Decent android phones make their batteries last a lot longer than any iphone offering atm. ( samoled, hummingbird etc)
If you actually need to use it as a phone for any reason, you don't want an iphone.
AFAIK, that's not true. The iPhone 4 seems to last 20-50% longer in most usage scenarios than pretty much any other smartphone when keeping the usage pattern constant. (See Anand's reviews for instance.) Though I have the impression that this is not due to software or hardware superiority, but due to the sheer size of its battery (made possible by being nonremovable).
Obviously, if you just want a basic phone that lasts longer than a day, you would get a basic Nokia or SonyEricsson instead of a GPS/3G/GHz-processor smartphone anyway...
But the most spelled-out format would be "the ninth day of August in the Year of our Lord two thousand and ten." So 9 Aug 2010 (NATO standard) is logical.
No, the military standard is NATO DTG, which is DDHHMMz MMM YY -- which is even harder to parse than the usual US convention. I, personally, prefer the ISO 8601 DTG, strictly in decreasing order of precedence.
A $10 tip from each diner? Clearly you have never worked in food service in any fashion.
Well, the GGP post brought up the example of a nice restaurant in Illinois with $50/person meals. How much would you tip your waitress in such a situation?
(Also, ad hominems instead of supporting facts weaken your argument.)
I mean dementia. Your experience is unusual, polls put Bush's approval rating below 30% by his last year. I call it dementia because, while it is ok to disapprove of Bush, people were getting irrational and blaming everything bad that happened on Bush. Bush was bad, but don't lose sight of reality.
Well, I was in rural Indiana, and it was 5 years ago (just after he was re-elected) rather than 2 years ago when people started to feel the economic problems hit closer to home.
Please make your way back up Al Gore's ass. We don't need your tired rhetoric here. The US has poor people, just like China, just like Mexico, and just like every other country.
Homework for you: Have a look at the two tables in this article, think about the difference between the two, and then think about why the US is missing from one of them. Taking your conclusions into account, and without any further ignoratio elenchi or ad hominem, restate your opinion in a manner that is relevant to the GP post.
SUV's and TV's don't make you rich, or even not-poor. They make you in debt.
OK, so am I to assume that you will feel richer once some takes away your SUV and TV? Didn't think so.
The rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer.
Only the American "poor" (where poor is defined as not being able to afford the second SUV or 50" TV).
I see you've never been on the east side of whatever city you live in.
You shouldn't make assumptions. I've lived on the east side of my city. With squatters and hustlers as neighbours, poorer than any neighbourhood you lived in, I'm sure; but nowhere near *real* absolute poverty. Also, I know some details about the Illinois DHS SNAP and how it compares to the welfare safety nets of a number of other countries. My point stands. The poor waitress getting by on food stamps in Chicago (and a $10 tip from each and every diner that she serves, natch) is infinitely better off than her cousin-200-times-removed in Dharavi who doesn't have the walk-in ER, food stamps, decent free schooling for her children and the rest of the social safety net and sanitation and utilities that are so taken for granted in the US even for the destitute.
Take it from a naive ignoramus like me, if you think US minimum wage is 'truly poor', you have no clue about poverty. (Which, I think, is the point that my [facetious] GP post was making in the first place.)
A used SUV or a 50" TV costs essentially nothing compared to what the poor in the US really need. Education. Health care. Housing. Quality food. Security.
Good, if you think welfare is a better definition than ownership of "stuff": The poor in the US have access to free schooling (mostly decent, at least compared to India), free libraries with internet access (and thus the Wikipedia and OCW) and needs-based scholarships to universities. They have access to guaranteed free healthcare in any hospital emergency room. Food stamps. Dozens of different federal, state and municipal programs that aim to provide shelter. If the willingness to help yourself is there, then outside help is available.
While even such a life might represent shockingly bad living conditions to you, one has to be extremely irresponsible, extremely unlucky and/or mentally handicapped to become really poor in the US in an absolute sense like "the poor elsewhere" -- i.e. malnourished, sick and without shelter and sanitation. Now compare that to the situation of 3 out of 5 people who did not win the geographic lottery and were born in impoverished parts of Asia, Africa or South America -- even the most gifted among them will have fewer chances than the laziest imbecile in the US or Europe. This is not fair, neither is economically efficient.
Did you mean "national pastime" or "national mania"? As a foreigner having lived in the US five years ago, I would have to disagree - even at university I met as many oo-rah rednecks as war opposers.
Or did you mean "re-electing Bush was a case of national dementia"? That might be closer to reality...
I shudder to think where we'll be after ten more years of such "innovation".
The rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer.
Only the American "poor" (where poor is defined as not being able to afford the second SUV or 50" TV). The actual poor people -- you know, the ones in Mexico, China and India who formerly would have had to farm for subsistence or work in mines as they are cheaper than machines -- they will get richer. Why do you strive to deprive them of the opportunity?
More people died in the 20th century of car accidents than by war.
Definitely untrue, probably by an order of magnitude at least. US car accidents were probably around 3 to 4 millions in the last 100 years, the entire world maybe 10 to 15 million. Compare: WW1 and WW2 alone are responsible for 80mn+ deaths. Take Korea, Vietnam, the Congo, Armenia, Afghanistan, the Soviet revolution, the Chinese revolutions and civil wars and the hundreds of smaller-scale wars, and you're talking about 100mn or more.
A common myth that public sector employees believe so that they don't feel bad about agitating for automatic raises.
You are really comparing ALL workers in the private industry--including Wal-Mart greeters, janitorial staff, part-time construction workers, farm workers, etc.--against public industry employees who probably skew heavily towards college-educated? Why would you think this is a valid comparison?
It is easy to mock GP's references. Why not back up your opinion with a better one of your own choosing? (It might even change someone's mind...)
You must admit that this is probably not the most straightforward way to teach basic geometry to an 11-year-old... (To a highly-intelligent and highly-motivated adult, maybe -- but then, those would already know it in most cases...)
That might be enough to put them all in jail on a charge of extortion.
They're threatening to commit a crime if the feds don't stop applying the law to them. So even if they were innocent of the crime the feds want to try them for, the feds now have them dead to rights for extortion.
Put who in jail, where? Assange, who is Australian and won't be entering the US anytime soon, and who really doesn't have a patriotic obligation (or a legal one, for that matter) to keep US military information secret? Or his supporters who give speeches or donate money for the cause of freedom of speech?
The caveat on that chart is it tracks Silicon based technology only, so you only see the impact of thin films via market price pressures, not directly. FWIW.
No, it seems to track them regardless of manufacturing method, but the graph tracks some sort of average price index across all manufacturers. They mention in the news release that: "as of July 2010, there are now 518 solar module prices below $4.00 per watt (€3.20 per watt) or 36.4% of the total survey. [...] The lowest thin film module price is at $1.07 per watt (€0.86 per watt) from a United States-based retailer."
Another caveat: These are single-module, retail prices -- obviously it gets cheaper if you buy a couple of MWpeak worth of modules for your powerplant...
The company's roughly 50 workers view a combined average of 20 million photos a week.
That's 10,000 images per hour per person, assuming a 40-hour week. (For $8-12 per hour). How can they do that? Even if the numbers are exaggerated, just looking at that many images has to be wearing.
My guess: Known-good and known-bad URLs and/or file hashes are stored and compared against anything new. Probably 95%+ of those 20 million photos wouldn't need any human interaction on a well-set-up system. And 500 images per hour sounds much more digestible...
Tin foil hats will have to be outlawed, like bulletproof vests.
Only criminals need tinfoil hats. You ain't no CRIMINAL, is you?
You might mean it as a joke, but the Germans are a step ahead of you here -- anything that can serve to protect you against police violence in a protest has already been outlawed for the last twenty years as a "protective weapon" (the law is 17a of the Versammlungsgesetz).
They have outlawed padded clothing that protects against beatings, mouthguards that protect against police knocking your teeth out, masks that protect against teargas and ballistic vests that make it harder to maim you from a distance. Outlawing tin foil hats is the logical next step.
It seems to me a bit like trying to eliminate spam by engineering internet users who aren't interested in sex or money.
Bad analogy -- they're not changing the humans, they're changing the mosquitoes. So it is rather a bit like infecting spammers with some disease that makes them lose their interest in money, but doesn't endanger their target... And put it like that, it seems like a measure we all can support!
Slashdot Mirror
not due to software or hardware superiority, but due to the sheer size of its battery
what exactly do you mean by hardware superiority then?
Hardware that is more efficient, i.e. a CPU or screen that sucks less power for the same performance level.
Decent android phones make their batteries last a lot longer than any iphone offering atm. ( samoled, hummingbird etc)
If you actually need to use it as a phone for any reason, you don't want an iphone.
AFAIK, that's not true. The iPhone 4 seems to last 20-50% longer in most usage scenarios than pretty much any other smartphone when keeping the usage pattern constant. (See Anand's reviews for instance.) Though I have the impression that this is not due to software or hardware superiority, but due to the sheer size of its battery (made possible by being nonremovable).
Obviously, if you just want a basic phone that lasts longer than a day, you would get a basic Nokia or SonyEricsson instead of a GPS/3G/GHz-processor smartphone anyway...
But the most spelled-out format would be "the ninth day of August in the Year of our Lord two thousand and ten." So 9 Aug 2010 (NATO standard) is logical.
No, the military standard is NATO DTG, which is DDHHMMz MMM YY -- which is even harder to parse than the usual US convention. I, personally, prefer the ISO 8601 DTG, strictly in decreasing order of precedence.
A $10 tip from each diner? Clearly you have never worked in food service in any fashion.
Well, the GGP post brought up the example of a nice restaurant in Illinois with $50/person meals. How much would you tip your waitress in such a situation?
(Also, ad hominems instead of supporting facts weaken your argument.)
I mean dementia. Your experience is unusual, polls put Bush's approval rating below 30% by his last year. I call it dementia because, while it is ok to disapprove of Bush, people were getting irrational and blaming everything bad that happened on Bush. Bush was bad, but don't lose sight of reality.
Well, I was in rural Indiana, and it was 5 years ago (just after he was re-elected) rather than 2 years ago when people started to feel the economic problems hit closer to home.
Please make your way back up Al Gore's ass. We don't need your tired rhetoric here. The US has poor people, just like China, just like Mexico, and just like every other country.
Homework for you: Have a look at the two tables in this article, think about the difference between the two, and then think about why the US is missing from one of them. Taking your conclusions into account, and without any further ignoratio elenchi or ad hominem, restate your opinion in a manner that is relevant to the GP post.
SUV's and TV's don't make you rich, or even not-poor. They make you in debt.
OK, so am I to assume that you will feel richer once some takes away your SUV and TV? Didn't think so.
The rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. Only the American "poor" (where poor is defined as not being able to afford the second SUV or 50" TV). I see you've never been on the east side of whatever city you live in.
You shouldn't make assumptions. I've lived on the east side of my city. With squatters and hustlers as neighbours, poorer than any neighbourhood you lived in, I'm sure; but nowhere near *real* absolute poverty. Also, I know some details about the Illinois DHS SNAP and how it compares to the welfare safety nets of a number of other countries. My point stands. The poor waitress getting by on food stamps in Chicago (and a $10 tip from each and every diner that she serves, natch) is infinitely better off than her cousin-200-times-removed in Dharavi who doesn't have the walk-in ER, food stamps, decent free schooling for her children and the rest of the social safety net and sanitation and utilities that are so taken for granted in the US even for the destitute.
Take it from a naive ignoramus like me, if you think US minimum wage is 'truly poor', you have no clue about poverty. (Which, I think, is the point that my [facetious] GP post was making in the first place.)
A used SUV or a 50" TV costs essentially nothing compared to what the poor in the US really need. Education. Health care. Housing. Quality food. Security.
Good, if you think welfare is a better definition than ownership of "stuff": The poor in the US have access to free schooling (mostly decent, at least compared to India), free libraries with internet access (and thus the Wikipedia and OCW) and needs-based scholarships to universities. They have access to guaranteed free healthcare in any hospital emergency room. Food stamps. Dozens of different federal, state and municipal programs that aim to provide shelter. If the willingness to help yourself is there, then outside help is available.
While even such a life might represent shockingly bad living conditions to you, one has to be extremely irresponsible, extremely unlucky and/or mentally handicapped to become really poor in the US in an absolute sense like "the poor elsewhere" -- i.e. malnourished, sick and without shelter and sanitation. Now compare that to the situation of 3 out of 5 people who did not win the geographic lottery and were born in impoverished parts of Asia, Africa or South America -- even the most gifted among them will have fewer chances than the laziest imbecile in the US or Europe. This is not fair, neither is economically efficient.
Hating Bush almost became a national dementia.
Did you mean "national pastime" or "national mania"? As a foreigner having lived in the US five years ago, I would have to disagree - even at university I met as many oo-rah rednecks as war opposers.
Or did you mean "re-electing Bush was a case of national dementia"? That might be closer to reality...
There have been 98 black members of congress. Since 1900, only 5 of them have been African-American.
...the rest were all African-UnAmerican, presumably?
(I keed, I keed...)
I shudder to think where we'll be after ten more years of such "innovation".
The rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer.
Only the American "poor" (where poor is defined as not being able to afford the second SUV or 50" TV). The actual poor people -- you know, the ones in Mexico, China and India who formerly would have had to farm for subsistence or work in mines as they are cheaper than machines -- they will get richer. Why do you strive to deprive them of the opportunity?
Just out of curiosity, what are "the big 3 in California"? Stanford, Berkeley, and ...?
As a non-American, I would say it depends on the field: CalTech in sciences, UCSF in medicine, UCLA in some other fields...
More people died in the 20th century of car accidents than by war.
Definitely untrue, probably by an order of magnitude at least. US car accidents were probably around 3 to 4 millions in the last 100 years, the entire world maybe 10 to 15 million. Compare: WW1 and WW2 alone are responsible for 80mn+ deaths. Take Korea, Vietnam, the Congo, Armenia, Afghanistan, the Soviet revolution, the Chinese revolutions and civil wars and the hundreds of smaller-scale wars, and you're talking about 100mn or more.
(Not that it matters, just being a pedant.)
A common myth that public sector employees believe so that they don't feel bad about agitating for automatic raises. You are really comparing ALL workers in the private industry--including Wal-Mart greeters, janitorial staff, part-time construction workers, farm workers, etc.--against public industry employees who probably skew heavily towards college-educated? Why would you think this is a valid comparison?
It is easy to mock GP's references. Why not back up your opinion with a better one of your own choosing? (It might even change someone's mind...)
You must admit that this is probably not the most straightforward way to teach basic geometry to an 11-year-old... (To a highly-intelligent and highly-motivated adult, maybe -- but then, those would already know it in most cases...)
I believe Assange is Austrian, not Austrailian. One is in Europe, the other is southeast of Thailand.
You believe wrongly. He was born in Queensland, grew up as a carny touring around Oz and studied and worked in Melbourne.
OK, I stand corrected...
That might be enough to put them all in jail on a charge of extortion.
They're threatening to commit a crime if the feds don't stop applying the law to them. So even if they were innocent of the crime the feds want to try them for, the feds now have them dead to rights for extortion.
Put who in jail, where? Assange, who is Australian and won't be entering the US anytime soon, and who really doesn't have a patriotic obligation (or a legal one, for that matter) to keep US military information secret? Or his supporters who give speeches or donate money for the cause of freedom of speech?
The caveat on that chart is it tracks Silicon based technology only, so you only see the impact of thin films via market price pressures, not directly. FWIW.
No, it seems to track them regardless of manufacturing method, but the graph tracks some sort of average price index across all manufacturers. They mention in the news release that: "as of July 2010, there are now 518 solar module prices below $4.00 per watt (€3.20 per watt) or 36.4% of the total survey. [...] The lowest thin film module price is at $1.07 per watt (€0.86 per watt) from a United States-based retailer."
Another caveat: These are single-module, retail prices -- obviously it gets cheaper if you buy a couple of MWpeak worth of modules for your powerplant...
How embarrassment!
Now you're just having me on, aren't you?
peruse != pursue. They are not even homonyms, for Bob's sake!
The company's roughly 50 workers view a combined average of 20 million photos a week.
That's 10,000 images per hour per person, assuming a 40-hour week. (For $8-12 per hour). How can they do that? Even if the numbers are exaggerated, just looking at that many images has to be wearing.
My guess: Known-good and known-bad URLs and/or file hashes are stored and compared against anything new. Probably 95%+ of those 20 million photos wouldn't need any human interaction on a well-set-up system. And 500 images per hour sounds much more digestible...
Tin foil hats will have to be outlawed, like bulletproof vests.
Only criminals need tinfoil hats. You ain't no CRIMINAL, is you?
You might mean it as a joke, but the Germans are a step ahead of you here -- anything that can serve to protect you against police violence in a protest has already been outlawed for the last twenty years as a "protective weapon" (the law is 17a of the Versammlungsgesetz).
They have outlawed padded clothing that protects against beatings, mouthguards that protect against police knocking your teeth out, masks that protect against teargas and ballistic vests that make it harder to maim you from a distance. Outlawing tin foil hats is the logical next step.
I don't know.
It seems to me a bit like trying to eliminate spam by engineering internet users who aren't interested in sex or money.
Bad analogy -- they're not changing the humans, they're changing the mosquitoes. So it is rather a bit like infecting spammers with some disease that makes them lose their interest in money, but doesn't endanger their target... And put it like that, it seems like a measure we all can support!
P.S. Once again Slashdot has me typing this in a 2"x3" box.
Get Firefox 4.0 -- it lets you resize any text entry box to the size you prefer.
Oh, and I agree with the rest of your statement.