Uh, what? The vast majority of people in the US live in abject poverty? I'm going to have to ask for a citation on that one. Also, US development may be a massive ecological travesty, but it's hardly the most massive one in human history. So in fact I'm going to rate your whole post as -1, Hyperbolic.
I think he wants you to check the surety of your conclusions. You stated that you "called into question" the results, and supported that with an observation, but the observation was easily explained by someone with basic knowledge of the thing you were questioning. So, since you knew that you were ignorant of this topic, but went ahead and drew a wrong conclusion, and did in fact question the veracity of the results, the person responded to you with mockery.
Sure, you are allowed to use your eyes and draw conclusions. And when your conclusions are proffered with gusto, and are totally wrong, and based on ignorance, then you are open for a little criticism.
You are obviously correct: it is their sandbox, and they decide what runs on it. That's why I don't have an iPhone, which I agree is a fabulous device: I want my phone to be my sandbox.
That's a good point. Keep in mind, however, that multitouch is not synonymous with touchscreen. I have one of those Fingerworks TouchStream keyboards, so you have a keyboard on your lap or desktop, but you look forward at your screen. I have always found that very natural. The TouchStream was a great but imperfect device, which I wish the new corporate owners (Apple) would improve and re-release. Unfortunately, they took the tech and built the iPhone, which made the keyboard an orphan of history.
If multitouch really takes off in the consumer space (I'm not holding my breath, but I'm certainly crossing my fingers), then probably we'd get devices with multitouch on both the screen and an external keyboard. Users would touch wherever they want, whatever was most convenient.
Today's applications, my man. Ask yourself, how well does a keyboard and mouse work for Wii games? What, you say, not very well at all? Do you think that's because keyboard and mouse suck, or because Wii applications weren't designed for keyboard and mouse? If consumer software were optimized for multitouch, then things would be different. I expect a slow co-evolution of software and input devices. (I also expect keyboard and mouse to be with us for a long, long time.)
I think you may have made the mistake of thinking all screens are the same, and smudge in the same way. Imagine if there were a screen that didn't smudge, then you wouldn't object. On a sliding scale, the less smudging, the less you would object, and at some point the usefulness of the interface would overcome the objection to smudging. If they can build that interface, and that screen, then that would obviate your complaint. (And if they can't, then it's a good point.)
I understand where you are coming from, but I can tell you haven't used multitouch on a desktop computer. I own one of the famed Fingerworks keyboards, and take my word for it, multitouch is incredibly useful and natural in a desktop environment. I know you can't really imagine why, but tapping your first and third fingers is a more natural gesture for "copy" than pressing Ctrl-C; sliding all four fingers to the right is a more natural gesture than Ctrl-RightArrow. Seriously, I really know why it's hard to imagine this, but if you did it for a few minutes, you would understand. Keep an open mind and if you get the chance, give it a prolonged try. It's awesome.
What kind of idiot? You mean, everybody? Yeah it's fun to sit there and say everyone is an idiot, but that is a disingenuous cover for the fact that Paypal is the real bad guy.
The fraction of people who read every work of every click-thru agreement is probably literally one in 100,000, or one in a million, or less. To say that everybody except that person is an idiot is not credible.
Good troll, though; you got me and some other people.
This is off topic (but please don't mod me down for it). Years ago the internet nerds decided to boycott Amazon, so I did that along with the rest of the nerds, or so I thought. Years have passed, and I never heard that we were dropping the boycott, but nobody seems to be miffed at Amazon anymore. Did I miss a news story about how Amazon made amends and was forgiven?
Yes you are right about opinion versus fact, but I think the crux of the judge's decision is that the statements were statements of declaration, not opinion; but that the declarations were factually false. I haven't read the blog, so I can't actually critique the judge's decision, but if you say "The woman is a whore", then that could be construed as a declaration or as an opinion, probably depending on context. If you get more explicit, such as "The woman enjoys distributing oral sex for small sums of money", then that is a little farther down the line. You will probably agree that it would be a declaration if the blogger wrote "I personally witnessed the woman exchanging sexual favors for monetary compensation, which qualifies her as a professional prostitute." I don't know exactly how the sentences were phrased.
Remember, the judge didn't rule against the blogger on slander grounds, merely he ruled for the plaintiff to allow the lawsuit to take place, which of course means the defendant must be identified.
Thank goodness you are a big time director looking to hire an attractive model for her acting debut! I'm sure this woman will be thrilled to hear from you!
Oh wait, you're just some guy? A guy who isn't in a position to hire her? Then you are still entitled to your opinion, but it isn't relevant at all.
Yes, that is pretty much the way American law is, and also the way American law should be (IMHO); and the important arbiter of the disagreement is truth. If she is, in fact, a skanky ho, then that will be demonstrated in court, and the skanky ho will lose. If she is not, in fact, a skanky ho, and that can be demonstrated, then the slanderer has in fact diminished her reputation, and is liable for that indecency. Furthermore, the law only begins to apply at sufficiently egregious degrees of speech, which will also have to be demonstrated to the judge. That is how it is, and how it should be (IMHO). Do you think it should be different? If so, do you think there should be no line at all (all slander is permissible) or do you think the line should be drawn somewhere else?
They say that "Except for the present incumbent, the President has never inhaled", but that confuses me. Obviously this is a reference to Clinton, but Bush was a well-known druggie and drunk. Am I to believe that he commonly snorted coke off of coeds' naked bodies and drove drunk, but never puffed a joint? I suppose that is possible, but I find it hard to believe.
Law enforcement is a job, but it is hardly "just" a job. It is an exceptionally difficult and stressful job with constraints and responsibilities far beyond the norm.
It is not at all better than paying money. The problem is there is no mechanism to pay the amount of money that a single page is worth.
On a per-click basis, web ads pay about one cent (.01), maybe up to an order of magnitude more than that, ten cents (.1). I just looked and one site claimed that.04% (.0004) of people click on web ads. Let's round that way, way up to.1% to make the math easy.
If.1% (.001) people click on ads and each pays.01$, then one million pages would make 1M *.001 *.01 = $10.00.
So for those same million pages to make ten dollars where everyone just pays some amount of money to see the page, then each person would have to pay $10/1M = $.00001, which is one-thousanth of a cent.
I probably view, say, one hundred pages a day, on a day with significant browsing. For that pleasure, I would happily pay a tenth of a cent. Then imagine that some sites employ full-time staff with expensive and technical content. That would cost a lot more, maybe ten or a hundred times more. So what are we up to now, a dime?
This sounds pretty good, pretty smart. So long as there are no commercials on the site or in the videos, I would gladly pay a fair amount for a TV show. Say, maybe ten cents per episode, or a dollar for a whole season.
Yes, this is what I did. I had a 2002-vintage PowerBook, the model with those flimsy little hinges. I put that computer thru a lot of abuse, and eventually the hinges gave up the ghost.
I broke off the screen with brute force
Built the computer into a cabinet
Plugged it into a flatscreen TV
Got a BTC brand wireless media keyboard (built-in mouse)
Got an eyeTV
Got a RadioShark (don't use it much, but it's cool)
Installed Miro and Boxee, they both work great
Installed HandBrake and VLC for watching videos
Got inexpensive external hard drive for large storage
Used an old USB hub for plugging in other stuff
After surrounding my broke-ass Mac with a bunch of new and nice components, the weak part of my media setup is the broke-ass Mac! I'm happy to have found a use for a computer which is otherwise useless, but if I were to do it again I'd get a free oldish x86 tower and use Mythbuntu or something.
That sounded like a challenge to me, good sir, so I took you up on it! I mixed three cups of all-purpose white flour with a 12-ounce bottle of Alaskan Summer Ale, a local brew here in Juneau. I stirred until combined and plopped the lump into a square pyrex dish. I didn't let it rise. I sprinkled the top with sugar. I put it in an oven at 375 degrees. After 45 minutes it was not cooked, but after one hour it was. Near the end I melted butter over the crust.
The resulting bread was dense and chewy, but very tasty with butter and honey. The most appealing part was that it was hot and crusty.
So as an independent party I can corroborate this recipe. Thank you for putting hot bread into my Monday nite.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, what? The vast majority of people in the US live in abject poverty? I'm going to have to ask for a citation on that one. Also, US development may be a massive ecological travesty, but it's hardly the most massive one in human history. So in fact I'm going to rate your whole post as -1, Hyperbolic.
We've been observing molecules in lots of ways for a long time. This is just the first time we've made a certain kind of picture.
Novelty is "the quality of being new". You fail to see the novelty of doing something for the first time?
I think he wants you to check the surety of your conclusions. You stated that you "called into question" the results, and supported that with an observation, but the observation was easily explained by someone with basic knowledge of the thing you were questioning. So, since you knew that you were ignorant of this topic, but went ahead and drew a wrong conclusion, and did in fact question the veracity of the results, the person responded to you with mockery.
Sure, you are allowed to use your eyes and draw conclusions. And when your conclusions are proffered with gusto, and are totally wrong, and based on ignorance, then you are open for a little criticism.
You are obviously correct: it is their sandbox, and they decide what runs on it. That's why I don't have an iPhone, which I agree is a fabulous device: I want my phone to be my sandbox.
That's a good point. Keep in mind, however, that multitouch is not synonymous with touchscreen. I have one of those Fingerworks TouchStream keyboards, so you have a keyboard on your lap or desktop, but you look forward at your screen. I have always found that very natural. The TouchStream was a great but imperfect device, which I wish the new corporate owners (Apple) would improve and re-release. Unfortunately, they took the tech and built the iPhone, which made the keyboard an orphan of history.
If multitouch really takes off in the consumer space (I'm not holding my breath, but I'm certainly crossing my fingers), then probably we'd get devices with multitouch on both the screen and an external keyboard. Users would touch wherever they want, whatever was most convenient.
Today's applications, my man. Ask yourself, how well does a keyboard and mouse work for Wii games? What, you say, not very well at all? Do you think that's because keyboard and mouse suck, or because Wii applications weren't designed for keyboard and mouse? If consumer software were optimized for multitouch, then things would be different. I expect a slow co-evolution of software and input devices. (I also expect keyboard and mouse to be with us for a long, long time.)
I think you may have made the mistake of thinking all screens are the same, and smudge in the same way. Imagine if there were a screen that didn't smudge, then you wouldn't object. On a sliding scale, the less smudging, the less you would object, and at some point the usefulness of the interface would overcome the objection to smudging. If they can build that interface, and that screen, then that would obviate your complaint. (And if they can't, then it's a good point.)
I understand where you are coming from, but I can tell you haven't used multitouch on a desktop computer. I own one of the famed Fingerworks keyboards, and take my word for it, multitouch is incredibly useful and natural in a desktop environment. I know you can't really imagine why, but tapping your first and third fingers is a more natural gesture for "copy" than pressing Ctrl-C; sliding all four fingers to the right is a more natural gesture than Ctrl-RightArrow. Seriously, I really know why it's hard to imagine this, but if you did it for a few minutes, you would understand. Keep an open mind and if you get the chance, give it a prolonged try. It's awesome.
I disagree with what you said. I think the iPod was successful because it was closer to what people desired than the competition.
As for me, I think my iPod is okay, but I wish there were a product even closer to what I desire.
What kind of idiot? You mean, everybody? Yeah it's fun to sit there and say everyone is an idiot, but that is a disingenuous cover for the fact that Paypal is the real bad guy.
The fraction of people who read every work of every click-thru agreement is probably literally one in 100,000, or one in a million, or less. To say that everybody except that person is an idiot is not credible.
Good troll, though; you got me and some other people.
This is off topic (but please don't mod me down for it). Years ago the internet nerds decided to boycott Amazon, so I did that along with the rest of the nerds, or so I thought. Years have passed, and I never heard that we were dropping the boycott, but nobody seems to be miffed at Amazon anymore. Did I miss a news story about how Amazon made amends and was forgiven?
Yes you are right about opinion versus fact, but I think the crux of the judge's decision is that the statements were statements of declaration, not opinion; but that the declarations were factually false. I haven't read the blog, so I can't actually critique the judge's decision, but if you say "The woman is a whore", then that could be construed as a declaration or as an opinion, probably depending on context. If you get more explicit, such as "The woman enjoys distributing oral sex for small sums of money", then that is a little farther down the line. You will probably agree that it would be a declaration if the blogger wrote "I personally witnessed the woman exchanging sexual favors for monetary compensation, which qualifies her as a professional prostitute." I don't know exactly how the sentences were phrased.
Remember, the judge didn't rule against the blogger on slander grounds, merely he ruled for the plaintiff to allow the lawsuit to take place, which of course means the defendant must be identified.
Thank goodness you are a big time director looking to hire an attractive model for her acting debut! I'm sure this woman will be thrilled to hear from you!
Oh wait, you're just some guy? A guy who isn't in a position to hire her? Then you are still entitled to your opinion, but it isn't relevant at all.
Yes, that is pretty much the way American law is, and also the way American law should be (IMHO); and the important arbiter of the disagreement is truth. If she is, in fact, a skanky ho, then that will be demonstrated in court, and the skanky ho will lose. If she is not, in fact, a skanky ho, and that can be demonstrated, then the slanderer has in fact diminished her reputation, and is liable for that indecency. Furthermore, the law only begins to apply at sufficiently egregious degrees of speech, which will also have to be demonstrated to the judge. That is how it is, and how it should be (IMHO). Do you think it should be different? If so, do you think there should be no line at all (all slander is permissible) or do you think the line should be drawn somewhere else?
Serious question: When was the GDP not the key indicator of the national economy? (I'm ten years older than these freshmen.)
They say that "Except for the present incumbent, the President has never inhaled", but that confuses me. Obviously this is a reference to Clinton, but Bush was a well-known druggie and drunk. Am I to believe that he commonly snorted coke off of coeds' naked bodies and drove drunk, but never puffed a joint? I suppose that is possible, but I find it hard to believe.
how is posting their home address, along with pictures and map coordinates, anything less than off-duty stalking.
You didn't use a question mark. Did you mean that as a rhetorical question.
Law enforcement is a job, but it is hardly "just" a job. It is an exceptionally difficult and stressful job with constraints and responsibilities far beyond the norm.
This still sounds like a bad situation, though.
It is not at all better than paying money. The problem is there is no mechanism to pay the amount of money that a single page is worth.
On a per-click basis, web ads pay about one cent (.01), maybe up to an order of magnitude more than that, ten cents (.1). I just looked and one site claimed that .04% (.0004) of people click on web ads. Let's round that way, way up to .1% to make the math easy.
If .1% (.001) people click on ads and each pays .01$, then one million pages would make 1M * .001 * .01 = $10.00.
So for those same million pages to make ten dollars where everyone just pays some amount of money to see the page, then each person would have to pay $10/1M = $.00001, which is one-thousanth of a cent.
I probably view, say, one hundred pages a day, on a day with significant browsing. For that pleasure, I would happily pay a tenth of a cent. Then imagine that some sites employ full-time staff with expensive and technical content. That would cost a lot more, maybe ten or a hundred times more. So what are we up to now, a dime?
This sounds pretty good, pretty smart. So long as there are no commercials on the site or in the videos, I would gladly pay a fair amount for a TV show. Say, maybe ten cents per episode, or a dollar for a whole season.
The ignorance of Scientologists isn't the characteristic which I most want to avoid. I'm more worried about the malice.
Sucks for level-headed conservatives!
some people call them moderate Democrats
Yes, this is what I did. I had a 2002-vintage PowerBook, the model with those flimsy little hinges. I put that computer thru a lot of abuse, and eventually the hinges gave up the ghost.
After surrounding my broke-ass Mac with a bunch of new and nice components, the weak part of my media setup is the broke-ass Mac! I'm happy to have found a use for a computer which is otherwise useless, but if I were to do it again I'd get a free oldish x86 tower and use Mythbuntu or something.
That sounded like a challenge to me, good sir, so I took you up on it! I mixed three cups of all-purpose white flour with a 12-ounce bottle of Alaskan Summer Ale, a local brew here in Juneau. I stirred until combined and plopped the lump into a square pyrex dish. I didn't let it rise. I sprinkled the top with sugar. I put it in an oven at 375 degrees. After 45 minutes it was not cooked, but after one hour it was. Near the end I melted butter over the crust.
The resulting bread was dense and chewy, but very tasty with butter and honey. The most appealing part was that it was hot and crusty.
So as an independent party I can corroborate this recipe. Thank you for putting hot bread into my Monday nite.