And THIS is why the Internet needs to remain under United States control. Out imperfections notwithstanding, the United States is one of the only countries that can be trusted to understand what Freedom of Speech means. (Not that there aren't certain elements that try and water it down, but at least it's codified at the strongest level of law).
I haven't tried the Android phones with their browser, but other phones have claimed to have "full browsers", but they were basically scrolling hell. The neat thing about the Apple browser was that it did scaling where you could pinch-gesture any part of the browser window into the display. It also had things like double-tapping a table section and it auto-zooms that into view.
I wouldn't be surprised if Android has copied those features by now, but you have to remember I had an original iPhone, so I've been having decent browsing for two years now.
I wouldn't be surprised if I eventually get an android phone, just because of it's more open nature (which is the part of the iPhone that really sucks), but they have to catch up with the iPhone's interface, as well as the size of the app store. And I definitely will never accept a pocket-computer-phone without multi-touch and accelerometers.
No, you're missing the point. The reason the iPhone caught on was not because it had zillions of whiz-bang features, it's because they took the time to get the features that it has *right*.
The reason I bought an iPhone was primarily because (finally) they got browsing right. I've always wanted a portable Internet device that happened to have a phone, and Apple delivered. For the record, I *despise* Apple-the-company, but the iPhone simply was that good. And that goes for a lot of the other features that the iPhone has. They don't have every feature, they just get the features they have to work in a smooth, elegant way.
Another case in point was the video camera. They didn't include video until they could do it "right" with the 3GS, and the video is damn good. The video you could get on the older phones through jailbreaking sucked balls.
And I want to emphasize this: I bought an iPhone *despite* Apple's marketing, which I can't tell you how much I hate. And despite Apple's slavish followers, which I also hate. The phone is just that good.
having to constantly update anti-viral software, anti-malware software, BSODs, random file corruptions, etc...
Uhh, if you're getting BSODs and "random file corruptions" (!!!!), did it ever occur to you that you had a hardware problem? Say what you will about Windows, but it doesn't randomly corrupt files.
Imagine if Stephen King got his facts right about supernatural entities.... Sheesh. There's a reason it's called fiction. The non-fiction section is on the other side of the book store.
Somebody already mentioned CrossFit, which I've been considering doing. But then I also came across this very interesting article about a new study about exercise. Bottom line, it's possible that you really need very little time exercising every day. It's the *intensity* of the workout that matters, not the amount of time.
This fit very well with the Crossfit philosophy, which is a single exercise per day, but very intense.
Uhm... You do know they are the biggest bittorrent tracker in the world, right? That takes a bit of bandwidth and processor power for which they receive NO money!
"NO" money? You are incredibly naive.
Since they are a pretty "gray" site they can't get the best advertisers to their site and will have to make do with less money for the ads.
Yeah, god knows those "gray" porn sites make no money with their advertising./s
If you do a regular google search for "normal distribution", you can see the pages that come up. That it can find those keywords is not all that surprising.
Okay, now this is interesting. Compare a regular google search of "black cat" to the Google squared one. The Google squared one pulled a whole slew of Manga results, which is not the dominant search in regular Google. That tells me that Google pulls the first X pages and tries to find pages with some sort of commonality. "Black cat" fireworks was a unique page, so that one got tossed, because there was no commonality. The Manga pages was the first one with a lot of pages on the same general topic.
Apples and Oranges. Google squared doesn't try to do ANY analysis of the data, it's just a way to do many searches at once in a grid format (see my other post). Alpha takes data and tries to do computations on it (with a terrible input parser, I might add).
Do you have evidence it's not just looking for the words that are common to all (or most) of the search results that come up?
I'm not saying there aren't some subtleties under the hood that are pretty tricky (I don't want to be "that guy" who thinks everything could be whipped out in a couple of hours), but it seems like looking for common terms that also happen to be popular would give you a fairly good result for auto-generated keywords.
This actually seems to be a pretty simple concept. It takes the keywords on the y axis (which is the initial search), and then generates popular keywords for the x axis, and then does searches for the combinations to fill in the boxes. What goes in the box is the least amount of the target page that more-or-less fulfills the keyword search.
So as near as I can tell, there's no "semantic" analysis here, it's basically a bunch of mini web searches in a grid format.
It's an interesting concept, but I don't see it as any sort of world changing function, like the hype seemed to imply.
Re:Were nerds here... use the f'ing metric system
on
The 100 Degree Data Center
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I completely fail to see how a range of 40-80 (after all, you did say "habitable temperatures" for humans), is better than a range of 5-30.
Simple. Fahrenheit is useful using two digits. A unit of Celsius is too coarse, and to be practical you have to resort to decimal figures.
I'm mostly with people who like metric, but there's no doubt that F is superior to C for human use.
I'm not sure what the best way around that is. Wait for the kids to have enough calculus to integrate and understand moments of inertia? Give them "2/5 m r^2" as a magic-algebraic-formula to memorize? Pretend that your velocity overestimation was purely friction and experimental error?
This was actually "Advanced Physics" for high school seniors, and the first couple of weeks was a crash course in practical calculus (it chopped out a lot of the derivations and focused on a "toolkit" approach). I had actually had a year of calculus the previous year as a junior (I took it at the two-year college across the street), so I was already up to speed more-or-less on calculus.
But actually, in thinking about it after my post, I remembered exactly what we did. You're right that a true calculation would've been a bear to make accurate, considering all the variables. We actually cheated a little bit. We had a laser timer that measured the speed of the ball as it left the ramp (two lasers, and it timed the interval between breaking the beams). Given the speed, then I calculated the expected trajectory, and then I measured out the distance and put down an "X" on the floor, along with some carbon paper. The steel ball hit the carbon paper and left a mark, and then I was able to do a bunch of runs to get a visual graph of the error. I just remember that it was remarkably close, like within half-an-inch. Of course, the laser timer was key to getting such precision.
Anyway, if it's not a museum, if it's just a place for class field trips to go ride a Segway, then please don't call it a museum.
I don't know what your definition of a museum is, but it's not just a "place with old stuff." Dictionary.com defines museum as:
museum /myuzim/ Pronunciation [myoo-zee-uhm]
-noun
a building or place where works of art, scientific specimens, or other objects of permanent value are kept and displayed.
Which goes along with my own definition. Basically, a museum is any place where they put stuff on display for you to look at. You may not like what they put on display at the places you complained about, but they still qualify as museums.
Oops, I misread his question. I thought he was asking for how to get students interested in science, when he was asking how to get students involved in *helping* science, apparently. Never mind.
You want to get students interested in "real science", then as your examples you cite some computer programs? And they learn what from this?
When I was in school, the best science was *always* some sort of physical demonstration. I still remember being in physics class where we calculated the speed that a ball ought to go down a ramp, fly through the air and hit a spot on some paper. I marked an "X", and sure enough, the ball landed on the X (within experimental error).
I also remember being fascinated at my local science museum at a big box with pegs and a bell curve painted on the glass. Every few minutes balls would fall randomly through the pegs, yet fall into the bell curve. [of course, in recent years they got rid of all the cool stuff in favor of "corporate demonstrations" that totally suck, but that's another subject]
Then there were the chemistry experiments... and field trips to the park... you get the idea.
Make science real by making it something physical that students can see/touch/smell.
Regardless of what any contract says, regardless of who actually owes what, screenplay writers are the major breadwinners yet get paid virtually nothing for their efforts. Nobody got rich writing scripts, but many many rich actors and movie moguls got rich from bloody good stories.
Just to play Devil's Advocate here, if they are such critical breadwinners, then why don't they have any leverage to demand a cut of the pie similar to the directors and actors? If Hollywood could pay actors what they pay writers, they certainly would, yet Hollywood learned a long time ago to shell out the money.
I suspect the truth here is that writers are more like photographers or advertising designers than like directors. The former two, while they can be quite talented, are also much more common talent. Hollywood learned that if a writer gets too "uppity", there's another writer of mostly equal talent next door that can do the job.
I will never forget my personal berating at the hand of the man. The profanity he spouted when I handed him a book to sign, he signed it and when I got it back I said in jest, "Wait I though you were Kurt Vonnegut"...
Any proof better then that of those that say there is?
Yes. Evolution can be observed to follow patterns not requiring intelligent design (e.g., Darwin's Finches and the observed instances of new species creation). All God speculations have exactly the same amount of observable evidence: zero.
How can anyone know -- short of subjective observations, which are inherently non-scientific, i.e. revelation from such an "evolution-motivating" intelligence -- whether or not there is an intelligent motive behind any such process?
How can we know if pink elephants are molding magic clay behind the scenes and waving their magic snouts over them to give them life? That exactly -- EXACTLY -- as probable as whatever 'intelligent design' you're advocating, whether it be the Egyption Ra controlling the universe, Zeus, or the Abrahamic God.
In other words, no one can be sure what's "really" going on. But what we do know is that evolution can actually be observed, has been observed, and will be observed again (including new species creation). The Christian God or Pink Elephants both have the same amount of observed evidence.
Remember when Zaphod Beeblebrox fixes things in the galactic accounting system by entering a virtual old-style accounting world?
I'm as big a DNA fan as anyone, but you must not be that old. They've been talking about 3D data visualization (and other forms of virtual reality) for about 50 years now.
Slashdot Mirror
And THIS is why the Internet needs to remain under United States control. Out imperfections notwithstanding, the United States is one of the only countries that can be trusted to understand what Freedom of Speech means. (Not that there aren't certain elements that try and water it down, but at least it's codified at the strongest level of law).
I wouldn't be surprised if Android has copied those features by now, but you have to remember I had an original iPhone, so I've been having decent browsing for two years now.
I wouldn't be surprised if I eventually get an android phone, just because of it's more open nature (which is the part of the iPhone that really sucks), but they have to catch up with the iPhone's interface, as well as the size of the app store. And I definitely will never accept a pocket-computer-phone without multi-touch and accelerometers.
The reason I bought an iPhone was primarily because (finally) they got browsing right. I've always wanted a portable Internet device that happened to have a phone, and Apple delivered. For the record, I *despise* Apple-the-company, but the iPhone simply was that good. And that goes for a lot of the other features that the iPhone has. They don't have every feature, they just get the features they have to work in a smooth, elegant way.
Another case in point was the video camera. They didn't include video until they could do it "right" with the 3GS, and the video is damn good. The video you could get on the older phones through jailbreaking sucked balls.
And I want to emphasize this: I bought an iPhone *despite* Apple's marketing, which I can't tell you how much I hate. And despite Apple's slavish followers, which I also hate. The phone is just that good.
having to constantly update anti-viral software, anti-malware software, BSODs, random file corruptions, etc...
Uhh, if you're getting BSODs and "random file corruptions" (!!!!), did it ever occur to you that you had a hardware problem? Say what you will about Windows, but it doesn't randomly corrupt files.
Dan Brown is relevant to this review... how?
Imagine if Stephen King got his facts right about supernatural entities.... Sheesh. There's a reason it's called fiction. The non-fiction section is on the other side of the book store.
Somebody already mentioned CrossFit, which I've been considering doing. But then I also came across this very interesting article about a new study about exercise. Bottom line, it's possible that you really need very little time exercising every day. It's the *intensity* of the workout that matters, not the amount of time.
This fit very well with the Crossfit philosophy, which is a single exercise per day, but very intense.
Uhm... You do know they are the biggest bittorrent tracker in the world, right? That takes a bit of bandwidth and processor power for which they receive NO money!
"NO" money? You are incredibly naive.
Since they are a pretty "gray" site they can't get the best advertisers to their site and will have to make do with less money for the ads.
Yeah, god knows those "gray" porn sites make no money with their advertising. /s
Oh, please. They have ALWAYS been in it for the money, and they have ALWAYS been lying to you. Yeah, a huge site like that makes no money? Bullshit!
They will keep this money, just like they kept the money from the running of the site.
Okay, now this is interesting. Compare a regular google search of "black cat" to the Google squared one. The Google squared one pulled a whole slew of Manga results, which is not the dominant search in regular Google. That tells me that Google pulls the first X pages and tries to find pages with some sort of commonality. "Black cat" fireworks was a unique page, so that one got tossed, because there was no commonality. The Manga pages was the first one with a lot of pages on the same general topic.
They aren't solving the same problem.
Do you have evidence it's not just looking for the words that are common to all (or most) of the search results that come up? I'm not saying there aren't some subtleties under the hood that are pretty tricky (I don't want to be "that guy" who thinks everything could be whipped out in a couple of hours), but it seems like looking for common terms that also happen to be popular would give you a fairly good result for auto-generated keywords.
This actually seems to be a pretty simple concept. It takes the keywords on the y axis (which is the initial search), and then generates popular keywords for the x axis, and then does searches for the combinations to fill in the boxes. What goes in the box is the least amount of the target page that more-or-less fulfills the keyword search. So as near as I can tell, there's no "semantic" analysis here, it's basically a bunch of mini web searches in a grid format. It's an interesting concept, but I don't see it as any sort of world changing function, like the hype seemed to imply.
I completely fail to see how a range of 40-80 (after all, you did say "habitable temperatures" for humans), is better than a range of 5-30.
Simple. Fahrenheit is useful using two digits. A unit of Celsius is too coarse, and to be practical you have to resort to decimal figures.
I'm mostly with people who like metric, but there's no doubt that F is superior to C for human use.
I'm not sure what the best way around that is. Wait for the kids to have enough calculus to integrate and understand moments of inertia? Give them "2/5 m r^2" as a magic-algebraic-formula to memorize? Pretend that your velocity overestimation was purely friction and experimental error?
This was actually "Advanced Physics" for high school seniors, and the first couple of weeks was a crash course in practical calculus (it chopped out a lot of the derivations and focused on a "toolkit" approach). I had actually had a year of calculus the previous year as a junior (I took it at the two-year college across the street), so I was already up to speed more-or-less on calculus.
But actually, in thinking about it after my post, I remembered exactly what we did. You're right that a true calculation would've been a bear to make accurate, considering all the variables. We actually cheated a little bit. We had a laser timer that measured the speed of the ball as it left the ramp (two lasers, and it timed the interval between breaking the beams). Given the speed, then I calculated the expected trajectory, and then I measured out the distance and put down an "X" on the floor, along with some carbon paper. The steel ball hit the carbon paper and left a mark, and then I was able to do a bunch of runs to get a visual graph of the error. I just remember that it was remarkably close, like within half-an-inch. Of course, the laser timer was key to getting such precision.
Anyway, if it's not a museum, if it's just a place for class field trips to go ride a Segway, then please don't call it a museum.
I don't know what your definition of a museum is, but it's not just a "place with old stuff." Dictionary.com defines museum as:
museum
/myuzim/ Pronunciation [myoo-zee-uhm]
-noun
a building or place where works of art, scientific specimens, or other objects of permanent value are kept and displayed.
Which goes along with my own definition. Basically, a museum is any place where they put stuff on display for you to look at. You may not like what they put on display at the places you complained about, but they still qualify as museums.
That's the one! Los Angeles Museum of Science and Industry. Which they completely ruined. The Air and Space Museum is still cool, though.
Oops, I misread his question. I thought he was asking for how to get students interested in science, when he was asking how to get students involved in *helping* science, apparently. Never mind.
You want to get students interested in "real science", then as your examples you cite some computer programs? And they learn what from this?
When I was in school, the best science was *always* some sort of physical demonstration. I still remember being in physics class where we calculated the speed that a ball ought to go down a ramp, fly through the air and hit a spot on some paper. I marked an "X", and sure enough, the ball landed on the X (within experimental error).
I also remember being fascinated at my local science museum at a big box with pegs and a bell curve painted on the glass. Every few minutes balls would fall randomly through the pegs, yet fall into the bell curve. [of course, in recent years they got rid of all the cool stuff in favor of "corporate demonstrations" that totally suck, but that's another subject]
Then there were the chemistry experiments... and field trips to the park... you get the idea.
Make science real by making it something physical that students can see/touch/smell.
Now, if only the US gov't will allow it. IBM+Sun would be a huge company.
IBM + SUN would be a huge company, but only slightly larger than IBM.
IBM: Around 400,000 employees. Sun: 33,000 employees.
IBM: $104 billion in revenue. Sun: $14 billion.
IBM: $125 billion market cap. Sun: $3.7 billion
Regardless of what any contract says, regardless of who actually owes what, screenplay writers are the major breadwinners yet get paid virtually nothing for their efforts. Nobody got rich writing scripts, but many many rich actors and movie moguls got rich from bloody good stories.
Just to play Devil's Advocate here, if they are such critical breadwinners, then why don't they have any leverage to demand a cut of the pie similar to the directors and actors? If Hollywood could pay actors what they pay writers, they certainly would, yet Hollywood learned a long time ago to shell out the money.
I suspect the truth here is that writers are more like photographers or advertising designers than like directors. The former two, while they can be quite talented, are also much more common talent. Hollywood learned that if a writer gets too "uppity", there's another writer of mostly equal talent next door that can do the job.
I will never forget my personal berating at the hand of the man. The profanity he spouted when I handed him a book to sign, he signed it and when I got it back I said in jest, "Wait I though you were Kurt Vonnegut"...
One word: Awesome.
Any proof better then that of those that say there is?
Yes. Evolution can be observed to follow patterns not requiring intelligent design (e.g., Darwin's Finches and the observed instances of new species creation). All God speculations have exactly the same amount of observable evidence: zero.
How can anyone know -- short of subjective observations, which are inherently non-scientific, i.e. revelation from such an "evolution-motivating" intelligence -- whether or not there is an intelligent motive behind any such process?
How can we know if pink elephants are molding magic clay behind the scenes and waving their magic snouts over them to give them life? That exactly -- EXACTLY -- as probable as whatever 'intelligent design' you're advocating, whether it be the Egyption Ra controlling the universe, Zeus, or the Abrahamic God.
In other words, no one can be sure what's "really" going on. But what we do know is that evolution can actually be observed, has been observed, and will be observed again (including new species creation). The Christian God or Pink Elephants both have the same amount of observed evidence.
Remember when Zaphod Beeblebrox fixes things in the galactic accounting system by entering a virtual old-style accounting world?
I'm as big a DNA fan as anyone, but you must not be that old. They've been talking about 3D data visualization (and other forms of virtual reality) for about 50 years now.
That was exactly what I was going to post (down to the "WTF is Jaiku"), except you told me barely more than the original summary.
According to Wikipedia, "Jaiku is a social networking, micro-blogging and lifestreaming service comparable to Twitter."