Yes, writing M$ DOES give a perfect idea of the bias of the poster...that is, a blind Microsoft hater that takes any opportunity to criticize them.
Why does it mean he's a blind Microsoft hater? He could very well be a knowledgeable Microsoft hater like the rest of us who have to suffer through the nightmare of Microsoft because they managed to get control of the market despite there being much better alternatives out there that the knowledgeable Microsoft haters have been using for years. The bias is likely for very good, supportable reasons.
Riding elephants, they found the female in the brush and tried to tranquilize her, but the dart missed. What happened next should give you and idea what the jerks in the SF zoo saw.
The thing I see of note in this video is that the tiger was smart enough to know to go after the human on the elephant as the threat while still risking retribution from the elephant which I'm assuming tigers wouldn't typically mess with.
You should follow your own advice, but they're still claiming they didn't through anything into the pen. So you can except that they already told one lie and extrapolate from the fact that the tiger hunted down these three individuals amongst many for some reason other than random chance.
You know they seized their cellphones and such and found 0 evidence of taunting.
What the hell does that prove? Hmmm... yeah so they didn't make any taunting cell phone calls or text messages to the tiger. Who is the "schmoes" here?
I have been. I couldn't find a link with a quick search and I don't have time at the moment to do a more thorough search but one of them has now admitted they were taunting the tiger but still claims they weren't dangling things into the tiger pit. So you can except that they already told one lie and extrapolate from the fact that the tiger hunted down these three individuals amongst many for some reason other than random chance.
You know they seized their cellphones and such and found 0 evidence of taunting.
What the hell does that prove? Hmmm... yeah so they didn't make any taunting cell phone calls or text messages to the tiger. Who is the "schmoes" here?
Sure enough that you're willing to risk some sort of liability if you issue the patent and prior art is later discovered.
Even better make the patent holder liable if the patent is found to be invalid for any reason. If you sue someone for patent violation and the patent is found to be invalid for any reason you have to pay the person you sued the amount you were suing for. Make the liability cost enough and applying for BS patents would end overnight. Enforcement of existing patents would be much more selective and less of a shakedown scheme as it is now.
All my 'ideal' would give would be a general explanation of why a search ranking is low, NOT an improvement in the search ranking.
If you know why a page is ranking low isn't that telling you how to improve your ranking? Isn't that just a little bit obvious? It allows anyone to game the system. Google's whole search business is built on giving what is at least perceived as neutral rankings based on relevance. If that perception is lost Google's credibility goes out the window with it and that would kill Google's search business.
It is quite common for companies to have a working business one day, and then the next, for some unknown reason their site is now listed on page 972 of Google's results, so their business goes down the chute.
This happens because Google change some arbitrary parameter
No, this happens because your business model is idiotic and doomed to failure if it relies on advertising controlled by and provided gratis by another company. Are you going to let Google view all your trade secrets that are critical to the success of your business?
Not in less than a second, but all of the hard drives we used on the AWACS plane had toggle switches that would begin writing random 1s and 0s to the drive for as long as there was power applied.
Am I missing something here? Why not just encrypt the drives and just wipe the keys in an emergency? Seems to me that would pretty much foil any attempts at data recovery.
This was a giant concern for the U.S. Air Force after the collision of a P-3 Orion with a Chinese fighter jet, where it was forced to land in China, and NONE of the data destruction techniques available to the crew were remotely sufficient to destroy enough data in the time available to them, but even if they had been, chances are a devoted enough analyst with the proper equipment and time still would have been able to recover more data than desirable
I don't know where you got this information but this sounds outright stupid to me. Why wouldn't you use encrypted drives? That way the only thing you need to wipe are the keys. That should eliminate the need for any James Bond stuff to prevent capture. Unless you're suggesting all encryption is crackable.
The actual text maybe copyrightable, but one still has fair use, one can excerp bits and rewrite other parts. This ruling does not stop people drawing attention to the fac that they are being bullied. It's daft but its not fatal.
I think everyone's missing the key point here. Neither you nor your lawyers can make any form of copy of the material or even read it out loud (that's a performance). For that matter the court can't either. The idiocy here has nothing to do with publishing the material, you can't even use it to defend yourself in court with this ruling. Fair use doesn't cover making copies for your lawyer. It certainly doesn't cover making the material part of the public record in a court case.
All of these quaint efforts overlook the fact that war is, by definition, the breakdown of any shred of mutual trust and willingness to compromise. War is about killing people, and when you get to that stage of mutual rage and madness, no piece of paper full of high-minded sentiment is going to stop you from doing what you think you must to win (or not lose).
It really annoys me when people who are completely ignorant of history and even the most basic concepts of war and politics go spouting off about how they know it all. You sir are completely ignorant as to what is the purpose and objectives of war. At least read the basics like Sun Tzu and Clausewitz before you go claiming to have a complete understanding of the subject. To start you off, war is about attaining a political objective not killing people. The fewer the number of people killed is one measure of the success of a war.
I can't think of any historical exceptions. Can you?
That's because you apparently have very little knowledge of history. I can come up with dozens...Hmmm, maybe hundreds... just off the top of my head. I'll give you one little hint as to how far off base you are. Vietnam.
No, there's no question about that, it most certainly will.
Bullshit. If you could go to an easy to access reputable source and buy a DRM free song in whatever format you wanted for say a dime, people would do it rather than risk the problems and dangers of p2p networks. Music with DRM has no value to me so I don't buy it. Music without DRM has much more value. Add more value by having a web site that recommends other music based on what I bought and I might pay a little more. The bands can make their money the same way they make most of their money under the current regime, that is by touring. The RIAA leeches can make money by selling promotion contracts to bands. Technology has moved the industry beyond the need for gatekeepers controlling who gets to sell their music. CD's are only alive because the current regimes have payed off the government to pass laws keeping that market viable.
"Software is not sufficiently engineered to serve as a foundation" [for society] - I agree whole hardily. Things are getting better but we still have very little idea whether what we code "works" or not, let alone is secure.
This is a complete load of crap. To use a car analogy, 50,000 people are killed on the roads every day. Traffic and accidents cost billions of dollars of manhours every year not even considering the environmental factor. I'd say our transportation system isn't "engineered to serve as a foundation." How many lives did software kill last year? I'm guessing it's pretty far in the black in that it saved far more than it cost. How many dollars in manhours did software cost companies last year? Well I'll tell you again, I'm guessing it pretty far in the black otherwise why would anyone be using it. This has got to be one of the most idiotic premises I've ever seen. Is software perfect? By no means but it's problems cost far less in every way than it's benefits save.
Ha Hah hah, those idiots in Boston, getting all bent out of shape over a mere mysterious box with a seemingly innocuous cartoon light display surreptitiously bolted to a freeway support.
Or that brilliant, but cynical marketeers would capitalize on the reaction to get a little free publicity, or that they'd try to cover for their actions by painting city officials as foolishly overreacting.
Strange that no one in any of the other numerous cities that were subject to this pseudo terrorist campaign reacted at all to these amazingly innocuous looking devices. Oh, I know. The people in those other cities must of actually displayed some modicum of common sense in their reactions. You know, something like taking a closer look at it before evacuating the city.
This idea of academic political bias is based on deliberately slanted "research", from the sort of priviledged conservatives who, for some bizarre reason, like to view themselves as a persecuted minority. (I suppose it has its roots in the sort of twisted, martyrdom-centered Christianity they tend to practice.)
You know, I'm very mixed in my political views but I'm a pro-choice Pastafarian who thinks Rush Limbal is an idiot. That kind of makes me a pariah as far as the conservative camp goes. But I have to call BS on this statement. Whether there is a liberal slant to media coverage is arguable. That there is a (often extreme) liberal bias in the US academic world is only arguable or argued by extremist liberals who see that bias as representing their views and therefore not biased. You see, because those extremist left wing views in the academic world are the same as yours, you don't perceive them as biased and therefore have to come up with bizarre conspiracy theories to discount all the evidence of that bias. I encountered it throughout my experiences in the US University system in the heart of the bible belt and I continue to see it in pretty much everything I read about the academic world. If it's that bad down here in the heart of the bible belt I can't imagine how bad it is in the left wing hotbeds like California. As the perfect example, the whole "Politically Correct" movement is a left wing systematic attack on free speech originating in the academic world.
After all, academic institutions tend to carry a bias toward knowledge, while the contemporary conservative movement continually allies itself with ignorance.
There have been a lot of studies that have shown that dumb people tend to over estimate their own intelligence while under estimating that of others and smart people do the opposite. But we all know you're much smarter than the guys that did those studies so there's no way that would apply to you (and they were probable conservatives anyway). In my opinion there's plenty of idiocy, in different areas, on both side's views of the world.
But, they DO want to learn where they get applications, manage updates, and where these come from. If there is a way to explain this without describing repositories then tell me about it.
You tell them that they can get software and updates from anywhere they want and show them the neat little repos setup window and then tell them you have it configured for a secure reliable place so don't touch it (maybe add that you configured the computer to explode if they do).
A lot of old fashioned GP's actually consider the medical records they have accumulated to be their own property, and they don't see why they should hand over the results of their own hard work to some other health care provider. An astonishing attitude, but one that I have seen expressed on a number of occasions.
You better not be seeing that attitude any more because it's illegal. That's one very positive thing HIPPA has done. As the patient you control your medical information and your access to that information is required by law.
BackupPC does many of those functions, but you can't restore the entire computer from a blank disk.
The key point here is that he is running Linux with, you know, this unique concept of a home directory. He just has to restore his home directory on this or any other Linux computer (can even be another version or flavor of Linux in most cases) and he is off and running. I know this type of concept is really difficult for you Windows users to understand but there's no registry bs so you can just copy a program and it just works. He may need to install a few apps but this is as simple as selecting them from list of apps that's conveniently displayed by the OS. No searching for CDs or tracking down license keys just select and it just works. It's amazing how simple things are when you use an operating system that just works. I know you Windows users are brainwashed to think your operating system "just works" but once you use an OS that actually does you'll realize how badly you were blinded.
Actually, you want fanatics to be your warriors. Let's call it for what it is, and say, you want people in your military that have the ability to make a game out of hunting other people.
You obviously have never been in any military (at least not in a civilized country). Fanatics are the idiots who want to die for their country. To paraphrase Patton, you don't win a war by dieing for your country. You win it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. Fanatics make for a lot of uncontrollable soon to be dead people. This is the last thing you want in your military. People who make a game of it are likely to get both themselves and others killed playing rather than thinking and planning. Again, this is not what you want in your military. You want people who are thinking and planning for the best way to keep the most people on your side alive. You certainly don't want anyone thinking all those people dieing is a game.
Re:Been around for 10 years
on
Flying Humans
·
· Score: 1
You don't even need a D license at some places. Having more experience won't hurt, but most people recommending around 200 jumps minimum (C license). Actually all it takes is convincing someone who has a suit to let you borrow it.
Yeah, I'm guessing that would likely be determined by the S&TO at a USPA DZ. I only have an A and haven't jumped for 2 years but if I recall correctly, they were requiring a D for demo jumps at the last boogie at my DZ.
Been around for 10 years
on
Flying Humans
·
· Score: 4, Informative
These things have been around for 10 years. Google Birdman Suit or go to any skydiving boogie. Anyone with a D license can demo one.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does it mean he's a blind Microsoft hater? He could very well be a knowledgeable Microsoft hater like the rest of us who have to suffer through the nightmare of Microsoft because they managed to get control of the market despite there being much better alternatives out there that the knowledgeable Microsoft haters have been using for years. The bias is likely for very good, supportable reasons.
The thing I see of note in this video is that the tiger was smart enough to know to go after the human on the elephant as the threat while still risking retribution from the elephant which I'm assuming tigers wouldn't typically mess with.
And millions have walked by this very tiger pen and not died.
Except ones like this with headlines like "Police: Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting".
And you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.No you fell for the lies of three drunk high idiots "hook, line, and sinker."
You should follow your own advice, but they're still claiming they didn't through anything into the pen. So you can except that they already told one lie and extrapolate from the fact that the tiger hunted down these three individuals amongst many for some reason other than random chance.
You know they seized their cellphones and such and found 0 evidence of taunting.What the hell does that prove? Hmmm... yeah so they didn't make any taunting cell phone calls or text messages to the tiger. Who is the "schmoes" here?
I have been. I couldn't find a link with a quick search and I don't have time at the moment to do a more thorough search but one of them has now admitted they were taunting the tiger but still claims they weren't dangling things into the tiger pit. So you can except that they already told one lie and extrapolate from the fact that the tiger hunted down these three individuals amongst many for some reason other than random chance.
You know they seized their cellphones and such and found 0 evidence of taunting.What the hell does that prove? Hmmm... yeah so they didn't make any taunting cell phone calls or text messages to the tiger. Who is the "schmoes" here?
Even better make the patent holder liable if the patent is found to be invalid for any reason. If you sue someone for patent violation and the patent is found to be invalid for any reason you have to pay the person you sued the amount you were suing for. Make the liability cost enough and applying for BS patents would end overnight. Enforcement of existing patents would be much more selective and less of a shakedown scheme as it is now.
If you know why a page is ranking low isn't that telling you how to improve your ranking? Isn't that just a little bit obvious? It allows anyone to game the system. Google's whole search business is built on giving what is at least perceived as neutral rankings based on relevance. If that perception is lost Google's credibility goes out the window with it and that would kill Google's search business.
No, this happens because your business model is idiotic and doomed to failure if it relies on advertising controlled by and provided gratis by another company. Are you going to let Google view all your trade secrets that are critical to the success of your business?
Am I missing something here? Why not just encrypt the drives and just wipe the keys in an emergency? Seems to me that would pretty much foil any attempts at data recovery.
I don't know where you got this information but this sounds outright stupid to me. Why wouldn't you use encrypted drives? That way the only thing you need to wipe are the keys. That should eliminate the need for any James Bond stuff to prevent capture. Unless you're suggesting all encryption is crackable.
I think everyone's missing the key point here. Neither you nor your lawyers can make any form of copy of the material or even read it out loud (that's a performance). For that matter the court can't either. The idiocy here has nothing to do with publishing the material, you can't even use it to defend yourself in court with this ruling. Fair use doesn't cover making copies for your lawyer. It certainly doesn't cover making the material part of the public record in a court case.
It really annoys me when people who are completely ignorant of history and even the most basic concepts of war and politics go spouting off about how they know it all. You sir are completely ignorant as to what is the purpose and objectives of war. At least read the basics like Sun Tzu and Clausewitz before you go claiming to have a complete understanding of the subject. To start you off, war is about attaining a political objective not killing people. The fewer the number of people killed is one measure of the success of a war.
I can't think of any historical exceptions. Can you?That's because you apparently have very little knowledge of history. I can come up with dozens...Hmmm, maybe hundreds... just off the top of my head. I'll give you one little hint as to how far off base you are. Vietnam.
Bullshit. If you could go to an easy to access reputable source and buy a DRM free song in whatever format you wanted for say a dime, people would do it rather than risk the problems and dangers of p2p networks. Music with DRM has no value to me so I don't buy it. Music without DRM has much more value. Add more value by having a web site that recommends other music based on what I bought and I might pay a little more. The bands can make their money the same way they make most of their money under the current regime, that is by touring. The RIAA leeches can make money by selling promotion contracts to bands. Technology has moved the industry beyond the need for gatekeepers controlling who gets to sell their music. CD's are only alive because the current regimes have payed off the government to pass laws keeping that market viable.
This is a complete load of crap. To use a car analogy, 50,000 people are killed on the roads every day. Traffic and accidents cost billions of dollars of manhours every year not even considering the environmental factor. I'd say our transportation system isn't "engineered to serve as a foundation." How many lives did software kill last year? I'm guessing it's pretty far in the black in that it saved far more than it cost. How many dollars in manhours did software cost companies last year? Well I'll tell you again, I'm guessing it pretty far in the black otherwise why would anyone be using it. This has got to be one of the most idiotic premises I've ever seen. Is software perfect? By no means but it's problems cost far less in every way than it's benefits save.
Twice a million is two million. What the hell do they teach in math classes these days anyway?
Strange that no one in any of the other numerous cities that were subject to this pseudo terrorist campaign reacted at all to these amazingly innocuous looking devices. Oh, I know. The people in those other cities must of actually displayed some modicum of common sense in their reactions. You know, something like taking a closer look at it before evacuating the city.
You know, I'm very mixed in my political views but I'm a pro-choice Pastafarian who thinks Rush Limbal is an idiot. That kind of makes me a pariah as far as the conservative camp goes. But I have to call BS on this statement. Whether there is a liberal slant to media coverage is arguable. That there is a (often extreme) liberal bias in the US academic world is only arguable or argued by extremist liberals who see that bias as representing their views and therefore not biased. You see, because those extremist left wing views in the academic world are the same as yours, you don't perceive them as biased and therefore have to come up with bizarre conspiracy theories to discount all the evidence of that bias. I encountered it throughout my experiences in the US University system in the heart of the bible belt and I continue to see it in pretty much everything I read about the academic world. If it's that bad down here in the heart of the bible belt I can't imagine how bad it is in the left wing hotbeds like California. As the perfect example, the whole "Politically Correct" movement is a left wing systematic attack on free speech originating in the academic world.
After all, academic institutions tend to carry a bias toward knowledge, while the contemporary conservative movement continually allies itself with ignorance.There have been a lot of studies that have shown that dumb people tend to over estimate their own intelligence while under estimating that of others and smart people do the opposite. But we all know you're much smarter than the guys that did those studies so there's no way that would apply to you (and they were probable conservatives anyway). In my opinion there's plenty of idiocy, in different areas, on both side's views of the world.
You tell them that they can get software and updates from anywhere they want and show them the neat little repos setup window and then tell them you have it configured for a secure reliable place so don't touch it (maybe add that you configured the computer to explode if they do).
You better not be seeing that attitude any more because it's illegal. That's one very positive thing HIPPA has done. As the patient you control your medical information and your access to that information is required by law.
The key point here is that he is running Linux with, you know, this unique concept of a home directory. He just has to restore his home directory on this or any other Linux computer (can even be another version or flavor of Linux in most cases) and he is off and running. I know this type of concept is really difficult for you Windows users to understand but there's no registry bs so you can just copy a program and it just works. He may need to install a few apps but this is as simple as selecting them from list of apps that's conveniently displayed by the OS. No searching for CDs or tracking down license keys just select and it just works. It's amazing how simple things are when you use an operating system that just works. I know you Windows users are brainwashed to think your operating system "just works" but once you use an OS that actually does you'll realize how badly you were blinded.
So your saying that Google has 25% of the advertising market? The trick is how you define the market.
You obviously have never been in any military (at least not in a civilized country). Fanatics are the idiots who want to die for their country. To paraphrase Patton, you don't win a war by dieing for your country. You win it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. Fanatics make for a lot of uncontrollable soon to be dead people. This is the last thing you want in your military. People who make a game of it are likely to get both themselves and others killed playing rather than thinking and planning. Again, this is not what you want in your military. You want people who are thinking and planning for the best way to keep the most people on your side alive. You certainly don't want anyone thinking all those people dieing is a game.
Yeah, I'm guessing that would likely be determined by the S&TO at a USPA DZ. I only have an A and haven't jumped for 2 years but if I recall correctly, they were requiring a D for demo jumps at the last boogie at my DZ.
These things have been around for 10 years. Google Birdman Suit or go to any skydiving boogie. Anyone with a D license can demo one.