It might have been possible in the early days of hard disks, but not anymore. Data is just packed too densely. Think about it, if there was room for new data and old data to exist on one disk, then you've just doubled the capacity of your hard disk. If that were possible, hard disk makers would be advertising the increased capacity.
If you still believe the myth, I'd encourage you to find one instance of data being read off of a zeroed drive in the past 10 years.
In which case, you don't have the right to an attorney. You don't have the right to a trial by jury. You don't have the right to be free from discrimination in employment or housing.
Hm nah. I'd rather have the rights than conform to your pedantically narrow definition of what a right is.
Now imagine an economy in which the 10 workers each make 10 widgets a year, a total of 100. At the end of the year, they all get paid (again, the numbers printed on the money don't matter), and they will all end up with an average of 10 widgets each.
Sounds like a worker owned cooperative. Quite good!
Socialists and liberals have a mental block when it comes to this very simple principle - productivity is *not* a zero-sum game.
Oh, we're quite aware of this. We want the pie to get bigger so everyone can have a fulfilling piece. The problem is that under capitalism, the workers don't walk away with 10 widgets each. The factory owner walks away with 100 widgets. Why make the pie bigger if you don't get a piece?
Dude, you know poor people spend a greater proportion of their income than rich people? That makes sales tax effectively regressive. If you want the rich to pay more (and I certainly do), tax income, property, and capital gains, not sales.
Judges don't care about donations. By being a big corporation, Sony is presumptively in the right. By being an individual, Hotz is presumptively in the wrong. It's not about money, it's about social status.
I mostly agree. I use habaneros very sparingly. One habanero in a 9x13 casserole is plenty. When used in small amounts the heat isn't overpowering and you can still taste the sweet fruitiness of the pepper.
And sure, dairy is fine if you just use it to titrate the heat. My point is that eating something way too hot just because you can dull the pain with dairy is silly. If it hurts, don't do it, there's nothing really to be gained. Better to use one pepper to season a pot of chili for several dozen people than to eat that pepper and vomit lava out your nose and try to figure out how to get ice cream up there.
When it is that hot, you singe your taste buds anyway.
You realize the "heat" is just a ligand receptor interaction. There's no actual heat there. Spicy food does decrease your perception of other flavors, but this is not a cytotoxic effect. It's not quite clear how it happens, but since capsaicin application under the tongue can depress taste perception on the tongue it's probably some sort of cross talk between the pain fibers and taste fibers before they reach the brain.
If you're just going to kill the heat with ice cream, why bother? I eat spicy food because I like the heat. If I didn't want the heat, I wouldn't do it. There is such a thing as too hot, but in those cases I just don't eat it, rather than cutting the heat with dairy. If it's so hot that you need something to kill the pain, it's too hot to be reasonably enjoyed.
can you imagine trying to teach someone who has only every worked in Windows XP to use DOS?
Your employees shouldn't be using the OS, they should be using the applications. Training someone on a text based DOS app is easy, they can teach minimum wage cashiers to do it.
Which do you think is really easier: teaching a new hire how to use an application that everyone around has used forever and never changes, which you only have to teach once per hire, or retraining your entire staff on a brand new platform every 5 years?
Obviously, if you're hiring someone for their AutoCad 2011 skills, you're going to need to provide them with that platform. If you have a DOS machine hooked up to an instrument with a custom app that collects data and generates reports, which has served your purposes for decades, why would you bother with anything else?
we try to show business owners that 10 year old computers really are a problem, even when they still work.
If they still perform the task for which they were intended 10 years ago, why are they a problem?
The real problem isn't old computers, it's new software. New software comes out which doesn't really do anything better than your old software. But people you do business with upgraded, so now you have to upgrade your software to interoperate with them. But the new software runs more slowly, and now you need new hardware to do the same task you were doing just fine 6 months ago.
For a stand-alone application, there's nothing wrong with 10 year old computers. Or 20 year old computers, for that matter. DOS still works as well as it ever did.
Why in just the latest blockbuster games? The best game music is from the 8-bit era, when composers were so limited that it really took a genius to make anything sound good.
If your definition of "freedom" includes being able to hide improper behavior from your neighbors, then yes, your freedom is in jeopardy
My definition of freedom includes being able to hide proper behavior from nosy, overly judgmental neighbors. Why are you so willing to let the neighbors determine what is proper and improper behavior?
I'm pretty sure that if I were to follow you around with a camera every minute of the day that you were in public spaces, you'd be able to get a restraining order against me. Does it not bother you that the government can do, without a warrant, what an individual cannot?
It's also worth pointing out that these cameras only prevent street crime. Low level poor people crime, that is. These cameras are entirely blind to the much larger crimes happening on Wall Street.
A slight quibble here: They (in general, or the guy giving the answer) may or may not *intend* to use the law that way, but it's quite safe to say that the law *will* get used that way if passed.
You're too generous. If they don't intend for the law to be abused, they will put in safeguards against it. If there's not a clause in the law saying "no section of this law shall be construed to allow X" coupled with appropriate penalties should X occur, then the author of the law fully intends for X to happen. Any claims otherwise are blatant lies.
Slashdot Mirror
It might have been possible in the early days of hard disks, but not anymore. Data is just packed too densely. Think about it, if there was room for new data and old data to exist on one disk, then you've just doubled the capacity of your hard disk. If that were possible, hard disk makers would be advertising the increased capacity.
If you still believe the myth, I'd encourage you to find one instance of data being read off of a zeroed drive in the past 10 years.
Law Enforcement is going to have a master key. They ARE going to love these.
In which case, you don't have the right to an attorney. You don't have the right to a trial by jury. You don't have the right to be free from discrimination in employment or housing.
Hm nah. I'd rather have the rights than conform to your pedantically narrow definition of what a right is.
Now imagine an economy in which the 10 workers each make 10 widgets a year, a total of 100. At the end of the year, they all get paid (again, the numbers printed on the money don't matter), and they will all end up with an average of 10 widgets each.
Sounds like a worker owned cooperative. Quite good!
Socialists and liberals have a mental block when it comes to this very simple principle - productivity is *not* a zero-sum game.
Oh, we're quite aware of this. We want the pie to get bigger so everyone can have a fulfilling piece. The problem is that under capitalism, the workers don't walk away with 10 widgets each. The factory owner walks away with 100 widgets. Why make the pie bigger if you don't get a piece?
Dude, you know poor people spend a greater proportion of their income than rich people? That makes sales tax effectively regressive. If you want the rich to pay more (and I certainly do), tax income, property, and capital gains, not sales.
It would be better to eliminate sales tax entirely.
The bulk of the new movies out there seem to use 3D as a cheap side-show.
Movies ARE a cheap side-show. So that should work out perfectly.
And the rest of us will continue not giving a shit whether you get headaches and enjoy our 3d movies.
Sure, the Doctor needs to try to wipe the Daleks out completely. They're a great threat.
Not as great a threat as a Doctor who is capable of stooping to genocide.
Judges don't care about donations. By being a big corporation, Sony is presumptively in the right. By being an individual, Hotz is presumptively in the wrong. It's not about money, it's about social status.
You know, Killzone on the PSP was an overhead isometric shooter instead of an FPS. Nobody complained, since it's an awesome game.
That's a pretty silly example. An FPS is an FPS, whether it's set in Iraq or on the Moon. This in no way demonstrates how genres can be restrictive.
The facts were on his side bigtime unless there is something we don't know about.
The biggest fact not on his side is that Sony is a multi-billion dollar international conglomerate, and he's just a guy.
I mostly agree. I use habaneros very sparingly. One habanero in a 9x13 casserole is plenty. When used in small amounts the heat isn't overpowering and you can still taste the sweet fruitiness of the pepper.
And sure, dairy is fine if you just use it to titrate the heat. My point is that eating something way too hot just because you can dull the pain with dairy is silly. If it hurts, don't do it, there's nothing really to be gained. Better to use one pepper to season a pot of chili for several dozen people than to eat that pepper and vomit lava out your nose and try to figure out how to get ice cream up there.
When it is that hot, you singe your taste buds anyway.
You realize the "heat" is just a ligand receptor interaction. There's no actual heat there. Spicy food does decrease your perception of other flavors, but this is not a cytotoxic effect. It's not quite clear how it happens, but since capsaicin application under the tongue can depress taste perception on the tongue it's probably some sort of cross talk between the pain fibers and taste fibers before they reach the brain.
If you're just going to kill the heat with ice cream, why bother? I eat spicy food because I like the heat. If I didn't want the heat, I wouldn't do it. There is such a thing as too hot, but in those cases I just don't eat it, rather than cutting the heat with dairy. If it's so hot that you need something to kill the pain, it's too hot to be reasonably enjoyed.
can you imagine trying to teach someone who has only every worked in Windows XP to use DOS?
Your employees shouldn't be using the OS, they should be using the applications. Training someone on a text based DOS app is easy, they can teach minimum wage cashiers to do it.
Which do you think is really easier: teaching a new hire how to use an application that everyone around has used forever and never changes, which you only have to teach once per hire, or retraining your entire staff on a brand new platform every 5 years?
Obviously, if you're hiring someone for their AutoCad 2011 skills, you're going to need to provide them with that platform. If you have a DOS machine hooked up to an instrument with a custom app that collects data and generates reports, which has served your purposes for decades, why would you bother with anything else?
we try to show business owners that 10 year old computers really are a problem, even when they still work.
If they still perform the task for which they were intended 10 years ago, why are they a problem?
The real problem isn't old computers, it's new software. New software comes out which doesn't really do anything better than your old software. But people you do business with upgraded, so now you have to upgrade your software to interoperate with them. But the new software runs more slowly, and now you need new hardware to do the same task you were doing just fine 6 months ago.
For a stand-alone application, there's nothing wrong with 10 year old computers. Or 20 year old computers, for that matter. DOS still works as well as it ever did.
He got in. That's amazing enough.
Why in just the latest blockbuster games? The best game music is from the 8-bit era, when composers were so limited that it really took a genius to make anything sound good.
If your definition of "freedom" includes being able to hide improper behavior from your neighbors, then yes, your freedom is in jeopardy
My definition of freedom includes being able to hide proper behavior from nosy, overly judgmental neighbors. Why are you so willing to let the neighbors determine what is proper and improper behavior?
I'm pretty sure that if I were to follow you around with a camera every minute of the day that you were in public spaces, you'd be able to get a restraining order against me. Does it not bother you that the government can do, without a warrant, what an individual cannot?
It's also worth pointing out that these cameras only prevent street crime. Low level poor people crime, that is. These cameras are entirely blind to the much larger crimes happening on Wall Street.
What community, anywhere, ever in history could one depend upon to create just laws?
A slight quibble here: They (in general, or the guy giving the answer) may or may not *intend* to use the law that way, but it's quite safe to say that the law *will* get used that way if passed.
You're too generous. If they don't intend for the law to be abused, they will put in safeguards against it. If there's not a clause in the law saying "no section of this law shall be construed to allow X" coupled with appropriate penalties should X occur, then the author of the law fully intends for X to happen. Any claims otherwise are blatant lies.