You may be surprised to know that I agree with nearly everything in your post, considering how I started this thread. Let me focus on one thing you said for a moment:
Well, I don't see many moderate Christians going out of their way to stand up for non-Christians who have to endure the religious Reich's abuse.
Count me as a Christian moderate that stands with you in your right to practice your religion as I practice mine, without being an object of bigotry yourself.
I am not offended by a Pentagram, or any other display of religious symbols, (although I'm sorry to say that I don't know what a triskele is.) In fact, if we were to meet in person I would commend you for standing up to be heard with your perception the "Religious Reich" in this post.
One more thought....and I don't believe the fanatics would have gotten as far as they have without tacit support, or at least a willingness to look the other way, from the majority of the Christian population.
This seems to me to be the root of the problem here...I don't think the majority is on the side of the fanatics, I think we're against them, and the fanatics know it, which is why they scream so loud. (even via the CAP web site). They also verbally attack anyone not as fanatical as them as apathetic and weak.
As far as I'm concerned, in this they are not much removed from the Pharisees in the first century a.d. that used the Romans to kill their opposition -- a wandering preacher from Galilee named Jesus Christ.
Which is why I don't intend to return to the CAP site for my movie reviews, because the person who writes their reviews is way too intolerant, in my book.
A documentary about the Holocaust shows where race or religious bigotry and intolerance can lead, if not checked by (as Abraham Lincoln put it) "the better angels of our nature".
Whoever marked it as a troll -- catch a clue!! On/. we have the right to disagree, and his writing was well done. His message got downgraded as a "troll", but it was well written and deserves better treatment.
Well, I see that you have left out alot of good accomplished by Christian men and women over the years, but listed a few things done in the name of Catholicism in the Middle Ages pretty well, and assigned blame for atrocities in the New World to Christians in general. Which is convenient, but false. Most if not all of the atrocities you mention were caused by greedy, evil men who used (and corrupted) what most people call Christianity into tools of repression and intolerance. These men are as out of place in Christianity as Milosovic in Bosnia or Kosovo.
Oh, and one more thing...the movie also made fun of Jews, Muslims, Satanists *and* atheists.
Thanks for bringing that up -- I wasn't aware of those four additional reasons to skip the movie. And I still say bigotry is bigotry and needs to be fought against.
Re:Religious bigotry: alive and well in the USA.
on
Spoonful of Quickies
·
· Score: 2
P.S. (to my previous post) While I was typing, several other posters entered comments which weren't anti-Christian, and to those folks I offer my gratitude and thanks.
P.P.S. Just in case you are wondering I would be just as ashamed of the movie if S.P had made the same kind of fun of Islam, Buddhism, Hindu, or any other religions or peoples.
Religious bigotry: alive and well in the USA.
on
Spoonful of Quickies
·
· Score: 1
Before y'all get out your flamethrowers on this one, remember:/. is a forum where we can agree to disagree, okay?
IMHO, any movie that makes fun of any religion and is as full of crap as described in the Christian site's South Park review is worthy of nothing but contempt. Frankly, I would be ashamed to be even related to anyone who had anything to do with the production of the movie. Some of my co-workers thought the movie to be hilarious -- and have lost quite a bit of my respect because of it.
CmdrTaco found the site to be hilarious, and numerous other posters have taken their free pot-shots at Christianity (which seems to be the target of choice on/. whenever religion is mentioned, doesn't it?) Hence my statement that religious bigotry is alive and well -- because as yet I haven't seen a single post standing up for what I would say are mostly decent people and what they believe.
On second thought, go ahead and get out your flamethrowers.I'm standing up for them now.
But all you have to do is put the link inside an anchor, we could click directly on it, rather than having to cut and paste it. Having said that, Here it is done for you as an example:
See Http://www.ct.heise.de/ct/english/99/13/186-1/ for details, or click the link to go directly to the English translation of CT's Linux Vs NT. Article.
(Cheap pun alert) So they're trying to RELATe the size of Einstein's brain to the intellectual actIVITY now? HAHAHAHAHA thump... (The sound of me falling of the chair to ROFLMHO...got that out of my system, I'm ready to be serious now).
Last week I watched a video presentation of a seminar discussion -- the subject being "music" and "learning". The speaker, Dr. Michael Ballam at Utah State University, related that part of what solved Einstein's early learning difficulties was that his mother purchased a violin for him, and as he began to learn to play, his learning abilities improved as well. Dr. Ballam also mentioned (quoting from biographers) that later in life Einstein thought of physics in nearly "musical terms."
Big laugh, right? Not really. According to neuroscientists, the parietal lobes of the brain seem to be the "interpreters" for sensory signals from other places in the brain: (vision, HEARING, motor, sensory and memory). [Thick quote alert... highlighting, mine] (from American neuroscientist Gerald Edelman's book Bright Air, Brilliant Fire):
"Whatever the skill employed in thought - that of logic, mathematics, language, spatial or musical symbols - we must not forget that it is driven by the Jamesian processes, undergoes flights and perchings, is susceptible to great variations in attention, and in general is fueled by metaphorical and metonymic processes. It is only when the results of many parallel, fluctuating, temporal processes of perception, concept formation, memory, and attentional states are "stored" in a symbolic object - a sequence of logical propositions, a book, a work of art, a musical work - that we have the impression that thought is pure."
A final thought. Einstein was somewhat dyslexic, which is, in essence, where the brain is not correlating the senses correctly. Dr. Ballam's discussion showed how many times music is the great HARMONIZER that often makes the difference.
(Small bio note here: I am ADD (attention deficit disorder), but survived and even did well in school, so long as I was also involved in music because my spatial awareness went way up.)
Interesting stuff, eh?
P.S. I'm trying to see if the text of Dr. Ballams' seminar is available online, and will post a link if I find it.)
Seems like everybody with a web site is sponsoring a contest nowadays. Keeps life interesting, I guess, especially for the "artistically challenged " folks like me. *grin* Actually, the reason I'm posting this is that this is the second design competition I've seen today.
Head on over to NTTG.Net for more details -- they've got two contests starting up with a couple of hundred dollars in Amazon.com gift certificates for prizes.
I talked to Dan Weaver, one of the people who's supplying hardware, etc. to the site (nice guy BTW)... the site authors' know that the site's not the best looking thing yet, but wanted to get up and running quickly and are really interested in feedback from us talented folks at/. (I had to put in a blatant promotion on behalf of all of us, wouldn't you agree?);-)
On second thought, maybe I could use a new t-shirt... time to fire up the airbrush, I guess. Hope I don't blow anything up this time...
I would be interested in knowing if the term can still be trademarked, and if so, if it is the FSF Eric Raymond, or someone else's interest to do so in order to protect current projects started with the words "open source" as part of the description.
Or would the fact that the SPI/Perns/Raymond application lapsed make all of the existing "open source" projects prior art to any new applicant, and thus place the term in the public domain.
Don't worry, that's just the sound of my jaw bouncing off the floor... I would have bet and lost good money that this kind of a thing would NEVER happen.
I used Borland tools for years, and always found them superior to the M$ tools (with the possible exception of Dbase V versus Access 97). I was lucky enough to NOT be stuck in MFC land, although OWL (the Borland C++ Object Window's Library) wasn't much more readable. Apparently (with the demise of Rogue Wave's zApp library, Symantec, and even Sybase Power++ defaulting to the MFC, and now Borland) Microsoft has really gained a near monopoly for Windows- oriented, commercially available C++ development platforms. Not good news, in my book.
Glad to see that M$ is also having to ante up for all of their patent infringements to Borland over the years -- $100 million more than the $25 million stock price.
But I do hate to see M$ win. Makes you kinda glad that MetroWerks is porting to Linux, and that Cygnus is gaining a foothold in WinXX land, doesn't it?
Excellent points, and some of the better writing I've seen on the subject.
By the way, (and I'll admit tagging this on here so that my post will get read as well), The president of Metro Werks replied to the original article with a clarification of their position on RH linux, which is that "Metrowerks validated and QAed the first version of CodeWarrior for Linux GNU Edition against the RedHat distro. Metrowerks is also currently validating against other distros...", mentioning SUSE and Caldera as in process.
So while RH Linux is the only distro which they are supporting so far, the ultimately goal is to support all of the major distributions. So give MW credit and maybe even a pat on the back for taking the time to make sure their product works on each and every platform, one step at a time.
Bet they wish they'd made it clear that that's what they were doing earlier, however.:-)
This seems like the best level to respond; yes, I have read some of the comments further down.
The main issue I have with your post is right here:
"The cable infrastructure was not installed "in cooperation" with the local government. It was installed 100% by the cable company. In fact the only role of the local government was to extort franchise fees and free cable access channels out of the cable company.
You only missed one thing. For many, many years, TCI and many other cable companies paid local governments literally billions of dollars to insure that there would NOT be competition within a given municipality, thus preserving high profit margins for extremely poor service. (I should know, I lived in several TCI only cities where customers were treated like dirt.)
Secondarily, the reason ATT bought TCI and other cable companies is only partly related to Internet Service. It's also the only way they could get back into the (currently) more lucrative side of the telco industry --local phone service after the breakup that created the RBOC (Regional Bell Operating Companies). Without the ground local loop, ATT's wireless doesn't stand a chance against the Sprint PCS and Ameritechs. So ATT had to do something just to survive, and buying the right of way and copper for the cable systems was the method they chose.
Now then, I'm not a great defender of AO-(HEL)L, either, because of their complicity with Microsoft in taking Netscape down, and their own poor service record. But I think this judge's decision is good for all of us in the long run, because if it sticks, more communities will follow suit, and that will ultimately bring high speed line access to more of us at non-monopoly controlled prices.
I was familiar with "jury built", but hadn't heard the n- rigged variant before. Maybe the person I heard use the word put 'em together -- I don't know.
That'll teach me to use English words I've heard but not seen in print... (and BTW, I am a native (American) English speaker....sigh...)
With the preface that I'm not up to date on DVD, there are a couple of things I'd like to add to the/. comment mix related to the above post.
First and foremost, DVD isn't just about movies and games anymore, just like Compact Disks aren't just about audio. It's about being able to store massive quantities of data as well. That said, even early CD-ROM drives could play audio CD's, so the ability to decode the formats mentioned on the card maker's site (MP3, MPEG, etc.) is fundamental if you want to be in the market.
The question of whether there is enough market to support the prototyping and production runs for the card is more significant. Quoting the previous post:"I think the switch to software decoding under Windows was largely because most people don't want to spend even fifty or a hundred extra bucks for a decoder card they're not going to get much use out of." This is just an opinion, mind you, but the extra money probably wasn't the issue, or SCSI would have died a horrible death a long time ago. The issue is getting the biggest "bang for the buck" and availability.
How about we do a little price shopping to compare... let's see, I can pay for
a crappy OS from M$,
the upgraded QT codec from Apple or an MPEG decoder board,
a RIO or something similar for MP-3's (yes, I know there's freeware out there as well)
or... Linux + a relatively inexpensive card with Open Source drivers.... Hmmm. Proprietary vs. open. What should I do...what's that, the open option is less expensive? You get my drift.
My final point is that the card mentioned is a prototype, and that once you have a successful decoder, creating the encoder is usually no big deal in comparison. So if this company succeeds, you'll have all you'd need except the DVD-burner.
A set of questions here...is there such a thing as DVD-R or DVD-RW yet? If not, is it technically possible? on the drawing boards?
Good question, which I don't have an answer for. I have used the Smartsuite applications for years, because they offered superior value compared to M$. Given IBM's current interest in Linux, I would find it hard to believe that a SmartSuite port isn't in the works. After all, they've already done a successful port - to OS2 Warp / Merlin.
You can bet that Lotus is not ignoring Linux either, as shown from this tidbit on Lotus' Developers site
Lotus DevCon99 June 21-23, San Francisco...Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux operating system, will deliver a keynote address. And when you get there, be sure to visit the Application Development/Enterprise Integration Lab....
BTW, the reason that SmartSuite users want it for Linux is that it contains a full set of tools (database, spreadsheet, word processor, presentation graphics, Personal info MGR, etc.) which is strong enough to allow us to dump M$ from our systems permanently.
Considering all the recent flames about the correct usage of those two words, I thought I'd put in my two cents worth on the subject.
Most people haven't read the official Jargon File definitions of hacker and/or cracker. This means that the more common word will be used the vast majority of the time, even though it is wrong. (consider that "irregardless" is not a word, for example.)
In my experience (starting in the late '70's), breaking into a system was often referred to "hacking" because the easiest metaphor to explain what a person was doing was that of someone using a machete to chop (hack) a new path through a jungle (security) into a central location (the targeted system). "Cracking" was related to breaking through security codes, etc., and was often referred to as being similar to cutting one's way through the walls with a "hack" saw.
Outside of computer circles, one does not "hack" something together. A person might "jury rig", "cobble", or "string" something together to see if it works, but the "hacking" part of the process is usually where something's getting dismantled in order to be reused in the new gadget. In this sense, I "hack" your code to get at the usable pieces. But am I really "hacking" when I put them back together?
I guess what I am driving at is that the "hacker's culture" is not a a "slash and destroy" mentality. It's much more an inventor's culture -- take things apart and put them together in useful new ways.
This is (IMHO) the single most important distinction which we need to convey to mainstream public and media. ------------
I do not agree with several of your assertions about people in general. These I will detail, not to flame but to say that there are other opinions less negative than your own about "most people."
the "average room-temperature-IQ public" has purchased somewhere around 40 million computers in the last 5-7 years. Most are familiar with the Internet, and use it to gather different kinds of data, communicate (e-mail), and do other kinds of things that didn't happen so quickly prior to the 'Net.
"...as automobiles were when their invention changed society." I think what you were really reaching for is that the internal combustion engine has changed society. For example, prior to IC engines, a large "mobile weapon of war" was one that could be pulled behind a large animal or placed on a ship. Shipping was mostly limited to train lines, which is why big cities grew up around the more successful rail-shipping lines.
"Whereas anyone with at least an arm and a leg and an a-- to sit can learn how to drive a car with a reasonable level of competency...it takes intellegence to access the Internet, even through point-and-drool providers like AOL.I disagree with this point entirely, my friend. I'd have to say I've experienced 100X as many incompetent drivers as I've ever seen incompetent Internet users. Even including point and droolAOL.
...most people are quite comfortable being told what to do their entire lives. Correction. Most people are angry when they feel like they are not in control of their own lives, they feel futile, and may ultimately choose not to take responsibility for their decisions, or find their own (alchohol, drugs, gambling -- choose your addiction) ways of escaping the futility. Guess what. Most 'Web surfers I know feel empowered and hava a habit of bringing others into the Digital age.
Note the ratio of entrepreneurs to employees. Well, I've been both. Fact is I'm currently a highly empowered employee, and I've given myself the same wages without the headaches of running my own company. So perhaps your ratio has less to do with the sheep vs. sharks mentality implied through most of your post.
We're together on one thing though...how does Oprah sell so damn many books?
On second thought, maybe not. Consider this: what's the ratio of books purchased through Amazon.com compared to the books sold in response to Oprah. It's all about choice, and the web is opening up a whole new world that most of us haven't quite figured out yet.
I feel for you, as I am in the same situation, though with less registrations in the pipe.
I'm curious as to how long have they been pending, so I will might know roughly how long my on-hold hell is going to last.
How does the GPL infect a code tree?
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 1
I keep hearing how the GPL is viral in nature...
Could someone please explain -- in plain English using simple examples and terms -- how the "GPL" can theoretically infect a code tree?
I consider myself to be a pretty intelligent guy, and I'd like to believe I have it figured out, but not in a way that I could adequately and easily explain to a third party. I ask and mention this because more than one PHB has asked -- "don't we lose control of our code if we use {Linux, GPL tools, etc.}?"
The web site source has spoken. Accused me of making up false facts. I'm S-O-O-O surprised. Invisible1, you've cut me to the quick... I must NOT have done those things I said I did... that's it -- it was all a dream -- a hallucination, yeah, that's it... [Forgive the sarcasm. The accusation of dishonesty pissed me off royally.]
I'll admit a bias here. I've never heard an in-wall speaker or system that matched the quality of a similarly priced free-standing speaker. So I would not be at all surprised if your Invisible Stereo speakers sound MUCH better than other in-wall designs. But I'd be very surprised if any in wall system is cost competitive with well-designed free standing speakers. Now then, because of the accusation of dishonesty, I'm going to do my best to shred virtually every iota of Invisible1's post. Mostly from the standpoint of price.
A 10 room Invisible Stereo system costs $3990.00 ($399.00 per Room, installed w/volume control) Two questions: (A)why in the h--- would I want to install speaker systems in ten rooms? What if I move to a new house? and (B)Assuming ten rooms, how many different audio feeds are we talking here? One high fidelity system? One per room? How do you prevent crosstalk, etc.?
...
and a 20 transducer Home Theater is $1995,installed. Although I'm not in a position to spend the time or money right now to do so, if I was, I'd wager that I could put together a similar sounding system for around $1995, but I'd also buy myself a new DVD player, audio CD, graphic EQ, and speakers (surround) -- everything except for the amplifier. And STILL be able to move my system any time I wanted.
Most In-wall speakers that are worth considering START at $400.00 UNINSTALLED, (see my inital comment about bias)and any good matched SS speakers including Rear Chan. Dipole/Tripole radiator designs will average $600-800 ea. I assume by "matched", you mean "pair". Your costs are about right. But if I'm building a pair from transducers on up? The finest free standing speakers I've ever personally heard were built [and are owned by an true audiophile friend] -- for a net component cost of around $700. About $200 more for the surround speakers, BTW] Returning to the idea of portability -- he's moved seven times since, and taken the speakers with him.
I can attenuate/accentuate the frequency response by varying the thickness of the Mounting board and just send the Full range signal to them.I'll admit being confused by the mounting part of your comment. And I can see how different mounting boards would provide a smooth response. But does that mean I have (1) a wall made up of a bunch of different types of boards, or (2) drivers mounted to boards mounted to the wall? Option 1 isn't practical as far as I can see, and option 2 (which takes care of the portability problem -- unscrew the boards and take the drivers with you) doesn't address the fact that different frequency sounds would have to travel through two layers of wallboard, etc. A clarification here would be honestly appreciated.
Backing up a little, you said that "and I hardly EVER use crossovers" The best speakers I ever designed (4 way, bass reflex, BTW) only REQUIRED one per cabinet. But it wasn't an inexpensive part of the speakers, even at that. (Note, I used two per cabinet in the final design. It sounded better.) Good crossovers aren't cheap. Especially -- which will bring me to my final point -- if the crossovers and drivers are to have adequate power handling capability.
The IS transducers are rated at 50 Watts RMS continuous Music. At what efficiency? This is a key question: my own speakers are rated at about about 200 watts RMS per cabinet, with mid-range efficiency (92-93 db/w/m) I don't use all of that capacity most of the time, but when I need it (usually a movie soundtrack or symphony -- some Dregs, Yes, Styx, Journey, and other '70's and '80's rock) If the end Invisible Stereo product isn't at least as capable -- unless I'm missing something here, and I could be -- how in the hell am I supposed to enjoy the full dynamic range of a DVD movie or favorite CD-ROM?
I'll put up or shut up now. Within the next half hour, you should be receiving an e-mail with info on where I live -- you let me know where there is a system nearby, and I'll give them a listen -- and with Rob's permission, publish my honest review here on/. [Note: I don't work for any stereo companies, so this will be an unbiased, listening test only.]
You got game? I got ears. Let's put these to the test.
[Note: in "audio speak" a driver is an individual sound source -- often a speaker cabinet will have three "drivers" which show on the front - a large (bass), medium (midrange), and small (high frequency) 'driver']
I don't claim to be an audiophile, but I've got both the math background and good enough ears to know when the math works and when it "just ain't so." This can happen in one of two ways:
there's no way a design can produce a high quality sound, or
spending more money won't dramatically improve the sound.
From this background, let me tell you that as proposed on this web-site, it's not only unlikely but damn near if not impossible to design a worthwhile sound system using these drivers. Here's why:
Multiple transducers, are required for even moderate quality sound. With more than one of these so called "invisible speakers", there is no vibrational isolation between the low (bass note) frequencies and the high frequencies. Which means that even if wall board, plywood, etc. could accurately respond to the individual driver's frequencies, the vibrations from the low frequency drivers would muddle up the other frequencies.
(Quoting)...speakers by design focus their energies on creating high Sound Pressure Levels within a room to provide "presence"... This might be true for stadiums, theaters, etc. (large areas) but not the typical home system. he main requirement for good sound in a home setting is the ability to tune the system to match the acoustics of the room -- thus cancelling out the effects of standing waves, absorption of sound by furnishings, etc.
...audio purists seek speakers with flat frequency response, non-directionality, and and efficient db-to-watt level. Wrong again. Audio purists are not THAT interested in efficiency, because most (but not all) efficient drivers have very uneven frequency response.
Different size drivers are better for different frequencies. This means that there is
no "one size fits all driver" that can match multiple drivers through all pitch ranges. Even the high dollar audiofile "flat" speakers usually have a cone-driven sub-woofer because the "flat" speakers can't move enough low-frequency air.
I'd rant for a while longer but here's a more practical way to throw this idea away -- what happens if for some reason you decide to move your home theater to erk -- a different wall, or a different room?
Note to Rob: rather than spending any $$ on these, buy yourself a 10 band stereo equalizer. It'll save you a ton of money and make any stereo speaker or system you'll ever buy better because with it and a little patience you can tune your system to the room.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I don't see many moderate Christians going out of their way to stand up for non-Christians who have to endure the religious Reich's abuse.
Count me as a Christian moderate that stands with you in your right to practice your religion as I practice mine, without being an object of bigotry yourself.
I am not offended by a Pentagram, or any other display of religious symbols, (although I'm sorry to say that I don't know what a triskele is.) In fact, if we were to meet in person I would commend you for standing up to be heard with your perception the "Religious Reich" in this post.
One more thought....and I don't believe the fanatics would have gotten as far as they have without tacit support, or at least a willingness to look the other way, from the majority of the Christian population.
This seems to me to be the root of the problem here...I don't think the majority is on the side of the fanatics, I think we're against them, and the fanatics know it, which is why they scream so loud. (even via the CAP web site). They also verbally attack anyone not as fanatical as them as apathetic and weak.
As far as I'm concerned, in this they are not much removed from the Pharisees in the first century a.d. that used the Romans to kill their opposition -- a wandering preacher from Galilee named Jesus Christ.
A documentary about the Holocaust shows where race or religious bigotry and intolerance can lead, if not checked by (as Abraham Lincoln put it) "the better angels of our nature".
Whoever marked it as a troll -- catch a clue!! On /. we have the right to disagree, and his writing was well done. His message got downgraded as a "troll", but it was well written and deserves better treatment.
Huh? I don't understand what this part of your comment is referring to. Please explain.
I don't agree with everything on the CAP site either (unfairly critical in many reviews, I'd say.)
I'm just getting tired of the Christian bashing, because most of the I know of that call themselves Christians are pretty darn good folks.
Well, I see that you have left out alot of good accomplished by Christian men and women over the years, but listed a few things done in the name of Catholicism in the Middle Ages pretty well, and assigned blame for atrocities in the New World to Christians in general. Which is convenient, but false. Most if not all of the atrocities you mention were caused by greedy, evil men who used (and corrupted) what most people call Christianity into tools of repression and intolerance. These men are as out of place in Christianity as Milosovic in Bosnia or Kosovo.
Oh, and one more thing...the movie also made fun of Jews, Muslims, Satanists *and* atheists.
Thanks for bringing that up -- I wasn't aware of those four additional reasons to skip the movie. And I still say bigotry is bigotry and needs to be fought against.
P.S. (to my previous post) While I was typing, several other posters entered comments which weren't anti-Christian, and to those folks I offer my gratitude and thanks.
P.P.S. Just in case you are wondering I would be just as ashamed of the movie if S.P had made the same kind of fun of Islam, Buddhism, Hindu, or any other religions or peoples.
IMHO, any movie that makes fun of any religion and is as full of crap as described in the Christian site's South Park review is worthy of nothing but contempt. Frankly, I would be ashamed to be even related to anyone who had anything to do with the production of the movie. Some of my co-workers thought the movie to be hilarious -- and have lost quite a bit of my respect because of it.
CmdrTaco found the site to be hilarious, and numerous other posters have taken their free pot-shots at Christianity (which seems to be the target of choice on /. whenever religion is mentioned, doesn't it?) Hence my statement that religious bigotry is alive and well -- because as yet I haven't seen a single post standing up for what I would say are mostly decent people and what they believe.
On second thought, go ahead and get out your flamethrowers.I'm standing up for them now.
But all you have to do is put the link inside an anchor, we could click directly on it, rather than having to cut and paste it. Having said that, Here it is done for you as an example:
See Http://www.ct.heise.de/ct/english/99/13/186-1/ for details, or click the link to go directly to the English translation of CT's Linux Vs NT. Article.
Last week I watched a video presentation of a seminar discussion -- the subject being "music" and "learning". The speaker, Dr. Michael Ballam at Utah State University, related that part of what solved Einstein's early learning difficulties was that his mother purchased a violin for him, and as he began to learn to play, his learning abilities improved as well. Dr. Ballam also mentioned (quoting from biographers) that later in life Einstein thought of physics in nearly "musical terms."
Big laugh, right? Not really. According to neuroscientists, the parietal lobes of the brain seem to be the "interpreters" for sensory signals from other places in the brain: (vision, HEARING, motor, sensory and memory). [Thick quote alert... highlighting, mine] (from American neuroscientist Gerald Edelman's book Bright Air, Brilliant Fire):
- "Whatever the skill employed in thought - that of logic, mathematics, language, spatial or musical symbols - we must not forget that it is driven by the Jamesian processes, undergoes flights and perchings, is susceptible to great variations in attention, and in general is fueled by metaphorical and metonymic processes. It is only when the results of many parallel, fluctuating, temporal processes of perception, concept formation, memory, and attentional states are "stored" in a symbolic object - a sequence of logical propositions, a book, a work of art, a musical work - that we have the impression that thought is pure."
A final thought. Einstein was somewhat dyslexic, which is, in essence, where the brain is not correlating the senses correctly. Dr. Ballam's discussion showed how many times music is the great HARMONIZER that often makes the difference.(Small bio note here: I am ADD (attention deficit disorder), but survived and even did well in school, so long as I was also involved in music because my spatial awareness went way up.)
Interesting stuff, eh?
P.S. I'm trying to see if the text of Dr. Ballams' seminar is available online, and will post a link if I find it.)
Head on over to NTTG.Net for more details -- they've got two contests starting up with a couple of hundred dollars in Amazon.com gift certificates for prizes.
I talked to Dan Weaver, one of the people who's supplying hardware, etc. to the site (nice guy BTW)... the site authors' know that the site's not the best looking thing yet, but wanted to get up and running quickly and are really interested in feedback from us talented folks at /. (I had to put in a blatant promotion on behalf of all of us, wouldn't you agree?) ;-)
On second thought, maybe I could use a new t-shirt... time to fire up the airbrush, I guess. Hope I don't blow anything up this time...
**poof** oops, big red splotch on the wife...
*sigh...*
Or would the fact that the SPI/Perns/Raymond application lapsed make all of the existing "open source" projects prior art to any new applicant, and thus place the term in the public domain.
Thoughts, anyone?
Don't worry, that's just the sound of my jaw bouncing off the floor... I would have bet and lost good money that this kind of a thing would NEVER happen.
I used Borland tools for years, and always found them superior to the M$ tools (with the possible exception of Dbase V versus Access 97). I was lucky enough to NOT be stuck in MFC land, although OWL (the Borland C++ Object Window's Library) wasn't much more readable. Apparently (with the demise of Rogue Wave's zApp library, Symantec, and even Sybase Power++ defaulting to the MFC, and now Borland) Microsoft has really gained a near monopoly for Windows- oriented, commercially available C++ development platforms. Not good news, in my book.
Glad to see that M$ is also having to ante up for all of their patent infringements to Borland over the years -- $100 million more than the $25 million stock price.
But I do hate to see M$ win. Makes you kinda glad that MetroWerks is porting to Linux, and that Cygnus is gaining a foothold in WinXX land, doesn't it?
By the way, (and I'll admit tagging this on here so that my post will get read as well), The president of Metro Werks replied to the original article with a clarification of their position on RH linux, which is that "Metrowerks validated and QAed the first version of CodeWarrior for Linux GNU Edition against the RedHat distro. Metrowerks is also currently validating against other distros...", mentioning SUSE and Caldera as in process.
So while RH Linux is the only distro which they are supporting so far, the ultimately goal is to support all of the major distributions. So give MW credit and maybe even a pat on the back for taking the time to make sure their product works on each and every platform, one step at a time.
Bet they wish they'd made it clear that that's what they were doing earlier, however. :-)
The main issue I have with your post is right here:
- "The cable infrastructure was not installed "in cooperation" with the local government. It was installed 100% by the cable company. In fact the only role of the local government was to extort franchise fees and free cable access channels out of the cable company.
You only missed one thing. For many, many years, TCI and many other cable companies paid local governments literally billions of dollars to insure that there would NOT be competition within a given municipality, thus preserving high profit margins for extremely poor service. (I should know, I lived in several TCI only cities where customers were treated like dirt.)Secondarily, the reason ATT bought TCI and other cable companies is only partly related to Internet Service. It's also the only way they could get back into the (currently) more lucrative side of the telco industry --local phone service after the breakup that created the RBOC (Regional Bell Operating Companies). Without the ground local loop, ATT's wireless doesn't stand a chance against the Sprint PCS and Ameritechs. So ATT had to do something just to survive, and buying the right of way and copper for the cable systems was the method they chose.
Now then, I'm not a great defender of AO-(HEL)L, either, because of their complicity with Microsoft in taking Netscape down, and their own poor service record. But I think this judge's decision is good for all of us in the long run, because if it sticks, more communities will follow suit, and that will ultimately bring high speed line access to more of us at non-monopoly controlled prices.
Ouch!!! I think my checkbook just fainted.
That'll teach me to use English words I've heard but not seen in print... (and BTW, I am a native (American) English speaker. ...sigh...)
First and foremost, DVD isn't just about movies and games anymore, just like Compact Disks aren't just about audio. It's about being able to store massive quantities of data as well. That said, even early CD-ROM drives could play audio CD's, so the ability to decode the formats mentioned on the card maker's site (MP3, MPEG, etc.) is fundamental if you want to be in the market.
The question of whether there is enough market to support the prototyping and production runs for the card is more significant. Quoting the previous post:"I think the switch to software decoding under Windows was largely because most people don't want to spend even fifty or a hundred extra bucks for a decoder card they're not going to get much use out of." This is just an opinion, mind you, but the extra money probably wasn't the issue, or SCSI would have died a horrible death a long time ago. The issue is getting the biggest "bang for the buck" and availability.
How about we do a little price shopping to compare... let's see, I can pay for
- a crappy OS from M$,
- the upgraded QT codec from Apple or an MPEG decoder board,
- a RIO or something similar for MP-3's (yes, I know there's freeware out there as well)
or... Linux + a relatively inexpensive card with Open Source drivers.... Hmmm. Proprietary vs. open. What should I do...what's that, the open option is less expensive? You get my drift.My final point is that the card mentioned is a prototype, and that once you have a successful decoder, creating the encoder is usually no big deal in comparison. So if this company succeeds, you'll have all you'd need except the DVD-burner.
A set of questions here...is there such a thing as DVD-R or DVD-RW yet? If not, is it technically possible? on the drawing boards?
I'll sit back and listen now...
You can bet that Lotus is not ignoring Linux either, as shown from this tidbit on Lotus' Developers site
- Lotus DevCon99 June 21-23, San Francisco...Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux operating system, will deliver a keynote address. And when you get there, be sure to visit the Application Development/Enterprise Integration Lab....
BTW, the reason that SmartSuite users want it for Linux is that it contains a full set of tools (database, spreadsheet, word processor, presentation graphics, Personal info MGR, etc.) which is strong enough to allow us to dump M$ from our systems permanently.Most people haven't read the official Jargon File definitions of hacker and/or cracker. This means that the more common word will be used the vast majority of the time, even though it is wrong. (consider that "irregardless" is not a word, for example.)
In my experience (starting in the late '70's), breaking into a system was often referred to "hacking" because the easiest metaphor to explain what a person was doing was that of someone using a machete to chop (hack) a new path through a jungle (security) into a central location (the targeted system). "Cracking" was related to breaking through security codes, etc., and was often referred to as being similar to cutting one's way through the walls with a "hack" saw.
Outside of computer circles, one does not "hack" something together. A person might "jury rig", "cobble", or "string" something together to see if it works, but the "hacking" part of the process is usually where something's getting dismantled in order to be reused in the new gadget. In this sense, I "hack" your code to get at the usable pieces. But am I really "hacking" when I put them back together?
I guess what I am driving at is that the "hacker's culture" is not a a "slash and destroy" mentality. It's much more an inventor's culture -- take things apart and put them together in useful new ways.
This is (IMHO) the single most important distinction which we need to convey to mainstream public and media.
------------
- the "average room-temperature-IQ public" has purchased somewhere around 40 million computers in the last 5-7 years. Most are familiar with the Internet, and use it to gather different kinds of data, communicate (e-mail), and do other kinds of things that didn't happen so quickly prior to the 'Net.
- "...as automobiles were when their invention changed society." I think what you were really reaching for is that the internal combustion engine has changed society. For example, prior to IC engines, a large "mobile weapon of war" was one that could be pulled behind a large animal or placed on a ship. Shipping was mostly limited to train lines, which is why big cities grew up around the more successful rail-shipping lines.
- "Whereas anyone with at least an arm and a leg and an a-- to sit can learn how to drive a car with a reasonable level of competency...it takes intellegence to access the Internet, even through point-and-drool providers like AOL.I disagree with this point entirely, my friend. I'd have to say I've experienced 100X as many incompetent drivers as I've ever seen incompetent Internet users. Even including point and droolAOL.
...most people are quite comfortable being told what to do their entire lives. Correction. Most people are angry when they feel like they are not in control of their - Note the ratio of entrepreneurs to employees. Well, I've been both. Fact is I'm currently a highly empowered employee, and I've given myself the same wages without the headaches of running my own company. So perhaps your ratio has less to do with the sheep vs. sharks mentality implied through most of your post.
We're together on one thing though...how does Oprah sell so damn many books?own lives, they feel futile, and may ultimately choose not to take responsibility for their decisions, or find their own (alchohol, drugs, gambling -- choose your addiction) ways of escaping the futility. Guess what. Most 'Web surfers I know feel empowered and hava a habit of bringing others into the Digital age.
On second thought, maybe not. Consider this: what's the ratio of books purchased through Amazon.com compared to the books sold in response to Oprah. It's all about choice, and the web is opening up a whole new world that most of us haven't quite figured out yet.
I feel for you, as I am in the same situation, though with less registrations in the pipe.
I'm curious as to how long have they been pending, so I will might know roughly how long my on-hold hell is going to last.
Could someone please explain -- in plain English using simple examples and terms -- how the "GPL" can theoretically infect a code tree?
I consider myself to be a pretty intelligent guy, and I'd like to believe I have it figured out, but not in a way that I could adequately and easily explain to a third party. I ask and mention this because more than one PHB has asked -- "don't we lose control of our code if we use {Linux, GPL tools, etc.}?"
I'll admit a bias here. I've never heard an in-wall speaker or system that matched the quality of a similarly priced free-standing speaker. So I would not be at all surprised if your Invisible Stereo speakers sound MUCH better than other in-wall designs. But I'd be very surprised if any in wall system is cost competitive with well-designed free standing speakers. Now then, because of the accusation of dishonesty, I'm going to do my best to shred virtually every iota of Invisible1's post. Mostly from the standpoint of price.
I'll put up or shut up now. Within the next half hour, you should be receiving an e-mail with info on where I live -- you let me know where there is a system nearby, and I'll give them a listen -- and with Rob's permission, publish my honest review here on /. [Note: I don't work for any stereo companies, so this will be an unbiased, listening test only.]
You got game? I got ears. Let's put these to the test.
I don't claim to be an audiophile, but I've got both the math background and good enough ears to know when the math works and when it "just ain't so." This can happen in one of two ways:
- there's no way a design can produce a high quality sound, or
- spending more money won't dramatically improve the sound.
From this background, let me tell you that as proposed on this web-site, it's not only unlikely but damn near if not impossible to design a worthwhile sound system using these drivers. Here's why:Note to Rob: rather than spending any $$ on these, buy yourself a 10 band stereo equalizer. It'll save you a ton of money and make any stereo speaker or system you'll ever buy better because with it and a little patience you can tune your system to the room .