The trick will be getting a ROM legally. Obviously, the person who wrote this will be getting some flack. Also, if the PSP can emulate the GBA, couldn't it be possible that someone will eventually create a console gaming system that has native support for both DS and PSP? And would it be called DSP?
What I'm saying is, this might take some pretty expensive gear to read, eliminating most petty criminals. And if they're rich enough, they can get your data by other means.
Not every criminal on the street is going to have the equipment necessary to read this. For that matter, drivers' licenses are readable at a distance, assuming you have good eyesight. However, I do agree that some people should be allowed to have P.O. boxes or fake IDs: undercover agents, people in the Witness Protection Program, etc.
The United States of America says that a being is innocent until proven guilty; this right definitely extends to corporations. If SCO cannot prove that IBM is guilty of violating copyright (which I believe is true), then IBM wins the suit.
By the same logic he uses, I can accuse him of performing while he was drunk and say that his defense of 'You can't prove it!' is fallacious.
Right, I don't say that there are no comments, but it's an analogy. Also, it could be that the method for a given extension can be used for another one. However, if they don't see the revision history, then they cannot see what it WAS.
The way I see it is: if they don't understand how this code got written, then they won't be able to extend it. It's a little like code without comments.
Actually, this is different in another way too: the kid has rights, including the right to privacy. However, I can take comfort in the fact that they can't listen in on EVERYONE.
BitTorrent is not inherently illegal. You could use a similar argument to prohibit downloading of ANY files, since they just use a different method.
It appears that their government is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If they tried that sort of stuff in the United States, then the government would catch so much flak from people claiming this is an invasion of privacy (which it is.)
Simple: you only read the ones that interest you; editors must read much more. Therefore, editors are more likely to miss any given mistake than you are.
This is only of interest if it puts out more energy that you put in to initiate whichever reaction produces energy in it. This doesn't violate conservation of energy, since there is an implicit potential energy in fusion. It's similar to when 2 hydrogen atoms come into contact with an oxygen molecule. Energy is released, but no sciencists say that this violates the conservation of energy.
So... the test was designed to see if a browser can use some weird code that most web designers would never use, and could (in this case) easily be done with an image tag? I don't see the point.
Al Franken's book , 'Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them' got him sued by Fox for copyright violation. Fox got laughed out of court. I believe that it's actually copyright violation if people could believe that it's the WalMart Foundation web site, but I'm not a lawyer.
No. There are different FORMS of energy. When the two nuclei combine, there is a slight mass loss, which therefore must be compensated by a release of energy. It's the same principle as the sun.
Of course, this is only useful if the energy necessary to heat the crystal is less than the energy taken back, otherwise you just get an energy waster.
I convert people to Firefox because I think that it's a more secure browser, and I don't want people's CC numbers floating around the internet. However, I will not shove it down their throats, since it's their privacy.
You're entitled to your opinion. But my comment also applies to other commercials, whether past, present or future, that might have a significant amount of shock value, i.e. actually showing the breast. Again, I'm not saying that this is a horrible, 'get this off TV RIGHT NOW' commercial, but it is a little upsetting to me. I guess I was being a little overzealous in my first post.
I think that advertisement agencies should not use controversy to promote their sales. The commercials do make me remember GoDaddy, but not in a positive way. And if this worked in general, you would think that SCO's sales would go up among the geek community. But, we know what's really happened, don't we?
I'm not a meteorologist, but: I think that the sun heats the atmosphere differently, thus creating what is known as a katabatic (I think that's what it's called) wind. Also, the atmosphere does not move precisely in synch with the rotation of mars, so you get some turbulence
Slashdot Mirror
The trick will be getting a ROM legally. Obviously, the person who wrote this will be getting some flack. Also, if the PSP can emulate the GBA, couldn't it be possible that someone will eventually create a console gaming system that has native support for both DS and PSP? And would it be called DSP?
What I'm saying is, this might take some pretty expensive gear to read, eliminating most petty criminals. And if they're rich enough, they can get your data by other means.
Well, assuming that the probability that one segment failure is independent of all other segments, the same as if all the others had failed.
Not every criminal on the street is going to have the equipment necessary to read this. For that matter, drivers' licenses are readable at a distance, assuming you have good eyesight. However, I do agree that some people should be allowed to have P.O. boxes or fake IDs: undercover agents, people in the Witness Protection Program, etc.
The United States of America says that a being is innocent until proven guilty; this right definitely extends to corporations. If SCO cannot prove that IBM is guilty of violating copyright (which I believe is true), then IBM wins the suit.
By the same logic he uses, I can accuse him of performing while he was drunk and say that his defense of 'You can't prove it!' is fallacious.
Right, I don't say that there are no comments, but it's an analogy. Also, it could be that the method for a given extension can be used for another one. However, if they don't see the revision history, then they cannot see what it WAS.
The way I see it is: if they don't understand how this code got written, then they won't be able to extend it. It's a little like code without comments.
Actually, this is different in another way too: the kid has rights, including the right to privacy. However, I can take comfort in the fact that they can't listen in on EVERYONE.
BitTorrent is not inherently illegal. You could use a similar argument to prohibit downloading of ANY files, since they just use a different method.
It appears that their government is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If they tried that sort of stuff in the United States, then the government would catch so much flak from people claiming this is an invasion of privacy (which it is.)
Eventually, you get the problem that whatever is leaving the mark will make the pen bump up and down.
Simple: you only read the ones that interest you; editors must read much more. Therefore, editors are more likely to miss any given mistake than you are.
This is only of interest if it puts out more energy that you put in to initiate whichever reaction produces energy in it. This doesn't violate conservation of energy, since there is an implicit potential energy in fusion. It's similar to when 2 hydrogen atoms come into contact with an oxygen molecule. Energy is released, but no sciencists say that this violates the conservation of energy.
Ah yes, I forgot to say that a good portion of it could be done using more acceptable tags. Sorry!
So... the test was designed to see if a browser can use some weird code that most web designers would never use, and could (in this case) easily be done with an image tag? I don't see the point.
Al Franken's book , 'Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them' got him sued by Fox for copyright violation. Fox got laughed out of court. I believe that it's actually copyright violation if people could believe that it's the WalMart Foundation web site, but I'm not a lawyer.
No. There are different FORMS of energy. When the two nuclei combine, there is a slight mass loss, which therefore must be compensated by a release of energy. It's the same principle as the sun.
Of course, this is only useful if the energy necessary to heat the crystal is less than the energy taken back, otherwise you just get an energy waster.
I convert people to Firefox because I think that it's a more secure browser, and I don't want people's CC numbers floating around the internet. However, I will not shove it down their throats, since it's their privacy.
You're entitled to your opinion. But my comment also applies to other commercials, whether past, present or future, that might have a significant amount of shock value, i.e. actually showing the breast. Again, I'm not saying that this is a horrible, 'get this off TV RIGHT NOW' commercial, but it is a little upsetting to me. I guess I was being a little overzealous in my first post.
I'm not saying that it's incredibly controversial, but there probably are some people that could be offended by it.
By the way, the GoDaddy.wmv link doesn't link to a .wmv; you'll probably need to save it as one.
I think that advertisement agencies should not use controversy to promote their sales. The commercials do make me remember GoDaddy, but not in a positive way. And if this worked in general, you would think that SCO's sales would go up among the geek community. But, we know what's really happened, don't we?
I've seen eBay trying to sell me zeta functions.
I'm not a meteorologist, but: I think that the sun heats the atmosphere differently, thus creating what is known as a katabatic (I think that's what it's called) wind. Also, the atmosphere does not move precisely in synch with the rotation of mars, so you get some turbulence
How many people do you think are going to try to insert bad commands to show the world that they can do 1337 hacking skillz?