...you can get a Mac Mini to do just about all that and more. I have mine hooked up to my TV doing most of what this does, as well as playing games, showing slideshows, and ripping and playing DVDs.
Yes, there are things like that. September is the most common birth month, because it's 9 months after XMas & new year's. But that's unrelated to the math behind the birthday paradox. Start reading.
It's getting bad. TBS, I think,* sometimes has sound along with the promos. And the History Channel always puts up their big thing in the corner and it'll cover up the name of whoever is talking. (You know, when they cut to a new speaker, it'll say "Joe Shmoe, UCLA History Professor" at the bottom.) I wonder if anyone who works there actually *watches* the channel.
* I forget which channel (see? the damn things aren't even effective!) since I have TiVo.
...still trying to parse that headline? Maybe a comma and the word "Only" could help? In which case... this is news? Pioneers rarely survive, let alone thrive. It takes someone outlandish to show that a new market exists somewhere, but they ususally aren't *that* great at business, so the giants swivel their heads and say "oh yeah, there *is* a market there" and attack with with economies of scale, experienced marketers, etc.
Science aside, the book sucked balls. I didn't like or care about any of the characters at all. In fact, I could barely tell them apart--it was mostly young and middle aged white male lawyers, right? Yawn.
Re:Another article you might find helpful
on
What Makes a Good UI?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
From Jef: "For example, which of the following takes less time? Heating water in a microwave for one minute and ten seconds or heating it for one minute and eleven seconds?
"From the standpoint of the microwave, one minute and ten seconds is the obviously correct answer. From the standpoint of the user of the microwave, one minute and eleven seconds is faster. Why? Because in the first case, the user must press the one key twice, then visually locate the zero key, move the finger into place over it, and press it once. In the second case, the user just presses the same key-the one key-three times. It typically takes more than one second to acquire the zero key. Hence, the water is heated faster when it is "cooked" longer."
I read this a few years ago and I've always disagreed with this for a couple reasons. First and foremost, I can punch in '1-1-0-start' just about as fast as I can punch in '1-1-1-start.' It certainly doesn't take one whole second longer. (Most people can comfortably enter a memorized 7-digit phone number in less than 2 seconds. Try it yourself.) So the argument is wrong to begin with. Furthermore, even if it were right, it would only be right in that one case--at 2:22, or 3:33, or 4:44, even the lamest 1-button-per-second microwave button poker would start to notice a net loss. So when used as a general rule, it fails again.
Secondly, most people have a natural understanding of 1 minute and ten seconds. It's what they want, so it takes almost no mental effort to plug in '1-1-0' when you're thinking "a minute ten." It would probably take most people longer to think "OK, I want to cook this for a minute and ten seconds, but is there a clever way I can save a bit of finger movement?"* Until you learn the trick and get into the habbit of using it, it won't save you much. I used microwaves for over a decade and always entered the exact time I wanted without much thought.
My wife got me into the habbit of rounding up to the next closest duplicate number--i.e., 33 seconds instead of 30. I admit I do use it, but mostly for yet another reason--because speed is not important. Rarely do I stand by the door waiting for the instant my food is ready. I press a couple buttons, start getting my milk or whatever else I'm having, hear the food beep, and take it out whenever I get around to it. So, ironically, when I use the Jef method of time-saving, it's when I am not looking to save time.
Thirdly, if you want to be really clever, a minute and ten seconds could be more simply expressed as 70 seconds. OMFG Jef that's one whole less digit!!!11 (Of course, that only works up to 99 seconds.)
* and that is, in fact, the whole point of why Jef used this example--to make the computer do the thinking, not the user. His point is good but his example is bad. But overall, there's lots of good info all over his site. His site and Joel's (joelonsoftware.com) are two of the best.
...by turning the computers themselves off. Turn off the Mac, turn off the PC, and I have a couple or three hours of solid cube-cleaning, paper-filing, list-making, etc. Of course, after about a half hour, it's off to the bathroom, then the water cooler, then wander around looking for people I haven't visited with in a while... eh, it's a start.:-)
Yeah, you're right. Singles didn't exist before August 1, 1981. The Beatles and Elvis never released 45s.
Please, take off your rose-colored glasses. The past, viewed from the present, is always a "golden age" and the present always sucks. (Except for when the recent past is "the low point of X" and the present is "the beginning of a new era of greatness.") There were countless "schlock rock" bands back then. Not everyone was the Rolling Stones and Greatful Dead. You remember them because they were good, not because they came from an era when everything was great. What, you think Starship and Hendrix were the only people who made albums in the 60s?
It is the default mode of history for the greatness of an era to be what everyone remembers. It is the flaw of amateur historians to think that the great stuff that lasts is representative of the era.
You think the present sucks because you are here to experience it all and you're hearing everything, the good and the bad. You think the past was great because you turn on the oldies station and all you hear is good music. There's a reason you only hear the same few hundred songs on the oldies station. Do you think the whole country only produced 1 song per week from 1954 to 1973?
"The idea of an album has become a conceptual structure. Each song tells part of a the story that an album represents."
Twelve songs on one disc do not an album make.
Furthermore, it's up to the listener. I have never in my life listened to "Operation: Mindcrime", "The Wall", or "Tommy" straight through. Good songs on each, but that's it for me.
Overall, most of the public does not care for "albums."* Most only care for "songs." I don't know anyone at all who's a real album-art-and-liner-notes kind of guy.
* and not just in the "I don't care so I imagine most of the public doesn't, either" sense. I've actaully been paying attention to this for close to 20 years. Remember when CD long-boxes were a comprimise for the album-art crowd? (OK, so they were mostly so retailers didn't have to buy new racks right away, but the idea of "album art" was a part of it.)
Summary: Fuck albums. There's too much pretension in the music biz anyway. Release what you want, call it what you want, but don't expect me to sit in a chair exactly between the speakers in a dark room and listen to the whole thing all the way through.
"Judges MUST start out a case totally unbiased. But they don't need to end up that way. In many cases, they should end up pretty negative towards one party. That's the basis for judgement. All dislike is not prejudice. Some is well founded."
Exactly. For those who still doubt, the word "prejudice" comes from (wait for it...) "pre" and "judge". If you make a JUDGEment before hearing the facts (PRE-fact, you might say), that's "prejudice." Get it?
(And when did Google start using answers.com? I like dictionary.com a lot more. Less info, loaded faster. No, I do *not* need translations into Dutch, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and Hebrew _every single time I search_.)
How does the UK system keep me from going broke when $GIANT_CORP sues me for no reason and I lose because, despite being right, I can't afford to mount a good defense against their team of lawyers? I get to pay for their lawyers in addition to my own fees, even though I did nothing wrong?* I think it should be more like "if you sue someone _and lose_, then you pay" kind of thing, with some kind of limit for david-and-goliath cases.
* don't know how it is in the UK, but here, being right does not guarantee a victory in court.
I obviously don't know the specifics of your job, but you can safely ignore the "tables are evil" guys most of the time. Try to avoid them for page layout, sure, but for tabular data, they are fine (hence the name.) Even the most vehement CSS addict will admit that, eventually. Since most of what I put up on a page comes out of a database, tables are a quick-n-easy, and good, and proper way to do things.
And this unsubstantiated claim (by an anonymous poster, no less) should be taken seriously because...?
Seriously, who is "we"? Would you please publish a URL? The whole point of reviews is so each and every user does *not* have to evaluate four different A/V scanners.
>>If Linux was on the desktop of everyone's grandmother, unpatched and unfirewalls, it would also be hacked in a jiffy.
>Do you have any idea how stupid this statement is? First of all, such a statement simply assumes that it is not possible to write correct software. That is beyond arrogance...
And it is beyond... I don't know what, common sense? to think that it's easy to write perfect software in one pass. Do you have any idea how hard it is to write perfect non-trivial software on the first try? (Hint: it's absofuckinglutely impossible.) There will *always* be flaws, and it's likely that some will be found by the black hats first.
I imagine you think a stock RH 4.2 box would be fine on the Internet, unpatched and unfirewalled for eternity. Or 5.2. Or 6.2. Or 7.3. Or 8. Or 9. Or FC3 or RHEL or SuSe or any other distro you can name. They all aren't, and I've got a stack of media and DSL if you want to bring a box to my house and experiment. Read the parent's comment closely--he's specifically talking about "unpatched" boxes. Get it? You think Linux was perfect in 1998? You think it could stand up to the Internet of 2005?
Slashdot Mirror
anyone have a link to a google cache of the yahoo coupon? ;-)
I missed that one. I was watching Lord of the G-Strings.
Apple sells a $19 adapter that connects to the DVI jack and has composite (RCA) and S-Video out. Use S-Video if your TV supports it.
"Yahoo makes more money and has more patents, services and users than Google."
:-)
Yeah, all Google has is better search results.
...you can get a Mac Mini to do just about all that and more. I have mine hooked up to my TV doing most of what this does, as well as playing games, showing slideshows, and ripping and playing DVDs.
Yes, there are things like that. September is the most common birth month, because it's 9 months after XMas & new year's. But that's unrelated to the math behind the birthday paradox. Start reading.
Yup, nothing new here. Over 10 years ago, my roommate in college had a CD changer that seemed to "favor" certain CDs.
It's getting bad. TBS, I think,* sometimes has sound along with the promos. And the History Channel always puts up their big thing in the corner and it'll cover up the name of whoever is talking. (You know, when they cut to a new speaker, it'll say "Joe Shmoe, UCLA History Professor" at the bottom.) I wonder if anyone who works there actually *watches* the channel.
* I forget which channel (see? the damn things aren't even effective!) since I have TiVo.
hmm, dark matter galaxy, yeah, fascinating, whatever. I can't BELIEVE Apple isn't shipping iPod minis and photos without FireWire cables!!!!!
...still trying to parse that headline? Maybe a comma and the word "Only" could help? In which case... this is news? Pioneers rarely survive, let alone thrive. It takes someone outlandish to show that a new market exists somewhere, but they ususally aren't *that* great at business, so the giants swivel their heads and say "oh yeah, there *is* a market there" and attack with with economies of scale, experienced marketers, etc.
Science aside, the book sucked balls. I didn't like or care about any of the characters at all. In fact, I could barely tell them apart--it was mostly young and middle aged white male lawyers, right? Yawn.
From Jef: "For example, which of the following takes less time? Heating water in a microwave for one minute and ten seconds or heating it for one minute and eleven seconds?
"From the standpoint of the microwave, one minute and ten seconds is the obviously correct answer. From the standpoint of the user of the microwave, one minute and eleven seconds is faster. Why? Because in the first case, the user must press the one key twice, then visually locate the zero key, move the finger into place over it, and press it once. In the second case, the user just presses the same key-the one key-three times. It typically takes more than one second to acquire the zero key. Hence, the water is heated faster when it is "cooked" longer."
I read this a few years ago and I've always disagreed with this for a couple reasons. First and foremost, I can punch in '1-1-0-start' just about as fast as I can punch in '1-1-1-start.' It certainly doesn't take one whole second longer. (Most people can comfortably enter a memorized 7-digit phone number in less than 2 seconds. Try it yourself.) So the argument is wrong to begin with. Furthermore, even if it were right, it would only be right in that one case--at 2:22, or 3:33, or 4:44, even the lamest 1-button-per-second microwave button poker would start to notice a net loss. So when used as a general rule, it fails again.
Secondly, most people have a natural understanding of 1 minute and ten seconds. It's what they want, so it takes almost no mental effort to plug in '1-1-0' when you're thinking "a minute ten." It would probably take most people longer to think "OK, I want to cook this for a minute and ten seconds, but is there a clever way I can save a bit of finger movement?"* Until you learn the trick and get into the habbit of using it, it won't save you much. I used microwaves for over a decade and always entered the exact time I wanted without much thought.
My wife got me into the habbit of rounding up to the next closest duplicate number--i.e., 33 seconds instead of 30. I admit I do use it, but mostly for yet another reason--because speed is not important. Rarely do I stand by the door waiting for the instant my food is ready. I press a couple buttons, start getting my milk or whatever else I'm having, hear the food beep, and take it out whenever I get around to it. So, ironically, when I use the Jef method of time-saving, it's when I am not looking to save time.
Thirdly, if you want to be really clever, a minute and ten seconds could be more simply expressed as 70 seconds. OMFG Jef that's one whole less digit!!!11 (Of course, that only works up to 99 seconds.)
* and that is, in fact, the whole point of why Jef used this example--to make the computer do the thinking, not the user. His point is good but his example is bad. But overall, there's lots of good info all over his site. His site and Joel's (joelonsoftware.com) are two of the best.
How are you supposed to pronounce 'One$DB'?
...by turning the computers themselves off. Turn off the Mac, turn off the PC, and I have a couple or three hours of solid cube-cleaning, paper-filing, list-making, etc. Of course, after about a half hour, it's off to the bathroom, then the water cooler, then wander around looking for people I haven't visited with in a while... eh, it's a start. :-)
Yeah, you're right. Singles didn't exist before August 1, 1981. The Beatles and Elvis never released 45s.
Please, take off your rose-colored glasses. The past, viewed from the present, is always a "golden age" and the present always sucks. (Except for when the recent past is "the low point of X" and the present is "the beginning of a new era of greatness.") There were countless "schlock rock" bands back then. Not everyone was the Rolling Stones and Greatful Dead. You remember them because they were good, not because they came from an era when everything was great. What, you think Starship and Hendrix were the only people who made albums in the 60s?
It is the default mode of history for the greatness of an era to be what everyone remembers. It is the flaw of amateur historians to think that the great stuff that lasts is representative of the era.
You think the present sucks because you are here to experience it all and you're hearing everything, the good and the bad. You think the past was great because you turn on the oldies station and all you hear is good music. There's a reason you only hear the same few hundred songs on the oldies station. Do you think the whole country only produced 1 song per week from 1954 to 1973?
PS: formulaic, over-produced singles are not new, either.
"The idea of an album has become a conceptual structure. Each song tells part of a the story that an album represents."
Twelve songs on one disc do not an album make.
Furthermore, it's up to the listener. I have never in my life listened to "Operation: Mindcrime", "The Wall", or "Tommy" straight through. Good songs on each, but that's it for me.
Overall, most of the public does not care for "albums."* Most only care for "songs." I don't know anyone at all who's a real album-art-and-liner-notes kind of guy.
* and not just in the "I don't care so I imagine most of the public doesn't, either" sense. I've actaully been paying attention to this for close to 20 years. Remember when CD long-boxes were a comprimise for the album-art crowd? (OK, so they were mostly so retailers didn't have to buy new racks right away, but the idea of "album art" was a part of it.)
Summary: Fuck albums. There's too much pretension in the music biz anyway. Release what you want, call it what you want, but don't expect me to sit in a chair exactly between the speakers in a dark room and listen to the whole thing all the way through.
"Judges MUST start out a case totally unbiased. But they don't need to end up that way. In many cases, they should end up pretty negative towards one party. That's the basis for judgement. All dislike is not prejudice. Some is well founded."
Exactly. For those who still doubt, the word "prejudice" comes from (wait for it...) "pre" and "judge". If you make a JUDGEment before hearing the facts (PRE-fact, you might say), that's "prejudice." Get it?
(And when did Google start using answers.com? I like dictionary.com a lot more. Less info, loaded faster. No, I do *not* need translations into Dutch, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and Hebrew _every single time I search_.)
How does the UK system keep me from going broke when $GIANT_CORP sues me for no reason and I lose because, despite being right, I can't afford to mount a good defense against their team of lawyers? I get to pay for their lawyers in addition to my own fees, even though I did nothing wrong?* I think it should be more like "if you sue someone _and lose_, then you pay" kind of thing, with some kind of limit for david-and-goliath cases.
* don't know how it is in the UK, but here, being right does not guarantee a victory in court.
I obviously don't know the specifics of your job, but you can safely ignore the "tables are evil" guys most of the time. Try to avoid them for page layout, sure, but for tabular data, they are fine (hence the name.) Even the most vehement CSS addict will admit that, eventually. Since most of what I put up on a page comes out of a database, tables are a quick-n-easy, and good, and proper way to do things.
And this unsubstantiated claim (by an anonymous poster, no less) should be taken seriously because...?
Seriously, who is "we"? Would you please publish a URL? The whole point of reviews is so each and every user does *not* have to evaluate four different A/V scanners.
"Given Google's push into the blogging space with their recent acquisition of Blogger it might be interesting to see how this shakes out."
You misspelled "marklar."
Did someone mention "linking to space panoramas on slashdot" under the "Most Common Ways to Kill a PC" story?
>>If Linux was on the desktop of everyone's grandmother, unpatched and unfirewalls, it would also be hacked in a jiffy.
>Do you have any idea how stupid this statement is? First of all, such a statement simply assumes that it is not possible to write correct software. That is beyond arrogance...
And it is beyond... I don't know what, common sense? to think that it's easy to write perfect software in one pass. Do you have any idea how hard it is to write perfect non-trivial software on the first try? (Hint: it's absofuckinglutely impossible.) There will *always* be flaws, and it's likely that some will be found by the black hats first.
I imagine you think a stock RH 4.2 box would be fine on the Internet, unpatched and unfirewalled for eternity. Or 5.2. Or 6.2. Or 7.3. Or 8. Or 9. Or FC3 or RHEL or SuSe or any other distro you can name. They all aren't, and I've got a stack of media and DSL if you want to bring a box to my house and experiment. Read the parent's comment closely--he's specifically talking about "unpatched" boxes. Get it? You think Linux was perfect in 1998? You think it could stand up to the Internet of 2005?
Inferior products on the net would be perfectly safe if there weren't inferior users running bots 24/7 to steal from others.
Besides, those router-thingies let you use your connection on serveral machines.
OK, OK, so it doesn't beg the question... but it has a steep learning curve that's a real showstopper. ;-)
Face it--language changes. All the good phrases are getting taken over and misused, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.