All the people I've seen being stopped so far have been gentlemen of a swarthy appearance wearing a backpack.
On the one hand it doesn't seem unreasonable to imagine that the bombers are smart enough to, say, use a briefcase. On the other hand the events of 21st July suggest that they might not be.
Out of curiosity then, is it an offence to buy goods if you believe they're stolen, but they actually aren't?
I'm not a lawyer. My guess is "yes", but that it never arises in practice.
Do you brits have mind reading machines to find out what people believed when they were purchasing?
No, we have courts of law that convict people when an offence is proven "beyond reasonable doubt". Since the guy has apparently said that he thought it was suspicious, it seems unlikely that a jury would acquit him of handling stolen goods.
And if you think that's unreasonable, you've presumably never had your stuff stolen.
"She seemed suspicious, because she sold me an expensive laptop for such a low price. If the laptop was stolen, I did not know about it. I just took her word for it."
If you're "suspicious" that an item you're going to buy is stolen, then you shouldn't buy it. In the UK at least it is an offence to buy stolen goods while knowing or believing them to be stolen. I'd be very surprised to hear the law was substantially different in the US.
If the facts are as reported, he doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.
I think they pretty much succeeded in labeling the use of Linux as "risky" (in the U.S. anyway) with untold IP issues.
Maybe, maybe not - but here's a datum for you; I'm job hunting at the moment, and I'm noticing many more positions that include "Linux" in the requirements specification than previously.
Now, this is a minor point - I'm looking for contracts with investment banks, and their requirements lists tend to look like "Credit Risk, Java, WebSphere, WebLogic, Did we mention Java?, SQL, Sybase, DB2, Perl, Ksh, PHP, Bronze Swimming Award, Must have ten years.NET, C-Sharp, B-Flat, J2EE, JSP, Redundancy knowledge, strong business background, must speak Latvian, Linux" - but at least it's on the list and they're hiring. For the banks this was unusual last year, and virtually unheard of two years ago.
At least some of these banks are American. So I think that in the financial sector (who, duh, have a LOT of money to throw to technology companies) Linux cannot be seen as very risky.
You can't really miss what even yourselves admit was out of reach to almost everyone. I don't seem to miss it at all. How do you miss something you never really had?
I agree with their attitude in the article - this was something to aspire to. It was very expensive, but not so expensive that it was unimaginable as a once-in-a-lifetime possibility.
I miss it for exactly that reason. Plus I used to work at Heathrow and have nostalgic memories of everyone checking their watches as the 11am BA001 flight roared past the window.
The two are different, that's all. It does not follow that a download results in a monetary loss. It does follow that a theft of property results in a monetary loss.
I don't condone illegal downloading, and I don't condone theft. But clearly the two are different so it's not unreasonable to take distinct moral stances on the two
Personally I'm more concerned about the morals of people purchasing obviously stolen goods on eBay than people downloading music that they were never going to buy. I think both are immoral, but I think the former is more immoral than the latter.
I think that's more a problem with their "Top Reviewer" system.
Many of their top-listed reviewers have quite clearly not read the books in question.
This is not sour grapes; a book I wrote has received 5 stars from "Top 50" reviewers who have clearly not cracked the book open and have no idea what it's about.
If you then go to look at their other reviews you'll find that they have a suspiciously eclectic taste, and never say anything you couldn't figure out from the information already on Amazon.
I don't know if Amazon award prizes to their top reviewers, or if these people are just astonishingly sad - but the tactic is obvious; they award 5 stars because people who like a book are more likely to "mod them down" in the "was this review helpful to you?" link and thus adversely affect their ranking.
In short, when reading an Amazon review, only trust reviewers who are NOT top N rated, and who are using their real names (as you imply, it is enormously tempting to astro-turf your own publication - I don't do it, incidentally, but I can see why people do).
Joel is an incredibly good writer. Thats why his articles keep showing up here.
He's also very smart, runs his own company (he's his own PHB) and has worked for one of the bigger fish in a fish role, so yes - Joel has some insight into programming that everyone reading Slashdot does not.
What means: 1 trekking bird does not make it summer
Well, I don't understand Dutch, but looking at your subject title that looks supiciously like "One swallow doesn't make a summer", which is an English saying too...
While he could have phrased it better, I assume he was referring to Titan, rather than Saturn. Titan is indeed thought to have "watery pools" (ok, methane, but it's probably liquid at least).
I had a rather wistful hope that the Huygens probe would either get stuck in a tree on the way down, or eaten by something... ah well, wishful thinking dashed, but I do think the pictures (and more importantly the science) are just stunning.
When I read a posting (or article, or book, or indeed anything) in which the spelling or grammar are "incorrect", I discount a large percentage of the message. Good education and good spelling tend to correlate pretty closely.
Which is not to say that those without a good education never have an interesting message - but we all have to have filters, and this is where mine cuts in to keep the SNR high.
If you have poor spelling and grammar, and you don't care if people like me listen, then go right ahead. If you have good spelling and grammar, bully for you (but don't imagine it makes you a "better" person). But if you have poor spelling and grammar, and you want your message to get to the widest audience, you need to improve it.
There are two tiny snags. One which is exhaustively discussed here is that there's no clear cut definition of what constitutes "good" spelling and "good" grammar. The other which seems to be missed is that most people (yes, even the ones who do have good spelling and grammar) are not competent to judge their own competence in this area - you need external advice.
So my rather wordy message is: if you need or want to communicate well, to a broad range of people, you need to make sure your skills in this area have been objectively checked.
Those are my thoughts on this inevitably volatile subject.
I won't hypothesize why what you said works (since I haven't tested it), but I will point out that there's more to perception than thinking
Um yes, I'm aware of that. But there's no obvious reason why it should break this particular illusion since the mental model of a tree, and an upside-down tree are presumably similar, and that's what you're comparing it against.
The most compelling explanation (or partial explanation at least) I've seen is via the Bad Astronomy website where they suggest it's a result of the incorrect mental model we have of the "shape" of the sky.
This link, scroll down to "The mental sky-dome model."
According to the OED ie means (amongst other things) "use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data".
The OED defines words in terms of how they are used rather than how people would wish they were used.
Don't like the usage? It's your problem. Language change is democratic and you're in the minority. If you want to wilfully misinterpret the article then go right ahead - but don't expect anyone to care what you think.
> But they failed to compete with price and > development with PC clone makers.
Price had virtually nothing to do with it.
Personal Computers won out because they had reliable storage, higher quality displays than the TV, and because IBM had put their weight behind a machine (so businesses were prepared to risk purchasing them).
Sure, clone makers drove the price down, but home micros were almost all cheaper - and almost all used for playing games. If you want to see the logical successors of the home micros then they're the Playstation and its ilk, not the cheap clone.
Slashdot Mirror
If you end up in a position where you have to "prove" that you're in the right, you've already lost the game.
'Le Pad Osmooze', a USB device that releases an aroma when you receive an email from a loved one."
Uh oh, I think your ex just sent you an email. This smells bad. Really bad.
All the people I've seen being stopped so far have been gentlemen of a swarthy appearance wearing a backpack.
On the one hand it doesn't seem unreasonable to imagine that the bombers are smart enough to, say, use a briefcase. On the other hand the events of 21st July suggest that they might not be.
Uh oh. Now I want one.
Quite. Here's the best picture I could find:
i umback_78.jpg
t ml
http://www.lenovo.com/us/en/
That's probably a fairly ephemeral link; this might hang around longer, but it's only a thumbnail:
http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/thinkpad/images/rt_titan
From this page:
http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/thinkpad/zseries/index.h
I'm sure someone can do better than that.
Out of curiosity then, is it an offence to buy goods if you believe they're stolen, but they actually aren't?
I'm not a lawyer. My guess is "yes", but that it never arises in practice.
Do you brits have mind reading machines to find out what people believed when they were purchasing?
No, we have courts of law that convict people when an offence is proven "beyond reasonable doubt". Since the guy has apparently said that he thought it was suspicious, it seems unlikely that a jury would acquit him of handling stolen goods.
And if you think that's unreasonable, you've presumably never had your stuff stolen.
"She seemed suspicious, because she sold me an expensive laptop for such a low price. If the laptop was stolen, I did not know about it. I just took her word for it."
If you're "suspicious" that an item you're going to buy is stolen, then you shouldn't buy it. In the UK at least it is an offence to buy stolen goods while knowing or believing them to be stolen. I'd be very surprised to hear the law was substantially different in the US.
If the facts are as reported, he doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.
I hesitate to ask what it is you imagine that porn stars can do to get the stickers off that us mortals can't.
Regardless, given your interest in the background minutiae of porn films, I think this link is just made for you: http://www.whitelead.com/jrh/ISPs/index.html
By the way, that ought to be considered work safe, but I wouldn't risk it if I were you...
Maybe, maybe not - but here's a datum for you; I'm job hunting at the moment, and I'm noticing many more positions that include "Linux" in the requirements specification than previously.
Now, this is a minor point - I'm looking for contracts with investment banks, and their requirements lists tend to look like "Credit Risk, Java, WebSphere, WebLogic, Did we mention Java?, SQL, Sybase, DB2, Perl, Ksh, PHP, Bronze Swimming Award, Must have ten years
At least some of these banks are American. So I think that in the financial sector (who, duh, have a LOT of money to throw to technology companies) Linux cannot be seen as very risky.
Concorde
You can't really miss what even yourselves admit was out of reach to almost everyone. I don't seem to miss it at all. How do you miss something you never really had?
I agree with their attitude in the article - this was something to aspire to. It was very expensive, but not so expensive that it was unimaginable as a once-in-a-lifetime possibility.
I miss it for exactly that reason. Plus I used to work at Heathrow and have nostalgic memories of everyone checking their watches as the 11am BA001 flight roared past the window.
The two are different, that's all. It does not follow that a download results in a monetary loss. It does follow that a theft of property results in a monetary loss.
I don't condone illegal downloading, and I don't condone theft. But clearly the two are different so it's not unreasonable to take distinct moral stances on the two
Personally I'm more concerned about the morals of people purchasing obviously stolen goods on eBay than people downloading music that they were never going to buy. I think both are immoral, but I think the former is more immoral than the latter.
This is more in-depth than you might expect:6 003609/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/059
I think that's more a problem with their "Top Reviewer" system.
Many of their top-listed reviewers have quite clearly not read the books in question.
This is not sour grapes; a book I wrote has received 5 stars from "Top 50" reviewers who have clearly not cracked the book open and have no idea what it's about.
If you then go to look at their other reviews you'll find that they have a suspiciously eclectic taste, and never say anything you couldn't figure out from the information already on Amazon.
I don't know if Amazon award prizes to their top reviewers, or if these people are just astonishingly sad - but the tactic is obvious; they award 5 stars because people who like a book are more likely to "mod them down" in the "was this review helpful to you?" link and thus adversely affect their ranking.
In short, when reading an Amazon review, only trust reviewers who are NOT top N rated, and who are using their real names (as you imply, it is enormously tempting to astro-turf your own publication - I don't do it, incidentally, but I can see why people do).
"...in a fish role" should have read "...in a big fish role" to reduce the surreality quotient of that sentence...
Joel is an incredibly good writer. Thats why his articles keep showing up here.
He's also very smart, runs his own company (he's his own PHB) and has worked for one of the bigger fish in a fish role, so yes - Joel has some insight into programming that everyone reading Slashdot does not.
What means: 1 trekking bird does not make it summer
Well, I don't understand Dutch, but looking at your subject title that looks supiciously like "One swallow doesn't make a summer", which is an English saying too...
Although laser projection tech has been around for some time now, I'm really surprised that it's not used.
Last time I looked into it green lasers were prohibitively expensive and blue lasers were completely untenably expensive.
I've had good experiences with Morgan Computers who have a good range of refurbished and new stuff, and with Dabs.
While he could have phrased it better, I assume he was referring to Titan, rather than Saturn. Titan is indeed thought to have "watery pools" (ok, methane, but it's probably liquid at least).
I had a rather wistful hope that the Huygens probe would either get stuck in a tree on the way down, or eaten by something... ah well, wishful thinking dashed, but I do think the pictures (and more importantly the science) are just stunning.
When I read a posting (or article, or book, or indeed anything) in which the spelling or grammar are "incorrect", I discount a large percentage of the message. Good education and good spelling tend to correlate pretty closely.
Which is not to say that those without a good education never have an interesting message - but we all have to have filters, and this is where mine cuts in to keep the SNR high.
If you have poor spelling and grammar, and you don't care if people like me listen, then go right ahead. If you have good spelling and grammar, bully for you (but don't imagine it makes you a "better" person). But if you have poor spelling and grammar, and you want your message to get to the widest audience, you need to improve it.
There are two tiny snags. One which is exhaustively discussed here is that there's no clear cut definition of what constitutes "good" spelling and "good" grammar. The other which seems to be missed is that most people (yes, even the ones who do have good spelling and grammar) are not competent to judge their own competence in this area - you need external advice.
So my rather wordy message is: if you need or want to communicate well, to a broad range of people, you need to make sure your skills in this area have been objectively checked.
Those are my thoughts on this inevitably volatile subject.
I won't hypothesize why what you said works (since I haven't tested it), but I will point out that there's more to perception than thinking
Um yes, I'm aware of that. But there's no obvious reason why it should break this particular illusion since the mental model of a tree, and an upside-down tree are presumably similar, and that's what you're comparing it against.
The most compelling explanation (or partial explanation at least) I've seen is via the Bad Astronomy website where they suggest it's a result of the incorrect mental model we have of the "shape" of the sky.
This link, scroll down to "The mental sky-dome model."
That's what I thought, until someone pointed out to me that the illusion goes away when you stand on your head.
Guaranteed to make you look foolish, but it works.
I'm English, so I have no idea what your (presumably) insult was supposed to mean. Feel free to try again.
According to the OED ie means (amongst other things) "use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data".
The OED defines words in terms of how they are used rather than how people would wish they were used.
Don't like the usage? It's your problem. Language change is democratic and you're in the minority. If you want to wilfully misinterpret the article then go right ahead - but don't expect anyone to care what you think.
> But they failed to compete with price and
> development with PC clone makers.
Price had virtually nothing to do with it.
Personal Computers won out because they had reliable storage, higher quality displays than the TV, and because IBM had put their weight behind a machine (so businesses were prepared to risk purchasing them).
Sure, clone makers drove the price down, but home micros were almost all cheaper - and almost all used for playing games. If you want to see the logical successors of the home micros then they're the Playstation and its ilk, not the cheap clone.
Dave.