What makes me jump is the HDD requirements.... 40 GB total and 15 GB free? Are they kidding??
My current Windows folder uses 1.53 GB and is installed in a 6GB partition... Is there such a jump here as to justify so much HDD hunger? What will it be used for? Swap memory? Fonts??
So this thing is gonna drain up my graphic card while it's eating my hard disk? No thanks. I'll stick with XP (If only I could go back to 98....)
Well, if that is legal, I recommend you to change your laws...
Anonimity isn't really privacy. When I say "I love you" or "I'm going to kill you" I want to know it's ME saying THAT to THAT PERSON who is meant to receive it, and to no one else. I don't wanna be an anonymous coward sending my thoughts over to the NSA and get busted because they can look up my IP if I've been a bad boy...
Ok, that would be stupid [:D ] and, as you point out, a waste of bandwidth. What I'm having in mind is some kind of P2P multicasting; p.e.: you are receiving that stream, why can't you stream it to other nearby clients? Yeah, I know it's somehow inestable, that it depends on your own bandwidth, and so on but soon either we or ISP's will have to decide if we take the money-spending or the get-your-hands-dirty way...
"And the right for communications privacy is stated in the Constitution."
No, it's not actually. You just think it is because you've listened to people as ignorant of the facts as yourself, and never bothered to look.
Spanish Constitution, Section 18, Paragraph 3:
3. Se garantiza el secreto de las comunicaciones y, en especial, de las postales, telegráficas y telefónicas, salvo resolución judicial.
(3) Secrecy of communications is guaranteed, particularly regarding postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, except in the event of a court order.
If you read, do read. I said that was in my country...
OK. Who cares if your constitution doesn't support the right for privacy? Screw it! Don't change it! Let 1787 govern your rights!
In my country, p.e., the Police needs a court order to wiretap a phone. And the right for communications privacy is stated in the Constitution.
Presumption of innocence comes first. They can't start a wiretapping spree just because they feel like it. And having Muhammed as your name doesn't get you a spotlight... (And I can tell you, here in Spain he have some experience with terrorism...)
Sorry if you understood that, but I'm afraid it was not my point.
My point was: 1.1 billion people is a huge mass. Changes happen in countries smaller than that with much more lax policies. I was implying that even a big minority screaming out loud could be heard, despite government's attempts. China is becoming a modern country with a lot of limitations over freedom, and that sounds so inconsistent to me that there must be a reason why that happens.
And I wasn't clamining that censorship support being popular led to it being evil. But when we are talking about a social group, its internal laws get to define what is evil and what is not. For example: Is killing a person evil? If it is, why is that so many people in the US think it isn't when the government does it (death penalty)? So it seems to be, and not to be, evil at the same time. I was only trying to introduce the concept of moral subjectivity.
Touching a philosophical issue, the question of censorship being evil or not, relies on which side of the line you are on; sure Western civilizations mosly despise its use (let alone its abuse), but being China a country with 1100 million people, I think that if they're political education supports censorship, even with actual opposition, it is not that evil. I'm not sure if I'm making my point clear: even it seems evil to you, and to many others, it's just a point of view, it doesn't matter how logically clear it does seem to you. Besides, China isn't a HR supporter, so legitimizes it a little bit further.
And since they make their laws for their country, yeah, they've got the right (not to mention the means) to carry things like this over.
Don't get me wrong, though; I completely agree with your background idea. Fuck censorship. But in the meantime...
Yeah, man, he was: Just remember the Global Warming episode when he blames himself aloud because his alcohol powered robots (remembers de robot, remember the burp!) generated a lot of pollution (but he was in love, nonetheless...)
To explain in a slightly different way, we'll use the analogy of trying to accurately count a mountain of cars. The easiest way to do so, is to weigh the whole pile, and then divde by the average weight of a single car, and you get the total number of cars. The question is how you get the "average weight" of a single car. If you weigh just one car, and use that as the average, then you have some total inaccuracy X. If you instead weigh 10 cars and divde the weight by 10, the inaccuracy is much less: roughly X/10. This is how the old method of PLL circuit design worked. The greater the frequency, the more cars you used to find the average weight, and so the greater the accuracy you could get in finding out the total number of cars in the whole pile, or the exact frequency.
The new method described in the Article is roughly analagous to modifying all of your cars to ensure that the variation in the weights of the cars is much lower, so you can rely on just one car to provide you with the precision needed to determine the total number in the pile.
You win a 4 night hotel for seaching on MSN. There you are, enjoying your fine stay, browsing the net with your laptop in your room...
Some guy steps in. You look at him. It reminds you of someone. In your astonishment, you remain quiet. He moves his eyes on to your laptop. His pupils dilate. He begins to speak:
"Just tell me it's not Google".
You nod, frightened as ever. At that point, he picks up a chair and throws it across the room hitting a table you don't care about cause it's the hotel's anyway.
"I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google".
Yeah, I know what you mean, but mostly these things concern to software issues (like iRiver's EU software that limits the output power because some french regulation), since the hardware design is mainly universal (once again I'm talking from my personal POV).
I just want to note that I wasn't making a generalization, just feeding the discussion with some own experience. I know people should check their own country's regulations (or even the FCC mark, if that's enough) if they're really concerned about all this. Problem is only we, paranoid geeks, can't seem to realize privacy isn't that important.
Slashdot Mirror
You would have replied sooner, but you were looking up kernal in the dictionary...
That's not really the point; how much I'm allowing it to consume is. I don't want something as basic as the OS sucking out so many precious bytes...
What makes me jump is the HDD requirements.... 40 GB total and 15 GB free? Are they kidding??
My current Windows folder uses 1.53 GB and is installed in a 6GB partition... Is there such a jump here as to justify so much HDD hunger? What will it be used for? Swap memory? Fonts??
So this thing is gonna drain up my graphic card while it's eating my hard disk? No thanks. I'll stick with XP (If only I could go back to 98....)
Well, if that is legal, I recommend you to change your laws...
Anonimity isn't really privacy. When I say "I love you" or "I'm going to kill you" I want to know it's ME saying THAT to THAT PERSON who is meant to receive it, and to no one else. I don't wanna be an anonymous coward sending my thoughts over to the NSA and get busted because they can look up my IP if I've been a bad boy...
Ok, that would be stupid [ :D ] and, as you point out, a waste of bandwidth. What I'm having in mind is some kind of P2P multicasting; p.e.: you are receiving that stream, why can't you stream it to other nearby clients? Yeah, I know it's somehow inestable, that it depends on your own bandwidth, and so on but soon either we or ISP's will have to decide if we take the money-spending or the get-your-hands-dirty way...
If you read, do read. I said that was in my country...
OK. Who cares if your constitution doesn't support the right for privacy? Screw it! Don't change it! Let 1787 govern your rights!
In my country, p.e., the Police needs a court order to wiretap a phone. And the right for communications privacy is stated in the Constitution.
Presumption of innocence comes first. They can't start a wiretapping spree just because they feel like it. And having Muhammed as your name doesn't get you a spotlight... (And I can tell you, here in Spain he have some experience with terrorism...)
Sorry if you understood that, but I'm afraid it was not my point.
My point was: 1.1 billion people is a huge mass. Changes happen in countries smaller than that with much more lax policies. I was implying that even a big minority screaming out loud could be heard, despite government's attempts. China is becoming a modern country with a lot of limitations over freedom, and that sounds so inconsistent to me that there must be a reason why that happens.
And I wasn't clamining that censorship support being popular led to it being evil. But when we are talking about a social group, its internal laws get to define what is evil and what is not. For example: Is killing a person evil? If it is, why is that so many people in the US think it isn't when the government does it (death penalty)? So it seems to be, and not to be, evil at the same time. I was only trying to introduce the concept of moral subjectivity.
Oh, no, grammar nazis all over my face!
I meant "if their political education", obviously!
Touching a philosophical issue, the question of censorship being evil or not, relies on which side of the line you are on; sure Western civilizations mosly despise its use (let alone its abuse), but being China a country with 1100 million people, I think that if they're political education supports censorship, even with actual opposition, it is not that evil. I'm not sure if I'm making my point clear: even it seems evil to you, and to many others, it's just a point of view, it doesn't matter how logically clear it does seem to you. Besides, China isn't a HR supporter, so legitimizes it a little bit further.
And since they make their laws for their country, yeah, they've got the right (not to mention the means) to carry things like this over.
Don't get me wrong, though; I completely agree with your background idea. Fuck censorship. But in the meantime...
Or Irak... Oh, wait a minute...
Yeah, man, he was: Just remember the Global Warming episode when he blames himself aloud because his alcohol powered robots (remembers de robot, remember the burp!) generated a lot of pollution (but he was in love, nonetheless...)
- 38 noting you can change date/time format in preferences
- 2 how-to's on doing it.
- 1 freak who actually checked all Feb 22 back to 1995.
- 3 Y2K jokes (I actually laughed at the first one)
- 4 clueless people that wouldn't read any Informative's but still complain about the damn thing
- The other 29 are just ranting about SlashCode
Yeah. It damn feels like home.Sure. As deep as I can, promise.
Oh! Perfect! And now I need a nerd for my getaway laptop...
To explain in a slightly different way, we'll use the analogy of trying to accurately count a mountain of cars. The easiest way to do so, is to weigh the whole pile, and then divde by the average weight of a single car, and you get the total number of cars. The question is how you get the "average weight" of a single car. If you weigh just one car, and use that as the average, then you have some total inaccuracy X. If you instead weigh 10 cars and divde the weight by 10, the inaccuracy is much less: roughly X/10. This is how the old method of PLL circuit design worked. The greater the frequency, the more cars you used to find the average weight, and so the greater the accuracy you could get in finding out the total number of cars in the whole pile, or the exact frequency. The new method described in the Article is roughly analagous to modifying all of your cars to ensure that the variation in the weights of the cars is much lower, so you can rely on just one car to provide you with the precision needed to determine the total number in the pile.
Yeah, I think so... but the other way round.
Free Google? I'll take it... [On the phone] China? I have something you might want, but it's going to cost you. That's right, all the tea.
Yeah, d00d, sure, Montgomery's got the answer ...
LILO 22.7.1 really turns me on.
Nobody seems to be caring bout the 10^5 monkeys that check every image thus making the filter work... Poor perverted animals...
You win a 4 night hotel for seaching on MSN. There you are, enjoying your fine stay, browsing the net with your laptop in your room...
Some guy steps in. You look at him. It reminds you of someone. In your astonishment, you remain quiet. He moves his eyes on to your laptop. His pupils dilate. He begins to speak:
"Just tell me it's not Google".
You nod, frightened as ever. At that point, he picks up a chair and throws it across the room hitting a table you don't care about cause it's the hotel's anyway.
"I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google".
That reminds me of the Windows XP anticopy scheme. Long before it was even released publicly, the crack had already hit the street. Sweet.
Yeah, I know what you mean, but mostly these things concern to software issues (like iRiver's EU software that limits the output power because some french regulation), since the hardware design is mainly universal (once again I'm talking from my personal POV).
I just want to note that I wasn't making a generalization, just feeding the discussion with some own experience. I know people should check their own country's regulations (or even the FCC mark, if that's enough) if they're really concerned about all this. Problem is only we, paranoid geeks, can't seem to realize privacy isn't that important.