All they have to do is make the discs wide enough so that the reader/burner will not fit into a 5 1/4"-bay.
CD burners have not been forced to rely on being internal devices for a long time. Add a hundred bucks or so to the price and you have a nice sleek chassis that sits somewhere on your desk. I don't see how changing the form factor is going to keep them away from PCs.
The real thing you need to do is get over yourself. You're not special.
Perhaps you're lucky enough to be surrounded by other bright people to interact with, but most of us are surrounded by 'norms'. Pretty hard not to feel special.
There's a great Bud Light commercial about this.. Two guys meet in the clearing between their cabins out in the woods. One is an average joe, with a mutt, and the other guy is a yuppie with a border collie.
"Nice dog," says the average guy as he walks up.
"..purebred border collie," says the yuppie. "Watch this, Piper, fetch!"
The dog runs over to the porch, lifts up the lid to the cooler with his nose, and gets out a bottle of Bud Light, bringing it back to his master.
The yuppie brags, "Good boy Piper you're such a smart dog! So uh, what can *your* dog do?"
The average guy says, "Fergus, Bud Light!"
The mutt leaps to the yuppie's crotch and bites in good and firmly, causing the yuppie to shriek and fling his Bud Light up in the air, which is neatly caught by the average guy.
"Bad dog," says the average guy, with an approving tone and a smile.
Kind of odd to me that this question winds up in an 'Ask Slashdot' considering that many of us give our opinions on this exact topic practically every day in one thread or another. If you still have to ask, you haven't been paying attention.
Targets are first chosen regarding the facility to compromise them. Popularity will come as a second point to consider. Of course this is true when the potentitial of targets is high enough, which is the case in my examples.
We're talking about home users here, not the webservers and databases of companies. There is a much higher population of home users, making them *the* target if one wants mass-reproduction.
Removing the *source* of the content is what has always been the main focus of law enforcement. By filtering everything, we run the risk of these sites shutting down of their own accord, due to lack of visitors. The material will still be being produced of course, as pedophilia is not a money-driven activity. So what we wind up with is just as many children being victimized, and it will be pushed back further underground where it's harder to find them. Let them have their websites, it makes it that much easier for them to be caught.
Exchange = grater demand = more supply needed = more children affected.
I've heard that ridiculous argument before, where does this come from? Child Porn is not supply and demand, dude. The sickos that want to make pictures of themselves having sex with little kids are not driven by some 'fan base' wanting to see their latest exploits. They want to have sex with children, and aren't going to stop just because nobody is downloading their recordings anymore. It doesn't make any sense at all.
It seems like the expectations for home robotics kits greatly exceed those of the Mars rovers. Hopefully someone can explain it.
Put your home robotics kit on Mars and see how long it lasts. I give it a day or so, it's pretty harsh there, not like your backyard at all. You can't take it in at night either, and you never get to clean off its solar collectors or perform any maintenance whatsoever. That's where the development money goes.
Your children WILL suffer psychologically, emotionally and developmentally by not having a father around.
Depends on the father. My father wasn't around much when I was a kid, and I would thanks the gods for that on a regular basis. Maybe I've suffered developmentally anyhow in some way, but hey, I'm sure it would have been much worse if he was around more.
I would disagree. Yes you should double check, but doing thier job is 100% thier responsibility.
I would disagree. You should always double-check, it *IS* your money after all. The person doing their job is *human* and therefore prone to make some mistake at some point, somewhere. I'm seeing more and more of this attitude of entitlement that people have these days. Everyone is somehow supposed to offer you complete accuracy, and perfect service, or you scream bloody murder. 100% all the time is a worthy goal, but it is not realistic. You are part of the system whether you want to be or not, and you have to take responsibility and participate. That's the burden of being alive and on this planet. Feel free to explore other options if this displeases you.
My Canadian friends are screaming bloody murder. I don't blame them.
Tee-hee, I'm not. My company, in a rare move of prescience, did our direct deposits early, on Friday, because the 31st was a monday. They understand the need for weekend fundage, so we got it early. What I'm more amused about is my rent payment, which I made on monday, and this error is only affecting balance updates, not the actual transactions. The money is still in my account as of now, so I really hope they skip me.:)
There's magic in acting: controling your every emotion to become someone you're not, and then making other people believe it. That's art man. What they're trying to do sounds to me like trying to replace a Picasso with a fractal image. No magic.
Math keeps track of the lines, but their forms are determined in the human heart and mind. Math tracks the movements of virtual objects, but the objects are truly motivated by the artist at the keyboard. A skilled animator *is* acting. That's art, man.
Wouldn't that be a movie written, directed, post-produced, and distributed by bots?
No, because all things artificial are man-made. At least that is the current definition. A more accurate description of this movie would be 'all-virtual' anyhow. Still really really cool.
I'd like to see a vote on how many guys here have encountered that double-standard. I get in trouble if I look bored when hearing about something boring, but I get a bored look if I try to talk about my latest Genossian Lab raid in SWG.
Now the film is spliced together into a long single strip. This allows one projectionist to run many screens as long as they don't start at the same time.
Yes, I had been under the impression that nowadays it all comes on one big reel, but why do they still use the cue marks then? What are they for now? I've noticed them in practically every movie I've seen.
I always see those conductor-punch holes at scene changes, and those are only 1 frame aren't they? At 24 fps, the human eye doesn't notice that it's looking at a bunch of frames flying by, it's fooled to think it's all smooth analog motion.. But it DOES see every frame. If the eye couldn't see every frame of a 24 fps film, then we would be using a slower framerate because 24 would be overkill.
Now, I might be wrong about this, but I am willing to bet that all access points, WNIC's and other accessories come with something called a "manual"! If you were to actually *read* one of those, by accident or intent, you might discover how to acutally use your newly accuired product!
That is so very true. The average person (not just computer user, I'm talking average PERSON) is horrified at the thought of having to read a manual in order to understand how to use a gadget. When I'm working in someone's house, I am often asked silly questions like how to hook up a stereo or how to set the time on a desk clock, or how to get picture-in-picture on their snazzy new HDTV. I like to suggest that they check the manual that came with their device, because it will certainly be in there, and then watch the look of horror on their face as they realize they have to learn something now. It's really quite amusing.
And if they're a computer user, they're no different. They can have a nice big fold-out diagram of their new HP PC with color-coded connectors and nice pretty pictures and they still don't want to read that, they want a person who already knows how, to set it up for them. The average person wants to do the least amount of work to be able to use their tools, that's the bottom line.
Granted it would take all of their time, and that would also mean a *lot* more drivers being made aware of the consequences of speeding. Sounds like a win-win to me, but we won't see it happen. Money rules all.
"They knew I was doing it before, but they purposely waited until now to bust me, so they could give me a harsher sentence!"
This happens with radar traps, at least in Canada. The posted speed limit is, say, 60km/h, but they don't stop you unless you're going at least 75. There *is* a fine tier for less than 15km/h over the limit, but they don't bother to stop you and do all the paperwork required, for the lesser fine and fewer points off your license. They run out in the road when it's *worth* something for their time.
I'll admit that I've never been to a university, but I have to assume that like any respectable organization, this university made it clear to the student when he enrolled that plagarism was not acceptable. I'm sure there's a signature of his on a form somewhere in his records stating that he knew that well in advance.
One would hope so.. When I went to a technical school to take a network technician course, we were all told something during orientation... "Go ahead and try to hack our network, you probably can't but it can be a good way to learn. Why, when I started out here, I was playing around one day and realized I was somewhere I shouldn't be. It was interesting." Or some kind of rot like that. Anyhow, later in the year, the whole student body was called in for a meeting, where the dean (same guy who spoke at orientation) exclaimed that someone was trying to 'hack' the network and this was a very serious matter and that the offender would be caught and expelled.
Now the punchline.. It was turned out to be an instructor trying to log into another instructor's machine, having forgotten/mistyped the password. My cohorts and I laughed about it for a week.
The basis for the suit is: "I've been plagarizing for 3.9 years, and right as I was about to graduate, you told me I couldn't. You shouldn't be allowed to kick someone out for plagarism after they pay you for 4 years of education."
This is a very silly argument, but if the student can find some evidence that the administration had knowledge of the plagarism scheme, led him to believe he would graduate, he paid all his fees, and *then* they pulled the plug, that would probably be just as immoral as the plagarism itself.
Lets be honest with ourselves. Who plagarizes anymore and thinks its okay? --
My problem is on the other end: when I SEND someone e-mail I don't want someone else to read it.
But that isn't going to happen anyhow. The 'someone else' that will see your message isn't even a 'someone' but a machine. A machine that can't think, or judge, or snicker. This is not a privacy issue.
Slashdot Mirror
All they have to do is make the discs wide enough so that the reader/burner will not fit into a 5 1/4"-bay.
CD burners have not been forced to rely on being internal devices for a long time. Add a hundred bucks or so to the price and you have a nice sleek chassis that sits somewhere on your desk. I don't see how changing the form factor is going to keep them away from PCs.
The real thing you need to do is get over yourself. You're not special.
Perhaps you're lucky enough to be surrounded by other bright people to interact with, but most of us are surrounded by 'norms'. Pretty hard not to feel special.
There's a great Bud Light commercial about this.. Two guys meet in the clearing between their cabins out in the woods. One is an average joe, with a mutt, and the other guy is a yuppie with a border collie.
"Nice dog," says the average guy as he walks up.
"..purebred border collie," says the yuppie. "Watch this, Piper, fetch!"
The dog runs over to the porch, lifts up the lid to the cooler with his nose, and gets out a bottle of Bud Light, bringing it back to his master.
The yuppie brags, "Good boy Piper you're such a smart dog! So uh, what can *your* dog do?"
The average guy says, "Fergus, Bud Light!"
The mutt leaps to the yuppie's crotch and bites in good and firmly, causing the yuppie to shriek and fling his Bud Light up in the air, which is neatly caught by the average guy.
"Bad dog," says the average guy, with an approving tone and a smile.
ITTAASOBIYLAILEIJMMESASYWBATSIRW. W, ALTPISF.
The above doesn't really look like yelling, but the lameness filter thinks it does...
This article is my 'box of toothpicks'. I must now build a house inside-out so as to enclose the World in the asylum that it belongs in.
Kind of odd to me that this question winds up in an 'Ask Slashdot' considering that many of us give our opinions on this exact topic practically every day in one thread or another. If you still have to ask, you haven't been paying attention.
Targets are first chosen regarding the facility to compromise them. Popularity will come as a second point to consider. Of course this is true when the potentitial of targets is high enough, which is the case in my examples.
We're talking about home users here, not the webservers and databases of companies. There is a much higher population of home users, making them *the* target if one wants mass-reproduction.
Back when I was seven, mice would bite you if you tried to push any of their buttons.
Removing the *source* of the content is what has always been the main focus of law enforcement. By filtering everything, we run the risk of these sites shutting down of their own accord, due to lack of visitors. The material will still be being produced of course, as pedophilia is not a money-driven activity. So what we wind up with is just as many children being victimized, and it will be pushed back further underground where it's harder to find them. Let them have their websites, it makes it that much easier for them to be caught.
Exchange = grater demand = more supply needed = more children affected.
I've heard that ridiculous argument before, where does this come from? Child Porn is not supply and demand, dude. The sickos that want to make pictures of themselves having sex with little kids are not driven by some 'fan base' wanting to see their latest exploits. They want to have sex with children, and aren't going to stop just because nobody is downloading their recordings anymore. It doesn't make any sense at all.
It seems like the expectations for home robotics kits greatly exceed those of the Mars rovers. Hopefully someone can explain it.
Put your home robotics kit on Mars and see how long it lasts. I give it a day or so, it's pretty harsh there, not like your backyard at all. You can't take it in at night either, and you never get to clean off its solar collectors or perform any maintenance whatsoever. That's where the development money goes.
Your children WILL suffer psychologically, emotionally and developmentally by not having a father around.
Depends on the father. My father wasn't around much when I was a kid, and I would thanks the gods for that on a regular basis. Maybe I've suffered developmentally anyhow in some way, but hey, I'm sure it would have been much worse if he was around more.
I would disagree. Yes you should double check, but doing thier job is 100% thier responsibility.
I would disagree. You should always double-check, it *IS* your money after all. The person doing their job is *human* and therefore prone to make some mistake at some point, somewhere. I'm seeing more and more of this attitude of entitlement that people have these days. Everyone is somehow supposed to offer you complete accuracy, and perfect service, or you scream bloody murder. 100% all the time is a worthy goal, but it is not realistic. You are part of the system whether you want to be or not, and you have to take responsibility and participate. That's the burden of being alive and on this planet. Feel free to explore other options if this displeases you.
My Canadian friends are screaming bloody murder. I don't blame them.
:)
Tee-hee, I'm not. My company, in a rare move of prescience, did our direct deposits early, on Friday, because the 31st was a monday. They understand the need for weekend fundage, so we got it early. What I'm more amused about is my rent payment, which I made on monday, and this error is only affecting balance updates, not the actual transactions. The money is still in my account as of now, so I really hope they skip me.
There's magic in acting: controling your every emotion to become someone you're not, and then making other people believe it. That's art man. What they're trying to do sounds to me like trying to replace a Picasso with a fractal image. No magic.
Math keeps track of the lines, but their forms are determined in the human heart and mind. Math tracks the movements of virtual objects, but the objects are truly motivated by the artist at the keyboard. A skilled animator *is* acting. That's art, man.
Wouldn't that be a movie written, directed,
post-produced, and distributed by bots?
No, because all things artificial are man-made. At least that is the current definition. A more accurate description of this movie would be 'all-virtual' anyhow. Still really really cool.
I'd like to see a vote on how many guys here have encountered that double-standard. I get in trouble if I look bored when hearing about something boring, but I get a bored look if I try to talk about my latest Genossian Lab raid in SWG.
:)
I play SWG, and *I'd* give you a bored look.
Now the film is spliced together into a long single strip. This allows one projectionist to run many screens as long as they don't start at the same time.
Yes, I had been under the impression that nowadays it all comes on one big reel, but why do they still use the cue marks then? What are they for now? I've noticed them in practically every movie I've seen.
At 24 fps, the human eye would not notice
I always see those conductor-punch holes at scene changes, and those are only 1 frame aren't they? At 24 fps, the human eye doesn't notice that it's looking at a bunch of frames flying by, it's fooled to think it's all smooth analog motion.. But it DOES see every frame. If the eye couldn't see every frame of a 24 fps film, then we would be using a slower framerate because 24 would be overkill.
Now, I might be wrong about this, but I am willing to bet that all access points, WNIC's and other accessories come with something called a "manual"! If you were to actually *read* one of those, by accident or intent, you might discover how to acutally use your newly accuired product!
That is so very true. The average person (not just computer user, I'm talking average PERSON) is horrified at the thought of having to read a manual in order to understand how to use a gadget. When I'm working in someone's house, I am often asked silly questions like how to hook up a stereo or how to set the time on a desk clock, or how to get picture-in-picture on their snazzy new HDTV. I like to suggest that they check the manual that came with their device, because it will certainly be in there, and then watch the look of horror on their face as they realize they have to learn something now. It's really quite amusing.
And if they're a computer user, they're no different. They can have a nice big fold-out diagram of their new HP PC with color-coded connectors and nice pretty pictures and they still don't want to read that, they want a person who already knows how, to set it up for them. The average person wants to do the least amount of work to be able to use their tools, that's the bottom line.
Granted it would take all of their time, and that would also mean a *lot* more drivers being made aware of the consequences of speeding. Sounds like a win-win to me, but we won't see it happen. Money rules all.
"They knew I was doing it before, but they purposely waited until now to bust me, so they could give me a harsher sentence!"
This happens with radar traps, at least in Canada. The posted speed limit is, say, 60km/h, but they don't stop you unless you're going at least 75. There *is* a fine tier for less than 15km/h over the limit, but they don't bother to stop you and do all the paperwork required, for the lesser fine and fewer points off your license. They run out in the road when it's *worth* something for their time.
I'll admit that I've never been to a university, but I have to assume that like any respectable organization, this university made it clear to the student when he enrolled that plagarism was not acceptable. I'm sure there's a signature of his on a form somewhere in his records stating that he knew that well in advance.
One would hope so.. When I went to a technical school to take a network technician course, we were all told something during orientation... "Go ahead and try to hack our network, you probably can't but it can be a good way to learn. Why, when I started out here, I was playing around one day and realized I was somewhere I shouldn't be. It was interesting." Or some kind of rot like that. Anyhow, later in the year, the whole student body was called in for a meeting, where the dean (same guy who spoke at orientation) exclaimed that someone was trying to 'hack' the network and this was a very serious matter and that the offender would be caught and expelled.
Now the punchline.. It was turned out to be an instructor trying to log into another instructor's machine, having forgotten/mistyped the password. My cohorts and I laughed about it for a week.
No it isn't. Read the article.
The basis for the suit is: "I've been plagarizing for 3.9 years, and right as I was about to graduate, you told me I couldn't. You shouldn't be allowed to kick someone out for plagarism after they pay you for 4 years of education."
This is a very silly argument, but if the student can find some evidence that the administration had knowledge of the plagarism scheme, led him to believe he would graduate, he paid all his fees, and *then* they pulled the plug, that would probably be just as immoral as the plagarism itself.
Lets be honest with ourselves. Who plagarizes anymore and thinks its okay?
--
Ieshan
Community Bloggi [webutronics.com]
My problem is on the other end: when I SEND someone e-mail I don't want someone else to read it.
But that isn't going to happen anyhow. The 'someone else' that will see your message isn't even a 'someone' but a machine. A machine that can't think, or judge, or snicker. This is not a privacy issue.