FAT, as the lowest common denominator, is the best choice for flash cards and any other device that has to work in any random Windows, Mac, or Linux box. Otherwise, you'll have to develop and maintain filesystem drivers for your end users
FAT may be the best choice to use but if MS has a patent on it, I don't know if they do or not, and TomTom uses FAT then they are infringing on MS's patent.
I have to point out that in capitalist systems, science is VERY dependent on government for funding. Unless a business stands to make a lot of money off your research (which is almost never the case for basic science) who is going to give you money to do it?
Yea, let taxpayers pay for research then let big businesses make hugh amounts of money off it. The NCI, part of the government's National Institutes of Health, spent $183 million to develop and test the cancer drug Taxol. Do the taxpayers own it? No, Bristol-Myers Squibb owns exclusive rights to use all the data the NCI has, and BMS paid a paltry amount for those exclusive rights, less than $50 million. That was in 1988/89. By 2000 BMS was making about $1 billions on the sale of Taxol.
Yes, thereby forcing anyone with federal funding of any sort that wanted to research on lines that weren't already in place by 2001 to create entirely separate laboratories to work with these new lines.
While I support embryonic stem cell research, I don't support taxpayer money supporting it. Reduce taxes and let those who want ESC research donate money. If government does pay for any research that research should be open sourced, taxpayers paid for it and should benefit from it.
In fact, there were probably a number of Germans who benefited from such discoveries. Does such justify the torture and scientific experimentation done to the Jews?
The NAZIs didn't just use Jews. The Sinti and Roma gypsies were also used for medical experiments.
It is not true that they test the same formulation of dish soap in some poor animal's eyes over and over again. That would be pointless. But when they put in a new active ingredient, one that hes never been tested, they need to make sure that it won't kill your stupid kid when he drinks a gallon of it.
And how does using other animals for tests show something is safe for humans? What's harmless to some animals may be harmful to humans and what's safe for humans may be harmful to certain other animals. Even chimpanzees, which are the closest to humans, don't always react the same as humans. That's why when potential new drugs are developed they have to go through Phase III clinical trials with humans before they're released.
Maybe scientists need to stop being so arrogant and err on the side of caution and sanctity of life.
And maybe religious zealots need to live and let live. When people need laws to support their religious beliefs they must not have much faith in the message of the belief.
"Current science is only about pissing matches with ideologists especially those that are majority Christian"
Really, they're sure proving right on the stem cell issue. I think it's the ideologists who want discovery at any cost who are losing the argument. And refusing to face their failure.
If it wasn't for embryonic stem cell, ESC, research how likely would it these "breakthroughs" in adult stem cells be? These breakthroughs were made possible by research on ESC. That's and it hasn't been shown yet that adult stem cells can be used everywhere ESCs can.
it isn't so convenient for female donors to supply large numbers of viable eggs (to say the least--in fact fertility treatments to trigger ovulation, followed by the procedure to harvest the eggs, is hard enough on patients to do it when trying to conceive--they aren't going to do it just to sell their eggs).
Ah but there are women who would sell some of their eggs if they could, it's currently illegal to sell eggs in the US. "Reason" magazine had an article on this, "The art of the deal in the gray market for human eggs", where the writer wanted to allow a couple to have her eggs.
I hate when people assume that all those black males under 30 are perfectly innocent or that what they did was somehow justified by their imagined oppression...
I hate it when people assume most of the prison population in the US are violent criminals when in fact the largest number of people are in prison for non-violent drug offenses. Violent criminals are set free early so someone caught possessing drugs can be put away for 20 years to life.
Correcting people in the term's usage ends up lending legitimacy where it doesn't belong.
No, correcting people tells then they are wrong.
And yet we know the liberals in America hate the self-regulating or free market.
Liberals as used incorrectly today. Much like the use of "hacker" people have twisted it's meaning.
it's exactly why politicians prefer to use the labels and attach the cannotations to themselves and it is exactly the reason why the definition has changed in American politic.
Unfortunately what you say is all too true. Like newspeak, politicians incorrectly use words to make themselves or others look different than they really are. I like to call bullshit when I see it.
A fish has been called 200 some different names before the University of Oxford started writing down definitions and essentially created the dictionary.
Ah, the OED. Perhaps you've noticed my spelling of time as "tyme". A long tyme ago I came across that spelling in the full edition of the OED. I've used it since. At the tyme I was in high school and was taking American Lit or English Comp when I first used it in a paper for class. The teacher marked it as a wrong spelling so I dragged her down to the school library and showed her that spelling in the OED. After than whenever she came across a spelling I used that she didn't know she'd look it up in the OED. And there are a lot of words and different spellings in it, "tyme" was in volume 20 something. Each of those volumes was as big as a full size dictionary, like Merriam-Webster, The American Heritage, and Webster.
Many conservatives in the US consider themselves to fit the definition of liberal much more then who we call liberal do.
Depending on how "conservative" is used it and "liberal" can mean the same. The root of conservative is "conserve" which has as a definition to protect, or in an oxymoron, to preserve. Now if you use conservative as someone who wants to protect what the USA meant when founded then they would be similar.
The battle cries of the conservatives over the last 20+ years was individual freedom, less government controls, a self-regulating market or free market and even the laissez-faire economics.
Self regulating markets and laissez-faire economics yes, but not individual liberty. A maj0r part of individual liberty is having control of your own body, doing whatever you want with it as long as you don't harm another. However today conservatives, I'll qualify that by using Reagan Conservatives, oppose individual control one's body. Reagan gave the War on Drugs a big boost and now we have minimum sentencing guidelines which causes violent criminals to be released early so the non-violent drug offender can serve his or her full sentence. The Democrats are no better when it comes the the "War on Drugs" though. During the presidential campaign that I know of only one candidate said how it should be, Ron Paul said he'd pardon those in prison for drug offenses and would legalize them.
Regardless of what Wikipedia want's to claim, In the US, Liberals and liberalism is little more then socialist pushing government controls under the guise of freedom and enlightenment.
That is only because people like you refuse to correct people when they use a word incorrectly. And it's not just wiki that uses that definition. Merriam Webster has "liberal" as meaning "of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism" and "liberalism" as "b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard". OneLook has more definitions along this line. Fact is is the first liberals used "liberal" to mean liberty and laissez-faire economics and self-regulating markets. Thomas Jefferson was one of those liberals as was Thomas Paine.
The problem you cite is actually the result of governments (or sectors thereof) being in the pocket of wealthy industrialists, not a function of how big or small they are.
Big government agencies require more people and the president can and will stack those agencies and panels with insiders. Look at how the Bush energy committee that Cheney headed was stacked with industry insiders. Though right now I can't think of an instance where Clinton did he may of done the same. It's still early in the Obama admin but he may do the same too, my hope is that he will bring in more outsiders and those of other political parties just as he asked the Secretary of Defense Gates to stay.
Indeed, an argument could be made that small government is more liable to be corrupt than big government because there are fewer people that need to be bribed, a lower chance of bribers and the bribed will be caught in the act
Ah but it's easier for a small government to be more transparent. Sure big government can be somewhat transparent but because it's bigger more watchers are needed. Big government also leads to more laws and regulations and the way it is now even lawyers can't keep up with all the laws and regulations.
bought policies have an easier job of becoming legislation because, if we assume that the total power a government has is a constant, then each person in a small government has more power than their counterpart in a big one.
Ah but with more people more can insert whatever they want into legislation. As it is now, how many elected officials read every word in a bill? Recently, members of congress admitted no one read the entire Stimulus package. Back when congress voted for the PATRIOT Act again no one read the whole thing. At several hundred pages nobody should have to read an entire bill. Instead bills should be broken down into specific and smaller bills, each one dealing with one specific thing. One bill could have been specifically about roads and bridges for instance. But big government wants big bills.
Also lots of channels charge these days...the network broadcast don't, but you want CNN - yup pay for it....
On TV CNN is the channel I watch and I don't pay any more to watch it than I pay for my cable. I could stop watching CNN from now on and my cable bill will not go down. Actually since it's the only station I do watch my bill hasn't gone down because I don't watch any of the other stations.
acutally, no, there aren't really other sources of the type of news that the AP provides. All of those 'independent' new sources usually to clip and compile AP or Reuter's stories without paying them a dime.
Reuter's is one of those other sources, as is Knight Ridder/Tribune. For news about or in Africa I like allAfrica which uses a number of other sources.
I meant that if 80% of the news becomes garbage because NY Times and what-not become indistinguishable from People, people might see the lack of good news and then might be willing to pay for quality news. We might have to go through a painful transition, in which for a time there is no quality news.
I don't think I misunderstand so much as you didn't compleat what you meant. This quote of yours above does compleat it.
I personally would be very willing to pay for quality news. For example, each month I buy Scientific American magazine, because to me it is quality news.
I too am willing to pay for good news or articles. SciAm is one of the magazines I keep putting off subscribing to. I do subscribe to others though. If I were to subscribe to every magazine I want to that would cost me hundreds of dollars.
if there were better e-commerce infrastructure I think that paying for news would be a no-brainer. What do you think?
It could help if people could easily and cheaply buy access to news. However until e-ink gets to be as good as print if I subscribe I'll want print. By "as good as" I mean a few different things. While I can read a paper newspaper, magazine, and books all day long my eyes can get sore constantly looking at a monitor. Printed material is easier to read without electricity. And it's easier to save and archive. I've got magazines stored that were printed 15 years ago I can use for references as well as older books I can still read.
real journalists will get fired if they don't check their sources and report the truth
How many "real journalists" got fired for reporting Iraq had WMDs?
Googling reporters fired almost every result on the first page is how "FOX News Investigative Reporters Fired For Telling The Truth". It was about two Fox reporters who investigated how cows injected with bovine growth hormone could affect the health of those who drank milk from those cows. The maker of the hormone used is Monsanto and Monsanto is a big advertizer on Fox. When the reporters did not change their story to fit Monsanto's demands they were fired.
Slashdot Mirror
Just for the sake of discussion, where do you see the evolution going?
Though I wouldn't want any for now, Bionics, Cybernetics or implants.
Falcon
For the most part, all of the core computing applications have already been developed.
Yea, who would ever need more than 640K RAM?
Falcon
I find it very delightful that a company that Embraced, Enhanced, Extinguished, might be brought down by a tiny, cheap machine called EEE.
Asus's EEE has been running Windows for a while.
Falcon
FAT, as the lowest common denominator, is the best choice for flash cards and any other device that has to work in any random Windows, Mac, or Linux box. Otherwise, you'll have to develop and maintain filesystem drivers for your end users
FAT may be the best choice to use but if MS has a patent on it, I don't know if they do or not, and TomTom uses FAT then they are infringing on MS's patent.
Falcon
I have to point out that in capitalist systems, science is VERY dependent on government for funding. Unless a business stands to make a lot of money off your research (which is almost never the case for basic science) who is going to give you money to do it?
Yea, let taxpayers pay for research then let big businesses make hugh amounts of money off it. The NCI, part of the government's National Institutes of Health, spent $183 million to develop and test the cancer drug Taxol. Do the taxpayers own it? No, Bristol-Myers Squibb owns exclusive rights to use all the data the NCI has, and BMS paid a paltry amount for those exclusive rights, less than $50 million. That was in 1988/89. By 2000 BMS was making about $1 billions on the sale of Taxol.
Falcon
Yes, thereby forcing anyone with federal funding of any sort that wanted to research on lines that weren't already in place by 2001 to create entirely separate laboratories to work with these new lines.
While I support embryonic stem cell research, I don't support taxpayer money supporting it. Reduce taxes and let those who want ESC research donate money. If government does pay for any research that research should be open sourced, taxpayers paid for it and should benefit from it.
Falcon
In fact, there were probably a number of Germans who benefited from such discoveries. Does such justify the torture and scientific experimentation done to the Jews?
The NAZIs didn't just use Jews. The Sinti and Roma gypsies were also used for medical experiments.
Falcon
It is not true that they test the same formulation of dish soap in some poor animal's eyes over and over again. That would be pointless. But when they put in a new active ingredient, one that hes never been tested, they need to make sure that it won't kill your stupid kid when he drinks a gallon of it.
And how does using other animals for tests show something is safe for humans? What's harmless to some animals may be harmful to humans and what's safe for humans may be harmful to certain other animals. Even chimpanzees, which are the closest to humans, don't always react the same as humans. That's why when potential new drugs are developed they have to go through Phase III clinical trials with humans before they're released.
Falcon
Maybe scientists need to stop being so arrogant and err on the side of caution and sanctity of life.
And maybe religious zealots need to live and let live. When people need laws to support their religious beliefs they must not have much faith in the message of the belief.
Falcon
"Current science is only about pissing matches with ideologists especially those that are majority Christian"
Really, they're sure proving right on the stem cell issue. I think it's the ideologists who want discovery at any cost who are losing the argument. And refusing to face their failure.
If it wasn't for embryonic stem cell, ESC, research how likely would it these "breakthroughs" in adult stem cells be? These breakthroughs were made possible by research on ESC. That's and it hasn't been shown yet that adult stem cells can be used everywhere ESCs can.
Falcon
it isn't so convenient for female donors to supply large numbers of viable eggs (to say the least--in fact fertility treatments to trigger ovulation, followed by the procedure to harvest the eggs, is hard enough on patients to do it when trying to conceive--they aren't going to do it just to sell their eggs).
Ah but there are women who would sell some of their eggs if they could, it's currently illegal to sell eggs in the US. "Reason" magazine had an article on this, "The art of the deal in the gray market for human eggs", where the writer wanted to allow a couple to have her eggs.
Falcon
I hate when people assume that all those black males under 30 are perfectly innocent or that what they did was somehow justified by their imagined oppression...
I hate it when people assume most of the prison population in the US are violent criminals when in fact the largest number of people are in prison for non-violent drug offenses. Violent criminals are set free early so someone caught possessing drugs can be put away for 20 years to life.
Falcon
It still won't be cheaper, because of the costs of retraining every last government employee, including the retarded ones, to use the new software.
While switching from proprietary software to open source software does have retraining as a cost, so does upgrading proprietary software.
Falcon
Correcting people in the term's usage ends up lending legitimacy where it doesn't belong.
No, correcting people tells then they are wrong.
And yet we know the liberals in America hate the self-regulating or free market.
Liberals as used incorrectly today. Much like the use of "hacker" people have twisted it's meaning.
it's exactly why politicians prefer to use the labels and attach the cannotations to themselves and it is exactly the reason why the definition has changed in American politic.
Unfortunately what you say is all too true. Like newspeak, politicians incorrectly use words to make themselves or others look different than they really are. I like to call bullshit when I see it.
A fish has been called 200 some different names before the University of Oxford started writing down definitions and essentially created the dictionary.
Ah, the OED. Perhaps you've noticed my spelling of time as "tyme". A long tyme ago I came across that spelling in the full edition of the OED. I've used it since. At the tyme I was in high school and was taking American Lit or English Comp when I first used it in a paper for class. The teacher marked it as a wrong spelling so I dragged her down to the school library and showed her that spelling in the OED. After than whenever she came across a spelling I used that she didn't know she'd look it up in the OED. And there are a lot of words and different spellings in it, "tyme" was in volume 20 something. Each of those volumes was as big as a full size dictionary, like Merriam-Webster, The American Heritage, and Webster.
Many conservatives in the US consider themselves to fit the definition of liberal much more then who we call liberal do.
Depending on how "conservative" is used it and "liberal" can mean the same. The root of conservative is "conserve" which has as a definition to protect, or in an oxymoron, to preserve. Now if you use conservative as someone who wants to protect what the USA meant when founded then they would be similar.
The battle cries of the conservatives over the last 20+ years was individual freedom, less government controls, a self-regulating market or free market and even the laissez-faire economics.
Self regulating markets and laissez-faire economics yes, but not individual liberty. A maj0r part of individual liberty is having control of your own body, doing whatever you want with it as long as you don't harm another. However today conservatives, I'll qualify that by using Reagan Conservatives, oppose individual control one's body. Reagan gave the War on Drugs a big boost and now we have minimum sentencing guidelines which causes violent criminals to be released early so the non-violent drug offender can serve his or her full sentence. The Democrats are no better when it comes the the "War on Drugs" though. During the presidential campaign that I know of only one candidate said how it should be, Ron Paul said he'd pardon those in prison for drug offenses and would legalize them.
Falcon
Regardless of what Wikipedia want's to claim, In the US, Liberals and liberalism is little more then socialist pushing government controls under the guise of freedom and enlightenment.
That is only because people like you refuse to correct people when they use a word incorrectly. And it's not just wiki that uses that definition. Merriam Webster has "liberal" as meaning "of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism" and "liberalism" as "b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard". OneLook has more definitions along this line. Fact is is the first liberals used "liberal" to mean liberty and laissez-faire economics and self-regulating markets. Thomas Jefferson was one of those liberals as was Thomas Paine.
Falcon
The problem you cite is actually the result of governments (or sectors thereof) being in the pocket of wealthy industrialists, not a function of how big or small they are.
Big government agencies require more people and the president can and will stack those agencies and panels with insiders. Look at how the Bush energy committee that Cheney headed was stacked with industry insiders. Though right now I can't think of an instance where Clinton did he may of done the same. It's still early in the Obama admin but he may do the same too, my hope is that he will bring in more outsiders and those of other political parties just as he asked the Secretary of Defense Gates to stay.
Indeed, an argument could be made that small government is more liable to be corrupt than big government because there are fewer people that need to be bribed, a lower chance of bribers and the bribed will be caught in the act
Ah but it's easier for a small government to be more transparent. Sure big government can be somewhat transparent but because it's bigger more watchers are needed. Big government also leads to more laws and regulations and the way it is now even lawyers can't keep up with all the laws and regulations.
bought policies have an easier job of becoming legislation because, if we assume that the total power a government has is a constant, then each person in a small government has more power than their counterpart in a big one.
Ah but with more people more can insert whatever they want into legislation. As it is now, how many elected officials read every word in a bill? Recently, members of congress admitted no one read the entire Stimulus package. Back when congress voted for the PATRIOT Act again no one read the whole thing. At several hundred pages nobody should have to read an entire bill. Instead bills should be broken down into specific and smaller bills, each one dealing with one specific thing. One bill could have been specifically about roads and bridges for instance. But big government wants big bills.
Falcon
Companies will *always* pay you as little as they can without you getting up and leaving to go somewhere else.
Some companies do but not all. If the company you work for does go to another one. Or start your own business. You have to be proactive.
Falcon
This leaves Reuters the only free international newspaper in English
Reuters is not a newspaper, it is a news agency and sells it's articles to newspapers among others.
Falcon
Also lots of channels charge these days...the network broadcast don't, but you want CNN - yup pay for it....
On TV CNN is the channel I watch and I don't pay any more to watch it than I pay for my cable. I could stop watching CNN from now on and my cable bill will not go down. Actually since it's the only station I do watch my bill hasn't gone down because I don't watch any of the other stations.
Falcon
acutally, no, there aren't really other sources of the type of news that the AP provides. All of those 'independent' new sources usually to clip and compile AP or Reuter's stories without paying them a dime.
Reuter's is one of those other sources, as is Knight Ridder/Tribune. For news about or in Africa I like allAfrica which uses a number of other sources.
Falcon
If the whole capitalist system crashes down, it suits him fine because he's ultimately against capitalism.
So was Bush.
Falcon
NYT is NOT Liberal and liberals are not trash. Those who want to dictate to others are trash.
Falcon
I meant that if 80% of the news becomes garbage because NY Times and what-not become indistinguishable from People, people might see the lack of good news and then might be willing to pay for quality news. We might have to go through a painful transition, in which for a time there is no quality news.
I don't think I misunderstand so much as you didn't compleat what you meant. This quote of yours above does compleat it.
I personally would be very willing to pay for quality news. For example, each month I buy Scientific American magazine, because to me it is quality news.
I too am willing to pay for good news or articles. SciAm is one of the magazines I keep putting off subscribing to. I do subscribe to others though. If I were to subscribe to every magazine I want to that would cost me hundreds of dollars.
if there were better e-commerce infrastructure I think that paying for news would be a no-brainer. What do you think?
It could help if people could easily and cheaply buy access to news. However until e-ink gets to be as good as print if I subscribe I'll want print. By "as good as" I mean a few different things. While I can read a paper newspaper, magazine, and books all day long my eyes can get sore constantly looking at a monitor. Printed material is easier to read without electricity. And it's easier to save and archive. I've got magazines stored that were printed 15 years ago I can use for references as well as older books I can still read.
Falcon
real journalists will get fired if they don't check their sources and report the truth
How many "real journalists" got fired for reporting Iraq had WMDs?
Googling reporters fired almost every result on the first page is how "FOX News Investigative Reporters Fired For Telling The Truth". It was about two Fox reporters who investigated how cows injected with bovine growth hormone could affect the health of those who drank milk from those cows. The maker of the hormone used is Monsanto and Monsanto is a big advertizer on Fox. When the reporters did not change their story to fit Monsanto's demands they were fired.
Falcon
People might be willing to pay for that if 80% of the news eventually becomes unreliable garbage.
Why would those unwilling to pay for news now be willing to pay for garbage later?
Falcon