iPhone 4 would work better - complete forgot about that. But then they were somewhat pushed into that name (for clarity reasons) by the stupid names of the previous iPhones.
Pushed into it? I'm pretty sure they named it 4 to suggest to those who haven't done research that it supports 4G wireless networks, so when providers and other manufactures advertise 4G service, people think "Apple has that!". I still hear it called "the iPhone 4G" from time to time.
If that wasn't the primary reason, it had to be part of the calculation.
There is very little cross use of DRM-burdened content for any of the devices out there, so it isn't just Amazon
Actually, the Kindle is one of the most, if not the most, limited ebook reader devices in terms of DRMed content. The Nook and many other readers support the EPUB format with Adobe Digital Editions DRM, which is the closest thing there is to a standard right now. Amazon chose to make their own non-compatible format and not support the standard. So they're chosen to make things worse.
In my case, the Kindle was the best choice since I shop on Amazon frequently anyway and don't live near a B&N store.
In terms of content and options, probably not. The Nook supports alternate bookstores that use the EPUB format (Google just opened one) as well as borrowing books from libraries. The Kindle does neither. Why does it matter if you live near a Barnes & Noble? Do you live near an Amazon?
I selected the Nook for the ability to borrow library books alone. Sure, the DRM still sucks, but at least the device gives you a little interoperability and the option of selecting your source to some degree in the DRM world, unlike the Kindle.
I haven't used Opera's tab stacking yet, but it sounds a lot like one of the features the Tree Style Tab add-on adds to Firefox. It's quite a flexible add-on, and if you constantly have a lot of tabs open or would prefer to have a hierarchical tab list on the side to save vertical real estate (especially if you have a 16:9 monitor), it can revolutionize your world almost as much as tabs did originally. I can't recommend it enough.
PBS uses underwriting, which is a rather limited form of advertising. Non-commercial television and radio stations are limited to giving sponsors underwriting spots in the U.S. You can call them "ads", but they really aren't as obnoxious (although some I've seen recently push the distinction to the limit), and they only appear at the beginning and end of a program.
Wikipedia's article on underwriting is okay, but not really good. The PBS information is clipped from elsewhere, and there is no mention of specific restrictions for non-commercial radio.
In any case, I just donated $35, seeing as how the plea is now urgent. Personally, I usually ignore the banners when I see them, as I assume a lot of people are donating to Wikipedia as something that is of interest to everyone. I generally make my donations to organizations that serve niche interests that don't see as much traffic. A lot of people probably take the same approach. If Wikipedia really needs the money, I hope they have a plan to make it quite clear to these people. This/. article did the trick for me.
So how did Theobald (pictured above) end up with such a contentious document?
Bayer, the corporation behind clothianidin (the pesticide in question), published a life cycle study about it in 2006 at the EPA's request. The study was flawed--test and control fields were, for example, planted as close as 968 feet apart. But the EPA continued to allow the use of clothianidin, which has been on the market since 2003 for use on corn, canola, soy, sugar beets, sunflowers, and wheat (and which has been banned by Germany, France, Italy, and Slovenia for its toxic effects on bees, birds, and other species).
Fast forward to this year. Theobald wrote an article in the July issue of Bee Culture about clothianidin. Then an employee at the EPA called Theobald to tell him the article had led the EPA to review the pesticide's original life cycle study before approving clothianidin for use on cotton and mustard.
"They told me that EPA scientists had reviewed the original lifecycle study and determined it wasn't scientifically sound, and I asked if it had been documented, if there was a hard copy," he says, "The [employee] said yes, and I asked if I could get a copy." And just like that, he had the proof he needed that the EPA had overlooked something that could be killing America's bees.
When I read they were introducing new map types and play modes, my first hope was that they'd bring back team melee.
And before someone says it's already in the game, it's not. It was a really innovative way to play RTS as a team, and it's a shame they haven't included it. If you don't remember the mode from the original, have a look at the thread on the forum asking for its return.
Decent GPS units give quite good directions, if you filter them using your head. I may simply be unwilling to spend the time noting every twist-and-turn down.
I agree with you that the directions are often good (though certainly not more than 90% in my experience). But the comic wasn't about filtering the directions through your head. It was about blatantly disregarding the directions you would filter against. Rudely.
If I prefer to use a map, or a GPS, it doesn't mean I'm sociopathic. It may simply mean that I've been around places, and don't need handholding.
Again, I agree. I love maps, and I'd usually rather find my own way than using someone's directions, just for fun. Yes, that is fun for me.
But showing contempt for what someone is trying to tell you and being so sure of your own tool that you're not even willing to listen through someone's directions is arrogant. And probably not sociopathic (I was a bit strong in my initial assessment), but certainly heading down that road.
Well using a GPS saves a lot of writing down/remembering directions heck even with good directions it is still easy enough to get lost if you don't know the area you are going to GPS units are maps and directions all in one:)
I'm not saying GPS devices and electronic maps aren't great! I really like them.
I just think it's short-sighted to totally disregard what someone is trying to tell you. And I speak from experience, because on at least two occasions in the past I put an address in a GPS / Google Maps thinking my technology was quicker and easier than what someone had to tell me, and it cost me a lot of time and some embarrassment. On one of the occasions, it turned out Google Maps didn't know that there was a difference between First St. and First Ave. and my friends and I ended up at a trailer park instead of our destination, which was 30 minutes away. Oops. Should have read the directions.
I prefer having the address first too. And if I'm given directions, I might not use them. I like finding my own way and looking at maps. I like taking scenic routes if I'm not on a tight schedule.
But if an acquaintance is giving me directions, I'm not just going to cut him off and tell him I don't care what he is saying. Unless it's a long list, at least. It strikes me as pretty rude. Interestingly, it's hard to tell, because you don't get the other side of the conversation in the comic. You only hear the impatient guy with the GPS.
The person giving directions is a prick. A bigger prick than the one asking for the address.
I disagree. The person giving directions who isn't listening to the question is a being a prick, but in a more removed way. At least that person is trying to be helpful.
Unless the person talking about the GPS is somehow strained for time, how long does it take to listen to the directions first, even if just to disregard them? It's part of dealing with people. And it's not that bad.
Unlike the usual XKCD, it strikes me as snarky, not insightful.
Wow, I don't normally think this after looking at an XKCD comic, but that one is so arrogant and off the mark, in one of the worst ways possible!
Blindly trusting a GPS device's directions, and insultingly disregarding the likely better directions of someone who lives there and is intimately familiar with the best way to get there, shows a total distrust in the intelligence of the person you're visiting. Sure, it's good to have the address and look up the directions yourself, but immediately preferring the automated directions, which often, at least in my experience, have problems, is almost sociopathic in the trust it shows in technology over personal wisdom.
To bring this back to the support desk issue, I think it actually supports the current, often frustrating, script-based approach. What is the ratio of knowledgeable users to arrogant idiots who thinks they're knowledgeable users? You know, the users who don't want to listen to the easy solution that fixes the problem 80% of the time, which would fix it for them, because they're experts and have a tool that often works that they trust in totally, even though they haven't the faintest clue on what they're doing?
"At each board meeting I tell them we have not been served by any (search warrants)," she said. "In any months that I don't tell them that, they'll know."
I wonder if this technique could be used in other ways.
An ISP could use automation to send its customers some sort of message once a day as long as the the customer is not under investigation in a message queue the customer doesn't need to check. If an NSL comes for a customer, the "not under investigation" flag could be disabled for that customer. The ISP could then set up an email alert / automated phone message if the message is not sent one day to make it very obvious to the customer that some unidentified investigation is going on.
Title 18, U.S.C. Section 2709(c) seems to only specifically prohibit disclosure "that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records". Stopping sending notifications that there is no investigation doesn't necessarily seem to violate that prohibition.
They're all shit since IBM sold Thinkpad to Lenovo.
This isn't true in my experience. Sure, there are some cheaper machines now under the Thinkpad brand, but the T and X series are still excellent pieces of hardware. Their specs are higher and they have more connectivity/upgrade options than comparable Apple machines, the keyboards leave Apple in the dust, their workmanship is generally on par, docks are available, they have good Linux support (if that is important to you), and they cost roughly 30%-40% less than a comparable MacBook if you spend an hour or two looking for a deal.
It's easy for you to make broad statements and summarily dismiss Thinkpads without much deliberation because Lenovo is Chinese-owned, but the truth is that the higher end Thinkpads are still nice (and less expensive than Apple notebooks).
For comparably equivalent machines, (sames size LED backlit IPS panel, same HD size and speed, same bus, memory, processor, bluetooth, camera, etc, etc)
None of the current MacBooks have IPS panels. In fact, they're not even PVA or MVA--they're TN. If the MacBooks did have IPS panels, the price:value ratio would be more reasonable.
Plus, all this hype around these Toyota acceleration problems is just that, hype.
So... 52 people hyped to death. That might be some kind of record.
52 people allegedly hyped to death.
Few if any of these tragic incidents have yet been demonstrably linked to either defect-related unintended acceleration or media hysteria.
However, I would expect hype-related deaths to increase as drivers of Toyotas and other vehicles make unusual fear-based driving decisions concerning the perceived threat of runaway Toyotas (or try to cash in on the lawsuit).
Has there actually been a confirmed case of one of these cars not shifting to neutral after the driver has tried?
At best, I hear this fear expressed as "But the transmission is electronically controlled, and input is only a suggestion! This could prevent the car from responding to the driver!" At worst, I've seen some of the dodgier news reports supplement the original story they've copied suggesting/assuming that this happens as a fact. But I've never seen this claim in any official report or from a source I would trust to accurately report this information.
I drive a Prius, and I can tell you that doing just about anything with the shifter while at speed (moving it to netural, throwing it in reverse, hitting the park button) will actually put the car in the neutral. Of course adding a software layer introduces the possibility of bugs to the already-existing chance of mechanical failure. But if the software is well written, the way my Toyota handles this seems very well-conceived. It will refuse to go into reverse or try to park, yes--it does the safest thing and moves into neutral instead.
For both the accelerator to electronically be stuck at wide open throttle, the brakes not to work, and the transmission to neglect to use its failsafe of switching to neutral could only be either coincidental to the point of obscurity or a massive system-wide failure. If these systems are connected in a way that would allow such a failure to happen, it's a horrible design. I'm not saying it's not possible, but as far as I'm aware no technically-trained person has found evidence of this in examining any of the vehicles whose drivers have reported unintended acceleration.
I just installed the Tree Style Tab add-on based on your recommendation, and in using it for twenty minutes, I must say that with my browser usage pattern, it may improve the usability of the browser almost as much as the original addition of tabs. I usually leave a number of tabs that I'm working with open, sort of like short-term bookmarks, but in Firefox's display of the tabs at the top, I usually end up with two screen-fulls of tabs. In the default horizontal display, once some of the tabs are off the screen I need to scroll to access them. I can't easily tell which tabs are open, and it's easier to open new tabs than find the ones I'm looking for. This is convenient, but it makes the situation worse.
I'm sure displaying the tabs vertically wouldn't be convenient for the vast majority of people, but for me it's a huge time-saver. As long as the possibility of detailed customization remains, perhaps the simplest interface that makes the most often used features easily accessible is the best default.
An upside-down flag is an international signal of distress.
Indeed, and I found Lin Hao carrying it a wonderful symbol of China's acknowledgement of the distress it experienced after the earthquake and the way in which China has finally become internationally open enough to let others know of its pain and to ask for assistance. The ceremony was full of contrasts, and the upside-down flag was just one more: the proud and powerful China walking next to the fragile and weak China that needs help (who is finally not afraid to ask for it). I found this and the other symbolism of the opening ceremony extremely moving.
In context of a political display, that kid was basically saying "My government hasn't even begun to help rebuild my village after the earthquake".
How did you interpret China parading both its strength and weakness, and the fact that it wants to display both to the world at this, one of its most important international moments, an anti-government message? How could you watch the almost unbelievable near-perfection of the rest of the ceremony (the printing press, the Tai Chi masters...) and think the flag could be an accident? It's really quite a stretch of the imagination.
There's a message in there about Chinese culture, too, and I don't think it was the one they wanted to send.
To me, they sent exactly the message I imagine they wanted to send. Perhaps they did fail at sending their message. But, if so, it was not a matter of the upside-down flag not being planned. Their failure would be that they expected you and the Western world to understand that their asking for help and letting their weakness and tragedy be seen is as important as a show of strength at the games.
Perhaps the government-run media did crop the flag from the images released within China to manage the internal interpretation. Perhaps it was a controversial decision that not everyone important knew about ahead of time, and that someone with power disapproved of after seeing. I'm not saying that this symbolism matches at all how the government operates, even if it seems to be moving in that direction. I'm not saying that it's part of the government's ideology or plan. But for what it is not, it is a powerful message that is hard to believe was not deliberate and planned at some type of government-approved level.
You are correct--I couldn't ever imagine seeing a US flag upside-down in an international ceremony. That's why I was especially touched to see China acknowledge their distress and their need for assistance in a way that my own country never would.
You're missing a major point about Kant, namely that he died before non-euclidean geometry was generally discovered, and as a result his ideas about space and time are wrong.
I'm not missing that point; in fact, I would argue that Kant's position on space and time as human forms of intuition made possible the rational explanation of non-Euclidean geometries. If there was no historical connection between his publication leading someone to do work with non-Euclidean geometries, his position certainly suggests their possibility.
First, consider previous views, like Plato's, that saw geometry as something absolute and independent of the perceiver. Geometry was in a realm of ideas and was absolute, regardless of the perceiver. It described things "as they are". This left no room and made irrational the idea of non-Euclidean geometries.
Kant believed that Euclidean geometry was an a priori synthetic concept, and therefore a suitable foundation to build his philosophy upon.
This is where you totally misunderstand Kant. Yes, Euclidean geometry is an a priori synthetic concept for us. But his philosophy is not built on Euclidean geometry. It is built on the idea that we experience Euclidean geometry, but that Euclidean geometry is only the way we experience, not the way things actually are. This idea was pretty radical, and was the first I know of to explain how there could be other possible geometries.
Once Kant published his idea, a natural question, which isn't Kant's focus but is extremely compelling, is "our intuition provides things in a Euclidean geometry, but can we understand things in other ways?" There are many other possible ways that other beings could experience things, and even different ways that we can imagine things workings (by substituting postulates, etc.) Perhaps other beings' intuitions involve space based on a non-Euclidean geometry. Kant's approach not only acknowledges that other possible forms of intuition could exist; it is rare among positions at the time (if not the only one) that make room for their existence.
I'm not saying that Kant never said anything that implicates Euclidean as the only type of geometry. I am saying, however, that the base he lays in the Transcendental Aesthetic opens a new realm, not present in previous philosophies, in which non-Euclidean geometries can exist.
which just goes to show that Kant was more interested in social engineering than the true progress of mankind.
I'm not giving accolades to the entire body of Kant's views and works; in fact, I haven't read most of them. Getting beyond the Critique, and even beyond the Transcendental Aesthetic, I lose interest pretty quickly.
However, dismissing all the man's work because of the social conclusions he drew is ignorant. The type of non-conventional thinking that lead to the Transcendental Aesthetic is brilliant by any means and I believe it provides a solid base for appreciating individual perspectives much more than it supports the social engineering you reference, even if this isn't where Kant followed it.
The spirit of what you're saying is correct, but you're confusing Kant's nuanced use of terms (which is not surprising if you're not an expert on this or looking at the intro at the moment).
Does Kant actually discuss the source of intuition? I don't remember him doing so in anything I've read. In that case, then Kant is not saying that we project math onto anything.
For Kant, there are multiple components of an intuition. Sensations are one part of an intuition; the other are the pure intuitions of space and time. You are correct in that the source of sensations (and therefore partially of intuitions) is not within Kant's scope (and he likely considers it unknowable). However, Kant does make clear that part of the source of intuitions is us. We bring the forms of pure intuition:
In the transcendental aesthetic we shall, therefore, first isolate sensibility ["Objects are given to us by means of sensibility, and it alone yields us intuitions" (B33)]... we shall also separate off from it everything which belongs to sensation, so that nothing may remain save pure intuition and the mere form of appearances, which is all sensibility can supply a priori. (B36)
So we "project" our pure intuitions of space and time onto sensations (whose origin Kant does not discuss). "Project" may not be the best verb, but it certainly applies. We are the ones who bring math; it is not within the sensations themselves:
That in which alone the sensations can be posited and ordered in a certain form, cannot itself be sensation; and therefore, while the matter of all appearance is given to us a posteriori only, its form must lie ready for the sensations a priori in the mind, and so must allow of being considered apart from all sensation...I term all represenations pure (in the transcendental sense) in which there is nothing that belongs to sensation. ---
What he's really pointing out there is that we don't learn about space (and therefore arguably geometry, and therefore arguably math) through empirical means, but rather through intuition.
Correct, he is pointing this out, but it's not limited to learning about things; it is important too that we are actually the source. Interestingly, even though Kant doesn't get into this, space/geometry isn't the only link here; time works too (consider half-life).
Both of them would say that mathematics are not created by a person, but derived from principles that we know a priori.
I agree that their one-word answers to the question of the post, "is mathematics discovered or invented?", would be the same, but I think this is a pretty stupid question question in itself. The article talks a lot about the problems of Plato's view in accessing some other realm of numbers as if more interesting approaches, like Kant's, haven't been around for centuries. I'd rather discuss these than the question itself, which seems to overwhelming have received the response that it's a false dichotomy.
Thanks for your postâ"I enjoyed the look back at the Transcendental Aesthetic to make sure I was right!
Slashdot Mirror
iPhone 4 would work better - complete forgot about that. But then they were somewhat pushed into that name (for clarity reasons) by the stupid names of the previous iPhones.
Pushed into it? I'm pretty sure they named it 4 to suggest to those who haven't done research that it supports 4G wireless networks, so when providers and other manufactures advertise 4G service, people think "Apple has that!". I still hear it called "the iPhone 4G" from time to time.
If that wasn't the primary reason, it had to be part of the calculation.
There is very little cross use of DRM-burdened content for any of the devices out there, so it isn't just Amazon
Actually, the Kindle is one of the most, if not the most, limited ebook reader devices in terms of DRMed content. The Nook and many other readers support the EPUB format with Adobe Digital Editions DRM, which is the closest thing there is to a standard right now. Amazon chose to make their own non-compatible format and not support the standard. So they're chosen to make things worse.
In my case, the Kindle was the best choice since I shop on Amazon frequently anyway and don't live near a B&N store.
In terms of content and options, probably not. The Nook supports alternate bookstores that use the EPUB format (Google just opened one) as well as borrowing books from libraries. The Kindle does neither. Why does it matter if you live near a Barnes & Noble? Do you live near an Amazon?
I selected the Nook for the ability to borrow library books alone. Sure, the DRM still sucks, but at least the device gives you a little interoperability and the option of selecting your source to some degree in the DRM world, unlike the Kindle.
I haven't used Opera's tab stacking yet, but it sounds a lot like one of the features the Tree Style Tab add-on adds to Firefox. It's quite a flexible add-on, and if you constantly have a lot of tabs open or would prefer to have a hierarchical tab list on the side to save vertical real estate (especially if you have a 16:9 monitor), it can revolutionize your world almost as much as tabs did originally. I can't recommend it enough.
Look, PBS has ads now.
PBS uses underwriting, which is a rather limited form of advertising. Non-commercial television and radio stations are limited to giving sponsors underwriting spots in the U.S. You can call them "ads", but they really aren't as obnoxious (although some I've seen recently push the distinction to the limit), and they only appear at the beginning and end of a program.
Wikipedia's article on underwriting is okay, but not really good. The PBS information is clipped from elsewhere, and there is no mention of specific restrictions for non-commercial radio.
In any case, I just donated $35, seeing as how the plea is now urgent. Personally, I usually ignore the banners when I see them, as I assume a lot of people are donating to Wikipedia as something that is of interest to everyone. I generally make my donations to organizations that serve niche interests that don't see as much traffic. A lot of people probably take the same approach. If Wikipedia really needs the money, I hope they have a plan to make it quite clear to these people. This /. article did the trick for me.
While WikiLeaks is a current and exciting topic, the clothianidin/EPA leak has nothing to do with WikiLeaks.
Quoting a prominent secondary story linked from TFA:
When I read they were introducing new map types and play modes, my first hope was that they'd bring back team melee.
And before someone says it's already in the game, it's not. It was a really innovative way to play RTS as a team, and it's a shame they haven't included it. If you don't remember the mode from the original, have a look at the thread on the forum asking for its return.
They'll fix that with the next update.
Actually, you're right. It's called Windows Phone 7, and it's not looking too Linux friendly.
They did need to improve the Windows Mobile UI quite a bit, but I think they're throwing the baby out with the bath water...
Decent GPS units give quite good directions, if you filter them using your head. I may simply be unwilling to spend the time noting every twist-and-turn down.
I agree with you that the directions are often good (though certainly not more than 90% in my experience). But the comic wasn't about filtering the directions through your head. It was about blatantly disregarding the directions you would filter against. Rudely.
If I prefer to use a map, or a GPS, it doesn't mean I'm sociopathic. It may simply mean that I've been around places, and don't need handholding.
Again, I agree. I love maps, and I'd usually rather find my own way than using someone's directions, just for fun. Yes, that is fun for me.
But showing contempt for what someone is trying to tell you and being so sure of your own tool that you're not even willing to listen through someone's directions is arrogant. And probably not sociopathic (I was a bit strong in my initial assessment), but certainly heading down that road.
Well using a GPS saves a lot of writing down/remembering directions heck even with good directions it is still easy enough to get lost if you don't know the area you are going to GPS units are maps and directions all in one :)
I'm not saying GPS devices and electronic maps aren't great! I really like them.
I just think it's short-sighted to totally disregard what someone is trying to tell you. And I speak from experience, because on at least two occasions in the past I put an address in a GPS / Google Maps thinking my technology was quicker and easier than what someone had to tell me, and it cost me a lot of time and some embarrassment. On one of the occasions, it turned out Google Maps didn't know that there was a difference between First St. and First Ave. and my friends and I ended up at a trailer park instead of our destination, which was 30 minutes away. Oops. Should have read the directions.
I prefer having the address first too. And if I'm given directions, I might not use them. I like finding my own way and looking at maps. I like taking scenic routes if I'm not on a tight schedule.
But if an acquaintance is giving me directions, I'm not just going to cut him off and tell him I don't care what he is saying. Unless it's a long list, at least. It strikes me as pretty rude. Interestingly, it's hard to tell, because you don't get the other side of the conversation in the comic. You only hear the impatient guy with the GPS.
The person giving directions is a prick. A bigger prick than the one asking for the address.
I disagree. The person giving directions who isn't listening to the question is a being a prick, but in a more removed way. At least that person is trying to be helpful.
Unless the person talking about the GPS is somehow strained for time, how long does it take to listen to the directions first, even if just to disregard them? It's part of dealing with people. And it's not that bad.
Unlike the usual XKCD, it strikes me as snarky, not insightful.
Wow, I don't normally think this after looking at an XKCD comic, but that one is so arrogant and off the mark, in one of the worst ways possible!
Blindly trusting a GPS device's directions, and insultingly disregarding the likely better directions of someone who lives there and is intimately familiar with the best way to get there, shows a total distrust in the intelligence of the person you're visiting. Sure, it's good to have the address and look up the directions yourself, but immediately preferring the automated directions, which often, at least in my experience, have problems, is almost sociopathic in the trust it shows in technology over personal wisdom.
To bring this back to the support desk issue, I think it actually supports the current, often frustrating, script-based approach. What is the ratio of knowledgeable users to arrogant idiots who thinks they're knowledgeable users? You know, the users who don't want to listen to the easy solution that fixes the problem 80% of the time, which would fix it for them, because they're experts and have a tool that often works that they trust in totally, even though they haven't the faintest clue on what they're doing?
The better question may be "where has this already happened with a gag order attached to the request?"
"At each board meeting I tell them we have not been served by any (search warrants)," she said. "In any months that I don't tell them that, they'll know."
I wonder if this technique could be used in other ways.
An ISP could use automation to send its customers some sort of message once a day as long as the the customer is not under investigation in a message queue the customer doesn't need to check. If an NSL comes for a customer, the "not under investigation" flag could be disabled for that customer. The ISP could then set up an email alert / automated phone message if the message is not sent one day to make it very obvious to the customer that some unidentified investigation is going on.
Title 18, U.S.C. Section 2709(c) seems to only specifically prohibit disclosure "that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records". Stopping sending notifications that there is no investigation doesn't necessarily seem to violate that prohibition.
They're all shit since IBM sold Thinkpad to Lenovo.
This isn't true in my experience. Sure, there are some cheaper machines now under the Thinkpad brand, but the T and X series are still excellent pieces of hardware. Their specs are higher and they have more connectivity/upgrade options than comparable Apple machines, the keyboards leave Apple in the dust, their workmanship is generally on par, docks are available, they have good Linux support (if that is important to you), and they cost roughly 30%-40% less than a comparable MacBook if you spend an hour or two looking for a deal.
It's easy for you to make broad statements and summarily dismiss Thinkpads without much deliberation because Lenovo is Chinese-owned, but the truth is that the higher end Thinkpads are still nice (and less expensive than Apple notebooks).
For comparably equivalent machines, (sames size LED backlit IPS panel, same HD size and speed, same bus, memory, processor, bluetooth, camera, etc, etc)
None of the current MacBooks have IPS panels. In fact, they're not even PVA or MVA--they're TN. If the MacBooks did have IPS panels, the price:value ratio would be more reasonable.
Perhaps the sentence was jumbled, but he was referring to the investigation of Bradley Manning's mother.
Beast with a Billion Backs was my favorite too... and if your ego can't take that, then you don't deserve to be tentacle pope of anything!
Plus, all this hype around these Toyota acceleration problems is just that, hype.
So... 52 people hyped to death. That might be some kind of record.
52 people allegedly hyped to death.
Few if any of these tragic incidents have yet been demonstrably linked to either defect-related unintended acceleration or media hysteria.
However, I would expect hype-related deaths to increase as drivers of Toyotas and other vehicles make unusual fear-based driving decisions concerning the perceived threat of runaway Toyotas (or try to cash in on the lawsuit).
Has there actually been a confirmed case of one of these cars not shifting to neutral after the driver has tried?
At best, I hear this fear expressed as "But the transmission is electronically controlled, and input is only a suggestion! This could prevent the car from responding to the driver!" At worst, I've seen some of the dodgier news reports supplement the original story they've copied suggesting/assuming that this happens as a fact. But I've never seen this claim in any official report or from a source I would trust to accurately report this information.
I drive a Prius, and I can tell you that doing just about anything with the shifter while at speed (moving it to netural, throwing it in reverse, hitting the park button) will actually put the car in the neutral. Of course adding a software layer introduces the possibility of bugs to the already-existing chance of mechanical failure. But if the software is well written, the way my Toyota handles this seems very well-conceived. It will refuse to go into reverse or try to park, yes--it does the safest thing and moves into neutral instead.
For both the accelerator to electronically be stuck at wide open throttle, the brakes not to work, and the transmission to neglect to use its failsafe of switching to neutral could only be either coincidental to the point of obscurity or a massive system-wide failure. If these systems are connected in a way that would allow such a failure to happen, it's a horrible design. I'm not saying it's not possible, but as far as I'm aware no technically-trained person has found evidence of this in examining any of the vehicles whose drivers have reported unintended acceleration.
I just installed the Tree Style Tab add-on based on your recommendation, and in using it for twenty minutes, I must say that with my browser usage pattern, it may improve the usability of the browser almost as much as the original addition of tabs. I usually leave a number of tabs that I'm working with open, sort of like short-term bookmarks, but in Firefox's display of the tabs at the top, I usually end up with two screen-fulls of tabs. In the default horizontal display, once some of the tabs are off the screen I need to scroll to access them. I can't easily tell which tabs are open, and it's easier to open new tabs than find the ones I'm looking for. This is convenient, but it makes the situation worse.
I'm sure displaying the tabs vertically wouldn't be convenient for the vast majority of people, but for me it's a huge time-saver. As long as the possibility of detailed customization remains, perhaps the simplest interface that makes the most often used features easily accessible is the best default.
An upside-down flag is an international signal of distress.
Indeed, and I found Lin Hao carrying it a wonderful symbol of China's acknowledgement of the distress it experienced after the earthquake and the way in which China has finally become internationally open enough to let others know of its pain and to ask for assistance. The ceremony was full of contrasts, and the upside-down flag was just one more: the proud and powerful China walking next to the fragile and weak China that needs help (who is finally not afraid to ask for it). I found this and the other symbolism of the opening ceremony extremely moving.
In context of a political display, that kid was basically saying "My government hasn't even begun to help rebuild my village after the earthquake".
How did you interpret China parading both its strength and weakness, and the fact that it wants to display both to the world at this, one of its most important international moments, an anti-government message? How could you watch the almost unbelievable near-perfection of the rest of the ceremony (the printing press, the Tai Chi masters...) and think the flag could be an accident? It's really quite a stretch of the imagination.
There's a message in there about Chinese culture, too, and I don't think it was the one they wanted to send.
To me, they sent exactly the message I imagine they wanted to send. Perhaps they did fail at sending their message. But, if so, it was not a matter of the upside-down flag not being planned. Their failure would be that they expected you and the Western world to understand that their asking for help and letting their weakness and tragedy be seen is as important as a show of strength at the games.
Perhaps the government-run media did crop the flag from the images released within China to manage the internal interpretation. Perhaps it was a controversial decision that not everyone important knew about ahead of time, and that someone with power disapproved of after seeing. I'm not saying that this symbolism matches at all how the government operates, even if it seems to be moving in that direction. I'm not saying that it's part of the government's ideology or plan. But for what it is not, it is a powerful message that is hard to believe was not deliberate and planned at some type of government-approved level.
You are correct--I couldn't ever imagine seeing a US flag upside-down in an international ceremony. That's why I was especially touched to see China acknowledge their distress and their need for assistance in a way that my own country never would.
I'm not missing that point; in fact, I would argue that Kant's position on space and time as human forms of intuition made possible the rational explanation of non-Euclidean geometries. If there was no historical connection between his publication leading someone to do work with non-Euclidean geometries, his position certainly suggests their possibility.
First, consider previous views, like Plato's, that saw geometry as something absolute and independent of the perceiver. Geometry was in a realm of ideas and was absolute, regardless of the perceiver. It described things "as they are". This left no room and made irrational the idea of non-Euclidean geometries.
Kant believed that Euclidean geometry was an a priori synthetic concept, and therefore a suitable foundation to build his philosophy upon.This is where you totally misunderstand Kant. Yes, Euclidean geometry is an a priori synthetic concept for us. But his philosophy is not built on Euclidean geometry. It is built on the idea that we experience Euclidean geometry, but that Euclidean geometry is only the way we experience, not the way things actually are. This idea was pretty radical, and was the first I know of to explain how there could be other possible geometries.
Once Kant published his idea, a natural question, which isn't Kant's focus but is extremely compelling, is "our intuition provides things in a Euclidean geometry, but can we understand things in other ways?" There are many other possible ways that other beings could experience things, and even different ways that we can imagine things workings (by substituting postulates, etc.) Perhaps other beings' intuitions involve space based on a non-Euclidean geometry. Kant's approach not only acknowledges that other possible forms of intuition could exist; it is rare among positions at the time (if not the only one) that make room for their existence.
I'm not saying that Kant never said anything that implicates Euclidean as the only type of geometry. I am saying, however, that the base he lays in the Transcendental Aesthetic opens a new realm, not present in previous philosophies, in which non-Euclidean geometries can exist.
I'm not giving accolades to the entire body of Kant's views and works; in fact, I haven't read most of them. Getting beyond the Critique, and even beyond the Transcendental Aesthetic, I lose interest pretty quickly.
However, dismissing all the man's work because of the social conclusions he drew is ignorant. The type of non-conventional thinking that lead to the Transcendental Aesthetic is brilliant by any means and I believe it provides a solid base for appreciating individual perspectives much more than it supports the social engineering you reference, even if this isn't where Kant followed it.
The spirit of what you're saying is correct, but you're confusing Kant's nuanced use of terms (which is not surprising if you're not an expert on this or looking at the intro at the moment).
Does Kant actually discuss the source of intuition? I don't remember him doing so in anything I've read. In that case, then Kant is not saying that we project math onto anything.For Kant, there are multiple components of an intuition. Sensations are one part of an intuition; the other are the pure intuitions of space and time. You are correct in that the source of sensations (and therefore partially of intuitions) is not within Kant's scope (and he likely considers it unknowable). However, Kant does make clear that part of the source of intuitions is us. We bring the forms of pure intuition:
In the transcendental aesthetic we shall, therefore, first isolate sensibility ["Objects are given to us by means of sensibility, and it alone yields us intuitions" (B33)]... we shall also separate off from it everything which belongs to sensation, so that nothing may remain save pure intuition and the mere form of appearances, which is all sensibility can supply a priori. (B36)So we "project" our pure intuitions of space and time onto sensations (whose origin Kant does not discuss). "Project" may not be the best verb, but it certainly applies. We are the ones who bring math; it is not within the sensations themselves:
That in which alone the sensations can be posited and ordered in a certain form, cannot itself be sensation; and therefore, while the matter of all appearance is given to us a posteriori only, its form must lie ready for the sensations a priori in the mind, and so must allow of being considered apart from all sensation...I term all represenations pure (in the transcendental sense) in which there is nothing that belongs to sensation. --- What he's really pointing out there is that we don't learn about space (and therefore arguably geometry, and therefore arguably math) through empirical means, but rather through intuition.Correct, he is pointing this out, but it's not limited to learning about things; it is important too that we are actually the source. Interestingly, even though Kant doesn't get into this, space/geometry isn't the only link here; time works too (consider half-life).
Both of them would say that mathematics are not created by a person, but derived from principles that we know a priori.I agree that their one-word answers to the question of the post, "is mathematics discovered or invented?", would be the same, but I think this is a pretty stupid question question in itself. The article talks a lot about the problems of Plato's view in accessing some other realm of numbers as if more interesting approaches, like Kant's, haven't been around for centuries. I'd rather discuss these than the question itself, which seems to overwhelming have received the response that it's a false dichotomy.
Thanks for your postâ"I enjoyed the look back at the Transcendental Aesthetic to make sure I was right!