jjoelc writes: Being one of those "suffering" through the time change last night, the optimist in me reminded me that it could be much worse. That's when I started wondering how many different time/date standards there really are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard is a good starting point, but is sorely lacking in the various formats used by e.g. Unix, Windows, TRS-80, etc. And that is without even getting into the various calendars that have been in and out of use throughout the ages. So how about it Slashdotters? How many different time/date "standards" can we come up with, and I'm betting there are more than a few horror stories of having to translate between them...
I know who Jean Sibelius was, but Ucklak was talking about some "Sibelus" software. "Sibelius" is a well-known music notation package. There might be a plugin you need to install to view score sheets created with it.
Well, I was just pissed off a little bit by someone complaining about a piece of software they don't even know how to spell. I must admit that my post wasn't worth more than the original troll. Sorry.
An anonymous reader writes: The Ars Technica news desk article summarizes an article promoting computer forgetfulness:
Why would we want our machines to "forget"? Mayer-Schönberger suggests that we are creating a Benthamist panopticon by archiving so many bits of knowledge for so long. The accumulated weight of stored Google searches, thousands of family photographs, millions of books, credit bureau information, air travel reservations, massive government databases, archived e-mail, etc., can actually be a detriment to speech and action, he argues.
"If whatever we do can be held against us years later, if all our impulsive comments are preserved, they can easily be combined into a composite picture of ourselves," he writes in the paper. "Afraid how our words and actions may be perceived years later and taken out of context, the lack of forgetting may prompt us to speak less freely and openly."
In other words, it threatens to make us all politicians.
from the everyone's-favorite-buzzword dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "Researchers at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) have discovered that under certain conditions, some very common bacteria can form nanowires. These bacteria were able to produce nanowires as small as 10 nanometers in diameter, but which can reach hundreds of microns in length. What is interesting here is that these nanowires are electrically conductive ones. This means that bacteria could be used to build microbial fuel cells or bacteria-powered batteries. As one researcher said, 'Earth appears to be hard-wired.'"
from the would-this-appeal-to-you dept.
AnarkiNet wonders: "In an age of malware which installs itself via browsers, rootkits installing themselves from audio cds, and loads of other shady things happening on your computer, would a 'Closed OS' be successful? The idea is an operating system (open or closed source), which allows no third party software to be installed, ever. Yes, not even your own coded programs would run unless they existed in the OS-maker-managed database of programs that could be installed. Some people might be aghast at this idea but I feel that it could be highly useful for example in the corporate setting where there would be no need for a secretary to have anything on his/her computer other than the programs available from the OS-maker. For now, let's not worry if people can 'get around' the system. If each program that made up the collection of allowed programs was 'up to scratch' and had 'everything you need', would you really have an issue with being unable to install a different program that did the same thing?"