If you're using LiveJournal to read entries of random strangers, then I'd say you're missing the point of it. I use it for journalling for my own purposes, and for communicating with people I know (either in real life or online). Regarding the latter, Livejournal is generally a lot better for this than email IMO, for various reasons.
And this applies regarding the original point about the Internet as a whole. It's not that most stuff is necessarily rubbish, but that most stuff is not (and not meant to be) relevant to a given individual. An important factor, aside from raw numbers, or useful percentage of content, is how easy it is to find content that is useful to you.
It sounds to me a bit like arguing whether someone is a mass murderer for killing 5 people, or whether you need to kill 30 people (this *did* cause disruption to emergency services, it's just a matter of scale).
And the law doesn't always go solely on end effects, but on possibilities too (eg, drink driving where you don't have an accident, someone who plans to blow up a building but doesn't succeed, someone who releases something with the intention of causing damage to emergency services)
THAT is like saying a guy who burns a roll of toilet paper is the same as a guy who burns down a 20 story office building. Or that someone who puts a rock thru a window is the same as the guys who flew those planes into the WTC. Or that a kid who shoplifts a candy bar is the same as a guy who robs Fort Knox.
Except in those cases, there's no danger that the larger crime could have happened if you set out to commit the small crime. In this case, if enough people had viewed the script to be useful (it was pretending to be something else), then it could have become a lot more popular.
If you want analogies, it's a bit like a drunk driver who only dents someone's car. We treat this crime a lot more serious than just someone who mistakingly has an accident when not drunk - the possibility of something far more serious was there, and not something that the individual would have had much control over.
But i am not talking about experts, i am just talking exactly about the opposite!. If someone goes to a doctor and the expert poisson his pacient, the doctor, that is murder.
If I had a headache, and someone gave me something they said was a paracetamol, and it turned out to be cyanide, then whether they're a doctor, friend, or stranger, I'd be surprised if that was legal!
And the problem with getting people to install a virus, or getting people's computer to dial 911 is that it causes damage in turn to *other people*, so isn't really comparable to getting people to mess up their own computers.
Exactly, there is no petty terrorism charge. This isn't terrorism.
I'd agree that I wouldn't particularly describe the event as an actual terrorist attack. But had a lot more people used it (which is not inconceivable; whilst it was not a virus, it did pretend to serve a useful purpose), then I think calling it terrorism would be reasonable, and the difference is very much a quantitive one.
Don't terrorism laws also cover attempts at terrorism - ie, even if no damage whatsoever is done, but you can be shown to have been intending to do such things? It seems it was more a matter of luck that this thing did not cause more disruption, rather than being something that Jeansonne could have controlled or forseen.
When I was at University, you could see that they'd mass mailed harrassing letters to all the students, even though none of us had TVs. IIRC, the wording wasn't even along the lines of an informative "if you have a TV you need a licence", but more "We know you have a TV and must pay up for face prison!".
When later on I did have a TV, and a licence, they still sent me harrassing letters! Presumably this was a mistake in their database, but I'm not the only one I know that this has happened to.
I have no problem with the idea of a licence fee, but the way they go about enforcing it is out of order. I can't help feeling that if any normal company behaved in this manner (harrassment, false information, trying to extort money with fraudulent claims) it would be rather illegal.
The hypocrisy is you preach freedom when you denounce the patriot act or the DMCA. When you preach freedom, but deny MS their freedom because you don't like the way they do business, you're a hypocrite.
So one has to be either for freedom or against it? Tell me, which are you? Are you for freedom (in which case, you must support the freedom for people to murder), or against it (in which case, you'd support everyone living in prison camps)? Because after all, anyone who is for some freedoms and against others is a hypocrite!
Libertarians think monopoly regulation is bullshit, and do not support it.
So, point me to a person who is a "Libertarian", who thinks "monopoly regulation is bullshit", but who commented on this story in favour on monopoly regulation.
Oh wait, no such people exist, you just decided what they should think, based on a small subset of their views.
So, unless you're in favor of the Patriot Act, the DMCA, all of this anti-gay shit that's going on, stupid patents, bad copyright laws, please, please, shut the fuck up with this "convicted monopolist" shit.
I'm against the DMCA, stupid patents and bad copyright laws because IMO they hinder competition (eg, increased barriers of entry to the market). I'm for extra laws against what a monopoly is allowed to do, because IMO without them it could hinder competition (eg, increased barriers of entry to the market).
Where's the hypocrisy? You seem to have a rather simplistic idea that if one opposed some laws, they must oppose all laws, which would only apply if they were an anti-government Anarchist.
As for anti-gay stuff and the Patriot Act, that's got nothing to do with the market and competition or monopolies. Just because one has a liberal viewpoint here doesn't imply one is an Anarchist (only the reverse implication is true).
My point is, AROS, MorphOS, or AnyOtherSuperCoolOS are just as irrelevant as AmigaOS or CPM are.
Slashdot carries articles on all sorts of OSs (eg, AtheOS), and I'm sure that including ones that are far less used than AmigaOS or BeOS. I don't see these articles filled with "no one cares" type comments.
Both Linux and Windows are extremely feature-complete at this point. I am yet to see a compelling argument for any other "different" OS on Intel hardware (I am not counting BSD which roughly falls into the same category as Linux). Just being different or having a cute GUI doesn't count if one doesn't have application support.
I'd say that same thing about MacOS too. I guess Slashdot should stop covering anything other than Windows or Linux, since no one cares. Or come to that, why bother with Linux? Might as well go Windows-only.
hell, they might even consider open-sourcing it, although, again, not may would care
I'm sure those involved with AROS or MorphOS would care.
If you don't care, why do you bother reading and posting to articles about it? Unless perhaps you're the teenager with too much time on your hand, of course.
One could make the same point to every Mac and Linux (along with everything else) article.
Yes, Windows can do what the Amiga did ten years ago, and more (I would hope so!) but I guess some people still prefer alternatives to Windows. There's more to a computer than custom hardware and a quick look at a static screenshot (and even if there wasn't, that wouldn't make Windows automatically better by default!)
"On your own" is defined in terms of what it is you do, not when you do it.
I don't know if this is the norm, but I'm contracted for a specific number of hours per week. In which case, *when* I do it most certainly is important, unless my salary is going to be upped to the equivalent of me working 24/7 (which of course, I wouldn't mind at all;)
Alternatively, if stuff I do "in my own time" at 1am could be claimed by the company, perhaps this means I don't have to bother coming into the office next day, since I've been hard at work all night at home..? Again, suits me..
Also its dodgy tactics include mass harrassment of people who don't have a TV, claiming that they do and that they must pay up or face legal action (I presume they send them out to any address they have that isn't paying a license, and assume that a TV is there anyway). This was evident when I was at university, and we could clearly see that every student had been sent one of these letters.
Also with me when I later did have a TV, and a licence, they decided to harrass me with those letters again anyway. Presumably their database got messed up, but they continued to send them even after I'd told them of their mistake (the woman on the 'phone seemed more concerned with harrassing me for info on the other flats in the building, asking how many there were so they could send out letters to all of us!)
"tax" ne "tv license fee"
I don't pay the TV license fee, they are using none of my money.
It is not taxpayer's money which is being spent, it is the money which people have paid for their TV license.
True, but it's a *TV* license, not a BBC license - you still have to pay it even if you're happy watching only other channels (and you possibly have to pay it even if you only use a TV for games consoles). It's not comparable to money you might pay to a private company for a service, so the difference between "tax" and "license" isn't really relevant here (I presume the difference is just that a license is paid periodically for the right to own or do something, but a tax is one off payments linked to a certain action).
I think TV owners do have a right to have a say how the money is spent, because you don't have the option to take your money elsewhere to another company (you can only give up having a TV altogether).
That license allows the license payer to have 2 (somewhat shoddy) TV channels, which have absolutely no outside advertising on them.
Well, it allows them to have a TV full stop, which includes some BBC channels if they want to watch them.
Whenever I visit a tourist attraction that has a guest register, I always sign it. After all, you never know when you'll need an alibi.
I'm happy to sign such things too, but the important thing is it's my choice. In particular, this means that if I visit somewhere that I'm less open about, I can skip signing the book for that one time. Tracked credit card purchases on the other hand don't ignore that japanese schoolgirl tentacle porn.
After all, everything from your son's shoplifting to the destruction of the towers at the World Trade Center could have been prevented if we had less of an ability to do things in secret.
But everything from being mugged whilst carrying an expensive item, to millions of people who are "different" being sent away to concentration camps and gas chambers could happen if we had less of an ability to keep things private.
Does this mean that based on this study anti-privacy activists (how else to call them) will start saying that "as shown by studies, if you don't want to share your private information, thoughts, etc, it IS because you have something that you think you should hide"? I can totally see this study being used to hassle people who just want some privacy.
That depends on whether one thinks that being "deviant" is a bad thing, and something that others have a right to know about. I would argue it most certainly isn't, and if anything this study adds weight to pro-privacy arguments: usually the claim is that people hide things because it's something illegal or immoral - this study shows (what to me ought to be obvious) that people may hide things because they are different to the norm.
As to why they hide such things, there are various possibilities - they may feel genuinely ashamed, because society has conditioned them into believing it is a bad thing (but that doesn't mean it *is* a bad thing, that should be shared). Or more importantly, society has a long history of mocking, discriminating against and persecuting anyone different from the norm, so it's very wise to keep such things private. Weight could fall into either of those categories, but there are plenty of possibilies that definately fall in the latter category.
A second to load? You must not use anything remotely complex.
You must not use an OS that has any form of disk caching..
Sure, when first loading it may take say about 3 seconds (Word here takes less than 2 seconds, PaintShopPro about 3 seconds, and Borland C++ 5 seconds), but even that time is less than the time it takes me to perform that extra "Quit" operation. And reloading an application straight afterwards when I've closed that last document window takes less than a second.
As for mottos, maybe it's Microsoft's motto as well as Apple's these days.
How do I create a new document after closing the last one, without having to relaunch the entire application? With a menu stored entirely within a window, you can't... unless your application displays windows within other windows. Under the Human Interface Guidelines, this isn't an issue. The app continues running until the user decides to kill it himself. As applications get bigger over time, so does their load time.
Actually this is something that caused me trouble on MacOS - I kept feeling that when I'd closed all the application's windows, and it was no longer visible, that the application should have closed. Instead I had to remember to manually exit them. Maybe waiting a second for an application to load is annoying, but no more so than an application unnecessarily consuming resources, and I find it preferable to not have to make it quit myself, which would usually take more time than reloading the application (and indeed, it seems to go against Apple's philosophy of "doing things for the user whether they ask to or not").
Alternatively, the method of having a "main" window that remains open when all the document windows have closed works okay, and gives you a clear visual sign that the application is still running.
Still, I agree that menus at the top of the screen is much better for various reasons (the Amiga did one better on menus, in that you could keep the menu open with the right mouse button whilst you could select - or unselect - multiple items with the left button, instead of having to open the menu several times).
Now that's an Amiga attitude! If you were living in 1993 what you say might be relevant, but none of us exist in the past. It's 2004.
Normally I'd agree, but this is an article reminiscing about 20 years ago, so I'd say looking to the past is relevant.
The fastest Amiga that can run a real, released AmigaOS is what, a PPC604? yes. It's a PPC604. Don't go counting the AmigaOne and it's generic G3 or G4 motherboard because then you're falling into the typical Amiga trap of living for vaporware. Perhaps when AmigaOS4 is actually released and not a "Beta that will be here next month!!" you can only be 5 years behind the times.
Well, you could run Amiga software on a G4 with MorphOS on a Pegasos (yes, it's not the original AmigaOS, but then OS X isn't the same as the original MacOS either - that was ditched a few years ago).
The amount of compression in realtime allows the MD to store 80mins of music. Now, think about 1GB, thats a hell of a lot more than 160MB. I'd also say my opinion differs with yours when I see 300MB more than a cdr is significant (with compression)
How do you mean, it's significant "with compression"? The mp3 player uses compression too (obviously). The significance of 300MB is that it's about 40% more than a CDR, which isn't so great a $7 a disc.
Wrong. If you know, prior to your travel to a country, that entry is dependent on passing a criminal check like this, then you're expected to know the consequences of failing that check. This is the same logical truth as how criminals willingly give up their right to a life outside of prison [for the duration of their sentence] if they commit a crime.
I'm not talking about criminals - in the case of an actual terrorist, I couldn't care less. If someone commits a crime in the US, then fine. But I'm considering the case of people wrongly matched, people detained on a mere suspicion, and held without charge, and the idea that they somehow agreed to this by entering the country.
First of all, I am of the opinion that one shouldn't be able to give up their right to freedom irrevocably (ie, it's one thing one someone says "yes please, I don't mind being imprisoned", but they should always be allowed to change their mind). This idea is generally upheld in law in most countries (at least, for citizens).
Secondly, the argument presented is not "If you enter the US, we'll imprison people at random", instead it's about terrorists. So if someone is wrongly detained, then that is certainly wrong. That the consequences to genuine terrorists are made clear is irrelevant.
You have no rights when you try to enter another country. Customs does not need probable cause or a reasonable suspicion to search your person and effects. The immigration officer can refuse you entry for any or no reason.
The problem is that the effects of this may last longer than the duration of passing through customs (fingerprints and photographs being kept on record), and consequences may be more severe than being refused entry (eg, being detained without charge, as your wonderful new laws allow, I believe).
Slashdot Mirror
If you're using LiveJournal to read entries of random strangers, then I'd say you're missing the point of it. I use it for journalling for my own purposes, and for communicating with people I know (either in real life or online). Regarding the latter, Livejournal is generally a lot better for this than email IMO, for various reasons.
And this applies regarding the original point about the Internet as a whole. It's not that most stuff is necessarily rubbish, but that most stuff is not (and not meant to be) relevant to a given individual. An important factor, aside from raw numbers, or useful percentage of content, is how easy it is to find content that is useful to you.
It sounds to me a bit like arguing whether someone is a mass murderer for killing 5 people, or whether you need to kill 30 people (this *did* cause disruption to emergency services, it's just a matter of scale).
And the law doesn't always go solely on end effects, but on possibilities too (eg, drink driving where you don't have an accident, someone who plans to blow up a building but doesn't succeed, someone who releases something with the intention of causing damage to emergency services)
THAT is like saying a guy who burns a roll of toilet paper is the same as a guy who burns down a 20 story office building. Or that someone who puts a rock thru a window is the same as the guys who flew those planes into the WTC. Or that a kid who shoplifts a candy bar is the same as a guy who robs Fort Knox.
Except in those cases, there's no danger that the larger crime could have happened if you set out to commit the small crime. In this case, if enough people had viewed the script to be useful (it was pretending to be something else), then it could have become a lot more popular.
If you want analogies, it's a bit like a drunk driver who only dents someone's car. We treat this crime a lot more serious than just someone who mistakingly has an accident when not drunk - the possibility of something far more serious was there, and not something that the individual would have had much control over.
But i am not talking about experts, i am just talking exactly about the opposite!. If someone goes to a doctor and the expert poisson his pacient, the doctor, that is murder.
If I had a headache, and someone gave me something they said was a paracetamol, and it turned out to be cyanide, then whether they're a doctor, friend, or stranger, I'd be surprised if that was legal!
And the problem with getting people to install a virus, or getting people's computer to dial 911 is that it causes damage in turn to *other people*, so isn't really comparable to getting people to mess up their own computers.
Exactly, there is no petty terrorism charge. This isn't terrorism.
I'd agree that I wouldn't particularly describe the event as an actual terrorist attack. But had a lot more people used it (which is not inconceivable; whilst it was not a virus, it did pretend to serve a useful purpose), then I think calling it terrorism would be reasonable, and the difference is very much a quantitive one.
Don't terrorism laws also cover attempts at terrorism - ie, even if no damage whatsoever is done, but you can be shown to have been intending to do such things? It seems it was more a matter of luck that this thing did not cause more disruption, rather than being something that Jeansonne could have controlled or forseen.
When I was at University, you could see that they'd mass mailed harrassing letters to all the students, even though none of us had TVs. IIRC, the wording wasn't even along the lines of an informative "if you have a TV you need a licence", but more "We know you have a TV and must pay up for face prison!".
When later on I did have a TV, and a licence, they still sent me harrassing letters! Presumably this was a mistake in their database, but I'm not the only one I know that this has happened to.
I have no problem with the idea of a licence fee, but the way they go about enforcing it is out of order. I can't help feeling that if any normal company behaved in this manner (harrassment, false information, trying to extort money with fraudulent claims) it would be rather illegal.
The hypocrisy is you preach freedom when you denounce the patriot act or the DMCA. When you preach freedom, but deny MS their freedom because you don't like the way they do business, you're a hypocrite.
So one has to be either for freedom or against it? Tell me, which are you? Are you for freedom (in which case, you must support the freedom for people to murder), or against it (in which case, you'd support everyone living in prison camps)? Because after all, anyone who is for some freedoms and against others is a hypocrite!
Libertarians think monopoly regulation is bullshit, and do not support it.
So, point me to a person who is a "Libertarian", who thinks "monopoly regulation is bullshit", but who commented on this story in favour on monopoly regulation.
Oh wait, no such people exist, you just decided what they should think, based on a small subset of their views.
So, unless you're in favor of the Patriot Act, the DMCA, all of this anti-gay shit that's going on, stupid patents, bad copyright laws, please, please, shut the fuck up with this "convicted monopolist" shit.
I'm against the DMCA, stupid patents and bad copyright laws because IMO they hinder competition (eg, increased barriers of entry to the market). I'm for extra laws against what a monopoly is allowed to do, because IMO without them it could hinder competition (eg, increased barriers of entry to the market).
Where's the hypocrisy? You seem to have a rather simplistic idea that if one opposed some laws, they must oppose all laws, which would only apply if they were an anti-government Anarchist.
As for anti-gay stuff and the Patriot Act, that's got nothing to do with the market and competition or monopolies. Just because one has a liberal viewpoint here doesn't imply one is an Anarchist (only the reverse implication is true).
I set the preferences so that Anonymous Cowards appear at 1 like everyone else, and then view at threshold 1.. makes Slashdot a lot more readable imo.
My point is, AROS, MorphOS, or AnyOtherSuperCoolOS are just as irrelevant as AmigaOS or CPM are.
Slashdot carries articles on all sorts of OSs (eg, AtheOS), and I'm sure that including ones that are far less used than AmigaOS or BeOS. I don't see these articles filled with "no one cares" type comments.
Both Linux and Windows are extremely feature-complete at this point. I am yet to see a compelling argument for any other "different" OS on Intel hardware (I am not counting BSD which roughly falls into the same category as Linux). Just being different or having a cute GUI doesn't count if one doesn't have application support.
I'd say that same thing about MacOS too. I guess Slashdot should stop covering anything other than Windows or Linux, since no one cares. Or come to that, why bother with Linux? Might as well go Windows-only.
hell, they might even consider open-sourcing it, although, again, not may would care
I'm sure those involved with AROS or MorphOS would care.
If you don't care, why do you bother reading and posting to articles about it? Unless perhaps you're the teenager with too much time on your hand, of course.
One could make the same point to every Mac and Linux (along with everything else) article.
Yes, Windows can do what the Amiga did ten years ago, and more (I would hope so!) but I guess some people still prefer alternatives to Windows. There's more to a computer than custom hardware and a quick look at a static screenshot (and even if there wasn't, that wouldn't make Windows automatically better by default!)
"On your own" is defined in terms of what it is you do, not when you do it.
I don't know if this is the norm, but I'm contracted for a specific number of hours per week. In which case, *when* I do it most certainly is important, unless my salary is going to be upped to the equivalent of me working 24/7 (which of course, I wouldn't mind at all;)
Alternatively, if stuff I do "in my own time" at 1am could be claimed by the company, perhaps this means I don't have to bother coming into the office next day, since I've been hard at work all night at home..? Again, suits me..
"Finally"? "made"? "continue"? You speak as though OS 4 has been released and you're running it right now.
No, he's running MorphOS on a Pegasos, which certainly is out.
Also its dodgy tactics include mass harrassment of people who don't have a TV, claiming that they do and that they must pay up or face legal action (I presume they send them out to any address they have that isn't paying a license, and assume that a TV is there anyway). This was evident when I was at university, and we could clearly see that every student had been sent one of these letters.
Also with me when I later did have a TV, and a licence, they decided to harrass me with those letters again anyway. Presumably their database got messed up, but they continued to send them even after I'd told them of their mistake (the woman on the 'phone seemed more concerned with harrassing me for info on the other flats in the building, asking how many there were so they could send out letters to all of us!)
"tax" ne "tv license fee" I don't pay the TV license fee, they are using none of my money. It is not taxpayer's money which is being spent, it is the money which people have paid for their TV license.
True, but it's a *TV* license, not a BBC license - you still have to pay it even if you're happy watching only other channels (and you possibly have to pay it even if you only use a TV for games consoles). It's not comparable to money you might pay to a private company for a service, so the difference between "tax" and "license" isn't really relevant here (I presume the difference is just that a license is paid periodically for the right to own or do something, but a tax is one off payments linked to a certain action).
I think TV owners do have a right to have a say how the money is spent, because you don't have the option to take your money elsewhere to another company (you can only give up having a TV altogether).
That license allows the license payer to have 2 (somewhat shoddy) TV channels, which have absolutely no outside advertising on them.
Well, it allows them to have a TV full stop, which includes some BBC channels if they want to watch them.
Whenever I visit a tourist attraction that has a guest register, I always sign it. After all, you never know when you'll need an alibi.
I'm happy to sign such things too, but the important thing is it's my choice. In particular, this means that if I visit somewhere that I'm less open about, I can skip signing the book for that one time. Tracked credit card purchases on the other hand don't ignore that japanese schoolgirl tentacle porn.
After all, everything from your son's shoplifting to the destruction of the towers at the World Trade Center could have been prevented if we had less of an ability to do things in secret.
But everything from being mugged whilst carrying an expensive item, to millions of people who are "different" being sent away to concentration camps and gas chambers could happen if we had less of an ability to keep things private.
Does this mean that based on this study anti-privacy activists (how else to call them) will start saying that "as shown by studies, if you don't want to share your private information, thoughts, etc, it IS because you have something that you think you should hide"? I can totally see this study being used to hassle people who just want some privacy.
That depends on whether one thinks that being "deviant" is a bad thing, and something that others have a right to know about. I would argue it most certainly isn't, and if anything this study adds weight to pro-privacy arguments: usually the claim is that people hide things because it's something illegal or immoral - this study shows (what to me ought to be obvious) that people may hide things because they are different to the norm.
As to why they hide such things, there are various possibilities - they may feel genuinely ashamed, because society has conditioned them into believing it is a bad thing (but that doesn't mean it *is* a bad thing, that should be shared). Or more importantly, society has a long history of mocking, discriminating against and persecuting anyone different from the norm, so it's very wise to keep such things private. Weight could fall into either of those categories, but there are plenty of possibilies that definately fall in the latter category.
A second to load? You must not use anything remotely complex.
You must not use an OS that has any form of disk caching..
Sure, when first loading it may take say about 3 seconds (Word here takes less than 2 seconds, PaintShopPro about 3 seconds, and Borland C++ 5 seconds), but even that time is less than the time it takes me to perform that extra "Quit" operation. And reloading an application straight afterwards when I've closed that last document window takes less than a second.
As for mottos, maybe it's Microsoft's motto as well as Apple's these days.
How do I create a new document after closing the last one, without having to relaunch the entire application? With a menu stored entirely within a window, you can't... unless your application displays windows within other windows. Under the Human Interface Guidelines, this isn't an issue. The app continues running until the user decides to kill it himself. As applications get bigger over time, so does their load time.
Actually this is something that caused me trouble on MacOS - I kept feeling that when I'd closed all the application's windows, and it was no longer visible, that the application should have closed. Instead I had to remember to manually exit them. Maybe waiting a second for an application to load is annoying, but no more so than an application unnecessarily consuming resources, and I find it preferable to not have to make it quit myself, which would usually take more time than reloading the application (and indeed, it seems to go against Apple's philosophy of "doing things for the user whether they ask to or not").
Alternatively, the method of having a "main" window that remains open when all the document windows have closed works okay, and gives you a clear visual sign that the application is still running.
Still, I agree that menus at the top of the screen is much better for various reasons (the Amiga did one better on menus, in that you could keep the menu open with the right mouse button whilst you could select - or unselect - multiple items with the left button, instead of having to open the menu several times).
I'm pretty sure that "classic" MacOS never managed anything but cooperative multitasking (see here ).
Now that's an Amiga attitude! If you were living in 1993 what you say might be relevant, but none of us exist in the past. It's 2004.
Normally I'd agree, but this is an article reminiscing about 20 years ago, so I'd say looking to the past is relevant.
The fastest Amiga that can run a real, released AmigaOS is what, a PPC604? yes. It's a PPC604. Don't go counting the AmigaOne and it's generic G3 or G4 motherboard because then you're falling into the typical Amiga trap of living for vaporware. Perhaps when AmigaOS4 is actually released and not a "Beta that will be here next month!!" you can only be 5 years behind the times.
Well, you could run Amiga software on a G4 with MorphOS on a Pegasos (yes, it's not the original AmigaOS, but then OS X isn't the same as the original MacOS either - that was ditched a few years ago).
The amount of compression in realtime allows the MD to store 80mins of music. Now, think about 1GB, thats a hell of a lot more than 160MB. I'd also say my opinion differs with yours when I see 300MB more than a cdr is significant (with compression)
How do you mean, it's significant "with compression"? The mp3 player uses compression too (obviously). The significance of 300MB is that it's about 40% more than a CDR, which isn't so great a $7 a disc.
Wrong. If you know, prior to your travel to a country, that entry is dependent on passing a criminal check like this, then you're expected to know the consequences of failing that check. This is the same logical truth as how criminals willingly give up their right to a life outside of prison [for the duration of their sentence] if they commit a crime.
I'm not talking about criminals - in the case of an actual terrorist, I couldn't care less. If someone commits a crime in the US, then fine. But I'm considering the case of people wrongly matched, people detained on a mere suspicion, and held without charge, and the idea that they somehow agreed to this by entering the country.
First of all, I am of the opinion that one shouldn't be able to give up their right to freedom irrevocably (ie, it's one thing one someone says "yes please, I don't mind being imprisoned", but they should always be allowed to change their mind). This idea is generally upheld in law in most countries (at least, for citizens).
Secondly, the argument presented is not "If you enter the US, we'll imprison people at random", instead it's about terrorists. So if someone is wrongly detained, then that is certainly wrong. That the consequences to genuine terrorists are made clear is irrelevant.
You have no rights when you try to enter another country. Customs does not need probable cause or a reasonable suspicion to search your person and effects. The immigration officer can refuse you entry for any or no reason.
The problem is that the effects of this may last longer than the duration of passing through customs (fingerprints and photographs being kept on record), and consequences may be more severe than being refused entry (eg, being detained without charge, as your wonderful new laws allow, I believe).