We are talking about kids at an age when there is ample evidence that they are still discerning what is 'real' vs. not.
As for you having no problem distinguishing what is real vs. not, good for you! Since you are not a young child, I would hope you'd be able to.
'And likely statistically low' -- Your evident bias in this prevents you from seeing the documented effects in children still in the emotional and 'reality assessment' phase -- which is what the article was referring to.
"we haven't seen any big effects yet" Again, your bias prevents you seeing the large uptick in -- especially 'guys' who empathically challenged. There's been a noticeable increase in self-styled 'conservatives' who believe that those who are not as well off or have problems finding work or making ends meet or need healthcare are people who have brought everything upon themselves.
A large number of people (large enough that there wasn't a large 'incident') agreed with 'torturing' prisoners -- a major difference from attitudes during the 70's, for example. When were violent video games introduced: ~1980's; the 'me' generation. When would we expect to see those attitudes rising in the adult population: ~ 10-20 years later or in the past 10 years or so and 'rising'.
When would we see people challenging a minimum safety net for healthcare or other programs to help the needy? How do such attitudes speak of compassion? When was compassion redefined to include being 'unfeeling' and 'hard' on those in need (ala 'compassionate conservatism'): about 20 years after the rise of violent video games.
Of course you can claim it's all circumstantial or coincidental, and I'm sure there have been other factors (like the popularization of torture on Fox TV in programs like 24Hrs). But to say we haven't seen any big effects, -- are you 'looking', or are you wearing blinders?
It's not just for insults, -- but anything involving subjective reality. The math example is one of objective reality. The harm done to one from video games, is, obviously, subjective.
Whether or not you should be empathetic is also subjective if you look at the differing views relating to that in politics.
Haven't you ever heard the saying that it takes 10 positive statements to outweigh 1 negative? The negatives stick due to more emotional impact. How many parents will spend 10 times as much time with their kids as their kids spend playing video games, to balance out the effects of the violence in the games?
Playing RPG's and FPS's aren't cerebral experiences, but more visceral. You can't just tell a kid 1 sentence to the contrary of the message in the games and expect it to carry the same weight.
'Only a few get the message?' I think what's more true is that ALL get the message, but it may be a problem for a minority -- however the question is not how many will become criminals, but how many might grow up and become Republicans as a consequence?
I don't want to use the MSFT version of all those functions, but if I switch my server to Winserver 2k3, then I would no longer have the linux server that is running all those functions. That's why I said I'd need the MS server to run all of those functions @ the same price, performance and support level.
The point is that my server runs fine using linux -- to convert it to an MS server would cause huge headaches, performance problems and software availability problems.
What I want is extremely simple -- have MS tell me what they need in a 'remote index server', so my linux server can answer my client requests for indexed files the same as an MS server... Can that be that difficult? It's just an 'rpc' interface, it's not rocket science, and only has to do with indexing local content.
The only reason this is needed is because the default indexing server on the win clients no longer will index my network content. If they had not removed that feature (present in XP), then it wouldn't be an issue, but since they changed the way content indexing is done, I need to upgrade my content server to provide an index in their format.
Either that, OR, allow my win7 client index service to index my network drives in background -- that would be fine with me as well -- not as efficient, I'd admit, but given I don't use my machine 24/7 and given the extra core (have a 6-core xeon), running background indexing over network content would hardly be noticeable under most circumstances.
In fact, background indexing of remote(network) drives would be less cpu intensive than indexing the local drives, as my local drives on my win7 machine are about 5X that of my 120MB/s R/W network drives, so the indexing process would be that much less I/O bound and use proportionally more cpu on local content.
So if they use any foreign labor where someone where's a T-shirt that's got a pirated design, or such... wouldn't that also apply?
If not, then can't the company supplier simply claim ignorance?
How are they going to handle "burden of proof" -- do US companies have to prove compliance of all their suppliers -- and their sub-suppliers as well? This sounds completely insane....
Is this similar to the bogus announcements of oil shortages caused by the gulf spill to raise prices at the pump (when it wasn't true -- shortly after a oil&media induced buying spree on a price run-up, prices dropped severely as there there was no shortage, and everyone had run on gas to buy it up before it 'ran out' -- it did (at the high prices), was replaced by gas costing 30% less...*cough*...
Chips, made in Japan? How many US suppliers get them from Japan and not China or such? I'm sure there are some, but how much is being 'pumped up' as a way to push up profits?
I already tried the 'hotfix' that is listed in that article.
It says "this hotfix" (which is labeled as only being for ia-64) is not compatible with Win7(64).
I do have SP1, and the hot fix says it is for SP1, but it doesn't have a hot fixed listed for the x86-32 or x86-64 bit platform -- despite some garbage text on the KB page that claims the Win2008 Server patch ia64 contains the win7-64 patch as well... It doesn't. And there are no other patches.
As for switching over my linux servers to Windows? Do you know how much a windows license costs for all things my linux server does?
(Domain, HTTP-PROXY, DNS, mail-server, router, firewall, backup-server, web-server, socks-server, spam-filter, X-server, 'development server (with full development environment', ssh server, remote-desktop server,... among other functions... all with no-licensing hassles -- do you know how much MS, would charge for a copy of Windows server with all that with all licensing functions disabled?
Yeah...right. Like any home user would even begin to consider that. On what planet?
As for the 'slow indexing crap' -- my windows laptop's *local hard disks* had maximum read/write rates of 60-80MB'/s on a good day. Over the net, my max read/write rates are 125/119MB/s respectively.
It was a pure outright way for MS to shut out people's home file storage unless they wanted to pay big bugs (er, big bucks, slight Freudian) for servers under MS-control. So how is 125MB max read considered 'slow', while a 60MB/s local drive is considered 'fast'?
Thanks for the link -- I *WILL* try the registry approach for a single user, but it's less than ideal. Preferable would be for MS to open up the indexing protocol so I could run an indexing process on my local server, and return the results in the format they desire. If they really want to 'server' customers, and this isn't just a money & power grab...
library content can't be located on a remote NAS drive. the only libraries that can be 'searched' in the way that you allude to are ones that are on a Windows Server -- so if I was to run Windows server on my home NAS drives, then no prob, but AFAIK, there is no way for me to create 'libraries on non-Windows' OS's.
If you know of a way, to create libraries of content of networked drives located on linux-based machines sharing via Samba(CIFS), please point to a URL.
Um, but w/Dell, you have a choice of 100's of different machines or alternate vendors that will all run the same programs. With Apple, how many competitors do you have to the MacBook Pro?
If a vendor gets too bad a track record -- you switch and all your applications still run fine -- but what do you do on an apple platform? You're stuck.
Naw...can't do that... It's gotta be someone or something else's fault!
In jobs where they have shift-rotation (monitoring something 24hours/day), shift-rotation plays all sorts of havoc with people's biological clocks -- much more severely than DST...
I wonder if there is a reciprocal effect on the shift to 'Standard' -- i.e. do health problems rise, or do they fall? I.e. is it the change in time or the 1 hour less sleep we have over a weekend?
To the person with health probs "caused" by DST -- seriously, just think about planning the shift over 10 days. I.e. change the time you go to bed/get up by 6 minutes a day starting 5 days before the change. It should be gradual enough to not disrupt your body clock.
Also you might find melatonin or tryptophan to help shift your body clock. I found it useful to "pre-shift" my body-clock to 'European-time" when I went on vacation, so I had no jet-lag when I got there (I wanted to enjoy the short time I had there, so I did the time-adaptation before the trip).
Personally, I'd prefer we stay on DST all the time, as I'm usually a late riser, and if I want to do anything outdoors, the extra time in the evening helps -- but a true-computer geek wouldn't really care -- "what's daylight"?...:-)
There is something about a genuine human touch that is seen as empathetic. Even if disingenuous, something in the back of our minds that responds to it as a genuine human connection.
Robots, OTOH, can NEVER be empathetic or kind--and we "know this without a doubt" [sic]. There touch isn't a connection and never can be. That introduces a creep factor... Because "we know" they have no base morality or emotion and are incapable of empathy, robots "will always" "inherently" "creep people out at best", or "scare the shit out of them at worst".
You don't begin to realize how naÃve you are, nor, can you as long as you hold your belief system to be 'the objective reality'.
First lets look at the type of flesh and blood human known as the sociopath. By definition, they have no ability to feel compassion and have no understanding of other's emotions. In some cases, they have no idea what emotions are like. They may have some emotions, but there is a complete disconnect between those emotions and understanding what causes them -- let alone what might cause those emotions in another person. The worst part about this -- ANY human could be a sociopath, *acting* like a human. Yet you blindly have programmed yourself to respond to any human "in the back of your mind, as though it was a genuine human connection. But in these cases, you might as well be connecting with a brick.
Second, lets look at connections with animals. Animals have no understand of human emotions. Yet the more the animal 'emulates' human behavior, the more we find those animals 'comforting'. A huge body of evidence shows that humans respond to 'pets', especially dogs, much like they would a human. This has been measured as by objective standards like changes in heart rate, blood pressure, rate of healing, and longevity, yet clearly, the animal lacks human understanding. Biological research on animals shows that they are incapable of having or understanding the higher level though processes that engender various emotional states or anything about what it is like to be a human. Yet the touch of animals affects humans (and vice-versa) in profound ways. In some studies the touch of animals was found to be *superior* to the touch of humans in many situations -- even though the animal possesses nothing of what you would call a 'human element' in its connection.
Dogs and a few other animals are used, especially, in nursing homes and homes for disabled humans for 'therapy' purposes. They measurably increase the quality of life and health of those humans they interact with much as would contact with a caring human would -- yet the animal can't really care like a human and in many cases is completely indiscriminate. Often they are brought into care settings to interact with patients on an "unfeeling", "inhumane", "contract" basis -- because these 'inhuman creatures' respond to the human's emotional state -- they can't understand or empathize with it, but they respond to it. Most humans respond to this.
Interestingly, not every animal (or dog) is suitable for being a therapy animal (ruling out those who are dangerous). Some are just too clueless around humans or not human-centered enough. They wouldn't 'connect' with the humans in the way that is desired. Perhaps they are more interested in 'food' or other 'dogs'...it's almost entirely based on training -- i.e. their programming, that makes them suitable or not.
In many cases, humans in care centers respond better to interactions with animals (even if they are not their own, exclusive pet), because the animal doesn't judge and is incapable of judging (discrimination) based on human defects. They don't 'sneer', or 'force a smile'...EVER. They don't understand the concepts or reasons why humans would do so. As a result, in many cases, they are superior in their ability to interact with some classes of disabled people -- especially those with type
You aren't by any chance the one who wrote that paper, are you?:)
That'd be cool, but not quite so clear in my writing...
As for qualcomm -- while it does make real products, it has quite a few patents that it hasn't used itself or allowed to be licensed. It's these 'dormant' patents that are a problem. Qualcomm's practices haven't left others wondering if they are starting to move more towards being a patent troll.
I've no prob with inventors getting paid for their inventions, but if they create 'patents' that are just "archived", and held until someone else independently comes up with a similar idea, then brought to light as a means to make money off of someone else who DID productize the patent -- that's moving into areas of 'theft' of effort -- especially when the patents in question describe 'obvious' and 'next-step' developments in a field.
There's a veryinteresting paper that documents that extrinsic rewards (like profits) actually hinder the creative process in some areas. The paper documents the origins of the copyright/patent system as being a replacement for an earlier system where 'patents' were given as 'rewards' by monarchy, based on 'favoritism' rather than on anything to do with creativity -- somewhat akin to the modern day 'knighthood's being granted as a reward by monarchy to some individuals who 'please the monarchy' (in these days, more often for contributions that benefit the society or country of the monarch).
The idea that they were needed as a reward for creativity became a later justification for continuation of copyright/patents under anglo-saxon law.
But the paper cites references that show that in reality, copyrights and patents often have the opposite effect -- they do not inspire further creativity and actually hinder the process!
You were saying there were 'shades of grey', and how even though you were against SWPatents, in general, that in some specific instance, it allowed developed of a subsequent product further down the line.
My take was that using the supposition that SWP enabled the further development was predicated on 1) the untestable presumption that SWP's were required for the development and payouts on the first product and 2) that the 2nd product wouldn't have been developed independently by the original developers in the original company (or a spin-off) or by another company regardless of any income on produce #1.
I.e. -- you were supporting (it seemed) that the SWP's had some marginal usefulness in that niche, while I was saying that even in that niche the evidence of their usefulness was weak.
If patents weren't around, On2 wouldn't have been able to get licensing fees. Thus they wouldn't have been able to make money, and they wouldn't have gotten funding to pay their programmers.
Since there is absolutely no way you could possibly verify this let alone 'know' this (unless you created an alternate reality where patents didn't exist and that only difference caused this one company to fail), your entire argument is predicated on something that is untestable.
But, it's a good thing we have patents, or we never would have inventions like the 'wheel'...right?
Unions were the 'things' that worked to give 'human beings' more bargaining power than an 'cog' or 'electronic chip'. They were one of the forces that raised raised wage-slave factory workers above the the levels of the machines they worked along side.
Now we see the Corporate Right pushing against unions as being 'anti-competitive' on the world market. That's because they keep working conditions and wages of US employee's above that of a 'machine' -- with US workers being 'valued' more than overseas workers in terms of protections and wages. When it comes to pure dollars figures, unions are bad for competition, BUT do we want to reduce the US standard of safety and standard of living to that of the third worlds we are supposed to be competing against?
The problem is we (the US) doesn't require makers of our goods to give the same standards of safety and equivalent standards living in their countries as we require here -- so there is no way our worker can be competitive as the barriers between international markets continue to drop.
US workers ARE NOT that much brighter or better educated than their counterparts overseas. In some areas, yes, in some areas no. Increasingly, as US education standards and enrichment programs drop, it's moving to more areas where we are not competitive.
Yet the Wealthy Right (closely aligned w/corporate right), also believe education is a right reserved for the wealthy. This spells disaster for the US society of the mid-late 1900's of prosperity, and puts the society of robber-barons and land-mogels of the late 1800's and first few decades of the 1900's back on the map for being the future of the US. The middle class recedes back into the working class, and further separates from the leisure class and government becomes more and more the government of the 'haves', supporting them in keeping and maintaining what they have over the 'have-nots'...
It's a move toward lower financial equality in the US -- which is BAD and is the result of adulation of capitalism being allowed to run amok (starting from the Ronnie-Reagan-Greed is Go[o]d') generation. It won't be until greed is seen as bad, again, and the equality is seen as a virtue over greed, that this country will have a chance of returning to greatness.
As it stands now, we are on the road to being another third-world mean-nothing country in the world, except that we have very, dangerous politicians with an unstable (flip-flop) political system that seems to be engendering more violence-causing fundamentalist crazies reacting to anything that doesn't go their way.
At the top of all this is an increasingly corrupt government where top government officials (elected and appointed) use offices in the government as stepping boards to 'reward positions' in the private sector for favors done while in office.
This was mitigated, before, by long term government employees -- something that has it's own problems, but not as severe as the current ones. Regardless, one solution that needs to be considered is the prohibition of employment in any private sector job, **at first**, in any sector related to any government position you held. And if that is abused, then any private sector position at all.
Government service needs to stop being an easily abused stepping stone / revolving door to lucrative private sector jobs designed as rewards -- and the door into government from private sector needs to be examined more closely for areas of potential conflict.
Unfortunately, in the highest court of the land we have Supreme Court Justices making rulings on corporations and cases that they have a personal interest in -- where they refuse to recuse themselves. So the first step may be impeaching those transgressors to get in judges who have enough common sense to recuse themselves under such circumstances and to get those supremes, who it is now obviously, that they liked under oath to get into their office -- OUT of office (Thomas).
Having corruption in the highest court of the land is the worst place if we want to have justice in the land.
The whole deck is being loaded against the American people.
Was it 'Cigna' who did it, i.e. the board of directors decided this as a company or stockholders voted on it as as a company? Or was this committed by 1 or 2 key people who was trying to stonewall investigations into this area.
You remove the corporate shield and these shenanigans will stop. Put the people responsible for those decisions behind bars in a standard state pen with other convicted thieves and felons for 6-12 months. Do it a few times and no one will be willing to do it anymore.
Currently, no person has to pay a personal penalty for virtually any crime committed for the 'Corporation'. But you can't send a 'Corporation' to jail.
Corporations have been given the rights of human beings, but are not able to be held physically responsible for a crime like a human being can. The only thing you can do is 'slap their hands', OR do the company serious financial harm -- which hurts stockholders and employees who likely knew nothing about the wrongdoings.
The only sane recourse is to go after the culpable individuals and not allow the corporate shield to take the blame or punishment for what was probably the decision of one or a few individuals.
Right now, if you are a corporate exec or power-broker with large company , .
It's not that they NEED criminals, but it's the only way they can strip you of your rights and get total control over you. Thus you create a legal system where ANYONE can be criminalized. Those that step too far out of line find themselves shackled with GPS devices and almost any other 'right' arbitrarily removed.
In a similar way (as was discussed in another thread where paypal shut down funding for pacifists), the government gives monopolies in certain areas to companies in exchange for the company doing the government's dirty work. Government can't censor movies? Allow a movie cartel to obtain monopoly status (owning studies, theaters, etc), and the cartel does the censoring. Even when the cartel's grip was forced open a bit, they still became the MPAA that sets the movie ratings. Those ratings control not just theaters, but everyplace that sells or rents DVD's -- as many places will refuse to carry unrated material or material higher than their policy allows.
A horribly blatant abuse has been with the telephone monopoly (and telecommunications industry in general), but Ma Bell was given monopoly status for ongoing government cooperation, and even after it was broken up, it was allowed to reform under 'Bush-II', who needed a new communication 'figurehead-company' that it could use to setup illegal filtering operations for the CIA/FBI for all internet traffic going through the US near the start of Bush's first term. When it came out **congress** rushed through a retroactive protection package for all the telecoms that illegal cooperated with Bush under the auspices of 'war', but who's cooperation has, even from the start, been used to prosecute and investigate domestic crime more than foreign terrorism.
Of course the Supreme Court Justices appointed by the Reagan-Bush 'era of government corruption' overturned or weakened the concept of illegally seized evidence being inadmissible in a court, to ALLOWING it if it was obtained 'accidently' through an officers normal pursuit of their duties...
Amazing how many accidents happen when you are using computers to look for keywords and develop 'interpretive' abilities to look for any criminal activity through everyone's telecommunications...
All supporting the goal of giving the government the ability to criminalize anyone should they want or need to...
Slashdot Mirror
We are talking about kids at an age when there is ample evidence that they are still discerning what is 'real' vs. not.
As for you having no problem distinguishing what is real vs. not, good for you! Since you are not a young child, I would hope you'd be able to.
'And likely statistically low' --
Your evident bias in this prevents you from seeing the documented effects in children still in the emotional and 'reality assessment' phase -- which is what the article was referring to.
"we haven't seen any big effects yet"
Again, your bias prevents you seeing the large uptick in -- especially 'guys' who empathically challenged. There's been a noticeable increase in self-styled 'conservatives' who believe that those who are not as well off or have problems finding work or making ends meet or need healthcare are people who have brought everything upon themselves.
A large number of people (large enough that there wasn't a large 'incident') agreed with 'torturing' prisoners -- a major difference from attitudes during the 70's, for example. When were violent video games introduced: ~1980's; the 'me' generation. When would we expect to see those attitudes rising in the adult population: ~ 10-20 years later or in the past 10 years or so and 'rising'.
When would we see people challenging a minimum safety net for healthcare or other programs to help the needy? How do such attitudes speak of compassion? When was compassion redefined to include being 'unfeeling' and 'hard' on those in need (ala 'compassionate conservatism'): about 20 years after the rise of violent video games.
Of course you can claim it's all circumstantial or coincidental, and I'm sure there have been other factors (like the popularization of torture on Fox TV in programs like 24Hrs). But to say we haven't seen any big effects, -- are you 'looking', or are you wearing blinders?
It's not just for insults, -- but anything involving subjective reality.
The math example is one of objective reality. The harm done to one from video games, is, obviously, subjective.
Whether or not you should be empathetic is also subjective if you look at the differing views relating to that in politics.
Haven't you ever heard the saying that it takes 10 positive statements to outweigh 1 negative? The negatives stick due to more emotional impact. How many parents will spend 10 times as much time with their kids as their kids spend playing video games, to balance out the effects of the violence in the games?
Playing RPG's and FPS's aren't cerebral experiences, but more visceral. You can't just tell a kid 1 sentence to the contrary of the message in the games and expect it to carry the same weight.
'Only a few get the message?' I think what's more true is that ALL get the message, but it may be a problem for a minority -- however the question is not how many will become criminals, but how many might grow up and become Republicans as a consequence?
It's an "ad" -- of course they use paid actors! That is the norm.
Even when they say 'real person', that simply means they aren't a robot, but they can still be a paid actor...etc.
This has been the norm in advertising for decades.
I don't want to use the MSFT version of all those functions, but if I switch my server to Winserver 2k3, then I would no longer have the linux server that is running all those functions. That's why I said I'd need the MS server to run all of those functions @ the same price, performance and support level.
The point is that my server runs fine using linux -- to convert it to an MS server would cause huge headaches, performance problems and software availability problems.
What I want is extremely simple -- have MS tell me what they need in a 'remote index server', so my linux server can answer my client requests for indexed files the same as an MS server... Can that be that difficult?
It's just an 'rpc' interface, it's not rocket science, and only has to do with indexing local content.
The only reason this is needed is because the default indexing server on the win clients no longer will index my network content. If they had not removed that feature (present in XP), then it wouldn't be an issue, but since they changed the way content indexing is done, I need to upgrade my content server to provide an index in their format.
Either that, OR, allow my win7 client index service to index my network drives in background -- that would be fine with me as well -- not as efficient, I'd admit, but given I don't use my machine 24/7 and given the extra core (have a 6-core xeon), running background indexing over network content would hardly be noticeable under most circumstances.
In fact, background indexing of remote(network) drives would be less cpu intensive than indexing the local drives, as my local drives on my win7 machine are about 5X that of my 120MB/s R/W network drives, so the indexing process would be that much less I/O bound and use proportionally more cpu on local content.
So if they use any foreign labor where someone where's a T-shirt that's got a pirated design, or such ... wouldn't that also apply?
If not, then can't the company supplier simply claim ignorance?
How are they going to handle "burden of proof" -- do US companies have to prove compliance of all their suppliers -- and their sub-suppliers as well? This sounds completely insane....
The bluest blue sky is about 15000K, so 17000K, is more blue than anything naturally occurring, and this is more productive?
Weird....
Damn, can't mark the above down for 'idiot'...
Um, and how is it that 'steam' has problems crossing multiple cultural,
logistical and legal boundaries?
It's not being censored...so...tell me how "Steam's" bits take 8 days to get to Australia.... It was 'steam' that was specifically mentioned...
Is this similar to the bogus announcements of oil shortages caused by the gulf spill to raise prices at the pump (when it wasn't true -- shortly
after a oil&media induced buying spree on a price run-up, prices dropped severely as there there was no shortage, and everyone had run on gas to buy it up before it 'ran out' -- it did (at the high prices), was replaced by gas costing 30% less...*cough*...
Chips, made in Japan? How many US suppliers get them from Japan and not China or such? I'm sure there are some, but how much is being 'pumped up' as a way to push up profits?
I already tried the 'hotfix' that is listed in that article.
It says "this hotfix" (which is labeled as only being for ia-64) is not compatible with Win7(64).
I do have SP1, and the hot fix says it is for SP1, but it doesn't have a hot fixed listed for the x86-32 or x86-64 bit platform -- despite some garbage text on the KB page that claims the Win2008 Server patch ia64 contains the win7-64 patch as well... It doesn't. And there are no other patches.
As for switching over my linux servers to Windows? Do you know how much a windows license costs for all things my linux server does?
(Domain, HTTP-PROXY, DNS, mail-server, router, firewall, backup-server, web-server, socks-server, spam-filter, X-server, 'development server (with full development environment', ssh server, remote-desktop server, ... among other functions... all with no-licensing hassles -- do you know how much MS, would charge for a copy of Windows server with all that with all licensing functions disabled?
Yeah...right. Like any home user would even begin to consider that. On what planet?
As for the 'slow indexing crap' -- my windows laptop's *local hard disks* had maximum read/write rates of 60-80MB'/s on a good day. Over the net, my max read/write rates are 125/119MB/s respectively.
It was a pure outright way for MS to shut out people's home file storage unless they wanted to pay big bugs (er, big bucks, slight Freudian) for servers under MS-control. So how is 125MB max read considered 'slow', while a 60MB/s local drive is considered 'fast'?
Thanks for the link -- I *WILL* try the registry approach for a single user, but it's less than ideal. Preferable would be for MS to open up the indexing protocol so I could run an indexing process on my local server, and return the results in the format they desire. If they really want to 'server' customers, and this isn't just a money & power grab...
Not holding my breath...
library content can't be located on a remote NAS drive.
the only libraries that can be 'searched' in the way that you allude to are ones that are on a Windows Server -- so if I was to run Windows server on my home NAS drives, then no prob, but AFAIK, there is no way for me to create 'libraries on non-Windows' OS's.
If you know of a way, to create libraries of content of networked drives located on linux-based machines sharing via Samba(CIFS), please point to a URL.
I have all my libraries on a home server running linux and samba.
Win7's desktop search refuses to index networked drives.
Um, but w/Dell, you have a choice of 100's of different machines or alternate vendors that will all run the same programs. With Apple, how many competitors do you have to the MacBook Pro?
If a vendor gets too bad a track record -- you switch and all your applications still run fine -- but what do you do on an apple platform?
You're stuck.
That's the big difference.
Lame.
Naw...can't do that... It's gotta be someone or something else's fault!
In jobs where they have shift-rotation (monitoring something 24hours/day), shift-rotation plays all sorts of havoc with people's biological clocks -- much more severely than DST...
I wonder if there is a reciprocal effect on the shift to 'Standard' -- i.e. do health problems rise, or do they fall? I.e. is it the change in time or the 1 hour less sleep we have over a weekend?
To the person with health probs "caused" by DST -- seriously, just think about planning the shift over 10 days. I.e. change the time you go to bed/get up by 6 minutes a day starting 5 days before the change. It should be gradual enough to not disrupt your body clock.
Also you might find melatonin or tryptophan to help shift your body clock. I found it useful to "pre-shift" my body-clock to 'European-time" when I went on vacation, so I had no jet-lag when I got there (I wanted to enjoy the short time I had there, so I did the time-adaptation before the trip).
Personally, I'd prefer we stay on DST all the time, as I'm usually a late riser, and if I want to do anything outdoors, the extra time in the evening helps -- but a true-computer geek wouldn't really care -- "what's daylight"?... :-)
You don't begin to realize how naÃve you are, nor, can you as long as you hold your belief system to be 'the objective reality'.
First lets look at the type of flesh and blood human known as the sociopath. By definition, they have no ability to feel compassion and have no understanding of other's emotions. In some cases, they have no idea what emotions are like. They may have some emotions, but there is a complete disconnect between those emotions and understanding what causes them -- let alone what might cause those emotions in another person. The worst part about this -- ANY human could be a sociopath, *acting* like a human. Yet you blindly have programmed yourself to respond to any human "in the back of your mind, as though it was a genuine human connection. But in these cases, you might as well be connecting with a brick.
Second, lets look at connections with animals. Animals have no understand of human emotions. Yet the more the animal 'emulates' human behavior, the more we find those animals 'comforting'. A huge body of evidence shows that humans respond to 'pets', especially dogs, much like they would a human. This has been measured as by objective standards like changes in heart rate, blood pressure, rate of healing, and longevity, yet clearly, the animal lacks human understanding. Biological research on animals shows that they are incapable of having or understanding the higher level though processes that engender various emotional states or anything about what it is like to be a human. Yet the touch of animals affects humans (and vice-versa) in profound ways. In some studies the touch of animals was found to be * superior * to the touch of humans in many situations -- even though the animal possesses nothing of what you would call a 'human element' in its connection.
Dogs and a few other animals are used, especially, in nursing homes and homes for disabled humans for 'therapy' purposes. They measurably increase the quality of life and health of those humans they interact with much as would contact with a caring human would -- yet the animal can't really care like a human and in many cases is completely indiscriminate. Often they are brought into care settings to interact with patients on an "unfeeling", "inhumane", "contract" basis -- because these 'inhuman creatures' respond to the human's emotional state -- they can't understand or empathize with it, but they respond to it. Most humans respond to this.
Interestingly, not every animal (or dog) is suitable for being a therapy animal (ruling out those who are dangerous). Some are just too clueless around humans or not human-centered enough. They wouldn't 'connect' with the humans in the way that is desired. Perhaps they are more interested in 'food' or other 'dogs'...it's almost entirely based on training -- i.e. their programming, that makes them suitable or not.
In many cases, humans in care centers respond better to interactions with animals (even if they are not their own, exclusive pet), because the animal doesn't judge and is incapable of judging (discrimination) based on human defects. They don't 'sneer', or 'force a smile'...EVER. They don't understand the concepts or reasons why humans would do so. As a result, in many cases, they are superior in their ability to interact with some classes of disabled people -- especially those with type
That'd be cool, but not quite so clear in my writing...
As for qualcomm -- while it does make real products, it has quite a few patents that it hasn't used itself or allowed to be licensed. It's these 'dormant' patents that are a problem. Qualcomm's practices haven't left others wondering if they are starting to move more towards being a patent troll.
I've no prob with inventors getting paid for their inventions, but if they create 'patents' that are just "archived", and held until someone else independently comes up with a similar idea, then brought to light as a means to make money off of someone else who DID productize the patent -- that's moving into areas of 'theft' of effort -- especially when the patents in question describe 'obvious' and 'next-step' developments in a field.
There's a very interesting paper that documents that extrinsic rewards (like profits) actually hinder the creative process in some areas. The paper documents the origins of the copyright/patent system as being a replacement for an earlier system where 'patents' were given as 'rewards' by monarchy, based on 'favoritism' rather than on anything to do with creativity -- somewhat akin to the modern day 'knighthood's being granted as a reward by monarchy to some individuals who 'please the monarchy' (in these days, more often for contributions that benefit the society or country of the monarch).
The idea that they were needed as a reward for creativity became a later justification for continuation of copyright/patents under anglo-saxon law.
But the paper cites references that show that in reality, copyrights and patents often have the opposite effect -- they do not inspire further creativity and actually hinder the process!
Very interesting read: Intellectual Property's Great Fallacy.
You were saying there were 'shades of grey', and how even though you were against SWPatents, in general, that in some specific instance, it allowed developed of a subsequent product further down the line.
My take was that using the supposition that SWP enabled the further development was predicated on 1) the untestable presumption that SWP's were required for the development and payouts on the first product and 2) that the 2nd product wouldn't have been developed independently by the original developers in the original company (or a spin-off) or by another company regardless of any income on produce #1.
I.e. -- you were supporting (it seemed) that the SWP's had some marginal usefulness in that niche, while I was saying that even in that niche the evidence of their usefulness was weak.
Eh? ;-)
Since there is absolutely no way you could possibly verify this let alone 'know' this (unless you created an alternate reality where patents didn't exist and that only difference caused this one company to fail), your entire argument is predicated on something that is untestable.
But, it's a good thing we have patents, or we never would have inventions like the 'wheel'...right?
Unions were the 'things' that worked to give 'human beings' more bargaining power than an 'cog' or 'electronic chip'. They were one of the forces that raised raised wage-slave factory workers above the the levels
of the machines they worked along side.
Now we see the Corporate Right pushing against unions as being
'anti-competitive' on the world market. That's because they keep working conditions and wages of US employee's above that of a 'machine' -- with US workers being 'valued' more than overseas workers in terms of protections and wages. When it comes to pure dollars figures, unions are bad for competition, BUT do we want to reduce the US standard of safety and standard of living to that of the third worlds we are supposed to be competing against?
The problem is we (the US) doesn't require makers of our goods to give the same standards of safety and equivalent standards living in their countries as we require here -- so there is no way our worker can be competitive as the barriers between international markets continue to drop.
US workers ARE NOT that much brighter or better educated than their counterparts overseas. In some areas, yes, in some areas no. Increasingly, as US education standards and enrichment programs drop, it's moving to more areas where we are not competitive.
Yet the Wealthy Right (closely aligned w/corporate right), also believe education is a right reserved for the wealthy. This spells disaster for the US society of the mid-late 1900's of prosperity, and puts the society of robber-barons and land-mogels of the late 1800's and first few decades of the 1900's back on the map for being the future of the US. The middle class recedes back into the working class, and further separates from the leisure class and government becomes more and more the government of the 'haves', supporting them in keeping and maintaining what they have over the 'have-nots'...
It's a move toward lower financial equality in the US -- which is BAD and is the result of adulation of capitalism being allowed to run amok (starting from the Ronnie-Reagan-Greed is Go[o]d') generation. It won't be until greed is seen as bad, again, and the equality is seen as a virtue over greed, that this country will have a chance of returning to greatness.
As it stands now, we are on the road to being another third-world mean-nothing country in the world, except that we have very, dangerous politicians with an unstable (flip-flop) political system that seems to be engendering more violence-causing fundamentalist crazies reacting to anything that doesn't go their way.
At the top of all this is an increasingly corrupt government where top government officials (elected and appointed) use offices in the government as stepping boards to 'reward positions' in the private sector for favors done while in office.
This was mitigated, before, by long term government employees -- something that has it's own problems, but not as severe as the current ones. Regardless, one solution that needs to be considered is the prohibition of employment in any private sector job, **at first**, in any sector related to any government position you held. And if that is abused, then any private sector position at all.
Government service needs to stop being an easily abused stepping stone / revolving door to lucrative private sector jobs designed as rewards -- and the door into government from private sector needs to be examined more closely for areas of potential conflict.
Unfortunately, in the highest court of the land we have Supreme Court Justices making rulings on corporations and cases that they have a personal interest in -- where they refuse to recuse themselves. So the first step may be impeaching those transgressors to get in judges who have enough common sense to recuse themselves under such circumstances and to get those supremes, who it is now obviously, that they liked under oath to get into their office -- OUT of office (Thomas).
Having corruption in the highest court of the land is the worst place if we want to have justice in the land.
The whole deck is being loaded against the American people.
This may sound ignorant, but what exactly what type of re-training does
RAM need with every boot?
Sounds a bit odd to have to retrain memory at all, let alone with each boot....
Was it 'Cigna' who did it, i.e. the board of directors decided this as a company or stockholders voted on it as as a company? Or was this committed by 1 or 2 key people who was trying to stonewall investigations into this area.
You remove the corporate shield and these shenanigans will stop. Put the people responsible for those decisions behind bars in a standard state pen with other convicted thieves and felons for 6-12 months. Do it a few times and no one will be willing to do it anymore.
Currently, no person has to pay a personal penalty for virtually any crime committed for the 'Corporation'. But you can't send a 'Corporation' to jail.
Corporations have been given the rights of human beings, but are not able to be held physically responsible for a crime like a human being can. The only thing you can do is 'slap their hands', OR do the company serious financial harm -- which hurts stockholders and employees who likely knew nothing about the wrongdoings.
The only sane recourse is to go after the culpable individuals and not allow the corporate shield to take the blame or punishment for what was probably the decision of one or a few individuals.
Right now, if you are a corporate exec or power-broker with large company , .
It's not that they NEED criminals, but it's the only way they can strip you of your rights and get total control over you. Thus you create a legal system where ANYONE can be criminalized. Those that step too far out of line find themselves shackled with GPS devices and almost any other 'right' arbitrarily removed.
In a similar way (as was discussed in another thread where paypal shut down funding for pacifists), the government gives monopolies in certain areas to companies in exchange for the company doing the government's
dirty work. Government can't censor movies? Allow a movie cartel to obtain monopoly status (owning studies, theaters, etc), and the cartel does the censoring. Even when the cartel's grip was forced open a bit, they still became the MPAA that sets the movie ratings. Those ratings control not just theaters, but everyplace that sells or rents DVD's -- as many places will refuse to carry unrated material or material higher than their policy allows.
A horribly blatant abuse has been with the telephone monopoly (and telecommunications industry in general), but Ma Bell was given monopoly status for ongoing government cooperation, and even after it was
broken up, it was allowed to reform under 'Bush-II', who needed a new
communication 'figurehead-company' that it could use to setup illegal filtering operations for the CIA/FBI for all internet traffic going through the US near the start of Bush's first term. When it came out **congress** rushed through a retroactive protection package for all the telecoms that illegal cooperated with Bush under the auspices of 'war', but who's cooperation has, even from the start, been used to prosecute and investigate domestic crime more than foreign terrorism.
Of course the Supreme Court Justices appointed by the Reagan-Bush 'era of government corruption' overturned or weakened the concept of illegally seized evidence being inadmissible in a court, to ALLOWING it if it was obtained 'accidently' through an officers normal pursuit of their duties...
Amazing how many accidents happen when you are using computers to look for keywords and develop 'interpretive' abilities to look for any criminal activity through everyone's telecommunications...
All supporting the goal of giving the government the ability to criminalize anyone should they want or need to...
I guess some employers just don't want to strike their employees once, let alone three times...