Unfortunately most of those teachers are woefully ineffective. The fact that you didn't encounter such a situation until post-doc is extremely telling.
Fur covered body makes more sense as a replacement to cover such drift. Fur is pretty effective at blocking the sun. Also melanin. Mammals without fur and/or light colored skin get the shaft. Of sunlight.
I like that - "hobbiest". I think you meant hobbyist, but it reads as if you meant "those among us most like hobbits", or something else equally weird.
So, I don't know why short people would want flamethrower pipes on their cars, unless it's a Napoleon complex...
I read it. It offers nothing further. I quite understand the Apple's priority would be to prevent misuse of their system. I'm just not sure that matters. Apple has done a great job thus far - but putting an ad model in the OS is moving in a direction where devices will become unusable. Ad-supported software has existed for a long time, but so has software that misrepresents itself.
And do we really want to embrace a world where targeted advertisements surround us constantly? Of all things Apple has done, lending support to this vision is perhaps the first I truly question. We have enough to contend with Google on this point. Where would we be without them? And yet, what have we given up to get there?
A lot of malware developers would love to have a legitimate point of entry. Gatekeeping will continue to be necessary with this. It seems they are practically asking for attempts to subvert their system.
The real problem occurs if they extend the model outside of the iDevices. Then it would be far too easy to extend as a malware platform.
Yay! Now we'll be able to pay to "get rid of spyware trojan" programs that we foolishly download just like on Windows!
Seriously. I use Macs almost exclusively, and work as an admin for a small software company. I love Apple products. Developers WILL make this if given the tools and opportunity. Apple is opening the door for it to become accepted practice where such programs have been labeled "malware" up to now.
I'd love to see this as something else, but I can only see it as a plan to give a very shady sector of the industry some legitimacy. It's great for shady developers, but could be terrible for end users and for honest small developers.
The developers will develop apps that do some trivial thing and also install an iAds extension. Don't forget how many developers have spent serious time developing trojan spyware whose main purpose is to deliver targeted ads at random intervals.
These are not the developers Apple should be courting.
More likely that they would embed the code in a browser and you could get free wifi on your device by watching ads.
That would accomplish your purpose, which might be cool, but perhaps the whole technology would also introduce vulnerabilities. Imagine visiting a certain website and from then on, you get periodic ads for viagra and pr0n whenever you surf. Apple is developing the back-end for a browser-spam trojan embedded in the OS.
Let's not forget how many companies have been vilified for doing exactly the same thing on Windows. It's generally called spyware. You remember - some of your friends must have downloaded that cool program that put a dancing purple ape on your screen that watched your browsing habits and periodically suggested products. Later, another program let you design your own avatar, and they bought serious prime-time tv advertising time to promote downloads. Can't recall the name of that one...
After they change it to a profit-oriented | public domain dichotomy, they will work to co-opt the public domain. This is easily accomplished by doing compilations, revisions, or other transformation to a public domain work. Then they will attempt to ensure that any version that remains in the public domain becomes unavailable or that its source is sufficiently unpopular/unrecognized. At the same time, they will lobby for laws which will undermine any public domain repositories. They are already lobbying to have facts themselves copyrighted (as opposed to compilations of facts, which are currently copyrightable). The public domain is easy for them to undermine, while free culture licenses are next to impossible to undermine under the laws they have already succeeded in securing.
This strategy could be combated by setting up non-profit public domain repositories which take the same strategy of re-copyrighting works from the public domain, while refusing to license the works to for-profit ventures and making them available to the public freely or if that won't work through a membership mechanism, or some other strategy. This counter-strategy will inevitably fragment and require new strategies, etc, etc.
Really? Google directly profits from YouTube (at least, that's the business idea). Citizens don't, at least not commercially. I think it makes perfect sense to have Google responsible in some way, and I think this safe harbor provision makes perfect sense, if we're talking about commercial activity. When we're talking about non-commercial activity, none of it makes sense. But remember, if it's YouTube, it definitely IS commercial activity for Google, even if the users are not engaging in commercial activity.
If someone wants to run their own (non-commercial) servers and put stuff up (only personally - not providing other users the ability to do so), then I think we're in a different arena as far as copyright. That's when it's arguable that provisions like fair use and the free culture ideals should start to apply. Just so long as there are no commercial activities run alongside - as in ads placed on the page, or any other commercial type of activity.
The problem is that when it comes to the internet, people are still thinking that we're in the early days of the net where universities (non-profit educational, not commercial) hosted most sites, and there were no advertisements or other commercial activity. Now, the internet is almost purely commercial. In fact, even if it's a personal, non-commercial site - if it's hosted in a commercial facility, there's a pretty good argument that it has commercial activity associated with it. Someone is profiting, even if it's only for bandwidth.
Bye-bye cultural phenomenon of the net. We deeply and sincerely miss you. Well, at least we miss the possibilities you held.
around dinner time on the summer solstice, the year of our Lord MMX
What it lacks in precision and sortability, it makes up for in descriptiveness and literary quality. Incidentally, it was parsed with reasonable accuracy by Google Calendar's quick add, although the same time next year was not... I'll have to report that bug.
Newer versions of Displayport can run just about anything over one cable. Multiple displays plus an auxiliary channel that can be used for USB or other peripherals. Sounds like just the docking solution you're looking for.
It seems to me that you could get incredible fidelity and preservation characteristics for audio recordings by using photographic media, which could then be played back either with a machine or as you suggest, by scanning. I'm sure it would be possible to construct a continuous feed scanner that could output either to an image file or process directly to an audio stream.
Either way, it seems like these guys took the long way through the problem, essentially trying to re-create an original machine rather than using modern technology to read what was on the tape. I'm guessing a continuous-feed scanner with reels attached could be hacked relatively quickly from mostly commodity parts, and the doing the rest in software would be far more interesting and hold far more long-term usefulness. I'm betting you could get it to produce an image plus simultaneous analog and digital data-streams from one sensor.
Rubber ice scraper? Did that work? I've practically had to use razors to get between the case, and then they just bend! Plastic scrapers were no match, metal spatulas bent - it took something of a good thickness just to withstand the pry pressure needed, and you might as well bury the plastic bottom. After all that, it's a bad memory controller, not bad ram, and so it was a pointless exercise.
If you got a rubber ice scraper to work, my hat's off to you.
The Time Capsule in this form factor with its internal power supply was prone to overheating. I dealt with one of those, removed the internal and gave it an external supply.
After looking at it and thinking it through, the internal power supply on the mini does not concern me too much. The Time Capsule has a plastic case and very little in the way of cooling possibilities. By contrast, the new mini has an aluminum enclosure that will dissipate heat much more effectively and looks like it also has a well-designed cooling system. I'd be pretty comfortable getting one of these myself. I hope I'm right.
Looks like it's a true unibody - all the innards were stuffed into that hole in the bottom, and there are screws visible under the bottom cover in addition to the exposed RAM. If that holds true, then completely disassembling this should be orders of magnitude easier than just getting an old mini apart. Perhaps as easy as disassembling a unibody Macbook (dead easy even if you do have to be careful).
Seriously? You believe that? You can't even have any idea of what most Americans believe from polls, they are so slanted.
Sure, people might not think the healthcare bill as passed is the best, or even good. But most people are now aware that the healthcare system is so out of proportion that it threatens to eat both itself and the rest of our society with it. 1/7 of people are employed in healthcare, it's 1/7 of the GDP, and there are still a great number of people who can't get healthcare. That's an emergency. If the healthcare industry had somehow tanked along with real-estate and the financial markets, our economy would have been doomed. As it stands, it's only a matter of time before healthcare tanks. Nobody, including Obama, can do anything about it because it would necessarily involve relieving millions of healthcare "administrative support" personnel of their jobs.
I'm not hopeful about the healthcare bill that was passed, but we'll just have to wait and see. Doing nothing would probably be worse, and there appears that there would be zero chance of doing something really intelligent and effective. So while I'd rather have a return to a time when nobody is insured (and thus the vast majority of healthcare is extremely affordable b/c 75%+ of overhead is eliminated), I can see that the real solution is going to have to come from some type of top-down control.
No, he's probably just a designer. You know, the people who need to use design tools, and who do things that can only be effectively and efficiently done in Flash/ActionScript presently because no good design tools exist for the alternatives? Design tools, not development tools. There is a difference. While development tools are ultimately better in some sense, designers are only worth their pay if they can be extremely productive, and design tools allow that kind of efficiency coupled with an interface tailored to the way designers think and work. It's Adobe's bread and butter. Adobe does, after all, have a working business model selling design tools which wouldn't exist if this were not a tremendously large need.
It's hard having to explain that things got the way they are for a reason. Everyone, even designers, wishes that it hadn't ended up this way. Probably even Adobe wishes it had ended up better, but they rightly see that it would not be cost effective to actually fix Flash. They plan to continue cornering the design market whether it's Flash or HTML5 or something else. Get it? They literally don't make any money from Flash - they give it away completely free. They don't even make royalties on things designed in/for Flash. They only make money selling design tools, and Flash has dominated because it has been the only effective and efficient way to design and implement the kind of dynamic/interactive content that real designers make, and must make and change very quickly in order to survive.
It's amazing that people think that there could be a provable solution to cap a literal force of nature.
Seriously - ever tried to cap an erupting volcano? How about coming up with a provable solution to cap an erupting volcano?
Yes, it's as if people believe the government and oil industry geniuses are so immeasurably smart that they can control geological processes. Similar to your doctor analogy, which of course happens all the time and is, also similarly, completely allowed in our society. People are questioning their doctors more and more, and doctors are upping the ante to keep their status as unquestionable gods. So it goes with all experts. The problem is not that people trust the experts, it's that they think that they themselves are so stupid that they could never question the experts, especially when what the experts are offering is so attractive.
If you're suggesting that the inherent impossibility of devising provable solutions for such catastrophe is an absolute bar to this type of industry - well that's a coherent position with which I might be somewhat inclined to agree, but I sincerely doubt you'll find many other people willing to even entertain the idea when it's expressed so clearly and directly. People are always willing to take a deal that's too good to be true.
Try ZFS-Fuse. It's stable and works for me every bit as well as ZFS on OpenSolaris or Nexenta. Only a couple of features missing, like iSCSI property, and nfsshare property is being tested. NFS sharing can still be done, just not with the ZFS property quite yet - this might be possible with iSCSI.
Shrinking would be better, but I keep flexibility in my pools by using mirroring rather than raidz. Mirrors can be detached and formed into a smaller pool, then data copied to it (just make sure you have a backup before detaching mirrors from a pool, but you should already).
I use 9.10 with ZFS-Fuse and share via AFP with netatalk for my Macs. This works perfectly, and has finally become easy to set up and get working properly. All the dependencies should be good in 10.04, and I only had to manually grab later versions of two packages for 9.10.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of us lurked for a few MORE years. And then frankly question why we went ahead and registered at all, when maybe we should have simply left.
Unfortunately most of those teachers are woefully ineffective. The fact that you didn't encounter such a situation until post-doc is extremely telling.
Fur covered body makes more sense as a replacement to cover such drift. Fur is pretty effective at blocking the sun. Also melanin. Mammals without fur and/or light colored skin get the shaft. Of sunlight.
I like that - "hobbiest". I think you meant hobbyist, but it reads as if you meant "those among us most like hobbits", or something else equally weird.
So, I don't know why short people would want flamethrower pipes on their cars, unless it's a Napoleon complex...
I read it. It offers nothing further. I quite understand the Apple's priority would be to prevent misuse of their system. I'm just not sure that matters. Apple has done a great job thus far - but putting an ad model in the OS is moving in a direction where devices will become unusable. Ad-supported software has existed for a long time, but so has software that misrepresents itself.
And do we really want to embrace a world where targeted advertisements surround us constantly? Of all things Apple has done, lending support to this vision is perhaps the first I truly question. We have enough to contend with Google on this point. Where would we be without them? And yet, what have we given up to get there?
A lot of malware developers would love to have a legitimate point of entry. Gatekeeping will continue to be necessary with this. It seems they are practically asking for attempts to subvert their system.
The real problem occurs if they extend the model outside of the iDevices. Then it would be far too easy to extend as a malware platform.
Yay! Now we'll be able to pay to "get rid of spyware trojan" programs that we foolishly download just like on Windows!
Seriously. I use Macs almost exclusively, and work as an admin for a small software company. I love Apple products. Developers WILL make this if given the tools and opportunity. Apple is opening the door for it to become accepted practice where such programs have been labeled "malware" up to now.
I'd love to see this as something else, but I can only see it as a plan to give a very shady sector of the industry some legitimacy. It's great for shady developers, but could be terrible for end users and for honest small developers.
The developers will develop apps that do some trivial thing and also install an iAds extension. Don't forget how many developers have spent serious time developing trojan spyware whose main purpose is to deliver targeted ads at random intervals.
These are not the developers Apple should be courting.
More likely that they would embed the code in a browser and you could get free wifi on your device by watching ads.
That would accomplish your purpose, which might be cool, but perhaps the whole technology would also introduce vulnerabilities. Imagine visiting a certain website and from then on, you get periodic ads for viagra and pr0n whenever you surf. Apple is developing the back-end for a browser-spam trojan embedded in the OS.
Let's not forget how many companies have been vilified for doing exactly the same thing on Windows. It's generally called spyware. You remember - some of your friends must have downloaded that cool program that put a dancing purple ape on your screen that watched your browsing habits and periodically suggested products. Later, another program let you design your own avatar, and they bought serious prime-time tv advertising time to promote downloads. Can't recall the name of that one...
The first review of that device lists some really good features:
* Get a beating
* WIfi with good capacity of sign
* Lovely Screem
* Excellent finish (good matter of construction of the carcass and pieces)
But then again it sounds like a usability nightmare.
After they change it to a profit-oriented | public domain dichotomy, they will work to co-opt the public domain. This is easily accomplished by doing compilations, revisions, or other transformation to a public domain work. Then they will attempt to ensure that any version that remains in the public domain becomes unavailable or that its source is sufficiently unpopular/unrecognized. At the same time, they will lobby for laws which will undermine any public domain repositories. They are already lobbying to have facts themselves copyrighted (as opposed to compilations of facts, which are currently copyrightable). The public domain is easy for them to undermine, while free culture licenses are next to impossible to undermine under the laws they have already succeeded in securing.
This strategy could be combated by setting up non-profit public domain repositories which take the same strategy of re-copyrighting works from the public domain, while refusing to license the works to for-profit ventures and making them available to the public freely or if that won't work through a membership mechanism, or some other strategy. This counter-strategy will inevitably fragment and require new strategies, etc, etc.
Really? Google directly profits from YouTube (at least, that's the business idea). Citizens don't, at least not commercially. I think it makes perfect sense to have Google responsible in some way, and I think this safe harbor provision makes perfect sense, if we're talking about commercial activity. When we're talking about non-commercial activity, none of it makes sense. But remember, if it's YouTube, it definitely IS commercial activity for Google, even if the users are not engaging in commercial activity.
If someone wants to run their own (non-commercial) servers and put stuff up (only personally - not providing other users the ability to do so), then I think we're in a different arena as far as copyright. That's when it's arguable that provisions like fair use and the free culture ideals should start to apply. Just so long as there are no commercial activities run alongside - as in ads placed on the page, or any other commercial type of activity.
The problem is that when it comes to the internet, people are still thinking that we're in the early days of the net where universities (non-profit educational, not commercial) hosted most sites, and there were no advertisements or other commercial activity. Now, the internet is almost purely commercial. In fact, even if it's a personal, non-commercial site - if it's hosted in a commercial facility, there's a pretty good argument that it has commercial activity associated with it. Someone is profiting, even if it's only for bandwidth.
Bye-bye cultural phenomenon of the net. We deeply and sincerely miss you. Well, at least we miss the possibilities you held.
Dead in a ditch is significantly less painful, long term. There are fates worse than death, both for an individual and for an individual's family.
And I say that right now it is:
around dinner time on the summer solstice, the year of our Lord MMX
What it lacks in precision and sortability, it makes up for in descriptiveness and literary quality. Incidentally, it was parsed with reasonable accuracy by Google Calendar's quick add, although the same time next year was not... I'll have to report that bug.
Newer versions of Displayport can run just about anything over one cable. Multiple displays plus an auxiliary channel that can be used for USB or other peripherals. Sounds like just the docking solution you're looking for.
My thoughts as well. However, judging by the opinions of the archivists at the Library of Congress, photographic media are a terrifically better long-term preservation strategy than magnetic tape or magnetic media of any variety: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/09/gallery-digitizing-t.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+boingboing/iBag+(Boing+Boing)
It seems to me that you could get incredible fidelity and preservation characteristics for audio recordings by using photographic media, which could then be played back either with a machine or as you suggest, by scanning. I'm sure it would be possible to construct a continuous feed scanner that could output either to an image file or process directly to an audio stream.
Either way, it seems like these guys took the long way through the problem, essentially trying to re-create an original machine rather than using modern technology to read what was on the tape. I'm guessing a continuous-feed scanner with reels attached could be hacked relatively quickly from mostly commodity parts, and the doing the rest in software would be far more interesting and hold far more long-term usefulness. I'm betting you could get it to produce an image plus simultaneous analog and digital data-streams from one sensor.
Rubber ice scraper? Did that work? I've practically had to use razors to get between the case, and then they just bend! Plastic scrapers were no match, metal spatulas bent - it took something of a good thickness just to withstand the pry pressure needed, and you might as well bury the plastic bottom. After all that, it's a bad memory controller, not bad ram, and so it was a pointless exercise.
If you got a rubber ice scraper to work, my hat's off to you.
The Time Capsule in this form factor with its internal power supply was prone to overheating. I dealt with one of those, removed the internal and gave it an external supply.
After looking at it and thinking it through, the internal power supply on the mini does not concern me too much. The Time Capsule has a plastic case and very little in the way of cooling possibilities. By contrast, the new mini has an aluminum enclosure that will dissipate heat much more effectively and looks like it also has a well-designed cooling system. I'd be pretty comfortable getting one of these myself. I hope I'm right.
Looks like it's a true unibody - all the innards were stuffed into that hole in the bottom, and there are screws visible under the bottom cover in addition to the exposed RAM. If that holds true, then completely disassembling this should be orders of magnitude easier than just getting an old mini apart. Perhaps as easy as disassembling a unibody Macbook (dead easy even if you do have to be careful).
Seriously? You believe that? You can't even have any idea of what most Americans believe from polls, they are so slanted.
Sure, people might not think the healthcare bill as passed is the best, or even good. But most people are now aware that the healthcare system is so out of proportion that it threatens to eat both itself and the rest of our society with it. 1/7 of people are employed in healthcare, it's 1/7 of the GDP, and there are still a great number of people who can't get healthcare. That's an emergency. If the healthcare industry had somehow tanked along with real-estate and the financial markets, our economy would have been doomed. As it stands, it's only a matter of time before healthcare tanks. Nobody, including Obama, can do anything about it because it would necessarily involve relieving millions of healthcare "administrative support" personnel of their jobs.
I'm not hopeful about the healthcare bill that was passed, but we'll just have to wait and see. Doing nothing would probably be worse, and there appears that there would be zero chance of doing something really intelligent and effective. So while I'd rather have a return to a time when nobody is insured (and thus the vast majority of healthcare is extremely affordable b/c 75%+ of overhead is eliminated), I can see that the real solution is going to have to come from some type of top-down control.
Now people will finally have a reason to bring the iPad into their bed and make it an intimate device, as Jobs envisioned.
No, he's probably just a designer. You know, the people who need to use design tools, and who do things that can only be effectively and efficiently done in Flash/ActionScript presently because no good design tools exist for the alternatives? Design tools, not development tools. There is a difference. While development tools are ultimately better in some sense, designers are only worth their pay if they can be extremely productive, and design tools allow that kind of efficiency coupled with an interface tailored to the way designers think and work. It's Adobe's bread and butter. Adobe does, after all, have a working business model selling design tools which wouldn't exist if this were not a tremendously large need.
It's hard having to explain that things got the way they are for a reason. Everyone, even designers, wishes that it hadn't ended up this way. Probably even Adobe wishes it had ended up better, but they rightly see that it would not be cost effective to actually fix Flash. They plan to continue cornering the design market whether it's Flash or HTML5 or something else. Get it? They literally don't make any money from Flash - they give it away completely free. They don't even make royalties on things designed in/for Flash. They only make money selling design tools, and Flash has dominated because it has been the only effective and efficient way to design and implement the kind of dynamic/interactive content that real designers make, and must make and change very quickly in order to survive.
It's amazing that people think that there could be a provable solution to cap a literal force of nature.
Seriously - ever tried to cap an erupting volcano? How about coming up with a provable solution to cap an erupting volcano?
Yes, it's as if people believe the government and oil industry geniuses are so immeasurably smart that they can control geological processes. Similar to your doctor analogy, which of course happens all the time and is, also similarly, completely allowed in our society. People are questioning their doctors more and more, and doctors are upping the ante to keep their status as unquestionable gods. So it goes with all experts. The problem is not that people trust the experts, it's that they think that they themselves are so stupid that they could never question the experts, especially when what the experts are offering is so attractive.
If you're suggesting that the inherent impossibility of devising provable solutions for such catastrophe is an absolute bar to this type of industry - well that's a coherent position with which I might be somewhat inclined to agree, but I sincerely doubt you'll find many other people willing to even entertain the idea when it's expressed so clearly and directly. People are always willing to take a deal that's too good to be true.
Try ZFS-Fuse. It's stable and works for me every bit as well as ZFS on OpenSolaris or Nexenta. Only a couple of features missing, like iSCSI property, and nfsshare property is being tested. NFS sharing can still be done, just not with the ZFS property quite yet - this might be possible with iSCSI.
Shrinking would be better, but I keep flexibility in my pools by using mirroring rather than raidz. Mirrors can be detached and formed into a smaller pool, then data copied to it (just make sure you have a backup before detaching mirrors from a pool, but you should already).
I use 9.10 with ZFS-Fuse and share via AFP with netatalk for my Macs. This works perfectly, and has finally become easy to set up and get working properly. All the dependencies should be good in 10.04, and I only had to manually grab later versions of two packages for 9.10.
Does it do scrubbing when there is redundancy? FSCK is not good enough - scrubbing, data repair, and reporting of all data errors is incredible.