Sounds like you've got a similar setup as mine; 1.6 Pentium M and 512 MB of RAM shared between the system and the onboard intel graphics card. Running XP I was always one click away from dropping another gig of RAM into it, but now I'm running Ubuntu I think I'll save my money for some more exciting purchases.
My laptop does all the effects mentioned in the article summary and more, even though the specs of it are far below what Vista requires. And I owe it all to Ubuntu, Gnome and Beryl.
There's no easy to find minimum required specs for Beryl, so I thought I'd just try it anyway and see what happens; I only really wanted it for Exposé anyway, so I wasn't too worried whether the rest of it worked. It works better than I had hoped and all effects work with no noticeable stress on my system.
Ubuntu, Gnome and Beryl, more than just a pretty face. I'm very happy with it all.
Not exactly, they finally get rid of their really old car and use your now somwhat bad but not nearly as bad car.
I don't agree. Car ownership is on the rise, so what's really happening? Whoever I sell my old car to sells their really old car to someone else who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford a car and would have ridden a bike or bus instead. The creation of new cars means that old cars get cheaper and can be adopted by a wider proportion of society.
If we think of the life of cars as some sort of chain, with new cars fed in at the top and a series of links (owners) until the car gets scrapped at the bottom, then buying new cars doesn't mean that everyone along the chain gets a slightly newer car, it means that the chain gets longer. This longer chain devalues your old car, keeps it in use for a long period of time and leads to the output of harmful emissions. You can stop the chain from growing by maintaining an older car.
Perhaps, but how many of us want to either commit mass murder or return to a way of life not enjoyed since the pre-medieval days? I guess I could have written that in my original post, but I was aiming it people like myself who are conscious of the human impact on climate change, yet want to retain an air of modernity about our lives. You know, the type of person that wants to take action, rather than indulge in peasant idealism.
It's good to see some comment on the (carbon) manufacturing costs of new cars. I heard some advice the other day that said if you wanted to help the environment, you should buy a new car, because they're more fuel efficient and produce less nasty chemicals. Great advice, if it wasn't for the facts that:
1: Emissions are created during the manufacture of a car. And 2: What happens to your old car? You're likely to sell it to someone that keeps using it, i.e. that car keeps producing harmful emissions, just for somebody else.
If you wanted to help the environment, you wouldn't buy a new car, you'd keep an old one running as efficiently as you could and remember that there's more to carbon emissions than simply what you're doing right now. No man is an island, after all.
I love your assertion that all those people that have spent their entire lives and billions of billions of whatever currency you want to mention, missed something that you, random guy off Slashdot, knew all along.
I'm no expert in this sort of thing by any stretch of the imagination, but if it was all as easy and as cheap as you say, don't you think someone else would have also come up with the same idea?
I can just see some research scientist checking the front page of/. before making a phone call: "Sorry sir, it was all a waste of time, we should of stuck with Quinine all along. I've got plenty of it here, bring the Gin and meet me in my office after lunch".
It's not as if controlling Malaria is an expensive or unknown problem.
On that point you're very wrong. Sure, for Westerners its easy to travel to malaria ridden areas and not be affected; I recently spent a month in east Africa and spent well over £100 making sure I didn't get malaria. Unfortunately these drugs are horrendously expensive; for some places £100 could be ten years wages for somebody, or even an entire family. Spending £100 in a month is absolutely unimaginable.
Malaria kills millions of people each year. You're wrong, present methods of controlling malaria are expensive and unknown for the people that actually require them. I'm not sure that GM is the way to go, but I'm sure that something needs to be done, not for us holiday makers, but for those people that live in areas where malaria is rampant and the average wage is practically nothing a day.
And I'm a little worried that someone modded you as funny.
I don't mean to be insensitive, but a lot of people die every day. Why should I stop my daily routine for just one?
Exactly. Mocking FORTRAN is a mark of respect. We're much more insensitive to all those people who die and and don't mentioned, especially if it's the result of something easily fixed, like providing a supply of clean drinking water. A fair few people due to preventable causes whilst I was typing out this post; think about that you insensitive clod.
I thought that this question was so good I wanted to ask it again;
Why does Sony maintain a policy of hardware/software regionalisation that fits so poorly within the system of dissemination provided by the Internet? A system which is utilised predominantly by the type of people Sony want to be selling consoles to.
Believe it or not, but us Europeans can go online and see what a PS3 costs in America or Japan, and many of us like neither the wait nor the price. Bill Gates was recently interviewed on BBC news for the Vista launch, he was asked why Vista costs something like three times more in Britain than it does in the US. The answer? Market research suggested that the price asked for in the UK was one consumers would pay. The price had nothing to do with imports or taxes, or any costs at all; it was purely concerned with the consumer's cost.
I'm pretty amazed that dogs can smell these solvents in such tiny amounts
IANASD (I am not a sniffer dog), but have you ever cracked open a stack of CDRs that didn't smell awful? There's some funky stuff in them there disks; if sniffer dogs can't smell it then the world's in some pretty big trouble.
I think in this day and age the requirement for accurate estimates are outweighed by the desire to put nuclear weapons in space.
You can imagine Peter Sellars in the War Room on the phone to China explaining that the nuclear deterrent is to deter asteroids, and in no way is trying to arm space.
1: You were incorrect; logging out of Google services won't help, because 2: There was a tracking method you weren't aware of. And 3:Google's ability to track you is largely irrelevant to this story anyway as the required evidence came from computers seized from the defendant. But that's cool anyway because 4: You mentioned removing evidence from a local machine and I agreed with you.
Given this there's no way or google to track your searches, except recording your IP address, if you're not logged in
That's not true. There's the Google UID - a cookie that the search giant gives you and uses to trace every search you make. Your IP address is largely irrelevant; they have a method of chasing you, not just the NAT device from behind which you searched. The Only on-topic piece of your post was this:
Of course that still leaves your local machine to tell on you...
I think you've got it wrong. They didn't examine google's logs, they looked at the defendants computer. Clear your history? Yes. Change your MAC address? That won't help.
TFA mentions that computers were seized from the defendant and not Google or MSN (the other search engine mentioned). So no, this wasn't a case of google keeping records, but the defendants computer.
Maybe the title should read: "If Google'ing 'how to commit murder' before killing, throw harddrives into volcano".
Your IP usually isn't the problem, especially in my case where my ISP sends it all through their regional proxy anyway. What CustomizeGoogle does is randomize your Google UID. Take another look at the recent AOL breach - people weren't suffering privacy loss due to their IP address, but rather because AOL gave each and every user a number that could be tracked through the system. Thanks to CustomizeGoogle, that won't happen to me and my searches.
Google is within their rights to gather as much information as you feed them (your ip, time of day, host strings, query string, etc).
I see the problem now; you clearly don't understand the extent of Google's monitoring. They're not logging just IP address', they're logging people. The AOL data that came out showed how you could follow tracking cookies to see exactly what people, not IP address', were searching for.
I don't see why you have such a problem with it anyway. Many people around the world asked for greater privacy, Google gave it to them and you got your panties in a twist. Why is that?
Stop googling for "jihad death to american president" if you're worried about getting caught.
You're correct. The only people that demand privacy are those up to no good. How about I come over to your house later, sit in your bed for a bit, go through your draws and your phone records, take some pictures of you and your friends, ask the neighbours some pressing questions?
If you've got nothing to hide, you should have no problem with this.
Can we just outlaw driving already and be done with it?
If your driving experience relies upon your ability to use a mobile phone, then you probably need to chance how you drive. Any attempts to stop you getting distracted aren't anti-driving, but rather pro-driving.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like you've got a similar setup as mine; 1.6 Pentium M and 512 MB of RAM shared between the system and the onboard intel graphics card. Running XP I was always one click away from dropping another gig of RAM into it, but now I'm running Ubuntu I think I'll save my money for some more exciting purchases.
My laptop does all the effects mentioned in the article summary and more, even though the specs of it are far below what Vista requires. And I owe it all to Ubuntu, Gnome and Beryl.
There's no easy to find minimum required specs for Beryl, so I thought I'd just try it anyway and see what happens; I only really wanted it for Exposé anyway, so I wasn't too worried whether the rest of it worked. It works better than I had hoped and all effects work with no noticeable stress on my system.
Ubuntu, Gnome and Beryl, more than just a pretty face. I'm very happy with it all.
If we think of the life of cars as some sort of chain, with new cars fed in at the top and a series of links (owners) until the car gets scrapped at the bottom, then buying new cars doesn't mean that everyone along the chain gets a slightly newer car, it means that the chain gets longer. This longer chain devalues your old car, keeps it in use for a long period of time and leads to the output of harmful emissions. You can stop the chain from growing by maintaining an older car.
Perhaps, but how many of us want to either commit mass murder or return to a way of life not enjoyed since the pre-medieval days? I guess I could have written that in my original post, but I was aiming it people like myself who are conscious of the human impact on climate change, yet want to retain an air of modernity about our lives. You know, the type of person that wants to take action, rather than indulge in peasant idealism.
It's good to see some comment on the (carbon) manufacturing costs of new cars. I heard some advice the other day that said if you wanted to help the environment, you should buy a new car, because they're more fuel efficient and produce less nasty chemicals. Great advice, if it wasn't for the facts that:
1: Emissions are created during the manufacture of a car. And
2: What happens to your old car? You're likely to sell it to someone that keeps using it, i.e. that car keeps producing harmful emissions, just for somebody else.
If you wanted to help the environment, you wouldn't buy a new car, you'd keep an old one running as efficiently as you could and remember that there's more to carbon emissions than simply what you're doing right now. No man is an island, after all.
I'm no expert in this sort of thing by any stretch of the imagination, but if it was all as easy and as cheap as you say, don't you think someone else would have also come up with the same idea?
I can just see some research scientist checking the front page of
Malaria kills millions of people each year. You're wrong, present methods of controlling malaria are expensive and unknown for the people that actually require them. I'm not sure that GM is the way to go, but I'm sure that something needs to be done, not for us holiday makers, but for those people that live in areas where malaria is rampant and the average wage is practically nothing a day.
And I'm a little worried that someone modded you as funny.
Fire needs oxygen. More on this one as it comes in.
I thought that this question was so good I wanted to ask it again;
Why does Sony maintain a policy of hardware/software regionalisation that fits so poorly within the system of dissemination provided by the Internet? A system which is utilised predominantly by the type of people Sony want to be selling consoles to.
Believe it or not, but us Europeans can go online and see what a PS3 costs in America or Japan, and many of us like neither the wait nor the price. Bill Gates was recently interviewed on BBC news for the Vista launch, he was asked why Vista costs something like three times more in Britain than it does in the US. The answer? Market research suggested that the price asked for in the UK was one consumers would pay. The price had nothing to do with imports or taxes, or any costs at all; it was purely concerned with the consumer's cost.
Is this a policy Sony follows?
I think in this day and age the requirement for accurate estimates are outweighed by the desire to put nuclear weapons in space.
You can imagine Peter Sellars in the War Room on the phone to China explaining that the nuclear deterrent is to deter asteroids, and in no way is trying to arm space.
I don't understand why you're getting upset:
1: You were incorrect; logging out of Google services won't help, because
2: There was a tracking method you weren't aware of. And
3:Google's ability to track you is largely irrelevant to this story anyway as the required evidence came from computers seized from the defendant. But that's cool anyway because
4: You mentioned removing evidence from a local machine and I agreed with you.
I think you've got it wrong. They didn't examine google's logs, they looked at the defendants computer. Clear your history? Yes. Change your MAC address? That won't help.
TFA mentions that computers were seized from the defendant and not Google or MSN (the other search engine mentioned). So no, this wasn't a case of google keeping records, but the defendants computer.
Maybe the title should read: "If Google'ing 'how to commit murder' before killing, throw harddrives into volcano".
Your IP usually isn't the problem, especially in my case where my ISP sends it all through their regional proxy anyway. What CustomizeGoogle does is randomize your Google UID. Take another look at the recent AOL breach - people weren't suffering privacy loss due to their IP address, but rather because AOL gave each and every user a number that could be tracked through the system. Thanks to CustomizeGoogle, that won't happen to me and my searches.
I don't see why you have such a problem with it anyway. Many people around the world asked for greater privacy, Google gave it to them and you got your panties in a twist. Why is that?
Ignore that post above - I'm a moron. I meant to say CustomizeGoogle Firefox plugin .Get it here.
I guess that's what happens when you Slashdot before caffeine. I'm sorry.
If you've got nothing to hide, you should have no problem with this.
Although I did have to install the AnonymizeGoogle Firefox plugin to get it.