You miss the point. Soaps are targeted at women, and the targeting works, that is, women watch them moreso than men. Thus, the only reason I can think of to post such an idiotic story to slashdot is to target the slashdot women. But, slashdot women, at least in my experience, are no more interested in this tripe than men are.
There are valid ideas when it comes to diversity, however, there are reasons stereotypes exist, that is, there is some truth, at least in the present state, to them. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but, it is.
Just curious, exactly which Slashdot readers is this catering too? Even our female/dotters have shown themselves to be relatively immune from tripe like this.
It's not even Sunday yet.
God, I can't wait to see what's left over for tommorow.
First of all, I too am a ham and hold a "new" extra ticket in case anyone cares.
Many hams seem to not understand Part 15 which allows unlicensed operation in almost ANY part of the spectrum. In particular, there are only a very few specific frequency ranges where "intentional radiation" governed by part 15 is not allowed. This simply means that you are building a device which is intended to be a transmitter as opposed to being one accidentally. Computers, for example, transmit accidentally and are therefore goverened by part 15.
There are also specific ranges, such as those used by wireless phones and 802.11b, where there are bands set aside with specific restrictions on power, antenna size, etc.
Even if there is no such range in the 430mhz band one can still use that band as long as you restrict the field strength of your transmitter to 200 microvolts/meter measured at a distance of three meters from the antenna. From a practical perspective this is a transmitter that if placed inside a small building probably would not radiate significantly beyond the walls of the building.
Part 15 transmission should not intefere with licensed transmissions and hams are very protective of their hard won spectrum space. Thus hams seem to frequenly speak out against unlicensed usage even when it might not be warrented as they have experienced significant inteference and spectrum space loss over the years. While it doesn't necessarily sound like this is inappropriate use of 430mhz, whenever you are operating close to ham bands it would behove you to be sure you are operating within the bounds of the law. Not becuase "it's the law", but because hams are very protective and self-policing and you are more likely to get a complaint than if you are in one of the specific part-15 ranges.
On the other hand, the comments on here that suggest it's no big deal to cause interference seem to reflect the general ignorance of slashdot in regards to radio/electronics. Before you start talking about "leaky transmitters" sic, and rules you have never read, perhaps you should go read a book or two on the subject.
I agree. What I find annoying is that so many undergrad programs that should rightly be called "software engineering" are called computer science. I would like to see a shift in programs where CS moves back into math departments and "software engineering" attaches itself to engineering departments. The are not really the same disciplines.
In other news, slashdot submitters use a Pentium to calculate important historical dates.
plurvet
Re:I want semware Qedit
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps. I dislike is the macro numbers. QEdit allowed you to assign a keysroke on the fly. I suppose it's not much different but ^K# is not as natural as shift-ctrl
Further, the menus are convenient and natural in QEdit. This really helps when you need to use something quickly that you've forgotten the keycombination for.
Children don't actually read textbooks in the same way that some adults do, that is, with the intent to learn. There is very little review or reading for comprehension especially at the grade school level.
However, parents expect kids to have "learning materials". It's a sexy argument to say, "We're moving into the twentyfirst century by giving each kid his own laptop with electronic books" With an argument like that you can get parents to buy into levies/bonds.
The truth is, laptops simply won't stand up to the abuse and will need constant repair. How does the child do his work while his laptop is being repaired?
Like so many IT issues, this is a deployment problem. How do we properly deploy a limited set of resources to obtain the maximum bennefit.
I don't disagree with the idea of electronic books as opposed to hard textbooks from the perspective that it is easier to physically manage. However, it isn't necessary to give students an electonic means of reading them.
Instead of buying laptops for students, Put SOME, desktops, not one per student in the classrooms. Put laser printers in the classrooms and switch to a publishing on demand model.
By giving kids pieces of the books, instead of the whole book, you solve several problems. Kids don't have laptops to "play" with when they are supposed to be working. Kids have less on their desk to manage, i.e. just the paper and pencil. You can easily incorporate lessons from many sources, not just the textbooks. You don't have to give students new pages every day. You can give them the material a unit at a time to allow for individual exploration.
I think something like MIT's open courseware for grade schools would be fantastic.
But, none of this is sexy. It has a recurring cost, paper/toner. You can't sell parents on the idea that students are going to be getting fewer "physical materials", and to add insult to injury, they are disposable(recycleable) materials.
Books are a red herring. They aren't really used as adults use books, but they are expected because by not having them we are saying taht kids are getting less of an education. The answer then is to replace them with something sexier that is worth more $ in the eyes of the parents and will give their kids an "edge" in this new technological world.
Oh yes, now comes the respect others argument. Is that what the inquisition was doing? Is that what the taliban does?
You can and should have an argument about "deeply rooted beliefs". That's exactly what science does, question everything.
Religion is bullshit. I have every right to say that and will do so because of religion's history of trying to claim that it's not. You don't like it, show that it's not a bunch of idiotic fairytale crapola.
Don't whine at me because I don't respect what deserves no respect. Show that it deserves respect or accept that your beliefs, deeply rooted or not, deserve criticism.
plurvert
Re:I want semware Qedit
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 1
debase ? fundament ?
That's some expert writin ya got there.
Well mr humor deficient, that first line was sarcasm. I never shifted the discussion from anything to anything. Go back and read. I like the balance of power/ease of use in QEdit. That was and is the thesis. This discussion isn't about emacs, it is about JOE like alternatives to QEdit. Since you dont' use them, you have nothing to contribute. Emacs is more powerful, but fails completely in the "easy to use" category. You cannot consider your own use as testimony to the contrary because you have already elevated yourself into the stratosphere of ubergeeks who love power and flexibility. Thus, with your mega-superior skills, you can't possibly understand what easy to use means to someone who doesn't bother to regex seach his own email *more eye rolling*.
plurvert
Re:I want semware Qedit
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 1
Let me see if I understand this. You stick your geekified sexist condescending attitude into a conversation to which you have nothing to offer and then get pissed off because it's pointed out to you?
You're completely missing the point. I could give a shit about anything that has a grahpical interface. I have editors that work just fine for that. This discussion was about what works in a terminal window from the very start.
Bully for you that you use emacs for emaal *rolls eyes*, personally, I use an email client. I don't need to do regex substitution in my email.
GEdit is a nice little graphical editor, but it's hardly a replacement for QEdit. Christ, it's not even kate.
You have nothing to offer to this conversation. Clearly you are happy with emacs. This thread is about JOE, not emacs. If you want to discuss how emacs makes you hard, go start a thread about it and let those of us who want to discuss alternatives do that.
I guess I've forgotten how flakey windows is. I have several machines with Linux/FreeBSD/OSX and I have only reinstalled them when I get new hardware.
I guess I used to reinstall windows far more often, but it's been a loooooong time.
plurvert
Re:I want semware Qedit
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 1
That's a very narrow viewpoint. There is a cost associated with learning something terse like C or the interface for VI. It is something that if you don't do all the time you will quickly lose the skill.
I do not use command line editors every day in the way that requires that kind of power. Thus, spending time learning and maintaining those skills is wasted time.
Why do you bring your wife into the conversation? Is that some kind of condescending sexist remark? Is your wife not capable of handling the same big power tools that you do, or, are you in essence contradicting yourself by suggesting that to some people there is value in a lightweight tool.
Your attitude seems typical of geeks who can't see the big picture. There is a place for lightweight tools with limited featuresets and I was expressing how much I like the balance in QEdit. If you use vi or emacs every day, good for you. Neither of those editors strikes the same balance that QEdit did. The fact that so many people still use pico shows that neither of the fabled unix choices are the first choice for many situations.
If you want REAL power, you should be doing everything with sed. Making all of your changes with regular expressions. Even the use of emacs over vi implies some concession to ease of use. I didn't bring up QEdit to get into some kind of peepee comparison contest with other slashdotters, rather, I was hoping to discuss genuine unix alternatives to QEdit.
There is no need to "go" anywere. I don't need either more power, or a nicer interface than what QEdit had for a command line editor.
It seems that those of you who prefer vi or emacs simply think the rest of the world just needs convincing to see things your way. I've commited enough time to both in the past to realize that neither fits my needs. Neither adds to my productivity. In fact, they are both counterproductive because I don't use them enough. Qedit, on the other hand, had a nicely defined quickly accessible menu that provided intuitive access to the more powerful commands one might have forgotten how to use. Thus, instead of not doing something the right way because you couldn't remember how, you just used the menu and as a side benifit it showed you the keystroke to help make the connection the next time you needed to use that feature.
You aren't educating people with your evangilism, you're just coming across as tiresome.
plurvert
Re:I want semware Qedit
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 1
More powerful yes, easier to use no. I've tried ALL of the command line editors under FreeBSD's ports tree and have found none that have the same balance that QEdit did. I'm not suggesting that there aren't more powerful editors, just that QEdit hit the sweetspot of powerful/easy to use that nothing else since, IMO, has.
I prefer GUI editors anymore, however, if I frequently have to use a command line editor and I would like something like QEdit for unix.
If anyone has a suggestion of something that is like QEdit I'd love to hear about it, but emacs is not an answer.
plurvert
Re:I want semware Qedit
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 1
Have you used QEdit? I ask because I've tried emacs, it's no QEdit.
Acting like religious zealots and being a religious zealot are two different things. I don't agree with you in any case but this is an important distinction.
How one "acts" does not define religion. Belief in supernatural fairytales does. Don't bother whipping out your dictionary, that's beside the point. People are not criticizing how religous zealots "act", they are criticizing blind belief in magical fairy stories.
So tell me, what exactly does the "glory of gawd" feel like ? Indegestion ?
Slashdot Mirror
You miss the point. Soaps are targeted at women, and the targeting works, that is, women watch them moreso than men. Thus, the only reason I can think of to post such an idiotic story to slashdot is to target the slashdot women. But, slashdot women, at least in my experience, are no more interested in this tripe than men are.
There are valid ideas when it comes to diversity, however, there are reasons stereotypes exist, that is, there is some truth, at least in the present state, to them. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but, it is.
fwiw, I think political correctness is overrated.
Just curious, exactly which Slashdot readers is this catering too? Even our female /dotters have shown themselves to be relatively immune from tripe like this.
/plurvert
It's not even Sunday yet.
God, I can't wait to see what's left over for tommorow.
First of all, I too am a ham and hold a "new" extra ticket in case anyone cares.
/plurvert
Many hams seem to not understand Part 15 which allows unlicensed operation in almost ANY part of the spectrum. In particular, there are only a very few specific frequency ranges where "intentional radiation" governed by part 15 is not allowed. This simply means that you are building a device which is intended to be a transmitter as opposed to being one accidentally. Computers, for example, transmit accidentally and are therefore goverened by part 15.
There are also specific ranges, such as those used by wireless phones and 802.11b, where there are bands set aside with specific restrictions on power, antenna size, etc.
Even if there is no such range in the 430mhz band one can still use that band as long as you restrict the field strength of your transmitter to 200 microvolts/meter measured at a distance of three meters from the antenna. From a practical perspective this is a transmitter that if placed inside a small building probably would not radiate significantly beyond the walls of the building.
Part 15 transmission should not intefere with licensed transmissions and hams are very protective of their hard won spectrum space. Thus hams seem to frequenly speak out against unlicensed usage even when it might not be warrented as they have experienced significant inteference and spectrum space loss over the years. While it doesn't necessarily sound like this is inappropriate use of 430mhz, whenever you are operating close to ham bands it would behove you to be sure you are operating within the bounds of the law. Not becuase "it's the law", but because hams are very protective and self-policing and you are more likely to get a complaint than if you are in one of the specific part-15 ranges.
On the other hand, the comments on here that suggest it's no big deal to cause interference seem to reflect the general ignorance of slashdot in regards to radio/electronics. Before you start talking about "leaky transmitters" sic, and rules you have never read, perhaps you should go read a book or two on the subject.
Come on moderators, THIS is the informative post, it needs to be +5 so it sits right below the INCORRECT parent post.
I agree. What I find annoying is that so many undergrad programs that should rightly be called "software engineering" are called computer science. I would like to see a shift in programs where CS moves back into math departments and "software engineering" attaches itself to engineering departments. The are not really the same disciplines.
A: Install Longhorn
Of course I meant to say :
This
story, linked off of the same page, is more interesting.
Not that it's hard to be more interesting than showbots.
plurvert
This This story, linked off of the same page, is more interesting.
Not that it's hard to be more interesting than showbots.
plurvert
Waaaiit a minute now...hogwarts isn't real?
um, how is the parent offtopic?
In other news, slashdot submitters use a Pentium to calculate important historical dates.
plurvet
Perhaps. I dislike is the macro numbers. QEdit allowed you to assign a keysroke on the fly. I suppose it's not much different but ^K# is not as natural as shift-ctrl
Further, the menus are convenient and natural in QEdit. This really helps when you need to use something quickly that you've forgotten the keycombination for.
Thanks for responding.
plurvert
Just get one of those license plate borders and mount a dozen or so IR leds around the frame. It's not like there's any shortage of power in a car.
plurvert
Certainly I could do that, but that's not what I want. I want QEdit natively on linux. I have several copies of various versions of QEdit already.
Ideally, I'd like an open source clone of sorts.
plurvert
Kids don't read textbooks.
Children don't actually read textbooks in the same way that some adults do, that is, with the intent to learn. There is very little review or reading for comprehension especially at the grade school level.
However, parents expect kids to have "learning materials". It's a sexy argument to say, "We're moving into the twentyfirst century by giving each kid his own laptop with electronic books" With an argument like that you can get parents to buy into levies/bonds.
The truth is, laptops simply won't stand up to the abuse and will need constant repair. How does the child do his work while his laptop is being repaired?
Like so many IT issues, this is a deployment problem. How do we properly deploy a limited set of resources to obtain the maximum bennefit.
I don't disagree with the idea of electronic books as opposed to hard textbooks from the perspective that it is easier to physically manage. However, it isn't necessary to give students an electonic means of reading them.
Instead of buying laptops for students, Put SOME, desktops, not one per student in the classrooms. Put laser printers in the classrooms and switch to a publishing on demand model.
By giving kids pieces of the books, instead of the whole book, you solve several problems. Kids don't have laptops to "play" with when they are supposed to be working. Kids have less on their desk to manage, i.e. just the paper and pencil. You can easily incorporate lessons from many sources, not just the textbooks. You don't have to give students new pages every day. You can give them the material a unit at a time to allow for individual exploration.
I think something like MIT's open courseware for grade schools would be fantastic.
But, none of this is sexy. It has a recurring cost, paper/toner. You can't sell parents on the idea that students are going to be getting fewer "physical materials", and to add insult to injury, they are disposable(recycleable) materials.
Books are a red herring. They aren't really used as adults use books, but they are expected because by not having them we are saying taht kids are getting less of an education. The answer then is to replace them with something sexier that is worth more $ in the eyes of the parents and will give their kids an "edge" in this new technological world.
plurvert
Oh yes, now comes the respect others argument. Is that what the inquisition was doing? Is that what the taliban does?
You can and should have an argument about "deeply rooted beliefs". That's exactly what science does, question everything.
Religion is bullshit. I have every right to say that and will do so because of religion's history of trying to claim that it's not. You don't like it, show that it's not a bunch of idiotic fairytale crapola.
Don't whine at me because I don't respect what deserves no respect. Show that it deserves respect or accept that your beliefs, deeply rooted or not, deserve criticism.
plurvert
debase ?
fundament ?
That's some expert writin ya got there.
Well mr humor deficient, that first line was sarcasm. I never shifted the discussion from anything to anything. Go back and read. I like the balance of power/ease of use in QEdit. That was and is the thesis. This discussion isn't about emacs, it is about JOE like alternatives to QEdit. Since you dont' use them, you have nothing to contribute. Emacs is more powerful, but fails completely in the "easy to use" category. You cannot consider your own use as testimony to the contrary because you have already elevated yourself into the stratosphere of ubergeeks who love power and flexibility. Thus, with your mega-superior skills, you can't possibly understand what easy to use means to someone who doesn't bother to regex seach his own email *more eye rolling*.
plurvert
Let me see if I understand this. You stick your geekified sexist condescending attitude into a conversation to which you have nothing to offer and then get pissed off because it's pointed out to you?
You're completely missing the point. I could give a shit about anything that has a grahpical interface. I have editors that work just fine for that. This discussion was about what works in a terminal window from the very start.
Bully for you that you use emacs for emaal *rolls eyes*, personally, I use an email client. I don't need to do regex substitution in my email.
GEdit is a nice little graphical editor, but it's hardly a replacement for QEdit. Christ, it's not even kate.
You have nothing to offer to this conversation. Clearly you are happy with emacs. This thread is about JOE, not emacs. If you want to discuss how emacs makes you hard, go start a thread about it and let those of us who want to discuss alternatives do that.
plurvert
I guess I've forgotten how flakey windows is. I have several machines with Linux/FreeBSD/OSX and I have only reinstalled them when I get new hardware.
I guess I used to reinstall windows far more often, but it's been a loooooong time.
plurvert
That's a very narrow viewpoint. There is a cost associated with learning something terse like C or the interface for VI. It is something that if you don't do all the time you will quickly lose the skill.
I do not use command line editors every day in the way that requires that kind of power. Thus, spending time learning and maintaining those skills is wasted time.
Why do you bring your wife into the conversation? Is that some kind of condescending sexist remark? Is your wife not capable of handling the same big power tools that you do, or, are you in essence contradicting yourself by suggesting that to some people there is value in a lightweight tool.
Your attitude seems typical of geeks who can't see the big picture. There is a place for lightweight tools with limited featuresets and I was expressing how much I like the balance in QEdit. If you use vi or emacs every day, good for you. Neither of those editors strikes the same balance that QEdit did. The fact that so many people still use pico shows that neither of the fabled unix choices are the first choice for many situations.
If you want REAL power, you should be doing everything with sed. Making all of your changes with regular expressions. Even the use of emacs over vi implies some concession to ease of use. I didn't bring up QEdit to get into some kind of peepee comparison contest with other slashdotters, rather, I was hoping to discuss genuine unix alternatives to QEdit.
There is no need to "go" anywere. I don't need either more power, or a nicer interface than what QEdit had for a command line editor.
It seems that those of you who prefer vi or emacs simply think the rest of the world just needs convincing to see things your way. I've commited enough time to both in the past to realize that neither fits my needs. Neither adds to my productivity. In fact, they are both counterproductive because I don't use them enough. Qedit, on the other hand, had a nicely defined quickly accessible menu that provided intuitive access to the more powerful commands one might have forgotten how to use. Thus, instead of not doing something the right way because you couldn't remember how, you just used the menu and as a side benifit it showed you the keystroke to help make the connection the next time you needed to use that feature.
You aren't educating people with your evangilism, you're just coming across as tiresome.
plurvert
More powerful yes, easier to use no. I've tried ALL of the command line editors under FreeBSD's ports tree and have found none that have the same balance that QEdit did. I'm not suggesting that there aren't more powerful editors, just that QEdit hit the sweetspot of powerful/easy to use that nothing else since, IMO, has.
I prefer GUI editors anymore, however, if I frequently have to use a command line editor and I would like something like QEdit for unix.
If anyone has a suggestion of something that is like QEdit I'd love to hear about it, but emacs is not an answer.
plurvert
Have you used QEdit? I ask because I've tried emacs, it's no QEdit.
That doesn't surprise me.
Acting like religious zealots and being a religious zealot are two different things. I don't agree with you in any case but this is an important distinction.
How one "acts" does not define religion. Belief in supernatural fairytales does. Don't bother whipping out your dictionary, that's beside the point. People are not criticizing how religous zealots "act", they are criticizing blind belief in magical fairy stories.
So tell me, what exactly does the "glory of gawd" feel like ? Indegestion ?
If it was in michigan it would. In michigan they call anything you can charge $25 to slide down a mountain.
Ya got a point there. Metric tons hell, I don't even want to think about kilos...ewwww!!
plurvert