Download the stuff off-campus and then send it to your on-campus site over a secured connection.
So the RIAA can target you directly? If it's downloaded in a computer lab or on a dorm room computer, at least you have plausible deniability.
Although this would sound funny in ordinary situations, it makes sense in a statistical analysis. If the average difference in a quantity between two groups is small and either the sample sizes are very large or the variation within each group is small, you can say that they were found to be slightly, but significantly different. I left out some details, but that's the gist of it.
Minutes and hours, you say? I used a stopwatch to see how long it would take a Wii to be sold where I live. When I looked at the stopwatch, it actually said negative three seconds. Now that's fast.
Actually, in my introductory Econ class, I learned that scarcity increases price. The Wii is still being sold at the same price (in stores, anyway). I'm not saying scarcity can't increase demand, but I think you're confusing two different concepts.
So they're investigating a protein for piezoelectric power generation. But where does the connection to space exploration come in? If you want to generate electricity, using humans is not your best option. You're better off combusting fuel to generate steam to power a turbine (and then recycling the steam). Humans require carbohydrates and oxygen to produce mechanical work with water and CO2 as byproducts. Combustion engines do the same thing, only much more efficiently.
Sounds like a bunch of researchers stretching to make their work more attractive (and worthy of government funding). Or maybe a bunch of reporters spinning some research to make their publication more attractive. "Power generating spacesuits"? More like "power sucking spacesuits".
Of course, like a true developer, you didn't read the Help file which tells you how to create plaintext documents on page fucking one. You're onto something there. A good developer realizes that his users will only read the documentation as a last resort. The people that created TextEdit obviously missed this point. A simple text editor should be able to save files to plain ASCII format (without toying with advanced options). Maybe you should reread my posts if you don't see my point.
Have you seen Vista's interface? As someone who is skeptical of Microsoft's products and tactics, I have to say that, from what I've seen, Vista's GUI is beautiful. Not only are the title bars translucent, the image underneath is softened in real time. It is a gorgeous interface. But that won't convince me to buy into it. I'm more concerned with how they support their products. There's more to an operating system than the eye candy. I prefer to concern myself with what's under the hood rather than the paint job.
Do me a favor. Open TextEdit. Type "I am a smartass". Try to save the file as "smartass.txt". Can't do it? So you see my point. Mac interfaces are supposed to be intuitive. This wasn't. This is just another example of Apple living in a computing vacuum, where they ignore the norms of Linux and Windows applications.
I needed to edit a plain text file on the Mac, and the editor that came with it would only save files to formats like html, rtf, etc. And.txt. Not that you were able to figure out how. Then try it right now. Open up TextEdit. Type some text (but don't apply any formatting). Now try to save it. ".txt" isn't one of the options. Naturally, I assumed that it couldn't save plain text, so I went looking for a replacement on developer.apple.com. Now go there and search for "plain text editor" and see if you find any useful links. You're the troll, AC.
And the fact that applications launched through the GUI have no current directory Yes they do. Applications launched from Finder (and iirc, also from the desktop) have / as their cwd (not very useful). On Windows, the cwd of a program launched from the desktop or explorer is the location of the executable. See what you can learn when you stop humping your Mac and read something?
First of all, smartass--can I call you smartass?--I don't give a flying fuck what it's called, I have never found any use for any variant of EMACS. Second, if you weren't such a knee-jerk, Steve Jobs loving Apple fanbois, you might stop to realize that if you create a text file in TextEdit (which was the first thing I tried) it will not let you save it in plain text. In MS Word and Wordpad, it always allows you to save plain text files after warning you that you will lose all formatting, of course. I was in a huge hurry, and I hadn't discovered the well-hidden option that lets you convert to plain text. Naturally, I assumed that the editor was incapable of saving plain text, so I searched apple.com's developer site for "plain text editor" and came up with nothing (go to developer.apple.com and try it for yourself if you don't believe me).
I'd like to stress that this was my first time using a Mac in about ten years, and my first time ever using one for development. I was actually running Panther inside PearPC on a Windows machine, so it was very slow and prone to crashing. This was spare-time, contract work, and all I wanted to do was get in, get the port compiled, and get out (so creating my own text editor from scratch was obviously out of the question). It was written to be cross-platform from the beginning, using FLTK for the GUI, so it should have taken a couple hours at most. However it ended up taking several days to get all the libraries I needed to compile. I'd say that's still pretty good for someone who's never touched a modern Mac before. But that TextEdit thing left a bad taste in my mouth.
Thanks, that's what I couldn't figure out. I wasn't editing an existing file; I was creating one from scratch, and it seemed to only allow me to save it in a rich text format.
I had to do a Mac port of an application I was working on about a year ago. I needed to edit a plain text file on the Mac, and the editor that came with it would only save files to formats like html, rtf, etc. I don't know how to use old-school editors like EMACS, so I searched apple.com for info on how to edit plain text on a Mac. The only thing I could find was a third party application sold through apple.com called "Plain Text Editor(R)" that cost $20!!! Now, there probably is at least one free plain text editor for the Mac, but I couldn't find it after about an hour of searching. In Windows, it's just Start>Programs>Accessories>Notepad. Even after you pay the ridiculously high price for a Mac, you still have to pay for things (if you can find them at all) that are completely free on a Windows or Linux machine. And then there are those ass-backwards and poorly documented resource bundles. And the fact that applications launched through the GUI have no current directory. Macs are fine if all you want to do is surf the web and listen to music, but for a developer, they're severely lacking. No thank you.
Perhaps this is intended, as so many laws are, as a way to pile further punishment on criminals who have already been caught. "Not only were you caught trying to solicit sex from a minor, you were also using an unregistered screen name, Mr. Pedophile." Kind of like charging someone caught with cannabis with possession of "paraphernalia" because he also had rolling papers (not to mention intent to distribute because he had plastic bags in his kitchen.) On second thought, it's probably just more pointless, unenforceable legislation intended to evoke an emotional response from the voting public.
PS, if you're not clueless and actually are a professional software developer, you can write code in perl that is every bit as readable as. I don't know about you, but I don't find "." very readable. If that's what modern Perl syntax looks like, then I don't wanna go there.
He was interviewed on NPR a few weeks ago, so surely they did some research to see if he's legit. I don't see your point about the $52/year roadside assistance. $52 isn't much, especially compared to the millions he owes. And he's obviously not penniless, since he can afford the fees for his domain registration and server space. However, I do think he's a greedy SOB who got what he deserved.
You must live in a fairly warm climate to be able to use fluorescents outdoors. As I understand it, fluorescents don't work in very cold (i.e., sub-freezing) weather. FYI, you can find CFLs in any spectrum you desire (soft white, warm white, cool white, bright white, daylight, etc.) if you shop around on the internet. Personally, I prefer the bluer side of the spectrum.
No, I'm just disputing the original claim that they paid for themselves in one month. It's generally agreed that if they are cared for properly, they will pay off eventually. That means not breaking them, not putting them in small enclosed fixtures (they will overheat), and not exposing them to voltage spikes.
Let's assume you replaced four 60W incandescent bulbs with the 6W CFLs. That's a savings of 0.054kWh per hour of use. Now let's assume that you used those bulbs 24 hours a day for 30 straight days. That's:
(4)(0.054kW)(24 h/day)(30 days) = 155.52 kWh
You said you saved more than the cost of the 4 CFLs or ($3.50/bulb) * 4 bulbs = $14 in one month. That means you'd have to be paying at least:
($14)/(155.52kWh) = $0.09/kWh
That seems a little on the high end to me. That's assuming you had all four bulbs on 24 hours a day for 30 straight days, and that the incandescents you replaced were 60W (more than the claimed equivalent output of the CFLs). If you used them less than that, you would have to be paying even more per kWh to break even in one month. It seems to me that either you lowered your lighting level significantly, or the savings cannot be attributed entirely to the CFLs. Now I'm not against fluorescents, but I can't ignore the math.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Write article about pthreads. /. anonymously.
2) Copy article, but change "pthreads" to "Win32 threads".
3) Submit articles to
4) ???
5) Profit!
(Sorry, I was really starting to miss the Underpants Gnomes jokes. Does a cliche become less so if it hasn't been used for a while?)
Download the stuff off-campus and then send it to your on-campus site over a secured connection. So the RIAA can target you directly? If it's downloaded in a computer lab or on a dorm room computer, at least you have plausible deniability.
Maybe it's because it's in freaky deaky Dutch.
Although this would sound funny in ordinary situations, it makes sense in a statistical analysis. If the average difference in a quantity between two groups is small and either the sample sizes are very large or the variation within each group is small, you can say that they were found to be slightly, but significantly different. I left out some details, but that's the gist of it.
Minutes and hours, you say? I used a stopwatch to see how long it would take a Wii to be sold where I live. When I looked at the stopwatch, it actually said negative three seconds. Now that's fast.
Actually, in my introductory Econ class, I learned that scarcity increases price. The Wii is still being sold at the same price (in stores, anyway). I'm not saying scarcity can't increase demand, but I think you're confusing two different concepts.
Why, do poor people taste better if they've been fattened on biofuel?
So they're investigating a protein for piezoelectric power generation. But where does the connection to space exploration come in? If you want to generate electricity, using humans is not your best option. You're better off combusting fuel to generate steam to power a turbine (and then recycling the steam). Humans require carbohydrates and oxygen to produce mechanical work with water and CO2 as byproducts. Combustion engines do the same thing, only much more efficiently.
Sounds like a bunch of researchers stretching to make their work more attractive (and worthy of government funding). Or maybe a bunch of reporters spinning some research to make their publication more attractive. "Power generating spacesuits"? More like "power sucking spacesuits".
It's a little misleading. There is only one mention of "school" in the patent. However, it is mentioned, which is a little scary.
Have you seen Vista's interface? As someone who is skeptical of Microsoft's products and tactics, I have to say that, from what I've seen, Vista's GUI is beautiful. Not only are the title bars translucent, the image underneath is softened in real time. It is a gorgeous interface. But that won't convince me to buy into it. I'm more concerned with how they support their products. There's more to an operating system than the eye candy. I prefer to concern myself with what's under the hood rather than the paint job.
Do me a favor. Open TextEdit. Type "I am a smartass". Try to save the file as "smartass.txt". Can't do it? So you see my point. Mac interfaces are supposed to be intuitive. This wasn't. This is just another example of Apple living in a computing vacuum, where they ignore the norms of Linux and Windows applications.
First of all, smartass--can I call you smartass?--I don't give a flying fuck what it's called, I have never found any use for any variant of EMACS. Second, if you weren't such a knee-jerk, Steve Jobs loving Apple fanbois, you might stop to realize that if you create a text file in TextEdit (which was the first thing I tried) it will not let you save it in plain text. In MS Word and Wordpad, it always allows you to save plain text files after warning you that you will lose all formatting, of course. I was in a huge hurry, and I hadn't discovered the well-hidden option that lets you convert to plain text. Naturally, I assumed that the editor was incapable of saving plain text, so I searched apple.com's developer site for "plain text editor" and came up with nothing (go to developer.apple.com and try it for yourself if you don't believe me).
I'd like to stress that this was my first time using a Mac in about ten years, and my first time ever using one for development. I was actually running Panther inside PearPC on a Windows machine, so it was very slow and prone to crashing. This was spare-time, contract work, and all I wanted to do was get in, get the port compiled, and get out (so creating my own text editor from scratch was obviously out of the question). It was written to be cross-platform from the beginning, using FLTK for the GUI, so it should have taken a couple hours at most. However it ended up taking several days to get all the libraries I needed to compile. I'd say that's still pretty good for someone who's never touched a modern Mac before. But that TextEdit thing left a bad taste in my mouth.
Thanks, that's what I couldn't figure out. I wasn't editing an existing file; I was creating one from scratch, and it seemed to only allow me to save it in a rich text format.
I just ran out of mod points, but I definitely found this informative.
I had to do a Mac port of an application I was working on about a year ago. I needed to edit a plain text file on the Mac, and the editor that came with it would only save files to formats like html, rtf, etc. I don't know how to use old-school editors like EMACS, so I searched apple.com for info on how to edit plain text on a Mac. The only thing I could find was a third party application sold through apple.com called "Plain Text Editor(R)" that cost $20!!! Now, there probably is at least one free plain text editor for the Mac, but I couldn't find it after about an hour of searching. In Windows, it's just Start>Programs>Accessories>Notepad. Even after you pay the ridiculously high price for a Mac, you still have to pay for things (if you can find them at all) that are completely free on a Windows or Linux machine. And then there are those ass-backwards and poorly documented resource bundles. And the fact that applications launched through the GUI have no current directory. Macs are fine if all you want to do is surf the web and listen to music, but for a developer, they're severely lacking. No thank you.
Department of Intracollegiate Campus Killing Stoppers (DICKS)
Perhaps this is intended, as so many laws are, as a way to pile further punishment on criminals who have already been caught. "Not only were you caught trying to solicit sex from a minor, you were also using an unregistered screen name, Mr. Pedophile." Kind of like charging someone caught with cannabis with possession of "paraphernalia" because he also had rolling papers (not to mention intent to distribute because he had plastic bags in his kitchen.) On second thought, it's probably just more pointless, unenforceable legislation intended to evoke an emotional response from the voting public.
He was interviewed on NPR a few weeks ago, so surely they did some research to see if he's legit. I don't see your point about the $52/year roadside assistance. $52 isn't much, especially compared to the millions he owes. And he's obviously not penniless, since he can afford the fees for his domain registration and server space. However, I do think he's a greedy SOB who got what he deserved.
You must live in a fairly warm climate to be able to use fluorescents outdoors. As I understand it, fluorescents don't work in very cold (i.e., sub-freezing) weather. FYI, you can find CFLs in any spectrum you desire (soft white, warm white, cool white, bright white, daylight, etc.) if you shop around on the internet. Personally, I prefer the bluer side of the spectrum.
No, I'm just disputing the original claim that they paid for themselves in one month. It's generally agreed that if they are cared for properly, they will pay off eventually. That means not breaking them, not putting them in small enclosed fixtures (they will overheat), and not exposing them to voltage spikes.
Let's assume you replaced four 60W incandescent bulbs with the 6W CFLs. That's a savings of 0.054kWh per hour of use. Now let's assume that you used those bulbs 24 hours a day for 30 straight days. That's:
(4)(0.054kW)(24 h/day)(30 days) = 155.52 kWh
You said you saved more than the cost of the 4 CFLs or ($3.50/bulb) * 4 bulbs = $14 in one month. That means you'd have to be paying at least:
($14)/(155.52kWh) = $0.09/kWh
That seems a little on the high end to me. That's assuming you had all four bulbs on 24 hours a day for 30 straight days, and that the incandescents you replaced were 60W (more than the claimed equivalent output of the CFLs). If you used them less than that, you would have to be paying even more per kWh to break even in one month. It seems to me that either you lowered your lighting level significantly, or the savings cannot be attributed entirely to the CFLs. Now I'm not against fluorescents, but I can't ignore the math.