If Linux Distro's were targetted for the same users, there wouldn't be anything to distinguish them amongst each other, ultimately defeating the point of having a seperate distro.
I should write an article about "Why People like different foods" and see if it makes the front page Foodnetwork.com
In all seriousness though, its a decent breakdown of the Distro's, but I've always kind of been on the impression that anyone who has seriously considered using Linux already knows what distro they expect to be using.
But don't come to me to tell that bug free complex games are *impossible*. That's bullshit.
If you want to put an extra year into beta testing, testing every combination of operating system (32 and 64 bit) with every video card, then debug the reasons why making your game a little more bloated just so that it can run on every computer. You know why Unreal Tournament games are so huge? It's not because there are tons of content, there's about as many maps involved as any other game, and about as many textures and sounds and other elements as any other game. No, the reason why they are twice the size of any other game is because they DO run beta testing on TONS of hardware. You notice they can run the resolution down to like 320 x 200 or so, and work on really old VGA Graphics cards? Yeah that's commitment.
That also means the game is practically outdated by the time it's released.
Clearly you don't know how accurate the Wii Sensor is. Any difficulties you have problems with the Wii mote on the Wii are part of poor setups and user error.
The Wii Mote itself has an excellent sensor built into it, It's just that the sensor bar is terribly concieved. All it does is emit 2 Infrared signals at either end. Generally, this does just fine, but your TV is also emitting heat, the room is warm, etc etc. There are people who do it with 2 candles a foot from both sides of their television screen and get alot more sensativity out of it.
You make that sensor track 1 item, pretty close to it,and you have an excellent sensor for $40.
Is this insider job to benefit Microsoft or to benefit Plurk? Because they don't benefit each other by lawsuit, only one does.
He says that it's possible Plurk bribed the contractor. Why would there be a bribe If the contractor was part of Plurk? So if the contractor isn't part of Plurk, how can Plurk know of the contractor and bribe him?
Unless Plurk was asked to hand over their code, I don't see how Plurk would have advanced Knowledge of MS Hiring a chinese contractor for that purpose.
I was confused about that too. It does appear from TFA that a closed container is searchable without a warrant.
Really? That seems a little backwards, I mean obviously an open container wouldn't require a warrant to search because you don't really have to DO anything to search it, just peer in its direction.
But then basically that makes it sound like a container, regardless of its condition, is searchable without a warrant, so it makes no difference whether judges would argue if a phone is a container or not.
Unless of course, by logic, an Open container must have a warrant to search it, which explains why judges are wondering if a phone is a container and whether its considered closed.
Therefor, by logic, it is absolutely retarded that a closed container does not require a warrant but an open container does.
In fact, almost everyone on the net is a spammer. It's kind of a secret club, where you have to pass a secret trial, to gain your secret right of entry. It's so secret, I shouldn't even be divulging this secret information. If the secret spammers found out, I could get
Yeah its a bit costly, but I live in a house where I work 8-5, one roomate works 1pm-9pm, and the other is 6am till whenever, (He's kind of an on Call Manager kinda thing).
Anyways, so it always seems like during the week there is always SOMEONE who needs to go to bed early. Its a handy feature, I can't imagine trying to get by without it anymore.
To punish him for breaking no laws would be absurd and your assertion that he should is equally absurd.
While I think the thread's parent is a bit of an idiot, I think THIS is the point where alot of the disagreement comes up.
Ideally, we should be trying to uphold the spirit of the law, not just the law itself. We make laws as "general" as possible so that they are easier for the public to understand, and that way there doesn't have to be a trillion different laws to cover every single scenario, which no person could memorize each one.
What we should be asking isn't "Did this guy break the law and deserve punishment" but rather "Did this guy do something morally wrong and deserve punishment". When people are able to dodge laws and abuse the system, everyone else loses. And I don't know about you guys, but I hate losing.
Adobe Acrobat 5.x was still kind of bloated. Even on machines nowadays it'll still take a few seconds to boot up - with that annoying little splash screen of some guy prancing about with a few office complexes in the background.
I've never used just the 5.x reader before, where would you even GET that...
To send an email after filling out a form and clicking sumbit in a PDF.
Honestly - It's not really like the Adobe reader has the vulnerability, its just javascript in general. I mean it's not great that the reader will execute the code just by opening the file - but now that you know it does that, is it really the readers fault? Isn't the user executing the code as if he were clicking a button now?
No one uses Adobe Reader for anything other than business PDF's.
Seriously, The launch time for a PDF off the web is too large for me to bother. First it's gotta download that 7 Meg file, then Adobe's gotta kick start, and then it doesn't let me highlight anything to keep me from copying and pasting.
Seriously - I have only ever seen PDF's used at work and at school, and anywhere else they exist usually aren't worth the bother.
So who are the people taking advantage of these vulnerabilities?
You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial, and don't allow the commercials to be any louder than that.
If I can make karaoke and techno music automatically crossfade with my meager skills Then surely a TV station or broadcast network could make commercials stay at the same gain as the programming.
You do not under-estimate their skill, but rather their willingness to bother to do so.
Imaging if you were watching a movie, and all the whispers were louder and the explosions quieter. Not so great..
This is actually a great feature, by the way, it means you can watch this years action blockbuster while letting the room mates sleep, while not missing a beat.
And also, its a feature that you can turn ON and OFF. Thus when it comes to watching it audibly unimpeded, rest assured you have that ability.
Presently I can only imagine this is due to laziness on part of the channel
You are absolutely right. They don't want to have to pay anyone another cent then they have to. No one expresses their concerns to them, though who is expressing This particular concern to their congresswoman, absolutely baffles me (isn't she supposed to be representing her constituents or something like that? Are they all 80+ years old?).
Anyways, it's not that difficult, but the networks won't feel they need to do it unless the FCC does something about it, and they won't force it unless the government says so. Why hello Mr Red Tape, didn't expect to see you here.
This same Congresswoman tried to legislate "Clap On" lights in the workplace, skip protection in CD Players, and some other feature or product that already solves a problem only the elderly face.
I believe new fangled TVs nowadays have a special feature that keep the decibals between any certain range you prefer, or some system similar to that to keep the loud bangs down while keeping the quiet dialogue up.
It'll only be another decade before it's standard, and this law (if it passes) is deprecated.
He's the one enforcing the policy though. Had it been NOT the lieutenant doing the inspection I think I'd be a little more lenient in my standing, but its basically 1 Man deciding to change his mind. It's not 1 man saying one thing, policy saying another, and another guy doing the inspection.
No, this is a man going back on his word. Whether it's within his rights to do change policy or not it doesn't matter, this guy was a jerk, and the courts are upholding the spirit of the law.
Slashdot Mirror
If Linux Distro's were targetted for the same users, there wouldn't be anything to distinguish them amongst each other, ultimately defeating the point of having a seperate distro.
I should write an article about "Why People like different foods" and see if it makes the front page Foodnetwork.com
In all seriousness though, its a decent breakdown of the Distro's, but I've always kind of been on the impression that anyone who has seriously considered using Linux already knows what distro they expect to be using.
Here in Canada, we almost have government-backed monopolies with even higher monthly bills.
In Soviet Canada, YOU supply PROVIDERS!
(I wish I was joking... grumble mumble Telus grumble)
But don't come to me to tell that bug free complex games are *impossible*. That's bullshit.
If you want to put an extra year into beta testing, testing every combination of operating system (32 and 64 bit) with every video card, then debug the reasons why making your game a little more bloated just so that it can run on every computer. You know why Unreal Tournament games are so huge? It's not because there are tons of content, there's about as many maps involved as any other game, and about as many textures and sounds and other elements as any other game. No, the reason why they are twice the size of any other game is because they DO run beta testing on TONS of hardware. You notice they can run the resolution down to like 320 x 200 or so, and work on really old VGA Graphics cards? Yeah that's commitment.
That also means the game is practically outdated by the time it's released.
Soon I'll Release my Beta version of FRENCH VANILA
(Forensic Reducing Emulator Named Coherantly and Handsomely for Very Awesome Naughty and Illicit Activities)
Cofee attempts to decrypt your drive.
Clearly you don't know how accurate the Wii Sensor is. Any difficulties you have problems with the Wii mote on the Wii are part of poor setups and user error.
The Wii Mote itself has an excellent sensor built into it, It's just that the sensor bar is terribly concieved. All it does is emit 2 Infrared signals at either end. Generally, this does just fine, but your TV is also emitting heat, the room is warm, etc etc. There are people who do it with 2 candles a foot from both sides of their television screen and get alot more sensativity out of it.
You make that sensor track 1 item, pretty close to it,and you have an excellent sensor for $40.
Is this insider job to benefit Microsoft or to benefit Plurk? Because they don't benefit each other by lawsuit, only one does.
He says that it's possible Plurk bribed the contractor. Why would there be a bribe If the contractor was part of Plurk? So if the contractor isn't part of Plurk, how can Plurk know of the contractor and bribe him?
Unless Plurk was asked to hand over their code, I don't see how Plurk would have advanced Knowledge of MS Hiring a chinese contractor for that purpose.
I feel like accusing them of sleeping with my mother if I knew they would publicly admit to doing so.
If one doesn't know how to, how does one learn to google something on the internet?
Ah - see now THAT makes more sense. Thank you for clarifying - I feel like an idiot for posting rants up above.
I was confused about that too. It does appear from TFA that a closed container is searchable without a warrant.
Really? That seems a little backwards, I mean obviously an open container wouldn't require a warrant to search because you don't really have to DO anything to search it, just peer in its direction.
But then basically that makes it sound like a container, regardless of its condition, is searchable without a warrant, so it makes no difference whether judges would argue if a phone is a container or not.
Unless of course, by logic, an Open container must have a warrant to search it, which explains why judges are wondering if a phone is a container and whether its considered closed.
Therefor, by logic, it is absolutely retarded that a closed container does not require a warrant but an open container does.
And thats only the ones they've caught.
In fact, almost everyone on the net is a spammer. It's kind of a secret club, where you have to pass a secret trial, to gain your secret right of entry. It's so secret, I shouldn't even be divulging this secret information. If the secret spammers found out, I could get
Yeah its a bit costly, but I live in a house where I work 8-5, one roomate works 1pm-9pm, and the other is 6am till whenever, (He's kind of an on Call Manager kinda thing).
Anyways, so it always seems like during the week there is always SOMEONE who needs to go to bed early. Its a handy feature, I can't imagine trying to get by without it anymore.
On a Core 2 Duo, 1 Gig RAM on an XP, 20 page PDF takes on average 4 to 5 seconds to load. This is just the full install of Adobe Acrobat 5.0
To punish him for breaking no laws would be absurd and your assertion that he should is equally absurd.
While I think the thread's parent is a bit of an idiot, I think THIS is the point where alot of the disagreement comes up.
Ideally, we should be trying to uphold the spirit of the law, not just the law itself. We make laws as "general" as possible so that they are easier for the public to understand, and that way there doesn't have to be a trillion different laws to cover every single scenario, which no person could memorize each one.
What we should be asking isn't "Did this guy break the law and deserve punishment" but rather "Did this guy do something morally wrong and deserve punishment". When people are able to dodge laws and abuse the system, everyone else loses. And I don't know about you guys, but I hate losing.
Adobe Acrobat 5.x was still kind of bloated. Even on machines nowadays it'll still take a few seconds to boot up - with that annoying little splash screen of some guy prancing about with a few office complexes in the background.
I've never used just the 5.x reader before, where would you even GET that...
To send an email after filling out a form and clicking sumbit in a PDF.
Honestly - It's not really like the Adobe reader has the vulnerability, its just javascript in general. I mean it's not great that the reader will execute the code just by opening the file - but now that you know it does that, is it really the readers fault? Isn't the user executing the code as if he were clicking a button now?
No one uses Adobe Reader for anything other than business PDF's.
Seriously, The launch time for a PDF off the web is too large for me to bother. First it's gotta download that 7 Meg file, then Adobe's gotta kick start, and then it doesn't let me highlight anything to keep me from copying and pasting.
Seriously - I have only ever seen PDF's used at work and at school, and anywhere else they exist usually aren't worth the bother.
So who are the people taking advantage of these vulnerabilities?
You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial, and don't allow the commercials to be any louder than that.
If I can make karaoke and techno music automatically crossfade with my meager skills Then surely a TV station or broadcast network could make commercials stay at the same gain as the programming.
You do not under-estimate their skill, but rather their willingness to bother to do so.
Imaging if you were watching a movie, and all the whispers were louder and the explosions quieter. Not so great. .
This is actually a great feature, by the way, it means you can watch this years action blockbuster while letting the room mates sleep, while not missing a beat.
And also, its a feature that you can turn ON and OFF. Thus when it comes to watching it audibly unimpeded, rest assured you have that ability.
Presently I can only imagine this is due to laziness on part of the channel
You are absolutely right. They don't want to have to pay anyone another cent then they have to. No one expresses their concerns to them, though who is expressing This particular concern to their congresswoman, absolutely baffles me (isn't she supposed to be representing her constituents or something like that? Are they all 80+ years old?).
Anyways, it's not that difficult, but the networks won't feel they need to do it unless the FCC does something about it, and they won't force it unless the government says so. Why hello Mr Red Tape, didn't expect to see you here.
This same Congresswoman tried to legislate "Clap On" lights in the workplace, skip protection in CD Players, and some other feature or product that already solves a problem only the elderly face.
I believe new fangled TVs nowadays have a special feature that keep the decibals between any certain range you prefer, or some system similar to that to keep the loud bangs down while keeping the quiet dialogue up.
It'll only be another decade before it's standard, and this law (if it passes) is deprecated.
He's the one enforcing the policy though. Had it been NOT the lieutenant doing the inspection I think I'd be a little more lenient in my standing, but its basically 1 Man deciding to change his mind. It's not 1 man saying one thing, policy saying another, and another guy doing the inspection.
No, this is a man going back on his word. Whether it's within his rights to do change policy or not it doesn't matter, this guy was a jerk, and the courts are upholding the spirit of the law.