If it's meant to contain a human, I'd have used something three-dimensional myself.
188 posts • joined 13 May 2008
I actually liked using their car navigation kits; I would have bought one by now, if it was possible to load new maps onto the thing without having to run Windows or OSX.
Looks like the company might be circling the porcelain at the moment, so I doubt it's worth choosing one of theirs no matter what they do...
Maybe it's because any competent terrorist now realises that the only practical way to conceal a bomb is not under clothing, but under skin (and preferably some fat/muscle layers too).
Sort of like that fat bloke the Joker got to in the last Batman movie.
All you need is a friendly surgeon.
Should be interesting to see how they respond.
X-rays, ultrasound? - too slow and/or dangerous.
Stitches == no fly? - horrifically discriminatory.
No fatties on the aircraft? - this would actually have a pleasant unintended consequence, but probably wouldn't stop a smaller bomb that could still do some damage.
One of the points is to have a currency which does not permit inflation.
There are only a finite number of bitcoins which can be created, ever.
(Assuming it all works as planned of course.)
This would have the effect of rewarding savers and punishing borrowers; it's a matter of opinion whether this would be a good thing or not, I would say it is.
OK, deleting might be an overreaction (I suspect this might not even be possible for some of the default Windows fonts); but, if you care about having unambiguous information in your browser's address bar (or anywhere else), then make sure to use a suitable font.
Trebuchet seems to be an acceptable compromise, it's not too serif-y, but at least the l isn't just a vertical line.
I love this (no sarcasm whatsoever), just for the comedy that may ensue.
For example, why register a .xxx domain when sooner or later someone will be offering .fuck ones?
Or, imagine the Corn Farmers Association of <Wherever> decide to register .corn (squint at it, and imagine what happens when you start to need glasses).
I'm thinking about buying some, just an experiment - a non-inflatable currency sounds like a really nice thing to have, and if it gains traction *might* prevent the central banks and governments fucking with our money.
(Economy in a slump? - Print more money. - Didn't work? - Do it again lol!)
As long as no-one holds more than they can shrug off the loss of (unlike Falkvinge...) there should be no catastrophe.
Spending them seems to be a bit of a convoluted process e.g. on spendbitcoins.com (not tried it, so caveat emptor) you first create a shopping cart with an affiliate, buy a gift card from them, and spend that.
Looks like "loopholes" like this will be the main route for bitcoins into the real economy until/unless they get too big for the main retailers to shun.
Like henchan, I'm wondering what the Reg will call them - containing, or ending in, "tard" is probably required, but "bitcointard" doesn't really trip off the tongue that well. Oh well, I guess we'll find out soon.
I suppose there are multiple reasons for whatever action is carried out in response to a crime, ideally it should satisfy all of the following:
1. personal deterrence (i.e. discouraging the perpetrator committing the crime again)
2. preventing recidivism (making it *impossible* to commit the crime again, distinct from point 1)
3. deterrence by example (i.e. discouraging everyone who finds out about it from committing the same crime)
4. restitution/compensation (all damage done in committing the crime is repaired, all losses are returned, where not possible, alternatives such as financial compensation would be indicated)
(probably more, but that'll do for now)
probably be OK for 1
2, temporarily (or not, if there are computers for prisoners to use in prisons)
3 - yes, probably
4 - definitely not - it would be the opposite, as it puts everyone's taxes up slightly
It would be good if judges had to show that any sentence satisfied all these criteria, although that's likely impossible.
"What she is inferring is that services like Skype must be carried, gratis, by the ISP and said ISP must continue to support more and more bandwidth hungry sites and services, for next to diddly squat in returns."
Trying to fully express what I think of that post would probably result in an incoherent rant leading to justified moderation.
I do not expect my ISP to "carry Skype gratis".
I do not expect them to "support more and more bandwidth hungry sites and services".
I do not expect them to do all this "for next to diddly squat in returns".
I expect them to allow me to use the Skype program (and others) to send and receive up to 50GB of data packets in exchange for giving them £19.99 plus VAT per month.
If an inferior ISP lets its marketroids write the publicised terms and conditions (which can only be profitable with underhand tactics like throttling certain types of packet and imposing secret caps on the amount of data transferred), then they deserve whatever Neelie can throw at them.
Hopefully it will drive customers to those businesses who are actually honest about what they can deliver.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019