Its establishment would require negotiation of appropriate universal standards. It is interesting to speculate whether this would have to tend toward the least restricting and punitive law or the most.
This alone makes the idea futile. To give the law any point you would need to err on the side of the most restrictive, because for any one law you could have the least restrictive be "no law at all" and thus your efforts are pointless.
Which means your laws would effectively be dictated by china and the repressive regimes of the middle east.
Sounds like someone got touched in a naughty place by violent movies when they were younger.
LOL no, I'm just calling out Elfen Lied out for what it is: A bad show with no redeeming features. All it has is the gore, and for some reason that gives it lots of fans.
the premise, while dark, was not brought to the levels of, say, elfen lied, which did a much better job of portraying a dark, dissociated view of human corruption.
I don't belive it... someone trying to put Elfen Lied on an intellectual level with what would have been a Stanley Kubrick film.
Wow, just... wow. The only thing Elfen Lied is good for is the visceral rush guro fans get when they see characters torn to bits. That's it. Seriously.
It's basically a patent on how Apple handles scrolling on the iPhone. They've patented:
- Using a touchscreen to scroll in one dimension - Using a touchscreen to scrollin two dimensions - Using a touchscreen to shift between items in a list
Basically, scrolling in your address book, in Safari, and coverflow. The "heuristics" are all about analyzing the inputs and motions in the context of the application, and not interaction with any onscreen element.
Now it's HTC, Google, and Palm's turn to scramble for prior art. The attempt to claim this with single inputs even, however, may weaken the basis.
once vulnerable they will remain for ever vulnerable.
Considering the diversity in terms of user environments and hardware capabilities, even if you had 100,000 of a given unit in service with a weakness there's no guarantee that it'd be effective or beneficial to exploit.
The huge return on investment they get with Windows is aided by the fact that you have millions of insecure machines subject to the same vulnerability that: - run same underlying OS - use same microprocessor architecture - can be expected to have a given level of resources
Sure, you could crack the default firmware for a wrt54gl, but you won't be able to do a whole lot due to the lack of RAM, lack of real cpu power, and inability to store anything. One reboot and all your settings are changed, if you decide to play it risky and actually reflash the firmware, you'll kill a huge percentage of the units and the remainder will likely go noticed in some fashion.
Never mind having to cross compile your worm.
The vast number of networked devices out there, even if they all run Linux, run Linux variations. That alone is a more diverse and resistant population than any number of WindowsXP SP2 machines with an idiot at the helm.
Take a picture of one of the computers, a video of it in action, and write down all the machine stats. Note the date it came into use and the year it was retired, and keep short list of technology changes that occurred during the period it was in service (increases in disk capacity, processor speed, processor -technology- even) and just keep a running timeline.
There's little value in the actual hardware, and as others have noted some of it may not even turn on due to changes in things like batteries and capacitors. Preserve a few specimens if you can, but don't rely on them.
And considering what my computer can do, compared to an 8MHz 128k Mac, I'm not surprised that it takes longer. I'm sure if you reimplemented that Mac today, you could make it boot in less than 20 seconds. It'd still be just as incapable of today's applications.
In the 1980s everyone used a CLI even on home systems.
Home systems were still few and far between. Those who had them had every reason (and likely had the desire) to know a lot about what were effectively very primitive systems.
What do you think has happened since then has caused people to lose so much intelligence?
No intelligence was lost. The audience that owns computers has expanded outside of the extremely interested and geeks to basically be a requirement of modern society. It's the car of the age: most people own one in some fashion, but how much someone knows (and indeed, can know) about the nuts and bolts of the thing is limited.
Not everyone wants to have to fuck with xorg.conf just to get multiple displays working. Hell I don't, but you still have to, even in Ubuntu.
For Linux to be successful there needs to be a cultural transformation with regard to computing. The idea we are going to provide less information to avoid confusing people is a terrible culture.
We are never going to return to the days of the 1980s when anyone who had a computer could generally be considered knowledgeable about the hardware, software, and had a bit of coding experience (if even just BASIC.) We are already at a point where for most people the computer is as mystifying a black box as their car's engine is if not moreso.
But half of what is needed to make life livable for non-propellerheads is fairly basic gui interaction and human interface considerations. This is why OS X is so nice compared to Linux and is a route that could serve Canonical well if Ubuntu were to go that way. Solve the problems that force people to screw with config files, reduce the terminal to an optional path and not required, and then you have an OS X like Linux with even more capabilities.
Or we can fight it, and insist that the broken way is the best way.
I would have loved some way to look at a log file and figure out what was going wrong.
And you're also reading Slashdot which immediately puts you out of the target audience the DVR was designed for, people who will treat the DVR for what it is: a peice of AV equipment that should just work.
if Google is going to discriminate against those who actually have faith, they are going to lose me as a customer.
If denying others equal rights by codifying your beliefs into the laws of this nation is a defining factor of your faith, then it is a terrible faith indeed.
No, it's not. There are a lot of both state and federal laws that require having a legally recognized marriage.
Some argue about the degradation/deterioration of the family in a nation being correlated to its demise
I'd argue that the slow erosion of rights, and the utter contempt for the constitution shown lately is far more indicative of the slow demise of a nation than gays wanting to marry. Allowing gays to marry should be a given, and the idiots pursuing this amendment should instead focus on protecting the rights of others. Except they don't care about the rights of others, as we've seen.
"it's between the two men or women, it doesn't affect anyone or anything else, so why is it illegal?"
There is, but only for those who stop and think about the issue. For those who pursued the amendment, their thought was "a man and a man getting married just isn't right" and they stop thinking there. If you press them, they'll spout some misleaing nonsense that you highlighted, or they'll refer back to their religious texts.
It's not simple. But those who pursue this law made it out to be.
The real issue here is why the government is involved in the business of marriage to begin with.
Because it offers legal incentives for people who choose to engage in it. The problem here isn't a legal question, but an overly-emotional argument over the word "marriage" itself, the lequal inequities that result from legislation like this being a mere side-effect that doesn't concern those who pursued Prop. 8.
What about spinster sisters that simply live together and want their civil rights?
This isn't a question being raised at this time. Specious arguments like this are fielded by Prop. 8 supporters (most common being Daddy and Daughter want to marry) to distract from the question at hand, mainly by painting it as opening the gateway to incest.
Boyfriend and girlfriend forever?
Marriage has benefits conferred upon it specifically to discourage this. Why do you think gays want to get married?
Polyamorists? Where are their rights?
If the question comes up, we'll answer it (and hopefully on the side of them being free to choose how they live their life as they choose.)
None of these issues have been covered by the proponents or opponents of Prop 8.
Sure they have, mostly by supporters of Prop. 8 to discolor and trump up fears and smear opponents. Otherwise, they're completely not relevant to the question at hand.
You're as bad as the above poster, who insisted that 99.99% of California was straight and opposed to gay marraige.
Here's a suprising fact: The religious types don't care about any of the other issues, they only care about gay marriage, and fighting to keep a subsection of society under their thumb. The economy, business, and state government be damned (because they've got God and the coming rapture on their side!)
- Separate != Equal. We learned this lesson almost sixty years ago! - DOMA still lords over people, denying them federal recognition of their marriage. - The Californian civil union does -not- apply outside of the state. If they leave, they're fucked.
That people ask "how does maligning and holding gays in contempt, legally, hurt them" as a serious question makes me sick.
Didn't the CA public not want the Gay marriage thing in the first place?
Just a hair over 50% decided that they had some reason to poke their nose in other people's business, for specious reasoning over a word that carries distinct legal weight now denied to a non-trivial percentage of the populace.
Wasn't something like some judges getting it in there?
They didn't get it in there. They tried to strip gays of the right to marry via a law, and the judges said "you can't do that." Of course, enforcing the laws of this nation is only good when it goes the way you want so all the hyperconservatives suddenly declared them "activist judges" who were "forcing gay marriage" on the people of California.
Are you saying that the tiny percentage of the general population which is gay is so much better/more productive than the 99.99% of the other population it doesn't matter if you hurt the 99.99% productivity or your ability to hire out of that pool as that.01% of gay people that you can manage to hire is just that much better that its almost worth to piss off everyone else?
What the hell are you getting at here? That to protect the 97-98% of non-gays and keep them from getting upset, since that's the only -real- effect gay marriage has on them, that we should deny equal rights to the remaining chunk of the population, and that Google should just sit by and let California hold a law that holds some of its employees in needless contempt?
Are you normally this ignorant, or do you just get ignorant when TEH GAYS come up in a discussion?
Perhaps the problem is that app developers have assumed that any phone released after the G1 would have matching or better specs.
I'd certainly hope that all subsequent phones released after the G1 meet or exceed its specs. Random, weird screen resolutions and wild hardware differences only promise to stick Android with the same issues Windows Mobile suffers from having PC-like diversity in hardware: app development and support becomes a nightmare.
This is one reason that developers have jumped on the iPhone bandwagon, it's like developing for a console where all the hardware is reasonably expected to have the same features.
There's plenty of reasons to use GTK and QT, including pretty much every app that has no need for internet access (and some that are using it, but really shouldn't be.)
Never mind the hefty CPU load that AJAX apps can put on a system. Needlessly inefficient, even if we do have dual- and quad-core machines.
There was discussion that he wouldn't be able to continue using the Blackberry at all, which seemed to many people odd that we'd force our President to be less connected and capable of keeping himself informed than he was previously.
I also think people are keeping an eye on it because Obama seems far more "with it" than Bush, who admitted that he didn't so much as read newspapers (until 2006, when he backtracked.)
I wonder if there is there any use worrying about piracy.
If enough people decide to pirate instead of pay, then less stuff gets made. A big disk does not just magically have content appear on it.
But is there a point where it gets so stupidly cheap and powerful that old world business models become completely untenable?
Not really. Capacity is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not people pay for the content that fills it. If they don't, then they won't have a whole lot to fill their big disks with,
Tend to appreciate what comes as a result, you know, the spinoffs of such research. Space research and development doesn't stay in space, it spreads into other fields like medicine, automotive technology, and sometimes general consumer products.
find it easier to use taxpayers money than to actually convince people to fund it voluntarily.
The money available from voluntary funding would probably be so small as to be insignificant. You won't see corporate donors of any real scale (not these days) unless there's a direct return on investment visible in the short term (2-5 years.) The majority of people can't see past their neighborhood, and wouldn't be able to point out something spawned from space development even if they had used it their entire lives.
it's wrong to force people to pay for it if they don't want it
They want it, they just don't realize it. Maybe if they weren't so anti-science and encouraged it instead, they themselves would realize what around them would benefit from meeting the design and engineering challenges for as harsh an environment as space, and maybe then we'd not need tax dollars.
But progress must continue in the face of ignorance. Or we could, you know, just blow up more brown people.
Slashdot Mirror
That's cute.
This alone makes the idea futile. To give the law any point you would need to err on the side of the most restrictive, because for any one law you could have the least restrictive be "no law at all" and thus your efforts are pointless.
Which means your laws would effectively be dictated by china and the repressive regimes of the middle east.
Such as?
Really, all I've seen have been updates for Apple software (or software otherwise distributed by Apple.)
Is this the Windows version of Software Update?
Astro-turfer for sure!
You even use the slashdot effect to take down critical articles!
(j/k)
Article past freshness!
LOL no, I'm just calling out Elfen Lied out for what it is: A bad show with no redeeming features. All it has is the gore, and for some reason that gives it lots of fans.
There's no accounting for taste, as they say.
I don't belive it... someone trying to put Elfen Lied on an intellectual level with what would have been a Stanley Kubrick film.
Wow, just... wow. The only thing Elfen Lied is good for is the visceral rush guro fans get when they see characters torn to bits. That's it. Seriously.
It's basically a patent on how Apple handles scrolling on the iPhone. They've patented:
- Using a touchscreen to scroll in one dimension
- Using a touchscreen to scrollin two dimensions
- Using a touchscreen to shift between items in a list
Basically, scrolling in your address book, in Safari, and coverflow. The "heuristics" are all about analyzing the inputs and motions in the context of the application, and not interaction with any onscreen element.
Now it's HTC, Google, and Palm's turn to scramble for prior art. The attempt to claim this with single inputs even, however, may weaken the basis.
IANAPL. HAND.
Considering the diversity in terms of user environments and hardware capabilities, even if you had 100,000 of a given unit in service with a weakness there's no guarantee that it'd be effective or beneficial to exploit.
The huge return on investment they get with Windows is aided by the fact that you have millions of insecure machines subject to the same vulnerability that:
- run same underlying OS
- use same microprocessor architecture
- can be expected to have a given level of resources
Sure, you could crack the default firmware for a wrt54gl, but you won't be able to do a whole lot due to the lack of RAM, lack of real cpu power, and inability to store anything. One reboot and all your settings are changed, if you decide to play it risky and actually reflash the firmware, you'll kill a huge percentage of the units and the remainder will likely go noticed in some fashion.
Never mind having to cross compile your worm.
The vast number of networked devices out there, even if they all run Linux, run Linux variations. That alone is a more diverse and resistant population than any number of WindowsXP SP2 machines with an idiot at the helm.
Take a picture of one of the computers, a video of it in action, and write down all the machine stats. Note the date it came into use and the year it was retired, and keep short list of technology changes that occurred during the period it was in service (increases in disk capacity, processor speed, processor -technology- even) and just keep a running timeline.
There's little value in the actual hardware, and as others have noted some of it may not even turn on due to changes in things like batteries and capacitors. Preserve a few specimens if you can, but don't rely on them.
And considering what my computer can do, compared to an 8MHz 128k Mac, I'm not surprised that it takes longer. I'm sure if you reimplemented that Mac today, you could make it boot in less than 20 seconds. It'd still be just as incapable of today's applications.
It's just as much his money as it is yours. Not that the whole program isn't a boondoggle already.
Home systems were still few and far between. Those who had them had every reason (and likely had the desire) to know a lot about what were effectively very primitive systems.
No intelligence was lost. The audience that owns computers has expanded outside of the extremely interested and geeks to basically be a requirement of modern society. It's the car of the age: most people own one in some fashion, but how much someone knows (and indeed, can know) about the nuts and bolts of the thing is limited.
Not everyone wants to have to fuck with xorg.conf just to get multiple displays working. Hell I don't, but you still have to, even in Ubuntu.
We are never going to return to the days of the 1980s when anyone who had a computer could generally be considered knowledgeable about the hardware, software, and had a bit of coding experience (if even just BASIC.) We are already at a point where for most people the computer is as mystifying a black box as their car's engine is if not moreso.
But half of what is needed to make life livable for non-propellerheads is fairly basic gui interaction and human interface considerations. This is why OS X is so nice compared to Linux and is a route that could serve Canonical well if Ubuntu were to go that way. Solve the problems that force people to screw with config files, reduce the terminal to an optional path and not required, and then you have an OS X like Linux with even more capabilities.
Or we can fight it, and insist that the broken way is the best way.
And you're also reading Slashdot which immediately puts you out of the target audience the DVR was designed for, people who will treat the DVR for what it is: a peice of AV equipment that should just work.
If denying others equal rights by codifying your beliefs into the laws of this nation is a defining factor of your faith, then it is a terrible faith indeed.
No, it's not. There are a lot of both state and federal laws that require having a legally recognized marriage.
I'd argue that the slow erosion of rights, and the utter contempt for the constitution shown lately is far more indicative of the slow demise of a nation than gays wanting to marry. Allowing gays to marry should be a given, and the idiots pursuing this amendment should instead focus on protecting the rights of others. Except they don't care about the rights of others, as we've seen.
There is, but only for those who stop and think about the issue. For those who pursued the amendment, their thought was "a man and a man getting married just isn't right" and they stop thinking there. If you press them, they'll spout some misleaing nonsense that you highlighted, or they'll refer back to their religious texts.
It's not simple. But those who pursue this law made it out to be.
Because it offers legal incentives for people who choose to engage in it. The problem here isn't a legal question, but an overly-emotional argument over the word "marriage" itself, the lequal inequities that result from legislation like this being a mere side-effect that doesn't concern those who pursued Prop. 8.
This isn't a question being raised at this time. Specious arguments like this are fielded by Prop. 8 supporters (most common being Daddy and Daughter want to marry) to distract from the question at hand, mainly by painting it as opening the gateway to incest.
Marriage has benefits conferred upon it specifically to discourage this. Why do you think gays want to get married?
If the question comes up, we'll answer it (and hopefully on the side of them being free to choose how they live their life as they choose.)
Sure they have, mostly by supporters of Prop. 8 to discolor and trump up fears and smear opponents. Otherwise, they're completely not relevant to the question at hand.
You're as bad as the above poster, who insisted that 99.99% of California was straight and opposed to gay marraige.
Here's a suprising fact: The religious types don't care about any of the other issues, they only care about gay marriage, and fighting to keep a subsection of society under their thumb. The economy, business, and state government be damned (because they've got God and the coming rapture on their side!)
- Separate != Equal. We learned this lesson almost sixty years ago!
- DOMA still lords over people, denying them federal recognition of their marriage.
- The Californian civil union does -not- apply outside of the state. If they leave, they're fucked.
That people ask "how does maligning and holding gays in contempt, legally, hurt them" as a serious question makes me sick.
Just a hair over 50% decided that they had some reason to poke their nose in other people's business, for specious reasoning over a word that carries distinct legal weight now denied to a non-trivial percentage of the populace.
They didn't get it in there. They tried to strip gays of the right to marry via a law, and the judges said "you can't do that." Of course, enforcing the laws of this nation is only good when it goes the way you want so all the hyperconservatives suddenly declared them "activist judges" who were "forcing gay marriage" on the people of California.
What the hell are you getting at here? That to protect the 97-98% of non-gays and keep them from getting upset, since that's the only -real- effect gay marriage has on them, that we should deny equal rights to the remaining chunk of the population, and that Google should just sit by and let California hold a law that holds some of its employees in needless contempt?
Are you normally this ignorant, or do you just get ignorant when TEH GAYS come up in a discussion?
Note that civil unions are not equal in terms of the rights granted to them.
And at the very least, the legal equivalent in California is invalid outside of the state, so if you want to move you're fucked.
I'd certainly hope that all subsequent phones released after the G1 meet or exceed its specs. Random, weird screen resolutions and wild hardware differences only promise to stick Android with the same issues Windows Mobile suffers from having PC-like diversity in hardware: app development and support becomes a nightmare.
This is one reason that developers have jumped on the iPhone bandwagon, it's like developing for a console where all the hardware is reasonably expected to have the same features.
Whoops, your server just died.
There's plenty of reasons to use GTK and QT, including pretty much every app that has no need for internet access (and some that are using it, but really shouldn't be.)
Never mind the hefty CPU load that AJAX apps can put on a system. Needlessly inefficient, even if we do have dual- and quad-core machines.
You should be modded down just for asking.
There was discussion that he wouldn't be able to continue using the Blackberry at all, which seemed to many people odd that we'd force our President to be less connected and capable of keeping himself informed than he was previously.
I also think people are keeping an eye on it because Obama seems far more "with it" than Bush, who admitted that he didn't so much as read newspapers (until 2006, when he backtracked.)
How is it economic development if the economy suffers a setback every time one of these companies moves on?
I wonder if there is there any use worrying about piracy.
If enough people decide to pirate instead of pay, then less stuff gets made. A big disk does not just magically have content appear on it.
But is there a point where it gets so stupidly cheap and powerful that old world business models become completely untenable?
Not really. Capacity is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not people pay for the content that fills it. If they don't, then they won't have a whole lot to fill their big disks with,
Tend to appreciate what comes as a result, you know, the spinoffs of such research. Space research and development doesn't stay in space, it spreads into other fields like medicine, automotive technology, and sometimes general consumer products.
The money available from voluntary funding would probably be so small as to be insignificant. You won't see corporate donors of any real scale (not these days) unless there's a direct return on investment visible in the short term (2-5 years.) The majority of people can't see past their neighborhood, and wouldn't be able to point out something spawned from space development even if they had used it their entire lives.
They want it, they just don't realize it. Maybe if they weren't so anti-science and encouraged it instead, they themselves would realize what around them would benefit from meeting the design and engineering challenges for as harsh an environment as space, and maybe then we'd not need tax dollars.
But progress must continue in the face of ignorance. Or we could, you know, just blow up more brown people.
Ah yes, the classic excuse: "X has it worse, therefore you should not complain about Y."
Your post is less than useless, it is harmful and is ignorant beyond reason.