I have a lot of 3 way switches in my house, so up or down doesn't mean squat.
I've been in a lot of countries where the right or left side of the road doesn't really matter, neither do lanes... go figure.
Microsoft is a US company so the default would be English (United States). If you don't like that default, build your own software empire in the UK. Speaking of which are there any mainstream products being produced outside the US? I mean we have all the major players, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter. What have you guys made lately? Its our internet, if you don't like it, make your own!
What gets me on thought policing is that everyone has the bad thoughts. What separates me from the guy in prison has nothing to do with the way we think, since on many occasions I've thought about how best to rob a bank and get away with it. The difference between me and that guy in jail is that I realize it is wrong and therefore don't act on it. That is why the crime is in the action, not the thought or planning of a crime. Crime fiction novelists plan crimes all the time, but what they do is in no way a crime.
I hate that I live in fear of the government. I hate censorship. I'm even scared to make this post. I have never looked at child porn, nor had the desire to do so, but the parent post makes me curious what the big deal is and I have a very curious urge to google it and see what the fuss is; however I know that if I do I'll probably have my big brother government knocking down my door and arresting me on some sort of child pornography charges. So once again I'm afraid of my government and I guess that is the way they want it to be... that doesn't mean its right.
The brain has this really neat thing called peripheral vision. It allows you to focus on something an be alerted of potential dangers apart from what you're focused on. It is some sort of evolutionary thing...
From personal experience I've driven while watching movies before. It isn't as bad as you make it out to be. For starters you don't look at the screen when in traffic or side streets. It is pretty much only on the freeway when you're on a long enough trip where you could watch a full movie. Second I usually follow the 2 second rule, sometimes 3, even in heavy traffic under normal driving conditions. When you're watching TV on the interstate you have need to give you self at least 6 seconds between you and the car in front of you. If you can't do that you don't look at the screen and you only listen. You constantly glance back and forth between the screen and the road, anything that enters your peripheral vision focuses you back on the road.
I've actually glossed over more listening to NPR than I ever did watching movies on long car trips. I knew it was dangerous so I was more alert to my surroundings. I made it a point to focus on the road, not the movie. With the radio you become complacent.
Second when driving I find that everyone else on the road is an idiot. I assume that ever other driver is a drunk idiot and they are going to do something completely mind boggling at any moment. If they take someone out with them it is most likely as much the person being taken out as it was the person who caused it. The only exception is if you're parked and you get rear ended. In any other circumstance you should be aware of the other vehicles around you and always have a plan to get out of the way. You should assume the car next to you isn't going to see you and is going to shift into your lane, you should assume the car coming up behind you is going to clip you so give them space or get out of their way, you assume that the semi next to you is going to blow a tire and swerve into your lane. In every one of those instances you need to know where you can go to avoid the accident, if you don't you'll wind up being a victim one day.
If a car has on its blinker, assume they forgot it was on, never trust a blinker. Assume every car is going to run the red light, this one saved my life as a semi hurled through a red light and had I gone just because the light was green I'd be dead. There is always a car in your blind spot. The cars next to you, behind you and in front of you are all watching tv and not paying attention to you. You must pay attention to them.
Complacency is the killer, not the other idiots on the road.
Looking up the crime statistics in the counties I've lived in, it would appear that maybe 1% or less of the population participates in crimes worth monitoring. For the most part people don't steal and don't assault people. Yes there are some and occasionally a nut job kills a few people, but that is a few people out of 300,000,000. Do we really need to alter our lives or society to protect against this insignificant amount deviance from the norm?
Seriously, the entire post 9-11 culture disgusts me. Everyone started cowering in fear and giving up every ounce of self respect and freedom to keep themselves safe from another terrorist attack. Yet every one of those same people probably gets in a car every day. Boggle...
If no one is around to see me running around naked, is it a crime? Because the camera is there watching, it could be. What if I pee on a bush? If no one is looking it wouldn't be a crime, but with camera's watching everywhere... And what about the children? What about those toddlers running around or getting their diapers changed in public, would those now be child porn? If it is child porn, who is responsible?
Living in an open society with 0 privacy would be ok IF the only things the camera's would be used for were theft and assault. But since our society seems to think it has the right to decide what is morally ok and put people in jail for things like having sex and doing drugs, it is not and never will be ok. When society gets to the point where I can shoot crack on the courthouse steps while having sex on the steps screaming racially degrading remarks and preaching the truths of the noodle god and nobody care, then and only then will camera's watching our every move be a good idea. Until then some prude with their panties in the wad is going arrest innocent people for child abuse, lewd conduct, or a number of other crimes that really aren't crimes just moral impositions on society.
If there is one thing the Internet is good at, it is calling BS. If someone makes a bogus claim there are a thousand others ready to jump down their throats telling them how wrong they are for making such a bogus claim. We don't need more FTC regulation...
Isn't this Transmeta territory? Transmeta was making ultra low power chips before it was the in thing to do. My question would be why weren't intel and AMD doing this 10 years ago?
This is exactly what I did. I used to buy a lot of CD's back when Napster was first released. When the RIAA started cracking down on people for it I closed up shop and have been on a Boycott of all music since. I don't torrent either though. They say it is illegal so I'll spend my money on other activities and stay within the law. If itunes started selling songs for $0.20 - $0.50 DRM free I'd start buying music again, but until that time my boycott holds.
Claudette got busted and had to serve the time, on the other hand Rosa Parks intentionally broke the law with the purpose of challenging it in court. So, no, I would not fire my lawyer if that was my intention.
I don't think that she would have gotten smacked down with a 2M fine had she plead guilty, there probably wouldn't have even been a trial. So even though her defense was weak could it have been intentionally so?
1. Chapter 13 won't protect her from legal damages awarded. 2. She knew she was guilty. She should have paid the $5,000 fine and then counter sued for harassment and extortion. 3. If she then lost the extortion lawsuit, then I'd be a total ass and get my $5,000 back by destroying $5,000 worth of RIAA property and spending a few months in county jail with free food knowing that it was well worth it.
Actually that debt doesn't carry over in marriage. I know someone who received a similar judgement. He is married, he does speaking tours and has all proceeds from his speaking engagements payed to his wife. He can never earn income, but his wife is immune from the government seizure. He doesn't have a penny to his name, nor can he ever, but through his wife they have a fairly normal life.
I understand that. Here is how it works: First you create a base OS image. For arguments sake we'll say you have two approved corporate images. (windows 7 and ubuntu 9). Next your different departments have different application needs. So you the system admin install the applications for each of the different departments. Each department now has its own base image. Finally each user then customizes their OS with their network drives, connections, favorites, etc. Now each user has their own OS image which is stored on the network drive. This is the flash image which you reset to periodically.
AV's don't work. They just waist system resources and break apps.
Yeah, just did some research: http://www.lulu.com/ I can publish a hardbound book for $26. To publish digitally it would cost me at least $60 a month just for my internet connection.
And I realize I'm ignoring economies of scale. At some point it does become cheaper to publish digitally, but at no point does cheaper = free.
Why does slashdot continue to promote the idea that "digital content has no intrinsic cost"? It does have intrinsic cost, a lot of intrinsic cost, that people on slashdot for some reason seam to forget to mention.
Let me count the costs of intrinsic to just the one copy of the file. 1. You have to have a server to house it on, even if there is just one copy, without the hardware you have no file, therefore it is intrinsic to the file. 2. You have to have people manage that hardware and keep it running, unlike a book that you can leave on a shelf a digital copy that is able to be distributed must be maintained. 3. Regular backups to recover possible data loss and the hardware(tape drives, flash drives, however else you wanna back it up) 4. Electricity 5. Internet Connection
These costs don't go away once the book is delivered, the publisher/distributer must maintain these costs for as long as they wish to offer this book, increasing the costs.
The first book you put online has a huge cost, with every book you add after the first it gets cheaper, to a point. Unlike physical inventory which you can liquidate, your digital library must be constantly maintained. So, yes, distribution of the item over the internet is cheap (once again not free); however running the data center that houses the digital media is more expensive than a warehouse of books.
Someone really needs to compare the cost of over time of one book from the time it reaches the publisher to the time it reaches the consumer. I have a hunch that the cost of the digitally distributed book will have the higher cost. The costs just scale better digitally.
Step 1: Have a centralized, protected, backed up file server. Step 2: Create a standard clean OS and application installation image. Step 3: Daily or weekly flash back to the clean installation (since all user data will be on the file server see step 1 - if its not they'll learn very quickly) Step 4: Profit.
If you think IRS is intrusive looking at your pay slip, wait till you get IRS demanding you show documentation for having paid tax on your wrist watch and shaving blades.
I'm going to be nice and not insult you, but you really shouldn't have a +5 Insightful with such an ignorant comment. The point of a consumption tax is to keep the IRS from ever coming after an individual. Only people with a business license would be paying taxes. So the IRS would never go after the individual for a watch he bought. Instead when the landscaper applied for his business license and filed the taxes for his business that is where the IRS would come in. The consumers have no legal responsibilty to pay the consumption tax, it is purely the responsibility of the business owner. If you want to keep your business you'll pay your taxes.
Under the fair tax this would not have been an issue, since income would have never been taxed. There would have been no way for the payroll company or those being paid to avoid taxes since the collection of those taxes would have been at point of sale of goods. There would also be no reason for tax shelters or any of the other evasion tactics people currently use to pay less income tax.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a lot of 3 way switches in my house, so up or down doesn't mean squat.
I've been in a lot of countries where the right or left side of the road doesn't really matter, neither do lanes... go figure.
Microsoft is a US company so the default would be English (United States). If you don't like that default, build your own software empire in the UK. Speaking of which are there any mainstream products being produced outside the US? I mean we have all the major players, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter. What have you guys made lately? Its our internet, if you don't like it, make your own!
å©å®é--ååoe (å©å®é-å£å) :) Just to make sure they get it.
Here you go in unicode
& # x 5 9 2 9 ; & # x 5 B 8 9 ; & # x 9 5 E 8 ; & # x 5 E 7 F ; & # x 5 7 3 A ; ( & # x 5 9 2 9 ; & # x 5 B 8 9 ; & # x 9 5 8 0 ; & # x 5 E E 3 ; & # x 5 8 3 4 ; )
When previewing it didn't look right, so I added the html symbols if someone else knows how to post it correctly.
From The Snopes Article:
"True, but for trivial and unremarkable reasons."
But wasn't that kind of the point of the story?
What gets me on thought policing is that everyone has the bad thoughts. What separates me from the guy in prison has nothing to do with the way we think, since on many occasions I've thought about how best to rob a bank and get away with it. The difference between me and that guy in jail is that I realize it is wrong and therefore don't act on it. That is why the crime is in the action, not the thought or planning of a crime. Crime fiction novelists plan crimes all the time, but what they do is in no way a crime.
I hate that I live in fear of the government. I hate censorship. I'm even scared to make this post. I have never looked at child porn, nor had the desire to do so, but the parent post makes me curious what the big deal is and I have a very curious urge to google it and see what the fuss is; however I know that if I do I'll probably have my big brother government knocking down my door and arresting me on some sort of child pornography charges. So once again I'm afraid of my government and I guess that is the way they want it to be... that doesn't mean its right.
The brain has this really neat thing called peripheral vision. It allows you to focus on something an be alerted of potential dangers apart from what you're focused on. It is some sort of evolutionary thing...
Finally a post with some sense.
From personal experience I've driven while watching movies before. It isn't as bad as you make it out to be. For starters you don't look at the screen when in traffic or side streets. It is pretty much only on the freeway when you're on a long enough trip where you could watch a full movie. Second I usually follow the 2 second rule, sometimes 3, even in heavy traffic under normal driving conditions. When you're watching TV on the interstate you have need to give you self at least 6 seconds between you and the car in front of you. If you can't do that you don't look at the screen and you only listen. You constantly glance back and forth between the screen and the road, anything that enters your peripheral vision focuses you back on the road.
I've actually glossed over more listening to NPR than I ever did watching movies on long car trips. I knew it was dangerous so I was more alert to my surroundings. I made it a point to focus on the road, not the movie. With the radio you become complacent.
Second when driving I find that everyone else on the road is an idiot. I assume that ever other driver is a drunk idiot and they are going to do something completely mind boggling at any moment. If they take someone out with them it is most likely as much the person being taken out as it was the person who caused it. The only exception is if you're parked and you get rear ended. In any other circumstance you should be aware of the other vehicles around you and always have a plan to get out of the way. You should assume the car next to you isn't going to see you and is going to shift into your lane, you should assume the car coming up behind you is going to clip you so give them space or get out of their way, you assume that the semi next to you is going to blow a tire and swerve into your lane. In every one of those instances you need to know where you can go to avoid the accident, if you don't you'll wind up being a victim one day.
If a car has on its blinker, assume they forgot it was on, never trust a blinker. Assume every car is going to run the red light, this one saved my life as a semi hurled through a red light and had I gone just because the light was green I'd be dead. There is always a car in your blind spot. The cars next to you, behind you and in front of you are all watching tv and not paying attention to you. You must pay attention to them.
Complacency is the killer, not the other idiots on the road.
In both of the last two nieghborhoods I've lived in I've only locked the doors while on vacation. Do we really need locks on our doors?
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
Looking up the crime statistics in the counties I've lived in, it would appear that maybe 1% or less of the population participates in crimes worth monitoring. For the most part people don't steal and don't assault people. Yes there are some and occasionally a nut job kills a few people, but that is a few people out of 300,000,000. Do we really need to alter our lives or society to protect against this insignificant amount deviance from the norm?
Seriously, the entire post 9-11 culture disgusts me. Everyone started cowering in fear and giving up every ounce of self respect and freedom to keep themselves safe from another terrorist attack. Yet every one of those same people probably gets in a car every day. Boggle...
If no one is around to see me running around naked, is it a crime? Because the camera is there watching, it could be. What if I pee on a bush? If no one is looking it wouldn't be a crime, but with camera's watching everywhere... And what about the children? What about those toddlers running around or getting their diapers changed in public, would those now be child porn? If it is child porn, who is responsible?
Living in an open society with 0 privacy would be ok IF the only things the camera's would be used for were theft and assault. But since our society seems to think it has the right to decide what is morally ok and put people in jail for things like having sex and doing drugs, it is not and never will be ok. When society gets to the point where I can shoot crack on the courthouse steps while having sex on the steps screaming racially degrading remarks and preaching the truths of the noodle god and nobody care, then and only then will camera's watching our every move be a good idea. Until then some prude with their panties in the wad is going arrest innocent people for child abuse, lewd conduct, or a number of other crimes that really aren't crimes just moral impositions on society.
If there is one thing the Internet is good at, it is calling BS. If someone makes a bogus claim there are a thousand others ready to jump down their throats telling them how wrong they are for making such a bogus claim. We don't need more FTC regulation...
Why hasn't anyone else mentioned Vegas? Isn't that were all socially inept people go to get laid?
Isn't this Transmeta territory? Transmeta was making ultra low power chips before it was the in thing to do. My question would be why weren't intel and AMD doing this 10 years ago?
http://www.transmeta.com/index2.html
This is exactly what I did. I used to buy a lot of CD's back when Napster was first released. When the RIAA started cracking down on people for it I closed up shop and have been on a Boycott of all music since. I don't torrent either though. They say it is illegal so I'll spend my money on other activities and stay within the law. If itunes started selling songs for $0.20 - $0.50 DRM free I'd start buying music again, but until that time my boycott holds.
May I point you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudette_Colvin .
Claudette got busted and had to serve the time, on the other hand Rosa Parks intentionally broke the law with the purpose of challenging it in court. So, no, I would not fire my lawyer if that was my intention.
I don't think that she would have gotten smacked down with a 2M fine had she plead guilty, there probably wouldn't have even been a trial. So even though her defense was weak could it have been intentionally so?
Can a presidential pardon work for statutory damages?
1. Chapter 13 won't protect her from legal damages awarded.
2. She knew she was guilty. She should have paid the $5,000 fine and then counter sued for harassment and extortion.
3. If she then lost the extortion lawsuit, then I'd be a total ass and get my $5,000 back by destroying $5,000 worth of RIAA property and spending a few months in county jail with free food knowing that it was well worth it.
On which goblet has the iocane powder: BOTH. Don't drink it unless you have trained your body to be immune to its effects.
Actually that debt doesn't carry over in marriage. I know someone who received a similar judgement. He is married, he does speaking tours and has all proceeds from his speaking engagements payed to his wife. He can never earn income, but his wife is immune from the government seizure. He doesn't have a penny to his name, nor can he ever, but through his wife they have a fairly normal life.
I understand that. Here is how it works:
First you create a base OS image. For arguments sake we'll say you have two approved corporate images. (windows 7 and ubuntu 9).
Next your different departments have different application needs. So you the system admin install the applications for each of the different departments. Each department now has its own base image.
Finally each user then customizes their OS with their network drives, connections, favorites, etc. Now each user has their own OS image which is stored on the network drive. This is the flash image which you reset to periodically.
AV's don't work. They just waist system resources and break apps.
From the TFA? I wouldn't know I didn't read it...
Yeah, just did some research: http://www.lulu.com/ I can publish a hardbound book for $26. To publish digitally it would cost me at least $60 a month just for my internet connection.
And I realize I'm ignoring economies of scale. At some point it does become cheaper to publish digitally, but at no point does cheaper = free.
Why does slashdot continue to promote the idea that "digital content has no intrinsic cost"? It does have intrinsic cost, a lot of intrinsic cost, that people on slashdot for some reason seam to forget to mention.
Let me count the costs of intrinsic to just the one copy of the file.
1. You have to have a server to house it on, even if there is just one copy, without the hardware you have no file, therefore it is intrinsic to the file.
2. You have to have people manage that hardware and keep it running, unlike a book that you can leave on a shelf a digital copy that is able to be distributed must be maintained.
3. Regular backups to recover possible data loss and the hardware(tape drives, flash drives, however else you wanna back it up)
4. Electricity
5. Internet Connection
These costs don't go away once the book is delivered, the publisher/distributer must maintain these costs for as long as they wish to offer this book, increasing the costs.
The first book you put online has a huge cost, with every book you add after the first it gets cheaper, to a point. Unlike physical inventory which you can liquidate, your digital library must be constantly maintained. So, yes, distribution of the item over the internet is cheap (once again not free); however running the data center that houses the digital media is more expensive than a warehouse of books.
Someone really needs to compare the cost of over time of one book from the time it reaches the publisher to the time it reaches the consumer. I have a hunch that the cost of the digitally distributed book will have the higher cost. The costs just scale better digitally.
Isn't this a good reason to use virtualization?
Step 1: Have a centralized, protected, backed up file server.
Step 2: Create a standard clean OS and application installation image.
Step 3: Daily or weekly flash back to the clean installation (since all user data will be on the file server see step 1 - if its not they'll learn very quickly)
Step 4: Profit.
If you think IRS is intrusive looking at your pay slip, wait till you get IRS demanding you show documentation for having paid tax on your wrist watch and shaving blades.
I'm going to be nice and not insult you, but you really shouldn't have a +5 Insightful with such an ignorant comment. The point of a consumption tax is to keep the IRS from ever coming after an individual. Only people with a business license would be paying taxes. So the IRS would never go after the individual for a watch he bought. Instead when the landscaper applied for his business license and filed the taxes for his business that is where the IRS would come in. The consumers have no legal responsibilty to pay the consumption tax, it is purely the responsibility of the business owner. If you want to keep your business you'll pay your taxes.
http://www.fairtax.org/
promote the "Fair Tax".
Under the fair tax this would not have been an issue, since income would have never been taxed. There would have been no way for the payroll company or those being paid to avoid taxes since the collection of those taxes would have been at point of sale of goods. There would also be no reason for tax shelters or any of the other evasion tactics people currently use to pay less income tax.
http://www.fairtax.org/