or free energy. Why do people keep looking for ways to power stuff by (inefficiently) robbing it from other places? The last two posted here were shirts that flexed to power gadgets, and roads that had bumps in them to run road lighting.
However you do this, (1) you're going to make something else require more energy, and (2) introducing additional energy loss due to conversion. In this case, if you put some material in the soles to gather mechanical energy it's just going to make your feet a little more tired.
I see something of a relation between this and sales tax... sales taxes are applied to when you're already spending money and it just shaves a little off that doesn't look like it mattered too much. Same thing here, just making your commute a little more tiring with the idea that you won't really notice. Shoe power doesn't create energy any more than sales taxes create money.
Actually, using more energy for walking is great, it makes walking for exercise more efficient.
The Northeast? Threatened? I wholeheartedly guffaw at the though. Hurricanes end up in the New England area whenever they don't sputter out on the way up. They're shadows of their former selves when they get here as cold northern waters neuter the hurricane. We get 1-2 days of rain and that's it. The storms are never anything we have to feel threatened by here. Call again in winter, we'll show you the storms we New Englanders actually fear.
The only reason Android is the fastest selling [i]phone[/i] OS (if you count tablets iOS is still on top), is because there are more manufacturers of Android phones than iPhones.
You have it backwards. The only reason there are more manufacturers is because there is more demand. They wouldn't be able to support making that many phones if they were not being bought.
I've seen commercials for phones that even come with "Crap-Buttons" now. Actual hardware that launches facebook. That's some serious faith that facebook is going to survive Google+
Ha! Verizon actually ADDED crapware to my DroidX with a software update that did nothing but force install the demo for some football game that could not be removed.
Actually, he did not. I asked how it's better and he said "it is". That's not really an answer to my question. It's like asking "how did your grandma die" and getting the reply "she is dead".
Postulating something as a fact does not explain it, unless the fact objectively does. "X is better" is no objective fact without the qualifier explaining just HOW it is better.
ok, so maybe he didn't answer it "correctly", but the main point of your post was that he used the word "Better", which was the exact language used by the person he was replying to.
Does anyone actually use Google+? I signed up and then immediately stopped using it. Let them drop my account if they can't verify my identity. Google+ just isn't something I'm interested in, and if they want to enforce rules that I don't want to obey, I just won't use it. If they do that with my email, then I will just move to another service.
Yes. I do, and a lot of my friends and family do as well. From looking at their android app and it's "Nearby" feature, it looks like a lot of people near me use it also. I'm not exactly in a hugely populated area either.
Slow down, fanboy. "Better" is a subjective term, and your opinions aren't measurably superior to any others outside of your head.
The OP asked how Google+ was better than facebook. All he did was answer his question (using the OP's own words). It sounds like you need to direct your rage twords OP, not the Parent Post
Sounds like they have grown too large and really don't care what their 'customers' think ( yes, i know their *true* customers are the companies who advertise, but you get my point ). Time to find another "service" provider.
I'm one of their "customers", and I like their real name policy. It's not like the users were tricked in to joining and giving out their real name. Everyone who joins know what they are signing up for.
This really bothers me. I am on G+, with my name, but only because I recently legally changed it. I couldn't have used it before because I have abusive family that were stalking me. They are terrible with "the internets" so a legal name change solved the basic google searches they were capable of, for finding me. However, if my legal name hadn't been changed, I couldn't use G+ and feel safe. I can't be the only one that has issues with putting their legal name out there.
Ok, here is what you do in that situation. 1. Change your Google+ profile to make your location ifnroamtion Private. 2. Don't post publicly any information that would let your stalker find you. 3. Don't post privately any information that you don't trust your trusted friends to have. 4. Don't add your stalker to your circles.
Or alternatively, stop posting information you don't want the public to have on a public website. If you need to post anonymously, don't post it from Google+!
You present a false dichotomy. Pseudonymity is different from anonymity. Real names are not the only solution.
.
It's the solution that google choose for THEIR website. If you think one of the other solutions would work better, feel free to start your own website. No one forced anyone to use Google+. I like using my real name, and like seeing the real names of others I choose to communicate with. You will notice that I use my real name when posting here on Slashdot too.
If the labs needs fewer real rats, they will breed fewer rats. If the rat is never born in the first place, can you really be said to be saving it's life?
So you're ok if you buy a $20K car, then purchase $30K of physical bolt-on accessories to turn it into a $50K car? Or perhaps it's better to sell your $20K car used for $15K? Confused about why the upgrade process itself seems so upsetting to you.
Because in this case, you don't actually get anything for the "upgrade", you are paying for nothing. Everything you get with the upgrade you already had before. Instead of paying for "value added" you are paying for "value not taken away".
Would you be ok if I sold you a whole apple but only allowed you to to eat half of it until you paid me an extra fee? Once you buy the apple from me, and I hand you an entire apple, you are well within your rights to eat the entire thing. If you only wanted to sell me half an apple, then sell me half an apple, not a whole one and expect me to eat only half of it.
Then you should only buy top of the line model cars and processors. Then you're not getting "screwed" out of anything. Leave the "crippled" stuff for the rest of us that are okay with spending less money for a level of functionality that suits us.
Why should I pay more for the exact same hardware? What value is added that justifies the higher price? If I pay $100 for a CPU that is capable of running at 3ghz I should be able to make it run at 3ghz, even if it is sold as running at 2ghz. I paid for the physical hardware, I can do whatever I want with it, including running it at 2ghz, 3ghz, or destroying it by trying to run it at 10ghz. If the someone sold me something capable of running at 3ghz at the price of something that runs at 2ghz, then that's their problem, not mine, and they have no right to try and restrict my use of it.
The issue here is the manufacturers are starting to realize just how much overhead they're spending making so many different models of products, and that it's cheaper to just manufacture one model, the best one, and then cripple it if you don't want to pay for the best.
What's the issue here? You think everyone should be forced to buy the top-end model because that's the only one manufacturers should make available? If you by a $20,000 car, you get $20,000 functionality. Just cause there's $50,000 functionality built into the car to make manufacturing cheaper, doesn't mean it should be given to you for free.
Yes, it does... If I bought the car, I own it, and everything that is physically part of it at the time of purchase. Including the "extra" $30,000 worth of performance.
I'd say it's more about making things addictive. How many times have you been doing something that has been "gamified" for hours, only to eventually realize that you are no longer having fun, but just waiting to hear that little DING that means you are getting some reward. Now fun can be the method of getting you addicted; fun things make great rewards. But as it is currently being used by companies, it's about the addiction.
Do I understand their presentation correctly? Users in said Enterprise have admin privileges?
Yes, and typically the admin of the system has admin privileges. It may not be good practice to run a normal account with admin rights, but every company I've worked for has done it. Typically more than just that user have admin rights too, other tech support people, and even some of the higher level programmers seem to get admin rights to the domain (not just the local system).
No it doesn't. Javascript definitely does not belong in an HTML file. It belongs as a separate file so that you can actually make sure that it's updated rather than hoping that it doesn't get screwed up when you want to change the HTML.
Programming in documents is a serious security problem that ought to have been fixed years ago. If you need interactivity, then use an external program, otherwise let's keep the bugs to things that are actually unavoidable.
You are just arguing semantics with the separate document thing. The Office Document format is now composed of multiple files inside a single logical document file. The scripting could easily be moved out of the content file and be stored as a separate entity. Users obviously want this functionality, or documents using it wouldn't exist in the first place.
I'm thinking they're referring to the whole Holocaust thing, the SS rounding up Jews, etc. There's always a fear that it might occur again, and the last thing Germany wants is probably a database of people and easy identification along with it.
That's not really/post/ war though. That all happened before and during the war.
Slashdot Mirror
Are we really going to have to go through this with EVERY phone?
I thought the problem with javascript was it was weakly typed , dynamic and not typesafe.
I agree with you... But I have friends who argue that those exact problems are actually its strengths. It boggles the mind.
or free energy. Why do people keep looking for ways to power stuff by (inefficiently) robbing it from other places? The last two posted here were shirts that flexed to power gadgets, and roads that had bumps in them to run road lighting.
However you do this, (1) you're going to make something else require more energy, and (2) introducing additional energy loss due to conversion. In this case, if you put some material in the soles to gather mechanical energy it's just going to make your feet a little more tired.
I see something of a relation between this and sales tax... sales taxes are applied to when you're already spending money and it just shaves a little off that doesn't look like it mattered too much. Same thing here, just making your commute a little more tiring with the idea that you won't really notice. Shoe power doesn't create energy any more than sales taxes create money.
Actually, using more energy for walking is great, it makes walking for exercise more efficient.
The Northeast? Threatened? I wholeheartedly guffaw at the though. Hurricanes end up in the New England area whenever they don't sputter out on the way up. They're shadows of their former selves when they get here as cold northern waters neuter the hurricane. We get 1-2 days of rain and that's it. The storms are never anything we have to feel threatened by here. Call again in winter, we'll show you the storms we New Englanders actually fear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Agnes
...just hire more cops for traffic patrol? more people with income and no big brother concerns.
i really prefer the idea of spike strips that pop up when you run the light. nothing like instant gratification!
Why is it OK is a cop does it, but not OK if a camera does it?
The only reason Android is the fastest selling [i]phone[/i] OS (if you count tablets iOS is still on top), is because there are more manufacturers of Android phones than iPhones.
You have it backwards. The only reason there are more manufacturers is because there is more demand. They wouldn't be able to support making that many phones if they were not being bought.
I've seen commercials for phones that even come with "Crap-Buttons" now. Actual hardware that launches facebook. That's some serious faith that facebook is going to survive Google+
Ha! Verizon actually ADDED crapware to my DroidX with a software update that did nothing but force install the demo for some football game that could not be removed.
Now I use CyanogenMod.
Eh, we California people are like chill about it. Call us when you have a 6 or more quake
Just as long as you call us when you get an inch or 2 of snow. Deal?
Where exactly is Google+ better than Facebook?
I don't have to interact with people named "AssMonkey98" on Google+.
Actually, he did not. I asked how it's better and he said "it is". That's not really an answer to my question. It's like asking "how did your grandma die" and getting the reply "she is dead".
Postulating something as a fact does not explain it, unless the fact objectively does. "X is better" is no objective fact without the qualifier explaining just HOW it is better.
ok, so maybe he didn't answer it "correctly", but the main point of your post was that he used the word "Better", which was the exact language used by the person he was replying to.
Does anyone actually use Google+? I signed up and then immediately stopped using it. Let them drop my account if they can't verify my identity. Google+ just isn't something I'm interested in, and if they want to enforce rules that I don't want to obey, I just won't use it. If they do that with my email, then I will just move to another service.
Yes. I do, and a lot of my friends and family do as well. From looking at their android app and it's "Nearby" feature, it looks like a lot of people near me use it also. I'm not exactly in a hugely populated area either.
Slow down, fanboy. "Better" is a subjective term, and your opinions aren't measurably superior to any others outside of your head.
The OP asked how Google+ was better than facebook. All he did was answer his question (using the OP's own words). It sounds like you need to direct your rage twords OP, not the Parent Post
Sounds like they have grown too large and really don't care what their 'customers' think ( yes, i know their *true* customers are the companies who advertise, but you get my point ). Time to find another "service" provider.
I'm one of their "customers", and I like their real name policy. It's not like the users were tricked in to joining and giving out their real name. Everyone who joins know what they are signing up for.
This really bothers me. I am on G+, with my name, but only because I recently legally changed it. I couldn't have used it before because I have abusive family that were stalking me. They are terrible with "the internets" so a legal name change solved the basic google searches they were capable of, for finding me. However, if my legal name hadn't been changed, I couldn't use G+ and feel safe. I can't be the only one that has issues with putting their legal name out there.
Ok, here is what you do in that situation.
1. Change your Google+ profile to make your location ifnroamtion Private.
2. Don't post publicly any information that would let your stalker find you.
3. Don't post privately any information that you don't trust your trusted friends to have.
4. Don't add your stalker to your circles.
Or alternatively, stop posting information you don't want the public to have on a public website.
If you need to post anonymously, don't post it from Google+!
You present a false dichotomy. Pseudonymity is different from anonymity. Real names are not the only solution.
.
It's the solution that google choose for THEIR website. If you think one of the other solutions would work better, feel free to start your own website. No one forced anyone to use Google+. I like using my real name, and like seeing the real names of others I choose to communicate with. You will notice that I use my real name when posting here on Slashdot too.
Virtual Lab Rat Saves RAT Lives...
If the labs needs fewer real rats, they will breed fewer rats. If the rat is never born in the first place, can you really be said to be saving it's life?
So you're ok if you buy a $20K car, then purchase $30K of physical bolt-on accessories to turn it into a $50K car? Or perhaps it's better to sell your $20K car used for $15K? Confused about why the upgrade process itself seems so upsetting to you.
Because in this case, you don't actually get anything for the "upgrade", you are paying for nothing. Everything you get with the upgrade you already had before.
Instead of paying for "value added" you are paying for "value not taken away".
Would you be ok if I sold you a whole apple but only allowed you to to eat half of it until you paid me an extra fee? Once you buy the apple from me, and I hand you an entire apple, you are well within your rights to eat the entire thing. If you only wanted to sell me half an apple, then sell me half an apple, not a whole one and expect me to eat only half of it.
It runs faster.
Nope. As mentioned earlier, it is capable of running at 3ghz.
It may go 2ghz /by default/, But that shouldn't stop me from making it reach its full speed.
Then you should only buy top of the line model cars and processors. Then you're not getting "screwed" out of anything. Leave the "crippled" stuff for the rest of us that are okay with spending less money for a level of functionality that suits us.
Why should I pay more for the exact same hardware? What value is added that justifies the higher price? If I pay $100 for a CPU that is capable of running at 3ghz I should be able to make it run at 3ghz, even if it is sold as running at 2ghz. I paid for the physical hardware, I can do whatever I want with it, including running it at 2ghz, 3ghz, or destroying it by trying to run it at 10ghz. If the someone sold me something capable of running at 3ghz at the price of something that runs at 2ghz, then that's their problem, not mine, and they have no right to try and restrict my use of it.
What's the issue here? You think everyone should be forced to buy the top-end model because that's the only one manufacturers should make available? If you by a $20,000 car, you get $20,000 functionality. Just cause there's $50,000 functionality built into the car to make manufacturing cheaper, doesn't mean it should be given to you for free.
Yes, it does... If I bought the car, I own it, and everything that is physically part of it at the time of purchase. Including the "extra" $30,000 worth of performance.
I'd say it's more about making things addictive. How many times have you been doing something that has been "gamified" for hours, only to eventually realize that you are no longer having fun, but just waiting to hear that little DING that means you are getting some reward. Now fun can be the method of getting you addicted; fun things make great rewards. But as it is currently being used by companies, it's about the addiction.
Do I understand their presentation correctly? Users in said Enterprise have admin privileges?
Yes, and typically the admin of the system has admin privileges. It may not be good practice to run a normal account with admin rights, but every company I've worked for has done it. Typically more than just that user have admin rights too, other tech support people, and even some of the higher level programmers seem to get admin rights to the domain (not just the local system).
No it doesn't. Javascript definitely does not belong in an HTML file. It belongs as a separate file so that you can actually make sure that it's updated rather than hoping that it doesn't get screwed up when you want to change the HTML.
Programming in documents is a serious security problem that ought to have been fixed years ago. If you need interactivity, then use an external program, otherwise let's keep the bugs to things that are actually unavoidable.
You are just arguing semantics with the separate document thing. The Office Document format is now composed of multiple files inside a single logical document file. The scripting could easily be moved out of the content file and be stored as a separate entity. Users obviously want this functionality, or documents using it wouldn't exist in the first place.
I'm thinking they're referring to the whole Holocaust thing, the SS rounding up Jews, etc. There's always a fear that it might occur again, and the last thing Germany wants is probably a database of people and easy identification along with it.
That's not really /post/ war though. That all happened before and during the war.