In many places a woman with big boobies is considered unattractive.
I don't know about Japan, but given the petite proportions of most of their womenfolk it would not surprise me if small breasts would have won aesthetic credence in their culture.
I am speculating, in any case I have to deal with the predilections in the UK, where many women, even intelligent, articulate ones, aspire to have two silicone Zeppelins on their frontage while aiming to be as thin as a broom.
When I read all the above and see a rehash of everybody saying the language they know is best, I just shake my head in disbelief.
Is there not a single Slashdotter that has embraced teaching as a profession that can actually enlighten us regarding this matter?
To the people mentioning Java, C and its ilk, Perl, Python and PHP, honestly, get a grip. I know seasoned programmers that are driven to despair when faced with the different idiosyncrasies of these languages, all created with very specific purposes, last of which is educational value.
So guess what, I typed "programming language for children" in this thingy called Google, and a linky thingy pointed me to a list of languages in a website called Wikipedia, several of these languages are *specifically designed as educational tools*
If you put your mouse pointer thingy on top of the highlighted text below you will be shown the information I am mentioning.
Everybody that has gone through proper computing education knows about Logo, knows how it works, to whom it is aimed, and how easy to pick up is. But no, fucking Python is didactic, functional languages are making a comeback and the diahrreical nature of Perl is ideal to get fresh minds to embrace computing. Give me a fubaring brake.
What I would have expected in this thread is that people with experience with those languages (and others designed with educational aims in mind) would have shared their experiences.
What we have got so far is mostly useless, I don't call moderators to task in general, but in this occasion most comments on this thread should be buried in the -1 hell, their only rightful place, not to send them there is frankly a dereliction of duty.
Google is offering a mobile OS that is going to eat Apple's lunch.
The richness of applications in an open environment will eventually surpass whatever Apple has to offer.
Check any Linux repositories: thousands of applications, the top 100 lets say of a very high technical standard, many other good enough for large amounts of people, all of them susceptible of improvements that can closely follow the needs of the users. This enthusiasm will be pushed by the commercial muscle of Google, which means marketing. Great combination that Apple is counteracting with putting a minefield in front of would be iPhone developers. Brain dead policy.
Also Apple's music players are becoming more restrictive, now that finally shops and labels are realizing that DRM is an abomination the need to have an iPod to play music is going to be non existent by end of next year.
If iPods have to compete based on features only (and not in the tie in to the iTunes store) Apple may be for a nasty surprise, since there are plenty of players out there that are immensely better devices (bar the interface, but several mobile phones are providing very good ones, which will find their way to music an d media players)
In synthesis they are going to experience the PC revolution all over again: Linux will take the desktop in an uneasy stand off with Windows (yeah, I know, but people used to laugh also when I told them Linux would be a commercially viable OS by now, which is embedded and server markets, I firmly believe the Penguin will have the last laugh in the desktop as well, the EeePC and friends and the financial crush may play a big hand on this), their players will no longer be as attractive and their computers will be too expensive, again.
Most people forget how close Apple was to go under, they have forgotten that at some point MS had to put some money to help them out (really, not joking: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html ) and this all was because the stubbornness of Apple to stick to close standards for everything they did.
Apple hit the jackpot with the iPod by following their typical close the door policy for iTunes, but once that advantage is gone I just don't see that they have the necessary culture to thrive in an environment in which open standards and perhaps code will be the norm.
No law anywhere will sustain such nonsensical view.
Even if you would put them in media, the data is still not subject of any property law, but of copyright and perhaps trademark or patent law (which have nothing to do with property law).
The small time artists have nothing to lose: few people are buying their stuff, so to make a living they have to get off their asses and actually do some real work (like playing in concerts, the infamy).
People that have made it big are realising that they are being copied all around the place, so the only thing they can do to beat piracy is to be more convenient than free. A pirate could never put a service like the one McCartney is offering,
Big artists now know that insisting in asinine DRM is against their own interests and with horror are trying to adapt (Madonna is no longer affiliated to a record label, but a touring company, Prince released his latest CD for free as a gift that came with a newspaper).
Recorded music will become free advertisement for artists who will make their living from actually working, once they have an stablished name they will be able to set up shops to provide services around their music or to allow convinient digital shops to sell their wares.
All the artists you mention had to work hard to earn a living.
Copyright came to disturb this and now many people out there think that they can work once and then sit down to wait for the copyright derived money to rol for them and their distant descendants.
If they keep extending copyright terms it may very well be that the last descendants to get paid copyrights from a relative may no longer be of the same species...
Some of them are fundamentalists in the sense that they are very strict, I would say extremist, religiously speaking.
Some others invent a version of Islam that has nothing to do with the teachings of the religion (many of the things terrorists do are explicitly forbidden in the Quoran) and then adhere to those beliefs with the same zeal. These are the dangerous ones. If one of these gets his dirty paws on nukes they will not hesitate to go up in smoke at the same time as the victims.
Now, this is frankly unlikely when it comes to terrorists, but it is not too far fetched then it comes to governments. I think eventually nukes could be had by any country, so unless we promote disarmament, so the basic technology and expertise is more difficult to come by, then I don't see how we can stop a very bad scenario when somebody decides it is a good idea to obliterate a town with millions of people....
The author makes very clear that growth rate has to be the same.
As the table posted above shows, growth rate is actually diminishing (which makes sense, more and more countries are using contraception).
If a virus is too, er, virulent then it constrains its own spread, also there is no virus 100% lethal, meaning that surviving plants would happily continue photosynthesis, and even if these plants were obliterated we still would have fungi and other plants that do not require photosynthesis.
It would be a real bummer, but not the end of life.
I am sitting here in the UK trying to figure that one out.
It would have been mildly interesting if he had been using a non descript MP3 player.
To imply that Barack "Uber Cool" Obama should be using an iPod by default is frankly beyond childish.
Piracy is illegal (by which I mean copyright infringement is illegal in most localities), period.
But copyright in its current form is immoral, so I am not surprised many folks are prepared to brake a law that is clearly flawed.
Your argument that without copyright there would be no artistic output is easily debunkable, many great advances of humanity were achieved before copyright arrived to the scene, and actually lack of copyright is demonstrably better for the spreading of ideas and science.
If would have been hugely parodyc to build a similar website, that could have got feeds from Amazon itself mind you, and to prominently put the button there.
That is parody.
To do so on top of the website itself is not parody, is naked provocation, almost trolling, which seems to be working nicely.
An external drive of any kind is a security risk, users don't need them since all the information should be transferred via your internal network, a user does not require a copy of your data, they should have means of accessing remote desktops where they can manipulate the data they need without actually having a local copy.
Why would a user need custom software? And if they do, what is stopping you to install it for them so it shows up on their client when they login? Have you heard about profiles, or virtual machines for example?
To a great degree home users are using a dumb remote terminal already, it is called web browser.
Slashdot Mirror
In many places a woman with big boobies is considered unattractive.
I don't know about Japan, but given the petite proportions of most of their womenfolk it would not surprise me if small breasts would have won aesthetic credence in their culture.
I am speculating, in any case I have to deal with the predilections in the UK, where many women, even intelligent, articulate ones, aspire to have two silicone Zeppelins on their frontage while aiming to be as thin as a broom.
The company almost went tits up after they failed to grasp that the proprietary nature of their designs was killing them.
As soon as their grip on digital music goes away, I really don't see how they are going to survive in the long term.
When I read all the above and see a rehash of everybody saying the language they know is best, I just shake my head in disbelief.
Is there not a single Slashdotter that has embraced teaching as a profession that can actually enlighten us regarding this matter?
To the people mentioning Java, C and its ilk, Perl, Python and PHP, honestly, get a grip. I know seasoned programmers that are driven to despair when faced with the different idiosyncrasies of these languages, all created with very specific purposes, last of which is educational value.
So guess what, I typed "programming language for children" in this thingy called Google, and a linky thingy pointed me to a list of languages in a website called Wikipedia, several of these languages are *specifically designed as educational tools*
If you put your mouse pointer thingy on top of the highlighted text below you will be shown the information I am mentioning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_programming_language
Everybody that has gone through proper computing education knows about Logo, knows how it works, to whom it is aimed, and how easy to pick up is. But no, fucking Python is didactic, functional languages are making a comeback and the diahrreical nature of Perl is ideal to get fresh minds to embrace computing. Give me a fubaring brake.
What I would have expected in this thread is that people with experience with those languages (and others designed with educational aims in mind) would have shared their experiences.
What we have got so far is mostly useless, I don't call moderators to task in general, but in this occasion most comments on this thread should be buried in the -1 hell, their only rightful place, not to send them there is frankly a dereliction of duty.
Your isolated experience is absolute proof.
You may have been bright, but it seems the brightness is fading. Fast.
Google is offering a mobile OS that is going to eat Apple's lunch.
The richness of applications in an open environment will eventually surpass whatever Apple has to offer.
Check any Linux repositories: thousands of applications, the top 100 lets say of a very high technical standard, many other good enough for large amounts of people, all of them susceptible of improvements that can closely follow the needs of the users. This enthusiasm will be pushed by the commercial muscle of Google, which means marketing. Great combination that Apple is counteracting with putting a minefield in front of would be iPhone developers. Brain dead policy.
Also Apple's music players are becoming more restrictive, now that finally shops and labels are realizing that DRM is an abomination the need to have an iPod to play music is going to be non existent by end of next year.
If iPods have to compete based on features only (and not in the tie in to the iTunes store) Apple may be for a nasty surprise, since there are plenty of players out there that are immensely better devices (bar the interface, but several mobile phones are providing very good ones, which will find their way to music an d media players)
In synthesis they are going to experience the PC revolution all over again: Linux will take the desktop in an uneasy stand off with Windows (yeah, I know, but people used to laugh also when I told them Linux would be a commercially viable OS by now, which is embedded and server markets, I firmly believe the Penguin will have the last laugh in the desktop as well, the EeePC and friends and the financial crush may play a big hand on this), their players will no longer be as attractive and their computers will be too expensive, again.
Most people forget how close Apple was to go under, they have forgotten that at some point MS had to put some money to help them out (really, not joking: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html ) and this all was because the stubbornness of Apple to stick to close standards for everything they did.
Apple hit the jackpot with the iPod by following their typical close the door policy for iTunes, but once that advantage is gone I just don't see that they have the necessary culture to thrive in an environment in which open standards and perhaps code will be the norm.
Your emails are not property. Period.
No law anywhere will sustain such nonsensical view.
Even if you would put them in media, the data is still not subject of any property law, but of copyright and perhaps trademark or patent law (which have nothing to do with property law).
The small time artists have nothing to lose: few people are buying their stuff, so to make a living they have to get off their asses and actually do some real work (like playing in concerts, the infamy).
People that have made it big are realising that they are being copied all around the place, so the only thing they can do to beat piracy is to be more convenient than free. A pirate could never put a service like the one McCartney is offering,
Big artists now know that insisting in asinine DRM is against their own interests and with horror are trying to adapt (Madonna is no longer affiliated to a record label, but a touring company, Prince released his latest CD for free as a gift that came with a newspaper).
Recorded music will become free advertisement for artists who will make their living from actually working, once they have an stablished name they will be able to set up shops to provide services around their music or to allow convinient digital shops to sell their wares.
All the artists you mention had to work hard to earn a living.
Copyright came to disturb this and now many people out there think that they can work once and then sit down to wait for the copyright derived money to rol for them and their distant descendants.
If they keep extending copyright terms it may very well be that the last descendants to get paid copyrights from a relative may no longer be of the same species...
He could have a perfectly clued up position about DRM and be completely clueless about copyright.
Praise where it is due, not so gently persuasion where it is needed ....
There would still bee 70,000,000 people left.
Some of them are fundamentalists in the sense that they are very strict, I would say extremist, religiously speaking.
Some others invent a version of Islam that has nothing to do with the teachings of the religion (many of the things terrorists do are explicitly forbidden in the Quoran) and then adhere to those beliefs with the same zeal. These are the dangerous ones. If one of these gets his dirty paws on nukes they will not hesitate to go up in smoke at the same time as the victims.
Now, this is frankly unlikely when it comes to terrorists, but it is not too far fetched then it comes to governments. I think eventually nukes could be had by any country, so unless we promote disarmament, so the basic technology and expertise is more difficult to come by, then I don't see how we can stop a very bad scenario when somebody decides it is a good idea to obliterate a town with millions of people....
When you really think you are going to get 40 virgins if you die in martyrdom you may very well not care if you send to hell your fellow human beings.
The author makes very clear that growth rate has to be the same. As the table posted above shows, growth rate is actually diminishing (which makes sense, more and more countries are using contraception).
If a virus is too, er, virulent then it constrains its own spread, also there is no virus 100% lethal, meaning that surviving plants would happily continue photosynthesis, and even if these plants were obliterated we still would have fungi and other plants that do not require photosynthesis. It would be a real bummer, but not the end of life.
ksh, bash and sh. As for your "healthy fear of Java" please, behave like an adult, that is something pretty childish to say.
I am sitting here in the UK trying to figure that one out. It would have been mildly interesting if he had been using a non descript MP3 player. To imply that Barack "Uber Cool" Obama should be using an iPod by default is frankly beyond childish.
You either believe this:
"The Amazon site is not being changed in any way whatsoever"
or this
"The Firefox addon only modifies the way the page appears to the user of the browser where that addon is installed"
The mental gymnastics that some people perform are worthy of an Olympic gold medal...
Piracy is illegal (by which I mean copyright infringement is illegal in most localities), period.
But copyright in its current form is immoral, so I am not surprised many folks are prepared to brake a law that is clearly flawed.
Your argument that without copyright there would be no artistic output is easily debunkable, many great advances of humanity were achieved before copyright arrived to the scene, and actually lack of copyright is demonstrably better for the spreading of ideas and science.
Not of Amazon wares mind you, but of Amazon's website itself, and that is just for starters.
" a feeble or ridiculous imitation " ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parody )
Imitation.
If would have been hugely parodyc to build a similar website, that could have got feeds from Amazon itself mind you, and to prominently put the button there.
That is parody.
To do so on top of the website itself is not parody, is naked provocation, almost trolling, which seems to be working nicely.
(of Amazon's website, not of the products they sell, the media conglomerates can defend themselves if they so wish).
Or Fraud?
Or Misrepresentation?
They claim to be *media* students.
... only one in which you require an external drive of any kind.
Somebody else if not myself will show you why it is unnecessary and to be considered risky.
Sorry, this is no longer the 80s or 90s.
An external drive of any kind is a security risk, users don't need them since all the information should be transferred via your internal network, a user does not require a copy of your data, they should have means of accessing remote desktops where they can manipulate the data they need without actually having a local copy.
Why would a user need custom software? And if they do, what is stopping you to install it for them so it shows up on their client when they login? Have you heard about profiles, or virtual machines for example?
To a great degree home users are using a dumb remote terminal already, it is called web browser.
Be specific please.
There are well understood techniques as well as data centre configurations to ensure you have the redundancy you need.