Which, in the example the editor posted, is a big concern with that hardware.
Some generation of laptops with fast CPU's and crappy everything-else still generate too much heat to be considered reliable. USB ports will stop working, etc. And don't even bring up those cooling pads, cuz if your laptop overheats to the point of freezing or crashing chances are that cooling pad will not make up the difference.
There's still situations I'm sure you would enjoy going to a movie despite these pitfalls.
Think of family gatherings with not-so-loved family.:)
Aunt Jo: "Darcy u should really cut your hai.." Darcy: STFU JO THIS IS THE PART WHERE TOM CRUISE TRIES TO CONVINCE US TO TAKE UP SCIENTOLOGY BY THEATRICAL METAPHOR.
I also make fun of scientology at weddings and funerals, thx will be here all night.
I went to the Grudge on a holiday weekend (too lazy to look up which holiday right now) I think it was Halloween. Anyway, big mistake.
This is how it went:
-Plot development. -Scary scene. -Teenage girls shriek. -Teenage guys laugh at the shrieking girls. -The few adults shift in their chairs and dream of standing up and declaring this theatre property of the new order of silence. -Repeat.
You just have to leave and get your money back for those occasions;)
You watch it and you're 'ok', right? Why shouldn't they be?
Hell, isn't part of the purpose of movies to incite a reaction from it's audience?
Jesus what's with your double-standard. You're righteously equipped to watch any movie the media may release, but your children could spontaneously combust when they see a CG bloody stump of an arm fly across the screen.
Ever have some Highway Patrolmen talk to your school about driving drunk etc.? They did at mine while I was going to school. Showed slides of decapitated heads and people wrapped around trees after a car accident. Nearly made me sick because I knew it was real, and they KNEW that would happen so they could discourage drunk driving.
But I watch someone get decapitated in a movie, I know it's all fake, and may even laugh if the movie makes it funny.
As long as you explain to the child the differences between real and fake, there should be no reason you will need to censor them from violence in media.
I have a vivid memory of going to see a movie with my uncle at a very young age. I remember for whatever reason I was wearing a winter coat in Summer, and my uncle parked at this little stop 'n shop before we went to the movie. We went in and they sold those huge bags of popcorn.
We came up with the idea to pretend I was a fat kid and put the popcorn in my coat.
Totally worked, the bag cost less than 3 dollars at the time.
Screw theatre food prices. The popcorn only tastes good with the butter, and the butter makes you sick anyway. I think it's a conspiracy to get you to buy a drink, and use the drink to wash down the engine oil + salt cache you're consuming.
"talk to the degree holding librarians at your local public library"
It's just as possible the people with any say at your local library have no degree. Degree makes no difference here, approach the peers who have influence.
A good chunk of the people who delete their cookies do it because they don't want their employer to find out where they've been surfing.
(And yes, I know a lot of routers and net tools will log where the user surfs anyway, but IT depts. generally aren't the Gestapo.)
I know it's a cliché movie, but I can't help
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Reminds me of the conversation at the end of Batman Begins with Gordon and the Bat:
Gordon: "Batman making a stand as he has will only escalate the problem."
If suddenly the masses are educated on spam filtering, wouldn't spammers just adobt tactics to avoid them?
I mean it is afterall a "spammers market". They have increased resources because they're getting all the money. I'm sure the spammers are much smarter than most techies who use filters, they just don't care. They think, "If this techie is going to use a filter to stop my spam so be it, there's a 100 people for each one of him that won't."
No we need to think of new techniques outside of filtering. Filtering is mostly nonsense, manual work. We need something philisophically different than filtering which affects how spam comes through in-transit, or something that affects the financial backing of spammers.
We should be breaking down their lines of communications, etc - not expecting granny to take up spam filtering techniques.
You can't criticize a "consumer"-level person for something millions of users "can't help", either.
An analogy: One who criticizes people for not maintaining their car beyond the most simple fixes such as changing your oil, even though it's commonly accepted by most of society that an individual should get a significantly important car part professionally replaced or fixed by a friend/relative who does it as a main job/hobby.
Computers are just so abstract a large population that requires them for some purpose or another (communcation through email, word processing) doesn't have the time, inclination, or ability to learn what's going to infect their PC, and what isn't.
The computers I've owned have had two viruses on their hard drives in my life time. One was a boot sector virus obtained through the school's computer labs transferred by floppy disk. The other never actually infected a computer of mine, but was stored in an archive I never opened.
I've spent hours over the phone helping past customers remove spyware/viruses from their PC's, usually the worst kind such as Cool Web Search (considered spyware, though the symptoms are primarily the same once you're infected), zombie-viruses, etc.
Don't ENTIRELY blame the people, blame the system. (In this case.)
Educating yourself is an option for maintaining your PC but it's not the end-all solution. Just like car maintenance, I would bet half of the users who can traverse the web virus-free have little idea what their distributor cap is.
I do agree, however, that he shouldn't have used it as reasoning in his argument, there are other alternatives to avoiding viruses beyond switching from Windows. (Get a Support Service - have them deal with it)
You (meaning the masses) might not have an old pentium.:)
Point taken though, effort = payoff? Definately not, unless you consider the knowledge he's gained doing the project which may lead to more lucrative goals.
While you argued the specifics quite well, you still missed my overall point.
Even if it's an action flick it's o.k. for a child to watch violent media.
The reasoning is if your parent can teach you the difference between 'senseless' violence and 'meaningful' violence, you're o.k. (e.g. There's no such thing as 'meaningful' violence unless you're defending yourself.) This goes along with the child poster to your argument who puts the responsibility on the parent.
I suppose you could simplify it by saying:
A. Bad Parent + Violent Media = bad. B. Good Parent + Violent Media = good.
So obviously, if you take out he violent media from both equations, you're left with A. Bad Parent, or B. Good Parent. The Parents make the difference, not the media.
This makes a lot of sense if you think about how influences on a child work:
Major Influences of a child, ordered by what a child considers most important:
A. Parents B. Siblings C. Other Relatives (possibly, if they're close) D. Friends E. Peers (excluding friends, i.e. kids they goto school with but aren't 'friends' with.) F. A bunch of other stuff (this isn't complete but I'm sure there are many examples over the media that would fit this bill, think teachers, etc.) G. Media
Media is last on the list, for a good reason. Parents can completely destroy the effects a relative's comments (or others lower on the list) had on your child because they are see each other more.
To further the analysis, a bad parent would be defined as someone who spends less time with their children than the relatives. Effectively, the relative is doing the parenting. Greater trust is built by simple interaction on a more common basis.
Re:To buy or not to buy, the reviewer doesn't know
on
Spring Into PHP 5
·
· Score: 1
Reviewer: "Another potential point of criticism could be that the book does not adequately explain how to use PHP with the various available database systems, only covering MySQL (the industry's favorite for use with PHP)."
Parent post: "But yet it does explain MySQL? Which is it? I'm not going to buy the book if the reviewer can't figure it out."
The reviewer is saying the book explains how to use PHP with the database program MySQL, but not with other database programs such as Lotus Notes or Oracle.
"It's not good to let young children see too many violent movies or play too many violent games because that's when children are developing their sense of right and wrong."
Why?
I have an older brother who loved horror movies, so literally the first movies I ever remember seeing were chock full of violence. I basically popped out and became a child of Nightmare on Elm Street.
There's a lot of time in one day, my mom had plenty of time to teach me what's right and what's wrong.
If anything, the subjection to violent media may have even ENHANCED my moral senses. It is a source of conversation about moral issues between parent & child. It enables the parent to make moral corrections that they may have never addressed without the violent media.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget more heat from extra harddrive(s).
Which, in the example the editor posted, is a big concern with that hardware.
Some generation of laptops with fast CPU's and crappy everything-else still generate too much heat to be considered reliable. USB ports will stop working, etc. And don't even bring up those cooling pads, cuz if your laptop overheats to the point of freezing or crashing chances are that cooling pad will not make up the difference.
There's still situations I'm sure you would enjoy going to a movie despite these pitfalls.
:)
Think of family gatherings with not-so-loved family.
Aunt Jo: "Darcy u should really cut your hai.."
Darcy: STFU JO THIS IS THE PART WHERE TOM CRUISE TRIES TO CONVINCE US TO TAKE UP SCIENTOLOGY BY THEATRICAL METAPHOR.
I also make fun of scientology at weddings and funerals, thx will be here all night.
Yeah that tends to be it.
;)
I went to the Grudge on a holiday weekend (too lazy to look up which holiday right now) I think it was Halloween. Anyway, big mistake.
This is how it went:
-Plot development.
-Scary scene.
-Teenage girls shriek.
-Teenage guys laugh at the shrieking girls.
-The few adults shift in their chairs and dream of standing up and declaring this theatre property of the new order of silence.
-Repeat.
You just have to leave and get your money back for those occasions
You watch it and you're 'ok', right? Why shouldn't they be?
Hell, isn't part of the purpose of movies to incite a reaction from it's audience?
Jesus what's with your double-standard. You're righteously equipped to watch any movie the media may release, but your children could spontaneously combust when they see a CG bloody stump of an arm fly across the screen.
Ever have some Highway Patrolmen talk to your school about driving drunk etc.? They did at mine while I was going to school. Showed slides of decapitated heads and people wrapped around trees after a car accident. Nearly made me sick because I knew it was real, and they KNEW that would happen so they could discourage drunk driving.
But I watch someone get decapitated in a movie, I know it's all fake, and may even laugh if the movie makes it funny.
As long as you explain to the child the differences between real and fake, there should be no reason you will need to censor them from violence in media.
I have a vivid memory of going to see a movie with my uncle at a very young age. I remember for whatever reason I was wearing a winter coat in Summer, and my uncle parked at this little stop 'n shop before we went to the movie. We went in and they sold those huge bags of popcorn.
We came up with the idea to pretend I was a fat kid and put the popcorn in my coat.
Totally worked, the bag cost less than 3 dollars at the time.
Screw theatre food prices. The popcorn only tastes good with the butter, and the butter makes you sick anyway. I think it's a conspiracy to get you to buy a drink, and use the drink to wash down the engine oil + salt cache you're consuming.
"talk to the degree holding librarians at your local public library"
It's just as possible the people with any say at your local library have no degree. Degree makes no difference here, approach the peers who have influence.
rofl u just made my day.
for the cable internet & cellphone crowd, such as myself.
lol, except sometimes you flip back and realize you didn't actually take very many notes relating to your specific question.
A good chunk of the people who delete their cookies do it because they don't want their employer to find out where they've been surfing.
(And yes, I know a lot of routers and net tools will log where the user surfs anyway, but IT depts. generally aren't the Gestapo.)
Reminds me of the conversation at the end of Batman Begins with Gordon and the Bat:
Gordon: "Batman making a stand as he has will only escalate the problem."
If suddenly the masses are educated on spam filtering, wouldn't spammers just adobt tactics to avoid them?
I mean it is afterall a "spammers market". They have increased resources because they're getting all the money. I'm sure the spammers are much smarter than most techies who use filters, they just don't care. They think, "If this techie is going to use a filter to stop my spam so be it, there's a 100 people for each one of him that won't."
No we need to think of new techniques outside of filtering. Filtering is mostly nonsense, manual work. We need something philisophically different than filtering which affects how spam comes through in-transit, or something that affects the financial backing of spammers.
We should be breaking down their lines of communications, etc - not expecting granny to take up spam filtering techniques.
Sorry, I was actually directing that post back at NetRaven rather than you.
Good point. :)
No problem.
You can't criticize a "consumer"-level person for something millions of users "can't help", either.
An analogy: One who criticizes people for not maintaining their car beyond the most simple fixes such as changing your oil, even though it's commonly accepted by most of society that an individual should get a significantly important car part professionally replaced or fixed by a friend/relative who does it as a main job/hobby.
Computers are just so abstract a large population that requires them for some purpose or another (communcation through email, word processing) doesn't have the time, inclination, or ability to learn what's going to infect their PC, and what isn't.
The computers I've owned have had two viruses on their hard drives in my life time. One was a boot sector virus obtained through the school's computer labs transferred by floppy disk. The other never actually infected a computer of mine, but was stored in an archive I never opened.
I've spent hours over the phone helping past customers remove spyware/viruses from their PC's, usually the worst kind such as Cool Web Search (considered spyware, though the symptoms are primarily the same once you're infected), zombie-viruses, etc.
Don't ENTIRELY blame the people, blame the system. (In this case.)
Educating yourself is an option for maintaining your PC but it's not the end-all solution. Just like car maintenance, I would bet half of the users who can traverse the web virus-free have little idea what their distributor cap is.
I do agree, however, that he shouldn't have used it as reasoning in his argument, there are other alternatives to avoiding viruses beyond switching from Windows. (Get a Support Service - have them deal with it)
ok ok ok
is it just me, or isn't most everything based off pieces of everything else.
most art is based off someone else's style either through teaching, or through media examples.
TRUE creativity is rarely successful because it is so high risk. (I wonder if there is a such thing with the examples nature provides.)
Apple created the iPod because they: created it.
Forget everything else. To argue the purposefuly controversial semantics of this article is quite useless.
It's because he quoted the article.
Some people mod others redundant when people do that, assuming the article should be required reading.
disagrees, but meh, w/e.
Judging from the the responses other commenters have posted, I'll assume this is NOT a refurb device they contracted in bulk.
u rceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=u tf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:offici alo mpeting-with-wal-mart/ (do a search on mold, soz not in the mood for html submissions tonight.)
HOWEVER, Fry's is known for it's refurb love, similar to how Walmart loves 3rd rate produce.
The message:
BEWARE OF FRY's
http://www.google.com/search?q=fry+refurbished&so
http://www.procata.com/blog/archives/2004/06/05/c
You (meaning the masses) might not have an old pentium. :)
Point taken though, effort = payoff? Definately not, unless you consider the knowledge he's gained doing the project which may lead to more lucrative goals.
While you argued the specifics quite well, you still missed my overall point.
Even if it's an action flick it's o.k. for a child to watch violent media.
The reasoning is if your parent can teach you the difference between 'senseless' violence and 'meaningful' violence, you're o.k. (e.g. There's no such thing as 'meaningful' violence unless you're defending yourself.) This goes along with the child poster to your argument who puts the responsibility on the parent.
I suppose you could simplify it by saying:
A. Bad Parent + Violent Media = bad.
B. Good Parent + Violent Media = good.
So obviously, if you take out he violent media from both equations, you're left with A. Bad Parent, or B. Good Parent. The Parents make the difference, not the media.
This makes a lot of sense if you think about how influences on a child work:
Major Influences of a child, ordered by what a child considers most important:
A. Parents
B. Siblings
C. Other Relatives (possibly, if they're close)
D. Friends
E. Peers (excluding friends, i.e. kids they goto school with but aren't 'friends' with.)
F. A bunch of other stuff (this isn't complete but I'm sure there are many examples over the media that would fit this bill, think teachers, etc.)
G. Media
Media is last on the list, for a good reason. Parents can completely destroy the effects a relative's comments (or others lower on the list) had on your child because they are see each other more.
To further the analysis, a bad parent would be defined as someone who spends less time with their children than the relatives. Effectively, the relative is doing the parenting. Greater trust is built by simple interaction on a more common basis.
Reviewer: "Another potential point of criticism could be that the book does not adequately explain how to use PHP with the various available database systems, only covering MySQL (the industry's favorite for use with PHP)."
Parent post: "But yet it does explain MySQL? Which is it? I'm not going to buy the book if the reviewer can't figure it out."
The reviewer is saying the book explains how to use PHP with the database program MySQL, but not with other database programs such as Lotus Notes or Oracle.
Distros.
Linux has distros.
Bibles have different translations, or variations.
He was making a joke about how he almost called different bible translations distros.
"It's not good to let young children see too many violent movies or play too many violent games because that's when children are developing their sense of right and wrong."
Why?
I have an older brother who loved horror movies, so literally the first movies I ever remember seeing were chock full of violence. I basically popped out and became a child of Nightmare on Elm Street.
There's a lot of time in one day, my mom had plenty of time to teach me what's right and what's wrong.
If anything, the subjection to violent media may have even ENHANCED my moral senses. It is a source of conversation about moral issues between parent & child. It enables the parent to make moral corrections that they may have never addressed without the violent media.
lol touché ^^
Yep, and that's the reason why he felt justified to blacklist them.
Everyone is missing the point.
Most people don't care their number is in the phonebook, but if you write it on the wall of a public restroom you're much more likely to get pissed.
At the same time, they're reporters (?!), I think Eric was just unlucky to have been the guinea pig & should get over it.
^ Sarcasm.
:(
I mean yeah, it's great, but I just setup two Gentoo boxes at work the last few days!!
I was amazed how unfriendly it was from a graphical installer POV (i.e. it had none!).
I've used Slackware in the past, and aside from setting up your fstab, it was a breeze so it was very suprising the installation was so complex.
But, like the above posters, I now know much more about how Linux works. And yes, emerge rocks.
All in all, it's my new fav distro, and this will make it more accessible to the less technically-inclined.