It basically means, "accept all submissions that make sense." I'm not exactly sure what the benchmark for this would be, but a readable, logical, correctly filled out patent application would be a good start.
>>Keep all submissions secret for X [days|weeks|months]
>>>>Oh, I disagree. I think that the PTO should publish all submissions immediately, regardless of whether or not they
>>>>ultimately are patented. First, because government business should always be done in the open if at all possible.
>>>>Second, because if an inventor tries to submit an invention and only later withdraws it (perhaps after he decides he'd
>>>>rather not publish at all) then I don't see why we should honor his wishes to such an extent that he can avoid publication.
>>>>Third, because rival inventors should be able to be informed about what the PTO is actually doing on a day-to-day basis.
I think you are completely missing the point. The point isn't to allow patents and ideas to be buried by their creators. In fact, I would imagine that for the system described by the grandparent to work, all patents would have to be made completely public.
If I have it right, the grandparent is proposing a system in which the exclusive use of an idea is awarded based on whether other people come up with the same idea or not. Obvious may have been a poor term for it. I think this is a decent check: if more than one person comes up with the same idea at around the same time, why should any of them get exclusive use of that idea. If two people have the same idea at the same time, do we really want to award exclusive use to the person who can get to the patent office fastest? After the idea is determined to be unique/not-unique, *all* material related to the applications and to how the judgement is made should be made public.
>>Ideas are not patentable; only inventions are.
Tell that to the patent office. Personally, I think the difference between the two is purely semantic when put to practice. You don't need a working version of the product for a patent to be granted, putting many technological "inventions" squarely in the "idea" category, IMO.
>>I disagree. The application process fulfills this role already. It's time-consuming to file for a patent, and often
>>somewhat costly. This means that if an inventor doesn't himself think that the invention is economically worth
>>the trouble, he won't bother, and the invention will just be in the public domain rapidly, if anything happens.
The only thing this accomplishes is to stack the deck against the small time inventor. If the patent process is burdensome, from a money/paper-work perspective, the majority of applications will comes from corporations and those with money to waste. If the process is reduced, the lower bar to entry will allow many more people to participate and reap the rewards of developing ideas into products to be sold in the marketplace.
I really don't think that the grandparent's post was a magic bullet to solve our patent problems in the US. However, I like many of the ideas. Obviously *something* needs to be done to fix the current system, and I think these changes would improve things. One further thought I had is to build in a requirement that patent holders must either work toward implementing and commercializing their invention within some reasonable limits or be forced to give their invention over to the public domain. Some protection in the system is necessary to rid us of patent trolls.
Taft
Re:Yet another defender who completely ignores...
on
Chefs As Chemists
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Use some logic here, will ya?
We FORCE chickens to live in pens. Some chickens are FORCED to live in small cages. We FORCE cows to take hormones and antibiotics so they can produce more milk than is natural without becoming diseased. We FORCE veal calves to live in small cages. We FORCE sheep to be sheared. We FORCE cattle, chicken and other animals into corrals for slaughter. We FORCE electricity through their heads, or FORCE bolts into their heads or force cleavers or saws through their necks to kill them for processing.
See, this is what eating meat is all about: FORCING animals to do certain things so that we can eat their flesh, milk and eggs and use their by-products. Just because people look at gavage and say, "that must really hurt the animal," doesn't make it so. In fact, from all evidence available, it isn't detrimental to the animals' health. It certainly doesn't cause "exploding livers" as one poster put it.
In light of all this, it is absolutely relevant that foie gras animals are treated better than the average chicken raised for meat. We force animals to do a lot of things and from all evidence available, forced slaughter is still the most detrimental to the animal.
This "issue" is simply an attempt by animal rights extremists to open the door to further limits on society's ability to use and eat animals (even keep them as pets). It is a gateway issue for them. Don't be suckered into their little games.
It's an honor to be labeled 'smug' by someone who arrogantly labeled me a 'troll' in the earlier post that started this. Labeling is a time-tested way to improve the quality of one's arguments, I imagine.
It would seem we share the same penchant for labeling. From a previous post of yours: "But hopefully the ones with the odd view might end up living longer and healthier than the smug ones." I don't think either of us have exactly taken the higher ground here, do you?
To counter your arguments here, I'll use the very source you quote from, the New York Times Jun 20th article. From that article:
An infection with Toxoplasma may feel like nothing more than a mild case of the flu, and the symptoms pass once the parasite has snuggled itself away in its cysts. In later years, cysts occasionally break open, but the immune system quickly destroys most of the free parasites. The few survivors invade new cells.
This backs up my point about a healthy immune system effectively combating the latent form of the disease. Yes, in earlier stages, it spreads through hijacking immune cells. This does not appear to continue through the entire lifespan of the parasite.
Also from the article: "It's perfectly safe to keep a cat," [Dr. Milton M. McAllister] said. "Just keep it inside."
Which comes back to my original point. I've never tried to claim the disease wasn't insidious or not dangerous. In fact, I know of a first hand example of how bad it can be (a friend having contracted it and having it--or his immune system--attack his retinas). My only points are that: a) cat ownership is not dangerous and b) the disease is treatable (though not able to be eliminated). Incidentally, these are the only points you haven't provided evidence to counter (outside of claiming faulty logic and disagreeing with established research).
May I also point out that you've done an awful lot of hand waving and trying to discredit my sources (don't trust wikis!!) and logic, but have provided precious little evidence to back up any of your points. This argument is a exercise in futility. Which is exactly why I called it un-winnable. You aren't forming arguments in good faith and neither of our positions have changed (the only possible way to "win"--and I use that term loosely--an argument).
Finally, let me say how unbelievably creepy it is to have a complete stranger looking up info about you and using that in a random online argument. From your posts:
Don't assume understanding of computer technology conveys authority in reasoning in a different field in which one has no background...
Please do not apply financial industry reasoning about monetary risk to medical situations, that's not entirely valid.
My background (which is development for the financial industry--thanks for checking) has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Bringing it up in an attempt to discredit my logic and arguments is a very low form of debate. Grow up.
I'm done. I only hope that others reading this thread (how likely is that, anyway?) will see the evidence I've posted and see the truth (as it is currently understood) about this strange parasite. Good day, sir. You can have the final word if you want it.
While I don't care what fools choose for themselves, I have the right to set my own level of cut-off for risk assessment to a value that helps my survival by minimizing risks. I choose not to eat uncooked meat AND avoid cat-risk.
Go for it, dude. Similarly, I am free to avoid blood transfusions because of the risk of HIV infection. It would be absolutely retarded given the level of risk involved in blood transfusions, but I could do it. As I said, to each his own.
Say, didn't the article say "Infected men... are also more likely to break rules and take risks, be more independent, more anti-social, suspicious, jealous and morose." Not that that has any bearing on responses in this thread. But let me offer everyone some pyrimethamine with this morning's coffee. Bon appetit.
Clever. Rude and smug....but clever.
I don't know how to make this any more clear except by quoting from established medical research. You are just wrong. This study analyzed the effect of a combination of drugs on mice infected with different phases of toxoplasmosis:
"In all models, i.e. in acute, chronic and reactivated toxoplasmosis, the combined drugs were effective in terms of both significantly increased survival and decreased brain cyst burdens compared with no treatment."
This does not show that the immune system can effectively combat brain cysts (something I never claimed anyway--in the cyst phase, the immune system seems to be unable to effect the disease) or eliminate tachyzoites resulting from burst brain cysts (which I believe the immune system can do--your assumption that those tachyzoites remain in the brain and inaccessible to blood flow and the immune system is flawed, IMO). What this *does* show is that certain drug treatments have been successful in attacking brain cysts and significantly reducing their number. The study is interesting and is recommended reading.
This "meta study" was used to analyze treatments for toxoplasmosis in AIDS patients:
"Wallace found that Toxoplasma IgG antibody positivity did not correlate with cat ownership."
Anyway, cheers to you. This argument is obviously not "winnable." Neither of us have budged. That's cool. I'll keep on with my "financial analysis" and you can keep up with whatever methods you are using. Happy (and parasite free) living to you.
My point was your claim was that undercooked meat was far more important, so ignore cats. That viewpoint is illogical.
My point isn't ignore cats, it is: address the area of most risk. Decades of medical research have shown this to be an effective tool against the spread of disease. Addressing the most likely transmission vectors is simply logical. This isn't "financial industry reasoning about monetary risk", it is a matter of logic and disease prevention.
That is an invalid model. The immune system does not function as effectively in all parts of the body.
Fine. But studies of this particular parasite, with its particular life cycle, have shown that the immune system functions as I have described it. You are right that in weakened immune systems, the cysts spread faster, however treatment methods are available, as I mentioned.
No ill will was intended. But I've heard this argument before, and it always comes down to a fixation on cats above other, more credible risks. To each his own, I guess.
It is invalid logic to reason that the risk is greater from eating raw steak than from handling a cat, so that handling cats is not of concern. Both are of concern.
Whaaa? Based on research, undercooked meat is the most common transmission vector for the disease. This isn't a guess, it's a fact. Also a fact: unless you handle cat feces, you have almost no chance of getting the disease from a cat. Let me quote this again: "Although the pathogen has been detected on the fur of cats, it has not been found in an infectious form, and direct infection from handling cats is generally believed to be very rare."
This has been substantiated by research, testing the fur of infected cats for infectious material both in and out of the infectious stage of the disease. They have found no evidence that cats are infectious outside of their feces.
So, yes, you are right: it is *possible* to get this disease through contact with cats (specifically through contact with their fecal matter). However, it is much more likely that a person would get the disease through a much more common activity: eating. Not only is undercooked meat a danger (anything under well done), but also potentially vegetables. Rodents, cats and other animals that rummage through a garden could contaminate the soil. If those vegetables aren't fully washed or cooked, it is possible to get it from your garden. Hell, you could get it even if you didn't clean yourself thoroughly after contact with infected soil.
It all comes down to probability. There are *many* ways to contract this parasite. The most common way has nothing to do with cats. Cats themselves pose almost no risk if their litter is properly handled. Further, indoor cats have almost no chance of contracting the parasite due to a lack of infected prey. It is highly unlikely that you could ever really eliminate all possible causes of the disease, especially if you ever let others prepare your food (IOW: eat out at restaurants--cross-contamination in the kitchen is a bitch, read "Kitchen Confidential" if you don't believe me). Why would you get rid of cats when there are so many other risk factors that you can't eliminate? It is just senseless, or to use your words, invalid logic. If you really wanted to reduce your chances you would give up meat, never garden, wash and cook your produce, and never let others prepare your food. Are you really willing to make such sacrifices for a parasite that *might* effect your behavior but is still pretty treatable? Seems silly to me.
About the wikipedia article: it is quite well referenced. If you question the veracity of the statements on the page, follow the references and see for yourself.
a) parasite causes brain lesions
I'm not sure where you got this from. In all of my reading on this parasite, I have never seen anything indicating that they cause lesions. Reference?
4) Papers indicate that the human immune system keeps the parasite 'under control' but do not say that it eliminates the parasite completely. So what happens to a person when the immune system is weakened by a bad case of the flu or anything else? Do infected people see a flareup of the parasite, but never realize that is going on?
You misunderstand the lifecycle of the parasite. Once past the infectious stage, sometimes the parasite goes into muscle and brain tissue and becomes a cyst. The immune system basically can do nothing about these cysts. The cysts then grow, caused by the parasite reproducing, then burst releasing tachyzoites into the blood and surrounding tissue. Left alone, these tachyzoites would become new cysts. However, the immune system attacks these tachyzoites, eliminating most of them before they can become cysts.
Since the cysts are what is believed to cause altered behavior in mammals a weakened immune system wouldn't let the parasite effect our behavior more. If the timing were bad and a cyst popped when your immune system was down, it could cause more cysts to form. Ho
How do you like your steak? Unless your answer is "well done", you are at greater risk for toxoplasmosis than any cat owner.
From wikipedia: "The most common means of transmission to humans is raw or undercooked meat."
Further, based on research it is *extremely* unlikely that you could pick up this parasite from casual contact with cats. Handling cat feces and not washing your hands? Sure. Petting a cat? No way.
From wikipedia: "Although the pathogen has been detected on the fur of cats, it has not been found in an infectious form, and direct infection from handling cats is generally believed to be very rare."
Further, cats must contract the disease from somewhere and are only infectious for a brief period right after contracting the disease. Which means that indoor cats that don't have access to infected prey can't get the disease (except by other transmission methods which are the same for humans). Or, if your cat already has toxoplasmosis, it means that it can't transmit the parasite to you (except for that brief period right after infection.
From wikipedia: "Cats excrete the pathogen in their faeces for a number of weeks after contracting the disease, generally by eating an infected rodent. Even then, cat faeces are not generally contagious for the first day or two after excretion, after which the cyst 'ripens' and becomes potentially pathogenic. Studies have shown that only about 2% of cats are shedding at any one time, and that shedding does not recur even after repeated exposure to the parasite."
Further, the disease *is* treatable. The cysts are resistant to common forms of treatment for parasites (antibiotics). However, there are treatments available which seem to eliminate the cysts.
From wikipedia: "The antibiotic atovaquone has been used to kill Toxoplasma cysts in situ in AIDS patients.[3] In mice, a combination of atovaquone with clindamycin seemed to optimally kill cysts."
Every time a toxoplasmosis article comes up, someone will make a post like this, saying that *for them* cat ownership is simply too risky. This, of course, completely ignores the reality of the situation, where cat ownership is actually far less risky than eating, where mishandling of food or "undercooked" meat (may I be the first to say, yum!) are far more likely to score you an infectious parasite.
Please inform yourself and stop spouting this trollish bullshit.
How do you like your steak? Unless your answer is "well done", you are at greater risk for toxoplasmosis than any cat owner.
From wikipedia: "The most common means of transmission to humans is raw or undercooked meat."
Further, based on research it is *extremely* unlikely that you could pick up this parasite from casual contact with cats. Handling cat feces and not washing your hands? Sure. Petting a cat? No way.
From wikipedia: "Although the pathogen has been detected on the fur of cats, it has not been found in an infectious form, and direct infection from handling cats is generally believed to be very rare."
Further, cats must contract the disease from somewhere and are only infectious for a brief period right after contracting the disease. Which means that indoor cats that don't have access to infected prey can't get the disease (except by other transmission methods which are the same for humans). Or, if your cat already has toxoplasmosis, it means that it can't transmit the parasite to you (except for that brief period right after infection.
From wikipedia: "Cats excrete the pathogen in their faeces for a number of weeks after contracting the disease, generally by eating an infected rodent. Even then, cat faeces are not generally contagious for the first day or two after excretion, after which the cyst 'ripens' and becomes potentially pathogenic. Studies have shown that only about 2% of cats are shedding at any one time, and that shedding does not recur even after repeated exposure to the parasite."
Further, the disease *is* treatable. The cysts are resistant to common forms of treatment for parasites (antibiotics). However, there are treatments available which seem to eliminate the cysts.
From wikipedia: "The antibiotic atovaquone has been used to kill Toxoplasma cysts in situ in AIDS patients.[3] In mice, a combination of atovaquone with clindamycin seemed to optimally kill cysts."
Here is a link to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis
Every time a toxoplasmosis article comes up, someone will make a post like this, saying that *for them* cat ownership is simply too risky. This, of course, completely ignores the reality of the situation, where cat ownership is actually far less risky than eating, where mishandling of food or "undercooked" meat (may I be the first to say, yum!) are far more likely to score you an infectious parasite.
Please inform yourself and stop spouting this trollish bullshit.
Taft
Licensing is a valid concern, but one that most third party libraries handle quite neatly. Also, the vast majority of third party libraries I personally use are open source (for instance, junit, log4j, boost, anything from apache, etc.). I wonder how prevelant this is...
...and not many companies allow the use of 3rd party libraries.
Who are these companies and what can possibly be their justification for such a blanket policy. I can understand for some ultra-high security/uptime systems with incredibly strict standards and processes who would need to put third party code through an extensive and expensive audit. But for the rest of us? No jUnit? log4j? Is Boost allowed? Good lord, I can't imagine programming in such a world.
Being a lazy, lazy man, I actually like slashback. In a normal thread, I generally browse at a pretty low threshold. Looking through a slashdot thread like this is a relatively time/brain intensive activity. For something I'm really interested in, the investment is worth it.
However, for subjects I have only a passing interest in (for instance netflix usage), it's nice to have an editor pick through the crap and give a nice summary of the thread. It's much easier to read and takes far less time. It's like slashdot crib notes.
Look closer at the passage you quoted. Here it is again:
"Has anybody ever written to you about this? How many people actually recompile their OS X kernels?" I do, for one. I rattled off some of those groups that value open source in its fullest sense. I included academia, high-performance and high-throughput computing experts, and shops that want to roll in system-level enhancements before Apple gets around to packaging them.
He never says that these groups contacted him, which I sincerely doubt they did. Instead, he says that these groups value open source in its fullest sense. This may be true, but whether they are complaining about this is another matter entirely.
According to this article, Shenzhen has the highest per capita income of any city in China, at around $209 per month. The per capita monthly income for the 35 major cities in China is around $80. Note that is per capita income. Also note that this is referring to cities, not rural areas where the pay is sure to be lower.
In conclusion: you're wrong. The picture of average income you painted is woefully inaccurate.
I'm not saying that Apple isn't wrong here. I'm just saying that you are spreading misconceptions.
Do you actually think one uses IE to browse their hard drive, HUH? Well, you are incorrect. Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer are two different programs integrated on the component level using libraries.
Despite the executable names differing by a character in current versions of the OS (explorer.exe vs. iexplorer.exe), what is the material difference between the two? Try opening an "IE" window and typing c: in the location bar. Unless you've screwed with the menu/view settings the window will look nearly identical to a file explorer window. Now try opening a windows explorer window and type http://microsoft.com/ in the location bar. The window will now look just like an IE window. There is no material difference between the two. Microsoft has said they are tied on many occasions in the past. Who's exactly is nitpicking here? (Notice I left off the flamebait adjectives. I'll refrain from namecalling...)
You're confusing things. The fact that Outlook does 8 things is an application design issue, not a technical issue with how the OS is put together. Groupware customers want "all in one". Maybe you don't, but who cares.
I think you are the only one making this distinction. The original poster left it at "software," so where did you get the idea he was ony referring to OS components? In fact, I would say he was referring largely to non-OS components. Apple, in their overall application design, favors small and focused applications over large "do everything" applications. They are all designed to work well together, but that doesn't stop anyone else from writing applications that work equally well with everything else. Inherently, when components or applications are small and have a focused feature set, it is easier to swap out that functionality with other, similar software.
Maybe you missed the part where I AGREED with you about Apple not making their components as easily replacable as they could be. Things like the Finder aren't easily replaced. However, there are many applications which ARE easily replaced (like the dock--see here for an example: http://www.softchaos.com/products/ws3/ove.html). If you hadn't noticed, I focused on the application design aspect of Apple and Microsoft's software. You, apparently, are only interested in what bits are replacable.
Really? So you use Safari to browse your filesystem, huh? And you probably use Mail to make appointments, manage your contacts and manage your calendar, don't you? And you probably use iTunes to view not only your mp3's but also your videos, right?
Well, the last point not withstanding, Apple has a history of building applications for very focused tasks. You browse and open files with the Finder. You browse the internet with Safari. You send e-mail with Mail. You organize your life with iCal. You manage contacts with Address Book. Etc. Etc. They have--annoyingly, in my opinion--taken a more MS approach on certain applications, as of late. Previewing in the Finder, for instance. Or the grouping of music and movies under the "media" umbrella in iTunes. But on the whole, their applications stay in their own little sandboxes.
Microsoft tends to take the opposite approach. Outlook does contacts, calendar and mail. Explorer does...everything?
Sure, Apple makes their applications play well through system services. But interoperability is just good practice and doesn't fundamentally change the "one application per task model." Why wouldn't you want your contacts easily accessible from an e-mail composition window, for example. But that is as far as Apple takes it; if you want to manage your contacts, move on to the next app.
Similarly, putting code to accomplish common tasks in shared libraries is just common sense. For example WebKit which allows Mail and Dashboard tools to render HTML. Notice neither of these apps browse the web. Html is a file format and allowing applications to understand this format is very different than them becoming web browsers in and of themselves.
Now the ability to remove any of these applications from your system is another matter entirely. With the exception of IE, I largely agree that removing the Apple components is roughly as difficult as removing the Windows components. That is an area I personally would like Apple to change their ways. Even if they only allowed it to be done from the command line, allowing the "system level" services like the Finder to be replaced would be a nice feature of the OS.
"Its basically an original Xbox or PS2 with a cool new controller"
Someone else commented on this, but I think they got it wrong, so I'll throw in my 2 cents.
From my understanding, the gamecube is very similar in power to the PS2. The Gamecube has a slightly better GPU and a slightly less powerful processor than the PS2. Both were quite a bit behind the XBox in terms of power. Given that the Wii is supposed to be more powerful in both the graphics and CPU, one would hope that they are going to at least best the capabilities of the original XBox. We'll have to wait and see how much better they can do, though. Especially considering the lack of HD capabilities.
However, it is worth considering what makes a "next-gen" console really "next-gen". Granted better graphics contribute to a more immersive experience, as you pointed out. But isn't it possible that a controller that puts you more physically in the action could accomplish the same thing? Hell, given some of the demos at or before E3, it seems to me the Wii could be MORE immersive than its competitors.
But this very well might be a very subjective thing. I know many people who fill their living rooms with gigantic TVs and sound systems to get more immersed in their movie experiences. For me, its less about being overwhelmed by visuals and sounds and more about the content being delivered. I've still got my crappy old tube TV from 1999 and I haven't really had an urge to upgrade, even after seeing my brother's "drool-worthy" new HDTV. So it will be interesting to see what people find to be more of an immersive experience. I do think Nintendo has a shot at besting their competitors with their unique approach to "next-gen", though.
Taft
Re:I just can't get the hang of vim
on
Vim 7 Released
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Yeah, well I have a punch card reader that I use exclusively for input on my system. Who's got the bigger "I'm a hardcore, old-school user" dick?
Seriously, though, I can't think of a reason a person would find syntax highlighting not useful. Then, to take it further, why a person would find it so UNhelpful that they found the need to turn it off. What is it, exactly? Does it somehow distract you? Are you color blind? Do you think it slows down your editing experience? Does it mess up highlighting (something I've never experienced)?
Given that a document you are editing has content that has a well structured syntax, highlighting will help you make visual distinctions between unlike syntactical structures. This makes individual structures easier to pick out, increasing your ability to act on those structures. It's really just a question of speed.
Then, maybe I'm just too slow. Maybe for certain geniuses in our midst their brains instantly recognize constructs as distinct without any visual aide at all. If so, all the more power to ya. I'll continue to use my highlighting.
Re:If they do, it will all depend upon the license
on
Will Sun Open Source Java?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I can't help but notice that the vast majority of comments here seem to be focused on website development. What is this? 1998?
Seriously, though, there are other problem domains out there. A lot of them, in fact. And even in web development, depending on the complexity and context of the solution, might require vast amounts of code that never interact with a GUI of any kind. When you evaluate these languages and platforms in context's outside of web development, Java starts to look far more robust and flexible.
As another poster pointed out, where are the buffered readers for ruby/php? Sure File.open("name") might LOOK nice, but Java's addition of a buffer solves a common problem many programmers in the past needed to solve by hand. There are about a thousand of these examples where Java's framework is more complex than its ruby/php counterpart, but for good reason: it adds much needed functionality for the enterprise developer.
Mmmmm...good ol' fashioned anecdotal evidence. Good times.
The piece you linked to is a travesty of incompleteness. David Boaz tunes into the two NPR affiliates in Washington one night to find comentary from two people he considers to the left, so *obviously* NPR is irreparably biased. I just love that logic. His commentary is sloppy, shallow on evidence and comically biased towards anything that doesn't conform to his exact personal beliefs.
Additionally, he doesn't make the distinction between NPR the not-for-profit organization and NPR member stations, a common tactic of those die hard conservatives who hate the very idea of public radio. Yes, member stations often receive funding from the CPB, and those stations go on to buy NPR content, if they choose. But NPR is not congressionally funded. At most it competes with other not-for-profits for very small (relative to their other funding) federal grants.
I encourage you to actually listen to NPR and try to objectively judge for yourself whether they have bias. Most who assume bias and try this little experiment are surprised at just how good a job they do. I also encourage you not to take as gospel the words of extremist conservatives like Mr. Boaz. He has an agenda that should be clear as day to anyone. His objectivity on such issues is non-existant.
I wouldn't (with a straight face) link to Al Franken and say "here's your proof." I suggest you stop trying to pull the same on me.
Not that you are entirely wrong, but you certainly are being disengenuous.
The 13% figure that you quoted as coming from CPB is actually describing where individual public radio stations get their operating funds. NPR (which does not operate individual radio stations) receives less than 2% of its operating budget from competitive federal grants. They compete with any other not-for-profit to receive those grants. Read the page you quoted again more carefully as the information is all there.
You might be interested in reading exactly how NPR works. Check out this link for more information: http://www.npr.org/about/nprworks.html The bottom line is that because individual public radio stations operate independently from NPR, they are (more or less) free to choose their programming. This is why not all NPR content is available on all stations across the US.
To sum up, you can bitch and whine all you want about the feds supporting local public radio. However, NPR itself is a largely self sufficient operation that produced some really great content.
This is exactly why I don't understand people buying consoles to play the types of games available for PC. The PC will ALWAYS be one step ahead of the console. You will never have the absolute BEST graphics on the console.
That said, there are reasons to buy a console: fun games. If you are looking for latest and greatest graphics and sound, the PC is it. But for games that aim for the fun factor, consoles have a lot more to choose from. I've got a Gamecube and PS2 at home and there is no shortage of insanely fun games for them. Katamari Damacy, Animal Crossing, Guitar Hero, Donkey Konga, Zelda, Mario, DDR, etc. are all just really fun games. My family has gotten hours of enjoyment from all of them, graphics be damned.
But then, I've never been the type that loves FPS or kill the zombie titles either. Give me a classic NES and I'm content. YMMV.
Oh, and BTW, if you have an indoor cat (or make your cat an indoor cat for the duration of your pregnancy) the risk of infection can be close to zero. Cats only shed the bacteria that cause this infection for a few weeks after they get infected. Further, an infection is only high risk if you are pregnant the first time you've had the infection. So really the biggest danger is the introduction of the bacteria into your home during pregnancy. By not allowing your cat to be near sources of infection (IOW: outside), you bring your chances of this WAY down (ie. less than insignificant). Your vet would have more information on all this.
Full disclosure: I'm a cat owner AND a hater of animal rights groups.
If my wife is pregnant, and there's a fraction of a percent chance that my cat could cause serious complications for her or the baby, guess what... the cat dies. Well, not really. But the cat is certainly gone.
While I can certainly agree with your point about priorities, this strikes me as nonsensical. Just about every activity in life carries with it risks. Statistically speaking, your hypothetical pregnant wife has many times more of a chance of losing her baby (and her life) by driving a car than by handling cat feces. But how many pregnant women avoid driving a car? Given the impracticality, I wouldn't think many.
This is really all about cost and benefit. As good as it may sound to say, you would not eliminate EVERYTHING in your life that causes your unborn baby even the slightest risk of death. Besides being impractical in many cases, it would just make you miserable for no measurable payoff. You may take precautions that can reduce the risk for many of the risks and that is normal for most parents to be.
Back to cats: assuming you own a cat, you bought the critter for a reason. It brings something to your life and that is the reason you got it. Now entirely eliminating that benefit for a tiny chance of infection (a percentage which is dwarfed by many, many other risks you probably take daily) just doesn't seem very rational to me. If the chance of infection via the cat were greater (IOW, higher than insignificant), or there were no reasonable precautions you could take against infection, then I could understand it.
Like most other issues, this gets blown out of proportion by reactionaries, especially in the media. The risk is small, but talking to some people, it would seem as though every cat in the world should be killed.
So get the facts before you go out making a bad decision. Some spend years training, getting to know and form a bond with a cat just to piss it away because of an irrational fear. That is just poor decision making, in my book.
The same could be said about the financial community. Many of the tech, research and trader workstations at some of the large banks went NeXT. (I'm not talking brick and mortor bank branches here--think trading). Same goes for some of the smaller trading firms at the time. Many divisions of UBS went this way in the early 90s.
Slashdot Mirror
It basically means, "accept all submissions that make sense." I'm not exactly sure what the benchmark for this would be, but a readable, logical, correctly filled out patent application would be a good start.
>>Keep all submissions secret for X [days|weeks|months]
>>>>Oh, I disagree. I think that the PTO should publish all submissions immediately, regardless of whether or not they
>>>>ultimately are patented. First, because government business should always be done in the open if at all possible.
>>>>Second, because if an inventor tries to submit an invention and only later withdraws it (perhaps after he decides he'd
>>>>rather not publish at all) then I don't see why we should honor his wishes to such an extent that he can avoid publication.
>>>>Third, because rival inventors should be able to be informed about what the PTO is actually doing on a day-to-day basis.
I think you are completely missing the point. The point isn't to allow patents and ideas to be buried by their creators. In fact, I would imagine that for the system described by the grandparent to work, all patents would have to be made completely public.
If I have it right, the grandparent is proposing a system in which the exclusive use of an idea is awarded based on whether other people come up with the same idea or not. Obvious may have been a poor term for it. I think this is a decent check: if more than one person comes up with the same idea at around the same time, why should any of them get exclusive use of that idea. If two people have the same idea at the same time, do we really want to award exclusive use to the person who can get to the patent office fastest? After the idea is determined to be unique/not-unique, *all* material related to the applications and to how the judgement is made should be made public.
>>Ideas are not patentable; only inventions are.
Tell that to the patent office. Personally, I think the difference between the two is purely semantic when put to practice. You don't need a working version of the product for a patent to be granted, putting many technological "inventions" squarely in the "idea" category, IMO.
>>I disagree. The application process fulfills this role already. It's time-consuming to file for a patent, and often
>>somewhat costly. This means that if an inventor doesn't himself think that the invention is economically worth
>>the trouble, he won't bother, and the invention will just be in the public domain rapidly, if anything happens.
The only thing this accomplishes is to stack the deck against the small time inventor. If the patent process is burdensome, from a money/paper-work perspective, the majority of applications will comes from corporations and those with money to waste. If the process is reduced, the lower bar to entry will allow many more people to participate and reap the rewards of developing ideas into products to be sold in the marketplace.
I really don't think that the grandparent's post was a magic bullet to solve our patent problems in the US. However, I like many of the ideas. Obviously *something* needs to be done to fix the current system, and I think these changes would improve things. One further thought I had is to build in a requirement that patent holders must either work toward implementing and commercializing their invention within some reasonable limits or be forced to give their invention over to the public domain. Some protection in the system is necessary to rid us of patent trolls.
Taft
We FORCE chickens to live in pens. Some chickens are FORCED to live in small cages. We FORCE cows to take hormones and antibiotics so they can produce more milk than is natural without becoming diseased. We FORCE veal calves to live in small cages. We FORCE sheep to be sheared. We FORCE cattle, chicken and other animals into corrals for slaughter. We FORCE electricity through their heads, or FORCE bolts into their heads or force cleavers or saws through their necks to kill them for processing.
See, this is what eating meat is all about: FORCING animals to do certain things so that we can eat their flesh, milk and eggs and use their by-products. Just because people look at gavage and say, "that must really hurt the animal," doesn't make it so. In fact, from all evidence available, it isn't detrimental to the animals' health. It certainly doesn't cause "exploding livers" as one poster put it.
In light of all this, it is absolutely relevant that foie gras animals are treated better than the average chicken raised for meat. We force animals to do a lot of things and from all evidence available, forced slaughter is still the most detrimental to the animal.
This "issue" is simply an attempt by animal rights extremists to open the door to further limits on society's ability to use and eat animals (even keep them as pets). It is a gateway issue for them. Don't be suckered into their little games.
Taft
It would seem we share the same penchant for labeling. From a previous post of yours: "But hopefully the ones with the odd view might end up living longer and healthier than the smug ones." I don't think either of us have exactly taken the higher ground here, do you?
To counter your arguments here, I'll use the very source you quote from, the New York Times Jun 20th article. From that article:
An infection with Toxoplasma may feel like nothing more than a mild case of the flu, and the symptoms pass once the parasite has snuggled itself away in its cysts. In later years, cysts occasionally break open, but the immune system quickly destroys most of the free parasites. The few survivors invade new cells.
This backs up my point about a healthy immune system effectively combating the latent form of the disease. Yes, in earlier stages, it spreads through hijacking immune cells. This does not appear to continue through the entire lifespan of the parasite.
Also from the article: "It's perfectly safe to keep a cat," [Dr. Milton M. McAllister] said. "Just keep it inside."
Which comes back to my original point. I've never tried to claim the disease wasn't insidious or not dangerous. In fact, I know of a first hand example of how bad it can be (a friend having contracted it and having it--or his immune system--attack his retinas). My only points are that: a) cat ownership is not dangerous and b) the disease is treatable (though not able to be eliminated). Incidentally, these are the only points you haven't provided evidence to counter (outside of claiming faulty logic and disagreeing with established research).
May I also point out that you've done an awful lot of hand waving and trying to discredit my sources (don't trust wikis!!) and logic, but have provided precious little evidence to back up any of your points. This argument is a exercise in futility. Which is exactly why I called it un-winnable. You aren't forming arguments in good faith and neither of our positions have changed (the only possible way to "win"--and I use that term loosely--an argument).
Finally, let me say how unbelievably creepy it is to have a complete stranger looking up info about you and using that in a random online argument. From your posts:
Don't assume understanding of computer technology conveys authority in reasoning in a different field in which one has no background...
Please do not apply financial industry reasoning about monetary risk to medical situations, that's not entirely valid.
My background (which is development for the financial industry--thanks for checking) has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Bringing it up in an attempt to discredit my logic and arguments is a very low form of debate. Grow up.
I'm done. I only hope that others reading this thread (how likely is that, anyway?) will see the evidence I've posted and see the truth (as it is currently understood) about this strange parasite. Good day, sir. You can have the final word if you want it.
Taft
Go for it, dude. Similarly, I am free to avoid blood transfusions because of the risk of HIV infection. It would be absolutely retarded given the level of risk involved in blood transfusions, but I could do it. As I said, to each his own.
Say, didn't the article say "Infected men ... are also more likely to break rules and take risks, be more independent, more anti-social, suspicious, jealous and morose." Not that that has any bearing on responses in this thread. But let me offer everyone some pyrimethamine with this morning's coffee. Bon appetit.
Clever. Rude and smug....but clever.
I don't know how to make this any more clear except by quoting from established medical research. You are just wrong. This study analyzed the effect of a combination of drugs on mice infected with different phases of toxoplasmosis:
http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/50/6/981 .pdf
Key quote:
"In all models, i.e. in acute, chronic and reactivated toxoplasmosis, the combined drugs were effective in terms of both significantly increased survival and decreased brain cyst burdens compared with no treatment."
This does not show that the immune system can effectively combat brain cysts (something I never claimed anyway--in the cyst phase, the immune system seems to be unable to effect the disease) or eliminate tachyzoites resulting from burst brain cysts (which I believe the immune system can do--your assumption that those tachyzoites remain in the brain and inaccessible to blood flow and the immune system is flawed, IMO). What this *does* show is that certain drug treatments have been successful in attacking brain cysts and significantly reducing their number. The study is interesting and is recommended reading.
This "meta study" was used to analyze treatments for toxoplasmosis in AIDS patients:
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/docs/659BAD5D-332A-4F8D- 9F93-8D0F470B2D32.asp
Key quote:
"Wallace found that Toxoplasma IgG antibody positivity did not correlate with cat ownership."
Anyway, cheers to you. This argument is obviously not "winnable." Neither of us have budged. That's cool. I'll keep on with my "financial analysis" and you can keep up with whatever methods you are using. Happy (and parasite free) living to you.
Taft
My point isn't ignore cats, it is: address the area of most risk. Decades of medical research have shown this to be an effective tool against the spread of disease. Addressing the most likely transmission vectors is simply logical. This isn't "financial industry reasoning about monetary risk", it is a matter of logic and disease prevention.
That is an invalid model. The immune system does not function as effectively in all parts of the body.
Fine. But studies of this particular parasite, with its particular life cycle, have shown that the immune system functions as I have described it. You are right that in weakened immune systems, the cysts spread faster, however treatment methods are available, as I mentioned.
No ill will was intended. But I've heard this argument before, and it always comes down to a fixation on cats above other, more credible risks. To each his own, I guess.
Taft
Whaaa? Based on research, undercooked meat is the most common transmission vector for the disease. This isn't a guess, it's a fact. Also a fact: unless you handle cat feces, you have almost no chance of getting the disease from a cat. Let me quote this again: "Although the pathogen has been detected on the fur of cats, it has not been found in an infectious form, and direct infection from handling cats is generally believed to be very rare."
This has been substantiated by research, testing the fur of infected cats for infectious material both in and out of the infectious stage of the disease. They have found no evidence that cats are infectious outside of their feces.
So, yes, you are right: it is *possible* to get this disease through contact with cats (specifically through contact with their fecal matter). However, it is much more likely that a person would get the disease through a much more common activity: eating. Not only is undercooked meat a danger (anything under well done), but also potentially vegetables. Rodents, cats and other animals that rummage through a garden could contaminate the soil. If those vegetables aren't fully washed or cooked, it is possible to get it from your garden. Hell, you could get it even if you didn't clean yourself thoroughly after contact with infected soil.
It all comes down to probability. There are *many* ways to contract this parasite. The most common way has nothing to do with cats. Cats themselves pose almost no risk if their litter is properly handled. Further, indoor cats have almost no chance of contracting the parasite due to a lack of infected prey. It is highly unlikely that you could ever really eliminate all possible causes of the disease, especially if you ever let others prepare your food (IOW: eat out at restaurants--cross-contamination in the kitchen is a bitch, read "Kitchen Confidential" if you don't believe me). Why would you get rid of cats when there are so many other risk factors that you can't eliminate? It is just senseless, or to use your words, invalid logic. If you really wanted to reduce your chances you would give up meat, never garden, wash and cook your produce, and never let others prepare your food. Are you really willing to make such sacrifices for a parasite that *might* effect your behavior but is still pretty treatable? Seems silly to me.
About the wikipedia article: it is quite well referenced. If you question the veracity of the statements on the page, follow the references and see for yourself. a) parasite causes brain lesions
I'm not sure where you got this from. In all of my reading on this parasite, I have never seen anything indicating that they cause lesions. Reference?
4) Papers indicate that the human immune system keeps the parasite 'under control' but do not say that it eliminates the parasite completely. So what happens to a person when the immune system is weakened by a bad case of the flu or anything else? Do infected people see a flareup of the parasite, but never realize that is going on?
You misunderstand the lifecycle of the parasite. Once past the infectious stage, sometimes the parasite goes into muscle and brain tissue and becomes a cyst. The immune system basically can do nothing about these cysts. The cysts then grow, caused by the parasite reproducing, then burst releasing tachyzoites into the blood and surrounding tissue. Left alone, these tachyzoites would become new cysts. However, the immune system attacks these tachyzoites, eliminating most of them before they can become cysts.
Since the cysts are what is believed to cause altered behavior in mammals a weakened immune system wouldn't let the parasite effect our behavior more. If the timing were bad and a cyst popped when your immune system was down, it could cause more cysts to form. Ho
Sorry, bad formatting, let's try this again...
How do you like your steak? Unless your answer is "well done", you are at greater risk for toxoplasmosis than any cat owner.
From wikipedia: "The most common means of transmission to humans is raw or undercooked meat."
Further, based on research it is *extremely* unlikely that you could pick up this parasite from casual contact with cats. Handling cat feces and not washing your hands? Sure. Petting a cat? No way.
From wikipedia: "Although the pathogen has been detected on the fur of cats, it has not been found in an infectious form, and direct infection from handling cats is generally believed to be very rare."
Further, cats must contract the disease from somewhere and are only infectious for a brief period right after contracting the disease. Which means that indoor cats that don't have access to infected prey can't get the disease (except by other transmission methods which are the same for humans). Or, if your cat already has toxoplasmosis, it means that it can't transmit the parasite to you (except for that brief period right after infection.
From wikipedia: "Cats excrete the pathogen in their faeces for a number of weeks after contracting the disease, generally by eating an infected rodent. Even then, cat faeces are not generally contagious for the first day or two after excretion, after which the cyst 'ripens' and becomes potentially pathogenic. Studies have shown that only about 2% of cats are shedding at any one time, and that shedding does not recur even after repeated exposure to the parasite."
Further, the disease *is* treatable. The cysts are resistant to common forms of treatment for parasites (antibiotics). However, there are treatments available which seem to eliminate the cysts.
From wikipedia: "The antibiotic atovaquone has been used to kill Toxoplasma cysts in situ in AIDS patients.[3] In mice, a combination of atovaquone with clindamycin seemed to optimally kill cysts."
Here is a link to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis
Every time a toxoplasmosis article comes up, someone will make a post like this, saying that *for them* cat ownership is simply too risky. This, of course, completely ignores the reality of the situation, where cat ownership is actually far less risky than eating, where mishandling of food or "undercooked" meat (may I be the first to say, yum!) are far more likely to score you an infectious parasite.
Please inform yourself and stop spouting this trollish bullshit.
Taft
How do you like your steak? Unless your answer is "well done", you are at greater risk for toxoplasmosis than any cat owner. From wikipedia: "The most common means of transmission to humans is raw or undercooked meat." Further, based on research it is *extremely* unlikely that you could pick up this parasite from casual contact with cats. Handling cat feces and not washing your hands? Sure. Petting a cat? No way. From wikipedia: "Although the pathogen has been detected on the fur of cats, it has not been found in an infectious form, and direct infection from handling cats is generally believed to be very rare." Further, cats must contract the disease from somewhere and are only infectious for a brief period right after contracting the disease. Which means that indoor cats that don't have access to infected prey can't get the disease (except by other transmission methods which are the same for humans). Or, if your cat already has toxoplasmosis, it means that it can't transmit the parasite to you (except for that brief period right after infection. From wikipedia: "Cats excrete the pathogen in their faeces for a number of weeks after contracting the disease, generally by eating an infected rodent. Even then, cat faeces are not generally contagious for the first day or two after excretion, after which the cyst 'ripens' and becomes potentially pathogenic. Studies have shown that only about 2% of cats are shedding at any one time, and that shedding does not recur even after repeated exposure to the parasite." Further, the disease *is* treatable. The cysts are resistant to common forms of treatment for parasites (antibiotics). However, there are treatments available which seem to eliminate the cysts. From wikipedia: "The antibiotic atovaquone has been used to kill Toxoplasma cysts in situ in AIDS patients.[3] In mice, a combination of atovaquone with clindamycin seemed to optimally kill cysts." Here is a link to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis Every time a toxoplasmosis article comes up, someone will make a post like this, saying that *for them* cat ownership is simply too risky. This, of course, completely ignores the reality of the situation, where cat ownership is actually far less risky than eating, where mishandling of food or "undercooked" meat (may I be the first to say, yum!) are far more likely to score you an infectious parasite. Please inform yourself and stop spouting this trollish bullshit. Taft
Taft
Who are these companies and what can possibly be their justification for such a blanket policy. I can understand for some ultra-high security/uptime systems with incredibly strict standards and processes who would need to put third party code through an extensive and expensive audit. But for the rest of us? No jUnit? log4j? Is Boost allowed? Good lord, I can't imagine programming in such a world.
I hope I never work for one of these firms.
Taft
However, for subjects I have only a passing interest in (for instance netflix usage), it's nice to have an editor pick through the crap and give a nice summary of the thread. It's much easier to read and takes far less time. It's like slashdot crib notes.
Taft
Look closer at the passage you quoted. Here it is again:
"Has anybody ever written to you about this? How many people actually recompile their OS X kernels?" I do, for one. I rattled off some of those groups that value open source in its fullest sense. I included academia, high-performance and high-throughput computing experts, and shops that want to roll in system-level enhancements before Apple gets around to packaging them. He never says that these groups contacted him, which I sincerely doubt they did. Instead, he says that these groups value open source in its fullest sense. This may be true, but whether they are complaining about this is another matter entirely.
Taft
According to this article, Shenzhen has the highest per capita income of any city in China, at around $209 per month. The per capita monthly income for the 35 major cities in China is around $80. Note that is per capita income. Also note that this is referring to cities, not rural areas where the pay is sure to be lower.
In conclusion: you're wrong. The picture of average income you painted is woefully inaccurate.
I'm not saying that Apple isn't wrong here. I'm just saying that you are spreading misconceptions.
Taft
Despite the executable names differing by a character in current versions of the OS (explorer.exe vs. iexplorer.exe), what is the material difference between the two? Try opening an "IE" window and typing c: in the location bar. Unless you've screwed with the menu/view settings the window will look nearly identical to a file explorer window. Now try opening a windows explorer window and type http://microsoft.com/ in the location bar. The window will now look just like an IE window. There is no material difference between the two. Microsoft has said they are tied on many occasions in the past. Who's exactly is nitpicking here? (Notice I left off the flamebait adjectives. I'll refrain from namecalling...)
You're confusing things. The fact that Outlook does 8 things is an application design issue, not a technical issue with how the OS is put together. Groupware customers want "all in one". Maybe you don't, but who cares.
I think you are the only one making this distinction. The original poster left it at "software," so where did you get the idea he was ony referring to OS components? In fact, I would say he was referring largely to non-OS components. Apple, in their overall application design, favors small and focused applications over large "do everything" applications. They are all designed to work well together, but that doesn't stop anyone else from writing applications that work equally well with everything else. Inherently, when components or applications are small and have a focused feature set, it is easier to swap out that functionality with other, similar software.
Maybe you missed the part where I AGREED with you about Apple not making their components as easily replacable as they could be. Things like the Finder aren't easily replaced. However, there are many applications which ARE easily replaced (like the dock--see here for an example: http://www.softchaos.com/products/ws3/ove.html). If you hadn't noticed, I focused on the application design aspect of Apple and Microsoft's software. You, apparently, are only interested in what bits are replacable.
Taft
Well, the last point not withstanding, Apple has a history of building applications for very focused tasks. You browse and open files with the Finder. You browse the internet with Safari. You send e-mail with Mail. You organize your life with iCal. You manage contacts with Address Book. Etc. Etc. They have--annoyingly, in my opinion--taken a more MS approach on certain applications, as of late. Previewing in the Finder, for instance. Or the grouping of music and movies under the "media" umbrella in iTunes. But on the whole, their applications stay in their own little sandboxes.
Microsoft tends to take the opposite approach. Outlook does contacts, calendar and mail. Explorer does...everything?
Sure, Apple makes their applications play well through system services. But interoperability is just good practice and doesn't fundamentally change the "one application per task model." Why wouldn't you want your contacts easily accessible from an e-mail composition window, for example. But that is as far as Apple takes it; if you want to manage your contacts, move on to the next app.
Similarly, putting code to accomplish common tasks in shared libraries is just common sense. For example WebKit which allows Mail and Dashboard tools to render HTML. Notice neither of these apps browse the web. Html is a file format and allowing applications to understand this format is very different than them becoming web browsers in and of themselves.
Now the ability to remove any of these applications from your system is another matter entirely. With the exception of IE, I largely agree that removing the Apple components is roughly as difficult as removing the Windows components. That is an area I personally would like Apple to change their ways. Even if they only allowed it to be done from the command line, allowing the "system level" services like the Finder to be replaced would be a nice feature of the OS.
Taft
Someone else commented on this, but I think they got it wrong, so I'll throw in my 2 cents.
From my understanding, the gamecube is very similar in power to the PS2. The Gamecube has a slightly better GPU and a slightly less powerful processor than the PS2. Both were quite a bit behind the XBox in terms of power. Given that the Wii is supposed to be more powerful in both the graphics and CPU, one would hope that they are going to at least best the capabilities of the original XBox. We'll have to wait and see how much better they can do, though. Especially considering the lack of HD capabilities.
However, it is worth considering what makes a "next-gen" console really "next-gen". Granted better graphics contribute to a more immersive experience, as you pointed out. But isn't it possible that a controller that puts you more physically in the action could accomplish the same thing? Hell, given some of the demos at or before E3, it seems to me the Wii could be MORE immersive than its competitors.
But this very well might be a very subjective thing. I know many people who fill their living rooms with gigantic TVs and sound systems to get more immersed in their movie experiences. For me, its less about being overwhelmed by visuals and sounds and more about the content being delivered. I've still got my crappy old tube TV from 1999 and I haven't really had an urge to upgrade, even after seeing my brother's "drool-worthy" new HDTV. So it will be interesting to see what people find to be more of an immersive experience. I do think Nintendo has a shot at besting their competitors with their unique approach to "next-gen", though.
Taft
Seriously, though, I can't think of a reason a person would find syntax highlighting not useful. Then, to take it further, why a person would find it so UNhelpful that they found the need to turn it off. What is it, exactly? Does it somehow distract you? Are you color blind? Do you think it slows down your editing experience? Does it mess up highlighting (something I've never experienced)?
Given that a document you are editing has content that has a well structured syntax, highlighting will help you make visual distinctions between unlike syntactical structures. This makes individual structures easier to pick out, increasing your ability to act on those structures. It's really just a question of speed.
Then, maybe I'm just too slow. Maybe for certain geniuses in our midst their brains instantly recognize constructs as distinct without any visual aide at all. If so, all the more power to ya. I'll continue to use my highlighting.
Taft
http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceed ings/javavm02/full_papers/jacob/jacob_html/node12. html
http://www.shudo.net/jit/perf/
IBM's VM looks very favorable in these tests. You can get it for Linux (also available for windows and other platforms) here:
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/lin ux/download.html
Enjoy!
Taft
Seriously, though, there are other problem domains out there. A lot of them, in fact. And even in web development, depending on the complexity and context of the solution, might require vast amounts of code that never interact with a GUI of any kind. When you evaluate these languages and platforms in context's outside of web development, Java starts to look far more robust and flexible.
As another poster pointed out, where are the buffered readers for ruby/php? Sure File.open("name") might LOOK nice, but Java's addition of a buffer solves a common problem many programmers in the past needed to solve by hand. There are about a thousand of these examples where Java's framework is more complex than its ruby/php counterpart, but for good reason: it adds much needed functionality for the enterprise developer.
Taft
The piece you linked to is a travesty of incompleteness. David Boaz tunes into the two NPR affiliates in Washington one night to find comentary from two people he considers to the left, so *obviously* NPR is irreparably biased. I just love that logic. His commentary is sloppy, shallow on evidence and comically biased towards anything that doesn't conform to his exact personal beliefs.
Additionally, he doesn't make the distinction between NPR the not-for-profit organization and NPR member stations, a common tactic of those die hard conservatives who hate the very idea of public radio. Yes, member stations often receive funding from the CPB, and those stations go on to buy NPR content, if they choose. But NPR is not congressionally funded. At most it competes with other not-for-profits for very small (relative to their other funding) federal grants.
I encourage you to actually listen to NPR and try to objectively judge for yourself whether they have bias. Most who assume bias and try this little experiment are surprised at just how good a job they do. I also encourage you not to take as gospel the words of extremist conservatives like Mr. Boaz. He has an agenda that should be clear as day to anyone. His objectivity on such issues is non-existant.
I wouldn't (with a straight face) link to Al Franken and say "here's your proof." I suggest you stop trying to pull the same on me.
Taft
The 13% figure that you quoted as coming from CPB is actually describing where individual public radio stations get their operating funds. NPR (which does not operate individual radio stations) receives less than 2% of its operating budget from competitive federal grants. They compete with any other not-for-profit to receive those grants. Read the page you quoted again more carefully as the information is all there.
You might be interested in reading exactly how NPR works. Check out this link for more information: http://www.npr.org/about/nprworks.html The bottom line is that because individual public radio stations operate independently from NPR, they are (more or less) free to choose their programming. This is why not all NPR content is available on all stations across the US.
To sum up, you can bitch and whine all you want about the feds supporting local public radio. However, NPR itself is a largely self sufficient operation that produced some really great content.
Taft
That said, there are reasons to buy a console: fun games. If you are looking for latest and greatest graphics and sound, the PC is it. But for games that aim for the fun factor, consoles have a lot more to choose from. I've got a Gamecube and PS2 at home and there is no shortage of insanely fun games for them. Katamari Damacy, Animal Crossing, Guitar Hero, Donkey Konga, Zelda, Mario, DDR, etc. are all just really fun games. My family has gotten hours of enjoyment from all of them, graphics be damned.
But then, I've never been the type that loves FPS or kill the zombie titles either. Give me a classic NES and I'm content. YMMV.
Taft
Taft
If my wife is pregnant, and there's a fraction of a percent chance that my cat could cause serious complications for her or the baby, guess what... the cat dies. Well, not really. But the cat is certainly gone.
While I can certainly agree with your point about priorities, this strikes me as nonsensical. Just about every activity in life carries with it risks. Statistically speaking, your hypothetical pregnant wife has many times more of a chance of losing her baby (and her life) by driving a car than by handling cat feces. But how many pregnant women avoid driving a car? Given the impracticality, I wouldn't think many.
Further, the most common, by far, method of infection is through raw or improperly cooked foods. I'm not sure of the statistics on this one, but after reading Kitchen Confidential, it would seem plausible that eating in a restaurant is more of a risk than owning a cat.
This is really all about cost and benefit. As good as it may sound to say, you would not eliminate EVERYTHING in your life that causes your unborn baby even the slightest risk of death. Besides being impractical in many cases, it would just make you miserable for no measurable payoff. You may take precautions that can reduce the risk for many of the risks and that is normal for most parents to be.
Back to cats: assuming you own a cat, you bought the critter for a reason. It brings something to your life and that is the reason you got it. Now entirely eliminating that benefit for a tiny chance of infection (a percentage which is dwarfed by many, many other risks you probably take daily) just doesn't seem very rational to me. If the chance of infection via the cat were greater (IOW, higher than insignificant), or there were no reasonable precautions you could take against infection, then I could understand it.
Like most other issues, this gets blown out of proportion by reactionaries, especially in the media. The risk is small, but talking to some people, it would seem as though every cat in the world should be killed.
So get the facts before you go out making a bad decision. Some spend years training, getting to know and form a bond with a cat just to piss it away because of an irrational fear. That is just poor decision making, in my book.
Taft
Taft