - not "!". When are submitters/posters will even know the distinction?
Lesson: If you're going to be a nazi, make sure you're typing is fawlless.
Does this device have end to end strong encryption to prevent anyone from easdropping on your conversation?
What the fuck are you talking about on the phone that you're afraid someone might overhear? Seriously. People go on about encrypting e-mails and whatnot all the time. What are you talking about over the phone that you don't want other people to hear?
I hate things that require my computer be on to work.
Oh I agree completely. There's this thing called Firefox, I've heard it's all the rage among the online community. But I've heard you have to actually turn on your computer for it to work. Well fuck that I say. I'll continue to use IE, and yeah. It requires me to turn on my computer, but only because it's tied in with Windows XP so much.
I was going to buy a tablet so I could draw. But again, the fucking thing requires me to turn on my computer. Well fuck that.
I don't know whose designing these computer-tools, but they really need to re-think this whole "computer is on" business.
I think I'll stick with my landline phone for now. To buy a phone that will only work with one particular proprietry network, which I have to pay for voice mail with, along with every call I make except those few I make to other Skype users, I'm not going to be saving money anytime soon (depending on phone making habits).
If I do decide to go for a VOIP system, I'll do so with one that fits my needs (and is preferably open source), not the most popular one.
They may not encourage it, and they may have legal mumbo-jumbo about connecting to their service with a non-MSFT client, but (in a technical sense) there was never any lock-out.
Wikipedia disagrees
Why would this be better than all of them starting to use Jabber/XMPP (which is an IETF standard anyway), if interoperability is all they want?
Because they want interoperability, amongst themselves and no-one else. XMPP allows anyone to set up a server that allows anyone to talk to anyone else. Right? So if I register on serverWoo and I want to talk to my friend whose registered at serverBoo I can. But serverBoo forces it's users to get ads, I won't see those ads because I'm on serverWoo, who don't make me see them (and I use a client that doesn't display ads). If they were interoperatable with any client and any server, then there'd be a hell of alot of people talking to their customers, that aren't seeing annoying ads. That isn't a good thing, because word will get round and people will eventually move to the non-ad servers.
By combining their protocols they get to show a united front against non-Microsoft-Yahoo clients (such as Trillian) and people who won't help support them by annoying their customers as much as Microsoft and Yahoo annoy their own.
You can gurantee if Microsoft and Yahoo were the only IMs left in the world, they would not have combined in this manner.
Compete in features you offer in your IM clients, but for heavens sake unify the networks.
That's a good point, but there's a problem. Microsoft and Yahoo aren't going to agree upon an open standard for their merged IM protocol (assuming it is a merged protocol they're talking about and not a trillian-type deal). They will then use their closed protocol to work on shutting out non-Microsoft-Yahoo approved clients (i.e. every other client not made by the two companies). If everyone agreed to only use one IM protocol, then it's going to have to be a closed standard because (based on past performance), Microsoft isn't willing to agree on an open standard, at least not for it's IM program. They will be able to use that to make it more difficult for the competition, the only competition they'll allow are Microsoft approved(TM) competitors (yup, if Microsoft has control of the standard they'll be able to decide who compete's with them) and keep changing the protocol in an attempt to lock-out non-approved competitors. And Microsoft's dislike for the GPL ensures they won't approve any GPL clients to use their protocol.
In the past both Yahoo and Microsoft have shown a habit of locking out third party clients, so this combination makes sense for them.
If Microsoft and Yahoo and everyone else were willing to agree on an open standard for IM communication, then that would be great and I'd whole heartedly support it. I just can't see Microsoft doing that anytime soon.
Why? Because they're making a pact with the devil? That's bullshit. Judge the IM clients based on their capabilities and your needs, not based on whose making them.
Having said that, I have never liked the IM client for Yahoo, and have always wavered between like and dislike on the msn client.
Ever heard of an agenda? I'm sure some of these scientists are simply looking for some kind of "missing link" between humans and monkeys (or whatever you want to call it), and they are going to see only what they're looking for.
No, no, no. That is so wrong it's actually funny (no offense intended). In fact, most people would probably be inclined to think you're trolling.
Not only do scientists not completely believe in the traditional missing link, they believe that the split happened long before the Flores beings existed, and that the Flores beings are most definitely of the homo genus (the homo genus happened after any split).
If there is any agenda. It's to make a name for themselves and to prove humans co-existed with other hominids (and did so in a manner that wasn't a detriment to the other species of hominid). Wherever humans appear, the previous versions of hominid didn't last too long. An agenda that may exist with those claiming the Flore's beings are a different species, is to prove that humans didn't always kill off the other hominids they encountered (some are attempting to prove this by pointing to legends of pygmy-like people in the area in human mythology and saying that those legends were based on dealings with the Flores people).
I'm not saying such an agenda exists, only that if an agenda does exist, that is the more likely one.
As for whether I believe the Flores beings are a sub-species, a seperate species or merely dwarves. I haven't made up my mind. But I'm following the developments closely.
Actually, I hear Peter Jackson did one of them.
I added the verb you obviously forgot. Although it would explain where the dwarves came from in his movie.
Religion, to me, is like believing that Star Trek, Middle Earth, the Force, or Oz are real.
How dare you say Oz isn't real! We're much more real then Star Trek or New Zea^H^H^H^H^H^H Middle Earth!
Stupidity is a sin. Incompetence is a sin. Come to think of it, being a woman is a sin.You repeat yourself.
They've been dead 12,000 years, so I'd guess that (c) is a yes.
But your great, great, great grandfather is now incapable of producing offspring, yet we don't consider him another species.
I know you were being a smart ass, but I had to respond anyway.
Agreed. All this says is "it's okay to bundle spyware, if you stop just before you're sued." It's like police giving coke dealers a warning. Anyone can be a coke dealer, as long as they stop once they get that warning.
Like with Google ads, if I have to live with ads, I much prefer directed ones with at least some research behind them than undirected ones.
Google doesn't connect me with my credit card number and name. It also does this up front, not going around to your house and going through your garbage.
Although it seems simple to me, pay cash, don't give any stores your name, phone number or postcode. If they insist, lie or stop shopping there.
It would be substantially easier to fake the photo and supply some tissue samples
When you say tissue sample, you DO mean the long tail right? Unless there's lots of tailless puma's walking around in zoo's, I'd say it's safe to assume it's authentic (if he has the means to obtain a tail other then from the wild, I'd say he has the means to obtain the entire carcass).
Sure dragging it back to your vehicle would be a chore, but he obviously must have had some plan for doing so since he was hunting deer.
Depends what he wanted the deer for. If he wanted it for meat, he would have obtained what he wanted and then left (it's much easier to carry some edible meat then an entire carcass). If he wanted a skin, I'd say he would have skinned it in the bush. If he wanted a trophy he would have beheaded the creature and walked home.
At the very least, he could have left it somewhere to be easily recovered.
It most likely would have been eaten by wild animals before anyone got a chance to get to it (especially if he was going hunting for a few days).
So you'd support allowing dingo's to become extinct then? They were, after all, introduced.
They shouldn't be there to begin with anyway.
Neither should humans. They've caused the most damage to the Australian wildlife. I know, let's kill all the humans as well. All I'm asking is that before we go on a killing rampage, see if they CAN be kept here (in some sort of condition) that won't be harmful to the environment or humans. I'm not saying we MUST, merely that we should consider it.
Oh, by the way, there are aliens among us as well. There's government reports on it and everything.
(I was kidding, although I did have a point I wrapped up in my humour
While the cats may not be endangered on Earth, could they be endangered in Australia (as in the number of them in Australia is at a dangerous level for the cats to continue without becoming extinct)? If so, should they be protected? While having pumas (assuming that's what this is) roaming around Australia near populated areas isn't a good thing to have, shouldn't the government now step in and assess their affect on the environment, and if possible (while keeping humans and the environment at large safe) allow the population of the puma's to grow to a level where they won't be threatened with extinction? I'm not saying it CAN be done (they're a wild animal so they're dangerous to humans and they're not native to Australia so it's quite likely they'll have a large impact on it), it should at least be considered before the hunters of Victoria are let loose.
It might be a bit of a jump to say they're population in Australia is endangered, but if they are escaped creatures that were once captive, there can't be too many of them out there, so to me it's logical that they would be faced with extinction.
Sheeesh, he had some messy handwriting. You think he could have taken a little care.
Thank god they didn't decide to go the route of Sony with a special format (such as UMD) that can only be played on a tiny machine. It's just a cash-cow for sony, and I hope that it doesn't work (I'd hate to see yet another competing video format, one that isn't even for the main television, it would be like getting movies on gameboy cartridges).