Well, it doesn't seem to fall over.
Half of it appears to be missing, but the half that's *there* seems not to fall over.
162 publicly visible posts • joined 24 May 2007
It's just a word, FFS. I don't care how much either party spends on lawyers, people are going to use it as they please.
In this case, my guess would be that if in five years time anyone still cares about small cheap laptops, they will all be called "netbooks".
In the same way that I call brown-bread-with-bits in "granary", even though that, too, is a copyrighted term.
I wish business would grow up.
Spider From Mars made the point first on this thread, but Douglas Adams said it in 1999 (http://douglasadams.com/dna/19990901-00-a.html):
‘Because the Internet is so new we still don’t really understand what it is. We mistake it for a type of publishing or broadcasting, because that’s what we’re used to. So people complain that there’s a lot of rubbish online, or that it’s dominated by Americans, or that you can’t necessarily trust what you read on the web. Imagine trying to apply any of those criticisms to what you hear on the telephone. Of course you can’t “trust” what people tell you on the web anymore than you can ‘trust’ what people tell you on megaphones, postcards or in restaurants. Working out the social politics of who you can trust and why is, quite literally, what a very large part of our brain has evolved to do.
For some batty reason we turn off this natural scepticism when we see things in any medium which require a lot of work or resources to work in, or in which we can’t easily answer back — like newspapers, television or granite. Hence “carved in stone.” What should concern us is not that we can’t take what we read on the internet on trust — of course you can’t, it’s just people talking — but that we ever got into the dangerous habit of believing what we read in the newspapers or saw on the TV — a mistake that no one who has met an actual journalist would ever make. One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no “them” out there. It’s just an awful lot of “us”.’
Those commenters who say that the government have created a system where, once you are arrested, you are assumed guilty, will love today's BBC R4 Today interview with Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker (http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8037000/8037364.stm).
He repeatedly says that the advantage of the DNA DB is that it catches innocent people who re-offend.
No, he really says that. Twice.
About 50% of serious SF fans, in my experience, have written a story where two characters or actors in a show they like, erm, get jiggy.
As an SF fan myself I don't have to have any sort of kink to know that these things exist or that some of them get creative with the concept of "consent". (To anybody thinking "ew", at this point: quite. But it's only fiction.)
If this case goes to a guilty verdict, an awful lot of people are going to be looking nervously over their shoulders.
Isn't it a bit daft to assume that virtualisation will mean that you will need less hardware? Does anyone really think that?
I mean, x server-side applications will generate total load y whether they are on x different servers or one big one. So you'll still need lots of computer kit, either way...
I bought a £25 pIII and turned it into a "media centre" using MythTV. It sounds like it would give this £100 job a run for it's money.
Okay, it helps if you're a Linux nut. And a friend donated a freeview card (about £30). But I seem to remember that Linux will read Mac discs just fine...
Fascinating. And I'd love to see these new applications. But...
People will always want to write letters and add up columns of figures. So Word Processors and Spreadsheets, which Patterson dismisses, will still be needed in some form.
In fact I would guess that we will need all the current types of applications that we currently use -- however limited and annoying we find them -- for the next ten years or so.
And computers running the majority* of these applications, processor speed is no longer relevant; hasn't been for years. It's IO speed that makes things faster.
It seems to me that Moore's Law has become an excuse for an industry and so much marketing hype. The vast majority of people are today being forced to buy computers which are much more powerful than they will ever need -- except for the fact that they are running operating systems which have bloated to require that power without any real payback for the user.
But of course, I would say that. Every computer in my house is an old recycled one running Linux.
(* not video editing or animation rendering, but pretty much everything else.)
Was it "BBC makes themselves look really stupid with an incredibly naieve story about internet sex?
Because from here it looks as if your story says "Cooor!! Wish we'd done that story!!!"
Normally the Reg is right on the button (er, pardon me) but this time I think you forgot to write the story before posting it. Any story would have done.
My opinion is that all prank phone calls are nearly as funny as a road accident, so I'll disqualify myself from judging whether it was funny or not.
Reading the transcript of the event (or as much of it as I could be bothered to, anyway), it seems to me that what was actually said wasn't much worse than Brand and Ross normally get up to.
The difference was that they weren't just pratting about on the air -- they were talking down the phone to someone (okay, answering machine, whatever). The difference is important: it's a hell of a lot more personal. When you hear an answering machine message, it's meant just for you.
Granted, the difference is a subtle one. I guess Ross & Grant didn't see it at the time. But when you walk the edge of comedy, I think you need to pay close attention to that sort of thing.
... is a *lot* more complicated than US libel law. (I believe the word "minefield" works quite nicely. Possibly "insane".)
It i *not* enough that the alleged libel is true. If he has suffered loss of business then he might well have a case. The best defense might well be that he wasn't the only one to give negative feedback.
IA, obviously, NAL, so I could have entirely the wrong end of a completely different stick. But I do know for sure that UK libel law is very, very odd.
I see no traffic in Birmingham. That seems a little unlikely. And clicking on the traffic display units toggle -- the southbound signs on the M6 are saying: "congestion ahead".
It appears that either the site is a bit selective in what jams it shows; or the traffic display units really do lie about congestion ahead on the run up to the M6 toll road....
Forgive me if I'm being thick here, but the basic difference in cat and dog toilet behavior from my point of view is not whether or not cats bury it. It's the fact that I'm actually on the other end of a lead from my dog when he does it.
If you think I'm climbing up trees and leaping over fences in order to facilitate neighbourliness and hygene, then I think you're assuming considerably more fellow-feeling than I actually possess. Not to mention the issue of trespass...
Fine by me, so long as it's not examined as a *scientific* point of view, because it isn't one.
It's perfectly legitimate to hold irrational beliefs. Lots of us have them. For example, I believe that if I keep buying those little tickets at the post office I'll one day become a millionaire. (Then again, it's also perfectly legitimate to take the mickey out of those that think their irrational beliefs are rational, too.)
It seems to me that a sensitive, reasoned discussion about why creationism isn't good science would be a perfectly good way to teach the scientific method.
Assuming that the teachers and pupils can manage that, of course.
Sorry, can't agree with you. Don't you think that the millions (?) of lines of code that go to make up a Linux distro were "hard work"? Most (not all) of that was done by people who weren't getting paid.
Or what about the millions (?) of pages of Wikipedia, for example? Were people paid for that? Granted, much of it is tosh. But much of it is not tosh. And it didn't write itself.
While I'm at it, I'd like to take issue with the idea that the Ubuntu documentation was unusable. I was certainly using it. It needed updating and improving in places, sure. But it wasn't useless. So this is not a disaster.
I think the point is that the people who are deriding this are upholding the same principals of freedom and democracy that your father and his countrymen were.
The fact that you -- or I -- don't like the people that they are defending should not be relevant. Or else, who is to decide who gets justice and who doesn't? Me? You? Sort of defeats the meaning of the word "justice", surely?