Its only 2/4GB. its not like it take a long time to fill it over USB2
I'm waiting for the nano to get full FW support, too. My late 2004 G5 balks on the USB 2.0 port but FW runs clean. It could be my set-up, it could be the USB 2.0 interface in the late 2004 G5s, or something else or some combination. Whatever the case, the nano is not something I can use until it has full FW support.
Apple knows that its iPod user base is overwhelmingly on Windows, and suddenly, they are beginning to act like every other Windows developer. Macs are becoming the red-headed stepchildren of the iPod family.
This is not anything like "eliminating men". They're not even recombining two women's DNA - they're using using the mitochondrial DNA from one and the combined nuclear DNA from a male and female pair.
Hm. Now I wish I had RTFA before posting below. What I wonder is how you RTFAed between the time there were zero posts and when you posted. Either you are insanely fast, you are a subscriber, you are a PERL script, or you are from the future.
Years ago (1995), I gave a presentation as a graduate student about the increasing representation of men as sex objects much in the same way that women had long been characterized: anxious, vapid, to-be-looked-at as opposed to about-to-do-something, etc.
In the Q & A, someone asked about gender or some such other, and I remember responding that what I really found fascinating was that though much popular thinking surrounded the creation of artificial wombs, women would soon be able to reproduce without the aid of men. The response I received was tepid to say the least. People, especially straight women, don't want to hear about a society without men.
Of course, cloning was always a possibility but for complex mammals cloning has less that desirable results (for now). This development means that a woman-only state, municipality, sect, etc. is possible and could conceivably reproduce itself in perpetuity.
Often super new technology calls to mind technology of bygone eras. For example, UNIX-style command lines made a huge comeback in the 1990s among general computer users (the experts never left it). The Matrix provides visual representations of this phenomenon in the form of command centers jury-rigged with rotary phones and virtual staging grounds furnished with leather wing chairs.
But one of the most memorable versions of this, to my mind, is William Gibson's 1984 Neuromancer which overlays elements of film noir with information technology. Fitzpatrick's typewriter mod calls to my mind Gibson, Burroughs, and the Wachowski brothers, to name a few. The retro-tech feel is just too fucking cool and I wish something like this was available for mere mortals (who don't know how to solder) such as myself.
The moment where Fitzpatrick's reminded me most of Gibson is when he writes:
Then I found that a few of the wires had lifted the conductor right off the board so I had to scrape off the green insulation a little further up the circuit to redo it, [. ..] like a junkie looking for a new vein.
Here, Fitzpatrick seems to be purposefully calling to mind Gibson and Burroughs. Way, way cool stuff, both the mod and the writing.
The real question is what is a public library funded with public dollars doing by being in the business of censorship. Adult-oriented material should be freely accessible from publicly-funded. In some cases, libraries should implement measures to ensure that non-adults are not exposed to adult-oriented material but, then again, there are no limitations on what books one may check out from a public library, regardless of age.
Considering that you admit to "pirating" the OS, your scenario, I'm guessing, should be revised as follows.
Your parents, your grandparents, your aunts, and the entire within-two-branchings of your family tree all buy a Mac OS-compatible machine on your recommendation and use your pirated copy of the OS.
For those of you who are wondering how to get a hold of Apple's XCode 2.1, you can do so here. Before you download, you'll need an Apple Developer Connection account, a free registration.
I'm going to give you one example (there are many more) that proves sexual attraction has little to do with reproductive capacity: bestiality. All arguments which suggest sexual attraction in human beings is about reproduction are wrong. Humans are weird that way.
No, I quite understand that "the ratio (which is the ratio that is consistently found in playmates/miss am candidates) is conducive to reproduction."
What I wonder is what part of "everyone else in the world who DOES NOT HAVE this ratio has still manages to reproduce successfully" don't you understand. The idea of sexual attractiveness has no bearing on (the odds of) successful reproduction.
he.7 ratio is a ratio that is conducive to survival of the mother and fetus in child-birth. It's birth-cavity stuff, not just "they're hot"
You are completely incoherent. If the.7 ratio is an attractive feature it is an attractive feature, no? I understand that this feature also happens to be reproductively beneficial. However, you are not considering the substance of my grandparent (to this) post which is women with, say,.5 ratio of hip to waist reproduce just as successfully. Reproductive success is not correlated with attractiveness whatsover is my point.
An interesting finding occurred - the hip to waist ratio centered around a.7, which is indicative of healthy child bearing.
This is ridiculous because women with a larger or smaller hip to waist ratio are considered sexy by some and, furthermore, they reproduce all the time.
Just because Western mainstrteam ideas of sexiness coincides with child-rearing capability does not mean that is how we select our mates. Genuine Darwinian science understands that the species needs to have genetic variety if it is to survive population-decimating occurrences, also known as natural selection.
Ideological appeals to certain types of beauty being reproductively beneficial are brain dead because they overlook the obvious fact that the immediate ancestors of unattractive people have reproduced just as successfully as those considered sexy and do not anticipate that those "unattractive" people will also attract mates and reproduce.
My advice to you is to disregard scientific studies which in fact are nothing more than a repackaging of the Western-ideal of beauty.
Actually 'sexy' means 'biologically strong'. A female is perceived as sexy because her body shape 'promises' healthy children, and thus survival of the genes. The same goes for men.
This line of Darwinian rationalism is so flawed that I'm surprised many intelligent people even proffer it. Humans do not select mates based on phenotypical signals of reproductive fitness. Period. What you argue about body shape "promising" healthy children is ludicrous. China and India both come to mind. Furthermore, even a cursory survey of sexual icons and fetishes over the last 500 years reveals enough of a range--fat, thin, black, white, tall, short, disabled, herculean--that any argument about sexiness being a biological predisposition to reproductive capability is just plain wrong.
I found the informational video on ambulatory mortosis to be quite traumatic as I realized the dramatized symptoms correspond to the symtpoms my wife has been having for last five years.
Of course, I am also relieved as this explains why it has been so difficult to bring her to orgasm. For a while, I was starting to question my manliness. I suppose once Prudential pays my life insurance claim, I'll go to Vegas with my new girlfriend to forget those 5 lost years.
It used to be the case that tavern waiters paid the tavern owner for the right to work there
When and where did such a situation exist? I don't dispute you, but I do want to suggest that the conditions which existed in the United States until 1985 can be usefully compared to the conditions which exist in the United States in 2005. Without some kind of basis of comparison, you could point to the fact that in 1850 some American laborers worked under threat of force, but that is not as useful a comparison to the contemporary conditions under which Americans work as 1985's conditions.
Actually, the system in place in much of the US is fairly recent (for someone old as myself). When I was a bus boy in the mid 1980s, I was paid minimum wage PLUS tips.
In the mid 1980s, there was a big hoodeehaw whipping around the Federal tax code and one of the blustering gusts was whether employees who received gratuities should declare tips as income. Reagan and his supporters successfully redefined tips as declarable income, which change enabled employers to pay less than minimum wage as long as customers made up the difference. If a service industry employee does not make an average of minimum wage for a shift (or is it a pay period?) then the employer must kick in enough for that employee to have been making minimum wage.
Given this extremely owner-favorable and employee-indifferent system, I'm surprised the champions and defenders of business have not moved to make gratuity-based occupations simply wage free.
It's an egregiously bad idea for governments, operating with public funds in the public trust, to allow themselves to get locked into any proprietary data format.
I absolutely agree with your statement and do believe that governments should not just support free and open standards but should mandate them. In other words, if the government wants a private sector entity to build software and hardware for them, such projects should promote the creation and maintenance of free and open standards. (Don't ask me what to do about classified data and hardware projects.)
But something I've been thinking about lately is how it would take all of maybe 5 minutes for the US government to force a US company to open its IP if, say, national interests depended on it.
I'm thinking maybe, just maybe, this is one reason US legislators have not concerned themselves much with the excellent rationale for open source software and open standards. As long as the money is flowing, so does the licensed IP. Once that flow is in danger, expect Congress to break out their IP hammers.
To return to this post's subject line, what Microsoft learned despite only having its wrists slapped is that the US government, had it really need to, could have cleft Microsoft into half a dozen parts, forcing the resulting companies to either license the IP to which they once had unfettered access or to open that IP in order just to survive.
I was trying to distinguish between idiosyncratic belief versus "faith" as an armature of organized religion. Your belief is not faith in the sense that faith is what supports a religious sect. But if you want to call your belief faith, I can go with that. I just want to distinguish it from codified religion.
I'll place my bet on Intelligent Design with a sprinkling of evolution
Your statement, looks to me like wishful thinking, which reasonable as it may be, is neither rooted in faith nor supported by evidence. It is an odd hybrid of both, a strange bastard child with some affinity to New Age philosophy.
Such hybridizations can be read as attempts by religion to evolve. However, the historical record which testifies to the "mistakes" of religious thought stands in the way.
I find it much more honest to say "I just don't know." Anything beyond that without evidence is guessing, hoping, and wishing.
You're missing the point for touch typists. We often don't look at the keyboard to even situate our fingers. merely situating fingers by touch would register a keypress on the touchstream. People who don't look at the keyboard, if you ever care to look at their fingers, are always touching a key or two in order to gauge the position of the other keys.
Slashdot Mirror
Its only 2/4GB. its not like it take a long time to fill it over USB2
I'm waiting for the nano to get full FW support, too. My late 2004 G5 balks on the USB 2.0 port but FW runs clean. It could be my set-up, it could be the USB 2.0 interface in the late 2004 G5s, or something else or some combination. Whatever the case, the nano is not something I can use until it has full FW support.
Apple knows that its iPod user base is overwhelmingly on Windows, and suddenly, they are beginning to act like every other Windows developer. Macs are becoming the red-headed stepchildren of the iPod family.
This is not anything like "eliminating men". They're not even recombining two women's DNA - they're using using the mitochondrial DNA from one and the combined nuclear DNA from a male and female pair.
Hm. Now I wish I had RTFA before posting below. What I wonder is how you RTFAed between the time there were zero posts and when you posted. Either you are insanely fast, you are a subscriber, you are a PERL script, or you are from the future.
Years ago (1995), I gave a presentation as a graduate student about the increasing representation of men as sex objects much in the same way that women had long been characterized: anxious, vapid, to-be-looked-at as opposed to about-to-do-something, etc.
In the Q & A, someone asked about gender or some such other, and I remember responding that what I really found fascinating was that though much popular thinking surrounded the creation of artificial wombs, women would soon be able to reproduce without the aid of men. The response I received was tepid to say the least. People, especially straight women, don't want to hear about a society without men.
Of course, cloning was always a possibility but for complex mammals cloning has less that desirable results (for now). This development means that a woman-only state, municipality, sect, etc. is possible and could conceivably reproduce itself in perpetuity.
Just a few thoughts.
Often super new technology calls to mind technology of bygone eras. For example, UNIX-style command lines made a huge comeback in the 1990s among general computer users (the experts never left it). The Matrix provides visual representations of this phenomenon in the form of command centers jury-rigged with rotary phones and virtual staging grounds furnished with leather wing chairs.
But one of the most memorable versions of this, to my mind, is William Gibson's 1984 Neuromancer which overlays elements of film noir with information technology. Fitzpatrick's typewriter mod calls to my mind Gibson, Burroughs, and the Wachowski brothers, to name a few. The retro-tech feel is just too fucking cool and I wish something like this was available for mere mortals (who don't know how to solder) such as myself.
The moment where Fitzpatrick's reminded me most of Gibson is when he writes:
Here, Fitzpatrick seems to be purposefully calling to mind Gibson and Burroughs. Way, way cool stuff, both the mod and the writing.
Kudos.
The real question is what is a public library funded with public dollars doing by being in the business of censorship. Adult-oriented material should be freely accessible from publicly-funded. In some cases, libraries should implement measures to ensure that non-adults are not exposed to adult-oriented material but, then again, there are no limitations on what books one may check out from a public library, regardless of age.
Considering that you admit to "pirating" the OS, your scenario, I'm guessing, should be revised as follows.
Your parents, your grandparents, your aunts, and the entire within-two-branchings of your family tree all buy a Mac OS-compatible machine on your recommendation and use your pirated copy of the OS.
Result: Apple goes out of business just like Be.
I just installed WebObjects 5.3 on my powerbook and now it's running much snappier.
For those of you who are wondering how to get a hold of Apple's XCode 2.1, you can do so here. Before you download, you'll need an Apple Developer Connection account, a free registration.
Actually, what you say re-enforces my argument
I'm going to give you one example (there are many more) that proves sexual attraction has little to do with reproductive capacity: bestiality. All arguments which suggest sexual attraction in human beings is about reproduction are wrong. Humans are weird that way.
No, I quite understand that "the ratio (which is the ratio that is consistently found in playmates/miss am candidates) is conducive to reproduction."
What I wonder is what part of "everyone else in the world who DOES NOT HAVE this ratio has still manages to reproduce successfully" don't you understand. The idea of sexual attractiveness has no bearing on (the odds of) successful reproduction.
he .7 ratio is a ratio that is conducive to survival of the mother and fetus in child-birth. It's birth-cavity stuff, not just "they're hot"
You are completely incoherent. If the .7 ratio is an attractive feature it is an attractive feature, no? I understand that this feature also happens to be reproductively beneficial. However, you are not considering the substance of my grandparent (to this) post which is women with, say, .5 ratio of hip to waist reproduce just as successfully. Reproductive success is not correlated with attractiveness whatsover is my point.
An interesting finding occurred - the hip to waist ratio centered around a .7, which is indicative of healthy child bearing.
This is ridiculous because women with a larger or smaller hip to waist ratio are considered sexy by some and, furthermore, they reproduce all the time.
Just because Western mainstrteam ideas of sexiness coincides with child-rearing capability does not mean that is how we select our mates. Genuine Darwinian science understands that the species needs to have genetic variety if it is to survive population-decimating occurrences, also known as natural selection.
Ideological appeals to certain types of beauty being reproductively beneficial are brain dead because they overlook the obvious fact that the immediate ancestors of unattractive people have reproduced just as successfully as those considered sexy and do not anticipate that those "unattractive" people will also attract mates and reproduce.
My advice to you is to disregard scientific studies which in fact are nothing more than a repackaging of the Western-ideal of beauty.
Actually 'sexy' means 'biologically strong'. A female is perceived as sexy because her body shape 'promises' healthy children, and thus survival of the genes. The same goes for men.
This line of Darwinian rationalism is so flawed that I'm surprised many intelligent people even proffer it. Humans do not select mates based on phenotypical signals of reproductive fitness. Period. What you argue about body shape "promising" healthy children is ludicrous. China and India both come to mind. Furthermore, even a cursory survey of sexual icons and fetishes over the last 500 years reveals enough of a range--fat, thin, black, white, tall, short, disabled, herculean--that any argument about sexiness being a biological predisposition to reproductive capability is just plain wrong.
Why, oh why, didn't I take the blue screen?
Just go to ~(username)->Library->Widgets and drag them out.
. . . and shoot them. It's the only way to make sure they don't come back.
Dear PowerMacG4:
I found the informational video on ambulatory mortosis to be quite traumatic as I realized the dramatized symptoms correspond to the symtpoms my wife has been having for last five years.
Of course, I am also relieved as this explains why it has been so difficult to bring her to orgasm. For a while, I was starting to question my manliness. I suppose once Prudential pays my life insurance claim, I'll go to Vegas with my new girlfriend to forget those 5 lost years.
Thanks, PowerMacG4. I owe you.
It used to be the case that tavern waiters paid the tavern owner for the right to work there
When and where did such a situation exist? I don't dispute you, but I do want to suggest that the conditions which existed in the United States until 1985 can be usefully compared to the conditions which exist in the United States in 2005. Without some kind of basis of comparison, you could point to the fact that in 1850 some American laborers worked under threat of force, but that is not as useful a comparison to the contemporary conditions under which Americans work as 1985's conditions.
What a lovely system you guys have...
Actually, the system in place in much of the US is fairly recent (for someone old as myself). When I was a bus boy in the mid 1980s, I was paid minimum wage PLUS tips.
In the mid 1980s, there was a big hoodeehaw whipping around the Federal tax code and one of the blustering gusts was whether employees who received gratuities should declare tips as income. Reagan and his supporters successfully redefined tips as declarable income, which change enabled employers to pay less than minimum wage as long as customers made up the difference. If a service industry employee does not make an average of minimum wage for a shift (or is it a pay period?) then the employer must kick in enough for that employee to have been making minimum wage.
Given this extremely owner-favorable and employee-indifferent system, I'm surprised the champions and defenders of business have not moved to make gratuity-based occupations simply wage free.
The only cop I would ever expect to surf Slashdot is Robocop.
Cheers, officer. Just having a funny.
It's an egregiously bad idea for governments, operating with public funds in the public trust, to allow themselves to get locked into any proprietary data format.
I absolutely agree with your statement and do believe that governments should not just support free and open standards but should mandate them. In other words, if the government wants a private sector entity to build software and hardware for them, such projects should promote the creation and maintenance of free and open standards. (Don't ask me what to do about classified data and hardware projects.)
But something I've been thinking about lately is how it would take all of maybe 5 minutes for the US government to force a US company to open its IP if, say, national interests depended on it.
I'm thinking maybe, just maybe, this is one reason US legislators have not concerned themselves much with the excellent rationale for open source software and open standards. As long as the money is flowing, so does the licensed IP. Once that flow is in danger, expect Congress to break out their IP hammers.
To return to this post's subject line, what Microsoft learned despite only having its wrists slapped is that the US government, had it really need to, could have cleft Microsoft into half a dozen parts, forcing the resulting companies to either license the IP to which they once had unfettered access or to open that IP in order just to survive.
How is it not rooted in faith?
I was trying to distinguish between idiosyncratic belief versus "faith" as an armature of organized religion. Your belief is not faith in the sense that faith is what supports a religious sect. But if you want to call your belief faith, I can go with that. I just want to distinguish it from codified religion.
I'll place my bet on Intelligent Design with a sprinkling of evolution
Your statement, looks to me like wishful thinking, which reasonable as it may be, is neither rooted in faith nor supported by evidence. It is an odd hybrid of both, a strange bastard child with some affinity to New Age philosophy.
Such hybridizations can be read as attempts by religion to evolve. However, the historical record which testifies to the "mistakes" of religious thought stands in the way.
I find it much more honest to say "I just don't know." Anything beyond that without evidence is guessing, hoping, and wishing.
John, Thanks for the info. I'm now very curious about the touchstream and trying it out. msq
You're missing the point for touch typists. We often don't look at the keyboard to even situate our fingers. merely situating fingers by touch would register a keypress on the touchstream. People who don't look at the keyboard, if you ever care to look at their fingers, are always touching a key or two in order to gauge the position of the other keys.
Cocktail, Marinara, or Garlic sauce?
"I resemble that statement."