One of the many things that is better in the Mac version of IE (taking your word about the shortcoming in the PC version) is that you can indeed access the saved auth info for each authentication domain individually.
Wolbachia has some interesting public health implications. Somebody did a paper last year that showed that some worms in the genus that causes river blindness have evolved to become dependent upon Wolbachia for survival -- and Wolbachia can be killed by tetracycline. Eighteen million people in Subsaharan Africa are infected with Onchocerca, which to date has had no effective treatment. This has tremendous economic impact in an underdeveloped region.
That is interesting. Presumably there would be no point in giving tetracycline to someone already infected with river blindness, right? The trick would be figuring out how to administer it to the worms before they infect people. Of course I don't know what I'm talking about, just a guess.
In my experience, it has been younger employees who think they know it all, and older ones who have the wisdow to know that they don't.
I may be a little jaded because I've just gone through the process of hiring some people, and I had to wade through a pile of resumes of kids who were just graduating from high-school asking for $100,000 salaries, 4 day work weeks, room in our rack to host their personal Linux machines, etc.
If the power goes out in a 757, I think you're going to be in a world of hurt whether the joystick is virtual or gripped firmly in your sweatly little hand.
Of course. But I was responding to speculation that this kind of tech. (well, more specifically more advanced stuff like direct mind-computer links) will become pervasive throughout everyday life.
I really really think that Apple dropped the ball when they cancelled the Newton. Not that the Messagepad, as it existed, was the end-all and be-all of portable devices, but because the OS was as close to being invisible as any I've seen.
Of course at the time Apple was moving toward a document-centered paradigm with the Mac OS as well (OpenDOC), which would've been pretty cool. The problem, I guess, is not really a technological one, but a business one. All of the big players in the software market (Microsoft, Adobe, etc.) sell big, expensive, monolithic applications, and they were opposed, I'm sure, to Apple changing the playing field.
My hope is that we in the free software world can do what Apple couldn't. The development model should be perfect (it's easier for individuals or small development teams to develop components than big apps like Office). To what extent do people think that Bonobo (and whatever equivelent in KDE-land, if there is one) will deliver on OpenDOC's promise?
(Man, that post ended up somewhere completely different than where it started -- nothing like stream of conscience/. posting!;-)
I wonder if people who haven't learned to integrate their activities with a machine at an early age will ever manage to have this happen as seemlessly as you suggest. The people who invent this stuff may end up using this stuff rather awkwardly, like someone speaking a late-learned language, while their children will truly be the ones that inhabit a new world.
For some reason, I find the whole concept of this rather unsettling. I guess I don't like the idea of becoming overly dependant on a machine. What if the power goes out?
Hey, I've got an old DX7 too!
Yes clearly a DX7 (or any other non-sampler) isn't going to transmit samples, but samples can be transmitted without breaking the MIDI standard, the same way that patches can be transfered (an Ensonic or Emu [you can tell how out of date I am;-) ] keyboard won't understand my DX7 patches, but that doesn't mean it ain't MIDI).
I'm not sure how this relates to the original article -- I didn't read it carefully enough to know if he's doing anything related to this.
Well, you've been able to transfer samples from samplers via MIDI for over a decade (MIDI will let you transfer just about anything). So, actually, you CAN transfer audio over MIDI.
1) Was not democratically elected, was a left-wing junta. Just because commies say "the peoples this and that" a lot does NOT make them democratic.
You might want to check your sources again. Salvador Allende was indeed democratically elected. He belonged to the socialist party, but it is worth noting that the policy that most angered the United States and prompted the Nixon administration to sponsor a military coup -- nationalizing the foreign-owned (mostly by US interests) copper mines -- was approved unanimously by the opposition-controlled congress.
2)We did not sponsor them, we only trained certain units in counter-inssurgency tactics. Their own lack of morals did the rest.
We did more than train them (though you might want to look into the kinds of tactics we trained them in). We gave them the arms that they used to commit these atrocities. All in all, we gave more than $4 billion to the Salvadoran military during the war. (This in a country of only 6 million people. And with all that aid they still couldn't win their war. Should tell you something about the level of popular support the government enjoyed) I'm particularly sensitive to this issue -- my wife is Salvadoran and lost her only brother and 2 sisters in that dirty war.
3)The UN is about as useful as the League of Nations was. Lots of talk, only the big-boys have a real say. Why invest money in a bad idea?
I won't bother getting into an argument about the merits of the UN, but the fact remains that we are obligated by treaty to pay a certain percentage of the UN's operational budget. We seem to want to have it both ways with the UN -- criticize it as infringing on our national sovereignty on the one hand, but use it as cover for our international interventions on the other.
I guess with 4 you admit we had somewhat less than altruistic motives?
For further understanding of why we are hated, especially in latin america, check out this page.
4) We support brutal dictatoships. (That's right -- guess who helped finance the Iraqi war against Iran, before Saddam Hussein conveniently turned into our enemy?)
The list could go on and on, of course, but I should wrap it up before my electricity goes out (damn brown-outs!)
Well, you could try changing the mind of the author of the code you want to use. If they want you to use their code, they'll let you. If it's a big project with hundreds of coders, well, then you're probably out of luck. I don't think this is a big problem outside of some few, very specific circumstances, though. I don't really have a problem with people using a license to spread a political idea. At any rate, the point of the GPL is not to provide maximum functionality to the maximum number of people (at least in the short term) -- it's to change the world (or at least our niche of it).
Did you read the article?
on
MySQL FS
·
· Score: 1
I'm probably being trolled here, but I must ask you, did you even read the article? They're not talking about replacing the file system with a database, or eliminating SQL access to the database. The idea actually is kind of interesting to me (it remains to be seen exactly how practical it is in real life). One of the cool things is that it would provide access to data to applications that only know the file system.
Honestly, I don't really know what you're complaining about.
I don't think he (whoever posted the story) meant that the weapon per se was disturbing, but the fact that it is triggered by a computer as opposed to a human.
That said, I do find this a little disconcerting. Well, not this weapon in particular, but the amount of energy and capital that is expended on coming up with more advanced and more efficient weapons in general. You can't really distinguish between "offensive" and "defensive" weapons, IMO, because either way the result is just that you're encouraging your enemies (and even your allies, probably) to come up with even more ingenious (or maybe really obvious) counter-measures. In the end, you've spent a ton of money, and you're not any more secure. Tell me, are you more afraid of a nuclear launch from North Korea, or some guy with a mini-nuke in a suitcase that just snuck into mid-town Manhattan? Personally, I'd feel a lot more secure if we tried to be the kind of country that everybody didn't hate so much.
"Globalization" in this context usually means the removal of barriers to trade, such as tarriffs. These barriers are artificial anyway, and were not usually erected for economic reasons. For example, a politician might impose a tax in imported steel in order to safeguard steelworkers in his/her own country. Sometimes this might be because the country wants to have steel production capability because it needs to be able to manufacture its own weapons, sometimes it's because the politician wants to votes of the steelworkers and their communities.
There are always barriers to trade, whether or not they are placed by polititians. There are natural ones like oceans and mountains, and there are normal variations in local economies. Plus there are differences in social policies that lead to differences costs of production. What the current wave of globalization aims to do is essentially negate past social policy aimed at improving workers rights, environmental protection, etc. Big (and some not so big) corporations don't like these policies because they are expensive and cut into corporate profits. But there are other consituencies that need to be taken into account. We need to look at what benefits society as a whole -- and that includes working people, students, unemployed people, etc. etc. whose interests don't coincide with those of the corporations.
I've seen the posters and the demonstrators. They're against capitalism, industry, trade, the monetary system, the whole works. They seem to think that if they just do away with the economy altogether, they'll be free to party their whole lives. Where on earth do they suppose their dole comes from?
You may have seen them, but you clearly don't understand them.
Re:a market for cubes!? Damn Straight!
on
Macs In Space II
·
· Score: 1
Hey, my mom is buying a cube. It's the perfect computer for her -- it's small, quiet, completely unobtrusive. So they're a bit pricey -- but they're not that expensive, and she's really not comparison shopping just based on price. There really isn't anything else out there in its niche (it's probably just a smaller niche than Apple estimated).
Slashdot Mirror
One of the many things that is better in the Mac version of IE (taking your word about the shortcoming in the PC version) is that you can indeed access the saved auth info for each authentication domain individually.
That is interesting. Presumably there would be no point in giving tetracycline to someone already infected with river blindness, right? The trick would be figuring out how to administer it to the worms before they infect people. Of course I don't know what I'm talking about, just a guess.
In my experience, it has been younger employees who think they know it all, and older ones who have the wisdow to know that they don't.
I may be a little jaded because I've just gone through the process of hiring some people, and I had to wade through a pile of resumes of kids who were just graduating from high-school asking for $100,000 salaries, 4 day work weeks, room in our rack to host their personal Linux machines, etc.
That's actually the Wimpy (from Popeye) appoach!
Means accepted by Sun Microsystems.
Of course. But I was responding to speculation that this kind of tech. (well, more specifically more advanced stuff like direct mind-computer links) will become pervasive throughout everyday life.
Of course you can't have a computer without an OS. He just wants a more transparent OS.
I really really think that Apple dropped the ball when they cancelled the Newton. Not that the Messagepad, as it existed, was the end-all and be-all of portable devices, but because the OS was as close to being invisible as any I've seen.
/. posting! ;-)
Of course at the time Apple was moving toward a document-centered paradigm with the Mac OS as well (OpenDOC), which would've been pretty cool. The problem, I guess, is not really a technological one, but a business one. All of the big players in the software market (Microsoft, Adobe, etc.) sell big, expensive, monolithic applications, and they were opposed, I'm sure, to Apple changing the playing field.
My hope is that we in the free software world can do what Apple couldn't. The development model should be perfect (it's easier for individuals or small development teams to develop components than big apps like Office). To what extent do people think that Bonobo (and whatever equivelent in KDE-land, if there is one) will deliver on OpenDOC's promise?
(Man, that post ended up somewhere completely different than where it started -- nothing like stream of conscience
I wonder if people who haven't learned to integrate their activities with a machine at an early age will ever manage to have this happen as seemlessly as you suggest. The people who invent this stuff may end up using this stuff rather awkwardly, like someone speaking a late-learned language, while their children will truly be the ones that inhabit a new world.
For some reason, I find the whole concept of this rather unsettling. I guess I don't like the idea of becoming overly dependant on a machine. What if the power goes out?
And Bounyquest has overturned exactly how many patents? Oh right, it's exactly 0.
Hey, I've got an old DX7 too! ;-) ] keyboard won't understand my DX7 patches, but that doesn't mean it ain't MIDI).
Yes clearly a DX7 (or any other non-sampler) isn't going to transmit samples, but samples can be transmitted without breaking the MIDI standard, the same way that patches can be transfered (an Ensonic or Emu [you can tell how out of date I am
I'm not sure how this relates to the original article -- I didn't read it carefully enough to know if he's doing anything related to this.
Well, you've been able to transfer samples from samplers via MIDI for over a decade (MIDI will let you transfer just about anything). So, actually, you CAN transfer audio over MIDI.
You might want to check your sources again. Salvador Allende was indeed democratically elected. He belonged to the socialist party, but it is worth noting that the policy that most angered the United States and prompted the Nixon administration to sponsor a military coup -- nationalizing the foreign-owned (mostly by US interests) copper mines -- was approved unanimously by the opposition-controlled congress.
We did more than train them (though you might want to look into the kinds of tactics we trained them in). We gave them the arms that they used to commit these atrocities. All in all, we gave more than $4 billion to the Salvadoran military during the war. (This in a country of only 6 million people. And with all that aid they still couldn't win their war. Should tell you something about the level of popular support the government enjoyed) I'm particularly sensitive to this issue -- my wife is Salvadoran and lost her only brother and 2 sisters in that dirty war.
I won't bother getting into an argument about the merits of the UN, but the fact remains that we are obligated by treaty to pay a certain percentage of the UN's operational budget. We seem to want to have it both ways with the UN -- criticize it as infringing on our national sovereignty on the one hand, but use it as cover for our international interventions on the other.
I guess with 4 you admit we had somewhat less than altruistic motives?
For further understanding of why we are hated, especially in latin america, check out this page.
1) We over-throw democratically elected governments
2) We sponsor right-wing death squads in Latin America
3) We don't honor our international commitments
4) We support brutal dictatoships. (That's right -- guess who helped finance the Iraqi war against Iran, before Saddam Hussein conveniently turned into our enemy?)
The list could go on and on, of course, but I should wrap it up before my electricity goes out (damn brown-outs!)
You have evidence of this 'press release' coming from Microsoft?
Evidence? Oh please.... it's Microsoft! What more evidence do you need?
Yeah, what's up with that? I counted 5 in one answer at one point!
That the first thing on that page is a plea not to link to it (but to link to his main page instead, so that his page counter works).
Don't bother saying "change FAI's mind".
Well, you could try changing the mind of the author of the code you want to use. If they want you to use their code, they'll let you. If it's a big project with hundreds of coders, well, then you're probably out of luck. I don't think this is a big problem outside of some few, very specific circumstances, though. I don't really have a problem with people using a license to spread a political idea. At any rate, the point of the GPL is not to provide maximum functionality to the maximum number of people (at least in the short term) -- it's to change the world (or at least our niche of it).
I'm probably being trolled here, but I must ask you, did you even read the article? They're not talking about replacing the file system with a database, or eliminating SQL access to the database. The idea actually is kind of interesting to me (it remains to be seen exactly how practical it is in real life). One of the cool things is that it would provide access to data to applications that only know the file system.
Honestly, I don't really know what you're complaining about.
I get paid to play quake already!
I did post this anonymously, right? Oh crap...
Also, the Iranian jetiner shot down by the USS Vincennes (not sure on the model, but definitely a civilian aircraft).
I don't think he (whoever posted the story) meant that the weapon per se was disturbing, but the fact that it is triggered by a computer as opposed to a human.
That said, I do find this a little disconcerting. Well, not this weapon in particular, but the amount of energy and capital that is expended on coming up with more advanced and more efficient weapons in general. You can't really distinguish between "offensive" and "defensive" weapons, IMO, because either way the result is just that you're encouraging your enemies (and even your allies, probably) to come up with even more ingenious (or maybe really obvious) counter-measures. In the end, you've spent a ton of money, and you're not any more secure. Tell me, are you more afraid of a nuclear launch from North Korea, or some guy with a mini-nuke in a suitcase that just snuck into mid-town Manhattan? Personally, I'd feel a lot more secure if we tried to be the kind of country that everybody didn't hate so much.
It's called ISDN. I remember reading about studios recording remotely at least as far back as 1990, and I think even earlier than that.
Also -- there's the phoned in guitar solo on one of the early TMBG albums (Lincoln I think);-)
There are always barriers to trade, whether or not they are placed by polititians. There are natural ones like oceans and mountains, and there are normal variations in local economies. Plus there are differences in social policies that lead to differences costs of production. What the current wave of globalization aims to do is essentially negate past social policy aimed at improving workers rights, environmental protection, etc. Big (and some not so big) corporations don't like these policies because they are expensive and cut into corporate profits. But there are other consituencies that need to be taken into account. We need to look at what benefits society as a whole -- and that includes working people, students, unemployed people, etc. etc. whose interests don't coincide with those of the corporations.
You may have seen them, but you clearly don't understand them.
Hey, my mom is buying a cube. It's the perfect computer for her -- it's small, quiet, completely unobtrusive. So they're a bit pricey -- but they're not that expensive, and she's really not comparison shopping just based on price. There really isn't anything else out there in its niche (it's probably just a smaller niche than Apple estimated).