There were some real graduate students in the mix:
"You don't read textbooks in the same linear way as a novel," said Roesner, 23, a graduate student in computer science and engineering.
Honestly, I tend to agree. Not having tried a Kindle myself, my opinion means little. However, I strongly suspect that I would encounter the same frustration that these people did when using it instead of textbooks.
well this is exactly why a properly implemented ebook reader would be superior to a textbook.
so i'm doing an assignment and cannot remember the page that has the formula for attaching the friggin laser to the sharks head, do I.
A) look at the index shorten my query to 50 or so pages and search them?
or
B) use the wonders of technology to search for "friggein laser" and see where i get?
now yes annotation marks can be used in a textbook, but theres no reason they could not be used in a reader and well, they require you to know what you are going to need to find later.
i've never used a kindle so have no idea if any of this is possible but, instead of passing them over as inferior, we should find how "real"books beat them and implement better ways of doing such things.
because whenever I've downloaded/bought a shit program I've always blamed my OS. Apps don't multitask, it's not like having a shit app is gonna make your iPhone shit, it''ll just be a shit app.'
yes if the store was flooded with crap, and people only saw shit apps they would think this of the whole experience, however - that's where a good rating system with comments comes in. the shit gets filtered into the shit pile.
in short, there are better ways of delivering what people want than by banning what you think they dont want
"unlimited play on up to 5 computers and an unlimited number of iPods"
so what you're saying happened is:
Record companies: we believe if you sell your product people will be able to buy one copy of our music and easily share it
Apple: nah it's cool, we'll make it so that people can only share it freely on our devices and we'll restrict sharing if they use competitors devices.
Record companies: oh wow, and here we were thinking that by selling your device it would promote people to share music without paying for it individually, now we can see that you're totally not doing that.
boy i feel like a douche for ever thinking Apple was not on the side of consumers.
if you can give me one citation where competition(consumer choice) has INCREASED the selling price of goods i might give your argument some amount of credibility. if the music industry wanted to increase prices, how would creating a competitor help them achieve this?
because there's more people not being paid to circumvent protection than there is people being paid to protect.
or because every possible method of protection has a possible method of circumvention, and there is no ultimate method of protection.
same goes for war, build the best armour you can, and someone will make a better bullet.
situation 1: apple don't want developers to have to wait for 3rd party (adobe) to decide if/when their software will be updated so that all features of iPhone can be utilized.
situation 2: apple require a 3rd party (apple being a 3rd party between developer and consumer) to decide if/when they will allow developer to release their product to the user.
Situation 1 - developers do not have to use adobe(3rd party)'s software, they can develop in anything they wish to utilize the full functionality of the iPhone.
Situation 2 - developers have no choice, consumers have no choice (yes i'm aware that people do not have to use or develop for an iPhone, both situations all take place within the limited realms of iPhone user/developer).
i don't think anyones claiming they are the same thing, however; please enlighten me on how this is not hypocritical
yep, i dunno how it is with other telco's, but i work for Telstra and by apple mandate only employess that have gone through "iPhone training" training are allowed to sell iPhones, so if someone rang up to upgrade their plan to something involving an iPhone, they'd have to be transferred to the iPhone department.
They made a statement that the decision came from North American HQ and their Chinese Arm had nothing to do with the decision. However as i'm sure they would have been the ones to implement it, dunno what's gonna happen.
except apple decided to bunde the ipod updater with itunes (which used to be two seperate programs) so i was forced to install iTunes onto my pc. unless they've seperated these again?
Often times, I have received email with a footer that cites the information as confidential and stating that the recipient is required by law to delete it if it was sent in error.
and often times i see emails telling me that if i reply with my account details and send $1000 dollars to cover the cost of paperwork, then i'll have millions deposited in my account...
except that :
1) even if the person did reply saying "ok i have now deleted it and didn't read it" it wouldn't mean anything as the bank has no way of verifying that anyway.
and
2) deleting the person's email account isn't going to do anything. once information has been recieved it has been recieved. and also would it not be just as effective for the court order to force google to simply delete that one email and anything associated with it?
yeah well, Google made a deal with the writers guild, so why shouldn't anyone else have to?
are Google in any way (or would they have a say in) preventing anyone else from making a deal with the writer's guild?
when an insurance company looks and sees that you have a predisposition to skin cancer. i doubt they're going to say to you "yeah, just don't go trying to get a tan, and we won't charge you extra"
as i said, depends on the country.
my whole point was about lives saved overall, not at places where cameras were placed. so if they're on busy sections, then people have more chance of being caught, and are thus less likely to speed/ run lights overall, or people become accustomed to driving slower/stopping at lights because there are times they have to. if they are not on the most dangerous intersections then the amount of crashes caused by them will decrease.
it can't really be proven. because it's impossible to gauge how many lives are saved by speed/red light cameras.
you can see estimate pretty well how one specific camera affects the intersection it's placed on, but it's damn near impossible to guess how many lives are saved overall by people not speeding/running lights for fear that there may be a camera.
the effectiveness/reason for cameras will of course differ from country to country.
they can claim it as a victory because they don't have to tell people that part. all they have to say is "scientific studies show gm food causes cancer"
Slashdot Mirror
umm yeah, except when i had one i had redirected my web traffic making it near-impossible to google search from the infected machine.
There were some real graduate students in the mix:
"You don't read textbooks in the same linear way as a novel," said Roesner, 23, a graduate student in computer science and engineering.
Honestly, I tend to agree. Not having tried a Kindle myself, my opinion means little. However, I strongly suspect that I would encounter the same frustration that these people did when using it instead of textbooks.
well this is exactly why a properly implemented ebook reader would be superior to a textbook. so i'm doing an assignment and cannot remember the page that has the formula for attaching the friggin laser to the sharks head, do I. A) look at the index shorten my query to 50 or so pages and search them? or B) use the wonders of technology to search for "friggein laser" and see where i get? now yes annotation marks can be used in a textbook, but theres no reason they could not be used in a reader and well, they require you to know what you are going to need to find later. i've never used a kindle so have no idea if any of this is possible but, instead of passing them over as inferior, we should find how "real"books beat them and implement better ways of doing such things.
because whenever I've downloaded/bought a shit program I've always blamed my OS. Apps don't multitask, it's not like having a shit app is gonna make your iPhone shit, it''ll just be a shit app.'
yes if the store was flooded with crap, and people only saw shit apps they would think this of the whole experience, however - that's where a good rating system with comments comes in. the shit gets filtered into the shit pile.
in short, there are better ways of delivering what people want than by banning what you think they dont want
"unlimited play on up to 5 computers and an unlimited number of iPods"
so what you're saying happened is:
Record companies: we believe if you sell your product people will be able to buy one copy of our music and easily share it
Apple: nah it's cool, we'll make it so that people can only share it freely on our devices and we'll restrict sharing if they use competitors devices.
Record companies: oh wow, and here we were thinking that by selling your device it would promote people to share music without paying for it individually, now we can see that you're totally not doing that.
boy i feel like a douche for ever thinking Apple was not on the side of consumers.
if you can give me one citation where competition(consumer choice) has INCREASED the selling price of goods i might give your argument some amount of credibility. if the music industry wanted to increase prices, how would creating a competitor help them achieve this?
because there's more people not being paid to circumvent protection than there is people being paid to protect. or because every possible method of protection has a possible method of circumvention, and there is no ultimate method of protection. same goes for war, build the best armour you can, and someone will make a better bullet.
situation 1: apple don't want developers to have to wait for 3rd party (adobe) to decide if/when their software will be updated so that all features of iPhone can be utilized. situation 2: apple require a 3rd party (apple being a 3rd party between developer and consumer) to decide if/when they will allow developer to release their product to the user. Situation 1 - developers do not have to use adobe(3rd party)'s software, they can develop in anything they wish to utilize the full functionality of the iPhone. Situation 2 - developers have no choice, consumers have no choice (yes i'm aware that people do not have to use or develop for an iPhone, both situations all take place within the limited realms of iPhone user/developer). i don't think anyones claiming they are the same thing, however; please enlighten me on how this is not hypocritical
yep, i dunno how it is with other telco's, but i work for Telstra and by apple mandate only employess that have gone through "iPhone training" training are allowed to sell iPhones, so if someone rang up to upgrade their plan to something involving an iPhone, they'd have to be transferred to the iPhone department.
They made a statement that the decision came from North American HQ and their Chinese Arm had nothing to do with the decision. However as i'm sure they would have been the ones to implement it, dunno what's gonna happen.
Death's been around for a while now, an POPULATION CONTINUES TO INCREASE.
Ergo, Death doesn't decrease population.
except apple decided to bunde the ipod updater with itunes (which used to be two seperate programs) so i was forced to install iTunes onto my pc. unless they've seperated these again?
what exactly are we supposed to listen to?
Often times, I have received email with a footer that cites the information as confidential and stating that the recipient is required by law to delete it if it was sent in error.
and often times i see emails telling me that if i reply with my account details and send $1000 dollars to cover the cost of paperwork, then i'll have millions deposited in my account...
except that : 1) even if the person did reply saying "ok i have now deleted it and didn't read it" it wouldn't mean anything as the bank has no way of verifying that anyway. and 2) deleting the person's email account isn't going to do anything. once information has been recieved it has been recieved. and also would it not be just as effective for the court order to force google to simply delete that one email and anything associated with it?
that video is from a dust storm in 2007
without freedom in electronics, you will only have someone else's definition of "works"
yeah well, Google made a deal with the writers guild, so why shouldn't anyone else have to? are Google in any way (or would they have a say in) preventing anyone else from making a deal with the writer's guild?
i'd possibly question why my boss was looking up the "Red Light district, men"
when an insurance company looks and sees that you have a predisposition to skin cancer. i doubt they're going to say to you "yeah, just don't go trying to get a tan, and we won't charge you extra"
so injuries/damages attained while commiting a crime should count as part of the punishment?
"natural satellites" are often called moons. deal with it.
as i said, depends on the country.
my whole point was about lives saved overall, not at places where cameras were placed. so if they're on busy sections, then people have more chance of being caught, and are thus less likely to speed/ run lights overall, or people become accustomed to driving slower/stopping at lights because there are times they have to. if they are not on the most dangerous intersections then the amount of crashes caused by them will decrease.
revenue earned from traffic infringement could be used to employ more officers/upgrade equipment to fight more serious crime.
it can't really be proven. because it's impossible to gauge how many lives are saved by speed/red light cameras.
you can see estimate pretty well how one specific camera affects the intersection it's placed on, but it's damn near impossible to guess how many lives are saved overall by people not speeding/running lights for fear that there may be a camera.
the effectiveness/reason for cameras will of course differ from country to country.
they can claim it as a victory because they don't have to tell people that part. all they have to say is "scientific studies show gm food causes cancer"