Yeah, it's pricey, but the big question that the article doesn't address is screen resolution (and why isn't that given so often when discussing new notebooks?) Yes, we've had sub-notebooks before that failed, but I think one of the big reasons they fail is that the screens are typically 640 pixels across. You can't do anything reasonable with 640 pixels!
If this thing has 1024 pixels horizontal, and the price comes down a bit, I'd be all over it.
I like DST. I know how to set what clocks I have that still need to be changed. I enjoy the extra light at the end of the day.
Hear hear! What is with people who don't like DST? Is it really that hard to move the clocks? Yeah, it's an ugly hack, but more daylight == good thing*.
*Well, sucks for people who have to function early in the morning.
If they came out with OSX86, most of the people that would buy it would probably be people that would buy Apple hardware anyway. I'm sure there are a small percentage of people that refuse to buy Apple hardware, but the losses in profits in other areas would dwarf this small gain.
It would be a pretty risky strategy. If only Apple had another example of a company that tried this, i.e., just selling their operating system, but without proprietary hardware, to see if this crazy strategy of making profit from software would work!
Nah, you're right. There's NO WAY a software-only company can make any money.
They are anxious to spend their time on more useful pursuits of their abilities.
You are high. You think the average tax accountant who gets a big income from tax planning laments that they "can't" spend their time on more useful pursuits, instead of taking all that dirty money? What stops them? Please.
Firing federal employees is a GoodThing(tm) and is a check mark in favor of a flat tax.
I didn't say that wasn't a good thing -- I just said it was a reason it Won'tHappen(tm).
It *is* progressive.... you are forgetting the prebate.
No, I didn't forget the prebate, actually. It's only that the prebate is worthless to the bigger picture of "tax the rich" mentality. Progressive taxes are not about helping the poor, they're about punishing the rich, and the prebate doesn't punish the rich.
The tax code is the biggest source of power to LOBBYISTS, not the government.
Lobbyists don't pass the laws, they lobby the people in power, who exercise their power. Anyway, again you miss the point. This is a reason that it won't happen, not that it's a bad idea. (though, I can argue that manipulating tax policy is an occasionally useful tool for the government, which is one of the bad things about the national sales tax idea)
Support the FairTax, bring corporate headquarters back to the US and end this ridiculous waste of everyone's time.
I'm cautiously in favor of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax (though, it's not the overwhelmingly RAH RAH GREAT IDEA!! that proponents sell), but it'll never, ever happen. Because: 1) You would shut down a huge number of businesses (e.g., tax accountants), 2) they'd have to fire a large number of Federal Employees, 3) it's not progressive, therefore a huge segment of society will be against it, and 4) the biggest source of power in the Federal Government is the tax code.
Copyright infringement is not theft. It is immoral of you to deliberately misrepresent the issue by using loaded terminology.
If you take something that doesn't belong to you (i.e., Vista), it is theft. The fact that the manufacturing cost is zero doesn't mean it's not theft. There is a price for the goods. You didn't pay the price for the goods, yet you have the goods. Therefore, you broke the buyer-seller agreement. Therefore, you stole it.
This article is stupid. It's just takes you to the default search engine (which is usually Microsoft), and offers you a spelling correction, which then performs the search. THEN it shows you the search results, which has -- ADS. OH MY GOD!!
In other news, typing the same string into Google (or any other search engine) also shows search results -- WITH ADS.
Man, I've really busted the conspiracy WIDE ASS OPEN.
Apparently, something that causes me to omit words. I meant to say [ten times more efficient] "than incandescents".
And as the chart shows, that's not true, either. It's only twice as efficient as incandescents.
You and I both know that the majority of CFLs are not recycled and will not be recycled. Or at least we both know this; at the very least, I do.
I agree. And I should say that I dislike CFLs as lights anyway. They get dimmer the longer you use them (at least, the ones I have do), and are annoying in a lot of ways that everyone always points out when this subject comes up.
My point here is that LEDs, unfortunately, are not a replacement for general-purpose lighting until they can make them MUCH brighter. Efficiency is a noble thing, but I refuse to live in a dark cave of a house. May as well not have lights at all.
How about this $70 bulb? Surely that one must be bright! Nope: 10 watts, 340 lumens, 34 lumens/watt. Better, though -- half as efficient as the CFL, but still too dim for good room lighting.
LEDs are pretty cool for certain uses, but they SUCK for general purpose lighting.
Do some research. They're not that more efficient that CFL, and they are not very bright. They work well for spot lights, but are terrible as general light bulbs that cast light in all directions.
By contrast, Kucinich actually answers the question.
You're just as bad as every other voter. So, it doesn't actually matter what Kucinich actually BELIEVES as long as he answers a question in a debate? I'm all for answering questions, but what he actually believes is what matters.
Just for laughs, I looked at his web site. From his Jobs Link, it is laughably wrong. Note that it is from 11/2006, so no excuses. First of all, "high" unemployment?? The unemployment rate is currently 4.6% (looked up from the Bureau of Labor Statistics). Then he claims the rate is 6.2%. If he can't get a simple statistic like that correct, why should he be president? And even if it was 6.2%, that's hardly a gloom and doom assessment of economy.
But regardless, his problem is not what you outline above, his problem is that he is a socialist, and socialism is near-universally rejected in the United States. In this particular case, he is rejected for what he believes, which is why someone *should* be rejected. You may like his ideas, and more power to you for that, if so. But don't kid yourself that it's because "he's just not handsome enough". You kind of remind me of the Libertarians on the other side, who think everyone rejects them because of any reason other than bad ideas.
"What we see in the Google Apps is a real focus on making them easy to use and intuitive," she said. "And that's something that Microsoft has been unable to do in all of its years with Office."
It's easy to make something easy and intuitive when they have almost no capability. Let's see Google make it a lot easier and intuitive AND have the same functionality.
When I hear of orbiting solar shields and massive projects to paint the desert, I get really scared because a scientist who really understands the delicate balance of the ecosystem would never dare to suggest such an idea.
I agree with your overall point, except for the above which is one of the great myths of environmentalism: The earth (ecosystem or otherwise) is NOT fragile and delicate! It's incredibly tough, with powerful systems of equilibrium. The earth has undergone constant catastrophes and climate changes since day 1, yet life has survived, adapted and thrived.
That's not to say we should screw around with it or that it's completely impervious to man-made intervention, but it's not this robin's egg that will self-destruct if someone releases methane from their rear-end.
IE7 is so badly broken its next to impossible to be compatible with it and anything else.On top of whih the weekly "upgrades" keep changing the target.
I switched back to IE7 from Firefox (I like IE7 better, frankly). I have yet to notice any "badly broken" compatibility problems. Or are you suggesting that every web site on the Internet changed their web sites secretly so as to be incompatible with everything except IE7?
I'm pretty sympathetic to Apple on this score... after all, Microsoft has rushed Vista to the market so quickly, NO ONE could possibly have kept up with Microsoft's torrid pace!
Apple's CEO just said that they will make all the music they sell DRM-free if the labels allow them to. Where is the spin here?
The problem here is that Steve is lying -- again (*sigh*). If Apple was really having their arm twisted by the record companies into using DRM, even though Steve doesn't like it, Apple would either use a DRM that operates with other music players, or would license their DRM to others. Since they know that users are locked in once they use iTunes, that's what they do, even though they could be *much* friendlier to their customers.
Keith wasn't stalking anyone. He was picketing outside the Scientology compound in Hemet, California. The clams pulled out all the stops to shut him up, including lying in court.
And you know this how? Because some scientologists are crazy, therefore, everyone who pickets them are always innocent?
Like I said, I don't know the facts of the case. Maybe he didn't do anything except picket. All I know is that 12 people on a jury all agreed that he did more than picket, and he sounds pretty wacky from the quotes in these articles.
All I'm saying is that it's possible the guy really is a stalker, and he was legitimately convincted. I don't automatically assume his story is more credible.
The 12 people on the jury never got to hear Keith's defense. Basically, he was prohibited from even telling them why he was picketing. That so-called "trial" was an absolute farce.
I don't know all the facts of the case (and I bet you don't either), but on the face, the reason he was picketing is totally irrelevent to the question of whether he was stalking and following people. I wouldn't allow it, either. So, what's his defense for stalking?
I've read about his case, and from that I'd say the 'stalking' material would be his picketing their compound.
According to the article I linked, he followed people from their homes. Picketing is one thing, following people around and acting weird is another. Apparently 12 people on the jury didn't think the behavior was harmless picketing. I'm just not getting the feeling that this guy is all that stable.
Or to put it another way, if this guy was, say, an abortion protester who was following doctors between their homes and the hospital, would you give him the same benefit of the doubt?
Have we in the Western world become so enamored by political correctness that we cannot even take a joke for what it is?
He wasn't sent to jail for the joke. If you look at the original conviction article, he was engaging in a lot of physical stalking behavior. I have to say, if someone was following me around -- physically -- and making "jokes" about violence on the Internet, and was a known hater of my religion, I'd want his ass to be in jail, too.
Just because they're wacky scientologists doesn't mean they open game for stalkers with axes to grind (so to speak).
I'm no fan of Scientology (they suck, bottom line), but after reading the article, I'm sensing there's a LOT more to this story than we're getting told. It's not like the government are typically fans of scientologists either, so I doubt just their nutty braying is going to get someone sentenced to jail. The guy's statements make him sound a little... er... paranoid and wacked out himself.
I think this is one of those cases where both sides are crackpots. Just because the victims are scientologists doesn't mean this guy didn't do some ugly crap that we don't know about.
A lot of people have wondered this (it's a fairly famous philosophical question), and I think the answer is... it's not a valid question to even ask. There's no such thing as "color", it's simply what we choose to name the signals that come from our eyes. It's like asking whether two people perceive the sensation of a needle prick versus a blunt strike in the same way. Do you percieve what I think of as a needle prick as a blunt strike? Of course not, because we've named the physical sensations as what they are -- sharp pain versus dull pain.
Same with color. The color "blue" is perceived as "that which causes the blue photoreceptors to be stimulated". There is nothing that literally turns "blue" in your mind that might turn "green" in my mind. We both have blue and green photoreceptors, and we both name the signals in the same way.
The other ones were kinda funny, but this one is just dumb. "Heads up" means raise your head up and look for the object heading toward you, perhaps from above. The proper defensive tactic may or may not be ducking -- it may be a quick lateral movement, it may diving under a safe spot, it may be covering your head with your arms, etc.
Tivo is under no obligation to lower prices to the consumer. The only thing that lowers them is competition.
Usually competition is necessary to lower prices, but not always. For example, if their viewing data was valuable enough, it would make sense to lower prices in order to get more people to sign up, and thus have more data to sell. Take the cable Disney Channel -- it used to be subscription service, then they figured out it was better to have more viewers than the subscription revenue.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's pricey, but the big question that the article doesn't address is screen resolution (and why isn't that given so often when discussing new notebooks?) Yes, we've had sub-notebooks before that failed, but I think one of the big reasons they fail is that the screens are typically 640 pixels across. You can't do anything reasonable with 640 pixels!
If this thing has 1024 pixels horizontal, and the price comes down a bit, I'd be all over it.
I like DST. I know how to set what clocks I have that still need to be changed. I enjoy the extra light at the end of the day.
Hear hear! What is with people who don't like DST? Is it really that hard to move the clocks? Yeah, it's an ugly hack, but more daylight == good thing*.
*Well, sucks for people who have to function early in the morning.
If they came out with OSX86, most of the people that would buy it would probably be people that would buy Apple hardware anyway. I'm sure there are a small percentage of people that refuse to buy Apple hardware, but the losses in profits in other areas would dwarf this small gain.
It would be a pretty risky strategy. If only Apple had another example of a company that tried this, i.e., just selling their operating system, but without proprietary hardware, to see if this crazy strategy of making profit from software would work!
Nah, you're right. There's NO WAY a software-only company can make any money.
They are anxious to spend their time on more useful pursuits of their abilities.
You are high. You think the average tax accountant who gets a big income from tax planning laments that they "can't" spend their time on more useful pursuits, instead of taking all that dirty money? What stops them? Please.
Firing federal employees is a GoodThing(tm) and is a check mark in favor of a flat tax.
I didn't say that wasn't a good thing -- I just said it was a reason it Won'tHappen(tm).
It *is* progressive.... you are forgetting the prebate.
No, I didn't forget the prebate, actually. It's only that the prebate is worthless to the bigger picture of "tax the rich" mentality. Progressive taxes are not about helping the poor, they're about punishing the rich, and the prebate doesn't punish the rich.
The tax code is the biggest source of power to LOBBYISTS, not the government.
Lobbyists don't pass the laws, they lobby the people in power, who exercise their power. Anyway, again you miss the point. This is a reason that it won't happen, not that it's a bad idea. (though, I can argue that manipulating tax policy is an occasionally useful tool for the government, which is one of the bad things about the national sales tax idea)
Support the FairTax, bring corporate headquarters back to the US and end this ridiculous waste of everyone's time.
I'm cautiously in favor of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax (though, it's not the overwhelmingly RAH RAH GREAT IDEA!! that proponents sell), but it'll never, ever happen. Because: 1) You would shut down a huge number of businesses (e.g., tax accountants), 2) they'd have to fire a large number of Federal Employees, 3) it's not progressive, therefore a huge segment of society will be against it, and 4) the biggest source of power in the Federal Government is the tax code.
Copyright infringement is not theft. It is immoral of you to deliberately misrepresent the issue by using loaded terminology.
If you take something that doesn't belong to you (i.e., Vista), it is theft. The fact that the manufacturing cost is zero doesn't mean it's not theft. There is a price for the goods. You didn't pay the price for the goods, yet you have the goods. Therefore, you broke the buyer-seller agreement. Therefore, you stole it.
This article is stupid. It's just takes you to the default search engine (which is usually Microsoft), and offers you a spelling correction, which then performs the search. THEN it shows you the search results, which has -- ADS. OH MY GOD!!
In other news, typing the same string into Google (or any other search engine) also shows search results -- WITH ADS.
Man, I've really busted the conspiracy WIDE ASS OPEN.
Apparently, something that causes me to omit words. I meant to say [ten times more efficient] "than incandescents".
And as the chart shows, that's not true, either. It's only twice as efficient as incandescents.
You and I both know that the majority of CFLs are not recycled and will not be recycled. Or at least we both know this; at the very least, I do.
I agree. And I should say that I dislike CFLs as lights anyway. They get dimmer the longer you use them (at least, the ones I have do), and are annoying in a lot of ways that everyone always points out when this subject comes up.
My point here is that LEDs, unfortunately, are not a replacement for general-purpose lighting until they can make them MUCH brighter. Efficiency is a noble thing, but I refuse to live in a dark cave of a house. May as well not have lights at all.
LEDs are over ten times more efficient and the directionality of the light can be solved in a number of ways.
What are you smoking?
Incandescent from my closet: 100 watts, 1690 Lumens or 16.9 lumens/watt.
CFL: 27 watts, 1750 lumens or 64.8 lumens/watt.
Let's find a few LED lights...
LED spotlight: 8 watts, 120 lumens, 15 lumens/watt.
Bulb toward end of page: 10 watts, 200 lumens, 20 lumens/watt.
How about this $70 bulb? Surely that one must be bright! Nope: 10 watts, 340 lumens, 34 lumens/watt. Better, though -- half as efficient as the CFL, but still too dim for good room lighting.
LEDs are pretty cool for certain uses, but they SUCK for general purpose lighting.
The hands down winner though are LED bulbs.
Do some research. They're not that more efficient that CFL, and they are not very bright. They work well for spot lights, but are terrible as general light bulbs that cast light in all directions.
By contrast, Kucinich actually answers the question.
You're just as bad as every other voter. So, it doesn't actually matter what Kucinich actually BELIEVES as long as he answers a question in a debate? I'm all for answering questions, but what he actually believes is what matters.
Just for laughs, I looked at his web site. From his Jobs Link, it is laughably wrong. Note that it is from 11/2006, so no excuses. First of all, "high" unemployment?? The unemployment rate is currently 4.6% (looked up from the Bureau of Labor Statistics). Then he claims the rate is 6.2%. If he can't get a simple statistic like that correct, why should he be president? And even if it was 6.2%, that's hardly a gloom and doom assessment of economy.
But regardless, his problem is not what you outline above, his problem is that he is a socialist, and socialism is near-universally rejected in the United States. In this particular case, he is rejected for what he believes, which is why someone *should* be rejected. You may like his ideas, and more power to you for that, if so. But don't kid yourself that it's because "he's just not handsome enough". You kind of remind me of the Libertarians on the other side, who think everyone rejects them because of any reason other than bad ideas.
"What we see in the Google Apps is a real focus on making them easy to use and intuitive," she said. "And that's something that Microsoft has been unable to do in all of its years with Office."
It's easy to make something easy and intuitive when they have almost no capability. Let's see Google make it a lot easier and intuitive AND have the same functionality.
Like it fucking matters, if you have so many goddamn elections why is it YOU STILL ONLY HAVE TWO MAJOR PARTIES TO VOTE FOR.
The question isn't why there are only two major parties, the question is why are all the third parties run by extremist wackos.
When I hear of orbiting solar shields and massive projects to paint the desert, I get really scared because a scientist who really understands the delicate balance of the ecosystem would never dare to suggest such an idea.
I agree with your overall point, except for the above which is one of the great myths of environmentalism: The earth (ecosystem or otherwise) is NOT fragile and delicate! It's incredibly tough, with powerful systems of equilibrium. The earth has undergone constant catastrophes and climate changes since day 1, yet life has survived, adapted and thrived.
That's not to say we should screw around with it or that it's completely impervious to man-made intervention, but it's not this robin's egg that will self-destruct if someone releases methane from their rear-end.
IE7 is so badly broken its next to impossible to be compatible with it and anything else.On top of whih the weekly "upgrades" keep changing the target.
I switched back to IE7 from Firefox (I like IE7 better, frankly). I have yet to notice any "badly broken" compatibility problems. Or are you suggesting that every web site on the Internet changed their web sites secretly so as to be incompatible with everything except IE7?
I'm pretty sympathetic to Apple on this score... after all, Microsoft has rushed Vista to the market so quickly, NO ONE could possibly have kept up with Microsoft's torrid pace!
Cut the poor Apple engineers some slack!
Apple's CEO just said that they will make all the music they sell DRM-free if the labels allow them to. Where is the spin here?
The problem here is that Steve is lying -- again (*sigh*). If Apple was really having their arm twisted by the record companies into using DRM, even though Steve doesn't like it, Apple would either use a DRM that operates with other music players, or would license their DRM to others. Since they know that users are locked in once they use iTunes, that's what they do, even though they could be *much* friendlier to their customers.
It's just another lie from Apple.
Keith wasn't stalking anyone. He was picketing outside the Scientology compound in Hemet, California. The clams pulled out all the stops to shut him up, including lying in court.
And you know this how? Because some scientologists are crazy, therefore, everyone who pickets them are always innocent?
Like I said, I don't know the facts of the case. Maybe he didn't do anything except picket. All I know is that 12 people on a jury all agreed that he did more than picket, and he sounds pretty wacky from the quotes in these articles.
All I'm saying is that it's possible the guy really is a stalker, and he was legitimately convincted. I don't automatically assume his story is more credible.
The 12 people on the jury never got to hear Keith's defense. Basically, he was prohibited from even telling them why he was picketing. That so-called "trial" was an absolute farce.
I don't know all the facts of the case (and I bet you don't either), but on the face, the reason he was picketing is totally irrelevent to the question of whether he was stalking and following people. I wouldn't allow it, either. So, what's his defense for stalking?
I've read about his case, and from that I'd say the 'stalking' material would be his picketing their compound.
According to the article I linked, he followed people from their homes. Picketing is one thing, following people around and acting weird is another. Apparently 12 people on the jury didn't think the behavior was harmless picketing. I'm just not getting the feeling that this guy is all that stable.
Or to put it another way, if this guy was, say, an abortion protester who was following doctors between their homes and the hospital, would you give him the same benefit of the doubt?
Have we in the Western world become so enamored by political correctness that we cannot even take a joke for what it is?
He wasn't sent to jail for the joke. If you look at the original conviction article, he was engaging in a lot of physical stalking behavior. I have to say, if someone was following me around -- physically -- and making "jokes" about violence on the Internet, and was a known hater of my religion, I'd want his ass to be in jail, too.
Just because they're wacky scientologists doesn't mean they open game for stalkers with axes to grind (so to speak).
I'm no fan of Scientology (they suck, bottom line), but after reading the article, I'm sensing there's a LOT more to this story than we're getting told. It's not like the government are typically fans of scientologists either, so I doubt just their nutty braying is going to get someone sentenced to jail. The guy's statements make him sound a little... er... paranoid and wacked out himself.
I think this is one of those cases where both sides are crackpots. Just because the victims are scientologists doesn't mean this guy didn't do some ugly crap that we don't know about.
A lot of people have wondered this (it's a fairly famous philosophical question), and I think the answer is... it's not a valid question to even ask. There's no such thing as "color", it's simply what we choose to name the signals that come from our eyes. It's like asking whether two people perceive the sensation of a needle prick versus a blunt strike in the same way. Do you percieve what I think of as a needle prick as a blunt strike? Of course not, because we've named the physical sensations as what they are -- sharp pain versus dull pain.
Same with color. The color "blue" is perceived as "that which causes the blue photoreceptors to be stimulated". There is nothing that literally turns "blue" in your mind that might turn "green" in my mind. We both have blue and green photoreceptors, and we both name the signals in the same way.
Bottom line, the whole question means nothing.
Why do we say "heads up" when we actually duck?
The other ones were kinda funny, but this one is just dumb. "Heads up" means raise your head up and look for the object heading toward you, perhaps from above. The proper defensive tactic may or may not be ducking -- it may be a quick lateral movement, it may diving under a safe spot, it may be covering your head with your arms, etc.
Tivo is under no obligation to lower prices to the consumer. The only thing that lowers them is competition.
Usually competition is necessary to lower prices, but not always. For example, if their viewing data was valuable enough, it would make sense to lower prices in order to get more people to sign up, and thus have more data to sell. Take the cable Disney Channel -- it used to be subscription service, then they figured out it was better to have more viewers than the subscription revenue.