Do you know the enrolment figures for your local university? Where I live there are 3 women entering for every 2 men. And yet the message we keep getting is that it is women that are being held back, discriminated against etc.
Why not check your local university and see what it's like where you live.
It seems to me that QDOS changed names - what I was running on my S100 system started out as QDOS and then changed names to SCP-DOS and was from Seattle Computer Products who were basically just across the street from Microsoft in Bellevue. The story I heard at the time from someone at SCP was that Microsoft hired the services of the SCP guy who did their DOS and the result was PC-DOS.
Either way SCP-DOS was clearly CPM rewritten for the 8086 - as another poster mentioned even the file control blocks were the same. And SCP had a Z80/8080 to 8086 translator which took assembler files for the 8 bit machine and converted them to assembler files for the 8086. The translator worked pretty decently too, as I recall.
The real downfall of the S100 systems was the memory... I can still remember paying $1600 for a 16KB (iirc, might have been 64K) static memory board. Dynamic memory was much cheaper but none of the vendors could really make a dynamic board that would work in most S100 systems. It got a bit better when the IEEE standardized the bus as the IEEE696 and manufacturers began offering motherboards with dynamic bus termination but it was still a crap shoot as to whether any given dynamic memory board would work in a system.
Still S100 systems were good for the time... my 8086 system, which I built before the IBM PC was introduced, was still faster than the 80286 version of the PC which IBM released about 4 years later. Was about 3 times the size of a PC, had 20 slots, 2 8inch floppy drives (double sided!!!) and had a linear power supply which weighed a ton... all in a solid steel chassis. Ahhhh, and saving up for my 5MB hard drive... oh yeah 5 whole MB of high speed storage! A real computer for sure...
Of all the reasons given in this thread the parent's seems to be the only really accurate one. Adaptive optics works by, for example, looking at a target star (or other object I suppose) and seeing how the image changes due to atmospheric effects, and using that data to predict how the image of the larger field will change. If you are looking for an effectively instantaneous sample then there i s no reason you couldn't achieve the same effect through post-processing of the image. It's when, as the parent says, you are capturing over long time periods to let photons accumulate in each sensor cell, that post processing can't do the same thing. Although if every "pixel" in the sensor were capable of triggering of a single photon, e.g. a photomultiplier, then there is no reason you couldn't achieve the same effect as adaptive optics for long exposures by post-processing multiple frames.
Ahhh what the heck, here's what just 2 minutes of actually looking turns up on the health dangers of kids and cigarette butts... I guess you weren't reading "the literature" all that often.
From: http://www.fammed.unc.edu/enter/fact_sheets/Parent sFactSheetl.pdf
"The American Association of Poison Control Centers receives 7,900 reports of potentially toxic
exposure to tobacco products among children 6 years old or younger, primarily by young children
ingesting cigarettes, cigarette butts, and other tobacco products they find around the house, in ashtrays, and in the garbage."
Center for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC). Ingestion of cigarettes and cigarette butts by children,Rhode Island, January 1994-July 1996. MMWR. Feb. 1997;46(6):125-128
I'll ignore the gratuitous rudeness. I guess if you've never seen something then in your universe it doesn't exist.
As for "the literature" I'll have to rely on the reports by the local newspaper (oh yeah, been reading that since 1968) describing cases exactly like those I mentioned. You might also want to google nicotine and children and note the number of studies linking extremely low levels of nicotine exposure and SIDS.
The idea was being put forward that we shouldn't worry about nicotine because it (was claimed that nicotine) wasn't the source of toxic effects from smoking. The implication being that we could just treat nicotine as non-dangerous.
That is not just false information it is very dangerous false information.
Children for example can be killed by low levels of exposure to nicotine - kids find cigarette buts, eat them (their toddlers right?) and end of in the emergency room suffering from nicotine poisoning. The same thing would happen with (none of the bad effects of smoking" nicotine patches.
> Then we'll be reading stories about people who die of starvation because they were so caught up in their cybersex world
There was a story like this in the late 60's except it wasn't just cyber sex but people in telepresence/VR couches at living out the second lives at the cost of their first lives. I can still remember the description of a scene where this guy breaks into a house and finds mountains of cartons of commercial crap (e.g. "fizzy cola" and stuff you'd find on the shopping channel) ordered on-line by the now dead user still wired into her couch...
eerily prescient book... so was the Shockwave Rider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockwave_Rider. Stand On Zanzibar and The Sheep Look Up books written in the 70's by John Brunner... he predicted a lot of of stuff very accurately including network worms etc.
When I heard Nelson speak the term he used was psycho-acoustic-tele-dildonics... I think that's what he used in Computer Lib and Dream Machines too but my copy was filched many years ago...
Damn spoiled kids... we just toggled the program in using the front panel and whistled the data directly into the acoustic coupler... and don't get me going about your fancy shmancy 8 bit "bytes" we only had 6 bit chars and considered ourselves lucky at that!
Not to take anything away from Berners-Lee but Ted Nelson really deserves much of the credit for ideas that later became the web... for that matter so does John Brunner who was astonishingly accurate in his predictions of where computer technology was going... But I once heard Nelson use the phrase "psycho-acoustic tele-dildonics" 30 years before it became realized and for that alone he should be remembered... as well the creators of TRAC ought to be given some credit for what later became the web.
It may be the same in Canada too,or at least some provinces. I can remember a case in Quebec a long time ago involving someone sitting on their step ending up in a published picture. They asked for compensation, were turned down and then sued and won. IIRC the court said merely being visible from the street didn't constitute permission for their image to be published.
The whole thing turns out to be a VR historical re-enactment where the participants are not concious of the fact it is a re-enactment. There are hints to something like this in the first season. Perhaps the re-enactment is part of some anniversary celebrating the victory of humanity over the Cylons (in which case the VR participants behind the avatars are actually all human) or of the extinction of the human race by Cylons (in which case the VR participants behind the avatars are actually all Cylons).
If a first nation's person hates all white people, what can that person do with their hatred? Call you names? Spit in your face maybe? Maybe?
Blockade your roads, shoot at you, demand you pay them money because you are of a different ethnic background...
So-called "reverse racism" is not racism.
Of course it is, it's the same as the (reverse) racism that says, for example, that its allright to give hiring preference to a rich female of colour over a poor white guy.
Maybe they're being simplistic, but they're not racist.
If there is a racially based bias then it's racist. It may not be effective racism but it's still racism.
And by the way, in Canada at least, it's not a white society or white government that the natives are dealing with... as is obvious from a simple look.
The populations that might benefit from this see an opportunity and exploit it just as anybody would. If you told me I could get special benefits just because I was a read-headed guy with Irish parents I'd be all over that.
You know not everybody is out to get something for nothing. In fact some people even make it a point not exploit things to get "something for nothing"...
That may indeed be fair. Of course given that, from a technological point of view, natives were also catapulted several hundred years into the future the non-native portion of society may want to start charging license fees for use by natives of such technologies/inventions as writing, motors, gears, math, electricity, computers, radio, tv, photography, flight, textile mills, metallurgy, etc. etc.
In Canada the worst enemy of natives is frequently natives. The federal government spends something like $20,000 per native per year on reserves yet many natives on reserves live in squalor. The money is allocated to the band and from there it's anybody's guess as to what happens to it because there is no accounting of any kind. When the government tried to amend the law so that there would have to be an open and transparent accounting made, to the natives the money was supposed to help, there were huge protests by native groups about government being paternalistic.
Yes, but, I am arguing that doing something a lot has a tendency to help one do it better. Which means that complications are less likely to occur.
As far as I can see the argument isn't about whether complications set in, it's about whether the action itself is right or wrong.
Prove that to me. Female circumcision has been proven to, in most forms decrease sexual pleasure. This should be rather obvious, as the tissue with the sensitive nerves is being cut off in these forms. Male circumcision may, or may not, or may even improve pleasure, depending on which article you read.
Then it should also be rather obvious that taking sensitive tissue and continually rubbing it against other surfaces can result in lowered sensitivity leading to decreased sexual satisfaction. Which part is it that you doubt, that years of rubbing a piece of sensitive tissue against a dry surface will lower sensitivity, or that lowered sensitivity will result in decreased sexual satisfaction? Do you have a penis? If you had ever experienced the effect (save the jokes) of rubbing the head against a dry surface you wouldn't be arguing this point.
everyone does not follow proper hygiene
If some people are not following proper hygiene then the solution is to teach them, or not have sex with them, or use a barrier, not to lop off parts of their body. As for circumcision increasing sexual pleasure, it may do so for the partner but I don't believe that it does for the victim.
And, once again, all done without the consent of the victim.
Do we know that it has a function? No one seems to have conclusively proven that. We could have a scientific paper fight if you want.
Ummm yes we do know that it has a function. The foreskin protects the head of the penis. Removal of the foreskin results in decreased sensitivity with consequent effects on sexual pleasure. Imagine we were talking about the wholesale and unnecessary surgical alteration of infant female genitalia that would result in women having decreased sexual pleasure later in life... would there be even the slightest doubt that it was wrong?
I'm arguing that it isn't wrong.
That may be what you are attempting but doing something a lot isn't an argument that it isn't wrong. Nor is being good at it.
Mutilating? Ok, so it might have been painful, but I can't exactly say I remember it. It can reduce the incidence of many sexually transmitted diseases, perhaps even HIV.
All the health benefits of circumcision can also be realized by the application of soap and water. As for mutilating... the unnecessary snipping away of flesh, altering both form and function and preventing the previous function provided by the mutilated/removed flesh seems to fall into that category. But if you don't think so then why?
And we've been doing it for years upon years. We know how to do it well now.
Doing something a lot doesn't somehow make it right. The same goes for being good at it. Not to mention that it's all without the informed consent of the patient.
You know not all that long ago the word elitist wasn't generally thought of as a pejorative. God forbid that we should be judgemental and discriminating.
In my experience the best way to drive this home is to live in a condo - known as strata titled property in some places. You can't really appreciate how dumb the average person is until you've had virtually every aspect of your home life, and possibly your single largest asset, controlled by a collection of room temperature IQs. So many times I've observed exchanges like:
OK we want A!
Don't forget we need to avoid X!
Then we should do B because it will lead us to A!
But to do B we need to do C and C will produce X!
But we want A!
OK all in favor of doing B!
Motion passes easily.
It's also a great way to see the really venal side of human nature in action.
But it's also true that a really huge chunk of the user population isn't dumb and they still have problems with Linux and it isn't their fault.
Slashdot Mirror
When you walk into a room and you're the only girl and the rest are hormonal boys making stupid jokes,
Oh, and you win the prize for most sexist comment I've yet read today... you go girl!But why do they make those life choices?
Probably for the same reasons that men make choices leading to them being the ones who suffer 99% of all work related fatalities.Do you know the enrolment figures for your local university? Where I live there are 3 women entering for every 2 men. And yet the message we keep getting is that it is women that are being held back, discriminated against etc.
Why not check your local university and see what it's like where you live.
It seems to me that QDOS changed names - what I was running on my S100 system started out as QDOS and then changed names to SCP-DOS and was from Seattle Computer Products who were basically just across the street from Microsoft in Bellevue. The story I heard at the time from someone at SCP was that Microsoft hired the services of the SCP guy who did their DOS and the result was PC-DOS.
Either way SCP-DOS was clearly CPM rewritten for the 8086 - as another poster mentioned even the file control blocks were the same. And SCP had a Z80/8080 to 8086 translator which took assembler files for the 8 bit machine and converted them to assembler files for the 8086. The translator worked pretty decently too, as I recall.
The real downfall of the S100 systems was the memory... I can still remember paying $1600 for a 16KB (iirc, might have been 64K) static memory board. Dynamic memory was much cheaper but none of the vendors could really make a dynamic board that would work in most S100 systems. It got a bit better when the IEEE standardized the bus as the IEEE696 and manufacturers began offering motherboards with dynamic bus termination but it was still a crap shoot as to whether any given dynamic memory board would work in a system.
Still S100 systems were good for the time... my 8086 system, which I built before the IBM PC was introduced, was still faster than the 80286 version of the PC which IBM released about 4 years later. Was about 3 times the size of a PC, had 20 slots, 2 8inch floppy drives (double sided!!!) and had a linear power supply which weighed a ton... all in a solid steel chassis. Ahhhh, and saving up for my 5MB hard drive... oh yeah 5 whole MB of high speed storage! A real computer for sure...
Of all the reasons given in this thread the parent's seems to be the only really accurate one. Adaptive optics works by, for example, looking at a target star (or other object I suppose) and seeing how the image changes due to atmospheric effects, and using that data to predict how the image of the larger field will change. If you are looking for an effectively instantaneous sample then there i s no reason you couldn't achieve the same effect through post-processing of the image. It's when, as the parent says, you are capturing over long time periods to let photons accumulate in each sensor cell, that post processing can't do the same thing. Although if every "pixel" in the sensor were capable of triggering of a single photon, e.g. a photomultiplier, then there is no reason you couldn't achieve the same effect as adaptive optics for long exposures by post-processing multiple frames.
Ahhh what the heck, here's what just 2 minutes of actually looking turns up on the health dangers of kids and cigarette butts... I guess you weren't reading "the literature" all that often.
t sFactSheetl.pdf
m e%20Safety%20Fact%20Sheet%202.pdf
R /19953.HTM
l /listpoisonous102102.html
From: http://www.fammed.unc.edu/enter/fact_sheets/Paren
"The American Association of Poison Control Centers receives 7,900 reports of potentially toxic exposure to tobacco products among children 6 years old or younger, primarily by young children ingesting cigarettes, cigarette butts, and other tobacco products they find around the house, in ashtrays, and in the garbage." Center for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC). Ingestion of cigarettes and cigarette butts by children,Rhode Island, January 1994-July 1996. MMWR. Feb. 1997;46(6):125-128
From: http://www.cfc-efc.ca/docs/cccf/00000056.htm
"Eating even one or two cigarette butts can make a baby seriously ill."
From: http://www.eparentingnetwork.ca/pdf/HomeSafety/Ho
"Safely dispose of cigarette butts. If your child swallows just 1 unsmoked cigarette or 2 cigarette butts, they could get very sick"
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press/1995/DECEMBE
http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/seasona
I'll ignore the gratuitous rudeness. I guess if you've never seen something then in your universe it doesn't exist.
As for "the literature" I'll have to rely on the reports by the local newspaper (oh yeah, been reading that since 1968) describing cases exactly like those I mentioned. You might also want to google nicotine and children and note the number of studies linking extremely low levels of nicotine exposure and SIDS.
The idea was being put forward that we shouldn't worry about nicotine because it (was claimed that nicotine) wasn't the source of toxic effects from smoking. The implication being that we could just treat nicotine as non-dangerous.
That is not just false information it is very dangerous false information.
Children for example can be killed by low levels of exposure to nicotine - kids find cigarette buts, eat them (their toddlers right?) and end of in the emergency room suffering from nicotine poisoning. The same thing would happen with (none of the bad effects of smoking" nicotine patches.
Actually "all the bad effects of smoking come mostly from the smoke + chronic use" isn't really true... nicotine is very toxic.
> Then we'll be reading stories about people who die of starvation because they were so caught up in their cybersex world There was a story like this in the late 60's except it wasn't just cyber sex but people in telepresence/VR couches at living out the second lives at the cost of their first lives. I can still remember the description of a scene where this guy breaks into a house and finds mountains of cartons of commercial crap (e.g. "fizzy cola" and stuff you'd find on the shopping channel) ordered on-line by the now dead user still wired into her couch...
eerily prescient book... so was the Shockwave Rider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockwave_Rider. Stand On Zanzibar and The Sheep Look Up books written in the 70's by John Brunner... he predicted a lot of of stuff very accurately including network worms etc.
When I heard Nelson speak the term he used was psycho-acoustic-tele-dildonics... I think that's what he used in Computer Lib and Dream Machines too but my copy was filched many years ago...
You had phones!?!?!?! And paper tape?!?!?!?
Damn spoiled kids... we just toggled the program in using the front panel and whistled the data directly into the acoustic coupler... and don't get me going about your fancy shmancy 8 bit "bytes" we only had 6 bit chars and considered ourselves lucky at that!
Not to take anything away from Berners-Lee but Ted Nelson really deserves much of the credit for ideas that later became the web... for that matter so does John Brunner who was astonishingly accurate in his predictions of where computer technology was going... But I once heard Nelson use the phrase "psycho-acoustic tele-dildonics" 30 years before it became realized and for that alone he should be remembered... as well the creators of TRAC ought to be given some credit for what later became the web.
It may be the same in Canada too,or at least some provinces. I can remember a case in Quebec a long time ago involving someone sitting on their step ending up in a published picture. They asked for compensation, were turned down and then sued and won. IIRC the court said merely being visible from the street didn't constitute permission for their image to be published.
My guess is :
The whole thing turns out to be a VR historical re-enactment where the participants are not concious of the fact it is a re-enactment. There are hints to something like this in the first season. Perhaps the re-enactment is part of some anniversary celebrating the victory of humanity over the Cylons (in which case the VR participants behind the avatars are actually all human) or of the extinction of the human race by Cylons (in which case the VR participants behind the avatars are actually all Cylons).
Blockade your roads, shoot at you, demand you pay them money because you are of a different ethnic background...
So-called "reverse racism" is not racism.
Of course it is, it's the same as the (reverse) racism that says, for example, that its allright to give hiring preference to a rich female of colour over a poor white guy.
Maybe they're being simplistic, but they're not racist.
If there is a racially based bias then it's racist. It may not be effective racism but it's still racism. And by the way, in Canada at least, it's not a white society or white government that the natives are dealing with... as is obvious from a simple look.
You know not everybody is out to get something for nothing. In fact some people even make it a point not exploit things to get "something for nothing"...
That may indeed be fair. Of course given that, from a technological point of view, natives were also catapulted several hundred years into the future the non-native portion of society may want to start charging license fees for use by natives of such technologies/inventions as writing, motors, gears, math, electricity, computers, radio, tv, photography, flight, textile mills, metallurgy, etc. etc.
In Canada the worst enemy of natives is frequently natives. The federal government spends something like $20,000 per native per year on reserves yet many natives on reserves live in squalor. The money is allocated to the band and from there it's anybody's guess as to what happens to it because there is no accounting of any kind. When the government tried to amend the law so that there would have to be an open and transparent accounting made, to the natives the money was supposed to help , there were huge protests by native groups about government being paternalistic.
Nothing is stopping them from leaving the reserve and making their way just like everyone else in Canada, so apparently you are wrong.
As far as I can see the argument isn't about whether complications set in, it's about whether the action itself is right or wrong.
Prove that to me. Female circumcision has been proven to, in most forms decrease sexual pleasure. This should be rather obvious, as the tissue with the sensitive nerves is being cut off in these forms. Male circumcision may, or may not, or may even improve pleasure, depending on which article you read.
Then it should also be rather obvious that taking sensitive tissue and continually rubbing it against other surfaces can result in lowered sensitivity leading to decreased sexual satisfaction. Which part is it that you doubt, that years of rubbing a piece of sensitive tissue against a dry surface will lower sensitivity, or that lowered sensitivity will result in decreased sexual satisfaction? Do you have a penis? If you had ever experienced the effect (save the jokes) of rubbing the head against a dry surface you wouldn't be arguing this point.
everyone does not follow proper hygiene
If some people are not following proper hygiene then the solution is to teach them, or not have sex with them, or use a barrier, not to lop off parts of their body. As for circumcision increasing sexual pleasure, it may do so for the partner but I don't believe that it does for the victim.
And, once again, all done without the consent of the victim.
Ummm yes we do know that it has a function. The foreskin protects the head of the penis. Removal of the foreskin results in decreased sensitivity with consequent effects on sexual pleasure. Imagine we were talking about the wholesale and unnecessary surgical alteration of infant female genitalia that would result in women having decreased sexual pleasure later in life... would there be even the slightest doubt that it was wrong?
I'm arguing that it isn't wrong.
That may be what you are attempting but doing something a lot isn't an argument that it isn't wrong. Nor is being good at it.
All the health benefits of circumcision can also be realized by the application of soap and water. As for mutilating... the unnecessary snipping away of flesh, altering both form and function and preventing the previous function provided by the mutilated/removed flesh seems to fall into that category. But if you don't think so then why?
And we've been doing it for years upon years. We know how to do it well now.
Doing something a lot doesn't somehow make it right. The same goes for being good at it. Not to mention that it's all without the informed consent of the patient.
You know not all that long ago the word elitist wasn't generally thought of as a pejorative. God forbid that we should be judgemental and discriminating.
OK we want A!
Don't forget we need to avoid X!
Then we should do B because it will lead us to A!
But to do B we need to do C and C will produce X!
But we want A!
OK all in favor of doing B!
Motion passes easily.
It's also a great way to see the really venal side of human nature in action.
But it's also true that a really huge chunk of the user population isn't dumb and they still have problems with Linux and it isn't their fault.