> Theres no better way to disarm somebody than to laugh at them.
Replace "disarm" with "antagonize." If he gets such a response, do you seriously think he'll shut up? No, he'll write a damned article about it and try to sue someone for encroaching on his self-appointed right to never be made a fool of (despite the fact that he does it quite well by himself).
Does this include AOL content that is AOL-paid-acct-only? I figure it would, but does that now mean that googlers can see AOL data in a search? Or is the search just internal to AOL?
Yes, there is a difference if you are trying to judge a person's moral character. And yes, you are right that it is wrong to assume bad intentions based on the person's choices, and more wrong to assume it based on political affiliation.
Maybe I'm thinking too simplistically or naively, but IMO a person whose actions lead to harm, regardless of the thought processes leading there, should be held accountable for them. Of course, you didn't say otherwise, so I'm not sure I'm rebutting any statement in particular...
> 68% of the populace thinks we should be able to tap terorist cell phones
Well, no shit. The problem is that it isn't used for terrorists, it's used for terror suspects who are presumed guilty without trial or any chance to defend themselves.
The article wasn't too bad until the 2nd-to-last page, where they start out by saying WinXP was a combination of Windows 95's face and NT's stability. They seem to completely forget about Windows 2000, which is when that happened -- not to mention that XP's "face" looks very little like 95/98 (cosmetically), yet exactly like 2000.
Then claiming the Mac & PC were on equal technical footing? Just because they have a few similar software abilities? Hell no, the PCs of the time had FAR more upgradeability, whereas the Mac was pretty tightly closed still. While it has to do with Apple business choices, it's still a technical inequality.
> the creator of the FTP program is not providing the network to share the files
Well technically no, but which came first, FTP or FTPd? Unless it was started as Point to Point, the server had to exist as well. Still, it's not the best analogy.
> Their asses are being put to work in jail. They just don't make any money during that exchange.
Nor do they make enough money for the prison to cover the costs of their own incarceration, though. Of course, if they weren't there, they could get on welfare, effectively "stealing" from everyone instead of one person. *
* no, I am not implying that welfare=theft, nor that the majority of those on welfare are "stealing" or even undeserving of the help.
> > We're getting pretty close to "the mice of NIMH". > Nickel Metal Hyride Mice?
I was wondering about that myself (mice-elf?). I wonder how much energy a NiMH mouse can store, and do you have to fully discharge it on a wheel before reusing it?
You are correct that memory leak does not equal a crash, and that I can only go by personal experience. HGowever, I am still in the same session as my previous post. Looking at my memory usage, Firefox has apparently claimed 77MB of my available RAM, in its roughly 40 opened tabs, which does seem excessive. However, performance has not declined at all. It is just as fast as when I first openned it, and isn't that the true measure?
Fortunately, or unfortunately, I do not know what ixtractor is, nor do I have any intention of going there, but if it has an extraoridinarily high number of images per page, it is still extraordinary.
Yes, memory usage has dropped, but to compare it to "486 levels" is either dishonest or beyond my own usage. While I cannot calim to be among the "extreme" end of usage, I am FAR for "usual" usage.
I cannot say that Opera usn't best used for porn, since that isn't my personal interest, but to say that Firfox is "full of memory leaks" is, in my experience at least, bullshit. I have been using Firfox for MUCH more than "10-15 minutes" without issue. Not theoretical, actual.
I also have limited need for security, although it surprises me that people are stepping back as short as they are. Why the need for SMS at all, if your data needs to be so secure? Surely, the few extra seconds that Email takes isn't THAT big of a deal, especially when you can almost-guarantee the security?
I understand that some people say they need instantaneous communication, but what kind of industry needs something so fast that a couple seconds makes that much difference? Maybe I just don't see the whole picture.
Fair enough, but how can you consider a Neutral Poitn of View "firing back?" If it's neutral, it's an explanation, not a shot. If it said "Wikipedia explains itself," it would be more accurate. Perhaps I am a pedant or stickler for words, but to me "firing back" insinuates action, not explanation. Maybe I'm just asking for people to be as petty as myself;) but I expect actual retaliation when I hear "firing back." Maybe I'm just too used to./ trolls and their extremely vocal nature.
I understood that it was created in repsonse, but it was reactionary, not "firing back." Just like I consider many of the Bush administration's actions (not to bring politics in it, just an example) to be mostly reaction instead of actual forceful action. Firing back, IMO means that you intend to cause harm in the retaliation (or at least to negate the negative effects), such as pointing out that Wikipedia is an open forum, not a dictionary.
Please excuse my ignorance, but I haven't had any problems with firefox opening up to 10 or so tabs with no adverse consequences, that I can tell. Is there a problem I am not noticing? Are there any particular circumstances I have not met, or is this a troll (not to be accusatory)?
Slashdot Mirror
> Theres no better way to disarm somebody than to laugh at them.
Replace "disarm" with "antagonize." If he gets such a response, do you seriously think he'll shut up? No, he'll write a damned article about it and try to sue someone for encroaching on his self-appointed right to never be made a fool of (despite the fact that he does it quite well by himself).
> This sounds like it will encourage trading based on insider information
Of course, once someone sees and divulges the information, it is no longer accurate!
> We have reached a time where adults are people who have known games for their entire lives
Please note the age of most members of Congress. Their average is higher than the average population's age.
Can I buy stock in a dead joke?
Does this include AOL content that is AOL-paid-acct-only? I figure it would, but does that now mean that googlers can see AOL data in a search? Or is the search just internal to AOL?
Yes, there is a difference if you are trying to judge a person's moral character. And yes, you are right that it is wrong to assume bad intentions based on the person's choices, and more wrong to assume it based on political affiliation.
Maybe I'm thinking too simplistically or naively, but IMO a person whose actions lead to harm, regardless of the thought processes leading there, should be held accountable for them. Of course, you didn't say otherwise, so I'm not sure I'm rebutting any statement in particular...
> 68% of the populace thinks we should be able to tap terorist cell phones
Well, no shit. The problem is that it isn't used for terrorists, it's used for terror suspects who are presumed guilty without trial or any chance to defend themselves.
> NWR oil can't be used for gasoline
What about plastics? We sure use a lot of that stuff, and it comes from oil too.
Is an evil action from ignorance somehow better than an evil act from intention?
The article wasn't too bad until the 2nd-to-last page, where they start out by saying WinXP was a combination of Windows 95's face and NT's stability. They seem to completely forget about Windows 2000, which is when that happened -- not to mention that XP's "face" looks very little like 95/98 (cosmetically), yet exactly like 2000.
Then claiming the Mac & PC were on equal technical footing? Just because they have a few similar software abilities? Hell no, the PCs of the time had FAR more upgradeability, whereas the Mac was pretty tightly closed still. While it has to do with Apple business choices, it's still a technical inequality.
reality -> * - the "joke"
The statement that was made wasn't even slightly funny, it was accurate but incomplete.
> the creator of the FTP program is not providing the network to share the files
Well technically no, but which came first, FTP or FTPd? Unless it was started as Point to Point, the server had to exist as well. Still, it's not the best analogy.
> or being assraped every day in the showers
"You mean... you were raped?"
"Well... at first."
> Their asses are being put to work in jail. They just don't make any money during that exchange.
Nor do they make enough money for the prison to cover the costs of their own incarceration, though. Of course, if they weren't there, they could get on welfare, effectively "stealing" from everyone instead of one person. *
* no, I am not implying that welfare=theft, nor that the majority of those on welfare are "stealing" or even undeserving of the help.
So mice are more valuable than humans... You should have said up front "I'm an idiot" and saved us both some time.
> I don't really like experimentation on animals
So would you prefer experiments on humans, or do you just not want any more medical progress at all?
> > We're getting pretty close to "the mice of NIMH".
> Nickel Metal Hyride Mice?
I was wondering about that myself (mice-elf?). I wonder how much energy a NiMH mouse can store, and do you have to fully discharge it on a wheel before reusing it?
> Where do YOU draw the line? Can we engineer monkeys to contain a gene to knife each other and serve themselves with banana sauce?
You won't be so glib when the terrorists begin to employ Bonobo Sauciers!
You are correct that memory leak does not equal a crash, and that I can only go by personal experience. HGowever, I am still in the same session as my previous post. Looking at my memory usage, Firefox has apparently claimed 77MB of my available RAM, in its roughly 40 opened tabs, which does seem excessive. However, performance has not declined at all. It is just as fast as when I first openned it, and isn't that the true measure?
Fortunately, or unfortunately, I do not know what ixtractor is, nor do I have any intention of going there, but if it has an extraoridinarily high number of images per page, it is still extraordinary.
Yes, memory usage has dropped, but to compare it to "486 levels" is either dishonest or beyond my own usage. While I cannot calim to be among the "extreme" end of usage, I am FAR for "usual" usage.
I cannot say that Opera usn't best used for porn, since that isn't my personal interest, but to say that Firfox is "full of memory leaks" is, in my experience at least, bullshit. I have been using Firfox for MUCH more than "10-15 minutes" without issue. Not theoretical, actual.
I apologize for my lack of sense of humour, Wild Turkey has a tendency to do that. :)
Firefox? The particular application I have open at this very moment? Perhaps uninterestingly, I have exactly 17 tabs open right now, with no (noticeable) adverse consequenses. 18, if you don't include opening the parent link, of course. I am a somewhat-regular user of fark.com (not sure if I should admit that) which, by its nature, allows itself to opening MANY pages at once. If you would prefer, I can list every link I have open at this exact moment, for reference: /. reply page) /detail.html?r
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170983&op=Repl y&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=95&mode=nested&pid =14243431 (which is this
http://mail.google.com/mail/
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/state/h c-11154432.apds.m0309.bc-ct--statdec11,0,3518180.s tory?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2005/12/11/nation al/a02121105_02.txt
http://www.pcomelet.com/articles1details.asp?NewsN um=40
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pag ename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid =968163964505&cid=1134344411957&col=968705899037&c all_page=TS_World&call_pageid=968332188854&call_pa gepath=News/World
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/johnleo/20 05/12/12/178651.html
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AtXC1y50oxBO 7AL1gup9Q5.8vLYF?slug=ap-heat-vangundyresigns&prov =ap&type=lgns
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-12-12-brit ish-inferno_x.htm?csp=34
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051212/od_uk_nm/oukoe _uk_india_bangalore;_ylt=AosQuO8FvVJ0Vd3RebwSpmVva A8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051212/ap_on_el_pr/de mocrats_one_community;_ylt=AsioggEugZtPPwnu2ul_1Ii s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
http://www.wfmy.com/watercooler/article.aspx?story id=53576
http://www.wytv.com/news/regional/2075952.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/132 7686.cms
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/technology/5517017
I also have limited need for security, although it surprises me that people are stepping back as short as they are. Why the need for SMS at all, if your data needs to be so secure? Surely, the few extra seconds that Email takes isn't THAT big of a deal, especially when you can almost-guarantee the security?
I understand that some people say they need instantaneous communication, but what kind of industry needs something so fast that a couple seconds makes that much difference? Maybe I just don't see the whole picture.
Fair enough, but how can you consider a Neutral Poitn of View "firing back?" If it's neutral, it's an explanation, not a shot. If it said "Wikipedia explains itself," it would be more accurate. Perhaps I am a pedant or stickler for words, but to me "firing back" insinuates action, not explanation. Maybe I'm just asking for people to be as petty as myself ;) but I expect actual retaliation when I hear "firing back." Maybe I'm just too used to ./ trolls and their extremely vocal nature.
I understood that it was created in repsonse, but it was reactionary, not "firing back." Just like I consider many of the Bush administration's actions (not to bring politics in it, just an example) to be mostly reaction instead of actual forceful action. Firing back, IMO means that you intend to cause harm in the retaliation (or at least to negate the negative effects), such as pointing out that Wikipedia is an open forum, not a dictionary.
Please excuse my ignorance, but I haven't had any problems with firefox opening up to 10 or so tabs with no adverse consequences, that I can tell. Is there a problem I am not noticing? Are there any particular circumstances I have not met, or is this a troll (not to be accusatory)?