From their website: "Enjoy the performance. Despite all that's new, KlipFolio 3.0 is lightning fast and uses almost no resources."
And then, the system requirements "Windows 2000 & XP Pentium II Class CPU or greater 64 MB RAM or greater recommended)"
The meaning of "no resources" seems to have climbed a bit... An RSS notification app that wants 64 MB RAM? That's almost as bad as Firefox. It dosen't even include a reader, you have to use IE for that!
I have a Gateway Solo 2500 laptop. 64 Mb RAM, 300MHz pII Celeron, 4 gig hd. It's running Debian Stable "Sarge" with the 2.6 kernel. I know DSL would run faster, but it's 2.4 kernel and NdisWrapper version won't work correctly with my cheepo five buck special WiFi card.
After some expermentation, I've come up with these apps for daily desktop use: IceWM - desktop environment (95% of the themes are ugly and it has a very bad default config, but it's pretty usable after tweaking.) Opera - browser/email client Rox Filer - file manager AbiWord - word processor AYTTM - IM client ZSNES - games;-) Dillo - quick browser mtPaint - Basic image manipulation feh - slideshows/image viewer aterm - lightweight terminal xtdesk - desktop icons mist - not an app, but a very responsive gtk theme. It really seems to make a difference.
People might laugh that it takes 18 seconds for my web browser to appear, but I use this as my main computer. It works fine, dispite the fact everyone in #linux laughs at it whenever I try to get suggestions for speeding things up. It's great for a poor student.
Oh, shut up. In past articles they have said they want a system that can be tinkered with so they can strip out the bloat - these are, after all, 600MHz laptops. With only something like 1.5Gb disk space.
While I can see Linux running quite nicely using a stripped down kernel, TinyX Kdrive X server, and stuff like AbiWord, I don't even want to think about how Windows XP would run. Seriously, it's for proformance reasons.
The Windows 9x line is depreciated. It's not exactly all the wear and tear, but the fact that an unprotected machine connected to the net can get zombied in about 10 minutes...
Hmm, both words of the service misspelled. This ought to be good.
no good search engine
Does the catalog not count? Ok, I'll admit that the search engine is more of a card catalog, but using "site:http://www.gutenberg.org/ search_terms" on Google has always worked fine for me.
no publishing house participation
The idea is to make the *full* text of books avalable. How much of the already in-copyright texts do you think you'll be seeing on Yahoo? So little it won't matter. Sure, you'll be able to search it, but you can already do that w/ Google's project. Yahoo simply seems to simply be mimicing stuff already happening, instead of trying to team up. In my book, it wastes time and makes them look suckup-ish
no standards or accuracy
You are correct, there are not *official* standatrds, but there/are/ an _unwritten set of rules_ about how text should be formatted that I've seen in 95% of the texts there. As of the accuracy, it's surprisingly high. The *worst* accurecy I've ever seen was six typos in a ~200 page book. The thing is, it's like Wikipedia. Stuff gets edited and updated to make it more accurate. However, this is just for the independantly produced sumissions. I've guessing well over 90% of the books for PG are submitted by Distributed Proofreaders They have a ton of standards, and the quality of the texts they produce is pretty amazing.
Don't compare one guy's hobby to a serious effort to make content available...
One guys hobby?! In the last 24 hours alone, there have been 470 people logged in and working at Distributed Proofreaders. When you consider that all these people are volenteers, that's pretty amazing. This figure probably does not include those who were scanning in more texts for processing.
...AND searchable.
Google "site:http://www.gutenberg.org/ search_terms" if you will. Or, since you seem to be a shrill for Yahoo, try "site:gutenberg.org search_terms". (The URL seems to have to be dumbed down for Yahoo, for some reason.)
When you search for a phrase, you see, at the most, something like three pages. Oh, and theres also the table of contents. It's like flipping though a book at Borders. Helpful for deciding if you need to look into getting a copy, not helpful if you want to sit there and read the whole thing. Plus, you need to sign in with an account, so they can track how many pages you've seen.
Also, I think Google needs to look at what stuff is *out* of copyright. Try looking up Oliver Twist.(http://print.google.com/print?q=oliver+twis t&btnG=Search+Print&hl=en) Even though the book is out of copyright and you can read the whole thing on Project Gutenburg, they have a "Penguin Classics" version up. In this edition, you can only browse though the table of contents, even though the full thing is out of copyright. Hello? Google needs to stop with this nonsense and put up the PG version (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/730) instead.
I get the feeling I'm using a different deffiniton of "belief" then you are.
From Wikipedia: "Belief is assent to a proposition." also, "Knowledge is often defined as justified true belief, in that the belief must be considered to correspond to reality and must be derived from valid evidence and arguments."
I see. "Science" is not "Truth".
I can also use absurdism to make a point:
1. We all evolved from slugs. These slugs had no bones, so there is no fossel evidence of much of the critical stages of the evolution. 2. A bunch of hot dog vendors from different parts of the world were at a convention. Suddenly, they all died from heat attacks brought on by overdoses of high fat from their products. Later, they were uncovered by scientists and arranged into a line accourding to their jaw structure. Sadly, all the hot dogs had rotted, and the missing 'links' were never uncovered.
Unfortunetly, none of this proves much of anything either way.
From Wikipedia again: "In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them." I think the complexity of nature is an observable fact. Everything serves a purpose, even though we have not yet determined the purposes of it all. I (and many others) have seen that God exists though observable events. ID *is* a theory, though just barely.
You've brought up probability again. The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional 'simple' cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse then 1 in 10^57800. How can you seriously say the evolution is not a matter of faith?
The badly designed spine is something that evolution can explain very well, but ID can not explain it at all. In fact, the very badly design spind and rib-cage shows us that there was definitely not any intelligent design behind humans.
Did you even look at the links I posted? The arch of the spine is actually very effective at supporting the weight of a biped.
Ah, but [what's inside the whale abdomen] are not legs - we don't know what they are.
Oh, but we do. They are legs.
They are six pieces of cartilage, three on each side. They seem to look more like hips then legs. It's a large stretch to call them legs.
As you showed well when you said "I believe in ID". I don't believe in evolution, I relate to it as fact on the micro level, and accept the fact that it is the only available theory that explains speciation.
What I meant is that I believe ID is true. You obviously believe that evolution is true. It's faith-based either way.
Science is a methodology, and that methodology requires that theories has two properties. The theory must be testable and it must be falsifiable
If ID is not falsifiable, why do so many people here say it's wrong? When you can prove that evolution or some other theory is true beyond a shadow of a doubt (evolution currently has a ways to go in this respect), ID will be false.
As for the testable part, it depends if you think God exists. No, it's not just faith here.
I've prayed for sick people and seen them get healed on the spot. I've talked to God and gotten answers that, when verified, turned out to be true. At this point you'll likely count me off as insane or something like that, but I have physically seen the effects of God.
For me, the existance of a powerful God who claims to have created the universe is enough proof for ID.
I see a lot of attacks on ID because of who is presenting it. CS Lewis provisionally called this "Bulverism," after his imaginary character Ezekiel Bulver, who witnessed what is now commonplace in our higher discourse: the dismissal of an opinion because of the sex, or class, or race of the person expressing the opinion. "Oh you say that because you are a man." Lewis's fictional Bulver overhears. "At that moment," E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that his wrong or right, or (worse still) try to find out whether he is right or wrong, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall!"
This being said, I believe in ID. My opinions may or may not be true, but they are not automatically false because I am a Christian.
Parent poster: You seem to be like the three year old who says "What a stupid looking car. I could make a better one then that!"
Why is mankind created with a spine that is perfectly designed for waking on all fours when we walk on two? In fact, the spine is designed so horribly badly for bi-pedal movement that any engineering student could do significantly better after the first 6 months in engineering school.
Why is this not fixed yet? Survival of the fittest and all that. For part of my answer, see this link. Yes, it's on a Christian website. (Unless you want to engage in Bulverism, I suggest you attack the info, not the author.)
Also, another interesting theory I've seen said that back damage occurs when the muscle surrounding it has not been sufficiently exercised. This actually seems to to make sense to me, I've noticed that I have better posture after I've been exercising. This also seems to imply that God prefers that we not spend all day hunched in front of a computer screen reading slashdot, but I digress.;-)
What kind of idiot would design a sea-living mammal like the whale, with the remnants of legs inside its lower abdomen? What on earth would a whale do with legs in it's abdomen?
Ah, but they are not legs - we don't know what they are. It's only theory that they are the remnants of legs, not fact. They might serve a purpose, many things previously thought useless have. However, until either someone discovers a useful purpose for these things or a whale with complete legs is found, I'm remaining neutral.
I will admit, this is sort of a trick point though. If a use is not found, evolution wins. If a use is found, then it's like, "Wow, evolution worked when it developed this amazing ingenious mechanism."
The human pain system is designed in a marvellously stupid way. If I suffer from a small amount of tooth decay, I suffer significant pain, this in spite of the fact that the tooth decay is not at all dangerous to my life. On the other hand, if I get a cancerous growth in my lungs, I notice nothing until it is too late to save my life. What kind of moron would design a warning system like that?
Because, to the body, cancer seems like a normal cell. There is absolutely no reason for pain to kick in. Cancer does not directly cause physical pain. It is the build-up of cancer cells that causes pain. (And when pain kicks in, it quite effectively. The system works.) If the body somehow could tell the difference between them, we'd likely have a cure for cancer by now.
Also, the results of tooth decay can be highly dangerous. Why would dentists make such a big deal about avoiding it is it was not? (Can someone back me up on this? I read some stuff about it a while back, but I don't remember enough of it to make a good point.)
A bi-pedaled entity like the human would be able to walk faster, suffer less back pain and in general be fa
So uninsightful. Logically invalid. You are attacking the person and not his belief. While this does make the person look bad, it does nothing to prove or disprove the topic at hand. Very bad form.
Dear sir, As we all know, Microsoft's goal is obviously world domination. Since this would mean crushing Linux, one of the last big foes in the area, I'd like to know how you guys think you'll pull it off. I mean, I know I'd never use Windows XP on any of my computers, simply because it's far too bloated imho. With Linux, my system is as small and simple or as large and complex as I want, and I can customize it to efficiency for a few tasks.
Don't you think that getting a legion of nerds to write code (and use!) for a platform they can't tweak is a bit far fetched?
Hmm. I don't like Linspire that much, but you've gotta admit that they've done some decent marketing. It's like the ONLY preinstalled Linux ditro you can buy in stores. The boxes are dirt cheap, too. $299 for a preinstalled Linux computer? Hey, it's not bad.
I dunno about everyone else, but I have a hard tme taking this seriously. No human evolution seems to have occoured for at least 2000 years. Animals seem to have stayed the same, too.
This article says that the only hope for evolution is to separate the human race into groups. It seems to me that this would only flesh out different pockets of the gene pool, not mutate new genes. If it were truly about new genes though mutation, it would seem that larger groups would be needed, right? The more people reproducing, the more likely a new, good mutation would happen.
Unfortunetly, the term "good mutation" seems to be an oxymoron. Nearly every mutation scientists have observed seems to hinder the animal. I've been reading about this a lot, and the only good mutation I've heard about are those white "ghost bears". And they might be an almost extinct race of bears we don't know about.
From my perspective, this article seems like a bunch of unprovable hype written on a slow news day. Anyone agree?
Ever hear of entropy? The more loaded your pc is with spyware, the more spyware will become loaded onto it. Eventuly, you'll just have to reformat and install linux (that last parts optional)
I've just uninstalled SP2 from an incompatable computer. Sheesh. I was up till 2 AM trying. Doncha just hate it when SP2 messes up all the explorer windows and then reports that it can't uninstall itself? =P
I still use WinAmp 2 on my 100MHz computer, simply because it's the only player out there that can play mp3s without skipping. That's what I call a slim music player. Sadly, WinAmp 5 has about twice the system requirements or 2 and *feels* more bloated.
Slashdot Mirror
From their website:
"Enjoy the performance. Despite all that's new, KlipFolio 3.0 is lightning fast and uses almost no resources."
And then, the system requirements
"Windows 2000 & XP
Pentium II Class CPU or greater
64 MB RAM or greater recommended)"
The meaning of "no resources" seems to have climbed a bit...
An RSS notification app that wants 64 MB RAM? That's almost as bad as Firefox. It dosen't even include a reader, you have to use IE for that!
I have a Gateway Solo 2500 laptop.
;-)
64 Mb RAM, 300MHz pII Celeron, 4 gig hd.
It's running Debian Stable "Sarge" with the 2.6 kernel.
I know DSL would run faster, but it's 2.4 kernel and NdisWrapper version won't work correctly with my cheepo five buck special WiFi card.
After some expermentation, I've come up with these apps for daily desktop use:
IceWM - desktop environment (95% of the themes are ugly and it has a very bad default config, but it's pretty usable after tweaking.)
Opera - browser/email client
Rox Filer - file manager
AbiWord - word processor
AYTTM - IM client
ZSNES - games
Dillo - quick browser
mtPaint - Basic image manipulation
feh - slideshows/image viewer
aterm - lightweight terminal
xtdesk - desktop icons
mist - not an app, but a very responsive gtk theme. It really seems to make a difference.
People might laugh that it takes 18 seconds for my web browser to appear, but I use this as my main computer. It works fine, dispite the fact everyone in #linux laughs at it whenever I try to get suggestions for speeding things up. It's great for a poor student.
Is this entry avalable as wallpaper or something? Seriously, I'd love to have this as my desktop background.m age&name=2005112318574628577
http://www.gimp.org/contest/gallery.cgi?display=i
Oh, shut up.
In past articles they have said they want a system that can be tinkered with so they can strip out the bloat - these are, after all, 600MHz laptops. With only something like 1.5Gb disk space.
While I can see Linux running quite nicely using a stripped down kernel, TinyX Kdrive X server, and stuff like AbiWord, I don't even want to think about how Windows XP would run.
Seriously, it's for proformance reasons.
The Windows 9x line is depreciated. It's not exactly all the wear and tear, but the fact that an unprotected machine connected to the net can get zombied in about 10 minutes...
Hmm, both words of the service misspelled. This ought to be good.
no good search engine
Does the catalog not count? Ok, I'll admit that the search engine is more of a card catalog, but using "site:http://www.gutenberg.org/ search_terms" on Google has always worked fine for me.
no publishing house participation
The idea is to make the *full* text of books avalable. How much of the already in-copyright texts do you think you'll be seeing on Yahoo? So little it won't matter. Sure, you'll be able to search it, but you can already do that w/ Google's project. Yahoo simply seems to simply be mimicing stuff already happening, instead of trying to team up. In my book, it wastes time and makes them look suckup-ish
no standards or accuracy
You are correct, there are not *official* standatrds, but there /are/ an _unwritten set of rules_ about how text should be formatted that I've seen in 95% of the texts there. As of the accuracy, it's surprisingly high. The *worst* accurecy I've ever seen was six typos in a ~200 page book. The thing is, it's like Wikipedia. Stuff gets edited and updated to make it more accurate. However, this is just for the independantly produced sumissions.
I've guessing well over 90% of the books for PG are submitted by Distributed Proofreaders They have a ton of standards, and the quality of the texts they produce is pretty amazing.
Don't compare one guy's hobby to a serious effort to make content available...
One guys hobby?! In the last 24 hours alone, there have been 470 people logged in and working at Distributed Proofreaders. When you consider that all these people are volenteers, that's pretty amazing. This figure probably does not include those who were scanning in more texts for processing.
Google "site:http://www.gutenberg.org/ search_terms" if you will. Or, since you seem to be a shrill for Yahoo, try "site:gutenberg.org search_terms". (The URL seems to have to be dumbed down for Yahoo, for some reason.)
It's called X.org. Based on xfree86, but it is a replacement. ;-)
Here is why Yahoo's project is irrelevent: www.gutenberg.org/
...looked at the service in question? It's up in beta now, at http://print.google.com/
s t&btnG=Search+Print&hl=en)
When you search for a phrase, you see, at the most, something like three pages. Oh, and theres also the table of contents. It's like flipping though a book at Borders. Helpful for deciding if you need to look into getting a copy, not helpful if you want to sit there and read the whole thing. Plus, you need to sign in with an account, so they can track how many pages you've seen.
Also, I think Google needs to look at what stuff is *out* of copyright. Try looking up Oliver Twist.(http://print.google.com/print?q=oliver+twi
Even though the book is out of copyright and you can read the whole thing on Project Gutenburg, they have a "Penguin Classics" version up. In this edition, you can only browse though the table of contents, even though the full thing is out of copyright. Hello? Google needs to stop with this nonsense and put up the PG version (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/730) instead.
I get the feeling I'm using a different deffiniton of "belief" then you are.
From Wikipedia: "Belief is assent to a proposition." also,
"Knowledge is often defined as justified true belief, in that the belief must be considered to correspond to reality and must be derived from valid evidence and arguments."
I see. "Science" is not "Truth".
I can also use absurdism to make a point:
1. We all evolved from slugs. These slugs had no bones, so there is no fossel evidence of much of the critical stages of the evolution.
2. A bunch of hot dog vendors from different parts of the world were at a convention. Suddenly, they all died from heat attacks brought on by overdoses of high fat from their products. Later, they were uncovered by scientists and arranged into a line accourding to their jaw structure. Sadly, all the hot dogs had rotted, and the missing 'links' were never uncovered.
Unfortunetly, none of this proves much of anything either way.
From Wikipedia again:
"In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them."
I think the complexity of nature is an observable fact. Everything serves a purpose, even though we have not yet determined the purposes of it all.
I (and many others) have seen that God exists though observable events.
ID *is* a theory, though just barely.
You've brought up probability again. The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional 'simple' cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse then 1 in 10^57800. How can you seriously say the evolution is not a matter of faith?
Did you even look at the links I posted? The arch of the spine is actually very effective at supporting the weight of a biped.
Ah, but [what's inside the whale abdomen] are not legs - we don't know what they are.
Oh, but we do. They are legs.
They are six pieces of cartilage, three on each side. They seem to look more like hips then legs. It's a large stretch to call them legs.
As you showed well when you said "I believe in ID". I don't believe in evolution, I relate to it as fact on the micro level, and accept the fact that it is the only available theory that explains speciation.
What I meant is that I believe ID is true. You obviously believe that evolution is true. It's faith-based either way.
Science is a methodology, and that methodology requires that theories has two properties. The theory must be testable and it must be falsifiable
If ID is not falsifiable, why do so many people here say it's wrong? When you can prove that evolution or some other theory is true beyond a shadow of a doubt (evolution currently has a ways to go in this respect), ID will be false.
As for the testable part, it depends if you think God exists. No, it's not just faith here. I've prayed for sick people and seen them get healed on the spot. I've talked to God and gotten answers that, when verified, turned out to be true. At this point you'll likely count me off as insane or something like that, but I have physically seen the effects of God. For me, the existance of a powerful God who claims to have created the universe is enough proof for ID.
"At that moment," E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that his wrong or right, or (worse still) try to find out whether he is right or wrong, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall!"
This being said, I believe in ID. My opinions may or may not be true, but they are not automatically false because I am a Christian.
Parent poster: You seem to be like the three year old who says "What a stupid looking car. I could make a better one then that!"
Why is this not fixed yet? Survival of the fittest and all that. For part of my answer, see this link. Yes, it's on a Christian website. (Unless you want to engage in Bulverism, I suggest you attack the info, not the author.) ;-)
Also, another interesting theory I've seen said that back damage occurs when the muscle surrounding it has not been sufficiently exercised. This actually seems to to make sense to me, I've noticed that I have better posture after I've been exercising. This also seems to imply that God prefers that we not spend all day hunched in front of a computer screen reading slashdot, but I digress.
Ah, but they are not legs - we don't know what they are. It's only theory that they are the remnants of legs, not fact. They might serve a purpose, many things previously thought useless have. However, until either someone discovers a useful purpose for these things or a whale with complete legs is found, I'm remaining neutral.
I will admit, this is sort of a trick point though. If a use is not found, evolution wins. If a use is found, then it's like, "Wow, evolution worked when it developed this amazing ingenious mechanism."
Because, to the body, cancer seems like a normal cell. There is absolutely no reason for pain to kick in.
Cancer does not directly cause physical pain. It is the build-up of cancer cells that causes pain. (And when pain kicks in, it quite effectively. The system works.) If the body somehow could tell the difference between them, we'd likely have a cure for cancer by now.
Also, the results of tooth decay can be highly dangerous. Why would dentists make such a big deal about avoiding it is it was not? (Can someone back me up on this? I read some stuff about it a while back, but I don't remember enough of it to make a good point.)
Really? The Jews came from America?
Good intro: +25
Fear of English teacher: +25
Promising post degrading to boring moral: -5
Overall score: 45, F+
Notes: Cruxus, you can do better then this.
Threshold -1. People with a slight knowledge of computers. Umm... Nope. Not seeing a problem here.
So uninsightful. Logically invalid. You are attacking the person and not his belief. While this does make the person look bad, it does nothing to prove or disprove the topic at hand.
Very bad form.
Dear sir,
As we all know, Microsoft's goal is obviously world domination. Since this would mean crushing Linux, one of the last big foes in the area, I'd like to know how you guys think you'll pull it off. I mean, I know I'd never use Windows XP on any of my computers, simply because it's far too bloated imho. With Linux, my system is as small and simple or as large and complex as I want, and I can customize it to efficiency for a few tasks.
Don't you think that getting a legion of nerds to write code (and use!) for a platform they can't tweak is a bit far fetched?
Respectfully,
--James
Hmm. I don't like Linspire that much, but you've gotta admit that they've done some decent marketing. It's like the ONLY preinstalled Linux ditro you can buy in stores. The boxes are dirt cheap, too. $299 for a preinstalled Linux computer? Hey, it's not bad.
However, the Wikipedia article copied those from John Gall's book, Systemantics. Does the GPL apply to copies of already copyrighted work?
I dunno about everyone else, but I have a hard tme taking this seriously. No human evolution seems to have occoured for at least 2000 years. Animals seem to have stayed the same, too.
This article says that the only hope for evolution is to separate the human race into groups. It seems to me that this would only flesh out different pockets of the gene pool, not mutate new genes. If it were truly about new genes though mutation, it would seem that larger groups would be needed, right? The more people reproducing, the more likely a new, good mutation would happen.
Unfortunetly, the term "good mutation" seems to be an oxymoron. Nearly every mutation scientists have observed seems to hinder the animal. I've been reading about this a lot, and the only good mutation I've heard about are those white "ghost bears". And they might be an almost extinct race of bears we don't know about.
From my perspective, this article seems like a bunch of unprovable hype written on a slow news day. Anyone agree?
Xbill, anyone?
Have you checked out minimo yet? A tiny Mozilla build using GTK designed to run on lowend and embeded devices. Currently in early alpha stages.
Ever hear of entropy? The more loaded your pc is with spyware, the more spyware will become loaded onto it. Eventuly, you'll just have to reformat and install linux (that last parts optional)
I've just uninstalled SP2 from an incompatable computer. Sheesh. I was up till 2 AM trying. Doncha just hate it when SP2 messes up all the explorer windows and then reports that it can't uninstall itself? =P
I still use WinAmp 2 on my 100MHz computer, simply because it's the only player out there that can play mp3s without skipping. That's what I call a slim music player. Sadly, WinAmp 5 has about twice the system requirements or 2 and *feels* more bloated.