Agreed. I recently purchased a Dell server and Gentoo runs on it quite nicely. I've always been fond of dell laptops, the server has pleased me thus far as well.
I always think of nanotechnology as dealing with self-replicating machines that are at the atomic scale.
You've watched too much StarGate.:)
From Wikipedia:
Nanotechnology is any technology which exploits phenomena and structures that can only occur at the nanometer scale, which is the scale of several atoms and small molecules.
Agreed. Fortunately, every library I've been in over the last few years (and that's quite a few - from big city libraries to small town libraries) has had several computers with internet access.
There is no contradiction. Note what I said about libraries. A person without access at home can always get it at a library. The person who wants to get online can get online.
Metal ones? I feel pretty confident that robots of the future will not be made of metal. Heck, cars even are mostly plastic and chewing gum, why would fully autonomous robots be metal? No, robots of the future will be made of teflon.
Free city-wide wireless coverage means that anyone, with relatively little cost for an older computer or laptop can have access to the same information that the more privilaged have had access to for over a decade.
Since, like, people can't access information through libraries and such. But let's be honest, it's not "privileged" vs "non-privileged" when talking about access. I'm a low-income grad student with little money to spare from month to month and yet I've worked internet into the budget. I know people with at-home access though they have even fewer resources. I know there are still many people who just can't afford internet access each month. What is your expectation that these same people would be able to buy a computer or maintain a computer if they are given one?
Plus access is always available. I mentioned libraries already. Most (all?) libraries these days provide free internet access.
The fact remains, the person who wants to get online can get online. WiFi is just sort of a fancy bonus. I like the idea of city WiFi since progressions in this technology will lead to a host of new uses. Plus, hey, free internet access sounds good to me. But "Let's do it for the poor!" just rings so fake to me. It is not a reasonable argument.
There is a difference between market domination and monopoly. You'd be better saying, "In a world where Microsoft doesn't dominate the market..." but in such a world things would be even worse, as far as this lawsuit is concerned. As has been noted, EOLAS is going after MSFT because MSFT has the biggest pockets. The assumption seems to be that if MSFT didn't dominate, MSFT would still be the only ones targetted and customers could switch to other companies that weren't effected by this lawsuit. But if the pockets were all the same size, EOLAS would likely go after a lot more pockets, causing about the same amount of friction on the consumer.
My job as projectionist was first to do what the owner asked, and the owner had specific wishes about the volume. I never was asked by a customer to adjust the volume. The level was set by the owner. Had a customer asked for a change, I would have first gone to the manager since the request required going against something I had already been instructed to do.
Thank the friendly consumer next to you for the volume. One reason for the louder sounds is to help drown out that person on aisle 3 that talks all through the movie. Sure, the theater can post policies about being quiet during movies, and they can even kick out people who are being disruptive. They can also face lawsuits from people in a new culture that loves suing for the silliest reason. Not to mention the fact that a noisy person will likely make even more noise when being removed from an auditorium. The theater's solution? Make things loud enough so that maybe you won't notice the person in aisle 3.
The problem with refreshments is that's where a good chunk of a theater's revenue comes from. I worked for a bit as a projectionist for a theater and the owner would sometimes small-talk with us about the economics of the place. A sizeable chunk of ticket sale prices goes right back to the studio. And prices aren't absolutely stable region to region, explaining part of why ticket prices are higher in some areas than in others. A theater that wants to actually make back their money will have to have expensive refreshments and policies against bring in snacks from outside.
As for smaller auditoriums, the cost of projection equipment eliminates that option. That stuff is nowhere near cheap, and it takes a good sized audience to pay off the costs.
For myself, I rarely do theaters anymore. I understand why they cost what they do, that doesn't mean I have to spend it. So we wait for the dvd releases of movies we want to see. More and more people are taking this same approach. Eventually theater technology will experience some sort of dramatic leap forward which will draw viewers back to the theater. How long until that happens, and whether or not current businesses will survive the increasing lull until then, is unknown.
I wouldn't consider it to be anti-competitive for Microsoft to shore up their own OS products for a better user experience and/or better security... unless they were charging money for it, and then I consider it more along the lines of extortion.
These tools provide protection from attacks against multiple fronts. In part the protection is against malware designed to seek out and exploit holes in the underlying software. But it is also designed to protect users from their own inexperience. The strongest OS will still need protection since it still has people using it. So while I think Microsoft should provide free releases to any updates that directly deal with holes in their products, they still are in their rights to charge for a product that takes the extra step of protecting users from themselves. This is not extortion.
Where are they asking for payment? Updates to the OS are free, and at least for now Windows Defender is also free. It's possible it will be a for-sale product in the future, but I haven't heard anything indicating that.
LoC can work great for more specialized libraries. We have a number of books spanning many topics which would work fine with Dewey, but the majority of our books tend to fall within the same subject groups, so using Dewey would almost be pointless. LoC can be much more specific within subject groups, so that's my choice for my books. I chatted with my sister, a librarian, about this before deciding on LoC over Dewey and she agreed that this was the best way to go.
I fail to see the legal aspect of this. I do see citizens banding together to voice strong concern and opposition to problems they see. This is how a democracy works. Citizens have the right to express their views and yes, they even have the right to organize boycotts. It amazes me how people who shout, "You are removing their rights!" are essentially saying people shouldn't have the right to decide where money goes. A community decides they don't want violent games promoted within their community so they pressure local businesses to avoid the violent games. Local businesses, recognizing it makes good economic sense to avoid the games, do so. In these cases businesses continue to have the right to sell such games, but through the free exercise of democracy they have realized that they will do better if they do not carry the games.
But let's have a quick lesson in rights. Rights do not give you permission to do what you wish, and to hell with everyone else! Rights are given equally to everyone and one person's rights do not supercede someone else's rights. We work in balance as a free society. Many of our laws reflect the balancing of rights. Speed limits exist to protect everyone, slowing down those who would claim that it is their right to go as fast as they wish. Many drug laws, while recognizing the harm drugs can do an individual, often pay more emphasis to the effect drugs have on community. Your rights do not mean you can do anything you want without regard for its effect on society. From that basis, I'm among those who would not oppose actual legislation to limit the amount of violence in games, movies, and yes even music. No rational thinker has any doubt that there is a causative link between media violence (those of you who will quickly shout out about correlation and causation can see which category I place you in). A society fixated on fantasy violence will become a society enacting more and more violence. There are many factors at work that are completely sabotaging our society, violence in media is just one aspect. It is not the only problem that should be addressed, but it is a problem and it does need to be addressed.
People might cry out to allow any human action, defending their cries with some appeal to human rights. Their actions accomplish the opposite. Rights are about community, not simply about an individual. It's a perspective that says, "Everyone in our nation has these rights" rather than "each person has these rights". It's a subtle difference, I admit, but the former perspective works to balance rights so that rights actually mean something, and the latter simply creates anarchy when ultimately there will be just one dictator rising above them all, asserting his own right to domination.
I'm not the most knowledgable person with low level components, but how would your suggestion work? How could you avoid the security component having to interact with writable data? In other words, how would it know that the bios had been updated if it didn't have somewhere to store a hash of the old bios? If all it had was a hard-wired hash of the original bios, what would prevent it from displaying the warning on every restart after a legitimate bios flash?
Keep in mind that with a pandemic, people are less likely to go out buying software. That means Microsoft takes a hit. And if they aren't buying software, they must be using the free stuff right? So if a pandemic hits, OSS skyrockets in popularity! These things are all a matter of perspective.
no no it won't be him, it will be some less significant but lovable new character. It will be quite tragic and gut wrenching when she falls ill, dies, and in her last gasping breath reveals the truth that the virus was purposefully engineered by birds in communist china.
While I think this was a bad decision for Skype, and I'm sure Intel had some role in the decision, I don't see how Intel could bear any legal responsibility for a decision made and taken by Skype?
But here we have a problem. Sissy or no, the average computer user doesn't want to have to surf websites or go to chat rooms to get their computer going. The topic isn't why geeks don't use linux, it's why the average user doesn't use linux. The average user just Wants It To Work. I may not mind spending a few hours getting things working. Hey, I'll coming out knowing even more about the system so it can even be fun! But this isn't the mindset of your average user who wants to get things going so he can go play minesweeper.
That said, I'm often impressed at how far Linux has moved in the way of Making Things Just Working. Xorg is a great example. I will never, ever miss the days of having to do a detailed config by hand. On the whole Linux hardware support have seen these sorts of improvements, but there's still work to be done. Don't blame the average computer user for being an average computer user. It's up to us computer geeks, who actually like this stuff, to put together a system that will consistently work well for Dad who just wants an easy way to burn to dvd a camcorder video of his kid hitting a home run.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/
Agreed. I recently purchased a Dell server and Gentoo runs on it quite nicely. I've always been fond of dell laptops, the server has pleased me thus far as well.
Does anyone have a link to something with more meat??
I hope this helps: Another article.
You've watched too much StarGate.
From Wikipedia:
Agreed. Fortunately, every library I've been in over the last few years (and that's quite a few - from big city libraries to small town libraries) has had several computers with internet access.
There is no contradiction. Note what I said about libraries. A person without access at home can always get it at a library. The person who wants to get online can get online.
which does nothing to change the things that I said, including my acknowledgment on the existence of the poor.
Metal ones? I feel pretty confident that robots of the future will not be made of metal. Heck, cars even are mostly plastic and chewing gum, why would fully autonomous robots be metal? No, robots of the future will be made of teflon.
Free city-wide wireless coverage means that anyone, with relatively little cost for an older computer or laptop can have access to the same information that the more privilaged have had access to for over a decade.
Since, like, people can't access information through libraries and such. But let's be honest, it's not "privileged" vs "non-privileged" when talking about access. I'm a low-income grad student with little money to spare from month to month and yet I've worked internet into the budget. I know people with at-home access though they have even fewer resources. I know there are still many people who just can't afford internet access each month. What is your expectation that these same people would be able to buy a computer or maintain a computer if they are given one?
Plus access is always available. I mentioned libraries already. Most (all?) libraries these days provide free internet access.
The fact remains, the person who wants to get online can get online. WiFi is just sort of a fancy bonus. I like the idea of city WiFi since progressions in this technology will lead to a host of new uses. Plus, hey, free internet access sounds good to me. But "Let's do it for the poor!" just rings so fake to me. It is not a reasonable argument.
My friend is canadian
/. and you still only have one friend?
You come to
I'm not much of a Cee-lo fan, but DangerMouse is the shit.
Isn't that the stuff best sent down the toilet? Guess you agree with the poster that the song is no good?
APRIL FOOLS! You didn't get it! Or would it be psyk... or syke. or however that is spelled.
There is a difference between market domination and monopoly. You'd be better saying, "In a world where Microsoft doesn't dominate the market..." but in such a world things would be even worse, as far as this lawsuit is concerned. As has been noted, EOLAS is going after MSFT because MSFT has the biggest pockets. The assumption seems to be that if MSFT didn't dominate, MSFT would still be the only ones targetted and customers could switch to other companies that weren't effected by this lawsuit. But if the pockets were all the same size, EOLAS would likely go after a lot more pockets, causing about the same amount of friction on the consumer.
It's their JOB.
My job as projectionist was first to do what the owner asked, and the owner had specific wishes about the volume. I never was asked by a customer to adjust the volume. The level was set by the owner. Had a customer asked for a change, I would have first gone to the manager since the request required going against something I had already been instructed to do.
Thank the friendly consumer next to you for the volume. One reason for the louder sounds is to help drown out that person on aisle 3 that talks all through the movie. Sure, the theater can post policies about being quiet during movies, and they can even kick out people who are being disruptive. They can also face lawsuits from people in a new culture that loves suing for the silliest reason. Not to mention the fact that a noisy person will likely make even more noise when being removed from an auditorium. The theater's solution? Make things loud enough so that maybe you won't notice the person in aisle 3.
The problem with refreshments is that's where a good chunk of a theater's revenue comes from. I worked for a bit as a projectionist for a theater and the owner would sometimes small-talk with us about the economics of the place. A sizeable chunk of ticket sale prices goes right back to the studio. And prices aren't absolutely stable region to region, explaining part of why ticket prices are higher in some areas than in others. A theater that wants to actually make back their money will have to have expensive refreshments and policies against bring in snacks from outside.
As for smaller auditoriums, the cost of projection equipment eliminates that option. That stuff is nowhere near cheap, and it takes a good sized audience to pay off the costs.
For myself, I rarely do theaters anymore. I understand why they cost what they do, that doesn't mean I have to spend it. So we wait for the dvd releases of movies we want to see. More and more people are taking this same approach. Eventually theater technology will experience some sort of dramatic leap forward which will draw viewers back to the theater. How long until that happens, and whether or not current businesses will survive the increasing lull until then, is unknown.
I wouldn't consider it to be anti-competitive for Microsoft to shore up their own OS products for a better user experience and/or better security... unless they were charging money for it, and then I consider it more along the lines of extortion.
These tools provide protection from attacks against multiple fronts. In part the protection is against malware designed to seek out and exploit holes in the underlying software. But it is also designed to protect users from their own inexperience. The strongest OS will still need protection since it still has people using it. So while I think Microsoft should provide free releases to any updates that directly deal with holes in their products, they still are in their rights to charge for a product that takes the extra step of protecting users from themselves. This is not extortion.
Where are they asking for payment? Updates to the OS are free, and at least for now Windows Defender is also free. It's possible it will be a for-sale product in the future, but I haven't heard anything indicating that.
LoC can work great for more specialized libraries. We have a number of books spanning many topics which would work fine with Dewey, but the majority of our books tend to fall within the same subject groups, so using Dewey would almost be pointless. LoC can be much more specific within subject groups, so that's my choice for my books. I chatted with my sister, a librarian, about this before deciding on LoC over Dewey and she agreed that this was the best way to go.
I fail to see the legal aspect of this. I do see citizens banding together to voice strong concern and opposition to problems they see. This is how a democracy works. Citizens have the right to express their views and yes, they even have the right to organize boycotts. It amazes me how people who shout, "You are removing their rights!" are essentially saying people shouldn't have the right to decide where money goes. A community decides they don't want violent games promoted within their community so they pressure local businesses to avoid the violent games. Local businesses, recognizing it makes good economic sense to avoid the games, do so. In these cases businesses continue to have the right to sell such games, but through the free exercise of democracy they have realized that they will do better if they do not carry the games.
But let's have a quick lesson in rights. Rights do not give you permission to do what you wish, and to hell with everyone else! Rights are given equally to everyone and one person's rights do not supercede someone else's rights. We work in balance as a free society. Many of our laws reflect the balancing of rights. Speed limits exist to protect everyone, slowing down those who would claim that it is their right to go as fast as they wish. Many drug laws, while recognizing the harm drugs can do an individual, often pay more emphasis to the effect drugs have on community. Your rights do not mean you can do anything you want without regard for its effect on society. From that basis, I'm among those who would not oppose actual legislation to limit the amount of violence in games, movies, and yes even music. No rational thinker has any doubt that there is a causative link between media violence (those of you who will quickly shout out about correlation and causation can see which category I place you in). A society fixated on fantasy violence will become a society enacting more and more violence. There are many factors at work that are completely sabotaging our society, violence in media is just one aspect. It is not the only problem that should be addressed, but it is a problem and it does need to be addressed.
People might cry out to allow any human action, defending their cries with some appeal to human rights. Their actions accomplish the opposite. Rights are about community, not simply about an individual. It's a perspective that says, "Everyone in our nation has these rights" rather than "each person has these rights". It's a subtle difference, I admit, but the former perspective works to balance rights so that rights actually mean something, and the latter simply creates anarchy when ultimately there will be just one dictator rising above them all, asserting his own right to domination.
I'm not the most knowledgable person with low level components, but how would your suggestion work? How could you avoid the security component having to interact with writable data? In other words, how would it know that the bios had been updated if it didn't have somewhere to store a hash of the old bios? If all it had was a hard-wired hash of the original bios, what would prevent it from displaying the warning on every restart after a legitimate bios flash?
Keep in mind that with a pandemic, people are less likely to go out buying software. That means Microsoft takes a hit. And if they aren't buying software, they must be using the free stuff right? So if a pandemic hits, OSS skyrockets in popularity! These things are all a matter of perspective.
no no it won't be him, it will be some less significant but lovable new character. It will be quite tragic and gut wrenching when she falls ill, dies, and in her last gasping breath reveals the truth that the virus was purposefully engineered by birds in communist china.
While I think this was a bad decision for Skype, and I'm sure Intel had some role in the decision, I don't see how Intel could bear any legal responsibility for a decision made and taken by Skype?
But here we have a problem. Sissy or no, the average computer user doesn't want to have to surf websites or go to chat rooms to get their computer going. The topic isn't why geeks don't use linux, it's why the average user doesn't use linux. The average user just Wants It To Work. I may not mind spending a few hours getting things working. Hey, I'll coming out knowing even more about the system so it can even be fun! But this isn't the mindset of your average user who wants to get things going so he can go play minesweeper. That said, I'm often impressed at how far Linux has moved in the way of Making Things Just Working. Xorg is a great example. I will never, ever miss the days of having to do a detailed config by hand. On the whole Linux hardware support have seen these sorts of improvements, but there's still work to be done. Don't blame the average computer user for being an average computer user. It's up to us computer geeks, who actually like this stuff, to put together a system that will consistently work well for Dad who just wants an easy way to burn to dvd a camcorder video of his kid hitting a home run.