You act as if companies will be switching from RedHat to Debian to Slack, back to Redhat. As others have said, within the same distro, things are more or less consistant. They are not any worse then jumping from Win3.11 to 95 to XP. Just as those have gotten easier, so has Redhat, or Mandrake.
I'm not sure the differences between the distros are somethign the end user needs to worry much about anyway. Sticking with your car analogy, I'd say its more like moving from Chevy to Honda and having to figure out how the A/C and windshield wipers work.
That is certainly good news; compatition is great to have.
I may look at it..but to be perfectly honest, FF has been doing great for me since I decided in needed to move away from IE. Its fast and the few features it doesn't come with are supplied as extensions...so I can't say there's a compleling reason to switch at this point.
Re:mnb Re:Perhaps there is a reason...
on
DVHS on a Budget
·
· Score: 1
I have a Sony multi disc DVD changer, and it plays CDs that lack the license just fine. I got it only a year or so ago.
Remember when cd burners first came out, people didn't have audio blank cds nor stand alone cd burners, AND IT WORKED JUST FINE. If it doesn't work, its because they built the player to look for an expensive disc, that doens't provide any higher quality then the non expensive disc...just like they added an extra pin...but that doesn't mean that your SVHS tape isn't capable of doing the same job.
Re:mnb Re:Perhaps there is a reason...
on
DVHS on a Budget
·
· Score: 1
Hmm...do you not see how that is the exact same trick as this extra pin?
I bet if you could remove said check from the stand alone burner, it would burn on data CDs just fine. Since the check is done in software, its likely that its difficult / impossible to remove...but I bet there really wouldn't be any problem if the device allowed a plain data cd to be burned with audio.
I'm sure Nero could perform such a check too...but that doesn't mean that the data cd is inferior any way..its just a marketing tactic to get people to buy the more expensive media.
Re:mnb Re:wrong for so many reasons
on
DVHS on a Budget
·
· Score: 1
First, it seems scientists just aren't sure how much oil is left.
Second, do you think that a plastic pin has a higher failure rate then a metal one? Does using a plastic pin decrease the playback quality? Or do you think that they'd concentrate on making the heads better?
Also, lets not forget that the 'higher' end stuff may very well be the cheap stuff rebranded.
Its been a while since I tried Oprea, but I left it behind because a great many pages didn't render anywhere close to correctly. FF misses a few, but not nearly as many as Oprea had.
I believe thats an error in the memory reporting; the memory requirements of Firefox include the memory requirements of any X libraries it needs. Although they libraries are shared among many differnet apps, each app includes them in their size.
You realize that they had TV in the 70s right, and plenty of people managed to start protesting 'something that mattered.' Namely, the Vietnam war.
Re:Perhaps there is a reason...
on
DVHS on a Budget
·
· Score: 1
Nothing you said here changes the fact that the SVHS tapes are likely only labeled different, and should be expected to perform fine as a DVHS.
Why would they bother categorizing lower grade items as SVHS? That would take time and cost more money. More likely they'll throw out anything that doesn't meet the DVHS standards?
Besides, if they are only manufactoring DVHS, how could they possibly expect to meet SVHS quotas? They'd have to adjust thier lines to garentee a certain failure rate (one that would pass SVHS but fail DVHS) to do so...and if they have too many 'failures' they miss their DVHS quota; if they make too many non 'failures' they mis thier SVHS.
Doesn't seem too likely to me.
Re:mnb Re:Perhaps there is a reason...
on
DVHS on a Budget
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
CD-Rs labeled "Music" actually are different than data CD-Rs. They have some extra metadata pre-burned onto them that many(most?) stand-alone CD recorders look for, and won't work without.
Thats just flat out wrong. My main use of blank cds is to burn for use in my cars cd player. Its the burner that writes the proper format for a standard cdrom to be able to read, and i've never had a problem with a stand alone cd player playing a cd-r (even very old ones).
Why does it matter what a reasonable person would conclude?
Because our laws are based on the conclusions of reasonable people? You know, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and all. Remember, a reasonable belief is one based on reason, not some empty faith. Do you want laws based on whatever people think is right, instead of what is known to be right?
Surely the second amendment means I can carry a hand grenade whenever I choose without having to strangers shoot me just because they happen to catch the same plane?
A reasonable person would point out that using a hand grendade for self defense on a plane is counter productive. Since air marshals may carry guns onto planes a gun would be a reasonable self defense choice.
If a reasonable person would conclude that the driver who almost crashed into me is drunk and will almost certainly crash into someone else before they get home, can I shoot them to protect the public?
Perhaps shoot out the tire. Deadly force needs to be used carefully; the drunks intent is not to kill you or even to try and cause you harm (although by acting carelessly he may). Given that, I think a non-lethal way to stop him would be more appropriate, don't you?
I'm providing an example of a situation in which it is illegal to do something (take explosives onto a passenger plane) because of something you may do (blow up the plane) but haven't actually done yet and may well not do.
No, I think you were trying to raise fear of terrorism to justify your point. After all, you did stipulate that said explosives carrier had them strapped to his body, didn't you?
How does the other passengers being armed prevent a suicide bomber from detonating the plastic exposives he is wrapped in?
Ahh yes, you did. You're right of course, who needs the consitution, we are at war with terrorists!!
As always it's a cost versus benefits analysis.
And it seems that the cost is always understated.
In the plane case there isn't much benefit in letting someone take explosives on board, stuff can be transported by other means.
I agree. You put a terrorist on a plane were people on said plane could defend themselves. The only answer that i could give was shoot him. You probably realized the corner you were in, and then went off a ridiculous tanget (well i have all these bombs on my body but that's just how i transport them).
In the drink driving case there are more benefits, it allows people to get home from the pub easily, and so on. The costs are reasonably clear too, the chances of having an accident are increased which decreases the safety of everyone else.
Really? A drunk driver is more dangerous then a terrorist on a plane? Please, explain.
The costs aren't reasonablly clear to me, because your conclusion is false. The only people in danger are the ones how are driving on the roads the drunk will be using, or those people walking along said roads. Thus, the number of people actually in danger drops significatanly. As I sit here right now, I am in zero danger of being killed by a drunk driver.
The costs are much higher also than many think; the police can setup a road block on any road at any time and say they are looking for drunk drivers. They now get to search every car that goes through their checkpoint.
How the costs and benefits stack up against each other is the hard bit of course. And people disagree, some people want safety at all costs, others want freedom at all costs. Then of course people disagree on what freedom is in the first place...
My point is that this country is supposed to be heavy on the freedom side, so you understand why I don't want to move toward the safety safe. If people disagree on what freedom is, I suggest they read what our founding fathers wrote. Or at least look in the dictionary.
Re:mnb Re:wrong for so many reasons
on
DVHS on a Budget
·
· Score: 1
Well, lets think about this.
Plastic is cheaper then metal. They want to make the most money possible. So they'll buy plastic.
Yup, makes sense to me,.
Re:Perhaps there is a reason...
on
DVHS on a Budget
·
· Score: 1
Unless factories can afford to throw away a lot of material, there is absolutely no incentive to sell identical quality products as differents grades. I just don't see how that could be.
This is just bogus. Its much cheaper to produce one widget then it is two differnet widgets. Why do you assume they aren't doing the same level of testing on both? Film is film, they just throw it into a different casing. All the film is the same quality...they just wanted to say DVHS is better and thus justifies more money for the tape.
You know, kinda like the 'Music blank CDs' vs. the data ones. Either one will hold the same data or music...so there's never a reason to buy the music ones (unless you believe the lies that is).
Would you agree though that in your airplane scenario that a resonable person would conclude the person is trying to blow up the plane?
Do you think a reasonable person believes a drunk gets into the car to try and kill someone?
There's the distinction. In your scenario, you have a plane load of people, a guy with explosives strapped to him, and both getting onto a vehical with hundreds of pounds of explosive fuel.
Then you have the drunk, senses impaired, but very likely not out to kill anyone and just wants to get home.
Our system wasn't setup to give the public whatever it wants; quite the contrary, its to slow down the publics influence on changes made to the government. The public might also insist on cameres in everyones TV so that the police can see everyone and stop almost all crime. Sometimes the public is stupid and needs to be protected from themselves.
The problem with the logic of locking someone up before they do anything is that you can build a case to say that someone the government doesn't like was going to do this...after all, look at x, y, and z. Its not very hard to paint a person in a bad light for even minor things..especially when the media over exaggerates the details. Thats the dnager of drunk driving (and checkpoint) laws.
I worked for a company and we had several clients that we built asp.net sites for, and I haven't found it to be 'buggy' at all. You sure you weren't coding it wrong somehow?
You shouldn't need to call the CG..thats the point..it will figure it out. It doesn't release objects right away b/c it might need them later..
But somehow I'd think that selling a street (especially if it intersects alot other streets) sould be voted on. Otherwise you'd have all our public property sold off to the highest bidder.
Purposely about to push a button to detonate explosives in a group of people is different then trying to get home with impared senses. Or do you think drivers get drunk with the purpose of harming someone?
That's somewhat ironic - people can be tried for the death of an unborn child, but if the mother gives permission it's okay??
I didn't write that law either, nor did I comment on it. Presumably though if a mother wants to carry the pregnancy to the end so she has a child, she should be able to do that.
So, if your mother were to tell someone, "you can kill my son/daughter," it would be okay since she had you?
No, since I'm living on my own now. And notice I said 'until close to the end.' There is a point when the fetus becomes human.
The laws consider it a person after conception
Nope, most laws don't...otherwise invetro fertalization would be illegal too...since many eggs are fertialized but most are thrown away after one takes hold.
so inevitably no one can chose death for the child except the child itself
The child can't decide anything, its not even close to being aware of itself yet. Is it wrong to kill bactieria because 'it didn't choose to die.'
(and we have suicide help lines to try to prevent that)
And those laws violate a persons right. Its my life, I shall choose what to do with it. And if I choose to die, that is my choice, and no one else's. How dare you think you can control that aspects of a person's life. What gives you the right to stop me from ending my life?
Slashdot Mirror
Mac RAM is made of moondust and diamonds.
That would explain the price.
You act as if companies will be switching from RedHat to Debian to Slack, back to Redhat. As others have said, within the same distro, things are more or less consistant. They are not any worse then jumping from Win3.11 to 95 to XP. Just as those have gotten easier, so has Redhat, or Mandrake.
I'm not sure the differences between the distros are somethign the end user needs to worry much about anyway. Sticking with your car analogy, I'd say its more like moving from Chevy to Honda and having to figure out how the A/C and windshield wipers work.
I believe YP was meant to handle your needs.
That is certainly good news; compatition is great to have.
I may look at it..but to be perfectly honest, FF has been doing great for me since I decided in needed to move away from IE. Its fast and the few features it doesn't come with are supplied as extensions...so I can't say there's a compleling reason to switch at this point.
I have a Sony multi disc DVD changer, and it plays CDs that lack the license just fine. I got it only a year or so ago.
Remember when cd burners first came out, people didn't have audio blank cds nor stand alone cd burners, AND IT WORKED JUST FINE. If it doesn't work, its because they built the player to look for an expensive disc, that doens't provide any higher quality then the non expensive disc...just like they added an extra pin...but that doesn't mean that your SVHS tape isn't capable of doing the same job.
Hmm...do you not see how that is the exact same trick as this extra pin?
I bet if you could remove said check from the stand alone burner, it would burn on data CDs just fine. Since the check is done in software, its likely that its difficult / impossible to remove...but I bet there really wouldn't be any problem if the device allowed a plain data cd to be burned with audio.
I'm sure Nero could perform such a check too...but that doesn't mean that the data cd is inferior any way..its just a marketing tactic to get people to buy the more expensive media.
First, it seems scientists just aren't sure how much oil is left.
Second, do you think that a plastic pin has a higher failure rate then a metal one? Does using a plastic pin decrease the playback quality? Or do you think that they'd concentrate on making the heads better?
Also, lets not forget that the 'higher' end stuff may very well be the cheap stuff rebranded.
So you mean that it uses one floppy disk less?
Um, who the fuck cares?
Its been a while since I tried Oprea, but I left it behind because a great many pages didn't render anywhere close to correctly. FF misses a few, but not nearly as many as Oprea had.
I believe thats an error in the memory reporting; the memory requirements of Firefox include the memory requirements of any X libraries it needs. Although they libraries are shared among many differnet apps, each app includes them in their size.
Why is it now that TV is the opium of the people?
You realize that they had TV in the 70s right, and plenty of people managed to start protesting 'something that mattered.' Namely, the Vietnam war.
Nothing you said here changes the fact that the SVHS tapes are likely only labeled different, and should be expected to perform fine as a DVHS.
Why would they bother categorizing lower grade items as SVHS? That would take time and cost more money. More likely they'll throw out anything that doesn't meet the DVHS standards?
Besides, if they are only manufactoring DVHS, how could they possibly expect to meet SVHS quotas? They'd have to adjust thier lines to garentee a certain failure rate (one that would pass SVHS but fail DVHS) to do so...and if they have too many 'failures' they miss their DVHS quota; if they make too many non 'failures' they mis thier SVHS.
Doesn't seem too likely to me.
CD-Rs labeled "Music" actually are different than data CD-Rs. They have some extra metadata pre-burned onto them that many(most?) stand-alone CD recorders look for, and won't work without.
Thats just flat out wrong. My main use of blank cds is to burn for use in my cars cd player. Its the burner that writes the proper format for a standard cdrom to be able to read, and i've never had a problem with a stand alone cd player playing a cd-r (even very old ones).
Why does it matter what a reasonable person would conclude?
Because our laws are based on the conclusions of reasonable people? You know, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and all. Remember, a reasonable belief is one based on reason, not some empty faith. Do you want laws based on whatever people think is right, instead of what is known to be right?
Surely the second amendment means I can carry a hand grenade whenever I choose without having to strangers shoot me just because they happen to catch the same plane?
A reasonable person would point out that using a hand grendade for self defense on a plane is counter productive. Since air marshals may carry guns onto planes a gun would be a reasonable self defense choice.
If a reasonable person would conclude that the driver who almost crashed into me is drunk and will almost certainly crash into someone else before they get home, can I shoot them to protect the public?
Perhaps shoot out the tire. Deadly force needs to be used carefully; the drunks intent is not to kill you or even to try and cause you harm (although by acting carelessly he may). Given that, I think a non-lethal way to stop him would be more appropriate, don't you?
I'm providing an example of a situation in which it is illegal to do something (take explosives onto a passenger plane) because of something you may do (blow up the plane) but haven't actually done yet and may well not do.
No, I think you were trying to raise fear of terrorism to justify your point. After all, you did stipulate that said explosives carrier had them strapped to his body, didn't you?
How does the other passengers being armed prevent a suicide bomber from detonating the plastic exposives he is wrapped in?
Ahh yes, you did. You're right of course, who needs the consitution, we are at war with terrorists!!
As always it's a cost versus benefits analysis.
And it seems that the cost is always understated.
In the plane case there isn't much benefit in letting someone take explosives on board, stuff can be transported by other means.
I agree. You put a terrorist on a plane were people on said plane could defend themselves. The only answer that i could give was shoot him. You probably realized the corner you were in, and then went off a ridiculous tanget (well i have all these bombs on my body but that's just how i transport them).
In the drink driving case there are more benefits, it allows people to get home from the pub easily, and so on. The costs are reasonably clear too, the chances of having an accident are increased which decreases the safety of everyone else.
Really? A drunk driver is more dangerous then a terrorist on a plane? Please, explain.
The costs aren't reasonablly clear to me, because your conclusion is false. The only people in danger are the ones how are driving on the roads the drunk will be using, or those people walking along said roads. Thus, the number of people actually in danger drops significatanly. As I sit here right now, I am in zero danger of being killed by a drunk driver.
The costs are much higher also than many think; the police can setup a road block on any road at any time and say they are looking for drunk drivers. They now get to search every car that goes through their checkpoint.
How the costs and benefits stack up against each other is the hard bit of course. And people disagree, some people want safety at all costs, others want freedom at all costs. Then of course people disagree on what freedom is in the first place...
My point is that this country is supposed to be heavy on the freedom side, so you understand why I don't want to move toward the safety safe. If people disagree on what freedom is, I suggest they read what our founding fathers wrote. Or at least look in the dictionary.
Well, lets think about this.
Plastic is cheaper then metal. They want to make the most money possible. So they'll buy plastic.
Yup, makes sense to me,.
Unless factories can afford to throw away a lot of material, there is absolutely no incentive to sell identical quality products as differents grades. I just don't see how that could be.
This is just bogus. Its much cheaper to produce one widget then it is two differnet widgets. Why do you assume they aren't doing the same level of testing on both? Film is film, they just throw it into a different casing. All the film is the same quality...they just wanted to say DVHS is better and thus justifies more money for the tape.
You know, kinda like the 'Music blank CDs' vs. the data ones. Either one will hold the same data or music...so there's never a reason to buy the music ones (unless you believe the lies that is).
Presumably the job skills with the more apperiences are the ones that are lacking.
That is, you don't see VB programemrs in many postings because there isn't really a demand for them.
Its not the VB programmers most have a problem with; its the programmers that ONLY know VB. And thier code is always awful.
Would you agree though that in your airplane scenario that a resonable person would conclude the person is trying to blow up the plane?
Do you think a reasonable person believes a drunk gets into the car to try and kill someone?
There's the distinction. In your scenario, you have a plane load of people, a guy with explosives strapped to him, and both getting onto a vehical with hundreds of pounds of explosive fuel.
Then you have the drunk, senses impaired, but very likely not out to kill anyone and just wants to get home.
Our system wasn't setup to give the public whatever it wants; quite the contrary, its to slow down the publics influence on changes made to the government. The public might also insist on cameres in everyones TV so that the police can see everyone and stop almost all crime. Sometimes the public is stupid and needs to be protected from themselves.
The problem with the logic of locking someone up before they do anything is that you can build a case to say that someone the government doesn't like was going to do this...after all, look at x, y, and z. Its not very hard to paint a person in a bad light for even minor things..especially when the media over exaggerates the details. Thats the dnager of drunk driving (and checkpoint) laws.
I worked for a company and we had several clients that we built asp.net sites for, and I haven't found it to be 'buggy' at all. You sure you weren't coding it wrong somehow?
You shouldn't need to call the CG..thats the point..it will figure it out. It doesn't release objects right away b/c it might need them later..
But somehow I'd think that selling a street (especially if it intersects alot other streets) sould be voted on. Otherwise you'd have all our public property sold off to the highest bidder.
Purposely about to push a button to detonate explosives in a group of people is different then trying to get home with impared senses. Or do you think drivers get drunk with the purpose of harming someone?
That's somewhat ironic - people can be tried for the death of an unborn child, but if the mother gives permission it's okay??
I didn't write that law either, nor did I comment on it. Presumably though if a mother wants to carry the pregnancy to the end so she has a child, she should be able to do that.
So, if your mother were to tell someone, "you can kill my son/daughter," it would be okay since she had you?
No, since I'm living on my own now. And notice I said 'until close to the end.' There is a point when the fetus becomes human.
The laws consider it a person after conception
Nope, most laws don't...otherwise invetro fertalization would be illegal too...since many eggs are fertialized but most are thrown away after one takes hold.
so inevitably no one can chose death for the child except the child itself
The child can't decide anything, its not even close to being aware of itself yet. Is it wrong to kill bactieria because 'it didn't choose to die.'
(and we have suicide help lines to try to prevent that)
And those laws violate a persons right. Its my life, I shall choose what to do with it. And if I choose to die, that is my choice, and no one else's. How dare you think you can control that aspects of a person's life. What gives you the right to stop me from ending my life?
They shoot him before detonates it of course.
1. I don't mind paying for the v-chip; i just wish this idiot parents would use it and stop complaining about sex on tv.
.kids domain.. a .porn would be very easy for someone to block.
2. I'd rather a