The USA president appears to a man of limited intelligence on the surface. Yet his college entrance test scores give him an IQ of 128. And he manages to win elections and run the country, more or less.
Whoah... this has been modded from 2 to -1 since I loaded the page. But I'll reply anyway.
My personal belief is that Bush probably has some form of undiagnosed dyslexia (*). The "humorous" mistakes he makes remind me of a dyslexic flatmate I had at university. Smart enough guy, who occasionally made incongruous mistakes with his speech. I later found out that some dyslexics are known to do this- IIRC this was at the same time it was suggested that Bush was dyslexic (**).
This doesn't dampen my view that Bush is anti-intellectual, insular and not particularly intelligent where it matters, who serving as a tool for corporate America and the Christian right-wing.
Just that we don't need to laugh at what might be a mild form of dyslexia.
(*) Or maybe it *was* diagnosed, and hushed up. Who knows?
(**) OTOH, I had another flatmate (in the *same* flat) who was also dyslexic, but never did this.
Why would 'serious literature' need anything better, serious or bland-marketing-friendly than the system itself?
Superficially, a good rational argument. My counter-argument would be that this is the way the world works, and if Linux wishes to be adopted and seen as professional, this is what should be done.
However, I'm going to say this instead. A logo is a good piece of shorthand, e.g. when you pick up a package, or software, or whatever, a good logo is easy to recognise; far more so than simply writing 'Linux'. Equally importantly, a logo will get more attention from people, and raise Linux to prominence. Thus, a logo is A Good Thing.
However, Tux sits uncomfortably between being a logo and a mascot. Like it or not, there are cases where Tux's (alleged) cuteness may be out-of-place, and the opportunity to display a Linux-publicising logo is lost. The non-inclusion of the words "Linux" also means less direct publicity.
By having a proper logo, we get the benefits of both.
Having said that, I'll say this. I do not like Tux as a mascot either; my case above could also apply to the FreeBSD daemon, but I quite like "Chuck".
Tux, on the other hand, leaves me cold. I *like* cute logos and mascots in many cases, but Tux has always seemed lifeless and banal to me, like some toy made of shiny plastic that doesn't do anything. Chuck (the daemon) looks like it has life, whereas Tux just sits there, glassy eyed, forever in the same pose. I can't imagine Tux as anything more than a failed, static attempt at being cute. His cutness lacks warmth.... it's like saccharin compared to real sugar.
Tux is professionally drawn, but is too frivolous to be a logo, and too lifeless to be a mascot. In a lesser way, he also irritates me like Barney the Dinosaur does.
It's a matter of personal preference, but my dislike of Tux is not solely because of his unsuitability as a logo.
Ten years ago a normal teenager didn't have to pay 50 dollars a month for his mobile phone.
And they still don't, unless someone is waving a gun in their face, or whatever (Yeah, I know I sound like Your Dad (TM)... I don't care:-P )
Either that, or what you say is true... 10 years ago, a mobile phone would have cost a lot more than $50 a month to run. In fact, it would have cost $50/month extra in gas just to haul the phone itself around with you.
BTW, your post confuses me; you imply that you are a teenager, and that as a teenager ten years ago, you didn't have a computer.
Dude, if you were a teenager 10 years ago, you're not a teenager now.
You're 23!
You are OLD. Stop deluding yourself. It's time to join the rest of us by getting fat, wearing trousers with unfeasibly high waistlines and driving at 5 MPH.
Since posting the comment, I read further and indeed you're right. But that doesn't change the fact that the song was important to AIDS activits in the early eighties. Go read up on how the Softcell version of the song has been re-interpreted before talking about reading too much into something.
Bearing in mind that AIDS hadn't been properly identified in 1981, did Soft Cell themselves put this meaning into it?
BTW, I was pretty surprised the first time I heard the original recording of "Tainted Love"; stylistically, it's pretty different to the Soft Cell version.
But trying to find Devo, The Beloved, or even The Beatles and the Doors is a futile effort. (my emphasis)
Devo and The Beloved, I can believe. The Doors... guess it might depend what you were after.
But The Beatles?! Seriously?
Most large-ish music stores have a good few of the Beatles' studio albums, a good few compilations, and a large number of interview discs and ropey early stuff recorded in a Hamburg pub.
It sounds like you must be after something quite obscure; either that, or it's just bad luck that the one studio album you were after was out of stock.
Alternate possibility; everyone owns all the Beatles stuff they want, all the obscure stuff worth having has been packed into anthologies and purchased, and no-one is buying... but I don't really believe that. There will always be someone wanting Beatles albums.
When I was a boy [...] we had this music swapping system called casette tape. [...] I actually went to the music store to buy the album. (Which was subsequently copied and distributed to friends...)
Wasn't that around the time the music industry were warning people...
"Home Taping is Killing Music.... and It's Illegal"?
As we all know, everyone ignored this warning... and the result was that the music industry had entirely collapsed by 1989.
I HOPE YOU FEEL GUILTY! Yeah, I remember back when I was a kid, you used to be able to buy *new* music from shops. Hard to believe for anyone under the age of 20, but it's true.
It's your fault that cool new music formats like the "Compact Disc Digital Audio" never took off (these things are really cool... all metallic and shiny underneath).
Yes sir. Home Taping Killed Music... the industry was telling the truth then, and if they were around today, they'd still be telling the truth.
as if all the fucking dirtbag freeloaders hanging out and treating the store like it was their personal lounge wasn't bad enough
Whilst I've never seen a B&N store personally, if they're anything like Borders and Waterstones in the UK, they'll have attempted to create a fake-bohemian atmosphere, where people can lounge around, read books, and buy coffee.
Now, chain bookstores are out to make money (particularly Borders, who have a reputation as being a bad employer). Thus, they create this atmosphere to (they hope) make them more money.
If they were more open about "buy stuff or get out", they would probably put the customers off, who then might not spend as long browsing, and would ultimately spend less (if only on coffee).
So, my point is... if the bookshops encourage this (fake) atmosphere in order to make money, you really can't complain when people start to buy into it.
I can realise how it might work, but I really have to wonder what was the motivation behind the guy who first discovered the procedure.
"YOU STUPID CD, WORK OR I SHALL BOIL THEE!"
It was probably the work of this guy here, although it was probably devised as a method to get revenge on the DVD he thought was mocking him.
Agree with the comments about Rice Krispies, though...
What you may have intended to convey is that this "free market" crap is gaining significant mental market share
What I intended to convey (with no moral judgement) is that America has never been anything close to a socialist society. Americans themselves may disagree, but with respect, US political opinion is skewed to the right (relative to the rest of the world overall) and anything smacking of government interference is likely to be labelled "socialist", "communist" or whatever. Some moderately left-wing policies does not make a society socialist in itself.
The 911 attacks and the extreme American response have simply made America a bad investment. America's socialist trends are now no longer moderated by that historical stability... hence, we have significant capital flight.
Your use of "socialist", I find odd here (I assume you don't mean National "Socialism", which is like the People's "Democratic" Republic of China), but it serves to illustrate that such simplistic notions as left and right-wing don't hold up too well. Is protectionism left-wing or not? Hard to say.
You know, that's an important point. Many Americans are disconnecting from government. [see parent message for rest of this]
No-one disconnects themselves from responsibility. If anyone wants to kid themselves that they can, it should be their problem. If they choose to be ill-informed, it should be their problem. If they choose to vote for Bush and his over-simplistic, war-mongering policies, I'd like it to be their problem (whatever happens), not mine.
Unfortunately, that's not the way the world works, but I don't see the benefit in supporting such insular people and their government.
And, when I say Blair is incompetent, I mean incompetent as in incompetent, not immoral. I disliked the guy when he became the leader of the Labour Party ten years ago. I did not vote for him in the general election of 1997 when many of my co-workers did, simply to get the Conservatives out of power (though I hated that bunch of hypocritical, smarmy fucks as much as anyone).
But even then, I didn't dream that he would become as right-wing as he has.
The reason I label him as incompetent is simple. He is clearly in love with the power of the United States (and possibly paranoid about losing influence). He does everything he can to kiss GWB's ass (latest example; deployment of British troops on Bush's orders) and gets nothing in return. Again and again.
This isn't a question of morality; it's a question of blinkered delusion that he can have any influence on the US government when it is clear that he has had *nothing* in return for repeatedly squandering Britain's goodwill, resources and international standing.
He probably believes, on a concious level, that he is doing "the right thing", but this is a thin veil of self-delusion. It's all about power and going down in history... the delusional incompetence comes in because he doesn't recognise when he (and hence the UK) is being repeatedly exploited, with absolutely nothing to show for it.
There have been lightweight videotapes that are meant for purposes like promotional mailings.
That sounds like a brilliant idea (although VHS is rapidly becoming obselete, and DVD might be a better idea soon). But one thing... styrofoam? Isn't that the type of polystyrene used to pack stuff together, made up of little pressed-together nodules?
If so, aren't they fairly likely to fall to bits inside the video recorder? Yeah, I know video recorders are dirt-cheap nowadays, but you still don't want that to happen.
When you say the outside, do you mean of the tape itself, or the case? And isn't it still going to fall apart?
[ Another stupid idea from agriculture lobby ] like highly subsidized ethanol from corn so people don't realize it's more expensive than gasoline.
Gasoline is subsidised, too. You have to pay money to support friendly regimes to ensure you get your supply (and let's not get started on the real motives of the Iraq war). Would the United States be wasting time and money propping up an unpopular regime in Saudi Arabia (and thus providing a great recruiting point for vermin like Bin Laden, which in turn will cost more to defend yourselves from), if it wasn't for oil?
The question is, is corn the best way to go?
I never thought I'd hear myself saying this when I was a kid, but I think that nuclear power will be the best way forward for many countries, in the forseeable future. No, it won't be cheap if you consider the "real" cost. But from that perspective, oil isn't as great as people would like to think either.
Answer; no, they don't. The reason CDs are shiny and make pretty rainbow patterns when held up to a bright light is down to marketing. When they were launched in the 1980s, people were easily impressed with such hi-tech glitz, and it was decided that this would be a good marketing gimmick.
In fact, the original plan was to have one of those pictures that flicks between two images when you wiggle it round on the underside. Unfortunately, this went too far... during test-marketing in Iowa, the inhabitants thought the new-fangled gimmickry was the work of the devil, and burned the salesman at the stake.
Backups become obsolete, the wife discovers I have bootleg movies
Is bootleg a new euphemism for pr0n.... or are you actually married to Hilary Rosen?
Crap is crap, if you let your discs and magazines pile up, you might not need a new room to store them, but you sure as shootin will spend time stumbling over useless the same crap over and over.
Amen... I used to be a hoarder, now I enjoy chucking stuff out. Especially with documentation, there's always the temptation to think you'll find something useful.... usually you'll find it in 3-5 years time and realise it wasn't ever going to be useful.
As for the potentially valuable information... if you don't have the stuff filed coherently, and/or if you don't remember it's there, you won't use it. I've got loads of great articles from computer magazines, but they're all filed away in folders, where they get forgotten about, and aren't suitable for casual reading (which is when I'd be most likely to look at them).
The underlying fear is that you might throw something out, then find a use for it later on. If you're having enough doubts about holding on to something, chances are that this probably won't be the case; and if it does happen, how much hassle/cost would it be to acquire a new one... relative to the inconvenience of having a house full of stuff which is 99.5% useless?
I mean, I didn't want to chuck my Canon BJC4300 printer, because it still "worked", and my new printer doesn't have a parallel port. However, the head is knackered, and would cost UKP 40.00 to replace (which is why I just decided to get a new- and better- printer), and in the unlikely event that I need a parallel printer, I could probably pick up one (*without* a ropey head) for not too much money/inconvenience.
I mean, say you're a some geek bachelor--but alas, I repeat myself.
Mark Twain. He's back. And this time he's out for revenge. Revenge.... on every third rate mangling of his humorous quotes. Once he's spotted you.... there's no escape.
(Clip.. voice of Mark Twain); "Viewer, suppose you were a mangler of the work of Mark Twain. And suppose you were someone who was going to die by having their bowels ripped out through their throat. But I repeat myself."
Twain; The Revenge. At cinemas on Friday, rated 18.
(At this point, the author of this post is killed by the ghost of the real Mark Twain, pissed off that his quote got mangled again).
Any Socialist movement whatsoever in America will continue to repulse businessmen
You don't have to worry about that. The chances of a genuinely 'Socialist' movement within the United States having any notable influence are nil.
Or perhaps you meant 'socialist' as shorthand for anything even slightly against the grain of the free market. No American government has ever been remotely socialist; it's all right-wing, just a question of degree.
BTW, do you seriously think that the risk from terrorism is an issue in the move by US companies to offshore? I doubt it.
If I wanted to work and live in the United States (I live in the UK), the risk from terrorism would barely factor in my decision.
On the other hand, a lot of people allowed terrorism to affect their way of life (and government) to a degree far outweighing the actual risk to their life. From that point of view, terrorism has definitely won.
Personally, I'm far more worried about the elephant going around stomping ants' nests in the name of the "war on terror". Yeah; a lot of those ants are getting pretty fucking annoying, and some of them have to be dealt with. But if one guy wants to start kicking them over indiscriminately, and really doesn't give a damn about their effect, my attitude is let *them* get stung. Fuck 'em.
But... back in the real world, Tony Blair will do what the fuck he's told because he's so desparate to gain influence with George W Bush. Despite the fact it's been clear for a long time that he only has "influence" when he does what Bush wants him to anyway. Incompetent prick.
That works, but why not just put the sticker you write on above the protective layer. Why is this even a question?
There are two alleged problems with using stickers on CDs;
(1) Applying labels less than perfectly can make the discs unbalanced, causing stability problems at high speeds. This can (supposedly) result in the disks shattering in the drive, on occasion.
(2) The adhesive used to attach the label can itself damage the CD over time.
I don't know how much truth there is in these (search for reputable sources if you're concerned; IIRC I read about #2 on Slashdot- you can take that any way you like...)
Let's ignore the awful title which sounds like a cross between a formulaic "how-to" computer book and a lazy cash-in.... what I really disliked was the picture on the cover.
Numerals and/or ASCII projected onto someone's face has got to be one of *the* most overused (and, now that I think about it, dated) effects in computer magazine and book illustration.
Sure, it was cool when the Internet was becoming big news and it spelled instant hacker-cred (in a 'Hackers'- the movie- type of way); it was probably dated and overdue for retirement (*) by the time of the dotcom boom.
At any rate, the cover screams "bandwagon-jumping computer book circa 1997" to me. But that's just my opinion...:)
(*) The original meaning of retirement would work here, but it might be more fun to think of it in the "Blade Runner" sense.
Whilst it's good that the NetBSD people have recognised the need for a proper logo, my impressions are...
It looks slightly dated, like something from the late 80s/early 90s when corporate types were going for 'flowing' logos with gentle curves. The typeface and colours also contribute to this impression.
It's also fairly boring. If they decide to have a mascot as well, this won't such a problem though; logo for corporate stuff, mascot for the fans and developers.
In fact, I wish someone would design a proper (generic) Linux logo. Specifically, one that incorporates the word 'Linux' and could be used without fear of looking unprofessional. Tux seems to have become logo (as well as mascot) by default, but is not really suitable for more serious use.
Of course, Tux would remain as the mascot (although personally disliking Tux, I appreciate that I'm probably in the minority). 'Serious' literature would use the Linux logo, everyone else could use either- or both- as they pleased.
When I buy a cup of coffee, I expect a cup of hot coffee. I do not expect a cup of lava.
Part of the problem here is the use of the word 'hot' for both cases. Hot could mean (just) drinkable coffee, or it could mean something far hotter (as with the McDonalds example).
This allows people to use arguments along the lines of... "you should expect coffee to be hot".
Slashdot Mirror
The USA president appears to a man of limited intelligence on the surface. Yet his college entrance test scores give him an IQ of 128. And he manages to win elections and run the country, more or less.
Whoah... this has been modded from 2 to -1 since I loaded the page. But I'll reply anyway.
My personal belief is that Bush probably has some form of undiagnosed dyslexia (*). The "humorous" mistakes he makes remind me of a dyslexic flatmate I had at university. Smart enough guy, who occasionally made incongruous mistakes with his speech. I later found out that some dyslexics are known to do this- IIRC this was at the same time it was suggested that Bush was dyslexic (**).
This doesn't dampen my view that Bush is anti-intellectual, insular and not particularly intelligent where it matters, who serving as a tool for corporate America and the Christian right-wing.
Just that we don't need to laugh at what might be a mild form of dyslexia.
(*) Or maybe it *was* diagnosed, and hushed up. Who knows?
(**) OTOH, I had another flatmate (in the *same* flat) who was also dyslexic, but never did this.
Why would 'serious literature' need anything better, serious or bland-marketing-friendly than the system itself?
Superficially, a good rational argument. My counter-argument would be that this is the way the world works, and if Linux wishes to be adopted and seen as professional, this is what should be done.
However, I'm going to say this instead. A logo is a good piece of shorthand, e.g. when you pick up a package, or software, or whatever, a good logo is easy to recognise; far more so than simply writing 'Linux'. Equally importantly, a logo will get more attention from people, and raise Linux to prominence. Thus, a logo is A Good Thing.
However, Tux sits uncomfortably between being a logo and a mascot. Like it or not, there are cases where Tux's (alleged) cuteness may be out-of-place, and the opportunity to display a Linux-publicising logo is lost. The non-inclusion of the words "Linux" also means less direct publicity.
By having a proper logo, we get the benefits of both.
Having said that, I'll say this. I do not like Tux as a mascot either; my case above could also apply to the FreeBSD daemon, but I quite like "Chuck".
Tux, on the other hand, leaves me cold. I *like* cute logos and mascots in many cases, but Tux has always seemed lifeless and banal to me, like some toy made of shiny plastic that doesn't do anything. Chuck (the daemon) looks like it has life, whereas Tux just sits there, glassy eyed, forever in the same pose. I can't imagine Tux as anything more than a failed, static attempt at being cute. His cutness lacks warmth.... it's like saccharin compared to real sugar.
Tux is professionally drawn, but is too frivolous to be a logo, and too lifeless to be a mascot. In a lesser way, he also irritates me like Barney the Dinosaur does.
It's a matter of personal preference, but my dislike of Tux is not solely because of his unsuitability as a logo.
$40 for an album that was a #1 in 1966? It's not like John is seeing a dime of that.
:)
No, but the ever-annoying Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney probably will.... which is one good reason not to buy it new
Ten years ago a normal teenager didn't have to pay 50 dollars a month for his mobile phone.
:-P )
And they still don't, unless someone is waving a gun in their face, or whatever (Yeah, I know I sound like Your Dad (TM)... I don't care
Either that, or what you say is true... 10 years ago, a mobile phone would have cost a lot more than $50 a month to run. In fact, it would have cost $50/month extra in gas just to haul the phone itself around with you.
BTW, your post confuses me; you imply that you are a teenager, and that as a teenager ten years ago, you didn't have a computer.
Dude, if you were a teenager 10 years ago, you're not a teenager now.
You're 23!
You are OLD. Stop deluding yourself. It's time to join the rest of us by getting fat, wearing trousers with unfeasibly high waistlines and driving at 5 MPH.
Since posting the comment, I read further and indeed you're right. But that doesn't change the fact that the song was important to AIDS activits in the early eighties. Go read up on how the Softcell version of the song has been re-interpreted before talking about reading too much into something.
Bearing in mind that AIDS hadn't been properly identified in 1981, did Soft Cell themselves put this meaning into it?
BTW, I was pretty surprised the first time I heard the original recording of "Tainted Love"; stylistically, it's pretty different to the Soft Cell version.
But trying to find Devo, The Beloved, or even The Beatles and the Doors is a futile effort. (my emphasis)
Devo and The Beloved, I can believe. The Doors... guess it might depend what you were after.
But The Beatles?! Seriously?
Most large-ish music stores have a good few of the Beatles' studio albums, a good few compilations, and a large number of interview discs and ropey early stuff recorded in a Hamburg pub.
It sounds like you must be after something quite obscure; either that, or it's just bad luck that the one studio album you were after was out of stock.
Alternate possibility; everyone owns all the Beatles stuff they want, all the obscure stuff worth having has been packed into anthologies and purchased, and no-one is buying... but I don't really believe that. There will always be someone wanting Beatles albums.
When I was a boy [...] we had this music swapping system called casette tape. [...] I actually went to the music store to buy the album. (Which was subsequently copied and distributed to friends...)
Wasn't that around the time the music industry were warning people...
"Home Taping is Killing Music.... and It's Illegal"?
As we all know, everyone ignored this warning... and the result was that the music industry had entirely collapsed by 1989.
I HOPE YOU FEEL GUILTY! Yeah, I remember back when I was a kid, you used to be able to buy *new* music from shops. Hard to believe for anyone under the age of 20, but it's true.
It's your fault that cool new music formats like the "Compact Disc Digital Audio" never took off (these things are really cool... all metallic and shiny underneath).
Yes sir. Home Taping Killed Music... the industry was telling the truth then, and if they were around today, they'd still be telling the truth.
as if all the fucking dirtbag freeloaders hanging out and treating the store like it was their personal lounge wasn't bad enough
Whilst I've never seen a B&N store personally, if they're anything like Borders and Waterstones in the UK, they'll have attempted to create a fake-bohemian atmosphere, where people can lounge around, read books, and buy coffee.
Now, chain bookstores are out to make money (particularly Borders, who have a reputation as being a bad employer). Thus, they create this atmosphere to (they hope) make them more money.
If they were more open about "buy stuff or get out", they would probably put the customers off, who then might not spend as long browsing, and would ultimately spend less (if only on coffee).
So, my point is... if the bookshops encourage this (fake) atmosphere in order to make money, you really can't complain when people start to buy into it.
I went through at least 10 C=64 power supplies. Those things needed to be water cooled or something.
I figured out why you went through 10 of them.... keep that damn water away from the power supply!! Thank you.
I can realise how it might work, but I really have to wonder what was the motivation behind the guy who first discovered the procedure. "YOU STUPID CD, WORK OR I SHALL BOIL THEE!"
It was probably the work of this guy here, although it was probably devised as a method to get revenge on the DVD he thought was mocking him.
Agree with the comments about Rice Krispies, though...
What you may have intended to convey is that this "free market" crap is gaining significant mental market share
... hence, we have significant capital flight.
What I intended to convey (with no moral judgement) is that America has never been anything close to a socialist society. Americans themselves may disagree, but with respect, US political opinion is skewed to the right (relative to the rest of the world overall) and anything smacking of government interference is likely to be labelled "socialist", "communist" or whatever. Some moderately left-wing policies does not make a society socialist in itself.
The 911 attacks and the extreme American response have simply made America a bad investment. America's socialist trends are now no longer moderated by that historical stability
Your use of "socialist", I find odd here (I assume you don't mean National "Socialism", which is like the People's "Democratic" Republic of China), but it serves to illustrate that such simplistic notions as left and right-wing don't hold up too well. Is protectionism left-wing or not? Hard to say.
You know, that's an important point. Many Americans are disconnecting from government. [see parent message for rest of this]
No-one disconnects themselves from responsibility. If anyone wants to kid themselves that they can, it should be their problem. If they choose to be ill-informed, it should be their problem. If they choose to vote for Bush and his over-simplistic, war-mongering policies, I'd like it to be their problem (whatever happens), not mine.
Unfortunately, that's not the way the world works, but I don't see the benefit in supporting such insular people and their government.
And, when I say Blair is incompetent, I mean incompetent as in incompetent, not immoral. I disliked the guy when he became the leader of the Labour Party ten years ago. I did not vote for him in the general election of 1997 when many of my co-workers did, simply to get the Conservatives out of power (though I hated that bunch of hypocritical, smarmy fucks as much as anyone).
But even then, I didn't dream that he would become as right-wing as he has.
The reason I label him as incompetent is simple. He is clearly in love with the power of the United States (and possibly paranoid about losing influence). He does everything he can to kiss GWB's ass (latest example; deployment of British troops on Bush's orders) and gets nothing in return. Again and again.
This isn't a question of morality; it's a question of blinkered delusion that he can have any influence on the US government when it is clear that he has had *nothing* in return for repeatedly squandering Britain's goodwill, resources and international standing.
He probably believes, on a concious level, that he is doing "the right thing", but this is a thin veil of self-delusion. It's all about power and going down in history... the delusional incompetence comes in because he doesn't recognise when he (and hence the UK) is being repeatedly exploited, with absolutely nothing to show for it.
Or, if it was really really bad, you can feed it to your dog.
I wouldn't do that; my dog was violently sick after "Matrix Revolutions".
Nothing to do with eating corn-based DVDs... he just couldn't stand the film.
What, have you no faith in post-apocalyptic pr0n?
You mean, like mutants with three breasts or two penises?
Or both, on the same person...
There have been lightweight videotapes that are meant for purposes like promotional mailings.
That sounds like a brilliant idea (although VHS is rapidly becoming obselete, and DVD might be a better idea soon). But one thing... styrofoam? Isn't that the type of polystyrene used to pack stuff together, made up of little pressed-together nodules?
If so, aren't they fairly likely to fall to bits inside the video recorder? Yeah, I know video recorders are dirt-cheap nowadays, but you still don't want that to happen.
When you say the outside, do you mean of the tape itself, or the case? And isn't it still going to fall apart?
[ Another stupid idea from agriculture lobby ] like highly subsidized ethanol from corn so people don't realize it's more expensive than gasoline.
Gasoline is subsidised, too. You have to pay money to support friendly regimes to ensure you get your supply (and let's not get started on the real motives of the Iraq war). Would the United States be wasting time and money propping up an unpopular regime in Saudi Arabia (and thus providing a great recruiting point for vermin like Bin Laden, which in turn will cost more to defend yourselves from), if it wasn't for oil?
The question is, is corn the best way to go?
I never thought I'd hear myself saying this when I was a kid, but I think that nuclear power will be the best way forward for many countries, in the forseeable future. No, it won't be cheap if you consider the "real" cost. But from that perspective, oil isn't as great as people would like to think either.
Don't CDs have to be shiny and reflective?
Answer; no, they don't. The reason CDs are shiny and make pretty rainbow patterns when held up to a bright light is down to marketing. When they were launched in the 1980s, people were easily impressed with such hi-tech glitz, and it was decided that this would be a good marketing gimmick.
In fact, the original plan was to have one of those pictures that flicks between two images when you wiggle it round on the underside. Unfortunately, this went too far... during test-marketing in Iowa, the inhabitants thought the new-fangled gimmickry was the work of the devil, and burned the salesman at the stake.
"640 kilobytes of computer memory ought to be enough for anybody."
I hate Bill Gates as much as the next guy, but that quote's pretty apocryphal... unless you can provide a citation.
Backups become obsolete, the wife discovers I have bootleg movies
Is bootleg a new euphemism for pr0n.... or are you actually married to Hilary Rosen?
Crap is crap, if you let your discs and magazines pile up, you might not need a new room to store them, but you sure as shootin will spend time stumbling over useless the same crap over and over.
Amen... I used to be a hoarder, now I enjoy chucking stuff out. Especially with documentation, there's always the temptation to think you'll find something useful.... usually you'll find it in 3-5 years time and realise it wasn't ever going to be useful.
As for the potentially valuable information... if you don't have the stuff filed coherently, and/or if you don't remember it's there, you won't use it. I've got loads of great articles from computer magazines, but they're all filed away in folders, where they get forgotten about, and aren't suitable for casual reading (which is when I'd be most likely to look at them).
The underlying fear is that you might throw something out, then find a use for it later on. If you're having enough doubts about holding on to something, chances are that this probably won't be the case; and if it does happen, how much hassle/cost would it be to acquire a new one... relative to the inconvenience of having a house full of stuff which is 99.5% useless?
I mean, I didn't want to chuck my Canon BJC4300 printer, because it still "worked", and my new printer doesn't have a parallel port. However, the head is knackered, and would cost UKP 40.00 to replace (which is why I just decided to get a new- and better- printer), and in the unlikely event that I need a parallel printer, I could probably pick up one (*without* a ropey head) for not too much money/inconvenience.
So, yeah... throw it away!
I mean, say you're a some geek bachelor--but alas, I repeat myself.
Mark Twain. He's back. And this time he's out for revenge. Revenge.... on every third rate mangling of his humorous quotes. Once he's spotted you.... there's no escape.
(Clip.. voice of Mark Twain); "Viewer, suppose you were a mangler of the work of Mark Twain. And suppose you were someone who was going to die by having their bowels ripped out through their throat. But I repeat myself."
Twain; The Revenge. At cinemas on Friday, rated 18.
(At this point, the author of this post is killed by the ghost of the real Mark Twain, pissed off that his quote got mangled again).
Any Socialist movement whatsoever in America will continue to repulse businessmen
You don't have to worry about that. The chances of a genuinely 'Socialist' movement within the United States having any notable influence are nil.
Or perhaps you meant 'socialist' as shorthand for anything even slightly against the grain of the free market. No American government has ever been remotely socialist; it's all right-wing, just a question of degree.
BTW, do you seriously think that the risk from terrorism is an issue in the move by US companies to offshore? I doubt it.
If I wanted to work and live in the United States (I live in the UK), the risk from terrorism would barely factor in my decision.
On the other hand, a lot of people allowed terrorism to affect their way of life (and government) to a degree far outweighing the actual risk to their life. From that point of view, terrorism has definitely won.
Personally, I'm far more worried about the elephant going around stomping ants' nests in the name of the "war on terror". Yeah; a lot of those ants are getting pretty fucking annoying, and some of them have to be dealt with. But if one guy wants to start kicking them over indiscriminately, and really doesn't give a damn about their effect, my attitude is let *them* get stung. Fuck 'em.
But... back in the real world, Tony Blair will do what the fuck he's told because he's so desparate to gain influence with George W Bush. Despite the fact it's been clear for a long time that he only has "influence" when he does what Bush wants him to anyway. Incompetent prick.
That works, but why not just put the sticker you write on above the protective layer. Why is this even a question?
There are two alleged problems with using stickers on CDs;
(1) Applying labels less than perfectly can make the discs unbalanced, causing stability problems at high speeds. This can (supposedly) result in the disks shattering in the drive, on occasion.
(2) The adhesive used to attach the label can itself damage the CD over time.
I don't know how much truth there is in these (search for reputable sources if you're concerned; IIRC I read about #2 on Slashdot- you can take that any way you like...)
Microscopy and electron microscopy are also used to image the surface of the hard drive platters.
This is, of course, true. My guess is that these techniques would be too time consuming and/or expensive to justify their use in 'everyday' cases.
Let's ignore the awful title which sounds like a cross between a formulaic "how-to" computer book and a lazy cash-in.... what I really disliked was the picture on the cover.
:)
Numerals and/or ASCII projected onto someone's face has got to be one of *the* most overused (and, now that I think about it, dated) effects in computer magazine and book illustration.
Sure, it was cool when the Internet was becoming big news and it spelled instant hacker-cred (in a 'Hackers'- the movie- type of way); it was probably dated and overdue for retirement (*) by the time of the dotcom boom.
At any rate, the cover screams "bandwagon-jumping computer book circa 1997" to me. But that's just my opinion...
(*) The original meaning of retirement would work here, but it might be more fun to think of it in the "Blade Runner" sense.
Whilst it's good that the NetBSD people have recognised the need for a proper logo, my impressions are...
It looks slightly dated, like something from the late 80s/early 90s when corporate types were going for 'flowing' logos with gentle curves. The typeface and colours also contribute to this impression.
It's also fairly boring. If they decide to have a mascot as well, this won't such a problem though; logo for corporate stuff, mascot for the fans and developers.
In fact, I wish someone would design a proper (generic) Linux logo. Specifically, one that incorporates the word 'Linux' and could be used without fear of looking unprofessional. Tux seems to have become logo (as well as mascot) by default, but is not really suitable for more serious use.
Of course, Tux would remain as the mascot (although personally disliking Tux, I appreciate that I'm probably in the minority). 'Serious' literature would use the Linux logo, everyone else could use either- or both- as they pleased.
When I buy a cup of coffee, I expect a cup of hot coffee. I do not expect a cup of lava.
Part of the problem here is the use of the word 'hot' for both cases. Hot could mean (just) drinkable coffee, or it could mean something far hotter (as with the McDonalds example).
This allows people to use arguments along the lines of... "you should expect coffee to be hot".
Yeah, but not *that* hot....