While your comment was clearly in jest, I think you actually raise an interesting point. For a long time the "rest of the world" as you described it, has simply said "I'm glad I don't live there" whenever a scandal of any sort occurs in america. Whenever a suspect person comes into power in America it not only has an effect on the people of America, but it can also dramatic affect on the rest of the world.
Democracy was originally designed to be a fairer system compared to the traditional dictatorial methods of governing, however in these times of easy global reach, democracy has become unfair again. America continues to use it's unrepresentatively large amount of power to fuck around with the rest of the world. America has become the monopoly of this world, using the power it has to prevent other countries from doing what they want (unless it agrees with the american way).
Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea for America to be split up. The amount of power the white house wields is too large and attracts too much corruption.
Note if you replace the word power in the above with the word money, it scans just as well, and still seems to represent what's happening! Which is a sign that democracy has failed.
You say you like linux, but it you're unsure as to whether it will work on your laptop. But you say you'd be willing to buy a Macbook. Why wouldn't you be willing to buy a linux compatible laptop? There are plenty around (you have to be looking for them - but they're not that hard to come by)
I currently have one of the last 12" powerbooks, fantastic machine, OSX is great, but I wish I could run linux instead (lack of 3D support, and sleep ability currently stopping me). The next machine I buy will be linux ready from the very start.
My advice: try to buy a machine which won't restrict your OS choice entirely from the start, it'll be worth it if you start itching to switch later on.
The original was in an email, it wasn't actually published as it was only written as a warning to students at the university (and I think it was only sent to CS students).
Which explains why you can't find it on his home page.
You know, the funny thing about planes is that they CAN actually fly over things other than land. What's your signal like in the middle of the atlantic? To be fair, many aeroplanes will not need the onboard equipment if they are only flying internal flights, but as soon as you are travelling on a flight to another part of the world, these things become more necessary. It's not the altitude that's a problem.
Silly, fun, useless to them: Earth, Picasa, SketchUp
Silly and fun I agree with, but I don't they're useless to them. Scientifically, yes they probably are useless. But as a promotion tool, I think they probably work quite well. Particularly Google Earth, I've seen loads of people who think Google earth is really cool, the sort of people who would ordinarily use MSN search, because that's the one presented to them. People who don't really know what a search engine is. It's a popular way of showing that google isn't just "a search engine company", and encourage people to investigate their other offerings
For a child of 14 this sounds extreme. Just put the computer in a public place, and keep an eye on it. Wander up frequently (to start with) and say "What'ya doing?" be curious, and not accusational. You're on slashdot, you know technically how to control his access. But the OP wasn't asking that, he was asking for rules, and boundaries, to be enforced parentally not technologically.
I would say you could go about this two ways:
One:
- Let him have his own account on the computer, his own email address, etc...
- Impose limits on WHEN he is allowed to use it (only for 1 hour after school, or 2 hours after dinner providing homework is done, or whatever time limit you think best)
Two:
- Have a single account on the computer, which the entire family shares, let him have his personal email address.
- Have the computer in a communal place in the house. Somewhere where there's normally people around. Make it social.
Contrary to what the parent says, there's no point in having a monitored email account, if he wants to avoid being watched, he'll get a hotmail account or something.
Option 1 provides freedom, but a limited time - it provides a structure which the OP says was desirable. The last thing you want is a teenager BORED in front of a computer. That's when they start going to look for the dubious stuff.
Option 2 encourages open-ness, but without appearing to monitor directly. Allow him to monitor you as well. This will build more trust. If you start deleting browser cache, or being secretive - that encourages him to. Rules aren't laid down, but rather they are implicit.
If he breaks the rules, come down hard, restrict the access to the computer - but only for a limited time. (If he does it again, then make the restrictions more pernament).
There's a third option - this is the one I'd go with, but it's also the one which requires you to be the best parent, and it would only work if he has an interest in computers. Teach him about them. Encourage him to learn about them, and to start tinkering, encourage him to do something creative with a computer (be it programming/whatever), then give him a free reign. If he breaks something important - he fixes it (with help if necessary - it must be a learning experience, otherwise there was no point in breaking it). Forget about restrictions. Monitor what he does, but do so by showing pride in what he produces, encouraging him to invite you to see what he's doing. My parents did this. They knew that after a while, I knew more about the computer than they did, but they encouraged me to teach them, and to continue learning. I never broke something so bad I couldn't fix it myself, but I cocked quite a lot up. Encourge him to be responsible online and participate in things (sensibly). Teach him about privacy, about how to keep his own, and how to respect others.
You may want to adjust the rules frequently. Don't be afraid to try something out, it's parenting, you're not supposed to get it right first time...
I should get penalised for avoiding credit totally?
What if I just want to keep my finances simple.
I have two accounts (one high interest savings one), 1 debit card. Why would I ever need credit? If I can't afford something now, I wait.
I can see only two loans that I will ever need. Student loan (which in the UK is risk free, you only pay it back once you are earning above a threshold), and a mortgage.
Personally I can't stand having to remember that I need to leave a certain amount aside for something. I organised it such that my rent and paycheck perfectly co-incide. Everything in my account is then spending money (including food)..
Perhaps you can enlighten me on why avoiding credit makes me a worse employee?
Have a set of tests to determine which senator(s) can lecture / vote on a given topic. Those who fail the test lose their voting rights...
Who's going to set these tests exactly? The problem is that although you and I can see straight through this guys explanation, the majority of the voting public probably trust him as an expert because he appears to know more than them.
As a proof of concept, I thought this was great, however, I must agree I was disappointed with several aspects of the film:
- Animation, character animation seemed jerky and didn't seem to flow
- Lip Sync, seemed off - might just have been my perception of it.
- Voices - the voices were a bit to annoying and unclear, and didn't fit the characters visually (if you watch the making of, you can see why - the voice actors look nothing like the characters, look at most big productions and watch the making of, you can see the essence of the voice actor is brought to the animated character)
On the other hand, the concept seemed good and visually it was up there with some of the best animated films.
I probably won't be using this to sell the idea of open movies to my friends, but I'm glad I bought the DVD to support it, I hope it will spawn many other projects like this.
I didn't really like the film that much. but I'm glad I supported it by buying the DVD, to try and encourage more people to get involved in this sort of thing.
Any of the worms series of games has inbuilt handicaps and if that doesn't work so well then you can even play co-op against other players (make two teams the same colour).
Alternatively, try playing co-op on some of the Commandos games - I can't remember exactly how it works, but I think you both get control of a few of the characters. All the characters have very different skill sets, so she can pick the characters that best suit the way she wants to play the game.
I generally buy books after I've read them, If they entertained me, then I reward the author (and publishers) by buying the book. Otherwise I don't bother. I borrow books from people, or get them out of a library, it's rare that I buy books that I haven't already read (unless I have book tokens to waste, or there is a special offer on books by a favourite author).
This is what eBooks are lacking, I can't borrow them from other people, I can't go and get the out of the library for free. I have to buy them and THEN enjoy them, the amount of money isn't directly related to the amount of enjoyment I get out of them.
I do the same thing with all my media, I rent DVDs, then if the film is worth it, I buy it (it generally has to be awesome to get me to do this).
I borrow CDs off friends, and generally rip them to my computer, where they will sit for a while and get played occasionally. After a while I either buy the album, or delete the files. I buy a lot of music un-heard as well though so it's a slightly different case.
eBooks came too late, and they are DRMd so that I can't try them out without breaking the law, at the moment it's still much more convenient (they don't need re-charging, they are much less affected by variable light levels, smaller - I have a laptop, not a PDA) to get an actual book. And having a bookshelf which is overflowing, actually makes you look quite educated!
Other reasons include the fact that generally I read a book to get away from technology for a while - If I'm going to have a gadget in front of me I'm going to want to play with it, tweak it, work on it, take it apart, customise it, generally mess around with it, install linux on it, you get the idea. Books are more focussed in this respect
I count 3, maybe 4: Mac OS X PowerPC, Mac OS X Intel, Mac OS X Server PowerPC, and probably Mac OS X Server Intel
They're mostly segmented mostly by what hardware they run on. When a user buys a mac, they aren't presented with 6 the different options, and even if they are the choice is obvious (providing you know what a server is - if you don't you don't need it).
The major advantage of lab computers that I can see is what happens when one stops working.
Laptop stops working: Student has to organise going to the support place, waiting for it to be fixed (possibly taking quite a while), possibly losing work! Student then has a legitimate excuse for failing to do work on time (leading to extra work for teachers/markers/etc.)
Lab Computer Stops working: Student stands up, finds the closest free computer, and carrys on working. School organises backups, so no risk of losing work, support people can work on things in their own time.
As a student who owns a personal desktop, personal laptop, and regularly uses the lab computers. I think this has to be one of the stupidest ideas ever. It will be a nightmare, I suggest fighting the decision, or just getting out of there ASAP.
Can't they just use a robots.txt to prevent google from indexing the images? If google can get at the content (without paying) then surely so can anyone else anyway.
If they don't want it on google. Don't allow google to index it - there are many ways of doing this (don't link to it publically, etc...) If the issue comes from pirated sites, and google indexing them - that's not googles problem, if anything they provide a very useful way for perfect 10 to find the pirated sites.
Why the fuck is this even in a courtroom? Am I entirely mis-understanding their point?
Google video might be leading at the moment - however, the BBC has been in front a long time, and because of it's connections as a more traditional broadcasting company, I think this will have the biggest effect when it starts using digital distribution more.
IMO the BBC is a very worthwhile place for my £120 a year - it provides something which the ad-sponsered channels haven't really mastered. The ad sponsered channels have to produce stuff which will be popular. Everything revolves around the viewer count and how many ads they can sell. The BBC on the other hand can produce things that not everyone will like - special interest programs, and more intelligent ones. The BBC has to give the impression that it's making TV for EVERYONE - not just the popular crap. The barriers to entry of the TV market meant that hobbiests couldn't hope to produce their own special interest programs.
The internet has changed that, consequently the BBC has become a little less relevant. The internet provides a way and a means for hobbiests to form worldwide communities and produce their own content for very little cost. However, I don't think that's the end of the usefulness of the BBC. They have been leading the way in terms of online content in many cases - and because they aren't driven by a mass of companies (and particularly american ones!) They are more likely (by no means certain) to be the ones who consider fair use/other platforms/etc. when producing their online content. Rather than simply locking everything down.
What I would like to see is the BBC (or another organisation - NOT A PROFIT BASED COMPANY) look towards creating a good platform for the Enthusiasts of the country/world to produce their content on - Library/storage for public produced media and a distribution network (website!) for the same. It's just an idea.
The BBC I think is one of the media companies which is best positioned to make the transition into a sensible digital distribution network - It's not not a shareholder service - it's a public service.
Yeah well I don't use a TV at the moment and I'm quite happy not having to pay the BBC for a service I don't use. I think we should all get petrol for free from the government and they can recoup the cost through general taxation, because lets face it, 75% of it is tax and virtually everyone has a car, right?
Woah, hold up there, very poor comparison. Petrol for free is a very bad idea and it lets your comment down (you have quite a good point - just one I disagree with). One of the reason's that the govt tax petrol is to discourage it's usage. If we could get petrol free, then everyone would be pissing around in cars which did a few meters to the gallon, and our green and pleasant(ish) land would dissappear pronto. I am one of the few who things petrol prices SHOULD be high (and as a semi-regular driver that might be a surprise).
I think the public transport analogy might work a little better for your arguement. I'd happily pay more tax for FREE public transport. This would certainly get me out of my car on many trips.
Back to your point - I have a TV license and I watch TV - I am very glad to have the BBC to watch, they produce a reasonable quantity of acceptable quality programs (some utter shite as well - but IMO they do a lot better than the ad driven channels). I think a government run tax would work a lot better. I agree that there should be some method to allow people who don't own a TV set to not pay - but this should be CLAIMED BACK, this would cut down on the amount of evasion (and therefore cost of the administration). The current method leads to people who can't afford it dodging the license fee, and then getting themselves a hefty fine which causes real problems (as they can't pay)
I used to work for a large multinational "everything" company, and I was lucky enough to start work, shortly after they'd moved into their brand new UK head office. The design of the building was completely open plan(dividers between desks were no higher then a monitor). No-one had an office, not even the MD. All the meeting rooms were glass walled (on at least one side. But actually I got a lot more done than if I'd have had my own office*, or even shared an office.
You had a very good feel for exactly what was going on within the department (120 people), and building. Especially within your own team. You could hear every conversation that went on. Surprisingly it's not that distracting. Because of the levels of noise you learnt to live with it, and block it out, consequently you could keep track of the world, and get on with work. I think had I been in a more secluded environment, I would have spent a lot more time browsing.
They had a quiet room where you could get away from all the people who came to see you/called you etc. And meeting rooms for anything more than a quick discussion.
In all honesty, having worked in that type of environment - office space really isn't a factor that bothers me. I currently work from home part time (student the rest of the time) - and I don't get any more or less work done than I did then. It would nice to have a more social working environment - but as I'm the only dev for the company, that's not possible.
(*Note, I was a placement student, I never would have had my own office anyway!)
I Was in exactly this situation last year. from my experiences (UK specific some of them) here's what I recommend
Get yourself some decent clothing. I already own a lot of this, I don't mean expensive designer shit, I mean comfortable warm stuff. Wear more than one jumper during the winter.
Turn your computer OFF. Seriously, this will save you shit loads. I used to run mine all day (not during the night - I can't sleep with it on in my room), and it cost me loads over the summer. I realised I wasn't really using it, so now it only comes on when I get back from uni in the afternoon. If you can't cope without a computer running - cut it down to just 1.
Buy energy saving bulbs - they're subsidised in the UK at the moment (as I mentioned in another post - http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/) I got some for about £1 a shot. Which if you're using 100W bulbs in your rooms, will be saved in no time.
Keep the curtains closed when you're not in the house, and turn your bedroom radiators off (I don't actually do this, if you're in a old house, you may find that it takes a long time for the room to heat up each time, so it's worth keeping it relatively warm.
Get a job - seriously, it will make life so much easier.
Turn off (completely off) the heating in your kitchen. You will produce enough heat when cooking that you will only notice for the first 5 mins in the room.
Set the heating to only come on at about 5/6 or roughly about half an hour after it get's dark and turn off around 10pm.
Consider staying in the same house for more than one year. If you do this, then the landlord might even let you have a slightly discounted rate, and will be less concerned if you do a bit of damage to the house (however, avoid this, landlords can be really arsey about it) It also means you don't have to move out.
You don't need a car
Shower every other day - I live with some people who shower twice every day - personally I can't understand it - you don't get dirty that quickly, and it's a real waste.
Don't worry too much about saving energy really stingely (unless you're really broke) or cutting corners everywhere you can - think about how much difference it will actually make to your bills.
Currently in the UK, energy saving light bulbs are subsidised, I'm replacing all of the bulbs in our (student) house, with them. http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/ (no I don't work for them) are selling them for 99p at the moment.
While you'd have to pay for it - Point2Play (from Transgaming) does exactly that, it allows you to have completely seperated environments and settings for each game/application. I used to use it when I was still finishing off the windows games I had been playing when I switched to linux. Now I only buy linux games.
For starters, the idea of some kind of "tax" which assumes I'm going to download music, scares me a little. I don't want to download music - most of it is poor quality/badly tagged/etc. Secondly, this sounds perfect for the studios, they can produce any old pile of crap, and they are still guaranteed to make money from you. It removes any reward they get for producing good music.
However, on the other hand, it sounds like they're beginning to see that many people are frustrated at online music stores, which are all incompatible with each other, and require you to use a specific music player (this is the reason why I won't touch iTunes MS.
Also in terms of how this would be enforced. If I don't want to sign up for this, but I still want to have my music collection on my computer (all ripped) - Is every Record Industry lawyer going to point their finger at me and shout: "PIRATE!" (ignore the heightened sense of self importance - it's an example), just assuming that because I have music on my computer I must have downloaded it.
When I first heard the idea it didn't sound that bad, but I'm willing to bet that it would have to be enforced, by assuming everyone shares/downloads music. Which is something that I don't agree with.
(If you're a freak and haven't seen the film yet, STOP READING NOW!)
The large number of the main characters which they killed off in the movie, kinda spoiled it for me. The most mysterious character from the series, Sheperd Book, barely got a look in in the film, and now he's gone the prospect of his story being revealed in more depth in a second series is too remote for my liking. Now that Wash is gone, who's going to be responsible for all the jealousy of Mal? who's going to be responsible for all the random marital disputes? who's going to be responsible for the insane flying? The problem with the film IMO is that it was "about" River, the whole point of Firefly the series was that it wasn't about one person, it was about them as a group/crew - much less about what they do, and more about who they are.
Don't get me wrong, I like the movie, but if the "closure" that Joss wanted on some of the story lines from the series is just going to involve killing off the characters - that's not closure, it explains nothing. It just destroys the anticipation of learning more about those characters. I'll be buying the movie on DVD when it comes out here in the UK, because it was a kick ass movie, but as a continuation of the series, it sucked.
Series 2? Yes, I'd buy it (I'd have to wait until DVD release here in the UK - but I'm patient). But I'd much prefer it if they continued after the series, and left the film storyline alone. But, that's too problematic, because we learned quite a bit in the film, about River's past, and the reavers, which we couldn't just go back to "not knowing".
I wouldn't say the film spoilt it, but it could have done so much better if it didn't have to fit into generic action movie template, and either been radical and gone it's own way (never would have got the exec's support), or just gone back to making the series.
The phrase you're looking for is "extension lead" or "trailing socket", they're not usually called anything different if they have more sockets on. Having said that the Americans may refer to them as something completely different (I'm from the UK)
Slashdot Mirror
While your comment was clearly in jest, I think you actually raise an interesting point. For a long time the "rest of the world" as you described it, has simply said "I'm glad I don't live there" whenever a scandal of any sort occurs in america. Whenever a suspect person comes into power in America it not only has an effect on the people of America, but it can also dramatic affect on the rest of the world.
Democracy was originally designed to be a fairer system compared to the traditional dictatorial methods of governing, however in these times of easy global reach, democracy has become unfair again. America continues to use it's unrepresentatively large amount of power to fuck around with the rest of the world. America has become the monopoly of this world, using the power it has to prevent other countries from doing what they want (unless it agrees with the american way).
Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea for America to be split up. The amount of power the white house wields is too large and attracts too much corruption.
Note if you replace the word power in the above with the word money, it scans just as well, and still seems to represent what's happening! Which is a sign that democracy has failed.
You say you like linux, but it you're unsure as to whether it will work on your laptop. But you say you'd be willing to buy a Macbook. Why wouldn't you be willing to buy a linux compatible laptop? There are plenty around (you have to be looking for them - but they're not that hard to come by)
I currently have one of the last 12" powerbooks, fantastic machine, OSX is great, but I wish I could run linux instead (lack of 3D support, and sleep ability currently stopping me). The next machine I buy will be linux ready from the very start.
My advice: try to buy a machine which won't restrict your OS choice entirely from the start, it'll be worth it if you start itching to switch later on.
The original was in an email, it wasn't actually published as it was only written as a warning to students at the university (and I think it was only sent to CS students).
Which explains why you can't find it on his home page.
Why do we need inflight GSM mini stations then?
You know, the funny thing about planes is that they CAN actually fly over things other than land. What's your signal like in the middle of the atlantic? To be fair, many aeroplanes will not need the onboard equipment if they are only flying internal flights, but as soon as you are travelling on a flight to another part of the world, these things become more necessary. It's not the altitude that's a problem.
Silly, fun, useless to them: Earth, Picasa, SketchUp
Silly and fun I agree with, but I don't they're useless to them. Scientifically, yes they probably are useless. But as a promotion tool, I think they probably work quite well. Particularly Google Earth, I've seen loads of people who think Google earth is really cool, the sort of people who would ordinarily use MSN search, because that's the one presented to them. People who don't really know what a search engine is. It's a popular way of showing that google isn't just "a search engine company", and encourage people to investigate their other offerings
I'm developing a car that will get negative 100MPG to cancel this out.
Ahh, the american way!
/ducks
For a child of 14 this sounds extreme. Just put the computer in a public place, and keep an eye on it. Wander up frequently (to start with) and say "What'ya doing?" be curious, and not accusational. You're on slashdot, you know technically how to control his access. But the OP wasn't asking that, he was asking for rules, and boundaries, to be enforced parentally not technologically.
I would say you could go about this two ways:
One:
- Let him have his own account on the computer, his own email address, etc...
- Impose limits on WHEN he is allowed to use it (only for 1 hour after school, or 2 hours after dinner providing homework is done, or whatever time limit you think best)
Two:
- Have a single account on the computer, which the entire family shares, let him have his personal email address.
- Have the computer in a communal place in the house. Somewhere where there's normally people around. Make it social.
Contrary to what the parent says, there's no point in having a monitored email account, if he wants to avoid being watched, he'll get a hotmail account or something.
Option 1 provides freedom, but a limited time - it provides a structure which the OP says was desirable. The last thing you want is a teenager BORED in front of a computer. That's when they start going to look for the dubious stuff.
Option 2 encourages open-ness, but without appearing to monitor directly. Allow him to monitor you as well. This will build more trust. If you start deleting browser cache, or being secretive - that encourages him to. Rules aren't laid down, but rather they are implicit.
If he breaks the rules, come down hard, restrict the access to the computer - but only for a limited time. (If he does it again, then make the restrictions more pernament).
There's a third option - this is the one I'd go with, but it's also the one which requires you to be the best parent, and it would only work if he has an interest in computers. Teach him about them. Encourage him to learn about them, and to start tinkering, encourage him to do something creative with a computer (be it programming/whatever), then give him a free reign. If he breaks something important - he fixes it (with help if necessary - it must be a learning experience, otherwise there was no point in breaking it). Forget about restrictions. Monitor what he does, but do so by showing pride in what he produces, encouraging him to invite you to see what he's doing. My parents did this. They knew that after a while, I knew more about the computer than they did, but they encouraged me to teach them, and to continue learning. I never broke something so bad I couldn't fix it myself, but I cocked quite a lot up. Encourge him to be responsible online and participate in things (sensibly). Teach him about privacy, about how to keep his own, and how to respect others.
You may want to adjust the rules frequently. Don't be afraid to try something out, it's parenting, you're not supposed to get it right first time...
I should get penalised for avoiding credit totally?
What if I just want to keep my finances simple.
I have two accounts (one high interest savings one), 1 debit card. Why would I ever need credit? If I can't afford something now, I wait.
I can see only two loans that I will ever need. Student loan (which in the UK is risk free, you only pay it back once you are earning above a threshold), and a mortgage.
Personally I can't stand having to remember that I need to leave a certain amount aside for something. I organised it such that my rent and paycheck perfectly co-incide. Everything in my account is then spending money (including food)..
Perhaps you can enlighten me on why avoiding credit makes me a worse employee?
Have a set of tests to determine which senator(s) can lecture / vote on a given topic. Those who fail the test lose their voting rights...
Who's going to set these tests exactly? The problem is that although you and I can see straight through this guys explanation, the majority of the voting public probably trust him as an expert because he appears to know more than them.
As a proof of concept, I thought this was great, however, I must agree I was disappointed with several aspects of the film:
- Animation, character animation seemed jerky and didn't seem to flow
- Lip Sync, seemed off - might just have been my perception of it.
- Voices - the voices were a bit to annoying and unclear, and didn't fit the characters visually (if you watch the making of, you can see why - the voice actors look nothing like the characters, look at most big productions and watch the making of, you can see the essence of the voice actor is brought to the animated character)
On the other hand, the concept seemed good and visually it was up there with some of the best animated films.
I probably won't be using this to sell the idea of open movies to my friends, but I'm glad I bought the DVD to support it, I hope it will spawn many other projects like this.
I didn't really like the film that much. but I'm glad I supported it by buying the DVD, to try and encourage more people to get involved in this sort of thing.
Any of the worms series of games has inbuilt handicaps and if that doesn't work so well then you can even play co-op against other players (make two teams the same colour).
Alternatively, try playing co-op on some of the Commandos games - I can't remember exactly how it works, but I think you both get control of a few of the characters. All the characters have very different skill sets, so she can pick the characters that best suit the way she wants to play the game.
I generally buy books after I've read them, If they entertained me, then I reward the author (and publishers) by buying the book. Otherwise I don't bother. I borrow books from people, or get them out of a library, it's rare that I buy books that I haven't already read (unless I have book tokens to waste, or there is a special offer on books by a favourite author).
This is what eBooks are lacking, I can't borrow them from other people, I can't go and get the out of the library for free. I have to buy them and THEN enjoy them, the amount of money isn't directly related to the amount of enjoyment I get out of them.
I do the same thing with all my media, I rent DVDs, then if the film is worth it, I buy it (it generally has to be awesome to get me to do this).
I borrow CDs off friends, and generally rip them to my computer, where they will sit for a while and get played occasionally. After a while I either buy the album, or delete the files. I buy a lot of music un-heard as well though so it's a slightly different case.
eBooks came too late, and they are DRMd so that I can't try them out without breaking the law, at the moment it's still much more convenient (they don't need re-charging, they are much less affected by variable light levels, smaller - I have a laptop, not a PDA) to get an actual book. And having a bookshelf which is overflowing, actually makes you look quite educated!
Other reasons include the fact that generally I read a book to get away from technology for a while - If I'm going to have a gadget in front of me I'm going to want to play with it, tweak it, work on it, take it apart, customise it, generally mess around with it, install linux on it, you get the idea. Books are more focussed in this respect
I count 3, maybe 4: Mac OS X PowerPC, Mac OS X Intel, Mac OS X Server PowerPC, and probably Mac OS X Server Intel
They're mostly segmented mostly by what hardware they run on. When a user buys a mac, they aren't presented with 6 the different options, and even if they are the choice is obvious (providing you know what a server is - if you don't you don't need it).
Comparing apples with banannas here.
The major advantage of lab computers that I can see is what happens when one stops working.
Laptop stops working:
Student has to organise going to the support place, waiting for it to be fixed (possibly taking quite a while), possibly losing work! Student then has a legitimate excuse for failing to do work on time (leading to extra work for teachers/markers/etc.)
Lab Computer Stops working:
Student stands up, finds the closest free computer, and carrys on working. School organises backups, so no risk of losing work, support people can work on things in their own time.
As a student who owns a personal desktop, personal laptop, and regularly uses the lab computers. I think this has to be one of the stupidest ideas ever. It will be a nightmare, I suggest fighting the decision, or just getting out of there ASAP.
Can't they just use a robots.txt to prevent google from indexing the images? If google can get at the content (without paying) then surely so can anyone else anyway.
If they don't want it on google. Don't allow google to index it - there are many ways of doing this (don't link to it publically, etc...) If the issue comes from pirated sites, and google indexing them - that's not googles problem, if anything they provide a very useful way for perfect 10 to find the pirated sites.
Why the fuck is this even in a courtroom? Am I entirely mis-understanding their point?
Google video is leading. BBC is just copying.
Google video might be leading at the moment - however, the BBC has been in front a long time, and because of it's connections as a more traditional broadcasting company, I think this will have the biggest effect when it starts using digital distribution more.
IMO the BBC is a very worthwhile place for my £120 a year - it provides something which the ad-sponsered channels haven't really mastered. The ad sponsered channels have to produce stuff which will be popular. Everything revolves around the viewer count and how many ads they can sell. The BBC on the other hand can produce things that not everyone will like - special interest programs, and more intelligent ones. The BBC has to give the impression that it's making TV for EVERYONE - not just the popular crap. The barriers to entry of the TV market meant that hobbiests couldn't hope to produce their own special interest programs.
The internet has changed that, consequently the BBC has become a little less relevant. The internet provides a way and a means for hobbiests to form worldwide communities and produce their own content for very little cost. However, I don't think that's the end of the usefulness of the BBC. They have been leading the way in terms of online content in many cases - and because they aren't driven by a mass of companies (and particularly american ones!) They are more likely (by no means certain) to be the ones who consider fair use/other platforms/etc. when producing their online content. Rather than simply locking everything down.
What I would like to see is the BBC (or another organisation - NOT A PROFIT BASED COMPANY) look towards creating a good platform for the Enthusiasts of the country/world to produce their content on - Library/storage for public produced media and a distribution network (website!) for the same. It's just an idea.
The BBC I think is one of the media companies which is best positioned to make the transition into a sensible digital distribution network - It's not not a shareholder service - it's a public service.
Yeah well I don't use a TV at the moment and I'm quite happy not having to pay the BBC for a service I don't use. I think we should all get petrol for free from the government and they can recoup the cost through general taxation, because lets face it, 75% of it is tax and virtually everyone has a car, right?
Woah, hold up there, very poor comparison. Petrol for free is a very bad idea and it lets your comment down (you have quite a good point - just one I disagree with). One of the reason's that the govt tax petrol is to discourage it's usage. If we could get petrol free, then everyone would be pissing around in cars which did a few meters to the gallon, and our green and pleasant(ish) land would dissappear pronto. I am one of the few who things petrol prices SHOULD be high (and as a semi-regular driver that might be a surprise).
I think the public transport analogy might work a little better for your arguement. I'd happily pay more tax for FREE public transport. This would certainly get me out of my car on many trips.
Back to your point - I have a TV license and I watch TV - I am very glad to have the BBC to watch, they produce a reasonable quantity of acceptable quality programs (some utter shite as well - but IMO they do a lot better than the ad driven channels). I think a government run tax would work a lot better. I agree that there should be some method to allow people who don't own a TV set to not pay - but this should be CLAIMED BACK, this would cut down on the amount of evasion (and therefore cost of the administration). The current method leads to people who can't afford it dodging the license fee, and then getting themselves a hefty fine which causes real problems (as they can't pay)
I used to work for a large multinational "everything" company, and I was lucky enough to start work, shortly after they'd moved into their brand new UK head office. The design of the building was completely open plan(dividers between desks were no higher then a monitor). No-one had an office, not even the MD. All the meeting rooms were glass walled (on at least one side. But actually I got a lot more done than if I'd have had my own office*, or even shared an office.
You had a very good feel for exactly what was going on within the department (120 people), and building. Especially within your own team. You could hear every conversation that went on. Surprisingly it's not that distracting. Because of the levels of noise you learnt to live with it, and block it out, consequently you could keep track of the world, and get on with work. I think had I been in a more secluded environment, I would have spent a lot more time browsing.
They had a quiet room where you could get away from all the people who came to see you/called you etc. And meeting rooms for anything more than a quick discussion.
In all honesty, having worked in that type of environment - office space really isn't a factor that bothers me. I currently work from home part time (student the rest of the time) - and I don't get any more or less work done than I did then. It would nice to have a more social working environment - but as I'm the only dev for the company, that's not possible.
(*Note, I was a placement student, I never would have had my own office anyway!)
I Was in exactly this situation last year. from my experiences (UK specific some of them) here's what I recommend
Get yourself some decent clothing. I already own a lot of this, I don't mean expensive designer shit, I mean comfortable warm stuff. Wear more than one jumper during the winter.
Turn your computer OFF. Seriously, this will save you shit loads. I used to run mine all day (not during the night - I can't sleep with it on in my room), and it cost me loads over the summer. I realised I wasn't really using it, so now it only comes on when I get back from uni in the afternoon. If you can't cope without a computer running - cut it down to just 1.
Buy energy saving bulbs - they're subsidised in the UK at the moment (as I mentioned in another post - http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/) I got some for about £1 a shot. Which if you're using 100W bulbs in your rooms, will be saved in no time.
Keep the curtains closed when you're not in the house, and turn your bedroom radiators off (I don't actually do this, if you're in a old house, you may find that it takes a long time for the room to heat up each time, so it's worth keeping it relatively warm.
Get a job - seriously, it will make life so much easier.
Turn off (completely off) the heating in your kitchen. You will produce enough heat when cooking that you will only notice for the first 5 mins in the room.
Set the heating to only come on at about 5/6 or roughly about half an hour after it get's dark and turn off around 10pm.
Consider staying in the same house for more than one year. If you do this, then the landlord might even let you have a slightly discounted rate, and will be less concerned if you do a bit of damage to the house (however, avoid this, landlords can be really arsey about it) It also means you don't have to move out.
You don't need a car
Shower every other day - I live with some people who shower twice every day - personally I can't understand it - you don't get dirty that quickly, and it's a real waste.
Don't worry too much about saving energy really stingely (unless you're really broke) or cutting corners everywhere you can - think about how much difference it will actually make to your bills.
Currently in the UK, energy saving light bulbs are subsidised, I'm replacing all of the bulbs in our (student) house, with them.
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/ (no I don't work for them) are selling them for 99p at the moment.
While you'd have to pay for it - Point2Play (from Transgaming) does exactly that, it allows you to have completely seperated environments and settings for each game/application. I used to use it when I was still finishing off the windows games I had been playing when I switched to linux. Now I only buy linux games.
For starters, the idea of some kind of "tax" which assumes I'm going to download music, scares me a little. I don't want to download music - most of it is poor quality/badly tagged/etc. Secondly, this sounds perfect for the studios, they can produce any old pile of crap, and they are still guaranteed to make money from you. It removes any reward they get for producing good music.
However, on the other hand, it sounds like they're beginning to see that many people are frustrated at online music stores, which are all incompatible with each other, and require you to use a specific music player (this is the reason why I won't touch iTunes MS.
Also in terms of how this would be enforced. If I don't want to sign up for this, but I still want to have my music collection on my computer (all ripped) - Is every Record Industry lawyer going to point their finger at me and shout: "PIRATE!" (ignore the heightened sense of self importance - it's an example), just assuming that because I have music on my computer I must have downloaded it.
When I first heard the idea it didn't sound that bad, but I'm willing to bet that it would have to be enforced, by assuming everyone shares/downloads music. Which is something that I don't agree with.
(If you're a freak and haven't seen the film yet, STOP READING NOW!)
The large number of the main characters which they killed off in the movie, kinda spoiled it for me. The most mysterious character from the series, Sheperd Book, barely got a look in in the film, and now he's gone the prospect of his story being revealed in more depth in a second series is too remote for my liking. Now that Wash is gone, who's going to be responsible for all the jealousy of Mal? who's going to be responsible for all the random marital disputes? who's going to be responsible for the insane flying? The problem with the film IMO is that it was "about" River, the whole point of Firefly the series was that it wasn't about one person, it was about them as a group/crew - much less about what they do, and more about who they are.
Don't get me wrong, I like the movie, but if the "closure" that Joss wanted on some of the story lines from the series is just going to involve killing off the characters - that's not closure, it explains nothing. It just destroys the anticipation of learning more about those characters. I'll be buying the movie on DVD when it comes out here in the UK, because it was a kick ass movie, but as a continuation of the series, it sucked.
Series 2? Yes, I'd buy it (I'd have to wait until DVD release here in the UK - but I'm patient). But I'd much prefer it if they continued after the series, and left the film storyline alone. But, that's too problematic, because we learned quite a bit in the film, about River's past, and the reavers, which we couldn't just go back to "not knowing".
I wouldn't say the film spoilt it, but it could have done so much better if it didn't have to fit into generic action movie template, and either been radical and gone it's own way (never would have got the exec's support), or just gone back to making the series.
The phrase you're looking for is "extension lead" or "trailing socket", they're not usually called anything different if they have more sockets on. Having said that the Americans may refer to them as something completely different (I'm from the UK)