In many ways netbooks and notebooks are superior for reading ebooks, especially ebooks in PDF format. Of course, netbooks and notebooks do far more than just read ebooks.
BTW: the $99 readers use e-Paper, which seems like it might be e-Ink by another name.
Re:Big questions were not answered
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
No, the writers didn't drop the numbers. The numbers corresponded to the last remaining candidates.
That's it? Was that actually explained in the story, or is that something that fans just suppose?
If you remember, the number were a huge part of the story, the numbers were everywhere, the lottery, the darpa hatch, hugo's odometer, some signals from Australia back in the 1950, and so on.
If the numbers where just used to correspond to candidates, why do all that? And since there are only a few candidates, why use numbers at all?
The plane crash at the end was an Oceanic plane, not an Ajira plane, which Kate and Sawyer were on.
Is that actually supported by the story, or are the fans just supposing? If Kate and Sawyer made it back, did they get to meet their doubles in L.A.? Did the Kate and Saywer from the Island live, while their doubles died?
The only criticism that I don't get . . .
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
I don't get the critics that say "I wasted six years of my life . .."
I mean, is that all you did for the entire six years? Up until today, I would watch Lost for - at most - one hour a week.
Re:The fundamental problem with Lost
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
What the audience wanted : answers What the writers wanted : to make more episodes of Lost
The two being pretty much mutually exclusive until the point that the series was scheduled to end is what made it such a frustrating experience.
Those ideas are not mutually exclusive at all. Soap opera writers do it all the time. As old mysteries get solved, new mysteries are introduced.
If the show was well written (and it certainly was not) then there would be maybe six mysteries floating around at any given time. Some mysteries would get solved, while new mysteries would be created. But, throughout the series the viewer would get closer and closer to finally understanding how everything is connected, and where it all leads. In the finale, all the loose ends would be tied up, and the viewer would understand the writer's vision.
Lost was just sloppy, ad-hoc, story telling with a tacked-on, cop-out, ending.
Is magic an excuse for sloppy story telling?
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
I can think of lots of stories that involve magic, but still have a coherent story line.
Just because magic is involved in a story does not mean that you have to have a 150 major unresolved loose ends, and a cop-out ending.
I Dream of Jeannie although silly, at least had a coherent story line, which is more than I can say for Lost
Please answer some questions about Lost
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
I would appreciate answers that are supported by the story, not just made-up theories.
1) What is the deal with the numbers? The numbers were a huge part of the first few seasons, then just seemed to get dropped.
2) Did everybody die at about the same time? Or did they die many years apart, and then just meet at the same time?
3) Were the people in L.A. dead? Or just their counter-parts on the island?
4) Why would Penny, and Aaron, be dead? Or were they?
5) If the nuke destroyed the island in 1977, then how did the characters, on the island, live? Or even if the nuke did not destroy the island, then how did the characters live? Or did the characters on the island live?
6) If the nuke did not destroy the island, wouldn't oceanic flight 815 crash because of the electro-magnetic interference?
7) Did the flash sideways stuff in L.A. happen, or was it just a bunch of dreams?
8) Jacob told Richard that the island kept all the evil in the world corked. Wouldn't Desmond uncorking the island be a bad thing? Why was it important to uncork, then re-cork? How did that save the world, or whatever?
9) What was the point of the Richard character?
10) Why did Jacob not just use Richard as a replacement?
11) Where characters on the island dead the whole time?
Re:Jack's afterlife vs everyone's
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Why is Aaron there? When did Clair die? Was the Kwon's baby there?
Big questions were not answered
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
The big questions were answered, but they seem not to like the answers provided
For the first three seasons the numbers were a huge question. The same numbers kept popping up everywhere, but why? Then the writers just dropped the numbers, in their typical ad-hoc story-telling fashion.
I think the plane crash at the end was were Kate, Sawyer, and Richard, died.
But what about Aaron? Why was Aaron dead? Did the Kwon baby die also?
Should we blame the government? Or blame society? Or should we blame the images on TV?
NO! Blame Canada! Blame Canada! With all their beady little eyes and flapping heads so full of lies! Blame Canada! Blame Canada! We need to form a full assault! It's Canada's fault!
. . .
We must blame them and cause a fuss before somebody thinks of blaming uuuuuuuuuuus!
The turbo-prop US cargo plane attacked the Chinese fighter jets by ramming the fighter jets from behind. The claims were almost comical. It reminds me of the Iraqi minister of information: "there are no US troops in Baghdad!"
I guess countries with closed information sources develop a different mind-set. The leaders are used to their outrageous lies being unchallenged.
As I understand it: what AT&T sold to novell is unknown. What copyrights AT&T owned was unknown, because the findings of the AT&T vs BSD lawsuit were sealed.
Furthermore, as I understand it, most modern UNIXes don't use a lot of the old copyrights. For example, there is practically no old UNIX copyrights in AIX, IBM re-wrote everything.
And even if Microsoft owned the copyrights, I think msft would still be bound by contracts.
Also, if msft tried to acquire all UNIX copyrights, I think a lot of companies might start complaining about anti-trust. Msft is already considered a monopoly.
Why would everybody lose their jobs ect? How about prices go up around 10% and US executives get 10% less in their bonuses? Just give workers somewhat shorter days, and longer breaks.
Whamo has recently moved manufacturing from China to the US. The dirt cheap Chinese labor does not make up for the extra overhead costs. Maybe working people so slavishly does not save all that much.
It is beginning to look like it to me. Apple is acting exactly like Microsoft. Apple feels threatened by Google. Instead of competing by making a better product, it's just lawsuits and Tonya Harding tactics.
Not just this latest bogo lawsuit, but msft's overall strategy. I think msft is smart to become a litigation company, as opposed to a company that actually producing anything.
Bottom line, msft is in business to increase it's value to shareholders. In the US the ROI from litigation is much better than the ROI from being productive.
What is the point of being a true "innovator and leader?" It is far more profitable to simply acquire a boatload of patents, and skim profits from the true innovators (aka suckers).
Aside from patent trolling, msft seems to be investing in other activities that also have a superior ROI, such as buying political influence, buying media influence, and astroturfing.
Although they may offer some advantages, msft's latest products are hardly compelling, and I suspect that real sales have been disappointing. Creating products is expensive and risky. I'm sure that patent trolling is far more lucrative.
Studying stuff you know you will never use seems unappealing enough. Now students will understand that their studies are not only useless, but a load of half-truths made to fit whichever political agenda is in control.
Just memorize stuff long enough to regurgitate it on the exam, and if you can get away with it: cheat. I mean, why not? It's nothing but a lot of useless lies anyway, right?
Maybe, just maybe, subjects like math will not be overly politicized. But that stuff is all being offshored to the world's "best and brightest" i.e. cheapest.
Slashdot Mirror
the etaco is a utter piece of crap. It's PDF rendering is horrible at best.
Isn't that true for any dedicated ebook reader? Trying to read a PDF on an iPod Touch also sucks.
Maybe it's best to just use a $199 netbook? A netbook is far more versatile, and can handle any format.
I bought an used iPod touch from craigslist for $85, it's great, I use it all the time. The iPad looks great also.
But, it's easy for me to believe that another tablet device could be better. Apple's strong-arming, and lock-down, are a total PITA.
I can easily believe that an android device could be more functional, just as easy to use, and cost less than what Apple offers.
Of course, the high-fashion, trendy, Apple zealots will continue to stick their up at anything that's not apple. But, I'm okay with that also.
Again JMHO.
I dunno. $498 still seems insanely high. I can get a netbook for $199, or a really nice laptop for $450.
http://www.techdealdigger.com/pr/cheap-acer-aspire-one-aod250-1151-101-inch-black-netbook-deals/3391
http://www.dealhack.com/archives/2010/05/133_hp_pavilion_dm3_ultrathin.html
In many ways netbooks and notebooks are superior for reading ebooks, especially ebooks in PDF format. Of course, netbooks and notebooks do far more than just read ebooks.
BTW: the $99 readers use e-Paper, which seems like it might be e-Ink by another name.
netbooks have too small of a screen to really read on
10.1" is too small to read on? I have read an entire book on my ipod touch with 3.5" screen, and I have awful vision.
I am surprised anybody buys it. You can buy an iPad for about the same price, and the iPad does far more.
Arguably the kindle is better for just reading - still.
Sears has the "Aluratek LIBRE eBook Reader PRO" for $99, and buy.com has the "Ectaco jetBOOK LITE e-Book Reader" also for $99.
http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_00309013000P?vName=Computers%20&%20Electronics&cName=PortableElectronics&sName=MP3%20Players&psid=FROOGLE01&sid=IDx20070921x00003a
http://www.buy.com/prod/ectaco-jetbook-lite-e-book-reader/q/listingid/84607877/loc/111/213401968.html
No, the writers didn't drop the numbers. The numbers corresponded to the last remaining candidates.
That's it? Was that actually explained in the story, or is that something that fans just suppose?
If you remember, the number were a huge part of the story, the numbers were everywhere, the lottery, the darpa hatch, hugo's odometer, some signals from Australia back in the 1950, and so on.
If the numbers where just used to correspond to candidates, why do all that? And since there are only a few candidates, why use numbers at all?
The plane crash at the end was an Oceanic plane, not an Ajira plane, which Kate and Sawyer were on.
Is that actually supported by the story, or are the fans just supposing? If Kate and Sawyer made it back, did they get to meet their doubles in L.A.? Did the Kate and Saywer from the Island live, while their doubles died?
I don't get the critics that say "I wasted six years of my life . . ."
I mean, is that all you did for the entire six years? Up until today, I would watch Lost for - at most - one hour a week.
What the audience wanted : answers
What the writers wanted : to make more episodes of Lost
The two being pretty much mutually exclusive until the point that the series was scheduled to end is what made it such a frustrating experience.
Those ideas are not mutually exclusive at all. Soap opera writers do it all the time. As old mysteries get solved, new mysteries are introduced.
If the show was well written (and it certainly was not) then there would be maybe six mysteries floating around at any given time. Some mysteries would get solved, while new mysteries would be created. But, throughout the series the viewer would get closer and closer to finally understanding how everything is connected, and where it all leads. In the finale, all the loose ends would be tied up, and the viewer would understand the writer's vision.
Lost was just sloppy, ad-hoc, story telling with a tacked-on, cop-out, ending.
I can think of lots of stories that involve magic, but still have a coherent story line.
Just because magic is involved in a story does not mean that you have to have a 150 major unresolved loose ends, and a cop-out ending.
I Dream of Jeannie although silly, at least had a coherent story line, which is more than I can say for Lost
I would appreciate answers that are supported by the story, not just made-up theories.
1) What is the deal with the numbers? The numbers were a huge part of the first few seasons, then just seemed to get dropped.
2) Did everybody die at about the same time? Or did they die many years apart, and then just meet at the same time?
3) Were the people in L.A. dead? Or just their counter-parts on the island?
4) Why would Penny, and Aaron, be dead? Or were they?
5) If the nuke destroyed the island in 1977, then how did the characters, on the island, live? Or even if the nuke did not destroy the island, then how did the characters live? Or did the characters on the island live?
6) If the nuke did not destroy the island, wouldn't oceanic flight 815 crash because of the electro-magnetic interference?
7) Did the flash sideways stuff in L.A. happen, or was it just a bunch of dreams?
8) Jacob told Richard that the island kept all the evil in the world corked. Wouldn't Desmond uncorking the island be a bad thing? Why was it important to uncork, then re-cork? How did that save the world, or whatever?
9) What was the point of the Richard character?
10) Why did Jacob not just use Richard as a replacement?
11) Where characters on the island dead the whole time?
Why is Aaron there? When did Clair die? Was the Kwon's baby there?
The big questions were answered, but they seem not to like the answers provided
For the first three seasons the numbers were a huge question. The same numbers kept popping up everywhere, but why? Then the writers just dropped the numbers, in their typical ad-hoc story-telling fashion.
I think the plane crash at the end was were Kate, Sawyer, and Richard, died.
But what about Aaron? Why was Aaron dead? Did the Kwon baby die also?
Dems were pulled, kicking and screaming, into the Gingrich plan. Remember the "contract with America" which the dems called "contract on America?"
Dems despised the republican plan to balance the budget. But those same dems took credit for the plans success.
Should we blame the government?
Or blame society?
Or should we blame the images on TV?
NO!
Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!
With all their beady little eyes and flapping heads so full of lies!
Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!
We need to form a full assault!
It's Canada's fault!
. . .
We must blame them and cause a fuss before somebody thinks of blaming uuuuuuuuuuus!
The turbo-prop US cargo plane attacked the Chinese fighter jets by ramming the fighter jets from behind. The claims were almost comical. It reminds me of the Iraqi minister of information: "there are no US troops in Baghdad!"
I guess countries with closed information sources develop a different mind-set. The leaders are used to their outrageous lies being unchallenged.
As I understand it: what AT&T sold to novell is unknown. What copyrights AT&T owned was unknown, because the findings of the AT&T vs BSD lawsuit were sealed.
Furthermore, as I understand it, most modern UNIXes don't use a lot of the old copyrights. For example, there is practically no old UNIX copyrights in AIX, IBM re-wrote everything.
And even if Microsoft owned the copyrights, I think msft would still be bound by contracts.
Also, if msft tried to acquire all UNIX copyrights, I think a lot of companies might start complaining about anti-trust. Msft is already considered a monopoly.
I don't think Linux uses any old UNIX copyrights.
Why would everybody lose their jobs ect? How about prices go up around 10% and US executives get 10% less in their bonuses? Just give workers somewhat shorter days, and longer breaks.
Whamo has recently moved manufacturing from China to the US. The dirt cheap Chinese labor does not make up for the extra overhead costs. Maybe working people so slavishly does not save all that much.
Maybe Apple is not worse than other manufacturers, but why is the US condoning these sweatshops?
Why does the US not insist on more humane conditions? Why is China a "most favored" nation?
Why does the US not forbid US companies from using labor in countries that do not meet humane conditions?
It is beginning to look like it to me. Apple is acting exactly like Microsoft. Apple feels threatened by Google. Instead of competing by making a better product, it's just lawsuits and Tonya Harding tactics.
I am quickly losing respect for Apple.
Go to images.google.com and view all the depictions of the prophet Mohammad that you want. I image it's the same for images.yahoo.com, and so on.
Not just this latest bogo lawsuit, but msft's overall strategy. I think msft is smart to become a litigation company, as opposed to a company that actually producing anything.
Bottom line, msft is in business to increase it's value to shareholders. In the US the ROI from litigation is much better than the ROI from being productive.
What is the point of being a true "innovator and leader?" It is far more profitable to simply acquire a boatload of patents, and skim profits from the true innovators (aka suckers).
Aside from patent trolling, msft seems to be investing in other activities that also have a superior ROI, such as buying political influence, buying media influence, and astroturfing.
Although they may offer some advantages, msft's latest products are hardly compelling, and I suspect that real sales have been disappointing. Creating products is expensive and risky. I'm sure that patent trolling is far more lucrative.
I'd hate to tell you this, but no one cares about openness except a handful of geeks.
But, those handful of geeks are the ones who develop apps. And typical enders certainly care about apps.
Small thing maybe, but I think there is a difference in *being* irrelevant and *becoming* irrelevant.
I think the idea of the PC becoming irrelevant, in the fairly near future, is entirely realistic.
The US is a horrible country founded on being cheats and corrupt views.
Compared to which other country? Can you name the country that has no corruption? Name the country which does not cheat?
Studying stuff you know you will never use seems unappealing enough. Now students will understand that their studies are not only useless, but a load of half-truths made to fit whichever political agenda is in control.
Just memorize stuff long enough to regurgitate it on the exam, and if you can get away with it: cheat. I mean, why not? It's nothing but a lot of useless lies anyway, right?
Maybe, just maybe, subjects like math will not be overly politicized. But that stuff is all being offshored to the world's "best and brightest" i.e. cheapest.