Re:Biggest Market for $100 PC? Developed World
on
The Hundred-Buck PC
·
· Score: 1
Err the truth is inbetween. If 80% of applications used do not require a powerful computer, then the question is, is there a market segment which uses entirely these programs? The answer is an overwhelming yes. Now it's not a figure nearly as high as 80%, but it's certainly enough to support a product line. Also don't forget that if you have a low end product being bought by a company, the chance is VERY high that they'll buy their high end from you too. Heck, make some bundles too.
You missed it again! If there's any actual evidence, it changes things. Just like in any complicated equation I can give you the partial result any step of the way. The current step is not guilty. If then there is solid evidence, then the result will be guilty. If there is a defense (that is, something which casts doubt on the evidence) then the result is not guilty, and so on.
So once again: Given that the only facts that exist are those presented in the article, he is not guilty. If any new facts are presented which the article left out, then he might be guilty. You're making a strange assumption about the way people (or at least I) think, but I can't determine a proper way to put it in words.
I don't see any opinion about it. No amount of circumstantial evidence is enough to convict someone even with absolutely no defense. If it could then anyone could be rightly convicted of almost anything.
Specifically for this given case (excluding the confession), there are no facts given in the story to either support or go against the idea that the man committed arson. The point is that if there wasn't a confession, he may have gone to trail with absolutely nothing against him, yet I suspect he'd lose.
Now if you have some more facts to throw in go ahead, I'm just basing this off of what has been told.
Always down to the lawyers. I know I'd have to get a lawyer if I was ever accused of something, but that fact is simply terrible. Why the defense of "I wasn't there, I was over here at the time. Here's the five people who were with me." isn't enough to stop circumstantial evidence, I haven't a clue. Hiring a lawyer when you have a two sentence defense is to hire a lier for he'll speak far more than two sentences.
If the evidence against someone leaves the defendant without a shadow of a doubt guilty, but he is not, then they have lied. If I am ever accused, I plan on suing the accusers after the trial for lying under oath because any evidence you put against me is either circumstantial, or a lie. Either they lied, or they wasted my time.
In the case of the man in the story, there is one piece of circumstantial evidence and one hazy past event (unsure circumstances). Anyone who would convict him with just that hasn't fulfilled their job as juror.
Freedom is not an incompatable world view.
What's more important? Freedom or rights? Do I have the freedom to kill people. or do people have the right to live? May I yell "fire" in a crowded area? No, you have the freedom to act in a good manner. That is dependent on culture, so it is different from place to place.
Democracy is not an incompatable world view.
Woah! Calling democracy a right is very strange indeed. Democracy is one process, versus many others. It's like saying $5 medium pizzas on Mondays is a right. There may or may not be a best governmental system, but I can assure you that if there is, it isn't democracy. Is the best system representative? Probably. Just because it's your system doesn't make it right, just like how one religion being yours also doesn't make it right.
Human rights are not an incompatable world view. Equality under the law is not an incompatable world view.
Second sentence, yes I agree completely. The first one is a little shady as it is mixed with the very first one about. I consider a great many things to be human rights violations which other people do not, such as capital punishment. I believe the right to live cannot ever be removed by anyone other than themselves (and not inferred to be removed by other actions, that is, murder, threat of murder, etc). Thus, my views are incompatible with others.
The pace of progress will probably increase by an order of magnitude too
As will the mortality rates. Unless government is heavily involved with safety, you can expect corners to be cut. Now this might all be FUD, but no more than the statement I am quoting.
x86 will die sooner, it'll just take a lot of guts. AMD and Intel both want to can it, but can't because it makes them look like dead-beat dads. If these two companies would talk to eachother a bit more and develope a mutual new ISA, we could just move on from this mess. Too bad so many companies are using code older than me, or worse, binaries older than me which no longer have code. That said, why can't x86 be legacy?
Ok let's say you have 1 object, and there's a 100% chance it's an object that's going to open up a wormhole into your universe. Now make it 2 and 50% (independent events). Now make it 4 and 25%, now make it a billion with a chance of 1/billion. Now make it an infinite number of objects, each with an infinitesimal chance of opening up a wormhole in your universe. What does this number approach? (Hint: Not infinity)
I've never understood why this isn't illegal. To me, 'free trade' should work both ways, that is, no descrimination by countries, no descrimination by companies. The most obvious inconsistancy to me right now is the price of textbooks. Why an international edition for a book can be sold at 20% of the US versions textbook price, I haven't a clue. Why someone can buy it overseas, ship it back over here and sell it for much less than the local edition, I haven't a clue. Since it does not match the company's price to me, I feel the company is lying to me about the cost and I can only assume extreme profit margins. Another example is soda. If a supermarket makes X profit off of a 2 liter, then another establishment sells 20 oz of the same liquid for twice the price of the 2 liter, I know most of my money is being wasted going to some guy's pocket.
Now I am really not saying they should not be able to price themselves into a hole. I am saying they should not be able to deny someone the ability of a choice. You see the sign that says "No Outside Food"? That can be read as "We don't do capitalism". No competition, arbirary prices. The natural (and false) argument is "well just don't go there at all". All that does is remove yet more choice. How is my personal denial of service to an establishment properly identfied if I must simply boycott the entire company?
To suggest that little or no climate changed is being "caused" by something man made without backing it up goes beyond the bounds of irresponsible...
Excuse me, he's suggesting that both are causing a massive affect, the most noticeable part of both canceling each other out. Let's say we have an egg on a roof. We push it one way, it falls off. We push it the other way, it falls off. He's saying we're pushing it both ways. It's not going to fall off right now because it's balances but if we drop the force on one side, it'll fall off. Incidentally, not suggested by him but by me: It can crack where it stands.
You mean with the combustable paint, right? And the idea that it could have held helium wouldn't have saved it, where as if it had different paint it would have been fine? That's what you're referring to, right?
Would you do that with your kid? Or someone you hired? How come whenever anything new comes along we get a great "ism" against it, persecute it for awhile, then after about a hundred to a thousand years accept it?
If you don't want to treat something as an intelligent being, don't make it an intelligent being. That's my guess as to how things will be done. I don't want to be born a silicon shell on this planet any time soon.
Well, I would ask you at what point a robot is equal to a person. I mean in theory if you took a computer right now and simulated an entire real brain (real simulation talking here, I assume atom level up will do it but I may be wrong) you'll have something that is just as much thinking as anyone else, and certainly has no less consciousness, just people will demean it because they know an easy way to pull the plug. Of course if one day that's you, you may not want them to pull it.
So yeah, if someone programs something to say "I don't want to be a slave", it's meaningless. Then again if your superultratron vacuum cleaner starts painting abstract landscapes and dreams of visiting London, that's different. It's quite unlikely we'll be letting vacuum cleaners get that far.. well then again look at cell phones.
Who needs a prototype? What he heck are you talking about anyway?
From what 'Ms. Lohan' said, this is the proposal: If you can draw a plan, that's concrete, take a patent on the design. What we don't want to see is someone patenting the idea of squirting water into the air from a fish tank and recovering it to oxygenate the tank. Make a specific device and patent that. What we have in software is currently parallel to patenting the design of a 'car' instead of, say a 'honda civic'. When you write a software car, people should compete with that specific car, not the concept of car! I don't care if you made the first one either.
I'm going to wait until they build a human being atom by atom, copying the exact electrochemical composition of someone's brain, shock them to life, and "discover" that yes, you get a real person out of that, no different than the birthed one (except of course for any mistakes you make).
Sacks of chemicals, people. Just interesting sacks.
Slashdot Mirror
Err the truth is inbetween. If 80% of applications used do not require a powerful computer, then the question is, is there a market segment which uses entirely these programs? The answer is an overwhelming yes. Now it's not a figure nearly as high as 80%, but it's certainly enough to support a product line. Also don't forget that if you have a low end product being bought by a company, the chance is VERY high that they'll buy their high end from you too. Heck, make some bundles too.
You missed it again! If there's any actual evidence, it changes things. Just like in any complicated equation I can give you the partial result any step of the way. The current step is not guilty. If then there is solid evidence, then the result will be guilty. If there is a defense (that is, something which casts doubt on the evidence) then the result is not guilty, and so on.
So once again: Given that the only facts that exist are those presented in the article, he is not guilty. If any new facts are presented which the article left out, then he might be guilty. You're making a strange assumption about the way people (or at least I) think, but I can't determine a proper way to put it in words.
I don't see any opinion about it. No amount of circumstantial evidence is enough to convict someone even with absolutely no defense. If it could then anyone could be rightly convicted of almost anything.
Specifically for this given case (excluding the confession), there are no facts given in the story to either support or go against the idea that the man committed arson. The point is that if there wasn't a confession, he may have gone to trail with absolutely nothing against him, yet I suspect he'd lose.
Now if you have some more facts to throw in go ahead, I'm just basing this off of what has been told.
Always down to the lawyers. I know I'd have to get a lawyer if I was ever accused of something, but that fact is simply terrible. Why the defense of "I wasn't there, I was over here at the time. Here's the five people who were with me." isn't enough to stop circumstantial evidence, I haven't a clue. Hiring a lawyer when you have a two sentence defense is to hire a lier for he'll speak far more than two sentences.
If the evidence against someone leaves the defendant without a shadow of a doubt guilty, but he is not, then they have lied. If I am ever accused, I plan on suing the accusers after the trial for lying under oath because any evidence you put against me is either circumstantial, or a lie. Either they lied, or they wasted my time.
In the case of the man in the story, there is one piece of circumstantial evidence and one hazy past event (unsure circumstances). Anyone who would convict him with just that hasn't fulfilled their job as juror.
I think the answer "42 chicks at the same time" would make two completely different groups of people very happy.
Freedom is not an incompatable world view.
What's more important? Freedom or rights? Do I have the freedom to kill people. or do people have the right to live? May I yell "fire" in a crowded area? No, you have the freedom to act in a good manner. That is dependent on culture, so it is different from place to place.
Democracy is not an incompatable world view.
Woah! Calling democracy a right is very strange indeed. Democracy is one process, versus many others. It's like saying $5 medium pizzas on Mondays is a right. There may or may not be a best governmental system, but I can assure you that if there is, it isn't democracy. Is the best system representative? Probably. Just because it's your system doesn't make it right, just like how one religion being yours also doesn't make it right.
Human rights are not an incompatable world view.
Equality under the law is not an incompatable world view.
Second sentence, yes I agree completely. The first one is a little shady as it is mixed with the very first one about. I consider a great many things to be human rights violations which other people do not, such as capital punishment. I believe the right to live cannot ever be removed by anyone other than themselves (and not inferred to be removed by other actions, that is, murder, threat of murder, etc). Thus, my views are incompatible with others.
Don't blame Intel; they voted for Kodos.
It's just human/human. For example you have some of your mom in you, literally. That is, cells with your mother's exact DNA.
Are you implying the dodo deserved it?
Build a machine that can not only figure out why nevertheless is one word, but also replace it for people who don't realize it.
The pace of progress will probably increase by an order of magnitude too
As will the mortality rates. Unless government is heavily involved with safety, you can expect corners to be cut. Now this might all be FUD, but no more than the statement I am quoting.
x86 will die sooner, it'll just take a lot of guts. AMD and Intel both want to can it, but can't because it makes them look like dead-beat dads. If these two companies would talk to eachother a bit more and develope a mutual new ISA, we could just move on from this mess. Too bad so many companies are using code older than me, or worse, binaries older than me which no longer have code. That said, why can't x86 be legacy?
sigh.. I see this again and again.
Ok let's say you have 1 object, and there's a 100% chance it's an object that's going to open up a wormhole into your universe. Now make it 2 and 50% (independent events). Now make it 4 and 25%, now make it a billion with a chance of 1/billion. Now make it an infinite number of objects, each with an infinitesimal chance of opening up a wormhole in your universe. What does this number approach? (Hint: Not infinity)
I've never understood why this isn't illegal. To me, 'free trade' should work both ways, that is, no descrimination by countries, no descrimination by companies. The most obvious inconsistancy to me right now is the price of textbooks. Why an international edition for a book can be sold at 20% of the US versions textbook price, I haven't a clue. Why someone can buy it overseas, ship it back over here and sell it for much less than the local edition, I haven't a clue. Since it does not match the company's price to me, I feel the company is lying to me about the cost and I can only assume extreme profit margins. Another example is soda. If a supermarket makes X profit off of a 2 liter, then another establishment sells 20 oz of the same liquid for twice the price of the 2 liter, I know most of my money is being wasted going to some guy's pocket.
Now I am really not saying they should not be able to price themselves into a hole. I am saying they should not be able to deny someone the ability of a choice. You see the sign that says "No Outside Food"? That can be read as "We don't do capitalism". No competition, arbirary prices. The natural (and false) argument is "well just don't go there at all". All that does is remove yet more choice. How is my personal denial of service to an establishment properly identfied if I must simply boycott the entire company?
I've always wanted my "Hello World" source to take 10k.
If you used a tennis ball eventually it either pop or tear depending on how it was made. What's your point?
Ok fine. I'll reword it. "It can be destroyed where it stands"
To suggest that little or no climate changed is being "caused" by something man made without backing it up goes beyond the bounds of irresponsible ...
Excuse me, he's suggesting that both are causing a massive affect, the most noticeable part of both canceling each other out. Let's say we have an egg on a roof. We push it one way, it falls off. We push it the other way, it falls off. He's saying we're pushing it both ways. It's not going to fall off right now because it's balances but if we drop the force on one side, it'll fall off. Incidentally, not suggested by him but by me: It can crack where it stands.
Physicists Work on Physics' Uncool Image
There's your first problem right there.
...to fill a burning Volkswagen Beetle plunging off a bridge? Would they be able to store a library of congress on the way down?
You mean with the combustable paint, right? And the idea that it could have held helium wouldn't have saved it, where as if it had different paint it would have been fine? That's what you're referring to, right?
Would you do that with your kid? Or someone you hired? How come whenever anything new comes along we get a great "ism" against it, persecute it for awhile, then after about a hundred to a thousand years accept it?
If you don't want to treat something as an intelligent being, don't make it an intelligent being. That's my guess as to how things will be done. I don't want to be born a silicon shell on this planet any time soon.
Well, I would ask you at what point a robot is equal to a person. I mean in theory if you took a computer right now and simulated an entire real brain (real simulation talking here, I assume atom level up will do it but I may be wrong) you'll have something that is just as much thinking as anyone else, and certainly has no less consciousness, just people will demean it because they know an easy way to pull the plug. Of course if one day that's you, you may not want them to pull it.
So yeah, if someone programs something to say "I don't want to be a slave", it's meaningless. Then again if your superultratron vacuum cleaner starts painting abstract landscapes and dreams of visiting London, that's different. It's quite unlikely we'll be letting vacuum cleaners get that far.. well then again look at cell phones.
Who needs a prototype? What he heck are you talking about anyway?
From what 'Ms. Lohan' said, this is the proposal: If you can draw a plan, that's concrete, take a patent on the design. What we don't want to see is someone patenting the idea of squirting water into the air from a fish tank and recovering it to oxygenate the tank. Make a specific device and patent that. What we have in software is currently parallel to patenting the design of a 'car' instead of, say a 'honda civic'. When you write a software car, people should compete with that specific car, not the concept of car! I don't care if you made the first one either.
I'm going to wait until they build a human being atom by atom, copying the exact electrochemical composition of someone's brain, shock them to life, and "discover" that yes, you get a real person out of that, no different than the birthed one (except of course for any mistakes you make).
Sacks of chemicals, people. Just interesting sacks.
FED? Meet FUD.
Discuss