Twenty five miles per gallon is pretty decent. Not spectacular, nothing to write home about, but it's no gas guzzler. if you're going to make up numbers, at least make them support your claims
A lot of good suggestions indeed, but I certainly hope they don't listen to him when he suggests changing the desktop context menu by moving "Run Command" to a submenu. Don't do that, KDE developers! I've got KDE 3 set up for my dad, and I pruned as many menu items off as I could from the K program menu, and so if i'm sitting at the computer, pulling up the right-click to the desktop context menu then Run Command is a nice fast way to run stuff there isn't a menu option for. Run command is definitely general-purpose enough to keep on the main desktop context menu, not a submenu.
There is a clear difference between stealing someone's domain name (there is only one Unix.org) and 'stealing' someone's song for your own listening purposes, which does not diminish its value unless you would have otherwise paid for it.
True, these are very different beasts. But just because you wouldn't have paid for the song doesn't mean that you weren't unjustly enriched when you downloaded it without permission of the copyright holder. Maybe you don't want to pay for the song, and if the download wasn't available, you wouldn't have listened to it. But if you listen to your downloaded MP3 and enjoy it, perhaps listen to it again...you're taking something that doesn't belong to you and gaining benefit from it. So what's in it for the artist? Sure you wouldnt have paid them either way, but it sure isn't fair for you to be getting the satisfaction of listening to their music when they dont want you to, and you give nothing in return....
What with kids not able to have a prayer at school, I'm not really surprised that the "under God" section of the Pledge would be called unconstitutional. Of course, we can debate till the cows come home just what the constitution means in regards to freedom of religion/freedom from religion/etc...
Anyways, I say to the Supreme Court, let this ruling stand. God has no place in school....Kids don't need God.
And what's with our currency saying "In God We Trust"? I thought there was some story about God getting pissed about people worshipping a golden calf, now he's forced to deal with his name promoting his least favorite idol? Hopefully he's still as patient as he was in the New Testament....we don't stand a chance against the wrath of the Old Testament God....
If I added up all the time spent closing those annoying pop up/under windows with IE, I'm sure it'd more than make up for the time spent waiting for Mozilla to get swapped back into memory (I often run a lotta apps, and Mozilla uses a lot of RAM (who doesn't these days?)...
And then there's the seizure-inducing rapid-flash animated gifs that loop to infinity in IE...in Mozilla I can set them to run just once. Or not view them at all (or only ones from the same server). The savings from not paying those medical expenses...I could put a down payment on a house with that money instead!
The Tabs are a nice feature...when I'm running a lotta apps, there's no room for text on the Taskbar...but my tabs can tell me what page they're holding for me.
If everyone else sticks with IE, at least I know I'm happier browsing now than I was before. Thanks Mozilla!
"We know the world created itself a few billion years ago and not 5762 years ago (according to the Jewish counting)."
That should either be "I believe the world...", or "We \"know\" the world...".
The world was created 5762 years ago. Believe what you want. If you can state your belief as fact, so can I state mine as fact.
Actually, I'd take issue with the phrase "the world created itself". I guess you could see it that way, but it boils down to the gravitational attraction between the particles that now make up the earth...but then you gotta figure how all those particles got there in the first place...
In any case, saying the world created itself sounds like the world knew what it was doing...or something crazy like that.
"I think everyone here should take pains to let the Congress know about the direct, measurable economic harm that will befall other industries if this type of legislation passes."
I agree wholeheartedly. But who do we contact? It'd be great if the story submitters or the editors or just some AC poster put up the details on who is sponsoring a bill, which committee is in charge of it, and on contacting them or your own senator/representative by mail, phone, fax or email.
I'm sure crap like this analog to digital "protection" outrages a lot of people here but not everyone knows who to complain to! Remember, the squeaky wheel gets the oil....So we need to start squeaking! The MPAA/RIAA have been squeaking too loud and too much!
The ironic part is whether the digitized versions will last/be usable longer then the clay tablets.
What are you talking about? Of course the tablets will last longer. But the benefits of the digital copies are pretty nice:
1. easy to share 2. Try setting a real clay block as your desktop background image.
But it's got downsides:
1. less valuable - the real clay tablets could probably fetch you a good deal, at least on the black market, the digital ones are probably already on freenet/gnutella... 2. vulnerable to static electricity...
You had to click through several layers, including one page which solely consisted of a rant on how it is actually in your benefit to allow them to track your usage
Ok, all this going through hoops of fire to opt out is too much. I agree 100% there.
But...say I'm using a hotmail or yahoo email account. I'm definitely sick of all those x10 banners and pop[up,under] windows. And what's with all the match.com banner ads? I'm married! I dont need a date.
Since most of the free web services are advertiser supported, it'd be great if I could just see ads that actually interested me. Computers, tech stuff, whatever. Not how to lose 40 lbs.
Isn't oatmeal supposed to help prevent cancer? Now I find out that it possibly causes it....Is my breakfast food in a delicate balance of life and death?
no worthwhile comment here....i just wanted to record my opinion for all time, or at least until/. finds out their backups aren't able to be restored at some future date....
So my question is how does it work if yoiu are wearing glasses ? How does it handel background noise (ppl walking past ect ?
And what happens if you've got a chair that spins and you do a 360....does the pointer leave one side of the monitor and reappear on the other? or do you need to give yourself whiplash to bring the mouse over to the other side?
But which eye? the left, the right, or both? What if you suffer from a lazy eye....if the hands-free mouse tracks the average focus point of both eyes...you'll have a hell of a time using it. Maybe it's a config setting to choose which eye to track.
Steve Ballmer could show up with a baseball bat and smash my keyboard, but (a) I have others
But if Mr. Ballmer smashes your fingers (a) you've only got so many of those, and (b) if you sue them for the harm they caused you, and win, you'll be living off MS's dirty money....
No children are exploited in virtual porn, so it should be legal, its harmless and if anything protects children in the long run
Sounds like it could be true...who knows, maybe the sickos who like little kids would have that appetite satiated by looking at some pictures...maybe not....but overall, yeah, I suppose this could be protected by free speech. It's sick, but I dont want to slide down that slippery slope...
BUT, there's a big difference between using a "dancing baby" type computer generated picture of a child for virtual kiddy porn and using a scanned photograph of a child, altered on the computer with Photoshop to make it seem the kid's having sex. The law was made to prevent both, presumably. Now that law's gone. Lets just hope the scanned/altered pictures cant have their subjects personally identified, because that would be harmful to them.....
C'mon - if you heard that MS has some GPLed code in Windows - which would you put your weght behind: a) They just take the code out b) They are forced to open their codebase
I don't have the $$ or legal staff to force option B. What I'd rather see happen is that MS gets sued for damages for violating the software's license, and that money go towards paying people who developed the GPL'ed code.
Well my friend the glass may not know how much the person has had, but the device it will be signaling to might.
I had that same thought, but then you need to know the person's weight...which means you either ask them (will they tell the truth?), make them step on a scale (maybe as you herd people in through the door?), or guess (are they wearing bulky clothes? Are they fat or muscular?).
So once you get past that, then you realize that some people can really handle their liquor and some cant, regardless of how much they weigh. I wouldnt want to be refused a drink when a computer tells me I'm already too drunk if I'm really not. That's an insult. And if I really am am drunk, well hell, I'd probably be just as mad at that computer for thinking it's so smart and knows so much about me.
Then will pubs have to start formulating privacy policies, given that they are collecting all this personal information from you?
Dude, that's a heck of a story you got in your journal. You know, I just had a vision of heaven: it's not a place with halos and harps, not loose women or riches or food....heaven is no stupid people. Or at least not having to deal with them. You can probably still watch the stupid people on earth for amusement. Good luck with your auto troubles...for my part, I think I'm going to stick with my hand-me-down '85 Pontiac 6000 until it won't run no more.....
Yahoo is also running a similar story, based on a New Scientist article. In the New Scientist article, this technology makes sense: in a restaurant setting, waiters can make sure to keep people's glasses topped off, that way the customers stay happier. But in a pub setting, I dont see this technology working as well. I mean, how does the glass know when the drinker has drunk enough for the night? Obviously it doesn't....and because everyone is different, there's no algorithm that can tell you how much a person should be allowed to drink, and that'd be treading on the person's privacy anyway. But yeah, I'd love to see this used on restaurant soda and water glasses...
Slashdot Mirror
Twenty five miles per gallon is pretty decent. Not spectacular, nothing to write home about, but it's no gas guzzler. if you're going to make up numbers, at least make them support your claims
A lot of good suggestions indeed, but I certainly hope they don't listen to him when he suggests changing the desktop context menu by moving "Run Command" to a submenu. Don't do that, KDE developers! I've got KDE 3 set up for my dad, and I pruned as many menu items off as I could from the K program menu, and so if i'm sitting at the computer, pulling up the right-click to the desktop context menu then Run Command is a nice fast way to run stuff there isn't a menu option for. Run command is definitely general-purpose enough to keep on the main desktop context menu, not a submenu.
True, these are very different beasts. But just because you wouldn't have paid for the song doesn't mean that you weren't unjustly enriched when you downloaded it without permission of the copyright holder. Maybe you don't want to pay for the song, and if the download wasn't available, you wouldn't have listened to it. But if you listen to your downloaded MP3 and enjoy it, perhaps listen to it again...you're taking something that doesn't belong to you and gaining benefit from it. So what's in it for the artist? Sure you wouldnt have paid them either way, but it sure isn't fair for you to be getting the satisfaction of listening to their music when they dont want you to, and you give nothing in return....
nearly a quarter of a million, or exactly a fifth of a million? you be the judge.
What with kids not able to have a prayer at school, I'm not really surprised that the "under God" section of the Pledge would be called unconstitutional. Of course, we can debate till the cows come home just what the constitution means in regards to freedom of religion/freedom from religion/etc...
Anyways, I say to the Supreme Court, let this ruling stand. God has no place in school....Kids don't need God.
And what's with our currency saying "In God We Trust"? I thought there was some story about God getting pissed about people worshipping a golden calf, now he's forced to deal with his name promoting his least favorite idol? Hopefully he's still as patient as he was in the New Testament....we don't stand a chance against the wrath of the Old Testament God....
Clearly, the consumer.
If I added up all the time spent closing those annoying pop up/under windows with IE, I'm sure it'd more than make up for the time spent waiting for Mozilla to get swapped back into memory (I often run a lotta apps, and Mozilla uses a lot of RAM (who doesn't these days?)...
And then there's the seizure-inducing rapid-flash animated gifs that loop to infinity in IE...in Mozilla I can set them to run just once. Or not view them at all (or only ones from the same server). The savings from not paying those medical expenses...I could put a down payment on a house with that money instead!
The Tabs are a nice feature...when I'm running a lotta apps, there's no room for text on the Taskbar...but my tabs can tell me what page they're holding for me.
If everyone else sticks with IE, at least I know I'm happier browsing now than I was before. Thanks Mozilla!
"We know the world created itself a few billion years ago and not 5762 years ago (according to the Jewish counting)."
That should either be "I believe the world...", or "We \"know\" the world...".
The world was created 5762 years ago. Believe what you want. If you can state your belief as fact, so can I state mine as fact.
Actually, I'd take issue with the phrase "the world created itself". I guess you could see it that way, but it boils down to the gravitational attraction between the particles that now make up the earth...but then you gotta figure how all those particles got there in the first place...
In any case, saying the world created itself sounds like the world knew what it was doing...or something crazy like that.
"I think everyone here should take pains to let the Congress know about the direct, measurable economic harm that will befall other industries if this type of legislation passes."
I agree wholeheartedly. But who do we contact? It'd be great if the story submitters or the editors or just some AC poster put up the details on who is sponsoring a bill, which committee is in charge of it, and on contacting them or your own senator/representative by mail, phone, fax or email.
I'm sure crap like this analog to digital "protection" outrages a lot of people here but not everyone knows who to complain to! Remember, the squeaky wheel gets the oil....So we need to start squeaking! The MPAA/RIAA have been squeaking too loud and too much!
Until this week, I had no idea that "Paint Your Wagon" was actually a real movie. Then I saw it in the TV section of the paper...
Anyways, that's pretty cool that Sherwin Williams is going with Linux for their POS stuff.
The ironic part is whether the digitized versions will last/be usable longer then the clay tablets.
What are you talking about? Of course the tablets will last longer. But the benefits of the digital copies are pretty nice:
1. easy to share
2. Try setting a real clay block as your desktop background image.
But it's got downsides:
1. less valuable - the real clay tablets could probably fetch you a good deal, at least on the black market, the digital ones are probably already on freenet/gnutella...
2. vulnerable to static electricity...
You had to click through several layers, including one page which solely consisted of a rant on how it is actually in your benefit to allow them to track your usage
Ok, all this going through hoops of fire to opt out is too much. I agree 100% there.
But...say I'm using a hotmail or yahoo email account. I'm definitely sick of all those x10 banners and pop[up,under] windows. And what's with all the match.com banner ads? I'm married! I dont need a date.
Since most of the free web services are advertiser supported, it'd be great if I could just see ads that actually interested me. Computers, tech stuff, whatever. Not how to lose 40 lbs.
There are no penguins in Alaska. Funny joke anyway.
Maybe at a zoo?
Isn't oatmeal supposed to help prevent cancer? Now I find out that it possibly causes it....Is my breakfast food in a delicate balance of life and death?
no worthwhile comment here....i just wanted to record my opinion for all time, or at least until /. finds out their backups aren't able to be restored at some future date....
So my question is how does it work if yoiu are wearing glasses ? How does it handel background noise (ppl walking past ect ?
And what happens if you've got a chair that spins and you do a 360....does the pointer leave one side of the monitor and reappear on the other? or do you need to give yourself whiplash to bring the mouse over to the other side?
But which eye? the left, the right, or both? What if you suffer from a lazy eye....if the hands-free mouse tracks the average focus point of both eyes...you'll have a hell of a time using it. Maybe it's a config setting to choose which eye to track.
Steve Ballmer could show up with a baseball bat and smash my keyboard, but (a) I have others
But if Mr. Ballmer smashes your fingers (a) you've only got so many of those, and (b) if you sue them for the harm they caused you, and win, you'll be living off MS's dirty money....
No children are exploited in virtual porn, so it should be legal, its harmless and if anything protects children in the long run
Sounds like it could be true...who knows, maybe the sickos who like little kids would have that appetite satiated by looking at some pictures...maybe not....but overall, yeah, I suppose this could be protected by free speech. It's sick, but I dont want to slide down that slippery slope...
BUT, there's a big difference between using a "dancing baby" type computer generated picture of a child for virtual kiddy porn and using a scanned photograph of a child, altered on the computer with Photoshop to make it seem the kid's having sex. The law was made to prevent both, presumably. Now that law's gone. Lets just hope the scanned/altered pictures cant have their subjects personally identified, because that would be harmful to them.....
C'mon - if you heard that MS has some GPLed code in Windows - which would you put your weght behind:
a) They just take the code out
b) They are forced to open their codebase
I don't have the $$ or legal staff to force option B. What I'd rather see happen is that MS gets sued for damages for violating the software's license, and that money go towards paying people who developed the GPL'ed code.
Good call.....or what if they've got bricks in their pocket? (you never know...)
What if they just donated a pint of blood that afternoon?
Well my friend the glass may not know how much the person has had, but the device it will be signaling to might.
I had that same thought, but then you need to know the person's weight...which means you either ask them (will they tell the truth?), make them step on a scale (maybe as you herd people in through the door?), or guess (are they wearing bulky clothes? Are they fat or muscular?).
So once you get past that, then you realize that some people can really handle their liquor and some cant, regardless of how much they weigh. I wouldnt want to be refused a drink when a computer tells me I'm already too drunk if I'm really not. That's an insult. And if I really am am drunk, well hell, I'd probably be just as mad at that computer for thinking it's so smart and knows so much about me.
Then will pubs have to start formulating privacy policies, given that they are collecting all this personal information from you?
It just sounds like a lot of trouble.
Dude, that's a heck of a story you got in your journal. You know, I just had a vision of heaven: it's not a place with halos and harps, not loose women or riches or food....heaven is no stupid people. Or at least not having to deal with them. You can probably still watch the stupid people on earth for amusement. Good luck with your auto troubles...for my part, I think I'm going to stick with my hand-me-down '85 Pontiac 6000 until it won't run no more.....
But yeah, I'd love to see this used on restaurant soda and water glasses...
Or pop glasses, or coke glasses....soda pop glasses....any other carbonated beverage term I'm missing?
Yahoo is also running a similar story, based on a New Scientist article. In the New Scientist article, this technology makes sense: in a restaurant setting, waiters can make sure to keep people's glasses topped off, that way the customers stay happier. But in a pub setting, I dont see this technology working as well. I mean, how does the glass know when the drinker has drunk enough for the night? Obviously it doesn't....and because everyone is different, there's no algorithm that can tell you how much a person should be allowed to drink, and that'd be treading on the person's privacy anyway. But yeah, I'd love to see this used on restaurant soda and water glasses...
I mean, sure, the added karma's nice, but this guy obviously has no hesitations about suing people...