last I checked, on OSX (and maybe linux too, I dunno) there was big problems with projects that didn't use makefiles - they wouldn't link for a reason which escapes me.
> Anything that provides an American with a job is not useless.
It is when another American is forced to pay for it. I'm sorry the Alaskan ironworkers don't have any jobs. Maybe they should try either moving somewhere they can find work or learn a new more in-demand trade. That's what I did when midrange offset printing went the way of the dinosaur.
> Insufficent to whom? Spurious to whom?
To me, the guy who gets stuck with the bill. Where do you think federal money comes from?
No, because I realize that useless pork is like a plague unto our nation.
> Yes, so why would you object to the Alaskans in particular?
Because those reasons are spurious and insufficient
> Aparently you've missed the recent news.
Oh please. I'm fully aware that we're looking at some serious economic nastiness coming down the pipe (all the more reason to not spend $220M on useless bullshit), but to equate it with the Great Depression just makes you look silly.
yeah, a handful of contractors and construction workers. I know some out-of-work construction workers. Can I get a couple hundred million federal dollars too?
> but here's the 2 ways it benefits you, personally
You can give 220 million to anyone and come up with some reasons it might benefit me. But I'm not moving to Alaska when I retire, and if 220 million is the only thing keeping Alaska from crumbling and sending their teeming thousands to California to take all our jobs away with their superior Alaskan hardiness and bear wrestling skills, I contend that we've already lost that particular battle.
Call me back when we've got a depression like we did in the 30s. We can talk about pointless public works projects then.
> This guy is complaining about a problem that plagues all of academia.
Not really. In other fields as large as computer graphics, there are typically several conferences worldwide. I don't have much experience in the matter, but I'd imagine that an industry-driven show like SIGGRAPH that is your sole venue for academic advancement would be a huge pain in the ass to live with, and I can see how it would easily stifle all kinds of interesting but fringe research.
> The distance to which these devices can communicate as peers limits their usefulness as social devices, i.e., the people are all going to be in the same room! I.E., they can plug their iPods into the stereo. And, at the same time will be able to talk to each other.
I dunno, sounds like a nice device to use in a cube farm. I know I wish the guy next to me would just use IM to talk to the secretary, instead of yelling out "HEY, GLADYS, WHERE'S THE 3-HOLE PUNCHED PAPE... OH, HERE IT IS, NEVERMIND. HEY, WHAT DID YOU THINK OF AMERICAN IDOL LAST NIGHT?"
I'm not sure why the fact that she didn't understand the 'theory' of what she was doing is somehow so astounding and/or cause for mockery. Everyone here uses technology they don't understand every day.
> If the american public doesnt care about something till they lose it, then I guess you are on your way to zero personal freedom, higher taxes, $10/gal gas, no american cars, a corrupt government dictatorship etc).
The vast majority of the public is barely knowledgeable enough to check their damn email. No significant fraction of the American public is gonna understand or care about net neutrality, much less download some fancy plugin for a browser they never heard of.
Thanks to the embargo on stem cell research, someone is making a fortune off nervous new parents by storing this stuff just in case something awful happens. Graaarrr.
> The sort of places that ban camera phones and such would also probobly restrict or ban PDAs and smartphones and such (including blackberries) I would expect.
You expect wrong. Sites that ban cameras ban them because they don't want people taking pictures of their stuff. Why would they ban a PDA? Because they don't want someone looking at their addressbook?
Slashdot Mirror
yes, let's all return to the Gold Standard, that's a great idea and is certainly not one which has been tried unsucessfully many times.
last I checked, on OSX (and maybe linux too, I dunno) there was big problems with projects that didn't use makefiles - they wouldn't link for a reason which escapes me.
> Anything that provides an American with a job is not useless.
It is when another American is forced to pay for it. I'm sorry the Alaskan ironworkers don't have any jobs. Maybe they should try either moving somewhere they can find work or learn a new more in-demand trade. That's what I did when midrange offset printing went the way of the dinosaur.
> Insufficent to whom? Spurious to whom?
To me, the guy who gets stuck with the bill. Where do you think federal money comes from?
> It'll be worse.
I just stopped paying attention to you.
Zoroastrianism, duh.
> Talk to your congresscritters
No, because I realize that useless pork is like a plague unto our nation.
> Yes, so why would you object to the Alaskans in particular?
Because those reasons are spurious and insufficient
> Aparently you've missed the recent news.
Oh please. I'm fully aware that we're looking at some serious economic nastiness coming down the pipe (all the more reason to not spend $220M on useless bullshit), but to equate it with the Great Depression just makes you look silly.
> Actually, certain people do need and want it
yeah, a handful of contractors and construction workers. I know some out-of-work construction workers. Can I get a couple hundred million federal dollars too?
> but here's the 2 ways it benefits you, personally
You can give 220 million to anyone and come up with some reasons it might benefit me. But I'm not moving to Alaska when I retire, and if 220 million is the only thing keeping Alaska from crumbling and sending their teeming thousands to California to take all our jobs away with their superior Alaskan hardiness and bear wrestling skills, I contend that we've already lost that particular battle.
Call me back when we've got a depression like we did in the 30s. We can talk about pointless public works projects then.
> pork is good- it provides local jobs
Why should I, Joe California Taxpayer, have to pay some Alaskan ironworker to build a bridge no one wants or needs?
I have no problem with many public works projects, but I draw the line at simply building useless crap to keep people busy.
Well, shit, let's just all get higher-paying jobs with the government then.
and if everyone does it, any money they make off their pork is more than offset by everyone elses. There's no reasonable defense for pork.
> it did take Google a little while to let Safari users log into Gmail, for instance
Yeah, because there was -no- javascript debugger for Safari until very recently. Don't blame Google, blame Apple.
First, you seem tense, maybe you should try relaxing a little bit.
Second, the knowledge is archived by the members, either informally by people remembering or more formally by members keeping snippets of old posts.
my treo autochanges "theyre" to "they're" and similar stuff to prevent me from having to resort to a function key, which I view as pretty smart.
I was surprised by this:
"Smart-phone sales are about 15 percent of the market now (around 100 million units), but with their faster growth should outnumber PCs by 2008."
> This guy is complaining about a problem that plagues all of academia.
Not really. In other fields as large as computer graphics, there are typically several conferences worldwide. I don't have much experience in the matter, but I'd imagine that an industry-driven show like SIGGRAPH that is your sole venue for academic advancement would be a huge pain in the ass to live with, and I can see how it would easily stifle all kinds of interesting but fringe research.
I'm not interested in no mini-itx box unless it's wedged into an adorable, panda-like case. http://www.norhtec.com/products/panda/index.html
> See, I can state opinions as fact too!
It's marketing, there is no such thing as a 'fact'. Everything is opinion. Settle down.
> The distance to which these devices can communicate as peers limits their usefulness as social devices, i.e., the people are all going to be in the same room! I.E., they can plug their iPods into the stereo. And, at the same time will be able to talk to each other.
... OH, HERE IT IS, NEVERMIND. HEY, WHAT DID YOU THINK OF AMERICAN IDOL LAST NIGHT?"
I dunno, sounds like a nice device to use in a cube farm. I know I wish the guy next to me would just use IM to talk to the secretary, instead of yelling out "HEY, GLADYS, WHERE'S THE 3-HOLE PUNCHED PAPE
... and has none of the costs associated with selling an actual physical game cart.
I have no idea what you do or don't know, but if you honestly think you understand everything you use, you're both foolish -and- arrogant.
I'm not sure why the fact that she didn't understand the 'theory' of what she was doing is somehow so astounding and/or cause for mockery. Everyone here uses technology they don't understand every day.
> If the american public doesnt care about something till they lose it, then I guess you are on your way to zero personal freedom, higher taxes, $10/gal gas, no american cars, a corrupt government dictatorship etc).
Well, yeah. Did you just get here or something?
The vast majority of the public is barely knowledgeable enough to check their damn email. No significant fraction of the American public is gonna understand or care about net neutrality, much less download some fancy plugin for a browser they never heard of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord_blood
Thanks to the embargo on stem cell research, someone is making a fortune off nervous new parents by storing this stuff just in case something awful happens. Graaarrr.
> Don't tell me: Another Ann Coulter appearance on Hannity and Colmes last night?
FLAWLESS VICTORY!!
> The sort of places that ban camera phones and such would also probobly restrict or ban PDAs and smartphones and such (including blackberries) I would expect.
You expect wrong. Sites that ban cameras ban them because they don't want people taking pictures of their stuff. Why would they ban a PDA? Because they don't want someone looking at their addressbook?