There is absolutely no evidence that your heretic here is not idealistic to the point of declenching the real issue of why people don't like or trust lawyers. There is absolutely no evidence at all, and I challenge you to produce such evidence you may have, if you may, that comparing racist type attitudes such as "never, never trust a black man" in relation with the common stereotypes of impoverished African Americans who turn to violence in face of millions is who do not, is not the same as claiming that lawyers like yourself are victims of some social or systemic process that's been imposed on them. Much to the contrary, there is absolutely no evidence at all that you and other lawyers like yourself have not directly benefited from the system as it is.
I enjoy the maxim you presented, ubi remedium ibi ius, however there is no evidence that what some people would consider to be justice by means of enforcement is not actually an injustice through the means of enforcement without cause. There is absolutely no evidence that fear people may have accepted as cause for TSA's rigorous social protection routines at airports has not resulted in unjust enforcement which infringes on our liberties; there is absolutely no evidence that such fear of terrorism is not of domestic fabrication for the purposes of our modern day witch hunt which also, is supported by lawyers.
There is absolutely no evidence lawyers are more likely to adhere to professional code of conduct if they do not stand to benefit from such adherence. There is no reason to believe their adherence to any code of conduct is not the result of a collusive efforts for such collective benefits such as an image of professionalism and if not for such an image, there would be any volition of any kind for any socially acceptable ethical principals. Furthermore there is no to reason to not contest any notion that such collusive collective benefits are not further exploited in any way possible, even to attempt to divert responsibility and blame legislative bodies and their electorate for misfortunes had in dealing with your kind. Do you have any evidence to suggest that such collusion should really cause people to trust lawyers?
I see you have played a common law card; I see no reason to not doubt or even challenge your mediocre understanding of the term. While I will present absolutely no evidence to suggest that your claim is untrue, I will not suggest that I do not contest the insinuations present in your claim by counterclaiming: there is also no evidence that common law is not used as a guise by you to cause a declension in the minds of our readers as to of the form of law really practiced in courts today. You will probably present absolutely no evidence to contest the notion that the courts today do not practice Common Law. As an example, let's take the latest push to criminalize copyright infringement, in such a case, there would be no evidence that physical harm was, will be, or even could be inflicted on the "victim" of such a would be crime and yet there is no evidence that lawyers like yourself would not continue to push for conviction of such a would be crime that would have absolutely no Common Law jurisdiction. Furthermore, there is no evidence that lawyers like yourself do not continue to push for such a measure to criminalize people for sharing, something commonly socially encouraged and taught to us as children. There is no evidence that you and all lawyers like yourself, do not depend on the general acceptance of such presumption like Common Law in our courts today to maintain an image. So as it stands, the cause for distrust, if you want to claim you understand common law: I have absolutely no evidence you where not being deceptive when you made a claim as to the value of such a system of law.
I'd like to see how things play out. I happen to believe that Tim Cooke will do a better job of destroying apple than any boycott. That's my prediction of course.
I also think it would the the United States a lot of good for apple to produce their products domestically.
You can be perfectly sober and get arrested for having a half bottle of tequila in hand as part of a Halloween costume! I know because it happened to me.
Actually this is a case regarding a man who seems deliberately going down the road that would harm a society, its values, and its image in the face of religious faith. It's about preserving values of a society. It just happens that this man took one of our freedoms in his attempt to "do god's work" and has exposed the amount of policing that government is up to.
Perhaps one thing we can agree on is the intentions of whoever has the shiny beepy toys plugged in can change in a way that would infringe on our freedoms.
Book banning/burning has been around for centuries FYI.
In this day and age, no real harm need be inflicted for the existence of a crime. The mere declaration by the word of law or policy is sufficient to constitute the groundwork for the declaration of a crime. The key issue is "social acceptance"; if it be destructive to the social values of a nation it's enough to be declared a crime these days.
I am pleased by your insinuation that religion has a part to play in public policy, perhaps bannings. Perhaps you have heard of the recent Christopher Hitchens? Take a listen to his position on how religion is at the root of almost all wars over the course of the recent 2000 years. Youtube and Google are your friends.
While I agree with what you have stated I'd like to point out:
1. The man's affliction to a religion notorious for violence is an indication of his cultural values.
2. The man's newfound affliction to the explosives is an indication of how he spends and would have continued to spend his time.
3. Considering how much polarization this forum has seen on this subject, certainly his own position is quite possibly just as polarized.
4. The UK needs to be vigilant in preserving it's national values too, considering someone related to cultural violence, expressing an interest in weapons uniquely associated with a subject with so much polarization, it would be reckless to ignore the man or his possibilities. If he did manage to conjure up a bomb, say by the will of God, and did manage to take a few "infidels" with him in his suicide ("Jihad"), the political implications on public policy would make this whole incident seem like walk in the park.
When WWII started up, one of the first attitudes taken by US was to secure it's homeland; Japanese immigrants where rounded up an put into camps. Securing a nations homeland is considered such a top priority that during Vietnam, whos military leaders opted for a guerilla style of engagement, the US opted for a strategy of dropping agent Orange, White, Blue and such onto the waters and lands of the enemy so as to deprive them of any benefit controlling such land (or water) would provide for the next 100 years. Till this day, land contaminated with Orange or White will not sustain crops.
Locking up the man is really the best way to handle the situation. Is it better than:
I don't own a credit card or it's numbers and neither do any of you. Those cards are actually bank property and the holder of those cards (maybe some of you) are beneficiaries of the bank under fiduciary obligations to keep them secure as if they where your own.
If you did have a USB stick full of bank property you would probably get shaved, sterilized and disposed of by the banks in the courts not only because certainly they have more lawyers than you, but because your lawyer has a preemptive obligation to "pubic interest" (American Jurisprudence, paragraph 6 if memory serves) before you. His work will basically be to turn you in so you can be made to pay for your "social disposition" in such a way that you accept it whilst upholding the idea that there is an impartial justice system.
I read a recent news article where Israel declared it would treat "thieves of Israeli credit cards" as they do terrorists. So go ahead and make it personal holding what you consider my credit card data and see if you can make it passed the first 15 seconds of the waterboarding my friends will give you!
If you are interested in playing with banks, there are much better ways.
I see a certain declension from the expectations of civilized society to what John Locke called the "wilderness"; it seems that in order to be prosperous you need to be allied with whomever has bigger weapons and more advanced toys (not necessarily in that order). This article where conviction occurred merely on the supposition of intent to go terrorist is clearly depicts how far the "bigger dicks" are taking things.
These days, more an more cases are more about social impact then reality.
Crimes are being declared as crimes even when no real harm occurs to anyone. Take driving without a license, it's an administrative oversight, but here in Brazil it will land you in jail. Now granted that the cultural mentality here is to break the law whenever possible but that's only the way it is because government has always positioned itself as an opponent to progress rather then a mediator.
These types of positions taken by courts, governments and even corporations fall into a category I like to call, "Social Intolerance".
At some point the sheeple will need to take notice and do something about the situation; maybe that will happen only after it is already too late.
I think the point with the plan is to get some unbias ideas from creative minds.
The true irony is that the brilliant child mind(s) that eventually get implemented will probably be used against that same individual as well as his or her entire cohort during their adult lives.
It must be the end of the world. I can't believe it either.
The US might as well allow patenting and copyrighting of human DNA segments that way they can boost their GDP by allowing their friends to charge people "fair use" of such copyrighted assets.
I think Abolishment is an extremist position. Revised, certainly, so that we don't make criminals out our citizens for their "cultural" and/or economic values.
Copyrights and Patents have their place in a healthy capitalistic system. The problem we have is our capitalistic system doesn't seem so healthy anymore because IMO, business models made obsolete by advances in technology are being clung to and our political and legal landscape is unable to adapt in a meaningful way.
I didn't know Canada has a surplus in their government spendings. I'd like to remind you that the ability to "pay" is symbolic, especially because we all use a fiat based currency system. Technically, the US debt, is only a debt in some belief of value. The irony is copyright extremists too, only really have a claim to a belief of some value associated with their assets, except they are managing to pass laws that make real human beings criminals (in my opinion much more then just symbolic) when they exercise their rights by not sharing the beliefs held by such extremists.
I have two points I'd like to share, I've not RTFA yet and probably won't, so take this at face value.
1. The attitude demonstrated is a perfect example of extremist intolerance. All non-conformists will soon be labeled; we must all surrender our individualist values and all adhere the values of collectivism. The problem I see is that such collectivist values, especially in this case seem to directly benefit a minority.(classic/previous examples of extremist intolerance were previous "witch hunt" scenarios where labels included: "communist", "axis of evil" and even more recently "terrorist"). I found it most interesting, in a recent television news broadcast regarding an incident in the continuing instability in the middle east where extremist Jews had invading Palestinian occupied territories, where Palestinian leaders called for the labeling of those extremist Jews as terrorists. Israeli leaders concede that in fact they could be called terrorists but "...they will not be _treated_ as terrorists". In the example of extremist intolerance as worded in the Slashdot article, from the political posturing, Canada is being *treated* in a discriminatory way (in some ways similar to an embargo) and that everyone, or at least someone, wants it to be accepted as kosher.
2. It could also argue that by passing laws to "protect" (whatever that means in this case) the interests of special interest (copyright holders) and criminalize actions that do not directly cause real harm to any real human being. Our government is moving to pass laws causing ordinary law abiding citizens to be regarded as criminals. The end effect is to compromise large groups of society and their liberties and freedoms (if there is any presumption such groups have any) for the benefit of a few. This is yet another example of extremist social intolerance, (http://entertainment.ie/music/news/EMI-launches-lawsuit-against-Irish-state/97275.htm) it is not a stretch to conclude that special interests at work here have no real respect for the laws of a nation or state.
My personal view is that as this social intolerance continues, there will be a continuing declension in the distinctions between American democracy and totalitarianism insofar as we regard the way people are *treated*.
You obviously never been or had a 13 year old. They think all sorts of things have "a lot of value" based upon "peers opinion". In fact, Junior High is filled with various peer groups that base all sorts of things on the perceived value assigned to things by the peer group. As one grows up, many realize that 13 year olds don't really know jack about the world yet.
Let's try substituting "13" with "45", and "Junior High" with "the real world":
You obviously never been or had a 45 year old. They think all sorts of things have "a lot of value" based upon "peers opinion". In fact, the real world is filled with various peer groups that base all sorts of things on the perceived value assigned to things by the peer group. As one grows up, many realize that 45 year olds don't really know jack about the world yet.
Seems like:
Adults have a different idea of what value is and since a 13 year old can't really argue with "you don't know jack about the world yet" They sort of assume they are right.
Or
You don't really understand the concept of value. (no offense meant)
Value is always dependent on what "peer groups" perceive it as. Take a great modern commodity: money. If everybody (your peer groups) only ever traded vegetables, meats, timber or whatever on e-bay, what value would money have? In this exaggerated example the participants trading good would first need to discover the use of money, or need to join a peer group that considers money valuable to give any value to the commodity. Even in the real world, the basis of the value of all currency depends on exactly one issue. Trust that money is worth something. (Not that different from: The bible is the book of god because god says so in the bible)
I use gentoo too, and like it very much and use it every day and might even be a "gentoo fanboy". I might even rant about how powerful, flexible and elegant Gentoo is, but when my friends where curious about linux I give them a knoppix CD. They can try out linux without disturbing their hard drive. I can't see myself recommending gentoo to a newbie; it is like measuring a parking space in millimeters (or in microns).
My second favorate distribution is knoppix.
I use knoppix when there is a problem for the same reasons some people use duct tape to fix something that are broken. Just as a temporary solution until a permanent solutions is arranged. The GUI gets in my way most of the time especially when I'm in a hurry. So I guess my most used boot parameter is: "2"
The time required to setup knoppix is the time required to make sure the PC will boot from the CD. I'd like to see another distro beat that setup time.:)
I agree. Peaceful protests are prefered by authorities only because they are more easily ignored. In the certain instances they appeared to make a difference, the issue was already controvercial and needed only a nudge (or something), somebody organized a peaceful protest, and everyone says: "Wow that works, next time do it peacefully." Maybe to reinforce "good behavior".
Violent protests require additional effort to control and are messier and therefore are a bit more (what's the word...) sensationalizable, hence can get better media attention. (Annoyance factors) But they don't work either.
Basically the authorities do what they want whether you make a point to get in there way or not.
Having said that, the mid-term elections was quite an effective "protest" by the american public; it certainly had more effect then all the peaceful protests combined.
Using higher enrichment allows the reactor to "throttle up" faster. Also requires much more control rod to slow it down. So higher enrichment means more nuclear volatility.
Using higher enrichment in warships is a tactical issue. Not a technical one.
A powerplant only needs the reactor to "throttle up" fast enough to meet energy consumption. In a northern city where energy is used for heating the consumption variations may be very moderate. Use low grade fuel and economize control rod.
I'd have directed the question to the fifth witless guy, but you managed to combine it with questioning my intelligence.
Pretty witty
This is where I would defend what I wrote. But having read it again I see what you mean. Did you read what you wrote in the original post?
Perhaps we both submitted our messages without properly considering what was written. As such the only witty response I can think of is: The part about the gentoo installation that gives _me_ the most trouble is figuring out what CFLAGS to use. Or getting samba to authorize access to shared for my W2K users.
By the way, If you hadn't posted me. I might have never seen your interpretation of my original witty post. xorgconfig does confuse newbies.
You mean that information might be "proxied" at some brazilian data center?
A proxy is a type of caching system to accelerate delivery of frequently requested data. It is by no means a permanent storage system.
Information may not even be stored in the proxy's file system in a way humans can understand/navigate. But rather in a way to optimized for the machine to find and retrieve information.
If a request for a resouces not found in the cached occurs that information is retrieved from it's original source; it isn't always clear if such information served was cached in the proxy or not.
The first link you posted only suggests mirroring for data reduncancy, performed with RAID tecnology to prevent data loss due to hardware failures.
Slashdot Mirror
There is absolutely no evidence that your heretic here is not idealistic to the point of declenching the real issue of why people don't like or trust lawyers. There is absolutely no evidence at all, and I challenge you to produce such evidence you may have, if you may, that comparing racist type attitudes such as "never, never trust a black man" in relation with the common stereotypes of impoverished African Americans who turn to violence in face of millions is who do not, is not the same as claiming that lawyers like yourself are victims of some social or systemic process that's been imposed on them. Much to the contrary, there is absolutely no evidence at all that you and other lawyers like yourself have not directly benefited from the system as it is.
I enjoy the maxim you presented, ubi remedium ibi ius, however there is no evidence that what some people would consider to be justice by means of enforcement is not actually an injustice through the means of enforcement without cause. There is absolutely no evidence that fear people may have accepted as cause for TSA's rigorous social protection routines at airports has not resulted in unjust enforcement which infringes on our liberties; there is absolutely no evidence that such fear of terrorism is not of domestic fabrication for the purposes of our modern day witch hunt which also, is supported by lawyers.
There is absolutely no evidence lawyers are more likely to adhere to professional code of conduct if they do not stand to benefit from such adherence. There is no reason to believe their adherence to any code of conduct is not the result of a collusive efforts for such collective benefits such as an image of professionalism and if not for such an image, there would be any volition of any kind for any socially acceptable ethical principals. Furthermore there is no to reason to not contest any notion that such collusive collective benefits are not further exploited in any way possible, even to attempt to divert responsibility and blame legislative bodies and their electorate for misfortunes had in dealing with your kind. Do you have any evidence to suggest that such collusion should really cause people to trust lawyers?
I see you have played a common law card; I see no reason to not doubt or even challenge your mediocre understanding of the term. While I will present absolutely no evidence to suggest that your claim is untrue, I will not suggest that I do not contest the insinuations present in your claim by counterclaiming: there is also no evidence that common law is not used as a guise by you to cause a declension in the minds of our readers as to of the form of law really practiced in courts today. You will probably present absolutely no evidence to contest the notion that the courts today do not practice Common Law. As an example, let's take the latest push to criminalize copyright infringement, in such a case, there would be no evidence that physical harm was, will be, or even could be inflicted on the "victim" of such a would be crime and yet there is no evidence that lawyers like yourself would not continue to push for conviction of such a would be crime that would have absolutely no Common Law jurisdiction. Furthermore, there is no evidence that lawyers like yourself do not continue to push for such a measure to criminalize people for sharing, something commonly socially encouraged and taught to us as children. There is no evidence that you and all lawyers like yourself, do not depend on the general acceptance of such presumption like Common Law in our courts today to maintain an image. So as it stands, the cause for distrust, if you want to claim you understand common law: I have absolutely no evidence you where not being deceptive when you made a claim as to the value of such a system of law.
I'd like to see how things play out. I happen to believe that Tim Cooke will do a better job of destroying apple than any boycott. That's my prediction of course.
I also think it would the the United States a lot of good for apple to produce their products domestically.
You can be perfectly sober and get arrested for having a half bottle of tequila in hand as part of a Halloween costume! I know because it happened to me.
Actually this is a case regarding a man who seems deliberately going down the road that would harm a society, its values, and its image in the face of religious faith. It's about preserving values of a society. It just happens that this man took one of our freedoms in his attempt to "do god's work" and has exposed the amount of policing that government is up to.
Perhaps one thing we can agree on is the intentions of whoever has the shiny beepy toys plugged in can change in a way that would infringe on our freedoms.
Book banning/burning has been around for centuries FYI.
In this day and age, no real harm need be inflicted for the existence of a crime. The mere declaration by the word of law or policy is sufficient to constitute the groundwork for the declaration of a crime. The key issue is "social acceptance"; if it be destructive to the social values of a nation it's enough to be declared a crime these days.
I am pleased by your insinuation that religion has a part to play in public policy, perhaps bannings. Perhaps you have heard of the recent Christopher Hitchens? Take a listen to his position on how religion is at the root of almost all wars over the course of the recent 2000 years. Youtube and Google are your friends.
By your analogy and a bit of logic, the UK condemned the man for being stupid. That flies by me. Any takers?
How stupid does a person of Islamic descent have to be to declare Jihad with a pendrive full of bomb-making instructions?
As long as they don't condemn you for your apparent interest in nuclears and you don't happen to be Iranian, I'll sleep better at night.
While I agree with what you have stated I'd like to point out:
When WWII started up, one of the first attitudes taken by US was to secure it's homeland; Japanese immigrants where rounded up an put into camps. Securing a nations homeland is considered such a top priority that during Vietnam, whos military leaders opted for a guerilla style of engagement, the US opted for a strategy of dropping agent Orange, White, Blue and such onto the waters and lands of the enemy so as to deprive them of any benefit controlling such land (or water) would provide for the next 100 years. Till this day, land contaminated with Orange or White will not sustain crops.
Locking up the man is really the best way to handle the situation. Is it better than:
The cool part is his Jihad will start with 2 years in the slammer to reconsider if God really gives a s***.
If you had my Credit Card numbers?
I don't own a credit card or it's numbers and neither do any of you. Those cards are actually bank property and the holder of those cards (maybe some of you) are beneficiaries of the bank under fiduciary obligations to keep them secure as if they where your own.
If you did have a USB stick full of bank property you would probably get shaved, sterilized and disposed of by the banks in the courts not only because certainly they have more lawyers than you, but because your lawyer has a preemptive obligation to "pubic interest" (American Jurisprudence, paragraph 6 if memory serves) before you. His work will basically be to turn you in so you can be made to pay for your "social disposition" in such a way that you accept it whilst upholding the idea that there is an impartial justice system.
I read a recent news article where Israel declared it would treat "thieves of Israeli credit cards" as they do terrorists. So go ahead and make it personal holding what you consider my credit card data and see if you can make it passed the first 15 seconds of the waterboarding my friends will give you!
If you are interested in playing with banks, there are much better ways.
I see a certain declension from the expectations of civilized society to what John Locke called the "wilderness"; it seems that in order to be prosperous you need to be allied with whomever has bigger weapons and more advanced toys (not necessarily in that order). This article where conviction occurred merely on the supposition of intent to go terrorist is clearly depicts how far the "bigger dicks" are taking things.
These days, more an more cases are more about social impact then reality.
Crimes are being declared as crimes even when no real harm occurs to anyone. Take driving without a license, it's an administrative oversight, but here in Brazil it will land you in jail. Now granted that the cultural mentality here is to break the law whenever possible but that's only the way it is because government has always positioned itself as an opponent to progress rather then a mediator.
These types of positions taken by courts, governments and even corporations fall into a category I like to call, "Social Intolerance".
At some point the sheeple will need to take notice and do something about the situation; maybe that will happen only after it is already too late.
I think the point with the plan is to get some unbias ideas from creative minds. The true irony is that the brilliant child mind(s) that eventually get implemented will probably be used against that same individual as well as his or her entire cohort during their adult lives.
We are going to need anti-drone technology soon. Maybe we should enlist kids for that program while we are at it.
+1
It must be the end of the world. I can't believe it either.
The US might as well allow patenting and copyrighting of human DNA segments that way they can boost their GDP by allowing their friends to charge people "fair use" of such copyrighted assets.
I think Abolishment is an extremist position. Revised, certainly, so that we don't make criminals out our citizens for their "cultural" and/or economic values.
Copyrights and Patents have their place in a healthy capitalistic system. The problem we have is our capitalistic system doesn't seem so healthy anymore because IMO, business models made obsolete by advances in technology are being clung to and our political and legal landscape is unable to adapt in a meaningful way.
I didn't know Canada has a surplus in their government spendings. I'd like to remind you that the ability to "pay" is symbolic, especially because we all use a fiat based currency system. Technically, the US debt, is only a debt in some belief of value. The irony is copyright extremists too, only really have a claim to a belief of some value associated with their assets, except they are managing to pass laws that make real human beings criminals (in my opinion much more then just symbolic) when they exercise their rights by not sharing the beliefs held by such extremists.
I have two points I'd like to share, I've not RTFA yet and probably won't, so take this at face value.
1. The attitude demonstrated is a perfect example of extremist intolerance. All non-conformists will soon be labeled; we must all surrender our individualist values and all adhere the values of collectivism. The problem I see is that such collectivist values, especially in this case seem to directly benefit a minority.(classic/previous examples of extremist intolerance were previous "witch hunt" scenarios where labels included: "communist", "axis of evil" and even more recently "terrorist"). I found it most interesting, in a recent television news broadcast regarding an incident in the continuing instability in the middle east where extremist Jews had invading Palestinian occupied territories, where Palestinian leaders called for the labeling of those extremist Jews as terrorists. Israeli leaders concede that in fact they could be called terrorists but "...they will not be _treated_ as terrorists". In the example of extremist intolerance as worded in the Slashdot article, from the political posturing, Canada is being *treated* in a discriminatory way (in some ways similar to an embargo) and that everyone, or at least someone, wants it to be accepted as kosher.
2. It could also argue that by passing laws to "protect" (whatever that means in this case) the interests of special interest (copyright holders) and criminalize actions that do not directly cause real harm to any real human being. Our government is moving to pass laws causing ordinary law abiding citizens to be regarded as criminals. The end effect is to compromise large groups of society and their liberties and freedoms (if there is any presumption such groups have any) for the benefit of a few. This is yet another example of extremist social intolerance, (http://entertainment.ie/music/news/EMI-launches-lawsuit-against-Irish-state/97275.htm) it is not a stretch to conclude that special interests at work here have no real respect for the laws of a nation or state.
My personal view is that as this social intolerance continues, there will be a continuing declension in the distinctions between American democracy and totalitarianism insofar as we regard the way people are *treated*.
Sounds like the study of an American knockoff of the chinese censorship program to me.
You obviously never been or had a 13 year old. They think all sorts of things have "a lot of value" based upon "peers opinion". In fact, Junior High is filled with various peer groups that base all sorts of things on the perceived value assigned to things by the peer group. As one grows up, many realize that 13 year olds don't really know jack about the world yet.
Let's try substituting "13" with "45", and "Junior High" with "the real world":
You obviously never been or had a 45 year old. They think all sorts of things have "a lot of value" based upon "peers opinion". In fact, the real world is filled with various peer groups that base all sorts of things on the perceived value assigned to things by the peer group. As one grows up, many realize that 45 year olds don't really know jack about the world yet.
Seems like:
Adults have a different idea of what value is and since a 13 year old can't really argue with "you don't know jack about the world yet" They sort of assume they are right.
Or
You don't really understand the concept of value. (no offense meant)
Value is always dependent on what "peer groups" perceive it as. Take a great modern commodity: money. If everybody (your peer groups) only ever traded vegetables, meats, timber or whatever on e-bay, what value would money have? In this exaggerated example the participants trading good would first need to discover the use of money, or need to join a peer group that considers money valuable to give any value to the commodity. Even in the real world, the basis of the value of all currency depends on exactly one issue. Trust that money is worth something. (Not that different from: The bible is the book of god because god says so in the bible)
I think the "she's 13" retort was perfect not because she had some deep analytical or philosophical vision of the world, but because Steve just looked silly trying to respond. First stategem of Arthur Schopenhauer The Art of Contraversy.
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Explorer\Advanced]
"EnableBalloonTips"=dword:00000000
Haa! MS thinks this is an advanced feature.
Nice tip though I'll be using this.
I use gentoo too, and like it very much and use it every day and might even be a "gentoo fanboy". I might even rant about how powerful, flexible and elegant Gentoo is, but when my friends where curious about linux I give them a knoppix CD. They can try out linux without disturbing their hard drive. I can't see myself recommending gentoo to a newbie; it is like measuring a parking space in millimeters (or in microns).
:)
My second favorate distribution is knoppix.
I use knoppix when there is a problem for the same reasons some people use duct tape to fix something that are broken. Just as a temporary solution until a permanent solutions is arranged. The GUI gets in my way most of the time especially when I'm in a hurry. So I guess my most used boot parameter is: "2"
The time required to setup knoppix is the time required to make sure the PC will boot from the CD. I'd like to see another distro beat that setup time.
I agree. Peaceful protests are prefered by authorities only because they are more easily ignored. In the certain instances they appeared to make a difference, the issue was already controvercial and needed only a nudge (or something), somebody organized a peaceful protest, and everyone says: "Wow that works, next time do it peacefully." Maybe to reinforce "good behavior".
Violent protests require additional effort to control and are messier and therefore are a bit more (what's the word...) sensationalizable, hence can get better media attention. (Annoyance factors) But they don't work either.
Basically the authorities do what they want whether you make a point to get in there way or not.
Having said that, the mid-term elections was quite an effective "protest" by the american public; it certainly had more effect then all the peaceful protests combined.
Using higher enrichment allows the reactor to "throttle up" faster. Also requires much more control rod to slow it down. So higher enrichment means more nuclear volatility.
Using higher enrichment in warships is a tactical issue. Not a technical one.
A powerplant only needs the reactor to "throttle up" fast enough to meet energy consumption. In a northern city where energy is used for heating the consumption variations may be very moderate. Use low grade fuel and economize control rod.
I'd have directed the question to the fifth witless guy, but you managed to combine it with questioning my intelligence.
Pretty witty
This is where I would defend what I wrote. But having read it again I see what you mean. Did you read what you wrote in the original post?
Perhaps we both submitted our messages without properly considering what was written. As such the only witty response I can think of is: The part about the gentoo installation that gives _me_ the most trouble is figuring out what CFLAGS to use. Or getting samba to authorize access to shared for my W2K users.
By the way, If you hadn't posted me. I might have never seen your interpretation of my original witty post. xorgconfig does confuse newbies.
but there's no way I could do that for xorg.conf.
I use "xorgconfig" setup an intial xorg.conf for me. Works even in the console; I guess it would confuse a [disoriented] newbie though. hahahahahah
I'd share it with you, but that would be illegal... :-)
Whether or not it would be illegal to share your CD depends on how you share it.
If you send him a copy then then sure, illegal, however if you invite him over so he can give the CD a listen then _not_.
What if you lent him the CD, say sent it to him by snail-mail?
You mean that information might be "proxied" at some brazilian data center?
A proxy is a type of caching system to accelerate delivery of frequently requested data. It is by no means a permanent storage system.
Information may not even be stored in the proxy's file system in a way humans can understand/navigate. But rather in a way to optimized for the machine to find and retrieve information.
If a request for a resouces not found in the cached occurs that information is retrieved from it's original source; it isn't always clear if such information served was cached in the proxy or not.
The first link you posted only suggests mirroring for data reduncancy, performed with RAID tecnology to prevent data loss due to hardware failures.