A friend of the exwife asked for help regarding a math class she was taking in College. Pre-Calc, or some such. I sat with her to get caught up with what she was doing, and it was really disturbing.
She knew nothing of the theory or math. The assistance she needed was help plugging the formulas into her calculator, so she could use it to get the slope at certain points, and so forth. She said her teacher didn't explain any other way of solving the problem... she had memorized a rote set of steps. I don't think she was even clear on what a slope, or even a point, was. Granted, this is a girl that wasn't inclined to be interested in math in the first place, but it wasn't just that. Her textbook had big, easy to follow pages that explained exactly how to get the slope out of a TI-83 calculator. Pictures for the buttons, everything.
And that was already being done with the analog spectrum. The FCC went further than that; they will revoke your license if you don't switch to the new, digital, protocol. That's not simply preventing EM interference; that's trying to control the direction of the market.
I'm not saying the digital format is bad... I think it's got a lot of benefits, and some drawbacks, over analog. I'm just saying the proper way would have been to allow licensed stations to broadcast in one or both, and let the people decide.
What about... two hydrogen atoms sharing one electron? Wouldn't one be an electron donor and the other a receptor? Or is that splitting hairs? (Honestly, I don't even know if that bond is possible.)
The mistake is using legislative means to force an upgrade in technology onto a market. The problems now are a consequence of the initial misguided decision made many years ago.
This is Slashdot, and probably more than 6% of the posts here about the switchover are wrong or confused in some fashion about the switchover. In less technical forums, the percentage is much higher.
I suppose, if you're confidently wrong, you're not confused.
If the lost revenue from decreased viewership is less than the electricity savings, good for them. It would be interesting to see how many people lose signal in those early switchovers.
What is the worst part. That idiot moron of a mayor GOT REELECTED!!!!!!!!!!!
And, bringing it around full circle, electing terrible leadership is a consequence of being poor and uneducated. The people re-electing the mayor bought the line that the federal government was primarily responsible for the mishandling, and probably made a Bush joke or two... not understanding what role the state and federal governments were supposed to play.
The feds should be thanked for cleaning up the mess Louisiana got itself into.
I'm not sure the GP post merited your correction, which ended up saying (this is a paraphrase): "It doesn't return to a neutral point, just closer to a neutral point."
Yeah, the amount of crap slung at FOX news for being biased is, ironically, very telling of the accuser's bias. I do think FOX news is biased, but no more than CNN, and probably less than MSNBC. I could be misjudging them, and perhaps the median is a little more to the right or left.
But somebody who thinks FOX is biased, and the other channels are not, is lost in their delusions. They are arguing to support their emotionally pre-drawn conclusions.
Because the criticism has nothing to do with the topic; it was posted purely because of somebody's personal crusade against google. If the poster had actually pointed out something google did wrong in regards to the case we're discussing, it would probably be informative.
In a discussion about IBM patents, for instance, a post bitching about IBM selling equipment to Germany before WWII is a troll. A post bitching about IBM not creating significant new technological advances is on topic, and might be informative or insightful.
I read that when grass evolved, it rapidly covered the world, devastating ecology and destroying many of the existing species of vegetations... and probably, indirectly, many animals. I'll look around for a cite, but didn't see one at my first glance.
I've also read that when the first plants developed a respiratory system that spewed free oxygen in the air, it also destroyed species. Oxygen is a poison to a lot of cellular-level life.
There are many instances of one species wiping another out of existence.
If the cell is so much better, then, how come nothing on the PS3 demonstrates a massive superiority over a decent, new pc?
Yes, I'm sure they aren't utilizing it completely, and in a few years the games will be more impressive. By then, of course, pc hardware will have advanced more dramatically.
I did a little digging, but couldn't find an article in English that mentioned what the actual gap was. That probably means that the gap was greater than 2%, and the various bloggers are afraid that publicizing the fact that the missing votes don't matter might blunt our outrage.
It's a problem, certainly, but it may not have any bearing on the outcome of this particular election.
The longer PC gaming exists as a hobby, the smaller the percentage of games that need cutting-edge graphics cards to handle. Video games have been around for a couple decades now; 90% were made more than a couple years ago, built for older hardware.
I realize that you mentioned old games in your comment, but I wanted to stress that point. You can be a gamer and not need cutting edge hardware; you just need to avoid getting caught up in the urge to season's new releases immediately.
Other people may have bought HDTVs and think that the "D" stands for digital.
I know that assumption is wrong, but it kind of coincidentally works, doesn't it? Were there any consumer HDTV televisions that don't have a DTV tuner included?
Slashdot Mirror
A friend of the exwife asked for help regarding a math class she was taking in College. Pre-Calc, or some such. I sat with her to get caught up with what she was doing, and it was really disturbing.
She knew nothing of the theory or math. The assistance she needed was help plugging the formulas into her calculator, so she could use it to get the slope at certain points, and so forth. She said her teacher didn't explain any other way of solving the problem... she had memorized a rote set of steps. I don't think she was even clear on what a slope, or even a point, was. Granted, this is a girl that wasn't inclined to be interested in math in the first place, but it wasn't just that. Her textbook had big, easy to follow pages that explained exactly how to get the slope out of a TI-83 calculator. Pictures for the buttons, everything.
She learned nothing from the class.
And that was already being done with the analog spectrum. The FCC went further than that; they will revoke your license if you don't switch to the new, digital, protocol. That's not simply preventing EM interference; that's trying to control the direction of the market.
I'm not saying the digital format is bad... I think it's got a lot of benefits, and some drawbacks, over analog. I'm just saying the proper way would have been to allow licensed stations to broadcast in one or both, and let the people decide.
Because those people have already switched. Digital isn't 'turning on', it's been on for ages. The transition only involves analog going away.
Plus, switching off cable now entails the purchase of a $50 set-top box for most people, in order to receive OTA digital signals.
What about... two hydrogen atoms sharing one electron? Wouldn't one be an electron donor and the other a receptor? Or is that splitting hairs? (Honestly, I don't even know if that bond is possible.)
You're defending the choice of Australians to remove choice from other Australians?
Mythical? It's a certainty. The viewers before the switch > viewers after.
Why aren't you mad at the Dems for being just as partisan?
Wow, this comment was the most useful thing on Slashdot today!
Now, which is better nowadays... Playboy or Penthouse? Back in the 80s, it was Penthouse... haven't really paid attention since then...
The mistake is using legislative means to force an upgrade in technology onto a market. The problems now are a consequence of the initial misguided decision made many years ago.
This is Slashdot, and probably more than 6% of the posts here about the switchover are wrong or confused in some fashion about the switchover. In less technical forums, the percentage is much higher.
I suppose, if you're confidently wrong, you're not confused.
Little things, en masse, are often more important than the big things.
If the lost revenue from decreased viewership is less than the electricity savings, good for them. It would be interesting to see how many people lose signal in those early switchovers.
Can you buy an R18+ game?
I'll answer that for you. No, your government doesn't let you.
What is the worst part. That idiot moron of a mayor GOT REELECTED!!!!!!!!!!!
And, bringing it around full circle, electing terrible leadership is a consequence of being poor and uneducated. The people re-electing the mayor bought the line that the federal government was primarily responsible for the mishandling, and probably made a Bush joke or two... not understanding what role the state and federal governments were supposed to play.
The feds should be thanked for cleaning up the mess Louisiana got itself into.
Why dismantle the dam? The earthquake has already happened, presumably dissipating the additional stress caused by it's presence.
Removing the dam would probably destabilize the geology, at this point.
I'm not sure the GP post merited your correction, which ended up saying (this is a paraphrase): "It doesn't return to a neutral point, just closer to a neutral point."
Yeah, the amount of crap slung at FOX news for being biased is, ironically, very telling of the accuser's bias. I do think FOX news is biased, but no more than CNN, and probably less than MSNBC. I could be misjudging them, and perhaps the median is a little more to the right or left.
But somebody who thinks FOX is biased, and the other channels are not, is lost in their delusions. They are arguing to support their emotionally pre-drawn conclusions.
The Bildberg group is currently fulfilling the "illuminati" niche in the conspiratorialist's ecosystem.
Because the criticism has nothing to do with the topic; it was posted purely because of somebody's personal crusade against google. If the poster had actually pointed out something google did wrong in regards to the case we're discussing, it would probably be informative.
In a discussion about IBM patents, for instance, a post bitching about IBM selling equipment to Germany before WWII is a troll. A post bitching about IBM not creating significant new technological advances is on topic, and might be informative or insightful.
See, I think just the opposite. Something like what you say is likely to happen soon, and it makes NO sense.
I read that when grass evolved, it rapidly covered the world, devastating ecology and destroying many of the existing species of vegetations... and probably, indirectly, many animals. I'll look around for a cite, but didn't see one at my first glance.
I've also read that when the first plants developed a respiratory system that spewed free oxygen in the air, it also destroyed species. Oxygen is a poison to a lot of cellular-level life. There are many instances of one species wiping another out of existence.
If the cell is so much better, then, how come nothing on the PS3 demonstrates a massive superiority over a decent, new pc?
Yes, I'm sure they aren't utilizing it completely, and in a few years the games will be more impressive. By then, of course, pc hardware will have advanced more dramatically.
I did a little digging, but couldn't find an article in English that mentioned what the actual gap was. That probably means that the gap was greater than 2%, and the various bloggers are afraid that publicizing the fact that the missing votes don't matter might blunt our outrage.
It's a problem, certainly, but it may not have any bearing on the outcome of this particular election.
The longer PC gaming exists as a hobby, the smaller the percentage of games that need cutting-edge graphics cards to handle. Video games have been around for a couple decades now; 90% were made more than a couple years ago, built for older hardware.
I realize that you mentioned old games in your comment, but I wanted to stress that point. You can be a gamer and not need cutting edge hardware; you just need to avoid getting caught up in the urge to season's new releases immediately.
Other people may have bought HDTVs and think that the "D" stands for digital.
I know that assumption is wrong, but it kind of coincidentally works, doesn't it? Were there any consumer HDTV televisions that don't have a DTV tuner included?