I'd mention something about OS9 being built on an assumption of cooperative multitasking, but Safari never saw OS9, and Flash was always designed to run on multiple platforms on top of a magical browser layer. There's nothing special about any relations you might see between OS and software here.
They don't even bother with taglines anymore. They know what it is they sell, and sell it without even using words. What they sell is image.
The macbook air ad tells you exactly what to do with it: pull it out from somewhere like a rabit from a magician's hat, then show it off to your neighbors (then put it away because it can't do shit).
I'm not saying that I haven't considered public schools; I simply much prefer a school that I'm not in the top 1% of math SAT scores. If that sounds arrogant I apologize, but I'm just tired of going to schools like my high school that don't have a *single* person (student or otherwise) who knows C. I want to go to MIT because I think that I can learn something about programming from other students and teachers I hate to abuse the youthfully naive, but if you expect to learn more C programming from people with PhDs, especially those who've gone on to earn the title of "Professor" woe is unto you ^_^. But don't worry, I believe MIT starts everyone off on the same equal footing by inflicting Scheme on students.
People are going to sell you on MIT as a place where your opportunities are multiplied because of the personalities around you. I think highly successful guys are successful no matter where they go--don't overlook state schools. I think it was Bill Joy who said he'd selected Berkley not because it was famous at the time (it wasn't) but because he figured the lack of computing resources would make him more disciplined as a programmer and designer. I guess it worked. Bjourne Stroussup now works at Texas A&M now, not MIT. Gates enrolled at Harvard, but intended to follow in his fathers footsteps as an attorney.
Frankly, if what you want is to make a mark on Free Software, I'm gonna recommend a place called Oregon State. They have a fantastic lab involved in lots of impressive things. It's a bit far from Maine, so you'd be paying out of state. They hire undergrads to work on their projects, and interact with lots of free software projects who know what they're doing. Their LUG is active, and the campus is a short ride away from Portland, home to at least one important Linux conference.
If you identify as a conservative, then you may feel that calling someone a liberal is the same as calling them an idiot. Or at least, you may feel that liberals are idiots and apply the logic yourself. In many liberals circles, calling someone a conservative is no more than calling them a dumbass conservative, or evil, etc. So as a politician, they do their best in a world nearly evenly split between liberals and conservatives to appeal to both wings, and to the marginal crowd of swing voters.
I'm not sure why the conservative label hasn't caught on in quite the same way. But the point is, it's only a slur to people who already don't like liberals.
"Liberal" is a slur because every politician's trying to satisfy everyone. There's no great battle of ideas anymore. The game is lying to everyone but saying little enough to hope nobody finds out. Calling so and so a "liberal" hurts their moderate credentials. Interestingly, W's campaign decided that since the Dems had all moved to moderate positions during the Clinton administrations, tacking to the right would help get him votes. Despite his declarations that he was a uniter, not a divider, both his campaigns relied exactly on that.
We can do both, you know. We can push for the removal of screensavers (in favor of screen blanking) AND put wind farms in Kansas. And a billion other things. We can push energy star requirements forward marginally and get a large impact universally. What I find craziest is who the opponents of Kansan wind farms are. They're rural enthusiasts who'd hate to see signs of civilization in their ranch, and environmentalists worried about prairie chickens.
Also, power draw does not stay high 24/7. It has considerable daytime requirements. The current power grid however, has peak efficiency at constant use. There are stations built to take advantage of this and store energy produced at night and resell during peak demand.
Racial profiling won't work if terrorists can recruit westerners sympathetic to their cause. Frankly, I'm glad our Homeland Security is a bumbling idiocracy. I shudder in fear to think what terrible things a smarter one would inflict on us.
I was mostly referring to the part where he links to an Austrailian vendor for proof and then provides a picture of a suggested use, with an improbably placed airport terminal monitor easily a hundred feet in the air and amazingly all in focus despite the oblique angle.
But look, you're clearly far more invested in the information than I am. Obviously a guy claiming that Vista DRM is causing global warming or that HD playback is impossible is over the top. I think I'll just continue to use Ubuntu where I don't have to worry about this or that. You win, and I guess your prize is you can keep using Vista. Enjoy.
If you had actually read the article, the gentleman's point was that the journalism is wrong, not that bias doesn't exist. Critics wrote papers not to defend some scientific truth, but to improve both ideas, by reconciling the two. They point out that her paper's explanation of sexual selection misses published advances in scientific understanding, and suggest ways the existing formulas can be tweaked to accommodate the new theory.
Even you're buying into this fallacy that the two ideas must be exclusive, which is rather the point of the article: journalists reinforce a publicly held stereotype of underdog scientists bucking the status quo. Your justifications of bias through funding and hubris are a direct result of this stereotype. I don't see anyone being paid to support a position that monolithic kernels are better than microkernels, or vice versa. Individuals do have a personal bias in favor of their ideas, after all, they came up with them and thought well enough of them to write their scientific friends about it. But to imply that science takes a generation to be accepted is probably not quite right.
I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia pays developers to make Quadro cards run fast on Unix and Linux in particular. Many purchasers of that hardware want it.
I haven't really paid much attention to Vista DRM one way or another. But even an objective observer would at least actually try the things he Gutmann says can't be done. Rather than spend the money and try, the author cites a sales website, and a clearly photoshopped "example use" on the second page. Of course salesmen are going to say everything's possible. As the recent Vista-capable suit shows, you can't rely on such claims to be accurate.
Of course, it doesn't help that they've started using the Quadro name for business laptops. As far as I know, chips like the Quadro NVS 110M are far closer to gaming cards than workstations.
It's not FLV. Grab a random youtube flv with youtube-dl, and try playing with VLC, mplayer, or whatever. At least on my Ubunut desktop, it runs exactly as you would expect: perfectly, with very little CPU usage. I conclude it's either the browser or flash itself.
When you build a house you need one or a few architects but you need a lot more construction workers that actually implement the architect's vision. They're called compilers. Your metaphor is busted. Engineers come up with the plans, and then workers construct it. Within software, it's trivially possible to construct from a well done plan, but nearly impossible to find the right plan. A more appropriate metaphor might be found somewhere closer to engineering, like EE or ME. Where you have teams of people working, prototyping and constructing a final plan to pass off to some poor factory to implement. Sure, you have a Principal Engineer, ultimately responsible for the project, but it's not so clear that they alone design the plans.
As an afficianando of both the scene and free software, I have to say it's conflicting. On the one hand, many people, Demi included, have taken wonderful games like Picross and made something similar. On the other hand, I recall hearing that shopping Drymouth around to publishers eventually wound up getting him screwed as someone basically took the work for free, so I can see why he'd take a new approach this time around. (I could be remembering a different guy's troubles, but the scene was small enough that even if it wasn't him, Demi's probably aware of who it did happen to).
Wouldn't it be sad if Apple beat him to the punch? They've got the resources, and they're not keen on sharing. Or if Nintendo took the DS Motion Card up and used his concept as a pack in? Its a tough battle hacking on closed platforms like these. The big guys have a huge advantage; in the time it takes for you to convince someone to take you up on it, they can have a game out and ready, slap a brand on it and suddenly half the world think's you're the copycat. To resolve this, does the GPL allow you to grant rights to the patent for a specific GPL'd piece of software? Perhaps its best not to eliminate software patents, but to reduce their lengths to a year or two.
Of course, this game is also very similar to a Nintendo Bit Generations game, so it's not at all clear he will be awarded the patent.
Apologies; I originally meant to imply something along the lines you interpreted, but unable to find a decent reference simply decided to state that money was spent on computer bees and the like. Looking back, I failed to finish cleaning that up.
Worry not. This breakthrough was found at the publicly financed University of Alberta. You can keep on crowing about how much Medicine costs to Discover, but the pharma companies spend a lot on computer generated bees and animated restless legs as they do research, and even more on direct marketing to physicians.
If you read the last paragraph of the article (I know, "Read? this is slashdot!") they mention who actually paid for this. In the name of public education, I'll duplicate it for you:
Barr's research is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. The findings are published in the Public Library of Science Pathogens.
.
Your hypothesis that the current system is well financed by pharma companies may be incorrect...
Slashdot Mirror
I'd mention something about OS9 being built on an assumption of cooperative multitasking, but Safari never saw OS9, and Flash was always designed to run on multiple platforms on top of a magical browser layer. There's nothing special about any relations you might see between OS and software here.
If you could drop Firefox to "nobody", would that be less secure than a random non-priveledged user?
As an option, but not by default. As I understand it, someone asked why SELinux wasn't in Ubuntu, and when told "nobody wants to do the work", they went and did it.
That usage for CS would be for servers, but your dual range metric is also highly confusing.
They don't even bother with taglines anymore. They know what it is they sell, and sell it without even using words. What they sell is image.
The macbook air ad tells you exactly what to do with it: pull it out from somewhere like a rabit from a magician's hat, then show it off to your neighbors (then put it away because it can't do shit).
People are going to sell you on MIT as a place where your opportunities are multiplied because of the personalities around you. I think highly successful guys are successful no matter where they go--don't overlook state schools. I think it was Bill Joy who said he'd selected Berkley not because it was famous at the time (it wasn't) but because he figured the lack of computing resources would make him more disciplined as a programmer and designer. I guess it worked. Bjourne Stroussup now works at Texas A&M now, not MIT. Gates enrolled at Harvard, but intended to follow in his fathers footsteps as an attorney.
Frankly, if what you want is to make a mark on Free Software, I'm gonna recommend a place called Oregon State. They have a fantastic lab involved in lots of impressive things. It's a bit far from Maine, so you'd be paying out of state. They hire undergrads to work on their projects, and interact with lots of free software projects who know what they're doing. Their LUG is active, and the campus is a short ride away from Portland, home to at least one important Linux conference.
The same way that MySQL, Redhat, Ohloh, and Google itself were on the list: they publish open source software, even as a for-profit enterprise.
Why not start with petitioning the US government to return Texas to Mexico?
If you identify as a conservative, then you may feel that calling someone a liberal is the same as calling them an idiot. Or at least, you may feel that liberals are idiots and apply the logic yourself. In many liberals circles, calling someone a conservative is no more than calling them a dumbass conservative, or evil, etc. So as a politician, they do their best in a world nearly evenly split between liberals and conservatives to appeal to both wings, and to the marginal crowd of swing voters.
I'm not sure why the conservative label hasn't caught on in quite the same way. But the point is, it's only a slur to people who already don't like liberals.
"Liberal" is a slur because every politician's trying to satisfy everyone. There's no great battle of ideas anymore. The game is lying to everyone but saying little enough to hope nobody finds out. Calling so and so a "liberal" hurts their moderate credentials. Interestingly, W's campaign decided that since the Dems had all moved to moderate positions during the Clinton administrations, tacking to the right would help get him votes. Despite his declarations that he was a uniter, not a divider, both his campaigns relied exactly on that.
We can do both, you know. We can push for the removal of screensavers (in favor of screen blanking) AND put wind farms in Kansas. And a billion other things. We can push energy star requirements forward marginally and get a large impact universally. What I find craziest is who the opponents of Kansan wind farms are. They're rural enthusiasts who'd hate to see signs of civilization in their ranch, and environmentalists worried about prairie chickens.
Also, power draw does not stay high 24/7. It has considerable daytime requirements. The current power grid however, has peak efficiency at constant use. There are stations built to take advantage of this and store energy produced at night and resell during peak demand.
Racial profiling won't work if terrorists can recruit westerners sympathetic to their cause. Frankly, I'm glad our Homeland Security is a bumbling idiocracy. I shudder in fear to think what terrible things a smarter one would inflict on us.
Mine runs Battlefield 2 etc well enough. I doubt it'll win any awards, but it suffices.
I was mostly referring to the part where he links to an Austrailian vendor for proof and then provides a picture of a suggested use, with an improbably placed airport terminal monitor easily a hundred feet in the air and amazingly all in focus despite the oblique angle.
But look, you're clearly far more invested in the information than I am. Obviously a guy claiming that Vista DRM is causing global warming or that HD playback is impossible is over the top. I think I'll just continue to use Ubuntu where I don't have to worry about this or that. You win, and I guess your prize is you can keep using Vista. Enjoy.
If you had actually read the article, the gentleman's point was that the journalism is wrong, not that bias doesn't exist. Critics wrote papers not to defend some scientific truth, but to improve both ideas, by reconciling the two. They point out that her paper's explanation of sexual selection misses published advances in scientific understanding, and suggest ways the existing formulas can be tweaked to accommodate the new theory.
Even you're buying into this fallacy that the two ideas must be exclusive, which is rather the point of the article: journalists reinforce a publicly held stereotype of underdog scientists bucking the status quo. Your justifications of bias through funding and hubris are a direct result of this stereotype. I don't see anyone being paid to support a position that monolithic kernels are better than microkernels, or vice versa. Individuals do have a personal bias in favor of their ideas, after all, they came up with them and thought well enough of them to write their scientific friends about it. But to imply that science takes a generation to be accepted is probably not quite right.
I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia pays developers to make Quadro cards run fast on Unix and Linux in particular. Many purchasers of that hardware want it.
I haven't really paid much attention to Vista DRM one way or another. But even an objective observer would at least actually try the things he Gutmann says can't be done. Rather than spend the money and try, the author cites a sales website, and a clearly photoshopped "example use" on the second page. Of course salesmen are going to say everything's possible. As the recent Vista-capable suit shows, you can't rely on such claims to be accurate.
And on the final page, we see a few interesting bits of history. People have noticed stuttering on playback, due to scheduling priorities between network and realtime playback on Vista. But more interestingly, we have a guy who's talking about how If I was trying to engineer a system with long battery life, this would be unwelcome news. And the less said about that amusing analysis of clock cycles the better.
Of course, it doesn't help that they've started using the Quadro name for business laptops. As far as I know, chips like the Quadro NVS 110M are far closer to gaming cards than workstations.
It's not FLV. Grab a random youtube flv with youtube-dl, and try playing with VLC, mplayer, or whatever. At least on my Ubunut desktop, it runs exactly as you would expect: perfectly, with very little CPU usage. I conclude it's either the browser or flash itself.
I wonder if Java applets fare worse...
As an afficianando of both the scene and free software, I have to say it's conflicting. On the one hand, many people, Demi included, have taken wonderful games like Picross and made something similar. On the other hand, I recall hearing that shopping Drymouth around to publishers eventually wound up getting him screwed as someone basically took the work for free, so I can see why he'd take a new approach this time around. (I could be remembering a different guy's troubles, but the scene was small enough that even if it wasn't him, Demi's probably aware of who it did happen to).
Wouldn't it be sad if Apple beat him to the punch? They've got the resources, and they're not keen on sharing. Or if Nintendo took the DS Motion Card up and used his concept as a pack in? Its a tough battle hacking on closed platforms like these. The big guys have a huge advantage; in the time it takes for you to convince someone to take you up on it, they can have a game out and ready, slap a brand on it and suddenly half the world think's you're the copycat. To resolve this, does the GPL allow you to grant rights to the patent for a specific GPL'd piece of software? Perhaps its best not to eliminate software patents, but to reduce their lengths to a year or two.
Of course, this game is also very similar to a Nintendo Bit Generations game, so it's not at all clear he will be awarded the patent.
Apologies; I originally meant to imply something along the lines you interpreted, but unable to find a decent reference simply decided to state that money was spent on computer bees and the like. Looking back, I failed to finish cleaning that up.
If you read the last paragraph of the article (I know, "Read? this is slashdot!") they mention who actually paid for this. In the name of public education, I'll duplicate it for you:.
Your hypothesis that the current system is well financed by pharma companies may be incorrect...