Of course they are. Someone wants attention/free stuff/notoriety and so they find a way to manipulate the tests so that they are saying something new or interesting. That doesn't mean the reviews are invalid, though.
Lets say, for example, that I want to make OS A look good, so that the people who make A decide to give me stuff. Now I know that OS B is much better at most programs, but A is slightly better at a few. So I write a review focusing on how well A does with those specific programs. Of course this is motivated by my self-interest; there are far too few altruists out there to demand that reviewers write reviews purely for the sake of truth. But the review is still perfectly valid, in light of its scope.
The important thing to remember is that the reviews for the competitors are exactly the same. They will focus their reviews on what they hope to find. This happens in all industries, too. Take for example the movie industry. When was the last time you saw an ad for a movie that said, "Two thumbs down"? (Ok, probably the South Park movie, but I'll call that the exception that proves the rule.)
Anyways, my long-winded point is, reviews should always be taken with a grain of salt. Even if the reviewers are completely fair, everyone has some kind of bias, even if it is only in what kind of software they run. If you're a gamer, and they only use Word, they probably look at things differently from you. The reviews of Linux, both good and bad, are perfectly valid, and you should trust all of them, but you should also evaluate them from your own perspective.
Interesting point. To what extent does "fair use" apply to the sale of personal information? In many cases, it is possible for a company to sell a division to another company, which much also accept all of the obligations of the original company in any contractual agreements which apply to that division.
I think the key here is the provided that it stays with the web site. I did not get the impression that Toysmart itself was being sold, but rather that it was trying to sell the information independently. Clearly this is not the same thing.
Still, it's an interesting concept. Food for thought.
Not against Toysmart. What's the value in suing an out-of-business company? By the time you got the suit together, the company would be gone. You could perhaps try to sue Disney (which owns Toysmart), but there would be little chance of winning, as they are technically separate companies.
But seriously. I would love to see good support for games in Wine, but I think what Wine needs right now is good application support. You won't get converts from the Windrowse userbase if they can't use their major applications on it, and for most people, games aren't enough.
Computers in the classroom are neither inherently good nor inherently bad. It's all in how it is used. Obviously, children need to learn how to use computers, and school certainly is a good place for that. I'm sure many of us have our stories about how we fell in love with computers we first saw at school (8th grade computer club for me), so it's obviously important to us.
The problem is, you can't let computers be used for everything, or they can detract from some of the basic learning children need. How do you ever learn to spell when your computer checks all of your homework for you? Where's the incentive? How do you learn to add and subtract, let alone multiply and divide, when you always have a calculator handy? Hell, I can hardly do those now, I'm so used to punching stuff in on machines. When I was in school (not very long ago), there were many classes (and not just math, either) where we weren't allowed to have a calculator. Sure, we bitched about it, but how could we have learned to do basic math when we had a tool to do it all for us? It's what they call "tough love," I guess.
I think that computers definitely belong in the classroom, but we have to be careful not to let the classroom be replaced by the chat room.
It is only illegal if Intel could be shown to be "acting in restraint of trade." Basically, this would mean Intel would have to cut prices to the point where they were losing money, just to put Transmeta out of business. (This would be similar to what Standard Oil used to do, before their landmark antitrust case.) But if they lowered their costs to the point where they weren't making much money, but weren't intentionally losing it, either, they might be able to push Transmeta out of business.
In my opinion, Intel couldn't do this, anyways. If they only had Transmeta to deal with, it might be possible, but Intel is already at war with AMD, and they couldn't afford the cost (both in PR and economically) of something this extreme.
Ok, so a whole bunch of people have already pointed out that any music that you can hear can be recorded into an mp3. This given, no encryption scheme can prevent music piracy. 'Nuff said. Still, the concept is interesting, if only for other potential uses of the system.
A few people have realized that any encryption scheme, no matter how sophisticated, can be broken or circumvented. I think in this particular case, the key, if you'll pardon the pun, is that the "cycling encryption keys" are based on a single key that is provided by the original user's hardware. There would be no need to decrypt every key, just that base key. I'm interested in seeing this system used to protect against software piracy. Can you say, "cracked.exe"?
I like cheese. Hey, I told you these were random.
I wonder what impact this will have on internet security. Bye-bye SSL, hello cycling encryption?
We should all move to Sealand! Well, there might not be enough room for all of us there, but we could probably find some more abandoned bunkers somewhere.
I actually do feel there was something good about this movie. [Donning flameproof underwear] I, for one, enjoyed it, primarily because I enjoyed the book, which was very good. The one good thing that this movie accomplished was the way they changed very little from the book. The bad part was all that was cut from the book. For example, the end of the movie was probably closer to the middle of the book than the end. There were many things that would have made the storyline much clearer for those who didn't read the book. The cuts were inevitable, though, since they couldn't really make this into a 5-hour movie.
I also feel that a lot of people are making a mistake when they refer to sci-fi "cliches" that Battlefield Earth contains. If you bothered to check, you would see that many of these were created by Battlefield Earth, not just used by it. Just because other movies came out first doesn't mean they were the first to use the storylines.
What I feel is worst about this movie is that it didn't live up to its potential. Half-hearted acting, so-so special effects (described so much better in the novel), and sub-standard fight scenes really detracted from what this movie could have been. I hope that anyone who liked the movie even a little bit will try reading the book. You may be surprised when you see what was really happening in the story.
but I'd hate to be relying on solar power on a rainy day. I think I'll stick to carrying a backup battery. At least then I know exactly how long I have until my laptop craps out on me.
You say this about the PS2, but how about the X-Box? Come on, that thing is nothing but a mutated PC! (I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course:)
If they're going to do this, they should use a handheld device. I think they should go with Visors. You go to biology class, you pop in the biology expansion card. Math class, math card, etc. Turning in homework is as easy as beaming to your teacher. And you can keep a backup on your computer at home, or even somewhere on the web. No more forgetting your report at home, you just connect your wireless modem and download it! Of course, I think all assignments should be done by email anyways, but that's a whole 'nother issue.:)
Of course, all the complaints that apply to laptops still apply to handhelds. But I think I'll let others argue over that part.
is that she is the interim chairwoman. I've seen a lot of people on here criticising the choice of Dyson as leader of the board. But I have yet to see anyone suggest another reasonable candidate.
I understand that Dyson has made herself unpopular by some of her actions/comments during her tenure as interim chairwoman. I'm not too crazy about some of her comments myself. (The "people who are stupid" comment for example. I think if everyone wanted to vote for, say, CarrotTop, then he should be elected.:) But that's the risk when you're first starting an organization. Someone has to do the job, otherwise it will never get started. That's what she's there for, to set up the structure so that we can have elected officials (to complain about).
I can think of a few people I would rather see in charge of ICANN. I'm not one of them. Frankly, I'm glad it's her job, because I wouldn't want it. Also, I'm also glad that she's making some mistakes; if she weren't, then I might be afraid of her. At least right now we know she isn't screwing anyone over - at least not very well.:) I'm sure I wouldn't do any better at that job, and I challenge anyone who says otherwise - if you think you can do better, quit talking and get out there and do something!
They most certainly do not. ATC and military systems run on crystal-based clocks just like your home computer does. Except in the very rare cases where an actual atamic clock is included in the system, ALL computers assume that a day is made up of exactly 86400 seconds. This assumption is GMT, not UTC.
This is incorrect. Everyone uses GMT. Unless your home computer has an atomic clock built into it (it doesn't), you are running based on GMT.
True, this means that your clock may eventually end up a little bit off (although, unless you're terribly anal retentive, it's never set exactly anyways), but I guarantee that every day for your computer has exactly 24 hours, each made up of 60 minutes with 60 seconds each.
Regarding leap seconds: these are used because UTC is incorrect, and do not involve GMT. Although UTC has been accepted as a standard time, cesium-beam atomic clocks do not accurately reflect the actual time it takes the Earth to orbit the Sun. UTC runs (very) slightly too fast, and therefore gets a little ahead of the Earth. Since we cannot adjust the Earth, we must adjust UTC. (Misunderstanding of this is fairly common, and at one time many people believed that leap seconds were used because the Earth was slowing down, which is of course not true.)
The 1912 event is undoubtedly the real winner, because it happened on the very day the Earth was closest to the Sun that year. However, according to a calculation by Belgian astronomer Jean Meeus, the full Moon on January 4, 1912, was only 0.24 magnitude (about 25 percent) brighter than an "average" full Moon.
Call me an uninformed yokel if I'm wrong, but isn't Dec. 21/22 the day the Earth is closest to the Sun? I thought that was one of the main things about this so-called brightest moon. Sounds to me like the full moon in 1912 happened a couple of weeks later.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they are. Someone wants attention/free stuff/notoriety and so they find a way to manipulate the tests so that they are saying something new or interesting. That doesn't mean the reviews are invalid, though.
Lets say, for example, that I want to make OS A look good, so that the people who make A decide to give me stuff. Now I know that OS B is much better at most programs, but A is slightly better at a few. So I write a review focusing on how well A does with those specific programs. Of course this is motivated by my self-interest; there are far too few altruists out there to demand that reviewers write reviews purely for the sake of truth. But the review is still perfectly valid, in light of its scope.
The important thing to remember is that the reviews for the competitors are exactly the same. They will focus their reviews on what they hope to find. This happens in all industries, too. Take for example the movie industry. When was the last time you saw an ad for a movie that said, "Two thumbs down"? (Ok, probably the South Park movie, but I'll call that the exception that proves the rule.)
Anyways, my long-winded point is, reviews should always be taken with a grain of salt. Even if the reviewers are completely fair, everyone has some kind of bias, even if it is only in what kind of software they run. If you're a gamer, and they only use Word, they probably look at things differently from you. The reviews of Linux, both good and bad, are perfectly valid, and you should trust all of them, but you should also evaluate them from your own perspective.
Interesting point. To what extent does "fair use" apply to the sale of personal information? In many cases, it is possible for a company to sell a division to another company, which much also accept all of the obligations of the original company in any contractual agreements which apply to that division.
I think the key here is the provided that it stays with the web site. I did not get the impression that Toysmart itself was being sold, but rather that it was trying to sell the information independently. Clearly this is not the same thing.
Still, it's an interesting concept. Food for thought.
Not against Toysmart. What's the value in suing an out-of-business company? By the time you got the suit together, the company would be gone. You could perhaps try to sue Disney (which owns Toysmart), but there would be little chance of winning, as they are technically separate companies.
but liquor is quicker! ;)
But seriously. I would love to see good support for games in Wine, but I think what Wine needs right now is good application support. You won't get converts from the Windrowse userbase if they can't use their major applications on it, and for most people, games aren't enough.
Computers in the classroom are neither inherently good nor inherently bad. It's all in how it is used. Obviously, children need to learn how to use computers, and school certainly is a good place for that. I'm sure many of us have our stories about how we fell in love with computers we first saw at school (8th grade computer club for me), so it's obviously important to us.
The problem is, you can't let computers be used for everything, or they can detract from some of the basic learning children need. How do you ever learn to spell when your computer checks all of your homework for you? Where's the incentive? How do you learn to add and subtract, let alone multiply and divide, when you always have a calculator handy? Hell, I can hardly do those now, I'm so used to punching stuff in on machines. When I was in school (not very long ago), there were many classes (and not just math, either) where we weren't allowed to have a calculator. Sure, we bitched about it, but how could we have learned to do basic math when we had a tool to do it all for us? It's what they call "tough love," I guess.
I think that computers definitely belong in the classroom, but we have to be careful not to let the classroom be replaced by the chat room.
It is only illegal if Intel could be shown to be "acting in restraint of trade." Basically, this would mean Intel would have to cut prices to the point where they were losing money, just to put Transmeta out of business. (This would be similar to what Standard Oil used to do, before their landmark antitrust case.) But if they lowered their costs to the point where they weren't making much money, but weren't intentionally losing it, either, they might be able to push Transmeta out of business.
In my opinion, Intel couldn't do this, anyways. If they only had Transmeta to deal with, it might be possible, but Intel is already at war with AMD, and they couldn't afford the cost (both in PR and economically) of something this extreme.
Ok, so a whole bunch of people have already pointed out that any music that you can hear can be recorded into an mp3. This given, no encryption scheme can prevent music piracy. 'Nuff said. Still, the concept is interesting, if only for other potential uses of the system.
.exe"?
A few people have realized that any encryption scheme, no matter how sophisticated, can be broken or circumvented. I think in this particular case, the key, if you'll pardon the pun, is that the "cycling encryption keys" are based on a single key that is provided by the original user's hardware. There would be no need to decrypt every key, just that base key. I'm interested in seeing this system used to protect against software piracy. Can you say, "cracked
I like cheese. Hey, I told you these were random.
I wonder what impact this will have on internet security. Bye-bye SSL, hello cycling encryption?
We should all move to Sealand! Well, there might not be enough room for all of us there, but we could probably find some more abandoned bunkers somewhere.
a herring!
I actually do feel there was something good about this movie. [Donning flameproof underwear] I, for one, enjoyed it, primarily because I enjoyed the book, which was very good. The one good thing that this movie accomplished was the way they changed very little from the book. The bad part was all that was cut from the book. For example, the end of the movie was probably closer to the middle of the book than the end. There were many things that would have made the storyline much clearer for those who didn't read the book. The cuts were inevitable, though, since they couldn't really make this into a 5-hour movie.
I also feel that a lot of people are making a mistake when they refer to sci-fi "cliches" that Battlefield Earth contains. If you bothered to check, you would see that many of these were created by Battlefield Earth, not just used by it. Just because other movies came out first doesn't mean they were the first to use the storylines.
What I feel is worst about this movie is that it didn't live up to its potential. Half-hearted acting, so-so special effects (described so much better in the novel), and sub-standard fight scenes really detracted from what this movie could have been. I hope that anyone who liked the movie even a little bit will try reading the book. You may be surprised when you see what was really happening in the story.
Okay, let me change that "rainy" to "cloudy." :)
Better now?
LOL!
:)
Good point!
Ok, now we've got to have another laptop story :)
I wonder if Sun will be getting royalties on this.
HAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, I'm a horrible, horrible person. I'm so ashamed.
but I'd hate to be relying on solar power on a rainy day. I think I'll stick to carrying a backup battery. At least then I know exactly how long I have until my laptop craps out on me.
Oh, I agree. I figure, why waste my money on an XBox, when I've already got one built into my PC? :)
You say this about the PS2, but how about the X-Box? Come on, that thing is nothing but a mutated PC! (I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course :)
If they're going to do this, they should use a handheld device. I think they should go with Visors. You go to biology class, you pop in the biology expansion card. Math class, math card, etc. Turning in homework is as easy as beaming to your teacher. And you can keep a backup on your computer at home, or even somewhere on the web. No more forgetting your report at home, you just connect your wireless modem and download it! Of course, I think all assignments should be done by email anyways, but that's a whole 'nother issue. :)
Of course, all the complaints that apply to laptops still apply to handhelds. But I think I'll let others argue over that part.
My point was that her actions are so blatently obvious that she isn't getting away with anything. I didn't mean she wasn't trying.
is that she is the interim chairwoman. I've seen a lot of people on here criticising the choice of Dyson as leader of the board. But I have yet to see anyone suggest another reasonable candidate.
:) But that's the risk when you're first starting an organization. Someone has to do the job, otherwise it will never get started. That's what she's there for, to set up the structure so that we can have elected officials (to complain about).
:) I'm sure I wouldn't do any better at that job, and I challenge anyone who says otherwise - if you think you can do better, quit talking and get out there and do something!
I understand that Dyson has made herself unpopular by some of her actions/comments during her tenure as interim chairwoman. I'm not too crazy about some of her comments myself. (The "people who are stupid" comment for example. I think if everyone wanted to vote for, say, CarrotTop, then he should be elected.
I can think of a few people I would rather see in charge of ICANN. I'm not one of them. Frankly, I'm glad it's her job, because I wouldn't want it. Also, I'm also glad that she's making some mistakes; if she weren't, then I might be afraid of her. At least right now we know she isn't screwing anyone over - at least not very well.
That's all I can say.
:)
Yet another reason to choose Linux over Windrowse.
They most certainly do not. ATC and military systems run on crystal-based clocks just like your home computer does. Except in the very rare cases where an actual atamic clock is included in the system, ALL computers assume that a day is made up of exactly 86400 seconds. This assumption is GMT, not UTC.
This is incorrect. Everyone uses GMT. Unless your home computer has an atomic clock built into it (it doesn't), you are running based on GMT.
True, this means that your clock may eventually end up a little bit off (although, unless you're terribly anal retentive, it's never set exactly anyways), but I guarantee that every day for your computer has exactly 24 hours, each made up of 60 minutes with 60 seconds each.
Regarding leap seconds: these are used because UTC is incorrect, and do not involve GMT. Although UTC has been accepted as a standard time, cesium-beam atomic clocks do not accurately reflect the actual time it takes the Earth to orbit the Sun. UTC runs (very) slightly too fast, and therefore gets a little ahead of the Earth. Since we cannot adjust the Earth, we must adjust UTC. (Misunderstanding of this is fairly common, and at one time many people believed that leap seconds were used because the Earth was slowing down, which is of course not true.)
I can't make it there in person, is there someone I could email to show my support?
The 1912 event is undoubtedly the real winner, because it happened on the very day the Earth was closest to the Sun that year. However, according to a calculation by Belgian astronomer Jean Meeus, the full Moon on January 4, 1912, was only 0.24 magnitude (about 25 percent) brighter than an "average" full Moon.
Call me an uninformed yokel if I'm wrong, but isn't Dec. 21/22 the day the Earth is closest to the Sun? I thought that was one of the main things about this so-called brightest moon. Sounds to me like the full moon in 1912 happened a couple of weeks later.