Just because you don't know who wrote it you think it's not plagiarism? That's like kids who take something and their defense is "I didn't know whose it was." Well, you knew it wasn't yours, didn't you?
Newer Macs no longer have that hole for paperclips.
Mine does, and it's less than a year old. There's a hole there, anyway. I've never actually tried to use it. Of course you have to pull down the plastic flap to get at it.
I think it's stretching things a bit to interpret the questions that way. He asks:
How about just the idea of having an open source browser, the Opera Web browser for instance.
If he simply wanted to have a hypothetical open source browser what would be the point of using Opera to represent it? Especially when there already is an open source browser he could have named. Seems much more likely that the interviewer simply misspoke. His follow-up question was:
Let's pretend Opera has a 93 percent market share. Does it make a difference that its code is open source?
Here he's flat-out stating its code is open source. If he truly meant to be speaking hypothetically he'd more likely have said "would it make a difference if" instead of "does it make a difference that."
What's much more disturbing is that Andreessen seems to have believed the "fact" introduced in the question. This guy was CTO and he doesn't know better? Heck, even I knew and I've never used it.
Maybe to you. he gave specific examples involving specific people. He made no generalizations. He certainly said nothing that implied he hated women. Even if you meant to say chauvinist there's scant evidence.
for an awful lot of people, that browser is whatever AOL says it is.
That's for sure. A lot of AOL users don't even think there's a browser. it's just AOL. To even suggest that might use something else brings nothing but a confused look and a desire to back away slowly.
Side by side is one thing - a different environment is another - different humidity, different elevation, different acoustics. All these things change the sound, and the artist responds to these as he plays.
When I record something I play, and replay it, there is absolutely 0 perceptable difference in the resulting sound.
Yes, but you're playing it back on the same piano under the same conditions. In this case it's being played on a different piano in a different environment. There's no way the performance the judge hears is the same one the pianist played.
It is blurry. I haven't succeeded in downloading it (mozilla 1.1a) yet, but right now I'm using OmniWeb, which also uses Quartz for rendering, and it's gorgeous. No blur at all. I now find it hard to use "regular" browsers.
Human chess grandmasters don't run massive simultaneous mega power number crunching sequences to figure out how to win
Only because they can't. GM's calculate as much as they can, but rely much more on their instincts and experience to reduce the number of candidate moves to a small handful. Those moves are then analyzed as deeply as is necessary, time and brain-power permitting.
And it's still used because it's a larger number than either horizontal or vertical measurements, and as all good sheeple know, bigger == better.
Then why not use square inches? That would also be a more obvious way to tell how much larger a, say, 17 inch screen is than a 15, without any of that pesky math.
In the PC world for around $1500 I could build a completely kick-ass system that would trounce either of these machines....Macs simply CANNOT compete on price
So when you were typing this did you think that you, finally, were going to explain it in a way that would settle this once and for all, unlike the 50 billion others who have said the same thing?
So if I understand correctly, you use a Tivo simply as an advanced VCR, without the program information? I live in Costa Rica, and I have wanted to bring one down with me, but everyone I asked said it's useless without the program guide, which of course doesn't function here. All I wanted it for was to manually schedule recordings, just a VCR, and also have the buffered live TV. I've always gotten the response "no, you really can't do that." Also, where did you get one for $170?
You should always work in groups, even if you're the only competent member, and have to do everything yourself. If you're really good those people will remember you. Sooner or later, somewhere in your career, you are going to need a contact or a favor. If any of these people are ever in a position of influence (and some will be, no matter how incompetent they seem now) your having carried the load will come back to you in spades. Always always bust your ass. Because it pays. And you can't know when.
This doesn't mean we'll always be able to sqeeze another drop, simply that predictions of The End [tm] are always wrong.
well, of course they will always be wrong. Until the one time they're right. Ignoring them based simply on the fact that they haven't been right yet is tempting but illogical. Russian Roulette is completely safe right up until the one time it isn't.
This is not to say the predictions can't be dismissed for some other reason, but the idea that something is ok simply because nothing bad has happened yet is a recipe for disaster.
Where should we be 20 years from now, 100 years from now, 1000 years from now?
Planning for 100 years isn't much use. We don't have enough information. 1,000 years? How did the plans of those in 1002 AD panned out? Did they anticipate electricity? How about the can opener?
If we're going to think about things we should consider the impact of people living to be 150 or 200 years old. That's a real possibility if stem cell research lives up to its promise. Things are structured with the expectation that people die off after a reasonable amount of time. If that stop happening everything breaks.
Slashdot Mirror
And now they've all gone out and bought copies, I'm sure.
For example? (serious question)
That statement doesn't really make sense. What is it you're trying to say?
Just because you don't know who wrote it you think it's not plagiarism? That's like kids who take something and their defense is "I didn't know whose it was." Well, you knew it wasn't yours, didn't you?
Mine does, and it's less than a year old. There's a hole there, anyway. I've never actually tried to use it. Of course you have to pull down the plastic flap to get at it.
You should try looking lower.
I think it's stretching things a bit to interpret the questions that way. He asks:
If he simply wanted to have a hypothetical open source browser what would be the point of using Opera to represent it? Especially when there already is an open source browser he could have named. Seems much more likely that the interviewer simply misspoke. His follow-up question was: Here he's flat-out stating its code is open source. If he truly meant to be speaking hypothetically he'd more likely have said "would it make a difference if" instead of "does it make a difference that."What's much more disturbing is that Andreessen seems to have believed the "fact" introduced in the question. This guy was CTO and he doesn't know better? Heck, even I knew and I've never used it.
Don't confuse him with facts. It was a nice little story.
Maybe to you. he gave specific examples involving specific people. He made no generalizations. He certainly said nothing that implied he hated women. Even if you meant to say chauvinist there's scant evidence.
And oh yeah, it's misogynist.
Maybe because backwards it's U R A Bus.
That's for sure. A lot of AOL users don't even think there's a browser. it's just AOL. To even suggest that might use something else brings nothing but a confused look and a desire to back away slowly.
Side by side is one thing - a different environment is another - different humidity, different elevation, different acoustics. All these things change the sound, and the artist responds to these as he plays.
Yes, but you're playing it back on the same piano under the same conditions. In this case it's being played on a different piano in a different environment. There's no way the performance the judge hears is the same one the pianist played.
It is blurry. I haven't succeeded in downloading it (mozilla 1.1a) yet, but right now I'm using OmniWeb, which also uses Quartz for rendering, and it's gorgeous. No blur at all. I now find it hard to use "regular" browsers.
Only because they can't. GM's calculate as much as they can, but rely much more on their instincts and experience to reduce the number of candidate moves to a small handful. Those moves are then analyzed as deeply as is necessary, time and brain-power permitting.
And yet in that post Linux is not mentioned once. Not even indirectly. Do you even know what Mozilla is?
Then why not use square inches? That would also be a more obvious way to tell how much larger a, say, 17 inch screen is than a 15, without any of that pesky math.
How much change did you get?
So when you were typing this did you think that you, finally, were going to explain it in a way that would settle this once and for all, unlike the 50 billion others who have said the same thing?
So if I understand correctly, you use a Tivo simply as an advanced VCR, without the program information? I live in Costa Rica, and I have wanted to bring one down with me, but everyone I asked said it's useless without the program guide, which of course doesn't function here. All I wanted it for was to manually schedule recordings, just a VCR, and also have the buffered live TV. I've always gotten the response "no, you really can't do that." Also, where did you get one for $170?
So I can test each bit to see if it matches 1? Not so write-only, then.
You should always work in groups, even if you're the only competent member, and have to do everything yourself. If you're really good those people will remember you. Sooner or later, somewhere in your career, you are going to need a contact or a favor. If any of these people are ever in a position of influence (and some will be, no matter how incompetent they seem now) your having carried the load will come back to you in spades. Always always bust your ass. Because it pays. And you can't know when.
well, of course they will always be wrong. Until the one time they're right. Ignoring them based simply on the fact that they haven't been right yet is tempting but illogical. Russian Roulette is completely safe right up until the one time it isn't.
This is not to say the predictions can't be dismissed for some other reason, but the idea that something is ok simply because nothing bad has happened yet is a recipe for disaster.
Planning for 100 years isn't much use. We don't have enough information. 1,000 years? How did the plans of those in 1002 AD panned out? Did they anticipate electricity? How about the can opener?
If we're going to think about things we should consider the impact of people living to be 150 or 200 years old. That's a real possibility if stem cell research lives up to its promise. Things are structured with the expectation that people die off after a reasonable amount of time. If that stop happening everything breaks.