My gut feeling is because the people shopping for them are demonstrably suckers. If you have a customer that's willing to spend money based on ridiculous fashion trends, why not convince them that an expensive specialty thin client is magically better than a cheaper, more useful, low-end pc?
The sad thing is that the open-source community hates flash (with *very* good reason)
I don't think they do (have a very good reason, I mean). There's a good reason to hate the way Flash is USED, I agree; but many people hate flash as a language or platform, and there's really not much of a reason to. It's similar to Javascript in that way, a decent language that's condemned because of the way it's typically used; that's more a problem in the browser model than it is with Flash/Javascript themselves. The only strong criticisms of Flash that are really earned are its processor intensiveness, and perhaps that it's proprietary.
Java and C# can both actually beat compiled languages because they can try multiple compiler strategies at run time and use the winner.
That's the theory, and it's no doubt true... but I've never seem them come close in real life, and I doubt they ever have anywhere besides very non-representative benchmarks.
But it's not really that relevant, because even if the execution speed is 10:1 in favor of one language, language execution speed is only one of the bottlenecks. They'll be spending a fair amount of time outside of the language, executing the same APIs. There's network speed, disk access, shared libraries... a 10:1 difference might not be that significant when only 10% of the time is spent actually executing the program.
None of that is true. Not all organizations and people that are anti-abortion are against sex education and birth control; and many of them provide services for both young mothers and children after birth.
Stop spewing exaggerated rhetoric like a firebreathing fundamentalist preacher.
Nah, deification of elected officials is dangerous and now I bet any picture which distorts Obama or members of his families appearance is automatically sacrilegious.
The article writer, I think, was even-handed; mentioning a specific instance about Michelle Obama, and contrasting it with different handling of images of the 'opposing' political spectrum. That's reasonable. Now, the way Google and others reacted to the actual pictures isn't reasonable... how Michelle Obama's caricature was handled is a sad indication of a twisted form of racism; but it's a culturally approved racism, so they probably didn't have much choice. It'll be embarrassing a few decades from now, though.
Google is not a public service, it is a publicly traded corporation.
And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with this country.
That's the reason Google and all other decent search engines exist in the first place. If the state created a search engine as a 'public service' Google alternative... people would still flock to the ones ran by businesses. They're going to be better.
Australia is just taking a more mature way of dealing with our problems.
The US doesn't ban games. Australia does. At least in this matter, the US behaves in a far more civilized way. The US has problems, many problems, but I don't think there's anywhere on Earth with better free speech protections.
"Hot Coffee" wasn't banned. Despite posturing by politicians, the government had nothing to do with how it was resolved. It was primarily a dispute between Rockstar, the ESRB, and the retailers carrying the game.
Real life is 3d. There is no question at all that display technology will eventually go that way, as it slowly approaches maximum realism. Now, the technology might not be there yet, hence your headaches; but the idea isn't useless. It's kind of ridiculous to think it is.
It's a fallacy that emotions need to be vented or expressed. They can't be denied; that would be unhealthy, a form of self-deception. However, thinking that the anger you're feeling needs to be outwardly expressed is not only wrong, but often harmful. Releasing emotion physically has nothing to do with dealing with emotion. It can be a method of avoiding dealing.
That's true, I suppose. A clear, honest, answer could resolve the whole situation immediately. I don't think we're particularly likely to get one though; for some reason, they like to hold their cards close to their chest. Distasteful behavior for a scientific organization. I'm not sure their conclusions are wrong, but I sure don't like how they're behaving.
The scientific process isn't different for climate scientists than any other science. In fact, the way science should be conducted is simple enough that any intelligent 8th grader should know it. They would say that keeping data secret is bad science; they would be right. They would say that a valid criticism is a valid criticism, regardless of the source; they'd be right.
There's no certification process to become a scientist, any more than you need a literature degree to be a writer. A scientist is one who does science, and there are 'scientists' on both side of the issue that aren't doing much of that.
When given two claims, one backed by a peer reviewed article, and one not, saying that the unbacked claim is less credible is the scientific way.
The scientific way would be to first apply a bit of critical thought YOURSELF to the contents of the papers. After all, that's all the 'peers' do. Peer review is an important step, but pointing to consensus is never an appropriate rebuttal to a specific criticism. That's just avoiding thinking.
You can gain access to more datasets once you exhibit certain basic qualifications (like a relevant degree).
Why? Is the data DANGEROUS? There is no justification for that behavior. They aren't temple priests, and they shouldn't act as if they were. Free exchange of information isn't a problem for an honest scientist.
Dump all their data on a website. Respond to FOI requests with a link. Any scientist that doesn't disclose their data SHOULD be viewed very skeptically; they're asking US to 'have faith'. That's not how science is supposed to work.
Right, people become much more stable by being required to consistently bottle any emotions up. It's all the rage in counselling these days, therapists are taught to start up with 'please stfu about your feelings'.
Hell yes, they do. It's an undertaught skill. Kids and teens should be educated that sometimes their feelings DON'T matter, they should shut up and pretend they're ok. It's a valuable and necessary skill. Control over emotions is a critical trait of being civilized.
The headline was written by 'adeelarshad82'. Please point out where that SAME ONE PERSON has advocated removing copyright for movies and music. Otherwise, please acknowledge the GP as correct.
That clause doesn't say a warrant is required to conduct a reasonable search; just that people have a right not to be unreasonably searched. There are reasonable searches, such as officers searching a suspect for hidden weapons. Reading through a person's papers generally IS unreasonable... but unfortunately, the boundary is fuzzy. There may be cases when it is actually is reasonable, such as if a police officer has legitimate reason to believe the papers are part of a crime in progress... and the state has a constant tendency to increase the bounds of 'reasonableness'.
- China has the Great Firewall.
- The US has illegal wiretaps.
- China subjugates Tibet and the Uygur and threatens to annex Taiwan.
- The US subjugates every nation in Latin America, and simply depopulates [wikipedia.org] places that it decides it wants.
- China's police often behave like little more than Jackboot thugs.
- Anyone seen footage from how the authorities handled Katrina? (Unedited footage I mean, not the sanitized stuff for TV).
- China polices its culture pretty closely with state organizations.
- In the US government and the media maintain an ostensible distance, but for all intents and purposes, are one and the same.
Good Lord, don't lay on a spiel about your cosmopolitan sophistication, and than lay out sophomoric statements like that. You'll give readers whiplash.
You're basically making errors of scale. Comparing wiretapping to the attempt at national censorship? Comparing sanctioned violence in a police state to foulups individual officers made during a crisis situation? Comparing the annexation of Tibet with, what? Panama?
That's like comparing a shoplifter with a murderer. Show some sense of perspective. It's not like YOUR government doesn't wiretap; it does... and I don't even need to know where you live.
The source for BusyBox is freely available already so an extra link will not really make it any more free. Those are the rules but except for including the GPL in the docs for the product I see little value in the link to the source except to cross the t's and dot the i's.
Well, it's entirely possible that they've added or tweaked busybox code for their own product, in which case they would have to do a little more work, but it's still not much of a problem.
The only reason I could see a company really avoiding it is if they've worked some sort of DRM or other 'secrets' into the code that they don't want to go public, or if they've closely intermixed the GPL source with, say, other proprietary code that they don't have the license to release. I'm not sure in that second case WHAT should be done, since they legally can't release the code, nor can they legally NOT release the code. That might require pulling the product off the market, and firing a manager that thought licenses didn't matter.
Slashdot Mirror
So why are thin clients so expensive?
My gut feeling is because the people shopping for them are demonstrably suckers. If you have a customer that's willing to spend money based on ridiculous fashion trends, why not convince them that an expensive specialty thin client is magically better than a cheaper, more useful, low-end pc?
The sad thing is that the open-source community hates flash (with *very* good reason)
I don't think they do (have a very good reason, I mean). There's a good reason to hate the way Flash is USED, I agree; but many people hate flash as a language or platform, and there's really not much of a reason to. It's similar to Javascript in that way, a decent language that's condemned because of the way it's typically used; that's more a problem in the browser model than it is with Flash/Javascript themselves. The only strong criticisms of Flash that are really earned are its processor intensiveness, and perhaps that it's proprietary.
Java and C# can both actually beat compiled languages because they can try multiple compiler strategies at run time and use the winner.
That's the theory, and it's no doubt true... but I've never seem them come close in real life, and I doubt they ever have anywhere besides very non-representative benchmarks.
But it's not really that relevant, because even if the execution speed is 10:1 in favor of one language, language execution speed is only one of the bottlenecks. They'll be spending a fair amount of time outside of the language, executing the same APIs. There's network speed, disk access, shared libraries... a 10:1 difference might not be that significant when only 10% of the time is spent actually executing the program.
That's not unreasonable of you, at all; but I would get royally pissed off at any manager that decided I and my team should eat something "healthier".
None of that is true. Not all organizations and people that are anti-abortion are against sex education and birth control; and many of them provide services for both young mothers and children after birth.
Stop spewing exaggerated rhetoric like a firebreathing fundamentalist preacher.
Nah, deification of elected officials is dangerous and now I bet any picture which distorts Obama or members of his families appearance is automatically sacrilegious.
The article writer, I think, was even-handed; mentioning a specific instance about Michelle Obama, and contrasting it with different handling of images of the 'opposing' political spectrum. That's reasonable. Now, the way Google and others reacted to the actual pictures isn't reasonable... how Michelle Obama's caricature was handled is a sad indication of a twisted form of racism; but it's a culturally approved racism, so they probably didn't have much choice. It'll be embarrassing a few decades from now, though.
Google is not a public service, it is a publicly traded corporation.
And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with this country.
That's the reason Google and all other decent search engines exist in the first place. If the state created a search engine as a 'public service' Google alternative... people would still flock to the ones ran by businesses. They're going to be better.
Wow, you willfully misinterpret what he said, and throw in racist comments; ironically, you probably view yourself as a smart, unbiased person.
This is why Project Natal will fail.
Or perhaps why it will succeed.
I tied with you for most contentless post.
Australia is just taking a more mature way of dealing with our problems.
The US doesn't ban games. Australia does. At least in this matter, the US behaves in a far more civilized way. The US has problems, many problems, but I don't think there's anywhere on Earth with better free speech protections.
"Hot Coffee" wasn't banned. Despite posturing by politicians, the government had nothing to do with how it was resolved. It was primarily a dispute between Rockstar, the ESRB, and the retailers carrying the game.
Real life is 3d. There is no question at all that display technology will eventually go that way, as it slowly approaches maximum realism. Now, the technology might not be there yet, hence your headaches; but the idea isn't useless. It's kind of ridiculous to think it is.
You joke, but if exogeologists ever got to a point where they were dictating major governmental policies, you bet they probably would need reigned in.
It's a fallacy that emotions need to be vented or expressed. They can't be denied; that would be unhealthy, a form of self-deception. However, thinking that the anger you're feeling needs to be outwardly expressed is not only wrong, but often harmful. Releasing emotion physically has nothing to do with dealing with emotion. It can be a method of avoiding dealing.
That's true, I suppose. A clear, honest, answer could resolve the whole situation immediately. I don't think we're particularly likely to get one though; for some reason, they like to hold their cards close to their chest. Distasteful behavior for a scientific organization. I'm not sure their conclusions are wrong, but I sure don't like how they're behaving.
The scientific process isn't different for climate scientists than any other science. In fact, the way science should be conducted is simple enough that any intelligent 8th grader should know it. They would say that keeping data secret is bad science; they would be right. They would say that a valid criticism is a valid criticism, regardless of the source; they'd be right.
There's no certification process to become a scientist, any more than you need a literature degree to be a writer. A scientist is one who does science, and there are 'scientists' on both side of the issue that aren't doing much of that.
When given two claims, one backed by a peer reviewed article, and one not, saying that the unbacked claim is less credible is the scientific way.
The scientific way would be to first apply a bit of critical thought YOURSELF to the contents of the papers. After all, that's all the 'peers' do. Peer review is an important step, but pointing to consensus is never an appropriate rebuttal to a specific criticism. That's just avoiding thinking.
You can gain access to more datasets once you exhibit certain basic qualifications (like a relevant degree).
Why? Is the data DANGEROUS? There is no justification for that behavior. They aren't temple priests, and they shouldn't act as if they were. Free exchange of information isn't a problem for an honest scientist.
Dump all their data on a website. Respond to FOI requests with a link. Any scientist that doesn't disclose their data SHOULD be viewed very skeptically; they're asking US to 'have faith'. That's not how science is supposed to work.
Right, people become much more stable by being required to consistently bottle any emotions up. It's all the rage in counselling these days, therapists are taught to start up with 'please stfu about your feelings'.
Hell yes, they do. It's an undertaught skill. Kids and teens should be educated that sometimes their feelings DON'T matter, they should shut up and pretend they're ok. It's a valuable and necessary skill. Control over emotions is a critical trait of being civilized.
The headline was written by 'adeelarshad82'. Please point out where that SAME ONE PERSON has advocated removing copyright for movies and music. Otherwise, please acknowledge the GP as correct.
The $20 cell phone appeals to the poor, elderly and disabled. Not the most promising market for the advertiser.
One of the reasons the poor are poor is because they ARE a prime target, and sucker for, advertising. I'll throw out Blue Hippo as an example: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/like-taking-candy-computers-from-a-baby-the-poor.ars.
That clause doesn't say a warrant is required to conduct a reasonable search; just that people have a right not to be unreasonably searched. There are reasonable searches, such as officers searching a suspect for hidden weapons. Reading through a person's papers generally IS unreasonable... but unfortunately, the boundary is fuzzy. There may be cases when it is actually is reasonable, such as if a police officer has legitimate reason to believe the papers are part of a crime in progress... and the state has a constant tendency to increase the bounds of 'reasonableness'.
- China has the Great Firewall.
- The US has illegal wiretaps.
- China subjugates Tibet and the Uygur and threatens to annex Taiwan.
- The US subjugates every nation in Latin America, and simply depopulates [wikipedia.org] places that it decides it wants.
- China's police often behave like little more than Jackboot thugs.
- Anyone seen footage from how the authorities handled Katrina? (Unedited footage I mean, not the sanitized stuff for TV).
- China polices its culture pretty closely with state organizations.
- In the US government and the media maintain an ostensible distance, but for all intents and purposes, are one and the same.
Good Lord, don't lay on a spiel about your cosmopolitan sophistication, and than lay out sophomoric statements like that. You'll give readers whiplash.
You're basically making errors of scale. Comparing wiretapping to the attempt at national censorship? Comparing sanctioned violence in a police state to foulups individual officers made during a crisis situation? Comparing the annexation of Tibet with, what? Panama?
That's like comparing a shoplifter with a murderer. Show some sense of perspective. It's not like YOUR government doesn't wiretap; it does... and I don't even need to know where you live.
The source for BusyBox is freely available already so an extra link will not really make it any more free. Those are the rules but except for including the GPL in the docs for the product I see little value in the link to the source except to cross the t's and dot the i's.
Well, it's entirely possible that they've added or tweaked busybox code for their own product, in which case they would have to do a little more work, but it's still not much of a problem.
The only reason I could see a company really avoiding it is if they've worked some sort of DRM or other 'secrets' into the code that they don't want to go public, or if they've closely intermixed the GPL source with, say, other proprietary code that they don't have the license to release. I'm not sure in that second case WHAT should be done, since they legally can't release the code, nor can they legally NOT release the code. That might require pulling the product off the market, and firing a manager that thought licenses didn't matter.