There is a famous live broadcast by Hitler from the 1936 Olympics. The Nuremberg rally was in 1934 and was filmed by Leni Riefenstah. I don't believe it was broadcast on TVl. Both are available today on DVD so you can judge if it is distinction without a difference.
If it were possible to make them so they were suitable for mom don't you think that might have happened by now?
Yes, it happened about 25 years ago.
Complete and utter rubbish. For the vast majority of individuals who do not have the luxury of tech support (formal or informal) you have shiny machines that start well and then decline as bit rot takes its toll. Maybe slightly less for Macs if you have easy access to an Apple Store when inevitably things start to go wrong.
Even a perfectly running general purpose computer is far more complex than most people really want to deal with. Of course there is a subset of the general population that is quite happy with them but the point is that it is a small subset. You may not believe that but it will become increasingly clear as better products become more generally available.
We've had consumer available, general purpose computers since the mid 70's. If it were possible to make them so they were suitable for mom don't you think that might have happened by now? Wake up and smell the coffee. The WIMP interface and hierarchical file system were a step forward but it was never going to be enough. Apple has at least tried to break the mold and create something new, not just another form factor but with the same insufficient framework.
Trying to compare this dinosaur to a breakthrough current product has to be the musings of a demented mind. By the way, if you want to write programs for your own iPad then get off your ass, pay $100 for the developer program and hack away, instead of whining (directed toward earlier entries in this thread).
I guess that is what comes from relying on memories of cosmology courses taken in the 70's. Looking at recent sources it appears dark matter is now used to explain how galaxies cluster rather than how they are able to form. I can't find a reference to "universal dark matter". That wouldn't be a reference to dark energy, would it? In any case how is it that we know the Earth to be banana shaped?
It is imprecise to say physicists indicate there should be much more mass in the universe. What they say is that there is mass missing in every galaxy which implies it is missing from the universe but only on a galaxy by galaxy basis. Dark matter is necessary to explain why galaxies form. In other words the "missing" matter is in each and every galaxy. Discovering more galaxies doesn't affect that issue.
When I was a physics major in the dark ages they were just beginning to notice that computer simulations based on observed stellar quantities and masses had the annoying property of never resulting in galaxies. In subsequent years it was computed that the needed mass for galaxy formation wasn't off by a little but actually by a huge factor.
Eventually some observations of gravitational lensing have provided more evidence that there was huge amounts of mass measured in this indirect fashion that was simply not seen by exhaustive charting of the observed stars.
It isn't just a typo. It is part of an insidious conspiracy to almost always use the wrong spelling whenever the words lose and loose appear. You may think I am exaggerating but now you will see it everywhere. What is so damn hard about the distinction between lose and loose?
Anyone with half a brain knows the word you misspelt is supposed to be LOSING. LOSE and LOOSE: they are two different words that are not interchangeable.
Yes, I do. But what is being disputed is whether the word understanding can have any meaning. Your position seems to be that no matter what it can never be achieved. I'm presenting the argument that the term can be usefully applied in many cases. For instance, before the theory of quantum mechanics was created there was essentially no chance a BEC (Bose-Einstein Condensate) would be encountered. By 1925 enough of quantum mechanics was understood to predict the possibility of BEC and by 1995 technology had advanced enough to create it in the laboratory.
I would use that as an example of understanding of nature that is far from just playing with models. There are many more though I don't doubt you would dismiss them all as falling short of the requirements of true understanding. This seems to devolve into some sort of theological dispute which just doesn't interest me enough to pursue further.
Obscurantist nonsense. You set up the criteria so that there can be no such thing as understanding. If you want to strike the word understanding from your dictionary, that's fine, but the rest of us have plenty of good use for it. For instance before quantum mechanics was understood things as different as transistors and Bose-Einstein condensate could not be created and used. Now they can be. In fact semiconductors are ubiquitous in our contemporary world. I would agree they are not understood by the vast majority of people who use them. To claim they are not understood by those who create and design them just strikes me as nonsense. YMMV
Any child can (and often does) ask the question "Why?" repeatedly past anyone's endurance. That does not mean the respondent does not understand anything. Also sometimes one is simply not well informed. For instance the question of why there is inertia is addressed by the work of Higgs and the theoretical Higgs boson. One of the main stated goals of the LHC in Europe is to have collisions energetic enough to get experimental verification of the Higgs boson.
The current Apple Extreme wireless access box does the segregation of internal network from open guest internet access out of the box. In particular it allows access to printers and disks connected via USB to Apple Extreme only to clients on the internal network. I don't see any QoS features and have not been motivated to pursue the matter so I don't know how hard it would be to deploy. It certainly is not available out of the box. It is a rather nice (and somewhat pricey) box especially the 5GZ capability.
From an earlier reader of the report: The 3G has 24.6% of the market. The 3GS has 21.5% of the market. That adds up to roughly 46%.
Apple has sold three models of the iPhone but only the 3G and 3GS work with the more advanced networks in foreign markets. It seems fair (and involve absolutely no distortion field at all) to combine the shares for both current models.
Suddenly all the Tony awards would go to movies and not plays.
I know it is just a hypothetical but it is still hysterically wrong. The people who choose Tony awards are not movie fans.
If you think an iPhone is just a touchscreen iPod then you are completely out of touch with reality. Specifically, although the related non-cellphone device is called an iPod touch its name has befuddled you. Other than form factor it has very little in common with the venerable iPod devices. Don't be confuse with the name Apple chose which was probably a good marketing decision. It is an advanced BSD unix device with a nextstep derived multitouch interface. They crammed a Mac with a new interface into a handheld device. You are probably right that it is odd to put it in the category of smartphones because smartphones are retarded by comparison.
Can you see your wife's reflection in a mirror? Seriously, I am amazed that she has problems with the iPhone's touchscreen. Its performance is a large part of why the iPhone is so phenomenally successful. Maybe it is an issue of long fingernails.
Positrons were predicted by Paul Dirac in 1928 and discovered by Carl Anderson in 1932. Asimov was 8 and 12 respectively so how young was he when he wrote I, Robot?
What the studios have are lawyers and huge budgets to devote to litigation regardless of its merit. When you are on the receiving end of that onslaught you need a budget to handle it or you end up, like ReplayTV, facing bankruptcy. Regarding the Sony Betamax ruling it was only 5-4 so it is not exactly unassailable. In fact the DMCA, purchased from your friendly local Congress, has done a fairly effective job of gutting fair use and as time passes and developments continue it may finish the job.
Thanks for the data point. As I noted in another post I also use wifi for access to Skype with the iPod touch. I pay $3 per month for unlimited call access to everywhere that matters for me. I also have a free dial in using my Google Voice number but explaining that would take too much space and effort. A Google search would supply details involving Gizmo5 and an SIP number. The current 8GB iPod touch has this capability for $200 but it only became available quite recently.
Do you use wifi and the internet (beyond email) with your phone? I don't have an iPhone because I don't want to have anything to do with AT&T and the price of the service seems way too high. I do have an iPod touch and use it with wifi and have been surprised how often it is actually a better experience than using my MacBook because of the form factor. For example using the Kindle app it is quite good for reading and with wifi delivery of titles and samples is an easily handled impulse. I think the biggest challenge for an Apple tablet is whether it can surpass the iPod touch which is more comfortably portable and undoubtedly less expensive.
Do you have unlimited data plan for using HSDPA or are there extra charges per megabyte? For people who face a running meter when connected free wifi can be very enjoyable. Does the HTC have a useful web browser and other apps that encourage the use of the internet? I have an iPod touch and obviously only use wifi for internet connectivity. I use Skype for making calls but it is not useful for receiving calls. But that makes it only $3 per month rather than what AT&T would charge for using an iPhone. Google Voice handles voice mail so I'm not entirely out of touch for incoming calls. Messages show up as attachments to email.
The point of ubiquitous connectivity, which is certainly the future, is that usage is not conspicuous, it is just taken as a given (hence inconspicuous) once the artificial impediments have been sufficiently diminished.
Were those phones available more than two years ago? That is when the first iPhones and iPod touches became available and loudly proclaimed their wifi capability. Even now almost all the public wifi use is by Apple products including MacBooks, iPhones, and iPod touches according to reports that have been published. It hardly seems appropriate that the original poster be pilloried or that Apple marketing be ascribed some magical power to cloud the minds of the masses.
Please, species ending disasters have occurred repeatedly throughout geologic history and none of them had anything to do with the hand wringing concerns that are conventionally invoked (after all we have the alibi that we were not present to take the blame). The quantitative fact is that the interval between these events is much longer than the current period during which our species has been terra forming the planet. No need to invoke any intellectually thin gruel of time travel.
It is inspiring to see someone try so hard to inject some actual physics into a discussion but the magical view of the world seems to have too strong a grip. Something that might be missing from these accounts is the brutal economics. The 9600 baud modem I used to do contract work in Silicon Valley from Minneapolis in the early 90's cost about $800. The voice circuits it used were far from pristine so some days it just didn't manage a data transfer at all. I don't think many thought there was a physical limit but rather economic reasons greater speeds weren't available yet. Later I got ISDN and it delivered its 64K per channel but it cost plenty (over $200 per month).
Slashdot Mirror
You were joking? The reverse is true. A 600 ib robot on Earth would weigh 100 lb on the Moon. Same mass, weighs less on the Moon.
There is a famous live broadcast by Hitler from the 1936 Olympics. The Nuremberg rally was in 1934 and was filmed by Leni Riefenstah. I don't believe it was broadcast on TVl. Both are available today on DVD so you can judge if it is distinction without a difference.
If it were possible to make them so they were suitable for mom don't you think that might have happened by now?
Yes, it happened about 25 years ago.
Complete and utter rubbish. For the vast majority of individuals who do not have the luxury of tech support (formal or informal) you have shiny machines that start well and then decline as bit rot takes its toll. Maybe slightly less for Macs if you have easy access to an Apple Store when inevitably things start to go wrong.
Even a perfectly running general purpose computer is far more complex than most people really want to deal with. Of course there is a subset of the general population that is quite happy with them but the point is that it is a small subset. You may not believe that but it will become increasingly clear as better products become more generally available.
We've had consumer available, general purpose computers since the mid 70's. If it were possible to make them so they were suitable for mom don't you think that might have happened by now? Wake up and smell the coffee. The WIMP interface and hierarchical file system were a step forward but it was never going to be enough. Apple has at least tried to break the mold and create something new, not just another form factor but with the same insufficient framework.
Trying to compare this dinosaur to a breakthrough current product has to be the musings of a demented mind. By the way, if you want to write programs for your own iPad then get off your ass, pay $100 for the developer program and hack away, instead of whining (directed toward earlier entries in this thread).
I guess that is what comes from relying on memories of cosmology courses taken in the 70's. Looking at recent sources it appears dark matter is now used to explain how galaxies cluster rather than how they are able to form. I can't find a reference to "universal dark matter". That wouldn't be a reference to dark energy, would it? In any case how is it that we know the Earth to be banana shaped?
It is imprecise to say physicists indicate there should be much more mass in the universe. What they say is that there is mass missing in every galaxy which implies it is missing from the universe but only on a galaxy by galaxy basis. Dark matter is necessary to explain why galaxies form. In other words the "missing" matter is in each and every galaxy. Discovering more galaxies doesn't affect that issue.
When I was a physics major in the dark ages they were just beginning to notice that computer simulations based on observed stellar quantities and masses had the annoying property of never resulting in galaxies. In subsequent years it was computed that the needed mass for galaxy formation wasn't off by a little but actually by a huge factor.
Eventually some observations of gravitational lensing have provided more evidence that there was huge amounts of mass measured in this indirect fashion that was simply not seen by exhaustive charting of the observed stars.
It isn't just a typo. It is part of an insidious conspiracy to almost always use the wrong spelling whenever the words lose and loose appear. You may think I am exaggerating but now you will see it everywhere. What is so damn hard about the distinction between lose and loose?
Anyone with half a brain knows the word you misspelt is supposed to be LOSING. LOSE and LOOSE: they are two different words that are not interchangeable.
Yes, I do. But what is being disputed is whether the word understanding can have any meaning. Your position seems to be that no matter what it can never be achieved. I'm presenting the argument that the term can be usefully applied in many cases. For instance, before the theory of quantum mechanics was created there was essentially no chance a BEC (Bose-Einstein Condensate) would be encountered. By 1925 enough of quantum mechanics was understood to predict the possibility of BEC and by 1995 technology had advanced enough to create it in the laboratory.
I would use that as an example of understanding of nature that is far from just playing with models. There are many more though I don't doubt you would dismiss them all as falling short of the requirements of true understanding. This seems to devolve into some sort of theological dispute which just doesn't interest me enough to pursue further.
Obscurantist nonsense. You set up the criteria so that there can be no such thing as understanding. If you want to strike the word understanding from your dictionary, that's fine, but the rest of us have plenty of good use for it. For instance before quantum mechanics was understood things as different as transistors and Bose-Einstein condensate could not be created and used. Now they can be. In fact semiconductors are ubiquitous in our contemporary world. I would agree they are not understood by the vast majority of people who use them. To claim they are not understood by those who create and design them just strikes me as nonsense. YMMV
Any child can (and often does) ask the question "Why?" repeatedly past anyone's endurance. That does not mean the respondent does not understand anything. Also sometimes one is simply not well informed. For instance the question of why there is inertia is addressed by the work of Higgs and the theoretical Higgs boson. One of the main stated goals of the LHC in Europe is to have collisions energetic enough to get experimental verification of the Higgs boson.
The current Apple Extreme wireless access box does the segregation of internal network from open guest internet access out of the box. In particular it allows access to printers and disks connected via USB to Apple Extreme only to clients on the internal network. I don't see any QoS features and have not been motivated to pursue the matter so I don't know how hard it would be to deploy. It certainly is not available out of the box. It is a rather nice (and somewhat pricey) box especially the 5GZ capability.
From an earlier reader of the report: The 3G has 24.6% of the market. The 3GS has 21.5% of the market. That adds up to roughly 46%.
Apple has sold three models of the iPhone but only the 3G and 3GS work with the more advanced networks in foreign markets. It seems fair (and involve absolutely no distortion field at all) to combine the shares for both current models.
Suddenly all the Tony awards would go to movies and not plays.
I know it is just a hypothetical but it is still hysterically wrong. The people who choose Tony awards are not movie fans.
If you think an iPhone is just a touchscreen iPod then you are completely out of touch with reality. Specifically, although the related non-cellphone device is called an iPod touch its name has befuddled you. Other than form factor it has very little in common with the venerable iPod devices. Don't be confuse with the name Apple chose which was probably a good marketing decision. It is an advanced BSD unix device with a nextstep derived multitouch interface. They crammed a Mac with a new interface into a handheld device. You are probably right that it is odd to put it in the category of smartphones because smartphones are retarded by comparison.
Can you see your wife's reflection in a mirror? Seriously, I am amazed that she has problems with the iPhone's touchscreen. Its performance is a large part of why the iPhone is so phenomenally successful. Maybe it is an issue of long fingernails.
Please, stop embarrassing yourself. There is nothing wrong with being uninformed, but it should not be a point of pride.
Positrons were predicted by Paul Dirac in 1928 and discovered by Carl Anderson in 1932. Asimov was 8 and 12 respectively so how young was he when he wrote I, Robot?
What the studios have are lawyers and huge budgets to devote to litigation regardless of its merit. When you are on the receiving end of that onslaught you need a budget to handle it or you end up, like ReplayTV, facing bankruptcy. Regarding the Sony Betamax ruling it was only 5-4 so it is not exactly unassailable. In fact the DMCA, purchased from your friendly local Congress, has done a fairly effective job of gutting fair use and as time passes and developments continue it may finish the job.
Thanks for the data point. As I noted in another post I also use wifi for access to Skype with the iPod touch. I pay $3 per month for unlimited call access to everywhere that matters for me. I also have a free dial in using my Google Voice number but explaining that would take too much space and effort. A Google search would supply details involving Gizmo5 and an SIP number. The current 8GB iPod touch has this capability for $200 but it only became available quite recently.
Do you use wifi and the internet (beyond email) with your phone? I don't have an iPhone because I don't want to have anything to do with AT&T and the price of the service seems way too high. I do have an iPod touch and use it with wifi and have been surprised how often it is actually a better experience than using my MacBook because of the form factor. For example using the Kindle app it is quite good for reading and with wifi delivery of titles and samples is an easily handled impulse. I think the biggest challenge for an Apple tablet is whether it can surpass the iPod touch which is more comfortably portable and undoubtedly less expensive.
Do you have unlimited data plan for using HSDPA or are there extra charges per megabyte? For people who face a running meter when connected free wifi can be very enjoyable. Does the HTC have a useful web browser and other apps that encourage the use of the internet? I have an iPod touch and obviously only use wifi for internet connectivity. I use Skype for making calls but it is not useful for receiving calls. But that makes it only $3 per month rather than what AT&T would charge for using an iPhone. Google Voice handles voice mail so I'm not entirely out of touch for incoming calls. Messages show up as attachments to email.
The point of ubiquitous connectivity, which is certainly the future, is that usage is not conspicuous, it is just taken as a given (hence inconspicuous) once the artificial impediments have been sufficiently diminished.
Were those phones available more than two years ago? That is when the first iPhones and iPod touches became available and loudly proclaimed their wifi capability. Even now almost all the public wifi use is by Apple products including MacBooks, iPhones, and iPod touches according to reports that have been published. It hardly seems appropriate that the original poster be pilloried or that Apple marketing be ascribed some magical power to cloud the minds of the masses.
Archaic meaning medicine, especially a cathartic.
Please, species ending disasters have occurred repeatedly throughout geologic history and none of them had anything to do with the hand wringing concerns that are conventionally invoked (after all we have the alibi that we were not present to take the blame). The quantitative fact is that the interval between these events is much longer than the current period during which our species has been terra forming the planet. No need to invoke any intellectually thin gruel of time travel.
It is inspiring to see someone try so hard to inject some actual physics into a discussion but the magical view of the world seems to have too strong a grip. Something that might be missing from these accounts is the brutal economics. The 9600 baud modem I used to do contract work in Silicon Valley from Minneapolis in the early 90's cost about $800. The voice circuits it used were far from pristine so some days it just didn't manage a data transfer at all. I don't think many thought there was a physical limit but rather economic reasons greater speeds weren't available yet. Later I got ISDN and it delivered its 64K per channel but it cost plenty (over $200 per month).