They didn't say it would reduce carbon emissions. They said it would "Have the same effect on carbon emissions" as planting 1 million trees. Because, ya know, trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The USA is actually a net carbon SINK, rather than a carbon SOURCE. This is one of the reasons the USA didn't sign the Kyoto treaty; the treaty doesn't take into account consumers of atmospheric carbon, only producers.
And... that creates additional work for the ISP. IT's MUCH easier for the ISP to just give you a chunk of its own address space than to try and manage whatever address spaces the users have personally allocated to them.
Just try and get an ISP to route IPv4 address space... they'll say "no", or "sure... it'll cost you $$$$$$$$$$$$".
I hear some are so retarded they even pay other people to cook their food for them!
If you're talking about fast food, that's perfectly acceptable. If you're talking about in-home cooking, that's laziness.
Depends on how much your time is worth. Someone earning millions a year can afford to have an in-house cook. When he goes home, he wants to RELAX, and that relaxation time is well worth the price of an in-house cook.
And, no, I'm not one of those people, but I wish I was:)
Dvorak also said Apple were dead as little as 10 months ago, and they certainly didn't look dead then.
Regarding Apple on Intel... Dvorak was saying that Apple should and WOULD release OS/X on a standard PC. He did not restrict it to just running on an Intel architecture. So.. Dvorak didn't really get it right at all.
Perhaps we should just boycott Forbes until they get rid of Dan Lyons. Obviously, Forbes can't tell the difference between real journalism, and some sort of PR hack.
I totally disagree with you. Sure, this ONE person is only consuming a small amount of YOUR link, but add that up over millions and millions of people, and you have a real problem.
THEN add that up over the thousands and thousands of people spamming, and then we have a REAL problem just for you or me, and a REAL REAL problem for everyone.
Take him down, lock him up, take away his assests. He's scum.
I agree. However, there are other systems in the aircraft that detect the low pressure, and THESE cause additional alerts, plus the oxygen systems to activate.
In addition, a slow 'leak' gives the pilots great time for an emergency descent. Give me a slow leak over a fast one anyday.
The article claims that a failure in the chip could open valves that would cause rapid decompression.
There is NO WAY a valve could open up far enough to cause that kind of decompression. It would take several minutes to equalise with the outside air.
The article also claims that such depressurization would cause uncomciousness 'within seconds'.
Well, at 45,000 feet, you have 15 seconds of useful conciousness. Most craft cruise at around 38,000', where you'd have a full minute of useful conciousness... PLENTLY of time, in both cases, for you to put on supplemental oxygen masks.
There may well be problems with that chip, but the article really hypes up the fear factor. Typical of today's journalism: just repeat what others say, dont even bother making your own analysis, and you can't be sued.
Key-generation: there are TONS of ways to generate a key. All of them will give you a key in the end, but the process leading up to it can be done in different, and varying secure ways. Faster ones will use a Pseudo-RNG (insecure), while slower ones will use network events (semi-real-random, and far more secure), or something like mouse movements. Really, you can't compare the two.
File copying: again, it's MOSTLY a function of the encryption algorithm. If you're using a simpler, and less-secure algorithm, you'll get faster transfers, and less CPU utilisation doing those transfers.
It's this kind of thing that Microsoft uses when comparing, for example, IIS and Apache. Their comparisons using HTTPS were done with different hash and encryption algorithms, which make up a HUGE portion of the resource utilisation.
A lack of knowledge about a particular subject is not the same as a lack of intelligence or awareness. Not every person can know everything. (And, frankly, I NEVER claimed that Google were the first to implement this kind of thing. I only claimed that google's labels were superior over directory hierarchies).
I've used a lot of mail clients in my time (my primary one is Apple Mail, not google mail). I've used those two, plus eudora, pine, outlook (briefly, only when I had to), the mail program inside netscape communicator (v4), the old 'mail' program from unix. That's a lot of mail programs, and I DO know that it isn't them all. However, none of those programs had labels, or categories.
What's a huge benefit. Being able to or NOT being able to file a mail in two locations?:) (You can certainly add more than one label, in google mail).
I'm just doing some tests, and yes, I can see that you can't show messages that have no labels. I guess what you're doing is using filters to attach mailing-list related labels as appropriate, and what you really want to do is show mail that isn't currently labelled.
What I suggest doing is editing your filter to say "skip the inbox". It'll immediately be treated as 'archived', so you'll only see other mail as it arrives. Sure, you'll need to explicitly view the labelled mail now, but that's what you want, isn't it? (Note that a mail that is 'archived' will still show if you view mail with a particular label... I think google's meaning of 'archived' is 'It'll show up in the All Mail and Labelled Mail, but not Inbox'... quite a nice idea).
The author makes the accusation that google are 'arrogant' by throwing away common email metaphors, and one of them is the common 'folders' practise that just about every mail system except google uses.
However, I think Google's way of doing things is FAR better. Folders is great, it allows you to file your mail away in a flat or hierarchial organisation. however, it DOESNT easily let you file a mail in TWO locations, unless you make a copy of the mail, and that in itself is really awkward.
Applying labels, or some kind of keyword system, or however you want to call it, is in fact a far more natural and flexible way of doings things, and I fully intend to apply that idea to a few other projects I'm working on, where 'file away into nested folders' was the original way of doing things.
So... perhaps Google needs to play a little catchup, but Google's idea of 'labels' instead of 'folders' I think is far superior.
The author of the article, with his accusations of Google's "arrogance", is really letting his "must put google down at all costs, because it's the cool thing to do" attitude really show.
If you get a CD, you can rip it to whatever format you like - MP3, AAC or OGG - all unprotected, and play it on just about anything you damn well please.
Buy (or rent) a track from a store (okay, the 'big name' stores), you're stuck to playing it on a iPod, OR a WMV-based player, but not both.
The very fact that I corrected myself, and didn't use the word 'theft' inappropriately in my reply I think proves that I'm NOT 'persisting' in the use of it. Thanks for not even reading my reply.
And, frankly, the 'sabotage' that PeerGuardian is trying to work around is the sabotage caused by the copyright holders (or their agents) to try and make P2P less effective in the illegal distribution of copyright materials. So, frankly, they don't score "ethics" points at all.
So... perhaps a decent analogy is worthwhile: If you manufacture shovels, which COULD be used to shovel pearls, but are most certainly going to be used to shovel dirt too, you should expect to have dirt flung on you from time to time.
Yes, I agree that the use of 'theft' is inappropriate. However, it really is drawn out to say 'copyright violation' all the time. Can we take it as read that I DO understand the difference between theft of proprty, and the unlawful redistribution of information ?
And, no, you don't get a specific vote on copyright law. You didn't get a specific vote on a bunch of things. You live in a republic, not a democracy. The last TRUE democracy was ancient Greece, where they voted on near everything, and things didn't turn out so well for them:)
My point (and I really don't see why it was labelled 'off topic'... even 'flamebait' might have been more accurate) was that P2P communities are rife with people that just want their free stuff, and they don't give a damn who they hurt. So, it should be NO surprise that one of them turned against the PeerGuardian developers. William wanted his free stuff - where 'stuff' here meant the methlabs.org site - and he didn't give a damn who he hurt.
No surprise whatsoever.
If one wants to deal only with ethical people, don't create programs that will attract a highly disproportionate amount of unethical people.
Okay, I'm NOT saying that ALL P2P users are thieves, but I don't think ANYONE in their right mind is going to argue that copyright violations is not the majority use of P2P networks.
So... EVEN IF a handful of folk in a group are using P2P software for utterly and totally legitimate purposes, the majority aren't, and of THOSE people, their sense of ethics is at least tainted, and most likely totally horked.
So... takeover of a P2P-related group by one of its members? No surprise there. Roll in the next drama please.
No, I'm not trolling, I just didn't research the act very well, and my assumptions may have been incorrect:)
And, no, I NEVER suggested that kids are hiring games FROM Their parents, but instead perhaps buying them from the store, and then playing them without the knowledge of the parents. Sheesh... I didn't think my post was THAT badly worded.
And... frankly... I DO agree that the parents should have control over what their kid does and doesn't see. Better them than the government, or Thoth forbid YOU.
Really? So... the ticket-seller is allowed to sell a ticket to a NC-17 movie to a minor? I find that very hard to believe.
However, assuming it's true, then yes, there's an inconsistency here that needs to be addressed, likely in the 'make it a crime to sell a NC-17 ticket to a minor'.
I DO think the actual penalties, however, are extreme.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow... the sound of that is something quite atrocious.
They didn't say it would reduce carbon emissions. They said it would "Have the same effect on carbon emissions" as planting 1 million trees. Because, ya know, trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The USA is actually a net carbon SINK, rather than a carbon SOURCE. This is one of the reasons the USA didn't sign the Kyoto treaty; the treaty doesn't take into account consumers of atmospheric carbon, only producers.
And... that creates additional work for the ISP. IT's MUCH easier for the ISP to just give you a chunk of its own address space than to try and manage whatever address spaces the users have personally allocated to them.
Just try and get an ISP to route IPv4 address space... they'll say "no", or "sure... it'll cost you $$$$$$$$$$$$".
Depends on how much your time is worth. Someone earning millions a year can afford to have an in-house cook. When he goes home, he wants to RELAX, and that relaxation time is well worth the price of an in-house cook.
And, no, I'm not one of those people, but I wish I was
Dvorak also said Apple were dead as little as 10 months ago, and they certainly didn't look dead then.
Regarding Apple on Intel... Dvorak was saying that Apple should and WOULD release OS/X on a standard PC. He did not restrict it to just running on an Intel architecture. So.. Dvorak didn't really get it right at all.
Perhaps we should just boycott Forbes until they get rid of Dan Lyons. Obviously, Forbes can't tell the difference between real journalism, and some sort of PR hack.
I totally disagree with you. Sure, this ONE person is only consuming a small amount of YOUR link, but add that up over millions and millions of people, and you have a real problem.
THEN add that up over the thousands and thousands of people spamming, and then we have a REAL problem just for you or me, and a REAL REAL problem for everyone.
Take him down, lock him up, take away his assests. He's scum.
Not to worry, they counted on Slashdot to point it out! :)
Wait a while, you'll get your wish.... and, Lo!
I agree. However, there are other systems in the aircraft that detect the low pressure, and THESE cause additional alerts, plus the oxygen systems to activate.
In addition, a slow 'leak' gives the pilots great time for an emergency descent. Give me a slow leak over a fast one anyday.
The article claims that a failure in the chip could open valves that would cause rapid decompression.
There is NO WAY a valve could open up far enough to cause that kind of decompression. It would take several minutes to equalise with the outside air.
The article also claims that such depressurization would cause uncomciousness 'within seconds'.
Well, at 45,000 feet, you have 15 seconds of useful conciousness. Most craft cruise at around 38,000', where you'd have a full minute of useful conciousness... PLENTLY of time, in both cases, for you to put on supplemental oxygen masks.
There may well be problems with that chip, but the article really hypes up the fear factor. Typical of today's journalism: just repeat what others say, dont even bother making your own analysis, and you can't be sued.
I responded to a troll.... shame on me :)
Key-generation: there are TONS of ways to generate a key. All of them will give you a key in the end, but the process leading up to it can be done in different, and varying secure ways. Faster ones will use a Pseudo-RNG (insecure), while slower ones will use network events (semi-real-random, and far more secure), or something like mouse movements. Really, you can't compare the two.
File copying: again, it's MOSTLY a function of the encryption algorithm. If you're using a simpler, and less-secure algorithm, you'll get faster transfers, and less CPU utilisation doing those transfers.
It's this kind of thing that Microsoft uses when comparing, for example, IIS and Apache. Their comparisons using HTTPS were done with different hash and encryption algorithms, which make up a HUGE portion of the resource utilisation.
A lack of knowledge about a particular subject is not the same as a lack of intelligence or awareness. Not every person can know everything. (And, frankly, I NEVER claimed that Google were the first to implement this kind of thing. I only claimed that google's labels were superior over directory hierarchies).
I've used a lot of mail clients in my time (my primary one is Apple Mail, not google mail). I've used those two, plus eudora, pine, outlook (briefly, only when I had to), the mail program inside netscape communicator (v4), the old 'mail' program from unix. That's a lot of mail programs, and I DO know that it isn't them all. However, none of those programs had labels, or categories.
So... which one's do? Enlighten us!
And... if he already is castrated.... ? :)
Agreed. Nested labels would be cool.
What's a huge benefit. Being able to or NOT being able to file a mail in two locations? :) (You can certainly add more than one label, in google mail).
... quite a nice idea).
I'm just doing some tests, and yes, I can see that you can't show messages that have no labels. I guess what you're doing is using filters to attach mailing-list related labels as appropriate, and what you really want to do is show mail that isn't currently labelled.
What I suggest doing is editing your filter to say "skip the inbox". It'll immediately be treated as 'archived', so you'll only see other mail as it arrives. Sure, you'll need to explicitly view the labelled mail now, but that's what you want, isn't it? (Note that a mail that is 'archived' will still show if you view mail with a particular label... I think google's meaning of 'archived' is 'It'll show up in the All Mail and Labelled Mail, but not Inbox'
The author makes the accusation that google are 'arrogant' by throwing away common email metaphors, and one of them is the common 'folders' practise that just about every mail system except google uses.
However, I think Google's way of doing things is FAR better. Folders is great, it allows you to file your mail away in a flat or hierarchial organisation. however, it DOESNT easily let you file a mail in TWO locations, unless you make a copy of the mail, and that in itself is really awkward.
Applying labels, or some kind of keyword system, or however you want to call it, is in fact a far more natural and flexible way of doings things, and I fully intend to apply that idea to a few other projects I'm working on, where 'file away into nested folders' was the original way of doing things.
So... perhaps Google needs to play a little catchup, but Google's idea of 'labels' instead of 'folders' I think is far superior.
The author of the article, with his accusations of Google's "arrogance", is really letting his "must put google down at all costs, because it's the cool thing to do" attitude really show.
You're forgetting the portable music players.
If you get a CD, you can rip it to whatever format you like - MP3, AAC or OGG - all unprotected, and play it on just about anything you damn well please.
Buy (or rent) a track from a store (okay, the 'big name' stores), you're stuck to playing it on a iPod, OR a WMV-based player, but not both.
So... what flavour Kool-Aid are YOU drinking?
The very fact that I corrected myself, and didn't use the word 'theft' inappropriately in my reply I think proves that I'm NOT 'persisting' in the use of it. Thanks for not even reading my reply.
And, frankly, the 'sabotage' that PeerGuardian is trying to work around is the sabotage caused by the copyright holders (or their agents) to try and make P2P less effective in the illegal distribution of copyright materials. So, frankly, they don't score "ethics" points at all.
So... perhaps a decent analogy is worthwhile: If you manufacture shovels, which COULD be used to shovel pearls, but are most certainly going to be used to shovel dirt too, you should expect to have dirt flung on you from time to time.
Yes, I agree that the use of 'theft' is inappropriate. However, it really is drawn out to say 'copyright violation' all the time. Can we take it as read that I DO understand the difference between theft of proprty, and the unlawful redistribution of information ?
:)
And, no, you don't get a specific vote on copyright law. You didn't get a specific vote on a bunch of things. You live in a republic, not a democracy. The last TRUE democracy was ancient Greece, where they voted on near everything, and things didn't turn out so well for them
My point (and I really don't see why it was labelled 'off topic'... even 'flamebait' might have been more accurate) was that P2P communities are rife with people that just want their free stuff, and they don't give a damn who they hurt. So, it should be NO surprise that one of them turned against the PeerGuardian developers. William wanted his free stuff - where 'stuff' here meant the methlabs.org site - and he didn't give a damn who he hurt.
No surprise whatsoever.
If one wants to deal only with ethical people, don't create programs that will attract a highly disproportionate amount of unethical people.
No honour amongst thieves.
Okay, I'm NOT saying that ALL P2P users are thieves, but I don't think ANYONE in their right mind is going to argue that copyright violations is not the majority use of P2P networks.
So... EVEN IF a handful of folk in a group are using P2P software for utterly and totally legitimate purposes, the majority aren't, and of THOSE people, their sense of ethics is at least tainted, and most likely totally horked.
So... takeover of a P2P-related group by one of its members? No surprise there. Roll in the next drama please.
Who in the world puts scp into /usr/sbin, anyway ?
No, I'm not trolling, I just didn't research the act very well, and my assumptions may have been incorrect :)
And, no, I NEVER suggested that kids are hiring games FROM Their parents, but instead perhaps buying them from the store, and then playing them without the knowledge of the parents. Sheesh... I didn't think my post was THAT badly worded.
And... frankly... I DO agree that the parents should have control over what their kid does and doesn't see. Better them than the government, or Thoth forbid YOU.
Really? So... the ticket-seller is allowed to sell a ticket to a NC-17 movie to a minor? I find that very hard to believe.
However, assuming it's true, then yes, there's an inconsistency here that needs to be addressed, likely in the 'make it a crime to sell a NC-17 ticket to a minor'.
I DO think the actual penalties, however, are extreme.