You did not read that web page, did you? If you had, you had noticed that Web-Kit is not mentioned on it...
I predicted in my last post that you wouldn't be capable of understanding that link.
Not that it was much of a prediction. I know that you're very slow. That might not be your fault. Germans are generally pretty stupid.
Any person of normal intelligence can verify the parent's claims from the link I sent you. It's the source for the claims on the other websites I linked to earlier. You wanted a link directly from Apple, and I provided it. It's not my fault you're not competent enough to understand it.
Hm... seems we are on quite different intellectual levels.
Oh, yes. We are in no way intellectual equals. I'm amazed that you are able to understand and admit to that.
So, when cnet.com and buzzfeed.com write something about Apple, it is right?
I understand that Germans are generally pretty stupid, but you take the cake! The parent's claim is common knowledge. It's been widely reported. The only one who disputes this claim is you. I presume it's all part of the effort you're making to remain as ignorant as possible. I posted several links to show that it's common knowledge, and thus easy to confirm the claim in seconds with a simple search!
IFF there is an Apple policy, the first thing I would expect is a statement from Apple.
If you weren't a total moron, you could find it.
You are still invited to bring up an Apple link to Apples documentation regarding this matter.
I doubt you'll even be able to understand it, as you apparently can't even manage to do a simple google search!
but do you really get your bright knowledge about computerscience in general and browser technology in particular from cnet.com and buzzfeed.com?
It was to illustrate that a simple google search was all that was necessary to confirm the parents claim. Even you should have been able to figure that out!
So, lets recapitulate. Google Chrome runs on iOS only under WebKit?
Wow, apparently you don't even understand the question you asked! That's astonishing... Perhaps you should try reading the links I posted?
Sigh...
You're just not worth the effort. Ignorance is tollerable; that can be corrected. You, however, are willfully ignorant. From your last post, it looks like you put a lot of effort in to being as uninformed as possible.
There are few reasons because of which third party browsers are not so comfortable with the iOS environment. First and foremost may be the hurdle of not able to carry their rendering techniques and javascript engines over to iOS
Higgs removes any doubt for more exotic physics beyond the Standard Model.
Don't go in to physics, Max Planck, it's almost done. There just aren't any big discoveries left; just a few minor details to fill-in.
From the article:
Although I’d argue that the Higgs boson discovery is a triumph of modern science and only the beginning of a golden era for quantum physics, many will be subdued at seeing the Standard Model being completely proven — of which the Higgs boson is the last component to be discovered — thereby disproving more exciting possibilities of exotic physics beyond known physics.
What's wrong with just good old fashioned GSR? They're less complicated, less expensive, and (compared to cheap EEG's) accurate and reliable.
I guess technically you can do less with than with a working EEG, but I've yet to see a usable and inexpensive home model. (Strange, as the average electronics hobbyist can build a less expensive and more reliable two-channel EEG in an afternoon.)
I know! I posted this as the obvious 2010 references were conspicuously absent.
(I should have waited as all it did was earn me a "redundant" mod! I suppose I could have replied out-of-context to the first post to push my comment closer to the top of the page -- that seems to be a popular strategy.)
Apple (accidentally) did something that is not too far removed from an iWatch already with the 6th Gen iPod nano [wikipedia.org] which spawned a multitude of watch-strap accessories. If this rumoured iWatch is a more refined version of the 6th Gen iPod with a fusion of features from the devices the GP mentioned (hoping, hoping...) it would instantly get my interest.
Care to elaborate?
Especially if it came with a heart rate monitor as well and integrated wirelessly with an iPhone/iPad/Mac/PC.
If you want a good one, with a chest strap, I wouldn't hold my breath. That doesn't seem to be Apple's style. Even the cheaper strapless type (which don't work very well) doesn't seem likely given the extra cost for what is essentially a bullet-point feature.
Not every/. reader is a potato chip eating, diet coke guzzling couch-potato who sits in his parent's basement in Wyoming and hates Apple to kill time between LAN parties and Star-Trek conventions.
Okay. What's the point of all that? What does that have to do with Apple's rumored watch or their historically poor user interfaces?
Apple's UI? Palm Pilot style grid of icons? Outdated home button?
Maybe you mean multitouch? Yeah, that'll work great on a 1.5" display... How will use use Apple's very poorly designed suite of gestures? The laughably-bad four-finger swipe on a watch is going to take some impressive contortions! Will it come with sandpaper so users can file-down their fingers?
I'm just going to go ahead and guess that you haven't put much thought in to how the UI will actually work, but assumed that Apple would come up with something "magical" because of their (clearly undeserved) reputation when it comes to modern UI design.
Why not use something like Logo instead? It's very similar to Scheme, but much gentler. The simple interactive environment and the seemingly complex images you can create on day one gives students a sense of power and control that they just won't see with Scheme.
Still, I'd steer clear of any functional language for high-school kids. Structured languages are much easier to learn and use.
I can't make any specific recommendations as I don't think we have any good teaching languages these days. SmallBasic was a nice attempt, but falls a bit too short, even for a high-school course. Something like VB6 would be okay, but it seems silly to introduce it today. The problem seems to be this inexplicable trend toward unnecessary complexity in modern languages.
Programming is a skill with a rather unique requirement: the ability to quickly learn and retain lots of information.
How is that unique?
As for programming, the "quickly" part doesn't seem to apply.
The fact is that any idiot can learn to program all by themselves with little more than a few references and some spare time -- and go on to program professionally.
It's so easy, in fact, that the bulk of the users here taught themselves how to program before the age of 13. Back in the 80's, it was so common for kids between 9-13 to write computer programs as a hobby that there where countless children's books on the subject!
It looks like you know how ridiculously simple programming actual is, but just can't seem to fact the truth. Why else would you distinguish between "passable programmer" and "great programmer". (What a joke. Call me when you have an objective way to distinguish between the two.) It tells me that you *still* think that being able to write computer programs makes you special. You know that that isn't true, but you just have too much of your identity wrapped up in that fantasy to let it go!
For anyone else as confused by that as I was, apparently Lord of Light was not made in to a film. The script and set designs for a planned but never produced Lord of Light movie were used by the CIA in a wacky plan to rescue some hostages. The story of the CIA's crazy exploits involving the script was made in to an actual film, Argo, released in 2012.
Agreed. My old BlackBerry 7290 had a great display. The matte finish made it virtually glare free, it was clearly visible without the backlight, even in a rather dimly lit room. Why can't we have modern displays with those same qualities?
I don't know what to tell you, that's what I paid for it last December. Maybe you need to learn how to shop around?
the same bulky-ulgy-going-to-be-virus-ridden-and-god-awful-slow type of device
It's neither bulky (it's smaller than most laptops) nor slow, nor virus ridden.
The tablet, on the other hand, is slower, has less RAM, can't run common software, and requires an expensive keyboard add-on. In short, it has FAR less utility AND is more expensive!
The point remains, however, that $500 is more than enough to buy an excellent computer, portable or otherwise, for the "casual home user". The fact that you had trouble finding a computer adequate for her needs within that budget tells me one thing: you suck at buying computers. That you bought a tablet instead of a real computer for a woman who needed to replacement is just baffling.
Her budget wasn't high (around $500). She came to me for advice and I had an extraordinarily difficult time finding an affordable, light, and fast x86 device.
Wow, you must suck at buying computers.
$500 is more than enough for a great laptop for the "casual home user". Just an example, I picked up an Acer Aspire One 722 to replace my wife' work computer (She just needs internet, email, word, excel) 4GB of RAM, AMD C60 Deul-Core processor, 500GB hard drive -- for $230 dollars. (On Amazon, no less!) That's WAY more machine than the transformer -- and it's actually usable. For $500, I could have picked up an even better computer.
By buying the transformer, you paid more for less... much less. I'm sorry that your friend listened to your crappy advice.
I never suggested that you don't select a good candidate, the point was that with hundreds of resumes, it's unreasonable to carefully review all of them as I have other work that needs done.
As you well know, most of them will get tossed in the bin for superficial reasons -- no one has time to look for subtle clues in a crummy resume hoping to find a rough-cut diamond. Let's also not forget that this all happens long before you bring any one in to interview.
So, yes, hiring you is not my job. I have other work from which the hiring process distracts me.
Back to the topic: If you don't have a college education, you're getting binned. I have tons of (at least) equally experienced candidates with a formal education to choose from.
If experience has taught me anything, it's that autodidacts have an over-inflated sense of self importance and greatly overestimate their own skills, knowledge, and abilities. If I had to guess why, I'd say it's probably because they don't have a formal education! I've found that well-educated candidates tend to underestimate their competence, which is always a welcome surprise.
Slashdot Mirror
irrational beliefs can effect people.
Er, I'd think they'd need to act on those beliefs first...
You did not read that web page, did you? If you had, you had noticed that Web-Kit is not mentioned on it ...
I predicted in my last post that you wouldn't be capable of understanding that link.
Not that it was much of a prediction. I know that you're very slow. That might not be your fault. Germans are generally pretty stupid.
Any person of normal intelligence can verify the parent's claims from the link I sent you. It's the source for the claims on the other websites I linked to earlier. You wanted a link directly from Apple, and I provided it. It's not my fault you're not competent enough to understand it.
Yep. From the article:
Ms Pearce found that Neanderthals had significantly larger eye sockets - by an average of 6mm from top to bottom.
From the summary:
As a consequence of having extra sized eyes, an average 6 millimeters larger in radius,
Submitter must be a science reporter...
Hm ... seems we are on quite different intellectual levels.
Oh, yes. We are in no way intellectual equals. I'm amazed that you are able to understand and admit to that.
So, when cnet.com and buzzfeed.com write something about Apple, it is right?
I understand that Germans are generally pretty stupid, but you take the cake! The parent's claim is common knowledge. It's been widely reported. The only one who disputes this claim is you. I presume it's all part of the effort you're making to remain as ignorant as possible. I posted several links to show that it's common knowledge, and thus easy to confirm the claim in seconds with a simple search!
IFF there is an Apple policy, the first thing I would expect is a statement from Apple.
If you weren't a total moron, you could find it.
You are still invited to bring up an Apple link to Apples documentation regarding this matter.
I doubt you'll even be able to understand it, as you apparently can't even manage to do a simple google search!
Here it is anyway. Hopefully, this will put an end to this ridiculous "conversation": https://developer.apple.com/appstore/guidelines.html
but do you really get your bright knowledge about computerscience in general and browser technology in particular from cnet.com and buzzfeed.com?
It was to illustrate that a simple google search was all that was necessary to confirm the parents claim. Even you should have been able to figure that out!
So, lets recapitulate. Google Chrome runs on iOS only under WebKit?
Wow, apparently you don't even understand the question you asked! That's astonishing... Perhaps you should try reading the links I posted?
Sigh...
You're just not worth the effort. Ignorance is tollerable; that can be corrected. You, however, are willfully ignorant. From your last post, it looks like you put a lot of effort in to being as uninformed as possible.
No. Both to your question and any other "Does it have a sane ______ yet?" questions.
As far as I can tell, the only reason to use Drupal is that it's easy to find and hire people who are familiar with it.
Can't read the article?
There are few reasons because of which third party browsers are not so comfortable with the iOS environment. First and foremost may be the hurdle of not able to carry their rendering techniques and javascript engines over to iOS
Can't use Google?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57439936-93/browser-choice-a-thing-of-the-past/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/the-problem-with-chrome-for-ios
http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/945460
It's like you're not even trying. I don't think a "rogue" mod is responsible for your karma.
Higgs removes any doubt for more exotic physics beyond the Standard Model.
Don't go in to physics, Max Planck, it's almost done. There just aren't any big discoveries left; just a few minor details to fill-in.
From the article:
Although I’d argue that the Higgs boson discovery is a triumph of modern science and only the beginning of a golden era for quantum physics, many will be subdued at seeing the Standard Model being completely proven — of which the Higgs boson is the last component to be discovered — thereby disproving more exciting possibilities of exotic physics beyond known physics.
Ian O'Neill, you fail basic epistemology forever.
What's wrong with just good old fashioned GSR? They're less complicated, less expensive, and (compared to cheap EEG's) accurate and reliable.
I guess technically you can do less with than with a working EEG, but I've yet to see a usable and inexpensive home model. (Strange, as the average electronics hobbyist can build a less expensive and more reliable two-channel EEG in an afternoon.)
First reaction: How are people still denying this???
If I had to guess, it's probably a reaction to the ridiculous alarmist end-times rhetoric from the less competent believers.
For example, one user posted:
Second reaction: We are so screwed
Followed by some thinly-veiled xenophobia.
Can you blame them for wanting to distance themselves from that kind of crazy?
I know! I posted this as the obvious 2010 references were conspicuously absent.
(I should have waited as all it did was earn me a "redundant" mod! I suppose I could have replied out-of-context to the first post to push my comment closer to the top of the page -- that seems to be a popular strategy.)
Oh, Slashdot!
"All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landings there." -- A. C. Clarke
Apple (accidentally) did something that is not too far removed from an iWatch already with the 6th Gen iPod nano [wikipedia.org] which spawned a multitude of watch-strap accessories. If this rumoured iWatch is a more refined version of the 6th Gen iPod with a fusion of features from the devices the GP mentioned (hoping, hoping...) it would instantly get my interest.
Care to elaborate?
Especially if it came with a heart rate monitor as well and integrated wirelessly with an iPhone/iPad/Mac/PC.
If you want a good one, with a chest strap, I wouldn't hold my breath. That doesn't seem to be Apple's style. Even the cheaper strapless type (which don't work very well) doesn't seem likely given the extra cost for what is essentially a bullet-point feature.
Not every /. reader is a potato chip eating, diet coke guzzling couch-potato who sits in his parent's basement in Wyoming and hates Apple to kill time between LAN parties and Star-Trek conventions.
Okay. What's the point of all that? What does that have to do with Apple's rumored watch or their historically poor user interfaces?
Apple's UI? Palm Pilot style grid of icons? Outdated home button?
Maybe you mean multitouch? Yeah, that'll work great on a 1.5" display... How will use use Apple's very poorly designed suite of gestures? The laughably-bad four-finger swipe on a watch is going to take some impressive contortions! Will it come with sandpaper so users can file-down their fingers?
I'm just going to go ahead and guess that you haven't put much thought in to how the UI will actually work, but assumed that Apple would come up with something "magical" because of their (clearly undeserved) reputation when it comes to modern UI design.
Why not use something like Logo instead? It's very similar to Scheme, but much gentler. The simple interactive environment and the seemingly complex images you can create on day one gives students a sense of power and control that they just won't see with Scheme.
Still, I'd steer clear of any functional language for high-school kids. Structured languages are much easier to learn and use.
I can't make any specific recommendations as I don't think we have any good teaching languages these days. SmallBasic was a nice attempt, but falls a bit too short, even for a high-school course. Something like VB6 would be okay, but it seems silly to introduce it today. The problem seems to be this inexplicable trend toward unnecessary complexity in modern languages.
What was your point? That buying an overpriced and under-powered computer is better than buying a more powerful computer at a lower pirce?
Sounds stupid to me. I'm really sorry that that woman had only you to turn to for advice.
Oh, I didn't ignore your post. Did you mean to respond to someone else?
In other words, what you did wasn't "education", but mere sharing of experiences
Education is just systematic instruction (given by the teacher and received by the student).
To be educated requires that you have learned. To educate requires that you teach. This isn't exactly complicated.
So, what exactly are you babbling on about? Why post this ridiculous (and shamefully incoherent) rant? What did you hope to accomplish?
Programming is a skill with a rather unique requirement: the ability to quickly learn and retain lots of information.
How is that unique?
As for programming, the "quickly" part doesn't seem to apply.
The fact is that any idiot can learn to program all by themselves with little more than a few references and some spare time -- and go on to program professionally.
It's so easy, in fact, that the bulk of the users here taught themselves how to program before the age of 13. Back in the 80's, it was so common for kids between 9-13 to write computer programs as a hobby that there where countless children's books on the subject!
It looks like you know how ridiculously simple programming actual is, but just can't seem to fact the truth. Why else would you distinguish between "passable programmer" and "great programmer". (What a joke. Call me when you have an objective way to distinguish between the two.) It tells me that you *still* think that being able to write computer programs makes you special. You know that that isn't true, but you just have too much of your identity wrapped up in that fantasy to let it go!
For anyone else as confused by that as I was, apparently Lord of Light was not made in to a film. The script and set designs for a planned but never produced Lord of Light movie were used by the CIA in a wacky plan to rescue some hostages. The story of the CIA's crazy exploits involving the script was made in to an actual film, Argo, released in 2012.
It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world...
Agreed. My old BlackBerry 7290 had a great display. The matte finish made it virtually glare free, it was clearly visible without the backlight, even in a rather dimly lit room. Why can't we have modern displays with those same qualities?
African or European?
I don't know what to tell you, that's what I paid for it last December. Maybe you need to learn how to shop around?
the same bulky-ulgy-going-to-be-virus-ridden-and-god-awful-slow type of device
It's neither bulky (it's smaller than most laptops) nor slow, nor virus ridden.
The tablet, on the other hand, is slower, has less RAM, can't run common software, and requires an expensive keyboard add-on. In short, it has FAR less utility AND is more expensive!
The point remains, however, that $500 is more than enough to buy an excellent computer, portable or otherwise, for the "casual home user". The fact that you had trouble finding a computer adequate for her needs within that budget tells me one thing: you suck at buying computers. That you bought a tablet instead of a real computer for a woman who needed to replacement is just baffling.
Her budget wasn't high (around $500). She came to me for advice and I had an extraordinarily difficult time finding an affordable, light, and fast x86 device.
Wow, you must suck at buying computers.
$500 is more than enough for a great laptop for the "casual home user". Just an example, I picked up an Acer Aspire One 722 to replace my wife' work computer (She just needs internet, email, word, excel) 4GB of RAM, AMD C60 Deul-Core processor, 500GB hard drive -- for $230 dollars. (On Amazon, no less!) That's WAY more machine than the transformer -- and it's actually usable. For $500, I could have picked up an even better computer.
By buying the transformer, you paid more for less ... much less. I'm sorry that your friend listened to your crappy advice.
That misses the point, doesn't it?
I never suggested that you don't select a good candidate, the point was that with hundreds of resumes, it's unreasonable to carefully review all of them as I have other work that needs done.
As you well know, most of them will get tossed in the bin for superficial reasons -- no one has time to look for subtle clues in a crummy resume hoping to find a rough-cut diamond. Let's also not forget that this all happens long before you bring any one in to interview.
So, yes, hiring you is not my job. I have other work from which the hiring process distracts me.
Back to the topic: If you don't have a college education, you're getting binned. I have tons of (at least) equally experienced candidates with a formal education to choose from.
If experience has taught me anything, it's that autodidacts have an over-inflated sense of self importance and greatly overestimate their own skills, knowledge, and abilities. If I had to guess why, I'd say it's probably because they don't have a formal education! I've found that well-educated candidates tend to underestimate their competence, which is always a welcome surprise.
The parent's point still stands.