A man looks to the heavens and speaks to the Lord Above. "God, is it true that a million years to you is but a moment?" The heavens shudder slightly as a reply is sent down. "YES" The man ponders for a time, looks to the heavens again and speaks. "God, is it true that a million dollars to you is but a penny?" Again, the heavens shudder as "YES" as the Lord Almighty replies in the affirmative. The man mulls this over, and looks skyward a third time. "God, can you give me a penny?" The heavens do not shake and the ground does not shudder as the Lord's booming voice answers. "IN A MOMENT"
I saw a minivan that belonged to a protestant church in town. It was covered with the name of the church, as well as commands to attend and a slew of religious bumper stickers. Among all the other bumper stickers, there was one claiming that the KJV of the bible is the only true version. I wondered, if advertising is work, would not just the ownership of this vehicle be considered work? Should not I and others from town here, as part of the same community, be killing the owner of this minivan for working on the sabbath? Exodus 31:15: Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. And what if Junior sees dad driving the minivan on the sabbath, what should he do? Exodus 21:15: He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
On a related note. I've been wanting to get some slaves. That's cool with the Bible as per Lev. 25:44: You can also have other male or female slaves. These are the male and female slaves that you buy from the nations around you.
I'd personally like to know how anyone can look at one of these religious texts, claim they are the word of God, then disregard them. "Oh, that's the Old Testament. It doesn't apply with the coming of Christ." Huh? How did the Word of God just become invalid? And if the Word of God became invalid once before, doesn't that mean that it will likely become invalid again? If God is so Wishy-Washy on what he says (there are THREE DIFFERENT SETS OF COMMANDMENTS! http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm ) where is all this faith coming from? He can't even stand by his word between testaments.
I say, the big flightless bird is real. It went extinct with the advent of the wok.
As I quoted from NASA, these volcanoes do NOT erupt like volcanoes on Earth. From my post...
"Io has lots of thermal areas just like Yellowstone," says JPL's Bill Smythe. "The volcanic plumes get most of the attention but there are probably also things like fumeroles and geysers. On a previous flyby the Particles and Fields instruments saw a deficit of energetic particles over Io where gas was probably coming out of the surface -- but no plumes were seen. We call this the 'stealth plume hypothesis.' The closest Earthly analog to what's happening would be a water geyser like Old Faithful. In fact, if you put Old Faithful on Io it would be about 37 km high!"
Not sure where you read what you read, but it is obvious that you did not RTFA, since from the article we learn...
"Boosaule Mons, which at 18 kilometers (11 miles) is the highest mountain on Io and one of the highest mountains in the solar system, pokes above the edge of the disk on the right side."... and although this is not the height of the volcano that is erupting, it points to structures on Io that are larger than anything here on earth.
You might have read this...
"Unlike most moons, Io has a "young" surface. Because there is so much volcanic activity, the surface is almost free of craters. Also, its volcanoes are quite unusual. Instead of erupting like a normal volcano, they erupt more like geysers do on earth."...from http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior_Solar_Syst em/Jupiter/Io...or you might have read this though...
"Io has lots of thermal areas just like Yellowstone," says JPL's Bill Smythe. "The volcanic plumes get most of the attention but there are probably also things like fumeroles and geysers. On a previous flyby the Particles and Fields instruments saw a deficit of energetic particles over Io where gas was probably coming out of the surface -- but no plumes were seen. We call this the 'stealth plume hypothesis.' The closest Earthly analog to what's happening would be a water geyser like Old Faithful. In fact, if you put Old Faithful on Io it would be about 37 km high!"...which came from http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/ast04oct 99_1.htm and only indicates that due to conditions on Io, a familiar geyser on earth would eject matter quite high. However, with this data from the article...
"the cloud of volcanic debris, which extends 330 kilometers (200 miles) above the moon's surface. Only the upper part of the plume is visible from this vantage point - the plume's source is 130 kilometers (80 miles) below the edge of Io's disk, on the far side of the moon."... we can safely infer that the volcanoes erupting on Io are not similar to earth geysers in size, rather only in how they erupt.
Volcanoes on Io are rather different in general from their Earth cousins. From Wikipedia...
"Io's surface is dotted with volcanic depressions known as paterae. Paterae generally have flat floors bounded by steep walls. These features resemble terrestrial calderas, but it is unknown if they are produced through collapse over an emptied lava chamber as with their terrestrial cousins. One hypothesis suggests that these features are produced through the exhumation of volcanic sills, with the overlying material either being blasted out or integrated into the sill. Unlike similar features on Earth and Mars, these depressions generally do not lie at the peak of shield volcanoes and are normally larger, with an average diameter of 41 km (25½ mi), the largest being Loki Patera at 202 km (125½ mi)."... in other words flat holes in the ground slightly similar to sinkholes. So personally, I wouldn't look forward to an eruption from the still active Loki, at a diameter of 125 miles. I mean, I wouldn't look forward to sitting ringside to that.
Do people really think they should be able to drive 5 to 15 miles over the posted speed limit without dealing with any consequences? (When they get their license, they are agreeing to obey all the rules of the road.)
Do people really think they should be able to have a few drinks and drive themselves home without dealing with any of the consequences?
Do people really think they should be able to hedge on paying their taxes, or look for illegal workarounds, again, without dealing with any consequences?
Do people really think they should be able to do many of the things they do to circumvent rules they don't like?
The answer is Yes to all three of those questions, and the first three I asked up there, are done FAR more than people recording movies with Cams.
So people, all the time, think they are above the rules that surround them. They believe that a rule doesn't apply to them, or that they won't get caught, or that there are so many people doing it that it's assumed to be OK, or who knows.
And I still say that we live in the same world they do.
"Do people really live in a world where they go to a private building, agree not to make a copy of the movie they are about to be shown, and then think that they should be able to make a copy anyway?"
Yes. They do. We happen to live in that same world. You can find a cam recording of any newly released movie available through multiple torrent sites, within hours of it being released. THIS would prove that people actually do live in a world where they go to a private building, pay for a ticket which is also an agreement NOT to make a copy of the movie they are about to see, and then whip out the camcorder and make a copy anyway.
Now, is there a good use of enforcement resources going into stopping this? I personally think that some of the watermarking technologies that are being applied are quite innovative, when it comes to tracking down exactly what theater the cam recording came from. I also like how some theaters are using Night Vision goggles to spot those with cams. Does it suck that all of this anti-camming is costing the person out for a movie, when it comes to the price of a ticket? Absolutely. But face it, it would cost the end user anyway. Whether the movie company charges more to the theater for the movie because fewer people are going to see the movie in the theater, or the Theater charges the movie-goer more to offset the added security... it still means that Joe Average ends up paying.
This is not all that unusual.
First off, Joe Average has decided that he is going to pay more to see this movie in the theater, as opposed to waiting for a DVD release, a Cable/Satellite move channel release, or Network broadcast release. No silly arguments about how a DVD is more expensive than a movie ticket. You can watch a DVD over and over again. You only get to see a movie once for your ticket price. So, Joe Average already decided to shell out his cash. That outrageous price covers the Air Conditioned, ultra cushioned, drink holder on each arm seating, a HUGE screen, head-pounding audio, and a short social gathering of other people interested in the same thing he is. The amount of money added onto a ticket price will be quite small, to offset the additional costs of a new security technique to add watermarking to the show, so that those with Cams can be ferreted out.
Face it. Movie companies make movies to make money. Anyone who tries to take that money away from them makes them upset. Getting upset filters all the way down the chain of people involved in that process that extends from Making the movie, to showing it. If you don't like the outrageous cost of a Movie Theater ticket, then either wait for the DVD, wait for the Broadcast Release, or download a cam recording of it. Nothing you say or wish is going to drop the price of a Theater Ticket.
Don't forget, that the idea of traveling to space was only so much Science Fiction and considered impossible... until it was done.
There are people who still say that some of our historic space missions were hoaxes, due to disbelief that we can actually get out there.
I agree that heading out into space might be easier than to the depths of the ocean. And getting killed in either environment, is still getting killed in either environment. However, dealing with the ocean first and overcoming the obstacles there is closer to working with a safety net, since in the end, we are still on the planet. If building to 1000 feet depths crushes all structures we attempt, then we would build to 800 feet, and keep working on adding that extra 200. Working with the ocean gives us the ability to deal with it as we can. Space is closer to an All or Nothing deal. We are either practicing for space on the ground, or putting it to the test in space.
The ocean can also prep us for dealing with different atmospheric pressures on different planets. If we "master" our oceans, we are that much closer to dropping a manned probe into Jupiter's soup.
Overall, I agree with you that at THIS point, from what we've been doing historically, getting to Mars with a manned mission will happen before we develop a permanent every-man city under the ocean.
What is the actual point to sending human beings into space?
Think about that question you asked for a moment or two (more than you already have)...
What have human beings always done, from... I dunno... before we were considered "human" and lived in trees? Multiplied and expanded. We've got the multiplication thing (and division thing, but that's something else) pretty well covered. Two people become a family, which in turn begins a community, which becomes a settlement, which becomes a city, which becomes a country, which hits a water barrier, which crosses water barrier and continues to expand.
I'm not talking about any particular governmental ideology that is currently on the planet. Nor am I addressing any particular speed at which this needs to be accomplished. Of course there are still cultures on this planet that are still creating large settlements as opposed to organized cities, for a number of different reasons. What I am talking about, is how humans expand, encounter barriers, overcome and/or adapt to them, and continue to expand.
Now, on the one hand, we should most likely be focusing more time in creating our own pockets of permanent habitable environment under the ocean. This is mostly making more efficient use of our current space on the planet, and partly encouraging growth and strength in technological advancements regarding making stable pockets of permanent habitable environments. THAT would making going into space a bit more comfortable.
On the other hand, Space is far more attractive and romantic. If we skip the ocean thing, and jump directly to space, then the universe is our oyster. Imagine if you will, using the space elevator concept to first build a geosynchronous station, that would eventually be expanded into a lattice work ring to encircle the globe at a safe orbit. The construction of this could end world unemployment. What do you do with this lattice work ring? Lots. But maybe you use it to easily haul materials up from the planet, like a huge gantry. Use that same, now well trained and generational work force to build large space craft, things not designed to ever enter an atmosphere. Launch said craft toward Mars, and begin construction of another lattice ring. Then gantry down materials to colonize.
Sure, we have to perfect a lot of things between now and then. That's why we are sending people into space. If we are going to get off this Rock and start exploring the universe, one step at a time, we have to be doing silly, menial tasks along the way.
On that note, we do need to stop using the shuttles. If nothing else, build some better more efficient ones. Ok, build some new ones AND get going on a space elevator...
I actually read TFA and I found it confirmed what I had already known for years. That the end user experience for a personal computer set up with the software designed for that particular architecture has not changed all that much in 20+ years.
Windows users PROBABLY got to see it more clearly, with the OS upgrades and hardware changes in that time span.
Now, I've read countless posts that say "Well MY specific experience doesn't fit in with this test. I need to use blah and blah, with blah and blah running, and it could never compare to an Old Mac." Or even better, "They should compare modern UNIX to that Old Mac... THAT would be a more accurate test for what they wanted to determine." Comments like these missed the whole point of the article. Most end users were not running UNIX, so any comparison with it is useless. Most end users were using their computer for simple office-like tasks. I've known for years that running a P166 with Win98, 32 MB ram and Office97 will produce about the same end user experience in loading times and program operation quality as a P4-3.3ghz with WinXP, 512 MB and OfficeXP. No, I'm not talking about the nifty features added to the Office suite in between those two releases. I'm talking about starting the computer and opening up a blank Word document to type a letter to Grandma or a resumé.
I would have liked to see mention of a comparison of both computers browsing sites hosted locally on the computers themselves, to compare the browsing experience itself, without the loading times of a 28.8 modem being compared to broadband in the same test. However, as sites have been upgraded to load in the same amount of time that they used to load (end user experience) over faster connections, there is just far too large of a difference in the amount of data being loaded between what you could comfortably browse with that old mac and what people are viewing on the web with XP/Firefox/IE or Vista/Firefox/IE. But to get the results they did, this was ultimately unnecessary to compare.
Just imagine, for the Majority of end users out there... how fast would their modern computers run, if they were using an older version of Windows and older versions of the popular programs they use daily? No, this example does not apply to the end of the spectrum users that are most likely responding on Slashdot. You know that you are not considered part of the majority of end users out there. Don't respond as if you are.
Indeed, as was posted already, it would be nice if Dell just offered the option of several Operating Systems for every computer purchased. Sure, it would drive Microsoft crazy as they want everyone to switch over to their new OS, and thus dump their old computers for ones that will run Vista, but if a company like Dell has the ability to provide what it's customers demand, why shouldn't they?
From what I've seen from Vista (specifically an install of Vista on a Sony Viao that refused to run the DVD authoring software because the Sony's video wasn't up to snuff), I am not impressed by it. Furthermore, when has Microsoft released an OS that did not need a major overhaul (other than Win2k) soon after it's release?
There is far too much media hype over Vista, this early in it's release. I can't wait until the equivalent of an SP2 to come out for Vista, so I can chuckle like a maniac. I just wish Dell would expand their offer to all their products.
So what is the difference between a policeman on every corner, and a camera on every corner? The cost, for one. Also, the camera can be reviewed and shows no bias. It's memory is not in question, and it can't be distracted.
There is no invasion of PRIVACY if you are being recorded by a camera or observed by a policeman in PUBLIC. If the camera could turn on and record just the crime, that would reduce the work required of the camera but would otherwise be no different than if the camera was on 24/7. Case in point, automatic traffic systems that photograph people who go through red lights. There is no invasion of privacy, and if the photograph clearly shows an individual is not wearing a seatbelt and is on the cell phone and there are laws in that area against these two things, then the individual in the photograph can expect to face related charges as well.
Cameras in public assist police in uncovering crimes that they would have missed by not having an alert officer present. Cameras in public also help police track known criminals that are avoiding the law. If a camera is unobtrusive and not clearly marked, then one cannot expect the camera to reduce crime by much... if the criminals don't know they are being observed by a camera, they are not going to let that unknown stop them from committing the crime.
Cameras in pubic are not there to reduce crime. They are there to increase prosecution of criminals. There is a large difference.
No, it is essentially the same model as the way commercial copiers are handled, except from the article, there is no charge for just having the printer in your business.
You see, the current copier leasing model charges you a monthly fee for having the copier, as well as charging you a per-copy rate for each copy you make. The copier has a counter (or two counters for those that keep track of mono and multi color copies separately) and either a technician comes out and physically reads the counter, you are called on the telephone to read off the counter numbers to the company rep, or in some cases, your copier is called directly via it's own connection to your line, and the counters are read without physical user interaction.
So your internet connection has nothing to do with it.
HP is just not going to sell these commercial copiers to the companies that want them. HP is only going to lease them, and then instead of charging a monthly fee, they are going to charge based on the number of prints. They will most likely get these totals by one of the methods I described above, or quite possibly even over an internet connection, but you can be assured they will not have only ONE method of getting these totals. There will be multiple methods available to them to get the total numbers of prints per month, as it is how they are saying they are going to charge their customers.
These are not going to be print services over the internet. You are not going to connect your company computers to an HP server where they mail you the prints you make.
Once again, just too many posts to reply to individually...
First off, as it was pointed out already, it just reveals too much about who is reading and moderating posts when the first post of "For the same reason people use IE in the first place: They are stupid and/or lazy." is moderated so highly. It is a clear insult at anyone who uses IE, and just shows that MS bashing is the expected norm on Slashdot. More simply put, if you want your "peers" on Slashdot to praise you and give you mod points, make sure your post is Anti-Microsoft in some way.
As far as elitism is concerned, acting like the MAJORITY of internet users out there should be as "educated" as the above indicated Slashdot MS haters is elitism to an extreme. Time and time again, I read posts that state internet users and computer users should be required to have licenses or certification to get on the web. Again, this is just elitism. Sure, when I started running an internet cafe in New Orleans back in the 90's, I was astounded at the sheer number of customers who could not get their email on a strange computer, regardless of whether or not their accounts were POP3,AOL, or even Hotmail. At first, this generated disdain in me for them, until I realized that the problem was not theirs, but rather mine. Should everyone be able to disassemble a fuel injection system before they learn how to drive a car? Should everyone be required to learn everything about their car (I mean everything) before they are allowed to drive it? No fuckin comments from the idiots who can't deal with analogies. The fact of the matter is that the internet is there for everyone, regardless of their education level, not just a bunch of stuck up MS hating Slashdotters.
So now we come to the topic at hand. Why are web developers still making websites that only work in IE? I thought it to be a convenient response in one post about how the logs that indicate 92% of visitors use IE should be ignored, because THEY don't like how that LOOKS like most users are browsing that particular site with IE. Then the excuses rolled out, like it was a different browser spoofing IE, or that non IE users somehow KNEW ahead of time that the site was only IE friendly so they avoided going to it at all, thus skewing that 92%. What kind of justification crap is that? It is also just as likely that friggin 92% of the people visiting that site were using IE. The fact that 100% weren't using IE proves that OTHER BROWSER USERS WERE VISITING THE SITE! Or was that little fact just too much to admit to?
Now, I don't use IE. I haven't used IE in many years. I get all my friends and repair customers to switch to Firefox. Sure, I hate the fact that it takes forever for Firefox to load on my Win2k box, my XP Pro desktop, and my XP Pro laptop. Having a gig or more of ram in each and processors that are all faster than 2ghz doesn't make a difference either. It doesn't make me want to switch to IE. But it does prove that for the majority of Operating systems in use out there, IE gives the impression of being easy enough to stick with. Sure, YOU might be frequenting web sites that post issues for Firefox, but the masses are using IE, and not having any major problems. Sure, they aren't as educated as to other options out there, or they JUST DON'T CARE. Their computers work for THEM.
So get off the high horses, and try educating instead of bashing. If you know Firefox is better then help someone else see that by showing them. Don't just scream "Microsoft sucks, and you suck for using anything from them."
Or Better yet, design something better and actually PROVE you are half as smart as you claim to be.
Have you ever been in an internet cafe where the girl two seats over has got 12 tabs open in her copy of Firefox, and each one is a different YouTube video loading up? What do you think that does to the bandwidth? How about downloading music videos from Yahoo Music? Think that is nice and kind to your bandwidth?
Have you ever legally downloaded television episodes before? You know, it's just one of the many completely legitimate uses for BitTorrenting. Guess what? You can get yourself distros of Linux with Torrents too. But, they should just be lumped in with Pirate Useage of bittorents, right? HELL, since all this pirating is being done via Downloading, why don't we eliminate downloading alltogether? No more updates, patches, fixes, no more digital distribution of Movies or iTunes, that way we KNOW all those nasty software pirates can't get their booty, aarr, matey.
The fact of the matter is that downloading large files is NOT illegal, nor is it a violation of your contract with your ISP. The size of the file has nothing to do with whether or not the contents of those files are pirated. A little FYI, does the name Angelfire ring a bell? You know a free web host that limits the amount of space and bandwidth their free customers get? Do you know how Angelfire (and other hosts like them) was used to promote Piracy? Pirates would sign up with multiple accounts, and break their large files into a ton of small, 2 to 3 meg zip files, then put one little zip file on each account. So how do you monitor for that? People are loading larger files (than those) in rapid succession (the same way) from legitimate sources.
How do you stop me from pirating software while I am at an internet cafe or coffee shop with free WiFi? Especially if I am using my bandwidth throttle so I DON'T eat up all the bandwidth from everyone around me. Face it. Pirates are actually much more accomodating, far more civil, and much more aware of exactly what they are doing, as opposed to you. You still think that all those bandwidth hoggers must be downloading illegal software or porn.
I completely understand how a lack of startup capitol can hinder the idea of producing your own electricity. You could Co-op with neighbors to reduce the cost. You could start with small investments in hardware first. And like the post that followed your reply, if you stay on the grid while producing your own electricity, the electric company has to buy from YOU everything you don't use.
Again, you *have* other options. You just don't like them. That is very different than not having other options at all.
Of course using a furnace is cheaper than heating with electricity.. unless you are producing your own electricity. Guess what is cheaper than natural gas and a furnace? WOOD! Then, all you need is a wood stove or two, an axe, and some elbow grease.
You absolutely positively need the speed of cable internet as opposed to dsl? Instant Gratification in your Download Department? Are you always using that 6mb or 8mb speed? I'm not assuming that you aren't, but rather I am asking you to take a closer look at your own useage. And Exactly what is wrong with satellite TV? Too many channels? Outages prone to adverse weather? Seems to me that the fact that you even have the ability to get cable internet and television is a long stretch better than those who are still without it. I'm sorry that you only have one cable provider available. Guess what? It's the same for MOST of the USA.
Face it. As you essentially said in your reply, you just don't like the other choices that are available to you, and you say they don't compare, in order to justify why you discount them. But they do compare. They are improving every month. You couldn't get bi-directional satellite internet not too long ago. Now, the speeds are slow, compared to cable internet, which is slow compared to fiber optics. However, It's getting better all the time.
You might as well complain that there aren't equal alternatives to Gold available, because you don't have the money to afford to have solid gold fixtures in your bathroom. Let me put it another way. Does having the option to switch to satellite TV make the cable company lower their rates? Nope. Having multiple hard line telephone companies in one area doesn't make them all lower their rates to be competitive either. Plenty of evidence of that. No, I'm not just picking on you. I've felt that same pinch before. I've wished that these companies would stop charging outrageous sums for the services. This is why if you don't like the choices available, you have to either suck it up, or create new choices. There is NO CHEAP SOLUTION in the short run. Unless you are willing to give up on the instant gratification of no effort electricity and fast cable internet, it looks like you are screwed. No use crying.
You should probably redefine a bit of your terminology.
If you want cable... do you mean cable television? Because you can most likely get satellite TV from one of several different providers. DirecTV is only one of them.
If you want cable internet... do you mean broadband internet access? Maybe your telephone company doesn't offer DSL, but you do have other options for broadband... one of which is Wildblue (wildblue.com) satellite internet. Yes, it is satellite up and down (no telephone line required) and it is offered at DSL speeds at the moment. You might even be able to become a Wildblue dealer in your area, and make money getting others on the program.
You want natural gas? If you only have one option, then step away from natural gas and move to electricity... which points me now to...
You want electricity? How about solar? Huge improvements recently, including solar panels that come on a self-adhesive roll you can just roll out in strips on your roof. How about a Sterling engine or two that converts sunlight directly to mechanical power, enough to turn a generator or three? How about wind? How about a diesel-electric generator, running on bio-diesel? Did you know that you can run a regular diesel engine on used vegetable oil, without ANY conversion at all, other than simple filtering to remove the majority of particulate matter? Don't believe me? That's your problem. I drive around in a Mercedes on occasion that is running on exactly this fuel. So, you collect the used fryer oil from the restaurants in your area, which they have to normally PAY to get rid of, and you use it to fuel a small diesel engine that runs your generator, and now you have all the electricity you need.
Sounds like too much effort? Then shut your mouth and send your money to Xcel, Center-point, Qwest, and Comcast. You have options. You have just decided that the options require too much work and money UPFRONT, to justify the savings down the road.
Too many people don't bother to look at what they are getting into before they sign the paperwork. Then they complain when what the paperwork actually said works against them. Too many people don't open their eyes to the options that are all around them, and then complain that not enough choice is being spoon-fed to them. If you don't see enough choice, go out and actually look. If you still don't see enough choice, then create new choices.
Hell. Modern procedures for separating water into hydrogen and oxygen are getting faster every day, and can be done with very little electricity (i.e. solar)... and that hydrogen can be fed directly into the cylinders of a standard gasoline engine INSTEAD of gasoline, or in conjunction with gasoline, diesel, vegetable oil, propane, methane, etc... for it seems using hydrogen with any number of fuels allows for combustion in an internal combustion engine. Thus, you could be getting your electricity from rainwater, if you wanted to put the work and money into setting up the system. Or I could be wrong, and your only option for electricity is Xcel.
looking at your response, you're apparently an idiot. So let me help you.
One of the basic rules in the GLOBAL community is that a crime is a crime, regardless of whether or not a bunch of loud-mouthed over-protected geeks find it amusing. Anyone who decides that they should have thought of a harmful prank first, because it was very funny to them should be burned in a multitude of ways.
It's not OK to violate other laws, regardless of what you think, especially if violating those laws hurts other people.
You are a moron, albeit a sarcastic one who panders to the crowd at large. Your assumption about my being new here is based on the incorrect correlation between the number of posts I have made, and the amount of time that MUST mean that I have been making them. I've been participating in/. discussions since 1998 or 1999, when I was running an internet cafe in New Orleans. I just floated between using a different logon than THIS one, posting Anon, and posting on a good friend's account.
The fact that so many people read this and decided to make a joke out of it, and especially those who wished THEY had done this first, only proves how the Slashdot community has DEGRADED over the years. Your response further proves that very same thing.
Let's see. Brief Synopsis of a great deal of the replies here...
1: She was an Evil landlord. She evicted someone. She deserved it. 2: Karma returned to her what she deserved. 3: It was a rental property. She can afford to replace everything. 4: She left the property unlocked. She deserved what she got. 5: Crime is nothing new. This is nothing new. Laugh all you want.
WTF people? IF and WHEN something like this happens to you, you will change your tune VERY quickly. What does it say about the state of people today when the biggest mouths all laugh at someone's misfortune, writing it off to just be "Life". People who engage at finding entertainment in the misery of others, are the ones responsible for continuing the misery of others.
Sure it could happen (and probably has) with regular old paper classifieds. That doesn't make it OK. People in the Tacoma area that read this (and those here on/. especially) should be donating everything they can to help this woman out. It doesn't matter if she is rich beyond means, or if she needs to rent this property to keep from being homeless. Pranks and acts of vandalism like this are not funny. At all.
It makes perfect sense. They are minors, as far as child porn is considered. They are responsible for producing that child porn. The fact that they believed they were above the laws just because of their ages, or the fact that they wrongly believed noone would find out, doesn't change anything.
They thought they knew what they were doing. They did not. They should face the consequences, and others should learn from their mistakes, and wait until they are 18 before emailing nude pictures of themselves anywhere.
The fact that the kids knew what they were doing was illegal because of their ages, is exactly the point. Now, should they each be charged as if each was a pedophile taking dirty pictures of a minor? Sure. How else are kids going to be taught NOT to do this in the future? Educating them in what is legal and what is not doesn't seem to be enough. Punishment and correction comes next.
The laws were designed to protect children from being exploited by predators, because kids were not being so blatant about exploiting themselves. It obviously wasn't such a private matter, since we are discussing the event on slashdot.
If the laws were designed to protect a ten from being preyed upon by an adult because the teen would not generally know exactly what they were getting into, what makes you think that two teens know exactly what they are geting into? What about protecting one younger teen from a slightly older one, where neither is of legal age, but an age gap of 4 to 6 years still exists? Should the laws not apply to them, because one is not an adult? The elder may still be a sexual predator.
And the parental accountability.. let's see. First, the parents should be held accountable for not properly educating their teens in better useage of the available technology. Taking pictures of themselves nude when underage can indeed lead to the wrong people getting hold of those pictures. Obviously, since people OTHER than the teens got hold of these emails and pictures. If Parents are being held accountable for educating their children as to the proper places to be web surfing, and the sites to ignoring, as well as where NOT to spread one's email addres around, then why not also be held accountable for teaching their kids what NOT to do with a camera?
Just because the parents weren't in the room, doesn't mean they should not be held at least partially responsible.
There are other considerations. Let's look at the numbers of teen pregnancies right now, shall we? It is the other side of the equasion you are presenting, after all. In 2002, for example, the teen birth rate was 43 out of every 1000 women aged 15-19. Now, for those 18 and 19, who are legally considered to be responsible for themselves (in the eyes of the law), it's not nearly as much of an issue for those teens under the age of 18. When an underage teen gets pregnant, the state has to get involved for SUPPORT issues. inordinate numbers of teen moms go on welfare programs. Yes, there are moms of all ages on welfare. But are the new grandparents of this little baby supposed to now support this family, just because the mom is still a child herself?
Unfortunately, that legal cut-off age is 18. Not 17, not 16, not 15. Yes, it is an arbitrary age, but it carries a whole host of baggage with it. Parents can be held liable for the actions of their underage children. Should some precocious 15 year old girl be allowed to legally decide that she wants to get into porn, just because SHE thinks she is old enough? Didn't Tracy Lords already show us the error of this kind of thinking? Ok, so she was 16 when she started.
These teens are just another example of kids who had no clue, thinking they knew what was best for themselves, without having any idea of what acting responsibly is all about. That's what that arbitrary age of 18 was set for. Because they SHOULD have gained enough experience to be responsible for themselves by then, and they are now held legally accountable for their own actions. So if "someone else" is held accountable for the actions of a 17 year old, that "someone else" gets to dictate the rules.
So what happens if teens are allowed to make their own decisions? Why shouldn't parents be allowed to kick them out of the house to go and make their own way in the world at that time? Why should parent's have to pay for the teens mistakes, if the teens are allowed to just do whatever pops into their little undeveloped minds? Just how many grandparents are raising their grandchildren, because the moms and dads are not remotely mature or old enough to raise their own kids?
This is what allowing unfettered exploration of sexuality leads to. it isn;t about keeping kids down and not allowing them to do fun things. It is an attempt to teach them some measure of being responsbile. These kids got caught breaking the law. They knew it was against the law. They should face the consequences.
You would rather that cops didn't check out every strange report they get? How stupid a statement is that? What would be the cut off point in your world where cops didn't check out things?
Let's see... If I strap a bunch of plastic doodads onto my assault rifle, then the cops will think it is to0 strange to bother to check out why I am carrying it into a crowded mall and making it spit loud sounds and lead projectiles.
Oh, oh, and why make a bomb all flashy and look like some kind of sign? I dunno.. maybe the tried and true methodology of HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT! I mean, if people know that cops won't check out strange devices because they look too strange, or because they just look like big non-bomb electronic devices, guess what the terrorists are going to start hiding their bombs in? But history has shown us that bombs can and will be hidden in all kinds of devices, including radios and the like. But in your little world, no terrorist would hide a bomb in a radio, or even strap it to their own body... that would be too strange.
Try this logic on for size. Design and plant several very flashy electronic devices around a city. Make them so flashy that people will stop and gawp at them in huge numbers. Then detonate them. Big body count, lots of media coverage, etc. It doesn't take all that much imagination to try something like this. Sucess for a stunt like this depends on people just assuming that it would never happen.
"Just because X is illegal does not mean that tools or instructions for doing X should also be illegal."
So it should be completely legal to provide information on how to make a silencer for a handgun? What legal use is there for a silencer? It should be completely legal for me to be able to tell you that if you screw a woodscrew into the lead core of a Slugger shotgun shell, you now have an Armor Piercing Round that will go through body armor and plate steel? How about the legality of my telling everyone how they can build a landmine out of a tupperware bowl, gasoline, draino, a roofing nail, saran wrap and some miscellaneous debris for shrapnel? Shall I now go into detail about how to assemble those ingredients? You want to defend my rights to impart this information?
Because the DMCA *can* be abused, it is therefore something bad that should be gotten rid of? Does that mean that because you can pick up any newspaper and find cases where corner store cashiers have been found guilty of selling cigarettes or alcohol to underage individuals, that the laws for keeping underage individuals from purchasing these things should be gotten rid of? I mean, since there are people getting caught abusing the laws there must be even MORE cashiers and consumers abusing the laws... therefore by your argument the laws should be disposed of.
How about speeding? How many cops write people up for one mile an hour UNDER the limit that decides whether or not the speeder has to appear in court for the ticket (In RI for example, 15 miles an hour over the speed limit means you mandatorily have to appear in court, and the RI State Troopers are well known for giving breaks and writing up people for only going 14 miles an hour over.) There is abuse of the law. Both in the speeding, and the punishment. Should the laws regarding speeding be repealed then?
You are pointing out how since individuals abuse the laws, that they should escape punishment, and the laws themselves should be changed, rather than punish those who are abusing the laws even harder.
You are right that it was wrong that noone checked your ID when you got that girl's information and filed the paperwork against her. What did you do about it, to ensure that ID's were checked in the future? NOTHING! That makes you part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
as long as you expressed that to the undercover cop, that you were looking for flour and you only want flour, you might actually be covered. However, the judge might want to know why you are paying so much by the gram for what you can get in the supermarket.
Slashdot Mirror
A man looks to the heavens and speaks to the Lord Above.
"God, is it true that a million years to you is but a moment?"
The heavens shudder slightly as a reply is sent down. "YES"
The man ponders for a time, looks to the heavens again and speaks.
"God, is it true that a million dollars to you is but a penny?"
Again, the heavens shudder as "YES" as the Lord Almighty replies in the affirmative.
The man mulls this over, and looks skyward a third time.
"God, can you give me a penny?"
The heavens do not shake and the ground does not shudder as the Lord's booming voice answers.
"IN A MOMENT"
I saw a minivan that belonged to a protestant church in town. It was covered with the name of the church, as well as commands to attend and a slew of religious bumper stickers. Among all the other bumper stickers, there was one claiming that the KJV of the bible is the only true version. I wondered, if advertising is work, would not just the ownership of this vehicle be considered work? Should not I and others from town here, as part of the same community, be killing the owner of this minivan for working on the sabbath? Exodus 31:15: Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. And what if Junior sees dad driving the minivan on the sabbath, what should he do? Exodus 21:15: He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
On a related note. I've been wanting to get some slaves. That's cool with the Bible as per Lev. 25:44: You can also have other male or female slaves. These are the male and female slaves that you buy from the nations around you.
I'd personally like to know how anyone can look at one of these religious texts, claim they are the word of God, then disregard them. "Oh, that's the Old Testament. It doesn't apply with the coming of Christ." Huh? How did the Word of God just become invalid? And if the Word of God became invalid once before, doesn't that mean that it will likely become invalid again? If God is so Wishy-Washy on what he says (there are THREE DIFFERENT SETS OF COMMANDMENTS! http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm ) where is all this faith coming from? He can't even stand by his word between testaments.
I say, the big flightless bird is real. It went extinct with the advent of the wok.
As I quoted from NASA, these volcanoes do NOT erupt like volcanoes on Earth. From my post...
t 99_1.htm again, as I previously posted.
"Io has lots of thermal areas just like Yellowstone," says JPL's Bill Smythe. "The volcanic plumes get most of the attention but there are probably also things like fumeroles and geysers. On a previous flyby the Particles and Fields instruments saw a deficit of energetic particles over Io where gas was probably coming out of the surface -- but no plumes were seen. We call this the 'stealth plume hypothesis.' The closest Earthly analog to what's happening would be a water geyser like Old Faithful. In fact, if you put Old Faithful on Io it would be about 37 km high!"
Which was not from a wikipedia junior article, but from http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/ast04oc
Otherwise, your information is very scientific and appears well researched.
Not sure where you read what you read, but it is obvious that you did not RTFA, since from the article we learn...
... and although this is not the height of the volcano that is erupting, it points to structures on Io that are larger than anything here on earth.
...from http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior_Solar_Syst em/Jupiter/Io ...or you might have read this though...
...which came from http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/ast04oct 99_1.htm and only indicates that due to conditions on Io, a familiar geyser on earth would eject matter quite high. However, with this data from the article...
... we can safely infer that the volcanoes erupting on Io are not similar to earth geysers in size, rather only in how they erupt.
... in other words flat holes in the ground slightly similar to sinkholes. So personally, I wouldn't look forward to an eruption from the still active Loki, at a diameter of 125 miles. I mean, I wouldn't look forward to sitting ringside to that.
"Boosaule Mons, which at 18 kilometers (11 miles) is the highest mountain on Io and one of the highest mountains in the solar system, pokes above the edge of the disk on the right side."
You might have read this...
"Unlike most moons, Io has a "young" surface. Because there is so much volcanic activity, the surface is almost free of craters. Also, its volcanoes are quite unusual. Instead of erupting like a normal volcano, they erupt more like geysers do on earth."
"Io has lots of thermal areas just like Yellowstone," says JPL's Bill Smythe. "The volcanic plumes get most of the attention but there are probably also things like fumeroles and geysers. On a previous flyby the Particles and Fields instruments saw a deficit of energetic particles over Io where gas was probably coming out of the surface -- but no plumes were seen. We call this the 'stealth plume hypothesis.' The closest Earthly analog to what's happening would be a water geyser like Old Faithful. In fact, if you put Old Faithful on Io it would be about 37 km high!"
"the cloud of volcanic debris, which extends 330 kilometers (200 miles) above the moon's surface. Only the upper part of the plume is visible from this vantage point - the plume's source is 130 kilometers (80 miles) below the edge of Io's disk, on the far side of the moon."
Volcanoes on Io are rather different in general from their Earth cousins. From Wikipedia...
"Io's surface is dotted with volcanic depressions known as paterae. Paterae generally have flat floors bounded by steep walls. These features resemble terrestrial calderas, but it is unknown if they are produced through collapse over an emptied lava chamber as with their terrestrial cousins. One hypothesis suggests that these features are produced through the exhumation of volcanic sills, with the overlying material either being blasted out or integrated into the sill. Unlike similar features on Earth and Mars, these depressions generally do not lie at the peak of shield volcanoes and are normally larger, with an average diameter of 41 km (25½ mi), the largest being Loki Patera at 202 km (125½ mi)."
here is a link claiming to be the world's first Treo 650 pictures.
- pictures-020352.php
http://gizmodo.com/archives/worlds-first-treo-650
From aug 26th, 2004
Your context was understood before I replied.
Do people really think they should be able to drive 5 to 15 miles over the posted speed limit without dealing with any consequences? (When they get their license, they are agreeing to obey all the rules of the road.)
Do people really think they should be able to have a few drinks and drive themselves home without dealing with any of the consequences?
Do people really think they should be able to hedge on paying their taxes, or look for illegal workarounds, again, without dealing with any consequences?
Do people really think they should be able to do many of the things they do to circumvent rules they don't like?
The answer is Yes to all three of those questions, and the first three I asked up there, are done FAR more than people recording movies with Cams.
So people, all the time, think they are above the rules that surround them. They believe that a rule doesn't apply to them, or that they won't get caught, or that there are so many people doing it that it's assumed to be OK, or who knows.
And I still say that we live in the same world they do.
You ask the question...
"Do people really live in a world where they go to a private building, agree not to make a copy of the movie they are about to be shown, and then think that they should be able to make a copy anyway?"
Yes. They do. We happen to live in that same world. You can find a cam recording of any newly released movie available through multiple torrent sites, within hours of it being released. THIS would prove that people actually do live in a world where they go to a private building, pay for a ticket which is also an agreement NOT to make a copy of the movie they are about to see, and then whip out the camcorder and make a copy anyway.
Now, is there a good use of enforcement resources going into stopping this? I personally think that some of the watermarking technologies that are being applied are quite innovative, when it comes to tracking down exactly what theater the cam recording came from. I also like how some theaters are using Night Vision goggles to spot those with cams. Does it suck that all of this anti-camming is costing the person out for a movie, when it comes to the price of a ticket? Absolutely. But face it, it would cost the end user anyway. Whether the movie company charges more to the theater for the movie because fewer people are going to see the movie in the theater, or the Theater charges the movie-goer more to offset the added security... it still means that Joe Average ends up paying.
This is not all that unusual.
First off, Joe Average has decided that he is going to pay more to see this movie in the theater, as opposed to waiting for a DVD release, a Cable/Satellite move channel release, or Network broadcast release. No silly arguments about how a DVD is more expensive than a movie ticket. You can watch a DVD over and over again. You only get to see a movie once for your ticket price. So, Joe Average already decided to shell out his cash. That outrageous price covers the Air Conditioned, ultra cushioned, drink holder on each arm seating, a HUGE screen, head-pounding audio, and a short social gathering of other people interested in the same thing he is. The amount of money added onto a ticket price will be quite small, to offset the additional costs of a new security technique to add watermarking to the show, so that those with Cams can be ferreted out.
Face it. Movie companies make movies to make money. Anyone who tries to take that money away from them makes them upset. Getting upset filters all the way down the chain of people involved in that process that extends from Making the movie, to showing it. If you don't like the outrageous cost of a Movie Theater ticket, then either wait for the DVD, wait for the Broadcast Release, or download a cam recording of it. Nothing you say or wish is going to drop the price of a Theater Ticket.
Don't forget, that the idea of traveling to space was only so much Science Fiction and considered impossible... until it was done.
There are people who still say that some of our historic space missions were hoaxes, due to disbelief that we can actually get out there.
I agree that heading out into space might be easier than to the depths of the ocean. And getting killed in either environment, is still getting killed in either environment. However, dealing with the ocean first and overcoming the obstacles there is closer to working with a safety net, since in the end, we are still on the planet. If building to 1000 feet depths crushes all structures we attempt, then we would build to 800 feet, and keep working on adding that extra 200. Working with the ocean gives us the ability to deal with it as we can. Space is closer to an All or Nothing deal. We are either practicing for space on the ground, or putting it to the test in space.
The ocean can also prep us for dealing with different atmospheric pressures on different planets. If we "master" our oceans, we are that much closer to dropping a manned probe into Jupiter's soup.
Overall, I agree with you that at THIS point, from what we've been doing historically, getting to Mars with a manned mission will happen before we develop a permanent every-man city under the ocean.
What is the actual point to sending human beings into space?
Think about that question you asked for a moment or two (more than you already have)...
What have human beings always done, from... I dunno... before we were considered "human" and lived in trees? Multiplied and expanded. We've got the multiplication thing (and division thing, but that's something else) pretty well covered. Two people become a family, which in turn begins a community, which becomes a settlement, which becomes a city, which becomes a country, which hits a water barrier, which crosses water barrier and continues to expand.
I'm not talking about any particular governmental ideology that is currently on the planet. Nor am I addressing any particular speed at which this needs to be accomplished. Of course there are still cultures on this planet that are still creating large settlements as opposed to organized cities, for a number of different reasons. What I am talking about, is how humans expand, encounter barriers, overcome and/or adapt to them, and continue to expand.
Now, on the one hand, we should most likely be focusing more time in creating our own pockets of permanent habitable environment under the ocean. This is mostly making more efficient use of our current space on the planet, and partly encouraging growth and strength in technological advancements regarding making stable pockets of permanent habitable environments. THAT would making going into space a bit more comfortable.
On the other hand, Space is far more attractive and romantic. If we skip the ocean thing, and jump directly to space, then the universe is our oyster. Imagine if you will, using the space elevator concept to first build a geosynchronous station, that would eventually be expanded into a lattice work ring to encircle the globe at a safe orbit. The construction of this could end world unemployment. What do you do with this lattice work ring? Lots. But maybe you use it to easily haul materials up from the planet, like a huge gantry. Use that same, now well trained and generational work force to build large space craft, things not designed to ever enter an atmosphere. Launch said craft toward Mars, and begin construction of another lattice ring. Then gantry down materials to colonize.
Sure, we have to perfect a lot of things between now and then. That's why we are sending people into space. If we are going to get off this Rock and start exploring the universe, one step at a time, we have to be doing silly, menial tasks along the way.
On that note, we do need to stop using the shuttles. If nothing else, build some better more efficient ones. Ok, build some new ones AND get going on a space elevator...
I actually read TFA and I found it confirmed what I had already known for years. That the end user experience for a personal computer set up with the software designed for that particular architecture has not changed all that much in 20+ years.
Windows users PROBABLY got to see it more clearly, with the OS upgrades and hardware changes in that time span.
Now, I've read countless posts that say "Well MY specific experience doesn't fit in with this test. I need to use blah and blah, with blah and blah running, and it could never compare to an Old Mac." Or even better, "They should compare modern UNIX to that Old Mac... THAT would be a more accurate test for what they wanted to determine." Comments like these missed the whole point of the article. Most end users were not running UNIX, so any comparison with it is useless. Most end users were using their computer for simple office-like tasks. I've known for years that running a P166 with Win98, 32 MB ram and Office97 will produce about the same end user experience in loading times and program operation quality as a P4-3.3ghz with WinXP, 512 MB and OfficeXP. No, I'm not talking about the nifty features added to the Office suite in between those two releases. I'm talking about starting the computer and opening up a blank Word document to type a letter to Grandma or a resumé.
I would have liked to see mention of a comparison of both computers browsing sites hosted locally on the computers themselves, to compare the browsing experience itself, without the loading times of a 28.8 modem being compared to broadband in the same test. However, as sites have been upgraded to load in the same amount of time that they used to load (end user experience) over faster connections, there is just far too large of a difference in the amount of data being loaded between what you could comfortably browse with that old mac and what people are viewing on the web with XP/Firefox/IE or Vista/Firefox/IE. But to get the results they did, this was ultimately unnecessary to compare.
Just imagine, for the Majority of end users out there... how fast would their modern computers run, if they were using an older version of Windows and older versions of the popular programs they use daily? No, this example does not apply to the end of the spectrum users that are most likely responding on Slashdot. You know that you are not considered part of the majority of end users out there. Don't respond as if you are.
Indeed, as was posted already, it would be nice if Dell just offered the option of several Operating Systems for every computer purchased. Sure, it would drive Microsoft crazy as they want everyone to switch over to their new OS, and thus dump their old computers for ones that will run Vista, but if a company like Dell has the ability to provide what it's customers demand, why shouldn't they?
From what I've seen from Vista (specifically an install of Vista on a Sony Viao that refused to run the DVD authoring software because the Sony's video wasn't up to snuff), I am not impressed by it. Furthermore, when has Microsoft released an OS that did not need a major overhaul (other than Win2k) soon after it's release?
There is far too much media hype over Vista, this early in it's release. I can't wait until the equivalent of an SP2 to come out for Vista, so I can chuckle like a maniac. I just wish Dell would expand their offer to all their products.
So what is the difference between a policeman on every corner, and a camera on every corner? The cost, for one. Also, the camera can be reviewed and shows no bias. It's memory is not in question, and it can't be distracted.
There is no invasion of PRIVACY if you are being recorded by a camera or observed by a policeman in PUBLIC. If the camera could turn on and record just the crime, that would reduce the work required of the camera but would otherwise be no different than if the camera was on 24/7. Case in point, automatic traffic systems that photograph people who go through red lights. There is no invasion of privacy, and if the photograph clearly shows an individual is not wearing a seatbelt and is on the cell phone and there are laws in that area against these two things, then the individual in the photograph can expect to face related charges as well.
Cameras in public assist police in uncovering crimes that they would have missed by not having an alert officer present. Cameras in public also help police track known criminals that are avoiding the law. If a camera is unobtrusive and not clearly marked, then one cannot expect the camera to reduce crime by much... if the criminals don't know they are being observed by a camera, they are not going to let that unknown stop them from committing the crime.
Cameras in pubic are not there to reduce crime. They are there to increase prosecution of criminals. There is a large difference.
No, it is essentially the same model as the way commercial copiers are handled, except from the article, there is no charge for just having the printer in your business.
You see, the current copier leasing model charges you a monthly fee for having the copier, as well as charging you a per-copy rate for each copy you make. The copier has a counter (or two counters for those that keep track of mono and multi color copies separately) and either a technician comes out and physically reads the counter, you are called on the telephone to read off the counter numbers to the company rep, or in some cases, your copier is called directly via it's own connection to your line, and the counters are read without physical user interaction.
So your internet connection has nothing to do with it.
HP is just not going to sell these commercial copiers to the companies that want them. HP is only going to lease them, and then instead of charging a monthly fee, they are going to charge based on the number of prints. They will most likely get these totals by one of the methods I described above, or quite possibly even over an internet connection, but you can be assured they will not have only ONE method of getting these totals. There will be multiple methods available to them to get the total numbers of prints per month, as it is how they are saying they are going to charge their customers.
These are not going to be print services over the internet. You are not going to connect your company computers to an HP server where they mail you the prints you make.
Once again, just too many posts to reply to individually...
First off, as it was pointed out already, it just reveals too much about who is reading and moderating posts when the first post of "For the same reason people use IE in the first place: They are stupid and/or lazy." is moderated so highly. It is a clear insult at anyone who uses IE, and just shows that MS bashing is the expected norm on Slashdot. More simply put, if you want your "peers" on Slashdot to praise you and give you mod points, make sure your post is Anti-Microsoft in some way.
As far as elitism is concerned, acting like the MAJORITY of internet users out there should be as "educated" as the above indicated Slashdot MS haters is elitism to an extreme. Time and time again, I read posts that state internet users and computer users should be required to have licenses or certification to get on the web. Again, this is just elitism. Sure, when I started running an internet cafe in New Orleans back in the 90's, I was astounded at the sheer number of customers who could not get their email on a strange computer, regardless of whether or not their accounts were POP3,AOL, or even Hotmail. At first, this generated disdain in me for them, until I realized that the problem was not theirs, but rather mine. Should everyone be able to disassemble a fuel injection system before they learn how to drive a car? Should everyone be required to learn everything about their car (I mean everything) before they are allowed to drive it? No fuckin comments from the idiots who can't deal with analogies. The fact of the matter is that the internet is there for everyone, regardless of their education level, not just a bunch of stuck up MS hating Slashdotters.
So now we come to the topic at hand. Why are web developers still making websites that only work in IE? I thought it to be a convenient response in one post about how the logs that indicate 92% of visitors use IE should be ignored, because THEY don't like how that LOOKS like most users are browsing that particular site with IE. Then the excuses rolled out, like it was a different browser spoofing IE, or that non IE users somehow KNEW ahead of time that the site was only IE friendly so they avoided going to it at all, thus skewing that 92%. What kind of justification crap is that? It is also just as likely that friggin 92% of the people visiting that site were using IE. The fact that 100% weren't using IE proves that OTHER BROWSER USERS WERE VISITING THE SITE! Or was that little fact just too much to admit to?
Now, I don't use IE. I haven't used IE in many years. I get all my friends and repair customers to switch to Firefox. Sure, I hate the fact that it takes forever for Firefox to load on my Win2k box, my XP Pro desktop, and my XP Pro laptop. Having a gig or more of ram in each and processors that are all faster than 2ghz doesn't make a difference either. It doesn't make me want to switch to IE. But it does prove that for the majority of Operating systems in use out there, IE gives the impression of being easy enough to stick with. Sure, YOU might be frequenting web sites that post issues for Firefox, but the masses are using IE, and not having any major problems. Sure, they aren't as educated as to other options out there, or they JUST DON'T CARE. Their computers work for THEM.
So get off the high horses, and try educating instead of bashing. If you know Firefox is better then help someone else see that by showing them. Don't just scream "Microsoft sucks, and you suck for using anything from them."
Or Better yet, design something better and actually PROVE you are half as smart as you claim to be.
Have you ever been in an internet cafe where the girl two seats over has got 12 tabs open in her copy of Firefox, and each one is a different YouTube video loading up? What do you think that does to the bandwidth? How about downloading music videos from Yahoo Music? Think that is nice and kind to your bandwidth?
Have you ever legally downloaded television episodes before? You know, it's just one of the many completely legitimate uses for BitTorrenting. Guess what? You can get yourself distros of Linux with Torrents too. But, they should just be lumped in with Pirate Useage of bittorents, right? HELL, since all this pirating is being done via Downloading, why don't we eliminate downloading alltogether? No more updates, patches, fixes, no more digital distribution of Movies or iTunes, that way we KNOW all those nasty software pirates can't get their booty, aarr, matey.
The fact of the matter is that downloading large files is NOT illegal, nor is it a violation of your contract with your ISP. The size of the file has nothing to do with whether or not the contents of those files are pirated. A little FYI, does the name Angelfire ring a bell? You know a free web host that limits the amount of space and bandwidth their free customers get? Do you know how Angelfire (and other hosts like them) was used to promote Piracy? Pirates would sign up with multiple accounts, and break their large files into a ton of small, 2 to 3 meg zip files, then put one little zip file on each account. So how do you monitor for that? People are loading larger files (than those) in rapid succession (the same way) from legitimate sources.
How do you stop me from pirating software while I am at an internet cafe or coffee shop with free WiFi? Especially if I am using my bandwidth throttle so I DON'T eat up all the bandwidth from everyone around me. Face it. Pirates are actually much more accomodating, far more civil, and much more aware of exactly what they are doing, as opposed to you. You still think that all those bandwidth hoggers must be downloading illegal software or porn.
*shudder*
I completely understand how a lack of startup capitol can hinder the idea of producing your own electricity. You could Co-op with neighbors to reduce the cost. You could start with small investments in hardware first. And like the post that followed your reply, if you stay on the grid while producing your own electricity, the electric company has to buy from YOU everything you don't use.
Again, you *have* other options. You just don't like them. That is very different than not having other options at all.
Of course using a furnace is cheaper than heating with electricity.. unless you are producing your own electricity. Guess what is cheaper than natural gas and a furnace? WOOD! Then, all you need is a wood stove or two, an axe, and some elbow grease.
You absolutely positively need the speed of cable internet as opposed to dsl? Instant Gratification in your Download Department? Are you always using that 6mb or 8mb speed? I'm not assuming that you aren't, but rather I am asking you to take a closer look at your own useage. And Exactly what is wrong with satellite TV? Too many channels? Outages prone to adverse weather? Seems to me that the fact that you even have the ability to get cable internet and television is a long stretch better than those who are still without it. I'm sorry that you only have one cable provider available. Guess what? It's the same for MOST of the USA.
Face it. As you essentially said in your reply, you just don't like the other choices that are available to you, and you say they don't compare, in order to justify why you discount them. But they do compare. They are improving every month. You couldn't get bi-directional satellite internet not too long ago. Now, the speeds are slow, compared to cable internet, which is slow compared to fiber optics. However, It's getting better all the time.
You might as well complain that there aren't equal alternatives to Gold available, because you don't have the money to afford to have solid gold fixtures in your bathroom. Let me put it another way. Does having the option to switch to satellite TV make the cable company lower their rates? Nope. Having multiple hard line telephone companies in one area doesn't make them all lower their rates to be competitive either. Plenty of evidence of that. No, I'm not just picking on you. I've felt that same pinch before. I've wished that these companies would stop charging outrageous sums for the services. This is why if you don't like the choices available, you have to either suck it up, or create new choices. There is NO CHEAP SOLUTION in the short run. Unless you are willing to give up on the instant gratification of no effort electricity and fast cable internet, it looks like you are screwed. No use crying.
You should probably redefine a bit of your terminology.
If you want cable... do you mean cable television? Because you can most likely get satellite TV from one of several different providers. DirecTV is only one of them.
If you want cable internet... do you mean broadband internet access? Maybe your telephone company doesn't offer DSL, but you do have other options for broadband... one of which is Wildblue (wildblue.com) satellite internet. Yes, it is satellite up and down (no telephone line required) and it is offered at DSL speeds at the moment. You might even be able to become a Wildblue dealer in your area, and make money getting others on the program.
You want natural gas? If you only have one option, then step away from natural gas and move to electricity... which points me now to...
You want electricity? How about solar? Huge improvements recently, including solar panels that come on a self-adhesive roll you can just roll out in strips on your roof. How about a Sterling engine or two that converts sunlight directly to mechanical power, enough to turn a generator or three? How about wind? How about a diesel-electric generator, running on bio-diesel? Did you know that you can run a regular diesel engine on used vegetable oil, without ANY conversion at all, other than simple filtering to remove the majority of particulate matter? Don't believe me? That's your problem. I drive around in a Mercedes on occasion that is running on exactly this fuel. So, you collect the used fryer oil from the restaurants in your area, which they have to normally PAY to get rid of, and you use it to fuel a small diesel engine that runs your generator, and now you have all the electricity you need.
Sounds like too much effort? Then shut your mouth and send your money to Xcel, Center-point, Qwest, and Comcast. You have options. You have just decided that the options require too much work and money UPFRONT, to justify the savings down the road.
Too many people don't bother to look at what they are getting into before they sign the paperwork. Then they complain when what the paperwork actually said works against them. Too many people don't open their eyes to the options that are all around them, and then complain that not enough choice is being spoon-fed to them. If you don't see enough choice, go out and actually look. If you still don't see enough choice, then create new choices.
Hell. Modern procedures for separating water into hydrogen and oxygen are getting faster every day, and can be done with very little electricity (i.e. solar)... and that hydrogen can be fed directly into the cylinders of a standard gasoline engine INSTEAD of gasoline, or in conjunction with gasoline, diesel, vegetable oil, propane, methane, etc... for it seems using hydrogen with any number of fuels allows for combustion in an internal combustion engine. Thus, you could be getting your electricity from rainwater, if you wanted to put the work and money into setting up the system. Or I could be wrong, and your only option for electricity is Xcel.
looking at your response, you're apparently an idiot. So let me help you.
/. discussions since 1998 or 1999, when I was running an internet cafe in New Orleans. I just floated between using a different logon than THIS one, posting Anon, and posting on a good friend's account.
One of the basic rules in the GLOBAL community is that a crime is a crime, regardless of whether or not a bunch of loud-mouthed over-protected geeks find it amusing. Anyone who decides that they should have thought of a harmful prank first, because it was very funny to them should be burned in a multitude of ways.
It's not OK to violate other laws, regardless of what you think, especially if violating those laws hurts other people.
You are a moron, albeit a sarcastic one who panders to the crowd at large. Your assumption about my being new here is based on the incorrect correlation between the number of posts I have made, and the amount of time that MUST mean that I have been making them. I've been participating in
The fact that so many people read this and decided to make a joke out of it, and especially those who wished THEY had done this first, only proves how the Slashdot community has DEGRADED over the years. Your response further proves that very same thing.
Let's see. Brief Synopsis of a great deal of the replies here...
/. especially) should be donating everything they can to help this woman out. It doesn't matter if she is rich beyond means, or if she needs to rent this property to keep from being homeless. Pranks and acts of vandalism like this are not funny. At all.
1: She was an Evil landlord. She evicted someone. She deserved it.
2: Karma returned to her what she deserved.
3: It was a rental property. She can afford to replace everything.
4: She left the property unlocked. She deserved what she got.
5: Crime is nothing new. This is nothing new. Laugh all you want.
WTF people? IF and WHEN something like this happens to you, you will change your tune VERY quickly. What does it say about the state of people today when the biggest mouths all laugh at someone's misfortune, writing it off to just be "Life". People who engage at finding entertainment in the misery of others, are the ones responsible for continuing the misery of others.
Sure it could happen (and probably has) with regular old paper classifieds. That doesn't make it OK. People in the Tacoma area that read this (and those here on
It makes perfect sense. They are minors, as far as child porn is considered. They are responsible for producing that child porn. The fact that they believed they were above the laws just because of their ages, or the fact that they wrongly believed noone would find out, doesn't change anything.
They thought they knew what they were doing. They did not. They should face the consequences, and others should learn from their mistakes, and wait until they are 18 before emailing nude pictures of themselves anywhere.
The fact that the kids knew what they were doing was illegal because of their ages, is exactly the point. Now, should they each be charged as if each was a pedophile taking dirty pictures of a minor? Sure. How else are kids going to be taught NOT to do this in the future? Educating them in what is legal and what is not doesn't seem to be enough. Punishment and correction comes next.
The laws were designed to protect children from being exploited by predators, because kids were not being so blatant about exploiting themselves. It obviously wasn't such a private matter, since we are discussing the event on slashdot.
If the laws were designed to protect a ten from being preyed upon by an adult because the teen would not generally know exactly what they were getting into, what makes you think that two teens know exactly what they are geting into? What about protecting one younger teen from a slightly older one, where neither is of legal age, but an age gap of 4 to 6 years still exists? Should the laws not apply to them, because one is not an adult? The elder may still be a sexual predator.
And the parental accountability.. let's see. First, the parents should be held accountable for not properly educating their teens in better useage of the available technology. Taking pictures of themselves nude when underage can indeed lead to the wrong people getting hold of those pictures. Obviously, since people OTHER than the teens got hold of these emails and pictures. If Parents are being held accountable for educating their children as to the proper places to be web surfing, and the sites to ignoring, as well as where NOT to spread one's email addres around, then why not also be held accountable for teaching their kids what NOT to do with a camera?
Just because the parents weren't in the room, doesn't mean they should not be held at least partially responsible.
It might be just you. But I seriously doubt it.
There are other considerations. Let's look at the numbers of teen pregnancies right now, shall we? It is the other side of the equasion you are presenting, after all. In 2002, for example, the teen birth rate was 43 out of every 1000 women aged 15-19. Now, for those 18 and 19, who are legally considered to be responsible for themselves (in the eyes of the law), it's not nearly as much of an issue for those teens under the age of 18. When an underage teen gets pregnant, the state has to get involved for SUPPORT issues. inordinate numbers of teen moms go on welfare programs. Yes, there are moms of all ages on welfare. But are the new grandparents of this little baby supposed to now support this family, just because the mom is still a child herself?
Unfortunately, that legal cut-off age is 18. Not 17, not 16, not 15. Yes, it is an arbitrary age, but it carries a whole host of baggage with it. Parents can be held liable for the actions of their underage children. Should some precocious 15 year old girl be allowed to legally decide that she wants to get into porn, just because SHE thinks she is old enough? Didn't Tracy Lords already show us the error of this kind of thinking? Ok, so she was 16 when she started.
These teens are just another example of kids who had no clue, thinking they knew what was best for themselves, without having any idea of what acting responsibly is all about. That's what that arbitrary age of 18 was set for. Because they SHOULD have gained enough experience to be responsible for themselves by then, and they are now held legally accountable for their own actions. So if "someone else" is held accountable for the actions of a 17 year old, that "someone else" gets to dictate the rules.
So what happens if teens are allowed to make their own decisions? Why shouldn't parents be allowed to kick them out of the house to go and make their own way in the world at that time? Why should parent's have to pay for the teens mistakes, if the teens are allowed to just do whatever pops into their little undeveloped minds? Just how many grandparents are raising their grandchildren, because the moms and dads are not remotely mature or old enough to raise their own kids?
This is what allowing unfettered exploration of sexuality leads to. it isn;t about keeping kids down and not allowing them to do fun things. It is an attempt to teach them some measure of being responsbile. These kids got caught breaking the law. They knew it was against the law. They should face the consequences.
You would rather that cops didn't check out every strange report they get? How stupid a statement is that? What would be the cut off point in your world where cops didn't check out things?
Let's see...
If I strap a bunch of plastic doodads onto my assault rifle, then the cops will think it is to0 strange to bother to check out why I am carrying it into a crowded mall and making it spit loud sounds and lead projectiles.
Oh, oh, and why make a bomb all flashy and look like some kind of sign? I dunno.. maybe the tried and true methodology of HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT! I mean, if people know that cops won't check out strange devices because they look too strange, or because they just look like big non-bomb electronic devices, guess what the terrorists are going to start hiding their bombs in? But history has shown us that bombs can and will be hidden in all kinds of devices, including radios and the like. But in your little world, no terrorist would hide a bomb in a radio, or even strap it to their own body... that would be too strange.
Try this logic on for size. Design and plant several very flashy electronic devices around a city. Make them so flashy that people will stop and gawp at them in huge numbers. Then detonate them. Big body count, lots of media coverage, etc. It doesn't take all that much imagination to try something like this. Sucess for a stunt like this depends on people just assuming that it would never happen.
So let's see. So many issues...
First off, let's address this little snippet...
"Just because X is illegal does not mean that tools or instructions for doing X should also be illegal."
So it should be completely legal to provide information on how to make a silencer for a handgun? What legal use is there for a silencer? It should be completely legal for me to be able to tell you that if you screw a woodscrew into the lead core of a Slugger shotgun shell, you now have an Armor Piercing Round that will go through body armor and plate steel? How about the legality of my telling everyone how they can build a landmine out of a tupperware bowl, gasoline, draino, a roofing nail, saran wrap and some miscellaneous debris for shrapnel? Shall I now go into detail about how to assemble those ingredients? You want to defend my rights to impart this information?
Because the DMCA *can* be abused, it is therefore something bad that should be gotten rid of? Does that mean that because you can pick up any newspaper and find cases where corner store cashiers have been found guilty of selling cigarettes or alcohol to underage individuals, that the laws for keeping underage individuals from purchasing these things should be gotten rid of? I mean, since there are people getting caught abusing the laws there must be even MORE cashiers and consumers abusing the laws... therefore by your argument the laws should be disposed of.
How about speeding? How many cops write people up for one mile an hour UNDER the limit that decides whether or not the speeder has to appear in court for the ticket (In RI for example, 15 miles an hour over the speed limit means you mandatorily have to appear in court, and the RI State Troopers are well known for giving breaks and writing up people for only going 14 miles an hour over.) There is abuse of the law. Both in the speeding, and the punishment. Should the laws regarding speeding be repealed then?
You are pointing out how since individuals abuse the laws, that they should escape punishment, and the laws themselves should be changed, rather than punish those who are abusing the laws even harder.
You are right that it was wrong that noone checked your ID when you got that girl's information and filed the paperwork against her. What did you do about it, to ensure that ID's were checked in the future? NOTHING! That makes you part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
Super Ultra SEXY Evil Linux.
It would have to be attractive on all fronts.
as long as you expressed that to the undercover cop, that you were looking for flour and you only want flour, you might actually be covered. However, the judge might want to know why you are paying so much by the gram for what you can get in the supermarket.