Why do people still insist on going hunting even though there's food aplenty in the nearest supermarket ? Because it is cheaper. I can take a deer and have enough meat to last a good portion of the year.
Imagine that you are going through the cosmos, looking for a planet to colonize. In my opinion, the IDEAL planet would be one that already had a civilization rise and fall. The reason is that they would have already mined a large portion of resources and presented them in easily accessable forms.
Finding an abandoned landfill is better than a goldmine, since everything has already been refined.
Nah, the reason the series was cancelled was not because so few people got that joke, but that of those that did, 90% of them thought, "That doesn't make any sense. Does he mean Earth atmosphere? Or Jovian? Or Martian?" Did you really just claim to be too nerdy for the jokes from Futurama? Is that overachieving or underachiving?
My issue is that a large portion of RTS games are playing at near-twitch levels. I never liked playing RTS games where the units flew across the screen at speeds approaching jet aircraft (unless of course, they were jet aircraft).
I like to play them at a pace that more approximates a realistic speed.
Though I have found that games which involve some level of squad AI helped a bit with my dislike for the extreme micromanagement.
In all honesty, I don't have much of a problem with this system. When it is applied to those accused of crimes, not only is it the responsability of the court system to provide you with a fair trial, but it is your responsability to engage in that process. If the government has upheld its side of the bargain by offering a fair trial, then I don't have any pity if your license plate is flagged.
Granted, this system should only record numbers that are registered to fugatives, and other situation within reason (Yes you can quibble about it, but I'm not going to enumerate the exact situations in a/. post) What is our job, is making sure that we block the laws that could abuse our rights, and make sure that there is clear oversight on the system. That is our part of the deal.
My family rents a home in North Carolina that sits right on the ocean. There are public access paths just a few meters up and down the road. However, you get a large number of people who will wander under the house with all of their gear to setup camp. Now, I don't mind it usually, but without fail these bozos scrape their aluminum chairs against our cars that are parked under the house. My aunt got a nice scratch in the paint of her car, because these people were too damned lazy to walk down the paths to the public beaches (You know, the ones with actual lifeguards)
The real award for idiot-supreme went to the family that decided to use our outdoor shower to clean off before heading back inland (and of course, right through the cars again). How ignorant do you have to be to use a shower that is connected to a home?
Michael Moore's TV Nation where somewhere in the North Eastern US had private (district residents only) beaches, which is even worse. The land of the selfish seems to be a better motto. So there are private beaches. There is no reason for every stretch of the coastline to be 100% public access, just as there is no reason for every acre of forest to be 100% public access. Is it that hard to imagine that some people would want to find a quiet little area on the ocean to setup a home. A home that doesn't have a flock of people who have no regard for the residents of the area tramping through their backyards to camp out on that little section of beach. Not every piece of coastline has to be the boardwalk.
I suggest you pause for a moment and consider that these people pay a lot extra for those homes. That extra value in the homes becomes tax revenue that goes to pay for the perks you expect on your vacations.
And one final note, you know that if someone ever drowned in a private section of beach made public-access there would be lawsuits before you could say 'Swim at your own risk'.
But officials insist the law is not intended to strangle internet freedom. No, of course it isn't intended to do that. That wasn't a bug, it was just an unintended feature.
Lesson (which should have already been) learned: It doesn't matter what the law was intended to do, but rather what the law can be twisted to imply. If a law can be interpreted in a manner, it will be interpreted manner. That's the most important thing to understand from this article.
I don't think you have to worry about the term 'hacker' being besmirched any more. It, like several other terms have entered the mainstream vernacular. If you really care about the terminology that much, invent a new term for what was the original 'hacking'. It is far too late to close the barn door on the hacker misconception.
I would bet that the same method by which bacteria become resistant to drugs also causes them to lose that resistance after a period of time.
Granted that strain would have to be NOT exposed to the antibiotic for a long enough timeframe for it to lose it's resistance (enough time for the mutations that don't have the resistance to become the majority).
This is probably a high estimate, but I would imagine that if you banned penicillin for 200 years or so, you would wind up finding that the strains that were resistant are resistant no more. This of course assumes that you(society) could go 200 years w/o penicillin.
I've seen a lot of mention about collecting and preserving information for the potential future generations, but has anyone considered what is already lost to us?
Is it possible that there is information which has already vanished from our ability to perceive it?
I can simplify your process a bit. Why not just use the comets to blast the planets into the appropriate orbit instead of wasting time moving them in the first place.
Damn, that's complicated. I think we need to get Ashley Judd on the case.
Or in other words, simply because you can't be convicted of a crime, does not mean the crime was not committed. I believe that is covered under the calling a dog's tail a leg clause.
Unfortunately China, like almost all countries, try to drill into their residents the sanctity of human life so the general populace aren't willing to sacrifice their lives for a better future. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. You say that China is trying to instill a sense of sanctity for human life, and therefore the people aren't willing to revolt for a better future?
Consider me confused, but I would imagine that without a concept of sanctity of human life, there would be no point in trying to lift up your fellow man. Without that concept, then all you have are people who have no reason to sacrifice anything if it doesn't benefit them directly.
I believe that a lot of you are getting stuck in the analogy. The point was to raise a question. How secure is secure? What constitutes offering an item for distribution.
If you really believe that having a network that is easy to connect to constitutes an invitation to all of the information available on that network then you are opening a HUGE can of worms.
Reasonable in my case is that I never gave anyone authorization to utilize my network. Where I live, unauthorized access to a computer network can be prosecuted as a third degree felony. I'm not providing anything. There is an open network, and no one has my persmission to use it. My door is also unlocked, but that is no offer to come in and make a sandwich.
In this case, I believe you are arguing from a position which has not been proven sound.
What if I moved all my CDs onto a home computer, for personal use so I don't have to fiddle with CDs in a changer all the time. I put them in a shared folder so my Receiver can access and play them.
I live in the middle of nowhere, I don't secure my wireless router because I prefer it that way. (That and its a 500+ foot drive up my dirt road once you turn off the main road) Either way, I don't want my network secured from someone piggybacking off my signal.
However, IF someone were to connect to my network, I would be in the same situation as many of these students. There was no intent to distribute to others. I simply wanted to have my access to my files unhindered by encryption and permission schemes.
People may say that I'm different because I live on a mountain and 5 miles from the nearest town. What if it was only 1 mile?
2000 feet?
50 feet?
How close do I need to be before my 'intent to distribute' is proven despite the fact that my network topology has not changed?
Some companies go to extremes with these things. I probably have to register 10 times with a site before I actually guess the numbers they are trying to display. It gets even worse when they become case sensitive, is that an 'o', 'O', '0', '()'?
The worst ones are those that reserve the screennames as you make the attempts. I've had many a simple screenname turned into AOL IM gibberish by the time I've successfully registered.
Consolidate all these little snippets of our life (Keylogging over a period of time) and I'm sure that you could build a profile of my life that is more complete than any federal database in existance.
I'm actually considering inventing a 'Password doppleganger' with a fake address, mother's maiden name, last 4 digits of my SSN, first 3 digits of my SSN, Zip code, billing address, shipping address, dog's name, cat's name, place of birth, date of birth, favorite color, first street address, favorite car, favorite password.
Because all of these sites and companies use different 'snapshots' of our personal data to identify us, I'm pretty sure that they have overlapped 100% of the information necessary to perform a perfect identity theft.
Of course, it is great marketing to show that your body armor can stop all rounds up to a 30mm A-10 round, but what LEOs really need is something a bit less.
If I could invent two types of armor, one that worked against a 30mm round, but looked like the bomb disposal suit, and a piece of armor that only worked against 22 caliber rimfire, but looked and felt identical to a cotton T-shirt; the Tshirt-like armor would be the real success.
Slashdot Mirror
Intersteller travel... not so cheap.
Exactly.
Imagine that you are going through the cosmos, looking for a planet to colonize. In my opinion, the IDEAL planet would be one that already had a civilization rise and fall. The reason is that they would have already mined a large portion of resources and presented them in easily accessable forms.
Finding an abandoned landfill is better than a goldmine, since everything has already been refined.
My issue is that a large portion of RTS games are playing at near-twitch levels. I never liked playing RTS games where the units flew across the screen at speeds approaching jet aircraft (unless of course, they were jet aircraft).
I like to play them at a pace that more approximates a realistic speed.
Though I have found that games which involve some level of squad AI helped a bit with my dislike for the extreme micromanagement.
In all honesty, I don't have much of a problem with this system. When it is applied to those accused of crimes, not only is it the responsability of the court system to provide you with a fair trial, but it is your responsability to engage in that process. If the government has upheld its side of the bargain by offering a fair trial, then I don't have any pity if your license plate is flagged.
/. post) What is our job, is making sure that we block the laws that could abuse our rights, and make sure that there is clear oversight on the system. That is our part of the deal.
Granted, this system should only record numbers that are registered to fugatives, and other situation within reason (Yes you can quibble about it, but I'm not going to enumerate the exact situations in a
My family rents a home in North Carolina that sits right on the ocean. There are public access paths just a few meters up and down the road. However, you get a large number of people who will wander under the house with all of their gear to setup camp. Now, I don't mind it usually, but without fail these bozos scrape their aluminum chairs against our cars that are parked under the house. My aunt got a nice scratch in the paint of her car, because these people were too damned lazy to walk down the paths to the public beaches (You know, the ones with actual lifeguards)
The real award for idiot-supreme went to the family that decided to use our outdoor shower to clean off before heading back inland (and of course, right through the cars again). How ignorant do you have to be to use a shower that is connected to a home?
I suggest you pause for a moment and consider that these people pay a lot extra for those homes. That extra value in the homes becomes tax revenue that goes to pay for the perks you expect on your vacations.
And one final note, you know that if someone ever drowned in a private section of beach made public-access there would be lawsuits before you could say 'Swim at your own risk'.
Lesson (which should have already been) learned: It doesn't matter what the law was intended to do, but rather what the law can be twisted to imply. If a law can be interpreted in a manner, it will be interpreted manner. That's the most important thing to understand from this article.
I don't think you have to worry about the term 'hacker' being besmirched any more. It, like several other terms have entered the mainstream vernacular. If you really care about the terminology that much, invent a new term for what was the original 'hacking'. It is far too late to close the barn door on the hacker misconception.
to maintain a 'temporary' reprieve?
That can be true, but it is starting to get to the fringe elements of music.
With respect to the majority of music produced today here is where the groups get their money:
Labels: CD sales
Bands: Concerts (Tshirts, side project CDs, posters, etc)
Thankfully I haven't had to deal with too many prescription medications yet. I'm relatively healthy.
However, aren't most of the 'expensive' drugs the ones that are more cosmetic? Things like Viagra, or the sleeping meds, or anti-allergy types?
I have always thought that the antibiotic type drugs were relatively inexpensive. Am I off on this assumption?
I would bet that the same method by which bacteria become resistant to drugs also causes them to lose that resistance after a period of time.
Granted that strain would have to be NOT exposed to the antibiotic for a long enough timeframe for it to lose it's resistance (enough time for the mutations that don't have the resistance to become the majority).
This is probably a high estimate, but I would imagine that if you banned penicillin for 200 years or so, you would wind up finding that the strains that were resistant are resistant no more. This of course assumes that you(society) could go 200 years w/o penicillin.
I've seen a lot of mention about collecting and preserving information for the potential future generations, but has anyone considered what is already lost to us?
Is it possible that there is information which has already vanished from our ability to perceive it?
I can simplify your process a bit. Why not just use the comets to blast the planets into the appropriate orbit instead of wasting time moving them in the first place.
Cracking encryption algorithms? Sounds like the MPAA/RIAA may need to flex the DMCA yet again.
Damn, that's complicated. I think we need to get Ashley Judd on the case.
Or in other words, simply because you can't be convicted of a crime, does not mean the crime was not committed. I believe that is covered under the calling a dog's tail a leg clause.
Consider me confused, but I would imagine that without a concept of sanctity of human life, there would be no point in trying to lift up your fellow man. Without that concept, then all you have are people who have no reason to sacrifice anything if it doesn't benefit them directly.
I believe that a lot of you are getting stuck in the analogy. The point was to raise a question. How secure is secure? What constitutes offering an item for distribution.
If you really believe that having a network that is easy to connect to constitutes an invitation to all of the information available on that network then you are opening a HUGE can of worms.
What is reasonable?
Reasonable in my case is that I never gave anyone authorization to utilize my network. Where I live, unauthorized access to a computer network can be prosecuted as a third degree felony. I'm not providing anything. There is an open network, and no one has my persmission to use it. My door is also unlocked, but that is no offer to come in and make a sandwich.
In this case, I believe you are arguing from a position which has not been proven sound.
What if I moved all my CDs onto a home computer, for personal use so I don't have to fiddle with CDs in a changer all the time. I put them in a shared folder so my Receiver can access and play them.
I live in the middle of nowhere, I don't secure my wireless router because I prefer it that way. (That and its a 500+ foot drive up my dirt road once you turn off the main road) Either way, I don't want my network secured from someone piggybacking off my signal.
However, IF someone were to connect to my network, I would be in the same situation as many of these students. There was no intent to distribute to others. I simply wanted to have my access to my files unhindered by encryption and permission schemes.
People may say that I'm different because I live on a mountain and 5 miles from the nearest town. What if it was only 1 mile?
2000 feet?
50 feet?
How close do I need to be before my 'intent to distribute' is proven despite the fact that my network topology has not changed?
Some companies go to extremes with these things. I probably have to register 10 times with a site before I actually guess the numbers they are trying to display. It gets even worse when they become case sensitive, is that an 'o', 'O', '0', '()'?
The worst ones are those that reserve the screennames as you make the attempts. I've had many a simple screenname turned into AOL IM gibberish by the time I've successfully registered.
Consolidate all these little snippets of our life (Keylogging over a period of time) and I'm sure that you could build a profile of my life that is more complete than any federal database in existance.
I'm actually considering inventing a 'Password doppleganger' with a fake address, mother's maiden name, last 4 digits of my SSN, first 3 digits of my SSN, Zip code, billing address, shipping address, dog's name, cat's name, place of birth, date of birth, favorite color, first street address, favorite car, favorite password.
Because all of these sites and companies use different 'snapshots' of our personal data to identify us, I'm pretty sure that they have overlapped 100% of the information necessary to perform a perfect identity theft.
And if we already had this technology, you wouldn't even have had a keyboard to replace. :)
Of course, it is great marketing to show that your body armor can stop all rounds up to a 30mm A-10 round, but what LEOs really need is something a bit less.
If I could invent two types of armor, one that worked against a 30mm round, but looked like the bomb disposal suit, and a piece of armor that only worked against 22 caliber rimfire, but looked and felt identical to a cotton T-shirt; the Tshirt-like armor would be the real success.