Is it laziness or is it pressure from the deadlines? When I think of the press, I think of fast-paced people who work all day and all night, the opposite of laziness.
There is much more to Facebook than its LAMP stack, so you shouldn't just blame LAMP stack. And even if the LAMP stack does not work perfectly, there are still insights that developers can glean from it.
Patents are there to encourage innovation. What's the use of trying to think of new ideas when your competitor can just copy them once you're done. No company would have research divisions as they can just easily use the research of other companies. Research gives no solid benefit to a company if it can be easily copied so there would be minimal research.
It is only when these patents are abused that people get angry. Patenting trivial things sometimes give you a monopoly because it is very difficult to get around trivial things.
If a popular website like Yahoo implements that type of captcha, you can bet that by the next day, someone figured out how to pick out the colors. That instruction is easy to implement with a program.
The captcha keeps out the 15 year olds who want some fun. The site's obscurity keeps out the people who break captchas for a living.
The 3 tries can be easy captchas then. If you get easy captchas right 80% of time, then you're good. It is only when you try to create multiple accounts, that you get into the problem of those 20% wrong catching up with you. And the only people who try to create multiple accounts are bots.
Ask the person to guess if the person/computer talking back to it is a person or computer. As long as the website is popular enough, then you can sometimes pair humans with humans. You might get some interesting conversations going too, especially if the site using this is like Slashdot where people of similar interests come to. In addition, people rarely sign up for accounts so these turing tests would not be too much of a hassle.
It wouldn't necessarily give Linux a bad name, just as the Star Wars kid didn't give Star Wars a bad name.
Also, when most of the world does not know a product, any publicity is good publicity. It is only when a product is well-known that you should start worrying about the bad publicity.
That's a very good idea. That'd make people try out new music to get those surprise hits while they are cheap. They can start lower than 99 cents and make incremental changes to reflect the popularity of the song better, ie. every 1000 people/day download the song, increase the price by 10 cents, and reset the price at night. That way, more people would be willing to buy a song at higher prices, if the price is within a dollar. Trick the people into paying a higher price. Get the most money out of the desperate people who cannot wait to listen to the song, while providing a legal means for people to get the song for cheap, by hoping to refresh the page fast enough, and trying again and again day after day.
Cars crash and change with age. Windows XP does not. If your computer ends up too slow, you can just back up everything and reinstall XP from disc, and everything is new again.
If you purchased the retail version of Windows, then I am pretty sure you can keep the same copy over computer upgrades. Microsoft would be without business because even though you're using their products, you aren't paying them anymore than the down payment many years ago.
What Microsoft wants is for people to buy the newest versions so that they will get more and more money. What works for cars that can get scraped and such does not work for software. Car analogies don't always work.
And you wonder where all the money in the economy is going. Imagine you invent a machine that is able to make clothing with very very little energy and very little time. You get the government on your side so they force everyone to pay a dollar for a shirt even though it costs much less to make one. You get 1 dollar for something that costs 0.000005 cents for you to make. People will still pay up because they want to wear shirts and 1 dollar isn't too unreasonable. You will make a whole lot of profit for minimal labor.
Say you are a farmer who grows apples. A farmer trades a one dollar apple for a mp3 file, even though it took one dollar worth of work to grow that apple. You get a one dollar apple practically for free. When you eat that apple, the one dollar apple is lost forever, yet what is added to the world? The one dollar mp3 file is worthless... It is just a pattern of bits and bytes... The net value of the world decreased. It was as if the farmer did not grow that apple.
It was only in the creation of the song that deserves money, and that is definitely not worth the millions that artists get. It is just that they hold a monopoly and if you want a Bob Dylan mp3, you do not have anywhere else to buy it but from Bob Dylan, thanks to the government. You can either be forced to overpay or not listen to Bob Dylan.
The methodology may not have been trivial, but the GP was saying how the conclusion that breathing in opaque air decreases life expectancy is trivial. It is true that people do not gain much insight from learning about such a conclusion.
However, the thing that GP and P miss is that the silver lining to all this is the "2.72 years longer". You are given a number that makes a very solid connection between two previously weakly connected ideas.
Before, the weak connection was that breathing opaque air is bad for you. Now, the strong connection is that breathing opaque air shortens your life by 2.72 years.
Bullets hurt people because of human blood circulation (loss of blood) and the size of our organs (heh). If robots were built differently or little green men evolved differently, bullets would most likely be ineffective. There is no reason that there is only one wire connecting processor to leg and opening one loop should not hurt the other parts of the circuit. Also, there is almost no reason why the processor needs to be 15 cm big, or the leg motor has to take up the whole length of the leg. There is also no reason why the robots or green guys have to be human size.
However, as long as they are still made of molecules, high amounts of energy should still be able to separate the molecules that they are composed of, and hopefully eliminate them.
I heard that some phishing sites tell you that you entered the wrong password and redirect you to the correct site so you wouldn't know something wrong happened. You'd just end up thinking you entered the password wrong the first time.
Your method would skip the phishing step so you'll get to the correct site anyways.
Your explanation for why your method works actually doesn't make sense. If the site accepts the true one, then you're okay, but if the site doesn't accept the true one, then you're in just as much trouble as if you entered the true one the first time. Maybe it's supposed to be a joke but the Insightful modding confused me.
One of the boundary conditions of internet speed is the size of the material being sent over the wireless network. If all you have is small sound files, then you'll need to be sending over years of music to fully use the 12.5 Gbps. The usefulness of internet speed increases only logarithmically. There is almost as much use for 1000000 Gbps as 100 Gbps. Only a small portion of the people actually using the internet would see any difference between the 1000000 and 100 Gbps. Once you hit the critical value, which is like a few Gbps, most of the people on the world would be satisfied.
Humans are the ultimate boundary conditions. We can only read so much and listen to so much in so much detail and see so many pixels. The best that the data can do is accurately represent these. Once the representation becomes so accurate that adding a few more Gb's of information would not allow a human to see the improvement of the file, then we hit the limit.
Another major limit is time. We can only hope to live up to around 100 years old. Downloading 120 years worth of music would be meaningless then. There is a limit to everything and just increasing the wireless speed past the critical limit is almost useless.
Well, try proving to me why I can't use my hairdryer in the bathtub without assuming I have had classes in electrical engineering. You'll have a hard time. These warning stickers work by brainwashing us into thinking it is obvious that hairdryers and bathtubs don't go well together. These warning labels exist for the newbies in this world, like the people who use hairdryers for the first time. Once these labels are seen a couple of times, they have served their purpose, but there are still more newbies along the way. Just because someone hasn't seen as many hairdryer stickers than you does not make them 'tards.
Anyways, that said, I'll agree with you on some warning stickers, like those on knives and such.
I've always heard about these but I've never encountered one myself. I usually stay in the more technical areas like board games, science, math, etc. and I do not see any of these.
I guess it is only when you want to go to the big controversial issues that no one, even in the real world, would agree on, that I suppose you get these troubles. Deep down, I feel that these controversial things like abortion, scientology, religion, etc. aren't really issues. There is no clear right/wrong so don't waste your time arguing them.
Instead, go to the science/technology/etc. and provide information there. Lots of them need information and those information won't be controversial. There is only one right answer. Let the English and Philosophy people argue out which of their taste buds are more accurate. Go for truths, go for technical.
This "No viruses for linux/bsd/osx because they are not popular" is simply microsoft propaganda. If the 90/10 market share is true, then those systems should have 10% of the virus market by that logic.
Probability only works with stupidity and virus makers are far from stupid. Probability only works when viruses are made randomly by churning out combinations of syntax and variables. Only then do you the 90%/10% virus market.
Instead, virus makers try to get the biggest bang for the buck. Why spend a year writing code that affects only 10% of the population when you can write code that affects 90% of the population? Thus, almost 100% of reasonable virus makers choose to infect Windows.
OS X and Linux do not necessarily have to be more secure than Windows to not be infected. They just have to be secure enough so that to infect it, hackers need to work more than 9 times as hard to write a similar virus for Windows.
The above is for personal computers people run at home.
Servers are a different playing field. I believe there are very few viruses. Servers are run by people who know what they are doing. I don't know my statistics but I find it unlikely that even Microsoft servers are infected with viruses.
"Unlike its predecessor, Windows 7 is intended to be an incremental upgrade with the goal of being fully compatible with existing device drivers, applications, and hardware." - Wikipedia
It seems Vista users should be given these incremental upgrades for free. I mean, when people bought Vista, they bought 1, 2, and 3, not 1, 2, and 3 with some bugs and incompatibilities. Is it reasonable to assume that the buyers expected Microsoft to fix the bugs and incompatibilities?
It seems now, Microsoft comes out with Windows 7 that has the same 1, 2, and 3 as Vista but with fewer bugs and better compatibility. It isn't fair that Vista users have to pay money again just to use the same 1, 2, and 3 that they were promised in Vista.
How much should a piece of software change before a company is justified to charge users hundreds of dollars again to upgrade?
Slashdot Mirror
Homo floresiensis is different than Homo Erectus. Homo erectus died out a million years ago. Homo floresiensis died out 18000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus)
Is it laziness or is it pressure from the deadlines? When I think of the press, I think of fast-paced people who work all day and all night, the opposite of laziness.
XP has 33% shorter battery life, Ubuntu has 25% longer battery life
The 4-3=1 hour difference is magnified more when you have less battery life.
Developing commercial uses will only encourage us to build more.
That sentence is so wrong with that "only" there. When good commercial uses are found for nuclear explosions, then that is a good thing.
There is much more to Facebook than its LAMP stack, so you shouldn't just blame LAMP stack. And even if the LAMP stack does not work perfectly, there are still insights that developers can glean from it.
Patents are there to encourage innovation. What's the use of trying to think of new ideas when your competitor can just copy them once you're done. No company would have research divisions as they can just easily use the research of other companies. Research gives no solid benefit to a company if it can be easily copied so there would be minimal research.
It is only when these patents are abused that people get angry. Patenting trivial things sometimes give you a monopoly because it is very difficult to get around trivial things.
If a popular website like Yahoo implements that type of captcha, you can bet that by the next day, someone figured out how to pick out the colors. That instruction is easy to implement with a program.
The captcha keeps out the 15 year olds who want some fun. The site's obscurity keeps out the people who break captchas for a living.
The 3 tries can be easy captchas then. If you get easy captchas right 80% of time, then you're good. It is only when you try to create multiple accounts, that you get into the problem of those 20% wrong catching up with you. And the only people who try to create multiple accounts are bots.
Ask the person to guess if the person/computer talking back to it is a person or computer. As long as the website is popular enough, then you can sometimes pair humans with humans. You might get some interesting conversations going too, especially if the site using this is like Slashdot where people of similar interests come to. In addition, people rarely sign up for accounts so these turing tests would not be too much of a hassle.
It wouldn't necessarily give Linux a bad name, just as the Star Wars kid didn't give Star Wars a bad name.
Also, when most of the world does not know a product, any publicity is good publicity. It is only when a product is well-known that you should start worrying about the bad publicity.
That's a very good idea. That'd make people try out new music to get those surprise hits while they are cheap. They can start lower than 99 cents and make incremental changes to reflect the popularity of the song better, ie. every 1000 people/day download the song, increase the price by 10 cents, and reset the price at night. That way, more people would be willing to buy a song at higher prices, if the price is within a dollar. Trick the people into paying a higher price. Get the most money out of the desperate people who cannot wait to listen to the song, while providing a legal means for people to get the song for cheap, by hoping to refresh the page fast enough, and trying again and again day after day.
Cars crash and change with age. Windows XP does not. If your computer ends up too slow, you can just back up everything and reinstall XP from disc, and everything is new again.
If you purchased the retail version of Windows, then I am pretty sure you can keep the same copy over computer upgrades. Microsoft would be without business because even though you're using their products, you aren't paying them anymore than the down payment many years ago.
What Microsoft wants is for people to buy the newest versions so that they will get more and more money. What works for cars that can get scraped and such does not work for software. Car analogies don't always work.
And you wonder where all the money in the economy is going. Imagine you invent a machine that is able to make clothing with very very little energy and very little time. You get the government on your side so they force everyone to pay a dollar for a shirt even though it costs much less to make one. You get 1 dollar for something that costs 0.000005 cents for you to make. People will still pay up because they want to wear shirts and 1 dollar isn't too unreasonable. You will make a whole lot of profit for minimal labor.
Say you are a farmer who grows apples. A farmer trades a one dollar apple for a mp3 file, even though it took one dollar worth of work to grow that apple. You get a one dollar apple practically for free. When you eat that apple, the one dollar apple is lost forever, yet what is added to the world? The one dollar mp3 file is worthless... It is just a pattern of bits and bytes... The net value of the world decreased. It was as if the farmer did not grow that apple.
It was only in the creation of the song that deserves money, and that is definitely not worth the millions that artists get. It is just that they hold a monopoly and if you want a Bob Dylan mp3, you do not have anywhere else to buy it but from Bob Dylan, thanks to the government. You can either be forced to overpay or not listen to Bob Dylan.
The methodology may not have been trivial, but the GP was saying how the conclusion that breathing in opaque air decreases life expectancy is trivial. It is true that people do not gain much insight from learning about such a conclusion.
However, the thing that GP and P miss is that the silver lining to all this is the "2.72 years longer". You are given a number that makes a very solid connection between two previously weakly connected ideas.
Before, the weak connection was that breathing opaque air is bad for you. Now, the strong connection is that breathing opaque air shortens your life by 2.72 years.
Bullets hurt people because of human blood circulation (loss of blood) and the size of our organs (heh). If robots were built differently or little green men evolved differently, bullets would most likely be ineffective. There is no reason that there is only one wire connecting processor to leg and opening one loop should not hurt the other parts of the circuit. Also, there is almost no reason why the processor needs to be 15 cm big, or the leg motor has to take up the whole length of the leg. There is also no reason why the robots or green guys have to be human size.
However, as long as they are still made of molecules, high amounts of energy should still be able to separate the molecules that they are composed of, and hopefully eliminate them.
I heard that some phishing sites tell you that you entered the wrong password and redirect you to the correct site so you wouldn't know something wrong happened. You'd just end up thinking you entered the password wrong the first time.
Your method would skip the phishing step so you'll get to the correct site anyways.
Your explanation for why your method works actually doesn't make sense. If the site accepts the true one, then you're okay, but if the site doesn't accept the true one, then you're in just as much trouble as if you entered the true one the first time. Maybe it's supposed to be a joke but the Insightful modding confused me.
One of the boundary conditions of internet speed is the size of the material being sent over the wireless network. If all you have is small sound files, then you'll need to be sending over years of music to fully use the 12.5 Gbps. The usefulness of internet speed increases only logarithmically. There is almost as much use for 1000000 Gbps as 100 Gbps. Only a small portion of the people actually using the internet would see any difference between the 1000000 and 100 Gbps. Once you hit the critical value, which is like a few Gbps, most of the people on the world would be satisfied.
Humans are the ultimate boundary conditions. We can only read so much and listen to so much in so much detail and see so many pixels. The best that the data can do is accurately represent these. Once the representation becomes so accurate that adding a few more Gb's of information would not allow a human to see the improvement of the file, then we hit the limit.
Another major limit is time. We can only hope to live up to around 100 years old. Downloading 120 years worth of music would be meaningless then. There is a limit to everything and just increasing the wireless speed past the critical limit is almost useless.
an animated eye looking around and winking, etc.
That begs the question, can you wink with one eye?
The moon is lost mass, I believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDnYB61o1EU
Chappelle's skit.
Excellent explanations. It is completely understandable if the student puts in the time to understand it. It requires almost no outside knowledge.
I would have loved it if someone showed me this book earlier.
Well, try proving to me why I can't use my hairdryer in the bathtub without assuming I have had classes in electrical engineering. You'll have a hard time. These warning stickers work by brainwashing us into thinking it is obvious that hairdryers and bathtubs don't go well together. These warning labels exist for the newbies in this world, like the people who use hairdryers for the first time. Once these labels are seen a couple of times, they have served their purpose, but there are still more newbies along the way. Just because someone hasn't seen as many hairdryer stickers than you does not make them 'tards.
Anyways, that said, I'll agree with you on some warning stickers, like those on knives and such.
I've always heard about these but I've never encountered one myself. I usually stay in the more technical areas like board games, science, math, etc. and I do not see any of these.
I guess it is only when you want to go to the big controversial issues that no one, even in the real world, would agree on, that I suppose you get these troubles. Deep down, I feel that these controversial things like abortion, scientology, religion, etc. aren't really issues. There is no clear right/wrong so don't waste your time arguing them.
Instead, go to the science/technology/etc. and provide information there. Lots of them need information and those information won't be controversial. There is only one right answer. Let the English and Philosophy people argue out which of their taste buds are more accurate. Go for truths, go for technical.
This "No viruses for linux/bsd/osx because they are not popular" is simply microsoft propaganda.
If the 90/10 market share is true, then those systems should have 10% of the virus market by that logic.
Probability only works with stupidity and virus makers are far from stupid. Probability only works when viruses are made randomly by churning out combinations of syntax and variables. Only then do you the 90%/10% virus market.
Instead, virus makers try to get the biggest bang for the buck. Why spend a year writing code that affects only 10% of the population when you can write code that affects 90% of the population? Thus, almost 100% of reasonable virus makers choose to infect Windows.
OS X and Linux do not necessarily have to be more secure than Windows to not be infected. They just have to be secure enough so that to infect it, hackers need to work more than 9 times as hard to write a similar virus for Windows.
The above is for personal computers people run at home.
Servers are a different playing field. I believe there are very few viruses. Servers are run by people who know what they are doing. I don't know my statistics but I find it unlikely that even Microsoft servers are infected with viruses.
Why is Windows 7 not a service pack for Vista?
"Unlike its predecessor, Windows 7 is intended to be an incremental upgrade with the goal of being fully compatible with existing device drivers, applications, and hardware." - Wikipedia
It seems Vista users should be given these incremental upgrades for free. I mean, when people bought Vista, they bought 1, 2, and 3, not 1, 2, and 3 with some bugs and incompatibilities. Is it reasonable to assume that the buyers expected Microsoft to fix the bugs and incompatibilities?
It seems now, Microsoft comes out with Windows 7 that has the same 1, 2, and 3 as Vista but with fewer bugs and better compatibility. It isn't fair that Vista users have to pay money again just to use the same 1, 2, and 3 that they were promised in Vista.
How much should a piece of software change before a company is justified to charge users hundreds of dollars again to upgrade?