So in 1989, you could log in remotely to a Unix workstation, quit or get disconnected at anytime without losing your foreground apps and unsaved work, and have a print document sent back to your remote printer?
how is this the best solution? out of the box, with a minimal *nix install i can do everything that microsoft wants tons of money for. in many cases, i don't have to pay anything for it.
We use TS here where I work so our remote sites can log in and use the central database-driven software without shooting tons of sql data acros the net. Our remote sites can use a PII 133Mhz computer to quickly process gobs of data, because the processing is happening at the server and not at their workstation. When you're using an app in TS, you can print to your local printer even if you're in another state. You can lose your connection and resume where you left off. You can even purposefully disconnect and reconnect with all your windows where you left them. Even if you're writing a document in Word it's right where you left it even without saving before dropping the connection.
Asking an honest question now, can *nix do that? If it can, then I'm definately interested as well.
Just wanted to add some more after thinking about it.
An SDK is not something used by the average person. You've got to already know at least some things before jumping into one. The SDK documentation should not worry about teaching people what an SDK is, but let people know how to use it. Explain what the different pieces are for and what they do. Give at least one example of exactly how to use it. Give a link or something to point people who need more info to another resource like forums or a mailing list.
Just as an example. I bought a Fortinet firewall for the network I manage. I read the documentation several times, read the FAQ on the website, read the forums, and still had to call tech support with questions. I had to because the documentation was written for someone who already knew how to set up the firewall. Once I talked to support and learned how to use the more complex functions, the documentation suddenly made sense.
Granted not many people RTFM, but some do, and some actually will spend a lot of time trying to learn something new on their own before making a phone call to your support team and costing you money. If the firewall docs had a few step-by-step examples then I wouldn't have had to call them. If the docs said "Fill in the field with this information which can be found here." then it would have been easy, but instead I got "Fill in these three fields here." Okay, I already knew that I had to fill them in, but fill them in with WHAT?
I always liked the phrase monkey-proof. If you design something in a way that a monkey can learn to use it, you're fine. Just don't worry about the stupid monkeys. They'll cost you too much money and stress.
What is the Slashdot recommended or preferred format for SDK documentation I didn't realize slashdot was a standards community.
I've read documentation for more things than I care to think of. I've read them in html, pdf, txt, doc, wri, hlp, and plain old fashioned paper. I could care less what format the documentation is in as long as it's written well. Quit worrying about what format it's in and spend that energy making sure it makes sense and is readable. I'm tired of reading documentation that's written like I already understand the system and only makes sense after you know what you're doing. If I already understood the system I wouldn't need docs.
Write some documentation that's understandable by someone who has no clue and you'll be set.
While I can appreciate the points you make, you've got the argument backwards. Yes there are people who argue against religion, but those are useless arguments. You can't dispute someone's beliefs. If you believe that something is real then it is real and nobody can tell you otherwise. The only way it stops being real is if you stop believing it.
This doesn't work both ways though. You can't argue that scientific evidence doesn't exist. It does. The conclusions drawn from it may be up for debate but only the conclusions that don't have enough evidence to be proven. We don't have any way of proving or disproving the resurrection because there is no evidence. There is nothing to observe to draw conclusions from. All there is, is a story written by some people a really long time ago.
It's easy to just accept the ressurection story because it is just that, a story. It can't even be put in the scientific arena because there is no evidence to support or reject it's validity. It's not easy to accept some creation beliefs because there is actual evidence present. When you have actual evidence present you don't have as much freedom to simply believe or not believe.
All you have to do is look at how many times in history Christianity has changed its beliefs because of things science discovered. Flat earth, earth at the center of the universe, etc. If the church was wrong before how do you know it's not wrong now? Honestly it doesn't matter what you believe. It's when people try to force their beliefs on others that hate, anger, and other things very un-Jesus-like get created. In the early Church, in view of the doctrine so prominent in the New Testament, that the earth was soon to be destroyed, and that there were to be "new heavens and a new earth," astronomy, like other branches of science, was generally looked upon as futile. Why study the old heavens and the old earth, when they were so soon to be replaced with something infinitely better? This feeling appears in St. Augustine's famous utterance, "What concern is it to me whether the heavens as a sphere inclose the earth in the middle of the world or overhang it on either side?"
The majority does not get to dictate truth. A majority used to believe the earth was flat. A majority used to believe the earth was the center of the solar system. A majority used to believe that gods and goddesses ruled everything. The trap that many people have fallen into is believing that numbers can dictate what the truth is. They can't. Just because a majority don't accept evolutionary science doesn't mean evolutionary science is wrong.
If Darwin had said "I want to figure out exactly how God made the heavens and the earth." and made it publicly known that he was exploring God and his creations to better understand God and get closer to him, and THEN came out with his evolution theories, you'd find his theories widely accepted as truth in the christian community. Nothing says exactly HOW God made everything, just that he did. If God wanted to take one creature, make some changes, then release it as a new creature why couldn't he?
Darwin never claimed that humans came from apes. He even plainly admitted he had no evidence at all to suggest man came from apes. Walk up to any anti-evolutionist and ask if Darwin said man came from apes and they'll say yes he did. Ever hear the phrase "missin link"? That specifically refers to the missing piece of evidence needed to say humans came from apes. The anti-evolutionist have conviniently left out the pieces of science that ruin their whole fight.
Cassette tapes had a fee put on them specifically because people made copies of their music on them and shared them. If I'm not mistaken, this was the compromise between banning cassettes and simply allowing copyright infringement. You can put your music from whatever format onto cassette all you want because you've paid the fee. This is part of why there has been a push to put a similar fee on blank cd's The problem is that while cassettes were rarely used for data, blank cd's are often used for data and makes a similar fee "unfair." The RIAA/MPAA have done a good job brainwashing people into believing they do not have any fair use rights and into believing that any copying in any form is illegal.
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html Do I have the right to make a copy of my CD for my own personal use? Yes. The fair use doctrine allows an individual to make a copy of their lawfully obtained copyrighted work for their own personal use. Allowing people to make a copy of copyrighted music for their personal use provides for enhanced consumer convenience through legitimate and lawful copying. It can also enlarge the exploitable market for the rights holders. The fair use privilege's personal use right is what allows an individual to make a backup copy of their computer software as an essential defense against future media failure.
Personal use also permits music fans to make "mix tapes" or compilations of their favorite songs from their own personal music collection or the radio for their own personal enjoyment in a more convenient format, or "format shifting." Another example of acceptable personal use copying of a copyrighted work is "time-shifting," or the recording of a copyrighted program to enjoy at a later and more convenient time.
As new media present new ways for people to enjoy music, the public's fair use rights accompany them into the electronic frontier. Now, music fans have the right and ability to copy their own music collection onto their own computer storage device and create customized play lists for their own personal use and enjoyment of their music.
It is important to note that while consumers have the right to listen to their own music collection for their own personal use, they do not have the right, however, to make their music collections available to others by uploading them onto the Internet for public downloading.
The volcano is making great progress. Human ego just refuses to see it that way and instead goes "OMG my house that I built near a volcano just burned up!"
Heh, from what it looks like, he said in 2001 CERN will say making black holes is possible. The first black holes will be made in 2007, but he doesn't say when the method for making black holes was discovered. http://johntitor.strategicbrains.com/CopyrightProo f.cfm
I wonder why they haven't made a John Titor movie yet...oh yeah I forgot about Van Damme...
They already have. They're scrambling to pull out stuff they've already written. Predicted sequence of events:
First we'll hear about the new black hole movie
Disney will re-release "The Black Hole" on DVD
Scientists will explain that it wasn't really a black hole after all, but the major media will not pick up the story because the movie and tv series have already been started and Hollywood will lose too much money
TV mini-series comes out just before the movie
Movie comes out
Dept. of Homeland Security informs everyone that to keep safe from a black hole, buy duct tape and plastic and cover your windows.
I remember reading JWZ's blog back in the Netscape days. I remember one entry in particular where he noted that Netscape had changed. It used to be full of people who wanted to help create a great company. It turned into a place full of people who just wanted to work for a great company. The people who live to help create get replaced by those who want to ride on their coat-tails. This happens when businesses become successful. Everything changes. Like the band that was good friends and partied together every night. They get signed, shit gets serious, and suddenly they're fighting and arguing about things till they break up and go their separate ways.
From an old post in his blog: What is most amazing about this is not the event itself, but rather, what it indicates: Netscape has gone from ``hot young world-changing startup'' to Apple levels of unadulterated uselessness in fewer than four years, and with fewer than 3,000 employees.
But I guess Netscape has always done everything faster and bigger. Including burning out.
It's too bad it had to end with a whimper instead of a bang. Netscape used to be something wonderful.
The thing that hurts about this is that I was here when Netscape was just a bunch of creative people working together to make something great. Now it's a faceless corporation like all other faceless corporations, terrified that it might accidentally offend someone. But yes, all big corporations are like that: it's just that I was here to watch this one fall.
Perhaps the same fate awaits Mozilla. Hopefully not, but when your product becomes as successful as Mozilla and Firefox have, things do change and change is inevitable. It all comes down to how the people involved with the projects handle the change.
Mozilla did rise from the ashes of Netscape though. Hopefully some of the original Netscape people are still around to help lead Mozilla in the right direction, using their experience from the crashing and burning of Netscape in the late 90's.
Never seeded before but thought since no torrents have shown up I'd give it a try. Hopefully it will work, and hopefully my ISP won't freak out thinking I'm distributing illegally.:)
I just read that the original Battlestar Galactica series had 65 million viewers for it's pilot. I think that says more about the quality of a lot of sci-fi shows today and not just Star Trek. The new Battlestar Galactica pulled in 3.1 million viewers for it's pilot episode.
No, you're out numbered by people who enjoy television shows that have substance and quality. Look at the ratings/viewers for Enterprise shows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek:_En terprise_episodes Episode 1 and 2 had 12 million viewers. Episode 3 had 9 million, and Ep 4 had 7 million. It was obvious from the very beginning that Enterprise sucked. Going from 12 million viewers to 3 to 4 million pretty much proves it.
The original Battlestar Galactica with it's cheesy 70's effects started out with 65 million viewers. Enterprise had 12 million initial viewers and dropped to 4 million. Hmmmm. Which one sucked worse? The number of viewers says it all.
From the article: "I mean, we started out with 13 million viewers on the pilot, and we somehow managed to drive 11 million of them away."
There's 11 million other trek fans that feel Enterprise sucked with 2 million that stayed. Sounds to me like an overwhelming majority feel Enterprise was a terrible show and it's obvious the remaining fans are simply fanatic activists. There's nothing wrong with being a die-hard fan, but the ratings pretty much prove how terrible a show it was. I could understand protesting the cancellation of a star trek series that was produced well, but why the worst of the series?
Commenting on the case the FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell said, `the industry must adhere to certain consumer protection norms if the Internet is to remain an open platform for innovation.` He also gave a warning that the FCC will not allow companies to stifle innovation saying that the Commission `acted swiftly to ensure that Internet voice service remains a viable option for consumers`.
I think that line might be brought up in the future...can you say broadcast flag?
Slashdot Mirror
So in 1989, you could log in remotely to a Unix workstation, quit or get disconnected at anytime without losing your foreground apps and unsaved work, and have a print document sent back to your remote printer?
how is this the best solution? out of the box, with a minimal *nix install i can do everything that microsoft wants tons of money for. in many cases, i don't have to pay anything for it.
We use TS here where I work so our remote sites can log in and use the central database-driven software without shooting tons of sql data acros the net. Our remote sites can use a PII 133Mhz computer to quickly process gobs of data, because the processing is happening at the server and not at their workstation. When you're using an app in TS, you can print to your local printer even if you're in another state. You can lose your connection and resume where you left off. You can even purposefully disconnect and reconnect with all your windows where you left them. Even if you're writing a document in Word it's right where you left it even without saving before dropping the connection.
Asking an honest question now, can *nix do that? If it can, then I'm definately interested as well.
Just wanted to add some more after thinking about it.
An SDK is not something used by the average person. You've got to already know at least some things before jumping into one. The SDK documentation should not worry about teaching people what an SDK is, but let people know how to use it. Explain what the different pieces are for and what they do. Give at least one example of exactly how to use it. Give a link or something to point people who need more info to another resource like forums or a mailing list.
Just as an example. I bought a Fortinet firewall for the network I manage. I read the documentation several times, read the FAQ on the website, read the forums, and still had to call tech support with questions. I had to because the documentation was written for someone who already knew how to set up the firewall. Once I talked to support and learned how to use the more complex functions, the documentation suddenly made sense.
Granted not many people RTFM, but some do, and some actually will spend a lot of time trying to learn something new on their own before making a phone call to your support team and costing you money. If the firewall docs had a few step-by-step examples then I wouldn't have had to call them. If the docs said "Fill in the field with this information which can be found here." then it would have been easy, but instead I got "Fill in these three fields here." Okay, I already knew that I had to fill them in, but fill them in with WHAT?
I always liked the phrase monkey-proof. If you design something in a way that a monkey can learn to use it, you're fine. Just don't worry about the stupid monkeys. They'll cost you too much money and stress.
What is the Slashdot recommended or preferred format for SDK documentation
I didn't realize slashdot was a standards community.
I've read documentation for more things than I care to think of. I've read them in html, pdf, txt, doc, wri, hlp, and plain old fashioned paper.
I could care less what format the documentation is in as long as it's written well. Quit worrying about what format it's in and spend that energy making sure it makes sense and is readable. I'm tired of reading documentation that's written like I already understand the system and only makes sense after you know what you're doing. If I already understood the system I wouldn't need docs.
Write some documentation that's understandable by someone who has no clue and you'll be set.
So who's got a torrent of the game?
Broken URL, Name could not be found.
While I can appreciate the points you make, you've got the argument backwards. Yes there are people who argue against religion, but those are useless arguments. You can't dispute someone's beliefs. If you believe that something is real then it is real and nobody can tell you otherwise. The only way it stops being real is if you stop believing it.
This doesn't work both ways though. You can't argue that scientific evidence doesn't exist. It does. The conclusions drawn from it may be up for debate but only the conclusions that don't have enough evidence to be proven. We don't have any way of proving or disproving the resurrection because there is no evidence. There is nothing to observe to draw conclusions from. All there is, is a story written by some people a really long time ago.
It's easy to just accept the ressurection story because it is just that, a story. It can't even be put in the scientific arena because there is no evidence to support or reject it's validity. It's not easy to accept some creation beliefs because there is actual evidence present. When you have actual evidence present you don't have as much freedom to simply believe or not believe.
All you have to do is look at how many times in history Christianity has changed its beliefs because of things science discovered. Flat earth, earth at the center of the universe, etc. If the church was wrong before how do you know it's not wrong now? Honestly it doesn't matter what you believe. It's when people try to force their beliefs on others that hate, anger, and other things very un-Jesus-like get created. In the early Church, in view of the doctrine so prominent in the New Testament, that the earth was soon to be destroyed, and that there were to be "new heavens and a new earth," astronomy, like other branches of science, was generally looked upon as futile. Why study the old heavens and the old earth, when they were so soon to be replaced with something infinitely better? This feeling appears in St. Augustine's famous utterance, "What concern is it to me whether the heavens as a sphere inclose the earth in the middle of the world or overhang it on either side?"
The majority does not get to dictate truth. A majority used to believe the earth was flat. A majority used to believe the earth was the center of the solar system. A majority used to believe that gods and goddesses ruled everything. The trap that many people have fallen into is believing that numbers can dictate what the truth is. They can't. Just because a majority don't accept evolutionary science doesn't mean evolutionary science is wrong.
If Darwin had said "I want to figure out exactly how God made the heavens and the earth." and made it publicly known that he was exploring God and his creations to better understand God and get closer to him, and THEN came out with his evolution theories, you'd find his theories widely accepted as truth in the christian community. Nothing says exactly HOW God made everything, just that he did. If God wanted to take one creature, make some changes, then release it as a new creature why couldn't he?
Darwin never claimed that humans came from apes. He even plainly admitted he had no evidence at all to suggest man came from apes. Walk up to any anti-evolutionist and ask if Darwin said man came from apes and they'll say yes he did. Ever hear the phrase "missin link"? That specifically refers to the missing piece of evidence needed to say humans came from apes. The anti-evolutionist have conviniently left out the pieces of science that ruin their whole fight.
History of Jet Injection
1936 First jet device patented to M. Lockhart, New Jersey
1940 Development of multiple dose jet guns
1947 - 1965 Introduction of jet injection into clinical use (ca. 2,2 Mil. injections reported)
1975 - 1995 Development of first "user-friendly" needle-free injectors
So a technology first patented in 1936 is geek news?
Nice link. Thanks. I'd post another but then this thread would be way out of hand.
Awesome coincidence...but did you see one of the ads at the top of slashdot?
http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/drives/6908/
Cassette mp3 ripper.
Cassette tapes had a fee put on them specifically because people made copies of their music on them and shared them. If I'm not mistaken, this was the compromise between banning cassettes and simply allowing copyright infringement. You can put your music from whatever format onto cassette all you want because you've paid the fee. This is part of why there has been a push to put a similar fee on blank cd's The problem is that while cassettes were rarely used for data, blank cd's are often used for data and makes a similar fee "unfair." The RIAA/MPAA have done a good job brainwashing people into believing they do not have any fair use rights and into believing that any copying in any form is illegal.
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html
Do I have the right to make a copy of my CD for my own personal use?
Yes. The fair use doctrine allows an individual to make a copy of their lawfully obtained copyrighted work for their own personal use. Allowing people to make a copy of copyrighted music for their personal use provides for enhanced consumer convenience through legitimate and lawful copying. It can also enlarge the exploitable market for the rights holders. The fair use privilege's personal use right is what allows an individual to make a backup copy of their computer software as an essential defense against future media failure.
Personal use also permits music fans to make "mix tapes" or compilations of their favorite songs from their own personal music collection or the radio for their own personal enjoyment in a more convenient format, or "format shifting." Another example of acceptable personal use copying of a copyrighted work is "time-shifting," or the recording of a copyrighted program to enjoy at a later and more convenient time.
As new media present new ways for people to enjoy music, the public's fair use rights accompany them into the electronic frontier. Now, music fans have the right and ability to copy their own music collection onto their own computer storage device and create customized play lists for their own personal use and enjoyment of their music.
It is important to note that while consumers have the right to listen to their own music collection for their own personal use, they do not have the right, however, to make their music collections available to others by uploading them onto the Internet for public downloading.
The volcano is making great progress. Human ego just refuses to see it that way and instead goes "OMG my house that I built near a volcano just burned up!"
We can't lay him to rest until a movie is made about him. Fiction of course.
He said the first indications of a civil war would be apparent around 2005. The actual civil war wouldn't start till later.
Heh, from what it looks like, he said in 2001 CERN will say making black holes is possible. The first black holes will be made in 2007, but he doesn't say when the method for making black holes was discovered.o f.cfm
http://johntitor.strategicbrains.com/CopyrightPro
I wonder why they haven't made a John Titor movie yet...oh yeah I forgot about Van Damme...
They already have. They're scrambling to pull out stuff they've already written. Predicted sequence of events:
First we'll hear about the new black hole movie
Disney will re-release "The Black Hole" on DVD
Scientists will explain that it wasn't really a black hole after all, but the major media will not pick up the story because the movie and tv series have already been started and Hollywood will lose too much money
TV mini-series comes out just before the movie
Movie comes out
Dept. of Homeland Security informs everyone that to keep safe from a black hole, buy duct tape and plastic and cover your windows.
if John Titor predicted this...
Redirect...actual url here:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/trucki/
The plugin is way at the bottom.
I remember reading JWZ's blog back in the Netscape days. I remember one entry in particular where he noted that Netscape had changed. It used to be full of people who wanted to help create a great company. It turned into a place full of people who just wanted to work for a great company. The people who live to help create get replaced by those who want to ride on their coat-tails. This happens when businesses become successful. Everything changes. Like the band that was good friends and partied together every night. They get signed, shit gets serious, and suddenly they're fighting and arguing about things till they break up and go their separate ways.
From an old post in his blog:
What is most amazing about this is not the event itself, but rather, what it indicates: Netscape has gone from ``hot young world-changing startup'' to Apple levels of unadulterated uselessness in fewer than four years, and with fewer than 3,000 employees.
But I guess Netscape has always done everything faster and bigger. Including burning out.
It's too bad it had to end with a whimper instead of a bang. Netscape used to be something wonderful.
The thing that hurts about this is that I was here when Netscape was just a bunch of creative people working together to make something great. Now it's a faceless corporation like all other faceless corporations, terrified that it might accidentally offend someone. But yes, all big corporations are like that: it's just that I was here to watch this one fall.
Perhaps the same fate awaits Mozilla. Hopefully not, but when your product becomes as successful as Mozilla and Firefox have, things do change and change is inevitable. It all comes down to how the people involved with the projects handle the change.
Mozilla did rise from the ashes of Netscape though. Hopefully some of the original Netscape people are still around to help lead Mozilla in the right direction, using their experience from the crashing and burning of Netscape in the late 90's.
JWZ's rantings can be found at http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/
Never seeded before but thought since no torrents have shown up I'd give it a try. Hopefully it will work, and hopefully my ISP won't freak out thinking I'm distributing illegally. :)
e .torrent
http://members.cox.net/gothzilla/ns_install_v3.ex
$50?!?!?! Are you kidding? :)4 0-64MS
http://www.imagestore.us/product.asp?pf_id=VG-MX4
$34 and it will play any HL game or mod just fine. Anyone not willing to fork out $34 doesn't deserve to complain.
I just read that the original Battlestar Galactica series had 65 million viewers for it's pilot. I think that says more about the quality of a lot of sci-fi shows today and not just Star Trek. The new Battlestar Galactica pulled in 3.1 million viewers for it's pilot episode.
No, you're out numbered by people who enjoy television shows that have substance and quality. Look at the ratings/viewers for Enterprise shows.n terprise_episodes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek:_E
Episode 1 and 2 had 12 million viewers. Episode 3 had 9 million, and Ep 4 had 7 million. It was obvious from the very beginning that Enterprise sucked. Going from 12 million viewers to 3 to 4 million pretty much proves it.
The original Battlestar Galactica with it's cheesy 70's effects started out with 65 million viewers. Enterprise had 12 million initial viewers and dropped to 4 million. Hmmmm. Which one sucked worse? The number of viewers says it all.
From the article:
"I mean, we started out with 13 million viewers on the pilot, and we somehow managed to drive 11 million of them away."
There's 11 million other trek fans that feel Enterprise sucked with 2 million that stayed. Sounds to me like an overwhelming majority feel Enterprise was a terrible show and it's obvious the remaining fans are simply fanatic activists. There's nothing wrong with being a die-hard fan, but the ratings pretty much prove how terrible a show it was. I could understand protesting the cancellation of a star trek series that was produced well, but why the worst of the series?
Commenting on the case the FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell said, `the industry must adhere to certain consumer protection norms if the Internet is to remain an open platform for innovation.` He also gave a warning that the FCC will not allow companies to stifle innovation saying that the Commission `acted swiftly to ensure that Internet voice service remains a viable option for consumers`. I think that line might be brought up in the future...can you say broadcast flag?