Wow, this must be it! I was just replying to another post about the first MP3 I played, but I'd forgotten the name of the program used. On my 486-33 laptop you had to downsample to 22.5 kHz mono to play in realtime.. and we liked it;)
Voto Latino by Molotov. More interesting, I guess, is the software (which I forget) that could play it realtime when downsampled to 22.5 kHz mono, as the machine was a 33 MHz 486 (running Windows 3.1). Those were truly the days:)
with-i-had-speling-skillz dept.
on
EA's Busy Week
·
· Score: 1
So what's the new format for booting into DOS to flash my video card BIOS?
CD-R[W]. The bootable part of a bootable CD is actually a floppy disk image. If you get the BIOS update in an image form (instead of some program for writing the disk), you can burn it to a CD and use that. Works for me at least, YMMV.
The summary to me seems to be that they've already ruled out things that science has already proved nonexistent, and they define paranormal as something that science cannot explain but may be real nevertheless.
I like the idea from a scientific point of view, but I hate the wording. When we see something unexpected in the physics lab, we don't immediately think of it as 'paranormal', even though it fulfills the same conditions as those outlined by JREF. For example, before quantum theory, the photoelecric effect (using light to create electric current) had no scientific explanation, but it wasn't called 'paranormal' because there was nothing scary or mystical about it. It was simply something you didn't fully understand.
I've written some brief notes on the question, but to summarize, I think the word is an oxymoron because 'nature' means everything that there is. Therefore there's nothing outside it. On the other hand, science is not (yet) complete, and there are plenty of things in nature that we know they exist, but we can't fully explain (for example ball lightning).
I agree with your points about using Windows and installing Linux. But actually using Linux is a different beast IMHO. It's possible to grow as a user and developer, whereas in Windows you're more or less stuck with the Fisher-Price environment.
One reason is, I believe, that Linux blurs the lines between user/developer/sysadmin. (This is not necessarily a good thing, for example in a corporate environment, but then again the limits can be enforced.) When you use Linux efficiently,
you are using developer and sysadmin methods without giving it a second thought. For example shell scripting. I think it's a great way to ensure that some of today's users will grow into tomorrow's developers and sysadmins. Whereas I worry about Windows users who have a harder time migrating into the developer/admin world.
I used DOS/Windows for about 10 years, but as I switched to Linux I learned more about computers in a few weeks than I'd ever done before.
Good point! I was thinking of the ListenAddress option of sshd to accomplish the same thing. Some other daemons have similar options, right now distcc comes to mind.
I admit that the hosts.files are much better in general, but I guess you could use both methods for an extra layer of security.
I'm running all kinds of crud on the intranet that I don't want exposed to the Internet
I thought this would be done by NAT, with an internal network of nonroutable addresses. While a firewall box may also do NAT, they are quite separate functions.
Isn't it possible to use one of the computers (laptops) as the wireless router? Especially if the WLAN card can be put into Master mode, or if not, use Adhoc mode instead.
I've thought that even today's existing WLAN gear can be used in a decentralized way, and I mainly see Managed mode networks as a means of corporate profit (selling an access point even when you could just connect computers directly via WLAN) and centralized control.
These are possibly stupid questions, as I don't have much experience with WLANs, but I hope someone could shed a little light on these:)
I think the first point proves that autism has more to do with upbringing/environment than genes. As the Wired article tells, the Amish value social relations a lot more than typical Westerners do.
I agree with your point about beauty in science, but there's another important way in which art and science overlap: both of them involve the creation of something new. We are constantly trying to improve our understanding of nature, and to achieve that we invent new models of nature and new tools (e.g. new kinds of mathematics). These inventions are not possible by merely applying existing knowledge, but a certain kind of artistic insight is also required.
Many peope seem to have the unfortunate idea, that science is completely systematic, and people in science work mechanically from day to day, and new discoveries stem automatically from time to time. Of course there are lots of menial things to do in science, but so are there in arts.
I guess one analogy could be that people who go to a classical concert see the musicians play from the notes, but they know there's more to making music than just blindly following the instructions. Composing music is hardly a mechanical/systematic task. In the same way, people seem to get only a limited picture of what science is really about. In both cases the really interesting bit is behind the scenes.
On the other hand, there's one important difference: science should never be about personal expression, though is sometimes is. Then again, if the goals of science are not affected, it should not matter if your ego was the inspiration for your new theory.
the more we discover, the harder it is to discover more.
Not necessarily. This kind of thinking assumes that there is a fixed pool of things just waiting to be discovered, and it is getting closer to being exhausted. I believe quite the contrary; there's a nice quote by someone I forgot, that "the greater the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder". For example, the invention of the transistor opened up possibilities for a whole industry of new inventions.
As a scientist, I believe there will always be new discoveries in science, that the supposed pool of knowledge is infinite. Therefore there's an infinity of possibilities for practical inventions as well, especially when we consider that the science in a certain field usually precedes engineering.
In fact, I think the rate of innovation is getting higher, but there's so much of it going on that it's impossible to pinpoint single, major inventions like it was a hundred years ago. Also, many significant inventions are results of many people with many smaller inventions working together, such as the Internet. In those cases it's hard to pin down even what the invention actually is.
Inventions and discoveries are becoming an increasingly important part of our lives, since we are past the struggles of basic survival. Thus it's naturally less noticeable.
The entire surface, at least, is a defect. Besides, these are all kinetic effects. Thermodynamically, ice is not stable above 273K, and that's that. Doesn't matter how defect-free you make it, that just means you could maybe superheat it a bit, for a while.
This is a very good point which deserved more than 0 points:)
I was also thinking about supercooling: for example liquid raindrops at sub-zero temperatures, that don't freeze because there are no impurities (such as dust) to provide defects. It's a well known phenomenon and the case of superheated ice seems quite analogous.
This was a nice explanation, to which I'd like to add a few examples:
The "mass increase" is different for forces that are parallel and perpendicular to the motion. Therefore some people use terms like parallel mass and perpendicular mass, which is strange if you want to keep mass as a scalar (directionless) quantity.
"Mass increase" is often used to regain the Newtonian formula F = ma for relativistic speeds: F = ma holds if you use the "modified mass" in place of m. However, this is not Newtonian mechanics any more, therefore we should forget about F = ma when talking about relativity.
This simple measure means getting the laptop into good enough shape to sell is more effort than it's worth.
I've thought about this with regards to my own laptop(s), but there's just one problem: How do the thieves know about the passwords in advance? Anyone looking for a quick buck will just take the laptop, then curse the password protection later. In other words, I don't think it gives any protection against theft.
On the other hand, it's a nice layer of security when talking about data privacy. Until you take the hard drive off to another machine, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, this must be it! I was just replying to another post about the first MP3 I played, but I'd forgotten the name of the program used. On my 486-33 laptop you had to downsample to 22.5 kHz mono to play in realtime.. and we liked it ;)
Voto Latino by Molotov. More interesting, I guess, is the software (which I forget) that could play it realtime when downsampled to 22.5 kHz mono, as the machine was a 33 MHz 486 (running Windows 3.1). Those were truly the days :)
say no more...
CD-R[W]. The bootable part of a bootable CD is actually a floppy disk image. If you get the BIOS update in an image form (instead of some program for writing the disk), you can burn it to a CD and use that. Works for me at least, YMMV.
Soon to come (pun intended): erotic literature classics at dick.mobi
I like the idea from a scientific point of view, but I hate the wording. When we see something unexpected in the physics lab, we don't immediately think of it as 'paranormal', even though it fulfills the same conditions as those outlined by JREF. For example, before quantum theory, the photoelecric effect (using light to create electric current) had no scientific explanation, but it wasn't called 'paranormal' because there was nothing scary or mystical about it. It was simply something you didn't fully understand.
I've written some brief notes on the question, but to summarize, I think the word is an oxymoron because 'nature' means everything that there is. Therefore there's nothing outside it. On the other hand, science is not (yet) complete, and there are plenty of things in nature that we know they exist, but we can't fully explain (for example ball lightning).
Well, the technology site does confirm that in their house they obey the law of Shannon, so they must be using a huge bandwidth.
One reason is, I believe, that Linux blurs the lines between user/developer/sysadmin. (This is not necessarily a good thing, for example in a corporate environment, but then again the limits can be enforced.) When you use Linux efficiently, you are using developer and sysadmin methods without giving it a second thought. For example shell scripting. I think it's a great way to ensure that some of today's users will grow into tomorrow's developers and sysadmins. Whereas I worry about Windows users who have a harder time migrating into the developer/admin world.
I used DOS/Windows for about 10 years, but as I switched to Linux I learned more about computers in a few weeks than I'd ever done before.
The technology site seems to confirm this.
So, instead of paying $50 to someone on the corner, you pay millions to a nice girl to spend the rest of her life with you. What's the difference?
I admit that the hosts.files are much better in general, but I guess you could use both methods for an extra layer of security.
I thought this would be done by NAT, with an internal network of nonroutable addresses. While a firewall box may also do NAT, they are quite separate functions.
I've thought that even today's existing WLAN gear can be used in a decentralized way, and I mainly see Managed mode networks as a means of corporate profit (selling an access point even when you could just connect computers directly via WLAN) and centralized control.
These are possibly stupid questions, as I don't have much experience with WLANs, but I hope someone could shed a little light on these :)
I think the first point proves that autism has more to do with upbringing/environment than genes. As the Wired article tells, the Amish value social relations a lot more than typical Westerners do.
Many peope seem to have the unfortunate idea, that science is completely systematic, and people in science work mechanically from day to day, and new discoveries stem automatically from time to time. Of course there are lots of menial things to do in science, but so are there in arts.
I guess one analogy could be that people who go to a classical concert see the musicians play from the notes, but they know there's more to making music than just blindly following the instructions. Composing music is hardly a mechanical/systematic task. In the same way, people seem to get only a limited picture of what science is really about. In both cases the really interesting bit is behind the scenes.
On the other hand, there's one important difference: science should never be about personal expression, though is sometimes is. Then again, if the goals of science are not affected, it should not matter if your ego was the inspiration for your new theory.
Not necessarily. This kind of thinking assumes that there is a fixed pool of things just waiting to be discovered, and it is getting closer to being exhausted. I believe quite the contrary; there's a nice quote by someone I forgot, that "the greater the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder". For example, the invention of the transistor opened up possibilities for a whole industry of new inventions.
As a scientist, I believe there will always be new discoveries in science, that the supposed pool of knowledge is infinite. Therefore there's an infinity of possibilities for practical inventions as well, especially when we consider that the science in a certain field usually precedes engineering.
In fact, I think the rate of innovation is getting higher, but there's so much of it going on that it's impossible to pinpoint single, major inventions like it was a hundred years ago. Also, many significant inventions are results of many people with many smaller inventions working together, such as the Internet. In those cases it's hard to pin down even what the invention actually is.
Inventions and discoveries are becoming an increasingly important part of our lives, since we are past the struggles of basic survival. Thus it's naturally less noticeable.
Scales foreskin? Now that might actually be a good shield against microwaves...
This is a very good point which deserved more than 0 points :)
I was also thinking about supercooling: for example liquid raindrops at sub-zero temperatures, that don't freeze because there are no impurities (such as dust) to provide defects. It's a well known phenomenon and the case of superheated ice seems quite analogous.
As a European, I find other continents exotic, even though they are larger. It's not a question of size, but of familiarity.
The "mass increase" is different for forces that are parallel and perpendicular to the motion. Therefore some people use terms like parallel mass and perpendicular mass, which is strange if you want to keep mass as a scalar (directionless) quantity.
"Mass increase" is often used to regain the Newtonian formula F = ma for relativistic speeds: F = ma holds if you use the "modified mass" in place of m. However, this is not Newtonian mechanics any more, therefore we should forget about F = ma when talking about relativity.
I think it should read "then" instead of "than", following Slashdot and it's own grammer rules.
I've thought about this with regards to my own laptop(s), but there's just one problem: How do the thieves know about the passwords in advance? Anyone looking for a quick buck will just take the laptop, then curse the password protection later. In other words, I don't think it gives any protection against theft.
On the other hand, it's a nice layer of security when talking about data privacy. Until you take the hard drive off to another machine, of course.
the energy required to produce gasoline?
Bash.org is an IRC quote database, AFAIK. There are non-geeks on IRC as well, you know. Here is the REAL geek jokes archive.