The point being made is most bottled water is "purified drinking water" - which means it is usually just reverse-osmosis purified municipal water, taken from the same source that comes out of your tap. Only buy natural spring water if you buy bottled water. Aquafina and Dassani are the same exact water that comes from your tap as they are all bottled locally, and do not use a "central" water source. If you really don't like the taste of your tap water i would suggest either getting a water filter installed, or changing out your pipes if they are old.
Yes, I do expect them to use something other that the host OS on every individual machine. The border agents may not be rocket scientists, but I doubt they are total idiots either. First step in a forensic examination of a computer system is do not use the host OS. You never know what it may be doing then. Use your own OS, then you know what code is running. Simply opening up Windows explorer on the machine they are examining and manually viewing files would be useless. There are tons of programs that can "hide" files within Windows itself. But the problem with these types of software is that they require Windows to be running to work. Boot with a CD or flash based OS and no more hidden files. Even if the files are truly hidden, they would still be able to tell that something was there, whether or not they could actually "see" the files.
They can take a clone of your entire drive, and examine it at their leisure with their own tools (which could include analyzing it using different operating systems). Turning the hiding on within Windows would deceive them for about.3 seconds. Sure, there are ways you can hide things on the drive, but that suggestion is not a very good one. If you look at the drive with anything other than Windows those files won't be hidden.
I think your perception of 2nd amendment supporters is a little off. They are generally the ones who do not trust the government on any level, hence the reason to arm themselves. Do you really think those nutjobs out in the middle of nowhere in Montana or Texas really want to give the government the right to freely monitor their phone conversations??
And that is precisely the reason I ALWAYS swear at the people I am beating up. That way I cover both bases.
P.S. If swear words wouldn't bother cocksuckers like yourself, assholes like me would never fucking use them. YOU are the one that gives the words the power.
Back then we had to hand flatten the metal parts ourselves and burn them using a magnifying glass and the sun. And unless you had like 3 espressos, the only speed you could do it at was 1X.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night...
I was commenting because there was in implication that the Mac was subject to conditions that the other systems weren't. I was refuting that, plain and simple. Buckaroo.
"Over here, we call those carefully crafted "web pages" and "social engineering". There was no remote exploit for OS X in that contests. What was required was a user navigating to a specially crafted web page after having enabled remote login daemons disabled by default and creating basic accounts for the "hackers" to use to exploit the privilege escalation."
Which was the same thing they tried on the Vista and Linux systems, but those didn't get compromised. So what was the point again?
Actually, the US Congress has never technically declared "war" either. We are just having a little "civil disagreement" with some of our "friends" in the middle east.
So there's little drug use there. Big deal. Unless there was a huge amount before the laws were passes, and then it dropped to very little, the law is not the cause of "very little drug use." And I think you should amend it to say "very little public acknowledgment of drug use" - it would be more accurate. Believe me lots of people use drugs in Singapore - they are just very careful about with whom and where they do them. For the millionth time, passing draconian laws is not a miracle cure for addiction.
Zero. But if you had read the first line of the summary, you would have noticed the fact it was talking about "Sprint, Time Warner, and Verizon have agreed to block websites and newsgroups containing child pornography". That's the part I was commenting on.
And how long until either the Republican or Democratic party websites get hacked and someone uploads some kidde porn pics to them? BAM instant blacklist. Or Burger King will hire hackers to do the same to the McDonald's website. The potential for abuse of the proposed system is virtually limitless.
Wow, I wish the world the rest of us lived in was as black and white as the one you live in. So if a 17 year old took a picture of his/her self having consensual sex with another 17 year old (the sex being a perfectly legal act) it is your opinion that both 17 year olds be executed or sent to prison for life? Thank god you are not a federal judge.... If someone has a compulsion toward pedophilia, laws will not stop that compulsion. The laws are already in place, and it doesn't stop them.
If that is your belief than lobby for the outright banning of smoking. But don't presume to tell private business owners which legal activities they can or cannot do own their own private property. Either something is legal or not - if it is then I should be able to do it anywhere but public property, where different rules may apply. And for the record, i am fairly liberal myself and don't find the word offensive. But please explain to me how banning a legal substance on private property is "about giving people freedom"? It is about the majority imposing it's will on the minority. And enjoy your favorite bars and restaurants now while they are still open. Because at least 2 of my favorite bars closed after the smoking ban due to big drops in business. Do some research - after smoking bans pass, for a brief time business goes up, then settles back down to a rate less than pre-ban. Because when bars are forced to cater to the wishes of non-regulars at the cost of regular patrons, their business suffers.
"There are about a dozen bars in my municipality of less than 50K people, but none of them are smoke free."
And what does that tell you about what patrons of those bars want? That should be a huge clue. If there was such a huge public outcry for smoke free establishments, there would be at least one near you.
I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the ban if the people trying to ban smoking would just be honest. They don't give a shit about "worker's health" or second hand smoke or any other such nonsense. Those are just convenient excuses for them to impose their will on the minority with an activity that they see as objectionable. I have a lot more respect for people that favor a smoking ban because they admit the think smoking is a vile, disgusting, and smelly act. That and the fact that I worked in the bar/restaurant industry for over 10 years and guess what? Not only do about 75% of the workers smoke, every single server I know has felt the economic crunch of less business after the smoking ban. So tell me exactly how making less money is helping these workers? Especially the ones that smoke first-hand and aren't concerned with second-hand smoke? See the thing is, everybody knows that smoking and second-hand smoke can be harmful to your health. The same people know that bars are smoky. And the same people chose to still work in those smoky bars. I say if you are worried about second-hand smoke, don't ban smoking everywhere - get a job where you aren't in a smoke filled room. It's not rocket science.
Amen. I am in the same boat - fairly liberal (as far as personal rights are concerned) AND a gun owner and 2nd rights supporter. I also am vehemently opposed to all these ridiculous smoking bans too, unlike most other "liberals" (I am a non-smoker, so less biased). Can someone tell me how banning things is a "liberal" attitude?
Slashdot Mirror
No, the French sued MS too.
The point being made is most bottled water is "purified drinking water" - which means it is usually just reverse-osmosis purified municipal water, taken from the same source that comes out of your tap. Only buy natural spring water if you buy bottled water. Aquafina and Dassani are the same exact water that comes from your tap as they are all bottled locally, and do not use a "central" water source. If you really don't like the taste of your tap water i would suggest either getting a water filter installed, or changing out your pipes if they are old.
Exactly. Or encrypted online storage. Why bring it with you at all when you travel?
Yes, I do expect them to use something other that the host OS on every individual machine. The border agents may not be rocket scientists, but I doubt they are total idiots either. First step in a forensic examination of a computer system is do not use the host OS. You never know what it may be doing then. Use your own OS, then you know what code is running. Simply opening up Windows explorer on the machine they are examining and manually viewing files would be useless. There are tons of programs that can "hide" files within Windows itself. But the problem with these types of software is that they require Windows to be running to work. Boot with a CD or flash based OS and no more hidden files. Even if the files are truly hidden, they would still be able to tell that something was there, whether or not they could actually "see" the files.
They can take a clone of your entire drive, and examine it at their leisure with their own tools (which could include analyzing it using different operating systems). Turning the hiding on within Windows would deceive them for about .3 seconds. Sure, there are ways you can hide things on the drive, but that suggestion is not a very good one. If you look at the drive with anything other than Windows those files won't be hidden.
I think your perception of 2nd amendment supporters is a little off. They are generally the ones who do not trust the government on any level, hence the reason to arm themselves. Do you really think those nutjobs out in the middle of nowhere in Montana or Texas really want to give the government the right to freely monitor their phone conversations??
And that is precisely the reason I ALWAYS swear at the people I am beating up. That way I cover both bases.
P.S. If swear words wouldn't bother cocksuckers like yourself, assholes like me would never fucking use them. YOU are the one that gives the words the power.
Go fuck yourself asshole. And I mean that in as nice of way as possible!
Back then we had to hand flatten the metal parts ourselves and burn them using a magnifying glass and the sun. And unless you had like 3 espressos, the only speed you could do it at was 1X.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night...
I was commenting because there was in implication that the Mac was subject to conditions that the other systems weren't. I was refuting that, plain and simple. Buckaroo.
"Over here, we call those carefully crafted "web pages" and "social engineering". There was no remote exploit for OS X in that contests. What was required was a user navigating to a specially crafted web page after having enabled remote login daemons disabled by default and creating basic accounts for the "hackers" to use to exploit the privilege escalation."
Which was the same thing they tried on the Vista and Linux systems, but those didn't get compromised. So what was the point again?
They should have got the genuine penis enlargement pills then, instead of their own cheap Chinese knockoff equivalents.
and coming up next...The War on Thoughts. Help stamp out ThoughtCrime today!
Actually, the US Congress has never technically declared "war" either. We are just having a little "civil disagreement" with some of our "friends" in the middle east.
Lighten up Francis.
Except for the small fact that Edwards himself has said that he won't be VP.
So there's little drug use there. Big deal. Unless there was a huge amount before the laws were passes, and then it dropped to very little, the law is not the cause of "very little drug use." And I think you should amend it to say "very little public acknowledgment of drug use" - it would be more accurate. Believe me lots of people use drugs in Singapore - they are just very careful about with whom and where they do them. For the millionth time, passing draconian laws is not a miracle cure for addiction.
Zero. But if you had read the first line of the summary, you would have noticed the fact it was talking about "Sprint, Time Warner, and Verizon have agreed to block websites and newsgroups containing child pornography". That's the part I was commenting on.
And how long until either the Republican or Democratic party websites get hacked and someone uploads some kidde porn pics to them? BAM instant blacklist. Or Burger King will hire hackers to do the same to the McDonald's website. The potential for abuse of the proposed system is virtually limitless.
Wow, I wish the world the rest of us lived in was as black and white as the one you live in. So if a 17 year old took a picture of his/her self having consensual sex with another 17 year old (the sex being a perfectly legal act) it is your opinion that both 17 year olds be executed or sent to prison for life? Thank god you are not a federal judge.... If someone has a compulsion toward pedophilia, laws will not stop that compulsion. The laws are already in place, and it doesn't stop them.
All this dicussion about LCDs, CRTs and colors, bah! I use LSD and I can see billions of colors nobody else can....
I thought nuking it from orbit was the only way to be sure...
If that is your belief than lobby for the outright banning of smoking. But don't presume to tell private business owners which legal activities they can or cannot do own their own private property. Either something is legal or not - if it is then I should be able to do it anywhere but public property, where different rules may apply. And for the record, i am fairly liberal myself and don't find the word offensive. But please explain to me how banning a legal substance on private property is "about giving people freedom"? It is about the majority imposing it's will on the minority. And enjoy your favorite bars and restaurants now while they are still open. Because at least 2 of my favorite bars closed after the smoking ban due to big drops in business. Do some research - after smoking bans pass, for a brief time business goes up, then settles back down to a rate less than pre-ban. Because when bars are forced to cater to the wishes of non-regulars at the cost of regular patrons, their business suffers.
"There are about a dozen bars in my municipality of less than 50K people, but none of them are smoke free."
And what does that tell you about what patrons of those bars want? That should be a huge clue. If there was such a huge public outcry for smoke free establishments, there would be at least one near you.
I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the ban if the people trying to ban smoking would just be honest. They don't give a shit about "worker's health" or second hand smoke or any other such nonsense. Those are just convenient excuses for them to impose their will on the minority with an activity that they see as objectionable. I have a lot more respect for people that favor a smoking ban because they admit the think smoking is a vile, disgusting, and smelly act. That and the fact that I worked in the bar/restaurant industry for over 10 years and guess what? Not only do about 75% of the workers smoke, every single server I know has felt the economic crunch of less business after the smoking ban. So tell me exactly how making less money is helping these workers? Especially the ones that smoke first-hand and aren't concerned with second-hand smoke? See the thing is, everybody knows that smoking and second-hand smoke can be harmful to your health. The same people know that bars are smoky. And the same people chose to still work in those smoky bars. I say if you are worried about second-hand smoke, don't ban smoking everywhere - get a job where you aren't in a smoke filled room. It's not rocket science.
Amen. I am in the same boat - fairly liberal (as far as personal rights are concerned) AND a gun owner and 2nd rights supporter. I also am vehemently opposed to all these ridiculous smoking bans too, unlike most other "liberals" (I am a non-smoker, so less biased). Can someone tell me how banning things is a "liberal" attitude?