On the other hand, you waste your summer working. The best years of your life, no responsibilities, you can do whatever you want, so you sit in an office and work like you're going to do for the rest of your life.
On the other hand, you get paid far more than you're really worth, according to what I've heard ($150k+).
What? Depreciation means shit if you've already bought it. If you spend $20k on a SUV, sell it for $10k, buy a more efficient car for $5k, you're not down on the deal. You don't get the money back if you keep something.
OK, you get on with writing a web-based word processor. In the meantime, the real world will keep on using what's already made and what already works. Bear in mind it has to be cheaper and more functional than Star Office which has already been tested and rejected after extensive testing.
And when you make a mistake in a web browser form, or accidently hit ctrl+w (right next to s), the browser closes and your information is lost. No undo, no auto-save, scrollbars independent of the page scrollbars, and about a million other things.
Can you kindly explain what's the point of filling out a webform wich can't be saved ?
Exactly. You've just destroyed your own argument. Well done. Saves us the mental effort of doing it ourselves. I used the extra brain processing cycles to think about what to have for tea. I think perhaps a Pot Noodle or Microchips.
How can you say with a straight face that the record industry has a cartel, in an article about some musicians NOT USING the supposed cartel and selling their music on itunes?
That's like posting from Firefox that Internet Explorer has a monopoly.
This also begs the question: would they be famous enough to get on itunes if it wasn't for Sony's contract? And I bet they still took the money from the contract. Talk about biting the hand that feeds.
What is the logic of stopping on a red light if there is no one coming? What is the logic of stopping on a stop sign if there is no one coming?
None, but that doesn't mean it should be legal to drive through. Otherwise no-one will have to stop at red lights, they'll just drive through and claim they didn't see anyoen coming. This will lead to accidents when it turns out there IS a car coming.
Actually most accidents are between cars and pedestrians, not cars crashing into each other. If a slow driver causes you to crash, it's probably because you were going too fast in the first place. Perhaps you might want to rethink that 50mph takeover on that blind-cornered, one-lane road just so you can get to work 1 minute quicker.
When you're going 20 over the limit it's somewhat hard to see someone crossing the road around the next corner. And if you're going over the limit you're something like 5 times more likely to kill them.
Perhaps you speeders should look somewhere other than public roads for your testosterone fix.
Is that stupid radio advert in the UK about crashing into people at 30 vs 40 making the difference between hurting and killing them actually accurate, if so then it would make a difference breaking the speed limit. Or is the advert just to guilt you into following the arbitrary speed limits?
Anyway in the 'boonies' the limit's usually 60 anyway.
Recycle it and burn it up? Not quite that simple I'm afraid, otherwise they wouldn't dump it in the sea. And if nuclear power is so great, why is it going to cost £56 billion and take 125 years just to clean up old plants? Would you live in a house built on such a place?
And have a look at cancer rates around nuclear plants.
Remember that the more nuclear power stations there are, the higher the chances of them going wrong. It's easy to have high standards in a few places.
What book? There were exercises in some photo-copied sheets we were given, and they were all on the intranet as well, written by the people who ran the course. No big textbooks, I don't see the need. Surely in the days of the Internet most books are obsolete anyway.
And things like physics and maths and engineering don't change that often, so it's not like the library books will be instantly obsolete. Even computer science books won't be out of date unless you follow all the latest fads.
That's ridiculous reasoning. Why don't you just admit that you're chosing your arguments because you like unauthorised wireless usage and don't like spam? I find it very unlikey that the slashdotters' opinions are so conveniently the only ones which can be justified logically, as if Slashdot was the haven for intelligence and reason.
As for the inbox/table analogy, a wireless server is as much in your computer as a mail server. I wasn't talking about secured wireless networks but default settings. If you're default mail setting is to accept all mail from everyone, you're no better than someone with a wireless connection set to receive everyone.
Why are you forcing textbooks anyway? Because you're not teaching them enough or because your libraries are inadequate? I went to university and there was no mention of forced book buying. Maybe it's an American thing that someone has to profit in every single thing.
Because there are easy, check-box methods which let you choose whether to leave his WiFi connection open for all to use or to lock it down. It's a simple choice when you set it up. There is no checkbox on a mail server which lets you choose to reject all spam while accepting e-mail from friends, colleagues, clients, etc. to whom you have given your e-mail address.
Because there are easy, check-box method white-lists which let you choose whether to leave your mail system open to everyone or whether to lock it down. It's a simple choice when you set it up. There is no checkbox on a wireless server which lets you choose to reject all wardrivers and hackers whilst accepting connections from friends, colleagues, clients etc. to whom you have given your wireless address.
See, I can pick 'facts' to suit my argument as well.
Of course, Microsoft invented SMTP and the whole unsecure, unverified, unaccountable e-mail system. Everything's Microsoft's fault, even things they didn't invent.
Personally I think leaving an e-mail server unsecured is like leaving a wireless server unsecured. There are two ways of looking at this:
1. You're inviting everyone to use it for any purpose it allows, so don't complain when you find people using it in ways you don't like. You should have configured it differently.
2. You're not inviting people to use it, they're abusing the insecurity inherent in the system.
In this case, spam falls under 2. But then maybe so does wardriving. You either pick 1 for everything, or 2 for everything. You can't pick 1 for wireless and 2 for spam, because it suits you. That's inconsistent and hypocritical.
Some, yes. But I don't willingly accept connections from those wishing to deliver spam. I may not be able to detect and block them with 100% accuracy, but it doesn't mean that I choose to let them connect.
To use the wireless connection, people with wireless connections don't willingly accept connections from those wishing to wardrive. They may not be able to detect and block them with 100% accuracy, but it doesn't mean that they choose to let them connect.
It seems that people here choose their reasoning based on their preferences: Slashdotters like hacking wireless networks, but don't like spam. Whatever happened to principles?
Why not? Why should spammers be able to steal and not face jail time? What is the cost for the stolen bandwidth? What is the cost of the stolen storage? What are the administrative costs spent dealing with the theft of bandwidth and storage by spammers?
In that case, should there be jail-time for unauthorised use of wireless connections? That's stealing bandwidth as well.
Oh, but the Slashbots reply "if you leave a wireless connection unsecured you're inviting people to use it". Yes, but if you have an e-mail client with no white-list or spam-filter you're inviting unsolicited e-mail. I wonder how the slashbots will get out of that one... probably by modding me down to hide their embarassment and to maintain the RDF.
But Quake was actually a decent game. Doom 3 had no redeeming features whatsoever. If it didn't have the Doom name on it, it wouldn't have got any of the hype, and the people praising it would have been slamming it.
If there was some fault in the computer system that accidently turned on half of the RCS engines on take-off, flipping the shuttle around, it would disintegrate under the pressure. Yet it is still done automatically. The landing gear thing is to satisfy the ego of the pilots. The shuttle should be capable of flying entirely unmanned.
Looking at the facts, it seems that only one shuttle mission has ever landed manually, the rest have been computer controlled. The pilot just launches the landing gear.
With all those variables and the precision and calculations required, you'd be mad to leave up to human control.
Can a 747 lift rockets and fuel tanks as well as the orbiter? The solid booster rockets are already reusable, so I don't see much improvement between using them and using a plane to lift up the shuttle. Although it would mean if the rockets failed to fire, the shuttle would plummet to the ground rather than just sitting on the launch pad.
If the shuttle is allowed to fly over land at supersonic speeds, disrupting people with the sonic boom, why was Concord banned from flying over land? The shuttle could land a different way, but restricting Concord contributed to its demise, and now the world doesn't have any supersonic passenger planes.
Although the shuttle is American and the Concord wasn't.
I just love seeing the double-standards on this site.
Government/ISP/Regulatory body moves to restrict content which is unsuitable for children: "No! The parents should do this by monitoring/restricting what their children are doing."
Parents monitor/restrict what their children are doing: "No! That's censorship! They should be allowed to do whatever they want."
It seems the argument changes when necessary to suit the situation. I don't know why they don't just admit that they don't want any restrictions on anything for anyone, ever. No matter what. A bit of honesty goes a long way.
I think something like this is even funnier on a site where the members pride themselves on being more intelligent and enlightened than everyone else, when they're just as self-interested and hypocritical as the rest of us.
Of course, that's the fantasy you like to masturbate about. In the real world, the bully's parents don't have jobs, they're on benefits, they won't go to court, they'll just throw a brick through your window. They probably already have several convictions. Maybe in the end people will realise that schoolchildren don't need laptops.
If you're rich enough to spend thousands of pounds on frivolities for your children you're probably knowledgeable enough to insure them. People like that probably only buy them to show off to everyone else how rich they are. "Look at us, we can afford a two grand laptop for little Johnny to do his history homework on to save him having to write with a pen like you working-class savages."
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, you waste your summer working. The best years of your life, no responsibilities, you can do whatever you want, so you sit in an office and work like you're going to do for the rest of your life.
On the other hand, you get paid far more than you're really worth, according to what I've heard ($150k+).
What? Depreciation means shit if you've already bought it. If you spend $20k on a SUV, sell it for $10k, buy a more efficient car for $5k, you're not down on the deal. You don't get the money back if you keep something.
OK, you get on with writing a web-based word processor. In the meantime, the real world will keep on using what's already made and what already works. Bear in mind it has to be cheaper and more functional than Star Office which has already been tested and rejected after extensive testing.
And when you make a mistake in a web browser form, or accidently hit ctrl+w (right next to s), the browser closes and your information is lost. No undo, no auto-save, scrollbars independent of the page scrollbars, and about a million other things.
Can you kindly explain what's the point of filling out a webform wich can't be saved ?
Exactly. You've just destroyed your own argument. Well done. Saves us the mental effort of doing it ourselves. I used the extra brain processing cycles to think about what to have for tea. I think perhaps a Pot Noodle or Microchips.
A slightly more accurate example:
Company A agrees to buy 1000 widgets from company B for $10 each.
Company A pays $10,000 to company B. Company B does not deliver the widgets, but instead sells them to company C. And keeps the money.
How can you say with a straight face that the record industry has a cartel, in an article about some musicians NOT USING the supposed cartel and selling their music on itunes?
That's like posting from Firefox that Internet Explorer has a monopoly.
This also begs the question: would they be famous enough to get on itunes if it wasn't for Sony's contract? And I bet they still took the money from the contract. Talk about biting the hand that feeds.
What is the logic of stopping on a red light if there is no one coming?
What is the logic of stopping on a stop sign if there is no one coming?
None, but that doesn't mean it should be legal to drive through. Otherwise no-one will have to stop at red lights, they'll just drive through and claim they didn't see anyoen coming. This will lead to accidents when it turns out there IS a car coming.
Actually most accidents are between cars and pedestrians, not cars crashing into each other. If a slow driver causes you to crash, it's probably because you were going too fast in the first place. Perhaps you might want to rethink that 50mph takeover on that blind-cornered, one-lane road just so you can get to work 1 minute quicker.
When you're going 20 over the limit it's somewhat hard to see someone crossing the road around the next corner. And if you're going over the limit you're something like 5 times more likely to kill them.
Perhaps you speeders should look somewhere other than public roads for your testosterone fix.
Is that stupid radio advert in the UK about crashing into people at 30 vs 40 making the difference between hurting and killing them actually accurate, if so then it would make a difference breaking the speed limit. Or is the advert just to guilt you into following the arbitrary speed limits?
Anyway in the 'boonies' the limit's usually 60 anyway.
Recycle it and burn it up? Not quite that simple I'm afraid, otherwise they wouldn't dump it in the sea. And if nuclear power is so great, why is it going to cost £56 billion and take 125 years just to clean up old plants? Would you live in a house built on such a place?
And have a look at cancer rates around nuclear plants.
Remember that the more nuclear power stations there are, the higher the chances of them going wrong. It's easy to have high standards in a few places.
Would you want a heroin addict flying your plane? Or an alcoholic policeman? What about someone high on cannibis running a nuclear reactor?
What book? There were exercises in some photo-copied sheets we were given, and they were all on the intranet as well, written by the people who ran the course. No big textbooks, I don't see the need. Surely in the days of the Internet most books are obsolete anyway.
And things like physics and maths and engineering don't change that often, so it's not like the library books will be instantly obsolete. Even computer science books won't be out of date unless you follow all the latest fads.
That's ridiculous reasoning. Why don't you just admit that you're chosing your arguments because you like unauthorised wireless usage and don't like spam? I find it very unlikey that the slashdotters' opinions are so conveniently the only ones which can be justified logically, as if Slashdot was the haven for intelligence and reason.
As for the inbox/table analogy, a wireless server is as much in your computer as a mail server. I wasn't talking about secured wireless networks but default settings. If you're default mail setting is to accept all mail from everyone, you're no better than someone with a wireless connection set to receive everyone.
Why are you forcing textbooks anyway? Because you're not teaching them enough or because your libraries are inadequate? I went to university and there was no mention of forced book buying. Maybe it's an American thing that someone has to profit in every single thing.
Because there are easy, check-box methods which let you choose whether to leave his WiFi connection open for all to use or to lock it down. It's a simple choice when you set it up. There is no checkbox on a mail server which lets you choose to reject all spam while accepting e-mail from friends, colleagues, clients, etc. to whom you have given your e-mail address.
Because there are easy, check-box method white-lists which let you choose whether to leave your mail system open to everyone or whether to lock it down. It's a simple choice when you set it up. There is no checkbox on a wireless server which lets you choose to reject all wardrivers and hackers whilst accepting connections from friends, colleagues, clients etc. to whom you have given your wireless address.
See, I can pick 'facts' to suit my argument as well.
Of course, Microsoft invented SMTP and the whole unsecure, unverified, unaccountable e-mail system. Everything's Microsoft's fault, even things they didn't invent.
Personally I think leaving an e-mail server unsecured is like leaving a wireless server unsecured. There are two ways of looking at this:
1. You're inviting everyone to use it for any purpose it allows, so don't complain when you find people using it in ways you don't like. You should have configured it differently.
2. You're not inviting people to use it, they're abusing the insecurity inherent in the system.
In this case, spam falls under 2. But then maybe so does wardriving. You either pick 1 for everything, or 2 for everything. You can't pick 1 for wireless and 2 for spam, because it suits you. That's inconsistent and hypocritical.
Some, yes. But I don't willingly accept connections from those wishing to deliver spam. I may not be able to detect and block them with 100% accuracy, but it doesn't mean that I choose to let them connect.
To use the wireless connection, people with wireless connections don't willingly accept connections from those wishing to wardrive. They may not be able to detect and block them with 100% accuracy, but it doesn't mean that they choose to let them connect.
It seems that people here choose their reasoning based on their preferences: Slashdotters like hacking wireless networks, but don't like spam. Whatever happened to principles?
Why not? Why should spammers be able to steal and not face jail time? What is the cost for the stolen bandwidth? What is the cost of the stolen storage? What are the administrative costs spent dealing with the theft of bandwidth and storage by spammers?
In that case, should there be jail-time for unauthorised use of wireless connections? That's stealing bandwidth as well.
Oh, but the Slashbots reply "if you leave a wireless connection unsecured you're inviting people to use it". Yes, but if you have an e-mail client with no white-list or spam-filter you're inviting unsolicited e-mail. I wonder how the slashbots will get out of that one... probably by modding me down to hide their embarassment and to maintain the RDF.
But Quake was actually a decent game. Doom 3 had no redeeming features whatsoever. If it didn't have the Doom name on it, it wouldn't have got any of the hype, and the people praising it would have been slamming it.
If there was some fault in the computer system that accidently turned on half of the RCS engines on take-off, flipping the shuttle around, it would disintegrate under the pressure. Yet it is still done automatically. The landing gear thing is to satisfy the ego of the pilots. The shuttle should be capable of flying entirely unmanned.
Looking at the facts, it seems that only one shuttle mission has ever landed manually, the rest have been computer controlled. The pilot just launches the landing gear.
With all those variables and the precision and calculations required, you'd be mad to leave up to human control.
I might have been excited about that 40 years ago.
36 years ago we had men on the Moon. Now we can barely get into orbit, and when we do, all we think about is getting back down again.
Why can't we go back to the Moon? Have NASA forgotten all the technology they used? Did someone burn all the manuals and steal the spaceships?
We should be on Pluto by now.
Can a 747 lift rockets and fuel tanks as well as the orbiter? The solid booster rockets are already reusable, so I don't see much improvement between using them and using a plane to lift up the shuttle. Although it would mean if the rockets failed to fire, the shuttle would plummet to the ground rather than just sitting on the launch pad.
If the shuttle is allowed to fly over land at supersonic speeds, disrupting people with the sonic boom, why was Concord banned from flying over land? The shuttle could land a different way, but restricting Concord contributed to its demise, and now the world doesn't have any supersonic passenger planes.
Although the shuttle is American and the Concord wasn't.
I just love seeing the double-standards on this site.
Government/ISP/Regulatory body moves to restrict content which is unsuitable for children:
"No! The parents should do this by monitoring/restricting what their children are doing."
Parents monitor/restrict what their children are doing:
"No! That's censorship! They should be allowed to do whatever they want."
It seems the argument changes when necessary to suit the situation. I don't know why they don't just admit that they don't want any restrictions on anything for anyone, ever. No matter what. A bit of honesty goes a long way.
I think something like this is even funnier on a site where the members pride themselves on being more intelligent and enlightened than everyone else, when they're just as self-interested and hypocritical as the rest of us.
Of course, that's the fantasy you like to masturbate about. In the real world, the bully's parents don't have jobs, they're on benefits, they won't go to court, they'll just throw a brick through your window. They probably already have several convictions. Maybe in the end people will realise that schoolchildren don't need laptops.
If you're rich enough to spend thousands of pounds on frivolities for your children you're probably knowledgeable enough to insure them. People like that probably only buy them to show off to everyone else how rich they are. "Look at us, we can afford a two grand laptop for little Johnny to do his history homework on to save him having to write with a pen like you working-class savages."
And learn how to use the backspace key.