My wife has an Android. I have an iPhone. Comparing hers to mine is like comparing Windows 95 to Windows 7. Sure they both do email, messaging, web surfing, have apps, and basically do all the same tasks that most people do day in and day out. One is a pleasure to use. The other is annoying and sometimes frustrating. Using an iPhone makes me smile. And I'm a lifelong Microsoft junkie (I tried rehab several times). Never having been an Apple fanboy (I don't even like Mac OS a little bit), I'm now a total iPhone fanboy. It's elegant, ergonomic, pleasant, and intuitive. Android tries to come close, but it doesn't. Every time I pick up a new Android device I think surely this one will impress me. Nope. It's only impressive if you've never used an iPhone long enough to appreciate it.
I see people switching to iPhone from Android with some frequency, but I've never seen anyone go the other way _and like it_. If Apple can get the price down a bit, they'll "win" for a long time to come. Android has the many handset makers going for it. It'll continue to do well. There are still a ton of people (90+% last I read) that have yet to upgrade to a smartphone. Android might remain more popular. But Hyundai's are more popular than BMW's. Nobody pits them against each other. That would be silly.
I'll add, that I don't like Apple's locked down approach very much, or it's lack of basic features out of the box, like wifi tethering or just plain moving some damn files around without syncing with iTunes. But most people don't care about those things, and those that do are just the type of people to click here, and have their cake and eat it too.
Interesting that travel dropped right about the time we really geared up the subsidized food burning.
Funny how historically high food prices and pitiful job and income growth can really dampen a decade. That's without mentioning gas prices. "Peak Travel" you say?? Whoever came up with this Peak Travel idea must live in vacuum.
The Peace Prize was given to "Obama" for getting elected. The USA electing a black opposition President in the time of Bush is a historical accomplishment; the Peace Prize is yours too if you voted for him. It was like awarding the US the Peace Prize.
I see where you're coming from, but I view the Peace Prize as something really grand. Something that deserves to be capitalized. So grand, that since it was awarded to Obama, when it was awarded, then that must mean it was intended for all of us who voted for him. I think we should accept it that way.
It's not like we have to worry about whose offspring is whose these days. At least not if you hang out with responsible intelligent adults. So what's the deal with wanting to OWN your spouse's body?
Sure, monogamy is great for awhile. But when you've been married 15 years and plan on staying married forever, and always coming home to the other, why not give each other the freedom to have some fun? Are you really that jealous and insecure?
This is a cool proof of concept and neat little hack. But sound really isn't the best way to do high speed photography. Look at the balloon in the video, you see the end of the action. I think ideally we want to see the moment the pin pricks it. Same with the glass, we want to see the hammer smashing it, not the moment after when the pieces are falling.
Simpler, if you don't like hacking your firmware, with high end flash heads you can simply use high speed sync mode and shoot around 8 fps at up 1/8000th of a second. Experimenting with wide apertures and higher (but still perfectly good)ISOs you can do pretty amazing things. Especially with the latest off-the-shelf radio strobe controls. You might have to work a little to catch the absolute perfect moment, but that's usually not hard with the right setup. TFA is a neat hack, but probably not the best nor the most direct route to great high speed photography.
Only if the train has lots of cars with lots of people.
The key to efficient rail travel is power from the rail (not a locomotive engine), and lots of little cars traveling on their own. That way, you just whiz by all the stops that aren't yours. Granted, you need some bypass rail at each stop, but that's not hard.
Great stuff. A lot of it sounds so familiar. My wife and I totaled 2 cars in 2 years. Within 5 miles of our house. Both times a huge buck literally just landed on the hood. Like it just started raining bucks from the sky. I've dodged or driven within 5 feet of a deer 4 times in the last month. But there are schools and parks around here. No hunting. 5 or 6 wolves would be perfect. Even if they ate 2 toddlers over the years it would be far less then the number killed by deer.
This is actually great. I sincerely wish Pennsylvania would culture a few nice wolf populations to control the deer. I'm tired of dodging them with my car.
Even this needs work, as it can be read different ways.
We humans think we are the most adaptable, because we can survive in any climate. The smartest of the great white sharks think that they are the most adaptable, because for so very long their species has been adapting so perfectly to it's environment. Or how about apples? Apples have survived and prospered around the globe. A minuscule portion of the apple genome managed to attract a "carrier" * and "propagator" species. Now most of the variation in the apple genome is lost. But a bit of the apple genome is everywhere and will probably survive a long time. **
Which is the "most adaptable" ?
It seems the correct phrase and concept is "Survival of the fittest." Because in different cases, species become fit via different "strategies" of adaptation. You could say that humans are the most immediately adaptable, sharks are the most adapted, and apples and those frogs that swallow eggs and puke up froglings are just "really damn cleverly" adapted.
*A real biologist could replace my quotations with a more correct, non-anthropomorphic alternative. **Even with a shrunken gene pool and mono-culture problems. Apples have become very important to the right species.
As customers we've spent billions of dollars on 3G. Can we get network reliability and availability please? If we can have that I don't care how many G's it is or much faster it is. Get maps to download quick enough in the places where we actually need the maps and we'll really have something to get excited about.
The problem with living "out in the boonies" pops up when it's time to send your kids to the local boonie public school. Or else cough up a lot of cash and deal with serious transportation issues.
I'm sorry if that sounds bigoted, the raw truth of things, whether we like it or not, isn't always politically correct. I'm sure there are plenty of nice exceptions but I don't think "the hinterlands" are known for their great schools. As well, it's not just academics that matter.
Cable boxes aren't just behind, their development (at whatever pace) is lopsided. My cable box from Verizon Fios:
-Can suggest programs based on what I've watched. But it can't cache the channel line-up and programming info, so there's an incredibly irritating pause every time you click the remote.
-Can play video games from 1994, but it can't make the remote emit a sound so I can find it in the cushions. We've needed this feature for decades, but instead we get a gutted hole that used to be HDMI out or USB port (who knows?).
-Can deliver a huge variety of content from a fiber optic network, but charges huge fees for MA and XXX content that is far worse than what can be found on the internet for free, in 3 clicks. Seriously who has FIOS and orders that junk? Same with Comcast. It's rotgut moonshine at single malt-reserve prices. I expect porn to be ahead of the development curve, not bringing up the saggy rear.
When ISP's are a finally made a utility managed and controlled by The People for The People, just like roads, and sewege, then we can boot proven violators through an approved process.
But as long as ISP's are corporations who provide "the pipes" and are basically required by law at this point to steer content toward "maximum shareholder value" they need to keep their damn noses out my traffic. Period. They are the Gatekeepers. Their interests do not align with mine.
Ethics aside, wouldn't it be easier to genetically modify humans to live in a wider variety of environments
No. Sure you could genetically engineer people to need slightly different percentage of oxygen, or to tolerate a little methane in an otherwise earthly atmosphere. But there is NO genetic engineering that could, within 100 lifetimes, allow people to live on Neptune. That is, without modifying Neptune.
Think of it this way, you can change one really big thing over time (a planet), or you can change one small line of really complex genetics over time for certain people to live on an unchanged planet. Which is more complex? Developing a "human" that can thrive breathing ammonia or sucking all the ammonia off planet and greenhousing the thing for a few generations? Both are technologically beyond our grasp at this point. But the question is, which idea is more complex to implement?
Keith knows about WANs and VLANs and VPNs. My guess is this is just Keith's way of campaigning for a 200 million dollar budget so he can go on a serious shopping spree.
Also, having direct control and access to all the information that will be on it. "Come on in banks and military suppliers, Telecoms, and Energy companies, etc., sure there's room for you on the Homeland Network!!"
My tin foil hat doesn't warp my brain. "Killing the open internet" isn't the goal of this public statement or this proposal. Growing his budget and expanding the scope of Homeland Security, certainly.
Do we still teach the dangers of Fascism in school these days? My tinfoil hat does compel me to include this Wikipedia quote"Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy."
Think how much easier it could be to share information without getting caught.
Slashdot Mirror
My wife has an Android. I have an iPhone. Comparing hers to mine is like comparing Windows 95 to Windows 7. Sure they both do email, messaging, web surfing, have apps, and basically do all the same tasks that most people do day in and day out. One is a pleasure to use. The other is annoying and sometimes frustrating. Using an iPhone makes me smile. And I'm a lifelong Microsoft junkie (I tried rehab several times). Never having been an Apple fanboy (I don't even like Mac OS a little bit), I'm now a total iPhone fanboy. It's elegant, ergonomic, pleasant, and intuitive. Android tries to come close, but it doesn't. Every time I pick up a new Android device I think surely this one will impress me. Nope. It's only impressive if you've never used an iPhone long enough to appreciate it.
I see people switching to iPhone from Android with some frequency, but I've never seen anyone go the other way _and like it_. If Apple can get the price down a bit, they'll "win" for a long time to come. Android has the many handset makers going for it. It'll continue to do well. There are still a ton of people (90+% last I read) that have yet to upgrade to a smartphone. Android might remain more popular. But Hyundai's are more popular than BMW's. Nobody pits them against each other. That would be silly.
I'll add, that I don't like Apple's locked down approach very much, or it's lack of basic features out of the box, like wifi tethering or just plain moving some damn files around without syncing with iTunes. But most people don't care about those things, and those that do are just the type of people to click here, and have their cake and eat it too.
Interesting that travel dropped right about the time we really geared up the subsidized food burning.
Funny how historically high food prices and pitiful job and income growth can really dampen a decade. That's without mentioning gas prices. "Peak Travel" you say?? Whoever came up with this Peak Travel idea must live in vacuum.
The Peace Prize was given to "Obama" for getting elected.
The USA electing a black opposition President in the time of Bush is a historical accomplishment;
the Peace Prize is yours too if you voted for him. It was like awarding the US the Peace Prize.
I see where you're coming from, but I view the Peace Prize as something really grand. Something that deserves to be capitalized.
So grand, that since it was awarded to Obama, when it was awarded, then that must mean it was intended for all of us who voted for him.
I think we should accept it that way.
What he's done since...
It's not cheating if you have permission.
It's not like we have to worry about whose offspring is whose these days. At least not if you hang out with responsible intelligent adults. So what's the deal with wanting to OWN your spouse's body?
Sure, monogamy is great for awhile. But when you've been married 15 years and plan on staying married forever, and always coming home to the other, why not give each other the freedom to have some fun?
Are you really that jealous and insecure?
This is a cool proof of concept and neat little hack. But sound really isn't the best way to do high speed photography.
Look at the balloon in the video, you see the end of the action. I think ideally we want to see the moment the pin pricks it. Same with the glass, we want to see the hammer smashing it, not the moment after when the pieces are falling.
The CHDK has been around for awhile and can produce flash sync at least up to 1/60,000th of second on some pretty cheap cameras.
Simpler, if you don't like hacking your firmware, with high end flash heads you can simply use high speed sync mode and shoot around 8 fps at up 1/8000th of a second. Experimenting with wide apertures and higher (but still perfectly good)ISOs you can do pretty amazing things. Especially with the latest off-the-shelf radio strobe controls. You might have to work a little to catch the absolute perfect moment, but that's usually not hard with the right setup. TFA is a neat hack, but probably not the best nor the most direct route to great high speed photography.
most of them ["the greens"] apparently think that power magically comes out of the wall-socket, with no need for nasty things like power plants.
Not most. Not by a long shot I'm sure. Just the loudest nuttiest ones who make the news.
Only if the train has lots of cars with lots of people.
The key to efficient rail travel is power from the rail (not a locomotive engine), and lots of little cars traveling on their own. That way, you just whiz by all the stops that aren't yours. Granted, you need some bypass rail at each stop, but that's not hard.
It's kind of like viruses, security patches, and OS updates.
If you haven't taken care of those things, stfu until you do.
Exactly.
Great stuff. A lot of it sounds so familiar. My wife and I totaled 2 cars in 2 years. Within 5 miles of our house. Both times a huge buck literally just landed on the hood. Like it just started raining bucks from the sky. I've dodged or driven within 5 feet of a deer 4 times in the last month. But there are schools and parks around here. No hunting. 5 or 6 wolves would be perfect. Even if they ate 2 toddlers over the years it would be far less then the number killed by deer.
This is actually great. I sincerely wish Pennsylvania would culture a few nice wolf populations to control the deer. I'm tired of dodging them with my car.
This a great way to capture footage of somebody in a ski mask smashing your camera.
The only "security" this provides is the secure feeling of looking at your stuff so you can sigh with relief that you haven't been robbed yet.
A more thorough article (with better grammar) is available at BBC News.
The truth hurts. But it needs to be addressed.
It wasn't really the accident that killed her. It was her age.
It's a good idea, and a fucking bummer that Apple is the only company doing it.
Also, in a very big and comprehensive way, Google.
> "Survival of the most adaptable"
Even this needs work, as it can be read different ways.
We humans think we are the most adaptable, because we can survive in any climate.
The smartest of the great white sharks think that they are the most adaptable, because for so very long their species has been adapting so perfectly to it's environment.
Or how about apples? Apples have survived and prospered around the globe. A minuscule portion of the apple genome managed to attract a "carrier" * and "propagator" species. Now most of the variation in the apple genome is lost. But a bit of the apple genome is everywhere and will probably survive a long time. **
Which is the "most adaptable" ?
It seems the correct phrase and concept is "Survival of the fittest." Because in different cases, species become fit via different "strategies" of adaptation. You could say that humans are the most immediately adaptable, sharks are the most adapted, and apples and those frogs that swallow eggs and puke up froglings are just "really damn cleverly" adapted.
*A real biologist could replace my quotations with a more correct, non-anthropomorphic alternative.
**Even with a shrunken gene pool and mono-culture problems. Apples have become very important to the right species.
As customers we've spent billions of dollars on 3G. Can we get network reliability and availability please? If we can have that I don't care how many G's it is or much faster it is.
Get maps to download quick enough in the places where we actually need the maps and we'll really have something to get excited about.
The problem with living "out in the boonies" pops up when it's time to send your kids to the local boonie public school.
Or else cough up a lot of cash and deal with serious transportation issues.
I'm sorry if that sounds bigoted, the raw truth of things, whether we like it or not, isn't always politically correct.
I'm sure there are plenty of nice exceptions but I don't think "the hinterlands" are known for their great schools. As well, it's not just academics that matter.
Cable boxes aren't just behind, their development (at whatever pace) is lopsided. My cable box from Verizon Fios:
-Can suggest programs based on what I've watched. But it can't cache the channel line-up and programming info, so there's an incredibly irritating pause every time you click the remote.
-Can play video games from 1994, but it can't make the remote emit a sound so I can find it in the cushions. We've needed this feature for decades, but instead we get a gutted hole that used to be HDMI out or USB port (who knows?).
-Can deliver a huge variety of content from a fiber optic network, but charges huge fees for MA and XXX content that is far worse than what can be found on the internet for free, in 3 clicks. Seriously who has FIOS and orders that junk? Same with Comcast. It's rotgut moonshine at single malt-reserve prices. I expect porn to be ahead of the development curve, not bringing up the saggy rear.
> I'm not a fan of the ACLU very often, but I'm cheering for them on this one.
You've nicely summed up the essence of the ACLU.
"I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -attributed to Voltaire,
I don't like all these "skinny" monitors. 16:10 is the sweet spot. The little black bars present when watching 16:9 movies is irrelevant.
Can anyone explain why we need shorter and wider than 16:10?
When ISP's are a finally made a utility managed and controlled by The People for The People, just like roads, and sewege, then we can boot proven violators through an approved process.
But as long as ISP's are corporations who provide "the pipes" and are basically required by law at this point to steer content toward "maximum shareholder value" they need to keep their damn noses out my traffic. Period. They are the Gatekeepers. Their interests do not align with mine.
Ethics aside, wouldn't it be easier to genetically modify humans to live in a wider variety of environments
No. Sure you could genetically engineer people to need slightly different percentage of oxygen, or to tolerate a little methane in an otherwise earthly atmosphere. But there is NO genetic engineering that could, within 100 lifetimes, allow people to live on Neptune. That is, without modifying Neptune.
Think of it this way, you can change one really big thing over time (a planet), or you can change one small line of really complex genetics over time for certain people to live on an unchanged planet. Which is more complex? Developing a "human" that can thrive breathing ammonia or sucking all the ammonia off planet and greenhousing the thing for a few generations? Both are technologically beyond our grasp at this point. But the question is, which idea is more complex to implement?
Shocking!! They had to do a study to find out men prefer young looking women?!?
There is a reason Steely Dan doesn't sing a song titled "Hey 39".
There are also plenty of good biological and evolutionary reasons for this.
Keith knows about WANs and VLANs and VPNs. My guess is this is just Keith's way of campaigning for a 200 million dollar budget so he can go on a serious shopping spree.
Also, having direct control and access to all the information that will be on it. "Come on in banks and military suppliers, Telecoms, and Energy companies, etc., sure there's room for you on the Homeland Network!!"
My tin foil hat doesn't warp my brain. "Killing the open internet" isn't the goal of this public statement or this proposal. Growing his budget and expanding the scope of Homeland Security, certainly.
Do we still teach the dangers of Fascism in school these days? My tinfoil hat does compel me to include this Wikipedia quote "Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy."
Think how much easier it could be to share information without getting caught.