(I absolutely agree with parent... mod him up, it fits the GP's requirements perfectly)
Click the Apple menu in the top left corner and select system preferences. 1 click.
Click Accounts. 2 clicks.
(Authenticate if you like to keep people out of your prefs.)
Click Login Options (at the bottom). 3 clicks.
Click Enable fast user switching. 4 clicks.
You can now lock the screen whenever you want by clicking on your name and selecting "Login Window...". 10.4 added a nice tweak, now you can show long name (full name), short name (username), or icon in the menu bar for user switching. I find using username is a big enough target at the top of the screen to allow me to lock my screen with nearly no thought. You could use UI scripting to assign a voice command or keystroke to this action though. Some people feel weird about talking to their computers though.:-)
Yes. At your rate, assuming you don't accelerate your [movie downloading, film-less video production/processing, simulation/model data acquisition, account/ticketing for your million-client monthly expansion, vhosting aggregation, etc.]:
It will take you two months to fill a terabyte... so 2000 months to fill a petabyte. If you keep buying new drives every couple months it will only take you 166 years to reach your petabyte!
(This ignores practical problems:-), I mean even boxes with 30 drives in them have a facilities impact at home.)
"Honey, I'm going to need a new edition to the house to hold my 1000 hard-drives."*
"Um, no."
(*) Assumes storage densities improve a little over the next 150 years
You cited him as an expert (a grad student--what a joke), that makes it an appeal to authority. If you are going to cite someone's credentials as a basis for them being right,
I didn't say he was right! And I didn't cite him as an expert. I only said I was curious what your background was, beceause his was aparent (it's linked on each comment).
I think part of the confusion -- and the accusations of lack of sources, ad hominem, argument from ignorance, etc. Is this: You say "Also, I'll note you didn't refute my claim about Valium." and further "I offered Valium as the perfect example of a popular (VERY widely used) drug that was developed independent of the public sector." I didn't see that comment (and I'm looking for it right now in your history:-D) Is this it? (I hope not, as a layman I don't know anything about who developed Valium or what research it was based upon). Oh wait - I've found it. Sorry, It got modded down as troll.:-\ No wonder I didn't see it.
Well with that cleared up.:-p
me: In an anonymous forum I have no way to use other common metrics for truthfulness (no body language, no socializing). Credentials at least help.
The truthfulness of WHAT? If you want to know of a figure I cite is truthful, you can ask for a source. Do you doubt my information about Leo Sternbach? I can give you websites with information on Leo Sternbach and the development of Valium if you like. There's no reason to need to know my credentials, as I can cite sources.
I don't know anything about Leo Sternbach, but I can use Google and am willing to find out. Oh, and not that you aren't -- I'm not attacking you there. Again, I'm ignorant of the whole scene.
Finally: Anyway, how's this for irony -- your whole argument is "I don't like your evidence" and yet, you won't supply any yourself.
Nice straw man, but it won't work. As I've said many times now and you've deliberately ignored, he pasted *irrelevent* opinion pieces wrriten by a single guy. I'm not even saying the articles are wrong necessarily, they're just irrelevent to the argument, they cover things like high prescription costs, but don't actually address the issue of public sector research vs. private sector. They just flat out aren't mentioned in the articles. Evidence which doesn't even bring up the issue is bad evidence.
Right. I'm not disputing that his sources may have been crap/irrelevant. They didn't even seem primary enough for me to investigate them further. I was just saying "give me something to follow up on your assertion" that this guy is wrong. Since I don't know anything about pharma R&D funding other than the sort of info one gets from PBS or Science, or Science News. I didn't even see the Valium example until you were telling me that I ignored your Valium example!
This seems like a pretty obvious topic (public vs private drug research)... I'm surprised there's no studies on this sort of thing (and if there is, that no one in the thread has produced it, or apolgies if it has been produced but was modded below my threshold...).
I never said he invented them, I'm not sure where you got that strawman from. Faraday is well known for analyzing/discovering the properties of capacitors with which our basic knowledge is built upon today. Maxwell's work came after Faraday's (Faraday was already well known when Maxwell as still a student), it was based on his in part. Gauss and Faraday also did a lot of their work indepently, as they did their research around the same time on different, but related things. So your history is off, nice try at being a smart ass though.
Heh. Now we have something to talk about. I'm not invested in your and Sam's debate, I was only curious about the question that you didn't answer (and I stated as such). You're right of course, you didn't say he invented them... I guess I was just hotheadedly quipping.
Here's my justification for my earlier parenthetical:
One could consider Maxwell as Faraday's student, that's not disputed (or shouldn't be!). And as often the case, the student came to surpass the master (as is the nature of science). Again, Faraday's work lead to understandings/insights in capacitance (or how capacitors worked). Even more directly, you can easily see that Faraday's work on inductance lead to: Electric motors, transformers, etc (which may even be more imporant? Your call though -- batteries more important than motors/dynamos?). I'm not disputing any of his great insight in visually comprehending (what we would later call) the electric field or his countless and often brilliant experiments that evolved from this. It's really not being a smart ass to say that Faraday didn't "invent capacitors" (I've already admitted confusion as to your exact meaning from "Let's thank Michael Farady, too, who discovered the properties of the capacitor," because he didn't really). I mentioned Maxwell because he lended the rigour to Faraday's work (and later the crucial pieces for special relativity) and Gauss because Faraday wasn't the greatest mathematician (while both Maxwell and Gauss were, and as such were better at describing the properties of a capacitance). Anyhow, you've obviously studied physics, too or we wouldn't be talking about this (yay physics!). I'm not throwing down the gauntlet or something:-p I only mention this so we can spare eachother the further nitpicking about who influenced Gauss, Faraday, and their students.
I've often thought about getting a degree in physics so I could teach it. It's all just so fascinating!
In an anonymous forum I have no way to use other common metrics for truthfulness (no body language, no socializing). Credentials at least help. If I take you at face value, your argument is meaningless (the "because I said so" argument). Here's another highschooler talking about which he/she knows nothing. I'm not talking about argument from authority, I'm talking about how do I know that you know jack shit about what pharma companies do or don't. Otherwise it's just a huge waste of time.
We obviously have different points of view though -- I go out of my way to be transparent on Slashdot. I use my real name, I pubilsh a bio that let's people know where I went to school and what my work experience is like. I frequently disclose my biases in comments here. Call it prejudice, call it ad homiem... even accuse hypocrisy, I don't care, but to me you seem like nothing more than an AC bickering for arguments sake, or a employee of a pharmaceutical astro-turfing (to make your proportionately small budget for R&D seem more important than the budget for R&D in public sector institutions, like universities). People who dodge questions, or only selectively engage in debate seem disingenuous. If multiple people (in this case) ask what your background in bio or chem is and you continue to remain silent then how can we judge your sincerity? Well we can't. This makes us more likely to just ignore you. The point of debate is not to encourage your audience to ignore you.
Anyway, how's this for irony -- your whole argument is "I don't like your evidence" and yet, you won't supply any yourself.
Don't bother replying though unless you mention your background or bias.
Darn... we were concurrently writing responses. I was hoping you would have addressed it in this comment (dated minutes before my last one, sorry).
The question *you* didn't answer is - do you know anything about chemistry or biology?
Yes, and obviously you don't.
Nice dodge plus ad hominem. When are you going to spill the beans? What is your background in chemistry or biological sciences?! I need to know whether to take you seriously or not. The hyperbole isn't helping me. I thought it was beyond dispute that universities do pharma research that is eventually monetized by drug companies. What's your secret info? How do you know they don't?
You say, "You tell me, you're the one asserting that these are all the result of public research. The burden of proof is on you [...] Look, I'm not going to wade through a bibliography of information [...] "
Willful ignorance? Arguing from ignorance is hardly the way to win a debate. I'm not really interested in that (willful ignorance prevades Slashdot, just look at any thread about climate science).
What I'm most curious about is the first question that you ignored: "njyoder - do you have any background in biology or chemistry?" Revealing this information, or at least your occupation would reveal your natural bias and help readers evaluate your position, maybe even to your benefit! Sam is a grad student. Do you even have a bachelor's degree in a relevant science? Instead you just go on to mis-attribute the argument with a strawman about giving royalties to long dead scientists (with hyperbole about what Faraday (or more properly Guass/Maxwell for explaining --or even more historically accurate von Kleist for discovering-- capacitors) brought us "eons" ago) [Pardon the nested parens].
So again, one answer will suffice: Do you have any background in biology or chemistry?
(The farad is named in honor of Faraday, not because he discovered capacitance. Or maybe you are saying that just his descriptions of electric fields/inductance make him the inventor of capacitors, despite capacitors predating his work? I don't know. Nothing personal. Cheers.)
I agree. LEDs are great in their niche. Diodes are much more shock and crush resistant than CF tubes or incandescent bulbs. For this reason, I'd have to say that for anything that is out of harms way (cieling light fixtures, maybe even table lamps) that CF is the way to go. Keep LEDs where shunts and bumps are real and the redundancy of arrays are a huge boon... in cars, flashlights, road flashers, traffic lights, etc. A single point of failure in a ceiling light isn't as big a deal as the failure of, I don't know, a brake light or muzzle/tactical light.
Is the idea of a light not to enable us to see rather than replicate the light from the Sun?
Maybe for some people (non cave dwellers, non geeks) the light from the sun is comforting, and thus desirable in their homes. Anecdotally, I can recall plenty of research going into the the manufacture and installation of light-pipes (fiber-optics, translucent concretes, etc) into large buildings because the full spectrum lighting produced happier workers/customers and drives down the incidence of seasonal depressive disorders (along with the benefits of energy-savings -- google it if you care).
I'm no expert, so I can't definitively say whether it's nature or nurture (as you postulate), but it seems physiological. The human animal responds (consciously and unconsciously) to sunlight differently from other light types.
You said, "And seriously, at least the adult men in Japan have some pretty fucked up ideas regarding sexuality. Ever heard of bukkake? And that's not even the depraved end of the scale..."
Bukkake would only be a good argument for Japanese depravity if we Americans didn't have a phrase like circle-jerk. Don't google that unless you want to see some sick shit.
You say, "But don't you ever wonder what exactly causes those high suicide rates?"
First, it's important to mention the suicide rates aren't high or low, they are relatively higher or lower (to say otherwise is ambiguous and nearly meaningless -- what is high and low?). It is more precise to say that Japan's rate is higher than America's. Sorry for the nitpick. Back on topic...
One doesn't have to 'ever wonder' about it. You can read about it. A good place to start is googling "karoshi" or "karoushi" (here's my blurb about it http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=476054). While karoshi is not a leading cause of suicide (nor a leading form of karoshi as roughly a third of karoshi are suicides) it is an important and relevant place to start in understanding the societal (and thus family/work) pressures that lead to suicide in Japan (to get in a/. meme). It wouldn't hurt to research conformity, pop-culture, Buddhism (including Zen), bushido and their enduring effects (in no particular order) on loyalty, honor, "saving face", filial and ancestral relationships, perception of after-life, taboos, etc.
To save you the trouble, the short version is something like this: We think suicide is bad... our acculturation demands it, but not so much in Japan. It's a sin for us but in some cases it is seemingly requisite to a Nihonjin. The "barrier to entry", if you will, is lower. Once again it's the context that matters.
Finally, not to you specifically (but to take part in the hand-waving of this thread), the teen pregnancy rates and violent or sexual TV have essentially nothing to do with it.
Anyhow, nothing personal.:-)
(Plural, personal pronouns used broadly and loosely.)
14:52 [Story posted]-- Locating ores rich in oxygen and metals is seen as the first step in making the next decade's human return to the moon more self sufficient and cost effective.
15:02 -- I'm not sure that the chaps in the Whitehouse will get excited about finding rocks on the Moon unless they can claim that THIS was where Saddam had is WMDs.
15:23 -- What are you going to complain about when W is not longer in the whitehouse?
22:05 -- But dude, Bush is like going to rescind the constitution and become emperor like hitler and stuff!
Nice... Godwin's Law demonstrated in only T plus eight hours 47 minutes. Slashdot is a bastion of restraint. You could get there in minutes on Usenet!
First, I hate the new Finder as much as the next guy, barring the NeXT style column view (that junk rules). I want to mention though that you can pass clicks to a window without giving them focus (and raising them) by cmd-clicking. The only problem there is that custom controls may not implement this feature in the same way that everything else does. For example: You can click, drag, scroll, move, resize, etc any window/scrollbar. I love this part. I also love that focus follows mouse for the scroll-wheel. What makes me insane with rage though is some apps (and I'm looking at you mini-iTunes window) don't behave the same way. Cmd-clicking a button in nearly any other Apple app will pass the click to the app without raising the window... but no iTunes mini player controls. It's hugely irritating. Yes, I've bugged it at ADC.
Anyhow, to make a long story short, when you know you want to pass a click to an window that is burried, hold down cmd (and any other modifiers you might want to use ctrl/shift/alt). With rare exception this will accomplish your goal.
(I think it's in the HIG to swallow the focus-giving click on a window. It is though at developers discretion. You can write your responder to behave differently if you want -- I think it's just convention.)
Exactly, fair use is only a defense to copyright infringement! Great point!
You can still be found guilty of violating the DMCA (for the manufacture of a un-permitted circumvention device) even if you are cleared from infringement under fair use. At least in that case it's only civil penalties;)
I agree that it's a "mighty fine" hair, and probably for the same reasons.
To me, the most expressive way to describe an algorithm would be with a code example -- but code examples seem to be exactly the kind of speech the DMCA wants to prevent EVEN THOUGH the circuit acknowledged that code was free speech!
My gut says that if you "published" or "trafficked" some research that included a complete listing of a copyright-circumventer that you would surely get sued, but that you may still be able to win the case. At which point, it makes the 2600 decision quite suspect... how is linking to a code example different from including it in research? Is it because you don't have to re-type or copy-and-paste it with the link?
Thanks, I did phone support for the Macintosh for about 4 years. I'm intimately familiar with all the versions of the Apple menu (and whether it said "About this Mac" or "About this Computer") since OS 6. And yes, in newer versions of OS X (10.3 and 10.4) there is a "more info" button to go from that window straight to the Profiler.
Anyhow, I didn't mean to imply that the lack of the cube effect at high resolutions was the only way to tell if you had 64 MB of vram. You're absolutely right that you could more easily start the profiler open Hardware->Graphics/Displays and just read it.
But this has already been decided, until you mount a new challenge, or get Congress to chance the law:
Joining a growing consensus among courts across the country, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York found that computer code is speech and therefore entitled to some First Amendment protections under the U.S. Constitution. But the court concluded that the material in this case is "content-neutral," and therefore entitled to considerably less protection than "expressive" content such as poetry or a novel.
"Neither the DMCA nor the posting prohibition is concerned with whatever capacity DeCSS might have for conveying information to a human being, and that capacity...is what arguably creates a speech component of the decryption code," the unanimous three-judge appellate panel wrote in a 72-page opinion that leaned heavily on the reasoning of a lower court.
That is -- while the code to break stuff is protected speech, the breaking still isn't. I can describe an algorithm to you in the most expressive means available that may circumvent a protection (as outlined in the DMCA) but --and this is where I diverge from your understanding-- as soon as your computer compiles or interprets that information, or you enact those instructions yourself by hand, you have broken the law (the act of manufacturing a device, using a device, and the circumenvention itself are all against the law, but there is no law against the description of said device). In short, you can write the program to circumvent something but it is illegal to compile it, run it, or follow it (and without a long battle in the courts you may not be able to distribute it [the code], "traffic" it, or discuss it in acedemic research). As the Act says: "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device (or) component [that is primarily for circumventing copy protection]". Describe and research aren't in that list.
me:...skinny chicks with big-eyes hardly defines a manga.
you: That doesn't define manga at all. It defines the mass market manga we see translated. Theres a lot of different styles where the eyes arn't huge and such, but unless a fanbase picks up they never get released.
I guess we're agreeing. Thanks for taking the time to let me know you agree. Possibly relevant, but not directed at you personally: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164683&cid=137 47886. Sadly, I think the "cool kids" (for younger definitions of kid) aren't watching fansubs, but Beyblade, Yu-gi-oh and One Piece. Sadly, I think the well translated, well-localized (i.e., humor and often puns preserved) Pokemon has already passed its apogee. If by kids you meant teens then yes.:-) The new generation of anime fans sure have it easy... back in my day... (turn on the old man voice) we had to drive for hours to swap tapes at underground cons in the back of comic shops just to watch 3rd-generation fansubbed dups of Nausicaa.
FWIW, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a manga-serial published in the last 20 years that doesn't include zoom-lines, ever. The cinematic/story-board style in manga has been nearly universal since the 80s, I'd consider this a pretty good hallmark for the "style" (if we can agree there is such a thing; If we can't agree there is a certain manga style then you needn't respond since we fundementally disagree).
No shit. My minor is Asian studies and I speak some Japanese. My point was, this is not manga in any real sense, even by your implication -- which is correct and undisputed -- manga are comic books "in Japan" (to mock a/. meme).
Granted that not all manga feature character design modeled after Leiji's work in the 70s or Rumiko's prolific work... but you have to admit that SD is a pretty common feature across a wide spectrum of modern Japanese illustrated work, if at-least in marketing there of. The lexicon of common graphic idioms are equally widespread, though yes, I admit, not universal. Similarly there are some English comics that don't include a single "POW", "BLAM", "WHOOSH!" or include depictions of women with realistic body types.
Thanks for the condescension though, that's what I've come to expect from newcomers on/.
It's not as if someone is going to notice through normal use. I might notice that Expose works and from there discover that the machine has more video ram. But that's just because I heard that it doesn't work on machines with less than 64 mb of ram. If something on the machine labeled it as having a 1.5 ghz processor I'd write it off as a rounding issue.
Exposé works on machines with less than 64 MB of vram. With the 32 MB of vram on the Mini I'm using right now I can still use Exposé at 1600x1200. Here's a fun fact though -- the Cube Effect for "fast user switching" (isn't that what they call it in Windows land?) is disabled at 1600x1200 on a 32 meg video card, but still renders at 1280x1024. So, there might be your one clue to tell the difference between a 1.42 GHz Mini and a 1.5 GHz Mini (because the difference in clock speed just isn't going to be evident I'd imagine).
I like space girls as much as the next guy, but to call this manga is really a stretch. Where's the zoom-in action lines? Where's the SD vignettes? Where are the nose-bubbles and sigh-puffs and tear-drops, etc.?
The character design is hardly different from any Dark Horse comic containing teen-chicks, so that can't be what makes this manga. (Granted that Dark Horse employs some artists with some Japanese inspirations, but skinny chicks with big-eyes hardly defines a manga.)
It should be pointed out, that both article, and the blurb that quotes it, and your post all get the part number wrong.
DellTM DimensionTM n Series1 desktops offer affordable, everyday small business computing power. Extra economical because they come without a Microsoft® operating system; a copy of FreeDOSTM open-source operating system is included in the box, ready to install.
The machine in question is the Dell Dimension N Series 5150n. If you search Dell's site for a "510n" you'll get nothing relevant.
Contrary to your post, the 5150n does not come with a ATI card (just like the Dimension 5150, which incidentally COSTS LESS for all the same hardware -and- Windows). This is a pretty generic Dell box (integrated Intel everything) for $650 without monitor. The Radeon X300 is a $60 add. The 17" monitor is a $50 add. Needless to say, if you pay the Microsoft tax... you get more and pay less. This sounds like news/PR just to prey on principle.
Okay, I must be behind on the current lingo... because when I read "Yahoo raided 12 engineers", I get an image of them [...]
I got the picture of them sending in armed tac-squads... kind of like the intro movie to System Shock: Laser sights, rifles, scared hackers with their hands up, scary phrases on their computer screens like "REMAIN WHERE YOU ARE".
Less fictionally, to me raided still means what happened to Steve Jackson Games.
Well it seems that afterall we do basically agree on everything except one point... until the U.S. government "owns the means of production" I can't call it Communist or Marxist. In the meantime, I can say that it smells of fascism and exhibits socialist tendancies. These are things we already knew -- and agree upon.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
(Authenticate if you like to keep people out of your prefs.)
You can now lock the screen whenever you want by clicking on your name and selecting "Login Window...". 10.4 added a nice tweak, now you can show long name (full name), short name (username), or icon in the menu bar for user switching. I find using username is a big enough target at the top of the screen to allow me to lock my screen with nearly no thought. You could use UI scripting to assign a voice command or keystroke to this action though. Some people feel weird about talking to their computers though.
Do you really think a petabyte is a lot of space?
:-), I mean even boxes with 30 drives in them have a facilities impact at home.)
Yes. At your rate, assuming you don't accelerate your [movie downloading, film-less video production/processing, simulation/model data acquisition, account/ticketing for your million-client monthly expansion, vhosting aggregation, etc.]:
It will take you two months to fill a terabyte... so 2000 months to fill a petabyte. If you keep buying new drives every couple months it will only take you 166 years to reach your petabyte!
(This ignores practical problems
"Honey, I'm going to need a new edition to the house to hold my 1000 hard-drives."*
"Um, no."
(*) Assumes storage densities improve a little over the next 150 years
No no no! We aren't communicating here. :-p
:-D) Is this it? (I hope not, as a layman I don't know anything about who developed Valium or what research it was based upon). Oh wait - I've found it. Sorry, It got modded down as troll. :-\ No wonder I didn't see it.
:-p
You cited him as an expert (a grad student--what a joke), that makes it an appeal to authority. If you are going to cite someone's credentials as a basis for them being right,
I didn't say he was right! And I didn't cite him as an expert. I only said I was curious what your background was, beceause his was aparent (it's linked on each comment).
I think part of the confusion -- and the accusations of lack of sources, ad hominem, argument from ignorance, etc. Is this: You say "Also, I'll note you didn't refute my claim about Valium." and further "I offered Valium as the perfect example of a popular (VERY widely used) drug that was developed independent of the public sector." I didn't see that comment (and I'm looking for it right now in your history
Well with that cleared up.
me: In an anonymous forum I have no way to use other common metrics for truthfulness (no body language, no socializing). Credentials at least help.
The truthfulness of WHAT? If you want to know of a figure I cite is truthful, you can ask for a source. Do you doubt my information about Leo Sternbach? I can give you websites with information on Leo Sternbach and the development of Valium if you like. There's no reason to need to know my credentials, as I can cite sources.
I don't know anything about Leo Sternbach, but I can use Google and am willing to find out. Oh, and not that you aren't -- I'm not attacking you there. Again, I'm ignorant of the whole scene.
Finally:
Anyway, how's this for irony -- your whole argument is "I don't like your evidence" and yet, you won't supply any yourself.
Nice straw man, but it won't work. As I've said many times now and you've deliberately ignored, he pasted *irrelevent* opinion pieces wrriten by a single guy. I'm not even saying the articles are wrong necessarily, they're just irrelevent to the argument, they cover things like high prescription costs, but don't actually address the issue of public sector research vs. private sector. They just flat out aren't mentioned in the articles. Evidence which doesn't even bring up the issue is bad evidence.
Right. I'm not disputing that his sources may have been crap/irrelevant. They didn't even seem primary enough for me to investigate them further. I was just saying "give me something to follow up on your assertion" that this guy is wrong. Since I don't know anything about pharma R&D funding other than the sort of info one gets from PBS or Science, or Science News. I didn't even see the Valium example until you were telling me that I ignored your Valium example!
This seems like a pretty obvious topic (public vs private drug research)... I'm surprised there's no studies on this sort of thing (and if there is, that no one in the thread has produced it, or apolgies if it has been produced but was modded below my threshold...).
I never said he invented them, I'm not sure where you got that strawman from. Faraday is well known for analyzing/discovering the properties of capacitors with which our basic knowledge is built upon today. Maxwell's work came after Faraday's (Faraday was already well known when Maxwell as still a student), it was based on his in part. Gauss and Faraday also did a lot of their work indepently, as they did their research around the same time on different, but related things. So your history is off, nice try at being a smart ass though.
:-p I only mention this so we can spare eachother the further nitpicking about who influenced Gauss, Faraday, and their students.
Heh. Now we have something to talk about. I'm not invested in your and Sam's debate, I was only curious about the question that you didn't answer (and I stated as such). You're right of course, you didn't say he invented them... I guess I was just hotheadedly quipping.
Here's my justification for my earlier parenthetical:
One could consider Maxwell as Faraday's student, that's not disputed (or shouldn't be!). And as often the case, the student came to surpass the master (as is the nature of science). Again, Faraday's work lead to understandings/insights in capacitance (or how capacitors worked). Even more directly, you can easily see that Faraday's work on inductance lead to: Electric motors, transformers, etc (which may even be more imporant? Your call though -- batteries more important than motors/dynamos?). I'm not disputing any of his great insight in visually comprehending (what we would later call) the electric field or his countless and often brilliant experiments that evolved from this. It's really not being a smart ass to say that Faraday didn't "invent capacitors" (I've already admitted confusion as to your exact meaning from "Let's thank Michael Farady, too, who discovered the properties of the capacitor," because he didn't really). I mentioned Maxwell because he lended the rigour to Faraday's work (and later the crucial pieces for special relativity) and Gauss because Faraday wasn't the greatest mathematician (while both Maxwell and Gauss were, and as such were better at describing the properties of a capacitance). Anyhow, you've obviously studied physics, too or we wouldn't be talking about this (yay physics!). I'm not throwing down the gauntlet or something
I've often thought about getting a degree in physics so I could teach it. It's all just so fascinating!
Cheers!
In an anonymous forum I have no way to use other common metrics for truthfulness (no body language, no socializing). Credentials at least help. If I take you at face value, your argument is meaningless (the "because I said so" argument). Here's another highschooler talking about which he/she knows nothing. I'm not talking about argument from authority, I'm talking about how do I know that you know jack shit about what pharma companies do or don't. Otherwise it's just a huge waste of time.
... even accuse hypocrisy, I don't care, but to me you seem like nothing more than an AC bickering for arguments sake, or a employee of a pharmaceutical astro-turfing (to make your proportionately small budget for R&D seem more important than the budget for R&D in public sector institutions, like universities). People who dodge questions, or only selectively engage in debate seem disingenuous. If multiple people (in this case) ask what your background in bio or chem is and you continue to remain silent then how can we judge your sincerity? Well we can't. This makes us more likely to just ignore you. The point of debate is not to encourage your audience to ignore you.
We obviously have different points of view though -- I go out of my way to be transparent on Slashdot. I use my real name, I pubilsh a bio that let's people know where I went to school and what my work experience is like. I frequently disclose my biases in comments here. Call it prejudice, call it ad homiem
Anyway, how's this for irony -- your whole argument is "I don't like your evidence" and yet, you won't supply any yourself.
Don't bother replying though unless you mention your background or bias.
Darn ... we were concurrently writing responses. I was hoping you would have addressed it in this comment (dated minutes before my last one, sorry).
The question *you* didn't answer is - do you know anything about chemistry or biology?
Yes, and obviously you don't.
Nice dodge plus ad hominem. When are you going to spill the beans? What is your background in chemistry or biological sciences?! I need to know whether to take you seriously or not. The hyperbole isn't helping me. I thought it was beyond dispute that universities do pharma research that is eventually monetized by drug companies. What's your secret info? How do you know they don't?
You say, "You tell me, you're the one asserting that these are all the result of public research. The burden of proof is on you [...] Look, I'm not going to wade through a bibliography of information [...] "
Willful ignorance? Arguing from ignorance is hardly the way to win a debate. I'm not really interested in that (willful ignorance prevades Slashdot, just look at any thread about climate science).
What I'm most curious about is the first question that you ignored: "njyoder - do you have any background in biology or chemistry?" Revealing this information, or at least your occupation would reveal your natural bias and help readers evaluate your position, maybe even to your benefit! Sam is a grad student. Do you even have a bachelor's degree in a relevant science? Instead you just go on to mis-attribute the argument with a strawman about giving royalties to long dead scientists (with hyperbole about what Faraday (or more properly Guass/Maxwell for explaining --or even more historically accurate von Kleist for discovering-- capacitors) brought us "eons" ago) [Pardon the nested parens].
So again, one answer will suffice: Do you have any background in biology or chemistry?
(The farad is named in honor of Faraday, not because he discovered capacitance. Or maybe you are saying that just his descriptions of electric fields/inductance make him the inventor of capacitors, despite capacitors predating his work? I don't know. Nothing personal. Cheers.)
I agree. LEDs are great in their niche. Diodes are much more shock and crush resistant than CF tubes or incandescent bulbs. For this reason, I'd have to say that for anything that is out of harms way (cieling light fixtures, maybe even table lamps) that CF is the way to go. Keep LEDs where shunts and bumps are real and the redundancy of arrays are a huge boon... in cars, flashlights, road flashers, traffic lights, etc. A single point of failure in a ceiling light isn't as big a deal as the failure of, I don't know, a brake light or muzzle/tactical light.
...
That's my two cents
Is the idea of a light not to enable us to see rather than replicate the light from the Sun?
Maybe for some people (non cave dwellers, non geeks) the light from the sun is comforting, and thus desirable in their homes. Anecdotally, I can recall plenty of research going into the the manufacture and installation of light-pipes (fiber-optics, translucent concretes, etc) into large buildings because the full spectrum lighting produced happier workers/customers and drives down the incidence of seasonal depressive disorders (along with the benefits of energy-savings -- google it if you care).
I'm no expert, so I can't definitively say whether it's nature or nurture (as you postulate), but it seems physiological. The human animal responds (consciously and unconsciously) to sunlight differently from other light types.
Pardon any typos. Cheers.
This funny typo gave me a chuckle :-)
"You defiantly notice it" while you shake your fist at the lights, "Damn you eerie blue-white lighting, Damn you!"
You said, "And seriously, at least the adult men in Japan have some pretty fucked up ideas regarding sexuality. Ever heard of bukkake? And that's not even the depraved end of the scale..."
Bukkake would only be a good argument for Japanese depravity if we Americans didn't have a phrase like circle-jerk. Don't google that unless you want to see some sick shit.
You say, "But don't you ever wonder what exactly causes those high suicide rates?"
4 ). While karoshi is not a leading cause of suicide (nor a leading form of karoshi as roughly a third of karoshi are suicides) it is an important and relevant place to start in understanding the societal (and thus family/work) pressures that lead to suicide in Japan (to get in a /. meme). It wouldn't hurt to research conformity, pop-culture, Buddhism (including Zen), bushido and their enduring effects (in no particular order) on loyalty, honor, "saving face", filial and ancestral relationships, perception of after-life, taboos, etc.
:-)
First, it's important to mention the suicide rates aren't high or low, they are relatively higher or lower (to say otherwise is ambiguous and nearly meaningless -- what is high and low?). It is more precise to say that Japan's rate is higher than America's. Sorry for the nitpick. Back on topic...
One doesn't have to 'ever wonder' about it. You can read about it. A good place to start is googling "karoshi" or "karoushi" (here's my blurb about it http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=47605
To save you the trouble, the short version is something like this: We think suicide is bad... our acculturation demands it, but not so much in Japan. It's a sin for us but in some cases it is seemingly requisite to a Nihonjin. The "barrier to entry", if you will, is lower. Once again it's the context that matters.
Finally, not to you specifically (but to take part in the hand-waving of this thread), the teen pregnancy rates and violent or sexual TV have essentially nothing to do with it.
Anyhow, nothing personal.
(Plural, personal pronouns used broadly and loosely.)
14:52 [Story posted]-- Locating ores rich in oxygen and metals is seen as the first step in making the next decade's human return to the moon more self sufficient and cost effective.
15:02 -- I'm not sure that the chaps in the Whitehouse will get excited about finding rocks on the Moon unless they can claim that THIS was where Saddam had is WMDs.
15:23 -- What are you going to complain about when W is not longer in the whitehouse?
22:05 -- But dude, Bush is like going to rescind the constitution and become emperor like hitler and stuff!
Nice... Godwin's Law demonstrated in only T plus eight hours 47 minutes. Slashdot is a bastion of restraint. You could get there in minutes on Usenet!
First, I hate the new Finder as much as the next guy, barring the NeXT style column view (that junk rules). I want to mention though that you can pass clicks to a window without giving them focus (and raising them) by cmd-clicking. The only problem there is that custom controls may not implement this feature in the same way that everything else does. For example: You can click, drag, scroll, move, resize, etc any window/scrollbar. I love this part. I also love that focus follows mouse for the scroll-wheel. What makes me insane with rage though is some apps (and I'm looking at you mini-iTunes window) don't behave the same way. Cmd-clicking a button in nearly any other Apple app will pass the click to the app without raising the window ... but no iTunes mini player controls. It's hugely irritating. Yes, I've bugged it at ADC.
Anyhow, to make a long story short, when you know you want to pass a click to an window that is burried, hold down cmd (and any other modifiers you might want to use ctrl/shift/alt). With rare exception this will accomplish your goal.
(I think it's in the HIG to swallow the focus-giving click on a window. It is though at developers discretion. You can write your responder to behave differently if you want -- I think it's just convention.)
Exactly, fair use is only a defense to copyright infringement! Great point!
;)
You can still be found guilty of violating the DMCA (for the manufacture of a un-permitted circumvention device) even if you are cleared from infringement under fair use. At least in that case it's only civil penalties
(sorry for the typos in my original post)
I agree that it's a "mighty fine" hair, and probably for the same reasons.
To me, the most expressive way to describe an algorithm would be with a code example -- but code examples seem to be exactly the kind of speech the DMCA wants to prevent EVEN THOUGH the circuit acknowledged that code was free speech!
My gut says that if you "published" or "trafficked" some research that included a complete listing of a copyright-circumventer that you would surely get sued, but that you may still be able to win the case. At which point, it makes the 2600 decision quite suspect... how is linking to a code example different from including it in research? Is it because you don't have to re-type or copy-and-paste it with the link?
Slippery slope if you ask me.
Thanks, I did phone support for the Macintosh for about 4 years. I'm intimately familiar with all the versions of the Apple menu (and whether it said "About this Mac" or "About this Computer") since OS 6. And yes, in newer versions of OS X (10.3 and 10.4) there is a "more info" button to go from that window straight to the Profiler.
Anyhow, I didn't mean to imply that the lack of the cube effect at high resolutions was the only way to tell if you had 64 MB of vram. You're absolutely right that you could more easily start the profiler open Hardware->Graphics/Displays and just read it.
"Neither the DMCA nor the posting prohibition is concerned with whatever capacity DeCSS might have for conveying information to a human being, and that capacity...is what arguably creates a speech component of the decryption code," the unanimous three-judge appellate panel wrote in a 72-page opinion that leaned heavily on the reasoning of a lower court.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-276353.html (url also includes link to complete decision)
That is -- while the code to break stuff is protected speech, the breaking still isn't. I can describe an algorithm to you in the most expressive means available that may circumvent a protection (as outlined in the DMCA) but --and this is where I diverge from your understanding-- as soon as your computer compiles or interprets that information, or you enact those instructions yourself by hand, you have broken the law (the act of manufacturing a device, using a device, and the circumenvention itself are all against the law, but there is no law against the description of said device). In short, you can write the program to circumvent something but it is illegal to compile it, run it, or follow it (and without a long battle in the courts you may not be able to distribute it [the code], "traffic" it, or discuss it in acedemic research). As the Act says: "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device (or) component [that is primarily for circumventing copy protection]". Describe and research aren't in that list.
Of course, IANAL
(I didn't get a chance to respond ealier)
...skinny chicks with big-eyes hardly defines a manga.
7 47886. Sadly, I think the "cool kids" (for younger definitions of kid) aren't watching fansubs, but Beyblade, Yu-gi-oh and One Piece. Sadly, I think the well translated, well-localized (i.e., humor and often puns preserved) Pokemon has already passed its apogee. If by kids you meant teens then yes. :-) The new generation of anime fans sure have it easy... back in my day... (turn on the old man voice) we had to drive for hours to swap tapes at underground cons in the back of comic shops just to watch 3rd-generation fansubbed dups of Nausicaa.
me:
you: That doesn't define manga at all. It defines the mass market manga we see translated. Theres a lot of different styles where the eyes arn't huge and such, but unless a fanbase picks up they never get released.
I guess we're agreeing. Thanks for taking the time to let me know you agree. Possibly relevant, but not directed at you personally: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164683&cid=13
FWIW, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a manga-serial published in the last 20 years that doesn't include zoom-lines, ever. The cinematic/story-board style in manga has been nearly universal since the 80s, I'd consider this a pretty good hallmark for the "style" (if we can agree there is such a thing; If we can't agree there is a certain manga style then you needn't respond since we fundementally disagree).
No shit. My minor is Asian studies and I speak some Japanese. My point was, this is not manga in any real sense, even by your implication -- which is correct and undisputed -- manga are comic books "in Japan" (to mock a /. meme).
/.
Granted that not all manga feature character design modeled after Leiji's work in the 70s or Rumiko's prolific work... but you have to admit that SD is a pretty common feature across a wide spectrum of modern Japanese illustrated work, if at-least in marketing there of. The lexicon of common graphic idioms are equally widespread, though yes, I admit, not universal. Similarly there are some English comics that don't include a single "POW", "BLAM", "WHOOSH!" or include depictions of women with realistic body types.
Thanks for the condescension though, that's what I've come to expect from newcomers on
Cheers.
It's not as if someone is going to notice through normal use. I might notice that Expose works and from there discover that the machine has more video ram. But that's just because I heard that it doesn't work on machines with less than 64 mb of ram. If something on the machine labeled it as having a 1.5 ghz processor I'd write it off as a rounding issue.
Exposé works on machines with less than 64 MB of vram. With the 32 MB of vram on the Mini I'm using right now I can still use Exposé at 1600x1200. Here's a fun fact though -- the Cube Effect for "fast user switching" (isn't that what they call it in Windows land?) is disabled at 1600x1200 on a 32 meg video card, but still renders at 1280x1024. So, there might be your one clue to tell the difference between a 1.42 GHz Mini and a 1.5 GHz Mini (because the difference in clock speed just isn't going to be evident I'd imagine).
I like space girls as much as the next guy, but to call this manga is really a stretch. Where's the zoom-in action lines? Where's the SD vignettes? Where are the nose-bubbles and sigh-puffs and tear-drops, etc.?
The character design is hardly different from any Dark Horse comic containing teen-chicks, so that can't be what makes this manga. (Granted that Dark Horse employs some artists with some Japanese inspirations, but skinny chicks with big-eyes hardly defines a manga.)
Seems alsmost like buzzword compliance...
The machine in question is the Dell Dimension N Series 5150n. If you search Dell's site for a "510n" you'll get nothing relevant.
Contrary to your post, the 5150n does not come with a ATI card (just like the Dimension 5150, which incidentally COSTS LESS for all the same hardware -and- Windows). This is a pretty generic Dell box (integrated Intel everything) for $650 without monitor. The Radeon X300 is a $60 add. The 17" monitor is a $50 add. Needless to say, if you pay the Microsoft tax... you get more and pay less. This sounds like news/PR just to prey on principle.
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/compare.
Okay, I must be behind on the current lingo... because when I read "Yahoo raided 12 engineers", I get an image of them [...]
I got the picture of them sending in armed tac-squads... kind of like the intro movie to System Shock: Laser sights, rifles, scared hackers with their hands up, scary phrases on their computer screens like "REMAIN WHERE YOU ARE".
Less fictionally, to me raided still means what happened to Steve Jackson Games.
Well it seems that afterall we do basically agree on everything except one point... until the U.S. government "owns the means of production" I can't call it Communist or Marxist. In the meantime, I can say that it smells of fascism and exhibits socialist tendancies. These are things we already knew -- and agree upon. :-)
Yay!