Many times on this forum I have heard the short sightedness of the human race lamented. For once there is a story about someone looking to the future and planning for it and most comments and making fun of it. Clearly it is put where it is to have the greatest chance of survival. It may be difficult to get to, but faced with the choice of attempting to preserve the species or sitting on the ground and feeling sorry for myself becuase doing something was difficult, I for one would try to continue the species. I can remember many times where I did something even myself thought was not going to be needed or would be useless, tape backups come to mind, only to find it saved my bacon. Perhaps it is/. readers that are short sighted.
The article starts with what appear to be well thought out and reasonable opinions. However, about three quarters through it turns into a Flash/Flex advertisement. One of the arguments against Java the author makes, that Java rushed AWT out the door got it better with Swing and now we are cursed with both, is echoed identically with Flash. Specifically, the fact that Flash and Shockwave live together under the same umbrella but hare hopelessly incompatible, is acknowledged but that criticism is not leveled against Flash/Shockwave by the author. Not surprising when you work for Adobe, as he admits in his article, you would expect the criticisms to be muted. The author's arguments against James Gosling's staunch Java support can also be leveled against the his own staunch Flash support. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.
Why some folks get nervous when a computer beats a human at chess is beyond me. Need I remind everyone that Fritz was designed and built by humans, programmed by humans playing a game invented by humans. Sounds to me like it this is more a Man (Kaspov) vs Men (team who designed, researched and programmed Fritz). I would guess that no one on the Fritz team could beat Kaspov one on one in Chess, so they formed a team and built a machine to do it. The computer has nothing that I would call intelligence, its just a fancy Turing Machine.
I don't know enough about video, but speaking just in terms of audio isn't protecting a digital copy completely from reproduction. For example, at some point the digital information must be converted by hardware to analog. Once you have the analog signal to be output to the speakers isn't it just a mater of sampling the analog signal back to digital to make a copy. If anyone could comment on this that would be great.
I was more referencing the US Gov's obsession with WMD with respect to Iraq not the Michael Moore documentary (although I have seen it and I guess I did use that bit of knowledge). As for taking the documentary seriously I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying that Lockheed doesn't make ICMBs and Moore was not to be taken seriously. Lockheed makes componetnts of WMDs the US gov buys them (among other govs) and the US doesn't want Iraq to have WMD. Well I don't want the US or any other country to have WMD, I guess that was my point.
They build propulsion systems for ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles). I would call delivering the nuclear warhead having a big part of building weapons of mass destruction.
My university's backbone mainframe is run on AIX the way I see it as soon as SCO revokes IBM's license my shitty grades are but a memory on some inaccessible backup tape. Hello med school.
Slashdot Mirror
"Real men upload their backups to FTP and let the world mirror them." --Linus Torvalds
Bugzilla, "not just for code anymore".
Many times on this forum I have heard the short sightedness of the human race lamented. For once there is a story about someone looking to the future and planning for it and most comments and making fun of it. Clearly it is put where it is to have the greatest chance of survival. It may be difficult to get to, but faced with the choice of attempting to preserve the species or sitting on the ground and feeling sorry for myself becuase doing something was difficult, I for one would try to continue the species. I can remember many times where I did something even myself thought was not going to be needed or would be useless, tape backups come to mind, only to find it saved my bacon. Perhaps it is /. readers that are short sighted.
The article starts with what appear to be well thought out and reasonable opinions. However, about three quarters through it turns into a Flash/Flex advertisement. One of the arguments against Java the author makes, that Java rushed AWT out the door got it better with Swing and now we are cursed with both, is echoed identically with Flash. Specifically, the fact that Flash and Shockwave live together under the same umbrella but hare hopelessly incompatible, is acknowledged but that criticism is not leveled against Flash/Shockwave by the author. Not surprising when you work for Adobe, as he admits in his article, you would expect the criticisms to be muted. The author's arguments against James Gosling's staunch Java support can also be leveled against the his own staunch Flash support. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.
Why some folks get nervous when a computer beats a human at chess is beyond me. Need I remind everyone that Fritz was designed and built by humans, programmed by humans playing a game invented by humans. Sounds to me like it this is more a Man (Kaspov) vs Men (team who designed, researched and programmed Fritz). I would guess that no one on the Fritz team could beat Kaspov one on one in Chess, so they formed a team and built a machine to do it. The computer has nothing that I would call intelligence, its just a fancy Turing Machine.
I don't know enough about video, but speaking just in terms of audio isn't protecting a digital copy completely from reproduction. For example, at some point the digital information must be converted by hardware to analog. Once you have the analog signal to be output to the speakers isn't it just a mater of sampling the analog signal back to digital to make a copy. If anyone could comment on this that would be great.
I was more referencing the US Gov's obsession with WMD with respect to Iraq not the Michael Moore documentary (although I have seen it and I guess I did use that bit of knowledge). As for taking the documentary seriously I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying that Lockheed doesn't make ICMBs and Moore was not to be taken seriously. Lockheed makes componetnts of WMDs the US gov buys them (among other govs) and the US doesn't want Iraq to have WMD. Well I don't want the US or any other country to have WMD, I guess that was my point.
They build propulsion systems for ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles). I would call delivering the nuclear warhead having a big part of building weapons of mass destruction.
Its nice to see Lockheed Martin has other businesses than building weapons of massdestruction for the US government.
My university's backbone mainframe is run on AIX the way I see it as soon as SCO revokes IBM's license my shitty grades are but a memory on some inaccessible backup tape. Hello med school.