With the previous version, under Linux, me and a few guys I know had the same problem.. Sometimes it wouldn't take keyboard input anymore, either in the address bar or in the forms on a page. I haven't seen it happen in 0.7, and I'm very happy about that!
I've had that happen too. Minimizing & restoring the window seems to 'fix' it, at least for a while.
After all their definition of a chemical weapon of mass destruction is:
Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.
So why don't they go after the tobacco companies since they're manufacturing substances that meet these criteria? Oh wait, the government gets taxes from the sales of these products, nevermind.
I see into... the future... I see this "lab" only producing... whitepapers where Microsoft.... wins!
Whoa. There's a surprise.
Yeah... they win because they now know exactly what they need to change to have a wholly superior product, and already have the resources to effect such a change.
I say let people do as they please, so long as they are not actually causing harm to someone else. Don't prosecute the guy who teaches how to make a bomb; he isn't hurting anybody. The criminals are the ones who actually blow up the bombs and cause injury. Keep following this precident, and we're going to end up with the thought police
But what about the guy who spread propaganda in order to convince the other guy that it was OK to "actually blow up the bombs and cause injury"?
Sure, he didn't actually light the fuse, but he still caused the fuse to get lit.
For a world-wide problem with worms, cross-platform worms are not required - just a simultaneous release of single platform worms.
A single cross-platform worm would be much more effective, though -- it'd be able to infect a much higher percentage of the hosts it hit, and therefore grow faster.
I won't need to know how to make soap, or sew, unless civilization collapses. And since there's as much chance of that as there is in god existing,
I agree completely with your statement that civilization will eventually collapse. It isn't that likely to happen soon enough to matter, But it could. And besides, learning new things is fun, much more fun that getting stuck in a rut -- even if being in that rut might give a higher monetary income.
That's because when you have free will, you choose not to live under an unfair system of sharing everything between everyone, no matter what their merit. When most people have free will, they believe they should receive similar to what they give. If you work hard, you get more. If you don't work hard, you get less.
Oh? I thought it was just morally upright and/or hard working people who thought this way -- wouldn't lazyboneses actually prefer a system of forced equal sharing?
computer usefulness and internet usefulness are being stymied by the lack of cheap, permanenet, and reasonably fast internet connectivity. Not everyone is willing to pay $50/mo for a good net connection. Dialup doesn't cut it.
Dialup is fine. It might not be that great for using the 'net for multimedia (pointless waste of time anyway...), but it works fine for making it useful, and even for reading webcomics.
'Course, some people today have gotten too spoiled and impatient to be able to wait 3-30 seconds for a webpage, or an hour or two to download system updates. Yeah, it'd be nice to have a faster connection, but a fast connection is not neccessary for the 'net to be useful.
That said, you should understand that by definition, as Chair of the Federal Reserve, his objective is to maximize economic growth.
I thought that his job definition was to manage the economy for the maximum benefit of all concerned. Currently, this is taken to mean that he should maximise growth, but it could also be taken to mean that his objective is to maximise joy.
I've always been a strong believer that censoring children from the real world is retarded. Your typical American family would have their children grow up believing that there's nothing wrong with the world. That everything is minivan and soccer games. Children get censored from things like crime, war, sex, and violence. They grow up not understanding how to handle these sorts of things and only become a bigger part of the world's problems.
Agreed. Kids need to be able to handle these kinds of things before they leave home. But, the parents should make sure that they are there when their kids are (first) exposed to these things, so that they can ensure that their kids don't get misconceptions.
[parent post]
Some social worker showed up in my daughters 2nd grade class talking about homosexuality and how it should be accepted and all of that crap. It's all way above their heads and not something they need to be concerned about.
I agree with you to a point, but if you dont place limits, you wind up with kindergarten teachers indoctrinating children to their world views. I have no problem discussing anything with my kids when they ask. I do have a problem with some stranger forcing them into discussions that they dont need to have, or want to have.
The *parents* should be the ones who decide what a child is exposed to. And I think its unfair that we're dumping the weight of the world onto 7 year old shoulders. Let them just be kids. There'll plenty of time to learn about war, sex, violence, and so on.
Agreed, mostly. There may be "plenty of time", but hiding these things from kids isn't the best of ideas, as they'll probably find out anyway. Not that kids should be exposed to large amounts of these things, but they should have enough explained to them that they can categorize things as 'right' or 'not right', and that they don't get terribly upset if they see some. If the kids want to know something, the parents should tell them, or they'll ask someone else.
I agree completely that kids should learn right and wrong from their parents instead of teachers, since what is taught by teachers will generally be what is 'politically correct' rather than what is true (as per your example).
Instead of giving customers high bandwidth and charging for transfer, which lets them get unexpectedly large bills, use a traffic shaper and charge based only on the connection speed they order, which gives them a constant bill.
If they really need a burstable connection, have a system set up so that they can request an immediate temporary bandwidth increase. This could be priced according to how much spare bandwidth is available (in which case the customer would need a way to find the price out before ordering the extra bandwidth), or have a fixed price. This would preferrably be automated for speed.
There isn't much to growing up if you become even more immature. We should thus be LESS forgiving of people's weaknesses because in wanting to be respected as a mature human being they must understand that they have a responsibility to themselves and others. Accomodating weaknesses is what got us all messed up in the first place.
Forgiving weaknesses and accomodating weaknesses are different things. It's perfectly doable to not hold someone's mistake against them, while at the same time requiring them to correct it (or showing them how to correct it).
Secondly, privacy should be choice. Don't force me to divulge information I may not want to give you. What right do you have to extract information from me?
If someone creates something, the art is his. Who the hell are you to take it, copy it, and give it to other people without his permission?
Someone who thinks that the concept of intellectual property is completely bogus, perhaps?
There is nothing funamentally wrong with copying other peoples work. It was made illegal to copy without permission (in the USA at least) because the Founding Fathers thought that this would be beneficial to everyone, not because they thought that copying without permission was somehow wrong.
The thing is, standard 'property' and 'ownership' thinking breaks down completely with things that can be copied indefinitely, since it is based on preventing the owner from losing 'it', and not on preventing others from getting 'it'. Copyright is a contrived right designed to make producing copyable items into a workable business model, so that more will be produced and eventually be available to the public.
This so-called "breakthrough" only allows imaging at 0.2 to 0.3 THz? I already have a pair of imaging sensors that operate with 430 to 770 THz radiation -- they work with frequencies over 2300 times higher, and so are over 2300 times better. What's more, these imaging sensors I have have a direct neural interface, something that the StarTiger people will tell you is still science fiction. And I daresay I can get better resolution than their measly 16 pixel sensor gives -- especially if I choose to go for an upgrade.
The Master turned the Novice toward the door, and with a supportive hand on his shoulder said, Go young Novice, and Read The Fucking Manual. And so the Novice became enlightened.
Read the Manual for what??
Would not the Learning of this Other Skill cause the Novice greater Difficulty in becoming a Writer of Programs?
If people promoted the better technology instead of the cheaper one, companies couldn't dump their obsolete products on the market in order to decrease sales of the better technology. If people bought a product based on its quality, we would have things like
organic LED displays instead of truly obsolete LCD screens and CRT monitors.
Obsolete, adj: 1a: No longer in use or no longer useful.
CRTs are not obsolete. They are still useful, and they are still in use. They will remain in use until some flatscreen technology is able to offer the same/similar resolution, screensize, and maybe viewing angle at the same/similar price.
You appear to think that what technology is 'better' depends solely on technical merit, without regard to price. In reality, the 'best' technology is the one that gives you the closest to what you want for the lowest price.
Nobody can sell a truly obsolete product at the detriment of a non-obsolete product, at any price. Consider: would it be possible to give away slide rules, and so prevent people from buying calculators?
What I am interseted in is which is the better technology.
And DDR is a better technology than Rambus. If it were not, new computers would come with Rambus instead of DDR. If Rambus becomes cheaper, they perhaps it will become the better technology.
The same is true of your CRT/OLED example -- until the price/satisfaction ratio of OLEDs approaches that of CRTs, CRTs are the better technology. Personally, I want high resolution and low price. I got a 1280x1024 CRT for ~$100; no flatscreen of any type even comes close.
Well sure, I'm certain most of the/. crowd is fully capable of these things, plus firewall and proxy configuration to block the offending packets.
The real problem here is the general public who doesn't know any better, and even worse - doesn't care.
Uh, if they don't care, then is isn't a problem for them, is it? This kind of customer tracking is only a problem if those who don't like it can't avoid it. You seem to think that you know best, and that anyone who doesn't agree is a poor fool, and needs to be protected.
If the CD companies know what tracks get listened to more, then maybe they'll try to change what kinds of music they sell, so that more of it is 'good' music and people want to buy more.
Knowing what CD tracks you listen to and when, what groceries you buy and when, and videos you rent and when, who you call and when, where you go and when, and the list goes on and on. The
sum of these things is just a bit too much information for corporate america to be keeping detailed track of.
Tell me, what harm comes from letting CD companies know which of their CDs you find worth listening to? What harm comes from the grocery store knowing what kinds of groceries people tent to buy together? You speak of 'corporate america' as a single entity. Why do you make this assumption? The members of the 'corporate america' you speak of spend much of their time trying to 'kill' eachother (put eachother out of business).
do you really want these big corporations watching the every move of
your grandmother
There are two problems with this statement:
You're exaggerating. Corporations don't watch people's every move, it wouldn't be practical. They try to collect usage data about whatever it is they're selling, so they can make their product more attractive.
What matters isn't whether you want them watching your grandmother, it's whether your grandmother wants them watching your grandmother. Perhaps your grandmother has decided that giving out this information is harmless, or even beneficial.
because it is illegal?
because the music industry makes less money?
because we won't have as nice music if the music industry struggles?
because someone is making money doing things that are illegal?
I have come to the point in my life where (right and wrong) and (legal
and illegal) are now completely separate, and surprisingly, not even
aligned completely.
Copying is not bad. Copying & redistributing copyrighted works without permission is bad. Copyright was enacted to benefit the public by encouraging people to produce 'creative' works; copyright is not bad in and of itself. Ignoring (specific) laws can lead to disrespect of the law (in general), both in the person ignoring the (specific) laws and in observers, and is therefore to be avoided. (Note that Civil Disobedience is not ignoring laws, it is publicly violating laws (in the presence of law enforcement officers) with intent to prove just how rediculous they really are.) This means that, since copyright is not inherently bad, copyright should not be ignored.
'Legal' and 'moral' are not the same, but if something is neither right nor wrong, its being illegal makes it wrong.
However: regardless of legality, should we even have a centralized
organization that, in effect, makes decisions about what music is
popular and available, and at what price? I think not.
And since there are many others who agree with you, there are (legal) alternatives for anyone who bothers to find them, and these alternatives seem to be growing in popularity.
Slashdot Mirror
Tim
Tim
Chlorine bleach?
Weedkillers?
Insecticides?
Drain cleaners?
etc.,...
Tim
Tim
Sure, he didn't actually light the fuse, but he still caused the fuse to get lit.
Tim
Tim
Tim
It's free (beer), and easy for kids to use (comparatively). It's also what I started on.
Tim
Tim
But, are there supposed to be lightnings in my power supply?
char *j;
//snip
char i[15];
for(int x=0;x<51;x++){
i[x]=j++;
}
cd /usr/local/src/kernel-sources/linux-2.5.69
make mrproper
make allyesconfig
make -j
Tim
Tim
'Course, some people today have gotten too spoiled and impatient to be able to wait 3-30 seconds for a webpage, or an hour or two to download system updates. Yeah, it'd be nice to have a faster connection, but a fast connection is not neccessary for the 'net to be useful.
Tim
Money buys things; happiness comes from thoughts, which are quite different.
And so by your argument they should be more happy than anyone was "back then". Somehow, I seriously doubt that this is the case.Tim
Tim
I agree completely that kids should learn right and wrong from their parents instead of teachers, since what is taught by teachers will generally be what is 'politically correct' rather than what is true (as per your example).
Tim
If they really need a burstable connection, have a system set up so that they can request an immediate temporary bandwidth increase. This could be priced according to how much spare bandwidth is available (in which case the customer would need a way to find the price out before ordering the extra bandwidth), or have a fixed price. This would preferrably be automated for speed.
Tim
Tim
There is nothing funamentally wrong with copying other peoples work. It was made illegal to copy without permission (in the USA at least) because the Founding Fathers thought that this would be beneficial to everyone, not because they thought that copying without permission was somehow wrong.
The thing is, standard 'property' and 'ownership' thinking breaks down completely with things that can be copied indefinitely, since it is based on preventing the owner from losing 'it', and not on preventing others from getting 'it'. Copyright is a contrived right designed to make producing copyable items into a workable business model, so that more will be produced and eventually be available to the public.
Tim
Would not the Learning of this Other Skill cause the Novice greater Difficulty in becoming a Writer of Programs?
CRTs are not obsolete. They are still useful, and they are still in use. They will remain in use until some flatscreen technology is able to offer the same/similar resolution, screensize, and maybe viewing angle at the same/similar price.
You appear to think that what technology is 'better' depends solely on technical merit, without regard to price. In reality, the 'best' technology is the one that gives you the closest to what you want for the lowest price.
Nobody can sell a truly obsolete product at the detriment of a non-obsolete product, at any price. Consider: would it be possible to give away slide rules, and so prevent people from buying calculators?
And DDR is a better technology than Rambus. If it were not, new computers would come with Rambus instead of DDR. If Rambus becomes cheaper, they perhaps it will become the better technology.The same is true of your CRT/OLED example -- until the price/satisfaction ratio of OLEDs approaches that of CRTs, CRTs are the better technology. Personally, I want high resolution and low price. I got a 1280x1024 CRT for ~$100; no flatscreen of any type even comes close.
Tim
Besides, if you're actually paranoid enough to care about this, you can find a way to disable it -- the Microsoft page you linked to even says how.
I could well ask the same of you.Tim
But, what is it that makes something memorable? ...
strong emotions? Unusualness? Unexpectedness? Bogon flux?
Tim
If the CD companies know what tracks get listened to more, then maybe they'll try to change what kinds of music they sell, so that more of it is 'good' music and people want to buy more.
Tell me, what harm comes from letting CD companies know which of their CDs you find worth listening to? What harm comes from the grocery store knowing what kinds of groceries people tent to buy together? You speak of 'corporate america' as a single entity. Why do you make this assumption? The members of the 'corporate america' you speak of spend much of their time trying to 'kill' eachother (put eachother out of business). There are two problems with this statement:- You're exaggerating. Corporations don't watch people's every move, it wouldn't be practical. They try to collect usage data about whatever it is they're selling, so they can make their product more attractive.
- What matters isn't whether you want them watching your grandmother, it's whether your grandmother wants them watching your grandmother. Perhaps your grandmother has decided that giving out this information is harmless, or even beneficial.
Tim'Legal' and 'moral' are not the same, but if something is neither right nor wrong, its being illegal makes it wrong.
And since there are many others who agree with you, there are (legal) alternatives for anyone who bothers to find them, and these alternatives seem to be growing in popularity.Tim