Then of course you just have to know and be able to properly translate Japanese on the spot in your mind or later after you record it...
Ah, I see, you don't actually understand the Japanese language. Someone who isn't fluent has to mentally translate the language in their head, they can never keep up with the spoken words. But people who are fluent (like me) just call what we do "listening."
Let me explain it to you simply, in deference to your mental abilities:
1 hour spent studying a Japanese textbook: improved language skills (in both Japanese, and incredibly, your native language too), increased mental sharpness, and the development of new mental skills you never had before.
1 hour spent watching anime: mind rot.
I saw this time and time again in college. All the Japanese language students who were into anime were hopeless. They were always unprepared in class, because homework ate into their valuable anime-watching time. None of them ever attained fluency. Most of them dropped out after 1st year.
Maybe you should shut off your TV and do something useful with your mind.
I fail to see how anyone could take that rant seriously. I fail to see how anyone could take seriously any technical argument from Cory, who is well known to be a high-school dropout who never produced a line of code in his life.
Cory's specialty is making mountains out of molehills. He whines that he got kicked off his hotel network after playing an online game that taxed their shared resources, and from that he makes sweeping generalizations about overall Internet security. Excuse me if I completely disregard his political tirade, and only consider technical arguments by network security professionals.
Just get a dish. Last time I checked, DirecTV offered TV-Japan, but you had to get the DirecTV Plus system, which has a dual-receiver dish, or else you needed two dishes.
Um.. you're making a lame joke, right? Because EVERYBODY knows how to crack these codes by now. It is a classic study in cryptography, in many textbooks as an example, the implementation is left to the reader as an exercise.
I've noticed a few oddities with Apple's BlueTooth keyboards and mice, but nothing that makes them totally unusable. I have a Quad G5 and a BlueTooth Keyboard and Mighty Mouse. Every two weeks or so, I get a "Lost Connection" message about my mouse, it goes totally dead, so I have to plug in a USB mouse, go to BT Settings, and manually re-pair the mouse before it will work again. Now just the other day, I got the same error with my Apple BlueTooth Keyboard, had to re-pair that too. But after the re-pair, everything works fine. I'm baffled, there is no obvious cause for the loss of contact, and even if it was something basic like RF interference, the devices should work again if I just power them down and back up again. But that's not sufficient, I have to delete previous BT settings and re-pair. That sounds like a software problem in the OS or drivers. Oh well, it doesn't happen often enough to be more than a minor annoyance.
I think you're getting at the core problem here, albeit a little obliquely. The problem, as I see it, is that Microsoft is completely unable to deliver what customers actually WANT. I saw a recent essay by an analyst who laid the blame at the feet of MS Windows VP Steve Sinofsky, accusing him of having NEVER EVER delivered a product that customers actually wanted. Then it listed the products he oversaw, bloatware rubbish like MS Office. Customers never wanted that crap, but he figured he could shove it down their throats. What the customers really wanted was not a new version with more bloat, they wanted MS to fix the existing problems, but they never did. And it's the same way with Vista. Customers absolutely do not want Vista. What they want is WinXP, but with all the bugs fixed. And MS cannot deliver it, they do not know how. They have merely substituted a new, larger set of Vista problems for the old XP problems. I am trying to recall a time when MS delivered products that people wanted. Leaving aside products they bought from other companies (like Halo for example), I'd probably have to go back decades, to their earliest products like Word 1.0, Microsoft Basic, etc. And even then, MS was already pitching crap people didn't want, like MS-DOS. Nobody wanted it, what they really wanted was a better CP/M, and in fact, customers would have kept on using CP/M if MS hadn't made their apps incompatible, this was the start of their monopoly. Microsoft is now only capable of delivering products it thinks it can make people buy. It is incapable of developing products with elegance and simplicity. But IMHO Microsoft should keep Vista, they should keep flogging the dead horse. This will make the situation clearer: it is the CUSTOMERS who should abandon Vista.
It's not always about the money. When my whole website was pirated, a DMCA letter got it pulled down. Sometimes it's about control. Nobody's going to copy and pirate my website through P2P, but there are occasionally scammers who want to clone your site to divert your hits to their site, etc. It would be hard to prove damages from cloning a non-profit website like mine, so the DMCA is about the only remedy.
You're missing the point. Sure copyrighted material had the same protections before the DMCA. But it was difficult to enforce those rights. Now it's easy. And it's easy to defend against a false DMCA action, it's all part of the process as defined in the DMCA itself. Sure a Red Hat or an IBM has a platoon of lawyers ready to protect its rights, but I don't.
Yes, the DMCA works great, some people may object when it is used en masse by large corporations, but it is the most effective tool for the little guy. Content creators have always had trouble protecting their rights without expensive, protracted lawsuits. But I've regained control of my own copyrighted materials, quickly and simply, merely by filing a DMCA notice. I've helped other "little guys" do the same. Copyright works for content creators, and the DMCA covers my back. I like the DMCA.
OK, just how many is "approximately half of the accounting personnel"...? We know it's greater than or equal to 2, the article mentions 2 that resigned. So, what are we talking here, 3? 300? Without real numbers, this article is not very informative.
I think at the time of that video, a lot of systems shipped with DOS 4something and MS wanted to push DOS 5 out fast. I had a lot of customers just buy the cheaper upgrade with their new PC, instead of the full price DOS 5 package that you were supposed to buy.
If you can stand listening through to the finish, somewhere near the end they talk about selling this upgrade with new systems, and how every system purchaser will want one, like "do you want fries with that?" So this was obviously targeted at sales reps the dealer channel. I used to work in computer sales right about the time of this video, and we always received tons of stupid sales promo videos like this.
OK thanks for the followup, that makes sense, I didn't see how complete severing could possibly heal, that's why I wondered about that incident for all these years. I guess technology marches onward, since now you have little guillotines and back then they just used a scissors. I guess they were just partially snipping at the cord with the scissors, not totally severing it.
Apparently the author of that incredibly lame blog article missed the 1980s, when GI Joe cartoons were full of multicultural characters and fought abstract non-national enemies like COBRA.
I'm not sure I'd describe this procedure as an "operation," more like a mutilation. I recall the researcher completely severing the spinal cord with a scissors, about halfway down the rat's back (but of course I could be wrong, this was 30 years ago and memory fades). I vaguely recall him saying this was just above the point where the nerves that control the hind legs leave the spinal column, this made it easy to assess healing by watching the rat's ability to walk with its hind legs, and at the same time it doesn't affect too many other systems (like it would if they cut at a higher vertebrae). Anyway, do me a favor and ask your neuro-girlfriend about rats' ability to heal from a complete spinal severance, I'd be interested in her answer.
This makes no sense to me. I remember a long time ago (maybe 1976) when I was a pre-med student in college, I got a part time job at the hospital's Anaesthesiology Lab. Some of the doctors were always doing research on lab rats, it was my job to assist them (mostly doing computer data analysis). One day I saw a doctor doing some particularly nasty stuff to some rats, I asked him what he was doing. He said he was severing their spinal cords. I asked him why he was doing that. He told me that rats have a unique ability to partially repair their spinal cord even if it was completely severed. Then he showed me how he did it (not that I really wanted to see it). He made a little slice, a little snip, and crudely sewed the rat back up. I asked him why he didn't put some antibiotics in the wound or anything. He said, "well they're just rats." Sheesh. That was about the time I decided I didn't want to be a doctor.
So anyway, I was under the impression that rats already had the ability to repair their spinal cord even without the use of stem cells. Perhaps I've mis-remembered what the doctor/researcher said, does anyone know the details?
This scanning screen reminds me of Apple's old conceptual project "Knowledge Navigator." In one scene of the video, a man is learning to read with the assistance of the device, he takes a newspaper article and wipes it across the screen. The computer scans it and gives him a reading lesson from the scanned article.
The Knowledge Navigator project was 20 years ago. Many of the ideas in the video have already become reality, this scanning screen might be the next one.
I saw your message and realized I hadn't taken Pages for a spin yet. It reminds me of the old MacWrite, a simple basic word processor that gets the Mac UI. I liked it.
Gee, let me see how well linux has succeeded without anyone making money.
Linux desktop marketshare: ~0.01% MacOS X desktop marketshare: 5.9%, up 1% from last year
It's the license. Apple's use of BSD and the MIT license allows companies like Microsoft to write apps that can never appear on Linux. Like it or not, that is the barrier to linux on the desktop. If major developers won't touch the platform due to licensing issues, you can improve the platform all you want and there will still only be amateur apps (like it is now).
The biggest encumbrance I see in linux is the radical freetard mission, which is expressed in the licensing. Licenses like GNU have eliminated the possibility of real commercial development where it most counts. Nobody can create proprietary improvements and capitalize on their investment.
Let me give an example. Apple is the largest unix vendor today because they picked the BSD distro, which is under the MIT license. This allows them to create a proprietary GUI layer (Aqua) while still contributing freely to the underlying open source OS code. MacOS X works because a commercial enterprise has devoted significant development efforts into the weak spots of linux, specifically, consistency of operation and function.
Change the license. Fire the freetards like RMS. Get real commercial development going, and get everyone paid for what they're coding. For linux to succeed, it has to be an ecosystem where everyone makes money.
He wasn't a journalist, he was the Editor in Chief of PC Magazine and all of Ziff Davis' internet sites, and was a major player in all their startups. Most of that crap was funded by Vulcan Ventures, which is the private venture capital company for Paul Allen (yes, the Microsoft gazillionaire).
Louderbeck made millions shilling for Microsoft, I assure you.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, like I said, making mountains out of molehills.
Ah, I see, you don't actually understand the Japanese language. Someone who isn't fluent has to mentally translate the language in their head, they can never keep up with the spoken words. But people who are fluent (like me) just call what we do "listening."
Let me explain it to you simply, in deference to your mental abilities:
1 hour spent studying a Japanese textbook: improved language skills (in both Japanese, and incredibly, your native language too), increased mental sharpness, and the development of new mental skills you never had before.
1 hour spent watching anime: mind rot.
I saw this time and time again in college. All the Japanese language students who were into anime were hopeless. They were always unprepared in class, because homework ate into their valuable anime-watching time. None of them ever attained fluency. Most of them dropped out after 1st year.
Maybe you should shut off your TV and do something useful with your mind.
I fail to see how anyone could take that rant seriously. I fail to see how anyone could take seriously any technical argument from Cory, who is well known to be a high-school dropout who never produced a line of code in his life.
Cory's specialty is making mountains out of molehills. He whines that he got kicked off his hotel network after playing an online game that taxed their shared resources, and from that he makes sweeping generalizations about overall Internet security. Excuse me if I completely disregard his political tirade, and only consider technical arguments by network security professionals.
Just get a dish. Last time I checked, DirecTV offered TV-Japan, but you had to get the DirecTV Plus system, which has a dual-receiver dish, or else you needed two dishes.
Um.. you're making a lame joke, right? Because EVERYBODY knows how to crack these codes by now. It is a classic study in cryptography, in many textbooks as an example, the implementation is left to the reader as an exercise.
A better comparison:
Gimp 2 for Photographers book MSRP $29.95
Photoshop Elements 6 (includes instruction book) MSRP $99.95
For a mere $60 more (or less depending on discounts) you can buy a real piece of professional software rather than just a book.
Because that's just what every photographer wants.
You did notice this is a review of "Gimp 2 for Photographers," right?
I've noticed a few oddities with Apple's BlueTooth keyboards and mice, but nothing that makes them totally unusable. I have a Quad G5 and a BlueTooth Keyboard and Mighty Mouse. Every two weeks or so, I get a "Lost Connection" message about my mouse, it goes totally dead, so I have to plug in a USB mouse, go to BT Settings, and manually re-pair the mouse before it will work again. Now just the other day, I got the same error with my Apple BlueTooth Keyboard, had to re-pair that too. But after the re-pair, everything works fine. I'm baffled, there is no obvious cause for the loss of contact, and even if it was something basic like RF interference, the devices should work again if I just power them down and back up again. But that's not sufficient, I have to delete previous BT settings and re-pair. That sounds like a software problem in the OS or drivers. Oh well, it doesn't happen often enough to be more than a minor annoyance.
I think you're getting at the core problem here, albeit a little obliquely. The problem, as I see it, is that Microsoft is completely unable to deliver what customers actually WANT. I saw a recent essay by an analyst who laid the blame at the feet of MS Windows VP Steve Sinofsky, accusing him of having NEVER EVER delivered a product that customers actually wanted. Then it listed the products he oversaw, bloatware rubbish like MS Office. Customers never wanted that crap, but he figured he could shove it down their throats. What the customers really wanted was not a new version with more bloat, they wanted MS to fix the existing problems, but they never did.
And it's the same way with Vista. Customers absolutely do not want Vista. What they want is WinXP, but with all the bugs fixed. And MS cannot deliver it, they do not know how. They have merely substituted a new, larger set of Vista problems for the old XP problems.
I am trying to recall a time when MS delivered products that people wanted. Leaving aside products they bought from other companies (like Halo for example), I'd probably have to go back decades, to their earliest products like Word 1.0, Microsoft Basic, etc. And even then, MS was already pitching crap people didn't want, like MS-DOS. Nobody wanted it, what they really wanted was a better CP/M, and in fact, customers would have kept on using CP/M if MS hadn't made their apps incompatible, this was the start of their monopoly.
Microsoft is now only capable of delivering products it thinks it can make people buy. It is incapable of developing products with elegance and simplicity. But IMHO Microsoft should keep Vista, they should keep flogging the dead horse. This will make the situation clearer: it is the CUSTOMERS who should abandon Vista.
It's not always about the money. When my whole website was pirated, a DMCA letter got it pulled down. Sometimes it's about control. Nobody's going to copy and pirate my website through P2P, but there are occasionally scammers who want to clone your site to divert your hits to their site, etc. It would be hard to prove damages from cloning a non-profit website like mine, so the DMCA is about the only remedy.
You're missing the point. Sure copyrighted material had the same protections before the DMCA. But it was difficult to enforce those rights. Now it's easy. And it's easy to defend against a false DMCA action, it's all part of the process as defined in the DMCA itself. Sure a Red Hat or an IBM has a platoon of lawyers ready to protect its rights, but I don't.
Yes, the DMCA works great, some people may object when it is used en masse by large corporations, but it is the most effective tool for the little guy. Content creators have always had trouble protecting their rights without expensive, protracted lawsuits. But I've regained control of my own copyrighted materials, quickly and simply, merely by filing a DMCA notice. I've helped other "little guys" do the same.
Copyright works for content creators, and the DMCA covers my back. I like the DMCA.
OK, just how many is "approximately half of the accounting personnel"...? We know it's greater than or equal to 2, the article mentions 2 that resigned. So, what are we talking here, 3? 300? Without real numbers, this article is not very informative.
I think at the time of that video, a lot of systems shipped with DOS 4something and MS wanted to push DOS 5 out fast. I had a lot of customers just buy the cheaper upgrade with their new PC, instead of the full price DOS 5 package that you were supposed to buy.
If you can stand listening through to the finish, somewhere near the end they talk about selling this upgrade with new systems, and how every system purchaser will want one, like "do you want fries with that?" So this was obviously targeted at sales reps the dealer channel. I used to work in computer sales right about the time of this video, and we always received tons of stupid sales promo videos like this.
OK thanks for the followup, that makes sense, I didn't see how complete severing could possibly heal, that's why I wondered about that incident for all these years. I guess technology marches onward, since now you have little guillotines and back then they just used a scissors. I guess they were just partially snipping at the cord with the scissors, not totally severing it.
Apparently the author of that incredibly lame blog article missed the 1980s, when GI Joe cartoons were full of multicultural characters and fought abstract non-national enemies like COBRA.
I'm not sure I'd describe this procedure as an "operation," more like a mutilation. I recall the researcher completely severing the spinal cord with a scissors, about halfway down the rat's back (but of course I could be wrong, this was 30 years ago and memory fades). I vaguely recall him saying this was just above the point where the nerves that control the hind legs leave the spinal column, this made it easy to assess healing by watching the rat's ability to walk with its hind legs, and at the same time it doesn't affect too many other systems (like it would if they cut at a higher vertebrae).
Anyway, do me a favor and ask your neuro-girlfriend about rats' ability to heal from a complete spinal severance, I'd be interested in her answer.
This makes no sense to me. I remember a long time ago (maybe 1976) when I was a pre-med student in college, I got a part time job at the hospital's Anaesthesiology Lab. Some of the doctors were always doing research on lab rats, it was my job to assist them (mostly doing computer data analysis). One day I saw a doctor doing some particularly nasty stuff to some rats, I asked him what he was doing. He said he was severing their spinal cords. I asked him why he was doing that. He told me that rats have a unique ability to partially repair their spinal cord even if it was completely severed. Then he showed me how he did it (not that I really wanted to see it). He made a little slice, a little snip, and crudely sewed the rat back up. I asked him why he didn't put some antibiotics in the wound or anything. He said, "well they're just rats." Sheesh. That was about the time I decided I didn't want to be a doctor.
So anyway, I was under the impression that rats already had the ability to repair their spinal cord even without the use of stem cells. Perhaps I've mis-remembered what the doctor/researcher said, does anyone know the details?
This scanning screen reminds me of Apple's old conceptual project "Knowledge Navigator." In one scene of the video, a man is learning to read with the assistance of the device, he takes a newspaper article and wipes it across the screen. The computer scans it and gives him a reading lesson from the scanned article.
The Knowledge Navigator project was 20 years ago. Many of the ideas in the video have already become reality, this scanning screen might be the next one.
Self-introspection is a tautology. It is just "introspection."
I saw your message and realized I hadn't taken Pages for a spin yet. It reminds me of the old MacWrite, a simple basic word processor that gets the Mac UI. I liked it.
Gee, let me see how well linux has succeeded without anyone making money.
Linux desktop marketshare: ~0.01%
MacOS X desktop marketshare: 5.9%, up 1% from last year
It's the license. Apple's use of BSD and the MIT license allows companies like Microsoft to write apps that can never appear on Linux. Like it or not, that is the barrier to linux on the desktop. If major developers won't touch the platform due to licensing issues, you can improve the platform all you want and there will still only be amateur apps (like it is now).
The biggest encumbrance I see in linux is the radical freetard mission, which is expressed in the licensing. Licenses like GNU have eliminated the possibility of real commercial development where it most counts. Nobody can create proprietary improvements and capitalize on their investment.
Let me give an example. Apple is the largest unix vendor today because they picked the BSD distro, which is under the MIT license. This allows them to create a proprietary GUI layer (Aqua) while still contributing freely to the underlying open source OS code. MacOS X works because a commercial enterprise has devoted significant development efforts into the weak spots of linux, specifically, consistency of operation and function.
Change the license. Fire the freetards like RMS. Get real commercial development going, and get everyone paid for what they're coding. For linux to succeed, it has to be an ecosystem where everyone makes money.
He wasn't a journalist, he was the Editor in Chief of PC Magazine and all of Ziff Davis' internet sites, and was a major player in all their startups. Most of that crap was funded by Vulcan Ventures, which is the private venture capital company for Paul Allen (yes, the Microsoft gazillionaire).
Louderbeck made millions shilling for Microsoft, I assure you.