At least their pragmatic... well except the Tea Party, but they're a good example of what happens when you have near-religious adoration of political ideology.
We're talking here about bipedalism, hands much closer to humans than the other apes, in other words a suite of morphological features. It's absurd to think that this some early dead end and the same large-scale features evolved again in another hominid line a few million years later.
I'm not saying these two specimens or even their particular lineage were ancestral to us, but clearly those adaptations are precisely what one would look for in pushing back in time.
He has no idea. He's spouting crap. If he's seriously asserting that these transitional features were later reinvented by a later hominid, he's pretty damned ignorant of hominid evolution. He may be referring, I think, to, say, whales re-evolving morphological features present in ancient aquatic chordate ancestors, but the very fact that the distance between a whale and its fish ancestor is hundreds of millions of years and the distance between this hominid and modern humans is a few million tells you just how little this guy is thinking.
This is a hominid, that much is clear. It may not be an ancestor in the way your grandfather is an ancestor, but it is most certain that there's no wheel invention here, these are features peculiar to our lineage.
Most of the green energy sources are not viable by themselves. They're too unstable. Wind gusts cause surges for wind power. Solar doesn't produce anything at night...
If you just sunk $30,000 into defending yourself, would you contemplate probably spending a good fraction of that again going after the lawyers? The people who had to defend themselves shouldn't have to. The legal system should automatically do it for them.
And you can be sure that defendants who have spent their hard-earned money will be near the bottom of the list. And you can also be sure that the lawyers who created this obscenity made good and sure they were insulated from it. You can be sure that the company never had anything meaningful in the way of assets, so there's nothing for creditors to take a bite of. The lawyers who created Righthaven will still be practicing law tomorrow, will still be living in their houses tomorrow, still be driving their cars tomorrow, their wives and/or girlfriends will still be getting expensive manicures tomorrow.
That any legal system allows something like this to be perpetrated and affords the perpetrators the level of protection these shysters will get isn't worth a damn. Those guys should lose everything and should be thrown in prison and never ever be allowed to practice law anywhere in the United States ever again.
You think that's bad, wait to you see a Libertarian apply the logic of that numb-nut poster to, say, medical doctors or engineering firms. I debated a guy on here a few weeks ago who was defending the idea that building code enforcement wasn't required, and people should be able to build however they like, and if their house falls down and damages the next door neighbor's property, the neighbor can always sue.
In short, Libertarians are fucking morons. Either that or sociopaths.
In other words, the system will become so complex that we will quite literally be unable to ever quite figure out what's going on, until, of course, it all collapses, kills trillions of dollars in value, renders most economies smoking ruins, and then everyone will finally ask "Why the fuck did ever let that happen?"
And maybe Apple will win this one too, but Apple has to be pretty concerned that a suite of technology patents that could basically screw it over far bigger than rectangular screens may be about to bite. In other words, Apple might win this battle, and end up losing the war. Or, possibly, the courts will decide that tablet designs predate the iPad and that Apple has no case, so Apple loses the battle and loses the war.
If you were Apple, and you were about to have Motorola's substantial wireless portfolio smashed into you like a ton of bricks, how much do you think a patent on a rectangular touch screen device with rounded edges is worth even if a court lets it pass muster?
It certainly underlies the current problem, which is that we've basically opened up cert issuing so widely now that we've undermined the underlying trust. Short of certs you issue yourself, it's getting quite worrisome. The problem, to a degree, is that everyone wanted cheap certs and were pissed off that the old big guys like Thawt and Verisign were charging a lot of money. But the point back then was proof of identity, and not just some guy going on to GoDaddy and buying a cert for $10, or encouraging some absolutely appalling security by firms (like that Dutch firm, whose principles should be taken out and shot).
I almost wonder whether we do need to start insisting on a reasonable level of verification. I mean, passports and drivers licenses are not invulnerable, but there is at least some rigor, and maybe that should be applied to issuing certs.
I think the idea is that because you would be using multiple notaries and working from a consensus, even if a couple of notaries were undermined, the system would still be more rigorous then the single-point-of-failure system we have now. I think, to assure statistical rigor, you're going to need several notaries, but by spreading the decision point out along a curve, you make the job of any hacker attempting undermine the CA system impressively harder. Say you had ten notaries. It would mean he would have to get into five, or more likely six of them.
How did you survive from infancy without your parents tying you in a bag and burying you in the back yard and telling your brothers and sisters never to speak your name again?
Apple is trying to refight the UI design battle it lost over two decades ago. It didn't win that time and it won't win this time. In fact, now it has basically kicked up a hornet's nest by picking fights with people who can use actual legitimate technology patents to smack them, and Apple will regret ever having tried refight the UI war. It was moronic and shortsighted. They would have been better off just to simply work on market penetration, like the other mobile companies have been doing for fifteen years.
I'm sure you can provide me with data on societies where this has happened. I'm thinking here, of say, the food riots in Rome. The strong had armed soldiers and a wealthy aristocracy backing them, and yet they basically gave away bread to prevent riots.
Humans are not sociopaths, no matter how much repugnant and evil Libertarians may say they are. Believe it or not, we share, we co-operate, because as individuals, strong or weak, we'll die off in a big hurry.
Slashdot Mirror
Every time someone uses the date format "YYYY-MM-DD", Baby Jesus cries.
At least their pragmatic... well except the Tea Party, but they're a good example of what happens when you have near-religious adoration of political ideology.
We're talking here about bipedalism, hands much closer to humans than the other apes, in other words a suite of morphological features. It's absurd to think that this some early dead end and the same large-scale features evolved again in another hominid line a few million years later.
I'm not saying these two specimens or even their particular lineage were ancestral to us, but clearly those adaptations are precisely what one would look for in pushing back in time.
I'll remind myself of that when I'm having to install the next biweekly update for that buggy security risk on the dozens of computer I administrate.
Basic history fail too. What is it about evolution, and human evolution in particular, that brings out the retarded fuckwits?
He has no idea. He's spouting crap. If he's seriously asserting that these transitional features were later reinvented by a later hominid, he's pretty damned ignorant of hominid evolution. He may be referring, I think, to, say, whales re-evolving morphological features present in ancient aquatic chordate ancestors, but the very fact that the distance between a whale and its fish ancestor is hundreds of millions of years and the distance between this hominid and modern humans is a few million tells you just how little this guy is thinking.
This is a hominid, that much is clear. It may not be an ancestor in the way your grandfather is an ancestor, but it is most certain that there's no wheel invention here, these are features peculiar to our lineage.
Which is of course, why we have capacitors.
If you just sunk $30,000 into defending yourself, would you contemplate probably spending a good fraction of that again going after the lawyers? The people who had to defend themselves shouldn't have to. The legal system should automatically do it for them.
And you can be sure that defendants who have spent their hard-earned money will be near the bottom of the list. And you can also be sure that the lawyers who created this obscenity made good and sure they were insulated from it. You can be sure that the company never had anything meaningful in the way of assets, so there's nothing for creditors to take a bite of. The lawyers who created Righthaven will still be practicing law tomorrow, will still be living in their houses tomorrow, still be driving their cars tomorrow, their wives and/or girlfriends will still be getting expensive manicures tomorrow.
That any legal system allows something like this to be perpetrated and affords the perpetrators the level of protection these shysters will get isn't worth a damn. Those guys should lose everything and should be thrown in prison and never ever be allowed to practice law anywhere in the United States ever again.
I think the complainants should be chained to a wall and the defendants each given a baseball bat and one swing per complainant.
Perhaps they should add "And the CIO will be ass-raped for the rest of his days..."
You think that's bad, wait to you see a Libertarian apply the logic of that numb-nut poster to, say, medical doctors or engineering firms. I debated a guy on here a few weeks ago who was defending the idea that building code enforcement wasn't required, and people should be able to build however they like, and if their house falls down and damages the next door neighbor's property, the neighbor can always sue.
In short, Libertarians are fucking morons. Either that or sociopaths.
Since Apple has done precisely that before, maybe we should ask some of the people Apple nicked designs off of.
Intelligence, artificial or otherwise, would be welcome on Wall Street right now.
In other words, the system will become so complex that we will quite literally be unable to ever quite figure out what's going on, until, of course, it all collapses, kills trillions of dollars in value, renders most economies smoking ruins, and then everyone will finally ask "Why the fuck did ever let that happen?"
So it's a PHP derivative then.
Pretty much. What's there to say? Until there are details, all we know is that Google has a language called Dart.
And maybe Apple will win this one too, but Apple has to be pretty concerned that a suite of technology patents that could basically screw it over far bigger than rectangular screens may be about to bite. In other words, Apple might win this battle, and end up losing the war. Or, possibly, the courts will decide that tablet designs predate the iPad and that Apple has no case, so Apple loses the battle and loses the war.
If you were Apple, and you were about to have Motorola's substantial wireless portfolio smashed into you like a ton of bricks, how much do you think a patent on a rectangular touch screen device with rounded edges is worth even if a court lets it pass muster?
It certainly underlies the current problem, which is that we've basically opened up cert issuing so widely now that we've undermined the underlying trust. Short of certs you issue yourself, it's getting quite worrisome. The problem, to a degree, is that everyone wanted cheap certs and were pissed off that the old big guys like Thawt and Verisign were charging a lot of money. But the point back then was proof of identity, and not just some guy going on to GoDaddy and buying a cert for $10, or encouraging some absolutely appalling security by firms (like that Dutch firm, whose principles should be taken out and shot).
I almost wonder whether we do need to start insisting on a reasonable level of verification. I mean, passports and drivers licenses are not invulnerable, but there is at least some rigor, and maybe that should be applied to issuing certs.
I think the idea is that because you would be using multiple notaries and working from a consensus, even if a couple of notaries were undermined, the system would still be more rigorous then the single-point-of-failure system we have now. I think, to assure statistical rigor, you're going to need several notaries, but by spreading the decision point out along a curve, you make the job of any hacker attempting undermine the CA system impressively harder. Say you had ten notaries. It would mean he would have to get into five, or more likely six of them.
I think the idea has some merit.
Well, for starters, Apple didn't invent touch screens, smartphones or tablets.
How did you survive from infancy without your parents tying you in a bag and burying you in the back yard and telling your brothers and sisters never to speak your name again?
Apple is trying to refight the UI design battle it lost over two decades ago. It didn't win that time and it won't win this time. In fact, now it has basically kicked up a hornet's nest by picking fights with people who can use actual legitimate technology patents to smack them, and Apple will regret ever having tried refight the UI war. It was moronic and shortsighted. They would have been better off just to simply work on market penetration, like the other mobile companies have been doing for fifteen years.
I'm sure you can provide me with data on societies where this has happened. I'm thinking here, of say, the food riots in Rome. The strong had armed soldiers and a wealthy aristocracy backing them, and yet they basically gave away bread to prevent riots.
Humans are not sociopaths, no matter how much repugnant and evil Libertarians may say they are. Believe it or not, we share, we co-operate, because as individuals, strong or weak, we'll die off in a big hurry.