the same way it's survived every other massive data loss, eg the Library of Alexandria.
Is it a Good Thing (tm) that we've lost a lot? Maybe not. Have we gotten on without it? Yep.
What about all the collective memories of people who've died, or fires destroying historical artifacts? One of the more interesting (to me at least) WWII museums is the Yankee Air Museum outside Detroit MI. Last October they had a huge fire that wiped out most of their records and interior displays, among which were large quantities of WWII relics.
They're working on rebuilding it now, but a lot of what was in there can't be replaced.
The BBC's choice to discontinue the Cult section of its website is a shame for those of us that enjoy those shows. I agree that they could offer the content to some group to host as an alternative, but since it's their property, there's not really that much we can do to force them to keep it up.
OK. On my machine, it takes the same amount of time, perhaps even a bit quicker than XP. I run a 1.1Ghz Athlon with 768M RAM, and a pair of 80G IDE drives. The boot time is about the same, for me.
Before you start complaining here about anything, maybe you should have asked yourself, what do I want to be doing with my computer? I only boot Windows to play a few games I like. Everything else I do under Linux - with absolutely no problems. I can log into my router - with konqueror or firefox - play video and music files without skipping, and use all of my nVidia graphics card's available resolution (well, not quite all, but monitor won't support the max the card will).
If your DSL connection is running into your router, there's no reason for your provider to have stated that 'linux is not supported'.
And I hate to break this to you also, but I've owned a couple machines (with nothing wierd in them) that only Linux would install and boot up. My parents' last computer wouldn't run Win95, 98, or NT. But Mandrake 6.1 installed onto it fine, found all the hardware (including the unusual printer they have), and ran fine. (It was a 400Mhz K6-II with 256M RAM.)
I've set up Linux for a bunch of 'real average Jane' students, and they don't even notice a difference. After getting one set up with Mandrake, Firefox, and GAIM, her roommate came in and asked "oh, is that a new version of AIM?" not "what happened to windows?".
My roommate MS work centered around using Linux machines with video capture cards, so I don't know what you were trying to do that you couldn't. the All In Wonder cards from ATI are pretty popular, and have extensive driver support.
So, I'm calling complete bull on you. I'm not an ultra fanatical linux geek, either. I just use it, and it works. It takes no longer to boot than XP, and has far more useful application to me (lack of viruses, ease of ssh access to other machines, higher granular control over individual resources) than Windows ever has.
Personally, I think paying $300+ a year for cable to PAY for the privledge of watching television is completely stupid.
It's perfectly reasonable to PAY for the priviledge of watching TV. You PAY for the priviledge to drive your car, hunt, surf the internet, turn your toaster on, own magazines and books. PAYing is how capitalism works, I have something you want, and we agree to a trade, generally in some form of currency that lots of other people will accept, too.
I do mind paying to watch so much adverising, and paying for stuff I don't use (sorry, but the carrot channel just isn't my thing). When the cable providers wake up and realize that they would make gobs morecash by selling service on a per-channel basis, we'll have a pertty nice system.
I would love to have a set rate, say $0.50/channel/month, and then let me pick what I want to watch. If the cable provider offered you 20 channels for $10/mo and then $0.50/additional channel, you'd get exactly what you want. None of this programming your TV to ignore the 23 different shop at home stations.
For example, I'd love to just get History, Discovery, TNT, TBS, Bravo, Disney, National Geographic, Food Network, Turner South, AMC, Turner Classic, ESPN, Cartoon Network, TV Land, Nick, USA, FX, Fox Family, TLC, SciFi, HGTV, Travel, Spike, and OLN - all delivered through the cable company, along with any local channels (CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, WB, UPN, PBS). This comes out to a grand total of 31 channels. Where I live in central NC we have two CBS and two ABC affiliates, one for both Raleigh and Greensboro, so that might add up to 33 for me, unless I picked which of the two I really wanted to have. I'd be happy to know that my 31 channels (the local 7 perhaps being mandatory) would only cost me $15.50/month. Even if there was an added $4/mo charge for line maintenance (which, with all the adverising revenue, you wouldn't think they'd need), my total is $19.50 a month, for what I want to watch.
TV providers would make a fortune off this approach. I'd be paying them about $10 more per month than I do now, and would be getting only 2 more channels (total, I'd drop all the fluff I'm not interested in). I don't want to pay $50 just to get the extra few I don't get now, but until they see the benefits of this approach, we're stuck with whatever packages and bundles they want to offer.
There's a company in British Columbia called DynaMotive that's been doing a lot of work in the bio fuels research arena. They take all sorts of bio waste and are converting it into oil, etc.
Might it not be a better use of the corn to take almost the entire plant and convert it into something usable, rather than just the corn oil?
The games might not be multithreaded, but the other core can run primary OS tasks. Plus, games will be, more and more, written to take advantage of those extra cores.
Overall, the article seems a nice summary of the contents of a patent application. But the grammar in the article is horrible. Missing apostrophes, words that should've been pluralized, sentences that take two or three times through to understand.
For a server registered in Santa Mesa CA, and an author who is supposed to be "Darren Yates: Search Engine Marketing expert. Celebrating 11 years on the Net in 2005.", it's disappointing to have to wade through all the syntactical and flow problems in his writing.
I'm not perfect, either, but I try to make sure that stuff I post is at least grammatically correct, and I go back and fix items that aren't. Maybe the article would make more sense if you didn't have to reread so many chunks of it.
"Additionally, algorithms from the NSA are considered a sort of alien technology: they come from a superior race with no explanations. Any successful cryptanalysis against an NSA algorithm is an interesting data point in the eternal question of how good they really are in there."
Well, another thing is that the work is done on the server, no virtual machine required, just the PHP interpreter module. I realise JSP et al run on the server, but my experience has been that running Java code is slower than corresponding PHP. PHP speed and transpaency to me as a coder (it looks enough like the HTML it produces), that I use it for almost everything I need do that involves scripting.
Move is a known distro...
on
Test Driving Linux
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I've used (formerly Mandrake) Move, Knoppix, SLAX, and Mepis. Most people I know who have heard of the live CDs have heard of all of those, and a bunch more.
There's not much you can compare to Firefox if you're going to oust non-OSS solutions. Firefox, Camino, Mozilla... all come from the same core code. Lynx is a text browser, so again not much comparison directly. About the only one I can come up with it Konqueror, which is KDE only
IS, Opera, Safari are all commercial, so they can't be compared if you're ignoring commercial products.
No, I live in the world of supporting Windows users in at a university (and NOT a tech school). A lot of them run IE, but a lot run Firefox, Opera, etc. We also have a lot of Mac users, especially in the art and communications departments. We have more than our share of 'normal' people, and nowhere near enough 'nerds'. They're all willing to try new things, though, especially when what we tell them will stop the popups.
Actually, microevolution DOESN'T lead to macroevolution. We haven't documented species splits. We have documented breed splits, but never speciation. But again, you're not willing to listen to any viewpoint other than your own. A shame, really, since you might be an otherwise bright person.
With the majority of Mac users not running IE, none of the linux guys (except under crossover office), and the increasing downloads, installs, and users of firefox, opera, and others, it seems like IE would be a lot closer to 80% than only just under 90.
If a copyright is intended to protect the author's work, it should only extend to his/her lifetime. Once the author dies, there's no loss he will sustain, since he's not around to benefit. The author should also be allowed to specify a shorter time period if she wants.
Foritems published under more than one name, a la textbooks, the copyright should extend to the lifetime of the last surviving member of the authoring team, with the same provisions to shorten the term if the authors wish.
As to items published by corporations, the copyright shouldn't extend more than 45 years, or the life of the corporation, which ever is shorter. Companies that are likely to still be around for a long time (I'm thinking the GE, IBM, Ford types), 45 years is plenty of time for them to benefit from copyright protection. If the company fails before the 45 year point, there's no one around to lay claim to the publication anyway, so let it enter the public domain.
Well, I'm sorry you see things that way. More proof yet of God giving some over to their passions that even with the revealed light and obviousness of creation people will try so hard to find some other explanation.
You may be trying hard to suppress your innate knowledge that God exists, you'll meet him soon enough. Sorry you have to meet him in judgement rather than in welcoming you to eternal bliss.
How is macroevolution any easier to believe? You've merely tranposed your faith of an eternality onto matter rather than onto a God.
So, I guess the real question is, would you rather have been created, and therefore have some purpose to your life, or just have appeared in your current state, and live and die with no purpose. If we did just evlove from some lower life form or other, then there is no right and wrong, and there's no point in having laws. We should all immediately regress to the 'governing' mechanisms of the animal kindom, where might makes right. I want you food and I'm bigger, so it's mine.
What moral or ethical core can you point to for defining right and wrong if we're just animals? Why can't I go rape any girl I want, kill people I don't like, steal stuff because I want it? Your belief doesn't give you any backing for your insistence on laws, government, justice. So, if we really are animals, let's start acting like them, and eliminate all those fancy laws, customs, and practices we've been operating under for generations uncountable.
just as much faith as does belief in a supreme being, intelligent design, or creationism. Creationists and the Intelligent Design proponents do not argue over microevolution. We have been observing little changes in organisms for thousands of years, we even force change through hybridding and genetic engineering. However, in all the time we've been watching and observing, we've never seen a new species appear on its own.
We've 'created' odd critters, such as ligers, but they can't reproduce on their own, and most likely would not have mated of their own accord in the wild since they live in such different areas. Inspection of the available fossil record shows, if anything, the gradual DE-speciation of earth, not the increase/betterment that we would expect if following macro evolution to its logical conclusions.
Scientists have no reasonable explanation available for where the stuff came from to produce the Big Bang. By insisting that matter has existed for ever, they have created their own faith and belief system, but have assigned god status to matter, rather than a deity who made it.
Any observed and extrapolated results (for that's what a hypothesis is, an assumption based off a sample of data) must lead back to a point where there was nothing, or that what we have now has existed for eternity.
The definition of the Scientific Method, as quoted from [http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/Append ixE/AppendixE.html], "The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world."
Nowhere in the realm of Science is there a way of proving or disproving creationism or macroevolution. Later in the article: "the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation." Scientists who do not pursue every avenue of explanation, allowing for results which indicate that their personal preference or bias may be wrong, are not true scientists. "The scientific method is intricately associated with science, the process of human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels. While the method appears simple and logical in description, there is perhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come to know things."
I happen to be a creationist. I believe the Genesis account of creation, and I believe that God made the earth look 'old' to start with. Considering that we have no idea what a 'young' planet would look like -- we've never seen one being made -- there's no scientific reason to discard the Biblical account of creation in favor of an account of spontaneous generation of life in all its different out-workings as we see it today. I also firmly believe in microevolution, the process of minute changes made and propagated through succeeding generations of a given organism. It's seen daily in the birth of children, where each child gets a unique mixing of the DNA of their parents. There are little teeny changes between generations in terms of resistance to disease, tolerance for certain foods, etc. But there's no recorded point where a species jumped from itself into another, new one.
The 'new' definition of science in Kansas is just a realization that there has been error in the past, and they want to correct it now. Every major scientific discovery has changed the way people think and feel, and has given new light on old beliefs and thoughts. The world is flat. The earth is the center of the universe. Man can't fly. They've all been proven wrong through better observation, experimentation, and the willingness to throw out the old ways of thinking that have true flaws in them.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it a Good Thing (tm) that we've lost a lot? Maybe not. Have we gotten on without it? Yep.
What about all the collective memories of people who've died, or fires destroying historical artifacts? One of the more interesting (to me at least) WWII museums is the Yankee Air Museum outside Detroit MI. Last October they had a huge fire that wiped out most of their records and interior displays, among which were large quantities of WWII relics.
They're working on rebuilding it now, but a lot of what was in there can't be replaced.
The BBC's choice to discontinue the Cult section of its website is a shame for those of us that enjoy those shows. I agree that they could offer the content to some group to host as an alternative, but since it's their property, there's not really that much we can do to force them to keep it up.
Heaven help us all! being better than FrontPage is saying quite a bit?
OK. On my machine, it takes the same amount of time, perhaps even a bit quicker than XP. I run a 1.1Ghz Athlon with 768M RAM, and a pair of 80G IDE drives. The boot time is about the same, for me.
If your DSL connection is running into your router, there's no reason for your provider to have stated that 'linux is not supported'.
And I hate to break this to you also, but I've owned a couple machines (with nothing wierd in them) that only Linux would install and boot up. My parents' last computer wouldn't run Win95, 98, or NT. But Mandrake 6.1 installed onto it fine, found all the hardware (including the unusual printer they have), and ran fine. (It was a 400Mhz K6-II with 256M RAM.)
I've set up Linux for a bunch of 'real average Jane' students, and they don't even notice a difference. After getting one set up with Mandrake, Firefox, and GAIM, her roommate came in and asked "oh, is that a new version of AIM?" not "what happened to windows?".
My roommate MS work centered around using Linux machines with video capture cards, so I don't know what you were trying to do that you couldn't. the All In Wonder cards from ATI are pretty popular, and have extensive driver support.
So, I'm calling complete bull on you. I'm not an ultra fanatical linux geek, either. I just use it, and it works. It takes no longer to boot than XP, and has far more useful application to me (lack of viruses, ease of ssh access to other machines, higher granular control over individual resources) than Windows ever has.
Right now, I'm paying under $10/mo, but it's basic local service. See my other comment here
It's perfectly reasonable to PAY for the priviledge of watching TV. You PAY for the priviledge to drive your car, hunt, surf the internet, turn your toaster on, own magazines and books. PAYing is how capitalism works, I have something you want, and we agree to a trade, generally in some form of currency that lots of other people will accept, too.
I do mind paying to watch so much adverising, and paying for stuff I don't use (sorry, but the carrot channel just isn't my thing). When the cable providers wake up and realize that they would make gobs morecash by selling service on a per-channel basis, we'll have a pertty nice system.
I would love to have a set rate, say $0.50/channel/month, and then let me pick what I want to watch. If the cable provider offered you 20 channels for $10/mo and then $0.50/additional channel, you'd get exactly what you want. None of this programming your TV to ignore the 23 different shop at home stations.
For example, I'd love to just get History, Discovery, TNT, TBS, Bravo, Disney, National Geographic, Food Network, Turner South, AMC, Turner Classic, ESPN, Cartoon Network, TV Land, Nick, USA, FX, Fox Family, TLC, SciFi, HGTV, Travel, Spike, and OLN - all delivered through the cable company, along with any local channels (CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, WB, UPN, PBS). This comes out to a grand total of 31 channels. Where I live in central NC we have two CBS and two ABC affiliates, one for both Raleigh and Greensboro, so that might add up to 33 for me, unless I picked which of the two I really wanted to have. I'd be happy to know that my 31 channels (the local 7 perhaps being mandatory) would only cost me $15.50/month. Even if there was an added $4/mo charge for line maintenance (which, with all the adverising revenue, you wouldn't think they'd need), my total is $19.50 a month, for what I want to watch.
TV providers would make a fortune off this approach. I'd be paying them about $10 more per month than I do now, and would be getting only 2 more channels (total, I'd drop all the fluff I'm not interested in). I don't want to pay $50 just to get the extra few I don't get now, but until they see the benefits of this approach, we're stuck with whatever packages and bundles they want to offer.
Might it not be a better use of the corn to take almost the entire plant and convert it into something usable, rather than just the corn oil ?
The games might not be multithreaded, but the other core can run primary OS tasks. Plus, games will be, more and more, written to take advantage of those extra cores.
I still prefer to do my own, but you can let them if you want.
For a server registered in Santa Mesa CA, and an author who is supposed to be "Darren Yates: Search Engine Marketing expert. Celebrating 11 years on the Net in 2005.", it's disappointing to have to wade through all the syntactical and flow problems in his writing.
I'm not perfect, either, but I try to make sure that stuff I post is at least grammatically correct, and I go back and fix items that aren't. Maybe the article would make more sense if you didn't have to reread so many chunks of it.
"Additionally, algorithms from the NSA are considered a sort of alien technology: they come from a superior race with no explanations. Any successful cryptanalysis against an NSA algorithm is an interesting data point in the eternal question of how good they really are in there."
Well, another thing is that the work is done on the server, no virtual machine required, just the PHP interpreter module. I realise JSP et al run on the server, but my experience has been that running Java code is slower than corresponding PHP. PHP speed and transpaency to me as a coder (it looks enough like the HTML it produces), that I use it for almost everything I need do that involves scripting.
I've used (formerly Mandrake) Move, Knoppix, SLAX, and Mepis. Most people I know who have heard of the live CDs have heard of all of those, and a bunch more.
did this a long time ago. See their corporate website: http://www.panoramtech.com/products/index.html. I was first set on to them in 2000, 3 years before DoubleSight was founded (http://www.doublesight.com/idx_about.htm). It's nice that other companies are doing this, but it's not new.
To /.'s daily load?
IS, Opera, Safari are all commercial, so they can't be compared if you're ignoring commercial products.
I'm not misinforming most of my users at all. Many are running pre XP installs of Windows, or haven't done the SP2 update for various reasons.
No, I live in the world of supporting Windows users in at a university (and NOT a tech school). A lot of them run IE, but a lot run Firefox, Opera, etc. We also have a lot of Mac users, especially in the art and communications departments. We have more than our share of 'normal' people, and nowhere near enough 'nerds'. They're all willing to try new things, though, especially when what we tell them will stop the popups.
Actually, microevolution DOESN'T lead to macroevolution. We haven't documented species splits. We have documented breed splits, but never speciation. But again, you're not willing to listen to any viewpoint other than your own. A shame, really, since you might be an otherwise bright person.
With the majority of Mac users not running IE, none of the linux guys (except under crossover office), and the increasing downloads, installs, and users of firefox, opera, and others, it seems like IE would be a lot closer to 80% than only just under 90.
The live linux distros offer complete anonymity. Reboot, and it's gone.
Foritems published under more than one name, a la textbooks, the copyright should extend to the lifetime of the last surviving member of the authoring team, with the same provisions to shorten the term if the authors wish.
As to items published by corporations, the copyright shouldn't extend more than 45 years, or the life of the corporation, which ever is shorter. Companies that are likely to still be around for a long time (I'm thinking the GE, IBM, Ford types), 45 years is plenty of time for them to benefit from copyright protection. If the company fails before the 45 year point, there's no one around to lay claim to the publication anyway, so let it enter the public domain.
You may be trying hard to suppress your innate knowledge that God exists, you'll meet him soon enough. Sorry you have to meet him in judgement rather than in welcoming you to eternal bliss.
Enojy your short, now pointless life.
So, I guess the real question is, would you rather have been created, and therefore have some purpose to your life, or just have appeared in your current state, and live and die with no purpose. If we did just evlove from some lower life form or other, then there is no right and wrong, and there's no point in having laws. We should all immediately regress to the 'governing' mechanisms of the animal kindom, where might makes right. I want you food and I'm bigger, so it's mine.
What moral or ethical core can you point to for defining right and wrong if we're just animals? Why can't I go rape any girl I want, kill people I don't like, steal stuff because I want it? Your belief doesn't give you any backing for your insistence on laws, government, justice. So, if we really are animals, let's start acting like them, and eliminate all those fancy laws, customs, and practices we've been operating under for generations uncountable.
We've 'created' odd critters, such as ligers, but they can't reproduce on their own, and most likely would not have mated of their own accord in the wild since they live in such different areas. Inspection of the available fossil record shows, if anything, the gradual DE-speciation of earth, not the increase/betterment that we would expect if following macro evolution to its logical conclusions.
Scientists have no reasonable explanation available for where the stuff came from to produce the Big Bang. By insisting that matter has existed for ever, they have created their own faith and belief system, but have assigned god status to matter, rather than a deity who made it.
Any observed and extrapolated results (for that's what a hypothesis is, an assumption based off a sample of data) must lead back to a point where there was nothing, or that what we have now has existed for eternity.
The definition of the Scientific Method, as quoted from [http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/Append ixE/AppendixE.html], "The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world."
Nowhere in the realm of Science is there a way of proving or disproving creationism or macroevolution. Later in the article: "the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation." Scientists who do not pursue every avenue of explanation, allowing for results which indicate that their personal preference or bias may be wrong, are not true scientists. "The scientific method is intricately associated with science, the process of human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels. While the method appears simple and logical in description, there is perhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come to know things."
I happen to be a creationist. I believe the Genesis account of creation, and I believe that God made the earth look 'old' to start with. Considering that we have no idea what a 'young' planet would look like -- we've never seen one being made -- there's no scientific reason to discard the Biblical account of creation in favor of an account of spontaneous generation of life in all its different out-workings as we see it today. I also firmly believe in microevolution, the process of minute changes made and propagated through succeeding generations of a given organism. It's seen daily in the birth of children, where each child gets a unique mixing of the DNA of their parents. There are little teeny changes between generations in terms of resistance to disease, tolerance for certain foods, etc. But there's no recorded point where a species jumped from itself into another, new one.
The 'new' definition of science in Kansas is just a realization that there has been error in the past, and they want to correct it now. Every major scientific discovery has changed the way people think and feel, and has given new light on old beliefs and thoughts. The world is flat. The earth is the center of the universe. Man can't fly. They've all been proven wrong through better observation, experimentation, and the willingness to throw out the old ways of thinking that have true flaws in them.