Just punch it into a calculator with base conversion. Wikipedia has an article about Hexadecimal.

The crux of the case will lie in proving that there is a causal link between the lack of laws requiring ISPs to block websites, and the damages claimed. The precedent is Francovich v. Italy. However, given that the judge in a ruling against British Telecom forcing them to use Cleanfeed to block access to websites like Newzbin and TPB acknowledge that tools to circumvent the system were available. And, in fact, Newzbin has released a client allowing access to their website despite the Cleanfeed block. The same software allows access to TPB. It relies on both encryption and the TOR network. Newzbin told BBC news that 93.5% of UK users have downloaded their Cleanfeed circumvention software. This flies in the face of the judge's comment that "Even assuming that they all have the ability to acquire [the means to circumvent Cleanfeed], it does not follow that they will all wish to expend the time and effort required."

93.5% of UK Newzbin users may not be "all" people in the UK who want to use file sharing networks, but it certainly means that establishing the causal link between lack of ISP blocking remedies and damages from file sharing will be difficult. People want access to those files, and Cleanfeed has proven largely ineffective at stopping two of the main sites involved in sharing. It should also be noted that these sites are not the actual hosters of the allegedly damaging files; they are merely portals to peer-to-peer networks that have other access methods available (e.g. DHT on BitTorrent). Again, the claim that blocking these websites would prevent financial damage is rather dubious.

3259560367 = 0xc2476b0f = 194.71.107.15

Not really. I remember the black pages, but had no idea why they were black.

protip: If you're going to karma-whore, you might try being less abrasive. This isn't Reddit, and we're glad that it's not. If you don't like it here, then leave. No one will miss you.

I much prefer Pathfinder. 4th ed. removed too many things and made a single-page character sheet extremely difficult. I don't like the attempt to make D & D more "video-gamey". Our D & D group runs a Pathfinder/d20 Modern mix that's quite enjoyable. I have no intention of moving away from 3.5-compatible source material (just like the 1st ed. people have no need of moving away from the one they learned.)

As long as the ignorance of rights goes both ways, I'm happy. It's the perceived imbalance where those with money get no end of laws made for them, while those who don't can become collateral damage, whether they have infringed on somebody's rights or not.

This was how I figured transaction processing would be handled. It sucks that you have to pay high-priced consultants to get that answer; plenty of people would give it to you for free.

I didn't consider this aspect. Thinking about it makes me realize just how stupid a leap second is. A lot of transaction processing requires >99.999% uptime, and even that two minutes (assuming everything goes perfectly smoothly) is expensive. Couldn't they be accumulated and have an extra leap year once every 86400 years?

Ugh. You have reminded me why I left Perl behind for a language that has strict typing.

sec += (mon == 5 && mday == 30 ? 1 : 0);

Don't spend it all in one place. The dedicated rig does other useful stuff that I wouldn't want bogging down my desktop.

Yep. This is, after all, a "News for Nerds" site. You're not the only genius here. And the rest of us don't tend to use terms like "superior technical firepower" and go off on rants about things that represent a minute portion of IT.

I'm not trying to disprove your technical points; I'm saying that people aren't listening to you because of the way you present your argument. I'm happy with what I've got, you're happy with what you've got.

This borders on delusional. I don't know how your mind got from a sincere comment on how I felt your writing represented yourself to making assumptions about the purpose of my post. The purpose of my post was to say that the content of your original post had technical merit. It still does. I just choose not to go down that road. If that requires you to tear apart my post looking for flaws not related to the original discussion, well, it's no wonder no one bothers to have a discussion with you based on technical merits.

If you're willing to do this much work to avoid malware, well, go for it. Your performance gains, when compared to network latency, are probably so slight as to be imperceptible. Personally, I use AdBlock Plus and a local DNS server, and have never had issues with either malware, unwanted ads, or network performance. To each his own. If you don't want to get modded Troll, you might want to tone down on the caps and excessive bolding. You may have a legitimate technical point to make, but it gets lost in a tone that reminds me of a child throwing a tantrum.

You, my friend, take crazy to a whole new level. Why be brief when you can be loquacious?

You claim to know an awful lot about me. It seems your megalomania gives you deep insight into the thoughts of others. Unfortunately, you are as wrong as you are insane.

Wow, for the guy who thinks that in response to being offended, that one should suck it up and move on, you are not very good at it.

I have to agree with the AC on this one: a pompous, self-righteous fuckwit. Try taking your own advice and grow a pair.

Yeah, the 10th grade test is a little harder than the linked test. Still, the fact that he couldn't answer a single question right is sad. Math curriculums haven't changed that much since he went to high school.

In general, you are a journalist if you have a degree from an accredited institution. Journalistic professionalism is not as formal as, say, engineering. And, we've been through this particular argument before, in the 60s, when people who had degrees wanted to dissociate themselves from so-called "hacks". Now that anyone can self-publish, it appears we are going to have this argument again. It looks like journalistic professionalism is likely to become more formal.