Funny, I didn't think they'd conclusively figured out the cause of all cancers. (They haven't. They've made leaps forward in general oncology and they've figured out the multi-variate nature of the origins of most cancers.) Therefore, I think that you're being a bit heavy handed in your dismissal/minimization of this discovery. In point of fact, there was a time when people said that cervical cancer wasn't caused by a virus either
I've been using this handle for about a year now with no problems. It works well.
Good to hear, really. But, I ask you to do one thing... take the handle off and make sure that this is the case. I didn't really notice the damage to my case until I took the handle off for one reason or another.
Also allows for more airflow under the Powerbook when used as a stand.
yeah, that it really did do well. I miss it for a number of reasons.
Could this be because of some defect in your hinge cover?
Well, it might be...but the fact that both hinge covers showed damage makes me wonder...on the other hand, inasmuch as they're both on this machine, they're likely from the same batch/source/etc.
This reminds me of the folks who had paint bubble up on their TiBooks. It may be an isolated case.
Second, having purchased the above referenced handle, I can seriously advise AGAINST installing any such device that mounts and channels load through the screen hinges/hinge mounts of the PBG4. I was (fairly) lucky and only had the hinge cover plastic broken from the stress of lite usage over the period of six months. Those covers aren't cheap and are very important inasmuch as they cover the various cables that go to the TFT display. How expensive? Well, in a quick search, the best price I found was $40.00 used.
So, use any of these devices at your own risk. After having done so myself, I will never use one again.
Its not going to be fun when the poles do drift - we could end up with multiple pole pairs with high latitude magnetic effects in current mid-latitude areas. The auroras will be pretty but the disruption to HF radio is going to mean a much greater need for landline communications.
Damn it. And I just bought a 802.11b ap and look what happens...it'll be useless! Maybe I'll just use my 3G phone for 'net connectivity...oh. shit.
After reading about all the trouble with paypal, I have cancelled my account. I will now also be sending their customer service folks an email explaining why I cancelled my account.
Even if they do outsource their support to India, I'd bet they keep some sort of stats about emails and the issues covered...maybe if enough people complain and cancel their accounts someone will listen...unlikely but it's worth a hope.
2) Apple is systematically creating a highly targeted database of who their clients and/or interested parties really are. After all, whose really going to take advantage of a giveaway like this?
That's a really good point. I hadn't thought of that...
-tcp
Yeah, but everytime Microsoft gives away/subsidizes MS software to Schools/Universities the whole Slashdot world erupts into riot.
Seems to me that the only time that such action on Microsoft's part really brought about a major outcry was when they offered to do such as penalty/in settlement for what the government and many/.'ers deemed monopolistic practices. Now that is a completely different situation than the one that is currently at hand with Apple.
Apple is not offering to give away their software and a bunch of hardware because they've had charges of unfair trade practices leveled against them. Apple is clearly trying to win the hearts, minds and screens of teachers, and thus students, but how is that different from anything that any marketing ploy ever does?
So in a way, you are right, there is a similar motivation between what Microsoft offered to do and what Apple is doing but the reason that your point doesn't stand up, in my opinion, is that the context of their actions is different. Apple is doing it simply as a marketing scheme, Microsoft did it as an attempt to get away without any stronger penalty for the charges brought against them. Therefore, in light of the dramatically dfferent contexts of the two cases, it seems to me that the differential reaction by the/. masses is completely understandable and justified.
Being a Marketing Director, I can tell you that there is nothing surprising (or news worthy) in this story.
Its simple. Competitor explains why there product is better than yours. You can either
A.) Do nothing
B.) Fight Back
See, the great part is that Microsoft tried doing A and B *together*! Now that's novelty.
everybody starting from your future college to your employer will question about the gap in your education.
Why is that a problem? If one can answer that question well, it will distinguish them from their peers. Don't be a sheeple. If you can (reasonably) explain and justify what you do, then it's probably a good idea, even if it is the lesser followed path...note though, that one may go with the group while not following the group...so if it makes sense to go the same course as many others, do it...if your sense of things tells you to do something different than most, do it. If you simply fear the questioning that will come from not doing something different from the norm, then you're not doing the right thing for you.
There are a whole bunch of questions that you should at least ask, even if you don't find answers to them all...before you even ask if it would be a good idea to take a year off before college, ask yourself if you really want to go to college (and as a part of that, maybe ask yourself why you should and why you shouldn't)
If the answer to that first question was a 'no', then you've got a whole bunch of other issues to deal with...
If the answer is a resounding 'yes' then ask yourself why you want to take the year off...and, are you the type of person that will really go after a year out of formalized education?
If it's "I'm not sure" then your choice is even more difficult. Going to college right away might be exactly what you need to figure out what you want to do...on the other hand, if you're not ready to go to college, then pushing yourself into it might do you more harm than good...
In the end, what *really* matters is that your heart needs to be into whatever course you take. If it's not, you wont do a good job, whatever it is you're trying to do. Will it make it more difficult to get into the school you want? Well, that depends on what you do with the time off. If you waste it, then it won't *help* you at all (best case). If you do something interesting, or can paint what you did in an interesting way, then it might help. Note, many schools will allow you to defer admission by a year, so you could apply now and get in (if you're worried) and then take a year. But like I said, whatever you do, make sure your heart's in it.
Re:3d displays cannot work
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 1
Wow. You are one ***big*** asshole.
nope. I just play one on slashdot... For whatever it's worth, I didn't actually intend to be so harsh sounding in my original post...sarcastic harshness just doesn't play well in a text based medium...
Re:3d displays cannot work
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Objects are perceived as the same distance away when light takes the same amount of time to traverse from each of the objects.
WRONG.
That would only work if you were able to know when the light being reflected from said objects originated. Given that light, in most cases, is a constant element (it's not frequently changing, i.e. stopping and starting, like a strobe), and given that you are not the originator of the light and you have no way of being sure which received photon (or group thereof) is (are) supposed to be synchronous in origin/reflection with which other photon, your explanation for depth perception/3D vision is not possible. 3-D vision actually relies on a number of processing tricks in the brain. You do the footwork, but the most commonly cited ones are: motion parallax, relative size, occlusion and binocular disparity.
Active sonar works the way you describe, as does radar. Human vision does not. Think of it in terms of active vs. passive processes. An active system is one that originates some signal and meters the response. A passive system makes sense of the existing signals whose origins/timings are not often known. Human vision is a passive system...
I've handled tons of electronics over the years and have never been able to attribute a single failure to ESD damage.
Just a note here... unless you can actually explain, with 100% certainty (or something close to it) the causes of all the other hardware failures, then you can't say for certain that any of the failures that you have observed are due to damage done from ESD. Just because a failing component doesn't sit up and shout "you shocked me with static three months ago and now I'm on my death bed" doesn't mean that a damaging static discharge didn't occur.
Additionally, note that what might be explained at a higher level as the failing of a certain component doesn't mean that the root cause wasn't a static discharge. Moreover, what if there was a ESD that you didn't notice. Just because you don't see a spark or feel one, it doesn't mean that there wasn't an ESD.
So the title is fine, and the other chemical is just the submitter author being lazy pasting in the first paragraph before the real author talked about the second chemical.
Please read the article before posting.
Please read the series of comments before responding... I did, in fact, read the USA Tody article which is linked to in the submitted story, however, the USA today article is NOT the *original* article, which was a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal. Upon a second, more close reading of the USA Today article (as discussed previously in this thread which you failed to read before trying to karma-whore and simply repeat things in the linked-to article), I noted my mistake and misunderstanding. The point to grasp from this whole exercise, however, is that the USA Today article is poorly written and does in fact do a good job of being confusing on first blush. This also suggests to me that the author of the USA Today article may not have really fully read or grasped the journal article that they were reporting on.
So it looks like it's time for a software/firmware update for a lot of specialized players in order to play ogg files...or is MP3 too entrenched for such options to be made widely available??
from the article: "A study suggests that a skin lotion spiked with caffeine or with another compound found in green tea"
The thing to note is the "or... another compound found in green tea." The headline of the article and/. story are maybe a bit misleading inasmuch as there are a large number of compounds in green tea besides caffeine, any one of which may be responsible for the results of the study being reported on...though the article claims after that quote, that it's a caffeine treatment, not a green tea treatment. Hmm...maybe the original journal article might make that clear...but assuming that it's a green tea based lotion (including, therefore, caffeine), then the story isn't so perfectly clear... More research will sort it out, sure, but it's just a bit early to jump up and start bathing in waterjoe or anything, I suppose.
Further, Mac Microsoft products rarely suffer from the relentless ActiveX, VB, macro, and Win32 viruses, trojans, and other malware because the applications provide very limited or no support for these items.
Well, I suppose that's one way of putting a positive light on what I view to be one of the points lacking in office for OSX... the macro development VB for applications implimentation, development environment (if you could call it that) is awful on the mac, especially when compared to the PC counterpart.
Given that any force that changes the entropy of any system in a predictable way is an 'intelligent' force.
Well, my first thought is that just because something is changed in a manner that is able to be predicted, *does not* mean that you (or anyone else) will be able to predict it. This is very similar to the halting problem (see also Turing machines), in basic computing theory. How do you know if you can't predict the behavior (ie it's truly random) or just that you haven't found the correct functional description yet?
My second thought is that your first premise, as stated above, can be taken in (at least) two ways, a strong sense and a trivial sense. First, the trivial sense: you're simply labeling anything that can predictably change the entropy of a system as intelligent. simple, and actually setting yourself up for a nice, simple tautology of equivillences. The strong sense: Intelligence is *required* to change the entropy of a system in a predictable way. This then requires a definition of what you mean by intelligence and I somehow don't think that this strong sense is what you mean. So, it's the trival case you're interested in (that is to say that you've defined intelligence for us).
Is it true that the study of HOW entropy changes in any given system is the study of intelligence itself, in that given system?
Inasmuch as the "how" really gets at the "what" (or that they're intimately connected, see Aristotle's 4 causes, covered well at everything2).
The real issue though, is that you seem to be trying to accurately describe/define intelligence but do not do a good enough job accounting for the common usage of the word to be anything more than either putting forth a simple tautological statement or you are failing to accomplish your goal in an effective or substantial way...but that's just my simple opinion.
If my memory serves, from my quick read of the book a week or two ago, there is a simple reason for it...All of the info on 802.11 on the Mac OS / Hardware got stuck in an appendix (and is also short and incomplete) because Apple was very slow in providing the promised loaner hardware to the book's author so that it could be included in the book. The author mentions that fact and does actually give Apple's hardware and software glowing reviews but he admits that the coverage is not as complete as he would like because of the printing deadlines combined with Apple's foot-dragging.
I need something that will let me run a quality office suite, a standard development environment and all the latest games but not cost me an arm and a leg. The only rational choice for any of those things is a PC running Windows XP.
I am not trying to flame you, but did you bother to read the article before you posted? All of those points are covered by the author in more or less detail and it really doesn't seem like you've bothered to read the article before you posted. I am truly sorry if I am wrong in that judgment.
I use and support both macs and PC's everyday at work and I found the article to be spot on. Of your objections, the only one that is really valid is the one about gaming. Many of the best selling games *do* come out for PC's first. Some are released for both platforms at the same time but the balance are indeed released for PC's first. Cost is on par, except in the low-low end. Office for OS X is on par with Office XP an as for development environments go, what are you asking for? Windows APIs? Other than that you've got just as powerful tools for software development on the Mac as you do on a PC.
In this case, I firmly believe that the scales are pretty evenly balanced overall and each platform has its pluses and minuses. Now, that is exactly what the author of the article expressed in his piece. If you disagree, you should be pointing out what, in his article, is factually wrong rather than making a blanket statement about "the only rational choice..." That's more rhetoric and rather trollish of you (something you claimed to be avoiding at the outset of your post.)
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I didn't think they'd conclusively figured out the cause of all cancers. (They haven't. They've made leaps forward in general oncology and they've figured out the multi-variate nature of the origins of most cancers.) Therefore, I think that you're being a bit heavy handed in your dismissal/minimization of this discovery. In point of fact, there was a time when people said that cervical cancer wasn't caused by a virus either
Good to hear, really. But, I ask you to do one thing... take the handle off and make sure that this is the case. I didn't really notice the damage to my case until I took the handle off for one reason or another.
Also allows for more airflow under the Powerbook when used as a stand.
yeah, that it really did do well. I miss it for a number of reasons.
Could this be because of some defect in your hinge cover?
Well, it might be...but the fact that both hinge covers showed damage makes me wonder...on the other hand, inasmuch as they're both on this machine, they're likely from the same batch/source/etc.
This reminds me of the folks who had paint bubble up on their TiBooks. It may be an isolated case.
let's hope so...
-tcp
Second, having purchased the above referenced handle, I can seriously advise AGAINST installing any such device that mounts and channels load through the screen hinges/hinge mounts of the PBG4. I was (fairly) lucky and only had the hinge cover plastic broken from the stress of lite usage over the period of six months. Those covers aren't cheap and are very important inasmuch as they cover the various cables that go to the TFT display. How expensive? Well, in a quick search, the best price I found was $40.00 used.
So, use any of these devices at your own risk. After having done so myself, I will never use one again.
Damn it. And I just bought a 802.11b ap and look what happens...it'll be useless! Maybe I'll just use my 3G phone for 'net connectivity...oh. shit.
Even if they do outsource their support to India, I'd bet they keep some sort of stats about emails and the issues covered...maybe if enough people complain and cancel their accounts someone will listen...unlikely but it's worth a hope.
-tcp
That's a really good point. I hadn't thought of that... -tcp
Seems to me that the only time that such action on Microsoft's part really brought about a major outcry was when they offered to do such as penalty/in settlement for what the government and many /.'ers deemed monopolistic practices. Now that is a completely different situation than the one that is currently at hand with Apple.
Apple is not offering to give away their software and a bunch of hardware because they've had charges of unfair trade practices leveled against them. Apple is clearly trying to win the hearts, minds and screens of teachers, and thus students, but how is that different from anything that any marketing ploy ever does?
So in a way, you are right, there is a similar motivation between what Microsoft offered to do and what Apple is doing but the reason that your point doesn't stand up, in my opinion, is that the context of their actions is different. Apple is doing it simply as a marketing scheme, Microsoft did it as an attempt to get away without any stronger penalty for the charges brought against them. Therefore, in light of the dramatically dfferent contexts of the two cases, it seems to me that the differential reaction by the /. masses is completely understandable and justified.
-tcp
See, the great part is that Microsoft tried doing A and B *together*! Now that's novelty.
Why is that a problem? If one can answer that question well, it will distinguish them from their peers. Don't be a sheeple. If you can (reasonably) explain and justify what you do, then it's probably a good idea, even if it is the lesser followed path...note though, that one may go with the group while not following the group...so if it makes sense to go the same course as many others, do it...if your sense of things tells you to do something different than most, do it. If you simply fear the questioning that will come from not doing something different from the norm, then you're not doing the right thing for you.
There are a whole bunch of questions that you should at least ask, even if you don't find answers to them all...before you even ask if it would be a good idea to take a year off before college, ask yourself if you really want to go to college (and as a part of that, maybe ask yourself why you should and why you shouldn't)
If the answer to that first question was a 'no', then you've got a whole bunch of other issues to deal with...
If the answer is a resounding 'yes' then ask yourself why you want to take the year off...and, are you the type of person that will really go after a year out of formalized education?
If it's "I'm not sure" then your choice is even more difficult. Going to college right away might be exactly what you need to figure out what you want to do...on the other hand, if you're not ready to go to college, then pushing yourself into it might do you more harm than good...
In the end, what *really* matters is that your heart needs to be into whatever course you take. If it's not, you wont do a good job, whatever it is you're trying to do. Will it make it more difficult to get into the school you want? Well, that depends on what you do with the time off. If you waste it, then it won't *help* you at all (best case). If you do something interesting, or can paint what you did in an interesting way, then it might help. Note, many schools will allow you to defer admission by a year, so you could apply now and get in (if you're worried) and then take a year. But like I said, whatever you do, make sure your heart's in it.
nope.
I just play one on slashdot...
For whatever it's worth, I didn't actually intend to be so harsh sounding in my original post...sarcastic harshness just doesn't play well in a text based medium...
WRONG.
That would only work if you were able to know when the light being reflected from said objects originated. Given that light, in most cases, is a constant element (it's not frequently changing, i.e. stopping and starting, like a strobe), and given that you are not the originator of the light and you have no way of being sure which received photon (or group thereof) is (are) supposed to be synchronous in origin/reflection with which other photon, your explanation for depth perception/3D vision is not possible. 3-D vision actually relies on a number of processing tricks in the brain. You do the footwork, but the most commonly cited ones are: motion parallax, relative size, occlusion and binocular disparity.
Active sonar works the way you describe, as does radar. Human vision does not. Think of it in terms of active vs. passive processes. An active system is one that originates some signal and meters the response. A passive system makes sense of the existing signals whose origins/timings are not often known. Human vision is a passive system...
Just a note here... unless you can actually explain, with 100% certainty (or something close to it) the causes of all the other hardware failures, then you can't say for certain that any of the failures that you have observed are due to damage done from ESD. Just because a failing component doesn't sit up and shout "you shocked me with static three months ago and now I'm on my death bed" doesn't mean that a damaging static discharge didn't occur.
Additionally, note that what might be explained at a higher level as the failing of a certain component doesn't mean that the root cause wasn't a static discharge. Moreover, what if there was a ESD that you didn't notice. Just because you don't see a spark or feel one, it doesn't mean that there wasn't an ESD.
just some thoughts... -tcp
Please read the article before posting.
Please read the series of comments before responding... I did, in fact, read the USA Tody article which is linked to in the submitted story, however, the USA today article is NOT the *original* article, which was a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal. Upon a second, more close reading of the USA Today article (as discussed previously in this thread which you failed to read before trying to karma-whore and simply repeat things in the linked-to article), I noted my mistake and misunderstanding. The point to grasp from this whole exercise, however, is that the USA Today article is poorly written and does in fact do a good job of being confusing on first blush. This also suggests to me that the author of the USA Today article may not have really fully read or grasped the journal article that they were reporting on.
So it looks like it's time for a software/firmware update for a lot of specialized players in order to play ogg files...or is MP3 too entrenched for such options to be made widely available??
Hmmmph. You're right; I read the article too quickly. Thanks for setting me straight. I'll just go be embarrassed by my suckitude now.
-inco
The thing to note is the "or ... another compound found in green tea." The headline of the article and /. story are maybe a bit misleading inasmuch as there are a large number of compounds in green tea besides caffeine, any one of which may be responsible for the results of the study being reported on...though the article claims after that quote, that it's a caffeine treatment, not a green tea treatment. Hmm...maybe the original journal article might make that clear...but assuming that it's a green tea based lotion (including, therefore, caffeine), then the story isn't so perfectly clear... More research will sort it out, sure, but it's just a bit early to jump up and start bathing in waterjoe or anything, I suppose.
-inco
And to think, I laughed at Caffeinated Soap the first time I saw it...
Well, I suppose that's one way of putting a positive light on what I view to be one of the points lacking in office for OSX... the macro development VB for applications implimentation, development environment (if you could call it that) is awful on the mac, especially when compared to the PC counterpart.
-inco
Well, my first thought is that just because something is changed in a manner that is able to be predicted, *does not* mean that you (or anyone else) will be able to predict it. This is very similar to the halting problem (see also Turing machines), in basic computing theory. How do you know if you can't predict the behavior (ie it's truly random) or just that you haven't found the correct functional description yet?
My second thought is that your first premise, as stated above, can be taken in (at least) two ways, a strong sense and a trivial sense. First, the trivial sense: you're simply labeling anything that can predictably change the entropy of a system as intelligent. simple, and actually setting yourself up for a nice, simple tautology of equivillences. The strong sense: Intelligence is *required* to change the entropy of a system in a predictable way. This then requires a definition of what you mean by intelligence and I somehow don't think that this strong sense is what you mean. So, it's the trival case you're interested in (that is to say that you've defined intelligence for us).
Is it true that the study of HOW entropy changes in any given system is the study of intelligence itself, in that given system?
Inasmuch as the "how" really gets at the "what" (or that they're intimately connected, see Aristotle's 4 causes, covered well at everything2).
The real issue though, is that you seem to be trying to accurately describe/define intelligence but do not do a good enough job accounting for the common usage of the word to be anything more than either putting forth a simple tautological statement or you are failing to accomplish your goal in an effective or substantial way...but that's just my simple opinion.
-inco
DRM: Digital Rights Management. Been talked about A LOT recently.
Check out the following sites:
Microsoft's DRM site
Or for a better perspective, see Everything2 a geeky must have as far as any random information goes.
or google it
The idea might be to use microswitches. They're highly functional electronic switches that (often) need very little force in order to trip it.
-inco
-tcp
I am not trying to flame you, but did you bother to read the article before you posted? All of those points are covered by the author in more or less detail and it really doesn't seem like you've bothered to read the article before you posted. I am truly sorry if I am wrong in that judgment. I use and support both macs and PC's everyday at work and I found the article to be spot on. Of your objections, the only one that is really valid is the one about gaming. Many of the best selling games *do* come out for PC's first. Some are released for both platforms at the same time but the balance are indeed released for PC's first. Cost is on par, except in the low-low end. Office for OS X is on par with Office XP an as for development environments go, what are you asking for? Windows APIs? Other than that you've got just as powerful tools for software development on the Mac as you do on a PC.
In this case, I firmly believe that the scales are pretty evenly balanced overall and each platform has its pluses and minuses. Now, that is exactly what the author of the article expressed in his piece. If you disagree, you should be pointing out what, in his article, is factually wrong rather than making a blanket statement about "the only rational choice..." That's more rhetoric and rather trollish of you (something you claimed to be avoiding at the outset of your post.)
just my thoughts, -inco
You can also check out a IEEE story they link to about vacuum tubes and their uses in modern audio.