Learning a little about programming and computers is not "CS".
A high-level tutorial is just that, and this is just marketing spin on teaching some computer literacy. It's admirable, but it isn't what they're claiming it is.
Nope. Front wheel drive only. Which means there is no sensible reason other than laziness/being cheap idiots why you would have the hump in the middle.
And just how easy is it to root the device? Every time I've looked at it, it seems like it's a lot of hoops to jump through, and with some concerns about still having a working device.
Why Android can't just give me root by default, I don't understand. It's MY device, why can't I be the one who decides if I can have root?
For some of the Google apps, I've had to uninstall updates to get them rolled back to an older version that I could disable. On many apps, there's simply no option to disable them.
In many cases, the update marks the app as something you can't disable.
I would dearly LOVE something which allows me to set more granular permissions on apps. I just tried "Permission Manager", and it essentially just crashes. In the mean time, I mostly run my Android devices with wifi off, and with no data plan so there's no way for them to reach the network.
FWD is cheaper and gives you a flat floorpan - that is the primary reason why it was adopted.
Well, it's supposed to be cheaper on gas since the engine is pulling you forward instead of pushing.
But, I've been in a few North American cars which, despite being FWD, have a big hump going through the middle for no good reason, the same as if there was a drive shaft to the rear wheels.
It made absolutely no sense, and the only thing I can figure is the car company decided it would be more expensive to retool the plant to actually give this flat floorpan.
I've also seen several cars which still more or less put in a rear axle (even if it's not a drive axle) when you'd be better using independent suspension. The Pontiac Aztec and I think some of the Dodge minivan type things are good examples of this.
Except for at the higher end, some car companies are lazy, stupid, and cheap. And you still end up with a senseless hump in between the rear passenger seats, or a ride which is made silly by having a rear axle (try driving over a speed hump diagonally in a vehicle which has an axle, you'll see that the whole vehicle moves when it doesn't really need to).
Whereas in the West we just say that corporate lobbyists were successful in establishing a win to leverage existing synergies and ensure a deal which will be beneficial to all parties.
I'm not sure I see a whole lot of difference, really.:-P
The universe is not a hologram stored on a flat plane. Holograms are not stored in 2 dimensions. If you project a hologram you have to project it onto something.
Ummm... from what I recall of linear algebra (and possibly a little calculus), a hologram is a special case of a projection onto a plane, only your 'plane' is now 3 dimensions. And you can keep extending that ad nauseum -- as in you can project 7 dimensions onto 4 dimensions too, if you can figure out a way to make that mean something to you.
In which case I think they're talking about projection from n-dimensions onto m-dimensions, where m < n and n=9 in this case.
It's not a plane per-se. It's a smaller set of dimensions with a representation of something in higher dimensions. Relative to 4 dimensions, 3 dimensions is a 'plane' (I forget the mathematical term).
Physicists need to stop tugging their dicks in mathematical fancy and start developing ways to TEST things.
Well, at a certain point, theoretical physics devolves into abstract math, and people trying to come up with models which explain what we see.
I mostly agree with you, because string theory always seems like it's so abstract as to serve no purpose. However, I'm also not qualified to do the math and fully follow the logic behind it.
I am not a physicist, but my layman's understanding of string theory is that most physicist don't understand what it is, there's a bunch of different variations on it, and you could never prove that it was right or wrong.
Every time someone has tried to explain it to me, I'm left with the distinct impression it's voodoo that is not something you could falsify or verify.
To me, a simulation suggesting we could be a hologram is self serving, and bears no actual relation to the real world.
I'm probably entirely wrong on this, but I tend to assume that any model which says our universe is a simulation (or whatever) is just gibberish and cute math tricks.
If people would quit chasing an impossible goal of an intuitive interface and focus on making functional interfaces instead, it would be a huge improvement.
Why can't we have both?
Many years ago, when the web was first relatively new, a friend said that the web had put back user interface design by a good decade or more (and he was someone who was doing interface design). I'm not entirely certain we've ever gotten back to where we were, as the focus has been on everything-as-a-webapp, or using generic widgets which do a lousy job of expressing some kinds of information.
I've seen a fair few things presented as more or less a table view, which in the old days would have had pieces built to more suit that kind of data because it was more understandable in terms of what you're seeing (because it isn't really a table for instance).
And I can't even begin to count the number of dialog boxes I've seen that can't fit all of their information on screen, but can neither scroll nor be resized. Which has the effect of making the dialog box useless in some cases.
To me, so many GUIs try to shove everything into visual paradigms that don't make sense for what you're displaying. Many years ago I had to build some custom screen widgets to display information which in no way could be represented with standard widgets, but these days everyone just picks one of the standard ones and decides it will have to do.
I refuse to believe that a GUI can't be both intuitive and functional.
I hope I'm wrong, but I fear we have crossed the line where things can be fixed in a peaceable manner.
I believe the time has long since passed where nothing except peaceful means and working within the system will be effective in causing change in some countries.
Between the fact that they can monitor everything you do, use terrorism laws to detain you without trial, and have a huge imbalance in terms of force available to them -- the days a revolt being anything other than a suicide pact are long gone.
Any attempts at anything more drastic will only allow them to say "see, terrorists". Unfortunately, they seem quite unwilling to listen to protests and reasoned debate.
Ideally, opinion and policy swing back the other way and things get better. I, like you, fear they won't -- but hopefully countries start to realize you don't need to get as far down the path as needing an armed revolt to adhere to what were your starting principles.
One would like to hope that civil disobedience and less violent means are still viable. And maybe that's truly naive, but the alternative is terrifying: if Western democracies have to resort to armed insurrection, it's all pretty much downhill from there. Because every piss-pot dictator will say "but see, you do the same thing", and the world as we know it will have changed for the worse.
And, sadly, for a lot of people as long as their day to day lives are mostly the same, they're never going to understand why this is happening and not going to side with it. Ideally, you exhaust all other options before resorting to anything more drastic.
One would like to hope there's still some shreds of enlightenment and finding a better way available to us.
Unless you've been living under a rock, we (American citizens) aren't too happy about the thing as a whole. It doesn't mater which country it is that's behind it; whether our own or another.
I'm aware of that. But we're mostly arguing silly semantics of if we can say "the Americans are spying on everybody", or if we can say "the Americans (despite the objections of some Americans) are spying on everybody".
Functionally, there's no damned difference. You yell at your government, I'll yell at mine. You're free to complain about my government, and I'll continue to complain about yours.
Not saying all Americans support this, but it's done in your name by your government. Often against the laws of the country where it happens (which apparently are deemed irrelevant by your laws).
So, like it or not, these are things America is currently doing right now.
Sadly, my country is one of the Five Eyes, and I need to accept that Canada is doing this as well. I don't like it either, but that doesn't change that it's happening in my name or that I wish it wasn't.
But when someone says "ZOMG, teh Canajuns are doing teh spying (eh)" -- the best we can say is "yeah, we don't like it either".
Unfortunately, when our politicians act like douchebags, it reflects on us all. And, sadly, I suspect in many countries where this is occurring those of us who disagree with it are vastly outnumbered by the ones who think that it's OK.
But if you think that still doesn't create some negative backlash against a country in general, you're fooling yourself. If most of your country believes this is OK and what you should be doing, well, then on balance, the whole country bears the blame for it.
And to me it's evidence of why it will never work.
Because it assumes perfect conditions that won't happen, rational decisions by consumers, and no corruption/collusion, and an environment where others can come to the game.
In reality, over time, it becomes about protecting the interests of those with access to power and becomes something else entirely.
And the oft-touted solution of removing regulations (or hiring someone from industry to be in charge of them) doesn't ever seem to do anything but make matters worse.
All tyrants and despots like to believe that if they could only force everybody to live as they believe we should, then all would be perfect. And this is no different with the people who would dismantle market regulations to protect consumers (or the environment) -- they act like if they only threw the world into chaos everything would sort itself out.
In that regards, I don't see some of the Tea Party as being any different from Pol Pot in their complete disregard for the casualties which would be necessary to bring about their perfect system (which in the end would be nowhere near as perfect as they think).
The notion that to make an omelette you need to crack some eggs has been repeated by people who would destroy society under the guise of making it better. The funny thing is, those people are never willing to be the eggs. It's tyranny wrapped up in the belief that people need to be forced to see the truth as you see it, and that history would then vindicate you.
Funny how AT&T gets an easement to use public (and sometimes private) lands for this, and then over time it becomes 'their' property to be used at their discretion.
In other words, the incumbent who got there by using public resources is now acting like they're private resources.
Such horse shit, and just more of governments allowing corporations to own what it essentially infrastructure paid for and used by all of us.
Slashdot Mirror
Learning a little about programming and computers is not "CS".
A high-level tutorial is just that, and this is just marketing spin on teaching some computer literacy. It's admirable, but it isn't what they're claiming it is.
Nope. Front wheel drive only. Which means there is no sensible reason other than laziness/being cheap idiots why you would have the hump in the middle.
And just how easy is it to root the device? Every time I've looked at it, it seems like it's a lot of hoops to jump through, and with some concerns about still having a working device.
Why Android can't just give me root by default, I don't understand. It's MY device, why can't I be the one who decides if I can have root?
Not all of them.
For some of the Google apps, I've had to uninstall updates to get them rolled back to an older version that I could disable. On many apps, there's simply no option to disable them.
In many cases, the update marks the app as something you can't disable.
I would dearly LOVE something which allows me to set more granular permissions on apps. I just tried "Permission Manager", and it essentially just crashes. In the mean time, I mostly run my Android devices with wifi off, and with no data plan so there's no way for them to reach the network.
Well, it's supposed to be cheaper on gas since the engine is pulling you forward instead of pushing.
But, I've been in a few North American cars which, despite being FWD, have a big hump going through the middle for no good reason, the same as if there was a drive shaft to the rear wheels.
It made absolutely no sense, and the only thing I can figure is the car company decided it would be more expensive to retool the plant to actually give this flat floorpan.
I've also seen several cars which still more or less put in a rear axle (even if it's not a drive axle) when you'd be better using independent suspension. The Pontiac Aztec and I think some of the Dodge minivan type things are good examples of this.
Except for at the higher end, some car companies are lazy, stupid, and cheap. And you still end up with a senseless hump in between the rear passenger seats, or a ride which is made silly by having a rear axle (try driving over a speed hump diagonally in a vehicle which has an axle, you'll see that the whole vehicle moves when it doesn't really need to).
Or more readily exploited.
Whereas in the West we just say that corporate lobbyists were successful in establishing a win to leverage existing synergies and ensure a deal which will be beneficial to all parties.
I'm not sure I see a whole lot of difference, really. :-P
I did say "average", thereby excluding most of us here.
And, "eww" to that mental image.
On the bright side, apparently masturbation has many health benefits. ;-)
Given the average North American diet, that doesn't sound like a good thing. ;-)
For small values of 'run', apparently.
Why the hell would I want my browser to be able to do that?
This just smacks of something which is going to become a huge security issue, even if Google is trying to prevent malware.
Yo dawg, I hear you like browsers ... ;-)
Ummm ... from what I recall of linear algebra (and possibly a little calculus), a hologram is a special case of a projection onto a plane, only your 'plane' is now 3 dimensions. And you can keep extending that ad nauseum -- as in you can project 7 dimensions onto 4 dimensions too, if you can figure out a way to make that mean something to you.
In which case I think they're talking about projection from n-dimensions onto m-dimensions, where m < n and n=9 in this case.
It's not a plane per-se. It's a smaller set of dimensions with a representation of something in higher dimensions. Relative to 4 dimensions, 3 dimensions is a 'plane' (I forget the mathematical term).
Well, at a certain point, theoretical physics devolves into abstract math, and people trying to come up with models which explain what we see.
I mostly agree with you, because string theory always seems like it's so abstract as to serve no purpose. However, I'm also not qualified to do the math and fully follow the logic behind it.
I am not a physicist, but my layman's understanding of string theory is that most physicist don't understand what it is, there's a bunch of different variations on it, and you could never prove that it was right or wrong.
Every time someone has tried to explain it to me, I'm left with the distinct impression it's voodoo that is not something you could falsify or verify.
To me, a simulation suggesting we could be a hologram is self serving, and bears no actual relation to the real world.
I'm probably entirely wrong on this, but I tend to assume that any model which says our universe is a simulation (or whatever) is just gibberish and cute math tricks.
Why can't we have both?
Many years ago, when the web was first relatively new, a friend said that the web had put back user interface design by a good decade or more (and he was someone who was doing interface design). I'm not entirely certain we've ever gotten back to where we were, as the focus has been on everything-as-a-webapp, or using generic widgets which do a lousy job of expressing some kinds of information.
I've seen a fair few things presented as more or less a table view, which in the old days would have had pieces built to more suit that kind of data because it was more understandable in terms of what you're seeing (because it isn't really a table for instance).
And I can't even begin to count the number of dialog boxes I've seen that can't fit all of their information on screen, but can neither scroll nor be resized. Which has the effect of making the dialog box useless in some cases.
To me, so many GUIs try to shove everything into visual paradigms that don't make sense for what you're displaying. Many years ago I had to build some custom screen widgets to display information which in no way could be represented with standard widgets, but these days everyone just picks one of the standard ones and decides it will have to do.
I refuse to believe that a GUI can't be both intuitive and functional.
I believe the time has long since passed where nothing except peaceful means and working within the system will be effective in causing change in some countries.
Between the fact that they can monitor everything you do, use terrorism laws to detain you without trial, and have a huge imbalance in terms of force available to them -- the days a revolt being anything other than a suicide pact are long gone.
Any attempts at anything more drastic will only allow them to say "see, terrorists". Unfortunately, they seem quite unwilling to listen to protests and reasoned debate.
Ideally, opinion and policy swing back the other way and things get better. I, like you, fear they won't -- but hopefully countries start to realize you don't need to get as far down the path as needing an armed revolt to adhere to what were your starting principles.
One would like to hope that civil disobedience and less violent means are still viable. And maybe that's truly naive, but the alternative is terrifying: if Western democracies have to resort to armed insurrection, it's all pretty much downhill from there. Because every piss-pot dictator will say "but see, you do the same thing", and the world as we know it will have changed for the worse.
And, sadly, for a lot of people as long as their day to day lives are mostly the same, they're never going to understand why this is happening and not going to side with it. Ideally, you exhaust all other options before resorting to anything more drastic.
One would like to hope there's still some shreds of enlightenment and finding a better way available to us.
I'm aware of that. But we're mostly arguing silly semantics of if we can say "the Americans are spying on everybody", or if we can say "the Americans (despite the objections of some Americans) are spying on everybody".
Functionally, there's no damned difference. You yell at your government, I'll yell at mine. You're free to complain about my government, and I'll continue to complain about yours.
Thanks, I'll look into those.
For me, their desire to monetize our searches and undermine our privacy is what is marking the end of Canonical.
Now I just need to find a suitable replacement, because every time I hear about Canonical these days I like them even less.
Not saying all Americans support this, but it's done in your name by your government. Often against the laws of the country where it happens (which apparently are deemed irrelevant by your laws).
So, like it or not, these are things America is currently doing right now.
Sadly, my country is one of the Five Eyes, and I need to accept that Canada is doing this as well. I don't like it either, but that doesn't change that it's happening in my name or that I wish it wasn't.
But when someone says "ZOMG, teh Canajuns are doing teh spying (eh)" -- the best we can say is "yeah, we don't like it either".
Unfortunately, when our politicians act like douchebags, it reflects on us all. And, sadly, I suspect in many countries where this is occurring those of us who disagree with it are vastly outnumbered by the ones who think that it's OK.
But if you think that still doesn't create some negative backlash against a country in general, you're fooling yourself. If most of your country believes this is OK and what you should be doing, well, then on balance, the whole country bears the blame for it.
And to me it's evidence of why it will never work.
Because it assumes perfect conditions that won't happen, rational decisions by consumers, and no corruption/collusion, and an environment where others can come to the game.
In reality, over time, it becomes about protecting the interests of those with access to power and becomes something else entirely.
And the oft-touted solution of removing regulations (or hiring someone from industry to be in charge of them) doesn't ever seem to do anything but make matters worse.
All tyrants and despots like to believe that if they could only force everybody to live as they believe we should, then all would be perfect. And this is no different with the people who would dismantle market regulations to protect consumers (or the environment) -- they act like if they only threw the world into chaos everything would sort itself out.
In that regards, I don't see some of the Tea Party as being any different from Pol Pot in their complete disregard for the casualties which would be necessary to bring about their perfect system (which in the end would be nowhere near as perfect as they think).
The notion that to make an omelette you need to crack some eggs has been repeated by people who would destroy society under the guise of making it better. The funny thing is, those people are never willing to be the eggs. It's tyranny wrapped up in the belief that people need to be forced to see the truth as you see it, and that history would then vindicate you.
Yes, apparently you wiretap the internet and install the video cameras.
Because, you know, that's clearly being the champions of freedom and liberty -- or more accurately, your own at the expense of everyone else's.
Really? I get a dance reference, and a reference to polynomials (Cha-cha/Poly).
Like lobbyists, political contributors, and industry reps being appointed to run regulatory bodies.
In other words, can't happen.
Funny how AT&T gets an easement to use public (and sometimes private) lands for this, and then over time it becomes 'their' property to be used at their discretion.
In other words, the incumbent who got there by using public resources is now acting like they're private resources.
Such horse shit, and just more of governments allowing corporations to own what it essentially infrastructure paid for and used by all of us.