Well, you can't force them to install something (unless they've already installed SP3 or XP) but you can force them to meet certain requirements in order to use certain services.
That said: I reiterate my previous coment that the purposde of XP is to get DRM onto all the machines. Thus allowing bandwith management by content restriction. Once you've installed XP they can do anything they want as long as MS signs off on it.
Probably the fish we are missing is DRM. If they all have WinXP installed, they all have some DRM and have signed a license saying more can be installed without consent. This mean that the U can cut down bandwidth usage by cutting the main bandwidth consumer, content. Getting the EULA and the basic libraries in place is key to effective institution wide content management. Service Pack 3 and media player, would also give them this, but other posters have discussed the difficulty of getting the patches out. WinXP guarantees that they can "manage" their network.
Okay, I have to ask what years you were at old Miskatonic. During the 90's the Macs seemed to get slower and move into smaller clusters [upstairs in the back corner]. By the year 2000 there was a Win2k cluster belonging to the previously Sun "closed shop" CS department. [Broke my heart.]
It seems that most of the universities and secondaries I've dealt with have largely moved away from the Mac. It is only with the new powerbooks I see them coming back.
As much as I like the "drive them to the Mac" theory. The simple fact that a WinXP license is cheaper than a whole new computer, and the cheaper replacement computers come with WinXP installed (or Mandrake but...)
Oh, I started in 1991 and took the slow route to graduating. Currently a state bureacrat in the department of Secondary Ed [all win2k.]
I can take this one. It comes down to a definition of the word force.
Natural selection is not a "force" in the same way that gravity is. It is an abstraction we use so that we can write mathamatical equations and sentences that humans can get their brains around. [Gravity is also an abstraction, but less dramatically.]
Discussions of evolution often get muddied, because people use different types of discriptions at different scales. The audience doesn't always know what scale is being used.
Nature is a reinforcement loop. We often describe this reinforcement as an active process. We use verbs to describe things hapenning and visions of forces interacting. We do this because it helps humans build an image in their heads. When we change scale and start to talk about individual events, we have to stop using descriptive images and equations and settle down to gritty statistics.
For any individual, there is no shaping. There is nothing which ensures that a more fit individual is not going to be hit by a bus. The feedback loop works on distributions of statistics. [Fewer people who looked both ways died in the presence of busses. No buses no difference.]
The truely problematic statement is the last one "What works is more likely to survive." This is not strictly true. Better would be "What has survived is more likely to have worked."
Think about the evolution of microcomputer architecture. The micro-channel architecture. The alpha processor. MIPS vs ARM. BeOS. Are these "better?" Well, did they survive?
When you change scale you can confuse cause, effect and a descriptive abstraction. That was the point jgerman was trying to pick on. It's a sore point in evolution circles because the abstraction is pretty and the day to day grit is litteraly murder.
Real-Time election results could (should?) be considered a flaw. Knowing how the vote is going can influence the way people vote; especially in cases where they choose not to vote, or rush to the poles to shore up their candidate.
So yes, I support the paper ballots with permanent markers. No one should know what is in the box until all of the votes are in the boxes. It will hurt the television coverage, but TV ratings shouldn't run the government.
The true advantages are (maybe) easier instant run-offs, multilinguality, disability and illiteracy issues, and the potential for turning out more voters by allowing voting from more convenient places (No designated voting places).
Of course allowing you to vote on Florida races while living in Texas might be an interesting issue to avoid.
Not to be picky, but you only seem to be able to browse the issued patents. The classification system is opaque (Class 2 Subclass 78.1 Patent 06430748), and the applications haven't been classified anyway.
So there is a tool to get them, good. What we need is a content management/ content review system. We effectively need a volunteer Patent Office. We need a reader aportionment system; maybe push. You'd have to set up a system of volunteering and then deal the patents out like cards. Clasify it and resend them out to people who know about that area.
People should not be willing to look it up every day. A machine should look it up everyday, send one application out to volunteers who decide how many applications they are willing to look at a week. Then that volunteer has to put the application into our content discovery system with enough clasification detail that the "experts" can be sent a summary for only those applications which are relevant to their expertise.
The problem is geting the information to the volunteers in a form and volume that they can deal with it. This tool does not exist.
What the forum dwellers are asking for is a volunteer patent office. They want to be able to donate a few hours at inconsistant times and have the system keep going ahead. Maybe throw a few dollars in the pot. [It could be a 501c(3)] and have the whole add up to at least near the sum of the parts. What they don't want is a full time job pretending to be the patent office all by themselves.
So. I volunteer to read one patent a week. Who wants to volunteer to figure out which patent I should read?
The problem is not that they are not posted. Rather that it is very difficult to find anything without reading everything. People who are not payed to read through these things don't have the time. We find out about these things afterward only when companies publish press releases, because thats the first time they are seperated from all the background.
People who think they need to watch a particular topic have to search through a mass, and guess which terms the patent author might have used to describe the patently obvious. Patents don't describe things in english, they "facilitate the procurement of unrequited related assets." The patent offices search facility does not help.
For instance the most recent patent application using the term "bot" is:
Methods of using viral replicase polynucleotides and polypeptides
Where you find it deep in the text as an abreviation for 'botanical' in a journal reference. [Botanical Gazzette]:
... are provided by Kamo et al., (
Bot. Gaz. 146(3):324-334, 1985)
Even if you are using a less silly example, you either have to guess every possible wording and then read through them all, or miss most of the interesting ones altogeather, at which point there is little point. Patents are deliberately obscure. If something has a common name it isn't patentable.
The only solution I can think of is a comunity effort to read all of the pattent applications and bring the interesting ones up for discussion. This is probably necessary. Who wants to both build the interface and convince the USPO to play along?
PowerPC is the instruction set. Power4 is IBM's most recent implementation. Motorola's G3s and G4s are also PowerPC chips, with an aditional SIMD extention (AltiVec).
As a user/developer/writer who's hands are on the way out. Voice Rec is a beautiful thought. I own ViaVoice Pro 8 for MSWin. It was the only thing holding me near windows.
I'll happily both pay and code for the newest engine under linux. If it would get it past the 99.9% accuracy point, I'd buy a power5 to run it on.
I tried to use the contact on the SDK page, but it bounced. Who do I have to bribe?
If IBM is listening, be aware that people who have hand problems are more than willing to shell out the cash for the top end hardware. A dual Opteron is cheaper than a new pair of hands. The minimum hardware requirements are pointless. Use my CPU power; I'll buy an extra one to run emacs with.
First, obsolecence is a very different argument than superstition.
Your argument boils down to the idea that, because we have made cow production as hazardous as pig production, pig production is now okay.
By applying hog raising techniques to cattle we have made them as hazardous as pigs. This does not remove the problem of pigs. What it suggests is a need for expanded laws to ban feedlots. Or, for the specifics of halal and kashrut, to enforce that cows and chickens raised in feedlots do not meet the requirement of a healthy animal.
Instead of being groundless, I would argue that the cleanliness rules are more valid than ever. [Potentially ignoring the seperation of meat and milk. Since you won't have noticed it anyhow, let's call it cultural tradition.]
We need to carefully consider what we eat and where it comes from. Islamic and Judaic law present us with traditions of conscious discretion. We cannot declare choices groundsless because the results are inconvenient. We cannot ignore effects because they are hidden from our daily lives.
I might have provided a pure anti-pig resource. The problems described are most prevelant and severe in pig production. The methods originate there. I meant simply to note that moving the factory out of the city does not divorce it from the rest of society.
If you want a modern responce to food animals, there is one, Vegetariainism. It also happens to place you solidly within the traditions of cleanliness.
The difference is that dogs didn't/have/ to be bred purely as active symbiants. They're more easily adapted to their western role (in my mind preferably so). However, if you didn't have anything else to eat, you'd breed what you did have to fit the bill.
My suggestion is that this is what happened in SE Asia. It didn't happen in the west because we had cows, sheep, and goats. Our emotional responces come after the fact, learned in the context of our stomachs.
unless you mean that they are efficient at eating scrap-waste and making themselves into food.
Actually that's (almost) exactly what I meant. But more I meant to parody your statement. Pigs are definitely shaped by man. A wild boar moving through the swamp with a herd will trample you, and gore you with six inch tusks. There is no way to take that animal, unchanged, and work with it in a domesticated environment. You can't grow them to 500lbs and docily ship them off to slaughter. We made them fatter, more docile, less hairy. We changed their growth rates, their birth rates, and their average lifespan. We changed their dietary needs. We changed their resistence to disease. We varied their size to fit our feed lots. Most domesticated pigs cannot survive without us.
Wolves are pacified all the time. [Note that I don't say domesticated.] They are pack animals, and will work with humans if they decide we are part of their pack. Humans have warped their shape in vast ways because they fit many jobs. We have not changed the inherent nature of the lupine, just chanelled it.
The fact that the changes in pigs are less colorful does not make them less significant.
The fact that you find pig tasty is also proof that eating dogs is a reasonable responce to certain conditions. Once humans decide to eat something, they learn to like it. The smell of dog revolts you and is tasty to others. The smell of pig revolts me.
So yes, Pigs were modified by humans to convert things we don't want to eat, into something some of us find more palatable.
Pigs are domesticated animals created by humans. They've been bred for thousands of years to provide garbage disposal.
Probably, the primary reason that southeast asians eat dog and the west does not, is that southeast Asia did not receive domesticated ruminants, other than pigs, for a few thousand years after their domestication in the middle east. This left them dependent on other sources of protien. Dogs, therefore, *were* bred for food in SE Asia. Dogs are too high on the food chain to be very efficient food sources, but they are much easier to live with than pigs. Therefor, dogs were a reasonable food source given the options.
First, avoiding pork is not a superstition; It is a law. It is analagous to not driving drunk. You can get away with doing it sometimes, but as a general rule, "It is unacceptable." Societies create rules to protect the society.
Trichinosis is a symptom not the primary problem with pigs. The problem with pigs is that they are "unclean." Religious rules mean that they are spiritually unclean. Practicality shows that they are unsuited for domestication.
The rules of Kashrut and Halal are designed to teach people (especially nomads) how to live in a stable, static, *sustainable* agriculture. Pigs and humans compete for too many of the same resources. Pigs and humans produce too much waste (read feces).
Living with pigs in mass does not work. Eating pigs encourages their presence. The only reason pork is popular, is that modern people do not think that they live with the pigs. However, they do: http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/nspills.a sp
As for Shrimp You are confusing Halal and Kashrut. Shrimp is not Kosher. Shrimp/is/ Halal. See: http://www.islamonline.net/fatwaapplication/ englis h/display.asp?hFatwaID=8519
Our ancestors were not stupid, they just didn't spell things out in the current manner.
For instance Feng Shui might be described as "enviromental psychology."
The purpose of science is to determine where words have meaning. The purpose of religion is to shape and maintian a society. Humans invented Religion first.
I talked to a different person at citibank. Figuring that I would tell them what I did, for the record.
Apparently a "merchant" does have the right to those numbers, in order that they might verify that you actually have the card in hand.
It makes a very interesting twist once you are using it over the internet.
They didn't check them. Therefor they wouldn't have any recourse (If I hadn't called my bank) should I claim that the charge was fraudulent.
If I had sent them and security was iffy enough for someone to sniff my card number, then the intercepting party would also have the verification codes. Rending the whole point moot.
I suppose if they can convince people with sloppy security not to ask for it...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you can't force them to install something (unless they've already installed SP3 or XP) but you can force them to meet certain requirements in order to use certain services.
That said: I reiterate my previous coment that the purposde of XP is to get DRM onto all the machines. Thus allowing bandwith management by content restriction. Once you've installed XP they can do anything they want as long as MS signs off on it.
Probably the fish we are missing is DRM. If they all have WinXP installed, they all have some DRM and have signed a license saying more can be installed without consent. This mean that the U can cut down bandwidth usage by cutting the main bandwidth consumer, content. Getting the EULA and the basic libraries in place is key to effective institution wide content management. Service Pack 3 and media player, would also give them this, but other posters have discussed the difficulty of getting the patches out. WinXP guarantees that they can "manage" their network.
Okay, I have to ask what years you were at old Miskatonic. During the 90's the Macs seemed to get slower and move into smaller clusters [upstairs in the back corner]. By the year 2000 there was a Win2k cluster belonging to the previously Sun "closed shop" CS department. [Broke my heart.]
It seems that most of the universities and secondaries I've dealt with have largely moved away from the Mac. It is only with the new powerbooks I see them coming back.
As much as I like the "drive them to the Mac" theory. The simple fact that a WinXP license is cheaper than a whole new computer, and the cheaper replacement computers come with WinXP installed (or Mandrake but...)
Oh, I started in 1991 and took the slow route to graduating. Currently a state bureacrat in the department of Secondary Ed [all win2k.]
I can take this one. It comes down to a definition of the word force.
Natural selection is not a "force" in the same way that gravity is. It is an abstraction we use so that we can write mathamatical equations and sentences that humans can get their brains around. [Gravity is also an abstraction, but less dramatically.]
Discussions of evolution often get muddied, because people use different types of discriptions at different scales. The audience doesn't always know what scale is being used.
Nature is a reinforcement loop. We often describe this reinforcement as an active process. We use verbs to describe things hapenning and visions of forces interacting. We do this because it helps humans build an image in their heads. When we change scale and start to talk about individual events, we have to stop using descriptive images and equations and settle down to gritty statistics.
For any individual, there is no shaping. There is nothing which ensures that a more fit individual is not going to be hit by a bus. The feedback loop works on distributions of statistics. [Fewer people who looked both ways died in the presence of busses. No buses no difference.]
The truely problematic statement is the last one "What works is more likely to survive." This is not strictly true. Better would be "What has survived is more likely to have worked."
Think about the evolution of microcomputer architecture. The micro-channel architecture. The alpha processor. MIPS vs ARM. BeOS. Are these "better?" Well, did they survive?
When you change scale you can confuse cause, effect and a descriptive abstraction. That was the point jgerman was trying to pick on. It's a sore point in evolution circles because the abstraction is pretty and the day to day grit is litteraly murder.
Corned beef on rye anyone?
Real-Time election results could (should?) be considered a flaw. Knowing how the vote is going can influence the way people vote; especially in cases where they choose not to vote, or rush to the poles to shore up their candidate.
So yes, I support the paper ballots with permanent markers. No one should know what is in the box until all of the votes are in the boxes. It will hurt the television coverage, but TV ratings shouldn't run the government.
The true advantages are (maybe) easier instant run-offs, multilinguality, disability and illiteracy issues, and the potential for turning out more voters by allowing voting from more convenient places (No designated voting places).
Of course allowing you to vote on Florida races while living in Texas might be an interesting issue to avoid.
They get rewritten for the PHB with the fancy new monitor.
In case you missed it. Here is the GNU free evoting project.
http://www.free-project.org/
Don't complain, contribute.
-munk
Or you could just join the GNU.FREE e-democracy project
a rtcard/jav aring.html
http://www.free-project.org/
We are a comunity. No one person needs to do everything. That is one of the points of the open source development model.
To make things fun you might give everyone a smartcard voter-id
http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~dinoj/sm
Then you can do fun things with partial knowledge verification.
We [the comunity] are making it. Feel free to help. I'm not yet part of the project, but perhaps I'll join.
I like the shopping cart motif.
Not to be picky, but you only seem to be able to browse the issued patents. The classification system is opaque (Class 2 Subclass 78.1 Patent 06430748), and the applications haven't been classified anyway.
So there is a tool to get them, good. What we need is a content management/ content review system. We effectively need a volunteer Patent Office. We need a reader aportionment system; maybe push. You'd have to set up a system of volunteering and then deal the patents out like cards. Clasify it and resend them out to people who know about that area.
People should not be willing to look it up every day. A machine should look it up everyday, send one application out to volunteers who decide how many applications they are willing to look at a week. Then that volunteer has to put the application into our content discovery system with enough clasification detail that the "experts" can be sent a summary for only those applications which are relevant to their expertise.
The problem is geting the information to the volunteers in a form and volume that they can deal with it. This tool does not exist.
What the forum dwellers are asking for is a volunteer patent office. They want to be able to donate a few hours at inconsistant times and have the system keep going ahead. Maybe throw a few dollars in the pot. [It could be a 501c(3)] and have the whole add up to at least near the sum of the parts. What they don't want is a full time job pretending to be the patent office all by themselves.
So. I volunteer to read one patent a week. Who wants to volunteer to figure out which patent I should read?
People who think they need to watch a particular topic have to search through a mass, and guess which terms the patent author might have used to describe the patently obvious. Patents don't describe things in english, they "facilitate the procurement of unrequited related assets." The patent offices search facility does not help.
For instance the most recent patent application using the term "bot" is:
Where you find it deep in the text as an abreviation for 'botanical' in a journal reference. [Botanical Gazzette]:
Even if you are using a less silly example, you either have to guess every possible wording and then read through them all, or miss most of the interesting ones altogeather, at which point there is little point. Patents are deliberately obscure. If something has a common name it isn't patentable.
The only solution I can think of is a comunity effort to read all of the pattent applications and bring the interesting ones up for discussion. This is probably necessary. Who wants to both build the interface and convince the USPO to play along?
PowerPC is the instruction set. Power4 is IBM's most recent implementation. Motorola's G3s and G4s are also PowerPC chips, with an aditional SIMD extention (AltiVec).
I'm going to have to disagree.
Smaller disks are better for two reasons: Easier storage and portability, and more importantly, Smaller computers.
Think about how having to host a 12cm disk affects form factor.
If you can get away with something smaller that stores "enough" data, you can both save money and put the devices in new places.
Think portable DVD player vs LaserDisk.
As a user/developer/writer who's hands are on the way out. Voice Rec is a beautiful thought. I own ViaVoice Pro 8 for MSWin. It was the only thing holding me near windows.
I'll happily both pay and code for the newest engine under linux. If it would get it past the 99.9% accuracy point, I'd buy a power5 to run it on.
I tried to use the contact on the SDK page, but it bounced. Who do I have to bribe?
If IBM is listening, be aware that people who have hand problems are more than willing to shell out the cash for the top end hardware. A dual Opteron is cheaper than a new pair of hands. The minimum hardware requirements are pointless. Use my CPU power; I'll buy an extra one to run emacs with.
How about multiple microphones?
First, obsolecence is a very different argument than superstition.
Your argument boils down to the idea that, because we have made cow production as hazardous as pig production, pig production is now okay.
By applying hog raising techniques to cattle we have made them as hazardous as pigs. This does not remove the problem of pigs. What it suggests is a need for expanded laws to ban feedlots. Or, for the specifics of halal and kashrut, to enforce that cows and chickens raised in feedlots do not meet the requirement of a healthy animal.
Instead of being groundless, I would argue that the cleanliness rules are more valid than ever. [Potentially ignoring the seperation of meat and milk. Since you won't have noticed it anyhow, let's call it cultural tradition.]
We need to carefully consider what we eat and where it comes from. Islamic and Judaic law present us with traditions of conscious discretion. We cannot declare choices groundsless because the results are inconvenient. We cannot ignore effects because they are hidden from our daily lives.
I might have provided a pure anti-pig resource. The problems described are most prevelant and severe in pig production. The methods originate there. I meant simply to note that moving the factory out of the city does not divorce it from the rest of society.
If you want a modern responce to food animals, there is one, Vegetariainism. It also happens to place you solidly within the traditions of cleanliness.
I agree as long as we're in the west.
/have/ to be bred purely as active symbiants. They're more easily adapted to their western role (in my mind preferably so). However, if you didn't have anything else to eat, you'd breed what you did have to fit the bill.
The difference is that dogs didn't
My suggestion is that this is what happened in SE Asia. It didn't happen in the west because we had cows, sheep, and goats. Our emotional responces come after the fact, learned in the context of our stomachs.
Technically, if it remote connects, it's not a virus it's a worm. There have been and will be many.
Actually that's (almost) exactly what I meant. But more I meant to parody your statement. Pigs are definitely shaped by man. A wild boar moving through the swamp with a herd will trample you, and gore you with six inch tusks. There is no way to take that animal, unchanged, and work with it in a domesticated environment. You can't grow them to 500lbs and docily ship them off to slaughter. We made them fatter, more docile, less hairy. We changed their growth rates, their birth rates, and their average lifespan. We changed their dietary needs. We changed their resistence to disease. We varied their size to fit our feed lots. Most domesticated pigs cannot survive without us.
Wolves are pacified all the time. [Note that I don't say domesticated.] They are pack animals, and will work with humans if they decide we are part of their pack. Humans have warped their shape in vast ways because they fit many jobs. We have not changed the inherent nature of the lupine, just chanelled it.
The fact that the changes in pigs are less colorful does not make them less significant.
The fact that you find pig tasty is also proof that eating dogs is a reasonable responce to certain conditions. Once humans decide to eat something, they learn to like it. The smell of dog revolts you and is tasty to others. The smell of pig revolts me.
So yes, Pigs were modified by humans to convert things we don't want to eat, into something some of us find more palatable.
Actually, the problem is with English.
/cells/.
/cell/ "batteries" are not batteries. They are single cells.
They used solar
A battery, is a collection of cells.
AAA, AA, C, D
The product they used to build their billboard, was made up of many cells. Therefor, they are correct to call each a solar battery.
Pigs are domesticated animals created by humans. They've been bred for thousands of years to provide garbage disposal.
Probably, the primary reason that southeast asians eat dog and the west does not, is that southeast Asia did not receive domesticated ruminants, other than pigs, for a few thousand years after their domestication in the middle east. This left them dependent on other sources of protien. Dogs, therefore, *were* bred for food in SE Asia. Dogs are too high on the food chain to be very efficient food sources, but they are much easier to live with than pigs. Therefor, dogs were a reasonable food source given the options.
First, avoiding pork is not a superstition; It is a law. It is analagous to not driving drunk. You can get away with doing it sometimes, but as a general rule, "It is unacceptable." Societies create rules to protect the society.
a sp
/is/ Halal. See:/ englis h/display.asp?hFatwaID=8519
Trichinosis is a symptom not the primary problem with pigs. The problem with pigs is that they are "unclean." Religious rules mean that they are spiritually unclean. Practicality shows that they are unsuited for domestication.
The rules of Kashrut and Halal are designed to teach people (especially nomads) how to live in a stable, static, *sustainable* agriculture. Pigs and humans compete for too many of the same resources. Pigs and humans produce too much waste (read feces).
Living with pigs in mass does not work. Eating pigs encourages their presence. The only reason pork is popular, is that modern people do not think that they live with the pigs. However, they do:
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/nspills.
As for Shrimp You are confusing Halal and Kashrut. Shrimp is not Kosher. Shrimp
http://www.islamonline.net/fatwaapplication
Our ancestors were not stupid, they just didn't spell things out in the current manner.
For instance Feng Shui might be described as "enviromental psychology."
The purpose of science is to determine where words have meaning. The purpose of religion is to shape and maintian a society. Humans invented Religion first.
Running out of oil is not the point.
There are two points:
Ecological:
Will we run out of oil before the air is too toxic to breath.
Iceland's economy:
They are better off making energy at home for ~free than paying to import it.
Just because there is a lot of oil, that does not mean we should burn it.
I believe this was intended as a joke. This is a modification of RMS on Linux, with the word Linux replaced by FreeBSD.
g cc_21.ht ml#SEC256
See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-2.95.3/
Sadly, I doubt you're currently hiring in Mid-Missouri.
I've come to learn that getting the wrong job can be worse than not having a job.
[Architect/Brainstormer/Trouble-shooter pretending to be Bureacrat; Oy.]
(BWoX: My wife is finishing her PhD.)
Yes, acutally, that would work if you add some heat conductors and a heat sink. Think of it as a really small heatpump.
Heatsource => Chip =>
Conductor to someplace else => another chip =>
Heatradiator(sink, groundpole, space-dongle)
Or even better, you use the hot end as a water heater.
Heat isn't bad; It's just inconviently located.
-Stuart
Apparently a "merchant" does have the right to those numbers, in order that they might verify that you actually have the card in hand.
It makes a very interesting twist once you are using it over the internet.
They didn't check them.
Therefor they wouldn't have any recourse (If I hadn't called my bank) should I claim that the charge was fraudulent.
If I had sent them and security was iffy enough for someone to sniff my card number, then the intercepting party would also have the verification codes. Rending the whole point moot.
I suppose if they can convince people with sloppy security not to ask for it...
Oy.