No! What if they decide to view the images in an incorrect sequence? Use flash, except flash can be disabled too easily. So make your entire website an AVI that proceeds through the original website in exactly the order and at exactly the speed that you intended.
I think the random comment was more about the fact that you could shoot a guy with a blaster, and unless you hit something vital (like the head) you weren't necessarily assured of killing him. Whereas with a lightsaber, you weren't going to stop until the twitching stopped so there was no randomness to the likelyhood of killing them. Also, it's easier to -not- kill with a saber intentionally as well.
You have a world-domination scheme that can support multiple rulers for a net cost of $20M US? You sir, are either a more efficient, or more insane future dictator than I am. I salute you and eagerly await your attempt (So I can crush you in your moment of triumph, of course).
When you plug into a computer or peripheral, it's "jacking in". However, adding one of these for expanded memory or readily available content (information, basic skillsets, etc) is generally referred to as "chipping" or being "chipped".
Why, oh why do I know this stuff, and can I ever live down the fact that I admitted to knowing it?
how about making the maximum amount of profit allowed while still covered by copyright some percentage of the GDP of the home country of the content creator? And force corporations to identify what will be considered their home country rather than trying to add several together using some strange mumbo jumbo. (Not that I think this is a good idea, but just to give another crazy idea for people to tear apart)
All they need to do is get HUDConnectionAnalysis, Monitor Bypass v5, Proxy Bypass v5, and Firewall Bypass v5, and the HUDLanView with LANSpoof and LANScan.
That and the standard toolkit you need to get to this stage and a nice collection of admin-hacked banks and government servers to bounce through will let them get anything they need and have plenty of time to look around without getting caught.
If anyone could prove 3 (2 is required first, but let's assume) then I'd be more than happy to become a christian. I'm still waiting for evidence though.
The primary difference is: We have contemporary alternate sources from Napoleon's time that help verify the likelyhood of his existance.
If all we had for Napoleon was a collection of some things he said written down second- or third-hand and only in one resource with no other scholar or record of the era mentioning his life, then I would certainly agree that we have no reasonable grounds for assuming the existance of Napoleon.
actually, the use of "they" as a singular is inaccurate. one should use "you", "he/she","he or she", or establish a common reference term. In this case the individual established the common reference term "she" for all users.
the dictionary.com definition I posted specifically stated "Law" as in, "in terms of the law this means..." I'm fairly certain that the legal definition isn't just intent to kill, but the intent to unlawfully kill. and an executioner is not unlawfully killing anyone.
Wikipedia is a wonderful resource, but when a google define: only turns up wiki's definition once, and a dictionary.com search finds a slightly different definition, I hesistate to use wikipedia's instead.
Dictionary.com defines Malice as: 2 Law. The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.
A google define: finds similar definitions, such as: he intentional doing of a wrongful act, without just cause or excuse, with an intent to inflict an injury, or under such circumstances that the law will imply an evil intent.
and: Unjustified, inexcusable intent to commit a wrongful, legally evil act.
The primary difference between these definitions and the one from Wikipedia is the use of the terms "unjustified", "inexcuseable", and "without just cause".
Another problem with the wikipedia definition of malice is the part about implied malice. Using that definition of implied malice it becomes legally impossible to NOT have malicious intent if your actions illegally cause the death of someone.
In the course of your argument, you proceed from the wikipedia definition of malice to a statement that killing people in retribution is inherently malicious. However, this conclusion seems unsuported by the wikipedia definition or any of the other definitions. In addition, since capital punishment is not an unlawful act, it doesn't actually fall under the implied malice definition, and can't fall under the express malice definition you provided either.
So, I must conclude that my rambling nonsense does nothing but ask you to be more logically consistant when discrediting capital punishment. thanks.
3 terabytes of music isn't enough if the 3 pieces I want aren't included in it. Which is not to say that if I wanted music and went to find it, those pieces wouldn't be there, but as long as there is even one missing song then there's not enough there for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
As for me, I'm just unable to cope with the pressure of my high UID, so I refuse to acknowledge the first 5 digits of it.
They do not exist for me!
Instead of dragons, unicorns, and wizards; you have lasers, robots, and spaceships.
and wizards
Actually, he means 384 million meters. or 384 megameters.
Isn't metric fun?
Don't listen to this guy, he's just trying to push his buttons.
I don't know if I found your powers-of-three IP address, or the actual content of your post more amusing.
Did John Romero make you his bitch?
No! What if they decide to view the images in an incorrect sequence? Use flash, except flash can be disabled too easily.
So make your entire website an AVI that proceeds through the original website in exactly the order and at exactly the speed that you intended.
You can always add sugar to tea to make it sweet. Also, drinking coke is like drinking pancake syrup. Give me a pepsi any day.
I think the random comment was more about the fact that you could shoot a guy with a blaster, and unless you hit something vital (like the head) you weren't necessarily assured of killing him. Whereas with a lightsaber, you weren't going to stop until the twitching stopped so there was no randomness to the likelyhood of killing them. Also, it's easier to -not- kill with a saber intentionally as well.
You have a world-domination scheme that can support multiple rulers for a net cost of $20M US? You sir, are either a more efficient, or more insane future dictator than I am. I salute you and eagerly await your attempt (So I can crush you in your moment of triumph, of course).
When you plug into a computer or peripheral, it's "jacking in". However, adding one of these for expanded memory or readily available content (information, basic skillsets, etc) is generally referred to as "chipping" or being "chipped".
Why, oh why do I know this stuff, and can I ever live down the fact that I admitted to knowing it?
how about making the maximum amount of profit allowed while still covered by copyright some percentage of the GDP of the home country of the content creator? And force corporations to identify what will be considered their home country rather than trying to add several together using some strange mumbo jumbo. (Not that I think this is a good idea, but just to give another crazy idea for people to tear apart)
All they need to do is get HUDConnectionAnalysis, Monitor Bypass v5, Proxy Bypass v5, and Firewall Bypass v5, and the HUDLanView with LANSpoof and LANScan.
That and the standard toolkit you need to get to this stage and a nice collection of admin-hacked banks and government servers to bounce through will let them get anything they need and have plenty of time to look around without getting caught.
If anyone could prove 3 (2 is required first, but let's assume) then I'd be more than happy to become a christian. I'm still waiting for evidence though.
The primary difference is: We have contemporary alternate sources from Napoleon's time that help verify the likelyhood of his existance.
If all we had for Napoleon was a collection of some things he said written down second- or third-hand and only in one resource with no other scholar or record of the era mentioning his life, then I would certainly agree that we have no reasonable grounds for assuming the existance of Napoleon.
actually, the use of "they" as a singular is inaccurate. one should use "you", "he/she","he or she", or establish a common reference term. In this case the individual established the common reference term "she" for all users.
We have plenty of stupid mods.
There are also several insane mods, a lot of mods on crack (or various other substances), and some mods who are actually decent mods.
There are many many mods who fall into more than one category there, so be careful if you try to assign numbers to each group.
and it's only 6 megabytes. that's a million 6-byte fixes. You can see why they lumped them together.
It's not that if you can't see it then it's not really there, but rather more along the lines of if you can't see it it assumes that it can't see you.
The robot is just there to guide you around the things that can't see you because you're blind.
Bozo's PIE?
is it bannana cream?
the dictionary.com definition I posted specifically stated "Law" as in, "in terms of the law this means..." I'm fairly certain that the legal definition isn't just intent to kill, but the intent to unlawfully kill. and an executioner is not unlawfully killing anyone.
Why update it? I think "Dane" could become a perfectly good derrogatory term to fling at online extortionists.
Kipling never goes out of date and therefore never needs to be updated.
Wikipedia is a wonderful resource, but when a google define: only turns up wiki's definition once, and a dictionary.com search finds a slightly different definition, I hesistate to use wikipedia's instead.
Dictionary.com defines Malice as:
2 Law. The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.
A google define: finds similar definitions, such as:
he intentional doing of a wrongful act, without just cause or excuse, with an intent to inflict an injury, or under such circumstances that the law will imply an evil intent.
and:
Unjustified, inexcusable intent to commit a wrongful, legally evil act.
The primary difference between these definitions and the one from Wikipedia is the use of the terms "unjustified", "inexcuseable", and "without just cause".
Another problem with the wikipedia definition of malice is the part about implied malice. Using that definition of implied malice it becomes legally impossible to NOT have malicious intent if your actions illegally cause the death of someone.
In the course of your argument, you proceed from the wikipedia definition of malice to a statement that killing people in retribution is inherently malicious. However, this conclusion seems unsuported by the wikipedia definition or any of the other definitions. In addition, since capital punishment is not an unlawful act, it doesn't actually fall under the implied malice definition, and can't fall under the express malice definition you provided either.
So, I must conclude that my rambling nonsense does nothing but ask you to be more logically consistant when discrediting capital punishment. thanks.
3 terabytes of music isn't enough if the 3 pieces I want aren't included in it.
Which is not to say that if I wanted music and went to find it, those pieces wouldn't be there, but as long as there is even one missing song then there's not enough there for everyone.
"Code Dragon" :]
a play on code-monkey. it's incredibly strange I know. that's why it's abbreviated in my sig