How is a pill going to stop you being lazy ? You quit because you are lazy, not because you can't exercise well enough. Try doing 10 pushups a day for a week. The next week, do 15 pushups a day, the week after do 30 a day (you'll find it easy). After 4 or 5 weeks, you'll find that you have to force yourself to stop at 40 pushups because it is so easy to sail right past. I know, I've done it. Within 2 months you can piss 100 pushups, and still have energy left for more exercise. you can't jump straight to 30 per day because your body isn't capable of it, pill or no pill. It is not mind over matter, it is building endurance. Without endurance you're wasting your time, and the exercise is pointless. There are many drugs that make you feel better mentally, very few, if any, actually make you physically stronger.
The problem with non-smokers is that they don't care about smokers. A ban is required because non-smokers wouldn't otherwise voluntarily consider the well being, comfort, and health of smokers. No ban would be required if non-smokers were able to be considerate.
Most men understand that women don't want to be wolf whistled down the road. One section of society, therefore, restrains themselves for the benefit of another. Non-Smokers, by and large, do not want to restrain themselves. They want to impose their own lifestyle on others.
I don't support the ban and would like even more punitive measures to be taken against non-smokers. Why be merciful with those who have shown no mercy?
2 points Yes pubs and bars should be allowed to cater for smokers. There was nothing to prevent bars from being non-smoking before the ban. So what it boils down to is not "You may not smoke in here" but "you may not smoke anywhere". The non-smokers get their way wherever they go, while the smoker has no rights at all. The notion that non-smokers stayed away from pubs before the ban is ludicrous, and there seem to be less non-smokers in certain pubs now than before the ban.
Secondly, you talk about paying the upfront costs of smoking. Do you realise how much tax there is on a packet of cigarettes ? And that is in addition to each smokers normal contributions. You think the NHS is in financial trouble now, wait until they finally ban tobacco. All the non-smokers will finally realise how much they have been subsidised.
I smoke (duh), but even before the ban, if I was in public premises (library, supermarket, post office, plane, restaurant) or in the company of non-smokers, I would refrain from lighting up. It was no big deal. But having gone from acting responsibly to enforced denial, I am feeling slightly pissed off. The one place where it is nice to have a smoke is in the company of friends while having a drink. That has been taken away completely. No-one was ever forced to go to a bar or a pub, so why deny the wishes of a large number of people. The government claims it is to "protect" the workforce in those establishments. Well the place I go to drink has smokers for bar staff, and the owners smoke too. If smoking is on the decline, then over time there will be less smokers available to fill those positions, and the pub will become non-smoking naturally. No one is going to place ads for bar staff stipulating that they must be smokers as it would be illegal. But instead of that gentle approach, the facility was turned off. The pub where I drink appears to be empty if you look through the window from the street. If you go out the back door into their garden, you find everybody out there, even the non-smokers (coz that's where the action is). Stupid rule thought up by selfish people.
If the majority wishes no cell phones on planes, then it is precisely the job of government to enforce it. That's what the government is for - to enforce the wishes of the majority. Otherwise we can get rid of the government and let "market forces" dictate everything. See how that turns out.
I don't support extensions of copyright, and I am part of the tail end of the baby boom.
The upcoming generation value nothing that they have to work to attain. They want everything for nothing or as cheap as they can get it. Why should somebody who has worked their whole life to build an income have it taken away from them by people who have yet to contribute anything to society. To put it another way, what is going to happen to the upcoming generations descendants ? Who are they going to steal from to finance their lives ? Their parents appear to show no signs of being willing to save for their retirement in any form, so it will be their kids that pay, just as it is now. The baby boomers created the wealthy society that we have today, everybody since has just taken a free ride. Why do you think we are heading towards big problems due to having too many old people ? Not enough young people to pay for existing financial commitments. The government is to blame for spending too much on welfare (unemployment) which drained all our resources. We live in a credit based society, which cannot continue for long without collapsing. So next time you get something for nothing, bear in mind that while you get it free, your kids and their kids will be paying for it. BTW freedom of information has nothing whatsoever to do with ability to download music for free. Unless you think that Britneys latest album somehow supplies knowledge.
You realise that there are cars that can hit 90 mpg ? Also, An electric (solar) car uses no energy when it is stopped (on the contrary - it is still producing energy). That's without mentioning the fact that you are producing energy *during* the commute not just while stopped. Also, if you reduce the weight of the car, you get better mileage. If we are to accept your calculation of 0.31 gallons gasoline equivalent (which is low) then you could commute 30 miles each way on your figures. If you currently have a car that gets you 30 mpg, you are wasting the equivalent of 0.69 gallons of gas each way which could be avoided. You also seem to forget when mentioning up front costs, that at the moment we are basically spending our savings (oil) without replacing them. Stick $1000 in the bank, and every time you need gas, use only those savings. See how long it takes to run them out. Should we be a saving society or a spend spend spend society ? I am also reminded of a post a while ago on the subject of oil, where somebody pointed out the criminality of using oil to burn for fuel, when we could make much better use of complex hydrocarbons in manufacturing and new material science. So at the very least, we must turn to hybrids, if only to save 2/3 of the gas we use for each trip. If we put the money saved on fuel in a savings account, it wouldn't take too long to cover those up front costs for a full solar electric vehicle, and the best part is, it would essentially be paid for from money we would have spent on gas anyway.
Not ironic at all. It's the computer that is Trusted in that phrase, not the user. Would you trust your life to a workmate ? Would you trust your life to a machine ? Which one is easier to secure against ? When you work with large machines the mandated practice is to lock off the controls with your own padlock. This ensures that no one else can turn the machine on when you are inside it. The way that this method can be trusted is that because only you have the key, no one else can bypass the system. If there are multiple people working on the same machine, they ALL fix their own padlocks to it, so even if you have finished your work, you can't turn the machine on while other padlocks are still applied. There is no need for trust, as you can guarantee your own safety. Trusted computing is similar in that it does not rely on human weakness to enforce access rules, it only trusts itself. It becomes a discrete entity and avoids situations of having to evaluate the intentions of the user. If the owner of a machine wants to change its operation after the initial installation, then you can't expect the machine to know whether the owner is the real owner or an attacker. The real owner should know this, and take their data off before they attempt to change the configuration. Allowing anything else undermines the whole chain of trust. I will never knowingly buy a machine with TPM, but I don't need its functionality, and I will never use Vista. But I understand why it has to act as it does. Who do you ultimately trust ? Unless you answer "me, and only me" then you are allowing a large unknown into your trust model. You can never truly trust anyone else with your secrets, so why should the computer ? It's not psychic.
I forget the page number, but at one point somewhere in the latter half, the technical spec EXPLICITLY refers to the the owner as an "attacker". The specification explicitly details the measures that must be taken to secure the system AGAINST THE OWNER.
The issue that demands that approach is that the computer has no way of knowing who the owner is. As far as the computer is concerned, whoever boots it IS the owner. If the computer has been stolen or hacked, it cannot know that, so it must defend against all comers if it is to work at all. There is no way to guard against intrusion without regarding the CURRENT user as a possible attacker. Therefore TPM has no place in general computing, but maybe it has a place in appliances.
For a good presentation of all these ideas and stories regarding the church and Galileo, as well as other scientists throughout history - try to see "The Day the Universe Changed", a 10 part series by James Burke filmed in the 1980s. You can get it from any decent tracker site. When it was shown that the Earth and the rest of the planets actually orbit the Sun, the church were quite pleased. It solved one of their major problems by making Easter and other notable festivals easier to place on the calendar.
The emergency services are not set up to "protect" the public. Stop using scare terminology to make unrelated points. Protect means to stand between something (or someone) and possible harm. Emergency services are there to respond to peoples needs AFTER the event, not prevent that event from happening. If this makes me a grammar nazi, then tough. As I have stated previously on numerous occasions, using the wrong terms leads to confusion and apathy and the watering down of meaning. Until you reach the stage when the dumbed down population doesn't have a way to communicate efficiently. Who benefits from such a situation ? Certainly not those who have a point to make, or those who genuinely don't know the correct terms. Saying grammar or spelling doesn't matter is a sure sign of inner laziness and a selfish nature. But then most of the US population have never had to learn a foreign language, and it seems that certain people are intent on making it almost impossible to learn their own. What really gets me mad is that the readership of slashdot would be the first to jump on a badly written piece of code, but pretend not to care about our most basic communication method. If you don't terminate lines of code correctly, the code won't run. Do you then say, "it doesn't matter", or do you correct the code ? What would you think of somebody who, after being asked why your code doesn't run, says "don't worry about it, languages evolve" ? Not very helpful or conducive to learning is it.
Imagine visiting a foreign country and needing a hotel you ask a person on the street - "My hover craft is full of eels". Does it matter yet ? Or does it only not matter if you don't care about the other person (which by extension is you under different circumstances). Laziness is rife in modern society, and this brings us back to the main topic. People calling emergency services to ask about train times, or to get rid of insects etc are just too lazy to think for themselves, so they ask somebody else. After all it's not their fault is it. Somebody else must be responsible.
What goes around, comes around. You have been warned.
Civilised behaviour or intelligence ? It seems to me that in the never ending rush to make things easy to use, we are just removing the need to use any kind of intelligence. I blame the USA for this explosion in "convenience". Automatic cars, in fact automatic *.* has been the goal of virtually every American industry since industry began. Instead of people learning their own capabilities and the capabilities of the devices they use, they expect something for nothing. The world doesn't work like that. If you don't use your innate intelligence, then you gradually lose the capability to deal with situations that are not spoon fed to you. Then you end up with people behaving stupidly in multiple seemingly unrelated ways. Multiple choice isn't a valid examination technique IMHO, as all it tests is your visual pattern recognition, not the underlying intellect to arrive at the correct solution yourself. Why should I care if the masses are ignorant self absorbed pigs ? After all they only make things bad for themselves. Unfortunately, people who expect everything done for them, make a useless electorate. They only respond to things on their face value or the sound bite, rather than analysing the facts and reaching an independent conclusion. So everybody suffers. Stop pretending that everybody is equal and we might start to reverse this decline. Yes we all should have equal rights, but not equal entitlement. Everybody has the right to try and pass a driving test, but not everybody has the entitlement gained by passing that test. Making tests easier to allow less able people to drive does nobody any favours.
I have apple turned off in my./ preferences. But apple stories still show up in the rss feed. And now there is an apple fanbois convention going on in linux.slashdot.org too. Is there any chance you can keep apple in the apple section ? Please.
Why not replace it ? It's usually only fuel inside the float so that it sinks to the empty position. If you can find the hole you could easily fix it with a self tapping screw.
I have a plan - you may not like it, but hear me out.
First, we decide on a figure that each internet user can reasonably afford to pay once. Then using the ISPs, all that cash gets collected and held in escrow. Our representative meets with the *IAA and offers them the deal:
They agree to drop all cases pending and in progress.
They must agree to a change in the law that prevents the future copyright liability of private individuals.
When and only when the modified law is in effect, they get the money.
I don't know how many individual ISP accounts there are in either the US or EU, but suffice to say, it would be a fairly large amount. And if they turn the deal down, we get our money back (with accrued interest).
I can't see them being able to resist that big fat pile of cash for too long, can you ? We could be even more generous and give them a month to think about it (providing they drop all current cases) which gives them time to come up with a new business model. And if you think 1 month is too short, tough. You've had plenty of time already.
A camcorder version of a movie is a copy, like a court reporters drawings are photographs. Do me a favour. Do they really think that people with $12 would choose to watch a cam rather than the full screen experience ? And if they think that maybe those people haven't got $12 anyway, then maybe they could make more money by dropping the price of admission, or the price of the discs.
It's all very well saying, "this is the price - take it or leave it" if they can enforce it. But they can't (obviously). So they may as well try to get the balance right between the money that is possible to make and the losses to piracy. The ones that don't pay will never pay, so stop fucking with MY life to attempt the impossible.
'Then the wolf will live with the lamb,
and the leopard lie down with the kid.
The cow and the bear will be friends,
and the lion will eat straw like cattle.'
Unless you have actually driven a truck (and that's what I'm talking about) then you have no idea what it's like to be surrounded by selfish ignorant drivers. I have lost count of the number of incidents where I have effectively saved someone from death or serious injury which they did their best to cause. Last minute tossers, who overtake just as the road goes from 2 lanes down to 1, not realising that the traffic in front of me has stopped and there is no-where to go. People overtaking a parked vehicle on the other side of the road, who then find themselves facing a 44 ton truck (me) because they just followed the car in front rather than waiting to see if it was clear. People who come round tight bends with their wheels over the central white line then find me coming the other way, also on the white line (because I can't get around the corner otherwise in an 18 metre long vehicle). People at junctions who see a truck coming and pull out anyway, coz it's only a truck. Never mind that 44 tonnes at 40 mph can't stop in less than the length of the truck. The list goes on and on. Motorways can get ridiculous. The outer 2 lanes are nose to tail with cars all doing 65 to 70 mph, so if I come up to a slower vehicle and have to overtake, I can't get out. I put the indicator on, and it gets ignored, so eventually I have to force my way out. Yeah sure I could slow down, but I would never get out, and you don't realise how much extra energy and effort it takes to get a truck up to a reasonable speed. That's what really bugs me. People moan about being stuck behind slow moving trucks, but then go out of their way to ensure that I stay "slow moving" ! I would like to see a week long truck drivers strike with 100% turnout. See how long it takes for the ignorant proles to realise they have no food, no raw materials, no waste collections, no fuel, and no wages without trucks providing the service they do.
Trust me, if you have a brain, don't drive a truck for a living. Logic has no place on the road. One day, I was in a country lane after delivering to a quarry. There is no other way in to this quarry because of low bridges. I met a woman driving a bloody great merc and it was obvious that there wasn't enough room to pass. But she still kept coming towards me, until she was jammed up against the hedge. It took a good 10 minutes for her to accept the situation and then reverse back, by which time there was a large queue behind both of us. As I passed her (eventually) she asked me if "I had any business" being in this lane ! No, I replied, I just do this to piss YOU off. Ignorant.
Finally, bear in mind that there are rules regarding maximum driving AND working hours. Maximum of 9 hours driving a day, and a maximum of 15 hours a day working (usually only 13 hours). Every hour lost due to congestion means I was as much as 50 miles behind schedule. It doesn't matter if you're only driving to the local shops, but when you've got to get from Southampton to Walsall, deliver a load then get somewhere else to reload and head off again to deliver all in the same day, every lost minute due to other traffic counts. And people wonder why things cost so much in the shops.
BTW, my job was paying me £24,000 per year - take home pay.
And your reason for voting is ? After all, you get to hear all kinds of rhetoric during election season, and it's mostly all bullshit. So by NOT voting, you win ?
Slashdot Mirror
How is a pill going to stop you being lazy ? You quit because you are lazy, not because you can't exercise well enough.
Try doing 10 pushups a day for a week. The next week, do 15 pushups a day, the week after do 30 a day (you'll find it easy). After 4 or 5 weeks, you'll find that you have to force yourself to stop at 40 pushups because it is so easy to sail right past. I know, I've done it. Within 2 months you can piss 100 pushups, and still have energy left for more exercise. you can't jump straight to 30 per day because your body isn't capable of it, pill or no pill. It is not mind over matter, it is building endurance. Without endurance you're wasting your time, and the exercise is pointless.
There are many drugs that make you feel better mentally, very few, if any, actually make you physically stronger.
So humans are no longer mammals ?
Here's an idea, take lots and lots of speed. You're obviously immune to the side effects.
The problem with non-smokers is that they don't care about smokers. A ban is required because non-smokers wouldn't otherwise voluntarily consider the well being, comfort, and health of smokers. No ban would be required if non-smokers were able to be considerate.
Most men understand that women don't want to be wolf whistled down the road. One section of society, therefore, restrains themselves for the benefit of another. Non-Smokers, by and large, do not want to restrain themselves. They want to impose their own lifestyle on others.
I don't support the ban and would like even more punitive measures to be taken against non-smokers. Why be merciful with those who have shown no mercy?
2 points
Yes pubs and bars should be allowed to cater for smokers. There was nothing to prevent bars from being non-smoking before the ban. So what it boils down to is not "You may not smoke in here" but "you may not smoke anywhere". The non-smokers get their way wherever they go, while the smoker has no rights at all. The notion that non-smokers stayed away from pubs before the ban is ludicrous, and there seem to be less non-smokers in certain pubs now than before the ban.
Secondly, you talk about paying the upfront costs of smoking. Do you realise how much tax there is on a packet of cigarettes ? And that is in addition to each smokers normal contributions. You think the NHS is in financial trouble now, wait until they finally ban tobacco. All the non-smokers will finally realise how much they have been subsidised.
I smoke (duh), but even before the ban, if I was in public premises (library, supermarket, post office, plane, restaurant) or in the company of non-smokers, I would refrain from lighting up. It was no big deal. But having gone from acting responsibly to enforced denial, I am feeling slightly pissed off. The one place where it is nice to have a smoke is in the company of friends while having a drink. That has been taken away completely. No-one was ever forced to go to a bar or a pub, so why deny the wishes of a large number of people. The government claims it is to "protect" the workforce in those establishments. Well the place I go to drink has smokers for bar staff, and the owners smoke too. If smoking is on the decline, then over time there will be less smokers available to fill those positions, and the pub will become non-smoking naturally. No one is going to place ads for bar staff stipulating that they must be smokers as it would be illegal. But instead of that gentle approach, the facility was turned off.
The pub where I drink appears to be empty if you look through the window from the street. If you go out the back door into their garden, you find everybody out there, even the non-smokers (coz that's where the action is). Stupid rule thought up by selfish people.
If the majority wishes no cell phones on planes, then it is precisely the job of government to enforce it. That's what the government is for - to enforce the wishes of the majority. Otherwise we can get rid of the government and let "market forces" dictate everything. See how that turns out.
I don't support extensions of copyright, and I am part of the tail end of the baby boom.
The upcoming generation value nothing that they have to work to attain. They want everything for nothing or as cheap as they can get it. Why should somebody who has worked their whole life to build an income have it taken away from them by people who have yet to contribute anything to society. To put it another way, what is going to happen to the upcoming generations descendants ? Who are they going to steal from to finance their lives ? Their parents appear to show no signs of being willing to save for their retirement in any form, so it will be their kids that pay, just as it is now.
The baby boomers created the wealthy society that we have today, everybody since has just taken a free ride. Why do you think we are heading towards big problems due to having too many old people ? Not enough young people to pay for existing financial commitments.
The government is to blame for spending too much on welfare (unemployment) which drained all our resources. We live in a credit based society, which cannot continue for long without collapsing. So next time you get something for nothing, bear in mind that while you get it free, your kids and their kids will be paying for it.
BTW freedom of information has nothing whatsoever to do with ability to download music for free. Unless you think that Britneys latest album somehow supplies knowledge.
Re your sig, why is it that posting times say "on" when it should say "at" ?
Message ends.
You realise that there are cars that can hit 90 mpg ? Also, An electric (solar) car uses no energy when it is stopped (on the contrary - it is still producing energy). That's without mentioning the fact that you are producing energy *during* the commute not just while stopped. Also, if you reduce the weight of the car, you get better mileage.
If we are to accept your calculation of 0.31 gallons gasoline equivalent (which is low) then you could commute 30 miles each way on your figures. If you currently have a car that gets you 30 mpg, you are wasting the equivalent of 0.69 gallons of gas each way which could be avoided.
You also seem to forget when mentioning up front costs, that at the moment we are basically spending our savings (oil) without replacing them. Stick $1000 in the bank, and every time you need gas, use only those savings. See how long it takes to run them out.
Should we be a saving society or a spend spend spend society ? I am also reminded of a post a while ago on the subject of oil, where somebody pointed out the criminality of using oil to burn for fuel, when we could make much better use of complex hydrocarbons in manufacturing and new material science.
So at the very least, we must turn to hybrids, if only to save 2/3 of the gas we use for each trip. If we put the money saved on fuel in a savings account, it wouldn't take too long to cover those up front costs for a full solar electric vehicle, and the best part is, it would essentially be paid for from money we would have spent on gas anyway.
And through evolution we have developed societies, whose job it has become to look further ahead than the next meal.
So support it.
Not ironic at all. It's the computer that is Trusted in that phrase, not the user.
Would you trust your life to a workmate ? Would you trust your life to a machine ? Which one is easier to secure against ?
When you work with large machines the mandated practice is to lock off the controls with your own padlock. This ensures that no one else can turn the machine on when you are inside it. The way that this method can be trusted is that because only you have the key, no one else can bypass the system. If there are multiple people working on the same machine, they ALL fix their own padlocks to it, so even if you have finished your work, you can't turn the machine on while other padlocks are still applied.
There is no need for trust, as you can guarantee your own safety. Trusted computing is similar in that it does not rely on human weakness to enforce access rules, it only trusts itself. It becomes a discrete entity and avoids situations of having to evaluate the intentions of the user. If the owner of a machine wants to change its operation after the initial installation, then you can't expect the machine to know whether the owner is the real owner or an attacker. The real owner should know this, and take their data off before they attempt to change the configuration. Allowing anything else undermines the whole chain of trust.
I will never knowingly buy a machine with TPM, but I don't need its functionality, and I will never use Vista. But I understand why it has to act as it does.
Who do you ultimately trust ? Unless you answer "me, and only me" then you are allowing a large unknown into your trust model. You can never truly trust anyone else with your secrets, so why should the computer ? It's not psychic.
I forget the page number, but at one point somewhere in the latter half, the technical spec EXPLICITLY refers to the the owner as an "attacker". The specification explicitly details the measures that must be taken to secure the system AGAINST THE OWNER.
The issue that demands that approach is that the computer has no way of knowing who the owner is.
As far as the computer is concerned, whoever boots it IS the owner. If the computer has been stolen or hacked, it cannot know that, so it must defend against all comers if it is to work at all.
There is no way to guard against intrusion without regarding the CURRENT user as a possible attacker. Therefore TPM has no place in general computing, but maybe it has a place in appliances.
For a good presentation of all these ideas and stories regarding the church and Galileo, as well as other scientists throughout history - try to see "The Day the Universe Changed", a 10 part series by James Burke filmed in the 1980s.
You can get it from any decent tracker site.
When it was shown that the Earth and the rest of the planets actually orbit the Sun, the church were quite pleased. It solved one of their major problems by making Easter and other notable festivals easier to place on the calendar.
The emergency services are not set up to "protect" the public.
Stop using scare terminology to make unrelated points. Protect means to stand between something (or someone) and possible harm.
Emergency services are there to respond to peoples needs AFTER the event, not prevent that event from happening.
If this makes me a grammar nazi, then tough. As I have stated previously on numerous occasions, using the wrong terms leads to confusion and apathy and the watering down of meaning. Until you reach the stage when the dumbed down population doesn't have a way to communicate efficiently. Who benefits from such a situation ? Certainly not those who have a point to make, or those who genuinely don't know the correct terms. Saying grammar or spelling doesn't matter is a sure sign of inner laziness and a selfish nature. But then most of the US population have never had to learn a foreign language, and it seems that certain people are intent on making it almost impossible to learn their own.
What really gets me mad is that the readership of slashdot would be the first to jump on a badly written piece of code, but pretend not to care about our most basic communication method. If you don't terminate lines of code correctly, the code won't run. Do you then say, "it doesn't matter", or do you correct the code ? What would you think of somebody who, after being asked why your code doesn't run, says "don't worry about it, languages evolve" ?
Not very helpful or conducive to learning is it.
Imagine visiting a foreign country and needing a hotel you ask a person on the street - "My hover craft is full of eels". Does it matter yet ? Or does it only not matter if you don't care about the other person (which by extension is you under different circumstances).
Laziness is rife in modern society, and this brings us back to the main topic. People calling emergency services to ask about train times, or to get rid of insects etc are just too lazy to think for themselves, so they ask somebody else. After all it's not their fault is it. Somebody else must be responsible.
What goes around, comes around.
You have been warned.
Civilised behaviour or intelligence ?
It seems to me that in the never ending rush to make things easy to use, we are just removing the need to use any kind of intelligence. I blame the USA for this explosion in "convenience". Automatic cars, in fact automatic *.* has been the goal of virtually every American industry since industry began.
Instead of people learning their own capabilities and the capabilities of the devices they use, they expect something for nothing. The world doesn't work like that.
If you don't use your innate intelligence, then you gradually lose the capability to deal with situations that are not spoon fed to you. Then you end up with people behaving stupidly in multiple seemingly unrelated ways. Multiple choice isn't a valid examination technique IMHO, as all it tests is your visual pattern recognition, not the underlying intellect to arrive at the correct solution yourself.
Why should I care if the masses are ignorant self absorbed pigs ? After all they only make things bad for themselves. Unfortunately, people who expect everything done for them, make a useless electorate. They only respond to things on their face value or the sound bite, rather than analysing the facts and reaching an independent conclusion.
So everybody suffers. Stop pretending that everybody is equal and we might start to reverse this decline. Yes we all should have equal rights, but not equal entitlement. Everybody has the right to try and pass a driving test, but not everybody has the entitlement gained by passing that test. Making tests easier to allow less able people to drive does nobody any favours.
I have apple turned off in my ./ preferences. But apple stories still show up in the rss feed.
And now there is an apple fanbois convention going on in linux.slashdot.org too.
Is there any chance you can keep apple in the apple section ? Please.
I bought the BOXD945GCLF ...
I thought that was an acronym, puzzled me unti I saw your username - 0xABADC0DA
Why not replace it ?
It's usually only fuel inside the float so that it sinks to the empty position. If you can find the hole you could easily fix it with a self tapping screw.
WELL !
HAVE THEY ?!?!?!
First, we decide on a figure that each internet user can reasonably afford to pay once.
Then using the ISPs, all that cash gets collected and held in escrow.
Our representative meets with the *IAA and offers them the deal:
I don't know how many individual ISP accounts there are in either the US or EU, but suffice to say, it would be a fairly large amount. And if they turn the deal down, we get our money back (with accrued interest).
I can't see them being able to resist that big fat pile of cash for too long, can you ?
We could be even more generous and give them a month to think about it (providing they drop all current cases) which gives them time to come up with a new business model. And if you think 1 month is too short, tough. You've had plenty of time already.
Do me a favour. Do they really think that people with $12 would choose to watch a cam rather than the full screen experience ? And if they think that maybe those people haven't got $12 anyway, then maybe they could make more money by dropping the price of admission, or the price of the discs.
It's all very well saying, "this is the price - take it or leave it" if they can enforce it. But they can't (obviously).
So they may as well try to get the balance right between the money that is possible to make and the losses to piracy. The ones that don't pay will never pay, so stop fucking with MY life to attempt the impossible.
nice !
'Then the wolf will live with the lamb,
......
... The great prophet Zarquon ?)
and the leopard lie down with the kid.
The cow and the bear will be friends,
and the lion will eat straw like cattle.'
Please give a big slashdot welcome to
SteeeeEEEeeeve Jobs !
(who's next
41 ?
Unless you have actually driven a truck (and that's what I'm talking about) then you have no idea what it's like to be surrounded by selfish ignorant drivers.
I have lost count of the number of incidents where I have effectively saved someone from death or serious injury which they did their best to cause. Last minute tossers, who overtake just as the road goes from 2 lanes down to 1, not realising that the traffic in front of me has stopped and there is no-where to go. People overtaking a parked vehicle on the other side of the road, who then find themselves facing a 44 ton truck (me) because they just followed the car in front rather than waiting to see if it was clear. People who come round tight bends with their wheels over the central white line then find me coming the other way, also on the white line (because I can't get around the corner otherwise in an 18 metre long vehicle). People at junctions who see a truck coming and pull out anyway, coz it's only a truck. Never mind that 44 tonnes at 40 mph can't stop in less than the length of the truck. The list goes on and on. Motorways can get ridiculous. The outer 2 lanes are nose to tail with cars all doing 65 to 70 mph, so if I come up to a slower vehicle and have to overtake, I can't get out. I put the indicator on, and it gets ignored, so eventually I have to force my way out. Yeah sure I could slow down, but I would never get out, and you don't realise how much extra energy and effort it takes to get a truck up to a reasonable speed.
That's what really bugs me. People moan about being stuck behind slow moving trucks, but then go out of their way to ensure that I stay "slow moving" !
I would like to see a week long truck drivers strike with 100% turnout. See how long it takes for the ignorant proles to realise they have no food, no raw materials, no waste collections, no fuel, and no wages without trucks providing the service they do.
Trust me, if you have a brain, don't drive a truck for a living. Logic has no place on the road. One day, I was in a country lane after delivering to a quarry. There is no other way in to this quarry because of low bridges. I met a woman driving a bloody great merc and it was obvious that there wasn't enough room to pass. But she still kept coming towards me, until she was jammed up against the hedge. It took a good 10 minutes for her to accept the situation and then reverse back, by which time there was a large queue behind both of us. As I passed her (eventually) she asked me if "I had any business" being in this lane ! No, I replied, I just do this to piss YOU off. Ignorant.
Finally, bear in mind that there are rules regarding maximum driving AND working hours. Maximum of 9 hours driving a day, and a maximum of 15 hours a day working (usually only 13 hours). Every hour lost due to congestion means I was as much as 50 miles behind schedule. It doesn't matter if you're only driving to the local shops, but when you've got to get from Southampton to Walsall, deliver a load then get somewhere else to reload and head off again to deliver all in the same day, every lost minute due to other traffic counts. And people wonder why things cost so much in the shops.
BTW, my job was paying me £24,000 per year - take home pay.
And your reason for voting is ?
After all, you get to hear all kinds of rhetoric during election season, and it's mostly all bullshit. So by NOT voting, you win ?