For the average game, it'd be unfeasible. But if they offered the *classic* type games, it'd sell thousands, maybe millions. I don't know much about basketball, but if they offered game 7 of the World Series or Stanley Cup for a bunch of the really exciting years, hell, I'd probably buy them. Or boxing. Ali vs. Foreman, I'd pay a couple bucks to have that fight handy.
Yeah, but I'm still not convinced it should be illegal. You're offering anybody who wants to the chance to look at your website. It's like putting out a bowl of candy on your front step. The guy who takes as much as he can carry and calls his friends is a dick, but a criminal?
Logically, the only thing that distinguishes a DoS from the Slashdot Effect is intent. If your intent is to spread awareness of the material that appears on a server, and the server can't handle it, well, that's tough for the server, but that's how the Internet works. If your intent is to take the server down, that's illegal.
I agree, but it begs the question: what if someone submitted a story to/. with the intent to crash the server of his enemy? Is that illegal? If so, was it his wrongdoing,/.'s, ours, etc. What if the owner of said page sent an email to Taco begging his site be taken down? Is that now Taco's felony? And what if a group of people, such as on/., got together specifically to do this to all their enemies, but under the guise of it being a serious website?
Just being devil's advocate. I think it's generally pretty clear what's malicious and what's not. And they clearly overreacted to this kid.
I have to agree. While there are many unanswered questions and directions they could go in, I don't think the series would work with Fry and Leela as a couple.
If you think simpsons is better than futurama, I don't think you're getting most of the jokes. The simpsons, especially in recent years, is the cartoon for the masses. It reuses the same material time and time again. Futurama is the cartoon for nerds. The references, the science jokes, the time paradoxes, all make it an interesting intellectual viewing, while still being light enough to be enjoyable if you don't get them all.
As for comparing it to family guy, I'd argue that the genre is so vastly different, it'd be similar to comparing classical and punk rock. I love both, family guy for the mindless craziness and belly laughs and futurama for the "oh...I get it...hehehehe" type.
Size of eyes, how deep they go into the skull, and the distance between them is a big part of what makes a face unique. Also, depending on the size of the black stripe, it could cover eyebrows and a good chunk of the nose. It's the most effective area to black out if you don't want to be recognized.
Um...you've missed my entire point. I know there's a discrepancy between what's allowed in the US and what's allowed in Germany, that's why I brought it up. What I was asking was this: do we, as human beings, have an absolute right to free speech and free association? Why? Because some guys a couple hundred years ago said so?
Oh, and if you think "communists are allowed to be communists" in the US, you should check your history. Start with about 1945 and just keep on going.
Chinese citizens have all the same rights as you and I. Rights are intrinsic to human beings.
So which rights, exactly, are intrinsic? Are we using the American bill of rights for that one? Is that supposed to be the be all and end all? The fact is, every country allows its citizens different rights, and even withing countries there is debate over what those rights actually entail. In Germany you can't start a neo-nazi group, is that a violation of some right? In the US there's a "right to bear arms" though no one can decide on what that means.
If rights are intrinsic to humanity, which set do we use?
No it doesn't, what it shows is that 67% of the 6,403 people surveyed go online - not the whole population (280,000,000+) of America.
No poll I've ever heard of uses the entire population as it's sample size. It's always a small percentage. I'm not a statitician, so I don't know what you need to get a good poll, but if it's a random sample, that could well be enough.
And why, exactly, wouldn't you compare it something security related? Like...a lock on one's house? A car alarm? You know, something that has something in common with it in some way.
As bad as a rootkit is, please don't compare it to AIDS. There are a hell of a lot of friends, family, widows and orphans who would disagree with your comparison.
Everything needs experimentation. You don't know what's going to happen, not for sure, until you test it. I'll trust a real-life test over a computer model or calculations on paper any day. Also, unless I'm mistaken, part of the myth would be related to the odds of actually hitting yourself with that bullet. Firing perfectly straight might be tricky, as would not being affected by wind, especailly at higher altitudes. Point is, you don't know until you try.
Would you like to listen to a musician who makes his music because he wants to make roll around in money or because he likes to make good music. Would you like to go to a doctor because he likes his income or his desire to heal people. Would you like to have a lawyer who does it out of desire for money or the desire to see justice.
I'd listen to the musician who played the best music, the doctor who was most likely to save my life, and the lawyer who would do the best job defending me. I'm not that concerned with why they're doing it.
Cancel the War at Home, put it there. Whatever ratings it gets is only because people are too lazy to get off the couch between simpsons and family guy. It worked on me once, then I saw how terrible it really was.
Easy as pie. Get yourself a intern who wants to break into radio. Give him minimum wage, the 3-5am slot on the air, and as much coffee as he can drink. He'll have those CDs ripped in no time.
I think it'd be smarter for Google to make some hefty donations and then reap secondary benefits, but with some nice legal isolation.
I was thinking today, a thing google could do that would really help wikipedia would be to hire a team of people, even 15-20 (but sky's the limit, google does have loads of cash) to just go through and fix articles. Just...edit, fact check, rework stuff, wikify, clean up POV problems, etc, etc, etc. I'm not even sure I'd have them create articles, but that's just me. But still, a team of dedicated, professional, full-time editors could make a big difference to how wikipedia is perceived, I think.
Look up Moby Dick in the Britannica, you won't see more than a "meager couple screens". Well, the paper equivalent, anyway. And, as it happens, the article in question is actually pretty decent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby_Dick
But your point is a good one. Wikipedia focuses a lot on what is popular, especially what is popular to the kind of people who write articles, who all, at the very least, have access to the internet. As a result...well, it'd nerd heavy. But I think that'll change. The more popular it gets, the more english profs will start writing, and the better articles about literature will become. And the same for other fields, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
For the average game, it'd be unfeasible. But if they offered the *classic* type games, it'd sell thousands, maybe millions. I don't know much about basketball, but if they offered game 7 of the World Series or Stanley Cup for a bunch of the really exciting years, hell, I'd probably buy them. Or boxing. Ali vs. Foreman, I'd pay a couple bucks to have that fight handy.
Jesus. I could handle 900 hits by tapping it out personally over the bloody phone line with one of those morse code thingys.
Yeah, but I'm still not convinced it should be illegal. You're offering anybody who wants to the chance to look at your website. It's like putting out a bowl of candy on your front step. The guy who takes as much as he can carry and calls his friends is a dick, but a criminal?
Logically, the only thing that distinguishes a DoS from the Slashdot Effect is intent. If your intent is to spread awareness of the material that appears on a server, and the server can't handle it, well, that's tough for the server, but that's how the Internet works. If your intent is to take the server down, that's illegal.
/. with the intent to crash the server of his enemy? Is that illegal? If so, was it his wrongdoing, /.'s, ours, etc. What if the owner of said page sent an email to Taco begging his site be taken down? Is that now Taco's felony? And what if a group of people, such as on /., got together specifically to do this to all their enemies, but under the guise of it being a serious website?
I agree, but it begs the question: what if someone submitted a story to
Just being devil's advocate. I think it's generally pretty clear what's malicious and what's not. And they clearly overreacted to this kid.
I have to agree. While there are many unanswered questions and directions they could go in, I don't think the series would work with Fry and Leela as a couple.
Futurama: the Movie, however...
If you think simpsons is better than futurama, I don't think you're getting most of the jokes. The simpsons, especially in recent years, is the cartoon for the masses. It reuses the same material time and time again. Futurama is the cartoon for nerds. The references, the science jokes, the time paradoxes, all make it an interesting intellectual viewing, while still being light enough to be enjoyable if you don't get them all.
As for comparing it to family guy, I'd argue that the genre is so vastly different, it'd be similar to comparing classical and punk rock. I love both, family guy for the mindless craziness and belly laughs and futurama for the "oh...I get it...hehehehe" type.
There's a uranus joke in there somewhere, I just don't care to find it.
Size of eyes, how deep they go into the skull, and the distance between them is a big part of what makes a face unique. Also, depending on the size of the black stripe, it could cover eyebrows and a good chunk of the nose. It's the most effective area to black out if you don't want to be recognized.
Um...you've missed my entire point. I know there's a discrepancy between what's allowed in the US and what's allowed in Germany, that's why I brought it up. What I was asking was this: do we, as human beings, have an absolute right to free speech and free association? Why? Because some guys a couple hundred years ago said so?
Oh, and if you think "communists are allowed to be communists" in the US, you should check your history. Start with about 1945 and just keep on going.
Chinese citizens have all the same rights as you and I. Rights are intrinsic to human beings.
So which rights, exactly, are intrinsic? Are we using the American bill of rights for that one? Is that supposed to be the be all and end all? The fact is, every country allows its citizens different rights, and even withing countries there is debate over what those rights actually entail. In Germany you can't start a neo-nazi group, is that a violation of some right? In the US there's a "right to bear arms" though no one can decide on what that means.
If rights are intrinsic to humanity, which set do we use?
No it doesn't, what it shows is that 67% of the 6,403 people surveyed go online - not the whole population (280,000,000+) of America.
No poll I've ever heard of uses the entire population as it's sample size. It's always a small percentage. I'm not a statitician, so I don't know what you need to get a good poll, but if it's a random sample, that could well be enough.
And why, exactly, wouldn't you compare it something security related? Like...a lock on one's house? A car alarm? You know, something that has something in common with it in some way.
As bad as a rootkit is, please don't compare it to AIDS. There are a hell of a lot of friends, family, widows and orphans who would disagree with your comparison.
Everything needs experimentation. You don't know what's going to happen, not for sure, until you test it. I'll trust a real-life test over a computer model or calculations on paper any day. Also, unless I'm mistaken, part of the myth would be related to the odds of actually hitting yourself with that bullet. Firing perfectly straight might be tricky, as would not being affected by wind, especailly at higher altitudes. Point is, you don't know until you try.
Would you like to listen to a musician who makes his music because he wants to make roll around in money or because he likes to make good music.
Would you like to go to a doctor because he likes his income or his desire to heal people.
Would you like to have a lawyer who does it out of desire for money or the desire to see justice.
I'd listen to the musician who played the best music, the doctor who was most likely to save my life, and the lawyer who would do the best job defending me. I'm not that concerned with why they're doing it.
*Ahem*
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say if it ends with a 4, it's not gonna be prime...
Cancel the War at Home, put it there. Whatever ratings it gets is only because people are too lazy to get off the couch between simpsons and family guy. It worked on me once, then I saw how terrible it really was.
Um... darkness isn't deadly.
I'm a plant, you insensitive clod!
That's amazing! I have the same combination on my luggage!
The one thing I don't understand is if you don't agree with a bunch of the policies of a party, why the heck are you in it to begin with?
I wish there were more independents. And more parties. More choice than just between red and blue.
Easy as pie. Get yourself a intern who wants to break into radio. Give him minimum wage, the 3-5am slot on the air, and as much coffee as he can drink. He'll have those CDs ripped in no time.
And that, my friend, is why blowjobs are the bread and butter of the prostitution industry.
Sir, both you and the mods need Professor Frink's sarcasm detector.
I think it'd be smarter for Google to make some hefty donations and then reap secondary benefits, but with some nice legal isolation.
I was thinking today, a thing google could do that would really help wikipedia would be to hire a team of people, even 15-20 (but sky's the limit, google does have loads of cash) to just go through and fix articles. Just...edit, fact check, rework stuff, wikify, clean up POV problems, etc, etc, etc. I'm not even sure I'd have them create articles, but that's just me. But still, a team of dedicated, professional, full-time editors could make a big difference to how wikipedia is perceived, I think.
Look up Moby Dick in the Britannica, you won't see more than a "meager couple screens". Well, the paper equivalent, anyway. And, as it happens, the article in question is actually pretty decent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby_Dick
But your point is a good one. Wikipedia focuses a lot on what is popular, especially what is popular to the kind of people who write articles, who all, at the very least, have access to the internet. As a result...well, it'd nerd heavy. But I think that'll change. The more popular it gets, the more english profs will start writing, and the better articles about literature will become. And the same for other fields, of course.