In a way. If you don't mind ordering a ton of them, various manufacturers will brand and often allow you to customize software for a variety of products, e-ink readers included.
A quick search turns up a few manufactures with e-ink reader products for you to brand and/or otherwise customize: Tomstar, Sim-Tek, APEC, Win-Win, Penel, and a host of others. Products vary, though a quick check shows at least one with a 9.7" display.
Not exactly DIY, but a pretty cheap option (well under 100k) if you really need to have your "own" product.
This person in question is just some 18 year old who did something stupid. A reasonable punishment seems like 500 hours community service and a $1000 fine.
Try this on for size: "The person in question is just some 18 year old who said something stupid. Punishment is unnecessary as he's done nothing wrong."
See, the kid never actually threatened anyone. His little rap song was directed at no one. He even made not as himself, but as his play-pretend rapper persona.
That goofy song of his is actually a very healthy way for him to deal with his feelings of powerlessness. Children (and even some adults) do this all the time. It's perfectly normal.
A cute example: My wife and I were watching a friends 4-year-old. We used to keep crabs, which the little fellow really enjoyed watching -- even though he was a little bit frighted by them. To deal with those feelings, he told me about the giant robot crab that eats other crabs but (and this is the important part) doesn't eat people.
How would you prefer that this young suburban rapper deal with his feelings? Write a story, sing a song, paint a picture, etc. or rob a store, bully other kids, do drugs, etc.?
Everything that allows a computer to make a statement that you thought was only possible by a human is AI.
And the redefinition continues. This one is great, as it's both overly broad and completely subjective. As a bonus, it defines "AI" exclusively in terms of successes.
As far as I can tell, "AI" has succeeded only in keeping the same name after endless redefinitions resulting from it's numerous failures.
Your blind faith in AI seems to indicate that you're either hopelessly misguided or one of those singularity nuts. I can only hope that you've merely been mislead...
(To Ray's deluded followers: Just get over the pretense and just worship Kurzweil the prophet outright. Failing that, at least get robes. Not only will they keep you warm, they make you and your fellow cult members easier to avoid. It's a win-win, really.)
A few zillion years ago, we had the math tag, which was similar to TeX. It died on the vine, but would have been MUCH better than the cruel joke that is MathML.
for your IE6 crowd if they can just release the game with a Firefox or Chrome redistributable runtime...
Any chance you can clarify this? The closest thing I could find was TideSDK, though it won't have WebGL or web audio API support until the next release.
The sad part is that I suspect you're right that that's precisely what motivates the bulk of the skeptical community. Those self-proclaimed defenders of science have done far more harm to the public understanding of science than Krik Cameron could ever dream of doing.
It's funny, a study last year from Evans Data Corp (surprisingly?) showed that BB developers earned significantly more than their iOS and Android counterparts -- with a full 13% netting over 100k.
To your comment, a consistent complaint from Android developers is how difficult it is to make money on the platform. You can see this reflected in the results of the earlier mentioned study.
For the big-name players, BB might not be as attractive. For small and medium sized shops, however, targeting BB10 is clearly a smart move.
Well, after we produce 6 time crystals we can assemble the key to time. Frank Wilczek is really the Black Guardian in disguise, but the Berkeley physicist heading up the project won't figure this out until the last Slashdot article in the series.
a horrible OS. It's slow, and the native web browser horrible times ten.
Sorry, are you from the past?
The browser is demonstrably the best on the market. It even has the best HTML5 support of any browser, scoring higher than every desktop browser. You find that even sites that use Flash or WebGL run smooth.
As for the OS being slow, you'd be the first reviewer to suggest such a thing.
Except it is true. Blackberry can't give away to keys fro BES users because they don't have them. Blackberry offers the only secure solution if you want to keep your messages private, away from authorities.
There are atheistic religions, you know. (Or maybe you don't!)
Buddhism comes immediately to mind, as does Scientology. The Raelian's are particularly interesting, as they're openly atheist; they even call Raelianism "Intelligent Design for Atheists".
Moving on... When people call Atheism a religion, they're not talking about the simple "lack of a belief in God" Atheism. They're talking about the modern Atheist movement, which is loaded with religious trappings -- dogma included. I've little doubt that you'll deny this. In fact, I expect that you will. That rather irrational denial is part and parcel of this modern Atheism-turned-religion.
Granted, a lot of the "Atheism is a religion too" chatter is just ridiculous nonsense that you're right to deny. However, that Atheism can be a religion, is treated as such by a surprising number of people, and is endemic to many atheist and rationalist groups cannot be denied. (Well, at least not from an objective standpoint.)
Considering that an astonishing majority of the population is religious and does not, in fact, go around committing all manner of atrocities suggests that there are other much more important factors than their religious views in play.
That their actions are often (though not always) justified by a religious belief seems almost irrelevant. I would contend that religion enters in to the decision long after it's already been made. After all, it's an easy way to justify an act that they otherwise couldn't.
Religion, of course, is just one way to justify a horrific act. Terrorism for political reasons aren't unheard of. Timothy McVeigh comes to mind, and it's been suggested that he was an atheist. Also common are horrific acts with no clear motivation like the East Texas church arsons (2010) and the Birmingham church arsons (2006).
In the case of a woman drowning her children, we can look to a couple real examples like Susan Smith and Andrea Yates.
Yates claims that she thought of killing her children for years. The religious justification undoubtedly allowed her to commit an act that she had long fantasized about. You may be right about her, though we can't discount the possibility that she would have killed her children anyway -- she clearly had long-standing severe mental problems.
Smith, on the other hand, appears to have killed her children because they were inconvenient -- having a negative impact on her relationship with her current boyfriend. Religion doesn't appear to have entered in to the equation at all.
In both cases, you have someone with mental health issues who feels disenfranchised in some way.
I suspect we'll see more atrocities committed by non-religious people as the secular movement picks-up steam. After all, it provides an enemy that those at the bottom can blame for their problems. "It's those darn religious people oppressing us!" They'll cry. "They know we're superior and will thus do anything to hold us back." It's only a matter of time before we find acts committed in the name of atheism. All we need are a few mentally unstable atheists who feel disenfranchised.
Extremism from rationalists/atheists/secularists isn't unprecedented historically. The French Revolution, for example, offers a terrifying look at rationalism taken to the extreme (both pre and post reign of terror!).
Of course, I don't blame rationalism for the French Revolution. Rationalism was a mere justification for the atrocities committed then, just as religion often is today.
Let's not turn religion in to some sort of boogy-man. It's really not. There's no war on science. Progress continues as though Ray Comfort never even existed. There are a few dust-ups here and there, but they're rare and exceptional. There are REAL problems that blaming religion does little else but distract us from solving.
Ah, you seem to think the parent cares about facts.
They don't. A study is good if it confirms their belief that people with beliefs that differ from their own are less intelligent. Any study that does not confirm their belief that they're more intelligent than the majority of the population is clearly flawed.
See, you're not dealing with scientifically literate people here. You're dealing with the scientifically illiterate science cheerleaders.
Facts don't matter to people like that. See, believing that they're perfectly rational, they automatically assume that whatever they think of believe must necessarily be true as their perfectly rational minds can only arrive at true conclusions. They automatically know everything about politics, religion, philosophy, ethics, psychology, logic, statistics...etc, etc,... everything but what they consider the super-hard stuff like physics, math, and chemistry. (Though they believe they have a better grasp than the average Joe on the street. Presumably as a side-effect of their superior intellect and subscription to Scientific American.)
Run away. These guys are worse than creationists. They've done more damage to the public understanding of science than Kent Hovind could ever dream of doing!
Slashdot Mirror
"Saying something" isn't saying something. Got it.
Why don't I feel enlightened?
In a way. If you don't mind ordering a ton of them, various manufacturers will brand and often allow you to customize software for a variety of products, e-ink readers included.
A quick search turns up a few manufactures with e-ink reader products for you to brand and/or otherwise customize: Tomstar, Sim-Tek, APEC, Win-Win, Penel, and a host of others. Products vary, though a quick check shows at least one with a 9.7" display.
Not exactly DIY, but a pretty cheap option (well under 100k) if you really need to have your "own" product.
No. He was just looking to see if there was any fresh gum under his seat.
So ... you're going with the presumption of guilt?
There's a very good reason that our system doesn't work that way. Didn't you see that episode of Star Trek?
This person in question is just some 18 year old who did something stupid. A reasonable punishment seems like 500 hours community service and a $1000 fine.
Try this on for size: "The person in question is just some 18 year old who said something stupid. Punishment is unnecessary as he's done nothing wrong."
See, the kid never actually threatened anyone. His little rap song was directed at no one. He even made not as himself, but as his play-pretend rapper persona.
That goofy song of his is actually a very healthy way for him to deal with his feelings of powerlessness. Children (and even some adults) do this all the time. It's perfectly normal.
A cute example: My wife and I were watching a friends 4-year-old. We used to keep crabs, which the little fellow really enjoyed watching -- even though he was a little bit frighted by them. To deal with those feelings, he told me about the giant robot crab that eats other crabs but (and this is the important part) doesn't eat people.
How would you prefer that this young suburban rapper deal with his feelings? Write a story, sing a song, paint a picture, etc. or rob a store, bully other kids, do drugs, etc.?
Everything that allows a computer to make a statement that you thought was only possible by a human is AI.
And the redefinition continues. This one is great, as it's both overly broad and completely subjective. As a bonus, it defines "AI" exclusively in terms of successes.
Hey, now it can't fail!
As far as I can tell, "AI" has succeeded only in keeping the same name after endless redefinitions resulting from it's numerous failures.
Your blind faith in AI seems to indicate that you're either hopelessly misguided or one of those singularity nuts. I can only hope that you've merely been mislead...
(To Ray's deluded followers: Just get over the pretense and just worship Kurzweil the prophet outright. Failing that, at least get robes. Not only will they keep you warm, they make you and your fellow cult members easier to avoid. It's a win-win, really.)
Sorry, who rents a phone via 2 year contract?
Cell carriers do some weird stuff, but I've never seen them do that!
It's a real shame -- MathML is abysmal.
A few zillion years ago, we had the math tag, which was similar to TeX. It died on the vine, but would have been MUCH better than the cruel joke that is MathML.
for your IE6 crowd if they can just release the game with a Firefox or Chrome redistributable runtime...
Any chance you can clarify this? The closest thing I could find was TideSDK, though it won't have WebGL or web audio API support until the next release.
Not a bad troll, if a bit obvious.
The sad part is that I suspect you're right that that's precisely what motivates the bulk of the skeptical community. Those self-proclaimed defenders of science have done far more harm to the public understanding of science than Krik Cameron could ever dream of doing.
It's funny, a study last year from Evans Data Corp (surprisingly?) showed that BB developers earned significantly more than their iOS and Android counterparts -- with a full 13% netting over 100k.
To your comment, a consistent complaint from Android developers is how difficult it is to make money on the platform. You can see this reflected in the results of the earlier mentioned study.
For the big-name players, BB might not be as attractive. For small and medium sized shops, however, targeting BB10 is clearly a smart move.
Well, after we produce 6 time crystals we can assemble the key to time. Frank Wilczek is really the Black Guardian in disguise, but the Berkeley physicist heading up the project won't figure this out until the last Slashdot article in the series.
From the company bleeding money for the last three years
You may want to check your facts. You couldn't possibly be more wrong.
For clarity, in case no one reads your link:
Congress has the power to take works out of public domain. You can't just re-copyright any public domain work you run across.
Once it's in the public domain, that's where it stays.
Copyright law isn't that absurd ... yet.
a horrible OS. It's slow, and the native web browser horrible times ten.
Sorry, are you from the past?
The browser is demonstrably the best on the market. It even has the best HTML5 support of any browser, scoring higher than every desktop browser. You find that even sites that use Flash or WebGL run smooth.
As for the OS being slow, you'd be the first reviewer to suggest such a thing.
I haven't tried BB OS 10 yet.
Well, that explains it!
Except it is true. Blackberry can't give away to keys fro BES users because they don't have them. Blackberry offers the only secure solution if you want to keep your messages private, away from authorities.
Being an atheist is being non-religious.
There are atheistic religions, you know. (Or maybe you don't!)
Buddhism comes immediately to mind, as does Scientology. The Raelian's are particularly interesting, as they're openly atheist; they even call Raelianism "Intelligent Design for Atheists".
Moving on... When people call Atheism a religion, they're not talking about the simple "lack of a belief in God" Atheism. They're talking about the modern Atheist movement, which is loaded with religious trappings -- dogma included. I've little doubt that you'll deny this. In fact, I expect that you will. That rather irrational denial is part and parcel of this modern Atheism-turned-religion.
Granted, a lot of the "Atheism is a religion too" chatter is just ridiculous nonsense that you're right to deny. However, that Atheism can be a religion, is treated as such by a surprising number of people, and is endemic to many atheist and rationalist groups cannot be denied. (Well, at least not from an objective standpoint.)
Way to prove the parent right. Good job.
This is about human psychology, not your god.
Did you even read his post?
Considering that an astonishing majority of the population is religious and does not, in fact, go around committing all manner of atrocities suggests that there are other much more important factors than their religious views in play.
That their actions are often (though not always) justified by a religious belief seems almost irrelevant. I would contend that religion enters in to the decision long after it's already been made. After all, it's an easy way to justify an act that they otherwise couldn't.
Religion, of course, is just one way to justify a horrific act. Terrorism for political reasons aren't unheard of. Timothy McVeigh comes to mind, and it's been suggested that he was an atheist. Also common are horrific acts with no clear motivation like the East Texas church arsons (2010) and the Birmingham church arsons (2006).
In the case of a woman drowning her children, we can look to a couple real examples like Susan Smith and Andrea Yates.
Yates claims that she thought of killing her children for years. The religious justification undoubtedly allowed her to commit an act that she had long fantasized about. You may be right about her, though we can't discount the possibility that she would have killed her children anyway -- she clearly had long-standing severe mental problems.
Smith, on the other hand, appears to have killed her children because they were inconvenient -- having a negative impact on her relationship with her current boyfriend. Religion doesn't appear to have entered in to the equation at all.
In both cases, you have someone with mental health issues who feels disenfranchised in some way.
I suspect we'll see more atrocities committed by non-religious people as the secular movement picks-up steam. After all, it provides an enemy that those at the bottom can blame for their problems. "It's those darn religious people oppressing us!" They'll cry. "They know we're superior and will thus do anything to hold us back." It's only a matter of time before we find acts committed in the name of atheism. All we need are a few mentally unstable atheists who feel disenfranchised.
Extremism from rationalists/atheists/secularists isn't unprecedented historically. The French Revolution, for example, offers a terrifying look at rationalism taken to the extreme (both pre and post reign of terror!).
Of course, I don't blame rationalism for the French Revolution. Rationalism was a mere justification for the atrocities committed then, just as religion often is today.
Let's not turn religion in to some sort of boogy-man. It's really not. There's no war on science. Progress continues as though Ray Comfort never even existed. There are a few dust-ups here and there, but they're rare and exceptional. There are REAL problems that blaming religion does little else but distract us from solving.
Ah, you seem to think the parent cares about facts.
They don't. A study is good if it confirms their belief that people with beliefs that differ from their own are less intelligent. Any study that does not confirm their belief that they're more intelligent than the majority of the population is clearly flawed.
See, you're not dealing with scientifically literate people here. You're dealing with the scientifically illiterate science cheerleaders.
Facts don't matter to people like that. See, believing that they're perfectly rational, they automatically assume that whatever they think of believe must necessarily be true as their perfectly rational minds can only arrive at true conclusions. They automatically know everything about politics, religion, philosophy, ethics, psychology, logic, statistics ...etc, etc, ... everything but what they consider the super-hard stuff like physics, math, and chemistry. (Though they believe they have a better grasp than the average Joe on the street. Presumably as a side-effect of their superior intellect and subscription to Scientific American.)
Run away. These guys are worse than creationists. They've done more damage to the public understanding of science than Kent Hovind could ever dream of doing!
Fun fact: Scientific reasoning is primarily inductive.
I tend to think of it as a Slashdot community filled with raging Gods
It's an easy mistake to make. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not a God.
It's not dogma unless someone is willing to burn you at the stake for it.
Now trying to distort the world to fit your worldview... THAT is dogma.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.