I want the numbers that show people with DVR are less consumeristic. Who gives a rat's ass if I see the commercial or not? Even if I "skip" it, I'm still subconciously aware of it... which is all most commercials can hope for anyway. Commercials are so homogeonized and similar that the speed by which I see them flicker in front of my eyes is mute. I can get up and walk around the room or get a beer without watching a commercial with frickin' rabbit ears on the top of my set!
Man am I disgruntled about this. People need to find a new way to make money without insisting I experience something within their parameters.
"First and foremost, it's a bad idea to make these games at all. If you do, you'll be competing with me. I'm obviously insane. You don't want to mess with my bad-assness."
I really don't want a contained fire on my lap. I know Lithium-ion reactions are probably just as bad, but there's just a big mental difference. Do you really want something that can run your lawnmover on an airplane? Does the airline want it on your lap, either?
... that it's a Dell, dude. Prepare to carry around a heavy, ugly chunk of black plastic that will have it's keyboard malfunction once every six months.
Does Microsoft do ANY research before they p*ss their money away? Do they enjoy throwing about millions on x-box in a vain attempt to own your living room. Now they want to own the video arcade... great. 13 boys around the nation will very happy. The rest of us are content with our PS2.
I seriously don't see the advantage an arcade has over a good console these days. I guess the arguement can be made that I can also drink a beer at home or drink a beer in a bar. Perhaps it's the location and ambience?
"I'm as big of a Mac Zealot as you can get, but I think this too is doomed to failure. $.99 a song? Ripoff. This means that the average CD will still cost $10-$12 to download, and you don't get a CD, a jewel case, or liner notes."
As I do not use or care about any of those items, I suppose $0.99 is a fair price.;-)
I seriously discard the case, the cover art, and the lyrics. Quite honestly, I know people who do care about these things, but they're not important to the stuff I like.
gatesh8r writes "According to this story at the Register, it seems that MS has decided to up and quit the OpenGL ARB, in persuit of "focus our energies on improving and evolving our own Windows graphics platform"
So, if your resources are limitless, as they essentially are at Microsoft, then what other reason would you have to pull your "resources" off a project? To maintain your proprietary software by quietly killing the opposition. Yes another instance amongst perhaps 100's where Microsoft has given the proverbial finger to the open source community and the betterment of cross platform software.
Some have been disussing a way to reach absolute zero. While I am not a physics major, I do love reading Hawking, Barbour, et. al. It's very mind expanding. I've ultimately decided you can not reach absolute zero wihtout cirumventing the laws of the universe and the means that we observe them... as we know it.
Okay, so I got thinking... if the space you're measuring was contained by a magnetic field and contained nothing, could it reach absolute zero? Theoretically I would think so. But there's 2 problems with this, right?
The first is simply the observation of "nothing." If I'm not mistaken, you can not measure or observe "nothing" because if it could be observed in any way, it would be "something". Even if you could somehow detect the abscense of "something" you'd be effecting "nothing" and making it into "something." Correct?
The second would be how do we define "nothing?" If I am to define it as something that does not contain matter in any form, then how do I contain it? Is it a matter of containment, or a matter of exclusion? If I am to exclude "something", philosphically this is far different from containing "nothing."
Anyway, I've got a headache now and it's 10 AM EST. Thank you slashdot for another wonderful morning...
HFS+ supposrts Journaling as of 10.2.x... forgetting which point revision. So unless you need something outside of the Journaling real, then HFS+ will be more than adequate.
According to the over-zealous "GOBBLES", we're all "raping artists" that the RIAA is trying to protect. Wow, they must have p-a-i-d this dude. Thank you for turning to the dark side, as if those script-kiddies have done enough already. I suppose it's okay to infect people's computers if you're fighting on the "right" side of the law, right? Hmmm. That's some shady ethics, partner.
But on a less rant-enraged subject, it seens they have only exploited Windows systems as a host. Now, I know this means that he can DOS the P2P networks, but that will only effect my ability to get data from the network. I would otherwise be uneffected?
... then I'd use a PC. But I don't. I want to be able to use my OS, and get work done. I don't want to download security patch after security patch, screw with the plethora of "control panels" that all do the same thing but in slightly different ways, or fiddle with the hodge-podge of proprietary hardware in my "box."
I pay a little more (for a desktop), and sacrifice a little hardware choice, and in return I save hours a week in productivity. At my hourly rate, that's way more than the $200 more I paid for the machine and the pain and anguish of owning a PC.
But with all of that said, use what you're comfortable with. A PC doesn't make sense to me, but if your freakish mannerisms let you tolerate the PC world, by all means, go ahead and use one.:-)
This is one of the coolest, least depressing, stories I've read on Slashdot in a while.
If I'm not mistaken, would this not only create a thorough map, but a map with density? You'd be killing 2 birds with one stone by mapping location, and travel density.
I would have never believed such woefully ignorant people could assemble a web site. Being a web designer, I take this as a slap in the face and "direct empirical evidence" that I need to lay down some "punctuated equillibrium" on their asses.
But seriously, how scary are these people? Like 666 out of 10! Did you read into that site and see the part about the "Islamic Invasion" of Christianity? Geez, maybe natural selection hasn't taken care of these weak genes yet. My who faith in Science and rational thought has been ripped from cranium.
The people making the decisions about browser usage in your company are not only seriously underqualified, but misinformed. How on earth would they choose NS 4.79 over IE 5.5 or greater, I don't know. Furthermore, now that Netscape 7/Mozilla 1.2 is out, you should be using one of those (or a derivative).
Netscape 4 is a dead technology, and has been for 3 years.
Yes, we used Qpass, and they are either out of business or are on their way out. I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about a reputable company offering subscriptions to CNN, WSJ, Slashdot, etc... In response to the other fellow who suggested sites wouldn't do this, I could not disagree more.
It costs much more for a company to maintain their own billing and subscription process than it does to receive a check every month from a middleman. The middleman is involved because he can give the user a REASON to buy the content. I'm not going to pay $19.95 a year per online magazine. I am going to pay that for 4,5, or maybe even 10 sites. Also, the individual sites do not have market themselves nearly as much because they will be getting advertisement though the middlemen.
If done right, it will work. We aren't talking about a no-name startup selling no-name content to uninterested people. This will likely be an initiative by a large corporation with an establed brand or reputation.
I'd like to state that I worked for a company that had over 180,000 "subscribers" before it folded in 2001. We didn't charge for a subscription, but we did charge for content. Each piece of content you viewed was a small fee. Quite frankly, I was never convinced of this business worthiness of this approach. We burnt through about 30 million before going belly up. Looks like Salon will be doing the same thing.
I think online communities are going to have a hard time selling to individuals. While the metaphore works for real world newspapers and magazines, their publishing numbers are going down. Less people are reading them because they can get free content on the web. Now, I totally believe you should pay for content, but it should be subscription based and not be on a per site basis. In a sense, it should work like AOL (I know, I know). With AOL, you get prepackaged content. I'm suggesting you pay xx.xx dollars and get a pass to 20 or 30 web sites that all use the same password. You should be able to sign up for these sites through different subscribers, like you would your domain registration or cable access. The web sites still get the same amount of money, but if one 'net-network can provide a lower price but sell to more people, they can compete. They could also provide different site packages or offer more sites.
"That's just silly. Computers can already prcess data much faster than you or I (or you and I) can follow."
no. you're silly.
But seriously... computers can "process data" far faster than a human only within very specific parameters. Humans, proportionally, can handle a much wider array of computational tasks than a computer. For example, a human can not only do arithmatic very fast, but the more it learns about the computation of math, the faster it can do said calculations. A human's brain is exceedinly non-linear. Pieces of information can be seemingly pulled from the voids of your subconcious in ways we have yet to understand. A human's brain has evolved over time to assimilate the world around us and perform calculations based on these conditions. When you remove the human brain from these basic condtions, you need to train it to achieve optimal performance. Other processes are even more primal, and are done without the human have to acknowledge they are happening. Involuntary muscle reactions, for example. A computer, on the other hand, is composed of CPU's which require a pipeline of instruction. The pipeline is always linear, and it is always determined by the order in which it was received. Not so with a human.
Let me give you a good example of a human calculation. A human could play catch with someone in the park. The human calulcates how to catch the ball, which skill in doing so is based both on experience and raw talent. At the same time, the human is ENJOYING the scenery, thinking about sex, and having a memory of a day 10 years ago from the smell of some flowers, which he determines are to his right about 10 feet away. He's doing all of this at once, and not dropping the ball. A computer could throw the ball in crafty and specific manners, but it could not comprehend the remaining tasks in the aforementioned list. Even if it could, it would mean little. It would spit out a result and that is it. End of story.
Even the best computers in the world can't beat a human at chess. I consider that a great feat of human intelligence because it not only requires great computational skills, but cognitive and analytical skills. I could go into that for paragraphs, but I won't.
I think we are at least 50 years off from producing a machine that could have the specialized computational skills of a human. Even then, the human has to learn many of it's skills over time. I would imagine we would use these computers to accelerate our learning process for tasks such as schooling. A human, knowing how we process the world and associate the input through our sensory organs, could produce machines that could out think a human in cognitive skills. It could also make a machine that could make a better machine. We are clearly the superior being, as of now...
Sounds like something a rich man would say to someone who propositions a money-less society.
As awful as this may sound, it might be that carbon/organic life forms are the first in many evolutionary steps. It just might be that we will create "synthetic" life forms that turn out to not be synthetic at all. In turn, if we are good enough at what we do, we will be superceded by these beings. Or, perhaps, we will become them in the process.
That's evolution for you.
Perhaps our ultimate goal is to not only to be able to understand the universe, but to create a more advanced life form than our selves. Once we have solved every problem, there is no point to our existence and we will accept our fate-- we've solved the ultimate question, and now we're done.
Slashdot Mirror
I want the numbers that show people with DVR are less consumeristic. Who gives a rat's ass if I see the commercial or not? Even if I "skip" it, I'm still subconciously aware of it... which is all most commercials can hope for anyway. Commercials are so homogeonized and similar that the speed by which I see them flicker in front of my eyes is mute. I can get up and walk around the room or get a beer without watching a commercial with frickin' rabbit ears on the top of my set!
Man am I disgruntled about this. People need to find a new way to make money without insisting I experience something within their parameters.
"First and foremost, it's a bad idea to make these games at all. If you do, you'll be competing with me. I'm obviously insane. You don't want to mess with my bad-assness."
I really don't want a contained fire on my lap. I know Lithium-ion reactions are probably just as bad, but there's just a big mental difference. Do you really want something that can run your lawnmover on an airplane? Does the airline want it on your lap, either?
... that it's a Dell, dude. Prepare to carry around a heavy, ugly chunk of black plastic that will have it's keyboard malfunction once every six months.
:-)
Think different
Does Microsoft do ANY research before they p*ss their money away? Do they enjoy throwing about millions on x-box in a vain attempt to own your living room. Now they want to own the video arcade... great. 13 boys around the nation will very happy. The rest of us are content with our PS2.
I seriously don't see the advantage an arcade has over a good console these days. I guess the arguement can be made that I can also drink a beer at home or drink a beer in a bar. Perhaps it's the location and ambience?
I know you're joking, but for god's sake man! Maine paid some insanely low amount per unit for these things. Like 50% retail or something.
"I'm as big of a Mac Zealot as you can get, but I think this too is doomed to failure. $.99 a song? Ripoff. This means that the average CD will still cost $10-$12 to download, and you don't get a CD, a jewel case, or liner notes."
As I do not use or care about any of those items, I suppose $0.99 is a fair price. ;-)
I seriously discard the case, the cover art, and the lyrics. Quite honestly, I know people who do care about these things, but they're not important to the stuff I like.
gatesh8r writes "According to this story at the Register, it seems that MS has decided to up and quit the OpenGL ARB, in persuit of "focus our energies on improving and evolving our own Windows graphics platform"
So, if your resources are limitless, as they essentially are at Microsoft, then what other reason would you have to pull your "resources" off a project? To maintain your proprietary software by quietly killing the opposition. Yes another instance amongst perhaps 100's where Microsoft has given the proverbial finger to the open source community and the betterment of cross platform software.
Some have been disussing a way to reach absolute zero. While I am not a physics major, I do love reading Hawking, Barbour, et. al. It's very mind expanding. I've ultimately decided you can not reach absolute zero wihtout cirumventing the laws of the universe and the means that we observe them... as we know it.
...
Okay, so I got thinking... if the space you're measuring was contained by a magnetic field and contained nothing, could it reach absolute zero? Theoretically I would think so. But there's 2 problems with this, right?
The first is simply the observation of "nothing." If I'm not mistaken, you can not measure or observe "nothing" because if it could be observed in any way, it would be "something". Even if you could somehow detect the abscense of "something" you'd be effecting "nothing" and making it into "something." Correct?
The second would be how do we define "nothing?" If I am to define it as something that does not contain matter in any form, then how do I contain it? Is it a matter of containment, or a matter of exclusion? If I am to exclude "something", philosphically this is far different from containing "nothing."
Anyway, I've got a headache now and it's 10 AM EST. Thank you slashdot for another wonderful morning
HFS+ supposrts Journaling as of 10.2.x... forgetting which point revision. So unless you need something outside of the Journaling real, then HFS+ will be more than adequate.
Scare tactic.
According to the over-zealous "GOBBLES", we're all "raping artists" that the RIAA is trying to protect. Wow, they must have p-a-i-d this dude. Thank you for turning to the dark side, as if those script-kiddies have done enough already. I suppose it's okay to infect people's computers if you're fighting on the "right" side of the law, right? Hmmm. That's some shady ethics, partner.
But on a less rant-enraged subject, it seens they have only exploited Windows systems as a host. Now, I know this means that he can DOS the P2P networks, but that will only effect my ability to get data from the network. I would otherwise be uneffected?
I pay a little more (for a desktop), and sacrifice a little hardware choice, and in return I save hours a week in productivity. At my hourly rate, that's way more than the $200 more I paid for the machine and the pain and anguish of owning a PC.
But with all of that said, use what you're comfortable with. A PC doesn't make sense to me, but if your freakish mannerisms let you tolerate the PC world, by all means, go ahead and use one. :-)
Haha. I can just imagine a 40 hour tivo recording HDTV... act now, and get your 3 hour TiVo!
Uhhh... I think you mean Windows Media Player, not Quicktime. LOL.
Damn, I can hardly think of a reason to see anything on screen these days. This will get me in the theaters again. Well, that and LOTR 2.
This is one of the coolest, least depressing, stories I've read on Slashdot in a while.
If I'm not mistaken, would this not only create a thorough map, but a map with density? You'd be killing 2 birds with one stone by mapping location, and travel density.
Haven't used a mac in 2 years now, eh? No more conflicts.
I would have never believed such woefully ignorant people could assemble a web site. Being a web designer, I take this as a slap in the face and "direct empirical evidence" that I need to lay down some "punctuated equillibrium" on their asses.
But seriously, how scary are these people? Like 666 out of 10! Did you read into that site and see the part about the "Islamic Invasion" of Christianity? Geez, maybe natural selection hasn't taken care of these weak genes yet. My who faith in Science and rational thought has been ripped from cranium.
LOL.
Thanks for the good read!
The people making the decisions about browser usage in your company are not only seriously underqualified, but misinformed. How on earth would they choose NS 4.79 over IE 5.5 or greater, I don't know. Furthermore, now that Netscape 7/Mozilla 1.2 is out, you should be using one of those (or a derivative).
Netscape 4 is a dead technology, and has been for 3 years.
Yes, we used Qpass, and they are either out of business or are on their way out. I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about a reputable company offering subscriptions to CNN, WSJ, Slashdot, etc... In response to the other fellow who suggested sites wouldn't do this, I could not disagree more.
It costs much more for a company to maintain their own billing and subscription process than it does to receive a check every month from a middleman. The middleman is involved because he can give the user a REASON to buy the content. I'm not going to pay $19.95 a year per online magazine. I am going to pay that for 4,5, or maybe even 10 sites. Also, the individual sites do not have market themselves nearly as much because they will be getting advertisement though the middlemen.
If done right, it will work. We aren't talking about a no-name startup selling no-name content to uninterested people. This will likely be an initiative by a large corporation with an establed brand or reputation.
I'd like to state that I worked for a company that had over 180,000 "subscribers" before it folded in 2001. We didn't charge for a subscription, but we did charge for content. Each piece of content you viewed was a small fee. Quite frankly, I was never convinced of this business worthiness of this approach. We burnt through about 30 million before going belly up. Looks like Salon will be doing the same thing.
I think online communities are going to have a hard time selling to individuals. While the metaphore works for real world newspapers and magazines, their publishing numbers are going down. Less people are reading them because they can get free content on the web. Now, I totally believe you should pay for content, but it should be subscription based and not be on a per site basis. In a sense, it should work like AOL (I know, I know). With AOL, you get prepackaged content. I'm suggesting you pay xx.xx dollars and get a pass to 20 or 30 web sites that all use the same password. You should be able to sign up for these sites through different subscribers, like you would your domain registration or cable access. The web sites still get the same amount of money, but if one 'net-network can provide a lower price but sell to more people, they can compete. They could also provide different site packages or offer more sites.
"That's just silly. Computers can already prcess data much faster than you or I (or you and I) can follow."
no. you're silly.
But seriously... computers can "process data" far faster than a human only within very specific parameters. Humans, proportionally, can handle a much wider array of computational tasks than a computer. For example, a human can not only do arithmatic very fast, but the more it learns about the computation of math, the faster it can do said calculations. A human's brain is exceedinly non-linear. Pieces of information can be seemingly pulled from the voids of your subconcious in ways we have yet to understand. A human's brain has evolved over time to assimilate the world around us and perform calculations based on these conditions. When you remove the human brain from these basic condtions, you need to train it to achieve optimal performance. Other processes are even more primal, and are done without the human have to acknowledge they are happening. Involuntary muscle reactions, for example. A computer, on the other hand, is composed of CPU's which require a pipeline of instruction. The pipeline is always linear, and it is always determined by the order in which it was received. Not so with a human.
Let me give you a good example of a human calculation. A human could play catch with someone in the park. The human calulcates how to catch the ball, which skill in doing so is based both on experience and raw talent. At the same time, the human is ENJOYING the scenery, thinking about sex, and having a memory of a day 10 years ago from the smell of some flowers, which he determines are to his right about 10 feet away. He's doing all of this at once, and not dropping the ball. A computer could throw the ball in crafty and specific manners, but it could not comprehend the remaining tasks in the aforementioned list. Even if it could, it would mean little. It would spit out a result and that is it. End of story.
Even the best computers in the world can't beat a human at chess. I consider that a great feat of human intelligence because it not only requires great computational skills, but cognitive and analytical skills. I could go into that for paragraphs, but I won't.
I think we are at least 50 years off from producing a machine that could have the specialized computational skills of a human. Even then, the human has to learn many of it's skills over time. I would imagine we would use these computers to accelerate our learning process for tasks such as schooling. A human, knowing how we process the world and associate the input through our sensory organs, could produce machines that could out think a human in cognitive skills. It could also make a machine that could make a better machine. We are clearly the superior being, as of now...
Sounds like something a rich man would say to someone who propositions a money-less society.
As awful as this may sound, it might be that carbon/organic life forms are the first in many evolutionary steps. It just might be that we will create "synthetic" life forms that turn out to not be synthetic at all. In turn, if we are good enough at what we do, we will be superceded by these beings. Or, perhaps, we will become them in the process.
That's evolution for you.
Perhaps our ultimate goal is to not only to be able to understand the universe, but to create a more advanced life form than our selves. Once we have solved every problem, there is no point to our existence and we will accept our fate-- we've solved the ultimate question, and now we're done.
PDF, and Adobe, aren't going anywhere. Nice try Microsoft. Mark this as another failed venture with X-Box and .NET.