So, in the US, there are all sorts of liability suits about things like "The bartender knew I was drunk, but he let me drive myself home anyway,"
I think the main problem is that really, one shoudl be responsible for your actions. If you drove while you are drunk it is nobodies fault but yours. You are stupid to do it, and if you hurt someone, you deserve to be punished. It's a silly thing to do. The bartender can't possibly be able to accurately guage whether the 200 people in his bar are above the legal limit for the region, and planning to drive home. It is unreasonable.
Instead of looking at WinCE as powerful PDAs, look at them as hard-to-use, awkward PCs. That puts them in a whole different light.
Yes it does, it puts them in the tarnished light you want to put them. They are powerful PDA's, they aren't 'hard-to-use, ackward PCs'.
Instead if you 'look at them' like fast, hi-res, multimedia PDA's that replace your palm, MP3 player, pocket TV, blackberry, and, when push comes to shove provide a platform on which to browse the web and write documents compatible with your desktop, then that puts them in a whole different light huh?
I always wondered.. How does something that is entirely solid state, and has NO moving parts whatsoever skip?
It's really simple: it doesn't. He was talking about an MP3 CD player, which does have moving parts (it has a data CD, which stores MP3 files, which is being spun round at a constant velocity, be it angular or linear), which therefore skips with read errors when that velocity changes due to the unit being jostled. The unit that is being reviewed here doesn't have moving parts, and doesn't skip.
I wonder who modded your message to 2?! No offense intended.
It's bound to be because they are providing the bandwidth to help you in your studies at Harvard, not to play Counterstrike. They won't want to hear about it, because they cannot justify a change in the university IT process just so you can play games. It's pretty difficult to justify.
I am absolutely with you here, and while I can mod on other threads, I can't on this one. If I could I'd mod you up.
It's often telling watching what the hand of people who have power do, while ignoring what they are telling you. The US government is an especially interesting thing to watch. Just don't listen to what they say, and watch them do things that are in their own self interest, continuously. Weird. Do they think we are stupid? The problem is, taken collectively, we are to an extent. Individually we are great.
Oh I love this argument. The "value" of a single human life... how "noble" of you to feel that way.
I don't know your background at all, but I'd like you to think about this:
Imagine you had a five year old daughter. (Perhaps you do!). She's going to be innocent of all the crazy ways people can lose themselves and cause harm. She's not going to know an environment in which someone will not give her, within reason, what will give her comfort. She'll have lots of dreams about what she can do. She'll be secure in your love. Think about this being, she trusts you completely. She relies on you completely. You are going to watch her turn into an adult, with all her hopes, fears, dreams changing through the years. You are responsible for her getting there.
Now I think this human life would be so incredibly valuable to you that you would do anything to continue it, and protect it.
The funny thing is, almost everyone holds someone else in this kind of regard.
Human life is incredibly valuable. That doesn't mean it isn't easily done away with, as it is fragile. That's why is it *is* so precious. That's why people have the notion of this 'sanctity' you seem to sneer at. A lot of people care more about others than you seem to, please respect that even if it doesn't seem real to you. It's real to us. Though maybe I've underestimated you - if I have, I'm sorry.
We value the lives of foreign and faceless people even less.
'We' may value them less, but 'they' value themselves. If they knew us, they would value us more. Just because we don't know someone doesn't stop them being incredibly valuable to someone.
Finally, and more seriously, if we valued human life, we wouldn't smoke. We wouldn't drink and drive. We wouldn't drive for that matter. The notion here is "acceptable risk."
Surely you don't believe that things are as simple as that do you? A whole load of variables, such as environment, the people around us, what we are doing, affect us. Humans are extremely impressionable - think how upset things can make you. Think how you want happiness and success. Maybe sometimes you don't give yourself the fairest deal because of priorities and commitments to others. Other times you need to fit in, because not fitting in would be a whole lot more effort you don't have the energy to make. You want things to happen (because you've got a heart beating), so you can look for excitement. Things aren't as simple as 'Life is valuable, so I will never smoke,' because there are too many of these variables.
I could go on, maybe you've got my point already and I've over-reacted. In summary: We could all keel over tommorow, but that doesn't stop our lives being valuable. often, however, it isn't our own lives we find valuable. We're not 'noble' in some pretentious way, we just care about people who give us happiness and help things along. Your awareness of this may vary, mine does.
You then spend time assessing how you would do it properly, hopefully having had a majority of 'niggles' highlighted during the initial sloppy build.
I read once about a phenomena a lot of people have observed, namely 'second system syndrome'. This is where the second system would be over-engineered and excessively grand, due to all the problems that had been encountered in the first version. 'We've done the first version, we can handle this, so let's make a proper one now'.
I have seen this - it would point to the third version being about right =).
The Ipod is the size of a deck of cards -you can put it in your top pocket. The Archos, well, it's quite a chunk bigger.
The Ipod is beautifully designed - it looks very smooth. The Archos, well, it's not a pretty beast.
The Ipod does have less storage, but a lot of people won't have the ~600 CD's needed to fill a 40GB drive.
The Ipod can't record, but usually people rip on their computer (or think in that way) - usually when you are travelling to work, etc., you wouldn't use the record function. For every 100 hours of playing, unless you are in specialist situations, you'd only really record for 1 hour.
Those reasons are why I'd probably go for the Ipod and not the Archos, even though I don't have a mac.
thenerd.
Re:who cares? move on and think like the commercia
on
Apple PDA?
·
· Score: 1
I am building a database of ingredients and recipes for myself. So I want it to be able to spider the news groups, internet and everything else for recipes using natural language parsing, knowledgebase, semantic web, rdf and XML.
Assuming you aren't kidding, why do you need a PDA with this rules engine to spider everything for recipes while parsing natural language? Do you need rdf and XML to transfer these recipes between systems that much? And why do you need this 'rules engine' over simple program logic? Is it so important for you to encapsulate the decision making in your PDA recipe spidering system as rules that can be evaluated by this engine? If it is important, why?
What's wrong with a recipe book?
I'm not trying to belittle you, merely understand. I'm a bit bewildered, and it seems you might be over-engineering somewhat, assuming I haven't been trolled. If I have been, well done, you have more wits than I do. If I haven't please carry this on, I'm curious. I had a look around and there is a site called 'allrecipes.com' which has thousands of recipes. I like food as much as the next man, but why the need for so many recipes gathered through unconventional techniques?
thenerd
Re:who cares? move on and think like the commercia
on
Apple PDA?
·
· Score: 1
...a small footprint rules engine...
Whenever I hear people banging on about rules I become cagey! Please please tell me why you would want this? What use do you have for it?
That's why I think the government will regulate any private manned space venture out of existence.
However, they couldn't regulate any private manned space venture, as space isn't theirs. If I didn't live in the US and wanted to go into space using my own stuff, I'm not entirely sure how they could regulate that at all.
thenerd.
Re:O'Reilley : RMS :: Libertarianism : Socialism
on
Freedom or Power Redux
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
From the parent of the parent of this:
The goal of the FSF is very much to increase individual rights, by calling into question the validity of a system that allows a few individuals to limit the rights of many individuals.
And from the above poster:
You are using the same rhetoric that communists have used against capitalism since communism was born.
Surely the staunch republicans of the USA would say that a reduction in government and a promotion of individualism is exactly the same goal as the FSF in this respect, namely the promotion of the individual over that of some limited set that govern.
This communist-capitalist debate strikes me as being rather meaningless because each camp claims the other is some extreme - the Rand followers would say 'the FSF is communism, we should be allowed to do whatever we want as individuals', and the FSF followers would reply 'the FSF is republicanism because we are promoting the needs of everyone against some governing body [meaning large monopolistic software corporations that reduce freedom]'.
The truth is, Richard Stallman doesn't want to be hindered by not being able to fix his programs when they go wrong, and he hates it. He hates it so much that he doesn't want anyone else to have this problem. This is not the same goal as no license, which is the maximum freedom possible. Stallman doesn't want true freedom, because true freedom could take away from his goal of ALWAYS being able to get inside and sort a program out if he wanted to do something that wasn't anticipated by the developers. True freedom on the part of the software company permits one to reduce people's freedom with regard to WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. This may be morally wrong to some people, because they don't have freedom with the creations of others. This is what Stallman wants.
SimCity, Civilization and maybe even Starcraft would be a lot of fun. Imagine sitting in a meeting and instead of taking notes on your PDA you're building your empire.
Simcity 2000 is out for the Pocket PC's (2002 and the prior version), this include Casio E115, E125, EM500, E200, all modern IPAQ's, Toshiba, NEC, and @migo devices. And it only needs 4 megs to run!
If you want to see screenshots of this badboy, check this.
It doesn't list Linux as a compatible OS, I know some of you folks of Linux on an Ipaq - will this get you to change back?
Amen. Let's hear it for not drink and vegetarianism. I'm with you.
But the best sort of communication can happen when sober, which is what people don't quite realise (although obviously it's nice in many ways to have a drink after work). Alcohol being a depressant makes the communication less, while removing the ability to see it.
What may be casual statistics of YOUR browsing habbits, would be theft of my IP and source code to projects i'm working on.
Can you explain how statistics on hits of certain sites is theft of your IP AND source code?
Re:Bad side of globalization
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
That statistic doesn't say that they're innocent victims. I don't call throwing rocks or firebombs, or shooting at buses, innocent activities.
OK, you'll probably baulk at the source of this, and claim it is biased, and it may be to an extent, but the following has been researched by educated, credible people:
As of 2/13/01, number of Palestinians killed since the beginning of the new Intifada: 368
Number of Palestinians killed under the age of fifteen: 56
Number of Palestinians killed over the age of fifty: 20
Number of Palestinians murdered by Israeli security forces AFTER being captured, or simply shot at close range without any provocation whatsoever: 32
Number of Palestinians murdered by Israeli settlers: 22
Number of Palestinians who died because they were not allowed to get medical treatment: 8
Percent of Palestinians killed who were NOT involved in demonstrations or clashes: 44%
Ratio of Palestinian civilians killed to members of the Palestinian security forces killed: 9 to 1
Number of Palestinians who were officially targeted for assassination by the Israeli Army: 10
Number of innocent bystanders who were killed during these assassinations: 5
Number of human beings who were either killed or injured by "terrorist acts masterminded" by the most recent Palestinian to be assassinated by
the Israeli Army: 0
Number of journalists either shot at or beaten up by Israeli soldiers of settlers: 44
Percent of Palestinian Red Crescent ambulances hit by live ammunition: 68%
Number of cases in which Palestinian ambulances were not allowed to go through a road block: 109
Number of Olive trees and Fruit trees uprooted: 25,000
[Sources: The information is from reports of the Health, Development, Information, and Policy Institute (HDIP). These reports can be found at http://www.hdip.org]
Now I'm obviously not advocating terrorist activity, I think the intimidation and murder of innocent people is a profoundly wrong thing. I never forgive the taking of an innocent life.
However, why is it so difficult to believe that a lot of innocent Palestinians have been hurt or killed? Ariel Sharon has been involved in the killing of many people and is not the best person to trust, this report may give food for thought, it certainly did for me.
I don't believe that all Palestinians are innocent, and I don't believe that all Israeli's are guilty. But I have to wonder why there is so much forgiveness of murder for one side, and not the other? Is it because the Palestinians do not often have as white a skin as the Israeli's? Is there racism at work here? Terror is terrible, but why paint it as one-sided, simply because one is organised and the other is not?
thenerd.
Re:Bad side of globalization
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
Do you mean that bully whose tourism minister was gunned down outside a hotel? The same one whose country was willing to give away vast tracts of land for a palestinian state, but instead got the intifada? Gimme a break - Israel is as much a victim of terror as all of us in DC and NYC.
As of Friday 10th August this year, I quote:
More than 560 people on the Palestinian side and more than 150 on the Israeli side have been killed since hostilities broke out in September 2000.
It would appear that while Israel is a victim of terror, more Palestinians have actually been victims than Israelis. A lot of people never seem to acknowledge this.
. One option would be to define a monolthic db schema to take care of what each company would like in their order. Another would be to define a really abstract schema to facilitate handling generic order forms. The problem with the first is, each time XYZ wants something added to an order form, you need to change the schema.
One might need to change the schema, but if the schema was designed properly, one wouldn't. This sort of database design, unless I misunderstand you, is the kind taught at CS classes in first or second year.
Can't see what this is really about? People freak out at MS about any little thing - remember the whole Webdings thing? The letters NYC produced some symbols that seemed to suggest some wierd "disturbing" things. I mean, sure it was co-incidence, but they took a literal beating about it for a few weeks way back.
So whats the response? Fix it. The newer versions of symbols fonts have positive happy messages when you type in NYC. You get a picture of an eye, a heart, and the big apple.
I completely agree with your point, although I think you have something inaccurate. Word 2000 on Windows 2000 professional has the following behaviour (however meaningless):
Webdings produces an eye, a heart, and a skyline (not recognisable as NY before or after unless you have better imagination than me).
Wingdings still produces a skull and crossbones, a star of david, and a thumbs up.
I agree with you completely on the point that there are many acronyms that could come up with interpretable meanings given different events. As for 1984 and Microsoft, who knows, it still hasn't got a lot of specialist language in the dictionary, we can just add these things. If their thesaurus isn't up to much we can use the one we have on our shelf, or our head.
Imagine software that could say "he bought nappies last week, and he has a subscription to the racing channel, and he lives near a high crime area, we can take these images and those images and show him a sports car with side impact bars and an immobiliser, priced at what we think he can afford", and do that hundred times a second for a hundred different web site users or even viewers of interactive TV
[snip but not because it wasn't good]
The issue isn't mass psychology, per se, it's what I will call meta-psychology, a heuristic for tailoring the delivery of a message based on the characteristics of the recipient. If there is a scalable way to analyze clickstream and past buying patterns, running meta-psychology algorithms over that data and build an ad campaign on the fly from relatively generic assets, and you can buy that software off the shelf from Oracle, then the game changes, radically.
If there are any companies interested in exclusively licensing scalable software that does this, please email slashdot@intercognition.com. The game has already changed.
Disclaimer: I completely do have vested interests in this. How is that for targeted advertising and micromarkets at work?
In the world of work, you have a boss. This boss goes over with you how you think you performed, how others thought you performed, and then gives you an evaluation. They know how you work because they have seen your individual results, and usually work in the same room as them.
So, to solve this problem, the lecturers need to go around the labs, looking at who is there, and who isn't, what people are saying, and generally getting involved. Then they will have a far better idea of the individuals that deserve to score highly, and those that don't deserve to score as highly.
The reality is that the people and the government they allow to rule them (the Taliban) deserve what they get, the same way the Iraqis do. Those who allow dictatorship to be thrust on them will get bombed back to the Ston... oh wait, they're already in it. Well, they'll just get dead.
1. And this achieves what exactly?
2. They are not in a position to allow or disallow the Taliban ruling them. These people don't vote, but I guess even being able to vote didn't help us (-cough- presidential election).
3. The country in fact didn't allow the current government to rule, through not being able to vote against them. What do we do if we don't support bombing of them? I guess we can't do anything. We must be allowing it to happen. Oh well, the people that don't support the bombing, to use your logic must be allowing these actions to be thrust upon them, so should be bombed back to the stone age. I'm open to you explaining how this makes sense, but I really don't understand and I'm sorry if I'm being thick here. I personally think your point isn't valid.
4. 'Allow dictatorship to be thrust on them'? Do you have absolutely NO respect for these fellow humans? These people aren't idiots, they are like you and me. The majority of these people are JUST like you and me. They want peace. They are idealistic. They want companionship, and comfort. They are normal people. I know some. They ARE us. They did NOTHING to kill anyone. They HATE the fact that so many people have been killed by these terrorists. They regard the terrorists as abhorrent, unhinged people. But you wish to kill them because of they are in the wrong place at the wrong time?
How do you justify the killing of innocent people?
It was done to us. You want to kill more innocent people, in retaliation perhaps?
They are innocent people.
One doesn't retaliate against innocent people, because they are not against you. You are killing your friends by doing that.
Your example of the town is wrong, in my opinion. The residents of the town are not the local authorities. Your analogy falls down because the residents of this town (Afghanistan, perhaps Kabul) want peace, and didn't threaten anything. They are innocent people who don't want to fight with anyone. They just want to carry on their peaceful lives, caring for their kids and family, putting enough food on the table, and maintaining.
But you don't seem to mind these people being bombed, and I just don't understand that.
Slashdot Mirror
So, in the US, there are all sorts of liability suits about things like "The bartender knew I was drunk, but he let me drive myself home anyway,"
I think the main problem is that really, one shoudl be responsible for your actions. If you drove while you are drunk it is nobodies fault but yours. You are stupid to do it, and if you hurt someone, you deserve to be punished. It's a silly thing to do. The bartender can't possibly be able to accurately guage whether the 200 people in his bar are above the legal limit for the region, and planning to drive home. It is unreasonable.
thenerd.
Instead of looking at WinCE as powerful PDAs, look at them as hard-to-use, awkward PCs. That puts them in a whole different light.
Yes it does, it puts them in the tarnished light you want to put them. They are powerful PDA's, they aren't 'hard-to-use, ackward PCs'.
Instead if you 'look at them' like fast, hi-res, multimedia PDA's that replace your palm, MP3 player, pocket TV, blackberry, and, when push comes to shove provide a platform on which to browse the web and write documents compatible with your desktop, then that puts them in a whole different light huh?
thenerd
I always wondered.. How does something that is entirely solid state, and has NO moving parts whatsoever skip?
It's really simple: it doesn't. He was talking about an MP3 CD player, which does have moving parts (it has a data CD, which stores MP3 files, which is being spun round at a constant velocity, be it angular or linear), which therefore skips with read errors when that velocity changes due to the unit being jostled. The unit that is being reviewed here doesn't have moving parts, and doesn't skip.
I wonder who modded your message to 2?! No offense intended.
thenerd.
Does anyone know why/if this must be the case?
It's bound to be because they are providing the bandwidth to help you in your studies at Harvard, not to play Counterstrike. They won't want to hear about it, because they cannot justify a change in the university IT process just so you can play games. It's pretty difficult to justify.
thenerd.
I am absolutely with you here, and while I can mod on other threads, I can't on this one. If I could I'd mod you up.
It's often telling watching what the hand of people who have power do, while ignoring what they are telling you. The US government is an especially interesting thing to watch. Just don't listen to what they say, and watch them do things that are in their own self interest, continuously. Weird. Do they think we are stupid? The problem is, taken collectively, we are to an extent. Individually we are great.
thenerd.
Oh I love this argument. The "value" of a single human life... how "noble" of you to feel that way.
I don't know your background at all, but I'd like you to think about this:
Imagine you had a five year old daughter. (Perhaps you do!). She's going to be innocent of all the crazy ways people can lose themselves and cause harm. She's not going to know an environment in which someone will not give her, within reason, what will give her comfort. She'll have lots of dreams about what she can do. She'll be secure in your love. Think about this being, she trusts you completely. She relies on you completely. You are going to watch her turn into an adult, with all her hopes, fears, dreams changing through the years. You are responsible for her getting there.
Now I think this human life would be so incredibly valuable to you that you would do anything to continue it, and protect it.
The funny thing is, almost everyone holds someone else in this kind of regard.
Human life is incredibly valuable. That doesn't mean it isn't easily done away with, as it is fragile. That's why is it *is* so precious. That's why people have the notion of this 'sanctity' you seem to sneer at. A lot of people care more about others than you seem to, please respect that even if it doesn't seem real to you. It's real to us. Though maybe I've underestimated you - if I have, I'm sorry.
We value the lives of foreign and faceless people even less.
'We' may value them less, but 'they' value themselves. If they knew us, they would value us more. Just because we don't know someone doesn't stop them being incredibly valuable to someone.
Finally, and more seriously, if we valued human life, we wouldn't smoke. We wouldn't drink and drive. We wouldn't drive for that matter. The notion here is "acceptable risk."
Surely you don't believe that things are as simple as that do you? A whole load of variables, such as environment, the people around us, what we are doing, affect us. Humans are extremely impressionable - think how upset things can make you. Think how you want happiness and success. Maybe sometimes you don't give yourself the fairest deal because of priorities and commitments to others. Other times you need to fit in, because not fitting in would be a whole lot more effort you don't have the energy to make. You want things to happen (because you've got a heart beating), so you can look for excitement. Things aren't as simple as 'Life is valuable, so I will never smoke,' because there are too many of these variables.
I could go on, maybe you've got my point already and I've over-reacted. In summary: We could all keel over tommorow, but that doesn't stop our lives being valuable. often, however, it isn't our own lives we find valuable. We're not 'noble' in some pretentious way, we just care about people who give us happiness and help things along. Your awareness of this may vary, mine does.
thenerd.
You then spend time assessing how you would do it properly, hopefully having had a majority of 'niggles' highlighted during the initial sloppy build.
I read once about a phenomena a lot of people have observed, namely 'second system syndrome'. This is where the second system would be over-engineered and excessively grand, due to all the problems that had been encountered in the first version. 'We've done the first version, we can handle this, so let's make a proper one now'.
I have seen this - it would point to the third version being about right =).
thenerd.
I just don't get it..
It is dead simple.
The Ipod is the size of a deck of cards -you can put it in your top pocket. The Archos, well, it's quite a chunk bigger.
The Ipod is beautifully designed - it looks very smooth. The Archos, well, it's not a pretty beast.
The Ipod does have less storage, but a lot of people won't have the ~600 CD's needed to fill a 40GB drive.
The Ipod can't record, but usually people rip on their computer (or think in that way) - usually when you are travelling to work, etc., you wouldn't use the record function. For every 100 hours of playing, unless you are in specialist situations, you'd only really record for 1 hour.
Those reasons are why I'd probably go for the Ipod and not the Archos, even though I don't have a mac.
thenerd.
I am building a database of ingredients and recipes for myself. So I want it to be able to spider the news groups, internet and everything else for recipes using natural language parsing, knowledgebase, semantic web, rdf and XML.
Assuming you aren't kidding, why do you need a PDA with this rules engine to spider everything for recipes while parsing natural language? Do you need rdf and XML to transfer these recipes between systems that much? And why do you need this 'rules engine' over simple program logic? Is it so important for you to encapsulate the decision making in your PDA recipe spidering system as rules that can be evaluated by this engine? If it is important, why?
What's wrong with a recipe book?
I'm not trying to belittle you, merely understand. I'm a bit bewildered, and it seems you might be over-engineering somewhat, assuming I haven't been trolled. If I have been, well done, you have more wits than I do. If I haven't please carry this on, I'm curious. I had a look around and there is a site called 'allrecipes.com' which has thousands of recipes. I like food as much as the next man, but why the need for so many recipes gathered through unconventional techniques?
thenerd
...a small footprint rules engine...
Whenever I hear people banging on about rules I become cagey! Please please tell me why you would want this? What use do you have for it?
thenerd.
That's why I think the government will regulate any private manned space venture out of existence.
However, they couldn't regulate any private manned space venture, as space isn't theirs. If I didn't live in the US and wanted to go into space using my own stuff, I'm not entirely sure how they could regulate that at all.
thenerd.
From the parent of the parent of this:
The goal of the FSF is very much to increase individual rights, by calling into question the validity of a system that allows a few individuals to limit the rights of many individuals.
And from the above poster:
You are using the same rhetoric that communists have used against capitalism since communism was born.
Surely the staunch republicans of the USA would say that a reduction in government and a promotion of individualism is exactly the same goal as the FSF in this respect, namely the promotion of the individual over that of some limited set that govern.
This communist-capitalist debate strikes me as being rather meaningless because each camp claims the other is some extreme - the Rand followers would say 'the FSF is communism, we should be allowed to do whatever we want as individuals', and the FSF followers would reply 'the FSF is republicanism because we are promoting the needs of everyone against some governing body [meaning large monopolistic software corporations that reduce freedom]'.
The truth is, Richard Stallman doesn't want to be hindered by not being able to fix his programs when they go wrong, and he hates it. He hates it so much that he doesn't want anyone else to have this problem. This is not the same goal as no license, which is the maximum freedom possible. Stallman doesn't want true freedom, because true freedom could take away from his goal of ALWAYS being able to get inside and sort a program out if he wanted to do something that wasn't anticipated by the developers. True freedom on the part of the software company permits one to reduce people's freedom with regard to WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. This may be morally wrong to some people, because they don't have freedom with the creations of others. This is what Stallman wants.
Bit of a ramble.
thenerd.
thenerd.
I don't see anyone using them for Quake or DOOM.
You haven't looked hard enough!
Download Quake, Doom, a flight sim, and a NES emulator here:
www.pocketpcpocket.com.
thenerd.
SimCity, Civilization and maybe even Starcraft would be a lot of fun. Imagine sitting in a meeting and instead of taking notes on your PDA you're building your empire.
Simcity 2000 is out for the Pocket PC's (2002 and the prior version), this include Casio E115, E125, EM500, E200, all modern IPAQ's, Toshiba, NEC, and @migo devices. And it only needs 4 megs to run!
If you want to see screenshots of this badboy, check this.
It doesn't list Linux as a compatible OS, I know some of you folks of Linux on an Ipaq - will this get you to change back?
thenerd.
Amen. Let's hear it for not drink and vegetarianism. I'm with you.
But the best sort of communication can happen when sober, which is what people don't quite realise (although obviously it's nice in many ways to have a drink after work). Alcohol being a depressant makes the communication less, while removing the ability to see it.
Try E.
thenerd.
I agree with the crux of your point, i.e. if it bothers you, stop using it, however:
They have every right to make money
...is just plain wrong. Of course they don't, nobody does. They can certainly try, but money isn't a right.
thenerd
>What's wrong with a little data mining?
Gebus, some of us write web based software.
What may be casual statistics of YOUR browsing habbits, would be theft of my IP and source code to projects i'm working on.
Can you explain how statistics on hits of certain sites is theft of your IP AND source code?
OK, you'll probably baulk at the source of this, and claim it is biased, and it may be to an extent, but the following has been researched by educated, credible people:
[Sources: The information is from reports of the Health, Development, Information, and Policy Institute (HDIP). These reports can be found at http://www.hdip.org]
Now I'm obviously not advocating terrorist activity, I think the intimidation and murder of innocent people is a profoundly wrong thing. I never forgive the taking of an innocent life.
However, why is it so difficult to believe that a lot of innocent Palestinians have been hurt or killed? Ariel Sharon has been involved in the killing of many people and is not the best person to trust, this report may give food for thought, it certainly did for me.
I don't believe that all Palestinians are innocent, and I don't believe that all Israeli's are guilty. But I have to wonder why there is so much forgiveness of murder for one side, and not the other? Is it because the Palestinians do not often have as white a skin as the Israeli's? Is there racism at work here? Terror is terrible, but why paint it as one-sided, simply because one is organised and the other is not?
thenerd.
As of Friday 10th August this year, I quote:
Source: BBC News
It would appear that while Israel is a victim of terror, more Palestinians have actually been victims than Israelis. A lot of people never seem to acknowledge this.
thenerd.
. One option would be to define a monolthic db schema to take care of what each company would like in their order. Another would be to define a really abstract schema to facilitate handling generic order forms. The problem with the first is, each time XYZ wants something added to an order form, you need to change the schema.
One might need to change the schema, but if the schema was designed properly, one wouldn't. This sort of database design, unless I misunderstand you, is the kind taught at CS classes in first or second year.
One wouldn't have a schema like this:
ORDERID
COMPANYID
PRODUCT1QUANTITY
PRODUCT2QUANTITY
PRODUCT3QUANTITY
but rather
ORDERID
COMPANYID
PRODUCTID
QUANTITY
Have I misunderstood you?
thenerd.
Can't see what this is really about? People freak out at MS about any little thing - remember the whole Webdings thing? The letters NYC produced some symbols that seemed to suggest some wierd "disturbing" things. I mean, sure it was co-incidence, but they took a literal beating about it for a few weeks way back.
So whats the response? Fix it. The newer versions of symbols fonts have positive happy messages when you type in NYC. You get a picture of an eye, a heart, and the big apple.
I completely agree with your point, although I think you have something inaccurate. Word 2000 on Windows 2000 professional has the following behaviour (however meaningless):
Webdings produces an eye, a heart, and a skyline (not recognisable as NY before or after unless you have better imagination than me).
Wingdings still produces a skull and crossbones, a star of david, and a thumbs up.
I agree with you completely on the point that there are many acronyms that could come up with interpretable meanings given different events. As for 1984 and Microsoft, who knows, it still hasn't got a lot of specialist language in the dictionary, we can just add these things. If their thesaurus isn't up to much we can use the one we have on our shelf, or our head.
thenerd.
Imagine software that could say "he bought nappies last week, and he has a subscription to the racing channel, and he lives near a high crime area, we can take these images and those images and show him a sports car with side impact bars and an immobiliser, priced at what we think he can afford", and do that hundred times a second for a hundred different web site users or even viewers of interactive TV
[snip but not because it wasn't good]
The issue isn't mass psychology, per se, it's what I will call meta-psychology, a heuristic for tailoring the delivery of a message based on the characteristics of the recipient. If there is a scalable way to analyze clickstream and past buying patterns, running meta-psychology algorithms over that data and build an ad campaign on the fly from relatively generic assets, and you can buy that software off the shelf from Oracle, then the game changes, radically.
If there are any companies interested in exclusively licensing scalable software that does this, please email slashdot@intercognition.com. The game has already changed.
Disclaimer: I completely do have vested interests in this. How is that for targeted advertising and micromarkets at work?
thenerd.
Maybe there's a way it can be done:
In the world of work, you have a boss. This boss goes over with you how you think you performed, how others thought you performed, and then gives you an evaluation. They know how you work because they have seen your individual results, and usually work in the same room as them.
So, to solve this problem, the lecturers need to go around the labs, looking at who is there, and who isn't, what people are saying, and generally getting involved. Then they will have a far better idea of the individuals that deserve to score highly, and those that don't deserve to score as highly.
Doesn't that work?
thenerd.
You haven't addressed his point at all, namely, he shouldn't pay for you to advertise to him. It doesn't matter whether the net is public or not.
Nor does it help to be offensive to him.
thenerd.
The reality is that the people and the government they allow to rule them (the Taliban) deserve what they get, the same way the Iraqis do. Those who allow dictatorship to be thrust on them will get bombed back to the Ston... oh wait, they're already in it. Well, they'll just get dead.
1. And this achieves what exactly?
2. They are not in a position to allow or disallow the Taliban ruling them. These people don't vote, but I guess even being able to vote didn't help us (-cough- presidential election).
3. The country in fact didn't allow the current government to rule, through not being able to vote against them. What do we do if we don't support bombing of them? I guess we can't do anything. We must be allowing it to happen. Oh well, the people that don't support the bombing, to use your logic must be allowing these actions to be thrust upon them, so should be bombed back to the stone age. I'm open to you explaining how this makes sense, but I really don't understand and I'm sorry if I'm being thick here. I personally think your point isn't valid.
4. 'Allow dictatorship to be thrust on them'? Do you have absolutely NO respect for these fellow humans? These people aren't idiots, they are like you and me. The majority of these people are JUST like you and me. They want peace. They are idealistic. They want companionship, and comfort. They are normal people. I know some. They ARE us. They did NOTHING to kill anyone. They HATE the fact that so many people have been killed by these terrorists. They regard the terrorists as abhorrent, unhinged people. But you wish to kill them because of they are in the wrong place at the wrong time?
How do you justify the killing of innocent people?
It was done to us. You want to kill more innocent people, in retaliation perhaps?
They are innocent people.
One doesn't retaliate against innocent people, because they are not against you. You are killing your friends by doing that.
Your example of the town is wrong, in my opinion. The residents of the town are not the local authorities. Your analogy falls down because the residents of this town (Afghanistan, perhaps Kabul) want peace, and didn't threaten anything. They are innocent people who don't want to fight with anyone. They just want to carry on their peaceful lives, caring for their kids and family, putting enough food on the table, and maintaining.
But you don't seem to mind these people being bombed, and I just don't understand that.
thenerd.