The real question is whether the added speed is enough to justify moving away from the USB standard. Yes, it's twice as fast. But we're already at the point where a full-length high definition movie can be transferred in seconds. That is, if -- and this is a big if -- the storage media can keep up. For most people, there's simply no compelling reason to pay extra for Thunderbolt.
The summary says it's currently being used for RAID configurations. That's a sensible use. But I doubt it will make much headway with consumers.
That's not how big O notation works. If something is O(n) it doesn't mean that it can be solved in n calculations. It means it can be solved in C*n+D calculations, where C and D are constants.
He said punishments shouldn't be punitive. I specifically responded to him, and not the parent post (by hedwards), because of that key difference.
Hedwards stated (and I agree) that punishment need not be painful. I think most sensible people can agree to that. Nursie said that punishments need not be. That's an entirely different statement all together, and I would hope most people can see the absurdity of it.
Prison and other measures are seen as punishment, and people will never be happy with a penal system that is not punitive. it doesn't matter what's most cost effective for society, what has the best outcomes, what stops recidivism, any of that. Human nature says transgressors must be punished.
These are your words. There's a pretty strong implication that you are suggesting a non-punitive system should be considered. Such a system is farcical, and yet you criticize people for dismissing it out of hand.
Despite what you were told in kindergarten, some ideas really are bad. There aren't enough hours in the day to consider them all. If you have some evidence that a non-punitive system might work and should thus be considered, present it. If not, don't be offended when people laugh off the notion as absurd on the face of it.
I have also decided, absent supporting evidence, that society is better off with a spoken language than without one.
When you are suggesting we try a system which no society in the entire history of human civilization has attempted, much less succeeded with, then the onus is on you to provide the supporting evidence. So please, give us your evidence that society could function with a justice system that, in your own words, "is not punitive".
Or you could keep being smug that because your idea is fresh and radical, it must be good.
First, name for me a country with an "all-expense-paid resort". Whoops, there isn't one! Because it doesn't work. Every single society throughout all of human history punishes criminals. To varying extents, yes, but always with a punishment.
So go ahead, name me a successful society that, in the original words, "is not punitive". I'm waiting.
Moronic. If punishment isn't something to be feared, then people have no reason not to commit a crime. If I could steal a car and be "punished" by spending a few months at an all-expense-paid resort, I would do that in a heart-beat. I don't even want the car, I just want the paid vacation.
Punishment doesn't exist to "fix" transgressors. It exists to discourage more people from transgressing.
Judge: "What's something of value to you?" Defendant: "I plead the fifth!" Judge: "What are you talking about? This is a bail hearing!" Defendant: "I refuse to answer!" Judge: "Fine. Bail is set at $1000. Next case."
If he did anything about the TSA, he'd be labelled "soft on terror" and booted out of office. Blame the American people. Democracy means we get the government we deserve.
Well, one glance at Sony should answer that question... when was the last time they did something innovative? They make a bunch of second-tier me-too products, from TVs to cameras to MP3 players to phones, but they haven't had a really market leading product since what, the discman? How many people in high school these days would even know what one is?
So there's your answer: when an innovating company's best minds are in legal, they cease to be an innovating company.
Oh, so you do buy your music? Because back when you first started attacking me, it was because I dared to suggest that those too poor to buy music shouldn't be spending money on a phone. So you're not in that set of people. You're just moving the goalposts and inventing some fictional minority of people to "disprove" my argument. Find me a substantial number of people who are:
A) Too poor to afford to buy music B) Own a smart phone C) Use that smart phone to pirate music, because there's no other way for them to obtain it
Unless that group of people forms a significant portion of pirates, my point stands, and you're just blowing smoke.
"Should not" because it's a poor decision. Just like you should not stand in traffic. No skin off my back if you do, but it's a dumb idea. Smart phones are expensive. Downloading a song from Amazon is cheap. If you can't afford an 80 cent song, then you sure as hell shouldn't be paying the monthly fees for data service to your phone.
And stop pretending this is about backing up legally owned media. The topic at hand has literally nothing to do with that.
I'm referring to American football. It's probably the most strategic sport there is, as should be clear to anyone who really understands it. Association football (aka soccer) may be another story, I honestly know next to nothing about it.
Because with Android, if an app gets pulled from the market, you can just download from the web and install it anyway.
For example, there used to be a Netflix app that let you stream video on your phone. They pulled it from the market for all but a few phones, because the copyright holders want them to add more DRM or something. I just downloaded the old copy from Megaupload, clicked OK on the little warning message that the app wasn't coming from a trusted source, and now I can watch Netflix as much as I want.
Look, I know TV sitcoms told you growing up that smart people and athletic people are mutually exclusive groups that must always hate each other. But it's a lie. It is entirely possible to be smart and enjoy sports. In fact, with the more strategic sports (football and baseball, for example) you need to be smart to really understand what's going on. You aren't really burnishing your geek cred by suggesting that all sports are boring. You're just making yourself seem close-minded.
It's not like you need to be at an event to report on it. They would need to confiscate phones from everyone who owns a TV or radio. Not to mention a lot of news sites now have play-by-play reporting updated every fifteen seconds or so.
There is another reason to lock people up -- to dissuade others from following in their footsteps. If you set the precedent that something as mild as Asperger's syndrome is an excuse to get away with crimes, then it will only serve to add to the feeling of invulnerability that leads these Anonymous jackasses to hurt people.
The only time that a mental issue can be a good reason not to punish someone is if that mental issue made it impossible for them to understand what they were doing.
Don't be stupid. Machines don't think. They won't rise up. Ever. That's just scifi silliness, akin to time travel and teleportation. What you should be worried about is how people will use this. People can be a lot more sinister than some fictional robot overlord. This has obvious implications in slave labor and population control. Just install some circuitry in convicted felons to keep them nice and controlled in prison, and a remote kill switch switch should do wonders for recidivism. And at that point, why not just start installing them in everyone?
Someone for whom physical media is prohibitively expensive does not, or at least should not, own a smart phone. Especially if they're using that phone to pirate things they could have bought with the cost of the phone. That's like saying you can't afford groceries, so you're gonna buy a gun and rob a store (though obviously piracy is non-violent and thus not on the same level).
And by the way, before you go accusing "them" of using Orwellian terms, what exactly do you think "imaginary property" is?
Players are angry that CCP has blatantly lied about their intentions and have responded to these customers concerns by basically telling us they know what we want better than we do.
Players aren't a hivemind. Odds are the company that makes the game has a pretty good idea what the community as a whole wants, while a vocal minority is convinced that everyone else feels as they do.
Slashdot Mirror
The real question is whether the added speed is enough to justify moving away from the USB standard. Yes, it's twice as fast. But we're already at the point where a full-length high definition movie can be transferred in seconds. That is, if -- and this is a big if -- the storage media can keep up. For most people, there's simply no compelling reason to pay extra for Thunderbolt.
The summary says it's currently being used for RAID configurations. That's a sensible use. But I doubt it will make much headway with consumers.
Yep, not knowing about firewire's use in a niche market certainly makes someone a retard and a moron.
That's not how big O notation works. If something is O(n) it doesn't mean that it can be solved in n calculations. It means it can be solved in C*n+D calculations, where C and D are constants.
LOL, you're right, I did miss that. Well played.
He said punishments shouldn't be punitive. I specifically responded to him, and not the parent post (by hedwards), because of that key difference.
Hedwards stated (and I agree) that punishment need not be painful. I think most sensible people can agree to that. Nursie said that punishments need not be. That's an entirely different statement all together, and I would hope most people can see the absurdity of it.
Prison and other measures are seen as punishment, and people will never be happy with a penal system that is not punitive. it doesn't matter what's most cost effective for society, what has the best outcomes, what stops recidivism, any of that. Human nature says transgressors must be punished.
These are your words. There's a pretty strong implication that you are suggesting a non-punitive system should be considered. Such a system is farcical, and yet you criticize people for dismissing it out of hand.
Despite what you were told in kindergarten, some ideas really are bad. There aren't enough hours in the day to consider them all. If you have some evidence that a non-punitive system might work and should thus be considered, present it. If not, don't be offended when people laugh off the notion as absurd on the face of it.
I have also decided, absent supporting evidence, that society is better off with a spoken language than without one.
When you are suggesting we try a system which no society in the entire history of human civilization has attempted, much less succeeded with, then the onus is on you to provide the supporting evidence. So please, give us your evidence that society could function with a justice system that, in your own words, "is not punitive".
Or you could keep being smug that because your idea is fresh and radical, it must be good.
First, name for me a country with an "all-expense-paid resort". Whoops, there isn't one! Because it doesn't work. Every single society throughout all of human history punishes criminals. To varying extents, yes, but always with a punishment.
So go ahead, name me a successful society that, in the original words, "is not punitive". I'm waiting.
Moronic. If punishment isn't something to be feared, then people have no reason not to commit a crime. If I could steal a car and be "punished" by spending a few months at an all-expense-paid resort, I would do that in a heart-beat. I don't even want the car, I just want the paid vacation.
Punishment doesn't exist to "fix" transgressors. It exists to discourage more people from transgressing.
Judge: "What's something of value to you?"
Defendant: "I plead the fifth!"
Judge: "What are you talking about? This is a bail hearing!"
Defendant: "I refuse to answer!"
Judge: "Fine. Bail is set at $1000. Next case."
So your response to flooding is to rebuild in the desert?
If he did anything about the TSA, he'd be labelled "soft on terror" and booted out of office. Blame the American people. Democracy means we get the government we deserve.
Playstation is a good one, but still old. The PS2 & 3 are iterative not innovative. The Wii or Kinect are examples of innovation.
Well, one glance at Sony should answer that question... when was the last time they did something innovative? They make a bunch of second-tier me-too products, from TVs to cameras to MP3 players to phones, but they haven't had a really market leading product since what, the discman? How many people in high school these days would even know what one is?
So there's your answer: when an innovating company's best minds are in legal, they cease to be an innovating company.
Oh, so you do buy your music? Because back when you first started attacking me, it was because I dared to suggest that those too poor to buy music shouldn't be spending money on a phone. So you're not in that set of people. You're just moving the goalposts and inventing some fictional minority of people to "disprove" my argument. Find me a substantial number of people who are:
A) Too poor to afford to buy music
B) Own a smart phone
C) Use that smart phone to pirate music, because there's no other way for them to obtain it
Unless that group of people forms a significant portion of pirates, my point stands, and you're just blowing smoke.
The only reason geeks are able to trade their time for as much money as they do, is because IP laws make that time so valuable.
"Should not" because it's a poor decision. Just like you should not stand in traffic. No skin off my back if you do, but it's a dumb idea. Smart phones are expensive. Downloading a song from Amazon is cheap. If you can't afford an 80 cent song, then you sure as hell shouldn't be paying the monthly fees for data service to your phone.
And stop pretending this is about backing up legally owned media. The topic at hand has literally nothing to do with that.
I'm referring to American football. It's probably the most strategic sport there is, as should be clear to anyone who really understands it. Association football (aka soccer) may be another story, I honestly know next to nothing about it.
Because with Android, if an app gets pulled from the market, you can just download from the web and install it anyway.
For example, there used to be a Netflix app that let you stream video on your phone. They pulled it from the market for all but a few phones, because the copyright holders want them to add more DRM or something. I just downloaded the old copy from Megaupload, clicked OK on the little warning message that the app wasn't coming from a trusted source, and now I can watch Netflix as much as I want.
Look, I know TV sitcoms told you growing up that smart people and athletic people are mutually exclusive groups that must always hate each other. But it's a lie. It is entirely possible to be smart and enjoy sports. In fact, with the more strategic sports (football and baseball, for example) you need to be smart to really understand what's going on. You aren't really burnishing your geek cred by suggesting that all sports are boring. You're just making yourself seem close-minded.
It's not like you need to be at an event to report on it. They would need to confiscate phones from everyone who owns a TV or radio. Not to mention a lot of news sites now have play-by-play reporting updated every fifteen seconds or so.
There is another reason to lock people up -- to dissuade others from following in their footsteps. If you set the precedent that something as mild as Asperger's syndrome is an excuse to get away with crimes, then it will only serve to add to the feeling of invulnerability that leads these Anonymous jackasses to hurt people.
The only time that a mental issue can be a good reason not to punish someone is if that mental issue made it impossible for them to understand what they were doing.
Don't be stupid. Machines don't think. They won't rise up. Ever. That's just scifi silliness, akin to time travel and teleportation. What you should be worried about is how people will use this. People can be a lot more sinister than some fictional robot overlord. This has obvious implications in slave labor and population control. Just install some circuitry in convicted felons to keep them nice and controlled in prison, and a remote kill switch switch should do wonders for recidivism. And at that point, why not just start installing them in everyone?
Someone for whom physical media is prohibitively expensive does not, or at least should not, own a smart phone. Especially if they're using that phone to pirate things they could have bought with the cost of the phone. That's like saying you can't afford groceries, so you're gonna buy a gun and rob a store (though obviously piracy is non-violent and thus not on the same level).
And by the way, before you go accusing "them" of using Orwellian terms, what exactly do you think "imaginary property" is?
Players are angry that CCP has blatantly lied about their intentions and have responded to these customers concerns by basically telling us they know what we want better than we do.
Players aren't a hivemind. Odds are the company that makes the game has a pretty good idea what the community as a whole wants, while a vocal minority is convinced that everyone else feels as they do.