Slashdot Mirror

I thought that video would link to the infamous Tech Note 31, but it doesn't.

"There is a life-size picture of a dogcow conveniently located in the Finder. Look under 'Page Setup...' Now look under 'Options.' Walla [sic], there is the dogcow in all it's raging glory.

"Like any talented dog, it can do flips. Like any talented cow, it can do precision bitmap alignment."

Diverting 93% of the water to grow lettuce in the desert since 1920 had nothing to do with it.

Also, ignore the arctic ice that's been increasing for three years, the antarctic ice that's always grown and hit a new record in 2014, snow in Hawaii, and the great lakes that have frozen early,and that have frozen over compete the last two years. Ignore Niagara falls that has frozen over two years in a row and ignore all the record cold around the country. Ignore the fact we kill killed half the worlds trees in the last 100 years and where we do theres drought and ignore the fact the IPCC did not admit trees ate CO2 until 2010. Ignore the fact NAS falsified the CO2 hypothesis in 2010 and ignore the fact the climate models now have 95% error.Ignore the fact corals have genes that upregulate to ignore acidification and warming and ignore the fact pollution (I'm especially looking at you big oil) has gotten worse while we're distracted by this nonsense. Ignore the fact not a single IPCC prediction ever came true.

And especially ignore NAA/NOAA when they say "there has been no warming this century"

Creation science, social science, climate science... if you have to add "science" to a word to give it legitimacy, it's not science any more than the Democratic People's republic of North Korea is a democracy. Real sciences yield natural laws to quote Feynman.

Instead, look at 01% of a country that is 2% of the world.

Refs:
1) Ice
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/201...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
http://www.nasa.gov/content/go...

2) records:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/vide...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
http://www.staradvertiser.com/...
https://www.facebook.com/video...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/febru...
http://www.latimes.com/local/l...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

3) Trees:
http://www.pri.org/stories/201...
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
http://www.agu.org/news/press/...

Well there were once billions of Passenger Pigeons, the meat in the matter of Pigeon Pie. But they went extinct about 100 years ago. Was it the over hunting? Was it the same fungus that made what's now Orange County California switch from vineyards to citrus crops around 1883? Was the fungus caused by dust from the Krakatoa eruption?
Or did the minerals in the solar wind cause the fungus, and the plasma driven magnetic jolts stimulate the volcanic activity?
Some claimed that there weren't high latitude notilucent clouds until Krakatoa, but other writings including some cited by Charles Hoy Fort refuted that. He looked at many off events and doubted the quick judgements of the day. People thought meteors came from volcanoes on Earth or the Moon. Failure to consider the sun as one of the sources persists to this day. He through out all sorts of ideas, some pretty silly, but his writings mention a vast number of sources. Most of those from the 19th century have been scanned and are online. There's something different about atmospheric anomalies from an area when man had nothing in the air to explain them away with. For some fun, check out the texts or audiobooks of Charles Hoyt. Although he's gotten the most modern attention (and a biased wikipedia summary) from the nutty UFO crowd, give the silly notions some slack. Skip whacky conclusions and study the data. After all, in the 1800's some were honestly looking for a planet vulcan with an orbit inside that of Mercury to explain those spots seen on the sun... Meteors and other events were recorded in credible journals, even a president saw rocks from the sky. Consider the possible role of space weather. Could comets be from condensed solar material? The outer part of the sun is similar to the nebula material our planets were made from.

Will the drones make a good replacement for Passenger Pigeons? Some might like the hunting, but they'll need to go into something other than pie. What can you build from the pieces??

https://archive.org/details/bo...

http://umtof.umd.edu/pub/isoto...

That was just an example. Even with more realism, more colors and better graphics it doesn't explain why the same kind of game needs 4-5 GB today (except for bloated coding). Especially when you can do the following in under 100k (CPU power is needed because everything is done from procedures)

http://web.archive.org/web/201...

Besides, colors and sound don't make a game, gameplay does. Look at DooM (the remake). Looks nice but gameplay is nowhere near the original, same goes for Half-Life vs HL2

Objective-C++!

(Yes, there is such a thing. And yes, I'm being facetious.)

Yaz

So, you are claiming that a Kangaroo Court, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K..., that ignores judicial standards and rushes cases at the expense of the defendant is a good thing?

WTF, no wonder the patent trolls flock to it, Marshall Texas Kangaroo Courts have even been the subject of local hymnals, https://archive.org/details/IB...

Back in 2006 Slashdot ran a CSS redesign contest. Slashdot users overwhelmingly preferred Peter Lada's redesign:
http://web.archive.org/web/201...

Slashdot, in contravention, picked a mobile-ready, stripped down design that left a lot to be desired.

Then the beta fiasco with the Dice purchase happened in 2014, IIRC. It was presented in a VERY confrontational 'fuck you' way: get ready to have this shoved down your throat for the sake of pointless redesign. Needless to say, they gave users an option for a while and then they appeared to drop the issue.

But change HAS to happen at SOME point, because you NEED to utterly derail what works, right? In order to avoid a hue and cry, Slashdot will be making unannounced incremental changes like this. Why? Because fuck the slashdot community, that's why.

Kermit isn't as easy as telix.

Hey, someone else remembers Telix! I was using that for BBS access, but it was Telix v1 or v2 (not as new as that Telix v3 thingy) and it was back in the 80s...

https://archive.org/details/22...

Kermit isn't as easy as telix.

At least Archive.org has the website. https://web.archive.org/web/*/...
Just remember which date to click on.
https://web.archive.org/web/20...

At least Archive.org has the website. https://web.archive.org/web/*/...
Just remember which date to click on.
https://web.archive.org/web/20...

The only job listed that requires robots (Automatically controlled, reprogrammable, multipurpose, manipulator programmable in three or more axes http://web.archive.org/web/20070628064010/http://www.dira.dk/pdf/robotdef.pdf) is the surgeon. The rest can be done by AIs.

"Wei-Hock Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun's energy can largely explain recent global warming."

He's in good company here, this scientist in 2008, using the same hypothesis correctly predicts the awful and cold winters of 2013 and 2014 The IPCC discredited him, but they have never predicted anything correctly. In fact their model flew off the rails with 75% error after 35 years of refinement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
NASA, NOAA point out warming has stalled, no temperature has exceeded 1998's.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://insights.rs79.vrx.net/s...

"Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center." - climate.gov.

"Nearly every scientist that I know (IAAS) has a project on the side either studying the climate or cancer (preferably child cancer); this is what they must do in order to support their main research, since it probably has no funding."

Another Anonymous (why?) post on slashdot
http://news.slashdot.org/story...

'The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,"

"'I made a mistake'
As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.
Lovelock -- who has previously worked with NASA and discovered the presence of harmful chemicals (CFCs) in the atmosphere but not their effect on the ozone layer -- stressed that humanity should still “do our best to cut back on fossil fuel burning” and try to adapt to the coming changes.
Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the U.K.’s respected Met Office Hadley Centre, agreed Lovelock had been too alarmist with claims about people having to live in the Arctic by 2100.

And he also agreed with Lovelock that the rate of warming in recent years had been less than expected by the climate models."

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

You think it's warming? Show me your data that proves NASA wrong then.

You do understand that that "97%" was 73 guys getting a climate grant each, right? Not that consens ever equalled truth:

"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver"

"Gates' vision - a wave of smartphones that can act as ubiquitous, cheap computers"

The sterility of the 'vision' is quite staggering in its banality. I guess that's the reason Microsoft (and Intel) helping the OLPC project didn't turn out so well:

One Laptop Per Child - Production Delays Caused By Microsoft, Intel?

Intel: doing the dirty on OLPC

Education Government Incentive program

"We recognize the critical importance of helping emerging markets build healthy and legal PC ecosystems and clearly the answer is having Windows be a core component."

"Until all the details of the program have been developed, it is important that we have a way to address large PC purchases that involve low-cost/no-cost competitors in the education (and Government) sectors, especially in emerging markets."

Because [nimrod] has been a well known slur for a long time.

Citation needed.

There's a slang dictionary that lists it as a slang word for "penis" from ~40 years prior to it appearing in Bugs Bunny cartoons, but it doesn't appear to be used in that context in the cartoons. The Online Etymology Dictionary indicates that the term may have been used ironically prior to the cartoons to mock an individual as a poor hunter rather than it's original meaning of a great hunter, but notes that it wasn't until the 80's that it was widely used to mean an idiot, geek, etc.

If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please let me know. I couldn't find anything to support that claim after a few minutes of Google searching to support that it's been a well known slur (I can't recall hearing it recently so it may have fallen out of favor) outside of the generation that grew up using it. Seems far more likely that a cartoon unintentionally lead to the language shift because it used a reference that children were unlikely to understand as anything other than an insult.

All of that aside, "nimrod" is at worst on the same level as "dork" or "geek" but is probably closer to calling someone a "doo doo head". Only a nimrod would try to insult someone by calling them a nimrod.

A lot of people have been thinking about this problem of digital preservation for a long time. archive.org has a library of software which can run under emulation in Javascript on a browser. Basically the answer to his question is to work on emulation and archival.

Google has done several steps backwards in their digital preservation projects lately.

1,500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat.

Except that is completely wrong. To quote an ancient from 300 BC [well over 1500 years ago]: [Text is actually quoted from Archimedes The Sand Reckoner]

Aristarchus has brought out a book consisting of certain hypotheses, wherein it appears, as a consequence of the assumptions made, that the universe is many times greater than the 'universe' just mentioned. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the Sun remain unmoved, that the Earth revolves about the Sun on the circumference of a circle, the Sun lying in the middle of the Floor, and that the sphere of the fixed stars, situated about the same center as the Sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the Earth to revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the center of the sphere bears to its surface.

And even the medieval theologians knew that the earth was round. To quote St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica :

Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.

That the earth is round was a fact so evident and proven in his time [1247, well over 500 years ago] that it was used as an example of a scientific fact. It is simply false that they thought the earth was flat.

Much of what is said about the ancients is just complete fantasy written by propagandists and not historians.

There's evidence that women are more discriminatory against women, so it's possible that an increased female workforce would encourage a greater wage disparity and fewer management opportunities.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070318083402/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/britain/article1265356.ece

ethernet at gig-e speeds does not use equal length strands. it does this so that you get more of a 'variety' (for lack of better non-tech words) of frequencies and you can better cancel out the common-mode noise radiation if you don't make all the wire pairs (pairs are different but each wire in the pair is the same length) the same.

You know just enough to be dangerous. You're also wrong. Each pair in a Cat 6 cable has a different rate of twist. That's done to reduce crosstalk between the pairs. I often use short (<10 M) Cat 5 patch cables for temporary 1G connections without issue, Cat 6 becomes more important when you're bundling cables together and using longer lengths (100 M max). Regardless, any errors which occur can be recognized and recorded, so any difference between cables could be easily and objectively quantified - no need for subjective "the soundstage immediately opened up" BS.

The length of different pairs due to the difference in twists is insignificantly different.

You then go on to confuse matters by comparing 1G Ethernet to HDMI to I2S, three completely different things, with different signalling at different rates. 1G Ethernet runs at a clock rate of 125 MHz, encoding 8 bits per baud. HDMI 1.3 has a maximum clock rate of 340 MHz, making transmission line length more critical.

I2S does NOT have 3 clocks as you claim. It has a single clock, a word select signal (used to indicate whether left or right channel info is currently being sent, sometimes called the "word clock," even though it changes synchronously with the bit clock), and a data signal. Used for standard CD audio, it has a clock rate of less than 1.5 MHz. Even with newer "high definition" audio formats, the clock rate is still significantly less than either 1G Ethernet or HDMI. It tops out around 12 MHz for 32 bit stereo at 192 KHz. For more channels, additional data lines are added. But, transmission line length is not as critical as for either Ethernet or HDMI, which run at 10x+ the speed of I2S. 1/2 cycle of a 12 MHz clock is almost 50 feet long on a wire. A length difference of fractions of an inch simply doesn't matter.

Add that to the refusal of a person who is very reputable in the banking and security fields and advises governments to testify on his behalf on how stuff works, which he does to laypeople as his job very effectively (many times as an expert witness like he would have here) it seems massively shady that such a person would be denied as a witness to state facts that would have possibly been beneficial to the defense.

The Perry Mason "surprise witness" trope does not work in real life. In real life trials, you disclose your proposed witness list to the other side well before you reach the courtroom. In real life trials, you have the opportunity to research your opponent's witnesses and qualifications. In civil trials you can even *gasp* question your opponent's witnesses in depositions taken under oath so that you know the substance of what they will say well before they reach the witness stand, and impeach their testimony if it changes from the tesimony given in the deposition.

Excluding "expert witnesses" first disclosed in the middle of the actual trial is not massively shady, it's the expected outcome barring some completely exceptional testimony being introduced that one should have the opportunity to counter in rebuttal. The judge's ruling makes clear that in addition to disclising the experts late, the defense refused to even disclose what specific topics they would testify about. You cannot do that in a trial.

The defense's strategy was massively shady.... not the exclusion of these witnesses.

For anyone wanting to see exactly how much the codebase has grown here's the graph.

Good thing they finally got one of these. Now all they have to do is train their swabs how to control the thing after they get the whole ship wired up. Why is it this makes me think of the robot in this Bugs Bunny cartoon (start at the 5:30 mark).

Around 1990-92 (I was 10-12) I would walk after school to the mall where my mom worked. Waiting for her shift to end, I'd go to the nearby Radio Shack in the mall; where I developing a rapport with the girl on shift. One day she had Prince of Persian running on a Tandy 1000, and from that day on, for a few hours each day, she let me play Prince of Persia in the store. I played the whole game there, never having purchased it.

Then I came across this recently and it brought back a lot of memories https://archive.org/details/ms... (Prince of Persia - DOS Box)

You mean the victim of domestic abuse who posted about his abuser, and experiences being abused, after HE dumped HER? And that so far almost every major claim has turned out to have so much evidence behind it that the FTC has come down hard on Gawker and its ilk? The only people whose claims have been debunked time and time again are the self-aggrandizing manipulative bigots trying to claim they're victims while getting caught working with racist GNAA trolls to pay for fake tweets while they themselves publicly dox anyone they dislike.

You're siding with neonazis, domestic abusers, and violent racists who STARTED by calling women "house ni***ers" and escalated to getting people fired, hacking bank accounts, mailing knives, syringes, and dead animals to people, and even SWATting.

Gamergate HAS a problem, and that problem is that they picked a fight with people that have no problem paying for fake tweets saying things like that, even as they themselves scream racial slurs like "house ni***" at women, get black men fired from their jobs for disagreeing with rich white hipsters, mail people knives, syringes, and dead animals, and send SWAT teams to peoples houses to try and get them killed.

You want to talk about civilized society... maybe you shouldn't be siding with neonazis, domestic abusers, and violent racists.

The book is found here at the Internet Archive.

I have a sneaking suspicion that most of this strategy was forced upon defense counsel by Ulbricht himself. It looks from the outside less like something an (even incompetent) attorney would do, and more like someone used to internet board sparring would think should work.

That would explain some of the strange decisions they made, like this one where the judge gave him a note clearly telling him that the procedure was not a good one, giving him a second chance.

I guess he should have realized that people are rarely convinced by internet board sparring, even though both sides typically think they've won.

From the Model 1 with Dancing Demon to the AMD386 powered clones: https://archive.org/details/ep...

Even though Apple has made a fortune leading the public to believe otherwise, Jobs didn't design or make the changes to Apple's products himself; engineers like Wozniak, Hertzfeld and Ive did. (He has patents on record, but they're not for any of Apple's actual products.) Likewise, *his* choices were what almost destroyed Apple, and would have if John Sculley hadn't worked hard to limit the damage he could do. (Some good articles: Showdown at Apple, this Forbes article. The "Father of the Macintosh," Andy Hertzfeld, also wrote an article on the events leading up to it.)

Jobs' genius was actually in presenting items to their best effect and persuading people — intuitively knowing just what to say, how to say it, what appearance or impression to give, how to use his charisma, and so forth. That's why it was his original job with Wozniak: one Steve created the product, the other found buyers & investors. Apple, which had little left to lose by the mid-90s, thus hired Jobs so he could play the role of the long-lost genius behind Apple who had returned to "save" it, somebody that they could use as the face of the company for the public to latch onto.

Apple isn't innovating any less than before: they were already bouncing between phone & tablet prior to Jobs' death. It just seems to be doing more poorly now because — well, much as "Dumbo" was led to believe he could fly due to a magic feather and that he'd fail without it, Apple led its iDevice-era fans to believe that Jobs exerted some magical force on the company that produced near-miraculous tech, and that it will fail without him. You're just now seeing the company from the outside perspective of people that were never affected by Apple's/Jobs' tactics — very much like the Apple II-era/Woz fans (including me) came to in the early 1990s.

FWIW I don't have anything in particular against Jobs, but it drives me batty when a company or individual is given a great deal of credit for other peoples' work. Give him credit for his incredible talent at persuasion & salesmanship, and for the role that trait played in directing the industry — but let the unsung engineers, artistic designers, etc. behind the actual products have their due as well.

Thanks for the pointer! I doubt I'll find my name there. Also, I said the 3X3 display wall panel may have sparked an interest in combining speech research and Jeopardy (perhaps, in an unconscious way?) -- but Watson itself is a much broader system. I wanted to work on such systems then, and talked a bit about "wouldn't it be nice if..." like with a display wall connected to a supercomputer for solving tough problems, but I said nothing detailed as to how it would really work, beyond creating a simple system with a Linux server where you could say things like, "put stocks on panel 3" or something like that. I don't even remember in detail what pattern of utterances I set it up to respond to (it was not very complex). So, my contribution to Watson itself technically -- probably near zilch. It's just the display wall Jeopardy connection I wonder about. But now that you raise the issue, aspects of using an AI to help solve problems was part of that idea. But, sci-fi writers like Isaac Asimov with Multivac or his robot stories have been taking about that for decades...

As for credit for being a spark, do people, say, always even remember some book they read years ago where an idea began to seep into their mind? How do you even quantify a degree of contribution? When I asked Ted Nelson (when he visited IBM once) about whether "The Skills of Xandu" short story by Theodore Sturgeon inspired his work, he thanked me said he had been looking for the story and he claimed to not even be able to remember the story's name! :-) Here is an audio version of that story, which is about a wearable nanotech computers supporting humans wirelessly sharing their knowledge and skills -- hot prescient stuff for the early 1950s:
https://archive.org/details/pr...

BTW, I gave a copy of that story to my supervisor at IBM Research, a master inventor with 50 patents to his name. He finally looked at it a while after I left, and thanked me, and said it was the story that got him interested in materials research based on its nanotech angle! But he had long forgotten it. I can wonder how many other inventors that story has inspired? I don't know what inspired it though. Maybe Memex? :-)
http://www.theatlantic.com/mag...

I've been tangentially around several development like WordNet (George Miller), "Mind Children" (Hans Moravec, who read my senior thesis written under Geoge about self-replicating robots as he was working on the book), Marshall Brain's early career (where he probably saw a simulation I made of self-replicating robots, and I wonder if that contributed to his later concern with "Manna"), and at IBM Research as mentioned with Jeopardy and Watson. Possibly some others (like my possibly talking with David Gelernter about triples I was enamored of, and him saying tuples were more general, at SUNY Stony Brook), my talking at Princeton about robotics and stores (Jeff Bezos was the year after me), my senior thesis which presaged "Evolutionary psychology" but I doubt that sparked much as not many people read it and that field was already developing in parallel. as I can see now. In no case would I claim to be clearly the driving force behind any of these accomplishments which are full of a lot of hard and inventive work. As with Watson, it's possible I was just a tangential spark to some of these projects to some degree -- or not! It is also quite possible that I ended up hanging around people like Hans Moravec because we already were thinking along similar lines. Also, sometime ideas seem just "in the air" for whatever reason. Or ideas come to people by other paths, often multiple times before we even notice them. (It's said in direct mail as a rule of thumb you need to send the same advertising letter three times before people pay attention to it.) And certainly, in all cases, a lot of sparks went the other way, to me. :-)

Except for the persistent part.

There is a difference between long lived and persistent. CO2 that enters the atmosphere will stay there much longer, sure. Water vapor will only stay a couple of days, sure. Despite water vapor leaving the atmosphere so quickly though, it's also entering the atmosphere as quickly as it leaves. It's impact and effect on absorption of radiation thus persistently accounts for 60% of all GHG absorption and CO2 less than half that according to the American Geological society.

I mean exactly what it sounds like:

Anti-GG racist GNAA troll paying for fake tweets: https://twitter.com/TripleSK7/...
Zoe Quinn retweeting earlier offers from same troll: https://twitter.com/MaxShillin...
Archive of Zoe Quinn doing this: http://web.archive.org/web/201...

You would have said "cleverly fought back" because you're trying to defend a domestic abuser that's been astroturfing since the original wizardchan lynch mob.

Back in the late 1990's, we edited Geeks in Space Slashdot Radio with Cool Edit. It was great for normalizing & compressing the recording levels from Slashdot HQ, we could do noise gates, speed up/slow down audio, etc.

What does Rust actually intend to do or to be?

At first it was "A work-in-progress programming language; not yet suitable for users", then it was "a safe, concurrent, practical language", and then "a systems programming language that runs blazingly fast, prevents almost all crashes*, and eliminates data races."

The only thing I think it's good at is being unsure of what it's trying to do or to be. It changes for the sake of change itself.

Rust is like Perl 6. We hear how great it is, and about all of these amazing features it's supposed to support, but it's never really usable.

What does Rust actually intend to do or to be?

At first it was "A work-in-progress programming language; not yet suitable for users", then it was "a safe, concurrent, practical language", and then "a systems programming language that runs blazingly fast, prevents almost all crashes*, and eliminates data races."

The only thing I think it's good at is being unsure of what it's trying to do or to be. It changes for the sake of change itself.

Rust is like Perl 6. We hear how great it is, and about all of these amazing features it's supposed to support, but it's never really usable.

What does Rust actually intend to do or to be?

At first it was "A work-in-progress programming language; not yet suitable for users", then it was "a safe, concurrent, practical language", and then "a systems programming language that runs blazingly fast, prevents almost all crashes*, and eliminates data races."

The only thing I think it's good at is being unsure of what it's trying to do or to be. It changes for the sake of change itself.

Rust is like Perl 6. We hear how great it is, and about all of these amazing features it's supposed to support, but it's never really usable.

At one point in university I considered getting this "laptop". It had no internal battery, but had the ability to connect an external battery where you would usually connect the adapter. At the time I wanted a laptop for portability, but couldn't afford a proper one. At the time, they were about $700, whereas a real laptop would be around $1200. I never did end up getting it. At the time I really only needed it for university, and they had plenty of open power recepticles.

"Judge Katherine Forrest .. was unhappy with its "mumbo-jumbo" explanation of the anonymizing service Tor.

More like her Honor doesn't get BITCOIN, TOR or the Internet. She should have the jury read these documents, assuming they can work out how to use the 'Internet' ..

Guide to the Silk Road Part #1

Infographic - A Comprehensive Guide to Buying Drugs Using Silk Road 2.0

Follow The Bitcoins: How We Got Busted Buying Drugs On Silk Road's Black Market

They'll follow this course of action now -- subtle stuff.

Back in 2006 they ran a CSS redesign contest. Slashdot users overwhelmingly preferred Peter Lada's redesign:
http://web.archive.org/web/201...

They picked a mobile-ready, stripped down design that left a lot to be desired. Then the beta fiasco with the Dice purchase ("fuck you, get ready to have this shoved down your throat for the sake of pointless redesign" ).

To avoid a hue and cry, they'll be making unannounced changes like this. Why? Because fuck the slashdot community, that's why.

.. The experiment we were discussing was Spencer's radiation experiment. Not "global warming". You keep trying to apply my arguments about Spencer's challenge to the broader issue of global warming, aka "climate change", and it's not valid to do so. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-25]

CEASE misreprenting my position and my words. We had an agreement: when we discussed Spencer's "back radiation" experiment, I made it abundantly clear that we were discussion ONLY Spencer's experiment, not "greenhouse warming". .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]

How adorable. Once again, the whole reason Slayers dispute Spencer's experiment is because that implies greenhouse gases can't warm the surface:

.. the CO2-warming model rely on the concept of "back radiation", which physicists (not climate scientists) have proved to be impossible. I'm happy to leave actual climate science to climate scientists. But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

Actually, the rules aren't even well-known. The majority of CO2 warming models rely on a concept of "back radiation" that (according to physicists) does not even exist.. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-15]

.. I can show clearly, to someone with high school level math skills, that he was utterly, abjectly, and rather pathetically wrong, and the "Slayers", as he calls them, were right all along. Because, you see, as I know from experience, it isn't enough to show people the right way. At the same time it is necessary and desirable to show beyond doubt that "global warming alarmist" bullshit is just that: bullshit. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-10]

.. I stipulated before we got into that discussion that we were discussing ONLY Spencer's experiment, nothing else. You agreed to that condition. And now, you're violating it by extrapolating my comments to a completely different context. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-26]

I never agreed to pretend that Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense doesn't conflict with mainstream physicists' understanding of the greenhouse effect. Mainly because I couldn't imagine a Slayer resorting to such an absurd evasion, but also because I can't imagine agreeing to look the other way while he paralyzed his brain by simultaneously insisting that mainstream physicists agree with the Sky Dragon Slayers, while also somehow completely ignoring the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physi

.. The experiment we were discussing was Spencer's radiation experiment. Not "global warming". You keep trying to apply my arguments about Spencer's challenge to the broader issue of global warming, aka "climate change", and it's not valid to do so. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-25]

CEASE misreprenting my position and my words. We had an agreement: when we discussed Spencer's "back radiation" experiment, I made it abundantly clear that we were discussion ONLY Spencer's experiment, not "greenhouse warming". .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]

How adorable. Once again, the whole reason Slayers dispute Spencer's experiment is because that implies greenhouse gases can't warm the surface:

.. the CO2-warming model rely on the concept of "back radiation", which physicists (not climate scientists) have proved to be impossible. I'm happy to leave actual climate science to climate scientists. But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

Actually, the rules aren't even well-known. The majority of CO2 warming models rely on a concept of "back radiation" that (according to physicists) does not even exist.. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-15]

.. I can show clearly, to someone with high school level math skills, that he was utterly, abjectly, and rather pathetically wrong, and the "Slayers", as he calls them, were right all along. Because, you see, as I know from experience, it isn't enough to show people the right way. At the same time it is necessary and desirable to show beyond doubt that "global warming alarmist" bullshit is just that: bullshit. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-10]

.. I stipulated before we got into that discussion that we were discussing ONLY Spencer's experiment, nothing else. You agreed to that condition. And now, you're violating it by extrapolating my comments to a completely different context. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-26]

I never agreed to pretend that Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense doesn't conflict with mainstream physicists' understanding of the greenhouse effect. Mainly because I couldn't imagine a Slayer resorting to such an absurd evasion, but also because I can't imagine agreeing to look the other way while he paralyzed his brain by simultaneously insisting that mainstream physicists agree with the Sky Dragon Slayers, while also somehow completely ignoring the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physi

.. The experiment we were discussing was Spencer's radiation experiment. Not "global warming". You keep trying to apply my arguments about Spencer's challenge to the broader issue of global warming, aka "climate change", and it's not valid to do so. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-25]

CEASE misreprenting my position and my words. We had an agreement: when we discussed Spencer's "back radiation" experiment, I made it abundantly clear that we were discussion ONLY Spencer's experiment, not "greenhouse warming". .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]

How adorable. Once again, the whole reason Slayers dispute Spencer's experiment is because that implies greenhouse gases can't warm the surface:

.. the CO2-warming model rely on the concept of "back radiation", which physicists (not climate scientists) have proved to be impossible. I'm happy to leave actual climate science to climate scientists. But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

Actually, the rules aren't even well-known. The majority of CO2 warming models rely on a concept of "back radiation" that (according to physicists) does not even exist.. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-15]

.. I can show clearly, to someone with high school level math skills, that he was utterly, abjectly, and rather pathetically wrong, and the "Slayers", as he calls them, were right all along. Because, you see, as I know from experience, it isn't enough to show people the right way. At the same time it is necessary and desirable to show beyond doubt that "global warming alarmist" bullshit is just that: bullshit. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-10]

.. I stipulated before we got into that discussion that we were discussing ONLY Spencer's experiment, nothing else. You agreed to that condition. And now, you're violating it by extrapolating my comments to a completely different context. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-26]

I never agreed to pretend that Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense doesn't conflict with mainstream physicists' understanding of the greenhouse effect. Mainly because I couldn't imagine a Slayer resorting to such an absurd evasion, but also because I can't imagine agreeing to look the other way while he paralyzed his brain by simultaneously insisting that mainstream physicists agree with the Sky Dragon Slayers, while also somehow completely ignoring the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physi

I still remember trying to set up an older printer on my mothers laptop with windows 8. I spent what felt like a half hour clicking around trying to find the damn printer settings. Eventually I gave up and googled it. The instructions on _Microsoft's_ site used the built in search feature. Even they couldn't figure out the convoluted path to the "add new printer" page. This was my first (though unfortunately not last) experience with windows 8, and subsequent exposure has not gone any better.

They've sinced changed it, but you can still use archive.org to view the old version:

Current: http://windows.microsoft.com/e...
Old: https://web.archive.org/web/20...

The archive is a lot older:
https://archive.org/details/DO...

People keep implying this is somehow illegal, but in reality they have a DCMA exemption: http://archive.org/about/dmca.... .

The carriers want to use updates to the new versions of the OS as a sales point, for use with Planned Obsolescence. Google decided to make it harder for vendors to do that by moving towards updating the OS itself. Guess what? That path has less adoption because MFGs aren't pushing it out.

Of course there are other factors at play, but when you have a trend in adoption rate abruptly changed look to what changes in the to-be-adopted system have been made. It's the "New Coke" Effect, not the "XP" effect. Explaining the lack of adoption as XP-like ignoring the MS Window's stagnation with XP for so long before the Vista & 7 offerings is reaching at best, uninformed at worst, and most likely just a shot in the dark by some dumbass.

Archive.org has a special exception to copyright. Ironically, this came out of the DMCA: http://archive.org/about/dmca....

Finally, 'Paragon' by Id Software (of 'Doom' fame). It's a blend of action and puzzle elements that I've missed since my 5.25 inch floppy died about 20 years ago. I checked the big archives a few years ago and it wasn't there.

Archive.org doesn't offer the DOS binary; this game must be played online. After playing a few levels I'll probably find the chunky graphics and simple sound-effects to be very forgettable. Ahh; nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

For those who have recovered from clicking your link, there's an actual short best-of:
https://archive.org/details/so...