Just set up Firefox on their computer and have the old shortcuts to IE point to firefox. I have done this, and those people usually never know the difference. They may think something is strange at first, but after a month, they get used to it. Then you tell them what you did.
Search Error MSN Search is temporarily unable to process your request. Please try again in a few minutes. EID: f:1658889542 - 1041:1041:10004:1059 HC: 71d61b14
Considering you have a constitutional right to privacy, it may have been within their power to declare this law void.
umm.. actually, your constitutional right to privacy is against governemnt intrusions, not privacy from data services that you are paying for. This is not a question of them "striking down" a law, the original law is good, but they are saying that this situation does not fall under that law. No constitutional right is being violated directly, which is why a law needs to be made by the legislators. Its like with old telegraphs, there were people who's job it was to relay messages over morse code machines. This means that they read everybody's message! But that was an implied part of the service of sending a telegraph. If you didn't want people reading your message, then don't send it through telegraph. Telegraph companies were not being "unconstitutional". Or if I tell you: "hey, go tell Jim that his laundry is done washing", and you tell him, but then remember what is was that you told him, you are not violating my "constitutional" rights, because I told you. But with data being so freely available now because of the Internet specifically (we're not just dealing with telegraphs), legislators need to begin to create laws that deal with stealing too much information. Now it is at the point where there is _so_ much information out there that we can begin to be taken advantage of.
Lets try to be a little rational here. I know that everyone is going to scream in the typical slashdot style about "invasion of privacy!!!!!", but lets really look at the problem.
The first thing is to understand what the Judicial Branch's job is. It is to interpret the meaning of existing laws! And looking at the law, it seems that they did a pretty good job of this.
So does this mean that I want my ISP's reading my email? Of course not!
The problem is that the legislative branch is not creating laws that keep up to speed with the ethical problems presented by technology. Lets not get on the Judges' cases for the ISPs reading our email, get on the LEGISLATORS.
In fact, I want to congratulate the judges in this case for making the ruling. Even though it is obvious that it is absurd that the ISPs are reading people's email, the judge did not overstep his authority by trying to create laws, rather than interpret them. This is one of the largest tyrannies that happens in US Politics, judges effectively creating legislation.
So here is a call to all legislators: GET ON THE BALL! New technology has created many new ethical dillemas, and we need the legislators to start dealing with them.
I read the Drudge Report. I get enough mail in my mailbox, and I hate always going out to get the mail, so the last thing that I want is paper periodicals. So I stick to internet.
His page has links to all different kind of news, some interesting, some important, and some just funny or weird. Its simple html with only two banners, and he often breaks news of his own.
In fact, it was Drudge who first leaked the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He found that before any other huge newspaper!
The other thing I like about him is his "mission". He used to work for foxnews, and his editor scolded him once for showing some news that he did not get approval for first, so he said "I don't need approval for what I show on my own program, so I quit!" He turned to the internet as a basis to show what he wanted to show, with no censorship. And now it is a huge success; one of the most viewed and searched for (it is about 46th right now). I love supporting a success story like this on the internet. That is exactly what the Internet should be for.
Hey, does anyone have a mirror or can anyone copy/paste the news? We slashdotted the Beastie Boys!! Thats awsome. "You gotta fight... for your right.... for bandwidth!!!"
The DOOM games never really interested me that much- they were a little too cheesy. The really cool game is Half Life, especially because of all the mods that are created based on it (especially Natural Selection). Does anyone know when Half Life 2 is coming out? THAT is what I am waiting for.
ummmm.... actually NASCAR does go turn both directions. There are round courses where they only turn left, but there are also "road tracks" where they turn both ways. An example is the Infineon Raceway in Sonoma. Click on the map on the right side of the page to see what it looks like.
I have been playing poker for a while now (both in casinos and home games) and I would like to make a comment that may sound foolish:
POKER IS NOT GAMBLING
The reason for this is the following: you are not playing a game of no or limited choices (hit or stay), and, more importantly, YOU ARE NOT PLAYING AGAINST THE HOUSE. In poker, you play against other players. The house makes money by taking off a small amount (the "rake") out of each pot.
The term "gambling" itself is a thin line. After all, isn't insurance gambling? You pay money to a company in case your car gets hit, but what if it never does? What about buying stock? What about walking out the front door of your house in the morning? By this same token, poker is not gambling. This assumes that you are a good player and that you play often. The reason it is important to play often is because you can go on a crappy streak of cards (bad luck) for maybe even a hundred hands, but after playing ten thousand hands in a year, the statistics even your "luck" out. All that is left is your playing skill. In fact, all poker gurus will tell you that you should not think "I have played 200 games of poker this year", but rather "I have played ONE game of poker this year, with breaks in between".
This is not just my opinion. In California, casinos are illegal (except on Indian Reservations). But what ARE legal are "card rooms," or pseudo-casinos that just have poker. Blackjack is not allowed at these places. The reason for this is because according to California law, blackjack, roulette, etc are considered "games of chance," while poker is legally a "game of skill," thus not gambling.
Think this is a bunch of garbage? Then why is it that of the 2600 participants in this world series the final 100 will be mostly the same people that were in the final 100 last year? And at the final table, why will there be people that have been in the world series long before espn started showing it? Watch - it will happen. If poker were just luck (like blackjack), then this would be a statistical impossibility.
Poker and blackjack are not comparable
on
Geeks and Poker?
·
· Score: 1
I have been playing poker for a while now (both in casinos and home games) and I would like to make a comment that may sound foolish:
POKER IS NOT GAMBLING
The reason for this is the following: you are not playing a game of no or limited choices (hit or stay), and, more importantly, YOU ARE NOT PLAYING AGAINST THE HOUSE. In poker, you play against other players. The house makes money by taking off a small amount (the "rake") out of each pot.
The term "gambling" itself is a thin line. After all, isn't insurance gambling? You pay money to a company in case your car gets hit, but what if it never does? What about buying stock? What about walking out the front door of your house in the morning? By this same token, poker is not gambling. This assumes that you are a good player and that you play often. The reason it is important to play often is because you can go on a crappy streak of cards (bad luck) for maybe even a hundred hands, but after playing ten thousand hands in a year, the statistics even your "luck" out. All that is left is your playing skill. In fact, all poker gurus will tell you that you should not think "I have played 200 games of poker this year", but rather "I have played ONE game of poker this year, with breaks in between".
This is not just my opinion. In California, casinos are illegal (except on Indian Reservations). But what ARE legal are "card rooms," or pseudo-casinos that just have poker. Blackjack is not allowed at these places. The reason for this is because according to California law, blackjack, roulette, etc are considered "games of chance," while poker is legally a "game of skill," thus not gambling.
Think this is a bunch of garbage? Then why is it that of the 2600 participants in this world series the final 100 will be mostly the same people that were in the final 100 last year? And at the final table, why will there be people that have been in the world series long before espn started showing it? Watch - it will happen. If poker were just luck (like blackjack), then this would be a statistical impossibility.
So I guess Prof. Tanenbaum can give higher grade than "F" to Linus now.:)
Actually, I still don't think that he would. He still affirms that the point of view from which he looks at OS design is academic. He emphasizes that he is a PROFESSOR, not someone trying to make a production grade operating system. As are many academics, he is a purist and thus believes in a conceptually optimized design (microkernel) rather than a practical design (monolithic kernel). So, if Linus was still in his class, the "F" would probably stand, because Linux does not follow all the conceptual guidelines that Tanenbaum feels so strongly about. This argument was never really a big deal in the first place, it was just a classic arguemnt between a realist and a purist.
You know, I think I had AST wrong. I'd seen the thread where he bashes Linus for not doing a microkernel design and thought that maybe it was sour grapes.
Well, its good that you made such an informed judgement on his character so early. I think that way to many/.ers are doing that. They read one thread that was linked to a couple days ago, and just because it was an argument with Linus, he must be the bad guy. Remember that, after all, he was being very polite in that discussion and in the end Linus had to apologize for being too hotheaded. He simply strongly believes that microkernels are the best approach.
So please,/.ers, stop thinking that you have to have an opinion on everything, even the things that you don't really know about.
I most sincerely think that is a ridiculous statement, but fortunately, it doesn't have to be that way. I believe microkernels need not incurr any significant performance penalty at all.
What are you talking about? On what basis do you "believe" this? Have you ever found an OS that competes in terms of speed with the speed of a monolithic kernel of the same size? And if you are about to respond "yes," think again. The difference between a micro and monolithic kernel is that for any given action that the kernel must perform, the code path in a micro-kernel is longer. This is how abstraction and modularity is provided. In a monolithic kernel, things are done "down and dirty," where you ignore important concepts in computer science (the before mentioned), but the benefit is that you eliminate a good amount of code to be executed. This ends up bringing a large benefit when the code is executed as much as a kernel's code is.
The simple fact of the matter is, context switching into another kernel process, say, the mm, takes much longer then a simple function call into some code address that is considered the "mm" because it was compiled from a directory called "mm". But maybe you just "believe" that context switching is as fast as a couple pushes and a jump.
I can't stand the recent trend of putting so called "Xtreme" sports into movies to try to appeal to the youngters. I have been surfing for about 10 years, and I think its embarrasing. Surfing on lava is retarded. I'm sure that they could have found thousands of other ways to show a good saber fight.
Another example of this dumb trend can even be seen in LOTR - The Two Towers. Remember the part in the battle at Helm's Deep where Legolas "skateboards" on his shield down the stairs? I thought that was really dumb. It's sad, because while "Xtreme" sports' popularity in media is just a trend, movies like LOTR and even these Starwars will be timeless (even if the recent starwars are timeless just because of the originals). I think that in 20 years people will look at those scenes and laugh, kind of like how people laugh now when they see a eighties movie playing some trendy eighties music (ex: Top Gun - Danger Zone). These parts are not meant to be funny, but a flashback to old trends always seems to be funny.
Here is the translation from freetranslation.com of the interview with the owner. It is funny for 2 reasons: the translation itself is funny, plus the things the owener says are just dumb.
Conrad Chase, director of the Low one Beach Club, agrees to an interview of the agency EFE speaking on the VIP VeriChip.
Just as you explain, the Verichip is a consistent technology in the establish of a digital chip under the skin. What motive has induced you to utilize this technology in a localities as the Low one Beach Club?
Two reasons. The first one is to continue the philosophy of originality that Low Beach Club has carried since the principle. And the second is to remove provecho to the teconología more advanced.
The majority of businessmen of the night are not original, are used to copying what another people creates. Only in the province of Barcelona, we can count more than 5 copies of the Low one Beach Club.
The imposition of this chip under the skin, a syringe is done by means of. This method of imposition causes some inconvenience or secondary effect?
The chip is of glass, totally harmless and arrives with a syringe of only use sterilized.
Conrad, you believe that the VeriChip will have good reception?
If, I know to a great deal of people with desires to establish it to him. At present, almost everyone carries piercings, tatuajes or silicona.
You carry tatuajes, piercings or silicona?
Not, although I have carried piercings. Perhaps some day me tatue the logo of the Drop.
In the routine life, causes some inconvenience?, is detectable by the sensors of metals?
(Laughters), a great deal of people asks me this. Inconvenience does not cause none, is not hooked, does not puncture, does not hurt... AND detectable by the sensors of metals... good, perhaps, but any button of Texan carries 10 times more metal than the Verichip.
Who takes charge of establishing it?
His placement can do it any person with the qualification of ATS, although, in the Low one Beach, the placement will do it a doctor.
How can it be extracted?
Is a very simple process. As simple as to extract a small chip.
What advantages will have in the Low one Beach Club a client that want himself him to put?,
Does not it do lack to carry monedero. With only passing for our reader, Low Beach Club will know is who, and of what balance arranges. For the time being will also have free entrance and access to the zone VIP that inaugurate on the 25 of March.
Is free for your clients?
The day of its launch, we will give it to all our VIPs. From that day the price of establishment will be of 125.
If I establish myself the VeriChip, will serve me only for the Drop?
The objective of this technology is to carry a system of identification to world level that annul the identity document need to carry and credit card. The Verichip that will establish in the Drop, will not be only for the Drop, is also useful for any another business that make use of this technology.
My favorite is his claim that everyone has either piercings, tatoos or silicon; then when asked if he does, he feels dumb.
Re:Not solution to slashdot effect, but still grea
on
Freecache
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Yes, but the thing that you are not considering is that probably 75% the slashdot effect is just people looking at the link for about 5 seconds, and then closing the page and moving on the the next story. This means no browsing, meaning that it is not important if the whole page is not up there. And as far as pictures go, I would guess that alot of people click on the link, even though they are not too interested, see the text, and realize that they are _really_ not interested. So they close the page before they even need pictures.
In other words, the important stuff, like the rest of the site and the pictures, will be resources only used on those that really care, while those that don't get to see a flash of the text for a second to get a really general idea.
After all, thats what the slashdot effect is, a whole bunch of people that don't really care that much, but want a quick, 5 second look at it.
but the Hybrid's mileage is 31.5 environmentally friendly miles per gallon of gasoline where your bud's Escort's mileage is 31 environment destroying miles per gallon.
Actually, no. A gallon of gasoline burned is a gallon of gasoline burned. When gasoline is combusted, it outputs pollutants. And it always outputs the same pollutants. This is simple chemistry. The point of hybrid cars is not that the byproduct of the gasoline is supposed to be clean somehow, but rather that there is less gasoline burned. So this hybrid that burns one gallon in 31.5 miles is outputing more pollution than my Echo that burns 1 gallon in 40 miles.
Even if I had to pay the same amount I am paying now, it would be worth it to get rid of MTV. I can't stand that channel, but then again, I never did like Britney Spears. I hate that I am forced to have that crap broadcast into my home (even if I don't ever tune into it, the feed is still there). Its a matter of principal.
considering the animosity NorCalers and SoCalers have for each other.
Actually, the Norcal people hate southern California, but the people from Southern California don't care either way. It's not much of a rivalry or anything like that, since it only goes one way. By this comment, I judge you are from "Norcal" (or are friends with people who are).
Actually, one thing that they probably should have mentioned is that the "licences" for linux are free. I don't think that many people understand that, and it was never said. In fact, the only thing mentioned about price is how Ballmer thinks Windows is cheaper. It does seem a little biased.
Slashdot Mirror
Just set up Firefox on their computer and have the old shortcuts to IE point to firefox. I have done this, and those people usually never know the difference. They may think something is strange at first, but after a month, they get used to it. Then you tell them what you did.
Everyone's dream has come true!!
umm.. actually, your constitutional right to privacy is against governemnt intrusions, not privacy from data services that you are paying for. This is not a question of them "striking down" a law, the original law is good, but they are saying that this situation does not fall under that law.
No constitutional right is being violated directly, which is why a law needs to be made by the legislators.
Its like with old telegraphs, there were people who's job it was to relay messages over morse code machines. This means that they read everybody's message! But that was an implied part of the service of sending a telegraph. If you didn't want people reading your message, then don't send it through telegraph. Telegraph companies were not being "unconstitutional".
Or if I tell you: "hey, go tell Jim that his laundry is done washing", and you tell him, but then remember what is was that you told him, you are not violating my "constitutional" rights, because I told you.
But with data being so freely available now because of the Internet specifically (we're not just dealing with telegraphs), legislators need to begin to create laws that deal with stealing too much information. Now it is at the point where there is _so_ much information out there that we can begin to be taken advantage of.
Lets try to be a little rational here. I know that everyone is going to scream in the typical slashdot style about "invasion of privacy!!!!!", but lets really look at the problem.
The first thing is to understand what the Judicial Branch's job is. It is to interpret the meaning of existing laws! And looking at the law, it seems that they did a pretty good job of this.
So does this mean that I want my ISP's reading my email? Of course not!
The problem is that the legislative branch is not creating laws that keep up to speed with the ethical problems presented by technology. Lets not get on the Judges' cases for the ISPs reading our email, get on the LEGISLATORS.
In fact, I want to congratulate the judges in this case for making the ruling. Even though it is obvious that it is absurd that the ISPs are reading people's email, the judge did not overstep his authority by trying to create laws, rather than interpret them. This is one of the largest tyrannies that happens in US Politics, judges effectively creating legislation.
So here is a call to all legislators: GET ON THE BALL! New technology has created many new ethical dillemas, and we need the legislators to start dealing with them.
I read the Drudge Report. I get enough mail in my mailbox, and I hate always going out to get the mail, so the last thing that I want is paper periodicals. So I stick to internet.
His page has links to all different kind of news, some interesting, some important, and some just funny or weird. Its simple html with only two banners, and he often breaks news of his own.
In fact, it was Drudge who first leaked the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He found that before any other huge newspaper!
The other thing I like about him is his "mission". He used to work for foxnews, and his editor scolded him once for showing some news that he did not get approval for first, so he said "I don't need approval for what I show on my own program, so I quit!" He turned to the internet as a basis to show what he wanted to show, with no censorship. And now it is a huge success; one of the most viewed and searched for (it is about 46th right now). I love supporting a success story like this on the internet. That is exactly what the Internet should be for.
...what if you have a talking modem? Then you're still screwed.
Hey, does anyone have a mirror or can anyone copy/paste the news?
We slashdotted the Beastie Boys!! Thats awsome.
"You gotta fight...
for your right....
for bandwidth!!!"
The DOOM games never really interested me that much- they were a little too cheesy. The really cool game is Half Life, especially because of all the mods that are created based on it (especially Natural Selection).
Does anyone know when Half Life 2 is coming out? THAT is what I am waiting for.
ummmm.... actually NASCAR does go turn both directions. There are round courses where they only turn left, but there are also "road tracks" where they turn both ways. An example is the Infineon Raceway in Sonoma. Click on the map on the right side of the page to see what it looks like.
: I thought that book was already debunked?
: No, its totally bunk.
(disclaimer: if you don't watch Sienfield, this makes absolutely no sense.)
???
Twice as fast?
(2^32)*2 = 2^64
Not really.
I have been playing poker for a while now (both in casinos and home games) and I would like to make a comment that may sound foolish:
POKER IS NOT GAMBLING
The reason for this is the following: you are not playing a game of no or limited choices (hit or stay), and, more importantly, YOU ARE NOT PLAYING AGAINST THE HOUSE. In poker, you play against other players. The house makes money by taking off a small amount (the "rake") out of each pot.
The term "gambling" itself is a thin line. After all, isn't insurance gambling? You pay money to a company in case your car gets hit, but what if it never does? What about buying stock? What about walking out the front door of your house in the morning? By this same token, poker is not gambling. This assumes that you are a good player and that you play often. The reason it is important to play often is because you can go on a crappy streak of cards (bad luck) for maybe even a hundred hands, but after playing ten thousand hands in a year, the statistics even your "luck" out. All that is left is your playing skill. In fact, all poker gurus will tell you that you should not think "I have played 200 games of poker this year", but rather "I have played ONE game of poker this year, with breaks in between".
This is not just my opinion. In California, casinos are illegal (except on Indian Reservations). But what ARE legal are "card rooms," or pseudo-casinos that just have poker. Blackjack is not allowed at these places. The reason for this is because according to California law, blackjack, roulette, etc are considered "games of chance," while poker is legally a "game of skill," thus not gambling.
Think this is a bunch of garbage? Then why is it that of the 2600 participants in this world series the final 100 will be mostly the same people that were in the final 100 last year? And at the final table, why will there be people that have been in the world series long before espn started showing it? Watch - it will happen. If poker were just luck (like blackjack), then this would be a statistical impossibility.
I have been playing poker for a while now (both in casinos and home games) and I would like to make a comment that may sound foolish:
POKER IS NOT GAMBLING
The reason for this is the following: you are not playing a game of no or limited choices (hit or stay), and, more importantly, YOU ARE NOT PLAYING AGAINST THE HOUSE. In poker, you play against other players. The house makes money by taking off a small amount (the "rake") out of each pot.
The term "gambling" itself is a thin line. After all, isn't insurance gambling? You pay money to a company in case your car gets hit, but what if it never does? What about buying stock? What about walking out the front door of your house in the morning? By this same token, poker is not gambling. This assumes that you are a good player and that you play often. The reason it is important to play often is because you can go on a crappy streak of cards (bad luck) for maybe even a hundred hands, but after playing ten thousand hands in a year, the statistics even your "luck" out. All that is left is your playing skill. In fact, all poker gurus will tell you that you should not think "I have played 200 games of poker this year", but rather "I have played ONE game of poker this year, with breaks in between".
This is not just my opinion. In California, casinos are illegal (except on Indian Reservations). But what ARE legal are "card rooms," or pseudo-casinos that just have poker. Blackjack is not allowed at these places. The reason for this is because according to California law, blackjack, roulette, etc are considered "games of chance," while poker is legally a "game of skill," thus not gambling.
Think this is a bunch of garbage? Then why is it that of the 2600 participants in this world series the final 100 will be mostly the same people that were in the final 100 last year? And at the final table, why will there be people that have been in the world series long before espn started showing it? Watch - it will happen. If poker were just luck (like blackjack), then this would be a statistical impossibility.
This argument was never really a big deal in the first place, it was just a classic arguemnt between a realist and a purist.
So please,
The simple fact of the matter is, context switching into another kernel process, say, the mm, takes much longer then a simple function call into some code address that is considered the "mm" because it was compiled from a directory called "mm". But maybe you just "believe" that context switching is as fast as a couple pushes and a jump.
I can't stand the recent trend of putting so called "Xtreme" sports into movies to try to appeal to the youngters. I have been surfing for about 10 years, and I think its embarrasing.
Surfing on lava is retarded. I'm sure that they could have found thousands of other ways to show a good saber fight.
Another example of this dumb trend can even be seen in LOTR - The Two Towers. Remember the part in the battle at Helm's Deep where Legolas "skateboards" on his shield down the stairs? I thought that was really dumb. It's sad, because while "Xtreme" sports' popularity in media is just a trend, movies like LOTR and even these Starwars will be timeless (even if the recent starwars are timeless just because of the originals). I think that in 20 years people will look at those scenes and laugh, kind of like how people laugh now when they see a eighties movie playing some trendy eighties music (ex: Top Gun - Danger Zone). These parts are not meant to be funny, but a flashback to old trends always seems to be funny.
My favorite is his claim that everyone has either piercings, tatoos or silicon; then when asked if he does, he feels dumb.
Yes, but the thing that you are not considering is that probably 75% the slashdot effect is just people looking at the link for about 5 seconds, and then closing the page and moving on the the next story. This means no browsing, meaning that it is not important if the whole page is not up there. And as far as pictures go, I would guess that alot of people click on the link, even though they are not too interested, see the text, and realize that they are _really_ not interested. So they close the page before they even need pictures.
In other words, the important stuff, like the rest of the site and the pictures, will be resources only used on those that really care, while those that don't get to see a flash of the text for a second to get a really general idea.
After all, thats what the slashdot effect is, a whole bunch of people that don't really care that much, but want a quick, 5 second look at it.
Even if I had to pay the same amount I am paying now, it would be worth it to get rid of MTV. I can't stand that channel, but then again, I never did like Britney Spears. I hate that I am forced to have that crap broadcast into my home (even if I don't ever tune into it, the feed is still there). Its a matter of principal.
Because SNL isn't allowed to be funny anymore.
Actually, one thing that they probably should have mentioned is that the "licences" for linux are free. I don't think that many people understand that, and it was never said. In fact, the only thing mentioned about price is how Ballmer thinks Windows is cheaper. It does seem a little biased.