the color thing I understand, but look at engadgetmobile.com!!! I literally thought it was a t-mobile fan site or something. They high-light T-Mobile in the "engadge T-MOBILE" title, and that might push some buttons. I don't think this is just a color thing, because the mimicry is a bit beyond just color.
If it is the case that they exaggerated the color issue hoping the internet would go hooplah over it, then they are smarter than they let on... I expect they'll have a press clarifying their intent once some of the buzz dies down just to get another spot on slashdot. Of course, this is just speculation. I actually sort of *wish* they were smarter than they let on... because they let on to be pretty stupid:(
Exactly. Some laptops have great displays, some don't. Some advertise as they do, and some don't. Some PC manufacturers let you chose. To advertise as you do, but then don't, is the alleged sin here, and I sympathize with anyone who suffered because of it. This is especially bad because Apple normally touts as being the graphics platform of choice. Blindly trusting Apple to make the right decision for you based on their successful branding campaigns will get you screwed by their successful engineering cost-cutting efforts. They are totally out of sync.
Some of the new LCDs have better color ranges, and Sony and others who sell laptops with these "better" displays definitely take time to mention it in their PR material.
In any case, anyone selling hardware needs to be straight with whats inside the box. Life would be so much easier if they just told you the exact part number they use for critical parts like displays and hard drives. No one makes their own anyway, and knowledgeable people end up looking it up themselves. So the sole purpose seems to prevent less knowledgeable people from making more knowledgeable decisions. Keep the consumer stupid so they keep buying crap. Too bad it works too well.
Knowledge is power, and the ultimate in information is the answer itself. If the answer is accessible, then by all means access it.
You cannot compare algorithms unless the initial conditions are the same, and this usually includes available information. In other words, algorithms make the most out of "what you have". If what you have can be expanded, then by all means you should expand it.
I wonder if accessing foreign web sites is legal in this competition though, because that definitely alters the complexion of the problem.
To say google succeeded by expanding their data pool is an oversimplification, because not only did they select what they felt was most important, they ignored what they felt was not. Intelligent selection took place to set their initial conditions for their algorithm. So it isn't just data augmentation. It is the ability to augment data relative to a goal, and this is much deeper than just "more data" vs "algorithm". In fact, you can also find situations where algorithms are used to make these intelligent selections, in which case the selection process can be as or more important than just the sheer volume of available data alone.
The problem with pay-as-you-go being optional is that the people who use less will opt for it, while others will go with the unmetered plan. This gives no upside for the ISP. Either one or make the pay-as-you-go a premium rate, in which case it won't be cheap anyway (like prepaid phones). Also, there is the whole measuring infrastructure that adds to the things they need to do and will mess up on.
The bottom line is there needs to be more competition, and better infrastructure. The infrastructure needs to be public property and cable companies should be able to compete over shared cables.
I am not satisfied with my cable service or their internet service, but I have no alternative.
I share your dislike for the Fisher-Price trend, but I am sure you can *fix* it in any Linux distro by tweaking the setup. But I am guessing it isn't as easy on Windows for most people, especially Vista. Unfortunately I am stuck with Vista, and have had to find a way, and I found a solution with LiteStep and Windowblinds (shareware, but there are alternatives). I kill DWM so it never runs, and use WindowBlinds to replace the oversized window borders with something tolerable.
LiteStep replaces the Windows shell, and I have 4 virtual desktops that I can switch using ALT+1/2/3/4. I have Win+Tab switch to the last desktop, and only applications on each desktop appear in the taskbar and ALT+Tab. Clutter is gone, apps are placed nicely in their designated area, and switching to and fro has never been faster or easier. The WIN key calls the minimalist LiteStep menu, as does clicking the desktop.
Unfortunately it took me a lot of work to get all this in place (this setup is not out-of-the-box), and LiteStep is hard to grasp if you are not used to text files (ala dot files). But the fact that I was able to turn Vista into something I feel is both "cool" and "utilitarian" is quite amazing. The best thing about LiteStep is that it is highly customizable.
If you are stuck using Windows but want to get as far away from it as possible, LiteStep is definitely worth a look:)
word "standard" to mean "common" or "widespread". Well, not only marketing speak, but this is the "standard" definition if "standard" is to mean "common" or "widespread". (wow that was quite deep)
The point about a real standard is that it specifies precisely and accurately exactly how something will be done or work so that anyone can interact with it or use it. Yes, this is the more technical side/definition of standard, and I understand how it contributes to the sharing of technology. But this brings me back to my original point. If Office is "widespread" regardless, then wouldn't it benefit us all if their format were made into a standard? As I understand, Microsoft would have to follow ISO-OOXML if it comes to that, and so in a sense they won't be able to bully their way around competitive products by tampering with compatibility issues as they have in the past. It would be a shame if Office were not ISO-OFFICE compatible.
but isn't Office by any standard definition, a standard? IE can do their own thing and every web master is forced to abide. If you are a business buying computers, you pretty much need Office, and it isn't a hard decision even if it is expensive. Using Open Office is the harder decision, even though it is free.
So isn't this OOXML hoopla just all fun and games for Microsoft? If Open Office and others are going to copy Office's formats anyway, then why not make it official. They're making our lives easier in a way, no?
1. "Some argue that we need subjective gatekeepers as filters. "
We ourselves are our own filters. Some simple statistics about what others are enjoying would be enough to get a "big" picture. This argument shows no support for Record Labels, or any other "filters for hire".
2. "Hopefully access to all of this new music will inspire us, make us think and open doors and minds to new experiences we choose, not what a corporation or media outlet decides we should want."
You should be doing this already. Record Labels may decide what to sell, but you still have to buy it. You are free to pay the guy on the street an extra 20 bucks for his home made album if you like his music that much. You are also free to offer to become his agent and charge him the going rate if you think he is worth 10 million dollars.
I know this is knit-picking but I thought these angles deserved some light.
Except for emails sent by automatons. A server that sent an order confirmation email is not going to "reply" to any emails. Many important emails are sent from non-observed email boxes.
Sometimes an email may be sent from alternate or temporary accounts. This is more often the case when something is urgent.
Also my mom won't react to such an email. Most people assume that an email sent is an email sent, and any emails requesting some further action are always going to have problems.
...it catches on pretty quickly. It is obvious from all the posts here that parallel comp is very old... And if it is that old, yet has never been hot, then why now?
Only 1% know parallel programming? Well, how many people a day get inspired to go pick up a parallel computing book? That has something to do with it. What is it for, and why do I need it?
Personal computing exploded once it was on the scene. So did web development. These things you can start small, and they come to you, as opposed to you having to go actively seek them out. Parallel computing has never revealed itself in anything I've done. I've never came across it or tripped on it in any of project.
Our processors are idle 90% of the time, and they keep getting faster. Most of us don't need parallel computing.
With that said, if you invest in it you're an idiot.
Obviously you are beyond the targeted skill level of this book if you are using javascript for shell scripts. I have heard good things about javascript for shell scripting, but that is not what this book is about, nor is it how most people are forced into javascript.
To most people and most authors of books such as this, javascript equals client-side web programming. Just look at the cover of the book. "Slicing and dicing HTML" is easier, simpler, and faster if done on the server. Those things usually matter.
Sure you can blame the DOM, but the environment in which you are forced to program has just as much to do with the task at hand, and the use cases of the language in question. The sad reality of client-side javascript is that you cannot trust the code that you write. That is a very serious problem.
Javascript is truly complex when it comes to cross-browser compatibility and object management. The ambiguity of type in the syntax is also horrible, and the handful of built-in functions needed workarounds until recently (most notably date related functions).
For the web I would avoid javascript wherever possible. If you want to do anything serious on the client use FLASH. If you want to pickup AJAX tricks then buy a book on the topic, not on JavaScript.
If you feel the need to buy a book like this then you probably aren't getting the most out of google, or looked into server-side scripting yet. Which is a shame, because starting with js is definitely the wrong foot. You'll end up learning a ton of language specific quirks and hacks that are useless elsewhere, and will end up with the impression that half of everything is broken, or that they cannot be done. Try PHP. Java is even easier than JS.
Anyone with a clue knows that beyond simple mouse-overs, libraries like this are the way to go. Any book that states otherwise is FYE: For your entertainment only.
There is often one best way of doing something. That is the gist of the argument against software patents.
Google is a great tool for finding that one way if you know how to use it. Reference docs provide no shortcuts, and can often mislead learners into an abyss of trial and error, often ending in hacks that just barely get the job done.
Most artists do not get the marketing/promotion buck spent on themselves. Labels constantly invest in their best artists, and once the albums are out, they're already eying on what's next. What's more, it isn't new music that always sells the most. Past albums still sell, and obviously marketing/promotion is not a factor for them, and overhead is minimal.
Big label's only help big artists. The current industry does not help artists in general, period. They make big artists bigger, and make more money for themselves in the process.
Yet they are the ones complaining.
The "small" artists aren't complaining because they are too busy working their day job.
Is it just me or do people HATE hard drives? Apart from my own HDD woes, I receive SOS calls from friends and family all the time regarding computer problems caused by failed drives. I know I am not alone when it comes to becoming a tech support hot line for people who find out you work in IT... And from experience I can say that HDDs are the most common cause critical failure and severe stress. Most people don't have backups.
I am dying for an SSD. It is silent, and rigid, and uses less power. And newer drives are guaranteed to be up to 4 times faster than the current "standard" SSD drives that Dell and Apple put in their laptops (200Mb/s versus 50Mb/s read). If you had the money, you would have no reason NOT to move to SSD, especially if you have a laptop, and more so if you use your computer for work.
cameras get more mega pixels, more people need digital video On the contrary, reading huge files is where SSDs are fastest. Not everyone puts all their video on their pc, and if you do a terabyte drive might be what you need. However, if you wish to edit and process video and burn it onto DVDs then an SSD is exactly what you need to speed up crunch time multi-fold. An SSD for active files and an HDD for mass storage is the way it will be.
I agree that the low-end computer market will consist of HDDs for a long time to come. HDDs will not go away as long as they provide cost effectiveness. However, once the next generation drives are out and hit the 5USD/GB mark everyone with a buck will want one especially when their IT friends will be all over them.
This feature is old. Some more free pr for google.
Neither is the problem new. If you place google ads on your site google can put links to competitors in their ad space.
This is an interesting case study for UI though. Google basically enhanced their UI to be more user friendly, and got a reaction from it. Goes to show how naive google is about UI. Keep It Simple Stupid has gotten them here, but with all the new features available, they haven't done much to make any of them that accessible or easier to use.
Email is sent from one computer to another. They can't destroy computers that received the emails, and unless they delete their address book, won't a lot of the recipients already be in the list?
There are also logs on servers. There is a lot of data left that the Feds can search if they tried.
Also I am repeating this because it cannot be emphasized enough: White House records are public property, so it is illegal to destroy them. Any comparisons to personal data or corporate computer policies are categorically irrelevant.
Why not impeach them for illegal destruction of records. That is a start.
Slashdot Mirror
the color thing I understand, but look at engadgetmobile.com!!! I literally thought it was a t-mobile fan site or something. They high-light T-Mobile in the "engadge T-MOBILE" title, and that might push some buttons. I don't think this is just a color thing, because the mimicry is a bit beyond just color.
:(
If it is the case that they exaggerated the color issue hoping the internet would go hooplah over it, then they are smarter than they let on... I expect they'll have a press clarifying their intent once some of the buzz dies down just to get another spot on slashdot. Of course, this is just speculation. I actually sort of *wish* they were smarter than they let on... because they let on to be pretty stupid
Exactly. Some laptops have great displays, some don't. Some advertise as they do, and some don't. Some PC manufacturers let you chose. To advertise as you do, but then don't, is the alleged sin here, and I sympathize with anyone who suffered because of it. This is especially bad because Apple normally touts as being the graphics platform of choice. Blindly trusting Apple to make the right decision for you based on their successful branding campaigns will get you screwed by their successful engineering cost-cutting efforts. They are totally out of sync.
Some of the new LCDs have better color ranges, and Sony and others who sell laptops with these "better" displays definitely take time to mention it in their PR material.
In any case, anyone selling hardware needs to be straight with whats inside the box. Life would be so much easier if they just told you the exact part number they use for critical parts like displays and hard drives. No one makes their own anyway, and knowledgeable people end up looking it up themselves. So the sole purpose seems to prevent less knowledgeable people from making more knowledgeable decisions. Keep the consumer stupid so they keep buying crap. Too bad it works too well.
Would you rather know more or be smarter?
Knowledge is power, and the ultimate in information is the answer itself. If the answer is accessible, then by all means access it.
You cannot compare algorithms unless the initial conditions are the same, and this usually includes available information. In other words, algorithms make the most out of "what you have". If what you have can be expanded, then by all means you should expand it.
I wonder if accessing foreign web sites is legal in this competition though, because that definitely alters the complexion of the problem.
To say google succeeded by expanding their data pool is an oversimplification, because not only did they select what they felt was most important, they ignored what they felt was not. Intelligent selection took place to set their initial conditions for their algorithm. So it isn't just data augmentation. It is the ability to augment data relative to a goal, and this is much deeper than just "more data" vs "algorithm". In fact, you can also find situations where algorithms are used to make these intelligent selections, in which case the selection process can be as or more important than just the sheer volume of available data alone.
the Windows Guy could retaliate in one of those commercials.
But cutting costs is part of innovation, so Apple is still the best, OBVIOUSLY.
The problem with pay-as-you-go being optional is that the people who use less will opt for it, while others will go with the unmetered plan. This gives no upside for the ISP. Either one or make the pay-as-you-go a premium rate, in which case it won't be cheap anyway (like prepaid phones). Also, there is the whole measuring infrastructure that adds to the things they need to do and will mess up on.
The bottom line is there needs to be more competition, and better infrastructure. The infrastructure needs to be public property and cable companies should be able to compete over shared cables.
I am not satisfied with my cable service or their internet service, but I have no alternative.
Paid for by your taxes.
The military should not have to *pursuade* anybody, let alone spend our money to do it.
Paid for by our taxes, served for by our children.
I share your dislike for the Fisher-Price trend, but I am sure you can *fix* it in any Linux distro by tweaking the setup. But I am guessing it isn't as easy on Windows for most people, especially Vista. Unfortunately I am stuck with Vista, and have had to find a way, and I found a solution with LiteStep and Windowblinds (shareware, but there are alternatives). I kill DWM so it never runs, and use WindowBlinds to replace the oversized window borders with something tolerable.
:)
LiteStep replaces the Windows shell, and I have 4 virtual desktops that I can switch using ALT+1/2/3/4. I have Win+Tab switch to the last desktop, and only applications on each desktop appear in the taskbar and ALT+Tab. Clutter is gone, apps are placed nicely in their designated area, and switching to and fro has never been faster or easier. The WIN key calls the minimalist LiteStep menu, as does clicking the desktop.
Unfortunately it took me a lot of work to get all this in place (this setup is not out-of-the-box), and LiteStep is hard to grasp if you are not used to text files (ala dot files). But the fact that I was able to turn Vista into something I feel is both "cool" and "utilitarian" is quite amazing. The best thing about LiteStep is that it is highly customizable.
If you are stuck using Windows but want to get as far away from it as possible, LiteStep is definitely worth a look
but isn't Office by any standard definition, a standard? IE can do their own thing and every web master is forced to abide. If you are a business buying computers, you pretty much need Office, and it isn't a hard decision even if it is expensive. Using Open Office is the harder decision, even though it is free.
So isn't this OOXML hoopla just all fun and games for Microsoft? If Open Office and others are going to copy Office's formats anyway, then why not make it official. They're making our lives easier in a way, no?
1. "Some argue that we need subjective gatekeepers as filters. "
We ourselves are our own filters. Some simple statistics about what others are enjoying would be enough to get a "big" picture. This argument shows no support for Record Labels, or any other "filters for hire".
2. "Hopefully access to all of this new music will inspire us, make us think and open doors and minds to new experiences we choose, not what a corporation or media outlet decides we should want."
You should be doing this already. Record Labels may decide what to sell, but you still have to buy it. You are free to pay the guy on the street an extra 20 bucks for his home made album if you like his music that much. You are also free to offer to become his agent and charge him the going rate if you think he is worth 10 million dollars.
I know this is knit-picking but I thought these angles deserved some light.
If only you were a woman.
Except for emails sent by automatons. A server that sent an order confirmation email is not going to "reply" to any emails. Many important emails are sent from non-observed email boxes.
Sometimes an email may be sent from alternate or temporary accounts. This is more often the case when something is urgent.
Also my mom won't react to such an email. Most people assume that an email sent is an email sent, and any emails requesting some further action are always going to have problems.
...it catches on pretty quickly. It is obvious from all the posts here that parallel comp is very old... And if it is that old, yet has never been hot, then why now?
Only 1% know parallel programming? Well, how many people a day get inspired to go pick up a parallel computing book? That has something to do with it. What is it for, and why do I need it?
Personal computing exploded once it was on the scene. So did web development. These things you can start small, and they come to you, as opposed to you having to go actively seek them out. Parallel computing has never revealed itself in anything I've done. I've never came across it or tripped on it in any of project.
Our processors are idle 90% of the time, and they keep getting faster. Most of us don't need parallel computing.
With that said, if you invest in it you're an idiot.
Web surfing, period. If I wanted to do other things, I'd get the other things that would do it. At least make it a plugin please.
What makes me wish a web page were more tightly integrated with my OS? Absolutely nothing.
What makes me wish the address bar did more than go to where I type? Absolutely nothing.
Things that I wish for:
1) A fast, stable, independent browser that launches and terminates quickly.
2) The address bar not to reset focus when a page is done loading if I am typing.
Firefox is great because of all the plugins. I managed to get it just the way I want it, and I couldn't have done it without them.
Firefox sucks out of the box though, so maybe the developers can work on making a more impressive initial package.
Obviously you are beyond the targeted skill level of this book if you are using javascript for shell scripts. I have heard good things about javascript for shell scripting, but that is not what this book is about, nor is it how most people are forced into javascript.
To most people and most authors of books such as this, javascript equals client-side web programming. Just look at the cover of the book. "Slicing and dicing HTML" is easier, simpler, and faster if done on the server. Those things usually matter.
Sure you can blame the DOM, but the environment in which you are forced to program has just as much to do with the task at hand, and the use cases of the language in question. The sad reality of client-side javascript is that you cannot trust the code that you write. That is a very serious problem.
Javascript is truly complex when it comes to cross-browser compatibility and object management. The ambiguity of type in the syntax is also horrible, and the handful of built-in functions needed workarounds until recently (most notably date related functions).
For the web I would avoid javascript wherever possible. If you want to do anything serious on the client use FLASH. If you want to pickup AJAX tricks then buy a book on the topic, not on JavaScript.
If you feel the need to buy a book like this then you probably aren't getting the most out of google, or looked into server-side scripting yet. Which is a shame, because starting with js is definitely the wrong foot. You'll end up learning a ton of language specific quirks and hacks that are useless elsewhere, and will end up with the impression that half of everything is broken, or that they cannot be done. Try PHP. Java is even easier than JS.
Anyone with a clue knows that beyond simple mouse-overs, libraries like this are the way to go. Any book that states otherwise is FYE: For your entertainment only.
There is often one best way of doing something. That is the gist of the argument against software patents.
Google is a great tool for finding that one way if you know how to use it. Reference docs provide no shortcuts, and can often mislead learners into an abyss of trial and error, often ending in hacks that just barely get the job done.
Tiz' a great time to be a mouse indeed.
These independent firms are always suspect, but here are some more versions of the breakdown.
Most artists do not get the marketing/promotion buck spent on themselves. Labels constantly invest in their best artists, and once the albums are out, they're already eying on what's next. What's more, it isn't new music that always sells the most. Past albums still sell, and obviously marketing/promotion is not a factor for them, and overhead is minimal.
Big label's only help big artists. The current industry does not help artists in general, period. They make big artists bigger, and make more money for themselves in the process.
Yet they are the ones complaining.
The "small" artists aren't complaining because they are too busy working their day job.
I am dying for an SSD. It is silent, and rigid, and uses less power. And newer drives are guaranteed to be up to 4 times faster than the current "standard" SSD drives that Dell and Apple put in their laptops (200Mb/s versus 50Mb/s read). If you had the money, you would have no reason NOT to move to SSD, especially if you have a laptop, and more so if you use your computer for work. cameras get more mega pixels, more people need digital video On the contrary, reading huge files is where SSDs are fastest. Not everyone puts all their video on their pc, and if you do a terabyte drive might be what you need. However, if you wish to edit and process video and burn it onto DVDs then an SSD is exactly what you need to speed up crunch time multi-fold. An SSD for active files and an HDD for mass storage is the way it will be.
I agree that the low-end computer market will consist of HDDs for a long time to come. HDDs will not go away as long as they provide cost effectiveness. However, once the next generation drives are out and hit the 5USD/GB mark everyone with a buck will want one especially when their IT friends will be all over them.
This feature is old. Some more free pr for google.
Neither is the problem new. If you place google ads on your site google can put links to competitors in their ad space.
This is an interesting case study for UI though. Google basically enhanced their UI to be more user friendly, and got a reaction from it. Goes to show how naive google is about UI. Keep It Simple Stupid has gotten them here, but with all the new features available, they haven't done much to make any of them that accessible or easier to use.
Ya. And if your son is being bullied at school, just home school him.
Google is huge. Removing your site from google is like shooting yourself in the foot.
Wright's comments were taken out of context, and Obama acknowledged that.
Wright knows that parts of his sermons are shocking and provocative. He successfully provoked the media and got his name out. yay.
Email is sent from one computer to another. They can't destroy computers that received the emails, and unless they delete their address book, won't a lot of the recipients already be in the list?
There are also logs on servers. There is a lot of data left that the Feds can search if they tried.
Also I am repeating this because it cannot be emphasized enough: White House records are public property, so it is illegal to destroy them. Any comparisons to personal data or corporate computer policies are categorically irrelevant.
Why not impeach them for illegal destruction of records. That is a start.
Macs are secure dummy. Look whose sneezing. Get a Mac!