Not necessarily. According to the Federal statute, if he is living in a dwelling with 4 or fewer units, then he is considered "living with" his tenants, and therefore can discriminate on any basis.
Furthermore, if he owns 3 or less separate rental units, he can also disciminate on any basis he wants. So if he owns 3 houses and rents two of them out, he can use any basis he wants for renting.
Tons of break-in attempts everyday, and my Slackware just resists all of them.
Or, put another way, of the break-in attempts that Slackware resisted, you see all of those resisted attacks in my logs. If an attack worked, they are probably smart enough to cover their tracks, and you wouldn't see their attack.
I'm not saying that your installation, settings, etc... aren't resisting all the attacks, I'm just saying that you can't know that it is, and may not know when it isn't.
You're kidding me, right? He went out on his own terms. You really think it's better to lay there behind a desk saying "Wow, I hope he commits suicide or runs out of bullets soon, cause I don't want to be next"?
I hope I'm never in a situation that needs your help, because I'll probably be the one saving your ass.
The difference in your situation and that one at Virginia Tech is that in the restaurant, a guy went in to rob it, probably not to kill anyone. Just because someone is waving a gun around is not necessarily a reason to throw something at him. Give him the money, your watches, jewelry, whatever he wants.
But when he's already demonstrated that he's willing to kill with no provocation, all bets are off. You're next whether you're 10th or the very next one to be shot.
Yes, but it's better to take some action where you have a possibility of changing the situation than to just lay behind a desk and hope you don't get shot. Because when no one tries to change the situation, it WON'T change. You're all dead.
No matter how small your chances, a small chance is better than no chance.
If you hit someone in the side of the head with a heavy object (book, large stapler, laptop, chair, etc...) there are a few things that can happen. You may succeed in knocking him out if you hit him in the temple. You may succeed in breaking his nose, causing his eyes to tear up and making it nearly impossible to see. You may hit one of his eyes, causing partial blindness and extreme pain. Or you may just cause him to try to cover his head, giving you or someone else a chance to rush him.
Any of those are better that laying there and hoping that you're not next. I agree with the GP post, it doesn't seem like anyone even tried to fight for their life.
I couldn't care less that Tom Cruise is a Scientologist. I also couldn't care less about his outbursts about how bad psychology is or how much he's in love. However, once he used his clout to prevent South Park from re-running a Scientology episode by threatening to not continue promoting MI:III, I decided I will never watch another movie of his.
So I'm with you, though it's not about Scientology directly.
That opens up the interesting possibility that doctors may someday be able to activate that gene directly and we can live long and prosper . . . without giving up chocolate
In college, we had a mandatory "Military History" course. We also had an afternoon of war games, with water balloons, and super-soakers. It was a "capture the flag" type, with real penalties if you were "hit" -- it was water in the middle of fucking winter.
It lost its "cool" factor with me a long time ago. Probably when the SNL cast decided it was better to just read everything directly off the prompts instead of rehearsing their lines. I credit Horatio Sanz for making it painfully obvious, and he's someone who can't read his lines to save his life. In addition, the skits are WAY too long, droning on and on and on and on and and and on and on (get my point?).
Mad TV is a million times funnier (both the writing and the acting). I realize they're not the same, since MadTV is done in front of a live audience, but is not broadcast live. Either way, Saturday Night Live was removed from my rotation years ago.
I once thought that my roomba did that. It's a discovery, and I definitely heard it dock itself and play the little tune. A while later, it was running again. I have come to the conclusion that my cats were playing around with it and pressed the right button to get it to run.
Just train your cat/dog to push the correct button when the charging light goes to green and you're all set!
One of the many things that's wrong with the legal system w.r.t. jury duty is that people are forced to serve on a jury, receiving no realistic salary compensation for the amount of time they lose at their job. While a person cannot have their employment terminated because of jury duty, there are no legal requirements that said person be continually paid by his employer for the entire duration of the jury service. Some companies have a certain amount of paid leave they will give for jury service -- however, the court does not pay the juror anything to make up for when the company does not cover the leave.
Oh, and compensation is generally something like $5/day plus travel expenses. That works really well for people living pay-check to pay-check at an hourly job. And people wonder why jury service is despised.
I love the elitist "Clearly, sir, your statements...", as if by talking like that you are showing him to be a complete moron. In reality, you are a complete moron, as in no way does belief in one thing mean that you cannot believe in another. They are not mutually exclusive.
Now, I do not know where he got those numbers, so I have no idea whether or not they are from valid surveys or just pulled from his ass, but that does not matter in the context of your response. Simple reasoning is lost on you.
Yes, I was very interested. I narrowed it down to one of two apps -- IE7 and AIM. Supposedly, AIM is vulnerable to some VML exploit, and IE7 supposedly _was_, but was supposed to have been fixed before release. What I really wish is that Vista would tell you what application launched the offending app.
While it may be true that different colored borders are supposed to mean varying levels of "trust", as in what component is running, I don't think any user would know that. The text in the dialogs doesn't appear to be different (that I can tell), so why would a border color make me go "Oh, I should let that action happen, I bet that's some Control Panel action", especially when I wasn't working with the control panel.
To be honest, Vista's UAC saved my butt recently. I have no idea what application was vulnerable -- but it somehow tried to run exec.exe, which was downloaded into one of my temp folders. The file was deleted after it failed to run (because I said "no"), and then would appear back in a few seconds and try to run again. I'm happy that whatever application was vulnerable wasn't able to do anything to my system.
<tangent> Anyway, while some people may say it's annoying, I'm not sure exactly how many actions a typical user would take that would require UAC prompts. After the first few days of configuring, installing apps, etc..., I have little need to do anything that requires UAC prompts. Defrag is set up to run every night, anti virus is set up to download updates, my resolution settings don't change, etc... </tangent>
This is a slider phone, useful as a PDA and texting device. A flip phone is annoying to have to flip it out to use it as a PDA. So with this, you get the best of both worlds -- a regular PDA and texting phone, _and_ the comfortable bend that many people like.
All I see here is a slider made to emulate the bend of your everyday flip phone.
That's exactly the point. The bend of your every day flip phone is something that a lot of people really like. I like the feel of a flip phone and do not like the feel of a standard PDA-style or straight-style phone.
No. The best ads are ads that are noticed consciously, since they get you to click on them. However, you are correct that if an ad annoys you enough that you start looking for ad blockers, then it's a bad ad. You want something that's easy to see yet not intrusive.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily. According to the Federal statute, if he is living in a dwelling with 4 or fewer units, then he is considered "living with" his tenants, and therefore can discriminate on any basis.
Furthermore, if he owns 3 or less separate rental units, he can also disciminate on any basis he wants. So if he owns 3 houses and rents two of them out, he can use any basis he wants for renting.
Check out section 803(b) from the statute.
I'm not saying that your installation, settings, etc... aren't resisting all the attacks, I'm just saying that you can't know that it is, and may not know when it isn't.
I hope I'm never in a situation that needs your help, because I'll probably be the one saving your ass.
The difference in your situation and that one at Virginia Tech is that in the restaurant, a guy went in to rob it, probably not to kill anyone. Just because someone is waving a gun around is not necessarily a reason to throw something at him. Give him the money, your watches, jewelry, whatever he wants.
But when he's already demonstrated that he's willing to kill with no provocation, all bets are off. You're next whether you're 10th or the very next one to be shot.
Yes, but it's better to take some action where you have a possibility of changing the situation than to just lay behind a desk and hope you don't get shot. Because when no one tries to change the situation, it WON'T change. You're all dead. No matter how small your chances, a small chance is better than no chance.
If you hit someone in the side of the head with a heavy object (book, large stapler, laptop, chair, etc...) there are a few things that can happen. You may succeed in knocking him out if you hit him in the temple. You may succeed in breaking his nose, causing his eyes to tear up and making it nearly impossible to see. You may hit one of his eyes, causing partial blindness and extreme pain. Or you may just cause him to try to cover his head, giving you or someone else a chance to rush him.
Any of those are better that laying there and hoping that you're not next. I agree with the GP post, it doesn't seem like anyone even tried to fight for their life.
I couldn't care less that Tom Cruise is a Scientologist. I also couldn't care less about his outbursts about how bad psychology is or how much he's in love. However, once he used his clout to prevent South Park from re-running a Scientology episode by threatening to not continue promoting MI:III, I decided I will never watch another movie of his. So I'm with you, though it's not about Scientology directly.
You may have missed something. Not only did it not pass, but the board recommended AGAINST the proposal.
In college, we had a mandatory "Military History" course. We also had an afternoon of war games, with water balloons, and super-soakers. It was a "capture the flag" type, with real penalties if you were "hit" -- it was water in the middle of fucking winter.
It lost its "cool" factor with me a long time ago. Probably when the SNL cast decided it was better to just read everything directly off the prompts instead of rehearsing their lines. I credit Horatio Sanz for making it painfully obvious, and he's someone who can't read his lines to save his life. In addition, the skits are WAY too long, droning on and on and on and on and and and on and on (get my point?).
Mad TV is a million times funnier (both the writing and the acting). I realize they're not the same, since MadTV is done in front of a live audience, but is not broadcast live. Either way, Saturday Night Live was removed from my rotation years ago.
I once thought that my roomba did that. It's a discovery, and I definitely heard it dock itself and play the little tune. A while later, it was running again. I have come to the conclusion that my cats were playing around with it and pressed the right button to get it to run.
Just train your cat/dog to push the correct button when the charging light goes to green and you're all set!
And don't forget about "supposively", as in "Supposively we're getting raises this review period, but I doubt it."
One of the many things that's wrong with the legal system w.r.t. jury duty is that people are forced to serve on a jury, receiving no realistic salary compensation for the amount of time they lose at their job. While a person cannot have their employment terminated because of jury duty, there are no legal requirements that said person be continually paid by his employer for the entire duration of the jury service. Some companies have a certain amount of paid leave they will give for jury service -- however, the court does not pay the juror anything to make up for when the company does not cover the leave.
Oh, and compensation is generally something like $5/day plus travel expenses. That works really well for people living pay-check to pay-check at an hourly job. And people wonder why jury service is despised.
So it's moral to publish uncomfirmed rumors?
I love the elitist "Clearly, sir, your statements...", as if by talking like that you are showing him to be a complete moron. In reality, you are a complete moron, as in no way does belief in one thing mean that you cannot believe in another. They are not mutually exclusive.
Now, I do not know where he got those numbers, so I have no idea whether or not they are from valid surveys or just pulled from his ass, but that does not matter in the context of your response. Simple reasoning is lost on you.
Yes, I was very interested. I narrowed it down to one of two apps -- IE7 and AIM. Supposedly, AIM is vulnerable to some VML exploit, and IE7 supposedly _was_, but was supposed to have been fixed before release. What I really wish is that Vista would tell you what application launched the offending app.
While it may be true that different colored borders are supposed to mean varying levels of "trust", as in what component is running, I don't think any user would know that. The text in the dialogs doesn't appear to be different (that I can tell), so why would a border color make me go "Oh, I should let that action happen, I bet that's some Control Panel action", especially when I wasn't working with the control panel.
To be honest, Vista's UAC saved my butt recently. I have no idea what application was vulnerable -- but it somehow tried to run exec.exe, which was downloaded into one of my temp folders. The file was deleted after it failed to run (because I said "no"), and then would appear back in a few seconds and try to run again. I'm happy that whatever application was vulnerable wasn't able to do anything to my system.
<tangent> Anyway, while some people may say it's annoying, I'm not sure exactly how many actions a typical user would take that would require UAC prompts. After the first few days of configuring, installing apps, etc..., I have little need to do anything that requires UAC prompts. Defrag is set up to run every night, anti virus is set up to download updates, my resolution settings don't change, etc... </tangent>
Plus they actually authorized Google (and anyone else) to get the local copy.
: Sure, here you go! (200 OK HTTP response)
Google: Hey, what that page? Can I see? (HTTP GET)
Them
This is a slider phone, useful as a PDA and texting device. A flip phone is annoying to have to flip it out to use it as a PDA. So with this, you get the best of both worlds -- a regular PDA and texting phone, _and_ the comfortable bend that many people like.
Oooooo... Ahhhhh...
No. The best ads are ads that are noticed consciously, since they get you to click on them. However, you are correct that if an ad annoys you enough that you start looking for ad blockers, then it's a bad ad. You want something that's easy to see yet not intrusive.