Anytime you reboot Windows on auto-update, you may be replacing it's kernel. You're just not told about it. Part of the problem is that it's almost impossible for anybody (including Microsoft) to define what 'the windows kernel' really is (i.e. what modules can you take away withoug completely crippling the boot process). Depending on who you ask when, IE might even be a part of XP's kernel.
Another thing to note is that Linux developers will update the kernel to block theoretical issues, whereas Microsoft will rarely work on a patch where there isn't either a working exploit or an immanent threat of one -- or an issue with DRM (the fixing of which is more likely to be a problem for the average user than a solution).
Some kernel patches also fix minor annoyances, which is why you don't always get asked to install some of those 68 interim kernel versions. As for the problems with the NVidia drivers, pester them to release a proper Open Source driver.
2. Why the hell do I have to install a new kernel?
They both target kids and then claim that it should be legal, then their victims pay the price far into adulthood.
Despite their claims that they don't target children, both heroin pushers and tobacco pushers have to (and do) target children because they know that by the time a mark reaches adulthood, they're unlikely to get addicted. Cigarette companies do target children. One survey done by a company found that children (10-17) who recognized Joe Camel were 95% likely to associate him with cigarettes. You don't get that sort of recognition if you're not targeting a group.
Once you have someone addicted, you're not dealing with adult decision-making. You're dealing with addict decision makeing -- decisions shaped by addictions normally formed in childhood.
If cigarettes weren't addictive, then I'd accept your claim that cigarette companies are killing adults. They're not. They're killing children --it just takes a long time for them to drop dead (during which time, they're milked for as much money as the company can get).
If you do something that's quite possibly going to kill someone, and it results in their death, that's a homicide -- as long as there's a relatively short span between the action and the death (in Canada, there's a one year limit for criminal homicide). The fact that you make money off of the act that killed someone isn't a justification -- In most cases, it's an aggrivating circumstance.
Since bothe Nicotine and Heroin are addictive, the process usually includes attempts to get the victim 'hooked'. This can be taken as premeditation.
Under the time-limit rule, because tobacco is a relatively slow killer, very few tobacco deaths would classify as criminal homicide, but there still would be culpability and liability if it can be shown that there is intent to entrap victims, or mislead and confuse them about the nature of the threat (for which there is ample evidence). Tobacco companies (despite claims to the contrary) target kids then profit from that targeting until they die as adults.
So to twist your analogy, if Laden were to have made a $50 million donation to campaign, would Bush have "declared" the plane crashes as pilot errors?
Well, as someone else pointed out, Bin Laden used mostly Saudi operatives, and Saudi money -- but the Saudis also gave Bush family billions in business -- so Bush attacked Iraq instead (despite the fact that Saddamn Insane seems to shown Al Quaida the door), but still claims that the Iraq war is in response to 9/11. The US government even flew Saudis out of the country during the airspace lockdown immediately following 9/11.
There are a lot of good lawyers out there.. Even the ones that I saw as nasty were mostly just representing clients with a nasty bent -- but, if you got them in a back room, they'd be just as happy to help me as their current clients -- especially if money wasn't involved.
On the really good end of the spectrum are lawyers like Pivot Legal who represent the downtrodden in the most financially depressed neighbourhood in canada, Sierra Legal defence fund, who do environmental litigation and of course EFF and the ACLU.
There are actually a good number of lawyers who went into the field because they had an axe to grind about some injustice or another.
--
And the infamous $15M suit over scaulding coffee was a punitive award to suck back the profits that McDonalds made from offering free refils, then making their coffee too hot to safely imbibe until after many customers had left the premises or were finished their meal (meaning a maximum of one refill).
and had actually calculated the number of badly injured customers (and what they would pay to settle with them) in deciding whether or not to go ahead with the campaign.
It's no wonder that big companies were so happy to create a buzz around the award (without providing the details)....
... So they made it seem like a mom-and-pop restaurant owner was at risk of a $15M award even if they tried to take care of their customers. Which is nowhere near what actually happened.
Good lawyers are great. Unfortunately, for each good fight you hear about, there are a dozen disgusting abuse of the judicial system that are turning US courts into a mockery.
Well, the same can be said of doctors, CEOs, Drug Companies, etc. etc. etc.
The thing is that there's not as much of a self-interest for entities with very deep pockets to go on an image-assasination binge against those groups.
I mean the press would have us beleiving that trusting our lives to the whims of the money-grubbing CEO's of near-monopolistic multinationals is better than trusting to the corrective capabilities of democracy (the worst of which is usually due to the interference of the former).
Well, if you have a hot jupiter, perhaps you could have earthlike conditions on the moons of the hot jupiter. We're pretty close with Titan. If jupiter were a brown dwarf, it might be just enough to put Titan or one of the other moons into a habitable zone -- You'd also have good tidal action to help push life onto the dry land.
Has anybody exhaustively explored the concept?
Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue?
on
GNOME 2.16 Released
·
· Score: 1
You can still avoid stating the.dot files that will never be displayed. It would also be nice (as someone else mentioned) to have a radio button to not sort directories first -- That would allow the display of names first, and figuring out the icon (dir, picture whatever) later.
Would it be possible to design something such that the use of anti-capta software/humans would classify as circumventing access to my copyright data??? Access control should include access to my (copyright) website, no?
I'm looking at putting up a phpbb board, so this looks like some useful info...
Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue?
on
GNOME 2.16 Released
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Well, there are things like: If I already know that I want to open/usr/bin/gvim (e.g. in an open-as), there's no easy way to type that in... I have to click my way to that directory -- and when it goes to open/usr/bin, I have to wait 30 seconds for it to stat the entire freaking directory then go hunting in that massive directory for a file who'se name I already knew a minute ago.
so: 1: let me type in the name of the file I want (including path name)(It looks like they may have done that)
As somebody else mentioned, If I don't want to save in 'the usual places', I have to click on the 'I want some more' button to get dialogues which could have easily fit in all of that dead space... my other gripe is that the 'extra' directories don't give any indication of their path -- so if I have/tmp and ~/tmp as common saving places, there's no way to tell them apart, besides trial and error.
2: a popup with the full path would be nice.
Could I borrow your computer for a few mintues? I need to Skype my son.
Then, while waiting for the Skype to connect, she'd proceed to rip a backhanded strip off of his back.
She's actually not really internet savy, but I expect that she knows enough to make him feel silly.
This whole thing is really just a case of a stupid bureaucrat putting in a rule to stop some bad press -- A rule which is now generating bad press. They'll probably get this fixed in an iteration or two.
Really, the problem is that they've got stupid sales people who are taught to push as much as possible -- It's just that sliming a 70-year old is bad press (and many of them know how to generate the coverage), while sliming a 25 year old will just get a shrug. They just want to slime these people while hiding behind a rule that forces them to bring a younger relative who is probably just as stupid about the technology. That way, they have something to hide behind when the purchase goes bad.
In the early net, some people would regularly confuse the anarchy (lack of fixed leaders) of the Usenet/Internet universe with lack of any rules... ("I can do whatever I want! (and you can't -- i.e. you have to put up with my stupidity).)
Lack of leaders is not the same thing as a lack of rules, and I expect that the real problem with the Debian project is that they haven't yet gotten to the point of fully defining rules that enable decent and useful conversations while discouraging the less productive kinds of conversations.
That's my point. Yes he was a Jew, but -- according to all published reports -- he believed that Christ was the Messiah, so that would have also made him a (the first) christian. For a long time Christians considered themselves jews and not a separate religion.
This is all moot anyways. Most people aren't going to buy a media PC for a significantly higher cost than a DVD player.
True, but this article is talking to people who are willing to pay up to $2,000 for a DVD player... Compare that to what you can have someone custom-build for you for $1,000-$1,500 with one of these cards in it.. sound-dampening fans, time-shifting, 500gB of disk....
Yes, it'll take more power, but -- once again -- we're talking to people who won't blink at the extra $20/month, even if they never do figure out how to hibernate the things.
Want fuel? Dip-scoop the outer surface of Jupiter for enough "fossil fuel" to last us forever.
Dip-scooping Jupiter for 4Billion cubic feet of methane -- easy. Getting that humongeous mass-load out of Jupiter's gravity well...... Priceless (presuming that 'priceless' means 'too damned expensive to be worth putting a price on it').
Slashdot Mirror
Another thing to note is that Linux developers will update the kernel to block theoretical issues, whereas Microsoft will rarely work on a patch where there isn't either a working exploit or an immanent threat of one -- or an issue with DRM (the fixing of which is more likely to be a problem for the average user than a solution).
Some kernel patches also fix minor annoyances, which is why you don't always get asked to install some of those 68 interim kernel versions. As for the problems with the NVidia drivers, pester them to release a proper Open Source driver.
Despite their claims that they don't target children, both heroin pushers and tobacco pushers have to (and do) target children because they know that by the time a mark reaches adulthood, they're unlikely to get addicted. Cigarette companies do target children. One survey done by a company found that children (10-17) who recognized Joe Camel were 95% likely to associate him with cigarettes. You don't get that sort of recognition if you're not targeting a group.
Once you have someone addicted, you're not dealing with adult decision-making. You're dealing with addict decision makeing -- decisions shaped by addictions normally formed in childhood.
If cigarettes weren't addictive, then I'd accept your claim that cigarette companies are killing adults. They're not. They're killing children --it just takes a long time for them to drop dead (during which time, they're milked for as much money as the company can get).
Since bothe Nicotine and Heroin are addictive, the process usually includes attempts to get the victim 'hooked'. This can be taken as premeditation.
Under the time-limit rule, because tobacco is a relatively slow killer, very few tobacco deaths would classify as criminal homicide, but there still would be culpability and liability if it can be shown that there is intent to entrap victims, or mislead and confuse them about the nature of the threat (for which there is ample evidence). Tobacco companies (despite claims to the contrary) target kids then profit from that targeting until they die as adults.
But you don't see George Bush launching cruise missile attacks at the headquarters of RJ Reynolds.
Ah, right... They make massive political donations, and buy gobs of advertising.
And you admit that? You better not work at HP. They'll hunt you down and fire you for that remark about internal HP politics.
On the really good end of the spectrum are lawyers like Pivot Legal who represent the downtrodden in the most financially depressed neighbourhood in canada, Sierra Legal defence fund, who do environmental litigation and of course EFF and the ACLU.
There are actually a good number of lawyers who went into the field because they had an axe to grind about some injustice or another.
-- And the infamous $15M suit over scaulding coffee was a punitive award to suck back the profits that McDonalds made from offering free refils, then making their coffee too hot to safely imbibe until after many customers had left the premises or were finished their meal (meaning a maximum of one refill). and had actually calculated the number of badly injured customers (and what they would pay to settle with them) in deciding whether or not to go ahead with the campaign.
It's no wonder that big companies were so happy to create a buzz around the award (without providing the details)....
The thing is that there's not as much of a self-interest for entities with very deep pockets to go on an image-assasination binge against those groups.
I mean the press would have us beleiving that trusting our lives to the whims of the money-grubbing CEO's of near-monopolistic multinationals is better than trusting to the corrective capabilities of democracy (the worst of which is usually due to the interference of the former).
Has anybody exhaustively explored the concept?
You can still avoid stating the .dot files that will never be displayed. It would also be nice (as someone else mentioned) to have a radio button to not sort directories first -- That would allow the display of names first, and figuring out the icon (dir, picture whatever) later.
Would it be possible to design something such that the use of anti-capta software/humans would classify as circumventing access to my copyright data??? Access control should include access to my (copyright) website, no?
I'm looking at putting up a phpbb board, so this looks like some useful info...
so:
1: let me type in the name of the file I want (including path name)(It looks like they may have done that)
As somebody else mentioned, If I don't want to save in 'the usual places', I have to click on the 'I want some more' button to get dialogues which could have easily fit in all of that dead space... my other gripe is that the 'extra' directories don't give any indication of their path -- so if I have /tmp and ~/tmp as common saving places, there's no way to tell them apart, besides trial and error.
2: a popup with the full path would be nice.
Somewhere, in Texas, A moderator is missing it's funnybone.
You seem to be implying that she wasn't so much picked by the Mozilla team, as picked up.
Then, while waiting for the Skype to connect, she'd proceed to rip a backhanded strip off of his back.
She's actually not really internet savy, but I expect that she knows enough to make him feel silly.
This whole thing is really just a case of a stupid bureaucrat putting in a rule to stop some bad press -- A rule which is now generating bad press. They'll probably get this fixed in an iteration or two.
Really, the problem is that they've got stupid sales people who are taught to push as much as possible -- It's just that sliming a 70-year old is bad press (and many of them know how to generate the coverage), while sliming a 25 year old will just get a shrug. They just want to slime these people while hiding behind a rule that forces them to bring a younger relative who is probably just as stupid about the technology. That way, they have something to hide behind when the purchase goes bad.
Personally, I prefer sites where they wear their hearts on their sleeves. Makes it far easier to read between the lines.
Lack of leaders is not the same thing as a lack of rules, and I expect that the real problem with the Debian project is that they haven't yet gotten to the point of fully defining rules that enable decent and useful conversations while discouraging the less productive kinds of conversations.
Well, looking at luke20:41 it seems to me like he's talking about David, not himeslf.
So, you're saying that you think Jesus didn't believe what he was saying?
Yes, it'll take more power, but -- once again -- we're talking to people who won't blink at the extra $20/month, even if they never do figure out how to hibernate the things.
(presuming that 'priceless' means 'too damned expensive to be worth putting a price on it').