I wouldn't be surprised if electrorheological or magnetorheological ferrofluids come into play. I always imagined a Kevlar vest with tiny capilaries our even small chambers behind the Kevlar filled with this.
On bullet/shrapnel impact a trigger membrane sends an elctric charge into the fluid thereby turning the previously flexible Kevlar vest into essentially rigid body armor.
If the Bleex framework was used, the same kind of ferrofluid could be used to give super-rigid support of the lower body- instant standing foxhole support.
OMG, that's fucking hilarious! I was [buffering] sitting here [buffering] thinking of [buffering] a [buffering] buffering joke [buffering] of m[buffering]y own and wouldn't ya [buffering] know it? Someone [buffering] already [buffering] got [buffering] to [buffering] it.
I'm only playing devil's advocate here, but it's possible (likely?) that Microsoft suffers from internal politics, like many other software companys, that actually work against the process.
I work for a software company where fixes to bugs on live products are held up for weeks and months on end while managers seek the person to blame, assign blame, come up with a plan to make the fix, revise the plan to include 8 other random and unrelated things they want to fix, slap them into one rollout that will now require 6 developers on 3 teams and 4 QA guys who will follow the spec to the letter (even if it is mispelled) and file 200 new bugs. This cycle goes on for a month or so and by the time the fix is released, a dozen other problems have surfaced and been deemed not important enough to fix now. Afterall, we just had a hariy cycle trying to get the last fix out.
Now, the way it should have gone: Identify the problem, design a fix, make the fix, test the fix, deploy the fix. Days, not weeks or months.
It is cool. And I think Apple knows it. The actual issue for Apple is "Hey! You're going to take business away from iTunes if just anybody can put any music on our iPod!" Which is total bullshit. They win either way- people are still buying iPods. People are still GOING to buy iPods. I notice Apple didn't say a word when the RealPlayer started supporting their format, why was that? OH, right- because there's no $$ involved in Quicktime.
For anyone making the argument that hardware should only ever support media/software/whatever made by the same company as the hardware, would you buy a car from Chrysler if you could only get gas from Chrysler or buy a Sony DVD player and only be able to play Sony Pictures (or subsidiary houses) DVDs in it. Hell no. You can put non-Apple software on an iMac, so why should you only be able to use iTunes with an iPod?
For ONCE Real is doing something that helps consumers, something nearly every mofo on/. slams them for NOT doing all the time and they get their throats jumped down for doing it.
Automobile manufacturers have been doing this for decades before VCRs. In any given product that is similar from one brand to the next, chances are one source is building either many of the same components or the whole thing and rebranding it.
Rebranding is most prevalent in discounted (read: cheap) items spread out over different marketing territories. Gas, computers, soda, foods, appliances, operating systems and Internet service. Somebody, somewhere is making a buck no matter which brand of it you buy.
"So it follows logically that once this becomes available you'll no longer need to hate typing but will start to hate thinking instead."
Yup. At this point, I will just let the machine do it for me and I'll be free to do other things that don't require thought: Politics, movie reviews, Program Management for a software company, tech editor, etc.
Not just Google search, but if you could plug into your filesystem, you could just think of the thing you were looking for, get a list and sift through and resort it. Email, same thing. Writing code or doing any kind of drawing (CAD, 3D, etc) would be eventually possible.
If an implant was available that allowed me to think into my machine, I'd totally buy that. I hate typing (though, now that I no longer need to write, I can stop hating that so it's a trade off) and given the ability to transfer the thought of code into text or an image in my mind to an image on screen instantly or whatever would be desirable.
Any MRE with eggs in it still sucks. The ham slice by itself is ok.
Suck as they might though, MRE's are worth their weight in gold. I know people who have traded cases of MREs for Humvee and truck parts, ammo and all kinds of other equipment- without even being deployed. Missing a camonet? Case of MREs. Need a couple sets of MOP pants? MREs please. Gotta replace a set of night vision goggles? Well, there you're just hosed. Thanks for playing.
It's right in the quote you used: "...in the long term it would cause kidney damage." If you're in a situation long enough that you're going to have to pee in a food pouch enough times to be considered long term and thus toxic, you're in a lot more trouble because by that time you've run out of any water source other than the kind you can make.
Given the current situation most deployed soldiers face- roadside bombs, bullets, kidnappings with beheadings, and the other ways they can be stabbed, shot and blown up, how deadly do you think one or two or even three pissings is going to be? The company that made the membranes said not to use urine unless you have to. But to read your post, it's like that is the standing order on these things: Piss in them if you want to eat. And it's not so.
It's all good in a hypothetical: "I think I'd rather steal food from natives than eat US Amry-supplied kidney damaging "food"." Seriously? You've got the balls to steal food from some guy who's only goal is to kill you, but you can't suck it up as a LAST RESORT to piss in a pouch? Please. If it came down to being that dire of a situation, just eat the food and let it "rehydrate" in your stomach.
Good luck surviving any kind of situation which might cause you to step outside the norm.
Re:No, XHMTL is broken... Or is it something else?
on
Why You Should Use XHTML
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's not a surprise to hear someone complain about XHTML and CSS and all that goes with it. People have become complacent with markup. When HTML was the only way you built Web pages, people thought "Cool, this is so easy, anyone can do it!" and this was true. Anyone who could, did. But then rules got involved. Browser makers went on their own paths, interpreting or altogether ignoring W3C recommendations and spec and causing a new breed of technology employees major pains in their collective ass.
If you wrote HTML, you had all the browsers effectively working against you. You still do today. They are slow to incorporate W3 standards, and even when they claim to do so- the engines still interpret the meaning of the markup slightly differently. The DOM support has gotten way better, but there are still differences between browsers and even within versions of the same browser. Take IE for example. Simply adding the DOCTYPE tag causes all three versions to behave different from themselves! Even if you use XHTML 1.0 Transitional, you're still going to face rendering problems. They can all be gotten around, but it takes patience and experience.
Not just anybody can sit down and author HTML for a complex page that looks and behaves the same across platforms and browsers. Clearly, not EVERY browser, but it can be done. I regularly build sites that support IE 5 >, NS 6.2 >, Mozilla 1.8 > on PC and Mac and Safari on Mac. But, I have the experience of doing it for years, and the time to make sure it gets done right. The moment most authors are faced with writing code that works outside their favorite browser most give up and slap a "Best viewed in..." disclaimer on their site. This isn't really their fault, they may not always have the time or resources to do it. Others are driven by project requirements that say it should only work in such and such browser.
Really good front end developers are frustrated because there is STILL this mentality that any idiot can write HTML. Sure, but only a few of us can craft it and weild it like a blade. I would argue that authoring markup to be cross browser/cross platform requires the same level of understanding markup (HTML/XHTML) CSS and JavaScript that a C++, Java or other compiled language author must know about that language. There isn't an IDE in the world that can generate x-browser/x-platform code involving those three things (markup, JS and CSS). Some come close or do certain things really well but it's just a fact that the browsers behave too differently to do it. Unless YOU KNOW how to make it work, it likely won't using an HTML generator. Products like Dreamweaver are fine, and they have their place. But they are not a substitute for someone who knows what they are doing.
If you still think the problem is in the spec though, that's fine. I would recommend using a looser one and giving it another shot. I mentioned XHTML 1.0 Transitional earlier. This is, in my op, the best one to start with and use if you are really wanting to adhere to XHTML but don't want to give up some of the things you know and love (or hate, but need to use anyway) like table cell attributes that would otherwise be deprecated. If you're producing pages that should work in PC and Mac browsers with equal functionality and appearance, this is the one you want.
I'm wondering how much of this latest "patent it all, quick!" spree they're on was actually the idea of some "genius" in marketing seeking a way to gain future residual income. No company, no matter how much they are worth or have in the bank, is just going to stop finding sources of revenue. MS can say these rounds of patent filings are all related to their next OS (and might be, who cares) but I think it goes beyond that.
BTW, the homeless guy down the block here also sings and dances in addition to talking to himself. "15 cent, gonna buy me some dinner! 15 cent, gonna buy me some dinnER! God bless ya AND ya famlay! 15 cent..."
Man, that is a great idea! I've been scammed a few times by the same kind of people. The last one I dealt with came to my attorney sending him a certified letter saying we were going to take him to court if he didn't produce a refund or my merchandise.
It goes the other way, too. I recently sold an Otis player on eBay and they guy failed to respond to emails or pay. I got to looking at his history and he had done the exact same thing to 3 other people. Funnier yet, he left neg feedback 3 weeks later saying the sellers scammed HIM. Loser.
The first two years I was at my high school all we had were Macs. A 20 Macintosh network in the lab and 5 more in the library. Then some Windows boxes popped up in an accounting class and 2 in my drafting class for CAD. In years since, the AV class has acquired PCs for their digital photography and broadcasting, the auditorium systems are run by a Windows PC and most of the Macs were replaced with PCs as well.
I think in most institutions where this scenario plays out, it is due mostly to cost of ownership (things like repair and replacement of parts) and not to which is the better OS or has better tools.
If your school's PC's have CD-ROM drives, bring in a copy of Knoppix if you want to run Linux:)
I almost want to say that anything a carrier does to eliminate spam should be praised, but in some cases- the carrier is the one sending the spam. How to handle that?
If my phone bill was reduced from someone paying me (not my carrier) to send me messages, I still don't think I'd be signing up for it. I'm already advertised to nearly everywhere I go, I'd hate to get ads (even if I am comp'ed) on my cell or PDA.
I think the Gateway name is still good, I bought a 400VTX from them last year and have nothing to complain about. As for their warranty, it's still awesome as well. In fact, right now you can extend it for three years for around $130 bucks.
As for the iPod thing, I helped you out. Signed up for eBay. And, like a sucker, put my link in my journal for anyone else that wants to help me out. We'll see if this is bullshit or really works.
Why would you care about the format? The tracks of course are going to be DRMed, all legit services are supposed to ensure YOU are the one listening to the tracks you bought (or rented, in the case of some services). Like it or not, most devices support WMV formats the MS DRM and, big surprise, most PCs ship with a WiMP. You can't (as a business) hold out and hope the rest of the supporting market will use YOUR codec and DRM, it's been tried and without $$$ it just doesn't work.
Now, let's roleplay. You're a company who wants to break into the legal download market. You need to do it in the most cost effective way possible. You have a ton of legal requirements from the labels whose music you want to distribute. Are you A) Going to use a format supported by a handful of devices and may not satisfy those rules and will eventually cause you more headaches and cost more or B) Go with what works out of the box and satisfies the label reqs for security and one-person ownership. Fact is, you're going to do what keeps you in business, even if the other codec is better.
The argument that one codec is better over another for quality is crap. There are so many things that affect the quality when encoding music that tracks from the same service (iTunes, Rhapsody, Napster, etc) aren't even equal. Some sound awesome and are what I would deem CD quality (does this track sound good enough to be burned to a CD?) and others just suck. I'm willing to bet, given the same track recorded in the same bitrate in several different codecs, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between codecs. MAYBE if you had some high end audio equipment and were a sound engineer or aficionado, but if that was the case- Napster would be last place you'd be buying music from.
Parenting should not be used to instill fear, I wrote weird. Parenting should be used instead of tracking to help kids understand the things that are ok and not. Jebus.
I was thinking more for elementary school kids, if they aren't where they should be, the reason (hopefully) wouldn't be because they're off doing drugs or whatever.
Perhaps the point was missed, it's not a device to instill fear of punishment or consequence of your own actions. That should be handled by parenting.
Slashdot Mirror
But at least if they land on earth they can do crossover shows with Stargate.
I wouldn't be surprised if electrorheological or magnetorheological ferrofluids come into play. I always imagined a Kevlar vest with tiny capilaries our even small chambers behind the Kevlar filled with this.
On bullet/shrapnel impact a trigger membrane sends an elctric charge into the fluid thereby turning the previously flexible Kevlar vest into essentially rigid body armor.
If the Bleex framework was used, the same kind of ferrofluid could be used to give super-rigid support of the lower body- instant standing foxhole support.
OMG, that's fucking hilarious! I was [buffering] sitting here [buffering] thinking of [buffering] a [buffering] buffering joke [buffering] of m[buffering]y own and wouldn't ya [buffering] know it? Someone [buffering] already [buffering] got [buffering] to [buffering] it.
I'm only playing devil's advocate here, but it's possible (likely?) that Microsoft suffers from internal politics, like many other software companys, that actually work against the process.
I work for a software company where fixes to bugs on live products are held up for weeks and months on end while managers seek the person to blame, assign blame, come up with a plan to make the fix, revise the plan to include 8 other random and unrelated things they want to fix, slap them into one rollout that will now require 6 developers on 3 teams and 4 QA guys who will follow the spec to the letter (even if it is mispelled) and file 200 new bugs. This cycle goes on for a month or so and by the time the fix is released, a dozen other problems have surfaced and been deemed not important enough to fix now. Afterall, we just had a hariy cycle trying to get the last fix out.
Now, the way it should have gone: Identify the problem, design a fix, make the fix, test the fix, deploy the fix. Days, not weeks or months.
It is cool. And I think Apple knows it. The actual issue for Apple is "Hey! You're going to take business away from iTunes if just anybody can put any music on our iPod!" Which is total bullshit. They win either way- people are still buying iPods. People are still GOING to buy iPods. I notice Apple didn't say a word when the RealPlayer started supporting their format, why was that? OH, right- because there's no $$ involved in Quicktime.
For anyone making the argument that hardware should only ever support media/software/whatever made by the same company as the hardware, would you buy a car from Chrysler if you could only get gas from Chrysler or buy a Sony DVD player and only be able to play Sony Pictures (or subsidiary houses) DVDs in it. Hell no. You can put non-Apple software on an iMac, so why should you only be able to use iTunes with an iPod?
For ONCE Real is doing something that helps consumers, something nearly every mofo on
First, put the pipe on eBay. Start bidding at $500 or offer Buy It Now for $2500. Sell said pipe. collect money.
In two weeks say you've shipped the pipe, it should be there any day.
In another two weeks, say you found it and this time have really mailed it off.
After 2 months, say you don't know where the pipe is and can't offer a refund because your partner ran off with the money.
Automobile manufacturers have been doing this for decades before VCRs. In any given product that is similar from one brand to the next, chances are one source is building either many of the same components or the whole thing and rebranding it.
Rebranding is most prevalent in discounted (read: cheap) items spread out over different marketing territories. Gas, computers, soda, foods, appliances, operating systems and Internet service. Somebody, somewhere is making a buck no matter which brand of it you buy.
see the answer to same question posted above yours :)
"So it follows logically that once this becomes available you'll no longer need to hate typing but will start to hate thinking instead."
Yup. At this point, I will just let the machine do it for me and I'll be free to do other things that don't require thought: Politics, movie reviews, Program Management for a software company, tech editor, etc.
Not just Google search, but if you could plug into your filesystem, you could just think of the thing you were looking for, get a list and sift through and resort it. Email, same thing. Writing code or doing any kind of drawing (CAD, 3D, etc) would be eventually possible.
If an implant was available that allowed me to think into my machine, I'd totally buy that. I hate typing (though, now that I no longer need to write, I can stop hating that so it's a trade off) and given the ability to transfer the thought of code into text or an image in my mind to an image on screen instantly or whatever would be desirable.
prolly
Any MRE with eggs in it still sucks. The ham slice by itself is ok.
Suck as they might though, MRE's are worth their weight in gold. I know people who have traded cases of MREs for Humvee and truck parts, ammo and all kinds of other equipment- without even being deployed. Missing a camonet? Case of MREs. Need a couple sets of MOP pants? MREs please. Gotta replace a set of night vision goggles? Well, there you're just hosed. Thanks for playing.
It's right in the quote you used: "...in the long term it would cause kidney damage." If you're in a situation long enough that you're going to have to pee in a food pouch enough times to be considered long term and thus toxic, you're in a lot more trouble because by that time you've run out of any water source other than the kind you can make.
Given the current situation most deployed soldiers face- roadside bombs, bullets, kidnappings with beheadings, and the other ways they can be stabbed, shot and blown up, how deadly do you think one or two or even three pissings is going to be? The company that made the membranes said not to use urine unless you have to. But to read your post, it's like that is the standing order on these things: Piss in them if you want to eat. And it's not so.
It's all good in a hypothetical: "I think I'd rather steal food from natives than eat US Amry-supplied kidney damaging "food"." Seriously? You've got the balls to steal food from some guy who's only goal is to kill you, but you can't suck it up as a LAST RESORT to piss in a pouch? Please. If it came down to being that dire of a situation, just eat the food and let it "rehydrate" in your stomach.
Good luck surviving any kind of situation which might cause you to step outside the norm.
It's not a surprise to hear someone complain about XHTML and CSS and all that goes with it. People have become complacent with markup. When HTML was the only way you built Web pages, people thought "Cool, this is so easy, anyone can do it!" and this was true. Anyone who could, did. But then rules got involved. Browser makers went on their own paths, interpreting or altogether ignoring W3C recommendations and spec and causing a new breed of technology employees major pains in their collective ass.
If you wrote HTML, you had all the browsers effectively working against you. You still do today. They are slow to incorporate W3 standards, and even when they claim to do so- the engines still interpret the meaning of the markup slightly differently. The DOM support has gotten way better, but there are still differences between browsers and even within versions of the same browser. Take IE for example. Simply adding the DOCTYPE tag causes all three versions to behave different from themselves! Even if you use XHTML 1.0 Transitional, you're still going to face rendering problems. They can all be gotten around, but it takes patience and experience.
Not just anybody can sit down and author HTML for a complex page that looks and behaves the same across platforms and browsers. Clearly, not EVERY browser, but it can be done. I regularly build sites that support IE 5 >, NS 6.2 >, Mozilla 1.8 > on PC and Mac and Safari on Mac. But, I have the experience of doing it for years, and the time to make sure it gets done right. The moment most authors are faced with writing code that works outside their favorite browser most give up and slap a "Best viewed in..." disclaimer on their site. This isn't really their fault, they may not always have the time or resources to do it. Others are driven by project requirements that say it should only work in such and such browser.
Really good front end developers are frustrated because there is STILL this mentality that any idiot can write HTML. Sure, but only a few of us can craft it and weild it like a blade. I would argue that authoring markup to be cross browser/cross platform requires the same level of understanding markup (HTML/XHTML) CSS and JavaScript that a C++, Java or other compiled language author must know about that language. There isn't an IDE in the world that can generate x-browser/x-platform code involving those three things (markup, JS and CSS). Some come close or do certain things really well but it's just a fact that the browsers behave too differently to do it. Unless YOU KNOW how to make it work, it likely won't using an HTML generator. Products like Dreamweaver are fine, and they have their place. But they are not a substitute for someone who knows what they are doing.
If you still think the problem is in the spec though, that's fine. I would recommend using a looser one and giving it another shot. I mentioned XHTML 1.0 Transitional earlier. This is, in my op, the best one to start with and use if you are really wanting to adhere to XHTML but don't want to give up some of the things you know and love (or hate, but need to use anyway) like table cell attributes that would otherwise be deprecated. If you're producing pages that should work in PC and Mac browsers with equal functionality and appearance, this is the one you want.
I'm wondering how much of this latest "patent it all, quick!" spree they're on was actually the idea of some "genius" in marketing seeking a way to gain future residual income. No company, no matter how much they are worth or have in the bank, is just going to stop finding sources of revenue. MS can say these rounds of patent filings are all related to their next OS (and might be, who cares) but I think it goes beyond that.
BTW, the homeless guy down the block here also sings and dances in addition to talking to himself. "15 cent, gonna buy me some dinner! 15 cent, gonna buy me some dinnER! God bless ya AND ya famlay! 15 cent..."
Man, that is a great idea! I've been scammed a few times by the same kind of people. The last one I dealt with came to my attorney sending him a certified letter saying we were going to take him to court if he didn't produce a refund or my merchandise.
It goes the other way, too. I recently sold an Otis player on eBay and they guy failed to respond to emails or pay. I got to looking at his history and he had done the exact same thing to 3 other people. Funnier yet, he left neg feedback 3 weeks later saying the sellers scammed HIM. Loser.
The first two years I was at my high school all we had were Macs. A 20 Macintosh network in the lab and 5 more in the library.
:)
Then some Windows boxes popped up in an accounting class and 2 in my drafting class for CAD.
In years since, the AV class has acquired PCs for their digital photography and broadcasting, the auditorium systems are run by a Windows PC and most of the Macs were replaced with PCs as well.
I think in most institutions where this scenario plays out, it is due mostly to cost of ownership (things like repair and replacement of parts) and not to which is the better OS or has better tools.
If your school's PC's have CD-ROM drives, bring in a copy of Knoppix if you want to run Linux
I almost want to say that anything a carrier does to eliminate spam should be praised, but in some cases- the carrier is the one sending the spam. How to handle that?
If my phone bill was reduced from someone paying me (not my carrier) to send me messages, I still don't think I'd be signing up for it. I'm already advertised to nearly everywhere I go, I'd hate to get ads (even if I am comp'ed) on my cell or PDA.
I think the Gateway name is still good, I bought a 400VTX from them last year and have nothing to complain about. As for their warranty, it's still awesome as well. In fact, right now you can extend it for three years for around $130 bucks.
As for the iPod thing, I helped you out. Signed up for eBay. And, like a sucker, put my link in my journal for anyone else that wants to help me out. We'll see if this is bullshit or really works.
*yawn*
Why would you care about the format? The tracks of course are going to be DRMed, all legit services are supposed to ensure YOU are the one listening to the tracks you bought (or rented, in the case of some services). Like it or not, most devices support WMV formats the MS DRM and, big surprise, most PCs ship with a WiMP. You can't (as a business) hold out and hope the rest of the supporting market will use YOUR codec and DRM, it's been tried and without $$$ it just doesn't work.
Now, let's roleplay. You're a company who wants to break into the legal download market. You need to do it in the most cost effective way possible. You have a ton of legal requirements from the labels whose music you want to distribute. Are you A) Going to use a format supported by a handful of devices and may not satisfy those rules and will eventually cause you more headaches and cost more or B) Go with what works out of the box and satisfies the label reqs for security and one-person ownership. Fact is, you're going to do what keeps you in business, even if the other codec is better.
The argument that one codec is better over another for quality is crap. There are so many things that affect the quality when encoding music that tracks from the same service (iTunes, Rhapsody, Napster, etc) aren't even equal. Some sound awesome and are what I would deem CD quality (does this track sound good enough to be burned to a CD?) and others just suck. I'm willing to bet, given the same track recorded in the same bitrate in several different codecs, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between codecs. MAYBE if you had some high end audio equipment and were a sound engineer or aficionado, but if that was the case- Napster would be last place you'd be buying music from.
Parents of a missing child might argue that one is often enough.
Parenting should not be used to instill fear, I wrote weird. Parenting should be used instead of tracking to help kids understand the things that are ok and not. Jebus.
I was thinking more for elementary school kids, if they aren't where they should be, the reason (hopefully) wouldn't be because they're off doing drugs or whatever.
Perhaps the point was missed, it's not a device to instill fear of punishment or consequence of your own actions. That should be handled by parenting.
Correction noted. GPS enabled tracking.