Does anybody else think it's a bit tasteless to hire a bunch of celebs to sing at the funeral of a shitty software program in the same week that celebs are singing for free at the funeral of thousands of victims of terrorist attacks?
Just make e-mail addresses work for *everything* -- if you contact an e-mail address using a voice protocol, your phone rings, if you contact using an e-mail protocol, your mailbox gets filled. This is not hard to implement, and text e-mail addresses (a) already exist and (b) are easier to remember. Of course, this does mean yet another thing dependent on the DNS system...:-)
It makes me think of Cruella Devil. You don't really want your product producing mental associations with killing lots of puppies; that tends to hurt sales.
Apparently, yes. I suspect that laptops with
wireless cards are filling the role that web
appliances were supposed to fill.
Really? I don't. People who buy web appliances are people who don't like complicated computers, not people who want access in their kitchen. Web appliances are a good idea, but they are hindered by the way websites all assume you use a computer: and once you've loaded your web appliance with a full keyboard and all the other bits and bobs you need to effectively utilise a PC-optimised site, you may as well be using a computer anyway.
I'm not sure what the solution is, though -- you could simplify the device, but that would limit its functionality. Or you could redesign web pages, but thats impractical.
It's a nice name. I like "D" as a name better than C#. But that's all. From the description of the language, it's just Java without bytecodes -- but with "the option" of bytecodes.
The major things it does is throw away legacy C compatibility -- making for faster compilers that are easier to write, but not a whole lot of gain for the programmer. However, maybe it would be good to have C++ updated and throw away unnecessary features, and more structured ways of defining things (like the try-catch-finally structure instead of try-catch, which I like the idea of).
As a cheerfully third-world country (officially a "developing nation" since we're not deteriorating further right now) Trinidad and Tobago has a small but rapidly-expanding Internet sector, and precisely zero laws which specifically legislate it. Does "no laws" count?:-) Many third world nations are in an identical position, for instance most of the rest of the Caribbean.
Passing to an optically less dense medium, light bends in one direction. Passing to an optically more dense direction. So if it's bending in the direction opposite to the one you expect, all it means is that you have its optical density wrong. Right?
What exactly would "negative" refraction look like? This sounds like a very late April fool's.
Seriously! This isn't just flamebait. It is so much easier to tell the time accurately on a digital wristwatch, anybody who uses an analog watch is using it simply because of the way it looks and because it's supposedly more "serious" or "mature" to wear an analog watch.
Admittedly it's not hard to tell the time on an analog watch, but those few milliseconds more it takes, multiplied by the thousands of times you look at your watch, is a significant productivity hit. Anybody who wants a watch to tell the time rather than send some stupid conformist message, will use a digital watch. And it's not like you can't get stylish looking digital watches; watch companies simply prefer to sell analog watches because they can make more money on them.
Moderate me down if you want, but really, I find it hard to believe people of the 21st century are still using analog clocks and watches to tell the time!
Nobody with a brain and any sense of justice is going to vote for Bush; nobody with any pride would vote for Gore, and nobody else has a chance of winning. No wonder voter turnouts are so low!
However, Gore is probably the lesser of the (many) evils.
I also believe it was wrong of Taco to preach politics in a main article. Why not just start a "who should geeks vote for?" question on Slashdot? Now that would be interesting!
I think massive violations of constitutional and human rights on the eve of democratic elections in the most powerful nation on Earth qualifies as "stuff that matters", don't you? If we can post about incremental release of Gnome, I think signs of the impending collapse of freedom in the 21st century should also get a mention.
With all respect, try and have a sense of perspective.
Because Apple.Com is on its knees under the onslaught of 5,000,000 people trying to simultaneously see the new Sage iMac in QuickTime VR!:-)
Apple.com is struggling under the publicity...
on
Apple Cube Confirmed
·
· Score: 1
Does it run on G4s?:-)
Anyway, all zealotry aside, it looks pretty sexy. And it's apparently *stackable* -- is this for the purposes of running them in beowolf clusters when MacOS X come out? That would be really cool. The optical mouse is nice, too, but did we really need another three colours of iMacs?
You see, I know you're a troll, but I still bite! Because you're just so good at spouting easy-to-refute, offensive ideas.#
You say "There is, quite simply, no good reason for genetic engineering". What about colour-blindness, short-sightedness, hereditary heart and neurological diseases? Sickle-cell anaemia? These are all diseases with genetic causes that genetic engineering could wipe out, bringing us closer to the "image of God" that I'm pretty sure you're interested in.
But that's not where it ends. I don't believe in God, I think evolution makes more sense, and so why not give it a boost? I want better eyesight, more efficient lungs, stronger muscles, a healthier heart, a longer life! Genetic engineering can give me those things, and they can't come fast enough. 200 years from now, people celebrating their 150th birthday will wonder how anybody could have been content to live only 80 or 90 years, how they could have got anything done in such a short time when life doesn't even get interesting until you're 170!
And there's not even a reason to stop at genetic engineering... give me cybernetic engineering! I want a mind-machine link to the Internet and a body that can jet around just as easily in space as it can in atmosphere... how can you resist these massively cool benefits?
We know that "privacy policies" are voluntary; they are supposed to be a model of self-regulation -- the industry just has them, it wasn't forced to. But what is their legal status? Are they just empty promises? If you have a privacy policy and you violate it, what happens? If nothing happens, then that's a compelling argument for making privacy policies compulsory or, more sensibly, making violations of them an offence: you don't have to publish a privacy policy, but if you do, you have to stick to it.
I agree that a RAM-doubling chip would be a great idea for notebooks: apart from anything else, wouldn't a chip that doubles your RAM take up less space than that much more RAM, especially on a 'book with 128MB?
However, what about heat/power problems? Does this chip use more power and/or generate more heat than the same amount of RAM? You'd have to be careful that you give yourself twice as much memory and half as much time to use it. On a desktop/server, of course, this wouldn't be a consideration.
Finally, I notice the article says the hardware-based memory compression is "10000 times faster than software-based solutions"... but no mention is made of how it compares in speed to actual RAM. Anybody got any details?
The Far Side featured an international rock, paper, scissors olympics all of 10 years ago... Dilbert isn't the only one who makes accurate future predictions.
But what is to be done about this? Surely those designing the technologies realized this would happen at the time? Isn't all this spare current running around inside my electronics going to damage it?
I'd be interested to know if anybody can figure out why my cellphone causes extremely loud, audio interference on a variety of appliances -- my TV, my radio, and even my laptop speakers. I live in the UK, and I'm pretty sure my cellphone isn't operating on the same wavelength as my radio and my TV. I know that cellphones broadcast unusually powerful signals in the UK (3 or 5 times greater than the rest of Europe) -- could the sheer strength of the signal be causing resonance with all these speakers? The signal is a very strange, repetitive clacking noise that sounds like it's searching -- it gets louder, then my cellphone registers a call or a message, then it fades away again.
I'm really mystified by the cause, I'd appreciate anybody who know what the 'cause is because I really do worry about my brain getting fried by these things.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anybody else think it's a bit tasteless to hire a bunch of celebs to sing at the funeral of a shitty software program in the same week that celebs are singing for free at the funeral of thousands of victims of terrorist attacks?
The "you can fly" motto was bad enough...
Just make e-mail addresses work for *everything* -- if you contact an e-mail address using a voice protocol, your phone rings, if you contact using an e-mail protocol, your mailbox gets filled. This is not hard to implement, and text e-mail addresses (a) already exist and (b) are easier to remember. Of course, this does mean yet another thing dependent on the DNS system... :-)
How the FUCK are they not getting sued by, you know, those music television people?
It makes me think of Cruella Devil. You don't really want your product producing mental associations with killing lots of puppies; that tends to hurt sales.
Apparently, yes. I suspect that laptops with
wireless cards are filling the role that web
appliances were supposed to fill.
Really? I don't. People who buy web appliances are people who don't like complicated computers, not people who want access in their kitchen. Web appliances are a good idea, but they are hindered by the way websites all assume you use a computer: and once you've loaded your web appliance with a full keyboard and all the other bits and bobs you need to effectively utilise a PC-optimised site, you may as well be using a computer anyway.
I'm not sure what the solution is, though -- you could simplify the device, but that would limit its functionality. Or you could redesign web pages, but thats impractical.
It's a nice name. I like "D" as a name better than C#. But that's all. From the description of the language, it's just Java without bytecodes -- but with "the option" of bytecodes. The major things it does is throw away legacy C compatibility -- making for faster compilers that are easier to write, but not a whole lot of gain for the programmer. However, maybe it would be good to have C++ updated and throw away unnecessary features, and more structured ways of defining things (like the try-catch-finally structure instead of try-catch, which I like the idea of).
...that I would never see the words "they only run at 900MHz". Okay, so I'm only 19, but I feel old now.
As a cheerfully third-world country (officially a "developing nation" since we're not deteriorating further right now) Trinidad and Tobago has a small but rapidly-expanding Internet sector, and precisely zero laws which specifically legislate it. Does "no laws" count? :-) Many third world nations are in an identical position, for instance most of the rest of the Caribbean.
What exactly would "negative" refraction look like? This sounds like a very late April fool's.
Admittedly it's not hard to tell the time on an analog watch, but those few milliseconds more it takes, multiplied by the thousands of times you look at your watch, is a significant productivity hit. Anybody who wants a watch to tell the time rather than send some stupid conformist message, will use a digital watch. And it's not like you can't get stylish looking digital watches; watch companies simply prefer to sell analog watches because they can make more money on them.
Moderate me down if you want, but really, I find it hard to believe people of the 21st century are still using analog clocks and watches to tell the time!
Vice president: Yoda :-)
Secretary of state: C3PO (good at diplomacy!)
Nobody with a brain and any sense of justice is going to vote for Bush; nobody with any pride would vote for Gore, and nobody else has a chance of winning. No wonder voter turnouts are so low!
However, Gore is probably the lesser of the (many) evils.
I also believe it was wrong of Taco to preach politics in a main article. Why not just start a "who should geeks vote for?" question on Slashdot? Now that would be interesting!
With all respect, try and have a sense of perspective.
Because Apple.Com is on its knees under the onslaught of 5,000,000 people trying to simultaneously see the new Sage iMac in QuickTime VR! :-)
Anyway, all zealotry aside, it looks pretty sexy. And it's apparently *stackable* -- is this for the purposes of running them in beowolf clusters when MacOS X come out? That would be really cool. The optical mouse is nice, too, but did we really need another three colours of iMacs?
Pratchett readers all :-)
He also said he would continue to refine his product.
"We aren't standing in one place," he said.
ROFL...
Oh well, I'm glad you guys FINALLY put up something about the joke that is the FIN...
You say "There is, quite simply, no good reason for genetic engineering". What about colour-blindness, short-sightedness, hereditary heart and neurological diseases? Sickle-cell anaemia? These are all diseases with genetic causes that genetic engineering could wipe out, bringing us closer to the "image of God" that I'm pretty sure you're interested in.
But that's not where it ends. I don't believe in God, I think evolution makes more sense, and so why not give it a boost? I want better eyesight, more efficient lungs, stronger muscles, a healthier heart, a longer life! Genetic engineering can give me those things, and they can't come fast enough. 200 years from now, people celebrating their 150th birthday will wonder how anybody could have been content to live only 80 or 90 years, how they could have got anything done in such a short time when life doesn't even get interesting until you're 170!
And there's not even a reason to stop at genetic engineering... give me cybernetic engineering! I want a mind-machine link to the Internet and a body that can jet around just as easily in space as it can in atmosphere... how can you resist these massively cool benefits?
We know that "privacy policies" are voluntary; they are supposed to be a model of self-regulation -- the industry just has them, it wasn't forced to. But what is their legal status? Are they just empty promises? If you have a privacy policy and you violate it, what happens? If nothing happens, then that's a compelling argument for making privacy policies compulsory or, more sensibly, making violations of them an offence: you don't have to publish a privacy policy, but if you do, you have to stick to it.
However, what about heat/power problems? Does this chip use more power and/or generate more heat than the same amount of RAM? You'd have to be careful that you give yourself twice as much memory and half as much time to use it. On a desktop/server, of course, this wouldn't be a consideration.
Finally, I notice the article says the hardware-based memory compression is "10000 times faster than software-based solutions"... but no mention is made of how it compares in speed to actual RAM. Anybody got any details?
Make the product bigger! Make a push for people to suppy manuals with software, like they used to in the old days! :-)
The Far Side featured an international rock, paper, scissors olympics all of 10 years ago... Dilbert isn't the only one who makes accurate future predictions.
But what is to be done about this? Surely those designing the technologies realized this would happen at the time? Isn't all this spare current running around inside my electronics going to damage it?
Most importantly -- who should I sue? :-)
I'm really mystified by the cause, I'd appreciate anybody who know what the 'cause is because I really do worry about my brain getting fried by these things.