So there is this box "Ads Disabled" ticked, but I still see an Ad for microsoft, a tiny rectangle taking up 25% of my screen real estate... What gives?
DVDs have been designed to be double sided. They are 1.2mm thick and the dye layer is supposed to be at 0.6mm from the surface, in other words, right in the middle. This allows for double side by design.
A double sided CD/DVD makes the disc not conforming with either spec since it's going to be thicker. It works for the most part. A double sided CD would be much harder since it would have to be twice as thick and that wouldn't work at all.
You've already seen a double side CD? I didn't think so. It does not exists because the CD is 1.2mm thick and the distance btw the laser and the dye layer is supposed to be 1.2mm as well... So your dye layer is necessarily on one edge of the CD. Since it is supposed to be opaque, a laser could not see though it if you flipped it on the other side.
Oh my... Is this just like going to an MS store and buying an brand new Windows 7?
Looks like MS wants to double dip here. They force feed Windows licenses to constructors that don't know any better than to crappify it, and then you have to go to MS again to de-crappify it?
I know absolutely jack shit about programming, but I am fairly certain that if I went to school for six months to learn how to program that it would be trivial for me to write that function.
The concept is just so simple that even I get it.
I'm sure you'll get there in a few days, no need for month. That is, if you have an IQ over 80 of course.
Shit, we may even decide to go outside, into the Big Blue Room and talk to actual people, face to face!
WTF is wrong with you people? You still think Facebook is here to replace something like going out? Do you really believe all facebook users forgot to open their front door for the last year?
You see no value in facebook, we get it. Now fuck off and let us use it the way we see fit, unless you feel empowered by God to forbid us to do so.
That's part of respecting others - not trying to force feed them with *your* view of how they should behave.
The argument Stallman uses against this is that we, as voters, have no way to know whether the code actually running on the machine in front of us is the same as the open code that we have reviewed.
What the cops told him is on tape and both the cops and himself agree that it was what was said.
The fact that he did, well, we only know by his own account, I agree. But it doesn't really help his case on the contrary, so he's most likely not lying about it. True, I don't know, but it's likely.
Hmmm. Only Zimmerman himself can assert to that version, so I'd call it dubious at best.
The facts that can be verified by other parties are the following: Zimmerman called the cops saying "there's a suspicious looking dude". The cops specifically told him not to follow or get involved in any way. He did it anyways. Now the "suspicious dude" is dead. He shot him.
That's pretty much all we know. I won't take a word of Zimmerman at face value if it cannot be verified by a trusted third party, such as the police.
If I was in his place, I'd lie through my teeth to try to get away as a free citizen. So I strongly suspect he does the same.
That's why copyright infringement is not theft. It is not the legal definition of "that kind of theft". It's the legal definition of something which is illegal, but isn't theft.
It absolutely is theft. You're stealing access that you don't have. Doesn't matter how you dress it up, and what legalese you use -- it's theft.
Definition of theft: the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another.
The music I'm downloading illegally is the property of no one. Someone may have a copyright on it, but that doesn't make it their property. Therefore it cannot be theft. Moreover, I'm not "carrying it away", I'm duplicating it. Therefore, for the second time, it is not theft.
Learn your word first, then look if it applies to the situation. Copyright infringement is not theft by any sense of the word theft. You might want to call it "theft" but that doesn't make it so. Not in English at least. in dhavleakish maybe?
one thing's for sure: local is a lot more reliable and secure.
Oh no, no it's not and it's a common mistake to make. It is only if you know how to do it properly and if you are actually doing it. And that is a big IF for many people to swallow.
A USB drive attached to your main computer is well and good, but it's not going to solve all your problems. If you get robbed for example, there are chances that they'll take the computer AND the USB drive. An electric discharge might kill both your PC and your USB drive.
Off site backup is the only option. It might be online or through DVD or even a HDD, but it needs to be someplace else.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear way2trivial, good luck with your dialup modem ;-)
Good luck getting the major motion picture studios to understand what's at stakes.
There. FTFY.
And... Steve Jobs was never wrong?
So there is this box "Ads Disabled" ticked, but I still see an Ad for microsoft, a tiny rectangle taking up 25% of my screen real estate... What gives?
DVDs have been designed to be double sided. They are 1.2mm thick and the dye layer is supposed to be at 0.6mm from the surface, in other words, right in the middle. This allows for double side by design.
A double sided CD/DVD makes the disc not conforming with either spec since it's going to be thicker. It works for the most part. A double sided CD would be much harder since it would have to be twice as thick and that wouldn't work at all.
You've already seen a double side CD? I didn't think so. It does not exists because the CD is 1.2mm thick and the distance btw the laser and the dye layer is supposed to be 1.2mm as well... So your dye layer is necessarily on one edge of the CD. Since it is supposed to be opaque, a laser could not see though it if you flipped it on the other side.
Oh my... Is this just like going to an MS store and buying an brand new Windows 7?
Looks like MS wants to double dip here. They force feed Windows licenses to constructors that don't know any better than to crappify it, and then you have to go to MS again to de-crappify it?
Thieves.
No no, you have a lower chance of dying.
I know absolutely jack shit about programming, but I am fairly certain that if I went to school for six months to learn how to program that it would be trivial for me to write that function.
The concept is just so simple that even I get it.
I'm sure you'll get there in a few days, no need for month. That is, if you have an IQ over 80 of course.
If you had a 100 people do it you would probably get lots of exact copies.
I'm pretty sure you would not.
Shit, we may even decide to go outside, into the Big Blue Room and talk to actual people, face to face!
WTF is wrong with you people? You still think Facebook is here to replace something like going out? Do you really believe all facebook users forgot to open their front door for the last year?
You see no value in facebook, we get it. Now fuck off and let us use it the way we see fit, unless you feel empowered by God to forbid us to do so.
That's part of respecting others - not trying to force feed them with *your* view of how they should behave.
The argument Stallman uses against this is that we, as voters, have no way to know whether the code actually running on the machine in front of us is the same as the open code that we have reviewed.
That's not a good argument.
What's yours? It's a perfectly sound argument.
"Strangely" enough, Internet Explorer, along with other MS apps, will still have access to those features.
That's only because they know what they are doing. They have a good enough track record in the security area to be trusted blindly by the population.
I mean, come on, they wrote the frigging OS itself !!!
Which sentence are you questioning?
What the cops told him is on tape and both the cops and himself agree that it was what was said.
The fact that he did, well, we only know by his own account, I agree. But it doesn't really help his case on the contrary, so he's most likely not lying about it. True, I don't know, but it's likely.
I'm not saying he's guilty. I'm saying his word cannot be trusted, because should he be guilty he'd certainly claim not to be, so how do we know?
Hmmm. Only Zimmerman himself can assert to that version, so I'd call it dubious at best.
The facts that can be verified by other parties are the following: Zimmerman called the cops saying "there's a suspicious looking dude". The cops specifically told him not to follow or get involved in any way. He did it anyways. Now the "suspicious dude" is dead. He shot him.
That's pretty much all we know. I won't take a word of Zimmerman at face value if it cannot be verified by a trusted third party, such as the police.
If I was in his place, I'd lie through my teeth to try to get away as a free citizen. So I strongly suspect he does the same.
Completely unrelated to my joke, but true nonetheless.
I see. I guess your definition for "real" is "useful in my eyes" and your definition of "not real" is "of which I disagree with".
Words have a meaning you know? How about trying to use the ones that mean what you want to say? And you give lessons on communication...
No there yet are you?
Did any of the numerous replies made to you so far made a dent into your judgment yet? It really should.
That's why copyright infringement is not theft. It is not the legal definition of "that kind of theft". It's the legal definition of something which is illegal, but isn't theft.
It absolutely is theft. You're stealing access that you don't have. Doesn't matter how you dress it up, and what legalese you use -- it's theft.
Definition of theft: the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another.
The music I'm downloading illegally is the property of no one. Someone may have a copyright on it, but that doesn't make it their property. Therefore it cannot be theft.
Moreover, I'm not "carrying it away", I'm duplicating it. Therefore, for the second time, it is not theft.
Learn your word first, then look if it applies to the situation. Copyright infringement is not theft by any sense of the word theft. You might want to call it "theft" but that doesn't make it so. Not in English at least. in dhavleakish maybe?
Don't worry. They will fail. And when they have failed, it'll be too late. Backups have to be made BEFORE the failure.
one thing's for sure: local is a lot more reliable and secure.
Oh no, no it's not and it's a common mistake to make. It is only if you know how to do it properly and if you are actually doing it. And that is a big IF for many people to swallow.
OVH has an offer (hubiC) for online storage à la Dropbox for 80€/year - unlimited. Their free offering is 25GB. Never tried it yet, but I will soon.
Your mom should open a hubiC account along with the other stuff she's doing. It's 80€/year for unlimited storage. That's cheap.
I would not recommend this as the only backup, but that's only because I would not recommend anything as the only backup.
But that beat HDD in terms of convenience when you want to access the pic taken 3.7 years ago. It's all there !
A USB drive attached to your main computer is well and good, but it's not going to solve all your problems. If you get robbed for example, there are chances that they'll take the computer AND the USB drive. An electric discharge might kill both your PC and your USB drive.
Off site backup is the only option. It might be online or through DVD or even a HDD, but it needs to be someplace else.