one of the episodes (number 17 I think) makes a reference to another star wars spoof here.
There are actually a lot of good sw spoofs out there; just a matter of looking at places like atomfilms and ifilms. but be warned, there are also a lot of terrible ones
If I build a tree house on my property that is unsafe and someone tresspasses and uses this tree house (which I haven't even said he could use) and gets hurt then I am potentially liable both crimally and civilly. It's called an attractive nuiscence.
I didn't charge anybody anything... I didn't even give permission for it to happen. So if this is a crime surely if I knowingly give somebody a car that is faulty (even if I don't charge him) shouldn't I also be guilty.
Just because I don't profit off of a transaction doesn't give me a right to put somebody at risk, financially or physically, unless perhaps I am completely forth right and even then often not; and simply saying "Well, at your own risk," is not completely forth right, not even close.
The problem with your argument is you offer two different arguments and claim that one applies to paid software and the other to free. Yet your arguments have no dependency on this variable so it is unclear why the arguments vary so. What it appears you are saying is if you are giving away software then you are a nice person. And nice people shouldn't be held to the same laws as mean people. Well a system bases on niceness is in a different ball park than a justice system.
The other way your argument makes sense is if the seller is only liable up to the price he charged and is not liable for damages. Otherwise you're buying the right not to be put in a dangerous situation with out your knowledge... which u can't buy.
I think perhaps you have assumed a certain statement from someone before he ellicited it. No one is guilty of confusing correlation with causation. The Washington Post Article deals with this point of yours head on; although it does allow some room for speculation. The study explicitly states your point. With the exception of a few trolls the comments thus far have been stating your point. And the/. summary doesn't make the assumption of causation either. The line "it appears that sleeping more than 8 hours carries a much higher risk" may connote a causation but its denotation is completely supported by the study. If people in a category are more likely to exhibit a symptom then if you are in this category you are in fact at a greater risk of carrying this symptom, unless there is additional data stating otherwise. The only place where causation is truly suggested is in the four word article title "Sleep Less, Live Longer." But this is clearly a throw away title designed to gather interest and not to carry useful information. Really there is no reason to chastise anybody in this case. Please save your criticisms for actions that actually demand such a response.
Although I am a ruby fan I have to point out that ruby doesn't have multiple inheritence per se. This is because Ruby, like small talk, is a true object oriented language. Since everything is an object, inluding classes, multiple inheritence doesn't make sense. You do however have modules which can be used similarly to multiple inheritence but u have to seperate instance and class methods into sepereate modules. I do beleive however that most problem solvable by multiple inheritence have better solutions without them. Just my opinion.
Re:Is it Netsafe?? Doesn't sound like it.
on
Lindows Reviewed
·
· Score: 1
I think part of the reason people are having trouble wrapping their heads around this concept most posters here think of their computer(s) as system. Something you can access from other computers and something you personallize. This is certainly how I think of my computers.
But not everybody thinks like this; for some people a computer is just a way to get to a tool. Why would such a person have sshd, telnetd, ftpd, or apache running (why should any of us be running telnetd or ftpd but that's a discussion for another time)? Well if you're not running any daemons that cuts the problem down dramatically. It's not perfect; otherstuff can go wrong, but it cuts down on the problem. A system with an old version of apache running on it, not running root, is probably less safe than a Lindows computer without apache running root.
Oh absolutly. None of us live in an emotional vacuum; nor should we try. And it was not my intention to sugest we not rejoice when the big bad gets nailed for bad stuff. Part of disliking somebody is taking pleasure in his downfalls. I don't care what anybody says about how pious he is, it is a natural human response. I was just responding to a comment - probably written off the cuff - that stated that the commenter could not determine who to root for because the players both appear equally beyond contempt. All I'm saying (here comes the cheeziest line ever) is root for justice. And more generally, in a court of law that is all we should ever root for. In a football game root for whomever you want - sometimes the underdog wins and this is fine. But in a court of law it is not fine when the nice guy in the wrong wins... even if at some level it makes us feel good.
I don't mean to jump on you specifically but I see this analogy to law thrown around a lot and it makes me nervous. More and more people are looking at court battles as sporting competitions; consider the make up of both teams, weigh advantages and disadvantages of each, consider how similar you are with each, and hope the team you like more wins.
This is a fine for sports but in a court case only the laws at hand should be considered. Otherwise, in practise, only nice and likable people have access to the law. Or in other words being mean and unlikable becomes illegal because you will always lose in court.
Sure law is fundementally like this because it falls from man and some forms of sympathy are inevitable. But we don't have to encourage this behavior. Microsoft is dislikable but not because everything they do is illegal. And people tend to like to do illegal things to dislikable people; this is a major motivator for illegal activities, even among likable people. Therefore in some suits that Microsoft is involved in the law favors Microsoft, even if they are the dislikable party. In these cases I hope Microsoft wins because a society not tempered by blind justice is far more dangerous than Microsoft could ever hope to be.
Sure we can all continue to root for the popular and the likable but just hope that you never become unpopular, find yourself sued, and find people who root for the popular on the jury. I know I'm hoping this.
I think that the word obligation might be a little strong. A company doesn't have a referendum everytime there is a difficult situation to make. This is why there is a is board of directors. Now it may be in their best interests for survival to do what the share holders want but usually the board has the support of the share holders since the share holders are often a self selecting group that select themselves on their faith in the company. It is not unheard of that a company makes a unpopular decision and convinces its shareholders later. Of course the more AOL offers the harder it may be to convince the shareholders later if they decline.
The scary part about this kind of decision is they might not have a chance. Depending on the layout of redhat stocks right now a certain percentage of the shareholders might be able to make the decision without the board.
I don't know if they still use it but some years ago disney started introducing a copy protection system on their VHS tapes that introduced extra lines that the tv just ignored but a copying VCR gets confused about and throws it out of sync with the video strips on the tape. And more resently dvd players output a signal a tv can play but confuses standard vcrs. Nothing to stop broadcasters from broadcasting this type of signal. Sure there are ways around this but they are a pain. So your worst case scenario... already here.
The loophole deal is that the investor ends up with more money in the end because, although he still pays tax on the profit eventually, he gets the profit on the tax money in the mean time.
Business Perspective Investing explains it like this: an entrepreneur comes to you saying if you pay to start up his company at the end of the year you will still own the company and you will get the initial investment returned to you. At the end of the year you're ecstatic because this actually happens so you go back to the entrepreneur and tell him to start up another company with the profit money; you will then have two companies returning your initial investment every year- and of course this pattern continues. The only problem is at the end of every year when you get your profit cheque you have to pay taxes and replace that amount out of your own pocket to buy the next company.
But the entrepreneur being crafty has a plan. He suggests that, instead of paying you profit, the company keeps the money and uses it expand itself. This is just like you owning two companies except both companies end up having the same name. So even though this is the exact same situation you are now not paying taxes on your expanding investment. Sure if you decide to go liquid you'll have to pay taxes then but Epsilon taxes paid will be much less. This is the beauty of compound interest (in this case it is working backward but if you plug through the math you can see the concept of compound interest is still at play here.)
link to an interview with Patrick Warburton
on
The Tick to be Cancelled
·
· Score: 2, Informative
here is an interview with the tick himself on npr's freshair. talks about the show among other things... interview is pre-cancelation however
All rights a government doles costs somebody (and sometimes everybody something.) If they didn't cost somebody something (remember cost includes possible gains in game theory) then there would be no need to create the right. I don't have to listen to some party's propaganda but I do have to deal with the propaganda's effect on society.
But email isn't solely an act of speach; in the case of spam it is also an act of assault forcing a physical responce. It's a fuzzy area but free speech is involved.
without added context average usually means mean. One can know that 50% will be below the mode but it is possible that the average (mean) and the mode are not equal... of course it is also possible that they are equal. I don't think a normal distribution is to be assumed here.
If someone does this make sure to get a portable harddrive... although most harddrives are pretty reliable they aren't designed to be constantly lugged around. Although a missing bit or two isn't that bad in audio (watch me get flamed by an audiophile)
At the end of a lecture young student puts up his hand:
"Professor, earlier you commented that eventually the sun will collapse and life on earth as we know it will cease..."
"Yes," responds the professor, "but not for billions of years."
The young student exhales a sigh of releif. "Thank goodness, for a moment there I thought you had said millions."
Possible Senario; a frequent reader and sometimes moderator decides this is a great system and starts flaging all the trolls. Then one day it is called on to him to start moderating and he goes forth and mods up interesting and mods down the inappropriate.
But something different happens here: a lot of the inappropriate messages are already filtered for him. Consequently it take regular readers longer to have their/. moderated properly.
Yes I realize that the moderator is supposed to view all messages but we are dealing with the real world hear- not an ideal world. The present moderation system works well right now in the real world- and this new system will probably not break it- but it may slow it.
hey I use jabber all the time; it's a great protocol that has the potential to reach far beyond IM uses. BUT I wouldn't go bragging about the strength of a system that has yet to set up passwords that aren't kept server side in plain text. Yes I have read the arguments why it as to be like this for now but those are only explanations and does not make the situation any better. From what I can tell rewriting the server- although necessary in its own right, will not suffice either. Changes need to be addressed in the actual protocal.
I mean Germany trying to take control beyond its borders... that's sooo twentieth century. Next we're going to here that France is going to "surrender" to this.
I'm sure the poster is already aware of these (and is looking for something cheaper) but I thought it was still worth mentioning. They are generally cheaper than most Stand alone units I've seen. But most of the cheap ones I've seen only come with windows (and sometimes mac) software. If I remember correctly Rp Electronics sell a few. They are pretty cheap all things considered... I've had text books that are of a equivilant price to some of these.
I wake up and still in a haze I check/. to find a headline containing "Oracle" "Donates" and "Big Brother." So I assume that Oracle is donating software to help children's charities... only to be brought back into the cynical reality when I read the article and realize the Orwelian reference. Too bad
I pretty much agree with you on why preventing minors from purchaseing doesn't prevent most from playing it. I just want to point out that, from what I've read, of the people who have started smoking in the last few years the majority of them are in their early twenties (I think this was even a BC study I was reading... might have even been in the sun... I'm not sure). It certainly is true a lot of young teenagers do smoke despite not being able to buy cigarettes but a lot of teenagers don't smoke due to the banning of cigarettes sold to them. Of course your point about games not being tangable, unlike cigarettes, is dead on.
just because they are the same. Taxes aren't a form of justice so tax law doesn't need to be restricted to equality. Taxes a simply a solution to problem; or more specifically the effects of tax collection has more benefits to society than detrements. But if we can modify tax law such that society benefits even more there is no reason to hesitate. At the moment a large percentage of American dollars is invested in internet commerce but a relitively small percentage of sales tax is collected off of internet purchases. So it is reasonable to assume that there are more positives than negitives to society. If this were a justice case one would have to weigh the social benifits against indiviual rights. But this isn't a justice case; nor is it a distinction made based upon ethnicity or wealth. Will this law injure phone sales and mail order companies? Probably. Do these companies have an innate or constitutional right to suceed? I would say no but you might say yes. Clearly this issue isn't as simple as "all same things should be treated the same, end of argument."
Now that we can get our hands on the parts and see what they are has anyone summed up their street value and compared that to the unit price. Next time I put a system together would it be worth it to pick up an Xbox strictly for cannibal purposes?
Slashdot Mirror
it can only be safe if it is not connected to the outside, off, and unplugged from the wall.
one of the episodes (number 17 I think) makes a reference to another star wars spoof here.
There are actually a lot of good sw spoofs out there; just a matter of looking at places like atomfilms and ifilms. but be warned, there are also a lot of terrible ones
If I build a tree house on my property that is unsafe and someone tresspasses and uses this tree house (which I haven't even said he could use) and gets hurt then I am potentially liable both crimally and civilly. It's called an attractive nuiscence.
I didn't charge anybody anything... I didn't even give permission for it to happen. So if this is a crime surely if I knowingly give somebody a car that is faulty (even if I don't charge him) shouldn't I also be guilty.
Just because I don't profit off of a transaction doesn't give me a right to put somebody at risk, financially or physically, unless perhaps I am completely forth right and even then often not; and simply saying "Well, at your own risk," is not completely forth right, not even close.
The problem with your argument is you offer two different arguments and claim that one applies to paid software and the other to free. Yet your arguments have no dependency on this variable so it is unclear why the arguments vary so. What it appears you are saying is if you are giving away software then you are a nice person. And nice people shouldn't be held to the same laws as mean people. Well a system bases on niceness is in a different ball park than a justice system.
The other way your argument makes sense is if the seller is only liable up to the price he charged and is not liable for damages. Otherwise you're buying the right not to be put in a dangerous situation with out your knowledge... which u can't buy.
I think perhaps you have assumed a certain statement from someone before he ellicited it. No one is guilty of confusing correlation with causation. The Washington Post Article deals with this point of yours head on; although it does allow some room for speculation. The study explicitly states your point. With the exception of a few trolls the comments thus far have been stating your point. And the /. summary doesn't make the assumption of causation either. The line "it appears that sleeping more than 8 hours carries a much higher risk" may connote a causation but its denotation is completely supported by the study. If people in a category are more likely to exhibit a symptom then if you are in this category you are in fact at a greater risk of carrying this symptom, unless there is additional data stating otherwise. The only place where causation is truly suggested is in the four word article title "Sleep Less, Live Longer." But this is clearly a throw away title designed to gather interest and not to carry useful information. Really there is no reason to chastise anybody in this case. Please save your criticisms for actions that actually demand such a response.
Although I am a ruby fan I have to point out that ruby doesn't have multiple inheritence per se. This is because Ruby, like small talk, is a true object oriented language. Since everything is an object, inluding classes, multiple inheritence doesn't make sense. You do however have modules which can be used similarly to multiple inheritence but u have to seperate instance and class methods into sepereate modules. I do beleive however that most problem solvable by multiple inheritence have better solutions without them. Just my opinion.
I think part of the reason people are having trouble wrapping their heads around this concept most posters here think of their computer(s) as system. Something you can access from other computers and something you personallize. This is certainly how I think of my computers.
But not everybody thinks like this; for some people a computer is just a way to get to a tool. Why would such a person have sshd, telnetd, ftpd, or apache running (why should any of us be running telnetd or ftpd but that's a discussion for another time)? Well if you're not running any daemons that cuts the problem down dramatically. It's not perfect; otherstuff can go wrong, but it cuts down on the problem. A system with an old version of apache running on it, not running root, is probably less safe than a Lindows computer without apache running root.
Oh absolutly. None of us live in an emotional vacuum; nor should we try. And it was not my intention to sugest we not rejoice when the big bad gets nailed for bad stuff. Part of disliking somebody is taking pleasure in his downfalls. I don't care what anybody says about how pious he is, it is a natural human response. I was just responding to a comment - probably written off the cuff - that stated that the commenter could not determine who to root for because the players both appear equally beyond contempt. All I'm saying (here comes the cheeziest line ever) is root for justice. And more generally, in a court of law that is all we should ever root for. In a football game root for whomever you want - sometimes the underdog wins and this is fine. But in a court of law it is not fine when the nice guy in the wrong wins... even if at some level it makes us feel good.
I don't mean to jump on you specifically but I see this analogy to law thrown around a lot and it makes me nervous. More and more people are looking at court battles as sporting competitions; consider the make up of both teams, weigh advantages and disadvantages of each, consider how similar you are with each, and hope the team you like more wins.
This is a fine for sports but in a court case only the laws at hand should be considered. Otherwise, in practise, only nice and likable people have access to the law. Or in other words being mean and unlikable becomes illegal because you will always lose in court.
Sure law is fundementally like this because it falls from man and some forms of sympathy are inevitable. But we don't have to encourage this behavior. Microsoft is dislikable but not because everything they do is illegal. And people tend to like to do illegal things to dislikable people; this is a major motivator for illegal activities, even among likable people. Therefore in some suits that Microsoft is involved in the law favors Microsoft, even if they are the dislikable party. In these cases I hope Microsoft wins because a society not tempered by blind justice is far more dangerous than Microsoft could ever hope to be.
Sure we can all continue to root for the popular and the likable but just hope that you never become unpopular, find yourself sued, and find people who root for the popular on the jury. I know I'm hoping this.
I think that the word obligation might be a little strong. A company doesn't have a referendum everytime there is a difficult situation to make. This is why there is a is board of directors. Now it may be in their best interests for survival to do what the share holders want but usually the board has the support of the share holders since the share holders are often a self selecting group that select themselves on their faith in the company. It is not unheard of that a company makes a unpopular decision and convinces its shareholders later. Of course the more AOL offers the harder it may be to convince the shareholders later if they decline.
The scary part about this kind of decision is they might not have a chance. Depending on the layout of redhat stocks right now a certain percentage of the shareholders might be able to make the decision without the board.
I don't know if they still use it but some years ago disney started introducing a copy protection system on their VHS tapes that introduced extra lines that the tv just ignored but a copying VCR gets confused about and throws it out of sync with the video strips on the tape. And more resently dvd players output a signal a tv can play but confuses standard vcrs. Nothing to stop broadcasters from broadcasting this type of signal. Sure there are ways around this but they are a pain. So your worst case scenario... already here.
The loophole deal is that the investor ends up with more money in the end because, although he still pays tax on the profit eventually, he gets the profit on the tax money in the mean time.
Business Perspective Investing explains it like this: an entrepreneur comes to you saying if you pay to start up his company at the end of the year you will still own the company and you will get the initial investment returned to you. At the end of the year you're ecstatic because this actually happens so you go back to the entrepreneur and tell him to start up another company with the profit money; you will then have two companies returning your initial investment every year- and of course this pattern continues. The only problem is at the end of every year when you get your profit cheque you have to pay taxes and replace that amount out of your own pocket to buy the next company.
But the entrepreneur being crafty has a plan. He suggests that, instead of paying you profit, the company keeps the money and uses it expand itself. This is just like you owning two companies except both companies end up having the same name. So even though this is the exact same situation you are now not paying taxes on your expanding investment. Sure if you decide to go liquid you'll have to pay taxes then but Epsilon taxes paid will be much less. This is the beauty of compound interest (in this case it is working backward but if you plug through the math you can see the concept of compound interest is still at play here.)
here is an interview with the tick himself on npr's freshair. talks about the show among other things... interview is pre-cancelation however
All rights a government doles costs somebody (and sometimes everybody something.) If they didn't cost somebody something (remember cost includes possible gains in game theory) then there would be no need to create the right. I don't have to listen to some party's propaganda but I do have to deal with the propaganda's effect on society.
But email isn't solely an act of speach; in the case of spam it is also an act of assault forcing a physical responce. It's a fuzzy area but free speech is involved.
without added context average usually means mean. One can know that 50% will be below the mode but it is possible that the average (mean) and the mode are not equal... of course it is also possible that they are equal. I don't think a normal distribution is to be assumed here.
If someone does this make sure to get a portable harddrive... although most harddrives are pretty reliable they aren't designed to be constantly lugged around. Although a missing bit or two isn't that bad in audio (watch me get flamed by an audiophile)
At the end of a lecture young student puts up his hand:
"Professor, earlier you commented that eventually the sun will collapse and life on earth as we know it will cease..."
"Yes," responds the professor, "but not for billions of years."
The young student exhales a sigh of releif. "Thank goodness, for a moment there I thought you had said millions."
Possible Senario; a frequent reader and sometimes moderator decides this is a great system and starts flaging all the trolls. Then one day it is called on to him to start moderating and he goes forth and mods up interesting and mods down the inappropriate.
/. moderated properly.
But something different happens here: a lot of the inappropriate messages are already filtered for him. Consequently it take regular readers longer to have their
Yes I realize that the moderator is supposed to view all messages but we are dealing with the real world hear- not an ideal world. The present moderation system works well right now in the real world- and this new system will probably not break it- but it may slow it.
hey I use jabber all the time; it's a great protocol that has the potential to reach far beyond IM uses. BUT I wouldn't go bragging about the strength of a system that has yet to set up passwords that aren't kept server side in plain text. Yes I have read the arguments why it as to be like this for now but those are only explanations and does not make the situation any better. From what I can tell rewriting the server- although necessary in its own right, will not suffice either. Changes need to be addressed in the actual protocal.
I mean Germany trying to take control beyond its borders... that's sooo twentieth century. Next we're going to here that France is going to "surrender" to this.
I'm sure the poster is already aware of these (and is looking for something cheaper) but I thought it was still worth mentioning. They are generally cheaper than most Stand alone units I've seen. But most of the cheap ones I've seen only come with windows (and sometimes mac) software. If I remember correctly Rp Electronics sell a few. They are pretty cheap all things considered... I've had text books that are of a equivilant price to some of these.
I wake up and still in a haze I check /. to find a headline containing "Oracle" "Donates" and "Big Brother." So I assume that Oracle is donating software to help children's charities... only to be brought back into the cynical reality when I read the article and realize the Orwelian reference. Too bad
I pretty much agree with you on why preventing minors from purchaseing doesn't prevent most from playing it. I just want to point out that, from what I've read, of the people who have started smoking in the last few years the majority of them are in their early twenties (I think this was even a BC study I was reading... might have even been in the sun... I'm not sure). It certainly is true a lot of young teenagers do smoke despite not being able to buy cigarettes but a lot of teenagers don't smoke due to the banning of cigarettes sold to them. Of course your point about games not being tangable, unlike cigarettes, is dead on.
just because they are the same. Taxes aren't a form of justice so tax law doesn't need to be restricted to equality. Taxes a simply a solution to problem; or more specifically the effects of tax collection has more benefits to society than detrements. But if we can modify tax law such that society benefits even more there is no reason to hesitate. At the moment a large percentage of American dollars is invested in internet commerce but a relitively small percentage of sales tax is collected off of internet purchases. So it is reasonable to assume that there are more positives than negitives to society. If this were a justice case one would have to weigh the social benifits against indiviual rights. But this isn't a justice case; nor is it a distinction made based upon ethnicity or wealth. Will this law injure phone sales and mail order companies? Probably. Do these companies have an innate or constitutional right to suceed? I would say no but you might say yes. Clearly this issue isn't as simple as "all same things should be treated the same, end of argument."
Now that we can get our hands on the parts and see what they are has anyone summed up their street value and compared that to the unit price. Next time I put a system together would it be worth it to pick up an Xbox strictly for cannibal purposes?
when is nVidia going to get to work on the desperate need for graphically accelerated pda's?