In any case, CSIRO isn't acting against software developers, it is asking to be paid royalties by hardware manufacturers who have been freeloading on their WiFi technology for about a decade. Dell, HP, Microsoft, Intel, Nintendo and Toshiba have already paid up, and now CSIRO are asking Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to do likewise.
US companies expect and require everybody to pay royalties on their technology, so they have no right to complain when developers from other countries do likewise. Same rules for everybody: it's only fair.
...are to be found in the comments at the end of the article, where the morons tell us what scientific theories are, why you can "prove they are true", and that the universe exists because it just must have been created by [$sphagetti_monster_of_your choice].
The sad part is that this rubbish is taken seriously at all in Australia (though if anywhere, it would have to be Queensland).
That is, not many people did any of the checking email thing before Outlook came on the scene, and most of those other things were done with paper and pencil.
You must be very young or have a short memory. Outlook was first bundled with Exchange Server 5.5 in (IIRC) 1997.
Not many people remember the somewhat cumbersome MH, which dates from 1979, but lots of people (including me) were using Pine in 1990 (it was released in 1989). And of course, Eudora was released in 1988.
both of which forbid the use of Outlook on any machines connecting to company networks without authorisation...
That's an interesting position to take. I'm no fan of LookOut, and I don't personally use it, but it does at least function on non-Exchange networks without breaking anything. If one really requires all that calendar stuff to be integrated into a mail client (but why?) then I guess there's always Evolution, but Thunderbird is fine. And on Macs, the native Mail application is actually a very nice piece of work.
Because if they only change things under the hood (invisible to end users), and leave the gui the same, people will say it's just the same OS...
However, Apple was able to get away with exactly that with the upgrade from Leopard to Snow Leopard. Though I guesss in this case, it helped that the price was (for once) pretty reasonable.
You will be able to lend books from it. (The Nook's restrictions on lending mean that the current iteration doesn't do the job.)
It should be color e-ink.
It should have expandable memory.
It should have text-to-speech capabilities in all e-books
It should have PIM capabilities.
It should have a touchscreen
That's all in addition to Wifi and 3G (or even 4G) capability.
Your shopping list is longer than mine. Agreed, colour e-ink is essential (at reasonably high resolution), and there's not really any excuse for not having expandable storage. Oh, and the device has to be rugged enough to survive the occasional accidental knock. No good pretending that won't happen.
But I would never use text-to-speech, and I don't really care how the device connects to anything else. USB is fine (especially if I can charge the device this way), and I have no idea what PIM is in this context.
I envisage something that has to be able to read PDFs or other open form of user-generated content, so I don't have to carry around a laptop, so for me the issue of lending books doesn't arise.
And you have yourself a fun day. Incidentally (although I've never kept track), this dialogue, while doubtless of absolutely no interest to anyone else, must rank as by far the longest I've ever seen (let alone participated in) on Slashdot...
Fair enough, I did allow myself to become distracted, but you have to admit I had a long way to come from the left field of your response to my original post. (Incidentally, my karma has been maxed out for so long, whoring has no meaning. It would actually be more interesting if it took a major hit.)
Speak for yourself. In the first place, I made a very simple statement into which you read an unwarranted series of assumptions which were in no way implicit in what I said. If you ever had a valid or cogent point, it has been well and truly obscured by your adversarial tone.
Or in other words nobody seems to do a particularly good job of it.
Well what would you suggest?
Exactly. Everyone probably has a different idea as to what makes an interface "intuitive". I have used many (including dozens of CLIs) over several decades, and I doubt if I could easily make such a definition, except with regard to a few pet peeves.
Sure none of the Apple, Windows, KDE, GNOME or whatever interfaces are perfect, but I manage to fumble along somehow. Which for all functional purposes must mean that they are reasonably intuitive.
It was even less than that, since Microsoft obviously never had any intention of marketing it outside the US or Canada. Those of us in the rest of the world have occasionally been told it is/was technologically quite good, but we never got to find out.
Further to your point, this treatment is heavily dependent on PCR (polymerase chain reaction) techniques, which are very much a stock-in-trade tool of molecular biology now, but has only been technically possible since (IIRC) 1976 when the DNA polymerase from Thermophilus aquaticus was first isolated. The components required for the reactions were available by about 1980, and I think the first automatic machines became available in about '83 or '84.
They were, of course, under patent and very expensive. Nowadays, it seems everybody has a PCR machine in his kitchen, but replication of RNA fragments is still a bit more involved than replication of DNA, since (for one reason) RNA tends to be a lot less stable. I have no idea how much a dose of this treatment would cost, but I would bet it would be very, very expensive.
Unless I'm very mistaken the only reason the airlock is used is because you want to keep out other yeasts and bacteria that could spoil the 'mead-to-be'.
This is indeed a very important consideration (especially in small volumes of wort), but yeasts are what microbiologists refer to as facultative anaerobes. That is to say, they can function in the presence or absence of oxygen, but in the latter case the entirety of the energy (ATP) they require to perform all their biochemical functions have to be derived from the sugars they ferment.
In the presence of oxygen, they will "automatically" opt for the more efficient metabolic pathway. Now, of course, the extent to which this occurs in an open tank or bucket will vary according to the degree of agitation, comvection and so forth (since O2 is taken up at the interface between liquid and air), and obviously the CO2 being released will impede this, but for efficiency's sake it's not a bad idea to have all of the yeast cells doing what you want them to in the first place.
Bet you'd be happy if you could go back and edit any of your original posts to reflect this change of tactic.
No, my position is consistent. The only thing I would change is to not give into the temptation to feed an obvious troll posting under cowardly anonymity.
Mead making is very, very easy. Combine the honey, water and other ingredients in a big plastic bucket...
Indeed. And if you're careful about the strain of yeast you use (home-brew shops usually have good tech specs these days), you can ferment the sugars out completely, with a result that is surprisingly similar to a very good, dry fino sherry. But remember the fermentation has to be under an airlock, otherwise instead of producing equal molar quantities of etOH and CO2, the yeast will just produce CO2.
Even better than that, I don't care whether you use Apple products or not. I really don't care at all. What I do care about is you acting like an idiot. I'm doing you a lot more good calling you on that...
Seems to me like you're doing yourself more good with your hand on your dick.
My position on Apple has nothing whatever to do with the "slashdot sensationalism" you mention, and more to do with Apple's direct action against people I know personally. Your automatic assumption that I am participating in groupthink puts you squarely in the role of fanboy.
Are you honestly telling us that you can't tell the difference between a round character and a squished one? That's just sad.
The practice of putting a line through the zero was more relevant back in the days when we had keypunch ops transcribing code or data from sheets of paper to punch-cards or mag tape. Not all of us had the luxury of the exclusive use of a CRT terminal. Back then, all the machines I worked with had no facility to accept or reproduce lower-case text (this was regarded as an unnecessary frippery), but a foolproof way of differentiating between a handwritten 0 and O was essential.
Just plucked out the word "open" and went into argue mode?
No, you just didn't say what you were talking about. But I don't consider it worth trying to get non-proprietary parts for my car either, so that argument is meaningless. But I can apply whatever standards I want to Apple: If I don't like them, I don't have to buy from them. Simple as that.
Welp, seeing as how Apple hasn't been found guilty of anything, it's pretty clear that the proprietary bit is the only thing that's really upsetting you.
What the fuck? Why should I care what courts decide? I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself not to buy their products if I don't like the way they behave like obnoxious shits. That's what a free market is for.
The rest of your post follows on the basis of an entirely false premise. I don't really care if something is proprietary, so long as I get to use it how I choose. In other cases, I won't buy again from certain manufacturers (LG, I'm looking at you) because their products are crap.
I'd love to see that list, mainly because I'm curious what 'Open Printer' you'll be using.
I couldn't give a fuck whether or not a printer is "open" in every nuance of the word (I'm not RMS), so long as it works with my print scheduler, and I can't remember ever having had to worry about that. (And yes, I am aware that CUPS is now owned by Apple, though the code is still GPL.)
Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started
on
Gulf Oil Leak Plugged?
·
· Score: 1
That is supposedly the entire reason CEOs are paid so much. The whole "responsibility" and "buck stops here" thing. What kind of a coward wants to be in charge of everyone, but take no responsibility for anyone?
Wait and see if he accepts that nice big, fat golden handshake if he steps down. One guess what I'm betting...:-{
...zealots have assumed from the beginning that Apple is engaged in an all-out war against anybody and everybody...
I really don't understand that position. After all, Apple really, really just wants you to think different. Just so long as you don't think differently from them.
Slashdot Mirror
In any case, CSIRO isn't acting against software developers, it is asking to be paid royalties by hardware manufacturers who have been freeloading on their WiFi technology for about a decade. Dell, HP, Microsoft, Intel, Nintendo and Toshiba have already paid up, and now CSIRO are asking Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to do likewise.
US companies expect and require everybody to pay royalties on their technology, so they have no right to complain when developers from other countries do likewise. Same rules for everybody: it's only fair.
...are to be found in the comments at the end of the article, where the morons tell us what scientific theories are, why you can "prove they are true", and that the universe exists because it just must have been created by [$sphagetti_monster_of_your choice].
The sad part is that this rubbish is taken seriously at all in Australia (though if anywhere, it would have to be Queensland).
That is, not many people did any of the checking email thing before Outlook came on the scene, and most of those other things were done with paper and pencil.
You must be very young or have a short memory. Outlook was first bundled with Exchange Server 5.5 in (IIRC) 1997.
Not many people remember the somewhat cumbersome MH, which dates from 1979, but lots of people (including me) were using Pine in 1990 (it was released in 1989). And of course, Eudora was released in 1988.
both of which forbid the use of Outlook on any machines connecting to company networks without authorisation...
That's an interesting position to take. I'm no fan of LookOut, and I don't personally use it, but it does at least function on non-Exchange networks without breaking anything. If one really requires all that calendar stuff to be integrated into a mail client (but why?) then I guess there's always Evolution, but Thunderbird is fine. And on Macs, the native Mail application is actually a very nice piece of work.
Because if they only change things under the hood (invisible to end users), and leave the gui the same, people will say it's just the same OS...
However, Apple was able to get away with exactly that with the upgrade from Leopard to Snow Leopard. Though I guesss in this case, it helped that the price was (for once) pretty reasonable.
You will be able to lend books from it. (The Nook's restrictions on lending mean that the current iteration doesn't do the job.)
It should be color e-ink.
It should have expandable memory.
It should have text-to-speech capabilities in all e-books
It should have PIM capabilities.
It should have a touchscreen
That's all in addition to Wifi and 3G (or even 4G) capability.
Your shopping list is longer than mine. Agreed, colour e-ink is essential (at reasonably high resolution), and there's not really any excuse for not having expandable storage. Oh, and the device has to be rugged enough to survive the occasional accidental knock. No good pretending that won't happen.
But I would never use text-to-speech, and I don't really care how the device connects to anything else. USB is fine (especially if I can charge the device this way), and I have no idea what PIM is in this context.
I envisage something that has to be able to read PDFs or other open form of user-generated content, so I don't have to carry around a laptop, so for me the issue of lending books doesn't arise.
And you have yourself a fun day. Incidentally (although I've never kept track), this dialogue, while doubtless of absolutely no interest to anyone else, must rank as by far the longest I've ever seen (let alone participated in) on Slashdot...
:-)
Have a good one.
Fair enough, I did allow myself to become distracted, but you have to admit I had a long way to come from the left field of your response to my original post. (Incidentally, my karma has been maxed out for so long, whoring has no meaning. It would actually be more interesting if it took a major hit.)
Cheers.
Suddenly we're not where we were before.
Speak for yourself. In the first place, I made a very simple statement into which you read an unwarranted series of assumptions which were in no way implicit in what I said. If you ever had a valid or cogent point, it has been well and truly obscured by your adversarial tone.
You did a little clicking and discovered I was right. Right? Very classy, man.
I didn't write the post to which you responded, but I would be only too happy to discover you had made an actual point.
Or in other words nobody seems to do a particularly good job of it.
Well what would you suggest?
Exactly. Everyone probably has a different idea as to what makes an interface "intuitive". I have used many (including dozens of CLIs) over several decades, and I doubt if I could easily make such a definition, except with regard to a few pet peeves.
Sure none of the Apple, Windows, KDE, GNOME or whatever interfaces are perfect, but I manage to fumble along somehow. Which for all functional purposes must mean that they are reasonably intuitive.
The Zune was DOA.
It was even less than that, since Microsoft obviously never had any intention of marketing it outside the US or Canada. Those of us in the rest of the world have occasionally been told it is/was technologically quite good, but we never got to find out.
I don't think it was 30 years ago.
Further to your point, this treatment is heavily dependent on PCR (polymerase chain reaction) techniques, which are very much a stock-in-trade tool of molecular biology now, but has only been technically possible since (IIRC) 1976 when the DNA polymerase from Thermophilus aquaticus was first isolated. The components required for the reactions were available by about 1980, and I think the first automatic machines became available in about '83 or '84.
They were, of course, under patent and very expensive. Nowadays, it seems everybody has a PCR machine in his kitchen, but replication of RNA fragments is still a bit more involved than replication of DNA, since (for one reason) RNA tends to be a lot less stable. I have no idea how much a dose of this treatment would cost, but I would bet it would be very, very expensive.
Unless I'm very mistaken the only reason the airlock is used is because you want to keep out other yeasts and bacteria that could spoil the 'mead-to-be'.
This is indeed a very important consideration (especially in small volumes of wort), but yeasts are what microbiologists refer to as facultative anaerobes. That is to say, they can function in the presence or absence of oxygen, but in the latter case the entirety of the energy (ATP) they require to perform all their biochemical functions have to be derived from the sugars they ferment.
In the presence of oxygen, they will "automatically" opt for the more efficient metabolic pathway. Now, of course, the extent to which this occurs in an open tank or bucket will vary according to the degree of agitation, comvection and so forth (since O2 is taken up at the interface between liquid and air), and obviously the CO2 being released will impede this, but for efficiency's sake it's not a bad idea to have all of the yeast cells doing what you want them to in the first place.
Bet you'd be happy if you could go back and edit any of your original posts to reflect this change of tactic.
No, my position is consistent. The only thing I would change is to not give into the temptation to feed an obvious troll posting under cowardly anonymity.
Mead making is very, very easy. Combine the honey, water and other ingredients in a big plastic bucket...
Indeed. And if you're careful about the strain of yeast you use (home-brew shops usually have good tech specs these days), you can ferment the sugars out completely, with a result that is surprisingly similar to a very good, dry fino sherry. But remember the fermentation has to be under an airlock, otherwise instead of producing equal molar quantities of etOH and CO2, the yeast will just produce CO2.
Even better than that, I don't care whether you use Apple products or not. I really don't care at all. What I do care about is you acting like an idiot. I'm doing you a lot more good calling you on that...
Seems to me like you're doing yourself more good with your hand on your dick.
My position on Apple has nothing whatever to do with the "slashdot sensationalism" you mention, and more to do with Apple's direct action against people I know personally. Your automatic assumption that I am participating in groupthink puts you squarely in the role of fanboy.
I would have thought volumetric capacity would be more relevant.
[*ducks*]
Are you honestly telling us that you can't tell the difference between a round character and a squished one? That's just sad.
The practice of putting a line through the zero was more relevant back in the days when we had keypunch ops transcribing code or data from sheets of paper to punch-cards or mag tape. Not all of us had the luxury of the exclusive use of a CRT terminal. Back then, all the machines I worked with had no facility to accept or reproduce lower-case text (this was regarded as an unnecessary frippery), but a foolproof way of differentiating between a handwritten 0 and O was essential.
Great. But what the fuck is a CDN
Wikipedia is your friend, you lazy sod.
Just plucked out the word "open" and went into argue mode?
No, you just didn't say what you were talking about. But I don't consider it worth trying to get non-proprietary parts for my car either, so that argument is meaningless. But I can apply whatever standards I want to Apple: If I don't like them, I don't have to buy from them. Simple as that.
Welp, seeing as how Apple hasn't been found guilty of anything, it's pretty clear that the proprietary bit is the only thing that's really upsetting you.
What the fuck? Why should I care what courts decide? I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself not to buy their products if I don't like the way they behave like obnoxious shits. That's what a free market is for.
The rest of your post follows on the basis of an entirely false premise. I don't really care if something is proprietary, so long as I get to use it how I choose. In other cases, I won't buy again from certain manufacturers (LG, I'm looking at you) because their products are crap.
I'd love to see that list, mainly because I'm curious what 'Open Printer' you'll be using.
I couldn't give a fuck whether or not a printer is "open" in every nuance of the word (I'm not RMS), so long as it works with my print scheduler, and I can't remember ever having had to worry about that. (And yes, I am aware that CUPS is now owned by Apple, though the code is still GPL.)
That is supposedly the entire reason CEOs are paid so much. The whole "responsibility" and "buck stops here" thing. What kind of a coward wants to be in charge of everyone, but take no responsibility for anyone?
:-{
Wait and see if he accepts that nice big, fat golden handshake if he steps down. One guess what I'm betting...
...zealots have assumed from the beginning that Apple is engaged in an all-out war against anybody and everybody...
I really don't understand that position. After all, Apple really, really just wants you to think different. Just so long as you don't think differently from them.
I think people might also take a while to discover quite how wonderful Flash is... >:S