Slashdot Mirror

your entire post is riddled with excuses that can only be said in hindsight

Hindsight is what gives Bush's critics most of their ammunition too.

But my arguments are not based on hindsight. There were good reasons, why Saddam remained a dangerous enemy — and was soundly bombed before. Alistair Cooke may be too intellectual in his enumeration of reasons, but hard facts remain.

The fact is, *at the time*, there was no good reason to invade Iraq.

Well, it should've been done years earlier — and the previous President agreed. (It is just that his balls were used for a different purpose.) But the reasons to do it didn't become any worse with time.

And even if you don't buy that argument, *terrorism* was no good reason to invade Iraq, since they had no connection to 9/11...

Saddam's support for terrorism is well established regardless of whether or not he was connected to a particular act of terror, such as 9/11. For example, he was sponsoring terror attacks against Israel, by giving $10K to families of the dead bombers. The last reward ceremony took place in February 2003.

In short, they lied.

Whether or not lies were used as additional arguments, does not invalidate the perfectly real other arguments. And, although this is off-topic, they, probably, did not lie, after all.

They lied, and now Americans are paying the price in lives, as well as in hard dollar figures

So? Roosevelt lied too in order to get Americans to begin helping Britain against Hitler in earnest. But it was a just cause, and the world is better off as a result. Oh, and most of the justifications today — Hitler's atrocities — really weren't known to the outside world. Unlike the Iraq war, America's participation in WW2 (many times more expensive in lives in treasure) actually needed some hindsight justification.

And, just FYI, the disapproval at the time had nothing to do with jealousy.

Of course, it is. Either jealousy — no other country could punish Saddam like we did — the entire Europe could not even leash Milosevic without our help; or fear — by the other asshole-regimes world-wide.

Here is a related post about the 'spoiler' and 'wasted vote' dilemmas inherent in a two party system - (http://fubarpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/09/electoral-blackjack-counting-cards.html). It lays out a case that a basic understanding of the system's simple dynamics can actually allow voters to cast more expressive votes (today, with no changes to laws) and negate the spoiler effect while allowing voters to consider candidates outside of the two major parties.

You missed one.

I blogged about turning your phone into a web server in 2003 here: http://javaswamy.blogspot.com/2003/09/j2me-turning-your-phone-into-web.html I ran a web server on my nextel i830 at the time. Any one can connect to the webserver and the server provides my GPS location to the user.

New punctuation update "~" at the end of a line to indicate sarcasm. http://harns.blogspot.com/

that's a great idea ~

Those who say otherwise are liars! http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com/

Well... IFrames, &/or Plugins (specifically Adobe Flash is my guess here) ARE what you need to worry about!

(Though, supposedly from what I have been reading? Turning off javascript does NOT hurt, & does actually help (despite the last line of the init. post here)).

Here is about as "close to the truth" as you'll get, due to "responsible disclosure" (rather than FULL disclosure... so, go to the guys that 'discovered it'):

http://jeremiahgrossman.blogspot.com/2008/09/cancelled-clickjacking-owasp-appsec.html

(Just "2nd'ing your motion", to go to the "horses mouth")...

APK

P.S.=> I've been telling folks to 'crank those off' (plugins &/or IFrames, as well as javascript (if you do NOT absolutely NEED IT, for proper page functionality (such as on online banking &/or shopping sites))), here, for more than a year now:

HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus, make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):

http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=67b2240128d853305689dd2c383066e8&showtopic=2662&st=0&start=0#

apk

"I don't think this exploit really exists. A cross browser cross platform exploit that doesn't use javascript?
Won't be losing any sleep over this one." - by sakdoctor (1087155) on Thursday September 25, @04:26PM (#25156779) Homepage

Well... IFrames, &/or Plugins (specifically Adobe Flash is my guess here) are what you need to worry about!

(Though, supposedly from what I have been reading? Turning off javascript does NOT hurt, & does actually help (despite the last line of the init. post here)).

Here is about as "close to the truth" as you'll get, due to "responsible disclosure" (rather than FULL disclosure... so, go to the guys that 'discovered it'):

http://jeremiahgrossman.blogspot.com/2008/09/cancelled-clickjacking-owasp-appsec.html

APK

P.S.=> I've been telling folks to 'crank those off' (plugins &/or IFrames, as well as javascript (if you do NOT absolutely NEED IT, for proper page functionality (such as on online banking &/or shopping sites))), here, for more than a year now:

HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus, make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):

http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=67b2240128d853305689dd2c383066e8&showtopic=2662&st=0&start=0#

apk

That means the first thing that you did stupid, is chose the way you elect :)

Actually for it's time the way president were elected, via the electoral college, was needed. Some states were more rural while other were more urban with large populations. If the president was elected by popular vote then urban centers would control who was elected president. This is no longer true though, today cities could be either Democrat or Republican, or split. I will say though that I think the passing of the Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President, was a mistake. Before it's passage every candidate ran for president. Then in congress the electoral college would vote. If there were more than 2 candidates the candidate with the lowest vote count would be dropped then another vote taken. Eventually when there were only 2 candidates left the final vote would be for who would be president, with the loser becoming vice president. Of course this "robs" political parties of their power so they pushed to have president and vice president run as a team.

Me, I'd rather amend the constitution again. This amendment would repeal the 12th amendment, and would abolish the electoral college. Voters would vote directly for president, with every candidate running for president. Using one of the Condorcet methods of voting the winner would become president and runner up the vp.

For voting itself, paper ballots or e-voting, I propose something like the machines used in India. "Indian EVM compared with Diebold". "The Bombay Ballot".

Falcon

Ray Beckerman's (a.k.a. NewYorkCountryLawyer) comments can be viewed here [blogspot.com] Apparently legal efforts like his are starting to pay off.

Thank you, dkleinsc. Yes, as Cmdr Taco wryly observed, the tide is turning.

Now what we need is for more people to fight rather than settle, more lawyers to join this worthy cause, and for people to exploit the rich panoply of defenses that are available to them, such as the fact that the RIAA can't collect statutory damages at all if the recording was not registered with the Copyright Office by the time the defendant began file-sharing.

Ray Beckerman's (a.k.a. NewYorkCountryLawyer) comments can be viewed here [blogspot.com] Apparently legal efforts like his are starting to pay off.

Thank you, dkleinsc. Yes, as Cmdr Taco wryly observed, the tide is turning.

Now what we need is for more people to fight rather than settle, more lawyers to join this worthy cause, and for people to exploit the rich panoply of defenses that are available to them, such as the fact that the RIAA can't collect statutory damages at all if the recording was not registered with the Copyright Office by the time the defendant began file-sharing.

Shameless plug. For $10 million, I can transform Transmeta from a has-been into the number 1 processor company in the world for decades to come. There is a way to build a super fast processor core to handle parallel tasks using very little power. Unlike a GPU (which uses an SIMD configuration), this processor will be be based on a pure MIMD vector architecture. I also got an easy-to-use parallel programming model for it. Read my articles on Tilera's TILE64 to find out what I'm talking about.

scary new browser exploit/threat affecting all the major desktop platforms

I didn't find that information in TFA or in any of the TFAs linked in TFA (here here here here). Though it may be so; it sounds like this exploit makes use of the browser's access to the clipboard.
Elinks FTW!

Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing.

From the article:

  One important tidbit, little noticed yet, pointed out by Excess Copyright: "distribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution."

Ahhh but here you show your lack of knowledge, young apprentice:

The 'making available' claim was slightly different- the RIAA said that simply by putting a file in the shared folder it counted as distributing the material, even if NOBODY downloaded it.

In addition, if MediaSentry or ANY other affiliate of the RIAA, etc. joins in a p2p swarm then they are now party to the distribution, which means they are authorizing that swarm by participating in it, therefore since it is authorized it is no longer infringement.

Thankyou&goodnight.

From the article: One important tidbit, little noticed yet, pointed out by Excess Copyright: "distribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution."

Notice it does not say "distribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, constitutes unauthorized distribution." So, this is merely the judge pointing out a argument for the RIAA to make when they relitigate this case, and that it has a good chance of passing muster.

Comparing Gnome 2.24 to Win2000 is a joke. Heck, comparing it to WinXP is a joke. Gnome 2.24 is a modern desktop just like Windows Vista is, only faster. Same bling available. Better consistency. Better features than WinXP (though probably not Vista). In fact, using Windows XP makes my ears bleed after only a few minutes.

Stop. You are switching back and forth on your comparison environment. Pick one. Since 2.24 came out today, stick to Vista since that is the most recent. Comparing to XP would necessitate choosing a Gnome from that year. Something I rather imagine you would prefer to avoid.

Gnome has strict accessibility and localization requirements and has since 2.2. Windows wasn't even localized in Thai until Gnome adoption there forced it to be, and even then they just half-assed the "start menu" and nothing else. A generation of Thais learned to do computing in a language they didn't understand.

This is irrelevant to the comparison of desktop features, bugs, and usability.

ESD never had a problem with mixing stuff if you used it instead of OSS or ALSA. It even mixes stuff locally and outputs it to another computer if you want it to. Maybe your problem is that you didn't know what you were doing ....

It could be that, or it could be the well recognized and horrifying mess that is the linux soundsystem.
Here is some reading for you:
http://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2007/05/sorry-state-of-sound-in-linux.html
http://4front-tech.com/hannublog/?p=5
http://jeffreystedfast.blogspot.com/2008/07/pulseaudio-my-last-post-on-topic.html

I used Gnome for years, and the inability to maintain consistent audio levels across multiple applications was always frustrating and painful (literally in some cases, thanks totem!)

Don't resort to ad homimem attacks. It cheapens your argument and hides the potential value of any possible truth.

Gnome configures everything for Gnome and always has. Since Gnome runs on a large number of operating systems, it doesn't deal withthe underlying system, and you'll have to be specific about which one isn't configurable and take that up with the OS vendor. That's not the job of a cross-platform desktop.

This is entirely true, but it is still not an excuse for the poor consistency within Gnome and the inability for small things like keeping my taskbar arranged like it was before I logged out. Seriously. That is internal to Gnome and there is no scapegoat here.

Since we're playing this game, these are the places Windows doesn't live up to Gnome:

1. UI consistency
2. Context menus
3. Window management
4. Virtual desktops
5. Select and middle-click to paste
6. Deskbar applet (pre-Vista)
7. User filesystem layout
8. Menu layout
9. System messages
10. Mime handling
11. Panel layout
12. See them all

Gnome vs. Win95 or Win2000? Pshaw!

UI consistency works better in Windows Vista. Actually, it worked better in Windows 98 than Gnome does. When I arrange something in one of those, it stays that way. When I add something to the menu it stays where I left it. When I change my quick launch icons, they remain in the order I put them in. Amazingly, Mac OS X also got this right despite being newer to the market than Gnome as well.

Contextual menus work just fine in Windows. They have for quite a while. They work pretty darn well in Mac OS X. In other news the sun rose in the east this morning. I don't know what you mean or where you were going with this, but righ

Comparing Gnome 2.24 to Win2000 is a joke. Heck, comparing it to WinXP is a joke. Gnome 2.24 is a modern desktop just like Windows Vista is, only faster. Same bling available. Better consistency. Better features than WinXP (though probably not Vista). In fact, using Windows XP makes my ears bleed after only a few minutes.

Stop. You are switching back and forth on your comparison environment. Pick one. Since 2.24 came out today, stick to Vista since that is the most recent. Comparing to XP would necessitate choosing a Gnome from that year. Something I rather imagine you would prefer to avoid.

Gnome has strict accessibility and localization requirements and has since 2.2. Windows wasn't even localized in Thai until Gnome adoption there forced it to be, and even then they just half-assed the "start menu" and nothing else. A generation of Thais learned to do computing in a language they didn't understand.

This is irrelevant to the comparison of desktop features, bugs, and usability.

ESD never had a problem with mixing stuff if you used it instead of OSS or ALSA. It even mixes stuff locally and outputs it to another computer if you want it to. Maybe your problem is that you didn't know what you were doing ....

It could be that, or it could be the well recognized and horrifying mess that is the linux soundsystem.
Here is some reading for you:
http://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2007/05/sorry-state-of-sound-in-linux.html
http://4front-tech.com/hannublog/?p=5
http://jeffreystedfast.blogspot.com/2008/07/pulseaudio-my-last-post-on-topic.html

I used Gnome for years, and the inability to maintain consistent audio levels across multiple applications was always frustrating and painful (literally in some cases, thanks totem!)

Don't resort to ad homimem attacks. It cheapens your argument and hides the potential value of any possible truth.

Gnome configures everything for Gnome and always has. Since Gnome runs on a large number of operating systems, it doesn't deal withthe underlying system, and you'll have to be specific about which one isn't configurable and take that up with the OS vendor. That's not the job of a cross-platform desktop.

This is entirely true, but it is still not an excuse for the poor consistency within Gnome and the inability for small things like keeping my taskbar arranged like it was before I logged out. Seriously. That is internal to Gnome and there is no scapegoat here.

Since we're playing this game, these are the places Windows doesn't live up to Gnome:

1. UI consistency
2. Context menus
3. Window management
4. Virtual desktops
5. Select and middle-click to paste
6. Deskbar applet (pre-Vista)
7. User filesystem layout
8. Menu layout
9. System messages
10. Mime handling
11. Panel layout
12. See them all

Gnome vs. Win95 or Win2000? Pshaw!

UI consistency works better in Windows Vista. Actually, it worked better in Windows 98 than Gnome does. When I arrange something in one of those, it stays that way. When I add something to the menu it stays where I left it. When I change my quick launch icons, they remain in the order I put them in. Amazingly, Mac OS X also got this right despite being newer to the market than Gnome as well.

Contextual menus work just fine in Windows. They have for quite a while. They work pretty darn well in Mac OS X. In other news the sun rose in the east this morning. I don't know what you mean or where you were going with this, but righ

Ray Beckerman's (a.k.a. NewYorkCountryLawyer) comments can be viewed here

Apparently legal efforts like his are starting to pay off.

Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing.

From the article:

One important tidbit, little noticed yet, pointed out by Excess Copyright: "distribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution."

Found this a while ago, tend to agree with most of it ;) http://gwaredd.blogspot.com/2005/08/good-code.html

If you depend on people being stupid, you will always be successful! http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com/

Compare these two:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IeJHb-2CVGM/SNUFiyTlEHI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/shQMNh5h89o/s1600-h/smiley-1000.jpg
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=tscheljabinsk+russland&ie=UTF8&oe=utf-8&client=iceweasel-a&t=h&ll=55.160037,61.403425&spn=0.004793,0.011179&z=17

The cars on all the side streets and all the shadows are exactly the same. Someone just photoshoped out the cars on the main street and put in the smily. Nothing to see here.

Yes, that comparison is utterly convincing. If you look at the pattern of parked cars away from the main square, the pattern is exactly the same in each image. The images only differ in the paved area around the smiley. Total photoshop job.

City on Google Maps

Screenshot from summary

Now, look at the vehicles on the street next to the smiley. On the south-west road, there are two cars next to each, same on both pictures. The cars also look the same on the north road, east of the smiley, and the road leading west. Looks like someone just cleared the street and added the smiley in.

Just to be sure, here is the link to the German Google Maps, which the screen shot appears to be coming from. I think it's a mock-up for when Google does update their images.

-rey

Compare these two:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IeJHb-2CVGM/SNUFiyTlEHI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/shQMNh5h89o/s1600-h/smiley-1000.jpg
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=tscheljabinsk+russland&ie=UTF8&oe=utf-8&client=iceweasel-a&t=h&ll=55.160037,61.403425&spn=0.004793,0.011179&z=17

The cars on all the side streets and all the shadows are exactly the same. Someone just photoshoped out the cars on the main street and put in the smily. Nothing to see here.

How about the MS Tetris for Windows 16-bit score bug? FWIW: his score sucks. :p My highscore was something like -250ish. I stopped because I didn't want to pass through zero and not get a highscore...

http://uhfhdtvantenna.blogspot.com/

I hate to admit it, but $RANDOMLUSER does have a point, I would have liked to know this at least yesterday.

Well, at least I had the time to write a blog post already (in spanish btw, link).

Prediction 1: Sales of coat hangers will soar as people build their own antennas http://uhfhdtvantenna.blogspot.com/

Prediction 2: Sales of coat hangers will see a second spike as people realize they needed metal coat hangers.

I don't think that would be sufficient to explain the hugely exponential expansion necessary to explain inflation. Something similar has been proposed to explain the much slower accelerating expansion currently produced by dark energy (here), but my recollection is that it was promptly disproven by several rebuttal papers for reasons I can no longer remember (but see here).

Try http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html/ for the initial list making the rounds. Much of it was executive-side trying to get congress to do something, but you're partly right about one thing - congress, as a whole, was ignoring it. However, Dodd, Sanders, and several on the left were shielding Fannie and Freddie from proper oversight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html/ helps put it directly at some of the dem senators' feet.

One more. http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-fannie-mae-five-five-key-players-who-broke-the-system/

And please...argue facts before you argue source here. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides, but there are several Republicans you CAN'T say stood by and did nothing - that was all democrats.

Try http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html/ for the initial list making the rounds. Much of it was executive-side trying to get congress to do something, but you're partly right about one thing - congress, as a whole, was ignoring it. However, Dodd, Sanders, and several on the left were shielding Fannie and Freddie from proper oversight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html/ helps put it directly at some of the dem senators' feet.

One more. http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-fannie-mae-five-five-key-players-who-broke-the-system/

And please...argue facts before you argue source here. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides, but there are several Republicans you CAN'T say stood by and did nothing - that was all democrats.

This sounds kind of nice but why should this make it any easier to write parallel programs for it? You still have to manage hundreds if not thousands of threads, right? This will not magically turn it into a computer for the masses, I guarantee you that. I have said it elswhere but parallel computing will not come of age until they do away with multithreading and the traditional CPU core. There is a way to build and program parallel computers that does not involve the use of threads or CPUs. This is the only way to solve the parallel programming crisis. Until then, supercomputing will continue to be a curiosity that us mainstream programmers and users can only dream about.

You're wildly mistaken, but for interesting reasons. While SIMD architectures are indeed interesting and do very well on some types of problem (I believe that weather simulation is good) on other problems it is far easier to express them as either MIMD or something more exotic. A real system that needs to handle a mix of codes needs to be implemented as a hybrid: e.g. a cycle-scavenged Condor pool for high-availability, a traditional cluster with a better interconnect, and a supercomputer for those times when you really need the grunt-power. Sure that's not a one-size-fits-all situation, but since when did any reasonable software engineer ever expect that to be the case?

(I don't remember exactly where I read it, but there was a paper fairly recently that characterized 13 fundamentally different types of computation, from embarrassingly parallel to embarrassingly sequential. Hardware architectures that are tuned for one of those cases can do really badly on others.)

This sounds kind of nice but why should this make it any easier to write parallel programs for it? You still have to manage hundreds if not thousands of threads, right? This will not magically turn it into a computer for the masses, I guarantee you that. I have said it elswhere but parallel computing will not come of age until they do away with multithreading and the traditional CPU core. There is a way to build and program parallel computers that does not involve the use of threads or CPUs. This is the only way to solve the parallel programming crisis. Until then, supercomputing will continue to be a curiosity that us mainstream programmers and users can only dream about.

You're wildly mistaken, but for interesting reasons. While SIMD architectures are indeed interesting and do very well on some types of problem (I believe that weather simulation is good) on other problems it is far easier to express them as either MIMD or something more exotic. A real system that needs to handle a mix of codes needs to be implemented as a hybrid: e.g. a cycle-scavenged Condor pool for high-availability, a traditional cluster with a better interconnect, and a supercomputer for those times when you really need the grunt-power. Sure that's not a one-size-fits-all situation, but since when did any reasonable software engineer ever expect that to be the case?

(I don't remember exactly where I read it, but there was a paper fairly recently that characterized 13 fundamentally different types of computation, from embarrassingly parallel to embarrassingly sequential. Hardware architectures that are tuned for one of those cases can do really badly on others.)

YIAASL (Yes I Am A Sri Lankan) and I disagree with one of your remarks.

We have had more than a few bomb attacks here in .lk, but as far as I know, none of them were caught before the act. This despite ubiquitous checkpoints, lots of "only you can stop a terrorist" propaganda, and the formation of "Civil Defence Committees" - the government-sanctioned and approved curtain-twitcher brigade.

The fact that no checkpoint has ever caught a "terrorist" was underlined by our Chief Justice almost a year ago.

This hasn't stopped the government from raiding tamil lodges, the brother of the president - who also is the secretary of defence (or should it be the other way round?) from claiming that all tamils who are in the main city should be "sent back to their homes" (and actually doing it once before the CJ stopped him), and continuous harrassment of the general public with checkpoints etc etc etc.

But the bombers seem to get through. Either they blow themselves up, or they leave a parcel bomb behind. And if they don't bomb the place, the government might in a false-flag attack to maintain power.

I can't vouch for Israel or Iraq, but here in SL, we have yet to catch a single suicide bomber before s/he blew him/herself up. And, as for your other point, they are not always (or even mostly) "bug-eyed, sweating, twitching, and frequently high"

My blog Rants Raves and Miscellaneous Musings may help you understand.

It's about a half a petaflop... but guess what? It runs Linux!

This sounds kind of nice but why should this make it any easier to write parallel programs for it? You still have to manage hundreds if not thousands of threads, right? This will not magically turn it into a computer for the masses, I guarantee you that. I have said it elswhere but parallel computing will not come of age until they do away with multithreading and the traditional CPU core. There is a way to build and program parallel computers that does not involve the use of threads or CPUs. This is the only way to solve the parallel programming crisis. Until then, supercomputing will continue to be a curiosity that us mainstream programmers and users can only dream about.

It's about a half a petaflop... but guess what? It runs Linux!

This sounds kind of nice but why should this make it any easier to write parallel programs for it? You still have to manage hundreds if not thousands of threads, right? This will not magically turn it into a computer for the masses, I guarantee you that. I have said it elswhere but parallel computing will not come of age until they do away with multithreading and the traditional CPU core. There is a way to build and program parallel computers that does not involve the use of threads or CPUs. This is the only way to solve the parallel programming crisis. Until then, supercomputing will continue to be a curiosity that us mainstream programmers and users can only dream about.

Per the official announcement webcast, there's no A2DP profile support at launch, which makes this unfeasible.

Whereas you're right about there being no A2DP support, it doesn't affect bluetooth headsets which most consumers use for phone use, just those you'd use exclusively for music (stereo ones). You have to read down a bit in the developer post, but it does say that bluetooth headsets work fine.

The Exchange 2007 web services API should make this job easier.

Introduction to Exchange Web Services in Exchange 2007
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb408417.aspx

New Programmability Features in Exchange Server 2007
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb332450.aspx

More discussions:
Exchange 2007
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=3891474

http://psankar.blogspot.com/2007/10/write-evolution-plugins-using-mono-c.html
"Exchange Server 2007 has a Exchange Web-Services Interface. IIUC Working with web-services should be a lot easier and featureful when done via Mono than plain C. So implementing support for Exchange 2007 can be done via this Mono plugins (which I am planning to takeup as my ITO task)"

Not only that, but scientists who do not waste their time studying Wikilaws often get booted off Wikipedia for minor infractions, for instance http://allswool.blogspot.com/2008/04/tyranny-of-ignorant.html

No matter how much you try to repackage and redesign a turd, it will still be a piece of shit when you're done.

You'd be surprised.

"What makes me laugh is that there is such an "Us Vs Them" tone in all of it. It's like the nice business people think that all the open source guys are just waiting to kill their babies! I mean settle down."

See, I think they are focusing on the wrong businessmen.

When are the other professors in the department(s) going to offer a course teaching how businessmen can use Free Software to make profits for their company? Never mind those guys in the other course who want you to reduce your bottom line for their benefit. Do the right thing for your company.

I just had a wild idea that I will write up a bit more on:

http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/

But in a nutshell, how about we start to make Free Music but geared for elevator music needs and music on hold needs. Perhaps the good profs can extend the course to cover the needs of the current elevator music folks as well.

Then (perhaps) businessmen will see the parallels.

all the best,

drew

From a researcher at Last.fm: http://mir-research.blogspot.com/2008/09/ismir-2008-demos.html

A researcher from strands: http://www.scwn.net/2008/09/ismir-past-present-and-future/

And lots of posts from my blog:

• http://blogs.sun.com/plamere/entry/ismir_day_3_mir_methods
• http://blogs.sun.com/plamere/entry/ismir_day_3_content_based
• http://blogs.sun.com/plamere/entry/ismir_day_2_session_2
• http://blogs.sun.com/plamere/entry/ismir_day_2_session_1
• http://blogs.sun.com/plamere/entry/ismir_day_1_plenary_session1

We are all comrades now in the U.S.S.A.

No checks or money orders in U.S.S.A. because there are NO banks.

P.S.: In case you've been reading Slashot too much,
General Motors will announce bankruptcy. They're drawing on U.S. $ 3.5 billion of their last U.S. $ 5.5 billion
line of credit.

Cordially,
Comrade Kilgore Trout

A lesson from the history of technology law: A legislature is unwise to require a specific technology like "encryption." --Benjamin Wright http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2008/02/encryption-legislation-goes-overboard.html

A lesson from the history of technology law: A legislature is unwise to require a specific technology like "encryption." --Benjamin Wright http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2008/02/encryption-legislation-goes-overboard.html

Cost of the last major hurricane, $22 billion.
Cost of the existing "martial involvements", $12.3 billion per month.
Cost of the "largest bailout in history", $700 billion.

Silly congress critters who think they still have tax payer funds to fritter away... priceless.

Honestly, the most difficult part of monads is that everyone thinks they're so hard to understand. The stigma that it's some hugely complicated mathematical concept is getting in everyone's way.

Monads in Haskell are basically just wrappers. Here's a straightforward explanation by someone much smarter than me: You could have invented monads

Yes, Barack Obama, by mentioning arugula, has shown he is the elitist among the major party candidates.

John McCain, on the other hand, is just chock-full of mavericky goodness and simple values, and isn't elitist at all, despite the fact that he and his wife own a private jet and 8-12 homes on 8 properties (McCain says he doesn't know... it must be hard to keep track), spent $273,000 on household employees last year, and THIS JUST IN: own 13 cars. Oh, and despite McCain's claims that he has only bought American cars all his life, those cars include a Honda, a Lexus, and a Volkswagen, and also in the family is the Prius he boasted about his daughter buying just last year when he was pandering to voters with different concerns.

Oh, and Cindy McCain may have worn a $313,100 outfit on the first night of the Republican convention and said you just can't get around Arizona without a private plane, but trust the people who brought you the Iraq war: she's as down-to-Earth and "simple folk" as they come.

Those "uppity" Obamas, with their one house, on which they got a better-than-average mortgage deal (gasp!) based on Obama's senate income and book proceeds, have one car for the family. And both Obamas paid for their education with student loans, with Barack, who was raised by a single mother and his grandparents, ending up as president of the Harvard Law Review. John McCain, the son and grandson of Navy Admirals, was practically the definition of a legacy admission at the U.S. Naval Academy.

Yeah, that arugula comment really tells the whole story of who's an elitist.

This just in:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/ruh-roh-palin-draws-60000-in-florida.html
what was your argument again, please?

I write about the pre-paid mobile Internet here on my blog.

Basically, it's 1 Gb for 20 Euros, without a contract. And it works with the eeePC without problems.