No, but instead of just mindlessly forcing them to do things, a real parent would explain to them, in a logical fashion, why it is beneficial to take a certain course of action.
"If you cross the street right now, you'll die. Wait until traffic stops."
*Screech! Whump* "OH MY GOD! She just walked out in front of my car! Why didn't you stop her?!"
"Tsk tsk tsk, I warned her. It was her informed decision. Her brain was obviously flawed. Well folks, I'm going to go home and make another one with the wife. Hopefully this one is born with a doctorate in physics."
But in 2007, that wasn't the case. Autorun usually on, and thumb drives not banned.
And what's more, Microsoft's suggested method of disabling autorun didn't work back then. They had to release a patch. And even then, they didn't disable autorun by default.
One might say FB and texting helped in this case because the juror in question was exposed. Maybe if each juror was allowed to blog to the outside without input from the outside, there would be a way to track juror bias.
The equations of general relativity treat the past and the present totally symmetrically (there is no arrow of time built into the equations), so the same argument applies when we look at present conditions and extrapolate backward to see that there really had to be a Big Bang event in the past. In this specific mathematical sense, "God" had no choice about the Big Bang.
So causality is bi-directional, i.e. gravity existing in the present day (or even a microsecond after the Big Bang) exerts a force which creates the Big Bang from nothing (or annihilates the universe, depending on the arrow of time)?
it gets worse if the thing itself is not even remotely testable. and for what we are talking about, its clearly a non-testable thing.
And in terms of caring whether the answer is free of flaws, if the thing itself has no practical application to one's life, people are more inclined to not care. This is expressed in both unquestioning acceptance and willful ignorance (not always a bad thing; I'm willfully ignorant of a lot of stuff that will never apply to my life).
But the "defendant" wasn't served. The lawsuit named "Hooman Karamian", founder of TheDirty.com, but they delivered the summons to TheDirt.com (who probably had no clue who Karamian was). Karamian didn't show because he wasn't served. I don't see how TheDirt.com has to pay anything if they weren't named in the lawsuit.
According to the Politico:
"[The founder of TheDirty.com,] Hooman Karamian, who writes under the alias Nik Richie, was named in the complaint. But Richie said neither he nor his company was ever served in the case."
So when Dirty World Entertainment Recordings got the legal notice, the letter named a person who didn't exist at their "company", but instead founded Dirty World LLC (the owners of TheDirty.com). I'm curious if "Dirty World Entertainment Recordings" is even mentioned in the lawsuit, or if it's only Karamian. If I got a letter saying Mrs Chanandler Bong was being sued, I'd try to straighten out the mixup, but other people might just ignore it, rightly assuming that they are not Mrs. Chanandler Bong.
I was building a house years ago and a subcontractor *who did not work on the house* sued me because I didn't pay him (!!!!?????)
I contacted an attorney to deal with the lien, contacted the other attorney. Despite that, the plaintiff sued me in court. And just before it went before the judge, he offered to settle for $400 (he was asking for $10,000).
My attorney advised me to take the deal, because we were already $2,500 into depositions, and we had another 2 hours to wait for the judge. So it would have cost me $350 just to sit there to get to the judge ($175/hour).
So please spare me the bullshit about "just a call to the other lawyer". It cost me $3,000 to resolve something that *was a complete mistake*.
Yes, I could have gone to the judge, yes, we could have pursued the other lawyer and the sub contractor for malicious something-or-other... WHICH WOULD COST ME MORE MONEY.
It's all bullshit and you guys know it because lawyers hold the keys to the kingdom, they're expensive, and the judges and legislators are all lawyers, so they don't see the issue.
In other words, he scammed you for $400, and you were too chicken to get your money and lawyer's fees back by suing him to get your $400 and pay the legal fees even though you had a clear case. The guy probably does this on a regular basis, and settles for his free $400 every time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
Come back when you've absorbed that and understand that. Applying your Newtonian Physics class, that basically doesn't go past the 1800's, to modern quantum physics, string theory, brane-theory, etc. is like saying that you understand how to design and fly a 747 because you once made a paper plane.
When nothing exists... Nothing Exists. Not even theoretical gravitons. A more intelligent answer from Hawking would be the Big Crunch/Bang cycle, but there's no way to prove or disprove it, and more importantly, it's old hat. He's got to stay relevant even if it means he says ridiculous things like "gravity (warping of space) exists, even when there is no matter, energy, or space" or that "The Law of Gravity" is some sort of Supreme Law that works even with nothing, and not just an explanation of observed behavior.
"Using Ksplice is like 'replacing your car's engine while speeding down the highway,'"
So in other words it's something you'd never want to risk doing because it'd almost certainly cause a crash?
I think they should've thought about a different analogy for this one...
It's like pulling into the Foundation for Law And Government Mobile Unit to replace your car's engine while speeding down the highway instead of replacing your car's engine while speeding down the highway under your car's own power. Except it's really more like the latter, but without the danger.
That's a bit general. Say you want to run a Samba fileserver to share files among Windows clients. You'd want the fileserver on your internal network to accept connections from the relevant ports. You would not want the firewall standing between your network and the Internet to also have that port open to the world.
While it's true that a conscientious admin would tighten up the Samba server's firewall by specifying both ports and IP addresses/ranges (or other credentials) that are acceptable, you still wouldn't have identical policies between the internal systems and the firewall controlling what can connect from outside.
Good point. I should think more often before I type.
So, that means vulnerable ports were open to "the world" on the systems, and the "network" was supposed to be doing the firewalling? Network firewalls and system firewalls should use identical policies.
I don't drink. But it's not because I'm a tightwad: I just hate the taste of alcohol. I can taste it in seemingly trace amounts in everything other than drinks with ridiculous amounts of sugar.
Slashdot Mirror
DDR? I don't think East Germany had an obesity problem. Maybe we should institute bread lines here.
No, but instead of just mindlessly forcing them to do things, a real parent would explain to them, in a logical fashion, why it is beneficial to take a certain course of action.
"If you cross the street right now, you'll die. Wait until traffic stops."
*Screech! Whump* "OH MY GOD! She just walked out in front of my car! Why didn't you stop her?!"
"Tsk tsk tsk, I warned her. It was her informed decision. Her brain was obviously flawed. Well folks, I'm going to go home and make another one with the wife. Hopefully this one is born with a doctorate in physics."
But in 2007, that wasn't the case. Autorun usually on, and thumb drives not banned.
And what's more, Microsoft's suggested method of disabling autorun didn't work back then. They had to release a patch. And even then, they didn't disable autorun by default.
Just like how Silver slippers became Ruby Slippers and a Horse of a Different Color was added to highlight Technocolor in Wizard of Oz.
The only wines I cannot differentiated are the industrial all-alike wines that are usually as far as what wine is than a McD Burger is to real food.
Industrial all-alike wines are wine. Just like a McD Burger is real food.
Ever watched a Mac user pick up a 2 button mouse for the first time? I'ts hilarious to watch how frustrating it is for them!
Modded flamebait, but so true. Even after experience with a 2-button mouse, they often right-click something first, then grumble and left-click.
Pooh is not Winnie's name. Pooh is what he is. Winnie is a Pooh Bear. Chewie is a Wook[iee].
Wookiee the Chew sounds stupid.
It just doesn't make any Sense!
Any n900 owners want to comment on their flash performance?
One might say FB and texting helped in this case because the juror in question was exposed. Maybe if each juror was allowed to blog to the outside without input from the outside, there would be a way to track juror bias.
The equations of general relativity treat the past and the present totally symmetrically (there is no arrow of time built into the equations), so the same argument applies when we look at present conditions and extrapolate backward to see that there really had to be a Big Bang event in the past. In this specific mathematical sense, "God" had no choice about the Big Bang.
So causality is bi-directional, i.e. gravity existing in the present day (or even a microsecond after the Big Bang) exerts a force which creates the Big Bang from nothing (or annihilates the universe, depending on the arrow of time)?
it gets worse if the thing itself is not even remotely testable. and for what we are talking about, its clearly a non-testable thing.
And in terms of caring whether the answer is free of flaws, if the thing itself has no practical application to one's life, people are more inclined to not care. This is expressed in both unquestioning acceptance and willful ignorance (not always a bad thing; I'm willfully ignorant of a lot of stuff that will never apply to my life).
But the "defendant" wasn't served. The lawsuit named "Hooman Karamian", founder of TheDirty.com, but they delivered the summons to TheDirt.com (who probably had no clue who Karamian was). Karamian didn't show because he wasn't served. I don't see how TheDirt.com has to pay anything if they weren't named in the lawsuit.
According to the Politico: "[The founder of TheDirty.com,] Hooman Karamian, who writes under the alias Nik Richie, was named in the complaint. But Richie said neither he nor his company was ever served in the case."
So when Dirty World Entertainment Recordings got the legal notice, the letter named a person who didn't exist at their "company", but instead founded Dirty World LLC (the owners of TheDirty.com). I'm curious if "Dirty World Entertainment Recordings" is even mentioned in the lawsuit, or if it's only Karamian. If I got a letter saying Mrs Chanandler Bong was being sued, I'd try to straighten out the mixup, but other people might just ignore it, rightly assuming that they are not Mrs. Chanandler Bong.
I was building a house years ago and a subcontractor *who did not work on the house* sued me because I didn't pay him (!!!!?????) I contacted an attorney to deal with the lien, contacted the other attorney. Despite that, the plaintiff sued me in court. And just before it went before the judge, he offered to settle for $400 (he was asking for $10,000). My attorney advised me to take the deal, because we were already $2,500 into depositions, and we had another 2 hours to wait for the judge. So it would have cost me $350 just to sit there to get to the judge ($175/hour). So please spare me the bullshit about "just a call to the other lawyer". It cost me $3,000 to resolve something that *was a complete mistake*. Yes, I could have gone to the judge, yes, we could have pursued the other lawyer and the sub contractor for malicious something-or-other... WHICH WOULD COST ME MORE MONEY. It's all bullshit and you guys know it because lawyers hold the keys to the kingdom, they're expensive, and the judges and legislators are all lawyers, so they don't see the issue.
In other words, he scammed you for $400, and you were too chicken to get your money and lawyer's fees back by suing him to get your $400 and pay the legal fees even though you had a clear case. The guy probably does this on a regular basis, and settles for his free $400 every time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton Come back when you've absorbed that and understand that. Applying your Newtonian Physics class, that basically doesn't go past the 1800's, to modern quantum physics, string theory, brane-theory, etc. is like saying that you understand how to design and fly a 747 because you once made a paper plane.
When nothing exists... Nothing Exists. Not even theoretical gravitons. A more intelligent answer from Hawking would be the Big Crunch/Bang cycle, but there's no way to prove or disprove it, and more importantly, it's old hat. He's got to stay relevant even if it means he says ridiculous things like "gravity (warping of space) exists, even when there is no matter, energy, or space" or that "The Law of Gravity" is some sort of Supreme Law that works even with nothing, and not just an explanation of observed behavior.
But that wasn't explosive enough. Let's use Buster to see what would have happened if the perp was wearing 50 pounds of unstable TNT!
mmm... a nice ripe Stallman curd.
You jest, but he has more girlfriends than I do.
There's a huge difference between Al Qaeda and Wikileaks -- one is blowing people up, while the other is making sure the government is transparent.
And which one do you think Obama fears more? One is a convenient foil that will never hurt him while the other is an obvious threat.
how do you get the woman to the cheese?
Grow it between your toes. Trust me.
"Using Ksplice is like 'replacing your car's engine while speeding down the highway,'"
So in other words it's something you'd never want to risk doing because it'd almost certainly cause a crash?
I think they should've thought about a different analogy for this one...
It's like pulling into the Foundation for Law And Government Mobile Unit to replace your car's engine while speeding down the highway instead of replacing your car's engine while speeding down the highway under your car's own power. Except it's really more like the latter, but without the danger.
That's a bit general. Say you want to run a Samba fileserver to share files among Windows clients. You'd want the fileserver on your internal network to accept connections from the relevant ports. You would not want the firewall standing between your network and the Internet to also have that port open to the world. While it's true that a conscientious admin would tighten up the Samba server's firewall by specifying both ports and IP addresses/ranges (or other credentials) that are acceptable, you still wouldn't have identical policies between the internal systems and the firewall controlling what can connect from outside.
Good point. I should think more often before I type.
So, that means vulnerable ports were open to "the world" on the systems, and the "network" was supposed to be doing the firewalling? Network firewalls and system firewalls should use identical policies.
and yes, i know my own flaws here:
1) let my GF on my laptop
2) own an ipod, thus needing itunes
3) running windows on my laptop
at the very least 2 will be corrected pretty soon (same for her iphone, she wants android now..)
Bravo for dumping Windows, but don't you think dumping your GF is a little harsh? ;)
Alcohol can also kill off yucky bacteria that you might have in your throat or mouth.
Did they classify people who use mouthwash as "drinkers"?
I don't drink. But it's not because I'm a tightwad: I just hate the taste of alcohol. I can taste it in seemingly trace amounts in everything other than drinks with ridiculous amounts of sugar.
Yes. A thousand times.