Why, when I was a kid and they tried to do this to me, I hax0red the PC to let me do it anyway! Any average kid will be able to do this in about 5 minutes!
I have a similar story.
A long, long time ago, when we still had a 500 MHz Pentium III, my parents were leaving my brother and me home from some event (I don't remember what) as punishment, and they "cleverly" stole the VGA cable and power cable. For a few minutes, we were convinced we couldn't use the computer.
Having a house full of computer stuff, we realized, meant that the missing parts were probably easy to replace. We found a power cable easily, but we didn't have a VGA cable so we plugged in another (crappier) monitor. It booted. We were happy.
Then it switched to 1024x768x75, and the monitor went into convulsions (you know what it looks like--not smoking, just random stripey patterns) because it was too high a resolution/refresh rate. So, navigating blind (!), I dug into the control panel and knocked the resolution down. It was fun.
There's nothing like an 8-year-old geek-in-the-making...;-)
It's true, there really is no substitute for at least keeping an eye on what your kids are doing. If you watch them like a hawk 24/7, they will just get annoyed and do the stuff you don't want them to do behind your back. But if you just keep an eye out, they won't be suspicious, and they probably won't mind.
To truly resolve this debate, we have to split the generic, somewhat loaded term "marriage" into two parts: the first part is "spiritual marriage", which is permitted or forbidden by religious institutions, and the second part is "secular/civil marriage", which is permitted or forbidden by the government.
We will assume that any two people who want to marry will expect the same secular benefits from marriage as any other two people. Unless we wish to discriminate, we have to give them the same benefits. We will also assume that anyone is allowed to have their own religious beliefs, and that others are not allowed to force them to follow other beliefs (unless it harms the other people).
The obvious conclusion from here is that both homosexual couples and heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry.
The most common reply to this--the one you made--is that if gays were to be allowed marriage, it would be pushing their beliefs on others who believe gay marriage is wrong. However, because spiritual and secular marriage are two different things, the right of gays to a secular marriage does not infringe on your beliefs about spiritual marriage. In other words, their marriage does not hurt you
First, the reason gays "insist on [their union] being a real marriage instead of a civil union" is that it is the only way to ensure they receive all the benefits of
There are a couple of problems with this entire debate, and they are evident in what you have said. The first problem is the spiritual vs. secular definition of marriage. Whenever someone suggests that gay marriages should receive the same secular benefits--tax benefits, power of attorney, and so on--as heterosexual marriages, the reply is always that it will ruin the spiritual meaning of marriage. For this situation to be resolved, you have to split the definition. In fact, tying the sec The second problem is that of tolerance: it is perfectly okay to have your own religious beliefs, but it's not okay to push them on others. When you put these two together, the conclusion is that, while you are allowed to have your own spiritual beliefs about marriage, you must in turn permit others to have their own beliefs. If their beliefs allow marriage between two people of the same sex, then it is discrimination to deny them the secular benefits that marriage provides. But just because they receive the same secular marriage does not mean that their secular marriage is a dishonor or insult to your spiritual marriage.
Yeah, almost. Even entering one of their non-filtered chat rooms leaves you with a mailbox full of porn spam. Gotta love screen names--you see one in a chat room, BAM! you know their email address.
Um, this isn't about standard WiFi. It's about WiMax, which is a new technology. It's not just showing that a large WiFi network can be created with hundreds of access points, it's showing how well a new technology works. Standard WiFi probably can't roam between AP's at 100 mph, let alone communicate. (It can hardly do it at normal driving speeds!)
In my opinion, to be "IT literate" you should be able to transfer skills between applications.
EXACTLY!
I don't know how many times I've been working with someone, and they're perfectly proficient in Word, Excel, and all the other crap that came with their computer. But when they want me to explain a new feature, and I say "Pick BAR from the FOO menu and select QUUX from the BAZ list" or something like that, they have no idea what to do and want me to point at things to click.
It's like being computer-fluent instead of computer-proficient. I can be a little proficient at Spanish, and have conversations about relatively tame topics, but if I'm fluent I can pick up pretty easily on other topics as well. It's the same with computers: many people have a very limited "vocabulary" of skills, but they can't extend it to other applications or situations.
Most of the Dells in our school computer lab have Intel Extreme Graphics chipsets, which support screen rotation. So, right before the school closed at 5:00 PM, I logged on to each one, rotated the screen 180 degrees, and logged off.
Plenty of people saw it and responded with varying degrees of humor, annoyance, and confusion. It got quite a notice before I had to turn them back right-side-up (many people can't log in with the screen upside down, and people needed to use them...)
But I love being at a school where the tech people don't mind these things as long as others can still use the computers.
Who says they're not spending it on infrastructure, or salaries/wages for more researchers?
In my mind, "don't be evil" extends only to Google's customers, shareholders, employees, and others they're connected to--not the entire world economy. But you do have a point.
How is keeping earnings evil? Everybody, yourself included, seems to think that any attempt by Google to make money is evil. You are wrong. To be evil is to do things like run ugly ads on your webmail and charge people money to remove them, or, worse, to accept payment for changes in PageRank. If they can find a legitimate and doable way to increase their profits, it's a good thing, because they have more money to fund stuff and their shareholders are happy. Pleasing your shareholders is not evil unless it is at the expense of your customers.
So are there really still enough in circulation that you can get these from any bank? If so, I'd like to have a bit of fun soon, but I thought they stopped printing these long ago...
Best Buy doesn't need to focus on customer service at all... brick-and-mortar stores are becoming a niche market for a) those who don't shop online and b) when you need something right now and can't wait for it to ship. There's always a market, and at least a few suckers to buy extended warranties, so there's no need for them to treat their customers well.
But I think next time I go to the bank I'm definitely grabbing a few of those things;-)
Gentoo's mangling of Apache is horrible. I just wish they would leave the default config file in one place. I also don't like how you have to edit/etc/conf.d/apache2 to turn on PHP, SSL, and so on...
What does he mean by "standby" if not "stored on disk".
It means that the block is on "standby" to be overwritten. If it weren't swapped, reallocating the physical RAM block would require saving the block to disk, which is slow. However, putting it on "standby" by saving it to disk when the OS has free time means it is quick to access it if it isn't reallocated, and quick to overwrite it if it is reallocated.
If another process asks for access to that memory RANGE
He said "space", not "range". It means if another program needs memory space, it can immediately be assigned the block, because it has already been saved to disk.
...I sure as fuck hope it doesn't mean that the memory is "released for its use".
Sorry, it does. But it's already on disk, so it doesn't matter. Linux, in fact, does the same thing. The kernel is clever about realizing when it would be more efficient to swap a rarely-used page of memory out and use it as disk cache instead. Oh, and the curses have a nice amplifying effect on your confusion.
You can't just request to use other processes's
[sic] memory without going through a shared mem or RPC api.
To quote you, "isn't that the whole idea of memory protection?" Indeed, you can't use another process's virtual memory, but you can certainly use its physical memory. That's part of virtual memory--physical RAM can be shared between processes by swapping/paging it in and out when needed.
Hmmm... that's an interesting idea. The question is, how far do the IP rights extend for a game? Is allowing someone to play it remotely okay? Is allowing someone to play the game remotely even if it's not using that board okay?
I've checked my Scrabble(tm) manual and nowhere in it does it say I'm not allowed to play on the internet.
Yes, but you weren't using your Scrabble set if you played on the site. You were using his application. It didn't require you to own a Scrabble set, and thus (theoretically) could have taken business away from Hasbro.
Yeah, the Pentium-M is an awesome chip. I have one on my laptop, and they don't just get awesome battery life, but they feel really snappy. (Part of that is that having 64k L1 cache, 2 MB L2 cache, and usually around 256-384 MB of unused memory being used as disk cache by Linux makes disk access often unnecessary.) I really can't wait until the dual-core ones next year.
On the Trial Download page, there are 5 checkboxes you "have" to agree to. If you don't check them, and click Download, it still lets you download with agreeing!
The reason they are doing this is really obvious: One of the obvious advantages to most Linux distributions is that they usually come out with patches within a day of vulnerabilities, and the patches are available immediately. Windows, on the other hand, patches once a week or once a month. Ovbiously, Linux looks better here. By offering the government a faster patch cycle, they are trying to compete with the Linux distributions and make themselves look better again.
If you see a duplicate, you can mail the story's author. If the story is still quiet, we may pull it down. However, once the comments are rolling in, we often leave the story up so that the discussion can continue.
I don't know how many comments had been posted (significantly fewer than the original article?) but if it's not too many I guess they will just take it down.
Have you ever used GNOME for a while? It is a little more complicated, but I find that, compared to KDE, it is much more consistent and explorable. (I think GNOME vs. KDE is a left- vs. right-brain thing: GNOME appeals more to logical, analytical people while KDE appeals more to intuitive and creative people. Maybe I'm just making stuff up.)
If the [software maker] couldn't care less, maybe one shouldn't care more?
Um... because if vulnerable software is out there, it can be exploited. As we know with Microsoft's slow Windows patch cycle versus the constant updating of most Linux distros package repositories, it's better to disclose vulnerabilities early, write patches quickly, and distribute a fix before anyone can exploit it. Forcing people not to disclose details just adds one more person and one more vulnerability to the list of ways you don't know about to exploit your software.
I'm sure it is possible to ship one binary for 5 versions of Windows, but most websites have separate listings... maybe that's just for organization, I don't know.
Do you work for ATI or Nvidia? (They're the companies most often accused of bad Linux support--Nvidia tries, I think, but ATI just doesn't do anything. I don't know much about this since I'm too cheap to be interested in drivers other than intelfb and i915.)
Slashdot Mirror
I have a similar story.
A long, long time ago, when we still had a 500 MHz Pentium III, my parents were leaving my brother and me home from some event (I don't remember what) as punishment, and they "cleverly" stole the VGA cable and power cable. For a few minutes, we were convinced we couldn't use the computer.
Having a house full of computer stuff, we realized, meant that the missing parts were probably easy to replace. We found a power cable easily, but we didn't have a VGA cable so we plugged in another (crappier) monitor. It booted. We were happy.
Then it switched to 1024x768x75, and the monitor went into convulsions (you know what it looks like--not smoking, just random stripey patterns) because it was too high a resolution/refresh rate. So, navigating blind (!), I dug into the control panel and knocked the resolution down. It was fun.
There's nothing like an 8-year-old geek-in-the-making... ;-)
It's true, there really is no substitute for at least keeping an eye on what your kids are doing. If you watch them like a hawk 24/7, they will just get annoyed and do the stuff you don't want them to do behind your back. But if you just keep an eye out, they won't be suspicious, and they probably won't mind.
I'll bite.
To truly resolve this debate, we have to split the generic, somewhat loaded term "marriage" into two parts: the first part is "spiritual marriage", which is permitted or forbidden by religious institutions, and the second part is "secular/civil marriage", which is permitted or forbidden by the government.
We will assume that any two people who want to marry will expect the same secular benefits from marriage as any other two people. Unless we wish to discriminate, we have to give them the same benefits. We will also assume that anyone is allowed to have their own religious beliefs, and that others are not allowed to force them to follow other beliefs (unless it harms the other people).
The obvious conclusion from here is that both homosexual couples and heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry.
The most common reply to this--the one you made--is that if gays were to be allowed marriage, it would be pushing their beliefs on others who believe gay marriage is wrong. However, because spiritual and secular marriage are two different things, the right of gays to a secular marriage does not infringe on your beliefs about spiritual marriage. In other words, their marriage does not hurt you
First, the reason gays "insist on [their union] being a real marriage instead of a civil union" is that it is the only way to ensure they receive all the benefits of
There are a couple of problems with this entire debate, and they are evident in what you have said. The first problem is the spiritual vs. secular definition of marriage. Whenever someone suggests that gay marriages should receive the same secular benefits--tax benefits, power of attorney, and so on--as heterosexual marriages, the reply is always that it will ruin the spiritual meaning of marriage. For this situation to be resolved, you have to split the definition. In fact, tying the sec The second problem is that of tolerance: it is perfectly okay to have your own religious beliefs, but it's not okay to push them on others. When you put these two together, the conclusion is that, while you are allowed to have your own spiritual beliefs about marriage, you must in turn permit others to have their own beliefs. If their beliefs allow marriage between two people of the same sex, then it is discrimination to deny them the secular benefits that marriage provides. But just because they receive the same secular marriage does not mean that their secular marriage is a dishonor or insult to your spiritual marriage.
Yeah, almost. Even entering one of their non-filtered chat rooms leaves you with a mailbox full of porn spam. Gotta love screen names--you see one in a chat room, BAM! you know their email address.
I'll get it started:
vi is better. ;-)
(unless you're doing either C or Lisp development, or looking for a replacement for /sbin/init, in which case Emacs is better.)
Karma-whoring clickable link. Come on, people, is <a href="...">...</a> that hard to type?
Um, this isn't about standard WiFi. It's about WiMax, which is a new technology. It's not just showing that a large WiFi network can be created with hundreds of access points, it's showing how well a new technology works. Standard WiFi probably can't roam between AP's at 100 mph, let alone communicate. (It can hardly do it at normal driving speeds!)
EXACTLY!
I don't know how many times I've been working with someone, and they're perfectly proficient in Word, Excel, and all the other crap that came with their computer. But when they want me to explain a new feature, and I say "Pick BAR from the FOO menu and select QUUX from the BAZ list" or something like that, they have no idea what to do and want me to point at things to click.
It's like being computer-fluent instead of computer-proficient. I can be a little proficient at Spanish, and have conversations about relatively tame topics, but if I'm fluent I can pick up pretty easily on other topics as well. It's the same with computers: many people have a very limited "vocabulary" of skills, but they can't extend it to other applications or situations.
Most of the Dells in our school computer lab have Intel Extreme Graphics chipsets, which support screen rotation. So, right before the school closed at 5:00 PM, I logged on to each one, rotated the screen 180 degrees, and logged off.
Plenty of people saw it and responded with varying degrees of humor, annoyance, and confusion. It got quite a notice before I had to turn them back right-side-up (many people can't log in with the screen upside down, and people needed to use them...)
But I love being at a school where the tech people don't mind these things as long as others can still use the computers.
Who says they're not spending it on infrastructure, or salaries/wages for more researchers?
In my mind, "don't be evil" extends only to Google's customers, shareholders, employees, and others they're connected to--not the entire world economy. But you do have a point.
How is keeping earnings evil? Everybody, yourself included, seems to think that any attempt by Google to make money is evil. You are wrong. To be evil is to do things like run ugly ads on your webmail and charge people money to remove them, or, worse, to accept payment for changes in PageRank. If they can find a legitimate and doable way to increase their profits, it's a good thing, because they have more money to fund stuff and their shareholders are happy. Pleasing your shareholders is not evil unless it is at the expense of your customers.
So are there really still enough in circulation that you can get these from any bank? If so, I'd like to have a bit of fun soon, but I thought they stopped printing these long ago...
Best Buy doesn't need to focus on customer service at all... brick-and-mortar stores are becoming a niche market for a) those who don't shop online and b) when you need something right now and can't wait for it to ship. There's always a market, and at least a few suckers to buy extended warranties, so there's no need for them to treat their customers well.
But I think next time I go to the bank I'm definitely grabbing a few of those things ;-)
Gentoo's mangling of Apache is horrible. I just wish they would leave the default config file in one place. I also don't like how you have to edit /etc/conf.d/apache2 to turn on PHP, SSL, and so on...
It means that the block is on "standby" to be overwritten. If it weren't swapped, reallocating the physical RAM block would require saving the block to disk, which is slow. However, putting it on "standby" by saving it to disk when the OS has free time means it is quick to access it if it isn't reallocated, and quick to overwrite it if it is reallocated.
He said "space", not "range". It means if another program needs memory space, it can immediately be assigned the block, because it has already been saved to disk.
Sorry, it does. But it's already on disk, so it doesn't matter. Linux, in fact, does the same thing. The kernel is clever about realizing when it would be more efficient to swap a rarely-used page of memory out and use it as disk cache instead. Oh, and the curses have a nice amplifying effect on your confusion.
To quote you, "isn't that the whole idea of memory protection?" Indeed, you can't use another process's virtual memory, but you can certainly use its physical memory. That's part of virtual memory--physical RAM can be shared between processes by swapping/paging it in and out when needed.
Hmmm... that's an interesting idea. The question is, how far do the IP rights extend for a game? Is allowing someone to play it remotely okay? Is allowing someone to play the game remotely even if it's not using that board okay?
Yes, but you weren't using your Scrabble set if you played on the site. You were using his application. It didn't require you to own a Scrabble set, and thus (theoretically) could have taken business away from Hasbro.
Yes, because with the park, you pay Hasbro for the Scrabble sets you use. The creator of this site doesn't.
w00t!
Yeah, the Pentium-M is an awesome chip. I have one on my laptop, and they don't just get awesome battery life, but they feel really snappy. (Part of that is that having 64k L1 cache, 2 MB L2 cache, and usually around 256-384 MB of unused memory being used as disk cache by Linux makes disk access often unnecessary.) I really can't wait until the dual-core ones next year.
Yes, first, click-through EULA's are iffy anyway, and second, if you can extract the data from the SETUP.EXE program, you can do anything, since their site allows downloads without accepting the EULA!
On the Trial Download page, there are 5 checkboxes you "have" to agree to. If you don't check them, and click Download, it still lets you download with agreeing!
The reason they are doing this is really obvious: One of the obvious advantages to most Linux distributions is that they usually come out with patches within a day of vulnerabilities, and the patches are available immediately. Windows, on the other hand, patches once a week or once a month. Ovbiously, Linux looks better here. By offering the government a faster patch cycle, they are trying to compete with the Linux distributions and make themselves look better again.
Here's what the FAQ has to say on the matter:
I don't know how many comments had been posted (significantly fewer than the original article?) but if it's not too many I guess they will just take it down.
Have you ever used GNOME for a while? It is a little more complicated, but I find that, compared to KDE, it is much more consistent and explorable. (I think GNOME vs. KDE is a left- vs. right-brain thing: GNOME appeals more to logical, analytical people while KDE appeals more to intuitive and creative people. Maybe I'm just making stuff up.)
Um... because if vulnerable software is out there, it can be exploited. As we know with Microsoft's slow Windows patch cycle versus the constant updating of most Linux distros package repositories, it's better to disclose vulnerabilities early, write patches quickly, and distribute a fix before anyone can exploit it. Forcing people not to disclose details just adds one more person and one more vulnerability to the list of ways you don't know about to exploit your software.
I'm sure it is possible to ship one binary for 5 versions of Windows, but most websites have separate listings... maybe that's just for organization, I don't know.
Do you work for ATI or Nvidia? (They're the companies most often accused of bad Linux support--Nvidia tries, I think, but ATI just doesn't do anything. I don't know much about this since I'm too cheap to be interested in drivers other than intelfb and i915.)