... if you do need to open eBlaster to change some settings, you simply type a Hotkey combination, which is 3 keys pressed simultaneously followed by a fourth key. (Nobody would ever accidentally type those 4 keys, so they won't accidentally discover eBlaster is present.)...
So does anybody know what those four keys are?
I have consulted the oracles and they have spoken. The secret combination is Ctrl-Alt-Del and then 'T'. That will show the Task Manager (assuming you are in Windows), and there you can probably see the sucker running.:o)
Yeah, as a matter of fact, that was the idea. But of course, if somebody thinks it's informative, then it's certainly informative for him, because he should definitely not try that at home:o)
Don't try this at home. If you feel tempted, watch three times in a row "Terminator 2", and remember you are not made of liquid quicksilver, or whatever.
I'm a bit late, and perhaps somebody told it already, but I've got THE ANSWER, so I'd better say it:
THE GIRLS CARE NOTHING FOR DIAMONDS, ALL THEY MIND IS THE PRICE IT COSTED YOU
That's not cynical or anything like that. She likes to know that she is important to you, and you will expend a lot of money for her. As a matter of fact, an study on gifts to girls found that the presents they most liked were small-format very-expensive laptops. Really. No kidding. Forget diamonds. Kick one up the ass to the DeBeers cartel. Don't play along.
Weapon? O'course, but against tiny foes.
on
Spy Fly
·
· Score: 3, Funny
has no info about weaponization
Of course it should be weaponized. A little pincer or something of the kind, a tiny camera, some image recognizion software, and I could use it to hunt down those d****d mosquitoes. I sure could use one of those, following me everywhere!.
Always change jobs, if you are ambitious. As a rule, it will help your career in the long term. The reason for that is that you move socially-economically-professionally in an environment (company) till you find your equilibrium (balance) point. The forces that interact for that balance are complex, and of different importance in each environment. But the golden rule applies : Once the equilibrium is reached, it's difficult to leave it.
So you need to search for another environment. A judicious selection of the new environment is important. But the most important thing is that you won't be in an statis anymore, you will be moving. Your entrance in the new environment will probably upset all existing... well... equilibria (hey, that's nice, probably even correct!:o) and change the relationships. You will seek your new rest point. If you are smart, that will be a better one. In any case, the social dynamics of that are much more interesting that the simple statis of your old job.
Of course, if you "only" want an easy well payed job for all your life, please keep to the known environments.
Perhaps the AdTI misses the point. GPL advocates do not care if GPL'd software can be made to work in a proprietary business model. It's not our problem. There's no God-given right for proprietary software vendors to make money; they have to compete. And if the rules of the marketplace suddenly change and make it difficult for them, well---tough. Adapt or die. Don't moan.
Yup, I think that's the point I've always wondered at. Why is MS so upset at the GPL? Nobody is forcing anybody to use it (to my knowledge,at least. Long-haired liberals may have kidnapped some CEOs and forced them to renounce Microsoft and all its pomps and works since I last checked, but I rather doubt it).
So I suppose it's only some kind of friendly warning to innocent users (as we all know that nobody ever reads licenses, uhh... wait a moment...). If it's so, well... thanks and all that. Nice from you to spend all those dollars in raising the public awareness of the problem. I think the point is already made, thanks, walk along, it's been a pleasure, we already know what we are doing, thanks, keep moving.
Why isn't the public making a fuss?
on
The Crime of Sharing
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Why isn't the public making a fuss?
Because nobody has ever prosecuted a private-sharer. There is no practical difficulty in sharing. Only companies that seem to profit from the sharing are harassed. That's why the public isn't making a fuss, because nobody is treading on their toes. Not too much, at least.
The quality of the file transfer - which is crucial to how the music sounds - is guaranteed to be high, which is not so on free sites.
"file transfer" quality being crucial to how the music sounds ? I bet some kind of music is playing forever in the reporter's mind, impeding his thoughts.
And the labels' services also offer protection from viruses.
Viruses? What viruses? Any evidence of an MP3 virus? Not that I ever heard. Hits of FUD campaing, if you ask me.
Why not the motherboard maker? Perhaps they are defective, perhaps they don't even conform to standards. It cannot be a very widespread problem or else we'd have heard about it before. (Well, except if it's one of the newest Palms)
That raises an interesting question. You have a problem when two pieces of equipment interact. One of them blows up. Who to sue? The one that survives, assuming it "broke" the other one? (That seems to be the option taken) The one that breaks, assuming it was a piece of junk to start with? Both?
And the answer is.............THE RICHEST COMPANY, STUPID!!!
I seem to remember (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Deep Blue-Kasparov match was played with "fast" matches, allowing less time than normal championship "long" matches. I had the idea no computer had been created that could beat a Grand Master human in a "long" match.
The article says nothing about that. Anybody knows something about it?
You will know the Truth, and the Truth will lift you of a great Weight.
This is the Truth: You don't need so many gadgets.
Truly. Honest. I stand up and say "My name is Geek and I am a gadget addict". But now I'm cured. Or almost.
You don't really need to carry along the mobile phone. If somebody wants to speak with you, will call again. If you want to talk to somebody, then I recognize it's damn useful, but again, it's so urgent? They are very convenient in traffic jams, but again, I have found that having a book with me it's almost as good, and the jam does move faster when I get interested!
And you may be surprised, but there is life beyond the PDA. Come on! Do you really to have with you at all times ten thousand addresses?
If you really need special clothing for carrying all your iron, IMHO it's time to rethink your life. Your lower back will thank you for that, at the very least:o)
Well, when you have riots, you need a mob, and that's a lot of people. If you've got mass psychosis about something, you need a big mass of people. If you poke fun at a big mass of people, most of them they are going to get pissed. That's taught in Human Nature I.
I mean perhaps a minority will stop and think and say "Well, perhaps that's true, I got too carried away when I and the rest of the mob beat the living daylights out of that suspected paedophile". But that's surely an small minority. I mean, people capable of such introspection usually stop short of the "mob state" in the first place. Most of the others will call and complain. Nobody likes to be mocked.
I'm now downloading the program. I want to check if I belong to that "small percentage of the psychologically sick" that could have found the program enjoyable, or rather to the other big percentage of the psychologically sick.
Of course you can imagine it. One can imagine anything, usually wrongly. I meant imagine with a certain capacity of prediction.
And I don't think we could ever be able to understand the workings of a human brain. I think a machine (let's call the brain a machine for the purposes of the argument) of complexity level ncan only model the workings of a machine of complexity level n-1. Whatever the meaning of "complexity level", it's for me clear that a human brain and another human brain are on the same complexity level, with some possible exceptions, of course:)
Real costs comprise basically the blank CD's to copy the OS. So Linux is more expensive, as there are more distros, and with more CD's.
But in my case Windows gets the most expensive place as I had to purchase a version with the DELL laptop, as they had no other option, bless Microsoft. It will be many CD's till that difference is overcome.
where machines suddenly exceed human intelligence and the future becomes completely unpredictable
I thought the future was already unpredictable.
About the intelligent machines, I think the error is falling into the "biology" trap. Our whole perception system is conditioned by the ideas of "survival", "advancement", "power", "conscience", among others. Those come from our setup as living entities, trapped in a limited resources environment, having to compete for those resources. The fact that a machine is intelligent won't make it conscious, or interested in survival or power. There is no obvious relation. If your were to menace a machine more intelligent than you with cutting the power supply, it would be perhaps politely interested but not more. That is, if the development of the machine is made through "traditional" procedures. I would be wary of genetical-algorithm type developing. That could create a thinking and competitive machine:o)
There are things that we cannot even imagine. One of them is the workings of our own brains. Other one is how a thinking machine would act. Of course, some are more interesting to write a book about that others. But it isn't S&F for me, more like fantasy.
Personally, I think XP is going to be the first major setback for M$, as I don't see ANYONE lining up in droves to buy what is essentially a very minor upgrade to Windows 2000, that removes features and freedom from Windows 2000.
Windows XP will be sold the same way as the others Windows, inside shiny new PCs. I don't think also many people will upgrade OSs, but many will change PCs, and surely, not change OSs back. And Windows XP will come already activated, so problems will not be inmediately obvious.
After a while, software will start to appear that will run only in XP. The new Office XP (no idea if there is such a thing, but there will be) will not run on any other OS, and will bring something interesting, like XML support or something. Big bussiness will after a while decide they must keep only one desktop OS to reduce the maintenance costs and so on, and will buy WinXP licenses by the truckload. That's the scenario, for me.
I'm right along with you, now it seems as if this "vicious" circle could be broken, as there are alternatives (Open Software and Win2000 mainly), and the licensing scheme can prove a little bit hard to swallow.
But trust Microsoft. They will not push the registering or licensing thing so far as to alienate their customers. They will adapt and step back if needed, and try other ways. Their only limitation is their bussiness model, and that is beginning to crumble, but only beginning. Oh, well, we shall see.
Uau! They don't really give a fig about the Goverment suit. Next you know they will change their mind again and reclaim the desktop as Microsoft-only, and the hell with all.
I sure wish I could use the same attitude in my dealings with the Goverment.
"It's a siren call for both an FTC [Federal Trade Commission] and DOJ [Department of Justice] investigation into potential anti-competitive practices," said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a Washington consumer advocacy group.
Whom they do expect? Snowhite? I mean who is going to compete in the desktop with Microsoft? I don't like AOL, but competence seems better than monopoly, even if it's imperfect. Only somebody with market power can make such deals interestings to PC makers.
What I find really interesting is that surely now PC makers start realizing their own importance. They had danced to the tune that Microsoft played, but now it seems they can also play a bit. I interpret that like Microsoft is more dependent on the PC makers than the PC makers on Microsoft. Perhaps next time some monopolist or other will think twice before screwing up their resellers when they're ahead of the game.
Most of the content of an encyclopedia, IMHO, is static, or changes very slowly. I mean, how many articles about the life of Napoleon do we need?. Or about the development of number theory. Or about electromagnetism.
I mean, that the moment one top-notch content piece about some more-or-less static area of knowledge is libre, it's enough. It doesn't matter that the project, the encyclopedia, site or whatever goes under. The content will stay, and be used by other projects. As Larry Sanger says, the key is the low cost of distribution. The parallelism with Open Source software is clear.
Of course not all knowledge is static, and some is too specialised. But for a big chunk of it, the tide cannot be stopped, is a one-way only street. The structure of information distribution has changed, and that will change many things, not perhaps inmediately, but unavoidably.
I have made some queries, about topics in which I'm usually involved, and some of the results have impressed me. Other were rather off the mark, to say the truth, but hey! it's a beta.
It seems to be not concentrated in pages but in sites, so being rather a different approach to google.
In any case a link to keep and a technology to watch. There are never too many good search engines. Good luck to them!.
What's that about Napster abandoning formats and what not? As I rather foggly remember, Napster had never a format to speak of. The users shared some files, particularly some ending in some extensions, like ".mp3" for example. Format has nothing to do with the service.
So, has Napster spoke about this change with it's users? Which users, you say? Well that's a fair question.
Slashdot Mirror
I have consulted the oracles and they have spoken. The secret combination is Ctrl-Alt-Del and then 'T'. That will show the Task Manager (assuming you are in Windows), and there you can probably see the sucker running.
Don't try this at home. If you feel tempted, watch three times in a row "Terminator 2", and remember you are not made of liquid quicksilver, or whatever.
You can consider the poor bot some kind of turkey
THE GIRLS CARE NOTHING FOR DIAMONDS, ALL THEY MIND IS THE PRICE IT COSTED YOU
That's not cynical or anything like that. She likes to know that she is important to you, and you will expend a lot of money for her. As a matter of fact, an study on gifts to girls found that the presents they most liked were small-format very-expensive laptops. Really. No kidding. Forget diamonds. Kick one up the ass to the DeBeers cartel. Don't play along.
Of course it should be weaponized. A little pincer or something of the kind, a tiny camera, some image recognizion software, and I could use it to hunt down those d****d mosquitoes. I sure could use one of those, following me everywhere!.
So you need to search for another environment. A judicious selection of the new environment is important. But the most important thing is that you won't be in an statis anymore, you will be moving. Your entrance in the new environment will probably upset all existing... well... equilibria (hey, that's nice, probably even correct!
Of course, if you "only" want an easy well payed job for all your life, please keep to the known environments.
Yup, I think that's the point I've always wondered at. Why is MS so upset at the GPL? Nobody is forcing anybody to use it (to my knowledge,at least. Long-haired liberals may have kidnapped some CEOs and forced them to renounce Microsoft and all its pomps and works since I last checked, but I rather doubt it).
So I suppose it's only some kind of friendly warning to innocent users (as we all know that nobody ever reads licenses, uhh... wait a moment...). If it's so, well... thanks and all that. Nice from you to spend all those dollars in raising the public awareness of the problem. I think the point is already made, thanks, walk along, it's been a pleasure, we already know what we are doing, thanks, keep moving.
Because nobody has ever prosecuted a private-sharer. There is no practical difficulty in sharing. Only companies that seem to profit from the sharing are harassed. That's why the public isn't making a fuss, because nobody is treading on their toes. Not too much, at least.
"file transfer" quality being crucial to how the music sounds ? I bet some kind of music is playing forever in the reporter's mind, impeding his thoughts.
And the labels' services also offer protection from viruses.
Viruses? What viruses? Any evidence of an MP3 virus? Not that I ever heard. Hits of FUD campaing, if you ask me.
That raises an interesting question. You have a problem when two pieces of equipment interact. One of them blows up. Who to sue? The one that survives, assuming it "broke" the other one? (That seems to be the option taken) The one that breaks, assuming it was a piece of junk to start with? Both?
And the answer is.............THE RICHEST COMPANY, STUPID!!!
--
I will then forget chess and learn "Go", that will give me some breathing space before the computers start winning at that too ;o)
The article says nothing about that. Anybody knows something about it?
--
This is the Truth: You don't need so many gadgets.
Truly. Honest. I stand up and say "My name is Geek and I am a gadget addict". But now I'm cured. Or almost.
You don't really need to carry along the mobile phone. If somebody wants to speak with you, will call again. If you want to talk to somebody, then I recognize it's damn useful, but again, it's so urgent? They are very convenient in traffic jams, but again, I have found that having a book with me it's almost as good, and the jam does move faster when I get interested!
And you may be surprised, but there is life beyond the PDA. Come on! Do you really to have with you at all times ten thousand addresses?
If you really need special clothing for carrying all your iron, IMHO it's time to rethink your life. Your lower back will thank you for that, at the very least :o)
--
I mean perhaps a minority will stop and think and say "Well, perhaps that's true, I got too carried away when I and the rest of the mob beat the living daylights out of that suspected paedophile". But that's surely an small minority. I mean, people capable of such introspection usually stop short of the "mob state" in the first place. Most of the others will call and complain. Nobody likes to be mocked.
I'm now downloading the program. I want to check if I belong to that "small percentage of the psychologically sick" that could have found the program enjoyable, or rather to the other big percentage of the psychologically sick.
--
And I don't think we could ever be able to understand the workings of a human brain. I think a machine (let's call the brain a machine for the purposes of the argument) of complexity level ncan only model the workings of a machine of complexity level n-1. Whatever the meaning of "complexity level", it's for me clear that a human brain and another human brain are on the same complexity level, with some possible exceptions, of course :)
--
But in my case Windows gets the most expensive place as I had to purchase a version with the DELL laptop, as they had no other option, bless Microsoft. It will be many CD's till that difference is overcome.
I thought the future was already unpredictable.
About the intelligent machines, I think the error is falling into the "biology" trap. Our whole perception system is conditioned by the ideas of "survival", "advancement", "power", "conscience", among others. Those come from our setup as living entities, trapped in a limited resources environment, having to compete for those resources. The fact that a machine is intelligent won't make it conscious, or interested in survival or power. There is no obvious relation. If your were to menace a machine more intelligent than you with cutting the power supply, it would be perhaps politely interested but not more. That is, if the development of the machine is made through "traditional" procedures. I would be wary of genetical-algorithm type developing. That could create a thinking and competitive machine :o)
There are things that we cannot even imagine. One of them is the workings of our own brains. Other one is how a thinking machine would act. Of course, some are more interesting to write a book about that others. But it isn't S&F for me, more like fantasy.
--
Windows XP will be sold the same way as the others Windows, inside shiny new PCs. I don't think also many people will upgrade OSs, but many will change PCs, and surely, not change OSs back. And Windows XP will come already activated, so problems will not be inmediately obvious.
After a while, software will start to appear that will run only in XP. The new Office XP (no idea if there is such a thing, but there will be) will not run on any other OS, and will bring something interesting, like XML support or something. Big bussiness will after a while decide they must keep only one desktop OS to reduce the maintenance costs and so on, and will buy WinXP licenses by the truckload. That's the scenario, for me.
I'm right along with you, now it seems as if this "vicious" circle could be broken, as there are alternatives (Open Software and Win2000 mainly), and the licensing scheme can prove a little bit hard to swallow.
But trust Microsoft. They will not push the registering or licensing thing so far as to alienate their customers. They will adapt and step back if needed, and try other ways. Their only limitation is their bussiness model, and that is beginning to crumble, but only beginning. Oh, well, we shall see.
--
I sure wish I could use the same attitude in my dealings with the Goverment.
Whom they do expect? Snowhite? I mean who is going to compete in the desktop with Microsoft? I don't like AOL, but competence seems better than monopoly, even if it's imperfect. Only somebody with market power can make such deals interestings to PC makers.
What I find really interesting is that surely now PC makers start realizing their own importance. They had danced to the tune that Microsoft played, but now it seems they can also play a bit. I interpret that like Microsoft is more dependent on the PC makers than the PC makers on Microsoft. Perhaps next time some monopolist or other will think twice before screwing up their resellers when they're ahead of the game.
--
I mean, that the moment one top-notch content piece about some more-or-less static area of knowledge is libre, it's enough. It doesn't matter that the project, the encyclopedia, site or whatever goes under. The content will stay, and be used by other projects. As Larry Sanger says, the key is the low cost of distribution. The parallelism with Open Source software is clear.
Of course not all knowledge is static, and some is too specialised. But for a big chunk of it, the tide cannot be stopped, is a one-way only street. The structure of information distribution has changed, and that will change many things, not perhaps inmediately, but unavoidably.
--
It seems to be not concentrated in pages but in sites, so being rather a different approach to google.
In any case a link to keep and a technology to watch. There are never too many good search engines. Good luck to them!.
--
So, has Napster spoke about this change with it's users? Which users, you say? Well that's a fair question.
--