A decent vaporizer can handle hash or grass. I recommend the Arizer Solo - it's not cheap, but pays for itself over time through more efficient usage (and no tobacco if that's how you make reefers).
How about putting a filter (low-pass/high-pass - I'm not an audio engineer, so I don't know) to stop any of the "damaging" waveforms from reaching the speaker? It's probably just a capacitor or inductor in line with it and you could get away with the same shoddy speaker that wouldn't blow from the clipped signal.
If you want to save your lungs, you should try a vaporizer instead of reefers - more efficient use of material and virtually no particulate matter to cause damage. Takes a bit of getting used to, though as the hit is quite different.
Or, contacting the car manufacturer to inform them that a model of their car has been seen driving on a section of road that you claim is for your own private exclusive use.
How can you be sure that it is illegal activity without a court or law official being involved? Especially with something as tricky as copyright law. First, how do you identify the legitimate owner of the copyrighted work - is there any kind of central resource that can provide a definitive answer? Secondly, how do you validate the claimant's identity without checking physical documents (e.g. passport, driver's license)? Thirdly, how do you prove that the infringer hasn't secured a license?
I don't understand why the registrar has to do anything without a court order. I could ask a registrar to investigate a website that I'm claiming killed my cat, but why should they? I'm not a customer of them and haven't signed a contract with them - they owe me nothing. If I have a grievance, then that is what the law is for, not some third party that has nothing to do with it.
What about the electricity provider - do they have to investigate any proposed illegal activity by their customers?
Yeah - I should have been modded off-topic rather than a troll, but I've got plenty of karma to burn (and some of my troll posts don't get marked as troll so it's all swings and roundabouts).
Again, technically, I have "doubt" about whether or not the invisible pink unicorns exist, but practically, I know that the idea is just absurd and is obviously (to me) made up. Whereas you might have to go around saying "there's no evidence that they don't exist, so maybe they do", I proceed directly to the "they don't exist".
I'm interested in how you process the existence of various gods in various religions as there have been many different gods created at various times by people. Do you consider them all equally valid or do you choose to believe that only one exists? If so, how did you narrow the field down to the correct god? (Atheists just believe in one less god than Christians/Jews/Muslims).
How the universe came about is a topic that isn't decided, but I'm far more likely to think that an explanation that is testable is of far more interest than metaphoric hand waving (e.g. the FSM created it).
I think the tech market is somewhat different to most markets in that a good product today is an obsolete product (still functional, but not desired) in a years time. This means that companies can easily get away with rubbish components as most tech is virtually disposable. In markets with longer product lifespans, it's easier for quality manufacturers to distinguish themselves and get a name for quality, but most people don't care if a laptop from 10 years ago still has a great keyboard (or at least I don't).
How about if he'd used GMail or a similar mail provider? It sounds like the problem was that he was using his own domain for email and GoDaddy was the weakest link.
That sounds like a market working correctly. Most people want a cheap phone rather than the expensive flagship model and thus the market is selling more of the cheap phones.
480x800 sounds more than enough for most phone functions. Probably a bit small for doing any web browsing, but in my experience people would rather browse the web on a larger screen anyway. It depends on what you want, but a lot of people would buy a cheap phone (gonna drop/break/lose it soon anyway) and a cheap tablet rather than just an expensive phone.
The "do not believe in..." leads naturally to the "believe there are no..." as we generally require some proof/evidence of the existence of something before believing that it exists. I believe that ball lightning exists due to the balance of probabilities that there have been lots of sightings and some video footage and there not being a strong reason for people to fake that. I personally believe that there are no invisible pink unicorns, invisible green unicorns, invisible orange elephants etc.
It's the standard position that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and without that kind of proof, then I have no good reason to believe in something simply because it cannot be disproved. It's not really faith, just standard logical thinking.
You could say that I am unsure if pink unicorns exist and technically, I am unsure. I have seen visible grey elephants, but technically, I might have been tricked - maybe some people go around fabricating things that look like elephants just to trick people, so I am also unsure that visible grey elephants exist.
However, I personally take a shortcut - when presented with a lot of good quality evidence then I assume that the thing exists without having to waste time and effort investigating fully (e.g. that elephants exist). When presented with fanciful stories (especially ones that seem to have an ulterior motive) I take the default position of not believing in it.
Like I said, it's largely just a semantic difference between the two statements as they are so closely related.
Not believing in gods is not an act of faith. The distinction between "I believe there are no invisible pink unicorns" and "I do not believe in invisible pink unicorns" is not particularly relevant to most atheists and usually just an exercise in semantics (anything can be reduced to a belief in what your brain/senses are telling you if you try hard enough).
So, windows still doesn't include the world's most used connection/command/control software despite it being ancient and you have to use some 3rd party software just to get windows up to the same level as almost any other OS?
I didn't realise that they show a different shield. It's not particularly obvious as even signed software is shown as a security risk. However, I try not to use windows whenever possible as it ruins my brain.
So, it's the software that you download that verifies itself? Or, does Windows have a list of checked software along with their signatures?
I had a quick look in your link to the UAC and couldn't see much relevance as it all seemed to be about elevating privileges rather than authenticating 3rd party software. I've never seen Windows do any checking except for drivers.
Slashdot Mirror
A decent vaporizer can handle hash or grass. I recommend the Arizer Solo - it's not cheap, but pays for itself over time through more efficient usage (and no tobacco if that's how you make reefers).
How about putting a filter (low-pass/high-pass - I'm not an audio engineer, so I don't know) to stop any of the "damaging" waveforms from reaching the speaker? It's probably just a capacitor or inductor in line with it and you could get away with the same shoddy speaker that wouldn't blow from the clipped signal.
If you want to save your lungs, you should try a vaporizer instead of reefers - more efficient use of material and virtually no particulate matter to cause damage. Takes a bit of getting used to, though as the hit is quite different.
Or, contacting the car manufacturer to inform them that a model of their car has been seen driving on a section of road that you claim is for your own private exclusive use.
How can you be sure that it is illegal activity without a court or law official being involved? Especially with something as tricky as copyright law. First, how do you identify the legitimate owner of the copyrighted work - is there any kind of central resource that can provide a definitive answer? Secondly, how do you validate the claimant's identity without checking physical documents (e.g. passport, driver's license)? Thirdly, how do you prove that the infringer hasn't secured a license?
I don't understand why the registrar has to do anything without a court order. I could ask a registrar to investigate a website that I'm claiming killed my cat, but why should they? I'm not a customer of them and haven't signed a contract with them - they owe me nothing. If I have a grievance, then that is what the law is for, not some third party that has nothing to do with it.
What about the electricity provider - do they have to investigate any proposed illegal activity by their customers?
Yeah - I should have been modded off-topic rather than a troll, but I've got plenty of karma to burn (and some of my troll posts don't get marked as troll so it's all swings and roundabouts).
I'm still using "classic" slashdot and haven't tried the beta version. Has anyone got an opinion about the beta version?
I think PKD beat you to that idea in A Scanner Darkly.
Again, technically, I have "doubt" about whether or not the invisible pink unicorns exist, but practically, I know that the idea is just absurd and is obviously (to me) made up. Whereas you might have to go around saying "there's no evidence that they don't exist, so maybe they do", I proceed directly to the "they don't exist".
I'm interested in how you process the existence of various gods in various religions as there have been many different gods created at various times by people. Do you consider them all equally valid or do you choose to believe that only one exists? If so, how did you narrow the field down to the correct god? (Atheists just believe in one less god than Christians/Jews/Muslims).
How the universe came about is a topic that isn't decided, but I'm far more likely to think that an explanation that is testable is of far more interest than metaphoric hand waving (e.g. the FSM created it).
Also, does that mean that there's no longer any support for Omnipage?
I see, I hadn't really considered it like that.
I think the tech market is somewhat different to most markets in that a good product today is an obsolete product (still functional, but not desired) in a years time. This means that companies can easily get away with rubbish components as most tech is virtually disposable. In markets with longer product lifespans, it's easier for quality manufacturers to distinguish themselves and get a name for quality, but most people don't care if a laptop from 10 years ago still has a great keyboard (or at least I don't).
How about if he'd used GMail or a similar mail provider? It sounds like the problem was that he was using his own domain for email and GoDaddy was the weakest link.
That sounds like a market working correctly. Most people want a cheap phone rather than the expensive flagship model and thus the market is selling more of the cheap phones.
480x800 sounds more than enough for most phone functions. Probably a bit small for doing any web browsing, but in my experience people would rather browse the web on a larger screen anyway. It depends on what you want, but a lot of people would buy a cheap phone (gonna drop/break/lose it soon anyway) and a cheap tablet rather than just an expensive phone.
Who, the person working at GoDaddy? Or the owner of the domain for using GoDaddy?
Isn't a "race to the bottom" just a natural consequence of a competitive market working properly?
The "do not believe in ..." leads naturally to the "believe there are no ..." as we generally require some proof/evidence of the existence of something before believing that it exists. I believe that ball lightning exists due to the balance of probabilities that there have been lots of sightings and some video footage and there not being a strong reason for people to fake that. I personally believe that there are no invisible pink unicorns, invisible green unicorns, invisible orange elephants etc.
It's the standard position that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and without that kind of proof, then I have no good reason to believe in something simply because it cannot be disproved. It's not really faith, just standard logical thinking.
You could say that I am unsure if pink unicorns exist and technically, I am unsure. I have seen visible grey elephants, but technically, I might have been tricked - maybe some people go around fabricating things that look like elephants just to trick people, so I am also unsure that visible grey elephants exist.
However, I personally take a shortcut - when presented with a lot of good quality evidence then I assume that the thing exists without having to waste time and effort investigating fully (e.g. that elephants exist). When presented with fanciful stories (especially ones that seem to have an ulterior motive) I take the default position of not believing in it.
Like I said, it's largely just a semantic difference between the two statements as they are so closely related.
I think the whole "keep it to themselves" is what stops a religion from becoming malignant.
I find that incredibly difficult to believe. "Preaching" a "religious" worldview? That's not atheists you've got there.
Not believing in gods is not an act of faith. The distinction between "I believe there are no invisible pink unicorns" and "I do not believe in invisible pink unicorns" is not particularly relevant to most atheists and usually just an exercise in semantics (anything can be reduced to a belief in what your brain/senses are telling you if you try hard enough).
Atheism is not a religion or belief system.
If they are preaching, then by definition, they can't be promoting atheism.
So, windows still doesn't include the world's most used connection/command/control software despite it being ancient and you have to use some 3rd party software just to get windows up to the same level as almost any other OS?
That's very different as "Windows" is not the name of the company. I imagine if they had used "Licrosoft" as the name, then they would have lost.
I didn't realise that they show a different shield. It's not particularly obvious as even signed software is shown as a security risk. However, I try not to use windows whenever possible as it ruins my brain.
So, it's the software that you download that verifies itself? Or, does Windows have a list of checked software along with their signatures?
I had a quick look in your link to the UAC and couldn't see much relevance as it all seemed to be about elevating privileges rather than authenticating 3rd party software. I've never seen Windows do any checking except for drivers.