Assuming that none of the people at the endpoints of those phone calls (and especially not the people with something to hide) ever figure out the concept of a cryptographic tunnel, that's a GREAT idea!
If socializing ever consisted of talking to random men and women about technology, sports and beers, you might have a point. But it's interesting that you've lumped 'sports' in with that stereotypical list of guy interests.
What percentage of Slashdot users do you imagine are sports fans?
See, when you're posting to Slashdot, you're not talking to random people. You're talking to a very specific, very narrow cross-section of people. The people who don't enjoy discussing technology? They aren't here. They didn't bother with an account at Slashdot, and they're over on YouTube making video comments or something instead.
And so the women who are here, as statistically rare as you might be sure they are, those women do like discussing technology. Those are the ones who we need to not alienate by joking about how this is a boys-only club. See where i'm going here?
Yeah, it's kinda bullshit that comments portraying women in this way are so commonplace around here.
Clue for the clueless: those mysterious, presumably-far-from-average women around here on Slashdot, the ones who don't fit the "exasperated girlfriend to male tech-geek" archetype, have probably heard this HAHA WOMEN DON'T UNDERSTAND OUR TOYS joke before. It has probably lost its charm. You are probably contributing to the fact that it's so damn hard to pick up chicks at Linux conventions. Stop it.
Well for what it's worth, i think your comment about the complaint about the troll mod is perfectly worthwhile. This response here, on the other hand, can be metametametamodded to oblivion for all I care. I'll just be over at tradingmarkets.com trying to find articles about kernel hacking.
Why is this modded troll? It's completely true - TFA provides no information at all about the patents in question, what "technology" they claim to cover, and inexplicably included some portfolio information which apparently has nothing to do with the patent claim. It is a terrible, pointless article.
What, then - all we need is for a light-bendingly massive object, traveling at relativistic speeds, to pass in front of a star? And to have our telescopes pointed at it ahead of time?
Huh. MacGyver could do that with a touch-tone phone.
Fortunately, it's totally practical to draft and pass new constitutional amendments to protect our rights, and we have an informed and proactive public to help make sure that happens, right?
currentTopic = "some guy posting about The Running Man Movie"; ParentPost = this->ParentPost do {
currentTopic = "some guy posting about " + currentTopic;
ChildPost = ParentPost.reply("No one asked for your opinion about " + currentTopic + ".");
I like the principle of this idea, but it would be unacceptable to burden developers with the requirement that they hang on to the dev materials for anything that they make indefinitely.
If it only applied to IP-encumbered software, however, then the patent or copyright office (or whoever the relevant IP authority ends up being) could serve as a trustee for the dev materials. That might be workable.
Actually, the comment you replied to is backhandedly making the exact same point you just made. No one considers water a pollutant, so the sit in a room full of it criterion for pollution is plainly inadequate. That's what he's saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, 16744Hz is a C. That's not very far at all.
you mean, fill in their User Generated statistics maliciously?
Assuming that none of the people at the endpoints of those phone calls (and especially not the people with something to hide) ever figure out the concept of a cryptographic tunnel, that's a GREAT idea!
To prove the 'capacity' is not the same as to prove that it's happening. Be careful where you're laying your burdens of proof here.
To prove that filesharing has the capacity to hurt book profits, all you need is a really easy economics argument about scarcity.
Girls who care about appearance don't generally care about tech.
Aaaaaaaaaand I stopped reading. Good day.
If socializing ever consisted of talking to random men and women about technology, sports and beers, you might have a point. But it's interesting that you've lumped 'sports' in with that stereotypical list of guy interests.
What percentage of Slashdot users do you imagine are sports fans?
See, when you're posting to Slashdot, you're not talking to random people. You're talking to a very specific, very narrow cross-section of people. The people who don't enjoy discussing technology? They aren't here. They didn't bother with an account at Slashdot, and they're over on YouTube making video comments or something instead.
And so the women who are here, as statistically rare as you might be sure they are, those women do like discussing technology. Those are the ones who we need to not alienate by joking about how this is a boys-only club. See where i'm going here?
Yeah, it's kinda bullshit that comments portraying women in this way are so commonplace around here.
Clue for the clueless: those mysterious, presumably-far-from-average women around here on Slashdot, the ones who don't fit the "exasperated girlfriend to male tech-geek" archetype, have probably heard this HAHA WOMEN DON'T UNDERSTAND OUR TOYS joke before. It has probably lost its charm. You are probably contributing to the fact that it's so damn hard to pick up chicks at Linux conventions. Stop it.
Must be all that journalizing the webserver's gotta do.
This evoked from me a hearty guffaw. Thanks, AC.
Well for what it's worth, i think your comment about the complaint about the troll mod is perfectly worthwhile. This response here, on the other hand, can be metametametamodded to oblivion for all I care. I'll just be over at tradingmarkets.com trying to find articles about kernel hacking.
Why is this modded troll? It's completely true - TFA provides no information at all about the patents in question, what "technology" they claim to cover, and inexplicably included some portfolio information which apparently has nothing to do with the patent claim. It is a terrible, pointless article.
I think Firefly needs a new show, based on the original with a bigger budget and the same cast. Think Degrassi High to Degrassi Junior High.
(or for the Americans in the audience, Saved By The Bell: The College Years to Saved By The Bell.)
Global warming denialism is my guess.
What, then - all we need is for a light-bendingly massive object, traveling at relativistic speeds, to pass in front of a star? And to have our telescopes pointed at it ahead of time?
Huh. MacGyver could do that with a touch-tone phone.
money 'will have no meaning in a future dominated by advanced molecular manufacturing or other engines of mega-abundance.'
DAMN it! I hoped to wake up rich, but instead I woke up in the post-scarcity era! FUCK!
Fortunately, it's totally practical to draft and pass new constitutional amendments to protect our rights, and we have an informed and proactive public to help make sure that happens, right?
Copyrighted-works market != free market.
Just sayin'.
currentTopic = "some guy posting about The Running Man Movie";
ParentPost = this->ParentPost
do {
currentTopic = "some guy posting about " + currentTopic;
ChildPost = ParentPost.reply("No one asked for your opinion about " + currentTopic + ".");
ParentPost=ChildPost;
} while 1;
Nanosprockets! DNA is just tiny, tiny tractor-paper.
'As a platform, the cellphone has the biggest potential, because everybody owns one,'
Say, does it smell like oblivious privilege in here?
I like the principle of this idea, but it would be unacceptable to burden developers with the requirement that they hang on to the dev materials for anything that they make indefinitely.
If it only applied to IP-encumbered software, however, then the patent or copyright office (or whoever the relevant IP authority ends up being) could serve as a trustee for the dev materials. That might be workable.
Maybe it's finally time to try out that 'energy economy' thing they were talking about.
um, RDOK?
Actually, the comment you replied to is backhandedly making the exact same point you just made. No one considers water a pollutant, so the sit in a room full of it criterion for pollution is plainly inadequate. That's what he's saying.
Or more succinctly: *whoosh*
0% of the time, it works every time.