I'n partially agree with you...
Problem with using the PC for everthing is that if the PC goes down, you're completely crippled. Learned this the hard way...
In one of the last places I lived in, I worked in the garden shed and had sixteen powerpoints put in. This is not a contest about how many electrical appliances you, me, or anyone else owns. Builders put as few powerpoints in as they can get away with because it costs them money. This 'tablecloth' would seem to be an ideal way of eliminating a lot of cable management issues. That and wifi would make life a lot easier. No matter how many electrical appliances you own, someone out there will own more - it's not a contest. Without knowing the number of powerpoints and space constraints, comments like 'unprofessional' are just abusive and make no useful contribution to a discussion.
Counted 4 twice and left out the USB Hub. It's a serviced office - I don't get to choose the size of the desk and I get provided with exactly two powerpoints for my work station. Its places like this that could use a sensible replacement for power cables and plugs. Either you get the point or you don't.
Or mayby I need an awful lot of electrical appliances: 1. iMac 2. Dymo LabelWriter 310 3. Laser Printer 4. Pitney Bowes Franking Machine 4. Tape Deck 5. Amplifier 6. DVD / VHS Deck 7 Standalone Monitor 8. Apple 12 inch Powerbook
Not to mention: 9. Tape Dispenser 10. Landline 11. Wiretrays for paperwork 12. Headphones 13. Large calculator
And yes, I do need all this stuff...
If this could help get rid of the mess of power plugs and cables under my desk, this would be utterly fantastic. Wonder what happens if a liquid is spilled on the surface though...
There is one big difference between children on the one hand and women and blacks on the other. Being black or female (or possibly both) is a permanent state. Being a child is a transitional stage and is acknowledged as such. I would suggest that eighteen be the across the board age of majority. I suspect that there are good historical reasons why in some states the age for driving might well be seventeen. If you live in farm country, the ability to drive legally is probably much more vital than in New York city. There will always be regional variations that take account of local conditions. Chlldren lack the perspective that age and distance bring.
Children rarely get prosecuted as adults unless the crime is particularly serious - this is England. Its certainly the common view among those in the Criminal Justice System that children and young people need protecting from themselves more than anything else. Juveniles lack the maturity and experience to make considered decisions about themselves and the societies they live in. Their lack of real world experience leads to them often substitute wishful thinking for serious decision making. I was a kid myself once and I certainly wouldn't have trusted myself with the vote, etc. I would agree that there are some adults that I wouldn't trust with the vote, etc. but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
If you haven't heard a good argument as to why young adults / children / teens can't have more of a say, then all I can say is that you have't been listening hard enough. Young adults have enough on their hands coping with the physical, emotional, and hormonal changes they are experiencing. What you're suggesting is irresponsible and damaging. Kids need to learn that rights are earned by those prepared to live up to their responsibilities.
A little surprised to see this appear under Cowboy Neal's byline on 31/3 as I submitted the story on the 27/3. But I gather we're both behind the times so I guess no harm done...
Apple did not reinvent the phone, they reinvented the iPod.
Yep and thank god they did. I will pay extra for an ipod that does phonecalls. And I suspect so will many others. Its all about ease of use and the tight integration. Unlike slashdotters, the rest of us are not masochists. We like things that just work.
.. are the problem. I live in the UK, which is one of the most heavily CCTV'd societies in the world (or so I'm told). There are several major problems with CCTV. The first of which is the 'arms race'. I have read that since the various CSI series have come up, criminals are watching them to learn the techniques to defeat forensic scientists. There will be a new generation of CCTV savvy criminals who are aware of the problem and will devise methods of defeating CCTV. There are already methods of defeating CCTV which currently exist - blind spots, changes of clothing, changes of clothing, reflective materials ' dazzle camouflage', operating at times of the day or night when CCTV are less effective, and using decoys. The other aspect is that analysing CCTV footage is time-consuming. I speak from personal experience. As a criminal defence lawyer, I am planning to use CCTV footage to help counter police testimony that my client assaulted a police officer. As far as I can tell, from the CCTV footage, no assault took place. The problem is that such footage can be misused. Potential abuses of such footage hardly need to be stated. The biggest two that come to mind for me are the enormous potential for misidentification and consequences that flow. Imagine if a guy that looked remarkably like you got caught on CCTV doing a robbery? Don't think that's possible? Consider this scenario - you walk into a petrol station (gas station for the yanks), leave two minutes later having forgotten your wallet, another guy looking like you but CCTV savvy evades the cameras and robs the store, the two of you like pretty similar (remember robbers also shop for clothes same place you do), and the footage and other circumstantial evidence, gets you nailed. Misidentification of forensic evidence. Has happened. A policewoman in Scotland was convicted for a criminal offence after the Forensic Lab got the fingerprint ID wrong. The problem with stories like this is that they assume that all CCTV footage is like HOLLYWOOD. The reality is that CCTV footage varies in quality, and the distance from camera has a major impact on the ability to identify the person on it. Mistakes happen but juries might end up being hypnotised by scientists muttering mumbo jumbo. There are plenty of stories of scientists overstating the quality of their research and the evidential material thereof. These guys usually get found out but its no comfort if you'd just had your entire life taken away because someone made a mistake.
The other major problem is the potential for abuse by a paranoid state power. Anyone remember the McCarthy era? Nuff said.
I guess the problem for most of us is that the potential for crime prevention is so massive that it is hard to argue against it. What scares me is that what is moral and what is legal are not the same thing, and the law is a very blunt instrument. Most of us have done a dumb thing or two in their time. No harm was done. Now there may be no hiding places whatsoever.
My £0.02 worth.
'It reads to me like this is the same as placing ads on regular Web sites. You may pay your local ISP for Internet access, not the content of the websites themselves. To say that you shouldn't get ads because you are paying for access says that your ISP should block ads from the websites you visit on your PC.'
Maybe I failed to read the article carefully enough, but if it is on the website that you surf, which I accept has nothing to do with Verizon, why does the placing of Banner Ads require any permission from Verizon?
I was under the impression that we were already paying for the phone service. Granted that there is advertising on Sky and cable services but this is just a drain on battery power. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Another crazy decision from judges who haven't a clue. It is unrealistic to expect Telcos and ISPs to actively manage and oversee websites. If they have to devote resources to anything, it should be locating websites hosting things that are way beyond the pale like child pornography.
It seems unlikely that some magic bullet will come and solve all our problems. The largest part of any solution has got to be a dramatic downward trend in energy consumption regardless of the source.
Given the ease of switching from one OS to another on intel mac, it seems inevitable that the Mac version of Office is doomed. Think Apple knew this and has been preparing for it. iWorks Pro anyone?
In an ideal world, you should be liable for what you publish. When that ideal world shows up, you will be. In the meantime, what we really need in a non-legal and quick way of dealing with libels.
About time. The net has changed the rules for publishing libel. Think we need a new set of rules. Not sure how it would pan out but some sort of quality mark for reliability and a sensible approach to libel across borders.
I recall one judge commenting that free speech does not entitle you to shout 'fire' in a crowded cinema. It's surely a question of degree. Freedom of speech should not extend to specifically targetting individuals, their friends and families, and property for assault or damage.
Kind of a joke. George Lucas makes films so bad they're goodddd....
The Star Wars series may totally suck but they have now occupied permanent headspace in my brain... argh...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, someone is going to have to pay for the increased bandwidth. Most likely the consumer.
that someone found a way to sue the bejesus out of patent trolls and their BS patents...
Why is this news?
Huh? This is a forum, there is a discussion going on... We can all disagree...
I'n partially agree with you... Problem with using the PC for everthing is that if the PC goes down, you're completely crippled. Learned this the hard way...
My apologies. I wasn't referring to you. Should have been much more careful...
You're probably right :-)
I wasn't keeping that close a score...
In one of the last places I lived in, I worked in the garden shed and had sixteen powerpoints put in. This is not a contest about how many electrical appliances you, me, or anyone else owns. Builders put as few powerpoints in as they can get away with because it costs them money. This 'tablecloth' would seem to be an ideal way of eliminating a lot of cable management issues. That and wifi would make life a lot easier. No matter how many electrical appliances you own, someone out there will own more - it's not a contest. Without knowing the number of powerpoints and space constraints, comments like 'unprofessional' are just abusive and make no useful contribution to a discussion.
Counted 4 twice and left out the USB Hub. It's a serviced office - I don't get to choose the size of the desk and I get provided with exactly two powerpoints for my work station. Its places like this that could use a sensible replacement for power cables and plugs. Either you get the point or you don't.
Or mayby I need an awful lot of electrical appliances: 1. iMac 2. Dymo LabelWriter 310 3. Laser Printer 4. Pitney Bowes Franking Machine 4. Tape Deck 5. Amplifier 6. DVD / VHS Deck 7 Standalone Monitor 8. Apple 12 inch Powerbook Not to mention: 9. Tape Dispenser 10. Landline 11. Wiretrays for paperwork 12. Headphones 13. Large calculator And yes, I do need all this stuff...
If this could help get rid of the mess of power plugs and cables under my desk, this would be utterly fantastic. Wonder what happens if a liquid is spilled on the surface though...
There is one big difference between children on the one hand and women and blacks on the other. Being black or female (or possibly both) is a permanent state. Being a child is a transitional stage and is acknowledged as such. I would suggest that eighteen be the across the board age of majority. I suspect that there are good historical reasons why in some states the age for driving might well be seventeen. If you live in farm country, the ability to drive legally is probably much more vital than in New York city. There will always be regional variations that take account of local conditions. Chlldren lack the perspective that age and distance bring.
Children rarely get prosecuted as adults unless the crime is particularly serious - this is England. Its certainly the common view among those in the Criminal Justice System that children and young people need protecting from themselves more than anything else. Juveniles lack the maturity and experience to make considered decisions about themselves and the societies they live in. Their lack of real world experience leads to them often substitute wishful thinking for serious decision making. I was a kid myself once and I certainly wouldn't have trusted myself with the vote, etc. I would agree that there are some adults that I wouldn't trust with the vote, etc. but the line has to be drawn somewhere. If you haven't heard a good argument as to why young adults / children / teens can't have more of a say, then all I can say is that you have't been listening hard enough. Young adults have enough on their hands coping with the physical, emotional, and hormonal changes they are experiencing. What you're suggesting is irresponsible and damaging. Kids need to learn that rights are earned by those prepared to live up to their responsibilities.
A little surprised to see this appear under Cowboy Neal's byline on 31/3 as I submitted the story on the 27/3. But I gather we're both behind the times so I guess no harm done...
Apple did not reinvent the phone, they reinvented the iPod. Yep and thank god they did. I will pay extra for an ipod that does phonecalls. And I suspect so will many others. Its all about ease of use and the tight integration. Unlike slashdotters, the rest of us are not masochists. We like things that just work.
.. are the problem. I live in the UK, which is one of the most heavily CCTV'd societies in the world (or so I'm told). There are several major problems with CCTV. The first of which is the 'arms race'. I have read that since the various CSI series have come up, criminals are watching them to learn the techniques to defeat forensic scientists. There will be a new generation of CCTV savvy criminals who are aware of the problem and will devise methods of defeating CCTV. There are already methods of defeating CCTV which currently exist - blind spots, changes of clothing, changes of clothing, reflective materials ' dazzle camouflage', operating at times of the day or night when CCTV are less effective, and using decoys. The other aspect is that analysing CCTV footage is time-consuming. I speak from personal experience. As a criminal defence lawyer, I am planning to use CCTV footage to help counter police testimony that my client assaulted a police officer. As far as I can tell, from the CCTV footage, no assault took place. The problem is that such footage can be misused. Potential abuses of such footage hardly need to be stated. The biggest two that come to mind for me are the enormous potential for misidentification and consequences that flow. Imagine if a guy that looked remarkably like you got caught on CCTV doing a robbery? Don't think that's possible? Consider this scenario - you walk into a petrol station (gas station for the yanks), leave two minutes later having forgotten your wallet, another guy looking like you but CCTV savvy evades the cameras and robs the store, the two of you like pretty similar (remember robbers also shop for clothes same place you do), and the footage and other circumstantial evidence, gets you nailed. Misidentification of forensic evidence. Has happened. A policewoman in Scotland was convicted for a criminal offence after the Forensic Lab got the fingerprint ID wrong. The problem with stories like this is that they assume that all CCTV footage is like HOLLYWOOD. The reality is that CCTV footage varies in quality, and the distance from camera has a major impact on the ability to identify the person on it. Mistakes happen but juries might end up being hypnotised by scientists muttering mumbo jumbo. There are plenty of stories of scientists overstating the quality of their research and the evidential material thereof. These guys usually get found out but its no comfort if you'd just had your entire life taken away because someone made a mistake. The other major problem is the potential for abuse by a paranoid state power. Anyone remember the McCarthy era? Nuff said. I guess the problem for most of us is that the potential for crime prevention is so massive that it is hard to argue against it. What scares me is that what is moral and what is legal are not the same thing, and the law is a very blunt instrument. Most of us have done a dumb thing or two in their time. No harm was done. Now there may be no hiding places whatsoever. My £0.02 worth.
'It reads to me like this is the same as placing ads on regular Web sites. You may pay your local ISP for Internet access, not the content of the websites themselves. To say that you shouldn't get ads because you are paying for access says that your ISP should block ads from the websites you visit on your PC.' Maybe I failed to read the article carefully enough, but if it is on the website that you surf, which I accept has nothing to do with Verizon, why does the placing of Banner Ads require any permission from Verizon?
I was under the impression that we were already paying for the phone service. Granted that there is advertising on Sky and cable services but this is just a drain on battery power. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Another crazy decision from judges who haven't a clue. It is unrealistic to expect Telcos and ISPs to actively manage and oversee websites. If they have to devote resources to anything, it should be locating websites hosting things that are way beyond the pale like child pornography.
It seems unlikely that some magic bullet will come and solve all our problems. The largest part of any solution has got to be a dramatic downward trend in energy consumption regardless of the source.
Given the ease of switching from one OS to another on intel mac, it seems inevitable that the Mac version of Office is doomed. Think Apple knew this and has been preparing for it. iWorks Pro anyone?
In an ideal world, you should be liable for what you publish. When that ideal world shows up, you will be. In the meantime, what we really need in a non-legal and quick way of dealing with libels.
About time. The net has changed the rules for publishing libel. Think we need a new set of rules. Not sure how it would pan out but some sort of quality mark for reliability and a sensible approach to libel across borders.
I recall one judge commenting that free speech does not entitle you to shout 'fire' in a crowded cinema. It's surely a question of degree. Freedom of speech should not extend to specifically targetting individuals, their friends and families, and property for assault or damage.
Kind of a joke. George Lucas makes films so bad they're goodddd.... The Star Wars series may totally suck but they have now occupied permanent headspace in my brain... argh...