Thank you for pointing that out! I noticed it immediately. I ran to/. 30 minutes after seeing the show, hoping to discuss it with people who could notice things like this along with me. I wasn't thinking about the time zones, either.
Unfortunately, there's so much whining at +5 I'm now having to browse at 2 to actually find discussion about the show. I can't blame the whiners, I guess, although I think grown-ups can make their points without swearing every other word. (Bonus points if you recognize that as another Star Trek reference.) That's got to be one of the biggest spoilers of all time. I hope they don't do that to AOTC.
I loved the Gunmen series and the characters. Their patriotic visages now grace my ibook desktop as a tribute. Amazing how worked up I can get over fictional characters.
Calling yourself a church does not give you an impeneratrable shield with which to beat your members, even if they ask for and accept it.
Ah, but calling yourself a doctor gives you the right to administer fatal drugs if the patient asks for it. At least, many people think so.
There's a very, very fine line to draw between protecting the rights of citizens from the abuses of others and trying to pass legislation to protect us from ourselves. Anyone who claims they can draw that line perfectly is wrong.
If you don't like copylefted software, you can always WRITE YOUR OWN CODE.
Yes, I know; many people have said this before me. And Gates' point is that governments shouldn't subsidize copylefted software, not that free software should be outlawed or anything like that.
While I'll be happy to see any source of money go to fund free software development, and I think that if the government does fund development it should fund only free software and preferably copylefted software, I personally don't feel the need to have the government subsidize it. The government subsidizes too many things already. I'll be happy for the government to not subsidize copylefted software, as long as it doesn't subsidize proprietary software, either.
You might be overstating the case somewhat. Sure, many (if not most) "alternative" medicines work. Sure, there's a case to be made that conventional doctors might perhaps have an interest in blocking general use of some of these treatments. But I don't think we can really classify "alternative" medicine in general as better. I'm certain that some of them are, but we can't completely throw out surgeons in favor of St.-John's-wart just yet.
Google is singular. Even though the term represents an organization of many people, it is just one organization, and so the word is singular. You don't say, "The class have learned the material from lesson 5"; you say, "The class has learned the material from lesson 5."
Trust me on this one. It's not like the word "data" where we monkeyed around and changed the semantics.
So it's not, "Google Release Web APIs," it's "Google Releases Web APIs"; and it's not "Google have released...," it's "Google has released...." I know, it doesn't matter. That doesn't keep it from bothering me.
Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?
on
LoTR Takes 4 Oscars
·
· Score: 2
As near as I can tell, that's the spark that makes a slash site work. I remember just being awed by Taco's response to queries about the code being open and people trying to compete. "Let them try; more power to them." He's not scared of that possiblity at all.
For all the griping and complaining around here, you can't deny that people like this place because they like what the editors like.
The post office is very serious about mail fraud. If a fraudulent transaction involved the postal service at any step along the way, they will get involved. I've heard of problems with some ebay sellers being investidated because the post office recognized it as mail fraud.
ICANN, on the other hand, may not particularly care. But it wouldn't hurt to let them know, too.
I agree with everything you say; proxy servers are a great thing for all involved and not a threat to freedom.
But the problem is that this proxy server doesn't work right. My browser should look up the IP corresponding to the site, send a request on port 80, and get the response. In this case, it looks like the proxy is insisting on doing the lookup part, and so the user effectively can't change his DNS.
Thank you! It really was a serious suggestion, although I didn't explain very well and I guess people had no idea what I meant. I think I'm not guilty of reading the article, either; my suggestion is more for government-to-governed communication, while I think they are talking about government-to-government communication.
What I'm really trying to say is that we need to completely rethink our network model. Freenet is probably not the actualy answer, but I think something like it will answer a lot of our problems. Freenet replicates content in much the same way many of us did on September 11.
Why don't they put out their data on freenet and then if people want to see it it will be replicated on nodes close to the people who want it? Or if no one needs the data it will just drop out.
There, I feel better. Imagine my excitement when I read this article implying there was a human being who is a cyborg. I was intently interested in what incredible technology must have gone into him in the form of these "implants," and what horrible condition (thinking of Stephen Hawking) he must be in that he cannot function without them.
Folks, wearing an X10 webcam on your face does not make you a cyborg. And I'm mad that someone got my excitement up.
Read the comments, read the article, and do some google searching. This guy would like to attract a lot of attention -- and sure, wearable computing is a great thing. But he doesn't have implants, and he is not a cyborg.
I wear glasses to enhance my vision. That doesn't make me a cyborg. This guy wears a webcam over his eye to enhance his vision. And he thinks that's such a spectacular thing, he's named the concept "The EyeTap principle", apparently thinking it's just incredibly original. What a concept! Carrying around a camera and showing what you see to the world! Get real.
I'd give anything to see the note from his doctor. As his "implants" were nothing more than sticky electrodes like a heart patient might wear in the hospital (giving readouts about as exciting as coke machines and Christmas trees attached to the net, I'm sure), what possible medical explanation could be given that he requires these things on his person. They are possessions, not body parts. Maybe his experiment might be interrupted and the equipment damaged, but there is no medical need here, and thus a note from a doctor is nothing more than an attempt to be special and have people bend the rules.
I sound excessively negative here, but I'm a little bit mad at the grandstanding and sensationalism of this person. I note the article claims he's never had any problems like this before (a verbatim quote he gave to the media I'm sure), but his website claims he had similar problems in 2000. I guess the problems weren't so bad he'd vow never to fly Air Canada again.
One more time, and say it with me (you'll feel better, too): STEVE MANN IS NOT A CYBORG.
HOWEVER... if you want, you can just download the source and tools and build your own MacPerl 5.8.0. You can, today, download the source
and build your own MacPerl 5.7.3!
For anyone wondering what the big deal is with MacPerl 5.6.1, this is one of the biggest items! In the old days if you wanted to build MacPerl you needed proprietary tools, special changes to the source, and a lot of patience. I didn't have any of those, so I never did it. (Hmmm... thinking back to the three virtues of a programmer...)
Now Perl builds with Apple's (free) tools, right? So, I could go build my own if I don't like the binary. Or if I just enjoy building software. Which I do. Or, realistically, it means the bar is lowered and everyone can get in on the development, as pudge said, and compile their own MacPerl 5.[678].x
One of my upcoming projects this year may involve porting a certain free program to Macintosh (not OS X). This program has no Perl involved at all:( , but when I need to know how to compile something on the Mac, MacPerl is where I'll look for educational examples.
I still remember with fondness the day I installed MacPerl on my dad's LCIII. Finally I had a machine I could program again! It's hard for me to get through life without the ability to write little programs to answer questions and solve small problems. After I got MacPerl on that machine (1998 I think), I have never used another language to program on the Macintosh again.
My MacPerl use hasn't been as fancy as your examples, perhaps because I've been slowly migrating away from the Mac. (It's a G3, now, but in my lap is a blueberry ibook running Linux. And 5.6.1.)
I remember using MacPerl to make a local mirror of a website once or twice. (Never seen wget for Mac, and besides, it was more fun in Perl.) I also used MacPerl the first time I split up the input data files for one of my websites. I remember how nice it was to set the creator/type codes on files from within the program.
Considering I rarely write Perl programs that need to fork in UNIX (and I write Perl programs 5+ days a week for a living), it seems strange to me that people can't understand how MacPerl would be useful without forking.
This post not guaranteed to be coherent as I should be in bed right now instead of reading/.
One last thought, upon hitting the preview button. If a person thinks you need to fork subprocesses in Perl all the time, maybe he/she needs to go look at CPAN to see if there's a module to do what they want instead of running a subprocesses. I doubt anyone finds it necessary to fork a Perl program without exec'ing some other program; whatever it is you're going after with system or qx// can probably be gotten cheaper (processing wise) with a module.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for pointing that out! I noticed it immediately. I ran to /. 30 minutes after seeing the show, hoping to discuss it with people who could notice things like this along with me. I wasn't thinking about the time zones, either.
Unfortunately, there's so much whining at +5 I'm now having to browse at 2 to actually find discussion about the show. I can't blame the whiners, I guess, although I think grown-ups can make their points without swearing every other word. (Bonus points if you recognize that as another Star Trek reference.) That's got to be one of the biggest spoilers of all time. I hope they don't do that to AOTC.
I loved the Gunmen series and the characters. Their patriotic visages now grace my ibook desktop as a tribute. Amazing how worked up I can get over fictional characters.
Calling yourself a church does not give you an impeneratrable shield with which to beat your members, even if they ask for and accept it.
Ah, but calling yourself a doctor gives you the right to administer fatal drugs if the patient asks for it. At least, many people think so.
There's a very, very fine line to draw between protecting the rights of citizens from the abuses of others and trying to pass legislation to protect us from ourselves. Anyone who claims they can draw that line perfectly is wrong.
If you don't like copylefted software, you can always WRITE YOUR OWN CODE.
Yes, I know; many people have said this before me. And Gates' point is that governments shouldn't subsidize copylefted software, not that free software should be outlawed or anything like that.
While I'll be happy to see any source of money go to fund free software development, and I think that if the government does fund development it should fund only free software and preferably copylefted software, I personally don't feel the need to have the government subsidize it. The government subsidizes too many things already. I'll be happy for the government to not subsidize copylefted software, as long as it doesn't subsidize proprietary software, either.
Because it's not interesting to anybody but the most devouted "me too" open-source enthusiast.
I'm not a devoted "me too" open-source enthusiast. I'm a devoted "me too" free software enthusiast, thank you.
You might be overstating the case somewhat. Sure, many (if not most) "alternative" medicines work. Sure, there's a case to be made that conventional doctors might perhaps have an interest in blocking general use of some of these treatments. But I don't think we can really classify "alternative" medicine in general as better. I'm certain that some of them are, but we can't completely throw out surgeons in favor of St.-John's-wart just yet.
Didn't know that. Cool. I stand corrected.
Google is singular. Even though the term represents an organization of many people, it is just one organization, and so the word is singular. You don't say, "The class have learned the material from lesson 5"; you say, "The class has learned the material from lesson 5."
Trust me on this one. It's not like the word "data" where we monkeyed around and changed the semantics.
So it's not, "Google Release Web APIs," it's "Google Releases Web APIs"; and it's not "Google have released ... ," it's "Google has released ... ." I know, it doesn't matter. That doesn't keep it from bothering me.
As near as I can tell, that's the spark that makes a slash site work. I remember just being awed by Taco's response to queries about the code being open and people trying to compete. "Let them try; more power to them." He's not scared of that possiblity at all.
For all the griping and complaining around here, you can't deny that people like this place because they like what the editors like.
PERL is not an acronym.
The post office is very serious about mail fraud. If a fraudulent transaction involved the postal service at any step along the way, they will get involved. I've heard of problems with some ebay sellers being investidated because the post office recognized it as mail fraud.
ICANN, on the other hand, may not particularly care. But it wouldn't hurt to let them know, too.
This is the worst misuse of the word "mutation" since TMNT.
+1, funny.
But, as a sig I saw here once said, "'A lot' is two words. You wouldn't say, 'alittle," would you?"
I agree with everything you say; proxy servers are a great thing for all involved and not a threat to freedom.
But the problem is that this proxy server doesn't work right. My browser should look up the IP corresponding to the site, send a request on port 80, and get the response. In this case, it looks like the proxy is insisting on doing the lookup part, and so the user effectively can't change his DNS.
(+1, Awesome Idea)
That sounds like a practical solution. I'll just buy a beowulf cluster of PS3's and ...
(Do these guys think I can offload the processing for my games to someone else's PS3? Won't that PS3 be busy trying to run someone else's game?)
I think I'm not guilty of reading the article
Whatever that means. I feel like Yoda. What I meant was, "I think I'm guilty of not reading the article."
Thank you! It really was a serious suggestion, although I didn't explain very well and I guess people had no idea what I meant. I think I'm not guilty of reading the article, either; my suggestion is more for government-to-governed communication, while I think they are talking about government-to-government communication.
What I'm really trying to say is that we need to completely rethink our network model. Freenet is probably not the actualy answer, but I think something like it will answer a lot of our problems. Freenet replicates content in much the same way many of us did on September 11.
Serious. Freenet lets you run and update "freesites." All data is stored data.
Are you being mean or just ignorant?
Why don't they put out their data on freenet and then if people want to see it it will be replicated on nodes close to the people who want it? Or if no one needs the data it will just drop out.
Why don't they put out their data on freenet and then if people want to see it it will be replicated on nodes close to the people who want it?
there is an argument that democrats may be more in favor of this service in that democrats are seemingly always in favor of more government spending
Or maybe it's just that Republicans/Libertarians always seem in favor of less government spending. :)
THIS GUY IS NOT A CYBORG!
There, I feel better. Imagine my excitement when I read this article implying there was a human being who is a cyborg. I was intently interested in what incredible technology must have gone into him in the form of these "implants," and what horrible condition (thinking of Stephen Hawking) he must be in that he cannot function without them.
Folks, wearing an X10 webcam on your face does not make you a cyborg. And I'm mad that someone got my excitement up.
Read the comments, read the article, and do some google searching. This guy would like to attract a lot of attention -- and sure, wearable computing is a great thing. But he doesn't have implants, and he is not a cyborg.
I wear glasses to enhance my vision. That doesn't make me a cyborg. This guy wears a webcam over his eye to enhance his vision. And he thinks that's such a spectacular thing, he's named the concept "The EyeTap principle", apparently thinking it's just incredibly original. What a concept! Carrying around a camera and showing what you see to the world! Get real.
I'd give anything to see the note from his doctor. As his "implants" were nothing more than sticky electrodes like a heart patient might wear in the hospital (giving readouts about as exciting as coke machines and Christmas trees attached to the net, I'm sure), what possible medical explanation could be given that he requires these things on his person. They are possessions, not body parts. Maybe his experiment might be interrupted and the equipment damaged, but there is no medical need here, and thus a note from a doctor is nothing more than an attempt to be special and have people bend the rules.
I sound excessively negative here, but I'm a little bit mad at the grandstanding and sensationalism of this person. I note the article claims he's never had any problems like this before (a verbatim quote he gave to the media I'm sure), but his website claims he had similar problems in 2000. I guess the problems weren't so bad he'd vow never to fly Air Canada again.
One more time, and say it with me (you'll feel better, too): STEVE MANN IS NOT A CYBORG.
How about a live action Transformers movie? I suppose it'd probably be one of those movies that wouldn't be mentioned, although I'd like to see it.
HOWEVER ... if you want, you can just download the source and tools and build your own MacPerl 5.8.0. You can, today, download the source
and build your own MacPerl 5.7.3!
For anyone wondering what the big deal is with MacPerl 5.6.1, this is one of the biggest items! In the old days if you wanted to build MacPerl you needed proprietary tools, special changes to the source, and a lot of patience. I didn't have any of those, so I never did it. (Hmmm... thinking back to the three virtues of a programmer...)
Now Perl builds with Apple's (free) tools, right? So, I could go build my own if I don't like the binary. Or if I just enjoy building software. Which I do. Or, realistically, it means the bar is lowered and everyone can get in on the development, as pudge said, and compile their own MacPerl 5.[678].x
One of my upcoming projects this year may involve porting a certain free program to Macintosh (not OS X). This program has no Perl involved at all :( , but when I need to know how to compile something on the Mac, MacPerl is where I'll look for educational examples.
I thought you hadn't taken the OS X plunge yet?
I still remember with fondness the day I installed MacPerl on my dad's LCIII. Finally I had a machine I could program again! It's hard for me to get through life without the ability to write little programs to answer questions and solve small problems. After I got MacPerl on that machine (1998 I think), I have never used another language to program on the Macintosh again.
My MacPerl use hasn't been as fancy as your examples, perhaps because I've been slowly migrating away from the Mac. (It's a G3, now, but in my lap is a blueberry ibook running Linux. And 5.6.1.)
I remember using MacPerl to make a local mirror of a website once or twice. (Never seen wget for Mac, and besides, it was more fun in Perl.) I also used MacPerl the first time I split up the input data files for one of my websites. I remember how nice it was to set the creator/type codes on files from within the program.
Considering I rarely write Perl programs that need to fork in UNIX (and I write Perl programs 5+ days a week for a living), it seems strange to me that people can't understand how MacPerl would be useful without forking.
This post not guaranteed to be coherent as I should be in bed right now instead of reading /.
One last thought, upon hitting the preview button. If a person thinks you need to fork subprocesses in Perl all the time, maybe he/she needs to go look at CPAN to see if there's a module to do what they want instead of running a subprocesses. I doubt anyone finds it necessary to fork a Perl program without exec'ing some other program; whatever it is you're going after with system or qx// can probably be gotten cheaper (processing wise) with a module.