Hardly. I never said that. I was originally arguing the point that someone sued McD because they were stupid and spilled hot coffee on themselves. I agree that most people have the good sense to keep something as hot as coffee away from their crotch. She didn't sue for millions, she tried to get compensation for medical expenses. The jury was pissed that McD seemed to not even care that they had 700 other complaints of injuries and were unwilling to do anything for a 79 yr old woman wo was obviously injured beyond a simple coffee burn 'scald' (did you read the link, she had to be hospitalized?).
McDonalds' supposed motivation for using a higher temp was not so sugar would dissolve, it was to make more money on coffee by stretching the grounds. I'm not defending the lawyer. I don't think the woman who had 3rd degree burns and was hospitalized was 'stupid' for trying to get medical expenses reimbursed from Mickey D's.
I like my coffee hot and I keep it away from my package. But, I would be pissed if my mom had to have surgery because a large company wanted to squeeze every cent out of a cup of coffee at the expense of reasonable safety (I'm sorry, coffee should be hot enough to blister my tongue, not dissolve the muscles in my leg) and then the bastards wouldn't make even a token settlement offer. That's what is stupid. When you deal with the public like a large company as this does, you have to be a little smarter than that.
I don't care if you disagree, violently or otherwise. I just want to clarify my statement of opinion since you seemed to read things into it that I never intended.
So, what if I had no intention of flying it? Maybe I want to use it as a lawn ornament, or sell tickets to have your picture taken sitting in the cockpit at the state fair, or sell it to an aviation museum?
I know this is all silly, but no more silly than a company like Pepsico leaving themselves exposed to this kind of lawsuit, when there would have been really easy ways to avoid it (disclaimer, point value much greater than 7 million).
Pepsico cleared $2.5 billion last year. They could easily shed $20 million to make this guy go away. But it creates a precedent. Plus, this is probably good free advertising for Pepsi (don't think they wouldn't cut their losses and hush this up if they thought it would really hurt them publicly).
I bet he is left high-and-dry with something less than $700,000 worth of useless pepsi stuff. Something tells me that he won't get much continued support from his backers after this setback and Pepsi won't be much inclined to offer a settlement to avoid an appeal that may not happen. Schmuck.
I don't disagree, just wanted to point out the flaw in your McDonalds coffee example. IIRC, the McDonalds in question got repeated complaints that the coffee they served was so hot that it was melting through the styrofoam cups, and they did nothing. This woman did not spill coffee on herself because she was stupid. The coffee melted through her cup and caused 3rd degree burns on her legs. Little bit different from the "woman burns self with hot coffee, McD pays $$million" sound bite that ended up on the nightly news.
With numbers like this, I think this guy is just yanking their chain looking for a tidy little settlement to drop down.
Re:Would you trust a closed source program for thi
on
Password Overload
·
· Score: 2
Where did 'great and difficult' enter? Most of these passwords are the same, or variations, based on what the length and other limits. Most of the time its the account name that I have to remember. Some times its the same one I like to use all over, sometimes its my 'quake' handle, some times it one of the dozen or so webmail accounts I have.
I'm not using keep it safe to lock up inner-sanctum passwords, just to have a moderately-secure place to keep track of all these accounts and passwords. I used to have them in a clear-text notepad file, this is a shade better.
>Did he really believe that pepsi would give him a harrier jet?
God, I hope not. I find it a little easier to beleive that he just wants to play games with Pepsi and see if he can get some kind of settlement. It's easier to imagine that this guy is independently (sp?) wealthy, has a spare $700 K and some 'lawyer friends' who have nothing better to do than mess with a huge conglomerate than to beleive some twit who is stupid enough to think that a $23 million military jet could be had by collecting Pepsi points and that this moron could actually raise 700,000.
I remember when I first saw that ad and I got the 'joke' but I also reacted that it was kind of stupid to show a kid taking off from his lawn in a harrier, show a point value, and not have a disclaimer. I remember thinking, "I bet some idiot sues because they saw this ad and think its real". This guy might have thought the same thing and decided to go rattle someone's cage over at Pepsi hoping to get some stupid settlement.
Re:Would you trust a closed source program for thi
on
Password Overload
·
· Score: 2
No. Which is why I said I'd never put a real system account into this, just all my crap webmail passwords that I really couldn't care less if they are compromised.:-)
"Keep it Safe" is a freeware program for W32 that does this. I use it at work to keep track of all the mail-lists, web-mail, web-shopping-accounts and stuff like that. Not sure I would ever really put a real system account there tho.
Wish there was a Linux port of this that I could use at home, it is pretty useful.
Me too? Hell no. Just register and filter him out if you can't stand it anymore. I agree with your comments, I used to like him but now he's off his rocker. But know what? Some of the most interesting discussions take place beneath his rocker-less rantings. Cripes, this is what makes./ so much fun. Keep him around for target practice.
>well now.. who would need it in the states? people who don't live there ofcourse.
Huh? If you don't live/travel in the states, why would you care if its available in the states? He didn't say if you don't live in the states you don't need it. He asked if you *do* live in the states, why would you need it? (if you are out of coverage of traditional terestrial wireless away from populated coverage areas.)
>Just as Windows uses arrays of Dialog Boxes to configure everything, Linux would need the same. This is not to say that is a bad thing though!
Maybe, maybe not. I had an ugly experience last night with the dreaded "Windows Dialog Boxes" last night. My wife uses Windows (what can I say? I've tried) and I have upgraded her machine by building a new AMD K6-2 box and them moving everything over from her Pentium. I used drive copy to clone her hard drive so I could set up the new box with a new drive while she still had her machine running.
So everything was going great until I was ready to move the NIC. ARGH. Plug and Play and install dialogs are broken horribly. God I just wanted to find the config file and massage it by hand to get the bugger installed. I had to go through all kinds of gyrations to convince windows to take the NIC.
If Linux had dialog boxes and still had the underlying open configuration mechanisms, the would obviously be fine. It just makes me shudder to think of Linux having ANYTHING like Window's dialog box interfaces!
I agree with your points, but not your conclusion. (just realized I was replying to the reply, this actually goes to the original post).
Never say never.
The points you bring up are certainly going to make it much harder for Linux, or any *nix-like OS, to become a 0-skill, entry-level, first day OS. Look at DOS and Windows. Same old DOS still sits under W95 and is still just as ugly as ever. The new user is shielded from that.
To do the same to Linux is probably not impossible, though not very desirable. My opinion is that Lunix is moving in the right direction to make it more accessible for the novice enthusiast, but will/should probably stop short of the "mainstream" user who has no computer skills and does not want/need them to do their job.
I'm a big fan of choice. I'm not eager to see Mickeysoft wiped out completely, just put in their place. I can see a world where Linux is a powerful, well entrenched, well supported platform for whoever wants to use it for whatever use provided they have the knowledge to put it to work. And then alternate, less powerful, less entrenched equally well supported platforms are available for those whose skill sets are outside of computing who want to have an easy to use tool to make their work easier.
Right, I thought that was the big controvery, though. US and Russia had the only two remaining *known* colonies of smallpox. Question was if we should assume that it was extinct and wipe out the remaining stock. Last I remember, they were still trying to decide, what if it was really still in the wild, or worse yet, some new mutated version was being kept alive by someone.
That's a very compelling argument and it got me thinking along different lines than I had before. I'm thinking about the space program, and how it has had a major lasting effect on the latter third of the century. My understanding is that because of the push to get to the moon in the '60s, much of the technology that runs our information society was either created from, or resulted in some way, from the space program.
The problem I have in this arguement is pinning it down to specific individuals. Sure, Hitler changed the course of history, but he didn't do it alone, he was certainly the visible figurehead of the facist axis alliance, but he had help.
Same with Ford. Sure he is credited with inventing mass production which was the key to industrialization of the western world. But, did he do it all by himself? I'm pretty sure he had the vision and all but I'm also sure he had a lot of help.
And Torvalds. You see where this is going? He is the visible leader, is credited with the invention and the vision, and I certainly don't try to diminish that. But GNU and Linux are as powerful as they are because of the efforts of people other than Linus.
Back to the space program. So was it Kennedy who was responsible for getting us to the moon which in turn led to our information age? Hardly. He made a famous speech committing the US to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. He set a course and a goal that others fought for. Who were the real heroes behind the space program? The Astronauts? Certainly they made a significant contribution. The engineers who built the spacecrafts' systems? The astrophysicists who were responsible for formulating the mission profiles? The german rocket scientists who perfected the booster technology that got us off the surface of the earth and into space?
Answer: all of the above of course.
So what exactly is the point of naming a specific individual as the "person of the century"? Sells magazines, I guess.
Excellent. I had a Barnes and Noble web coupon for $10 off any purchase over $25 one day last week, I happened to see this and ordered it. It came yesterday, haven't cracked it open yet. Glad to hear this was a good choice. I think it cost me like $19 total.:-)
>Faster work towards an AIDS vaccine, more kids who don't get malaria, etc.
Right, which as someone pointed out, would be great if he kicked in some *now* to start jacking-up research efforts rather than later. $1 billion now would be great. $100 billion in 30 years is good too, but how many would die that could be saved if he started parting with some of his riches this year?
I'm not saying its not generous either way, just that *if* he's sincere about making a difference, why wait until later?
>CPU heat and CPU load have no relationship to each other.
Well, someone thinks it does! (enough to write a program for windows to do this)
CpuIdle lowers the CPU temperature by disabling it when not needed. This prolongs the CPU life (a decrease by 10C doubles the life span) and cuts power consumption.
Slashdot Mirror
>assuming that the jpeg wasn't put thru the GIMP first...)?
Well, I posted the link straight from crack.linuxppc.org so I can't vouch for how it was created. The link from the main page mentions SheepShaver.
...who would have thunk?
This is morbidly cool
screenshot
>So is the server at crack.linuxppc.org.
Not so (at least as of 1:50 Central)
Current Server Statistics:
Uptime and Load Average:
1:49pm up 3 days, 2:11, 3 users, load average: 0.32, 0.37, 0.26
Memory Usage:
total: used: free: shared: buffers: cached:
Mem: 162570240 105615360 56954880 99618816 4542464 55717888
Swap: 69087232 0 69087232
MemTotal: 158760 kB
MemFree: 55620 kB
MemShared: 97284 kB
Buffers: 4436 kB
Cached: 54412 kB
SwapTotal: 67468 kB
SwapFree: 67468 kB
Processor Info:
processor : 0
cpu : 604
clock : 132MHz
revision : 3.3
bogomips : 263.78
zero pages : total 0 (0Kb) current: 0 (0Kb) hits: 0/222364 (0%)
machine : Power Macintosh
motherboard : AAPL,9500 MacRISC
L2 cache : 512K unified
memory : 160MB
I just refreshed and got it (dns doesn't have it but I have the ip)
>you seem to sympathize with the lawyer's view
Hardly. I never said that. I was originally arguing the point that someone sued McD because they were stupid and spilled hot coffee on themselves. I agree that most people have the good sense to keep something as hot as coffee away from their crotch. She didn't sue for millions, she tried to get compensation for medical expenses. The jury was pissed that McD seemed to not even care that they had 700 other complaints of injuries and were unwilling to do anything for a 79 yr old woman wo was obviously injured beyond a simple coffee burn 'scald' (did you read the link, she had to be hospitalized?).
McDonalds' supposed motivation for using a higher temp was not so sugar would dissolve, it was to make more money on coffee by stretching the grounds. I'm not defending the lawyer. I don't think the woman who had 3rd degree burns and was hospitalized was 'stupid' for trying to get medical expenses reimbursed from Mickey D's.
I like my coffee hot and I keep it away from my package. But, I would be pissed if my mom had to have surgery because a large company wanted to squeeze every cent out of a cup of coffee at the expense of reasonable safety (I'm sorry, coffee should be hot enough to blister my tongue, not dissolve the muscles in my leg) and then the bastards wouldn't make even a token settlement offer. That's what is stupid. When you deal with the public like a large company as this does, you have to be a little smarter than that.
I don't care if you disagree, violently or otherwise. I just want to clarify my statement of opinion since you seemed to read things into it that I never intended.
Here are the "facts" of the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit
:P
I fart in your general direction.
hm, looks fine to me, the link works, thought I had HTML mode as my default anyway. i';ll check it out, thanks.
So, what if I had no intention of flying it? Maybe I want to use it as a lawn ornament, or sell tickets to have your picture taken sitting in the cockpit at the state fair, or sell it to an aviation museum?
I know this is all silly, but no more silly than a company like Pepsico leaving themselves exposed to this kind of lawsuit, when there would have been really easy ways to avoid it (disclaimer, point value much greater than 7 million).
Pepsico cleared $2.5 billion last year. They could easily shed $20 million to make this guy go away. But it creates a precedent. Plus, this is probably good free advertising for Pepsi (don't think they wouldn't cut their losses and hush this up if they thought it would really hurt them publicly).
I bet he is left high-and-dry with something less than $700,000 worth of useless pepsi stuff. Something tells me that he won't get much continued support from his backers after this setback and Pepsi won't be much inclined to offer a settlement to avoid an appeal that may not happen. Schmuck.
I don't disagree, just wanted to point out the flaw in your McDonalds coffee example. IIRC, the McDonalds in question got repeated complaints that the coffee they served was so hot that it was melting through the styrofoam cups, and they did nothing. This woman did not spill coffee on herself because she was stupid. The coffee melted through her cup and caused 3rd degree burns on her legs. Little bit different from the "woman burns self with hot coffee, McD pays $$million" sound bite that ended up on the nightly news.
$23 million
>And what's Pepsi's annual net?
You really want to know? 1998 operating profit was about $2.5 billion.
pepsico annual report for 1998
With numbers like this, I think this guy is just yanking their chain looking for a tidy little settlement to drop down.
Where did 'great and difficult' enter? Most of these passwords are the same, or variations, based on what the length and other limits. Most of the time its the account name that I have to remember. Some times its the same one I like to use all over, sometimes its my 'quake' handle, some times it one of the dozen or so webmail accounts I have.
I'm not using keep it safe to lock up inner-sanctum passwords, just to have a moderately-secure place to keep track of all these accounts and passwords. I used to have them in a clear-text notepad file, this is a shade better.
>Did he really believe that pepsi would give him a harrier jet?
God, I hope not. I find it a little easier to beleive that he just wants to play games with Pepsi and see if he can get some kind of settlement. It's easier to imagine that this guy is independently (sp?) wealthy, has a spare $700 K and some 'lawyer friends' who have nothing better to do than mess with a huge conglomerate than to beleive some twit who is stupid enough to think that a $23 million military jet could be had by collecting Pepsi points and that this moron could actually raise 700,000.
I remember when I first saw that ad and I got the 'joke' but I also reacted that it was kind of stupid to show a kid taking off from his lawn in a harrier, show a point value, and not have a disclaimer. I remember thinking, "I bet some idiot sues because they saw this ad and think its real". This guy might have thought the same thing and decided to go rattle someone's cage over at Pepsi hoping to get some stupid settlement.
No. Which is why I said I'd never put a real system account into this, just all my crap webmail passwords that I really couldn't care less if they are compromised. :-)
Wish there was a Linux port of this that I could use at home, it is pretty useful.
Me too? Hell no. Just register and filter him out if you can't stand it anymore. I agree with your comments, I used to like him but now he's off his rocker. But know what? Some of the most interesting discussions take place beneath his rocker-less rantings. Cripes, this is what makes ./ so much fun. Keep him around for target practice.
...our jackets, we're glad we brought-em.
:-D
...and you can call it 'fall' if that's what you please,
but I say I like 'Autumn'!
--Barney and Friends (hey, I have a 2 yr-old)
>well now.. who would need it in the states? people who don't live there ofcourse.
Huh? If you don't live/travel in the states, why would you care if its available in the states? He didn't say if you don't live in the states you don't need it. He asked if you *do* live in the states, why would you need it? (if you are out of coverage of traditional terestrial wireless away from populated coverage areas.)
>Just as Windows uses arrays of Dialog Boxes to configure everything, Linux would need the same. This is not to say that is a bad thing though!
Maybe, maybe not. I had an ugly experience last night with the dreaded "Windows Dialog Boxes" last night. My wife uses Windows (what can I say? I've tried) and I have upgraded her machine by building a new AMD K6-2 box and them moving everything over from her Pentium. I used drive copy to clone her hard drive so I could set up the new box with a new drive while she still had her machine running.
So everything was going great until I was ready to move the NIC. ARGH. Plug and Play and install dialogs are broken horribly. God I just wanted to find the config file and massage it by hand to get the bugger installed. I had to go through all kinds of gyrations to convince windows to take the NIC.
If Linux had dialog boxes and still had the underlying open configuration mechanisms, the would obviously be fine. It just makes me shudder to think of Linux having ANYTHING like Window's dialog box interfaces!
Bleah!
I agree with your points, but not your conclusion. (just realized I was replying to the reply, this actually goes to the original post).
Never say never.
The points you bring up are certainly going to make it much harder for Linux, or any *nix-like OS, to become a 0-skill, entry-level, first day OS. Look at DOS and Windows. Same old DOS still sits under W95 and is still just as ugly as ever. The new user is shielded from that.
To do the same to Linux is probably not impossible, though not very desirable. My opinion is that Lunix is moving in the right direction to make it more accessible for the novice enthusiast, but will/should probably stop short of the "mainstream" user who has no computer skills and does not want/need them to do their job.
I'm a big fan of choice. I'm not eager to see Mickeysoft wiped out completely, just put in their place. I can see a world where Linux is a powerful, well entrenched, well supported platform for whoever wants to use it for whatever use provided they have the knowledge to put it to work. And then alternate, less powerful, less entrenched equally well supported platforms are available for those whose skill sets are outside of computing who want to have an easy to use tool to make their work easier.
My $.0199967352
Hmm, I don't even see number of comments at all for stories that were posted after things went screwey (right before the space spam story).
Something is b0rked
Right, I thought that was the big controvery, though. US and Russia had the only two remaining *known* colonies of smallpox. Question was if we should assume that it was extinct and wipe out the remaining stock. Last I remember, they were still trying to decide, what if it was really still in the wild, or worse yet, some new mutated version was being kept alive by someone.
That's a very compelling argument and it got me thinking along different lines than I had before. I'm thinking about the space program, and how it has had a major lasting effect on the latter third of the century. My understanding is that because of the push to get to the moon in the '60s, much of the technology that runs our information society was either created from, or resulted in some way, from the space program.
The problem I have in this arguement is pinning it down to specific individuals. Sure, Hitler changed the course of history, but he didn't do it alone, he was certainly the visible figurehead of the facist axis alliance, but he had help.
Same with Ford. Sure he is credited with inventing mass production which was the key to industrialization of the western world. But, did he do it all by himself? I'm pretty sure he had the vision and all but I'm also sure he had a lot of help.
And Torvalds. You see where this is going? He is the visible leader, is credited with the invention and the vision, and I certainly don't try to diminish that. But GNU and Linux are as powerful as they are because of the efforts of people other than Linus.
Back to the space program. So was it Kennedy who was responsible for getting us to the moon which in turn led to our information age? Hardly. He made a famous speech committing the US to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. He set a course and a goal that others fought for. Who were the real heroes behind the space program? The Astronauts? Certainly they made a significant contribution. The engineers who built the spacecrafts' systems? The astrophysicists who were responsible for formulating the mission profiles? The german rocket scientists who perfected the booster technology that got us off the surface of the earth and into space?
Answer: all of the above of course.
So what exactly is the point of naming a specific individual as the "person of the century"? Sells magazines, I guess.
Excellent. I had a Barnes and Noble web coupon for $10 off any purchase over $25 one day last week, I happened to see this and ordered it. It came yesterday, haven't cracked it open yet. Glad to hear this was a good choice. I think it cost me like $19 total. :-)
>Faster work towards an AIDS vaccine, more kids who don't get malaria, etc.
Right, which as someone pointed out, would be great if he kicked in some *now* to start jacking-up research efforts rather than later. $1 billion now would be great. $100 billion in 30 years is good too, but how many would die that could be saved if he started parting with some of his riches this year?
I'm not saying its not generous either way, just that *if* he's sincere about making a difference, why wait until later?
>CPU heat and CPU load have no relationship to each other.
Well, someone thinks it does! (enough to write a program for windows to do this)
CpuIdle lowers the CPU temperature by disabling it when not needed. This prolongs the CPU life (a decrease by 10C doubles the life span) and cuts power consumption.
cpu idle home page