And then there was the lady checking out at the grocery store before me, talking on her cellphone. She kept taking ten seconds or so to do each step of the credit card transaction, due to not paying attention. I hope I'm never near her while she's driving and talking.
one in 40 are actually just fine with such distractions. In a small study, such 'supertaskers' were just as good at driving when carrying on a conversation over a hands-free phone as they were when fully focused.
I don't care about relative performance. How well do these supertaskers driving wile focused compare with a normaltasker while focused, and how good are they compared to some standard of safe? In other words, the supertaskers might be great at normal and distracted driving, or really lousy at both.
And let's just say that these supertaskers are great in both situations. What if they found that 1 in 1000 could drive safely with eyes closed, or while sleeping? That shouldn't be grounds for making such a thing legal. Ultimately what matters is that safety is at an acceptable level, however that is achieved.
While on this line of thought, I would liken using Norton to wearing 8 condoms, all which having been poked with a needle, and Spybot Search & Destroy being the "Pull-Out" contraceptive method, and disconnecting from the internet altogether being like a hysterectomy. Unfortunately, we can't forget Live OneCare, which is like wrapping it with toilet paper, drinking a fifth of tequila, taking two viagras, and then wandering around Mexico City.
Where does Slashdot fit into the above? Oh, right, Slashdot is like posting about these things, like I'm doing. Guaranteed safe.
Re:This is not the last we will ever hear of any t
on
Novell Wins vs. SCO
·
· Score: 1
This is not the last we will ever hear of any this; You forgot Slashdot dupes!
When the dupe appears two days from now, April 1, it'll be much more appropriate where it says "This is the last we'll hear of SCO."
Yes, I see your flashy menu. It's nice. Now can we get on with the playing of the movie please? No? Oh good, now you're showing me all the funny parts of the movie in the menu before I've even seen the movie. Can I turn subtitles off now? More animation? All I did was press a button, I don't need a damn light show congratulating me on it.
Perfectly put.
Someone gave me a Sanyo DVD/VHS a while back and it had this great feature: auto-play. This finds the longest track on the disc and starts playing it the moment you insert the disc. No unskippable intro, FBI warnings, no menu, nothing else. When done, it stops and shows the player's logo screen, at which point you can press Menu if you feel like being abused. Too bad its component video output had the black level wrong, which made everything look bad in a subtle way.
You are wrong if you think that "KB" does NOT already stand for "kilobyte." That term and its abbreviation is well-established. You can argue in favor of re-defining it, but as I said, check any CS text since 1970 and see for yourself.
No argument from me. But I thought that "kilobyte" had already been "re"defined in the past few years to mean 1000 bytes, as it should have all along. My point was that "KB" need not be redefined (in meaning); it can still stand for 1024 bytes without conflicting with proper SI units. True, it used to stand for kilobyte, which stood for 1024 bytes, so my suggested "re"definition just makes it stand directly for 1024 bytes. Without that, it would still stand for kilobyte ("KB" AND "kB" would, in fact), which under the "harmonized" definitions, stands for 1000 bytes.
My argument is about reducing confusion by preserving the meaning of "KB" in light of the recent trend to treat "kilobyte" as 1000 bytes. I suppose you could say that making "KB" mean something other than kilobyte is confusing, but I argue that the meaning that matters is 1024 bytes.
But if you really get down to it, even byte doesn't always mean 8 bits. So someone could claim 1GB and actually mean 7Gbit, rether than 8Gbit, since their bytes are one 7 bits wide. That's why I really favor just doing everything in bits, and using SI prefixes. This doesn't conflict with any previous definitions, and is what the communication industry has been using all along.
You don't understand my point either, apparently (it does no good to say "you don't want to admit you're wrong" when you don't seem to understand what I'm arguing; to falsely say "yeah, I admit it, I'm wrong" wouldn't do anything to address the fact that what you're claiming I'm wrong about is NOT what I'm talking about). Yes, the term "kilobyte" meaning 1024 bytes is a problem and should be eliminated. But the term "KB" is fine, as I argue, because it doesn't conflict with the new SI units. I believe that the term "KB" is used much more than "kilobyte" (at least in written material), and thus defining "KB" to mean "1024 bytes" is a nice way to keep backwards compatibility with the old material, without conflicting with the new SI units. And as I said, this can't be done for "MB" and "GB", because they DO conflict with the new units. Think of this as having a bunch of source code that you want to keep compiling, but without making lots of changes to. MB and GB will have to change, but KB (and K) don't. Again, when I write K and KB, I don't mean "kilobyte". I mean "K" and "KB" only.
And fuck off with YOUR abusive discussion style. I didn't put anyone down in my previous responses, yet you've felt it necessary to constantly put me down. And you're a fucking anonymous coward to boot. Argue substance.
I am not arguing anything about the term "kilobyte". I am arguing about the pair of uppercae letters, "KB". The problem people seem to have is that it seems to misuse SI units. That's why I say to just define the two-letter "KB" to mean "1024 bytes" and for it to have NO meaning beyond that, e.g. for it NOT to stand for "kilobyte" or be decomposable into anything. It could be any two letters, just that using "KB" means that all things that previously referred to things as KB will still be correct with this "new" definition.
In a related development, Ubuntu has decided to redefine all x86 opcodes, because the current ones are "confusing". Backwards compatibility was considered, but it was decided that it was more idealogically pure to redefine all of them. "To leave the old meaning in place and define new opcodes that had no meaning before would have felt dirty. We wanted to make a clean break, without any baggage."
I didn't say kilo, I said "K". That is not an SI prefix. I'll state it again: defining KB to mean "1024 bytes" doesn't conflict with any SI unit, because KB is not an SI unit or name of any other unit.
Note that my argument doesn't apply to MB or GB, since M and G are SI prefixes, and thus MB and GB mean megabel and gigabel, or megabyte and gigabyte if you take B to mean byte rather than Bel.
I've been using computers for 20+ years and I do _not_ want to change how I think file sizes, especially since I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count.
I disagree; base 10 is clearly superior to base 1010.
In other words, they will use 1kB for 1000 bytes and 1KiB for 1024 bytes. This is a good thing, it just means the UI should be consistent and you don't need to second-guess.
But it's inconsistent with previous GUIs. It'd be like the world saying "Tomorrow, we will start using the term 'yes' to mean 'no, and 'foo' to mean 'yes'. This will not cause any confusion, because we will use these new terms everywhere."
Well, there's the matter of actually telling the *truth*, as the current base-2 values are flat-out, numerically, mathematically *wrong* values for KB, MB, GB.
K is not an SI prefix. And this has nothing to do with math, just definitions. Since K isn't an SI prefix, KB has no definition in SI, thus the computer definition (1024 bytes) is fine. Thus, KB is the name of the unit, not a prefixed unit or acronym.
I think we should just switch to bits, as the communication field has done all along. Then you can use kbit, Mbit, Gbit, etc. without any confusion. Considering that byte itself isn't a specific number of bits, even GiB doesn't really tell you how many bits you can store.
The reality is that you most likely won't be fined.
So it's OK for me to threaten imprisonment of someone for a peaceful activity as long as I won't actually do it (even though I could if I wanted to, without any risk to myself)?
Not everyone is familiar with online games and whatever DLC means. After some trial-and-error, I'm thinking it means downloadable content. But sheesh, define terms if it's not common.
As far as I can see, he's using a microcontroller which is, itself, Turing-complete. So it's still only emulating a Turing machine (just with physical tape, instead of an emulator on your computer).
Couldn't that be said of any Turing machine? Whatever you build it out of is Turing-complete, I think.
I've found that linksys helpfully installs range extenders in many neighborhoods already. Sometimes I can pick up my WiFi across town! Just look for "linksys" in the SSID. It's a great service.
Slashdot Mirror
In my day, command shells didn't require JavaScript just to work. And we had to type both sides of the exchange, uphill both ways, and in the snow.
And then there was the lady checking out at the grocery store before me, talking on her cellphone. She kept taking ten seconds or so to do each step of the credit card transaction, due to not paying attention. I hope I'm never near her while she's driving and talking.
(User searching the Web with Google.) Guardian Angel: "What would Ballmer think of what you're doing?"
Yes, but would it still work afterwards?
I don't care about relative performance. How well do these supertaskers driving wile focused compare with a normaltasker while focused, and how good are they compared to some standard of safe? In other words, the supertaskers might be great at normal and distracted driving, or really lousy at both.
And let's just say that these supertaskers are great in both situations. What if they found that 1 in 1000 could drive safely with eyes closed, or while sleeping? That shouldn't be grounds for making such a thing legal. Ultimately what matters is that safety is at an acceptable level, however that is achieved.
Where does Slashdot fit into the above? Oh, right, Slashdot is like posting about these things, like I'm doing. Guaranteed safe.
When the dupe appears two days from now, April 1, it'll be much more appropriate where it says "This is the last we'll hear of SCO."
Perfectly put.
Someone gave me a Sanyo DVD/VHS a while back and it had this great feature: auto-play. This finds the longest track on the disc and starts playing it the moment you insert the disc. No unskippable intro, FBI warnings, no menu, nothing else. When done, it stops and shows the player's logo screen, at which point you can press Menu if you feel like being abused. Too bad its component video output had the black level wrong, which made everything look bad in a subtle way.
I'm hoping page 42 is something like "This page intentionally left blank" or something.
No argument from me. But I thought that "kilobyte" had already been "re"defined in the past few years to mean 1000 bytes, as it should have all along. My point was that "KB" need not be redefined (in meaning); it can still stand for 1024 bytes without conflicting with proper SI units. True, it used to stand for kilobyte, which stood for 1024 bytes, so my suggested "re"definition just makes it stand directly for 1024 bytes. Without that, it would still stand for kilobyte ("KB" AND "kB" would, in fact), which under the "harmonized" definitions, stands for 1000 bytes.
My argument is about reducing confusion by preserving the meaning of "KB" in light of the recent trend to treat "kilobyte" as 1000 bytes. I suppose you could say that making "KB" mean something other than kilobyte is confusing, but I argue that the meaning that matters is 1024 bytes.
But if you really get down to it, even byte doesn't always mean 8 bits. So someone could claim 1GB and actually mean 7Gbit, rether than 8Gbit, since their bytes are one 7 bits wide. That's why I really favor just doing everything in bits, and using SI prefixes. This doesn't conflict with any previous definitions, and is what the communication industry has been using all along.
You don't understand my point either, apparently (it does no good to say "you don't want to admit you're wrong" when you don't seem to understand what I'm arguing; to falsely say "yeah, I admit it, I'm wrong" wouldn't do anything to address the fact that what you're claiming I'm wrong about is NOT what I'm talking about). Yes, the term "kilobyte" meaning 1024 bytes is a problem and should be eliminated. But the term "KB" is fine, as I argue, because it doesn't conflict with the new SI units. I believe that the term "KB" is used much more than "kilobyte" (at least in written material), and thus defining "KB" to mean "1024 bytes" is a nice way to keep backwards compatibility with the old material, without conflicting with the new SI units. And as I said, this can't be done for "MB" and "GB", because they DO conflict with the new units. Think of this as having a bunch of source code that you want to keep compiling, but without making lots of changes to. MB and GB will have to change, but KB (and K) don't. Again, when I write K and KB, I don't mean "kilobyte". I mean "K" and "KB" only.
And fuck off with YOUR abusive discussion style. I didn't put anyone down in my previous responses, yet you've felt it necessary to constantly put me down. And you're a fucking anonymous coward to boot. Argue substance.
I am not arguing anything about the term "kilobyte". I am arguing about the pair of uppercae letters, "KB". The problem people seem to have is that it seems to misuse SI units. That's why I say to just define the two-letter "KB" to mean "1024 bytes" and for it to have NO meaning beyond that, e.g. for it NOT to stand for "kilobyte" or be decomposable into anything. It could be any two letters, just that using "KB" means that all things that previously referred to things as KB will still be correct with this "new" definition.
In a related development, Ubuntu has decided to redefine all x86 opcodes, because the current ones are "confusing". Backwards compatibility was considered, but it was decided that it was more idealogically pure to redefine all of them. "To leave the old meaning in place and define new opcodes that had no meaning before would have felt dirty. We wanted to make a clean break, without any baggage."
I'd prefer they not display numbers in base 2. Reading a long string of ones and zeroes is difficult.
Note that my argument doesn't apply to MB or GB, since M and G are SI prefixes, and thus MB and GB mean megabel and gigabel, or megabyte and gigabyte if you take B to mean byte rather than Bel.
I disagree; base 10 is clearly superior to base 1010.
But it's inconsistent with previous GUIs. It'd be like the world saying "Tomorrow, we will start using the term 'yes' to mean 'no, and 'foo' to mean 'yes'. This will not cause any confusion, because we will use these new terms everywhere."
K is not an SI prefix. And this has nothing to do with math, just definitions. Since K isn't an SI prefix, KB has no definition in SI, thus the computer definition (1024 bytes) is fine. Thus, KB is the name of the unit, not a prefixed unit or acronym.
I think we should just switch to bits, as the communication field has done all along. Then you can use kbit, Mbit, Gbit, etc. without any confusion. Considering that byte itself isn't a specific number of bits, even GiB doesn't really tell you how many bits you can store.
So it's OK for me to threaten imprisonment of someone for a peaceful activity as long as I won't actually do it (even though I could if I wanted to, without any risk to myself)?
Not everyone is familiar with online games and whatever DLC means. After some trial-and-error, I'm thinking it means downloadable content. But sheesh, define terms if it's not common.
Couldn't that be said of any Turing machine? Whatever you build it out of is Turing-complete, I think.
In other words, this 90% of the universe previously unseen is a different 90% than the 90% that is dark matter. Hope that clears things up.
I've found that linksys helpfully installs range extenders in many neighborhoods already. Sometimes I can pick up my WiFi across town! Just look for "linksys" in the SSID. It's a great service.
I tried flouresent lamps once, but I kept getting rats. Maybe if I tried corn or rice flour...