...to the mac store, it's not going to matter. Once they do that I'll personally have 1 more reason never to buy another Apple product.
iPad and iPhone and iPod apps are cheap because they are small and lame, not because they're sold on the app store. If anything they'd be cheaper if sold in a less restricted market place.
That makes it an un-swimming-pool aka a de-swimming-pool. When you jump in you find time reverse for a moment and you unjump right back out again. Very devious!
"likening the result to the 4th of July"
Lots of people who don't really care about the result run around with beers screaming woooooo! and lighting fireworks.
"someone attempted to 'double-delete' the computer's browsing history"
You know how sometimes it takes ages for the delete dialog to come up so you hit delete a second time. There you go, double delete! Though in practice the more advanced double plus good delete is used more often these days.
I guess if I knew who the hell "Mark Jensen" was it might make more sense. Better run out and read some tabloids.
However I am somewhat surprised that astronomers have not devised automatic algorithms to scan the data and look for signals like this. That's what we do with all our peta-bytes of particle physics data.
It's hard to correlate existing data from various sources though because he instruments are so different in terms of data capture format, require calibration etc. That's not to say that it can't be done better, but I think you need to actually educate yourself about fields other than your own before you comment on them.
Given the fanciful explanations being put forward, I thought I'd add these possibilities which are just as likely:
- Blackbird mob war (explains the trauma too!)....Variation: A new super race of pigeon decided to whack the competition
- Suicide protest over the abandonment of puppies and kittens over Christmas
- Someone below was constipated for a week after eating some curry and after going off to die on his own in the wilderness managed to pass wind just in time to prevent death from toxic shock. Unfortunately the birds copped the brunt of it.
- Terrorist Blackbird not caught at the Blackbird airport in time because those pesky Blackbirds loved their freedom too much and refused to be irradiated and groped before they travel
- Y2K11 didn't just hit iPads and iPhones. Those poor Blackbirds shouldn't have bought their pacemakers from Apple and believed the "It just works" hype
- An alien witch temporarily transformed them from Blackbirds into Lemmings. When they hit the ground they changed back
Isn't this already covered by existing laws against fraud? Do we need a separate law for each possible variation of fraud? Are they sure they don't need a law that prohibits impersonation over telegram cables or by using smoke signals?
Regards, Abe Vigoda
Much ceasing and desisting you must do. Confused with my name be yours. Yes.
nahh, the problem is a misunderstanding of statistics (thinking that post-hoc analysis with this fishing for statistical significance) is as valid as proper hypothesis testing. The proper way is where the hypothesis is fully pre-formed and then tested. The numbers and statistics apply ONLY TO THE HYPOTHESIS being tested, so you cannot hunt for a statistical significance just somewhere in the data and then re-formulate your hypothesis.
This significance of this fundamental mistake cannot be overstated. It seems to be prevalent in medical literature and there was a doctor doing the rounds lecturing about this a couple of years back. I wish I could recall exactly which podcast but he covered all sorts of common fundamental errors in medical research statistics and did it in a very accessible way. The key thing to remember is that if you have enough variables there WILL by complete coincidence be correlation between some of them in any given sample. So to test a hypothesis properly, not only must you formulate it in advance without looking for any correlation within the data, but you must look at more than one data set to verify your findings.
NYT article is well written and informative. It's clearly not assuming that there is something wrong with scientific method, but just asks - could it be? There is excellent reply by George Musser at "Scientific American" http://cot.ag/hWqKo2
This is what I call interesting and engaging public discussion and journalism.
Actually this is what I call a journalist failing to do their homework. It's only an interesting discussion if it's not obvious to someone well versed in the field that the hypothesis is just a bunch of handwaving by some idiot journalist that doesn't understand what they're reporting on.
There's pretty much no chance of that, so realistically she was looking at a minimum of $18000.
I'm not sure I agree with your logic, but I don't care to argue with you, so I'll concede everything you said and instead point this out: Even $18000 is arguably ridiculous, but do you think there'd be as much of an outcry if it was $18000 and not >$1M?
...unless you need something in the newer version (feature, security update etc.). Of course us geeks like to have the latest to fiddle with, but for the average Joe end-user, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. There is always the risk that the newer software will contain new bugs. At one point the buggy version of the Skype software was the latest version and was what users were being pushed to upgrade to. If the crash had happened then, I wonder if they'd find a new way to scapegoat users.
By the way new versions breaking existing functionality isn't theoretical, or rare. I'm currently installing software on my new laptop. I've had to downgrade both Zonealarm and Virtualbox. The former broke remote desktop. The later broke file sharing. No idea why, but in each case uninstalling and installing an older version I knew worked fixed the issue for me.
we had administrative users on nine-year-old Dells and AutoCAD users on five-year-old machines...the company folded 18 months later due to incompetent management.
You could have saved a lot of typing just writing the above;-) 9 year old machines? I'm running one at home and as soon as I recover from some other big purchases I'll be throwing it out the window. Not worth the trouble any more.
This works well for geeks who are interested in programming, but for the general population, it is best to get them immersed and interested first before teaching syntax, grammar, and object oriented programming principles.
If you aren't interested in programming, and you don't have a burning need to program, you're not going to learn it. EVER. Getting someone interested only works if they're open to being interested.
The part the I agree about is I used QBasic back in '95 and I have never learned another language since. I love basic programming and I have never stepped away from it because I have never had a need to. Trying to learn any C derivative while being an at home father is impossible.
The part I disagree about, although I have no grounds to speak since I only know basic programming and I should just STFU, is that basic is a very good stepping stone. If I had more time or any money to goto school then I would already have a decent foot in the door with other languages because I understand how a program works and how logic is with computers. If I were to try and learn C (or any derivative from scratch) then I would be overwhelmed very easily.
There is too much to learn with C (or it's derivatives) all at once. At least with basic I can learn and understand how subroutines work. I can understand program structure without having to worry about including libraries or.h files for what I desire to do.
Basic is a very good stepping stone, but if you dont have motivation then someone may never get beyond it.
First, you can learn any language you like as an at home father, albeit slowly. Wait till the kids are asleep. Dedicate 20 to 30 mins to it at at time regularly (at least 3 times a week). It wouldn't be easy, but it's far from impossible.
Second, in terms of the language, there is nothing that complex in C or any of it's derivatives. Certainly a bit of pointer arithmetic, and function call styles, which you must understand properly. But in terms of control flow and branching there's really not that much difference between BASIC and C. (There may be more ways to do it in C, but to write your own code you can certainly start with a subset and learn the rest as you encounter them, and they're very intuitive anyway). Beyond that the C library needs to be understood, but if you're doing anything serious in BASIC there are libraries to understand there too. At least C libraries are standard.
That's called reductio ad absurdum or proof-by contradiction which is my favorite type of proof, since it's the only one I can actually do and understand:). Don't forget your QED the end of your proof:)
Well you have to be very careful about exactly what you've proved. The statement that "No programmer who has learnt BASIC can be taught a modern object oriented language" could certainly be proven by a single counter example. However the statement that "Programmers who've learnt BASIC tend to be harder to retrain in a modern object oriented language" requires statistical study.
This theory is easy to prove false with a counter-example. Me.
First of by saying this as AC, the irony is that you haven't even provided a firm counter-example.
Secondly just because YOU were re-trainable doesn't mean others will be. There will certainly be others that aren't re-trainable. Whether or not this is a significant percentage requires statistical studies.
Considering that when you are married, in terms of property rights, you are considered a single legal entity, I honestly don't see how this would stand up in court.
Hey does that mean that legally speaking, when you're married and you have sex, you're fucking yourself?
I'm surprised that Apple hasn't just bought out the music industry, rather than negotiating with it.
You can't buy an entire industry. Many of the MPAA/RIAA players are divisions of large corporations that will refuse to sell. Even if you could buy all the existing industry that would just open the way up for other companies to join the fray, and once again you're not left with the whole industry. And even if you by some miracle of negotiation did manage to convince everyone to sell to you, you'd end up with anti-competition/anti-trust lawsuits against you.
I don't have the best memory in the world, but I'm no moron either. I've resorted to using a password safe program because between work and personal life I'm expected to remember literally hundreds of passwords (now they're in a password manager i can count them). Guess what? Even with the safe I continue to use a couple of "low security" passwords for certain activities. That means most things at home I can work out remembering only about a dozen passwords. Work's a different story...
Slashdot Mirror
...that would be "Houston we have an issue".
No it's .... houston, we have an opportunity
...to the mac store, it's not going to matter. Once they do that I'll personally have 1 more reason never to buy another Apple product.
iPad and iPhone and iPod apps are cheap because they are small and lame, not because they're sold on the app store. If anything they'd be cheaper if sold in a less restricted market place.
You should be modded insightful not funny
"reverse the polarity of a swimming pool"
That makes it an un-swimming-pool aka a de-swimming-pool. When you jump in you find time reverse for a moment and you unjump right back out again. Very devious!
"likening the result to the 4th of July"
Lots of people who don't really care about the result run around with beers screaming woooooo! and lighting fireworks.
"someone attempted to 'double-delete' the computer's browsing history"
You know how sometimes it takes ages for the delete dialog to come up so you hit delete a second time. There you go, double delete! Though in practice the more advanced double plus good delete is used more often these days.
I guess if I knew who the hell "Mark Jensen" was it might make more sense. Better run out and read some tabloids.
These "magazines" are like someone trying to sell bottled water that that tastes like urine -- inferior to the free version.
You mean like Perrier ;-)
However I am somewhat surprised that astronomers have not devised automatic algorithms to scan the data and look for signals like this. That's what we do with all our peta-bytes of particle physics data.
There are certainly automated searches and instruments online or coming online. Best examples I am aware of (I finished my masters in 2004 and never intended to work in the field, so I'm a bit out of the loop)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Gravitational_Lensing_Experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-STARRS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Synoptic_Survey_Telescope
It's hard to correlate existing data from various sources though because he instruments are so different in terms of data capture format, require calibration etc. That's not to say that it can't be done better, but I think you need to actually educate yourself about fields other than your own before you comment on them.
Given the fanciful explanations being put forward, I thought I'd add these possibilities which are just as likely:
- Blackbird mob war (explains the trauma too!) ....Variation: A new super race of pigeon decided to whack the competition
- Suicide protest over the abandonment of puppies and kittens over Christmas
- Someone below was constipated for a week after eating some curry and after going off to die on his own in the wilderness managed to pass wind just in time to prevent death from toxic shock. Unfortunately the birds copped the brunt of it.
- Terrorist Blackbird not caught at the Blackbird airport in time because those pesky Blackbirds loved their freedom too much and refused to be irradiated and groped before they travel
- Y2K11 didn't just hit iPads and iPhones. Those poor Blackbirds shouldn't have bought their pacemakers from Apple and believed the "It just works" hype
- An alien witch temporarily transformed them from Blackbirds into Lemmings. When they hit the ground they changed back
Isn't this already covered by existing laws against fraud? Do we need a separate law for each possible variation of fraud? Are they sure they don't need a law that prohibits impersonation over telegram cables or by using smoke signals?
Regards,
Abe Vigoda
Much ceasing and desisting you must do. Confused with my name be yours. Yes.
Sincerely,
Yoda.
nahh, the problem is a misunderstanding of statistics (thinking that post-hoc analysis with this fishing for statistical significance) is as valid as proper hypothesis testing. The proper way is where the hypothesis is fully pre-formed and then tested. The numbers and statistics apply ONLY TO THE HYPOTHESIS being tested, so you cannot hunt for a statistical significance just somewhere in the data and then re-formulate your hypothesis.
This significance of this fundamental mistake cannot be overstated. It seems to be prevalent in medical literature and there was a doctor doing the rounds lecturing about this a couple of years back. I wish I could recall exactly which podcast but he covered all sorts of common fundamental errors in medical research statistics and did it in a very accessible way. The key thing to remember is that if you have enough variables there WILL by complete coincidence be correlation between some of them in any given sample. So to test a hypothesis properly, not only must you formulate it in advance without looking for any correlation within the data, but you must look at more than one data set to verify your findings.
NYT article is well written and informative. It's clearly not assuming that there is something wrong with scientific method, but just asks - could it be? There is excellent reply by George Musser at "Scientific American" http://cot.ag/hWqKo2
This is what I call interesting and engaging public discussion and journalism.
Actually this is what I call a journalist failing to do their homework. It's only an interesting discussion if it's not obvious to someone well versed in the field that the hypothesis is just a bunch of handwaving by some idiot journalist that doesn't understand what they're reporting on.
There's pretty much no chance of that, so realistically she was looking at a minimum of $18000.
I'm not sure I agree with your logic, but I don't care to argue with you, so I'll concede everything you said and instead point this out: Even $18000 is arguably ridiculous, but do you think there'd be as much of an outcry if it was $18000 and not >$1M?
...unless you need something in the newer version (feature, security update etc.). Of course us geeks like to have the latest to fiddle with, but for the average Joe end-user, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. There is always the risk that the newer software will contain new bugs. At one point the buggy version of the Skype software was the latest version and was what users were being pushed to upgrade to. If the crash had happened then, I wonder if they'd find a new way to scapegoat users.
By the way new versions breaking existing functionality isn't theoretical, or rare. I'm currently installing software on my new laptop. I've had to downgrade both Zonealarm and Virtualbox. The former broke remote desktop. The later broke file sharing. No idea why, but in each case uninstalling and installing an older version I knew worked fixed the issue for me.
I have seen thin clients used successfully in a doctors office, where the integration requirements are simple.
Funny. I've seen them shut down a medical center (about 8 doctors working that day).
we had administrative users on nine-year-old Dells and AutoCAD users on five-year-old machines...the company folded 18 months later due to incompetent management.
You could have saved a lot of typing just writing the above ;-) 9 year old machines? I'm running one at home and as soon as I recover from some other big purchases I'll be throwing it out the window. Not worth the trouble any more.
VB.NOT is not traditional basic. VB6 was much closer, but even that was a huge departure.
This works well for geeks who are interested in programming, but for the general population, it is best to get them immersed and interested first before teaching syntax, grammar, and object oriented programming principles.
If you aren't interested in programming, and you don't have a burning need to program, you're not going to learn it. EVER. Getting someone interested only works if they're open to being interested.
BASIC? Really? In 2010 someone is making products with BASIC?!?!?! This has to be for legacy supp... wait you say it isn't? WHAT THE FUCK!!!
Please do your students a favor and use Python.
Yeah 1994 comes around every 500 lines or so. It's a bug in the code. That's what you get for using a language that depends on line numbers.
I partially agree.
The part the I agree about is I used QBasic back in '95 and I have never learned another language since. I love basic programming and I have never stepped away from it because I have never had a need to. Trying to learn any C derivative while being an at home father is impossible.
The part I disagree about, although I have no grounds to speak since I only know basic programming and I should just STFU, is that basic is a very good stepping stone. If I had more time or any money to goto school then I would already have a decent foot in the door with other languages because I understand how a program works and how logic is with computers. If I were to try and learn C (or any derivative from scratch) then I would be overwhelmed very easily.
There is too much to learn with C (or it's derivatives) all at once. At least with basic I can learn and understand how subroutines work. I can understand program structure without having to worry about including libraries or .h files for what I desire to do.
Basic is a very good stepping stone, but if you dont have motivation then someone may never get beyond it.
First, you can learn any language you like as an at home father, albeit slowly. Wait till the kids are asleep. Dedicate 20 to 30 mins to it at at time regularly (at least 3 times a week). It wouldn't be easy, but it's far from impossible.
Second, in terms of the language, there is nothing that complex in C or any of it's derivatives. Certainly a bit of pointer arithmetic, and function call styles, which you must understand properly. But in terms of control flow and branching there's really not that much difference between BASIC and C. (There may be more ways to do it in C, but to write your own code you can certainly start with a subset and learn the rest as you encounter them, and they're very intuitive anyway). Beyond that the C library needs to be understood, but if you're doing anything serious in BASIC there are libraries to understand there too. At least C libraries are standard.
Basic is fine if you're just wanting to quickly introduce it, but anything beyond that is just going to convince them to go to arts college.
10 REM ARTS COLLEGE
20 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
30 GOTO 10
That's called reductio ad absurdum or proof-by contradiction which is my favorite type of proof, since it's the only one I can actually do and understand :). Don't forget your QED the end of your proof :)
Well you have to be very careful about exactly what you've proved. The statement that "No programmer who has learnt BASIC can be taught a modern object oriented language" could certainly be proven by a single counter example. However the statement that "Programmers who've learnt BASIC tend to be harder to retrain in a modern object oriented language" requires statistical study.
This theory is easy to prove false with a counter-example. Me.
First of by saying this as AC, the irony is that you haven't even provided a firm counter-example.
Secondly just because YOU were re-trainable doesn't mean others will be. There will certainly be others that aren't re-trainable. Whether or not this is a significant percentage requires statistical studies.
Considering that when you are married, in terms of property rights, you are considered a single legal entity, I honestly don't see how this would stand up in court.
Hey does that mean that legally speaking, when you're married and you have sex, you're fucking yourself?
I'm surprised that Apple hasn't just bought out the music industry, rather than negotiating with it.
You can't buy an entire industry. Many of the MPAA/RIAA players are divisions of large corporations that will refuse to sell. Even if you could buy all the existing industry that would just open the way up for other companies to join the fray, and once again you're not left with the whole industry. And even if you by some miracle of negotiation did manage to convince everyone to sell to you, you'd end up with anti-competition/anti-trust lawsuits against you.
I don't have the best memory in the world, but I'm no moron either. I've resorted to using a password safe program because between work and personal life I'm expected to remember literally hundreds of passwords (now they're in a password manager i can count them). Guess what? Even with the safe I continue to use a couple of "low security" passwords for certain activities. That means most things at home I can work out remembering only about a dozen passwords. Work's a different story...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bk7AMY_ocU&has_verified=1
Make the game for PC/Mac/Linux.. the Kinect just plugs right in.
Shit that was LAME! Anyone with an imagination can do better than that just by closing their eyes and pretending.