If I have a choice between installing Foxit Reader and installing Acrobat Reader and then uninstalling all of the plugins, I'll chose the one that has fewer steps.
I don't know of any features in the 'official' reader that aren't in the free versions, so I don't even bother.
Seems to be doing rather well for himself. Furthermore, you don't understand how research at MIT works. You write a proposal, get grant money, and then find something worked. It's not like Dr. Joe Blo spends his own personal money to buy a microscope. Everything he or she buys comes from grant money, and most of that comes from taxpayer-supported government grants. There are some exceptions, but they're rare (Howard Hughes Medical Institute is one good example.)
You make the assumption that I don't understand how research does. Trust me, I do.
Let me ask you this? You seem to be taking a stand against the scientists profiting about their discovery. What about the companies that commercialize the technology? Would you make the same argument towards them?
Science used to be about discovery- now it's all about profit (get enough money for the next project) and vanity (getting published as much as you can in the best journals.)
Science still is about discovery. I've personally stumbled on to things, and those "Eureka" moments are very satisfying. But that satisfaction doesn't pay my bills and it doesn't pay my employer's bills.
Yes, it sucks that science does have a giant slant towards money, but how would you propose to filter out and encourage "good" science that has a benefit to society (which people pay for in $)? Right now, people trend towards and follow the money. How would you do it?
(caveat from above, there's a lot of basic science that is so far removed from commercialization that it has to be supported wholey by governments. let's skip that for the sake of argument)
You seem to have interpreted my post as a rant against the patent/IP system I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I just was pointing out that the one kind of IP that most people around here support, you were knocking as unneeded and (this might be putting words in your mouth) immoral.
There's no reason to even try? There's no reason to even try?
Sure, if doctors made $20k/year, there would still be some people who put up with the 15+ years of education to do it, but I would guarantee that there would be significantly less interest. The same with someone who studies physics. If you're talking about 9 years (4 undergrad + 5ish graduate) + a post doc or two (two years a piece), they've dropped a good 11-13 years.
The big point though is that you're asking those scientists to first burn all that time and money on an education + the risk of doing research (if it fails, it's harder to get your next grant) And then you're asking those scientists to give away their knowledge for free to a company that's going to turn around, commercialize it and make a ton of money. If I were them, I would want my cut of the cake.
>> It'd be really refreshing to see scientists develop a bit of altruism. It's the ultimate Open Source, and they'd be guaranteed decades, if not centuries, of good will and fame. That's worth a lot more than a few *possible* royalty checks.
Altruism neither pays for the scientists' mortgages nor pays for all the equipment they use to develop their theories.
I'm all for smacking down ridiculously-long copyrights, invalidating silly trademarks or getting rid of obvious patents (one-click shopping?), but this is the _exact_ thing that patents is supposed to support. These scientists (and by proxy, their granteurs (sp?)) took a gamble on developing a technology and they were successful. They should be rewarded for that success like any other person in society. Without that potential for gains, there's no reason to even try.
If you have the salt and the hashing algorithm and there's only 10^9 possible SSNs (a billion minus one), then it's trivial to just bruteforce the numbers. It just becomes a security-through obscurity race.
Hashing functions are worthless if there is a small enough finite set of inputs.
Not to pick nits, but a 1-way hash of SSNs don't do you much good. Though it's a hash, you get limited to the keyspace of the SSN which is trivially reversible. (instead of 2^80 possibilities, you get 10^9)
That _may_ have been where redneck was originally derived from, but as someone who lives in Nashville and travels to Mississippi and Alabama often, I feel like I have a grasp on the current colloquial usage.
Redneck _is_ used how the GP is used above. The south has tons of racists, but nobody bashes the Irish or the Scots anymore (your usual suspects: blacks and jews get the brunt of that). Anyone who farms, goes mudding, spends all his time hunting/fishing or is a moron is called a redneck around here.
Do you think Jeff Foxworthy made his tiny fortune on "...you might be a redneck" jokes by talking about the irish and the scots?
It's in the Brazilian constituion that they can't extradite you if you have a Brazilian child. (interest of the children and all)
There was a guy in the 60's (I think) who robbed money train going from the treasury to the incinerator in England. Escaped to brazil, paid a hooker $1M to have his child. Ended up living there till '05. Had a nice place on the beach and everything.
let me preemptively correct that. I _do_ care about users, but most of my users are tech-savvy and have up-to-date browsers. The ones who don't are in a minority.
To me, the biggest problem is abolutely no fallback to non-javascript browsers. I'm not so much worried about users, but search engine bots won't be able to spider me and drive traffic to me.
While I agree with you totally, you're asking him to prove a negative (we aren't affecting our climate), which is significantly more difficult than proving the converse (we are affecting our climate).
>>Yes, you'd have to come up with something other than a translation of "facebook" (which is neither narrow nor slang, regardless of whether or not you've encountered the term before), if in addition to copying the name, you lifted entire sections of code, layout, features, and functionality.
When I started college back in '03, all the incoming freshmen could send in their pictures which would then be compiled into a book. It was called "The Facebook". It was produced by a company that the university contracted out to, so I'm sure that they had other customers as well.
In fact, when was called just "facebook", I was confused by when my friends at other students had "facebook me!" away messages on their instant messenger client.
Who will pay for this? It's gotta be a pretty ridiculously large-scale effort to put enough lime into the ocean to counteract both the CO2 output of the operation and to have significant effects on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Slashdot Mirror
G or N should be able to stream the data fine. You're looking at a 9Mbit/sec stream.
What's the deal with line-doubling DVD players? Wouldn't HD set automatically line-double SD signals coming in?
Thanks for the ad-hominem. All of my PCs (for work and for personal use) are linux with exception of one XP machine.
What point were you trying to make, exactly?
If I have a choice between installing Foxit Reader and installing Acrobat Reader and then uninstalling all of the plugins, I'll chose the one that has fewer steps.
I don't know of any features in the 'official' reader that aren't in the free versions, so I don't even bother.
And if you're using a mac and sticking to the defaults, the default pdf viewer doesn't crap out and lock your browser process while loading.
It's an abbreviation of the TRUE name of that operating system:
GNU/Apache/PERL/PHP/Vim/OpenSSH/Mysql/Linux
Each of those are important components to a standard linux install. Only heretics leave out its full name.
Seems to be doing rather well for himself. Furthermore, you don't understand how research at MIT works. You write a proposal, get grant money, and then find something worked. It's not like Dr. Joe Blo spends his own personal money to buy a microscope. Everything he or she buys comes from grant money, and most of that comes from taxpayer-supported government grants. There are some exceptions, but they're rare (Howard Hughes Medical Institute is one good example.)
You make the assumption that I don't understand how research does. Trust me, I do.
Let me ask you this? You seem to be taking a stand against the scientists profiting about their discovery. What about the companies that commercialize the technology? Would you make the same argument towards them?
Science used to be about discovery- now it's all about profit (get enough money for the next project) and vanity (getting published as much as you can in the best journals.)
Science still is about discovery. I've personally stumbled on to things, and those "Eureka" moments are very satisfying. But that satisfaction doesn't pay my bills and it doesn't pay my employer's bills.
Yes, it sucks that science does have a giant slant towards money, but how would you propose to filter out and encourage "good" science that has a benefit to society (which people pay for in $)? Right now, people trend towards and follow the money. How would you do it?
(caveat from above, there's a lot of basic science that is so far removed from commercialization that it has to be supported wholey by governments. let's skip that for the sake of argument)
You seem to have interpreted my post as a rant against the patent/IP system
I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I just was pointing out that the one kind of IP that most people around here support, you were knocking as unneeded and (this might be putting words in your mouth) immoral.
There's no reason to even try? There's no reason to even try?
Sure, if doctors made $20k/year, there would still be some people who put up with the 15+ years of education to do it, but I would guarantee that there would be significantly less interest. The same with someone who studies physics. If you're talking about 9 years (4 undergrad + 5ish graduate) + a post doc or two (two years a piece), they've dropped a good 11-13 years.
The big point though is that you're asking those scientists to first burn all that time and money on an education + the risk of doing research (if it fails, it's harder to get your next grant) And then you're asking those scientists to give away their knowledge for free to a company that's going to turn around, commercialize it and make a ton of money. If I were them, I would want my cut of the cake.
>> It'd be really refreshing to see scientists develop a bit of altruism. It's the ultimate Open Source, and they'd be guaranteed decades, if not centuries, of good will and fame. That's worth a lot more than a few *possible* royalty checks.
Altruism neither pays for the scientists' mortgages nor pays for all the equipment they use to develop their theories.
I'm all for smacking down ridiculously-long copyrights, invalidating silly trademarks or getting rid of obvious patents (one-click shopping?), but this is the _exact_ thing that patents is supposed to support. These scientists (and by proxy, their granteurs (sp?)) took a gamble on developing a technology and they were successful. They should be rewarded for that success like any other person in society. Without that potential for gains, there's no reason to even try.
Chuck Norris uses live sharks as condoms.
when it was originally floated, the euro was worth about 86 US cents. It decreased for a while getting in the 70's before increasing to todays levels.
If you have the salt and the hashing algorithm and there's only 10^9 possible SSNs (a billion minus one), then it's trivial to just bruteforce the numbers. It just becomes a security-through obscurity race.
Hashing functions are worthless if there is a small enough finite set of inputs.
Oh, you should definately salt it, but if someone is dumb enough to pass a SSN around, what would keep them from sending the salt with it?
Not to pick nits, but a 1-way hash of SSNs don't do you much good. Though it's a hash, you get limited to the keyspace of the SSN which is trivially reversible. (instead of 2^80 possibilities, you get 10^9)
That _may_ have been where redneck was originally derived from, but as someone who lives in Nashville and travels to Mississippi and Alabama often, I feel like I have a grasp on the current colloquial usage.
Redneck _is_ used how the GP is used above. The south has tons of racists, but nobody bashes the Irish or the Scots anymore (your usual suspects: blacks and jews get the brunt of that). Anyone who farms, goes mudding, spends all his time hunting/fishing or is a moron is called a redneck around here.
Do you think Jeff Foxworthy made his tiny fortune on "...you might be a redneck" jokes by talking about the irish and the scots?
It's in the Brazilian constituion that they can't extradite you if you have a Brazilian child. (interest of the children and all)
There was a guy in the 60's (I think) who robbed money train going from the treasury to the incinerator in England. Escaped to brazil, paid a hooker $1M to have his child. Ended up living there till '05. Had a nice place on the beach and everything.
I don't know how that works for his wife though.
It actually doesn't.
let me preemptively correct that. I _do_ care about users, but most of my users are tech-savvy and have up-to-date browsers. The ones who don't are in a minority.
To me, the biggest problem is abolutely no fallback to non-javascript browsers. I'm not so much worried about users, but search engine bots won't be able to spider me and drive traffic to me.
Sorry, I misread the difference between a colloquialism and slang that you were pointing out.
While I agree with you totally, you're asking him to prove a negative (we aren't affecting our climate), which is significantly more difficult than proving the converse (we are affecting our climate).
rolfwind took my comment, but not only that, Lindows/Linspire got the right to package microsoft codecs with their OS
At the risk of feeding the troll:
>>Yes, you'd have to come up with something other than a translation of "facebook" (which is neither narrow nor slang, regardless of whether or not you've encountered the term before), if in addition to copying the name, you lifted entire sections of code, layout, features, and functionality.
When I started college back in '03, all the incoming freshmen could send in their pictures which would then be compiled into a book. It was called "The Facebook". It was produced by a company that the university contracted out to, so I'm sure that they had other customers as well.
In fact, when was called just "facebook", I was confused by when my friends at other students had "facebook me!" away messages on their instant messenger client.
I never did understand the idea of carbon trading.
>> You buy carbon credits from someone who doesn't create CO2 or has a process that absorbs it.
I DIDN'T produce 1000 tons of Steel today, can I get a carbon credit for that? Suppose I did produce Steel, what's the benchmark for my 'savings'?
Who will pay for this? It's gotta be a pretty ridiculously large-scale effort to put enough lime into the ocean to counteract both the CO2 output of the operation and to have significant effects on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.