This whole thread is arguing two different things. Taking it as read that the fine is still totally unreasonable and unjust in the context of this case, can you not understand that it is possible, in general for many people to eventually pay of a $67k fine, whereas ten times that amount would be impossible regardless of whether the reason for imposing it was just or unjust?
To the vast majority of people, Linux is the OS, Linux Kernel is the Kernel, and most people are happy that there are many flavours to the OS, called distributions. The Stallman/Debian idea that "Debian GNU/Linux" is the OS and Linux is the kernel is a minority view.
GNU/Linux is not its proper name, any more that Windows with Cygwin installed is called GNU/Windows. The OS is Linux, it always has been, the only person who wanted it called GNU/Linux is Stallman. In fact, there's probably more of X.org seen by the average end user than anything in the GNU toolchain, so maybe it should be called XOrg/Linux.
I think they're claiming that the apparent drop in signal strength looks so severe because the signal is very weak in the first place, but not displayed as such. Most cellphone users are used to the idea that if the phone shows one bar, you need to move to somewhere better and that the orientation of the phone might matter. It doesn't fix the bridging issue, but it does explain why it seemed so severe to some people.
You don't need to be an EE or Comp. Sci. expert to understand that digital audio/video cables can't improve the signal quality beyond 0 data loss, you just need to have managed high school level physics. People don't necessarily 'deserve' to be taken for a ride if they can't figure this out, but bear in mind that we're talking about people with more money than sense - it's not like they're being ripped off for food, healthcare or basic transport - we're talking about luxury goods being sold to people with money to burn.
That's a matter of perspective. I've always found it to be an acceptable compromise. When I had a Palm TX, I had a lockup about once a week. I've had an iPhone now for nearly 2 years, I think I've had maybe 3 lockups the whole time, and I use it a lot more. I put a lot of that down to the App Store quality control, and I consider it worth it.
I wasn't pointing it out in "pride". The GP claimed that Apple had "pushed" an install, I was pointing out that this is, in fact, not possible with Mac OS. You can decide whether this is a good or bad thing, but the parent's story is demonstrably false - or at least wildly inaccurate.
Apple Menu -> System Preferences -> Software Updates -> Uncheck "check for updates" box. BTW, Software Updates are _never_ pushed on OSX, there isn't even an auto install option, unlike Windows.
They didn't "push" it in secret, it's a large update with lots of things included. It's a pull that customers choose to install. Usually they document everything in a security update, they neglected to in this one, probably the page will be updated in a couple of days.
I stopped using that when I realised that, for some reason, it breaks Spotify. At least in the UK, and at least with my combination of ISP / Router / Mac. I would recommend Open DNS. Fast, free, and they give you some level of filtering if you like that sort of thing (it's a good way of transparently blocking hardcore porn without annoying keyword matching).
This isn't iPhoto, it's malware disguised as iPhoto; if it were disguised as office2008.dmg would you call it a hole in Microsoft's software? In fact, it's not _any_ kind of security hole. It's practically impossible to prospectively guard against trojans because they're software installed by the user that claims to do one thing but actually does something else. The only real way to do that comprehensively is a closed app-store model, which is the main thing Apple are bashed for on Slashdot.
It's not casual observation, it's scientific methodical observation against clear diagnostic criteria. This is just the same for depression, mania, schizophrenia, autism, etc.. Casual observation might be what prompts a parent or other layperson to seek medical advice to consider the diagnosis, but it is not how the diagnosis is made.
Rubbish. Diagnosis of autism (along with many other developmental disorders) is based on observation of behaviour including language skills and social interaction based on years of studying children with similar disorders. It's not in any sense "casual". Just because there isn't a biochemical test yet doesn't mean there is "no science". An ornithologist will identify some bird species by how they behave - would you call that "no science"?
I would strongly suspect that this research has been grossly misrepresented. There are many disorders of development, socialisation, behaviour etc., and very few are conclusively diagnosed from a urine test. I'll reserve judgement until I can see the paper, but since the aetiology of ASD is unknown I would be totally amazed if a simple urine test could diagnose it. I would expect you're more likely to get a relative risk increase that could eventually be developed into a screening test (i.e. a negative test would fairly conclusively rule out, but a positive test would lead to further tests, not a definitive diagnosis).
Higher level languages aren't just there to save developers time. Using higher level languages usually makes it harder to generate code that will walk on protected memory, cause race conditions etc., and higher level languages are usually more portable and make it easier to write modular re-usable code.
It was a stroke of genius, but also an idea that was ripe for the picking. When I was at school in the early 90s, we had a lab full of networked BBC Micros, plus another 20 or so distributed through the school. We had never heard of the Internet, we knew nothing of ARPAnet or JANet (the UK Joint Academic Network which was connected to the Internet). I wasn't the most proficient hacker in the school, but I was the most 'social'. I wrote a program that would show a list of connected users and allow instant messaging between terminals, it just seemed like an obvious thing to send messages between remote computers. For some reason it never occurred to me that someone might want to leave a message for someone offline for them to collect later.
Re:Idle's the right place for this...
on
Happy Towel Day
·
· Score: 1
We weren't talking about you, we were talking about Richard Dawkins.
Re:Idle's the right place for this...
on
Happy Towel Day
·
· Score: 1
Hoopy.
Re:Idle's the right place for this...
on
Happy Towel Day
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If, as a non-stamp collector, you invested considerable amounts of time in investigating stamp collecting, try to find flaws in the activities of stamp collectors, holding meetings to espouse the value of not collecting stamps, constructing straw-man arguments to illustrate the futility of stamp collecting, trying to assert that the bad behaviour of a given stamp collector ought to cause the whole of philately to be outlawed, wrote several books asserting that the possibility that a letter could be sent without requiring a stamp 'proves' that stamps do not in fact exist, etc., etc., etc., then - yes - I would describe your 'not collecting stamps' as a hobby, if not an obsession.
Slashdot Mirror
This whole thread is arguing two different things. Taking it as read that the fine is still totally unreasonable and unjust in the context of this case, can you not understand that it is possible, in general for many people to eventually pay of a $67k fine, whereas ten times that amount would be impossible regardless of whether the reason for imposing it was just or unjust?
To the vast majority of people, Linux is the OS, Linux Kernel is the Kernel, and most people are happy that there are many flavours to the OS, called distributions. The Stallman/Debian idea that "Debian GNU/Linux" is the OS and Linux is the kernel is a minority view.
GNU/Linux is not its proper name, any more that Windows with Cygwin installed is called GNU/Windows. The OS is Linux, it always has been, the only person who wanted it called GNU/Linux is Stallman. In fact, there's probably more of X.org seen by the average end user than anything in the GNU toolchain, so maybe it should be called XOrg/Linux.
I think they're claiming that the apparent drop in signal strength looks so severe because the signal is very weak in the first place, but not displayed as such. Most cellphone users are used to the idea that if the phone shows one bar, you need to move to somewhere better and that the orientation of the phone might matter. It doesn't fix the bridging issue, but it does explain why it seemed so severe to some people.
It doesn't require complicated addition wiring - each cell will have one +ve and one -ve output in total, which can be wired in series as you see fit.
You don't need to be an EE or Comp. Sci. expert to understand that digital audio/video cables can't improve the signal quality beyond 0 data loss, you just need to have managed high school level physics. People don't necessarily 'deserve' to be taken for a ride if they can't figure this out, but bear in mind that we're talking about people with more money than sense - it's not like they're being ripped off for food, healthcare or basic transport - we're talking about luxury goods being sold to people with money to burn.
That's a matter of perspective. I've always found it to be an acceptable compromise. When I had a Palm TX, I had a lockup about once a week. I've had an iPhone now for nearly 2 years, I think I've had maybe 3 lockups the whole time, and I use it a lot more. I put a lot of that down to the App Store quality control, and I consider it worth it.
Yeah. I'm acting like a huge dick. Thanks for clearing that up.
Can I make a comparison to my TomTom GPS being closed? :P
What application is it that you're desperate to use that has been barred from the app store? I'm just curious.
I wasn't pointing it out in "pride". The GP claimed that Apple had "pushed" an install, I was pointing out that this is, in fact, not possible with Mac OS. You can decide whether this is a good or bad thing, but the parent's story is demonstrably false - or at least wildly inaccurate.
Apple Menu -> System Preferences -> Software Updates -> Uncheck "check for updates" box. BTW, Software Updates are _never_ pushed on OSX, there isn't even an auto install option, unlike Windows.
They didn't "push" it in secret, it's a large update with lots of things included. It's a pull that customers choose to install. Usually they document everything in a security update, they neglected to in this one, probably the page will be updated in a couple of days.
I stopped using that when I realised that, for some reason, it breaks Spotify. At least in the UK, and at least with my combination of ISP / Router / Mac. I would recommend Open DNS. Fast, free, and they give you some level of filtering if you like that sort of thing (it's a good way of transparently blocking hardcore porn without annoying keyword matching).
This isn't iPhoto, it's malware disguised as iPhoto; if it were disguised as office2008.dmg would you call it a hole in Microsoft's software? In fact, it's not _any_ kind of security hole. It's practically impossible to prospectively guard against trojans because they're software installed by the user that claims to do one thing but actually does something else. The only real way to do that comprehensively is a closed app-store model, which is the main thing Apple are bashed for on Slashdot.
Uh... maybe because the rest of the time he wants to use the native OS? Maybe because he wants to use his iPad and that only has one OS?
It's not casual observation, it's scientific methodical observation against clear diagnostic criteria. This is just the same for depression, mania, schizophrenia, autism, etc.. Casual observation might be what prompts a parent or other layperson to seek medical advice to consider the diagnosis, but it is not how the diagnosis is made.
Rubbish. Diagnosis of autism (along with many other developmental disorders) is based on observation of behaviour including language skills and social interaction based on years of studying children with similar disorders. It's not in any sense "casual". Just because there isn't a biochemical test yet doesn't mean there is "no science". An ornithologist will identify some bird species by how they behave - would you call that "no science"?
I would strongly suspect that this research has been grossly misrepresented. There are many disorders of development, socialisation, behaviour etc., and very few are conclusively diagnosed from a urine test. I'll reserve judgement until I can see the paper, but since the aetiology of ASD is unknown I would be totally amazed if a simple urine test could diagnose it. I would expect you're more likely to get a relative risk increase that could eventually be developed into a screening test (i.e. a negative test would fairly conclusively rule out, but a positive test would lead to further tests, not a definitive diagnosis).
Those pictures are creepy. I was expecting / dreading him being partially undressed further down the page.
Higher level languages aren't just there to save developers time. Using higher level languages usually makes it harder to generate code that will walk on protected memory, cause race conditions etc., and higher level languages are usually more portable and make it easier to write modular re-usable code.
It was a stroke of genius, but also an idea that was ripe for the picking. When I was at school in the early 90s, we had a lab full of networked BBC Micros, plus another 20 or so distributed through the school. We had never heard of the Internet, we knew nothing of ARPAnet or JANet (the UK Joint Academic Network which was connected to the Internet). I wasn't the most proficient hacker in the school, but I was the most 'social'. I wrote a program that would show a list of connected users and allow instant messaging between terminals, it just seemed like an obvious thing to send messages between remote computers. For some reason it never occurred to me that someone might want to leave a message for someone offline for them to collect later.
We weren't talking about you, we were talking about Richard Dawkins.
Hoopy.
If, as a non-stamp collector, you invested considerable amounts of time in investigating stamp collecting, try to find flaws in the activities of stamp collectors, holding meetings to espouse the value of not collecting stamps, constructing straw-man arguments to illustrate the futility of stamp collecting, trying to assert that the bad behaviour of a given stamp collector ought to cause the whole of philately to be outlawed, wrote several books asserting that the possibility that a letter could be sent without requiring a stamp 'proves' that stamps do not in fact exist, etc., etc., etc., then - yes - I would describe your 'not collecting stamps' as a hobby, if not an obsession.