Boy, I hope they don't extend this idea to the FireFox plugin I use, StupidCommentBlocker Plus. That's the plugin that blocks out all the idiotic comments on various websites. I use it all the time for Slashdot.
Otherwise, this entire site would be so annoying to read.
There is now extra evidence in the feet that these individuals are not Homo Erectus or Home Sapiens. The latest findings are the feet which appear to be more "chimplike" than the feet that you find in H. Erectus or H. Sapiens.
This includes extremely long foot, flat arch, long, more thumb like big toe. Whomever this creature is, it didn't do much in the way of running. However, the foot structure and the structure of the limbs does show that this creature was bipedal. The large toe, although longer and more thumb-like is not separated from the rest of the foot like in chimps. But, it certainly shows some older forms. The legs are also much shorter than you'd find in the other two species of Homo mentioned above.
Although the pigmy hippos show reduction in cranial capacity beyond the simple reduction in size, other aspects of these creatures are not different from normal hippo. The reduced brain could save a lot of energy, and there might not be much need on an isolated island for raw brain power.
But, how does this explain the structure of the foot for H. Floresiensis? These H. Floresiensis wouldn't have reverted back to a more primitive foot.
There has been some new evidence that pre-H Erectus humanoids did escape from Africa and populated what is now Asia minor. It could be possible that H Floresiensis could have evolved from a pre-H. Erectus humanoid.
Then again, in an island setting where there is little food, a very small inbred population, and little worry about predators, that genetic defects that may have hurt the survival chances of a normal H. Erectus or Sapien could have survived in this setting. Genetic drift could explain the reduced size, the reduced cranial capacity, the flat feet, and the enlarged toe.
Some of this might be settled if some genetic information could be pulled out one of the bones. However, with these slight bone sizes, there might not be a lot of genetic information.
Except mainly for the gaming world, Linux vs. Windows is pretty much a dead issue in the consumer market.
The great need for Windows applications (Outlook, Word, Excel, Quicken) is much less. In the old days, you needed these Windows applications. Now, most people spend about 90% of their time using web based applications. PDF has greatly reduced the need for Word and Excel for most people since the biggest issue was being able to read the document.
Windows is in trouble, but not because "it sucks". Windows is actually a fairly good OS. The problem is that Windows is quickly becoming the most expensive part of a computer. When you're selling a PC for $300, and your choice is to add a $0 Linux or a $100 Windows OS, what would you choose?
In the old days when computers were over $1000, adding Windows was a small part of the cost and made your computer quite useful. Besides, people demanded it. Now, people aren't demanding Windows and the cost of Windows is approaching 25% of the cost of the entire machine. Linux (especially with the new Netbook front end) is looking better and better.
Windows is also suffering from the ever shrinking platform. Windows simply doesn't scale down to smaller displays and smaller memory footprints. Windows also doesn't work well on non x86 chips. Windows is the dominant OS on the desktop market, but despite Microsoft's best efforts, it hasn't made a dent on the Smartphone market or the Setup box market. It is now struggling in the PDA market and has less than stellar success in the Netbook market.
Shuttleworth is 100% correct. Let Linux be Linux. Linux will be the OS of the Net while Windows can remain the OS of the ever shrinking corporate desktop office. People no longer care about their OS which is why setup boxes are Linux based and Linux will become the OS of the Smartphone. Sooner or later, Linux will creep upon what remains of the Desktop market too, but only if Linux is easy to use.
Concentrate on getting the Linux desktop working and don't fret about Windows compatibility. Look at the Mac. It's not looking to run Windows programs. Apple's only concern is that it can play nicely in the Windows world. If Linux did 1/4 as well as the Mac, it would more than triple its desktop share.
Why yes. Look at Apache. That's using a BSD style license and is doing quite fine. Thank you for asking.
What makes Linux Linux is not the GPL license. What makes Linux Linux is the project manager who holds it all together and had the foresight to not follow convention.
Linus used a massive kernel instead of creating a micro-kernel that was all the rage because he simply thought micro kernels don't perform as well. He decided to hard code his project to the x86 platform because it was cheap instead of trying to maintain his code on multiple platforms. The result was a Unix like system that ran on cheap hardware and had good performance.
Linus also has the great ability not to be an absolute asshole like certain people who ran certain open source operating system projects and caused those projects to fork into an innumerable number of forks.
The greatest asset the GPL license gave Linus was the ability to include the GNU utilities into Linux distributions. This meant that Linux could concentrate on the kernel while the GNU project concentrated on all the utilities and the shell.
Yet, I can always fork a GPL project. It's my right as part of OSS. All I have to do is first submit my changes back into the GPL project, and then, if the changes are rejected, fork the project.
Many companies have done exactly that and then used the fork to add proprietary layers on top of GPL code. You have to jump through some hoops, but it is quite possible to do.
It's like many communities that prohibit liquor by the drink. Many businesses get around this restriction by making a private club. You buy a $5 club membership, and then you can buy drinks as a member of your private club. The result is the same: Restaurants serving drinks. You simply have to jump through a few more hoops.
Yet, IBM also maintains many projects under the Apache and other BSD style of license, and has yet to run off and keep their changes for themselves.
There's a lot of fear that somehow a BSD style license will allow a company to "steal your code". However, you still have your code. What you don't have are the improvements that someone else may have put on your code. Improvements that you might not even want.
And still, many BSD style licensed projects are still freely available and maintained. Let's take a look at Mac OS X. That software was based upon BSD and the Mach Kernel project. However, Apple has released all of its non-proprietary changes in the Mac OS X code back into Open Darwin and BSD itself.
Apple also started Webkit which is also backed by the BSD license. (It also has the Lesser GPL license because otherwise, it couldn't be used in Linux distros).
One of the things you forget is when you make the source code proprietary, you are stuck maintaining it, and that can be expensive. Apple wants BSD to remain a viable project because Apple needs the security patches that the open source community discovers. You can't apply community patches to proprietary source code. Remember that code must be maintained and that's also expensive.
So, BSD style licenses don't necessarily cause corporations to run off with your code, destroy your OSS project, and make gobs of money on your effort.
And, it is also possible to (gasp) add proprietary code on top of a GPL project too. It simply takes a bit more work. Several companies have been doing this with Linux for years. Here's how to do it:
Submit hooks into the GPL code back into the GPL project. These hooks will be used to connect your proprietary code into the GPL code. Most likely these changes will be rejected by the project. Who cares? You've done your bit.
Now use the open source hooks that you submitted, but were rejected by the GPL project to create a new GPL project that includes those hooks. Can't stop you from forking a project!
Now build the proprietary layer of your code on top of the hooks. As long as you are dynamically linking into the GPL portion of the code, you are safe from the GPL license. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to run any proprietary third party application on a Linux box. If that was the case, IBM would have dropped Linux a long time ago.
Rake in cash by leaching off the GPL software project!
Two things: Apple doesn't do cheap, so a iPhone Lite is out of the question. Same with the "media pad".
Nor, does Verizon allow third parties to do whatever they want. Verizon isn't going to have a WiFi only device that's not going to get people to sign up for Verizon.
Nor, do I think Apple wants to work with CDMA which is now officially an obsolete technology. Apple will stick with AT&T which allows Apple to do whatever they want on Apple's terms. Verizon doesn't need Apple. AT&T does.
I do predict that Apple will come out with a "Netbook" like device based upon the iPhone OS. It will probably have a keyboard, but no mouse.
Actually, he might not even be using Linux. He could be using Windows and have a console screen up on his laptop where he's entering "command prompts". The complaint states merely he's got two screens. One is the typical desktop and another is black with white characters (which sounds like the default Windows console and not a typical Linux terminal).
I'm not sure exactly what is going on. All the materials so far are from his lawyers. Apparently a previously reliable informant made some claims about this particular student and that's what the warrant was based upon.
We'll have to see what the judge decides. Meanwhile, I'm going to lay off shell scripting for a while.
I've been in this business a long time. There are dozens. Heck, maybe hundreds of "Open Source Licenses", and I really can't tell the difference between them. There's Apache, GPL, Eclipse, CPL, QPL, and even BSD which get some people into raging fits.
Okay BSD is a bit different because you can -- in theory -- produce your own changes and keep those as proprietary. Apple did this with Mac OS X. However, they could have done pretty much the same thing with Linux too. Watch:
1). Company "X" submits to the Linux project some code changes that will allow Company "X" to hook its proprietary code into the Linux kernel. Completely legal according to the Linux GPL license.
2). These hooks would probably be rejected by the Linux project, but Company "X" could still use them although they'd be under the GPL license.
3). Company "X" now creates a proprietary layer on top of Linux using their GPL hooks to link it to the Kernel. The proprietary layer would sit above the GPL'd code and officially be separate from it.
The end result: Linux kernel under GPL, Company "X"'s special code that hooks into the proprietary layers under GPL, but not supported by the Linux project. Company "X"'s proprietary code on top not under GPL. A full OS. Yes, it's a bit more work than simply taking the basic BSD code, adding in proprietary changes directly into the kernel, but in the end, it's pretty much the same to the end user.
I use a lot of OSS software, and I support many OSS projects. But all this care and concern about licensing is unbelievable. Linux is Linux not because of the license, but because Linus Torvalds is a top rate project manager who knew what was important and what wasn't important.
Torvalds didn't jump on the microkernel bandwagon because he thought it the cool design wasn't worth the performance hit. Linus created his code to be X86 specific because it was faster that way.
Linus has carefully avoided all these piddling political wars about nonsense and has carefully focused his entire project and has kept his project from splitting apart in fratricidal wars that had engulfed the BSD world.
Yet, we get into these silly arguments. Was it worth the time and effort to create the GNOME project just because KDE depended upon a small set of propriety (even though freely licensed) QT Libraries? (BTW, I tend to use the GNOME desktop myself). What would the Linux desktop look like if the desktop environment wasn't split into two major camps and all that effort could have been put into building a full feature, yet friendly desktop?
This is for those times when you accidentally hit the send button before you've finished your email. How many times you've gotten an email message that was incomplete. Then a few seconds later got another one that starts out "Whoops! I hit the send too soon."
Standard remotes depend upon IR connections and fairly basic signaling. Imagine a device connected to a serial port of a computer. (Serial port? What's that?). In order to get the device to do a particular task, you send a letter "A" down the serial cable to the device. If you want the device to do another task, you send a letter "B" down the serial cable to the device. That's what it's like controlling our devices with the current crop of remotes.
Smartphones, on the other hand, use WiFi or Bluetooth connectivity and more complex protocols. For example, devices could use drivers to explain to a piece of software how to talk to a particular device. The interaction is much richer and more complex.
For example, I have a cable box connected to my TV with the sound going out to my stereo amplifier. I want to turn on my TV, change the channel, and turn up the sound. With a typical Universal remote, I would have to switch to the TV, turn on, switch to the cable box, change the channel, then switch to my amplifier and turn up the sound.
With a more intelligent system, I would simply say I want to watch channel 13 and crank up the volume, and let the system figure out what components to fiddle with. Smartphones can use WiFi and BlueTooth and can use more complex methods of communicating to the device you want to control. As our...uh... "entertainment system" become more PC like, the ability of a Universal Remotes to work will be limited.
I have replaced my TV with a PC runing Mythbuntu and a large 36" monitor. I bought with my system a really cool universal remote at a PC warehouse show. That remote is sitting in a draw because my PC can't use an IR remote to change channels or select whether I'm watching TV or Hulu.
Besides, I know where my smartphone is. I have no idea where I put that blasted remote.
The most likely outcome is that remotes will morph into something like the Apple Front Row remote (a device dedicated to controlling your entertainment center). Then, you'll be able to use both the remote (with its dedicated buttons) or your smartphone (because it's in your pocket and you know where it is).
Actually, Linux might be the real winner in the end. The current Microsoft OEM price for Windows Vista Home Basic is between $50 to $100. Windows Vista Home Premium is between $125 to $200. I have no idea what Microsoft plans to do for Windows 7 pricing.
Here's Microsoft's problem. As computers become cheaper, the cost of the Windows OS becomes a higher percentage of the price of a computer. When computers were just below the $2000 mark, the cost of Windows was negligible. When you're talking about a $200 netbook, adding an extra $100 for a very basic operating system is a lot of money.
Even worse for Microsoft is that the OS is not quite as important as it once was. In the good ol' days, everybody needed Microsoft Office. Now, people want a browser, so they can read their mail, twitter, or play games on Facebook.
And, Linux is now consumer ready. I've installed it on quite a few people's computers because of problems they were having with malware, or because their computers were running slow. They love Linux. Well, they don't actually love Linux, they love the fact that their computers are faster and they don't have to worry about malware. They really don't care about the OS itself.
The only problem with Linux is that it doesn't work with iPods. Sort of ironic: Apple is one of the reasons why some people can't abandon Windows.
This is the guy that heads the Board of Education in the State of Texas. The second largest state in the United States by population (23,904,380 people).
Chrome makes Google no money. The purpose of Chrome is to spur on the other browsers to do a little innovation. As far as Google is concerned, it's perfectly okay if Chrome gets left behind in the dust just as long as other browsers render Google's pages correctly.
So far, Apple got the message. The JavaScript handling in the new beta version of Safari is much improved with the new Nitro engine (previously called SquirrelFish Extreme) replacing the older SquirrelFish engine. According to some benchmarks, the new engine is faster than Google's V8 engine.
Nor, is Google even contemplating ending its relationship with Mozilla. Firefox makes Google money. Chrome doesn't make Google money. Google will make a deal with any half decent browser that uses Google as its default page. Google also has deals with Safari, Opera, and OmniWeb.
What Mozilla is really pissed about was Chrome's use of WebKit instead of Gecko for its page rendering. This is really where the true browser battle is taking place. WebKit is the main browser engine in the mobile market and other browsers are feeling the pressure to adopt it.
If that happens, web developers will start writing pages that work best on WebKit and not Gecko.
Apple has a way of completely rethinking whatever category they go into, and then revolutionizing that category in such a way that all other contenders now play catch up.
Look at the iPod that entered a market already dominated by other MP3 players and became the market leader. Look at the iPhone that entered the smart phone market and created a device that everyone has tried to copy.
If Apple is entering the netbook market. I would assume that their "netbook" won't look like a typical netbook. Nor, will it operate like a typical netbook.
Most netbooks have separate memory from their storage. (512Megs of memory vs. 8Gb of storage). I suspect that the Apple will use the same memory for both storage and memory.
Most netbooks are modeled upon being smaller versions of laptops. Apple's won't follow that model. Most netbooks also run standard desktop OSs like Linux or Windows XP. Again, I doubt Apple would take that approach.
Look at how people use Netbooks. They surf the Tubes, they chat, they use Internet based applications. They don't necessarily use Microsoft Office or connect to a typical business network. They don't even normally store documents on their netbooks. Apple will use this information to create an entirely new netbook format.
I suspect that it will look something like a large iPod Touch with a keyboard. There will be no mouse (touch screen) and no desktop (like the iPod Touch). You can store files, but not use standard Mac OS X applications. Initial release may not even let you install applications although I suspect that some sort of AppStore will let you download special "Netbook" applications that are based upon current iPhone apps.
I would not be surprised if that keyboard is a full sized keyboard stored in a typical netbook format. I suspect that Apple's netbook will weigh around a pound. Maybe less. And that it will include a 4Gb size, an 8Gb size a 16Gb size, and a 32Gb size. Of course, iPod functionality will be built in too. You will also be able to synchronize it to a Mac and maybe a PC.
Many Mac users have found the Unix shell hidden under Mac OS X to be quite useful. And, remember that pre Mac OS X, not only didn't the Mac OS have the concept of environment variables. It didn't even have a command line prompt.
Of course, it isn't just the shell, it's the whole OS philosophy that's important. It's why people who use Linux/Unix based systems can easily cobble together their own backup solutions. Use "rsync" with Amazon's S3 service, and you have an online backup solution that's cheap and secure.
Even better, you can even design the whole thing to run as a cronjob. Do the backup at 3AM when no one is using your computer.
It is one of the reasons that the first thing I do whenever I get a Windows computer is install Cygwin on it.
Most fonts keep numbers monospaced. Other characters in the fonts may have variable widths, but almost all fonts keep numbers the same width. This has to do with lining numbers up in columns when doing reports.
I measure about six pixels per number. The zip code is about 30 pixels wide (6 pixels x 5 digits = 30).
The blanked out area is 42 pixels wide. Now some of that is two spaces and a decimal point. Spaces look about 4 pixels and a decimal point is probably 2 or 3 pixels (it's hard to tell since the document was scanned in anti-aliased). That leaves 42 pixels - 3 pixels (decimal) - 8 pixels (spaces). About 32 pixels, or about 5 digits. Put 2 on one side of the decimal, and that leaves a number between $100 and $999 as an overpayment.
Actually, this sounds about right for a math error of this type, and isn't too unusual based upon the complexities of this type of payout which includes includes considering the base salary, bonus payouts, unused vacations, unused sick leave, years in service, ranking, etc. Add in some government specific stuff, 401K vestments, stock plans, and who knows what else, and you can see how complex this can get.
Still, it's hard to understand all of this: Microsoft laid off 1,400 people. If each of them received what seemed to be about $1000 in overpay, you're talking about $1.4 million dollars at the very most. If the average mistake was $300 and only 1/2 the people got that, you're talking about $200,000 (a more likely, but still quite large sum).
Heck, the paper work alone to send out these letters and to track them probably costs Microsoft more -- not to mention the bad will and publicity it'll generate.
I get dozens of offers via LinkedIn all the time for interviews. I'm simply not looking right now, but if I was, I might look at a few of them. Most don't really interest me (not in my city, not quite a good match, probably won't pay enough).
However, the real value of LinkedIn is not having a email box full of job offers I am really not interested in, but tracking all the people who do know me. These people know my work and what I am capable of. If I do look for a new position, and I am asked for references, I have up to date email addresses for the references I want to use. Not only that, but the first thing I'd do is ask my contacts if there are any positions in their company. Having someone in the company who can vouch for you gives you an excellent leg up on other interviewees. Even better if someone I know is now in position to hire. In that case, I could probably show up to the interview drunk and naked and still have a good shot at the job.
If you expect that LinkedIn will deposit hundreds of high paying jobs into your inbox while you sit back and relax, you need not apply. However, if you generally leave a good impression with your coworkers, then you probably want to keep in contact with them just in case you decide that you need to look for a new opportunity.
I've found that when I registered with LinkedIn, several dozen contacts I use to have, but have lost track of suddenly appeared. I was able to once again get in contact with all of these people.
As for Facebook and Myspace... Maybe if I was applying to a job which requires me to appear drunk in embarrassing situations, they could do some good. However, I am not looking for a position as a bass guitarist in a rock band, so they're out of the question. What I've found is if you don't lead a very exciting life, you might as well forget about Facebook and Myspace.
You NEVER purchase a copyright of a work. You purchase the use of that work as stated on that license.
For example, I buy a script from an author. I am not allowed to produce a play without the author's permission.
I buy a book, I am not allowed to produce a movie based upon that book without the author's permission.
I may rent a movie, and watch it with my friends, but I may not charge them admission.
One of the new copyright issues we have is the unlimited amounts of work licensing. In the good old days, a work would be licensed for a book and maybe a movie that was seen in theaters. Now, it is a book, movie, DVD production, Blue-Ray disk production, streaming production, rental rights, view rights on television (broadcast), view rights on cable, syndication rights, and so forth. And we aren't even covering the derivatives such as toys and games.
That's one reason for the confusion. I download an MP3 or a movie, and my rights may only include using it on my iPod, but not on my Zune. It's the same thing that copyrights have been doing for centuries, but the problem is that what use to be a few licensing scenarios is now hundreds.
Not only that, but the consumer now has the means to do the copying. It was very costly to copy a book, and you certainly couldn't copy a film. But, thanks to the digitization of works, consumers can easily make duplicates. I download a song, and I want to play it on my MP3 player, my computer, my stereo, my car, my wife's MP3 player, etc.
So, you're simply wrong about the way copyrights work. You are limited to use copyrighted works as you were licensed. That's always been the copyright holder's privileged. The problem is that for the first time in history, consumers are finding that right limiting.
Maybe you'd prefer a dictatorship of your fellow like minded citizens? Or, even better, just a big giant bureaucracy to make all of our decisions instead of depending upon us sheep?
The reason we have an Electoral College is due to the fact that the founding fathers simply couldn't agree upon how to elect a president. The original Virginia Resolution proposal was to have the Senate elect the president. That was immediately shot down as breaking the golden Separation of Powers principal. Pennsylvania proposed popular elections, but Virginia -- which had a much bigger population, more money, yet a much smaller voting role rejected this idea.
The proposal went to a committee to determine the voting qualifications for presidential elections. They couldn't decide, so the proposal of an Electoral College was created, and the states would decide who could vote for president.
As for the Senate, is it really fair that 80% of the population controls only 20% of the vote? The original Virginia Resolutions that the Constitution is based upon didn't think so.They had both houses of Congress proportionally represented.
The differences between the two houses was not population but who'd be qualified to vote for them. The very rich would vote for senators and representatives and the merely well off would only vote for the representatives.
And why was the original Senate appointed by the state legislatures instead of elected? Again, because the Constitutional Convention couldn't agree upon voting qualifications. They could toss who could vote for the House of Representatives back to the states because each state elected the lower house of their legislature. Therefore, you could say whomever was qualified to elect the lower house of the legislature could elect their U.S. Representative.
However, that wouldn't work for the Senate because in a few states, the upper house was elected by the people in the lower house of the state legislature. When the state legislature met, it would elect among its members the upper house.
This was done because the qualification for voting was different from the qualification for running for office. Merely well off could vote, but only the rich could run for office.
Therefore, State senates were the place where the very rich were represented. The original Virginia Resolutions used the same mechanism to select the Senate, but that fell apart once it was decided that that each state would have the same number of votes in the Senate.
Why was each state given the same vote. Again, political compromise. In the Continental Congress, each state had an equal vote, and smaller states didn't want to give up that right. Therefore, they were given equal votes in the "weaker" House of Congress. Originally as envisioned, the House of Representatives would do all the hard work, and the Senate would simply vote bills up or down with an aye or nay in order to protect the very wealthy from too much democracy.
The Constitution isn't the worlds greatest political document. It is a political document written by a bunch of men trying to do what they thought was best for their country over two centuries ago. It is a document of compromise and expediency. It was written by a small slave holding Republic way before modern communication or the idea that everyone should be entitled to vote. Their idea about protecting the minority from the majority was protecting the few rich from the multitude of poor.
What makes the Constitution is great is our dogged insistence that it should be followed. In many countries, the constitution is a document to ignore, amend, or replace whenever politically expedient.
What makes our country so great is that the Federalists did eventually step down from power without rioting or a coup attempt. And, that the Democratic Republicans who took the reigns didn't take on revenge killings and seizing property in order to "get back" at the Federalists. And, that we've pretty much follow that tradition ever since.
It's a common site now to see power shift in democracies without violence, but back in the 18th century, it was a pretty revolutionary idea.
I live in Texas, why should I have gone out and voted for Obama? Sure, more people voted for Obama in Texas than in New Jersey where Obama got 17 electoral votes vs. none in Texas. But, my vote doesn't mean a thing unless I know there's a chance that at least 48% of my fellow citizens agree with me.
Come to think of it, why should I even bother to vote for McCain? He's going to win Texas anyway. My vote won't increase his chance of winning an election.
And, if you check, there is little get out the vote effort in either party in states where Obama or McCain had the "lock" on the nomination. Instead, most of the money and campaigning went not to the states with the most votes, but to medium sized and smaller swing states.
People don't vote because they are lazy. They don't vote because there is not a really good reason to vote. Your Congressman has gerrymandered his district to guarantee he'll win. Your Senator has a gargantuan warchest to scare away any competitor, and the Presidential race doesn't make much difference in your little town.
Imagine if there was no Electoral college. Obama would have campaigned heavily in big Texas cities and McCain would have been pressing the flesh in Orange County because every vote would have counted. There would have been get out the vote campaigns all over the U.S.
Slashdot Mirror
First!
Boy, I hope they don't extend this idea to the FireFox plugin I use, StupidCommentBlocker Plus. That's the plugin that blocks out all the idiotic comments on various websites. I use it all the time for Slashdot.
Otherwise, this entire site would be so annoying to read.
There is now extra evidence in the feet that these individuals are not Homo Erectus or Home Sapiens. The latest findings are the feet which appear to be more "chimplike" than the feet that you find in H. Erectus or H. Sapiens.
This includes extremely long foot, flat arch, long, more thumb like big toe. Whomever this creature is, it didn't do much in the way of running. However, the foot structure and the structure of the limbs does show that this creature was bipedal. The large toe, although longer and more thumb-like is not separated from the rest of the foot like in chimps. But, it certainly shows some older forms. The legs are also much shorter than you'd find in the other two species of Homo mentioned above.
Although the pigmy hippos show reduction in cranial capacity beyond the simple reduction in size, other aspects of these creatures are not different from normal hippo. The reduced brain could save a lot of energy, and there might not be much need on an isolated island for raw brain power.
But, how does this explain the structure of the foot for H. Floresiensis? These H. Floresiensis wouldn't have reverted back to a more primitive foot.
There has been some new evidence that pre-H Erectus humanoids did escape from Africa and populated what is now Asia minor. It could be possible that H Floresiensis could have evolved from a pre-H. Erectus humanoid.
Then again, in an island setting where there is little food, a very small inbred population, and little worry about predators, that genetic defects that may have hurt the survival chances of a normal H. Erectus or Sapien could have survived in this setting. Genetic drift could explain the reduced size, the reduced cranial capacity, the flat feet, and the enlarged toe.
Some of this might be settled if some genetic information could be pulled out one of the bones. However, with these slight bone sizes, there might not be a lot of genetic information.
The great need for Windows applications (Outlook, Word, Excel, Quicken) is much less. In the old days, you needed these Windows applications. Now, most people spend about 90% of their time using web based applications. PDF has greatly reduced the need for Word and Excel for most people since the biggest issue was being able to read the document.
Windows is in trouble, but not because "it sucks". Windows is actually a fairly good OS. The problem is that Windows is quickly becoming the most expensive part of a computer. When you're selling a PC for $300, and your choice is to add a $0 Linux or a $100 Windows OS, what would you choose?
In the old days when computers were over $1000, adding Windows was a small part of the cost and made your computer quite useful. Besides, people demanded it. Now, people aren't demanding Windows and the cost of Windows is approaching 25% of the cost of the entire machine. Linux (especially with the new Netbook front end) is looking better and better.
Windows is also suffering from the ever shrinking platform. Windows simply doesn't scale down to smaller displays and smaller memory footprints. Windows also doesn't work well on non x86 chips. Windows is the dominant OS on the desktop market, but despite Microsoft's best efforts, it hasn't made a dent on the Smartphone market or the Setup box market. It is now struggling in the PDA market and has less than stellar success in the Netbook market.
Shuttleworth is 100% correct. Let Linux be Linux. Linux will be the OS of the Net while Windows can remain the OS of the ever shrinking corporate desktop office. People no longer care about their OS which is why setup boxes are Linux based and Linux will become the OS of the Smartphone. Sooner or later, Linux will creep upon what remains of the Desktop market too, but only if Linux is easy to use.
Concentrate on getting the Linux desktop working and don't fret about Windows compatibility. Look at the Mac. It's not looking to run Windows programs. Apple's only concern is that it can play nicely in the Windows world. If Linux did 1/4 as well as the Mac, it would more than triple its desktop share.
What makes Linux Linux is not the GPL license. What makes Linux Linux is the project manager who holds it all together and had the foresight to not follow convention.
Linus used a massive kernel instead of creating a micro-kernel that was all the rage because he simply thought micro kernels don't perform as well. He decided to hard code his project to the x86 platform because it was cheap instead of trying to maintain his code on multiple platforms. The result was a Unix like system that ran on cheap hardware and had good performance.
Linus also has the great ability not to be an absolute asshole like certain people who ran certain open source operating system projects and caused those projects to fork into an innumerable number of forks.
The greatest asset the GPL license gave Linus was the ability to include the GNU utilities into Linux distributions. This meant that Linux could concentrate on the kernel while the GNU project concentrated on all the utilities and the shell.
Many companies have done exactly that and then used the fork to add proprietary layers on top of GPL code. You have to jump through some hoops, but it is quite possible to do.
It's like many communities that prohibit liquor by the drink. Many businesses get around this restriction by making a private club. You buy a $5 club membership, and then you can buy drinks as a member of your private club. The result is the same: Restaurants serving drinks. You simply have to jump through a few more hoops.
There's a lot of fear that somehow a BSD style license will allow a company to "steal your code". However, you still have your code. What you don't have are the improvements that someone else may have put on your code. Improvements that you might not even want.
And still, many BSD style licensed projects are still freely available and maintained. Let's take a look at Mac OS X. That software was based upon BSD and the Mach Kernel project. However, Apple has released all of its non-proprietary changes in the Mac OS X code back into Open Darwin and BSD itself.
Apple also started Webkit which is also backed by the BSD license. (It also has the Lesser GPL license because otherwise, it couldn't be used in Linux distros).
One of the things you forget is when you make the source code proprietary, you are stuck maintaining it, and that can be expensive. Apple wants BSD to remain a viable project because Apple needs the security patches that the open source community discovers. You can't apply community patches to proprietary source code. Remember that code must be maintained and that's also expensive.
So, BSD style licenses don't necessarily cause corporations to run off with your code, destroy your OSS project, and make gobs of money on your effort.
And, it is also possible to (gasp) add proprietary code on top of a GPL project too. It simply takes a bit more work. Several companies have been doing this with Linux for years. Here's how to do it:
Two things: Apple doesn't do cheap, so a iPhone Lite is out of the question. Same with the "media pad". Nor, does Verizon allow third parties to do whatever they want. Verizon isn't going to have a WiFi only device that's not going to get people to sign up for Verizon. Nor, do I think Apple wants to work with CDMA which is now officially an obsolete technology. Apple will stick with AT&T which allows Apple to do whatever they want on Apple's terms. Verizon doesn't need Apple. AT&T does. I do predict that Apple will come out with a "Netbook" like device based upon the iPhone OS. It will probably have a keyboard, but no mouse.
Oh, wait this is Slashdot! Sorry.
Linux rulz and Windoze Sux! If you use Windows you're a luzr!
---
Posted on my iPhone.
Actually, he might not even be using Linux. He could be using Windows and have a console screen up on his laptop where he's entering "command prompts". The complaint states merely he's got two screens. One is the typical desktop and another is black with white characters (which sounds like the default Windows console and not a typical Linux terminal).
I'm not sure exactly what is going on. All the materials so far are from his lawyers. Apparently a previously reliable informant made some claims about this particular student and that's what the warrant was based upon.
We'll have to see what the judge decides. Meanwhile, I'm going to lay off shell scripting for a while.
I've been in this business a long time. There are dozens. Heck, maybe hundreds of "Open Source Licenses", and I really can't tell the difference between them. There's Apache, GPL, Eclipse, CPL, QPL, and even BSD which get some people into raging fits.
Okay BSD is a bit different because you can -- in theory -- produce your own changes and keep those as proprietary. Apple did this with Mac OS X. However, they could have done pretty much the same thing with Linux too. Watch:
1). Company "X" submits to the Linux project some code changes that will allow Company "X" to hook its proprietary code into the Linux kernel. Completely legal according to the Linux GPL license.
2). These hooks would probably be rejected by the Linux project, but Company "X" could still use them although they'd be under the GPL license.
3). Company "X" now creates a proprietary layer on top of Linux using their GPL hooks to link it to the Kernel. The proprietary layer would sit above the GPL'd code and officially be separate from it.
The end result: Linux kernel under GPL, Company "X"'s special code that hooks into the proprietary layers under GPL, but not supported by the Linux project. Company "X"'s proprietary code on top not under GPL. A full OS. Yes, it's a bit more work than simply taking the basic BSD code, adding in proprietary changes directly into the kernel, but in the end, it's pretty much the same to the end user.
I use a lot of OSS software, and I support many OSS projects. But all this care and concern about licensing is unbelievable. Linux is Linux not because of the license, but because Linus Torvalds is a top rate project manager who knew what was important and what wasn't important.
Torvalds didn't jump on the microkernel bandwagon because he thought it the cool design wasn't worth the performance hit. Linus created his code to be X86 specific because it was faster that way.
Linus has carefully avoided all these piddling political wars about nonsense and has carefully focused his entire project and has kept his project from splitting apart in fratricidal wars that had engulfed the BSD world.
Yet, we get into these silly arguments. Was it worth the time and effort to create the GNOME project just because KDE depended upon a small set of propriety (even though freely licensed) QT Libraries? (BTW, I tend to use the GNOME desktop myself). What would the Linux desktop look like if the desktop environment wasn't split into two major camps and all that effort could have been put into building a full feature, yet friendly desktop?
In the end, it's all OSS and it's all good.
Sorry... Hit send too soon.
This is for those times when you accidentally hit the send button before you've finished your email. How many times you've gotten an email message that was incomplete. Then a few seconds later got another one that starts out "Whoops! I hit the send too soon."
This is for those times when you accidentally hit the send button before you've finish
Standard remotes depend upon IR connections and fairly basic signaling. Imagine a device connected to a serial port of a computer. (Serial port? What's that?). In order to get the device to do a particular task, you send a letter "A" down the serial cable to the device. If you want the device to do another task, you send a letter "B" down the serial cable to the device. That's what it's like controlling our devices with the current crop of remotes.
Smartphones, on the other hand, use WiFi or Bluetooth connectivity and more complex protocols. For example, devices could use drivers to explain to a piece of software how to talk to a particular device. The interaction is much richer and more complex.
For example, I have a cable box connected to my TV with the sound going out to my stereo amplifier. I want to turn on my TV, change the channel, and turn up the sound. With a typical Universal remote, I would have to switch to the TV, turn on, switch to the cable box, change the channel, then switch to my amplifier and turn up the sound.
With a more intelligent system, I would simply say I want to watch channel 13 and crank up the volume, and let the system figure out what components to fiddle with. ...uh... "entertainment system" become more PC like, the ability of a Universal Remotes to work will be limited.
Smartphones can use WiFi and BlueTooth and can use more complex methods of communicating to the device you want to control. As our
I have replaced my TV with a PC runing Mythbuntu and a large 36" monitor. I bought with my system a really cool universal remote at a PC warehouse show. That remote is sitting in a draw because my PC can't use an IR remote to change channels or select whether I'm watching TV or Hulu.
Besides, I know where my smartphone is. I have no idea where I put that blasted remote.
The most likely outcome is that remotes will morph into something like the Apple Front Row remote (a device dedicated to controlling your entertainment center). Then, you'll be able to use both the remote (with its dedicated buttons) or your smartphone (because it's in your pocket and you know where it is).
Actually, Linux might be the real winner in the end. The current Microsoft OEM price for Windows Vista Home Basic is between $50 to $100. Windows Vista Home Premium is between $125 to $200. I have no idea what Microsoft plans to do for Windows 7 pricing.
Here's Microsoft's problem. As computers become cheaper, the cost of the Windows OS becomes a higher percentage of the price of a computer. When computers were just below the $2000 mark, the cost of Windows was negligible. When you're talking about a $200 netbook, adding an extra $100 for a very basic operating system is a lot of money.
Even worse for Microsoft is that the OS is not quite as important as it once was. In the good ol' days, everybody needed Microsoft Office. Now, people want a browser, so they can read their mail, twitter, or play games on Facebook.
And, Linux is now consumer ready. I've installed it on quite a few people's computers because of problems they were having with malware, or because their computers were running slow. They love Linux. Well, they don't actually love Linux, they love the fact that their computers are faster and they don't have to worry about malware. They really don't care about the OS itself.
The only problem with Linux is that it doesn't work with iPods. Sort of ironic: Apple is one of the reasons why some people can't abandon Windows.
> Mock a Christian and it's comedy, mock a
> Muslim and it's free speech, mock a Jew and
> it's hate.
> Muslims are the first to jump on the
> "religious tolerance" bandwagon, which is
> odd for such an uncompromisingly intolerant
> religion.
And while we're at it, don't ya hate how all them colored folks have gotten all uppity?
Education Board Leader Set to Challenge Evolution:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/03/08/0308mcleroy.html
This is the guy that heads the Board of Education in the State of Texas. The second largest state in the United States by population (23,904,380 people).
Chrome makes Google no money. The purpose of Chrome is to spur on the other browsers to do a little innovation. As far as Google is concerned, it's perfectly okay if Chrome gets left behind in the dust just as long as other browsers render Google's pages correctly.
So far, Apple got the message. The JavaScript handling in the new beta version of Safari is much improved with the new Nitro engine (previously called SquirrelFish Extreme) replacing the older SquirrelFish engine. According to some benchmarks, the new engine is faster than Google's V8 engine.
Nor, is Google even contemplating ending its relationship with Mozilla. Firefox makes Google money. Chrome doesn't make Google money. Google will make a deal with any half decent browser that uses Google as its default page. Google also has deals with Safari, Opera, and OmniWeb.
What Mozilla is really pissed about was Chrome's use of WebKit instead of Gecko for its page rendering. This is really where the true browser battle is taking place. WebKit is the main browser engine in the mobile market and other browsers are feeling the pressure to adopt it.
If that happens, web developers will start writing pages that work best on WebKit and not Gecko.
Apple has a way of completely rethinking whatever category they go into, and then revolutionizing that category in such a way that all other contenders now play catch up.
Look at the iPod that entered a market already dominated by other MP3 players and became the market leader. Look at the iPhone that entered the smart phone market and created a device that everyone has tried to copy.
If Apple is entering the netbook market. I would assume that their "netbook" won't look like a typical netbook. Nor, will it operate like a typical netbook.
Most netbooks have separate memory from their storage. (512Megs of memory vs. 8Gb of storage). I suspect that the Apple will use the same memory for both storage and memory.
Most netbooks are modeled upon being smaller versions of laptops. Apple's won't follow that model. Most netbooks also run standard desktop OSs like Linux or Windows XP. Again, I doubt Apple would take that approach.
Look at how people use Netbooks. They surf the Tubes, they chat, they use Internet based applications. They don't necessarily use Microsoft Office or connect to a typical business network. They don't even normally store documents on their netbooks. Apple will use this information to create an entirely new netbook format.
I suspect that it will look something like a large iPod Touch with a keyboard. There will be no mouse (touch screen) and no desktop (like the iPod Touch). You can store files, but not use standard Mac OS X applications. Initial release may not even let you install applications although I suspect that some sort of AppStore will let you download special "Netbook" applications that are based upon current iPhone apps.
I would not be surprised if that keyboard is a full sized keyboard stored in a typical netbook format. I suspect that Apple's netbook will weigh around a pound. Maybe less. And that it will include a 4Gb size, an 8Gb size a 16Gb size, and a 32Gb size. Of course, iPod functionality will be built in too. You will also be able to synchronize it to a Mac and maybe a PC.
Many Mac users have found the Unix shell hidden under Mac OS X to be quite useful. And, remember that pre Mac OS X, not only didn't the Mac OS have the concept of environment variables. It didn't even have a command line prompt.
Of course, it isn't just the shell, it's the whole OS philosophy that's important. It's why people who use Linux/Unix based systems can easily cobble together their own backup solutions. Use "rsync" with Amazon's S3 service, and you have an online backup solution that's cheap and secure.
Even better, you can even design the whole thing to run as a cronjob. Do the backup at 3AM when no one is using your computer.
It is one of the reasons that the first thing I do whenever I get a Windows computer is install Cygwin on it.
At least how many digits we're talking about...
Most fonts keep numbers monospaced. Other characters in the fonts may have variable widths, but almost all fonts keep numbers the same width. This has to do with lining numbers up in columns when doing reports.
I measure about six pixels per number. The zip code is about 30 pixels wide (6 pixels x 5 digits = 30).
The blanked out area is 42 pixels wide. Now some of that is two spaces and a decimal point. Spaces look about 4 pixels and a decimal point is probably 2 or 3 pixels (it's hard to tell since the document was scanned in anti-aliased). That leaves 42 pixels - 3 pixels (decimal) - 8 pixels (spaces). About 32 pixels, or about 5 digits. Put 2 on one side of the decimal, and that leaves a number between $100 and $999 as an overpayment.
Actually, this sounds about right for a math error of this type, and isn't too unusual based upon the complexities of this type of payout which includes includes considering the base salary, bonus payouts, unused vacations, unused sick leave, years in service, ranking, etc. Add in some government specific stuff, 401K vestments, stock plans, and who knows what else, and you can see how complex this can get.
Still, it's hard to understand all of this: Microsoft laid off 1,400 people. If each of them received what seemed to be about $1000 in overpay, you're talking about $1.4 million dollars at the very most. If the average mistake was $300 and only 1/2 the people got that, you're talking about $200,000 (a more likely, but still quite large sum).
Heck, the paper work alone to send out these letters and to track them probably costs Microsoft more -- not to mention the bad will and publicity it'll generate.
I get dozens of offers via LinkedIn all the time for interviews. I'm simply not looking right now, but if I was, I might look at a few of them. Most don't really interest me (not in my city, not quite a good match, probably won't pay enough).
However, the real value of LinkedIn is not having a email box full of job offers I am really not interested in, but tracking all the people who do know me. These people know my work and what I am capable of. If I do look for a new position, and I am asked for references, I have up to date email addresses for the references I want to use. Not only that, but the first thing I'd do is ask my contacts if there are any positions in their company. Having someone in the company who can vouch for you gives you an excellent leg up on other interviewees. Even better if someone I know is now in position to hire. In that case, I could probably show up to the interview drunk and naked and still have a good shot at the job.
If you expect that LinkedIn will deposit hundreds of high paying jobs into your inbox while you sit back and relax, you need not apply. However, if you generally leave a good impression with your coworkers, then you probably want to keep in contact with them just in case you decide that you need to look for a new opportunity.
I've found that when I registered with LinkedIn, several dozen contacts I use to have, but have lost track of suddenly appeared. I was able to once again get in contact with all of these people.
As for Facebook and Myspace... Maybe if I was applying to a job which requires me to appear drunk in embarrassing situations, they could do some good. However, I am not looking for a position as a bass guitarist in a rock band, so they're out of the question. What I've found is if you don't lead a very exciting life, you might as well forget about Facebook and Myspace.
You NEVER purchase a copyright of a work. You purchase the use of that work as stated on that license.
For example, I buy a script from an author. I am not allowed to produce a play without the author's permission.
I buy a book, I am not allowed to produce a movie based upon that book without the author's permission.
I may rent a movie, and watch it with my friends, but I may not charge them admission.
One of the new copyright issues we have is the unlimited amounts of work licensing. In the good old days, a work would be licensed for a book and maybe a movie that was seen in theaters. Now, it is a book, movie, DVD production, Blue-Ray disk production, streaming production, rental rights, view rights on television (broadcast), view rights on cable, syndication rights, and so forth. And we aren't even covering the derivatives such as toys and games.
That's one reason for the confusion. I download an MP3 or a movie, and my rights may only include using it on my iPod, but not on my Zune. It's the same thing that copyrights have been doing for centuries, but the problem is that what use to be a few licensing scenarios is now hundreds.
Not only that, but the consumer now has the means to do the copying. It was very costly to copy a book, and you certainly couldn't copy a film. But, thanks to the digitization of works, consumers can easily make duplicates. I download a song, and I want to play it on my MP3 player, my computer, my stereo, my car, my wife's MP3 player, etc.
So, you're simply wrong about the way copyrights work. You are limited to use copyrighted works as you were licensed. That's always been the copyright holder's privileged. The problem is that for the first time in history, consumers are finding that right limiting.
Maybe you'd prefer a dictatorship of your fellow like minded citizens? Or, even better, just a big giant bureaucracy to make all of our decisions instead of depending upon us sheep?
The reason we have an Electoral College is due to the fact that the founding fathers simply couldn't agree upon how to elect a president. The original Virginia Resolution proposal was to have the Senate elect the president. That was immediately shot down as breaking the golden Separation of Powers principal. Pennsylvania proposed popular elections, but Virginia -- which had a much bigger population, more money, yet a much smaller voting role rejected this idea.
The proposal went to a committee to determine the voting qualifications for presidential elections. They couldn't decide, so the proposal of an Electoral College was created, and the states would decide who could vote for president.
As for the Senate, is it really fair that 80% of the population controls only 20% of the vote? The original Virginia Resolutions that the Constitution is based upon didn't think so.They had both houses of Congress proportionally represented.
The differences between the two houses was not population but who'd be qualified to vote for them. The very rich would vote for senators and representatives and the merely well off would only vote for the representatives.
And why was the original Senate appointed by the state legislatures instead of elected? Again, because the Constitutional Convention couldn't agree upon voting qualifications. They could toss who could vote for the House of Representatives back to the states because each state elected the lower house of their legislature. Therefore, you could say whomever was qualified to elect the lower house of the legislature could elect their U.S. Representative.
However, that wouldn't work for the Senate because in a few states, the upper house was elected by the people in the lower house of the state legislature. When the state legislature met, it would elect among its members the upper house.
This was done because the qualification for voting was different from the qualification for running for office. Merely well off could vote, but only the rich could run for office.
Therefore, State senates were the place where the very rich were represented. The original Virginia Resolutions used the same mechanism to select the Senate, but that fell apart once it was decided that that each state would have the same number of votes in the Senate.
Why was each state given the same vote. Again, political compromise. In the Continental Congress, each state had an equal vote, and smaller states didn't want to give up that right. Therefore, they were given equal votes in the "weaker" House of Congress. Originally as envisioned, the House of Representatives would do all the hard work, and the Senate would simply vote bills up or down with an aye or nay in order to protect the very wealthy from too much democracy.
The Constitution isn't the worlds greatest political document. It is a political document written by a bunch of men trying to do what they thought was best for their country over two centuries ago. It is a document of compromise and expediency. It was written by a small slave holding Republic way before modern communication or the idea that everyone should be entitled to vote. Their idea about protecting the minority from the majority was protecting the few rich from the multitude of poor.
What makes the Constitution is great is our dogged insistence that it should be followed. In many countries, the constitution is a document to ignore, amend, or replace whenever politically expedient.
What makes our country so great is that the Federalists did eventually step down from power without rioting or a coup attempt. And, that the Democratic Republicans who took the reigns didn't take on revenge killings and seizing property in order to "get back" at the Federalists. And, that we've pretty much follow that tradition ever since.
It's a common site now to see power shift in democracies without violence, but back in the 18th century, it was a pretty revolutionary idea.
I live in Texas, why should I have gone out and voted for Obama? Sure, more people voted for Obama in Texas than in New Jersey where Obama got 17 electoral votes vs. none in Texas. But, my vote doesn't mean a thing unless I know there's a chance that at least 48% of my fellow citizens agree with me.
Come to think of it, why should I even bother to vote for McCain? He's going to win Texas anyway. My vote won't increase his chance of winning an election.
And, if you check, there is little get out the vote effort in either party in states where Obama or McCain had the "lock" on the nomination. Instead, most of the money and campaigning went not to the states with the most votes, but to medium sized and smaller swing states.
People don't vote because they are lazy. They don't vote because there is not a really good reason to vote. Your Congressman has gerrymandered his district to guarantee he'll win. Your Senator has a gargantuan warchest to scare away any competitor, and the Presidential race doesn't make much difference in your little town.
Imagine if there was no Electoral college. Obama would have campaigned heavily in big Texas cities and McCain would have been pressing the flesh in Orange County because every vote would have counted. There would have been get out the vote campaigns all over the U.S.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=googleplex&oe=UTF-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&ei=N6uRSdjJApjAtgfT6oDYCw&cd=2&ll=37.421751,-122.083758&spn=0,359.996513&t=h&z=18