McDonald's and BK are both franchises. A small(ish) business investor builds them both. If Mr McD investor wants to buy across the street (and I'm sure some do) he will, but it's not exactly a rule.
In the way he describes it, though, there are clues. We know, for example, that when you imagine yourself seeing some object, there are visual areas and connected "meaning" areas of the brain that will fire simultaneously, just as if you were actually looking at that thing.
Now that we know he's visualizing something, we can know which parts of the brain to pay special attention to. The way the visual centers of the brain fire, and what fires with them, will show us the physical connections that make this possible. And possibly give us a hint as to what connections in the "normal" brain are suboptimal.
And, just maybe, give us an idea as to how we can engineer it so everyone's brains are optimized. Provided we can figure out how to do it without breaking the shoe tying ability.
but you can bet it'll be the end user who gets the book thrown at them. The thump of the BSA on the door at midnight, the mysterious disappearances, leaving behind only a trail of cheaply photocopied Genuine Microsoft certificates...
Brings up the tree mode of Windows Explorer. Even handier. (In truth I too use win+r more often. But I use a cygwin command line and cygstart most of all.)
People who have cancer serious enough to require this step are going to die, soon and painfully, from their cancer. In that position I know what my attitude would be: "Cure me or kill me. It's a win-win from my point of view." (paraphrasing House, M.D.)
I charge $70/hr, and tell them up front how many hours it will take. If I go over on time, I don't charge them extra. When I'm done, I ask them to make sure that everything works the way they want, and if it doesn't, I'm still there to fix it. If it does, there's no possibility that they'll ask me to help again on the same problem unless they're willing to pay me again.
I have to agree with the manufacturer.. this probably isn't a problem. Car theft isn't a matter of following a particular human around until you can steal their car. Car theft is a matter of finding a car of the right type (read: maximum cost-to-stealable ratio) wherever you happen to be looking for cars, and then stealing it. Car thieves pride themselves on working very quickly, and they have to. Waiting for someone to leave their car, then getting close to them (which provides an opportunity to be spotted, and identified on a police report, and maybe you have mugshots on file...) takes much longer and is more dangerous.
All of which is beside the main protection the security code gives: it makes the car a little bit harder to steal than the car next to it. Under those conditions, it's always the next car that will get stolen. Why would a thief do 10 units of work to steal a car when they can get away with doing 9, by stealing a car that doesn't have this system?
When they all have this system, we'll have to re-evaluate that, of course.
There may indeed be contributing biological factors, I certainly have no contrary evidence to disagree with you there. But I think the primary reasons for resistance to change lie elsewhere.
Let me start off by defining conservatism as the resistance to change, for whatever reason, not as political right-wingery. I think the primary impetus for conservatism is something outside of biology, because conservatism exists outside of biology. Observe what happens to large organizations and even smaller organizations as they change.
What happens is they focus more and more on their "core business", whether that core business is making buggy whips or acquiring other companies to profit from them. It becomes harder and harder to change their policies or direction from either the inside or the outside. This is not a function of the pursuit of wealth, either. Non-profit organizations do this too. And government organizations are notorious for it.
I think the primary reason for conservatism is that old people and entrenched organizations alike have found strategies that are successful after making many mistakes. But success is a broad term, and furthermore the degree to which a strategy remains successful changes over time. These entities choose a few strategies that are workable over the short term, and because they had to discard so many unworkable strategies, they come to believe implicitly that their strategies are the only ones that are safe enough to use. The result is that any change is seen as too dangerous to attempt, and any major change of focus or direction is unthinkable.
For this reason and because organizations and people are both subject to this, I have to reject the hypothesis that the cause is primarily biological. Which means that, whatever biological advances we make, I think we'll still see conservatism in our infinite longevity society.
References? Evidence? Even CSI is a better authority in my mind than someone who provides no information to back up his claims. At least I know CSI did some research into making the investigative process look realistic.
Look, it's not just about apt. Even if it were just about apt, the people advocating apt being used with RPM are misguided.. the RPM package format lacks a lot of the functionality that dpkg has, and the system as a whole will suffer for it. But apt is only the smallest part of what makes Debian work well together. Pursuing "LSB compliance" will never produce a system that works as well as Debian.
There are hundreds of pages of manuals for covering every aspect of a Debian package's existence. As a package developer, this allows you to know, for sure how you should configure some particular corner of your package so it integrates best with the rest of the system.
Becoming a Debian developer is a process which takes up to a year, and occasionally longer, and tests in depth everything from the person's identity to whether they understand interactions between lib* packages.
Actually putting a package in the archive immediately subjects it to people who run automated test suites on it to make sure it is not going to conflict with the Debian way of doing things.
An open bug-tracking database is there to email package developers and let them know if they screwed up. The bug database is integrated into the system itself (via reportbug and friends), and people actually use it.
These are things LSB cannot replicate, and as a Debian user and administrator of commercial production servers, and soon to be a Debian developer, I have no interest in making Debian LSB-compliant.
n.b. I'm actually running Ubuntu as you'll see, but it's the same package from Debian unstable.
$ apt-cache show lsb Package: lsb Priority: extra Section: misc Installed-Size: 188 Maintainer: Chris Lawrence Architecture: all Version: 1.3-9ubuntu7 Depends: lsb-base, lsb-release, xlibmesa3-gl | libgl1, xlibs, libz1, exim4 | mai l-transport-agent, at, bc, binutils, bsdmainutils, cpio, cron, file, libc6-dev |
libc-dev, locales, lpr, m4, make, man-db, mawk | gawk, ncurses-term, passwd, pa tch, pax, procps, psmisc, rsync, alien (>= 8.36), python (>> 2.2.2), debconf (>=
0.5) | debconf-2.0 Conflicts: python (>> 2.5), libutahglx1 Filename: pool/main/l/lsb/lsb_1.3-9ubuntu7_all.deb Size: 25710 MD5sum: 8ab139caa1adac40a9a9d1ca1a27b629 Description: Linux Standard Base 1.3 core support package
The Linux Standard Base (http://www.linuxbase.org/) is a standard
core system that third-party applications written for Linux can
depend upon. .
This package provides an implementation of version 1.3 of the Linux
Standard Base for Debian on the Intel x86, Intel ia64 (Itanium), IBM
S390, and PowerPC 32-bit architectures with the Linux kernel. Future
revisions of the specification and this package may support the LSB
on additional architectures and kernels. .
The intent of this package is to provide a best current practice way
of installing and running LSB packages on Debian GNU/Linux. Its
presence does not imply that we believe that Debian fully complies
with the Linux Standard Base, and should not be construed as a
statement that Debian is LSB-compliant. Bugs: mailto:ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com Origin: Ubuntu Task: ubuntu-desktop
Address harvesting is illegal in some jurisdictions. If you're running a honeypot in that jurisdiction, and you can prove someone harvested an email address from you using the honeypot, it makes no difference whether they agreed to your license. They broke the law. If you go after them, you can nail them.
Republicans love deregulation, and reducing the power of the FCC certainly amounts to deregulation. This wouldn't be at all a surprise move, it would be very much in line with the usual way the Republican party sucks the cocks of money-donating entities.
If we get no reply, we'll assume you're dead. If you're dead, we'll give your information to these people who are asking for it. They say they're relatives of yours.
How is the above going to prove that the person is even dead, or that the person is really who the requesters say he is, let alone that the people requesting his emails are really entitled to his information? People sometimes go for a long time without checking their email. People also lie.
Attackers wanting access to your accounts could provide information to Yahoo that indicated your death. They could claim, for example, that your account was opened under a fake name, and here's a death certificate for the real person whose account this is.
This opens up a major avenue of attack on peoples' privacy. I want this family to get the email from their son, especially if he wanted them to be able to read it (his journal), but I can see how this would be a fairly major burden on Yahoo.
It's not so much that they have to check out your claim of death. The problem is they never checked out the deceased's real identity in the first place when they gave out the account! Anyone can claim to be anyone else's next of kin, you don't even have to have a name match. If someone wanted to check out my spam bucket email address, they'd probably have some problems. It's not as if I gave my right name.
Think robbery. Don't have to ditch the car any more. Just peel it. You could even add a few other removal tchotchkes to the car like cell phone antennas, a fake license plate, a stick-on spoiler, etc and pop them all off as soon as you're hidden from the fuzz.
The spacecraft is called Deep Impact just like the 1998 movie about a comet headed straight for Earth.
Nothing else in the article says how it was named. Don't be silly, of course it was named after the movie. You think somebody at NASA right now is going, "Gosh, what a coincidence! Who knew Hollywood made a movie of the same name about flying out to a space rock."
Raise funding for more ambitious projects by blackmailing the world governments. Make them pay you to keep the asteroid from crashing into the earth on purpose.
The judge is obviously waiting for the prosecution to bring up a charge that can result in the death penalty. This is like getting Capone on tax fraud...
Slashdot Mirror
Hi, try http://nevow.com and take a look at livepage and canvas. This isn't magic, people.
McDonald's and BK are both franchises. A small(ish) business investor builds them both. If Mr McD investor wants to buy across the street (and I'm sure some do) he will, but it's not exactly a rule.
In the way he describes it, though, there are clues. We know, for example, that when you imagine yourself seeing some object, there are visual areas and connected "meaning" areas of the brain that will fire simultaneously, just as if you were actually looking at that thing.
Now that we know he's visualizing something, we can know which parts of the brain to pay special attention to. The way the visual centers of the brain fire, and what fires with them, will show us the physical connections that make this possible. And possibly give us a hint as to what connections in the "normal" brain are suboptimal.
And, just maybe, give us an idea as to how we can engineer it so everyone's brains are optimized. Provided we can figure out how to do it without breaking the shoe tying ability.
but you can bet it'll be the end user who gets the book thrown at them. The thump of the BSA on the door at midnight, the mysterious disappearances, leaving behind only a trail of cheaply photocopied Genuine Microsoft certificates...
Brings up the tree mode of Windows Explorer. Even handier. (In truth I too use win+r more often. But I use a cygwin command line and cygstart most of all.)
I'll pay full retail price. Should be worth a lot more than that in small claims court.
(j/k)
People who have cancer serious enough to require this step are going to die, soon and painfully, from their cancer. In that position I know what my attitude would be: "Cure me or kill me. It's a win-win from my point of view." (paraphrasing House, M.D.)
I charge $70/hr, and tell them up front how many hours it will take. If I go over on time, I don't charge them extra. When I'm done, I ask them to make sure that everything works the way they want, and if it doesn't, I'm still there to fix it. If it does, there's no possibility that they'll ask me to help again on the same problem unless they're willing to pay me again.
Sorry, my time ain't free.
She'd have to be sure to keep them exposed to absorb the maximum sunlight.
Where do you get this information? Almost every file swapper who's ever lived is still alive. MP3 trading is practically an immortality drug!
I have to agree with the manufacturer.. this probably isn't a problem. Car theft isn't a matter of following a particular human around until you can steal their car. Car theft is a matter of finding a car of the right type (read: maximum cost-to-stealable ratio) wherever you happen to be looking for cars, and then stealing it. Car thieves pride themselves on working very quickly, and they have to. Waiting for someone to leave their car, then getting close to them (which provides an opportunity to be spotted, and identified on a police report, and maybe you have mugshots on file...) takes much longer and is more dangerous.
All of which is beside the main protection the security code gives: it makes the car a little bit harder to steal than the car next to it. Under those conditions, it's always the next car that will get stolen. Why would a thief do 10 units of work to steal a car when they can get away with doing 9, by stealing a car that doesn't have this system?
When they all have this system, we'll have to re-evaluate that, of course.
There may indeed be contributing biological factors, I certainly have no contrary evidence to disagree with you there. But I think the primary reasons for resistance to change lie elsewhere.
Let me start off by defining conservatism as the resistance to change, for whatever reason, not as political right-wingery. I think the primary impetus for conservatism is something outside of biology, because conservatism exists outside of biology. Observe what happens to large organizations and even smaller organizations as they change.
What happens is they focus more and more on their "core business", whether that core business is making buggy whips or acquiring other companies to profit from them. It becomes harder and harder to change their policies or direction from either the inside or the outside. This is not a function of the pursuit of wealth, either. Non-profit organizations do this too. And government organizations are notorious for it.
I think the primary reason for conservatism is that old people and entrenched organizations alike have found strategies that are successful after making many mistakes. But success is a broad term, and furthermore the degree to which a strategy remains successful changes over time. These entities choose a few strategies that are workable over the short term, and because they had to discard so many unworkable strategies, they come to believe implicitly that their strategies are the only ones that are safe enough to use. The result is that any change is seen as too dangerous to attempt, and any major change of focus or direction is unthinkable.
For this reason and because organizations and people are both subject to this, I have to reject the hypothesis that the cause is primarily biological. Which means that, whatever biological advances we make, I think we'll still see conservatism in our infinite longevity society.
References? Evidence? Even CSI is a better authority in my mind than someone who provides no information to back up his claims. At least I know CSI did some research into making the investigative process look realistic.
These are things LSB cannot replicate, and as a Debian user and administrator of commercial production servers, and soon to be a Debian developer, I have no interest in making Debian LSB-compliant.
n.b. I'm actually running Ubuntu as you'll see, but it's the same package from Debian unstable.
.
.
$ apt-cache show lsb
Package: lsb
Priority: extra
Section: misc
Installed-Size: 188
Maintainer: Chris Lawrence
Architecture: all
Version: 1.3-9ubuntu7
Depends: lsb-base, lsb-release, xlibmesa3-gl | libgl1, xlibs, libz1, exim4 | mai
l-transport-agent, at, bc, binutils, bsdmainutils, cpio, cron, file, libc6-dev |
libc-dev, locales, lpr, m4, make, man-db, mawk | gawk, ncurses-term, passwd, pa
tch, pax, procps, psmisc, rsync, alien (>= 8.36), python (>> 2.2.2), debconf (>=
0.5) | debconf-2.0
Conflicts: python (>> 2.5), libutahglx1
Filename: pool/main/l/lsb/lsb_1.3-9ubuntu7_all.deb
Size: 25710
MD5sum: 8ab139caa1adac40a9a9d1ca1a27b629
Description: Linux Standard Base 1.3 core support package
The Linux Standard Base (http://www.linuxbase.org/) is a standard
core system that third-party applications written for Linux can
depend upon.
This package provides an implementation of version 1.3 of the Linux
Standard Base for Debian on the Intel x86, Intel ia64 (Itanium), IBM
S390, and PowerPC 32-bit architectures with the Linux kernel. Future
revisions of the specification and this package may support the LSB
on additional architectures and kernels.
The intent of this package is to provide a best current practice way
of installing and running LSB packages on Debian GNU/Linux. Its
presence does not imply that we believe that Debian fully complies
with the Linux Standard Base, and should not be construed as a
statement that Debian is LSB-compliant.
Bugs: mailto:ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Origin: Ubuntu
Task: ubuntu-desktop
Address harvesting is illegal in some jurisdictions. If you're running a honeypot in that jurisdiction, and you can prove someone harvested an email address from you using the honeypot, it makes no difference whether they agreed to your license. They broke the law. If you go after them, you can nail them.
Republicans love deregulation, and reducing the power of the FCC certainly amounts to deregulation. This wouldn't be at all a surprise move, it would be very much in line with the usual way the Republican party sucks the cocks of money-donating entities.
Hi, are you dead?
If we get no reply, we'll assume you're dead. If you're dead, we'll give your information to these people who are asking for it. They say they're relatives of yours.
How is the above going to prove that the person is even dead, or that the person is really who the requesters say he is, let alone that the people requesting his emails are really entitled to his information? People sometimes go for a long time without checking their email. People also lie.
Attackers wanting access to your accounts could provide information to Yahoo that indicated your death. They could claim, for example, that your account was opened under a fake name, and here's a death certificate for the real person whose account this is.
This opens up a major avenue of attack on peoples' privacy. I want this family to get the email from their son, especially if he wanted them to be able to read it (his journal), but I can see how this would be a fairly major burden on Yahoo.
It's not so much that they have to check out your claim of death. The problem is they never checked out the deceased's real identity in the first place when they gave out the account! Anyone can claim to be anyone else's next of kin, you don't even have to have a name match. If someone wanted to check out my spam bucket email address, they'd probably have some problems. It's not as if I gave my right name.
Think robbery. Don't have to ditch the car any more. Just peel it. You could even add a few other removal tchotchkes to the car like cell phone antennas, a fake license plate, a stick-on spoiler, etc and pop them all off as soon as you're hidden from the fuzz.
I bet you can't even send files that way.
Any chance this TTC will demolish a few rural republican texas neighborhoods? If so, go for it. I'll chip in a few bucks.
Raise funding for more ambitious projects by blackmailing the world governments. Make them pay you to keep the asteroid from crashing into the earth on purpose.
The judge is obviously waiting for the prosecution to bring up a charge that can result in the death penalty. This is like getting Capone on tax fraud...