You know what? You're right. Why should I buy a first-aid kit when I don't expect to get hurt. Why did I pay a little more for my car so it would have airbags when I don't expect to run into a wall. Why would I buy fire insurance when I don't expect my house to burst into flames? Heck, why even get life insurance as I don't expect to die anytime soon?
You know what? You're a troll.
We buy first aid kits because we *do* expect to get hurt, sooner or later. We usually *don't* buy first aid kits until *after* we've been hurt at least once, because until it happens to us when we're unprepared, we don't worry about it. (how many college freshmen have a first aid kit in their dorm room, that wasn't given to them by their parents? In my experience: zero)
Do you know anybody who paid more for a car to get air bags? I don't. The cars just come that way now. You can't buy a car without them.
Insurance for your house is *required* by the bank that holds your mortgage. Same as fire and theft insurance for a car that you're still making payments on. The bank won't let you not buy that insurance.
If you don't expect to die, you're a fool. It happens to all of us. When to buy life insurance is determined by how much extra cash you have lying around, and how soon you expect to kick off. I'm 37 and living paycheck to paycheck. I don't buy life insurance.
Care to make any other sarcastic comments that have no merit?
My thoughts exactly. Nobody is going to shell out $300 for something they don't expect to ever use. So it's a great invention, but it won't be saving many lives after all.
That's where [Linus] gets it better than RMS. He's willing to give up control of how his code is used, and appreciates that if he didn't do that, the software would have withered on the vine.
*gasp* You mean, Linus gives developers more Freedom, and RMS tries to maintain total control over how his code may be used? Why, that's pretty much the exact opposite of what RMS claims. How can that be true?</sarcasm>
the sole reason this product exists is to ease migration from the original Eudora to Thunderbird
Thank you! I've been reading and WTF'ing and trying to figure out how Eudora "complements" and "does not compete with" Thunderbird, and I think you just hit it on the head. This is the only way any of this makes sense.
So... if you're not already a Eudora user, "Nothing to see here. Move along."
Actually, everything is a pollutant. Air is a pollutant if found in the bloodstream. Water is a pollutant if found in your gas tank. Milk is a pollutant if found in your beer. Light is a pollutant when you're trying to watch a meteor shower.
I think the problem is that you fail to recognize a 3-way handshake when you see it. Like, the one I just described for you (SYN, SYN-ACK, ACK). You also seem to confuse "a 3-way handshake" with "shaking hands 3 times" (i.e. a series of 3 2-way handshakes). You were programming network drivers, and you don't understand something this simple? Scary.
Sorry to break up the funny train, but TCP acts just like a normal person in this scenario:
1) TCP orders a beer
2) Bartender acknowledges the order and serves up a beer
3) TCP acknowledges receipt of the beer by paying for it.
No silly "shaking hands 3 times" nonsense, just sensible interaction.
It is an American thing... The phrase is supposed to be "couldn't care less", but an abundance of Americans who couldn't care less about grammar and who are too lazy to pronounce "n't" have shortened it to "could care less", which most people (in America, at least) now believe to be the actual saying, even if it clearly is the opposite of what they mean. And now, sadly, it's been shortened further to "can care less". I blame W. (see? we're so lazy, our *president* only gets one lousy letter... even from his supporters!)
Well, let's go a few comments back into history:
Somebody said, "However the law is supposed to be a check on the media's abusive behaviors."
To which you replied, "I disagree."
So I asked, incredulously, if you really thought the media should be above the law.
Now you reverse your position and say that the media *should* be checked by the law, and you haven't a clue what I'm talking about.
Or are you just operating on a totally different definition of what a "check" is in this context?
2. to restrain; hold in restraint or control: "the laws keep the press in check"
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...."
This DOES mean that the press in its newsgathering activities IS specifically protected from laws that restrict their ability to do their job.
I disagree with your interpretation. "The press" is a modern term for reporters. I don't believe reporters were called "the press" at the framing of the constitution. I believe the passage quoted refers to the physical device, to explicitly include the printed word as well as the spoken word (because writing isn't speech). So there should be no (federal) law abridging their right to print things (although there are laws...), that does not mean that they are free to violate laws during the information gathering process. Gathering information is not speech or press.
So you believe the media shouldn't have to answer to the law? The people are no check on the media at all. Short of murdering them, we have no power to stop them.
Like I said... "and traffic violations". Infractions aren't really crimes at all. When you are accused of a crime, you are innocent until proven guilty. Infractions are fines, and you are presumed guilty unless you decide to fight them. Fighting them usually exceeds the cost of paying them.
Misdemeanor is minor crime. Misdemeanors and felonies. Those are the only two classes. Well, and traffic violations, but I doubt they'll use this system for that.
I don't object to this system being used to find stolen vehicles, and I find it hard to object to using this system to catch wanted felons. I'm a little wary of them wanting to use it to go after misdemeanor violations, but on the whole, I'd have to agree with the OP... is the ACLU objecting to efficiency?
By the "You get what you pay for" scale you'd think $125-an-hour would buy you more
Hell, I'm smarter than this guy, and I'll advise people for the bargain rate of $100/hour. Any takers? Must be at least a 20 hour/week position in Metro Detroit area, or telecommuting.
Kids have been saying that e-mail is "dead" for several years now, and it's no more true now that it was several years ago. This rubbish is not "news" in any sense of the word. Can we please bring some decent editorial control back to Slashdot?
Yesterday, there were an acceptable number of distros, today the n+1th distro hit the tubes, and all hell broke loose.
I don't think anybody at all cares that there's over 300 distros. Most geeks can't name more than a couple dozen without thinking about it a while. To the average Joe, the number seems much smaller.
Google, though they can make a buck, shouldn't go there. It is not good for us
If Google ever decides that they are in the business of determining what is or is not "good for us", THAT would be evil!
Do no evil. Let people decide for themselves.
the chances of aliens being humanoid in appearance are close to zero
What to you mean by "humanoid"? You mean having 2 legs, 2 arms, 1 head, and 2 eyes, 1 mouth, 2 nostrils and 2 ears/tympanic membranes? There's an awful lot of "humanoid" life on Earth, so why are the chances so low that aliens would be humanoid? If you believe in evolution, then I think you'll have to agree it's quite likely that mammals on other planets will also evolve along the quadrupedal and bipedal lines found on our own planet. If you believe in a creator, then it's a near certainty that aliens will look a *lot* like humans. In fact, the only thing suggesting that aliens might not be humanoid are sci-fi books and movies that are really closer to rocketship fantasy than sci-fi.
I suppose a lot of folks who would be disappointed or even outraged by this news are also proponents of other progressive social causes such as net neutrality.
I think you're supposing incorrectly. People who support network neutrality are generally smart people, and net neutrality is an important issue that affects our future. People upset that an advertising company (Google) is trying to sell ads are not intelligent, this is not an important issue, and it means squat to anybody's future. Who the hell decided this "news" was Slashdot worthy? Trying to earn money by doing your job is not evil. Google is not censoring anything, and not trying to "contain" the damage to the health care industry. Repair, maybe, but not contain.
This article is identical to what we covered... in 300 level Modern Physics
Oh, yeah! When the King of Sparta kicked that Persian messenger into the black hole? And he fell in slow motion? That rocked!
Who says movies aren't educational anymore?
Slashdot Mirror
How long until some well-meaning but unscrupulous virus writer creates a virus with this Debian install as a payload?
I'm not sure if that would be a bad thing or a good thing...
We buy first aid kits because we *do* expect to get hurt, sooner or later. We usually *don't* buy first aid kits until *after* we've been hurt at least once, because until it happens to us when we're unprepared, we don't worry about it. (how many college freshmen have a first aid kit in their dorm room, that wasn't given to them by their parents? In my experience: zero)
Do you know anybody who paid more for a car to get air bags? I don't. The cars just come that way now. You can't buy a car without them.
Insurance for your house is *required* by the bank that holds your mortgage. Same as fire and theft insurance for a car that you're still making payments on. The bank won't let you not buy that insurance.
If you don't expect to die, you're a fool. It happens to all of us. When to buy life insurance is determined by how much extra cash you have lying around, and how soon you expect to kick off. I'm 37 and living paycheck to paycheck. I don't buy life insurance.
Care to make any other sarcastic comments that have no merit?
My thoughts exactly. Nobody is going to shell out $300 for something they don't expect to ever use. So it's a great invention, but it won't be saving many lives after all.
That's one way to get my resume out there!
What percentage of the blogging public are Firefox users? Do they really want all the bad press this will bring them?
I think the problem is that you fail to recognize a 3-way handshake when you see it. Like, the one I just described for you (SYN, SYN-ACK, ACK). You also seem to confuse "a 3-way handshake" with "shaking hands 3 times" (i.e. a series of 3 2-way handshakes). You were programming network drivers, and you don't understand something this simple? Scary.
Sorry to break up the funny train, but TCP acts just like a normal person in this scenario: 1) TCP orders a beer 2) Bartender acknowledges the order and serves up a beer 3) TCP acknowledges receipt of the beer by paying for it. No silly "shaking hands 3 times" nonsense, just sensible interaction.
It is an American thing... The phrase is supposed to be "couldn't care less", but an abundance of Americans who couldn't care less about grammar and who are too lazy to pronounce "n't" have shortened it to "could care less", which most people (in America, at least) now believe to be the actual saying, even if it clearly is the opposite of what they mean. And now, sadly, it's been shortened further to "can care less". I blame W. (see? we're so lazy, our *president* only gets one lousy letter... even from his supporters!)
Well, let's go a few comments back into history: Somebody said, "However the law is supposed to be a check on the media's abusive behaviors." To which you replied, "I disagree." So I asked, incredulously, if you really thought the media should be above the law. Now you reverse your position and say that the media *should* be checked by the law, and you haven't a clue what I'm talking about. Or are you just operating on a totally different definition of what a "check" is in this context? 2. to restrain; hold in restraint or control: "the laws keep the press in check"
So you believe the media shouldn't have to answer to the law? The people are no check on the media at all. Short of murdering them, we have no power to stop them.
Like I said... "and traffic violations". Infractions aren't really crimes at all. When you are accused of a crime, you are innocent until proven guilty. Infractions are fines, and you are presumed guilty unless you decide to fight them. Fighting them usually exceeds the cost of paying them.
Misdemeanor is minor crime. Misdemeanors and felonies. Those are the only two classes. Well, and traffic violations, but I doubt they'll use this system for that. I don't object to this system being used to find stolen vehicles, and I find it hard to object to using this system to catch wanted felons. I'm a little wary of them wanting to use it to go after misdemeanor violations, but on the whole, I'd have to agree with the OP... is the ACLU objecting to efficiency?
Kids have been saying that e-mail is "dead" for several years now, and it's no more true now that it was several years ago. This rubbish is not "news" in any sense of the word. Can we please bring some decent editorial control back to Slashdot?
4. Somebody named "the Pirate" wonders why the government is scanning them....
Yesterday, there were an acceptable number of distros, today the n+1th distro hit the tubes, and all hell broke loose. I don't think anybody at all cares that there's over 300 distros. Most geeks can't name more than a couple dozen without thinking about it a while. To the average Joe, the number seems much smaller.
Vote 3rd-party in 2008!
Do no evil. Let people decide for themselves.