> so emulating the 2 mouse buttons is NOT a problem
2???
2 mouse buttons???
I dunno if you've ever used X before, but if I don't have 3 mouse buttons I feel crippled.
Exactly.
In fact, I burned my eggs today because the burner was too hot. A "digital frying pan" (I relly detest the name..) would have saved a whole chicken embryo from decomposition in the bin! If my Magic Frying Pan (tm) told me that they were burning or if it automatically adjusted the temperature of the stove to suit cooking an egg, (the next step, i hope) it would've decomposed in my stomach instead!
i'm not being sarcastic here, I think that these would be some real neat things. hell... why don't I invent it myself??? Maybe I can convince a company like Whirlpool to set an industry standard and add a Frying Pan Port to all stoves to allow for that degree of control! Hmm... the future is but an extension of the present...
WHAT???
> Kinda' disappointing that there was no ending.
I see. No ending. So... you're still listening to it? Hmm... an infinitely long MP3 file. Yes... I see...
Actually, I liked the ending. It was very nice. since they were babbling about lumpy and itchy and various other things throughout the ending music, i think that the ending of "Goodbye everybody, I'm gonna stop this before anything else happens" was very prudent. Hehe.
I've wondered this as well. Questions that cannot be answered are always fun.
If everything is merely created by oneself and if all just a wild fantasy, why am I writing this? To whom am I replying? What if I get a response? Will this response be of my own creation, or will another concious being actually respond? What the hell is going on?
I'd like to point you to this related The Parking Lot is Full comic strip, originally created March 18, 2000:
Makes you stupid?
Who coined that term, "dope," anyhow?
And even if marijuana does dampen inhibitions (which i'm not sure on, i'll have to check), how is this impairment of judgement? Under the influence of alcohol, you have trouble thinking straight and making correct decisions. This has nothing to do with inhibitions.
Once someone has gone as far as oral sex, vaginal sex ain't too far away.
Marijuana is not a gateway drug. If one goes from marijuana to cocaine or some other such drugs, that is not because of their marijuana drug. It is usually because they have deeper emotional problems and don't get what they want from marijuana or other "soft" drugs.
You've been listening to the dribble put out by DARE, haven't you?
Smoking marijuana is certainly not as harmful and must less likely to cause cancer than tobacco. The nicotine is physically addictive and can be a bitch to stop, while marijuana is not physically addictive at all.
And the funny thing is... you mention that marijuana is dangerous because you don't know what your getting. Isn't situation this caused by the outlawing of this substance? I remember someone once saying, "You can make some illegal, but you can't make it unpopular." This is true as illustrated with the alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century. People were either making their own or buying from smugglers, and since you didn't know what you were getting in terms of quality, it was dangerous.
And I think you have some misconceptions about marijuana's effects. Marijuana does not impair your judgement. Smoking marijuana means relaxation and it does slow one's reaction time, but it is not an intoxicant! Marijuana is also safer chemically, as it does not destroy brain cells like alcohol, but I believe I mentioned that already.
Really, the only way to deal with addicts causing trouble for other people is forcible drug treatment.
Interesting, how you refer to drug users as "addicts."
LSD is actually a very safe drug chemically and is not physically addictive whatsoever. There have been cases where people have taken almost 1000 times the usualy amount of LSD and, though they were hospitalized, there was little harm done.
Marijuana is not physically addictive either. It is actually a lot safer than tobacco or alcohol. And the funny thing is that if marijuana was legalized, it would only become safer.
And psychological addiction? I hesitate to call that addiction, but if one is psychologically "addicted" to marijuana, it is only a symptom of the real problem, possibly emotional. It's the misinformation that the D.A.R.E. program has been brainwashing kids with that's the problem. It's only an scare tactic, spreading misconceptions and lies. One can become psychologically "addicted" to television or the internet or coffee (though there is a slight physical effect here, depending on dosage). The whole "internet addiction" craze that went on a few years ago was a joke. If one starts to use their computer more, this change of lifestyle is not an "addiction." In the broadest use of the word, hell, _I_ am "psychologically addicted" to the Internet. But if I stopped using it, I would feel no withdrawl or have any trouble. It is merely a change of lifestyle from that which I am normally accustomed.
Re:(Standardized) Tests
on
Watch Camera
·
· Score: 1
Hey, this is nothing new. About two (2) years ago, I purchased one of Timex's Data Link watches... a very nifty unit that allows you to upload information to it with a standard CRT. The watch has some kind of optical sensor, and data (like phone numbers, time zones, custom stopwatch info, and even test answers... *grin*). You can see where this is going... well, I've never used it for cheating on a test, but a friend saw the watch and got that same idea, and decided to get himself one of them there watches... and he's used it for cheating numerous times. These are just highschool chemistry tests, mind you, not any SATs or fancy, expensive tests, but this is not a new thing.
The watch of which I speak can be found here, on Timex's website:
A subscription-based version of napster, ever if all profits go directly to the artists, will not work.
Why? For simple reasons: would you pay Napster $4.95 to donate YOUR files, YOUR bandwidth, and YOUR system resources? I know that I sure wouldn't, even if I did have the bandwidth.
The whole success of napster is that anyone can jack in and out at any time, and that people with gigabytes of MP3s and a fat pipe can share their unused bandwidth with lesser users. There is no loss on their part. But, if you introduce a charge, a majority of these generous users would leave for a better, free alternative, for the very reason that if they were to continue with Napster, they would have to pay Napster, Inc. to provide a service for them.
If Napster acknowledges this and hosts their own files, they would be in even deeper legal trouble; their principal defence has been that they're only the middle-man. it's the users that share illegally-obtained content.
Consequently, any charge, no matter how small, would destroy Napster and the RIAA will be gloating over another victory.
And this works on the inverse as well.
I, sadly, cannot get cable or DSL internet connections. The only practical solution available to me right now is my Diamond SupraExpress 56i v.90 ISA modem. I use gnapster a lot, and I would gladly share my 1100+ mp3 collection if I had a faster connection. Until the availability of higher-speed internet connections is increased, we will continue see a more client-server-ish model in a distributed system like Gnutella and napster.
I know this may sound a bit cynical, but I'd think that Microsoft would see this coming and create something similar, with more flexibility than Macromedia's technology, but it would be free and totally proprietary. Kind of like Quicktime, actually. The scenario I describe sounds very similar to the Netscape vs Microsoft thing. Netscape owns the market, Microsoft comes in, forces their browser on everyone, and Netscape withers. And when has Microsoft even followed standards, except those already widely accepted? If HTML wasn't standard before IE, IE would have a totally different markup language.
My point is that Microsoft will always try to use their existing market advantages to draw more capital and gain more power. If Microsoft makes another windows-only "industry standard," even if it is a mangled version of this proposed standard, and makes everything needed to use/create with this technology, Macromedia will go away, standards will be ignored, and Microsoft will get another tentaclehold.
This is why Microsoft is evil; not because of its shoddy software, but because its only motivation is greed, as is such for any corporate entity. Oh well.
Re:I thought the topic was based on the article...
on
X Windows Must Die!
·
· Score: 1
And that's the beauty of Open Source Software. Peer review, essentially "voting" with your choice of software, allows it to improve in a free environment without the burden of deadlines, market conditions, or any of that BS. Software, like sex, is best when it's free.:)
Sure, MacOS X is damn nice, but it's for a proprietary system, not for Linux. Macs have always had nice GUIs, and we've always had X. Of course, MacOS X would be a nice example from which to draw inspiration. Something with the speed and polished look for MacOS X, AND with the flexibility and choice of X give Linux a HUGE advantage in the desktop market. And we can't forget easy configuration. Having to figure out sync rates is just not acceptable.
Framebuffer... forgot about that. Now that would be NICE if I could use only the console, and play games on my console. Fuck X, why not a graphical console? :)
So X needs to be improved. All software can be improved, but we don't necessarily need to dramatically change X, or rid ourselves of it. Ridding ourselves of X would be very difficult, but perhaps we can optimize how it deals with users and hardware. XFree86 4 improves upon this, and I look forward to seeing newer versions of X that blow other proprietary interfaces out of the water. I, personally, have no problem with X. Sure, it can be a pain in the ass to set up sometimes, but the openness of it is great. I've changed my WM several times in the past few months, and have settled upon Window Maker. But I don't have to, and that's the point.
I'm sorry, but such an action will be not only damaging to the many legitimate, but will further push the general belief that MP3s are "bad." I myself have hundreds of legitimate MP3s, to which I own the CDs. I also have gigabytes of MP3s that I've legally downloaded from MP3.com. There is no way to distinguish between illegally obtained, copyrighted content and an MP3 of your own creation. This tactic will solve nothing.
This is the exact essence of a corporation like Microsoft. They make no product. They are free from the material world. They merely brand products created by a contractor, and market their brand. Why is it that you always see children in Microsoft ads? It is a metaphor for freedom; use Microsoft products and your life will be free. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
> so emulating the 2 mouse buttons is NOT a problem
2???
2 mouse buttons???
I dunno if you've ever used X before, but if I don't have 3 mouse buttons I feel crippled.
----
> he just sorta stopped talking and looked vacantly at the wall for like 5 minetes [sic]
Hmm...
Sounds like a very interesting thing to do!!!
What an awesome idea...
Did your friend do this on purpose? If not, did he remember it? Did you have an explanation? Please elaborate, I find this extremely interesting.
----
Exactly.
In fact, I burned my eggs today because the burner was too hot. A "digital frying pan" (I relly detest the name..) would have saved a whole chicken embryo from decomposition in the bin! If my Magic Frying Pan (tm) told me that they were burning or if it automatically adjusted the temperature of the stove to suit cooking an egg, (the next step, i hope) it would've decomposed in my stomach instead!
i'm not being sarcastic here, I think that these would be some real neat things. hell... why don't I invent it myself??? Maybe I can convince a company like Whirlpool to set an industry standard and add a Frying Pan Port to all stoves to allow for that degree of control! Hmm... the future is but an extension of the present...
----
This is ancient news.
I remember it from a Popular Science YEARS ago...
That's not to say it isn't interesting, though.
----
WHAT???
> Kinda' disappointing that there was no ending.
I see. No ending. So... you're still listening to it? Hmm... an infinitely long MP3 file. Yes... I see...
Actually, I liked the ending. It was very nice. since they were babbling about lumpy and itchy and various other things throughout the ending music, i think that the ending of "Goodbye everybody, I'm gonna stop this before anything else happens" was very prudent. Hehe.
----
I have the suspicion that you didn't. Perhaps you read the title.
----
If everything is merely created by oneself and if all just a wild fantasy, why am I writing this? To whom am I replying? What if I get a response? Will this response be of my own creation, or will another concious being actually respond? What the hell is going on?
I'd like to point you to this related The Parking Lot is Full comic strip, originally created March 18, 2000:
----
Makes you stupid?
Who coined that term, "dope," anyhow?
And even if marijuana does dampen inhibitions (which i'm not sure on, i'll have to check), how is this impairment of judgement? Under the influence of alcohol, you have trouble thinking straight and making correct decisions. This has nothing to do with inhibitions.
Once someone has gone as far as oral sex, vaginal sex ain't too far away.
Marijuana is not a gateway drug. If one goes from marijuana to cocaine or some other such drugs, that is not because of their marijuana drug. It is usually because they have deeper emotional problems and don't get what they want from marijuana or other "soft" drugs.
You've been listening to the dribble put out by DARE, haven't you?
Smoking marijuana is certainly not as harmful and must less likely to cause cancer than tobacco. The nicotine is physically addictive and can be a bitch to stop, while marijuana is not physically addictive at all.
And the funny thing is... you mention that marijuana is dangerous because you don't know what your getting. Isn't situation this caused by the outlawing of this substance? I remember someone once saying, "You can make some illegal, but you can't make it unpopular." This is true as illustrated with the alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century. People were either making their own or buying from smugglers, and since you didn't know what you were getting in terms of quality, it was dangerous.
And I think you have some misconceptions about marijuana's effects. Marijuana does not impair your judgement. Smoking marijuana means relaxation and it does slow one's reaction time, but it is not an intoxicant! Marijuana is also safer chemically, as it does not destroy brain cells like alcohol, but I believe I mentioned that already.
Really, the only way to deal with addicts causing trouble for other people is forcible drug treatment.
Interesting, how you refer to drug users as "addicts."
LSD is actually a very safe drug chemically and is not physically addictive whatsoever. There have been cases where people have taken almost 1000 times the usualy amount of LSD and, though they were hospitalized, there was little harm done.
Marijuana is not physically addictive either. It is actually a lot safer than tobacco or alcohol. And the funny thing is that if marijuana was legalized, it would only become safer.
And psychological addiction? I hesitate to call that addiction, but if one is psychologically "addicted" to marijuana, it is only a symptom of the real problem, possibly emotional. It's the misinformation that the D.A.R.E. program has been brainwashing kids with that's the problem. It's only an scare tactic, spreading misconceptions and lies. One can become psychologically "addicted" to television or the internet or coffee (though there is a slight physical effect here, depending on dosage). The whole "internet addiction" craze that went on a few years ago was a joke. If one starts to use their computer more, this change of lifestyle is not an "addiction." In the broadest use of the word, hell, _I_ am "psychologically addicted" to the Internet. But if I stopped using it, I would feel no withdrawl or have any trouble. It is merely a change of lifestyle from that which I am normally accustomed.
The watch of which I speak can be found here, on Timex's website:
It's a very nice watch, and is not very expensive... I acquired mine for $60 from a Wal-Mart.
A subscription-based version of napster, ever if all profits go directly to the artists, will not work.
Why? For simple reasons: would you pay Napster $4.95 to donate YOUR files, YOUR bandwidth, and YOUR system resources? I know that I sure wouldn't, even if I did have the bandwidth.
The whole success of napster is that anyone can jack in and out at any time, and that people with gigabytes of MP3s and a fat pipe can share their unused bandwidth with lesser users. There is no loss on their part. But, if you introduce a charge, a majority of these generous users would leave for a better, free alternative, for the very reason that if they were to continue with Napster, they would have to pay Napster, Inc. to provide a service for them.
If Napster acknowledges this and hosts their own files, they would be in even deeper legal trouble; their principal defence has been that they're only the middle-man. it's the users that share illegally-obtained content.
Consequently, any charge, no matter how small, would destroy Napster and the RIAA will be gloating over another victory.
And this works on the inverse as well. I, sadly, cannot get cable or DSL internet connections. The only practical solution available to me right now is my Diamond SupraExpress 56i v.90 ISA modem. I use gnapster a lot, and I would gladly share my 1100+ mp3 collection if I had a faster connection. Until the availability of higher-speed internet connections is increased, we will continue see a more client-server-ish model in a distributed system like Gnutella and napster.
That's not good.
I know this may sound a bit cynical, but I'd think that Microsoft would see this coming and create something similar, with more flexibility than Macromedia's technology, but it would be free and totally proprietary. Kind of like Quicktime, actually. The scenario I describe sounds very similar to the Netscape vs Microsoft thing. Netscape owns the market, Microsoft comes in, forces their browser on everyone, and Netscape withers. And when has Microsoft even followed standards, except those already widely accepted? If HTML wasn't standard before IE, IE would have a totally different markup language.
My point is that Microsoft will always try to use their existing market advantages to draw more capital and gain more power. If Microsoft makes another windows-only "industry standard," even if it is a mangled version of this proposed standard, and makes everything needed to use/create with this technology, Macromedia will go away, standards will be ignored, and Microsoft will get another tentaclehold.
This is why Microsoft is evil; not because of its shoddy software, but because its only motivation is greed, as is such for any corporate entity. Oh well.
It's Time to Crack the Corporate I:
http://adbusters.org/campaigns/corporate/
Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a000d'
Type mismatch: 'cint'
/includes/BrowserSniffer.inc, line 47
And that's all i have to say about that.
And that's the beauty of Open Source Software. :)
Peer review, essentially "voting" with your choice of software, allows it to improve in a free environment without the burden of deadlines, market conditions, or any of that BS. Software, like sex, is best when it's free.
Sure, MacOS X is damn nice, but it's for a proprietary system, not for Linux. Macs have always had nice GUIs, and we've always had X. Of course, MacOS X would be a nice example from which to draw inspiration. Something with the speed and polished look for MacOS X, AND with the flexibility and choice of X give Linux a HUGE advantage in the desktop market. And we can't forget easy configuration. Having to figure out sync rates is just not acceptable.
Framebuffer... forgot about that. Now that would be NICE if I could use only the console, and play games on my console. Fuck X, why not a graphical console?
:)
...but I've never encountered this problem.
So X needs to be improved. All software can be improved, but we don't necessarily need to dramatically change X, or rid ourselves of it. Ridding ourselves of X would be very difficult, but perhaps we can optimize how it deals with users and hardware. XFree86 4 improves upon this, and I look forward to seeing newer versions of X that blow other proprietary interfaces out of the water. I, personally, have no problem with X. Sure, it can be a pain in the ass to set up sometimes, but the openness of it is great. I've changed my WM several times in the past few months, and have settled upon Window Maker. But I don't have to, and that's the point.
I'm sorry, but such an action will be not only damaging to the many legitimate, but will further push the general belief that MP3s are "bad." I myself have hundreds of legitimate MP3s, to which I own the CDs. I also have gigabytes of MP3s that I've legally downloaded from MP3.com. There is no way to distinguish between illegally obtained, copyrighted content and an MP3 of your own creation. This tactic will solve nothing.
This is the exact essence of a corporation like Microsoft. They make no product. They are free from the material world. They merely brand products created by a contractor, and market their brand. Why is it that you always see children in Microsoft ads? It is a metaphor for freedom; use Microsoft products and your life will be free. Nothing can be further from the truth.