Why does this deserve mention on/.? Does every new program that works with Rendezvous get/. story mention? My friend wrote a Rendezvous mp3 client. Lets post it to the front page!
If there's enough incentive they will write against any API
I agree. They wrote drivers against the Windows 95, 95, 2000, XP, NT, APIs. Moving from NT to 2000 to XP isn't as big a difference as moving from Windows 9x. I doubt (but don't really know) that the move from linux 2.4 to 2.6 will be as big as the difference between the 9x series and the NT series, probably about the same difference as 2000 to XP.
Until you transfer that file to your computer and slice it off with common video editing software, that is.;)
Except the whole point of this machine is *ease of use*. Record TV shows and save them to DVD. What could be easier. Now if the machine allowed to cut out commericials on the machine itself, that would be cool
for starters humans are capable analyzing how their brains work
Maybe you should reread what I *actually* said, which was "humans are incapable of changing or analyzing much of how their own brain works."
Look, no amount of introspection is going to allow me to figure out even what my brain *looks* like, let alone that it has neurons and uses electricity. A human can learn how other the brains of other humans work, but aren't going to figure out how their own works. They can only assume by similarity that their brain works like everyone elses.
However, humans do change how their brains work, every second of every day.
Maybe at some high level, but those changes still work within a lower level of neurons and electrical signals that can't be changed. I can't consiously change the way that the electrons move around in my head any more than a computer can decide that it wants it's AND gates to start acting like OR gates.
Not only were your statements unsupported, they were patenly false.
How were they false? They may have been unsupported, but this is slashdot, not a peer reviewed scientific journal which requires evidence of everything I say. Others have my opinions, who are you to claim they're false? You yourself claim these are things that *no one* knows about for sure.
Here's some free advice, keep your mouth shut and let everyone believe your a fool, rather than opening your mouth and proving it. It takes a fool, full of arrogance to make blanket statements about will or will not be discovered in the future. Suprises will come, and we may or may not create self aware software, time will tell... you, certainly, will not.
What's your point? That things will be different in the future? That's a newsflash. I have some advice for you. Why don't you simply contradict my arguments, instead of trying to make claims about my lack of intelligence in order to try to invalidate my claims.
Pardon, but Word Perfect is a heaping pile compared to Office.
Hardly. I know a lot of folks who like WordPerfect a lot better than Word. It has a lot of features that are actually useful as opposed to Word which has a lot of features designed to make you do what MS wants you to do.
Center on page, view codes, etc. just to name a few.
Why can't Slashdot run a BitTorrent tracker so that folks can post torrents along with their submissions to help the bandwidth problem? It's a perfect solution to the slashdot effect on larger files. And the bandwidth hit on/. is very small.
What does annotation have to do with sequencing, other than it comes after sequencing?
If a genome is sequenced, it's sequenced. True, the human genome project is a little quick to declare completion when it isn't really done. But other projects aren't so quick to declare completion.
Also, many projects are required to release results early by the NSF. They don't want to fund projects that are going to use their money to gather data and then hoard it.
As much as we humans want to give their extreme complexity some sort of will, they don't have it. Computers move bits around. That's it. It's humans who interpret their actions as doing something.
Contrary to Star Trek, sufficiently complex machines aren't going to suddenly become self-aware and start changing themselves. A computer is incapable and will always be incapable of doing so, just like humans are incapable of changing or analyzing much of how their own brain works.
Except that the link posted in the post is for microbial genomes only. There are a lot of other genomes that have sequenced. NCBI is better place to look for this info.
Here is the *definitive* page for completed genomes:
Well - they would have to buy the rights from Replay I would imagine.
I think the argument before was that if Replay goes out of business, then the format of the schedule data would be worthless, but "some dumb judge would say that it's actually worth something." Well, I think the parent poster correctly points out that it *is* worth something, to these other companies, and they would be willing to buy the rights to it.
The replay's are hardcoded to specific addresses/phone numbers to get this info - along with a specific format.
I'm sure that with a little doing, these companies could secure the same addresses and phone numbers and would buy the format from whoever ends up owning it.
Have you actually tried to get it to work under mozilla or phoenix? Do you even know what the hell you're talking about? It's obvious that you don't. "Oh, WAAA! It doesn't install with a single click in Linux!" Guess what, nothing does.
It *isn't* a IE browser plugin as many folks have claimed. The installer simply installs the program like any other program, and then adds the correct mime-type and windows extension handler to IE. THAT'S IT. Writing an installer that makes it easy to install in Windows is a good thing, since doing so adds large group of users to the user base.
All the tools to setup torrented downloads work best in Linux. I use BitTorrent in Linux all the time and it runs just like any other program. It's very nice.
Installing almost any program like this that works well with mozilla or phoenix is impossible. Tried to install the Flash plugin? It sucks rocks. Bram and the BT crew can't be held responsible for the fact that creating a slick interface to Linux browsers is like trying to keep 10 polygamous wives happy. Nothing works the same way twice.
I think the original poster's point was that XML allows for so much abiguousness, that every tool seems to do it differently and none of them can understand each other. The standard should be so strict as to *require* that if the same representation of a "piece of data" is made by two different tools, the representation should be exactly the same. No reason to say, "oh, you can put an endline there if you want, or you can end a tag these two different ways, whatever suits your fancy.
Sure, the tools should have been written so that they all followed whatever standard is out there, but we all know that that doesn't happen. The standard should *force* the tool writer to be anal about the standard and follow all the conventions.
A good compiler should do as good a job as possible to warn you of errors, before they become runtime errors (because those are harder to find). In the same way, a language should be designed such that more errors are compiler than run-time. In the same way, a standard should nearly impossible to create a file that doesn't follow the standard perfectly and still work. XML folks actually tout the opposite as a benefit!
A tool is written and most of the time is tested with itself, and thus *seems* to work, but doesn't really.
Thank you. This of course, was my point, contrary to what other folks who replied to my post seem to have gotten out of it.
I thought much of the goal of Mandrake was "slick-easy". If I want to rewrite my startup scripts, pour over READMEs to make configure put things where it's supposed to, and recompile my kernel for shits and giggles, then I'll run slack. If I buy Mandrake, then I expect a certain level easiness.
I consider myself a fairly knowledgable linux user, but I switched from debian to Suse because while I *could* do all kinds of things myself, I don't particularly enjoy wasting my time. I would much rather spend my time *using* software than *getting it to work*. Who knows, maybe I'll switch to Mandrake, but it doesn't sound like it's as foolproof as I was lead to believe.
maybe you should read your post. Sounds like you made quite a bit more of an effort than the parent. That's a lot of trouble to go through for a mandrake user.
Except if you're using an operating system that has tools flexable enough to allow you to set up a processing pipeline. Capture -> Compressor -> etc. One example of this is Linux.
Actually, these are probably the very positions that are being held or going to be held by a H1B. The truth is that they found their H1B in other ways already and now are fulfilling the requirement to NOT find another qualified worker.
America's wealth and power is a combination of a decent political system, some enlightened policies in the 19th and 20th century, and lucky historical accident.
Right. Policies that protected our interests. Policies that wouldn't have worked if we would have let cheap labor flow freely to and from countries without such policies. Policies that are still in effect and are socially and morally better than the free for all the existed before. Policies that were only created because Americans felt it important enough to fight (and die) for. And I'm not talking about war. I'm talking about the war of labor against the bosses. A fight that the folks in the sweat shops haven't fought yet.
Nobody is entitled to wealth, and certainly not because of their ancestry or historical accident. You get what you get. Count yourself lucky that you were born in such a wealthy country, but don't expect it to last--it never does.
But you expect me to just sit back and let it happen? I have every right to protect my interests and to do whatever protects my and my country's interests. When we have a true world government and everyone has to work by the same rules and playing field, then fine, let regulated capitalism work, but until then, I'm going to protect the freedoms I enjoy. Freedoms like, freedom from oppressive employers.
And as for me benefiting from the hard work of my ancestors. Haven't you ever heard of the phrase, "I'm doing this for my children, and my children's children."? They did it for me. They worked for me. And I must continue that tradition and work to protect this great nation for my children and their children.
No one is entitled to anything but freedom. And I'm going to use that freedom.
their economy was never destroyed by a war (not to mention 2 wars)
Europe was revaged by the 2 wars that I think you're talking about, and they seem to be doing pretty well for themselves. So does Japan. What's your point?
Market forces dictate that people offering a good (whatever that good is) cheaper will sell more of it driving out of business thet people that sell the same good more expensive.
What you're talking about is *pure capitalism*. Capitalism without some regulation is bad social policy. Pure capitalism creates non-unionized labor, child labor, insanely low wages, insanely long work hours, insanely rich bosses, insanely poor population, and other insanely bad things. The pro-labor policies are in reality, not just good social policy, but good economic policy.
In America, where regular folks get paid a decent wage by law, they are able to buy goods they wouldn't have been able to before labor reform. Economic activity skyrockets and the middle-class is created. And the middle-class is the reason that America is such a powerful economic power. The super-rich that existed pre-labor-reform couldn't spend their money fast enough to create that kind of economic activity.
Employing folks where such labor reform doesn't exist makes an end run around this system. While tech laborers may be making more than the U.S. minimum wage in these places, the only reason that they accept such lower wages is because their country is full of people making pennies a day. This makes the cost of living so much lower that half my wage buys twice my wage in their country.
We should be promoting labor reform where it doesn't exist so that other countries can be out customers, not exporting our labor, *and money*, overseas. And don't tell me that they can't do it. The same situation exists in the third world that existed in the U.S. 100 years ago. A few very rich oppressing the masses by power of money. Labor reform is needed there and would work. They're not all poor.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called subscription.
Why does this deserve mention on /.? Does every new program that works with Rendezvous get /. story mention? My friend wrote a Rendezvous mp3 client. Lets post it to the front page!
If there's enough incentive they will write against any API
I agree. They wrote drivers against the Windows 95, 95, 2000, XP, NT, APIs. Moving from NT to 2000 to XP isn't as big a difference as moving from Windows 9x. I doubt (but don't really know) that the move from linux 2.4 to 2.6 will be as big as the difference between the 9x series and the NT series, probably about the same difference as 2000 to XP.
Until you transfer that file to your computer and slice it off with common video editing software, that is. ;)
Except the whole point of this machine is *ease of use*. Record TV shows and save them to DVD. What could be easier. Now if the machine allowed to cut out commericials on the machine itself, that would be cool
100 songs apiece of this same type of free music? The music was only halfway decent... nothing to sneeze at
He's suggesting that somebody other than mp3.com (Who doesn't have access to the BIG names or talent), would do this, like SONY.
for starters humans are capable analyzing how their brains work
Maybe you should reread what I *actually* said, which was "humans are incapable of changing or analyzing much of how their own brain works."
Look, no amount of introspection is going to allow me to figure out even what my brain *looks* like, let alone that it has neurons and uses electricity. A human can learn how other the brains of other humans work, but aren't going to figure out how their own works. They can only assume by similarity that their brain works like everyone elses.
However, humans do change how their brains work, every second of every day.
Maybe at some high level, but those changes still work within a lower level of neurons and electrical signals that can't be changed. I can't consiously change the way that the electrons move around in my head any more than a computer can decide that it wants it's AND gates to start acting like OR gates.
Not only were your statements unsupported, they were patenly false.
How were they false? They may have been unsupported, but this is slashdot, not a peer reviewed scientific journal which requires evidence of everything I say. Others have my opinions, who are you to claim they're false? You yourself claim these are things that *no one* knows about for sure.
Here's some free advice, keep your mouth shut and let everyone believe your a fool, rather than opening your mouth and proving it. It takes a fool, full of arrogance to make blanket statements about will or will not be discovered in the future. Suprises will come, and we may or may not create self aware software, time will tell... you, certainly, will not.
What's your point? That things will be different in the future? That's a newsflash. I have some advice for you. Why don't you simply contradict my arguments, instead of trying to make claims about my lack of intelligence in order to try to invalidate my claims.
Pardon, but Word Perfect is a heaping pile compared to Office.
Hardly. I know a lot of folks who like WordPerfect a lot better than Word. It has a lot of features that are actually useful as opposed to Word which has a lot of features designed to make you do what MS wants you to do.
Center on page, view codes, etc. just to name a few.
Why can't Slashdot run a BitTorrent tracker so that folks can post torrents along with their submissions to help the bandwidth problem? It's a perfect solution to the slashdot effect on larger files. And the bandwidth hit on /. is very small.
What does annotation have to do with sequencing, other than it comes after sequencing?
If a genome is sequenced, it's sequenced. True, the human genome project is a little quick to declare completion when it isn't really done. But other projects aren't so quick to declare completion.
Also, many projects are required to release results early by the NSF. They don't want to fund projects that are going to use their money to gather data and then hoard it.
Have you ever even programmed a computer?
As much as we humans want to give their extreme complexity some sort of will, they don't have it. Computers move bits around. That's it. It's humans who interpret their actions as doing something.
Contrary to Star Trek, sufficiently complex machines aren't going to suddenly become self-aware and start changing themselves. A computer is incapable and will always be incapable of doing so, just like humans are incapable of changing or analyzing much of how their own brain works.
Except that the link posted in the post is for microbial genomes only. There are a lot of other genomes that have sequenced. NCBI is better place to look for this info.
m e
Here is the *definitive* page for completed genomes:
http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=Geno
Well - they would have to buy the rights from Replay I would imagine.
I think the argument before was that if Replay goes out of business, then the format of the schedule data would be worthless, but "some dumb judge would say that it's actually worth something." Well, I think the parent poster correctly points out that it *is* worth something, to these other companies, and they would be willing to buy the rights to it.
The replay's are hardcoded to specific addresses/phone numbers to get this info - along with a specific format.
I'm sure that with a little doing, these companies could secure the same addresses and phone numbers and would buy the format from whoever ends up owning it.
RTFM.
All you have to do it restart the client and point it to the same file you started downloading to in the first place and it will resume the download.
Have you actually tried to get it to work under mozilla or phoenix? Do you even know what the hell you're talking about? It's obvious that you don't. "Oh, WAAA! It doesn't install with a single click in Linux!" Guess what, nothing does.
It *isn't* a IE browser plugin as many folks have claimed. The installer simply installs the program like any other program, and then adds the correct mime-type and windows extension handler to IE. THAT'S IT. Writing an installer that makes it easy to install in Windows is a good thing, since doing so adds large group of users to the user base.
All the tools to setup torrented downloads work best in Linux. I use BitTorrent in Linux all the time and it runs just like any other program. It's very nice.
Installing almost any program like this that works well with mozilla or phoenix is impossible. Tried to install the Flash plugin? It sucks rocks. Bram and the BT crew can't be held responsible for the fact that creating a slick interface to Linux browsers is like trying to keep 10 polygamous wives happy. Nothing works the same way twice.
Do you really think that there is much chance of someone dying because of a buggy mp3 player? Or an Amazon.com web site page coming up incorrectly.
When lives are on the line, software has to be checked and rechecked just like any bridge would have to be.
huh? What's your point?
This bill is for spoofing cell phone calls!
Then maybe they should write the bill that way.
You make a good point, but don't go far enough.
I think the original poster's point was that XML allows for so much abiguousness, that every tool seems to do it differently and none of them can understand each other. The standard should be so strict as to *require* that if the same representation of a "piece of data" is made by two different tools, the representation should be exactly the same. No reason to say, "oh, you can put an endline there if you want, or you can end a tag these two different ways, whatever suits your fancy.
Sure, the tools should have been written so that they all followed whatever standard is out there, but we all know that that doesn't happen. The standard should *force* the tool writer to be anal about the standard and follow all the conventions.
A good compiler should do as good a job as possible to warn you of errors, before they become runtime errors (because those are harder to find). In the same way, a language should be designed such that more errors are compiler than run-time. In the same way, a standard should nearly impossible to create a file that doesn't follow the standard perfectly and still work. XML folks actually tout the opposite as a benefit!
A tool is written and most of the time is tested with itself, and thus *seems* to work, but doesn't really.
Thank you. This of course, was my point, contrary to what other folks who replied to my post seem to have gotten out of it.
I thought much of the goal of Mandrake was "slick-easy". If I want to rewrite my startup scripts, pour over READMEs to make configure put things where it's supposed to, and recompile my kernel for shits and giggles, then I'll run slack. If I buy Mandrake, then I expect a certain level easiness.
I consider myself a fairly knowledgable linux user, but I switched from debian to Suse because while I *could* do all kinds of things myself, I don't particularly enjoy wasting my time. I would much rather spend my time *using* software than *getting it to work*. Who knows, maybe I'll switch to Mandrake, but it doesn't sound like it's as foolproof as I was lead to believe.
maybe you should read your post. Sounds like you made quite a bit more of an effort than the parent. That's a lot of trouble to go through for a mandrake user.
Except if you're using an operating system that has tools flexable enough to allow you to set up a processing pipeline. Capture -> Compressor -> etc. One example of this is Linux.
Use a fifo.
Actually, these are probably the very positions that are being held or going to be held by a H1B. The truth is that they found their H1B in other ways already and now are fulfilling the requirement to NOT find another qualified worker.
America's wealth and power is a combination of a decent political system, some enlightened policies in the 19th and 20th century, and lucky historical accident.
Right. Policies that protected our interests. Policies that wouldn't have worked if we would have let cheap labor flow freely to and from countries without such policies. Policies that are still in effect and are socially and morally better than the free for all the existed before. Policies that were only created because Americans felt it important enough to fight (and die) for. And I'm not talking about war. I'm talking about the war of labor against the bosses. A fight that the folks in the sweat shops haven't fought yet.
Nobody is entitled to wealth, and certainly not because of their ancestry or historical accident. You get what you get. Count yourself lucky that you were born in such a wealthy country, but don't expect it to last--it never does.
But you expect me to just sit back and let it happen? I have every right to protect my interests and to do whatever protects my and my country's interests. When we have a true world government and everyone has to work by the same rules and playing field, then fine, let regulated capitalism work, but until then, I'm going to protect the freedoms I enjoy. Freedoms like, freedom from oppressive employers.
And as for me benefiting from the hard work of my ancestors. Haven't you ever heard of the phrase, "I'm doing this for my children, and my children's children."? They did it for me. They worked for me. And I must continue that tradition and work to protect this great nation for my children and their children.
No one is entitled to anything but freedom. And I'm going to use that freedom.
their economy was never destroyed by a war (not to mention 2 wars)
Europe was revaged by the 2 wars that I think you're talking about, and they seem to be doing pretty well for themselves. So does Japan. What's your point?
Market forces dictate that people offering a good (whatever that good is) cheaper will sell more of it driving out of business thet people that sell the same good more expensive.
What you're talking about is *pure capitalism*. Capitalism without some regulation is bad social policy. Pure capitalism creates non-unionized labor, child labor, insanely low wages, insanely long work hours, insanely rich bosses, insanely poor population, and other insanely bad things. The pro-labor policies are in reality, not just good social policy, but good economic policy.
In America, where regular folks get paid a decent wage by law, they are able to buy goods they wouldn't have been able to before labor reform. Economic activity skyrockets and the middle-class is created. And the middle-class is the reason that America is such a powerful economic power. The super-rich that existed pre-labor-reform couldn't spend their money fast enough to create that kind of economic activity.
Employing folks where such labor reform doesn't exist makes an end run around this system. While tech laborers may be making more than the U.S. minimum wage in these places, the only reason that they accept such lower wages is because their country is full of people making pennies a day. This makes the cost of living so much lower that half my wage buys twice my wage in their country.
We should be promoting labor reform where it doesn't exist so that other countries can be out customers, not exporting our labor, *and money*, overseas. And don't tell me that they can't do it. The same situation exists in the third world that existed in the U.S. 100 years ago. A few very rich oppressing the masses by power of money. Labor reform is needed there and would work. They're not all poor.