Wait... most of the trolls I've read have insinuated that Mac users are gay, not stupid... have I been misinformed... by the trolls? Or are those two pejoratives now considered interchangeable in modern vernacular?
My daughter and I have been having the black screen while playing Champions Online on my XP media center machine, which worked fine until a few days ago. First it blew up my video card. I replaced that, it still locks up after playing the game for too long. I bought new DRAM today to see if more memory would help; I should have known the actual problem was caused by Microsoft.
The problem with Windows Automatic Update is that as soon as M$ wants everybody to move off of XP and/or Vista, they can just issue a patch that breaks the old system. Presto -- new OS revenue!
Has anybody tried using system restore to a checkpoint before November 25 to see if it fixes the problem?
However, it is okay to throw live lobsters and shellfish into boiling water, and even to eat live oysters. They can't scream, so obviously they don't feel any pain!
Avoiding all killing is simply not a workable proposition. Every time you use mouthwash or deodorant, you are killing millions of defenseless little creatures. You kill hundreds of insects each year with your car windshield (to say nothing of that cat I ran over the other day). Restricting yourself from the use of all animal byproducts is not only impossible, but insane. We currently have a system where we pay people far removed from ourselves to kill and process animals into food. This is pretty much based on self delusion; I try to teach my daughter that every time she eats meat she is eating dead animal body parts (not that there is anything wrong with that). She tells me that she doesn't like to eat animals, but those burgers are really, really tasty!
The Buddhists believe it is OK to eat an animal once it is already dead, but it is not OK to cause an animal to be killed just so you can eat it. (The Dali Lama jokes that he only eats meat every other day so that he can truthfully say that he has been a vegetarian for half his life.) I believe slightly differently, that depending on your circumstances, it may be OK to kill and eat anything, including other people. I agree that The Golden Rule dictates that one should never cause unnecessary suffering, but one can debate until they are blue in the face what distinguishes necessary from unnecessary suffering.
So, what you're saying is that this will stop the cheap phone manufactures from using an obviously bogus IMEI, and instead they will just put the same copy of a known good IMEI in every phone? Seriously, does this do anything at all to ensure that the IMEI is unique? 'Cause you know, having 100,000 customers with the same "non-bogus" IMEI isn't exactly traceable either.
If they don't patent it, someone else will. If they allow everbody to use the patent, then it is still not evil, even if they charge a nominal fee to do so.
They believe it is ethically wrong to slaughter animals for food I believe just the opposite: it is morally wrong to kill an animal and then NOT eat it.
"The big question is how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered. It would be very difficult to label and identify in a way that people would trust." Just follow this one simple rule: if it tastes like crap, it's artificial meat. PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) has known this for years.
You mean, what is wrong with Australia that isn't adequately explained by it being largely populated with British criminals and rebels? I think they'd do better if they elected only Aborigines to office...
e.g. teaching him how to fight back My daughter got hit by a boy at school. She chased him down and hit him back. However, since the teacher wasn't watching when the boy hit her, but was watching when she hit him back, guess which one of them got sent to the principal's offic?
Are 1 in 4 children really sexually abused by the Internet? Only if you count reading the "fuck you!" that somebody typed at you as sexual abuse. Seriously, one can only do emotional, not physical harm over the net, and chances are anything some stranger tells my daughter over the 'net isn't going to effect her more anywhere near as much as something I myself say when I'm pissed off at her. Yes, parents should monitor their children's internet use, and children should be instructed to never, never provide personally identifiable information over the internet. But if you are doing that, then who cares what some immature asshole says in a chat room? And how is pushing the panic button on the typed input some anonymous coward really going to help anything? You know, at some point you've got to let your kids fall and skin their knees so they learn it is not the end of the world and they can just get up and go about there life even after something "bad" happens. Trying to protect them from everything harmful in the real world just trains them to not be able to handle the real world when you're not there, and since I plan on dieing before my kids, that's probably not a good idea.
Apparently you're not very religious. Jesus, Buddha, and many other religious leaders taught that you should forgive others' transgressions against you. While the certainty of retaliation may be considered a deterrent, it is not particularly effective in discouraging criminal behavior, and no one has any intrinsic need for revenge. You are correct that our justice system already treats crimes as offenses against the state, and not offenses against an individual. You appear to be advocating both rule of law and vigilante justice; please pick either one side or the other.
Incarceration is not for punishment or revenge; it serves 3 purposes to society:
1) Deterrent
2) Rehabilitation
3) Preventing the criminal from re-offending, at least for the time period they are incarcerated.
Of these, it can only be proven effective at accomplishing the 3rd purpose. People with a high probability of re-offending should be kept locked away indefinitely for the protection of others. Capital punishment is probably cheaper than keeping somebody in jail for the rest of their lives, but risking the execution of even 1 innocent person before they are exonerated is not a risk I'm willing to take. Finally, truly twisted criminals tend to not last very long in prison anyway; they are eventually given the Jeffery Dahlmer treatment where they are left alone with a lifer who hates them while the guards look the other way. Even cold blooded killers have no stomach for someone who rapes and kills little girls, and I probably wouldn't go out of my way to protect them from the rest of the prison population either.
A man that raped and killed a 10-year old has a brain disorder?!? And here I thought that was perfectly normal behavior than anybody was capable of! If anything, this only helps prove that they got the right guy -- anybody that would do something like that must have some sort of mental disorder! Unfortunately, drawing attention to this brings up the possibility of testing people for brain disorders and removing them from society before they commit heinous acts... which sounds like a great idea, until you are the one that tests positive.
He'd better watch out - the teabaggers might get confused and lynch him! I think they'd be much more likely to simply place certain intimate parts of their anatomy on his face.
The point I was trying to make was that in planning or designing a system, there is always a trade-off between security and usability. E.g. requiring non-dictionary passwords makes them harder to remember, and frequently results in users simply writing the password down somewhere. (I once broke security on my University's system by simply opening the top desk drawer of an Admissions and Records employee and reading the password off a post-it.)
I had a friend that worked for a jewelry store; she could buy anything in the store at 75% off retail -- meaning that everything was marked up at least 300% over wholesale. You didn't think stores where actually losing money selling stuff at 75% off, did you? Yes, the shoes might have been priced at $300 at some time and place, that doesn't mean anybody actually payed $300 for them.
Funny, I thought there market share was due to actually paying people to use their search engine... have they abandoned that tactic already? Publisher's Clearing House will even give me an "entry" every time I do a search with Bing... pity I can't set up a script to do that for me!
When I get people telling me to "just fucking Bing it!" when I ask for information, then I'll believe that Bing is making progress. Google has entered our common lexicon as a verb, Bing has not.
china=mate
muckers=mates
butchers=look
scoobie=clue
rabbit=talk
Not as obscure as you'd like to think; I can decode it, and I've never even been to the UK.
Of course there are no 100% secure systems I've got a system that is unplugged, had the memory removed, and is locked in an airtight vault. I'm pretty sure it's at least 99.9% secure. The correct phrase should be, "There is no such thing as a 100% secure system that can still be used to do useful work."
Until it can piss on my briefcase because it thinks I've been ignoring it we have no way of confirming that it is actually simulating a real cat's brain.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait... most of the trolls I've read have insinuated that Mac users are gay, not stupid... have I been misinformed... by the trolls? Or are those two pejoratives now considered interchangeable in modern vernacular?
My daughter and I have been having the black screen while playing Champions Online on my XP media center machine, which worked fine until a few days ago. First it blew up my video card. I replaced that, it still locks up after playing the game for too long. I bought new DRAM today to see if more memory would help; I should have known the actual problem was caused by Microsoft.
The problem with Windows Automatic Update is that as soon as M$ wants everybody to move off of XP and/or Vista, they can just issue a patch that breaks the old system. Presto -- new OS revenue!
Has anybody tried using system restore to a checkpoint before November 25 to see if it fixes the problem?
well at least its better than Vista. That's real original!
However, it is okay to throw live lobsters and shellfish into boiling water, and even to eat live oysters. They can't scream, so obviously they don't feel any pain!
Avoiding all killing is simply not a workable proposition. Every time you use mouthwash or deodorant, you are killing millions of defenseless little creatures. You kill hundreds of insects each year with your car windshield (to say nothing of that cat I ran over the other day). Restricting yourself from the use of all animal byproducts is not only impossible, but insane. We currently have a system where we pay people far removed from ourselves to kill and process animals into food. This is pretty much based on self delusion; I try to teach my daughter that every time she eats meat she is eating dead animal body parts (not that there is anything wrong with that). She tells me that she doesn't like to eat animals, but those burgers are really, really tasty!
The Buddhists believe it is OK to eat an animal once it is already dead, but it is not OK to cause an animal to be killed just so you can eat it. (The Dali Lama jokes that he only eats meat every other day so that he can truthfully say that he has been a vegetarian for half his life.) I believe slightly differently, that depending on your circumstances, it may be OK to kill and eat anything, including other people. I agree that The Golden Rule dictates that one should never cause unnecessary suffering, but one can debate until they are blue in the face what distinguishes necessary from unnecessary suffering.
So, what you're saying is that this will stop the cheap phone manufactures from using an obviously bogus IMEI, and instead they will just put the same copy of a known good IMEI in every phone? Seriously, does this do anything at all to ensure that the IMEI is unique? 'Cause you know, having 100,000 customers with the same "non-bogus" IMEI isn't exactly traceable either.
If they don't patent it, someone else will. If they allow everbody to use the patent, then it is still not evil, even if they charge a nominal fee to do so.
They believe it is ethically wrong to slaughter animals for food I believe just the opposite: it is morally wrong to kill an animal and then NOT eat it.
"The big question is how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered. It would be very difficult to label and identify in a way that people would trust." Just follow this one simple rule: if it tastes like crap, it's artificial meat. PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) has known this for years.
You mean, what is wrong with Australia that isn't adequately explained by it being largely populated with British criminals and rebels? I think they'd do better if they elected only Aborigines to office...
e.g. teaching him how to fight back My daughter got hit by a boy at school. She chased him down and hit him back. However, since the teacher wasn't watching when the boy hit her, but was watching when she hit him back, guess which one of them got sent to the principal's offic?
Are 1 in 4 children really sexually abused by the Internet? Only if you count reading the "fuck you!" that somebody typed at you as sexual abuse. Seriously, one can only do emotional, not physical harm over the net, and chances are anything some stranger tells my daughter over the 'net isn't going to effect her more anywhere near as much as something I myself say when I'm pissed off at her. Yes, parents should monitor their children's internet use, and children should be instructed to never, never provide personally identifiable information over the internet. But if you are doing that, then who cares what some immature asshole says in a chat room? And how is pushing the panic button on the typed input some anonymous coward really going to help anything? You know, at some point you've got to let your kids fall and skin their knees so they learn it is not the end of the world and they can just get up and go about there life even after something "bad" happens. Trying to protect them from everything harmful in the real world just trains them to not be able to handle the real world when you're not there, and since I plan on dieing before my kids, that's probably not a good idea.
Apparently you're not very religious. Jesus, Buddha, and many other religious leaders taught that you should forgive others' transgressions against you. While the certainty of retaliation may be considered a deterrent, it is not particularly effective in discouraging criminal behavior, and no one has any intrinsic need for revenge. You are correct that our justice system already treats crimes as offenses against the state, and not offenses against an individual. You appear to be advocating both rule of law and vigilante justice; please pick either one side or the other.
What does not kill me, makes me stronger.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, 1888
Incarceration is not for punishment or revenge; it serves 3 purposes to society:
1) Deterrent
2) Rehabilitation
3) Preventing the criminal from re-offending, at least for the time period they are incarcerated.
Of these, it can only be proven effective at accomplishing the 3rd purpose. People with a high probability of re-offending should be kept locked away indefinitely for the protection of others. Capital punishment is probably cheaper than keeping somebody in jail for the rest of their lives, but risking the execution of even 1 innocent person before they are exonerated is not a risk I'm willing to take. Finally, truly twisted criminals tend to not last very long in prison anyway; they are eventually given the Jeffery Dahlmer treatment where they are left alone with a lifer who hates them while the guards look the other way. Even cold blooded killers have no stomach for someone who rapes and kills little girls, and I probably wouldn't go out of my way to protect them from the rest of the prison population either.
A man that raped and killed a 10-year old has a brain disorder?!? And here I thought that was perfectly normal behavior than anybody was capable of! If anything, this only helps prove that they got the right guy -- anybody that would do something like that must have some sort of mental disorder! Unfortunately, drawing attention to this brings up the possibility of testing people for brain disorders and removing them from society before they commit heinous acts... which sounds like a great idea, until you are the one that tests positive.
Why be skeptical? I hear it works every bit as good as a Ouija board! (And on pretty much the same principle.)
He'd better watch out - the teabaggers might get confused and lynch him! I think they'd be much more likely to simply place certain intimate parts of their anatomy on his face.
The point I was trying to make was that in planning or designing a system, there is always a trade-off between security and usability. E.g. requiring non-dictionary passwords makes them harder to remember, and frequently results in users simply writing the password down somewhere. (I once broke security on my University's system by simply opening the top desk drawer of an Admissions and Records employee and reading the password off a post-it.)
I had a friend that worked for a jewelry store; she could buy anything in the store at 75% off retail -- meaning that everything was marked up at least 300% over wholesale. You didn't think stores where actually losing money selling stuff at 75% off, did you? Yes, the shoes might have been priced at $300 at some time and place, that doesn't mean anybody actually payed $300 for them.
Funny, I thought there market share was due to actually paying people to use their search engine... have they abandoned that tactic already? Publisher's Clearing House will even give me an "entry" every time I do a search with Bing... pity I can't set up a script to do that for me!
When I get people telling me to "just fucking Bing it!" when I ask for information, then I'll believe that Bing is making progress. Google has entered our common lexicon as a verb, Bing has not.
china=mate
muckers=mates
butchers=look
scoobie=clue
rabbit=talk
Not as obscure as you'd like to think; I can decode it, and I've never even been to the UK.
Of course there are no 100% secure systems I've got a system that is unplugged, had the memory removed, and is locked in an airtight vault. I'm pretty sure it's at least 99.9% secure. The correct phrase should be, "There is no such thing as a 100% secure system that can still be used to do useful work."
Until it can piss on my briefcase because it thinks I've been ignoring it we have no way of confirming that it is actually simulating a real cat's brain.
I'm a big fan of both Thorvalds and Obama, but I don't believe either of them deserves a Nobel Peace Prize... yet.