Yahoo! Search, by name, perhaps has only been around 2 years. But Yahoo! was a search engine well before that -- in fact, I remember a time when everyone I knew used Yahoo! and not Google. Perhaps it's just semantics -- Yahoo! was a directory, perhaps, not a true search engine? Even so, it is made up like a compliment that they only trail Google in number of users after just two years. Most of those users were probably already Yahoo! users.
So many people are making stuff up as they go. Provide some kind of evidence for point A. I think that looking at porn makes you want more porn... for about 5 minutes. And then you don't want to see any porn at all for a while.
As for point B... well, first, it's based on point A, which is bunk to begin with. On top of that... think chicken & egg. You assume that it is availability of child porn that creates demand. How so? People who are interested in looking at it will be interested even if it does not exist at all. Suppose I showed you animal porn. Would you start to become aroused by seeing more of it, and then go seek it out on your own?
Point C I agree with.
I totally don't buy the argument that (insert flavor) porn is bad because it makes you want more (insert flavor) porn. That is written into your mind somewhere, and it is hard coded. What I do believe is that it does not matter what is in your mind, and any arguments that are based directly or even loosely on that fact are very dangerous. What should be policed, and rightly so, is what you actually do. If you can control your impulses, and all you do is view synthetic child porn, what is the harm? If anything, maybe it gives you an outlet for those impulses so you don't have to try as hard to keep them from becoming action. I try not to judge people by what they think, only by what they do.
People look at porn because they want to. It does not work the other way around. I was a horny little monster well before I saw any significant amount of porn. Do you look at porn to make yourself horny, or because you already are? How do you select what porn turns you on?
And when you get sick of porn, do you run out and find a woman to rape? Or do you mean that you seek out women solely for the purpose of getting laid? Or perhaps, just maybe... you are like most normal people and you understand the difference between fantasy and reality, and you control your impulses no matter what their target.
Personally, I believe that an awful lot of people have fantasies about children (heck, in the distant past, there were societies that thought it quite normal to engage in sexual activity with children). And the vast, vast majority never act on it. Otherwise, why such a hot topic? I tend to think that the most vocal people on sexual morality are the most scared of their fantasies, and their ability to control them.
Let's see. The person you replied to is arguing ridiculously. And yet you're the one that brought up the magic "liberal" catch phrase. Perhaps you should go find any evidence at all that liberals do want the age of consent dropped. Guess what, you won't find it. Please quit making shit up.
Back on topic. If you get off watching porno of 8-year olds.... more power to you -- PROVIDED you didn't pay for that video, directly or not. You err by making the criminal act the viewing of the porn. If we were all punished for our fantasies, then the whole world would be in jail... starting with the most vocal of the moral right, no doubt. The criminal act in fact is the exploitation of children, or anything that contributes to it. Downloading, watching, etc... if it doesn't provide any gain to the producer of the video, that is a matter between you and your God. If you paid for it, then you have become part of the cycle, and I agree that you should be punished.
And everyone needs to simmer down and quit letting their emotions make their decisions for them -- the problem with this issue is what legal precedent it sets. Whether or not you think all pedophiles should burn in hell is not relevant, you should stop to consider whether this ruling might affect the way other laws are applied, and you may be the target.
I agree. I think it should be fairly straightfoward -- creating kiddie porn (as in, taking the pictures), selling kiddie porn, or purchasing kiddie porn -- these should all be illegal. It becomes very slippery when you try to extend it to downloading. And you do not really need to. It may be despicable, or perverted, but downloading in and of itself does not have any impact on society. If someone is buying it, that is different -- they are providing a financial incentive to the kiddie porn producer, which will keep the loop going. Thus it makes sense for that to be illegal. Downloading provides no financial benefit for the producer, therefore it is not part of the loop, which to me means it is not nearly so important. There is perhaps a gray area, where you could be providing financial incentive even if you do not pay directly for the images, by visiting a web site which has banner ads. I'd argue that that should be mostly left alone as well -- or at least, make the banner ad provider the "consumer", since the money trail leads to them. They ought to be more careful about where they allow their ads to be run. Follow the money, and stay off that slippery slope.
That might be going a little far. My laptop tells me I'm running low on battery power well before it actually runs out, so in your scenario it means I'm too brain dead to heed the warnings. As for your second example, well... I'll just take the A/C adapter out of my laptop bag and plug one end of it into the wall, and the other into my laptop. I worry more about Windows crashing or otherwise acting dumb much more than I worry about the proc.
And I only buy AMD Opteron servers these days:-). Just because I like them more, and they're cheaper than anything close to equivalent from Intel.
Dave
Beat me to it. Well, kinda. The insurance aspect doesn't bother me, but I can say for sure that I would not be comfortable remote-starting cooking appliances with nobody at home in case it should start something on fire.
And besides, this just seems like a great way to add complication to my already complicated, busy life. I'd rather slow down a bit, not speed up.
Sure it's hogwash. Apple has a track record that demonstrates they know how to make good choices when they prioritize what gets fixed, and what can wait. Merely saying that "fixes should happen faster" is not insightful, it is just obvious. It should not be necessary to say that bugs will always exist, and fixes will never be instant. Whining about timing without having any objective fact to back it up (as in, exploited vulnerabilities) is just talking to hear your own voice.
If Intel began volume production at 65nm last summer, why are we just now seeing a 65nm processor? Does it really take that long from production to retail sale?
My inbox is doing quite well, all things considered. I get one or two a day. If I were not doing any filtering at all, I'd get about 200 a day. So I would say that spam filtering has come a long way. But I would most emphatically deny that Microsoft has had anything to do with that. I use Postini. And I do not use any kind of client-side filtering. Microsoft has nothing to do with my success, and I expect that is true of the majority of e-mail users.
Except that the failsafe mechanical brake system is in use today on standard elevators and works quite well (I've even got some personal experience with that, too!). I'd rather have something tried & true than a fancy new magnetic induction doohicky. And besides, the way you get around something failing from non-usage: maintainance.
And on the whole maglev idea itself... it seems like a solution in need of a problem. Are elevators today uncomfortable, really? The ones where I work are hardly top-end models, but they're quite smooth, fairly quick, and reliable. Certainly not uncomfortable.
Yes, but the concept is still valid. My ISP is my uplink, and I pay them. They in turn pay their uplinks. Just because I did not give money directly to my ISP's uplink providers does not mean I am not paying for that service.
And yet again, the point is made -- momentary security status is strictly of secondary importance. What really matters is not how secure the software is today -- it's how secure it will be tomorrow. Apple comes out with fixes very much quicker than Microsoft does, and on top of that Apple seems to actually fix things, rather than just lay a patch over the visible hole. As you say, Apple learned from their original mistake and the current version of OSX has excellent security. Microsoft has had years to be informed of the security problems with their OS, but instead of making fundamental changes to improve security, they patch just the exploited code, and then heavily push firewall and antivirus software as a solution.
I do not believe people are going to wise up anytime soon, without some impetus. Historically, money has been a good influencing factor on purchasing decisions.
What I propose is that all vehicles that are not commercially owned (that is a separate issue) be grouped together. No distinction between the fuel consumption and crash standards for cars versus pickups & SUV's. Rate them all on the same scale, provide the same penalties to anyone who violates the accepted standards. If we applied the same standards to pickups that we do to cars, most would cost a couple thousand dollars more from the gas guzzler tax. And that is how it should be, no special priviliges to anyone.
They have much much higher hardware sales than Apple and consequently, their tech support must placate many more people.
What you mean is that consequently, their tech support must be much larger. How do you draw a correlation between size of customer base and support quality? Apple can provide the same support whether they have 100,000 customers, or 100,000,000. They'd just hire more techs and follow the same recipe they have now, on a proportionally larger scale.
I have a pair of Linux PC's in addition to the Mac Mini I use for daily activity. One of the Linux boxes runs Fedora Core 4 (it usually does duty as my MythTV box, though, not a regular desktop), and the other box runs OpenSUSE 10. I'm not sure either of these distributions really qualifies as junk.
Having used both, I stand by my comment that they're rough around the edges. Not hard to use, perhaps, but they have a number of odd behaviors that are not intuitive to anybody who isn't familiar with them. And Linux lacks the one big thing MacOS has -- easy support for the most comment media types, including Windows Media, and Quicktime. Trying to get Linux to support both of these is an exercise in futility. Sure it can be done, but not by Joe Schmoe. It's all in the little details, and these are just two little details among many.
Disclaimer: I am a professional Unix Systems Administrator with almost a decade of experience (and I've been playing with Linux since before it had Ethernet support;-)). If I can see the potholes in the user experience, what do you think it's like for someone who doesn't have the background to understand why it is the way it is?
With the exception of games (and I don't play PC games anyway), my Mac does everything Windows can do, plus some. I've been a die-hard PC guy, anti-Mac for a long time. Until I decided that I was done with Windows, and looked for alternatives. Linux just isn't quite there yet as a good, usable, stable day-to-day desktop operating system. But MacOS X is. And I've even grown to appreciate some of the ways in which it is superior to both Windows and Linux from a usability standpoint, even ignoring the well known security advantages.
Once the majority of people have already switched. Reducing security updates as an incentive can easily backfire, by making your customers hate you. If you piss them off enough, they may consider upgrading to OSX or Linux instead of the latest flavor of Windows.
Like it or not, an ISP does own the part of the network you traverse to get to "the rest" of the Internet. So it should be no surprise that they wish to control it, and consider it their right to do so.
And I cannot say I entirely disagree. Vote with your wallet. Where a large enough market exists (i.e. people who want no restrictions placed on their access), there will be an ISP to fill that need.
And besides, I doubt that all ISP's are heading in this direction. I work for an ISP (part of a CLEC) and I know for a fact that we are not considering anything along these lines, and I'd be sincerely surprised if we ever did. Our marketing people, while occasionally dumb, are not nearly stupid enough to try and make it fly.
Another good point. I'd be interested to know what the qualifications are for the Britannica editors. Are they subject matter experts, or expert researchers?
You make a good point. However, considering that the wiki is at least editable, the possibility is > 0 that someone will correct errors. With a hard printed encyclopedia, there is no possibility of fixing an error short of sending out a new printed copy or a page to all customers to update their own. And I'd bet the list of participating editors for the wiki is much, much higher than the number Britannica has hired.
Re:Why isnt somthing like this commercialy avaliab
on
Hard Drive Window
·
· Score: 1
I was just about to post this exact comment, and then saw yours;-). So I'll just second your thought -- why has no manufacturer done this on a production drive? Then we could long lasting drives and bling too.
Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo! Search, by name, perhaps has only been around 2 years. But Yahoo! was a search engine well before that -- in fact, I remember a time when everyone I knew used Yahoo! and not Google. Perhaps it's just semantics -- Yahoo! was a directory, perhaps, not a true search engine? Even so, it is made up like a compliment that they only trail Google in number of users after just two years. Most of those users were probably already Yahoo! users.
As for point B... well, first, it's based on point A, which is bunk to begin with. On top of that... think chicken & egg. You assume that it is availability of child porn that creates demand. How so? People who are interested in looking at it will be interested even if it does not exist at all. Suppose I showed you animal porn. Would you start to become aroused by seeing more of it, and then go seek it out on your own?
Point C I agree with.
I totally don't buy the argument that (insert flavor) porn is bad because it makes you want more (insert flavor) porn. That is written into your mind somewhere, and it is hard coded. What I do believe is that it does not matter what is in your mind, and any arguments that are based directly or even loosely on that fact are very dangerous. What should be policed, and rightly so, is what you actually do. If you can control your impulses, and all you do is view synthetic child porn, what is the harm? If anything, maybe it gives you an outlet for those impulses so you don't have to try as hard to keep them from becoming action. I try not to judge people by what they think, only by what they do.
People look at porn because they want to. It does not work the other way around. I was a horny little monster well before I saw any significant amount of porn. Do you look at porn to make yourself horny, or because you already are? How do you select what porn turns you on?
And when you get sick of porn, do you run out and find a woman to rape? Or do you mean that you seek out women solely for the purpose of getting laid? Or perhaps, just maybe ... you are like most normal people and you understand the difference between fantasy and reality, and you control your impulses no matter what their target.
Personally, I believe that an awful lot of people have fantasies about children (heck, in the distant past, there were societies that thought it quite normal to engage in sexual activity with children). And the vast, vast majority never act on it. Otherwise, why such a hot topic? I tend to think that the most vocal people on sexual morality are the most scared of their fantasies, and their ability to control them.
Back on topic. If you get off watching porno of 8-year olds.... more power to you -- PROVIDED you didn't pay for that video, directly or not. You err by making the criminal act the viewing of the porn. If we were all punished for our fantasies, then the whole world would be in jail ... starting with the most vocal of the moral right, no doubt. The criminal act in fact is the exploitation of children, or anything that contributes to it. Downloading, watching, etc ... if it doesn't provide any gain to the producer of the video, that is a matter between you and your God. If you paid for it, then you have become part of the cycle, and I agree that you should be punished.
And everyone needs to simmer down and quit letting their emotions make their decisions for them -- the problem with this issue is what legal precedent it sets. Whether or not you think all pedophiles should burn in hell is not relevant, you should stop to consider whether this ruling might affect the way other laws are applied, and you may be the target.
I agree. I think it should be fairly straightfoward -- creating kiddie porn (as in, taking the pictures), selling kiddie porn, or purchasing kiddie porn -- these should all be illegal. It becomes very slippery when you try to extend it to downloading. And you do not really need to. It may be despicable, or perverted, but downloading in and of itself does not have any impact on society. If someone is buying it, that is different -- they are providing a financial incentive to the kiddie porn producer, which will keep the loop going. Thus it makes sense for that to be illegal. Downloading provides no financial benefit for the producer, therefore it is not part of the loop, which to me means it is not nearly so important. There is perhaps a gray area, where you could be providing financial incentive even if you do not pay directly for the images, by visiting a web site which has banner ads. I'd argue that that should be mostly left alone as well -- or at least, make the banner ad provider the "consumer", since the money trail leads to them. They ought to be more careful about where they allow their ads to be run. Follow the money, and stay off that slippery slope.
And I only buy AMD Opteron servers these days :-). Just because I like them more, and they're cheaper than anything close to equivalent from Intel.
Dave
And besides, this just seems like a great way to add complication to my already complicated, busy life. I'd rather slow down a bit, not speed up.
Sure it's hogwash. Apple has a track record that demonstrates they know how to make good choices when they prioritize what gets fixed, and what can wait. Merely saying that "fixes should happen faster" is not insightful, it is just obvious. It should not be necessary to say that bugs will always exist, and fixes will never be instant. Whining about timing without having any objective fact to back it up (as in, exploited vulnerabilities) is just talking to hear your own voice.
Cool, thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to know. Duh.
If Intel began volume production at 65nm last summer, why are we just now seeing a 65nm processor? Does it really take that long from production to retail sale?
My inbox is doing quite well, all things considered. I get one or two a day. If I were not doing any filtering at all, I'd get about 200 a day. So I would say that spam filtering has come a long way. But I would most emphatically deny that Microsoft has had anything to do with that. I use Postini. And I do not use any kind of client-side filtering. Microsoft has nothing to do with my success, and I expect that is true of the majority of e-mail users.
Congratulations on being mostly correct. Now if you could just spell it right when you pass along the name: Duesenberg.
Except that the failsafe mechanical brake system is in use today on standard elevators and works quite well (I've even got some personal experience with that, too!). I'd rather have something tried & true than a fancy new magnetic induction doohicky. And besides, the way you get around something failing from non-usage: maintainance.
And on the whole maglev idea itself... it seems like a solution in need of a problem. Are elevators today uncomfortable, really? The ones where I work are hardly top-end models, but they're quite smooth, fairly quick, and reliable. Certainly not uncomfortable.
Yes, but the concept is still valid. My ISP is my uplink, and I pay them. They in turn pay their uplinks. Just because I did not give money directly to my ISP's uplink providers does not mean I am not paying for that service.
And yet again, the point is made -- momentary security status is strictly of secondary importance. What really matters is not how secure the software is today -- it's how secure it will be tomorrow. Apple comes out with fixes very much quicker than Microsoft does, and on top of that Apple seems to actually fix things, rather than just lay a patch over the visible hole. As you say, Apple learned from their original mistake and the current version of OSX has excellent security. Microsoft has had years to be informed of the security problems with their OS, but instead of making fundamental changes to improve security, they patch just the exploited code, and then heavily push firewall and antivirus software as a solution.
What I propose is that all vehicles that are not commercially owned (that is a separate issue) be grouped together. No distinction between the fuel consumption and crash standards for cars versus pickups & SUV's. Rate them all on the same scale, provide the same penalties to anyone who violates the accepted standards. If we applied the same standards to pickups that we do to cars, most would cost a couple thousand dollars more from the gas guzzler tax. And that is how it should be, no special priviliges to anyone.
What you mean is that consequently, their tech support must be much larger. How do you draw a correlation between size of customer base and support quality? Apple can provide the same support whether they have 100,000 customers, or 100,000,000. They'd just hire more techs and follow the same recipe they have now, on a proportionally larger scale.
Having used both, I stand by my comment that they're rough around the edges. Not hard to use, perhaps, but they have a number of odd behaviors that are not intuitive to anybody who isn't familiar with them. And Linux lacks the one big thing MacOS has -- easy support for the most comment media types, including Windows Media, and Quicktime. Trying to get Linux to support both of these is an exercise in futility. Sure it can be done, but not by Joe Schmoe. It's all in the little details, and these are just two little details among many.
Disclaimer: I am a professional Unix Systems Administrator with almost a decade of experience (and I've been playing with Linux since before it had Ethernet support ;-)). If I can see the potholes in the user experience, what do you think it's like for someone who doesn't have the background to understand why it is the way it is?
With the exception of games (and I don't play PC games anyway), my Mac does everything Windows can do, plus some. I've been a die-hard PC guy, anti-Mac for a long time. Until I decided that I was done with Windows, and looked for alternatives. Linux just isn't quite there yet as a good, usable, stable day-to-day desktop operating system. But MacOS X is. And I've even grown to appreciate some of the ways in which it is superior to both Windows and Linux from a usability standpoint, even ignoring the well known security advantages.
Once the majority of people have already switched. Reducing security updates as an incentive can easily backfire, by making your customers hate you. If you piss them off enough, they may consider upgrading to OSX or Linux instead of the latest flavor of Windows.
If you are going to be a grammar nazi, be sure to proofread your own post several times.
It is.
Like it or not, an ISP does own the part of the network you traverse to get to "the rest" of the Internet. So it should be no surprise that they wish to control it, and consider it their right to do so.
And I cannot say I entirely disagree. Vote with your wallet. Where a large enough market exists (i.e. people who want no restrictions placed on their access), there will be an ISP to fill that need.
And besides, I doubt that all ISP's are heading in this direction. I work for an ISP (part of a CLEC) and I know for a fact that we are not considering anything along these lines, and I'd be sincerely surprised if we ever did. Our marketing people, while occasionally dumb, are not nearly stupid enough to try and make it fly.
Another good point. I'd be interested to know what the qualifications are for the Britannica editors. Are they subject matter experts, or expert researchers?
You make a good point. However, considering that the wiki is at least editable, the possibility is > 0 that someone will correct errors. With a hard printed encyclopedia, there is no possibility of fixing an error short of sending out a new printed copy or a page to all customers to update their own. And I'd bet the list of participating editors for the wiki is much, much higher than the number Britannica has hired.
I was just about to post this exact comment, and then saw yours ;-). So I'll just second your thought -- why has no manufacturer done this on a production drive? Then we could long lasting drives and bling too.