Loose what exactly? The 20 minutes of their time that it took to complete the offer?
AFAICS this is why freeipods.com is so popular - the people of a reasonable intelligence level see that they may (probably?) won't get anything from it, but considering the price (and the amount of junk mail that we all recieve anyway) it seems like a gamble worth taking.
Many people don't need PDA functions, and even for those of us who do the standalones have advantages:
1) Price - a 4GB SD card will cost much more than a flash based 4GB MP3 player.
2) Size - iPod minis and shuffles are smaller than any PDA on the market and even the biggest current iPod Photos compare favourably on pocket real estate.
3) Capacity - 60GB SD card or even CF microdrive? I don't think so. Fair enough, most people don't need the full 60, but even the sensible 20GB capacity doesn't have any real competition from publically available cards, and plenty of people like to have their whole music collection with them to choose whatever they feel like hearing.
4) Ease of use - iPods are set out (extremely nicely) to play and organise music. PDAs are not, and as such have loading times, fiddly small buttons and touchscreens that are hard to use one handed.
5) Battery life - big fat backlit colour touchscreen or small, clear, functional monochrome display.
So you're saying that sites telling you how to grow cannabis should be illegal since doing so is against the law? I thought it was the act that was illegal, isn't information freely available?
Re:How about a cheap, non-disposable phone?
on
Cell Phone On A Chip
·
· Score: 1
If I could buy a new (possibly smaller, lighter, more battery-efficent) cell phone I would - but stores don't carry anything that basic. You have to spend at least $100 (CDN) for anything wihout a plan, and I'm sure the lion's share of that is going towards a colour screen and features I don't want.
Nokia 1100. Black and white screen, long life lithium battery, not much else. Costs less than £30 ($55) without contract.
Why do people keep saying this? It's not like you can't buy basic phones for near-nothing on the second hand market (think Nokia 3310) or even brand new basic models (Nokia 1100) which have the advantages of modern lithium batteries, an LED light (surprisingly useful), lighter weight, big buttons with good feedback and to top it all the things are damn near indestructible. These phones can be bought without contract for less than £30 ($55).
I do want a camera on my phone - it's no substitute for a real camera but it's nice for uses like "What do you think of this shirt?" or "I'm near this building, come and meet me." or even just snapping unusual sights. I do want web and email on my phone, simply for the convenience of quick checking without finding hotspots or a spot to plug in a cable. It's not like you can't buy a cheap, basic, tough, reliable phone, so why are you complaining about me having the features I want on mine?
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U
on
US Stem Cells Contaminated
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
For the purposes of this post I will treat these embryos as if they are a human life. Whether I believe this myself is not an issue, since I am trying to see this from Bush's point of view and he clearly sees them as 'hav[ing] the potential for life'.
President Bush made the decision to attack Iraq and has justified that by saying that the war is beneficial to the Iraqis in the end as it brings them democracy. His opinion therefore must be that the benefit of life without pain and persecution for the many now and all those who will live there in the future is worth the sacrafice of a few thousand actual, adult, human lives. All of this was done using many billions of tax dollars.
President Bush accepts that stem cell research has 'promise and potential' for saving lives and relieveing pain by forming treatments for currently incurable conditions. Some embryos need to be sacraficed (not really my first choice of words, but it illustrates the point) to benefit the many now and all in the future. Yet Bush now thinks that saving the potential lives of the few outweigh the benefits to the many, at least where tax money is concerned.
Whether you agree or disagree with me on either of these issues, don't you think that this is a serious case of double-standards?
While I refuse on principle to install WMP on my OSX box, the fact is that not having it has (AFAICS) put me at a disadvantage in that VLC (my primary player, handles near-anything & is FOSS) can only handle some.wmv files (and wmv files are the only things I've seen that it won't accept).
As a non-MS using geek I have had to make a conscious decision (sensible or otherwise) not to use that particular piece of software and thereby deprived myself of certain content. For an average Windows user to firstly know what WMP is when IE tells them it 'Needs to be installed to view content', secondly see any reason not to install it and thirdly put up with 'Broken files' not playing because the alternatives won't play the.wmv is pretty damn unlikely.
If I can in any way at all afford it I'll be on a trip into space at some point in my life for no other reason than it's a dream of mine and always has been to do it. I think there are enough people like me to provide a fair amount of return on any development costs, and that's going up there essentially just for the experience of it. This should provide incentive to develop further and maybe go on to some useful mining operations and the like, as previous posters have said.
The other nice thing about this 'private space race' is that it's stimulating competition between some of the world's best business and engineering minds. This is exactly how capitalism is supposed to work - competition for the ultimate share of the profits leads to better products and developments from everyone. Looking at the level of people involved I'm willing to be there's going to be some cool tech made in this race. There isn't a viable replacement for Concorde yet for a start...
Meta tags are there to hold any type of metainformation (but mostly there for people who view document source;) )
Completely off topic, but whenever anybody mentions meta tags I just think of Whois.sc (a great whois site by the way, with which my only affiliation is as a satisfied user) and their 'jedi mind trick' meta tag:
<meta name="jedi-mind-trick" content="You will bookmark this site and use it a lot.">
It's always nice to see moderation and insight on either side of the issue, but your post raises some questions on your beliefs that I'm interested to hear your views on. I am not intending to argue, just interested in how the religious mind and worldview differs from my own.
Firstly, since you believe that randomness could not have created us, what do you believe created God? It strikes me as odd that if God is the highest being, she/he/it could have occured randomly, which seems to me the logical view. I guess I'm probably looking at this comlpetely the wrong way, but I'd like to see how you see the issue.
Secondly, since you subscribe to a particular faith rather than just a belief that a higher being exists, what makes you believe that (assuming there is a higher being, which you define as 'God') God knows (or cares) who you are or whether you are a good person or not? To the ants in my garden I am a higher being with the ability to traverse vast distances and rain down fire from the sky, yet I do not know how or why they behave why they do - nor do I care. They are so different to humans that we seem like Gods compared to them but we know nothing about them and certainly have no intentional influence aside from occasionally killing them. Why would a being so much higher than us care if we live or die, let alone whether we worship him/her/it or not?
As much as it's against/. tradition, if you RTFA you'll see that the author is using a 250GB IDE drive in a USB enclosure for the hardware side of things. The new bit is KDar, a piece of software which (apparently) makes nice, shiny, compressed, sliced differential backups easy and cron-able.
I didn't say it wasn't a big deal. If his intent was indeed to kill then I'm happy for him to go to prison for as long as you like if there is a law to allow that. My point is that if he isn't a terrorist (a fact that I don't think is up for debate) he shouldn't be tried as one.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
According to the article he had no demands and we can therefore assume he was not doing this for the purposes of intimidation. Terrorists cause terror to further their own cause, mass murder != terrorism (and it sounds like he was stupid rather than malicious anyway, removing him even further from terrorism charges).
The article even states that "Justice Department officials said they do not suspect terrorism in any of the cases"
As I see it, the time isn't the issue here. The fact is that this man is not a terrorist and should not be punished under terror laws - argue for him getting more or less time to your heart's content, but do not twist the course of fair and just use of the legal system. If these laws exist for terrorism cases, use them in terrorism cases. If the rest of the existing laws are inadequate, change them, don't use that fact as an excuse to get unpopular proposals into general use through the back door with false assurances that they will only be used in very specific circumstances.
Show me another monitor that'll give a resolution like that in 21 inches (and remember this tech is intended to be consumer grade within the next few years).
I may be doing something wrong, but I'm running a respectable system (Dual 1.8GHz G5s, 1.25GB Memory) and typing in Word OSX sometimes slows to the point that it appears on screen 'word at a time' rather than each letter as I type it, and I'm not even a particularly quick typist.
The only problem with the rumours of this year's Macworld is the fact that they're going to flatten my bank account if they're true. I will be buying iWorks to replace Office Mac, I'll probably end up getting Keynote 2 even if it's not a part of iWorks (I use Keynote despite having Powerpoint as part of Office, there really is no contest and people are more inclined to listen to your presentation when there's pretty eye candy attached), I'll be getting Tiger (I guess there's gonna be a release date set for it this month), I wouldn't mind having a headless iMac as the family machine to replace the spyware laden 3 year old XP box they're using and my mobile phone contract will be up for renewal assuming that they announce the rumoured iPhone. Ouch.
Strange, I got a pass with 0 vulnerabilities reported, and I'm using 1.0 on OSX 10.3.7
It did stall IE Mac and crash Safari though. I selected "Run all available tests" in all of the browsers.
I'm inclined not to take this at face value. While they are morally lacking and put out some pretty poor (in comparison with the alternatives) software, Microsoft have historically been excellent business people.
They've already lost the hyped up WinFS, while Spotlight is still on track to arrive in the next few months. People (and governments) are realising that Linux can often do what they need cheaper and faster (OSX can also often do it better, but it costs more and the design types that need it are already using it). Now MS is risking their place in the browser market, which is bigger than it might appear on the surface - once the average grandmother is using a different browser (because the big media told her that a virus would make her computer explode if she didn't) it's putting the thought into everyone's head that maybe there's an alternative to MS, that they don't define computing.
All of that does not look like good marketing to me, but MS lives on good marketing and little more, so it would appear that there are two possible outcomes here: either MS has something up its sleeve to counteract all of the things going wrong for their image lately, or that they honestly believe in their own untouchability, in which case they might just have a hard fall coming before Longhorn is out the door.
According to the referring page the meaning comes across as 'Big dick'. http://www.tshirthell.com/hell.shtml, at the bottom of the first block of shirts on the page.
Seriously, if it hits 5 or greater on the scale, then we'll have reason to really worry.
Even if it does hit 5, it's worth noting that the probability estimation has changed twice in the space of a day. That's no insult to the mathematicians - I can't begin to grasp the variables involved here, but if the numbers can change that fast I think it's safe to assume that there's going to be more fiddling of the statistics needed in the next 24 years before we get an acurate projection.
Re:If you can't view the AVI file... Intel 263 Cod
on
Ho, Ho, Ho
·
· Score: 1
Aaarggh... The background.... it.... burns.... Someone needs santa to bring them some vague sense of aesthetics.
Slashdot Mirror
Loose what exactly? The 20 minutes of their time that it took to complete the offer?
AFAICS this is why freeipods.com is so popular - the people of a reasonable intelligence level see that they may (probably?) won't get anything from it, but considering the price (and the amount of junk mail that we all recieve anyway) it seems like a gamble worth taking.
Many people don't need PDA functions, and even for those of us who do the standalones have advantages:
1) Price - a 4GB SD card will cost much more than a flash based 4GB MP3 player.
2) Size - iPod minis and shuffles are smaller than any PDA on the market and even the biggest current iPod Photos compare favourably on pocket real estate.
3) Capacity - 60GB SD card or even CF microdrive? I don't think so. Fair enough, most people don't need the full 60, but even the sensible 20GB capacity doesn't have any real competition from publically available cards, and plenty of people like to have their whole music collection with them to choose whatever they feel like hearing.
4) Ease of use - iPods are set out (extremely nicely) to play and organise music. PDAs are not, and as such have loading times, fiddly small buttons and touchscreens that are hard to use one handed.
5) Battery life - big fat backlit colour touchscreen or small, clear, functional monochrome display.
So you're saying that sites telling you how to grow cannabis should be illegal since doing so is against the law? I thought it was the act that was illegal, isn't information freely available?
If I could buy a new (possibly smaller, lighter, more battery-efficent) cell phone I would - but stores don't carry anything that basic. You have to spend at least $100 (CDN) for anything wihout a plan, and I'm sure the lion's share of that is going towards a colour screen and features I don't want.
Nokia 1100. Black and white screen, long life lithium battery, not much else. Costs less than £30 ($55) without contract.
Why do people keep saying this? It's not like you can't buy basic phones for near-nothing on the second hand market (think Nokia 3310) or even brand new basic models (Nokia 1100) which have the advantages of modern lithium batteries, an LED light (surprisingly useful), lighter weight, big buttons with good feedback and to top it all the things are damn near indestructible. These phones can be bought without contract for less than £30 ($55).
I do want a camera on my phone - it's no substitute for a real camera but it's nice for uses like "What do you think of this shirt?" or "I'm near this building, come and meet me." or even just snapping unusual sights. I do want web and email on my phone, simply for the convenience of quick checking without finding hotspots or a spot to plug in a cable. It's not like you can't buy a cheap, basic, tough, reliable phone, so why are you complaining about me having the features I want on mine?
For the purposes of this post I will treat these embryos as if they are a human life. Whether I believe this myself is not an issue, since I am trying to see this from Bush's point of view and he clearly sees them as 'hav[ing] the potential for life'.
President Bush made the decision to attack Iraq and has justified that by saying that the war is beneficial to the Iraqis in the end as it brings them democracy. His opinion therefore must be that the benefit of life without pain and persecution for the many now and all those who will live there in the future is worth the sacrafice of a few thousand actual, adult, human lives. All of this was done using many billions of tax dollars.
President Bush accepts that stem cell research has 'promise and potential' for saving lives and relieveing pain by forming treatments for currently incurable conditions. Some embryos need to be sacraficed (not really my first choice of words, but it illustrates the point) to benefit the many now and all in the future. Yet Bush now thinks that saving the potential lives of the few outweigh the benefits to the many, at least where tax money is concerned.
Whether you agree or disagree with me on either of these issues, don't you think that this is a serious case of double-standards?
While I refuse on principle to install WMP on my OSX box, the fact is that not having it has (AFAICS) put me at a disadvantage in that VLC (my primary player, handles near-anything & is FOSS) can only handle some .wmv files (and wmv files are the only things I've seen that it won't accept).
.wmv is pretty damn unlikely.
As a non-MS using geek I have had to make a conscious decision (sensible or otherwise) not to use that particular piece of software and thereby deprived myself of certain content. For an average Windows user to firstly know what WMP is when IE tells them it 'Needs to be installed to view content', secondly see any reason not to install it and thirdly put up with 'Broken files' not playing because the alternatives won't play the
If I can in any way at all afford it I'll be on a trip into space at some point in my life for no other reason than it's a dream of mine and always has been to do it. I think there are enough people like me to provide a fair amount of return on any development costs, and that's going up there essentially just for the experience of it. This should provide incentive to develop further and maybe go on to some useful mining operations and the like, as previous posters have said.
The other nice thing about this 'private space race' is that it's stimulating competition between some of the world's best business and engineering minds. This is exactly how capitalism is supposed to work - competition for the ultimate share of the profits leads to better products and developments from everyone. Looking at the level of people involved I'm willing to be there's going to be some cool tech made in this race. There isn't a viable replacement for Concorde yet for a start...
Completely off topic, but whenever anybody mentions meta tags I just think of Whois.sc (a great whois site by the way, with which my only affiliation is as a satisfied user) and their 'jedi mind trick' meta tag:
It's always nice to see moderation and insight on either side of the issue, but your post raises some questions on your beliefs that I'm interested to hear your views on. I am not intending to argue, just interested in how the religious mind and worldview differs from my own.
Firstly, since you believe that randomness could not have created us, what do you believe created God? It strikes me as odd that if God is the highest being, she/he/it could have occured randomly, which seems to me the logical view. I guess I'm probably looking at this comlpetely the wrong way, but I'd like to see how you see the issue.
Secondly, since you subscribe to a particular faith rather than just a belief that a higher being exists, what makes you believe that (assuming there is a higher being, which you define as 'God') God knows (or cares) who you are or whether you are a good person or not? To the ants in my garden I am a higher being with the ability to traverse vast distances and rain down fire from the sky, yet I do not know how or why they behave why they do - nor do I care. They are so different to humans that we seem like Gods compared to them but we know nothing about them and certainly have no intentional influence aside from occasionally killing them. Why would a being so much higher than us care if we live or die, let alone whether we worship him/her/it or not?
As much as it's against /. tradition, if you RTFA you'll see that the author is using a 250GB IDE drive in a USB enclosure for the hardware side of things. The new bit is KDar, a piece of software which (apparently) makes nice, shiny, compressed, sliced differential backups easy and cron-able.
My reply to almost the same question from another AC who was modded down.
I didn't say it wasn't a big deal. If his intent was indeed to kill then I'm happy for him to go to prison for as long as you like if there is a law to allow that. My point is that if he isn't a terrorist (a fact that I don't think is up for debate) he shouldn't be tried as one.
The article even states that "Justice Department officials said they do not suspect terrorism in any of the cases"
As I see it, the time isn't the issue here. The fact is that this man is not a terrorist and should not be punished under terror laws - argue for him getting more or less time to your heart's content, but do not twist the course of fair and just use of the legal system. If these laws exist for terrorism cases, use them in terrorism cases. If the rest of the existing laws are inadequate, change them, don't use that fact as an excuse to get unpopular proposals into general use through the back door with false assurances that they will only be used in very specific circumstances.
Show me another monitor that'll give a resolution like that in 21 inches (and remember this tech is intended to be consumer grade within the next few years).
I may be doing something wrong, but I'm running a respectable system (Dual 1.8GHz G5s, 1.25GB Memory) and typing in Word OSX sometimes slows to the point that it appears on screen 'word at a time' rather than each letter as I type it, and I'm not even a particularly quick typist.
The only problem with the rumours of this year's Macworld is the fact that they're going to flatten my bank account if they're true. I will be buying iWorks to replace Office Mac, I'll probably end up getting Keynote 2 even if it's not a part of iWorks (I use Keynote despite having Powerpoint as part of Office, there really is no contest and people are more inclined to listen to your presentation when there's pretty eye candy attached), I'll be getting Tiger (I guess there's gonna be a release date set for it this month), I wouldn't mind having a headless iMac as the family machine to replace the spyware laden 3 year old XP box they're using and my mobile phone contract will be up for renewal assuming that they announce the rumoured iPhone. Ouch.
Strange, I got a pass with 0 vulnerabilities reported, and I'm using 1.0 on OSX 10.3.7 It did stall IE Mac and crash Safari though. I selected "Run all available tests" in all of the browsers.
I'm inclined not to take this at face value. While they are morally lacking and put out some pretty poor (in comparison with the alternatives) software, Microsoft have historically been excellent business people.
They've already lost the hyped up WinFS, while Spotlight is still on track to arrive in the next few months. People (and governments) are realising that Linux can often do what they need cheaper and faster (OSX can also often do it better, but it costs more and the design types that need it are already using it). Now MS is risking their place in the browser market, which is bigger than it might appear on the surface - once the average grandmother is using a different browser (because the big media told her that a virus would make her computer explode if she didn't) it's putting the thought into everyone's head that maybe there's an alternative to MS, that they don't define computing.
All of that does not look like good marketing to me, but MS lives on good marketing and little more, so it would appear that there are two possible outcomes here: either MS has something up its sleeve to counteract all of the things going wrong for their image lately, or that they honestly believe in their own untouchability, in which case they might just have a hard fall coming before Longhorn is out the door.
665.95: Retail price of the Beast
According to the referring page the meaning comes across as 'Big dick'. http://www.tshirthell.com/hell.shtml, at the bottom of the first block of shirts on the page.
Time to figure out what the Kanji on the back your T-shirt says?
c tid=292
http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?produ
Seriously, if it hits 5 or greater on the scale, then we'll have reason to really worry.
Even if it does hit 5, it's worth noting that the probability estimation has changed twice in the space of a day. That's no insult to the mathematicians - I can't begin to grasp the variables involved here, but if the numbers can change that fast I think it's safe to assume that there's going to be more fiddling of the statistics needed in the next 24 years before we get an acurate projection.
Aaarggh...
The background.... it.... burns....
Someone needs santa to bring them some vague sense of aesthetics.
Firefox 1.0 on OSX doesn't seem to mind it.