I always had a computer growing up (days when I thought DOS was amazing flash into my mind), and the only limitation was fighting over it for time with my father, who needed it for work, and my two older sisters. My sisters ended up not really using it too much--once the childhood games were over, they pretty much gave up on it. And my father started to not really use it much, either. So, I was the only one really using it.
Without any monitoring, I learned enough on the computer that I was able to apply to what I was learning in school after the fact--for example, programming translated to math very well, as makes any sense, and I started programming at 8. I ended up feeling ahead of everyone (according to the tests, I always was, much to the dismay of teachers that held me back). Though, in high school, I got at least one or two of every letter grade, mostly thanks to never doing my homework but still passing every reasonable test with an A. Foreign languages gave me an F in there, but that is unrelated (there were extraneous problems).
Nonetheless, I'm somehow making more money then several friends of the same age group who scored over a 4.0 GPA in high school (could talk of college, which I'm seeing friends getting out of now, but I've only taken a couple of classes so far...). Really, are you going to try to tell me that the computer was bad for me? I don't buy it, any more.
Though this all boils down to that I'm looking at a psychology perspective on this, and the statistics and what anyone is actually going to even attempt to use are the sociology perspective of this. That's probably why I'm moving towards the psychology field these days...
Ok. That's it. I need to find some of this "No Name (formerly known as Cocaine)". 8.4oz has 280mg of caffeine. I'm getting jittery just thinking about it!... oh wait, that might be the 16oz Rockstar I just finished (only 160mg?!). Nonetheless. Damn. 2 of those would probably do something pretty significant to me. And drinking 3 Rockstars plus a few cups of coffee every day is hurting my budget. All the reasons to find this "No Name (formerly known as Cocaine)" energy drink.
But nothing from Apple is so fragmented! Why can't everyone just use Apple, so it's easy for everyone? Screw you if you want to do something that Furor Jobs doesn't think you should be doing with your computer or device! And if you're not willing to upgrade every one to two years, then what's you're problem? Not made of money? Well, you deserve to be behind everyone else, then! I don't care if it's your fault for not having the money!
Slashdot works amazingly well on the Droid's browser. I've used it a couple of times, when I was bored at work. Not that it means anything for any other particular dislay or your overall point...
While this is more for gamers (and other more GPU intensive tasks; if GPGPU use keeps increasing--if it is increasing?--it could become more of a factor for more people), AMD had hinted at the ability to use the integrated GPU in the CPU alongside a dedicated graphics card, using whatever the hell they call that (I know nVidia is SLI, only because I just peaked at the box for my current card). So, it's something power users could actually be quite happy to get their hands on, if it works well. And as for non-power users, we can get this and not worry about graphics cards on the mobo or dedicated. Sounds like a good deal to me. And that beats anything Intel has to offer with this same idea (not that Intel doesn't win in other areas).
They seem to be doing pretty decent with Android on the level of getting it working before pushing out. And Chrome OS doesn't appear to be coming with some kind of great speed at this point, so I wouldn't be surprised if they're polishing it before pushing it. Just sayin'...
The problem is, most people pretty much think of the iPad as exactly what it *is*: a much bigger and bit more powerful iPhone. Even most people I know that have one think of it as exactly that, and the only reason some of them got it alongside their iPhone is because they think it's cool. Unless iPhone sales keep selling 10 times faster with every revision, I wouldn't be too worried about the iPad selling 10 times faster on the second one. Not to say that there's no reason to worry about a company that has just about mastered creating fads joining your market...
I've noticed some IDEs are annoyingly more CPU hogging than a lot of other applications I run. Code::Blocks, for example, seems to start eating up CPU usage after being kept open with not even a very large amount of files open. It gets worse with more files open, but I've seen it happen with relatively small projects. I've seen the same with other IDEs, also--I've just been using Code::Blocks with one project I've got going lately, so it's most fresh in my mind. I'm not quite sure what it's doing, but some of them seem to like eating up CPU even when the window is off on another virtual desktop. That seems to affect me more on Linux, though. On Windows, I usually close what I'm not using, because it drives me nuts having so many windows open with only one desktop area to work with. As such, I'm not sure how the comparison goes...
What the hell is all of this fuss about paying their medical bills? If they have their own insurance (apparently, you'd be surprised how many smokers do--working in the hospital, I've learned smoking really doesn't define this one way or the other), you're not paying anything--they're paying it themselves. And if you want to talk about the ones that don't and having to pick up their bill, you also need to look at the homeless, jobless, illegal immigrants, etc, who overall, you pay for much more than just smokers. And it's been that way for a long while--before Obama even ran for president. If you want to bitch about paying people's medical bills, smokers really aren't that high up on the list compared to the ones you're paying for much more frequently.
I don't know. I guess they'd have to show me something that it actually becomes a significant improvement without a better solution already floating out there somewhere for it. In this thing, I can imagine WebGL would just be the better alternative (and more likely to actually be fast across several browsers, not that MS gives a shit--they probably want to avoid anyone thinking like that at all, knowing MS). At the current state, however, I can't think of any site that would be fast enough to actually be noticeably faster (most are already fast enough that I'm not going to notice much--if any--improvement, with Chrome, and the rest are probably still going to load like shit on here, just because their so horribly designed), and that wouldn't be more logical to just use another standard. Sure you can hack all kinds of funky things with Javascript, HTML, and CSS, but some times adding in another standard on top of that just makes more sense--just like programming anywhere else goes. I used 3D more as an example at that idea (I'll admit, it's probably the best idea I can come up with without thinking much).
I'd like to see a point where it seriously makes that much sense to have the basics rendered with the help of the GPU, though. In this case, having a bunch of images spin and float around in 3D space, it would make a hell of a lot more sense to use a 3D standard like WebGL than something that has always been used primarily for 2D only. Maybe I'm not understanding, either...
And in several of those cases and really, probably the images test MS made here (it spins and moves around in a 3D way...), WebGL would be the smart thing to use, and would probably give you the better framerates that you're going to find. I guess that goes against their lock everyone in to DirectX strategy, though...
I meant 36 images. Dammit. And also, testing it over and over, I can't seem to reproduce much of any results reliably, having nothing but Chrome, Amarok, and a few random utility apps open...
I agree on most things when it comes to Chrome being "bitchin' fast", but on this image thing, it doesn't even seem to display it properly (all of the images except the IE one are cut in half for a while; this could be related to my internet connection being really spotty and slow the last few days and right now), and drops to 3FPS. This is chrome on Linux. Funny thing is, I started at around 90% CPU usage on both cores before loading the page, closed stuff to get it closer to 15% CPU usage on each, and I didn't see a difference at all. I don't care enough at the moment to look at the code there, and I'm not sure how Chrome handles it. However, it runs against what I would expect...
And another thing... that test I just explained was 32 images. Bumped it up to 256 and somehow got fluctuating between 1-6FPS (most consistently at 4FPS), whereas the 32 images just stuck at 3FPS... whatever.
While I guess that it's easy to take what I'm saying into theological means, that's not really exactly what I'm talking about. However, the world we interact with is obviously 3D. There's no evidence of the fourth dimension in our world, so of course, to us, it does not exist. But with a little imagination, you can ask what if? What if there's an entirely other dimension that the things we know simply don't interact with. For example, a black hole sucks you "up" in the fourth dimension. In our 3D world, we don't know what happens. Of course. And I'm not saying there's any science to back that one up. But it's a fun idea to play around with.
The problem with this, is that the fourth dimension is completely impossible to observe realistically through eyes and bodies that only operate on three dimensions. The fourth dimension is only impossible to our perception. How can we test things that we can't perceive? We wouldn't know if it worked, even if it did. To me, the fourth dimension goes beyond my care for science, and into my care for just interesting intellectual imagination.
But what has MS Research given us compared to some of the things Google has gotten us? Overall, I'm very biased. I never liked Windows. I always thought it was counter-intuitive. Linux, on the other hand, just seems very logical and easy, to me. And Google has therefor given me more than I think some Windows users see.
Nonetheless, now my phone runs Google, too. My browser is now Google--it was Firefox long before that; I think the last time I used IE as my main browser was IE6, for a very short time before I switched over to Linux. My search engine is Google--because Google just has too many things that I haven't even bothered to see if Bing has, which I'm very used to on Google. My e-mail is Google. Many things that I use on a day to day basis have many contributions from Google('s Summer of Code and such).
There's five--the fifth being more than one, really--reasons for me to think Google has done more for me than MS. Most of those are just negatives from MS. I don't hate MS. But I don't like (most of) their work as much as I like Google's work and several others' work, and I don't really like their tactics and style of business. And why would I want to support a company putting all of this money into research and not showing me as much as several others--many of whom do it for free.
Google wave. The copy and paste could be seen as those random copy and paste, but if that is all that you do, then it gets suspicious that you may be trying to hide it, unless it's all copy and pasted in obvious fashion from the internet or whatever. Just an idea...
Holy shit... I laughed at "Herpes without capes" and almost started thinking the whole video was a joke. And I had to go watch it again to figure out what it did say...
Slashdot Mirror
money than several friends of
I know, I know...
But really, what about people like myself?
I always had a computer growing up (days when I thought DOS was amazing flash into my mind), and the only limitation was fighting over it for time with my father, who needed it for work, and my two older sisters. My sisters ended up not really using it too much--once the childhood games were over, they pretty much gave up on it. And my father started to not really use it much, either. So, I was the only one really using it.
Without any monitoring, I learned enough on the computer that I was able to apply to what I was learning in school after the fact--for example, programming translated to math very well, as makes any sense, and I started programming at 8. I ended up feeling ahead of everyone (according to the tests, I always was, much to the dismay of teachers that held me back). Though, in high school, I got at least one or two of every letter grade, mostly thanks to never doing my homework but still passing every reasonable test with an A. Foreign languages gave me an F in there, but that is unrelated (there were extraneous problems).
Nonetheless, I'm somehow making more money then several friends of the same age group who scored over a 4.0 GPA in high school (could talk of college, which I'm seeing friends getting out of now, but I've only taken a couple of classes so far...). Really, are you going to try to tell me that the computer was bad for me? I don't buy it, any more.
Though this all boils down to that I'm looking at a psychology perspective on this, and the statistics and what anyone is actually going to even attempt to use are the sociology perspective of this. That's probably why I'm moving towards the psychology field these days...
Ok. That's it. I need to find some of this "No Name (formerly known as Cocaine)". 8.4oz has 280mg of caffeine. I'm getting jittery just thinking about it! ... oh wait, that might be the 16oz Rockstar I just finished (only 160mg?!). Nonetheless. Damn. 2 of those would probably do something pretty significant to me. And drinking 3 Rockstars plus a few cups of coffee every day is hurting my budget. All the reasons to find this "No Name (formerly known as Cocaine)" energy drink.
But nothing from Apple is so fragmented! Why can't everyone just use Apple, so it's easy for everyone? Screw you if you want to do something that Furor Jobs doesn't think you should be doing with your computer or device! And if you're not willing to upgrade every one to two years, then what's you're problem? Not made of money? Well, you deserve to be behind everyone else, then! I don't care if it's your fault for not having the money!
God, my karma is going to hell for this...
Slashdot works amazingly well on the Droid's browser. I've used it a couple of times, when I was bored at work. Not that it means anything for any other particular dislay or your overall point...
While this is more for gamers (and other more GPU intensive tasks; if GPGPU use keeps increasing--if it is increasing?--it could become more of a factor for more people), AMD had hinted at the ability to use the integrated GPU in the CPU alongside a dedicated graphics card, using whatever the hell they call that (I know nVidia is SLI, only because I just peaked at the box for my current card). So, it's something power users could actually be quite happy to get their hands on, if it works well. And as for non-power users, we can get this and not worry about graphics cards on the mobo or dedicated. Sounds like a good deal to me. And that beats anything Intel has to offer with this same idea (not that Intel doesn't win in other areas).
They seem to be doing pretty decent with Android on the level of getting it working before pushing out. And Chrome OS doesn't appear to be coming with some kind of great speed at this point, so I wouldn't be surprised if they're polishing it before pushing it. Just sayin'...
Here goes my karma...
The problem is, most people pretty much think of the iPad as exactly what it *is*: a much bigger and bit more powerful iPhone. Even most people I know that have one think of it as exactly that, and the only reason some of them got it alongside their iPhone is because they think it's cool. Unless iPhone sales keep selling 10 times faster with every revision, I wouldn't be too worried about the iPad selling 10 times faster on the second one. Not to say that there's no reason to worry about a company that has just about mastered creating fads joining your market...
I've noticed some IDEs are annoyingly more CPU hogging than a lot of other applications I run. Code::Blocks, for example, seems to start eating up CPU usage after being kept open with not even a very large amount of files open. It gets worse with more files open, but I've seen it happen with relatively small projects. I've seen the same with other IDEs, also--I've just been using Code::Blocks with one project I've got going lately, so it's most fresh in my mind. I'm not quite sure what it's doing, but some of them seem to like eating up CPU even when the window is off on another virtual desktop. That seems to affect me more on Linux, though. On Windows, I usually close what I'm not using, because it drives me nuts having so many windows open with only one desktop area to work with. As such, I'm not sure how the comparison goes...
What the hell is all of this fuss about paying their medical bills? If they have their own insurance (apparently, you'd be surprised how many smokers do--working in the hospital, I've learned smoking really doesn't define this one way or the other), you're not paying anything--they're paying it themselves. And if you want to talk about the ones that don't and having to pick up their bill, you also need to look at the homeless, jobless, illegal immigrants, etc, who overall, you pay for much more than just smokers. And it's been that way for a long while--before Obama even ran for president. If you want to bitch about paying people's medical bills, smokers really aren't that high up on the list compared to the ones you're paying for much more frequently.
Welcome to Slashdot!
I don't know. I guess they'd have to show me something that it actually becomes a significant improvement without a better solution already floating out there somewhere for it. In this thing, I can imagine WebGL would just be the better alternative (and more likely to actually be fast across several browsers, not that MS gives a shit--they probably want to avoid anyone thinking like that at all, knowing MS). At the current state, however, I can't think of any site that would be fast enough to actually be noticeably faster (most are already fast enough that I'm not going to notice much--if any--improvement, with Chrome, and the rest are probably still going to load like shit on here, just because their so horribly designed), and that wouldn't be more logical to just use another standard. Sure you can hack all kinds of funky things with Javascript, HTML, and CSS, but some times adding in another standard on top of that just makes more sense--just like programming anywhere else goes. I used 3D more as an example at that idea (I'll admit, it's probably the best idea I can come up with without thinking much).
I'd like to see a point where it seriously makes that much sense to have the basics rendered with the help of the GPU, though. In this case, having a bunch of images spin and float around in 3D space, it would make a hell of a lot more sense to use a 3D standard like WebGL than something that has always been used primarily for 2D only. Maybe I'm not understanding, either...
And in several of those cases and really, probably the images test MS made here (it spins and moves around in a 3D way...), WebGL would be the smart thing to use, and would probably give you the better framerates that you're going to find. I guess that goes against their lock everyone in to DirectX strategy, though...
I meant 36 images. Dammit. And also, testing it over and over, I can't seem to reproduce much of any results reliably, having nothing but Chrome, Amarok, and a few random utility apps open...
I agree on most things when it comes to Chrome being "bitchin' fast", but on this image thing, it doesn't even seem to display it properly (all of the images except the IE one are cut in half for a while; this could be related to my internet connection being really spotty and slow the last few days and right now), and drops to 3FPS. This is chrome on Linux. Funny thing is, I started at around 90% CPU usage on both cores before loading the page, closed stuff to get it closer to 15% CPU usage on each, and I didn't see a difference at all. I don't care enough at the moment to look at the code there, and I'm not sure how Chrome handles it. However, it runs against what I would expect...
And another thing... that test I just explained was 32 images. Bumped it up to 256 and somehow got fluctuating between 1-6FPS (most consistently at 4FPS), whereas the 32 images just stuck at 3FPS... whatever.
While I guess that it's easy to take what I'm saying into theological means, that's not really exactly what I'm talking about. However, the world we interact with is obviously 3D. There's no evidence of the fourth dimension in our world, so of course, to us, it does not exist. But with a little imagination, you can ask what if? What if there's an entirely other dimension that the things we know simply don't interact with. For example, a black hole sucks you "up" in the fourth dimension. In our 3D world, we don't know what happens. Of course. And I'm not saying there's any science to back that one up. But it's a fun idea to play around with.
Goddammit. I knew I should have just signed up years ago, instead of just creeping for years...
The problem with this, is that the fourth dimension is completely impossible to observe realistically through eyes and bodies that only operate on three dimensions. The fourth dimension is only impossible to our perception. How can we test things that we can't perceive? We wouldn't know if it worked, even if it did. To me, the fourth dimension goes beyond my care for science, and into my care for just interesting intellectual imagination.
But what has MS Research given us compared to some of the things Google has gotten us? Overall, I'm very biased. I never liked Windows. I always thought it was counter-intuitive. Linux, on the other hand, just seems very logical and easy, to me. And Google has therefor given me more than I think some Windows users see.
Nonetheless, now my phone runs Google, too. My browser is now Google--it was Firefox long before that; I think the last time I used IE as my main browser was IE6, for a very short time before I switched over to Linux. My search engine is Google--because Google just has too many things that I haven't even bothered to see if Bing has, which I'm very used to on Google. My e-mail is Google. Many things that I use on a day to day basis have many contributions from Google('s Summer of Code and such).
There's five--the fifth being more than one, really--reasons for me to think Google has done more for me than MS. Most of those are just negatives from MS. I don't hate MS. But I don't like (most of) their work as much as I like Google's work and several others' work, and I don't really like their tactics and style of business. And why would I want to support a company putting all of this money into research and not showing me as much as several others--many of whom do it for free.
Google wave. The copy and paste could be seen as those random copy and paste, but if that is all that you do, then it gets suspicious that you may be trying to hide it, unless it's all copy and pasted in obvious fashion from the internet or whatever. Just an idea...
Holy shit... I laughed at "Herpes without capes" and almost started thinking the whole video was a joke. And I had to go watch it again to figure out what it did say...
Well, his time is a little off, because the guy's first attempt didn't register on his iphone...
Check your internet conne*NO CARRIER*
Well, you could say, "The 14th day of the 3rd month of the year 2010." Which would translate to 14-3-2010. Just sayin'...