I'm not sure if you are kidding, but the folders contain large numbers of data files written by my company's software. Part of my job is to monitor that.
Yeah, I never really figured it out. These are local directories having, oh, maybe three or four thousand files. It is the first time the directories have been opened since the files were written. But still, what the heck is taking 93 seconds? When I re-open the directory, it only takes a short amount of time, so I figure Windows is creating some kind of cache that first time. Still, it's an inexcusable user experience. But, it's an ongoing problem that I have every day or two, because I deal with a lot of these directories with lots of files written to them.
Yes, exactly. I want to make a point without causing a big row. I don't claim a moral high ground, which is why I made sure to say that I don't doubt his sincerity. WTF would be moral high ground with anecdotes about operating systems, anyway?
Seriously? I thought you were joking but you got modded Insightful instead of Funny. All day at work (the only time I'm subjected to Windows) I sit around wondering why Windows takes 93 seconds (literally, not figuratively -- I counted) to open directories with a few thousand files in them, whereas Linux takes something on the order of.01 seconds. I have never, not even once, thought of Windows as "snappy", especially when compared to Linux. But, I don't want to argue about it, I don't want to start a flamewar, and I don't doubt the sincerity of your statement; I merely have had a very, very different experience.
Yay! Wow, the Beatles are finally available on iTunes! Thank goodness, because nobody has ever been able to listen to Beatles music on their computers. Their refusal to sell their music in one specific outlet has completely prevented all computer users from enjoying MP3 recordings of Beatles songs. Finally, a Beatles song will appear on an iPod for the first time. Finally!
No, no, it's a great anecdote, I just thought there might be a writeup with more funny details. In my brief BBS days I had to monitor which sysops called my mom to verify my registrations. I used BBSs during their very very last days, when the internet was juuust starting.
You make a good and important point, and I have one correction to offer. I'm pretty sure "condone" is exactly what you want people to do:
condone/kndn/Verb 1. Accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue. 2. Approve or sanction (something), esp. with reluctance.
That's interesting. I tried to search for that on Google and only came up with a reference back to your post. Is that a part of internet pre-history or is it just your personal memory?
Okay, but saying words to someone can be *ASSAULT*, which was my question. Is it your position that assault should not be a crime? that assault is not a problem? If so, that's fine, I can certainly sympathize with the idea that assault laws are problematic for free speech. If you are willing to say that you think assault should not be a crime, are you also willing to say that incitement should not be a crime? I mean, specifically where would you draw the line? For instance, if I hire a hit man to kill someone, should that be a crime? after all I haven't actually hurt anyone. What if the hit man worked for free? What if the hit man was part of the cult I run, and I told him to kill someone? Those situations are farther down the sliding scale of the situation in this news article, but they are far enough down the scale that there are plenty of opportunities for you to draw a line somewhere along the scale.
What kind of indoctrination? The doctrine of "assault is bad"? Do you think assault is either good or neutral? If so, what makes you think that? If not, why would you characterize a person as whiny for thinking assault is bad?
Surely you recognize the circular logic in that statement: "First, decide whether it is a joke; and if you can't decide, then decide it's a joke".
Really, I understand this is a tricky balance and different people will see different things. Still, incitement is a real problem, which causes real harm to real people, which is why it is a real crime, and thus must have some kind of definition.
It's interesting that you jump directly to the 'offense' canard when hurt feelings isn't at all what this story is about. The story is about the sliding scale of incitement to violence, and where different legal systems draw the line along that scale. Being offended is a different scale altogether, a scale where violence is not being suggested, and really has nothing to do with this story. How much incitement to violence does a legal system tolerate, given the tradition of free speech within that system? Consider that, then try posting something more thoughtful.
Really? I have an Archos 5, which is the reason I'm aware of the Archos 101. I just bought it a few weeks ago. Although imperfect, I haven't had problems with serious "bugs". My biggest problem is that Google Listen stops playing when the screen goes dark, which means I have to keep my screen on all the time. But, it is annoying that Archos doesn't offer up-to-date software -- very annoying.
I bought mine to replace a dead iPod. I wasn't interested in another Apple product and the Archos 5 seemed like the best alternative. I had to decide that huge amounts of storage was not essential, but I got the 16GB version plus a 32GB memory card, which is quite a bit. I would recommend it, for what it is.
I wonder why our experiences with stability have been so different?
I'd like to take this opportunity to Godwin this thread by pointing out that Hitler never killed anybody (except maybe himself).
Individual agency is not the standard by which we judge criminal conduct. You can be guilty of conspiracy, incitement, facilitation, aiding and abetting, or other ways.
Can you propose how to distinguish between a "rhetorical" threat against a person's life, and an actual threat against a person's life? I've tried to think of a few ways, and for all of them this would fall on the "actual" side.
The question is, why the hell didn't Blockbuster realize that they could deliver movies to customers in new ways, thus vastly increasing their market? Why didn't GameStop? If Blockbuster had started up their service which competes with Netflix the day after they first heard of Netflix, then today there would be no Netflix. If GameStop had started an online market the day after it first heard of the internet, then we'd all be complaining about GameStop DRM instead of Steam DRM.
Three years from now I'll be posting on Slashdot asking why Comcast Cable didn't offer an easy-to-use online archive of millions of TV shows, the way X company did. Well, actually maybe X company is also Netflix.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure if you are kidding, but the folders contain large numbers of data files written by my company's software. Part of my job is to monitor that.
Yeah, I never really figured it out. These are local directories having, oh, maybe three or four thousand files. It is the first time the directories have been opened since the files were written. But still, what the heck is taking 93 seconds? When I re-open the directory, it only takes a short amount of time, so I figure Windows is creating some kind of cache that first time. Still, it's an inexcusable user experience. But, it's an ongoing problem that I have every day or two, because I deal with a lot of these directories with lots of files written to them.
Yes, exactly. I want to make a point without causing a big row. I don't claim a moral high ground, which is why I made sure to say that I don't doubt his sincerity. WTF would be moral high ground with anecdotes about operating systems, anyway?
Seriously? I thought you were joking but you got modded Insightful instead of Funny. All day at work (the only time I'm subjected to Windows) I sit around wondering why Windows takes 93 seconds (literally, not figuratively -- I counted) to open directories with a few thousand files in them, whereas Linux takes something on the order of .01 seconds. I have never, not even once, thought of Windows as "snappy", especially when compared to Linux. But, I don't want to argue about it, I don't want to start a flamewar, and I don't doubt the sincerity of your statement; I merely have had a very, very different experience.
Yay! Wow, the Beatles are finally available on iTunes! Thank goodness, because nobody has ever been able to listen to Beatles music on their computers. Their refusal to sell their music in one specific outlet has completely prevented all computer users from enjoying MP3 recordings of Beatles songs. Finally, a Beatles song will appear on an iPod for the first time. Finally!
No, no, it's a great anecdote, I just thought there might be a writeup with more funny details. In my brief BBS days I had to monitor which sysops called my mom to verify my registrations. I used BBSs during their very very last days, when the internet was juuust starting.
You make a good and important point, and I have one correction to offer. I'm pretty sure "condone" is exactly what you want people to do:
condone/kndn/Verb
1. Accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
2. Approve or sanction (something), esp. with reluctance.
Despite the irony, I suggest that "they" could be Anonymous.
That's interesting. I tried to search for that on Google and only came up with a reference back to your post. Is that a part of internet pre-history or is it just your personal memory?
Okay. Interesting. Thanks.
Okay, but saying words to someone can be *ASSAULT*, which was my question. Is it your position that assault should not be a crime? that assault is not a problem? If so, that's fine, I can certainly sympathize with the idea that assault laws are problematic for free speech. If you are willing to say that you think assault should not be a crime, are you also willing to say that incitement should not be a crime? I mean, specifically where would you draw the line? For instance, if I hire a hit man to kill someone, should that be a crime? after all I haven't actually hurt anyone. What if the hit man worked for free? What if the hit man was part of the cult I run, and I told him to kill someone? Those situations are farther down the sliding scale of the situation in this news article, but they are far enough down the scale that there are plenty of opportunities for you to draw a line somewhere along the scale.
What kind of indoctrination? The doctrine of "assault is bad"? Do you think assault is either good or neutral? If so, what makes you think that? If not, why would you characterize a person as whiny for thinking assault is bad?
Surely you recognize the circular logic in that statement: "First, decide whether it is a joke; and if you can't decide, then decide it's a joke".
Really, I understand this is a tricky balance and different people will see different things. Still, incitement is a real problem, which causes real harm to real people, which is why it is a real crime, and thus must have some kind of definition.
It's interesting that you jump directly to the 'offense' canard when hurt feelings isn't at all what this story is about. The story is about the sliding scale of incitement to violence, and where different legal systems draw the line along that scale. Being offended is a different scale altogether, a scale where violence is not being suggested, and really has nothing to do with this story. How much incitement to violence does a legal system tolerate, given the tradition of free speech within that system? Consider that, then try posting something more thoughtful.
Really? I have an Archos 5, which is the reason I'm aware of the Archos 101. I just bought it a few weeks ago. Although imperfect, I haven't had problems with serious "bugs". My biggest problem is that Google Listen stops playing when the screen goes dark, which means I have to keep my screen on all the time. But, it is annoying that Archos doesn't offer up-to-date software -- very annoying.
I bought mine to replace a dead iPod. I wasn't interested in another Apple product and the Archos 5 seemed like the best alternative. I had to decide that huge amounts of storage was not essential, but I got the 16GB version plus a 32GB memory card, which is quite a bit. I would recommend it, for what it is.
I wonder why our experiences with stability have been so different?
I guess now everyone will just have to buy an Archos 101 instead.
Probably not, considering most Slashdotters are smart enough to consider context.
But, this politician still sounds like a jerk who make a joke which crosses the legal line, and should be mildly punished for it.
Are you aware that England and Britain are different?
Are you aware of synecdoche?
That false equivalency is premised on an untenable ignorance of context, thus reasonable people like myself reject it.
Can you tell me how to tell the difference, so that I'll know next time?
I'd like to take this opportunity to Godwin this thread by pointing out that Hitler never killed anybody (except maybe himself).
Individual agency is not the standard by which we judge criminal conduct. You can be guilty of conspiracy, incitement, facilitation, aiding and abetting, or other ways.
They're not? Huh. That's funny, considering his arrest for committing a crime.
Can you propose how to distinguish between a "rhetorical" threat against a person's life, and an actual threat against a person's life? I've tried to think of a few ways, and for all of them this would fall on the "actual" side.
Thank you, President McKinley. We'll start war with Spain tomorrow.
or
Thank you, President Bush. We'll start war with Iraq tomorrow.
GameStop == Blockbuster
Steam == Netflix
The question is, why the hell didn't Blockbuster realize that they could deliver movies to customers in new ways, thus vastly increasing their market? Why didn't GameStop? If Blockbuster had started up their service which competes with Netflix the day after they first heard of Netflix, then today there would be no Netflix. If GameStop had started an online market the day after it first heard of the internet, then we'd all be complaining about GameStop DRM instead of Steam DRM.
Three years from now I'll be posting on Slashdot asking why Comcast Cable didn't offer an easy-to-use online archive of millions of TV shows, the way X company did. Well, actually maybe X company is also Netflix.