that this is the first new handheld games system in almost 10 years now. I think it shows that handheld game systems don't really need to be very powerful, do they?They have very low resolution screens, and are played on the go, in the back seats of cars and such, by children, who aren't interested in how well it looks, only by how well it plays.
My neice, back in Scotland, has many games for her gameboy, and she plays it more often than she ever plays on playstations and computers and so on. I think it shows how it doesn't matter what the game looks like on a handheld, as long as it is well designed.
I think the big thing with this will be that it is colour. How can you advance a handheld gaming system any further? I think that the gameboy advance will be around for a long time now.
My ex boyfriend used to play handheld games a lot when he commuted to work, so I suppose he would have been interested, so it is not just for children. I don't think I would want one though. The only games I ever play are solitaire and minesweeper.
It seems to me that you can't possibly complete your project on work time, because then the company will demand IP rights over your work. Likewise, you can't complete the company project on their time, because all your decisions and design will be influenced by the fact that you have already done it - this could also call your own projects liscensing into question.
What did Stallman do in this situation? Well, I was reading about it a few months ago, and what he did was resign. Of course you can't do this, but it seems to me that you have a straightforward choice.
1)Resign, and save the integrity of your own project.
2)Refuse to do the work project. This could result in similar consequences though.
3)Hand over the liscences for your own project, and keep your job and security.
There is no easy option in a situation like this. I work as a graphic artsist, and sometimes I have faced similar issues. One job I left because they told me that my home done Pop Art could be liscence infingements, as I was influenced by the companies advertising campaign, which I helped design. Stuff like this is really hard, and I hope you find an easy way out! I couldn't, but I don't think my situation was anything like as bad as yours:)
As long as ICANN start enforcing the rules on.org domain names I don't see why we should have any problem. Open Source software is inherently non-profit making, and so any projects we would want to start would fall under the auspices of the.org TLD.
We can leave the commercial bickering over.com domains to companies well-able to afford to pay rip-off merchants, erm, I mean corporate lawyers.
The.net domain was always destined to fail in its stated purpose - demand was too high for catchy domains compared to the number of organisations providing network services. But there are at least as many non-profit organisations out there as companies, and making sure the.org TLD is set aside will cut down on trademark battles and user confusion.
Honestly, does it matter which corrupt company runs the.com TLD?:)
Sorry there, but if you take the time to read the FAQ you'll see that they express the same concerns about the possibility of this network being used as a launching point for DDoS. I don't see how this makes me a troll.
Now I know I'm not some kind of network guru, but isn't there the possibility that this could be used to launch DDoS attacks? Any kind of distributed system has got to have the ability to launch such attacks, and open services like this must surely be more vulnerable to abuse than machines that have to be cracked.
Hopefully the encryption system they are using will withstand such attempts. At least they've thought about it, because this kind of thing would probably be a target for malicious script kiddies.
However it would be good to be able to reverse traceroute incoming packets. It's also nice to be able to worry less about allowing UDP and ICMP through your firewall, and hopefully this will be taken up by enough concerned sysadmins to make it a viable concept. As recent attempts have shown, tracking down the originator of DDoS attacks is pretty hard, and this might save us the threat of yet more Government "protection" for the net.
My ex boyfriend used to be in the fraud business, and I remember that he said once that it is the healthiest sectors of the economy that attract the most fraud. So, although fraud is not a good thing to be encouraged, it is clearly an indicator of success!
Additionally, I would say that fraud is an essential part of any economy. It makes for a healthy economic ecology. I like having the option of the illegal path - even if it is only an option, it is best if we all have it.
Temptation is something that is hard to resist of course, so I suppose that is bad. My ex boyfriend gave into temptation, and I am glad that I am not the sort of person who does.
A healthy economy will always provide temptation and fraud, so lets not be too worried about fraud on the internet, but recohnise it as a sign of health, like a blooming rosebud.
Heh, this seems fairly obvious to me for a whole variety of reasons.
1)Linux users are very web-aware. We all get our info from the web, informed places like Slashdot for example.
2)Magazines depend on adverts, and are commercial. This is in direct contradiction to the aims and virtues of the open source way. Magazines will always have suspect editorial policies, because they are not independant.
3)Linux users dislike buying Linux related material on principle. Magazines have strict copyright policies regarding articles, and Linux users don't like this.
I thinnk it is a real shame. If only everyone could be a little more easy about things then perhaps we would all be a lot happier. I do love Linux, though I use Macintosh's mostly for Art purposes, but my ex-boyfriend really got me interested in Linux. I even have a Mac that runs Linux.
It is just that a lot of the users of Linux seem to be very principled, which is good, but I am not used to it. My mac using friends don't really care so much. If only we could all have some middle ground:P
Build an extremely long maglev tunnel. I read about it in one of my ex-boyfriends magazines that he left lying around the house after he moved out a few months ago. Its really quite interesting, though excuse me if I am not quite accurate as I couldn't quite concentrate at the time, for various reasons.
Put simply, you build a long (2 miles?) maglev shaft and then fire a capsule atlong it. It should reach escape velocity and at the propitious moment be flung of the end of the tube at a speed allowing it to reach geostationary orbit.
NASA have done research showing that although building the long shaft would be expensive initially, thereafter, per flight, costs would be very low.
I think that it is really the concept to replace the space shuttle, as it would give us a cheap way of getting into space for an expensive initial investment.
Or at least, it does so very often. The problem with having a scrummage of uncoordinated developers is that you end up with tonnes of innovation. Loads of it, bags of the stuff.
It can often be extremely difficult for a project leader to keep on top of things, with the result that the development process can *sometimes* fork, or spiral out of any real control.
I think that innovation is the greatest strength of the OSS community. However, in order to harness it properly, a model of how to control and tap it properly and effectively has to be introduced.
Liberals are very fond of blabbing on about how third world peoples are exploited in 'sweatshops', and have child labour thrust upon them.
Well, I take great exception to this patronising viewpoint. The simple fact is that in the third world, there are no cushy benefits systems or fallbacks, other than your family, assuming of course you have one.
A lot of children who work in these places are a lot better off than they would be otherwise. They are working through choice, they are earning money to buy food and very often these jobs can mean the difference between working hard, but eating and being housed, and starvation and death. This is the cruel reality of the third world.
I find it gravely worrying that liberals are trying to remove the ability of people in the third world to make up their own mind on the matter, and also trying to remove a useful safety net in those societies.
I hate the way that they try and apply our values (children shouldn't work, people shouldn't be payed less than X amount, people shouldn't work more than X hours a week) on countries and societies where the situation is completely different.
It is moral and good not to expect your well fed American child not to work, but is it also moral to expect a street orphan on the streets of Calcutta not to work, especially when it is the only way he will make money?
So we shouldn't be worried if it doesn't work for Open Source projects, which aren't about trade at all. They are about working for the fun of it.
On the other hand, I suppose there are lots of companies like Red Hat and so on, with thier own trademarked Open Sourse projects. Enlightenment, that cool Windows manager, is a Red Hat project, isn't it? I heard that Rasterman was employed by them, or was it VALinux? I forget.
It doesn't matter anyway, what I mean to ask is what would happen if a Linux company created an Open Source project, and made the code free, but trademarked the name? In the world of brand names and so on, that could give them quite an advantage. It would also be an affront to the spirit of Open Source and Free Software.
If the term 'Enlightenment' were trademarked, other Linux people wouldn't be able to use the term 'Enlightenment', although they would be able to distribute the window manager.
Isn't this a loophole in the law? Forgive me if I have got a few things wrong (I know I have, for sure), but please, I am interested:)
Let us analyse this sentiment a little. The hallmark of the open source philosophy is that there be a group, or bazaar, of developers who all work at a project as they see fit.
The problem with this is that they are suspect to all the usual forces that affect humans in normal society. In a company, programmers have to follow the dictacts of those above, and 'those above' have to follow the dictacts of the shareholder and the consumer. This forces them to do be innovative.
However, in Open Source, people are subject to a whole gamut of other forces. "what is cool (enlightenment), what is uncool, peer pressure, any of the myriad forces of petty jealousy and human strife, in a chaotic environment.
An open source programmer is like a cowboy in the wild west, trying to stake out his claim to some land. He is not conserned with being innovative in this context, but in stealing land from those already present, be it other cowboys or native americans.
I am quite a keen female gamer, though I don't really like the blood and guts type games, like Quake IV and all that, I do enjoy games like The Sims and Civilisation.
The problem is that the gaming world seems to be terribly dominated by men. Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a female section, like they do in the Olympics? That way, despite females probably not being very good at it (they are outnumbered and not as enthusiastic), there will still be a place for them to go.
I think that playing games is fun, but perhaps some people play them too much. I think playing games 24/7 is okay if you are doing it for money, but not if you are not, because it might just be dangerous. Thats why you are supposed to take a break every 2 hours for 15 minutes.
I stiull break those rules sometimes though, tee-hee:P
I wonder if it might be a good idea to start retraining in the light of all these new developments just around the corner? Technologies like nanotech and Quantum computing will require a completely different type of thought, and it owuld be good to be in with a head start. Given that I am only 19, what would be the best fields to train in to get a head start?
Also, I have to confess that I find the technology a little scary in some ways. I mean, I really would not like to see a Von Neumann machine running amok (I know I will get flamed for this. It's just my irrational Catholic upbringing in Scotland).
My ex-boyfriend (thankfully) was always talking about nanotech, and I think I have been interested since because of that. He also introduced me to Science Fiction.
Anyroad, I think that it is amazing that these devices will actually be in use in little over a year! And to think I thought it would be closer to 50.
Pain is in the mind, and in your case it was your mind that invented it all. And why? Because you weren't intelligent or strong enough to realise that self-worth does not come from being a carbon copy of Brittany Spears or whichever slut was the icon at that time.
I am not a robot, like you would like me to be. I have a mind, and whats more, I have feelings and emotions that sway and control my body. Anorexia is not a rational thing, and I, I freely admit, am not a rational girl. Many of my boyfriends have said that that is my most charming feature! But you want to make me a robot, and presumably you would choose one for a wife. Well, I suggest you marry that plastic blow up doll in your cupboard, because you won't get a girl like me, or any girl of spirit!
And by that statement you convince me your life has been shallow, and that you are nothing but a callow youth with much to learn. Worrying about being fat is not a huge issue in the grand scheme of things, no matter how much it may traumatise your middle-class teenage life.
Not for you perhaps, but I am female. I am judged solely on my looks. I am convinced that it is my looks that have got me my job, my green card and my boyfriend. My looks are an important tool. And intelligent people use all the tools at their disposal! I can see that you don't fit into this category though.
Cynical? Not really, just experianced.
You don't fool me. I can tell you have been worn down by life. You do not have an optomistic or joyful outlook. Are you divorced? I thought so.
I ignore the rest of your quite deliberately hurtful comments.
You have no idea how it hurts me to hear that said. Are you saying that the pain I suffered, the anguish, was all a figment of my imagination? I can assure you it is not invented.
I come from a good looking family, and we have always placed a huge value on looks, especially my mother (the main reason I moved to America). This meant that when I was young and impressionable, and bombarded by media images, I had a false bodymap, and I always though I was fat, even though my weight fell to less than 50 pounds at one stage.
I can assure you that what I went through is not a fiction. It was the most scarring experiance of my life.
And drugs helped me a lot, even the recreational ones. Frankly, I just don't understand cynical people like you flatpack.
Its people like you that make me think about leaving this forum, and make me wonder about the evilness of human nature.
I can take the flames and the jealousy, and the awful emails and sexual suggestions, but this is too much.
One of the major ways of judging the fitness of a creature is by determining its resistance to parasites. This has been at the centre of sexual selection since the dawn of life, and even plays a part in Human sexual selection - women prefer symetrical men, and symetrical men tend to be free from parasites.
Therefore, if a species is split into the ones suffering from parasites, and the ones not, one would expect the ones not suffering from parasites to prevail. As the two segments of the species would be identical otherwise, speciation having only just started, this means that the parasitical section is less fit, and will die out.
Regarding humans, I wonder if it is possible that this process is happening to us, if true? Africans and Asians suffer greatly from parasites, much more than we in the west do, & it may be possible that this is causing them to speciate very gradually. Something to think about, anyway.
See here the conspiracy theory of the New Economists: blame it on the geeks. In Leadbeater's words: "The page-based internet is boring. People want genuinely interactive experience, with drama, excitement, games and jokes. The first Internet spent little on content and charged nothing for it. The result: hosts of bored consumers using a medium designed for geeks and nerds."
Okay, I think he is absolutely correct with this point. People do want the internet to be an interesting, whizz bang immersive media experience, and the people who are implementing the internet are not providing it. The geeks who built the internet have eschewed interesting presentation and content in favour of dry academia. The builder of the WWW, Tim Berners Lee, was even against the use of pictures in Web pages for a long time, and the geek antipathy to GIFS is well known.
Is it any wonder then that the internet has come to be dominated by corporations? These are the only organisations that have had the foresight and desire to implement the common mans preferences. From AOL to Amazon, these are the organisations now controlling the internet, much to the geeks chagrin.
In my view, the geeks had their chance. But, they threw it away by being all to idealistic. We had a chance, an opportunity, for a commerce free web, an arena of equality and information. But we did not grasp it, we did not show enough imagination. It is our fault, us, the geeks, that the commercial corporations are taking the initiative and providing the internet that the common man wants.
It just seems to me an interesting intellectual exercise to consider whether the FSF, which is all about open source solidarity and comradeship among developers, is really the organisation to be promoting prizes. Prizes by their nature split and devide, and cause people to compete who should be cooperating on projects. This kind of attitude could decrease quality of work produced.
Also, it just seems rather antithetical to the ideals of the FSF on the whole. They should be about equality and justice, not divisive avarice and glory.
This is the simple, and sad, state of affairs. Only the fringe members of our society use encryption at present - geeks, theives, terrorists, etc. This means that normal people are very naturally biased against encryption as a matter of course, by simple, if logically incorrect, association.
Now, how are the mainstream to be convinced that using encryption is a good thing? This is what we all want to do, correct? Well, we won't manage it by trying to do so ourselves - being lectured at by the freaks will only make the public resist even more. I suggest that we embrace the criminals for this campaign. The fact that Bin Laden and criminals like the mafia use encryption make it into a sexy field again, like it was in the 1920's through 40's, say. If we wish to impress Joe Public, it is imperative that we use the tools of advertising, which uses sexy images and subliminal suggestions, and not reason, which bores the common man and causes him to switch off.
Much like antidrugs campaigns by the government can increase their appeal and use in many quarters, I suspect that any government campaign to convince people that encryption is evil because it is used by terrorists criminals will surely backfire, and increase the sexiness of the field and general usage statistics for encryption.
This is what encryption has needed to enter the mainstream.
Besides from the fact that I am getting sick and tired of endless 'YRO' stories on/., how is this story significant in any way at all? Jesus, it seems pretty damned clear to me.
1) The students contact a dodgy computer off-campus. This could easily be mis-interpreted as a hacker attack.
2)They are questioned by Campus cops. So what. They are living on University property, the campus cops can do what they like. And in this case things were suspicious.
3)It ends up plastered all over the web, and lots of people pontificate about how evil it all is. How ironic. If anything bad had really happened, if this country were going into totalitarian meltdown as the/. editors would have us believe, we wouldn't hear about it in the first place.
This story has no worth or interest. I'm getting fed up of all this whining, I really am. Nobody knows what real problems are anymore. This site has such an undergraduate, holier than thou serious attitude, it gets my goat. Enough.
BThe simple fact is that there are only a few processor manufacturers, and this will not change as the market is not big enough to support more.
Therefore, holding copyright on the design of a chip is largely irrelevant, especially when the manufacturers essentially operate as a cartel. Have you seen Motorolla designing an x86 chip recently? Didn't think so. With a few public exceptions the processor manufacturers largely stay away from each other.
However, they will be receptive to open source as it would allow them to downgrade their expensive design engineering teams, outsource and up the shares dividends accordingly.
I think Open Source designed processors will be higher quality, but it won't make any difference to price or competition in the field.
It would have a number of advantages. People would care more about the site, and not troll it as much because they are paying for it. The editorial policy would be more independant of commerce, as they would no longer rely on advertising. This would also chime with the ideals of the readership. Hostile, flaming AC"s would become a thing of the past.
I also expect that the average intelligence of the posts would increase, as only those who were reasonably intelligent would have the foresight and drive to actually register. I expect that/. could increase its revenues by doing this too, which would give them more money to invest in the site and improve slash (and perhaps employ someone to proofread articles for typos and read Taco's mailbox).
In addition, it need not cost much. I expect a couple of dollars a week automatically paid by credit card would do the trick.
Just imagine the improvement in the quality of discussion and commitment to the site and community that would occur! It would be a vast improvement from all the goatsex, I am sure.
I am also sure that many of these arguments could be applied to other sites.
Slashdot Mirror
My neice, back in Scotland, has many games for her gameboy, and she plays it more often than she ever plays on playstations and computers and so on. I think it shows how it doesn't matter what the game looks like on a handheld, as long as it is well designed.
I think the big thing with this will be that it is colour. How can you advance a handheld gaming system any further? I think that the gameboy advance will be around for a long time now.
My ex boyfriend used to play handheld games a lot when he commuted to work, so I suppose he would have been interested, so it is not just for children. I don't think I would want one though. The only games I ever play are solitaire and minesweeper.
What did Stallman do in this situation? Well, I was reading about it a few months ago, and what he did was resign. Of course you can't do this, but it seems to me that you have a straightforward choice.
1)Resign, and save the integrity of your own project.
2)Refuse to do the work project. This could result in similar consequences though.
3)Hand over the liscences for your own project, and keep your job and security.
There is no easy option in a situation like this. I work as a graphic artsist, and sometimes I have faced similar issues. One job I left because they told me that my home done Pop Art could be liscence infingements, as I was influenced by the companies advertising campaign, which I helped design. Stuff like this is really hard, and I hope you find an easy way out! I couldn't, but I don't think my situation was anything like as bad as yours :)
As long as ICANN start enforcing the rules on .org domain names I don't see why we should have any problem. Open Source software is inherently non-profit making, and so any projects we would want to start would fall under the auspices of the .org TLD.
We can leave the commercial bickering over .com domains to companies well-able to afford to pay rip-off merchants, erm, I mean corporate lawyers.
The .net domain was always destined to fail in its stated purpose - demand was too high for catchy domains compared to the number of organisations providing network services. But there are at least as many non-profit organisations out there as companies, and making sure the .org TLD is set aside will cut down on trademark battles and user confusion.
Honestly, does it matter which corrupt company runs the .com TLD? :)
Sorry there, but if you take the time to read the FAQ you'll see that they express the same concerns about the possibility of this network being used as a launching point for DDoS. I don't see how this makes me a troll.
Now I know I'm not some kind of network guru, but isn't there the possibility that this could be used to launch DDoS attacks? Any kind of distributed system has got to have the ability to launch such attacks, and open services like this must surely be more vulnerable to abuse than machines that have to be cracked.
Hopefully the encryption system they are using will withstand such attempts. At least they've thought about it, because this kind of thing would probably be a target for malicious script kiddies.
However it would be good to be able to reverse traceroute incoming packets. It's also nice to be able to worry less about allowing UDP and ICMP through your firewall, and hopefully this will be taken up by enough concerned sysadmins to make it a viable concept. As recent attempts have shown, tracking down the originator of DDoS attacks is pretty hard, and this might save us the threat of yet more Government "protection" for the net.
Additionally, I would say that fraud is an essential part of any economy. It makes for a healthy economic ecology. I like having the option of the illegal path - even if it is only an option, it is best if we all have it.
Temptation is something that is hard to resist of course, so I suppose that is bad. My ex boyfriend gave into temptation, and I am glad that I am not the sort of person who does.
A healthy economy will always provide temptation and fraud, so lets not be too worried about fraud on the internet, but recohnise it as a sign of health, like a blooming rosebud.
1)Linux users are very web-aware. We all get our info from the web, informed places like Slashdot for example.
2)Magazines depend on adverts, and are commercial. This is in direct contradiction to the aims and virtues of the open source way. Magazines will always have suspect editorial policies, because they are not independant.
3)Linux users dislike buying Linux related material on principle. Magazines have strict copyright policies regarding articles, and Linux users don't like this.
I thinnk it is a real shame. If only everyone could be a little more easy about things then perhaps we would all be a lot happier. I do love Linux, though I use Macintosh's mostly for Art purposes, but my ex-boyfriend really got me interested in Linux. I even have a Mac that runs Linux.
It is just that a lot of the users of Linux seem to be very principled, which is good, but I am not used to it. My mac using friends don't really care so much. If only we could all have some middle ground :P
Put simply, you build a long (2 miles?) maglev shaft and then fire a capsule atlong it. It should reach escape velocity and at the propitious moment be flung of the end of the tube at a speed allowing it to reach geostationary orbit.
NASA have done research showing that although building the long shaft would be expensive initially, thereafter, per flight, costs would be very low.
I think that it is really the concept to replace the space shuttle, as it would give us a cheap way of getting into space for an expensive initial investment.
It can often be extremely difficult for a project leader to keep on top of things, with the result that the development process can *sometimes* fork, or spiral out of any real control.
I think that innovation is the greatest strength of the OSS community. However, in order to harness it properly, a model of how to control and tap it properly and effectively has to be introduced.
Well, I take great exception to this patronising viewpoint. The simple fact is that in the third world, there are no cushy benefits systems or fallbacks, other than your family, assuming of course you have one.
A lot of children who work in these places are a lot better off than they would be otherwise. They are working through choice, they are earning money to buy food and very often these jobs can mean the difference between working hard, but eating and being housed, and starvation and death. This is the cruel reality of the third world.
I find it gravely worrying that liberals are trying to remove the ability of people in the third world to make up their own mind on the matter, and also trying to remove a useful safety net in those societies.
I hate the way that they try and apply our values (children shouldn't work, people shouldn't be payed less than X amount, people shouldn't work more than X hours a week) on countries and societies where the situation is completely different.
It is moral and good not to expect your well fed American child not to work, but is it also moral to expect a street orphan on the streets of Calcutta not to work, especially when it is the only way he will make money?
I would say most definately not.
On the other hand, I suppose there are lots of companies like Red Hat and so on, with thier own trademarked Open Sourse projects. Enlightenment, that cool Windows manager, is a Red Hat project, isn't it? I heard that Rasterman was employed by them, or was it VALinux? I forget.
It doesn't matter anyway, what I mean to ask is what would happen if a Linux company created an Open Source project, and made the code free, but trademarked the name? In the world of brand names and so on, that could give them quite an advantage. It would also be an affront to the spirit of Open Source and Free Software.
If the term 'Enlightenment' were trademarked, other Linux people wouldn't be able to use the term 'Enlightenment', although they would be able to distribute the window manager.
Isn't this a loophole in the law? Forgive me if I have got a few things wrong (I know I have, for sure), but please, I am interested :)
The problem with this is that they are suspect to all the usual forces that affect humans in normal society. In a company, programmers have to follow the dictacts of those above, and 'those above' have to follow the dictacts of the shareholder and the consumer. This forces them to do be innovative.
However, in Open Source, people are subject to a whole gamut of other forces. "what is cool (enlightenment), what is uncool, peer pressure, any of the myriad forces of petty jealousy and human strife, in a chaotic environment.
An open source programmer is like a cowboy in the wild west, trying to stake out his claim to some land. He is not conserned with being innovative in this context, but in stealing land from those already present, be it other cowboys or native americans.
This is the truth as I see it.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
The problem is that the gaming world seems to be terribly dominated by men. Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a female section, like they do in the Olympics? That way, despite females probably not being very good at it (they are outnumbered and not as enthusiastic), there will still be a place for them to go.
I think that playing games is fun, but perhaps some people play them too much. I think playing games 24/7 is okay if you are doing it for money, but not if you are not, because it might just be dangerous. Thats why you are supposed to take a break every 2 hours for 15 minutes.
I stiull break those rules sometimes though, tee-hee :P
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
Also, I have to confess that I find the technology a little scary in some ways. I mean, I really would not like to see a Von Neumann machine running amok (I know I will get flamed for this. It's just my irrational Catholic upbringing in Scotland).
My ex-boyfriend (thankfully) was always talking about nanotech, and I think I have been interested since because of that. He also introduced me to Science Fiction.
Anyroad, I think that it is amazing that these devices will actually be in use in little over a year! And to think I thought it would be closer to 50.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
I am not a robot, like you would like me to be. I have a mind, and whats more, I have feelings and emotions that sway and control my body. Anorexia is not a rational thing, and I, I freely admit, am not a rational girl. Many of my boyfriends have said that that is my most charming feature! But you want to make me a robot, and presumably you would choose one for a wife. Well, I suggest you marry that plastic blow up doll in your cupboard, because you won't get a girl like me, or any girl of spirit!
And by that statement you convince me your life has been shallow, and that you are nothing but a callow youth with much to learn. Worrying about being fat is not a huge issue in the grand scheme of things, no matter how much it may traumatise your middle-class teenage life.
Not for you perhaps, but I am female. I am judged solely on my looks. I am convinced that it is my looks that have got me my job, my green card and my boyfriend. My looks are an important tool. And intelligent people use all the tools at their disposal! I can see that you don't fit into this category though.
Cynical? Not really, just experianced.
You don't fool me. I can tell you have been worn down by life. You do not have an optomistic or joyful outlook. Are you divorced? I thought so.
I ignore the rest of your quite deliberately hurtful comments.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
I come from a good looking family, and we have always placed a huge value on looks, especially my mother (the main reason I moved to America). This meant that when I was young and impressionable, and bombarded by media images, I had a false bodymap, and I always though I was fat, even though my weight fell to less than 50 pounds at one stage.
I can assure you that what I went through is not a fiction. It was the most scarring experiance of my life.
And drugs helped me a lot, even the recreational ones. Frankly, I just don't understand cynical people like you flatpack.
Its people like you that make me think about leaving this forum, and make me wonder about the evilness of human nature.
I can take the flames and the jealousy, and the awful emails and sexual suggestions, but this is too much.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
Therefore, if a species is split into the ones suffering from parasites, and the ones not, one would expect the ones not suffering from parasites to prevail. As the two segments of the species would be identical otherwise, speciation having only just started, this means that the parasitical section is less fit, and will die out.
Regarding humans, I wonder if it is possible that this process is happening to us, if true? Africans and Asians suffer greatly from parasites, much more than we in the west do, & it may be possible that this is causing them to speciate very gradually. Something to think about, anyway.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
Okay, I think he is absolutely correct with this point. People do want the internet to be an interesting, whizz bang immersive media experience, and the people who are implementing the internet are not providing it. The geeks who built the internet have eschewed interesting presentation and content in favour of dry academia. The builder of the WWW, Tim Berners Lee, was even against the use of pictures in Web pages for a long time, and the geek antipathy to GIFS is well known.
Is it any wonder then that the internet has come to be dominated by corporations? These are the only organisations that have had the foresight and desire to implement the common mans preferences. From AOL to Amazon, these are the organisations now controlling the internet, much to the geeks chagrin.
In my view, the geeks had their chance. But, they threw it away by being all to idealistic. We had a chance, an opportunity, for a commerce free web, an arena of equality and information. But we did not grasp it, we did not show enough imagination. It is our fault, us, the geeks, that the commercial corporations are taking the initiative and providing the internet that the common man wants.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
Also, it just seems rather antithetical to the ideals of the FSF on the whole. They should be about equality and justice, not divisive avarice and glory.
An interesting idea to consider, anyway.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
Now, how are the mainstream to be convinced that using encryption is a good thing? This is what we all want to do, correct? Well, we won't manage it by trying to do so ourselves - being lectured at by the freaks will only make the public resist even more. I suggest that we embrace the criminals for this campaign. The fact that Bin Laden and criminals like the mafia use encryption make it into a sexy field again, like it was in the 1920's through 40's, say. If we wish to impress Joe Public, it is imperative that we use the tools of advertising, which uses sexy images and subliminal suggestions, and not reason, which bores the common man and causes him to switch off.
Much like antidrugs campaigns by the government can increase their appeal and use in many quarters, I suspect that any government campaign to convince people that encryption is evil because it is used by terrorists criminals will surely backfire, and increase the sexiness of the field and general usage statistics for encryption.
This is what encryption has needed to enter the mainstream.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
These are campus cops, not real cops.
Do you see them getting sued? Don't go around telling people what they can and can't do on their property.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
1) The students contact a dodgy computer off-campus. This could easily be mis-interpreted as a hacker attack.
2)They are questioned by Campus cops. So what. They are living on University property, the campus cops can do what they like. And in this case things were suspicious.
3)It ends up plastered all over the web, and lots of people pontificate about how evil it all is. How ironic. If anything bad had really happened, if this country were going into totalitarian meltdown as the /. editors would have us believe, we wouldn't hear about it in the first place.
This story has no worth or interest. I'm getting fed up of all this whining, I really am. Nobody knows what real problems are anymore. This site has such an undergraduate, holier than thou serious attitude, it gets my goat. Enough.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
Therefore, holding copyright on the design of a chip is largely irrelevant, especially when the manufacturers essentially operate as a cartel. Have you seen Motorolla designing an x86 chip recently? Didn't think so. With a few public exceptions the processor manufacturers largely stay away from each other.
However, they will be receptive to open source as it would allow them to downgrade their expensive design engineering teams, outsource and up the shares dividends accordingly.
I think Open Source designed processors will be higher quality, but it won't make any difference to price or competition in the field.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
2)Install Microsoft.
3)Write your own software to do the job you want.
What else is there to say? Nothing. You have to choose between hardship and your principles. Choose wisely.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
I also expect that the average intelligence of the posts would increase, as only those who were reasonably intelligent would have the foresight and drive to actually register. I expect that /. could increase its revenues by doing this too, which would give them more money to invest in the site and improve slash (and perhaps employ someone to proofread articles for typos and read Taco's mailbox).
In addition, it need not cost much. I expect a couple of dollars a week automatically paid by credit card would do the trick.
Just imagine the improvement in the quality of discussion and commitment to the site and community that would occur! It would be a vast improvement from all the goatsex, I am sure.
I am also sure that many of these arguments could be applied to other sites.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.