the Bugatti Veyron aren't worth the cost.... But people still buy them, despite their amazing prices tags.
Sure. But not in any significant volume whatsoever. The iphone, til now, has been mass marketed. If you want to claim that as many people buy the Bugatti as bought iphones, you're of course nuts; the analogy is therefor way too deeply flawed to be relevant.
Apple's macOS X is quickly gaining ground among business customers and designers, and is already ahead of Linux.
wow, macOS is "ALREADY" ahead of Linux? That's like saying computers can already be made in laptop form so they needn't be plugged in anymore. Technically correct, but very misleading in its implication that what's being discussed is either very recent or obscure. MacOS being much more used than linux on the desktop is news from, oh, 30 years ago?
Sure, there are exceptions. But the GP's point is solid: the fundamental process in science is working from facts to supporting models, and the fundamental process in faith is working from models to supporting facts. They are indeed opposites, and various degrees of exceptions to them does not change their stated missions nor their overarching patterns of practice.
I'm typing this on a laptop with a microphone and internet access. I also have a phone by my desk with a microphone and internet access. My TV, with a microphone and internet access, is downstairs. I guess there's also my wife's tablet, with a microphone and internet access, downstairs. Does an XBox One have a mic in it?
My laptop runs an OS that gives me control of when the mic is on or off. Ditto my phone. I choose not to have a tv with a microphone, nor does it get internet access. No xbox, and if I did have one, it'd be unplugged when not in use. Your choice of wife is your own.
Give over it bub
YOU get over it, bubba, or corporate shill, whichever you are. Your logic is equivalent to saying "We're all going to be taking a dirtnap some day, so just kill yourself now." If you really believe what you're saying, you are a sad example of a human being, and you should just put your head down on your desk while the rest of us steal your personal data and profit from your uncaring stupidity.
"If I threw [you] into an M.R.I. machine right now... I can tell you what words you're about to say, what images are in your head. I can tell you what music you're thinking of. That's today
Nutjob. If only she'd picked a halfway plausible timeframe for such abilities, she'd be off the "reality hook".
But, since I'm a populist, I'm in favor of the consequent wealth redistribution constituted by the parting of her investors with their money.
These big corporations that are in favor of Net Neutrality should form an entity that negotiates with carriers as a collective. There would be details to vary per corporate member to be sure, but they could have some overarching terms of business that carry very serious weight.
Such a collective could potentially purchase bandwidth to be ensured net-neutral to consumers that then purchase it from them.
If Comcast could [slow down sites to an unreasonable amount] they would have, they are ALREADY FREE to do so even under current rules.
If that's what the current rules allow (and I've no idea how to prove they do or don't, at least in the energy I plan to put into responding to you) then the rules shouldn't be that way. AND, being allowed to do something legally doesn't mean a corporation will choose to do so when a pivotal related vote or political change is coming, so as not to sully things.
[Giving all traffic the same priority] is stupid because it also blocks the highly desirable goal of giving traffic priority to Netflix, which many would pay extra for. What is wrong with letting most people do something that is beneficial for them and they would like? Preventing that is how we got the war on drugs.
Because the flexibility to do so can so easily be abused.
Why [should ISPs provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet]?
So that we're able to see more than advertisements and right-wing propagada, and able to send more than credit card numbers.
You have a low slashdot id, but it sure sounds like it's been bought/sold. If not, hang your head in shame, you need to turn in your./ badge.
You can encrypt to your heart's content, but your ISP has access to every single packet that flows over your connection, including where and when, even if they don't have immediate access to its contents. So, I'll stand by my use of the word "literally", thanks!
The person replying to you, telling you that encryption nullifies the point you're attempting to make, is completely right. Not just vaguely right, completely right. You therefor are either trolling, extremely misinformed, or somehow connected to a govt push to dissuade people from encrypting.
Ok, ya got lucky with PayPal, you're even somewhat smart. But you're not the second coming of Jesus, and the world does not need to hear about every little thought you fart out.
(though I still like you better than the Orange Menace.)
It is certainly true that consumers, particularly low-income consumers, like getting free or subsidized data plans. There is no doubt about that. But when the subsidies are coming from the big tech companies, who can easily pay them, to buy competitive advantage over that nimble startup that is scaring them, well we know how that movie ends.
I really object to this person's writing style, which repeatedly seeks to put words in others' mouths rather than proposing facts and backing them up with cites as appropriate. "We all know" that that's the writing style of someone who may well be running a spin game rather than an information dissemination game. I want to be informed, not pushed into going along for the ride.
And they obviously won't improve their chances of survival with cannibalism.
It's tempting to accept this statement at face value, but an instance of cannibalism involves the death of an individual, not the death of a species. Cannibalism is just another variant of natural selection, and it's fairly easy to construct a scenario where it in fact leads to better overall survival rates (e.g. only the sick are eaten, or the challenge of evading being eaten leads to the accelerated development of intelligence/swiftness/whatever). Whether it turns out that way in this case remains to be seen.
The idea is to limit the processing power that background tabs get.
Got it. Simple, succinct, perfect.
(1) Each WebView has a budget (in seconds) for running timers in background. (2) A timer task is only allowed to run when the budget is non-negative. (3) After a timer has executed, its run time is subtracted from the budget. (4) The budget regenerates with time (at rate of 0.01 seconds per second).
Of what interest is it to anybody that the pseudo-code for this is the above, vs some other slightly different variant of how to restrict allocated processing time? Users aren't going to care. And if developers try to somehow design around this level of detail, they'll break if the algorithm ever changes.
When I tell a friend I'll show up for dinner, I don't then explain that I'm going to do so by walking one foot at a time until I get to the dinner place, at which point I'll commence chewing and swallowing.
If this bill's author has had the temerity to claim to be in favor of 'freedom' or 'free markets'; and then pushes this nonsense, somebody needs to feed him to a wood chipper.
Should that chipper be wind-powered or gas-powered? Wind would be good for the planet, but gas would have a sweet and irreplaceable irony to it...
Slashdot Mirror
Are the employees of...Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung... doing the same?
Not a doubt in my mind, and don't forget FACEBOOK.
the Bugatti Veyron aren't worth the cost.... But people still buy them, despite their amazing prices tags.
Sure. But not in any significant volume whatsoever. The iphone, til now, has been mass marketed. If you want to claim that as many people buy the Bugatti as bought iphones, you're of course nuts; the analogy is therefor way too deeply flawed to be relevant.
Apple's macOS X is quickly gaining ground among business customers and designers, and is already ahead of Linux.
wow, macOS is "ALREADY" ahead of Linux? That's like saying computers can already be made in laptop form so they needn't be plugged in anymore. Technically correct, but very misleading in its implication that what's being discussed is either very recent or obscure. MacOS being much more used than linux on the desktop is news from, oh, 30 years ago?
... Is it me, or is the world ending more frequently these days?
... PERFECT name for a porn-film body double.
Sure, there are exceptions. But the GP's point is solid: the fundamental process in science is working from facts to supporting models, and the fundamental process in faith is working from models to supporting facts. They are indeed opposites, and various degrees of exceptions to them does not change their stated missions nor their overarching patterns of practice.
'FDA approves new treatment for ALL cancer'
Indeed, "for ALL disease"
One of the longest summaries I've ever read on here and I'm still not clear what it does.
Oh come now, it does neural this-n-that, with deep, deep learning and some mathy shenanigans thrown in. FUTURRRRRRRRRRE!
I'm typing this on a laptop with a microphone and internet access. I also have a phone by my desk with a microphone and internet access. My TV, with a microphone and internet access, is downstairs. I guess there's also my wife's tablet, with a microphone and internet access, downstairs. Does an XBox One have a mic in it?
My laptop runs an OS that gives me control of when the mic is on or off. Ditto my phone. I choose not to have a tv with a microphone, nor does it get internet access. No xbox, and if I did have one, it'd be unplugged when not in use. Your choice of wife is your own.
Give over it bub
YOU get over it, bubba, or corporate shill, whichever you are. Your logic is equivalent to saying "We're all going to be taking a dirtnap some day, so just kill yourself now." If you really believe what you're saying, you are a sad example of a human being, and you should just put your head down on your desk while the rest of us steal your personal data and profit from your uncaring stupidity.
"If I threw [you] into an M.R.I. machine right now... I can tell you what words you're about to say, what images are in your head. I can tell you what music you're thinking of. That's today
Nutjob. If only she'd picked a halfway plausible timeframe for such abilities, she'd be off the "reality hook".
But, since I'm a populist, I'm in favor of the consequent wealth redistribution constituted by the parting of her investors with their money.
These big corporations that are in favor of Net Neutrality should form an entity that negotiates with carriers as a collective. There would be details to vary per corporate member to be sure, but they could have some overarching terms of business that carry very serious weight. Such a collective could potentially purchase bandwidth to be ensured net-neutral to consumers that then purchase it from them.
Signed in for the first time in a long time just to say that was a fabulous post. Thank you.
ROOTKIT.
Haven't forgotten.
If Comcast could [slow down sites to an unreasonable amount] they would have, they are ALREADY FREE to do so even under current rules.
If that's what the current rules allow (and I've no idea how to prove they do or don't, at least in the energy I plan to put into responding to you) then the rules shouldn't be that way. AND, being allowed to do something legally doesn't mean a corporation will choose to do so when a pivotal related vote or political change is coming, so as not to sully things.
[Giving all traffic the same priority] is stupid because it also blocks the highly desirable goal of giving traffic priority to Netflix, which many would pay extra for. What is wrong with letting most people do something that is beneficial for them and they would like? Preventing that is how we got the war on drugs.
Because the flexibility to do so can so easily be abused.
Why [should ISPs provide access to the internet, not their selected version of the internet]?
So that we're able to see more than advertisements and right-wing propagada, and able to send more than credit card numbers.
./ badge.
You have a low slashdot id, but it sure sounds like it's been bought/sold. If not, hang your head in shame, you need to turn in your
You can encrypt to your heart's content, but your ISP has access to every single packet that flows over your connection, including where and when, even if they don't have immediate access to its contents. So, I'll stand by my use of the word "literally", thanks!
The person replying to you, telling you that encryption nullifies the point you're attempting to make, is completely right. Not just vaguely right, completely right. You therefor are either trolling, extremely misinformed, or somehow connected to a govt push to dissuade people from encrypting.
You, sir, are a dick.
or simply hit the "Facebook Login" button. The convenience of the latter underscores the popularity of social authentication options.
Sure, the same way that putting on clothes underscores being warmer, and having sex underscores feeling good.
I don't think "underscore" means what you apparently think it means.
Drinking about a glass of wine for women per day, and two glasses for men
I drink a glass of wine for women per day, and two glasses for men, and several for children. I think that's 8 or 9.
Why hasn't Trump apologized to Obama? It would seem to be the decent thing to do.
"Decency" has been a remarkably poor predictor of what Trump will do.
... please ...
Ok, ya got lucky with PayPal, you're even somewhat smart. But you're not the second coming of Jesus, and the world does not need to hear about every little thought you fart out.
(though I still like you better than the Orange Menace.)
... used the same technology to detect goblins.
It is certainly true that consumers, particularly low-income consumers, like getting free or subsidized data plans. There is no doubt about that. But when the subsidies are coming from the big tech companies, who can easily pay them, to buy competitive advantage over that nimble startup that is scaring them, well we know how that movie ends.
I really object to this person's writing style, which repeatedly seeks to put words in others' mouths rather than proposing facts and backing them up with cites as appropriate. "We all know" that that's the writing style of someone who may well be running a spin game rather than an information dissemination game. I want to be informed, not pushed into going along for the ride.
And they obviously won't improve their chances of survival with cannibalism.
It's tempting to accept this statement at face value, but an instance of cannibalism involves the death of an individual, not the death of a species. Cannibalism is just another variant of natural selection, and it's fairly easy to construct a scenario where it in fact leads to better overall survival rates (e.g. only the sick are eaten, or the challenge of evading being eaten leads to the accelerated development of intelligence/swiftness/whatever). Whether it turns out that way in this case remains to be seen.
The idea is to limit the processing power that background tabs get.
Got it. Simple, succinct, perfect.
(1) Each WebView has a budget (in seconds) for running timers in background. (2) A timer task is only allowed to run when the budget is non-negative. (3) After a timer has executed, its run time is subtracted from the budget. (4) The budget regenerates with time (at rate of 0.01 seconds per second).
Of what interest is it to anybody that the pseudo-code for this is the above, vs some other slightly different variant of how to restrict allocated processing time? Users aren't going to care. And if developers try to somehow design around this level of detail, they'll break if the algorithm ever changes.
When I tell a friend I'll show up for dinner, I don't then explain that I'm going to do so by walking one foot at a time until I get to the dinner place, at which point I'll commence chewing and swallowing.
If this bill's author has had the temerity to claim to be in favor of 'freedom' or 'free markets'; and then pushes this nonsense, somebody needs to feed him to a wood chipper.
Should that chipper be wind-powered or gas-powered? Wind would be good for the planet, but gas would have a sweet and irreplaceable irony to it...