Not that it alters your post much but I buy most of my linux versions these days for two reasons: no broadband (don't want to wait through a week of downloading to get the new distro) and desire to support the linux developers in my current favored distro.
I didn't know that Carmack's Armadillo was a GPL rocket downloadable from sourceforge. Clicking on the Armadillo link sends me to sourceforge.net, not an obvious rocket-associated page, thus I assume the "rocket" is a game similation. Sim-space-tourism?
It is perfectly OK and broadly acceptable to censor certain things with respect to children. children do NOT have the same full rights as adults. Period. I cannot shed a tear because some child was prevented from viewing porn.
You cannot get into ANY trouble for preventing children from doing or seeing something that adults don't want them to see. That is why they cannot get into PG-13 or R rated movies (they do not have a right to see these movies unless accompanied by a parent or guardian). They do not have the right to purchase Playboy, Penthouse, etc. They do not have many rights so quit worrying that the "guvmnt" might be acting to prevent children from seeing/doing certain things. As long as adults are still provided full rights and access there is no harm.
Heh. I challenge YOU to name a single M$ innovation. Not one. Every single thing that M$ releases is a copy of someone else's innovation. M$ either copies it, buys out the innovator and includes their innovation into M$ (after ensuring that it is polluted with unneeded addons to ensure that it will only work with M$ OSes).
Perhaps this is what you meant by innovation? The repeated adoption and alteration of widely accepted and used standards so that they are broken or unusable except on M$ operating systems? This isn't innovation, this is monopolistic anticompetitive behavior.
Linux cannot be slammed for cloning or reverse engineering M$ non-innovations because this allows users otherwise locked-in to buggy, security-flawed, overpriced oses to use a free, stable, and more secure alternative. It is working too as the userbase of linux is climbing rapidly while that of M$ is essentially flat. They are not only saturated in the market, they are killing themselves off with DRM, draconian licensing nonsense, etc. Perhaps this is what you consider an M$ innovation?
I'll bite. Here's what we do. Libraries have librarians, etc. Computers can be arranged such that there is a children's section with all the screens facing librarians at their posts. These are computers to be used by children. They cannot easily view porn without the possibility of it being viewable by any and all around/behind them, including librarians. This is likely to tone down their prurient net wanderings.
Other computers could be specially set aside for adult use. These would not necessarily face the librarian and could even be placed in more private locations so that casual passersby (children) wont come around and see what they needn't see. As an adult, you have the right to view/research anything you damn well please, including pornography from an artistic standpoint, cultural standpoint, publich health standpoint, etc, etc. Simply take minimal steps to place the adult use computers out of bounds from children.
There need be no block on the children's computers, social pressure/fear of being seen doing something "naughty" by other children, parents, and librarians is all protection they need.
There you go, Constitutional rights protected and children also protected. No pain...and children would still be able to view health/educational sites on sex-related issues as well. They would be embarrassed, perhaps, but they still have the right to view sex-ed info, etc.
I have been mulling over the possibilities of becoming a local ISP in my rural area since getting here 6 months ago. Where I am there is no cable, no DSL of any kind, and there wont be for the foreseeable future. What IS available is satellite internet...high latency and HIGH cost. I (and my neighbors who haven't gone stupid and overpaid for satellite) am stuck with pathetic dialup with rarely better than 36kbps speeds.
As a result, I have been considering the local ISP possibilities. It would not be free, as a connection costs, plain and simple. I would also have to maintain the servers and handhold people in setting up and trouble shooting, thus I would charge - but I would like to charge below what telcos and cable companies charge for broadband access. I would even like to undercut AOL, which I suspect at least some locals would likely currently use. Basically, I would like to charge enough to cover the costs of a T1 line (or halfline) plus a little extra for equipment costs. I see something in the line of $17/mo.
This is based on a few assumptions: at least 100 local area families/individuals/companies interested in the service and the ability to gain wireless coverage over the important areas. This is the hitch. I am in flat country (Indiana) with trees hither and yon. There is a half-mile between me and my next-door neighbor. The local town is, of course, more tightly packed BUT there are trees everywhere. I can see my neighbor's house and even the house beyond him. The town is another 500 meters further still and hidden amongst trees.
I have checked on various community wireless network projects now and again and almost every one of them is associated with cities (clear LOS from rooftop to rooftop) and few tall trees. Other rural networks are associated treeless expanses. Are there any such networks being worked in rural settings that actually includes trees? Not a tree here and there, but TREES? If so, how do you obtain interconnectivity via wireless? I suppose with enough nodes useful signals could be passed through treed areas by "force" but I would like to be as clean an efficient (and cost effective) as possible if I decide to go into this further.
Give me a break. I have been in the military and I didn't see much of it, besides, I was taxed too while in (taxing the tax dollars). The money doesn't go to the military, per se, it goes to CORPORATIONS, many of which provide overpriced devices, widgets, tools, etc, to the military.
the SciFi Channel? I thought it was the Stargate Channel as that is the only show on that channel. Open up the TV guide and all I see is SG-1, SG-1, SG-1, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Kinda like the misnamed History Channel. It is actually the WWII Channel as that is the only stuff they show.
I have been steadily widdling down the number of channels I actually watch since getting my satellite dish. Hundreds of channels but nothing of note to watch. I USED to watch the SG-1 Channel when it had B5 and Farscape running. Now, it's just crap (X-Files reruns don't cut it...I've seen 'em all already several times over).
It is almost to the point that it makes just as much sense to ditch the satellite and go back to my aerial with its 3 or 4 available channels. It has about as much variety as the Satellite at no cost. SciFi Channel indeed! My @ss!
Honestly, I do NOT see nice fonts displayed any time there is an article about fixing fonts in linux.
There is one place and one place only that I have ever seen a screen loaded with nicely antialiased fonts...my KDE desktop using the longtime antialiasing support from QT. The fonts I have are SMOOTH. Let me reiterate that, they are smooth. No jaggy lines, no stairstep angles, just smooth antialiasing. Beautiful.
I then read an article like that at the Register, look at the screen shots, and all I can do is say "What the fu*K are they talking about?! Those fonts are STILL jaggy and they are NOT aa.
I've recently read a few other articles about fonts, aa, and hinting. I look at the results in screenshots and the fonts are either STILL jaggy or they are horrifically smeared. If hinting means "smear the crap out of the font until it makes you think your glasses are greasy or you are developing cataracts" then that hinting crap is working great! Nice looking aa fonts do NOT have to be blurred out of recognition. AA means NO jaggy lines, just smooth, flowing, SLIGHTLY (EVER so slightly) blurred fonts.
So far, mozilla simply has ugly font rendering no matter how you slice it. Its fonts are jaggy/stairstepped. Period. Butt-ugly. Same with Gnome. I have tried to get fonts to look as nice in Gnome as they look in KDE but it just doesn't happen. I either get the greasy glasses effect or jaggy lines.
I have to come to the conclusion that when people SAY antialiasing, they really don't know what their are talking about. Or they are referring to a different antialiasing than I am aware of. If your fonts have jaggy lines, then you are NOT enjoying the fruit of aa. Sorry, but that is a fact.
Re:Downloading only a third of the problem...
on
Downloading The Mind
·
· Score: 2
I actually find a lot of the stuff going on very exciting. Brains seem to last a lot longer then the body supporting them does anyway, so being able to basically have your brain in a very strong container that could be moved from body to body would probably work pretty well, and could potentially be very doable.
This is a fallacy. The brain breaks down with age just like everything else. Your skin, its supporting matrix, liver, kidneys, etc. You lose brain function like making longterm memories (harder to do, takes more time), the ability to think, etc.
Alzheimer's, Huntington's, strokes are all tied to time and thus tied to aging. Your brain consumes more oxygen per unit mass than any other organ in your body and yet has the least builtin protection against oxygen free-radicals Perhaps brain function requires radicals in some way - they are not of necessity a bad thing - and thus the ultimate unavoidable cost of having a functional brain is that it damages itself as an unavoidable cost of doing business. See: On the true role of oxygen free radicals in the living state, aging, and degenerative disorders, Imre Zs.-Nagy, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2001, Vol 928: 187-199.
Your brain degenerates just fine. It is merely a question of whether you croak due to heart disease, hardening of the arteries, cancer, thrombosis, stroke, Huntington's, Alzheimer's, etc, etc.
A black hole is a point, but it is not incorrect to describe one with such huge size as the article does. The "body" of the black hole, such as it is, is a point mass but the event horizon is all that really matters. The even horizon defines the "edge" of the black hole...or more accurately, the point at which the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.
They do not have to supply a freely-available download. The "Free" aspect of Free Software is Free as in "Freedom of speech". They do have to provide the source for any GPL apps that they distribute, and I would assume that it is included on the CD.
First off, Kevin Bacon must have a part in this movie. Doesn't matter what part, but a part he must have. Specific recommendations are: The Rock or Russell Crowe to play Shawn Fanning (depending on whether you want an outrageous super-hero or a more realistic, though tough-as-nails hero), Sir Anthony Hopkins in a Lector-like role should play the leading RIAA character. I think that Vin Diesel should also have a role - reprising his character in _Pitch Black_.
A few _Enemy of the State_ chases and explosions, a super-hot love interest in the form of say, Alyssa Milano (_lots_ of nude scenes), great fight scenes, one of them epic... Do this, and it will be a big-a$$-megahit that I will spend to see on the big screen and then again to buy the DVD when it comes out.
I have experienced a small piece of Scientology's perfidy. Posting an obvious joke about Tom Cruise missiles for sale to be used to attack Scientology centers throughout the world in a newsgroup spied upon by scientologists got a PI sent after me. He misrepresented himself to a university cop where I was working (and from where I posted mentioned joke) as an FBI agent. The university cop, in conjunction with university computer security personnel hunted me down by manually searching for a computer with a certain IP address (that assigned to me). They found it and investigated me and almost pulled my internet privaleges.
The university cop told me that this "FBI Agent" indicated that I would probably be visited by FBI agents and questioned (as a potential terrorist with Tom Cruise Missiles, whatever those are). I decided not to wait on the FBI to come to me and went to the local FBI office and presented myself so I could clear up the ridiculous situation. They had NO clue who I was, had no interest in me, had never heard of this (mis)represented FBI agent that started the whole mess. With the aid of some anti-scientology people and a little internet detective work, I identified the likely "FBI Agent" as a particular PI working out of the DC area and, lo and behold, known to certain scientology critics as an occassional tool of the Scientologist criminal organization. I identified the individual to the FBI and the university cop. The university cop was dreadfully sorry for having taken any action against me and became my ally (too late for certain things...a good deal of irreversable personal information was provided to the fake "FBI Agent".
The REAL feds contacted this PI to see about his criminal act of misrepresenting himself as a Federal Officer - he denied it of course, inspite of the clear statement to the contrary by the university cop (this is a real cop, not a fake student cop or some such...they are a branch of the city cops where the university resided).
The Scientologist criminal organization tried to cause me trouble but I won in the end. If any real harm comes out of this, I still have the very real option to sue the crap out of certain people for this entire episode (there were some agregious privacy violations involved). I have kept ALL my correspondence with the FBI, the university cop, and those who aided in my personal investigation of who the "FBI Agent" really was. It took only a few days of relatively simple internet-based investigating to ID this clown.
The Scientologists are a criminal terrorist group and needs to be eliminated just as surely as they were eliminated from Turkey recently.
I can't comment on most of your points as they do not affect me on linux in general (I usually use konqueror unless I come across a website that konqueror just wont display/open, then I go to mozilla). One thing that I will comment on is memory usage gripes. It is in no way a simple thing to compare mozilla mem usage vs that of IE on a windoze box. Why? Because a significant portion of IE is (unnecessarily) in the core OS and is ALWAYS in memory on a windoze box. Thus, when you start IE proper, your mem usage will go up but not that much because a lot of it is already resident (part of the reason that IE SEEMS so fast vs other browsers sometimes). You pay for IE mem usage at initial windoze bootup, with its unneeded files going into mem from the beginning - giving you an illusion that IE, the app itself, is faster than many other alternatives.
If parts of mozilla's core libs could be loaded at bootup on windoze then you would see a real speedy mozilla browser too.
Oh, one more comment...it would be wrong in general and wrongheaded period to poison html standards with windoze-specific pollution of html. It is not the responsibility of browser builders to support M$ poisoning of widely accepted and correct standards with M$-specific crap code, nay, it is the web designer's responsibility to KNOW XTML and HTML well enough to actually avoid propriatory and exclusionary and useless extra coding and tagging in their web design. If an electrician installs incorrect plug outlets in your house such that you find you cannot plug in most of your appliances, you do not blame the appliance manufacturer for not going along with the spec of one standards-flaunting electrician. You demand that the electrician use install proper outlets so that all your appliances will plug in to any outlet.
Most web designers are morons. They don't know squat about what they are doing and don't think diddle about their users. They just toss something together thinking that it will work as they want it to but instead are loading their site with nonstandard crap tags that break their site for standards-obeying browsers. It is their responsibility to code properly, not the browser creator's responsibility to accomodate stupid, erroneous web design.
It is a problem AFTER one is infected but not prior. Initial sexually transmitted HIV usually targets cells with CCR5 receptors. As the infection progresses and HIV variation increases, it starts spreading to other cell types...those with CXCR4 receptors on them. All bets are off if you get HIV via blood transfusion because you will get a full dose of a lot of variants from the get-go.
If you have a mutant CCR5 gene, then you are reasonably protected from standard sexual transfer (this does not mean you really are immune...condoms save lives) unless you get infected by needle or transfusion.
There is a simple test of similarity that requires no sequencing at all: chop up DNA from the two species with restriction enzymes, melt, and anneal them together. This is trivial to do (trivial being a relative term) with DNA chip technology. You bind human DNA to a chip and anneal chip DNA. The better the match, the brighter the fluorescence (or the stronger the image on a film plate or scanner if using radio-labeled DNA).
One doesn't need for the genome of chimps and humans be completely sequenced to be able to determine how similar they are.
The main differences between human and chimp DNA (and with any other great ape) IS due to gene regulation patterns and "junk" DNA. There are no magic human proteins. There are no special chimp proteins. Proteins are proteins are proteins, for the most part. The minor variations in amino acid pattern in many of them are largely irrelevant and fit into the 98% identity between chimps and humans at the genetic level.
No, our CODING DNA is ~98% identical. The main difference between the nonhuman great apes and humans is not the proteins as coded, but the way those proteins are expressed (transcribed then translated). The main differences have to do with gene regulation, which has ties in to "junk" DNA (some of it really isn't "junk" at all...and likely more will be found not be be junk in the future).
Yes, as a simple mutation it has a potential contribution to evolution of humans. If HIV were to _really_ get widespread and kill lots of people to the point that most remaining people were mutant CCR5 carriers, then they would be the ones to most successfully pass on their genes to the next generation and future humans would be immune...evolution in action.
I simply meant that I don't think one HAS to look at a complex cluster of genes in simians and infer that this is the sort of thing that would have to happen to humans for them to evolve immunity like the simians. For us, all we need in this case is a relatively minor variation in one protein (two if you really want to get decent protection: CCR5 and CXCR4 - and hope that the mutations dont screw something else up in the process of giving you immunity to one virus).
It is actually rather simple why certain people can be repeatedly exposed to HIV and not become productively infected. HIV requires its target cells have two cell surface proteins in order to infect it. One is the basic CD4 T cell receptor. The other is one of two different types of chemokine receptor. There is the CXCR4 and CCR5 receptors. The names derive from a common amino acid motif found in these receptors in most people: for CXCR4 it is cysteine-any amino-cysteine-arginine. For CCR5 it is cysteine-cysteine-arginine. Most of the people who appear immune to the infection contain a mutation in the CCR5 receptor (I'm not familiar with the CXCR4 receptor vis a vis mutations and infection resistance). Thus, HIV can bind to CD4 but because of the mutation in CCR5 it cannot complete the process and fuse with the cell. No fusion, no infection.
This common form of resistance doesn't require any cluster of genes nor any mysterious genetic variation or evolutionary alteration.
They also see the linux zealots who, although a minority, are the most vocal and color all of the Linux user base as 'anti-corporate' and unwilling to pay for anything.
One name: Loki. They proved (as have idSoftware) that linux users ARE generally unwilling to buy games. We HAD native linux games from Loki and what happened? Some of us bought them but too many were infantile and simply could NOT delay their purchase of a game, just HAD to have it NOW - so they bought the windoze version. As for id, they tried selling a linux version and Linux users stayed away from it in droves AND BOUGHT THE DAMN WINDOZE VERSION.
I bought games from Loki and would have continued. I would have bought more id software linux games too. Fortunately, idSoftware is NICE enough to produce linux binaries anyway that linux users can download and use IF they buy the windoze version in the store. Guess what that does? Keeps the windoze game purchase numbers up, skewing the number of gamers towards windows even though a number of them will run the linux version. Other companies see this and think there is no linux game market. Thanks to linux users who refuse to A) wait a few months or B) pay for anything that is made for linux, there are no linux titles and wont be for a long time, if ever.
THAT'S gonna hurt. You asked which is better to use, KDE or Gnome. You are now certain to get a slew of messages from the Gnome fanatics and KDE fanatics telling how the other guy SUCKS. You didn't know, I'm sure. For future reference, try to inquire about both by using as neutral a tone as absolutely possible. The question itself, how it is specifically written matters and in this case it implies a winner and a LOSER! with a big "L" on its forehead.
I'll fix you right up though, save you the need to read rants and raves. Use KDE, it's the best, most mature, and integrated solution...NO WAIT! Use Gnome, IT is the cleanest, purest, most politically correct, mature, and...ah f*ck it. Toss a frickin coin.
There is a new kid in town...HomePlug (see I, Cringely). It sounds promising, if it really works - I just hope linux is quick to support it. It is the use of home wiring, something talked about for about 2 years or so but finally, and perhaps, ready for the big time. As long as the houses are on the same transformer from the power company, they should be easily networked via HomePlug.
No changes to wiring, no rewiring, no external changes. Sounds about perfect.
Actually, I believe that Acrobat (the full version, not acrobat reader) has the ability to edit/create pdfs. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, surely there isn't something intrinsic to pdfs or ps that makes it impossible to edit them ala a txt doc of word doc, etc? If MacOS X can base their GUI display on ps, then ps, and if you look at a ps or pdf file in a text editor, besides a mess of control character nonsense, you will find plain text - this should, in principle, be editable no?
THE problem with Gobe (and ALL linux office suites, err, the word processor part) is that NONE have the ability to handle citations and references. ONLY Lyx can do this and Lyx is simply not a generally user-friendly app vs standard wordprocessors that virtually everyone on the planet it comfortable and used to. Thus, we will get a pretty suite in Gobe but it will not distinguish itself from StarOffice/OpenOffice, KOffice, or whatever the suite name is for the Gnome equivalent is. None of these suites can do citations and references and thus, if you do ANY sort of research paper writing, scientific writing, ANY writing that requires applying proper attribution, then the only game in town, unfortunately, is Lyx (or straight LaTex for you real nutbars out there).
On the other hand, Office and Wordperfect (I don't know about AppleWorks) CAN deal with citations and references via third party addons like EndNote. Thus, virtually everyon in my biochem department uses either word or wordperfect on macs or PCs to write their scientific papers because they can handle citations. None would even consider any other suite because of their glaring lack in this regard.
First question out of a graduate student co-worker's mouth to me when I was talking to her about my use of linux was "Can it run EndNote?" No EndNote, no linux. Now linux doesn't need EndNote, mind you, just the same functionality of EndNote either organic to a wordprocessor OR the ability for each wordprocessor to accept simple addons with the capability of EndNote (Pybliographic or Sixpack in combination with Lyx, for instance, via the bibtex intermediary).
Until a linux office product can handle citations and references in its wordprocessor, they are mere toys for fluff writing (letters to mom, resumes, recipes, etc), not useful for professional technical/scientific writing.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that it alters your post much but I buy most of my linux versions these days for two reasons: no broadband (don't want to wait through a week of downloading to get the new distro) and desire to support the linux developers in my current favored distro.
I didn't know that Carmack's Armadillo was a GPL rocket downloadable from sourceforge. Clicking on the Armadillo link sends me to sourceforge.net, not an obvious rocket-associated page, thus I assume the "rocket" is a game similation. Sim-space-tourism?
Or is it merely a plugin for The Sims?
It is perfectly OK and broadly acceptable to censor certain things with respect to children. children do NOT have the same full rights as adults. Period. I cannot shed a tear because some child was prevented from viewing porn.
You cannot get into ANY trouble for preventing children from doing or seeing something that adults don't want them to see. That is why they cannot get into PG-13 or R rated movies (they do not have a right to see these movies unless accompanied by a parent or guardian). They do not have the right to purchase Playboy, Penthouse, etc. They do not have many rights so quit worrying that the "guvmnt" might be acting to prevent children from seeing/doing certain things. As long as adults are still provided full rights and access there is no harm.
Heh. I challenge YOU to name a single M$ innovation. Not one. Every single thing that M$ releases is a copy of someone else's innovation. M$ either copies it, buys out the innovator and includes their innovation into M$ (after ensuring that it is polluted with unneeded addons to ensure that it will only work with M$ OSes).
Perhaps this is what you meant by innovation? The repeated adoption and alteration of widely accepted and used standards so that they are broken or unusable except on M$ operating systems? This isn't innovation, this is monopolistic anticompetitive behavior.
Linux cannot be slammed for cloning or reverse engineering M$ non-innovations because
this allows users otherwise locked-in to buggy, security-flawed, overpriced oses to use a free, stable, and more secure alternative. It is working too as the userbase of linux is climbing rapidly while that of M$ is essentially flat. They are not only saturated in the market, they are killing themselves off with DRM, draconian licensing nonsense, etc. Perhaps this is what you consider an M$ innovation?
I'll bite. Here's what we do. Libraries have librarians, etc. Computers can be arranged such that there is a children's section with all the screens facing librarians at their posts. These are computers to be used by children. They cannot easily view porn without the possibility of it being viewable by any and all around/behind them, including librarians. This is likely to tone down their prurient net wanderings.
Other computers could be specially set aside for adult use. These would not necessarily face the librarian and could even be placed in more private locations so that casual passersby (children) wont come around and see what they needn't see. As an adult, you have the right to view/research anything you damn well please, including pornography from an artistic standpoint, cultural standpoint, publich health standpoint, etc, etc. Simply take minimal steps to place the adult use computers out of bounds from children.
There need be no block on the children's computers, social pressure/fear of being seen doing something "naughty" by other children, parents, and librarians is all protection they need.
There you go, Constitutional rights protected and children also protected. No pain...and children would still be able to view health/educational sites on sex-related issues as well. They would be embarrassed, perhaps, but they still have the right to view sex-ed info, etc.
I have been mulling over the possibilities of becoming a local ISP in my rural area since getting here 6 months ago. Where I am there is no cable, no DSL of any kind, and there wont be for the foreseeable future. What IS available is satellite internet...high latency and HIGH cost. I (and my neighbors who haven't gone stupid and overpaid for satellite) am stuck with pathetic dialup with rarely better than 36kbps speeds.
As a result, I have been considering the local ISP possibilities. It would not be free, as a connection costs, plain and simple. I would also have to maintain the servers and handhold people in setting up and trouble shooting, thus I would charge - but I would like to charge below what telcos and cable companies charge for broadband access. I would even like to undercut AOL, which I suspect at least some locals would likely currently use. Basically, I would like to charge enough to cover the costs of a T1 line (or halfline) plus a little extra for equipment costs. I see something in the line of $17/mo.
This is based on a few assumptions: at least 100 local area families/individuals/companies interested in the service and the ability to gain wireless coverage over the important areas. This is the hitch. I am in flat country (Indiana) with trees hither and yon. There is a half-mile between me and my next-door neighbor. The local town is, of course, more tightly packed BUT there are trees everywhere. I can see my neighbor's house and even the house beyond him. The town is another 500 meters further still and hidden amongst trees.
I have checked on various community wireless network projects now and again and almost every one of them is associated with cities (clear LOS from rooftop to rooftop) and few tall trees. Other rural networks are associated treeless expanses. Are there any such networks being worked in rural settings that actually includes trees? Not a tree here and there, but TREES? If so, how do you obtain interconnectivity via wireless? I suppose with enough nodes useful signals could be passed through treed areas by "force" but I would like to be as clean an efficient (and cost effective) as possible if I decide to go into this further.
Give me a break. I have been in the military and I didn't see much of it, besides, I was taxed too while in (taxing the tax dollars). The money doesn't go to the military, per se, it goes to CORPORATIONS, many of which provide overpriced devices, widgets, tools, etc, to the military.
the SciFi Channel? I thought it was the Stargate Channel as that is the only show on that channel. Open up the TV guide and all I see is SG-1, SG-1, SG-1, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Kinda like the misnamed History Channel. It is actually the WWII Channel as that is the only stuff they show.
I have been steadily widdling down the number of channels I actually watch since getting my satellite dish. Hundreds of channels but nothing of note to watch. I USED to watch the SG-1 Channel when it had B5 and Farscape running. Now, it's just crap (X-Files reruns don't cut it...I've seen 'em all already several times over).
It is almost to the point that it makes just as much sense to ditch the satellite and go back to my aerial with its 3 or 4 available channels. It has about as much variety as the Satellite at no cost. SciFi Channel indeed! My @ss!
Honestly, I do NOT see nice fonts displayed any time there is an article about fixing fonts in linux.
There is one place and one place only that I have ever seen a screen loaded with nicely antialiased fonts...my KDE desktop using the longtime antialiasing support from QT. The fonts I have are SMOOTH. Let me reiterate that, they are smooth. No jaggy lines, no stairstep angles, just smooth antialiasing. Beautiful.
I then read an article like that at the Register, look at the screen shots, and all I can do is say "What the fu*K are they talking about?! Those fonts are STILL jaggy and they are NOT aa.
I've recently read a few other articles about fonts, aa, and hinting. I look at the results in screenshots and the fonts are either STILL jaggy or they are horrifically smeared. If hinting means "smear the crap out of the font until it makes you think your glasses are greasy or you are developing cataracts" then that hinting crap is working great! Nice looking aa fonts do NOT have to be blurred out of recognition. AA means NO jaggy lines, just smooth, flowing, SLIGHTLY (EVER so slightly) blurred fonts.
So far, mozilla simply has ugly font rendering no matter how you slice it. Its fonts are jaggy/stairstepped. Period. Butt-ugly. Same with Gnome. I have tried to get fonts to look as nice in Gnome as they look in KDE but it just doesn't happen. I either get the greasy glasses effect or jaggy lines.
I have to come to the conclusion that when people SAY antialiasing, they really don't know what their are talking about. Or they are referring to a different antialiasing than I am aware of. If your fonts have jaggy lines, then you are NOT enjoying the fruit of aa. Sorry, but that is a fact.
I actually find a lot of the stuff going on very exciting. Brains seem to last a lot longer then the body supporting them does anyway, so being able to basically have your brain in a very strong container that could be moved from body to body would probably work pretty well, and could potentially be very doable.
This is a fallacy. The brain breaks down with age just like everything else. Your skin, its supporting matrix, liver, kidneys, etc. You lose brain function like making longterm memories (harder to do, takes more time), the ability to think, etc.
Alzheimer's, Huntington's, strokes are all tied to time and thus tied to aging. Your brain consumes more oxygen per unit mass than any other organ in your body and yet has the least builtin protection against oxygen free-radicals Perhaps brain function requires radicals in some way - they are not of necessity a bad thing - and thus the ultimate unavoidable cost of having a functional brain is that it damages itself as an unavoidable cost of doing business. See: On the true role of oxygen free radicals in the living state, aging, and degenerative disorders, Imre Zs.-Nagy, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2001, Vol 928: 187-199.
Your brain degenerates just fine. It is merely a question of whether you croak due to heart disease, hardening of the arteries, cancer, thrombosis, stroke, Huntington's, Alzheimer's, etc, etc.
A black hole is a point, but it is not incorrect to describe one with such huge size as the article does. The "body" of the black hole, such as it is, is a point mass but the event horizon is all that really matters. The even horizon defines the "edge" of the black hole...or more accurately, the point at which the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.
They do not have to supply a freely-available download. The "Free" aspect of Free Software is Free as in "Freedom of speech". They do have to provide the source for any GPL apps that they distribute, and I would assume that it is included on the CD.
First off, Kevin Bacon must have a part in this movie. Doesn't matter what part, but a part he must have. Specific recommendations are:
The Rock or Russell Crowe to play Shawn Fanning (depending on whether you want an outrageous super-hero or a more realistic, though tough-as-nails hero), Sir Anthony Hopkins in a Lector-like role should play the leading RIAA character. I think that Vin Diesel should also have a role - reprising his character in _Pitch Black_.
A few _Enemy of the State_ chases and explosions, a super-hot love interest in the form of say, Alyssa Milano (_lots_ of nude scenes), great fight scenes, one of them epic... Do this, and it will be a big-a$$-megahit that I will spend to see on the big screen and then again to buy the DVD when it comes out.
I have experienced a small piece of Scientology's perfidy. Posting an obvious joke about Tom Cruise missiles for sale to be used to attack Scientology centers throughout the world in a newsgroup spied upon by scientologists got a PI sent after me. He misrepresented himself to a university cop where I was working (and from where I posted mentioned joke) as an FBI agent. The university cop, in conjunction with university computer security personnel hunted me down by manually searching for a computer with a certain IP address (that assigned to me). They found it and investigated me and almost pulled my internet privaleges.
The university cop told me that this "FBI Agent" indicated that I would probably be visited by FBI agents and questioned (as a potential terrorist with Tom Cruise Missiles, whatever those are). I decided not to wait on the FBI to come to me and went to the local FBI office and presented myself so I could clear up the ridiculous situation. They had NO clue who I was, had no interest in me, had never heard of this (mis)represented FBI agent that started the whole mess. With the aid of some anti-scientology people and a little internet detective work, I identified the likely "FBI Agent" as a particular PI working out of the DC area and, lo and behold, known to certain scientology critics as an occassional tool of the Scientologist criminal organization. I identified the individual to the FBI and the university cop. The university cop was dreadfully sorry for having taken any action against me and became my ally (too late for certain things...a good deal of irreversable personal information was provided to the fake "FBI Agent".
The REAL feds contacted this PI to see about his criminal act of misrepresenting himself as a Federal Officer - he denied it of course, inspite of the clear statement to the contrary by the university cop (this is a real cop, not a fake student cop or some such...they are a branch of the city cops where the university resided).
The Scientologist criminal organization tried to cause me trouble but I won in the end. If any real harm comes out of this, I still have the very real option to sue the crap out of certain people for this entire episode (there were some agregious privacy violations involved). I have kept ALL my correspondence with the FBI, the university cop, and those who aided in my personal investigation of who the "FBI Agent" really was. It took only a few days of relatively simple internet-based investigating to ID this clown.
The Scientologists are a criminal terrorist group and needs to be eliminated just as surely as they were eliminated from Turkey recently.
I can't comment on most of your points as they do not affect me on linux in general (I usually use konqueror unless I come across a website that konqueror just wont display/open, then I go to mozilla). One thing that I will comment on is memory usage gripes. It is in no way a simple thing to compare mozilla mem usage vs that of IE on a windoze box. Why? Because a significant portion of IE is (unnecessarily) in the core OS and is ALWAYS in memory on a windoze box. Thus, when you start IE proper, your mem usage will go up but not that much because a lot of it is already resident (part of the reason that IE SEEMS so fast vs other browsers sometimes). You pay for IE mem usage at initial windoze bootup, with its unneeded files going into mem from the beginning - giving you an illusion that IE, the app itself, is faster than many other alternatives.
If parts of mozilla's core libs could be loaded at bootup on windoze then you would see a real speedy mozilla browser too.
Oh, one more comment...it would be wrong in general and wrongheaded period to poison html standards with windoze-specific pollution of html. It is not the responsibility of browser builders to support M$ poisoning of widely accepted and correct standards with M$-specific crap code, nay, it is the web designer's responsibility to KNOW XTML and HTML well enough to actually avoid propriatory and exclusionary and useless extra coding and tagging in their web design. If an electrician installs incorrect plug outlets in your house such that you find you cannot plug in most of your appliances, you do not blame the appliance manufacturer for not going along with the spec of one standards-flaunting electrician. You demand that the electrician use install proper outlets so that all your appliances will plug in to any outlet.
Most web designers are morons. They don't know squat about what they are doing and don't think diddle about their users. They just toss something together thinking that it will work as they want it to but instead are loading their site with nonstandard crap tags that break their site for standards-obeying browsers. It is their responsibility to code properly, not the browser creator's responsibility to accomodate stupid, erroneous web design.
It is a problem AFTER one is infected but not prior. Initial sexually transmitted HIV usually targets cells with CCR5 receptors. As the infection progresses and HIV variation increases, it starts spreading to other cell types...those with CXCR4 receptors on them. All bets are off if you get HIV via blood transfusion because you will get a full dose of a lot of variants from the get-go.
If you have a mutant CCR5 gene, then you are reasonably protected from standard sexual transfer (this does not mean you really are immune...condoms save lives) unless you get infected by needle or transfusion.
There is a simple test of similarity that requires no sequencing at all: chop up DNA from the two species with restriction enzymes, melt, and anneal them together. This is trivial to do (trivial being a relative term) with DNA chip technology. You bind human DNA to a chip and anneal chip DNA. The better the match, the brighter the fluorescence (or the stronger the image on a film plate or scanner if using radio-labeled DNA).
One doesn't need for the genome of chimps and humans be completely sequenced to be able to determine how similar they are.
The main differences between human and chimp DNA (and with any other great ape) IS due to gene regulation patterns and "junk" DNA. There are no magic human proteins. There are no special chimp proteins. Proteins are proteins are proteins, for the most part. The minor variations in amino acid pattern in many of them are largely irrelevant and fit into the 98% identity between chimps and humans at the genetic level.
No, our CODING DNA is ~98% identical. The main difference between the nonhuman great apes and humans is not the proteins as coded, but the way those proteins are expressed (transcribed then translated). The main differences have to do with gene regulation, which has ties in to "junk" DNA (some of it really isn't "junk" at all...and likely more will be found not be be junk in the future).
Yes, as a simple mutation it has a potential contribution to evolution of humans. If HIV were to _really_ get widespread and kill lots of people to the point that most remaining people were mutant CCR5 carriers, then they would be the ones to most successfully pass on their genes to the next generation and future humans would be immune...evolution in action.
I simply meant that I don't think one HAS to look at a complex cluster of genes in simians and infer that this is the sort of thing that would have to happen to humans for them to evolve immunity like the simians. For us, all we need in this case is a relatively minor variation in one protein (two if you really want to get decent protection: CCR5 and CXCR4 - and hope that the mutations dont screw something else up in the process of giving you immunity to one virus).
It is actually rather simple why certain people can be repeatedly exposed to HIV and not become productively infected. HIV requires its target cells have two cell surface proteins in order to infect it. One is the basic CD4 T cell receptor. The other is one of two different types of chemokine receptor. There is the CXCR4 and CCR5 receptors. The names derive from a common amino acid motif found in these receptors in most people: for CXCR4 it is cysteine-any amino-cysteine-arginine. For CCR5 it is cysteine-cysteine-arginine. Most of the people who appear immune to the infection contain a mutation in the CCR5 receptor (I'm not familiar with the CXCR4 receptor vis a vis mutations and infection resistance). Thus, HIV can bind to CD4 but because of the mutation in CCR5 it cannot complete the process and fuse with the cell. No fusion, no infection.
This common form of resistance doesn't require any cluster of genes nor any mysterious genetic variation or evolutionary alteration.
They also see the linux zealots who, although a minority, are the most vocal and color all of the Linux user base as 'anti-corporate' and unwilling to pay for anything.
One name: Loki. They proved (as have idSoftware) that linux users ARE generally unwilling to buy games. We HAD native linux games from Loki and what happened? Some of us bought them but too many were infantile and simply could NOT delay their purchase of a game, just HAD to have it NOW - so they bought the windoze version. As for id, they tried selling a linux version and Linux users stayed away from it in droves AND BOUGHT THE DAMN WINDOZE VERSION.
I bought games from Loki and would have continued. I would have bought more id software linux games too. Fortunately, idSoftware is NICE enough to produce linux binaries anyway that linux users can download and use IF they buy the windoze version in the store. Guess what that does? Keeps the windoze game purchase numbers up, skewing the number of gamers towards windows even though a number of them will run the linux version. Other companies see this and think there is no linux game market. Thanks to linux users who refuse to A) wait a few months or B) pay for anything that is made for linux, there are no linux titles and wont be for a long time, if ever.
THAT'S gonna hurt. You asked which is better to use, KDE or Gnome. You are now certain to get a slew of messages from the Gnome fanatics and KDE fanatics telling how the other guy SUCKS. You didn't know, I'm sure. For future reference, try to inquire about both by using as neutral a tone as absolutely possible. The question itself, how it is specifically written matters and in this case it implies a winner and a LOSER! with a big "L" on its forehead.
I'll fix you right up though, save you the need to read rants and raves. Use KDE, it's the best, most mature, and integrated solution...NO WAIT! Use Gnome, IT is the cleanest, purest, most politically correct, mature, and...ah f*ck it. Toss a frickin coin.
There is a new kid in town...HomePlug (see I, Cringely). It sounds promising, if it really works - I just hope linux is quick to support it. It is the use of home wiring, something talked about for about 2 years or so but finally, and perhaps, ready for the big time. As long as the houses are on the same transformer from the power company, they should be easily networked via HomePlug.
No changes to wiring, no rewiring, no external changes. Sounds about perfect.
Actually, I believe that Acrobat (the full version, not acrobat reader) has the ability to edit/create pdfs. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, surely there isn't something intrinsic to pdfs or ps that makes it impossible to edit them ala a txt doc of word doc, etc? If MacOS X can base their GUI display on ps, then ps, and if you look at a ps or pdf file in a text editor, besides a mess of control character nonsense, you will find plain text - this should, in principle, be editable no?
THE problem with Gobe (and ALL linux office suites, err, the word processor part) is that NONE have the ability to handle citations and references. ONLY Lyx can do this and Lyx is simply not a generally user-friendly app vs standard wordprocessors that virtually everyone on the planet it comfortable and used to. Thus, we will get a pretty suite in Gobe but it will not distinguish itself from StarOffice/OpenOffice, KOffice, or whatever the suite name is for the Gnome equivalent is. None of these suites can do citations and references and thus, if you do ANY sort of research paper writing, scientific writing, ANY writing that requires applying proper attribution, then the only game in town, unfortunately, is Lyx (or straight LaTex for you real nutbars out there).
On the other hand, Office and Wordperfect (I don't know about AppleWorks) CAN deal with citations and references via third party addons like EndNote. Thus, virtually everyon in my biochem department uses either word or wordperfect on macs or PCs to write their scientific papers because they can handle citations. None would even consider any other suite because of their glaring lack in this regard.
First question out of a graduate student co-worker's mouth to me when I was talking to her about my use of linux was "Can it run EndNote?" No EndNote, no linux. Now linux doesn't need EndNote, mind you, just the same functionality of EndNote either organic to a wordprocessor OR the ability for each wordprocessor to accept simple addons with the capability of EndNote (Pybliographic or Sixpack in combination with Lyx, for instance, via the bibtex intermediary).
Until a linux office product can handle citations and references in its wordprocessor, they are mere toys for fluff writing (letters to mom, resumes, recipes, etc), not useful for professional technical/scientific writing.