Maybe an alternative way is to image the disk of the old 486 and run it in a virtual machine, backing up the image and VM regularly, then it doesn't matter what hardware you run it on, and the hardware can be easily and quickly replaced if it does fail.
15 years out of a workstation probably requires an SSD instead of a hard disk and wind the performance settings way back so the fans hardly ever run. It certainly would require good build quality, and it'd be a struggle to find that these days in even a name brand like Dell Lenovo or even Apple.
Frankly, if all "release candidate" and "golden master" software performed as well as gMail in Beta, I'd probably be happy to use Macroslop stuff instead of my Mac.
Fine service, Mr Google, keep up the good work.
Unrelated to autism (I think), I get nauseous in new cars, or in limos with the "new car small" releaser thingy on the dashboard. So much so that I'll never buy a new car without having my wife use it for the first few months... but since she does the majority of schlepping the kid around, maybe I should rethink that strategy.
My ex used to teach in special schools, and has regularly had autistic kids in her class since moving to mainstream schools, too. Just anecdotally, I seem to recall quite a few of these kids came from families who could easily afford new cars. Whether they did have new cars frequently I couldn't be sure, but the vinyl link is plausible. Another good test might be to see what autism rates are like near PVC factories.
In a technical sense you speak the truth. In a practical sense, public freedoms are a social culture, not document driven.
Believe it or not, Britain's libel laws are a protection of people's rights. They protect the British population's right to respectful treatment, the right to know their accuser and the right to fair trial. The idea is that you have to make an accusation through proper channels. Simply besmirching somebody "in the public interest" isn't enough in itself. Seriously, that is a GOOD thing. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to slander with impunity, simply because you believe there is a "public interest".
They are old laws that didn't take into account a global communications network and maybe need tweaking, but Britain is a better place for them and would be a poorer one without them.
The claim that the USA has freedoms because of the constitutional amendments which "gurantee them" is a myth. Americans have rights because they want them and have a strong culture of knowing the wording of those rights. The constitution is the foundation of that culture, but it is the vigilance and will of the people that builds the bricks and mortar of that freedom.
By the same logic, and although it is legally fragile, Britain is a free country because the Brits want it to be so. If Queen Liz suddenly up and decided to use the rule of law for her own end, Brits would do what most former European monarchies did, turf the freeloaders out.
Freedom exists because we, the people, want to be free and are prepared to pay the price. It doesn't exist because of any document, no matter how eloquent. The eloquence of bill of rights simply gives the people the tools with which to defend their freedoms, nothing more.
A 48MB file size for 6'22"? Forget it it, I'll stick with 44k PCM. WAV or AIFF both work on iPod, as does Apple lossless, and frankly, I can't see the problem with 256kb MP3 anyway. Nobody listens to music for entertainment in a perfect environment, especially not on the go.
Bloody audiophiles and codec programmers. Complete wankers the lot of them.
We have to stop saying things like, "We don't have the right to free speech in Australia," because we do have that right so long as we want it and keep reminding our politicians we want it.
Australia's constitution guarantees one freedom, "free trade between the states." From this it is interpreted in case law that if trade is free between the states, it is free within, also. From this, trade becomes defined in case law as any exchange of goods, services and information between any Australian, provided it doesn't break the law. From here the case law supports the fact that free speech is legitimate "trade". (IE: exchange of information.)
The US First Amendment only guarantees free speech there because Americans respect, believe and defend the amendment with their deeds and even their lives. The amendment by itself doesn't protect their freedoms.
Australians must point out to their politicians that our fathers and grandfathers fought facism in Europe and Africa, and imperialism in Asia, and that they believed they were fighting for a free Australia. We need to remind our politicians that "Free Trade" as guaranteed in the constitution also guarantees free expression.
We do have freedom of speech in this country because we want it. We just have to work a little harder to keep it. The price of freedom IS eternal vigilance, afterall. Keep fighting this evil clean feed and stop saying we don't have free speech, because if we didn't, we wouldn't even know the clean feed was there.
The Christians were targeted by the Romans because the Romans believed in a person's right worship personal gods, and those jumped up little splitters from the Jewish community in the outer southern empire had the obscene belief that their god was the only "God" - VERY strictly against decency and Roman law.
The GOOD thing about Google Maps and Google Earth is this very thing. Governments can't as easily keep secrets. Governments, especially democratic governments, pollute their democracy by keeping secrets.
As an artist (musician) in Australia who chooses to not reserve rights on some of my works, I'd like to see somebody try to "force" a "moral" right on me (Australia has compulsory moral rights) and make me take money for my performance. I'll simply turn around and donate it to a charity in the name of the person who was required to pay it.
Actually, PUSA have hit on a great success model. Sell their tunes through an app on the App Store, then the next band who try this, Apple will say, "Nope, your app is too much like..." and disallow it;-)
Most likely in the form of, "...60% of our male members have reported (or joked about) erectile dysfunction, while 80% of our female members claim to have actually experienced their partner suffer from it. In a case study, MrNaz...", to a pharmaceutical company looking to invest in viagra.
Yes, I do find it funny. Do you think your bank keeps customer data completely private? Your doctor? For every TOS, there's a loophole. For every privacy statement, a way of aggregating the data which makes it legally saleable.
Protect your privacy by all means, everybody should actively seek to do so, but don't ever for a second believe there isn't something about you, that if a company wants that data, they can't have it, even without anonimity. Even if you don't use public fora.
The cat is duped into agreeing to the EULA by the computer's owner, therefore the owner is still liable. It'd be funny if they managed to devise a way where the cat could initiate the download and install process without the computer owner's intervention - that would have lawyers shitting themselves and running around inserting livestock ineligibility clauses, but there is no way around it but finding some way to register duress. On free software this would be nigh on impossible.
...and they DO emit CO2. CO2 is emitted during manufacture, and with 80% of the world's energy being carbon-thermal, any such system is going to be responsible for at least some increase in CO2 emission.
The only truly sustainable urban transport model in the current energy network is the bicycle.
I am SO SICK of the "revenue raising" argument. After 20 years of bicycle advocacy and road safety campaigning, it irritates me more than a "bogun" throwing an empty bottle at me while I'm cycling.
In the words of the 1970s TV show "cop", Serpico, if you can't afford the fine, don't do the crime. If you run a red light, or speed up at a yellow to beat the red light, you are breaking the law.
The red light means stop. No ifs, no buts. The yellow light means stop, too, but only if it's safe to do so. It DOESN'T mean speed up to beat the red, it means stop.
Fines for running red lights, speeding and other traffic offences are NOT revenue raising initiatives, they are fines for wrongdoing. If you have a problem with "the state" raising revenue through fines, don't run red lights, don't speed and drive responsibly, it's THAT easy.
Anything else is just your own fucking stupidity endangering the lives of others. Consider yourself lucky to get away with only a fine. You could actually get killed, running the red, wanker.
I would say that it's more likely that a civilisation that can survive long enough to go out and find others isn't as violent or rapacious as one that finds itself on the brink of global environmental and economic catastrophe.
I suspect the advanced civs have already found us and have said, "Hmm, lets see if those humans figure it out or destroy themselves. I don't fancy ending up as a slave or food."
There will always be people willing to risk it all for science, exploration or glory.
If US politicians end manned space programmes (i prefer "piloted", "manned" is sexist), companies and other countries will send their best and bravest to the skies.
"The nature of monkey was irrepressible!"
EVs, meh. As most of the world's electricity is coal-fired, and most modern battery technologies are carbon positive in production and disposal, EVs are no better solution than bio-fuels. (Which turn food producing land into petrol farms.)
The ONLY sustainable vehicle is the bicycle. Maybe trains between major centres. Nothing else is "green" no matter how much carbon you offset.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe an alternative way is to image the disk of the old 486 and run it in a virtual machine, backing up the image and VM regularly, then it doesn't matter what hardware you run it on, and the hardware can be easily and quickly replaced if it does fail. 15 years out of a workstation probably requires an SSD instead of a hard disk and wind the performance settings way back so the fans hardly ever run. It certainly would require good build quality, and it'd be a struggle to find that these days in even a name brand like Dell Lenovo or even Apple.
Frankly, if all "release candidate" and "golden master" software performed as well as gMail in Beta, I'd probably be happy to use Macroslop stuff instead of my Mac. Fine service, Mr Google, keep up the good work.
Hey! This would make a great TV show...
:-(
Oh, never mind.
Unrelated to autism (I think), I get nauseous in new cars, or in limos with the "new car small" releaser thingy on the dashboard. So much so that I'll never buy a new car without having my wife use it for the first few months... but since she does the majority of schlepping the kid around, maybe I should rethink that strategy.
My ex used to teach in special schools, and has regularly had autistic kids in her class since moving to mainstream schools, too. Just anecdotally, I seem to recall quite a few of these kids came from families who could easily afford new cars. Whether they did have new cars frequently I couldn't be sure, but the vinyl link is plausible. Another good test might be to see what autism rates are like near PVC factories.
Hmmm, beeeeeerrrrr... (Homer Simpson)
;-)
And if we drink to much beer by the seaside, it is inevitable at the end of the night we'll pee in the ocean
13 abstentions! That would have overturned this ruling 24-23! Gutless bastards!
In a technical sense you speak the truth. In a practical sense, public freedoms are a social culture, not document driven.
Believe it or not, Britain's libel laws are a protection of people's rights. They protect the British population's right to respectful treatment, the right to know their accuser and the right to fair trial. The idea is that you have to make an accusation through proper channels. Simply besmirching somebody "in the public interest" isn't enough in itself. Seriously, that is a GOOD thing. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to slander with impunity, simply because you believe there is a "public interest".
They are old laws that didn't take into account a global communications network and maybe need tweaking, but Britain is a better place for them and would be a poorer one without them.
The claim that the USA has freedoms because of the constitutional amendments which "gurantee them" is a myth. Americans have rights because they want them and have a strong culture of knowing the wording of those rights. The constitution is the foundation of that culture, but it is the vigilance and will of the people that builds the bricks and mortar of that freedom.
By the same logic, and although it is legally fragile, Britain is a free country because the Brits want it to be so. If Queen Liz suddenly up and decided to use the rule of law for her own end, Brits would do what most former European monarchies did, turf the freeloaders out.
Freedom exists because we, the people, want to be free and are prepared to pay the price. It doesn't exist because of any document, no matter how eloquent. The eloquence of bill of rights simply gives the people the tools with which to defend their freedoms, nothing more.
The stone cutters just have to work faster or they'll get fired.
A 48MB file size for 6'22"? Forget it it, I'll stick with 44k PCM. WAV or AIFF both work on iPod, as does Apple lossless, and frankly, I can't see the problem with 256kb MP3 anyway. Nobody listens to music for entertainment in a perfect environment, especially not on the go.
Bloody audiophiles and codec programmers. Complete wankers the lot of them.
We have to stop saying things like, "We don't have the right to free speech in Australia," because we do have that right so long as we want it and keep reminding our politicians we want it.
Australia's constitution guarantees one freedom, "free trade between the states." From this it is interpreted in case law that if trade is free between the states, it is free within, also. From this, trade becomes defined in case law as any exchange of goods, services and information between any Australian, provided it doesn't break the law. From here the case law supports the fact that free speech is legitimate "trade". (IE: exchange of information.)
The US First Amendment only guarantees free speech there because Americans respect, believe and defend the amendment with their deeds and even their lives. The amendment by itself doesn't protect their freedoms.
Australians must point out to their politicians that our fathers and grandfathers fought facism in Europe and Africa, and imperialism in Asia, and that they believed they were fighting for a free Australia. We need to remind our politicians that "Free Trade" as guaranteed in the constitution also guarantees free expression.
We do have freedom of speech in this country because we want it. We just have to work a little harder to keep it. The price of freedom IS eternal vigilance, afterall. Keep fighting this evil clean feed and stop saying we don't have free speech, because if we didn't, we wouldn't even know the clean feed was there.
The Christians were targeted by the Romans because the Romans believed in a person's right worship personal gods, and those jumped up little splitters from the Jewish community in the outer southern empire had the obscene belief that their god was the only "God" - VERY strictly against decency and Roman law.
Then you're a complet fucking pleb and need a kick up your arts.
PS3 + Linux + Virtualisation + Mac OS X = ...
:D
The GOOD thing about Google Maps and Google Earth is this very thing. Governments can't as easily keep secrets. Governments, especially democratic governments, pollute their democracy by keeping secrets.
As an artist (musician) in Australia who chooses to not reserve rights on some of my works, I'd like to see somebody try to "force" a "moral" right on me (Australia has compulsory moral rights) and make me take money for my performance. I'll simply turn around and donate it to a charity in the name of the person who was required to pay it.
Actually, PUSA have hit on a great success model. Sell their tunes through an app on the App Store, then the next band who try this, Apple will say, "Nope, your app is too much like..." and disallow it ;-)
Most likely in the form of, "...60% of our male members have reported (or joked about) erectile dysfunction, while 80% of our female members claim to have actually experienced their partner suffer from it. In a case study, MrNaz...", to a pharmaceutical company looking to invest in viagra. Yes, I do find it funny. Do you think your bank keeps customer data completely private? Your doctor? For every TOS, there's a loophole. For every privacy statement, a way of aggregating the data which makes it legally saleable. Protect your privacy by all means, everybody should actively seek to do so, but don't ever for a second believe there isn't something about you, that if a company wants that data, they can't have it, even without anonimity. Even if you don't use public fora.
The cat is duped into agreeing to the EULA by the computer's owner, therefore the owner is still liable. It'd be funny if they managed to devise a way where the cat could initiate the download and install process without the computer owner's intervention - that would have lawyers shitting themselves and running around inserting livestock ineligibility clauses, but there is no way around it but finding some way to register duress. On free software this would be nigh on impossible.
...and they DO emit CO2. CO2 is emitted during manufacture, and with 80% of the world's energy being carbon-thermal, any such system is going to be responsible for at least some increase in CO2 emission. The only truly sustainable urban transport model in the current energy network is the bicycle.
I am SO SICK of the "revenue raising" argument. After 20 years of bicycle advocacy and road safety campaigning, it irritates me more than a "bogun" throwing an empty bottle at me while I'm cycling.
In the words of the 1970s TV show "cop", Serpico, if you can't afford the fine, don't do the crime. If you run a red light, or speed up at a yellow to beat the red light, you are breaking the law.
The red light means stop. No ifs, no buts. The yellow light means stop, too, but only if it's safe to do so. It DOESN'T mean speed up to beat the red, it means stop.
Fines for running red lights, speeding and other traffic offences are NOT revenue raising initiatives, they are fines for wrongdoing. If you have a problem with "the state" raising revenue through fines, don't run red lights, don't speed and drive responsibly, it's THAT easy.
Anything else is just your own fucking stupidity endangering the lives of others. Consider yourself lucky to get away with only a fine. You could actually get killed, running the red, wanker.
I would say that it's more likely that a civilisation that can survive long enough to go out and find others isn't as violent or rapacious as one that finds itself on the brink of global environmental and economic catastrophe.
I suspect the advanced civs have already found us and have said, "Hmm, lets see if those humans figure it out or destroy themselves. I don't fancy ending up as a slave or food."
1984 was about sexual politics.
:-/
what's archive.org's "Wayback Machine" then?
There will always be people willing to risk it all for science, exploration or glory. If US politicians end manned space programmes (i prefer "piloted", "manned" is sexist), companies and other countries will send their best and bravest to the skies. "The nature of monkey was irrepressible!"
The nuclear/rail/bicycle future! :D
EVs, meh. As most of the world's electricity is coal-fired, and most modern battery technologies are carbon positive in production and disposal, EVs are no better solution than bio-fuels. (Which turn food producing land into petrol farms.) The ONLY sustainable vehicle is the bicycle. Maybe trains between major centres. Nothing else is "green" no matter how much carbon you offset.