Funny you should say that. I ask a French guy (while roaming around in France) why eveyone ignored a particular law... He said, "Do what the french do, if it's a stupid law, ignore it).
However, it only works if enveryone does.
I'm listening to the radio right now, at work... and I'm not paying for it. So why should the dentist?
The Dentist and myself are not making money from playing music... at least not in any obvious way; could you claim my productivity goes up; Would you charge me to listen to the radio if it did?
Lets assume you charge me to listen to the radio, because I'm making money when my productivity goes up... so I stop listening to the radio, and the radio station goes out of business because they don't have any listeners, so the folk getting the law changed don't make money...
Yah, thats blathering... but so is the industry going after the dentists. silly.
I'v got an idea, I'll sing my own song in the presence of the industry reps, then bill them for listening to my original music.. and if they don't pay I'll sue them for violating my copyright.
Clearly pure greed.
You'd think that the university would be thankful at the least, they did it in the open, with express intent of show that it could be done. Now the university knows its go holes.
I suspect there is a staff some place feeling a bit as if they didn't do their job, so they blame it on the students.
With any *luck*, our system will shrug off such idiots.
Re:Political commentary at the Key Bridge in DC
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
The point is the word "fanatics" not "Fundamentalist"... and that *is* the problem regardless of the organization (religious or otherwise and yes I include Chritian fanatics, and no, I'm not one).
VoIP is becoming more and more popular up here, except we usually use a wired connection. Quality and service are fairly good... but like all new technology there are bugs to be worked out of the system.
Our biggest problem is not with the company selling the VoIP service, but the high-speed provider we use for our connection.
People have been doing this for years... heck its even in the editor I used for writing software,a dn has been for at least 3 years already!
Hey, do what the french do, if the law is stupid, ignore it.
That is exactly what I do, although it doesn't protect passwords cached by the system, any user generated data is on a separate removable disk.
THis is also good when you wnat to redo your system you don't have to worry about collecting and saving all your old data.
actually, if they deleted any email that didn't come from a short-list of addresses (or domains) and archived the rest, the would likely keep most of the stuff that should be kept.
Funny you should say that... I run FreeBSD/KDE and Windows XP... guess which one I have less problems with?
This article seems very much anti-windows for the sake of being anti-windows, and doesn't actually say anything.
I would remind the author that windows didn't get to be 90% of the market by being hard to use, and a spammer doesn't always know much about how the net works... not to mention the not-so-savvy folks who manage to get 20 viruses infecting the computer.
so... are you surprised that more spam comes from windows boxes? To me, this says that windows is where the money is, both in selling software and for a spammer... and I hate to say it, but money is what drives this in the first place.
How is this a "standard" besides the fact that the two companies that got together *say* it's a standard?
This is particularly questionable since one of the "special" things about this story was that they decided to do it without the w3c being involved. Not that I think the w3c is the end-all and be-all, but they *are* a standards body... which would then make this forms crap a standard *in fact* and not just in marketing.
As for MS not implementing the "standard" I would point out that they would if it was indeed a standard... thats how they stole the market share in the first place... they simply made their browser be able to read *anything*.
I guess by now you can see that I don't agree with the excitement. it seems to be that we're simply adding another layer over top all the other garbage layers that HTML has become... so far this seems like just another unneeded framework when there is so much more that could be improved instead.
BTW - there are a lot of us who develop HTML as some part of our work... but that doesn't mean that I'm going to jump on the wagon just because the wheels move.
no fool... 200mw is quite a bit when runnig from batteries. As for 30+ time more power for the rest of the system sounds a little high... they are using a low power (and fanless) switching regulator.
The HD is what... 200-500 mA, the network cards likely about the same so If I'm using up 30 mA on a single blue LED that a significant amount of current... Though how much current a LED draws is dependant on the dope and colour, it's the red that draw the least power... which is the point that the fellow above was trying to make.
Actually, that particular regulator likely doesn't even need the heat sink, if I remember correctly it can handle 1.5A, which shoulod be more than enough for a low power device like the router... however the heat sink can't hurt.
Does anyone remember what things where like 6 or 7 years ago, when they tried a similar thing?
In the end the simply lost out their market share to IE.
Obviously this is an attempt to provide "added value" but I suspect that coming up with something incompatible and proprietary is not going to make things easy for developers trying to integrate their "new" technology.
IMO - Sorry, but it just doesn't pass the "So What?" test.... just another block of junk code in the browser(s) that no one will use.
It's a common thing to hear, but I don't see it as a reality. I notice most of use are focused on the "xml" -- I say now, end ever after, you will never get me writing a program in XML.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny you should say that. I ask a French guy (while roaming around in France) why eveyone ignored a particular law... He said, "Do what the french do, if it's a stupid law, ignore it). However, it only works if enveryone does.
I'm listening to the radio right now, at work... and I'm not paying for it. So why should the dentist? The Dentist and myself are not making money from playing music... at least not in any obvious way; could you claim my productivity goes up; Would you charge me to listen to the radio if it did? Lets assume you charge me to listen to the radio, because I'm making money when my productivity goes up... so I stop listening to the radio, and the radio station goes out of business because they don't have any listeners, so the folk getting the law changed don't make money... Yah, thats blathering... but so is the industry going after the dentists. silly. I'v got an idea, I'll sing my own song in the presence of the industry reps, then bill them for listening to my original music.. and if they don't pay I'll sue them for violating my copyright. Clearly pure greed.
You'd think that the university would be thankful at the least, they did it in the open, with express intent of show that it could be done. Now the university knows its go holes. I suspect there is a staff some place feeling a bit as if they didn't do their job, so they blame it on the students.
It'll be an RFID chip. See: This example RFID chip from Microchip Inc.
See this CBC article: "Online music swapping legal: court"
With any *luck*, our system will shrug off such idiots.
The point is the word "fanatics" not "Fundamentalist"... and that *is* the problem regardless of the organization (religious or otherwise and yes I include Chritian fanatics, and no, I'm not one).
http://www.geocities.com/zs6bne/myrobotlawnmower.h tm
Interesting, looks a lot like the Canadian combat uniform: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_68.asp ?uSubSection=68&uSection=5
Our biggest problem is not with the company selling the VoIP service, but the high-speed provider we use for our connection.
Thumbs up from this end.
People have been doing this for years... heck its even in the editor I used for writing software,a dn has been for at least 3 years already! Hey, do what the french do, if the law is stupid, ignore it.
That is exactly what I do, although it doesn't protect passwords cached by the system, any user generated data is on a separate removable disk. THis is also good when you wnat to redo your system you don't have to worry about collecting and saving all your old data.
actually, if they deleted any email that didn't come from a short-list of addresses (or domains) and archived the rest, the would likely keep most of the stuff that should be kept.
This article seems very much anti-windows for the sake of being anti-windows, and doesn't actually say anything.
I would remind the author that windows didn't get to be 90% of the market by being hard to use, and a spammer doesn't always know much about how the net works... not to mention the not-so-savvy folks who manage to get 20 viruses infecting the computer.
so... are you surprised that more spam comes from windows boxes? To me, this says that windows is where the money is, both in selling software and for a spammer... and I hate to say it, but money is what drives this in the first place.
Yes, I see your point. Begs for a switching supply I think :) but thats a little tougher to hand build on a proto-board.
This is particularly questionable since one of the "special" things about this story was that they decided to do it without the w3c being involved. Not that I think the w3c is the end-all and be-all, but they *are* a standards body... which would then make this forms crap a standard *in fact* and not just in marketing.
As for MS not implementing the "standard" I would point out that they would if it was indeed a standard... thats how they stole the market share in the first place... they simply made their browser be able to read *anything*.
I guess by now you can see that I don't agree with the excitement. it seems to be that we're simply adding another layer over top all the other garbage layers that HTML has become... so far this seems like just another unneeded framework when there is so much more that could be improved instead.
BTW - there are a lot of us who develop HTML as some part of our work... but that doesn't mean that I'm going to jump on the wagon just because the wheels move.
no fool... 200mw is quite a bit when runnig from batteries. As for 30+ time more power for the rest of the system sounds a little high... they are using a low power (and fanless) switching regulator. The HD is what... 200-500 mA, the network cards likely about the same so If I'm using up 30 mA on a single blue LED that a significant amount of current... Though how much current a LED draws is dependant on the dope and colour, it's the red that draw the least power... which is the point that the fellow above was trying to make.
Actually, that particular regulator likely doesn't even need the heat sink, if I remember correctly it can handle 1.5A, which shoulod be more than enough for a low power device like the router... however the heat sink can't hurt.
Does anyone remember what things where like 6 or 7 years ago, when they tried a similar thing? In the end the simply lost out their market share to IE. Obviously this is an attempt to provide "added value" but I suspect that coming up with something incompatible and proprietary is not going to make things easy for developers trying to integrate their "new" technology. IMO - Sorry, but it just doesn't pass the "So What?" test.... just another block of junk code in the browser(s) that no one will use.
It's a common thing to hear, but I don't see it as a reality. I notice most of use are focused on the "xml" -- I say now, end ever after, you will never get me writing a program in XML.