I know it's an unlikely occurrence, but if you get too close to your computer after building up a charge in your body (say from walking across the carpet in slippers), you can destroy your computer if you get close enough to discharge to it. I assume a metal case provides some sort of protection from this, as the charge would remain on the surface of the metal. My question is, would the wooden case be a better (or worse) protection from this? I don't know what the resistivity of wood is, but it must provide some degree of protection from static discharge.
I guess in either case the most likely way to damage the computer is via a peripheral (such as the keyboard) that's not entirely enclosed (and thus doesn't offer the same protection), but I'm just curious as to whether some slashdotter here knows which type of case might be better in this context...
I've heard time and again about ubiquitous cameras in Britain... I don't know about the rest of Europe, but if they act in any similar manner, then any praise for their protection of their citizens' privacy rights in this seems pretty silly to me. Perhaps I'm wrong?
"Insect overlords" is male. I think "overladies" or something like that would be the feminine form. Then again, I don't think there's a specifically gender-neutral version of this in English, so "insect overlords" could effectively be used as the neuter. It has more of a terrifying sound anyway.
But since anything sounds terrifying in German, I guess I can second the vote for using the feminine version.
I second the vote for Nikola Tesla. Godel, Hopper and others are great, but someone like Tesla -- a brilliant scientist with a notable weirdness/insanity to him -- would be much more fascinating to kids. At least when I was younger science was much more interesting if it could be classified as "mad science."
Nah... not good enough to get my interest. I have heavy demands -- console-mode only (maybe even scrap that bulky Linux stuff for MS-DOS), Lynx, Pine. A real geek's PDA...
I don't think I've ever purchased software that came crippled in the trial version. For me to do that, the following conditions would be necessary:
1) I need the software 2) No Free/Open Source alternative is available (I'd happily pay for free software before proprietary stuff) 3) I don't feel like/for some reason can't write my own version.
It hasn't happened yet. I've purchased proprietary software after using the trials, but so far crippled versions have always ticked me off just enough to go look for another solution...
Now, if only I was that smart with music -- I wouldn't be stuck with a bunch of iTunes albums that I can't play on my Linux box (and Apple's iTunes no longer installs on the version of Windows I used to use -- XP-64). I had to learn the DRM lesson the hard way...
That's good to know, b/c Dish Network is actually what I was thinking about when I said they don't offer high speed internet. Now the main obstacle is their notoriously bad support - at least for Spanish-speaking customers. I've seen them go for a week without TV before someone came to fix their dish and charge them $40 in addition to their full, monthly bill.
Anyway my cable company's broadband internet is 5Mbps for less than $30/mo... That's hard to beat, so it's all a moot point for me anyway.
Cable companies still have the advantage in the fact that they tend to offer broadband internet service in addition to TV channels -- I know you can get satellite-based internet service, but they all seem to be from separate companies like StarBand, as far as I can tell. And they suck compared to cable internet, at least where I live, though I'll admit I've seen some pretty crappy cable internet providers as well...
Of course you should bring up the price difference (tens of thousands of dollars vs. free, not considering tech support). Maybe this is too forceful, but you could also ask how they would defend themselves if auditing asked them to justify their spending of so much of the public's money on something when something equivalent was available free.
If OpenOffice never makes it as mainstream as Word, all that happens is that the school saved a boatload of money. However, if it increases in popularity and the school has wasted tons of money on the competition, some administrator might find themselves in a tight situation with their bosses...
"Marking" software patents would be a start to solving the major issue of us not knowing what is patented or not, but it doesn't help those of us who aren't planning to buy the software to see those markings...
Also it doesn't solve the issue of the incredible number of software patents covering nearly anything you can do in software - and considering the fact that technology changes so quickly, if a patent on software were to exist that didn't stifle innovation it would have to be of such short duration that the patent owner wouldn't benefit from it anyway -- developers would just wait out the expiration date.
On the other hand, we could at least limit software patents to those things that really aren't all that obvious, but the patent office wouldn't know recognize what is innovative anyway, would they?
Slashdot Mirror
I know it's an unlikely occurrence, but if you get too close to your computer after building up a charge in your body (say from walking across the carpet in slippers), you can destroy your computer if you get close enough to discharge to it. I assume a metal case provides some sort of protection from this, as the charge would remain on the surface of the metal. My question is, would the wooden case be a better (or worse) protection from this? I don't know what the resistivity of wood is, but it must provide some degree of protection from static discharge.
I guess in either case the most likely way to damage the computer is via a peripheral (such as the keyboard) that's not entirely enclosed (and thus doesn't offer the same protection), but I'm just curious as to whether some slashdotter here knows which type of case might be better in this context...
I've heard time and again about ubiquitous cameras in Britain... I don't know about the rest of Europe, but if they act in any similar manner, then any praise for their protection of their citizens' privacy rights in this seems pretty silly to me. Perhaps I'm wrong?
"Insect overlords" is male. I think "overladies" or something like that would be the feminine form. Then again, I don't think there's a specifically gender-neutral version of this in English, so "insect overlords" could effectively be used as the neuter. It has more of a terrifying sound anyway.
But since anything sounds terrifying in German, I guess I can second the vote for using the feminine version.
I second the vote for Nikola Tesla. Godel, Hopper and others are great, but someone like Tesla -- a brilliant scientist with a notable weirdness/insanity to him -- would be much more fascinating to kids. At least when I was younger science was much more interesting if it could be classified as "mad science."
I have paid money for Free software -- That's the reason why I was comfortable saying that. I don't like to be all talk...
Nah... not good enough to get my interest. I have heavy demands -- console-mode only (maybe even scrap that bulky Linux stuff for MS-DOS), Lynx, Pine. A real geek's PDA...
I don't think I've ever purchased software that came crippled in the trial version. For me to do that, the following conditions would be necessary:
1) I need the software
2) No Free/Open Source alternative is available (I'd happily pay for free software before proprietary stuff)
3) I don't feel like/for some reason can't write my own version.
It hasn't happened yet. I've purchased proprietary software after using the trials, but so far crippled versions have always ticked me off just enough to go look for another solution...
Now, if only I was that smart with music -- I wouldn't be stuck with a bunch of iTunes albums that I can't play on my Linux box (and Apple's iTunes no longer installs on the version of Windows I used to use -- XP-64). I had to learn the DRM lesson the hard way...
That's good to know, b/c Dish Network is actually what I was thinking about when I said they don't offer high speed internet. Now the main obstacle is their notoriously bad support - at least for Spanish-speaking customers. I've seen them go for a week without TV before someone came to fix their dish and charge them $40 in addition to their full, monthly bill.
Anyway my cable company's broadband internet is 5Mbps for less than $30/mo... That's hard to beat, so it's all a moot point for me anyway.
Cable companies still have the advantage in the fact that they tend to offer broadband internet service in addition to TV channels -- I know you can get satellite-based internet service, but they all seem to be from separate companies like StarBand, as far as I can tell. And they suck compared to cable internet, at least where I live, though I'll admit I've seen some pretty crappy cable internet providers as well...
I'm still keeping my eye out for a portable music player that'll play my .ogg files - They must be around but I sure don't see 'em at Best Buy...
Of course you should bring up the price difference (tens of thousands of dollars vs. free, not considering tech support). Maybe this is too forceful, but you could also ask how they would defend themselves if auditing asked them to justify their spending of so much of the public's money on something when something equivalent was available free.
If OpenOffice never makes it as mainstream as Word, all that happens is that the school saved a boatload of money. However, if it increases in popularity and the school has wasted tons of money on the competition, some administrator might find themselves in a tight situation with their bosses...
"Marking" software patents would be a start to solving the major issue of us not knowing what is patented or not, but it doesn't help those of us who aren't planning to buy the software to see those markings... Also it doesn't solve the issue of the incredible number of software patents covering nearly anything you can do in software - and considering the fact that technology changes so quickly, if a patent on software were to exist that didn't stifle innovation it would have to be of such short duration that the patent owner wouldn't benefit from it anyway -- developers would just wait out the expiration date. On the other hand, we could at least limit software patents to those things that really aren't all that obvious, but the patent office wouldn't know recognize what is innovative anyway, would they?