I can understand that (though CSS has almost got us to the point where HTML layout when printing is sufficient), and honestly it's more of a misplaced annoyance than anything else: Quite frequently I come across sites which put absolutely basic information in PDFs in a manner where the printability is of no benefit at all.
Damnit...clicked no score +1 rather than post anonymously. Mea culpa.
I am just being an idiot, though. Personally I think that websites should pursue accessibility, and if allowing the disabled to be your customers isn't enough incentive, then the fact that accessibility often goes along with basic good design practices should be. The next time that employee fires up a copy of Flash and tries to "coolify" the website, slap em around.
Isn't it even more revealing that the government uses the archaic and obsolete PDF standard for documents? What about all of the poor people without PDF?
It's god damn TEXT people : USE HTML. PDF is the letterhead/jazzy businesscard of the era: Wankers thinks it makes documents look more professional. It doesn't.
If your CRT is making noise i have to wonder if perhaps something's wrong with it. Mine makes not a sound.
Do you ever walk into a room with a muted, black TV (i.e. the cable box is off) and you know that the TV is on without even looking? NTSC cathode ray tubes emit a high frequency hum at ~15,750Hz that some people are more sensitive to than others. I personally lived a sheltered childhood, so I still have a lot of my hearing and am very attuned to high frequency noises like that.
Anyways, the segue is that for the same reasons many computer monitors make a distinct, very high pitched noise at certain frequencies. Some is transient (i.e. you flick it and it disappears for a while) while there are other components of the noise that are always there.
Boy, you added a lot to the discussion. I suppose we're to presume that beneath your multiple nick, limited vocabulary exterior there exists a genius who just needn't waste the time explaining something so simple?
As mentioned, apart from the original ARP broadcast (which is a nice versatility of Ethernet), a network of pure ethernet switches route packets based upon mac assignments per port, allowing for a hierarchical network based structure, much like TCP/IP. If someone has a duplicate MAC address on a large Ethernet network, the automatic discovery will cause chaos as routers assign the same destination to multiple ports.
It's in quotes because it implies that the reader has a moderate intelligence and can use the term "routing" literally (meaning "finding the most direct path". I find a "route" to work, but that doesn't mean I run TCP/IP), rather than "in my MCSE course" (which I _knew_ some moron, yourself being a perfect example, which come swaggering in proclaiming). If you have an interconnected network of layer 2 ethernet switches, the path between any two users, regardless of the number of points in between, will "route" based upon the MAC addresses that each switch has assigned to each port. A network of interconnected ethernet switches is no different than an interconnected network of layer 3 or higher devices.
You might want to take a look at those crazy modern switches we have these days: There is a world beyond hubs you know.
I really don't believe that it's possible to have a faultless patent office: There are millions of inventions yearly, and patent examiners aren't infalliable - There is no way that they can know everything about everything, all while maintaining a brain history of every patent ever filed to avoid overlap. On top of that, the patent office really seems to have a policy of "grant the patent and let the courts settle it if conflict arises", which may be fair. If the swing guy (whose satirical patent is brilliant) tries to start suing children, then the real validity will come to play. Let's face it: Most patents filed have been filed just so that the maker can claim 40 patents on a plunger or flashlight (of course some of them are too lazy, and just claim the even more worthless "patent pending").
The real issue comes into play when courts are involved. It seems to me (personal opinion, not statement of fact) that this PanIP is a predatory patent abuser that engages in willful barratry, with specific intent to limit the venue of justice for their victims (i.e. the onus of responsibility to be forced to travel to their court district alone is financial incentive to just pay up to their, in my opinion, blackmail). If the patent office insists upon granting any patent, then lawsuits involving patents should be more balanced: If you want to sue someone for a patent, a summary judgement regarding the financial capability of both parties should be completed and if it's against a small, low income company (hence almost certainly patent blackmail), then the petitioner can go to their district and fight it out.
Re:What (cool thing) could you do w/multiple devic
on
Tackling AGP 8X
·
· Score: 1
While you most certainly don't need multiple AGP ports for multi-monitor (there are several solutions: Most video cards nowadays let you multihead with a single card. Examples: GF4 4400 (using that in this PC right now), ATI 8500, Matrox (Matrox even has a triple head solution). Occasionally you need to get a DVI->VGA adapter for the second port if you don't have a DVI LCD screen, but it isn't a biggie.
Right now as I type this I'm typing on the right monitor while on the left monitor I have a game of Urban Terror going (I'm dead right now so I have some downtime). Normally I use dual-monitors to have documentation (i.e. web sites, MSDN, etc) open on one monitor and the development environment on the other. It really is brilliant and I find it difficult operating without it now.
There is very limited common ground between software development and medical development, so using one as an example for the other is pretty goofy. Software development is a hobby for a lot of people: It's something that they like to do. Drug development is tedious, takes tremendous resources, and is generally the kind of thing that you have to pay people to do as it's not really something they would do otherwise.
I swear, sometimes when I see the intellectual games played with logic in contradiction of obvious reality
Oh, right, because there's all those kids developing new drugs in their garages, right?
Advertising is something like 1/3 of the cost of a drug nowadays. No doubt a small amount of this is essential to break a drug into the public consciousness, but
Drug companies generally only advertise "lifestyle" drugs: Happy pills, or pills to give you an erection. They generally don't advertise the pills that'll stop you from rejecting a transplant, or to keep HIV from exploding into full-blown AIDS. Indeed, if you really looked at it, drugs like Viagra or Prozac are profit centers: That advertising helps those companies make that much more money, which goes in the big pot that supports the R&D that's working on the drug that helps grandpa live a fuller happier life. Simply looking at a balance sheet and presuming that all advertising is evil could be missing the forest for the tree (what an odd saying).
No, I'm hungup about the pretense and introduction that tries to portray that they dropped two teams in a real junkyard and look at what they've created. Again, the show clearly tries to sell itself on the accessibility factor: The "you could go and do this at your local junkyard!" kind of personal factor. I believe that's a bunch of BS.
Let me put it another way. Imagine that there's a show called "Hidden Gems" that randomly goes to households and asks to see in their basement, and their team of appraisers look for hidden gems. Of course, 99% of the time they'll find nothing but old smurfs and coke cans. Now what if, in the interest of making it exciting, they stocked a basement full of precious antiques, hired a homeowner to act shocked and talk about how it was passed down by their ancient grammy, and then portrayed a scenario where everyone had great antiques in their basement. Would that be "ay okay" to you? It wouldn't to me: It's lying, plain and simple.
Junkyard Wars is a scavenger hunt for planted materials. Is it necessary to make it interesting? Perhaps. Does it bother me that they try to pretend that it's something else? Yes.
Besides, in some of the high-angle shots, you can see the junkyard is only a couple of acres in size. It's necessary to 'salt' it with some usable items. If the teams had access to a couple-of-mile-square junkyard, it would be less necessary to 'salt' it.
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read on slashdot, and that's saying a lot. If it was a fullsized junkyard with an actual mix of "junk", then the signal to noise ratio would be dramatically dramatically lower: They would spend 3 hours pulling an engine, hooking up an ignition system, and then finding that it's seized and there isn't a hope in hell of getting it going. As it is it appears that a dramatically high percentage of mechanized objects work off the bat, often with fully functional ignition systems, and they're usually conveniently full of oil and other necessary ingredients. Convenient.
Idiot.
Look, maybe you're a fanatical JYW fan who can't wait to get his fix, but you come across just like a wrestling (an analogy that I believe fits very well) fan explaining how it isn't "fake" because of this and that, etc. It ISN'T a junkyard anything like what one would normally find. It isn't a junkyard any more than WW-whatever-they-are-now is a sport: Sure, maybe they can do some neat moves and are very fit, but that doesn't make it real.
Then why bother with the fraudulent pretense of it being a "junkyard"? It isn't a junkyard: It's a scavenger hunt for planted objects amongst some junk. The intro to the show specifically makes claims that they're challenged to build something useful out of items found in a junkyard, giving the impression that it isn't objects that have been planted in a junkyard.
The whole junkyard veil is lame and makes watching it akin to watching wrestling: It's a false pretense.
One of the reasons I was quickly turned off of the show is because of the seemingly mysterious apperance of items that seemed perfect for the challenge at hand (to the point that in one episode there were rocket engines hidden through the `junkward':-)). My question is this: Was the junkyard stacked with items specifically chosen for each challenge: i.e. components necessary for a boat, etc.
It just seems a bit false how the show portrays itself as an engineering challenge involving creating objects from random objects in a junkyard, when in reality it seemed to have been specifically stocked with pertinent objects for each show. Why not just eliminate the scavenger hunt and just give the teams an equal pile of appropriate components?
I'm not commenting regarding the specifics of this case (i.e. if indeed they patented a human gene that naturally exists, barring other people from being able to test for it in novel ways, then that is quite simply wrong. If, on the other hand, they invested blood sweat and tears to develop a new test that didn't exist before, opening up a diagnostic avenue that previously didn't exist, then that is quite a bit different), however it's simplifying to say that one "values profits more than human life". A good example is drug companies: They don't give their drugs away for free. If you have a life threatening disease, you may very well die if you refuse to pay them for the right to take their concoctions. Of course, those drugs wouldn't exist in many cases if they weren't making profits, and if they were forced to give them away "for the children!". In other words, those that are saved by the drugs fund the making of the drug that saved them, and the drugs that save the next batch of people. There is a whole associated train of argument such as whether it's fair that health conglomerates often use university research as the basis for IP protected works, but I'm not going there: As it is I see the IP laws, and profit, as the reason that we have a lot of the life saving technology that we have today.
A paradoxical relative of your subject line could be "Valuing the abolition of profits and IP more than human life".
Is this supposed to be some sort of sarcastic comment regarding sexism in healthcare? If so then you might be misinterpreting. For example, there is a test for prostate cancer called a PSA, a relatively inexpensive test that is effective at catching prostate cancer in the early stages: All men advancing in age should get it yearly or bi-yearly. Here in Ontario OHIP refuses to cover it, forcing patients to pay for it themselves.
Oh, one thing: these things leave oily residue all over *everything*.
That's actually something I've wondered about: Obviously they're also leaving oily residue all over the inside of your lungs. How safe are those things? At least the dry ice ones are just carbon dioxide, but the oil based ones just seem a little risky.
The concept of mutual retaliatiotion implies that two countries are on the opposite side
What country doesn't have enemies? Never did I say, btw, that nukes are retaliation for nukes.
Nuclear weapons, with an appropriate delivery mechanism, basically say "you cannot defeat me without enormous cost". If Iraq somehow defeated the US conventionally (as absurdly ridiculous as that is), then there would be several thousand warheads headed their way to obliterate the country. Nuclear weapons have little battlefield value apart from defensive (because what use is conquered land if it's a nuclear wasteland?)
I also realize that it's foolish to take modern philosophy regarding nuclear weapons and transpose them into World War II, where it was largely an unknown (and there was zero fear from the "enemy" regarding it given that they knew nothing about it. Much of the peace of the past 50+ years has to do with the fear factor put into play at Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Is it better to kill people the old fashioned way using explosives that obliterate them into scattered pieces?
I think its great that North Korea doesn't adhere to America's demands. Not doing so doesn't make them bad.
North Korea is much like a homeless person desperately committing violent crimes on street corners: They have nothing to lose. That is the reason why much of the world is fearful of NK with nukes: Israel, the UK, Russia, the US- All have "something to live for", so to speak, so their nukes largely are retaliatory. Mutually assured destruction, if you will. North Korea, on the other hand, seems like the kind of nutbar country that would take action knowing full well that it would be obliterated: What's there to lose?
If you're looking for a great example of anti-Americanism, I would hardly consider North Korea a good choice: A despotic, shithole of a country where millions continue to starve to death while the leadership builds giant monstrosity of buildings in a desperate attempt to portray itself as a successful nation.
For a historical example, just take a peek at East and West Germany, or virtually all of the Eastern Bloc countries, and the reunification thereof. While there was much doom and gloom about the trouble that would result, it looks like they did a pretty good job, and much of Eastern Germany got pulled up by its bootstraps to a similar level that West Germany had enjoyed.
It's sort of a given, isn't it? Good things=South Korea. Bad things=North Korea. I'd call that a stereotype if it weren't for the fact that it's completely true.
Slashdot Mirror
I can understand that (though CSS has almost got us to the point where HTML layout when printing is sufficient), and honestly it's more of a misplaced annoyance than anything else: Quite frequently I come across sites which put absolutely basic information in PDFs in a manner where the printability is of no benefit at all.
Damnit...clicked no score +1 rather than post anonymously. Mea culpa.
I am just being an idiot, though. Personally I think that websites should pursue accessibility, and if allowing the disabled to be your customers isn't enough incentive, then the fact that accessibility often goes along with basic good design practices should be. The next time that employee fires up a copy of Flash and tries to "coolify" the website, slap em around.
Isn't it even more revealing that the government uses the archaic and obsolete PDF standard for documents? What about all of the poor people without PDF?
It's god damn TEXT people : USE HTML. PDF is the letterhead/jazzy businesscard of the era: Wankers thinks it makes documents look more professional. It doesn't.
If your CRT is making noise i have to wonder if perhaps something's wrong with it. Mine makes not a sound.
Do you ever walk into a room with a muted, black TV (i.e. the cable box is off) and you know that the TV is on without even looking? NTSC cathode ray tubes emit a high frequency hum at ~15,750Hz that some people are more sensitive to than others. I personally lived a sheltered childhood, so I still have a lot of my hearing and am very attuned to high frequency noises like that.
Anyways, the segue is that for the same reasons many computer monitors make a distinct, very high pitched noise at certain frequencies. Some is transient (i.e. you flick it and it disappears for a while) while there are other components of the noise that are always there.
Boy, you added a lot to the discussion. I suppose we're to presume that beneath your multiple nick, limited vocabulary exterior there exists a genius who just needn't waste the time explaining something so simple?
As mentioned, apart from the original ARP broadcast (which is a nice versatility of Ethernet), a network of pure ethernet switches route packets based upon mac assignments per port, allowing for a hierarchical network based structure, much like TCP/IP. If someone has a duplicate MAC address on a large Ethernet network, the automatic discovery will cause chaos as routers assign the same destination to multiple ports.
It's in quotes because it implies that the reader has a moderate intelligence and can use the term "routing" literally (meaning "finding the most direct path". I find a "route" to work, but that doesn't mean I run TCP/IP), rather than "in my MCSE course" (which I _knew_ some moron, yourself being a perfect example, which come swaggering in proclaiming). If you have an interconnected network of layer 2 ethernet switches, the path between any two users, regardless of the number of points in between, will "route" based upon the MAC addresses that each switch has assigned to each port. A network of interconnected ethernet switches is no different than an interconnected network of layer 3 or higher devices.
You might want to take a look at those crazy modern switches we have these days: There is a world beyond hubs you know.
Ethernet layer 2 switches use MAC addresses for "routing", and are by far most prolific.
I really don't believe that it's possible to have a faultless patent office: There are millions of inventions yearly, and patent examiners aren't infalliable - There is no way that they can know everything about everything, all while maintaining a brain history of every patent ever filed to avoid overlap. On top of that, the patent office really seems to have a policy of "grant the patent and let the courts settle it if conflict arises", which may be fair. If the swing guy (whose satirical patent is brilliant) tries to start suing children, then the real validity will come to play. Let's face it: Most patents filed have been filed just so that the maker can claim 40 patents on a plunger or flashlight (of course some of them are too lazy, and just claim the even more worthless "patent pending").
The real issue comes into play when courts are involved. It seems to me (personal opinion, not statement of fact) that this PanIP is a predatory patent abuser that engages in willful barratry, with specific intent to limit the venue of justice for their victims (i.e. the onus of responsibility to be forced to travel to their court district alone is financial incentive to just pay up to their, in my opinion, blackmail). If the patent office insists upon granting any patent, then lawsuits involving patents should be more balanced: If you want to sue someone for a patent, a summary judgement regarding the financial capability of both parties should be completed and if it's against a small, low income company (hence almost certainly patent blackmail), then the petitioner can go to their district and fight it out.
While you most certainly don't need multiple AGP ports for multi-monitor (there are several solutions: Most video cards nowadays let you multihead with a single card. Examples: GF4 4400 (using that in this PC right now), ATI 8500, Matrox (Matrox even has a triple head solution). Occasionally you need to get a DVI->VGA adapter for the second port if you don't have a DVI LCD screen, but it isn't a biggie.
Right now as I type this I'm typing on the right monitor while on the left monitor I have a game of Urban Terror going (I'm dead right now so I have some downtime). Normally I use dual-monitors to have documentation (i.e. web sites, MSDN, etc) open on one monitor and the development environment on the other. It really is brilliant and I find it difficult operating without it now.
You're rather passionate about this, aren't you?
There is very limited common ground between software development and medical development, so using one as an example for the other is pretty goofy. Software development is a hobby for a lot of people: It's something that they like to do. Drug development is tedious, takes tremendous resources, and is generally the kind of thing that you have to pay people to do as it's not really something they would do otherwise.
I swear, sometimes when I see the intellectual games played with logic in contradiction of obvious reality
Oh, right, because there's all those kids developing new drugs in their garages, right?
Advertising is something like 1/3 of the cost of a drug nowadays. No doubt a small amount of this is essential to break a drug into the public consciousness, but
Drug companies generally only advertise "lifestyle" drugs: Happy pills, or pills to give you an erection. They generally don't advertise the pills that'll stop you from rejecting a transplant, or to keep HIV from exploding into full-blown AIDS. Indeed, if you really looked at it, drugs like Viagra or Prozac are profit centers: That advertising helps those companies make that much more money, which goes in the big pot that supports the R&D that's working on the drug that helps grandpa live a fuller happier life. Simply looking at a balance sheet and presuming that all advertising is evil could be missing the forest for the tree (what an odd saying).
No, I'm hungup about the pretense and introduction that tries to portray that they dropped two teams in a real junkyard and look at what they've created. Again, the show clearly tries to sell itself on the accessibility factor: The "you could go and do this at your local junkyard!" kind of personal factor. I believe that's a bunch of BS.
Let me put it another way. Imagine that there's a show called "Hidden Gems" that randomly goes to households and asks to see in their basement, and their team of appraisers look for hidden gems. Of course, 99% of the time they'll find nothing but old smurfs and coke cans. Now what if, in the interest of making it exciting, they stocked a basement full of precious antiques, hired a homeowner to act shocked and talk about how it was passed down by their ancient grammy, and then portrayed a scenario where everyone had great antiques in their basement. Would that be "ay okay" to you? It wouldn't to me: It's lying, plain and simple.
Junkyard Wars is a scavenger hunt for planted materials. Is it necessary to make it interesting? Perhaps. Does it bother me that they try to pretend that it's something else? Yes.
Besides, in some of the high-angle shots, you can see the junkyard is only a couple of acres in size. It's necessary to 'salt' it with some usable items. If the teams had access to a couple-of-mile-square junkyard, it would be less necessary to 'salt' it.
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read on slashdot, and that's saying a lot. If it was a fullsized junkyard with an actual mix of "junk", then the signal to noise ratio would be dramatically dramatically lower: They would spend 3 hours pulling an engine, hooking up an ignition system, and then finding that it's seized and there isn't a hope in hell of getting it going. As it is it appears that a dramatically high percentage of mechanized objects work off the bat, often with fully functional ignition systems, and they're usually conveniently full of oil and other necessary ingredients. Convenient.
Idiot.
Look, maybe you're a fanatical JYW fan who can't wait to get his fix, but you come across just like a wrestling (an analogy that I believe fits very well) fan explaining how it isn't "fake" because of this and that, etc. It ISN'T a junkyard anything like what one would normally find. It isn't a junkyard any more than WW-whatever-they-are-now is a sport: Sure, maybe they can do some neat moves and are very fit, but that doesn't make it real.
Then why bother with the fraudulent pretense of it being a "junkyard"? It isn't a junkyard: It's a scavenger hunt for planted objects amongst some junk. The intro to the show specifically makes claims that they're challenged to build something useful out of items found in a junkyard, giving the impression that it isn't objects that have been planted in a junkyard.
The whole junkyard veil is lame and makes watching it akin to watching wrestling: It's a false pretense.
One of the reasons I was quickly turned off of the show is because of the seemingly mysterious apperance of items that seemed perfect for the challenge at hand (to the point that in one episode there were rocket engines hidden through the `junkward' :-)). My question is this: Was the junkyard stacked with items specifically chosen for each challenge: i.e. components necessary for a boat, etc.
It just seems a bit false how the show portrays itself as an engineering challenge involving creating objects from random objects in a junkyard, when in reality it seemed to have been specifically stocked with pertinent objects for each show. Why not just eliminate the scavenger hunt and just give the teams an equal pile of appropriate components?
Valuing profits more than human life?
I'm not commenting regarding the specifics of this case (i.e. if indeed they patented a human gene that naturally exists, barring other people from being able to test for it in novel ways, then that is quite simply wrong. If, on the other hand, they invested blood sweat and tears to develop a new test that didn't exist before, opening up a diagnostic avenue that previously didn't exist, then that is quite a bit different), however it's simplifying to say that one "values profits more than human life". A good example is drug companies: They don't give their drugs away for free. If you have a life threatening disease, you may very well die if you refuse to pay them for the right to take their concoctions. Of course, those drugs wouldn't exist in many cases if they weren't making profits, and if they were forced to give them away "for the children!". In other words, those that are saved by the drugs fund the making of the drug that saved them, and the drugs that save the next batch of people. There is a whole associated train of argument such as whether it's fair that health conglomerates often use university research as the basis for IP protected works, but I'm not going there: As it is I see the IP laws, and profit, as the reason that we have a lot of the life saving technology that we have today.
A paradoxical relative of your subject line could be "Valuing the abolition of profits and IP more than human life".
Is this supposed to be some sort of sarcastic comment regarding sexism in healthcare? If so then you might be misinterpreting. For example, there is a test for prostate cancer called a PSA, a relatively inexpensive test that is effective at catching prostate cancer in the early stages: All men advancing in age should get it yearly or bi-yearly. Here in Ontario OHIP refuses to cover it, forcing patients to pay for it themselves.
Oh, one thing: these things leave oily residue all over *everything*.
That's actually something I've wondered about: Obviously they're also leaving oily residue all over the inside of your lungs. How safe are those things? At least the dry ice ones are just carbon dioxide, but the oil based ones just seem a little risky.
The concept of mutual retaliatiotion implies that two countries are on the opposite side
What country doesn't have enemies? Never did I say, btw, that nukes are retaliation for nukes.
Nuclear weapons, with an appropriate delivery mechanism, basically say "you cannot defeat me without enormous cost". If Iraq somehow defeated the US conventionally (as absurdly ridiculous as that is), then there would be several thousand warheads headed their way to obliterate the country. Nuclear weapons have little battlefield value apart from defensive (because what use is conquered land if it's a nuclear wasteland?)
I also realize that it's foolish to take modern philosophy regarding nuclear weapons and transpose them into World War II, where it was largely an unknown (and there was zero fear from the "enemy" regarding it given that they knew nothing about it. Much of the peace of the past 50+ years has to do with the fear factor put into play at Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Is it better to kill people the old fashioned way using explosives that obliterate them into scattered pieces?
I think its great that North Korea doesn't adhere to America's demands. Not doing so doesn't make them bad.
North Korea is much like a homeless person desperately committing violent crimes on street corners: They have nothing to lose. That is the reason why much of the world is fearful of NK with nukes: Israel, the UK, Russia, the US- All have "something to live for", so to speak, so their nukes largely are retaliatory. Mutually assured destruction, if you will. North Korea, on the other hand, seems like the kind of nutbar country that would take action knowing full well that it would be obliterated: What's there to lose?
If you're looking for a great example of anti-Americanism, I would hardly consider North Korea a good choice: A despotic, shithole of a country where millions continue to starve to death while the leadership builds giant monstrosity of buildings in a desperate attempt to portray itself as a successful nation.
For a historical example, just take a peek at East and West Germany, or virtually all of the Eastern Bloc countries, and the reunification thereof. While there was much doom and gloom about the trouble that would result, it looks like they did a pretty good job, and much of Eastern Germany got pulled up by its bootstraps to a similar level that West Germany had enjoyed.
It's sort of a given, isn't it? Good things=South Korea. Bad things=North Korea. I'd call that a stereotype if it weren't for the fact that it's completely true.
Interesting. But if one of the missiles fails to explode, allowing the receiver to obtain the binary code, haven't they then failed to obey the GPL?
You should see the screwdriver he designed...
Otherwise known as the "stripinator". Robertson's is clearly superior.