What I've yet to hear is a convincing argument for taking the descriptions of creation as being literal rather than metaphors for how the world came to be. Personally I don't see evolution as at all incompatible with personal faith, but evidently others do or there wouldn't be any calls to present the biblical version of events as comparable to the prevailing scientific theory. Both are subject to human interpretation/translation so to accept either as an absolute truth seems unreasonable.
And having a large jacket makes it easier to shoplift, so what? There are plenty of legitimate p2p applications that have nothing to do with copyright violation.
The cynic in me suspects that a far better reason for ISPs to throttle p2p traffic is that it changes the general pattern of data flow from mostly downloading to fairly balanced upload and download, which makes the limited upload bandwidth on consumer connections far more noticeable. Blocking p2p in the name of rights protection is a convenient way to delay having to provide faster upload speeds to most users.
So what exactly is this other purpose? If they're not looking for evidence of illegal activities I see no reason to search anybody's laptop.
This isn't a security check to see whether it is a functional laptop instead of a cunningly disguised weapon - you can gather that information from being shown the login prompt, and the X-ray / chemical scanners are a far better way to determine this.
If mine was hooked up to the net the last thing I would do is post a link to it on slashdot - that seems like asking for trouble (or at least attempts to fiddle with your thermostat).
OTOH a slashdotted webserver should provide enough heat to keep you toasty warm:o)
Call me crazy but that sounds like more work on both ends than simply allocating your devices public IPv6 addresses and a few firewall rules.
Yes it can be done with IPv4/NAT and kudos for doing so, but I'd rather use a system where ingenious workarounds are not required for basic scenarios such as runnning more than one web interface.
I see nothing hypocritical or crazy about wishing to hold your own government to basic ethical standards. If anything it shows a love of your country to care that the constitutional right to a fair trial is upheld.
The hypocrisy lies in building prisons and interrogation centres in foreign countries to avoid those pesky American laws that would otherwise prevent the activities that go on in them. You seem to be under the mistaken apprehension that allowing the indefinite detainment and torture of suspects for information (suspects, not even convicted of any crime) makes the country a safer place. Maybe right now you don't fit the right profiles to be whisked off to Guantanamo but that can change much more easily than you'd like to believe. It makes no difference whether the country falls to its enemies or voluntarily gives up its rights; the end result is still the same - tyranny and lack of freedom.
Doubtless there are many brave and honorable people working in the armed forces and intelligence agencies to safeguard our existence and they deserve our gratitude but it is an impossible task to keep the country 100% safe from threats without depriving people of their liberty (and even then it is unlikely to be fully effective). To remain free we must accept a certain amount of risk - I would gladly choose a small increase in the probability of dying in a terrorist attack in return for knowing that my own government cannot hold people without trial or torture them. It strikes me that to do otherwise is the cowardly option.
Pointing out that there are worse violators of human rights in the world is irrelevent - it does not make American abuses any less egregious in the same way that the existence of serial killers does not justify committing murder.
The previous statement is based entirely on the twenty minutes of Animal Planet I caught earlier this week."
That makes it considerably better researched than most comments here;o)
Without wishing to sound like a Pecksniffian hypocrite, your attempts to use all of the words in the list are at best quixotic.
More importantly, who on earth voted to come up with this list. I fail to believe half the words in there could get more than one nomination without some serious ballot stuffing.
Indeed. There's something wonderful about the atmosphere at the late night shows in the first few days for films that have rabidly enthusiastic fans. When even the rating certificate gets cheers as the film starts it adds a real sense of occasion.
I take my hat off to the unknown wag watching one of the first Episode I screenings at the Camden Odeon who, on seeing the "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...", piped up with "Aww shit, I've seen this one already!"
Exactly. Assuming that the read/write/idle power levels of these cells are comparable to the SRAM/eDRAM they replace then the technology will be a great help in low power IC design.
Currently if you power-gate part of a core you have to worry about how to avoid losing any state information (often involving writing it out to off-chip memory or to shadowed, non-volatile storage. If all your embedded RAM is non-volatile MRAM then you can turn the power-gate the module as easily as clock-gating it, and automatically from the EDA flow.
Not true for storage. One only has to wait a few months before consumers are clamouring for a new version of whatever product it is with a larger data capacity. The obsolescence comes naturally from the rapid improvements in the field.
I spotted a Toshiba docking station in a store last night that appeared to only connect via a single USB but offered a plethora of ports including VGA out. Over USB it's not going to be very high performance but the idea has made it to product form.
Give it a faster interconnect (proprietary or a new standard) and you might get something that can do 3D at a reasonable frame rate.
"Just because information can be disseminated doesn't mean it should" - Exactly.
This is crucial in any case where someone is accused of a crime. *Every* suspect, no matter what they are accused of or what the evidence is against them, should have the right to anonymity until a court of law has found them guilty. The sad truth is that accusations are far more memorable (and more likely to be publicized) than exonerations, so it is important to safeguard the identity of anyone accused until the truth of the matter has been settled in a court of law.
It only takes a moment imagining how you would feel to be falsely accused of such a crime and pilloried in the press to realize that the freedom to live without fear of false accusations trumps any 'right' to know who is accused of a given crime.
By all means report that "the mother of one of the girl's friends" has been accused of this, but personally identifying information should rightly be prevented from being published in any medium whether it be a newspaper or a blog until the accusation has been found to be true.
You have no right to know it until it has been confirmed. It should be left to the courts to decide whether what she did was wrong, not some ill-informed lynch mob with a knee-jerk reaction to whatever tidbits the media chose to publish today. *IF* she is found guilty of wrongdoing then you have a right to know. If the court finds her innocent you have no right to know that she was even charged - that is how "innocent until proven guilty" should work.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't mind the thudding sound you can hear in the background - it's just your sysadmin banging his/her head against the nearest wall in despair.
"Mommy, mommy, can I have a baby brother? Wait, what's daddy doing to his peepee? Why is it bleeding so much?"
What I've yet to hear is a convincing argument for taking the descriptions of creation as being literal rather than metaphors for how the world came to be. Personally I don't see evolution as at all incompatible with personal faith, but evidently others do or there wouldn't be any calls to present the biblical version of events as comparable to the prevailing scientific theory. Both are subject to human interpretation/translation so to accept either as an absolute truth seems unreasonable.
And having a large jacket makes it easier to shoplift, so what? There are plenty of legitimate p2p applications that have nothing to do with copyright violation.
The cynic in me suspects that a far better reason for ISPs to throttle p2p traffic is that it changes the general pattern of data flow from mostly downloading to fairly balanced upload and download, which makes the limited upload bandwidth on consumer connections far more noticeable. Blocking p2p in the name of rights protection is a convenient way to delay having to provide faster upload speeds to most users.
That sounds rather like searching for evidence of illegal activities to me, unless you are free to turn round and fly back after they find them.
On the first reading I misunderstood your post and was starting to wonder why you were carrying soiled underwear in your fanny pack.
So what exactly is this other purpose? If they're not looking for evidence of illegal activities I see no reason to search anybody's laptop.
This isn't a security check to see whether it is a functional laptop instead of a cunningly disguised weapon - you can gather that information from being shown the login prompt, and the X-ray / chemical scanners are a far better way to determine this.
If mine was hooked up to the net the last thing I would do is post a link to it on slashdot - that seems like asking for trouble (or at least attempts to fiddle with your thermostat).
:o)
OTOH a slashdotted webserver should provide enough heat to keep you toasty warm
Call me crazy but that sounds like more work on both ends than simply allocating your devices public IPv6 addresses and a few firewall rules.
Yes it can be done with IPv4/NAT and kudos for doing so, but I'd rather use a system where ingenious workarounds are not required for basic scenarios such as runnning more than one web interface.
As they are aliens you may even have a choice of which ass.
I see nothing hypocritical or crazy about wishing to hold your own government to basic ethical standards. If anything it shows a love of your country to care that the constitutional right to a fair trial is upheld.
The hypocrisy lies in building prisons and interrogation centres in foreign countries to avoid those pesky American laws that would otherwise prevent the activities that go on in them. You seem to be under the mistaken apprehension that allowing the indefinite detainment and torture of suspects for information (suspects, not even convicted of any crime) makes the country a safer place. Maybe right now you don't fit the right profiles to be whisked off to Guantanamo but that can change much more easily than you'd like to believe. It makes no difference whether the country falls to its enemies or voluntarily gives up its rights; the end result is still the same - tyranny and lack of freedom.
Doubtless there are many brave and honorable people working in the armed forces and intelligence agencies to safeguard our existence and they deserve our gratitude but it is an impossible task to keep the country 100% safe from threats without depriving people of their liberty (and even then it is unlikely to be fully effective). To remain free we must accept a certain amount of risk - I would gladly choose a small increase in the probability of dying in a terrorist attack in return for knowing that my own government cannot hold people without trial or torture them. It strikes me that to do otherwise is the cowardly option.
Pointing out that there are worse violators of human rights in the world is irrelevent - it does not make American abuses any less egregious in the same way that the existence of serial killers does not justify committing murder.
That makes it considerably better researched than most comments here
Better yet, use The Shat to protect your data
Without wishing to sound like a Pecksniffian hypocrite, your attempts to use all of the words in the list are at best quixotic.
More importantly, who on earth voted to come up with this list. I fail to believe half the words in there could get more than one nomination without some serious ballot stuffing.
Indeed. There's something wonderful about the atmosphere at the late night shows in the first few days for films that have rabidly enthusiastic fans. When even the rating certificate gets cheers as the film starts it adds a real sense of occasion.
I take my hat off to the unknown wag watching one of the first Episode I screenings at the Camden Odeon who, on seeing the "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...", piped up with "Aww shit, I've seen this one already!"
LOL. Now you'll never know whether it was your point or the "Microsoft eats babies" remark that got you your insightful mod.
Exactly. Assuming that the read/write/idle power levels of these cells are comparable to the SRAM/eDRAM they replace then the technology will be a great help in low power IC design.
Currently if you power-gate part of a core you have to worry about how to avoid losing any state information (often involving writing it out to off-chip memory or to shadowed, non-volatile storage. If all your embedded RAM is non-volatile MRAM then you can turn the power-gate the module as easily as clock-gating it, and automatically from the EDA flow.
Not true for storage. One only has to wait a few months before consumers are clamouring for a new version of whatever product it is with a larger data capacity. The obsolescence comes naturally from the rapid improvements in the field.
I spotted a Toshiba docking station in a store last night that appeared to only connect via a single USB but offered a plethora of ports including VGA out. Over USB it's not going to be very high performance but the idea has made it to product form.
Give it a faster interconnect (proprietary or a new standard) and you might get something that can do 3D at a reasonable frame rate.
Q. Which one is more likely to result in catching a virus?
...
In this case the "..." before Profit! must have been go back two spaces, in best board-game fashion.
Off-topic, but I don't care... Thanks for recommending PBF in your sig - I love it. (XKCD has been a firm favourite for a long time).
"Just because information can be disseminated doesn't mean it should" - Exactly.
This is crucial in any case where someone is accused of a crime. *Every* suspect, no matter what they are accused of or what the evidence is against them, should have the right to anonymity until a court of law has found them guilty. The sad truth is that accusations are far more memorable (and more likely to be publicized) than exonerations, so it is important to safeguard the identity of anyone accused until the truth of the matter has been settled in a court of law.
It only takes a moment imagining how you would feel to be falsely accused of such a crime and pilloried in the press to realize that the freedom to live without fear of false accusations trumps any 'right' to know who is accused of a given crime.
By all means report that "the mother of one of the girl's friends" has been accused of this, but personally identifying information should rightly be prevented from being published in any medium whether it be a newspaper or a blog until the accusation has been found to be true.
You have no right to know it until it has been confirmed. It should be left to the courts to decide whether what she did was wrong, not some ill-informed lynch mob with a knee-jerk reaction to whatever tidbits the media chose to publish today. *IF* she is found guilty of wrongdoing then you have a right to know. If the court finds her innocent you have no right to know that she was even charged - that is how "innocent until proven guilty" should work.
And you still followed the link?