Stupidity like this won't affect me at all.
Sure it will. Since 99% of people won't be able to navigate to the link, such links will probably cease to exist. Or maybe the link will stay there, but no one else will see it, so you will talk about it and no one will respond. Or, maybe you were the one who posted the link, and then everyone complains that they can't see what you posted. What are you going to do, tell them to install a software just so they can visit your link?
Spammers are evil by nature. That doesn't mean they can't be skilled practitioners of evil.
By your logic, a "skilled" burglar would encounter a locked door, and leave figuring if you locked your door, you must not want him to come in and burglarize you.
Correct me if I am wrong,
Ok.:)
Patents are often awarded when they shouldn't be (such as if there is prior art), and they often don't hold up in court when challenged. Patent examiners don't have the resources to determine whether there is prior art, beyond a fairly quick search. When challenged, lawyers often can find things the examiner didn't.
However, often a judge will rule simply on whether they violated the patent, and leave it to an appeals court to decide whether the patent was valid in the first place.
Just playing the devils advocate....maybe requiring horizontal scrolling is considered bad because there is no good way of doing it with typical input devices today. For instance there is no horizontal equivalent of the page-up and page-down keys, and for those of us who use mouse-wheels -- there is usually just a vertical scroll wheel.
Although to be honest I think the reason vertical scrolling is ok while horizontal scrolling is not is because of the way we read (at least the way westerners read): left to right quickly, and top to bottom slowly. Scrolling as you read a long page seems reasonable, because you don't have to do it so often.
I could see this mouse very useful for image viewing and editing and for occasional horizontal scrolling in a text editor because whoever wrote the code I am looking at apparently had smaller fonts or a bigger monitor. I don't see it being used nearly as often as the vertical scroller, but I still think it would be a very nice addition.
I don't understand why rechargeables have a lower voltage, and at this point it's probably just because they've always been that way.
No, because of the chemistry of batteries. The only way to increase the voltage is to add more cells....that's why nine volt batteries (the little rectangular ones) actually contain 6 (cylindrical) cells.
..since the only really impressive thing about the segway is the way it interacts with human balance. If you take the human out of the equation, the problem is just so much simpler.
True, balance in a robot is a challenge in itself, but I just wouldn't start with a system whose design centers around maintaining balance with a human rider (at least if money was a factor), since you have to throw away so much of their technology.
What we have here is a thinking error
Is the word "orientate" somehow illogical or something? I don't get how you can figure out a whether a word is a word just by thinking. The only thinking I'd imagine would be necessary would be to think to look in the dictionary.:)
I don't have a mac, I have a PC. And I would have posted the same comment following the other article (the "anti-apple" one), had I had seen a "who cares" comment.
I'm interested in seeing speed improvements, because more speed is better, everything else being equal (which, as we all know, it's not, but still.....). It is good that apple is improving the speed. And it is good that slashdotters are scrutinizing their claims, since as we all know speed is difficult to measure accurately.
If you don't care, why read or comment on the article?
I mean, who cares about 99% of the stuff on slashdot, being as there are starving people in (whereever) and people being ethnically cleansed (somewhere else).
Some people care which is fastest. Get over it.
...is that people will compensate for it, and pay attention less thinking their car will do it for them. Unless you are going to have fully automatically driven cars (or the system is pretty much 100% foolproof), you are probably not going to increase safety much at all with something like this, IMO.
Evolution requires occasional mutation when the sperm and egg are produced, but certainly not every time. Usually, when a mutation produces a significant effect, it's not a good thing (i.e. birth defect).
Also, keep in mind that the reason we have sexual reproduction, a species can adapt without requiring mutation by mixing existing genes. True, mutation is required in the long term for real evolution to occur, but not each time a new individual is created.
Both of these are using one as a tool to forward the other, it's not a straight integration like putting chocolate and peanut butter together, and never will be.
Each field will simply adapt and use tools from other fields. Just as in molecular biology physics and chemistry concepts are used to help understand biological mechanisms. Don't look for a Unifying Theory for all these fields.
That seems rather short-sighted....never is an awful long time.
Maybe not a Unifying Theory, but a blurring of the lines until they no longer exist? I think so.
For instance, one current bleeding edge, analyzing genomes, hasn't yet resulted in a lot of building of completely new gene structures. Because we don't understand them very well, and because our tools for assembling genes and creating new organisms based on our created genes are still very crude.
Jump forward 50 years (or 150 years, or a thousand years!), and I'm willing to bet that won't be the case any more.
At that point, I think you will see a complete meshing of information technology and biology. And certainly the two issues you mention (analyzing vs. building) will have long since integrated into one....much like long ago the study of the phenomenon of electricity (think flying kites in thunderstorms) integrated into the building of useful devices using electricity. There is no need to think of them as two separate issues.
What he said is that if open data laws were passed, companies would be more likely to open up their data formats in order to retain lucrative government contracts.
Well said. And don't forget that if the market leader chooses not to open their format, a competing product/company that already has an open format will likely get some contracts they otherwise might not have. This could mean they can hire a couple more developers to make their product better, and get a better foothold in the market.
The point is you have provided a strong incentive to have an open format, which in the long run can make a big difference.
Well, it's not always in the individual interest of the person making the purchasing decision to get something with an open format. For instance, right now, it's probably in many people's interest to get some closed format microsoft product for whatever reason. (true, all things being equal, open is better....but here in the real world everything else is not equal) Microsoft has no strong incentive to open their format, because enough people will buy their product with their closed format.
Now if a bunch of people agree as a group to only buy software with an open format, there becomes a much stronger incentive for Microsoft (or whoever) to open the format. Then everyone benefits.
Basically it is a prisoner's delimma or tragedy of the commons situation, where people acting toward their own individual self interest often create an undesirable result. A little enforced cooperation benefits all.
I don't think that comment was a troll. He made a very good point -- why in the world would someone name their product/project/whatever a name like "Waste"? I guess its supposed to have some sort of amusing irony or something (like the band "Garbage"), but to me it just gives an instant negative impression.
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
How much do you pay for the time commercials are shown on cable channels? How much money per month is spent on electricity, during the times when the TV is being used to display advertisements in your home?
I'm not sure how that is relevant, since the tv channels are creating programming in exchange for you watching their commercials. True, you may already pay the cable company, but you'd have to pay them more if there were no commercials. Same thing applies to ads in magazines and newspapers...if the ads bother you, you don't have to buy the magazine.
Why are coming attractions of movies called trailers, especially when they come at the beginning of the film? They're called that because they used to to be spliced on the end of the feature film. To understand this, you have to harken back to the days when movies were shown continuously in theaters and audiences were allowed to sit through multiple showings of the same movie--the start times were published, and if you came in late you simply sat through the next showing until you came to the point "where you came in." This is not that long ago--I remember when this used to be the practice.
The coming attractions reel would be spliced onto the end of the last reel of the movie, hence trailer. From the perspective of the audience member who arrived on time or a little early, the coming attractions would appear before the feature, even though technically it was at the end.
Well if they cover the lens the authorities will show up quickly (and they'll probably get a fine). Presumably it is not optional.
Also, if someone blackmails you, I'd imagine that it would be with video that they recorded, not the live video feed. So by that time covering the lens is a little late.
(not that i think its likely to be done...i think it would be easier to just hide a camera)
You make very good points that you can't change human nature, but I'm convinced you can control it.
Not by making people feel guilty for driving SUV's, etc, but by laws and treaties. Of course, many of those laws we're not ready to make (things like strict population controls, etc), but still, that's probably the best bet for fixing the problems here.
Slashdot Mirror
Stupidity like this won't affect me at all.
Sure it will. Since 99% of people won't be able to navigate to the link, such links will probably cease to exist. Or maybe the link will stay there, but no one else will see it, so you will talk about it and no one will respond. Or, maybe you were the one who posted the link, and then everyone complains that they can't see what you posted. What are you going to do, tell them to install a software just so they can visit your link?
Spammers are evil by nature. That doesn't mean they can't be skilled practitioners of evil. By your logic, a "skilled" burglar would encounter a locked door, and leave figuring if you locked your door, you must not want him to come in and burglarize you.
Correct me if I am wrong, Ok. :)
Patents are often awarded when they shouldn't be (such as if there is prior art), and they often don't hold up in court when challenged. Patent examiners don't have the resources to determine whether there is prior art, beyond a fairly quick search. When challenged, lawyers often can find things the examiner didn't.
However, often a judge will rule simply on whether they violated the patent, and leave it to an appeals court to decide whether the patent was valid in the first place.
Just playing the devils advocate....maybe requiring horizontal scrolling is considered bad because there is no good way of doing it with typical input devices today. For instance there is no horizontal equivalent of the page-up and page-down keys, and for those of us who use mouse-wheels -- there is usually just a vertical scroll wheel. Although to be honest I think the reason vertical scrolling is ok while horizontal scrolling is not is because of the way we read (at least the way westerners read): left to right quickly, and top to bottom slowly. Scrolling as you read a long page seems reasonable, because you don't have to do it so often. I could see this mouse very useful for image viewing and editing and for occasional horizontal scrolling in a text editor because whoever wrote the code I am looking at apparently had smaller fonts or a bigger monitor. I don't see it being used nearly as often as the vertical scroller, but I still think it would be a very nice addition.
..since the only really impressive thing about the segway is the way it interacts with human balance. If you take the human out of the equation, the problem is just so much simpler. True, balance in a robot is a challenge in itself, but I just wouldn't start with a system whose design centers around maintaining balance with a human rider (at least if money was a factor), since you have to throw away so much of their technology.
What we have here is a thinking error Is the word "orientate" somehow illogical or something? I don't get how you can figure out a whether a word is a word just by thinking. The only thinking I'd imagine would be necessary would be to think to look in the dictionary. :)
That's irony to me.
"This is an important victory for the Java community". See their rose-colored-glasses take on it here.
I don't have a mac, I have a PC. And I would have posted the same comment following the other article (the "anti-apple" one), had I had seen a "who cares" comment. I'm interested in seeing speed improvements, because more speed is better, everything else being equal (which, as we all know, it's not, but still.....). It is good that apple is improving the speed. And it is good that slashdotters are scrutinizing their claims, since as we all know speed is difficult to measure accurately.
If you don't care, why read or comment on the article? I mean, who cares about 99% of the stuff on slashdot, being as there are starving people in (whereever) and people being ethnically cleansed (somewhere else). Some people care which is fastest. Get over it.
Well if its totally non competitive why don't they charge twice what they do, and make twice as much?
...is that people will compensate for it, and pay attention less thinking their car will do it for them. Unless you are going to have fully automatically driven cars (or the system is pretty much 100% foolproof), you are probably not going to increase safety much at all with something like this, IMO.
I guess this is kind of a late reply, but I researched it and....hate to admit it....you're right. Dammit. :)
See this article
Every time a cell divides? I don't think so.
Evolution requires occasional mutation when the sperm and egg are produced, but certainly not every time. Usually, when a mutation produces a significant effect, it's not a good thing (i.e. birth defect).
Also, keep in mind that the reason we have sexual reproduction, a species can adapt without requiring mutation by mixing existing genes. True, mutation is required in the long term for real evolution to occur, but not each time a new individual is created.
Both of these are using one as a tool to forward the other, it's not a straight integration like putting chocolate and peanut butter together, and never will be.
Each field will simply adapt and use tools from other fields. Just as in molecular biology physics and chemistry concepts are used to help understand biological mechanisms. Don't look for a Unifying Theory for all these fields.
That seems rather short-sighted....never is an awful long time.
Maybe not a Unifying Theory, but a blurring of the lines until they no longer exist? I think so.
For instance, one current bleeding edge, analyzing genomes, hasn't yet resulted in a lot of building of completely new gene structures. Because we don't understand them very well, and because our tools for assembling genes and creating new organisms based on our created genes are still very crude.
Jump forward 50 years (or 150 years, or a thousand years!), and I'm willing to bet that won't be the case any more.
At that point, I think you will see a complete meshing of information technology and biology.
And certainly the two issues you mention (analyzing vs. building) will have long since integrated into one....much like long ago the study of the phenomenon of electricity (think flying kites in thunderstorms) integrated into the building of useful devices using electricity. There is no need to think of them as two separate issues.
That would be pretty clever if the word quixotic wasn't already used in the article. :)
What he said is that if open data laws were passed, companies would be more likely to open up their data formats in order to retain lucrative government contracts.
Well said. And don't forget that if the market leader chooses not to open their format, a competing product/company that already has an open format will likely get some contracts they otherwise might not have. This could mean they can hire a couple more developers to make their product better, and get a better foothold in the market.
The point is you have provided a strong incentive to have an open format, which in the long run can make a big difference.
I'm always critical of legislating common sense.
Well, it's not always in the individual interest of the person making the purchasing decision to get something with an open format. For instance, right now, it's probably in many people's interest to get some closed format microsoft product for whatever reason. (true, all things being equal, open is better....but here in the real world everything else is not equal) Microsoft has no strong incentive to open their format, because enough people will buy their product with their closed format.
Now if a bunch of people agree as a group to only buy software with an open format, there becomes a much stronger incentive for Microsoft (or whoever) to open the format. Then everyone benefits.
Basically it is a prisoner's delimma or tragedy of the commons situation, where people acting toward their own individual self interest often create an undesirable result. A little enforced cooperation benefits all.
I don't think that comment was a troll. He made a very good point -- why in the world would someone name their product/project/whatever a name like "Waste"? I guess its supposed to have some sort of amusing irony or something (like the band "Garbage"), but to me it just gives an instant negative impression.
How much do you pay for the time commercials are shown on cable channels? How much money per month is spent on electricity, during the times when the TV is being used to display advertisements in your home?
I'm not sure how that is relevant, since the tv channels are creating programming in exchange for you watching their commercials. True, you may already pay the cable company, but you'd have to pay them more if there were no commercials. Same thing applies to ads in magazines and newspapers...if the ads bother you, you don't have to buy the magazine.
from http://www.wordorigins.org/wordort.htm :
Trailer
Why are coming attractions of movies called trailers, especially when they come at the beginning of the film? They're called that because they used to to be spliced on the end of the feature film.
To understand this, you have to harken back to the days when movies were shown continuously in theaters and audiences were allowed to sit through multiple showings of the same movie--the start times were published, and if you came in late you simply sat through the next showing until you came to the point "where you came in." This is not that long ago--I remember when this used to be the practice.
The coming attractions reel would be spliced onto the end of the last reel of the movie, hence trailer. From the perspective of the audience member who arrived on time or a little early, the coming attractions would appear before the feature, even though technically it was at the end.
The term dates to 1928.
Well if they cover the lens the authorities will show up quickly (and they'll probably get a fine). Presumably it is not optional.
Also, if someone blackmails you, I'd imagine that it would be with video that they recorded, not the live video feed. So by that time covering the lens is a little late.
(not that i think its likely to be done...i think it would be easier to just hide a camera)
...as long as they have figured out a way to avoid one problem: the vendor keeps adjusting the price higher so they avoid passing the threshhold.
In any case, I think we needs something like this to add some incentive to open-sourcing stuff. Not everyone likes to work for free.
You make very good points that you can't change human nature, but I'm convinced you can control it.
Not by making people feel guilty for driving SUV's, etc, but by laws and treaties. Of course, many of those laws we're not ready to make (things like strict population controls, etc), but still, that's probably the best bet for fixing the problems here.