You fail, Upsilon, to inform yourself about the product you're criticizing.
The iBook costs $1,600, contains a 300-MHz PowerPC G3 processor with 512K backside level 2 cache, 32 MB RAM (with support for up to 160MB), 3.2GB IDE hard drive, 24x-speed CD-ROM drive, a 12-Mbps Universal Serial Bus (USB) port, 10/100BASE-T Ethernet, 56K modem (V.90) with FAXstf, 16-bit stereo sound output, 4MB of SDRAM video memory (2X AGP-ATI RAGE Mobility graphics controller), 12.1-inch TFT SVGA active-matrix display (640x480 and 800x600 with millions of colors), 6-hour battery life (ENERGY STAR compliant), and full-size keyboard (76 keys).
The iBook can be configured with a 11-MBPS Air Port wireless networking card (IEE 802.11 DSSS compliant).
I would not call the iBook oversized, but you can judge for yourself: width 13.5 inches (34.4 cm), height 11.6 inches (29.4 cm), average depth: 1.8 inches (4.6 cm), from 1.24 inches (3.15 cm) to 2.06 inches (5.2 cm) Weight: 6.6 pounds (3.0 kg)
Please talk about things you understand. The iBook is a very inexpensive portable computer containing a 300 MHz G3 chip. It is an ideal Linux solution.
I would like to encourage you once again, because you seem very intelligent and the content of my last post is very difficult to surpass in a rational way (plus I am drunk now -- I was not before).
[(Sheesh, I live in college town -- this is pretty normal. I would hope that you look past it, and see what I am truly trying to say. TRY IT!!!, PLEASE!!!)]
[Sobriety checks are included in the slip of paper signed for a driver's license. This paper includes a contractual obligation to the state which says you CAN deny an OH- check (sobriety) if and only if you agree that you will lose your license for doing so. So, yes, the sobriety test is Constitutional because you have agreed to this lifting of your rights with your signature way before it actually happens. You are not obligated to be checked for sobriety.]
When I said shamed, I was not speaking about your right to speak, I was speaking about the content of your speech.
Speech which says that harmful speech is a bad thing is shameful. Harmful speech in and of itself is not.
There is a very sublte distinction in that last paragraph which requires very high level thought to understand.
It very well seems contradictory to the untrained mind; it is not.
Good luck, FallLine, there are many more worlds than these.
--- I have no plans to kill or imprison you for your view.
According to the LEGO website, loosely paraphrased, the name LEGO is formed from the Danish words "LEg GOdt" ("play well"). (In Latin, it happens, LEGO means "I study", "I put together".)
The LEGO company began in Denmark building Automatic Binding Bricks, a forerunner of today's LEGO bricks (and sold only in Denmark).
Before long, the bricks were called "LEGO Mursten" ("LEGO Bricks") rather than "Automatic Binding Bricks".
Thus LEGO is a foreign word and American English-speakers can (and probably should) add an 's' to pronounce the word in the plural.
Unlike octopi v. octopus, data v. datum, etc., this word LEGO does not come from an English-predecessor language.
Took a while for your sig to register. Very funny...:).
Anyways, I agree with the anti-forced-login sentiment. Everybody should falsify their info every single time they login to N.Y.T.
Just erase your N.Y.T. cookie after each use.
Well, I just thought of something better. (maybe)
Let's create a fictious slashdot login for each respective story post. I'll go do it right now for this one. Then everyone after me can use the same login/pass (would this work at all?). It's just an idea: maybe their system stops mutiple logins by the same username at the same time, or by the same user from many different IP's.
Any suggestions from anyone?
I'm going to go set up a false account right now, then come back and post it below...;-)
That's how me and everyone I've ever known has referred to them. As in, let's go play with legos. I like legos. Legos you're hurting me. (Well, not the last one.)
Anyone else care to chime in?
Re:Lego! My saviour! Wait...auto-lego?
on
Legos for Hackers
·
· Score: 1
Are you referring to the x10 firecracker? Do those things work well?
You are advocating Echelon. I wish you would stand up and take responsibility for what you have said.
Ok, lets narrow Echelon's theoretical objectives down somewhat... its sole objective was to find people who INTEND to set off a nuclear explosion... If it does this with 100% accuracy (no false positives), then I have no problem with "invading" their privacy.
So, some rebuttals to your examples of present-day Echelon-esque policy:
[1] Border searches are allowed for the simple reason that at the border one is no longer within the United States of America and Constitutional laws do not apply.
[2] U.S. mail is not opened and read. Sealed packages are scanned for currency in large amounts, controlled substances (i.e., drugs), agricultural hazards, biological hazards, and explosives/weapons.
[3] X-rays at airports do not read the communications contained in your luggage. They do search for pretty much the same things as the U.S. mail.
In these 3 cases, a person is able to know in advance what they and their belongings will be subjected to. A person can opt-out in advance. In the case of Echelon, the government will not admit whether or not it even exists. So a person cannot even know whether or not they should avoid sending messages on the Internet.
We live in a very different age today. When the Constitution was promulgated, one man (or a small group) could not kill thousands.
I'm sorry, but this is bullsh*t.
If there really is a way to safely analyze and trap this information before it does harm, we have an obligation to do so.
Your support of censorship shames me as an American. Information does not do harm.
(Please, shut down the Internet and Slashdot. The potential for harmful information is too high!)
The citizenary's privacy (as protected under the Constitution as well as just being a generally good idea) is the problem with Echelon-style monitoring.
The letter and intent of the Constitution were the same with regard to unreasonable search and seizure. Arbitrarily monitoring general communications of U.S. citizens violates this. Back when the Constitution was penned, people could be assured of privacy in communications simply by talking in private (such as whispering in a closed room).
For example:
I am not adversely effected by having my DNA put on file with the FBI (unbeknownst to me after my last blood test at the doctors), if my DNA does not match a criminals.
I am not adversely effected by having my car searched the next time I'm pulled over by a police-officer, if they do not find anything.
I am not adeversely effected by forced urine tests, if I have not ingested/injected any controlled substances in the past couple weeks.
I am not adversely effected by having my mail opened and read (then resealed to its orignal condition), if there was nothing criminal found in my mail.
I am not adversely effected by answering police questioning about a crime, so long as I did not commit the crime.
What is the harm? And what is the potential pay off?
I guess you could say that, so long as I am doing nothing wrong, then I should not object to search or seizure. Apparently, and this is the matching piece that fits into the puzzle your question poses, if I do object, then I must be doing something wrong. In fact, not wanting to be searched would mean I have something to hide.
Height is a measurement that correlates directly to one's safety on theme park rides.
Age is a measurement that correlates rather loosely to one's ability to attend a COMDEX. Maturity is a better measure, though unfortunately rather subjective.
Age is also tied arbitrarily to legal liability.
[I wonder why 18 was ever chosen as the age of legal of consent/age of majority in the U.S.? Anybody know the history of it?]
That would be awesome!!! I'd probably find a big bag of coke and snort at least as much as George W. Bush, Jr., did before announcing that what he did or did not do does not matter. Then I'd hang out with my pal the only wooly mammoth left in the world (if I was still alive after all that coke). If my pal Wooly seemed overly lonely and I couldn't figure out any way to help him, then I'd shoot him to put him out of his misery and eat his uncooked flesh with a nice red wine (and some cheese sauce) (cause that's real gourmet) (and definitely no broccoli cause plants have feelings too). After that, I'd start feeling sorry for myself because I was so lonely without other people and I'd think about my creationist god and ask silly questions like why?, and forsaken much?, and got rapture? Who knows what I'd do then.... hmmm, probably play with my other friend but he isn't too responsive without vaginal (though I'm sure anal would work to) orifices.... On second thought, let's not go there. Hypothetical world is a silly place. (you're right drix, it is f*cked up; i should have stopped when i had the chance...) ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......
Please, read the Constitution. Or, if that does not convince you, head on over to the United States Patent and Trademark Office here. I am interested in what the source of your information is.
Yes, but how will the software companies ever know that they've had their product bought for Linux use. When people buy Windows software, the software companies figure it'll be used for Windows.
So add something to the OSS license which requires any commercial co. (e.g., redhat, yellowdog, etc) which redistributes OSS in a physical form (i.e., a CD-ROM copy) to publish (once before shipment) the entire source of all OSS contained on the CD in a legal archival format. That is, if having the OSS source on the CD itself does not already constitute publishing to the legal standards of the U.S. patent office. Something like that...
Get your facts straight. Studies do not support Tryptophan and 5-HTP's efficacy (show one). FDA banned Tryptophan because a botched batch of the stuff can kill you (which is precisely what has occured). Btw, the FDA approval process is not yet up in the $500M range. It is in the $10 to 20 million range though (on up to $100M).
Just think what M$ could do if it would donate its money to medical research.
You make it sound as though no business is safe from patents and then further claim, based on your faulty premise, that open-source software is doomed.
Why would you assume that you could implement research presented at a technical conference for your own monetary gain without checking?
Sounds like your company made a big mistake. That does not lead one to conclude OSS is doomed. Rather it leads one to question your merits.
The plastic wrapping material the G4's ship in is responsible for this smell. Once the plastic wrap is removed it takes 2-3 days before the smell fully dissipates. If you want it gone sooner, try Febreze (be sure to unplug it though).
What I don't understand, i_lusiphur, is why you did not read the Yahoo! article linked to as the 'topic' for this post. It clearly states Apple Computer as the source of this information on the PR-wire. Why would you think that your information would be more accurate than Apple's press-release dated today?
Btw, your type of posting is why some consider the Internet to be a bad medium for reporting.
Someone care to moderate his post above. It can only be considered 'insightful' if you like insight into a false reality.
Slashdot Mirror
You fail, Upsilon, to inform yourself about the product you're criticizing.
The iBook costs $1,600, contains a 300-MHz PowerPC G3 processor with 512K backside level 2 cache, 32 MB RAM (with support for up to 160MB), 3.2GB IDE hard drive, 24x-speed CD-ROM drive, a 12-Mbps Universal Serial Bus (USB) port, 10/100BASE-T Ethernet, 56K modem (V.90) with FAXstf, 16-bit stereo sound output, 4MB of SDRAM video memory (2X AGP-ATI RAGE Mobility graphics controller), 12.1-inch TFT SVGA active-matrix display (640x480 and 800x600 with millions of colors), 6-hour battery life (ENERGY STAR compliant), and full-size keyboard (76 keys).
The iBook can be configured with a 11-MBPS Air Port wireless networking card (IEE 802.11 DSSS compliant).
I would not call the iBook oversized, but you can judge for yourself: width 13.5 inches (34.4 cm), height 11.6 inches (29.4 cm), average depth: 1.8 inches (4.6 cm), from 1.24 inches (3.15 cm) to 2.06 inches (5.2 cm) Weight: 6.6 pounds (3.0 kg)
For more info check out http://www.apple.com/ibook/.
Please talk about things you understand. The iBook is a very inexpensive portable computer containing a 300 MHz G3 chip. It is an ideal Linux solution.
You should bring a civil lawsuit against the police department that allowed the officer to do that.
Unreasonable search.
I would like to encourage you once again, because you seem very intelligent and the content of my last post is very difficult to surpass in a rational way (plus I am drunk now -- I was not before).
[(Sheesh, I live in college town -- this is pretty normal. I would hope that you look past it, and see what I am truly trying to say. TRY IT!!!, PLEASE!!!)]
FUCK YOU, AC. YOU ARE SO FUCKING DUMB.
["Theory" and "practice" are RARELY the same.]
[Sobriety checks are included in the slip of paper signed for a driver's license. This paper includes a contractual obligation to the state which says you CAN deny an OH- check (sobriety) if and only if you agree that you will lose your license for doing so. So, yes, the sobriety test is Constitutional because you have agreed to this lifting of your rights with your signature way before it actually happens. You are not obligated to be checked for sobriety.]
When I said shamed, I was not speaking about your right to speak, I was speaking about the content of your speech.
Speech which says that harmful speech is a bad thing is shameful. Harmful speech in and of itself is not.
There is a very sublte distinction in that last paragraph which requires very high level thought to understand.
It very well seems contradictory to the untrained mind; it is not.
Good luck, FallLine, there are many more worlds than these.
---
I have no plans to kill or imprison you for your view.
According to the LEGO website, loosely paraphrased, the name LEGO is formed from the Danish words "LEg GOdt" ("play well"). (In Latin, it happens, LEGO means "I study", "I put together".)
The LEGO company began in Denmark building Automatic Binding Bricks, a forerunner of today's LEGO bricks (and sold only in Denmark).
Before long, the bricks were called "LEGO Mursten" ("LEGO Bricks") rather than "Automatic Binding Bricks".
Thus LEGO is a foreign word and American English-speakers can (and probably should) add an 's' to pronounce the word in the plural.
Unlike octopi v. octopus, data v. datum, etc., this word LEGO does not come from an English-predecessor language.
---
I have to be right. I have to be right.
I hadn't seem what angio said yet when I posted the above (apologies).
Here's the fake username/pass I just set up:
name: login_hater
pass: login_hater
Let me know if these work and enjoy the lego article!
Btw, I'd suggest against a username/pass like slashdot/slashdotted/etc. since these tie all of us back to here.
Took a while for your sig to register. Very funny... :).
;-)
Anyways, I agree with the anti-forced-login sentiment. Everybody should falsify their info every single time they login to N.Y.T.
Just erase your N.Y.T. cookie after each use.
Well, I just thought of something better. (maybe)
Let's create a fictious slashdot login for each respective story post. I'll go do it right now for this one. Then everyone after me can use the same login/pass (would this work at all?). It's just an idea: maybe their system stops mutiple logins by the same username at the same time, or by the same user from many different IP's.
Any suggestions from anyone?
I'm going to go set up a false account right now, then come back and post it below...
Sorry, I'm pretty sure it's legos.
That's how me and everyone I've ever known has referred to them. As in, let's go play with legos. I like legos. Legos you're hurting me. (Well, not the last one.)
Anyone else care to chime in?
Are you referring to the x10 firecracker? Do those things work well?
---
Leggo my legos you microsoft minds.
Um, skip the AC post below (#4); it is just a bunch of blank space.
I.e., scroll down.
You are advocating Echelon. I wish you would stand up and take responsibility for what you have said.
... its sole objective was to find people who INTEND to set off a nuclear explosion ... If it does this with 100% accuracy (no false positives), then I have no problem with "invading" their privacy.
Ok, lets narrow Echelon's theoretical objectives down somewhat
So, some rebuttals to your examples of present-day Echelon-esque policy:
[1] Border searches are allowed for the simple reason that at the border one is no longer within the United States of America and Constitutional laws do not apply.
[2] U.S. mail is not opened and read. Sealed packages are scanned for currency in large amounts, controlled substances (i.e., drugs), agricultural hazards, biological hazards, and explosives/weapons.
[3] X-rays at airports do not read the communications contained in your luggage. They do search for pretty much the same things as the U.S. mail.
In these 3 cases, a person is able to know in advance what they and their belongings will be subjected to. A person can opt-out in advance. In the case of Echelon, the government will not admit whether or not it even exists. So a person cannot even know whether or not they should avoid sending messages on the Internet.
We live in a very different age today. When the Constitution was promulgated, one man (or a small group) could not kill thousands.
I'm sorry, but this is bullsh*t.
If there really is a way to safely analyze and trap this information before it does harm, we have an obligation to do so.
Your support of censorship shames me as an American. Information does not do harm.
(Please, shut down the Internet and Slashdot. The potential for harmful information is too high!)
A terrorists' privacy is NOT the problem here.
The citizenary's privacy (as protected under the Constitution as well as just being a generally good idea) is the problem with Echelon-style monitoring.
The letter and intent of the Constitution were the same with regard to unreasonable search and seizure. Arbitrarily monitoring general communications of U.S. citizens violates this. Back when the Constitution was penned, people could be assured of privacy in communications simply by talking in private (such as whispering in a closed room).
For example:
I am not adversely effected by having my DNA put on file with the FBI (unbeknownst to me after my last blood test at the doctors), if my DNA does not match a criminals.
I am not adversely effected by having my car searched the next time I'm pulled over by a police-officer, if they do not find anything.
I am not adeversely effected by forced urine tests, if I have not ingested/injected any controlled substances in the past couple weeks.
I am not adversely effected by having my mail opened and read (then resealed to its orignal condition), if there was nothing criminal found in my mail.
I am not adversely effected by answering police questioning about a crime, so long as I did not commit the crime.
What is the harm? And what is the potential pay off?
I guess you could say that, so long as I am doing nothing wrong, then I should not object to search or seizure. Apparently, and this is the matching piece that fits into the puzzle your question poses, if I do object, then I must be doing something wrong. In fact, not wanting to be searched would mean I have something to hide.
I do not agree with that.
Height is a measurement that correlates directly to one's safety on theme park rides.
Age is a measurement that correlates rather loosely to one's ability to attend a COMDEX. Maturity is a better measure, though unfortunately rather subjective.
Age is also tied arbitrarily to legal liability.
[I wonder why 18 was ever chosen as the age of legal of consent/age of majority in the U.S.? Anybody know the history of it?]
maybe it's from the post-and-post-again dept.
(perhaps this finally proves aliens have taken over the commander's brain)
okay, but this is funny
That would be awesome!!! I'd probably find a big bag of coke and snort at least as much as George W. Bush, Jr., did before announcing that what he did or did not do does not matter. Then I'd hang out with my pal the only wooly mammoth left in the world (if I was still alive after all that coke). If my pal Wooly seemed overly lonely and I couldn't figure out any way to help him, then I'd shoot him to put him out of his misery and eat his uncooked flesh with a nice red wine (and some cheese sauce) (cause that's real gourmet) (and definitely no broccoli cause plants have feelings too). After that, I'd start feeling sorry for myself because I was so lonely without other people and I'd think about my creationist god and ask silly questions like why?, and forsaken much?, and got rapture? Who knows what I'd do then .... hmmm, probably play with my other friend but he isn't too responsive without vaginal (though I'm sure anal would work to) orifices.... On second thought, let's not go there. Hypothetical world is a silly place. (you're right drix, it is f*cked up; i should have stopped when i had the chance...) ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......
Please, read the Constitution. Or, if that does not convince you, head on over to the United States Patent and Trademark Office here. I am interested in what the source of your information is.
Yes, but how will the software companies ever know that they've had their product bought for Linux use. When people buy Windows software, the software companies figure it'll be used for Windows.
Microsoft has out-smarted us all again.
Competition:M$::Personal Freedom:Congress
So add something to the OSS license which requires any commercial co. (e.g., redhat, yellowdog, etc) which redistributes OSS in a physical form (i.e., a CD-ROM copy) to publish (once before shipment) the entire source of all OSS contained on the CD in a legal archival format. That is, if having the OSS source on the CD itself does not already constitute publishing to the legal standards of the U.S. patent office. Something like that...
The patent system was put in place to give people an incentive to invent new things. That's it.
Software patents are ridiculuous. I know that in the 1980's software patents were not allowed. When did this change and why? Anybody know?
Get your facts straight. Studies do not support Tryptophan and 5-HTP's efficacy (show one). FDA banned Tryptophan because a botched batch of the stuff can kill you (which is precisely what has occured). Btw, the FDA approval process is not yet up in the $500M range. It is in the $10 to 20 million range though (on up to $100M).
Just think what M$ could do if it would donate its money to medical research.
On second thought, that's not a very good idea.
Are you a patent attorney, thad?
I'm guessing that you are not.
You make it sound as though no business is safe from patents and then further claim, based on your faulty premise, that open-source software is doomed.
Why would you assume that you could implement research presented at a technical conference for your own monetary gain without checking?
Sounds like your company made a big mistake. That does not lead one to conclude OSS is doomed. Rather it leads one to question your merits.
The plastic wrapping material the G4's ship in is responsible for this smell. Once the plastic wrap is removed it takes 2-3 days before the smell fully dissipates. If you want it gone sooner, try Febreze (be sure to unplug it though).
What I don't understand, i_lusiphur, is why you did not read the Yahoo! article linked to as the 'topic' for this post. It clearly states Apple Computer as the source of this information on the PR-wire. Why would you think that your information would be more accurate than Apple's press-release dated today?
Btw, your type of posting is why some consider the Internet to be a bad medium for reporting.
Someone care to moderate his post above. It can only be considered 'insightful' if you like insight into a false reality.