Yeah, but it also helps when you don't tell them to unnecessarily install GRUB, taking down all the other precautions they had set up, and locking them out of their computer.:-/
Yeah, what rm said -- that would mess up the comparison. US cities have a lot more (what would be referred to in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri as) drones.
Beijing does too, of course, but they use nerve stapling.
No, the whole thing about the genetic code generating organisms through fractal patterns was just something they made up for Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. For those of you who forgot:
"The human genetic code does not, and cannot, specify the location of each capillary in the body or each neuron in the brain. What it can do, is generate the underlying fractal pattern that describes these structures." (from my recollection)
You actually make a (tangential but) good point, which I should bring up here more often. Specifically, how do those who oppose IP reconcile that view with support for privacy of certain information (medical, PGP private key, bank account info)? To endorse keeping that information from being distributed, you have to, on some level, support IP.
And why should *I* have to tell *you* how to parse *my* file format, when *I* don't need *you* to read it? And why can't *you* figure it out if you put *your* bright mind to it?
(It's not like OSS makes itself pleasant to read...)
Weird, I had always assumed that that phrasing was some wag's caricature of Machiavelli's ideas. (German's would probably be "Der Feind meines Feindes ist mein Freund.")
Anyway, if you're going to categorize it with intuitionist logic, you could give it a little more credit. Think of it as saying, "If someone shares an enemy with me, that relationship can be exploited to my advantage."
I know you're trying your best to be funny but unless you've changed something I'm unaware of, Firefox puts those URL's in DECREASING order with the most used at the top.
Oh, okay, I guess I'm just hallucinating or something then. Every day, only when using Firefox.
There's also no javascript whitelisting unless you turn that function on as well, and most of the other things you either seem to be describing as a bother can be turned off if one bothers to edit the preferences a bit, or the point made was without merit.
My point was that a lot of content on Firefox isn't visible, even with all Javascript allowed. Many times I have to go to IE to see a video.
I thought the point of a certified email system was not so much that you could "be sure to get through" but that there was a real, identifiable, *sue-able* person or organization that could be sued if the email is in fact spam. Therefore, the email with that label is less likely to be spam, since it's sent by someone already on the hook for punishments if it's spam.
Goodmail is just whoring out the right to spam you, while keeping all the gain for itself. I thought that was the postal service's province?
Are you kidding? Firefox has great, USEFUL features:
1) Sometimes, when downloading a large file, I don't think my computer is using enough of its cycles. Whenever I choose to download a large file, Firefox does me the great service of hogging memory to the point that it's unusable for thirty seconds. Would IE do that? Hell no.
2) Firefox places previously-visited URLs in the URL bar in increasing order of frequency of use. So, that makes me take extra time to pan down and click the ones that I go to the most, giving me more time to pause and think about life.
3) Firefox helps me be extra cautious about what URLs I want to go to. When I click on a URL in the URL bar in IE, it takes me there *right away*. With Firefox, it just puts that URL in the URL bar without loading, so I have to hit "enter" or click "go" to make it load. This gives me a great "double-check" to make sure I *really* want to go to that site. And, to fend off charges of copying IE, they've deleted all proof that previous versions worked like IE.
4) Javascript whitelisting. That way, if I go to a new site, I have to authorize it to use Javascript. It blocks a lot of the potentially harmful content before I authorize. Of course, it continues to block that content even if I do authorize, which means extra security.
5) It lets me load URLs in IE. Very helpful.
6) Whenever I type an entry into a form on a site I've been to before, it pops up a menu populated with the entries I've given before on remotely-related fields on all similar, blocking out the form buttons below. This also helps make me take my time, which is vital for avoiding errors.
I've always wondered: what would happen, both legally and in terms of public outrage, if MS crudely deleted its competitors from being accessible (through normal means) on its OS? That is, it makes it so explorer can't load "itunes.com*" or "google.com", it refuses to run any executable from mozilla.com, etc.
It can't exclude every loophole, but just imagine if it did the conventional ones. What then? I mean, when you have to give new addresses for all the popular stuff people want to go to? Would they all rise up when they can't access itunes, or would they shrug and move on?
At my middle school, our computer lab instructor went totally postal whenever he'd see a student do that. "Oh my god! You MONSTER! That is just sick! That is sick! You are exterminating the buffalo! You can't possibly use all that meat, it's just going to rot!" (If you didn't already know, that's correct. As others pointed out, you can only bring back 200 lb, I think 100 lb in some versions.)
And no, he wasn't being sarcastic or anything, he really seemed to have an emotional attachment to electronic buffalo, and punished students who slaughtered them.
IANAL, but to me that seems that you can't do any kind of reporting on play by play of the game, giving "descriptions" of what happens in it, without the consent of the team and the sport organization, in my example MLB, in the story NCAA.
Okay, but every day in the sports pages (or in the sports segment on the news), reporters "describe" what happened in the game. Are they licensed, or is this somehow okay since the description occurred after the game?
Presumably, they can't go after anyone who says, "On May 7, 2003, Billy-bob Jones scored his 40th home run against the University of Georgia team".
Does/can the NCAA stop you from blogging about a game, as it happens, based purely on what you see being broadcast on TV? (i.e., from home) Not trying to make a point, just curious.
I think this regresses to the whole issue of tax status of educational institutions. Even if they are supported by tax dollars and even spend tax dollars on athletes, they also make a profit from these revenues. Huge profits. Why should these be exempt from regular taxes on profits, simply because they teach students on the side?
Actually, that gives me an idea: (Okay, 99% chance someone's thought of it, but at least someone can tell me if it is)
The turing test could give the subject n brief passages, and ask them to classify them into m possible categories, one of which is none of the above. The categories could be joke, set of instructions, gibberish, etc. The problem of course, is that it still gives a spambot m^-n chances of getting it right, or 1/9 for three passages and three categories.
I'm pretty sure they meant 775.000. I mean, that's the same number, but accurate to three places beyond the decimal, so you know there are no fractional computers. Or at least, that the fractional computers sum to an integer.
What I'd really like to see is for them to patch up the error that says there's going to be *one* computer at the end of '08 (and to ten significant figures, no less!). Perhaps they meant a billion?
Yeah, I'm the same way. When I have girls over at my place, *all* they have to do is ask about the "no sound/video recording" option, and I won't keep their data. They just never request that feature.
If this order were allowed to stand, it would mean that Web sites can be required by discovery judges to track what their users do even if their privacy policy says otherwise.'"
You know, I heard in some countries, they can tap the phones if they get a court order, even though the privacy policy of the people talking says otherwise.
Heh, oddly enough, Rep. Frank was the same one who, a while back, criticized supposedly free-market conservatives for voting for farm subsidies:
This spectacle allowed even liberal Barney Frank (D., Mass.) to hold forth as a fiscal conservative. "I have listened to many of my conservative friends talk about the wonders of the free market, of the importance of letting the consumers make their best choices, of keeping government out of economic activity, of the virtues of free trade, but then I look at various agricultural programs like this one," Mr. Frank said. "It violates every principle of free market economics known to man and two or three not yet discovered."
He then delivered this zinger: "I have been forced to conclude that in all of those great free market texts by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and all the others that there is a footnote that says, by the way, none of this applies to agriculture."
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but it also helps when you don't tell them to unnecessarily install GRUB, taking down all the other precautions they had set up, and locking them out of their computer. :-/
Yeah, what rm said -- that would mess up the comparison. US cities have a lot more (what would be referred to in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri as) drones.
Beijing does too, of course, but they use nerve stapling.
Not in modern DRAM. Modern DRAM is basicly a capacitor.
;-)
Yeah, but isn't this entire case really just about a bunch of ones and zeros?
No, the whole thing about the genetic code generating organisms through fractal patterns was just something they made up for Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. For those of you who forgot:
"The human genetic code does not, and cannot, specify the location of each capillary in the body or each neuron in the brain. What it can do, is generate the underlying fractal pattern that describes these structures." (from my recollection)
-Academician Prokhor Zakarov
You actually make a (tangential but) good point, which I should bring up here more often. Specifically, how do those who oppose IP reconcile that view with support for privacy of certain information (medical, PGP private key, bank account info)? To endorse keeping that information from being distributed, you have to, on some level, support IP.
And why should *I* have to tell *you* how to parse *my* file format, when *I* don't need *you* to read it? And why can't *you* figure it out if you put *your* bright mind to it?
(It's not like OSS makes itself pleasant to read...)
Weird, I had always assumed that that phrasing was some wag's caricature of Machiavelli's ideas. (German's would probably be "Der Feind meines Feindes ist mein Freund.")
Anyway, if you're going to categorize it with intuitionist logic, you could give it a little more credit. Think of it as saying, "If someone shares an enemy with me, that relationship can be exploited to my advantage."
The optimal solution would be to write what I mean, and advise people to read it before responding. But I already did that, to no avail.
Wanna give it another "go"?
you say that Goodmail stands in the shoes of the person most likely to be sued if they send spam,
No, I didn't.
then you say that Goodmail is going to spam.
No, I didn't.
Now, try again, and this time, follow the advice in my sig.
I know you're trying your best to be funny but unless you've changed something I'm unaware of, Firefox puts those URL's in DECREASING order with the most used at the top.
Oh, okay, I guess I'm just hallucinating or something then. Every day, only when using Firefox.
There's also no javascript whitelisting unless you turn that function on as well, and most of the other things you either seem to be describing as a bother can be turned off if one bothers to edit the preferences a bit, or the point made was without merit.
My point was that a lot of content on Firefox isn't visible, even with all Javascript allowed. Many times I have to go to IE to see a video.
I thought the point of a certified email system was not so much that you could "be sure to get through" but that there was a real, identifiable, *sue-able* person or organization that could be sued if the email is in fact spam. Therefore, the email with that label is less likely to be spam, since it's sent by someone already on the hook for punishments if it's spam.
Goodmail is just whoring out the right to spam you, while keeping all the gain for itself. I thought that was the postal service's province?
Are you kidding? Firefox has great, USEFUL features:
1) Sometimes, when downloading a large file, I don't think my computer is using enough of its cycles. Whenever I choose to download a large file, Firefox does me the great service of hogging memory to the point that it's unusable for thirty seconds. Would IE do that? Hell no.
2) Firefox places previously-visited URLs in the URL bar in increasing order of frequency of use. So, that makes me take extra time to pan down and click the ones that I go to the most, giving me more time to pause and think about life.
3) Firefox helps me be extra cautious about what URLs I want to go to. When I click on a URL in the URL bar in IE, it takes me there *right away*. With Firefox, it just puts that URL in the URL bar without loading, so I have to hit "enter" or click "go" to make it load. This gives me a great "double-check" to make sure I *really* want to go to that site. And, to fend off charges of copying IE, they've deleted all proof that previous versions worked like IE.
4) Javascript whitelisting. That way, if I go to a new site, I have to authorize it to use Javascript. It blocks a lot of the potentially harmful content before I authorize. Of course, it continues to block that content even if I do authorize, which means extra security.
5) It lets me load URLs in IE. Very helpful.
6) Whenever I type an entry into a form on a site I've been to before, it pops up a menu populated with the entries I've given before on remotely-related fields on all similar, blocking out the form buttons below. This also helps make me take my time, which is vital for avoiding errors.
The story is really just,
;-)
"Another investor rooked into making a stupid investment through investment pitch X."
Individuals invest in stupid things all the time. Like workers who just read Slashdot all day.
I've always wondered: what would happen, both legally and in terms of public outrage, if MS crudely deleted its competitors from being accessible (through normal means) on its OS? That is, it makes it so explorer can't load "itunes.com*" or "google.com", it refuses to run any executable from mozilla.com, etc.
It can't exclude every loophole, but just imagine if it did the conventional ones. What then? I mean, when you have to give new addresses for all the popular stuff people want to go to? Would they all rise up when they can't access itunes, or would they shrug and move on?
At my middle school, our computer lab instructor went totally postal whenever he'd see a student do that. "Oh my god! You MONSTER! That is just sick! That is sick! You are exterminating the buffalo! You can't possibly use all that meat, it's just going to rot!" (If you didn't already know, that's correct. As others pointed out, you can only bring back 200 lb, I think 100 lb in some versions.)
And no, he wasn't being sarcastic or anything, he really seemed to have an emotional attachment to electronic buffalo, and punished students who slaughtered them.
IANAL, but to me that seems that you can't do any kind of reporting on play by play of the game, giving "descriptions" of what happens in it, without the consent of the team and the sport organization, in my example MLB, in the story NCAA.
Okay, but every day in the sports pages (or in the sports segment on the news), reporters "describe" what happened in the game. Are they licensed, or is this somehow okay since the description occurred after the game?
Presumably, they can't go after anyone who says, "On May 7, 2003, Billy-bob Jones scored his 40th home run against the University of Georgia team".
Does/can the NCAA stop you from blogging about a game, as it happens, based purely on what you see being broadcast on TV? (i.e., from home) Not trying to make a point, just curious.
I think this regresses to the whole issue of tax status of educational institutions. Even if they are supported by tax dollars and even spend tax dollars on athletes, they also make a profit from these revenues. Huge profits. Why should these be exempt from regular taxes on profits, simply because they teach students on the side?
Actually, that gives me an idea: (Okay, 99% chance someone's thought of it, but at least someone can tell me if it is)
The turing test could give the subject n brief passages, and ask them to classify them into m possible categories, one of which is none of the above. The categories could be joke, set of instructions, gibberish, etc. The problem of course, is that it still gives a spambot m^-n chances of getting it right, or 1/9 for three passages and three categories.
Statistics don't lie ... but liars are sadistic. *rimshot*
I'm pretty sure they meant 775.000. I mean, that's the same number, but accurate to three places beyond the decimal, so you know there are no fractional computers. Or at least, that the fractional computers sum to an integer.
What I'd really like to see is for them to patch up the error that says there's going to be *one* computer at the end of '08 (and to ten significant figures, no less!). Perhaps they meant a billion?
Hey, any chance we could get that ADA to make sites include transcripts of any audio they upload? You know, for deaf people?
Because I hate having to listen when I'd just rather read a transcript.
Yeah, I'm the same way. When I have girls over at my place, *all* they have to do is ask about the "no sound/video recording" option, and I won't keep their data. They just never request that feature.
If this order were allowed to stand, it would mean that Web sites can be required by discovery judges to track what their users do even if their privacy policy says otherwise.'"
You know, I heard in some countries, they can tap the phones if they get a court order, even though the privacy policy of the people talking says otherwise.