No, it is WORSE by a lot of analysts standards. Including several well-known pundits of Human-Computer Interaction and UI design.
First, they broke the consistency of their product. Half of the product uses one environment, half uses another. The switch between is unexpected and intrusive, and in one environment every popup or dialog goes full-screen without any way to change it. Access to functions and features through common and well-known methods has been unceremoniously yanked out and replaced with non-functional shiny OS gloss.
Second, they are trying to push their standard desktop OS toward the touch-screen realm. I don't know about most people, but in the offices I work in, and with everyone I know who uses a computer, touch-screens are not very prevalent at the desktop. Just adding support and features for them to your OS is not suddenly going to change this. Likewise, they weren't writing this for tablets. Even when they released their fancy new tablet, it didn't run the desktop version, it ran a special 'light' version for use with their nonstandard processors.
Finally, it is you who is the minority of people. A majority of users found fault with the OS for various reasons, mostly due to incomprehensible changes to UI and interaction. Things like hot corners, the 'charms' bar, and your OS completely taking over your screen every time it wants to share some tidbit of information may be something you don't mind, but normal, rational computer users do mind. Nobody WANTS to have to change everything about how they use computers to suit some new fancy design. They'd sooner stick with the old versions.
If it were the users at fault instead of the product, as you have claimed, I don't think we'd be reading an article about the failure of Win8. Also, blaming the users for your software's shortcomings is a sure-fire way to run a company into the shitter as fast as you can.
If they would just realize what they have (with XP and 7 at least) works and stick to that, they would be much better off. I even HAVE and USE a touch screen, but I still run XP. There's no reason their OS has to try to push that frontier before anyone actually wants it.
Also, the Metro UI is HORRIBLE. It is fucking the worst computing experience I have had in about 30 years. It is tacked-on and not integrated properly, frequently toggles between the 'Regular' desktop environment and the stupid satanic bullshit tiles. They don't work properly, take huge screen real estate at will, and do absolutely nothing to improve the user experience or functionality of the OS. Why did you even bother?
Go back to regular, start-button-driven desktops please, Microsoft. And XBoxes. That's all you do well.
According to our shop's agreement, this only happens if we accept AmEx. Visa, MC, and Discover will not debit from us for fraudulent purchases - they just handle the legal end of things between the customer and law enforcement.
For AmEx, it goes to the extent that if a customer is unhappy with their purchase, they have up to a year to return it no questions asked for a FULL refund. No matter its condition. At the merchant's expense.
If you think companies such as Apple pay per-transaction for things like the iTunes Music Store, you don't understand how commerce works for giant corporations.
If they don't work out an annual contract price for their card processing, or somehow do it themselves, they are a lot stupider than I thought.
It actually happens quite a lot. There are several stores in this area which have a higher 'normal price' and then offer a 'cash discount' at checkout.
Well, I think in my entire curriculum for Computer Science, I had like 3 'fluff' classes which were not surprisingly all general education classes, which were part of every degree program offered. I think the more disappointing part was when some of the classes that 'taught' something I wanted to learn, in fact, did not teach me much aside from how to shirk teaching responsibility with concept drills and endless worksheets on the basics.
When I took an optimization class, we didn't learn to optimize our code. We learned assembly, which most of us already knew from assignments in previous classes, and were just drilled on proper use of various registers and loops. If I had not just sat down and read the textbook like I did, I never would have learned about SSE, paging and caching algorithms, or the optimizations and features of various compilers. I would have been bludgeoned with "How to ASM mediocre".
I don't think, then, that you understand what sets scripting/interpreted languages apart from compiled 'real' languages.
As far as I know, there is no scripting or interpreted language that will run any algorithm faster or more efficiently than a native compiled program. The interpreted language will have to run through an interpreter first, probably written as a compiled native binary in one of those 'real languages', before it actually performs its actions in the computer using assembly/machine code/whatever the lowest level is.
If you are looking for efficiency, you should be looking at the standard, older, classic languages that are closest to the machine(even if they are harder to program).
I at least partly agree. "Real" programming, to me, is programming a binary executable that is compiled as machine code and runs natively in an OS. That means no web scripting languages, no LUA, no SQL, no Python, etc. Nothing interpreted or pseudo-compiled at runtime.
C/C++ isn't always the best language to do something in, but it is certainly the best language with which to learn the way a computer/memory/code structure/OOP and Polymorphism/IDE/etc work. Java also offers some of that, but it is one level too abstracted from the machine to really teach properly how the code is converted and run for the machine.
Get a job, and make them pay for more education / training / certifications. It's tax-deductible if it's relevant to your job.
This is a pretty good idea. If nothing else, you can hang out and party with us in Madison until you get your degree.
I know of several top-500 companies in Madison that would hire you in something entry-level and push you through the ranks if you're good at it. Several of them definitely offer education assistance/reimbursement.
I don't get this. I have never seen a TSA agent or checkpoint at any of the major rail stations.
Hell, I can get on the platform next to the tracks without even having a ticket in most places - I used to go into Boston's South Station and grab lunch or take pictures all the time. To get from the bus terminal to the indoor rail station, you HAVE to walk along the platform next to the trains.
Which ones, exactly? I take the train quite a bit, and I've yet to even walk through a metal detector or see anything more than a cop eating lunch at the station.
And we're not talking podunk suburb stations, we're talking Boston, NYC, Chicago, Syracuse, etc - large cities with lots of people traveling. Frequently. Including holidays.
Despite the slightly higher cost, train travel is ALWAYS more appealing and less stressful and invasive than air travel. For starters, the seats are much more spacious, and there's a *real* 120v outlet on the trains running in the US to plug in and charge, etc. You can even get entire little rooms to yourself on a train(of which the smallest put the 'air suites' on super rich airlines to shame).
This is a complete fallacy. The 'you' at 10 years old and the 'you' now are physically the same person. Let's say you clone yourself, and through some convenience-of-hypotheticals magic, your clone is instantly the same age you are.
Now, do you expect that clone has the exact same memories as you do? Even if it is assembled at an atomic level to resemble the exact state of your body, does this 'clone' have your consciousness? Are you able to hear their thoughts as the same being, or is it completely separate from you? Is it a copy but unconnected, or has your mind somehow become linked with it? Of course, we know through animal cloning that it would not be connected, and you would have different physical matter regardless of the precision with which you were duplicated.
In this case, regarding translocation and reassembling a person at a remote location based on 'teleported' information, it is likely that there would either be two of you with the same memories and thought patterns, or if the original is somehow destroyed in transit, you would just cease to exist and your 'cloned' version would just take over as you in the world none the wiser. There is no process by which consciousness should be transferred and not just duplicated in this example - 'consciousness' is relative to the actual physical matter of YOU, not to the general pattern of your atoms.
The basic, fundamental principle of quantum entanglement is "instantaneous sympathetic action at a distance"...with no regard for how long that distance is, therefore exceeding the speed of light for basically any measurable distance.
I don't think you understand Gravitational Potential very well.
The way you state it, you'd think a top shelf holding up an object would have to exert a larger force to counter gravity than the same object on a lower shelf due to that object's higher PEgrav which is due to it's greater distance from the gravity source(the Earth).
Potential energy has not yet been imparted on the object, hence the word 'potential'. It is "how much energy this object could get solely from the force of gravity". The amount of energy potentially imbued by this force depends on many things, including the object's position and unobstructed path relative to the gravity source. This is why when you change the position of the object within the gravitational field, you also change its PEgrav.
So you're saying "We know what happens to data that enters this part of the brain, but we don't know how it works. We'll just make something up that provides the same results"?
Then you're not really modeling or truly even simulating the human brain.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it is WORSE by a lot of analysts standards. Including several well-known pundits of Human-Computer Interaction and UI design.
First, they broke the consistency of their product. Half of the product uses one environment, half uses another. The switch between is unexpected and intrusive, and in one environment every popup or dialog goes full-screen without any way to change it. Access to functions and features through common and well-known methods has been unceremoniously yanked out and replaced with non-functional shiny OS gloss.
Second, they are trying to push their standard desktop OS toward the touch-screen realm. I don't know about most people, but in the offices I work in, and with everyone I know who uses a computer, touch-screens are not very prevalent at the desktop. Just adding support and features for them to your OS is not suddenly going to change this. Likewise, they weren't writing this for tablets. Even when they released their fancy new tablet, it didn't run the desktop version, it ran a special 'light' version for use with their nonstandard processors.
Finally, it is you who is the minority of people. A majority of users found fault with the OS for various reasons, mostly due to incomprehensible changes to UI and interaction. Things like hot corners, the 'charms' bar, and your OS completely taking over your screen every time it wants to share some tidbit of information may be something you don't mind, but normal, rational computer users do mind. Nobody WANTS to have to change everything about how they use computers to suit some new fancy design. They'd sooner stick with the old versions.
If it were the users at fault instead of the product, as you have claimed, I don't think we'd be reading an article about the failure of Win8. Also, blaming the users for your software's shortcomings is a sure-fire way to run a company into the shitter as fast as you can.
Microsoft shouldn't have tried at all.
If they would just realize what they have (with XP and 7 at least) works and stick to that, they would be much better off. I even HAVE and USE a touch screen, but I still run XP. There's no reason their OS has to try to push that frontier before anyone actually wants it.
Also, the Metro UI is HORRIBLE. It is fucking the worst computing experience I have had in about 30 years. It is tacked-on and not integrated properly, frequently toggles between the 'Regular' desktop environment and the stupid satanic bullshit tiles. They don't work properly, take huge screen real estate at will, and do absolutely nothing to improve the user experience or functionality of the OS. Why did you even bother?
Go back to regular, start-button-driven desktops please, Microsoft. And XBoxes. That's all you do well.
According to our shop's agreement, this only happens if we accept AmEx. Visa, MC, and Discover will not debit from us for fraudulent purchases - they just handle the legal end of things between the customer and law enforcement.
For AmEx, it goes to the extent that if a customer is unhappy with their purchase, they have up to a year to return it no questions asked for a FULL refund. No matter its condition. At the merchant's expense.
Yes, but what you don't seem to understand is that the COST IS ALREADY BAKED IN.
If you think companies such as Apple pay per-transaction for things like the iTunes Music Store, you don't understand how commerce works for giant corporations.
If they don't work out an annual contract price for their card processing, or somehow do it themselves, they are a lot stupider than I thought.
It actually happens quite a lot. There are several stores in this area which have a higher 'normal price' and then offer a 'cash discount' at checkout.
Well, I think in my entire curriculum for Computer Science, I had like 3 'fluff' classes which were not surprisingly all general education classes, which were part of every degree program offered. I think the more disappointing part was when some of the classes that 'taught' something I wanted to learn, in fact, did not teach me much aside from how to shirk teaching responsibility with concept drills and endless worksheets on the basics.
When I took an optimization class, we didn't learn to optimize our code. We learned assembly, which most of us already knew from assignments in previous classes, and were just drilled on proper use of various registers and loops. If I had not just sat down and read the textbook like I did, I never would have learned about SSE, paging and caching algorithms, or the optimizations and features of various compilers. I would have been bludgeoned with "How to ASM mediocre".
I don't think, then, that you understand what sets scripting/interpreted languages apart from compiled 'real' languages.
As far as I know, there is no scripting or interpreted language that will run any algorithm faster or more efficiently than a native compiled program. The interpreted language will have to run through an interpreter first, probably written as a compiled native binary in one of those 'real languages', before it actually performs its actions in the computer using assembly/machine code/whatever the lowest level is.
If you are looking for efficiency, you should be looking at the standard, older, classic languages that are closest to the machine(even if they are harder to program).
I at least partly agree. "Real" programming, to me, is programming a binary executable that is compiled as machine code and runs natively in an OS. That means no web scripting languages, no LUA, no SQL, no Python, etc. Nothing interpreted or pseudo-compiled at runtime.
C/C++ isn't always the best language to do something in, but it is certainly the best language with which to learn the way a computer/memory/code structure/OOP and Polymorphism/IDE/etc work. Java also offers some of that, but it is one level too abstracted from the machine to really teach properly how the code is converted and run for the machine.
Get a job, and make them pay for more education / training / certifications. It's tax-deductible if it's relevant to your job.
This is a pretty good idea. If nothing else, you can hang out and party with us in Madison until you get your degree.
I know of several top-500 companies in Madison that would hire you in something entry-level and push you through the ranks if you're good at it. Several of them definitely offer education assistance/reimbursement.
Oh the VERGE! Now there's a paragon of reliable legal information!
Just use VMs...
No need to do an entire partition/separate OS thing the hard way these days. Especially not just for web browsing.
I don't get this. I have never seen a TSA agent or checkpoint at any of the major rail stations.
Hell, I can get on the platform next to the tracks without even having a ticket in most places - I used to go into Boston's South Station and grab lunch or take pictures all the time. To get from the bus terminal to the indoor rail station, you HAVE to walk along the platform next to the trains.
Chicago to Boston is nearly 24 hours. I would imagine the longer trips from coast to coast would run at least twice that.
Which ones, exactly? I take the train quite a bit, and I've yet to even walk through a metal detector or see anything more than a cop eating lunch at the station.
And we're not talking podunk suburb stations, we're talking Boston, NYC, Chicago, Syracuse, etc - large cities with lots of people traveling. Frequently. Including holidays.
Despite the slightly higher cost, train travel is ALWAYS more appealing and less stressful and invasive than air travel. For starters, the seats are much more spacious, and there's a *real* 120v outlet on the trains running in the US to plug in and charge, etc. You can even get entire little rooms to yourself on a train(of which the smallest put the 'air suites' on super rich airlines to shame).
Jeff Goldblum says "Thanks, Captain Hindsight!"
QE transmits the state of or change in the state of a particle. If you can't call that information, you're not thinking hard enough.
That's like saying a binary 0 isn't information because it is, literally, nothing.
This is a complete fallacy. The 'you' at 10 years old and the 'you' now are physically the same person. Let's say you clone yourself, and through some convenience-of-hypotheticals magic, your clone is instantly the same age you are.
Now, do you expect that clone has the exact same memories as you do? Even if it is assembled at an atomic level to resemble the exact state of your body, does this 'clone' have your consciousness? Are you able to hear their thoughts as the same being, or is it completely separate from you? Is it a copy but unconnected, or has your mind somehow become linked with it? Of course, we know through animal cloning that it would not be connected, and you would have different physical matter regardless of the precision with which you were duplicated.
In this case, regarding translocation and reassembling a person at a remote location based on 'teleported' information, it is likely that there would either be two of you with the same memories and thought patterns, or if the original is somehow destroyed in transit, you would just cease to exist and your 'cloned' version would just take over as you in the world none the wiser. There is no process by which consciousness should be transferred and not just duplicated in this example - 'consciousness' is relative to the actual physical matter of YOU, not to the general pattern of your atoms.
The basic, fundamental principle of quantum entanglement is "instantaneous sympathetic action at a distance"...with no regard for how long that distance is, therefore exceeding the speed of light for basically any measurable distance.
Stationary, relative to what?
Well, obviously it would be relative to the source of gravity imparting this gravitational PE on the object. In our case, the surface of the Earth.
I don't think you understand Gravitational Potential very well.
The way you state it, you'd think a top shelf holding up an object would have to exert a larger force to counter gravity than the same object on a lower shelf due to that object's higher PEgrav which is due to it's greater distance from the gravity source(the Earth).
Potential energy has not yet been imparted on the object, hence the word 'potential'. It is "how much energy this object could get solely from the force of gravity". The amount of energy potentially imbued by this force depends on many things, including the object's position and unobstructed path relative to the gravity source. This is why when you change the position of the object within the gravitational field, you also change its PEgrav.
640 kbits should be enough for any body.
You must use AT&T DSL.
Eclipse is much more user-friendly and stable than NetBeans in every iteration I have used it.
We understand weather enough to simulate it.
We understand math enough to properly teach it and implement it.
We don't understand how the human brain works enough to simulate it.
Science is based on guesses supported by facts: we don't just 'make shit up'. Tell your children.
So you're saying "We know what happens to data that enters this part of the brain, but we don't know how it works. We'll just make something up that provides the same results"?
Then you're not really modeling or truly even simulating the human brain.