I see all these comments talking about how.2% error rate is so large. That is a valid point.
I just find it humorous. Imagine they got this to be 60% accurate. People would comment, "Cool, that's awesome. The potential is enormous. Let's wait until they get better accuracy." But now, that the accuracy is all-the-way at 99.8%, people comment on how bad it is.
I understand what is being said. I just find it amusing.
You need to find files. A hierarchical setup is like a B*tree. Unfortunately, most people refuse to maintain the tree (and it a wonder, since it's so easy to do), and they put everything everywhere. Now someone else needs to clean up. So a "new" interface comes along and everyone oohs and ahs, but nothing changes.
Think of Microsoft's "Quick Launch". It's a horrible thing when people put *all* their programs there. I've seen computers with clutterd "Start Menu"s (apparently only the radical few actually organize it!) (also, hardly any installations tools allow you to easily choose a sub-folder ro install into) and have the same icons on their desktop and Quicklaunch. I've even seen folders on cluttered desktops of cluttered icons from when people tried to clean it up!
A new interface would change the *interface* not the *structure*. Heirarchy is going to be used is some form. Whether the heirarchy is created by days on the calendar, parts of your living room, walls is some 3D get-up, it's still a heirarchy. A new interface would mean a different way of thinking. Like, something other than "files". I do not know what, but whatever it would be, *that* would actually be "new".
The desktop is fine. We just need to teach people how to use it.
Don't you have the ability to check the server stats and see who is connecting and with what browser? If not, check other site's stats. Then make a decision on what browsers to support based on those numbers.
After you have that figured out, then ask what those browsers support and measure the costs.
Palestinian Arabs had lived for over 1400 years in peace with every one in their country, there are peace full people the are defending their lives, land, in war against by Zionist Jews.
You are so funny. You make it sound as if everyone loves the Palestinians. As if all Arabs live together in perfect harmony. Aren't the Palestinians most of Jordan, but have no control. Weren't their rights to own land recinded in Labanon? Aren't they still in refugee camps for over fifty years when they could easily be given housing in neighboring states.
You may disagree with how the Israelis treat the Palestinians, and it is your right to express that opinion. But don't lie about how they are treated by others. And by themselves.
Israel has killed ten times as many Palestinian civillians than the Palestinians have killed Israelis.
Care to back that up with numbers and reports? Include Palestinians that were killed, by Israelis, while not fighting, and not in official duties. If you tell me that the media does not report accurately, then there is no point arguing over reports.
In 1948, the palestinians were made second-class citizens in their homeland of thousands years, in order to recreate the fictional "homeland" of a tribe of eastern europeans
Palestinians were there for thousands of years? Two thouand years ago is was a Jewish country. After that it laid desolate for hundreds of years with minor Jewish settlements. Some Arabs moved in a bit after that and then there were fights between Christians and Arabs. After that, both Jews and Arabs lived there.
As far as calling it a fictional homeland. They definitely lived there. If you argue that, I am not willing to argue the point, as I doubt it would be worth it. It you argue the term "homeland", well, that may run into philosophical and/or religious arguments.
ISPs and others would not go to the time, trouble and expense of inventing/implementing a technical solution to track this sort of stuff without a good reason. The reason is that they are limiting their own liability. If they weren't afraid of being liable, they couldn't give a care less about what you do on their wire.
Well, I disagree. They could use usage statistics for marketing information. They can also have some guy in the back room who feels nosy someday and decides to snoop.
If you wait for there to be a reason to care, it'll probably be too late.
Nothing was corrected, just annotated. My comment is still correct in its original form. I was only mentioning that it was cute, at least in the US. I do like the annotation, however.
You clearly are NAL. The eleventh amendment simply prevents me from suing the state of California in a federal court. I must sue the State of California in a state court.
But which state court? In a non-califonian court, the constitution gives jurisdiction to the US Government, which is not allowed here. So, it would have to be a Californian court. But why would a court allow a foreigner to sue them. Would not that be akin to letting a Freedonian sue the US in US courts?
Further, the alleged violation of a California trade secrets law (which is what he's charged with) does fall under interstate commerce when the alleged action takes place outside the state.
Whoa! So is one state makes a law, the US Goverment has to enforce it outside the state? That does not seem right.
No, it's not abuntantly clear.
Yes, it is. The ninth and tenth amendments give all rights to people (or the state) not given to the government. It would take a state constitution to give all the rights to the state, and I do not believe that it does. Thus, the rights all belong to the people unless made illegal. The Declaration of Independence, refers to inalienable rights. The adjective is extremely important. Noone has rights. Everyone can do what they want, unless it encumbers someone else, in which case laws may be made.
This is clearly an interstate law enforcement issue, which is solely the role of the federal government.
Um.. no, it isn't. The "federal" goverment regulates interstate commerce, patents, and a very few other things. (Though they have this rather nasty tendency to shove a number of things under "interstate commerce", or to tax the states to force them to do their bidding.)
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.
Note that he must flee from justice, and be found in another state. I would therefore construe, that if found in another state without fleeing, the jurisdiction did not extend.
Well, IANAL, but I'd say that the law cannot possibly do anything at all to him.
suppose I pollute the Colorado River in Nevada or Arizona within levels granted by a state permit.
A caveat, but one of supreme importance. The states do not permit anything. They just happen to be able to make it illegal. The Declaration of Independence, and the ninth and tenth ammendments make this abundantly clear.
Re:Use it? I loved it. But now it sucks asterisk.
on
Hushmail 2.0
·
· Score: 1
Aparrently they're having issues right now. And its too bad. I think the old interface was *much* better.
I've been using hushmail for quite a while, and I love it. They are rarely ever down, they almost never send anything to you, and they reply quickly (day or so) to questions.
I get the feeling that they are committed to giving you good service.
One thing I don't like, however, is scheduled maintenance. This upgrade to 2.0 happened yesterday, with no warning as the when it would happen timewise. They've been mentioning it, but nothing exact. And, they were then down for a few hours, only to say when that time was up, that they'd be down for a few more hours. Currently, they're forcing the upgrade to 2.0 on everyone. I like the old look better, simple and sweet.
Right now my upgrade is failing. I hope they're in working order soon.
So God can talk about death and destruction all He wants, but a mere mortal cannot do so on/. without being called "disgusting and revolting"?
A "mere mortal" can talk about what he wants to. But look at the tone of the article. The author tries taking a holier-than-thou, I'm not getting involved in your petty infighting approach. Then, after he feels he has laid down the groundwork, and has the reader in agreement, he suggests dropping a bomb to rid us of the nuisances. The reference was obviously in jest, but it shows that he wouldn't care if it actually did happen. *That* is disgusting and revolting.
As far as some deity comes along. There are three points. They address the idea, the tone, and the result. The idea is that if a deity creates, the deity has a right to destroy.The tone is that end-of-the-world theme. Saying that *theme* is bad, is one thing. But if someone says what happens *during* that theme, it is not as bad as when said by itself. The result is that religion believes in an afterlife and thus being killed is not neccessarily a bad thing (in relation to how bad it would be if there wasn't, and this comparison matters only to the person taking action, not the person it is being done to.) Also, it is saying what is supposed to happen, for whatever the reason, and being the deity is a just judge, the statement is not made in anger.
That being said, there is a clear difference, and I therefore stand by my remark.
Judeo-Christian religons, Muhammed, Buddha, et al-- they all stood for peace, love, humanity, and understanding. And oh yeah... righteousness.
They have? I don't know who you were talking to. Religion generally believes in doing what the Creator tells you to do. The purpose of the various actions is relegated to reasoning, which is irrelevant to the main purpose.
The concept of "righteousness" has led to the "My God is bigger than your God"
I'm sorry. We're you talking with adults or children? I find this comment to be *very* insulting.
Americans probably have no problem with this, since most of us are pretty open-minded about religious differences.
I believe it's because most Americans aren't very religous, therefore they don't care. If you don't take sides in an argument does that automatically mean that you are "open-minded"?
Which God you worship and how you worship him determines where you will live, how you will vote
Where did you get that from? How you'll vote? You'll vote with your conscience. Should your conscience tell you to follow a certain leader, so be it.
There's no reason in the world why this little piece of land can't handle people of two differing sets of religious beliefs.
Well, the *amount* of people on that small land sure has its problems. Then there are water issues and the like.
Oh, except of course that the Palestinians believe that they own the land by rights, and it was taken by the Israeli's when they claimed it in the name of "The God of Abraham."
Actually that is not what they claim.
And the same Israeli's belive that since God gave THEM the land,
A good deal of Israeli's don't even believe in G-d. Possibly a majority.
they should be able to kick the Muslims the hell out.
You really should be better informed. You haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.
The fight is in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for the most part. The UN had a plan to separate the lands between the two peoples; Israelis accepted; Palestinians did not. Israel allow many other religions to live there and protect their religious items and places. The argument is whether the State should have a Jewish identity or not.
Since the governments and religions are one in the same, the diplomatic approach is little different than the religious approach; with neither side wanting to give.
You are obviously ignorant in this area, and your remarks will surely offend anyone and everyone. Please restrict your comments to what you know.
Drop a 20 megaton nuclear warhead square on the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, and let them sort out the resulting mess.
You're disgusting and revolting! That you can even joke about death is horrible. That you talk about killing millions is aboimindable.
Let me remind you that ISLAM was the first relgion in the world that actually gave women a status.
Sorry, can't remeber that. It's not true. Well, I guess it depends on your definition of status. Also, the remark only means something to a people who believe that women should have status. Besides that, the rest of your comment was good.
What made you think this one was so special that you had to single it out as "actually" working?
I think that with all the publicity failure gets nowadays, and the rare reporting of success, anything even remotely spectacular that gets reported is considered amazing.
Yeah, right. If there's more bandwith, there will be more spam to sift through, and more articles to pull. And, that will only add to the missing parts. Unless there's a curve, you're unlikely to ever get a full feed.
'Women's Brains Are Different Than Those Of Men'. I wonder if a female would have posted 'Men's Brains Are Different Than Those Of Women'. The title seems to have a pejorative sense of the former being different from the latter. I think the title would best have been 'Women's and Men's Brains Are Different'.
Wasn't there some "study" where they raised boys as girls and verse-visa? Would that have any effect on brain usage? What about those people who say they are one gender "trapped" in the other gender's body?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I don;t know of any software for it, but I'd love to help design the database end of it.
I see all these comments talking about how .2% error rate is so large. That is a valid point.
I just find it humorous. Imagine they got this to be 60% accurate. People would comment, "Cool, that's awesome. The potential is enormous. Let's wait until they get better accuracy." But now, that the accuracy is all-the-way at 99.8%, people comment on how bad it is.
I understand what is being said. I just find it amusing.
All the "new" interfaces are just the same thing.
You need to find files. A hierarchical setup is like a B*tree. Unfortunately, most people refuse to maintain the tree (and it a wonder, since it's so easy to do), and they put everything everywhere. Now someone else needs to clean up. So a "new" interface comes along and everyone oohs and ahs, but nothing changes.
Think of Microsoft's "Quick Launch". It's a horrible thing when people put *all* their programs there. I've seen computers with clutterd "Start Menu"s (apparently only the radical few actually organize it!) (also, hardly any installations tools allow you to easily choose a sub-folder ro install into) and have the same icons on their desktop and Quicklaunch. I've even seen folders on cluttered desktops of cluttered icons from when people tried to clean it up!
A new interface would change the *interface* not the *structure*. Heirarchy is going to be used is some form. Whether the heirarchy is created by days on the calendar, parts of your living room, walls is some 3D get-up, it's still a heirarchy. A new interface would mean a different way of thinking. Like, something other than "files". I do not know what, but whatever it would be, *that* would actually be "new".
The desktop is fine. We just need to teach people how to use it.
Don't you have the ability to check the server stats and see who is connecting and with what browser? If not, check other site's stats. Then make a decision on what browsers to support based on those numbers.
After you have that figured out, then ask what those browsers support and measure the costs.
Palestinian Arabs had lived for over 1400 years in peace with every one in their country, there are peace full people the are defending their lives, land, in war against by Zionist Jews.
You are so funny. You make it sound as if everyone loves the Palestinians. As if all Arabs live together in perfect harmony. Aren't the Palestinians most of Jordan, but have no control. Weren't their rights to own land recinded in Labanon? Aren't they still in refugee camps for over fifty years when they could easily be given housing in neighboring states.
You may disagree with how the Israelis treat the Palestinians, and it is your right to express that opinion. But don't lie about how they are treated by others. And by themselves.
Israel has killed ten times as many Palestinian civillians than the Palestinians have killed Israelis.
Care to back that up with numbers and reports? Include Palestinians that were killed, by Israelis, while not fighting, and not in official duties. If you tell me that the media does not report accurately, then there is no point arguing over reports.
In 1948, the palestinians were made second-class citizens in their homeland of thousands years, in order to recreate the fictional "homeland" of a tribe of eastern europeans
Palestinians were there for thousands of years? Two thouand years ago is was a Jewish country. After that it laid desolate for hundreds of years with minor Jewish settlements. Some Arabs moved in a bit after that and then there were fights between Christians and Arabs. After that, both Jews and Arabs lived there.
As far as calling it a fictional homeland. They definitely lived there. If you argue that, I am not willing to argue the point, as I doubt it would be worth it. It you argue the term "homeland", well, that may run into philosophical and/or religious arguments.
Look at any world map before 1945, there's a clearly marked country calledcalled 'Palestine'.
Yes, but called it that? When, and why?
ISPs and others would not go to the time, trouble and expense of inventing/implementing a technical solution to track this sort of stuff without a good reason. The reason is that they are limiting their own liability. If they weren't afraid of being liable, they couldn't give a care less about what you do on their wire.
Well, I disagree. They could use usage statistics for marketing information. They can also have some guy in the back room who feels nosy someday and decides to snoop.
If you wait for there to be a reason to care, it'll probably be too late.
Correct the post
Nothing was corrected, just annotated. My comment is still correct in its original form. I was only mentioning that it was cute, at least in the US. I do like the annotation, however.
Treister-Goren corrects Hal's mistakes in her typewritten conversations with him, an action Hal is programmed to recognise
I just thought this was cute, being recognise, at least in the US, is a variant spelling of recognize.
Oh, New Slashdot,
Don't you fail on me,
I've given you new hardware,
To keep Banjo from its knees.
You clearly are NAL. The eleventh amendment simply prevents me from suing the state of California in a federal court. I must sue the State of California in a state court.
But which state court? In a non-califonian court, the constitution gives jurisdiction to the US Government, which is not allowed here. So, it would have to be a Californian court. But why would a court allow a foreigner to sue them. Would not that be akin to letting a Freedonian sue the US in US courts?
Further, the alleged violation of a California trade secrets law (which is what he's charged with) does fall under interstate commerce when the alleged action takes place outside the state.
Whoa! So is one state makes a law, the US Goverment has to enforce it outside the state? That does not seem right.
No, it's not abuntantly clear.
Yes, it is. The ninth and tenth amendments give all rights to people (or the state) not given to the government. It would take a state constitution to give all the rights to the state, and I do not believe that it does. Thus, the rights all belong to the people unless made illegal. The Declaration of Independence, refers to inalienable rights. The adjective is extremely important. Noone has rights. Everyone can do what they want, unless it encumbers someone else, in which case laws may be made.
This is clearly an interstate law enforcement issue, which is solely the role of the federal government.
Um.. no, it isn't. The "federal" goverment regulates interstate commerce, patents, and a very few other things. (Though they have this rather nasty tendency to shove a number of things under "interstate commerce", or to tax the states to force them to do their bidding.)
Let's read the eleventh amendment to The Constitution of the United States.
Also, let's read the second clause of the second section of the fourth article of The Constitution of the United States.
Note that he must flee from justice, and be found in another state. I would therefore construe, that if found in another state without fleeing, the jurisdiction did not extend.
Well, IANAL, but I'd say that the law cannot possibly do anything at all to him.
suppose I pollute the Colorado River in Nevada or Arizona within levels granted by a state permit.
A caveat, but one of supreme importance. The states do not permit anything. They just happen to be able to make it illegal. The Declaration of Independence, and the ninth and tenth ammendments make this abundantly clear.
Aparrently they're having issues right now. And its too bad. I think the old interface was *much* better.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
I've been using hushmail for quite a while, and I love it. They are rarely ever down, they almost never send anything to you, and they reply quickly (day or so) to questions.
I get the feeling that they are committed to giving you good service.
One thing I don't like, however, is scheduled maintenance. This upgrade to 2.0 happened yesterday, with no warning as the when it would happen timewise. They've been mentioning it, but nothing exact. And, they were then down for a few hours, only to say when that time was up, that they'd be down for a few more hours. Currently, they're forcing the upgrade to 2.0 on everyone. I like the old look better, simple and sweet.
Right now my upgrade is failing. I hope they're in working order soon.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
So God can talk about death and destruction all He wants, but a mere mortal cannot do so on /. without being called "disgusting and revolting"?
A "mere mortal" can talk about what he wants to. But look at the tone of the article. The author tries taking a holier-than-thou, I'm not getting involved in your petty infighting approach. Then, after he feels he has laid down the groundwork, and has the reader in agreement, he suggests dropping a bomb to rid us of the nuisances. The reference was obviously in jest, but it shows that he wouldn't care if it actually did happen. *That* is disgusting and revolting.
As far as some deity comes along. There are three points. They address the idea, the tone, and the result. The idea is that if a deity creates, the deity has a right to destroy.The tone is that end-of-the-world theme. Saying that *theme* is bad, is one thing. But if someone says what happens *during* that theme, it is not as bad as when said by itself. The result is that religion believes in an afterlife and thus being killed is not neccessarily a bad thing (in relation to how bad it would be if there wasn't, and this comparison matters only to the person taking action, not the person it is being done to.) Also, it is saying what is supposed to happen, for whatever the reason, and being the deity is a just judge, the statement is not made in anger.
That being said, there is a clear difference, and I therefore stand by my remark.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Judeo-Christian religons, Muhammed, Buddha, et al-- they all stood for peace, love, humanity, and understanding. And oh yeah... righteousness.
They have? I don't know who you were talking to. Religion generally believes in doing what the Creator tells you to do. The purpose of the various actions is relegated to reasoning, which is irrelevant to the main purpose.
The concept of "righteousness" has led to the "My God is bigger than your God"
I'm sorry. We're you talking with adults or children? I find this comment to be *very* insulting.
Americans probably have no problem with this, since most of us are pretty open-minded about religious differences.
I believe it's because most Americans aren't very religous, therefore they don't care. If you don't take sides in an argument does that automatically mean that you are "open-minded"?
Which God you worship and how you worship him determines where you will live, how you will vote
Where did you get that from? How you'll vote? You'll vote with your conscience. Should your conscience tell you to follow a certain leader, so be it.
There's no reason in the world why this little piece of land can't handle people of two differing sets of religious beliefs.
Well, the *amount* of people on that small land sure has its problems. Then there are water issues and the like.
Oh, except of course that the Palestinians believe that they own the land by rights, and it was taken by the Israeli's when they claimed it in the name of "The God of Abraham."
Actually that is not what they claim.
And the same Israeli's belive that since God gave THEM the land,
A good deal of Israeli's don't even believe in G-d. Possibly a majority.
they should be able to kick the Muslims the hell out.
You really should be better informed. You haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.
The fight is in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for the most part. The UN had a plan to separate the lands between the two peoples; Israelis accepted; Palestinians did not. Israel allow many other religions to live there and protect their religious items and places. The argument is whether the State should have a Jewish identity or not.
Since the governments and religions are one in the same, the diplomatic approach is little different than the religious approach; with neither side wanting to give.
You are obviously ignorant in this area, and your remarks will surely offend anyone and everyone. Please restrict your comments to what you know.
Drop a 20 megaton nuclear warhead square on the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, and let them sort out the resulting mess.
You're disgusting and revolting! That you can even joke about death is horrible. That you talk about killing millions is aboimindable.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Let me remind you that ISLAM was the first relgion in the world that actually gave women a status.
Sorry, can't remeber that. It's not true. Well, I guess it depends on your definition of status. Also, the remark only means something to a people who believe that women should have status. Besides that, the rest of your comment was good.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
The semi-colon is actually after the comment.
And to think, I took out the comment to make it clearer. :-)
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
What made you think this one was so special that you had to single it out as "actually" working?
I think that with all the publicity failure gets nowadays, and the rare reporting of success, anything even remotely spectacular that gets reported is considered amazing.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
The Internet2 Update will be happening tomorrow. Please reboot your computers tomorrow night.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
so now I can suck down the entire contents
Yeah, right. If there's more bandwith, there will be more spam to sift through, and more articles to pull. And, that will only add to the missing parts. Unless there's a curve, you're unlikely to ever get a full feed.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Interesting.
'Women's Brains Are Different Than Those Of Men'. I wonder if a female would have posted 'Men's Brains Are Different Than Those Of Women'. The title seems to have a pejorative sense of the former being different from the latter. I think the title would best have been 'Women's and Men's Brains Are Different'.---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Wasn't there some "study" where they raised boys as girls and verse-visa? Would that have any effect on brain usage? What about those people who say they are one gender "trapped" in the other gender's body?
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;