You realize that "Clicking on the file" is not a virus right? Viruses must by definition replicate without user interaction.
That's like me sending you a dos batch file on windows and you being dumb enough to run it. If we're extending the definition of virus to "anything some dumbass might run that could hurt their system" then every operating system has an infinite number of viruses just waiting to nail it.
The pro weighs less The pro is smaller but has the same screen size and keyboard The black border around the screen makes it look much better, and at night doesn't distract you from the actual screen. The pro has an SD slot and firewire (though I don't care about the firewire) The pro has a backlit keyboard (very important) The pro can take a better chip, and more memory (important, since I need the 8GB of ram for my 2 virtual machines) The pro has better sounding speakers (they may well be the same, it may just be the aluminum case that muffles them less/more to make it sound better) The pro has an aluminum shell instead of bullshit plastic (probably the single most important thing)
Other than those reasons, I suppose they are the same. As it happens, those features are worth well more than the $200 extra that it costs.
If they made the standard MB have all of those features, I would buy it in a heartbeat. It would also cost $200 more.
I didn't bother reading your comment... But you did answer the only question needed - clearly you understand english fine, you're just not very intelligent.
II don't know any reason to believe distant galaxies are made of matter rather than antimatter.
Now that's an interesting thought... I hadn't considered that possibility. I agree that there is no way to tell the difference between matter and antimatter at that kind of distance. The tiny amount of space debris flying around wouldn't annihilate enough of anything to be noticeable, so isolated clumps of matter and antimatter would appear to be the same.
Most arguments I've seen about matter/antimatter is that they should have been attracted to each other and annihilated immediately at the big bang. Obviously though that doesn't actually happen every (or even most) of the time, since we're capturing the stuff with relative ease.
The only reason I can see to question the co-existence would be that if a matter galaxy collided with an antimatter galaxy the energy released would.... well frankly I'm not even sure what it would do, it would be enormous but at the same time the distance between galaxies is equally enormous.
You have given me something to ponder for many days, I thank you:)
So you don't understand what an analogy is, or what I was saying, or why what I was asking is important.
If you'd like to try again, I'll explain my comment more clearly... for all I know English isn't your first language and you were confused, rather than ignorant.
People accept not being allowed to do bad things all the time, it's what our laws are all about. If you are saying that something is bad, but you should be allowed to do it anyways you *must*:
1) have a line that you draw where something is "bad enough" to warrant prevention. or 2) believe that all actions, no matter how bad should be allowed. or 3) be mentally incompetent, possibly due to a psychological disorder.
If you fall into 2 or 3, it's good for people to know that so they can avoid you. If you fall into 1 I am legitimately curious about where the line is drawn. Most people consider personal rights paramount. If you actually believe you have a personal right that disallows other people to design products that don't run a piece of software I want to know where that falls in respect to the right to life.
Note: the poster (you, I'm guessing) *said* that flash was bad, so we aren't looking at an argument of whether or not flash is bad, that's already been established.
How is that "split personality?" There's a huge difference between not running Flash and not being allowed to run Flash by a hardware manufacturer. Flash is bad, but a third party banning Flash is 10x worse.
I'm legitimately curious about something... do you also agree with this statement?
"There's a huge difference between not murdering and not being allowed to murder by the police. Murder is bad, but a third party banning murder is 10x worse."
I'm not saying that flash is murder (except for the processor), but just where do you draw the line about people protecting you from bad things? There's no bad answer here as long as you have some rational justification for drawing the line.
No, the only reason for this is Adobe. Google was practically begging for flash support in Android to help set it apart from iOS and it still took 2.2 versions before it arrived (and it's still not very good, a site with more than one object slows down even powerhouse devices).
Don't blame Adobe's incompetence on Apple, Jobs, or iOS.
I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying, but without knowing your physics background I think you may be missing info on what the main goal of antimatter study is.
The primary point of interest currently is to determine why matter exists and antimatter doesn't (that is, why the universe is made of matter and antimatter is essentially non-existent). Everything about antimatter *should* be the same as matter, except for opposite charges. If we confirm that with a single atom then we can safely extrapolate the behavior of antimatter in large amounts. If on the other hand, we determine that antimatter is *not* the same as matter (quark masses differing for instance), there will be an entire new branch of physics and many current theories will have been proven wrong.
So although there may* come a time when studying large amounts of antimatter is important, I think it is actually quite fair to call this "studying antimatter".
*will, let's face it the universe is made of matter for a reason... I'm 100% confident that we will find some small but fundamental difference.
I work at a university campus library, we're a tiny little outfit (a mere 140 staff). However we deal with public service as well as maintaining fairly sophisticated servers for the collections and providing cafe-style computer access to students.
140 staff, another 100 student accessible machines. All are running windows, and those licenses run us $0. This is partly because the people in charge won't allow buying anything but IBM (lenovo) which means that all computers come with windows. The other part of it is Microsoft giving us the software we need free because they want people hooked.
We have $64,000 in printers, $34,000 of which need to be replaced if we switch to linux, another $10,000 that should be replaced as support is existent but spotty. (I went through all of this when I tried to get a switch happening).
Without going into staff training or anything else, that means a cost of at least $34,000 (around $250 per staff) in printers to switch to linux. I assure you that printers are a big part of linux's problem in the workplace.
Is it unfair to linux that the extra cost of buying lenovo desktops can't be factored in (I could by locally for about half the price)? Yes.
Is it unfair to linux that Microsoft gives away software (and developers to manufacturers) where needed to make the switch to linux harder to sell? A little, but that's business.
Does it matter? No.
The simple fact is that as much as I do like linux, Microsoft isn't lying when they say it's more expensive in the workplace. They're being slightly underhanded, but not lying.
Mmm, you're quite right there is no equal justice there. However even if the otherOS lawsuit was to go through quickly and even if it succeed* that wouldn't change that the contract was broken. Part of the settlement could be a new contract between customers and Sony that brought in new rules, but I suspect jailbraking the console would still void the new contract.
*For the record, it absolutely should go through quickly, and it absolutely should be an easy win. Sony did something very wrong.
Yes, you bought the console and are allowed to do everything you ever wanted to it. However by changing the system you are breaching the contract that you initially agreed to with Sony, and therefore giving up your access to PSN.
Yes, Sony threw the first rock, they removed other OS and that was really shitty of them. They broke (at least the ethical side of) the contract first, but that means you need to pursue the issue in court/with your government/etc.
Either way, once the contract is broken you give up your access to PSN. You only get to decide whether you'd like to have Sony punished for it, or be in the wrong yourself. Understand that I don't mean homebrew/jailbreaking/whatever is wrong, only doing so and then whining about Sony blocking you from their services.
Two wrongs don't make a right, and two breaches of contract don't unbreach it.
The labels are given that right by the people who create the music. Do you think you deserve the right to override the musicians decisions about their music?
I hate labels as much as the next guy, I was very clear about that. But you don't get to void an artists legal rights to choose what happens with their creations simply because you find their business partners unsavory.
In your example of dead musicians, do children have the right to override the will of their parents because they don't agree with it? (hint: no, they don't)
There are many things that should burn the major labels to the ground. They're anticompetitive, they steal from their clients and harass the public in court. Get your government to revoke their rights to do business, but don't be unethical simply because they are.
Before I get a down mod for being one of those terrible people who buy music let me make something clear; I do not think that downloading/recording music for free is unethical. Copyright started as an agreement for distribution channels and that is what it should remain. When someone downloads a song they are bypassing that distribution channel but are in no way harming or invalidating it. Re-distributing music however, is unethical and should be punished; artists agree to a distribution channel and by redistributing their content you are harming that agreement and them.
I buy songs through itunes, it's a great experience and at some level I am supporting the artist. I also email every group I like pleading with them to break the label contract as soon as they can and release their music with all proceeds going directly to themselves. I don't like supporting labels, but I refuse to support those that are bypassing the artists' chosen distribution channel.
The great thing about recording the radio or a live stream etc. is that no one ever knows. You can't be prosecuted because there is no evidence outside of your own home/computer. The people who are getting in trouble over this are the ones that support mass-redistribution... they deserve what they get.
So Adobe says flash is really going to take off in the mobile sector eh? Surely I can take their word for that completely, knowing that they are completely free from bias in the matter.
Disclaimer: I don't know what Nokia uses, but I do know what they're using going forward. Most of the (new wave of) mobile devices out there are using webkit for a rendering engine. Regardless of the HTML5 spec being finalized, most mobile browsers work exactly the same simply because they're using the same guts. IE9 doesn't use webkit but it does render things quite brilliantly if you don't go too crazy on proprietary tags.
When you're doing HTML5 stuff for mobile it falls into two catagories; either you are (1) building an app of some sort for a platform, or (2) building a media-rich website.
for #1 you can use whatever special tags you want knowing that it's a fairly straightforward matter to customize it for other platforms (ie. IE9 vs. webkit). Chances are you're making a different app for each platform anyways to keep consistent with the look and feel.
for #2 you shouldn't be using any crazy proprietary tags for your web presence and all new mobile browsers support enough of the HTML5 spec to create a lovely page. The only possible issue here is that Google is trying to wage war against a perfectly good video format, but that's Google acting like a 5 year old, not a problem with HTML5.
Bottom line: Flash is already dead in the mobile space, and it's only going to get more dead going forward. Adobe might be saying their product will do really well because, say, they make it.
Great, so radiation may cause problems trying to get pregnant en route to the destination.
If we're going anywhere that babies are needed en route we have so many other things to solve first the mind boggles. Procreation in space will most definitely not be an issue by the time we've solved the problems inherent in multi-generational space voyages. As far as Mars goes, wait until you're there to start having kids... it's a six month trip.
Hang on, you're talking like you're the only one in the world that truly gets losing loved ones to cancer and *they're* the arrogant ones?
There is nothing wrong with the statement you've quoted there. As we learn more about cancer curing it will become less daunting. Sending people into space, beaming pictures across the globe near-instantly, portable and wireless communications all seemed just as daunting tasks as curing cancer does at one point.
Almost everyone above the age of 30 knows someone that had/has/died from cancer. You have my sympathy for your losses, but the article/summary are not the ones with the problem here.
I disagree about it being depressing... It's things like this that keep me sane as a member of the species. Every day I witness untold acts of utter stupidity and I long for the days when natural selection would take care of people to dumb to manage basic tasks.
Fortunately natural selection isn't gone, just changed. These parents who are too stupid to care for their children will end up with dead children (don't let emotion get in the way here, yes dead children are horrible but it's the way evolution works). Things like the anti-vaccine crap are keeping the level of stupidity in our species in check. As terrible as it is that these children die through no fault of their own; be glad that the parents' genes are now (indirectly) out of the gene pool.
That's a cold hearted sentiment, but sometimes you have to let idiots remove themselves from the gene pool for the good of mankind. That's what the Darwin Awards is all about.
Can we call them "potentially habitable planets" instead of going all the way to "habitable" that quickly? I think I'd like to make sure of certain things before being so definite -- for instance: water, temperature, oxygen levels, lack of poisonous gases making the oxygen-level issue moot, edible flora and/or fauna, radiation levels... hmmm, could be here awhile...
You aren't wrong, but with the exception of a Mars-style magnetic field failure causing no atmosphere, the following are true:
- If the planet is in the goldilocks zone of it's star and the size is approximately right it should be able to hold an atmosphere at a reasonable pressure.
- If the planet can hold an atmosphere of a reasonable pressure, water will be stable.
- Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the known universe, so assuming there is oxygen present (even in the form of oxides) we can make water.
- Oxygen is also insanely common, and non volatile (that means it bonds to metals, etc). There is going to be oxygen on any planet in the goldilocks zone.
- If the planet is in the goldilocks zone, the temperature will be acceptable (at the very least, around a ring).
- Poisonous gases can be eliminated from any existing atmosphere using chemical cleaning. (I'm sure we'll have this licked by the time we're doing interstellar anything)
- Radiation shielding is something we already do on our own planet (we constantly shield ourselves from UV, though in all fairness UV isn't lethal on the short term).
Again, you aren't wrong to lean towards skeptical; but "habitable" in an astronomical context doesn't mean "ready to move in tomorrow".
Slashdot Mirror
You realize that "Clicking on the file" is not a virus right? Viruses must by definition replicate without user interaction.
That's like me sending you a dos batch file on windows and you being dumb enough to run it. If we're extending the definition of virus to "anything some dumbass might run that could hurt their system" then every operating system has an infinite number of viruses just waiting to nail it.
The pro weighs less
The pro is smaller but has the same screen size and keyboard
The black border around the screen makes it look much better, and at night doesn't distract you from the actual screen.
The pro has an SD slot and firewire (though I don't care about the firewire)
The pro has a backlit keyboard (very important)
The pro can take a better chip, and more memory (important, since I need the 8GB of ram for my 2 virtual machines)
The pro has better sounding speakers (they may well be the same, it may just be the aluminum case that muffles them less/more to make it sound better)
The pro has an aluminum shell instead of bullshit plastic (probably the single most important thing)
Other than those reasons, I suppose they are the same. As it happens, those features are worth well more than the $200 extra that it costs.
If they made the standard MB have all of those features, I would buy it in a heartbeat. It would also cost $200 more.
In fairness if they are in fact (as it appears) going with a copper variant of light peak, then light peak isn't exactly an appropriate name either.
You might not, but I an 7 other people I know did. Some of us like laptops that actually fit in your lap but still have good specs.
You're right though, apple should drop the model because you don't personally want to buy it.
I didn't bother reading your comment... But you did answer the only question needed - clearly you understand english fine, you're just not very intelligent.
II don't know any reason to believe distant galaxies are made of matter rather than antimatter.
Now that's an interesting thought... I hadn't considered that possibility. I agree that there is no way to tell the difference between matter and antimatter at that kind of distance. The tiny amount of space debris flying around wouldn't annihilate enough of anything to be noticeable, so isolated clumps of matter and antimatter would appear to be the same.
Most arguments I've seen about matter/antimatter is that they should have been attracted to each other and annihilated immediately at the big bang. Obviously though that doesn't actually happen every (or even most) of the time, since we're capturing the stuff with relative ease.
The only reason I can see to question the co-existence would be that if a matter galaxy collided with an antimatter galaxy the energy released would.... well frankly I'm not even sure what it would do, it would be enormous but at the same time the distance between galaxies is equally enormous.
You have given me something to ponder for many days, I thank you :)
So you don't understand what an analogy is, or what I was saying, or why what I was asking is important.
If you'd like to try again, I'll explain my comment more clearly... for all I know English isn't your first language and you were confused, rather than ignorant.
People accept not being allowed to do bad things all the time, it's what our laws are all about. If you are saying that something is bad, but you should be allowed to do it anyways you *must*:
1) have a line that you draw where something is "bad enough" to warrant prevention.
or
2) believe that all actions, no matter how bad should be allowed.
or
3) be mentally incompetent, possibly due to a psychological disorder.
If you fall into 2 or 3, it's good for people to know that so they can avoid you. If you fall into 1 I am legitimately curious about where the line is drawn. Most people consider personal rights paramount. If you actually believe you have a personal right that disallows other people to design products that don't run a piece of software I want to know where that falls in respect to the right to life.
Note: the poster (you, I'm guessing) *said* that flash was bad, so we aren't looking at an argument of whether or not flash is bad, that's already been established.
How is that "split personality?" There's a huge difference between not running Flash and not being allowed to run Flash by a hardware manufacturer. Flash is bad, but a third party banning Flash is 10x worse.
I'm legitimately curious about something... do you also agree with this statement?
"There's a huge difference between not murdering and not being allowed to murder by the police. Murder is bad, but a third party banning murder is 10x worse."
I'm not saying that flash is murder (except for the processor), but just where do you draw the line about people protecting you from bad things? There's no bad answer here as long as you have some rational justification for drawing the line.
The only reason for this is iOS.
No, the only reason for this is Adobe. Google was practically begging for flash support in Android to help set it apart from iOS and it still took 2.2 versions before it arrived (and it's still not very good, a site with more than one object slows down even powerhouse devices).
Don't blame Adobe's incompetence on Apple, Jobs, or iOS.
I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying, but without knowing your physics background I think you may be missing info on what the main goal of antimatter study is.
The primary point of interest currently is to determine why matter exists and antimatter doesn't (that is, why the universe is made of matter and antimatter is essentially non-existent). Everything about antimatter *should* be the same as matter, except for opposite charges. If we confirm that with a single atom then we can safely extrapolate the behavior of antimatter in large amounts. If on the other hand, we determine that antimatter is *not* the same as matter (quark masses differing for instance), there will be an entire new branch of physics and many current theories will have been proven wrong.
So although there may* come a time when studying large amounts of antimatter is important, I think it is actually quite fair to call this "studying antimatter".
*will, let's face it the universe is made of matter for a reason... I'm 100% confident that we will find some small but fundamental difference.
I work at a university campus library, we're a tiny little outfit (a mere 140 staff). However we deal with public service as well as maintaining fairly sophisticated servers for the collections and providing cafe-style computer access to students.
140 staff, another 100 student accessible machines. All are running windows, and those licenses run us $0. This is partly because the people in charge won't allow buying anything but IBM (lenovo) which means that all computers come with windows. The other part of it is Microsoft giving us the software we need free because they want people hooked.
We have $64,000 in printers, $34,000 of which need to be replaced if we switch to linux, another $10,000 that should be replaced as support is existent but spotty. (I went through all of this when I tried to get a switch happening).
Without going into staff training or anything else, that means a cost of at least $34,000 (around $250 per staff) in printers to switch to linux. I assure you that printers are a big part of linux's problem in the workplace.
Is it unfair to linux that the extra cost of buying lenovo desktops can't be factored in (I could by locally for about half the price)? Yes.
Is it unfair to linux that Microsoft gives away software (and developers to manufacturers) where needed to make the switch to linux harder to sell? A little, but that's business.
Does it matter? No.
The simple fact is that as much as I do like linux, Microsoft isn't lying when they say it's more expensive in the workplace. They're being slightly underhanded, but not lying.
Mmm, you're quite right there is no equal justice there. However even if the otherOS lawsuit was to go through quickly and even if it succeed* that wouldn't change that the contract was broken. Part of the settlement could be a new contract between customers and Sony that brought in new rules, but I suspect jailbraking the console would still void the new contract.
*For the record, it absolutely should go through quickly, and it absolutely should be an easy win. Sony did something very wrong.
Yes, you bought the console and are allowed to do everything you ever wanted to it. However by changing the system you are breaching the contract that you initially agreed to with Sony, and therefore giving up your access to PSN.
Yes, Sony threw the first rock, they removed other OS and that was really shitty of them. They broke (at least the ethical side of) the contract first, but that means you need to pursue the issue in court/with your government/etc.
Either way, once the contract is broken you give up your access to PSN. You only get to decide whether you'd like to have Sony punished for it, or be in the wrong yourself. Understand that I don't mean homebrew/jailbreaking/whatever is wrong, only doing so and then whining about Sony blocking you from their services.
Two wrongs don't make a right, and two breaches of contract don't unbreach it.
The labels are given that right by the people who create the music. Do you think you deserve the right to override the musicians decisions about their music?
I hate labels as much as the next guy, I was very clear about that. But you don't get to void an artists legal rights to choose what happens with their creations simply because you find their business partners unsavory.
In your example of dead musicians, do children have the right to override the will of their parents because they don't agree with it? (hint: no, they don't)
There are many things that should burn the major labels to the ground. They're anticompetitive, they steal from their clients and harass the public in court. Get your government to revoke their rights to do business, but don't be unethical simply because they are.
Before I get a down mod for being one of those terrible people who buy music let me make something clear; I do not think that downloading/recording music for free is unethical. Copyright started as an agreement for distribution channels and that is what it should remain. When someone downloads a song they are bypassing that distribution channel but are in no way harming or invalidating it. Re-distributing music however, is unethical and should be punished; artists agree to a distribution channel and by redistributing their content you are harming that agreement and them.
I buy songs through itunes, it's a great experience and at some level I am supporting the artist. I also email every group I like pleading with them to break the label contract as soon as they can and release their music with all proceeds going directly to themselves. I don't like supporting labels, but I refuse to support those that are bypassing the artists' chosen distribution channel.
The great thing about recording the radio or a live stream etc. is that no one ever knows. You can't be prosecuted because there is no evidence outside of your own home/computer. The people who are getting in trouble over this are the ones that support mass-redistribution... they deserve what they get.
So Adobe says flash is really going to take off in the mobile sector eh? Surely I can take their word for that completely, knowing that they are completely free from bias in the matter.
Disclaimer: I don't know what Nokia uses, but I do know what they're using going forward.
Most of the (new wave of) mobile devices out there are using webkit for a rendering engine. Regardless of the HTML5 spec being finalized, most mobile browsers work exactly the same simply because they're using the same guts. IE9 doesn't use webkit but it does render things quite brilliantly if you don't go too crazy on proprietary tags.
When you're doing HTML5 stuff for mobile it falls into two catagories; either you are (1) building an app of some sort for a platform, or (2) building a media-rich website.
for #1 you can use whatever special tags you want knowing that it's a fairly straightforward matter to customize it for other platforms (ie. IE9 vs. webkit). Chances are you're making a different app for each platform anyways to keep consistent with the look and feel.
for #2 you shouldn't be using any crazy proprietary tags for your web presence and all new mobile browsers support enough of the HTML5 spec to create a lovely page. The only possible issue here is that Google is trying to wage war against a perfectly good video format, but that's Google acting like a 5 year old, not a problem with HTML5.
Bottom line: Flash is already dead in the mobile space, and it's only going to get more dead going forward. Adobe might be saying their product will do really well because, say, they make it.
They aren't asking for segregation on facebook. They requested a group for female students (in addition to the main group).
Are people so uptight about everything that we need to freak out every time someone wants to mingle with a specific group?
Great, so radiation may cause problems trying to get pregnant en route to the destination.
If we're going anywhere that babies are needed en route we have so many other things to solve first the mind boggles. Procreation in space will most definitely not be an issue by the time we've solved the problems inherent in multi-generational space voyages. As far as Mars goes, wait until you're there to start having kids... it's a six month trip.
Hang on, you're talking like you're the only one in the world that truly gets losing loved ones to cancer and *they're* the arrogant ones?
There is nothing wrong with the statement you've quoted there. As we learn more about cancer curing it will become less daunting. Sending people into space, beaming pictures across the globe near-instantly, portable and wireless communications all seemed just as daunting tasks as curing cancer does at one point.
Almost everyone above the age of 30 knows someone that had/has/died from cancer. You have my sympathy for your losses, but the article/summary are not the ones with the problem here.
From apple.ca tech specs for the iPad
1024-by-768-pixel resolution at 132 pixels per inch (ppi)
I assure you that 1024x768 is 4:3. That said, it isn't 16:9 because 16:9 works great as a monitor and works terribly when you're trying to hold it.
Some of the 3d glasses I've tried block almost enough light to allow this.
I disagree about it being depressing... It's things like this that keep me sane as a member of the species. Every day I witness untold acts of utter stupidity and I long for the days when natural selection would take care of people to dumb to manage basic tasks. Fortunately natural selection isn't gone, just changed. These parents who are too stupid to care for their children will end up with dead children (don't let emotion get in the way here, yes dead children are horrible but it's the way evolution works). Things like the anti-vaccine crap are keeping the level of stupidity in our species in check. As terrible as it is that these children die through no fault of their own; be glad that the parents' genes are now (indirectly) out of the gene pool. That's a cold hearted sentiment, but sometimes you have to let idiots remove themselves from the gene pool for the good of mankind. That's what the Darwin Awards is all about.
Can we call them "potentially habitable planets" instead of going all the way to "habitable" that quickly? I think I'd like to make sure of certain things before being so definite -- for instance: water, temperature, oxygen levels, lack of poisonous gases making the oxygen-level issue moot, edible flora and/or fauna, radiation levels ... hmmm, could be here awhile ...
You aren't wrong, but with the exception of a Mars-style magnetic field failure causing no atmosphere, the following are true:
Again, you aren't wrong to lean towards skeptical; but "habitable" in an astronomical context doesn't mean "ready to move in tomorrow".