This is really cool, but there are good solutions (MiniDisc, etc.) already for audio recording. This may have advantages over them, but there is still a significant installed base out there which will make adoption slow.
Perhaps a video version of this could be developed, holding DV video? One of the difficulties of Mini-DV, just as DAT, is its linearity, which makes editing a chore. Combined with the LCD display on the PDA, a DV version of this tech could enable basic editing on the fly. It could do for video what MiniDisc did for audio.
Hey, there's only limited space on a cellphone's screen. Besides, the calculations for making the aforementioned boobies look smooth and round are beyond your average FPU-less cellphone.
On the other hand, if we put your idea into a pair of VR glasses, we might have a hit on our hands:^)
It is a truism in ecology that it is good to preserve ecosystems from invaders. This argument has been used against genetically modified crops and introduced predators.
Somewhere down the line, we are going to run into a situation where we have a completely new life form, engineered by humans, that is competing with existing species.
Is humanity obligated to value existing organisms over new ones? Should scientists live in fear of upsetting the established "order of nature?" Why?
If I knew that my parents were the type that would spy on me while I'm at school, then I would refuse to have a cell phone.
I guess you have pretty liberal parents then. But don't forget that generally parents who spy on their kids also do other fucked-up stuff.
Such parents generally have, through other protective behavior, convinced their kids that they are incapable of being safe. Kids that have been subjected to this kind of parenting are more likely to accept the cellphone.
But this will lead to more problems down the road, as the kids (as teenagers) rebel and try to use their underdeveloped judgement to make "adult" decisions - like when to use drugs, or contraceptives.
You're clearly very mature. But you're in the minority.
Oh, and "Rules were meant to be broken" was originally discovered by Napoleonic troops on the Rosetta stone, scrawled in a corner in Arabic.
Your post is a capital crime.
I think our country should stop chasing turban-wearing ghosts and bring you to justice!
Seriously, that was an awful joke.
Thank you for providing a bastion of principle that can rival the forces of closed-source.
Although in the long-term, it would be nice if we could trust companies enough to use BSD-based licenses, right now we can't trust big business farther than we can throw them.
As a result, a strong and uncompromising stance is the only thing that will protect Free software. And that is the stance you have taken.
May you see the day when business and Free software are no longer seen as mutually exclusive.
Wrong. Computer science does not. There are plenty of computer scientists working in such fields as operating systems (Sun), networking (AT&T), and compilers (Intel) who design clever software that is then given away by their employers.
Their employers do not play the EULA game, betting on the ability of the BSA and its secret police tactics to bully the little guy into restrictive contracts. They make their profits on hardware, and the software is meant to increase the desirability of their hardware.
Other computer scientists, in the more abstract fields of nubmer theory (the NSA), and artificial intelligence (Google) have employers who profit by providing services (yes, the government is a service) based on the advanced technology computer scientists develop.
Or do you mean computer engineers? Why,
I think you can't! There are programmers in all the places I mentioned above, plus those working to make e-commerce sites, business logistics solutions, etc.
To conclude this little flame, let me say that I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your post.
Perhaps... but 23GB is pretty good for incremental backups. You probably won't be changing 23GB of your disk at once in a day, or even a week. You may have to do a multi-disc weekly backup, though.
Currently add-on FDDs are only used by a small group: Mac users who need to use floppies. That's a small percentage of the market. However, if you also have a bunch of PC users who need to use floppies, you've got a much larger market.
Suddenly, you've got no-names retooling their factories from building dirt-cheap floppies with a PC floppy interface (thus spake Calvin: Akpth! Gakk!) to building dirt-cheap floppies with a USB interface.
Perhaps the price won't be 10 Euros (get in the Euro-zone, guys!) but it'll be a lot less than 45.
Maybe they know the patches have more holes than they fix...
Any mission-cricial app simply shouldn't be on a MS system. They don't do what they say they do (Outlook 2000 can't even get sync over e-mail right given a dedicated in-house POP3 server) and charge you for tech support when you want to figure out how to work around their fucked-up code.
I think maybe we should worry about whether we're even going to be in orbit anytime soon.
The NASA budget has been cut back more and more as other things (like, say, tax cuts and Big Wars) get a higher priority.
I'm guessing we're going to see a grounding of the shuttle fleet for a while - then, NASA's budget will be cut 'cause they're not flying shuttles.
I think I'll see a manned space program again in my lifetime. But I think the Russians and the Chinese (and maybe Japan and the ESA) will be there first.
Actually, what was going on in 1944 and prompted the US nuclear program's development was not the US trying to gain global military supremacy.
Instead, we were trying to develop a weapon which would obviate the need to land troops in Japan, which would have led to one of the bloodiest invasions ever. (Read about the Japanese preparations for the invasion - the villagers with pikes training to "stave" off armed infantry.)
Even given hindsight, nuclear weapons didn't give us global supremacy. If anything, they allowed third world countries (China, the Soviets, Pakistan) to play hardball politics with the "big boy" Western powers.
Second, as to your (sarcastic) reference to the US killing our own citizens to test a nuke: If we were to do that, we'd pick an uninhabited place, surely! Somewhere we could hush it up better than, say, a couple miles from San Francisco!
I always wondered what a Quake 3 map would look like in real life...:)
Pretty much the same. But maybe the frame-rate will be a little lower, and textures won't be as detailed.
Most of the "real world" was actually produced for viewing using the ATI Rage 128. That's why computer games have become more and more attractive compared to the "real world" since nVidia unleashed the GeForce3.
Making matters worse, the physics model in the real world is also limited. For instance, rocket jumps are impossible because of improper collision detection between shards of the rocket casing and the jumper, resulting in shards improperly embedded in the body.
Unfortunately, the world was intended for full simulation on what was considered powerful in the 1980s. (The world existed before that, but only in a 2-dimensional form suitable for reproduction on thin, 35mm film.)
It doesn't matter what base you're writing your DNA code in (base-4, base-2, you name it). What's difficult is creating the ribosomes that will actually do the DNA-protein conversion. If you can do that, you're in business.
Otherwise, it's useful as a theoretical tool but not much else. Still, a synthesis of computers and biological systems just got a little closer. Here's hoping for cyborgs by 2020!
Re:Would it have been so hard to say...
on
Bochs 2.0 Released
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
This is truly an incredible display of poor moderation. Shame on you, folks.
I propose that the lameness filter be extended to check whether posts consist entirely of text lifted off all pages the story links to.
I think I speak for most of the community when I say that I put a great deal of effort into writing good posts (not just for the mod points, but for replies) and seeing posts like this get modded to +5 is depressing.
I also think, however, that the original poster was not malicious, since he/she posted anonymously. It's only the moderation that is atrocious and sets a bad precedent.
If a child is not mature enough to be allowed unescorted in the seamier neighborhoods of your local downtown, that kid is also not mature enough to be unescorted ion the internet.
Let's say I lived in some big city, and had a daughter - say, 15. I would damn well ensure she didn't go into certain neighborhoods alone, even if I allwed her complete freedom on the Internet. You can't get jumped on the Internet.
Chat room paedophiles are different, by the way. Ignoring one works, and any child can do it. Toughs in a seedy neighborhood can't be so easily ignored.
Mod the parent back up - this is valid political commentary!
This new domain is an excellent opportunity for propaganda. The government could keep all kinds of groups outside of.kids.us for spurious reasons, and children would never be exposed to those groups' opinions.
And what about foreign sites? No child would be able to read the Chinese People's Daily, say. This system could be seen as just another part of an indoctrination system involving schools, and soon television.
Although I tend to view the primary goal of this not as being for propaganda, but rather to satisfy parents, the view of it as a propaganda mechanism is NOT flamebait!
You're right, but remember who is the main beneficiary of this new domain.
If it were being created to help kids then this "opt-in" system would be deemed too drastic a measure that cuts kids off from too much information outside.kids.us (like Slashdot).
On the other hand, since this law is being written for voting parents who just want peace of mind, it can get away with this level of generality.
It's sad, but not unreasonable in a democracy where children can't vote.
Slashdot Mirror
That's Miss Clio or Miss CLI± to you!
This is really cool, but there are good solutions (MiniDisc, etc.) already for audio recording. This may have advantages over them, but there is still a significant installed base out there which will make adoption slow.
Perhaps a video version of this could be developed, holding DV video? One of the difficulties of Mini-DV, just as DAT, is its linearity, which makes editing a chore. Combined with the LCD display on the PDA, a DV version of this tech could enable basic editing on the fly. It could do for video what MiniDisc did for audio.
On the other hand, if we put your idea into a pair of VR glasses, we might have a hit on our hands :^)
It is a truism in ecology that it is good to preserve ecosystems from invaders. This argument has been used against genetically modified crops and introduced predators.
Somewhere down the line, we are going to run into a situation where we have a completely new life form, engineered by humans, that is competing with existing species.
Is humanity obligated to value existing organisms over new ones? Should scientists live in fear of upsetting the established "order of nature?" Why?
If I knew that my parents were the type that would spy on me while I'm at school, then I would refuse to have a cell phone.
I guess you have pretty liberal parents then. But don't forget that generally parents who spy on their kids also do other fucked-up stuff.
Such parents generally have, through other protective behavior, convinced their kids that they are incapable of being safe. Kids that have been subjected to this kind of parenting are more likely to accept the cellphone.
But this will lead to more problems down the road, as the kids (as teenagers) rebel and try to use their underdeveloped judgement to make "adult" decisions - like when to use drugs, or contraceptives.
You're clearly very mature. But you're in the minority.
Oh, and "Rules were meant to be broken" was originally discovered by Napoleonic troops on the Rosetta stone, scrawled in a corner in Arabic.
Not if the customer being /.ed were paying for each call they received!
Score: 0 (Troll)
Have the moderators gone mad?
Moderation 101, folks: You don't have to moderate everything you see.
Your post is a capital crime.
I think our country should stop chasing turban-wearing ghosts and bring you to justice!
Seriously, that was an awful joke.
Although in the long-term, it would be nice if we could trust companies enough to use BSD-based licenses, right now we can't trust big business farther than we can throw them.
As a result, a strong and uncompromising stance is the only thing that will protect Free software. And that is the stance you have taken.
May you see the day when business and Free software are no longer seen as mutually exclusive.
Wrong. Computer science does not. There are plenty of computer scientists working in such fields as operating systems (Sun), networking (AT&T), and compilers (Intel) who design clever software that is then given away by their employers.
Their employers do not play the EULA game, betting on the ability of the BSA and its secret police tactics to bully the little guy into restrictive contracts. They make their profits on hardware, and the software is meant to increase the desirability of their hardware.
Other computer scientists, in the more abstract fields of nubmer theory (the NSA), and artificial intelligence (Google) have employers who profit by providing services (yes, the government is a service) based on the advanced technology computer scientists develop.
Or do you mean computer engineers? Why, I think you can't! There are programmers in all the places I mentioned above, plus those working to make e-commerce sites, business logistics solutions, etc.
To conclude this little flame, let me say that I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your post.
Perhaps... but 23GB is pretty good for incremental backups. You probably won't be changing 23GB of your disk at once in a day, or even a week. You may have to do a multi-disc weekly backup, though.
Wow. This is the best post I have ever seen on Slashdot.
Currently add-on FDDs are only used by a small group: Mac users who need to use floppies. That's a small percentage of the market. However, if you also have a bunch of PC users who need to use floppies, you've got a much larger market.
Suddenly, you've got no-names retooling their factories from building dirt-cheap floppies with a PC floppy interface (thus spake Calvin: Akpth! Gakk!) to building dirt-cheap floppies with a USB interface.
Perhaps the price won't be 10 Euros (get in the Euro-zone, guys!) but it'll be a lot less than 45.
Any mission-cricial app simply shouldn't be on a MS system. They don't do what they say they do (Outlook 2000 can't even get sync over e-mail right given a dedicated in-house POP3 server) and charge you for tech support when you want to figure out how to work around their fucked-up code.
The NASA budget has been cut back more and more as other things (like, say, tax cuts and Big Wars) get a higher priority.
I'm guessing we're going to see a grounding of the shuttle fleet for a while - then, NASA's budget will be cut 'cause they're not flying shuttles.
I think I'll see a manned space program again in my lifetime. But I think the Russians and the Chinese (and maybe Japan and the ESA) will be there first.
Actually, what was going on in 1944 and prompted the US nuclear program's development was not the US trying to gain global military supremacy.
Instead, we were trying to develop a weapon which would obviate the need to land troops in Japan, which would have led to one of the bloodiest invasions ever. (Read about the Japanese preparations for the invasion - the villagers with pikes training to "stave" off armed infantry.)
Even given hindsight, nuclear weapons didn't give us global supremacy. If anything, they allowed third world countries (China, the Soviets, Pakistan) to play hardball politics with the "big boy" Western powers.
Second, as to your (sarcastic) reference to the US killing our own citizens to test a nuke: If we were to do that, we'd pick an uninhabited place, surely! Somewhere we could hush it up better than, say, a couple miles from San Francisco!
Really? That reminds me of the Ettenmoors.
According to this page:
My friend,
That was just the illusion I was going for in that last line. You have made my day.
Happy new year.
Pretty much the same. But maybe the frame-rate will be a little lower, and textures won't be as detailed.
Most of the "real world" was actually produced for viewing using the ATI Rage 128. That's why computer games have become more and more attractive compared to the "real world" since nVidia unleashed the GeForce3.
Making matters worse, the physics model in the real world is also limited. For instance, rocket jumps are impossible because of improper collision detection between shards of the rocket casing and the jumper, resulting in shards improperly embedded in the body.
Unfortunately, the world was intended for full simulation on what was considered powerful in the 1980s. (The world existed before that, but only in a 2-dimensional form suitable for reproduction on thin, 35mm film.)
It doesn't matter what base you're writing your DNA code in (base-4, base-2, you name it). What's difficult is creating the ribosomes that will actually do the DNA-protein conversion. If you can do that, you're in business.
Otherwise, it's useful as a theoretical tool but not much else. Still, a synthesis of computers and biological systems just got a little closer. Here's hoping for cyborgs by 2020!
This is truly an incredible display of poor moderation. Shame on you, folks.
I propose that the lameness filter be extended to check whether posts consist entirely of text lifted off all pages the story links to.
I think I speak for most of the community when I say that I put a great deal of effort into writing good posts (not just for the mod points, but for replies) and seeing posts like this get modded to +5 is depressing.
I also think, however, that the original poster was not malicious, since he/she posted anonymously. It's only the moderation that is atrocious and sets a bad precedent.
Innovations that Revolutionized Slashdot
from the not-I-said-jonkatz dept.
That's all I can think of, anyone care to add more?
If a child is not mature enough to be allowed unescorted in the seamier neighborhoods of your local downtown, that kid is also not mature enough to be unescorted ion the internet.
Let's say I lived in some big city, and had a daughter - say, 15. I would damn well ensure she didn't go into certain neighborhoods alone, even if I allwed her complete freedom on the Internet. You can't get jumped on the Internet.
Chat room paedophiles are different, by the way. Ignoring one works, and any child can do it. Toughs in a seedy neighborhood can't be so easily ignored.
Mod the parent back up - this is valid political commentary!
.kids.us for spurious reasons, and children would never be exposed to those groups' opinions.
This new domain is an excellent opportunity for propaganda. The government could keep all kinds of groups outside of
And what about foreign sites? No child would be able to read the Chinese People's Daily, say. This system could be seen as just another part of an indoctrination system involving schools, and soon television.
Although I tend to view the primary goal of this not as being for propaganda, but rather to satisfy parents, the view of it as a propaganda mechanism is NOT flamebait!
You're right, but remember who is the main beneficiary of this new domain.
.kids.us (like Slashdot).
If it were being created to help kids then this "opt-in" system would be deemed too drastic a measure that cuts kids off from too much information outside
On the other hand, since this law is being written for voting parents who just want peace of mind, it can get away with this level of generality.
It's sad, but not unreasonable in a democracy where children can't vote.