All of those except renaming an open file works on AmigaOS too (and presumably has for years). (Curiously, it's working here even under emulation on Windows, using the Windows filesystem - perhaps it works because the same program opening the file is also the same program moving it.)
And renaming a program whilst it's running works fine on Windows XP here, actually.
I spent some time looking for the Add/Remove Programs equivalent before I found that you just drop the application in the Trash.
Works fine with most Windows applications actually, but the Remove Programs route is a tidier way to remove shortcuts, and also shared DLLs if they are no longer being used. How does Mac OS handle these issues?
When was the last time you asked an advanced Mac user what his/her computer could do?
When was the last time you asked an advanced user of another OS (either Windows, or another niche platform) what his/her computer could do?
I mean, you didn't even know about Print Screen.
Spaces, Expose, etc, this is old news to us.
The irony of referring to Spaces as "old news" - this is ancient news in most other platforms.
50% of the time when I try that with Yahoo or MSN in Mac OR XP I get "Connection failed. Is your party sharing video?".
I haven't experience this, but given it has the same problems in MacOS too, this is hardly a Windows issue! I don't know, how does Skype do? It Just Works(TM) with me too - why on earth would you need to fiddle with the router? The only way people seem to be able to promote MacOS is buy picking holes in Windows that I simply have no experience of. You might as well try and persuade me to switch to a Commodore 64 on that basis.
What? When you consider how many Slashvertisements are given everytime Apple does something, no matter how trivial?
Plenty of things in OS X were first covered years ago on other platforms - I guess, by your logic, we should end all coverage on OS X "Slashvertisements".
And the real joke is that OS X gets nothing but praise for the very same issue - no one cares about the eye candy hogging the CPU when it's Apple doing it.
Agreed - there's nothing strange about making an online "connection" whether or not your know them in real life (Slashdot has friends/fans, and no one seems to complain about them), and as you say, adding negative connections isn't anything new.
Sounds like a latecomer trying to make a quick buck, by riding off the trendiness of taking the piss out of Facebook (even though, as another social networking site, all the criticisms of social networking sites will apply to them also).
Re:There's nothing left that wikki doesn't know!
on
Has Wikipedia Peaked?
·
· Score: 1
I stopped participating in Wikipedia after two articles I had put a fair amount of time into got deleted for non-notability.
The resources and time spent putting together the telescope are resources which could have been spent elsewhere.
Now, I'm not making a comment as to whether SETI is a waste or not - but it's a perfectly reasonable opinion to say it is. By your logic, nothing is ever wasted - the Government could spend 10 trillion dollars on making paper hats for no purpose at all, and that would be okay, right?
Basically, you are confusing physical money, with wealth. Yes, burning money gets rid of the physical bits of paper, whilst spending it doesn't.
But it's the other way round for wealth - burning money doesn't get rid of wealth, however, people might rather that their generated wealth is spent on useful things rather than pointless things.
At least in TNG onwards, they're very pompous about how superior they are because they no longer have needs for things like money, and look down upon how primitive humans used to behave. Also consider how the Ferengi are portrayed - capitalism is associated with greed.
A shame you were modded Troll. As much as I think Man should explore space, I have had the same thoughts. It'd be one thing for research, and I can also see it being a tourist destination. But it's not clear that we will see many ordinary people wanting to live permanently there.
As I said in another comment, we don't have people wanting to move to Antartica, even though there's plenty of land there.
I'm reminded of the (2nd?) episode of Futurama, where the only reason people want to go to the Moon is the theme park, as the novelty of going to another planet or moon has long gone, and it's just a cold empty rock. As funny as it sounded, that may end up being close to the truth...
You are assuming that the "copenhagen interpretation" is correct. To me, the "branching universe" stuff is a load of bollox (sorry, sci-fi writers). There are other interpretations that do not require an infinite number of infinite universes.
The branching Universe stuff in the Many Worlds interpretation - AIUI, the Copenhagen interpretation is something different?
remember the experiments in WWII. They got us a lot of scientific knowledge, e.g. about safe diving depths, but you'll agree that the price wasn't worth it.
The price in WWII is obvious. What is the price here?
Genetic engineering will be the next evolution, it will take us past what we, the human race, can evolve to. But is the human race ready to abandon morality?
Where did that non-sequitor come from? (Or did you mean mortality, judging by your later sentences?)
The most trivially simple explanation would be that child abusers are as likely to be female as male.
Indeed - and anyway, if that isn't true, we instead have the statistic that "men are much more likely to be abusers than women". But I don't see most men being worried about that, nor do I see it being used as a tool of prejudice against men.
When I read the headline, I was intrigued. It makes the whole process sound like something from 24. The sort of thing that normally gets me shouting "That's bloody impossible!" at the TV and annoying my wife.
Me too (well, minus the wife:p) At least in this case, it's dealing with filters applied by software, so the algorithm can be examined, and it's perhaps reversible, whilst in 24 they often apply it to things like poor quality or low resolution cameras, and magically enhance the details.
I liked X-Files for this though, where they would enhance a single pixel of someone's nose, to reveal there is in fact a ghostly alien hidden up there.
Thank you, I think I will learn the difference. Maybe you should learn too, so we can put myths to rest?
Where does that contradict what I said?
The first link doesn't seem to show physical addiction, just addiction. Animals will learn to press a level to repeatedly get hold of some treat, that doesn't make the treat physically addictive!
As for the second - well done, you've found a single study in this controversial area which shows evidence of physical addiction. Even if we knew for certain that cannabis was physically addictive, that doesn't change my point: that not all drugs are physically addictive, and using it "again and again and again" does not imply physical addiction.
I ask again, why do you keep coming back to Slashdot? It must be physically addictive, right?
So why the drug users use those drugs again and again and again?
Why do you come to Slashdot again and again - is it physically addictive?
Please learn the difference between psychological addition and physical addiction. Many drugs are only the former - and anything can be psychologically addictive (e.g., chocolate, Slashdot).
Slashdot Mirror
All of those except renaming an open file works on AmigaOS too (and presumably has for years). (Curiously, it's working here even under emulation on Windows, using the Windows filesystem - perhaps it works because the same program opening the file is also the same program moving it.)
And renaming a program whilst it's running works fine on Windows XP here, actually.
I spent some time looking for the Add/Remove Programs equivalent before I found that you just drop the application in the Trash.
Works fine with most Windows applications actually, but the Remove Programs route is a tidier way to remove shortcuts, and also shared DLLs if they are no longer being used. How does Mac OS handle these issues?
When was the last time you asked an advanced Mac user what his/her computer could do?
When was the last time you asked an advanced user of another OS (either Windows, or another niche platform) what his/her computer could do?
I mean, you didn't even know about Print Screen.
Spaces, Expose, etc, this is old news to us.
The irony of referring to Spaces as "old news" - this is ancient news in most other platforms.
50% of the time when I try that with Yahoo or MSN in Mac OR XP I get "Connection failed. Is your party sharing video?".
I haven't experience this, but given it has the same problems in MacOS too, this is hardly a Windows issue! I don't know, how does Skype do? It Just Works(TM) with me too - why on earth would you need to fiddle with the router? The only way people seem to be able to promote MacOS is buy picking holes in Windows that I simply have no experience of. You might as well try and persuade me to switch to a Commodore 64 on that basis.
Hibernation Just Works(TM) here on Windows, too.
What? When you consider how many Slashvertisements are given everytime Apple does something, no matter how trivial?
Plenty of things in OS X were first covered years ago on other platforms - I guess, by your logic, we should end all coverage on OS X "Slashvertisements".
I imagine that's a hard requirement - if your GPU doesn't support the necessary features, you can't run Aero.
And the real joke is that OS X gets nothing but praise for the very same issue - no one cares about the eye candy hogging the CPU when it's Apple doing it.
He doesn't use them.
What he isn't doing, however, is setting up some brand new site to try to make some kind of point against them, and trying to get publicity for it.
Agreed - there's nothing strange about making an online "connection" whether or not your know them in real life (Slashdot has friends/fans, and no one seems to complain about them), and as you say, adding negative connections isn't anything new.
Sounds like a latecomer trying to make a quick buck, by riding off the trendiness of taking the piss out of Facebook (even though, as another social networking site, all the criticisms of social networking sites will apply to them also).
I stopped participating in Wikipedia after two articles I had put a fair amount of time into got deleted for non-notability.
What pages, can I ask?
Prime example of this is how some people on slashdot believe a free market == a market that is free from regulation.
I'm curious - what is the definition then?
The resources and time spent putting together the telescope are resources which could have been spent elsewhere.
Now, I'm not making a comment as to whether SETI is a waste or not - but it's a perfectly reasonable opinion to say it is. By your logic, nothing is ever wasted - the Government could spend 10 trillion dollars on making paper hats for no purpose at all, and that would be okay, right?
Basically, you are confusing physical money, with wealth. Yes, burning money gets rid of the physical bits of paper, whilst spending it doesn't.
But it's the other way round for wealth - burning money doesn't get rid of wealth, however, people might rather that their generated wealth is spent on useful things rather than pointless things.
The argument against the Harvard comma is that it isn't necessary in most instances.
No, the argument against it is that it can also introduce ambiguity. See the Wikipedia article.
If you could choose one of the rules, which would you choose? I'd go with the one that makes the language clearer and easier to understand.
The obvious answer is to choose which one is clearer depending on the context. It doesn't have to be always one or the other.
At least in TNG onwards, they're very pompous about how superior they are because they no longer have needs for things like money, and look down upon how primitive humans used to behave. Also consider how the Ferengi are portrayed - capitalism is associated with greed.
A shame you were modded Troll. As much as I think Man should explore space, I have had the same thoughts. It'd be one thing for research, and I can also see it being a tourist destination. But it's not clear that we will see many ordinary people wanting to live permanently there.
As I said in another comment, we don't have people wanting to move to Antartica, even though there's plenty of land there.
I'm reminded of the (2nd?) episode of Futurama, where the only reason people want to go to the Moon is the theme park, as the novelty of going to another planet or moon has long gone, and it's just a cold empty rock. As funny as it sounded, that may end up being close to the truth...
Why aren't people moving to Antartica for the same reasons?
You'd get your politcal freedom, and it's more hospitable and easier to get to than the Moon will be.
You are assuming that the "copenhagen interpretation" is correct. To me, the "branching universe" stuff is a load of bollox (sorry, sci-fi writers). There are other interpretations that do not require an infinite number of infinite universes.
The branching Universe stuff in the Many Worlds interpretation - AIUI, the Copenhagen interpretation is something different?
remember the experiments in WWII. They got us a lot of scientific knowledge, e.g. about safe diving depths, but you'll agree that the price wasn't worth it.
The price in WWII is obvious. What is the price here?
Why fund research with possibly far reaching ethical dilemmas that might one day cure some rare disease when there are millions to be saved?
I'm all for some charity, but are you saying Governments should spend all taxation money to help poor countries?
Why do you spend money on a computer, when that could have been used to help someone in a poor country?
Genetic engineering will be the next evolution, it will take us past what we, the human race, can evolve to. But is the human race ready to abandon morality?
Where did that non-sequitor come from? (Or did you mean mortality, judging by your later sentences?)
The most trivially simple explanation would be that child abusers are as likely to be female as male.
Indeed - and anyway, if that isn't true, we instead have the statistic that "men are much more likely to be abusers than women". But I don't see most men being worried about that, nor do I see it being used as a tool of prejudice against men.
When I read the headline, I was intrigued. It makes the whole process sound like something from 24. The sort of thing that normally gets me shouting "That's bloody impossible!" at the TV and annoying my wife.
:p) At least in this case, it's dealing with filters applied by software, so the algorithm can be examined, and it's perhaps reversible, whilst in 24 they often apply it to things like poor quality or low resolution cameras, and magically enhance the details.
Me too (well, minus the wife
I liked X-Files for this though, where they would enhance a single pixel of someone's nose, to reveal there is in fact a ghostly alien hidden up there.
Thank you, I think I will learn the difference. Maybe you should learn too, so we can put myths to rest?
Where does that contradict what I said?
The first link doesn't seem to show physical addiction, just addiction. Animals will learn to press a level to repeatedly get hold of some treat, that doesn't make the treat physically addictive!
As for the second - well done, you've found a single study in this controversial area which shows evidence of physical addiction. Even if we knew for certain that cannabis was physically addictive, that doesn't change my point: that not all drugs are physically addictive, and using it "again and again and again" does not imply physical addiction.
I ask again, why do you keep coming back to Slashdot? It must be physically addictive, right?
The problem here is how do you define "officially atheist"?
The US has separation of Church and state, and doesn't seem to have these problems. Many western european nations are also secular.
A state doesn't have a belief - it isn't theistic or atheistic. You either have an official religion (which atheism is not), or it is secular.
I suspect you are confusing atheism with antitheism.
Western Europe has plenty of atheists - in fact, probably the highest proportion in the world - and we're doing just fine economically.
So why the drug users use those drugs again and again and again?
Why do you come to Slashdot again and again - is it physically addictive?
Please learn the difference between psychological addition and physical addiction. Many drugs are only the former - and anything can be psychologically addictive (e.g., chocolate, Slashdot).