But it doesn't need it's own special key. Any combination of keys could be programmed to send the PRTSCR keycode, without needing a dedicated key.
Also true for every other key. In fact, you could just have one key and if you keep hitting it it cycles through all of the keycodes until you get to the one you want. Then you pause and go on to the next one. Seems very elegant to me. Put the most-used characters at the front of the list: etaoin...
Please do not give Lenovo ideas. i can see someone there looking at this and thinking:
1) It lower costs 2) We can claim is makes simpler to use 3) It makes it look more elegant
Okay - so how do you POSSIBLY apply a statistical analysis on something as subjective as a womans physical attractiveness?
Just walk around with a notebook and walk around, writing down whether women you see are attractive or not. When you've seen 50-ish women, you've got a decent statistical sample.
Walk around noting stuff win a notebook in London, and you will probably get arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
In summary its the idiots who think that all naked depictions of children are porn (I wonder when they are going to demand that all those paintings in the National Gallery showing cupids etc. are destroyed?).
vs
Idiots who think that full body scanning is anything other than an unacceptable intrusion and that focusing on security theatre instead of intelligence reduces the threat from terrorism and that terrorism is a significant threat to begin with.
Except the BBC does not have to pay dividends, and is ultimately held accountable - they need to have enough support to stop Murdoch etc. pressuring the government into cutting the money off.
Britain is going to make a fortune on Shakespeare, the KJV Bible etc. The latter was even commissioned by the government of the day so there are no awkward questions about whether the government of the descendants of the creators get the royalties.
The people creating web forms etc. are paying customers.
Those of us just reading a lot of PDFs, or generating them using free (as in unpaid, as opposed to speech) software, are not doing anything for Adobe, apart from increasing acceptance of the format, so what we want counts for little.
Konqueror is now pretty good, except that it seems to have become unstable.
Arora is fast and well designed, but has a bug that makes t refuses to accept perfectly valid SSL certs, and does not let you force it to accept them either.
None of them (including Opera) can handle large numbers of tabs open at once anything like as well as Firefox plus tree style tabs.
There are lots of places where you can anonymously use open wifi networks- McDonald's has free wifi. Most public libraries have free wifi (although some might require you to log in with your library ID).
Not for long. Free wifi providers have already been fined for users copyright infringements in Britain, so they will have to keep track of users to avoid that.
In addition, I doubt that loophole in the monitoring rules will be allowed to continue for long
Neighbors that don't secure their networks essentially give you free wifi.
That will work in Belarus too, unless they ban wi-fi.
BOFH is funny, but in real life stupidity and CYA are bigger problems than malice.
People very often simply do not think. For example, the guy who set a filter to block "alcohol and tobacco related sites" probably did not realise that I needed to to reach the corporate sites of the major companies in the sectors for work related reasons. I sent them a request and it was unblocked, but it wasted time.
The other problem is that it is a lot safer for the admin to block everything, than, for example, risking having the management getting annoyed because someone failed to black porn sites and the company is being sued for sexual harassment by someone who saw a port site of a colleagues shoulder.
You are missing the point. The construction workers, maids etc. are often enslaved. This guy was a CEO, or fairly senior.
The Saudis, Emiratis, Kuwaitis etc. are almost racists, and the countries are tyrannies far worse than the West's enemies like Iran, Libya, Syria Saddam Hussain etc: Syria, Iran and Iraq allow minorities freedom of worship, and religious minorities where much better off under Saddam Hussein than they are in Iraq now.
It's very easy to defend free speech from your comfortable home in a stable society, but if you live in a less fortunate country then you have to take a different route to prevent people dying unnecessarily.
OK, so I live in a less fortunate country, there have been ethnic and religious riots, and a thirty year long ethnic civil war that has kill at least a 100,000 people, and I am a member of ethnic and religious minorities that many of the majority regard with hostility.
I still want free speech. Free speech is only a cause of problems in the short term. In the long term, getting people to respect other' free speech is essential, both in itself, and as a guarantee of other rights (freedom or worship requires freedom of speech, democracy requires the ability to debate and criticise freely.
Then there is the question of why "more fortunate" countries limit free speech. Ireland just passed a blasphemy law. The UK has an array of hate speech laws, a vaguely worded law against saying anything that might encouraging terrorism, another against possessing anything that might be of help to terrorists (including books, films etc.) and libel laws that make it very difficult to say anything critical of anyone who can afford to sue.
The common factor seems to be not allowing speech that might upset people.
from believing, without proof, of a magic being in the skyfrom believing, without proof, of a magic being in the sky
Another straw man argument. See my previous comment - people believe in God's existence for a reasons. Many of us have spent a lot of time thinking about whether the evidence convinces us or not. . Many of us have chagned our minds: since my teens from uncertain, to Christian, to agnostic, to Christian again.
So what? Every new idea is preached with equal fervour by someone. You could say the same about any political belief, the new atheism, some scientific theories, medical treatments (both mainstream and alternative). We cannot classify all of them as religions.
I do not know what Pratchett had in mind, but to me it undermines the Discworld's gods. They are not exactly very godly, are they?
The golem is willing to believe in a God whose existence can be proved by pure reason (like Descartes thought he had). That would have to be a theistic God whose presence is universal.
They have the moral responsibility, enforced on them by their religious hierarchy, all the way up to their Creator, who, by the way, created you too, to stop you drinking on Sunday.
Citation needed. That is definitely not true of Christianity, apart from heretical fundamentalists groups.
Faith trumps all. Logic, scientific evidence, physical the-tears-on-that-Madonna-statue-are-vegetable-oil evidence, common sense, anything.
Many people's faith is based on reason. Stop sprouting prejudices and ask some intelligent and articulate people why they beleive what they do - or just read something like CS Lewis's Surprised by Joy.
rewrote their holy books with more sophistication, and redefined and retranslated as necessary to keep up with progress.
So altering your beliefs in the light of new evidence is a bad thing, according to you?
The latest one I've heard is the Vatican suggesting that life on other planets in the universe may be possible. That's directly opposite what their holy book has said for a couple of thousand years
The most enduring example of Slashdot group think is the way any lengthy anti-religious comment gets modded up regardless of inaccuracies and straw man arguments.
There is something a lot broader than "protecting" religion going on. There is a global trend towards outlawing any speech that offends anyone. This is just the latest in a whole array of hate speech laws in many European countries: you cannot say something that is offensive to any ethnic group, gays, and now any religious group, and probably a whole lot of other groups.
The other, and equally sinister, trend, has been to redefine religion as a membership of a group, rather than a statement of ideas. This means that it no longer matters whether a religion is true or not, just whether its where you belong or not.
I have lived in two countries (and I am a citizen of both). I am in both ethnic and religious minorities in both. I do not want to be protected from being offended. I do want to be free to say what I think, and for everyone else to say what they think.
The idea that speech that you disagree with should be free is dying.
I obviously agree (see my other reply), and I would not want censorship either. One solution would be a calm, fact based approach from "leaders": e.g. "OK the terrorists killed some people, but its nothing to the numbers we have lost in real wars, so it should not be something that worries us at a national level. Its multiple murder and will be dealt with as such."
Unfortunately there are more votes in playing along with the terrorists and hyping them up (yes, I am saying that the British, American, and other governments help terrorists achieve their aims because there are votes in it).
My theory: Terrorists are motivated by the belief that they can change the world for the better through acts of terrorism. Only someone fairly stupid is likely to believe this. Therefore terrorists are usually stupid. Not always because an otherwise intelligent person can believe something stupid, and because terrorism might achieve an aim the terrorists believes to be good as part of a larger campaign (e.g. by demoralising the other side in a war, diverting forces from the front line to homeland defence, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
But it doesn't need it's own special key. Any combination of keys could be programmed to send the PRTSCR keycode, without needing a dedicated key.
Also true for every other key. In fact, you could just have one key and if you keep hitting it it cycles through all of the keycodes until you get to the one you want. Then you pause and go on to the next one. Seems very elegant to me. Put the most-used characters at the front of the list: etaoin...
Please do not give Lenovo ideas. i can see someone there looking at this and thinking:
1) It lower costs
2) We can claim is makes simpler to use
3) It makes it look more elegant
Lets do it!
Okay - so how do you POSSIBLY apply a statistical analysis on something as subjective as a womans physical attractiveness?
Just walk around with a notebook and walk around, writing down whether women you see are attractive or not. When you've seen 50-ish women, you've got a decent statistical sample.
Walk around noting stuff win a notebook in London, and you will probably get arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
Great way to miss the point.
He was talking about why the industry chooses to target a particular group of infringers.
You are talking about whether they are justified in infringing or not.
In summary its the idiots who think that all naked depictions of children are porn (I wonder when they are going to demand that all those paintings in the National Gallery showing cupids etc. are destroyed?).
vs
Idiots who think that full body scanning is anything other than an unacceptable intrusion and that focusing on security theatre instead of intelligence reduces the threat from terrorism and that terrorism is a significant threat to begin with.
Except the BBC does not have to pay dividends, and is ultimately held accountable - they need to have enough support to stop Murdoch etc. pressuring the government into cutting the money off.
Britain is going to make a fortune on Shakespeare, the KJV Bible etc. The latter was even commissioned by the government of the day so there are no awkward questions about whether the government of the descendants of the creators get the royalties.
The people creating web forms etc. are paying customers.
Those of us just reading a lot of PDFs, or generating them using free (as in unpaid, as opposed to speech) software, are not doing anything for Adobe, apart from increasing acceptance of the format, so what we want counts for little.
Emacs is fairly lightweight - for an OS.
Midori is now pretty stable.
Konqueror is now pretty good, except that it seems to have become unstable.
Arora is fast and well designed, but has a bug that makes t refuses to accept perfectly valid SSL certs, and does not let you force it to accept them either.
None of them (including Opera) can handle large numbers of tabs open at once anything like as well as Firefox plus tree style tabs.
MySQL has plenty of affordable shared hosting providers. What company do you recommend for hosting web sites based on PostgreSQL?
Nearly Free Speech, Webfaction, Django hosting (they do PHP too) or Mythic Beasts. Virtual servers are also affordable these days.
Between the above they cover everything from very cheap to as expensive as a dedicated server but worth it.
There are lots of places where you can anonymously use open wifi networks- McDonald's has free wifi. Most public libraries have free wifi (although some might require you to log in with your library ID).
Not for long. Free wifi providers have already been fined for users copyright infringements in Britain, so they will have to keep track of users to avoid that.
In addition, I doubt that loophole in the monitoring rules will be allowed to continue for long
Neighbors that don't secure their networks essentially give you free wifi.
That will work in Belarus too, unless they ban wi-fi.
BOFH is funny, but in real life stupidity and CYA are bigger problems than malice.
People very often simply do not think. For example, the guy who set a filter to block "alcohol and tobacco related sites" probably did not realise that I needed to to reach the corporate sites of the major companies in the sectors for work related reasons. I sent them a request and it was unblocked, but it wasted time.
The other problem is that it is a lot safer for the admin to block everything, than, for example, risking having the management getting annoyed because someone failed to black porn sites and the company is being sued for sexual harassment by someone who saw a port site of a colleagues shoulder.
You are missing the point. The construction workers, maids etc. are often enslaved. This guy was a CEO, or fairly senior.
The Saudis, Emiratis, Kuwaitis etc. are almost racists, and the countries are tyrannies far worse than the West's enemies like Iran, Libya, Syria Saddam Hussain etc: Syria, Iran and Iraq allow minorities freedom of worship, and religious minorities where much better off under Saddam Hussein than they are in Iraq now.
It's very easy to defend free speech from your comfortable home in a stable society, but if you live in a less fortunate country then you have to take a different route to prevent people dying unnecessarily.
OK, so I live in a less fortunate country, there have been ethnic and religious riots, and a thirty year long ethnic civil war that has kill at least a 100,000 people, and I am a member of ethnic and religious minorities that many of the majority regard with hostility.
I still want free speech. Free speech is only a cause of problems in the short term. In the long term, getting people to respect other' free speech is essential, both in itself, and as a guarantee of other rights (freedom or worship requires freedom of speech, democracy requires the ability to debate and criticise freely.
Then there is the question of why "more fortunate" countries limit free speech. Ireland just passed a blasphemy law. The UK has an array of hate speech laws, a vaguely worded law against saying anything that might encouraging terrorism, another against possessing anything that might be of help to terrorists (including books, films etc.) and libel laws that make it very difficult to say anything critical of anyone who can afford to sue.
The common factor seems to be not allowing speech that might upset people.
from believing, without proof, of a magic being in the skyfrom believing, without proof, of a magic being in the sky
Another straw man argument. See my previous comment - people believe in God's existence for a reasons. Many of us have spent a lot of time thinking about whether the evidence convinces us or not. . Many of us have chagned our minds: since my teens from uncertain, to Christian, to agnostic, to Christian again.
Theists believe there is one and only one God.
Polytheists believe that there are many Gods.
Pantheists believe that thre is one God and that everything that exists is a manifestation of that God.
Christians, Muslims and Hindus are theists.
Educated Hindus are usually pantheists, but the less sophistiacted are often polytheists.
A pure form of Buddhism can be atheist, but, in practice, many Buddhists worship the Buddha, and in some countires Hindu gods as well.
So what? Every new idea is preached with equal fervour by someone. You could say the same about any political belief, the new atheism, some scientific theories, medical treatments (both mainstream and alternative). We cannot classify all of them as religions.
I do not know what Pratchett had in mind, but to me it undermines the Discworld's gods. They are not exactly very godly, are they?
The golem is willing to believe in a God whose existence can be proved by pure reason (like Descartes thought he had). That would have to be a theistic God whose presence is universal.
They have the moral responsibility, enforced on them by their religious hierarchy, all the way up to their Creator, who, by the way, created you too, to stop you drinking on Sunday.
Citation needed. That is definitely not true of Christianity, apart from heretical fundamentalists groups.
Faith trumps all. Logic, scientific evidence, physical the-tears-on-that-Madonna-statue-are-vegetable-oil evidence, common sense, anything.
Many people's faith is based on reason. Stop sprouting prejudices and ask some intelligent and articulate people why they beleive what they do - or just read something like CS Lewis's Surprised by Joy.
rewrote their holy books with more sophistication, and redefined and retranslated as necessary to keep up with progress.
So altering your beliefs in the light of new evidence is a bad thing, according to you?
The latest one I've heard is the Vatican suggesting that life on other planets in the universe may be possible. That's directly opposite what their holy book has said for a couple of thousand years
Plain wrong. Read the third paragraph of this http://www.disf.org/en/Voci/65.asp
The most enduring example of Slashdot group think is the way any lengthy anti-religious comment gets modded up regardless of inaccuracies and straw man arguments.
The law will only be enforced against those who:
1) offend a religion the authorities favour, or,
2) are people the authorities want to get.
There is something a lot broader than "protecting" religion going on. There is a global trend towards outlawing any speech that offends anyone. This is just the latest in a whole array of hate speech laws in many European countries: you cannot say something that is offensive to any ethnic group, gays, and now any religious group, and probably a whole lot of other groups.
The other, and equally sinister, trend, has been to redefine religion as a membership of a group, rather than a statement of ideas. This means that it no longer matters whether a religion is true or not, just whether its where you belong or not.
I have lived in two countries (and I am a citizen of both). I am in both ethnic and religious minorities in both. I do not want to be protected from being offended. I do want to be free to say what I think, and for everyone else to say what they think.
The idea that speech that you disagree with should be free is dying.
So assume that the quality of coverage is the same on all subjects. I have been doing that for years.
If you want expertise read what an expert has written - for example, if you want to follow economic news, read a few economists blogs.
Exactly me immediate reaction. How intelligent do these guys expect an elephant to be?
I obviously agree (see my other reply), and I would not want censorship either. One solution would be a calm, fact based approach from "leaders": e.g. "OK the terrorists killed some people, but its nothing to the numbers we have lost in real wars, so it should not be something that worries us at a national level. Its multiple murder and will be dealt with as such."
Unfortunately there are more votes in playing along with the terrorists and hyping them up (yes, I am saying that the British, American, and other governments help terrorists achieve their aims because there are votes in it).
In fact terrorists do not usually seem to be competent engineers.
My favourite example of this are the absurd attempts at car bombs aimed at London and Glasgow.
My theory: Terrorists are motivated by the belief that they can change the world for the better through acts of terrorism. Only someone fairly stupid is likely to believe this. Therefore terrorists are usually stupid. Not always because an otherwise intelligent person can believe something stupid, and because terrorism might achieve an aim the terrorists believes to be good as part of a larger campaign (e.g. by demoralising the other side in a war, diverting forces from the front line to homeland defence, etc.)