If you're a religious fanatic in the Middle East and want to kill Christians you become a terrorist.
Or, you can join ISIS (the army killing and/or enslaving/raping everyone including Christians).
So there's an equal choice to be had, yet some are choosing to capture and harm non-military forces - those people doing so have been wholly Muslim.
Islam is a peaceful religion, that's why followers just went out of their way to do this.
There are about 500,000 Muslims in Australia.
1 of them is committing this crime.
I personally take a XR medication, even though there are cheap generics for the older two-a-day formulation. If my insurance situation changed for the worse, I'd switch in a heartbeat...
The people in your insurance pool should see to it that you are removed from it, one way or another. Seriously. You are a selfish bastard. Fuck you.
Patents have traditionally had an exploitation requirement: you can't just patent something and then sit on it...
You missed the step where they have to disclose, to the public, their invention. Thats why you CAN patent something and then do nothing with it. If you dont want to profit from it before the time is up, then the jokes on you.
This is also why many of the techniques that Intel uses to manufacture chips are not patented. They do not want to disclose, to the public, all of their methods.
Intel now sits on un-patented techniques that it no longer uses, and that my clueless friend is "sitting on it."
That's effectively what they are. They don't do the testing.
They do banning, which is NOT "effectively" what he talked about.
The FDA should not be banning things. Speak from that perspective when you wish to trot out your anti-libertarian bullshit. Whats that? Can't do it without the strawmen? yeah... you can't.
Comedy always dates. Morecambe and Wise was hilarious in it's heyday in the 1970s, and well deserved a majority of the population watching the Christmas specials. But anyone watching now would be mildly amused at best. This isn't because 1970s audiences were wrong, or were just enjoying a few highlights. It was virtually all very funny. It's just that comedy dates.
Same goes for The Young ones. Same for League of Gentlemen and Little Britain, which have already dated. Same goes for Red Dwarf and The Office.
I'm sure the same is true of Monty Python and Spike Milligan, though as I was a kid when they were first broadcast I can't speak from authority there.
At one time, the jokes in Shakespeare would have been genuinely funny.
If they can have several successful theme parks based on Lego, I see no reason why they can't for BBC TV shows.
So long as it's more theme park than museum, it'll work.
Bans on smoking in public places and workplaces typically extend to TV studios.
They don't in England. So long as you can justify it dramatically, and there is no reasonable replacement there is an exception for theatrical film and TV smoking indoors.
So a brief shot at a distance you could reasonably be required to use an ecig as a replacement. But a longer close up shot may require the generation of ash, and the diminishing length of a real cigarette.
In Scotland however, there is no such exception.
(This is AFAIK, based on the rules in the year after the smoking ban came in. It's possible that it's changed, but I doubt it.)
Drink Rocket Fuel Malt Liquor! DAAAAMN!
If he thought the sequel script was bad, I doubt he would waste his time on it, as he doesn't need the fame, and probably doesn't need the cash.
He did "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". I wouldn't trust his motivations on this one.
But my question is whether they will keep Deckard as a Replicant. And whether he will know that he is or not. Or will they retcon something stupid in.
Blade Runner was a great movie. There is no need for a sequel. They could make another movie in that universe without needing to make it a sequel.
When there's a dark layer of soil on top of sand it's usually a macrobiotic crust, that has taken a few hundred years to do its thing - that is what they crushed as they walked. There's not much worse you can do as far as lasting ecological damage except for sawing down trees a few hundred years old...
They did also harm the aesthetics of the lines themselves.
So far timothy, soulskill, and samsenpuss all post this crap from Bennett. Is it official dice policy to promote the shit this guy writes?
Seconded! Is he paying for this placement? Is he someone's friend? WHY is he getting this space on
His posts always follow the same pattern.
1. He becomes aware of
2. His massive intellect solves it.
3. He posts 1,000+ words to
4. His solutions fail to address anything other than the most superficial aspects of whatever it is that he just became aware of.
That's not "News for Nerds". There's no in depth analysis.
So WHY does he keep getting space on
As always, security is not a line-item. You cannot purchase "security".
I prefer to measure "security" as "how many people can successfully attack X".
If fewer people can successfully attack X after a change then that change has made X more secure.
If more people can successfully attack X after a change then that change has made X less secure.
So moving anything to "the cloud" will result in it being less secure. In almost every instance.
I think more and more IT is becoming a manager of services, instead of a manager of servers.
Services run on servers.
Users access services that are running on servers.
When there are companies out there making the basics easy to manage, then you can afford the time to get the Like buttons running.
I keep getting marketing literature from companies promising that. But it never seems that they can deliver on their claims. Instead, it's just another service that needs to be maintained.
Just PATCHING systems includes identifying/testing/deploying:
firmware
drivers
OS
apps
for every server / workstation / switch / router / firewall / wireless connected to your network.
The main problem is that most of the people making "IT decisions" do not understand the full impact of those decisions (or believe that they will not be held responsible).
Moving anything "to the cloud" simply means moving it "to someone else's computer". How do you judge their security?
What happens when one of their other clients is arrested for something illegal and the "cloud" computers get confiscated?
Anyway, from TFA:
If IT wants to stay relevant, weâ(TM)re going to have to find a way to leverage our deep understanding of technology to a new environment, working with other parts of the organization and relying on influence and expertise instead of gatekeeping and rigid rules.
Which will NEVER work. Spend some time reading up on the latest cracks that leaked credit card info. If you have to rely on "influence" you should look for another job. There will always be someone with more "influence" than you.
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
