The intellectually weak and the state they affect will go into a decline or have a slower growth than their surrounding states - Kansas and NJ comes to my mind.
The Internet and information abundancy is a new challenge for humans and evolution will sort between them.
Three Standards for the iMac-kings under the sky,
Seven for the HURD-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Microsoft Men doomed to die,
One for the Big Blue on his sparc throne,
In the Land of Sun where the Shadows lie,
One Standard to rule them all, One Standard to find them,
One Standard to bring them all and in the darkness unite them
In the Land of Sun, where the Shadows lie,
Not entirely true though. I use NoScript to block in-html javascript on sites.
I've also extended my own version of AdBlock to incorporate a new feature which I named relative-to-site blocking: you define what the "site" is with a regexp, a few special modifiers and filter non-matching content from it with a regexp. For example, the following rule:
##\dom##.*
Would block all content which is not coming from the domain currently in the status bar, so if you're surfing example.com images and javascript linked from google-analytics.com will get blocked, but if you're surfing google-analytics.com (for any reason) it allows you to watch it. Of course there is a whitelist too,
#@example2\.com##
or a regular expression like #@\tld:hu##
Then there are the two-level filters which really give the fine-tuning abilities:
A bit of an explanation for this one, the first regexp is a regexp deciding what kind of domains you want to match, the second regexp decides that the domain you're matching - how do you want it to be considered a site and the third part decides what kind of filtering to do with content that doesn't match your defined "site".
Currently five special "variables" exist:
\tld:top-level-domain(s)-here - Self explanatory
\dom(=/regexp/)? - Current domain you're at - like developers.slashdot.org. There is an optional regexp if you want to specify what kind of domains you want this rule to match for - useful for creating multiple-choice rules. Like the long one above.
\cdom(=/regexp/)? - Conservative domain - like slashdot.org even though you're visiting developers.slashdot.org.
\sadom(=/regexp/)? - Subdomains and domain - like.*\.developers.slashdot.org if you're visiting developers.slashdot.org
\csadom(=/regexp/)? - Conservative domain and subdomains - like *.\.slashdot.org if you're visiting developers.slashdot.org
Currently it is only used by me, I made a post about this a while back on the Adblock plus forum, but the Adblock plus devs didn't really react. I might contribute code back if there is interest though.
From wikipedia:"Internet Service Providers generally wish to avoid being classified as a "common carrier" and, so far, have managed to do so. Before 1996, such classification could be helpful in defending a monopolistic position, but the main focus of policy has been on competition, so "common carrier" status has little value for ISPs, while carrying obligations they would rather avoid. The key FCC Order on this point is: IN RE FEDERAL-STATE JOINT BOARD ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE, 13 FCC Rcd. 11501 (1998), which holds that ISP service (both "retail" and backbone) is an "information service" (not subject to common carrier obligations) rather than a "telecommunications service" (which might be classified as "common carriage")."
Let us be honest here for a second. Comcast blocking VOIP of a competitor is censorship. It is censorship by profit, but it's still censorship.
Imo they shouldn't be even able to positively discriminate their own VOIP offering by giving it higher priority on routers or something similar, because it would be like the postal services trying to put their new pidgeon mail protocol in the spotlight by blocking email.
I'm sure someone will mention: "but it is a private company and they can do whatever they want", but it is not true. Corporations should adhere the laws and if corporations don't respect basic human principles laws need to be made and enforced, which for example guarantee the integrity of the Internet by not letting corporations censor what goes on it. Also, why do I have a feeling that comcast won't be investigated for frauding it's customers? Comcast agreed to provide internet access to their users for a monthly fee, which technically means that comcast will forward traffic from their users towards the rest of the internet and vica versa.
"America's leadership in the semiconductor industry in general and the CPU industry in perticular is direct result of the space race and the arms race. I prefare the former rather then the latter. The challange of making apollos on-board computer directly influenced the development of ICs, and later the CPU. intel would'nt have been if it were not for apollo (or at least would have come much later)."
Actually the issue here is a bit more complex, it started a bit earlier. The "shitting-our-pants-from-sputnik" education reform was the most important step in the base research of electronic equipment. What you see from the 60ies till today is the refinement of that base research. The space race triggered the education reform.
I don't really understand that viewpoint. How on Earth would the current situation occur this way then, that only a few areas are hi-res and the rest aren't if those images exist? Don't you think if it were up to the government, they'd forbid the images about a capital city first?
It is practically useless to me, since it doesn't have hi-res satellite or aerial photography and maps for most of Europe except Great Britain and Ireland.
So if they want to be the best, they should improve on that area, and include at least Europe on Google Maps.
"Is "normal speed" age 6-8, and is the place for "good sexual program" the internet?"
The real question is, should kids at the age of 6-8 use a COMPLEX electronic equipment at all without parental supervision?
If you think they should, is it the government's job to protect them instead of their parents?
Personally I think that kids under 10 shouldn't be exposed to porn, but that is a parental responsibility to take care of. I don't see the government planning to ban sexual content from television in it's whole, because if we assume the same amount of parental neglect which surfing for porn on the internet would assume, then it is entirely likely that young children can stay up and watch porn on tv after 11 or something.
It's not true. The person who uploaded the movie has the option to select which countries can/cannot access the movie. For some reason the submitter has chosen not to allow people from the USA watch it.
Children need protection from porn, because it would be too bad if they would discover their sexuality on a normal speed which coupled with a good sexual education program can significantly reduce the number of underage pregnancies, on the other hand the administration encourages and is fine with the military recruiting from schools, sharing schoolchildren's data in a huge opt-out database and sending these kids to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Clearly, porn is the danger here. Think of the kids!
MS and the companies profiting from malware (Anti-virus companies, etc) taught people into the "I recently got hit with a worm/trojan, it was my own fault, I got sloppy." mindset. But in reality, this shouldn't be and isn't like that.
True, a user needs education to use a computer intelligently, but it is largely up to the given software platform's coders to fix issues like that.
Don't assume you were at fault, just because you need to jump through hoops to prevent your computer from getting infected.
I think then I should most likely have sex with Samanta Carter. She just might catch something from my intellect.;)
On a more serious note though, Albert Einstein was once approached by a beautiful young woman, according to an anecdote. She desperately wanted to have kids with Einstein, because "imagine how perfect children we would get, my beauty and your intellect". Einstein replied: "That is true, there is a chance for that, but there is an equal chance that we'd have children with MY look and YOUR intellect".
"The realistic fact is there is enough coal and nuclear energy to sustain western civilization for the next 100 years or more; there is unlimited solar power available; and there's the fusion wildcard."
Actually this is not entirely accurate. Nuclear energy is not really portable. Solar powercells require platinum which is a quite scarce and finite resource. While there are research into eliminating both of these limitations its not expected to be dealt with anyday soon.
The problem with coal is that its good for hundreds of years at the current consumption levels. But once oil is gone coal will get back its leading place it lost in the first half of the 20th century as the #1 energy source.
Fusion will be a viable energy source, but not in the next two or three decades. I've read a lot and attended a conference on ITER, and the first non power-draining tokamak reactor will begin operation around 2028...
"It was thought the entire Greenland ice sheet could melt in about 1,000 years, but the latest evidence suggests that could happen much sooner."
And also: "Greenland's contribution to global sea level rise today is two to three times greater than it was in 1996." and "Over the past 20 years, the air temperature in south-east Greenland has risen by 3C."
Slashdot Mirror
The intellectually weak and the state they affect will go into a decline or have a slower growth than their surrounding states - Kansas and NJ comes to my mind.
The Internet and information abundancy is a new challenge for humans and evolution will sort between them.
Three Standards for the iMac-kings under the sky,
Seven for the HURD-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Microsoft Men doomed to die,
One for the Big Blue on his sparc throne,
In the Land of Sun where the Shadows lie,
One Standard to rule them all, One Standard to find them,
One Standard to bring them all and in the darkness unite them
In the Land of Sun, where the Shadows lie,
The One Truly Open Standard.
Not entirely true though. I use NoScript to block in-html javascript on sites.
# #(.*js)|(.*swf)$
.*\.developers.slashdot.org if you're visiting developers.slashdot.org
I've also extended my own version of AdBlock to incorporate a new feature which I named relative-to-site blocking: you define what the "site" is with a regexp, a few special modifiers and filter non-matching content from it with a regexp. For example, the following rule:
##\dom##.*
Would block all content which is not coming from the domain currently in the status bar, so if you're surfing example.com images and javascript linked from google-analytics.com will get blocked, but if you're surfing google-analytics.com (for any reason) it allows you to watch it. Of course there is a whitelist too,
#@example2\.com##
or a regular expression like #@\tld:hu##
Then there are the two-level filters which really give the fine-tuning abilities:
###\tld:com|biz|net#####(\dom=/example/)|(\sadom)
A bit of an explanation for this one, the first regexp is a regexp deciding what kind of domains you want to match, the second regexp decides that the domain you're matching - how do you want it to be considered a site and the third part decides what kind of filtering to do with content that doesn't match your defined "site".
Currently five special "variables" exist:
\tld:top-level-domain(s)-here - Self explanatory
\dom(=/regexp/)? - Current domain you're at - like developers.slashdot.org. There is an optional regexp if you want to specify what kind of domains you want this rule to match for - useful for creating multiple-choice rules. Like the long one above.
\cdom(=/regexp/)? - Conservative domain - like slashdot.org even though you're visiting developers.slashdot.org.
\sadom(=/regexp/)? - Subdomains and domain - like
\csadom(=/regexp/)? - Conservative domain and subdomains - like *.\.slashdot.org if you're visiting developers.slashdot.org
Currently it is only used by me, I made a post about this a while back on the Adblock plus forum, but the Adblock plus devs didn't really react. I might contribute code back if there is interest though.
Erm, this is news for nerds. You ought to know what Snort is.
You actually wanted to read the article? You must be new here...
ISPs generally don't have common carrier status.
/.)
From wikipedia:"Internet Service Providers generally wish to avoid being classified as a "common carrier" and, so far, have managed to do so. Before 1996, such classification could be helpful in defending a monopolistic position, but the main focus of policy has been on competition, so "common carrier" status has little value for ISPs, while carrying obligations they would rather avoid. The key FCC Order on this point is: IN RE FEDERAL-STATE JOINT BOARD ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE, 13 FCC Rcd. 11501 (1998), which holds that ISP service (both "retail" and backbone) is an "information service" (not subject to common carrier obligations) rather than a "telecommunications service" (which might be classified as "common carriage")."
(This is the third time I point it out on
Let us be honest here for a second. Comcast blocking VOIP of a competitor is censorship. It is censorship by profit, but it's still censorship.
Imo they shouldn't be even able to positively discriminate their own VOIP offering by giving it higher priority on routers or something similar, because it would be like the postal services trying to put their new pidgeon mail protocol in the spotlight by blocking email.
I'm sure someone will mention: "but it is a private company and they can do whatever they want", but it is not true. Corporations should adhere the laws and if corporations don't respect basic human principles laws need to be made and enforced, which for example guarantee the integrity of the Internet by not letting corporations censor what goes on it. Also, why do I have a feeling that comcast won't be investigated for frauding it's customers? Comcast agreed to provide internet access to their users for a monthly fee, which technically means that comcast will forward traffic from their users towards the rest of the internet and vica versa.
"America's leadership in the semiconductor industry in general and the CPU industry in perticular is direct result of the space race and the arms race. I prefare the former rather then the latter. The challange of making apollos on-board computer directly influenced the development of ICs, and later the CPU. intel would'nt have been if it were not for apollo (or at least would have come much later)."
Actually the issue here is a bit more complex, it started a bit earlier. The "shitting-our-pants-from-sputnik" education reform was the most important step in the base research of electronic equipment. What you see from the 60ies till today is the refinement of that base research. The space race triggered the education reform.
You've found the reason why PHP exists.
This most likely wouldn't have happened if the current Bush administration cooperates internationally. Thanks a bunch!
I don't really understand that viewpoint. How on Earth would the current situation occur this way then, that only a few areas are hi-res and the rest aren't if those images exist? Don't you think if it were up to the government, they'd forbid the images about a capital city first?
It is practically useless to me, since it doesn't have hi-res satellite or aerial photography and maps for most of Europe except Great Britain and Ireland.
So if they want to be the best, they should improve on that area, and include at least Europe on Google Maps.
"Is "normal speed" age 6-8, and is the place for "good sexual program" the internet?"
The real question is, should kids at the age of 6-8 use a COMPLEX electronic equipment at all without parental supervision?
If you think they should, is it the government's job to protect them instead of their parents?
Personally I think that kids under 10 shouldn't be exposed to porn, but that is a parental responsibility to take care of. I don't see the government planning to ban sexual content from television in it's whole, because if we assume the same amount of parental neglect which surfing for porn on the internet would assume, then it is entirely likely that young children can stay up and watch porn on tv after 11 or something.
It's not true. The person who uploaded the movie has the option to select which countries can/cannot access the movie. For some reason the submitter has chosen not to allow people from the USA watch it.
Children need protection from porn, because it would be too bad if they would discover their sexuality on a normal speed which coupled with a good sexual education program can significantly reduce the number of underage pregnancies, on the other hand the administration encourages and is fine with the military recruiting from schools, sharing schoolchildren's data in a huge opt-out database and sending these kids to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Clearly, porn is the danger here. Think of the kids!
Ah, this puts the situation into a different light indeed in your case.
MS and the companies profiting from malware (Anti-virus companies, etc) taught people into the "I recently got hit with a worm/trojan, it was my own fault, I got sloppy." mindset. But in reality, this shouldn't be and isn't like that.
True, a user needs education to use a computer intelligently, but it is largely up to the given software platform's coders to fix issues like that.
Don't assume you were at fault, just because you need to jump through hoops to prevent your computer from getting infected.
This proves our Jihad was successful defeating the EVIL!
We should raise our eyes now at the equally evil practices of MSN Search!
In the name of the holy Google, A beatiful mind
How true.
;)
People who don't know Perl are doomed to reinvent it. Badly.
I've clicked to another tab to browse at some other site and then I've seen suddently:
...as the title of the Slashdot tab. It gave me the creeps until I remembered whats the article about. Phew.
"Slashdot | Going Dynamic with PHP"
It can even be scripted. PDF::API2 with Perl is fantastic. I'm developing under it.
What?! You dare suggest the Earth was created by our Lord as round?! You will burn in hell, Heathen!
I think then I should most likely have sex with Samanta Carter. She just might catch something from my intellect. ;)
On a more serious note though, Albert Einstein was once approached by a beautiful young woman, according to an anecdote. She desperately wanted to have kids with Einstein, because "imagine how perfect children we would get, my beauty and your intellect". Einstein replied: "That is true, there is a chance for that, but there is an equal chance that we'd have children with MY look and YOUR intellect".
"The realistic fact is there is enough coal and nuclear energy to sustain western civilization for the next 100 years or more; there is unlimited solar power available; and there's the fusion wildcard."
Actually this is not entirely accurate. Nuclear energy is not really portable. Solar powercells require platinum which is a quite scarce and finite resource. While there are research into eliminating both of these limitations its not expected to be dealt with anyday soon.
The problem with coal is that its good for hundreds of years at the current consumption levels. But once oil is gone coal will get back its leading place it lost in the first half of the 20th century as the #1 energy source.
Fusion will be a viable energy source, but not in the next two or three decades. I've read a lot and attended a conference on ITER, and the first non power-draining tokamak reactor will begin operation around 2028...
From the bbc article:
"It was thought the entire Greenland ice sheet could melt in about 1,000 years, but the latest evidence suggests that could happen much sooner."
And also: "Greenland's contribution to global sea level rise today is two to three times greater than it was in 1996." and "Over the past 20 years, the air temperature in south-east Greenland has risen by 3C."