His wife was trying to save a 2.2MB for a 2 page Word document on a floppy disk.
Plain text, default font, left aligned. There was one email address, underlined.
After 17 minutes of searching, he found a way to turn off this email address
highlight off. The document was then saved at 800KB.
Lie. Damn lie. Try it yourself, I just did - type a word document (doesn't matter how long, I tried it with just a couple of lines as well as several pages) with a mailto: in it. Size? 24K. Yet he claims to be saving 1.4MB. Don't take it the wrong way, but this is bullshit, and he knows it. You want to exaggerate fine, but don't tell outright lies (perhaps he forgot to mention he also removed the.bmp watermark)
Oh, and the author transcribes 'M$ paperclip' - Did the presenter actually talk about 'Emm-dollar paperclip' No? Then don't write it like he did.
Some (occasional) interesting points, but really nothing that hasn't been mentioned many times before by anyone who's ever used a pc.
I believe that one of the traits Noel is hoping will emerge is hunting in packs - he admits that if this happens it will take a very long time to learn, but this may explain the large number of predators.
As for your idea of mating, I think that this would be very interesting. However, this is more of a GA approach to learning, whereas Noel is mostly interested in the learning of MLPs within the same generation - that is his field of research.
That makes a refreshing change from the usual 'We must combat voter apathy!' Instead, a laissez-faire attitude, on the principal that if they are too lazy to walk to a poll booth then their vote is pointless anyway.
You know, I'm beginning to like that idea - the only problem is that the highest percentage turnout will be the fanatics (on whatever side - but not necessarily cancelled out) and the disabled would be under-represented.
I know it seems unfair of the 'short-sighted' VCs, but you have to remember why they were in it. They gave you $5M and you had an annual turnover of $1M. Don't get me wrong, a $1M business is quite an achievement, especially in the current climate. However, from the VCs point of view they were looking at how long before they made the profits they were in it for. I don't know what sort of cash burn you had, but even if we're talking a relatively low figure and all profits were going to VCs, then they are still looking at 5-10 years even to pay back the original investment. Furthermore, this rate will cripple the company's growth and ensure that the $1M turnover is unlikely to increase.
Vultures thought they are, it is understandable that they don't want to wait 1/4 of a century to even start making the profits they expected.
They don't share your vision/commitment/hard work, they just see the bottom line. Once they see that they aren't making their profit fast enough they'll do whatever they can to get whatever they can. Now. They have no need to look to the company's future.
Nasty? Yes. Unreasonable? Probably not.
This time around, we're doing it without any funding - entirely organic growth. Yep, it's fscking hard, and very much hand to mouth. But at least we keep control, and if (when!) we make real money, it's not going to disappear into a VC's pocket.
Yup, offtopic city for us. Sod it, I've been rtbled for as long as I can remember - never once been allowed to moderate or even metamod (karma=23).
I actually voted LibDem at the last election. As I said in another post, it was because we have:
Labour claiming they were so much better than Tories, and any problems are just Tory leftovers.
Tories claiming they're so much better than Labour, and all problems are Labour's fault.
Then both parties falling over each other to jump on bandwagons and kiss babies.
In the midst of this, LibDem said 'Yup, the system is fscked [Health system IIRC] To fix it we're going to increase tax.'
At last! Somebody admitted, shortly before election time, that in order to pump money into an organisation taxes would have to be increased. It sounds petty, but that alone was enough to make the difference (I used to be Tory - not out of love, just Labour spin politics really pissed me off. Not that Tories are any different now they've seen how it worked for Labour.)
Somebody posted a story on kuro5hin about voter apathy, especially WRT the UK. I voted it +1 Front page, as it is the perfect forum for discussions like this, but most of the editorials said they'd voted -1, as it was 'too UK centric'
You being a/. reader from the UK, I assume I need not point out the annoying irony there.
I'm so used to correcting/. views on British life that I can't even tell the difference any more.
Yeah, Tony is a bit full of himself. Tories have put themselves out of the market with a crap leader. I also think that Charles Kennedy is a top bloke, but they're unlikely to get into power while he's still in charge (not that he's a bad leader, just that they're still so far behind).
I figure that in the next election or two, Blaire is going to get so humiliated by the drop in votes from the disillusioned supporters that he'll not be the party leader any more, let alone President. What was this article about again?
To quote Rick the policeman from 'Dude, where's my car?': Hey fellas, who's the goose? Me!
Re:I claim this post in the name of logged-in trol
on
WINE May Change To LGPL
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
You know, I actually agree with you (for as lot of cases) I meet loads of people who are 'dyslexic' but actually it just means they can't spell. I've met genuinely dyslexic people, and it's a whole different kettle of fish.
BTW, I've noticed that Outkast are obviously trolls, examine the evidence:
Mr Blair (Tony - he's the only one who's first name you have not given) is indeed ass licking.
However, he is emphatically not a president. Remember that old lady...what's her name...hangs aroung Buckingham Palace...you Americans like to come and coo at her, filling the air with words like 'quaint'. Well apparently she doesn't like the idea of a British president. We have a PRIME MINISTER.
I agree that standards are nice, but surely until hardware architectures are standardised as well, forcing a standard LSB will break if you change from little-endian to big-endian?
Surely I'm not the only person to have seen this problem?
Breaking bonds is *always* endothermic, Forming bonds is *always* exothermic. Energy is released in a chemical reaction when the energy taken to break the bonds is less than the energy released by forming the new bonds.
In the case of ADP, the bonds involved are of a higher energy than in ATP, thus the new bonds formed have released more energy than was taken to break the old bonds. I would give some data, but I don't have a data book. If you can be bothered, look at the different bonds in ADP and ATP, and look up the energies of the bonds in a data book - beware the negative numbers
In the one case of ATP=>ADP, saying that breaking bonds releases energy works. The danger (as you seem to have illustrated) is that this handy mnemonic (for want of a much better word) becomes fact - and suddenly breaks when used for the wrong purposes.
Yeah, and I wonder how much it costs to get an advert like this on Slashdot? I've got a product I'd like to advertise - it's not a Linux distro, but it does add to open source software. Does that meet the criteria?
Yes, very interesting - I keep trying to get this point of view across to people. Entropy is a statistical model of a multitude of microscopic interactions. The reason people refer to entropy is that it is too difficult to accurately model the actual processes, and entropy does an excellent job of modelling the process on a macroscopic scale.
The problem comes when people start to forget it's only a model. Ask a biologist (with little other chemistry knowlege) why converting ATP to ADP releases energy, and they will happily tell you it's because a bond has been broken. And believe it!
Also, as we all know, radioactive materials never fully decay, the amount of radioactive material simply halves every n years. Doesn't hold up to scrutiny when you talk about single atoms....
Sorry for the rant, but you've managed to remind me of a pet hate of mine.
Yes, I know. The point I was making was that it is up to another provider to demonstrate that under the same pressure (of scale and attacks) they would not be even more vulnerable.
I was in no way claiming that Microsoft's security was adequate, in fact I believe I described it as 'shoddy'
But speak to ~80% of computer users and ask them whose server they trust more, Microsoft or Akamai?
Whoever is actually the most trustworthy is mostly irrelevant to my point - perhaps the man I was talking about has the worlds most secure server, and has the most anally strict moral code. The important issue is whether the user has trust (however unfounded) in that organisation.
Despite the huge amount of bad press about Microsoft security, many people will still trust them. And who else has a system the scale of Passport, has received as many hack attempts as Passport (lots I presume), and has not been compromised?
Microsoft's security is pretty shoddy, but it is left for a 3rd party to demonstrate that their security is better, and that they will not abuse the data.
The real problem here is not that Passport is evil, but that they do not trust Microsoft to be the sole Passport providers, and to not do 'unreasonable' things with the data that they could potentially collect.
I recently went to a seminar with MS's senior systems architect (UK) talking about Passport (mainly.net though). He first said that the Passport protocol should be implementable by any provider who wants to provide this service, so it need not be Microsoft authenticating details.
Even if you do not believe this, he made an excellent demonstration of the problems of trust. A member of the audience (anti MS - he was heckling throughout the seminar) raised a similar concern. I paraphrase the conversation here:
Man: 'I don't trust MS's servers to keep my data safe and not abuse it'
MS: 'Well, whose servers do you trust'
Man: [thinks] 'Mine'
MS: 'Everybody raise their hands if you trust your data on this man's server'
And what about energy from plain old H2O we've been hearing about? Burn both the Hydrogen and Oxygen and you have no waste.
Errr....kay. So you take water which you so astutely point at contains Hydrogen and Oxygen. You then somehow split these, and then burn them and produce.....water.
Never have laws of thermodynamics seemed more applicable.
Slashdot Mirror
I can agree with this, and I realise that Word files can grow hugely for no apparent reason (maybe your quick-save suggestion is correct)
But the fact is, when he claimed that delinkifying(tm) the mailto: cut the filesize by 1.4MB, I repeat: He was lying. Through his teeth.
I agree with this post.
Klerck's PLPs are fine though, so you'll not he is not filtered.
Oh, and the author transcribes 'M$ paperclip' - Did the presenter actually talk about 'Emm-dollar paperclip' No? Then don't write it like he did.
Some (occasional) interesting points, but really nothing that hasn't been mentioned many times before by anyone who's ever used a pc.
I rate this article C- Trite.
I believe that one of the traits Noel is hoping will emerge is hunting in packs - he admits that if this happens it will take a very long time to learn, but this may explain the large number of predators.
As for your idea of mating, I think that this would be very interesting. However, this is more of a GA approach to learning, whereas Noel is mostly interested in the learning of MLPs within the same generation - that is his field of research.
That makes a refreshing change from the usual 'We must combat voter apathy!' Instead, a laissez-faire attitude, on the principal that if they are too lazy to walk to a poll booth then their vote is pointless anyway.
You know, I'm beginning to like that idea - the only problem is that the highest percentage turnout will be the fanatics (on whatever side - but not necessarily cancelled out) and the disabled would be under-represented.
I know it seems unfair of the 'short-sighted' VCs, but you have to remember why they were in it. They gave you $5M and you had an annual turnover of $1M. Don't get me wrong, a $1M business is quite an achievement, especially in the current climate. However, from the VCs point of view they were looking at how long before they made the profits they were in it for. I don't know what sort of cash burn you had, but even if we're talking a relatively low figure and all profits were going to VCs, then they are still looking at 5-10 years even to pay back the original investment. Furthermore, this rate will cripple the company's growth and ensure that the $1M turnover is unlikely to increase.
Vultures thought they are, it is understandable that they don't want to wait 1/4 of a century to even start making the profits they expected.
They don't share your vision/commitment/hard work, they just see the bottom line. Once they see that they aren't making their profit fast enough they'll do whatever they can to get whatever they can. Now. They have no need to look to the company's future.
Nasty? Yes. Unreasonable? Probably not.
This time around, we're doing it without any funding - entirely organic growth. Yep, it's fscking hard, and very much hand to mouth. But at least we keep control, and if (when!) we make real money, it's not going to disappear into a VC's pocket.
The heart of the net is as or pertaining to a melon?
Junis' C64 is faster than any beowulf cluster.
I hear MD5 hashes physically tremble at the thought of being cracked by our wacky Afghan friend.
Yup, offtopic city for us. Sod it, I've been rtbled for as long as I can remember - never once been allowed to moderate or even metamod (karma=23).
/. reader from the UK, I assume I need not point out the annoying irony there.
I actually voted LibDem at the last election. As I said in another post, it was because we have:
Labour claiming they were so much better than Tories, and any problems are just Tory leftovers.
Tories claiming they're so much better than Labour, and all problems are Labour's fault.
Then both parties falling over each other to jump on bandwagons and kiss babies.
In the midst of this, LibDem said 'Yup, the system is fscked [Health system IIRC] To fix it we're going to increase tax.'
At last! Somebody admitted, shortly before election time, that in order to pump money into an organisation taxes would have to be increased. It sounds petty, but that alone was enough to make the difference (I used to be Tory - not out of love, just Labour spin politics really pissed me off. Not that Tories are any different now they've seen how it worked for Labour.)
Somebody posted a story on kuro5hin about voter apathy, especially WRT the UK. I voted it +1 Front page, as it is the perfect forum for discussions like this, but most of the editorials said they'd voted -1, as it was 'too UK centric'
You being a
Do apologise /grovel
/. views on British life that I can't even tell the difference any more.
I'm so used to correcting
Yeah, Tony is a bit full of himself. Tories have put themselves out of the market with a crap leader. I also think that Charles Kennedy is a top bloke, but they're unlikely to get into power while he's still in charge (not that he's a bad leader, just that they're still so far behind).
I figure that in the next election or two, Blaire is going to get so humiliated by the drop in votes from the disillusioned supporters that he'll not be the party leader any more, let alone President. What was this article about again?
To quote Rick the policeman from 'Dude, where's my car?': Hey fellas, who's the goose? Me!
You know, I actually agree with you (for as lot of cases) I meet loads of people who are 'dyslexic' but actually it just means they can't spell. I've met genuinely dyslexic people, and it's a whole different kettle of fish.
BTW, I've noticed that Outkast are obviously trolls, examine the evidence:
I'm sorry Miss Jackson
w00t!
I am 4 r34L...
Looks pretty clear cut to me
Mr Blair (Tony - he's the only one who's first name you have not given) is indeed ass licking.
However, he is emphatically not a president. Remember that old lady...what's her name...hangs aroung Buckingham Palace...you Americans like to come and coo at her, filling the air with words like 'quaint'. Well apparently she doesn't like the idea of a British president. We have a PRIME MINISTER.
You forgot to mention the equally applicable DMCA.
You should work in advertising:
Buy Transmeta - because my aunt types 60 wpm
I guess if I look hard I'll see the point you were making.
No, no, no! Back to room 101 for re-education.
Microsoft is bad, Passport will steal your identity and turn you into a slave.
A post that spreads a fear of Passport does not have to have a valid point, shame on you.
--gazbo, who rather likes the way MSN Messenger uses the same login/info as Hotmail, and likes the thought of this being extended further.
Well, I guess that's why they're called PC.
I agree that standards are nice, but surely until hardware architectures are standardised as well, forcing a standard LSB will break if you change from little-endian to big-endian?
Surely I'm not the only person to have seen this problem?
Breaking bonds is *always* endothermic, Forming bonds is *always* exothermic. Energy is released in a chemical reaction when the energy taken to break the bonds is less than the energy released by forming the new bonds.
In the case of ADP, the bonds involved are of a higher energy than in ATP, thus the new bonds formed have released more energy than was taken to break the old bonds. I would give some data, but I don't have a data book. If you can be bothered, look at the different bonds in ADP and ATP, and look up the energies of the bonds in a data book - beware the negative numbers
In the one case of ATP=>ADP, saying that breaking bonds releases energy works. The danger (as you seem to have illustrated) is that this handy mnemonic (for want of a much better word) becomes fact - and suddenly breaks when used for the wrong purposes.
Yeah, and I wonder how much it costs to get an advert like this on Slashdot? I've got a product I'd like to advertise - it's not a Linux distro, but it does add to open source software. Does that meet the criteria?
No, thought not.
The problem comes when people start to forget it's only a model. Ask a biologist (with little other chemistry knowlege) why converting ATP to ADP releases energy, and they will happily tell you it's because a bond has been broken. And believe it!
Also, as we all know, radioactive materials never fully decay, the amount of radioactive material simply halves every n years. Doesn't hold up to scrutiny when you talk about single atoms....
Sorry for the rant, but you've managed to remind me of a pet hate of mine.
Yes, I know. The point I was making was that it is up to another provider to demonstrate that under the same pressure (of scale and attacks) they would not be even more vulnerable.
I was in no way claiming that Microsoft's security was adequate, in fact I believe I described it as 'shoddy'
But speak to ~80% of computer users and ask them whose server they trust more, Microsoft or Akamai?
Whoever is actually the most trustworthy is mostly irrelevant to my point - perhaps the man I was talking about has the worlds most secure server, and has the most anally strict moral code. The important issue is whether the user has trust (however unfounded) in that organisation.
Despite the huge amount of bad press about Microsoft security, many people will still trust them. And who else has a system the scale of Passport, has received as many hack attempts as Passport (lots I presume), and has not been compromised?
Microsoft's security is pretty shoddy, but it is left for a 3rd party to demonstrate that their security is better, and that they will not abuse the data.
The real problem here is not that Passport is evil, but that they do not trust Microsoft to be the sole Passport providers, and to not do 'unreasonable' things with the data that they could potentially collect.
.net though). He first said that the Passport protocol should be implementable by any provider who wants to provide this service, so it need not be Microsoft authenticating details.
I recently went to a seminar with MS's senior systems architect (UK) talking about Passport (mainly
Even if you do not believe this, he made an excellent demonstration of the problems of trust. A member of the audience (anti MS - he was heckling throughout the seminar) raised a similar concern. I paraphrase the conversation here:
Man: 'I don't trust MS's servers to keep my data safe and not abuse it'
MS: 'Well, whose servers do you trust'
Man: [thinks] 'Mine'
MS: 'Everybody raise their hands if you trust your data on this man's server'
I thought it was a nice example anyway.
Never have laws of thermodynamics seemed more applicable.
What did you expect from a link that reads 'distended anus' and is followed by [goatse.cx]?
PS. Has anybody else noticed that -ve mods seem to be having no effect? Wonderful!