Would it make the posters I bought in the 70's light up?
Yes it would, but not as inexpensively as a black light from Spenser's. These aren't cheap and require somewhat specialized ballasts. These lights have a center frequency response around 370nm, while blacklights are closer to 390nm+, so I don't know if they would so better or worse.
Black == 0w/cm2 between 700nm and 400nm. He is referring to now being able to see between 400nm and 350nm, which is a type of violet. Specifically, "ultra violet".
It is possible to light a surface with only 400nm-350nm light. We make ultraviolet lamps, and we have one that produces ZERO visible light in the 700nm-400nm range. To you and I, they look black. To him, it would be as bright as a regular light, but the color would be even more violet than violet. So yes, he would be able to see what you and I would call "black".
To be sure, we don't actually SELL this light, because it would confuse customers who couldn't tell if it was working or not. It is an engineering masterpiece, and a marketing nightmare. It does, however, make a most excellent analog for this situation:)
No, you don't. You might think you do, but you don't. Everyone thinks THEIR religion is the exception. You aren't unique, just wrong. Even those that take atheism so serious to the point of it being "a religion" (ie: Leninism or militant anti-christianism) are just as bad.
The problem lies in having a belief system, not the content of the belief systems. Beliefs system don't require facts, so facts can't persuade them, no matter how obvious or proven the fact.
It is possible to believe in a higher power without following a belief system. It is possible to think that science can prove that some kind of "god" started the universe. You might be right or wrong, I don't claim to know, but this isn't the same as "religion". Religion, where you are TOLD what to think and discouraged from thinking freely, IS inherently bad, whether you or the mods understand it or not.
Now that you mention it, I haven't bought a computer from a brick and mortar store in over 10 years. Then again, I've never been able to buy one off the shelf, or willing to pay 300 bucks for a 50 dollar ram upgrade, so I have always bought the box from one company, and the upgrades from several others. Online since before 2000. I get better service from a website than any electronics store I have ever been in.
Why would you use FreeDOS over any flavor of Linux?
1. You can boot it from a floppy (or CD or USB key) in seconds, which is perfect for basic testing of older hardware.
2. Many situations do not require multitasking, ie: point of sale, etc. Many good but older point of sale programs exist that run in DOS. You can back up the entire system in seconds. I'm actually considering it for a system as we speak, since I already own the $3000 software.
3. Many situations do not require internet access (see point of sale, above).
4. Great as a standalone, or for dual booting, or virtualization for playing old games.
5. Flashing BIOS.
6. Linux isn't the answer to all computing needs. Many of them, but not all.
Someone else pointed out the fallacy of your argument with a chainsaw example, which covers it well. At some point, the end user has to take responsibility for their own information, particularly when they are manually adding it to a website for the world to see.
People can get bent out of shape when website lie about their policies, rightly so, but it is obvious what Facebook is using the information for: to serve up ads geared toward your interests and your friends. Again, anyone who uses Facebook for anything that requires "privacy" is an idiot, regardless of how clueless the moderators are.
Facebook was instrumental in the Arab Spring precisely because people shared things they cared about. Does that make them complete idiots or rather brave heroes?
I didn't say "things they cared about", I said "for anything that even approaches the requirement of "privacy"" Those two are not remotely the same thing.
ironically, the "man in the middle" role is less powerful because of FB's requirement to use real names.
Facebook requiring real names is a myth to begin with. Many, many users use completely fake information, some quite obviously so.
Utterly and completely stupid way to compare. You share things on Facebook that you don't care that other people know. As a matter of fact, the only reason someone posts the stupid "I can haz cheezeburger?" cat picture is so they can TELL EVERYONE THAT THEY LOVE CATS. There was no expectation of privacy in the statement, so no privacy is lost.
If you use Facebook for anything that even approaches the requirement of "privacy", then you are a complete idiot.
Does Australia have more snow-covered land than Switzerland
Switzerland isn't even 16k sq. mi. in area. Australia is 2,941,299 sq. mi. and is 184 TIMES its size. The state of West Virginia probably has more snow covered land than Switzerland. Not sure that is even a valid question, comparing a tiny country to a large continent.
What are you, 6? I have people I lost contact with years ago in the military, and from school. We didn't trade email addys in the 70s and 80s and most of the 90s.
So you are saying "If you lost contact, then you must not have liked them very much, so you shouldn't contact them now". This of course, makes you sound like a fucktard with no concept of how the real world works. Move out of mom's basement for Christ's sake.
Social media lets me talk with friends, even when we can't talk at the same time, like USENET (and less conveniently, FidoNET) used to do before spammers killed it. Just because you have no friends doesn't mean the rest of us don't have people we knew 30 years ago that we still care about, and now, even fly back to visit after a couple decades of absence.
Some of us are 50, so we don't have every phone number of every person we knew and liked from the 1970s.
Yes, GeoCities was great. That might explain why it is gone.
I'm not saying Facebook is great, I'm saying they are doing a better job, and managing to make a profit, something the other "technologies" never manged to do.
I believe live journal, MySpace, geocities, tripod, etc all beat Facebook to your so called innovating by providing people with their own "web page".
Yes, a webpage that 5 people saw. Blogs made it possible for ordinary persons to have 12 to 20 people see their webpage. Facebook users typically have 50 to 500 "friends" who are forced to see updates about their cats, or the latest shared "image that is really only text" bit of wisdom. More importantly, it created networks with all their personal information available to the platform, and most importantly, Facebook figured out how to get people to give them this information for free. Some even pay for it, by purchasing game credits.
Facebook is different, and is the "necessary evil" of the month if you want to catch up with old friends from high school, etc. Other than conversation and "free" games that are designed from the ground up to be addictive, it offers very little to the user, but it offers tremendous value to the advertiser. Five years from now, Facebook will still be here. Likely worth a tiny fraction of the 75B that is laughably being touted, but it will be here.
Google brought advertisers millions of people. Facebook tells the advertisers where they live, what they like, and who their friends are. The problem of course is that everyone goes to Google when they are looking to buy something, not Facebook.
Nope. Piracy is the loss of your right to distribute your material as you see fit because some numbnuts thinks his desires trump your copyright. Copyright is not about revenue. Once disbursed into the wild, it can't be called back either. More same than not.
Um, nope to you. If I pirate the latest "Britney Spears" album (shudder....) then she can still distribute it all she wants. She can continue to sell CD's and online copies at iTunes. Her song wasn't a "secret", the software was. And once she has distributed ONE copy, even for cash, it is "in the wild".
You are missing the entire point. It isn't about having control over distributing, it is about having control over NOT distributing that was lost. As to the value of the software, I have no idea and it is meaningless, but the mechanism involved is the exact opposite of music or video piracy.
In addition to your comment, the source code was never available for sale to any other party. It wasn't "infringement" in that it cost the Fed lost sales, it lost them exclusive access to sensitive data that they only wanted a limited number of people to have access to. The financial loss isn't related to lost sales, but in potential security implications. Apples and Oranges.
In this case, it was more like theft because the Fed lost exclusive use of the software, something that can't be given back once it is in the wild. Piracy is completely different, where 100 copies of a file can cost lost sales of 1 or 2 actual copies, but no loss of use or security is involved, only revenue. With music and movies, you WANT many people to have access to the product, but at a cost. With exclusive software, you want NO ONE to have a copy. Neither is ideal if you own the "property", but they aren't the same.
And if you add that dollar to the $1.33 for Solyndra, and the dollars for all the other failures, pretty soon you have enough money for a nice bottle of Scotch for every man, woman and child, which is a good thing because this pissing away my money is definitely driving me to drinking.
To add, it is like a company advertising a 1-800 number instead of a 1-866 number. Both get the job done, a free phone call, but there is a certain amount of credibility to owning a good.com or a good 1-800 number, at least in the US. For commerce, a *info or *biz says "cheesy", whether it is justified or not.
...everyone knows that if you will just take a few weeks to learn to program, you can start making 60k or more a year within a month or two.
Ok, granted, this story wasn't quite THAT bad, and the idea that everyone should take a few weeks to learn what programming IS, the concepts, is probably a good idea. However, the idea that you can learn to be a programmer in one year is foolish. I've never had any formal training, self taught in Perl, javascript, some PHP, and been doing it as a minor part of my job for 15 years, and I'm not a programmer. Having at least moderate skills, to understand what a shell script or batch file is, what HTML code is and does, will help you in your job, but you aren't going to start creating more real programmers with one year, even if that is all they do is learn 24/7 for that year.
What there is a shortage of is people with MORE than one year of training as a programmer. People who can write good code, instead of the bloated crap that I write to just get the job done. But that isn't what this article is about, it is about promising something that won't happen, that learning a little coding will guarantee you a job. It won't help a forklift driver, someone used to working on an assembly line that is now part of a closed factory, or half the people looking for work now. It will do them personally good to understand a little, but it won't be the cure for our unemployment.
Unemployment is high right now, not because companies can't find good people, but because companies are afraid to take on the responsibility (and liability) of expanding and hiring until they absolutely have to, due to a messed up political and financial environment.
Crack a book. Certain demographics are more likely to get arrested for crimes, even when they are no more likely to commit the crime. Drug usage is a prime example of having the same percentage of black and white abusers, yet blacks have an arrest rate of 4x that of whites.
There is a big difference between "I want to live in a nice area" and "I don't want to live near blacks/mexicans/asians/or whites" (depending on your race. It is your money. The issues isn't the money, it is the philosophy that says that all other races are less than you.
I want "no/few fucking neighbors, and none who are poor, and none who don't look like me".
did you fail to understand? He obviously doesn't like poor people, or people who are not his race, not for any personal reason, but solely because they are different than he is. That is pretty much the de facto definition of bigotry.
I select realtors of similar demographics to myself, and bluntly inform them I want "no/few fucking neighbors, and none who are poor, and none who don't look like me".
Since we are being politically incorrect, let me just say that you are part of the problem, you are not the solution. And you aren't even unique. Living in a small town in NC, I see plenty of assholes just like you. You can call it "Voluntary Segregation" all you want, but it simply boils down to bigotry. You think your race is better than any other race. It doesn't even matter what race you are.
There is a broad line between free association and "I'm not willing to live near anyone who is a different color than me", and you have obviously passed it, well into pure racism. The individual doesn't matter, and it isn't even one race, you simply hate everyone who isn't exactly like you. I'm thankful you are not my neighbor.
I could give you an analogy, but I don't want to break Godwin's Law.
The reason that Americans buy bigger cars isn't simply a matter of the price of gas. At the very least, it is an oversimplification,b but more importantly, it misses the point completely. Americans likely drive at least twice as many miles as Brits. I drive 100 miles a day just going back and forth to work. Few Brits do that. Granted, I'm on the high end of the mileage spectrum, but the entire USA has a lower population density in our cities, which means further traveling to work and back, plus other driving takes are farther away. This is one reason (but not the only one) that public transportation is difficult here, the distances, and thus the times, are greater.
To reduce the amount of miles that American drive would literally require knocking down half the buildings and building higher density housing. And Americans, including myself, don't want that.
So instead of giving them 500 million dollars, we should have given them 10 billion? No, the problem was that Solara padded Obama's pockets, they were in difficulties before the cash infusion, and there is nothing to show for our 500 million dollars. I noticed all their top position people never missed a paycheck as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Would it make the posters I bought in the 70's light up?
Yes it would, but not as inexpensively as a black light from Spenser's. These aren't cheap and require somewhat specialized ballasts. These lights have a center frequency response around 370nm, while blacklights are closer to 390nm+, so I don't know if they would so better or worse.
Black == 0w/cm2 between 700nm and 400nm. He is referring to now being able to see between 400nm and 350nm, which is a type of violet. Specifically, "ultra violet".
It is possible to light a surface with only 400nm-350nm light. We make ultraviolet lamps, and we have one that produces ZERO visible light in the 700nm-400nm range. To you and I, they look black. To him, it would be as bright as a regular light, but the color would be even more violet than violet. So yes, he would be able to see what you and I would call "black".
To be sure, we don't actually SELL this light, because it would confuse customers who couldn't tell if it was working or not. It is an engineering masterpiece, and a marketing nightmare. It does, however, make a most excellent analog for this situation :)
No, you don't. You might think you do, but you don't. Everyone thinks THEIR religion is the exception. You aren't unique, just wrong. Even those that take atheism so serious to the point of it being "a religion" (ie: Leninism or militant anti-christianism) are just as bad.
The problem lies in having a belief system, not the content of the belief systems. Beliefs system don't require facts, so facts can't persuade them, no matter how obvious or proven the fact.
It is possible to believe in a higher power without following a belief system. It is possible to think that science can prove that some kind of "god" started the universe. You might be right or wrong, I don't claim to know, but this isn't the same as "religion". Religion, where you are TOLD what to think and discouraged from thinking freely, IS inherently bad, whether you or the mods understand it or not.
Differentiating "church" from "reality" is even better.
Now that you mention it, I haven't bought a computer from a brick and mortar store in over 10 years. Then again, I've never been able to buy one off the shelf, or willing to pay 300 bucks for a 50 dollar ram upgrade, so I have always bought the box from one company, and the upgrades from several others. Online since before 2000. I get better service from a website than any electronics store I have ever been in.
Yet Apple can't seem to open stores up fast enough. Go figure.
Why would you use FreeDOS over any flavor of Linux?
1. You can boot it from a floppy (or CD or USB key) in seconds, which is perfect for basic testing of older hardware.
2. Many situations do not require multitasking, ie: point of sale, etc. Many good but older point of sale programs exist that run in DOS. You can back up the entire system in seconds. I'm actually considering it for a system as we speak, since I already own the $3000 software.
3. Many situations do not require internet access (see point of sale, above).
4. Great as a standalone, or for dual booting, or virtualization for playing old games.
5. Flashing BIOS.
6. Linux isn't the answer to all computing needs. Many of them, but not all.
Someone else pointed out the fallacy of your argument with a chainsaw example, which covers it well. At some point, the end user has to take responsibility for their own information, particularly when they are manually adding it to a website for the world to see.
People can get bent out of shape when website lie about their policies, rightly so, but it is obvious what Facebook is using the information for: to serve up ads geared toward your interests and your friends. Again, anyone who uses Facebook for anything that requires "privacy" is an idiot, regardless of how clueless the moderators are.
Facebook was instrumental in the Arab Spring precisely because people shared things they cared about. Does that make them complete idiots or rather brave heroes?
I didn't say "things they cared about", I said "for anything that even approaches the requirement of "privacy"" Those two are not remotely the same thing.
ironically, the "man in the middle" role is less powerful because of FB's requirement to use real names.
Facebook requiring real names is a myth to begin with. Many, many users use completely fake information, some quite obviously so.
Utterly and completely stupid way to compare. You share things on Facebook that you don't care that other people know. As a matter of fact, the only reason someone posts the stupid "I can haz cheezeburger?" cat picture is so they can TELL EVERYONE THAT THEY LOVE CATS. There was no expectation of privacy in the statement, so no privacy is lost.
If you use Facebook for anything that even approaches the requirement of "privacy", then you are a complete idiot.
Nothing to see here, move along....
Does Australia have more snow-covered land than Switzerland
Switzerland isn't even 16k sq. mi. in area. Australia is 2,941,299 sq. mi. and is 184 TIMES its size. The state of West Virginia probably has more snow covered land than Switzerland. Not sure that is even a valid question, comparing a tiny country to a large continent.
What are you, 6? I have people I lost contact with years ago in the military, and from school. We didn't trade email addys in the 70s and 80s and most of the 90s.
So you are saying "If you lost contact, then you must not have liked them very much, so you shouldn't contact them now". This of course, makes you sound like a fucktard with no concept of how the real world works. Move out of mom's basement for Christ's sake.
Social media lets me talk with friends, even when we can't talk at the same time, like USENET (and less conveniently, FidoNET) used to do before spammers killed it. Just because you have no friends doesn't mean the rest of us don't have people we knew 30 years ago that we still care about, and now, even fly back to visit after a couple decades of absence.
Some of us are 50, so we don't have every phone number of every person we knew and liked from the 1970s.
Yes, GeoCities was great. That might explain why it is gone.
I'm not saying Facebook is great, I'm saying they are doing a better job, and managing to make a profit, something the other "technologies" never manged to do.
I believe live journal, MySpace, geocities, tripod, etc all beat Facebook to your so called innovating by providing people with their own "web page".
Yes, a webpage that 5 people saw. Blogs made it possible for ordinary persons to have 12 to 20 people see their webpage. Facebook users typically have 50 to 500 "friends" who are forced to see updates about their cats, or the latest shared "image that is really only text" bit of wisdom. More importantly, it created networks with all their personal information available to the platform, and most importantly, Facebook figured out how to get people to give them this information for free. Some even pay for it, by purchasing game credits.
Facebook is different, and is the "necessary evil" of the month if you want to catch up with old friends from high school, etc. Other than conversation and "free" games that are designed from the ground up to be addictive, it offers very little to the user, but it offers tremendous value to the advertiser. Five years from now, Facebook will still be here. Likely worth a tiny fraction of the 75B that is laughably being touted, but it will be here.
Google brought advertisers millions of people. Facebook tells the advertisers where they live, what they like, and who their friends are. The problem of course is that everyone goes to Google when they are looking to buy something, not Facebook.
Nope. Piracy is the loss of your right to distribute your material as you see fit because some numbnuts thinks his desires trump your copyright. Copyright is not about revenue. Once disbursed into the wild, it can't be called back either. More same than not.
Um, nope to you. If I pirate the latest "Britney Spears" album (shudder....) then she can still distribute it all she wants. She can continue to sell CD's and online copies at iTunes. Her song wasn't a "secret", the software was. And once she has distributed ONE copy, even for cash, it is "in the wild".
You are missing the entire point. It isn't about having control over distributing, it is about having control over NOT distributing that was lost. As to the value of the software, I have no idea and it is meaningless, but the mechanism involved is the exact opposite of music or video piracy.
In addition to your comment, the source code was never available for sale to any other party. It wasn't "infringement" in that it cost the Fed lost sales, it lost them exclusive access to sensitive data that they only wanted a limited number of people to have access to. The financial loss isn't related to lost sales, but in potential security implications. Apples and Oranges.
In this case, it was more like theft because the Fed lost exclusive use of the software, something that can't be given back once it is in the wild. Piracy is completely different, where 100 copies of a file can cost lost sales of 1 or 2 actual copies, but no loss of use or security is involved, only revenue. With music and movies, you WANT many people to have access to the product, but at a cost. With exclusive software, you want NO ONE to have a copy. Neither is ideal if you own the "property", but they aren't the same.
And if you add that dollar to the $1.33 for Solyndra, and the dollars for all the other failures, pretty soon you have enough money for a nice bottle of Scotch for every man, woman and child, which is a good thing because this pissing away my money is definitely driving me to drinking.
To add, it is like a company advertising a 1-800 number instead of a 1-866 number. Both get the job done, a free phone call, but there is a certain amount of credibility to owning a good .com or a good 1-800 number, at least in the US. For commerce, a *info or *biz says "cheesy", whether it is justified or not.
...everyone knows that if you will just take a few weeks to learn to program, you can start making 60k or more a year within a month or two.
Ok, granted, this story wasn't quite THAT bad, and the idea that everyone should take a few weeks to learn what programming IS, the concepts, is probably a good idea. However, the idea that you can learn to be a programmer in one year is foolish. I've never had any formal training, self taught in Perl, javascript, some PHP, and been doing it as a minor part of my job for 15 years, and I'm not a programmer. Having at least moderate skills, to understand what a shell script or batch file is, what HTML code is and does, will help you in your job, but you aren't going to start creating more real programmers with one year, even if that is all they do is learn 24/7 for that year.
What there is a shortage of is people with MORE than one year of training as a programmer. People who can write good code, instead of the bloated crap that I write to just get the job done. But that isn't what this article is about, it is about promising something that won't happen, that learning a little coding will guarantee you a job. It won't help a forklift driver, someone used to working on an assembly line that is now part of a closed factory, or half the people looking for work now. It will do them personally good to understand a little, but it won't be the cure for our unemployment.
Unemployment is high right now, not because companies can't find good people, but because companies are afraid to take on the responsibility (and liability) of expanding and hiring until they absolutely have to, due to a messed up political and financial environment.
Crack a book. Certain demographics are more likely to get arrested for crimes, even when they are no more likely to commit the crime. Drug usage is a prime example of having the same percentage of black and white abusers, yet blacks have an arrest rate of 4x that of whites.
There is a big difference between "I want to live in a nice area" and "I don't want to live near blacks/mexicans/asians/or whites" (depending on your race. It is your money. The issues isn't the money, it is the philosophy that says that all other races are less than you.
Exactly what part of his statement:
I want "no/few fucking neighbors, and none who are poor, and none who don't look like me".
did you fail to understand? He obviously doesn't like poor people, or people who are not his race, not for any personal reason, but solely because they are different than he is. That is pretty much the de facto definition of bigotry.
I select realtors of similar demographics to myself, and bluntly inform them I want "no/few fucking neighbors, and none who are poor, and none who don't look like me".
Since we are being politically incorrect, let me just say that you are part of the problem, you are not the solution. And you aren't even unique. Living in a small town in NC, I see plenty of assholes just like you. You can call it "Voluntary Segregation" all you want, but it simply boils down to bigotry. You think your race is better than any other race. It doesn't even matter what race you are.
There is a broad line between free association and "I'm not willing to live near anyone who is a different color than me", and you have obviously passed it, well into pure racism. The individual doesn't matter, and it isn't even one race, you simply hate everyone who isn't exactly like you. I'm thankful you are not my neighbor.
I could give you an analogy, but I don't want to break Godwin's Law.
The reason that Americans buy bigger cars isn't simply a matter of the price of gas. At the very least, it is an oversimplification,b but more importantly, it misses the point completely. Americans likely drive at least twice as many miles as Brits. I drive 100 miles a day just going back and forth to work. Few Brits do that. Granted, I'm on the high end of the mileage spectrum, but the entire USA has a lower population density in our cities, which means further traveling to work and back, plus other driving takes are farther away. This is one reason (but not the only one) that public transportation is difficult here, the distances, and thus the times, are greater.
To reduce the amount of miles that American drive would literally require knocking down half the buildings and building higher density housing. And Americans, including myself, don't want that.
So instead of giving them 500 million dollars, we should have given them 10 billion? No, the problem was that Solara padded Obama's pockets, they were in difficulties before the cash infusion, and there is nothing to show for our 500 million dollars. I noticed all their top position people never missed a paycheck as well.