unless you get some sort of deep emotional fulfillment out of repairing your washing machine
unless? Of course he gets his orgasms by fixing his washing machine. You are on the wrong internets. What part of "News for nerds" do you not understand?
Mobiles haven't even reached the low bar of being suitable for posting on Slashdot yet.
The only problem is keyboard. But speech-to-text is quite good. A little more improvement and it will be effortless to post on Slashdot by just speaking.
What does the distance from the screen have to do with whether or not you use a mouse?
Not directly, but indirectly it has something to do with using mouse/keyboard. Higher distance in this case also comes with higher mobility of the viewer. That is to say, while watching TV, viewer(s) stay(s) in a wider area than when working with a computer. So, the keyboard/mouse would need to be carried around in that wide area.
Now, keyboard and mouse don't lend themselves to carrying around. Keyboard is large. Both need a flat surface to work well - such large that would be difficult to carry around. Not only that, they have wires! Wireless things are lot less convenient than wireless remote controls because of horrible battery life of most wireless keyboards/mouses.
Also, more than one user watch a TV simultaneously, requiring sometimes the controlling device to be passed around. Keyboard and mouse don't lend themselves to passing around easily either - due to similar reasons as above.
According to MacTracker, the 1.5 averages a score of 822 on GeekBench 2. Even a bottom of the line (2.26GHz) Mini from late 2009 (as MacTracker doesn't have today's update yet) averages a 3056 with an Intel Core 2 Duo.
Who cares about GeekBench? If the user thinks the new machine is "barely" faster, it is barely faster. Maybe his activities are disk IO bound, network bound, whatever. Who are you to say that the new machine is "significantly" faster?
With feh, you can run a specific command for any keypress (actually 0-9) while viewing the image. Using this command, associate file metadata using setfattr. If you need user input, open a dialog box from this command which in turn will be stored as metadata. Advantages:
1. No dependency on any new-fangled databases. 2. Metadata is independent of image codec/container/technology etc. Supports most popular formats - png, jpg, gif etc.
So simply copying profile folder won't replicate all my plugins/history etc. from one machine to another? Even on Linux where there are no evil MS updates to screw up my browser? No thanks.
everything must cater to the ad business. Android is "open" because open doesn't threaten their ad market.
it's closed because they want iPhone to be the best device (hardware+software) on the market.
Then you don't get to say "because". Android is open despite (in a way) the threat to the ad market. Iphone is closed despite (in a way) Apple's wish for it to be the best device....
everything must cater to the ad business. Android is "open" because open doesn't threaten their ad market.
If Google were as obsessive-compulsive as Apple, it would deem "open" as definitely threatening their ad market. For an open device, it is easier to hack to avoid seeing ads. In an "open" phone system, someone can start a "service", kind of similar to iPhone's jail-breaking "service" which disables ads from appearing on the phone. Google will have to fight/tolerate such "service"s but still they went with "open".
it's closed because they want iPhone to be the best device (hardware+software) on the market.
If Apple were as "libertarian" as Google, they would deem "open"ness to be augmenting the best-ness of the device. But since they are obsessive-compulsive, they don't.
So it is not really that Google is "about ads first and foremost"; and "Apple is about hardware...". It just shows the level of OCD of both the companies.
Just because a dog exhibited it? A few posts ago, you were describing this self-same behaviour ("grow up and learn what basic defensive gestures from animals looks like, and be able to make rational decisions with that information in animal encounters in the future") to be the distinctive factor of humans. Now that a dog exhibited it, it was its innate nature and not rational thought?
Maybe you are backwards defining rational thought to be whatever humans can do but animals cannot? At least after a chimpanzee military general, our assumption of human-supremacy should be restrained. Though I am pretty certain the dog would have scored abysmally low on the Graduate Record Examination.
PS: I have fond memories of that dog. Its dead so I cannot experiment with his nature now. I don't remember anyone else growling at it though. In any case, it cannot be considered docile - though it was friendly. I say it because its default assumption on approach of a human being was one of friendship. But there are various examples of the dog's non-docile-ness : once my cousin (aged maybe 11 at the time) went to sleep on the sofa while watching TV. Her father's brother (moderately familiar with the dog) tried to carry her to bed to get her to sleep comfortably. The Labrador forcefully (by threat of serious violence) prevented the grown-up, well-built uncle of hers to carry her to bed. Only when she woke up by the racket created by the dog, she half-sleep-walked to her bed which was allowed by the assertive dog.
The difference is that the baby will grow up and learn what basic defensive gestures from animals looks like, and be able to make rational decisions with that information in animal encounters in the future.
Suzy will always act defensively if even I were to make aggressive gestures towards her, regardless if I am really attacking her or not. Now of course, I will never attack my cat, but I am using it as an example.
Maybe Suzy has grown up to be like this, but it cannot be generalized to all animals. For example - growling at a dog while baring front teeth is universally accepted to be an aggressive gesture toward the dog. Most dogs will attack humans if humans behave in such a manner to them (though other circumstances matter too). As a rule, dog trainers would discourage you from trying it with any arbitrary dog. But my uncle's (late lamented) Labrador was trained to accept it as normal and he had quite a lot of fun with my 10 year old cousin growling at it. I would surely consider it that the
"Labrador had grown up and learned what basic defensive (and non defensive) gestures from humans look like and was able to make rational decisions with that information in human encounters in the future".
Since you refuse to learn any math, let's try reductio ad absurdum:
-- start reductio ad absurdum --- If everyone has reached their (hard) GB limits, no-one is likely to use any bandwidth at all. If GB bucket for all users have dried up, there is no chance for anyone to have non-zero GB/s usage. -- end reductio ad absurdum ---
Now, the more people have reached their GB limits, the less people will use the bandwidth (without paying extra, of course).
AT&T pays for 100mbit/s to a tower, for a given time period (say, a month). Which amounts to a number of GBs over the period of a month. Hence total number of GBs (say N) is fixed for AT&T (unless they start paying for more mbit/s for the month, but that would increase costs for AT&T). If a single person (limited by whatever speeds) is a greater consumer of the N GBs than another, this single person is raising the price for other users.
Though if there is a significant prime time effect (during this prime time, internet access is greatly more than during other periods), you might have a point. But I think a class of devices which is extremely portable and accessible during all times of the day - significant prime time effect is unlikely. They will have to price according to time. This complicates the billing process and breaks the "retarded user" assumption of the US, so yeah.
You changed the situation from your last post to this.
You were holding that some culture or other is a necessity. Which is why schools should be allowed to "brainwash" (as you put it). An example you gave was that culture helps you decide how to mourn. Which is stupid because nothing is lost when a particular person mourns in a different way.
Handshaking on business meeting is a contrived and invalid example. Whichever culture you "learn" in your school - you will at least be able to do business with people of that culture. Even if the school doesn't "teach" any culture - people still do something on meeting others. Do the same and you will be able to do business with people of that sort. Hence one doesn't need to "brainwash" just to teach what to do when meeting others.
Mourning was a correct example - but it doesn't illustrate your point.
As far as religion as superstition... Go to India sometime or Japan. Shinto shines are common even in peoples homes.
Why did you bring up religion/superstition? Neither parent post of yours, GP, nor TFA mentions anything about it? But you mention this as if replying to some point made by others about religion/superstition. I am really confused.
You listed have all the facts necessary for one to understand the truth. Yet you refuse to understand, so I'll make an attempt to organize the facts in a certain way to make it easier.
Do you notice a pattern here? All of the above statements make a derogatory remark on the race in question, or they remind of something painful in history.
1. Tiger Woods : Reminds the world of the fact that blacks were ever lynched in this great country. Not done for a public man (announcer is definitely a specimen of "public man").
2. Jimmy the Greek: Words were extremely derogatory. "Big" for a woman - especially mother (actually female ancestor but you get the point). "Breed" is a word commonly used in the context of animals. Again, strongly reminds of the abominable practice of slavery. Not done for a public man.
3. Howard Cosell: The word "monkey" has been used on blacks for derogatory purposes since time immemorial. If he said it for players of all races, exception could be made for him. But still, being a public man, he must be aware of and sensitive to such subtle racial prejudices to words.
How do you mourn for a funeral for example? You're not inventing your own way. You have probably never encountered a death before. So you mourn the way you saw your parents mourn.That is culture.
Thanks for a specific example. Now, what is wrong if a particular individual in the community mourns in a different way? In other words, what use is this culture?
Are you talking about the fiction books, or books she wrote describing her philosophy?
The philosophy relies on some factually incorrect statements, so yeah. Still it makes for an interesting perspective. But most of her books (especially the widely read ones) are fiction. How can it be "completely wrong", "myopic" etc. Examples?
Merriam-Webster also has the definition that I had pointed to. And for your information, most words have more than one meaning. Dictionary.com and wikipedia entries (even if you ignore Merriam-Webster for some strange reason) are enough to establish one of the meanings of "insight".
Slashdot Mirror
unless you get some sort of deep emotional fulfillment out of repairing your washing machine
unless? Of course he gets his orgasms by fixing his washing machine. You are on the wrong internets. What part of "News for nerds" do you not understand?
Mobiles haven't even reached the low bar of being suitable for posting on Slashdot yet.
The only problem is keyboard. But speech-to-text is quite good. A little more improvement and it will be effortless to post on Slashdot by just speaking.
Also, more money in the market always, always helps innovation
Especially in the absence of a monopoly like situation.
While I almost agree with your general point, but
What does the distance from the screen have to do with whether or not you use a mouse?
Not directly, but indirectly it has something to do with using mouse/keyboard. Higher distance in this case also comes with higher mobility of the viewer. That is to say, while watching TV, viewer(s) stay(s) in a wider area than when working with a computer. So, the keyboard/mouse would need to be carried around in that wide area.
Now, keyboard and mouse don't lend themselves to carrying around. Keyboard is large. Both need a flat surface to work well - such large that would be difficult to carry around. Not only that, they have wires! Wireless things are lot less convenient than wireless remote controls because of horrible battery life of most wireless keyboards/mouses.
Also, more than one user watch a TV simultaneously, requiring sometimes the controlling device to be passed around. Keyboard and mouse don't lend themselves to passing around easily either - due to similar reasons as above.
According to MacTracker, the 1.5 averages a score of 822 on GeekBench 2. Even a bottom of the line (2.26GHz) Mini from late 2009 (as MacTracker doesn't have today's update yet) averages a 3056 with an Intel Core 2 Duo.
Who cares about GeekBench? If the user thinks the new machine is "barely" faster, it is barely faster. Maybe his activities are disk IO bound, network bound, whatever. Who are you to say that the new machine is "significantly" faster?
Not necessarily. An eSATA external hard drive serves as an excellent paperweight, missile to hit intruders in your home etc.
With feh, you can run a specific command for any keypress (actually 0-9) while viewing the image. Using this command, associate file metadata using setfattr. If you need user input, open a dialog box from this command which in turn will be stored as metadata. Advantages:
1. No dependency on any new-fangled databases.
2. Metadata is independent of image codec/container/technology etc. Supports most popular formats - png, jpg, gif etc.
So simply copying profile folder won't replicate all my plugins/history etc. from one machine to another? Even on Linux where there are no evil MS updates to screw up my browser? No thanks.
everything must cater to the ad business. Android is "open" because open doesn't threaten their ad market.
it's closed because they want iPhone to be the best device (hardware+software) on the market.
Then you don't get to say "because". Android is open despite (in a way) the threat to the ad market. Iphone is closed despite (in a way) Apple's wish for it to be the best device ....
everything must cater to the ad business. Android is "open" because open doesn't threaten their ad market.
If Google were as obsessive-compulsive as Apple, it would deem "open" as definitely threatening their ad market. For an open device, it is easier to hack to avoid seeing ads. In an "open" phone system, someone can start a "service", kind of similar to iPhone's jail-breaking "service" which disables ads from appearing on the phone. Google will have to fight/tolerate such "service"s but still they went with "open".
it's closed because they want iPhone to be the best device (hardware+software) on the market.
If Apple were as "libertarian" as Google, they would deem "open"ness to be augmenting the best-ness of the device. But since they are obsessive-compulsive, they don't.
So it is not really that Google is "about ads first and foremost"; and "Apple is about hardware ...". It just shows the level of OCD of both the companies.
What is the typical distance a laptop screen is viewed from? 3 feet? Max 6 feet.
What will it be for a monster-size screen (e.g. of a TV)? Any less than 15 feet and it will tire your neck to watch a tennis match.
Correct comparison is for dots-per-(degree angle projected on the eye).
which fucked up his liver and he had to get that replaced after getting past the cancer
Hopefully it inspires him to make the battery user-replaceable in Apple devices.
It's not rational thought.
Just because a dog exhibited it? A few posts ago, you were describing this self-same behaviour ("grow up and learn what basic defensive gestures from animals looks like, and be able to make rational decisions with that information in animal encounters in the future") to be the distinctive factor of humans. Now that a dog exhibited it, it was its innate nature and not rational thought?
Maybe you are backwards defining rational thought to be whatever humans can do but animals cannot? At least after a chimpanzee military general, our assumption of human-supremacy should be restrained. Though I am pretty certain the dog would have scored abysmally low on the Graduate Record Examination.
PS: I have fond memories of that dog. Its dead so I cannot experiment with his nature now. I don't remember anyone else growling at it though. In any case, it cannot be considered docile - though it was friendly. I say it because its default assumption on approach of a human being was one of friendship. But there are various examples of the dog's non-docile-ness : once my cousin (aged maybe 11 at the time) went to sleep on the sofa while watching TV. Her father's brother (moderately familiar with the dog) tried to carry her to bed to get her to sleep comfortably. The Labrador forcefully (by threat of serious violence) prevented the grown-up, well-built uncle of hers to carry her to bed. Only when she woke up by the racket created by the dog, she half-sleep-walked to her bed which was allowed by the assertive dog.
The difference is that the baby will grow up and learn what basic defensive gestures from animals looks like, and be able to make rational decisions with that information in animal encounters in the future.
Suzy will always act defensively if even I were to make aggressive gestures towards her, regardless if I am really attacking her or not. Now of course, I will never attack my cat, but I am using it as an example.
Maybe Suzy has grown up to be like this, but it cannot be generalized to all animals. For example - growling at a dog while baring front teeth is universally accepted to be an aggressive gesture toward the dog. Most dogs will attack humans if humans behave in such a manner to them (though other circumstances matter too). As a rule, dog trainers would discourage you from trying it with any arbitrary dog. But my uncle's (late lamented) Labrador was trained to accept it as normal and he had quite a lot of fun with my 10 year old cousin growling at it. I would surely consider it that the
"Labrador had grown up and learned what basic defensive (and non defensive) gestures from humans look like and was able to make rational decisions with that information in human encounters in the future".
Since you refuse to learn any math, let's try reductio ad absurdum:
-- start reductio ad absurdum ---
If everyone has reached their (hard) GB limits, no-one is likely to use any bandwidth at all. If GB bucket for all users have dried up, there is no chance for anyone to have non-zero GB/s usage.
-- end reductio ad absurdum ---
Now, the more people have reached their GB limits, the less people will use the bandwidth (without paying extra, of course).
Math fail.
AT&T pays for 100mbit/s to a tower, for a given time period (say, a month). Which amounts to a number of GBs over the period of a month. Hence total number of GBs (say N) is fixed for AT&T (unless they start paying for more mbit/s for the month, but that would increase costs for AT&T). If a single person (limited by whatever speeds) is a greater consumer of the N GBs than another, this single person is raising the price for other users.
Though if there is a significant prime time effect (during this prime time, internet access is greatly more than during other periods), you might have a point. But I think a class of devices which is extremely portable and accessible during all times of the day - significant prime time effect is unlikely. They will have to price according to time. This complicates the billing process and breaks the "retarded user" assumption of the US, so yeah.
You changed the situation from your last post to this.
You were holding that some culture or other is a necessity. Which is why schools should be allowed to "brainwash" (as you put it). An example you gave was that culture helps you decide how to mourn. Which is stupid because nothing is lost when a particular person mourns in a different way.
Handshaking on business meeting is a contrived and invalid example. Whichever culture you "learn" in your school - you will at least be able to do business with people of that culture. Even if the school doesn't "teach" any culture - people still do something on meeting others. Do the same and you will be able to do business with people of that sort. Hence one doesn't need to "brainwash" just to teach what to do when meeting others.
Mourning was a correct example - but it doesn't illustrate your point.
As far as religion as superstition... Go to India sometime or Japan. Shinto shines are common even in peoples homes.
Why did you bring up religion/superstition? Neither parent post of yours, GP, nor TFA mentions anything about it? But you mention this as if replying to some point made by others about religion/superstition. I am really confused.
You listed have all the facts necessary for one to understand the truth. Yet you refuse to understand, so I'll make an attempt to organize the facts in a certain way to make it easier.
Do you notice a pattern here? All of the above statements make a derogatory remark on the race in question, or they remind of something painful in history.
1. Tiger Woods : Reminds the world of the fact that blacks were ever lynched in this great country. Not done for a public man (announcer is definitely a specimen of "public man").
2. Jimmy the Greek: Words were extremely derogatory. "Big" for a woman - especially mother (actually female ancestor but you get the point). "Breed" is a word commonly used in the context of animals. Again, strongly reminds of the abominable practice of slavery. Not done for a public man.
3. Howard Cosell: The word "monkey" has been used on blacks for derogatory purposes since time immemorial. If he said it for players of all races, exception could be made for him. But still, being a public man, he must be aware of and sensitive to such subtle racial prejudices to words.
How do you mourn for a funeral for example? You're not inventing your own way. You have probably never encountered a death before. So you mourn the way you saw your parents mourn.That is culture.
Thanks for a specific example. Now, what is wrong if a particular individual in the community mourns in a different way? In other words, what use is this culture?
What use is culture except to serve as fodder for stereotype jokes?
Are you talking about the fiction books, or books she wrote describing her philosophy?
The philosophy relies on some factually incorrect statements, so yeah. Still it makes for an interesting perspective. But most of her books (especially the widely read ones) are fiction. How can it be "completely wrong", "myopic" etc. Examples?
thanks
But honestly, when we right informally, do we really -lose- anything?
When we right informally (or even formally), we do not lose anything. But when we wrong informally or formally, we lose a lot.
Merriam-Webster also has the definition that I had pointed to. And for your information, most words have more than one meaning. Dictionary.com and wikipedia entries (even if you ignore Merriam-Webster for some strange reason) are enough to establish one of the meanings of "insight".
For free content Slashdot and similar websites do fine.
You knew that "slashdot and similar websites do fine" from your mom's womb?
For paid content I'd prefer someone whose past choices I can review at no or reduced cost so I can judge whether I'll pay them for fresh new choices.
Then do the same for ebooks.