Where can you buy a decent RPN device today? Nowhere.
Well, nowhere except Amazon I guess. Or TigerDirect, or Best Buy, or whatever... I have one of these and it works great. I don't have cause to do a lot of number-crunching most days anymore, though, and the AAA batteries on it tend to run out even after I haven't been using it, so more often than not I end up using an HP48 emulator on my Android phone. I do like the real buttons on the standalone calculator, though, so if I had more cause to calculate I'd use that.
What I want to see is a real Web browser as a Metro app.
Errr, well you know, Windows 8 ships with a Metro flavor of IE 10, and with recent versions of Chrome you can opt to have that run as a Metro app, too. I think Firefox might still be working on it. But there doesn't seem to be anything stopping you from trying one of the others out and seeing how it works for you.
and how well will that work?? will they be desktop mode most of the time???
Probably. I know my Windows 8 machine is. It's basically just Windows 7, only it uses fewer resources. Don't believe the people who tell you the Start Screen is some kind of apocalypse. It's easy to ignore. I think it would be a dumb move for the military to sign a deal like this only to stick with Windows 7, actually.
I think that the options of him shooting up his fellow soldiers was a concern in Lamo's mind, if you read around.
For me, a big part of the problem is that this is Adrian Lamo, and he has always seemed like an attention-seeking narcissist, even before any of this Bradley Manning stuff came up. Don't you remember when he was "the homeless hacker," and he spent his days sponging off of online acquaintances, trashing websites, and telling his story to any reporter who came along? I just have a hard time believing that his decision to turn in Manning was motivated by anything other than his pathological need for attention.
Another part of the problem is that whatever the ethics of what Manning did, it should be clear to any rational person that his treatment by the military has been totally egregious, way beyond the pale of any logical mode of incarceration. The man was not arrested for any violent offense. He's not a rapist or a murderer (whether you think his disclosure of information indirectly cost lives is irrelevant here). After so many years locked in solitary confinement, just what do they think he could be smuggling under his ball sack that they have to strip search him and force him to sleep on the floor naked every single day? Do gang lords have to do that? Did Jeffrey Dahmer?
It's hard to have any sympathy for the government's position when their opening move in the affair was to strip Manning of his basic human rights -- not just civil, but human -- and announce that they planned to keep him that way indefinitely. How can any American justify that, given the circumstances?
Sure -- if Manning did something wrong, put him on trial and lock him up. In a prison. Like a criminal. But what kind of society are we if our government can choose when and where it feels like following our most basic moral principles? I think it's this that pisses most people off about the situation -- not that Manning is some kind of hero, which is clearly questionable.
You and I are geeks, we like flashing our phones. The vast majority do not care, nor will they ever care. I cannot make it any clearer than that.
But why bother saying something so obvious? You're acting like your statements somehow refute what other people are saying, when they don't.
Person: I am glad that I am able to flash my phone with a free OS. You: But not everybody thinks that way! Person: I don't really care what everybody thinks. I am glad that I am able to do it. You: But that won't change that the vast majority doesn't care! Person: I'm not trying to make them care. I care. You: It doesn't matter how much you whine, most people don't care! Person: I don't think I'm whining. I'm just stating a preference. You: How can I explain this to you? Most people don't flash their phones! Person: I think we're clear on that. You: You're an idiot! They don't care!
You know what? Just because you, I and a hundred other nerds do care does not mean that the millions who buy fucking phones from their operator do, and no matter of sanctimonious whining on slashdot by you will change that.
What. Is. Your. Point? You keep posting over and over and you're not saying anything.
You have all the evidence in the world, you just need to stop blindfolding yourself. Women are responsible for very little creation of about anything in this world, no matter which time span, location or field or you decide to analyze. Sure, there are exceptions, as in everything, but as a rule women are consumers, not creators.
You may be right that women don't create anything, with the possible exception of every single human being currently sucking air on planet Earth.
The whole system seems to be on the ropes and is crumbling. Nobody believes in it anymore, it's like the Soviet-Union in the mid-80s. Let's wait and see what comes afterwards.
With the obvious distinction that in the Soviet Union, Slashdot waited to see what came after YOU!
Well, whether your theatre needed to change reels or not, it doesn't change the fact that Gandhi included an intermission, and every theatre was expected to respect it.
I remember watching Ghandi in the theaters in 1982, and it had an intermission because it was too large for a single reel, so there was 10 minutes while they changed the reel.
I think you're remembering incorrectly. I highly doubt you saw Gandhi projected from a single reel in 1982, because single-reel systems weren't common then. Most theaters projected movies by trading off reels between two different projectors, with each reel lasting around 20 minutes. The reason your theater paused for intermission in Gandhi is because there is an intermission in the film, as the director wished. It says "Intermission" right there on the screen. See? I believe Gandhi was in fact one of the last mainstream movies to include an intermission.
What, changing a few lines of dialogue to make the transition from book to screen easier? That's gutting?
Maybe not, but adding endless scenes of pointless expository dialogue makes for a much lousier movie than fans of the book should expect to see.
Adding some scenes that tell the backstory of the Oakenshields? That's gutting?
Maybe "gutting" is the wrong word (and I am not the OP), but if the backstory was never part of The Hobbit and the version Peter Jackson tells in the movie is inconsistent with what Tolkien wrote, then why does it need to be there at all? All of Jackson's pointless additions -- such as all of the silliness with Radagast -- made the movie seem more like Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings: The Series than like a serious adaptation of The Hobbit.
The only element that was out of place was having Azog gallavant all over the place chasing Thorin, but still, the basic conflict is entirely consistent [wikia.com] with canon.
Maybe except for the part that in "canon" (hate that word, seems so fanboyish) Azog is already long dead when the events of The Hobbit begin -- as it says in your own link -- so all of the "characterization" Jackson tried to do with Azog was (again, for fans of Tolkien's work) complete B.S. and utterly unnecessary to the telling of the story.
And if you've read all the various versions of Tolkien's tales like Turin and Beren&Luthien published in books like Lost Tales I and II, then you know that Tolkien himself "gutted" his stories far more than Jackson & Co. did.
That's fine; he's entitled. I like and respect Tolkien as a writer. I can't say the same of Peter Jackson, so why I had to be subjected to a version of The Hobbit as written by Peter Jackson instead of as written by Tolkien is beyond me.
If it was shorter you would be bitching about all the things he skipped.
Historically, every adaptation of The Hobbit I've ever seen/heard/read has skipped something. None of them has added as much pointless claptrap as Jackson's. I'd say only about 1/3 of the material in the movie had anything to do with what Tolkien actually wrote.
This does NOT apply one bit to citizens having a go at one another, and if it can be shows that it's truly smear and there's nothing tangible to the accusations, then it can most definitely be treated as libelous and freedom of speech is irrelevant here. You can't just say whatever you like without there being consequences, particularly if you lie.
Yeah, but apparently you can go to someone's funeral and shout "God Hates Fags" and tell all the deceased's relatives that he's burning in Hell, and if they escort you off the premises you can sue them for violating your free speech. So I suspect speech in America is a little freer than you believe it to be.
There are a thousand other things wrong with Linux right now and nobody seems interested in fixing them (yes, I'm doing my part, but I only have so much free time to spend fixing random issues and maintaining my own packages). No, instead, we're going to dump all our time and effort into making a device that was NEVER DESIGNED TO RUN LINUX, well, run Linux.
I'll bite. Exactly how many systems have been designed to run Linux?
It's sort of like that flap a while back about how "Intel's new Atom chips won't support Linux." No processor has ever supported Linux. Linux supports processors, not the other way around. And by extension, Linux supports whole systems. Some systems are easier to support than others.
There are two ways, though, that blacks are being arrested more while committing fewer crimes:
1. The legal system is explicitly racist and arresting / putting them in prison more often.
2. White criminals are significantly more competent at avoiding prison than black criminals.
How about:
3. It is easier for whites to get high-paying jobs in the US than for blacks to get the same jobs (for various reasons, not all having to do with racism), and therefore whites are more likely to have a higher economic status than blacks, and therefore they can afford better lawyers and therefore are far less likely to go to prison than blacks.
Actually, I think there is a lot more going on here than your two suggested reasons.
they're selling the idea that legos are something you can put your money into and get profit a year later from, further "And that's not an anomaly. Lego bricks, have become lucrative investments due to a confluence of bullish factors. Driving the market is the strong underlying demand for Lego bricks and sets. The toys are craved by older consumers, who now have their own money to spent on the sets rather than waiting for a birthday gift. "
I hope Lego hasn't caught onto this yet. This attitude is one of the things that ruined comic books in the 90s. Publishers actually started creating comics as investment vehicles. Instead of putting an interesting story into a character's regular book, they would come up with a gimmick storyline and concoct some way to make it a #1 issue. Then they would print six different versions of #1 with a different cover on each. Some of the covers would be rarer than others. The main difference would be that they were stamped with holographic foil or some other printing gimmick -- or even more often, the variant covers were drawn by artists who were way more popular than the one who actually drew the story.
The problem with all of this, naturally, is that it meant these #1 issues were printed in massive supply. In many cases, owing to all the variant versions, there were far more of them printed than there was actual demand. Because, after all, there was a relatively small window to convince collectors to buy any particular #1 issue, given that there would be five more coming out the following month. Not surprisingly, before the end of the 90s the market had pretty much collapsed.
I remember standing in a comic book store around 1998 and a guy called up wanting to sell his comic book collection. He began rattling off all of the "interesting" and "collectible" comics in his set. The store owner cut him off. "Yeah... yeah," he said, "Tell me this: What do they weigh? I'll give you a buck a pound for them."
It was a bit of a shock to read that after working with Jack to come up with the character of Galactus, the planet eating superfoe, and deciding what needed to be drawn on the pages, that Jack had, of his own volition and invention, introduced the "required" herald for the big guy, a character we've come to know as Silver Surfer. Stan, you are a force of nature
Wait... so you were so shocked to hear how much Kirby contributed, and that he invented the Silver Surfer from whole cloth, that you turned around and gave the credit back to Lee? Insert here that Warner Bros cartoon rapid head-shaking sound that reads like, "Ay-yuh-yi-yuh-yi-yuh-yay-yuh-ai-yuh..."
While much of Harlem is white, the crime statistics for the U.S. don't paint a good picture for blacks.
What do you mean by "crime statistics"? Perhaps you mean arrest statistics? Or incarceration statistics? Because such statistics don't necessarily indicate that blacks commit more crimes, only that we tend to arrest them and lock them up more often.
You are defending this as being intuitive to the new user?
Interesting point. Observe that for Windows 8 Microsoft is only selling an upgrade package through the retail channel. You need to jump through hoops to get a clean-install version (or at least buy new hardware). It seems that Microsoft's argument is that there is no such thing as a new user.
Slashdot Mirror
Where can you buy a decent RPN device today? Nowhere.
Well, nowhere except Amazon I guess. Or TigerDirect, or Best Buy, or whatever ... I have one of these and it works great. I don't have cause to do a lot of number-crunching most days anymore, though, and the AAA batteries on it tend to run out even after I haven't been using it, so more often than not I end up using an HP48 emulator on my Android phone. I do like the real buttons on the standalone calculator, though, so if I had more cause to calculate I'd use that.
Lamo can't write a coherent message to save his life.
If you liked the Q&A interview, don't forget to read his lengthy, rambling, and confusing essay about it!
What I want to see is a real Web browser as a Metro app.
Errr, well you know, Windows 8 ships with a Metro flavor of IE 10, and with recent versions of Chrome you can opt to have that run as a Metro app, too. I think Firefox might still be working on it. But there doesn't seem to be anything stopping you from trying one of the others out and seeing how it works for you.
and how well will that work?? will they be desktop mode most of the time???
Probably. I know my Windows 8 machine is. It's basically just Windows 7, only it uses fewer resources. Don't believe the people who tell you the Start Screen is some kind of apocalypse. It's easy to ignore. I think it would be a dumb move for the military to sign a deal like this only to stick with Windows 7, actually.
I think that the options of him shooting up his fellow soldiers was a concern in Lamo's mind, if you read around.
For me, a big part of the problem is that this is Adrian Lamo, and he has always seemed like an attention-seeking narcissist, even before any of this Bradley Manning stuff came up. Don't you remember when he was "the homeless hacker," and he spent his days sponging off of online acquaintances, trashing websites, and telling his story to any reporter who came along? I just have a hard time believing that his decision to turn in Manning was motivated by anything other than his pathological need for attention.
Another part of the problem is that whatever the ethics of what Manning did, it should be clear to any rational person that his treatment by the military has been totally egregious, way beyond the pale of any logical mode of incarceration. The man was not arrested for any violent offense. He's not a rapist or a murderer (whether you think his disclosure of information indirectly cost lives is irrelevant here). After so many years locked in solitary confinement, just what do they think he could be smuggling under his ball sack that they have to strip search him and force him to sleep on the floor naked every single day? Do gang lords have to do that? Did Jeffrey Dahmer?
It's hard to have any sympathy for the government's position when their opening move in the affair was to strip Manning of his basic human rights -- not just civil, but human -- and announce that they planned to keep him that way indefinitely. How can any American justify that, given the circumstances?
Sure -- if Manning did something wrong, put him on trial and lock him up. In a prison. Like a criminal. But what kind of society are we if our government can choose when and where it feels like following our most basic moral principles? I think it's this that pisses most people off about the situation -- not that Manning is some kind of hero, which is clearly questionable.
You and I are geeks, we like flashing our phones. The vast majority do not care, nor will they ever care. I cannot make it any clearer than that.
But why bother saying something so obvious? You're acting like your statements somehow refute what other people are saying, when they don't.
Person: I am glad that I am able to flash my phone with a free OS.
You: But not everybody thinks that way!
Person: I don't really care what everybody thinks. I am glad that I am able to do it.
You: But that won't change that the vast majority doesn't care!
Person: I'm not trying to make them care. I care.
You: It doesn't matter how much you whine, most people don't care!
Person: I don't think I'm whining. I'm just stating a preference.
You: How can I explain this to you? Most people don't flash their phones!
Person: I think we're clear on that.
You: You're an idiot! They don't care!
...etc.
You know what? Just because you, I and a hundred other nerds do care does not mean that the millions who buy fucking phones from their operator do, and no matter of sanctimonious whining on slashdot by you will change that.
What. Is. Your. Point? You keep posting over and over and you're not saying anything.
You have all the evidence in the world, you just need to stop blindfolding yourself. Women are responsible for very little creation of about anything in this world, no matter which time span, location or field or you decide to analyze. Sure, there are exceptions, as in everything, but as a rule women are consumers, not creators.
You may be right that women don't create anything, with the possible exception of every single human being currently sucking air on planet Earth.
The whole system seems to be on the ropes and is crumbling. Nobody believes in it anymore, it's like the Soviet-Union in the mid-80s. Let's wait and see what comes afterwards.
With the obvious distinction that in the Soviet Union, Slashdot waited to see what came after YOU!
Well, whether your theatre needed to change reels or not, it doesn't change the fact that Gandhi included an intermission, and every theatre was expected to respect it.
I remember watching Ghandi in the theaters in 1982, and it had an intermission because it was too large for a single reel, so there was 10 minutes while they changed the reel.
I think you're remembering incorrectly. I highly doubt you saw Gandhi projected from a single reel in 1982, because single-reel systems weren't common then. Most theaters projected movies by trading off reels between two different projectors, with each reel lasting around 20 minutes. The reason your theater paused for intermission in Gandhi is because there is an intermission in the film, as the director wished. It says "Intermission" right there on the screen. See? I believe Gandhi was in fact one of the last mainstream movies to include an intermission.
Skyfall was 2:23 and at most there might have been 5 minutes I might have cut.
Well, that's you. I'm afraid I disagree on that one. I felt a lot of it dragged.
What, changing a few lines of dialogue to make the transition from book to screen easier? That's gutting?
Maybe not, but adding endless scenes of pointless expository dialogue makes for a much lousier movie than fans of the book should expect to see.
Adding some scenes that tell the backstory of the Oakenshields? That's gutting?
Maybe "gutting" is the wrong word (and I am not the OP), but if the backstory was never part of The Hobbit and the version Peter Jackson tells in the movie is inconsistent with what Tolkien wrote, then why does it need to be there at all? All of Jackson's pointless additions -- such as all of the silliness with Radagast -- made the movie seem more like Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings: The Series than like a serious adaptation of The Hobbit.
The only element that was out of place was having Azog gallavant all over the place chasing Thorin, but still, the basic conflict is entirely consistent [wikia.com] with canon.
Maybe except for the part that in "canon" (hate that word, seems so fanboyish) Azog is already long dead when the events of The Hobbit begin -- as it says in your own link -- so all of the "characterization" Jackson tried to do with Azog was (again, for fans of Tolkien's work) complete B.S. and utterly unnecessary to the telling of the story.
And if you've read all the various versions of Tolkien's tales like Turin and Beren&Luthien published in books like Lost Tales I and II, then you know that Tolkien himself "gutted" his stories far more than Jackson & Co. did.
That's fine; he's entitled. I like and respect Tolkien as a writer. I can't say the same of Peter Jackson, so why I had to be subjected to a version of The Hobbit as written by Peter Jackson instead of as written by Tolkien is beyond me.
If it was shorter you would be bitching about all the things he skipped.
Historically, every adaptation of The Hobbit I've ever seen/heard/read has skipped something. None of them has added as much pointless claptrap as Jackson's. I'd say only about 1/3 of the material in the movie had anything to do with what Tolkien actually wrote.
Not everybody is a video/audiophile. They just want the latest stuff.
Considering how often I see TVs configured at the wrong aspect ratio, I'd say a good majority of the world feels this way.
This does NOT apply one bit to citizens having a go at one another, and if it can be shows that it's truly smear and there's nothing tangible to the accusations, then it can most definitely be treated as libelous and freedom of speech is irrelevant here. You can't just say whatever you like without there being consequences, particularly if you lie.
Yeah, but apparently you can go to someone's funeral and shout "God Hates Fags" and tell all the deceased's relatives that he's burning in Hell, and if they escort you off the premises you can sue them for violating your free speech. So I suspect speech in America is a little freer than you believe it to be.
There are a thousand other things wrong with Linux right now and nobody seems interested in fixing them (yes, I'm doing my part, but I only have so much free time to spend fixing random issues and maintaining my own packages). No, instead, we're going to dump all our time and effort into making a device that was NEVER DESIGNED TO RUN LINUX, well, run Linux.
I'll bite. Exactly how many systems have been designed to run Linux?
It's sort of like that flap a while back about how "Intel's new Atom chips won't support Linux." No processor has ever supported Linux. Linux supports processors, not the other way around. And by extension, Linux supports whole systems. Some systems are easier to support than others.
There are two ways, though, that blacks are being arrested more while committing fewer crimes:
1. The legal system is explicitly racist and arresting / putting them in prison more often.
2. White criminals are significantly more competent at avoiding prison than black criminals.
How about:
3. It is easier for whites to get high-paying jobs in the US than for blacks to get the same jobs (for various reasons, not all having to do with racism), and therefore whites are more likely to have a higher economic status than blacks, and therefore they can afford better lawyers and therefore are far less likely to go to prison than blacks.
Actually, I think there is a lot more going on here than your two suggested reasons.
I want to say FIVE words to you. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Pogs. Think about that.
they're selling the idea that legos are something you can put your money into and get profit a year later from, further "And that's not an anomaly. Lego bricks, have become lucrative investments due to a confluence of bullish factors. Driving the market is the strong underlying demand for Lego bricks and sets. The toys are craved by older consumers, who now have their own money to spent on the sets rather than waiting for a birthday gift. "
I hope Lego hasn't caught onto this yet. This attitude is one of the things that ruined comic books in the 90s. Publishers actually started creating comics as investment vehicles. Instead of putting an interesting story into a character's regular book, they would come up with a gimmick storyline and concoct some way to make it a #1 issue. Then they would print six different versions of #1 with a different cover on each. Some of the covers would be rarer than others. The main difference would be that they were stamped with holographic foil or some other printing gimmick -- or even more often, the variant covers were drawn by artists who were way more popular than the one who actually drew the story.
The problem with all of this, naturally, is that it meant these #1 issues were printed in massive supply. In many cases, owing to all the variant versions, there were far more of them printed than there was actual demand. Because, after all, there was a relatively small window to convince collectors to buy any particular #1 issue, given that there would be five more coming out the following month. Not surprisingly, before the end of the 90s the market had pretty much collapsed.
I remember standing in a comic book store around 1998 and a guy called up wanting to sell his comic book collection. He began rattling off all of the "interesting" and "collectible" comics in his set. The store owner cut him off. "Yeah ... yeah," he said, "Tell me this: What do they weigh? I'll give you a buck a pound for them."
It was a bit of a shock to read that after working with Jack to come up with the character of Galactus, the planet eating superfoe, and deciding what needed to be drawn on the pages, that Jack had, of his own volition and invention, introduced the "required" herald for the big guy, a character we've come to know as Silver Surfer. Stan, you are a force of nature
Wait ... so you were so shocked to hear how much Kirby contributed, and that he invented the Silver Surfer from whole cloth, that you turned around and gave the credit back to Lee? Insert here that Warner Bros cartoon rapid head-shaking sound that reads like, "Ay-yuh-yi-yuh-yi-yuh-yay-yuh-ai-yuh..."
While much of Harlem is white, the crime statistics for the U.S. don't paint a good picture for blacks.
What do you mean by "crime statistics"? Perhaps you mean arrest statistics? Or incarceration statistics? Because such statistics don't necessarily indicate that blacks commit more crimes, only that we tend to arrest them and lock them up more often.
You are defending this as being intuitive to the new user?
Interesting point. Observe that for Windows 8 Microsoft is only selling an upgrade package through the retail channel. You need to jump through hoops to get a clean-install version (or at least buy new hardware). It seems that Microsoft's argument is that there is no such thing as a new user.
KDE is probably the best option for anyone using mouse and keyboard.
And every time I fire up a KDE machine I'm like, "Hey-heyyy! Welcome to 1998!"
But the UI is basically exactly the same as it was in Windows 7. Everything pretty much works the same.