They probably won't get Windows 7 until they buy a new computer.
Yep, I'm pretty much in that boat. Single-core Athlon 64, 2GB DDR. No point in upsetting everything just to install a bloated new operating system. However it's just as likely that I'll stick with XP when the day comes that I upgrade the whole box. The deciding factor for me is whether or not it's capable of everything I need it to do. I didn't upgrade from 95 to 98 until I wanted to use a USB mouse. I wouldn't have upgraded from 98 to 2000, except I'd upgraded to a >700MHz processor, and 98 wasn't stable running on that, so I upgraded. I wouldn't have upgraded from 2000 to XP, except there was some application I needed to run that wouldn't even install on 2000. To date the current setup does whatever I need it to do. There are only rare instances where the extra cores and speed would be nice, but I can manage with it the way it is for now, and even then I'm not so sure I'll be able to justify the expense and hassle of upgrading the OS. Likely by the time I get around to it or get cornered into it, it'll have been out for long enough that it's got most of the bugs worked out of it.
That goes without saying, but according to the story they're pressuring domain registrars, and so far as I know the U.S. has the vast majority of those, so they could theoretically effectively limit what sites can and cannot exist.
Son, I am disappoint. Did I get magically transported to Iran during the night and not notice? If a site is doing something illegal, then by all means shut them down, but you do NOT get to arbitrarily censor things just because you don't like them.
I believe that to be a rediculous concept. What we should be doing is teaching kids the proper awe and respect for potentially dangerous things, and once they've had that impressed on them, teach them how to handle those things properly.
Ask a Navy SEAL or your friendly neighborhood secret agent, or Vin "I'm going to kill you with my teacup" Diesel, or even your local role playing gamer: almost anything can be used as a weapon to inflict harm on someone. It follows that almost any object, used improperly, can unintentionally inflict harm. Of course a kid can hurt themselves or others with a paperclip or a ruler; it doesn't take a genius to figure that out! It also shouldn't take a genius to figure out that life, and growing up in particular, is full of risks, and that avoiding those risks is neither realistic, nor is it practical or, in my opinion, particularly desirable! I am saddened and angered by the "pussification of America" by removing all sources of everyday harm and risk, the obsessive "childproofing" of everything around us (often without regard for whether it affects adults or not!), and especially the "helicopter parent" mentality: you're raising your kids to be huge pussies! I also suspect that much of this over-sheltering of children is contributing in a big way to the "quarter-life crisis" phenomenon. Instead of "protecting" children to the point of encasing them in bubblewrap and feeding them intravenously (because they might choke on their pablum), how about we teach them the proper use, and more importantly an appropriate level of respect for potentially dangerous objects and situations, so they'll grow up to be responsible, capable adults? Or is that too radical and "dangerous" a concept anymore?
Yes, it is. I don't have to make awkward and useless small-talk with clerks that I don't even want to talk to in the first place. Most of the time when I go into a grocery store I don't want to interact with anyone; I want to get what I came for and leave in the shortest amount of time possible. I am not so arrogant or uppity that I think I am entitled to human assistance in purchasing groceries. Just let me get what I need, pay the money, and get the fuck out of there as quickly as possible. I couldn't give a rat's ass about whether some fucking suit somewhere makes an extra $0.10 that day because I used self-checkout or not.
Ultra-smartphones that react to your moods and televisions that can tell it's you who's watching are in your future as Intel Corp's top technology guru sets his sights on context-aware computing.
I, for one, do not want this. I'm already having enough of a time trying to preserve my privacy, and then they want to have half the electronics I have at home monitoring my bodily functions and mood? Screw that. I need a phone that's a phone and a TV that's a TV. I don't need them 'helping' me make decisions about anything -- especially when their idea of 'helping' me is probably going to amount to nannying me like I'm a helpless child. This kind of crap keeps up and we'll have an entire generation of adults that will have been raised without having to think for themselves. Then where will we be?
I know that DNS vulnerabilities are being addressed finally. Wouldn't a good next step be to eliminate domain registrars that allow these sorts of sites to get created in the first place?
"Do not call" lists and "Do not track" lists are like International Law: They only work when everyone willingly agrees to play by the same rules. "Do not call" lists, for telemarketers who don't care about the rules, are just a nice, free, verified list of numbers that they know will answer when they call to peddle their junk. A "Do not track" list is just going to end up being a "Persons of interest" list to any government agency (or any other entity) looking for people with something to hide. Keep you lists, I'll keep on protecting my own anonymity like I've been doing for decades now, thank you very much.
So what's to differentiate, in the eyes of the casual observer, between an honest, non-criminal citizen, and a criminal under.. what should we call this? An advanced form of house arrest? Also, as others have pointed out, ideas similar to this have been tried in some countries with little success, and with some criminal activity occurring while this so-called sentenence is being served. Also, while I admit I'm paranoid, wouldn't something like this just bring us closer to living in some nightmarish totalitarian regime where everyone is essentially a prisoner? Wouldn't it remove the stigma of such? No, we need prisons, we need harsh places to send criminals where their freedom is severely limited. Perhaps these places need to evolve, but they're necessary.
The FCC, a government bureaucracy that wants to tell us what we can watch and, to a certain extent, how we can live, or corporate America, that wants to dictate what we see/hear/taste/smell/feel based on how much money they can make off it. They can all go fuck themselves, so far as I'm concerned.
UVB-76's real purpose revealed:
on
UVB-76 Explained
·
· Score: 1
It's actually a psychological attack on the West. The numbers and such are completely random and meaningless, they're trying to make all the amateur radio guys paranoid, chasing their own tails trying to figure out what it all means OMG TEH COMMIES!!!!11!
"Apperantly not satisfied with the current scope of the DMCA, RIAA President Cary Sherman wants to broaden the scope of the law to have people liable for illegal content found in their brain's memory cells. 'The RIAA would strongly prefer mandatory cerebral implants... We're working on [discussions with medical researchers], and we'd like to extend that kind of relationship--not just to adults, but [also to] small children, family pets, invertibrates...[But], if a corporate takeover of the government and the installation of a totalitarian regime is an appropriate way to facilitate that kind of cooperation, fine.' Notice the update at the end of the article pointing out that Sherman is seeking for voluntary agreements with said parents and to enact broader laws without their cooperation."
Hear, hear! I'm over 40, was "raised on radio", and I still remember radio being pretty awesome. These days, when I'm driving (ride a motorcycle most of the time) there aren't enough presets on it to properly accomodate the "dance of the stations" I do constantly between about 10 different stations in my market, trying to find something to listen to that doesn't suck. Oddly enough one of those 10 stations is a low-power student-operated station run out of a local high school that plays a surprisingly fresh and eclectic mix of genres; this is what radio should be!
I used to own a portable music player that had an FM stereo receiver built into it. It had to use the headphone cable as it's antenna, and the reception quality was far less than stellar. We've already got problems with basic cellphone reception in high-end mobile platforms like the iPhone, and they want to stuff another receiver for a totally different band inside those as well? What about people using stereo bluetooth headphones instead of wired headphones? What are they going to use for an FM antenna then? I agree completely that the RIAA and NAB are stuck in the past and refuse to innovate and update. If they want to propose easing licensing fees to internet radio providers and make access to them cheaper and easier on mobile devices then I'm all for that, but as-is their demands here are pure lunacy.
Being arrested for resisting arrest alone is a legal loophole that's been on pretty much every jurisdiction's books probably for as long as they've been around. It's a catch-all so the police can arrest you for no reason other than they think you need arresting.
I'm glad that I have no plans to live so long as to be a burden on anyone. Personally, I would feel like I was being treated like a felon under house arrest, being made to wear such a thing.
Whatever. How long will I have to wait for someone to develop a plug-in for Firefox that blocks their ability to track that? I find the very idea of it extremely intrusive, almost Minority Report-esque.
..because everybody knows that our good friends and allies in the far east always have our best interests at heart and would never, never, ever do anything bad.
..or "Oh look, shiny thing!". I wouldn't put it past China to have that sort of mindset when it comes to their population, so sure, it's plausible to me that they'd let a porn site or three slip through the cracks, hoping that having something to fap to will occupy them enough to not pay attention to the fact that their government doesn't respect their rights as human beings and is otherwise at least as corrupt as any South American junta government.
Slashdot Mirror
..but all I found was articles about being an attention whore. Was I not doing it right?
Because previous "opt-out" and "unsubscribe" schemes were always so reliable. Just look at how much spamming has been reduced by their use!
They probably won't get Windows 7 until they buy a new computer.
Yep, I'm pretty much in that boat. Single-core Athlon 64, 2GB DDR. No point in upsetting everything just to install a bloated new operating system. However it's just as likely that I'll stick with XP when the day comes that I upgrade the whole box. The deciding factor for me is whether or not it's capable of everything I need it to do. I didn't upgrade from 95 to 98 until I wanted to use a USB mouse. I wouldn't have upgraded from 98 to 2000, except I'd upgraded to a >700MHz processor, and 98 wasn't stable running on that, so I upgraded. I wouldn't have upgraded from 2000 to XP, except there was some application I needed to run that wouldn't even install on 2000. To date the current setup does whatever I need it to do. There are only rare instances where the extra cores and speed would be nice, but I can manage with it the way it is for now, and even then I'm not so sure I'll be able to justify the expense and hassle of upgrading the OS. Likely by the time I get around to it or get cornered into it, it'll have been out for long enough that it's got most of the bugs worked out of it.
That goes without saying, but according to the story they're pressuring domain registrars, and so far as I know the U.S. has the vast majority of those, so they could theoretically effectively limit what sites can and cannot exist.
Son, I am disappoint. Did I get magically transported to Iran during the night and not notice? If a site is doing something illegal, then by all means shut them down, but you do NOT get to arbitrarily censor things just because you don't like them.
I believe that to be a rediculous concept. What we should be doing is teaching kids the proper awe and respect for potentially dangerous things, and once they've had that impressed on them, teach them how to handle those things properly.
Ask a Navy SEAL or your friendly neighborhood secret agent, or Vin "I'm going to kill you with my teacup" Diesel, or even your local role playing gamer: almost anything can be used as a weapon to inflict harm on someone. It follows that almost any object, used improperly, can unintentionally inflict harm. Of course a kid can hurt themselves or others with a paperclip or a ruler; it doesn't take a genius to figure that out! It also shouldn't take a genius to figure out that life, and growing up in particular, is full of risks, and that avoiding those risks is neither realistic, nor is it practical or, in my opinion, particularly desirable! I am saddened and angered by the "pussification of America" by removing all sources of everyday harm and risk, the obsessive "childproofing" of everything around us (often without regard for whether it affects adults or not!), and especially the "helicopter parent" mentality: you're raising your kids to be huge pussies! I also suspect that much of this over-sheltering of children is contributing in a big way to the "quarter-life crisis" phenomenon. Instead of "protecting" children to the point of encasing them in bubblewrap and feeding them intravenously (because they might choke on their pablum), how about we teach them the proper use, and more importantly an appropriate level of respect for potentially dangerous objects and situations, so they'll grow up to be responsible, capable adults? Or is that too radical and "dangerous" a concept anymore?
And you think self-checkout is an advance..
Yes, it is. I don't have to make awkward and useless small-talk with clerks that I don't even want to talk to in the first place. Most of the time when I go into a grocery store I don't want to interact with anyone; I want to get what I came for and leave in the shortest amount of time possible. I am not so arrogant or uppity that I think I am entitled to human assistance in purchasing groceries. Just let me get what I need, pay the money, and get the fuck out of there as quickly as possible. I couldn't give a rat's ass about whether some fucking suit somewhere makes an extra $0.10 that day because I used self-checkout or not.
Ultra-smartphones that react to your moods and televisions that can tell it's you who's watching are in your future as Intel Corp's top technology guru sets his sights on context-aware computing.
I, for one, do not want this. I'm already having enough of a time trying to preserve my privacy, and then they want to have half the electronics I have at home monitoring my bodily functions and mood? Screw that. I need a phone that's a phone and a TV that's a TV. I don't need them 'helping' me make decisions about anything -- especially when their idea of 'helping' me is probably going to amount to nannying me like I'm a helpless child. This kind of crap keeps up and we'll have an entire generation of adults that will have been raised without having to think for themselves. Then where will we be?
They're still using Outlook for email
laughingwomen.jpg
I know that DNS vulnerabilities are being addressed finally. Wouldn't a good next step be to eliminate domain registrars that allow these sorts of sites to get created in the first place?
"Do not call" lists and "Do not track" lists are like International Law: They only work when everyone willingly agrees to play by the same rules. "Do not call" lists, for telemarketers who don't care about the rules, are just a nice, free, verified list of numbers that they know will answer when they call to peddle their junk. A "Do not track" list is just going to end up being a "Persons of interest" list to any government agency (or any other entity) looking for people with something to hide.
Keep you lists, I'll keep on protecting my own anonymity like I've been doing for decades now, thank you very much.
So what's to differentiate, in the eyes of the casual observer, between an honest, non-criminal citizen, and a criminal under.. what should we call this? An advanced form of house arrest? Also, as others have pointed out, ideas similar to this have been tried in some countries with little success, and with some criminal activity occurring while this so-called sentenence is being served. Also, while I admit I'm paranoid, wouldn't something like this just bring us closer to living in some nightmarish totalitarian regime where everyone is essentially a prisoner? Wouldn't it remove the stigma of such? No, we need prisons, we need harsh places to send criminals where their freedom is severely limited. Perhaps these places need to evolve, but they're necessary.
The FCC, a government bureaucracy that wants to tell us what we can watch and, to a certain extent, how we can live, or corporate America, that wants to dictate what we see/hear/taste/smell/feel based on how much money they can make off it. They can all go fuck themselves, so far as I'm concerned.
It's actually a psychological attack on the West. The numbers and such are completely random and meaningless, they're trying to make all the amateur radio guys paranoid, chasing their own tails trying to figure out what it all means OMG TEH COMMIES!!!!11!
I don't know about you, but if I found one on one of my vehicles, I'd just attach it to someone else's vehicle and say nothing.
"Apperantly not satisfied with the current scope of the DMCA, RIAA President Cary Sherman wants to broaden the scope of the law to have people liable for illegal content found in their brain's memory cells. 'The RIAA would strongly prefer mandatory cerebral implants ... We're working on [discussions with medical researchers], and we'd like to extend that kind of relationship--not just to adults, but [also to] small children, family pets, invertibrates...[But], if a corporate takeover of the government and the installation of a totalitarian regime is an appropriate way to facilitate that kind of cooperation, fine.' Notice the update at the end of the article pointing out that Sherman is seeking for voluntary agreements with said parents and to enact broader laws without their cooperation."
Just sayin'. Am I the only one who abbreviates it that way?
Hear, hear! I'm over 40, was "raised on radio", and I still remember radio being pretty awesome. These days, when I'm driving (ride a motorcycle most of the time) there aren't enough presets on it to properly accomodate the "dance of the stations" I do constantly between about 10 different stations in my market, trying to find something to listen to that doesn't suck. Oddly enough one of those 10 stations is a low-power student-operated station run out of a local high school that plays a surprisingly fresh and eclectic mix of genres; this is what radio should be!
I used to own a portable music player that had an FM stereo receiver built into it. It had to use the headphone cable as it's antenna, and the reception quality was far less than stellar. We've already got problems with basic cellphone reception in high-end mobile platforms like the iPhone, and they want to stuff another receiver for a totally different band inside those as well? What about people using stereo bluetooth headphones instead of wired headphones? What are they going to use for an FM antenna then? I agree completely that the RIAA and NAB are stuck in the past and refuse to innovate and update. If they want to propose easing licensing fees to internet radio providers and make access to them cheaper and easier on mobile devices then I'm all for that, but as-is their demands here are pure lunacy.
Being arrested for resisting arrest alone is a legal loophole that's been on pretty much every jurisdiction's books probably for as long as they've been around. It's a catch-all so the police can arrest you for no reason other than they think you need arresting.
I'm glad that I have no plans to live so long as to be a burden on anyone. Personally, I would feel like I was being treated like a felon under house arrest, being made to wear such a thing.
Whatever. How long will I have to wait for someone to develop a plug-in for Firefox that blocks their ability to track that? I find the very idea of it extremely intrusive, almost Minority Report-esque.
..because everybody knows that our good friends and allies in the far east always have our best interests at heart and would never, never, ever do anything bad.
..or "Oh look, shiny thing!". I wouldn't put it past China to have that sort of mindset when it comes to their population, so sure, it's plausible to me that they'd let a porn site or three slip through the cracks, hoping that having something to fap to will occupy them enough to not pay attention to the fact that their government doesn't respect their rights as human beings and is otherwise at least as corrupt as any South American junta government.