topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Wednesday November 12, 2025, 7:39 pm
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Recent Posts

Pages: prev1 ... 214 215 216 217 218 [219] 220 221 222 223 224 ... 264next
5451
I don't think it's exactly what you might be after, but in Firefox there is an add-on called "Scrapbook" that I use to manually save copies of web pages I bring up on my screen. They are saved in HTML format in an indexed,  searchable library.

Also, don't forget your history file and that your browser cache might be automatically saving a lot of stuff, so a cache reader (Nirsoft has some good ones) can come in very handy.

Thought it could be of use/help to mention these.

I've not come across Hooeey before. I might trial that.
5452
Living Room / Re: Britannica - would you buy it on (say) Kindle or Nook?
« Last post by IainB on March 15, 2012, 08:09 PM »
That, I think, cuts right to the heart of it for some of us. Online and electronic lookups tend to be linear activities .
Well, I suspect that would be generally true for all (not just some) of us - in terms of human experience.
If you analyse anything that you do as a process, then you can quickly establish/see whether it is linear. A lot of what we do can thus be seen to be linear process flow, and even that explosive/connected "discovery" process would be linear if it was broken down (decomposed) into small enough discrete steps. The thing about using the hardcopy reference texts (hardcopy media) though is that it seems non-linear, because it is "fast" (speedy).
It is fast because you can use your trained reading faculties and that media, jumping your attention across a wider span and then focussing in as necessary, in such a way as to minimise the duration of the discrete sequential linear process steps and of any delay intervals between them. You thus accelerate the process.
"Need more input! Need more input!" (from the movie "Number 5")
Doing this another way doesn't seem to be possible at present, using the available technology. In fact the Britannica-on-a-tablet technology suggested (above) could arguably slow the process down.

I think that if you tried it out in practice it would indeed slow the process down. This would be unusual in my experience, because time and again it can be demonstrated that if you automate a process you will be able to speed it up - but it is generally implicit in that that you are removing the human element (and human error). But this discussion is related to the ergonomics and the human experience of "discovery" learning, so it is impossible to isolate the human element without defeating the objective (which would be something like [To achieve effective "discovery" learning]).

So we're probably not able to go about automating it in "the right way" using current technology - or at least in the way I am supposing we could use Britannica-on-a-tablet - i.e., it is, or could potentially be going backwards.

I have realised during this discussion that, whereas I had initially envisaged using just a laptop and a tablet as described, you could equally use a laptop and two or more separate displays (monitor screens). It's the number of displays that seems a relevant constraint - to mimic the books "spread out on the floor" around you. I have googled displays and decided that what could work might be larger touch-sensitive displays that you could position in portrait or landscape format, and adjust from vertical or to lie down flat or at a (say) a 35° angle facing you. Sort of "big" tablets positioned/laid out on the floor or desk around you.

And it wouldn't matter where the knowledge base was that you were accessing, as long as all devices could access it with equal facility. So, using Britannica-on-a-tablet would not seem to be the solution, but it would seem to be a pretty good starting-point to experiment and "suck it and see" and to better understand the limitations of the technology. Rather like a prototype of the multi-display scenario that I have just outlined.

I think I might have asked the "wrong" question in the opening post. Substitute "knowledge base" for "Britannica" or "Wikipedia", so as to remove the attractively diverting debate about which is "better", etc. But you would have to be able to trust the authors of that knowledge base not to be loading it with bias, political correctness, religio-political ideology, propaganda, innacuracies or downright falsehoods - or to be over-pricing it. Those of us who have been awake for the last 20 or so years are more likely to be skeptical as to how that might be able to work out.

In any event, I would still love to have my knowledge base - including my entire document reference library - either held on a tablet or readily accessible via a tablet. Portable, discrete, read-anywhere access to knowledge and references.
I reckon Britannica-on-a-tablet could be a good starting point and I'd be a serious potential customer for one of those, subject to price/affordability.

This would go a little way towards a worthwhile objective (imho) - the expansion of free and easy access to the sum of all human knowledge, necessary for our further development and cultural evolution. Only the other day I was delighted to read that Oxford U was putting some of Newton's papers and some Islamic manuscripts online. How good to see these things finally being made accessible to the general public, brought out into the daylight instead of being held in secure and dark cells behind some artificial and seemingly impenetrable barrier - library walls or other academic walls/paywalls (ref. Elsevier).

So, my thanks go to Amazon or Apple et al. Whatever fault we might be able to find in them (probably quite a lot), this discussion might not have even been able to take place on this subject if it hadn't been for the de facto commoditisation of the concept of reading tablets, by that group.
5453
Living Room / Re: Britannica - would you buy it on (say) Kindle or Nook?
« Last post by IainB on March 15, 2012, 03:54 PM »
I browse and read it for fun and personal edification. I like to turn pages, flip around, pull volumes down at random, and be surprised. I'll often start reading something, follow up on something mentioned, and end up happily sitting with five or six open volumes heaped around me with dozens of paper notes and post-it's sprinkled over everything.
You have almost exactly described how I would often use the hardcopy Britannica as a child - it's a sort of "discovery" learning experience, and I would be as happy as Larry in that state. I quite miss doing that now (I don't have my hardcopy Britannica with me now.)
I'm not sure whether you would be able to get that same experience with a smart tablet like Kindle or Nook. Not yet, anyways. I don't have either device, but I don't see how you could have all those pages opened out on the floor strewn around you in some kind of order like that and making notes on bits of paper, all in gestalt view - using a single reading tablet.

I know that's making a case for hardcopy versus tablet, but it seems to me that the ergonomics of using an information tool can make a huge difference to the efficiency and pleasure of learning through a discovery experience. I use a laptop an awful lot for reading complex information whilst working through some client's knotty problem, and though I delight in the speed with which I can pull information and related links up onto the screen, I feel at the same time highly frustrated by the relatively tedious linearity of the whole process I am engaged in, when compared to the exploding connectivity and richness of of that "discovery" experience.

But if I'm working on something on my laptop and I need to jump to a reference in an encyclopaedia, I can see that it would be a meta-change - possibly quite a big step forwards - if I could (say) bring up an authoritative source (e.g., like Britannica) on a tablet, select some reference information from it (related to what I am working on), and then wirelessly xmit that to my laptop for inclusion into a report on my laptop screen.

The DRM constraints in my old PC Britannica forced you to have a Britannica CD-ROM in the drive at all times. That was a pain and it inhibited ergonomic efficiency. Having the Britannica on a tablet - and eventually maybe having my whole reference library on it as well, could be a real incentive for trying the Kindle/Nook path now - just as a first step and a suck-it-and see exercise. My daughter Lily could try it out as well, so it wouldn't be solely an experimental gamble for me, but something potentially useful for her. (She's interested in the idea too.)
5454
Living Room / Britannica - would you buy it on (say) Kindle or Nook?
« Last post by IainB on March 15, 2012, 08:36 AM »
Came across this yesterday on Britannica's blog: Britannica Goes All-Out Digital
Looks like the hardcopy has gone into the history books, and digital is king.

I bought a hardcopy of Britannica years ago, mostly for my kids, but I have always liked it since I was a child. At one time I would have read the thing all day long if I had been allowed to.
I got a discounted CD copy of Britannica for PC some years back, and it was very good - much better than Encarta - but restrictive (due to DRM, I think), and I ended up not using it overly much.
But I think that if Britannica came onto (say) Kindle or Nook, then I would buy it - and that would determine which technology I plumped for (Kindle or Nook), whereas I am pretty ambivalent about them at present.

This would be despite my using Wikipedia quite a lot. I use that because it is ubiquitous and convenient, but having been involved in creating a few Wikipedia articles, and contributing to lots more, I became disenchanted with it due to the frequent moronic vandalism and stupid editing bias by some Wikipedia editors. So I stopped contributing time or money to Wikipedia.
I regard Britannica as a more reliable and authoritative source, though I have always felt that it went downhill a bit after it left British ownership.
5455
Living Room / Re: Sorry, This Post Has Been Censored
« Last post by IainB on March 14, 2012, 06:23 AM »
Google is increasingly...
Thanks for all those links.

Now at least I think I can understand that I could have been naive when I made this post:
Secretary Clinton Announces State Department Use of Chrome
Looks like quite an impressive "Win" for Google here.

The post avoids the usual cliché of "excited", but unfortunately replaced it with another adjective - "enthusiastic". This is presumably a mistake - should have been "enthused", the back formation from the noun "enthusiasm".
We’re enthusiastic to be leading the charge to bring an enhanced web browsing experience to State employees executing the critical U.S. diplomatic mission around the world!
Of course the US State Department gave their approval to the use of Chrome. Why wouldn't they?    :-[
5456
Living Room / Re: Why I Pirate - An Open Letter to Content Creators
« Last post by IainB on March 14, 2012, 05:35 AM »
So, if anybody can point me to a state or federal statute that specifically says otherwise - or can show a case where a corporate board or management team was prosecuted solely because the profits they achieved were not in keeping with investor expectations, I'd be happy to read about it and modify my statements accordingly.
Well, no pointers from me, sorry. I did say I wasn't sure about US law, and that's why I gave the long quoted example from that US lawyer, Robert Hinkley (above). That was the result of a quick google session. Maybe he is loopy, mistaken or being ambiguous? If so, then he's in for a surprise, because he's apparently left his lucrative day job to focus on getting corporations to be socially responsible - he at any rate seems to think that that objective could currently run contrary to their profit objectives.

The documentary The Corporation also identifies the profit-above-all-else sort of objective as a causal problem, and shows how some communities in the US have managed to reign in their local behemoth's socially damaging tendencies by local regulations that do not frustrate proper corporate operation and profitability.

Off-topic rant on corporate "social responsibility":
Spoiler
In any event, corporate social responsibility would seem to be a bit of a wish-fulfilment myth. We'd all like to see those nice corporates being "socially responsible" wouldn't we? So, when push comes to shove, why aren't they? Why does social responsibility seem to usually be the first casualty?

Presumably because there is no profit in it.
But doesn't it sound great when a CEO says how seriously they take their social responsibility, blah, blah? Of course it does. That's probably why they say it. Lip service. High-sounding and soothing phrases for the credible/gullible to lap up. "Social responsibility" is a cliché and can mean whatever you want it to mean anyway.

From my experience as a chief accountant, I think you would be hard-pressed to find a corporation that consistently is genuinely able to be "socially responsible" in its main drivers. I don't know of any currently, in these cold and uncertain economic times.
However, from history there are two that I know of - one of which I was an employee of. The first was the formation of Cadbury Brothers (Chocolate manufacturers) in Bournville, UK. The second was CDC (Control Data Corp).

Cadbury Brothers:
This company was started by two Quaker brothers and became a main textbook example (and I think it could even be the earliest) of a corporation that had an absolutely ethical and socially responsible attitude to its entire operation. (Not sure about Kellogg.)
From: Wikipedia Cadbury - 1824-1900 early history
In 1893, George Cadbury bought 120 acres (49 ha) of land close to the works and planned, at his own expense, a model village which would 'alleviate the evils of modern more cramped living conditions'. By 1900 the estate included 313 cottages and houses set on 330 acres (130 ha) of land. As the Cadbury family were Quakers there were no pubs in the estate;[7] in fact, it was their Quaker beliefs that first led them to sell tea, coffee and cocoa as alternatives to alcohol.[8]

CDC (Control Data Corp):
At one time, CDC was the second largest computer manufacturing and services company on the planet. Driven by its philanthropic founder and CEO William Norris (a brilliant computer engineer), it went bust after expending its financial resources across too many of his mandatory and diverse "social good" causes projects, resulting in underfunding and underdeveloping of the wealth-creating assets of its core business. It literally starved itself to death, financially.
Result, disaster. Happened over quite a short period too. I was there to watch it as it occurred, and got out before it sank in the early '80s. That was one seriously great corporation though. Even so, I recall that it wasn't without some egregious examples of management BS/buzzword doublespeak - in fact, CDC was where I came to understand the concept of "corporate BS" as an apparently deliberate US management tool for cynical psychological manipulation. (It was the first US company that I had worked for, in the UK.)
I recall that one of the "social good" programmes at CDC was a series of projects underway to increase food crop yields for various impoverished and starving parts of the world. Much as I admired the ethical objectives of this programme, I never could for the life of me figure out how to rationally prove that that had anything to do with running a business for profit, but there you are.

CDC was the sort of case study that fitted the class of case studies they called "BP" ("Big Project") corporate collapses in the book Corporate Collapse: The Causes and Symptoms by John Argenti (1976). (Great book, by the way! :Thmbsup:)

Note that CDC's collapse would have post-dated the book's publication by several years, so the management couldn't really have been reading the writing on the wall. Probably too busy reading about what successful corporations do, or just doing what their boss "inspired" them to do with his irrational "vision" - without arguing, of course, and regardless of how loopy it might all have seemed. Who wants to read or even think about collapse anyway, when your fat bonus probably depends on the completion of a huge and costly non-business, non-profit (i.e., loss-making) and non-sense project? Heck, anybody can make a loss! Let's do it!

5457
Living Room / Re: Cute jokes' thread
« Last post by IainB on March 13, 2012, 07:29 PM »
... Paste this into Google then search:
sqrt(cos(x))*cos(200x)+sqrt(abs(x))-0.7)*(4-x*x)^0.01, sqr(9-x^2), -sqrt(9-x^2) from -4.5 to 4.5
Heh. Cute.
5458
Living Room / Re: Why I Pirate - An Open Letter to Content Creators
« Last post by IainB on March 13, 2012, 07:59 AM »
My entire point is that there is no such law that requires a corporation, by law, to put making a profit above all other considerations in its day to day operations. And furthermore, in actual practice (since reality so often diverges from what the law says) acting in a manner that goes against the public good is generally frowned upon by the judicial system and the public at large. And arguing for doing wrong in the name of profit is not accepted as an absolute defense in any legal context I'm aware of. Which indicates (to me at least) that individuals and society do have a conscience and underlying moral framework that goes beyond the letter of the law.
I'm not sure that's completely true, so it could be an entirely false argument.
The film The Corporation covers this point comprehensively.

From experience (scratching my memory re my training in corporate law in the UK) the Companies Act 1948, or something, stipulated that any limited liability company had to have a Charter, and that the Charter was to include the objective to operate at a profit in the interests of shareholders. (OWTTE.)

I think the situation in the US is very similar, and that it is common throughout the Western economies.

For example, I googled the subject and found post this here by one Robert Hinkley:
HOW CORPORATE LAW INHIBITS SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
After 23 years as a corporate securities attorney-advising large corporations on securities offerings and mergers and acquisitions-I left my position as partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom because I was disturbed by the game. I realized that the many social ills created by corporations stem directly from corporate law. It dawned on me that the law, in its current form, actually inhibits executives and corporations from being socially responsible. So in June 2000 I quit my job and decided to devote the next phase of my life to making people aware of this problem. My goal is to build consensus to change the law so it encourages good corporate citizenship, rather than inhibiting it.

The provision in the law I am talking about is the one that says the purpose of the corporation is simply to make money for shareholders. Every jurisdiction where corporations operate has its own law of corporate governance. But remarkably, the corporate design contained in hundreds of corporate laws throughout the world is nearly identical. That design creates a governing body to manage the corporation-usually a board of directors-and dictates the duties of those directors. In short, the law creates corporate purpose. That purpose is to operate in the interests of shareholders. In Maine, where I live, this duty of directors is in Section 716 of the business corporation act, which reads:

…the directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and of the shareholders….

Although the wording of this provision differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, its legal effect does not. This provision is the motive behind all corporate actions everywhere in the world. Distilled to its essence, it says that the people who run corporations have a legal duty to shareholders, and that duty is to make money. Failing this duty can leave directors and officers open to being sued by shareholders.

Section 716 dedicates the corporation to the pursuit of its own self-interest (and equates corporate self-interest with shareholder self-interest). No mention is made of responsibility to the public interest. Section 716 and its counterparts explain two things. First, they explain why corporations find social issues like human rights irrelevant-because they fall outside the corporation’s legal mandate. Second, these provisions explain why executives behave differently than they might as individual citizens, because the law says their only obligation in business is to make money.

This design has the unfortunate side effect of largely eliminating personal responsibility. Because corporate law generally regulates corporations but not executives, it leads executives to become inattentive to justice. They demand their subordinates “make the numbers,” and pay little attention to how they do so. Directors and officers know their jobs, salaries, bonuses, and stock options depend on delivering profits for shareholders.

Companies believe their duty to the public interest consists of complying with the law. Obeying the law is simply a cost. Since it interferes with making money, it must be minimized-using devices like lobbying, legal hairsplitting, and jurisdiction shopping. Directors and officers give little thought to the fact that these activities may damage the public interest. Lower-level employees know their livelihoods depend upon satisfying superiors’ demands to make money. They have no incentive to offer ideas that would advance the public interest unless they increase profits. Projects that would serve the public interest-but at a financial cost to the corporation-are considered naive.

Corporate law thus casts ethical and social concerns as irrelevant, or as stumbling blocks to the corporation’s fundamental mandate. That’s the effect the law has inside the corporation. Outside the corporation the effect is more devastating. It is the law that leads corporations to actively disregard harm to all interests other than those of shareholders. When toxic chemicals are spilled, forests destroyed, employees left in poverty, or communities devastated through plant shutdowns, corporations view these as unimportant side effects outside their area of concern. But when the company’s stock price dips, that’s a disaster. The reason is that, in our legal framework, a low stock price leaves a company vulnerable to takeover or means the CEO’s job could be at risk. In the end, the natural result is that corporate bottom line goes up, and the state of the public good goes down. This is called privatizing the gain and externalizing the cost.

This system design helps explain why the war against corporate abuse is being lost, despite decades of effort by thousands of organizations. Until now, tactics used to confront corporations have focused on where and how much companies should be allowed to damage the public interest, rather than eliminating the reason they do it. When public interest groups protest a new power plant, mercury poisoning, or a new big box store, the groups don’t examine the corporations’ motives. They only seek to limit where damage is created (not in our back yard) and how much damage is created (a little less, please).

So, if I make the statement suggesting that "Corporations should have a social responsibility" then it is a statement of opinion which flies in the face of fact - that is, corporations are not charged with having a sense of social responsibility.
This is what makes Google's principle of "Do no evil" look rather like a cynical baby-pacifier (or dummy) for consumers, because there is little or nothing that obliges Google to adhere to that principle, whilst there is potentially a great deal to oblige them to operate to the contrary - e.g., Google effectively enabling discrete country Internet control and censorship of the Google services.
5459
Yes, amusing. I find lethologica a difficult word to remember. Knowing it still hasn't helped me to recall those other difficult words.
"...It's on the tip of my tongue..."

Question: Why is "dyslexia" spelt the way it is?
5460
Living Room / Re: Quietly brilliant products you might not have known you needed
« Last post by IainB on March 13, 2012, 07:26 AM »
FWIW I think you missed all of the nuance; along with most of the point in her comment. Understandable. You don't live here.  8)
Eh? Oh, sorry if I missed the nuance and point.
I was just:
  • (a) Supposing that the likely originators of the "corrosive" cliché ("entitled/entitlement") were people in the social services in some part of the world - though your GF did not suggest that, nor do I have any proof to substantiate my supposition. So it's a supposed irony, you see.
  • (b) At the same drawing a distinction between the present continuous of the verb ("is destroying most of what America used to be about") and the past tense of the transitive verb ("has destroyed most of what America used to be about").
So I was really just emphasising and agreeing with what your GF said in the first point re "entitled", and suggesting in the second point that the situation could be much worse in fact than your GF may think. A bit depressing really.

My brain hurts.
5461
Living Room / Re: Sorry, This Post Has Been Censored
« Last post by IainB on March 13, 2012, 05:01 AM »
I am highly skeptical of journalists' ability to be objective - because an awful lot of them seem to censor themselves into PC (Political Correctness) or the prevailing ThinkSpeak or politico-ideology before they even decide to report on anything.
However, The Inquirer has this interesting post about Reporters Without Borders, which seems to indicate that they are apparently doing some things right:
Spoiler
Reporters Without Borders lists the enemies of the internet
These countries are the most oppressive online
By Dave Neal
Mon Mar 12 2012, 16:42

JOURNALIST GROUP Reporters Without Borders has published its list of the countries with the worst attitudes towards the internet and online censorship.

A couple of new countries have joined the list for this year, so if there is a dinner for the worst nations, then whoever organises that needs to add Bahrain and Belarus to a seating arrangement that already includes Burma, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.

These countries have "enemy of the internet" status, while some other less obvious destinations, including France and Australia, can be found lurking just below them in the "under surveillance" category because of their attitudes toward web filtering and blocking.

All of the countries have placed a boot on internet freedom, according to the report, and Bahrain, which is fresh to its lofty "enemy" status, won its high ranking for its "effective news blackout based on a remarkable array of repressive measures".

Bahrain harasses bloggers and detains them for dissension, it added, while Belarus has shut off the internet during protests and blocks a long list of web sites from its users.

The United Kingdom also makes an appearance, and the report's authors are concerned about the reaction to the riots of this year and any likely technical changes as a result.

"The United Kingdom, whose Digital Rights Bill aimed at protecting copyright has been singled out by U.N. Commissioner La Rue, went through a difficult period during the riots last August," it says.

"In a worrying development, the Canadian company Research In Motion, manufacturers of the Blackberry, made the personal details of some users available to the police without a prior court order."

Surveillance is stronger than ever before, goes deeper and is more effective, says the report, and there are few countries where it does not raise its head.

Where there is oppression, there is also activism, says the report, and hacktivist groups like Anonymous are said to be helping out activists in countries when and where assistance is needed.

"In order to combat increasingly competent censors, self-styled 'hacktivists' have been giving technical assistance to vulnerable netizens to help them share information in the face of pervasive censorship," it adds.

"Last year also saw the development of tools to bypass censorship and blocking of Web access, such as 'Internet in a suitcase' and FreedomBox. Cyber freedom activists are working flat-out to respond to increasingly effective censorship tools."
µ

5462
Living Room / Re: Amazon pulls thousands of e-books... and the SFWA strikes back
« Last post by IainB on March 13, 2012, 04:44 AM »
Odd that Penguin are doing this:
Penguin Pointlessly Annoys Readers With USB-Only eBooks

I can't see the point of it.
5463
You may also be interested in HTTPS Finder. :)
Thanks for this @Boydon.
I have only just now got a round tuit and installed HTTPS Finder. I did so because it apparently overcomes this major limitation (from https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere):
HTTPS Everywhere can protect you only when you're using sites that support HTTPS and for which HTTPS Everywhere includes rules. If sites you use don't support HTTPS, ask the site operators to add it; only the site operator is able to enable HTTPS. There is more information and instruction on how server operators can do that in the EFF article How to Deploy HTTPS Correctly.

As it says at https://code.google.com/p/https-finder/ :
What is HTTPS Finder?
HTTPS Finder automatically detects and enforces valid HTTPS connections as you browse, as well as automating the rule creation process for HTTPS-Everywhere (instead of having to manually type "https://" in the address bar to test, and writing your own XML rule for it).

The extension sends a small HTTPS request to each HTTP page you browse to. If there is a response, the certificate is checked for validity (any certificate errors will result in no notification, and no further detection requests during that session). If valid, HTTPS is automatically enforced (can be disabled for an alert only, with no redirect), and the user is given an option to save the auto-generated rule for HTTPS Everywhere. It is recommended to create rules whenever possible, as it more securely enforces secure connections.
Looks ruddy brilliant. Let's see how it works in practice.

I am now running a suck-it-and-see trial of HTTPS Finder.
5464
Living Room / Re: Quietly brilliant products you might not have known you needed
« Last post by IainB on March 13, 2012, 03:21 AM »
School bullies don't steal geek's lunches in other countries?  :o
Well, it doesn't seem to be an issue in most New Zealand schools, as far as know. My daughter Lily is aged 10+, and I just asked her if she had ever come across or heard of children stealing other kids' lunches, or coercing them to give up their food. She's never heard of it happening and was surprised to hear that it apparently happens in some other countries and she is now curious to know in which countries it does happen.

The NZ schools seem to have a pretty good control on bullying, and presumably food-stealing would be regarded as just another form of bullying. Lily detests bullying - verbal (taunting) or physical - and would sing out if she saw it happening. She will also wade in to the defence of those being bullied. She told me only the other day that last year she had kicked and punched two boys (both bigger than she) when they were bullying another boy, to stop them from physically hurting him. She hadn't thought to mention it to me at the time and only mentioned it to me in the context of some teasing/bullying that had been going on recently with an autistic boy in her class (which was promptly dealt with by the school - in a really good way - after my mentioning it to the vice-principal).

In the interests of the children getting full nutrition, the school insists that parents provide them with nutritionally balanced lunchbox contents, and some sweet/junk foods are forbidden.
For the same reason, children are not supposed to offer their food to other children, and schoolyard trashcans have been removed and children told to take their lunch trash home so the parents can see what the child has or has not been eating.

Maybe if the schools were not so well-organised in this regard, food stealing might be common.
5465
Living Room / Re: Quietly brilliant products you might not have known you needed
« Last post by IainB on March 13, 2012, 01:30 AM »
I guess there will always be people who quite literally do not care and will steal whatever they want.
My GF works for the state social service. She maintains that the word "entitled" is the most dangerous and corrosive word in the American-English dictionary. The ever more widespread attitude that says: "I'm entitled..." is what is destroying most of what America used to be about.
She could be right. :'(
Well, that's a bit off-topic, but I'll follow it anyway, if you don't mind: the state social services probably spawned the ubiquitous cliché term "entitlement" in the first place, with phrases such as, for example, "Your unemployment benefits entitlement".
Admittedly it's from a distant and relatively ignorant perspective, but my take on things is that "what America used to be about" has arguably already been destroyed anyway - or maybe just bent and twisted out of all recognition is all.    :o

Going back to topic - on nifty products you might not have known you needed - on the theme of things to stop theft, these look quite interesting:
How to Make a Hollow Book
How to Hide Things in Your Room
5466
...I don't really know how to describe it other than to say when you first cue an LP, just before the music starts you can hear "the room." That empty but not totally silent "space" that the music starts playing in a second or so later. That ambient space is something digital recordings don't have.

author=40hz link=topic=30209.msg281600#msg281600 date=1331549956]
Sad when general memory loss also starts affecting your ability to recall vocabulary. ;D

You described it perfectly though!
By the way, "lethologica" is a handy word. It is defined as:
the inability to remember a word or put your finger on the right word
       ;D
5467
Living Room / Re: MAFIAA's unintended consequences? - e.g., Pirate Box
« Last post by IainB on March 12, 2012, 06:23 PM »
I firmly believe we are witnessing the first moves in the dance that will bring about the end of our present age of unrestricted and open personal computing.
Sadlement, it does seem to look that way. We are too irresponsible and have way too much freedom and it must be curtailed, except for the responsible few. We are irresponsibly having way too many children for our income or the planet to bear, and we must be sterilized, aborted pre-term or killed at birth, except for the responsible few. Fascism.

If the public Internet becomes highly restrictive, censored and "closed", then it will probably only serve to force innovation from the freedom-loving that will probably result in the growth of more and more networks (e.g., similar to PirateBox) outside of the controlled public domain. Cellular network anarchy.

I gather that FidoNet was a product of an environment where there was no decent networking infrastructure available for email transmission.
We now know that all our email could be subject to censorship when transmitted via the Internet.
Give it time...

The OpenDNS experiment to offer PC-to-DNS node encryption - added to existing node-to-node encryption, and currently only available in ß on Mac, not Windows - must be scaring the pants off the Establishment. Anarchy must not be tolerated. Regulation will be necessitated.
This OpenDNS venture could be quietly shut down as it "Didn't work very well", or something. Or maybe the encryption keys will be stored by a government department - same difference.
5468
Living Room / Re: Quietly brilliant products you might not have known you needed
« Last post by IainB on March 12, 2012, 05:54 PM »
Wow. The only places I can recall food being stolen is on the very odd occasion when using communal fridges in backpacker hotels or campsites in New Zealand, but then marking your food (e.g., with name or room-number) usually seems to work.
I guess there will always be people who quite literally do not care and will steal whatever they want.
5469
Living Room / Re: Quietly brilliant products you might not have known you needed
« Last post by IainB on March 12, 2012, 04:30 PM »
...Anti-Theft Lunchbags. Pre-printed with a rather nasty looking mold image to discourage casual theft.
I am curious to know: What sad part of the world would you have to live in to need to protect your sandwiches from being stolen?
5470
There is a discreteness in digital music that removes whatever it is that I call the soulfulness of real life.  It's really not noticeable unless you A/B really high end stuff...but I sometimes wonder what the conditioning has done to my ears.  I do enjoy listening to a record once in a while, but it's probably just the nostalgia more so than anything technical.
It's a weird thing.  The discrete-ness of digital...it does remove some gray area stuff.  Like pulse width modulator...it can approximate functionally well enough, but it's not true continuity.  And while we may not be aware of whatever is "missing", I can't shake the feeling that I can "feel" it.
I think the term for this is "ambience":
1. the mood, character, quality, tone, atmosphere, etc., particularly of an environment or milieu: The restaurant had a delightful ambiance.
2. that which surrounds or encompasses; environment.

When I had near-perfect hearing, I could easily detect the difference in ambience between (say) attending a BBC recording session of a choral work, and hearing that recording played back in analogue either on FM stereo or a vinyl LP record in stereo. The LP usually had some recording or playback noise from the medium used as well (which I never got on a digital CD recording.)
I also could hear the difference in real sound quality between cassette tape playback and 8-track cartridge playback. The former was rubbish, and the latter was usually superb.

For real sound quality I also preferred stereo FM playback to vinyl LP, but since the LPs were ubiquitous and could be played at will, I ended up mostly listening to LPs.

Similarly, with CDs, there was a definite and detectable difference between attending a BBC recording session of a choral work, and hearing that recording played back via CD, and I attributed that to a lack of the ambience that was there. A good example would be where the organ notes climb downstairs into the bass realms during parts of Brahms' Deutsches Requiem. If you were there, then you could actually feel your body resonating with the bass tones from those huge organ-pipes - vibrating in your skull and your body generally. I'm unsure whether it is possible to ever capture the full effect of the lowest and highest musical registers in any kind of recording, even now - except (arguably) vinyl LPs.

To capture the ambience best, I suspect you probably need something like a binaural recording, but even that probably has limitations.
5471
Living Room / Re: Apple & book publishers may be sued for price fixing
« Last post by IainB on March 12, 2012, 04:02 AM »
These companies really need to be taken down a notch.
Let me know how that works out.
5472
Living Room / Re: MAFIAA's unintended consequences? - e.g., Pirate Box
« Last post by IainB on March 12, 2012, 02:13 AM »
Yo Dawg. We heard you like torrents, so we put a torrent in your torrent so you can torrent while you torrent.
;D
-Stephen66515 (March 12, 2012, 12:07 AM)
Yes, it does seem a bit like that, doesn't it?
I think I generally understand the concept of torrents, and also the concept of "magnet-only" links which technology now apparently supersedes torrents at ThePirateBay. However, I have never actually used a torrent or magnet link to download anything.

The technology certainly seems to be in a dynamic state of change though, that's for sure - apparently under the external stimuli from threats of and actual police action. Pirate Box will probably be made illegal too, though it could be a tricky one to police effectively.
5473
Living Room / MAFIAA's unintended consequences? - e.g., Pirate Box
« Last post by IainB on March 11, 2012, 11:38 PM »
When faced with having to share their environment with something that seems too archaic/greedy/hostile for a peaceful coexistence, humans can sometimes demonstrate a non-agressive and remarkably intelligent adaptability. I think this could be an example:
PirateBox Takes File-Sharing Off The Radar and Offline, For Next To Nothing
5474
Living Room / Re: Why I Pirate - An Open Letter to Content Creators
« Last post by IainB on March 11, 2012, 11:03 PM »
...
Canadian author, professor at University of British Columbia Faculty of Law, has a fantastic (IMO) short book "The Corporation" (there's a 3 hour documentary film to go with it), where he does make that claim. In fact it is fundamental for his thesis. The thrust of the book is to show that the pathological behaviors of big corporations (of which he gives good examples, but you don't need to look far) do not happen because their CEOs are sociopaths. Rather, he says the corporation itself behaves as a sociopath since the law requires that profit be its primary goal and motivation.
...etc.
Yes, superb film - though I never realised there was a book! The film changed my paradigms and helped to explain why I had always had an uneasy feeling about some of the companies/industries that I work/worked in.

In the film The Corporation, they reviewed the personality disorder "psychopathy". (A psychopath is a person with chronic psychopathy, esp. leading to abnormally irresponsible and antisocial behaviour.)
They gave this checklist of criteria to identify the disorder:
    1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
    2. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.
    3. Reckless disregard for the safety of others.
    4. Deceitfulness: repeated lying and conning others for profit/financial gain.
    5. Incapacity to experience guilt.
    6. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours.

In the film, these criteria were shown to be met by many/most of the legal entities (legal persons) known as "corporations", thus demonstrating that society has legalised these special kinds of psychopaths to operate in society, where they can and do cause tremendous harm - e.g., including such things as economic dependency and control of communities, or a deadly (toxic) environmental footprint - sometimes both, as in the case of the US corporation Exide in their factory in Mexico.

Anyone watching this roughly 3-hour film documentary  - I think originally made or intended as 3 TV documentaries stitched together (and you can watch it in 23 parts on YouTube) - would find it rational, constructive, pragmatic and crammed full of facts and no religio-political ideology (e.g., greenism, warmism, anti-capitalism or communism). The film has speakers in it from various areas, including one notable corporate mogul (carpet manufacturing) who had not realised just what his huge creation was doing in the name of profitability until he happened by chance to see how one of his factories that he was visiting opened its sludge (waste) gates into the local river after dark. His management did this to conceal its pollution of the environment with its effluent. The discovery changed his entire management perspective.

Essentially, the film makes the point that a good/profitable corporation is a psychopathic legal person driven by the objective to maximise shareholder returns.
The film shows how communities depending on these monsters can, with a bit of collaboration, alter things for the better without frustrating the effective operation of the capitalist wealth-building enterprise.

Highly recommended.  
5475
Well, if our sense of hearing did not develop/evolve in an environment where there were any digitally re-created noises, then analogue sounds could perhaps be more likely to sound "right" or natural to our sense of hearing. Assuming the sense is fully-functional.
Anyway, if God had intended us to listen to digital music, then we would have 64-bit neural pathways from our hearyholes to our brain, or something.
Pages: prev1 ... 214 215 216 217 218 [219] 220 221 222 223 224 ... 264next