This is not a solution, or a start to a solution, or even helpful. It's part of the problem.
Earth has an unknown amount of oil in it, but it is finite. One day, it will all be gone. Earth has a finite amount of life supporting compounds in it. We do NOT need to be burning those on a mass scale.
A self supporting system, such as that which evolved on our planet relies on the sun to power it, it self cycles compounds as necissary, this is taught in grade school in grade school. What is learned later on is if you start pulling out the c-c double bonds, random carboxylic acids, ketones, and such then throw them off as waste, you will end up making this planet a lifeless rock. Not tomorrow, not the next day, maybe even a few thousands years from now, but it will be the result. It took a lot of energy to put those compounds togethor. It takes a lot of energy to keep them in cycles.
Solar power is the answer (or some system equivalent), Nuclear power would be a good short term answer (as in a few thousand years, with little pollution).
While this is certainly a major factor, it does raise a simple question. Why doesn't any random metropolis in the States have similar broadband numbers? While having a dense population makes it easier, it's not the reason why. Government policy is a major contributor.
The main noticable differences between Halo and Halo 2 is dual wield and different maps. Of course the only way I've ever played it (and Halo) is on a lan of xboxes with 10+ people, so the story line has little relevence to me. Too bad you can't dual wield rocket launchers.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the default install on OS X which has had ZERO remote security problems from day 1 (due to the total lack of servers being on by default), wasn't relevent. Let's also assume that a rootkit was installed on OS X with a nice little virus go to along with it.
OS X has never required a format and total loss of user files and applications to reinstal the OS. So, in this case, you reinstall, then run the scanner on the install that hasn't been rooted to check the remaining filesystem for left overs.
Your joking aside, what's really interesting is the book wasn't first. Here's a nice timeline:
March 78 BBC Radio Show Dec 78 Christmas special May 79 Stage play in london Oct 79 The book is published
It goes on and on, with TV shows, more Radio shows, the classic text adverture game, up to Adams himself writing the draft screenplay a selling movie rights to Disney. It's been in his hands the whole time. A living breathing story, something that in this day and age of keeping perfect records (as we like to think) is getting more and more rare.
I've got copies of two of the BBC radio shows, I've seen TV adaptations. I'm looking forward to the movie, I'm sure Adams will continue with his great tradition even after death.
"The 'solution' IMHO is to have multiple layers of defence and to some extent, perhaps to use less popular tools (i.e. not McAfee and Norton) which won't be on the malware's 'hitlist'."
Why not have true user level file permissions and make it 100% impossible to delete applications without giving a password? Works for the Unix world. Works on this Mac I'm typing from. It still doesn't work for Windows? That's sad.
"A June beta release from Microsoft may or may not beat Apple's June final release, but Tiger's punch was the beta DVDs that went to all Worldwide Developers' Conference attendees LAST summer."
Microsoft understands how to handle the press. Since the beta will be fresh on the minds of jouralist, when Tiger is release every single article that talks about Tiger will also mention longhorn.
Very rarely does anything appear in a culture out of a vacuum. Electronic music is no exception. Something like modern digital sequencers were made because of the needs of bands like Kraftwerk and other pioneers in analog sequencers. Analog sequencers because popular because they were feasible to use.
Anyhow, you can keep tracing back and back till you end up with first guy who decided to lay a beat with morse code cause he bored. The point is, someone at one point made a purely electronic device for the sole purpose of making "music". As experimental as it was at the time, it was still "music". From the comments here on Slashdot, it sounds like it happened closer to 1900 rather than after the war.
Electronic music didn't die. Not even remotely. Last I checked, most if not all candy pop is based on it. In most genres it merely got integrated as a technique into base forms. It's been that way for a while now, the experimentation in the 80s of combining sequencers with standard instruments was so much a success, most people don't even notice it's happening anymore.
That being said, a lot of Spy ware and Virii on that have infected people's computers were put there by the users own stupidity and/or ignorance.
That's incorrect. It's a fundamental flaw design in Windows. Very fundamental. There is NO reason installers should EVER be used to install applications. None. They should NEVER, for any reason, integrate into the OS. All user installed applications should be properly seperated from all OS features. Welcome to how OS X does things.
I don't imagine the author expects that ANY new computer owner simply opens the box and has no problems operating the computer (Mac, Linux, Windows or any OS)
I would like to point out here that OS X doesn't have any services running by default that are can be used to spread a virus. That's a big difference. I'm sure there consumer Linux version have are tied down just as well, by default. Unix systems, in general, don't get slower with the more applications you install. They don't slow down over time. They don't start acting "wierd" over time. One doesn't buy a new computer because the old one was getting old and kept crashing when they chose a Unix system (which is purely a software problem).
Microsoft really is alone in these regards. Perhaps since some people can't imagine that a computer can be bought for a purpose and used for that till the day you want another computer for another purpose (which is how I approach the buying decision), it's okay to assume they just get old and slow over time.
This is so true. My first experience with a computer, outside of the tandy crap they had in middle school, was using Unix. Right after I got to college, I got my first e-mail account in 91. I learned from that day on it's never the users fault, ever. Rebooting doesn't solve the problem. Software doesn't magically break down over time, unless it's designed to do so. There are ways to make a computer nearly crash proof and have been for decades. These are things people have been taught to assume. Why else would anyone buy the "new" version that is "better" if they old version didn't have known faults?
This reminds me, a few years ago, I gave a demo of OS X to a Mac Users Group. During this I was talking about the benifits of the Unix core of OS X vs OS 9 and someone interrupted to ask me, "if it doesn't crash and always works, why will people need to buy a new machine?". My answer was along the lines, because what you use a computer for today isn't what you will use it for tomorrow, there will be new uses that require new hardware and new software.
"Now you tell me, why shouldn't I be free to exercise MY will to refuse to participate in this program? If I don't have that right, then I'm not exactly free, am I?"
It's this kind of thinking that is slowly destroying the States.
Taxes are not a burden. Having tax money spent on things you don't agree with is a fact of life. No one has a right to profit, sometimes the state can and should work for the benefit of the people even when it costs some company potential profits.
Lets say I don't have a car, and walk everywhere, why should I play for roads? Why should I pay for highways? In many cases, majority rules is not rule of thumb, but comparing free wifi to cannibalism is just pure bunk. They aren't even close. If you don't like how 90% of your neighbors spend your tax money, you got two choices, vote/protest or move. I couldn't care less which one you pick, I'm going to keep living my life in a cooperative manner, and the anarchists parading as libertarians can go live in a cave.
I just read that review. It plays mp3s, mpeg 4, can be connected to your computer, uses an 1.8GB disk for games. I was left with one question, how well does it play games?
Relativity was useless outside of the realm of describing orbits. Then came the needs for an accurate description of where you are at, i.e., GPS. Don't ever under estimate the future value of knowledge, even one that seems complete foreign and useless.
On the surface, you're correct. When you're told you are being watched, don't be surprised you are being watched. There is another dynamic to this, allowing monitoring networks to be set up is little more than a slippery slope.
There is a market, somewhere between monopolistic collusion and a free one, where the consumer has no choice. For example, when you call a company you are told you may be monitored, there are no other options (in fact even their competitors do the same thing). People accept this as a basic way of life. In many ways they are correct, it's not a big deal, you just have a question or a problem and the company needs assurance you are trying to pull one over on them and if you are, they can prove it.
Then there comes a day when the Ministry of Homeland Security decides the United Intelligence Services (how the FBI became an intelligence service is beyond me) wants to scan these databases of voices looking for "terrorists". Seems innocent enough, right? Depends on what they think a terrorist is.
When you live in a society where the peoples desires are met by entities who have more wealth and influence than the people will ever have, the people have a vested interest in making sure they don't all work in unison to make sure the power remains unbalanced (leaving them in a competitive advantage). A healthy dose of paranoia is good for you.
There's going to be a day when all cell phones are running servers over wireless for p2p communications. When that day comes, walking past the wrong person will hose your phone.
"What's next? Will we have to read and agree to the EULA before we can buy?"
No, because until the Supreme Court says otherwise, when I disagree to an EULA (including the part of the EULA that says I must do something if I disagree), I get default consumer protections and the software gets default copyright protections.
It's merely a contract offer, I didn't sign it, I didn't agree to it. I will ignore it.
Clearly you have an opinion of how YOUR children should be raised. A law that allows you to go buy video games for your child and give it to them does not infringe upon your rights as a parent to raise them. You have little to no say to how anyhow else raises their kids, outside of rights law has given children to prevent abuse and such, and if someone doesn't want their kid to buy some "obscene game", they should have full ability to limit that and are empowered by laws the prevent children from buying video games (even movies and magazines).
"I thought that as we matured as a society that this type of conservative bullshit would cease. Perhaps we are regressing?"
Fascinating dichotomy you got there. Considering I'm about as liberal as they get (anti death penalty, pro-gay marriage, anti-drug war), I think you need to rethink your world view. A true liberal thinks adults should be free to do as they wish, so long as it does NOT infringe on the rights of others. Wanna smoke a bowl, don't drive. Wanna get into bondage and have your "mate" scar you, I don't care. Wanna limit what you child can and can not do, fine with me as long as you don't violate the rights they have been given (don't physically or mentally abuse them and maintain access to education, food and shelter. Among other things). It's YOUR house and YOUR rules.
I remind you the V-chip was mandated under the Clinton administration. Modern liberal thinking is that adults should be empowered without the government interfering in THIER lives.
The "conservative" you envision would use limiting access to "obscene" media from everyone, not just your kid, as a way to keep it out of the hands of kids.
Birth control isn't 100% effective. All forms of transportation aren't 100% safe. Products in stores aren't 100% reliable.
You're right, we should get rid of all regulations in society, being so impractical that they don't guarantee 100% effectiveness, we should give up now.
I go to movies all the time and in R-rated movies, there are VERY few kids getting in and the ones getting almost always have an adult with them. Exactly as it should be. It's not my business to say what YOUR kid can or can't watch. You should have the choice to limit their exposure to undesireable media as you see fit, even if it means that your kid ends up never playing video games or seeing a movie untill they are 18. I could care less.
Parents should be empowered to be involved in their childs life as much as possible, even if it means your favorite game store goes out of business cause little Joey can't just walk in and buy "GTA 24 - Whore city".
"If I, as a parent, decide that my under-18 child is fit to play the game, buy it (since the store can't sell it or rent it to him/her) and give it to him/her, am I breaking the law?"
Which is the only relevant question. I really have a hard time imagining WHY people could object to this. Any law that empowers parents to raise their children, within the bounds that limit abuse, is a good law. Under common law, and iirc, written law, in the States, children are classified somewhere between a slave and a citizen. They do NOT have full rights of an adult citizen, but have rights that are clearly spelled out. The "right" to do what you want without your parents permission is not one of them.
Yes, of course parents can't always watch over their kids. They are going to get access to unwanted media when they are outside the view of their parents, including video games that they aren't "allowed" to play, but at least the parent has a little more control.
Personally, I think laws like this should be extended to include ALL media (games, books) should be bought by people over an age defined by the individual state (perhaps one state wants it set at 15 and another at 18) as long as that age does NOT exceed 18 or exclude emancipated teenagers.
A person has every right to be fundamentally motived by religion. They have every right to act according to the morals of that religion. The problem with cutting funding of stem cell research is NOT that it's based of religious values, it's that a SINGLE person in the United States has the authority to do it without a review of congress or the courts. It's outside the spirit of the US constitution which clearly outlines a "balance of power" which prevents any part of the government from having too much power.
This coming from a pro-life deistic humanist (read: not christian). Yes, those exist.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a solution, or a start to a solution, or even helpful. It's part of the problem.
Earth has an unknown amount of oil in it, but it is finite. One day, it will all be gone. Earth has a finite amount of life supporting compounds in it. We do NOT need to be burning those on a mass scale.
A self supporting system, such as that which evolved on our planet relies on the sun to power it, it self cycles compounds as necissary, this is taught in grade school in grade school. What is learned later on is if you start pulling out the c-c double bonds, random carboxylic acids, ketones, and such then throw them off as waste, you will end up making this planet a lifeless rock. Not tomorrow, not the next day, maybe even a few thousands years from now, but it will be the result. It took a lot of energy to put those compounds togethor. It takes a lot of energy to keep them in cycles.
Solar power is the answer (or some system equivalent), Nuclear power would be a good short term answer (as in a few thousand years, with little pollution).
While this is certainly a major factor, it does raise a simple question. Why doesn't any random metropolis in the States have similar broadband numbers? While having a dense population makes it easier, it's not the reason why. Government policy is a major contributor.
This isn't a review of Halo, it's a advertisement for the XFPS. Bait and switch.
The main noticable differences between Halo and Halo 2 is dual wield and different maps. Of course the only way I've ever played it (and Halo) is on a lan of xboxes with 10+ people, so the story line has little relevence to me. Too bad you can't dual wield rocket launchers.
How the hell would a Mac save you from that?
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the default install on OS X which has had ZERO remote security problems from day 1 (due to the total lack of servers being on by default), wasn't relevent. Let's also assume that a rootkit was installed on OS X with a nice little virus go to along with it.
OS X has never required a format and total loss of user files and applications to reinstal the OS. So, in this case, you reinstall, then run the scanner on the install that hasn't been rooted to check the remaining filesystem for left overs.
And you are STILL losing quality even if it was just transcoding like that.
Unless you sample at about 3x the nyquist limit (for all intents and purposes), but then you end up with a much larger file.
Your joking aside, what's really interesting is the book wasn't first. Here's a nice timeline:
March 78 BBC Radio Show
Dec 78 Christmas special
May 79 Stage play in london
Oct 79 The book is published
It goes on and on, with TV shows, more Radio shows, the classic text adverture game, up to Adams himself writing the draft screenplay a selling movie rights to Disney. It's been in his hands the whole time. A living breathing story, something that in this day and age of keeping perfect records (as we like to think) is getting more and more rare.
I've got copies of two of the BBC radio shows, I've seen TV adaptations. I'm looking forward to the movie, I'm sure Adams will continue with his great tradition even after death.
What is this word dupe you speak of?
"The 'solution' IMHO is to have multiple layers of defence and to some extent, perhaps to use less popular tools (i.e. not McAfee and Norton) which won't be on the malware's 'hitlist'."
Why not have true user level file permissions and make it 100% impossible to delete applications without giving a password? Works for the Unix world. Works on this Mac I'm typing from. It still doesn't work for Windows? That's sad.
"A June beta release from Microsoft may or may not beat Apple's June final release, but Tiger's punch was the beta DVDs that went to all Worldwide Developers' Conference attendees LAST summer."
Microsoft understands how to handle the press. Since the beta will be fresh on the minds of jouralist, when Tiger is release every single article that talks about Tiger will also mention longhorn.
Remember, wait for longhorn.....
Very rarely does anything appear in a culture out of a vacuum. Electronic music is no exception. Something like modern digital sequencers were made because of the needs of bands like Kraftwerk and other pioneers in analog sequencers. Analog sequencers because popular because they were feasible to use.
Anyhow, you can keep tracing back and back till you end up with first guy who decided to lay a beat with morse code cause he bored. The point is, someone at one point made a purely electronic device for the sole purpose of making "music". As experimental as it was at the time, it was still "music". From the comments here on Slashdot, it sounds like it happened closer to 1900 rather than after the war.
Electronic music didn't die. Not even remotely. Last I checked, most if not all candy pop is based on it. In most genres it merely got integrated as a technique into base forms. It's been that way for a while now, the experimentation in the 80s of combining sequencers with standard instruments was so much a success, most people don't even notice it's happening anymore.
That being said, a lot of Spy ware and Virii on that have infected people's computers were put there by the users own stupidity and/or ignorance.
That's incorrect. It's a fundamental flaw design in Windows. Very fundamental. There is NO reason installers should EVER be used to install applications. None. They should NEVER, for any reason, integrate into the OS. All user installed applications should be properly seperated from all OS features. Welcome to how OS X does things.
I don't imagine the author expects that ANY new computer owner simply opens the box and has no problems operating the computer (Mac, Linux, Windows or any OS)
I would like to point out here that OS X doesn't have any services running by default that are can be used to spread a virus. That's a big difference. I'm sure there consumer Linux version have are tied down just as well, by default. Unix systems, in general, don't get slower with the more applications you install. They don't slow down over time. They don't start acting "wierd" over time. One doesn't buy a new computer because the old one was getting old and kept crashing when they chose a Unix system (which is purely a software problem).
Microsoft really is alone in these regards. Perhaps since some people can't imagine that a computer can be bought for a purpose and used for that till the day you want another computer for another purpose (which is how I approach the buying decision), it's okay to assume they just get old and slow over time.
Whatever.
This is so true. My first experience with a computer, outside of the tandy crap they had in middle school, was using Unix. Right after I got to college, I got my first e-mail account in 91. I learned from that day on it's never the users fault, ever. Rebooting doesn't solve the problem. Software doesn't magically break down over time, unless it's designed to do so. There are ways to make a computer nearly crash proof and have been for decades. These are things people have been taught to assume. Why else would anyone buy the "new" version that is "better" if they old version didn't have known faults?
This reminds me, a few years ago, I gave a demo of OS X to a Mac Users Group. During this I was talking about the benifits of the Unix core of OS X vs OS 9 and someone interrupted to ask me, "if it doesn't crash and always works, why will people need to buy a new machine?". My answer was along the lines, because what you use a computer for today isn't what you will use it for tomorrow, there will be new uses that require new hardware and new software.
"Now you tell me, why shouldn't I be free to exercise MY will to refuse to participate in this program? If I don't have that right, then I'm not exactly free, am I?"
It's this kind of thinking that is slowly destroying the States.
Taxes are not a burden. Having tax money spent on things you don't agree with is a fact of life. No one has a right to profit, sometimes the state can and should work for the benefit of the people even when it costs some company potential profits.
Lets say I don't have a car, and walk everywhere, why should I play for roads? Why should I pay for highways? In many cases, majority rules is not rule of thumb, but comparing free wifi to cannibalism is just pure bunk. They aren't even close. If you don't like how 90% of your neighbors spend your tax money, you got two choices, vote/protest or move. I couldn't care less which one you pick, I'm going to keep living my life in a cooperative manner, and the anarchists parading as libertarians can go live in a cave.
I just read that review. It plays mp3s, mpeg 4, can be connected to your computer, uses an 1.8GB disk for games. I was left with one question, how well does it play games?
Relativity was useless outside of the realm of describing orbits. Then came the needs for an accurate description of where you are at, i.e., GPS. Don't ever under estimate the future value of knowledge, even one that seems complete foreign and useless.
On the surface, you're correct. When you're told you are being watched, don't be surprised you are being watched. There is another dynamic to this, allowing monitoring networks to be set up is little more than a slippery slope.
There is a market, somewhere between monopolistic collusion and a free one, where the consumer has no choice. For example, when you call a company you are told you may be monitored, there are no other options (in fact even their competitors do the same thing). People accept this as a basic way of life. In many ways they are correct, it's not a big deal, you just have a question or a problem and the company needs assurance you are trying to pull one over on them and if you are, they can prove it.
Then there comes a day when the Ministry of Homeland Security decides the United Intelligence Services (how the FBI became an intelligence service is beyond me) wants to scan these databases of voices looking for "terrorists". Seems innocent enough, right? Depends on what they think a terrorist is.
When you live in a society where the peoples desires are met by entities who have more wealth and influence than the people will ever have, the people have a vested interest in making sure they don't all work in unison to make sure the power remains unbalanced (leaving them in a competitive advantage). A healthy dose of paranoia is good for you.
There's going to be a day when all cell phones are running servers over wireless for p2p communications. When that day comes, walking past the wrong person will hose your phone.
"What's next? Will we have to read and agree to the EULA before we can buy?"
No, because until the Supreme Court says otherwise, when I disagree to an EULA (including the part of the EULA that says I must do something if I disagree), I get default consumer protections and the software gets default copyright protections.
It's merely a contract offer, I didn't sign it, I didn't agree to it. I will ignore it.
Clearly you have an opinion of how YOUR children should be raised. A law that allows you to go buy video games for your child and give it to them does not infringe upon your rights as a parent to raise them. You have little to no say to how anyhow else raises their kids, outside of rights law has given children to prevent abuse and such, and if someone doesn't want their kid to buy some "obscene game", they should have full ability to limit that and are empowered by laws the prevent children from buying video games (even movies and magazines).
"I thought that as we matured as a society that this type of conservative bullshit would cease. Perhaps we are regressing?"
Fascinating dichotomy you got there. Considering I'm about as liberal as they get (anti death penalty, pro-gay marriage, anti-drug war), I think you need to rethink your world view. A true liberal thinks adults should be free to do as they wish, so long as it does NOT infringe on the rights of others. Wanna smoke a bowl, don't drive. Wanna get into bondage and have your "mate" scar you, I don't care. Wanna limit what you child can and can not do, fine with me as long as you don't violate the rights they have been given (don't physically or mentally abuse them and maintain access to education, food and shelter. Among other things). It's YOUR house and YOUR rules.
I remind you the V-chip was mandated under the Clinton administration. Modern liberal thinking is that adults should be empowered without the government interfering in THIER lives.
The "conservative" you envision would use limiting access to "obscene" media from everyone, not just your kid, as a way to keep it out of the hands of kids.
Birth control isn't 100% effective. All forms of transportation aren't 100% safe. Products in stores aren't 100% reliable.
You're right, we should get rid of all regulations in society, being so impractical that they don't guarantee 100% effectiveness, we should give up now.
I go to movies all the time and in R-rated movies, there are VERY few kids getting in and the ones getting almost always have an adult with them. Exactly as it should be. It's not my business to say what YOUR kid can or can't watch. You should have the choice to limit their exposure to undesireable media as you see fit, even if it means that your kid ends up never playing video games or seeing a movie untill they are 18. I could care less.
Parents should be empowered to be involved in their childs life as much as possible, even if it means your favorite game store goes out of business cause little Joey can't just walk in and buy "GTA 24 - Whore city".
"If I, as a parent, decide that my under-18 child is fit to play the game, buy it (since the store can't sell it or rent it to him/her) and give it to him/her, am I breaking the law?"
Which is the only relevant question. I really have a hard time imagining WHY people could object to this. Any law that empowers parents to raise their children, within the bounds that limit abuse, is a good law. Under common law, and iirc, written law, in the States, children are classified somewhere between a slave and a citizen. They do NOT have full rights of an adult citizen, but have rights that are clearly spelled out. The "right" to do what you want without your parents permission is not one of them.
Yes, of course parents can't always watch over their kids. They are going to get access to unwanted media when they are outside the view of their parents, including video games that they aren't "allowed" to play, but at least the parent has a little more control.
Personally, I think laws like this should be extended to include ALL media (games, books) should be bought by people over an age defined by the individual state (perhaps one state wants it set at 15 and another at 18) as long as that age does NOT exceed 18 or exclude emancipated teenagers.
A person has every right to be fundamentally motived by religion. They have every right to act according to the morals of that religion. The problem with cutting funding of stem cell research is NOT that it's based of religious values, it's that a SINGLE person in the United States has the authority to do it without a review of congress or the courts. It's outside the spirit of the US constitution which clearly outlines a "balance of power" which prevents any part of the government from having too much power.
This coming from a pro-life deistic humanist (read: not christian). Yes, those exist.