Yes, I'm not so sure about this aspect of it either. I didn't RTFA, but the oral effects of capsaicin do not seem to last much longer than maybe 30 minutes tops.
I guess it won't be long 'til I start getting emails about the magical wonders of exotic capsaicin from the habanero fields of Central America and how I can satisfy my lover with an erection lasting for 6 hours at a time...
Where does spirituality come into play here? Does your spiritually guided, moral compass tell you that killing someone is wrong without question - or - is killing someone who will be responsible for the deaths of millions morally acceptable? Does it tell you that you should love your parents unconditionally - or - should you stop loving them if they are responsible for heinous abuse, neglect or even murder??? Where do you draw the line? Do these things suddenly become moral or immoral based on some sort of invisible, cosmological line drawn between wrong and right?
Exactly where in your spiritual text book does it explain you to you, word for word, what is absolutely morally right or unquestionably morally wrong? Is it 'instilled' inside of you? Does that mean you always make the right, moral decisions? If so, it must be nice to be you...
And I guess can no other living being make a moral decision without spirituality? When dolphins care for their injured or sick, is this not a moral decision? When animals such as dogs and walruses 'adopt' animals of other species and take care of them even though there's nothing to gain, is that not a moral decision?
It's hard to believe you summarized the entire multi-verse up in two categories - "immoral" and "spiritual". If spirituality is solely responsible morality, then nothing could have been immoral without it, no? You can't have good without evil and you can't have immorality without morality. It makes me sad that people have such a narrow vision.:(
If there's a universal right and wrong, then human beings don't know what the Hell they are doing.
There seems to be discussion of cross pollination and the legal responsibilities of the subjected farmer...
Since it is unreasonable to expect farmers to protect themselves against cross pollination, it far more reasonable that Monsanto Company (or whoever it has been patented under) engineer it to not cross pollinate somehow. Just because your neighbor's unprotected WiFi signal reaches your home, doesn't make you legally responsible for putting up RF-blocking walls or you have to go to jail... If that were the case, watching broadcast television or listening to the radio that offers copyrighted IP could be a possible felony.
I'm all for patents etc.. But if it is impossible to enforce your patent, it shouldn't even allowed. That's not too unlike having a 'private' radio broadcast on a public frequency and suing everyone who tunes in to it. It should be YOUR responsibility to encode the transmissions or operate on some private channel that is not meant for public consumption.
I call B.S.
"Vista is crap" and "Vista sucks".. yeah yeah... but there's something else wrong here. I read mention of a possible virus scanner above, which may be the case. But I KNOW this doesn't affect a plain ol' install of Vista.
I copy _tremendous_ amounts of data on a regular basis. I copy (Just using explorer, file by file) entire drives from different systems every few days onto my NAS box through my Windows Vista 'Business' PC. I've NEVER had an issue running out of memory (2GB RAM).
In fact, just recently, I copied 29,912 files (70GB) from my girlfriend's XP computer using Windows Explorer in Vista. It copied just fine to my PC. Then I fired up her new Vista Home Premium laptop and copied those files over the network using her Windows Explorer.
Everyone wants to rag on Vista - and yeah, it might be 'too little, too late' - but it works and plays well. It looks elegant and polished and it works almost no differently. Sure, there are applications that don't work well or at all in Vista, but who the hell expects _every_ software title to work with the successor to a SIX YEAR OLD OS? Give us (especially me) a break!;)
Zero hang ups. Zero issues. I rest my case.
Are people expected to keep a second car around if their main one fails? Are people expected to perform regular scheduled maintenance on their cars themselves? No, because it is too complex and troublesome for the average users.
This post was so clear, simple to understand and very easy to agree with... He used a car analogy! +mod points, please!
[quote]Use a strong passphrase, and there is probably no way anybody will break the encryption in your lifetime, or even the planet's lifetime.[/quote]
640k encryption ought to be enough for anybody
Despite not this not being mentioned in the Wikipedia article, I would also like to add that PZEV vehicles typically have two or more fuel sources. You might think of it as one fuel source, which may have emissions, and a secondary fuel source that is free of emissions; thus, the term, 'partially zero emissions vehicle'. That might help you make sense of it, but this may not always be true... But there does seem to be a strong coorelation.
Alternatively, a vehicle run from a completely clean burning fuel would be ZEV (Zero emissions vehicle) and your average gasoline powered car falls in the LEV (low), ULEV (ultra low), SULEV (super ultra low) categories.
Commonly known as 'stop and identify' statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.
"Currently the following states have stop and identify laws: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, KS, LA, MO, MT, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, ND, RI, UT, VT, WI""
I've been pulled over before (in KY, not driving) and the officer told me it was illegal for anyone 18 and over not to have an ID. He may or may have not been correct, but that's why I sought this information awhile back. Apparently, it has still not changed. I'm surprised no one has heard of this before?
I appreciate those of you who asked for more information. I'm glad to have found this link which clears up which states this applies to. Worthy of noting, OH is not one of them, so nothing to see here folks... keep moving along.;)
It is also worth noting that 'criminal suspects' in the context it is used here is a pretty broad blanket term. Virtually anyone who's been pulled over or stopped by police for most reasons could be classified as such.
IANAL, but unless there's some Ohio state law that says you don't have to, it really is illegal to not show your license upon request to a police officer.
Interestingly enough, a peace officer also has the obligation to show you an official ID upon your request as well.
And yes, even though you don't drive, you MUST have a state ID with you at all times. It's illegal to do otherwise and if an officer decides to detain you because you can't show a proper ID. Again, this may vary based on state laws, but I can tell you this is the way it is in the past two states I've lived in.
Flash drives simply don't write the same first bits over and over again. Their firmware is programmed to 'intelligently' spread written data across the entire storage area as fairly as possible.
Between this, massive storage capacity (think: 'dilution') and what will surely be engineering improvements, flash drives should prove to be very reliable.
I should have known better than to reply with a political to a parent thread contain 'repeal', 'law', 'lobbying' and 'government'. Completely my fault for being off-topic...
"I've been lobbying my government to get the law of gravity repealed."
It makes sense ODF would have a broad presence online to the technologically inclined, web savvy population. But how many documents done in the office, at school, in the lab, at home etc... have NOT been uploaded to the web?
Online presence of document formats probably accounts for only a small fraction the total word processing done out there in the "real world" and therefore only indicative of web presence itself.
I don't know if it was the point of this article, but online presence does not realistically display growth trends or market share. Sadly, I'm sure MS Office is vastly preferred to OO, SO etc by your average user and companies... and it [unfortunately] will stay that way for a long time.
It does sound useless, but if it is compatible with existing stereo equipment / computer software, then this is a step in the right direction for the benefit of consumers.
Moving away from [useless] proprietary DRM schemes will be good for Linux, because right now, DRM represents a substantial threat against the acceptance of FOSS.
On the other hand, watermarking does very little to curb Joe Schmoe from copying his friend's media, so I don't see why the industry would embrace this. DRM, while proven very breakable, does - with some reasonable effectiveness - prevent 'casual' copying between Joe and Jane Schmoe.
As a voter I have several rights that a machine can never provide. I'm guaranteed by law that my vote is secret.
Actually, you aren't even guaranteed the right to vote, let alone your vote be kept secret.
Believe it or not, the U.S. constitution allows government to deny your right to vote, as long as it is not based on your race or slave status.
There have been numerous amendments since (such as women's right to vote), but you're still not guaranteed an irrefutable right to. For example, Texas law denies the right to vote to the 'mentally disabled' and incarcerated criminals. It would be very easy for public officials to repress our ability to vote, if they collectively chose to debilitate the U.S. public. Just a thought.
Showing copyrighted material for profiteering is obviously wrong. The REAL question is, should "GooTube" (Google & YouTube) be held responsible for the discovery and/or removal of infringing content they host. Also, for this content that isn't discovered or removed, is it reasonable to force GooTube to dicover & remove 100% of those? And, if GooTube makes the offer as it has been to remove all infringing content, does that cover their ass?
Here are some different approaches I have to this issue, although they still don't answer the basic question or whether or not GooTube or Viacom and company should be responsible for notifying GooTube about infringed material. Just brainstorming...
Preliminary assumption: Either GooTube or copyright holders will be responsible for identifying their copyrighted materials. There's really no other way around it, because copyrighted materials will need to be identified, unless the court somehow decides that GooTube is not infringing upon copyrights, which I seriously doubt.
Solution #1: Revenue sharing
GooTube shares all or a portion of ad revenue generated on the page which holds the copyrighted material to the company who holds the copyright. This could allow the content to remain up (at the copyrighter's discretion?) and possibly be beneficial for all companies invovled.
Solution #2: Revenue removal
GooTube removes all advertisements on pages that contain copyrighted material, so they are no longer profiteering. This could pave the way to hosting copyrighted material by removing one of the most 'illegal' aspects of what YouTube is doing, and also perhaps at the discretion of the copyright holder.
Solution #3: Monitoring & removal GooTube finds someone who knows what every single thing that has ever been copyrighted looks, sounds, feels and smells like... And every file that is uploaded to GooTube passes through this one person. This person will be responsible for filtering all infringing material and if he or she lets something slip, well... This person won't, right? Perfectly reasonable.
It seems GooTube's crutch is the copyright holder is responsible for notification and/or removal - not GooTube. However, we all know companies like Viacom would rather not deal with it so they are hoping this won't hold ground in court, I'm sure.
I personally believe that it is ridiculous to hold GooTube responsible for absolutely every video that passes through, especially when they do so much filtering/removal already, but it IS wrong to profit on copyrighted works that you don't hold the rights to.
It is also my belief that it is unreasonable to place the burden upon copyright holders to monitor and notify GooTube for every single infringing video they may have.
But lastly, I believe very strongly that YouTube is a positive force in this world. You can LEARN so much, ENTERTAIN yourself silly or SHARE your yourself however you'd like. And we've all seen the headlines with YouTube busting criminals, crooked police offers etc.. I think the worst alternative is shutting YouTube down. Not that we won't survive without YouTube, from guitar lessons to how to tie your own tie, I think it does far greater good than harm, whether or not it may unlawful.
There is certainly music today that will stand the test of a couple/few decades, but whatever that music is, people in their 40s today almost certainly believe it to be crap if kids are listening to it. It's not a bad or good thing, it's just the way it is.
While predictable cycles will always exist with music just as with fashion etc... the industry has changed substantially from a couple of generations ago.
Let us not forget that even though 'crap' applies to every generation of music, the most recent generations have been subjected to far greater mass marketing, production and exploitation. This certainly translates into the quality of the music, I'm sure.
Being a super star musical act no longer requires any sort of talent and being found can easily just be luck of the draw, more so than any other generation. This increased musical exploitation undoubtedly results in a greater percentage of... junk.
I agree with your sentiment though - Every generation thinks their music is the greatest and the one before it thinks it is garbage - whether it really is or not.
Whenever Linus gives his two cents about these kinds of things, his analysis always seems somewhat hollow and short-sighted. He often times sounds like he's just flapping his gums about something he doesn't understand, even though he may very well understand whatever it is in its entirety.
Linus has played a recognizable role in global technology and he's a person of importance, but I think he should focus less on press and more on his next great projects. Much like said above, he's not an analyst, he's a programmer.
Working with Google-apps only aside, what is it worth to YOU to have your data stored in a remote facility with multiple backups?
To me, it isn't worth that much; however, for some of you, this may be well worth it. Data loss isn't just caused by viruses, stupid users and wheezing drives - it is also caused by floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, fires etc...
And despite the "only for Google apps" uses, I think the handful of companies and schools that are probably utilizing Google apps will appreciate the extra storage space.
At least with the old static model the indie artist could still make a buck off a few sales instead of having to have half the iPod owning population buy their song to finally make the rent.
No, there are two reasons why it won't work like this.
First, if 'half the iPod owning population' buys an indie band's song, the price would go up dramatically... I'm sure at this point this popular song would indeed be $0.98.
Secondly, indie artists are going to make a much better percentage of profits than pop-culture icons. We've all heard about artists getting screwed and record companies getting the VAST majority of profits for CD sales... I don't know what profits yielded from digital sales are like, but something tells me it isn't much different. The label's 95% cut is something your local rock band doesn't really have to worry about.
I personally believe this is a great idea. I'm interested to see how it pans out.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm not so sure about this aspect of it either. I didn't RTFA, but the oral effects of capsaicin do not seem to last much longer than maybe 30 minutes tops.
/sigh
I guess it won't be long 'til I start getting emails about the magical wonders of exotic capsaicin from the habanero fields of Central America and how I can satisfy my lover with an erection lasting for 6 hours at a time...
Do YOU have no sense of right or wrong?
:(
Where does spirituality come into play here? Does your spiritually guided, moral compass tell you that killing someone is wrong without question - or - is killing someone who will be responsible for the deaths of millions morally acceptable? Does it tell you that you should love your parents unconditionally - or - should you stop loving them if they are responsible for heinous abuse, neglect or even murder??? Where do you draw the line? Do these things suddenly become moral or immoral based on some sort of invisible, cosmological line drawn between wrong and right?
Exactly
where in your spiritual text book does it explain you to you, word for word, what is absolutely morally right or unquestionably morally wrong? Is it 'instilled' inside of you? Does that mean you always make the right, moral decisions? If so, it must be nice to be you...
And I guess can no other living being make a moral decision without spirituality? When dolphins care for their injured or sick, is this not a moral decision? When animals such as dogs and walruses 'adopt' animals of other species and take care of them even though there's nothing to gain, is that not a moral decision?
It's hard to believe you summarized the entire multi-verse up in two categories - "immoral" and "spiritual". If spirituality is solely responsible morality, then nothing could have been immoral without it, no? You can't have good without evil and you can't have immorality without morality. It makes me sad that people have such a narrow vision.
If there's a universal right and wrong, then human beings don't know what the Hell they are doing.
There seems to be discussion of cross pollination and the legal responsibilities of the subjected farmer...
Since it is unreasonable to expect farmers to protect themselves against cross pollination, it far more reasonable that Monsanto Company (or whoever it has been patented under) engineer it to not cross pollinate somehow. Just because your neighbor's unprotected WiFi signal reaches your home, doesn't make you legally responsible for putting up RF-blocking walls or you have to go to jail... If that were the case, watching broadcast television or listening to the radio that offers copyrighted IP could be a possible felony.
I'm all for patents etc.. But if it is impossible to enforce your patent, it shouldn't even allowed. That's not too unlike having a 'private' radio broadcast on a public frequency and suing everyone who tunes in to it. It should be YOUR responsibility to encode the transmissions or operate on some private channel that is not meant for public consumption.
I call B.S. "Vista is crap" and "Vista sucks".. yeah yeah... but there's something else wrong here. I read mention of a possible virus scanner above, which may be the case. But I KNOW this doesn't affect a plain ol' install of Vista. I copy _tremendous_ amounts of data on a regular basis. I copy (Just using explorer, file by file) entire drives from different systems every few days onto my NAS box through my Windows Vista 'Business' PC. I've NEVER had an issue running out of memory (2GB RAM). In fact, just recently, I copied 29,912 files (70GB) from my girlfriend's XP computer using Windows Explorer in Vista. It copied just fine to my PC. Then I fired up her new Vista Home Premium laptop and copied those files over the network using her Windows Explorer. Everyone wants to rag on Vista - and yeah, it might be 'too little, too late' - but it works and plays well. It looks elegant and polished and it works almost no differently. Sure, there are applications that don't work well or at all in Vista, but who the hell expects _every_ software title to work with the successor to a SIX YEAR OLD OS? Give us (especially me) a break! ;)
Zero hang ups. Zero issues. I rest my case.
[quote]Use a strong passphrase, and there is probably no way anybody will break the encryption in your lifetime, or even the planet's lifetime.[/quote] 640k encryption ought to be enough for anybody
http://mybroadband.co.za/blogs/2007/06/11/google-favours-kenya-over-sa/ With a Google data center in Kenya and its vested interest in expanding the world's infrastructure, we may see the day when a Google laid line gets dropped right off the African coast...
Capitalism isn't negative one woman giving disadvantage of the same woman
Does that sound about right? Then again, I read slashdot, so I don't know much about women anyway...
Alternatively, a vehicle run from a completely clean burning fuel would be ZEV (Zero emissions vehicle) and your average gasoline powered car falls in the LEV (low), ULEV (ultra low), SULEV (super ultra low) categories.
I've been pulled over before (in KY, not driving) and the officer told me it was illegal for anyone 18 and over not to have an ID. He may or may have not been correct, but that's why I sought this information awhile back. Apparently, it has still not changed. I'm surprised no one has heard of this before?
I appreciate those of you who asked for more information. I'm glad to have found this link which clears up which states this applies to. Worthy of noting, OH is not one of them, so nothing to see here folks... keep moving along.
It is also worth noting that 'criminal suspects' in the context it is used here is a pretty broad blanket term. Virtually anyone who's been pulled over or stopped by police for most reasons could be classified as such.
IANAL, but unless there's some Ohio state law that says you don't have to, it really is illegal to not show your license upon request to a police officer.
Interestingly enough, a peace officer also has the obligation to show you an official ID upon your request as well.
And yes, even though you don't drive, you MUST have a state ID with you at all times. It's illegal to do otherwise and if an officer decides to detain you because you can't show a proper ID. Again, this may vary based on state laws, but I can tell you this is the way it is in the past two states I've lived in.
Flash drives simply don't write the same first bits over and over again. Their firmware is programmed to 'intelligently' spread written data across the entire storage area as fairly as possible.
Between this, massive storage capacity (think: 'dilution') and what will surely be engineering improvements, flash drives should prove to be very reliable.
I for one, welcome out solid state overlords.
It makes sense ODF would have a broad presence online to the technologically inclined, web savvy population. But how many documents done in the office, at school, in the lab, at home etc... have NOT been uploaded to the web?
Online presence of document formats probably accounts for only a small fraction the total word processing done out there in the "real world" and therefore only indicative of web presence itself.
I don't know if it was the point of this article, but online presence does not realistically display growth trends or market share. Sadly, I'm sure MS Office is vastly preferred to OO, SO etc by your average user and companies... and it [unfortunately] will stay that way for a long time.
It does sound useless, but if it is compatible with existing stereo equipment / computer software, then this is a step in the right direction for the benefit of consumers.
Moving away from [useless] proprietary DRM schemes will be good for Linux, because right now, DRM represents a substantial threat against the acceptance of FOSS.
On the other hand, watermarking does very little to curb Joe Schmoe from copying his friend's media, so I don't see why the industry would embrace this. DRM, while proven very breakable, does - with some reasonable effectiveness - prevent 'casual' copying between Joe and Jane Schmoe.
This isn't taking in consideration state laws, in which your state may may specifically define what you mentioned.
Actually, you aren't even guaranteed the right to vote , let alone your vote be kept secret
Believe it or not, the U.S. constitution allows government to deny your right to vote, as long as it is not based on your race or slave status.
There have been numerous amendments since (such as women's right to vote), but you're still not guaranteed an irrefutable right to. For example, Texas law denies the right to vote to the 'mentally disabled' and incarcerated criminals. It would be very easy for public officials to repress our ability to vote, if they collectively chose to debilitate the U.S. public. Just a thought.
And that, my friends, is probably the best 'customer support' of all.
Here are some different approaches I have to this issue, although they still don't answer the basic question or whether or not GooTube or Viacom and company should be responsible for notifying GooTube about infringed material. Just brainstorming...
Either GooTube or copyright holders will be responsible for identifying their copyrighted materials. There's really no other way around it, because copyrighted materials will need to be identified, unless the court somehow decides that GooTube is not infringing upon copyrights, which I seriously doubt.
GooTube shares all or a portion of ad revenue generated on the page which holds the copyrighted material to the company who holds the copyright. This could allow the content to remain up (at the copyrighter's discretion?) and possibly be beneficial for all companies invovled.
GooTube removes all advertisements on pages that contain copyrighted material, so they are no longer profiteering. This could pave the way to hosting copyrighted material by removing one of the most 'illegal' aspects of what YouTube is doing, and also perhaps at the discretion of the copyright holder.
GooTube finds someone who knows what every single thing that has ever been copyrighted looks, sounds, feels and smells like... And every file that is uploaded to GooTube passes through this one person. This person will be responsible for filtering all infringing material and if he or she lets something slip, well... This person won't, right? Perfectly reasonable.
It seems GooTube's crutch is the copyright holder is responsible for notification and/or removal - not GooTube. However, we all know companies like Viacom would rather not deal with it so they are hoping this won't hold ground in court, I'm sure.
I personally believe that it is ridiculous to hold GooTube responsible for absolutely every video that passes through, especially when they do so much filtering/removal already, but it IS wrong to profit on copyrighted works that you don't hold the rights to.
It is also my belief that it is unreasonable to place the burden upon copyright holders to monitor and notify GooTube for every single infringing video they may have.
But lastly, I believe very strongly that YouTube is a positive force in this world. You can LEARN so much, ENTERTAIN yourself silly or SHARE your yourself however you'd like. And we've all seen the headlines with YouTube busting criminals, crooked police offers etc.. I think the worst alternative is shutting YouTube down. Not that we won't survive without YouTube, from guitar lessons to how to tie your own tie, I think it does far greater good than harm, whether or not it may unlawful.
Let us not forget that even though 'crap' applies to every generation of music, the most recent generations have been subjected to far greater mass marketing, production and exploitation. This certainly translates into the quality of the music, I'm sure.
Being a super star musical act no longer requires any sort of talent and being found can easily just be luck of the draw, more so than any other generation. This increased musical exploitation undoubtedly results in a greater percentage of... junk.
I agree with your sentiment though - Every generation thinks their music is the greatest and the one before it thinks it is garbage - whether it really is or not.
Whenever Linus gives his two cents about these kinds of things, his analysis always seems somewhat hollow and short-sighted. He often times sounds like he's just flapping his gums about something he doesn't understand, even though he may very well understand whatever it is in its entirety.
Linus has played a recognizable role in global technology and he's a person of importance, but I think he should focus less on press and more on his next great projects. Much like said above, he's not an analyst, he's a programmer.
Working with Google-apps only aside, what is it worth to YOU to have your data stored in a remote facility with multiple backups?
To me, it isn't worth that much; however, for some of you, this may be well worth it. Data loss isn't just caused by viruses, stupid users and wheezing drives - it is also caused by floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, fires etc...
And despite the "only for Google apps" uses, I think the handful of companies and schools that are probably utilizing Google apps will appreciate the extra storage space.
No, there are two reasons why it won't work like this.
First, if 'half the iPod owning population' buys an indie band's song, the price would go up dramatically... I'm sure at this point this popular song would indeed be $0.98.
Secondly, indie artists are going to make a much better percentage of profits than pop-culture icons. We've all heard about artists getting screwed and record companies getting the VAST majority of profits for CD sales... I don't know what profits yielded from digital sales are like, but something tells me it isn't much different. The label's 95% cut is something your local rock band doesn't really have to worry about.
I personally believe this is a great idea. I'm interested to see how it pans out.