If you're playing DDR on a playstation, you just grab a $5 knockoff playstation controller and wire to the button connectors on the circuit board. I did this, using heavy modifications on the design found here. If you're playing on the PC, I think you can then just get an adapter to convert the playstation controller to USB.
Don't you realize that non-geeks using Linux is the only way to stop the forced Windows-preinstalls?
It affects me rarely. I usually build my own desktop machines (much cheaper anyway). Only when buying a laptop do I have a problem. And really, it's pretty necessary to have windows around occasionally in my field (computer programmer), because sometimes I need to run a tool or development environment only supported in windows. A pretty hefty tax to pay, yes, but I'll use it anyway.
Again, I'll just let someone else fight that battle (you?).
Every day, someone builds a shorter wavelength blue laser, and someone else builds a better compression algorithm, or even a better copy-prevention scheme. How long until the DVD format is revamped or replaced? Will the new players play the old discs?
Uh, does it really matter? If he burns it to DVD now and just keeps his DVD player, he should be fine. Same situation as a video production house sticking with an old format...
Frankly, I don't give a crap if he's providing a non-MS alternative to "normal" people. I run linux because I'm a power user, and it does exactly what I want -- no more, no less (and it's free). When I was 16 and using linux, I was all about the "down with Microsoft" movement. But now, I realize just how much work is going to go into bringing Linux to the masses, because the fundamental philosophies of Linux are not compatible with today's end user.
I think that Lindows is doing a good thing here, and I say, more power to them. But I also think that it probably still has quite a long way to go. When it gets there, we'll end up with something that runs on a Linux kernel alright... but it won't be Linux like we know it. That's not bad at all, because the standard user won't be happy with Linux in the slightest. That's not bad either, because Linux was made for and by power users.
So I don't feel the need to spread the Linux gospel to non-geeks at all. I'll let someone else make his money doing that. Then again, I'm not hostile to it either... nor am I hostile toward Microsoft, except in that I'm forced to purchase their OS bundled with many standard kinds of computers. The point is: I've found what I'm happy with, and that's pretty much all that I care about.
If we piss them off enough by chopping off their advertisements and snipping out their content, they'll just write their sites in Flash, or as one big image file, or some other proprietary format. That'll pretty well dictate what software you use to view their site.
Oh great. So is this the part where some enterprising/.er gets the cellphone number of Yahoo's execs, and we all sign him up for daily messaging services all over, or something?
Think about it. Why does a tree sitter sit in a tree? No, they're NOT trying to save that one tree. That's ridiculous. In fact, the main is not to save the entire habitat of that one tree as Julia Butterfly Hill did (though that helps). The goal is to get their message out. You can bet that if the police rip someone out of a tree, that'll get the message out, exactly what the lumber companies don't want.
For that matter, it's not a simple thing to get someone out of a tree if they don't want to go. They can't risk these activists' lives in taking them out of the tree. They can't risk their own lives. For that matter, if an "accident" should happen and an activist dies at the hands of police... you had better believe the message gets out then.
Ok, I've seen a few threads commenting on the concept of intellectual property in general. This message, and more specifically its reply, made me really think. The author of the reply tries to make the point that copying data is not stealing.
This is all well and good, this debate has been around for a long time. But here's a new twist: How in the world can you complain when someone tries to protect his own intellectual property using his own methods (breaking CD's, etc)? You aren't allowing him any legal protections, so therefore, he is perfectly justified in protecting his content as he sees fit. You can have it one way or another, but not both.
I didn't make it, but I was definitely involved with the fix. After that we did some very thorough auditing on all of the routing code - and fortunately didn't find any other surprises lurking.
That could be construed as an unfortunate outcome, considering that you don't know if there were no bugs there, or you just didn't find them...
I was playing with some 3d graphing calculator program on a mac about 7 years ago (my school had all macs, bah). I guess I confused it really well, because it came up with one of those cryptic mac error messages:
error -11309
But this time it had an interesting twist, because the single button at the bottom of the error dialog was labelled "Darn!".
This has been done before. Years ago, I don't know where, I heard of someone making "DNA Music". They took A,C,T,G, and mapped them to musical notes: A->A, C->C, T->E, G->G. Fits rather nicely into the key of C major. Then they would just "play" a dna sequence and see what came out... Unfortunately, I have no links to post, I lost wherever I first heard mention of this (discover magazine, maybe?) and haven't found it since. Anyone?
This doesn't count as a "derivative work", as far as I understand copyright law, though IANAL and all that. It's not against copyright law to make a collage of pictures you find in magazines and newspapers. For that matter, it's not copyright infringement to make a sculpture/structure out of a bunch of books, either.
So, with the posting of that optout link on slashdot's frontpage, x10 just lost a big portion of potential ad recipients. I wonder if this is a precedent.
Er, no, you'll find out tomorrow. Or whenever you restart your browser. If the x10 programmers are stupid enough to leave their CGI variables out in the open, they're stupid enough to assume they wouldn't input a DAY number that would go past the epoch. 30000, for example, makes it sometime awhile ago, which translates to "expires at end of session". I love Mozilla's view-cookies option:) Try 10000. You'll forget by then.
No, the united states power use is NOT doubled in that instant. Some power (not that incredible an amount, but a fair amount for a building) is drawn off over the course of an hour, charging the capacitors, and then that power is all discharged at once. So, the US power use equals the power delivered by those capacitors. A far cry from doubling the US power consumption in that instant.
60,000,000,000,000 watts, but is that so amazing?
on
Star In A Jar
·
· Score: 1
I'm glad slashdot decided to post on this. I read the article in Discover, and I was like, wow, 60 trillion watts? As much power as the US uses, eh? Wait, power is Joules per second... it's an instantaneous measure. Power's magnitude means nothing if it happens for only an instant. I couldn't help but feel that Discover was pumping up the facts a lot by using this huge number to wow readers, but not saying for exactly how long the pulse goes on.
Given that amount of time (I think something in the nanosecond range was mentioned), we could see just how much energy was involved. If I recall, I did some calculations, assuming a nanosecond, and came up with a decently large amount of energy to concentrate for such a small time (and in a small space), but nothing quite as surprising as the article seemed to want to make readers believe. It was something like the amount of energy a 100 watt bulb uses in a month, I think.
I mean, I had to wonder, if they're only taking 1 hour to charge the capacitors, and they are, after all, getting their energy from the US power grid, isn't it a little misleading to try to imply such a huge amount of energy by throwing around terms like 60 trillion watts, and the power consumption of the United States? It just seems like an attempt to play on the fact that lots of people don't understand instantaneous measures like Wattage.
Hmm, well, I suppose that this is the point at which we begin mincing words, just what kind of pain would only be considered psychological. Perhaps I AM biased, but I don't think it's necessary to prove to myself or others that the pain I'm dealing with is physiologically based; it's enough for me to see that the pain I'm dealing with seems to come about when I type a lot, and get better when I stop.
Back to the point I was making; I still think there's a conclusion jumped to that every case of repetitive stress injury is psychological, and not physiological. There's a big difference between the words "every" and "most"
Slashdot Mirror
Let's just hope they don't get too carried away and bloat the language. :-/
Uh... you're talking about Java...
Great. Wanna filter my email for me? ;)
If you're playing DDR on a playstation, you just grab a $5 knockoff playstation controller and wire to the button connectors on the circuit board. I did this, using heavy modifications on the design found here. If you're playing on the PC, I think you can then just get an adapter to convert the playstation controller to USB.
Don't you realize that non-geeks using Linux is the only way to stop the forced Windows-preinstalls?
It affects me rarely. I usually build my own desktop machines (much cheaper anyway). Only when buying a laptop do I have a problem. And really, it's pretty necessary to have windows around occasionally in my field (computer programmer), because sometimes I need to run a tool or development environment only supported in windows. A pretty hefty tax to pay, yes, but I'll use it anyway.
Again, I'll just let someone else fight that battle (you?).
Every day, someone builds a shorter wavelength blue laser, and someone else builds a better compression algorithm, or even a better copy-prevention scheme. How long until the DVD format is revamped or replaced? Will the new players play the old discs?
Uh, does it really matter? If he burns it to DVD now and just keeps his DVD player, he should be fine. Same situation as a video production house sticking with an old format...
Frankly, I don't give a crap if he's providing a non-MS alternative to "normal" people. I run linux because I'm a power user, and it does exactly what I want -- no more, no less (and it's free). When I was 16 and using linux, I was all about the "down with Microsoft" movement. But now, I realize just how much work is going to go into bringing Linux to the masses, because the fundamental philosophies of Linux are not compatible with today's end user.
I think that Lindows is doing a good thing here, and I say, more power to them. But I also think that it probably still has quite a long way to go. When it gets there, we'll end up with something that runs on a Linux kernel alright... but it won't be Linux like we know it. That's not bad at all, because the standard user won't be happy with Linux in the slightest. That's not bad either, because Linux was made for and by power users.
So I don't feel the need to spread the Linux gospel to non-geeks at all. I'll let someone else make his money doing that. Then again, I'm not hostile to it either... nor am I hostile toward Microsoft, except in that I'm forced to purchase their OS bundled with many standard kinds of computers. The point is: I've found what I'm happy with, and that's pretty much all that I care about.
If we piss them off enough by chopping off their advertisements and snipping out their content, they'll just write their sites in Flash, or as one big image file, or some other proprietary format. That'll pretty well dictate what software you use to view their site.
Oh great. So is this the part where some enterprising /.er gets the cellphone number of Yahoo's execs, and we all sign him up for daily messaging services all over, or something?
What is your email, noone@nowhere.net? If so, I apologize for all of the mailing lists I've signed you up for in the past... ;)
Think about it. Why does a tree sitter sit in a tree? No, they're NOT trying to save that one tree. That's ridiculous. In fact, the main is not to save the entire habitat of that one tree as Julia Butterfly Hill did (though that helps). The goal is to get their message out. You can bet that if the police rip someone out of a tree, that'll get the message out, exactly what the lumber companies don't want.
For that matter, it's not a simple thing to get someone out of a tree if they don't want to go. They can't risk these activists' lives in taking them out of the tree. They can't risk their own lives. For that matter, if an "accident" should happen and an activist dies at the hands of police... you had better believe the message gets out then.
Ok, I've seen a few threads commenting on the concept of intellectual property in general. This message, and more specifically its reply, made me really think. The author of the reply tries to make the point that copying data is not stealing.
This is all well and good, this debate has been around for a long time. But here's a new twist: How in the world can you complain when someone tries to protect his own intellectual property using his own methods (breaking CD's, etc)? You aren't allowing him any legal protections, so therefore, he is perfectly justified in protecting his content as he sees fit. You can have it one way or another, but not both.
I didn't make it, but I was definitely involved with the fix. After that we did some very thorough auditing on all of the routing code - and fortunately didn't find any other surprises lurking.
That could be construed as an unfortunate outcome, considering that you don't know if there were no bugs there, or you just didn't find them...
I was playing with some 3d graphing calculator program on a mac about 7 years ago (my school had all macs, bah). I guess I confused it really well, because it came up with one of those cryptic mac error messages:
error -11309
But this time it had an interesting twist, because the single button at the bottom of the error dialog was labelled "Darn!".
That's like the fun command you could use on some older versions of make:
$ make love
make: don't know how to make love. Stop.
Or, alternatively, you could post about finding the google cache to up the ol' karma...
This has been done before. Years ago, I don't know where, I heard of someone making "DNA Music". They took A,C,T,G, and mapped them to musical notes: A->A, C->C, T->E, G->G. Fits rather nicely into the key of C major. Then they would just "play" a dna sequence and see what came out... Unfortunately, I have no links to post, I lost wherever I first heard mention of this (discover magazine, maybe?) and haven't found it since. Anyone?
This doesn't count as a "derivative work", as far as I understand copyright law, though IANAL and all that. It's not against copyright law to make a collage of pictures you find in magazines and newspapers. For that matter, it's not copyright infringement to make a sculpture/structure out of a bunch of books, either.
Huh? Marine avaiation...?
Easy. Sync up with the atomic clock. Every second. DoS it too. ;)
So, with the posting of that optout link on slashdot's frontpage, x10 just lost a big portion of potential ad recipients. I wonder if this is a precedent.
Er, no, you'll find out tomorrow. Or whenever you restart your browser. If the x10 programmers are stupid enough to leave their CGI variables out in the open, they're stupid enough to assume they wouldn't input a DAY number that would go past the epoch. 30000, for example, makes it sometime awhile ago, which translates to "expires at end of session". I love Mozilla's view-cookies option :) Try 10000. You'll forget by then.
Note further that said GPL link doesn't WORK anymore. Hmmm....
No, the united states power use is NOT doubled in that instant. Some power (not that incredible an amount, but a fair amount for a building) is drawn off over the course of an hour, charging the capacitors, and then that power is all discharged at once. So, the US power use equals the power delivered by those capacitors. A far cry from doubling the US power consumption in that instant.
I'm glad slashdot decided to post on this. I read the article in Discover, and I was like, wow, 60 trillion watts? As much power as the US uses, eh? Wait, power is Joules per second... it's an instantaneous measure. Power's magnitude means nothing if it happens for only an instant. I couldn't help but feel that Discover was pumping up the facts a lot by using this huge number to wow readers, but not saying for exactly how long the pulse goes on.
Given that amount of time (I think something in the nanosecond range was mentioned), we could see just how much energy was involved. If I recall, I did some calculations, assuming a nanosecond, and came up with a decently large amount of energy to concentrate for such a small time (and in a small space), but nothing quite as surprising as the article seemed to want to make readers believe. It was something like the amount of energy a 100 watt bulb uses in a month, I think.
I mean, I had to wonder, if they're only taking 1 hour to charge the capacitors, and they are, after all, getting their energy from the US power grid, isn't it a little misleading to try to imply such a huge amount of energy by throwing around terms like 60 trillion watts, and the power consumption of the United States? It just seems like an attempt to play on the fact that lots of people don't understand instantaneous measures like Wattage.
Hmm, well, I suppose that this is the point at which we begin mincing words, just what kind of pain would only be considered psychological. Perhaps I AM biased, but I don't think it's necessary to prove to myself or others that the pain I'm dealing with is physiologically based; it's enough for me to see that the pain I'm dealing with seems to come about when I type a lot, and get better when I stop.
Back to the point I was making; I still think there's a conclusion jumped to that every case of repetitive stress injury is psychological, and not physiological. There's a big difference between the words "every" and "most"