That being said, I think this is an area where scientists tend to underestimate the value of manned space travel. You'll notice that as long as manned space travel exists, it generates excitement in the general population. And as it advances, young people dream of one day visiting the stars themselves. Remove manned space travel, and the funding to ALL space ventures will be cut. Joe Smith really has no idea of the significance of the Voyager program. To him it's just a piece of junk that the Klingons will blast out of space in a few centuries. But give him dreams of visiting the moon, Mars, or other interesting places, and he'll happily support funding for all forms of space travel.
Now, replace "government funding" with what we have going on today in the commercial arena, and I'm all for it.
I understand, my point was you can see where the original "PEARL" spelling may have come from in Larry's mind. Then he changed it to Perl, some say because he saw another language named Pearl already.
It's not an acronym or a retro-nym. It's a name, Perl. It started as Gloria (after his wife) before it was released, then it was Pearl, then he released it as Perl.
In the old days people spelled it in all caps, i.e. PERL, which was probably due to the fact that people (including Larry) like to pretend it stands for something. I am not aware of any O'Reilly books that refer to it as PERL, they all list it as Perl.
The most common acronym attributed to it is "Practical Reporting And Extraction Language."
(You'll note that actually spells PEARL, a hint of its early name.)
If all is right with the world, Tom Christiansen will flame me unmercifully with everything I got wrong in the preceding story.
"Earning" requires "work", something the filthy rich know nothing about.
First of all, "earning" does not require physical work. All it requires is obtaining the money legally and ethically. If I invest money and earn interest on it, I am not working for the profit, but I am earning it. If rich people did not invest money, poor people would not:
- Be able to get a loan (where do you think the money comes from?)
- Be able to get a job (who do you think creates the companies and the jobs in America?)
- Be able to purchase inexpensive goods (who do you think creates the companies that make the things you purchase?)
All they understand is manipulating the system to further enrich themselves (at the expense of people who do actually work).
The same could be said about those that manipulate our social services like welfare to further enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers.
It is truly sad that you feel earning money, making money, obtaining money is "manipulating the system." Perhaps this reveals something about you?
Are their evil poor people? Evil rich people? Yes and yes. Why do you equate being rich with being evil? For every "evil" rich person you can name, I can name 10 "good" rich people.
You have allowed the left to brainwash you into thinking in terms of class warfare. Perhaps you'd be better off if you spent your time thinking about ways to improve yourself and earn more money.
By the way, since you seem to be ignorant on the matter, capitalism is not a zero sum game. A rich person earning money does not take away from the amount of money a poor person can earn. There is not a limited supply of wealth, as some would make you believe.
You're not supposed to. However, I can tell you why other people like Google: because they make cool shit that's easy to use and useful as hell.
Frankly I prefer the honesty of a spam
Awww shit... looks like I'm feeding a troll here.
I'm not sure what Google is trying to do.
Make money?
GMail, no thanks. I DO NOT WANT CONTEXT-RELATED ADS EMBEDDED INTO MY EMAIL.
Embedded? Nope, they appear on the right side of the screen, similar to other free-mail service banner ads. So either you haven't used it, or you don't like the idea that their algorithm might actually find something you'd like to buy based on your email. I mean, I can't see how someone who understands how the technology works would be afraid of using it.
Desktop Search, no thanks: I DO NOT WANT CONTEXT-RELATED ADS EMBEDDED INTO MY DESKTOP.
Embedded in your desktop? I installed Google Desktop just now. It shows an icon in the bar near the time. No ads on my desktop. Perhaps you meant the desktop SEARCH RESULTS? Nope, none there, either. Sure, they may add some someday, but it doesn't bother me.
Then again, I don't expect to get everything cool for free. Yet Google surprises me most of the time on that front.
My desktop is not for sale as advertising space. If it were, then the revenue generated from it should be MINE, not Googles.
In other words, the services Google provides are worth nothing to you. That is fine, you don't have to use Google. However, I find it strange that someone would be pissed off that a commercial company might offer services in exchange for advertising revenue.
those of us who make meager earnings are going to suffer
Why not try to improve yourself and earn more money, rather than blaming how much you make on the fucking government?
Bush is making this a country where you ned to have at least a six figure salary to just get by
Bullshit.
you're going to eventually have to pay for everything out of pocket
You mean rather than the government stealing the money from someone else who earned it, and giving it to you in the form of services which you should pay for yourself?
No no no, what they are gonna do is get a big handful of these things and melt them down into a flat, round shaped disc, probably around 12cm in diameter, with a hole in the center... so you can hold it on your finger.
Answer one question: Why shouldn't your file system be a search engine? The file system is charged with organizing, protecting, and allowing access to the data stored "permanently" on your hard drive. It is only logical to want to make improvements to it to allow metadata and easier searching of the data.
Whether WinFS can deliver that is another issue entirely, but I sure as hell don't see a problem with this type of improvement in file systems.
Hell, why not go back to FAT? After all, why should your file system log transactions to prevent having to fsck your disk on reboot after failure? Why should your file system offer integrated encryption?
I also currently use an 8300HD, but I have the passport software that he mentioned, and it is definitely better than what he was reviewing. Only thing that is lacking is tivo's wishlists and 30-second skip. I never used 30-second skip much anyway. The things the HD DVR offers that my TiVo did not is complete integration with the cable service, and a tiny pricetag. I think I pay $9 a month for the PVR. With TiVo I had to buy the box, upgrade it, and then pay $13 a month to keep it updated. If it broke, it was a hassle. If my HD DVR breaks, I call the cable company, and they stop by and exchange it with a new one, no charge.
Sadly, TiVo will not be able to compete against this much longer, they need to come up with some things the cable companies cannot match, and QUICKLY.
BTW, I also have used the HD DirecTiVo, and while I did like it better than regular TiVo, since it is integrated with the service more nicely, I disliked the way DirecTV works. Many people complain about cable providers, but in the southeast, TimeWarner/BrightHouse has been unbelievable...
How many Mac users actually use Home/End for what it does now? (I.e. throw you to the top or bottom of a document without moving the cursor.) Seems pretty useless. Those rare times when I want to go to the very top or bottom, seems like I wouldn't mind a two-key combo.
Or handle it like Mozilla... if you are selecting text or editing text, Home/End works within the line, moving the cursor to the beginning/end. If you are viewing a page without the cursor positioned, Home/End works as it does in OS X, sending you to the top or bottom of the page.
Doesn't work properly, or doesn't work how you expect it to? Two different things...
Touche.
Anyway, what you want is Command+LeftArrow and Command+RightArrow. That goes to beginning of line and end of line, respectively, on OS X.
Someone did follow up after you and provide a workaround to get Home/End to replace this functionality. Having to use a two-key combo for something I use constantly while programming would be incredibly annoying.
How many Mac users actually use Home/End for what it does now? (I.e. throw you to the top or bottom of a document without moving the cursor.) Seems pretty useless. Those rare times when I want to go to the very top or bottom, seems like I wouldn't mind a two-key combo. Option-downarrow and Option-uparrow or something.
I thought the point of Macs were they were supposed to make sense... it doesn't make sense to optimize the keyboard for least-used things does it?
Thanks! I've not used OSX enough to aggravate me enough to do more than a cursory search of Google for some info on this, but I will bookmark this info...
Uh, huh. Yeah. Steve Jobs personally signs off on the "functionality" of the Home/End key before each version of OS X ships.
If you think this is far-fetched, apparantly you are not familiar with Steve Jobs.
The question is: What the fuck are you thinking?
I thought it was obvious. I'm thinking it's fucking stupid to have two keys which do nothing useful in your operating system, when you could just as easily give them two functions that are immensely useful for people who edit lots of text.
I wonder why some people still pretend to understand the laws of the United States when they can't even distinguish between a proposed bill in Congress and an actual law...
You had me up until you decided to drive around drunk. I'm a hard-core Libertarian, and even I don't think you should be able to operate a motor vehicle in public while intoxicated.
Let's not get stupid while trying to prove a point.
On the other hand, feel free to un-buckle your seatbelt.
I have always underestimated my income because I didn't want to attract the wrong type of girl. Plus if I say too high a number, my dates might expect fancy dinners when I'm just as content getting Indian food at a hole-in-the-wall.
Have any guys here overestimated? Did you get any extra attention?
I don't under- or over-estimate, I just look at my W2.
Oh, you meant understate and overstate. Well.
What's the point really?
In the real world, how much money you make is an after-thought when dating a nice person. But online, you either need to be honest or select the "tell you later" option. I like that option, it could mean "I'm dirt poor but totally awesome!" or it could mean "I'm rich and I don't want to attract a gold-digger" or it could mean "Money doesn't matter to me and it shouldn't matter to you!" All three are nice options.
I never actually met anyone from match.com in real life. I even subscribed for 3 months and emailed probably 20 different girls.
I went on several dates from match.com. Some led to casual sex, some led nowhere but a first date, and one led to a several month relationship that fizzled out.
But I met my current (serious) girlfriend at a party thrown by friends.
So if you're thinking about subscribing... don't expect miracles!
Don't rush a miracle-man; you'll get rotten miracles.
I think only tall, dark and handsome guys do well online, but they don't really need dating sites anyway!
Yes we do!
Seriously, though, you just have to accentuate your positives and play down (but not lie about) your negatives. This is the same thing you do whether you're meeting someone in real life or online. Unless the only thing you're after is sex, honesty is the best policy.
(And if you're after really good sex, honesty is ultimately the best policy.)
Well then please explain this Mr. Economy. If I can buy music now on a physical CD and it only costs about a $1.50 per track and the recording industry makes a profit off of that even after accounting for the costs of the physical cd, printing, and shipping, how could they not make more of a profit off of me buying for $1 a digital file that has virtually no reproduction costs?
First, it doesn't matter "what it costs" to produce a digital track vs. a physical CD track. My point was the labels are free to price the tracks how they wish, and let the market decide. The words "artificially low" had nothing to do with the actual costs of production of the digital tracks.
Second, I don't know how much it costs the labels to create a CD and distribute it. However, I do know that it costs them 34 out of 99 cents to distribute them via iTunes. That leaves their gross on the digital track at 65 cents. That means it would need to cost 85 cents per track to produce a regular physical CD. Do you honestly think they have to spend that much on the CDs? My guess is it's more like 2 dollars per CD, which for our purposes is only.20 per track.*
That means they make $1.30 per CD track, versus $0.65 per digital track.
Are you starting to see why they might think the pricing is "too low" for the digital tracks? It has nothing to do with what it costs, it has everything to do with how much money they can bring in from CDs versus digital tracks.
Again, I am not defending the RIAA, only business logistics.
* In Courtney Love's rant against the RIAA, she gives an idea of how much a CD costs to produce when she gives this hypothetical scenario: The label sells 1 million albums, and spent $500,000 producing the CDs. That comes out to.50 per CD in costs. This is not counting the money spent on band advances, video costs, promotion costs, tour support, music publishing royalties, etc. Although it's not fair to say that the CD profit pays for all of that. Courtney estimates $4.40 per CD to cover all that stuff, including a 1 million dollar advance to the band, which is probably not happening too often. So let's cut it down the middle and say a CD costs $2 to produce. That means.20 per track on a 10 track CD.
Slashdot Mirror
That being said, I think this is an area where scientists tend to underestimate the value of manned space travel. You'll notice that as long as manned space travel exists, it generates excitement in the general population. And as it advances, young people dream of one day visiting the stars themselves. Remove manned space travel, and the funding to ALL space ventures will be cut. Joe Smith really has no idea of the significance of the Voyager program. To him it's just a piece of junk that the Klingons will blast out of space in a few centuries. But give him dreams of visiting the moon, Mars, or other interesting places, and he'll happily support funding for all forms of space travel.
Now, replace "government funding" with what we have going on today in the commercial arena, and I'm all for it.
Surely this would (rightly) file under "false allegation"?
No, this would fall under "typo."
And don't call me Shirley.
I understand, my point was you can see where the original "PEARL" spelling may have come from in Larry's mind. Then he changed it to Perl, some say because he saw another language named Pearl already.
The most common acronym attributed to it is "Practical Reporting And Extraction Language."
(You'll note that actually spells PEARL, a hint of its early name.)
Who needs Tom C., I'll just flame myself.
Actually it spells PRAEL. Duh, I got the wording twisted, it's obviously Practical Extraction and Reporting Language.
Also, I am wrong about the use of PERL on O'Reilly books. I am surprised to see the PERL in a Nutshell title from O'Reilly.
And as a twist on the theme, the pink camel book actually is called "Programming perl," with "perl" in all lowercase.
It's not an acronym or a retro-nym. It's a name, Perl. It started as Gloria (after his wife) before it was released, then it was Pearl, then he released it as Perl.
In the old days people spelled it in all caps, i.e. PERL, which was probably due to the fact that people (including Larry) like to pretend it stands for something. I am not aware of any O'Reilly books that refer to it as PERL, they all list it as Perl.
The most common acronym attributed to it is "Practical Reporting And Extraction Language."
(You'll note that actually spells PEARL, a hint of its early name.)
If all is right with the world, Tom Christiansen will flame me unmercifully with everything I got wrong in the preceding story.
JASP - Just Another Slashdot Poster
Maybe CherryOS is just emulating PearOS.
"Earning" requires "work", something the filthy rich know nothing about.
First of all, "earning" does not require physical work. All it requires is obtaining the money legally and ethically. If I invest money and earn interest on it, I am not working for the profit, but I am earning it. If rich people did not invest money, poor people would not:
- Be able to get a loan (where do you think the money comes from?)
- Be able to get a job (who do you think creates the companies and the jobs in America?)
- Be able to purchase inexpensive goods (who do you think creates the companies that make the things you purchase?)
All they understand is manipulating the system to further enrich themselves (at the expense of people who do actually work).
The same could be said about those that manipulate our social services like welfare to further enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers.
It is truly sad that you feel earning money, making money, obtaining money is "manipulating the system." Perhaps this reveals something about you?
Are their evil poor people? Evil rich people? Yes and yes. Why do you equate being rich with being evil? For every "evil" rich person you can name, I can name 10 "good" rich people.
You have allowed the left to brainwash you into thinking in terms of class warfare. Perhaps you'd be better off if you spent your time thinking about ways to improve yourself and earn more money.
By the way, since you seem to be ignorant on the matter, capitalism is not a zero sum game. A rich person earning money does not take away from the amount of money a poor person can earn. There is not a limited supply of wealth, as some would make you believe.
Why am I supposed to like them, exactly?
You're not supposed to. However, I can tell you why other people like Google: because they make cool shit that's easy to use and useful as hell.
Frankly I prefer the honesty of a spam
Awww shit... looks like I'm feeding a troll here.
I'm not sure what Google is trying to do.
Make money?
GMail, no thanks. I DO NOT WANT CONTEXT-RELATED ADS EMBEDDED INTO MY EMAIL.
Embedded? Nope, they appear on the right side of the screen, similar to other free-mail service banner ads. So either you haven't used it, or you don't like the idea that their algorithm might actually find something you'd like to buy based on your email. I mean, I can't see how someone who understands how the technology works would be afraid of using it.
Desktop Search, no thanks: I DO NOT WANT CONTEXT-RELATED ADS EMBEDDED INTO MY DESKTOP.
Embedded in your desktop? I installed Google Desktop just now. It shows an icon in the bar near the time. No ads on my desktop. Perhaps you meant the desktop SEARCH RESULTS? Nope, none there, either. Sure, they may add some someday, but it doesn't bother me.
Then again, I don't expect to get everything cool for free. Yet Google surprises me most of the time on that front.
My desktop is not for sale as advertising space. If it were, then the revenue generated from it should be MINE, not Googles.
In other words, the services Google provides are worth nothing to you. That is fine, you don't have to use Google. However, I find it strange that someone would be pissed off that a commercial company might offer services in exchange for advertising revenue.
Have you been living on Earth long?
those of us who make meager earnings are going to suffer
Why not try to improve yourself and earn more money, rather than blaming how much you make on the fucking government?
Bush is making this a country where you ned to have at least a six figure salary to just get by
Bullshit.
you're going to eventually have to pay for everything out of pocket
You mean rather than the government stealing the money from someone else who earned it, and giving it to you in the form of services which you should pay for yourself?
No no no, what they are gonna do is get a big handful of these things and melt them down into a flat, round shaped disc, probably around 12cm in diameter, with a hole in the center... so you can hold it on your finger.
Answer one question: Why shouldn't your file system be a search engine? The file system is charged with organizing, protecting, and allowing access to the data stored "permanently" on your hard drive. It is only logical to want to make improvements to it to allow metadata and easier searching of the data.
Whether WinFS can deliver that is another issue entirely, but I sure as hell don't see a problem with this type of improvement in file systems.
Hell, why not go back to FAT? After all, why should your file system log transactions to prevent having to fsck your disk on reboot after failure? Why should your file system offer integrated encryption?
It is really hard to compete against a monopoly.
DirecTV and Dish Network are competing against cable companies just fine. The problem is that TiVo has no content to package along with their device.
I also currently use an 8300HD, but I have the passport software that he mentioned, and it is definitely better than what he was reviewing. Only thing that is lacking is tivo's wishlists and 30-second skip. I never used 30-second skip much anyway. The things the HD DVR offers that my TiVo did not is complete integration with the cable service, and a tiny pricetag. I think I pay $9 a month for the PVR. With TiVo I had to buy the box, upgrade it, and then pay $13 a month to keep it updated. If it broke, it was a hassle. If my HD DVR breaks, I call the cable company, and they stop by and exchange it with a new one, no charge.
Sadly, TiVo will not be able to compete against this much longer, they need to come up with some things the cable companies cannot match, and QUICKLY.
BTW, I also have used the HD DirecTiVo, and while I did like it better than regular TiVo, since it is integrated with the service more nicely, I disliked the way DirecTV works. Many people complain about cable providers, but in the southeast, TimeWarner/BrightHouse has been unbelievable...
How many Mac users actually use Home/End for what it does now? (I.e. throw you to the top or bottom of a document without moving the cursor.) Seems pretty useless. Those rare times when I want to go to the very top or bottom, seems like I wouldn't mind a two-key combo.
Or handle it like Mozilla... if you are selecting text or editing text, Home/End works within the line, moving the cursor to the beginning/end. If you are viewing a page without the cursor positioned, Home/End works as it does in OS X, sending you to the top or bottom of the page.
That's smart.
Doesn't work properly, or doesn't work how you expect it to? Two different things...
Touche.
Anyway, what you want is Command+LeftArrow and Command+RightArrow. That goes to beginning of line and end of line, respectively, on OS X.
Someone did follow up after you and provide a workaround to get Home/End to replace this functionality. Having to use a two-key combo for something I use constantly while programming would be incredibly annoying.
How many Mac users actually use Home/End for what it does now? (I.e. throw you to the top or bottom of a document without moving the cursor.) Seems pretty useless. Those rare times when I want to go to the very top or bottom, seems like I wouldn't mind a two-key combo. Option-downarrow and Option-uparrow or something.
I thought the point of Macs were they were supposed to make sense... it doesn't make sense to optimize the keyboard for least-used things does it?
Thanks! I've not used OSX enough to aggravate me enough to do more than a cursory search of Google for some info on this, but I will bookmark this info ...
Uh, huh. Yeah. Steve Jobs personally signs off on the "functionality" of the Home/End key before each version of OS X ships.
If you think this is far-fetched, apparantly you are not familiar with Steve Jobs.
The question is: What the fuck are you thinking?
I thought it was obvious. I'm thinking it's fucking stupid to have two keys which do nothing useful in your operating system, when you could just as easily give them two functions that are immensely useful for people who edit lots of text.
What about powering mobile computing systems for rural schools in India, or for use in purifying water in Africa?
Until India and Africa come up with the money to drive this technology, they'll have to wait for those that are actually paying for it to develop it.
Sigh.
I'm a programmer. I like OS X, but every time I've used it I am amazed that Home/End doesn't work properly. What the fuck was Jobs thinking?
I wonder why some people still pretend to understand the laws of the United States when they can't even distinguish between a proposed bill in Congress and an actual law...
If they build one that's good enough, and whose security model is comparable to Firefox's or Opera's,
But this would require extricating the IE from the operating system. And Microsoft already told us that cannot be done.
You had me up until you decided to drive around drunk. I'm a hard-core Libertarian, and even I don't think you should be able to operate a motor vehicle in public while intoxicated.
Let's not get stupid while trying to prove a point.
On the other hand, feel free to un-buckle your seatbelt.
Its as if you're thinking it makes sense for this warning to be on non-clear PEANUT butter jars?
I have always underestimated my income because I didn't want to attract the wrong type of girl. Plus if I say too high a number, my dates might expect fancy dinners when I'm just as content getting Indian food at a hole-in-the-wall.
Have any guys here overestimated? Did you get any extra attention?
I don't under- or over-estimate, I just look at my W2.
Oh, you meant understate and overstate. Well.
What's the point really?
In the real world, how much money you make is an after-thought when dating a nice person. But online, you either need to be honest or select the "tell you later" option. I like that option, it could mean "I'm dirt poor but totally awesome!" or it could mean "I'm rich and I don't want to attract a gold-digger" or it could mean "Money doesn't matter to me and it shouldn't matter to you!" All three are nice options.
I never actually met anyone from match.com in real life. I even subscribed for 3 months and emailed probably 20 different girls.
I went on several dates from match.com. Some led to casual sex, some led nowhere but a first date, and one led to a several month relationship that fizzled out.
But I met my current (serious) girlfriend at a party thrown by friends.
So if you're thinking about subscribing... don't expect miracles!
Don't rush a miracle-man; you'll get rotten miracles.
I think only tall, dark and handsome guys do well online, but they don't really need dating sites anyway!
Yes we do!
Seriously, though, you just have to accentuate your positives and play down (but not lie about) your negatives. This is the same thing you do whether you're meeting someone in real life or online. Unless the only thing you're after is sex, honesty is the best policy.
(And if you're after really good sex, honesty is ultimately the best policy.)
Well then please explain this Mr. Economy. If I can buy music now on a physical CD and it only costs about a $1.50 per track and the recording industry makes a profit off of that even after accounting for the costs of the physical cd, printing, and shipping, how could they not make more of a profit off of me buying for $1 a digital file that has virtually no reproduction costs?
.20 per track.*
.50 per CD in costs. This is not counting the money spent on band advances, video costs, promotion costs, tour support, music publishing royalties, etc. Although it's not fair to say that the CD profit pays for all of that. Courtney estimates $4.40 per CD to cover all that stuff, including a 1 million dollar advance to the band, which is probably not happening too often. So let's cut it down the middle and say a CD costs $2 to produce. That means .20 per track on a 10 track CD.
First, it doesn't matter "what it costs" to produce a digital track vs. a physical CD track. My point was the labels are free to price the tracks how they wish, and let the market decide. The words "artificially low" had nothing to do with the actual costs of production of the digital tracks.
Second, I don't know how much it costs the labels to create a CD and distribute it. However, I do know that it costs them 34 out of 99 cents to distribute them via iTunes. That leaves their gross on the digital track at 65 cents. That means it would need to cost 85 cents per track to produce a regular physical CD. Do you honestly think they have to spend that much on the CDs? My guess is it's more like 2 dollars per CD, which for our purposes is only
That means they make $1.30 per CD track, versus $0.65 per digital track.
Are you starting to see why they might think the pricing is "too low" for the digital tracks? It has nothing to do with what it costs, it has everything to do with how much money they can bring in from CDs versus digital tracks.
Again, I am not defending the RIAA, only business logistics.
* In Courtney Love's rant against the RIAA, she gives an idea of how much a CD costs to produce when she gives this hypothetical scenario: The label sells 1 million albums, and spent $500,000 producing the CDs. That comes out to