Just as I'm thinking of purchasing myself a copy too!
Do we know if demand has just been significantly higher than expected, or have Blizzard messed up in some fashion? I know if we hit load problems like this where I work, so soon after launch, I'd be out of the job.
I hope the probe has windscreen wipers, otherwise it's another few million dollars down the toilet for NASA. Seriously, they need this mission to work, with their recent record, if they want to maintain any of the remnants of their credibility.
All this would never have happened if big oil companies hadn't hijacked the green movement and prevented the widespread adoption of nuclear power, an energy source which doesn't release significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
In my experience, it's mainly the extremist open-source loonies who froth at the mouth at the mere suggestion of an advertisment who actually notice that thing after about five seconds of using the browser. All the people I've introduced to Opera tune it out quite readily and quickly.
It's a very silly attitude that he has. Open-source software has its place, of course, but so does closed-source commercial products.
Look at Firefox for instance. Fine piece of software (although I still prefer Opera), but would it have half of the innovations and features and advantages over IE that it has, if it weren't for the fact that Opera did them first?
Open Source software is a fine concept and a fine idea, but a piece of software is not useless simply because it's not under one of the various GNU-styled licences. Only trolls and anti-microsoft zealots with a tenuous grip on reality really think that.
Where do you get that from? There is most certainly not seventy seven thousand tons of highly dangerous spent fuel rods sitting around waiting to be dumped. The actual dangerous nuclear waste, the glowing green stuff that'll cause death if you touch it, is a tiny fraction of the quantity of "nuclear waste", less than 1%, or a couple of dozen kilograms per reactor per year. I think that disposing of such a small quantity of stuff isn't beyond our means. The rest of the rubbish is low-level stuff that's only nominally dangerous, such as contaminated tools, clothing, and other garbage that is not dangerous for short, or even medium-term exposure. You can read more here.
The other problem with what you propose, is that there are no other real alternatives. Ironically, fossil fuel plans release more carcinogens and radioactive garbage into the air than do nuclear plants. So-called "clean" methods like solar and wind power depend on weather conditions, and are prohibitively expensive in terms of kw/h. Hydroelectric power causes massive environmental devastation from flooding with dams, and geothermal power is limited to a few isolated spots where sufficient geothermal heat leaks through, usually places that aren't anywhere near population centres that demand power anyway.
So, what other alternatives are there? None, as far as I can see. The alarmist crap that you just spouted is just the sort of scare-tactic smear-campaign that I'd expect from the oil industry in order to protect their oil profits, and stop the world from adopting a safe, nuclear alternative.
But my understanding is that the law enforcement doesn't get into it before the *AA anyway.
I believe that what happens, is that the **AA sees that you're sharing files, and downloads them. They then (sometimes) verify that the files in question are indeed copyrighted material, and then they call in their lawyers to sue you. Law enforcement doesn't usually enter into it until it's too late, at least when they're just after casual swappers.
Since the RIAA doesn't (yet) have the law enforcement powers that the constabulary have, this could be a good idea for the casual swapper. Then again, the casual swapper isn't likely to take any precautions for their own safety at all, as shown by the continuing popularity of security-hazard software like Kazaa.
Your average user doesn't give a toss about digital keys, numeric-IP addresses, md5 checksums, or.asc keys. They just want to run their damn software. To someone without the benefit of an education or extensive experience with computers (ie: most of those people still running IE), such things certainly won't look "suspicious", because they won't know what to look for.
Firefox is good and all, but they really still need to look at their usability from the point of view of the average user.
"It's limited in its support for ICCCM, no NETWM support and it has no iconification, virtual desktops, shading, keybindings or button bindings, but it does WORK (just). it's also fast and beautiful."
If you don't mind, I'll wait until it actually does something other than "work" before I get too excited.
I suspect it won't be all that long before we start to see this term misapplied in non-computer related stories, instead of just computer-related stories. Can't you just imagine it?
Vatican condemns blog abortion statistics
Ukranian president in blog election scandal
Australian cricket team wins the toss and elects to blog
On a more relevant note, it's a good idea in theory, but I doubt that I'd want to share much of my precious capped bandwidth to distribute the video of some bozo's holiday to Byron Bay.
Unless we're approaching a situation where more than 50% of the population of the city is "poor" (and by "poor", I mean so desperately impoverished that they can't even afford dialup), then why the hell should it be subsidised? There are much, much, much cheaper ways to provide internet access to the poor, such as setting it up in council libraries, schools, and public facilities.
But I digress. The fact is, for 99.99% of people, high-speed wireless internet access is not a necessity. So, if you want it, you should pay market rates for it. I object to the idea of my tax dollars being thrown into subsidising anything but essential services (such as power, water, etc).
I realise that this is probably going to get me beaten up, but why the hell is the city government planning on offering this service anyway? Surely the provision of broadband internet services for a fee is a job for a private company, not a job for the government.
My first instinct is to scoff and laugh at this, but then again, I scoffed and laughed when I heard that Microsoft would be developing a gaming console.
Lets face it, Microsoft have a lot of cash lying about, and they're not stupid - if they want it badly enough, they'll get in on the market. Which isn't entirely a bad thing, competition is a good thing, as long as they behave.
Plus, with another TV provider, maybe there'll finally be something decent on to watch.
And when the security is breached, as it inevitably will, who's fault is it that IT was all touchy-feely with the users rather than making the difficult choices to keep the system secure and the data safe?
IT is there to keep the network secure, not to make friends. If you want "useful" services, go and pay for and maintain your own network.
You humour gland seems to be ruptured. I believe that they have a pill you can take for that, now....
Although, yes, I do believe that any sort of morality which frowns upon consenting adults doing what they want is backward. This even includes consenting adults appearing in bizarro-fetish films. I do not agree on moral grounds with censorship, no matter what is being censored, so long as it meets the above criteria. Kiddie porn is different though, in that it does not merely include willing adult participants. For the same reason, I think there are valid reasons to censor video of people getting killed (well, unless it is consensual), people or animals being brutalised, etc.
But regular garden-variety porno? Nope, no real moral reason to restrict that, as far as I'm concerned. Hence my snigger at the CCP's expense.
From what I hear from friends in China, the Great Firewall is a bit of a sad joke. It only blocks the most obvious sites, but anyone with even the tiniest bit of will to get through it will find a way.
So, lets just laugh at the funny backwards communists in China and their hilariously outdated sense of morality!
It depends on just how "closed" the closed-source component of the partnership is. If it's something like Java, which is mostly open in its technological aspects, but legally closed, and there is an undertaking from the owner that there will be no GIF-style schenanigans, then why not?
On the other hand, if we're talking about, say, the MS Word "standard", then I just don't think that a partnership with Open Source is possible. There's no real reason why an Open Source project would need to use such a standard anyway, so I think the answer probably has to be "probably not"
Slashdot Mirror
Just as I'm thinking of purchasing myself a copy too!
Do we know if demand has just been significantly higher than expected, or have Blizzard messed up in some fashion? I know if we hit load problems like this where I work, so soon after launch, I'd be out of the job.
It's very misty and murky there.
I hope the probe has windscreen wipers, otherwise it's another few million dollars down the toilet for NASA. Seriously, they need this mission to work, with their recent record, if they want to maintain any of the remnants of their credibility.
Good luck, guys.
All this would never have happened if big oil companies hadn't hijacked the green movement and prevented the widespread adoption of nuclear power, an energy source which doesn't release significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
Just saying...
No, I'm in that minority too.
In my experience, it's mainly the extremist open-source loonies who froth at the mouth at the mere suggestion of an advertisment who actually notice that thing after about five seconds of using the browser. All the people I've introduced to Opera tune it out quite readily and quickly.
It's a very silly attitude that he has. Open-source software has its place, of course, but so does closed-source commercial products.
Look at Firefox for instance. Fine piece of software (although I still prefer Opera), but would it have half of the innovations and features and advantages over IE that it has, if it weren't for the fact that Opera did them first?
Open Source software is a fine concept and a fine idea, but a piece of software is not useless simply because it's not under one of the various GNU-styled licences. Only trolls and anti-microsoft zealots with a tenuous grip on reality really think that.
77,000 tons?
Where do you get that from? There is most certainly not seventy seven thousand tons of highly dangerous spent fuel rods sitting around waiting to be dumped. The actual dangerous nuclear waste, the glowing green stuff that'll cause death if you touch it, is a tiny fraction of the quantity of "nuclear waste", less than 1%, or a couple of dozen kilograms per reactor per year. I think that disposing of such a small quantity of stuff isn't beyond our means. The rest of the rubbish is low-level stuff that's only nominally dangerous, such as contaminated tools, clothing, and other garbage that is not dangerous for short, or even medium-term exposure. You can read more here.
The other problem with what you propose, is that there are no other real alternatives. Ironically, fossil fuel plans release more carcinogens and radioactive garbage into the air than do nuclear plants. So-called "clean" methods like solar and wind power depend on weather conditions, and are prohibitively expensive in terms of kw/h. Hydroelectric power causes massive environmental devastation from flooding with dams, and geothermal power is limited to a few isolated spots where sufficient geothermal heat leaks through, usually places that aren't anywhere near population centres that demand power anyway.
So, what other alternatives are there? None, as far as I can see. The alarmist crap that you just spouted is just the sort of scare-tactic smear-campaign that I'd expect from the oil industry in order to protect their oil profits, and stop the world from adopting a safe, nuclear alternative.
But my understanding is that the law enforcement doesn't get into it before the *AA anyway.
I believe that what happens, is that the **AA sees that you're sharing files, and downloads them. They then (sometimes) verify that the files in question are indeed copyrighted material, and then they call in their lawyers to sue you. Law enforcement doesn't usually enter into it until it's too late, at least when they're just after casual swappers.
Since the RIAA doesn't (yet) have the law enforcement powers that the constabulary have, this could be a good idea for the casual swapper. Then again, the casual swapper isn't likely to take any precautions for their own safety at all, as shown by the continuing popularity of security-hazard software like Kazaa.
You're missing the point
Your average user doesn't give a toss about digital keys, numeric-IP addresses, md5 checksums, or .asc keys. They just want to run their damn software. To someone without the benefit of an education or extensive experience with computers (ie: most of those people still running IE), such things certainly won't look "suspicious", because they won't know what to look for.
Firefox is good and all, but they really still need to look at their usability from the point of view of the average user.
"It's limited in its support for ICCCM, no NETWM support and it has no iconification, virtual desktops, shading, keybindings or button bindings, but it does WORK (just). it's also fast and beautiful."
If you don't mind, I'll wait until it actually does something other than "work" before I get too excited.
Blog blog blog blog!
I suspect it won't be all that long before we start to see this term misapplied in non-computer related stories, instead of just computer-related stories. Can't you just imagine it?
On a more relevant note, it's a good idea in theory, but I doubt that I'd want to share much of my precious capped bandwidth to distribute the video of some bozo's holiday to Byron Bay.
Unless we're approaching a situation where more than 50% of the population of the city is "poor" (and by "poor", I mean so desperately impoverished that they can't even afford dialup), then why the hell should it be subsidised? There are much, much, much cheaper ways to provide internet access to the poor, such as setting it up in council libraries, schools, and public facilities.
But I digress. The fact is, for 99.99% of people, high-speed wireless internet access is not a necessity. So, if you want it, you should pay market rates for it. I object to the idea of my tax dollars being thrown into subsidising anything but essential services (such as power, water, etc).
I realise that this is probably going to get me beaten up, but why the hell is the city government planning on offering this service anyway? Surely the provision of broadband internet services for a fee is a job for a private company, not a job for the government.
+1 Insightful
My first instinct is to scoff and laugh at this, but then again, I scoffed and laughed when I heard that Microsoft would be developing a gaming console.
Lets face it, Microsoft have a lot of cash lying about, and they're not stupid - if they want it badly enough, they'll get in on the market. Which isn't entirely a bad thing, competition is a good thing, as long as they behave.
Plus, with another TV provider, maybe there'll finally be something decent on to watch.
...
Great.
Now I have to watch out for morons watching TV on their mobile phones while they drive their souped-up 4WDs in rush hour traffic.
Thanks, Fox!
And when the security is breached, as it inevitably will, who's fault is it that IT was all touchy-feely with the users rather than making the difficult choices to keep the system secure and the data safe?
IT is there to keep the network secure, not to make friends. If you want "useful" services, go and pay for and maintain your own network.
"If you have the responsibility for security without the authority to make changes, your only role is to be the fall guy when something goes wrong."
Oh.
Great.
As someone who works in a IT in a tropical environment, I would very much appreciate an opportunity to do some work in a sub-arctic zone.
Exactly in the same way that spam isn't terrorism.
Tell this to the gents over in NANAEYou humour gland seems to be ruptured. I believe that they have a pill you can take for that, now. ...
Although, yes, I do believe that any sort of morality which frowns upon consenting adults doing what they want is backward. This even includes consenting adults appearing in bizarro-fetish films. I do not agree on moral grounds with censorship, no matter what is being censored, so long as it meets the above criteria. Kiddie porn is different though, in that it does not merely include willing adult participants. For the same reason, I think there are valid reasons to censor video of people getting killed (well, unless it is consensual), people or animals being brutalised, etc.
But regular garden-variety porno? Nope, no real moral reason to restrict that, as far as I'm concerned. Hence my snigger at the CCP's expense.
From what I hear from friends in China, the Great Firewall is a bit of a sad joke. It only blocks the most obvious sites, but anyone with even the tiniest bit of will to get through it will find a way. So, lets just laugh at the funny backwards communists in China and their hilariously outdated sense of morality!
Micro$oft?
For God's sake, stop doing that.
...just not the freedom for Allawi to write his own speeches, or possibly say something that won't make him look like a US puppet.
Possibly.
It depends on just how "closed" the closed-source component of the partnership is. If it's something like Java, which is mostly open in its technological aspects, but legally closed, and there is an undertaking from the owner that there will be no GIF-style schenanigans, then why not?
On the other hand, if we're talking about, say, the MS Word "standard", then I just don't think that a partnership with Open Source is possible. There's no real reason why an Open Source project would need to use such a standard anyway, so I think the answer probably has to be "probably not"