The engine popping sound is audible when you're present for a launch, that microphone was actually pretty good quality. That's generally what it sounded like when I saw a shuttle go up.
If their bubbles can manipulate physical objects according to a program then its a robot.
The bubble doesn't manipulate anything, the bubble doesn't execute software or follow a program. It's a bubble. It's a space filled with some gas suspended inside a liquid. The laser heats the liquid, the liquid moves, and the bubble moves with the liquid. If I throw a ball, and that ball hits something, say a "physical object", and it "manipulates" that object, is the ball now a robot?
I haven't watched the video yet, but when I was present for one of the shuttle launches a few years ago there was a point when it was pretty high when the sound definitely started "popping". It was fairly high by that point, so the sound was traveling quite a distance and was mostly the low frequencies by the time it got to us, but the popping was clearly noticeable.
Now who is the most frequent visitor to a small or obscure site? The webmaster! Hence, most of the StatCounter stats are from the webmaster demography.
That seems like a pretty major jump to make without any evidence. The only time I visit a site I've built is when someone reports a problem. The site owner can update their own content, they don't need me with my fancy Opera to do that.
Am I the only web developer that noticed that Internet Exploder started getting passably decent as Firefox & Chrome were breathing down their necks?
I was thinking about something like that earlier. I seem to remember Microsoft making a claim around 2004 that they were stopping development on IE, that IE6 would be the last version with patches as needed (I don't have a source for that though). Then Firefox 1.0 came out in November of 2004, then Microsoft announced IE7 in Feb 05. I was thinking about the state we're in today, where we have 3 browsers competing for the top spot (sadly, my beloved Opera is still where it always has been), and realizing that IE9 and now IE10 are like day and night compared to previous versions. It made me think about what would have happened if development really did stop at IE6, and I involuntarily shuddered. IE9 can hold its own against any of the others on top, and I expect good results with IE10 also. I'm not sure exactly when it happened, but at some point a few years ago the IE team redefined their goals to be much closer to what they should have been all along.
It doesn't matter if someone is right about everything. What matters is that they try to educate themselves to figure out what's right. I think this quote is relevant, and I agree with it:
Massie recalls Sununu saying, "We need more engineers and fewer lawyers" in politics. As Massie explains, "Lawyers are taught to take a position, whether it's right or wrong ideologically, and defend it-to go collect facts to support it. Whereas engineers are taught the inverse of that, they're taught to collect facts and then come up with an answer based on the facts. He said, 'That's the kind of thought process we need more of in government.' On the stump, that's what I'm trying to convey, that we need more problem solvers in Washington, DC."
The move was likely a financial one, as he owns an estimated 4 percent of Facebook and stands to make $4 billion when the company goes public.... Saverin’s move, which they dub a “scheme” that would “help him duck up to $67 million in taxes.”
You're telling me he only has to pay 1.6% on $4 billion? Goddamn the rich have it good.
As of the time I'm writing this, they have results listed by average customer rating and they list 2 HTC phones, 2 iPhones, and the N900 with averages of 5.
Besides, by your logic, since WA also powers Siri then they should be biased towards Apple, so why did it recommend a competing product?
Nowadays the recommended method of coding is to use variable names and function names that are self-descriptive. Given that, it seems to me that the code is pretty much the natural way anyone might write it.
It seems like someone would copy something like this because it's so simple enough that you would end up writing the same thing, so instead of spending the minute to do that you might as well just copy it and move on. Sort of like how Javascript lacks an Array.indexOf method to find a certain item in the array. I could spend the minute or two to write and test that loop myself, or I could spend 30 seconds looking it up on Google and using what I find there. Either way it's going to be the same thing, a loop that runs through the array looking for the item. The rangeCheck function is just a pair of if statements that compare one number with 2 others. As G.W. Bush would say, this isn't rocket surgery.
Apple loses money if people ONLY buy the OS, and never hardware. It seems pretty clear.
No, it doesn't seem very clear. A sale is a sale. They can either sell the OS alone, or sell nothing. In one instance they make money, and in the other they don't. If you're assuming that any OS-only sale could be converted to an OS+hardware sale, then I would argue that's not true (demonstrably true, in this case). In this case their option is to either sell only the OS (and make money), or sell nothing (and not make anything). Therefore, they aren't losing money by selling copies of the OS that would otherwise be trashed when they go unsold by the time the next version comes out. Unsold stock isn't worth anything if you trash it, might as well sell that to whoever is willing to buy it. You're still going to have plenty of customers buying hardware, might as well also sell out your software stock to anyone willing to pay for it.
By going against the license they were "taking" the expected hardware revenue that would go with a first OS X sale.
So you're saying that Apple lost money because these people bought their OS, as opposed to not buying it? It was never an option for Psystar to just resell the same machines that Apple is selling, so they aren't going to buy Macs and then resell them. Those hardware sales never existed in the first place. They were buying the software and reselling that, and you're saying that Apple lost money on those software sales that they otherwise wouldn't have had? It doesn't cost Apple a lot to manufacture more OSX CDs or DVDs once they have the master, so why does it make sense that Apple is losing money by selling software?
...the use of special glasses that fire infrared signals into the eye and onto an implanted array of silicon photodiodes. The system, tested in rats...
I won't be impressed until they show us pictures of rats wearing tiny eyeglasses.
I guess that depends how you define "browser". If the definition includes the engine, and you're not permitted to choose which engine your browser uses, then that lack of choice may be a legal problem.
I would have exactly zero problems with Microsoft doing something like this (their biggest problem: getting people to actually install the update).
When I read the headline and started the summary my reaction was along the lines of "whaaaaaat!". Then I saw that they were only disabling "older" versions of Flash, not Flash entirely, and thought about what it would be like for the end user. They visit a website that uses Flash, they see a message that Flash is not enabled or installed with a link to install it, they go through the process, et voila, you've gotten your users to update to the latest Flash player.
I have zero issues with an OS update automatically disabling old vulnerable software versions (especially Java and Acrobat reader), provided there is a way for the user to re-enable them if there's some reason that they require a specific old version.
I also generally hate every stance that Apple takes regarding control over their products, but this decision does make sense if they're trying to protect their users who wouldn't otherwise protect themselves. Microsoft should do the same.
RICO calls for treble damages. I would have treble awards of costs and legal fees. If a patent holder sues another entity for patent violation and that suit fails, the plaintiff who brought the suit should pay treble damages to the defendant.
I think that something far more bassic would work.
there really are more important things going on this world than the fucking framerate on your fps, you fat spoiled clueless fucks
And that's exactly why we have BBC, CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, Al-Jazeera, Reuters, AP, etc etc etc. We have Slashdot to talk about things like videogames, you fat spoiled clueless fuck.
Thanks for helping to prove my point to the parent. A computer science degree and 20 years of experience isn't enough of a qualification to help teach someone how to secure their wireless router, you also need to be an insufferable douche. Not everyone can do it like you can. Those "regular people" out there don't have a chance.
Slashdot Mirror
The engine popping sound is audible when you're present for a launch, that microphone was actually pretty good quality. That's generally what it sounded like when I saw a shuttle go up.
If it had been left to the private sector, we'd wouldn't have got to the moon, mars, the heliosheath.
How come? Because private individuals aren't explorers?
If their bubbles can manipulate physical objects according to a program then its a robot.
The bubble doesn't manipulate anything, the bubble doesn't execute software or follow a program. It's a bubble. It's a space filled with some gas suspended inside a liquid. The laser heats the liquid, the liquid moves, and the bubble moves with the liquid. If I throw a ball, and that ball hits something, say a "physical object", and it "manipulates" that object, is the ball now a robot?
I haven't watched the video yet, but when I was present for one of the shuttle launches a few years ago there was a point when it was pretty high when the sound definitely started "popping". It was fairly high by that point, so the sound was traveling quite a distance and was mostly the low frequencies by the time it got to us, but the popping was clearly noticeable.
I'm wondering where the point is when a bubble all of a sudden becomes a robot.
Now who is the most frequent visitor to a small or obscure site? The webmaster!
Hence, most of the StatCounter stats are from the webmaster demography.
That seems like a pretty major jump to make without any evidence. The only time I visit a site I've built is when someone reports a problem. The site owner can update their own content, they don't need me with my fancy Opera to do that.
Am I the only web developer that noticed that Internet Exploder started getting passably decent as Firefox & Chrome were breathing down their necks?
I was thinking about something like that earlier. I seem to remember Microsoft making a claim around 2004 that they were stopping development on IE, that IE6 would be the last version with patches as needed (I don't have a source for that though). Then Firefox 1.0 came out in November of 2004, then Microsoft announced IE7 in Feb 05. I was thinking about the state we're in today, where we have 3 browsers competing for the top spot (sadly, my beloved Opera is still where it always has been), and realizing that IE9 and now IE10 are like day and night compared to previous versions. It made me think about what would have happened if development really did stop at IE6, and I involuntarily shuddered. IE9 can hold its own against any of the others on top, and I expect good results with IE10 also. I'm not sure exactly when it happened, but at some point a few years ago the IE team redefined their goals to be much closer to what they should have been all along.
In 75 years, when those solar panels, wells, and generators finally pay for themselves, he'll be living the dream!
Yeah, everything for the mighty buck, right? That's what it's all about - money. I'm glad you understand that.
I'm an Engineer. I've thought about getting into politics myself, but there's such a huge mess to clean up I don't even know where I could begin.
Sounds like an engineering problem.
The Tea Party was created by Republican strategist Dick Armey
... who has one of the greatest names of our era.
It doesn't matter if someone is right about everything. What matters is that they try to educate themselves to figure out what's right. I think this quote is relevant, and I agree with it:
Massie recalls Sununu saying, "We need more engineers and fewer lawyers" in politics. As Massie explains, "Lawyers are taught to take a position, whether it's right or wrong ideologically, and defend it-to go collect facts to support it. Whereas engineers are taught the inverse of that, they're taught to collect facts and then come up with an answer based on the facts. He said, 'That's the kind of thought process we need more of in government.' On the stump, that's what I'm trying to convey, that we need more problem solvers in Washington, DC."
The move was likely a financial one, as he owns an estimated 4 percent of Facebook and stands to make $4 billion when the company goes public. ...
Saverin’s move, which they dub a “scheme” that would “help him duck up to $67 million in taxes.”
You're telling me he only has to pay 1.6% on $4 billion? Goddamn the rich have it good.
wolfram alpha powers Bing a microsoft product and rates a windows phone as the best in the world.
So what? It powers Bing, it is not powered by Bing. Why would the WA results be biased at all? Here is their results page:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=best+smartphone
As of the time I'm writing this, they have results listed by average customer rating and they list 2 HTC phones, 2 iPhones, and the N900 with averages of 5.
Besides, by your logic, since WA also powers Siri then they should be biased towards Apple, so why did it recommend a competing product?
Yes, I'm aware that it has been added to more recent versions of Javascript. Assume for a moment you wanted to support IE8 though.
Nowadays the recommended method of coding is to use variable names and function names that are self-descriptive. Given that, it seems to me that the code is pretty much the natural way anyone might write it.
It seems like someone would copy something like this because it's so simple enough that you would end up writing the same thing, so instead of spending the minute to do that you might as well just copy it and move on. Sort of like how Javascript lacks an Array.indexOf method to find a certain item in the array. I could spend the minute or two to write and test that loop myself, or I could spend 30 seconds looking it up on Google and using what I find there. Either way it's going to be the same thing, a loop that runs through the array looking for the item. The rangeCheck function is just a pair of if statements that compare one number with 2 others. As G.W. Bush would say, this isn't rocket surgery.
Apple loses money if people ONLY buy the OS, and never hardware. It seems pretty clear.
No, it doesn't seem very clear. A sale is a sale. They can either sell the OS alone, or sell nothing. In one instance they make money, and in the other they don't. If you're assuming that any OS-only sale could be converted to an OS+hardware sale, then I would argue that's not true (demonstrably true, in this case). In this case their option is to either sell only the OS (and make money), or sell nothing (and not make anything). Therefore, they aren't losing money by selling copies of the OS that would otherwise be trashed when they go unsold by the time the next version comes out. Unsold stock isn't worth anything if you trash it, might as well sell that to whoever is willing to buy it. You're still going to have plenty of customers buying hardware, might as well also sell out your software stock to anyone willing to pay for it.
courts don't rule via crap-o-meter, they rule by what the law says
"The law" and "the EULA" aren't really the same thing. I can write some pretty outlandish shit in a EULA and that doesn't make it a law.
By going against the license they were "taking" the expected hardware revenue that would go with a first OS X sale.
So you're saying that Apple lost money because these people bought their OS, as opposed to not buying it? It was never an option for Psystar to just resell the same machines that Apple is selling, so they aren't going to buy Macs and then resell them. Those hardware sales never existed in the first place. They were buying the software and reselling that, and you're saying that Apple lost money on those software sales that they otherwise wouldn't have had? It doesn't cost Apple a lot to manufacture more OSX CDs or DVDs once they have the master, so why does it make sense that Apple is losing money by selling software?
...the use of special glasses that fire infrared signals into the eye and onto an implanted array of silicon photodiodes. The system, tested in rats...
I won't be impressed until they show us pictures of rats wearing tiny eyeglasses.
I guess that depends how you define "browser". If the definition includes the engine, and you're not permitted to choose which engine your browser uses, then that lack of choice may be a legal problem.
I would have exactly zero problems with Microsoft doing something like this (their biggest problem: getting people to actually install the update).
When I read the headline and started the summary my reaction was along the lines of "whaaaaaat!". Then I saw that they were only disabling "older" versions of Flash, not Flash entirely, and thought about what it would be like for the end user. They visit a website that uses Flash, they see a message that Flash is not enabled or installed with a link to install it, they go through the process, et voila, you've gotten your users to update to the latest Flash player.
I have zero issues with an OS update automatically disabling old vulnerable software versions (especially Java and Acrobat reader), provided there is a way for the user to re-enable them if there's some reason that they require a specific old version.
I also generally hate every stance that Apple takes regarding control over their products, but this decision does make sense if they're trying to protect their users who wouldn't otherwise protect themselves. Microsoft should do the same.
I don't like your tone.
RICO calls for treble damages. I would have treble awards of costs and legal fees. If a patent holder sues another entity for patent violation and that suit fails, the plaintiff who brought the suit should pay treble damages to the defendant.
I think that something far more bassic would work.
there really are more important things going on this world than the fucking framerate on your fps, you fat spoiled clueless fucks
And that's exactly why we have BBC, CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, Al-Jazeera, Reuters, AP, etc etc etc. We have Slashdot to talk about things like videogames, you fat spoiled clueless fuck.
Thanks for helping to prove my point to the parent. A computer science degree and 20 years of experience isn't enough of a qualification to help teach someone how to secure their wireless router, you also need to be an insufferable douche. Not everyone can do it like you can. Those "regular people" out there don't have a chance.