The realtor that handled the house I bought a couple years ago still uses Windows 98 on her home PC and in their office. That kinda shocked me at the time, but as it did what little she needed she had no reason to change.
And if she hasn't found a reason to change yet I strongly doubt MS discontinuing support is going to make a difference. The vast majority of Win98/ME users will continue to use that OS.
If you don't update frequently, almost 100% of the updates fail. And the cause of the failure is probably incredibly obscure, and
nobody has ever experienced the problem before.
I've got a Gentoo MythTV setup that I update about once every 6 months. I don't see this at all. I am using a pretty minimal setup though.
Apparently when you have 25% of the market share and you're Firefox\Apple etc. we should all take notice and develop for them since thats considered a huge market share. If you're MS\IE apparently 25% is a rather meagre figure and one should be developing for the majority out there. Thats hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy unless CmdrTaco has said that. All he's said AFAIK is that the 25% of people on IE are not a priority.
Which was my point: The title means nothing, you cannot reliably infer from that title wether or not the person had any creative input in the work.
Fair enough. Bruckheimer is pretty hands-off though (as an EP). He'll advise, but he's certainly not just the suit sent down by the production company.
... he is there to execute the desires of the producers...
I don't think the executive producer ever does that. If the producers want something done they'll do it themselves - they are more directly involved. But I'd agree if you wrote "he is there to execute the desires of the production company".
Rick Berman is co-creator and executive producer...
IMDB lists actual credits as they appear on the shows and films that Berman has been involved in. It's a lot more accurate than some blurb on startrek.com. He's listed as producer for the movies and executive producer or supervising producer for the TV shows. However, as I said, those titles have different meanings for TV and film (loosly a TV producer is more like a film director - except they don't do the actual shooting, and a TV executive producer is more like a film producer) and film is what is relevant to this story.
But producers can do a LOT. Often, one person will produce many movies, and hire directors to do his bidding.
Producers do a lot. Executive producers usually do little more than hand over the cash. Wikipedia's definition is fairly accurate:
An executive producer of a motion picture is typically a producer who is not necessarily involved in any creative or technical aspects of production. They generally handle business issues, and may even be a financier of the film. Some executive producers act as representatives of the studio (which releases and/or makes) or production company (which makes) a film, occasionally being credited as executive in charge of production.
Many times someone will receive Executive Producer credit because of their prior involvement with a property that has since been optioned into a film, even if they had no direct input into the production of the film itself. Some instances of this include authors of optioned literary works; people who had previously owned or currently own a property's movie rights; or, someone who had produced, or been involved in the production of, a previous version of the film.
Case in point: LotR. The Weinstein brothers were executive producers on those movies because they said yes to funding Jackson before New Line got involved. They had nothing to do with the final productions.
Example: Rick Berman, executive producer of all things Star Trek since 1987.
Check IMDB again. Berman was a producer on many things Star Trek since 1987, not an executive producer. So he's a terrible example.
Besides, the roles of producers are totally different in the TV world (compared to the film world). TV producers are usually far more creatively influential than their movie counterparts. Take Joss Whedon for example (since your sig is a Firefly quote). He produced every episode of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly and was clearly the main creative force behind those series. But he only directed about 10% of the episodes and only wrote about 20% of them.
However, they do have a lot to do with listings sources since the configuration GUI (at least on 0.19) has the listings data settings on the video sources configuration screen.
You're right, the listings data is generally loaded against a video source (and is configured in that screen). That's not required though, and the system doesn't really care about the source after that point as the listings data is stored against channels (though channels are associated with sources). So the relationship between source and listings data is more of a historical relationship than anything fundamental. This is more obvious to those of us not using DataDirect/Zap2It (i.e. everyone outside North America).
When I first used the configuration GUI I couldn't work out the difference between 'capture cards' and 'video sources', and presumed that the latter referred to some sort of ancillary system,
Yes, it's probably the first non-obvious concept that new MythTV users hit and the docs aren't real helpful either. Personally I don't like the design of mythtv-setup at all, though I understand why it is that way. It's designed to be used on a TV but I suspect that's a relatively unusual usage scenario. I'd prefer something more like a typical desktop app, with more inbuilt help.
The protocol changes were the most frustrating, though - I had embedded extenders become unusable frequently because the MythTV folks would change protocols often.
In the last year (before today) there has been one protocol change AFAIK - when 0.19 was released in February. Were you using development versions?
The only weird, non-obvious thing I found is that what the configuration GUI calls "video sources" really should be called "channel allocation/listings sources" - although this may be a quirk of DVB and make more sense in analogue (can anyone enlighten me?).
Video sources in Myth are primarily sets of channels. They represent a particular feed into the system, and may be attached to multiple capture device inputs. E.g. one source in your system might be a VHF/UHF aerial. There is a certain set of channels available on the source. You might have that source plugged into two TV tuner cards. Your satellite dish (I'm assuming you're using DVB-S) is a second source. They don't really have anything to do with listings sources.
This whole story is laughable in any case, I mean what, in 2004 25% of India's population was below the poverty line, which is, wait for it, about 8 dollars a month.
In 1973 55% of India's population was living below the poverty line. Standards of living are improving rapidly over there.
Indians won't be getting western wages anytime soon, and if they do, you know what will happen?
They will in the IT industry. Not US salaries, but certainly salaries comparable to other western countries. Experienced programmers in the company I deal with in Bangalore earn about a third of what they would in Australia, for example.
That bandwidth requirement rang alarm bells with me too. It's not the end of the world but it's a noticeable volume (1MB per hour), and that's not including whatever they push down in response. Wouldn't be at all workable with a dialup connection.
This claim has been made many times, but so has the claim that human activity is only responsible for some tiny fraction of global CO2 emissions.
You seem to be assigning equal weight to the claims that human activity has been the cause of recent atmospheric CO2 increases and that human activity has not been the cause. Yet I've seen no evidence for the latter claim. If it is not due to human activity where is the CO2 comming from? Where is the evidence of increased volcanism, etc?
I hate to be the turd in the environmental punchbowl here, but what about increased solar activity, Monder minimum, the little ice age, and all that?
The IPCC TAR's conclusion was that the warming effect of greenhouse gas forcing is estimated as 1.4 W/m2 (measured as a difference from 1750) compared to 0.3 W/m2 from solar variations. Of course you may not agree with their methodology or conclusions, but that's the consensus - greenhouse gases have had far more of an effect.
Once again, this article confuses correlation with causation. If you are going to state that CO2 changes cause climate change, then you must also demonstrate a mechanism for the changing CO2.
No you don't. You need to demonstrate a mechanism by which changing CO2 causes climate change, how the CO2 levels changed is not relevant.
You're right, I didn't notice that the co-authors are from Google Research, or that Fink is at Google over the summer. That still doesn't mean that the software they are building is exactly the same as what is described in the paper though. The paper also should give you some confidence that the sampling is not reversable.
That paper looks like it was written before Google got involved. I'm not convinced that they are going to send 4 bytes every 12ms. Other sources state 4 bytes every second. Can you site anything from Google that supports 4 bytes per 12ms?
Actually it's not true that 4 bytes are generated each 5 seconds, it's much more than that. From the paper:
Just because the original paper says 4 bytes every 12ms doesn't mean that's what Google are going to use. The Technology Review article says 4 bytes every second.
If it's a hoax it's a long running hoax that's yet to be debunked,which is possible of course, but is it probable?
I don't see how the story can ever be debunked without complete access to everything Google is doing. Still the story is at least three months old and yet we still haven't seen the software...
If it's not free software, you have no way of knowing.
Of course you do. You look at it from a signal processing angle and figure out if 6.4 bits is theoretically enough to hold a reversable transformation for one second of sound. If it's not then it doesn't matter that you can't see the implementation because it cannot be doing what you fear. Then you look at it from a business point of view. If Google had an audio compression algorithm capable of decent reproduction at 6.4 bps (as opposed to the 24000+ bps that every other audio compression algorithm requires), don't you think they'd be busy selling gPods and setting up a gTunes store rather than wasting time on this?
so if you are going to dismiss this classification system because the definition of "significant" atmosphere can be controversial, then you might as well as dismiss all classification systems, and just stop trying to classify things at all
I'm not dismissing it at all. I'm just pointing out that the devil's in the details. The definition as written looks quite elegant, but once you add a couple of arbitrary limits (e.g. "significant atmosphere means minimum of X, gas giant only if atmospheric mass > solid mass") it might not look so good.
Slashdot Mirror
Not on that machine. You can't install Windows at all without a floppy or bootable CDROM.
Besides, the roles of producers are totally different in the TV world (compared to the film world). TV producers are usually far more creatively influential than their movie counterparts. Take Joss Whedon for example (since your sig is a Firefly quote). He produced every episode of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly and was clearly the main creative force behind those series. But he only directed about 10% of the episodes and only wrote about 20% of them.
irony /arni/
-adjective
consisting of, containing, or resembling iron.
North America would be a very different place today if certain governments hadn't decided that exploration was very much part of their job.
That bandwidth requirement rang alarm bells with me too. It's not the end of the world but it's a noticeable volume (1MB per hour), and that's not including whatever they push down in response. Wouldn't be at all workable with a dialup connection.
The method of CO2 change is irrelevant to determining correlation vs causation. Try to pay attention.
You're right, I didn't notice that the co-authors are from Google Research, or that Fink is at Google over the summer. That still doesn't mean that the software they are building is exactly the same as what is described in the paper though. The paper also should give you some confidence that the sampling is not reversable.
That paper looks like it was written before Google got involved. I'm not convinced that they are going to send 4 bytes every 12ms. Other sources state 4 bytes every second. Can you site anything from Google that supports 4 bytes per 12ms?
Pity really, 999999 is almost as cool as 1000000 and now it's junk.