Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Tags on Linux also (at least in KDE apps) (Score 1) 258

by Smurf (#48602579) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Software For Image Organization?

Update: I just learned that there is indeed a way to tag files in Linux (well, in KDE apps at least). In its current incarnation it is called Baloo, and it is now implemented pretty much like tags are implemented in OS X, that is by incorporating the tags in an extended attribute for the file.

Unfortunately when I google "baloo kde" I do see quite a bit of pages asking or showing how to disable Baloo. I guess it's still in its infancy and still suffers from performance issues. (Baloo actually does much more than tagging, it is the whole file indexing system, so it is more akin to Spotlight on the Mac side.)

Comment: Re: Simplest is best (Score 1) 258

by Smurf (#48601925) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Software For Image Organization?

That is fantastic! Thank you very much for the info!

For others that may be interested in file tagging in Linux, it seems there are two systems: the old one called Nepomuk and its replacement Baloo.

Nepomuk uses a database that needs to be running permanently which associates tags and files. That approach has too many drawbacks, and quite frankly would be an unsatisfactory substitute for OS X's tagging.

Baloo, on the other hand, does things the right way, by incorporating the tags into an extended attribute for the file. That is exactly the way it's done in OS X, and it works awesomely provided that you have a good indexing system that indexes those extended attributes like Spotlight does. (Close-to-immediate searches are fundamental for the success of a system-wide tagging system.)

Thanks again for the info!

Comment: Tags on OS X (Score 1) 258

by Smurf (#48598121) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Software For Image Organization?

I am aware that the original poster wants to use Linux and may be talked into using Windows but probably not into buying a Mac. But since other people will have the same question and some of them may be Mac users, here it goes:

Many responders have already suggested creating ingenious folder structures that will help you keep a basic level of organization to the photo collection. Use any of those systems, and augment it by making use of OS X's extremely useful tagging feature.

Furthermore, there are many applications, such as the ones made by Ironic Software, that allow you to search, organize, and work with your files in very powerful ways using those tags. Since the tagging system is common to all of them you are not tied to any particular application.

The only downside of this is that you do become dependent on OS X at least until other systems implement tagging.

Comment: Re:Simplest is best (Score 0) 258

by Smurf (#48598029) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Software For Image Organization?

I guess it's not your system of choice (nor the submitter's), but OS X does have a very useful tagging feature on the filesystem.

Furthermore, there are many applications, such as the ones made by Ironic Software, that allow you to search, organize, and work with your files in very powerful ways using those tags. Since the tagging system is common to all of them you are not tied to any particular application (although you do become dependent on OS X at least until other systems implement tagging).

Comment: Re:60 Minutes Pushing Propaganda? (Score 1) 409

by Smurf (#48586727) Attached to: Is Chernobyl Still Dangerous? Was 60 Minutes Pushing Propaganda?

I'm replying to a message thread that started with arth1's assertion:

"And in the US of A, a corporation is legally a person. No, I'm not kidding."

to which you were specifically responding. We were all talking about personhood in the USA specifically, but now suddenly you want to pretend that the conversation was about something else.

Comment: Re:What a shock (Score 1) 409

by Smurf (#48583327) Attached to: Is Chernobyl Still Dangerous? Was 60 Minutes Pushing Propaganda?

In Germany, even this year, 40% of the wild boars which were tested in Saxony (hunters are required to check animals they killed for radioactivity) showed radioactivity higher than the limit of 600 becquerel/kg, which made them officially unsuitable for human consumption.

Just a small comment: 600 Bq/kg may be officially unsuitable for human consumption, but it's quite frankly a very small amount of radioactivity. In fact, that means that a typical portion of 1/2 pound of meat would have less than 150 Bq, which is what ten regular bananas have.

I'm not saying that Saxonian boars are all perfectly safe to eat, only that German regulations borderline silly.

Comment: Re:60 Minutes Pushing Propaganda? (Score 1) 409

by Smurf (#48582945) Attached to: Is Chernobyl Still Dangerous? Was 60 Minutes Pushing Propaganda?

I'm legally a person, and yet I can't vote, as I'm not a citizen of the US. There are many "limits and exceptions" on the rights of many people that you would certainly agree "are persons legally," like non-citizens, minors, ex-convicts (and convicts, of course).

My point is: The fact that corporations don't have all the rights of other persons is not proof that they are not persons legally.

Comment: Re:Fear Mongering continued (Score 1) 66

by Smurf (#47668147) Attached to: Scientists Who Smuggle Radioactive Materials

You are not getting it: It has nothing to do with therapy vs. detection.

The article talks about contraband of radioactive materials. I gave you examples where radioactive materials are used both in therapy (certain kinds of radiotherapy for cancer) and in medical imaging (PET and SPECT). You mentioned none of these examples.

Instead, you gave three examples (x-rays, CT scanners, chemotherapy) none of which use radioactive materials.

Thus you used completely invalid examples to illustrate a very valid point.

Comment: Re:Fear Mongering continued (Score 1) 66

by Smurf (#47667869) Attached to: Scientists Who Smuggle Radioactive Materials

(...) how they believe those countries can achieve medical procedures we use every day in hospitals and labs (not including Universities and other research facilities) without radioactive isotopes. Things like X-Rays, Chemotherapy, CT scans, and everything else found in a Nuclear Medicine office (which is a pretty long list).

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but you picked up precisely the wrong examples.

X-ray machines and CT scanners (which are essentially an x-ray tube and detector mounted on a rotating gantry) do not contain any radioactive material whatsoever. Yes, they emit ionizing radiation (in the form of x-rays), but it is not originating from a radionuclide. Other types of tomographic scanners such as PET and SPECT do employ radionuclides injected into the patient, but you precisely didn't mention those.

And chemotherapy... again, that uses chemical agents to treat cancer, not radioactivity. Yes, there is radiotherapy, which in some cases (but not always) relies on radionuclides to deliver an ionizing radiation dose, but again you failed to mention it.

Comment: Re:Too many words (Score 1) 98

by Smurf (#47504979) Attached to: Researcher Finds Hidden Data-Dumping Services In iOS

The data for the US is almost laughably vague. It could very well be that 1000 requests were made, and 1000 requests were granted.

100% success rate in complying with requests sounds pretty cozy to me...

Following that exact same logic we could argue that 2000 requests were made (involving 3000 accounts) and 0 were granted.

A 0% success rate in complying with requests sounds pretty un-cozy to me...

I agree that the data is worthless, though.

It was kinda like stuffing the wrong card in a computer, when you're stickin' those artificial stimulants in your arm. -- Dion, noted computer scientist

Working...