Indeed, I regret that the naysayers about the new system are so well represented in the comments. The Ajax interface fits my usage patterns quite well. I browse at a high threshold to save time and I'm able to conveniently switch to a lower one if I'm especially interested in that story or if something catches my eye. These are the most common things I do, and they've been made significantly easier now.
Everyone probably is guilty of it, but it's a matter of degree. For instance, everyone lies at some point, but these lies are often too insignificant to merit the title "liar". Your point of everyone doing it is just a clarification, not a refutation of grand-parent's post.
Laser sensors tend to get negative acceleration only if you use something close to the maximum resolution, and if you have other problems with them, it might just mean your USB polling rate is too high or that you need to get a different mousepad.
I consider Flash video players vastly superior to any of the alternatives that existed before HTML5, and the HTML5 players still don't work as well as the Flash ones for me on the recent Firefox 3.6. I've also enjoyed many Flash animations in better quality than they could have been if encoded to video. I've enjoyed some Flash games. If none of that is relevant to you, it doesn't mean that it's not for anyone, and if you think YouTube could have used the embedded Windows Media Player or RealMedia or QuickTime player plugins and been just as successful, you're really out of touch.
That would be quite convenient if you could just leak your data, pretend it was an accident and make everything inadmissible. In any event, evidence can only be inadmissible if the government was involved in obtaining it illegally. The same doesn't apply to third parties.
So does mine, but it's kind of quiet, because the alarm clock part is just bells attached to the CD tray and a cron script, and it's only been useful once when the server was located in my friend's bedroom. I think the video I've linked to was shot at that time, when I knew he was oversleeping and I ran the script remotely.
A lot of bad decisions are "understandable" in the sense that the people who made them weren't simply crazy, but that doesn't justify them. All the gunners on the helicopter saw was somebody with a van trying to help someone else who's lying on the ground in a pool of blood. This is a thing that good people do, not just enemies, and a policy that doesn't take this possibility into account should be described as inhumane.
Given the historical context of when LotR was written, and that Tolkien was Brittish, it's even more "obvious" that Mordor was Nazi Germany and the whole story was an allegory for WWII. On the other hand, Tolkien has denied this, and arguing against the author doesn't make too much sense. I'm not sure he's denied Christial allegories too, but woudln't be surprised, even though Tolkien himself was an ardent Christian. Maybe someone can clarify.
Ah, the silver bullet of biblical exegesis: metaphor. Something doesn't make sense in the Bible? Call it a metaphor. No? Then you're an illiterate. Want to call Jesus a metaphor? Wrong, he's a historical person. You ask why? Because I said so.
It's practical to keep a browsing history. It helps when I'm searching for something and the visited links are highlighted. It also helps when I'm trying to remember the address of the blog I commented on the other day to see if there are any replies. I often use the address auto-complete feature to visit sites I don't have bookmarked, and I don't care if someone sees I've visited Slashdot. If I'm actually doing something sensitive, then I'll just break out Chrome in Incognito mode. No need to make most of my browsing more difficult because some of it is sensitive.
I'm not sure why the OpenBSD people bother with marketing at all. It's most likely just tradition. From my experience, the type of audience they're interested in are hardcore enthusiasts or dedicated and thick-skinned newbies. They don't want users who can be persuaded to go with OpenBSD instead of, say, Ubuntu by a catchy tag-line. They just don't give a fig about newbie-friendliness, and I'm not saying that as a criticism. It seems to work for a lot of people who can break the barrier and become proficient with OpenBSD. The stuff that matters, like well-written man-pages, is there. What's not there are pretty GUIs and wizards. In the end, what else would you expect from a group lead by someone with the personality of Theo de Raadt.
That's what memory is for, though. I have 4 GiB of it, and I don't see the gain from having it go unused over having it occupied by a sloppily made app. In return, I get something I enjoy using more.
I read a lot of PDF files, mostly books and the like, and I recently switched back to Adobe Reader from Foxit, after using it for years. I don't see any difference speed-wise on my machine, it behaves slightly better, looks much better, and it's still proprietary, closed software anyway. With Foxit, its browser plugin used to be unstable with Firefox for whatever reason too. Adobe's plugin seems to work better. As far as I'm concerned about security, I've turned off JS support in Adobe Reader. This seems to prevent many exploits, and takes away no useful functionality, as far as I'm aware. Even it someone managed to perform an exploit that didn't depend on JS, I'd still be protected by Firefox not running with administrative priviledges. All in all, I think Foxit Reader is nice, but slightly overrated. Adobe deserves their fair share of criticism, but they still deliver a more polished product.
It's about disabling JS in Acrobat itself, not in general. For whatever stupid reason, Adobe thought it would be useful to have scripts in PDF files. I've disabled it ages ago, but I still run it elsewhere on web.
You're using the term "accessory" incorrectly. The distributor would be the accessory, not the hammer. It refers to a person, and it does not make the law against illegal hammer distribution apply to the case.
To follow up, the problem seems to have been my ISP trying to communicate with me by messing with the contents of incoming HTTP transmissions. Clearing out some aptitude related files fixed it.
So, according to you, a law prohibiting the distribution of illegal hammers makes the distributor of legal hammers directly responsible for the illegal use of his legal hammers because using said legal hammers illegally somehow makes them illegal, provided the distributor knew what the use will be, which is not guaranteed. I think you are a bit confused. I admit being wrong about the professor, though, because I just skimmed the article.
The focus is there because circumstantial ad hominem is a valid counter-argument to the ruling if you aren't a law specialist. If you aren't educated in law, you can't really evaluate the ruling itself adequately. There is a reason for law schools to exist. Laypeople are mainly supposed to trust the opinions of experts in their appropriate fields, in this case the judge. If the judge has a conflict of interest, his opinion is tainted, and it makes a lot of sense to ask for him to be replaced. It doesn't make a lot of sense, however, to argue that asking for such a judge to be replaced somehow validates his ruling. It just shows that you agree with the ruling for whatever reason. It's a circular argument.
a service provider is responsible for illegal data (like torrent files) stored on their system
Why would files containing otherwise legal things like checksums and file names be illegal exactly? Because they can be used for illegal purposes? But so can almost everything. For instance, I can use a hammer to hit you. People have done that in reality and hit others. Should we now fine every Home Depot that sold a hammer that was used in an attack? I don't think so. If the Swedish law allows this in the context of ISPs, then it's absurd. If I understand correctly, the professor mentioned in the article says it doesn't, so that answers your question.
I wonder what particular insight the moderators saw in this post. I suppose it's implying that, since Photoshop is widely pirated, many of its users shouldn't actually want to use it, since they're doing it illegally, and illegal equals bad. Of course, that's fallacious and irrelevant, because illegal doesn't necessarily mean bad, and even if it did, it wouldn't change what the users want. They want Photoshop, Ubuntu can't support it, so they don't like Ubuntu. Nothing in that explanation depends on them paying for Photoshop or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, I regret that the naysayers about the new system are so well represented in the comments. The Ajax interface fits my usage patterns quite well. I browse at a high threshold to save time and I'm able to conveniently switch to a lower one if I'm especially interested in that story or if something catches my eye. These are the most common things I do, and they've been made significantly easier now.
Everyone probably is guilty of it, but it's a matter of degree. For instance, everyone lies at some point, but these lies are often too insignificant to merit the title "liar". Your point of everyone doing it is just a clarification, not a refutation of grand-parent's post.
I think he ultimately unfriended her for being quite dumb, not just for having a different taste in cinema.
Laser sensors tend to get negative acceleration only if you use something close to the maximum resolution, and if you have other problems with them, it might just mean your USB polling rate is too high or that you need to get a different mousepad.
I consider Flash video players vastly superior to any of the alternatives that existed before HTML5, and the HTML5 players still don't work as well as the Flash ones for me on the recent Firefox 3.6. I've also enjoyed many Flash animations in better quality than they could have been if encoded to video. I've enjoyed some Flash games. If none of that is relevant to you, it doesn't mean that it's not for anyone, and if you think YouTube could have used the embedded Windows Media Player or RealMedia or QuickTime player plugins and been just as successful, you're really out of touch.
That would be quite convenient if you could just leak your data, pretend it was an accident and make everything inadmissible. In any event, evidence can only be inadmissible if the government was involved in obtaining it illegally. The same doesn't apply to third parties.
So does mine, but it's kind of quiet, because the alarm clock part is just bells attached to the CD tray and a cron script, and it's only been useful once when the server was located in my friend's bedroom. I think the video I've linked to was shot at that time, when I knew he was oversleeping and I ran the script remotely.
Isn't this akin to asking "we existed without programmers for thousands of years, so why do we need them now"?
A lot of bad decisions are "understandable" in the sense that the people who made them weren't simply crazy, but that doesn't justify them. All the gunners on the helicopter saw was somebody with a van trying to help someone else who's lying on the ground in a pool of blood. This is a thing that good people do, not just enemies, and a policy that doesn't take this possibility into account should be described as inhumane.
Given the historical context of when LotR was written, and that Tolkien was Brittish, it's even more "obvious" that Mordor was Nazi Germany and the whole story was an allegory for WWII. On the other hand, Tolkien has denied this, and arguing against the author doesn't make too much sense. I'm not sure he's denied Christial allegories too, but woudln't be surprised, even though Tolkien himself was an ardent Christian. Maybe someone can clarify.
Ah, the silver bullet of biblical exegesis: metaphor. Something doesn't make sense in the Bible? Call it a metaphor. No? Then you're an illiterate. Want to call Jesus a metaphor? Wrong, he's a historical person. You ask why? Because I said so.
It's practical to keep a browsing history. It helps when I'm searching for something and the visited links are highlighted. It also helps when I'm trying to remember the address of the blog I commented on the other day to see if there are any replies. I often use the address auto-complete feature to visit sites I don't have bookmarked, and I don't care if someone sees I've visited Slashdot. If I'm actually doing something sensitive, then I'll just break out Chrome in Incognito mode. No need to make most of my browsing more difficult because some of it is sensitive.
I'm not sure why the OpenBSD people bother with marketing at all. It's most likely just tradition. From my experience, the type of audience they're interested in are hardcore enthusiasts or dedicated and thick-skinned newbies. They don't want users who can be persuaded to go with OpenBSD instead of, say, Ubuntu by a catchy tag-line. They just don't give a fig about newbie-friendliness, and I'm not saying that as a criticism. It seems to work for a lot of people who can break the barrier and become proficient with OpenBSD. The stuff that matters, like well-written man-pages, is there. What's not there are pretty GUIs and wizards. In the end, what else would you expect from a group lead by someone with the personality of Theo de Raadt.
That's what memory is for, though. I have 4 GiB of it, and I don't see the gain from having it go unused over having it occupied by a sloppily made app. In return, I get something I enjoy using more.
I read a lot of PDF files, mostly books and the like, and I recently switched back to Adobe Reader from Foxit, after using it for years. I don't see any difference speed-wise on my machine, it behaves slightly better, looks much better, and it's still proprietary, closed software anyway. With Foxit, its browser plugin used to be unstable with Firefox for whatever reason too. Adobe's plugin seems to work better. As far as I'm concerned about security, I've turned off JS support in Adobe Reader. This seems to prevent many exploits, and takes away no useful functionality, as far as I'm aware. Even it someone managed to perform an exploit that didn't depend on JS, I'd still be protected by Firefox not running with administrative priviledges. All in all, I think Foxit Reader is nice, but slightly overrated. Adobe deserves their fair share of criticism, but they still deliver a more polished product.
It's about disabling JS in Acrobat itself, not in general. For whatever stupid reason, Adobe thought it would be useful to have scripts in PDF files. I've disabled it ages ago, but I still run it elsewhere on web.
You mean this guy? Right.
However, I'd expect the amount of indexed code and the traffic Code Search gets is relatively tiny, so the parent's point might still well be valid.
Who is John Galt?
You're using the term "accessory" incorrectly. The distributor would be the accessory, not the hammer. It refers to a person, and it does not make the law against illegal hammer distribution apply to the case.
To follow up, the problem seems to have been my ISP trying to communicate with me by messing with the contents of incoming HTTP transmissions. Clearing out some aptitude related files fixed it.
So, according to you, a law prohibiting the distribution of illegal hammers makes the distributor of legal hammers directly responsible for the illegal use of his legal hammers because using said legal hammers illegally somehow makes them illegal, provided the distributor knew what the use will be, which is not guaranteed. I think you are a bit confused. I admit being wrong about the professor, though, because I just skimmed the article.
The focus is there because circumstantial ad hominem is a valid counter-argument to the ruling if you aren't a law specialist. If you aren't educated in law, you can't really evaluate the ruling itself adequately. There is a reason for law schools to exist. Laypeople are mainly supposed to trust the opinions of experts in their appropriate fields, in this case the judge. If the judge has a conflict of interest, his opinion is tainted, and it makes a lot of sense to ask for him to be replaced. It doesn't make a lot of sense, however, to argue that asking for such a judge to be replaced somehow validates his ruling. It just shows that you agree with the ruling for whatever reason. It's a circular argument.
Why would files containing otherwise legal things like checksums and file names be illegal exactly? Because they can be used for illegal purposes? But so can almost everything. For instance, I can use a hammer to hit you. People have done that in reality and hit others. Should we now fine every Home Depot that sold a hammer that was used in an attack? I don't think so. If the Swedish law allows this in the context of ISPs, then it's absurd. If I understand correctly, the professor mentioned in the article says it doesn't, so that answers your question.
I wonder what particular insight the moderators saw in this post. I suppose it's implying that, since Photoshop is widely pirated, many of its users shouldn't actually want to use it, since they're doing it illegally, and illegal equals bad. Of course, that's fallacious and irrelevant, because illegal doesn't necessarily mean bad, and even if it did, it wouldn't change what the users want. They want Photoshop, Ubuntu can't support it, so they don't like Ubuntu. Nothing in that explanation depends on them paying for Photoshop or not.