Most people that don't like twitter just don't understand it, or are the kind of people that don't accept tech to begin with. Twitter really isn't supposed to be for "normal" people. At least not until techy becomes the norm, which is happening.
-taylor
I disagree with this statement. I think a lot of tech savvy people understand twitter, but find that it simply adds no value to their lives. [Over-generalization warning] Most engineers are very pragmatic people, and twitter has very little functional value. It can have more subjective value if you want to keep up with your friends, or find interesting ideas or links. However, if you're looking for a method of communication that has tangible impact on your own functionality, twitter is not (and probably never will be) that platform.
I can't tell exactly what you mean by "worth more". Assuming you took a full hour to research and order parts and 3 hours to assemble a $300 HTPC (a very reasonable estimate), then you save $400 in 4 hours. Saving $100 an hour is a pretty sweet deal. You would need to make about $200k a year to make that an unwise investment.
There's a much more subjective meaning of "value", where you simply would rather spend extra money than input the handful of hours necessary to save it. However, it's just that: a subjective valuation. You can't legitimately fault someone for having a personal preference in that regard.
The fact remains, though, that for the specific purpose I mentioned, Apple's product is not a good monetary "value".
I'd consider it likely that Hanlon's Razor applies. I suspect it applies to the manufacturer of the machines (in addition to some voters), in which case we need to stop using the things.
In Spartanburg County, Ludwig said there are 25 precincts in which Greene received more votes than were actually cast and 50 other precincts where votes appeared to be missing from the final count.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38433.html#ixzz0qvgQEa5m
It's worth noting that in some precincts, Mr. Greene received more votes than were cast. As in, he got 115% of the votes. In others, he won the election day votes by 20 points but lost the absentee votes by 60. There are major, major discrepancies in vote tallies in this election. You can quibble about confidence intervals and statistics all you want, but it won't change the fact that *something* went wrong here. While it's probably not malicious, it absolutely should be investigated.
You completely missed the point of what Peter was saying. We should continue research in many areas of energy production as well as reducing our overall consumption. This is the most reasonable of all possible solutions. "It's a fantasy....." simply means that we require multiple avenues of research and more time to develop them. Please pay more attention to what people say.
Replying to myself, but I just remembered why this is probably should be illegal:
In other government endeavors, vendors bid for contracts. The organization (in this case the school) defines its requirements, and different vendors submit solutions that fill those requirements. The organization selects the vendor that can fill its needs at the most reasonable price.
The school obviously didn't do that, or even consider it. They externalized the purchase so it isn't absolutely a contract-requiring program, circumventing measures meant to save the government (and ultimately, taxpayers) money.
The fact that they make it slightly less of a challenge doesn't make it acceptable. They directly sponsor the most expensive vendor in the market and encourage parents to spend unreasonable amounts of money on unnecessary equipment. What are they going to do when high school students lose, destroy, and otherwise render unusable $900 equipment that they do not own? They're going to charge parents. Their only goal is to externalize costs, not help students.
Suppose I were the parent of an underprivileged child. Suppose I live paycheck-to-paycheck, and don't have room in my budget for this. What the hell is the school going to do when I refuse to adhere to this absurdity? Fail my child? This wreaks of something illegal.
If society changes, you change the Constitution, which has a built-in, slow, deliberative, supermajority process. If it's that good an idea, most should want it, and still want it 5 or 10 years down the road. If that is not the case, you have no business passing such laws in the first place.
That's simply not practical. Our political system evolved to have 2 parties, with very close to equal representation, which disagree on every issue by default. Democrats don't disagree with Republican ideas because they think the ideas are bad. They disagree because the ideas are Republican. The opposite is equally true, or more so. The Constitution did not anticipate this. Washington and others knew that strong political parties would devalue the usefulness of the constitution.
Any production of the Constitution should have warning labels all over it. Almost every detail of government, technology, and daily life has changed since it was written. Two hugely important entities that didn't exist at the time: our all-or-nothing 2-party nonsense, and Corporations (big C).
Literal interpretations and "government can only do what is written here" is nonsense. For instance: the constitution does not give the Congress the right to establish a national Air Force. Because of the 10th amendment, each state should have sovereignty over issues not directly stated by the constitution, each state should logically have its own Air Force. Infallibility of 200+ year-old documents is BS.
To be fair, Coke made New Coke for understandable reasons. The "Pepsi Challenge" wasn't fake. A majority of consumers do actually prefer Pepsi if given only a single sip or small glass. This scared Coke to death when they tested it themselves and got the same results.
As it turned out, though, enjoying one sip is a lot different than enjoying an entire drink or a 12-pack of those drinks.
Google is finding out again (and has found out before) that, because they are the default search engine for so many people, they can't really make large interface changes. I recall reading that they would like to remove the "I'm feeling lucky" button (because no one uses it), but they can't. Users simply can't handle large changes. This is a sad truth of many consumers, especially in computers: change of any kind prohibits many users from functioning, even when that change would have almost no impact on them.
The only advantage of XP is that people are dependent on using it, and simply can't handle change. For new hires, my company gives windows 7 machines. For employees that want 7, they can get it. Generally, for older employees who aren't "computer" people, there is no problem letting them keep XP because that's how they've operated for nearly 10 years. However, forcing people entering the workforce now to become dependent on an aging OS is a very bad idea.
How much money do professional gamers make? A friend of mine played top-tier MLG games for money for a while, but he barely covered his travel expenses. Assuming 8-hour days, he didn't even make minimum wage. How many gamers make enough money that gaming is their only source of income? Athletes? Hint: there are way more athletes.
For any company with an extra $40B lying around, a takeover of BP while trumpeting "We will fix this collosal disaster because BP can't!" would be a PR goldmine. Use BP's equipment and personel to keep working on the spill, then reap the massive profits that the company will continue to make after this mess is all but forgotten by society's collective ADHD.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people that don't like twitter just don't understand it, or are the kind of people that don't accept tech to begin with. Twitter really isn't supposed to be for "normal" people. At least not until techy becomes the norm, which is happening. -taylor
I disagree with this statement. I think a lot of tech savvy people understand twitter, but find that it simply adds no value to their lives. [Over-generalization warning] Most engineers are very pragmatic people, and twitter has very little functional value. It can have more subjective value if you want to keep up with your friends, or find interesting ideas or links. However, if you're looking for a method of communication that has tangible impact on your own functionality, twitter is not (and probably never will be) that platform.
A new study finds that location-broadcasting applications broadcast the location of the user.
Nothing to see here.
I can't tell exactly what you mean by "worth more". Assuming you took a full hour to research and order parts and 3 hours to assemble a $300 HTPC (a very reasonable estimate), then you save $400 in 4 hours. Saving $100 an hour is a pretty sweet deal. You would need to make about $200k a year to make that an unwise investment.
There's a much more subjective meaning of "value", where you simply would rather spend extra money than input the handful of hours necessary to save it. However, it's just that: a subjective valuation. You can't legitimately fault someone for having a personal preference in that regard.
The fact remains, though, that for the specific purpose I mentioned, Apple's product is not a good monetary "value".
This thing would make a pretty nice little HTPC, for approximately 4x the price you could build an equivalent with Newegg parts.
I'd consider it likely that Hanlon's Razor applies. I suspect it applies to the manufacturer of the machines (in addition to some voters), in which case we need to stop using the things.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38433.html
In Spartanburg County, Ludwig said there are 25 precincts in which Greene received more votes than were actually cast and 50 other precincts where votes appeared to be missing from the final count. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38433.html#ixzz0qvgQEa5m
He didn't win because he's halfway handsome. No voters had ever seen his face, given that he did no campaigning. And I am in the state. Fuck you sir.
It's worth noting that in some precincts, Mr. Greene received more votes than were cast. As in, he got 115% of the votes. In others, he won the election day votes by 20 points but lost the absentee votes by 60. There are major, major discrepancies in vote tallies in this election. You can quibble about confidence intervals and statistics all you want, but it won't change the fact that *something* went wrong here. While it's probably not malicious, it absolutely should be investigated.
Does the right to bear arms cover arms which are for more awesome than ever conceived of by the writers of the constitution?
You completely missed the point of what Peter was saying. We should continue research in many areas of energy production as well as reducing our overall consumption. This is the most reasonable of all possible solutions. "It's a fantasy....." simply means that we require multiple avenues of research and more time to develop them. Please pay more attention to what people say.
I give you the first ever TED debate
It may be relevant to your interests.
Replying to myself, but I just remembered why this is probably should be illegal:
In other government endeavors, vendors bid for contracts. The organization (in this case the school) defines its requirements, and different vendors submit solutions that fill those requirements. The organization selects the vendor that can fill its needs at the most reasonable price.
The school obviously didn't do that, or even consider it. They externalized the purchase so it isn't absolutely a contract-requiring program, circumventing measures meant to save the government (and ultimately, taxpayers) money.
I hear the job market is robust and inviting these days.
The fact that they make it slightly less of a challenge doesn't make it acceptable. They directly sponsor the most expensive vendor in the market and encourage parents to spend unreasonable amounts of money on unnecessary equipment. What are they going to do when high school students lose, destroy, and otherwise render unusable $900 equipment that they do not own? They're going to charge parents. Their only goal is to externalize costs, not help students.
"They'll bring it to class and use it for homework."
Hard to do homework if you can't do it at home.
Suppose I were the parent of an underprivileged child. Suppose I live paycheck-to-paycheck, and don't have room in my budget for this. What the hell is the school going to do when I refuse to adhere to this absurdity? Fail my child? This wreaks of something illegal.
If society changes, you change the Constitution, which has a built-in, slow, deliberative, supermajority process. If it's that good an idea, most should want it, and still want it 5 or 10 years down the road. If that is not the case, you have no business passing such laws in the first place.
That's simply not practical. Our political system evolved to have 2 parties, with very close to equal representation, which disagree on every issue by default. Democrats don't disagree with Republican ideas because they think the ideas are bad. They disagree because the ideas are Republican. The opposite is equally true, or more so. The Constitution did not anticipate this. Washington and others knew that strong political parties would devalue the usefulness of the constitution.
Any production of the Constitution should have warning labels all over it. Almost every detail of government, technology, and daily life has changed since it was written. Two hugely important entities that didn't exist at the time: our all-or-nothing 2-party nonsense, and Corporations (big C).
Literal interpretations and "government can only do what is written here" is nonsense. For instance: the constitution does not give the Congress the right to establish a national Air Force. Because of the 10th amendment, each state should have sovereignty over issues not directly stated by the constitution, each state should logically have its own Air Force. Infallibility of 200+ year-old documents is BS.
To be fair, Coke made New Coke for understandable reasons. The "Pepsi Challenge" wasn't fake. A majority of consumers do actually prefer Pepsi if given only a single sip or small glass. This scared Coke to death when they tested it themselves and got the same results.
As it turned out, though, enjoying one sip is a lot different than enjoying an entire drink or a 12-pack of those drinks.
Google is finding out again (and has found out before) that, because they are the default search engine for so many people, they can't really make large interface changes. I recall reading that they would like to remove the "I'm feeling lucky" button (because no one uses it), but they can't. Users simply can't handle large changes. This is a sad truth of many consumers, especially in computers: change of any kind prohibits many users from functioning, even when that change would have almost no impact on them.
The only advantage of XP is that people are dependent on using it, and simply can't handle change. For new hires, my company gives windows 7 machines. For employees that want 7, they can get it. Generally, for older employees who aren't "computer" people, there is no problem letting them keep XP because that's how they've operated for nearly 10 years. However, forcing people entering the workforce now to become dependent on an aging OS is a very bad idea.
Don't joke about the tarball burner. It's totally legit. It's even PATENTED.
How much money do professional gamers make? A friend of mine played top-tier MLG games for money for a while, but he barely covered his travel expenses. Assuming 8-hour days, he didn't even make minimum wage. How many gamers make enough money that gaming is their only source of income? Athletes? Hint: there are way more athletes.
Concerns about privacy are serious and stuff, but is this guy just seems like he's throwing a 4-year hissy fit about being scolded by his mommy.
The guy broke the law (probably) and was observed in a public space doing so. It's not like they put a camera in his residence.
For any company with an extra $40B lying around, a takeover of BP while trumpeting "We will fix this collosal disaster because BP can't!" would be a PR goldmine. Use BP's equipment and personel to keep working on the spill, then reap the massive profits that the company will continue to make after this mess is all but forgotten by society's collective ADHD.