Or you can take the plastic models, process them into plastic pellets, and use those to create more plastic for the printers. Biodegradable is not the only option - recyclable plastics are out there too.
Sure, if you listen to the sensationalist, bandwagon-leaping-on news stories about Vista raping cats and giving people AIDS, then you're going to get a very jaded view of the OS's adoption. I doubt you've read many articles covering people who are very happy with Vista, yet those users (and those stories) are out there. Those folks will probably buy Windows again.
Vista has been doing rather well in stores, too. Sales have picked up rapidly, and couple that with the number of companies who are buying Vista VLKs (cue the tried and tested "ooh monopoly/vendor-lock-in/FUD-victims/linux-haters/whatever" response), and non-hardware-bundled Vista sales are doing very well. Those folks will probably buy Windows again, too.
It is sustainable growth. You might not think it, if all you read is the aforementioned sensationalism, but that doesn't change reality. Making massive generalisations like "their customers are massively pissed" betrays the tenuous foundations (maybe wishful thinking) your argument is based on.
It's very easy to keep an XP install running. Especially since SP2, now that the firewall is on by default. I've run XP for years without a firewall of its own (just a NAT denying inbound connections), and no anti-virus, and I didn't have virus problems. I'm not suggesting you're spreading some FUD, I'm merely hinting that the reality you've painted isn't reflected in some, if not many people's 'eXPerience'.
Vista is not a failure. I'm not trolling (though many will see it that way) - vista has made MS a bunch of money, and if anything, has given them a great wake-up call to shape up or ship out. It'll only be a failure if they never release another version of Windows, and don't learn from their mistakes. +5, Troll expected - slashdot, don't let me down!
Was that supposed to make sense? Anyone can join any political party in the UK and vote to choose who will be their prime minister should the party get in power.
That's not making a difference, that's the media. It makes a difference when it's talked about by, and becomes an issue with, the general public before the person is elected, which in the UK, doesn't happen as much as in the US. I've seen interviews with various UK politicians who've said they are representatives first, and -ist second. In the US it seems to be the same thing. I'm just pointing out that while religion might play a part in British politics, it's practically the same thing as politics in the US.
If someone's ignorant enough to not want to help their neighbours (it's a lot cheaper to get someone out of poverty than to fund them through the prison and court systems for the rest of their lives, and the lives of their kids, etc. etc. etc.), then maybe they need forcing. If someone's not going to be responsible (through ignorance or some other reason), then something needs to be done. "It's my money and I want all of it" is not being socially responsible.
There's a third option - get a government welfare body that actually helps folks become productive members of society. Surely that would be the best option - getting people out of poverty and welfare should be the job of the government, or an independent body directly funded by the government, as it's so bloody important for every aspect of society.
There is a "none of the above" check box on every single ballot - just write "useless wankers" or something across it and put it in the box. Unlike not voting, that showed that the anonymous voter in question actually went to the polling station, could have voted, but instead chose to foul their ballot in protest. Not turning up lets people put it down to voter apathy instead of folks not being able to choose a representative they want.
Nope. You can run Vista on any Atom, obviously some of the features will have to be disabled when running on the lower-level CPUs, but it's more than possible.
If CCTV manages to convict a single repeat offender, through either providing evidence or helping the cops track them down, then it's reduced crime and increased public safety. That's it. Just one instance is all it takes to nullify your argument.
Perhaps if you said it was not cost-effective, then that would make more sense. Even though it is rather cost-effective to have extra evidence-gathering and intelligence-supplying hardware augmenting the information police on the streets get.
It's not just bombings that stuff helps with, but any offense caught on CCTV in an area of dense CCTV coverage. Any crime at all.
1. Catching criminals is reducing crime. Lots of crimes are committed by repeat offenders, catch one person, and you've reduced the possibility of them committing another crime.
2. The use? To catch the offender. It's that simple.
3. That has more to do with manpower issues and funding, not CCTV. It's one tool the police use, not their only tool. It's not replacing police, as you need the police to arrest people.
The cost effectiveness of CCTV is fantastic. Look at its use in central london - police CCTV vans parked up, monitoring pick-pocketing hot-spots. Levels of pick-pocketing decrease when they're around, and the CCTV allows the police to catch the theives, and sometimes even return the property to the victims before the victims even know they've been robbed.
If you have a problem with the police not being efficient enough, then try to get more funding for them by talking to your MP. Taking away a very useful tool in order to feel more secure, even when the cops on the street are less effective in their jobs, is a bit silly.
And it's not a bit rich when you sound exactly like people posting in the comments section on their site.
That's not the whole picture. What the cameras allow is a view of the actions of the people involved. If you see someone wearing a distinctive track suit committing a crime, regardless of whether you capture their face, you can still track them from camera to camera. If the shop's CCTV shows him stealing stuff, and a person in those clothes is then captured running down the street from that shop, chances are that's the guy. The cops can use CCTV to perform an in-the-street identity parade, with the CCTV operator comparing the person's appearance to that of the person caught on tape earlier.
The idea that CCTV is only for deterring crime is ridiculous. It has plenty of very useful applications that are indeed helping the police to catch more bad people. Saying CCTV is eroding rights is ridiculous - no-one has the right not to be looked at in the street. Your rights through the data protection act cover access to the video, and your right to access it.
Sure, but it also means it can be embedded in a web-page, and interfaced with via javascript. No more downloading KML files and waiting for Google Earth to load them, the webpage can directly show you what it's describing. That IS progress. Just think how useful Google Maps would be in a stand-alone application, compared to how useful it is now. The fact it can be extended using JS and presented in a web-page is how it really becomes useful. But I guess it's more fun to ignore all that and just have a pop at Microsoft, even when this is entirely Google's doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. Whatever you say. I bet your second most important issue is the right to not see black people.
Or you can take the plastic models, process them into plastic pellets, and use those to create more plastic for the printers. Biodegradable is not the only option - recyclable plastics are out there too.
He didn't say it.
Sure, if you listen to the sensationalist, bandwagon-leaping-on news stories about Vista raping cats and giving people AIDS, then you're going to get a very jaded view of the OS's adoption. I doubt you've read many articles covering people who are very happy with Vista, yet those users (and those stories) are out there. Those folks will probably buy Windows again. Vista has been doing rather well in stores, too. Sales have picked up rapidly, and couple that with the number of companies who are buying Vista VLKs (cue the tried and tested "ooh monopoly/vendor-lock-in/FUD-victims/linux-haters/whatever" response), and non-hardware-bundled Vista sales are doing very well. Those folks will probably buy Windows again, too. It is sustainable growth. You might not think it, if all you read is the aforementioned sensationalism, but that doesn't change reality. Making massive generalisations like "their customers are massively pissed" betrays the tenuous foundations (maybe wishful thinking) your argument is based on.
It's very easy to keep an XP install running. Especially since SP2, now that the firewall is on by default. I've run XP for years without a firewall of its own (just a NAT denying inbound connections), and no anti-virus, and I didn't have virus problems. I'm not suggesting you're spreading some FUD, I'm merely hinting that the reality you've painted isn't reflected in some, if not many people's 'eXPerience'.
Vista is not a failure. I'm not trolling (though many will see it that way) - vista has made MS a bunch of money, and if anything, has given them a great wake-up call to shape up or ship out. It'll only be a failure if they never release another version of Windows, and don't learn from their mistakes. +5, Troll expected - slashdot, don't let me down!
So we have an idiot posting on slashdot and it's NOT Anonymous Coward.
Seriously - you should post as AC when venting your ignorant rants.
Was that supposed to make sense? Anyone can join any political party in the UK and vote to choose who will be their prime minister should the party get in power.
That's not making a difference, that's the media. It makes a difference when it's talked about by, and becomes an issue with, the general public before the person is elected, which in the UK, doesn't happen as much as in the US. I've seen interviews with various UK politicians who've said they are representatives first, and -ist second. In the US it seems to be the same thing. I'm just pointing out that while religion might play a part in British politics, it's practically the same thing as politics in the US.
If someone's ignorant enough to not want to help their neighbours (it's a lot cheaper to get someone out of poverty than to fund them through the prison and court systems for the rest of their lives, and the lives of their kids, etc. etc. etc.), then maybe they need forcing. If someone's not going to be responsible (through ignorance or some other reason), then something needs to be done. "It's my money and I want all of it" is not being socially responsible.
There's a third option - get a government welfare body that actually helps folks become productive members of society. Surely that would be the best option - getting people out of poverty and welfare should be the job of the government, or an independent body directly funded by the government, as it's so bloody important for every aspect of society.
YOU SHALL NOT PASS... legislation, because that's the job of Congress.
That was America participating in Europe's war so it wouldn't become America's war.
It has sold very well, but linux is still a tiny minority on the desktop. Until Windows and OS X die off, x86 is very necessary :)
There is a "none of the above" check box on every single ballot - just write "useless wankers" or something across it and put it in the box. Unlike not voting, that showed that the anonymous voter in question actually went to the polling station, could have voted, but instead chose to foul their ballot in protest. Not turning up lets people put it down to voter apathy instead of folks not being able to choose a representative they want.
That was an Atari Portfolio. I had one of those - great stuff. It ran DOS and had a great keyboard.
Have you used Google in the last 6 years? :) They do that already.
Was that supposed to make sense, or was it some kind of joke?
Nope. You can run Vista on any Atom, obviously some of the features will have to be disabled when running on the lower-level CPUs, but it's more than possible.
If CCTV manages to convict a single repeat offender, through either providing evidence or helping the cops track them down, then it's reduced crime and increased public safety. That's it. Just one instance is all it takes to nullify your argument.
Perhaps if you said it was not cost-effective, then that would make more sense. Even though it is rather cost-effective to have extra evidence-gathering and intelligence-supplying hardware augmenting the information police on the streets get.
It's not just bombings that stuff helps with, but any offense caught on CCTV in an area of dense CCTV coverage. Any crime at all.
1. Catching criminals is reducing crime. Lots of crimes are committed by repeat offenders, catch one person, and you've reduced the possibility of them committing another crime.
2. The use? To catch the offender. It's that simple.
3. That has more to do with manpower issues and funding, not CCTV. It's one tool the police use, not their only tool. It's not replacing police, as you need the police to arrest people.
The cost effectiveness of CCTV is fantastic. Look at its use in central london - police CCTV vans parked up, monitoring pick-pocketing hot-spots. Levels of pick-pocketing decrease when they're around, and the CCTV allows the police to catch the theives, and sometimes even return the property to the victims before the victims even know they've been robbed.
If you have a problem with the police not being efficient enough, then try to get more funding for them by talking to your MP. Taking away a very useful tool in order to feel more secure, even when the cops on the street are less effective in their jobs, is a bit silly.
And it's not a bit rich when you sound exactly like people posting in the comments section on their site.
If they filed a request under the data protection act, then everyone would have to comply.
That's not the whole picture. What the cameras allow is a view of the actions of the people involved. If you see someone wearing a distinctive track suit committing a crime, regardless of whether you capture their face, you can still track them from camera to camera. If the shop's CCTV shows him stealing stuff, and a person in those clothes is then captured running down the street from that shop, chances are that's the guy. The cops can use CCTV to perform an in-the-street identity parade, with the CCTV operator comparing the person's appearance to that of the person caught on tape earlier.
:)
The idea that CCTV is only for deterring crime is ridiculous. It has plenty of very useful applications that are indeed helping the police to catch more bad people. Saying CCTV is eroding rights is ridiculous - no-one has the right not to be looked at in the street. Your rights through the data protection act cover access to the video, and your right to access it.
Do you read the daily mail?
Increase the DPI of your GUI - problem solved.
Sure, but it also means it can be embedded in a web-page, and interfaced with via javascript. No more downloading KML files and waiting for Google Earth to load them, the webpage can directly show you what it's describing. That IS progress. Just think how useful Google Maps would be in a stand-alone application, compared to how useful it is now. The fact it can be extended using JS and presented in a web-page is how it really becomes useful. But I guess it's more fun to ignore all that and just have a pop at Microsoft, even when this is entirely Google's doing.