next thing I know, the coppers are banging on my door, looking through my PC for kiddyporn
I think that you would be at "fault" for believing that BT was going to block all kiddyporn. You did not read the notice that said they would attempt to remove much, but not all.
The situation you describe, and your hot date with Bubba, could already happen anyway, and BT's plans to block some kiddyporn has only made you less susceptable, not more.
...but then they also have to accept that if they fail to filter a page, they should be liable for damages
This is a nonsense, and typical of the find-someone-else-to-blame culture. Police cannot be held responsible if you speed in your car, simply because they did not have the resources to catch everyone. Watch out for that hot coffee - it's hot.
But the brilliance of Linus is that he realises you must first have features to fight!
One argument against "features" is that once they're there, they are very hard to remove. Features are too easy to add. The addition of features is not automatically brilliant. Fortunately, the world is beginning to realise this, and not automatically updating their operating systems and MS-Office just because they have new, infinitesimal, features.
The alternate approach, is to be forced to justify why new features *must* be added, and why they can't be developed using existing facilities. Read about creeping featurism
When are the record labels going to understand that their product isn't worth what they want to charge?
This comment makes no sense - things are only ever worth what people are willing to pay for them. Diamonds, as old lumps of carbon squashed together, are not worth anything but people value them (hmmm, does that make sense?).
If CDs were not worth $16.99, people would not buy them. Are individual songs worth $1.25 - well, we shall see.
Perhaps you meant "when are the consumers going to understand..."?
Why the hell are we bothering to support the cartel's music?
We continue to support the cartel's music because it is too hard to go out and find most other forms of music. Popular music is "forced" upon us through radio or TV and, over time, we often grow to like a few songs by the same artists to go out and buy their CD. Most independent music doesn't make it to our ears, and most people don't have enough time, or bandwidth, to sample as many different songs as we hear, without effort, while driving in our cars.
Of course the music doesn't get to the radio or TV without effort or money, but that's what makes your cartels cartels in the first place.
Eventually the paying public gets to fund the music on radio and TV by buying copies of it.
Support only the artists that allow the free taping and distribution of their music
But if all of this music if free, how will we be supporting the artists? Most people won't even pay for a newspaper if they don't have to, and for that you get something to hold.
This really can't be a serious article.
Why would any machine need (require) both wired and wireless networking interfaces? Why not shoot for broad-multiband, as well?
Yes, I must have misread the original - just like the other following replies to this thread, eh?
At least my knee while jerking; clearly unlike you.
Until, say, 15 years ago we may have thought that calculators would not routinely solve matricies or find the roots to equations. It takes little foresight, today, to predict "calculators" performing symbolic mathematics, and PDEs, within a decade.
Considering that the 'global warming' theory has been dubunked.....
Ummm, well, actually, no it hasn't, but unfortunately I can't mod you down as a troll.
Another chance for Hollywood to redeem itself
on
Physics Goes To Hollywood
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It looks like Hollywood will soon have another chance to redeem its portrayal of science in movies.
The trailer for
The Day After Tomorrow looks great, and certainly has a strong message about global warming in the film
(just don't try to visit their website over a modem!)
Starts May 28th.
Stating "OSX likes to use RAM as cache" is just a fact
Sorry, I wasn't trying to make a big deal of it, I just found it unusual that something quite normal needed to be stated, i.e. don't most contemporary OSs use RAM for cache? (to me the question is circular, though not for embedded OSs).
Of note, is that I observe OS-X binaries (being on, sort-of, 64-bit architectures) to often be 20% larger - and here's a good reason for more RAM. That said, I'm noticing the stripped, shared,/bin/ls on OS-X to be only 18KB, and the stripped, shared,/bin/ls on my Fedora-I to be 72KB!
Re:The cache of owning an Apple?
on
Apple Revises eMac
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
That's pronounced "kash-ay" for you Americans that don't speak foreign.
Pah! Foreign, who needs them?
As George Bush said when going into Iraq "one of the problems with the French is that they have no word for entrepreneur".
And yes, you'll want to up the RAM to as much as you can afford [OSX likes to use RAM as cache]
I'm a bit confused by your comment.
One of the very reasons for having (lots of) RAM is for it to act as a cache. I help lots of first-time Linux users who express disappointment that the free command keeps showing that 95% of RAM is being used ("but I just bought 512MB more, and it's full again!!?!").
Are you suggesting that using RAM as cache is somehow unusual? What are you saving it for?
You see, that's just where you're wrong, and why education, rather than ignorance, is a good thing.
It's the very reason some ISPs advertise using MBps, and others with Mbps. Remain ignorant at your own peril.
There's a limited number of ways to attempt to write MHz, and only one of them is correct. This article's summary tries both mhz and MHz in the space of only 100 words. Why don't people make enough effort to use the correct prefix, and respect the great works of honoured scientists by capitalizing their names correctly?
Coming up: "Incorrect use of apostrophes!!" News at 11.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that you would be at "fault" for believing that BT was going to block all kiddyporn. You did not read the notice that said they would attempt to remove much, but not all.
The situation you describe, and your hot date with Bubba, could already happen anyway, and BT's plans to block some kiddyporn has only made you less susceptable, not more.
This is a nonsense, and typical of the find-someone-else-to-blame culture. Police cannot be held responsible if you speed in your car, simply because they did not have the resources to catch everyone. Watch out for that hot coffee - it's hot.
I want to go geocaching....
One argument against "features" is that once they're there, they are very hard to remove. Features are too easy to add. The addition of features is not automatically brilliant. Fortunately, the world is beginning to realise this, and not automatically updating their operating systems and MS-Office just because they have new, infinitesimal, features.
The alternate approach, is to be forced to justify why new features *must* be added, and why they can't be developed using existing facilities. Read about creeping featurism
Personally, I think it would be great if Apple develops technology to make Windows fade away.
It's about to easy as buying US-Letter paper in Australia!
Hey, come on now.
The metric system is OK, it's just difficult to bring before all of the old people die out.
And Dennis's brother, Brian, who stole all of Dennis's ideas.
This comment makes no sense - things are only ever worth what people are willing to pay for them. Diamonds, as old lumps of carbon squashed together, are not worth anything but people value them (hmmm, does that make sense?). If CDs were not worth $16.99, people would not buy them. Are individual songs worth $1.25 - well, we shall see.
Perhaps you meant "when are the consumers going to understand..."?
We continue to support the cartel's music because it is too hard to go out and find most other forms of music. Popular music is "forced" upon us through radio or TV and, over time, we often grow to like a few songs by the same artists to go out and buy their CD. Most independent music doesn't make it to our ears, and most people don't have enough time, or bandwidth, to sample as many different songs as we hear, without effort, while driving in our cars.
Of course the music doesn't get to the radio or TV without effort or money, but that's what makes your cartels cartels in the first place. Eventually the paying public gets to fund the music on radio and TV by buying copies of it.
Support only the artists that allow the free taping and distribution of their music
But if all of this music if free, how will we be supporting the artists? Most people won't even pay for a newspaper if they don't have to, and for that you get something to hold.
What is all the bloat for?
DRM. Fear the DRM.
Yes, a terabyte.
They've finally admitted how large those binaries, audio, and video clips will be with all that DRM inside!
This really can't be a serious article.
Why would any machine need (require) both wired and wireless networking interfaces? Why not shoot for broad-multiband, as well?
Until, say, 15 years ago we may have thought that calculators would not routinely solve matricies or find the roots to equations. It takes little foresight, today, to predict "calculators" performing symbolic mathematics, and PDEs, within a decade.
Who's taking Partial Differential Equations? You or the calculator?
Ummm, well, actually, no it hasn't, but unfortunately I can't mod you down as a troll.
The trailer for The Day After Tomorrow looks great, and certainly has a strong message about global warming in the film (just don't try to visit their website over a modem!) Starts May 28th.
Would that be a Linux, or an OS-X machine?
Sorry, I wasn't trying to make a big deal of it, I just found it unusual that something quite normal needed to be stated, i.e. don't most contemporary OSs use RAM for cache? (to me the question is circular, though not for embedded OSs).
Of note, is that I observe OS-X binaries (being on, sort-of, 64-bit architectures) to often be 20% larger - and here's a good reason for more RAM. That said, I'm noticing the stripped, shared, /bin/ls on OS-X to be only 18KB, and the stripped, shared, /bin/ls on my Fedora-I to be 72KB!
Pah! Foreign, who needs them? As George Bush said when going into Iraq "one of the problems with the French is that they have no word for entrepreneur".
I'm a bit confused by your comment. One of the very reasons for having (lots of) RAM is for it to act as a cache. I help lots of first-time Linux users who express disappointment that the free command keeps showing that 95% of RAM is being used ("but I just bought 512MB more, and it's full again!!?!").
Are you suggesting that using RAM as cache is somehow unusual? What are you saving it for?
You see, that's just where you're wrong, and why education, rather than ignorance, is a good thing. It's the very reason some ISPs advertise using MBps, and others with Mbps. Remain ignorant at your own peril.
How did those brilliant engineers at Apple design a fuse which works for exactly 35-40 days?
Neither of which should be confused with Mr milli or Mr hazy.
Coming up: "Incorrect use of apostrophes!!" News at 11.
No .sig for you. Next!