Hi, I work with the FAA, including on projects involving Electronic Flight Bag research and testing.
Aeronautical charts in the US have a 56-day publication cycle. That means every 56 days, your paper charts are (possibly) out of date and should be replaced. Usually they're not, as most things DON'T change from one cycle to another, but there are always changes. So if you follow the approach procedures for a terminal in your flight bag, you may be following incorrect procedures, which at the very least is going to make ATC grumpy and in a worst case scenario could seriously impact safety. An iPad based solution means up-to-date charts can be loaded in seconds during pre-flight, instead of manually having to replace possibly dozens of individual manuals located in a heavy, bulky bag. Twice, since both pilots are required to have a copy.
So, while as a "professional researcher," you can probably feel secure in the knowledge that the ten-year-old mass spectrometer you're working with can be safely used with the manual that came with it ten years ago, the same thing is not the least bit true in the aviation world.
That being said, I'd much rather an up-to-date electronic manual, even for older hardware. Every manual has errors in it which can be hopefully corrected in future revisions...
why the hell would you want a phone that's almost as big as a tablet?
Because the 5.5" Galaxy Note has sold like hotcakes all over the world, so now everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon. Also the 5.8" Note II just got announced.
Saying the launcher sucks isn't objective, but I'm not qualified to quibble there as it's worlds better than the awful Blur launcher I had on my MB-300.:)
Pentile you might have a point, but I haven't seen what the big fuss is about personally... It still bigger and looks better than my wife's iPhone 4S.
Google needs to either force specs on vendors or make android run faster and run on old hardware longer much like microsoft has to do with windows.
Early reports are that Jelly Bean does run significantly better on older hardware than ICS. Nexus S owners have been reporting it feels much more responsive, at least. So sounds like they went with the second option.
So why wouldn't they be snarky at someone who cannot read?
I could read just fine. I wanted to know why I couldn't create a desktop shortcut like I'd been doing for the past 13 years. They told me essentially that I was dumb, that only bad/messy people put icons on their desktops, the best desktops have nothing on them, and I should appreciate how they were freeing my mind from the desktop paradigm, or some shit...
No, the KDE developers (Especially Aaron Seigo) are a bunch of jerks who believed they knew better than anyone else and that anyone who didn't agree with/understand their design choices was stupid.
I say this as someone who won't work without a recent release of KDE and couldn't stand Gnome before 3 made it completely awful.
Yes, but that still doesn't change the fact that there are several better, faster, more feature rich Android phones released each year. Just buy one of the good ones.
Pretty darn far. In LoL and Tribes: Ascend, in particular, not only are all gameplay affecting "purchases" available without paying cash, a large chunk of them can't even be bought with cash (Runes in LoL, equipment upgrades in T:A). The only things that are available "cash only" are purely aesthetic changes to your character.
The deal is, if people like your stuff, they're generally more than willing to see you get compensated for it. No amount of worrying about people playing your stuff "without paying" is ever going to put more money in your pocket.
Free is great, but what you get for free (as far as games go) tends to be kind of.... well... un-polished, ugly, and kind of broken. People working for free just can't put the effort into a title that people who can devote all their working hours can.
Ugly and unpolished... Like League of Legends? Tribes: Ascend? Spiral Knights?
This is like the tenth, contradictive rationalization that it was perfectly priced.
If a stock drops 40% in its first year, it wasn't perfectly priced.
How does the stock dropping in price 40% reduce the amount of money Facebook made on the IPO?
btw, I'm sorry for your loss, obviously you invested a lot of money in this circus.
Bahahaha, like *I* have money to invest. I'm armchair quarterbacking financial decisions of a multi-billion dollar company on Slashdot for Pete's sake. If I had any money, don't you think I could find a better way to spend my time?
How about this, troll: I invested a lot of money in your Mom. Obviously a loss we can both be sorry about together.
Today the point of the IPO is solely to make the investors rich. Nothing else.
Now if they were required to keep their shares and companies were forced to pay back full dividends at fair market value then I would agree with you.
How would that get the company money, exactly?
Worse, they get insider information and get those same shares for 1/4th the price you and I get them and can use supercomputers to flash the value in a highspeed insider trading so you and I can never win. Tell me how they are there to help a company then and not to take other peoples' money?
Because once the IPO happens, the company has already made money, and no amount of high speed trading will change the amount the company made?
I disagree. The point of an IPO is to get money for the company doing the offering, not to make institutional investors rich. The stock was priced perfectly to extract the most money out of investors and give it to Facebook. Had they priced it at $25 and it had popped to $50, Facebook would have had less money at the end of the day.
It means I also have a smaller environmental impact
That's actually up for debate. Transportation costs are only a small fraction of the environmental effect of agriculture, and spreading farming out into lots of smaller, less-efficient operations doesn't necessarily reduce transportation costs.
There's actually a lot of potential problems with the "buy local" movement... Freakanomics wrote an article about it last year, for instance.
That being said, if you PREFER local products (I think the Sausage at my local farmer's market is a lot closer to the sausage I grew up with than the stuff in Supermarkets, for instance), then by all means buy them. But don't do so because you assume what you're doing is somehow morally, ethically, fiscally, or environmentally better... In the grand scheme of things, chances are it's not.
My DSL goes 6 Mbit/s and I think that's plenty fast. I can download movies or shows faster than I can watch them, so basically the speed is higher than I need.
Well, 6MBit/s would not be enough for our household, with three heavy internet users. It's not uncommon to have two simultaneous NetFlix streams, a large download going, and still have two of us playing online games.
TING would actually cost me more. Instead of the 5 dollars I currently pay through Virgin, I would pay $9. And the text/data plans are about the same price.
But the data cost on Ting? Outrageous! 3GB plus calls/texts == $80. Virgin charges just $35 and has no data limit.
Ting would be cheaper in my situation, with 5 phones, instead of paying $35/ea. Also, the big difference is if you use less than what you signed up for in a month, Ting refunds the difference. And that $35 "unlimited" Virgin Mobile plan is throttled after 2.5GB.
- get DSL for internet. $15 a month for slow service or $30 for faster service.
Not available at my address. Yes, I'm serious. I don't even live in the boonies. I live in a rather densely populated suburb of Philadelphia. There is no high speed provider here other than Comcast. Another ten miles further from Philly and they have FIOS and DSL. Besides that, DSL (where it's actually available) is a good bit slower than my Comcast service. So you're essentially saying "Do with (significantly) less, and it'll cost you less!"
- VirginMobile. $5 a month for cellphone service, or ~$20 a month for unlimited. $35 for unlimited data.
Except you can only use the phones they offer, instead of the phone you want. And it's on Sprint's network, which is lousy.
If you're willing to put up with Sprint's network, you should use Ting anyway.
So again, "Do with (significantly) less, and it'll cost you less!"
The problem I have observed with most Americans is that they don't know HOW to save money.
They definitely know how to save money the way you're suggesting: "Do without". Many, in fact, do. For instance, since I ceased living with my parents way back in college, I've never paid a cent for any sort of television subscription. Some people just can't live without TV, however. I've also never had a land-line phone, since I've always had a cell. Always interesting dealing with people who demand your home phone number...
But the point is, people shouldn't have to do without to save money. These services are dirt-cheap to provide, get cheaper every year, and the prices where there is actual COMPETITION reflect that.
They complain-and-moan about high prices, but then don't bother to shop around. They buy overpriced goods, lock themselves into 2-yr-contracts that are lousy deals, waste money eating-out everyday when it's cheaper to bring your own lunch, buy $1 snacks in the machine when the same thing at the store costs half as much, and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi, I work with the FAA, including on projects involving Electronic Flight Bag research and testing.
Aeronautical charts in the US have a 56-day publication cycle. That means every 56 days, your paper charts are (possibly) out of date and should be replaced. Usually they're not, as most things DON'T change from one cycle to another, but there are always changes. So if you follow the approach procedures for a terminal in your flight bag, you may be following incorrect procedures, which at the very least is going to make ATC grumpy and in a worst case scenario could seriously impact safety. An iPad based solution means up-to-date charts can be loaded in seconds during pre-flight, instead of manually having to replace possibly dozens of individual manuals located in a heavy, bulky bag. Twice, since both pilots are required to have a copy.
So, while as a "professional researcher," you can probably feel secure in the knowledge that the ten-year-old mass spectrometer you're working with can be safely used with the manual that came with it ten years ago, the same thing is not the least bit true in the aviation world.
That being said, I'd much rather an up-to-date electronic manual, even for older hardware. Every manual has errors in it which can be hopefully corrected in future revisions...
Because the 5.5" Galaxy Note has sold like hotcakes all over the world, so now everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon. Also the 5.8" Note II just got announced.
Someone keeps buying these phones...
I don't believe you. Some specifics would help, not vague generalities.
You mean not metal and heavy?
Saying the launcher sucks isn't objective, but I'm not qualified to quibble there as it's worlds better than the awful Blur launcher I had on my MB-300. :)
Pentile you might have a point, but I haven't seen what the big fuss is about personally... It still bigger and looks better than my wife's iPhone 4S.
Have you used an S3?
Pick an objective measure where the Galaxy S3 is not one of, if not the best.
Early reports are that Jelly Bean does run significantly better on older hardware than ICS. Nexus S owners have been reporting it feels much more responsive, at least. So sounds like they went with the second option.
I could read just fine. I wanted to know why I couldn't create a desktop shortcut like I'd been doing for the past 13 years. They told me essentially that I was dumb, that only bad/messy people put icons on their desktops, the best desktops have nothing on them, and I should appreciate how they were freeing my mind from the desktop paradigm, or some shit...
No, the KDE developers (Especially Aaron Seigo) are a bunch of jerks who believed they knew better than anyone else and that anyone who didn't agree with/understand their design choices was stupid.
I say this as someone who won't work without a recent release of KDE and couldn't stand Gnome before 3 made it completely awful.
Yes, but that still doesn't change the fact that there are several better, faster, more feature rich Android phones released each year. Just buy one of the good ones.
Your mom.
That's your choice. That doesn't change the price of the game.
No, that's the goal of a company that's run by people looking to get rich by dumping their stock options.
Zuck doesn't want to sell any more stock. He did the IPO to build a war chest. He's already plenty rich.
What part of playing the game without paying a cent to the developer makes it not free?
My God, it's full of stars.
Capcom vs SNK 1 + 2. Garou: Mark of the Wolves. Last Blade. Bangai-O...
Pretty darn far. In LoL and Tribes: Ascend, in particular, not only are all gameplay affecting "purchases" available without paying cash, a large chunk of them can't even be bought with cash (Runes in LoL, equipment upgrades in T:A). The only things that are available "cash only" are purely aesthetic changes to your character.
The deal is, if people like your stuff, they're generally more than willing to see you get compensated for it. No amount of worrying about people playing your stuff "without paying" is ever going to put more money in your pocket.
that people would invent their own stuff...
Ugly and unpolished... Like League of Legends? Tribes: Ascend? Spiral Knights?
Really?
How does the stock dropping in price 40% reduce the amount of money Facebook made on the IPO?
Bahahaha, like *I* have money to invest. I'm armchair quarterbacking financial decisions of a multi-billion dollar company on Slashdot for Pete's sake. If I had any money, don't you think I could find a better way to spend my time?
How about this, troll: I invested a lot of money in your Mom. Obviously a loss we can both be sorry about together.
How would that get the company money, exactly?
Because once the IPO happens, the company has already made money, and no amount of high speed trading will change the amount the company made?
I disagree. The point of an IPO is to get money for the company doing the offering, not to make institutional investors rich. The stock was priced perfectly to extract the most money out of investors and give it to Facebook. Had they priced it at $25 and it had popped to $50, Facebook would have had less money at the end of the day.
That's actually up for debate. Transportation costs are only a small fraction of the environmental effect of agriculture, and spreading farming out into lots of smaller, less-efficient operations doesn't necessarily reduce transportation costs.
There's actually a lot of potential problems with the "buy local" movement... Freakanomics wrote an article about it last year, for instance.
That being said, if you PREFER local products (I think the Sausage at my local farmer's market is a lot closer to the sausage I grew up with than the stuff in Supermarkets, for instance), then by all means buy them. But don't do so because you assume what you're doing is somehow morally, ethically, fiscally, or environmentally better... In the grand scheme of things, chances are it's not.
Well, 6MBit/s would not be enough for our household, with three heavy internet users. It's not uncommon to have two simultaneous NetFlix streams, a large download going, and still have two of us playing online games.
Ting would be cheaper in my situation, with 5 phones, instead of paying $35/ea. Also, the big difference is if you use less than what you signed up for in a month, Ting refunds the difference. And that $35 "unlimited" Virgin Mobile plan is throttled after 2.5GB.
Meant to hit preview, not submit... Ignore that last bit of accidentally unquoted text...
Not available at my address. Yes, I'm serious. I don't even live in the boonies. I live in a rather densely populated suburb of Philadelphia. There is no high speed provider here other than Comcast. Another ten miles further from Philly and they have FIOS and DSL.
Besides that, DSL (where it's actually available) is a good bit slower than my Comcast service. So you're essentially saying "Do with (significantly) less, and it'll cost you less!"
Except you can only use the phones they offer, instead of the phone you want. And it's on Sprint's network, which is lousy.
If you're willing to put up with Sprint's network, you should use Ting anyway.
So again, "Do with (significantly) less, and it'll cost you less!"
They definitely know how to save money the way you're suggesting: "Do without". Many, in fact, do. For instance, since I ceased living with my parents way back in college, I've never paid a cent for any sort of television subscription. Some people just can't live without TV, however. I've also never had a land-line phone, since I've always had a cell. Always interesting dealing with people who demand your home phone number...
But the point is, people shouldn't have to do without to save money. These services are dirt-cheap to provide, get cheaper every year, and the prices where there is actual COMPETITION reflect that.
They complain-and-moan about high prices, but then don't bother to shop around. They buy overpriced goods, lock themselves into 2-yr-contracts that are lousy deals, waste money eating-out everyday when it's cheaper to bring your own lunch, buy $1 snacks in the machine when the same thing at the store costs half as much, and so on.