So it will become necessary to store the devices that were used to read them (i.e. whole computers). But these devices are partly made of stuff that decomposes over time, like rubber in bearings etc. Conserving data is not as easy as it seems. I wonder whether it'd be more efficient to print out the source codes on acid-free paper and store them like books - or perhaps microfiches - in a number of locations around the world.
And what, pray tell, would you do with this printed source code in 200 years, when all of the hardware is gone? If all the technology that used it is gone, as it most assuredly would be, you are SOL. Except you would have tons of pages of source code that nobody will understand. Unless you think people will still be using C (or whatever language) in 200 years...
On a personal note...
I recently purchased a TRS-80 off of eBay, because it was the first computer I programmed on. But I threw away all the programs I wrote several years ago when I got rid of my computer with a 5.25" floppy drive. I wish I had them still. Not because they would be of any value, but just for the sake of having them. Nobody programs in BASIC anymore, and these were created just 18 years ago. Not only that, but the entire computer they were created on can be emulated. I have thousands of times more memory in my MP3 player than was in that entire computing system. If all of these changes occurred in 18 years, imagine what things will be like in 200! The programs we have today may not be worth saving, except for historical purposes, and for geeks of the future to laugh at.
I saw lots of cool things, but the coolest in my opinion? Clint Eastwood's pistol from Outlaw Josey Wales. Hella freaking cool. A close second would be the Terminator jacket, complete with bullet holes and stage blood.
Frequently they show up as UNAVAILABLE just like 90% of valid businesses. My mother works for a small Funeral Home. They don't show up as "JOE'S FUNERAL HOME" they show up "UNAVAILABLE".
Should I ignore valid business to block telemarketers? No.
Valid businesses will most likely leave me a message if I am not home. Telemarketers don't leave me messages. Two exceptions: the idiots who don't realize it is a machine, and sit there saying "hello? HELLO?" and those who still leave me a message about some fantastic prize I won by entering their sweepstakes (which I never enter).
I do ignore valid businesses to avoid telemarketers. Sometimes valid business are unsolicited, such as window salesmen, lawn care places, etc etc. I have valid businesses cold call me all the time. Many of them do show up on the caller ID.
I don't get the status UNAVAILABLE on my caller id, it usually shows up as "Out Of Area" or "Private". Those are telemarketers. Everyone else shows up with a name/number. If they are calling me for a valid reason, they'll leave a message. If not, then I don't care if I miss their call.
Having a static public IP can be extremely handy though. Whenever I have a cool graphic or whatnot I want my friends to see, I just stick it up on the webserver and send the email in a link. Because many of my friends use pine or AOL or Hotmail or whatnot, that's the most reliable way of distributing the file. Even my Mom likes getting a link and being able to click on it rather than saving the file off somewhere and trying to open it later. And that's only one of the many many useful things you can do once you have a server and a static IPs, especially once you learn CGI and the power of perl.:) It's really a shame that so many ISPs are terrified of people running private little servers for personal use.
dyndns.org
I have a dynamic IP (pppoe) and have hosted a personal server for several years. I have an address where I can FTP, ssh, start up a quake server, and run a website. With dyndns, webhop, NAT and IP forwarding on my firewall, it is all easy, and it is all sitting in my computer room.
Seriously, if you have a dynamic IP and want to have a static address linked to it, visit dyndns.org.
No, using the term "make whoopee" is just a sign that you know how to "make joke" because "make love" had already been used and "make sex, make f**k, etc." don't "make sense."
Sounds like "make redundant" then, if those terms had already been used.
A lot of people equate Open Source with Linux, but what are your opinions on Open Source on Windows? Of course Open Source works well on Linux, it falls more in line with the philosophy of the OS. In your opinion, is it more beneficial to keep the concepts of Open Source and Linux coupled, or to get the message of Open Source out there in any way possible?
That said, they're not "making a killing." Bandwidth simply is not as cheap as you seem to think it is -- any business trying to get the same speed line to you take for granted with cable or DSL will pay several times as much as you do, because they don't have Grandma who only checks her email to subsidize them. Broadband internet is a commodity, low-margin business. If you and everyone else want a 24/7, fast, uncapped line, prices will have to go up.
The ones I referred to as "making a killing" were the phone monopolies, who own the lines. They make a killing because they make money on the line no matter who uses it. SBC was recently sued because of this. That also makes the margins thinner, because the providers have to pay their kickbacks to the phone companies.
I don't lurk on the LKML. I don't know how many people here do, or how many would understand what they would read there anyway. I have a CS degree, and have been using Linux for several years now. I am not a kernel person. But wouldn't it be more beneficial to the Linux kernel to have more people use the test versions?
I would love to do some testing on the new kernel, but I don't download it. Why? Because to me, testing is not just using something. If I knew what was updated in the kernel, I could test it better. The changelog may have a good description of the change, or it may have a few word cryptic sentence. Without following the kernel list, or keeping up with every change, I am lost. I suppose I could wait for someone to post a summary of the changes, but that may not happen. I just don't understand why the information doesn't come from the kernel maintainer. Would it take that much more time to do a quick write-up of the changes, in addition to the changelogs?
So there will be comments like "Just wait for your distro to upgrade the kernel, n00b!" and other childish remarks. I wonder how many of those people actually upgrade their kernel and know what they are doing, or if they just do it to seem cool in their little online world. I'll bet most of them have no idea what they are doing. I at least admit that I don't see the need to test out development versions of kernels, because I haven't been given enough information to know what to test.
Even when new versions of the kernel are officially released, there is no good information about what has changed. Changelogs don't cut it. If it was some huge complicated thing, I would understand, but it would be trivial for the kernel maintainer to give highlights of the changes. That is where the information should come from, IMO. I am sure all the fanbois will take offense, but it is constructive critisizm, not bashing, and should be taken as such.
Personally, I wouldn't mind having a cap on daily usage, as long as it's spelled out in the advertising and contract. I'd say it's a lot better than metered net usage, where you end up using the internet less in order to save your pennies. However, claiming that everyone gets 24/7 maximum bandwidth, and then limiting it, is dishonest and false advertising.
I would HATE to have capped bandwidth. If they are going to cap me, they'd better start charging me less. Or have an unmetered cap, where I get X amount per month, and metered charges over that.
If they would go to metered usage, then they'd better charge me a lot less than what I pay now ($54/mo, thanks to the new "state" taxes on the line) The problem is that the phone companies hold the infrastructure, and they love their current system: ever-increasing base fees, metered usage, sprinkled with miscellaneous taxes here and there. They make a killing. If they try to apply their logic to broadband, they will kill it. They have done a good job so far of holding it back with their line-leasing schemes.
I have proven that I will pay for a damn broadband connection, stop trying to screw me even more! And I don't download movies or MP3s. But I'll bet I use a nice chunk of my bandwidth. At least I use it in the middle of the night, thanks to brag and cron.:-)
Yep. A six-pack in bottles. It was in the basement, and that was about all that was in it. They were twist off tops, so we would open them, take some small sips, then put the caps back on. We had to make sure that they all had the same amount of beer in them. After watering them down a little to bring the level back up, we decided to quit while we were ahead.
This was when we were in 8th grade, and our teacher was the principal. We were always helping to move things, and do work around there for "special projects" during our study halls.
I pay a monthly fee for my broadband service. How does digital piracy, by me or anyone else, affect that? The DSL ISP is getting their money from me. Apart from that, they should stay out of my business. Is online piracy consuming all their bandwidth? If so, then how will making broadband more available help this?
I don't understand their position. Oh wait. Unless they are getting pressure from the entertainment industry to take this stance. Now it makes sense. I know this is a UK issue, so maybe things are different over there. But I just don't understand how online piracy is preventing the spread of broadband services.
That brings me to the point I wanted to make. Until he sued, I didn't think badly of him. He got access to a camera and wanted to see if his moves were as smooth as he imagined. Frankly, they weren't completely clumsy.
You must have watched a different video. His moves weren't choreographed at all, and they were clumsy as hell. Did you miss the part where he almost fell over? What made it completely hilarious was that he looked ridiculous, and he was completely serious about it. If he had been laughing, or been trying to do some choreographed moves, it wouldn't have been as funny.
The whole point of the story was that we've all done things that aren't "cool", and it's funny to see someone else acting silly. Now, the point is that he's a pussy who can't laugh at himself. Let the taunting begin.
Hey, I laughed my ASS off at him. If I would have met him in person, I would have told him it was hilarious, and I really enjoyed it. There is no reason to taunt him. Why can't people make that distinction? I wish he could laugh at himself, but I am sure it would have been much easier if people were a little cooler about it and weren't such asswipes about it, as you are. "Yeah, he had to drop out of school and is getting pshchotherapy. haha. What a loser." Because of that attitude, I almost hope he wins his suit. He shouldn't have to file it (actually it's his parents) but it seems like it is almost deserved. Maybe the amount can be disputed. Hey, it was his private property, and it was stolen and distributed without his consent. And it was done maliciously. Yeah, I still thought it was hilarious, but that is beside the point. I could have lived my life normally if it was never released, but he can't live a normal life now that it has been. 15 is a tough age, and his life was instantly made 1000x tougher. I sympathize with him.
Heh. We had something in grade school we called the rock trick. I went to a Catholic grade school, run by the nuns. The side of our gymnasium was aluminum siding, and we used to have one kid stand against it, and another about 50 feet away. The kid against the building would have rocks in his hand. The other kid would pretend to throw things at him, and he would take a rock in his hand and while doing a dodging motion, would throw it against the siding to get the authentic "ping" sound. The illusion was that one kid was throwing rocks at another kid in a game like dodgeball. Every new substitute got introduced to the rock trick on playground duty.:-) We got in a lot of trouble. I won't even go into how we went into the basement of the convent and drank the beer in the nun's refrigerator.
Human governance must be complicated to ensure fairness for all with some degree of gray area no matter what the situation. That this also happens to invite unscrupulous politicians to file their own personal whims is but an unfortunate side-effect.
Ahh. I agree. BUT, what they try to do is build it into the laws. Instead of allowing the GOVERNING of the laws to take care of the gray areas, they try to tweak the law to cover it. It seems they would be trying to cover all their bases, but instead it muddles things. They rely so much on prior cases and judgements, that nobody really thinks anymore. It is all just a pissing match, and the side with the "better" lawyer wins. Humans should govern the law, but it seems to me like the reverse is true.
You would do well to accept the complexity required in the laws that govern us; the alternative is a simple code of law created to cater to the majority with no room for exception.
THAT is the very definition of a 'police state'.
That is not the definition of a police state. A police state is one where the government uses repressive controls against the social, political, and economic lives of the citizens. Usually it is by some police force.
So you think we DON'T live in a variation of a police state?
Our laws are not complex out of need, they are complex because they are constantly being tweaked by greedy, purchased politicians with an axe to grind. They slip bills into the system on backs of other bills, either out in the open or under the table. They are complex because they are crafted to be that way, so they can be manipulated when the need arises. Unfortunately, there is no alternative, because we are so steeped in our current legal system there is no way out.
The lawyers dont come across as black hearted bastards but people who are truely passionate about the field they work in and seem to want to make a diffrence.
I think your statement is right on, but note this:
"come across as" and "seem to want".
I guarantee you, all of them could be black-hearted bastards with the flip of a switch. I found it hard to read their answers all the way through. There was this built-in droning sound, that lulls you into not listening or caring. I have found that lawyers are trained to do this, whether they know it or not. That is their job.
Their answers were standard lawyer answers, which is to be expected. I find it disheartening that our legal system is so convoluted and complex that even lawyers can't simply answer a question. There are always references to something, or clarifications, or interpretations, or one of a thousand things that they can do to twist the law to suit their needs. Unfortunately, our legal system is a tool, and lawyers are the people who know how to use the tool. They craft the tool, they build the system around it, so that they have 100% job security. They can and do argue about anything. Maybe this is more prevalent in garbage like the DMCA and Copyright/IP law.
IMO, they are all snakes, because that is what is required of them. I hope that I never have the need for one of them.
Looks like a case of a rapid fix from MS and a kneejerk editor at Slashdot. How about this spin? "Notified of critical bug, MS immediately issues fix". Nah, wouldn't play to this crowd.
"MS issues quick fix for security flaw - they learned how to quickly patch from the OSS community."
I have to give MS credit for their recent bout of quick patches. They haven't fixed all the problems, but I have noticed that their turnaround time has greatly improved. If they are able to incorporate some of the better points that OSS has to offer, they can spin the bejezus out of it. Quick patching used to be one of OSS's advantages over MS. Maybe they are learning.
Nahh, they're still a ruthless, evil business more interested in control and money.:-)
First off, I think we are having a rather productive discussion, even if nobody else is listening.:-)
Actually, I believe most people try the Atkins diet in an attempt to improve their overall health and not simply lose weight. It is part of the stated effects of the diet in his book and he talks at length about the overall health implications.
This hasn't been my experience. I know people who wanted to drop 10 lbs for a wedding, so they went on the "Atkins" diet. Someone else was on it for 2 months, solely for dropping weight. Another was going on vacation, and wanted to look good in a bathing suit. She didn't last but about a day on it. Now I don't know much about it, other than it is very strict, difficult, and it isn't very balanced. I think the unbalanced part is what threw up red flags to nutritionists. (My brother has a master's in nutrition)
I disagree with this on a lot of levels. First, just because it's quick to prepare and serve doesn't make it bad for you. There are few people who would argue that picking up a grilled chicken bacon ranch salad and a diet coke at McDonalds is eating unhealthily. It's not 'fast' food that's bad it's the types of food we eat. I would argue that much of the blame on fast food is misplaced. Our problems have more to do with Special K and Cheerios than BigMac's and fries and a whole lot more to do with Coke than either.
I was talking in general terms about fast food. Of course there are reasonable choices at fast food joints. I am not blaming fast food, but the people who make the choice to eat it EVERY day. Then they act all stupid, like they didn't know that would lead to weight gain. I didn't realize that there are some people who eat McDonalds every day. Even when I was in college, I would only eat it a few times a week. But these are people who are 30 yrs old, who should know better. And I could get away with eating more crap in college, when I had tons of free time to work out, and when my metabolism was about twice what it is now.
It comes down to the question of what parts of the meals are bad for you. How do you pick and chose. Is it better to get a double quarter pounder with cheese (760 calories) or a Big Mac (580 calories) or simple hamburger and small fries with only (490 calories)? The people who sit there and say "if you intake more calories than you burn, you gain weight" would probably say go with the hamburger and fries. The answer is more complicated than that though.
That would be my answer. Of course, that is a general answer, and is probably the best answer for most people. If you know different for you and your body, then that is different. Most people don't. If you are alergic to potatos, that would be the wrong choice, obviously. I ate a double quarter pounder w/cheese once back in college. OMG. I can't believe that they still serve those things. I felt like dying after eating it. Portions are such a big issue for me, and Italian restaurants are the worst. Why do they charge you $16 for something and give you enough food for 3 people? I would rather pay $8 and get half that amount. That is one of the reasons I love Spanish Tapas. Mmm mmm. Anyway, I digress....
I now know with a high degree of certainty that a high-carbohydrate diet doesn't agree with me. In retrospect, if I had been paying attention I would have learned this well before I did. As it was, it took reading a few books (I think it was the Zone one that first got me suspecting it) to clue me in and eventually my doctor diagnosed me as hypoglycemic. I had been on a low fat, high carbohydrate diet for over 20 years, since my grandmother died from a heart attack. I've also been heavy since about that time.
This proves that there is no one right answer. Low-fat/high-carb diets do work for some people. But the trend right now is to cut out carbs. Just like it used to be to cut out fat. People are eating "low carb" foods now, and they aren't looking at anything els
Hold on here. Are tech copyrights now good?
Damn you slashdot political climate, damn you!
It took me years to figure out all of the nuances, then they had to go screw it up again.
So, for the next 5 minutes, goofy tech patents rule!
When shopping for dildos, you don't buy the one that looks like it feels the best, you buy the one that looks like it will hurt the least.
Can't remember what comedian I heard that from, but it is a classic. It applies in this case. Software patents are pretty stupid, but they exist. In this particular case, I am glad it is at least someone attempting to kick MS in the Jimmy, instead of the other way around.
I can still not like the whole situation, but enjoy the way this one plays out.
I haven't used many some of the computers in there, but when you look fondly back on some of them, and remember them as being your first computer, it does make you realize how old/far you/we've are/come.
But maybe we shouldn't think of it as being old. I would rather know what these computers are, and have programmed on some of them, than think of them as just relics. I am glad I was "there" when the personal computer was born, and learned to program on a TRS-80 in BASIC.
The previous article was an "Ask Slashdot" article from an individual who wanted to see things that geeks would want to see in North America. I guess he can add THIS to his list.
Heh. I had already submitted this story before that one was posted. I was going to reply and suggest that, but then I wouldn't have wanted the editors to post a story that duped a comment.:-)
I'm not saying I know the answer, I suspect that there are issues with Atkins for some people and that there likely are modifications to Atkins that would improve it. What I am saying is that the answer isn't known and the people who stand up and say they know are full of crap. They suspect, they assume, they do not know.
But the Atkins diet is the ones making the claims that you can lose weight by following it. From what I have seen, it may be true. But losing weight != healthy. This diet is popular because people want to lose weight, not because they want to be healthy. Therefore, the burden of proof is on Dr. Atkins to prove it is healthy. Of course there are concerns with it, it does fly in the face of what we generally accept to be a good diet. Saying "there is no evidence to prove it is unhealthy" is just wrong. If you come out with some diet that you are advocating, it is your responsibility to show it won't kill you in 5 years.
Do you suspect that it is because people in Paris get much more exercise than people in, for example, New York? Do you suspect that they lack the modern conveniences that make us Americans so fat? Or do you suspect that it might have something to do with the eating patterns, maybe the fact that in France they haven't had a government cramming bulk manufactured, prepackaged, sugar-starches down their throats and calling it nutrition for the last 20 years.
Can't blame the government on this one. If you don't know fast food is bad for you then you are an idiot. If you choose to get a Super-sized meal, that is your choice. The French love food, probably more than anyone else on the planet. They strive for freshness and quality. We want quick and cheap. That is our society. They appreciate quality, we want quantity. I didn't see any "all you can eat" buffets in Paris.:-)
(for the record I don't actually consider the French "surrender monkeys":) I was simply quoting a very funny line from the Simpsons.
Ahh, but it isn't quite as funny without the Scottish accent.:-)
I think people can do little things to tip the balance one way or another but often people's balance is way off and they need big changes in order to make any progress.
I agree. The FIRST thing you need to do is educate yourself. There are basics you can learn, and apply them immediately. You'd be surprised that many people don't know that if you intake more calories than you burn, you gain weight. They don't know the basics about metabolism. The basics about fat, protein, and carbs. That sugar is a simple carb. That something simple like replacing the 6 Cokes you drink a day with water can make a huge difference. But people want the quick fix without understanding the basics of nutrition. Back to the original poster of this question, I say that he should be educating himself with the net instead of asking Slashdot for something that is tried and true. Get the principles down, work on the method later. Because if method X doesn't work for him, he has to find another method instead of working off a good base of knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
And what, pray tell, would you do with this printed source code in 200 years, when all of the hardware is gone? If all the technology that used it is gone, as it most assuredly would be, you are SOL. Except you would have tons of pages of source code that nobody will understand. Unless you think people will still be using C (or whatever language) in 200 years...
On a personal note...
I recently purchased a TRS-80 off of eBay, because it was the first computer I programmed on. But I threw away all the programs I wrote several years ago when I got rid of my computer with a 5.25" floppy drive. I wish I had them still. Not because they would be of any value, but just for the sake of having them. Nobody programs in BASIC anymore, and these were created just 18 years ago. Not only that, but the entire computer they were created on can be emulated. I have thousands of times more memory in my MP3 player than was in that entire computing system. If all of these changes occurred in 18 years, imagine what things will be like in 200! The programs we have today may not be worth saving, except for historical purposes, and for geeks of the future to laugh at.
I saw lots of cool things, but the coolest in my opinion? Clint Eastwood's pistol from Outlaw Josey Wales. Hella freaking cool. A close second would be the Terminator jacket, complete with bullet holes and stage blood.
Valid businesses will most likely leave me a message if I am not home. Telemarketers don't leave me messages. Two exceptions: the idiots who don't realize it is a machine, and sit there saying "hello? HELLO?" and those who still leave me a message about some fantastic prize I won by entering their sweepstakes (which I never enter).
I do ignore valid businesses to avoid telemarketers. Sometimes valid business are unsolicited, such as window salesmen, lawn care places, etc etc. I have valid businesses cold call me all the time. Many of them do show up on the caller ID.
I don't get the status UNAVAILABLE on my caller id, it usually shows up as "Out Of Area" or "Private". Those are telemarketers. Everyone else shows up with a name/number. If they are calling me for a valid reason, they'll leave a message. If not, then I don't care if I miss their call.
dyndns.org
I have a dynamic IP (pppoe) and have hosted a personal server for several years. I have an address where I can FTP, ssh, start up a quake server, and run a website. With dyndns, webhop, NAT and IP forwarding on my firewall, it is all easy, and it is all sitting in my computer room.
Seriously, if you have a dynamic IP and want to have a static address linked to it, visit dyndns.org.
Sounds like "make redundant" then, if those terms had already been used.
A lot of people equate Open Source with Linux, but what are your opinions on Open Source on Windows? Of course Open Source works well on Linux, it falls more in line with the philosophy of the OS. In your opinion, is it more beneficial to keep the concepts of Open Source and Linux coupled, or to get the message of Open Source out there in any way possible?
The ones I referred to as "making a killing" were the phone monopolies, who own the lines. They make a killing because they make money on the line no matter who uses it. SBC was recently sued because of this. That also makes the margins thinner, because the providers have to pay their kickbacks to the phone companies.
I would love to do some testing on the new kernel, but I don't download it. Why? Because to me, testing is not just using something. If I knew what was updated in the kernel, I could test it better. The changelog may have a good description of the change, or it may have a few word cryptic sentence. Without following the kernel list, or keeping up with every change, I am lost. I suppose I could wait for someone to post a summary of the changes, but that may not happen. I just don't understand why the information doesn't come from the kernel maintainer. Would it take that much more time to do a quick write-up of the changes, in addition to the changelogs?
So there will be comments like "Just wait for your distro to upgrade the kernel, n00b!" and other childish remarks. I wonder how many of those people actually upgrade their kernel and know what they are doing, or if they just do it to seem cool in their little online world. I'll bet most of them have no idea what they are doing. I at least admit that I don't see the need to test out development versions of kernels, because I haven't been given enough information to know what to test.
Even when new versions of the kernel are officially released, there is no good information about what has changed. Changelogs don't cut it. If it was some huge complicated thing, I would understand, but it would be trivial for the kernel maintainer to give highlights of the changes. That is where the information should come from, IMO. I am sure all the fanbois will take offense, but it is constructive critisizm, not bashing, and should be taken as such.
And using the term "whoopee" is a sign you are 40+ years old.
I would HATE to have capped bandwidth. If they are going to cap me, they'd better start charging me less. Or have an unmetered cap, where I get X amount per month, and metered charges over that.
If they would go to metered usage, then they'd better charge me a lot less than what I pay now ($54/mo, thanks to the new "state" taxes on the line) The problem is that the phone companies hold the infrastructure, and they love their current system: ever-increasing base fees, metered usage, sprinkled with miscellaneous taxes here and there. They make a killing. If they try to apply their logic to broadband, they will kill it. They have done a good job so far of holding it back with their line-leasing schemes.
I have proven that I will pay for a damn broadband connection, stop trying to screw me even more! And I don't download movies or MP3s. But I'll bet I use a nice chunk of my bandwidth. At least I use it in the middle of the night, thanks to brag and cron. :-)
Yep. A six-pack in bottles. It was in the basement, and that was about all that was in it. They were twist off tops, so we would open them, take some small sips, then put the caps back on. We had to make sure that they all had the same amount of beer in them. After watering them down a little to bring the level back up, we decided to quit while we were ahead.
This was when we were in 8th grade, and our teacher was the principal. We were always helping to move things, and do work around there for "special projects" during our study halls.
I don't understand their position. Oh wait. Unless they are getting pressure from the entertainment industry to take this stance. Now it makes sense. I know this is a UK issue, so maybe things are different over there. But I just don't understand how online piracy is preventing the spread of broadband services.
You must have watched a different video. His moves weren't choreographed at all, and they were clumsy as hell. Did you miss the part where he almost fell over? What made it completely hilarious was that he looked ridiculous, and he was completely serious about it. If he had been laughing, or been trying to do some choreographed moves, it wouldn't have been as funny.
The whole point of the story was that we've all done things that aren't "cool", and it's funny to see someone else acting silly. Now, the point is that he's a pussy who can't laugh at himself. Let the taunting begin.
Hey, I laughed my ASS off at him. If I would have met him in person, I would have told him it was hilarious, and I really enjoyed it. There is no reason to taunt him. Why can't people make that distinction? I wish he could laugh at himself, but I am sure it would have been much easier if people were a little cooler about it and weren't such asswipes about it, as you are. "Yeah, he had to drop out of school and is getting pshchotherapy. haha. What a loser." Because of that attitude, I almost hope he wins his suit. He shouldn't have to file it (actually it's his parents) but it seems like it is almost deserved. Maybe the amount can be disputed. Hey, it was his private property, and it was stolen and distributed without his consent. And it was done maliciously. Yeah, I still thought it was hilarious, but that is beside the point. I could have lived my life normally if it was never released, but he can't live a normal life now that it has been. 15 is a tough age, and his life was instantly made 1000x tougher. I sympathize with him.
Heh. We had something in grade school we called the rock trick. I went to a Catholic grade school, run by the nuns. The side of our gymnasium was aluminum siding, and we used to have one kid stand against it, and another about 50 feet away. The kid against the building would have rocks in his hand. The other kid would pretend to throw things at him, and he would take a rock in his hand and while doing a dodging motion, would throw it against the siding to get the authentic "ping" sound. The illusion was that one kid was throwing rocks at another kid in a game like dodgeball. Every new substitute got introduced to the rock trick on playground duty. :-) We got in a lot of trouble. I won't even go into how we went into the basement of the convent and drank the beer in the nun's refrigerator.
Ahh. I agree. BUT, what they try to do is build it into the laws. Instead of allowing the GOVERNING of the laws to take care of the gray areas, they try to tweak the law to cover it. It seems they would be trying to cover all their bases, but instead it muddles things. They rely so much on prior cases and judgements, that nobody really thinks anymore. It is all just a pissing match, and the side with the "better" lawyer wins. Humans should govern the law, but it seems to me like the reverse is true.
That is not the definition of a police state. A police state is one where the government uses repressive controls against the social, political, and economic lives of the citizens. Usually it is by some police force.
So you think we DON'T live in a variation of a police state?
Our laws are not complex out of need, they are complex because they are constantly being tweaked by greedy, purchased politicians with an axe to grind. They slip bills into the system on backs of other bills, either out in the open or under the table. They are complex because they are crafted to be that way, so they can be manipulated when the need arises. Unfortunately, there is no alternative, because we are so steeped in our current legal system there is no way out.
I think your statement is right on, but note this:
"come across as" and "seem to want".
I guarantee you, all of them could be black-hearted bastards with the flip of a switch. I found it hard to read their answers all the way through. There was this built-in droning sound, that lulls you into not listening or caring. I have found that lawyers are trained to do this, whether they know it or not. That is their job.
Their answers were standard lawyer answers, which is to be expected. I find it disheartening that our legal system is so convoluted and complex that even lawyers can't simply answer a question. There are always references to something, or clarifications, or interpretations, or one of a thousand things that they can do to twist the law to suit their needs. Unfortunately, our legal system is a tool, and lawyers are the people who know how to use the tool. They craft the tool, they build the system around it, so that they have 100% job security. They can and do argue about anything. Maybe this is more prevalent in garbage like the DMCA and Copyright/IP law.
IMO, they are all snakes, because that is what is required of them. I hope that I never have the need for one of them.
"MS issues quick fix for security flaw - they learned how to quickly patch from the OSS community."
I have to give MS credit for their recent bout of quick patches. They haven't fixed all the problems, but I have noticed that their turnaround time has greatly improved. If they are able to incorporate some of the better points that OSS has to offer, they can spin the bejezus out of it. Quick patching used to be one of OSS's advantages over MS. Maybe they are learning.
Nahh, they're still a ruthless, evil business more interested in control and money.
Actually, I believe most people try the Atkins diet in an attempt to improve their overall health and not simply lose weight. It is part of the stated effects of the diet in his book and he talks at length about the overall health implications.
This hasn't been my experience. I know people who wanted to drop 10 lbs for a wedding, so they went on the "Atkins" diet. Someone else was on it for 2 months, solely for dropping weight. Another was going on vacation, and wanted to look good in a bathing suit. She didn't last but about a day on it. Now I don't know much about it, other than it is very strict, difficult, and it isn't very balanced. I think the unbalanced part is what threw up red flags to nutritionists. (My brother has a master's in nutrition)
I disagree with this on a lot of levels. First, just because it's quick to prepare and serve doesn't make it bad for you. There are few people who would argue that picking up a grilled chicken bacon ranch salad and a diet coke at McDonalds is eating unhealthily. It's not 'fast' food that's bad it's the types of food we eat. I would argue that much of the blame on fast food is misplaced. Our problems have more to do with Special K and Cheerios than BigMac's and fries and a whole lot more to do with Coke than either.
I was talking in general terms about fast food. Of course there are reasonable choices at fast food joints. I am not blaming fast food, but the people who make the choice to eat it EVERY day. Then they act all stupid, like they didn't know that would lead to weight gain. I didn't realize that there are some people who eat McDonalds every day. Even when I was in college, I would only eat it a few times a week. But these are people who are 30 yrs old, who should know better. And I could get away with eating more crap in college, when I had tons of free time to work out, and when my metabolism was about twice what it is now.
It comes down to the question of what parts of the meals are bad for you. How do you pick and chose. Is it better to get a double quarter pounder with cheese (760 calories) or a Big Mac (580 calories) or simple hamburger and small fries with only (490 calories)? The people who sit there and say "if you intake more calories than you burn, you gain weight" would probably say go with the hamburger and fries. The answer is more complicated than that though.
That would be my answer. Of course, that is a general answer, and is probably the best answer for most people. If you know different for you and your body, then that is different. Most people don't. If you are alergic to potatos, that would be the wrong choice, obviously. I ate a double quarter pounder w/cheese once back in college. OMG. I can't believe that they still serve those things. I felt like dying after eating it. Portions are such a big issue for me, and Italian restaurants are the worst. Why do they charge you $16 for something and give you enough food for 3 people? I would rather pay $8 and get half that amount. That is one of the reasons I love Spanish Tapas. Mmm mmm. Anyway, I digress....
I now know with a high degree of certainty that a high-carbohydrate diet doesn't agree with me. In retrospect, if I had been paying attention I would have learned this well before I did. As it was, it took reading a few books (I think it was the Zone one that first got me suspecting it) to clue me in and eventually my doctor diagnosed me as hypoglycemic. I had been on a low fat, high carbohydrate diet for over 20 years, since my grandmother died from a heart attack. I've also been heavy since about that time.
This proves that there is no one right answer. Low-fat/high-carb diets do work for some people. But the trend right now is to cut out carbs. Just like it used to be to cut out fat. People are eating "low carb" foods now, and they aren't looking at anything els
When shopping for dildos, you don't buy the one that looks like it feels the best, you buy the one that looks like it will hurt the least.
Can't remember what comedian I heard that from, but it is a classic. It applies in this case. Software patents are pretty stupid, but they exist. In this particular case, I am glad it is at least someone attempting to kick MS in the Jimmy, instead of the other way around.
I can still not like the whole situation, but enjoy the way this one plays out.
Well, he is using P2P to download their copyrighted material...
Personally, I would like to see the username Hilary_Rosen_sucks_donkey_balls@Kazaa show up on the list.
But maybe we shouldn't think of it as being old. I would rather know what these computers are, and have programmed on some of them, than think of them as just relics. I am glad I was "there" when the personal computer was born, and learned to program on a TRS-80 in BASIC.
Heh. I had already submitted this story before that one was posted. I was going to reply and suggest that, but then I wouldn't have wanted the editors to post a story that duped a comment. :-)
In case you need to take a leak.
But the Atkins diet is the ones making the claims that you can lose weight by following it. From what I have seen, it may be true. But losing weight != healthy. This diet is popular because people want to lose weight, not because they want to be healthy. Therefore, the burden of proof is on Dr. Atkins to prove it is healthy. Of course there are concerns with it, it does fly in the face of what we generally accept to be a good diet. Saying "there is no evidence to prove it is unhealthy" is just wrong. If you come out with some diet that you are advocating, it is your responsibility to show it won't kill you in 5 years.
A good recent study on diet is this Scientific American article on rebuilding the food pyramid.
Do you suspect that it is because people in Paris get much more exercise than people in, for example, New York? Do you suspect that they lack the modern conveniences that make us Americans so fat? Or do you suspect that it might have something to do with the eating patterns, maybe the fact that in France they haven't had a government cramming bulk manufactured, prepackaged, sugar-starches down their throats and calling it nutrition for the last 20 years.
Can't blame the government on this one. If you don't know fast food is bad for you then you are an idiot. If you choose to get a Super-sized meal, that is your choice. The French love food, probably more than anyone else on the planet. They strive for freshness and quality. We want quick and cheap. That is our society. They appreciate quality, we want quantity. I didn't see any "all you can eat" buffets in Paris. :-)
(for the record I don't actually consider the French "surrender monkeys" :) I was simply quoting a very funny line from the Simpsons.
Ahh, but it isn't quite as funny without the Scottish accent. :-)
I think people can do little things to tip the balance one way or another but often people's balance is way off and they need big changes in order to make any progress.
I agree. The FIRST thing you need to do is educate yourself. There are basics you can learn, and apply them immediately. You'd be surprised that many people don't know that if you intake more calories than you burn, you gain weight. They don't know the basics about metabolism. The basics about fat, protein, and carbs. That sugar is a simple carb. That something simple like replacing the 6 Cokes you drink a day with water can make a huge difference. But people want the quick fix without understanding the basics of nutrition. Back to the original poster of this question, I say that he should be educating himself with the net instead of asking Slashdot for something that is tried and true. Get the principles down, work on the method later. Because if method X doesn't work for him, he has to find another method instead of working off a good base of knowledge.