Switch to Mac, where you can get an entire operating system with the speed, stability, unnecessary bundling, and usable interface of iTunes for Windows!
iTunes for Windows has the opportunity to be an ambassador for Apple's so-called superior engineering. Are they just so arrogant that they assume we'll put up with it? (I got tired of that crapfest and switched to Android. Being able to uninstall iTunes was worth the cost by itself.)
"...large screen displaying near-SEM resolutions..."? You're working with screens with resolutions on the order of nanometers? On a "large" display, you'd be looking at a resolution like 2,813,538 by 1,524,000, about 127,000 DPI. It's as impressive as it is implausible! Of course, humans can't see such small details. Do you use a microscope to look at your screen?
I've worked in and remain in touch with the medical imaging field, and radiologists manage to do just fine with relatively stock consumer displays. They make use of zooming and level adjustments to compensate for the limitations of the monitor, but also to see details that would be invisible to the naked eye on a traditional slide. Sure, they love getting larger, higher resolution, and more color accurate monitors, it speeds things up for a variety of reasons, but they do pretty well without.
I have no idea what the "tiny pad" comment has to do with anything, since the article was about resolution on a tiny pad.
I also missed this gem:
...even using a 32" 1080p LCD (with a native resolution 3x that) and sitting more than 6 feet away, I can still see the pixels....
So, you're talking about a 33.75 DPI display at 6 feet. 300 DPI at about 1 foot is a reasonable estimate for where most people no longer observe jaggies in printout. That's about 0.000138888888 radians per pixel. 33.75 at 6 feet is about 0.000205761314 radians per pixel, which is a larger apparent pixel. To roughly match the apparent resolution of that 300 DPI printout held a foot from your face, you'll need to be a bit less than 9 feet away from that monitor. Congrats, you have perfectly normal vision. 1080p isn't actually all that high of a resolution, and it's decidedly mediocre for a modern computer display.
If "people like higher resolution displays, maybe we should make those" counts as ground-breaking research, do you think Apple will fund my research into my theory that people like fitting more information into smaller spaces, so maybe we should make denser flash memory?
Especially for those of us that require ABSOLUTE DETAIL to diagnose a problem
Have you heard of this cutting edge technology called "zooming in"? It allows use mortals to even see things smaller than even your apparently superhuman eyes can.
If the horticultural industry to so behind the times that they're reduced to squinting at their screens trying to see details, I fear for our future food supply.
How did I miss that? Oh, right, because I never agreed to any EULA. It sure as hell wasn't presented to me when I turned it on for the first time. Perhaps I missed the EULA when I turned on my Wii for the first time, because it didn't seem to be there. They're free to void the warranty and to deny me access to their online services, but beyond that they can kiss my ass. They do not own my Wii, and I am not licensing it from them, and no amount of wishing will make it true.
I'm curious, what exactly is "insightful" (as moderators have marked the parent post) about willfully ignoring that Slashdot posters have varying viewpoints and then dishonestly insinuating that the Slashdot hivemind is somehow hypocritical because different people have expressed different opinions in different places?
If someone wants blu-ray movies, they almost certainly already have a dedicated blu-ray player or a PS3, so adding the functionality to the XBox360 is unlikely to entice them.
If you want more space for games, then it's no longer an XBox 360 as older models won't be able to play newer games.
Sure, some people, like yourself, would like blu-ray support on the XBox 360. But is it enough to justify the additional price? I doubt it, and apparently Microsoft agrees.
That risk is part of why a polygraph is inherently a difficult psychological technique. The examiner needs to be skilled at manipulating people so that innocent people not realize which questions really matter. If the whole company knows the polygraph is being brought in because of embezzlement it's going to harder. And if the person being interrogated understands the techniques, they can potentially manipulate teh results based on their own skill.
Of course, this is ignoring the question of examiner skill. Are there people skilled enough to provide reasonable reliable results? Can the skill actually be taught? I'm not convinced on either front. The accounts I hear are that polygraphs are mostly effective because they scare people into confessions. It's just an interrogation technique similar to ones cops have been practicing for years. And just like the police techniques, it works on the majority of people because they're uninformed.
It's stress in context of a given question. To give an example, say a company is running polygraph tests to determine who has been embezzling. The questioner might begin with a series of questions like, "Have you ever taken office supplies like pens or paper for personal use?" "Have you ever used the company phone for personal business?" "Have you every checked your personal email on company time?" With a wide enough series of questions, you'll find find something any given employee is guilty of. Mix in somewhere near the end, "Have you embezzled money?" Someone who is innocent of embezzling will be stressed out over the more minor questions, but will relax a bit when asked the real question. "Oh, they care about embezzling? Well, I certainly never did that!" The guilty person wouldn't be expected to relax on that question.
(This isn't to say that the device is effective, just that the above is part of the principles of operation.)
Doen't the DMCA allow you to just send a "No I don't infringue on the copyright" back to Google and have your app not taken down?
If by "not taken down" you mean, "restored in no sooner than 10 days, but not more than 14." The 10 day window allows the original DMCA filer to file a proper lawsuit, but it also means you can silence damn near anyone on the internet for 10 days, then just back down when challenged with an "Oops, my mistake." This is very useful for silencing time sensitive information like sale information or competition in a hot market.
Have you seen the software Apple releases for Windows? iTunes on Windows, is a festering sinkhole of crap. Slow, buggy, and pisses all over the Windows UI conventions and guidelines. If that's the best they can do (and I'd hope that their most popular Windows application does get the best they can do), porting XCode over will just convince millions of Windows programmers that Mac fans are all deluded by a shiny surface under which lurks garbage. (Not that it's necessarily true, but that will be the impression.)
The "better" code fails if javascript is disabled. It fails "safe," if "safe" is defined as "completely uselessly." The entire page is hidden with CSS until some javascript runs that reveals it. Using NoScript, possibly to defend against these very attacks? Congrats, the page silently disappears!
The proposed fix is terrible. Regrettably, we're going to need browser makers to extend their browsers to really fix the problem.
The city is using the camera not for safety, but for profit. The third party law enforcement doesn't give a rats ass about safety, just the profit. Fuck 'em. If you can weasel out of it, more power to you!
1. Back up your own damn site. Unless you're explicitly paying for backup and restoration services, be prepared to recover your own site if necessary.
2. Anyone offering "unlimited" bandwidth or disk is lying to you. If you dig around in the fine print they'll usually clarify that "unlimited" means something like "as appropriate for a small business growing at a reasonable rate" or similar bullshit. You'll never get a concrete number out of them. The real number is, "If you cease to be profitable, they'll kick you off." Pay a bit more and go with a web host who will tell you what the limits are.
The 9.7-inch multi-touch screen is perfect for playing board games at home....
I guess if you just play Chess, Go, and maybe the occasional game of Monopoly, it might be perfect for you. Maybe. I'd hate to play Chess on such a small board and I would loathe to play Go. If you're really into board games it's obviously crap for most games. The big problem: "screen" size. Most board games use a play area that is significantly larger than the 10" diagonal that the iPad offers. I can see different parts of the board in detail with the fastest, most intuitive interface ever: my eyes. Other people playing with my in person can look at other areas simultaneously. If I have a hand of cards, I can see them without needing to simultaneously obscure the board. If I need to move a piece or set of pieces, a touchscreen isn't bad, but a tactile experience is superior and has zero learning curve.
I can envision games that port reasonably well to the iPad. I can envision "board" games designed specifically for the iPad that rock. Something like Microsoft's Surface would really rock for many purposes, but the iPad has a clear portability win. (Of course, the iPhone is even more portable.) There may be merit to board gaming on the iPad. But as the "perfect" solution for playing board games it's laughable.
The findings give further ammunition to publishers who insist that Google and other news aggregators are linking to their stories without paying any advertising revenue.
You don't need ammunition to support painfully obvious facts. yes, Google and other news aggregators link to stories without paying any advertising revenue. Brilliant sleuthing Sherlock.
Relatedly, if they hate having Google do so, it's trivially easy to get off the page. Why don't they? Because for all their whining, they know that Google does drive traffic to them. "I don't have a business model, and you do," isn't a valid reason to ask for Google's money.
"Though Google is driving some traffic to newspapers, it's also taking a significant share away," Doctor said. "A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers' individual sites."
Those two sentences have absolutely nothing to do with each other, despite Doctor's and the article's author's implication that they do. What really matters is, what portion of those 56% visitors would not have visited the news site in the absence of Google News. I'm guessing the answer is less. New result: Google is a net win for news sites.
...only 10 percent of those surveyed would be willing to pay for a print newspaper subscription to gain online access.
In related news, almost no one is willing to pay for a DVD to gain online access to the movie. If I wanted to read the physical edition, I'd subscribe to that. If I want to read the online edition, asking to subscribe to the physical edition is insane. At my last apartment I got the Sunday paper for free. I did get some small amount of value from it, but I ultimately specifically requested to not get it because it wasn't worth the hassle to throw it away.
The effect of aggregators have been particularly challenging for the media industry, particularly among the recent downturn of advertising revenue.
The article has shown nothing of the sort. It's entirely possible that in the absence of Google News that total news consumption would drop.
If you can read, say, 10 of his essays and not be richly rewarded by 2 or 3 absolutely-original ideas embedded in them, you plainly have neither talent nor taste for ideas.
I must say, I also find Lanier's writing to be absolutely original and agree that anyone who doesn't see his new clothes must have neither talent nor taste for ideas.
I'm not convinced that the internet has made the signal to noise ratio worse. As Sturgeon reminded us in 1958, "Ninety percent of everything is crud." It's always been that way. Go to the library and blindly grab 10 novels in a genre you like; I'm betting about 9 are crap. Grab a random mainstream newspaper and check the quality; remember the ads are part of the newspaper! Watch ten hours completely randomly selected network television. Watch ten random mainstream movies; your choice of year.
What the internet gives us is volume. If you're considering picking a magazine to read, and there is a selection of 20, of which only maybe 2 are good, it's not that hard to check them all out, or ask friends for opinions on the 20. When you're facing millions of web pages, it's more daunting. Fortunately it turns out that Web 2.0 is a good enough filter. My problem is a surplus of good stuff!
The other danger of the internet is that it lets cranks find each other, reach critical mass, and convince each other that they aren't crazy, leading to insanity like the birthers, the 9-11 conspiracy theorists, the LHC will destroy the world nuts, that the earth is expanding, and more. I want to believe that good speech, in the form of science and reason, will keep them back, but I fear it's not enough. The knots of crazy form a protective shell to protect them from science and reason. Because understanding why the crazy is wrong can take a fair amount of time, they successfully put out "Isn't it odd that..." tendrils that spread like crazy. Fighting back with reason is hard, since "What you learned in high school is basically true" isn't as fun of a fact to share with friends as "Science is all a lie!" A random comic book artist "fighting the power" is a more compelling than a scientist repeating what everyone knows.
Yeah, Google is totally going out on a limb by having users update their phone. There is absolutely no precedent for this. Can you picture Apple doing that for the iPhone?
That said, I don't trust Adobe to not screw it up again, so I'd like it to default off. (Of course, I don't trust Firefox either, which is why I like NoScript.)
If your network security relies on limiting DNS lookups, you don't really have any network security at all. You might as well take the house numbers off the front of your house to make it harder for burglars to find your house to break in.
Well, to be fair, the real reason I avoid Wal-Mart (yet strangely continue going to Target and a host of other stores) is that I dislike pushing shopping carts. It also can't possibly have anything to do with having a wider selection online, including higher quality and more durable products.
Dear original post author: if I want clueless stereotypes I know where to find Thomas Friedman.
Slashdot Mirror
Switch to Mac, where you can get an entire operating system with the speed, stability, unnecessary bundling, and usable interface of iTunes for Windows!
iTunes for Windows has the opportunity to be an ambassador for Apple's so-called superior engineering. Are they just so arrogant that they assume we'll put up with it? (I got tired of that crapfest and switched to Android. Being able to uninstall iTunes was worth the cost by itself.)
Obxkcd
"...large screen displaying near-SEM resolutions..."? You're working with screens with resolutions on the order of nanometers? On a "large" display, you'd be looking at a resolution like 2,813,538 by 1,524,000, about 127,000 DPI. It's as impressive as it is implausible! Of course, humans can't see such small details. Do you use a microscope to look at your screen?
I've worked in and remain in touch with the medical imaging field, and radiologists manage to do just fine with relatively stock consumer displays. They make use of zooming and level adjustments to compensate for the limitations of the monitor, but also to see details that would be invisible to the naked eye on a traditional slide. Sure, they love getting larger, higher resolution, and more color accurate monitors, it speeds things up for a variety of reasons, but they do pretty well without.
I have no idea what the "tiny pad" comment has to do with anything, since the article was about resolution on a tiny pad.
I also missed this gem:
So, you're talking about a 33.75 DPI display at 6 feet. 300 DPI at about 1 foot is a reasonable estimate for where most people no longer observe jaggies in printout. That's about 0.000138888888 radians per pixel. 33.75 at 6 feet is about 0.000205761314 radians per pixel, which is a larger apparent pixel. To roughly match the apparent resolution of that 300 DPI printout held a foot from your face, you'll need to be a bit less than 9 feet away from that monitor. Congrats, you have perfectly normal vision. 1080p isn't actually all that high of a resolution, and it's decidedly mediocre for a modern computer display.
If "people like higher resolution displays, maybe we should make those" counts as ground-breaking research, do you think Apple will fund my research into my theory that people like fitting more information into smaller spaces, so maybe we should make denser flash memory?
Have you heard of this cutting edge technology called "zooming in"? It allows use mortals to even see things smaller than even your apparently superhuman eyes can.
If the horticultural industry to so behind the times that they're reduced to squinting at their screens trying to see details, I fear for our future food supply.
How did I miss that? Oh, right, because I never agreed to any EULA. It sure as hell wasn't presented to me when I turned it on for the first time. Perhaps I missed the EULA when I turned on my Wii for the first time, because it didn't seem to be there. They're free to void the warranty and to deny me access to their online services, but beyond that they can kiss my ass. They do not own my Wii, and I am not licensing it from them, and no amount of wishing will make it true.
Why does Intel want to network my clothes dryer? Because they think they can make more money that way. That was easy.
I'm curious, what exactly is "insightful" (as moderators have marked the parent post) about willfully ignoring that Slashdot posters have varying viewpoints and then dishonestly insinuating that the Slashdot hivemind is somehow hypocritical because different people have expressed different opinions in different places?
If someone wants blu-ray movies, they almost certainly already have a dedicated blu-ray player or a PS3, so adding the functionality to the XBox360 is unlikely to entice them.
If you want more space for games, then it's no longer an XBox 360 as older models won't be able to play newer games.
Sure, some people, like yourself, would like blu-ray support on the XBox 360. But is it enough to justify the additional price? I doubt it, and apparently Microsoft agrees.
That risk is part of why a polygraph is inherently a difficult psychological technique. The examiner needs to be skilled at manipulating people so that innocent people not realize which questions really matter. If the whole company knows the polygraph is being brought in because of embezzlement it's going to harder. And if the person being interrogated understands the techniques, they can potentially manipulate teh results based on their own skill.
Of course, this is ignoring the question of examiner skill. Are there people skilled enough to provide reasonable reliable results? Can the skill actually be taught? I'm not convinced on either front. The accounts I hear are that polygraphs are mostly effective because they scare people into confessions. It's just an interrogation technique similar to ones cops have been practicing for years. And just like the police techniques, it works on the majority of people because they're uninformed.
It's stress in context of a given question. To give an example, say a company is running polygraph tests to determine who has been embezzling. The questioner might begin with a series of questions like, "Have you ever taken office supplies like pens or paper for personal use?" "Have you ever used the company phone for personal business?" "Have you every checked your personal email on company time?" With a wide enough series of questions, you'll find find something any given employee is guilty of. Mix in somewhere near the end, "Have you embezzled money?" Someone who is innocent of embezzling will be stressed out over the more minor questions, but will relax a bit when asked the real question. "Oh, they care about embezzling? Well, I certainly never did that!" The guilty person wouldn't be expected to relax on that question.
(This isn't to say that the device is effective, just that the above is part of the principles of operation.)
If by "not taken down" you mean, "restored in no sooner than 10 days, but not more than 14." The 10 day window allows the original DMCA filer to file a proper lawsuit, but it also means you can silence damn near anyone on the internet for 10 days, then just back down when challenged with an "Oops, my mistake." This is very useful for silencing time sensitive information like sale information or competition in a hot market.
Have you seen the software Apple releases for Windows? iTunes on Windows, is a festering sinkhole of crap. Slow, buggy, and pisses all over the Windows UI conventions and guidelines. If that's the best they can do (and I'd hope that their most popular Windows application does get the best they can do), porting XCode over will just convince millions of Windows programmers that Mac fans are all deluded by a shiny surface under which lurks garbage. (Not that it's necessarily true, but that will be the impression.)
The "better" code fails if javascript is disabled. It fails "safe," if "safe" is defined as "completely uselessly." The entire page is hidden with CSS until some javascript runs that reveals it. Using NoScript, possibly to defend against these very attacks? Congrats, the page silently disappears!
The proposed fix is terrible. Regrettably, we're going to need browser makers to extend their browsers to really fix the problem.
The city is using the camera not for safety, but for profit. The third party law enforcement doesn't give a rats ass about safety, just the profit. Fuck 'em. If you can weasel out of it, more power to you!
1. Back up your own damn site. Unless you're explicitly paying for backup and restoration services, be prepared to recover your own site if necessary. 2. Anyone offering "unlimited" bandwidth or disk is lying to you. If you dig around in the fine print they'll usually clarify that "unlimited" means something like "as appropriate for a small business growing at a reasonable rate" or similar bullshit. You'll never get a concrete number out of them. The real number is, "If you cease to be profitable, they'll kick you off." Pay a bit more and go with a web host who will tell you what the limits are.
I guess if you just play Chess, Go, and maybe the occasional game of Monopoly, it might be perfect for you. Maybe. I'd hate to play Chess on such a small board and I would loathe to play Go. If you're really into board games it's obviously crap for most games. The big problem: "screen" size. Most board games use a play area that is significantly larger than the 10" diagonal that the iPad offers. I can see different parts of the board in detail with the fastest, most intuitive interface ever: my eyes. Other people playing with my in person can look at other areas simultaneously. If I have a hand of cards, I can see them without needing to simultaneously obscure the board. If I need to move a piece or set of pieces, a touchscreen isn't bad, but a tactile experience is superior and has zero learning curve.
I can envision games that port reasonably well to the iPad. I can envision "board" games designed specifically for the iPad that rock. Something like Microsoft's Surface would really rock for many purposes, but the iPad has a clear portability win. (Of course, the iPhone is even more portable.) There may be merit to board gaming on the iPad. But as the "perfect" solution for playing board games it's laughable.
You don't need ammunition to support painfully obvious facts. yes, Google and other news aggregators link to stories without paying any advertising revenue. Brilliant sleuthing Sherlock.
Relatedly, if they hate having Google do so, it's trivially easy to get off the page. Why don't they? Because for all their whining, they know that Google does drive traffic to them. "I don't have a business model, and you do," isn't a valid reason to ask for Google's money.
Those two sentences have absolutely nothing to do with each other, despite Doctor's and the article's author's implication that they do. What really matters is, what portion of those 56% visitors would not have visited the news site in the absence of Google News. I'm guessing the answer is less. New result: Google is a net win for news sites.
In related news, almost no one is willing to pay for a DVD to gain online access to the movie. If I wanted to read the physical edition, I'd subscribe to that. If I want to read the online edition, asking to subscribe to the physical edition is insane. At my last apartment I got the Sunday paper for free. I did get some small amount of value from it, but I ultimately specifically requested to not get it because it wasn't worth the hassle to throw it away.
The article has shown nothing of the sort. It's entirely possible that in the absence of Google News that total news consumption would drop.
I must say, I also find Lanier's writing to be absolutely original and agree that anyone who doesn't see his new clothes must have neither talent nor taste for ideas.
I'm not convinced that the internet has made the signal to noise ratio worse. As Sturgeon reminded us in 1958, "Ninety percent of everything is crud." It's always been that way. Go to the library and blindly grab 10 novels in a genre you like; I'm betting about 9 are crap. Grab a random mainstream newspaper and check the quality; remember the ads are part of the newspaper! Watch ten hours completely randomly selected network television. Watch ten random mainstream movies; your choice of year.
What the internet gives us is volume. If you're considering picking a magazine to read, and there is a selection of 20, of which only maybe 2 are good, it's not that hard to check them all out, or ask friends for opinions on the 20. When you're facing millions of web pages, it's more daunting. Fortunately it turns out that Web 2.0 is a good enough filter. My problem is a surplus of good stuff!
The other danger of the internet is that it lets cranks find each other, reach critical mass, and convince each other that they aren't crazy, leading to insanity like the birthers, the 9-11 conspiracy theorists, the LHC will destroy the world nuts, that the earth is expanding, and more. I want to believe that good speech, in the form of science and reason, will keep them back, but I fear it's not enough. The knots of crazy form a protective shell to protect them from science and reason. Because understanding why the crazy is wrong can take a fair amount of time, they successfully put out "Isn't it odd that..." tendrils that spread like crazy. Fighting back with reason is hard, since "What you learned in high school is basically true" isn't as fun of a fact to share with friends as "Science is all a lie!" A random comic book artist "fighting the power" is a more compelling than a scientist repeating what everyone knows.
*sigh*
Yeah, Google is totally going out on a limb by having users update their phone. There is absolutely no precedent for this. Can you picture Apple doing that for the iPhone?
"So, what exactly is Javascript being used for?"
It's admittedly rare, but there are cool uses. The SSA-X2 character sheet for 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons is a good example: you get the benefits of an auto-calculating character sheet, nicely formatted printed output, and portability.
That said, I don't trust Adobe to not screw it up again, so I'd like it to default off. (Of course, I don't trust Firefox either, which is why I like NoScript.)
The printer manufacturer won't end up spending a penny, and you'll have caused the post office a bit of a hassle, which ultimately means mail for everyone gets a bit more expensive.
If your network security relies on limiting DNS lookups, you don't really have any network security at all. You might as well take the house numbers off the front of your house to make it harder for burglars to find your house to break in.
Well, to be fair, the real reason I avoid Wal-Mart (yet strangely continue going to Target and a host of other stores) is that I dislike pushing shopping carts. It also can't possibly have anything to do with having a wider selection online, including higher quality and more durable products.
Dear original post author: if I want clueless stereotypes I know where to find Thomas Friedman.