Yup, I've put a HDD in the fridge before after it failed, and it did indeed come back up for long enough to recover the data.
Freezing uncooperative devices may work, but microwaving them is far more satisfying and serves a harsher lesson to the others. It does get expensive in microwaves though.
Be my guest, but consider this: fundamentally moral positions don't need mental gymnastics to justify themselves. They tend to be self-evident.
Do enlighten us oh master. What is the self evident moral position on capital punishment? How about abortion? How about gay marriage? Are they self evident simply because obviously anyone who disagrees with you must be a liar? Or are those all special exceptions but copyright isn't because you, oh all knowing one, say so?
You are probably the only person on the planet who is bothered that one of the results for "to be or not to be" is the site tobeornottobe.com containing the works of William Shakespeare, but nevertheless this really does show that Google isn't suitable for your special requirements. I think we all understand that now. Thanks for letting us know.
Considering it had a tiny (1'-2'/ 3/4m) sholder on one side and a rather significant drop-off on the other I'm suprised there weren't regular fatalities as semi's CAN'T slow suddenly when confronted with some idiot doing
Anyone who can't stop, nevermind slow, when an obstacles appears at the limit of current visibility is not in control of their vehicle. That's true of bicycles as well as cars of course and there are idiots driving both. Plus that's small comfort when a maniac who "CAN'T slow suddenly" hits you. Nevertheless it is absurd in the scenario you descibe to call the bicyclist alone an idiot and not comment on the dangerously reckless driver.
Roads in many areas were never designed with the bicyclist in mind and using them as if they were is at best a risk.
True. More importantly, roads in many areas were not designed with motorists in mind but have been poorly adapted to that purpose. Using them as if they were designed for motor traffic is a risk, and one that the motorist needs to take into account just as with the other many risks in driving.
Maybe you're right, it didn't read that way to me but I would certainly be happier with that. There's still something wrong with these Republicans who think their party should be entitled to special favors, but yeah they could be dregs at the bottom. I'd still like to know more, did the interviewer a. make it up, b. interview random people off the street or c. ask people with some influence within the republican party. His comments seem very strange to me.
If lawmaking members of party A find the arguments of other people related to their party more persuasive, that is not in itself corrupt. It's to be expected and a good reason for hiring a person with similar background and outlook to legislators.
If lawmaking members of party A say "you should have hired one of my colleagues, because we have power in Congress" then that, to me, sounds very corrupt.
It's not an issue of what the MPAA do and don't consider. The issue is that, according to the interviewer, Republicans in Congress apparently felt they were entitled to particular private sector jobs . Of course the interviewer might be lying.
I should have added to begin with: p.s. please don't respond by saying "well but the Democrats are even more corrupt!". True or not, there's no way that improves things.
Q: Let's move to politics for a moment. As a lifelong Democrat, your appointment to the MPAA was criticized by several Republicans who said they felt a member of their party should have gotten the nod, since Republicans were in control of Congress. And there have been some reports that Congress withheld its support on some recent MPAA-supported bills in response.
What's your take?
A: We are an important industry that produces hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country.
It's hard for me to believe that for partisan political reasons, anyone would want to penalize a successful industry. Piracy is not a partisan issue. I can't be successful unless I'm bipartisan. I'm from Kansas, a state that didn't elect a lot of Democrats.
Now that the election is over and settled, people will become more secure with themselves.
Society is really messed up when corruption amongst lawmakers is treated as casually as both interviewer and interviewee did here.
Did the interviewer make up the bit about Republicans claiming an entitlement to certain jobs based on their control of Congress, or is their support for this?
This is a far more serious issue than movie piracy.
...what happened and compare it to what should have happened.
So how do you decide what should have happened? On the face of it, if what happened isn't what you think should have happened then it looks like your theory was wrong.
Suppose my experiment doesn't work the way I planned. Maybe my theory was wrong or maybe someone tampered with it. Can I just announce that it was an elf that interfered or do I have to actually discover evidence of the elf? If the elf can be shown to exist then what does it mean for it to be "supernatural"?
Re:Body deterioration due to lack of movement
on
Hibernating to Mars
·
· Score: 1
What if a company or organization wants to do business with people in more countires? Do you suggest Microsoft should register 100+ domains?
They can if they want but they don't have to. There's no reason why a.us domain, for example, shouldn't be browsable from pretty much everywhere just like it is at present.
For most organizations dealing in multiple countries, the cost of a website per country is insignificant compared to the other regulatory (and likely marketing) costs per country. For others such as wikipedia, if that would be dificult then pick one country and register a domain there. What's the problem?
The internet is supposed to be free
Who supposes it to be free? If by 'free' they mean unregulated or beyond the reach of giovernments then their supposition is wrong.
If, say, IBM wants to have a.us website then they have to operate that website in accordance with US laws. If they also want to have a.fr and a.uk web site then they'll have to operate those in accordance with French and British laws. And so on.
Just like at the moment IBM's American subsidiaries have to be operated in accordance with American laws and its French and British subsidiaries have to be operated in accordance with French and British laws.
"Why is it the responsibility of the US government in general, and the american people specifically, to do what other governments can't do? Take care of their people. Shouldn't Mexico be the one setting up conditions that favour it's citizens having a living wage? What about all the rest?
I didn't suggest that the US Government or the American people should get involved in any way shape or form, so I've no idea why you ask this.
All I said was that just like the previous poster says he doesn't 'give a shit' about the Indians, I feel the same way about him. I am not the US Government, I'm not American people either, I'm one person who isn't impressed to hear some whiny brat rant about the horrors of having to work at Walmart, OMG WALMART!
I give a shit about *me* first and poor Indians second, they aren't looking out for my welfare!
That's very nice, but you have to realise that the rest of us don't have any reason to care about you more than we do about anyone else. I couldn't, as you say, 'give a shit' about whether you're an Indian or an American any more than I care about whether you have blue or brown eyes. So as you say; Fuck you.
Sort of like how people use "stealing" as a metaphor for "copying music without paying for it" when referring to music downloaders? Do you see where I'm going with this?
I would agree with this. However, there is a definite pattern of people when 'corrected' not to say "yeah, I was using a metaphor, like 'those prices are daylight robbery', get over it", which would be fair enough, but to say "oh yes it is so theft". Once they reach that point there is a legitimate point to discuss, at least for those of us who care about either legal terms or about language in general. There do seem to be at least some people who honestly think that copyright infringement is theft.
Illegally copying music is not strictly "theft" or "stealing", but that's symantics.
Semantics. Yes. It's a comment on what the words mean. Like:
Person A : "hey, look at my pet hippopotamus"
Person B : "that's not a hippopotamus, it's a parrot"
Person B's comment certainly concerns semantics. Is it therefore somehow wrong for him to say it? Or irrelevant to the conversation? Semantics matter.
It is still illegal, it is still a tort. You are still depriving someone.
Copyright infringement is indeed illegal. Sometimes it's even a crime, like theft, not just a tort.
Blackmail, murder, theft, copyright infringement, parking on yellow lines and treason are all illegal. That doesn't mean that the words are intechangeable. Just like cats, dogs, hippopotamuses, giraffes and humans are all mammals. Expect to be corrected if you get them mixed up. Yes, that's semantics. Semantics matter.
Try telling that to the KDE zealots who are *still* attacking Bruce Perens for dropping KDE from UserLinux.
Yeah, I'm waiting for them to unleash a similar level of vitriol against Slackware too since I know how shocking they find it for a distro to pick one desktop. Think I may be waiting a while.
"Don't point out the splinter in another's eye when you have a plank in your own."
Does that quotation actually make any sense to anyone? If I ever have a splinter in my eye then I'd rather know about it please, regardless of what anyone else has in theirs.
Google is only afraid that they themselves will be sensored away
Maybe they could modify the sensor away to reflect the beam back on the Chinese government?
Re:Ahh...circular logic!
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Even by usual Slashdot standards, it's stunning that the above crap actually got modded up.
His argument, explicitly spelled out, is that he buys foreign goods because they are cheaper than American goods and that if he bought American goods he would have less money for the rent and therefore, he argues, the government should FORCE him (and you and me and everyone else) to pay higher prices for all goods, bringing the foreign ones at least up to the price of the American ones he's unwilling to pay for, and thus to have less money to pay the rent. And someone somewhere bought into this?
Leaving asside the morality of forcing foreigners into poverty, leaving aside the practicalities of the negative effects on markets that we depend on, leaving aside the effects of retaliatory measures, you actually want the government to FORCE you to pay higher prices because it's not a choice you'd make on your own? This is insanity.
What matters is wether or not they use the same standards for what qualifies as unemployed from year to year.
But the quote from Snopes that was used to support the claim (as far as I could tell) that the unemployment stats aren't based on whether or not people claim for unemployment insurance said nothing one way or the other about how the surveyers decide what qualifies as unemployed. The reference to Snope was completely worthless for (what seemed to me to be) its intended purpose.
I'm not arguing that the stats are based on whetehr people claim unemplyment insurance because I don't know, but from the link given it seems that Snopes doesn't know either.
Society protects couples with children - and those who may one day have children - by giving preferential treatment to couples who are married.
This is silly. I'm sure you know as well as I do that couples with children can be identified by checking for the existence of children. Marriage is not, and is not intended to be, a way of identifying those who have children. Any argument that relies on married status as a way of protecting those with children is ludicrous. If you want to treat people with chlidren differently to those without chlidren then find out whether the people have a child or not and then treat them accordingly.
If you adulterate marriage in the manner you propose such protection may go away - harm done.
I have proposed nothing whatsoever, at least not under this discussion. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else?
You don't actually think that unmarried couples with children are treated as well by our institutions as married couples with children are, do you?
Are you saying that institutions don't protect unmarried couples with children as well as married couples with children and that therefore the best way of protecting children in the example you previously gave would be to give benefits to married couples? Or were you making some other point? I find this incomprehensible.
If you don't buy any of that, how about we adjust the previous scenario, so that instead of having a child, the previously mentioned (new and inexperienced) couple ends up fighting all the time because they can't stand living with the stupidity in the dorms? Lets say that this results in scars in their relationship, which never fully heal. Then four years later they have a child, who learns to hate the world because his house is full of hatred.
This applies equally well whether the couple are married or not.
Let's be clear on our terms here. When you talk about people being "actually" married, I assume you mean that they've filled out the relevant forms and gone through the appropriate ceremony which can take anything upwards of 15 minutes. Is that correct?
These are risks. Not what will absolutely happen. It seemed as though you couldn't figure out why marriage has anything to do with the government.
How did you conclude that I 'couldn't figure out why marriage has anything to do with the government'? Legal marriage has everything to do with the government. It's an artifact of law.
Do you still think it's as simple an issue as you did?
I think you're suffering from a case of mistaken identity.
I do not think that an argument about protecting children can plausibly be resolved to one about different treatment of married versus unmarried couples. This has nothing to do with simplicty. It has nothing to do with whether the government should be involved with marriages. If you want to protect children then your first task is to identify children, not to identify marriages.
I'm perfectly happy with the marriage ceremony and related laws existing as they do. However, I don't feel a need to produce spurious pseudo-logical justifications for it.
This, in turn, could lead to a couple who is actually married and with a child having to live in the normal dorms - possibly exposing their child to the alcohol and drugs that often accompany young and immature non-parental college students. Then later, that scarred child could grow up a self-distructive sociopath.
That's one possible example of how it could affect other people, and how that could result in a danger to society. This is only hypothetical, of course, but it does show the point.
No it doesn't show the point, if indeed there is a point.
What you claim to be arguing for is the proposition that an "actually" married couple should have preferential treatment over a "non-actually" married couple.
What you in fact argue for is the proposition that a couple with a child should be treated differently to a couple without a child.
I simply don't believe that you can't see how different those two positions are. Having a child is not the same as being married, "actually" or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, I've put a HDD in the fridge before after it failed, and it did indeed come back up for long enough to recover the data.
Freezing uncooperative devices may work, but microwaving them is far more satisfying and serves a harsher lesson to the others. It does get expensive in microwaves though.
Be my guest, but consider this: fundamentally moral positions don't need mental gymnastics to justify themselves. They tend to be self-evident.
Do enlighten us oh master. What is the self evident moral position on capital punishment? How about abortion? How about gay marriage? Are they self evident simply because obviously anyone who disagrees with you must be a liar? Or are those all special exceptions but copyright isn't because you, oh all knowing one, say so?
You are probably the only person on the planet who is bothered that one of the results for "to be or not to be" is the site tobeornottobe.com containing the works of William Shakespeare, but nevertheless this really does show that Google isn't suitable for your special requirements. I think we all understand that now. Thanks for letting us know.
Post I was replying to has a less than sign embedded in it to mess up posts of anyone quoting it. Guess I should have previewed.
Considering it had a tiny (1'-2'/ 3/4m) sholder on one side and a rather significant drop-off on the other I'm suprised there weren't regular fatalities as semi's CAN'T slow suddenly when confronted with some idiot doing
Anyone who can't stop, nevermind slow, when an obstacles appears at the limit of current visibility is not in control of their vehicle. That's true of bicycles as well as cars of course and there are idiots driving both. Plus that's small comfort when a maniac who "CAN'T slow suddenly" hits you. Nevertheless it is absurd in the scenario you descibe to call the bicyclist alone an idiot and not comment on the dangerously reckless driver.
Roads in many areas were never designed with the bicyclist in mind and using them as if they were is at best a risk.
True. More importantly, roads in many areas were not designed with motorists in mind but have been poorly adapted to that purpose. Using them as if they were designed for motor traffic is a risk, and one that the motorist needs to take into account just as with the other many risks in driving.
Maybe you're right, it didn't read that way to me but I would certainly be happier with that. There's still something wrong with these Republicans who think their party should be entitled to special favors, but yeah they could be dregs at the bottom. I'd still like to know more, did the interviewer a. make it up, b. interview random people off the street or c. ask people with some influence within the republican party. His comments seem very strange to me.
To clarify perhaps:
If lawmaking members of party A find the arguments of other people related to their party more persuasive, that is not in itself corrupt. It's to be expected and a good reason for hiring a person with similar background and outlook to legislators.
If lawmaking members of party A say "you should have hired one of my colleagues, because we have power in Congress" then that, to me, sounds very corrupt.
I don't think this is hard to see.
It's not an issue of what the MPAA do and don't consider. The issue is that, according to the interviewer, Republicans in Congress apparently felt they were entitled to particular private sector jobs . Of course the interviewer might be lying.
I should have added to begin with: p.s. please don't respond by saying "well but the Democrats are even more corrupt!". True or not, there's no way that improves things.
Society is really messed up when corruption amongst lawmakers is treated as casually as both interviewer and interviewee did here.
Did the interviewer make up the bit about Republicans claiming an entitlement to certain jobs based on their control of Congress, or is their support for this?
This is a far more serious issue than movie piracy.
...what happened and compare it to what should have happened.
So how do you decide what should have happened? On the face of it, if what happened isn't what you think should have happened then it looks like your theory was wrong.
Suppose my experiment doesn't work the way I planned. Maybe my theory was wrong or maybe someone tampered with it. Can I just announce that it was an elf that interfered or do I have to actually discover evidence of the elf? If the elf can be shown to exist then what does it mean for it to be "supernatural"?
Over hibernating animals we have a consciousness
What does that mean and how did you test it?
What if a company or organization wants to do business with people in more countires? Do you suggest Microsoft should register 100+ domains?
.us domain, for example, shouldn't be browsable from pretty much everywhere just like it is at present.
They can if they want but they don't have to. There's no reason why a
For most organizations dealing in multiple countries, the cost of a website per country is insignificant compared to the other regulatory (and likely marketing) costs per country. For others such as wikipedia, if that would be dificult then pick one country and register a domain there. What's the problem?
The internet is supposed to be free
Who supposes it to be free? If by 'free' they mean unregulated or beyond the reach of giovernments then their supposition is wrong.
So what do you do about multinationals?
.us website then they have to operate that website in accordance with US laws. If they also want to have a .fr and a .uk web site then they'll have to operate those in accordance with French and British laws. And so on.
You don't do anything about them.
If, say, IBM wants to have a
Just like at the moment IBM's American subsidiaries have to be operated in accordance with American laws and its French and British subsidiaries have to be operated in accordance with French and British laws.
"Why is it the responsibility of the US government in general, and the american people specifically, to do what other governments can't do? Take care of their people. Shouldn't Mexico be the one setting up conditions that favour it's citizens having a living wage? What about all the rest?
I didn't suggest that the US Government or the American people should get involved in any way shape or form, so I've no idea why you ask this.
All I said was that just like the previous poster says he doesn't 'give a shit' about the Indians, I feel the same way about him. I am not the US Government, I'm not American people either, I'm one person who isn't impressed to hear some whiny brat rant about the horrors of having to work at Walmart, OMG WALMART!
I give a shit about *me* first and poor Indians second, they aren't looking out for my welfare!
That's very nice, but you have to realise that the rest of us don't have any reason to care about you more than we do about anyone else. I couldn't, as you say, 'give a shit' about whether you're an Indian or an American any more than I care about whether you have blue or brown eyes. So as you say; Fuck you.
Sort of like how people use "stealing" as a metaphor for "copying music without paying for it" when referring to music downloaders? Do you see where I'm going with this?
I would agree with this. However, there is a definite pattern of people when 'corrected' not to say "yeah, I was using a metaphor, like 'those prices are daylight robbery', get over it", which would be fair enough, but to say "oh yes it is so theft". Once they reach that point there is a legitimate point to discuss, at least for those of us who care about either legal terms or about language in general. There do seem to be at least some people who honestly think that copyright infringement is theft.
Illegally copying music is not strictly "theft" or "stealing", but that's symantics.
Semantics. Yes. It's a comment on what the words mean. Like:
Person A : "hey, look at my pet hippopotamus"
Person B : "that's not a hippopotamus, it's a parrot"
Person B's comment certainly concerns semantics. Is it therefore somehow wrong for him to say it? Or irrelevant to the conversation? Semantics matter.
It is still illegal, it is still a tort. You are still depriving someone.
Copyright infringement is indeed illegal. Sometimes it's even a crime, like theft, not just a tort.
Blackmail, murder, theft, copyright infringement, parking on yellow lines and treason are all illegal. That doesn't mean that the words are intechangeable. Just like cats, dogs, hippopotamuses, giraffes and humans are all mammals. Expect to be corrected if you get them mixed up. Yes, that's semantics. Semantics matter.
Try telling that to the KDE zealots who are *still* attacking Bruce Perens for dropping KDE from UserLinux.
Yeah, I'm waiting for them to unleash a similar level of vitriol against Slackware too since I know how shocking they find it for a distro to pick one desktop. Think I may be waiting a while.
"Don't point out the splinter in another's eye when you have a plank in your own."
Does that quotation actually make any sense to anyone? If I ever have a splinter in my eye then I'd rather know about it please, regardless of what anyone else has in theirs.
Google is only afraid that they themselves will be sensored away
Maybe they could modify the sensor away to reflect the beam back on the Chinese government?
Even by usual Slashdot standards, it's stunning that the above crap actually got modded up.
His argument, explicitly spelled out, is that he buys foreign goods because they are cheaper than American goods and that if he bought American goods he would have less money for the rent and therefore, he argues, the government should FORCE him (and you and me and everyone else) to pay higher prices for all goods, bringing the foreign ones at least up to the price of the American ones he's unwilling to pay for, and thus to have less money to pay the rent. And someone somewhere bought into this?
Leaving asside the morality of forcing foreigners into poverty, leaving aside the practicalities of the negative effects on markets that we depend on, leaving aside the effects of retaliatory measures, you actually want the government to FORCE you to pay higher prices because it's not a choice you'd make on your own? This is insanity.
What matters is wether or not they use the same standards for what qualifies as unemployed from year to year.
But the quote from Snopes that was used to support the claim (as far as I could tell) that the unemployment stats aren't based on whether or not people claim for unemployment insurance said nothing one way or the other about how the surveyers decide what qualifies as unemployed. The reference to Snope was completely worthless for (what seemed to me to be) its intended purpose.
I'm not arguing that the stats are based on whetehr people claim unemplyment insurance because I don't know, but from the link given it seems that Snopes doesn't know either.
Society protects couples with children - and those who may one day have children - by giving preferential treatment to couples who are married.
This is silly. I'm sure you know as well as I do that couples with children can be identified by checking for the existence of children. Marriage is not, and is not intended to be, a way of identifying those who have children. Any argument that relies on married status as a way of protecting those with children is ludicrous. If you want to treat people with chlidren differently to those without chlidren then find out whether the people have a child or not and then treat them accordingly.
If you adulterate marriage in the manner you propose such protection may go away - harm done.
I have proposed nothing whatsoever, at least not under this discussion. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else?
You don't actually think that unmarried couples with children are treated as well by our institutions as married couples with children are, do you?
Are you saying that institutions don't protect unmarried couples with children as well as married couples with children and that therefore the best way of protecting children in the example you previously gave would be to give benefits to married couples? Or were you making some other point? I find this incomprehensible.
If you don't buy any of that, how about we adjust the previous scenario, so that instead of having a child, the previously mentioned (new and inexperienced) couple ends up fighting all the time because they can't stand living with the stupidity in the dorms? Lets say that this results in scars in their relationship, which never fully heal. Then four years later they have a child, who learns to hate the world because his house is full of hatred.
This applies equally well whether the couple are married or not.
Let's be clear on our terms here. When you talk about people being "actually" married, I assume you mean that they've filled out the relevant forms and gone through the appropriate ceremony which can take anything upwards of 15 minutes. Is that correct?
These are risks. Not what will absolutely happen. It seemed as though you couldn't figure out why marriage has anything to do with the government.
How did you conclude that I 'couldn't figure out why marriage has anything to do with the government'? Legal marriage has everything to do with the government. It's an artifact of law.
Do you still think it's as simple an issue as you did?
I think you're suffering from a case of mistaken identity.
I do not think that an argument about protecting children can plausibly be resolved to one about different treatment of married versus unmarried couples. This has nothing to do with simplicty. It has nothing to do with whether the government should be involved with marriages. If you want to protect children then your first task is to identify children, not to identify marriages.
I'm perfectly happy with the marriage ceremony and related laws existing as they do. However, I don't feel a need to produce spurious pseudo-logical justifications for it.
This, in turn, could lead to a couple who is actually married and with a child having to live in the normal dorms - possibly exposing their child to the alcohol and drugs that often accompany young and immature non-parental college students. Then later, that scarred child could grow up a self-distructive sociopath.
That's one possible example of how it could affect other people, and how that could result in a danger to society. This is only hypothetical, of course, but it does show the point.
No it doesn't show the point, if indeed there is a point.
What you claim to be arguing for is the proposition that an "actually" married couple should have preferential treatment over a "non-actually" married couple.
What you in fact argue for is the proposition that a couple with a child should be treated differently to a couple without a child.
I simply don't believe that you can't see how different those two positions are. Having a child is not the same as being married, "actually" or not.