I don't know of any p2p software that shares the entire disk by default. Torrent software only shares stuff you specifically tell it to. Some brain dead versions of Limewire share the whole disk. Limewire is crap anyway though and only the mentally deficient are using it at this point. Probably the same set of users that are running un-patched versions of Windows, IE, and Outlook.
I hope doritos put an unsubscribe link in their spam so we don't get hit with fines for violating the interstellar CAN-SPAM act. After the spam wars of 1027299377 annihilated 6 interstellar routers and 8 solar systems spamming became a capital offense in interstellar law. The warships will be along shortly.
What would the odds be that in 43 years, we are attacked by an alien race in FTL ships whose young resemble Doritos in their larval stage. About the same as being attacked in 43 years by aliens in FTL ships whose young don't resemble Doritos in their larval stage. Also, I never realized Doritos had a larval stage... would those be Fritos?
PHP is ok, but it's waaaay to easy to shoot yourself in the foot with it, particularly where security is concerned. I also hate how difficult it is to decouple the view from the logic. I tried looking something up about zend, but I can't seem to find any docs or tutorials on the zend website that would give me some idea of how they handle application logic.
I hate Python for the simple reason that I think blocks should never under any circumstances be delineated by whitespace. Sadly there are a number of Python frameworks our there that I really do like, if only they were written in something besides Python.
Of course, that can get costly, but, when you work for the government... ... you should save time and shoot yourself now. Oh wait, did you fill out the right form for that?
Is the site Java based? Dump that trash, because only bitches use Java. Out of curiosity, what would you recommend using instead of Java (and don't you dare say PHP)?
He wants to know, generically, how you decide that what you're using is the wrong choice. All choices are wrong, some are just more wrong than others. Generally you attempt to find the least wrong choice at that time, and then periodically re-evaluate the cost of switching to a newer less wrong choice.
Ok, let me see if I follow your logic here. We're supposed to provide feedback on whether he should ditch his platform or not, but we can't know what the platform is because it might effect our opinion of whether he should ditch it or not. Riiiight. Hey, you think I should be using a different brand of shoe, but I can't tell you which brand I'm currently using because it might effect your opinion of whether I should switch or not.
News flash, when asking for an opinion about something, you have to tell people what that something is so that they know which opinion they're supposed to be giving you. I suppose I could just run down the list and toss out an opinion of every platform that's ever existed and you could make your decision based on that, but that really wastes rather a lot of time don't you think.
I'm not saying we should be teaching ID, or religion in any shape or form. This bill simply allows teachers to question the validity of evolution and challenge the students to think about it rather than memorize data. Isn't that a good thing? Yes, it would be, if that was what it was used for, but it won't be. The creationists tried the direct approach and lost. Then they came up with ID, and tried to attack from a different angle, and once again they're being beaten back. This is just another attempt to create a crack that they can exploit. This sets a bad precedent and only serves to provide a legal basis for the teaching of ID, and when it eventually goes to trial (and it will), will force some poor judge to rule for or against ID as a scientific theory. The scientific community has certain standards, and those that advise the school boards apply those standards when deciding the curriculum. Teachers still have a certain degree of leeway in how they teach that curriculum, and they can take time out of class to point out current shortcomings of evolutionary theory, or even mention that evolution is a theory (the best we have right now) and as such shouldn't be taken as absolute law, but they by no means should be exempt from teaching evolution, nor should they be teaching that anything else is a compelling replacement for evolution at this time. By all means they should encourage students to come up with their own theories, but by the same token they must acknowledge that evolution is the best theory that we have currently, and that it has repeatedly stood up to scrutiny and can be used to consistently make accurate predictions.
If the teachers are doing their job, then they are already teaching the scientific process, which by its vary nature teaches one to question and improve our theories. Allowing the teachers to teach anything they feel like without being answerable to anyone is just a recipe for disaster. As much as I would like to think that left to their own devices they would do a good job, prior evidence seems to contradict that. We have academic standards for a reason, and, at least in the scientific field that means teaching the currently most accepted theory, and where credible alternatives exist at least mentioning them. ID however is not a credible alternative to evolution, and at its core requires the existence of a supernatural being which is clearly the province of religion, not science. You would after all not want the science teachers teaching students theories on how to detect ghosts, or organizing field trips to local "haunted" locations. Yes such an activity might be educational (if for no other reason than to teach them how to debunk certain theories), but given the limited time available to teach them, and the broad body of well established and tested theories, there is simply not enough time to properly cover all the respected theories even without requiring (or allowing) the teaching of less well founded theories.
He is a phreaker, but he's using his skills for stupid, destructive, dangerous, and just plain mean things. He's spoofing numbers, and using social engineering to do things like disconnect peoples phone lines who he doesn't like, or to get cars of armed SWAT to storm their houses. Basically he's smart, he's got plenty of skill, and he's a complete and total dick who hasn't the slightest idea how to use those smarts or skills in a constructive fashion. He also has an attitude and thinks he's better than everyone and can do whatever he wants with no consequences for himself.
I'm tempted to check this out, but wary of the domain for that site. Can anyone else comment on what the "explanation" offered here actually is, rather then trying to convince us how great a source the guy is and then only linking to the article.
If someone is going to do something dangerous with some information then its protection. The only dangerous information is incomplete or wrong information. If after learning something someone does something dangerous there was either something wrong with that person to begin with, or they weren't given all the relevant information.
Oppression and Protection are mostly matters of perspective. The Chinese argue that they filter internet access in order to protect their people from dangerous information. Personally I'm against censorship of any kind, but that's really not important for the purposes of this article.
Statement 2 is only true if you made Statement 1 which it already has been established is a lie, therefore your choices boil down to, either Statement 2 is a lie, or Statement 2 is true, but you lied about Statement 1, and making Statement 2 confirms that you lied. Either way you've made a lie.
They didn't say the material is not authentic. Just that they deny that it is authentic. Slight, subtle difference. Assuming it is authentic, the first is a direct lie whereas the second is an honest statement referring to a second statement that may or may not be true. You seem to be working at some level of thought beyond me, as I can't follow this logic. Merriam Webster defines Deny as, among other things "1: to declare untrue " and "5: to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of". If you declare something to be untrue, you by definition are saying that it's false, I.E. not authentic in the case of documents. Now, if you refuse to comment on the authenticity of something, that's a different matter, but that's not the same as denying something is authentic.
There is no legal defense to bank fraud. You cannot claim "self defense", and motives don't have an impact on the decision or the charge you're guilty of. There are no extenuating circumstances in a case such as this, therefor the motives of the accused or the ones doing the accusing are not a factor.
You don't get it. There is no way for this to be a "saboteur", because it requires complicity of both parties involved. Even if the source is a pissed off ex-employee, the company committing the tax evasion, and the bank facilitating it are both still guilty. It really doesn't factor in who the source was, and anyone who thinks it matters at all be they the "public" or anyone else is a moron. The only reason it matters in rape cases is because there's the potential for the one doing the accusing to have tricked the one being accused into the actions he or she took (that is, the "victim" wasn't really raped but instead consented to have sex, therefore the accused is innocent), which then raises the question in other cases of if the "victim" is really telling the truth. In this case it's a matter of documents and the only question is whether those documents are true or fakes. Both parties in this case are the accused, and the "victim" is the government. If the one making the accusations used to work for one of the accused it makes no difference to the case, and should make no difference to public perception.
Slashdot Mirror
by the time that conversation is done (42 years each hop) we may actually have the technology to deliver :)
Delivery in under 100 years or it's free!And now let us give praise to the gods of the mountain who so sagely advise us, to "do the dew".
Doritos just doomed us all. I hope they're happy when the galactic warships move in to "de-list" our planet from the universe for spamming.
PHP is ok, but it's waaaay to easy to shoot yourself in the foot with it, particularly where security is concerned. I also hate how difficult it is to decouple the view from the logic. I tried looking something up about zend, but I can't seem to find any docs or tutorials on the zend website that would give me some idea of how they handle application logic.
I hate Python for the simple reason that I think blocks should never under any circumstances be delineated by whitespace. Sadly there are a number of Python frameworks our there that I really do like, if only they were written in something besides Python.
Ok, let me see if I follow your logic here. We're supposed to provide feedback on whether he should ditch his platform or not, but we can't know what the platform is because it might effect our opinion of whether he should ditch it or not. Riiiight. Hey, you think I should be using a different brand of shoe, but I can't tell you which brand I'm currently using because it might effect your opinion of whether I should switch or not.
News flash, when asking for an opinion about something, you have to tell people what that something is so that they know which opinion they're supposed to be giving you. I suppose I could just run down the list and toss out an opinion of every platform that's ever existed and you could make your decision based on that, but that really wastes rather a lot of time don't you think.
If the teachers are doing their job, then they are already teaching the scientific process, which by its vary nature teaches one to question and improve our theories. Allowing the teachers to teach anything they feel like without being answerable to anyone is just a recipe for disaster. As much as I would like to think that left to their own devices they would do a good job, prior evidence seems to contradict that. We have academic standards for a reason, and, at least in the scientific field that means teaching the currently most accepted theory, and where credible alternatives exist at least mentioning them. ID however is not a credible alternative to evolution, and at its core requires the existence of a supernatural being which is clearly the province of religion, not science. You would after all not want the science teachers teaching students theories on how to detect ghosts, or organizing field trips to local "haunted" locations. Yes such an activity might be educational (if for no other reason than to teach them how to debunk certain theories), but given the limited time available to teach them, and the broad body of well established and tested theories, there is simply not enough time to properly cover all the respected theories even without requiring (or allowing) the teaching of less well founded theories.
He is a phreaker, but he's using his skills for stupid, destructive, dangerous, and just plain mean things. He's spoofing numbers, and using social engineering to do things like disconnect peoples phone lines who he doesn't like, or to get cars of armed SWAT to storm their houses. Basically he's smart, he's got plenty of skill, and he's a complete and total dick who hasn't the slightest idea how to use those smarts or skills in a constructive fashion. He also has an attitude and thinks he's better than everyone and can do whatever he wants with no consequences for himself.
Or even better, buy a PowerSquid.
I'm tempted to check this out, but wary of the domain for that site. Can anyone else comment on what the "explanation" offered here actually is, rather then trying to convince us how great a source the guy is and then only linking to the article.
Oppression and Protection are mostly matters of perspective. The Chinese argue that they filter internet access in order to protect their people from dangerous information. Personally I'm against censorship of any kind, but that's really not important for the purposes of this article.
Statement 2 is only true if you made Statement 1 which it already has been established is a lie, therefore your choices boil down to, either Statement 2 is a lie, or Statement 2 is true, but you lied about Statement 1, and making Statement 2 confirms that you lied. Either way you've made a lie.
Statement 1 -> Lie
Statement 2 -> Statement 1
Therefor Statement 2 -> Lie.
There is no legal defense to bank fraud. You cannot claim "self defense", and motives don't have an impact on the decision or the charge you're guilty of. There are no extenuating circumstances in a case such as this, therefor the motives of the accused or the ones doing the accusing are not a factor.
You don't get it. There is no way for this to be a "saboteur", because it requires complicity of both parties involved. Even if the source is a pissed off ex-employee, the company committing the tax evasion, and the bank facilitating it are both still guilty. It really doesn't factor in who the source was, and anyone who thinks it matters at all be they the "public" or anyone else is a moron. The only reason it matters in rape cases is because there's the potential for the one doing the accusing to have tricked the one being accused into the actions he or she took (that is, the "victim" wasn't really raped but instead consented to have sex, therefore the accused is innocent), which then raises the question in other cases of if the "victim" is really telling the truth. In this case it's a matter of documents and the only question is whether those documents are true or fakes. Both parties in this case are the accused, and the "victim" is the government. If the one making the accusations used to work for one of the accused it makes no difference to the case, and should make no difference to public perception.