You do realise that prior art is a factor in patent cases, not copyright cases, right? The defences against being sued for copyright infringement are 1) I didn't do it, 2) it's covered by fair use*, or 3) you don't own the copyright (and/or it's in the public domain), piss off.
(* if such a thing exists in your jurisdiction; I believe that it does not here in the UK, but of course IANAL)
people used to call it decelerating, but apparently that isn't a correct term
Well, yes and no - deceleration is just the name we give to the special case of accelerating in exactly the opposite direction to your motion, such that the only (direct/intended) effect is to change the speed you're moving at.
If there's any problem at all with calling it deceleration it's that it can confuse people into thinking that there's something special about it compared to "normal" acceleration.
Stan Smith: Francine I have a chance to join the Scarlet Alliance.
Francine Smith: You mean you haven't got the job yet!
Stan Smith: Francine I'm going to be rich in adventure
Francine Smith: Rich in adventure!
[Pretends to be on the phone]
Francine Smith: Hello MasterCard do you take payment in the form of adventure, hello colleges I'd like to pay my son's tuition, I don't have any money but my husband is rich in adventure!
This used to be common in the UK, before the governments of the '70s and '80s decided that judging people based on their ability was elitist and therefore bad.
Well, my school did that back in the 80s, my daughter's school does that now in 2012, and while I could be wrong I'm pretty sure my teacher friends (2 at this sort of level) both teach in schools that do that (one in London, the other in Leeds). I know, the plural of anecdote isn't data, but I think streaming of pupils in schools is still pretty common. (There's plenty to dislike about education in the UK, but from my perspective that isn't one of the things)
Because some of us *never* get mod points (literally never, and I haven't for years despite excellent karma the whole time) and replying to say "Cool story bro!" is even lamer.
No, it's a reason not to seek employment with arseholes.
Imagine if the story were 10 years ago, about employers wanting access to your personal email account or ICQ chat history. Would your advice still be not to use it?
Yeah, I'd end the interview at that point. No-one is going to be willing to pay me enough for me to accept that level of intrusion into my personal life.
I seriously don't understand how people can have Firefox blow up to 1GB of RAM. What add-ons and plug-ins do you have installed that it balloons up that big that fast?
I have addons:
Adblock Plus
British English Dictionary
Firebug
Greasemonkey (with 2 scripts installed)
Web Developer
Plugins:
Foxit Reader
JDK (6)
Java 6SE U29 (disabled)
MS Office 2010
NapsterLink
Flash
Sliverlight
Windows Live Photo Gallery
Firefox 10.0.1 is currently using 1.2GB of RAM, running on Windows 7 64bit. 10 tabs at the moment, though I open and close new ones a handful of times per day. I've no idea how long it's been running, but it's since at least Friday (though note that I didn't use it over the weekend as this is my work machine).
So, yeah, some of us really do see Firefox use that much RAM, and don't really understand how the rest of you don't.
Well, my laptop is 6 years old, running XP with 1GB of RAM, so yes some of us are.
On the other hand, I'm not moaning about RAM usage on it, and my desktop is ~3 years old with 6GB of RAM. I simply can't justify buying a new laptop right now (I'm doing up my house ahead of moving out and either selling it or renting it out) when the one I have works well enough for my needs.
That said I rarely see Firefox using less than 250MB, and on the machine I'm currently using (work desktop) Task Manager is reporting that it's using 1.2GB. (So, time to restart it...)
A bit of light, non-controversial browsing isn't abuse, but imaging the drive, wiping and reinstalling (as the submitter himself suggests) most certainly is.
That's why casinos have chips as you mentioned, because it removes you one step further from the thought that you're spending your real money and thus makes you spend more.
While I agree with you that using tokens makes impulse-spending that much easier, there is another aspect to it. Can you buy chips at the table (or slot machine, or whatever)? If not then you could argue that having to get up and go to the cashier makes it that little bit *less* likely that you'll think "Ah, what the hell" and throw another few (hundred) dollars in the pile.
Of course I've never actually been to a casino so I don't know the typical layout, etc, but if you have to literally head towards the exit to go get more chips, that gives you a little psychological push to cut your losses and keep walking right out the door which wouldn't be there if you were playing with cash. (Until you ran out of cash and had to go to the ATM, of course)
While I make no comment on how much he may or may not eat, I do feel the need to point out that your argument would be rather more convincing if you sounded like you actually knew the cause of his weight.
Slashdot Mirror
can be easily beaten if you just have... a scanner that doesn't have that crippling code added to its firmware.
In which case you're not actually beating anything, are you?
You know what really winds me up? Articles that start paragraphs with "but".
You do realise that prior art is a factor in patent cases, not copyright cases, right? The defences against being sued for copyright infringement are 1) I didn't do it, 2) it's covered by fair use*, or 3) you don't own the copyright (and/or it's in the public domain), piss off.
(* if such a thing exists in your jurisdiction; I believe that it does not here in the UK, but of course IANAL)
I see what you're aiming for, but nobody drops initial Cs like that.
people used to call it decelerating, but apparently that isn't a correct term
Well, yes and no - deceleration is just the name we give to the special case of accelerating in exactly the opposite direction to your motion, such that the only (direct/intended) effect is to change the speed you're moving at.
If there's any problem at all with calling it deceleration it's that it can confuse people into thinking that there's something special about it compared to "normal" acceleration.
Francine Smith: You quit your job!
Stan Smith: Francine I have a chance to join the Scarlet Alliance.
Francine Smith: You mean you haven't got the job yet!
Stan Smith: Francine I'm going to be rich in adventure
Francine Smith: Rich in adventure!
[Pretends to be on the phone] Francine Smith: Hello MasterCard do you take payment in the form of adventure, hello colleges I'd like to pay my son's tuition, I don't have any money but my husband is rich in adventure!
Stan Smith: Well what'd they say.
This used to be common in the UK, before the governments of the '70s and '80s decided that judging people based on their ability was elitist and therefore bad.
Well, my school did that back in the 80s, my daughter's school does that now in 2012, and while I could be wrong I'm pretty sure my teacher friends (2 at this sort of level) both teach in schools that do that (one in London, the other in Leeds). I know, the plural of anecdote isn't data, but I think streaming of pupils in schools is still pretty common. (There's plenty to dislike about education in the UK, but from my perspective that isn't one of the things)
I'd be ok with it being automatically distributed and presented for my approval.
Like you though, I would worry about censorship.
Because some of us *never* get mod points (literally never, and I haven't for years despite excellent karma the whole time) and replying to say "Cool story bro!" is even lamer.
Yeah, the lookup times will be fine, but the hassle, public outcry, loss of revenue, etc wno't be.
I know this is slashdot but not every problem is technological in nature. (And "nevertheless" is one word)
They didn't hack/crack Chrome in 5 minutes, they turned up with a pre-tested bag of tricks and took 5 minutes to run them.
No, it's a reason not to seek employment with arseholes.
Imagine if the story were 10 years ago, about employers wanting access to your personal email account or ICQ chat history. Would your advice still be not to use it?
Yeah, I'd end the interview at that point. No-one is going to be willing to pay me enough for me to accept that level of intrusion into my personal life.
More than that, I've never seen an advert that even mentions buying a copy - the text that I see is typically along the lines of "Own it on DVD".
I seriously don't understand how people can have Firefox blow up to 1GB of RAM. What add-ons and plug-ins do you have installed that it balloons up that big that fast?
I have addons:
Plugins:
Firefox 10.0.1 is currently using 1.2GB of RAM, running on Windows 7 64bit. 10 tabs at the moment, though I open and close new ones a handful of times per day. I've no idea how long it's been running, but it's since at least Friday (though note that I didn't use it over the weekend as this is my work machine).
So, yeah, some of us really do see Firefox use that much RAM, and don't really understand how the rest of you don't.
Memory usage is drastically reduced.
Perhaps, and I know that one anecdote isn't compelling data, but my copy of Firefox 10.0.2 is currently using 1.2GB of RAM...
Well, my laptop is 6 years old, running XP with 1GB of RAM, so yes some of us are.
On the other hand, I'm not moaning about RAM usage on it, and my desktop is ~3 years old with 6GB of RAM. I simply can't justify buying a new laptop right now (I'm doing up my house ahead of moving out and either selling it or renting it out) when the one I have works well enough for my needs.
That said I rarely see Firefox using less than 250MB, and on the machine I'm currently using (work desktop) Task Manager is reporting that it's using 1.2GB. (So, time to restart it...)
A bit of light, non-controversial browsing isn't abuse, but imaging the drive, wiping and reinstalling (as the submitter himself suggests) most certainly is.
Any sentencing here should include a heavy fine to the ISP for technical incompetence.
I wasn't aware that was illegal.
Grammar nit-pick - you use "[sic]" when correctly quoting a mistake in the original, not when correcting one when quoting.
Informative gives karma, funny doesn't.
Hand in your geek card, please.
How can I get FB to not use my information in photos? Oh wait. I can't
You can set your profile so that you have to approve tags people add of you to photos.
How can I get FB to not use my information in events? Oh wait, I can't.
Reject the event invitation - though admittedly that fact will show up in the list of people who rejected the event.
How can I get FB to not use my information in chat? Oh wait, I can't.
I'm not even sure what you mean by that, but you can safely leave chat switched off (as I did for a number of years).
That's why casinos have chips as you mentioned, because it removes you one step further from the thought that you're spending your real money and thus makes you spend more.
While I agree with you that using tokens makes impulse-spending that much easier, there is another aspect to it. Can you buy chips at the table (or slot machine, or whatever)? If not then you could argue that having to get up and go to the cashier makes it that little bit *less* likely that you'll think "Ah, what the hell" and throw another few (hundred) dollars in the pile.
Of course I've never actually been to a casino so I don't know the typical layout, etc, but if you have to literally head towards the exit to go get more chips, that gives you a little psychological push to cut your losses and keep walking right out the door which wouldn't be there if you were playing with cash. (Until you ran out of cash and had to go to the ATM, of course)
While I make no comment on how much he may or may not eat, I do feel the need to point out that your argument would be rather more convincing if you sounded like you actually knew the cause of his weight.