Microsofts vision is a world with no choice but Microsoft. Why people cannot see the inherent evil in this, I just don't understand.
Indeed. I've often talked to people who've attempted to justify this by saying "but Word/Excel/whatever is a standard!" And in their case, that may well be true-- but nevertheless, standards are possible without a monopoly, and supporting a monopoly is a large black mark against any standard. The advent of Mono should mean that if.NET becomes standard it'll be because it's technically a good standard, rather than because Microsoft produce it.
Didn't the lad from Nazareth mention something about "the road less traveled"?
Nope (or at least, if he did, nobody wrote it down.) Robert Frost said something a little like it, though:)
Quite apart from the question of whether the government's reading your email, the point remains: some messages are private-- just as when you write someone a message using the post, you put it in an envelope so that it can't be read in transit.
Don't confuse privacy with secrecy. A CS 101 textbook on object-oriented design I once read made the distinction memorably: "What you do in the bathroom isn't secret, but it's private."
...everybody who is not Intel should be busying aligning with anyone who is also not Intel.
Is polarisation always in everyone's best interests? Let's suppose we have one Big And Scary player in a field, and lots of little guys. The little guys decide to band together in order to be a match for Big And Scary, and what have we got? Two big and scary players instead of one, and a lot less diversity of choice. (Think of how often you've heard people say that Gnome and KDE should unify, because if they combined efforts they'd be able to be a strong contender against Windows: an attempt to increase consumer choice by killing off diversity.)
And I know "aligning" with someone, as Transmeta are doing with AMD, doesn't make you exactly the same as them. And I'm not saying standards are evil. I'm just saying that "them and us" thinking leads nowhere but multiple "them"s.
Sorry. Should have checked the coordinator name for 44.0.0.0/8: "Kantor, Brian (BK29-ARIN) brian@UCSD.EDU". Looks like this was the block they were using, then. my plan
44 is "Amateur Radio Digital Communications". (Here's a list of all class As; UCSD doesn't figure in it.) Though the most obvious reading of the document is that the experiments were carried out there, they don't say that explicitly, and indeed there are other places which would seem more likely choices. Odd that they don't say where it was, though. my plan
The key difference, though, is that not only do Gracenote and freedb work similarly, but also they rely on the same fundamental algorithm for taking the contents table on the CD and generating the 64-bit unique disc IDs which are used as keys into their respective databases. Granted, the algorithm isn't exactly rocket science, but it looks like it was Gracenote who came up with it first.
(Now, if Gracenote had only patented the algorithm...:) )
So, you can subscribe to XMR for $9.95 per month,
not including the one-off expense of replacing all your old audio equipment with XM-Ready equipment. Or, assuming you already have a computer, you can put the money into a decent Internet connection, and listen to a gazillion radio stations worldwide for free.
I know it's easy to predict the death of one technology when another comes along, and (for example) it's clear that TV hasn't killed radio yet. But considering that a fair number of Americans have Internet access already, if they put the cost of XMR access into improving the bandwidth into their house, they'd be getting radio freedom XMR users could only dream of.
(What's particularly silly about this is that so many of the spammers are outside the US. If, as has happened, I'm in the UK and I get spammed by a guy from the Far East who's faking an address in Latin America, how can what the US Senate might or might not have thought about it be in the least applicable?)
Anyway, if i reply i only get a "user killed" or something similar...
NEVER REPLY, at least, not to the sender. If you do, they'll keep your address on file (and possibly sell it on) because your address is suddenly more valuable for spam-- they'll know there's a real human who's reading mail sent to it. If you really want to complain, you could try mailing abuse@ their ISP: it works, sometimes.
Yes, and it's been said before...
on
Buried in email?
·
· Score: 1
From the article:
Gartner recommended that managers train employees to use e-mail more efficiently, including using distribution lists with caution by sending e-mail to only those who need the information or avoid sending needless responses, such as "I'm with you 100 percent" or "Glad to be of help."
Seems it's true that people often need reminding of old truths. RFC 1855, section 3.1.3, said just the same back in 1995:
[...] Avoid posting "Me Too" messages, where content is limited to agreement with previous posts. Content of a follow-up post should exceed quoted content.
Send mail when an answer to a question is for one person only. Remember that News has global distribution and the whole world probably is NOT interested in a personal response.
The article's slow to load... so, as far as I can see, the problem is/was:
Since FTP needs to open a separate connection for each data transfer, the firewall needs to track FTP commands that set up data connections, so it can make a specific hole in the firewall for that data to pass through.
However, the firewall doesn't check with the FTP server that the hole is one that it knows about.
You can therefore make the firewall allow any connection from any port on the FTP server to anywhere. (You don't even need to have an account on the FTP server, since the firewall will pick up the transfer commands whether or not you've previously logged in.)
If you have an account on the FTP server as well, either by having already compromised it by other means, or by having an account on it anyway, then this hole in the firewall will be useful to you: it will be less useful if you're just a random outsider.
How Stuff Works has a some information on how self-winding watches work. From the article, the amount of energy generated would seem to be enough to keep the watch running plus a little more-- "enough energy to keep the watch going for about a day and a half if you leave it on your dresser".
I wonder how this sort of level of power is comparable to the triple-As in my Palm...
I think you might be looking for zoneinfo. On a quick glance through the definition file, it appears that the dates have been set by the EU since 1996:
Rule EU 1981 max - Mar lastSun 1:00u 1:00 S
Rule EU 1996 max - Oct lastSun 1:00u 0 -
28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart
Why specifically a woman?
Why specifically "adultery"? Does this verse only apply to married people?
Well, whenever a question like that comes up about just one line, it's usually a good idea to look at the passage surrounding it. Jesus is talking about whether it's legitimate to try to interpret ethical rules literally, in order to escape their original intent-- which is exactly what you just asked.
People were saying: The Bible says Do not murder. (So, it's OK to go around hating people-- that's not murder). Wrong: the rule was made to promote peace.
The verses in question here: people were saying: The Bible says Do not commit adultery(so it must be OK to fantasize about having sex with people you wouldn't be allowed to have sex with IRL-- that's not murder). Wrong again-- you wouldn't do it IRL, don't do it virtually.
People were saying: The Old Testament has rules about how to divorce someone(so divorce must be OK, and it should freely available for any little reason). Wrong yet again: trivial divorces are ignoring how important marriage was designed to be.
And so on. The specific issues aren't the point I'm making. The point is that your question is really one about "How do I interpret a passage from the Bible responsibly?". In this particular case, that's also what the passage is about anyway.
This discussion is getting a little off topic, but I think there are several flaws in your argument that need addressing. I may be misunderstanding you, but...
Children need fix points in their evolvement (mostly to overcome them later). If you have more than one educator, you see variation, they can control each other, they can spend more time with the spawnling...
That's an argument that children need marriage (or at least a stable home life), not that marriage needs children.
Being married without children is far too often a material thing, or an overheated decision (even far too often with children).
You say that marriages both with and without children can be either a "material thing" or not. And it's possible for all I know that there's more incidence of the marriage being "a material thing" without children than with; that's hardly enough of an absolute to require the dissolution of all childless marriages, as you recommended earlier in the thread.
I'm not sure how the "overheated decision" comes into it, since that concerns the way people decide to begin a marriage, rather than whether or not to have children.
If you marry, and you don't want children with you partner, then he's just not worth marriage (to you).
This is known as "begging the question". You have assumed what you set out to prove-- that the point of marriage is to provide a stable environment for children.
Then you only want to share his company and/or his property. And for this purposes are better (less restricting and more honest) ways.
And why is wanting to share someone's company a lesser goal than wanting to share in parenthood with them? (Again, you beg the question with "more honest", implying that a marriage formed for the purpose of mutual edification, support, help and comfort-- which happens to be childless-- is somehow a dishonest abuse of the concept of marriage.)
My understanding of a marriage is, that it is the obligation to raise children. Nothing more, nothing less.
But you have to tell us on what grounds you base this understanding of marriage-- otherwise, it's a little difficult to discuss it. (On some external marriage-defining authority? On sociological grounds? Just a gut feeling?)
For all you jingoistic Americans fearing an insult to your national hacking pride, rest assured by visiting
At http://hacks.mit.edu/
In June 1958, four engineering students at Cambridge University put an Austin Seven van on the roof of the Senate House overnight. There's a writeup of the methods used and the story of that night, complete with diagram, written by one of the conspirators. It's a document worth reading for anyone planning to follow in their hallowed footsteps.
Debian also has vague plans to adopt the FreeBSD kernel too, apparently
Someone else has already pointed out the debian-bsd@lists.debian.org mailing list, where this is being discussed. Note that you can subscribe to it on the web.
Interesting statement. I take it this means that, when the government does suppress political stories and reporting, it does it in ways which are illegal and/or invisible.
Compare:
Your cat is sitting on my desk.
I can't see a cat sitting on your desk.
I take it that means that your cat is invisible.
It's a little hard to argue with this:) This isn't to say that the government aren't suppressing stories, just that your suggestion isn't falsifiable.
Bear in mind also that the original point of this thread was whether the state broadcasters could have any editorial independence merely because they . We do have independent broadcasters in the UK, and the breadth of political coverage isn't noticeably different.
Look at your figures. The total for compete/co-operate (5) is less than the total for both co-operating (6).
You get an interesting result: on their first go, people will instinctively play the game to find a winner. And there'll be one, but that person will often have got there by doing the other players down. Then you tell the players that you're calculating their personal score by dividing the total among everyone. Sure enough, on their next go they'll all co-operate, so as to share in the increased benefits for the whole community. Analogies and lessons about real life are left to the reader.
(I've been told by someone who should know that there are cultures where this point is lost on the people, because they think like that anyway.)
Slashdot Mirror
Microsofts vision is a world with no choice but Microsoft. Why people cannot see the inherent evil in this, I just don't understand.
Indeed. I've often talked to people who've attempted to justify this by saying "but Word/Excel/whatever is a standard!" And in their case, that may well be true-- but nevertheless, standards are possible without a monopoly, and supporting a monopoly is a large black mark against any standard. The advent of Mono should mean that if .NET becomes standard it'll be because it's technically a good standard, rather than because Microsoft produce it.
Didn't the lad from Nazareth mention something about "the road less traveled"?
Nope (or at least, if he did, nobody wrote it down.) Robert Frost said something a little like it, though :)
my plan
Quite apart from the question of whether the government's reading your email, the point remains: some messages are private-- just as when you write someone a message using the post, you put it in an envelope so that it can't be read in transit.
Don't confuse privacy with secrecy. A CS 101 textbook on object-oriented design I once read made the distinction memorably: "What you do in the bathroom isn't secret, but it's private."
my plan
Is polarisation always in everyone's best interests? Let's suppose we have one Big And Scary player in a field, and lots of little guys. The little guys decide to band together in order to be a match for Big And Scary, and what have we got? Two big and scary players instead of one, and a lot less diversity of choice. (Think of how often you've heard people say that Gnome and KDE should unify, because if they combined efforts they'd be able to be a strong contender against Windows: an attempt to increase consumer choice by killing off diversity.)
And I know "aligning" with someone, as Transmeta are doing with AMD, doesn't make you exactly the same as them. And I'm not saying standards are evil. I'm just saying that "them and us" thinking leads nowhere but multiple "them"s.
my plan
Sorry. Should have checked the coordinator name for 44.0.0.0/8: "Kantor, Brian (BK29-ARIN) brian@UCSD.EDU". Looks like this was the block they were using, then.
my plan
44 is "Amateur Radio Digital Communications". (Here's a list of all class As; UCSD doesn't figure in it.) Though the most obvious reading of the document is that the experiments were carried out there, they don't say that explicitly, and indeed there are other places which would seem more likely choices. Odd that they don't say where it was, though.
my plan
Oops-- and, as someone pointed out, it looks like they did. Why this should mean they want to go after Roxio about it, though, is beyond me.
my plan
The key difference, though, is that not only do Gracenote and freedb work similarly, but also they rely on the same fundamental algorithm for taking the contents table on the CD and generating the 64-bit unique disc IDs which are used as keys into their respective databases. Granted, the algorithm isn't exactly rocket science, but it looks like it was Gracenote who came up with it first.
(Now, if Gracenote had only patented the algorithm... :) )
my plan
Roxio has posted a (very brief) response to the lawsuit.
M
my plan
Good, sounds like there's a nice well-defined niche for Perl, then :)
my plan
So, you can subscribe to XMR for $9.95 per month, not including the one-off expense of replacing all your old audio equipment with XM-Ready equipment. Or, assuming you already have a computer, you can put the money into a decent Internet connection, and listen to a gazillion radio stations worldwide for free.
I know it's easy to predict the death of one technology when another comes along, and (for example) it's clear that TV hasn't killed radio yet. But considering that a fair number of Americans have Internet access already, if they put the cost of XMR access into improving the bandwidth into their house, they'd be getting radio freedom XMR users could only dream of.
M
my plan
The bill S.1618 was introduced in 1998, but didn't make it into law. There's more information on this at SpamCop.
(What's particularly silly about this is that so many of the spammers are outside the US. If, as has happened, I'm in the UK and I get spammed by a guy from the Far East who's faking an address in Latin America, how can what the US Senate might or might not have thought about it be in the least applicable?)
NEVER REPLY, at least, not to the sender. If you do, they'll keep your address on file (and possibly sell it on) because your address is suddenly more valuable for spam-- they'll know there's a real human who's reading mail sent to it. If you really want to complain, you could try mailing abuse@ their ISP: it works, sometimes.
Death to Spam is a good read on the subject. You might also like to check out the alt.spam FAQ.
From the article:
Seems it's true that people often need reminding of old truths. RFC 1855, section 3.1.3, said just the same back in 1995:
There's a brief history of the symbol which says that "the most common proportions [of the arms] are 3:5" (though not why.)
The article's slow to load... so, as far as I can see, the problem is/was:
E feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong.
How Stuff Works has a some information on how self-winding watches work. From the article, the amount of energy generated would seem to be enough to keep the watch running plus a little more-- "enough energy to keep the watch going for about a day and a half if you leave it on your dresser".
I wonder how this sort of level of power is comparable to the triple-As in my Palm...
It's more complicated than that. Someone can set up> a server that looks like the master .rpm or .deb server, and pollute a DNS cache so that the name of the real server points at the fake server for anyone using that cache.
As you say, the best way to know for certain (for some value of "certain") is by using cryptographic techniques.
M
I think you might be looking for zoneinfo. On a quick glance through the definition file, it appears that the dates have been set by the EU since 1996:
Rule EU 1981 max - Mar lastSun 1:00u 1:00 S Rule EU 1996 max - Oct lastSun 1:00u 0 -
M
Why specifically "adultery"? Does this verse only apply to married people?
Well, whenever a question like that comes up about just one line, it's usually a good idea to look at the passage surrounding it. Jesus is talking about whether it's legitimate to try to interpret ethical rules literally, in order to escape their original intent-- which is exactly what you just asked.
And so on. The specific issues aren't the point I'm making. The point is that your question is really one about "How do I interpret a passage from the Bible responsibly?". In this particular case, that's also what the passage is about anyway.
M
The same answer applies to the "is it only looking?" question as to the "is it only a woman?" question. (If you were answering ironically, sorry.)
M
This discussion is getting a little off topic, but I think there are several flaws in your argument that need addressing. I may be misunderstanding you, but...
That's an argument that children need marriage (or at least a stable home life), not that marriage needs children.
You say that marriages both with and without children can be either a "material thing" or not. And it's possible for all I know that there's more incidence of the marriage being "a material thing" without children than with; that's hardly enough of an absolute to require the dissolution of all childless marriages, as you recommended earlier in the thread.
I'm not sure how the "overheated decision" comes into it, since that concerns the way people decide to begin a marriage, rather than whether or not to have children.
This is known as "begging the question". You have assumed what you set out to prove-- that the point of marriage is to provide a stable environment for children.
And why is wanting to share someone's company a lesser goal than wanting to share in parenthood with them? (Again, you beg the question with "more honest", implying that a marriage formed for the purpose of mutual edification, support, help and comfort-- which happens to be childless-- is somehow a dishonest abuse of the concept of marriage.)
M
But you have to tell us on what grounds you base this understanding of marriage-- otherwise, it's a little difficult to discuss it. (On some external marriage-defining authority? On sociological grounds? Just a gut feeling?)
M
In June 1958, four engineering students at Cambridge University put an Austin Seven van on the roof of the Senate House overnight. There's a writeup of the methods used and the story of that night, complete with diagram, written by one of the conspirators. It's a document worth reading for anyone planning to follow in their hallowed footsteps.
M
Someone else has already pointed out the debian-bsd@lists.debian.org mailing list, where this is being discussed. Note that you can subscribe to it on the web.
M
You say:
Compare:
It's a little hard to argue with this :) This isn't to say that the government aren't suppressing stories, just that your suggestion isn't falsifiable.
Bear in mind also that the original point of this thread was whether the state broadcasters could have any editorial independence merely because they . We do have independent broadcasters in the UK, and the breadth of political coverage isn't noticeably different.
You may be interested in reading the BBC's Royal Charter and Agreement which lay an offical duty of impartiality on the Corporation.
M
Look at your figures. The total for compete/co-operate (5) is less than the total for both co-operating (6).
You get an interesting result: on their first go, people will instinctively play the game to find a winner. And there'll be one, but that person will often have got there by doing the other players down. Then you tell the players that you're calculating their personal score by dividing the total among everyone. Sure enough, on their next go they'll all co-operate, so as to share in the increased benefits for the whole community. Analogies and lessons about real life are left to the reader.
(I've been told by someone who should know that there are cultures where this point is lost on the people, because they think like that anyway.)