Amen. I haven't the faintest idea what my genealogy is beyond the grandparent level, but I do know that I'm a descendant of inbred hillbillies
Which, believe it or not, still could mean that you are descended from British royalty and, in fact, that fact alone actually increases its likelihood.
As always, with script-related security flaws, the easiest solution is NoScript, of course.
However, FWIW, I couldn't get either of his demos, the Java or the JavaScript, to work on Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Windows XP, despite the fact that the author says that both work on Firefox.
Since when do federal laws that have lower standards override higher standards at the state level? That's like saying that the federal drinking age (in the 80s) of 18 made it mandatory for all states to comply with 18 instead of 21. That's not the case.
Actually, the Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 set the minimum age to purchase alcohol and possess it in public to be 21. It did not require states to ban alcohol consumption by persons under the age of 21.
Federal law often overrides state law by forcing states to comply through the manipulation of funds. IOW, if states don't comply with the federal statute, the federal government simply cuts off some source of available funds, often highway dollars. That's also how they got the national speed limit set to be 55, which is where it was until the early 90s.
So I'm guessing that states that don't comply or have stricter laws will get their funding cut off.
Too bad you got modded down (probably for your somewhat belligerent tone), but you're actually 100% correct. This is social darwinism at its...errr...'finest' here. If the guy had done some research, which, BTW, I have done, he'd find that actually, there are many, many people in industrial society who are not descended from aristocrats from the Middle Ages. I'd point out examples, but of course, I'm not at liberty to discuss someone else's genealogy without their permission and I can't give myself as an example, being descended from William the Conqueror and the Plantagenet kings of England.
And it's not just us, there have been many experts who've said the same. I think it's about time that someone with like this guy offer expert testimony to those who have been victimized by the MAFIAA.
I don't hold out any hopes that the MAFIAA will listen or even care. The aim here is to establish legal precedent in a court of law that says the MAFIAA, when they use spurious technical evidence to try to extort thousands of dollars from people, doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. It doesn't matter whether they agree or not. All that matters is that judges know the truth and that truth gets added to the patchwork quilt of established law that is legal precedence.
Nah, this isn't a Danegeld. See, here's the thing. Let's say that the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) between Novell and Santa Cruz did transfer patents to SCO (this doesn't seem to be at issue in the IBM v. SCO trial, just whether the APA transfer copyrights to SCO.) How much ya wanna bet Microsoft is violated several old AT&T UNIX patents right now?
Extortion. That's what I've been saying all along.
I think what the open source community needs is a patent troll. Hey, SCO's looking to get bought out about now, huh? Maybe with the help of our billionaire friend here and some help from IBM, we could buy SCO and then turn Microsoft's dog against it. That's right. Have SCO sue Microsoft for patent infringement. And, oh, yeah, didn't SCO make some little known Linux distro? Maybe we could taunt them into countersuing and they'd be forced to reveal at least some of those supposed '235 patents'.
Unless it's all complete BS, like I've been saying all along...
Yeah, they have those in the Tampa area, too. KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell are one company (all owned by Pepsico). What you're thinking of is A&W and Long John Silver's, which I think are one company as well (Yorkshire Restauraunts or something is their parent company). Baskin-Robbins and Dunkin' Donuts came to pass after DD purchased the failing BR, in hopes of combatting Krispy Kreme.
OTOH, what if global warming actually thaws these microbes at an abnormal rate? What if the release of abnormally large amounts of microbes leads to the evolution of some killer bacteria that, if not wipes out human populations on the planet, at least kills millions or maybe billions of people? Really, it's important to consider all of the possibilities. After all, isn't that what science is about? Considering all the possibilities and, through process of elimination, to uncover the truth?
Yes, yes. I know all about Opportunist's argument about why governments and societies protect the stupid, because they make them money. It's not the first time he's made the argument, and I'm sure it won't be the last.
But if we rid the world of stupid people through the elimination of warning labels, the whole point will be moot, no?
The implication is that Burger King intends to merge with Dairy Queen and will be introducing its line of BK burgers at DQ. Honestly.
No, no. It's a merger of four giants! The implication is that Burger King, Subway, McDonald's and Taco Bell are all merging, and soon you'll be able to get McBurritos and Whopper subs on whole wheat.
Reason? Simple. Who would immediately lose their "internet rights"?
Let them!!!
Look, if you're stupid enough to get your machine infected like that, you're too stupid to be on the Internet.
That's why I keep saying we need to eliminate warning labels. If you're not bright enough to figure out that you shouldn't use a hair-dryer in the bathtub, you deserve to die! Remove them from the gene pool, and all of our problems caused by idiots disappear.
If you ask me, nothing less than the total removal of all spamming should be acceptable. Filtering doesn't get it because you still have all of this spam and zombies wasting terabits of bandwidth. And you have spammers pwning all these clueless idiots' Windows boxes, turning them into spam zombies. Remove the ability to send spam without screwing yourself, and you'll solve all of the spam-related problems. Filtering is like putting makeup on a facial wound. Removing the ability to send spam in the first place is the cure.
Re:Need More Exposure to Ideas and Methods
on
The New Yorker On Spam
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I know Popular Mechanics is... well, popular for lack of a better word so why aren't newspapers picking up on this and printing more tech-heavy articles? I
Because such articles don't sell advertising. Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, Scientific American, etc., can sell ads because they have nothing but tech-heavy, jargon-laiden articles, and so the advertisers know exactly who they are targeting.
Newspapers are general-purpose publications, written for the widest audience possible. It's hard enough for them to sell ads these days without having to have specialized sections for the tech reader.
That being said, newspapers should be trying to innovate, because if they don't, well...it's the death knoll for newspapers.
Spam wouldn't be such a problem if we had proper verification of senders. Whether that's through some central identity or whatever. I realize this idea is extremely unpopular and is not in the spirit of the original Internet, but heck, if you had to essentially have an ID that verified who you were and if you sent out spam, you'd lose it, how much less spam would there be?
Your linear vs circular and big picture vs detail claims are spurious.
Admittedly, my sources come from a non-hard-science author, however, I have seen the same claims made in hard science articles in magazines such as Scientific American Mind, though I couldn't give you a particular article.
Seriously. Were it not for willing suspension of disbelief, the entire genre of sci-fi would not even be viable. What's scientifically accurate about sci-fi universes like Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargate, B5, or even Eureka? Nothing. The point is, who cares? Sci-fi is about the story, not about the science.
You seem to forget that women are more intuitive in nature, and tend to make decisions based on what they feel rather than what they know. This makes them, IMHO, most susceptible to listening to others' opinions. If someone else feels good about it, then they do; the negative of that is also true.
Slashdot Mirror
Which, believe it or not, still could mean that you are descended from British royalty and, in fact, that fact alone actually increases its likelihood.
As always, with script-related security flaws, the easiest solution is NoScript, of course.
However, FWIW, I couldn't get either of his demos, the Java or the JavaScript, to work on Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Windows XP, despite the fact that the author says that both work on Firefox.
Actually, the Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 set the minimum age to purchase alcohol and possess it in public to be 21. It did not require states to ban alcohol consumption by persons under the age of 21.
Federal law often overrides state law by forcing states to comply through the manipulation of funds. IOW, if states don't comply with the federal statute, the federal government simply cuts off some source of available funds, often highway dollars. That's also how they got the national speed limit set to be 55, which is where it was until the early 90s.
So I'm guessing that states that don't comply or have stricter laws will get their funding cut off.
Right on, brother! Tell it!
Too bad you got modded down (probably for your somewhat belligerent tone), but you're actually 100% correct. This is social darwinism at its...errr...'finest' here. If the guy had done some research, which, BTW, I have done, he'd find that actually, there are many, many people in industrial society who are not descended from aristocrats from the Middle Ages. I'd point out examples, but of course, I'm not at liberty to discuss someone else's genealogy without their permission and I can't give myself as an example, being descended from William the Conqueror and the Plantagenet kings of England.
And it's not just us, there have been many experts who've said the same. I think it's about time that someone with like this guy offer expert testimony to those who have been victimized by the MAFIAA.
I don't hold out any hopes that the MAFIAA will listen or even care. The aim here is to establish legal precedent in a court of law that says the MAFIAA, when they use spurious technical evidence to try to extort thousands of dollars from people, doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. It doesn't matter whether they agree or not. All that matters is that judges know the truth and that truth gets added to the patchwork quilt of established law that is legal precedence.
Only a Slashdot would we see this explanation modded up insightful... ;)
Nah, this isn't a Danegeld. See, here's the thing. Let's say that the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) between Novell and Santa Cruz did transfer patents to SCO (this doesn't seem to be at issue in the IBM v. SCO trial, just whether the APA transfer copyrights to SCO.) How much ya wanna bet Microsoft is violated several old AT&T UNIX patents right now?
I don't use the Web. I'm waiting for Web for Workgroups 3.11.
Extortion. That's what I've been saying all along.
I think what the open source community needs is a patent troll. Hey, SCO's looking to get bought out about now, huh? Maybe with the help of our billionaire friend here and some help from IBM, we could buy SCO and then turn Microsoft's dog against it. That's right. Have SCO sue Microsoft for patent infringement. And, oh, yeah, didn't SCO make some little known Linux distro? Maybe we could taunt them into countersuing and they'd be forced to reveal at least some of those supposed '235 patents'.
Unless it's all complete BS, like I've been saying all along...
Yeah, they have those in the Tampa area, too. KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell are one company (all owned by Pepsico). What you're thinking of is A&W and Long John Silver's, which I think are one company as well (Yorkshire Restauraunts or something is their parent company). Baskin-Robbins and Dunkin' Donuts came to pass after DD purchased the failing BR, in hopes of combatting Krispy Kreme.
OTOH, what if global warming actually thaws these microbes at an abnormal rate? What if the release of abnormally large amounts of microbes leads to the evolution of some killer bacteria that, if not wipes out human populations on the planet, at least kills millions or maybe billions of people? Really, it's important to consider all of the possibilities. After all, isn't that what science is about? Considering all the possibilities and, through process of elimination, to uncover the truth?
In Soviet Russia, CTalkobt talks to YOU!
That's just a couple of hours' drive for me. Where?
Yes, yes. I know all about Opportunist's argument about why governments and societies protect the stupid, because they make them money. It's not the first time he's made the argument, and I'm sure it won't be the last.
But if we rid the world of stupid people through the elimination of warning labels, the whole point will be moot, no?
No, no. It's a merger of four giants! The implication is that Burger King, Subway, McDonald's and Taco Bell are all merging, and soon you'll be able to get McBurritos and Whopper subs on whole wheat.
Let them!!!
Look, if you're stupid enough to get your machine infected like that, you're too stupid to be on the Internet.
That's why I keep saying we need to eliminate warning labels. If you're not bright enough to figure out that you shouldn't use a hair-dryer in the bathtub, you deserve to die! Remove them from the gene pool, and all of our problems caused by idiots disappear.
If you ask me, nothing less than the total removal of all spamming should be acceptable. Filtering doesn't get it because you still have all of this spam and zombies wasting terabits of bandwidth. And you have spammers pwning all these clueless idiots' Windows boxes, turning them into spam zombies. Remove the ability to send spam without screwing yourself, and you'll solve all of the spam-related problems. Filtering is like putting makeup on a facial wound. Removing the ability to send spam in the first place is the cure.
Because such articles don't sell advertising. Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, Scientific American, etc., can sell ads because they have nothing but tech-heavy, jargon-laiden articles, and so the advertisers know exactly who they are targeting.
Newspapers are general-purpose publications, written for the widest audience possible. It's hard enough for them to sell ads these days without having to have specialized sections for the tech reader.
That being said, newspapers should be trying to innovate, because if they don't, well...it's the death knoll for newspapers.
Spam wouldn't be such a problem if we had proper verification of senders. Whether that's through some central identity or whatever. I realize this idea is extremely unpopular and is not in the spirit of the original Internet, but heck, if you had to essentially have an ID that verified who you were and if you sent out spam, you'd lose it, how much less spam would there be?
Oh, c'mon. At most 7 different outlets. You've gotta allow for dupes, after all.
Admittedly, my sources come from a non-hard-science author, however, I have seen the same claims made in hard science articles in magazines such as Scientific American Mind, though I couldn't give you a particular article.
Since when did Eureka or Stargate become space operas?'
Seriously. Were it not for willing suspension of disbelief, the entire genre of sci-fi would not even be viable. What's scientifically accurate about sci-fi universes like Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargate, B5, or even Eureka? Nothing. The point is, who cares? Sci-fi is about the story, not about the science.
You seem to forget that women are more intuitive in nature, and tend to make decisions based on what they feel rather than what they know. This makes them, IMHO, most susceptible to listening to others' opinions. If someone else feels good about it, then they do; the negative of that is also true.
> lguest --help
You are in a maze of twisty passages that all look the same.
> n
You are in a maze of twisty passages that all look the same.
ARRRGGHHH!