I use anti-virus maybe once a month, and never come up with an actual virus. The rest of the time, it's off my computer (it slows down my computer too much to be forgivable)
To be honest, all you need to do to stay safe on the internet is common sense, and the ability to sense danger on the internet. Sure, things like No Script or the virtual machine setup you described might help, but the drawbacks usually far outweigh the benefits when it comes to things like that.
Although, this is all moot. I use Ubuntu for most of my web surfing, so I can get away with a lot more than most other computer users. Why wear a condom when you're immune to all but the rarest of STD's?
Reforming patent laws would flood the market with cheap knock off products of currently patented technology. This flood would spur the growth of child porn leading to more abused children, as well as allow terrorists in the middle east to purchase newer, up to date technology.
Don't support perverts and terrorists! Help the children and support America! Don't pass patent reform laws!
That, or stem cells are like so many other things, and will never come to fruition.
Seriously, I'd put self-replicating nano bots higher up on my feasibility list than actually finding non-controversial stem cells that actually help.
Are you denying that Microsoft is in the wrong on this one? I don't really think there's anyway to justify this move, as, basically, they're doing it to either gain money or hurt open source, as I'm fairly sure they won't lose anything in the long run if they don't pursue this case.
I'm not saying that all of Slashdot's anti-Microsoft articles are justified, but, really, considering how outright douchey this move is, can you really say the slant is unjustified?
it's expensive and takes a lot of manpower/monetary resources that could go better spent on efforts beneficial to humans?
Just because we can do it doesn't mean we should, although there are a number of other perfectly valid reasons for why we should try and save the frogs from extinction.
I'd have to disagree with that.
Considering the cost and the function, it's really not that bad. Although it does remind me quite a bit of one of the ye-olde computers my school used to use en-masse for it's computer labs, I've seen uglier (read - beige and proud of it) boxes, and I'd certainly buy it if it worked well enough. I prefer function over form, and I'm willing to sacrifice good looks (to a point) for a cheaper, better working product.
Although, looking at the popularity of Apple products, there's clearly a market out there for people who are willing to shell out some more money for a better looking box. Nothing against them, of course, they're allowed to spend money on what they want, and, after a certain point, looks really do become important. I can see how this box pushes it, even if it's acceptable for my purposes.
In the end though, it's really all moot. Most of the people here would sooner build their own HTPC than buy something like this. I certainly would prefer to build something a bit stronger and prettier for my $300 than let somebody else build my computer for me.
We have been hearing about fuel cells "just around the corner" for a freakin' decade now. I think you can put them in the same corner as Duke Nukem Forever and that Holographic Storage thing that keeps popping up on Slashdot.
SirWired
Nah. At least there's a trailer for Duke Nukem Forever.
At this point, I'm putting more faith in that game than fuel cells.
And as a society we lack the moral fiber to even say it is a bad idea. Forget making an actual judgemental moral decision and declaring it "immoral" or "wrong". We can't even agree it is a bad idea and will almost certainly have bad consequences.
We are so doomed.
First, this is hardly the genetic tailoring that was predicted by the fundies and the alarmists. Rather than making babies that wouldn't exist otherwise, we're simply hand picking the sperm that goes into the egg. It's messing with nature, but this is still much more ethical than editing genes by hand.
Although,even if it was, you really shouldn't egg on the people who are actually worried about stuff like this. We don't need any more bitching from the reactionary end of the spectrum. Fact is, this will happen as long as we have the technology to do it, and, as long as it's not a social stigma to be born the natural way, it's really not an issue.
If your niche is replaced by a computer or something else that can out compete you within the confines of the law, you need to move on and find something else to monetize. The book market won't die just because the Kindle 2 has TTS.
Of course, this is all beside the point anyway. TTS won't be replacing humans during the lifespan of the Kindle, and certainly not with its processing power.
You can't get reliable inflection, and you have to deal with mispronounced words with TTS. This won't be the case with human-performed audio books, and, as a result, though TTS will serve many in a pinch, it will still fall far short of replacing audio books, especially when factoring the cost of the Kindle and the cost of running to the Library every once in a while.
It's true that TTS may displace some of the audio book market, but this will happen regardless of whether the kindle does it or not. All you need to get an equivalent product is an e-book and TTS software, and you're pretty much set.
I can see his point, but there comes a time to stop whining and adapt. Instead of complaining about losing part of the audio book market, he should be looking for ways to capitalize on technology and squeeze money out of different areas.
That doesn't really count, though.
Google removing a site from their index doesn't make it disappear off the face of the internet, or, really, make it any harder for people who remember the url to get to the site.
The government blocking the internet does, however, regardless of how ineffective the block may or may not be.
Of course it's not about child abuse. Politicians only use the word "Child Porn" to get what they want on the internet.
This has been going on for a while. If you ever want to get any support for what you're doing when it involves the internet, you just say child porn and you immediately have the support of every politician to afraid to risk the bad PR generated by calling you out and ever stupid parent who actually thinks you seriously care about shutting down CP sites.
If they REALLY cared, they'd punish the SOURCE of CP, rather than those who download it. Arresting producers of child porn would actually be effective in reducing the incidences of child abuse in the world, while avoiding the whole nanny state big brother blocking of the tubes of the internet going on now.
They won't, though. They like the PR generated by catching people with "hard drives full of child porn," and cutting that off would reduce the ease of making goodwill for the government.
This is backed up by the fact that blocks like this don't do anything to stop the flow of CP. Considering that it's still very, very easy to use a proxy or Tor to get around things like this, it's more effective in ensuring the commoners are cheated out of an open internet than it is ensuring the stop of the flow of CP.
It's tempting to be sad, or even surprised, but, really, anyone who didn't see this coming should be ashamed of themselves.
At the very least, we can all take solace in the fact that the government will probably never figure out that SIP exists, a point especially true when you factor in the fact that a politician owning and using a blackberry is still a big deal.
Slashdot Mirror
against the wall?
I thought we were using the guillotine again. Guns are just so boring.
I've never had that problem, actually.
I use anti-virus maybe once a month, and never come up with an actual virus. The rest of the time, it's off my computer (it slows down my computer too much to be forgivable)
To be honest, all you need to do to stay safe on the internet is common sense, and the ability to sense danger on the internet. Sure, things like No Script or the virtual machine setup you described might help, but the drawbacks usually far outweigh the benefits when it comes to things like that.
Although, this is all moot. I use Ubuntu for most of my web surfing, so I can get away with a lot more than most other computer users. Why wear a condom when you're immune to all but the rarest of STD's?
True, but, at the same time,women read it more often, seeing as they're generally more comfortable with more visual forms of erotic media.
That, and women as a whole read more books. Sad but true.
dozens? No.
This is Vista we're talking about.
I'd put the number at around 4. Five if you decide to get really spendy with the mainframe.
Reforming patent laws would flood the market with cheap knock off products of currently patented technology. This flood would spur the growth of child porn leading to more abused children, as well as allow terrorists in the middle east to purchase newer, up to date technology.
Don't support perverts and terrorists! Help the children and support America! Don't pass patent reform laws!
That, or stem cells are like so many other things, and will never come to fruition. Seriously, I'd put self-replicating nano bots higher up on my feasibility list than actually finding non-controversial stem cells that actually help.
Are you denying that Microsoft is in the wrong on this one? I don't really think there's anyway to justify this move, as, basically, they're doing it to either gain money or hurt open source, as I'm fairly sure they won't lose anything in the long run if they don't pursue this case.
I'm not saying that all of Slashdot's anti-Microsoft articles are justified, but, really, considering how outright douchey this move is, can you really say the slant is unjustified?
it's expensive and takes a lot of manpower/monetary resources that could go better spent on efforts beneficial to humans?
Just because we can do it doesn't mean we should, although there are a number of other perfectly valid reasons for why we should try and save the frogs from extinction.
I'd have to disagree with that. Considering the cost and the function, it's really not that bad. Although it does remind me quite a bit of one of the ye-olde computers my school used to use en-masse for it's computer labs, I've seen uglier (read - beige and proud of it) boxes, and I'd certainly buy it if it worked well enough. I prefer function over form, and I'm willing to sacrifice good looks (to a point) for a cheaper, better working product. Although, looking at the popularity of Apple products, there's clearly a market out there for people who are willing to shell out some more money for a better looking box. Nothing against them, of course, they're allowed to spend money on what they want, and, after a certain point, looks really do become important. I can see how this box pushes it, even if it's acceptable for my purposes. In the end though, it's really all moot. Most of the people here would sooner build their own HTPC than buy something like this. I certainly would prefer to build something a bit stronger and prettier for my $300 than let somebody else build my computer for me.
We have been hearing about fuel cells "just around the corner" for a freakin' decade now. I think you can put them in the same corner as Duke Nukem Forever and that Holographic Storage thing that keeps popping up on Slashdot.
SirWired
Nah. At least there's a trailer for Duke Nukem Forever.
At this point, I'm putting more faith in that game than fuel cells.
And as a society we lack the moral fiber to even say it is a bad idea. Forget making an actual judgemental moral decision and declaring it "immoral" or "wrong". We can't even agree it is a bad idea and will almost certainly have bad consequences.
We are so doomed.
First, this is hardly the genetic tailoring that was predicted by the fundies and the alarmists. Rather than making babies that wouldn't exist otherwise, we're simply hand picking the sperm that goes into the egg. It's messing with nature, but this is still much more ethical than editing genes by hand.
Although,even if it was, you really shouldn't egg on the people who are actually worried about stuff like this. We don't need any more bitching from the reactionary end of the spectrum. Fact is, this will happen as long as we have the technology to do it, and, as long as it's not a social stigma to be born the natural way, it's really not an issue.
If your niche is replaced by a computer or something else that can out compete you within the confines of the law, you need to move on and find something else to monetize. The book market won't die just because the Kindle 2 has TTS.
Of course, this is all beside the point anyway. TTS won't be replacing humans during the lifespan of the Kindle, and certainly not with its processing power.
You can't get reliable inflection, and you have to deal with mispronounced words with TTS. This won't be the case with human-performed audio books, and, as a result, though TTS will serve many in a pinch, it will still fall far short of replacing audio books, especially when factoring the cost of the Kindle and the cost of running to the Library every once in a while.
It's true that TTS may displace some of the audio book market, but this will happen regardless of whether the kindle does it or not. All you need to get an equivalent product is an e-book and TTS software, and you're pretty much set.
I can see his point, but there comes a time to stop whining and adapt. Instead of complaining about losing part of the audio book market, he should be looking for ways to capitalize on technology and squeeze money out of different areas.
That doesn't really count, though. Google removing a site from their index doesn't make it disappear off the face of the internet, or, really, make it any harder for people who remember the url to get to the site. The government blocking the internet does, however, regardless of how ineffective the block may or may not be.
Of course it's not about child abuse. Politicians only use the word "Child Porn" to get what they want on the internet.
This has been going on for a while. If you ever want to get any support for what you're doing when it involves the internet, you just say child porn and you immediately have the support of every politician to afraid to risk the bad PR generated by calling you out and ever stupid parent who actually thinks you seriously care about shutting down CP sites.
If they REALLY cared, they'd punish the SOURCE of CP, rather than those who download it. Arresting producers of child porn would actually be effective in reducing the incidences of child abuse in the world, while avoiding the whole nanny state big brother blocking of the tubes of the internet going on now.
They won't, though. They like the PR generated by catching people with "hard drives full of child porn," and cutting that off would reduce the ease of making goodwill for the government.
This is backed up by the fact that blocks like this don't do anything to stop the flow of CP. Considering that it's still very, very easy to use a proxy or Tor to get around things like this, it's more effective in ensuring the commoners are cheated out of an open internet than it is ensuring the stop of the flow of CP.
It's tempting to be sad, or even surprised, but, really, anyone who didn't see this coming should be ashamed of themselves. At the very least, we can all take solace in the fact that the government will probably never figure out that SIP exists, a point especially true when you factor in the fact that a politician owning and using a blackberry is still a big deal.