Above, I was referring to your portable TV suggestion, not your Tivo suggestion, which obviously sounds like a good solution if I want to pay the money.
Hi Pauldy, when I read your message I first thought, "now there's an obvious idea." However, really, I use my laptop outside anyway and its easy to dash in and out with. I also have a 15.4" monitor on the laptop. A similarly sized tv would be quite heavy. The biggest obstacle, however, would be getting all my 100+ cable channels. I want to be able to wirelessly stream the cable channels so I don't have to fuss with cables or cords. Really, I don't watch much TV anyway, so this would just be a fun exercise. Thanks for the suggestion, however!
I have a fast, flatbed scanner from HP which can scan 4 photos at once. However, I still have to individually select and save each photo. Does anyone know of any scanner software that could automatically detect the scanned photos and save them with a generic name, such as 'photo1.jpg, photo2.jpg, photo3.jpg...'? This would make scanning the photos go MUCH faster.
How strange, all the guitars have characters from the dark side of the force... Where are all the good guys? Are we really supposed to believe everyone in Rock N Roll is aligned with evil?
I thought this movie was pretty good. I don't know what bad plot everyone was talking about. I thought the plot was quite nicely laid out and played out. Somewhat typical perhaps -- one person to save the earth, bad guy trying to ruin everything, etc. etc. What amazed me was how drawn in to the characters and story I was. I really wanted Aki to save the earth and felt genuinely moved when some of the characters died. Although it was amazingly lifelike, it did still seem like a CGI movie, but it drew me in more than any other CGI movie I've seen so far. Even if they don't look real upon close examination, the characters sure did seem real because of the depth of character development and the plot. http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declara tion/declaration.html
QUANTUM TELEPORTATION POSSIBLE?
on
Stop, Light.
·
· Score: 3
This makes me think of the 'Stargates' in the movie and television series.
Would it be possible to create a huge bose-einstein condensate, break it in half and flatten it out?
If so, then you would merely need to transport the two 'gateways' whereever you wanted and teleport between the two locations.
The theory being that when you walk into one of the portals, your entire quantum makeup would be absorbed and transmitted to the other portal because of quantum entanglement.
Anyone think this would work? How would you stimulate the portal to 'release' your energy?
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration/ declaration.html
My first thought upon hearing that the satellites were going to be burned up was, "What a horrible waste of valuable resources. There must be some alternative."
Well, unfortunately from the article, it appears that the satellites only support phone service and do not have broadband capabilities. I suppose they could be useful for WAP applications, but how bulky would the receivers have to be? As bulky as the phones currently are, I'm sure.
The sad truth appears that there just doesn't seem to be much to do with these satellites. They were poorly conceived in the first place.
Still, I support any effort to save them. http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declara tion/declaration.html
Hey, I'm all for hate speech too. I'm for hate speech and pornography. I'm for all speech. I'm for free speech. I'm just saying that I think hate speech is more damaging than pornography because hate speech will lead people to supress other people's rights or even harm them, whereas pornography just teaches people to get in touch with their sexual selves -- a good thing. http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declar ation/declaration.html
Hey, I'm all for hate speech too. I'm for hate speech and pornography. I'm for all speech. I'm for free speech. I'm just saying that I think hate speech is more damaging than pornography because hate speech will lead people to supress other people's rights or even harm them, whereas pornography just teaches people to get in touch with their sexual selves -- a good thing. http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declar ation/declaration.html
In the above threads, the writers debate whether porn is a form of speech. The one writer claims that porn has nothing to teach children while hate speech has educational value.
Well, in my book, I'd rather my children were learning how to have hot, raunchy sex than how to hate and kill other people.
We may not like the idea of our children having sex, but its going to happen, and I'd rather they learned about that than how to hate and kill.
I'm not advocating we expose children to pornography, but if you ARE GOING TO COMPARE pornography to hate speech, hate speech is far more damaging to children and society than the freedom of sexual expression.
My god, some people's priorities are really screwed up.
It is my understanding that in trademark law, a person or company has to defend the trademark through usage. If a person or company does not 'defend' a trademark by using it, the trademark will expire.
In addition, the trademark authority is local to such a defense. For example, to enforce a federal trademark, a person or company must prove that the trademark is used in advertising or marketing on a national level, and not just in a particular town or state.
A restaurant in Oklahoma named 'Food Palace' couldn't sue a restaurant in Washington state for trademark infringment. However, McDonald's, which operates worldwide, can 'defend' its trademark globally.
I believe copyright should be the same way. Use it or lose it. It is patently wrong, immoral, stupid and counter-intuitive to allow companies to maintain large archives of unused, unpublished materials sealed off forever from public domain.
In this respect, I agree with companies like Disney being able to maintain their copyrights indefinitely. If Disney invests as much time and money on these characters as they do to keep them 'alive', they should be encouraged to do so. That is their business. If they ever give up this business, however, then it should immediately (being a reasonable couple of years, perhaps) go into the public domain.
"...open source is not magic pixie dust. Code that's badly designed or non-functional won't instantly improve simply by being open-sourced.... We must therefore caution Mr. Ballmer and Microsoft that empty demonstrations and half-measures won't do."
I believe that this letter was somewhat unconstructive for several reasons. First, I believe that it directly insulted Microsoft by accusing it of producing bad and non-functional code. Although I personally believe that to be true, approaching Microsoft with that attitude only makes it get defensive and not want to cooperate. It puts it off the open-source community and encourages it's desire to undermine us even further.
Secondly, using terms like 'magic pixie dust' trivialize Microsoft's potentially serious move before they have a chance to show their intentions.
'Empty demonstrations and half-measures' are what we are accustomed to seeing from Microsoft. Nonetheless, I still feel it is wrong to approach Microsoft with this confrontational attitude if we truly want to encourage them to listen to the voice of the Open Source community.
"...if Microsoft is sincere in wishing to join the open-source community, and does the right things in the right spirit, we will welcome it."
If the Open Source wishes Microsoft to do things in the right spirit, it needs to do things in the right spirit itself. I find it hypocritical of the Open Source people to attack Microsoft before it has actually made a move, and then ask it to have a cooperative spirit.
I was always taught the Golden Rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If we want Microsoft to treat us with respect, we must treat them with respect (even if it turns our stomach).
"...open source is not magic pixie dust. Code that's badly designed or non-functional won't instantly improve simply by being open-sourced.... We must therefore caution Mr. Ballmer and Microsoft that empty demonstrations and half-measures won't do."
I believe that this letter was somewhat unconstructive for several reasons. First, I believe that it directly insulted Microsoft by accusing it of producing bad and non-functional code. Although I personally believe that to be true, approaching Microsoft with that attitude only makes it get defensive and not want to cooperate. It puts it off the open-source community and encourages it's desire to undermine us even further.
Secondly, using terms like 'magic pixie dust' trivialize Microsoft's potentially serious move before they have a chance to show their intentions.
'Empty demonstrations and half-measures' are what we are accustomed to seeing from Microsoft. Nonetheless, I still feel it is wrong to approach Microsoft with this confrontational attitude if we truly want to encourage them to listen to the voice of the Open Source community.
"...if Microsoft is sincere in wishing to join the open-source community, and does the right things in the right spirit, we will welcome it."
If the Open Source wishes Microsoft to do things in the right spirit, it needs to do things in the right spirit itself. I find it hypocritical of the Open Source people to attack Microsoft before it has actually made a move, and then ask it to have a cooperative spirit.
I was always taught the Golden Rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If we want Microsoft to treat us with respect, we must treat them with respect (even if it turns our stomach).
There's a saying, "You can't please all of the people all of the time."
Am I the only one who thinks that all of these designs are ugly? Personally, Rob, I like your logo for Debian better than any of these choices.
I'm not making any statement about how good Red Hat is as a product (no flames, please), but their logo is great, it really sums it right up.
I guess Raul's design is the most abstract and elegant, but I think the name could be integrated into the graphic somehow. Get rid of that genie bottle too. What is Debian, anyhow, a 1960's TV show? http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declara tion/declaration.html
As it so happens... I have a Master's Degree from the London School of Economics in International Politics. I do know something about the subjects of capitalism and communism and many other political systems above, below and in-between.
With regard to the 'phone in sick' day, the organizers wish to 'bring down capitalism'. Even socialist systems rely on capitalism and private property. Only pure communist governments dispose of capitalism completely. Even anarchies and dictatorships can have capitalist economies; however, communism is inherently anti-capitalism.
Therefore, for the purpose of this discussion, anti-capitalism == communism!
I realize that some ideas will never die, communism among them. Although in pricincipal, the idea of a communist utopia where everyone is equal must sound quite appealing to many people, many disastrous experiments in other countries have shown that humanity is not ready for such government.
Open Source software may reflect the ideals of communism in as much as authors 'contribute according to their means', and everyone is free to 'take what they need', in the truest spirit of communism.
However, software is nothing without hardware to run on. We have seen how every (so-called) communist regime has failed at providing goods and services to its people. What communist government is capable of achieving the 50% household penetration of computers that we currently see in the United States and similar free-market based economies?
Secondly, open source software is about choice. Open source software is the antithesis of monopolies like Microsoft, which control the source code. Well, the communist party has a monopoly on power (we have yet to see any democratic communist countries, the true communist ideal, and likely never will for many years to come). A communist government would be very unlikely to resist trying to control the future of software development. Do you want to be told what to program, when and why?
A truly free market will allow people to contribute what they like to software community, and to exploit their work for profit. It will resist controls put on it by communist and monopolistic dictatorships.
I read the article calling for the 'sick-out', and find that perhaps it shouldn't be taken so seriously. However, my curiousity was piqued when the submitter of this story made a relationship between communism and open source, and I felt it necessary to respond.
Slashdot Mirror
Above, I was referring to your portable TV suggestion, not your Tivo suggestion, which obviously sounds like a good solution if I want to pay the money.
Hi Pauldy, when I read your message I first thought, "now there's an obvious idea." However, really, I use my laptop outside anyway and its easy to dash in and out with. I also have a 15.4" monitor on the laptop. A similarly sized tv would be quite heavy. The biggest obstacle, however, would be getting all my 100+ cable channels. I want to be able to wirelessly stream the cable channels so I don't have to fuss with cables or cords. Really, I don't watch much TV anyway, so this would just be a fun exercise. Thanks for the suggestion, however!
I have a fast, flatbed scanner from HP which can scan 4 photos at once. However, I still have to individually select and save each photo. Does anyone know of any scanner software that could automatically detect the scanned photos and save them with a generic name, such as 'photo1.jpg, photo2.jpg, photo3.jpg...'? This would make scanning the photos go MUCH faster.
How strange, all the guitars have characters from the dark side of the force... Where are all the good guys? Are we really supposed to believe everyone in Rock N Roll is aligned with evil?
I thought this movie was pretty good. I don't know what bad plot everyone was talking about. I thought the plot was quite nicely laid out and played out. Somewhat typical perhaps -- one person to save the earth, bad guy trying to ruin everything, etc. etc. What amazed me was how drawn in to the characters and story I was. I really wanted Aki to save the earth and felt genuinely moved when some of the characters died. Although it was amazingly lifelike, it did still seem like a CGI movie, but it drew me in more than any other CGI movie I've seen so far. Even if they don't look real upon close examination, the characters sure did seem real because of the depth of character development and the plot.a tion/declaration.html
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declar
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration
Would it be possible to create a huge bose-einstein condensate, break it in half and flatten it out?
If so, then you would merely need to transport the two 'gateways' whereever you wanted and teleport between the two locations.
The theory being that when you walk into one of the portals, your entire quantum makeup would be absorbed and transmitted to the other portal because of quantum entanglement.
Anyone think this would work? How would you stimulate the portal to 'release' your energy?/ declaration.html
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration
Read page two of the above link, it really seems to fit in...a tion/declaration.html
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declar
Well, unfortunately from the article, it appears that the satellites only support phone service and do not have broadband capabilities. I suppose they could be useful for WAP applications, but how bulky would the receivers have to be? As bulky as the phones currently are, I'm sure.
The sad truth appears that there just doesn't seem to be much to do with these satellites. They were poorly conceived in the first place.
Still, I support any effort to save them.a tion/declaration.html
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declar
Hey, I'm all for hate speech too. I'm for hate speech and pornography. I'm for all speech. I'm for free speech. I'm just saying that I think hate speech is more damaging than pornography because hate speech will lead people to supress other people's rights or even harm them, whereas pornography just teaches people to get in touch with their sexual selves -- a good thing.r ation/declaration.html
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/decla
Hey, I'm all for hate speech too. I'm for hate speech and pornography. I'm for all speech. I'm for free speech. I'm just saying that I think hate speech is more damaging than pornography because hate speech will lead people to supress other people's rights or even harm them, whereas pornography just teaches people to get in touch with their sexual selves -- a good thing.r ation/declaration.html
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/decla
Well, in my book, I'd rather my children were learning how to have hot, raunchy sex than how to hate and kill other people.
We may not like the idea of our children having sex, but its going to happen, and I'd rather they learned about that than how to hate and kill.
I'm not advocating we expose children to pornography, but if you ARE GOING TO COMPARE pornography to hate speech, hate speech is far more damaging to children and society than the freedom of sexual expression.
My god, some people's priorities are really screwed up.
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration
In addition, the trademark authority is local to such a defense. For example, to enforce a federal trademark, a person or company must prove that the trademark is used in advertising or marketing on a national level, and not just in a particular town or state.
A restaurant in Oklahoma named 'Food Palace' couldn't sue a restaurant in Washington state for trademark infringment. However, McDonald's, which operates worldwide, can 'defend' its trademark globally.
I believe copyright should be the same way. Use it or lose it. It is patently wrong, immoral, stupid and counter-intuitive to allow companies to maintain large archives of unused, unpublished materials sealed off forever from public domain.
In this respect, I agree with companies like Disney being able to maintain their copyrights indefinitely. If Disney invests as much time and money on these characters as they do to keep them 'alive', they should be encouraged to do so. That is their business. If they ever give up this business, however, then it should immediately (being a reasonable couple of years, perhaps) go into the public domain.
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration
I believe that this letter was somewhat unconstructive for several reasons. First, I believe that it directly insulted Microsoft by accusing it of producing bad and non-functional code. Although I personally believe that to be true, approaching Microsoft with that attitude only makes it get defensive and not want to cooperate. It puts it off the open-source community and encourages it's desire to undermine us even further.
Secondly, using terms like 'magic pixie dust' trivialize Microsoft's potentially serious move before they have a chance to show their intentions.
'Empty demonstrations and half-measures' are what we are accustomed to seeing from Microsoft. Nonetheless, I still feel it is wrong to approach Microsoft with this confrontational attitude if we truly want to encourage them to listen to the voice of the Open Source community.
"...if Microsoft is sincere in wishing to join the open-source community, and does the right things in the right spirit, we will welcome it."
If the Open Source wishes Microsoft to do things in the right spirit, it needs to do things in the right spirit itself. I find it hypocritical of the Open Source people to attack Microsoft before it has actually made a move, and then ask it to have a cooperative spirit.
I was always taught the Golden Rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If we want Microsoft to treat us with respect, we must treat them with respect (even if it turns our stomach).
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration
I believe that this letter was somewhat unconstructive for several reasons. First, I believe that it directly insulted Microsoft by accusing it of producing bad and non-functional code. Although I personally believe that to be true, approaching Microsoft with that attitude only makes it get defensive and not want to cooperate. It puts it off the open-source community and encourages it's desire to undermine us even further.
Secondly, using terms like 'magic pixie dust' trivialize Microsoft's potentially serious move before they have a chance to show their intentions.
'Empty demonstrations and half-measures' are what we are accustomed to seeing from Microsoft. Nonetheless, I still feel it is wrong to approach Microsoft with this confrontational attitude if we truly want to encourage them to listen to the voice of the Open Source community.
"...if Microsoft is sincere in wishing to join the open-source community, and does the right things in the right spirit, we will welcome it."
If the Open Source wishes Microsoft to do things in the right spirit, it needs to do things in the right spirit itself. I find it hypocritical of the Open Source people to attack Microsoft before it has actually made a move, and then ask it to have a cooperative spirit.
I was always taught the Golden Rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If we want Microsoft to treat us with respect, we must treat them with respect (even if it turns our stomach).
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration
Am I the only one who thinks that all of these designs are ugly? Personally, Rob, I like your logo for Debian better than any of these choices.
I'm not making any statement about how good Red Hat is as a product (no flames, please), but their logo is great, it really sums it right up.
I guess Raul's design is the most abstract and elegant, but I think the name could be integrated into the graphic somehow. Get rid of that genie bottle too. What is Debian, anyhow, a 1960's TV show?a tion/declaration.html
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declar
With regard to the 'phone in sick' day, the organizers wish to 'bring down capitalism'. Even socialist systems rely on capitalism and private property. Only pure communist governments dispose of capitalism completely. Even anarchies and dictatorships can have capitalist economies; however, communism is inherently anti-capitalism.
Therefore, for the purpose of this discussion, anti-capitalism == communism!
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration
Open Source software may reflect the ideals of communism in as much as authors 'contribute according to their means', and everyone is free to 'take what they need', in the truest spirit of communism.
However, software is nothing without hardware to run on. We have seen how every (so-called) communist regime has failed at providing goods and services to its people. What communist government is capable of achieving the 50% household penetration of computers that we currently see in the United States and similar free-market based economies?
Secondly, open source software is about choice. Open source software is the antithesis of monopolies like Microsoft, which control the source code. Well, the communist party has a monopoly on power (we have yet to see any democratic communist countries, the true communist ideal, and likely never will for many years to come). A communist government would be very unlikely to resist trying to control the future of software development. Do you want to be told what to program, when and why?
A truly free market will allow people to contribute what they like to software community, and to exploit their work for profit. It will resist controls put on it by communist and monopolistic dictatorships.
I read the article calling for the 'sick-out', and find that perhaps it shouldn't be taken so seriously. However, my curiousity was piqued when the submitter of this story made a relationship between communism and open source, and I felt it necessary to respond.
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration