Holy shit, and I kept bitching about how ugly our money was getting. How do you guys cope up there? And that other guy who posted the Aussie bills...it must really hurt to live down under.
"Trotting out the tired "to save lives" argument is like saying that the killing of American servicemen in Iraq is justified because it saves insurgents lives."
Actually, it wouldn't be. The claim is that the bombing saved TOTAL lives, not that it saved SOME lives. Now, can you claim that the killing of American Servicemen in Iraq has, overall, reduced the amount of death in that country? I find it un likely.
Further, it need also be noted that the alternative way to reduce loss of lives, surrender, is not seen as acceptable because it causes a loss of rights, which is held to be of similar value (watered with blood of patriots and all that).
Honestly, Opterons/Athlon64s are fairly low power. If you want passive cooling, go with a C3, but know that your floating point work will suck. If you want the best performance/power ratio, go with an old Mac G4 (I think that's still the best). However, if you just want something that is fairly low power but can really kick ass, go with one of the lower-speed Athlon64 offerings.
It is, unsurprisingly, extremely easy to just write a script which checks if links are working and ignored them if they are working or, if they are not working, reports them to the admin and makes them into Not-Links in the page that actually gets posted. Although that might leave a few gaps in navigation, at least the gaps don't let people follow them to dead-ends. And, with the admin warned, they can be fixed promptly.
Why is this important? If the purpose is to identify that you are of the appropriate age, then gender does not matter at all. If the concern is that a lot of people pretend to be the opposite sex on chat rooms, this is idiotic. Plenty of people pretend to be the opposite sex in real life, and it's not hard and doesn't cause many problems. Further, if you're concerned about people faking who they are, shouldn't you identify them in their entirety?
And, even more importantly, these things will be ungodly easy to imitate, especially on Linux or a BSD where you could easily just, entirely in software, create a USB device and tell your system it is whatever you want it to be. (Yes, that's also possible on other systems, it's just really easy on an open system).
Freedom of speech is encroached upon when anonymity is encroached upon (think whistleblower).
Plenty of commercial media is also controversial/politicol/important media. Consider this. I am whistle-blowing against my company, and I do this by sending someone an image/audio recording of something at the office. They will likely (and possibly accurately) claim it is commercial.
I do disagree. I don't think this will be used too much in raids, but I do think that it will be tacked onto the tail-end of countless lists of offenses that criminals are charged with, allowing the prosecutors to easily add a few years to the sentence.
"even if they don't know what to do, they can at least shout "crap!", which is more than a system stuck at the BIOS screen with an "elbow parity error" can say."
Actually, it wouldn't be very hard to have the reboot process send out a useful message which, on its receipt at the appropriate time, would prevent the vocalization of "crap! crap! crap!" by another system. And, as such, a failure to reboot would draw the appropriate crap cries in a similar time-frame as a human rebooter could reasonably issue such fearful announcements.
"However, I don't see anything wrong with a desire to experience what you've created. If you built a house, wouldn't you want to live in it? Same thing here. If you "build" a character, you're going to want to "live in" it. It's not narcissism, which is what you make it out to be."
I'm not making it out to be narcissism, which would be wanting to see oneself. I'm making it out to be the same as having an imaginary friend. That's not narcissism.
And, if I build a house, I want to do things in it, not merely live in it. They replied that they wanted to see their characters. Not to participate in the game, not to have social interactions, not to relax, just to see their character. That isn't the purpose of the character, and it seems a might bit unhealthy.
For those who don't yet realize it, MMORPGs represent a serious problem. As some evidence, I would point you to the response given to question 15 in that survey:
15. What is your main reason for ongoing subscription to {game}?
6% Participation in the Game 20% To See My Character 29% Fun 14% Friendship/Social 8% Relaxation 9% Addictive Nature of Game 9% Other
In particular, 9% of the people ADMIT they are addicted to the game. We all know that most addicts refuse to be categorized as such, and 9% of these people openly admit it.
Further, 20% of the PLAY TO SEE THEIR CHARACTERS. These are game characters, which they created and control. These characters are basically figments of their imagination. This is like saying 20% of them enjoy their imaginary friends.
Or, more specifically, you didn't think to check the facts of the parent post before assuming the author of the article was either stupid or horribly incorrect.
If you had actually read the article, you would have seen:
Corwin (Homebrew) Gentoo AMD64 GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6 SMP Dual Opteron 240, Tyan K8W 2885 120GB Maxtor 7200 RPM ATA-133 HD 2GB PC2700 DRAM Radeon 9200 Pro, 128MB, HP f1903 DFP
Tycho (Homebrew) Dual Boot: Windows XP Professional Gentoo x86 GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6 SMP 2.8GHz Pentium 4 w/HT, Intel D850EMV2, 533MHz FSB 2x80GB Maxtor D740X 7200 RPM ATA-100 HD 512MB PC800 RDRAM Radeon 9200 Pro, 128MB, NEC FE990
"Notice that the new environmental buzzword is 'sustainable'. Wonder where that came from? The reason being is that environmentalists have been talking about the end of the world for the last 20-30 years, and have most always been wrong. Therefore, sustainable is the new world because there are no firm dates. Things could easily keep getting better and better... but they can always say 'its not sustainable'... and no one can prove them wrong."
The new buzzword is 'sustainable' because that actually is the goal for many people who are not environmentalists, and the environmentalists want to be in league with someone else to strengthen their base.
Despite how much it may seem like a vague idea which can be thrown at anything, sustainability isn't so ridiculous. That's why it is usually mentioned with important things that we know to be limited. For example, I am up in arms about the wasteful use of oil not so much because I am worried about the pollution but because I like plastic. It is a clear fact that we do not have an infinite oil supply. Yet, without that oil, we do not have plastics. We can easily get an alternative for vehicle fuels, but we can't easily replace plastics, so I want people to stop wasting oil on cars.
In cases like that, sustainable is not just a buzzword thrown in to make it working and unpredictable, it is a genuine problem which is clearly defineable. The word has been messed up by rabid environmentalists tagging it onto everything else, but is not on its own flawed, as you imply.
Honestly. They went out of their way to get it across fast, what, with the September 17th theatrical release date for the US being only six months or so behind Japan. Why do you have to be a cock and violate the copyright on it like that?
"Why can't Hollywood make movies that have great special effects AND good plots? The Matrix and Spiderman were the the only two decent movies in recent times that have had good CG and a decent plot. I guess you could toss some of the Pixar flicks as well, but that's still a small minority when compared to all the crap that has come out."
Wow, to make your point you look at Spiderman and The Matrix. First off, X-Men outdid spiderman for plot and effects, especially if you look at the second Spiderman movie. Beyond just X-Men, which had fine plot, what about Equilibrium, which had excellent plot and effects.
So, including X-Men I and II, Spiderman (I'll only count #1), The Matrix (once again, only the first), and Equilibrium, you have five movies in recent times with great plot and effects, and that's off the top of my head when I'm not at home to skim through movie collections. Is that really such a large rate of failure?
Re:Actually, it does not at all promote filesharin
on
NYT Promotes File Sharing
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"Actually, this article doesn't promote filesharing at all, but rather legal sources of authorized downloads and/or streams."
So, those aren't...um...files? And people aren't, well, sharing them? Could you possibly explain what is different between sharing files and filesharing?
"Let's not forget that a lot of the anti-copyright sentiment around here magically disappears whenever we have a GPL violation article."
If you look closely, you'll see that most of the 'anti-copyright' sentiment around here is closer to '28 years only' copyright sentiment, dislike for RIAA tactics and their debatable legality, and dislike for the way that the United States tries to strongarm every nation in the world into abiding by the laws pushed through by American corporations.
Funny how none of those issues even relates to GPL violations.
What is further bothersome is not that it allows them to do this, but it creates a new channel for them to do it, so they can do it without making it obvious. They can already obtain exclusive rights and classify the information for security purposes, but it will be declassified in according to a predetermined timeline and will be accessible after that point. Then, it will be trouble if it comes out that they hadn't the right to declassify it. When does this intrusion into my rights expire?
Ah, so they're only allowed to withold unclassified information from us if they don't let others buy it. So, they can keep unclassified information classified, just because...and this Freedom of Information Act works most of the time, except on occasion, even though the data isn't important enough to be classified?
I'm somewhat confused. Can you explain to me again why I can't look at unclassified information?
Okay, I'll agree that the Carmack is mighty impressive, but I don't see how you can start giving credit like that. It just devalues the work of countless other excellent programs to give such long and tenuous trace-backs.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection, and absent any other overt act, an "overt act" does not include:
The following are some good provisions, really.
(A) distributing any dissemination technology capable of substantial noninfringing uses knowing that it can be used for infringing purposes, so long as that technology is not designed to be used for infringing purposes;
So BitTorrent is still okay, although the other P2P clients are in a little more shady of a situation.
(B) distributing any dissemination technology that incorporates reasonably effective measures to prevent or halt dissemination that constitutes infringement within the meaning of this subsection;
Reasonably effective is incredibly vague. If we can be as slightly effective as some copy protection crap, that would be simple.
(C) advertising, marketing or promoting a dissemination technology that does not specifically encourage the use of that technology for infringing purposes;
(D) the providing of information on the use of a dissemination technology by the creator or distributor of that dissemination technology when the information does not specifically encourage the use of that technology for infringing purposes, including through instruction manuals, handbooks, user guides or customer support services;
It's good to say both of those things, at the least. Just don't put up screenshots of your product being used illegally (um, Appollon).
(E) the providing of information on the use of a dissemination technology by a person not affiliated with the creator or distributor of that dissemination technology in the context of commentary, criticism, or reviews of the dissemination technology; or
So, wait, I can explain that a tool can be used illegally, so long as I didn't release it? At least they remember what free speech is. I didn't expect that.
(F) providing products or services to a distributor of dissemination technology in the same manner that such products or services are provided to other members of the public, including but not limited to financial services, delivery services, advertising services, product reviews or evaluations, library services, real estate services, customer-support services for users of computer software or hardware, utilities and telecommunications services.
"There is slim hope that this will happen, at least in the foreseeable future, human logic being as flawed as it indeed is."
Ah. So, what will this superior form of logic gain us? With a super-efficient system we could solve all sorts of problems and extend our lives and enrich ourselves, allowing us to have longer to enjoy...wait a minute, you're complaining because we'd rather be able to enjoy ourselves, which appears to be the point anyway, than to not enjoy ourselves for a while so that we can later enjoy ourselves as we would have been doing anyway.
Perhaps you could explain your 'unflawed logic' sometime?
The issue is not 'vertical mount' it's 'angle mount'. Since the computer tips on that arm, the drives inside will never be horizontal or vertical, which I was under the impression was the best position to have a drive in.
There are comments all over this article about how hard it is to keep up with a 10 Gbit connection.
Am I the only person in the world who shares an internet connection between multiple computers? Do you honestly think that I can't use up 10 Gbit when routing it across seven computers which are heavily used by a mixture of people demanding low latency and high through-put?
And those precious locks on the cockpit doors that so many short-sighted people fought for will do an excellent job of keeping the passengers and crew out of the hijackers' way.
If the passengers and crew can't get in, neither can the terrorists (at least, not without explosives or taking apart the door, but that'd make it accessible by the passengers anyways).
Although the original poster was generally an idiot, he's right about this. If there is a lock on the door, and pilot who decides to do this is virtually guaranteed success. Further, it leaves things wide open to flight attendants causing problems, unless the cockpit is kept sealed through the entire flight, which is a very different suggestion which entails other problems.
The reason that the locked/reinforced doors are a mistake is that they add the problem of a pilot being able to easily ram whatever he wants but solve no problems in the process. We are already basically guaranteed that a terrorist cannot take over the cockpit and do bad things with the plane because the passengers know the risk and will rise up and kill anyone who tries that (unless they can't get through the cockpit door).
Slashdot Mirror
Holy shit, and I kept bitching about how ugly our money was getting. How do you guys cope up there? And that other guy who posted the Aussie bills...it must really hurt to live down under.
"Trotting out the tired "to save lives" argument is like saying that the killing of American servicemen in Iraq is justified because it saves insurgents lives."
Actually, it wouldn't be. The claim is that the bombing saved TOTAL lives, not that it saved SOME lives. Now, can you claim that the killing of American Servicemen in Iraq has, overall, reduced the amount of death in that country? I find it un likely.
Further, it need also be noted that the alternative way to reduce loss of lives, surrender, is not seen as acceptable because it causes a loss of rights, which is held to be of similar value (watered with blood of patriots and all that).
Honestly, Opterons/Athlon64s are fairly low power. If you want passive cooling, go with a C3, but know that your floating point work will suck. If you want the best performance/power ratio, go with an old Mac G4 (I think that's still the best). However, if you just want something that is fairly low power but can really kick ass, go with one of the lower-speed Athlon64 offerings.
It is, unsurprisingly, extremely easy to just write a script which checks if links are working and ignored them if they are working or, if they are not working, reports them to the admin and makes them into Not-Links in the page that actually gets posted. Although that might leave a few gaps in navigation, at least the gaps don't let people follow them to dead-ends. And, with the admin warned, they can be fixed promptly.
Why is this important? If the purpose is to identify that you are of the appropriate age, then gender does not matter at all. If the concern is that a lot of people pretend to be the opposite sex on chat rooms, this is idiotic. Plenty of people pretend to be the opposite sex in real life, and it's not hard and doesn't cause many problems. Further, if you're concerned about people faking who they are, shouldn't you identify them in their entirety?
And, even more importantly, these things will be ungodly easy to imitate, especially on Linux or a BSD where you could easily just, entirely in software, create a USB device and tell your system it is whatever you want it to be. (Yes, that's also possible on other systems, it's just really easy on an open system).
Freedom of speech is encroached upon when anonymity is encroached upon (think whistleblower).
Plenty of commercial media is also controversial/politicol/important media. Consider this. I am whistle-blowing against my company, and I do this by sending someone an image/audio recording of something at the office. They will likely (and possibly accurately) claim it is commercial.
I do disagree. I don't think this will be used too much in raids, but I do think that it will be tacked onto the tail-end of countless lists of offenses that criminals are charged with, allowing the prosecutors to easily add a few years to the sentence.
"even if they don't know what to do, they can at least shout "crap!", which is more than a system stuck at the BIOS screen with an "elbow parity error" can say."
Actually, it wouldn't be very hard to have the reboot process send out a useful message which, on its receipt at the appropriate time, would prevent the vocalization of "crap! crap! crap!" by another system. And, as such, a failure to reboot would draw the appropriate crap cries in a similar time-frame as a human rebooter could reasonably issue such fearful announcements.
"However, I don't see anything wrong with a desire to experience what you've created. If you built a house, wouldn't you want to live in it? Same thing here. If you "build" a character, you're going to want to "live in" it. It's not narcissism, which is what you make it out to be."
I'm not making it out to be narcissism, which would be wanting to see oneself. I'm making it out to be the same as having an imaginary friend. That's not narcissism.
And, if I build a house, I want to do things in it, not merely live in it. They replied that they wanted to see their characters. Not to participate in the game, not to have social interactions, not to relax, just to see their character. That isn't the purpose of the character, and it seems a might bit unhealthy.
For those who don't yet realize it, MMORPGs represent a serious problem. As some evidence, I would point you to the response given to question 15 in that survey:
15. What is your main reason for ongoing subscription to {game}?
6% Participation in the Game
20% To See My Character
29% Fun
14% Friendship/Social
8% Relaxation
9% Addictive Nature of Game
9% Other
In particular, 9% of the people ADMIT they are addicted to the game. We all know that most addicts refuse to be categorized as such, and 9% of these people openly admit it.
Further, 20% of the PLAY TO SEE THEIR CHARACTERS. These are game characters, which they created and control. These characters are basically figments of their imagination. This is like saying 20% of them enjoy their imaginary friends.
That's just not right!
Or, more specifically, you didn't think to check the facts of the parent post before assuming the author of the article was either stupid or horribly incorrect.
If you had actually read the article, you would have seen:
Corwin (Homebrew)
Gentoo AMD64 GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6 SMP
Dual Opteron 240, Tyan K8W 2885
120GB Maxtor 7200 RPM ATA-133 HD
2GB PC2700 DRAM
Radeon 9200 Pro, 128MB, HP f1903 DFP
Tycho (Homebrew)
Dual Boot: Windows XP Professional
Gentoo x86 GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6 SMP
2.8GHz Pentium 4 w/HT, Intel D850EMV2, 533MHz FSB
2x80GB Maxtor D740X 7200 RPM ATA-100 HD
512MB PC800 RDRAM
Radeon 9200 Pro, 128MB, NEC FE990
"Notice that the new environmental buzzword is 'sustainable'. Wonder where that came from? The reason being is that environmentalists have been talking about the end of the world for the last 20-30 years, and have most always been wrong. Therefore, sustainable is the new world because there are no firm dates. Things could easily keep getting better and better... but they can always say 'its not sustainable'... and no one can prove them wrong."
The new buzzword is 'sustainable' because that actually is the goal for many people who are not environmentalists, and the environmentalists want to be in league with someone else to strengthen their base.
Despite how much it may seem like a vague idea which can be thrown at anything, sustainability isn't so ridiculous. That's why it is usually mentioned with important things that we know to be limited. For example, I am up in arms about the wasteful use of oil not so much because I am worried about the pollution but because I like plastic. It is a clear fact that we do not have an infinite oil supply. Yet, without that oil, we do not have plastics. We can easily get an alternative for vehicle fuels, but we can't easily replace plastics, so I want people to stop wasting oil on cars.
In cases like that, sustainable is not just a buzzword thrown in to make it working and unpredictable, it is a genuine problem which is clearly defineable. The word has been messed up by rabid environmentalists tagging it onto everything else, but is not on its own flawed, as you imply.
Honestly. They went out of their way to get it across fast, what, with the September 17th theatrical release date for the US being only six months or so behind Japan. Why do you have to be a cock and violate the copyright on it like that?
"Why can't Hollywood make movies that have great special effects AND good plots? The Matrix and Spiderman were the the only two decent movies in recent times that have had good CG and a decent plot. I guess you could toss some of the Pixar flicks as well, but that's still a small minority when compared to all the crap that has come out."
Wow, to make your point you look at Spiderman and The Matrix. First off, X-Men outdid spiderman for plot and effects, especially if you look at the second Spiderman movie. Beyond just X-Men, which had fine plot, what about Equilibrium, which had excellent plot and effects.
So, including X-Men I and II, Spiderman (I'll only count #1), The Matrix (once again, only the first), and Equilibrium, you have five movies in recent times with great plot and effects, and that's off the top of my head when I'm not at home to skim through movie collections. Is that really such a large rate of failure?
"Actually, this article doesn't promote filesharing at all, but rather legal sources of authorized downloads and/or streams."
So, those aren't...um...files? And people aren't, well, sharing them? Could you possibly explain what is different between sharing files and filesharing?
"Let's not forget that a lot of the anti-copyright sentiment around here magically disappears whenever we have a GPL violation article."
If you look closely, you'll see that most of the 'anti-copyright' sentiment around here is closer to '28 years only' copyright sentiment, dislike for RIAA tactics and their debatable legality, and dislike for the way that the United States tries to strongarm every nation in the world into abiding by the laws pushed through by American corporations.
Funny how none of those issues even relates to GPL violations.
What is further bothersome is not that it allows them to do this, but it creates a new channel for them to do it, so they can do it without making it obvious. They can already obtain exclusive rights and classify the information for security purposes, but it will be declassified in according to a predetermined timeline and will be accessible after that point. Then, it will be trouble if it comes out that they hadn't the right to declassify it. When does this intrusion into my rights expire?
Ah, so they're only allowed to withold unclassified information from us if they don't let others buy it. So, they can keep unclassified information classified, just because...and this Freedom of Information Act works most of the time, except on occasion, even though the data isn't important enough to be classified?
I'm somewhat confused. Can you explain to me again why I can't look at unclassified information?
Okay, I'll agree that the Carmack is mighty impressive, but I don't see how you can start giving credit like that. It just devalues the work of countless other excellent programs to give such long and tenuous trace-backs.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection, and absent any other overt act, an "overt act" does not include:
The following are some good provisions, really.
(A) distributing any dissemination technology capable of substantial noninfringing uses knowing that it can be used for infringing purposes, so long as that technology is not designed to be used for infringing purposes;
So BitTorrent is still okay, although the other P2P clients are in a little more shady of a situation.
(B) distributing any dissemination technology that incorporates reasonably effective measures to prevent or halt dissemination that constitutes infringement within the meaning of this subsection;
Reasonably effective is incredibly vague. If we can be as slightly effective as some copy protection crap, that would be simple.
(C) advertising, marketing or promoting a dissemination technology that does not specifically encourage the use of that technology for infringing purposes;
(D) the providing of information on the use of a dissemination technology by the creator or distributor of that dissemination technology when the information does not specifically encourage the use of that technology for infringing purposes, including through instruction manuals, handbooks, user guides or customer support services;
It's good to say both of those things, at the least. Just don't put up screenshots of your product being used illegally (um, Appollon).
(E) the providing of information on the use of a dissemination technology by a person not affiliated with the creator or distributor of that dissemination technology in the context of commentary, criticism, or reviews of the dissemination technology; or
So, wait, I can explain that a tool can be used illegally, so long as I didn't release it? At least they remember what free speech is. I didn't expect that.
(F) providing products or services to a distributor of dissemination technology in the same manner that such products or services are provided to other members of the public, including but not limited to financial services, delivery services, advertising services, product reviews or evaluations, library services, real estate services, customer-support services for users of computer software or hardware, utilities and telecommunications services.
"There is slim hope that this will happen, at least in the foreseeable future, human logic being as flawed as it indeed is."
Ah. So, what will this superior form of logic gain us? With a super-efficient system we could solve all sorts of problems and extend our lives and enrich ourselves, allowing us to have longer to enjoy...wait a minute, you're complaining because we'd rather be able to enjoy ourselves, which appears to be the point anyway, than to not enjoy ourselves for a while so that we can later enjoy ourselves as we would have been doing anyway.
Perhaps you could explain your 'unflawed logic' sometime?
The issue is not 'vertical mount' it's 'angle mount'. Since the computer tips on that arm, the drives inside will never be horizontal or vertical, which I was under the impression was the best position to have a drive in.
There are comments all over this article about how hard it is to keep up with a 10 Gbit connection.
Am I the only person in the world who shares an internet connection between multiple computers? Do you honestly think that I can't use up 10 Gbit when routing it across seven computers which are heavily used by a mixture of people demanding low latency and high through-put?
Although the original poster was generally an idiot, he's right about this. If there is a lock on the door, and pilot who decides to do this is virtually guaranteed success. Further, it leaves things wide open to flight attendants causing problems, unless the cockpit is kept sealed through the entire flight, which is a very different suggestion which entails other problems.
The reason that the locked/reinforced doors are a mistake is that they add the problem of a pilot being able to easily ram whatever he wants but solve no problems in the process. We are already basically guaranteed that a terrorist cannot take over the cockpit and do bad things with the plane because the passengers know the risk and will rise up and kill anyone who tries that (unless they can't get through the cockpit door).
If you aren't using windows, what you get is:
Thank you for your interest in Windows Update
Windows Update is the online extension of Windows that helps you get the most out of your computer.
You must be running a Microsoft Windows operating system in order to use Windows Update.