Get back to me when you have an honest-to-god product to sell me, not a plan for a product. Right now it's all promises.
Keep in mind that the road is littered with the bloodied corpses of alleged "iPod killers", and that the iPhone is undoubtedly the chosen scion of the same clan.
However, I do welcome any competition to the space, since a competitive market benefits everyone. Right now the competition is a wee bit on the pathetic side.
I'm sure they will be very upset to lose your (someday maybe in the future) business.
After all, how will they be able to sleep at night knowing that llamalad (12917) continues to live his life without knowing the sweet caress of a iPhone?
Right, except there's no monopoly here: there are many many competing music services, and many many competing music players.
What they are is a successful company that appears to know a lot more than you do about what their users want and are willing to pay for. What's giving them "an advantage in the phone market" is that they make products which don't fucking suck to use, unlike 95% of the other companies out there.
Sure, you own the phone, but you don't own the network. AT&T does, not you, and not Apple. AT&T reserves the right to tell you what you can and can't run on their network. If you don't like it, take your business somewhere else.
When you owe the bank a million dollars and can't pay, you have a problem. When you owe the bank a billion dollars (or a trillion, in this case) and can't pay, the bank has a problem.
Heh, my sarcasm detector must have been on the blink.
In their right mind? Have you seen some of the crap home theater people will buy? The mind boggles.
I do use a medium-gray screen myself... it seems to give dark colors and blacks more depth than a white screen in my setup, though that may have something do with the DLP projector I use, and since I only watch at night, maximum reflectivity is not necessary.
He's not talking about the projection surface, he's talking about the other walls and ceiling. I have a room with all white walls that happens to also serve as my HT, and the only reason my picture isn't completely messed us is because I use a retro-reflective projection screen that tends not to be as prone to reflected light muddling.
As it is, it would look a lot better if all the other surfaces in the room were black or at least very dark.
The grocery is that close, but you can't walk? You have to take the bus to go a mile and a half?! Normal residential speed limits top out at 30mph, and assuming that you can start and stop instantaneously, that means your grocery store is at most 1.5 miles away. A reasonably healthy person can walk that in about 15 minutes. Children and the elderly might take 30, but that's not bad at all (and they'll be healthier for it).
Wow, I'm guessing you either live with someone who does your shopping or you live alone and order take-out every night.
If you had any idea how much a week's worth of groceries looks like for a family of four, you would not suggest that walking, even 1.5 miles, was a reasonable solution.
Thimerasol has NOT been ruled out in causing individual cases of autism. Just that it is not the SOLE cause of autism. It's still a documented fact that US infants exposure to thimerosal increased starting around 1990, and that correlates with a huge spike in autism rates...... It doesn't say thimerosal is safe, the study just shows it's not the ONLY cause of the tenfold increase in the rates of autism.
Correction, there's been a big increase in the rates of diagnosis of autism, which is an entirely different thing. Right before the so-called "spike" the medical journals were full of articles which resulted in the reclassification of behavioral problems previously classified under a plethora of different labels. This is natural, and a part of what happens when our understanding of a disorder improves.
In a related note, there are precious few cases of "consumption" being diagnosed lately, and yet the number of people with drug-resistant TB continues to rise.
Another example: for many decades, the estimate of the number of stars in our galaxy rose and rose, more each time a new monster telescope was built. Were the number of stars actually increasing, or was it just our ability to detect them that changed?
An extra bonus is that the more you absorb the sun's energy as electricity, the less of it is converted to heat which dissipates around the planet, and that in and of itself reduces the effect global warming. So you are being twice as productive - not rely on heat-trapping coal, and reduce the amount of heat that saturates on the planet in the first place.
Erm. Well. What do you think happens to the solar radiation that is converted here into electricity? Do you think once your toaster/computer/lightbulb/air conditioner has a crack at it that it just goes away? Guess what, energy is neither created or destroyed: it all gets converted back into waste heat eventually (if it isn't sequestered somehow), which will--in some miniscule fashion--contribute to localized warming.
If you really thought that reducing the absorption of solar energy was a good thing, you would paint your roof white, or better yet, cover it with mirrors to reflect that energy (at least some of it) back into space.
I have to both agree and disagree. While education is certainly the largest facet of an individual's "intelligence," it isn't everything. It is not unreasonable to assume that at least part of an individual's intellectual potential is inherited.
We have all known people who were given every opportunity, every advantage in life, and still ended up stupid as a post. Hell, we breed dogs for various traits--personality and intelligence being two of them--why should we assume that we're immune to the same thing?
So what would happen if Wikipedia were available back then and the powers that be basically chose the wrong side and banned Warren and Marshall from editing articles on stomach ulcers, because another group had a vested interest in keeping the status quo? Which is where the real ruckus lies and why I am now backing Citizendium instead of Wikipedia.
Well, Wikipedia is not the forum for that. That's why we have these things called peer-reviewed studies. That's how science is done, not in the court of public opinion. An encyclopedia (online or not) is not in the business of determining the right or wrong facts: it merely presents the published findings of others in an easily searchable format. It is not a place to try to challenge or change the orthodoxy of science, it is a place to accurately reflect and document the current thinking and state of the art on the subject.
Personally, I see zero reason to document each and every unpublished, random hypothesis that somebody dreams up, just on the off chance they happen to be right. Let the system work. The truth will out.
To quote Sagan: "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
That's a problem in general. The obvious answer is to use probable redundancy; pay five or ten people to do the same task and pick the best result.
So now the workload has shifted from the task itself to determining the best version of the completed task. That is assuming that it is possible to evaluate the best result by comparing the results to each other, which would not be true for certain kinds of tasks. (for example, you are looking for a simple factual answer to a complicated question, and you get 5 completely different answers: how to determine the correct answer without going through the motions of answering the question yourself?)
I think the idea of micropayments for individual tasks is an interesting one. The biggest flaw in the system I see is that there is a wide variety of skill levels, worker to worker, which will effect the results you get, and I don't see any way of ensuring that you get someone whose work you can trust.
Incidentally, the biggest flaw in your thesis is your basic statement: the reason that smoking (and alcohol, and driving, and legal contracts, and consensual sex, etc etc etc) are limited in age is because below a certain age threshold, we as a society have agreed that children are not capable of making an informed decision that will effect their health, and the health of others. These things are not left in the hands of parents (in most cases) because of the great number of incompetent, neglectful parents out there.
In other words, we don't keep kids from smoking because it's bad for them, we keep them from smoking because we know that at that age, they can't understand how bad it is for them.
Anthrax? It's a good thing it didn't hit the US, otherwise we'd blame Al Qaeda for the attack and launch an invasion of space.
No, space is where it actually came from, and that's the last place the current administration would look. The obvious next step would be to nuke Iran.
Slashdot Mirror
Get back to me when you have an honest-to-god product to sell me, not a plan for a product. Right now it's all promises.
Keep in mind that the road is littered with the bloodied corpses of alleged "iPod killers", and that the iPhone is undoubtedly the chosen scion of the same clan.
However, I do welcome any competition to the space, since a competitive market benefits everyone. Right now the competition is a wee bit on the pathetic side.
like a giant non-user replaceable radioactive battery
The iPod Yotta cometh. Steve's gonna be pissed that it leaked.
(The news, I mean. If the battery leaked, you would have to evacuate the city.)
This is one of the funniest viral videos I have seen in a long time. I'm sure it's fake, but that doesn't hurt the humor one little bit.
I'm sure they will be very upset to lose your (someday maybe in the future) business.
After all, how will they be able to sleep at night knowing that llamalad (12917) continues to live his life without knowing the sweet caress of a iPhone?
Answer: On huge, tremendous piles of money.
m-
Right, except there's no monopoly here: there are many many competing music services, and many many competing music players.
What they are is a successful company that appears to know a lot more than you do about what their users want and are willing to pay for. What's giving them "an advantage in the phone market" is that they make products which don't fucking suck to use, unlike 95% of the other companies out there.
Cowboy up and quit whining.
Sure, you own the phone, but you don't own the network. AT&T does, not you, and not Apple. AT&T reserves the right to tell you what you can and can't run on their network. If you don't like it, take your business somewhere else.
There's an old saying:
When you owe the bank a million dollars and can't pay, you have a problem.
When you owe the bank a billion dollars (or a trillion, in this case) and can't pay, the bank has a problem.
I think I probably wouldn't hate Huckabee quite so much if he hadn't let a murdering rapist go free because one of his victims was a cousin of the Clintons. How is that defensible?
erm, let me see... Mach 8 would be around .00000908c I believe if I have my arithmetic right.
.000229c on its short-lived trip.
If you really want to look at fast-moving objects, you should compare to to the probe Helios 1, which hit around
Heh, my sarcasm detector must have been on the blink.
In their right mind? Have you seen some of the crap home theater people will buy? The mind boggles.
I do use a medium-gray screen myself... it seems to give dark colors and blacks more depth than a white screen in my setup, though that may have something do with the DLP projector I use, and since I only watch at night, maximum reflectivity is not necessary.
He's not talking about the projection surface, he's talking about the other walls and ceiling. I have a room with all white walls that happens to also serve as my HT, and the only reason my picture isn't completely messed us is because I use a retro-reflective projection screen that tends not to be as prone to reflected light muddling.
As it is, it would look a lot better if all the other surfaces in the room were black or at least very dark.
The grocery is that close, but you can't walk? You have to take the bus to go a mile and a half?! Normal residential speed limits top out at 30mph, and assuming that you can start and stop instantaneously, that means your grocery store is at most 1.5 miles away. A reasonably healthy person can walk that in about 15 minutes. Children and the elderly might take 30, but that's not bad at all (and they'll be healthier for it).
Wow, I'm guessing you either live with someone who does your shopping or you live alone and order take-out every night.
If you had any idea how much a week's worth of groceries looks like for a family of four, you would not suggest that walking, even 1.5 miles, was a reasonable solution.
Thimerasol has NOT been ruled out in causing individual cases of autism. Just that it is not the SOLE cause of autism. It's still a documented fact that US infants exposure to thimerosal increased starting around 1990, and that correlates with a huge spike in autism rates. ..... It doesn't say thimerosal is safe, the study just shows it's not the ONLY cause of the tenfold increase in the rates of autism.
Correction, there's been a big increase in the rates of diagnosis of autism, which is an entirely different thing. Right before the so-called "spike" the medical journals were full of articles which resulted in the reclassification of behavioral problems previously classified under a plethora of different labels. This is natural, and a part of what happens when our understanding of a disorder improves.
In a related note, there are precious few cases of "consumption" being diagnosed lately, and yet the number of people with drug-resistant TB continues to rise.
Another example: for many decades, the estimate of the number of stars in our galaxy rose and rose, more each time a new monster telescope was built. Were the number of stars actually increasing, or was it just our ability to detect them that changed?
An extra bonus is that the more you absorb the sun's energy as electricity, the less of it is converted to heat which dissipates around the planet, and that in and of itself reduces the effect global warming. So you are being twice as productive - not rely on heat-trapping coal, and reduce the amount of heat that saturates on the planet in the first place.
Erm. Well. What do you think happens to the solar radiation that is converted here into electricity? Do you think once your toaster/computer/lightbulb/air conditioner has a crack at it that it just goes away? Guess what, energy is neither created or destroyed: it all gets converted back into waste heat eventually (if it isn't sequestered somehow), which will--in some miniscule fashion--contribute to localized warming.
If you really thought that reducing the absorption of solar energy was a good thing, you would paint your roof white, or better yet, cover it with mirrors to reflect that energy (at least some of it) back into space.
I have to both agree and disagree. While education is certainly the largest facet of an individual's "intelligence," it isn't everything. It is not unreasonable to assume that at least part of an individual's intellectual potential is inherited.
We have all known people who were given every opportunity, every advantage in life, and still ended up stupid as a post. Hell, we breed dogs for various traits--personality and intelligence being two of them--why should we assume that we're immune to the same thing?
So what would happen if Wikipedia were available back then and the powers that be basically chose the wrong side and banned Warren and Marshall from editing articles on stomach ulcers, because another group had a vested interest in keeping the status quo? Which is where the real ruckus lies and why I am now backing Citizendium instead of Wikipedia.
Well, Wikipedia is not the forum for that. That's why we have these things called peer-reviewed studies. That's how science is done, not in the court of public opinion. An encyclopedia (online or not) is not in the business of determining the right or wrong facts: it merely presents the published findings of others in an easily searchable format. It is not a place to try to challenge or change the orthodoxy of science, it is a place to accurately reflect and document the current thinking and state of the art on the subject.
Personally, I see zero reason to document each and every unpublished, random hypothesis that somebody dreams up, just on the off chance they happen to be right. Let the system work. The truth will out.
To quote Sagan:
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
See? The system is self-correcting. ;)
M-
You put a YEAR in and aren't completely epicced out?
You're right, the game isn't for you.
You must be really fun at parties.
That's a problem in general. The obvious answer is to use probable redundancy; pay five or ten people to do the same task and pick the best result.
So now the workload has shifted from the task itself to determining the best version of the completed task. That is assuming that it is possible to evaluate the best result by comparing the results to each other, which would not be true for certain kinds of tasks. (for example, you are looking for a simple factual answer to a complicated question, and you get 5 completely different answers: how to determine the correct answer without going through the motions of answering the question yourself?)
I think the idea of micropayments for individual tasks is an interesting one. The biggest flaw in the system I see is that there is a wide variety of skill levels, worker to worker, which will effect the results you get, and I don't see any way of ensuring that you get someone whose work you can trust.
Incidentally, the biggest flaw in your thesis is your basic statement: the reason that smoking (and alcohol, and driving, and legal contracts, and consensual sex, etc etc etc) are limited in age is because below a certain age threshold, we as a society have agreed that children are not capable of making an informed decision that will effect their health, and the health of others. These things are not left in the hands of parents (in most cases) because of the great number of incompetent, neglectful parents out there.
In other words, we don't keep kids from smoking because it's bad for them, we keep them from smoking because we know that at that age, they can't understand how bad it is for them.
In Hell. That's what the devil makes c-list celebrities watch for the rest of eternity.
Anthrax? It's a good thing it didn't hit the US, otherwise we'd blame Al Qaeda for the attack and launch an invasion of space.
No, space is where it actually came from, and that's the last place the current administration would look.
The obvious next step would be to nuke Iran.
Sorry, term limits and all prevent that.