Yep, pretty basic fact in probability theory. A test for some condition must fail on less people (by an order of magnitude) then the number of people with that condition. Otherwise, you can pretty safely assume a positive is a false positive.
There really can't be compromise. Wikipedia is not just a not-for-profit organization that provides an encyclopedia, it is an amalgam of free information that anyone can use. For example, you are free to make an exact copy of Wikipedia, put up on your own site and they won't blink an eye. You won't be sued for copyright infringement. If Wikipedia uses images licensed out to them, but not to everyone, then no one can ever again make an exact copy of Wikipedia and distribute it. They don't have the right to use those images, only Wikipedia, the not-for-profit organization can. The information is no longer free, it has simply been licensed to Wikipedia and that makes it no different then any other encyclopedia.
Am I the only one that thinks $60 is reasonable? Game development costs have only gone up, while the increases in game prices have stayed well below inflation. A movie costs $20 to buy. It entertains you for an hour and a half to 2 hours. A game, hopefully, will provide entertainment for considerably longer. I play most games I buy for at least 15+ hours; some CONSIDERABLY longer. Also, given how publishers have been doing, they really aren't rolling in the dough (for the most part). If you want to see a lot of good games, then game development has to remain profitable. An, no just because you sell the game for half price, does not mean you will sell double (though it is possible). Playing a game requires a much bigger investment in time then money. The amount of games people buy is probably limited most by how often they play them. I probably buy 3 or 4 games a year. $200/year really isn't breaking the bank for me and I would not buy more games if they were $30, I wouldn't have the time.
I can assure you, if that was really Apple's only concern, then Palm would not have to resort to such tricks to be able to sync with iTunes. Apple does not provide a method for other devices to sync with iTunes. If they did, other devices would be doing it -- and I'm sure the manufacturers would more than compensate Apple for the effort. However, given that there is way for devices to sync with iTunes and I'm sure other companies have asked Apple, it would seem they have other motivations for keeping the competition away from iTunes.
Our kitten is just learning, but is already figuring out that the siren meow doesn't always work on me (the way I see it, if she learns to beg loudly now and gets stuff for it, she'll be spoiled rotten and decide to be loud at 3am when she wants something...)
My cat stayed with my parents for a year when he was still pretty young. My dad is a sucker for cats and would always attend to him every time he meowed, even if he was asleep. So, when he came back to live with me, I got quite the surprise when he started meowing, non-stop, at 5am to get me up. Knowing cats, I just ignored him and tried to get back to sleep. It took about 2 weeks to break the habit, but those were 2 terrible weeks of sleep.
Cats are definitely very social creatures, and are perfectly willing to include humans into their social structure, although admittedly, humans are not counted as cats within this social structure. Feeding them definitely is part of why most domestic cats like their humans, but they do generally enjoy attention by humans.
I think cats actually see their owners as a mother/caregiver. When it comes to their owners, the behaviour cats display is much more akin to how they act with their mother, then how they act with other cats. They also certainly like human companionship and actively seek it out. Cats will follow their owners all over the house. Most of the time, my cat is on the couch when I'm watching TV, and in my bed when I'm asleep. Usually he doesn't want attention, and will actively let you know so if you try to give it to him (gets up, moves 1 foot away, then sits down again). He just wants to sit near me.
Almost every cat I've owned over the years has done the fetch thing to one degree or another. They all fixate on different toys/objects. I had one who loved fetching pipecleaners of all things. You could fake him out and throw it another direction and he would NOT STOP LOOKING FOR IT until he eventually found it. Hours later he would deposit it at my feet and smack me in the leg.
My cat always loses his favourite "toy" (a flat plastic handle) under the closet door. He will wait until I get home, then get me to follow him to the closet and meow until I get the toy out for him. At which point, he'll promptly fling it back under the door.
Yeah, same here. I am trying to change the misconception open source software has at my place of employment, so you can bet your ass I make sure everyone knows this great new-fangled-thingy they're using is open source. Although, I admit, I do sometimes wait until they've actually used it and tell me "how great it is"/"what an improvement it is" before I drop the f(ree)-bomb.
Cats don't really use vocal communication amongst themselves, they communicate with body language more then anything. Ever see 2 cats meet for the first time? A lot is said without so much as a meow. Most vocalizations a cat makes are for human benefit only. And I know exactly what you are talking about with that growl-thing. My cat makes that weird interrupted growling noise, usually when I won't play with him or stop playing with him. He even has a weird "chirping" he does (a series of very short, high-pitched noises), but he only does it when my fiance makes the noise at him first, then the 2 go back and forth. Haven't seen him do it with anyone else.
I have a Logitech Nano (VX or something) that I adore. Batteries (2xAAA) last several months and I don't recall ever having "lost" a signal. It just works. Your complaints were more valid several years ago, I think.
True. I can't imagine Doom 3 would've scared the crap out of me like it did, if it had Quake 3 graphics. However, I think classic pen & paper RPGs (D&D, Rifts, etc.) are a great example of why graphics are definitely not necessary for immersion.
The design considerations of a smart phone are based around a smart phone. The design considerations of a GPS is based around a GPS. This simple difference is why GPS units will not disappear. Most smart phones are not designed with GPS in mind. They cannot easily be fixed to a window, where as a GPS must be rock stable bouncing around, suctioned to a car window. A smart phone's screen is meant to be readable from about a foot away. Screen size is not nearly as important as the overall usability of the device for things, like, e-mail, texting, talking, etc. If a keyboard that takes up 40% of the space does that, then the screen may be sacrificed. GPS devices need to be visible from 2-3 feet away, in direct sunlight. A phone is mainly meant to be used unplugged. A GPS is usually plugged in, this extra power allows for things like, brighter screens, cheaper hardware, better GPS receivers.
A spork can be used as a spoon or a fork, but the simple fact is that a fork makes a better fork and spoon makes a better spoon. As long as some of the design requirements clash, then there will always be concessions made one way or another.
Yep, but at that point we would have a pretty good idea if the process was safe or not. At some point we also tried in vitro fertilization on a human for the first time as well. There will always be a risk, but sometimes it is worth it. Perhaps not to a couple who can have children on their own, but it means the world to those who can't.
This dilemma is far from new. There are lots of people who carry a significant risk that their child will have a deformity (due to genetics) and have to make this decision. Do you feel it is unethical for them to try? At what percent chance of an abnormality do you consider procreation to be unethical? On that note, what abnormalities do you feel are so terrible that it is better to not live at all, then live with the abnormality?
I don't know. When I'm looking at a list of bugs and features requests longer then a book, I tend to be pretty picky about which features I implement as well. Having separate processes for each page is great, but you still have to prioritize. Especially when you have the choice between a handful of user-visible features or a not-so-visible feature that none of your competitors had as well. Remember, developers are a limited resource.
The disciples (all but one of which died a martyr's death) all would have KNOWN that what they were dying for were a lie if Jesus had not really risen from the dead.
Or, they thought that Jesus was right, in spite of actual solid proof. You know, faith.
The difference is more idealogical. Java took C++ and simplified it. C# took Java and complicated it. I'd say this starkly defines 2 mindsets. Java is very picky about what it adds into the actual language. If there is already a way to do it in the current version of the Java language, then why add another way? It just complicates things. C# has a lot of ways of doing the same things, and a lot of people love the freedom and concise code they can write with it. I'd say that is a pretty big difference.
What? I did not state that THE (as in singular) appeal of OSS is its price tage. That is certainly one of its appeals, but it is not the only one. However, for 95% of computer users out there it is, by far, the biggest one. Obviously, this is Slashdot, so the majority of the people here probably fall into the 5% that use OSS for all the other reasons as well, but pretending that your average (ie. NOT YOU) user cares about any other aspects of software then cost vs. quality is crazy. I simply proposed a situation (in context to the parent and GP's post) that showed how OSS can lose a (as in one of many) advantage that could be enough for an average user to choose proprietary software over OSS.
If you don't fight for your rights, you will lose them. The police can either get a warrant or request the information already. Once you grant them this right, you have lost it forever. For now, they claim it is only for Seriously Bad Guys, but who knows what the future could hold.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didnâ(TM)t speak up because I wasnâ(TM)t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didnâ(TM)t speak up because I wasnâ(TM)t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didnâ(TM)t speak up because I wasnâ(TM)t a Jew;
And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
- Martin Niemoller
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, pretty basic fact in probability theory. A test for some condition must fail on less people (by an order of magnitude) then the number of people with that condition. Otherwise, you can pretty safely assume a positive is a false positive.
There really can't be compromise. Wikipedia is not just a not-for-profit organization that provides an encyclopedia, it is an amalgam of free information that anyone can use. For example, you are free to make an exact copy of Wikipedia, put up on your own site and they won't blink an eye. You won't be sued for copyright infringement. If Wikipedia uses images licensed out to them, but not to everyone, then no one can ever again make an exact copy of Wikipedia and distribute it. They don't have the right to use those images, only Wikipedia, the not-for-profit organization can. The information is no longer free, it has simply been licensed to Wikipedia and that makes it no different then any other encyclopedia.
Am I the only one that thinks $60 is reasonable? Game development costs have only gone up, while the increases in game prices have stayed well below inflation. A movie costs $20 to buy. It entertains you for an hour and a half to 2 hours. A game, hopefully, will provide entertainment for considerably longer. I play most games I buy for at least 15+ hours; some CONSIDERABLY longer. Also, given how publishers have been doing, they really aren't rolling in the dough (for the most part). If you want to see a lot of good games, then game development has to remain profitable. An, no just because you sell the game for half price, does not mean you will sell double (though it is possible). Playing a game requires a much bigger investment in time then money. The amount of games people buy is probably limited most by how often they play them. I probably buy 3 or 4 games a year. $200/year really isn't breaking the bank for me and I would not buy more games if they were $30, I wouldn't have the time.
I can assure you, if that was really Apple's only concern, then Palm would not have to resort to such tricks to be able to sync with iTunes. Apple does not provide a method for other devices to sync with iTunes. If they did, other devices would be doing it -- and I'm sure the manufacturers would more than compensate Apple for the effort. However, given that there is way for devices to sync with iTunes and I'm sure other companies have asked Apple, it would seem they have other motivations for keeping the competition away from iTunes.
Our kitten is just learning, but is already figuring out that the siren meow doesn't always work on me (the way I see it, if she learns to beg loudly now and gets stuff for it, she'll be spoiled rotten and decide to be loud at 3am when she wants something...)
My cat stayed with my parents for a year when he was still pretty young. My dad is a sucker for cats and would always attend to him every time he meowed, even if he was asleep. So, when he came back to live with me, I got quite the surprise when he started meowing, non-stop, at 5am to get me up. Knowing cats, I just ignored him and tried to get back to sleep. It took about 2 weeks to break the habit, but those were 2 terrible weeks of sleep.
Cats are definitely very social creatures, and are perfectly willing to include humans into their social structure, although admittedly, humans are not counted as cats within this social structure. Feeding them definitely is part of why most domestic cats like their humans, but they do generally enjoy attention by humans.
I think cats actually see their owners as a mother/caregiver. When it comes to their owners, the behaviour cats display is much more akin to how they act with their mother, then how they act with other cats. They also certainly like human companionship and actively seek it out. Cats will follow their owners all over the house. Most of the time, my cat is on the couch when I'm watching TV, and in my bed when I'm asleep. Usually he doesn't want attention, and will actively let you know so if you try to give it to him (gets up, moves 1 foot away, then sits down again). He just wants to sit near me.
Almost every cat I've owned over the years has done the fetch thing to one degree or another. They all fixate on different toys/objects. I had one who loved fetching pipecleaners of all things. You could fake him out and throw it another direction and he would NOT STOP LOOKING FOR IT until he eventually found it. Hours later he would deposit it at my feet and smack me in the leg.
My cat always loses his favourite "toy" (a flat plastic handle) under the closet door. He will wait until I get home, then get me to follow him to the closet and meow until I get the toy out for him. At which point, he'll promptly fling it back under the door.
Yeah, same here. I am trying to change the misconception open source software has at my place of employment, so you can bet your ass I make sure everyone knows this great new-fangled-thingy they're using is open source. Although, I admit, I do sometimes wait until they've actually used it and tell me "how great it is"/"what an improvement it is" before I drop the f(ree)-bomb.
Cats don't really use vocal communication amongst themselves, they communicate with body language more then anything. Ever see 2 cats meet for the first time? A lot is said without so much as a meow. Most vocalizations a cat makes are for human benefit only. And I know exactly what you are talking about with that growl-thing. My cat makes that weird interrupted growling noise, usually when I won't play with him or stop playing with him. He even has a weird "chirping" he does (a series of very short, high-pitched noises), but he only does it when my fiance makes the noise at him first, then the 2 go back and forth. Haven't seen him do it with anyone else.
Yeah, the scroll wheel on mine lets you push side to side as well. Very cool feature, but not often used for me.
I have a Logitech Nano (VX or something) that I adore. Batteries (2xAAA) last several months and I don't recall ever having "lost" a signal. It just works. Your complaints were more valid several years ago, I think.
Yes. This is actually a fairly common graduate (Masters) level project in computer vision courses. My version was even made for the web...
Graphics can be great for immersion.
True. I can't imagine Doom 3 would've scared the crap out of me like it did, if it had Quake 3 graphics. However, I think classic pen & paper RPGs (D&D, Rifts, etc.) are a great example of why graphics are definitely not necessary for immersion.
The design considerations of a smart phone are based around a smart phone. The design considerations of a GPS is based around a GPS. This simple difference is why GPS units will not disappear. Most smart phones are not designed with GPS in mind. They cannot easily be fixed to a window, where as a GPS must be rock stable bouncing around, suctioned to a car window. A smart phone's screen is meant to be readable from about a foot away. Screen size is not nearly as important as the overall usability of the device for things, like, e-mail, texting, talking, etc. If a keyboard that takes up 40% of the space does that, then the screen may be sacrificed. GPS devices need to be visible from 2-3 feet away, in direct sunlight. A phone is mainly meant to be used unplugged. A GPS is usually plugged in, this extra power allows for things like, brighter screens, cheaper hardware, better GPS receivers.
A spork can be used as a spoon or a fork, but the simple fact is that a fork makes a better fork and spoon makes a better spoon. As long as some of the design requirements clash, then there will always be concessions made one way or another.
Yep, but at that point we would have a pretty good idea if the process was safe or not. At some point we also tried in vitro fertilization on a human for the first time as well. There will always be a risk, but sometimes it is worth it. Perhaps not to a couple who can have children on their own, but it means the world to those who can't.
No need for brackets either, there are lots of LCDs whose stands allow it to rotate to portrait.
How so? Let me rephrase my question. Why can we not artificially create a pig's sperm, inseminate a female pig with it and see what happens?
This dilemma is far from new. There are lots of people who carry a significant risk that their child will have a deformity (due to genetics) and have to make this decision. Do you feel it is unethical for them to try? At what percent chance of an abnormality do you consider procreation to be unethical? On that note, what abnormalities do you feel are so terrible that it is better to not live at all, then live with the abnormality?
And why could this not be tested on animals first? Also, I'd rather live a few years then no years at all.
I don't know. When I'm looking at a list of bugs and features requests longer then a book, I tend to be pretty picky about which features I implement as well. Having separate processes for each page is great, but you still have to prioritize. Especially when you have the choice between a handful of user-visible features or a not-so-visible feature that none of your competitors had as well. Remember, developers are a limited resource.
The disciples (all but one of which died a martyr's death) all would have KNOWN that what they were dying for were a lie if Jesus had not really risen from the dead.
Or, they thought that Jesus was right, in spite of actual solid proof. You know, faith.
The difference is more idealogical. Java took C++ and simplified it. C# took Java and complicated it. I'd say this starkly defines 2 mindsets. Java is very picky about what it adds into the actual language. If there is already a way to do it in the current version of the Java language, then why add another way? It just complicates things. C# has a lot of ways of doing the same things, and a lot of people love the freedom and concise code they can write with it. I'd say that is a pretty big difference.
Well, a number of recent BSD systems I've used use it.
What? I did not state that THE (as in singular) appeal of OSS is its price tage. That is certainly one of its appeals, but it is not the only one. However, for 95% of computer users out there it is, by far, the biggest one. Obviously, this is Slashdot, so the majority of the people here probably fall into the 5% that use OSS for all the other reasons as well, but pretending that your average (ie. NOT YOU) user cares about any other aspects of software then cost vs. quality is crazy. I simply proposed a situation (in context to the parent and GP's post) that showed how OSS can lose a (as in one of many) advantage that could be enough for an average user to choose proprietary software over OSS.
If you don't fight for your rights, you will lose them. The police can either get a warrant or request the information already. Once you grant them this right, you have lost it forever. For now, they claim it is only for Seriously Bad Guys, but who knows what the future could hold.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didnâ(TM)t speak up because I wasnâ(TM)t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didnâ(TM)t speak up because I wasnâ(TM)t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didnâ(TM)t speak up because I wasnâ(TM)t a Jew;
And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
- Martin Niemoller