And here I thought it was just people who did not know how to speak The Queen's english.
From now on when anybody says "hey yous, I wz down the julary stor'n febyuary gett'n all comfterble, wn sudnly a nucular bom det..uhm, det..uhm, blowed up, destroyin n'intregal part of dis here fulla, which was intersting," I'll think "wow, what a well spoken young person using metathesis brilliantly," instead of, "shut the hell up you idiot."
Skype is about marketing, sure thier product might not be as good as existing ones, sure it might flaut standards and use a proprietry protocol, sure it doesn't do this and that... but the long and the short of it is that Skype is getting the mass market attention.
If you think you can do better, well, go for it I look forward to seeing "glomph-o-phone" take the world by storm.
But I think a better focus of your attention would be towards skype, extending it via thier API, and pressuring them into making thier core system better/more open because I don't see Skype going away any time soon. "Skype Me" is going to become the next "Google It" whether you like it or not.
I don't know about the states, but here in NZ emergency calls (111 here) can be made from any mobile phone, wether or not it is currently active on the network/paid up. I believe that landlines are the same here (if your phone is 'disconnected' you can still call 111).
So all that's required is a little bit of hardware, and either a mobile phone (no service providor though) or maybe landline. Emergency numbers are simply routed over that, standard numbers go over the VOIP.
Goddam moderators! Don't moderate these comments anything other than redundant! This discussion comes up every freaking time a story about the rovers is posted.
For the last time, Nasa did consider ways to clean the panels, but it decided wisely that the benefits did not outweigh the costs in doing so both in extra weight and money. It's not just a 5 minute job to bolt on a set of wiper blades.
I'd wager it's a race condition with regard to the simultaneous request from each tab; an extremely unlikely situation made much more likely by the fact that/. is a bit slow today (election story on the front page).
Dmitry was arrested July 17, 2001 in Las Vegas, NV, at the behest of Adobe Systems, according to the DOJ complaint, and charged with distributing a product designed to circumvent copyright protection measures (the AEBPR). He was eventually released on $50,000 bail and restricted to California. In December 2001, was permitted to return home to Russia with his family.
I've used software in Crossover Office, and while it generally works well, it still seems very flaky and slow.
but really the only reason for that is that the software hasn't been 'adjusted' to make it work better with Wine/CXOffice.
It makes much more sense for any company with an existing windows application who is asked for a linux version of the application to simply work with the Wine/Codeweavers team to make it work 100% under that environment. Chances are it's already almost working and would only require some minor changes to either the application code or the wine code to make it 100% functional.
I use IE, Quickbooks and Dreamweaver in CX Office almost daily, as well as some other otherwise unknown stuff that just worked out-of-the-box almost 100% with CX. The only particularly slow thing I've noticed is IE when bringing up a menu, but, well, it's IE so what do you expect.
Errrr, so, you think that somehow each and every CD pressed by Microsoft has some unique identifier *encoded in the software* so that it will only accept one specific key?
Err, nobody expected the towers to fail in such a dramatic way, least of all (I expect, and so they say) the terrorists.
Sure they knew they would inflict large amounts of damage, take out a few floors, but the thinking of the day were that these towers were very well constructed and it would take a hell of a lot more to actually demolish them.
I'm not justifying the action, or lessening it, just saying that it's probably not what they originally thought would happen.
That's what I'm saying - why should people who get married recieve monetary incentives (tax breaks) when the cause or result of the marriage is often children who end up costing the state more.
It's not as if people need encouragement to have children.
No, it's definatly not VR, it's realisitically no different to wearing red-green glasses and watching a 3d movie.
True VR can only be achieved in a handfull of ways, shooting lasers into your eyes is not one of them.
Some examples of real VR possibilities...
1. Holodeck. And I mean, a Holodeck like in Star Trek, nothing less than a fully immersive system, capable of *physically manifesting* (even if it's just "photons and forcefields") an entire environment that you can travel around in and interact with - AS IF IT IS REAL, if you were placed in the holodeck you should not be able to tell it from reality.
2. Induced, assisted and prolonged lucid dreaming. If we can find way to both induce and prolong lucid dreaming, and provide assistance to the dreamer such that they can more easily control the dream. Lucid dreaming is the closest we can get to true VR right now, I think this is our best option for recreational VR, but because we can't (yet) share dreams, or implant designed things into dreams, it's no good for most other tasks.
3. Direct brain interaction. Hook your head right up to the (currently impossibly powerful) computer which will feed all your senses directly, while disabling outside stimulation. It will have to read your mind so that you can interact with the 'environment'. This isn't really realistic currently, but I put it here because who knows about the future.
A litmus test for VR should be that it gives you memories that you can not distinguish for memories of "real world" things you have done. If somebody asks you, "did you ever jump off the top of the grand canyon" and you reply "no, but a computer shot lasers into my eyes to make me see what I might see if I did", then you have not experienced VR.
I guess that's a point, I hadn't considered that before. But I'm not sure that it's valid to say that committed partner relationships lead to a lower cost for the state.
For example, may people currently get married either as a result of, or in preparation for, having children. Children generally go to school. Schooling is generally paid, or at least subsidised by the state, and I think I'd be fairly safe to say that it costs more to send a child through the school system, than it does to keep an adult healthy and happy. And of course there is the healthcare cost for the mother of the children as well.
So by that reasoning alone, the savings made to the general tax payer by couples providing care for each other would at least be equalled by the costs of supporting the children coming from that couple.
Not to mention, if that were truly the case then homosexual couples should be in tax break heaven - far fewer homosexual couples have children, and yet they provide equal care for each other.
That's not the problem. The problem is that if the marriage is not recognized by the government, then it does not give any of the legal and monetary privileges that go with marriage.
Effectivly the state (government) discriminates between long-term commmitted homosexual couples and long-term commmitted heterosexual couples based only on thier relative gender; last I checked sexual discrimination goes against fundamental issues of human rights.
Any body (church) can say "yep, you're married, you may now kiss the other person", but if the government won't say "yep, we see you're married, so you get x, y and z privileges" then the value of the marriage is legally naught (even though perhaps religiously significant).
The solution to the problem is simple, SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE. The state can recognize a union between any two people (even regardless of wether either person is already unioned with another), giving the privileges presently associated with marriage. The church can recognize a marriage between any two people (or, unlikely, more) but without any connection to the state.
People can get neither, one, or both, depending on thier wishes; and of course grandfather existing recognized marriages into a state recognized union.
While we're at it, get rid of any inkling of monetary 'rewards' for unions (marriage), why should people who don't find "that special someone" not be rewarded.
Slashdot Mirror
The next link on this page drops you into the postgres gotchas...
l e. html
http://sql-info.de/mysql/transaction-innodb-tab
Possible != Probable
The magic bullet theory may be possible (wouldn't be a theory otherwise), but wether it is probable is a very very different question.
The same can be said about a certain other large country. Just thier rape of freedoms is a little less advanced, yet.
Wikipedia Knows All
And here I thought it was just people who did not know how to speak The Queen's english.
From now on when anybody says "hey yous, I wz down the julary stor'n febyuary gett'n all comfterble, wn sudnly a nucular bom det..uhm, det..uhm, blowed up, destroyin n'intregal part of dis here fulla, which was intersting," I'll think "wow, what a well spoken young person using metathesis brilliantly," instead of, "shut the hell up you idiot."
Because humans have a bit of trouble drinking salt water. And I guess in that part of the world they need to make thier own drinking water.
You know, water water everywhere...
The Cheat throws a pretty good rave.
have one in the bomb shelter (nintendo)
Planning ahead for hose long boring nuclear winter nights when there's no tv (literally)?
Oh moderators, can ye all be so devoid of humor?
Sure the post is technically informative but it works much better as funny.
Yea, it's a shame bang-paths didn't hang around for the internet boom, it would have made for some interesting water cooler talk
"Yea, so I banged her, and she banged me back, then Fred, you remember Fred, yeah well he banged us both.."
Skype is about marketing, sure thier product might not be as good as existing ones, sure it might flaut standards and use a proprietry protocol, sure it doesn't do this and that... but the long and the short of it is that Skype is getting the mass market attention.
If you think you can do better, well, go for it I look forward to seeing "glomph-o-phone" take the world by storm.
But I think a better focus of your attention would be towards skype, extending it via thier API, and pressuring them into making thier core system better/more open because I don't see Skype going away any time soon. "Skype Me" is going to become the next "Google It" whether you like it or not.
The poster is talkign about the original DIVX format sold by Circuit City, not "DivX ;-)".
1 99.htm
http://hometheater.about.com/library/weekly/aa062
I don't know about the states, but here in NZ emergency calls (111 here) can be made from any mobile phone, wether or not it is currently active on the network/paid up. I believe that landlines are the same here (if your phone is 'disconnected' you can still call 111).
So all that's required is a little bit of hardware, and either a mobile phone (no service providor though) or maybe landline. Emergency numbers are simply routed over that, standard numbers go over the VOIP.
Goddam moderators! Don't moderate these comments anything other than redundant! This discussion comes up every freaking time a story about the rovers is posted.
For the last time, Nasa did consider ways to clean the panels, but it decided wisely that the benefits did not outweigh the costs in doing so both in extra weight and money. It's not just a 5 minute job to bolt on a set of wiper blades.
I'd wager it's a race condition with regard to the simultaneous request from each tab; an extremely unlikely situation made much more likely by the fact that /. is a bit slow today (election story on the front page).
Err, never heard of Quark or Pagestream?
http://www.freesklyarov.org/
Dmitry was arrested July 17, 2001 in Las Vegas, NV, at the behest of Adobe Systems, according to the DOJ complaint, and charged with distributing a product designed to circumvent copyright protection measures (the AEBPR). He was eventually released on $50,000 bail and restricted to California. In December 2001, was permitted to return home to Russia with his family.
but really the only reason for that is that the software hasn't been 'adjusted' to make it work better with Wine/CXOffice.
It makes much more sense for any company with an existing windows application who is asked for a linux version of the application to simply work with the Wine/Codeweavers team to make it work 100% under that environment. Chances are it's already almost working and would only require some minor changes to either the application code or the wine code to make it 100% functional.
I use IE, Quickbooks and Dreamweaver in CX Office almost daily, as well as some other otherwise unknown stuff that just worked out-of-the-box almost 100% with CX. The only particularly slow thing I've noticed is IE when bringing up a menu, but, well, it's IE so what do you expect.
Overclockers mostly, and computer ricers.
Errrr, so, you think that somehow each and every CD pressed by Microsoft has some unique identifier *encoded in the software* so that it will only accept one specific key?
Here's a hint - no.
That site denies access from international IP's, they think that it will reduce the chance of defacement attacks.
Ooooookaaaaay.
Err, nobody expected the towers to fail in such a dramatic way, least of all (I expect, and so they say) the terrorists.
Sure they knew they would inflict large amounts of damage, take out a few floors, but the thinking of the day were that these towers were very well constructed and it would take a hell of a lot more to actually demolish them.
I'm not justifying the action, or lessening it, just saying that it's probably not what they originally thought would happen.
That's what I'm saying - why should people who get married recieve monetary incentives (tax breaks) when the cause or result of the marriage is often children who end up costing the state more.
It's not as if people need encouragement to have children.
No, it's definatly not VR, it's realisitically no different to wearing red-green glasses and watching a 3d movie.
True VR can only be achieved in a handfull of ways, shooting lasers into your eyes is not one of them.
Some examples of real VR possibilities...
1. Holodeck. And I mean, a Holodeck like in Star Trek, nothing less than a fully immersive system, capable of *physically manifesting* (even if it's just "photons and forcefields") an entire environment that you can travel around in and interact with - AS IF IT IS REAL, if you were placed in the holodeck you should not be able to tell it from reality.
2. Induced, assisted and prolonged lucid dreaming. If we can find way to both induce and prolong lucid dreaming, and provide assistance to the dreamer such that they can more easily control the dream. Lucid dreaming is the closest we can get to true VR right now, I think this is our best option for recreational VR, but because we can't (yet) share dreams, or implant designed things into dreams, it's no good for most other tasks.
3. Direct brain interaction. Hook your head right up to the (currently impossibly powerful) computer which will feed all your senses directly, while disabling outside stimulation. It will have to read your mind so that you can interact with the 'environment'. This isn't really realistic currently, but I put it here because who knows about the future.
A litmus test for VR should be that it gives you memories that you can not distinguish for memories of "real world" things you have done. If somebody asks you, "did you ever jump off the top of the grand canyon" and you reply "no, but a computer shot lasers into my eyes to make me see what I might see if I did", then you have not experienced VR.
I guess that's a point, I hadn't considered that before. But I'm not sure that it's valid to say that committed partner relationships lead to a lower cost for the state.
For example, may people currently get married either as a result of, or in preparation for, having children. Children generally go to school. Schooling is generally paid, or at least subsidised by the state, and I think I'd be fairly safe to say that it costs more to send a child through the school system, than it does to keep an adult healthy and happy. And of course there is the healthcare cost for the mother of the children as well.
So by that reasoning alone, the savings made to the general tax payer by couples providing care for each other would at least be equalled by the costs of supporting the children coming from that couple.
Not to mention, if that were truly the case then homosexual couples should be in tax break heaven - far fewer homosexual couples have children, and yet they provide equal care for each other.
That's not the problem. The problem is that if the marriage is not recognized by the government, then it does not give any of the legal and monetary privileges that go with marriage.
Effectivly the state (government) discriminates between long-term commmitted homosexual couples and long-term commmitted heterosexual couples based only on thier relative gender; last I checked sexual discrimination goes against fundamental issues of human rights.
Any body (church) can say "yep, you're married, you may now kiss the other person", but if the government won't say "yep, we see you're married, so you get x, y and z privileges" then the value of the marriage is legally naught (even though perhaps religiously significant).
The solution to the problem is simple, SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE. The state can recognize a union between any two people (even regardless of wether either person is already unioned with another), giving the privileges presently associated with marriage. The church can recognize a marriage between any two people (or, unlikely, more) but without any connection to the state.
People can get neither, one, or both, depending on thier wishes; and of course grandfather existing recognized marriages into a state recognized union.
While we're at it, get rid of any inkling of monetary 'rewards' for unions (marriage), why should people who don't find "that special someone" not be rewarded.