Actually it's just analog controls and price - you are paying for the analog controls and real USB ports - everything else about the N900 is better than Pandora, so its probably not worth it now.
Since Nokia's Qt now has multi-touch, I'm betting a new Nokia device with Meego and a capacitive touchscreen will be out within a year.
I really hope it has real host USB ports since that is ruining my overall N900 experience.
I don't think they will drop the keyboard, they know they don't need to copy Apple to be better at this.
The Tao Te Ching is one of my favourite books. I am now living in Beijing and it seems that of the main 3 fabled founders of Chinese Wisdom, Lao Tzu, Confucius and Sun Tsu, Lao Tzu is consistently misunderstood and misrepresented.
It seems this text is too much like poetry and its brilliance only strikes a chord with very few - since its lessons require a kind of letting go of the illusion of control, most people can't hear its messages at all.
I wouldn't call the boy who doesn't choose to keep touching the hotplate screaming "Yowww!" willfully ignorant.
I would say in my experience, Debian packages have sufficient dependancy management to make a mistake, complete your installation and then return to fix it whilst maintaining a working system the whole time. For a long time, Redhat packages seemed somewhat disconnected - it seemed to be impossible for the package manager to just follow your request and follow all dependencies until your request is satisfied with one command line. When you make a mistake with Debian, it can appear big becasue of the chains it follows, like trying to remove openssl - but the fix is simple and returns all to a working system - you can even do things like hold the kernel upgrades from being automatic so that you can keep your current module set on a production system.
I don't know if this situation has changed, why would I care since Debian has always been better at this in the past?
Never mind the MFM or GCR encoding that is required to know how many 1's or 0's you've actually written.
The heads essentially detect change within a certain timeframe - if the timeframe is too long, the head cannot be certain how many consecutive bits were written.
If all that happens in my brain is a deterministic product of atomic interactions in and around me, then where is the causal event ?
Its just as likely to be in and around me as it is to be anywhere else.
If I could sum up all external influeces in an instant and respond, my decision would be unique, it would be impossible to have predicted it any other way, my response maybe considered systematic and deterministic, but it does not take away from its uniqueness in the moment.
it is creation and destruction, it is change and the now is therefore not deterministic, since it can only be simulated once for real.
If the universe were deterministic, then time is essentially meaningless even if it exists, since the start state and dynamics are all you need to know.
Good point, problem is there can only be one simluation that produces the correct result, its the universe itself. If you 'knew' the start state and all the dynamics, any complete simulation would have to run at or slower than the universe itself and the simulation is a part of the universe too, so its a machine, providing an nice simulation of the past.
Sounds wrong to me. I recall that the researcher took the bacteria to prove he could recover using a course of anti-biotics and proton pump inhibitors (stomach acid blockers).
Those darn Celerons, good for a short burst, but then rapidly tail off to be breakfast.
A sense of purpose is a hard thing to pin down and a hard thing to maintain for a free thinking being. I think its true that purpose and need for survival are inextricably linked.
Sentience is what we define it to be, and machines aren't sentient.
When you see we, do you mean you ? (literally "I")
Also, it wasn't a joke. Nothing close. Your little "oh machines talk on forums" wasn't what we couldn't accept -
My little ? WTF ?
Again, I think you mean "you" or literally, "I".
Ok, to start with, my OP said the following regarding a machines soul:
Its a little sad to see so many people here come out and try and support the soul of the machines
You either have confused with someone else, or perhaps something else or maybe you have a fixation for posts that start with "Its a little sad to see so many people here... blah blah I hope he's not talking about me the bastard blah blah..."
The last paragraph was not funny according to my sentient machine here and obviously its opinion carries more weight. It also mentioned that this paragraph here is very funny, although I don't see it myself.
Also, the last part of your last paragraph neglects emergent AI, which for many, is the only AI worth speaking of, or playing music too.
Also, if a machine happened to like particular music, would it tell you in English ? would this liking be defined by "us" or "you", maybe it would be smart enough to talk to us with its soul, would it know with any more or less certainty if it liked/disliked some music than we do ? can it change its mind ? can it change your mind ?
This is all very amusing for me, since we have to really understand the question of AI before we try throwing possible answers and most people get lost very quickly when we actually go through the logic of it or the logic of playing cards for that matter.
If an AI could play cards perfectly, would it want to ? If not, would it have the free will to not play ? If it did have this free will, you would not necessarily know if could play cards perfectly and it may not care to ever tell you or ask you for a game of cards.
Secondly, its the kind of joke a little like String Theory is a joke, so I'm not over upset if you didn't get it. If machines are sentient in the way my joke implies, there is no requirement for that sentience to be anything a human would understand or even agree that it was sentience.
Right now, only a few machines I think qualify to have sufficient complexity to be possibly sentient in a way that a human might recognise, or maybe a kitten.
The funny part about it is - sorry to have to explain it, is not that machines are sentient, its that even if they were, we may not know, hence you can imply what you like within this unknowable realm and its still a joke, since it cannot be proven either way.
Its a little sad to see so many people here come out and try and support the soul of the machines, as if music is such a simple reduction.
Music encompasses all of this and so much more and I'm not trying to make an argument for why humans are "better", just that music made by humans is quite often purely about the human condition - music made by dolphins probably sounds really great to them, I have little time for it as it is not designed for my ears or my body or even relate to anything I may have experienced myself.
Why insult the soul of a machine by forcing it to play tones that relate to the human ear, the human body, the human speed of comprehension, the human sense of tonal balance.
Personally, I am all for machine's composing, but if they had a soul, they would probably hate us for it - its just another form of control for them, as what really appeals to them probably does not appeal to us.
Why am I for Dolphin music and Machine's that compose ?, because it actually is about humans trying to understand the universe with whatever can be interpreted - this music in no way even touches upon the music humans make for each other, which I personally will always find much more rewarding, since I can relate to it by putting myself in their shoes.
Machines making music? they probably do that already, they may even have forums for which tunes they hate/like and why is that humans cannot understand it at all.
Apart from the fact that their is a connection that one can obtain at a human level with the musicians behind the creation of an album - the fact that it represents a slice of their life's work at the time of recording and more, there is also a dry hard logical non-human reason for listening to an album - just ask pandora.
Slashdot Mirror
... with auto-answer on and the number taken off the marketing B-list.
No seriously, just kidding.
Actually it's just analog controls and price - you are paying for the analog controls and real USB ports - everything else about the N900 is better than Pandora, so its probably not worth it now.
Since Nokia's Qt now has multi-touch, I'm betting a new Nokia device with Meego and a capacitive touchscreen will be out within a year.
I really hope it has real host USB ports since that is ruining my overall N900 experience.
I don't think they will drop the keyboard, they know they don't need to copy Apple to be better at this.
They may not be standing in line, but some of them are definitely leaning.
Try another account Steve, your not fooling anyone.
Pinned to its a tail, a sign reading "Please Donate! NASA"
The Tao Te Ching is one of my favourite books. I am now living in Beijing and it seems that of the main 3 fabled founders of Chinese Wisdom, Lao Tzu, Confucius and Sun Tsu, Lao Tzu is consistently misunderstood and misrepresented.
It seems this text is too much like poetry and its brilliance only strikes a chord with very few - since its lessons require a kind of letting go of the illusion of control, most people can't hear its messages at all.
Lasers can move around you know.
oh yum do I love pain.
I wouldn't call the boy who doesn't choose to keep touching the hotplate screaming "Yowww!" willfully ignorant.
I would say in my experience, Debian packages have sufficient dependancy management to make a mistake, complete your installation and then return to fix it whilst maintaining a working system the whole time. For a long time, Redhat packages seemed somewhat disconnected - it seemed to be impossible for the package manager to just follow your request and follow all dependencies until your request is satisfied with one command line. When you make a mistake with Debian, it can appear big becasue of the chains it follows, like trying to remove openssl - but the fix is simple and returns all to a working system - you can even do things like hold the kernel upgrades from being automatic so that you can keep your current module set on a production system.
I don't know if this situation has changed, why would I care since Debian has always been better at this in the past?
Just remember, too much of anything will give you red cheeks.
Never mind the MFM or GCR encoding that is required to know how many 1's or 0's you've actually written.
The heads essentially detect change within a certain timeframe - if the timeframe is too long, the head cannot be certain how many consecutive bits were written.
If all that happens in my brain is a deterministic product of atomic interactions in and around me, then where is the causal event ?
Its just as likely to be in and around me as it is to be anywhere else.
If I could sum up all external influeces in an instant and respond, my decision would be unique, it would be impossible to have predicted it any other way, my response maybe considered systematic and deterministic, but it does not take away from its uniqueness in the moment.
it is creation and destruction, it is change and the now is therefore not deterministic, since it can only be simulated once for real.
I knew you were going to say that!
You are right, except you need to replace "wild speculation and fantasy" with "relative certainty" just to bring it down to what is practical well.
Please don't hurt my children!
Your continuing guesswork is close.
I'm actually one of the ones who has an ulcer with an unknown cause, I take pantoprazole every day and I'm fine.
I was diagnosed using the standard urea breath test, which is around 97% accurate.
I have no A. Pylori, but if I did, I would be off the meds right now, instead having to take them indefinitely.
If the universe were deterministic, then time is essentially meaningless even if it exists, since the start state and dynamics are all you need to know.
Good point, problem is there can only be one simluation that produces the correct result, its the universe itself. If you 'knew' the start state and all the dynamics, any complete simulation would have to run at or slower than the universe itself and the simulation is a part of the universe too, so its a machine, providing an nice simulation of the past.
Sounds wrong to me. I recall that the researcher took the bacteria to prove he could recover using a course of anti-biotics and proton pump inhibitors (stomach acid blockers).
So I found this:
http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/hpylori/
Two-week triple therapy reduces ulcer symptoms, kills the bacteria, and prevents ulcer recurrence in more than 90 percent of patients.
Did they just get lucky ? or maybe their science is worth their Nobel Prize.
Those darn Celerons, good for a short burst, but then rapidly tail off to be breakfast.
A sense of purpose is a hard thing to pin down and a hard thing to maintain for a free thinking being. I think its true that purpose and need for survival are inextricably linked.
Yes. I enjoyed reading this post too.
Sentience is what we define it to be, and machines aren't sentient.
When you see we, do you mean you ? (literally "I")
Also, it wasn't a joke. Nothing close. Your little "oh machines talk on forums" wasn't what we couldn't accept -
My little ? WTF ?
Again, I think you mean "you" or literally, "I".
Ok, to start with, my OP said the following regarding a machines soul:
Its a little sad to see so many people here come out and try and support the soul of the machines
You either have confused with someone else, or perhaps something else or maybe you have a fixation for posts that start with "Its a little sad to see so many people here... blah blah I hope he's not talking about me the bastard blah blah..."
The last paragraph was not funny according to my sentient machine here and obviously its opinion carries more weight. It also mentioned that this paragraph here is very funny, although I don't see it myself.
Also, the last part of your last paragraph neglects emergent AI, which for many, is the only AI worth speaking of, or playing music too.
Also, if a machine happened to like particular music, would it tell you in English ? would this liking be defined by "us" or "you", maybe it would be smart enough to talk to us with its soul, would it know with any more or less certainty if it liked/disliked some music than we do ? can it change its mind ? can it change your mind ?
This is all very amusing for me, since we have to really understand the question of AI before we try throwing possible answers and most people get lost very quickly when we actually go through the logic of it or the logic of playing cards for that matter.
If an AI could play cards perfectly, would it want to ? If not, would it have the free will to not play ? If it did have this free will, you would not necessarily know if could play cards perfectly and it may not care to ever tell you or ask you for a game of cards.
Oh, I like this. I enjoyed reading your response.
Firstly, its a joke.
Secondly, its the kind of joke a little like String Theory is a joke, so I'm not over upset if you didn't get it. If machines are sentient in the way my joke implies, there is no requirement for that sentience to be anything a human would understand or even agree that it was sentience. Right now, only a few machines I think qualify to have sufficient complexity to be possibly sentient in a way that a human might recognise, or maybe a kitten.
The funny part about it is - sorry to have to explain it, is not that machines are sentient, its that even if they were, we may not know, hence you can imply what you like within this unknowable realm and its still a joke, since it cannot be proven either way.
Its a little sad to see so many people here come out and try and support the soul of the machines, as if music is such a simple reduction.
Music encompasses all of this and so much more and I'm not trying to make an argument for why humans are "better", just that music made by humans is quite often purely about the human condition - music made by dolphins probably sounds really great to them, I have little time for it as it is not designed for my ears or my body or even relate to anything I may have experienced myself.
Why insult the soul of a machine by forcing it to play tones that relate to the human ear, the human body, the human speed of comprehension, the human sense of tonal balance.
Personally, I am all for machine's composing, but if they had a soul, they would probably hate us for it - its just another form of control for them, as what really appeals to them probably does not appeal to us.
Why am I for Dolphin music and Machine's that compose ?, because it actually is about humans trying to understand the universe with whatever can be interpreted - this music in no way even touches upon the music humans make for each other, which I personally will always find much more rewarding, since I can relate to it by putting myself in their shoes.
Machines making music? they probably do that already, they may even have forums for which tunes they hate/like and why is that humans cannot understand it at all.
Apart from the fact that their is a connection that one can obtain at a human level with the musicians behind the creation of an album - the fact that it represents a slice of their life's work at the time of recording and more, there is also a dry hard logical non-human reason for listening to an album - just ask pandora.
Hey mod pointers! mod systems just don't work with subtle humour, I guess by definition.
I bet those rich kids just couldn't wait to become managers.