As much as I hate to say it, geekoid is right. It's more like a loan. You're responsible for the total cost of the phone, which they let you pay over time, but that's not tied to a service agreement the same way a normal contract plan is. You pay a bit extra every month until the phone is paid-off -- if you terminate service, then the full amount remaining come due.
Logo is a horrible language to start with because it doesn't trust you with responsibility. You are stuck in a la-la-land where the only thing you can do is draw pretty pictures.
Absolute nonsense. There's a lot more to logo than that! Perhaps you should learn something about a language before you make outrageously incompetent pronouncements like this in the future?
I'll warn other users away from the pedagogically unsound article on your website as well.
I don't agree. It seems like your'e just talking past one another. You think he doesn't understand because you're misunderstanding his posts.
Pointers aren't a difficult concept, though it's easy to slip in to less than precise terms when talking about them, which is what I see happening here.
As the AC below me mentions, that was never true. Even the lowly and long forgotten Windows 1.0 was graphical -- exclusively. There was never a version of Windows that ran in text mode.
You might be thinking of VB DOS, which did the whole "make windows out of text" thing using the IBM Extended ASCII character set. That came much, much later in the world of Microsoft products. (If you can dig up a copy, it was really neat. Well worth a spending a lazy Saturday tinkering with if you haven't seen it.)
You forget the ever-popular "I don't understand sarcasm" mod than nets your "flamebait" an "insightful".
Though it's possible that a "flamebait" is mistaken for "funny" -- which old-time mods usually give an "insightful" or "interesting" as "funny" doesn't net any karma.
It balances out in the end, when your (hopefully) "funny" posts gets modded "troll" or "flaimebait".
Manual categorization just does not work if you are really working. Install 3 versions of Visual Studio, 3 SDKs, office, few third party dev apps and start menu becomes an unmanageable mess.
You can't manage 20 or 30 applications with a simple hierarchy?
Maybe you're not just that great at organizing things?
But android has a terrible UI -- and other problems that make it horribly unsuitable for the desktop.
I don't know that anyone actually wants to use it. Granted, it's a good alternative to iOS in the mobile space, but that's not saying much. Take a look at WebOS, BB10 and even WP. All three come closer to being usable in the desktop space than Android.
The joke, in case you missed it, is that Thunderbolt has ridiculously poor market penetration.
Who cares how many new Intel boards ship with the port, or the tiny fraction of the tiny number of Mac users with a newer unit. There's not much you can actually plug in to the things.
Ask any Mac user if they'd trade the Thunderbolt ports (that they obviously don't use) for some old USB 2 ports.
Thunderbolt, it seems, is the new firewire. Unfortunately for Thunderbolt fans, everyone remembers how firewire turned out and doesn't want get burned again.
If the people producing the software for a product can't even implement a calendar correctly and then others can't find that fault in testing it makes you wonder what else they fucked up. Such a mistake would not even be considered acceptable in a high school project let alone a product.
Like Apple? They can't seem to puzzle out this whole time and date thing.
Good job. I knew you'd figure it out! The technical term in question is hypothesis. There's a very good reason that in science we don't use the word "guess" in its place!
"Guess" is orthoginal to "educated guess". "Educated guess" is hypothesis.
Damn, so close. Well, I guess there's no helping some people.
Most laypersons, particularly those that fancy themselves scientifically literate would accept that they're mistaken and learn from it, knowing that they're very likely out of their depth. You seem to refuse to accept the obvious and have made some impressive mental contortions to avoid admitting that you made a simple mistake born out of ignorance.
You're acting exactly like one of those autodidacts who think that they have no need for a formal education and fancy themselves experts in any subject they've taken an afternoon to read a popular book about!
If you don't agree, don't argue with me
I had no intention of arguing with you, just in correcting your ridiculous mistake least other scientifically illiterate defenders of science repeat it! If you think this is an argument, I've wasted my time. I cannot help you overcome your ignorance if it is willful.
As you're unwilling the learn, would you at the very least stop spreading nonsense? That's all I ask.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't you read the summary? It's a fake bomb detector. It won't detect real bombs.
You'd think that it would be harder to detect fake bombs than real ones.
The fact that you assert that there is a causal link with no evidence pretty much defines you as a racist misogynist
Sadly, those sort of attitudes are disturbingly common in the so-called skeptical community.
As much as I hate to say it, geekoid is right. It's more like a loan. You're responsible for the total cost of the phone, which they let you pay over time, but that's not tied to a service agreement the same way a normal contract plan is. You pay a bit extra every month until the phone is paid-off -- if you terminate service, then the full amount remaining come due.
It's been done by Emotiv [...] and various other companies.
And thousands of ee students and hobbyists!
Well, maybe not with the "smartphone" part, but that's not the interesting bit, is it?
Using a cheap eeg as an input device is not even a little bit new. It's certainly not news for nerds.
They're literally light years ahead of your conventional metal detector
Wow, that's pretty far away. This controversy seems silly, considering how long it'll take them to get here.
98%+ of all domestic deaths are caused by a gun in the house
Citation Needed
Logo is a horrible language to start with because it doesn't trust you with responsibility. You are stuck in a la-la-land where the only thing you can do is draw pretty pictures.
Absolute nonsense. There's a lot more to logo than that! Perhaps you should learn something about a language before you make outrageously incompetent pronouncements like this in the future?
I'll warn other users away from the pedagogically unsound article on your website as well.
I don't agree. It seems like your'e just talking past one another. You think he doesn't understand because you're misunderstanding his posts.
Pointers aren't a difficult concept, though it's easy to slip in to less than precise terms when talking about them, which is what I see happening here.
As the AC below me mentions, that was never true. Even the lowly and long forgotten Windows 1.0 was graphical -- exclusively. There was never a version of Windows that ran in text mode.
You might be thinking of VB DOS, which did the whole "make windows out of text" thing using the IBM Extended ASCII character set. That came much, much later in the world of Microsoft products. (If you can dig up a copy, it was really neat. Well worth a spending a lazy Saturday tinkering with if you haven't seen it.)
You forget the ever-popular "I don't understand sarcasm" mod than nets your "flamebait" an "insightful".
Though it's possible that a "flamebait" is mistaken for "funny" -- which old-time mods usually give an "insightful" or "interesting" as "funny" doesn't net any karma.
It balances out in the end, when your (hopefully) "funny" posts gets modded "troll" or "flaimebait".
Manual categorization just does not work if you are really working. Install 3 versions of Visual Studio, 3 SDKs, office, few third party dev apps and start menu becomes an unmanageable mess.
You can't manage 20 or 30 applications with a simple hierarchy?
Maybe you're not just that great at organizing things?
I suspect that your post in the comments section outing him as a fraud will get more views than Randi's blog post.
Undoubtedly, your post will more views by those who need to see it most!
So... You think Apple should get FRAND welfare because ... they didn't contribute anything?
Sorry, are there any other non-contributing companies getting special treatment?
No? Huh...
You have some very strange ideas...
Please, that was just another DynaBook ripoff...
It's turning out to be a major deterrent to abuse of police power. Either you get nailed for abuse, or you get nailed for not having a working camera.
Thanks, I needed a good laugh!
Revisionist history.
But android has a terrible UI -- and other problems that make it horribly unsuitable for the desktop.
I don't know that anyone actually wants to use it. Granted, it's a good alternative to iOS in the mobile space, but that's not saying much. Take a look at WebOS, BB10 and even WP. All three come closer to being usable in the desktop space than Android.
The joke, in case you missed it, is that Thunderbolt has ridiculously poor market penetration.
Who cares how many new Intel boards ship with the port, or the tiny fraction of the tiny number of Mac users with a newer unit. There's not much you can actually plug in to the things.
Ask any Mac user if they'd trade the Thunderbolt ports (that they obviously don't use) for some old USB 2 ports.
Thunderbolt, it seems, is the new firewire. Unfortunately for Thunderbolt fans, everyone remembers how firewire turned out and doesn't want get burned again.
Both users will be really excited about this.
If the people producing the software for a product can't even implement a calendar correctly and then others can't find that fault in testing it makes you wonder what else they fucked up. Such a mistake would not even be considered acceptable in a high school project let alone a product.
Like Apple? They can't seem to puzzle out this whole time and date thing.
Just a few example.
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/03/14/more-iphone-clock-problems-reported/
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/01/apple-iphone-4-alarm-problems-worldwide-clock-app-alarm-broken-3-days-in-a-row.html
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/iphone-do-not-disturb/
correcting everyone about the word "guess" incorrectly
No, the term "hypothesis". Try to pay attention.
I've no more time you. Let me when you finish grad school. You autodidacts are insufferable.
In fact, reading back to see the "fun" article from before, i realized your stance swapped.
Nope, it's still identical. Why try todivert the topic? You made a mistake. Get over it.
Like I said before, leave science to those of us with credentials. You scientifically illiterate cheerleaders are worse than creationists.
One last try, then I think I'm done.
Can you think of an hypothesis that is not a guess, educated or otherwise?
If you're having trouble, read the fun article I linked to earlier.
Now, you see? The two are in no way synonymous!
If you can't help shouting scientifically illiterate nonsense, could you at least stop defending it?
"Guess" is not a technical term.
Good job. I knew you'd figure it out! The technical term in question is hypothesis. There's a very good reason that in science we don't use the word "guess" in its place!
"Guess" is orthoginal to "educated guess". "Educated guess" is hypothesis.
Damn, so close. Well, I guess there's no helping some people.
Most laypersons, particularly those that fancy themselves scientifically literate would accept that they're mistaken and learn from it, knowing that they're very likely out of their depth. You seem to refuse to accept the obvious and have made some impressive mental contortions to avoid admitting that you made a simple mistake born out of ignorance.
You're acting exactly like one of those autodidacts who think that they have no need for a formal education and fancy themselves experts in any subject they've taken an afternoon to read a popular book about!
If you don't agree, don't argue with me
I had no intention of arguing with you, just in correcting your ridiculous mistake least other scientifically illiterate defenders of science repeat it! If you think this is an argument, I've wasted my time. I cannot help you overcome your ignorance if it is willful.
As you're unwilling the learn, would you at the very least stop spreading nonsense? That's all I ask.
My quote using the word from popular usage indicates that usage disagrees with your assertion.
By popular usage, "theory" also means "guess". By popular usage, "mass" means "size".
Why doesn't science just give in and adopt these, and other, popular definitions? The answer is pretty simple!
Now, will you stop spreading nonsense?