This is pretty much exactly my point. Old tech undergoing a familiar modernisation path as with most technology, then some bright spark decides this is the most fitting use for it? What a terrible, disagreeable waste.

I'm sure we can all get behind this fantastic use of technology that will further the demonisation of a plant.

...directly in their field of expertise and strength.

If you willingly cut out the best (and sometimes only) advantage that an independant developer has, their freedom to be creative, then good luck with that one.

This wasn't a valid point even back when CRTs were the norm because it is far easier to run a CRT at a high refresh rate than an LCD, although flat-panels are now catching up (for 3D and such things.) But it's a valid point you make - it does my head in when people worry about increasing FPS at that level on a cheap-ass 60hz monitor.

I don't disagree at all, I have major issues with how copyright is being extended to stupid levels and I especially dislike, when I was doing academic work, the way that you need to pay for a lot of scientific research - but I just don't agree that the method of fighting it is to deliberately break the law in this case. It is not a cause that deserves that kind of response, unlike more serious issues like corruption and the kinds of violent protests in the past used to help secure women's rights and such. If you don't agree with copyright, don't buy copyrighted material *and stick to free material.* I've said before in an older post, you have a right to live and to have liberty but you don't have a right to be entertained for free. Entertainment is so easy to make for oneself that it is ridiculous that anyone should feel the need to pirate to accomplish this.

I think your very true example of the science paywall is a hairier topic however. I'm not saying all science is good but for-pay journals shouldn't need to exist - they should be free for all. It's still tough to justify that deliberately breaking law is appropriate for the science realm considering the hit-and-miss nature of the field but at least there it has a non-trivial impact.

Really? You think that's an equal comparison? I have no words, other than you're being intellectually dishonest.

By whose divine measure? Yours?

Pray tell, what is your occupation, so that others may deem your livelihood a waste of time as well?

It is pretty interesting how Microsoft neglected to make it more intuitive since its introduction in XP (or was it 2000? I do not recall.) As another poster noted there's partly some of the functionality there in Linux but it's not hooked up to any current GUI properly. A real pity. And you are correct, just holding a file open for reading is a blocker in both cases, which is what actually catches most people out.

Didn't realise that about lsof, that's good to know.

If you don't know what your computer is doing and why it would be writing to a removable device then that's your own failing. Linux does that just the same too - ever seen 'Device or resource busy'? No help there. Allowing you to force unmount is not a safe thing to do for casual users - you need to know what you're doing and be prepared to accept the consequences of a mistake.

Windows is perfectly fine here if you use and maintain it correctly, and part of that is not installing random background running applications that keep hitting the filesystem and not leaving programs open with files on the device you're trying to eject(!) Explorer windows count as a program in this case. Thumbnail services etc.

If you still have a problem with it and your current solution is a more manual method, just go with something like Lockhunter. Works fine for this situation. Installing a separate utility for this task is another (valid) complaint entirely, in that Windows really never comes with an easy toolchain out of the box. Lockhunter just provides the same functionality as Linux's lsof, so it's worth having.

...sure Windows can. It's called 'Safely Remove Hardware'.

Not going to bother responding to the out-of-hand dismissal of my other points, it's clear you're not actually interested in a debate.

If someone says that a particular license is not suitable for them, why the pithy 'boo-hoo' response?

Because it's virtually always someone whining about the fact that someone made a choice they can't stand, and feel a need to gripe about it instead of accepting it and moving on. Also, because this is Slashdot.

A post by someone that states exactly why they don't use the GPL and why it doesn't work for them, on a discussion topic on how GPL use is declining, is 'griping' about it instead of accepting it and moving on? Seriously? The fact that our posts exist make this entire point completely hypocritical. Slashdot, indeed.

Why is it every shout of 'write it yourself' to people saying that the GPL viral source-release 'feature' has downsides, seem to come over the internet, presumably created with dozens of individual pieces of software they did not write, on hardware they did not manufacture, by people in houses they did not bit, fed by food they did not grow, in a society they did not create and perhaps, not even contributed to? I'm using extremes to be a dick, but my point stands - there is a phrase 'standing on the shoulders of giants,' and yes, that applies to industry and producing a profit, using technologies and concepts that, surprise, may not have been invented by them, but merely refined and targeted. If someone says that a particular license is not suitable for them, why the pithy 'boo-hoo' response? Pithy is indeed the word I have to use to describe much of the open-source movement.

However, supporting the record label by buying the discs will make it so much easier for the band to get the funding to go on tour. For the music genres filled with people with a genuine love for what they do and where performing to appreciative fans is the end game for getting into the business rather than money (most genres except the Pop Idol, celebrity obsessed half of the pop music section) this can be its own reward. You can also then further support them by going to see them live and possibly buying their band paraphernalia / crap. Not to mention that discs that sell well encourage the labels to give better contracts in the future. I'm sorry, but the only justification for pirating music is getting the material that is out of print and unobtainable. If you don't like supporting the record industry, don't give money to the bands that feel it's a worthwhile deal for them to use them to get their music heard and possibly go and play them live. There is in this day and age, after all, perfectly fine free music and it is totally possible to release music via the internet without the middle man. More power to them, but most of those bands aren't doing major tours - they probably don't want to do that, and that's just fine. You could possibly make an argument for downloading older albums that aren't going to influence the band's current day chances, but even if you're not really doing the same harm as you would by downloading a brand new album, you're still taking away the artists (small) share, the employees of the record label that do grunt work, the owners of the labels (who own the business and have a legitimate right to earn money from their business) and also from the stores that are selling the discs. It's not really justifiable in any way to say copying is right. The internet is a disruptive technology causing us to rethink the value of data, but until that is done and codified into our laws and culture properly, you should respect copyright. If you can't afford music, then you have other problems on your plate than feeling like you deserve to be entertained for free.

Did you read the rest of the quote? They explicitly state that the totals are unrealistic in 'normal' usage levels and just basically don't happen for most people. The purpose of such high levels of testing is purely experimental and to see if, at any level, THC could produce withdrawal effects. It can, but as they've discovered, the potheads were right - you could have to become a human smoke stack to achieve it, and lethal doses are impossible with this route. The lowest tested LD50 value for THC (according to Wikipedia, I'm not researching further as I'm just on lunch break) is 29mg/kg, intravenously. Nobody is shooting up THC, but assuming this was the LD50 for humans, you'd need 2.03 grams of pure THC if you were a 70kg female. At least 150 joints in one day, and that's not accounting for the fact that you might not be able to actually achieve that level in your bloodstream at any one time. Not bloody likely.

Have you noticed that pedophiles are always white?