Amen. Back when I actually owned a c64, then an Amiga, I dreamed of not having my keyboard tethered to the mouse, monitor, and a slew of peripherals. I like having my keyboard on an adjustable, sliding shelf, thank you.
Well, you had the c128 and the Amiga x000's which all had detachable keyboards. I think the all-in-one form factor made a lot of sense for the c64 since it was often hooked up to a tv and had to be moved around a lot.
Re:Sadly, I still find it ugly!
on
GNOME 3 Released
·
· Score: 1
Mac.
Personally I find the Mac garish and overdone. But hey, that's just me. I still use the command line every day.
It was when Aqua first arrived on the scene but has become progressively more subdued since. I think all the greys and blues are part of what make an old amigan like me feel right at home.
Hacking culture is incredibly anti-authoritarian. That's not going to work in Xtianity which is nothing but an appeal to an authority (authors of the bible, jesus, etc).
Hacking is about solving problems in a quick and dirty manner. Its the "bazaar" of open ideas and religion is, you guessed it, the "cathedral" of top down closed ideas controlled by an elite and followed by an credulous public.
On the plus side, I see the Vatican's PR people are doing a good job. Front page slashdot? Nice. Gotta fill them pews.
You could argue that hackers have got a lot in common with religious orders. Hackers have an established idea of how things should be and follow those ideals often with religious zeal. They hang around in small groups of like-minded people doing works that promote the way they see the world. The different groups often have similar, but not the same, ideals and go about promoting them in very different ways.
And he's counting Android as Linux too apparently even though that link is pretty tenuous. By that logic you could count iOS devices as part of Mac OSX market share because they use the same kernel. He's redefining both the market ("we don't care about the desktop anyway, so there!") and the definition of Linux in a way that suits his a priori notion that Linux is wildly successful, then patting himself on the back for it. Pretty ridiculous.
I don't think advertising is completely to blame here. Sure they are responsible for a narrowing of the definition of a desirable appearance which means excluding ever more people but it's not like people didn't make judgements based on appearance before. Particularly baldness has always been seen as a negative trait. One infamous example is the bible story of Elisha and the two bears :
"23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number."
So while I agree that we need to put less emphasis on appearance when there is a drug that can help people get rid of a trait that's historically seen as negative and can help their self esteem in that way it can only be a good thing. It might even make baldness more attractive as it would become more "a style" adopted by choice than an affliction.
Baldness is in the same ball park as erectile dysfunction? No, sorry, it's not.
Baldness issues are vanity. Not even in the same galaxy as erectile dysfunction, which not only can prevent procreation but also cause serious emotional / relationship issues.
If your woman can live with you because you don't have a full head of hair, all that means is you're carrying on with a superficial bitch who will leave you or cheat on you eventually anyway.
It's not just vanity. If you know someone who has lost his hair at an early age you know that it can have a big psychological effect: loss of confidence, etc. It's even worse when it happens to women where it's close to a taboo.
The NHS website writes : "Research by the University Hospital of Wales in 2001 found that women believed that going bald was worse than developing a skin disease like psoriasis. “The psychological impact is dreadful. I no longer felt attractive. I thought my husband wouldn’t want a bald wife," says Steel."
Tell me that wouldn't cause emotional and/or relationship issues.
If I'm paying the hosting company to maintain backups, then that's my backup plan, and it's not unreasonable for a small business to rely on it if IT isn't a major part of their business. If they had 300GBs of storage in use, then they had a serious account that almost certainly included guarantees of regular backups. The ISPs admission that their backup system failed says as much.
It'd be a backup plan if they'd still had the originals. This was more like a data storage plan where they paid for backups. While it's not unreasonable to assume that you're actually getting what you pay for there is some risk involved as this clearly shows. Further more the risk is unknown because companies are often stunningly incompetent behind the scenes. In the end the consideration they should've made is "if everything is lost will we be content with whatever damages we get from suing ?" Only if the answer to that question is yes then they made the right decision by not keeping a local copy.
Yes, but anyone who relies on ISP backups for important data, on an ftp site, no less, is an idiot.
The only way this story makes any sense is if all they managed to trash all their local copies, including backups (if any), and then looked to the ftp site as a backup of last resort. The ftp site files were almost certainly not in condition to broadcast. Their loss means that the creators can blame someone else for the screwup and not have to redo all their work.
A cheap idiot at that. We're talking about 300Gb of data. I'm guessing a production company can cough up 50 bucks for an external 500Gb hard drive. They might have even have had enough left over to splash out on a second one.
You actually want the soul-crushing bureaucracy that everyone hates about large organizations? Where every time you want to write three lines of code you have to get it cleared with the full board of directors and six battalions of lawyers?
Give me a break. If we want privacy then we need systems that protect privacy inherently, not witch hunts against whoever manages to remind us how poorly designed existing systems are.
We need both. Everybody hates bureaucracy but let's face it sometimes it's a necessary evil. It's not efficient, it's not convenient or nice (and some days I swear if I hear the word "compliance" one more time I'll puke over my desk) but it's there for a reason and that's to protect customers.
Why should they know better? They did nothing illegal. Some bureaucrats thought they could get brownie points by bullying Google. Google didn't have anything to win by fighting, so they rolled over. None of this means there was any wrongdoing on Google's part. At worst, they were impolite.
Wow. I see Google has moved on from copying iOS and is now perfecting its reality distortion field. (Jeez, that one is going to burn some karma.) The poor, poor billionaires at Google are being bullied by the big bad government for being impolite ? Grabbing someones email and passwords, which they owned up to doing ("It’s clear from those inspections that while most of the data is fragmentary, in some instances entire emails and URLs were captured, as well as passwords.") goes a little beyond impolite, it is most definitely against EU privacy laws. I've no doubt there was extensive transatlantic diplomacy that led to this slap on the wrist from a US agency rather than legal action in the EU. Besides even if it weren't illegal you'd expect a company with a motto like "do no evil" to have a stronger moral compass than that of pimply faced script kiddie.
Who'll print you up some nice crisp new dollar bills to pay for it, which'll be worthless in a currency crisis caused by a defunct banking system (ask Argentina.)
When I was getting my ham license, the instructor related an anecdote of a married man arranging a tryst with someone other than his wife. He did this on a ham radio, using the local community's repeater to patch into the phone system (mobile calling has been around long before cell phones) -- and of course, everyone used that frequency. Needless to say, his wife, uh, found out.
Point is, if you're broadcasting sensitive information over the air, you need to encrypt it if you expect any privacy at all, period (unless it's remarkably short-range). This was true in WWII, it was true in the 80's, and it's true today. I'm not saying I agree with what Google did, but someone with a laptop, GPS and kismet could do exactly the same thing, just on a smaller scale.
But it IS remarkably short range, 802.11n is like 50m indoors maybe ? It's more akin to listening at the keyhole than tuning into a broadcast as in your example. I'm all for encryption, the more the better, but that doesn't change the fact that there has to be a reasonable expectation of privacy even when encryption fails or more likely the setup is insecure out of the box and the technical know-how isn't there to improve things. Like I said elsewhere in the comments I could give a pass to a kid having fun, closer to a classic "nosy neighbor" situation, but this is a multi national corporation scanning people for data to use for its own gain. It's going too far.
See, you posted anonymously, taking reasonable measures to ensure that your (very cerebral) comment can't be linked to you. This is -- in a very loose sense -- somewhat akin to encrypting your WiFi, something the victims of Google's data collection did not do.
If you don't want your brilliant comments hurting your karma (or be traceable to your account / real name / whatever), post anonymously; if you don't want your WiFi data being broadcast to all, encrypt it. Neither is a perfect solution, but both are easy first steps.
But judge, clearly this woman wanted me to sniff her panties or she would've closed her bedroom window.
Why not make Google pay for the review from a private company?
Because there could be a conflict of interest if the money comes directly from Google. They (Google) should be fined and the fine used to pay for the third party reviews.
I could excuse some kid goofing around sniffing networks around but we're talking about a multinational corporation driving around sniffing whatever they can. Their staff should know better, their law department should know better and they should already have accountability procedures in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening. It's a lack of professional ethics of a level normally reserved for banks and government agencies. What's next, driving around recording all conversations within earshot because people can always talk in code if they want privacy ?
Revenge of the mutant camels was absolutely insane, it must've warped my young mind:-) Minter's in a category all his own and he's still at it after all these years, bless him.
And no we don't 'go with them' because ~98 percent of the popultion has less then 100,000 in the bank and it's insured and only a small percent of the population would be effected.
Insured... by the banks, backed with stocks which would tank if the economy failed. I'm not saying we shouldn't have let the banks fail but the "insurance" on your money would be worth fuck all if they did.
Sad. Growing up in the nineties in europe the UK was a games industry powerhouse with companies like Psygnosis (Lemmings, Shadow Of The Beast), Bullfrog (Populous, Syndicate, Theme park), Acornsoft (Elite), etc, etc. It seemed like all the cool games in the world were coming out of the UK.
You're kidding yourself if you think western governments are going to pay even a fraction of their debt back. It's all just paper. You'd think the chinese would've learned a thing or two from how we treated the native americans, or the africans for that matter. Face facts: the west is never going to pay, it can't, and if the whole economy comes crashing down around us (it doesn't have to, the two sides could just shred the paper) we'll have an old-fashioned world war on our hands. Austerity is bullshit, the owner class pushing the middle class back into poverty with a hopeless cause as an excuse.
I think someone needs to let him know that anyone who thought, even for a moment, that there was really such a thing as a "petite lap giraffe" and was over the age of 12 is a complete idiot who has no business ever writing anything. No-one needed him to point out they were fake.
Missing the point. He pointed out who was behind it, a marketing firm, and how it was done showing the stock images they used. That's interesting information and if the "journalist" who lifted it had any common courtesy or professionalism he'd at the very least provided a link back to the original source. It's not like it would have cost them anything to do that. But there you go, actual journalism is pretty much dead and this kind of thing goes on all the time in an effort to prop up the corpse. Read Flat Earth News some time.
The Germans are completely overreacting. This Simpsons thing is only a symptom of that BTW, 210.000 people marched to close down nuclear plants and in recent local elections the Green party gained 10% due to nuclear concerns. It'll pass though, give it time.
Oh, and nice racism there, calling QQ "Chinese", thus implying it is strange and weird. (The technical term is "Orientalism" - implying that "the East" is antithetical to "the West".) QQ has been in use for ages. It is very big in South Africa...uh-oh, South Africa has a lot of black people. Yikes, when we start stereotyping, it's a minefield!
Don't read to much into it, not everything is about race. Maybe he meant it's interesting because unlike the other 2 most of us are unlikely to have heard of it despite its size (I certainly hadn't), thought of that ? And why the heck can't he call it chinese when its wikipedia page says : "Tencent was founded in Shenzhen, China, in 11 November 1998, by Ma Huateng." ?
Because there have been rumors going around about Apple doing this since since forever. Google's got serious Apple envy: first Android and Android Market then tablets, now "cloud iTunes."
Slashdot Mirror
Amen. Back when I actually owned a c64, then an Amiga, I dreamed of not having my keyboard tethered to the mouse, monitor, and a slew of peripherals. I like having my keyboard on an adjustable, sliding shelf, thank you.
Well, you had the c128 and the Amiga x000's which all had detachable keyboards. I think the all-in-one form factor made a lot of sense for the c64 since it was often hooked up to a tv and had to be moved around a lot.
Mac.
Personally I find the Mac garish and overdone. But hey, that's just me. I still use the command line every day.
It was when Aqua first arrived on the scene but has become progressively more subdued since. I think all the greys and blues are part of what make an old amigan like me feel right at home.
OS X has run on Thinkpads for a while now, unofficially of course.
Except they don't understand it at all.
Hacking culture is incredibly anti-authoritarian. That's not going to work in Xtianity which is nothing but an appeal to an authority (authors of the bible, jesus, etc).
Hacking is about solving problems in a quick and dirty manner. Its the "bazaar" of open ideas and religion is, you guessed it, the "cathedral" of top down closed ideas controlled by an elite and followed by an credulous public.
On the plus side, I see the Vatican's PR people are doing a good job. Front page slashdot? Nice. Gotta fill them pews.
You could argue that hackers have got a lot in common with religious orders. Hackers have an established idea of how things should be and follow those ideals often with religious zeal. They hang around in small groups of like-minded people doing works that promote the way they see the world. The different groups often have similar, but not the same, ideals and go about promoting them in very different ways.
And he's counting Android as Linux too apparently even though that link is pretty tenuous. By that logic you could count iOS devices as part of Mac OSX market share because they use the same kernel. He's redefining both the market ("we don't care about the desktop anyway, so there!") and the definition of Linux in a way that suits his a priori notion that Linux is wildly successful, then patting himself on the back for it. Pretty ridiculous.
I don't think advertising is completely to blame here. Sure they are responsible for a narrowing of the definition of a desirable appearance which means excluding ever more people but it's not like people didn't make judgements based on appearance before. Particularly baldness has always been seen as a negative trait. One infamous example is the bible story of Elisha and the two bears :
"23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number."
So while I agree that we need to put less emphasis on appearance when there is a drug that can help people get rid of a trait that's historically seen as negative and can help their self esteem in that way it can only be a good thing. It might even make baldness more attractive as it would become more "a style" adopted by choice than an affliction.
Baldness is in the same ball park as erectile dysfunction? No, sorry, it's not.
Baldness issues are vanity. Not even in the same galaxy as erectile dysfunction, which not only can prevent procreation but also cause serious emotional / relationship issues.
If your woman can live with you because you don't have a full head of hair, all that means is you're carrying on with a superficial bitch who will leave you or cheat on you eventually anyway.
It's not just vanity. If you know someone who has lost his hair at an early age you know that it can have a big psychological effect: loss of confidence, etc. It's even worse when it happens to women where it's close to a taboo.
The NHS website writes : "Research by the University Hospital of Wales in 2001 found that women believed that going bald was worse than developing a skin disease like psoriasis. “The psychological impact is dreadful. I no longer felt attractive. I thought my husband wouldn’t want a bald wife," says Steel."
Tell me that wouldn't cause emotional and/or relationship issues.
If I'm paying the hosting company to maintain backups, then that's my backup plan, and it's not unreasonable for a small business to rely on it if IT isn't a major part of their business. If they had 300GBs of storage in use, then they had a serious account that almost certainly included guarantees of regular backups. The ISPs admission that their backup system failed says as much.
It'd be a backup plan if they'd still had the originals. This was more like a data storage plan where they paid for backups. While it's not unreasonable to assume that you're actually getting what you pay for there is some risk involved as this clearly shows. Further more the risk is unknown because companies are often stunningly incompetent behind the scenes. In the end the consideration they should've made is "if everything is lost will we be content with whatever damages we get from suing ?" Only if the answer to that question is yes then they made the right decision by not keeping a local copy.
Yes, but anyone who relies on ISP backups for important data, on an ftp site, no less, is an idiot.
The only way this story makes any sense is if all they managed to trash all their local copies, including backups (if any), and then looked to the ftp site as a backup of last resort. The ftp site files were almost certainly not in condition to broadcast. Their loss means that the creators can blame someone else for the screwup and not have to redo all their work.
A cheap idiot at that. We're talking about 300Gb of data. I'm guessing a production company can cough up 50 bucks for an external 500Gb hard drive. They might have even have had enough left over to splash out on a second one.
You actually want the soul-crushing bureaucracy that everyone hates about large organizations? Where every time you want to write three lines of code you have to get it cleared with the full board of directors and six battalions of lawyers?
Give me a break. If we want privacy then we need systems that protect privacy inherently, not witch hunts against whoever manages to remind us how poorly designed existing systems are.
We need both. Everybody hates bureaucracy but let's face it sometimes it's a necessary evil. It's not efficient, it's not convenient or nice (and some days I swear if I hear the word "compliance" one more time I'll puke over my desk) but it's there for a reason and that's to protect customers.
Why should they know better? They did nothing illegal. Some bureaucrats thought they could get brownie points by bullying Google. Google didn't have anything to win by fighting, so they rolled over. None of this means there was any wrongdoing on Google's part. At worst, they were impolite.
Wow. I see Google has moved on from copying iOS and is now perfecting its reality distortion field. (Jeez, that one is going to burn some karma.) The poor, poor billionaires at Google are being bullied by the big bad government for being impolite ? Grabbing someones email and passwords, which they owned up to doing ("It’s clear from those inspections that while most of the data is fragmentary, in some instances entire emails and URLs were captured, as well as passwords.") goes a little beyond impolite, it is most definitely against EU privacy laws. I've no doubt there was extensive transatlantic diplomacy that led to this slap on the wrist from a US agency rather than legal action in the EU. Besides even if it weren't illegal you'd expect a company with a motto like "do no evil" to have a stronger moral compass than that of pimply faced script kiddie.
it's insured by the feds...
Who'll print you up some nice crisp new dollar bills to pay for it, which'll be worthless in a currency crisis caused by a defunct banking system (ask Argentina.)
Not only will they be smaller, but I believe they'll incorporate some kind of functionality that will allow them to replace the telephone as well.
1 word : Facetime.
When I was getting my ham license, the instructor related an anecdote of a married man arranging a tryst with someone other than his wife. He did this on a ham radio, using the local community's repeater to patch into the phone system (mobile calling has been around long before cell phones) -- and of course, everyone used that frequency. Needless to say, his wife, uh, found out.
Point is, if you're broadcasting sensitive information over the air, you need to encrypt it if you expect any privacy at all, period (unless it's remarkably short-range). This was true in WWII, it was true in the 80's, and it's true today. I'm not saying I agree with what Google did, but someone with a laptop, GPS and kismet could do exactly the same thing, just on a smaller scale.
But it IS remarkably short range, 802.11n is like 50m indoors maybe ? It's more akin to listening at the keyhole than tuning into a broadcast as in your example. I'm all for encryption, the more the better, but that doesn't change the fact that there has to be a reasonable expectation of privacy even when encryption fails or more likely the setup is insecure out of the box and the technical know-how isn't there to improve things. Like I said elsewhere in the comments I could give a pass to a kid having fun, closer to a classic "nosy neighbor" situation, but this is a multi national corporation scanning people for data to use for its own gain. It's going too far.
See, you posted anonymously, taking reasonable measures to ensure that your (very cerebral) comment can't be linked to you. This is -- in a very loose sense -- somewhat akin to encrypting your WiFi, something the victims of Google's data collection did not do.
If you don't want your brilliant comments hurting your karma (or be traceable to your account / real name / whatever), post anonymously; if you don't want your WiFi data being broadcast to all, encrypt it. Neither is a perfect solution, but both are easy first steps.
But judge, clearly this woman wanted me to sniff her panties or she would've closed her bedroom window.
Why not make Google pay for the review from a private company?
Because there could be a conflict of interest if the money comes directly from Google. They (Google) should be fined and the fine used to pay for the third party reviews.
I could excuse some kid goofing around sniffing networks around but we're talking about a multinational corporation driving around sniffing whatever they can. Their staff should know better, their law department should know better and they should already have accountability procedures in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening. It's a lack of professional ethics of a level normally reserved for banks and government agencies. What's next, driving around recording all conversations within earshot because people can always talk in code if they want privacy ?
Revenge of the mutant camels was absolutely insane, it must've warped my young mind :-) Minter's in a category all his own and he's still at it after all these years, bless him.
And no we don't 'go with them' because ~98 percent of the popultion has less then 100,000 in the bank and it's insured and only a small percent of the population would be effected.
Insured ... by the banks, backed with stocks which would tank if the economy failed. I'm not saying we shouldn't have let the banks fail but the "insurance" on your money would be worth fuck all if they did.
Didn't know there was one. Cool.
Sad. Growing up in the nineties in europe the UK was a games industry powerhouse with companies like Psygnosis (Lemmings, Shadow Of The Beast), Bullfrog (Populous, Syndicate, Theme park), Acornsoft (Elite), etc, etc. It seemed like all the cool games in the world were coming out of the UK.
You're kidding yourself if you think western governments are going to pay even a fraction of their debt back. It's all just paper. You'd think the chinese would've learned a thing or two from how we treated the native americans, or the africans for that matter. Face facts: the west is never going to pay, it can't, and if the whole economy comes crashing down around us (it doesn't have to, the two sides could just shred the paper) we'll have an old-fashioned world war on our hands. Austerity is bullshit, the owner class pushing the middle class back into poverty with a hopeless cause as an excuse.
I think someone needs to let him know that anyone who thought, even for a moment, that there was really such a thing as a "petite lap giraffe" and was over the age of 12 is a complete idiot who has no business ever writing anything. No-one needed him to point out they were fake.
Missing the point. He pointed out who was behind it, a marketing firm, and how it was done showing the stock images they used. That's interesting information and if the "journalist" who lifted it had any common courtesy or professionalism he'd at the very least provided a link back to the original source. It's not like it would have cost them anything to do that. But there you go, actual journalism is pretty much dead and this kind of thing goes on all the time in an effort to prop up the corpse. Read Flat Earth News some time.
The Germans are completely overreacting. This Simpsons thing is only a symptom of that BTW, 210.000 people marched to close down nuclear plants and in recent local elections the Green party gained 10% due to nuclear concerns. It'll pass though, give it time.
Oh, and nice racism there, calling QQ "Chinese", thus implying it is strange and weird. (The technical term is "Orientalism" - implying that "the East" is antithetical to "the West".) QQ has been in use for ages. It is very big in South Africa...uh-oh, South Africa has a lot of black people. Yikes, when we start stereotyping, it's a minefield!
Don't read to much into it, not everything is about race. Maybe he meant it's interesting because unlike the other 2 most of us are unlikely to have heard of it despite its size (I certainly hadn't), thought of that ? And why the heck can't he call it chinese when its wikipedia page says : "Tencent was founded in Shenzhen, China, in 11 November 1998, by Ma Huateng." ?
Because there have been rumors going around about Apple doing this since since forever. Google's got serious Apple envy: first Android and Android Market then tablets, now "cloud iTunes."