Slashdot Mirror

LMGTFY

Yeah that site is pretty good. Not as good as this one, though.

Very funny, but... http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Riemann+zeta+function

Here let me google it for you:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pneumonia+vaccine

Let me Google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=YouTube%2C+Gmail%2C+Google+Maps%2C+Google+Earth%2C+Blogger%2C+Google+Voice%2C+Orkut%2C+Adsense%2C+Adwords%2C+Google+Reader%2C+Feedburner%2C+Google+Calendar%2C+Google+Docs%2C+Google+Groups%2C+Google+Directory%2C+Google+Wave%2C+Google+Talk%2C+Picasa%2C+Panoramio%2C+Sketchup+3D+Warehouse%2C+iGoogle+(Google+Homepage)%2C+Google+Notebook%2C+Google+Sites+(Jotspot)%2C+Knol

Yeah I used to get the same thing until I learned about lmgtfy.com (letmegooglethatforyou.com). You type in the search phrase and and hit the "Google Search" button. It gives you a link that has animation of someone typing in the search term and moving the mouse to click search. It then displays normal google results. Its pretty effective in making the person feel like they could have done it for themselves. (example link: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=slashdot ) Enjoy!

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sequoia+voting+machines

Human Computer Interaction

Uh. No. Satellite (at worst) is geosynchronous, which is 500 to 900ms round trip [satsig.net].

IP round trip time from Host A to Host B is measured as: amount of time it takes for Host A to send a message to Host B and then receive a response.

Agreed.

It will take 500 to 900ms for Host A's transmission to go up the satellite link and be received on the ground, and carried to Host B's ISP.

If by "carried to Host B's ISP" you mean sent up to a satellite and back down to an earthstation, I agree. If this traffic is terrestrial, then no.

Then when Host B sends the reply, and it goes from Host B's ISP to the satellite link, it will take another 500 to 900ms to reach Host A.

Again, not unless another satellite hop is involved.

So, the Round trip is actually 1000 to 1800ms.

Geostationary orbit (where communications satellites are generally parked) is 35,786 km. Run the calculation with accurate numbers: 500 to 900 ms round trip. Or just search for "geosynchronous orbit latency in ms". Like so.

Uh. No. Satellite (at worst) is geosynchronous, which is 500 to 900ms round trip [satsig.net].

IP round trip time from Host A to Host B is measured as: amount of time it takes for Host A to send a message to Host B and then receive a response.

Agreed.

It will take 500 to 900ms for Host A's transmission to go up the satellite link and be received on the ground, and carried to Host B's ISP.

If by "carried to Host B's ISP" you mean sent up to a satellite and back down to an earthstation, I agree. If this traffic is terrestrial, then no.

Then when Host B sends the reply, and it goes from Host B's ISP to the satellite link, it will take another 500 to 900ms to reach Host A.

Again, not unless another satellite hop is involved.

So, the Round trip is actually 1000 to 1800ms.

Geostationary orbit (where communications satellites are generally parked) is 35,786 km. Run the calculation with accurate numbers: 500 to 900 ms round trip. Or just search for "geosynchronous orbit latency in ms". Like so.

Uh. No. Satellite (at worst) is geosynchronous, which is 500 to 900ms round trip [satsig.net].

IP round trip time from Host A to Host B is measured as: amount of time it takes for Host A to send a message to Host B and then receive a response.

Agreed.

It will take 500 to 900ms for Host A's transmission to go up the satellite link and be received on the ground, and carried to Host B's ISP.

If by "carried to Host B's ISP" you mean sent up to a satellite and back down to an earthstation, I agree. If this traffic is terrestrial, then no.

Then when Host B sends the reply, and it goes from Host B's ISP to the satellite link, it will take another 500 to 900ms to reach Host A.

Again, not unless another satellite hop is involved.

So, the Round trip is actually 1000 to 1800ms.

Geostationary orbit (where communications satellites are generally parked) is 35,786 km. Run the calculation with accurate numbers: 500 to 900 ms round trip. Or just search for "geosynchronous orbit latency in ms". Like so.

Uh. No. Satellite (at worst) is geosynchronous, which is 500 to 900ms round trip [satsig.net].

IP round trip time from Host A to Host B is measured as: amount of time it takes for Host A to send a message to Host B and then receive a response.

Agreed.

It will take 500 to 900ms for Host A's transmission to go up the satellite link and be received on the ground, and carried to Host B's ISP.

If by "carried to Host B's ISP" you mean sent up to a satellite and back down to an earthstation, I agree. If this traffic is terrestrial, then no.

Then when Host B sends the reply, and it goes from Host B's ISP to the satellite link, it will take another 500 to 900ms to reach Host A.

Again, not unless another satellite hop is involved.

So, the Round trip is actually 1000 to 1800ms.

Geostationary orbit (where communications satellites are generally parked) is 35,786 km. Run the calculation with accurate numbers: 500 to 900 ms round trip. Or just search for "geosynchronous orbit latency in ms". Like so.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Monster+manual+rapidshare&l=1

Here you go:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=List+of+native+1080p+ps3+games

Really?

Gee, I get marked a troll by trying to say things like "for the Blackberry to win the iPhone need not lose" .... here you go with a serious fishing pole. Point 1 -- perhaps in your area. I've traveled to enough cities in the US (and even USVI) and I can make calls and retrieve data just fine. Point 2 -- the apps are expensive?! Here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=average+iphone+app+price

Uh. No. Satellite (at worst) is geosynchronous, which is 500 to 900ms round trip [satsig.net].

IP round trip time from Host A to Host B is measured as: amount of time it takes for Host A to send a message to Host B and then receive a response.

It will take 500 to 900ms for Host A's transmission to go up the satellite link and be received on the ground, and carried to Host B's ISP.

Then when Host B sends the reply, and it goes from Host B's ISP to the satellite link, it will take another 500 to 900ms to reach Host A.

So, the Round trip is actually 1000 to 1800ms.

Frankly, I don't spend much time thinking about whether the person that I am typing a response is male or female since, it has no bearing at all on 99% of discussions. If you asked me if the person who wrote any given message was a man, I might get the feeling that its so, I might not. However, since women are underrepresented in many of these forums, it is correct most of the time to assume the person is a man. What of it?

People are creatures of habits and guesses. Sometimes those guesses are wrong.

This is a simple guess, based on experience, because we grew up with it being more normal to refer to people with gender based pronouns. In fact, some of us have had the experience of having people get pissy because we used a gender neutral pronoun (if you don't believe me, the next time you run into someone with a child and are unsure of the gender, see how quickly you get corrected when you refer to their child as "it")

and... "ze"? I am sorry that someone invented a new word that you like and it hasn't caught on yet. This is the first that I am even seeing "ze" as an english word. Yet you seem to take personal offense that people don't use it. You are not the first person to find human language to be resistant to intentional change... http://lmgtfy.com/?q=esperanto

Essentially, I am all for fighting real sexism. I am all for getting women into IT, and wherever else that they want to be and make themselves qualified to be. Some sports have talked of getting rid of the gender divide, in favor of weight classes, since it is a more fair way to divide competitors.

I wrestled in high school and thats exactly what we were doing 15 years ago. Were there still issues? You bet. Still are I bet. However, I tend to be of the opinion that this sort of social change happens through generations, rather than through winning over individuals.

-Steve

The iTunes LP experience is accomplished with HTML 4.01, CSS and JS. The interface feels very Flash-like, but there is no trace of it. The CSS animations are elaborate and smooth. Font files are referenced with an @font-face declaration in the CSS but there seems to be little to no use. Most text, even long passages of lyrics, is represented visually with a PNG file. I wonder if they originally intended to use font replacement for all text, but changed their mind.

I didn’t find much in the way of DRM on the iTunes LP. Though your iTunes Store Account is recorded inside the .PLIST file, everything worked even when de-authorizing my computer in the middle of play, as well as removing the reference all together.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=halo+teabagging

Harvard Study 5000 downloads == 1 lost album sale - http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=5000+downloads+lost+CD+sales

I can't find the other study, but it used statistical analysis to determine 2500 downloads results in just one lost CD sale

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=linux+games

I mean seriously.. if someone had asked the same of the Windows they would have been torn to pieces by rabid penguins, toasted in the warm glow of a thousand flames and then thrown to the trolls to pick over.

Now I will admit that I have in the past missed the point but are Linux games that rare/difficult to find?

QNX, SkyOS, HelenOS maybe.. but linux???

Alright, if you can't do this yourself...

I'm typing this because Slashdot said so. Passerby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood. Try this: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pc+diagnostic+hardware

Let me google that for you...

Google pacemaker nuclear battery

More than 70.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+a+medical+sociologist%3F

Sheesh..

Read this

great question. i asked a scientist and he was able to find a site that had some answers

Arnold Swarzenegger (sp?)

Your quandary resolved.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Air+America
Air America Media
1 Oct 2009 ... Progressive talk radio network with streaming audio features provocative conversation, interviews and political satire.

Umm, yeah it does happen all the time. How is this post insightful?
Sometimes they kill you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting
And as far as dogs, it does happen all the time, here is an article about some: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6339
Or find your own: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=police+kill+dog
I seriously do not understand how you got modded insightful for being ignorant.

>>>[citation needed]

Let me google that for you - "gran turismo 5" micropayments - http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=%22gran+turismo+5%22+micropayments

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=MMS

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hamas+charter

"rapidly" is not exactly a precise amount. What if they mean 10 dB every 10 meters? Also, this device is made for crowd control. Sooner or later it will get used at close range, either by accident or because some idiot tought it was a good idea.

you chopped off the important part again.

the rest of the statement gave details, "The sound level will drop off rapidly according to the inverse square law as you get farther away"

A simple google search will show you that the inverse square law says

Acoustics The inverse-square law is used in acoustics in measuring the sound intensity at a given distance from the source. Example In acoustics, the sound pressure of a spherical wavefront radiating from a point source decreases by 50% as the distance r is doubled, or measured in dB it decreases by 6.02 dB.

meaning that every time the distance is doubled the power is halved.

so precise amount was given, you just ignored it or did not know what it was.

Even more so, "especially for a platform where X was a credible option", is simply dumb as it doesn't apply in the least.

Tell that to the Nokia. The N900 uses X.

Even more so, gaming is a target for these phones.

If you're implying X can't be used for gaming, tell that to Id.

none of these issues have anything to do with "orthodox", unless your definition, which seems to be your entire position, is orthodox = desktop,

No.

However, we are talking about something drawing a GUI, and the usual ("orthodox"?) way of doing that is with X. And then there's the standard C library.

I have no idea why you're intent of negatively painting Android

I have no idea why you think I intend to "negatively paint Android". I love the concept, and my next phone is likely to either be Maemo or Android.

I'm also a bit unclear why you assume I have an axe to grind simply because I disagree with you -- though that does seem to be entirely too common. Here's a hint: Not everyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or has an agenda. Sometimes, they have a valid point. Sometimes, you're even wrong.

The "no changes" is the tricky part because almost no Linux applications are directly capable for compiling on an embedded system without change.

I haven't tried the N900 personally, but I doubt much change would be required. I distinctly remember running Linux on an HP Jornada handheld -- 32 megs of RAM and a 512 meg SD card. Specifically, I was running a pretty much unmodified Debian ARM, albeit without X, or any GUI, for that matter.

This is because more often than not they use autoconf which requires execution on the target.

It really doesn't.

And if it does, so what? Despite being an "embedded system", my Jornada could run autoconf. I'll bet the N900 can, too. And if that fails, just run it on an emulator, which any of thees systems should have.

By you definition, pretty much all Linux software is broken.

By my definition, pretty much all Linux software can be compiled on most new platforms without requiring custom patches for that platform. I'm not counting autoconf as a "source change", since it's pretty much a standard build tool.

it is possible if you use the Ubuntu Android port.

Does this allow the phone to continue functioning as an Android device? If so, I'll concede that point -- if Ubuntu works, clearly the standard C library isn't an issue.

most applications typically require some tweaking for new platforms, even when they do use tools such as autoconf.

Define "most".

straw man's argument.

Uninformed, maybe. Strawman, how? I don't believe I've misrepresented your position -- yet clearly, you've misrepresented mine.

Hahaha... you're right. They must have used a float to calculate this... damn those Intel rounding errors!
Intel, try googling before you run: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=10+terabytes+%2F+10000000000+bps

Cat-5 is certainly the best option today; but I'm guessing that grandparent is hoping for something that wouldn't raise the costs of endpoint devices significantly.

I'll assume you're using CAT5 in a generic way to mean CAT5/CAT5e/CAT6... We don't run CAT5 anymore - it's all 5e or 6. I'm not even certain where we'd buy a spool of CAT5 anymore, seems like our vendors only sell CAT5e and CAT6 these days. And CAT6 isn't much more expensive anymore.

But using CAT6 for the wiring isn't necessarily going to impact the cost of the endpoint devices at all. I can terminate that CAT6 with a couple RJ11 jacks and stick any old telephone on it. I don't need a fancy VOIP phone or anything like that.

You can run pretty much anything you want over ethernet, as long as you can get it in under 1Gb/s; but only if you are willing to put a full general purpose computer(or a dedicated embedded device, if the market has seen fit to provide one for your application) at each end. This is less than wholly useful when it comes to older devices, or cheaper devices that are still only shipping with some sort of non-ethernet connections.

Nobody said Ethernet, they said CAT(5|5e|6). That's just copper. You can run ethernet over it... But you can do lots of other things with it as well. There's really no need to use ethernet over CAT6 - that's typically what you do, but it's still just copper. You can send analog signals just as easily as digital.

If, say, you want to connect a projector and a DVD player, that is normally cheap and easy. A few analog video cables, supported by even the most awful players and projectors, or DVI/HDMI in the expensive seats. If you wanted to do that over ethernet, you'd need a comparatively high end projector, and a DVD player that supports ethernet connected projectors. I'm not sure any of the latter exist, so you'd have to use a full computer for the purpose. Doable; but hardly optimal.

Or you just get a CAT6 video extender. Takes your video from VGA or HDMI or DVI or whatever, passes it over your CAT6 to the other end, and pipes it back to VGA or HDMI or DVI or whatever. Great devices. We installed several of them in a dental office so we could mount televisions on a moving arm for the patients.

I'm not sure exactly how grandparent's desire would actually be made to work in a real world setting; but ethernet isn't quite it. It would arguably be a suitable basis for what he wants; but it wouldn't be the whole picture.

Again, we're not talking about ethernet, we're talking about CAT6. There's a difference between the network protocol and the wire it is transmitted over.

All the new construction we work in has bundles of CAT6 going everywhere. You don't see any special wiring for phones or anything like that... It's just all CAT6, terminated accordingly and patched into either the data or voice systems as appropriate. You'll still frequently see some coax cable running around for television... But that can easily be run to absolutely every room and terminated in a central location, then patched in as necessary like you would anything else. Or you could just throw everything across your CAT6 with an adapter or two thrown in.

Really, these days, you don't need all sorts of different cables and connectors and jacks. Run AC to the room, a bundle of CAT6 lines, and maybe a coax line - done! You can now connect pretty much anything to pretty much anything, anywhere in your house.

This isn't something theoretical... We're doing it now.

1) Giving people the choice to eat GM foods is fine, provided that doesn't infringe upon the freedom of people to also eat non-GM foods. Here, the judge indicated that one of his concerns was that the GM crop's pollen could spread into other populations, contaminating them with the non-GM species.

2) On top of infringing the freedoms of different farmers, history has shown that when this occurs, due to the GM company's intellectual property rights on their GM product, they'll sue the non-GM farmer when they find some of their GM product accidentally growing in their field (they actually put marker-genes in product to help them easily identify instances of contamination, which they pass off as theft/intellectual-property violations). This isn't a "what if" scenario. This actually does happen (Monsanto is infamous for it). There's no reason to assume that it wouldn't happen again.

3) Finally, you are actually wrong that human-health isn't a concern in environmental impact assessments. It is very much a factor. Environmental law wasn't originally conceived to "protect the environment". It started because people were pissed that toxic chemicals dumped near them were making them sick. Saving the environment for the sake of the environment can be a concern too (like endangered species), but human-health issues found in an environmental impact statement can kill the project. Have you ever actually studied environmental law?

4) Some GM foods can harm certain people. If you take genes from a nut which some people are allergic to, splice it into a soybean, don't have laws that label GM foods as GM, people allergic to that nut can eat the soybeans and get sick or die. Fresh produce doesn't usually have allergy warnings on it, because you can't normally find "trace amounts of nuts" in your carrots. But genetically engineered crops make this possible, yet we still don't warn people about it.
And before you say that isn't a practical problem, I would like to point out that it has: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=soybean+brazil+nut

Here, let me google that for you. Yes, there are taxes, just like any other kind of property. The first two links in the search above give a good overview of these issues.

Here you go.

LINK - http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=%22UK+government%22+teen+masturbation - Many cultures consider masturbation to be a mortal sin. The UK Health Services monopoly should not have authority to overrule these beliefs and tell children "masturbation is your right and good" in direct defiance of the parents' wishes. The government is supposed to be the servant of the Parents/the People, not the other way around. WE are the masters, not serfs.

Somebody else wrote:

>>>Probably because governments are supposed to be acting upon the best interests of the people as a whole (assuming they are not corrupted) making them easier to trust. Businesses on the other hand are only interested in achieving maximum profits even at other peoples' downfall/expense
>>>

I don't trust any organization that has direct access to my wallet and sucks dollars out like a vacuum. Neither do I trust any organization that has black-suited men that can bust down my door whenever they feel like it (ref: Professor Gates and about 1 million similar cases every year). At least RIAA or Microsoft can't do either of those things.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=watch+as+compass

If you know the time, you know your direction. Normally I wouldn't reply with lmgtfy, but you seem to be someone who'd like to know that url.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dimmable+cfls

If you do insist on treating your iPod like a filesystem, apparently you can do that:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ipod+fuse
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ipod+kioslave
(I haven't tried any of these myself)

Expecting users to differentiate between songs loaded by iTunes and added to the iPod's database, and songs just dumped on its filesystem fundamentally alters user interaction with the device. All people want to do is select $ARTIST -> $ALBUM -> $SONG (or playlist, et cetera) and go from there, not navigate folders to a specific file. It's not about cost or laziness, it's recognising the iPod for what it's intended to be: a music player first and a USB drive second. Parsing filesystems and MP3/AAC metadata is a once-off task best left to a real computer.

If you do insist on treating your iPod like a filesystem, apparently you can do that:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ipod+fuse
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ipod+kioslave
(I haven't tried any of these myself)

Expecting users to differentiate between songs loaded by iTunes and added to the iPod's database, and songs just dumped on its filesystem fundamentally alters user interaction with the device. All people want to do is select $ARTIST -> $ALBUM -> $SONG (or playlist, et cetera) and go from there, not navigate folders to a specific file. It's not about cost or laziness, it's recognising the iPod for what it's intended to be: a music player first and a USB drive second. Parsing filesystems and MP3/AAC metadata is a once-off task best left to a real computer.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=zonesize

>>>Prove it.

Here let me google that for you - http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=%22destruction+of+evidence%22

It's trivial to make a ring tone from an arbitrary song in iTunes.