Humans need physical contact, and too many people don't get any at all (not an innuendo for sex, just no physical contact. Barely a handshake).
Back in high school, if I was careful while walking from class to class, I could actually go the entire day with no physical contact. And by careful, I just mean "not bump in to anyone." You basically never saw *anyone* in my high school hugging, holding hands, or doing anything unless they were dating. In retrospect, it was kinda depressing. The entire school was kinda grim.
Yeah. They worry about the RIAA using this as a new tactic? That might actually be a worry if they'd actually ever gotten someone arrested, rather than just suing them in civil court.
Because that would explicitly be in contradiction of their policy of ISPs keeping information available for a minimum amount of time, aka: Your information isn't yours to delete.
RTFS, says specifically "USB." And you know why? Simple. Netbooks. No CD drive. If they only used CDs, then any netbook would be immune, unless an external CD drive was hooked up, and since the point is to make it easy for untrained cops, that's not gonna work.
Either way, it's a massively stupid project on their part, and anyone with 20 minutes and a drive to not go to prison can find a way around it.
They have something similar, which I can't remember the name of. What I do remember is that the warning doesn't mention a right to remain silent, but something about statements made will be presented in court.
We will wake up one day and find that keys to our doors only work from the outside.
I dunno about you, but my locks already only take keys on the outside. See, on the inside, I have this nice little knob I can use to lock the door without the key.
I'd rather distance myself from Acer. Guys make shit desktops, I'm not about to trust them on anything else. I had a desktop from them for 6 months, had to replace almost every component in it. Think I kept the HDD, and that's about it.
Sir, I think you overestimate people, completely. There are people who, if you run updates on their computer, lose the ability to figure out what to do, even if literally nothing about the machine changed.
Those screenshots? The icons are completely different. The people that need to be targeted don't read labels. They're the ones that go "I deleted the internet! My E is missing!" The reason they only use IM and email is because they just don't know how to do more. Remember: The majority of people are fucking dumbasses. If it's even the slightest bit different, they are going to panic and assume they have no idea what to do, freeze up in fear, and trade it in for what they know.
Joke if you want, but I just upgraded my work machine from 9.64 to 10, and there's a noticeable difference in most pages. The turbo function, however, isn't for normal use, it's for dial-up or mobile users. Anyone on broadband won't see a difference between turbo and non-turbo, just the difference between the old and new versions.
Well, it's mostly meant for people on mobile devices, and people on dial-up could find it useful.
It's free already for average consumers (since I played with it a bit this morning already). I doubt it's an "open" standard, since it's Opera's servers doing it, but I'm not 100% sure. No one's reported bottleneck issues, but that might change with more users on-board now.
Frankly, some of the window management techniques are crazy awesome, imo. Move it to the side, and it takes up half the screen? Easy side-by-side comparison! Have a custom desktop that has your system info displayed? Move to the bottom right for a quick look without minimizing or alt-tabbing. Minimize other windows by giving the current one a quick shake? Could be useful if you need more screen space and a bunch of open windows. Maximize by dragging to top, then minimize by moving it away again? Yeah, if I need a quick view of a window, larger than I currently have it set, that will be useful. Just because you don't think there's a crazy awesome feature doesn't mean there's not wicked shit that others are looking forward to.
Because that's not *anti-trust* behaviour. That's monopoly, and different. And since there's availability of other OS's, and it's possible to get a computer without Windows, then it's not a monopoly. Apple won't let non-Apple computers have OSX, and an OEM computer isn't going to take the time to make a custom Linux install to work with their hardware when they can foist support off to Microsoft by saying "that's an OS issue." Not to mention the majority of the programs that get "paid placement" or whatever are also Windows programs, which is why you can get a $400 computer. It's subsidized by Norton and whoever who want a trial of their software on it. Lose that, and there's no competitive advantage. Thus it's not MS who's abusing OEM.
Not YOUR news. I'm Canadian. I only keep a tangential interest in your judicial system at best, since all my favourite TV shows tend to involve it somehow.
Yeah, I saw that first one in other sections, only with the context provided.
I fail to see how the second and third sentences make her racist. People who are different *gasp* have DIFFERENT OPINIONS?! Say it isn't so! I think the assertion that every man and woman should have the same opinion as a white guy to be incredibly racist, myself.
And anyone who says "I have no bias" is a fucking liar and should be punched in the face repeatedly. I more trust someone who acknowledges they have points of bias, so that they can actually work towards mitigating that bias.
So, try again, and provide me with some actions backing up those words. Show a decision that was racially motivated.
Which is what she did in the one case referenced. She moved the judgement more in to line with the standard. No one's actually put forth anything showing that she will "legislate from the bench." Judges are to narrowly construe the law, and not stretch it to fit a situation that's "close enough." Which is really why I laugh at so much of the lawyering going on in the *AA cases. There's a lot of "but it's like this!"
Simple: Except in cases where the death penalty is levied and executed, every person who goes to jail is able to eventually qualify for parole. The chances might be incredibly slim, but that triple-homicide might just get out to roll around town in a wheelchair.
That's criminal court, where the stakes are _society_. This is civil court, where the stakes are between one party and another. But the judgements leveled are greater than those levied against murderers, assuming a yearly salary of $30,000, and a 20 year sentence, they'd lose out on $600,000 of income, plus those 20 years of their life. Someone "convicted" by the RIAA is getting about that much or more in damages. So now someone needs to spend damned near the rest of their life paying off a judgement, since they still need to, you know, eat and stuff, or they can try and declare bankruptcy, which is going to screw them over just as much, if not more. If the RIAA was just going for $100 for someone who infringed on a $15 CD, the fervor wouldn't be nearly as high.
BTW: This is civil court, so there's no "crime," only liability, and the burden isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt," it's "likelyhood based on the evidence," which is why you get things like people bearing 70% of the responsibility of a situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, ya see, the key to the situation is simple. Just redefine where you are as inside!
Alternatively, if a door is closed, there's probably an open window around.
Humans need physical contact, and too many people don't get any at all (not an innuendo for sex, just no physical contact. Barely a handshake).
Back in high school, if I was careful while walking from class to class, I could actually go the entire day with no physical contact. And by careful, I just mean "not bump in to anyone." You basically never saw *anyone* in my high school hugging, holding hands, or doing anything unless they were dating. In retrospect, it was kinda depressing. The entire school was kinda grim.
Yeah. They worry about the RIAA using this as a new tactic? That might actually be a worry if they'd actually ever gotten someone arrested, rather than just suing them in civil court.
It's a joke.
You really didn't see it?
Because that would explicitly be in contradiction of their policy of ISPs keeping information available for a minimum amount of time, aka: Your information isn't yours to delete.
RTFS, says specifically "USB." And you know why? Simple. Netbooks. No CD drive. If they only used CDs, then any netbook would be immune, unless an external CD drive was hooked up, and since the point is to make it easy for untrained cops, that's not gonna work.
Either way, it's a massively stupid project on their part, and anyone with 20 minutes and a drive to not go to prison can find a way around it.
They have something similar, which I can't remember the name of. What I do remember is that the warning doesn't mention a right to remain silent, but something about statements made will be presented in court.
And Canada becomes the harbinger of freedom for the Western World! Quick! Everyone move up here now! Free poutine for the first 1,000 US-ians to move!
We will wake up one day and find that keys to our doors only work from the outside.
I dunno about you, but my locks already only take keys on the outside. See, on the inside, I have this nice little knob I can use to lock the door without the key.
It already does, there. If you don't turn over your encryption code, you get a nice trip to jail.
It's the UK police. It's probably the "evil" one.
Grammar, technically, as the word is spelled correctly, but the usage is off. That makes it a grammatical issue.
I'd rather distance myself from Acer. Guys make shit desktops, I'm not about to trust them on anything else. I had a desktop from them for 6 months, had to replace almost every component in it. Think I kept the HDD, and that's about it.
Sir, I think you overestimate people, completely. There are people who, if you run updates on their computer, lose the ability to figure out what to do, even if literally nothing about the machine changed.
Those screenshots? The icons are completely different. The people that need to be targeted don't read labels. They're the ones that go "I deleted the internet! My E is missing!" The reason they only use IM and email is because they just don't know how to do more. Remember: The majority of people are fucking dumbasses. If it's even the slightest bit different, they are going to panic and assume they have no idea what to do, freeze up in fear, and trade it in for what they know.
And look! Not a single car analogy!
Joke if you want, but I just upgraded my work machine from 9.64 to 10, and there's a noticeable difference in most pages. The turbo function, however, isn't for normal use, it's for dial-up or mobile users. Anyone on broadband won't see a difference between turbo and non-turbo, just the difference between the old and new versions.
It does that because this feature was already *IN* the mobile browser. Unless you mean the portable browser?
Odd, since I had updates turned on, checked manually earlier this week, and got nothing. I agree about 10>>9, though.
Well, it's mostly meant for people on mobile devices, and people on dial-up could find it useful.
It's free already for average consumers (since I played with it a bit this morning already). I doubt it's an "open" standard, since it's Opera's servers doing it, but I'm not 100% sure. No one's reported bottleneck issues, but that might change with more users on-board now.
Frankly, some of the window management techniques are crazy awesome, imo. Move it to the side, and it takes up half the screen? Easy side-by-side comparison! Have a custom desktop that has your system info displayed? Move to the bottom right for a quick look without minimizing or alt-tabbing. Minimize other windows by giving the current one a quick shake? Could be useful if you need more screen space and a bunch of open windows. Maximize by dragging to top, then minimize by moving it away again? Yeah, if I need a quick view of a window, larger than I currently have it set, that will be useful. Just because you don't think there's a crazy awesome feature doesn't mean there's not wicked shit that others are looking forward to.
Because that's not *anti-trust* behaviour. That's monopoly, and different. And since there's availability of other OS's, and it's possible to get a computer without Windows, then it's not a monopoly. Apple won't let non-Apple computers have OSX, and an OEM computer isn't going to take the time to make a custom Linux install to work with their hardware when they can foist support off to Microsoft by saying "that's an OS issue." Not to mention the majority of the programs that get "paid placement" or whatever are also Windows programs, which is why you can get a $400 computer. It's subsidized by Norton and whoever who want a trial of their software on it. Lose that, and there's no competitive advantage. Thus it's not MS who's abusing OEM.
Uh, don't listen to the news do you?
Not YOUR news. I'm Canadian. I only keep a tangential interest in your judicial system at best, since all my favourite TV shows tend to involve it somehow.
Yeah, I saw that first one in other sections, only with the context provided.
I fail to see how the second and third sentences make her racist. People who are different *gasp* have DIFFERENT OPINIONS?! Say it isn't so! I think the assertion that every man and woman should have the same opinion as a white guy to be incredibly racist, myself.
And anyone who says "I have no bias" is a fucking liar and should be punched in the face repeatedly. I more trust someone who acknowledges they have points of bias, so that they can actually work towards mitigating that bias.
So, try again, and provide me with some actions backing up those words. Show a decision that was racially motivated.
Which is what she did in the one case referenced. She moved the judgement more in to line with the standard. No one's actually put forth anything showing that she will "legislate from the bench." Judges are to narrowly construe the law, and not stretch it to fit a situation that's "close enough." Which is really why I laugh at so much of the lawyering going on in the *AA cases. There's a lot of "but it's like this!"
Why the focus on the after-the-fact nonsense?
Simple: Except in cases where the death penalty is levied and executed, every person who goes to jail is able to eventually qualify for parole. The chances might be incredibly slim, but that triple-homicide might just get out to roll around town in a wheelchair.
That's criminal court, where the stakes are _society_. This is civil court, where the stakes are between one party and another. But the judgements leveled are greater than those levied against murderers, assuming a yearly salary of $30,000, and a 20 year sentence, they'd lose out on $600,000 of income, plus those 20 years of their life. Someone "convicted" by the RIAA is getting about that much or more in damages. So now someone needs to spend damned near the rest of their life paying off a judgement, since they still need to, you know, eat and stuff, or they can try and declare bankruptcy, which is going to screw them over just as much, if not more. If the RIAA was just going for $100 for someone who infringed on a $15 CD, the fervor wouldn't be nearly as high.
BTW: This is civil court, so there's no "crime," only liability, and the burden isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt," it's "likelyhood based on the evidence," which is why you get things like people bearing 70% of the responsibility of a situation.
First I've heard of this. Care to point me at your source?