Thanks to craigslist, blogs, and YouTube for putting the news back in the hands of ordinary people. It may still be biased, but it's now biased every different way instead of just one.
Sure. And good luck with that. Here's a telling bit from the fine article:
Though Huffington has a news staff (it is tiny, but the hope is to expand in the future), the vast majority of the stories that it features originate elsewhere, whether in print, on television, or on someone's video camera or cell phone. The editors link to whatever they believe to be the best story on a given topic.
What you're proposing, or looking forward to, is a world where the news of the day is provided by pundits, camera crews, photographers, rumour mongers and and bloggers of all types. Dunno about you, but that defines news of the Entertainment Tonight variety, but without the budget for splashy graphics, music and over-paid anchors.
If the reality still escapes you, I'll put it in simpler terms. News comes from reporters. Employed by news organisations. Most of news organisations are.... wait for it... newspapers.
You mean, they put out a new version of their main product, it was widely ridiculed, and their brand suffered as a result? Who would have guessed!?
Well, the article suggest there are more possible reasons than the one you cited, but speaking of suffering, I'll offer up my own jab to add to the fun: No Recession at Red Hat. Maybe not a recognised brand name around the kitchen table, but somebody's noticing.
Google hides behind that lame "we're just following the law" excuse just because they don't want to give up the money they stand to make from the Chinese market.
And Google, in this case, would different how from the throngs of patriotic, God-fearing Americans shopping the aisles of Walmart? Or Slashdotters boasting about the price they paid for a piece of electronics similarly made in China?
Look, each and every one of us participates or plays some role in both good and evil every day. Your participation could be borne out of high minded activism or ignorant apathy. Your role could be active, passive or somewhere in between. If you want to preach or judge, I'd suggest you look in the mirror first before you pronounce judgment on those around you.
Heavy users (typically the younger crowd who typically don't have landlines) are precisely the demographic that Comcast targets.
The situation is not unlike the media companies complaining about widespread piracy when the category of people who regularly pirate music and movies are the media company's best customers. You think, for example, someone over 40 buys or watches the same number of movies? Or would even consider buying the same number of new CDs?
Good to see that progress is being made. I expect similar "ironical" situations will be resolved by others, but not before more gnashing and wailing of teeth is heard from those trying to resist change.
Licking wounds helps them heal for the first few licks.... then it aggravates the wound which will then never heal.
Well, that's the advice you get from the vet, but it's so general that it's almost as meaningless.
For example, take the term aggravation. What's aggravating, the pain from the wound itself, or an irritation that would mitigated by cleaning up the wound of what's causing the aggravation. Animals have little to no problem dealing with pain, but if something is irritating them, they'll most certainly stop to fix whatever the problem is. And their noses are sufficiently capable of diagosing it.
Then there's the possibility that the very act of licking has other benefits. We scratch when we itch. We hold our foot when we stub our toes. Those behaviours were dismissed as psychological rather than medical defenses until recent studies showed that holding your injured foot does mitigate pain by blocking certain nerve impulses. Put another way, it's fair to conclude that not scratching an itch, or not holding an injured foot is counterproductive, if not outright wrong. Hell, it may even stimulate all sorts of immune responses no one knows of. For an animal, their only defense is to lick. To somehow suggest that the defenses mother nature gave are useless is an arrogance possibly only for those who spend all their time in a lab, or shopping in drugstore aisles.
As for the issue of the potency of any given medication, that may be true but it's simplistic to assume that just because an antibiotic, for example, is prescribed by a trained and qualified professional, the drug is going to fix the problem, and not complicate it. or cause other problems. That's the unfortunate reality of almost all drugs. And who would question that some drugs, antibiotics in particular, are overprescribed?
I've had dogs with persistent and chronic ear infections that were treated by potent antibiotic/antifugal applications for years. I wan't able to determine whether the antibiotics caused problems, but I did learn they were mostly ineffective. What was effective was a course of treatment suggested by a girlfriend familiar with yeast infections -- use vinegar and keep everything clean. The problem magically disappeared in less than week. Licking, I'm sure would have worked similarly if their tongues could reach that far. Anecdotal evidence? Perhaps, but medical science rarely has good solutions for chronic conditions of any sort.
The point here is that medical science is limited to what it knows at any point in time. Veterinarian science is the red headed stepchild that gets takes all its cues from its parent. Neither of those groups are going to spend much time studying or giving thought to something like saliva, so the business of selling funnel collars and topical creams will continue unabated, while cats and dogs and animals of all sorts will go on prefering to lick their problems away.
I decided just for a lark to see if there was a Wikipedia article on spit. And lo and behold, there was an article on both saliva and spitting. The latter is an entertaining read, but the article on saliva is equally good.
Didja know, for example, spit contains water, mucus, antibacterial compounds, enzymes, and electrolytes? Add sugar and some colour, and it sounds a lot like Gatorade. Or that the average person produces just under a litre a day of it? The brief discussion on licking wounds is interesting, too. I've been in an ongoing debate with everyone that's subjected their dogs to topical antibiotics and funnel collars to prevent the animal from licking its wounds, as instructed by the veterinarian, but contrary to what mother nature intended. Seems there's evidence on my side that licking wounds does help them heal.
Clearly they are going to use it for drug busts... nice. Wonder where the police departments would spend all that money if they didn't have to fight drug crimes because some of them had been made legal?
In LA, helicopters are routinely used for all sorts of shit that elsewhere would normally be handled by something that doesn't cost a cool million a year to operate. I'd even go so far as to say there's a bizarre love affair with the things. To cite one example, during one of the recent fire seasons, Canada offered cheap deals on airtankers to help out. What did LA do? Get more helicopters.
The only people that hate the damned things are the ordinary folk. You know, the ones that live on the ground in little single story stucco houses. The ones that prefer sleeping through the night without having a racket above their rooftops and search lights lighting up their neighbourhood for hours at a time. Then again, car chases are local sport, so maybe be able to watch live footage of car chases from Sky Chopper 9 makes up for it.
To the extent they could work, drones, by comparison, would be a good thing.
where men go to the office to work, and women stay home and coo
My little dove does all her cooing in bed.;-)
While some of the technological advancements have certainly come to pass (and some pretty close if we look at them analogously), the social attitude of the article is firmly entrenched in the 1960s. Consider...
Consider an alternate, less neurotically politically-correct interpretation:
In the future, the family structure will be such that both parents won't be required to work to support their families, allowing one of them to stay home and attend to raising their children instead of incurring the cost, loss of control, and grief by outsourcing that responsibility to nannies, school administrators, teachers, tutors, street corner types, or society as a whole. The stay-at-home parent will be able to use their free time to pursue whatever activities or interests they could only dream of during coffee-breaks at work in past generations.
Dunno about you, but that sounds a shitload better than the life most parents have now. What any of that has to do with sixties, the fifties, the thirties, or some decade hundreds of years ago, I'm not sure.
because I've been waiting for a proper Canadian thread to use that joke
The number of people in Canada who use "eh" in their sentences is probably about the same number of people in the US who are in the habit of saying "y'all". I've lived half my life on each side of the border, and I probably couldn't use up my fingers counting the numbers I've personally known belonging to either category.
In much the same way that most folks in the US feel no ongoing need to distinguish themselves from their Southern, Appalachian, redneck or otherwise "colourful-language-banjo-playing" counterparts, I doubt Canadians worry too much about their odd brethren when meeting folks from other countries. Except in those cases where the person they're talking to is unaware that the jokes he's telling are a lot less funny than he'd like to believe.
For instance, imagine a Borat-like character walking into your home and saying, "American, yes. Cowboy. You shoot me dead. Ha, ha. I like". The likely response won't be chuckles, but something along the lines of, "Dude, what's wrong with you?"
There's already a built in regular expression tutorial: man perlretut
Not to be pedantic, but that's neither "built in" nor a "regular expression" tutorial. That's one of the many manpages for Perl that gets installed when you install Perl, and describes, in a friendly format, using Perl and Perl regular expressions.
Which is different than using Perl-compatible regular expressions as described in pcre(3).
Which is different than using Posix regular expressions as described in re_format(7) or grep(1).
So, by all means, use perlreftut (or any of the numerous, well-written and informative pages on the subject as outlined in perl(1) to learn as little or as much you want. You'll probably discover it's no more difficult to learn this regex business than it is to learn how to conjugate verbs. And you'll be better off for doing so. Just be wary that there are other implementations that, by comparison, don't quite measure up to the gold-standard that Perl has become.
Basically, on a Unix system if I save a copy of my home directory tree I'm pretty much guaranteed to...
It can be a bit more complicated than that, but for practical purposes, but it's exactly true. The fact that these absurd "Windows does a have a $HOME equivalent" statements keep appearing (and keep getting modded up) I have to attribute to a cursory knowledge of how both Windows and *nix systems work. Moreover, I'd suggest that those inclined to offer "feature parity" comparisons consider that while bullet-point information may make work in marketing brochures, it's the implementation of those features that matters. And on a Windows system, that implementation is typically confusing, deliberately obscured, borked, or otherwise has limitations, caveats, exceptions, and then, is subject to reimplementation when the next flavour of Windows gets rolled out.
Next we'll be hearing that shortcuts and junctions are the same as links and mounts, the event viewer is the equivalent of what's in/var/log, that SYSTEM is equivalent to root, and that a few %FOLDERS% amidst the mishmash of directories spread across just about everywhere is the equivalent to what's defined in hier(7). There is no $HOME on Windows. Period. And despite their recent efforts to shorten the unwieldly name of "user's default directory", among others, there will never be one without a fundamental redesign.
However, it is likely that among Czechs these paper beers do not have a large effect on their overall consumption (they drink even more beer than Germans).
That aside, people tend to watch drama and reality TV, are we surprised there isn't any science there?
I'm afraid the same could be said of "Science TV", which regularly consist of 4 parts drama and reality, and 1 part science, the latter typically consisting mostly of indirect references to science.
My guess is that the programming folks fear that people wouldn't otherwise watch. If that's the case, then they've certainly overcome any fear that their viewers would be turned off by an overabundance of special effects presented against a backdrop of bombastic music, or are similarly disinterested in the human-interest angle, and turn to something more informative.
I've known people who learned the program by having Reveal Codes on at all times so that they could see the effects of what they were doing and learn how the program worked.
There were legions of middle-aged secretaries who did the very same day in and day out. The rest of their time, when they weren't yakking on the phone or doing their nails, they managed a directory structure to store their work, formatted floppies, filled in time sheets, printed out mailing labels, and generally maintained their systems... all from the command-line.
If only we knew how much so that we could decide if it was worth it.
By "worth it", I'll assume you mean not whether it was worth the time and trouble to write GPL software, but rather, "the market value of the software".
The agreement by Verizon to pay an "undisclosed sum" to the developers can be fairly characterised as a penalty against Verizon, a personal financial bonus to the developers, and, with respect to letter and spirit of GPL, a moral bonus for everyone else. What's BusyBox worth? If we knew what Verizon paid for their Actiontec contract, we could make some educated guesses but then, it sort of misses the point.
Reading the article, I'm not sure the writer even knows what BusyBox is. That said, the fact that the lawsuit is in the news and is now settled, makes me pleased as punch. At the very least, I'll have less explaining to do when I walk in someone's door with a few Soekris boxes under my arm.
the BBC hasn't been a reputable news source to any honest observer for years now... Of course, the general attitudes and biases of the News org tends to generally filter out to the rest of the organization as well.
A biased comment from a person complaining of a perceived bias in another. LOL.
I do wish all you bias whiners would get a grip and move on to something more productive. It's gotten old and uninteresting, and less funny than a Slashdot meme. Moreover, it suggests that you put whatever critical thinking skill you have in the services of evangelising a knee-jerk political rant, rather than taking the information provided to you in a newspaper, a radio or television broadcast and putting it real use.
As far as news organisations go, I'd put the BBC near the top of the list (where most others in the developed and undeveloped world would put it). For me, it stands right beside papers like The New York Times. Hell, I'd even include NPR and The Wall Street Journal on the same list without batting an eye. I also read the editorials and letters, especially from people whose opinions differ from mine. I'd like to think that it's the issues themselves that are most important, and understanding different perspectives on them is an integral part of making sense of them.
Bias? Maybe. Maybe not. All humans have them, and we're all human. In the end, it's up to the individual to decide what the appropriate action (or in your case, reaction) should be. Here's a tip: there has never been a "story" told, or could be told, in its entirety. Cut some slack to someone trying to present a part of it, especially someone of the caliber of the BBC.
I want a site with all their pictures so I can rate them 1-10 based on looks alone.
American Indians, cowboys, construction workers, leathermen and military types everywhere respond with cries of "Unfair discrimination!" while the guy in the back wearing a trenchcoat says "Hey girlie, would you mind wearing this?"
No, the confusion is cause by using a pseudo-binary based number system in a world where almost everything else is decimal.
No, the confusion is caused by insisting on using base ten for a system that doesn't use it.
That fact that you may be "more comfortable" with base ten is irrelevant. In fact, it's little different than those accustomed to Imperial measurements habitually recalculating metric measurements in their head, and then exclaiming, "The metric system is too complicated and too much work."
It's much easier to figureall of it out if a 2097 MB and a 2590 MB file fit on a 4.7 GB disk. You can do that in your head.
For trivial values of "easier", and then only in those instances where a single consumer needs to perform a single free space calculation. For everything else, that is, using a computer, it's back to binary. Open an explorer window on a Windows system and there you are. Going farther, measuring IO or network performance, to cite two trivial examples, or understanding any of those subjects in general, you're binary to binary. Which is where the computer was all along.
Seems to me that if your goal is to improve the lot of consumers, then I'd suggest they'd be better served by you educating them how computers work. They were forced to, and happily accepted, memorising multipliction tables in grade school. I don't see why learning powers of two, and then extending that (for the "power users") to base 16, is unreasonable.
What is the point of linking to the Dirty Jobs entry on Wikipedia? What's wrong with the actual Discovery Channel site ??
I don't know. Maybe I'm not in the US and don't know WTF the Discovery Channel is all about? Or maybe it's that getting comprehensive information from an independent source is preferable to searching it out from a business trying to promote something?
I'm a big fan of The Discovery Channel and especially Mike Rowe. But if I really wanted to know something about either, I would need to make my first stop, for better, or worse, at Wikipedia.
Legally they are owned property. You can spout animal rights rhetoric all you want. They are animals, not people. They are property. Do they have the 'right' to be treated humanely and not be abused? Damn straight. Are they our equals in the eyes of the law? No, nor should they be.
Thank you for that breath of fresh air.
Disclaimer= I *own* and have *owned* numerous pets. They've all been treated very well, loved and cared for and fed. They have also all been my *property*.
It wouldn't suprise me in the least to learn that words similar to the above said by slaveowners about their slaves.;-)
That possible irony aside, I wonder whether such weasel words as "guardian" wouldn't be immediately dismissed as absurd if, for the average person, their exposure and relationship to animals wasn't in the form of a domesticated housepet, but rather livestock raised on a farm, with occasional visits by predators beyond the fence. Throw in a few working dogs to control and protect the livestock, a few cats to control the vermin, and observe how one's perspective suddenly changes. To say nothing of how good that steak tastes.
Groups like PETA have been instrumental in ensuring that animals, all animals, are treated in a sane manner, but their moral authority ended years ago. We've all moved on. Their promotion of the "guardian" concept is a neurotic solution at best. And then, their platform offers nothing to address the numerous real world problems (management of zoos, illegal poaching, industrial farming, slaughterhouse practices, etc.), problems that could be better be solved by others less neurotic.
I've owned countless dogs and cats and just about everything else in my lifetime. My personal favourite is, and always has been, dogs, and I treat mine as members of the family. The only that can ruin a good day for me on a walk or at the dog park is meeting PETA-influenced "animal lovers".
Even cyanide will not significantly affect you in proportions of a few parts per billion.
Perhaps. What you're talking about is a single exposure of a single contaminant to a perfectly spherical and healthy adult male existing in a vacuum with no other contaminants or genetic predispositions to illness of any kind.
How about a multiple populations of not-so-average female children who grow up drinking the stuff and then go on to give birth and suckle generations of children who then go on to do the same ad infinitum. Sure hope that whatever contaminant you want to discuss doesn't build up in fatty tissues, because breast cancer is already a major problem.
If you want something to worry about, then start worrying about the antibiotics and growth hormones used in cattle and chickens. That is something real, with documented effects.
Well, they're probably more prevalent in the environment than anxiety drugs are in LA tapwater (am I the only person who noticed that?), but anything in the environment is problematic. Long term studies are as costly as they are rare, and then, we're probably back to the single contaminant in healthy adult males scenario. In the absence of studies, I think it's reasonable to err on the side of caution and assume that adding Bad Stuff to the environment will affect us all in time. Some of it can be mitigated, but none of it can be blithely ignored.
The irony in all this is that while the article adds a new, somewhat unfortunate, dimension to the concept of recycling, it does offer a reminder that we are part of our environment, and don't exist apart or outside of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. And good luck with that. Here's a telling bit from the fine article:
What you're proposing, or looking forward to, is a world where the news of the day is provided by pundits, camera crews, photographers, rumour mongers and and bloggers of all types. Dunno about you, but that defines news of the Entertainment Tonight variety, but without the budget for splashy graphics, music and over-paid anchors.
If the reality still escapes you, I'll put it in simpler terms. News comes from reporters. Employed by news organisations. Most of news organisations are
No reporters, no news.
Are these guys still around? I remember using a BASIC interpreter of theirs in the early 1980s.
I think they sell something called a Zune.
You mean, they put out a new version of their main product, it was widely ridiculed, and their brand suffered as a result? Who would have guessed!?
Well, the article suggest there are more possible reasons than the one you cited, but speaking of suffering, I'll offer up my own jab to add to the fun: No Recession at Red Hat. Maybe not a recognised brand name around the kitchen table, but somebody's noticing.
Google hides behind that lame "we're just following the law" excuse just because they don't want to give up the money they stand to make from the Chinese market.
And Google, in this case, would different how from the throngs of patriotic, God-fearing Americans shopping the aisles of Walmart? Or Slashdotters boasting about the price they paid for a piece of electronics similarly made in China?
Look, each and every one of us participates or plays some role in both good and evil every day. Your participation could be borne out of high minded activism or ignorant apathy. Your role could be active, passive or somewhere in between. If you want to preach or judge, I'd suggest you look in the mirror first before you pronounce judgment on those around you.
My head just asploded!
As it should.
Heavy users (typically the younger crowd who typically don't have landlines) are precisely the demographic that Comcast targets.
The situation is not unlike the media companies complaining about widespread piracy when the category of people who regularly pirate music and movies are the media company's best customers. You think, for example, someone over 40 buys or watches the same number of movies? Or would even consider buying the same number of new CDs?
Good to see that progress is being made. I expect similar "ironical" situations will be resolved by others, but not before more gnashing and wailing of teeth is heard from those trying to resist change.
Licking wounds helps them heal for the first few licks.... then it aggravates the wound which will then never heal.
Well, that's the advice you get from the vet, but it's so general that it's almost as meaningless.
For example, take the term aggravation. What's aggravating, the pain from the wound itself, or an irritation that would mitigated by cleaning up the wound of what's causing the aggravation. Animals have little to no problem dealing with pain, but if something is irritating them, they'll most certainly stop to fix whatever the problem is. And their noses are sufficiently capable of diagosing it.
Then there's the possibility that the very act of licking has other benefits. We scratch when we itch. We hold our foot when we stub our toes. Those behaviours were dismissed as psychological rather than medical defenses until recent studies showed that holding your injured foot does mitigate pain by blocking certain nerve impulses. Put another way, it's fair to conclude that not scratching an itch, or not holding an injured foot is counterproductive, if not outright wrong. Hell, it may even stimulate all sorts of immune responses no one knows of. For an animal, their only defense is to lick. To somehow suggest that the defenses mother nature gave are useless is an arrogance possibly only for those who spend all their time in a lab, or shopping in drugstore aisles.
As for the issue of the potency of any given medication, that may be true but it's simplistic to assume that just because an antibiotic, for example, is prescribed by a trained and qualified professional, the drug is going to fix the problem, and not complicate it. or cause other problems. That's the unfortunate reality of almost all drugs. And who would question that some drugs, antibiotics in particular, are overprescribed?
I've had dogs with persistent and chronic ear infections that were treated by potent antibiotic/antifugal applications for years. I wan't able to determine whether the antibiotics caused problems, but I did learn they were mostly ineffective. What was effective was a course of treatment suggested by a girlfriend familiar with yeast infections -- use vinegar and keep everything clean. The problem magically disappeared in less than week. Licking, I'm sure would have worked similarly if their tongues could reach that far. Anecdotal evidence? Perhaps, but medical science rarely has good solutions for chronic conditions of any sort.
The point here is that medical science is limited to what it knows at any point in time. Veterinarian science is the red headed stepchild that gets takes all its cues from its parent. Neither of those groups are going to spend much time studying or giving thought to something like saliva, so the business of selling funnel collars and topical creams will continue unabated, while cats and dogs and animals of all sorts will go on prefering to lick their problems away.
but after rtfa, I must say it is pretty cool.
I decided just for a lark to see if there was a Wikipedia article on spit. And lo and behold, there was an article on both saliva and spitting. The latter is an entertaining read, but the article on saliva is equally good.
Didja know, for example, spit contains water, mucus, antibacterial compounds, enzymes, and electrolytes? Add sugar and some colour, and it sounds a lot like Gatorade. Or that the average person produces just under a litre a day of it? The brief discussion on licking wounds is interesting, too. I've been in an ongoing debate with everyone that's subjected their dogs to topical antibiotics and funnel collars to prevent the animal from licking its wounds, as instructed by the veterinarian, but contrary to what mother nature intended. Seems there's evidence on my side that licking wounds does help them heal.
What is "As many as 20 percent of the proteins are found in saliva are also found in blood[...]" supposed to mean?
That more than 80% of those proteins aren't found in blood?
Clearly they are going to use it for drug busts... nice. Wonder where the police departments would spend all that money if they didn't have to fight drug crimes because some of them had been made legal?
In LA, helicopters are routinely used for all sorts of shit that elsewhere would normally be handled by something that doesn't cost a cool million a year to operate. I'd even go so far as to say there's a bizarre love affair with the things. To cite one example, during one of the recent fire seasons, Canada offered cheap deals on airtankers to help out. What did LA do? Get more helicopters.
The only people that hate the damned things are the ordinary folk. You know, the ones that live on the ground in little single story stucco houses. The ones that prefer sleeping through the night without having a racket above their rooftops and search lights lighting up their neighbourhood for hours at a time. Then again, car chases are local sport, so maybe be able to watch live footage of car chases from Sky Chopper 9 makes up for it.
To the extent they could work, drones, by comparison, would be a good thing.
My little dove does all her cooing in bed.
While some of the technological advancements have certainly come to pass (and some pretty close if we look at them analogously), the social attitude of the article is firmly entrenched in the 1960s. Consider
Consider an alternate, less neurotically politically-correct interpretation:Dunno about you, but that sounds a shitload better than the life most parents have now. What any of that has to do with sixties, the fifties, the thirties, or some decade hundreds of years ago, I'm not sure.
because I've been waiting for a proper Canadian thread to use that joke
The number of people in Canada who use "eh" in their sentences is probably about the same number of people in the US who are in the habit of saying "y'all". I've lived half my life on each side of the border, and I probably couldn't use up my fingers counting the numbers I've personally known belonging to either category.
In much the same way that most folks in the US feel no ongoing need to distinguish themselves from their Southern, Appalachian, redneck or otherwise "colourful-language-banjo-playing" counterparts, I doubt Canadians worry too much about their odd brethren when meeting folks from other countries. Except in those cases where the person they're talking to is unaware that the jokes he's telling are a lot less funny than he'd like to believe.
For instance, imagine a Borat-like character walking into your home and saying, "American, yes. Cowboy. You shoot me dead. Ha, ha. I like". The likely response won't be chuckles, but something along the lines of, "Dude, what's wrong with you?"
There's already a built in regular expression tutorial: man perlretut
Not to be pedantic, but that's neither "built in" nor a "regular expression" tutorial. That's one of the many manpages for Perl that gets installed when you install Perl, and describes, in a friendly format, using Perl and Perl regular expressions.
Which is different than using Perl-compatible regular expressions as described in pcre(3).
Which is different than using Posix regular expressions as described in re_format(7) or grep(1).
So, by all means, use perlreftut (or any of the numerous, well-written and informative pages on the subject as outlined in perl(1) to learn as little or as much you want. You'll probably discover it's no more difficult to learn this regex business than it is to learn how to conjugate verbs. And you'll be better off for doing so. Just be wary that there are other implementations that, by comparison, don't quite measure up to the gold-standard that Perl has become.
Basically, on a Unix system if I save a copy of my home directory tree I'm pretty much guaranteed to ...
/var/log, that SYSTEM is equivalent to root, and that a few %FOLDERS% amidst the mishmash of directories spread across just about everywhere is the equivalent to what's defined in hier(7). There is no $HOME on Windows. Period. And despite their recent efforts to shorten the unwieldly name of "user's default directory", among others, there will never be one without a fundamental redesign.
It can be a bit more complicated than that, but for practical purposes, but it's exactly true. The fact that these absurd "Windows does a have a $HOME equivalent" statements keep appearing (and keep getting modded up) I have to attribute to a cursory knowledge of how both Windows and *nix systems work. Moreover, I'd suggest that those inclined to offer "feature parity" comparisons consider that while bullet-point information may make work in marketing brochures, it's the implementation of those features that matters. And on a Windows system, that implementation is typically confusing, deliberately obscured, borked, or otherwise has limitations, caveats, exceptions, and then, is subject to reimplementation when the next flavour of Windows gets rolled out.
Next we'll be hearing that shortcuts and junctions are the same as links and mounts, the event viewer is the equivalent of what's in
However, it is likely that among Czechs these paper beers do not have a large effect on their overall consumption (they drink even more beer than Germans).
Time for a pop quiz.
How much beer do Germans really drink?
Its still more than you get on the Discovery Channel anymore...
Which ain't much. The closest I've ever come to being informed was watching hour-long interviews on The Charlie Rose Show on PBS.
A random sampling of guests include Dr. Paul Nurse and Dr. James Watson, E.O. Wilson, Jane Goodall, Carl Sagan, Noam Chomsky, and Linus Torvalds. Many of them have appeared multiple times.
Natalie Portman is in there too, but I'm not sure how scientific an interview with her could be.
That aside, people tend to watch drama and reality TV, are we surprised there isn't any science there?
I'm afraid the same could be said of "Science TV", which regularly consist of 4 parts drama and reality, and 1 part science, the latter typically consisting mostly of indirect references to science.
My guess is that the programming folks fear that people wouldn't otherwise watch. If that's the case, then they've certainly overcome any fear that their viewers would be turned off by an overabundance of special effects presented against a backdrop of bombastic music, or are similarly disinterested in the human-interest angle, and turn to something more informative.
The history buffs have it better.
I've known people who learned the program by having Reveal Codes on at all times so that they could see the effects of what they were doing and learn how the program worked.
... all from the command-line.
;-)
There were legions of middle-aged secretaries who did the very same day in and day out. The rest of their time, when they weren't yakking on the phone or doing their nails, they managed a directory structure to store their work, formatted floppies, filled in time sheets, printed out mailing labels, and generally maintained their systems
Those were the days.
If only we knew how much so that we could decide if it was worth it.
By "worth it", I'll assume you mean not whether it was worth the time and trouble to write GPL software, but rather, "the market value of the software".
The agreement by Verizon to pay an "undisclosed sum" to the developers can be fairly characterised as a penalty against Verizon, a personal financial bonus to the developers, and, with respect to letter and spirit of GPL, a moral bonus for everyone else. What's BusyBox worth? If we knew what Verizon paid for their Actiontec contract, we could make some educated guesses but then, it sort of misses the point.
Reading the article, I'm not sure the writer even knows what BusyBox is. That said, the fact that the lawsuit is in the news and is now settled, makes me pleased as punch. At the very least, I'll have less explaining to do when I walk in someone's door with a few Soekris boxes under my arm.
the BBC hasn't been a reputable news source to any honest observer for years now ... Of course, the general attitudes and biases of the News org tends to generally filter out to the rest of the organization as well.
A biased comment from a person complaining of a perceived bias in another. LOL.
I do wish all you bias whiners would get a grip and move on to something more productive. It's gotten old and uninteresting, and less funny than a Slashdot meme. Moreover, it suggests that you put whatever critical thinking skill you have in the services of evangelising a knee-jerk political rant, rather than taking the information provided to you in a newspaper, a radio or television broadcast and putting it real use.
As far as news organisations go, I'd put the BBC near the top of the list (where most others in the developed and undeveloped world would put it). For me, it stands right beside papers like The New York Times. Hell, I'd even include NPR and The Wall Street Journal on the same list without batting an eye. I also read the editorials and letters, especially from people whose opinions differ from mine. I'd like to think that it's the issues themselves that are most important, and understanding different perspectives on them is an integral part of making sense of them.
Bias? Maybe. Maybe not. All humans have them, and we're all human. In the end, it's up to the individual to decide what the appropriate action (or in your case, reaction) should be. Here's a tip: there has never been a "story" told, or could be told, in its entirety. Cut some slack to someone trying to present a part of it, especially someone of the caliber of the BBC.
I want a site with all their pictures so I can rate them 1-10 based on looks alone.
... a girl, right?
American Indians, cowboys, construction workers, leathermen and military types everywhere respond with cries of "Unfair discrimination!" while the guy in the back wearing a trenchcoat says "Hey girlie, would you mind wearing this?"
You are
No, the confusion is cause by using a pseudo-binary based number system in a world where almost everything else is decimal.
No, the confusion is caused by insisting on using base ten for a system that doesn't use it.
That fact that you may be "more comfortable" with base ten is irrelevant. In fact, it's little different than those accustomed to Imperial measurements habitually recalculating metric measurements in their head, and then exclaiming, "The metric system is too complicated and too much work."
It's much easier to figureall of it out if a 2097 MB and a 2590 MB file fit on a 4.7 GB disk. You can do that in your head.
For trivial values of "easier", and then only in those instances where a single consumer needs to perform a single free space calculation. For everything else, that is, using a computer, it's back to binary. Open an explorer window on a Windows system and there you are. Going farther, measuring IO or network performance, to cite two trivial examples, or understanding any of those subjects in general, you're binary to binary. Which is where the computer was all along.
Seems to me that if your goal is to improve the lot of consumers, then I'd suggest they'd be better served by you educating them how computers work. They were forced to, and happily accepted, memorising multipliction tables in grade school. I don't see why learning powers of two, and then extending that (for the "power users") to base 16, is unreasonable.
What is the point of linking to the Dirty Jobs entry on Wikipedia? What's wrong with the actual Discovery Channel site ??
I don't know. Maybe I'm not in the US and don't know WTF the Discovery Channel is all about? Or maybe it's that getting comprehensive information from an independent source is preferable to searching it out from a business trying to promote something?
I'm a big fan of The Discovery Channel and especially Mike Rowe. But if I really wanted to know something about either, I would need to make my first stop, for better, or worse, at Wikipedia.
Legally they are owned property. You can spout animal rights rhetoric all you want. They are animals, not people. They are property. Do they have the 'right' to be treated humanely and not be abused? Damn straight. Are they our equals in the eyes of the law? No, nor should they be.
;-)
Thank you for that breath of fresh air.
Disclaimer= I *own* and have *owned* numerous pets. They've all been treated very well, loved and cared for and fed. They have also all been my *property*.
It wouldn't suprise me in the least to learn that words similar to the above said by slaveowners about their slaves.
That possible irony aside, I wonder whether such weasel words as "guardian" wouldn't be immediately dismissed as absurd if, for the average person, their exposure and relationship to animals wasn't in the form of a domesticated housepet, but rather livestock raised on a farm, with occasional visits by predators beyond the fence. Throw in a few working dogs to control and protect the livestock, a few cats to control the vermin, and observe how one's perspective suddenly changes. To say nothing of how good that steak tastes.
Groups like PETA have been instrumental in ensuring that animals, all animals, are treated in a sane manner, but their moral authority ended years ago. We've all moved on. Their promotion of the "guardian" concept is a neurotic solution at best. And then, their platform offers nothing to address the numerous real world problems (management of zoos, illegal poaching, industrial farming, slaughterhouse practices, etc.), problems that could be better be solved by others less neurotic.
I've owned countless dogs and cats and just about everything else in my lifetime. My personal favourite is, and always has been, dogs, and I treat mine as members of the family. The only that can ruin a good day for me on a walk or at the dog park is meeting PETA-influenced "animal lovers".
If eWeek's editors were as clever as this new spam, would they have used the correct comparative form cleverer instead?
... betterer. ;-)
That would be more better.
Err
Even cyanide will not significantly affect you in proportions of a few parts per billion.
Perhaps. What you're talking about is a single exposure of a single contaminant to a perfectly spherical and healthy adult male existing in a vacuum with no other contaminants or genetic predispositions to illness of any kind.
How about a multiple populations of not-so-average female children who grow up drinking the stuff and then go on to give birth and suckle generations of children who then go on to do the same ad infinitum. Sure hope that whatever contaminant you want to discuss doesn't build up in fatty tissues, because breast cancer is already a major problem.
If you want something to worry about, then start worrying about the antibiotics and growth hormones used in cattle and chickens. That is something real, with documented effects.
Well, they're probably more prevalent in the environment than anxiety drugs are in LA tapwater (am I the only person who noticed that?), but anything in the environment is problematic. Long term studies are as costly as they are rare, and then, we're probably back to the single contaminant in healthy adult males scenario. In the absence of studies, I think it's reasonable to err on the side of caution and assume that adding Bad Stuff to the environment will affect us all in time. Some of it can be mitigated, but none of it can be blithely ignored.
The irony in all this is that while the article adds a new, somewhat unfortunate, dimension to the concept of recycling, it does offer a reminder that we are part of our environment, and don't exist apart or outside of it.