DISQUS

@PAOH : Rectifions tout de suite : MPX ne se veut en aucun cas comme un concurrent de Surface; ce sont les vidéos présentes sur youtube qui ont contribué à ce faux buzz. pour avoir discuté longuement avec le concepteur de cette application, je peux confirmer que le but premier n'est pas de faire fonctionner du multi touch.
MPX en lui-même veut dire : Multi Pointer X , ce qui signifie que l'interface X de linux peut accepter une multitude de pointeurs (en gros tu peux faire chauffer les hub USB et brancher autant de claviers et souris que tu veux) ce sont d'autres concepteurs qui ont utilisé cette interface dans le but de l'adapter au multi touch.

Pour ceux que ça intéresse vous pouvez tout trouver ici :http://wearables.unisa.edu.au/mpx/

Ainsi qu'une version live CD basée sur Ubuntu : http://wearables.unisa.edu.au/mpx/downloads/dep...

@Dan Perry -


The problem with using Twitter for customer service is that if you're having problems with it, you can't contact them.



Sorta like the billboards with literacy information...

Excellent post! I ran into the same problem a week ago and have been struggling to get past it. Thanks!

out of ideas mccain is out of ideas and appears as stupid as the idiot in chief.

A bad day for the hard left But a great day for the vast majority of Americans who support this legislation.

A bad day for the hard left But a great day for the vast majority of Americans who support this legislation.

A nice comment But actions speak louder than words. 

In that view, why don't you take down that anti-Norm Coleman ad on the right side of your blog?  At least for a couple of days? 

A nice comment But actions speak louder than words. 

In that view, why don't you take down that anti-Norm Coleman ad on the right side of your blog?  At least for a couple of days? 

A couple points 1) I guess we should be grateful that Black got through an entire article without mentioning that he worked for the Star Tribune.

2) According to Black, Jacobs is his "buddy".  I didn't know that a journalistic source could be a "buddy".  With that kind of moralistic compass, Black should fit right in here at the Monitor.  Moreover, given Jacobs' "buddy" status, one has to wonder how many times Black pulled his punches to protect his "buddy".  We do know that Black pulled his punches about Bachmann's tiff at the endorsing convention.  Given that Bachmann is not a "buddy" of Black, one can only surmise that Black routinely pulls punches for his buddies. 

A couple points 1) I guess we should be grateful that Black got through an entire article without mentioning that he worked for the Star Tribune.

2) According to Black, Jacobs is his "buddy".  I didn't know that a journalistic source could be a "buddy".  With that kind of moralistic compass, Black should fit right in here at the Monitor.  Moreover, given Jacobs' "buddy" status, one has to wonder how many times Black pulled his punches to protect his "buddy".  We do know that Black pulled his punches about Bachmann's tiff at the endorsing convention.  Given that Bachmann is not a "buddy" of Black, one can only surmise that Black routinely pulls punches for his buddies. 

This almost (key word "almost") makes you feel sorry for Eric He did not take this kind of beating he has taken in the Comments section of this blog when he was in the rarified air at the Strib.  At his sanctuary on Portland Avenue, never was heard a discouraging word from the masses. 

This almost (key word "almost") makes you feel sorry for Eric He did not take this kind of beating he has taken in the Comments section of this blog when he was in the rarified air at the Strib.  At his sanctuary on Portland Avenue, never was heard a discouraging word from the masses. 

Gosh, Eric.... you make Bachmann sound like Hillary Clinton.

Gosh, Eric.... you make Bachmann sound like Hillary Clinton.

Steve, you still don't get it You were the one who made a big deal about that "the FEC was willing to take up this claim".  These are your words, not mine.  Nor was it any implication of anything you might have said.

The FEC takes up all "claims" that anyone (you, me, Master of None, CREW, etc.) files at the FEC and then conducts an investigation.  The FEC, in that regard, is like a bus that picks up anyone standing at the bus stop.

If you have information to the contrary, here's your chance to put it out in the open.

Otherwise, your making a big deal about that "the FEC was willing to take up this claim" is a case of making a big deal about nothing. 

Steve, you still don't get it You were the one who made a big deal about that "the FEC was willing to take up this claim".  These are your words, not mine.  Nor was it any implication of anything you might have said.

The FEC takes up all "claims" that anyone (you, me, Master of None, CREW, etc.) files at the FEC and then conducts an investigation.  The FEC, in that regard, is like a bus that picks up anyone standing at the bus stop.

If you have information to the contrary, here's your chance to put it out in the open.

Otherwise, your making a big deal about that "the FEC was willing to take up this claim" is a case of making a big deal about nothing. 

WOW! Even Ellison caves for the Jewish lobby.

WOW! Even Ellison caves for the Jewish lobby.

Feckless: Here's some other quotes you may want to ponder "I think we saw in 1964 a real turn in the country," said LBJ's campaign manager.

"I think we saw in 1980 a real turn in the country," said Ronald Reagan's campaign manager.

My point, Feckless One, and I do have a point, is that history teaches us that one election does not signify a "turn" real or otherwise in this country.

Let me continue with the history lesson of the elections that occurred in my life time.  Tell me if you see a "real turn" or pattern:

1954: Dems win control of Congress from the GOP.

1956: GOP Eisenhower wins in landslide.


1958: Dems win landlide in congressional races.


1960: Dem Kennedy wins closest race in history.


1962: Dems win congressional elections.


1964: Dem LBJ wins in landslide.


1966: GOP landslide in congressional races.


1968: GOP Nixon wins close election.


1970: Dems win congressional races.


1972: GOP Nixon wins in landslide.


1974: Dems landslide in congressional races.


1976: Dem Carter wins close election.


1978: Dems win congressional races.


1980: GOP Reagan wins in landslide.


1982: Dems win congressional races.


1984: GOP Ragan wins in landslide.


1986: Dems win congressional races.


1988: GOP Bush wins sizeable landslide.


1990: Dems win congressional races.


1992: Dem Clinton wins close election.


1994: GOP wins landslide in congressional races.


1996: Dem Clinton wins close election.


1998: Dems win congressional races.


2000: GOP Bush wins close election.


2002: GOP sweeps congressional races.


2004: GOP Bush wins close elections.


2006: Dems win congressional races.

 

Feckless: Here's some other quotes you may want to ponder "I think we saw in 1964 a real turn in the country," said LBJ's campaign manager.

"I think we saw in 1980 a real turn in the country," said Ronald Reagan's campaign manager.

My point, Feckless One, and I do have a point, is that history teaches us that one election does not signify a "turn" real or otherwise in this country.

Let me continue with the history lesson of the elections that occurred in my life time.  Tell me if you see a "real turn" or pattern:

1954: Dems win control of Congress from the GOP.

1956: GOP Eisenhower wins in landslide.


1958: Dems win landlide in congressional races.


1960: Dem Kennedy wins closest race in history.


1962: Dems win congressional elections.


1964: Dem LBJ wins in landslide.


1966: GOP landslide in congressional races.


1968: GOP Nixon wins close election.


1970: Dems win congressional races.


1972: GOP Nixon wins in landslide.


1974: Dems landslide in congressional races.


1976: Dem Carter wins close election.


1978: Dems win congressional races.


1980: GOP Reagan wins in landslide.


1982: Dems win congressional races.


1984: GOP Ragan wins in landslide.


1986: Dems win congressional races.


1988: GOP Bush wins sizeable landslide.


1990: Dems win congressional races.


1992: Dem Clinton wins close election.


1994: GOP wins landslide in congressional races.


1996: Dem Clinton wins close election.


1998: Dems win congressional races.


2000: GOP Bush wins close election.


2002: GOP sweeps congressional races.


2004: GOP Bush wins close elections.


2006: Dems win congressional races.

 

What do we know about the FEC and CREW? You write that the "FEC was willing to take up this claim."  Do we know if the FEC is like a public transit bus, which picks up all riders (read "claim")? 

You write that the "CREW filed a complaint".  Do we know if the CREW is front organization for the Democratic party and/or left wing groups?  Do we know who staffs the CREW?  Do we know what their political backgrounds are like?  Do we know where their money comes from?

Many questions....few answers.

We won't get those from the reporter that wrote this story. 

What's next?  Reprinting CREW press releases?  Digging through Ron Carey's garbage? 

Finally, as we say in criminal law, the fact that someone says you did something wrong doesn't mean that you did something wrong.  And, here, I thought that sentiment was a a mark of faith for the left-wing. 

What do we know about the FEC and CREW? You write that the "FEC was willing to take up this claim."  Do we know if the FEC is like a public transit bus, which picks up all riders (read "claim")? 

You write that the "CREW filed a complaint".  Do we know if the CREW is front organization for the Democratic party and/or left wing groups?  Do we know who staffs the CREW?  Do we know what their political backgrounds are like?  Do we know where their money comes from?

Many questions....few answers.

We won't get those from the reporter that wrote this story. 

What's next?  Reprinting CREW press releases?  Digging through Ron Carey's garbage? 

Finally, as we say in criminal law, the fact that someone says you did something wrong doesn't mean that you did something wrong.  And, here, I thought that sentiment was a a mark of faith for the left-wing. 

I agree with Master of None The most interesting aspect of any story is "why".

Good work, MON!

As I said before, Bodell is about as interested in fairness as a hog is interested in holy water.

And add freedom from conflicts of interest to that list.

I agree with Master of None The most interesting aspect of any story is "why".

Good work, MON!

As I said before, Bodell is about as interested in fairness as a hog is interested in holy water.

And add freedom from conflicts of interest to that list.

Pigeon-hold? Abdi,

In my view, you are one of the best, if not the best writer, at the Minnesota Monitor.

However (and you may have known this "however" was coming), it appears that you are being pigeon-hold into becoming a permanent member of the "Muslim" beat.

Taking a look at your recent stories (e.g., cabbies at the airport, Ellison), there is a sort of "Muslim" connection to all of them.  Not that there is anything wrong with that (to pick up Jerry Seinfeld's famous line), but are you planning to use your considerable writing skills to cover other stories, namely ones that don't have a "Muslim" connection?