NTFS is recommended several times in response to this article and it troubles me. The next de facto portable filesystem standard is being determined by us in the same way mp3 was made a standard. Ask yourself if you really want to see NTFS become the standard?
No, but that's not really relevant.
Personally I'd rather see a truly open filesystem become standard and I really don't want to see Microsoft have the leverage to make more patent threats. If you agree with me and have some integrity, please recommend an open standard.
Can't reconcile the contradiction in that request. There's no open standard that satisfies the need, so I would have to abandon my integrity to make a dishonest recommendation that I like for its openness. If I want to maintain my integrity, I need to make an honest recommendation that accords with the truth, even if it's an unpleasant truth. For the desired purpose, the sad truth is your best bet is NTFS. I wish that weren't so, I would hope that in a few years some open standard would emerge, but I'd be dishonest to answer with wishful thinking rather than fact.
Most countries have quality control. Anything that meets the standards is allowed to be sold domestically, and anything that fails is shipped to America.
Yes, but what stinks here is either your math or your sense of proportion. NewEgg had.149 million to Target's 14 million, over 1%. If 149,000 is believable for NewEgg, why isn't 14 million believable for Target? Surely you aren't under the delusion that NewEgg carries more than 1% of the number of products or does 1% of the business Target does, are you? NewEgg in their wildest dreams isn't 1% as big as Target...
I don't think this is true. For Diakatana, not being at the very top of technology was bad. Looking antiquated, running on "last year's engine" was fatal.
Duke Nukem Forever, however, would have sold and sold well even if it was a year behind the curve, because of Duke. The main appeal of the game would not be eye-popping graphics, but humorous situations, gameplay, and a wise-cracking hero, things that would be true regardless of the tech. Duke could have survived and prospered as long as the tech wasn't too far behind.
Ha! First thing that started playing in my head when I saw the pictures was the tune from those "Real Men of Genius" commercials. Beer commercials are about as redneck as you get, so, yeah... funny though...
I don't believe people, even people who can see the difference, would consider a 10% difference to be large. Most, if they could see the difference at all, would consider it a small difference. So, saying 40% is almost 50% in these circumstances seems quite reasonable. Calling it hyperbole is, well, hyperbole.
I'm not the one who modded him down, but I expect the person who did was thinking the same thing I was, in that he obviously doesn't understand the meaning of the word "almost".
But why eat up twice the memory to run 2 Operating systems to run a graphicly intensive game instead of partitioning it and having a dual boot option?
Habitual multitasking. Booting into the "other OS" prevents me from easily switch back and forth between the game and my usual browser, apps, plethora of addons, etc.
If she actually DID the kill the poor sap, and we find out that she posted about it beforehand on her FB page, everyone would be up in arms... "Why didn't someone do something about it? This could have been prevented!"
We can't have it both ways.
Only someone engaging in over-generalization would find this surprising or logically suspect. Rephrase without it, "a bunch of people would be up in arms", and suddenly it doesn't seem surprising that no matter which way you go, a bunch of people will be up in arms that it wasn't handled the other way. The trick is, they're not the same people. Well, except for the occasional exceptional idiot.
(What continually amazes me is how often people assert "everybody" thinks something or other when a vocal minority is loud enough. It's impossible to determine what the majority thinks based on forum comments, or news reports. What the majority of forum comments say tells you NOTHING about what the majority thinks. It provides absolutely no data at all whatsoever on that particular question. Likewise, the majority of news reports and the slant of their presentation.)
(BTW, if you want to spot an idiot on Slashdot, ask them what the majority of Slashdot readers think about some issue. If they answer something other than, "I don't know," you know they're an idiot. If they qualify it with "the majority of commenters", they're still idiots, but less idiotic. They begin to show intelligence when they say, "the majority of people who chose to comment on that particular story", a subgroup that is a minority of Slashdot commenters, and a tiny minority of Slashdot readers. Trying to generalize from that proves only that the person is too stupid to understand why generalizing from a self-selected minority is really, really dumb. Anyone that gullible will believe anything...)
Which is why it's sad that no one learned the real lesson of Columbine. The lesson wasn't "listen to angry music" or "dress a certain way" and you'll kill people. The lesson was "if you're an asshole to people, eventually someone is going to shoot your ass -- so just be nice".
o.O
More like, "if everyone isn't nice to someone, eventually that someone is going to shoot your ass, and there's nothing you can do about it since you're just some poor student in the same school and you can't stop other people from being assholes."
... Hell, I'm a freelancer and I constantly have to deal with "power hungry asshole" clients (I once got 15 calls in one day from a client to "just check on the status" of a document I was working on).
...and people wonder how I can "forget" my cellphone in the car so often. (And of course, as a modern technogeek, I don't have a "land line".)
And of course, I don't answer my phone in the car. Driving and using a cell phone at the same time is dangerous. XD
Why would you threaten to 'kill someone in public'?
Because it sounds more badass?
"I once killed a man, just to see other people see him die..."
(Note: the above is humor and not a confession or threat of actual violence. No comments made by me are meant to be taken seriously and are examples of parody, a protected form of expression. This offer is not valid with any other offers, and is void where prohibited by law. All rights reserved worldwide.)
If there is even a question that it may be used against an innocent person, we should ALWAYS err on the side of letting the guilty go free because punishing the innocent is so abhorrent as to make the state no better than the criminals which is claims to protect us from.
Frankly, I think the value statement of "It is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man" is too lenient on the use of power. Its better to let any number of the guilty go free, than to convict one innocent man.
Agreed. And what has the student in question been convicted of? Or, indeed, what criminal charges have been pressed? Or are you just engaging in a non-sequitur here?
Hmm, so you've replaced one set of thoughtless stereotypes and horribly distorted ideas about America with a different set of thoughtless stereotypes and horribly distorted ideas. Thinking about it, the only thing I can come up with is that better education would help you stop repeatedly falling for this sort of poor thinking, but not being a Swedish citizen, I can't vote for more education in your country, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to what I could do to help.
Right, people become much more stable by being required to consistently bottle any emotions up.
Bwah? Major logic fail. Specifically, the False Dilemma. Believe it or not, there are NOT only two alternatives: either make death threats or keep things bottled up. Indeed, neither of these are good courses of action. But arguing against someone who says one is bad by pointing out the other is bad is simply demonstrating an inability to think logically...
If enough people consider this kind of thing "prevention" you guys are going to end up in a distopia such that anything remotely violent, even if in plain writing, will be a crime.
Is that a good price to pay?
The Slippery Slope is either a logical fallacy or a dishonest rhetorical trick, depending on how aware the person speaking is of the the invalidity of what they're saying.
Keeping someone who's made threatening statements away from the people they make them against is not the same thing as charging someone with a crime, much less convicting them of one, and you've made no argument explaining why it is that it's impossible to do one without the other. (In fact, the present case would demonstrate any such statement to be false.) Thus, the "you're going to end up" statement is utterly unsupported, and the "is this a good price to pay" is just rhetorical flair to cover up the fact that there's no reason to expect such a price would need to be paid to begin with, and draw attention away from the fact that you've made no argument or presented any reason for thinking and such thing would occur.
But that's not the first time I see this. Hell, even Law and Order has episodes where they go through the suspect's address book. I guess putting everything under encryption would work, as you could probably plead the 5th and not share the password.
The 5th amendment prevents the state from compelling you to testify against yourself. Specifically, "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." It does not authorize you to hide evidence. You must still turn over evidence, even incriminating evidence, if ordered by a court; you just can't be called upon by the court to explain it.
Erg, that's "bank account records". BTW, I think this is the only forum I use that still doesn't have an edit feature. Time for/. to wake up and smell the 21st century?
I think the Courts have been trying to differentiate far too much. If it's OK to search your physical papers, address books, and mail you might have, why should a computer, cell phone, or netbook be any different? It's just data in 1's and 0's instead of ink and paper.
These days, devices like a cell phone often don't even technically contain the data, they're just the device for accessing the data stored "in the cloud" (i.e. in some datacenter somewhere). If your view is to be taken seriously, one of two things must obtain: (1) you must insist that officers be able to tell the difference, a technical detail that even the owner might not know, or (2) you believe a police officer, upon arresting you, can not only look at everything you have in your possession, but use such items to access any accounts or other information you might be able to access, including viewing data stored on computers in other countries, assuming you were carrying a device that allowed you to access it (which, in today's internet-connected age, is quite common and includes pretty much everything, e.g. your back account records can be accessed from your phone).
(1) requires near omniscience on the part of officers, (2) is essentially throwing away the need for warrants to access anything.
Perhaps the Whuffie is not quite prior art, but it's pretty darn close. In any event, reading "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" should give anyone a good sense of why this is a bad idea.
I've read it. It would certainly be very nice to live is the incredibly blessed utopia described in the book, despite the problems. Not sure why you think reading it should lead anyone to the conclusion that it's a bad idea...
(Note, I'm not saying the reason for their utopia is the "whuffie", rather it's the other way aroud -- in the post-scarcity world they live, money in the traditional sense would be a laughable idea, the "whuffie" is about the only kind of currency you can have in a world where anything material is free. Just saying it's not obvious why it would be "a bad idea", unless you're one of those people who considers anything not perfect "a bad idea". Yes, there are problems with it. But all forms of currency are a bad idea if your standard is that there be no problems with it.)
Isn't every star in the galaxy ultimately rotating around every other star in the galaxy?
No. Every star in the universe is gravitationally affected by every other star in the universe, but none are known to actually revolve around all the others (and none rotate around anything but their own axis).
In ancient times the atmosphere was cleaner than now, and had a lot less light pollution from towns. Yet it apparently took "exceptional vision" to see Alcor and Mizar as separate stars. I must have phenomenal eyesight then to be able see them any night it isn't cloudy.
By ancient standards, you probably do. Especially if you have it without the use of corrective lenses that weren't available in ancient times.
Slashdot Mirror
NTFS is recommended several times in response to this article and it troubles me. The next de facto portable filesystem standard is being determined by us in the same way mp3 was made a standard. Ask yourself if you really want to see NTFS become the standard?
No, but that's not really relevant.
Personally I'd rather see a truly open filesystem become standard and I really don't want to see Microsoft have the leverage to make more patent threats. If you agree with me and have some integrity, please recommend an open standard.
Can't reconcile the contradiction in that request. There's no open standard that satisfies the need, so I would have to abandon my integrity to make a dishonest recommendation that I like for its openness. If I want to maintain my integrity, I need to make an honest recommendation that accords with the truth, even if it's an unpleasant truth. For the desired purpose, the sad truth is your best bet is NTFS. I wish that weren't so, I would hope that in a few years some open standard would emerge, but I'd be dishonest to answer with wishful thinking rather than fact.
Most countries have quality control. Anything that meets the standards is allowed to be sold domestically, and anything that fails is shipped to America.
Not even Newegg, who tends to keep old product pages around for ages after they've stopped selling an item, has this problem: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=site%3Anewegg.com+%22this+product+is+no+longer+available%22 tops out at a perfectly believable 149,000 hits.
Really. 14 million?
FFS: Something here stinks.
Yes, but what stinks here is either your math or your sense of proportion. NewEgg had .149 million to Target's 14 million, over 1%. If 149,000 is believable for NewEgg, why isn't 14 million believable for Target? Surely you aren't under the delusion that NewEgg carries more than 1% of the number of products or does 1% of the business Target does, are you? NewEgg in their wildest dreams isn't 1% as big as Target...
I don't think this is true. For Diakatana, not being at the very top of technology was bad. Looking antiquated, running on "last year's engine" was fatal.
Duke Nukem Forever, however, would have sold and sold well even if it was a year behind the curve, because of Duke. The main appeal of the game would not be eye-popping graphics, but humorous situations, gameplay, and a wise-cracking hero, things that would be true regardless of the tech. Duke could have survived and prospered as long as the tech wasn't too far behind.
Ha! First thing that started playing in my head when I saw the pictures was the tune from those "Real Men of Genius" commercials. Beer commercials are about as redneck as you get, so, yeah... funny though...
I think science feels more like religion when you decide that's how it works
When was the last time your minister has said there's a 77% chance God exists? Or suggested further experiments be performed to verify this?
Science feels more like religion when you don't know wtf you're talking about...
I don't believe people, even people who can see the difference, would consider a 10% difference to be large. Most, if they could see the difference at all, would consider it a small difference. So, saying 40% is almost 50% in these circumstances seems quite reasonable. Calling it hyperbole is, well, hyperbole.
I'm not the one who modded him down, but I expect the person who did was thinking the same thing I was, in that he obviously doesn't understand the meaning of the word "almost".
But why eat up twice the memory to run 2 Operating systems to run a graphicly intensive game instead of partitioning it and having a dual boot option?
Habitual multitasking. Booting into the "other OS" prevents me from easily switch back and forth between the game and my usual browser, apps, plethora of addons, etc.
If she actually DID the kill the poor sap, and we find out that she posted about it beforehand on her FB page, everyone would be up in arms... "Why didn't someone do something about it? This could have been prevented!"
We can't have it both ways.
Only someone engaging in over-generalization would find this surprising or logically suspect. Rephrase without it, "a bunch of people would be up in arms", and suddenly it doesn't seem surprising that no matter which way you go, a bunch of people will be up in arms that it wasn't handled the other way. The trick is, they're not the same people. Well, except for the occasional exceptional idiot.
(What continually amazes me is how often people assert "everybody" thinks something or other when a vocal minority is loud enough. It's impossible to determine what the majority thinks based on forum comments, or news reports. What the majority of forum comments say tells you NOTHING about what the majority thinks. It provides absolutely no data at all whatsoever on that particular question. Likewise, the majority of news reports and the slant of their presentation.)
(BTW, if you want to spot an idiot on Slashdot, ask them what the majority of Slashdot readers think about some issue. If they answer something other than, "I don't know," you know they're an idiot. If they qualify it with "the majority of commenters", they're still idiots, but less idiotic. They begin to show intelligence when they say, "the majority of people who chose to comment on that particular story", a subgroup that is a minority of Slashdot commenters, and a tiny minority of Slashdot readers. Trying to generalize from that proves only that the person is too stupid to understand why generalizing from a self-selected minority is really, really dumb. Anyone that gullible will believe anything...)
Which is why it's sad that no one learned the real lesson of Columbine. The lesson wasn't "listen to angry music" or "dress a certain way" and you'll kill people. The lesson was "if you're an asshole to people, eventually someone is going to shoot your ass -- so just be nice".
o.O
More like, "if everyone isn't nice to someone, eventually that someone is going to shoot your ass, and there's nothing you can do about it since you're just some poor student in the same school and you can't stop other people from being assholes."
... Hell, I'm a freelancer and I constantly have to deal with "power hungry asshole" clients (I once got 15 calls in one day from a client to "just check on the status" of a document I was working on).
...and people wonder how I can "forget" my cellphone in the car so often. (And of course, as a modern technogeek, I don't have a "land line".)
And of course, I don't answer my phone in the car. Driving and using a cell phone at the same time is dangerous. XD
Why would you threaten to 'kill someone in public'?
Because it sounds more badass?
"I once killed a man, just to see other people see him die..."
(Note: the above is humor and not a confession or threat of actual violence. No comments made by me are meant to be taken seriously and are examples of parody, a protected form of expression. This offer is not valid with any other offers, and is void where prohibited by law. All rights reserved worldwide.)
If there is even a question that it may be used against an innocent person, we should ALWAYS err on the side of letting the guilty go free because punishing the innocent is so abhorrent as to make the state no better than the criminals which is claims to protect us from.
Frankly, I think the value statement of "It is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man" is too lenient on the use of power. Its better to let any number of the guilty go free, than to convict one innocent man.
Agreed. And what has the student in question been convicted of? Or, indeed, what criminal charges have been pressed? Or are you just engaging in a non-sequitur here?
Think about it.
Hmm, so you've replaced one set of thoughtless stereotypes and horribly distorted ideas about America with a different set of thoughtless stereotypes and horribly distorted ideas. Thinking about it, the only thing I can come up with is that better education would help you stop repeatedly falling for this sort of poor thinking, but not being a Swedish citizen, I can't vote for more education in your country, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to what I could do to help.
Right, people become much more stable by being required to consistently bottle any emotions up.
Bwah? Major logic fail. Specifically, the False Dilemma. Believe it or not, there are NOT only two alternatives: either make death threats or keep things bottled up. Indeed, neither of these are good courses of action. But arguing against someone who says one is bad by pointing out the other is bad is simply demonstrating an inability to think logically...
If enough people consider this kind of thing "prevention" you guys are going to end up in a distopia such that anything remotely violent, even if in plain writing, will be a crime.
Is that a good price to pay?
The Slippery Slope is either a logical fallacy or a dishonest rhetorical trick, depending on how aware the person speaking is of the the invalidity of what they're saying.
Keeping someone who's made threatening statements away from the people they make them against is not the same thing as charging someone with a crime, much less convicting them of one, and you've made no argument explaining why it is that it's impossible to do one without the other. (In fact, the present case would demonstrate any such statement to be false.) Thus, the "you're going to end up" statement is utterly unsupported, and the "is this a good price to pay" is just rhetorical flair to cover up the fact that there's no reason to expect such a price would need to be paid to begin with, and draw attention away from the fact that you've made no argument or presented any reason for thinking and such thing would occur.
But that's not the first time I see this. Hell, even Law and Order has episodes where they go through the suspect's address book. I guess putting everything under encryption would work, as you could probably plead the 5th and not share the password.
The 5th amendment prevents the state from compelling you to testify against yourself. Specifically, "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." It does not authorize you to hide evidence. You must still turn over evidence, even incriminating evidence, if ordered by a court; you just can't be called upon by the court to explain it.
Erg, that's "bank account records". BTW, I think this is the only forum I use that still doesn't have an edit feature. Time for /. to wake up and smell the 21st century?
I think the Courts have been trying to differentiate far too much. If it's OK to search your physical papers, address books, and mail you might have, why should a computer, cell phone, or netbook be any different? It's just data in 1's and 0's instead of ink and paper.
These days, devices like a cell phone often don't even technically contain the data, they're just the device for accessing the data stored "in the cloud" (i.e. in some datacenter somewhere). If your view is to be taken seriously, one of two things must obtain: (1) you must insist that officers be able to tell the difference, a technical detail that even the owner might not know, or (2) you believe a police officer, upon arresting you, can not only look at everything you have in your possession, but use such items to access any accounts or other information you might be able to access, including viewing data stored on computers in other countries, assuming you were carrying a device that allowed you to access it (which, in today's internet-connected age, is quite common and includes pretty much everything, e.g. your back account records can be accessed from your phone).
(1) requires near omniscience on the part of officers, (2) is essentially throwing away the need for warrants to access anything.
Slashdotters: how do I stay anonymous to Google while using their services?
TANSTAAFL
If you don't want to pay the price for using their services, don't use their services.
Perhaps the Whuffie is not quite prior art, but it's pretty darn close. In any event, reading "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" should give anyone a good sense of why this is a bad idea.
I've read it. It would certainly be very nice to live is the incredibly blessed utopia described in the book, despite the problems. Not sure why you think reading it should lead anyone to the conclusion that it's a bad idea...
(Note, I'm not saying the reason for their utopia is the "whuffie", rather it's the other way aroud -- in the post-scarcity world they live, money in the traditional sense would be a laughable idea, the "whuffie" is about the only kind of currency you can have in a world where anything material is free. Just saying it's not obvious why it would be "a bad idea", unless you're one of those people who considers anything not perfect "a bad idea". Yes, there are problems with it. But all forms of currency are a bad idea if your standard is that there be no problems with it.)
Holy hell, a 4-digit UID! I didn't even know you people still existed.
They don't. It's all a figment of your imagination.
fnord
Isn't every star in the galaxy ultimately rotating around every other star in the galaxy?
No. Every star in the universe is gravitationally affected by every other star in the universe, but none are known to actually revolve around all the others (and none rotate around anything but their own axis).
In ancient times the atmosphere was cleaner than now, and had a lot less light pollution from towns. Yet it apparently took "exceptional vision" to see Alcor and Mizar as separate stars. I must have phenomenal eyesight then to be able see them any night it isn't cloudy.
By ancient standards, you probably do. Especially if you have it without the use of corrective lenses that weren't available in ancient times.