Actually, I have. You know what I decided to do? Wait a week for the excitement to die down.
Yeah, I'm sure you do that even if there are a bunch of new security vulnerabilities fixed in the release. The script kitties must love you.
after all, it's not copyrighted material, no reason for someone to take it off their FTP site anytime soon!
This is something wankers like you don't understand: open source projects and Linux/FreeBSD ISOs are copyrighted. The authors just license them so anyone can legally distribute them.
As for mp3.com, soon after Universal bought them, they made some wanky policies. They stopped paying royalties unless the artist paid a monthly fee--back then, I believe it was $20/month. Their policy seems to be more relaxed now, but it's not as good as before the takeover. Artists pay them, and they get ad revenue. Doesn't seem fair to me. Sounds like they applied the principles Courtney Love and friends have been complaining about.
Uh, what exactly have they done to you? All I've ever known Yahoo to do is provide free services. I like Yahoo. What have they done?
I'm not going to waste five hours of my time telling why Yahoo has become bad. I'll just say they will do anything to make money, no matter how unethical. Even if you use their store (which pays them money), they'll still sell your private information to the highest bidder. If you do some reasearch, you'll see what I am talking about.
I said:
If you think bandwidth is so cheap, why don't you just pay for the entire world?
You said:
When did I say that?
You implied it. You seem to think anyone who is willing to put forth the effort to create content should foot the bill or have it displayed with tonnes of ads--of which the author doesn't even get paid. That is how the "free" hosting systems work--they get ad revenue to pay for bandwidth, and anything above that is their profit.
If anything, P2P folks think bandwidth is free, as they sit there saturating their pipes 24/7
That is because of the "unlimited" internet access scam. ISPs say their customers have "unlimited" access, but then write their AUP to limit what services are allowed--often to the point only email and the web are permitted. They bait everyone with absurd "unlimited" promises, then switch on confined policies. This isn't limited to P2P. You should see all the bandwidth my roommates waste. If users had to pay for the bandwith they use, they will do something about spyware, viruses, crap filled web pages, and all the other things which waste bandwith. You don't need a P2P program to waste bandwidth.
The whole point of the argument is that with technologies like cars, telephones, guns, knives, etc. we DON'T have 9 out of every 10 users committing crimes with them.
I guarantee you, if people driving cars were treated like P2P users, the situation would change to 9/10 of people who drive cars are criminals. If auto manufacturers were sued into the ground, only organized crime would make cars. If there were snipers on every roof shooting out random car tires, most people would walk. If every time a car drove by, a shopkeeper (or someone claiming to be a shopkeeper) called the police and insisted the driver of the car stole something, only thieves would want to drive a car.
Because of the RIAA, anyone who uses P2P gets shit on. It doesn't matter if they are using it to infringe copyrights or not. In fact, P2P can be used for much more than just trading files. Email and Usenet can be considered P2P systems, would you say they should be illegal too?
Well, sorry if my post sounded a little pissy. I didn't mean to imply you didn't have the right to download. My point was if a ton of people start mass downloading the site(s), it might go down. This being slashdot, a ton of people probably read your message...
How would you like to be diseased, uneducated and starving and every time you try to get your shit together the CIA and US Army come over and kick your ass back into the stone age?
Mr Hussein,
Don't you think you're being a bit hypocritical here? After all, you oppressed your people even more so than the US government oppresses theirs. Why choose Stalin as a model of your leadership? Did you not realize he was EVIL?
Aarrrggghhh! Don't do that! If lots of people do that, then their sites will go down! Just grab a few you like, and maybe the index list. Search for the rest on P2P.
In fact, I think it'll be more helpful if you just take some, then
rename the files to make them easier to find. That way, those who don't know about Gutenberg will be able to download them. Like this: "Alice s Adventures in wonderland by Lewis Carroll - alice30.zip". I think renaming them this way is allowed, but then again, there is a buch of legaleze to deal with, and IANAL.
First off, you obviously have never tried to download an ISO image (Linux, FreeBSD, etc) just after a new release. It is one huge pain in the ass. Assuming you can even get the file....and don't forget those people/organizations who host the site / mirrors pay for huge amounts of bandwidth.
Secondly, your mp3.com example is way out of date. Since Universal bought them, they have gone downhill. Just try get them to publish more than 2 or 3 songs for free. You'll be ass-fisted.
Geocities? Why would I let Yahoo fuck me more?
If you think bandwidth is so cheap, why don't you just pay for the entire world?
it's pretty obvious to even the most technologically dense person that these programs are primarily used to illegally share materials.
Maybe dickheads like you use technology that way. Not me.
Either way, don't be surprised that the RIAA has gone after filesharing programs.
They did far more than that. They went after universities for merely providing internet access.
Maybe you have some guilt complex for all the illegal things you have done on the internet, so maybe you should be banned from it. You might be able to do something illegal with the telephone network too, so let's take it away. What about your computer? Your car? There are so many things--guess we'll just have to put you in jail. Better safe than sorry.
You guys blew it, don't be surprised about what's happening.
You paint one wide-assed brush. I didn't blow anything, except not taking a hard line stance against the DRM cartel from the beginning. They are the real thieves. If you really think their only purpose in this is to eliminate copyright infringement, you're one clueless idiot.
Secret meetings held by the government and telephone "industry" claiming to reduce rates, but really increasing them and sweeping a huge accounting scandal under the rug. Consumers get screwed
Secret meetings held by the government, the tech industry, and the entertainment "industry" claiming to solve the problem of copyright infringement, but really helping the entertainment "industry" and Microsoft set up a censorship system which will allow them to spy on everyone and kill any competition. Everyone gets screwed.
Assuming you're not joking, I see three problems with this:
Kids will just "borrow" their parent's CC, and it won't do much to stop them
If the person/company operating the site is "unsavory", they will find a way to charge you money. Often without your knowledge. Either by putting something in the small print, or just charging the money and hope you don't notice. This has happened with quite a few "age verification" services.
The large amount of CC info floating around will most certainly enable more CC fraud.
I don't want to give away my CC# to every site on the internet and risk losing money, just so some irresponsible parents don't have to do their job.
There has been talk of trying to build wireless sensors (some do exist) and actuators, but the killer is the power. It either needs to be brought in on wires or battery powered.
You may want to consult Tesla. He made a wireless system for distributing power, but the FCC probably wouldn't let you run it. The system broadcasts huge amounts of electromagnetic energy. I wonder if a directional sort of system may work without screwing up the radio freqency spectrum...
To produce that, you had to pay the performer for 3.2 working days,
I don't think you understand non-profits volunteering.
Also, you don't need actors and perfect sound fit for an audiophile. This is just an audio book, not a dramatic representation. 8kHz mono read by some stupid bloke is just fine. It would be far better than low grade computer generated speech which is barely understandable.
I have to wonder if the men averaged faster because many of them were avid gamers. Those who play FPS video games like Doom, Quake and UT quite a bit are going to be much much better at navigating a 3D world than anyone else. The poor gamers will also have plenty of experience with small screens. Duh. I wonder if the reasearchers even thought of this.
Theft, fraud (hiring someone then not paying), and copyright infringment are three different things. They require different methods of enforcement, and different levels of punishment. If I copy some of my CDs onto my hard drive so I can play them in any order I want, the RIAA may say this is "theft", but I didn't steal anything. If I play CDs on an anti-skip player and I don't pay the RIAA for "RAM buffer copies", I didn't steal anything.
Ah! So, just because someone has a lot of something, that gives you the right to take some of it, because they "won't notice it"?
Here is an example of why this line of thinking for copyrights is absurd:
Lets say some bloke writes a song with the phrase "my dog fell down and he can't get up." Let's call him Dogman. The song becomes a #1 hit. In certain situations, people start using the phrase. After a while, Dogman decides using this phrase is "theft", and everyone who does so should pay him $1 each time. Would you pay Dogman just for the "right" to utter a stupid phrase? What if your dog really did fall down and couldn't get up? Should you have to pay so you could tell people?
Yeah, my examples are more marginal than sending copies to 10,000 of your closest "friends". The point is the RIAA uses the term "theft" as newspeak to increase the range of copyright laws. Mass redistribution of music is "theft". Then any CD to tape (or CD) copying is "theft". Then storing your CD on a hard drive for convenience is "theft". Then any sort of "RAM buffer copy" is "theft". Then, any use of any words in any song is "theft".
I think the "information wants to be free" whackos are...well...whackos. If "information" is talking to you, or you think "information" has desires like a sentient being, then you really need to see a doctor. But it doesn't mean everything they say is wrong.
Aside from the Pokemon incident, it is based upon three decades of learning and real world experience. I can't fit that into a/. post. I am not a medical reasearcher. Perhaps I should have mentioned it before, but are you? Does the MPAA even understand such things? Why do you say anyone who says this is a risk to epileptics is calling the MPAA a "bold faced liar"? The article indicates the copy protection company doesn't think anyone will notice. No where in the article did I see anyone mention this won't cause any medical problems--they probably didn't think of it.
I am not going to dig through the internet for six hours to find relevant links. In the article it said "Researchers [whoever they are] are mindful that creating too rapid a flicker could trigger seizures in some people." This is why the seizures were brought up. There is very little information in the article about what exactly they are doing, so it is impossible to say for sure.
I did happen upon this link. It's only the abstract, and I haven't read the full paper. Apparently you have to pay to do that.;-) It says; "Epileptic seizures were induced by local penicillin application and triggered by visual stimulation."
The only way to know be certain either way would be to do reasearch. Why do you think I mentioned the FDA? They make sure reasearch is on every new drug. No matter if the chemical structure is already known. No matter if the chemical structure is very similar to another "safe" medicine.
If there wasn't any concern over such things, then why would video game manufacturers put up warnings about it? If your mother was epileptic and a moviegoer, would you really want to find out this is not safe the hard way?
And our computers crash a lot, and nobody knows why and nobody does anything about it and everyone just accepts that that's the way computers are...
I doubt your issues are with bad/incompatible RAM, or even hardware. With my experience, the vast majority of today's system/application crashes are due to highly buggy software. Mostly from one specific company.
My system doesn't crash a lot, and I have a crappy buggy VIA MB. Yeah, the thing would lock up under heavy disk load, but I found out it was a bug with how their ISA interface works with sound cards. Now I use a PCI sound card. Problem gone. Sometimes a program will crash under hard 100% processor usage for an extended time (like 30 minutes). A better power supply, and tweaking the PCI BIOS settings in my kernel have mostly fixed that problem. If I use 'nice make -j 1', then I can get through a kernel compile. I raytraced a Povray animation yesterday, and no crash. My current computer can be considered punishment for buying cheap and used without checking things out. If I would have investigated, I probably would not have bought it.
The only crashes I have had in the past entire month were a) Mozilla -- it's bloated and buggy, so kind of expected. b) mplayer -- screwed up the entire system because I forgot to set the -vo setting, and it chose the wrong one. The Mozilla problem is no worries. I use a decent operating system, so I don't have to think about rebooting. The mplayer problem was due to a mistake on my part--the program acesses video hardware directly. A screw up there will paralize anything. I have since made a mplayer.conf file.
The moral of the story is: don't use ultracheap crappy hardware, but the main cause of today's computer woes--crashes several time a day--is the fact many people insist upon using the crappiest, most poorly designed operating system with the crappiest, most poorly designed applications. From what I've seen, hardware is just as reliable or even more reliable than it was ten or twenty years ago, but software has gone the other direction.
I did not say that because I don't like them. I am basing what I said upon facts I know. I don't sneak recorders into cartel movies then distribute them on the internet. If all it did was mess up cameras, it wouldn't cause any problem for me.
If they even *tried* to implement a technique that could be, in court, shown to be physiologically hazardous to normal moviegoers
I don't think it's quite that obvious. I doubt this would affect most normal moviegoers. More likely, it would effect those who have some sort of neurological problem, or a healthy person who watches movies extensively--in many repeated lengthy streaches. Such as if they watch movies 8 hours per day, 5 days a week. Many health problems due to such things often don't show up right away.
I doubt the Pokemon people ever suspected the show could cause seizures, but it did.
About your dual Pentium...it sounds like your BIOS. Until a few years ago, many BIOSs were not designed for all combinations of memory size. (When you say "larger sticks", I assume you mean larger memory capacity.) In those types of motherboards, your memory has to be placed in certain orders according to how much memory the stick contains. Some of them were so restrictive, they would only support the same sizes. If you had one 8MB stick, your only choice was to use another 8MB one. A 16MB+8MB combo wouldn't work.
I'm sure if you look in your MB manual, you'll find a section telling you which combinations work...
Wands and bag searches won't do much. They should just make everyone strip down before they enter the theater. I first thought of this when they started the crazy searches at the airport. No toenail clippers? No one can hide a gun/bomb if they're naked.
Hmmm....these procedures may be a good thing. I just might travel more and see more movies. Anyone know which flights and movies twenty year old women enjoy?;-)
Did you read the entire article? Is the cbsnews.com site sending different copies of the article at different times? Or did you just choose to ignore part of it? In the article it says:
Researchers are mindful that creating too rapid a flicker could trigger seizures in some people.
Just because a "disruptive flicker" is "unseen by the human eye" (probably should be "not perceived"), doesn't mean it won't affect the brain. I don't claim to fully understand how the signal in the optic nerve works or how the brain interpets it, but strange flicker patterns probably cause weird dropouts and spikes in the signal from the eyes to the brain. That can't be good. Did you ever hear about the stories of the kids who had seizures because of watching a Japanese cartoon? CNN story. More here
BTW, in the US, the FDA makes pharmaceutical companies test drugs for ten years to make sure there are no serious health problems. Do you really think the MPAA will go by such standards? They probably rape and murder children for their own entertainment. Why would they care?
Wouldn't most people think that an "Internet Explorer" would be something with which to explore the Internet?
Isn't that what I said? My point was it doesn't say anything about being a web browser. The web is only part of the internet. You can't fully explore the internet with IE. How do you explore a MUD with it? How do you explore usenet with it? (not just a web gateway for usenet, the real thing) How do you explore IRC with it? If they caled it 'WWW Explorer", then you would be right.
That's ignoring all the other examples of Microsoft programs that have clear names, like...
You have a point there, but notice they trademarked some of those generic names. Part of Microsoft's strategy has been to claim a generic term as their own. I think this is dishonest. I lost count of the times my roommate has assumed MS came up with things like Standard Query Language (they didn't) and the "fun" discussion I have when talking with him about some other database sever. "Ahhh, but DBXYZ can't possibly use SQL. Microsoft owns it."
It's called marketing, and a carefully chosen name can sometimes make or break a product. At this point "Firebird" and "Thunderbird" don't even stand out in my mind, and I'm a geek!
You do have a good point here. Maybe everyone should refer to them as the Firebird web browser and Thunderbird mail client. I don't think they should be called "Web Browser" and "Email Client." One thing, it's confusing. "When you say 'email client', do you mean any old email client, or the Mozilla project's Mail Client?" For another thing, I think it just sounds dumb.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'm sure you do that even if there are a bunch of new security vulnerabilities fixed in the release. The script kitties must love you.
This is something wankers like you don't understand: open source projects and Linux/FreeBSD ISOs are copyrighted. The authors just license them so anyone can legally distribute them.
As for mp3.com, soon after Universal bought them, they made some wanky policies. They stopped paying royalties unless the artist paid a monthly fee--back then, I believe it was $20/month. Their policy seems to be more relaxed now, but it's not as good as before the takeover. Artists pay them, and they get ad revenue. Doesn't seem fair to me. Sounds like they applied the principles Courtney Love and friends have been complaining about.
I'm not going to waste five hours of my time telling why Yahoo has become bad. I'll just say they will do anything to make money, no matter how unethical. Even if you use their store (which pays them money), they'll still sell your private information to the highest bidder. If you do some reasearch, you'll see what I am talking about.
I said:
You said:
You implied it. You seem to think anyone who is willing to put forth the effort to create content should foot the bill or have it displayed with tonnes of ads--of which the author doesn't even get paid. That is how the "free" hosting systems work--they get ad revenue to pay for bandwidth, and anything above that is their profit.
That is because of the "unlimited" internet access scam. ISPs say their customers have "unlimited" access, but then write their AUP to limit what services are allowed--often to the point only email and the web are permitted. They bait everyone with absurd "unlimited" promises, then switch on confined policies. This isn't limited to P2P. You should see all the bandwidth my roommates waste. If users had to pay for the bandwith they use, they will do something about spyware, viruses, crap filled web pages, and all the other things which waste bandwith. You don't need a P2P program to waste bandwidth.
I guarantee you, if people driving cars were treated like P2P users, the situation would change to 9/10 of people who drive cars are criminals. If auto manufacturers were sued into the ground, only organized crime would make cars. If there were snipers on every roof shooting out random car tires, most people would walk. If every time a car drove by, a shopkeeper (or someone claiming to be a shopkeeper) called the police and insisted the driver of the car stole something, only thieves would want to drive a car.
Because of the RIAA, anyone who uses P2P gets shit on. It doesn't matter if they are using it to infringe copyrights or not. In fact, P2P can be used for much more than just trading files. Email and Usenet can be considered P2P systems, would you say they should be illegal too?
Well, sorry if my post sounded a little pissy. I didn't mean to imply you didn't have the right to download. My point was if a ton of people start mass downloading the site(s), it might go down. This being slashdot, a ton of people probably read your message...
Mr Hussein,
Don't you think you're being a bit hypocritical here? After all, you oppressed your people even more so than the US government oppresses theirs. Why choose Stalin as a model of your leadership? Did you not realize he was EVIL?
I started doing this, but with all the attacks, threats of suing every node because "they all play a part", and false DMCA claims, I gave up.
Aarrrggghhh! Don't do that! If lots of people do that, then their sites will go down! Just grab a few you like, and maybe the index list. Search for the rest on P2P.
In fact, I think it'll be more helpful if you just take some, then rename the files to make them easier to find. That way, those who don't know about Gutenberg will be able to download them. Like this: "Alice s Adventures in wonderland by Lewis Carroll - alice30.zip". I think renaming them this way is allowed, but then again, there is a buch of legaleze to deal with, and IANAL.
First off, you obviously have never tried to download an ISO image (Linux, FreeBSD, etc) just after a new release. It is one huge pain in the ass. Assuming you can even get the file. ...and don't forget those people/organizations who host the site / mirrors pay for huge amounts of bandwidth.
Secondly, your mp3.com example is way out of date. Since Universal bought them, they have gone downhill. Just try get them to publish more than 2 or 3 songs for free. You'll be ass-fisted.
Geocities? Why would I let Yahoo fuck me more?
If you think bandwidth is so cheap, why don't you just pay for the entire world?
Maybe dickheads like you use technology that way. Not me.
They did far more than that. They went after universities for merely providing internet access.
Maybe you have some guilt complex for all the illegal things you have done on the internet, so maybe you should be banned from it. You might be able to do something illegal with the telephone network too, so let's take it away. What about your computer? Your car? There are so many things--guess we'll just have to put you in jail. Better safe than sorry.
You paint one wide-assed brush. I didn't blow anything, except not taking a hard line stance against the DRM cartel from the beginning. They are the real thieves. If you really think their only purpose in this is to eliminate copyright infringement, you're one clueless idiot.
Secret meetings held by the government and telephone "industry" claiming to reduce rates, but really increasing them and sweeping a huge accounting scandal under the rug. Consumers get screwed
Secret meetings held by the government, the tech industry, and the entertainment "industry" claiming to solve the problem of copyright infringement, but really helping the entertainment "industry" and Microsoft set up a censorship system which will allow them to spy on everyone and kill any competition. Everyone gets screwed.
You have to love corrupt governments.
Assuming you're not joking, I see three problems with this:
I don't want to give away my CC# to every site on the internet and risk losing money, just so some irresponsible parents don't have to do their job.
Outright shaking it would give more power. This flashlight works that way.
You may want to consult Tesla. He made a wireless system for distributing power, but the FCC probably wouldn't let you run it. The system broadcasts huge amounts of electromagnetic energy. I wonder if a directional sort of system may work without screwing up the radio freqency spectrum...
Obviously, you've never been in Soviet Russia! ;-)
I don't think you understand non-profits volunteering.
Also, you don't need actors and perfect sound fit for an audiophile. This is just an audio book, not a dramatic representation. 8kHz mono read by some stupid bloke is just fine. It would be far better than low grade computer generated speech which is barely understandable.
I have to wonder if the men averaged faster because many of them were avid gamers. Those who play FPS video games like Doom, Quake and UT quite a bit are going to be much much better at navigating a 3D world than anyone else. The poor gamers will also have plenty of experience with small screens. Duh. I wonder if the reasearchers even thought of this.
Theft, fraud (hiring someone then not paying), and copyright infringment are three different things. They require different methods of enforcement, and different levels of punishment. If I copy some of my CDs onto my hard drive so I can play them in any order I want, the RIAA may say this is "theft", but I didn't steal anything. If I play CDs on an anti-skip player and I don't pay the RIAA for "RAM buffer copies", I didn't steal anything.
Here is an example of why this line of thinking for copyrights is absurd:
Lets say some bloke writes a song with the phrase "my dog fell down and he can't get up." Let's call him Dogman. The song becomes a #1 hit. In certain situations, people start using the phrase. After a while, Dogman decides using this phrase is "theft", and everyone who does so should pay him $1 each time. Would you pay Dogman just for the "right" to utter a stupid phrase? What if your dog really did fall down and couldn't get up? Should you have to pay so you could tell people?
Yeah, my examples are more marginal than sending copies to 10,000 of your closest "friends". The point is the RIAA uses the term "theft" as newspeak to increase the range of copyright laws. Mass redistribution of music is "theft". Then any CD to tape (or CD) copying is "theft". Then storing your CD on a hard drive for convenience is "theft". Then any sort of "RAM buffer copy" is "theft". Then, any use of any words in any song is "theft".
I think the "information wants to be free" whackos are...well...whackos. If "information" is talking to you, or you think "information" has desires like a sentient being, then you really need to see a doctor. But it doesn't mean everything they say is wrong.
Aside from the Pokemon incident, it is based upon three decades of learning and real world experience. I can't fit that into a /. post. I am not a medical reasearcher. Perhaps I should have mentioned it before, but are you? Does the MPAA even understand such things? Why do you say anyone who says this is a risk to epileptics is calling the MPAA a "bold faced liar"? The article indicates the copy protection company doesn't think anyone will notice. No where in the article did I see anyone mention this won't cause any medical problems--they probably didn't think of it.
I am not going to dig through the internet for six hours to find relevant links. In the article it said "Researchers [whoever they are] are mindful that creating too rapid a flicker could trigger seizures in some people." This is why the seizures were brought up. There is very little information in the article about what exactly they are doing, so it is impossible to say for sure.
I did happen upon this link. It's only the abstract, and I haven't read the full paper. Apparently you have to pay to do that. ;-) It says; "Epileptic seizures were induced by local penicillin application and triggered by visual stimulation."
The only way to know be certain either way would be to do reasearch. Why do you think I mentioned the FDA? They make sure reasearch is on every new drug. No matter if the chemical structure is already known. No matter if the chemical structure is very similar to another "safe" medicine.
If there wasn't any concern over such things, then why would video game manufacturers put up warnings about it? If your mother was epileptic and a moviegoer, would you really want to find out this is not safe the hard way?
I doubt your issues are with bad/incompatible RAM, or even hardware. With my experience, the vast majority of today's system/application crashes are due to highly buggy software. Mostly from one specific company.
My system doesn't crash a lot, and I have a crappy buggy VIA MB. Yeah, the thing would lock up under heavy disk load, but I found out it was a bug with how their ISA interface works with sound cards. Now I use a PCI sound card. Problem gone. Sometimes a program will crash under hard 100% processor usage for an extended time (like 30 minutes). A better power supply, and tweaking the PCI BIOS settings in my kernel have mostly fixed that problem. If I use 'nice make -j 1', then I can get through a kernel compile. I raytraced a Povray animation yesterday, and no crash. My current computer can be considered punishment for buying cheap and used without checking things out. If I would have investigated, I probably would not have bought it.
The only crashes I have had in the past entire month were a) Mozilla -- it's bloated and buggy, so kind of expected. b) mplayer -- screwed up the entire system because I forgot to set the -vo setting, and it chose the wrong one. The Mozilla problem is no worries. I use a decent operating system, so I don't have to think about rebooting. The mplayer problem was due to a mistake on my part--the program acesses video hardware directly. A screw up there will paralize anything. I have since made a mplayer.conf file.
The moral of the story is: don't use ultracheap crappy hardware, but the main cause of today's computer woes--crashes several time a day--is the fact many people insist upon using the crappiest, most poorly designed operating system with the crappiest, most poorly designed applications. From what I've seen, hardware is just as reliable or even more reliable than it was ten or twenty years ago, but software has gone the other direction.
I did not say that because I don't like them. I am basing what I said upon facts I know. I don't sneak recorders into cartel movies then distribute them on the internet. If all it did was mess up cameras, it wouldn't cause any problem for me.
I don't think it's quite that obvious. I doubt this would affect most normal moviegoers. More likely, it would effect those who have some sort of neurological problem, or a healthy person who watches movies extensively--in many repeated lengthy streaches. Such as if they watch movies 8 hours per day, 5 days a week. Many health problems due to such things often don't show up right away.
I doubt the Pokemon people ever suspected the show could cause seizures, but it did.
About your dual Pentium...it sounds like your BIOS. Until a few years ago, many BIOSs were not designed for all combinations of memory size. (When you say "larger sticks", I assume you mean larger memory capacity.) In those types of motherboards, your memory has to be placed in certain orders according to how much memory the stick contains. Some of them were so restrictive, they would only support the same sizes. If you had one 8MB stick, your only choice was to use another 8MB one. A 16MB+8MB combo wouldn't work.
I'm sure if you look in your MB manual, you'll find a section telling you which combinations work...
Wands and bag searches won't do much. They should just make everyone strip down before they enter the theater. I first thought of this when they started the crazy searches at the airport. No toenail clippers? No one can hide a gun/bomb if they're naked.
Hmmm....these procedures may be a good thing. I just might travel more and see more movies. Anyone know which flights and movies twenty year old women enjoy? ;-)
Did you read the entire article? Is the cbsnews.com site sending different copies of the article at different times? Or did you just choose to ignore part of it? In the article it says:
Just because a "disruptive flicker" is "unseen by the human eye" (probably should be "not perceived"), doesn't mean it won't affect the brain. I don't claim to fully understand how the signal in the optic nerve works or how the brain interpets it, but strange flicker patterns probably cause weird dropouts and spikes in the signal from the eyes to the brain. That can't be good. Did you ever hear about the stories of the kids who had seizures because of watching a Japanese cartoon? CNN story. More here
BTW, in the US, the FDA makes pharmaceutical companies test drugs for ten years to make sure there are no serious health problems. Do you really think the MPAA will go by such standards? They probably rape and murder children for their own entertainment. Why would they care?
Well, I probably should have been more clear. I should have used <sarcasm> tags. Sorry for the confusion.
So why would anyone want to confuse them more by calling a web browser "Internet Explorer"?
Isn't that what I said? My point was it doesn't say anything about being a web browser. The web is only part of the internet. You can't fully explore the internet with IE. How do you explore a MUD with it? How do you explore usenet with it? (not just a web gateway for usenet, the real thing) How do you explore IRC with it? If they caled it 'WWW Explorer", then you would be right.
You have a point there, but notice they trademarked some of those generic names. Part of Microsoft's strategy has been to claim a generic term as their own. I think this is dishonest. I lost count of the times my roommate has assumed MS came up with things like Standard Query Language (they didn't) and the "fun" discussion I have when talking with him about some other database sever. "Ahhh, but DBXYZ can't possibly use SQL. Microsoft owns it."
You do have a good point here. Maybe everyone should refer to them as the Firebird web browser and Thunderbird mail client. I don't think they should be called "Web Browser" and "Email Client." One thing, it's confusing. "When you say 'email client', do you mean any old email client, or the Mozilla project's Mail Client?" For another thing, I think it just sounds dumb.
You confuse sarcasm and trolling.
Unfortunately, due to the rampant abuse of copyright, patent, and trademark laws, many people feel as if they have no choice but to do this...