Heh heh... Netstat shows that the site has been regularly receiving 10-20 hits a day, but the second it was posted on Slashdot the traffic has shot up to several thousand!
For me, the whole point of the BBC's safety net licence fee was to allow it to create stuff that was *not necessarily popular*, but that provided a public service. Supposedly 'high quality' dramas (I think most of them suck), and educational programmes, as well as unbiased news. These days, the news is far from unbiased, and most of the programmes they put out are rubbish. If their only measure of success is how many people watch the programme, they don't need special funding because they could be successful as a commercial broadcaster (lots of viewers = lots of ad/subscription revenue).
This is a rather dumb idea. Without UV radiation that comes from the sun through windows, humans would become very ill or die. I'm sure there are other health issues with not having any natural light as well, not least for the eyes.
Also, can you imagine what would happen if there was a power cut? "Oh shit, the sky went out again!"
There is a clause in EU law which gives citizens the right to receive broadcasts, making the TV license illegal.
I'm not sure how 'clear cut' this clause is; that's why we're having the test cast on Jonathan Miller right now to see whether it will hold water. Isn't there something in the very same EU law (human rights legislation?) that gives countries a right not to follow the law if it's in the interests of the people, or something?
I don't know, maybe there is. But I don't see it as my job, as a TV viewer, to fund a public sector broadcaster. And frankly, I think that most of what the BBC puts out is complete crap, and no better than a commercial broadcaster. There are one or two notable exceptions (EastEnders), but most commercial broadcasters have 1 or 2 hit shows that keep people watching them too.
If you look at the BBC recently, they have been getting more commercialized by the day anyway. Their self-confessed measure of success is how many people watch the programmes they put out. That makes them just as 'bad' as any commercial broadcaster.
Well, i could give you a massive rant with about a million and one reasons why I don't support the licence fee such as TV Licensing's aggressive bullying tactics that enforce it, or its inherent unfairness to the British people because people outside Britain get the BBC's benefits for free, but I won't.
Basically it's just a matter of choice. ie. I should have the choice to pay whoever I want for whatever I want to watch. The licence fee is like a mandatory tax on CD-Rs that goes to pay the RIAA, except that it's British, and it goes to pay the BBC, an organization whose benefits are felt the world over! Extremely unfair to the British people, IMHO.
Erm, are you measuring IQ on a different scale to the rest of us or something? When we take an IQ test here, we're told that 100 is average, so that's where the 50/50 split occurs. An IQ of 129 is pretty damn good, and 180 is almost impossible to get on a standard IQ test.
seriously though, how will this prevent a rootkit/worm/whatever from copying the part of the memory that has the boxs contents?
As this is being introduced alongside the Palladium architecture, presumably that part of the memory would be out of bounds to Mr. Worm/rootkit, and it wouldn't be able to access the secure data.
But laptops will not be replaced by tablets until handwriting recognition becomes just as fast (if not faster) than typing, with reduced errors.
That's *never* going to happen, and I'll tell you why I know this. Because I can type much faster than I can write, and with somewhat less strain on my wrists. I don't think there's any denying that a well-trained touch typist can type faster than the fastest writer on the planet. Writing is just slower. For the purposes of inputting stuff into a computer, it's simply obsolete, which makes this new-fangled 'handwriting recognition' stuff all the more strange.
OK, it's a passable replacement for a notepad, but that's about it. And I hate to say it, but given the choice of a palmtop or a pen and paper, i'd go for the latter. Not as bad for my eyes, *far* more natural, probably faster than waiting for the computer to analyse your writing, probably more accurate, etc.
Actually, it seems to me that, because what we think of as 'math' is just labels that are applied to certain abstract concepts, it is actually testable. 1+1=2. How can logic deny that?
I've been saying it for a long time, and I'll say it again: The Matrix Reloaded is going to be shit. I won't be wasting any money on it. Having got people's attention with a (half) decent storyline in the original, the next 2 movies will proceed to cash in on the franchise using special effects and preventing the director from having to think about the storyline. Don't watch it. Boycott it, make them lose money on it, and show the movie industry that we don't want this crap! Unless you do.
Re:NEWSFLASH, NTFS is a journaling filesystem!
on
Looking at Longhorn
·
· Score: 1
It's interesting, and this is exactly what happens on my system with XP. Whenever it has crashed, it seems to have corrupted the drive to some extent, as I use FAT32 for backwards compatibility (DOS games run in Win98). NTFS may sort this out; however, when I used to run Win95 and Win98 as my main OS, I *very* frequently just turned the machine off without shutting down. I also disabled Scandisk on startup as I found it to be totally unnecessary - the disk was never corrupted! In summary - FAT32 drives seem to get corrupted in Windows XP/NT when you don't shut down properly, but in Win95/98 you can just turn off without a problem. Weird.
One of the executives briefed on the silence program said that it did not work properly and was being reworked because it was deleting legitimate music files, too.
Looks like we don't need to worry for some time, then. They'll be ice covering hell before the RIAA's team find a better way to code their silence program than recursive_delete("*.mp3");
And I thought this was gonna be a legitimate record. Unfortunately, they used a very specialised monorail track for this record; almost like flying. It would be far more legitimate if it had had to be done over the ground, in a car-like vehicle.
I wouldn't give you a French franc for any number of mp3s - audio CDs are bad enough, mp3 sound dreadful to anyone with a half decent gramophone.
I think you'll find it's OK. Digital technology nowadays can lower the Khz of the recording, and input all those little scratches and blips you're used to - you don't need to use the gramophone.
why are gun manufacturers responsible for the way their products are used by the public if software manufactures aren't?
Erm, I don't think that can possibly be true (IANAL). Do you know how many people die per year in the US because of irresponsible usage of guns? If the gun makers were responsible for the way their products were used by the public, they'd all have gone out of business a LONG time ago.
The FastTrack network IS decentralised, at least compared to Napster. There is no central listing of IPs/files, but rather supernode servers, which consist of users with fast connections, and these are the IPs that are queried when searching. This somewhat ingenious design results in a fast network with an almost unlimited capacity to expand, but yet which is easily searchable by users, and pretty much decentralised (I doubt Kazaa need or want to run any Napster-like indexing servers).
You can't replace recordings with live performances! Frankly, I think live performances suck. The quality is terrible, artists have usually lost their voice through the 1001 tours they've done before they get to your little town. And what's the point, really? You get to see/hear the artist in person? Through a loudspeaker? Half a mile away? I've *always* preferred the proper recording of a song to a live permformance, and whilst some people disagree with me, you can never substitute one with the other. They're totally different.
I partially agree. But, unfortunately, the logical conclusion of your argument is that we must put up with whatever the big labels throw at us, at whatever price they decide on. And many of us who 'live in front of our computers' think that sucks.
We don't deny that it's important that media is made available to the general public, the crap screened out, etc. We just think there must be a *much* better way of doing it than the status quo. Personally, I advocate the illegal pirating of material. People who 'boycott' the market are, as you said, powerless. But, like it or lump it, piracy is the only way you're gonna make a dent in outdated views, because people can both experience the media they want to, *and* not pay these companies their unreasonable excess, at the same time. Call me a criminal parasitic asshole, but you give me a better way to effect change (because we do WANT change).
What is a below-freezing IQ? Is it possible to have a negative IQ then? Unless you're thinking in Farenheit, in which case *ahem* you should upgrade to metric.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh heh... Netstat shows that the site has been regularly receiving 10-20 hits a day, but the second it was posted on Slashdot the traffic has shot up to several thousand!
You're American, aren't you? :-)
For me, the whole point of the BBC's safety net licence fee was to allow it to create stuff that was *not necessarily popular*, but that provided a public service. Supposedly 'high quality' dramas (I think most of them suck), and educational programmes, as well as unbiased news. These days, the news is far from unbiased, and most of the programmes they put out are rubbish. If their only measure of success is how many people watch the programme, they don't need special funding because they could be successful as a commercial broadcaster (lots of viewers = lots of ad/subscription revenue).
This is a rather dumb idea. Without UV radiation that comes from the sun through windows, humans would become very ill or die. I'm sure there are other health issues with not having any natural light as well, not least for the eyes.
Also, can you imagine what would happen if there was a power cut? "Oh shit, the sky went out again!"
There is a clause in EU law which gives citizens the right to receive broadcasts, making the TV license illegal.
I'm not sure how 'clear cut' this clause is; that's why we're having the test cast on Jonathan Miller right now to see whether it will hold water. Isn't there something in the very same EU law (human rights legislation?) that gives countries a right not to follow the law if it's in the interests of the people, or something?
I don't know, maybe there is. But I don't see it as my job, as a TV viewer, to fund a public sector broadcaster. And frankly, I think that most of what the BBC puts out is complete crap, and no better than a commercial broadcaster. There are one or two notable exceptions (EastEnders), but most commercial broadcasters have 1 or 2 hit shows that keep people watching them too.
If you look at the BBC recently, they have been getting more commercialized by the day anyway. Their self-confessed measure of success is how many people watch the programmes they put out. That makes them just as 'bad' as any commercial broadcaster.
Well, i could give you a massive rant with about a million and one reasons why I don't support the licence fee such as TV Licensing's aggressive bullying tactics that enforce it, or its inherent unfairness to the British people because people outside Britain get the BBC's benefits for free, but I won't.
Basically it's just a matter of choice. ie. I should have the choice to pay whoever I want for whatever I want to watch. The licence fee is like a mandatory tax on CD-Rs that goes to pay the RIAA, except that it's British, and it goes to pay the BBC, an organization whose benefits are felt the world over! Extremely unfair to the British people, IMHO.
Read www.tvlicensing.biz for more information, if you want it.
Erm, are you measuring IQ on a different scale to the rest of us or something? When we take an IQ test here, we're told that 100 is average, so that's where the 50/50 split occurs. An IQ of 129 is pretty damn good, and 180 is almost impossible to get on a standard IQ test.
seriously though, how will this prevent a rootkit/worm/whatever from copying the part of the memory that has the boxs contents?
As this is being introduced alongside the Palladium architecture, presumably that part of the memory would be out of bounds to Mr. Worm/rootkit, and it wouldn't be able to access the secure data.
joke ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jk)
n.
1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
But laptops will not be replaced by tablets until handwriting recognition becomes just as fast (if not faster) than typing, with reduced errors.
That's *never* going to happen, and I'll tell you why I know this. Because I can type much faster than I can write, and with somewhat less strain on my wrists. I don't think there's any denying that a well-trained touch typist can type faster than the fastest writer on the planet. Writing is just slower. For the purposes of inputting stuff into a computer, it's simply obsolete, which makes this new-fangled 'handwriting recognition' stuff all the more strange.
OK, it's a passable replacement for a notepad, but that's about it. And I hate to say it, but given the choice of a palmtop or a pen and paper, i'd go for the latter. Not as bad for my eyes, *far* more natural, probably faster than waiting for the computer to analyse your writing, probably more accurate, etc.
Actually, it seems to me that, because what we think of as 'math' is just labels that are applied to certain abstract concepts, it is actually testable. 1+1=2. How can logic deny that?
I've been saying it for a long time, and I'll say it again: The Matrix Reloaded is going to be shit. I won't be wasting any money on it. Having got people's attention with a (half) decent storyline in the original, the next 2 movies will proceed to cash in on the franchise using special effects and preventing the director from having to think about the storyline. Don't watch it. Boycott it, make them lose money on it, and show the movie industry that we don't want this crap! Unless you do.
Cramped, uncomfortable, inconvenient, overpriced... nah :-)
It's interesting, and this is exactly what happens on my system with XP. Whenever it has crashed, it seems to have corrupted the drive to some extent, as I use FAT32 for backwards compatibility (DOS games run in Win98). NTFS may sort this out; however, when I used to run Win95 and Win98 as my main OS, I *very* frequently just turned the machine off without shutting down. I also disabled Scandisk on startup as I found it to be totally unnecessary - the disk was never corrupted! In summary - FAT32 drives seem to get corrupted in Windows XP/NT when you don't shut down properly, but in Win95/98 you can just turn off without a problem. Weird.
We, the music bootleggers ... are far more numerous than the record companies. WE HAVE THE POWER TO DESTROY THAT INDUSTRY!!!
But the *true* power of an American is in direct proportion to his/her bank balance.
(Please go easy on the moderation; doesn't it seem this way to anyone else?!)
One of the executives briefed on the silence program said that it did not work properly and was being reworked because it was deleting legitimate music files, too.
Looks like we don't need to worry for some time, then. They'll be ice covering hell before the RIAA's team find a better way to code their silence program than recursive_delete("*.mp3");
And I thought this was gonna be a legitimate record. Unfortunately, they used a very specialised monorail track for this record; almost like flying. It would be far more legitimate if it had had to be done over the ground, in a car-like vehicle.
I wouldn't give you a French franc for any number of mp3s - audio CDs are bad enough, mp3 sound dreadful to anyone with a half decent gramophone.
I think you'll find it's OK. Digital technology nowadays can lower the Khz of the recording, and input all those little scratches and blips you're used to - you don't need to use the gramophone.
why are gun manufacturers responsible for the way their products are used by the public if software manufactures aren't?
Erm, I don't think that can possibly be true (IANAL). Do you know how many people die per year in the US because of irresponsible usage of guns? If the gun makers were responsible for the way their products were used by the public, they'd all have gone out of business a LONG time ago.
The FastTrack network IS decentralised, at least compared to Napster. There is no central listing of IPs/files, but rather supernode servers, which consist of users with fast connections, and these are the IPs that are queried when searching. This somewhat ingenious design results in a fast network with an almost unlimited capacity to expand, but yet which is easily searchable by users, and pretty much decentralised (I doubt Kazaa need or want to run any Napster-like indexing servers).
You can't replace recordings with live performances! Frankly, I think live performances suck. The quality is terrible, artists have usually lost their voice through the 1001 tours they've done before they get to your little town. And what's the point, really? You get to see/hear the artist in person? Through a loudspeaker? Half a mile away? I've *always* preferred the proper recording of a song to a live permformance, and whilst some people disagree with me, you can never substitute one with the other. They're totally different.
I partially agree. But, unfortunately, the logical conclusion of your argument is that we must put up with whatever the big labels throw at us, at whatever price they decide on. And many of us who 'live in front of our computers' think that sucks.
We don't deny that it's important that media is made available to the general public, the crap screened out, etc. We just think there must be a *much* better way of doing it than the status quo. Personally, I advocate the illegal pirating of material. People who 'boycott' the market are, as you said, powerless. But, like it or lump it, piracy is the only way you're gonna make a dent in outdated views, because people can both experience the media they want to, *and* not pay these companies their unreasonable excess, at the same time. Call me a criminal parasitic asshole, but you give me a better way to effect change (because we do WANT change).
Seems like quite reasonable questions and responses to me, actually.
This poll isn't worth the paper its printed on.
Maybe that's beacuse this poll isn't printed on paper? (or was that an attempt at a joke?)
What is a below-freezing IQ? Is it possible to have a negative IQ then? Unless you're thinking in Farenheit, in which case *ahem* you should upgrade to metric.
What's next? The fall of communism?
Erm, that already happened.