Under the slashdot story which points to a Linus Torvalds interview there is an advertisement for Windows 2003 server and it's telling me that it's 17% cheaper to run!
The person was knocked down because he was hit by a projectile coming from a shotgun.
Rubber bullets, bean-bag bullets and these "paint balls" are all fired from standard shotguns because that is the only type of firearm that will handle these projectiles.
Why do you think these types of systems are called "less lethal" and not "non lethal"? Because they can kill. Can being the key word in that sentence. Usually they just bruise. I'm waiting for the bean bag type to tear and fire bean-buckshot.
Look at all the tools like Fast User Switching etc...
And why shouldn't I be worried about other users? I've got friends that come to town and they have their own accounts under Linux and XP Home, I don't want them in my files.
I don't get it either. In fact I was going for more of an "informative" moderation because I was trying to show what Microsoft said in a press release about the whole thing.
She accessed unprotected files just like Windows Explorer allows. This is a non-issue. If users don't want their information to be seen, they should be protecting their profile's Documents and Settings folder.
Unfortunatly Windows XP Home edition doesn't allow one to use file and folder permissions (the unfortunate part is that XP Home is the choice for most OEM builders). XP 'Pro' allows this, 2000 allows this and *nix, of course allows this.
XP Home does however limit the ability to browse other people's files from Explorer. It can be done through Control Panel by going to the "Users" application.
I love reading the debates on Slashdot on whether piracy is theft, I really do. They have given lots of insight into the true meaning of the word theft.
"We consider downloading this code, or making it available for others to download, as theft," the company says in a statement.
Actually the "jerk" who lifted the original copy is guilty of theft, not the pirates. Slashdot posters have convinced me of that time and time again. Microsoft still has all the copies except the one lifted from the plant. Piracy is piracy, theft is theft. (Or is it? he he)
What about the fact that illegal 527 groups have fought to get Nader on the ballot when they, the groups, are professed Republicans?
That right there is worse. Think, although neither party shares all of Nader's views the Democrats are arguably the closest thing to him. If Republicans are fighting to get him on the ballot it is for one reason only: to syphon votes from John Kerry.
Don't even try that bullshit about Republicans fighting for Nader's rights either because it won't hold water. If they really cared about Nader they would adopt some of his ideas
In its July 12th edition, Newsweek reported that of the $1 million that Nader has raised for his campaign so far, about $50,000 is from donors who have also given to President George W. Bush's campaign. One in 10 of Nader's biggest contributors are longtime Bush supporters. On that list, for example, is Richard Egan, Bush's former ambassador to Ireland and source of more than $1 million in various contributions to Bush's campaign efforts. Egan, his son John and his daughter-in-law Pamela each contributed the maximum $2,000 donation to Nader's effort.
Houston businessman and longtime Bush-family friend Nijad Fares, the son of Lebanese Deputy Prime Minister Issam Fares, also gave $2,000 to Nader. In 2000 Fares gave $200,000 to the Bush Inaugural fund. The state Republican committees in Michigan and Florida have announced efforts to collect signatures to get Nader on the ballot in those states.
In Arizona, the state's Democratic Party claims that half of the 10,000 registered voters who signed petitions last month to get Nader on the ballot were Republicans.
Oregon is the state being hit the most with these underhanded actions. Why? Because there are lots of liberals up in Oregon who would vote for Nader just as fast as they would vote for Kerry.
When Nader takes money from groups like "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" it makes me wonder if he really is the man he says he is. Has Nader realized that running for office is a very lucrative job?
There are groups who have fought to get Nader on the ballot so that Bush can win (Citizens for a Sound Economy and Oregon Council being two). And there are Republican groups, under 527 status, who have petitioned states to get Nader on the ballot as well.
The "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" have also given money to Ralph Nader... because he doesn't support Kerry? No, because more liberals voting for Nader is good for Bush.
I've used this application for years from Windows machines: HomeWatcher
Pretty nice. Shows what has changed in an image, scheduled uploads, snapshot timers, all kinds of stuff. Puts the images right to a page with thumbnails and even includes a link to the motion lapse video. Everything is uploaded so a burglar can't just smash the PC and be done with it, allows you to tilt & swivel your camera if supported... so forth.
Bad news, and good news: Homewatcher is for sale. Don't expect them to provide support or software updates. Good news is that the source code is for sale if anyone wanted to make the application GPL, *hint, hint, please, please*.
I know that it's Windows software, but it works really well. I've had days worth of living room activity recorded in a one minute AVI (which was opened under Linux, no problem). Pretty cool to use just as webcam software, does all the work for you.
Write the E-voting machines in assembly and make them run on the simplest RISC processor out there. Unless you plan on using the voting machines as public solitaire terminals during the off season there's no reason any complex OS or programming language should be involved in voting.
If Diebold can't even keep their money machines running how can I trust their voting machines? Man, you've got to be able to keep your "stack" (or "grip" if you prefer) in check before I can even think about trusting you.
Well, at least there will be music for the revolution (see link).
There have been reports in several places of campaigners trying to register as many people as possible to vote, then tearing up and throwing away the non-republican registrations at the end of the day.
It may seem funny but it happens. Where I go to school there was a voter registration desk for one night. That night they took a measley 74 registrations out of say 1000 students.
I only wanted to change my address as I've moved into city limits and wanted to vote in the city council race (for once). Low and behold my registration never was sent in. You can check these things at the local Board of Elections website.
I pulled a few people aside in school and let them know that their registrations were likely never sent in as well. We checked, and not one made it to the Board of Elections. Two people can't vote in their first presidential election because the deadline had already passed.
I can't think of a reason for them not sending the registrations in because our student population is all over the political map.
I've got "MyYahoo" set as my homepage and their tech news stories are particularly disgusting. There was an exploit tool that was to be released under the GPL so the headline was "Open-Source Exploit Tool: 'Point, Click, Root' ". Mind you the tool attacks Windows and OSX machines, not Linux. But since it was released under the GPL, Open Source==Bad!
Why are/.ers so anti-Diebold and 'paperless' voting. If companies brought back paper, then they won't need data and storage on computers. I just find this bastion of Ludditism surprising here.
It's not because it runs Windows. The reason is they are a business first. They depend on monetary transactions for their business and they seem to, how do you say... 'screw that up'? How can I begin to trust them in light of their apparent failures and technical problems?
They don't take care of their cash, how can I trust an election? Even the candidates know the value of money...
Microsoft last year granted AOL a seven-year royalty-free license to use IE technology in its products. The license was one of many concessions that Microsoft offered AOL as part of a $750 million settlement in an antitrust lawsuit filed by Netscape in January 2002.
Why not screw the company which screwed you?
Also makes me wonder if they will get people hooked on this browser and switch over to Mozilla later on.
it's about someone telling you that you can't do something with a work they distributed to you.
What? They have not "distributed" the book or any portion to you. Yes, the information has been transfered to your cache and computer screen but the original copyright owner never said that another party has any rights.
They are letting you view a part of a book with the exact intention that you don't copy or print any part of that book. In their FAQ they even tell you the only right you have is to memorize the book. The original owner, the author or publisher still retains the copyright no matter what rights they grant to Google. No where have they forfeitted their rights, sir.
You no longer own something you distributed to someone else over the internet. You don't, they don't. Don't let them trick you into thinking that they still own that file.
What? That is just silly. Why is the Internet any different than anything else? You are saying that once something passes over copper and fiberoptics that the copyright is no longer valid?
That doesn't even pass the logic test. By your reasoning when I purchase music from iTunes the copyright on said work is no longer valid. When I visit my local newspaper's site and read some articles I've got the right to reproduce their work royalty free without any recourse?
When I download software that is deemed "shareware" the creator has no right to ask me to pay for the software?
Even at the bottom of the page you are reading there is this notice: Comments are owned by the Poster.
You never gave slashdot the exclusive right to your comment when you posted it... it's still your work.
I was going to bring that up but couldn't think of the details.
Now that I think about it the citizens of D.C. voted it on in. But since there is a congressional committee that controls the legislature of D.C. they had the final say. He basically vetoed the idea with one gavel drop.
Slashdot Mirror
From Divx.com, "official" players.
DVD Player Compatibility List at VideoHelp.com
I don't do any scientific computing or anything involving too much math... if these CPUs make a few mistakes here or there it won't really bother me.
What!?!
I hope that was a joke...
Everything you do on the computer requires "math" to be done.
Great!
Every sci-fi dystopian movie I've ever seen is coming true.
Under the slashdot story which points to a Linus Torvalds interview there is an advertisement for Windows 2003 server and it's telling me that it's 17% cheaper to run!
The person was knocked down because he was hit by a projectile coming from a shotgun.
Rubber bullets, bean-bag bullets and these "paint balls" are all fired from standard shotguns because that is the only type of firearm that will handle these projectiles.
Why do you think these types of systems are called "less lethal" and not "non lethal"? Because they can kill. Can being the key word in that sentence. Usually they just bruise. I'm waiting for the bean bag type to tear and fire bean-buckshot.
What? XP home is far from a "single user" OS.
Look at all the tools like Fast User Switching etc...
And why shouldn't I be worried about other users? I've got friends that come to town and they have their own accounts under Linux and XP Home, I don't want them in my files.
I don't get it either. In fact I was going for more of an "informative" moderation because I was trying to show what Microsoft said in a press release about the whole thing.
She accessed unprotected files just like Windows Explorer allows. This is a non-issue. If users don't want their information to be seen, they should be protecting their profile's Documents and Settings folder.
Unfortunatly Windows XP Home edition doesn't allow one to use file and folder permissions (the unfortunate part is that XP Home is the choice for most OEM builders). XP 'Pro' allows this, 2000 allows this and *nix, of course allows this.
XP Home does however limit the ability to browse other people's files from Explorer. It can be done through Control Panel by going to the "Users" application.
No, in the State of Ohio you ask for a party/primary card at the polling place.
I don't think making copies available is theft, but Microsoft does:
Actually the "jerk" who lifted the original copy is guilty of theft, not the pirates. Slashdot posters have convinced me of that time and time again. Microsoft still has all the copies except the one lifted from the plant. Piracy is piracy, theft is theft. (Or is it? he he)
Think this has anything to do with this announcement?
What about the fact that illegal 527 groups have fought to get Nader on the ballot when they, the groups, are professed Republicans?
That right there is worse. Think, although neither party shares all of Nader's views the Democrats are arguably the closest thing to him. If Republicans are fighting to get him on the ballot it is for one reason only: to syphon votes from John Kerry.
Don't even try that bullshit about Republicans fighting for Nader's rights either because it won't hold water. If they really cared about Nader they would adopt some of his ideas
From this page:
More?
Oregon is the state being hit the most with these underhanded actions. Why? Because there are lots of liberals up in Oregon who would vote for Nader just as fast as they would vote for Kerry.
When Nader takes money from groups like "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" it makes me wonder if he really is the man he says he is. Has Nader realized that running for office is a very lucrative job?
Longhorn better come with its own, native viruses.
Uh, it will... it will be called: LONGHORN!
Oh how I want to scream!
There are groups who have fought to get Nader on the ballot so that Bush can win (Citizens for a Sound Economy and Oregon Council being two). And there are Republican groups, under 527 status, who have petitioned states to get Nader on the ballot as well.
The "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" have also given money to Ralph Nader... because he doesn't support Kerry? No, because more liberals voting for Nader is good for Bush.
I've used this application for years from Windows machines: HomeWatcher
Pretty nice. Shows what has changed in an image, scheduled uploads, snapshot timers, all kinds of stuff. Puts the images right to a page with thumbnails and even includes a link to the motion lapse video. Everything is uploaded so a burglar can't just smash the PC and be done with it, allows you to tilt & swivel your camera if supported... so forth.
Bad news, and good news: Homewatcher is for sale. Don't expect them to provide support or software updates. Good news is that the source code is for sale if anyone wanted to make the application GPL, *hint, hint, please, please*.
I know that it's Windows software, but it works really well. I've had days worth of living room activity recorded in a one minute AVI (which was opened under Linux, no problem). Pretty cool to use just as webcam software, does all the work for you.
St. Arbirix wrote:
If Diebold can't even keep their money machines running how can I trust their voting machines? Man, you've got to be able to keep your "stack" (or "grip" if you prefer) in check before I can even think about trusting you.
Well, at least there will be music for the revolution (see link).
There have been reports in several places of campaigners trying to register as many people as possible to vote, then tearing up and throwing away the non-republican registrations at the end of the day.
It may seem funny but it happens. Where I go to school there was a voter registration desk for one night. That night they took a measley 74 registrations out of say 1000 students.
I only wanted to change my address as I've moved into city limits and wanted to vote in the city council race (for once). Low and behold my registration never was sent in. You can check these things at the local Board of Elections website.
I pulled a few people aside in school and let them know that their registrations were likely never sent in as well. We checked, and not one made it to the Board of Elections. Two people can't vote in their first presidential election because the deadline had already passed.
I can't think of a reason for them not sending the registrations in because our student population is all over the political map.
...like I'm going to listen to eWeek.
I've got "MyYahoo" set as my homepage and their tech news stories are particularly disgusting. There was an exploit tool that was to be released under the GPL so the headline was " Open-Source Exploit Tool: 'Point, Click, Root' ". Mind you the tool attacks Windows and OSX machines, not Linux. But since it was released under the GPL, Open Source==Bad!
FUD! Just like when IDG reported the "double-free" CVS flaw in a story titled: "Search finds new holes in open source tool" (Notice, they reported this in July of 2004). After a little looking around I noticed that CERT released an advisory Feb. 2003!
Why are /.ers so anti-Diebold and 'paperless' voting.
If companies brought back paper, then they won't need data and storage on computers.
I just find this bastion of Ludditism surprising here.
Here comes my obligatory Diebold link.
It's not because it runs Windows. The reason is they are a business first. They depend on monetary transactions for their business and they seem to, how do you say... 'screw that up'? How can I begin to trust them in light of their apparent failures and technical problems?
They don't take care of their cash, how can I trust an election? Even the candidates know the value of money...
No one gets the MAD Magazine reference?
Microsoft last year granted AOL a seven-year royalty-free license to use IE technology in its products. The license was one of many concessions that Microsoft offered AOL as part of a $750 million settlement in an antitrust lawsuit filed by Netscape in January 2002.
Why not screw the company which screwed you?
Also makes me wonder if they will get people hooked on this browser and switch over to Mozilla later on.
What me worry?
...you could always get a library card and a scanner...
Know whats odd? That link you posted warns you about right clicking but it still happens.
No, sir, you are 100% wrong.
it's about someone telling you that you can't do something with a work they distributed to you.
What? They have not "distributed" the book or any portion to you. Yes, the information has been transfered to your cache and computer screen but the original copyright owner never said that another party has any rights.
They are letting you view a part of a book with the exact intention that you don't copy or print any part of that book. In their FAQ they even tell you the only right you have is to memorize the book. The original owner, the author or publisher still retains the copyright no matter what rights they grant to Google. No where have they forfeitted their rights, sir.
You no longer own something you distributed to someone else over the internet. You don't, they don't. Don't let them trick you into thinking that they still own that file.
What? That is just silly. Why is the Internet any different than anything else? You are saying that once something passes over copper and fiberoptics that the copyright is no longer valid?
That doesn't even pass the logic test. By your reasoning when I purchase music from iTunes the copyright on said work is no longer valid. When I visit my local newspaper's site and read some articles I've got the right to reproduce their work royalty free without any recourse?
When I download software that is deemed "shareware" the creator has no right to ask me to pay for the software?
Even at the bottom of the page you are reading there is this notice: Comments are owned by the Poster.
You never gave slashdot the exclusive right to your comment when you posted it... it's still your work.
I was going to bring that up but couldn't think of the details.
Now that I think about it the citizens of D.C. voted it on in. But since there is a congressional committee that controls the legislature of D.C. they had the final say. He basically vetoed the idea with one gavel drop.