Please Microsoft, do something new that's not copying Apple and Google....
Why? So you can post on/. how MS is is shunning all the "standards" out there and how terrible it is that they always have to do their own things when there's already perfectly good solutions out there for all kinds of stuff?
If you want to show anger towards linux, I recommend choosing a different path than complaining about it being built to standards like Posix and SUS.
Wait... but when MS makes something strictly to a standard then they're... "a copycat"? And when they're making something to a standard but then improve on it then it's "embrace, extend, control"? And if they do something that's completely different from any existing standard people moan how non-standard MS products are? So what exactly are they supposed to do?
One day I'd like to hear one of you folks tell me what exactly you'd want MS to do that wouldn't make you whine about it reflexively...
From the last time I heard the axion was supposed to take a particle collider the size of the solar system. This is certainly curious. Additionally, the axion theory is a competitor to the string theory. If the results are true both the standard model and the string theory are going to be thrown into disarray.
Oif -- couple'a misconceptions ere:
1) The axion is an outcropping of the standard model -- people are looking for it because the standard model says it ought to be there.
[ 1.5) Until it makes predictions for the masses of the elementary particles, it should be called the "sub-standard model" to begin with ]
2) Therefore the Axion cannot possibly be in conflict with string theory either, as string theory is an attempt to derive the standard model from something more fundamental. Wherever the standard model says something, the goal of string theory is to say at least the same thing (and ideally to say something more precise or more fundamental. But certainly not something in conflict with it).
3) If anybody actually ever found an Axion, you'd read about it in Nature. Science. Possibly Phys Rev, and quite likely arXiv. Not New Scientist, which is really more a 'weekly world news of science reporting'. Publishing in New Scientist is pretty much an admission that you have nothing publishable, really.
Wait - so all it takes is for me to point out that I've downloaded porn clips from usenet before 1996 and the whole thing evaporates into a puff of prior art?
Does that statement make anyone else nervous? I mean, does that sound like experience talking?
Actually it sounds like a quote from the Earth Destruction Manual, which starts "Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.[...]"
I've seen several offices in which the guy who repairs the copier, or fills the vending machines, or waters the plants ends up knocking on a security door so that the first person who finds him will allow him in to do his job. Unfortunately, you can either say "screw you, I'm not letting you in without paperwork", or have to explain to your boss why the guy wasn't let into the premises because it wasn't your job to determine who he was.
I may be misreading what you're trying to say here, but it is very much security's job to identify the people who enter and exit the building (and to keep out those who aren't allowed in). That's pretty much their entire job description.
If someone showed up at the nearest copier at my place of employ and started fiddling with it, I would just let them. Because nobody gets on the premises (and certainly not into the building) without scrutiny by security. That's why they're there. It's the reason they exist.
This is veering dangerously OT, but here's what has worked (so far!) for me: I had a nice, secure password that I never wrote down. When they made me "change" it regularly, I started using the same password but with my right hand shifted one letter down on the keyboard. 6 months later, shift the other hand down. 6 months later, shift the right hand outward. I intend to move around in this fashion until I can return both hands back to home position.
The only part that requires brainpower is "what to do when I exceed the keyboard area" - for now, I simply don't travel any further: "dR" becomes "e$" becomes "3$" as the left hand moves up. I can't quite get myself to consider the kbd as toroidal.
As an interesting side effect, I cannot actually tell you what my current password is. The best I could do is rattle down what would be a string of letters, numbers and symbols if your hands were in home row and how to move your hands before typing it.
It's been a known problem that someone could just walk in and pretend to be tech support/help desk/repair for as long as their has been computers.
Even before that. There was a semi-spectacular case when I grew up (think early seventies here) where some guy in a maintenance suit waltzed into a department store with a ladder and a tool box and proceeded to remove all the security cameras. Pretty much the same concept as in that article.
( Would've gotten away with it if he had thought of the fact that the tapes are stored elsewhere. As it was, the last thing each camera saw was a nice close-up shot of his face. )
So, if you're fed up with the debate about pluralization taking over the discussion instead of the actual story, why is it that you are the first one to bring it up? Hmmm?:)
So, if you're fed up with people making posts about the debate about pluralization taking over the discussion instead of the actual story, why is it that you are replying to him? Hmmm?:)
So if you don't like people replying to posts about people complaining about the way pluralization takes over the discussion instead of the story, why are you replying to his post about people complaining about the way pluralization takes over the discussion instead of the story?
I noticed they were leaving out the 'the' or 'a'. You'd never hear that in the US. It would be more like "While I was at the University...or while I was in college
So why is the article needed for "university" but not for college? "Go to university" and "goto college" are at least consistent (and so would be "go to the university" and "go to the college"). When it is OK to say "in college" then it should be OK to say "at university".
(Not to mention that the difference bewteen the two is at best puzzling to me...)
Heck, mix some radiator fluid into his starbucks mocha and he'd never know the difference!
The problem with "conventional" poisoning is that it tends to show up in the autopsy. There's all kinds of chemicals for which we can detect even the minute traces of a distant metabolite. But no toxicologist test for heavy metals. I'm actually surprised that this was ever found out. Someone must've gone quite a ways beyond the call of duty.
Huh -- we now have front page news that a certain commodity item can be bought on the internet.
I'm sorry, but anybody whos ever even just googled "Po210" already knows this. Where is the "news" aspect of this? Are we going to see headline news now that tells us that books can be bought online at Amazon.com?
Suuuure! That's what you said the last time the Earth was destroyed.
According to the International Earth-Destruction Advisory Board (IDEAB) the current Earth-Destruction Alert Level (EDA Level) is "green" which indicates that the earth has not been destroyed. Furthermore, the Current Geocide Count (CGC) is zero, indicating that the earth has not yet been destroyed in the past. (In the event of the Earth being destroyed, the CGC will be increased by one, to read "1".)
Climate change has no credibility problem whatosever. It is as much a fact as gravity.
Do you really believe that?
No, I don't. I do not "believe" in climate change any more than I "believe" in gravity. Only a complete moron would inquire about someone else's "belief" in something that anybody with eyes in their head can verify for themselves by themselves.
Climate change should be able to answer those questions.
Climate change is an observed phenomenon. It does not ask, nor answer questions any more than gravity "answers questions" or the sunrise "answers questions".
[...]like the theory of gravity.
Nobody has said a word about the theory of gravity. Or any other theory, for that matter.
If it turned out that our best theory of gravity is wrong, gravity would still be a fact. This sentence remains true if "gravity" is replaced with "global warming", "light", "evolution", "relativity" or any of the other observed phenomena science chooses to name.
Re:Nothing inconvenient about the results
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The problem is credibility
Climate change has no credibility problem whatosever. It is as much a fact as gravity.
The people with the credibility problem are the folks who've spent the last three decades denying climate change who are now all flip-flopping and telling us "climate change is a completely natural process".
Re:Nothing inconvenient about the results
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
They can't even predict the weather next week
I cannot predict the outcome of a coin flip. Could be heads, could be tails. But I can sure as hell predict the outcome of a million coin flips: 50% heads, 50% tails. And the error bar on my prediction is going to get smaller and smaller the more coin flips there are.
You are hereby advised not to post about this issue ever again until you have learned the (very, very simple) difference between weather and climate.
Slashdot Mirror
[...] Cum guzzling lawyers [...]
If they did that, they'd be good for something.
Let's distinguish proximate causes from ulterior motives here.
And why do they want that? Because in the end they hope to make money.
And why do they want that? Because in the end they hope to make money.
Well, I think you can figure out the pattern from here...
Why? So you can post on /. how MS is is shunning all the "standards" out there and how terrible it is that they always have to do their own things when there's already perfectly good solutions out there for all kinds of stuff?
Wait ... but when MS makes something strictly to a standard then they're ... "a copycat"? And when they're making something to a standard but then improve on it then it's "embrace, extend, control"? And if they do something that's completely different from any existing standard people moan how non-standard MS products are? So what exactly are they supposed to do?
One day I'd like to hear one of you folks tell me what exactly you'd want MS to do that wouldn't make you whine about it reflexively...
there may be a general market for a cheap, robust laptop without hard drive or optical storage."
Uh, what? You imagine people like stuff that is expensive, breaks easily and is heavy and power-hungry?
Oif -- couple'a misconceptions ere:
1) The axion is an outcropping of the standard model -- people are looking for it because the standard model says it ought to be there.
[ 1.5) Until it makes predictions for the masses of the elementary particles, it should be called the "sub-standard model" to begin with ]
2) Therefore the Axion cannot possibly be in conflict with string theory either, as string theory is an attempt to derive the standard model from something more fundamental. Wherever the standard model says something, the goal of string theory is to say at least the same thing (and ideally to say something more precise or more fundamental. But certainly not something in conflict with it).
3) If anybody actually ever found an Axion, you'd read about it in Nature. Science. Possibly Phys Rev, and quite likely arXiv. Not New Scientist, which is really more a 'weekly world news of science reporting'. Publishing in New Scientist is pretty much an admission that you have nothing publishable, really.
Wait - so all it takes is for me to point out that I've downloaded porn clips from usenet before 1996 and the whole thing evaporates into a puff of prior art?
Does that statement make anyone else nervous? I mean, does that sound like experience talking?
Actually it sounds like a quote from the Earth Destruction Manual, which starts "Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.[...]"
I've seen several offices in which the guy who repairs the copier, or fills the vending machines, or waters the plants ends up knocking on a security door so that the first person who finds him will allow him in to do his job. Unfortunately, you can either say "screw you, I'm not letting you in without paperwork", or have to explain to your boss why the guy wasn't let into the premises because it wasn't your job to determine who he was.
I may be misreading what you're trying to say here, but it is very much security's job to identify the people who enter and exit the building (and to keep out those who aren't allowed in). That's pretty much their entire job description.
If someone showed up at the nearest copier at my place of employ and started fiddling with it, I would just let them. Because nobody gets on the premises (and certainly not into the building) without scrutiny by security. That's why they're there. It's the reason they exist.
This is veering dangerously OT, but here's what has worked (so far!) for me: I had a nice, secure password that I never wrote down. When they made me "change" it regularly, I started using the same password but with my right hand shifted one letter down on the keyboard. 6 months later, shift the other hand down. 6 months later, shift the right hand outward. I intend to move around in this fashion until I can return both hands back to home position.
The only part that requires brainpower is "what to do when I exceed the keyboard area" - for now, I simply don't travel any further: "dR" becomes "e$" becomes "3$" as the left hand moves up. I can't quite get myself to consider the kbd as toroidal.
As an interesting side effect, I cannot actually tell you what my current password is. The best I could do is rattle down what would be a string of letters, numbers and symbols if your hands were in home row and how to move your hands before typing it.
It's been a known problem that someone could just walk in and pretend to be tech support/help desk/repair for as long as their has been computers.
Even before that. There was a semi-spectacular case when I grew up (think early seventies here) where some guy in a maintenance suit waltzed into a department store with a ladder and a tool box and proceeded to remove all the security cameras. Pretty much the same concept as in that article.
( Would've gotten away with it if he had thought of the fact that the tapes are stored elsewhere. As it was, the last thing each camera saw was a nice close-up shot of his face. )
It's right where it always was
So if you don't like people replying to posts about people complaining about the way pluralization takes over the discussion instead of the story, why are you replying to his post about people complaining about the way pluralization takes over the discussion instead of the story?
I noticed they were leaving out the 'the' or 'a'. You'd never hear that in the US. It would be more like "While I was at the University...or while I was in college
So why is the article needed for "university" but not for college? "Go to university" and "goto college" are at least consistent (and so would be "go to the university" and "go to the college"). When it is OK to say "in college" then it should be OK to say "at university".
(Not to mention that the difference bewteen the two is at best puzzling to me...)
I visit digg for the links /. for the comments.
I visit Ars for the articles
I visit
(And there are sites that I visit for the pictures. I cannot name them in a family forum, though.)
You, sir, are gay.
See, now you're making it sound as if it were a bad thing.
Heck, mix some radiator fluid into his starbucks mocha and he'd never know the difference!
The problem with "conventional" poisoning is that it tends to show up in the autopsy. There's all kinds of chemicals for which we can detect even the minute traces of a distant metabolite. But no toxicologist test for heavy metals. I'm actually surprised that this was ever found out. Someone must've gone quite a ways beyond the call of duty.
Huh -- we now have front page news that a certain commodity item can be bought on the internet. I'm sorry, but anybody whos ever even just googled "Po210" already knows this. Where is the "news" aspect of this? Are we going to see headline news now that tells us that books can be bought online at Amazon.com?
...and mailexpire.com ...
Suuuure! That's what you said the last time the Earth was destroyed.
According to the International Earth-Destruction Advisory Board (IDEAB) the current Earth-Destruction Alert Level (EDA Level) is "green" which indicates that the earth has not been destroyed. Furthermore, the Current Geocide Count (CGC) is zero, indicating that the earth has not yet been destroyed in the past. (In the event of the Earth being destroyed, the CGC will be increased by one, to read "1".)
You must thus be mistaken.
Well, they sure know their way around tubes...
No, I don't. I do not "believe" in climate change any more than I "believe" in gravity. Only a complete moron would inquire about someone else's "belief" in something that anybody with eyes in their head can verify for themselves by themselves.
Climate change is an observed phenomenon. It does not ask, nor answer questions any more than gravity "answers questions" or the sunrise "answers questions".
Nobody has said a word about the theory of gravity. Or any other theory, for that matter.
If it turned out that our best theory of gravity is wrong, gravity would still be a fact. This sentence remains true if "gravity" is replaced with "global warming", "light", "evolution", "relativity" or any of the other observed phenomena science chooses to name.
The problem is credibility
Climate change has no credibility problem whatosever. It is as much a fact as gravity.
The people with the credibility problem are the folks who've spent the last three decades denying climate change who are now all flip-flopping and telling us "climate change is a completely natural process".
They can't even predict the weather next week
I cannot predict the outcome of a coin flip. Could be heads, could be tails. But I can sure as hell predict the outcome of a million coin flips: 50% heads, 50% tails. And the error bar on my prediction is going to get smaller and smaller the more coin flips there are.
You are hereby advised not to post about this issue ever again until you have learned the (very, very simple) difference between weather and climate.
Or get it for free at arXiv...