Which is exactly why they won't sell many. If they want to be like Bugatti and go bankrupt every other year, fine, build sports cars. If they want to become profitable, sell something people will actually buy.
The rules are very rigid for this test. Off the top of my head, I believe at least one has to be a journalist, one a psychologist, one a philosopher and one an expert in AI.
You're only fucking over Gamestop if Gamestop chooses to be fucked over.
When you return a DRM game to Gamestop, Gamestop loses money on that. They can then continue to buy DRM games and continue getting fucked over or they can refuse to stock DRM games and continue being profitable. It's up to them.
Agreed. I'll say the "ooh shiny" probably works in FAVOUR of Usenet, too. Modern NNTP clients are flat-out sweet. The way they group threads, group binaries, give previews, actually use native widgets. Much better than some shitty web interface someone has thrown together.
I was actually surprised to see the capacities and prices. As someone who's never had a hard drive bigger than 80GB (and even then only used half of it), the capacities of SSDs are starting to look pretty decent. The prices are still an order of magnitude away from what they'd need to be to get me to switch, but hopefully that's only a year or two away?
The big thing for me is the durability to shock. I don't own a desktop; I'm a purely notebook guy. Just recently I toasted a (mechanical) hard drive by dropping it on the floor. If SSDs can save me from my own stupidity, it could be worth it soon....
It's a good point. SSDs are so new that we can't really say empirically that they'll last for a lot of years. If nothing else, though, they'll be relatively safe against dropping your laptop on the floor.
Firewalls that filter my data without going through a "portal" like a public/private address space are too insecure for me to trust.
And yet they're more secure than NAT, which you do trust?
Ever wonder how you're able to receive calls on Skype through NAT? I'll give you a hint: your network is not terribly private behind NAT;). Private from TCP packets, sure, but NAT has to be incredibly stupid when it comes to UDP.
If you want to keep your network private, you should get a firewall that keeps your network private. NAT does not do that, but there are a lot of firewall implementations that will.
In short, when it comes to security, public IP + firewall > NAT.
It's a good point. Arguably, this is the reason for having political parties. He could say "well I don't have a detailed policy on that issue, but I like what my colleague has".
More to the point, though, the job requires being able to make decisions on pretty much everything. It would be nice to able to say "you don't have to know everything", but, well...you're only going to be able to do part of your job then, aren't you?
I still have no idea why anyone would give this guy money or vote for him. Is it just because he's a nerd?
Let's look at his education policy. Apparently his entire platform on education is "we should have the best schools". How would he go about making that happen, you ask? Why it's simple! By making sure they're the best, of course!
I can't follow 100% the article, so hopefully someone can clarify this point of curiosity for me.
Is one of the implications that solar systems could at one point be similar to ours? Gas giants far away with smaller planets towards the sun? And then the gas giants slowly creep towards the sun, wiping out the smaller planets that get in the way?
I'm not smart enough to figure out the details of what they've done, but it sounds like really promising work. "Communication" is perhaps too narrow a term for the applications, though.
A big part of the problem with building quantum computers right now is keeping the qubits stable. The real world is constantly trying to "observe" (or interfere with) the qubits. When that happens, your quantum states break down and you lose your computation. This is a bit reason why we've only been able to build small (5-qubit) machines: it's very hard to keep things isolated and stable.
If you have a practical error correction code scheme (using a Viterbi decoder, like in this article), then things might be a bit easier. Maybe instead of 5 very stable qubits, you could have 20 sort-of-stable qubits, where you expect that half of them will be lost to noise. It would still be a net win.
The knowledge wasn't forgotten. Columbus was the exception, not the rule. Everyone was telling him "Columbus, you're a dumbass. India's at least twice as far away as you think it is". You can't blame an entire time period for Columbus' fortuitous stupidity.
Even if the "car" as we know it is disappearing, Microsoft's work should transfer over nicely to whatever replaces it. I doubt there's much about Microsoft's system that assumes an internal combustion engine. If the car should die, the need for people to get from A to B does not die with it. Maybe more people will be taking electric cars, or trains, or some weird sci-fi individual self-navigating capsules in a mesh of tubes. In all of those cases, Microsoft's software would still have a place. Seems like a promising investment to me.
No, 18 is barely legal. In the US it is illegal to show porn with models under 18. Hence, 18 year olds are barely legal. Hence the title of the magazine. The magazine aims to show models who appear to be illegal, but are, in fact, barely legal.
Didn't Larry Flynt win a case on this with his Barely Legal magazine? Barely Legal obviously chooses models who look much younger than they are (e.g., an 18 year old who looks 13). I believe he won.
Sorry I didn't think we were confined to the same company. I was arguing against the idea that the research "dies".
A public example is the Glasgow Haskell Compiler. True, it's not actually Microsoft branded as "MS Visual Haskell" or anything like that, but it is developed largely by Microsoftians (most prominently Simon Peyton Jones at Microsoft Cambridge). We all get a pretty decent and very usable compiler out of it; does it matter so much that it isn't branded as a Microsoft product?
Slashdot Mirror
Which is exactly why they won't sell many. If they want to be like Bugatti and go bankrupt every other year, fine, build sports cars. If they want to become profitable, sell something people will actually buy.
And if their computer has been infected by malware, such that a bot is chatting with you using their username?
The rules are very rigid for this test. Off the top of my head, I believe at least one has to be a journalist, one a psychologist, one a philosopher and one an expert in AI.
Uhh I'm pretty sure they used a modified version of Elbot. With the robot references taken out.
Everything you said applies equally well to being black or gay.
An endash isn't even typographically acceptable there. It should be an emdash.
You're only fucking over Gamestop if Gamestop chooses to be fucked over.
When you return a DRM game to Gamestop, Gamestop loses money on that. They can then continue to buy DRM games and continue getting fucked over or they can refuse to stock DRM games and continue being profitable. It's up to them.
Agreed. I'll say the "ooh shiny" probably works in FAVOUR of Usenet, too. Modern NNTP clients are flat-out sweet. The way they group threads, group binaries, give previews, actually use native widgets. Much better than some shitty web interface someone has thrown together.
They weren't comparing it to WiFi specifically. They were comparing it to wireless as a whole.
It is "really wireless". It doesn't use wires.
I meant decimal orders of magnitude :P
I was actually surprised to see the capacities and prices. As someone who's never had a hard drive bigger than 80GB (and even then only used half of it), the capacities of SSDs are starting to look pretty decent. The prices are still an order of magnitude away from what they'd need to be to get me to switch, but hopefully that's only a year or two away?
The big thing for me is the durability to shock. I don't own a desktop; I'm a purely notebook guy. Just recently I toasted a (mechanical) hard drive by dropping it on the floor. If SSDs can save me from my own stupidity, it could be worth it soon....
It's a good point. SSDs are so new that we can't really say empirically that they'll last for a lot of years. If nothing else, though, they'll be relatively safe against dropping your laptop on the floor.
Or puts(msg) since the original string lacked a newline.
And yet they're more secure than NAT, which you do trust?
Ever wonder how you're able to receive calls on Skype through NAT? I'll give you a hint: your network is not terribly private behind NAT ;). Private from TCP packets, sure, but NAT has to be incredibly stupid when it comes to UDP.
If you want to keep your network private, you should get a firewall that keeps your network private. NAT does not do that, but there are a lot of firewall implementations that will.
In short, when it comes to security, public IP + firewall > NAT.
It's a good point. Arguably, this is the reason for having political parties. He could say "well I don't have a detailed policy on that issue, but I like what my colleague has".
More to the point, though, the job requires being able to make decisions on pretty much everything. It would be nice to able to say "you don't have to know everything", but, well...you're only going to be able to do part of your job then, aren't you?
I still have no idea why anyone would give this guy money or vote for him. Is it just because he's a nerd?
Let's look at his education policy. Apparently his entire platform on education is "we should have the best schools". How would he go about making that happen, you ask? Why it's simple! By making sure they're the best, of course!
I can't follow 100% the article, so hopefully someone can clarify this point of curiosity for me.
Is one of the implications that solar systems could at one point be similar to ours? Gas giants far away with smaller planets towards the sun? And then the gas giants slowly creep towards the sun, wiping out the smaller planets that get in the way?
I'm not smart enough to figure out the details of what they've done, but it sounds like really promising work. "Communication" is perhaps too narrow a term for the applications, though.
A big part of the problem with building quantum computers right now is keeping the qubits stable. The real world is constantly trying to "observe" (or interfere with) the qubits. When that happens, your quantum states break down and you lose your computation. This is a bit reason why we've only been able to build small (5-qubit) machines: it's very hard to keep things isolated and stable.
If you have a practical error correction code scheme (using a Viterbi decoder, like in this article), then things might be a bit easier. Maybe instead of 5 very stable qubits, you could have 20 sort-of-stable qubits, where you expect that half of them will be lost to noise. It would still be a net win.
The knowledge wasn't forgotten. Columbus was the exception, not the rule. Everyone was telling him "Columbus, you're a dumbass. India's at least twice as far away as you think it is". You can't blame an entire time period for Columbus' fortuitous stupidity.
I do, but Congress doesn't. In fact, no legislative body in the world uses Robert's Rules of Order.
Even if the "car" as we know it is disappearing, Microsoft's work should transfer over nicely to whatever replaces it. I doubt there's much about Microsoft's system that assumes an internal combustion engine. If the car should die, the need for people to get from A to B does not die with it. Maybe more people will be taking electric cars, or trains, or some weird sci-fi individual self-navigating capsules in a mesh of tubes. In all of those cases, Microsoft's software would still have a place. Seems like a promising investment to me.
Heh heh.
No, 18 is barely legal. In the US it is illegal to show porn with models under 18. Hence, 18 year olds are barely legal. Hence the title of the magazine. The magazine aims to show models who appear to be illegal, but are, in fact, barely legal.
Didn't Larry Flynt win a case on this with his Barely Legal magazine? Barely Legal obviously chooses models who look much younger than they are (e.g., an 18 year old who looks 13). I believe he won.
Sorry I didn't think we were confined to the same company. I was arguing against the idea that the research "dies".
A public example is the Glasgow Haskell Compiler. True, it's not actually Microsoft branded as "MS Visual Haskell" or anything like that, but it is developed largely by Microsoftians (most prominently Simon Peyton Jones at Microsoft Cambridge). We all get a pretty decent and very usable compiler out of it; does it matter so much that it isn't branded as a Microsoft product?