Spare batteries are more dangerous than installed batteries?
Maybe it's just me, but the large majority of the lithium batteries that I've read about exploding were ones that were installed. I've yet to hear about a spare one going jihad on the luggage next to it.
And Integrated Video versus a dedicated graphic card? Please. I just bought a Lenovo X61 with one of intel's latest integrated chips, the Intel GMA X3100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA#GMA_X3100) and I have trouble playing Counterstrike on it ( i get about 25 fps @ 640x480). Not Counterstrike Source mind you, the original CS from 1999. My old Radeon 9800 out performs it greatly ( 100 fps @ 1280x1024), and that has about one third [270Mhz clock vs 800 Mhz clock] the power of the 2400XT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ATI_Graphics_Processing_Units#Radeon_R600_series). Granted CS isn't a full benchmark (and it can't run on a mac) but it at least gives us a basic comparison between the performance of the cards.
However, yes, the dell does have 200Mhz more. I overlooked that.
Not yet no. The 802.11n here is most likely based off of the draft 2.0 revisions. The official version still hasn't been agreed upon yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11#802.11n
I don't quite understand why they rate the XPS one higher than the iMac.
First off, let's compare tech specs.
iMac (Low-end) $1199
20" wsxga+ screen
1GB Ram
250GB HDD
Dual Layer DVD burner
ATI Radeon HD 2400XT (128MB)
802.11n Wireless
XPS ONE (Low-End) $1399
20" wsxga+ screen
2GB Ram
250GB HDD
DVD burner
Integrated Video
"WiFi" (doesn't say which)
Now notice that the only thing the dell beats the mac in is memory. However, for $150 you can upgrade to the same amount when you order an iMac (or get a stick on newegg for half that), and have a machine that still is $50 LESS (and with a real video card, a dual layer burner, and guaranteed 802.11n). Gizmodo also already agreed that Leopard was the better operating system (see the link in the article below the video). So this begs me to ask, why do they consider the more expensive, less equipped, and weaker operating system computer better than the other?
Take note of the tests for the latest Firefox beta though, notice that he's using a different system with.2Ghz more and he's on a 64 bit system versus a 32 bit. Although it's not a huge leap, it IS a difference. Different system different benchmark.
I wonder if Moore's law will apply to the number of qubits within a quantum computer as well. A 1024 qubit computer within the next 20 years would be nice.
This, like many patent lawsuits today, is entirely ridiculous. Visual voicemail is essentially identical to an email with an audio attachment and a fancy wrapper around it. If these types of cases keep happening, corporate America is going to eat itself whole. We're going to see more and more people who's business model is to patent trivial things and try to lynch anyone who approaches something similar to it.
I feel like when it comes to open networks, Verizon has always been that evil master that enslaves you and hits you with a rolled up magazine. It makes me wary that it's now trying to give us this treat of promises of open networks...
Something tells me they're just trying to lure us in so they can get a better swing with their magazine.
FTA:
Results showed that the chimps, while no more accurate than the people, could do this faster. Seems to me that the headline is slightly misleading. It's not that the chimps could do better on the memory tests, they could just do it faster - at least for the 8/10ths of a second test.
Later the article shows that the chimps could perform the same when the screen flashed for only 2/10ths of a second. This doesn't necessarily mean that they have a better memory, as this could be attributed to peripheral vision as well.
"Nobody is really concerned about this," Madison said. If I were in the space station, I think this would be the equivalent of a doctor performing fully conscious brain surgery on me and hearing him say, "Oops. Aahhh its not that big of a deal."
First off, if you're that concerned about your data being secure, you probably should just store it on a personal webserver and encrypt it yourself.
That being said, I really don't see this as a major concern for Google in relation to the success of Gdrive. A large percentage of people today really don't care about whether or not their personal data is scanned an analyzed, as proven by the information people list on social networking sites like facebook, myspace, livejournal, etc.
So the real question here is whether or not Google (and the small percentage of users that would use encryption) would benefit enough from this feature to offset the time needed to develop it and the hassles that will come along with it. I think that alot of the users wont realize that if Google encrypts their data with the password that the users provide, then there will no longer be that friendly "Forgot your password? Let us reset it for you." button. People will then be constantly complaining that they can no longer access their data if they forgot their password and had it reset (Because the data is encrypted based on their old password obviously). The only way that Google would be able to recover that data for the user is a.) by brute forcing it, or b.) by using precomputed hashes in a rainbow table format (though something tells me that Google is smart enough to use salts and this wouldn't be an option). Realistically, even Google doesn't have the resources to go around brute forcing people's passwords. This means the only real way that Google could encrypt the data would be to store their passwords as plaintext in case the user forgot it, which is really just providing security as the cost of losing alot more security. All in all I don't see the process being beneficial for Google or the users.
Not exactly pleasant or relevant. Unless they figured we were gay or something... Getting your colon irrigated doesn't mean you're gay, so you emailing your wife would have nothing to do with whether or not that was in your text ads at the side. What would influence it is if you have health conscious related emails (e.g. fitness workouts, organic foods, etc.).
Except unlike most advertising companies, Google provides us with a service that is extremely useful. Sure, advertising is how they make their money, but that's how they keep the service they provide for us free. It's like broadcast television. They provide us with entertainment with the catch that there will be a few commercials here and there. Except with Google we don't have 30 second annoyances which take up the whole screen and don't allow us to view anything else. Google has pleasant little text ads on the side. That's why everyone loves them.
????B.C. - Random Dude "You know this wind would be pretty cool if it were used to run a ship"
*Investors throw money at random dude*
1769 - James Watt "You know this steam engine thing would be pretty cool if it were used to run a ship"
*Investors throw money at Watt*
1896 - Karl Benz "You know this gas powered combustion engine thing would be pretty cool if it were used to run a ship"
*Investors throw monoey at Benz*
2007 - SkySails "You know this wind thing would be pretty cool if it were used to run a ship"
*Beluga corp. throws money at SkySails*
Seems to me that SkySails is a few millenia back on their innovation.
It would be interesting to see if this gets ported over to the entertainment industry as well. If it can do everything it claims to be able to do it would greatly help with modeling movies like "Pirates of the Caribbean" where bone structures of the actors are important.
From the.pdf the article quotes:
In the late afternoon, John takes his daily swim at the university pool. Before
he jumps into the water, he discards his T-shirt, revealing a Captain Caveman
tattoo on his right shoulder. Not only did he violate Hanna-Barbera's copyright
when he got the tattoo--after all, it is an unauthorized reproduction of a
copyrighted work--he has now engaged in a unauthorized public display of the
animated character. More ominously, the Copyright Act allows for the
"impounding" and "destruction or other reasonable disposition" of any
infringing work. Sporting the tattoo, John has become the infringing work. At
best, therefore, he will have to undergo court-mandated laser tattoo removal. At
worst, he faces imminent "destruction." Look on the bright side, at least we wont be seeing more of the Zune tattoo guy.
Slashdot Mirror
Spare batteries are more dangerous than installed batteries? Maybe it's just me, but the large majority of the lithium batteries that I've read about exploding were ones that were installed. I've yet to hear about a spare one going jihad on the luggage next to it.
OMG TOTALLY!!1
First off, I noted that the RAM was less in the Mac. That's why I said that you could upgrade it to an equal amount, and still pay less for the mac.
Also, "Fear The Clam" already noted my forgetting the TV tuner ( http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=400096&cid=21833078 ), and I noted this. Read others comments before you flame.
And Integrated Video versus a dedicated graphic card? Please. I just bought a Lenovo X61 with one of intel's latest integrated chips, the Intel GMA X3100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA#GMA_X3100) and I have trouble playing Counterstrike on it ( i get about 25 fps @ 640x480). Not Counterstrike Source mind you, the original CS from 1999. My old Radeon 9800 out performs it greatly ( 100 fps @ 1280x1024), and that has about one third [270Mhz clock vs 800 Mhz clock] the power of the 2400XT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ATI_Graphics_Processing_Units#Radeon_R600_series). Granted CS isn't a full benchmark (and it can't run on a mac) but it at least gives us a basic comparison between the performance of the cards.
However, yes, the dell does have 200Mhz more. I overlooked that.
Not yet no. The 802.11n here is most likely based off of the draft 2.0 revisions. The official version still hasn't been agreed upon yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11#802.11n
Ahh I see. Didn't notice the TV tuner in the spec sheets.
For those with mod points, mod Fear the Clam's comment up. It's a vital point I overlooked.
I compared both of the low end models (thus the parenthesized "low-end" after each of the titles).
On a side note, I can't believe I just made an argument that a Mac was cheaper from a hardware standpoint.
*head asplode*
I don't quite understand why they rate the XPS one higher than the iMac.
First off, let's compare tech specs.
iMac (Low-end) $1199
20" wsxga+ screen
1GB Ram
250GB HDD
Dual Layer DVD burner
ATI Radeon HD 2400XT (128MB)
802.11n Wireless
XPS ONE (Low-End) $1399
20" wsxga+ screen
2GB Ram
250GB HDD
DVD burner Integrated Video
"WiFi" (doesn't say which)
Now notice that the only thing the dell beats the mac in is memory. However, for $150 you can upgrade to the same amount when you order an iMac (or get a stick on newegg for half that), and have a machine that still is $50 LESS (and with a real video card, a dual layer burner, and guaranteed 802.11n). Gizmodo also already agreed that Leopard was the better operating system (see the link in the article below the video). So this begs me to ask, why do they consider the more expensive, less equipped, and weaker operating system computer better than the other?
Take note of the tests for the latest Firefox beta though, notice that he's using a different system with .2Ghz more and he's on a 64 bit system versus a 32 bit. Although it's not a huge leap, it IS a difference. Different system different benchmark.
I wonder if Moore's law will apply to the number of qubits within a quantum computer as well. A 1024 qubit computer within the next 20 years would be nice.
This, like many patent lawsuits today, is entirely ridiculous. Visual voicemail is essentially identical to an email with an audio attachment and a fancy wrapper around it. If these types of cases keep happening, corporate America is going to eat itself whole. We're going to see more and more people who's business model is to patent trivial things and try to lynch anyone who approaches something similar to it.
I feel like when it comes to open networks, Verizon has always been that evil master that enslaves you and hits you with a rolled up magazine. It makes me wary that it's now trying to give us this treat of promises of open networks...
Something tells me they're just trying to lure us in so they can get a better swing with their magazine.
First off, if you're that concerned about your data being secure, you probably should just store it on a personal webserver and encrypt it yourself.
That being said, I really don't see this as a major concern for Google in relation to the success of Gdrive. A large percentage of people today really don't care about whether or not their personal data is scanned an analyzed, as proven by the information people list on social networking sites like facebook, myspace, livejournal, etc.
So the real question here is whether or not Google (and the small percentage of users that would use encryption) would benefit enough from this feature to offset the time needed to develop it and the hassles that will come along with it. I think that alot of the users wont realize that if Google encrypts their data with the password that the users provide, then there will no longer be that friendly "Forgot your password? Let us reset it for you." button. People will then be constantly complaining that they can no longer access their data if they forgot their password and had it reset (Because the data is encrypted based on their old password obviously). The only way that Google would be able to recover that data for the user is a.) by brute forcing it, or b.) by using precomputed hashes in a rainbow table format (though something tells me that Google is smart enough to use salts and this wouldn't be an option). Realistically, even Google doesn't have the resources to go around brute forcing people's passwords. This means the only real way that Google could encrypt the data would be to store their passwords as plaintext in case the user forgot it, which is really just providing security as the cost of losing alot more security. All in all I don't see the process being beneficial for Google or the users.
Except unlike most advertising companies, Google provides us with a service that is extremely useful. Sure, advertising is how they make their money, but that's how they keep the service they provide for us free. It's like broadcast television. They provide us with entertainment with the catch that there will be a few commercials here and there. Except with Google we don't have 30 second annoyances which take up the whole screen and don't allow us to view anything else. Google has pleasant little text ads on the side. That's why everyone loves them.
Snake: Otacon, I have something I have to tell you before I face metal gear. I'm... your father.
Yea this could get very bad.
Well theoretically, under trinitarian doctrine Jesus IS God, and God sent Jesus down to die. Therefore God did kill Himself.
It's approximately the length of 20 trucks by the width of 10 normal sized cars.
"That will do Austin."
????B.C. - Random Dude "You know this wind would be pretty cool if it were used to run a ship"
*Investors throw money at random dude*
1769 - James Watt "You know this steam engine thing would be pretty cool if it were used to run a ship"
*Investors throw money at Watt*
1896 - Karl Benz "You know this gas powered combustion engine thing would be pretty cool if it were used to run a ship"
*Investors throw monoey at Benz*
2007 - SkySails "You know this wind thing would be pretty cool if it were used to run a ship"
*Beluga corp. throws money at SkySails*
Seems to me that SkySails is a few millenia back on their innovation.
...but never patients with lupus.
It would be interesting to see if this gets ported over to the entertainment industry as well. If it can do everything it claims to be able to do it would greatly help with modeling movies like "Pirates of the Caribbean" where bone structures of the actors are important.