It's become a pain in the rear to find proper drivers for W2K, I dunno, maybe Lenovo provides 2K drivers for their ultra-portables. I can't be bothered to look. But for most vendors, no drivers exist and the XP drivers either don't install or don't work properly.
Sometimes it surprises me how funny people can be without realizing it.
"For example, a 1% error in the estimate of the age of Earth is far different from a six orders of magnitude error (like the young Earthers' claims)"
This assumes that there is only a 1% error. You conveniently didn't answer the question regarding the 4.5 billion year figure as of 50 years ago. What was it then? Was it a 1% difference? By using "1%" you attempt to imply that the difference usually is 1%, which I would like to see explained using historical trends. You see, scientific opinion changes all of the time. But historical data regarding what dates were claimed 50 years ago? Well, a little harder to reverse those without collecting and destroying some very humorous old books and papers.
""Exponentially" less data? Doesn't mean a thing" "For example, a 1% error in the estimate of the age of Earth is far different from a six orders of magnitude error"
This is such great comedy. You are contradicting your own statement within 2 sentences.
"As I see it", "Sure this will all be improved in 50 years", "but I don't see a fundamental change happening".
Much of your post is one big disclaimer (besides the contradictory parts).
"We know many physical constants to many digits of accuracy" - unconnected, since we have very little data on these distant bodies.
"We have good models at the cosmological and subatomic levels" - translated to 'I believe these models'.
"We have far better experimental data" - on a galaxy far, far away?
"but I don't see a fundamental change happening that will invalidate current estimates to the point that they are considered "wrong"." - 50 years ago, we would have seen a similar argument, from similar people like you.
Thank you for so effectively proving my point. You believe what you are told from a subset of a small group of people, despite the fact that those same groups of people keep doing the same stupid things decade after decade. It's useless information, partially because it is incorrect, and partially because it has no bearing on our life. They are somewhat safe in that no one's life depends on their bogus numbers, and that their audience will ignore the hugely erroneous figure once they come out with a new figure. Wikipedia articles will be updated, and everyone will laud the advance of "science", when in fact no science is involved with date-setting of this nature.
"So how wrong do you think they are? Care to give a range?"
I don't claim to know. I'm saying they don't.
"here's considerable data indicating that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, using radioactive decay and samples from numerous solar system bodies including asteroids, the Moon, and even Mars. Further, the estimated age of the Sun is consistent with this as well (it can be estimated both by it's relative size, mass, and temperature, as well as by it's lithium content)"
I'm not actually addressing the Earth's age. I don't actually care how old it is, though I'm sure the 4.5 billion year figure is wrong, too. Do you really think that 50 years from now, people will still think the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? How old did they think the Earth was 50 years ago? And you can't say 4,499,999,950 years:)
What I am addressing is the even more ridiculous, given the exponentially smaller set of data we can obtain, setting of the 12.8 billion year old figure for the galaxy in question.
As far as "nonsense" is concerned, that's exactly what setting a date is. You have no position for what things looked like even 200 years ago, and you have way too little data to extrapolate from it even if you did. Science is actually about learning through observation and testing, not by guesswork and bold, unsubstantiated claims.
No, nothing to do with the Earth, nor do I actually care how old anything is. In fact, I would say that no one should care philosophically, as it has no bearing on anything regarding religion AFAIAC. If you believe in God, that belief should not be shaken because you cannot pin down the Earth's birthday.
"ust because they are not 100% sure it is exactly that year dosen't mean they shouldn't release the findings."
Actually, they aren't sure at all. So they shouldn't. You say 100% as if they might be close. They aren't.
Like others on/., you seem to be arguing *against* young earthers. Who cares. I am saying these other dorks have no defense for their wacky figures either.
No, these date-setters are basing their "dates" on other dates created by other date-setters, and thus when one of the other dates gets a make-over, all sorts of other stuff gets a new date, if anyone bothers to pay attention.
It's intellectually dishonest because no reasonable person could possibly believe that they can calculate the age of a distant object with any precision with the knowledge we currently possess. They are attention-seeking deviants, and paper shouldn't be wasted on their effort to gain said attention.
But the point is that it doesn't matter if 6,000 years is wrong, or 13,000 is wrong or 1 billion, or 12.8 billion. Wrong is wrong, and trying to say "it's the best we have" is no justification for saying, "yep, 12.8 billion years. Suck it, Bible-thumpers!"
I heard a very nice debate on NPR where Scientists and Creationists who believe in evolution, etc. were having it out over whether religion and science can co-exist peacefully. A great point was made by one party (couldn't listen long enough to find out which) who stated that Science was great, but Scientism was damaging to the furtherance of knowledge.
It seems to me you are mixing Creationists with Young Earthers. I suppose there is overlap, though I don't think any use a 6,000 year old Earth.
To address the article though, yes, the 12.8 billion year figure is pulled out of someone's ass. Granted, there was some math involved, but there is far too little data to calculate the actual age of the earth, never mind anything else. Those with a chip on their shoulder will of course take offense to the blanket disbelief of the "scientific consensus".
Realists know that betting against the current science when it regards dates is about as safe as a bet as you can make. It is 100% guaranteed to be found incorrect, probably within 50 years. Date setters just want attention. If they were intellectually honest, they wouldn't bother.
I am so glad someone stepped in to say what you said. These lever machines have been here forever, and every time this comes up, I write my reps and let them know that I don't want any newfangled, failure-prone computers to vote with. The inspectors where I am are professional, quick, and helpful. The tallies come out quick. We don't have to worry about a power outage. Oh, I suppose there are ways to sabotage the machines, but I imagine doing so without being obvious would be tough.
Anyway, I am so scared that they will take them away from us. Another working tradition ruined to fatten someone's wallet at the expense of simplicity and reliability.
You've actually come up with the answer without stating it explicity: Keep using mechanical voting machines! With levers! We have these in NY, and they are freaking solid as heck, and don't require electricity, near as I can tell. No power outages to worry about. No mass-scale software editing to mess things up (being realistic, this could be more likely to happen as a result of bug or error than someone trying to fix the election.
Adding complexity to a functioning system only benefits the producers of said complex system. After all, I am sure they are not going to perform the myriad repairs for free. Backup-battery units, if they are installed, will not stay fresh forever. And people will make a stink if there is a power outage during the election that lasts long enough to drain the batteries (this happened in a upstate NY city a few years back; the lever machines kept operating. If they had been computer based, they probably wouldn't have lasted the hours that they would have needed to.)
Having watched most of the episodes many times on tape, I can hear points in movies where the movie is basically inaudible and instead the riff is delivered. This is the problem with Wikipedia limiting articles. Otherwise, we could have a whole article devoted to the Redub, and various "redubbing" could be explained. Dictionary to the rescue (for dub, re being listed as "anew or again" as a modifier:
to add (sound effects or new dialogue) to a film or to a radio or television production --usually used with in
to provide (a motion-picture film) with a new sound track and especially dialogue in a different language
to make a new recording of (sound or videotape already recorded); also : to mix (recorded sound or videotape from different sources) into a single recording.
Of course, I agree with your main point. Not only does it have to be "notable", but the notability standards are not equally applied. Same as sourcing. If you adhere strictly to the rules, nothing on the web that had not been referenced in a book by a well-known author published by a large, "respected" publisher would be allowed.
Therefore, half of Wikipedia should be deleted. Alternately, all of Wikipedia could be copied into (yet another) online encyclopedia, and interesting information could be added at will.
MST3K was engaged in redubbing. Taking the original soundtrack, and modifying it with replacement, additional, and translated (perhaps incorrectly) dialogue and music.
Not for the proud man, apart from the raging moon I write, Gamera! Gamera! What dark, despised dreams dwell, in the sullen, weighty bones 'neath your impenetrable shell? - Crow, performing Richard Burton's reading of Dylan Thomas' adaptation of the "Gamera Song".
I think you mean "emasculated", rather than "emaciated". And that is very true. Every citizen should not only have the right to bear arms, but should have the responsibility to do so, be trained in their use, and allowed to use them against intruders. If that were the case, we wouldn't have nearly as many burglaries.
Much older boards, yes. That is also true for ADB (Till the PowerMacs around 1994, it was not recommended to hot plug adb). But it really is a non-issue for swapping, and the need for swapping a keyboard and mouse while the computer is on is not all that common anyway.
And even Sun's USB implementation was not perfect. Startup key sequences would not work properly from USB, (maybe not initialized yet?). PS/2, ADB, and whatever Sun called it's interface worked just fine, under almost any condition. Unplug a PS/2 mouse, plug a different one in, and it usually just works. Unplug a USB mouse, plug a different one in, and wait for the "HID driver" to be installed before you can move it.
With ADB, it was almost impossible to lock up a Mac so much that you couldn't do a three-fingered salute, or a force quit. With USB, as soon as the OS hits trouble, the USB keyboard becomes useless. I'm guessing that the ADB port had certain hardware interrupts that allowed it to be more robust. Also, the USB implementations on some machines meant that some customers would be typing far faster than the computer could get from the keyboard.
The short story is that USB is a horrible standard, with a crazy plug shape. If there is a standard for positioning it, few follow it. Plugging in devices using USB is a nightmare, and I've seen plenty of blue screens/strange behavior from them. Firewire, ADB, and PS/2 should be all we need. I can't picture anything USB can do that Firewire and either PS/2 or ADB cannot, and do it better than USB.
I would much prefer that they develop a peer to peer syncing for address book and calendar. I'm tired of dealing with server-side stuff for a business with 3 employees, all on an internal network. Apple Mail should do this too. I keep hearing about CalDAV and the iCal standard, but have yet to see any products that fully support what should be a basic functionality.
Calendar functionality should be an option during install, and however it needs to be done, compatibility with Mobile devices for synchronization should be implemented. Personally, I use a cell phone, and don't or even like PIMs, but I can't stand having to deal with Outlook just so someone can use a Blackberry.
Finally, something needs to be done in terms of simple profile migration, and the import/export features need to be more robust. For example, if you want to switch someone to Thunderbird from Outlook Express, you have to activate a profile in Outlook Express. If Thunderbird can't find it in the default location, it doesn't let you choose a WAB file. That is pitiful. Same goes for importing Thunderbird stuff into Thunderbird. It shouldn't be that difficult to prompt for a file location and take it from there.
Wow. That post tells us a lot about your opinions, and what you think of others who do not share them. Some of these things are not *only* legends. And you note that they have "got to stop". Which apparently means that people shouldn't be allowed to believe in creation involving magic phrases ("shazam"), people must believe that Global Warming is happening, even if they used more heating oil last year than the year before, and people cannot think that maybe buried in the desert somewhere is a stockpile of weapons. People also can't be allowed to believe that when Colin Powell shows them sat. pictures of "Mobile Weapons Labs", that those "mobile" labs didn't mobile themselves to Syria or some other place. You make a terrible amount of assumptions, with no direct knowledge of any of the aforementioned items. You instead rely on certain "authorities" for your argument.
For example, if you were to have taken a "cursory" look at the publicly available evidence, you would have found that in the network news and newspapers, about 10-15 years ago, a poll showed that an overwhelming majority considered themselves to be democrats or liberals (something like 80-90%). Now, just because alternative media sources have arisen, and have begun to even the playing field, one shouldn't dismiss the opinions of those who believe that Liberals control the media.
In the Eighties, you'd have to scrape real deep to find a newsman who agreed with Reagan's policies. Heck, they practically shouted their opposition every night (and I don't just refer to Sam Donaldson, here:)).
As for your last paragraph, I do not disagree regarding your main thrust, which is that we should stop worrying about which percentage of his money comes from Media, when the legislation is bad regardless. Unfortunately, the people who want to hold office are rarely the ones who should.
This seems wrong to me. In 1997, when BeOS released it's "Preview Release", I downloaded and installed it on a Power Computing Powercenter 120 (an excellent machine). It not only was capable of a PPP connection using a off the shelf Zoom modem, it was easy to set up.
Contrast this to a year later, trying to configure Redhat 5.0 for a PPP connection was a nightmare. The Python-based tools were insufficient, and the non-X tools were a pain to control.
That first preview release was amazing in terms of speed. It could perform most of the tasks I was interested in (I never really cared about printing, so never knew it lacked it till I read someone else's complaints). Software built for it played MP3s without skipping, something not really seen back then, and could also change the pitch and play them backwards. Playing music while browsing the internet was no big deal. I couldn't really "stress" the machine. I really miss messing around with it, though I still like Mac OS X, for some things Linux is nice. But had Be survived and been in a healthy state, I think our computing experiences would be much better today.
This is not surprising to me. If you play Graham Nelson's game "Curses", you can see that the man has a crazy ability to keep lots of things happening without making it look like a mess. His brain, and what he does with it, is amazing.
Actually, I consider myself to be a liberator of minds. People are shackled by these ideas that espresso is some mythical substance, and that 5 servings of it will drive you up a wall. As someone who grew up with espresso being served 20 years ago after dinner, with dessert and snack times, etc., it is frustrating to see people fall prey to all of these marketing gimmicks about "shots" of espresso, which is a code word for "not much espresso at a high price". I feel that if I can enlighten people about how nice it is to enjoy a demitasse, or even a full cup of espresso, with or without the lemon peel, then I have broadened their horizons. Myself, I always forget to buy the lemon, so I probably only use peel 1 in 4 times. But it is a nice touch.
I don't know what you mean by "without fruit of any sort" regarding espresso. The lemon peel rubbed around the rim imparts the oil, but no "fruit" flavors that overwhelm the coffee. With Hefe-weiss, I can understand, as some bars go nuts with the produce. I myself can enjoy my hefe-weiss with or without, and enjoy the Franzizkaner and Paulaner occasionally. However, given the choice, I will normally order the Paulaner Salvator Dopplebock or Spaten Optimator instead.
Speaking of your inexpensive coffee shops, I don't think there are any where I live. Even the independents seem to follow the Starbucks low-value game plan.
Actually, I kind of understand this. I once went to a Starbucks, and ordered a double espresso. I expected to get two demitasse-sized servings in a cup. Instead, my "double espresso" was more like someone had taken a sip of espresso, and spit it into a tiny cup. First and last visit to Starbucks. Especially since the "baristas" didn't seem to understand the concept that a demitasse was a small cup already. Small enough to properly fit one serving of espresso.
In any case, one demitasse of espresso has less caffeine than coffee due to the lower volume (typically less than half of one cup of coffee). If you were to analyze a full coffee cup of stove-top espresso maker espresso (Medaglia D'Oro comes to mind), not only would you find that it tastes better than Starbucks, can be served in a proper fashion with lemon peel on the saucer for those who want it, and is in all ways a more satisfying drink, you would find that it has a little more caffeine than that same volume of Maxwell House Original Blend.
Now, he is still not using his money wisely for not investing in his own personal Espresso maker, as he could purchase a can of Medaglia D'Oro for about $4-$5 dollars, brew his own cup of espresso destined for slightly oversized 8 oz. coffee cup, with lemon peel rubbed around the rim, and have something that knocks the pants off of the overpriced swill that almost any of these coffee shops serve. The leftover money could probably fund maximum contributions to a Roth IRA and he would be able to do something far more entertaining with his time and new-found wealth than spend it waiting for some 18-20 year old know-nothing who thinks facial piercings in 2007 is somehow expressing individuality to prepare him burned coffee juice. If he wants to have a relationship with Starbucks, maybe a modest portion of his Roth IRA portfolio can reap the rewards of their massive profit margins.
Yeah, the Democrats will help. Especially when you consider that there is a Democrat Governor in Massachussetts now, and ODF was accepted under a Republican. Being Slashdot, this of course is supposed to be considered an exception to the rule. After all, Democrats support the people, and Republicans support evil corporations, right?
Unfortunately, party affiliation has no bearing upon moral judgement. Hillary has probably already been taking contributions from Microsoft. Besides the fact that with her, it's whichever way the wind blows.
But go on, enjoy your leftist fantasies. But why wait? Why not write to your Democrat-lead legislature and ask them to repeal the DMCA. I'm sure they will be more than happy to return some sanity and limits to copyright.
I loved Odell Lake and Odell Woods, and have since gotten a copy of Odell Lake for my Apple II, but alas, no love for Odell Woods. There also seems to be a lack of info on the game online. Is my school the only one who bought it?:(
I thought this was supposed to be a chain letter. Slashdot editors should do what I do: install the Snopes search extension in firefox. Anyway, it was apparently one school who was "uncomfortable" teaching kids in an appropriate fashion.
Of course, not many here would approve of my hard core tactics of firing any teacher unwilling to cram information about the disgusting things that happened down a kid's throat. In a way, this may be more of our comeuppance for de-balling teachers so that they answer to the students whims, rather than have any sort of control over their classroom.
Moslems should be given the right to deport themselves if they want to preach doctrine that clearly tries to repudiate well-documented modern history.
Actually, I live close to one of the best bars in the States. They get beers from all over the states and the world, have over twenty taps, a few cask pulls, with rotating stock and always have at least a couple of hundred different bottled beers. I have had over 200 different beers there (I often re-enjoy favorites), and that's only because I don't get there enough. A friend of mine passed me a long time ago with over 1,000 different beers (he goes there every other day). We also have a good local distributor, where you can get cases/individuals from all over.
Again, I didn't say all U.S. beers were bad. I just said that we don't compete with the amount of good beers/breweries that our friends across the sea have created. And I don't mind hoppy beers. I do mind when every variety of beer made by one brewery tastes like a lager. There are those breweries who make excellent lagers, and call them such. IPAs are not short on hops, either, and I've had lots of good IPAs.
Slashdot Mirror
It's become a pain in the rear to find proper drivers for W2K, I dunno, maybe Lenovo provides 2K drivers for their ultra-portables. I can't be bothered to look. But for most vendors, no drivers exist and the XP drivers either don't install or don't work properly.
Sometimes it surprises me how funny people can be without realizing it.
"For example, a 1% error in the estimate of the age of Earth is far different from a six orders of magnitude error (like the young Earthers' claims)"
This assumes that there is only a 1% error. You conveniently didn't answer the question regarding the 4.5 billion year figure as of 50 years ago. What was it then? Was it a 1% difference? By using "1%" you attempt to imply that the difference usually is 1%, which I would like to see explained using historical trends. You see, scientific opinion changes all of the time. But historical data regarding what dates were claimed 50 years ago? Well, a little harder to reverse those without collecting and destroying some very humorous old books and papers.
""Exponentially" less data? Doesn't mean a thing"
"For example, a 1% error in the estimate of the age of Earth is far different from a six orders of magnitude error"
This is such great comedy. You are contradicting your own statement within 2 sentences.
"As I see it", "Sure this will all be improved in 50 years", "but I don't see a fundamental change happening".
Much of your post is one big disclaimer (besides the contradictory parts).
"We know many physical constants to many digits of accuracy" - unconnected, since we have very little data on these distant bodies.
"We have good models at the cosmological and subatomic levels" - translated to 'I believe these models'.
"We have far better experimental data" - on a galaxy far, far away?
"but I don't see a fundamental change happening that will invalidate current estimates to the point that they are considered "wrong"." - 50 years ago, we would have seen a similar argument, from similar people like you.
Thank you for so effectively proving my point. You believe what you are told from a subset of a small group of people, despite the fact that those same groups of people keep doing the same stupid things decade after decade. It's useless information, partially because it is incorrect, and partially because it has no bearing on our life. They are somewhat safe in that no one's life depends on their bogus numbers, and that their audience will ignore the hugely erroneous figure once they come out with a new figure. Wikipedia articles will be updated, and everyone will laud the advance of "science", when in fact no science is involved with date-setting of this nature.
"So how wrong do you think they are? Care to give a range?"
:)
I don't claim to know. I'm saying they don't.
"here's considerable data indicating that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, using radioactive decay and samples from numerous solar system bodies including asteroids, the Moon, and even Mars. Further, the estimated age of the Sun is consistent with this as well (it can be estimated both by it's relative size, mass, and temperature, as well as by it's lithium content)"
I'm not actually addressing the Earth's age. I don't actually care how old it is, though I'm sure the 4.5 billion year figure is wrong, too. Do you really think that 50 years from now, people will still think the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? How old did they think the Earth was 50 years ago? And you can't say 4,499,999,950 years
What I am addressing is the even more ridiculous, given the exponentially smaller set of data we can obtain, setting of the 12.8 billion year old figure for the galaxy in question.
As far as "nonsense" is concerned, that's exactly what setting a date is. You have no position for what things looked like even 200 years ago, and you have way too little data to extrapolate from it even if you did. Science is actually about learning through observation and testing, not by guesswork and bold, unsubstantiated claims.
No, nothing to do with the Earth, nor do I actually care how old anything is. In fact, I would say that no one should care philosophically, as it has no bearing on anything regarding religion AFAIAC. If you believe in God, that belief should not be shaken because you cannot pin down the Earth's birthday.
/., you seem to be arguing *against* young earthers. Who cares. I am saying these other dorks have no defense for their wacky figures either.
"ust because they are not 100% sure it is exactly that year dosen't mean they shouldn't release the findings."
Actually, they aren't sure at all. So they shouldn't. You say 100% as if they might be close. They aren't.
Like others on
No, these date-setters are basing their "dates" on other dates created by other date-setters, and thus when one of the other dates gets a make-over, all sorts of other stuff gets a new date, if anyone bothers to pay attention.
It's intellectually dishonest because no reasonable person could possibly believe that they can calculate the age of a distant object with any precision with the knowledge we currently possess. They are attention-seeking deviants, and paper shouldn't be wasted on their effort to gain said attention.
But the point is that it doesn't matter if 6,000 years is wrong, or 13,000 is wrong or 1 billion, or 12.8 billion. Wrong is wrong, and trying to say "it's the best we have" is no justification for saying, "yep, 12.8 billion years. Suck it, Bible-thumpers!"
I heard a very nice debate on NPR where Scientists and Creationists who believe in evolution, etc. were having it out over whether religion and science can co-exist peacefully. A great point was made by one party (couldn't listen long enough to find out which) who stated that Science was great, but Scientism was damaging to the furtherance of knowledge.
It seems to me you are mixing Creationists with Young Earthers. I suppose there is overlap, though I don't think any use a 6,000 year old Earth.
To address the article though, yes, the 12.8 billion year figure is pulled out of someone's ass. Granted, there was some math involved, but there is far too little data to calculate the actual age of the earth, never mind anything else. Those with a chip on their shoulder will of course take offense to the blanket disbelief of the "scientific consensus".
Realists know that betting against the current science when it regards dates is about as safe as a bet as you can make. It is 100% guaranteed to be found incorrect, probably within 50 years. Date setters just want attention. If they were intellectually honest, they wouldn't bother.
No offense intended, but I was wondering if you at one time may have worked for GE or Lockheed or Knolls Atomic at one time?
I am so glad someone stepped in to say what you said. These lever machines have been here forever, and every time this comes up, I write my reps and let them know that I don't want any newfangled, failure-prone computers to vote with. The inspectors where I am are professional, quick, and helpful. The tallies come out quick. We don't have to worry about a power outage. Oh, I suppose there are ways to sabotage the machines, but I imagine doing so without being obvious would be tough.
Anyway, I am so scared that they will take them away from us. Another working tradition ruined to fatten someone's wallet at the expense of simplicity and reliability.
You've actually come up with the answer without stating it explicity: Keep using mechanical voting machines! With levers! We have these in NY, and they are freaking solid as heck, and don't require electricity, near as I can tell. No power outages to worry about. No mass-scale software editing to mess things up (being realistic, this could be more likely to happen as a result of bug or error than someone trying to fix the election.
Adding complexity to a functioning system only benefits the producers of said complex system. After all, I am sure they are not going to perform the myriad repairs for free. Backup-battery units, if they are installed, will not stay fresh forever. And people will make a stink if there is a power outage during the election that lasts long enough to drain the batteries (this happened in a upstate NY city a few years back; the lever machines kept operating. If they had been computer based, they probably wouldn't have lasted the hours that they would have needed to.)
Having watched most of the episodes many times on tape, I can hear points in movies where the movie is basically inaudible and instead the riff is delivered. This is the problem with Wikipedia limiting articles. Otherwise, we could have a whole article devoted to the Redub, and various "redubbing" could be explained. Dictionary to the rescue (for dub, re being listed as "anew or again" as a modifier:
to add (sound effects or new dialogue) to a film or to a radio or television production --usually used with in
to provide (a motion-picture film) with a new sound track and especially dialogue in a different language
to make a new recording of (sound or videotape already recorded); also : to mix (recorded sound or videotape from different sources) into a single recording.
Of course, I agree with your main point. Not only does it have to be "notable", but the notability standards are not equally applied. Same as sourcing. If you adhere strictly to the rules, nothing on the web that had not been referenced in a book by a well-known author published by a large, "respected" publisher would be allowed.
Therefore, half of Wikipedia should be deleted. Alternately, all of Wikipedia could be copied into (yet another) online encyclopedia, and interesting information could be added at will.
MST3K was engaged in redubbing. Taking the original soundtrack, and modifying it with replacement, additional, and translated (perhaps incorrectly) dialogue and music.
How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_Science_Theater_3000MST3K?
Not for the proud man, apart from the raging moon I write, Gamera! Gamera! What dark, despised dreams dwell, in the sullen, weighty bones 'neath your impenetrable shell? - Crow, performing Richard Burton's reading of Dylan Thomas' adaptation of the "Gamera Song".
I think you mean "emasculated", rather than "emaciated". And that is very true. Every citizen should not only have the right to bear arms, but should have the responsibility to do so, be trained in their use, and allowed to use them against intruders. If that were the case, we wouldn't have nearly as many burglaries.
Much older boards, yes. That is also true for ADB (Till the PowerMacs around 1994, it was not recommended to hot plug adb). But it really is a non-issue for swapping, and the need for swapping a keyboard and mouse while the computer is on is not all that common anyway.
And even Sun's USB implementation was not perfect. Startup key sequences would not work properly from USB, (maybe not initialized yet?). PS/2, ADB, and whatever Sun called it's interface worked just fine, under almost any condition. Unplug a PS/2 mouse, plug a different one in, and it usually just works. Unplug a USB mouse, plug a different one in, and wait for the "HID driver" to be installed before you can move it.
With ADB, it was almost impossible to lock up a Mac so much that you couldn't do a three-fingered salute, or a force quit. With USB, as soon as the OS hits trouble, the USB keyboard becomes useless. I'm guessing that the ADB port had certain hardware interrupts that allowed it to be more robust. Also, the USB implementations on some machines meant that some customers would be typing far faster than the computer could get from the keyboard.
The short story is that USB is a horrible standard, with a crazy plug shape. If there is a standard for positioning it, few follow it. Plugging in devices using USB is a nightmare, and I've seen plenty of blue screens/strange behavior from them. Firewire, ADB, and PS/2 should be all we need. I can't picture anything USB can do that Firewire and either PS/2 or ADB cannot, and do it better than USB.
I would much prefer that they develop a peer to peer syncing for address book and calendar. I'm tired of dealing with server-side stuff for a business with 3 employees, all on an internal network. Apple Mail should do this too. I keep hearing about CalDAV and the iCal standard, but have yet to see any products that fully support what should be a basic functionality.
Calendar functionality should be an option during install, and however it needs to be done, compatibility with Mobile devices for synchronization should be implemented. Personally, I use a cell phone, and don't or even like PIMs, but I can't stand having to deal with Outlook just so someone can use a Blackberry.
Finally, something needs to be done in terms of simple profile migration, and the import/export features need to be more robust. For example, if you want to switch someone to Thunderbird from Outlook Express, you have to activate a profile in Outlook Express. If Thunderbird can't find it in the default location, it doesn't let you choose a WAB file. That is pitiful. Same goes for importing Thunderbird stuff into Thunderbird. It shouldn't be that difficult to prompt for a file location and take it from there.
Wow. That post tells us a lot about your opinions, and what you think of others who do not share them. Some of these things are not *only* legends. And you note that they have "got to stop". Which apparently means that people shouldn't be allowed to believe in creation involving magic phrases ("shazam"), people must believe that Global Warming is happening, even if they used more heating oil last year than the year before, and people cannot think that maybe buried in the desert somewhere is a stockpile of weapons. People also can't be allowed to believe that when Colin Powell shows them sat. pictures of "Mobile Weapons Labs", that those "mobile" labs didn't mobile themselves to Syria or some other place. You make a terrible amount of assumptions, with no direct knowledge of any of the aforementioned items. You instead rely on certain "authorities" for your argument.
:)).
For example, if you were to have taken a "cursory" look at the publicly available evidence, you would have found that in the network news and newspapers, about 10-15 years ago, a poll showed that an overwhelming majority considered themselves to be democrats or liberals (something like 80-90%). Now, just because alternative media sources have arisen, and have begun to even the playing field, one shouldn't dismiss the opinions of those who believe that Liberals control the media.
In the Eighties, you'd have to scrape real deep to find a newsman who agreed with Reagan's policies. Heck, they practically shouted their opposition every night (and I don't just refer to Sam Donaldson, here
As for your last paragraph, I do not disagree regarding your main thrust, which is that we should stop worrying about which percentage of his money comes from Media, when the legislation is bad regardless. Unfortunately, the people who want to hold office are rarely the ones who should.
This seems wrong to me. In 1997, when BeOS released it's "Preview Release", I downloaded and installed it on a Power Computing Powercenter 120 (an excellent machine). It not only was capable of a PPP connection using a off the shelf Zoom modem, it was easy to set up.
Contrast this to a year later, trying to configure Redhat 5.0 for a PPP connection was a nightmare. The Python-based tools were insufficient, and the non-X tools were a pain to control.
That first preview release was amazing in terms of speed. It could perform most of the tasks I was interested in (I never really cared about printing, so never knew it lacked it till I read someone else's complaints). Software built for it played MP3s without skipping, something not really seen back then, and could also change the pitch and play them backwards. Playing music while browsing the internet was no big deal. I couldn't really "stress" the machine. I really miss messing around with it, though I still like Mac OS X, for some things Linux is nice. But had Be survived and been in a healthy state, I think our computing experiences would be much better today.
This is not surprising to me. If you play Graham Nelson's game "Curses", you can see that the man has a crazy ability to keep lots of things happening without making it look like a mess. His brain, and what he does with it, is amazing.
Actually, I consider myself to be a liberator of minds. People are shackled by these ideas that espresso is some mythical substance, and that 5 servings of it will drive you up a wall. As someone who grew up with espresso being served 20 years ago after dinner, with dessert and snack times, etc., it is frustrating to see people fall prey to all of these marketing gimmicks about "shots" of espresso, which is a code word for "not much espresso at a high price". I feel that if I can enlighten people about how nice it is to enjoy a demitasse, or even a full cup of espresso, with or without the lemon peel, then I have broadened their horizons. Myself, I always forget to buy the lemon, so I probably only use peel 1 in 4 times. But it is a nice touch.
I don't know what you mean by "without fruit of any sort" regarding espresso. The lemon peel rubbed around the rim imparts the oil, but no "fruit" flavors that overwhelm the coffee. With Hefe-weiss, I can understand, as some bars go nuts with the produce. I myself can enjoy my hefe-weiss with or without, and enjoy the Franzizkaner and Paulaner occasionally. However, given the choice, I will normally order the Paulaner Salvator Dopplebock or Spaten Optimator instead.
Speaking of your inexpensive coffee shops, I don't think there are any where I live. Even the independents seem to follow the Starbucks low-value game plan.
Actually, I kind of understand this. I once went to a Starbucks, and ordered a double espresso. I expected to get two demitasse-sized servings in a cup. Instead, my "double espresso" was more like someone had taken a sip of espresso, and spit it into a tiny cup. First and last visit to Starbucks. Especially since the "baristas" didn't seem to understand the concept that a demitasse was a small cup already. Small enough to properly fit one serving of espresso.
In any case, one demitasse of espresso has less caffeine than coffee due to the lower volume (typically less than half of one cup of coffee). If you were to analyze a full coffee cup of stove-top espresso maker espresso (Medaglia D'Oro comes to mind), not only would you find that it tastes better than Starbucks, can be served in a proper fashion with lemon peel on the saucer for those who want it, and is in all ways a more satisfying drink, you would find that it has a little more caffeine than that same volume of Maxwell House Original Blend.
Now, he is still not using his money wisely for not investing in his own personal Espresso maker, as he could purchase a can of Medaglia D'Oro for about $4-$5 dollars, brew his own cup of espresso destined for slightly oversized 8 oz. coffee cup, with lemon peel rubbed around the rim, and have something that knocks the pants off of the overpriced swill that almost any of these coffee shops serve. The leftover money could probably fund maximum contributions to a Roth IRA and he would be able to do something far more entertaining with his time and new-found wealth than spend it waiting for some 18-20 year old know-nothing who thinks facial piercings in 2007 is somehow expressing individuality to prepare him burned coffee juice. If he wants to have a relationship with Starbucks, maybe a modest portion of his Roth IRA portfolio can reap the rewards of their massive profit margins.
Yeah, the Democrats will help. Especially when you consider that there is a Democrat Governor in Massachussetts now, and ODF was accepted under a Republican. Being Slashdot, this of course is supposed to be considered an exception to the rule. After all, Democrats support the people, and Republicans support evil corporations, right?
Unfortunately, party affiliation has no bearing upon moral judgement. Hillary has probably already been taking contributions from Microsoft. Besides the fact that with her, it's whichever way the wind blows.
But go on, enjoy your leftist fantasies. But why wait? Why not write to your Democrat-lead legislature and ask them to repeal the DMCA. I'm sure they will be more than happy to return some sanity and limits to copyright.
I loved Odell Lake and Odell Woods, and have since gotten a copy of Odell Lake for my Apple II, but alas, no love for Odell Woods. There also seems to be a lack of info on the game online. Is my school the only one who bought it? :(
I thought this was supposed to be a chain letter. Slashdot editors should do what I do: install the Snopes search extension in firefox. Anyway, it was apparently one school who was "uncomfortable" teaching kids in an appropriate fashion.
Of course, not many here would approve of my hard core tactics of firing any teacher unwilling to cram information about the disgusting things that happened down a kid's throat. In a way, this may be more of our comeuppance for de-balling teachers so that they answer to the students whims, rather than have any sort of control over their classroom.
Moslems should be given the right to deport themselves if they want to preach doctrine that clearly tries to repudiate well-documented modern history.
Actually, I live close to one of the best bars in the States. They get beers from all over the states and the world, have over twenty taps, a few cask pulls, with rotating stock and always have at least a couple of hundred different bottled beers. I have had over 200 different beers there (I often re-enjoy favorites), and that's only because I don't get there enough. A friend of mine passed me a long time ago with over 1,000 different beers (he goes there every other day). We also have a good local distributor, where you can get cases/individuals from all over.
Again, I didn't say all U.S. beers were bad. I just said that we don't compete with the amount of good beers/breweries that our friends across the sea have created. And I don't mind hoppy beers. I do mind when every variety of beer made by one brewery tastes like a lager. There are those breweries who make excellent lagers, and call them such. IPAs are not short on hops, either, and I've had lots of good IPAs.