All Adobe need to do is release a press statement explaining that PDF is open, anyone can use it, and that they have no intention of sueing MS. They can even cite Apple and open source examples. It'll make MS look pretty stupid and foil their little FUD plan all at once.
In Iceland you can buy just about everything with plastic, however small. Even the buses accept cards. Having tried it, it made me wonder why the rest of us don't do the same.
Of course, a night out in Reykjavik really needs a credit card, but that's another story...
I was just musing how universities are finally getting out of the 'Dell sell everything we need' mindset, and getting back into big iron. The modern desktop is impressive, but there is still a place for big crunch. I've just been offered a chance to use a 1k-node cluster for some EM simulations. It's not about running the same old stuff faster, it's about being able to ask a whole bunch of new questions. Simulation runtime isn't determined by the hardware - it's how long the scientist is prepared to wait for the result. As computing power increases, runtime should stay roughly constant, it's just that the questions should get bigger.
There's money around for HPC, and Sun seem like they can tap it.
Yer brain is like yer gonads
on
An Alternate Human
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It hangs out of your body to stay cool. Curiously they're both hairy to.
I've already mentioned exercise, obesity, heart disease, etc. How about emissions? You do know they're most concentrated inside the vehicle? Oh, and you have the stress of trying to avoid those damn cyclists. Cycling is the perfect way to burn off stress too.
(b) less disruptive to others.
C'mon, read what you just wrote. Your gas-guzzling, fume-belching, child-squashing monster is less disruptive than my two wheels of human-powered happiness? That doesn't sound right.
Go on, get back on two wheels. Get a bike, ride it everywhere. It'll make you happy.
Do you have a car? Do you earn enough to pay for $1000 car?
I could afford, but do not want a car. Is that so strange? I don't need one. You seem to be suggesting I should buy a car because you have one? Maybe you should ride a bike and we'd both be happy?
Car/automobile drivers cost more money, because they take up more space on the road. This is becoming a critical issue in the UK, where space is a bit limited and cities were largely built before the car was common. Cities are literally grinding to a halt every morning and every evening as the masses travel to/from work. I cycle past them daily on my way to work. It make economic sense to get people out of cars, into buses, trams, cycling or walking. It's also cheaper for employers, as they don't need to provide as much parking space.
Overall, I see no reason why cyclists and automobiles can't share the same road if both groups drive sensibly.
It's a cyclic arguement (no pun intended!). It's unsafe for cyclists to use the road because drivers don't expect them. Drivers don't expect cyclists because less of them use the road. Et cetera.
This precise arguement makes it harder and harder to walk or cycle, while health problems such as obesity increase. Mundane everyday exercise is important, and a freedom worth protecting even if it means the speed limit has to be a little lower.
On a side note, is cycling really that rare where you are?
And for cyclists sharing the road with motorists: please consider driving in a safer environment.
Really? My freedom to cycle where I'm trying to get to is almost as important as my freedom to walk there. And while I'm on the road, it's your responsibility as a driver to look out for me. Same as you have to look out for pedestrians stepping out, or other drivings doing dumb things. When you sit behind the wheel, you take on that responsibility - that's your choice.
Speed limits were worked out to take account of what happens on the road. People change lanes, pull over, stop, turn left/right. They're not going the same place as you. I know you'd like to have the road to yourself, and it would be safer if you were the only one using it, but it's not really fair now, is it?
Nope. I don't have to - the law lets me cycle on the road as any other vehicle.
Am I the perfect cyclist? No, I do dumb things. I'm human and I make mistakes. That's why traffic laws are important, to reduce the risk. Imagine I'm waiting at a red light at an intersection. I might see a gap in traffic and think I can get across. I probably could, but there's a significant chance I can't, and that I'll cause an accident while trying. The law stops me, which is a Good Thing(tm).
Most drivers can probably talk on the phone and drive at the same time without causing an accident most of the time. But the odds are less good than not using the phone, and the outcome can be very bad if it goes wrong. Not worth the risk.
True. But part of being a societal norm is that you can do it without anyone shouting at you. It used to be perfectly normal (here in the UK at least) to drive to the pub, have a few drinks, and drive home again. A very successful public campaign has changed that norm, and it is now socially unacceptable. If using a phone while driving is to reach the same state, we have to keep shouting at people who do it, and reminding them that their phone call may kill someone.
As a cyclist and pedestrian I'd say yes, ban them all. It's driving without due care. A car is a big, dangerous lump of metal. Too many drivers forget that. Are you seriously telling me you can drink coffee and keep full attention on the road at the same time? Is it really so hard to pull over, or wait 5 minutes to finish your coffee, apply your makeup, or whatever it is you have to do? Don't these drivers *think* before killing someone?
America doesn't appear to take Amnesty seriously in this case. After all, the USA is all about protecting freedom, right? There again, China doesn't take Amnesty to seriously either, when they complain about Chinese human rights abuses. Or DR Congo, or whichever country you care to pick.
The rest of the world really think Amnesty are worth listening to, and that Guantanamo shouldn't exist. Rights are meant for everyone, not just the guys on your side.
It's sad, but for the desktop and server world I'll have to agree with you. The strange thing is the timing. Different architectures have battled it out for years. Finally, with the spread of Linux, BSD, and OSS in general, the underlying architecture makes less difference - I can just port/recompile the bits I want, and my users see the same front. But all the other processors have disappeared, and we're left with x86.
Maybe the Chinese will design something crazy, and radically different...
Yeah, but/. isn't meant to be an introduction. It's not like ODF hasn't been in the news for a while, so most of us have already heard of it. For the minority that haven't, it's not so difficult to find out. Now if ODF was some obscure TLA that very few people have heard before (Oregon Department of Forestry?), things would be different...
Yes but common sense refers to the time the patent application is filed. I agree that lots of ideas are obvious after someone has had them. That is why you file the patent, and then tell the world about it. But if your idea was obvious before you suggested it, that's common sense and isn't (and shouldn't be) protected. If all obvious ideas could be patented, it becomes a race to file patents, and innovation naver gets a look in. Which appears to be how the US patent office functions.
the question is not total accuracy at one point in time, but overall accuracy over a long period of time. Wikipedia is constantly changing; Britannica is less frequently updated.
It's a matter of statistics. Is wikipedia getting better, worse, or staying at the same accuracy? We could argue that it's getting better, but let's assume it is staying the same. As quickly as I add my expert knowledge to an article and improve it, you've added your dumbass opinion to another piece (just kidding) and lower the quality. But on average, the quality is the same. Wikipedia still contains an average 4 mistakes per article, they just move around.
So you're saying that depression is caused by some fuzzy unknown related to modern western lifestyles, and that we needn't worry too much about the details?
It seems to me that depression is a complicated state, having many different causes, and a selection of different symptoms in different people. Maybe EM fields are part of the story. I'm not saying this is a great article, but it doesn't mean the principle is bad. And no, I'm not buying the 'dirty electricity' idea, but it might be worth asking about different frequency ranges. Think about the spectrum banging through your head - 50Hz up to several GHz. Does none of that do anything bad? There is currently no proof it is unsafe, but that's different to saying it is safe.
In university research labs it's common for a user to have root on his or her own machine. I have root access to my machine - it is mine after all. I can mess around with it in any way I want, and if I cock it up, it's my fault and I have to pick up the pieces. It gives me a chance to learn a bit more about how my system works, and to try things out. But I absolutely should not have root access to the rest on the network. I'm too likely to break something important. Local root is useful, network root would be stupid.
But what's the point? Is there really much kudos in taking down access to a marketing gimick? It's a bit like taking down the video server on BMWs web site. The grid itself was completely untouched, and carried on buisness as usual. It just means the rest of us can't play. Pointless, technically unimpressive.
Slashdot Mirror
All Adobe need to do is release a press statement explaining that PDF is open, anyone can use it, and that they have no intention of sueing MS. They can even cite Apple and open source examples. It'll make MS look pretty stupid and foil their little FUD plan all at once.
Or maybe a Reliant Robin?
In Iceland you can buy just about everything with plastic, however small. Even the buses accept cards. Having tried it, it made me wonder why the rest of us don't do the same.
Of course, a night out in Reykjavik really needs a credit card, but that's another story...
I was just musing how universities are finally getting out of the 'Dell sell everything we need' mindset, and getting back into big iron. The modern desktop is impressive, but there is still a place for big crunch. I've just been offered a chance to use a 1k-node cluster for some EM simulations. It's not about running the same old stuff faster, it's about being able to ask a whole bunch of new questions. Simulation runtime isn't determined by the hardware - it's how long the scientist is prepared to wait for the result. As computing power increases, runtime should stay roughly constant, it's just that the questions should get bigger.
There's money around for HPC, and Sun seem like they can tap it.
It hangs out of your body to stay cool. Curiously they're both hairy to.
Now I know you're messing with me ;-)
(a) car is less dangerous
I've already mentioned exercise, obesity, heart disease, etc. How about emissions? You do know they're most concentrated inside the vehicle? Oh, and you have the stress of trying to avoid those damn cyclists. Cycling is the perfect way to burn off stress too.
(b) less disruptive to others.
C'mon, read what you just wrote. Your gas-guzzling, fume-belching, child-squashing monster is less disruptive than my two wheels of human-powered happiness? That doesn't sound right.
Go on, get back on two wheels. Get a bike, ride it everywhere. It'll make you happy.
Do you have a car? Do you earn enough to pay for $1000 car?
I could afford, but do not want a car. Is that so strange? I don't need one. You seem to be suggesting I should buy a car because you have one? Maybe you should ride a bike and we'd both be happy?
Car/automobile drivers cost more money, because they take up more space on the road. This is becoming a critical issue in the UK, where space is a bit limited and cities were largely built before the car was common. Cities are literally grinding to a halt every morning and every evening as the masses travel to/from work. I cycle past them daily on my way to work. It make economic sense to get people out of cars, into buses, trams, cycling or walking. It's also cheaper for employers, as they don't need to provide as much parking space.
Overall, I see no reason why cyclists and automobiles can't share the same road if both groups drive sensibly.
Well said.
It's a cyclic arguement (no pun intended!). It's unsafe for cyclists to use the road because drivers don't expect them. Drivers don't expect cyclists because less of them use the road. Et cetera.
This precise arguement makes it harder and harder to walk or cycle, while health problems such as obesity increase. Mundane everyday exercise is important, and a freedom worth protecting even if it means the speed limit has to be a little lower.
On a side note, is cycling really that rare where you are?
And for cyclists sharing the road with motorists: please consider driving in a safer environment.
Really? My freedom to cycle where I'm trying to get to is almost as important as my freedom to walk there. And while I'm on the road, it's your responsibility as a driver to look out for me. Same as you have to look out for pedestrians stepping out, or other drivings doing dumb things. When you sit behind the wheel, you take on that responsibility - that's your choice.
Speed limits were worked out to take account of what happens on the road. People change lanes, pull over, stop, turn left/right. They're not going the same place as you. I know you'd like to have the road to yourself, and it would be safer if you were the only one using it, but it's not really fair now, is it?
Nope. I don't have to - the law lets me cycle on the road as any other vehicle.
Am I the perfect cyclist? No, I do dumb things. I'm human and I make mistakes. That's why traffic laws are important, to reduce the risk. Imagine I'm waiting at a red light at an intersection. I might see a gap in traffic and think I can get across. I probably could, but there's a significant chance I can't, and that I'll cause an accident while trying. The law stops me, which is a Good Thing(tm).
Most drivers can probably talk on the phone and drive at the same time without causing an accident most of the time. But the odds are less good than not using the phone, and the outcome can be very bad if it goes wrong. Not worth the risk.
True. But part of being a societal norm is that you can do it without anyone shouting at you. It used to be perfectly normal (here in the UK at least) to drive to the pub, have a few drinks, and drive home again. A very successful public campaign has changed that norm, and it is now socially unacceptable. If using a phone while driving is to reach the same state, we have to keep shouting at people who do it, and reminding them that their phone call may kill someone.
As a cyclist and pedestrian I'd say yes, ban them all. It's driving without due care. A car is a big, dangerous lump of metal. Too many drivers forget that. Are you seriously telling me you can drink coffee and keep full attention on the road at the same time? Is it really so hard to pull over, or wait 5 minutes to finish your coffee, apply your makeup, or whatever it is you have to do? Don't these drivers *think* before killing someone?
America doesn't appear to take Amnesty seriously in this case. After all, the USA is all about protecting freedom, right? There again, China doesn't take Amnesty to seriously either, when they complain about Chinese human rights abuses. Or DR Congo, or whichever country you care to pick. The rest of the world really think Amnesty are worth listening to, and that Guantanamo shouldn't exist. Rights are meant for everyone, not just the guys on your side.
It's sad, but for the desktop and server world I'll have to agree with you. The strange thing is the timing. Different architectures have battled it out for years. Finally, with the spread of Linux, BSD, and OSS in general, the underlying architecture makes less difference - I can just port/recompile the bits I want, and my users see the same front. But all the other processors have disappeared, and we're left with x86.
Maybe the Chinese will design something crazy, and radically different...
Yeah, but /. isn't meant to be an introduction. It's not like ODF hasn't been in the news for a while, so most of us have already heard of it. For the minority that haven't, it's not so difficult to find out. Now if ODF was some obscure TLA that very few people have heard before (Oregon Department of Forestry?), things would be different...
Isn't that why wikipedia was invented? Google seem to think so. Keep up.
I think he's clockwork. Somebody puts a big key in his back every morning and winds him up. That's how Bill Gates works.
Yes but common sense refers to the time the patent application is filed. I agree that lots of ideas are obvious after someone has had them. That is why you file the patent, and then tell the world about it. But if your idea was obvious before you suggested it, that's common sense and isn't (and shouldn't be) protected. If all obvious ideas could be patented, it becomes a race to file patents, and innovation naver gets a look in. Which appears to be how the US patent office functions.
the question is not total accuracy at one point in time, but overall accuracy over a long period of time. Wikipedia is constantly changing; Britannica is less frequently updated.
It's a matter of statistics. Is wikipedia getting better, worse, or staying at the same accuracy? We could argue that it's getting better, but let's assume it is staying the same. As quickly as I add my expert knowledge to an article and improve it, you've added your dumbass opinion to another piece (just kidding) and lower the quality. But on average, the quality is the same. Wikipedia still contains an average 4 mistakes per article, they just move around.
Since nobody else has listed it yet, here's the Karma Sutra as you've never seen it before!
So you're saying that depression is caused by some fuzzy unknown related to modern western lifestyles, and that we needn't worry too much about the details? It seems to me that depression is a complicated state, having many different causes, and a selection of different symptoms in different people. Maybe EM fields are part of the story. I'm not saying this is a great article, but it doesn't mean the principle is bad. And no, I'm not buying the 'dirty electricity' idea, but it might be worth asking about different frequency ranges. Think about the spectrum banging through your head - 50Hz up to several GHz. Does none of that do anything bad? There is currently no proof it is unsafe, but that's different to saying it is safe.
In university research labs it's common for a user to have root on his or her own machine. I have root access to my machine - it is mine after all. I can mess around with it in any way I want, and if I cock it up, it's my fault and I have to pick up the pieces. It gives me a chance to learn a bit more about how my system works, and to try things out. But I absolutely should not have root access to the rest on the network. I'm too likely to break something important. Local root is useful, network root would be stupid.
But what's the point? Is there really much kudos in taking down access to a marketing gimick? It's a bit like taking down the video server on BMWs web site. The grid itself was completely untouched, and carried on buisness as usual. It just means the rest of us can't play. Pointless, technically unimpressive.
But I have a patent on thinking of smart ways to stop me getting rich. Talk to my lawyers!