I've been tinkering with moving the flash temp folder to a ramdisk (on windows) with good results.
Has anyone else tried this setup? It's eliminated skipping on some of my older machines that have lots of RAM, but not the fastest HDD's. Also, it wipes out flash cookies.
Their whole coverage of the thing was some damning evidence to be sure, and you'd have to be either an idiot or someone who really hates Apple or really loves Gizmodo to think otherwise.
No, I just think you don't have all the evidence and you're not qualified to make any decision. We have a legal system for a reason, let it work.
Countersuggestion: Instead of taking people's attention for granted, do something to capture it. If you feel people don't read or understand what you are writing, it might be nice and comfy to blame them, but it's also pretty useless.
In the real world, people have things like reputation and academic titles to go on when deciding if and how to read something. That doesn't apply here, here, people only have content and it's presentation (which is an essential part of the content) to go on. Combined with an extremely large amount of messages to read.
Well written, except you replied to my thread of messages without reading them fully. I know it may not capture your attention and I don't have a doctorate but when you chime in, you should ACTUALLY READ THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION.
Well, considering it wasn't functional when Gizmodo got it, and it was in a older iphone case but didn't look right I would say that's enough reason to wonder who made it.
The thing is, he was just stating his opinion. Maybe he should have said something like this: "In my opinion, Gizmodo is in no way a journalistic enterprise, and furthermore they most likely have committed at least one felony in the course of their "reporting"."
Well, that's the difference between stating an opinion and libel. Because honestly, the original post wasn't phrased as IMHO. If a newspaper wrote that, they would be in court.
He said someone had committed a felony, not that they had been convicted for it.
It's called innocent until proven guilty.
Let Gizmodo try to sue him for that.
I doubt they would, but they could.
They'll lose, given all the evidence is that they did indeed commit a felony.
Putting your psychic predictions aside, precedent says otherwise. Ever wonder why every single news story uses 'alleged'?
Besides, before a libel case went through, someone no doubt will have been convicted for the felony.
You would be willing to bet that he would be convicted before a civil suit is filed? That can take years. If a suit was filed today, the lawyer fees start today.
That outcome results in 'Apple planned the whole thing for PR and Gizmodo is in bed with Apple' Gizmodo is then painted as part of Apple's PR machine. They can do it publicly.
Apple could simply refuse to sell Giz the tickets. Even if Giz bought the tickets from someone else Apple could still deny them entrance to the event. By purchasing a ticket the buyer is implicitly agreeing to a whole phone-book worth of disclaimers, which usually includes the line "We reserve the right to remove you from the premise at any time without providing a reason.".
Or they just pay someone going to the show to do their reporting as an independent.
Your statement basically boils down to saying that the only way for utilities to make money is by cutting corners, right?
No, I'm saying that the need to maximize profits always pops up when it comes to utilities and cutting corners is an easy way to do it.
In the world of nuclear power plants, that isn't the case at all.
Not yet, but I fully expect the local energy company to figure out a way to make them operate as safely and efficiently as they do their otheroperations.
My home as a child was surrounded by trees, on one particularly stormy night a sizeable branch from an oak tree fell onto the roof of my house and nearly broke through the roof. I'll consider becoming concerned about trees long before I ever start worrying myself about nuclear.
My neighborhood has tons of trees, and we pay to have them trimmed and pruned properly each year, they make sure dead branches are removed and any tree that shows that it's in danger of falling is removed, immediately. To do it right, this costs money, the tree budget is quite high, but we like the trees.
Now, assume the people are in charge of the pruning think that they're not maximizing profits, so instead of trimming once a year, they do it every two years. Out of the 104 trees, only a few major branches fall, some cars are destroyed but no one is hurt. Is that a good record? Just think of how much more money they could make if they only trimmed every three years!
Utilities shouldn't be able to make profits any more than the fire department should. Take the greed out of the equation and things might run better.
I'm very pro atomic energy, and I wouldn't want one within 50 miles of where I live or work.
Mostly because the plants are run by electric companies like ConEd, who typically has one explosion a year with their generators. If you take these morons out of the picture then I wouldn't have a problem living near one.
I only know one easy way to do that, make sure you can't earn a profit from it. Otherwise it's going to be the typical, do it as cheaply as possible to get the most money from it, and then blame someone else when the groundwater is contaminated.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been tinkering with moving the flash temp folder to a ramdisk (on windows) with good results.
Has anyone else tried this setup? It's eliminated skipping on some of my older machines that have lots of RAM, but not the fastest HDD's. Also, it wipes out flash cookies.
I do this with the Chrome temp folders as well.
Their whole coverage of the thing was some damning evidence to be sure, and you'd have to be either an idiot or someone who really hates Apple or really loves Gizmodo to think otherwise.
No, I just think you don't have all the evidence and you're not qualified to make any decision. We have a legal system for a reason, let it work.
Countersuggestion:
Instead of taking people's attention for granted, do something to capture it.
If you feel people don't read or understand what you are writing, it might be nice and comfy to blame them, but it's also pretty useless.
In the real world, people have things like reputation and academic titles to go on when deciding if and how to read something. That doesn't apply here, here, people only have content and it's presentation (which is an essential part of the content) to go on. Combined with an extremely large amount of messages to read.
Well written, except you replied to my thread of messages without reading them fully. I know it may not capture your attention and I don't have a doctorate but when you chime in, you should ACTUALLY READ THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION.
And Apple can then add libel to the Gizmodo editors' rap sheet, and seek injunctions to take down gizmodo.com, in addition to the criminal charges?
The average person has to believe it could be true to be libel. Just ask Jerry Falwell.
Seriously, does anyone believe that a naked Steve Jobs coming out at WWDC as some promo for the iWall is in some way credible?
Steve Ballmer, on the other hand... ...nah, that's over the top even for him.
It was remotely disabled by Apple before they got it. They tore some edges of the bills.
Either you read very shoddy newspapers,
I have been known to occasionally read the crap put out by Newscorp, so you can draw your own conclusions.
You hold people's post in a webforum to the same standard as a newspaper?
No.
Suggestion: actually read what I wrote.
That's kinda hard to claim when you actually admit to doing it, and have pictures of you doing it all over your website.
They admitted no crime and the pictures don't prove a crime.
Also, you don't get to decide if a crime was committed, the legal system does.
Well, considering it wasn't functional when Gizmodo got it, and it was in a older iphone case but didn't look right I would say that's enough reason to wonder who made it.
The thing is, he was just stating his opinion. Maybe he should have said something like this: "In my opinion, Gizmodo is in no way a journalistic enterprise, and furthermore they most likely have committed at least one felony in the course of their "reporting"."
Well, that's the difference between stating an opinion and libel. Because honestly, the original post wasn't phrased as IMHO. If a newspaper wrote that, they would be in court.
True. But again Apple has full rights to kick that independent out if it's discovered that they are affiliated with Gizmodo.
Absolutely. Now, if only there was some kind of false or "pseudo-name" the person could use.
It would be as if you used all of the $20s in that suitcase.
And then returned them all after you photographed them.
He said someone had committed a felony, not that they had been convicted for it.
It's called innocent until proven guilty.
Let Gizmodo try to sue him for that.
I doubt they would, but they could.
They'll lose, given all the evidence is that they did indeed commit a felony.
Putting your psychic predictions aside, precedent says otherwise. Ever wonder why every single news story uses 'alleged'?
Besides, before a libel case went through, someone no doubt will have been convicted for the felony.
You would be willing to bet that he would be convicted before a civil suit is filed? That can take years. If a suit was filed today, the lawyer fees start today.
Apple had already privately confirmed it.
That outcome results in 'Apple planned the whole thing for PR and Gizmodo is in bed with Apple' Gizmodo is then painted as part of Apple's PR machine. They can do it publicly.
Oh please. Because they thought it might have belonged to IBM or Microsoft?
Or a Chinese knockoff company.
"Gizmodo actually committed a felony."
Did someone get convicted that we don't know about, or do you commit libel as a hobby?
Yeah, imagine wanting to verify the owner before handing it over.
Apple could simply refuse to sell Giz the tickets. Even if Giz bought the tickets from someone else Apple could still deny them entrance to the event. By purchasing a ticket the buyer is implicitly agreeing to a whole phone-book worth of disclaimers, which usually includes the line "We reserve the right to remove you from the premise at any time without providing a reason.".
Or they just pay someone going to the show to do their reporting as an independent.
Read your data-plan fine print for t-mobile, it's explicitly disallowed.
I have the same plan, if you read the fine print, they don't "allow" tethering, they just look the other way.
Actually, most vendors have security turned on, you can only installed signed apps, and unsigned ones don't get access to the phone or the web.
The first thing the average XDA user does is disable that.
Even Microsoft has seen the light and is well on its way to reinventing Unix, poorly
Well, except for the better security system.
Your statement basically boils down to saying that the only way for utilities to make money is by cutting corners, right?
No, I'm saying that the need to maximize profits always pops up when it comes to utilities and cutting corners is an easy way to do it.
In the world of nuclear power plants, that isn't the case at all.
Not yet, but I fully expect the local energy company to figure out a way to make them operate as safely and efficiently as they do their other operations.
My home as a child was surrounded by trees, on one particularly stormy night a sizeable branch from an oak tree fell onto the roof of my house and nearly broke through the roof. I'll consider becoming concerned about trees long before I ever start worrying myself about nuclear.
My neighborhood has tons of trees, and we pay to have them trimmed and pruned properly each year, they make sure dead branches are removed and any tree that shows that it's in danger of falling is removed, immediately. To do it right, this costs money, the tree budget is quite high, but we like the trees.
Now, assume the people are in charge of the pruning think that they're not maximizing profits, so instead of trimming once a year, they do it every two years. Out of the 104 trees, only a few major branches fall, some cars are destroyed but no one is hurt. Is that a good record? Just think of how much more money they could make if they only trimmed every three years!
Utilities shouldn't be able to make profits any more than the fire department should. Take the greed out of the equation and things might run better.
Here's some reading on tritium leaks contaminating the local water supplies near plants, http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/ViewDocByAccession.asp?AccessionNumber=ML101270439
I'm very pro atomic energy, and I wouldn't want one within 50 miles of where I live or work.
Mostly because the plants are run by electric companies like ConEd, who typically has one explosion a year with their generators. If you take these morons out of the picture then I wouldn't have a problem living near one.
I only know one easy way to do that, make sure you can't earn a profit from it. Otherwise it's going to be the typical, do it as cheaply as possible to get the most money from it, and then blame someone else when the groundwater is contaminated.