This seems akin to saying that communism looks good on paper, but it's the corruption of people in a large bureaucracy that is to be blamed for its real-world failures. It may be true (and may not), but we're still left with religious zealots blowing up busloads of people or "witches" being burned to death.
Also, since it's persistent (unlike RAM) then you could have better computer boot times. Basically the mechanical hard drive becomes a type of nearline storage device that gets accessed later (and less often) in the pipeline. Does that make any sense? I often fell asleep in my OS class in college.
Actually, I remember reading some article years back about the "future of OS storage" or some such thing. I've often thought about how it would be much nicer to have your OS stored on an intermediate storage device between your primary memory and your hard drive, at least for people who don't update their OS very often. I don't know how plausible a system like this would be, but I think there would be a lot of advantages. If you could have fast SSD memory that you could put your OS on and use your hard drive for temporary files, multimedia, and whatever else, your boot time would be considerably less. Further, a physical switch of some sort that you flip on the front of your computer once you have the OS installed and configured could make the OS storage read only, improving its security from viruses and things, couldn't you? Most of the OS is not changed very often, so it seems ideal to me. You wouldn't even have to have a very large device; five or ten gigabytes would suffice. Are there systems like this? If not, why?
Can someone point out how laws such as the PATRIOT Act are enacted and enforced when they clearly violate the Constitution?
Article VI. states:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
The framers apparently understood that the purpose of government is to uphold the innate rights and freedoms of mankind. Hamilton said:
"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."
Shouldn't all this mean that legislation like the PATRIOT Act is null and void? Maybe elected representatives should be required to study the concepts that the Constitution is derived from. For that matter, maybe these things should be taught in public schools.
Anyone who thinks racism isn't tolerated in the US is white.
If you have non-white skin, try walking into any small town in Kansas. You won't want to stay.
If people are working so hard to hide something then the most logical answer is probably the opposite. In this case: marijuana has little or no effect on anything, all negative social perceptions are due to years of wrongful regulation, all ill effects are circumstantial correlations, and the only reason for the continued illegality is the complete inability to admit that the government has ever made a mistake. PR and ego--no different than telling your manager he's wrong.
Exactly, although it seems that it's not so much the government failing to admit its mistakes as it is the (huge) tobacco industry campaigning against it. The politicians we elect are kept happily complacent by powerful lobbying groups who don't want to see marijuana legal. After all, who will smoke a cigarrette when they could have a joint (or marijuana in any form)? And more importantly, who would BUY marijuana if they could just grow it in their window? I think the tobacco industry realizes how devastating to their several century old deathgrip (heh) on America if marijuana were freely available.
How do psychologists control studies like this? It seems to me that video games would score fairly low in influencing kids as opposed to being inundated with real-world violence. Example, from the article:
Showing violent acts without consequences teaches youth that violence is an effective means of resolving conflict.
Not to bring politics into this too much, but isn't that exactly the example that the President of the United States set, violence as an acceptable means to getting your way?
So, do the psychologists study violent behavior in a group that does not have access to violent games and then compare the levels of aggression between the two? I guess parents should grow some spines and set acceptable boundaries for their kids. Another poster said it right, study the parents and you'll find conclusive results.
Also from the article: Williams and Skoric also concede that because their study didn't concentrate solely on younger teenagers, 'we cannot say that teenagers might not experience different effects.'
Do psychologists ever come up with hard facts about behaviour, or are their careers built around speculating about what may or may not have an effect on people? All I ever see in the media is a group of psychologists publicly speculating on research that contradicts what another group spoke about last week.
I'm always amazed when I see companies suing people over things like this. How is it even possible that a crime is being committed by showing this video? Yes, of course it's copyright infringement to unlawfully download a copy of OS X beta, but to show a video of it? If I posted a picture of someones computer screen playing an illegally downloaded DVD, a crime has been committed?
What if I show a video of someone committing a crime with a Colt pistol. Should I be sued by Colt? Or am I missing a big point here?
Perhaps most importantly, isn't it pretty UnAmerican(TM) to hold the view of "As an American company, we support freedom of speech and expression, except when it involves someone doing something we don't like with our product?" Don't we let Nazis express their opinions if they want to, even though sane people are against them?
After spending money on several different computer cases, I came to an important realization. Unless you've got money to just throw away, there really isn't much point to buy a premium case like this.
I bought a Lian-Li PC-65 USB case when the price was $200. I have also purchased a $60 Antec-style case. The Antec case, though heavier, is my favorite, hands down. It's easier to work with, cheap to replace, and I'm not worried about getting it scratched up or damaged. The fact is, a computer case doesn't matter much at all unless you overclock (which is another thing I find pointless). There are far more important components to spend your money on, like a higher quality power supply, more memory, and virtually anything else that actually affects how your computer will be.
I am part of the problem. From my point of view, the turnaround of lifestyle required from every individual in developed nations to combat global warming seems insurmountable. Americans are all about freedom: freedom to drive to the mall (to buy plastic, oil-derived products that we don't need), freedom to drive to the movies, freedom to drive to McDonald's with your kids. How do you even begin to change culture centered around mobility? Nearly all of my peers have their own vehicle and use it extensively. How can we not? We have been raised to NEED one. If I didn't have my beat up old VW, I don't have a clue how I'd cope. My job and University are both too far to bike or walk to. Bus transportation isn't very extensive where I live. Forget trains.
Slashdot Mirror
This seems akin to saying that communism looks good on paper, but it's the corruption of people in a large bureaucracy that is to be blamed for its real-world failures. It may be true (and may not), but we're still left with religious zealots blowing up busloads of people or "witches" being burned to death.
Actually, I remember reading some article years back about the "future of OS storage" or some such thing. I've often thought about how it would be much nicer to have your OS stored on an intermediate storage device between your primary memory and your hard drive, at least for people who don't update their OS very often. I don't know how plausible a system like this would be, but I think there would be a lot of advantages. If you could have fast SSD memory that you could put your OS on and use your hard drive for temporary files, multimedia, and whatever else, your boot time would be considerably less. Further, a physical switch of some sort that you flip on the front of your computer once you have the OS installed and configured could make the OS storage read only, improving its security from viruses and things, couldn't you? Most of the OS is not changed very often, so it seems ideal to me. You wouldn't even have to have a very large device; five or ten gigabytes would suffice. Are there systems like this? If not, why?
Article VI. states:
The framers apparently understood that the purpose of government is to uphold the innate rights and freedoms of mankind. Hamilton said:
Shouldn't all this mean that legislation like the PATRIOT Act is null and void? Maybe elected representatives should be required to study the concepts that the Constitution is derived from. For that matter, maybe these things should be taught in public schools.
Anyone who thinks racism isn't tolerated in the US is white. If you have non-white skin, try walking into any small town in Kansas. You won't want to stay.
If people are working so hard to hide something then the most logical answer is probably the opposite. In this case: marijuana has little or no effect on anything, all negative social perceptions are due to years of wrongful regulation, all ill effects are circumstantial correlations, and the only reason for the continued illegality is the complete inability to admit that the government has ever made a mistake. PR and ego--no different than telling your manager he's wrong.
Exactly, although it seems that it's not so much the government failing to admit its mistakes as it is the (huge) tobacco industry campaigning against it. The politicians we elect are kept happily complacent by powerful lobbying groups who don't want to see marijuana legal. After all, who will smoke a cigarrette when they could have a joint (or marijuana in any form)? And more importantly, who would BUY marijuana if they could just grow it in their window? I think the tobacco industry realizes how devastating to their several century old deathgrip (heh) on America if marijuana were freely available.
How do psychologists control studies like this? It seems to me that video games would score fairly low in influencing kids as opposed to being inundated with real-world violence. Example, from the article:
Showing violent acts without consequences teaches youth that violence is an effective means of resolving conflict.
Not to bring politics into this too much, but isn't that exactly the example that the President of the United States set, violence as an acceptable means to getting your way?
So, do the psychologists study violent behavior in a group that does not have access to violent games and then compare the levels of aggression between the two? I guess parents should grow some spines and set acceptable boundaries for their kids. Another poster said it right, study the parents and you'll find conclusive results.
Also from the article: Williams and Skoric also concede that because their study didn't concentrate solely on younger teenagers, 'we cannot say that teenagers might not experience different effects.'
Do psychologists ever come up with hard facts about behaviour, or are their careers built around speculating about what may or may not have an effect on people? All I ever see in the media is a group of psychologists publicly speculating on research that contradicts what another group spoke about last week.
I'm always amazed when I see companies suing people over things like this. How is it even possible that a crime is being committed by showing this video? Yes, of course it's copyright infringement to unlawfully download a copy of OS X beta, but to show a video of it? If I posted a picture of someones computer screen playing an illegally downloaded DVD, a crime has been committed?
What if I show a video of someone committing a crime with a Colt pistol. Should I be sued by Colt? Or am I missing a big point here?
Perhaps most importantly, isn't it pretty UnAmerican(TM) to hold the view of "As an American company, we support freedom of speech and expression, except when it involves someone doing something we don't like with our product?" Don't we let Nazis express their opinions if they want to, even though sane people are against them?
Maybe I'm missing the point.
After spending money on several different computer cases, I came to an important realization. Unless you've got money to just throw away, there really isn't much point to buy a premium case like this.
I bought a Lian-Li PC-65 USB case when the price was $200. I have also purchased a $60 Antec-style case. The Antec case, though heavier, is my favorite, hands down. It's easier to work with, cheap to replace, and I'm not worried about getting it scratched up or damaged. The fact is, a computer case doesn't matter much at all unless you overclock (which is another thing I find pointless). There are far more important components to spend your money on, like a higher quality power supply, more memory, and virtually anything else that actually affects how your computer will be.
I am part of the problem. From my point of view, the turnaround of lifestyle required from every individual in developed nations to combat global warming seems insurmountable. Americans are all about freedom: freedom to drive to the mall (to buy plastic, oil-derived products that we don't need), freedom to drive to the movies, freedom to drive to McDonald's with your kids. How do you even begin to change culture centered around mobility? Nearly all of my peers have their own vehicle and use it extensively. How can we not? We have been raised to NEED one. If I didn't have my beat up old VW, I don't have a clue how I'd cope. My job and University are both too far to bike or walk to. Bus transportation isn't very extensive where I live. Forget trains.
Where do we even begin?