So say you have a genetic heart defect that is surgicially repaired. You pass those traits onto your offspring just like you pass on your blue eyes or brown hair. Now, they simply get their heart defect patched up, but their mother passed blood that doesn't properly coagulate, complicating the surgery.
But I "...forget that technology and civilization has all but removed natures influence on mankind. The orginal "intent" or reason for selection was to select for DNA that deals with nature efficiently. Alas, nowadays, no one needs..." a heart that pumps blood! Oh, wait...
Ok, here's another case in point - angora rabbits. They are so overly inbred that approx. half are infertile. They are even incapable of surviving outside of captivity (as they have to be shaved every 3 months, else they overheat and die). Now this is an apples and oranges comparison, but I believe this also works in the reverse. When you focus genetics to express certain traits, weaknesses are exposed. So what happens when you "allow" weaknesses to continue in the gene pool in direct opposition to what nature is trying to do (in this case, weed them out by stopping the genetic line)? At some point I believe you'll end up with more holes then cheese.
Exactly! But why start with one foot already in a hole by unnaturally and artificially carrying forward "weaknesses" that nature itself is trying to rid us of via functions such as traditional infertility? Besides, we are all eventually at the will of the earth... she gets smacked by a sufficiently large rock from space and we're all fucked.
BTW, WTF is FSMs and IPUs? (and yes, I exploited the irony).
You're right... there is no "perfect being", but I'd suggest that a being with the fewest "flaws" is more perfect then one with more "flaws".
Of course with that, you must define what a "flaw" is. I submit that any genetic predisposition that would serve to limit your procreation, either via shear inability or by a lack of reaching maturity is a "flaw" (let's say diabetes, just as an example). Now... in today's "environment" (that is, the environment that we create for ourselves, which includes Merck, Pfizer, etc) diabetes is not an issue. But place said person in say, New Orleans (either last week or 100 years ago - "environments change" as you said). Said genetic propensity becomes a major liability, as Merck, Pfizer and their ilk are no longer present in your "environment" (as you put it - the individual is "dangerously tied to those conditions"). Call me crazy, but I view that as a "genetic weakness". But you are right... some "flaws" turn out to be advantages in some cases. But how is it in our best interest to keep something in our "genetic toolkit" that nature itself is trying to get rid of by limiting the individuals procreation? Just because we can play god doesn't mean we should, or even have the right to. And yet in many ways that is exactly what we do.
As for evolution being a progression rather then a reaction, I call bullshit. Evolution in the Darwinian sense is via natural selection - a *reaction* to your environment. You can't run faster then your predator? You're dead. You can't see the color red very well and another predator is mostly red, you're dead. You can't tolerate the bacteria in the only source of water, you're dead. Reaction to the environment around you. Just like the predator who became a faster runner (or red) to catch yo ass.
I suppose that we are "progressing" now, in so far as there are no "environmental" influences on our choices. And by "environmental" I mean the natural environment (faster predators, etc), not the man made one (Pfizer, socioeconomic, etc). Anyone who wants to procreate pretty much can. Sure, we can't all rail Scarlet Johansen or Natalie Portman (or get knocked up by Brad Pitt for the lady in the audience, you know there's at least 1 on/.!!). But we manage, despite diabetes, traditional infertility and the like. But sink your ass in the middle of an "environment" without Pfizer, invitro fertilization, etc and your genetic line is in serious trouble. So who is the better determiner of the "best" traits? Nature or Pfizer? Sorry, but I pick nature, and I guess that makes me "blind" thinking that the thing that has brought us this far is not better suited then ourselves to determine our genetic direction.
We obviously differ on the definition of "natural". No matter which way you cut it, a doc scrapping out eggs from a woman in stirrups, a guy jerkin into a plastic cup and a person mixing them together in a clean room/petri dish is not the logical extension of a cave man kickin' it by the fire. Fire, blankets and homes - these things allow humanity to invade/inhabit (depending on your perspective) environments that we are not specifically designed to inhabit. I can fuck just fine in Cairns or San Diego all year round naked 100% of the time. In South Lake Tahoe I need those things, but the cradle of humanity was not in Tahoe, it was in the middle east/Africa. Besides, beavers (no, the small furry kind... no the ones with tails... agh nevermind) build dams (homes) and utilize blankets (homes as you suggested as better blankets, but beavers also use the warmth of rotting plant material, which I guess could be their fire), yet I see this as "natural". Yet, again, stirrups + plastic cup + petri dish != "natural" in my book.
With this angle of argument, you could probably get me to concede that insulin for a severe diabetic that otherwise would not have survived into adulthood is a logical extension of the cave man using fire to be able to live 2 hills over (just because 1 tool is "more complicated" then another doesn't change the fact that they are both tools). But the fact remains, in that case that individual is able to pass along his/her traits of severe diabetes which is not a desirable trait to carry. 'Cause should that particular "tool" (insulin) become unavailable for even a short amount of time... Darwin gets ya and your offspring should they carry the same trait. And that, in my opinion is a "weakness" of that individual, genetically speaking.
I'm truly not trolling here... but how does evolution proceed without natural selection? This computer nerd with only the min required number of Bio. classes can't see how it can (while fully realizing his limitation of knowledge in the matter)?
Two things... 1) Exactly what human tools have been around since "that long ago" that help you sticking (or receiving) a penis in the vagina? Or what human tools have been around since "that long ago" that assist a sperm entering an egg, or an egg embed itself into the vaginal wall? Sure, you can use some lube and a turkey baster if you really want to, but neither have been around "since humanity started using tools". So tell me, what tools are you referring to and approx. how long ago did said tools come into use (not widespread use, simply use)?
2) Yes, evolution is slow. But in the Darwin definition of evolution by natural selection, when nearly 100% of the population that *choose* to procreate can and do, I find it hard to see how evolution by natural selection is still functioning on a level higher then "ever so slightly" (Disclaimer: At anything 100% it very much still is functioning, if ever so slightly, so in that way you have a point there, but 0.10322% functionality is hardly anything to get all hot and bothered about).
First, let me open with an intelligent, well thought out "fuck you". **I** said **NOTHING** about rich -vs- poor, my focus was actually more on invitro fertilization and those who "choose to defy nature's/god's/allah's/mother earth's/Jebus's/whoever's will" (which is a simplistic, bullshit way to say it).
Now, with that out of the way... look at another post I made here:
My definition of "fitness" is the ability to procreate without the help of technology - medical or otherwise (KY is, of course excluded). If you can't do that yourself, or could not have lived to an age to do that yourself, yes I believe you're a detriment to the gene pool (Darwin-isticially speaking). And yes, when nearly everyone who chooses to procreate can, evolution has been "magically suspend[ed]" (again IMHO).
As for Stephen Hawking and the like [or the poor in your case composer777], as I said I am not advocating that social programs be repealed, that we all become Christian Scientists and that we all shun invitro fertilization... I am simply supporting the idea that evolution has, for all intents and purposes, stopped in the human population due to these factors. I don't want to see the day where the "duh, football..." guys are the only ones who can survive, nor am I saying everyone deemed to be developmentally disabled [or the poor, composer777] should be clubbed on the head.
My definition of "fitness" is the ability to procreate without the help of technology - medical or otherwise (KY is, of course excluded). If you can't do that yourself, or could not have lived to an age to do that yourself, yes I believe you're a detriment to the gene pool (Darwin-isticially speaking). And yes, when nearly everyone who chooses to procreate can, evolution has been "magically suspend[ed]" (again IMHO).
As for Stephen Hawking and the like, as I said I am not advocating that social programs be repealed, that we all become Christian Scientists and that we all shun invitro fertilization... I am simply supporting the idea that evolution has, for all intents and purposes, stopped in the human population due to these factors. I don't want to see the day where the "duh, football..." guys are the only ones who can survive, nor am I saying everyone deemed to be developmentally disabled should be clubbed on the head.
Many believe that it's the improvement of nutrition across the human population that has lead to a rise in the global IQ (aka - the Flynn effect
). This is further substantiated (though not proven) by studies which point to children with certain nutritional deficiencies have long term negative effects on their IQ.
The flaw is not that some people reporduce more then others, it is that some people reproduce period.
"Invitro fertilization", When nature/god says 'no', but the doctor says 'yes, for a reasonable fee'.
For about the last 100 years(-ish, in the western world at least), the engine that drives the evolutionary process in the human population has been (all but) removed by way of social programs, improved medical techniques, invitro fertilization (natural selection... anyone?), you name it. That's not to say I'm advocating doing away with these things, but anything that allows for the production of offspring by individuals that otherwise would not have had the ability or made it to the age to reproduce *naturally*, is "dumbing down" our collective human gene pool.
If nature wouldn't have allowed certain individuals to reproduce, and yet modern medicine/technology/whatever have, their "faulty" genes are allowed to continue past their naturally selected "use by date", so to speak. How in the hell is this not a bad thing for the population as a whole? By definition, natural selection has been removed and therefore evolution has ceased. Sure, the population is "evolving" (read: reproducing) but with a near 100% reproduction rate amongst those individuals who *choose* to reproduce (again, no evolution here), it is not "evolving" in the Darwinian sense. Only those with severe medical or physical problems are no longer "able" to reproduce, but again this does not evolution make (IMHO).
I can't seem to find any links Re: military/sand, but again I seem to remember something about the Toughbooks being used in Iraq (#1, #1.5 or #2, I'm not sure). I've never used one myself, but it may be a place to start!
Over the last few months, there seems to be a *MASSIVE* up-tick in either the general/. opinion of Microsoft and it's products, or someone at Microsoft has decided on targeting/. for a bit of good ole fashion astroturfing.
Funny, as I was recently forced from Win2k up to WinXP and work, and I've had nothing but problems since (so, at least for me, that makes me believe that their products aren't getting any better, so maybe it's that green stuff after all!?)
Can I just make these guys "-1 Astroturfer" instead of Foe-ing them up?
The Cali-Spanglish definition pretty much is "a mild derogatory term for Americans". Though it's nice to know the whole linage behind the phrase, Muchos Danke!
The Aussi-Gringo FTA fucked allot of things for the Aussi's (though they thankfully avoided the worst on their government prescription drugs program). From what I saw and heard, the FTA has little to nothing in it for Aussi's (loss of domestic TV programs, lingering threats to their PBS, etc). And the DCMA-esque copyright "equivalents" required by the FTA are headed their way (if not already implemented, life +70 years anyone?). The FTA is the only reason Australia has troops on the ground in Iraq, because the misguided "head jerks" wanted that fucking thing so damned bad for whatever reason ("Oh, oh, we can mitigate problems between the US and China because of our relationships with the two countries!" - so what? When two elephants dance, all you can do is get the hell out of the way).
...should this come into effect - it's nice to know that it won't invalidate the passport! Updating passports is not a bad thing, but when it's done as half assed as this seems to have been done, it does nothing but make them less secure. Non-encrypted data readable from a distance, what genious thought that one up? (as a CIA agent quietly sneaks up behind me...;)
Best of all, I'll have to nuke my Aussi and US passports (and exactly when did US law become international law? DCMA comming to [in] Europe, this in Oz...)
Is there anything in the specs that say the passport is invalid if the RFID is non-responsive? Why not just fry the little bastard yourself after you receive your new passport? The information can't be mugged if the RFID is dead! And I can't see customs refusing entry to an individual just because the RFID is dead, worst they could do is tell you to get a new passport... but if they get fried too often, that would kill this before it could ever get going.
Hell, just stand outside customs in SFO with a transmitter that "conveniently" disables everyone's passports =)
All you need to do is remember 2-3 words in a row in the chorus of the song. Then, search them on Google with the word "lyrics". For example this search's second result is for "Slow Down Gandhi" by Sage Francis (which was the track I was looking for). And "wasn't pop then" isn't even in the chorus, where as "slow down Gandhi" is. I heard this track on JJJ here in Oz driving to work. I jotted down a few partial lines to the track and found it in under a minute on Google. Of course it's best to avoid contractions (as not everyone will write "wasn't" in this example, but anyway).
Course, this won't work on instrumentals;) Hope this helps a bit! It's only failed me once or twice in five years.
I liked a few tracks off of the "Bend it like Beckham" soundtrack, so after finding the track title on IMDb and searching for the artist (B21 in this case) I ended up with a ton of results in addition to the track I was looking for (remixes he'd done, etc.). I ended up downloading a bunch of the tracks and I have to say I enjoy a bit of the Punjabi Hip Hop scene! I NEVER would have been exposed to this if it wasn't for P2P.
Also (though I'll get flack for it I'm sure), the original Russian version of the Tatu disk (remember, the two Russian "lesbians" who sung "All the things she said"). Anyway, the Russian version of their album is 10x better then the English (and I don't speak a lick of Russian - pun kinda intended >=).
Course the RIAA hasn't seen any revenues from this "exploitation" (ever try to find Punjabi Hip Hop or Russian releases in Tower Records?!)
Kinda off topic, but does anyone know if there are going to be parameterized properties in C# 2.0 (besides the default property, of course)? I didn't see anything overtly mentioned in this article about them (maybe I missed something). This lacking feature is the single most annoying thing (for me anyway) of C#.
Lets look at the past, shall we? Fast forwarding thru Wax, LPs and 8-tra(c)ks to cassette tapes (pun kinda intended)... Cassettes were nice (agh, ubiquity) but they had issues generally relating to their format: tape. No random access, rewinding required, etc., etc. Enter CDs. You can go to any track at any time, the sound quality is better, no rewinding/fast forwarding, no flipping, randomize tracks, etc.
What have we had since CDs? MP3s and SuperAudio disks. Which "advancement" is more popular? The general population only care about quality that is "good enough". CDs weren't dropped in droves in the rush to buy SuperAudio disks (quite the opposite, actually). Why? Cause CDs are "good enough". Hell, CDs are really better then "good enough" as MP3s are really the medium of choice and their quality is less then that of CD audio. The lesser quality of MP3s is more then made up by their ease of transport (read: file size) over the internet/iPod/thumb drive/whatever. The next advancement after CDs was not an improvement in quality, it was an improvement in portability!
OK, now to the point - why in the hell will DVDs be any different? We graduated from VHS to DVD just like we graduated from cassettes to CDs. Why will people drop their DVDs for the next, wis-bang technology? Sure, HD-DVD will look a bit better on the $10,000 uber-sized plasma screen (SuperAudio sounds a bit better on those 10k tube receivers), but for the average Joe with the average 20 inch TV, DVDs are more then "good enough". And as the parent suggested... DivX (the MP3s of the movie world) are preferred because of their size. PMP (portable media players, read: video iPod) are already on the market, trying to do for your DVD collection what your iPod has done for your CD collection. In this realm, DivX (et la) is going to kick the shit out of HD content, because just like the iPod... you can carry 20 CDs at CD quality, or you can carry 200 CDs at near CD quality.
So, based on the past... The next advancement after DVDs will not be an improvement in quality (HD-DVD), it will be an improvement in portability (near DVD quality)! Couple this "advancement" with annoyances such as "Sorry sir, your HD-DVD player/recorder with all your recorded TV shows from the past 3 seasons will no longer play new HD-DVDs because someone somewhere used the same model for something we didn't like. You'll have to buy a new player to view Star Wars Episode III - The Search For More Money Edition" and "Sorry miss, you can't put the HD version of LotR onto your new vPod... <wispers>...But if you know anyone with the DVD version...</wispers>". People will be more then happy to stick with their current DVD collection.
...I've been running a WAMP (Windows, Apache, MySQL, PHP/Perl) for a while now. Nothing professional per-say, but definitely my ideas nursery. I have thus far been too scared/lazy/busy/etc to change out the W for the L, but I have activity chosen Linux apps on the box in preparation for the move to Linux. Getting the servers properly configured is the hardest part. Now that I at least have the AMP properly configured, my eventual Linux migration will be that much easier.
This is why a native Win32 build is important. I looked at PostgreSQL a while ago, and even got the non-official Win32 build to run on the box. Ironically, the more Linux/Open Source applications I get running on that Windows box, the closer I am to making the jump to Linux for good. And since I refuse to upgrade past Windows 2000, that day is rapidly approaching. The only things holding me back now are my DNS and Mail servers (I've currently got Windows only servers). If I could have found a Win32 build of a Linux Mail and DNS server, I'd literally have nothing keeping me off Linux right now.
The most important thing for me was to get the servers up and running. I know Windows, I didn't know Linux. So instead of adding another thing to learn, I took the path or least resistance and installed Linux/Open Source servers under Windows. And I don't think I'm alone. Just look at this recent story... I think TheRaven64 got it right.
BTW: Anyone have a Win32 build of Linux Mail/DNS servers for me to kick around? Anyone?
I tried the exploit in Firefox 1.0pr without the exploit working. So I thought I'd try it in IE, so from the Secunia.com page loaded within Firefox "Right Click > Open Link Target in IE" I go and once again, poof... not working. Finally I loaded the Secunia.com page in IE, then clicked the link and only then did the exploit work.
So there you have it... Firefox seems to protect IE from this exploit, how funny is that!?
Look at the other responses to this question...
on
Point and Click Linux
·
· Score: 1
...and you will see why Linux will be held out of the mainstream for a few years more (if not longer) not by Microsoft, but by Linux supporters! For the love of god people, coddle the nubies! Give them all the help you can give! Every time you put on this holier-then-thou bravado it only hurts Linux.
These responses should not be centered around the ideas that "fuck, you mom is stupid" and "well cars aren't all the same". These responses should be pointing to themes that are windows-esque or at least designed with an eye towards ex-windows users.
Sure, maybe when the computer has been around for 100-ish years or to the people who have had computers around them all their life could you make those arguments, but for the general populus it's only been around for 20-odd years. People used to jump out of the way of trains that were shown on movie screens, people used to refuse to ride in cars... why? Because it wasn't something they grew up with, it was something completely new to them.
Teaching someone how to drive an automatic car, then giving them a stick (manual) car and berating them for not being able to do it is not constructive. Some people are quite literally afraid of their computers (just like people were afraid of movies, photographs, cars, etc, etc). Is their fear logical? No, but that doesn't mean you can discount it either. If you can only feel superior by putting some else down, then please, for the benefit of humanity, shut the hell up. For those of you who can offer HELP to someone asking for it, please, do it without exerting your superiority over them... else one day they simply won't ask anymore.
If 59 million American's think Bush is doing a good enough job to be re-elected... America deserves him, his puppet-masters, his lies, his policies, his floundering economy, his record-breaking national debt, his fear-mongering and the world's opinion of America as an ignorant, arrogant, violent and self-centered society. Let America continue to outsource brainpower in the search of a.5 point bump in the company stock, let America continue to act unilaterally in international affairs, let America dig it's own hole... it seems we can't dig it fast enough!
At this rate of spending (coupled with the imminent retirement of the baby boomers) America will become the new Argentina within the next decade (if not within the next 4 years).
Slashdot Mirror
But I "...forget that technology and civilization has all but removed natures influence on mankind. The orginal "intent" or reason for selection was to select for DNA that deals with nature efficiently. Alas, nowadays, no one needs..." a heart that pumps blood! Oh, wait...
Ok, here's another case in point - angora rabbits. They are so overly inbred that approx. half are infertile. They are even incapable of surviving outside of captivity (as they have to be shaved every 3 months, else they overheat and die). Now this is an apples and oranges comparison, but I believe this also works in the reverse. When you focus genetics to express certain traits, weaknesses are exposed. So what happens when you "allow" weaknesses to continue in the gene pool in direct opposition to what nature is trying to do (in this case, weed them out by stopping the genetic line)? At some point I believe you'll end up with more holes then cheese.
BTW, WTF is FSMs and IPUs? (and yes, I exploited the irony).
Of course with that, you must define what a "flaw" is. I submit that any genetic predisposition that would serve to limit your procreation, either via shear inability or by a lack of reaching maturity is a "flaw" (let's say diabetes, just as an example). Now... in today's "environment" (that is, the environment that we create for ourselves, which includes Merck, Pfizer, etc) diabetes is not an issue. But place said person in say, New Orleans (either last week or 100 years ago - "environments change" as you said). Said genetic propensity becomes a major liability, as Merck, Pfizer and their ilk are no longer present in your "environment" (as you put it - the individual is "dangerously tied to those conditions"). Call me crazy, but I view that as a "genetic weakness". But you are right... some "flaws" turn out to be advantages in some cases. But how is it in our best interest to keep something in our "genetic toolkit" that nature itself is trying to get rid of by limiting the individuals procreation? Just because we can play god doesn't mean we should, or even have the right to. And yet in many ways that is exactly what we do.
As for evolution being a progression rather then a reaction, I call bullshit. Evolution in the Darwinian sense is via natural selection - a *reaction* to your environment. You can't run faster then your predator? You're dead. You can't see the color red very well and another predator is mostly red, you're dead. You can't tolerate the bacteria in the only source of water, you're dead. Reaction to the environment around you. Just like the predator who became a faster runner (or red) to catch yo ass.
I suppose that we are "progressing" now, in so far as there are no "environmental" influences on our choices. And by "environmental" I mean the natural environment (faster predators, etc), not the man made one (Pfizer, socioeconomic, etc). Anyone who wants to procreate pretty much can. Sure, we can't all rail Scarlet Johansen or Natalie Portman (or get knocked up by Brad Pitt for the lady in the audience, you know there's at least 1 on /.!!). But we manage, despite diabetes, traditional infertility and the like. But sink your ass in the middle of an "environment" without Pfizer, invitro fertilization, etc and your genetic line is in serious trouble. So who is the better determiner of the "best" traits? Nature or Pfizer? Sorry, but I pick nature, and I guess that makes me "blind" thinking that the thing that has brought us this far is not better suited then ourselves to determine our genetic direction.
Silly me.
With this angle of argument, you could probably get me to concede that insulin for a severe diabetic that otherwise would not have survived into adulthood is a logical extension of the cave man using fire to be able to live 2 hills over (just because 1 tool is "more complicated" then another doesn't change the fact that they are both tools). But the fact remains, in that case that individual is able to pass along his/her traits of severe diabetes which is not a desirable trait to carry. 'Cause should that particular "tool" (insulin) become unavailable for even a short amount of time... Darwin gets ya and your offspring should they carry the same trait. And that, in my opinion is a "weakness" of that individual, genetically speaking.
I'm truly not trolling here... but how does evolution proceed without natural selection? This computer nerd with only the min required number of Bio. classes can't see how it can (while fully realizing his limitation of knowledge in the matter)?
2) Yes, evolution is slow. But in the Darwin definition of evolution by natural selection, when nearly 100% of the population that *choose* to procreate can and do, I find it hard to see how evolution by natural selection is still functioning on a level higher then "ever so slightly" (Disclaimer: At anything 100% it very much still is functioning, if ever so slightly, so in that way you have a point there, but 0.10322% functionality is hardly anything to get all hot and bothered about).
Now, with that out of the way... look at another post I made here:
My definition of "fitness" is the ability to procreate without the help of technology - medical or otherwise (KY is, of course excluded). If you can't do that yourself, or could not have lived to an age to do that yourself, yes I believe you're a detriment to the gene pool (Darwin-isticially speaking). And yes, when nearly everyone who chooses to procreate can, evolution has been "magically suspend[ed]" (again IMHO).
As for Stephen Hawking and the like [or the poor in your case composer777], as I said I am not advocating that social programs be repealed, that we all become Christian Scientists and that we all shun invitro fertilization... I am simply supporting the idea that evolution has, for all intents and purposes, stopped in the human population due to these factors. I don't want to see the day where the "duh, football..." guys are the only ones who can survive, nor am I saying everyone deemed to be developmentally disabled [or the poor, composer777] should be clubbed on the head.
As for Stephen Hawking and the like, as I said I am not advocating that social programs be repealed, that we all become Christian Scientists and that we all shun invitro fertilization... I am simply supporting the idea that evolution has, for all intents and purposes, stopped in the human population due to these factors. I don't want to see the day where the "duh, football..." guys are the only ones who can survive, nor am I saying everyone deemed to be developmentally disabled should be clubbed on the head.
The flaw is not that some people reporduce more then others, it is that some people reproduce period.
"Invitro fertilization", When nature/god says 'no', but the doctor says 'yes, for a reasonable fee'.
If nature wouldn't have allowed certain individuals to reproduce, and yet modern medicine/technology/whatever have, their "faulty" genes are allowed to continue past their naturally selected "use by date", so to speak. How in the hell is this not a bad thing for the population as a whole? By definition, natural selection has been removed and therefore evolution has ceased. Sure, the population is "evolving" (read: reproducing) but with a near 100% reproduction rate amongst those individuals who *choose* to reproduce (again, no evolution here), it is not "evolving" in the Darwinian sense. Only those with severe medical or physical problems are no longer "able" to reproduce, but again this does not evolution make (IMHO).
Panasonic(R) Toughbook(R) 29 Wins Laptop Magazine Torture Test,
Panasonic's own case studies.
I can't seem to find any links Re: military/sand, but again I seem to remember something about the Toughbooks being used in Iraq (#1, #1.5 or #2, I'm not sure). I've never used one myself, but it may be a place to start!
Over the last few months, there seems to be a *MASSIVE* up-tick in either the general /. opinion of Microsoft and it's products, or someone at Microsoft has decided on targeting /. for a bit of good ole fashion astroturfing.
Funny, as I was recently forced from Win2k up to WinXP and work, and I've had nothing but problems since (so, at least for me, that makes me believe that their products aren't getting any better, so maybe it's that green stuff after all!?)
Can I just make these guys "-1 Astroturfer" instead of Foe-ing them up?
The Cali-Spanglish definition pretty much is "a mild derogatory term for Americans". Though it's nice to know the whole linage behind the phrase, Muchos Danke!
The Aussi-Gringo FTA fucked allot of things for the Aussi's (though they thankfully avoided the worst on their government prescription drugs program). From what I saw and heard, the FTA has little to nothing in it for Aussi's (loss of domestic TV programs, lingering threats to their PBS, etc). And the DCMA-esque copyright "equivalents" required by the FTA are headed their way (if not already implemented, life +70 years anyone?). The FTA is the only reason Australia has troops on the ground in Iraq, because the misguided "head jerks" wanted that fucking thing so damned bad for whatever reason ("Oh, oh, we can mitigate problems between the US and China because of our relationships with the two countries!" - so what? When two elephants dance, all you can do is get the hell out of the way).
Best of all, I'll have to nuke my Aussi and US passports (and exactly when did US law become international law? DCMA comming to [in] Europe, this in Oz...)
Be sure to make your comments heard, I have!
Hell, just stand outside customs in SFO with a transmitter that "conveniently" disables everyone's passports =)
Course, this won't work on instrumentals ;) Hope this helps a bit! It's only failed me once or twice in five years.
Also (though I'll get flack for it I'm sure), the original Russian version of the Tatu disk (remember, the two Russian "lesbians" who sung "All the things she said"). Anyway, the Russian version of their album is 10x better then the English (and I don't speak a lick of Russian - pun kinda intended >=).
Course the RIAA hasn't seen any revenues from this "exploitation" (ever try to find Punjabi Hip Hop or Russian releases in Tower Records?!)
Kinda off topic, but does anyone know if there are going to be parameterized properties in C# 2.0 (besides the default property, of course)? I didn't see anything overtly mentioned in this article about them (maybe I missed something). This lacking feature is the single most annoying thing (for me anyway) of C#.
Lets look at the past, shall we? Fast forwarding thru Wax, LPs and 8-tra(c)ks to cassette tapes (pun kinda intended)... Cassettes were nice (agh, ubiquity) but they had issues generally relating to their format: tape. No random access, rewinding required, etc., etc. Enter CDs. You can go to any track at any time, the sound quality is better, no rewinding/fast forwarding, no flipping, randomize tracks, etc.
What have we had since CDs? MP3s and SuperAudio disks. Which "advancement" is more popular? The general population only care about quality that is "good enough". CDs weren't dropped in droves in the rush to buy SuperAudio disks (quite the opposite, actually). Why? Cause CDs are "good enough". Hell, CDs are really better then "good enough" as MP3s are really the medium of choice and their quality is less then that of CD audio. The lesser quality of MP3s is more then made up by their ease of transport (read: file size) over the internet/iPod/thumb drive/whatever. The next advancement after CDs was not an improvement in quality, it was an improvement in portability!
OK, now to the point - why in the hell will DVDs be any different? We graduated from VHS to DVD just like we graduated from cassettes to CDs. Why will people drop their DVDs for the next, wis-bang technology? Sure, HD-DVD will look a bit better on the $10,000 uber-sized plasma screen (SuperAudio sounds a bit better on those 10k tube receivers), but for the average Joe with the average 20 inch TV, DVDs are more then "good enough". And as the parent suggested... DivX (the MP3s of the movie world) are preferred because of their size. PMP (portable media players, read: video iPod) are already on the market, trying to do for your DVD collection what your iPod has done for your CD collection. In this realm, DivX (et la) is going to kick the shit out of HD content, because just like the iPod... you can carry 20 CDs at CD quality, or you can carry 200 CDs at near CD quality.
So, based on the past... The next advancement after DVDs will not be an improvement in quality (HD-DVD), it will be an improvement in portability (near DVD quality)! Couple this "advancement" with annoyances such as "Sorry sir, your HD-DVD player/recorder with all your recorded TV shows from the past 3 seasons will no longer play new HD-DVDs because someone somewhere used the same model for something we didn't like. You'll have to buy a new player to view Star Wars Episode III - The Search For More Money Edition" and "Sorry miss, you can't put the HD version of LotR onto your new vPod... <wispers>...But if you know anyone with the DVD version...</wispers>". People will be more then happy to stick with their current DVD collection.
This is why a native Win32 build is important. I looked at PostgreSQL a while ago, and even got the non-official Win32 build to run on the box. Ironically, the more Linux/Open Source applications I get running on that Windows box, the closer I am to making the jump to Linux for good. And since I refuse to upgrade past Windows 2000, that day is rapidly approaching. The only things holding me back now are my DNS and Mail servers (I've currently got Windows only servers). If I could have found a Win32 build of a Linux Mail and DNS server, I'd literally have nothing keeping me off Linux right now.
The most important thing for me was to get the servers up and running. I know Windows, I didn't know Linux. So instead of adding another thing to learn, I took the path or least resistance and installed Linux/Open Source servers under Windows. And I don't think I'm alone. Just look at this recent story... I think TheRaven64 got it right.
BTW: Anyone have a Win32 build of Linux Mail/DNS servers for me to kick around? Anyone?
I tried the exploit in Firefox 1.0pr without the exploit working. So I thought I'd try it in IE, so from the Secunia.com page loaded within Firefox "Right Click > Open Link Target in IE" I go and once again, poof... not working. Finally I loaded the Secunia.com page in IE, then clicked the link and only then did the exploit work.
So there you have it... Firefox seems to protect IE from this exploit, how funny is that!?
These responses should not be centered around the ideas that "fuck, you mom is stupid" and "well cars aren't all the same". These responses should be pointing to themes that are windows-esque or at least designed with an eye towards ex-windows users.
Sure, maybe when the computer has been around for 100-ish years or to the people who have had computers around them all their life could you make those arguments, but for the general populus it's only been around for 20-odd years. People used to jump out of the way of trains that were shown on movie screens, people used to refuse to ride in cars... why? Because it wasn't something they grew up with, it was something completely new to them.
Teaching someone how to drive an automatic car, then giving them a stick (manual) car and berating them for not being able to do it is not constructive. Some people are quite literally afraid of their computers (just like people were afraid of movies, photographs, cars, etc, etc). Is their fear logical? No, but that doesn't mean you can discount it either. If you can only feel superior by putting some else down, then please, for the benefit of humanity, shut the hell up. For those of you who can offer HELP to someone asking for it, please, do it without exerting your superiority over them... else one day they simply won't ask anymore.
If 59 million American's think Bush is doing a good enough job to be re-elected... America deserves him, his puppet-masters, his lies, his policies, his floundering economy, his record-breaking national debt, his fear-mongering and the world's opinion of America as an ignorant, arrogant, violent and self-centered society. Let America continue to outsource brainpower in the search of a .5 point bump in the company stock, let America continue to act unilaterally in international affairs, let America dig it's own hole... it seems we can't dig it fast enough!
At this rate of spending (coupled with the imminent retirement of the baby boomers) America will become the new Argentina within the next decade (if not within the next 4 years).