1. Best practices: use the path that is provided to you by the system.
2. Otherwise: you can always reference Joe's documents folder by going to C:\Documents and Settings\Joe\ path.
It's usually used to represent your hard drive, right?
No, it is an artificial view that shows all storage (and some other I/O) devices, including network devices, cameras and scanners, and usually a link to the control panel. Sort of a portal to your storage and I/O so that it doesn't all have to be on your desktop.
You can't just "dissolve" a private organization whose only source of "power" is the contribution and cooperation of its members. Unless, of course, you dissolve the First Amendment first.
That may be, but the space savings is a huge ergonmic benefit of an LCD. That, combined with the inability to ever get the geometry on a CRT to be consistent, was the deal breaker for me against CRT.
My personal favorite is when the stormtroopers in Episode IV unseal the door to the communications room on the death star where artoo and threepio have been left. One of the stormtroopers on the right hilariously clocks his head on the top of the door frame. I STILL laugh every time I see it.
Doesnt anyone know what the consitution and bill of rights says?? A nation ID system is in complete and utter violation of thoses!!!
I know those doucuments pretty well, pal. Since you seem to think you have such a firm grasp on them, why don't YOU quote the text from the Constitution or BOR you think this would violate.
Just because it's a bad/stupid/pointless idea, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.
I think Apple is Catholicism. Dogmatic user-base, god-like, all-powerful leader believed by the faithful to be omniscient and incapable of error, top-to-bottom control of the user base; but tending to do what it does with thought and quality. There is one correct design, and the user is forbidden from deviating from it. Even questioning the one true way is frowned upon. The users tend to be dogmatic and very protective of their beliefs; but they are very devoted.
Microsoft is the Protestantism - started by a persuasive leader and aided by advances in technology, but borrowing heavily from its predecessor in ritual. The system was very unstable, however, and unable or unwilling to maintain control. The userbase splintered, with many users "rolling their own" systems, though all were compatible with the central requirements of the Microsoft programming. Fortunately, the core system was accommodating enough that it could adapt to the differing needs of all these user bases, though as a result it sometimes became inconsistent and full of holes. Users are extremely diverse; some are very intelligent and reasonable, and some are stark raving mad; some are content and some are evangelical. They do a lot of good work but it is sometimes undermined by the nutty ones which nobody has the power to excommunicate.
And Linux? Clearly, Linux is Islam. Foreign to the other users and often incomprehensible to outsiders, it's strange rituals, archaic incantations, and tendency to eschew the excesses of other systems as sheer decadence give it a mystical quality. It lacks a central authority, preferring instead to rely on a network of prophets and clerics. Many users are content with their system and believe it is ideal, and though their methods may seem backwards to other users, they believe their methods to have greater power and influence. But the more radical users are militant fundamentalists, who seek to undermine and ultimately bring down the other systems - or more precisely, to bring down the power structures the other systems rely on to maintain control. In their view, the superiority of their system is self-evident, and once the other users have been liberated from the shackles that lock them in to other systems, conversion will be total. Some of the more dangerous prophets are effective at over-the-top rhetoric that can whip the users into a frenzy. As a result, in order to undermine the control mechanisms of other systems, the most radical may resort to acts considered by many to be unethical or illegal.
Re:Nothing new, check your encyclopedia
on
Nuclear Fuel How-To
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's even harder to mine/refine, especially in secret.
Bingo. Technologists, expecially computer geeks, seem to have a tendency (perhaps justifiably) to believe that mere knowledge of HOW to do something means that actually doing it is trivial. In this case, however, this knowledge is not a severe threat because its implementation remeans one of the most difficult, dangerous, and expensive processes known to man.
Holy carp, I forgot about that game. Of all the star wars games ever produced, that is probably the one I spent the most time playing. It seems so deceptively simple!
Whenever asked for our ID we should repeat the phrase "Leeloo Dallas, multi-pass."
Too obscure. I suggest waving your hand in front of the asker's face and stating, "You don't need to see my identification. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along."
Having fun playing a game is in no way related to polygoncount, GHz, MB or whatever these companies try to make you believes makes games 'cool'.
Well now, that's a bit strong. It doesn't have to be, but it certainly can be. For example: I had tremendous fun playing through Doom3 and HL2. Was it because the amazing unique gameplay which was totally unlike anything I ever experienced? Obviously not. It was because the outstanding graphics, sound, and simulation of environments immersed me in the game more than Wolfenstein 3D ever could. I sat in the dark late at night sweating and paranoid, or trying not to look down while I'm shinnying across the girders of a bridge and then getting vertigo(!) when I do. That was fun, and it was fun because the realism made it immersive.
We know they used G5 computers. Do we know that they used OSX? This, to me, would be a MUCH bigger deal. It's one thing to go from DirectX on x86 to DirectX on PPC. The NT HAL takes care of that anyways. It seems a much bigger thing deal to go from DirectX on W2K kernel to DirectX on the Darwin kernel.
And wouldn't it be fucking terrible if this guy is guilty, and he gets off because some dumbfuck of a DA decided that having encryption software was worth introducing as evidence?
There is a doctrine of appellate law as it applies to the granting of new trials called "harmless error analysis." Essentially, the rule is that the mere fact that a mistake was made during your trial is not sufficient to warrant a new trial (unless it is a constitutional violation.) You must further demonstrate that there was a reasonable likelihood that but for the mistake, the outcome would have been different. Here, that seems highly unlikely.
Re:There's no reason to change your kb
on
Blank Keyboard
·
· Score: 1
Could not agree more. My IBM Model M is almost 20 years old and going strong. Using any "modern" keyboard now feels like typing on mush. What other piece of computer hardware have you ever owned that remains as useful today as it was 20 years ago?
Re:The best Microsoft product ever
on
Top Mice Compared
·
· Score: 1
4.1 Still allowed program specific functioning, and allows me to seamlessly re-assign the outer buttons to whatever function or keystroke I choose. Makes photoshopping so much easier, and video watching (IE, change outer buttons to scan forward 30 sec etc) much easier when reclining with no keyboard handy.
That's an outstanding point, and the single area of irritation I have since switching to the MX1000. I had to remap most of the buttons to character keypresses in order to satisfy all my games. How I long for the days of Intellipoint 4.1, when it would automatically activate and deactivate those remappings.
I know this isn't an AskSlashDot, but does anybody know of a (preferably free-as-in-beer) third-party utility that can accomplish this?
Agreeing that the blanket is not in and of itself criminal - do you believe that in attempting to prove the crime (a portion of which involves concealing the weapon with a blanket), the prosecution should be barred from introducing any evidence that the defendant owned or used a blanket?
The problem I see is that in discouraging discussion (ala amateur lawyering), the grandparent poster is discouraging understanding.
Here's the trouble: I am not convinced that the majority of the posters, who cannot even be bothered to RTFA, let alone look up laws, actually care more about understanding the nuances of trial law as opposed to demagoguing the issue based on erroneous facts, and spreading those erroneous facts in the process. (And, in the process, berating and demeaning another class of professionals.) They certainly have that right, of course; I simply maintain that, especially when it comes to the law, it is neither healthy nor wise.
Encryption tools shouldn't be admitted as evidence of intent to commit a crime in any way, shape or form.
And it WASN'T. You're killing a straw man. The existence of PGP was held to be relevant only. Which clearly, as a piece of the overall case, it was, if marginally so. It was NOT introduced as proof of criminal intent.
If the state can't prove this fellow had or produced child porn without referring to the simple fact that he has encryption software, the state has no business bothering him, in my estimation.
It sounds like they had all the evidence they needed. I don't think anyone believes that had the state not brought up the existence of PGP, the guy would have been acquitted.
but being labeled as a (would-be) criminal simply for having encryption-capable software a computer I find quite ludicrous.
And indeed that is not what happened in this case. The evidence as to the existence was relevant because it was an instrumentality of the criminal act, not as evidence of intent.
This is one of those rare cases when the slashdot headling is MORE accurate than the headline of TFA. That's because the court did NOT rule that PGP is evidence of criminal intent. Instead, it ruled that the existence of PGP was relevant to the state's case.
Consider the following analogy: I murder someone on the street and flee in a red car. An eyewitness can't identify me but testifies that they saw a red car speeding away. The state introduces my auto title showing that my car was red.
The fact that I own a red car is admitted into evidence! But not because owning a red car is itself proof of guilt! Rather, it's because it's relevant to the state's case, as evidence of a plan or simply the means of execution.
Thus, Slashdot is right - the court found it "relevant" - and TFA is wrong - encryption is not itself evidence of criminal intent.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Best practices: use the path that is provided to you by the system. 2. Otherwise: you can always reference Joe's documents folder by going to C:\Documents and Settings\Joe\ path.
No, it is an artificial view that shows all storage (and some other I/O) devices, including network devices, cameras and scanners, and usually a link to the control panel. Sort of a portal to your storage and I/O so that it doesn't all have to be on your desktop.
You can't just "dissolve" a private organization whose only source of "power" is the contribution and cooperation of its members. Unless, of course, you dissolve the First Amendment first.
I hated the fact that even with my "Professional" monitor I could never get lines perfectly straight horizontally and vertically at the same time.
Just get a laser printer that prints at 3600 ppm.
That may be, but the space savings is a huge ergonmic benefit of an LCD. That, combined with the inability to ever get the geometry on a CRT to be consistent, was the deal breaker for me against CRT.
My personal favorite is when the stormtroopers in Episode IV unseal the door to the communications room on the death star where artoo and threepio have been left. One of the stormtroopers on the right hilariously clocks his head on the top of the door frame. I STILL laugh every time I see it.
I know those doucuments pretty well, pal. Since you seem to think you have such a firm grasp on them, why don't YOU quote the text from the Constitution or BOR you think this would violate.
Just because it's a bad/stupid/pointless idea, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.
Microsoft is the Protestantism - started by a persuasive leader and aided by advances in technology, but borrowing heavily from its predecessor in ritual. The system was very unstable, however, and unable or unwilling to maintain control. The userbase splintered, with many users "rolling their own" systems, though all were compatible with the central requirements of the Microsoft programming. Fortunately, the core system was accommodating enough that it could adapt to the differing needs of all these user bases, though as a result it sometimes became inconsistent and full of holes. Users are extremely diverse; some are very intelligent and reasonable, and some are stark raving mad; some are content and some are evangelical. They do a lot of good work but it is sometimes undermined by the nutty ones which nobody has the power to excommunicate.
And Linux? Clearly, Linux is Islam. Foreign to the other users and often incomprehensible to outsiders, it's strange rituals, archaic incantations, and tendency to eschew the excesses of other systems as sheer decadence give it a mystical quality. It lacks a central authority, preferring instead to rely on a network of prophets and clerics. Many users are content with their system and believe it is ideal, and though their methods may seem backwards to other users, they believe their methods to have greater power and influence. But the more radical users are militant fundamentalists, who seek to undermine and ultimately bring down the other systems - or more precisely, to bring down the power structures the other systems rely on to maintain control. In their view, the superiority of their system is self-evident, and once the other users have been liberated from the shackles that lock them in to other systems, conversion will be total. Some of the more dangerous prophets are effective at over-the-top rhetoric that can whip the users into a frenzy. As a result, in order to undermine the control mechanisms of other systems, the most radical may resort to acts considered by many to be unethical or illegal.
3. Use a satellite phone?
http://www.iridium.com/
Bingo. Technologists, expecially computer geeks, seem to have a tendency (perhaps justifiably) to believe that mere knowledge of HOW to do something means that actually doing it is trivial. In this case, however, this knowledge is not a severe threat because its implementation remeans one of the most difficult, dangerous, and expensive processes known to man.
Holy carp, I forgot about that game. Of all the star wars games ever produced, that is probably the one I spent the most time playing. It seems so deceptively simple!
I have to find that CD now.
Too obscure. I suggest waving your hand in front of the asker's face and stating, "You don't need to see my identification. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along."
Well now, that's a bit strong. It doesn't have to be, but it certainly can be. For example: I had tremendous fun playing through Doom3 and HL2. Was it because the amazing unique gameplay which was totally unlike anything I ever experienced? Obviously not. It was because the outstanding graphics, sound, and simulation of environments immersed me in the game more than Wolfenstein 3D ever could. I sat in the dark late at night sweating and paranoid, or trying not to look down while I'm shinnying across the girders of a bridge and then getting vertigo(!) when I do. That was fun, and it was fun because the realism made it immersive.
We know they used G5 computers. Do we know that they used OSX? This, to me, would be a MUCH bigger deal. It's one thing to go from DirectX on x86 to DirectX on PPC. The NT HAL takes care of that anyways. It seems a much bigger thing deal to go from DirectX on W2K kernel to DirectX on the Darwin kernel.
There is a doctrine of appellate law as it applies to the granting of new trials called "harmless error analysis." Essentially, the rule is that the mere fact that a mistake was made during your trial is not sufficient to warrant a new trial (unless it is a constitutional violation.) You must further demonstrate that there was a reasonable likelihood that but for the mistake, the outcome would have been different. Here, that seems highly unlikely.
Could not agree more. My IBM Model M is almost 20 years old and going strong. Using any "modern" keyboard now feels like typing on mush. What other piece of computer hardware have you ever owned that remains as useful today as it was 20 years ago?
What's wrong with recording to mp3?
That's an outstanding point, and the single area of irritation I have since switching to the MX1000. I had to remap most of the buttons to character keypresses in order to satisfy all my games. How I long for the days of Intellipoint 4.1, when it would automatically activate and deactivate those remappings.
I know this isn't an AskSlashDot, but does anybody know of a (preferably free-as-in-beer) third-party utility that can accomplish this?
Agreeing that the blanket is not in and of itself criminal - do you believe that in attempting to prove the crime (a portion of which involves concealing the weapon with a blanket), the prosecution should be barred from introducing any evidence that the defendant owned or used a blanket?
Here's the trouble: I am not convinced that the majority of the posters, who cannot even be bothered to RTFA, let alone look up laws, actually care more about understanding the nuances of trial law as opposed to demagoguing the issue based on erroneous facts, and spreading those erroneous facts in the process. (And, in the process, berating and demeaning another class of professionals.) They certainly have that right, of course; I simply maintain that, especially when it comes to the law, it is neither healthy nor wise.
And it WASN'T. You're killing a straw man. The existence of PGP was held to be relevant only. Which clearly, as a piece of the overall case, it was, if marginally so. It was NOT introduced as proof of criminal intent.
If the state can't prove this fellow had or produced child porn without referring to the simple fact that he has encryption software, the state has no business bothering him, in my estimation.
It sounds like they had all the evidence they needed. I don't think anyone believes that had the state not brought up the existence of PGP, the guy would have been acquitted.
And indeed that is not what happened in this case. The evidence as to the existence was relevant because it was an instrumentality of the criminal act, not as evidence of intent.
Here's the key: "testify" != "present evidence."
Consider the following analogy: I murder someone on the street and flee in a red car. An eyewitness can't identify me but testifies that they saw a red car speeding away. The state introduces my auto title showing that my car was red.
The fact that I own a red car is admitted into evidence! But not because owning a red car is itself proof of guilt! Rather, it's because it's relevant to the state's case, as evidence of a plan or simply the means of execution.
Thus, Slashdot is right - the court found it "relevant" - and TFA is wrong - encryption is not itself evidence of criminal intent.