As soon as you enlighten us on how to send a directed IP packet without a destination address, I'm sure someone will write a few dozen p2p apps around it.
If the correct count is close (i.e. a human would be likely to get it wrong), then we bring in the humans to add error. So yeah, stealing the election...but not by the machines.
I need the internet AND my root account (and several others) to do work. It sounds like it would only get people hard-rebooting to recover, perhaps doing more harm than good...
No...if you either have a boy (50% chance), a girl and a boy (25%), or 2 girls (25%)...every 4 families generate 3 boys and 3 girls, on average. Any given child has a 50% chance of either gender.
Any such strategy you try will not change the basic probabilities. Choosing whether you have another child, based on the gender of the last one, will not affect the gender of the next one. (Ultimately, the next couple to have children will only be picking up where you left off.)
It could be said that the strategy described encourages those who are somehow predisposed to having girls, to have more children, but whether that occurs is outside the scope of this argument.
I only hope the US-citizens will see this for what it is and not re-elect another 4 years of warmongering.
If we had a choice, we probably wouldn't. Unfortunately that issue, along with every other issue the government faces, has already been decided by the Party. The public has the oh-so-heavy choice of which face reads their speeches for the next few years.
Because expending our energies coming up with a system that's tolerable to everyone is out of the question. No, we'd rather wear ourselves out arguing "yes or no" long after it's been determined that neither of the positions really work.
We are talking about copyrights here. It's generally considered that the person sharing the file is the one performing unauthorized copying and distribution. Downloading is probably illegal too, but they don't go after it so much.
For one thing, the plaintiff decides who is on each side (along with the claims of the suit, etc.). Legally these are all separate cases...I don't know if there's any history to support one or more courts merging (and thus rewriting) a group like that.
guys who can hold a conversation. Not many people can do that better than a geek
*rolling on floor snickering*
We can hold conversations with one another (after the appropriate bonding rituals of course), but certainly not with...people...
Probably never, because such a patch would be illegal, and if you're going to do something illegal, might as well just burn a full version of XP from your friend.
But...piracy would be illegal, and if you're going to do something illegal, might as well kill your friend and take his machine/license.
The beautiful thing about examples is that they don't need to be true.
To the point, a justice system based on fear gains nothing by imprisoning the actual perpetrator of a crime versus the first name that pops into their heads. Proof isn't an issue these days; all they need is suspicion, and that's only to keep the records clean.
3. proper page back/forward that DOESNT RELOAD the page, just redisplay the cached html/media.
Holy fucking yes. This is the most annoying thing that has happened to web browsing ever, and it keeps creeping into more and more browsers without ever giving you the option to turn it off. It needs to die, now.
Slashdot Mirror
Privacy never even crossed their minds.
Disney loves to keep it real. Real dumb.
As soon as you enlighten us on how to send a directed IP packet without a destination address, I'm sure someone will write a few dozen p2p apps around it.
I, on the other hand, do RTFM but giving a geek a manual is basically sending Jesus to sunday school.
Your sig would be easier as: fortune -m'All wars are civil wars'
You could even make it about longhorns.
What's sad is that some people still think voting can make a difference.
Let's see, the National Socialist Party, the Communist Party...yep, everything checks out.
You have to have a license to watch TV?
If the correct count is close (i.e. a human would be likely to get it wrong), then we bring in the humans to add error. So yeah, stealing the election...but not by the machines.
I need the internet AND my root account (and several others) to do work. It sounds like it would only get people hard-rebooting to recover, perhaps doing more harm than good...
Any such strategy you try will not change the basic probabilities. Choosing whether you have another child, based on the gender of the last one, will not affect the gender of the next one. (Ultimately, the next couple to have children will only be picking up where you left off.)
It could be said that the strategy described encourages those who are somehow predisposed to having girls, to have more children, but whether that occurs is outside the scope of this argument.
They're still trying to debug each other's code, in preparation for a rollout that will never come.
If we had a choice, we probably wouldn't. Unfortunately that issue, along with every other issue the government faces, has already been decided by the Party. The public has the oh-so-heavy choice of which face reads their speeches for the next few years.
Because expending our energies coming up with a system that's tolerable to everyone is out of the question. No, we'd rather wear ourselves out arguing "yes or no" long after it's been determined that neither of the positions really work.
We are talking about copyrights here. It's generally considered that the person sharing the file is the one performing unauthorized copying and distribution. Downloading is probably illegal too, but they don't go after it so much.
This seems like new territory to me, but IaNaL.
*rolling on floor snickering*
We can hold conversations with one another (after the appropriate bonding rituals of course), but certainly not with...people...
One of these things is not like the others.
In Soviet Russia, the bosses kill YOU.
But...piracy would be illegal, and if you're going to do something illegal, might as well kill your friend and take his machine/license.
To the point, a justice system based on fear gains nothing by imprisoning the actual perpetrator of a crime versus the first name that pops into their heads. Proof isn't an issue these days; all they need is suspicion, and that's only to keep the records clean.
Holy fucking yes. This is the most annoying thing that has happened to web browsing ever, and it keeps creeping into more and more browsers without ever giving you the option to turn it off. It needs to die, now.
Of course. Bringing the innocent to trial would be unfair.
-- Q, Encounter at Farpoint