You are 100% wrong. The Canadian Conservative Party is pretty much like the Democrats in the US. The Canadian Liberal Party is further left than anything that exists in the US right now. The New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois are socialists -- I don't think any of those survive in the US, am I right?
I'm sorry but this is just so much puffery. My grandma doesn't know how to "set up" Windows "on an old HP laptop for a mate" either. Does that mean Windows is not ready for prime time? Your efforts to suck and blow at the same time add up to a troll -- a well disguised troll, perhaps, maybe a troll in a dress -- but an AC troll nonetheless.
I did not author the GP but I would suggest this as an excellent definition. Those pesky wascals also make available a list of free software licenses if you care to evaluate the offerings in that way. (For example, consulting that list will show that things licensed under the FreeBSD licence are, by their definition, free software.)
After an acute bout of wrist pain a few years back, I tried just about every pointing device you can imagine. I went through two different trackballs, a pen and even a joystick. Finally, about 18 months ago, I started using the vertical Zero Tension Mouse (ZTM). It's cured my troubles. I never tried the Evoluent mouse that's the subject of this review but I can tell you that one thing I really like about the ZTM is the platform to support the hand. It appears that's missing from Evoluent's product.
As for those posters who stated that using the fingers to finely control a horizontal mouse is a feature that's lost in a vertical mouse, well, that's true, in a sense. I admit that there was a transition required of a few days for me to get used to the ZTM but I now find it as finely controllable as any other mouse. You end up, it appears, using tiny jiggling motions of the arm and little turning actions of the hand.
Interestingly, the two articles linked to in the story differ as to the level of piracy coming from Canada. The story from The Globe has a direct quote from Snyder saying that 20% comes from Canada. The article from CanWest Global says 50% but I can't find a direct quote anywhere in either article that substantiates that figure.
If pressed, I'd say that the 20% number is better supported. It almost looks like the 50% number was pulled out of someone's ear.
Additionally, as Michael Geist reports on his blog, the current changes to the Copyright Act that the industry is trying to buy from the government would have absolutely no effect on this. So, once again, it's apparent that the proposed changes have nothing to do with piracy but have everything to do with robbing average citizens of our fair use rights.
According to the last mission update, the light travel time is now over 1h 30m.
I have no idea where you got that. From the page you sent us to, the distance to the spacecraft is currently 5.57AU. Dividing that by c gives 2779.46 s or 46.32 minutes. Perhaps it's written somewhere on that site that the round trip light time is just over an hour nd a half. But that's not at all the same thing.
The only reason to switch to 2007 will be to read the documents that others send you. This is nothing new. When the organisation for which I work switched to 2003, for example, it was not because we needed any of the "functionality" new to 2003. Nor had our users pushed Office to its limits and were crying out for new functionality. Let's be clear, 95% of users use maybe 5% of an office suite's functionality. The other 5% use maybe 50%, at best.
But Microsoft never fails to make the new Office write files, by default, that the old Office can't read. Eventually, one grows fatigued with having to send a reply to every email asking that the sender "save the document in Word 2003, please, so I can open it."
This is the way MS has sold each and every one of its upgrades. It's a tried-and-true strategy for them and they've made billions from it. Why would anyone expect them to change at this juncture?
You are exactly right and I can't believe all of the people who are just so wrong on this.
It's very much like this.
Joe: All swans are white. Jill: What evidence do you have? Joe: I saw a swan and it was white, hence, all swans are white.
Any of us looking at this would see that Joe's assertion is unproven. The absence of a non-white swan in Joe's search is not proof that non-white swans are absent, if you'll pardon my tortured language for illustrations's sake. Now:
Joe: All swans are white. Jill: What evidence do you have? Joe: I've inventoried 1000000 distinct, separate and individual swans and each and every one of them was white, hence, all swans are white.
Now, there are those among you who would feel that Joe's conclusion in this second scenario is better supported (i.e. more evidence) but that's simply false. The only evidence that Joe has amassed is that, within the space Joe has searched and during the period of his search, white swans certainly out-number non-white swans. Joe has come no closer whatever to evidence that all swans are white because, in both the first and second scenarios, finding just one non-white swan invalidates Joe's hypothesis.
Hence, an absence of evidence as to the existence of non-white swans is not evidence of the absence of non-white swans. It is always possible that the next swan Joe examines from the pond across the hill will be a non-white swan and it will invalidate Joe's hypothesis in one fell swoop. It doesn't matter whether Joe has examined one swan or one million swans, such is the case.
Now, there may come a time when Joe has entirely (or practically) exhausted the available search space (e.g. looked at each and every swan on the planet.) What then? Well, then we may be tempted to argue, and many might agree that, once the reasonable search space has been exhausted, Joe can say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
For those of you who think this message is already far too long, perhaps we can agree to stop here and, for practical purposes, stipulate to that. But, by any measure, the reasonable search space for ET is far from exhausted. In fact, at this stage, we are very much like Joe when he had examined just one swan and tried to use that as evidence that all swans are white. Hence, I maintain that Sagan's statement, applied to SETI, is logically flawless.
Now, if there is anyone out there who's bizarre enough to be enjoying this, let's examine the case of where Joe has exhausted the reasonable search space for swans and has still failed to find a non-white swan. Is this evidence that all swans are white? Well, in reality, no. It certainly suggests that non-white swans are exceedingly rare in comparison to white swans. But there is always the possibility that there will be a very rare recessive gene or perhaps a random mutation that will produce a non-white swan tomorrow within the space that Joe has already searched. Hence the absence of evidence for non-white swans proves absolutely nothing -- nothing -- in any rigourous sense, about the absence of non-white swans.
That's why scientists are trained to avoid forming hypotheses like "all swans are white" because that statement is, essentially, unprovable and unprovable can logically be shown to be functionally equivalent to unfalsifiable.
A better hypothesis would be something along the lines of: "In a random sample of 100 (or 1000 or whatever number the granting agency gave you a budget for) swans, the incidence of non-white swans will not be significantly different from zero (or less than 1% or 5% or whatever number you think you need to specify in order to secure the grant.)"
...until the time comes that it has an effect, one way or the other.
Otherwise easily translated as: "...until the cows come home." *ducking the flying vegetables*
Thank you very much, I'll be here all week. While you're visiting Chez André, please remember to try the veal. The chef has been working hard at perfecting that dish for almost 6000 years, now.
"To die; to sleep; to sleep perchance to dream! Aye, there's the rub. For, in that sleep of death, what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil?"
I've seen this very thing happen where I work -- we've lost data over the years because of incompatiblity issues. On the other hand, as with many things, it's a huge problem but not an insurmountable one. The key is in planning an anti-obsoloscence strategy into every IT decision. Store data files in open formats on robust media and put someone in charge of ensuring the archives are maintained and accessible.
It's not easy, sure, but neither are many of the other tasks we take on as humans.
Re:How did they get the book out so fast
on
CSS Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
IE 7 was in open beta over a year ago
Sort of lends a new meaning to the word "open", say what?:-)
The only difference is the licence. That's what I said way above -- Linus's stroke of genius was choosing the GPL as licence. The GPL (share and share alike, essentially) is a lot better at recruiting talent than is the BSD-style (do what you will with this) licence. That much has been established, I think.
I think it's obvious that, absent GNU/Linux we'd be using GNU/*BSD. The GNU part is the common thread. And the GNU GPL is largely the reason we're on GNU/Linux instead of GNU/*BSD. But, hey, this is exactly the point I was making here, that, apparently, engendered all this naysaying.
No, I'm sorry but you are wrong. The GNU tools were useful and were used a great deal before the Linux kernel came along. Just look at how many of them shipped with the various flavours of BSD (several of which pre-date Linux, I might add.)
Yes, the Linux kernel filled a huge void on the road to a completely GPLed operating system. But it did not create the concept of a free OS nor did it create the concept of freedom. Those concepts pre-date Linux and were embodied in the GNU project.
I'm not trying to get into a RMS/Torvalds flamewar -- we've had too many of those. But I also don't accept revisionist history that says that GNU would be nothing without Linus's kernel. If you truly believe that, perhaps you can explain to me how the GPLed parts managed to exist for almost a decade before the kernel came along. Do you think that, once the kernel appeared, someone said "Oh, yeah, there was a bunch of mouldy stuff in the bottom of the drawer over there that was invented nearly a decade ago and we couldn't figure out what it was for -- let's try it here!"
I agree with the essence of the parent's comments.
There is no question that Linus is a gifted and accomplished hacker. At the same time, though, there is no question that, without the GNU tools, there would be no Linux today.
In one aspect, though, I do feel Linus was visionary, and that's in his finally settling upon the GPL as the kernel's licence. Without a doubt, that's his single most important stroke of genius. But, again, where did the GPL come from?
I live in a jurisdiction where we vote by mail in municipal elections. The system is fairly neat and tidy.
The only thing that I don't like about it is cuts a week from the time I have to evaluate the candidates because the ballot needs to be posted sufficiently early to arrive at a central location by election day. It's not a show stopper but it's a bit hard sometimes to arrange things so that I can make an informed choice by the week before election day.
I've spoken with a host of people who've expressed the same concern. I imagine we'll grow more accustomed to it as time goes on. For many of us, though, election day looming is the impetus we need to do our research. It's not the same thing, somehow, to say that the day one week before election day is looming so I have to get off my butt, if you see what I mean?
I got together with a like-minded open-source linuxchick some time ago and we produced a couple of extremely viable derivative works. Fortunately, neither one of us tried to exert control over the other's homegrown portion of either of those derivative works.
The trouble is that the derivative works are now starting to think about creating next-gen derivatives which has me sort of worried about whether they'll respect the ideals of the community or if they'll become sellouts like Novell...
Oh, well, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see...
Slashdot Mirror
You are 100% wrong. The Canadian Conservative Party is pretty much like the Democrats in the US. The Canadian Liberal Party is further left than anything that exists in the US right now. The New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois are socialists -- I don't think any of those survive in the US, am I right?
I'm sorry but this is just so much puffery. My grandma doesn't know how to "set up" Windows "on an old HP laptop for a mate" either. Does that mean Windows is not ready for prime time? Your efforts to suck and blow at the same time add up to a troll -- a well disguised troll, perhaps, maybe a troll in a dress -- but an AC troll nonetheless.
I did not author the GP but I would suggest this as an excellent definition. Those pesky wascals also make available a list of free software licenses if you care to evaluate the offerings in that way. (For example, consulting that list will show that things licensed under the FreeBSD licence are, by their definition, free software.)
IIS currently drives as many top domains as Apache did in 1995.
and
IIS currently hosts as many domains as Apache did in early 2005.
After an acute bout of wrist pain a few years back, I tried just about every pointing device you can imagine. I went through two different trackballs, a pen and even a joystick. Finally, about 18 months ago, I started using the vertical Zero Tension Mouse (ZTM). It's cured my troubles. I never tried the Evoluent mouse that's the subject of this review but I can tell you that one thing I really like about the ZTM is the platform to support the hand. It appears that's missing from Evoluent's product.
As for those posters who stated that using the fingers to finely control a horizontal mouse is a feature that's lost in a vertical mouse, well, that's true, in a sense. I admit that there was a transition required of a few days for me to get used to the ZTM but I now find it as finely controllable as any other mouse. You end up, it appears, using tiny jiggling motions of the arm and little turning actions of the hand.
Of course, your mileage may vary.
ultimate = last
penultimate = next to last (nearly last)
It's just like:
insula = island
peninsula = nearly an island
See here.
Who is 'Open Doc Bill' and why does Microsoft oppose his going to California?
;-)
No time to RTFA but lots of time to post and read replies!
Interestingly, the two articles linked to in the story differ as to the level of piracy coming from Canada. The story from The Globe has a direct quote from Snyder saying that 20% comes from Canada. The article from CanWest Global says 50% but I can't find a direct quote anywhere in either article that substantiates that figure.
If pressed, I'd say that the 20% number is better supported. It almost looks like the 50% number was pulled out of someone's ear.
Additionally, as Michael Geist reports on his blog, the current changes to the Copyright Act that the industry is trying to buy from the government would have absolutely no effect on this. So, once again, it's apparent that the proposed changes have nothing to do with piracy but have everything to do with robbing average citizens of our fair use rights.
The only reason to switch to 2007 will be to read the documents that others send you. This is nothing new. When the organisation for which I work switched to 2003, for example, it was not because we needed any of the "functionality" new to 2003. Nor had our users pushed Office to its limits and were crying out for new functionality. Let's be clear, 95% of users use maybe 5% of an office suite's functionality. The other 5% use maybe 50%, at best.
But Microsoft never fails to make the new Office write files, by default, that the old Office can't read. Eventually, one grows fatigued with having to send a reply to every email asking that the sender "save the document in Word 2003, please, so I can open it."
This is the way MS has sold each and every one of its upgrades. It's a tried-and-true strategy for them and they've made billions from it. Why would anyone expect them to change at this juncture?
You are exactly right and I can't believe all of the people who are just so wrong on this.
It's very much like this.
Joe: All swans are white.
Jill: What evidence do you have?
Joe: I saw a swan and it was white, hence, all swans are white.
Any of us looking at this would see that Joe's assertion is unproven. The absence of a non-white swan in Joe's search is not proof that non-white swans are absent, if you'll pardon my tortured language for illustrations's sake. Now:
Joe: All swans are white.
Jill: What evidence do you have?
Joe: I've inventoried 1000000 distinct, separate and individual swans and each and every one of them was white, hence, all swans are white.
Now, there are those among you who would feel that Joe's conclusion in this second scenario is better supported (i.e. more evidence) but that's simply false. The only evidence that Joe has amassed is that, within the space Joe has searched and during the period of his search, white swans certainly out-number non-white swans. Joe has come no closer whatever to evidence that all swans are white because, in both the first and second scenarios, finding just one non-white swan invalidates Joe's hypothesis.
Hence, an absence of evidence as to the existence of non-white swans is not evidence of the absence of non-white swans. It is always possible that the next swan Joe examines from the pond across the hill will be a non-white swan and it will invalidate Joe's hypothesis in one fell swoop. It doesn't matter whether Joe has examined one swan or one million swans, such is the case.
Now, there may come a time when Joe has entirely (or practically) exhausted the available search space (e.g. looked at each and every swan on the planet.) What then? Well, then we may be tempted to argue, and many might agree that, once the reasonable search space has been exhausted, Joe can say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
For those of you who think this message is already far too long, perhaps we can agree to stop here and, for practical purposes, stipulate to that. But, by any measure, the reasonable search space for ET is far from exhausted. In fact, at this stage, we are very much like Joe when he had examined just one swan and tried to use that as evidence that all swans are white. Hence, I maintain that Sagan's statement, applied to SETI, is logically flawless.
Now, if there is anyone out there who's bizarre enough to be enjoying this, let's examine the case of where Joe has exhausted the reasonable search space for swans and has still failed to find a non-white swan. Is this evidence that all swans are white? Well, in reality, no. It certainly suggests that non-white swans are exceedingly rare in comparison to white swans. But there is always the possibility that there will be a very rare recessive gene or perhaps a random mutation that will produce a non-white swan tomorrow within the space that Joe has already searched. Hence the absence of evidence for non-white swans proves absolutely nothing -- nothing -- in any rigourous sense, about the absence of non-white swans.
That's why scientists are trained to avoid forming hypotheses like "all swans are white" because that statement is, essentially, unprovable and unprovable can logically be shown to be functionally equivalent to unfalsifiable.
A better hypothesis would be something along the lines of: "In a random sample of 100 (or 1000 or whatever number the granting agency gave you a budget for) swans, the incidence of non-white swans will not be significantly different from zero (or less than 1% or 5% or whatever number you think you need to specify in order to secure the grant.)"
QED
Otherwise easily translated as: "...until the cows come home." *ducking the flying vegetables*
Thank you very much, I'll be here all week. While you're visiting Chez André, please remember to try the veal. The chef has been working hard at perfecting that dish for almost 6000 years, now.
He's pining for the fjords!
"To die; to sleep; to sleep perchance to dream! Aye, there's the rub. For, in that sleep of death, what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil?"
I'm waiting for Godot. Have you seen him? He should have been here yesterday...
I've seen this very thing happen where I work -- we've lost data over the years because of incompatiblity issues. On the other hand, as with many things, it's a huge problem but not an insurmountable one. The key is in planning an anti-obsoloscence strategy into every IT decision. Store data files in open formats on robust media and put someone in charge of ensuring the archives are maintained and accessible.
It's not easy, sure, but neither are many of the other tasks we take on as humans.
Sort of lends a new meaning to the word "open", say what?
Despite what any official sources might say, has anyone other than I heard that the unofficial name of this robot is to be the T-101?
The only difference is the licence. That's what I said way above -- Linus's stroke of genius was choosing the GPL as licence. The GPL (share and share alike, essentially) is a lot better at recruiting talent than is the BSD-style (do what you will with this) licence. That much has been established, I think.
I think it's obvious that, absent GNU/Linux we'd be using GNU/*BSD. The GNU part is the common thread. And the GNU GPL is largely the reason we're on GNU/Linux instead of GNU/*BSD. But, hey, this is exactly the point I was making here, that, apparently, engendered all this naysaying.
No, I'm sorry but you are wrong. The GNU tools were useful and were used a great deal before the Linux kernel came along. Just look at how many of them shipped with the various flavours of BSD (several of which pre-date Linux, I might add.)
Yes, the Linux kernel filled a huge void on the road to a completely GPLed operating system. But it did not create the concept of a free OS nor did it create the concept of freedom. Those concepts pre-date Linux and were embodied in the GNU project.
I'm not trying to get into a RMS/Torvalds flamewar -- we've had too many of those. But I also don't accept revisionist history that says that GNU would be nothing without Linus's kernel. If you truly believe that, perhaps you can explain to me how the GPLed parts managed to exist for almost a decade before the kernel came along. Do you think that, once the kernel appeared, someone said "Oh, yeah, there was a bunch of mouldy stuff in the bottom of the drawer over there that was invented nearly a decade ago and we couldn't figure out what it was for -- let's try it here!"
I agree with the essence of the parent's comments. There is no question that Linus is a gifted and accomplished hacker. At the same time, though, there is no question that, without the GNU tools, there would be no Linux today. In one aspect, though, I do feel Linus was visionary, and that's in his finally settling upon the GPL as the kernel's licence. Without a doubt, that's his single most important stroke of genius. But, again, where did the GPL come from?
Ummm, that would be the SCOX scenario.
I live in a jurisdiction where we vote by mail in municipal elections. The system is fairly neat and tidy.
The only thing that I don't like about it is cuts a week from the time I have to evaluate the candidates because the ballot needs to be posted sufficiently early to arrive at a central location by election day. It's not a show stopper but it's a bit hard sometimes to arrange things so that I can make an informed choice by the week before election day.
I've spoken with a host of people who've expressed the same concern. I imagine we'll grow more accustomed to it as time goes on. For many of us, though, election day looming is the impetus we need to do our research. It's not the same thing, somehow, to say that the day one week before election day is looming so I have to get off my butt, if you see what I mean?
I got together with a like-minded open-source linuxchick some time ago and we produced a couple of extremely viable derivative works. Fortunately, neither one of us tried to exert control over the other's homegrown portion of either of those derivative works.
The trouble is that the derivative works are now starting to think about creating next-gen derivatives which has me sort of worried about whether they'll respect the ideals of the community or if they'll become sellouts like Novell...
Oh, well, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see...