I also agree with this one.
Just under two years ago I was a porky 117 kgs (257 lb) and did almost no exercise except for a few token visits to the gym each week. Bought a push bike and haven't looked back since. Down to 87 kgs (191 lb) and falling. I'm now getting up at 5am for my daily commute to work and some extra training. After joining the local cycling club I've also started bike racing on the weekends.
Also... endorphins, better than sex (which coincidently is much better now), they last longer.
I'd mod you up, but you're already at 5. Well said, much better than the rest of the crap "oh noes, I use a video camera, I need my rights protected!!!!!"
However, I think that the law would have an additional benefit, in this case punishment of the person filming the attack. While I think there should be exclusions around someone filming the event because they are simply in the right place at the right time or capture an attack inadvertently. A person involved in the attack, like a friend or accomplice, through specifically filming it should also be charged with an offence.
The problem is that the current wording isn't very specific. I guess you could add things like colluding or filming for the express purpose of capturing the attack. You could let a jury decide on the evidence. I guess by watching the video, you'd have a pretty good idea of what the motives of the person filming it would be. If their intentions are clear cut and beyond reasonable doubt, lock em up.
Exactly what I was thinking. Who wants to carry around extra devices? That's not convenient at all. The more that you can put into a single reasonably sized device the better I'd say.
I recently had to fix a HP laptop with a reinstall of XP they'd done only 1 month ago (from the supplied CDs and the XP key stuck to it) and yes WGA failed because it couldn't update itself with the latest version. It wouldn't login without a 5 second timer on the WGA warning and many, many popups. It looked like spyware and other nasties were preventing some.dlls registering and this was stopping WGA from running. But the stupid thing is that because of this, XP couldn't download windows updates. Had to start again with a re-format and re-install. I can't imagine that this would be an isolated case.
There is an allegation that article about the use of fake torrents by the MPAA to harvest IP address so they can use them to send out infringement notices, which has then been converted to a fact by the submitter.
I suspect that the MPAA has these fake torrents to confuse people and waste their time downloading junk, in the hope that they'll give up using torrents. It's a very weak link to suggest that these are being used to send copyright infringement notices.
haha, thanks for the macroeconomics lesson and you only needed two lines!
Would have made a bit more sense if the wireless products were being sold only to Australians (and the CSIRO doesn't usually ask for payment from Australian companies), but their technology is being sold worldwide.
The CSIRO (the inventor of the technology) gets money from me and every other Australian taxpayer. They receive royalty payments from companies worldwide for the use of something they invented. Funding to the CSIRO is reduced because they have another income stream. The Australian government, with its reduced spend on the CSIRO can now take that money and spend it on something else or return it to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts.
Well, we'd get them back indirectly. The CSIRO has stated in their press release that they plan to use any money from royalty payments to fund further research. This means that we, the taxpayers, don't have to.
Well, you could look at what happened to this guy. man faces extradition to US He broke no Australian laws, never set foot in the US and is facing extradition.
god, the solution is so simple. Simply make a "Specialized" TV which is needed to go along with the "Specialized" DVD player! Solves that problem and you, the consumer get to buy even more shit!
haha, i duplicated the same three pages in my technical documentation on a software assignment in high school. Just did up a real looking TOC, changed the headings and added some line breaks, because I knew my teacher wouldn't even read it.
and is therefore unreliable. i.e. You can't rely on it in a court of law. If you RTFA
attaching an assessment of Heusser's PC-CRASH
simulation from Boyd Allin of MacInnis Engineering Associates, Inc., which
is the distributor of PC-CRASH for North America. Similar to McHenry,
Allin opined that Heusser's arbitrary 'inputs' made the results of the
occupant modeling highly suspect. Allin also stated that the PC-CRASH
program could not calculate the speed change of a vehicle when it strikes a
pole and pulls it out of the ground, and that Heusser should have
considered this problem in his calculations. Finally, Allin emphasized that the multi-body model PC-CRASH program had not been validated for use in modeling the interaction of occupants within the vehicle interior, and that Heusser's use represented 'an overextension of the capabilities of the model.'
I do agree that ISPs could be more responsible but there is a little more to it than that. If an ISP simply cuts a user account then how are they ever going to get their machine fixed? They can't download any virus protection without an internet connection. Even if they go to a store and purchase some AV they still need to get up-to date definitions without internet access.
Also, administering this would be a huge headache for the ISP. If you boot people off the first thing they do is call, you can't e-mail someone without a connection. Even once you make them aware of the problem half of the fools wouldn't even know they were infected. You then need another call when the user is finally fixed. It amounts to about 3-4 calls per infection, this takes a huge toll on an ISP.
yes, I work at an ISP which aggressively pursues infected users and yes it's costing us. We've tossed up the idea of captive portals where they can get definitions etc etc What do other think?
I'm trying to work out whether you are fucking stupid, or just a troll?
First off, a video to video connection is a stupid comparison. It has little to do with the type of internet connection you have. What the fuck has WiMax got to do with your inability to setup video conferencing? And you do realise how little bandwidth you need to send a 64x64 video signal at 3fps on your 3G mobile, it's nothing like the speeds that should be available with WiMax.
WiFi is nothing like WiMax except that they are both forms of wireless communication, as you can't even get a WiFi router to work in an appartment i'm gessing that you're going to have difficulty understanding that WiMax is typically for basestation to subscriber internet access. Think similar to a mobile phone connection in the case of 802.16e.
WiMax setups will be run by telecommunications companies, at least in the case of licensed spectrum. How shared RF ranges will work remains to be seen.
One technology is flaky PC tech stuff, the other sturdy telecom grade.
Of course it is at the moment, because it's in development and the standard hasn't even been finished yet. The pre-WiMax stuff has been flaky to a degree(flaky PC tech stuff - whatever you're refering to there) but that is to be expected and I don't doubt that this will improve.
What does WIMAX bring to the table for consumers thats so great given its not mobile and its pricepoint is still quite high?
WiMax should bring a lower cost to the existing pre-WiMax gear. You're comparing the cost of the pre-WiMax stuff. The reason why the standard is so important is that it allows for multiple manufactures all producing the same equipment, increased competition hopefully = lower prices. It also means that they can invest more money in production equipment and processes knowing that the technology should be around for a while.
You'll be waiting even longer if you want to use WiMax for a connection in a moving car. The WiMax (802.16) standard is for portable broaband access, connections that you can take with you but don't work so well while moving (ref).
802.16e is looking at adding mobility to WiMax but what you'll really need for access while mobile is 802.20 - (MBWA) - Mobile Broadband Wireless Access. This standard is specifically for broadband access while moving.
Slashdot Mirror
I also agree with this one. Just under two years ago I was a porky 117 kgs (257 lb) and did almost no exercise except for a few token visits to the gym each week. Bought a push bike and haven't looked back since. Down to 87 kgs (191 lb) and falling. I'm now getting up at 5am for my daily commute to work and some extra training. After joining the local cycling club I've also started bike racing on the weekends. Also... endorphins, better than sex (which coincidently is much better now), they last longer.
....and it looks like that's exactly what the law says, The article in the submission has it wrong.d =18258848
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=225458&ci
I'd mod you up, but you're already at 5. Well said, much better than the rest of the crap "oh noes, I use a video camera, I need my rights protected!!!!!"
However, I think that the law would have an additional benefit, in this case punishment of the person filming the attack. While I think there should be exclusions around someone filming the event because they are simply in the right place at the right time or capture an attack inadvertently. A person involved in the attack, like a friend or accomplice, through specifically filming it should also be charged with an offence.
The problem is that the current wording isn't very specific. I guess you could add things like colluding or filming for the express purpose of capturing the attack. You could let a jury decide on the evidence. I guess by watching the video, you'd have a pretty good idea of what the motives of the person filming it would be. If their intentions are clear cut and beyond reasonable doubt, lock em up.
Exactly what I was thinking. Who wants to carry around extra devices? That's not convenient at all. The more that you can put into a single reasonably sized device the better I'd say.
Why was that modded funny?
.dlls registering and this was stopping WGA from running. But the stupid thing is that because of this, XP couldn't download windows updates. Had to start again with a re-format and re-install. I can't imagine that this would be an isolated case.
I recently had to fix a HP laptop with a reinstall of XP they'd done only 1 month ago (from the supplied CDs and the XP key stuck to it) and yes WGA failed because it couldn't update itself with the latest version. It wouldn't login without a 5 second timer on the WGA warning and many, many popups.
It looked like spyware and other nasties were preventing some
There is an allegation that article about the use of fake torrents by the MPAA to harvest IP address so they can use them to send out infringement notices, which has then been converted to a fact by the submitter.
I suspect that the MPAA has these fake torrents to confuse people and waste their time downloading junk, in the hope that they'll give up using torrents. It's a very weak link to suggest that these are being used to send copyright infringement notices.
Agreed, very smart.
Because not only do they make more money, but they can now get some good PR out of appearing to be motivated by saving the environment.
For the love of god please don't RTFA! It hurts.
haha, thanks for the macroeconomics lesson and you only needed two lines! Would have made a bit more sense if the wireless products were being sold only to Australians (and the CSIRO doesn't usually ask for payment from Australian companies), but their technology is being sold worldwide. The CSIRO (the inventor of the technology) gets money from me and every other Australian taxpayer. They receive royalty payments from companies worldwide for the use of something they invented. Funding to the CSIRO is reduced because they have another income stream. The Australian government, with its reduced spend on the CSIRO can now take that money and spend it on something else or return it to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts.
Well, we'd get them back indirectly. The CSIRO has stated in their press release that they plan to use any money from royalty payments to fund further research. This means that we, the taxpayers, don't have to.
[Simpsons, Family Guy, Office Space, Spaceballs Quote]
or, better still. Some kind of scrolling device below the screen. Now that would be good.
Well, you could look at what happened to this guy. man faces extradition to US
He broke no Australian laws, never set foot in the US and is facing extradition.
I don't see what the big problem is. If they'd bought insurance they could replace the data storage tapes easily...
god, the solution is so simple. Simply make a "Specialized" TV which is needed to go along with the "Specialized" DVD player! Solves that problem and you, the consumer get to buy even more shit!
No way I'm I downloading it from iTunes. I'm going to wait till they release it here or here. Save 80c on my silence.
haha, i duplicated the same three pages in my technical documentation on a software assignment in high school. Just did up a real looking TOC, changed the headings and added some line breaks, because I knew my teacher wouldn't even read it.
And she didn't
uncertified.
and is therefore unreliable. i.e. You can't rely on it in a court of law. If you RTFA
attaching an assessment of Heusser's PC-CRASH simulation from Boyd Allin of MacInnis Engineering Associates, Inc., which is the distributor of PC-CRASH for North America. Similar to McHenry, Allin opined that Heusser's arbitrary 'inputs' made the results of the occupant modeling highly suspect. Allin also stated that the PC-CRASH program could not calculate the speed change of a vehicle when it strikes a pole and pulls it out of the ground, and that Heusser should have considered this problem in his calculations. Finally, Allin emphasized that the multi-body model PC-CRASH program had not been validated for use in modeling the interaction of occupants within the vehicle interior, and that Heusser's use represented 'an overextension of the capabilities of the model.'
I do agree that ISPs could be more responsible but there is a little more to it than that. If an ISP simply cuts a user account then how are they ever going to get their machine fixed? They can't download any virus protection without an internet connection. Even if they go to a store and purchase some AV they still need to get up-to date definitions without internet access.
Also, administering this would be a huge headache for the ISP. If you boot people off the first thing they do is call, you can't e-mail someone without a connection. Even once you make them aware of the problem half of the fools wouldn't even know they were infected. You then need another call when the user is finally fixed. It amounts to about 3-4 calls per infection, this takes a huge toll on an ISP.
yes, I work at an ISP which aggressively pursues infected users and yes it's costing us. We've tossed up the idea of captive portals where they can get definitions etc etc What do other think?
And if we see job postings for cryogenics engineers, we can assume that the G6 powermacs are being designed.
or... Apple is swtiching to Prescott! You heard it here first folks!
I'm trying to work out whether you are fucking stupid, or just a troll?
First off, a video to video connection is a stupid comparison. It has little to do with the type of internet connection you have. What the fuck has WiMax got to do with your inability to setup video conferencing? And you do realise how little bandwidth you need to send a 64x64 video signal at 3fps on your 3G mobile, it's nothing like the speeds that should be available with WiMax.
WiFi is nothing like WiMax except that they are both forms of wireless communication, as you can't even get a WiFi router to work in an appartment i'm gessing that you're going to have difficulty understanding that WiMax is typically for basestation to subscriber internet access. Think similar to a mobile phone connection in the case of 802.16e.
WiMax setups will be run by telecommunications companies, at least in the case of licensed spectrum. How shared RF ranges will work remains to be seen.
One technology is flaky PC tech stuff, the other sturdy telecom grade.
Of course it is at the moment, because it's in development and the standard hasn't even been finished yet. The pre-WiMax stuff has been flaky to a degree(flaky PC tech stuff - whatever you're refering to there) but that is to be expected and I don't doubt that this will improve.
Yes they can, but with that technology it chews through their spectrum and they can only have a limited number of subscribers per base station.
What does WIMAX bring to the table for consumers thats so great given its not mobile and its pricepoint is still quite high?
WiMax should bring a lower cost to the existing pre-WiMax gear. You're comparing the cost of the pre-WiMax stuff. The reason why the standard is so important is that it allows for multiple manufactures all producing the same equipment, increased competition hopefully = lower prices. It also means that they can invest more money in production equipment and processes knowing that the technology should be around for a while.
You'll be waiting even longer if you want to use WiMax for a connection in a moving car. The WiMax (802.16) standard is for portable broaband access, connections that you can take with you but don't work so well while moving (ref).
802.16e is looking at adding mobility to WiMax but what you'll really need for access while mobile is 802.20 - (MBWA) - Mobile Broadband Wireless Access. This standard is specifically for broadband access while moving.