Why would I want to see a bunch of people online and talk with them when they could just send me a text message? I can save a history of text chat. I can go take a dump and come back and catch up on the text I missed. I don't have to look at ths person. I dont' have to deal with a bunch of overhead. Video is just a stupid addition to so many things these days (such as blogs).
Well, my company just announced a partnership with Google that involves crossbranding their "toolbar" with our JRE (and a lot more in the future, if you read the VP's blog). So . . . does that count as me working for Google?
I want some cool Google benefits, then. You know, like a massage room and pinball machines and free soda. And that 20% personal-project time wouldn't be too shabby, either!
You don't have to have a chat client that supports the various protocols. As long as the Jabber server does, it's fine. The jabber server admin just installs the AIM/Yahoo!/whatever transports and every user with any jabber client can communicate with people on those networks. So taking away a developer doesn't really cause any problem. Plus, the guy has to make a living. Why shouldn't he get a job as reward for all the hard work that benefitted us with a great client and benefitted himself with a great job offer? Isn't that what every OSS person dreams of? (Well, at least aside from the dream that somehow our OSS work itself will make us rich).
And what do you mean "google wants to make sure their chat is the only one supported on *nix"? Google doesn't own Jabber. Sure, they're going to have a talented guy with a track history working on their version of a Jabber client, but so what? GAIM isn't the only client out there that works on something other than windows. There's Fire, Adium (my favorite), tkabber, gabber, psi and countless others. And who says he won't continue working on GAIM too? Or that he won't hand it off to someone else to maintain?
And all the merger does is make it easier for the community. Now we only have to reverse-engineer one protocol (instead of two) to work with twice as many users.
That's the problem - people have bought into the idea that presenting opposing biased viewpoints ("fair and balanced") is the same thing as presenting the news. This is why there is a separate Editorial section in newspapers. And how many times have you watched network news only to think "why is this on national television? who cares? This should be on a local news channel at best".
Just today, there was some comment about a fire that was going to potentially spread to a wine storage building. Unless you live in that city, why would you give a fuck? And if a kid is kidnapped - unless you live in that city or state - why would you care?! What relavance does most of this "news" have in our lives?
As for fox news - they're just the "missing blonde white girl" network and they have been for about four or five years now.
While I concur that the religious bent damaging science (I think I read somewhere that moer than half of people believe in strict-creationism), you also must realize how much time and resources are wasted in schools on non-educational topics. I haven't been in school for almost 15 years, but when I was we spent countless hours of class and assemblies with the DARE program (where the cops would tell us not to do drugs, but if we were, how to do them in a safer way), how bad smoking is and how evil smokers are, how bad drinking is and how bad smokers are, how "I'm okay; you're okay", sex-ed (if you didn't figure out all there was to know about sex by taking the initiative to read books in the local library before they taught it to you in school, you don't deserve to procreate). There were so many countless pointless programs like that. Not to mention the candy sales, the magazine sales, the christmas gift sales. Those took up enormous amounts of students' time throughout the school year.
On top of that, there's the countless state and federal tests that everyone spends several days on, several times per year to validate your teacher's jobs. Oh, and we can't dare forget all the resources and time wasted by forcing kids to stay in school when they didn't want to be there. So you had little thugs (or just mentally challenged kids that would randomly come up to you and bite your arm and draw blood in the hallways because nobody was supervising them) because we don't dare put them in special classes or schools. Their self-esteem is far more important than the education and progress of willing, interested students.
And then depending on what part of the country you're in, you might have a state initiative like Oregon did where they had stupid programs that demanded that students focus on certain fields of study by the time they got into highschool. Then they had to acquire and insane number of credits that you couldn't possibly acquire just through school. And then you have to pass a large number of ridiculous tests throughout highschool for no other purpose than buffering the success of the programs (statistically).
So before going into 9th grade, youd' be forced to pick a "constellation" out of the "STARS" program. Every student must do that. A "constellation" is something like "automative mechanics" or "entertainment and broadcasting" and so forth. Then you would study things that they claimed ewre related to those paths and then dump you into those fields after school.
In other words, they turned hischool into a vocational training program where you had to pick your life at about the age of 13 or 14. You know, as opposed to the training grounds to nurture scholars and encourage them to continue on to college.
Sure FOX has liberals on. But debate between right wing nuts and left wing nuts is not news. It's like calling pitbull or cock fights "recreational sports". And you notice the only "liberal" types they have on FOX are the ones that are on the extreme? And then they try to make them look bad in comparison and it makes the crazy slanted right-wingers on the station who are put up against them look legitimate and sensible.
Anyway, I can't give any weight to a network that had their "news anchor" interviewing the guy who wanted to take the pledge of allegience out of schools (since it was only dumped into schools to indoctrinate kids and scare the godless communists a few decades ago) - and the woman (I think it was "linda vester") asked the guy "what the hell is your problem?!". Yes. That's very professional investigation, interviewing and news reporting. If he had been a conservative complaining about videogames or half-assed attempting to justify killing abortion doctors, do you think she would have said "what the hell is your problem"? Nope. That extremely biased and unprofessional comment would never have been heard.
As far as I know, Fox News does not have a policy of being biased.
That's because Fox News doesn't have a policy of having news. Seriously, almost all of their on-air staff are right-wing guys with their own talk shows and books - some with shady pasts (Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo are both from old-school sensationalistic tabloid shows that set the bar for the last 15 years). Hannity, Gretta Van Sustran (who has a nightly rundown on what cute little rich blonde girls have been kidnapped), O'Reilly - then those annoying women (I can't remember their name) have a stupid "talk show" for a couple hours during the day time in which they're INCREDIBLY biased.
I'm one of those people who saw how clear the "liberal bias" used to be in news. In the last six years, I've become one of those people who has witnessed the shift and now see the insanely biased conservative slant. And you can't tell me that Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Laura Ingram and Anne Coulter are proper, non-biased political analysts? (These are all people that are ROUTINELY on the show to provide analysis of news events).
To say fox news isn't intensely biased (and barely news-based) is just plain crazy. It goes beyond just being extreme and sensational.
Seems like a waste of money to me. What's wrong with a teacher just using a blackboard and chalk or a whiteboard and pens? They work when the power is out. They don't require a staff to maintain and upgrade. They just work. I guess I don't get it. Why fix something that isn't broke (or dependant on so many things that can break)?
Ah, the parent poster is applying the "raising children is not as easy as squirting them out and this is so hard so I blame everyone else for the crap my child does and gets into rather than accepting that I'm ultimately the one liable for how they behave, the choices they make and the punishments they are given" justification.
If you don't think your child has enough common sense to avoid meeting random internet strangers (come on, you get the "don't talk to strangers" lecture when you're old enough to walk) and you don't feel you can properly parent your children to the point that you aren't worried about them making such ridiculous choices, then simply don't allow your child to have internet access.
Seriously, what the hell is up with parents these days? "It's so hard to keep my child from watching bad stuff on television" -- don't let them watch television. "My child runs up a huge cell phone bill that I have to pay" -- don't buy your kid a cellphone. "My child can't be trusted not to get drunk and drive their car wrecklessly" -- don't allow your kids to drive.
I mean... come ON... People have been raising children for eons with every-changing technology and societal structures. There's nothing special that makes the current generation of parents' job so fucking impossible above and beyond every other generation in the history of humanity. This just illustrates the biological problem of nature making people want to marry and reproduce based on the symmetrical qualities of the face, size of tits and width of child-bearing hips rather than common sense and intellect.
First off, this it not funded yet. In fact, part of me would rather that we go back to getting our budget balanced, which will take some hard choices.
Yes, like - should we continue corporate welfare, or fund medical achievment to improve the length and quality of human life? And should we continue funding a ridiculous "war" in multiple fronts at a billion dollars per day, or fund the greatest scientific explorations and discoveries (space) in the entirety of man's existance? Or... Should we continue to provide tax subsidies for people who squirt out children and get married, or fund scientific improvement across the board in American education.
Yeah, those are just incredibly difficult decisions. They're not. It just takes someone with the balls to commit political suicide by telling senators that they dont' need to build $50million bridges between 100 person towns in the middle of nowhere and that they won't get the funding for that pork anymore.
Well, except that there's a bit more of a "pathetic" connotation to someone being so desperate for companionship or love or attention that they cross the country or even just the city to hook up with a complete stranger and then ending up dead or something. I mean, sane, normal people who are not socially messed up or repulsive meet their love interests while out at a concert or a club or while doing things with their friends. Why would you bother trying to hook up with a total roll of the dice on the net unless you were a total failure at it in person?
So in that respect, it makes for sensational material. If you're at a bar having a drink and you flirt with some guy and he slips something in your drink and drags you off and kills you, he's evil. If you get wrapped up in a total stranger over the internet who rapes and kills you - they're evil and you're sad.
And I know I'm not the only person other than the media who feels that sort of gut response when they hear about yet another person who gets killed or kidnapped by someone they met on the internet (not to mention adults who agree to be murdered or cannibalised and willingly go to engage in that sort of voluntary death like in America and Germany where we've seen more than one of each such story).
Of course... teachers and phys-ed teachers and music teachers have been known to abduct or rape or kill children plenty of times, too. But we admire and respect teachers and coaches and instructors rather than fear them, for some reason - even though there is the same sense of rationalization involved in both scenerios.
Considering the number of people who molest their kids or have child molestors in their family that abuse their kids and the number of people who seem to look the other way when their underage children are screwing around with adults twice their age, I have to wonder why we don't take children away from all parents. I mean, sure there are some responsible parents just like there are responsible children on the internet, but you can't take that kind of risk. Should just take children out of the home as a preventative safety measure.
Children't aren't born with internet access, videogames and cellphones. Parent's make those things available to their children and allow those things in their home. So how about a little parent's being responsible and the government staying the fuck out of it.
Of course, the government doesn't want to stay out of it because "the children" offers a great excuse for proliferating their puritan ideals. Hell, most of the people that run our government probably are afraid to have their children in the proximity of anyone who is homosexual because it might rub off on them.
Lets just put each child in a room with padded walls, no windows and a TV tuned to Seseme Street 24 hours a day. They will be provided with KidChow(TM) and Water.
Actually, it's amazing how far a little common sense will go. Even with children. Your children are going to be curious and get into some weird crap. Hell, I was seeing chicks having sex with eels on tarps on BBSes in 1989 when I was 12 years old. It's no big deal. And if the only thing preventing your child from hopping on a plane and flying across the country to meet some stranger two or three times their age and getting raped and murdered or kidnapped is that you're putting the computer in the living room, you should just burn off your genitals and not ever reproduce again.
Of course, businesses shouldn't have to be responsible for what stupid people do over the internet. However, I wouldn't risk my multi-billion dollar business on using that defense in court when computer illiterate parents and Jack Thompson style lawyers present - to a computer illiterate jury - that it's all big bad Yahoo!'s fault that little Lisa or Timmy got butt-jacked by some phys-ed teacher in their city that sweet-talked them over the internet late at night while mommy and daddy where busy watching Amazing Race.
Yes, otherwise you're descriminating. And whether it's intentional discrimination or just the statistical roll of the dice that provides your mix of creators and inventors, it's evil and you're bad and... uh... stuff...
I'm only being a bit snyde when I say that this seems like the only realistic solution to protecting stupid children and stupid teenagers who don't have parents who teach them properly and are aware of their children's lives.
I mean, when you hear stories like that one chick from MySpace who disapeared and turned out to have been killed by some guy she met on MySpace, you have to wonder "how fucking stupid have kids and young adults become?". If your child is really stupid and gullible and you're not willing to parent your child properly and imbue them with common sense, I guess other people have to do it for you. Plus, now Yahoo! won't suffer any lawsuits the next time some 16 year old chick goes off with some strange 32 year old from the internet and gets tortured and gutted.
Anyway, really, who uses Yahoo! or AOL chat rooms or anything? That's sort of the discussion version of using the really giant toddler-sized legos instead of a real lego kit.
Every career and profession and company has to have the proper percentage of each person that fits into categories such as various races, religions, ages, sexes and sexual preferences. Likewise, a certain percentage of inventions MUST be devised by an acceptable statistical alottment of each of these categories.
I don't know if inventions are better or more useful depending on the race, sex or sexual preference and religion of the person inventing them, but if 12.85% of all inventions are not created by gay chinese christians, then it's because some evil force is holding them back out of hatred and ignorance. Or something.
Just think of how much better Java would have been if it hadn't been invented by some freaky-haired honky? That alone proves this article submitters point. And.. uh.. stuff.
I give up. And no, I don't know most of my coworkers either. It's usually fairly easy to pick out the Indian and Asian-Pacific names on Jabber, but aside from that, I don't really know. And I don't really care, either. As long as they're good at their job and not jerks, who gives a fuck?
The same way they did back when they insisted the universe revolved around the earth and that we were enclosed in a series of layered spheres. That is to say, torture, imprison and kill those who promote "science" that is not in line with theological teaching. And we have just the administration to do it with the recently supported torture laws to allow for it.:)
Anyway, this does seem a little bit like getting a map of China when you don't even have the means of transportation to get past the 7-11 at the end of your street.
I've thought about getting a handheld for the last couple years, but since I have a laptop, it would be sort of redundant. The only time I'd need a handheld is when I'm not at the office, at home or traveling for work. And really, do I need a computer just to go to the theater or out to dinner? Not really.
But if I didn't have and need a laptop, I might consider it. Especially now that these little devices are advancing to the point wher eyou can actually do something with them besides keep addresses and play tetris.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would I want to see a bunch of people online and talk with them when they could just send me a text message? I can save a history of text chat. I can go take a dump and come back and catch up on the text I missed. I don't have to look at ths person. I dont' have to deal with a bunch of overhead. Video is just a stupid addition to so many things these days (such as blogs).
Video is NOT always an improvement.
Well, my company just announced a partnership with Google that involves crossbranding their "toolbar" with our JRE (and a lot more in the future, if you read the VP's blog). So . . . does that count as me working for Google?
I want some cool Google benefits, then. You know, like a massage room and pinball machines and free soda. And that 20% personal-project time wouldn't be too shabby, either!
You don't have to have a chat client that supports the various protocols. As long as the Jabber server does, it's fine. The jabber server admin just installs the AIM/Yahoo!/whatever transports and every user with any jabber client can communicate with people on those networks. So taking away a developer doesn't really cause any problem. Plus, the guy has to make a living. Why shouldn't he get a job as reward for all the hard work that benefitted us with a great client and benefitted himself with a great job offer? Isn't that what every OSS person dreams of? (Well, at least aside from the dream that somehow our OSS work itself will make us rich).
And what do you mean "google wants to make sure their chat is the only one supported on *nix"? Google doesn't own Jabber. Sure, they're going to have a talented guy with a track history working on their version of a Jabber client, but so what? GAIM isn't the only client out there that works on something other than windows. There's Fire, Adium (my favorite), tkabber, gabber, psi and countless others. And who says he won't continue working on GAIM too? Or that he won't hand it off to someone else to maintain?
And all the merger does is make it easier for the community. Now we only have to reverse-engineer one protocol (instead of two) to work with twice as many users.
That's the problem - people have bought into the idea that presenting opposing biased viewpoints ("fair and balanced") is the same thing as presenting the news. This is why there is a separate Editorial section in newspapers. And how many times have you watched network news only to think "why is this on national television? who cares? This should be on a local news channel at best".
Just today, there was some comment about a fire that was going to potentially spread to a wine storage building. Unless you live in that city, why would you give a fuck? And if a kid is kidnapped - unless you live in that city or state - why would you care?! What relavance does most of this "news" have in our lives?
As for fox news - they're just the "missing blonde white girl" network and they have been for about four or five years now.
While I concur that the religious bent damaging science (I think I read somewhere that moer than half of people believe in strict-creationism), you also must realize how much time and resources are wasted in schools on non-educational topics. I haven't been in school for almost 15 years, but when I was we spent countless hours of class and assemblies with the DARE program (where the cops would tell us not to do drugs, but if we were, how to do them in a safer way), how bad smoking is and how evil smokers are, how bad drinking is and how bad smokers are, how "I'm okay; you're okay", sex-ed (if you didn't figure out all there was to know about sex by taking the initiative to read books in the local library before they taught it to you in school, you don't deserve to procreate). There were so many countless pointless programs like that. Not to mention the candy sales, the magazine sales, the christmas gift sales. Those took up enormous amounts of students' time throughout the school year.
On top of that, there's the countless state and federal tests that everyone spends several days on, several times per year to validate your teacher's jobs. Oh, and we can't dare forget all the resources and time wasted by forcing kids to stay in school when they didn't want to be there. So you had little thugs (or just mentally challenged kids that would randomly come up to you and bite your arm and draw blood in the hallways because nobody was supervising them) because we don't dare put them in special classes or schools. Their self-esteem is far more important than the education and progress of willing, interested students.
And then depending on what part of the country you're in, you might have a state initiative like Oregon did where they had stupid programs that demanded that students focus on certain fields of study by the time they got into highschool. Then they had to acquire and insane number of credits that you couldn't possibly acquire just through school. And then you have to pass a large number of ridiculous tests throughout highschool for no other purpose than buffering the success of the programs (statistically).
So before going into 9th grade, youd' be forced to pick a "constellation" out of the "STARS" program. Every student must do that. A "constellation" is something like "automative mechanics" or "entertainment and broadcasting" and so forth. Then you would study things that they claimed ewre related to those paths and then dump you into those fields after school.
In other words, they turned hischool into a vocational training program where you had to pick your life at about the age of 13 or 14. You know, as opposed to the training grounds to nurture scholars and encourage them to continue on to college.
Sure FOX has liberals on. But debate between right wing nuts and left wing nuts is not news. It's like calling pitbull or cock fights "recreational sports". And you notice the only "liberal" types they have on FOX are the ones that are on the extreme? And then they try to make them look bad in comparison and it makes the crazy slanted right-wingers on the station who are put up against them look legitimate and sensible.
Anyway, I can't give any weight to a network that had their "news anchor" interviewing the guy who wanted to take the pledge of allegience out of schools (since it was only dumped into schools to indoctrinate kids and scare the godless communists a few decades ago) - and the woman (I think it was "linda vester") asked the guy "what the hell is your problem?!". Yes. That's very professional investigation, interviewing and news reporting. If he had been a conservative complaining about videogames or half-assed attempting to justify killing abortion doctors, do you think she would have said "what the hell is your problem"? Nope. That extremely biased and unprofessional comment would never have been heard.
As far as I know, Fox News does not have a policy of being biased.
That's because Fox News doesn't have a policy of having news. Seriously, almost all of their on-air staff are right-wing guys with their own talk shows and books - some with shady pasts (Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo are both from old-school sensationalistic tabloid shows that set the bar for the last 15 years). Hannity, Gretta Van Sustran (who has a nightly rundown on what cute little rich blonde girls have been kidnapped), O'Reilly - then those annoying women (I can't remember their name) have a stupid "talk show" for a couple hours during the day time in which they're INCREDIBLY biased.
I'm one of those people who saw how clear the "liberal bias" used to be in news. In the last six years, I've become one of those people who has witnessed the shift and now see the insanely biased conservative slant. And you can't tell me that Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Laura Ingram and Anne Coulter are proper, non-biased political analysts? (These are all people that are ROUTINELY on the show to provide analysis of news events).
To say fox news isn't intensely biased (and barely news-based) is just plain crazy. It goes beyond just being extreme and sensational.
Seems like a waste of money to me. What's wrong with a teacher just using a blackboard and chalk or a whiteboard and pens? They work when the power is out. They don't require a staff to maintain and upgrade. They just work. I guess I don't get it. Why fix something that isn't broke (or dependant on so many things that can break)?
Ah, the parent poster is applying the "raising children is not as easy as squirting them out and this is so hard so I blame everyone else for the crap my child does and gets into rather than accepting that I'm ultimately the one liable for how they behave, the choices they make and the punishments they are given" justification.
If you don't think your child has enough common sense to avoid meeting random internet strangers (come on, you get the "don't talk to strangers" lecture when you're old enough to walk) and you don't feel you can properly parent your children to the point that you aren't worried about them making such ridiculous choices, then simply don't allow your child to have internet access.
Seriously, what the hell is up with parents these days? "It's so hard to keep my child from watching bad stuff on television" -- don't let them watch television. "My child runs up a huge cell phone bill that I have to pay" -- don't buy your kid a cellphone. "My child can't be trusted not to get drunk and drive their car wrecklessly" -- don't allow your kids to drive.
I mean... come ON... People have been raising children for eons with every-changing technology and societal structures. There's nothing special that makes the current generation of parents' job so fucking impossible above and beyond every other generation in the history of humanity. This just illustrates the biological problem of nature making people want to marry and reproduce based on the symmetrical qualities of the face, size of tits and width of child-bearing hips rather than common sense and intellect.
First off, this it not funded yet. In fact, part of me would rather that we go back to getting our budget balanced, which will take some hard choices.
Yes, like - should we continue corporate welfare, or fund medical achievment to improve the length and quality of human life? And should we continue funding a ridiculous "war" in multiple fronts at a billion dollars per day, or fund the greatest scientific explorations and discoveries (space) in the entirety of man's existance? Or... Should we continue to provide tax subsidies for people who squirt out children and get married, or fund scientific improvement across the board in American education.
Yeah, those are just incredibly difficult decisions. They're not. It just takes someone with the balls to commit political suicide by telling senators that they dont' need to build $50million bridges between 100 person towns in the middle of nowhere and that they won't get the funding for that pork anymore.
What a flamebait! Do you think ALL religious institutions will behave like THAT?
The ones that dominate in this country, yes. I have history on my side to back up that prediction.
(Christianity shrugs its shoulders in surprise and whines "Who, ME?! What are you looking at?! WHAT?! WHAT?!")
There are plenty of puritanical laws on the books in American cities and states that prevent the exploration of Uranus.
Well, except that there's a bit more of a "pathetic" connotation to someone being so desperate for companionship or love or attention that they cross the country or even just the city to hook up with a complete stranger and then ending up dead or something. I mean, sane, normal people who are not socially messed up or repulsive meet their love interests while out at a concert or a club or while doing things with their friends. Why would you bother trying to hook up with a total roll of the dice on the net unless you were a total failure at it in person?
So in that respect, it makes for sensational material. If you're at a bar having a drink and you flirt with some guy and he slips something in your drink and drags you off and kills you, he's evil. If you get wrapped up in a total stranger over the internet who rapes and kills you - they're evil and you're sad.
And I know I'm not the only person other than the media who feels that sort of gut response when they hear about yet another person who gets killed or kidnapped by someone they met on the internet (not to mention adults who agree to be murdered or cannibalised and willingly go to engage in that sort of voluntary death like in America and Germany where we've seen more than one of each such story).
Of course... teachers and phys-ed teachers and music teachers have been known to abduct or rape or kill children plenty of times, too. But we admire and respect teachers and coaches and instructors rather than fear them, for some reason - even though there is the same sense of rationalization involved in both scenerios.
Considering the number of people who molest their kids or have child molestors in their family that abuse their kids and the number of people who seem to look the other way when their underage children are screwing around with adults twice their age, I have to wonder why we don't take children away from all parents. I mean, sure there are some responsible parents just like there are responsible children on the internet, but you can't take that kind of risk. Should just take children out of the home as a preventative safety measure.
Children't aren't born with internet access, videogames and cellphones. Parent's make those things available to their children and allow those things in their home. So how about a little parent's being responsible and the government staying the fuck out of it.
Of course, the government doesn't want to stay out of it because "the children" offers a great excuse for proliferating their puritan ideals. Hell, most of the people that run our government probably are afraid to have their children in the proximity of anyone who is homosexual because it might rub off on them.
Lets just put each child in a room with padded walls, no windows and a TV tuned to Seseme Street 24 hours a day. They will be provided with KidChow(TM) and Water.
Dad, is that you?
Actually, it's amazing how far a little common sense will go. Even with children. Your children are going to be curious and get into some weird crap. Hell, I was seeing chicks having sex with eels on tarps on BBSes in 1989 when I was 12 years old. It's no big deal. And if the only thing preventing your child from hopping on a plane and flying across the country to meet some stranger two or three times their age and getting raped and murdered or kidnapped is that you're putting the computer in the living room, you should just burn off your genitals and not ever reproduce again.
Of course, businesses shouldn't have to be responsible for what stupid people do over the internet. However, I wouldn't risk my multi-billion dollar business on using that defense in court when computer illiterate parents and Jack Thompson style lawyers present - to a computer illiterate jury - that it's all big bad Yahoo!'s fault that little Lisa or Timmy got butt-jacked by some phys-ed teacher in their city that sweet-talked them over the internet late at night while mommy and daddy where busy watching Amazing Race.
Yes, otherwise you're descriminating. And whether it's intentional discrimination or just the statistical roll of the dice that provides your mix of creators and inventors, it's evil and you're bad and... uh... stuff...
I'm only being a bit snyde when I say that this seems like the only realistic solution to protecting stupid children and stupid teenagers who don't have parents who teach them properly and are aware of their children's lives.
I mean, when you hear stories like that one chick from MySpace who disapeared and turned out to have been killed by some guy she met on MySpace, you have to wonder "how fucking stupid have kids and young adults become?". If your child is really stupid and gullible and you're not willing to parent your child properly and imbue them with common sense, I guess other people have to do it for you. Plus, now Yahoo! won't suffer any lawsuits the next time some 16 year old chick goes off with some strange 32 year old from the internet and gets tortured and gutted.
Anyway, really, who uses Yahoo! or AOL chat rooms or anything? That's sort of the discussion version of using the really giant toddler-sized legos instead of a real lego kit.
I'm pretty sure the world's first server was not hosted on a PSP, since they didn't exist back then.
I would believe, however, that we're talking about the world's first PSP-hosted server.
Not everyone on Slashdot is American, you American-centralist bigot!
You don't understand.
Every career and profession and company has to have the proper percentage of each person that fits into categories such as various races, religions, ages, sexes and sexual preferences. Likewise, a certain percentage of inventions MUST be devised by an acceptable statistical alottment of each of these categories.
I don't know if inventions are better or more useful depending on the race, sex or sexual preference and religion of the person inventing them, but if 12.85% of all inventions are not created by gay chinese christians, then it's because some evil force is holding them back out of hatred and ignorance. Or something.
Just think of how much better Java would have been if it hadn't been invented by some freaky-haired honky? That alone proves this article submitters point. And.. uh.. stuff.
I give up. And no, I don't know most of my coworkers either. It's usually fairly easy to pick out the Indian and Asian-Pacific names on Jabber, but aside from that, I don't really know. And I don't really care, either. As long as they're good at their job and not jerks, who gives a fuck?
The same way they did back when they insisted the universe revolved around the earth and that we were enclosed in a series of layered spheres. That is to say, torture, imprison and kill those who promote "science" that is not in line with theological teaching. And we have just the administration to do it with the recently supported torture laws to allow for it. :)
Anyway, this does seem a little bit like getting a map of China when you don't even have the means of transportation to get past the 7-11 at the end of your street.
One artist's entire discography could easily consume 1.5gb or more, encoded as a decent clip. 60gb is nothing.
I've thought about getting a handheld for the last couple years, but since I have a laptop, it would be sort of redundant. The only time I'd need a handheld is when I'm not at the office, at home or traveling for work. And really, do I need a computer just to go to the theater or out to dinner? Not really.
But if I didn't have and need a laptop, I might consider it. Especially now that these little devices are advancing to the point wher eyou can actually do something with them besides keep addresses and play tetris.