Precisely what I was thinking. Put a tax on incandescent light bulbs, just like we have taxes on cigarettes and gasoline. Gradually increase the tax, one year at a time, until incandescent bulbs cost the same as a comparable CFL. If people have a good reason to buy incandescent bulbs, it will still be legal to do so, but the average consumer will switch.
Use the money collected from the tax to pay for an educational campaign to get people to dispose of dead CFLs properly.
that kind of news would not be good for the moral back home, so well... Who cares? It'd be great for ratings, and that means ad revenue! The point was, it hasn't happened.
The problem is that what this guys does fixes the symptom but the solution hurts more then the problem in this case. All he did was create a traffic break. Woopdee doo! He still slowed down traffic behind him. Yes, it was going more smoothly, but it goto to it's destination later. Simple math people. Did the car directly in front of him get to its destination any later than it would have if he hadn't been doing this?
No?
And all the cars behind him are just following him, and he's following the car in front, right?
No, he's not slowing down the average speed of traffic behind him, he's attempting to slow down the peak speed to be more in line with the average speed, thus eliminating the need for sudden braking. Yes, it can alter the duration of everyone's trip by a couple of carlengths, but not significantly, and since doing this will help traffic blockages to clear much faster, the people who are farther back will actually reach their destination sooner than they would have if they'd gotten stuck in a traffic jam.
I'm fortunate enough to live in a region of the United States where a significant percentage of drivers understand these principles (not all, but enough). It really does work here. But I do concede that without the cooperation of other drivers, in other parts of the world, it may be a futile effort.
You're assuming that the user has attempted to delete the incriminating evidence, but that it was able to be retrieved by police. That's not the situation here at all. Please direct your paranoid rantings elsewhere.
This raises the question: what was to stop them from copying the incriminating files, and then "discovering" them on the hard drive of the next customer who dicks them around ? Could that have even been what happened in this case ? How about the strong probability that the technicians don't want child pornography?
Regarding TFA, I'll accept that the techs needed to test his burner, that's only what a good technician should do. However, they didn't need to use his personal picture files, didn't have to view them, and could have just used some files from the \Windows folder and verified the burn. There was also no reason to search his drive for anything! Period! End-of-the-goddamn-statement. I have to disagree with everyone who says the technicians should not have used the user's files to test the burner. We don't have all the details here, so I'm speculating and giving them the benefit of the doubt, but when a user complains to me that something doesn't work, and I want to confirm that I've fixed the problem, I normally try to reproduce the user's likely behavior. If a user complains that they can't burn a video file to DVD, then it is absolutely reasonable to test the solution by burning one of the user's own video files to DVD (using whatever software they have installed, onto their own blank media if possible). In my case, I almost always do this sort of thing with the user present, or even have them do it while I watch.
I'll use my own stuff while I'm diagnosing the problem. Once I've fixed it, I'll use their stuff to verify my fix. Not only does it demonstrate to them that the problem is actually fixed (because they don't care if I can burn my own files, they only care if they can burn their files), but it can also uncover weird problems I wouldn't have noticed if I didn't do things their way. Granted, in this case I wouldn't have tried to burn a movie unless I had a specific reason to do so (e.g. the user had complained that burning large movies failed but burning small text files worked fine), but the idea stands: when you're trying to confirm that the problem has been fixed, it's perfectly reasonable to try to recreate the user's specific actions.
As for what to do with the burned disc, yes, I would either give it to the customer or shred it.
Just his bad luck that they found kiddie porn, and the only reason it got reported was probably because their supervisor was looking over their shoulder enjoying the show right along with them! Otherwise they'd just have made copies for their own consumption and nobody would have been the wiser. So now you're suggesting that these technicians and their supervisor like looking at kiddie porn. Fantastic.
First off IE6 is not tested, while it is still the most used browser. The WebKit team released a test suite, they didn't release test results. If you want to test IE6, then test IE6!
Yes in pure JavaScript like this, IE might be faster than Firefox. But in real world situations it clearly isn't. There is no test done on layout manipulation (and such) using JavaScript. Internet Explorer is notoriously horrible at this, especially if you use it combination with PNG's with alphachannel or complex CSS. This is intentional. This is specifically a JS speed test, not a DOM speed test. If IE's DOM handling is horribly slow, that's a different issue - not an unimportant one, but a different one. This test is really deigned for browser developers, not users, and that's important: while users don't usually care about specific implementation details and just want an overall faster experience, developers can only focus on specific implementation details. Thus, developers interested in improving JavaScript performance need to be able to look at JavaScript performance without being thrown off track by DOM problems, which are probably the responsibility of a completely different team of developers. JavaScript developers probably can't fix DOM problems, just as DOM developers can't fix JavaScript problems.
One or more Apple employees apparently violated their non-disclosure agreements with Apple by disclosing confidential information to third parties. Apple can sue them for violating the agreement... except that Apple doesn't know who they are. So Apple's only recourse is to sue ThinkSecret, not for damages to the company, but only to reveal the identity of the leak, so Apple can take action against the leak, which would have left ThinkSecret in the clear.
ThinkSecret refused, thus bringing Apple's wrath down upon them instead.
Hey now - those of us who write Perl code know exactly what our own code does, or at least we did when we wrote it. It's reading somebody else's code (or our own, years later) that's the tricky part. Perl is a lot of fun to write!
I firmly believe there isn't extraterrestrial life out there*. I don't believe that the existence of extraterrestrial life is consistent with the Bible, so if extraterrestrial life were found, I would obviously be proven wrong. At that point, I would need to carefully re-examine the question of whether this new information is consistent with the Bible or not, and if it's not, then the Bible must be wrong, and if the Bible is wrong about that, then I have no reason to trust its accuracy on anything else, including the existence of God. On the other hand, it's possible that the Scriptures really do leave this possibility open and there might not really be a conflict. Another poster mentioned swapping theological notes; I think that would be pretty important. If the aliens have something like our Bible too, and theirs is perfectly consistent with ours, then that virtually prove God's existence, because there's no other reasonable explanation for that consistency**.
I find it interesting that many of the people who think Christians are stupid for believing in a God we can't see are the same people who are firmly convinced that there has to be extraterrestrial life out there and if there wasn't that would be horribly depressing. Because, ya know, believing in a God who has revealed His nature, His purpose for our lives, and His love for us by giving us the Bible and sending his Son to try to help us understand better is crazy religious talk, but believing that aliens are out there trying to watch our TV shows is scientific, because, you know, there's science involved, and lots of math.
* I suppose it's possible that some bacteria or something, which originated on Earth, has made its way into outer space and may one day be discovered, but that doesn't count.
** I guess it wouldn't prove that the Bible is true, only that there is some sort of powerful intelligence who fed two halves of the same story to both us and the aliens.
That, plus the people who wrote their FAQ are NOT the same people who designed the software. They asked the people who designed the software, got a technical answer that had something to do with a binary data format, and translated the answer into what you see.
You've made some good points. "Because there are bigger fish to fry" is the excuse I most often hear, but "because we have no leadership and nobody knows what's going on" is certainly also a valid reason.
I just suspect it could be funded at a billion dollars a year and it still wouldn't actually get done in any meaningful sense, because there's no benefit in it. That's sort of a weird idea to me. I mean, surely with a billion dollars, somebody would at least hire somebody and put them in charge of doing something?
We've got amply evidence he just doesn't give a damn about doing things because they'd make him more popular, which would be something to admire in other politicians. Yeah, that's occurred to me before. Sad.
And I'm willing to bet the original law had plenty of funding. How much could it cost? We're talking about less than 20 people, that's how many of the big spammers there are. Even if half of them run in panic...no conviction, but at least they'd stop. Certainly going after the ROKSO list would be a great place to start, but a lot of spam comes through botnets, and that might not be so cheap to track down.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you use that to store 4 terabytes permanently? If not, then it's not very useful for this purpose!
The shouting, though not the apostrophe, was a quote from the comic.
Touché! Well played, sir.
Not a bug
A few of the notes were there. It definitely sounded like a lot of them were missing, though.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. While 103 is definitely way too hot, 115is noticeably worse.
Precisely what I was thinking. Put a tax on incandescent light bulbs, just like we have taxes on cigarettes and gasoline. Gradually increase the tax, one year at a time, until incandescent bulbs cost the same as a comparable CFL. If people have a good reason to buy incandescent bulbs, it will still be legal to do so, but the average consumer will switch.
Use the money collected from the tax to pay for an educational campaign to get people to dispose of dead CFLs properly.
A careless child is far less likely to shatter a computer than a light bulb.
More concisely:
Those who study history are doomed to know it's repeating.
You haven't travelled outside the US much, have you?
Yep, I knew someone who had one. I thought that was just about the neatest thing in the world, when I was 10 or so.
No?
And all the cars behind him are just following him, and he's following the car in front, right?
No, he's not slowing down the average speed of traffic behind him, he's attempting to slow down the peak speed to be more in line with the average speed, thus eliminating the need for sudden braking. Yes, it can alter the duration of everyone's trip by a couple of carlengths, but not significantly, and since doing this will help traffic blockages to clear much faster, the people who are farther back will actually reach their destination sooner than they would have if they'd gotten stuck in a traffic jam.
I'm fortunate enough to live in a region of the United States where a significant percentage of drivers understand these principles (not all, but enough). It really does work here. But I do concede that without the cooperation of other drivers, in other parts of the world, it may be a futile effort.
Does this mean now there's math to support this?
You're assuming that the user has attempted to delete the incriminating evidence, but that it was able to be retrieved by police. That's not the situation here at all. Please direct your paranoid rantings elsewhere.
I'll use my own stuff while I'm diagnosing the problem. Once I've fixed it, I'll use their stuff to verify my fix. Not only does it demonstrate to them that the problem is actually fixed (because they don't care if I can burn my own files, they only care if they can burn their files), but it can also uncover weird problems I wouldn't have noticed if I didn't do things their way. Granted, in this case I wouldn't have tried to burn a movie unless I had a specific reason to do so (e.g. the user had complained that burning large movies failed but burning small text files worked fine), but the idea stands: when you're trying to confirm that the problem has been fixed, it's perfectly reasonable to try to recreate the user's specific actions.
As for what to do with the burned disc, yes, I would either give it to the customer or shred it. Just his bad luck that they found kiddie porn, and the only reason it got reported was probably because their supervisor was looking over their shoulder enjoying the show right along with them! Otherwise they'd just have made copies for their own consumption and nobody would have been the wiser. So now you're suggesting that these technicians and their supervisor like looking at kiddie porn. Fantastic.
One or more Apple employees apparently violated their non-disclosure agreements with Apple by disclosing confidential information to third parties. Apple can sue them for violating the agreement... except that Apple doesn't know who they are. So Apple's only recourse is to sue ThinkSecret, not for damages to the company, but only to reveal the identity of the leak, so Apple can take action against the leak, which would have left ThinkSecret in the clear.
ThinkSecret refused, thus bringing Apple's wrath down upon them instead.
Hey now - those of us who write Perl code know exactly what our own code does, or at least we did when we wrote it. It's reading somebody else's code (or our own, years later) that's the tricky part. Perl is a lot of fun to write!
Come on guys, it's not like this is unique to Perl.
I firmly believe there isn't extraterrestrial life out there*. I don't believe that the existence of extraterrestrial life is consistent with the Bible, so if extraterrestrial life were found, I would obviously be proven wrong. At that point, I would need to carefully re-examine the question of whether this new information is consistent with the Bible or not, and if it's not, then the Bible must be wrong, and if the Bible is wrong about that, then I have no reason to trust its accuracy on anything else, including the existence of God. On the other hand, it's possible that the Scriptures really do leave this possibility open and there might not really be a conflict. Another poster mentioned swapping theological notes; I think that would be pretty important. If the aliens have something like our Bible too, and theirs is perfectly consistent with ours, then that virtually prove God's existence, because there's no other reasonable explanation for that consistency**.
I find it interesting that many of the people who think Christians are stupid for believing in a God we can't see are the same people who are firmly convinced that there has to be extraterrestrial life out there and if there wasn't that would be horribly depressing. Because, ya know, believing in a God who has revealed His nature, His purpose for our lives, and His love for us by giving us the Bible and sending his Son to try to help us understand better is crazy religious talk, but believing that aliens are out there trying to watch our TV shows is scientific, because, you know, there's science involved, and lots of math.
* I suppose it's possible that some bacteria or something, which originated on Earth, has made its way into outer space and may one day be discovered, but that doesn't count.
** I guess it wouldn't prove that the Bible is true, only that there is some sort of powerful intelligence who fed two halves of the same story to both us and the aliens.
That, plus the people who wrote their FAQ are NOT the same people who designed the software. They asked the people who designed the software, got a technical answer that had something to do with a binary data format, and translated the answer into what you see.
*whoosh*
You might want to check your sarcasm detector; it seems to be malfunctioning.