Does it actually matter whether you have open applications when installing new software?

Benjamin SchollnickNo Comments

Why do installers often ask you to close all your applications before installing a new software package?   Does it actually matter whether you have open applications when installing new software?

It seems the norm these days is for installers/setup programs to request that you close all open applications before initiating the install process for a piece of new software. I can\’t even recall a time it has ever posed a problem.
Well, there a few reasons for this to be historically necessary.  Especially on the Windows platform.  First, installer may require access to registry keys that could be locked by an open program.  Second, the software may install a new Windows DLL, that either could be an upgraded DLL, which could be problematic if there is an application already using the DLL.  Also, without rebooting, it maybe very difficult to force the Windows OS to reload the DLL.
Third, the installer may create a system restore point, and having open programs can cause problems with creating restore points….
Fourth, depending on your web browser, it may not be able to load plugin\’s dynamically, for example, try installing Adobe Flashplayer with your web browser open.  With the Macintosh version of Safari, I know can load most plugin\’s dynamically, so you don\’t have to quit…  But other web browsers may not be able to do this.
Well-written installers will prompt you to close specific applications that are getting in the way. Even some poorly-written installers will give you enough clues to figure out what is in conflict. Just closing applications that you suspect to conflict (web browser while installing a browser plugin) is sufficient most of the time.

Canonicity in Doctor Who

Benjamin SchollnickNo Comments

Paul Cornell discusses Canon / Canonicity in Doctor Who…  How the new TV series goes out of it\’s way to not shut the door on the previous novels, TV series episodes, etc in regards to Canon discussions…

Back in the mists of time, the fans of Sherlock Holmes thought it would be funny to refer to those stories about Holmes written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as being ‘part of the Canon’. They were thinking of the books that had been officially declared to be part of the Bible. They thereby confused two things, and it’s their fault we’ve been in a linguistic twist about this ever since. The canon they referred to was decreed by authority, the theological authority of a group of high clerics concerning how much truth and how much fan fiction was contained in a particular proto-Gospel. The Canon of Sherlock Holmes stories, on the other hand, wasn’t decided by authority after the fact, but by authorial authority. If Conan Doyle wrote it, it was in. If he didn’t, it was out. Sherlock Holmes fans could have no debates about what was and wasn’t ‘canonical’. ‘Written by Conan Doyle’ was what their new version of ‘canonical’ meant.
That new definition of ‘canon’ works fine if you’re dealing with works by one author. It works not at all in any other frame of reference. Doctor Who was created by many people, over a long period of time, and they did not cooperate. There is no authorial authority, and, as I’ll get to in a moment, no council of Bishops.

Read the rest of the article at PaulCornell.com: Canonicity in Doctor Who.

Climate Change Deniers Being Led by…Climate Change Believer? [Casaubon\’s Book]

Benjamin SchollnickNo Comments

Here\’s the original article:

Mother Jones notes that in private interviews, Glenn Beck, fiery loon of the right, privately seems to believe in anthropogenic climate change.

Last week he mocked climate scientists for being \’alarmists\’ who believe that \’we\’re all going to die in a fiery flood.\’ Not long ago he touted the global warming chapter of his An Inconvenient Book as \’kryptonite against your Gore-worshipping psycho friends.\’ And in May 2007 he hosted an hour-long television special, Exposed: The Climate of Fear, featuring an all-star lineup of climate change denialists and promising the \’other side of the climate debate that you don\’t hear anywhere.\’ Beck was also, of course, the driving force behind the successful right-wing push last year to bring down Obama\’s green jobs guru, Van Jones.

But an interview with Beck in USA Weekend revealed that his private views on climate are very different from those he espouses on his day job. In fact, Beck appears not only to be convinced that global warming is real, but that it\’s a genuine problem:

\’You\’d be an idiot not to notice the temperature change,\’ he said. He also says there\’s a legit case that global warming has, at least in part, been caused by mankind.

The article also says that Beck has felt compelled to \’buy a home with a \’green\’ design and using energy-saving products

I think this is more compelling evidence for the proposition that many of the people who are most invested in discrediting climate science are intellectually dishonest, doing it for political or economic gain, rather than out of sincere conviction. We\’ve seen similar admissions made by energy company execs who are funding climate denial at the same time they accept the science.

I think most of the ordinary people who believe them are genuinely misled by the claims being made and confused by complext material. As I\’ve written, I can sometimes get along better with someone who believes that we can\’t go on as we are but who doesn\’t believe in climate change than many people who accept climate change but believe the solutions are someone else\’s problems. But at the leadership level, I think the evidence for profound intellectual dishonesty is quite compelling – far more compelling than the grounds for criticizing climate science.

Or alternatively, can we consider some less fringe ideas…
1) He has stated that he believes that Global Warming is not entirely caused by man…
2) If you can afford it, and want to, there is nothing wrong with reducing your \”carbon\” foot print. I do it at my house by using Home Automation…
3) Being efficient is never wrong… But that doesn\’t mean that Mr. Beck believes that global warming is caused 100% by man\’s environmental foot print. What about the Solar cycle? What about the fact that we have weather temperature sensors less than 30 ft away from air conditioners now?
The point is, Mr. Beck can believe what he wishes…. And just because he may, or may not, believe part of the other side\’s argument, doesn\’t mean he believes it all.
That\’s a strawman argument that you just can\’t win.