If Smart Folders detect porn, and put all my porn into one folder, then I'll literally have a hundred thousand files in one folder. I doubt Finder, Explorer, or Nautilus can handle browsing such a beast.
Unless; Smart Folders can automatically put my porn into; Readheads, Asian, Lesbian, Threesomes, Celebrities, etc. . . .
Worst answer: "if you want to find out what my code does, read it." (. . . then worship me for my superior ability at obfuscating functionality through obtuse syntax.)
Gee, I wish I had a place where my kids could breathe public air without mercury or sulfuric acid pollutants. Why doesn't anyone ever think of the kids?
The Canadian Copyright Act specifically allows personal copies of music to be made. The U.S.A. has never had an equivalent exclusion in its copyright laws.
Not true. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Unfortunately - it's so vaguely worded, and the big media outlets have spewed so much propaganda, along with armies of high-priced lobbyists, what's written in law is pretty much useless.
Shuttle Orbiter was designed for multiple re-use. Get it? The whole point was to re-use the vehicle many times, over a period of years, or decades. You can upgrade computers and avionics, even engines (was done on the Shuttles). But you can't upgrade a major component like the friggin airframe, without building what's essentially a new vehicle, which defeats the purpose of reusability.
Your points on the space station, I totally agree with. The Shuttle? We probably would have been better off with an evolutionary, staged approach (build a few smaller orbiters in successive generations, apply lessons learned from previous generations at each stage). This was actually the original plan (modeled on the successful Gemini->Apollo approach taken beforehand). But there was a fear that funding continuity would be at risk - which is a common problem in all government contracting, which leads to inflating projects to get the biggest contract, which you know will be cut back or cut short later.
They didn't like my idea of covering the wing leading-edge with foam to cushion against debris strikes. (not insulating foam, cushioning foam)
The wing doesn't need to generate lift on takeoff. On reentry, the foam would burn off long before the wing needed to generate lift. In fact, the foam could have heat-ablation properties for the early stages of reentry.
In the end, the feeling people get seeing their citizens on another planet can arguable have more of an impact on that society than spending the same resources on robot missions.
Yes, a feeling I know well. A feeling that gets lost somehow while watching the Foxumentary about how it was all a hoax, and realizing that most people are believing the hoax that is the Foxumentary, instead of the reality that was the moon landing.:(
When I directed my friends to locate Spybot Search And Destroy via Google, they got redirected to a software site that claimed to be Spybot Search and Destroy - but the software would not CLEAN infected systems unless you paid. What you end up installing, of course, just installs MORE spyware.
So when you point freinds to Spybot Search and Destroy, you've got to give them the actual download link.
I originally felt good that Bush would be a proponent of space and science.
Being a bit of a close follower of the career and loyalties of this man, I immediately saw his "proposal" for a Mars trip for what it was.
A plan to gut the science side of NASA, in order to accomplish the following: 1. Divert taxpayer funds AWAY from projects that are collecting data which proves Global Warming and other "liberal agenda" items. (not the least of which is the disproof of the "Flat Earth" theory).
2. Divert taxpayer funds instead to what will effectively be a massive pro-US PR campaign.
3. Divert taxpayer funds instead to what will effectively be a massive pork handout to companies located primarily in The South.
4. Be able to crow in 20 years that "Mars was a Republican Idea" (thus undoing all the credit Kennedy gets for The Moon). (same idea with Social Security privatization).
Since the "go to Mars" plan was announced, absolutely every single development that has taken place fully supports my above 4 points.
This discussion is getting OT, but it has to be said;
The basic premise of all neocon though boils down to: Nature is forcing us to fight for survival, therefore, we cannot accept the luxuries of civility. It was a fight for survival against communism, now it's a fight for survival against terrorism (or "islamofacsism"). We're told now, that we can't afford the luxury of environmentalism, because that would impact our economic competitiveness, and we'd be overtaken by countries who do not have any concern for the environment.
Environmentalism, in itself, uses this rationale.
And to differing degrees, each line of reasoning is valid, of course. Because no matter what rules our civilization makes to improve civility, it's all existing in nature, which is pervaded by the Law of the Jungle.
The bottom line is, despite the Capitalist philosophy of "greed is the ultimate human motivator" - the truth is, fear, is really the ultimate human motivator. And the failing is, that neither of these are (or should be) the only human motivator. But when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.
A domain name is essentially a machine's hostname, and should bear little to no relationship to the name of a company which "owns" the machine. For example: German companies might have an umlaut in the name. But their servers' domain name can't.
Corporate Names should represent a discrete namespace from domain names, and web-browsers should support being able to map that namespace over to domain names. Copyright/Trademark law should only apply to this Corporate Name namespace, and not EVER to a technical concern like a DNS Domain Name.
I'm all for making wi-fi highly and widely available, but what happens when someone comes along and uses this as a way to censor content, or worse, gather private information? What happens when some Free Market Fundamentalist gets elected in Dayton, and hands over the whole shebang, built at public expense, to a private operator?
Build it, sure, but when you add-in controls to prevent these kinds of abuses, it's going to make the whole operation look less efficient (thus validating the claims of the Free Market Fundamentalists).
Out of any sample of 100 managers, customers, users, etc. you'll never ever not once ever find 100 people who are 100% satisfied.
On the other hand, when my manager asks me how long it will take to finish task X, I estimate, I carefully weigh all the risks, I imagine disasters, unforseen gotchas, catch-22's, last-minute re-architecting, I anticipate feature-creep. . . then I multiply that by 10.
And at the end of the project, I'm still wondering how we ended up so far behind.
I know that SOME OTHER developers (not naming names) promise rosy schedules to their managers in order to get leeway on vacations, or to get the privilege of working a particular problem or with a particular tool or technology, then act all suprised when they end up behind. Which is essentially the same thing the Program Manager does when he tells Gartner that they'll have the absolute killer-app done by next month, or what a salesperson does to convince a customer that the patch that will fix their problem will come out next month (so please please please don't switch to our competitor. . . ).
That's probably the biggest source of this problem.
Right now, I'm currently in a project to copy all of my Vinyl LPs to digital media, via my old turntable, a preamp, and Audacity.
I'm not sure how much longer my turntable will hold out.
I heard that NASA was having a similar problem a few years back, GIGABYTES of date from space-probes was being lost because it was stored on tape (magnetic?) for which there were only a few readers available, so the media was degrading at a higher rate than they could recover it, given the volume of data, and throughput of their readers.
Considering the COST to obtain this data in the first place - I find it deeply disturbing that their IT people didn't have a schedule for media rotation, and upgrade to new formats over time.
This device is designed for aeropsace applications; that is, it's a lightweight solar cell. At the bottom, there's a blurb about being able to supply electricity at commercially viable prices - but electricity is currently generated by oil, which is a volotile commodity, so it depends on how much oil-generated electricity "costs" on a given day.
Not too many years from now, oil demand will permanently outstrip supply - so when that happens, solar will probably become permanently economically viable. At which time, mass-production will drive down initial costs.
The issue of how long a given solar cell produces usefull power is also part of it - because if, over the life of the cell, it produces electricity of a given market value, above what it cost to make, then it's "economically viable" - therefore, of the three factors involved in determining "economic viability"
1. Initial cost to produce. 2. Longevity of the cell. 3. Market value of electricity over the life of the cell.
#1 is not the crucial variable. #2 also, really isn't a crucial variable. #3 IS. So if electricity is cheap, or if the cell doesn't last long (both of which are the current barriers to solar power being "economically viable") then it's not worth it.
When electricity becomes expensive (compared to today) - then solar power becomes more attractive.
Or, if some new type of solar cell becomes available that will have a useful lifespan of say, 50 years, instead of 20, that will make a difference. But the main factor is the cheapness of electricity. (some folks of the green persuasion might even say that electricity does not currently cost what it should, that there are many "hidden costs" - like funding wars to secure petroleum, ecological costs of the waste products, etc. - Kinda makes all this "free market" talk sound kinda silly.)
Slashdot Mirror
Call it FUDhorn.
MORE advanced than grep?
Maybe more (nontechnical) user-freindly. But can these search engines use RegEx syntax? Hell No.
In my book, that's LESS advanced.
That scares me.
If Smart Folders detect porn, and put all my porn into one folder, then I'll literally have a hundred thousand files in one folder. I doubt Finder, Explorer, or Nautilus can handle browsing such a beast.
Unless; Smart Folders can automatically put my porn into; Readheads, Asian, Lesbian, Threesomes, Celebrities, etc. . . .
No shit, Sherlock. :)
Worst answer:
"if you want to find out what my code does, read it." (. . . then worship me for my superior ability at obfuscating functionality through obtuse syntax.)
I write software for the Air Force (under a contractor), and Unix most certainly is *not* banned.
Gee, I wish I had a place where my kids could breathe public air without mercury or sulfuric acid pollutants. Why doesn't anyone ever think of the kids?
The Canadian Copyright Act specifically allows personal copies of music to be made. The U.S.A. has never had an equivalent exclusion in its copyright laws.
Not true.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Unfortunately - it's so vaguely worded, and the big media outlets have spewed so much propaganda, along with armies of high-priced lobbyists, what's written in law is pretty much useless.
Freind of mine just learned this lesson the hard way.
Her 8 year old son, (home-schooled) was running as Administrator, and changed the password and forgot it.
DOH!
6 months of schoolwork LOST.
Apollo vehicle was designed for SINGLE USE.
Shuttle Orbiter was designed for multiple re-use. Get it? The whole point was to re-use the vehicle many times, over a period of years, or decades. You can upgrade computers and avionics, even engines (was done on the Shuttles). But you can't upgrade a major component like the friggin airframe, without building what's essentially a new vehicle, which defeats the purpose of reusability.
Your points on the space station, I totally agree with. The Shuttle? We probably would have been better off with an evolutionary, staged approach (build a few smaller orbiters in successive generations, apply lessons learned from previous generations at each stage). This was actually the original plan (modeled on the successful Gemini->Apollo approach taken beforehand). But there was a fear that funding continuity would be at risk - which is a common problem in all government contracting, which leads to inflating projects to get the biggest contract, which you know will be cut back or cut short later.
They didn't like my idea of covering the wing leading-edge with foam to cushion against debris strikes. (not insulating foam, cushioning foam)
The wing doesn't need to generate lift on takeoff.
On reentry, the foam would burn off long before the wing needed to generate lift. In fact, the foam could have heat-ablation properties for the early stages of reentry.
It would probably look kind of dorky though.
In the end, the feeling people get seeing their citizens on another planet can arguable have more of an impact on that society than spending the same resources on robot missions.
:(
Yes, a feeling I know well. A feeling that gets lost somehow while watching the Foxumentary about how it was all a hoax, and realizing that most people are believing the hoax that is the Foxumentary, instead of the reality that was the moon landing.
When I directed my friends to locate Spybot Search And Destroy via Google, they got redirected to a software site that claimed to be Spybot Search and Destroy - but the software would not CLEAN infected systems unless you paid. What you end up installing, of course, just installs MORE spyware.
So when you point freinds to Spybot Search and Destroy, you've got to give them the actual download link.
I originally felt good that Bush would be a proponent of space and science.
Being a bit of a close follower of the career and loyalties of this man, I immediately saw his "proposal" for a Mars trip for what it was.
A plan to gut the science side of NASA, in order to accomplish the following:
1. Divert taxpayer funds AWAY from projects that are collecting data which proves Global Warming and other "liberal agenda" items. (not the least of which is the disproof of the "Flat Earth" theory).
2. Divert taxpayer funds instead to what will effectively be a massive pro-US PR campaign.
3. Divert taxpayer funds instead to what will effectively be a massive pork handout to companies located primarily in The South.
4. Be able to crow in 20 years that "Mars was a Republican Idea" (thus undoing all the credit Kennedy gets for The Moon). (same idea with Social Security privatization).
Since the "go to Mars" plan was announced, absolutely every single development that has taken place fully supports my above 4 points.
As a government contractor, and veteran of the dotcom era, what you're talking about is basically the same thing as what's called "feature creep".
This discussion is getting OT, but it has to be said;
The basic premise of all neocon though boils down to: Nature is forcing us to fight for survival, therefore, we cannot accept the luxuries of civility. It was a fight for survival against communism, now it's a fight for survival against terrorism (or "islamofacsism"). We're told now, that we can't afford the luxury of environmentalism, because that would impact our economic competitiveness, and we'd be overtaken by countries who do not have any concern for the environment.
Environmentalism, in itself, uses this rationale.
And to differing degrees, each line of reasoning is valid, of course. Because no matter what rules our civilization makes to improve civility, it's all existing in nature, which is pervaded by the Law of the Jungle.
The bottom line is, despite the Capitalist philosophy of "greed is the ultimate human motivator" - the truth is, fear, is really the ultimate human motivator. And the failing is, that neither of these are (or should be) the only human motivator. But when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.
A domain name is essentially a machine's hostname, and should bear little to no relationship to the name of a company which "owns" the machine. For example: German companies might have an umlaut in the name. But their servers' domain name can't.
Corporate Names should represent a discrete namespace from domain names, and web-browsers should support being able to map that namespace over to domain names. Copyright/Trademark law should only apply to this Corporate Name namespace, and not EVER to a technical concern like a DNS Domain Name.
I'm all for making wi-fi highly and widely available, but what happens when someone comes along and uses this as a way to censor content, or worse, gather private information? What happens when some Free Market Fundamentalist gets elected in Dayton, and hands over the whole shebang, built at public expense, to a private operator?
Build it, sure, but when you add-in controls to prevent these kinds of abuses, it's going to make the whole operation look less efficient (thus validating the claims of the Free Market Fundamentalists).
Well, the fact is;
You Can't Please Everybody.
Out of any sample of 100 managers, customers, users, etc. you'll never ever not once ever find 100 people who are 100% satisfied.
On the other hand, when my manager asks me how long it will take to finish task X, I estimate, I carefully weigh all the risks, I imagine disasters, unforseen gotchas, catch-22's, last-minute re-architecting, I anticipate feature-creep. . . then I multiply that by 10.
And at the end of the project, I'm still wondering how we ended up so far behind.
I know that SOME OTHER developers (not naming names) promise rosy schedules to their managers in order to get leeway on vacations, or to get the privilege of working a particular problem or with a particular tool or technology, then act all suprised when they end up behind. Which is essentially the same thing the Program Manager does when he tells Gartner that they'll have the absolute killer-app done by next month, or what a salesperson does to convince a customer that the patch that will fix their problem will come out next month (so please please please don't switch to our competitor. . . ).
That's probably the biggest source of this problem.
heh, kiss "due process" goodbye fella.
9/11 changed everything.
They are free to selectively enforce any law against anyone they can classify as a "terrorist".
(too bad they don't use this technique against the Terri-ists)
Right now, I'm currently in a project to copy all of my Vinyl LPs to digital media, via my old turntable, a preamp, and Audacity.
I'm not sure how much longer my turntable will hold out.
I heard that NASA was having a similar problem a few years back, GIGABYTES of date from space-probes was being lost because it was stored on tape (magnetic?) for which there were only a few readers available, so the media was degrading at a higher rate than they could recover it, given the volume of data, and throughput of their readers.
Considering the COST to obtain this data in the first place - I find it deeply disturbing that their IT people didn't have a schedule for media rotation, and upgrade to new formats over time.
How can something be a "kill bill" parody, when kill bill itself was a parody?
Extreme Right and Extreme Left are functionally identical.
It's not too late to move back to the Center people. . .
Tivo. . .
Monthly Fee for Guide=You Lose.
Lifetime Membership (deal altered unilaterally by popups)=You Lose.
Monthly-fee DVD rental is looking more and more attractive every day. . .
I RTFA (for once).
This device is designed for aeropsace applications; that is, it's a lightweight solar cell. At the bottom, there's a blurb about being able to supply electricity at commercially viable prices - but electricity is currently generated by oil, which is a volotile commodity, so it depends on how much oil-generated electricity "costs" on a given day.
Not too many years from now, oil demand will permanently outstrip supply - so when that happens, solar will probably become permanently economically viable. At which time, mass-production will drive down initial costs.
The issue of how long a given solar cell produces usefull power is also part of it - because if, over the life of the cell, it produces electricity of a given market value, above what it cost to make, then it's "economically viable" - therefore, of the three factors involved in determining "economic viability"
1. Initial cost to produce.
2. Longevity of the cell.
3. Market value of electricity over the life of the cell.
#1 is not the crucial variable. #2 also, really isn't a crucial variable. #3 IS. So if electricity is cheap, or if the cell doesn't last long (both of which are the current barriers to solar power being "economically viable") then it's not worth it.
When electricity becomes expensive (compared to today) - then solar power becomes more attractive.
Or, if some new type of solar cell becomes available that will have a useful lifespan of say, 50 years, instead of 20, that will make a difference. But the main factor is the cheapness of electricity. (some folks of the green persuasion might even say that electricity does not currently cost what it should, that there are many "hidden costs" - like funding wars to secure petroleum, ecological costs of the waste products, etc. - Kinda makes all this "free market" talk sound kinda silly.)