Ever hear of the generation gap? The youth of today are different from us--they've been raised from birth in a world of ubiquitous networked computing and ambient findability.
The "generation gap" is nothing new. Homer wrote about it in The Odyssey, 2500 years ago. It really has little to do with technology and more to do with social pressures and the common experiences of a peer group. To mimic a famous Hemingway quote, yes, the youth of today are different -- they're younger. Were there no text messaging, computers, or television, it would be something else.
Well, no, I don't think you're quite getting the whole argument.
I agree.
It's directly tied to AI or computer-enhanced human beings that are effectively AI.
Why? That's what I don't get about it.
At the point where you have some type of artificial intelligence that can be self-aware enough to modify its own programming, the theory is that it (or they) will be able to improve itself, add to its resources, and make new discoveries completely beyond our ability to keep up with it.
I understand that such a thing is theoretically possible and may be the cause of the singularity, but I don't see the cause (AI) and the effect (the singularity) as being necessarily linked. Is it not possible for some other form of technology to accelerate the rapid growth of technology to such a point?
The thing is, there have been several "singularities" in human history: the Agricultural Singularity, the Industrial Singularity, the Computer Singularity, and so on and so forth. Or, to use the term that most historians use - rather than "Singularity", "Revolution."
My interpretation of the singularity is very different from what they seem to be talking about in the article.. err interview. They're talking about the influence of computers, artificial intelligence and whatnot -- what you might call "The AI Revolution" -- rather than the real singularity.
The foundation of the technology singularity, as I always understood it, is that new technology (not necessarily AI) increases the pace of further technologic development, until development accelerates to infinity. The first part of the conjecture is easy to verify, as witnessed by the revolutions you mention. Humans lived on this earth for about 100,000 years before developing agriculture; after that it was about 9,000 years before the printing press and widespread literacy; 500 years or so till the industrial revolution; maybe 150 years until we had the first computers; and ~50 years until the development of the Internet.
If we extrapolate this trend (which is what futurists do), future technological revolutions will increase in pace, some happening literally overnight, until they all seem to happen at once. That moment is the singularity. What happens after that is the stuff of bad science fiction.
Personally, I think there's probably an upper limit on the pace of useful technological development. Just because Intel releases a new and faster chip doesn't mean I'm going to buy one before I've gotten the full use out of my current one. And there are certainly physical limits to technology as well: despite hundreds of years of trying, no one's yet managed to turn lead into gold. In the long run, I think the pace of development will slow (and there's some who say it has slowed) and eventually technology will just plateau, but not for a very long time.
At least once was probably during the "Behind The Laughter" episode, which is not a part of the normal Simpsons universe. The Simpsons Archive has a has a complete episode-by-episode breakdown of all state references. In short, Springfield does not have a fixed location intentionally. They picked the name Springfield precisely because it exists in so many states.
I've no problem with the thought of them in my ear and for a short listening period they're completely fine. If I wore them for longer than about 30 minutes or so, I found myself playing with them, twisting and turning them about to find a comfortable position and scratch the itch. As for any silicone allergy, I've no other reason to believe I am allergic, but I'm sure it's a possibility.
I used the middle size sleeve on both ears. It was snug in one ear but slightly loose on the other. The large size was flat out too big.
Bottom line, they weren't for me. I'm just a little miffed because they're not really something you can return or give to someone else. I'm not completely turned off the idea of in-ear phones either -- I'd just want to try them on first. Unfortunately, I don't think that's likely to happen. Could you imagine slipping on the demo pair at your local Best Buy? Eww...
I have a pair of those exact earphones (MDR-51 in white) and I recently switched to a pair of $10 phones because I hate them. I had to stick them WAY into my ear to get decent sound, which caused them to itch so much I couldn't wear them for more than 30 minutes at at time. And though I cleaned the phones and my ears regularly, the left phone eventually got so gummed up with wax it stopped working.
So I woundn't recommend them to anyone unless you're willing to eat your money if you hate them, since they're not exactly things you can just try out in the store, or something you can return for a 15% restocking fee.
As is common practice on Slashdot, you selectively quote me to attack the argument and ignore the support. USian sounds silly because no other word in English is formed in that way. We are accustomed to the words we use and their sound. Words that are very different stick out like a sore thumb in a spoken conversation, so we avoid them. It's easier to accept when they're written out because you don't hear the difference. And you know as well as I, that it would be a rare event for anyone to use USian seriously alound. It will be forever confined to the list of retarded Internet ackronyms, as I said before.
My point, as you agree, is that neither the US or America unambiguously refer to the United States of America, by their original meaning. I offered several examples of other groups of united states which could properly be referred to as such. Because we don't commonly refer to them as united states is precisely the reason your argument falls apart: you happily cede that term, but not America. We could use united states for these places if there were no United States of America, just as we could refer to the American continents as America, but we don't. I stand by my argument and you've made no attempt to counter it.
For the record, I make no claim to the millions of the non-English speaking inhabitants of the Americas. They may well refer to us by some other name and I have no issue with them, nor should they have an issue with me. Words have different meanings in different languages. Places take on different names depending on who you're talking to. If I spoke to a friend and mentioned the Republic of China or Mumbai, I would probably have to explain myself. If I instead spoke of Taiwan and Bombay, my terminology might not be "correct", but it would be understood without confusion, which is the only goal of communication. Yes, by settling on the United States of America, our founding fathers caused great confusion, but in the end, it was settled before either of us were born. The language changed and there is no more confusion. To undo that change would only compound the problem.
You "think" it's yoo-sian, but you don't really know, do you? Because no one really says it. Because it would sound silly. How many other words in our language are formed in such a manner? Might we now refer to the "brits" (the original subject of this thread, if you remember) as "UKians"? I'd rather not.
They conveniently have the unambiguous "Mexico" part.
Rather inconveniently for your argument, they have the "United States" too, which makes USian -- wait for it -- just as ambigous. There's nothing unique or unambigous about referring to the United States, at least no more so than referring to America. Why, even the European Union is a group of united states. But you're oh-so-eager to adopt that term and ignore potential ambiguities. You'll fight to preserve the original meaning of America, but not that of a state, which few anymore would consider to be a soverign nation without context. In fact, to adobt "USian" would be to actively encourage that change.
The lack of consistency betrays your argument and exposes its true intent. It's not about clarifying ambiguity or even an appeal to traditionalism. You just want the cool name for yourself. It's the same hacker/cracker debate all over again. And surprise-surprise, it's happening on Slashdot.
I tie my shoes rather tightly and I find loose fitting shoes uncomfortable. For me, if I can slip my shoes off without untieing them, well then I put them back on and re-tie them. I agree that I *could* change my ways and wear covered sandals everywhere, but I'd rather not. Surely, if I lived in a country where this practice was wide spread, I probably would get a pair of slip-on-slip-off shoes out of resignation, but certainly not preference. I still contend that it's a frustratingly annoying practice that I hope dies and I find it absurd that I should be limited in my choice of footwear because of your carpet.
Most of the time, my shoes really aren't that dirty. I live in a city with rather pleasant weather most of the year. Normally, walking "outdoors" consists of the paved walkway from one building to another, or from a building to a car. My (good) shoes are never really exposed to any great amount of dirt. No, I wouldn't eat off them, but I wouldn't eat off your carpet either. If the weather is bad or if I've just been hiking, then I would certainly take them off before entering, regardless of the house's practice.
If we hold that my shoe is *somewhat* dirty, and I admit it probably is, only some fraction of the dirt will fall off at any given moment. If I have 20 grams of sand on my shoe and 1/5 of it falls off per step, then my first step in your house will deposit 4 grams of sand on your carpet, leaving most of it on my shoe. If I immediately turn around and leave, only that amount will be left in your home, in a concentrated spot that is easily cleaned. If I stay all day, all 20 grams will eventually find their way to the floor, scattered in various places and would be much harder to clean up. So time does matter, except for a cultural perception that shoes are always dirty, dirty things, and a single step indoors will irreparably damage the carpet.
The question, as far as I'm concerned, is how much effort does it take for me to remove my shoes versus how much effort does it take you to clean up how much dirt. The disagreement therefore comes when I think my shoes are quite clean as far as shoes go and prefer ones that aren't easily removed. You assume they're dirty and expect everyone to wear slippers. As your guest, I would think you'd show deference to the guy falling over himself by the front door and break out the vacuum every once in a while.
The least one could do, as you agree, is to PUT OUT A CHAIR.
It implies to me that it's a big effort to take off and put on my shoes (I have things called shoelaces) and I don't expect to be in your house long enough to warrant such effort. Gah.
Oh, and heaven forbid they put a CHAIR next to the big pile of shoes so I don't have to bend over and risk toppling myself TWICE in the period of my visit. Often I end up going outside to sit on the front step to take off my shoes -- usually dirting my socks (and therefore your carpet) in the process.
For example, not taking off your shoes in a Chinese household goes beyond cleanliness and soiling their carpet. It implies that you think their house is not clean enough for you to walk on--the same reason you won't walk barefeet out on the streets.
It implies to me that it's a big effort to take off and put on my shoes (I have things called shoelaces) and I don't expect to be in your house long enough to warrant such effort. Gah.
I really hate that tradition -- especially when I'm 20 steps into the house before I notice the huge pile of shoes next to the door. I've always felt it's a strange thing to ask of a guest. In fact it's almost insulting in the opposite way, as if I'm not clean enough to come into your house.
It's my opinion that floors are meant to be walked on. In the course of their lifetime, they will get dirty and eventually will need to be replaced. You can only go so far protecting them before it's not worth the effort to do so. The same goes for the silly plastic covers on furniture. Why have such things if you can't enjoy them?
No, you're thinking of the Americas (plural). In English, America (singular) is the short form name of the United States of America. Though originally not so, this change has been widely accepted by everyone except Slashdotters from Canada.
See my previous post for my take on the completely absurd term "USian".
On the other hand, around here most people are pretty annoyed that "American" is taken to mean someone from the US.
You mean most people in Canada, right? They seem to be the only ones putting up a real fuss about it. Certainly Americans are fine with it because, well, what the hell else are we supposed to call ourselves? Citizens of the United States of America? Now that's just a bit long-winded, don't you think?
Perhaps you prefer the new Slashdot favorite: USian, which is up there with A/S/L and ROTFLMAO as far as retarded Internet abbreviations go. How are you even supposed to pronounce it? YOO-sian? YOO-ess-e-ENN? Hell, the official name of Mexico is the Estados Unidos Mexicanos, quite literally the Mexican United States. Are they USians too?
I don't get why Canadians want to be lumped in as Americans anyway. Given our international reputation at the moment, I would think you all would be quite happy to have a distinct identity.
A CD is still a CD even if it has extra software properties to it. The disk itself is a CD.
Except the copy protection they use deliberately violates the format specification for an audio CD. They introduce slight errors that most standalone CD players will overlook, but CD-ROMs tend to fuss about. Because of that, they're not allowed to carry the Compact Disc Digital Audio logo. In a very real, albeit technical way, they are not audio CDs.
I _own_ one copy of the CD. Ripping of this CD to a non-protected format is _needed_ for me to be able to use it.
Not really. Sony would argue that before you bought it, you were supposed to know that using the CD on a PC involved using the DRM software. You can modify it, but only to use it the way it was intended. Go ahead and port the DRM rootkit to Linux. I doubt Sony will mind.
They aren't reinforcing China's restrictions, they are just trying to make their own site useable by ordinary people in China. Not everyone in China is smart enough to use anonymous proxies and the like to get around the Great Firewall of China.
By silently censoring news reports that expose the flaws of the Chinese government, Google is contributing to the perception that such flaws don't exist. IMO, the firewall should be as obvious and annoying as possible, so that Chinese citizens can't ignore its impact on the information they receive. Perhaps then you would see more people using the proxies and more pressure on the government to lift the firewall.
It's human nature to respond to a pretty face, whether it belongs to the same or opposite sex. Marketers know that, which is why the only people you see on TV or in magazines are as attractive as possible. Video games are no exception.
Those fashion magazines you dismiss are in fact quite popular, even with women who don't look like the ones on the cover. Cosmo had over 2 million single-issue sales in the US in 2004, the most of any magazine. Check out their current cover and tell me if that looks like many women you know.
If google made a cross plat IM applications that supports voice/vid I think it would do great.
And if they gave me a million dollars, I think that would be great too. Unfortunately, I think the odds of either happening tomorrow are about the same.
Yes, but the pictures are from anonymous sources too. That could be any random motherboard. Granted, they're pretty convincing, but I think we should reserve judgement until the final product.
A MS recruiting rep demoed Monad at our university. As a example of the "power" of Monad, he showed off some ways to sort and filter the process table. Everyone noted in amazement that Monad itself took eighty megabytes of memory. 80mb to sit there and do nothing. Admittedly, that was pre-beta, but holy RAM-sucker, Batman!
The scripting language as he demonstrated seemed waaay too verbose and awkward. Text pipes can be limiting in some situations, but treating everything as an object is overkill. I didn't seem any easier than bash scripting, and frankly I doubt it'll supplant even the old DOS shell.
It's currently available for $779, the lowest price ever. The 2005FPW, which I bought for ~$500, is also available for an all-time low of $389. Fscking Dell.
The monitor is *awesome*, BTW. Love the rotating base and USB hub. I've made more use of both than I thought I would. Ghosting is no big deal; I watch movies all the time and I've never had a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever hear of the generation gap? The youth of today are different from us--they've been raised from birth in a world of ubiquitous networked computing and ambient findability.
The "generation gap" is nothing new. Homer wrote about it in The Odyssey, 2500 years ago. It really has little to do with technology and more to do with social pressures and the common experiences of a peer group. To mimic a famous Hemingway quote, yes, the youth of today are different -- they're younger. Were there no text messaging, computers, or television, it would be something else.
Well, no, I don't think you're quite getting the whole argument.
I agree.
It's directly tied to AI or computer-enhanced human beings that are effectively AI.
Why? That's what I don't get about it.
At the point where you have some type of artificial intelligence that can be self-aware enough to modify its own programming, the theory is that it (or they) will be able to improve itself, add to its resources, and make new discoveries completely beyond our ability to keep up with it.
I understand that such a thing is theoretically possible and may be the cause of the singularity, but I don't see the cause (AI) and the effect (the singularity) as being necessarily linked. Is it not possible for some other form of technology to accelerate the rapid growth of technology to such a point?
The thing is, there have been several "singularities" in human history: the Agricultural Singularity, the Industrial Singularity, the Computer Singularity, and so on and so forth. Or, to use the term that most historians use - rather than "Singularity", "Revolution."
My interpretation of the singularity is very different from what they seem to be talking about in the article.. err interview. They're talking about the influence of computers, artificial intelligence and whatnot -- what you might call "The AI Revolution" -- rather than the real singularity.
The foundation of the technology singularity, as I always understood it, is that new technology (not necessarily AI) increases the pace of further technologic development, until development accelerates to infinity. The first part of the conjecture is easy to verify, as witnessed by the revolutions you mention. Humans lived on this earth for about 100,000 years before developing agriculture; after that it was about 9,000 years before the printing press and widespread literacy; 500 years or so till the industrial revolution; maybe 150 years until we had the first computers; and ~50 years until the development of the Internet.
If we extrapolate this trend (which is what futurists do), future technological revolutions will increase in pace, some happening literally overnight, until they all seem to happen at once. That moment is the singularity. What happens after that is the stuff of bad science fiction.
Personally, I think there's probably an upper limit on the pace of useful technological development. Just because Intel releases a new and faster chip doesn't mean I'm going to buy one before I've gotten the full use out of my current one. And there are certainly physical limits to technology as well: despite hundreds of years of trying, no one's yet managed to turn lead into gold. In the long run, I think the pace of development will slow (and there's some who say it has slowed) and eventually technology will just plateau, but not for a very long time.
I had an elaborate critique of your solution, but I found a much more succint way to explain all of the problems with it all at once:
Your plan is essentially whitelisting. Whitelists suck.
The FBI is just pretending. Homeland Security does it for real.
At least once was probably during the "Behind The Laughter" episode, which is not a part of the normal Simpsons universe. The Simpsons Archive has a has a complete episode-by-episode breakdown of all state references. In short, Springfield does not have a fixed location intentionally. They picked the name Springfield precisely because it exists in so many states.
For those too lazy to look it up themselves:
Pope John Paul II using a laptop
He looks pretty frail, so I doubt he was spending hours on WoW or anything.
I've no problem with the thought of them in my ear and for a short listening period they're completely fine. If I wore them for longer than about 30 minutes or so, I found myself playing with them, twisting and turning them about to find a comfortable position and scratch the itch. As for any silicone allergy, I've no other reason to believe I am allergic, but I'm sure it's a possibility.
I used the middle size sleeve on both ears. It was snug in one ear but slightly loose on the other. The large size was flat out too big.
Bottom line, they weren't for me. I'm just a little miffed because they're not really something you can return or give to someone else. I'm not completely turned off the idea of in-ear phones either -- I'd just want to try them on first. Unfortunately, I don't think that's likely to happen. Could you imagine slipping on the demo pair at your local Best Buy? Eww...
I have a pair of those exact earphones (MDR-51 in white) and I recently switched to a pair of $10 phones because I hate them. I had to stick them WAY into my ear to get decent sound, which caused them to itch so much I couldn't wear them for more than 30 minutes at at time. And though I cleaned the phones and my ears regularly, the left phone eventually got so gummed up with wax it stopped working.
So I woundn't recommend them to anyone unless you're willing to eat your money if you hate them, since they're not exactly things you can just try out in the store, or something you can return for a 15% restocking fee.
Since I don't feel like repeating myself, I'll refer you to the paragraph that follows the line you quote.
As is common practice on Slashdot, you selectively quote me to attack the argument and ignore the support. USian sounds silly because no other word in English is formed in that way. We are accustomed to the words we use and their sound. Words that are very different stick out like a sore thumb in a spoken conversation, so we avoid them. It's easier to accept when they're written out because you don't hear the difference. And you know as well as I, that it would be a rare event for anyone to use USian seriously alound. It will be forever confined to the list of retarded Internet ackronyms, as I said before.
My point, as you agree, is that neither the US or America unambiguously refer to the United States of America, by their original meaning. I offered several examples of other groups of united states which could properly be referred to as such. Because we don't commonly refer to them as united states is precisely the reason your argument falls apart: you happily cede that term, but not America. We could use united states for these places if there were no United States of America, just as we could refer to the American continents as America, but we don't. I stand by my argument and you've made no attempt to counter it.
For the record, I make no claim to the millions of the non-English speaking inhabitants of the Americas. They may well refer to us by some other name and I have no issue with them, nor should they have an issue with me. Words have different meanings in different languages. Places take on different names depending on who you're talking to. If I spoke to a friend and mentioned the Republic of China or Mumbai, I would probably have to explain myself. If I instead spoke of Taiwan and Bombay, my terminology might not be "correct", but it would be understood without confusion, which is the only goal of communication. Yes, by settling on the United States of America, our founding fathers caused great confusion, but in the end, it was settled before either of us were born. The language changed and there is no more confusion. To undo that change would only compound the problem.
As for the rest of your post, I agree.
You "think" it's yoo-sian, but you don't really know, do you? Because no one really says it. Because it would sound silly. How many other words in our language are formed in such a manner? Might we now refer to the "brits" (the original subject of this thread, if you remember) as "UKians"? I'd rather not.
They conveniently have the unambiguous "Mexico" part.
Rather inconveniently for your argument, they have the "United States" too, which makes USian -- wait for it -- just as ambigous. There's nothing unique or unambigous about referring to the United States, at least no more so than referring to America. Why, even the European Union is a group of united states. But you're oh-so-eager to adopt that term and ignore potential ambiguities. You'll fight to preserve the original meaning of America, but not that of a state, which few anymore would consider to be a soverign nation without context. In fact, to adobt "USian" would be to actively encourage that change.
The lack of consistency betrays your argument and exposes its true intent. It's not about clarifying ambiguity or even an appeal to traditionalism. You just want the cool name for yourself. It's the same hacker/cracker debate all over again. And surprise-surprise, it's happening on Slashdot.
I tie my shoes rather tightly and I find loose fitting shoes uncomfortable. For me, if I can slip my shoes off without untieing them, well then I put them back on and re-tie them. I agree that I *could* change my ways and wear covered sandals everywhere, but I'd rather not. Surely, if I lived in a country where this practice was wide spread, I probably would get a pair of slip-on-slip-off shoes out of resignation, but certainly not preference. I still contend that it's a frustratingly annoying practice that I hope dies and I find it absurd that I should be limited in my choice of footwear because of your carpet.
Most of the time, my shoes really aren't that dirty. I live in a city with rather pleasant weather most of the year. Normally, walking "outdoors" consists of the paved walkway from one building to another, or from a building to a car. My (good) shoes are never really exposed to any great amount of dirt. No, I wouldn't eat off them, but I wouldn't eat off your carpet either. If the weather is bad or if I've just been hiking, then I would certainly take them off before entering, regardless of the house's practice.
If we hold that my shoe is *somewhat* dirty, and I admit it probably is, only some fraction of the dirt will fall off at any given moment. If I have 20 grams of sand on my shoe and 1/5 of it falls off per step, then my first step in your house will deposit 4 grams of sand on your carpet, leaving most of it on my shoe. If I immediately turn around and leave, only that amount will be left in your home, in a concentrated spot that is easily cleaned. If I stay all day, all 20 grams will eventually find their way to the floor, scattered in various places and would be much harder to clean up. So time does matter, except for a cultural perception that shoes are always dirty, dirty things, and a single step indoors will irreparably damage the carpet.
The question, as far as I'm concerned, is how much effort does it take for me to remove my shoes versus how much effort does it take you to clean up how much dirt. The disagreement therefore comes when I think my shoes are quite clean as far as shoes go and prefer ones that aren't easily removed. You assume they're dirty and expect everyone to wear slippers. As your guest, I would think you'd show deference to the guy falling over himself by the front door and break out the vacuum every once in a while.
The least one could do, as you agree, is to PUT OUT A CHAIR.
It implies to me that it's a big effort to take off and put on my shoes (I have things called shoelaces) and I don't expect to be in your house long enough to warrant such effort. Gah.
Oh, and heaven forbid they put a CHAIR next to the big pile of shoes so I don't have to bend over and risk toppling myself TWICE in the period of my visit. Often I end up going outside to sit on the front step to take off my shoes -- usually dirting my socks (and therefore your carpet) in the process.
AAAAAAAAAAHHH I really hate it. Sorry.
For example, not taking off your shoes in a Chinese household goes beyond cleanliness and soiling their carpet. It implies that you think their house is not clean enough for you to walk on--the same reason you won't walk barefeet out on the streets.
It implies to me that it's a big effort to take off and put on my shoes (I have things called shoelaces) and I don't expect to be in your house long enough to warrant such effort. Gah.
I really hate that tradition -- especially when I'm 20 steps into the house before I notice the huge pile of shoes next to the door. I've always felt it's a strange thing to ask of a guest. In fact it's almost insulting in the opposite way, as if I'm not clean enough to come into your house.
It's my opinion that floors are meant to be walked on. In the course of their lifetime, they will get dirty and eventually will need to be replaced. You can only go so far protecting them before it's not worth the effort to do so. The same goes for the silly plastic covers on furniture. Why have such things if you can't enjoy them?
Wow, that was really off topic. Oh well.
No, you're thinking of the Americas (plural). In English, America (singular) is the short form name of the United States of America. Though originally not so, this change has been widely accepted by everyone except Slashdotters from Canada.
See my previous post for my take on the completely absurd term "USian".
On the other hand, around here most people are pretty annoyed that "American" is taken to mean someone from the US.
You mean most people in Canada, right? They seem to be the only ones putting up a real fuss about it. Certainly Americans are fine with it because, well, what the hell else are we supposed to call ourselves? Citizens of the United States of America? Now that's just a bit long-winded, don't you think?
Perhaps you prefer the new Slashdot favorite: USian, which is up there with A/S/L and ROTFLMAO as far as retarded Internet abbreviations go. How are you even supposed to pronounce it? YOO-sian? YOO-ess-e-ENN? Hell, the official name of Mexico is the Estados Unidos Mexicanos, quite literally the Mexican United States. Are they USians too?
I don't get why Canadians want to be lumped in as Americans anyway. Given our international reputation at the moment, I would think you all would be quite happy to have a distinct identity.
A CD is still a CD even if it has extra software properties to it. The disk itself is a CD.
Except the copy protection they use deliberately violates the format specification for an audio CD. They introduce slight errors that most standalone CD players will overlook, but CD-ROMs tend to fuss about. Because of that, they're not allowed to carry the Compact Disc Digital Audio logo. In a very real, albeit technical way, they are not audio CDs.
Read the Wikipedia entry.
I _own_ one copy of the CD. Ripping of this CD to a non-protected format is _needed_ for me to be able to use it.
Not really. Sony would argue that before you bought it, you were supposed to know that using the CD on a PC involved using the DRM software. You can modify it, but only to use it the way it was intended. Go ahead and port the DRM rootkit to Linux. I doubt Sony will mind.
They aren't reinforcing China's restrictions, they are just trying to make their own site useable by ordinary people in China. Not everyone in China is smart enough to use anonymous proxies and the like to get around the Great Firewall of China.
By silently censoring news reports that expose the flaws of the Chinese government, Google is contributing to the perception that such flaws don't exist. IMO, the firewall should be as obvious and annoying as possible, so that Chinese citizens can't ignore its impact on the information they receive. Perhaps then you would see more people using the proxies and more pressure on the government to lift the firewall.
It's human nature to respond to a pretty face, whether it belongs to the same or opposite sex. Marketers know that, which is why the only people you see on TV or in magazines are as attractive as possible. Video games are no exception.
Those fashion magazines you dismiss are in fact quite popular, even with women who don't look like the ones on the cover. Cosmo had over 2 million single-issue sales in the US in 2004, the most of any magazine. Check out their current cover and tell me if that looks like many women you know.
If google made a cross plat IM applications that supports voice/vid I think it would do great.
And if they gave me a million dollars, I think that would be great too. Unfortunately, I think the odds of either happening tomorrow are about the same.
Yes, but the pictures are from anonymous sources too. That could be any random motherboard. Granted, they're pretty convincing, but I think we should reserve judgement until the final product.
A MS recruiting rep demoed Monad at our university. As a example of the "power" of Monad, he showed off some ways to sort and filter the process table. Everyone noted in amazement that Monad itself took eighty megabytes of memory. 80mb to sit there and do nothing. Admittedly, that was pre-beta, but holy RAM-sucker, Batman!
The scripting language as he demonstrated seemed waaay too verbose and awkward. Text pipes can be limiting in some situations, but treating everything as an object is overkill. I didn't seem any easier than bash scripting, and frankly I doubt it'll supplant even the old DOS shell.
It's currently available for $779, the lowest price ever. The 2005FPW, which I bought for ~$500, is also available for an all-time low of $389. Fscking Dell.
The monitor is *awesome*, BTW. Love the rotating base and USB hub. I've made more use of both than I thought I would. Ghosting is no big deal; I watch movies all the time and I've never had a problem.