"Since Intel has always been shaky in floating point "
I am not defending Intel, but your statement is wildly inaccurate. They did have an issue once and that was only with some purposefully obscure math. It was very difficult to reproduce and Intel recalled those processors. That was years ago. So I am not sure what you base that statement on.
Wow, I am impressed. The Craig's list and crime stats are really nicely done.
Speaking of Craig's List, this could be a disease spreader too. Think of being able to find that horny date close to you from the online personals. Little tags all over saying "Yea! I'm horny! come on over!". lol.
News headlines, "STD's spread like wildfire with Google's new map API".
"It seems this dispells the myth of the existence of a soul that is not a function of the brain. And therefore, religious constructs such as heaven, hell and any kind of existence after death."
Perhaps it is that arguement that I find deeply disturbing. It would certainly cause us to have to readdress the whole religon thing wouldn't it?
Just do a google search on "Pittsburgh's Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research" and you will see this is not something out of the blue for the man who founded the center or the center itself. I was a bit surprised myself at what I read. From all of the background, we probably should have guessed that it was the next step.
Wow, I am not sure whether to be deep disturbed or fantastically excited. Perhaps I feel both. I feel that we have souls and I am not sure what would happen to that during the time of death. It will be interesting to hear what that first person who comes back tells us of that time. Perhaps that is what disturbs me the most. We could really know what actually comes after death now too. Yes, I am deeply disturbed and fantastically excited, both.
This all just smacks to me of what happen during the second world war, or better said what caused it. Instead of physical domination and occupation of a country, we are using economics instead. The outcome however is strikingly similar.
The Nazi party at the time claimed that it was the Jews that were causing the problems with the country and true Germans not prospering like they were destined to. Now we use the excuse of economics to do the same thing. Instead of Jews we have targetted the poor instead. The rich don't like to look at how the poor have to live. They take up valuable land that could be used better by real Americans to prosper. So we will force them out of their homes and remove the last security these people have, more than likely plunging most into the final throw of complete failure. These are the poor, the poeple who struggle to pay bills because they don't earn enough to cover them. The ones who don't have access to the credit needed to start somewhere else. People who's homes have like equity to begin with and won't be able to take the fair value cash, minus the bank note and start over. It makes me sick to my stomach to see that so many Amercians actually can justify this to themselves. Scarey
"If the algorithms are faulty I don't see how the derived software is going to turn out much better"
You don't get it do you. It was presentation material. That's all. It wasn't algorithms used in an existing product. It was simply presented to fetter out exactly the issues you are mentioning, prior to any production work. If you think that all potential products have to have dead on, stone cold, absolutely rock solid foundations prior to the presentation of an idea, then I fear you would not have any software at all. You use Bit Torrent as a standard. That's fine. But, I am sure if you went back and looked at their ideas prior to coding, they also would have a great number of things, at that time, that wouldn't hold water today. My only point is that judging a product by it's pre-production notes, is silly. I can't think of any project in which the outcome was exactly the same as the picture that was painted for it prior to work. Everything changes as production starts and continues. This never even got off the ground and everyone shakes a fist a MS for it. Perhaps we should use the same standard for judging Linux or NASA or even our own governments. They all are dismal failures when using those same standards of judgement. Just be fair in your doling out of blame and the standards of how you measure it. That's all. I am in no way suggesting that MS is right, it's just the process of blaming them that seems so wrong to me.
"But microsoft does like to be a part of anything that gets big"
Ah ha! I agree with you on that point. Tremendous insight there. They like very much to move into proven arenas. Perhaps that is a smart way to spend money. Spend it where it is already proven that there is a market, rather than making one yourself. Proof is in several area's. Office, to compete with Word Perfect, IE, to compete with Netscape, even DOS to compete with CPM/Unix and Digital Research. Have they ever made anythign truely original? I can't think of one. Yet they still make boat loads of profit. Perhaps their business tack is what makes them good rather than their ability to produce good original products.
Did I ever state that my language was strictly per a dictionary? Never. I don't recall stating that I was a scholar or making a speech that needed it's spelling and grammer checked. To even suggest that what someone states is illegitimate because of spelling and or word usage only points to the fact that you haven't an argument to support your cause yourself. It's a childish way to divert the point at hand. Get over it.
Since when is Dictionary.com an accepted standard for any language. It is not. Go back to the books my friend. Here I will even help you. Lose the conjecture and the blogish references from you arguements and you might learn how to win.
Just a couple of standards accepted by most colleges and schools in our country. Wiki's do not count, sorry. You cannot use sources that take user submissions as source material and call it fact. There has to be certifiable work behind it to prove it. Dictionary.com does not have neither the work nor the certifiable material. Just their own thoughts mixed in with the submissions of users. That doesn't make it fact, lol. Just as the sources for the article under discussion are flakey, misrepresented and full of conjecture, so are your references. Perhaps you think one bad reference can be supported by another?
""Avalanche," as a name......would be just about the worst possible choice. "
Since when has MS ever started a project and released the code under the project name? Longhorn? Whistler? etc. etc.
Show me where you can find a single MS product that is for sale under the project name it was serviced under within the walls of MS. You can't, because that isn't the way they do things there . I am not sticking up for MS, just trying to remind you of the facts. It's just not the way they do business. Good bad or indifferent, your arguement holds no merit in light of history and current facts.
I read the article too. Perhaps you put weight on papers and supposed conversations that they do not deserve. Cohen constantly quotes conversations that he has had, with no documentation to back it up. He points to papers. You point to slides and a couple of paragraphs of text that even MS states are preliminary presentation materials for a project proposal. You are being ridiculous on two points. One is trying to state how awful a product is, before it is a product, before it is even being coded to become a product, by your own documentation. In any other arena, you would be laughed out the door for that alone. The second is that you are challenging MS's own statements about something they admittedly are not working on currently. What is the point? Just to pick nits? Is your hatred of MS so deep that you can't see facts anymore?
Show me some real code, from the real source, and I will stop making fun of you. Otherwise you are making it far to easy.
"The term came from Atari users and was later applied by Infoworld to Microsoft's continuous lying about Microsoft Windows."
You are a hoot!. You quote the dictionary and then add in your own terms. I looked it up myself and could not find anything in refernce to lying and Microsoft. hmmm. Perhaps it's your browser misinterpretting the definitions found there?;)
Take a joke dude. It was meant to draw a giggle. You are taking yourself far far too seriously here. You are obviously close to that abhorent fanatic edge. Chill out!
Another pointless article. Troll me, but the fact is that this is addressing something that is behind MS's closed doors. This guy is spouting off and no one can challenge him, because there are no facts. I am sure there will be lots of discussion, because everyone loves to hate MS, but get real, I for one am not going to allow egg on my face too by following this guy blindly down an unmarked road, only on his word.
Re:Or to make a long story short
on
Star Wars 3D And TV
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"should be 5D: width, height, depth, time and money. "
Actually if you want to include time and money as dimensions, then you would have to invert those in the formula as they are a waste of time and money. Technically speaking, because those two dimensions are inverted, they then cancel out two other dimensions, leaving all George Lucas work a mathematical equivelant of 1D cinematography.
Agreed. We have a solid history in this country that denotes that any law that has ever been written, has been abused to the point that either more laws had to be written to stop the abuse, it had to be repealled, or it is still on the books and is still being abused. There is hardly an exception to that. How anyone can believe that the same thing will not happen with the extremely broad powers granted to law enforcement under the Patriot act, is simply beyond my comprehension. It will happen, it is only a matter of time. The Bush administration is playing the game well, in that they are not using the most contraversial powers until such a time as they can either bolster them with supporting laws, or wrap the Patriot act up in so much legislation that it is impossible to get rid of those conditions anymore. It is truely a scarey process that is going on, and I agree, most are too blind to see it.
It's actually much worse than that. They do not have to notify you of the search prior to the act under the Patriot act. I know you were trying to be humerous, but the fact is that all they need is an indication of suspicious activity in order to have grounds for that search. So your, stab at a joke is probably more accurate than you intended.
"You have not proven AT ALL that cooking with Teflon is dangerous"
I don't see anywhere in his comment that he said cooking with teflon is dangerous. You are putting words in the commentor's mouth I believe. He simply pointed out a link to the manufacturer's website that stated a fact. If this upsets you that much, I hope you don't have any guns in your house.
I find it difficult to believe that if it is truely 'tens times simpler' that there would be any necessity for a book to explain it. Isn't the fact that there is a book contradictory to the statement?
I agree. It allows anyone in the enforcement departments to invade your privacy, based on a suspicion. They do not need to prove that you have participated in a crime, only that they believe your activities indicate that you could possibly be aligned in a manner to be able to participate in a crime. You lose your right to any privacy based on someone elses suspicions.
McCarthy would have been so proud of the Patriot Act. That alone scares me to near death.
Yea you stand up and fight and we all get punished with even more restrictive laws. I can't help but feel like I am back in grade school. One person does something wrong, the teacher does not know who it is, so everyone is punished by losing recess. The Patriot Act diminishes the rights of everyone, in order to catch the few who are doing the wrongful acts. It is the wrong way to correct the problem. I personally cannot see how anyone can possibly argue against that. My right to privacy is gone under this act. As long as someone has even a suspicion that I am participating in something they believe is wrong, I haven't any right to privacy. The problem is that we have proven in the past that peoples suspicions do not equate to a crime and there is always someone who will weild their suspicions in a manner to serve their own desires, without concern as to how it effects others.
" sent by Slashdot Message System on Saturday June 04, @12:05AM
unother (712929) has made you their foe. "
Seems a bit childish that you would flag me as a foe simply because I made a mistake in grammar. I hope no one really pees you off or someone could die. Perhaps if you take such serious offense to grammatical errors, I do not want to be your friend. I am human and do make mistakes. How can I or anyone take anything you say seriously when you publicly display that your emotions and ego are truly in command of you and not your intellect?
Slashdot Mirror
Only four hours? I think you will find there are many compilations of laptops based on both intel processor lineage that easily outperform that.
"Since Intel has always been shaky in floating point "
I am not defending Intel, but your statement is wildly inaccurate. They did have an issue once and that was only with some purposefully obscure math. It was very difficult to reproduce and Intel recalled those processors. That was years ago. So I am not sure what you base that statement on.
Wow, I am impressed. The Craig's list and crime stats are really nicely done.
Speaking of Craig's List, this could be a disease spreader too. Think of being able to find that horny date close to you from the online personals. Little tags all over saying "Yea! I'm horny! come on over!". lol.
News headlines, "STD's spread like wildfire with Google's new map API".
"It seems this dispells the myth of the existence of a soul that is not a function of the brain. And therefore, religious constructs such as heaven, hell and any kind of existence after death."
Perhaps it is that arguement that I find deeply disturbing. It would certainly cause us to have to readdress the whole religon thing wouldn't it?
Just do a google search on "Pittsburgh's Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research" and you will see this is not something out of the blue for the man who founded the center or the center itself. I was a bit surprised myself at what I read. From all of the background, we probably should have guessed that it was the next step.
Wow, I am not sure whether to be deep disturbed or fantastically excited. Perhaps I feel both. I feel that we have souls and I am not sure what would happen to that during the time of death. It will be interesting to hear what that first person who comes back tells us of that time. Perhaps that is what disturbs me the most. We could really know what actually comes after death now too. Yes, I am deeply disturbed and fantastically excited, both.
This all just smacks to me of what happen during the second world war, or better said what caused it. Instead of physical domination and occupation of a country, we are using economics instead. The outcome however is strikingly similar.
The Nazi party at the time claimed that it was the Jews that were causing the problems with the country and true Germans not prospering like they were destined to. Now we use the excuse of economics to do the same thing. Instead of Jews we have targetted the poor instead. The rich don't like to look at how the poor have to live. They take up valuable land that could be used better by real Americans to prosper. So we will force them out of their homes and remove the last security these people have, more than likely plunging most into the final throw of complete failure. These are the poor, the poeple who struggle to pay bills because they don't earn enough to cover them. The ones who don't have access to the credit needed to start somewhere else. People who's homes have like equity to begin with and won't be able to take the fair value cash, minus the bank note and start over. It makes me sick to my stomach to see that so many Amercians actually can justify this to themselves. Scarey
"If the algorithms are faulty I don't see how the derived software is going to turn out much better"
You don't get it do you. It was presentation material. That's all. It wasn't algorithms used in an existing product. It was simply presented to fetter out exactly the issues you are mentioning, prior to any production work. If you think that all potential products have to have dead on, stone cold, absolutely rock solid foundations prior to the presentation of an idea, then I fear you would not have any software at all. You use Bit Torrent as a standard. That's fine. But, I am sure if you went back and looked at their ideas prior to coding, they also would have a great number of things, at that time, that wouldn't hold water today. My only point is that judging a product by it's pre-production notes, is silly. I can't think of any project in which the outcome was exactly the same as the picture that was painted for it prior to work. Everything changes as production starts and continues. This never even got off the ground and everyone shakes a fist a MS for it. Perhaps we should use the same standard for judging Linux or NASA or even our own governments. They all are dismal failures when using those same standards of judgement. Just be fair in your doling out of blame and the standards of how you measure it. That's all. I am in no way suggesting that MS is right, it's just the process of blaming them that seems so wrong to me.
"But microsoft does like to be a part of anything that gets big"
Ah ha! I agree with you on that point. Tremendous insight there. They like very much to move into proven arenas. Perhaps that is a smart way to spend money. Spend it where it is already proven that there is a market, rather than making one yourself. Proof is in several area's. Office, to compete with Word Perfect, IE, to compete with Netscape, even DOS to compete with CPM/Unix and Digital Research. Have they ever made anythign truely original? I can't think of one. Yet they still make boat loads of profit. Perhaps their business tack is what makes them good rather than their ability to produce good original products.
Did I ever state that my language was strictly per a dictionary? Never. I don't recall stating that I was a scholar or making a speech that needed it's spelling and grammer checked. To even suggest that what someone states is illegitimate because of spelling and or word usage only points to the fact that you haven't an argument to support your cause yourself. It's a childish way to divert the point at hand. Get over it.
You apparently are replying to my post without having read it. I was speaking about Bram, not the Slashdot author. Where did you get that from?
Since when is Dictionary.com an accepted standard for any language. It is not. Go back to the books my friend. Here I will even help you. Lose the conjecture and the blogish references from you arguements and you might learn how to win.
n ary&va=vaporware&x=0&y=0
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictio
http://www.bartleby.com/61/64/V0026400.html
Just a couple of standards accepted by most colleges and schools in our country. Wiki's do not count, sorry. You cannot use sources that take user submissions as source material and call it fact. There has to be certifiable work behind it to prove it. Dictionary.com does not have neither the work nor the certifiable material. Just their own thoughts mixed in with the submissions of users. That doesn't make it fact, lol. Just as the sources for the article under discussion are flakey, misrepresented and full of conjecture, so are your references. Perhaps you think one bad reference can be supported by another?
""Avalanche," as a name... ...would be just about the worst possible choice. "
Since when has MS ever started a project and released the code under the project name? Longhorn? Whistler? etc. etc.
Show me where you can find a single MS product that is for sale under the project name it was serviced under within the walls of MS. You can't, because that isn't the way they do things there . I am not sticking up for MS, just trying to remind you of the facts. It's just not the way they do business. Good bad or indifferent, your arguement holds no merit in light of history and current facts.
I read the article too. Perhaps you put weight on papers and supposed conversations that they do not deserve. Cohen constantly quotes conversations that he has had, with no documentation to back it up. He points to papers. You point to slides and a couple of paragraphs of text that even MS states are preliminary presentation materials for a project proposal. You are being ridiculous on two points. One is trying to state how awful a product is, before it is a product, before it is even being coded to become a product, by your own documentation. In any other arena, you would be laughed out the door for that alone. The second is that you are challenging MS's own statements about something they admittedly are not working on currently. What is the point? Just to pick nits? Is your hatred of MS so deep that you can't see facts anymore?
Show me some real code, from the real source, and I will stop making fun of you. Otherwise you are making it far to easy.
"The term came from Atari users and was later applied by Infoworld to Microsoft's continuous lying about Microsoft Windows."
;)
You are a hoot!. You quote the dictionary and then add in your own terms. I looked it up myself and could not find anything in refernce to lying and Microsoft. hmmm. Perhaps it's your browser misinterpretting the definitions found there?
Take a joke dude. It was meant to draw a giggle. You are taking yourself far far too seriously here. You are obviously close to that abhorent fanatic edge. Chill out!
Another pointless article. Troll me, but the fact is that this is addressing something that is behind MS's closed doors. This guy is spouting off and no one can challenge him, because there are no facts. I am sure there will be lots of discussion, because everyone loves to hate MS, but get real, I for one am not going to allow egg on my face too by following this guy blindly down an unmarked road, only on his word.
"should be 5D: width, height, depth, time and money. "
Actually if you want to include time and money as dimensions, then you would have to invert those in the formula as they are a waste of time and money. Technically speaking, because those two dimensions are inverted, they then cancel out two other dimensions, leaving all George Lucas work a mathematical equivelant of 1D cinematography.
Agreed. We have a solid history in this country that denotes that any law that has ever been written, has been abused to the point that either more laws had to be written to stop the abuse, it had to be repealled, or it is still on the books and is still being abused. There is hardly an exception to that. How anyone can believe that the same thing will not happen with the extremely broad powers granted to law enforcement under the Patriot act, is simply beyond my comprehension. It will happen, it is only a matter of time. The Bush administration is playing the game well, in that they are not using the most contraversial powers until such a time as they can either bolster them with supporting laws, or wrap the Patriot act up in so much legislation that it is impossible to get rid of those conditions anymore. It is truely a scarey process that is going on, and I agree, most are too blind to see it.
It's actually much worse than that. They do not have to notify you of the search prior to the act under the Patriot act. I know you were trying to be humerous, but the fact is that all they need is an indication of suspicious activity in order to have grounds for that search. So your, stab at a joke is probably more accurate than you intended.
"You have not proven AT ALL that cooking with Teflon is dangerous"
I don't see anywhere in his comment that he said cooking with teflon is dangerous. You are putting words in the commentor's mouth I believe. He simply pointed out a link to the manufacturer's website that stated a fact. If this upsets you that much, I hope you don't have any guns in your house.
I find it difficult to believe that if it is truely 'tens times simpler' that there would be any necessity for a book to explain it. Isn't the fact that there is a book contradictory to the statement?
I agree. It allows anyone in the enforcement departments to invade your privacy, based on a suspicion. They do not need to prove that you have participated in a crime, only that they believe your activities indicate that you could possibly be aligned in a manner to be able to participate in a crime. You lose your right to any privacy based on someone elses suspicions.
McCarthy would have been so proud of the Patriot Act. That alone scares me to near death.
Yea you stand up and fight and we all get punished with even more restrictive laws. I can't help but feel like I am back in grade school. One person does something wrong, the teacher does not know who it is, so everyone is punished by losing recess. The Patriot Act diminishes the rights of everyone, in order to catch the few who are doing the wrongful acts. It is the wrong way to correct the problem. I personally cannot see how anyone can possibly argue against that. My right to privacy is gone under this act. As long as someone has even a suspicion that I am participating in something they believe is wrong, I haven't any right to privacy. The problem is that we have proven in the past that peoples suspicions do not equate to a crime and there is always someone who will weild their suspicions in a manner to serve their own desires, without concern as to how it effects others.
" sent by Slashdot Message System on Saturday June 04, @12:05AM
unother (712929) has made you their foe. "
Seems a bit childish that you would flag me as a foe simply because I made a mistake in grammar. I hope no one really pees you off or someone could die. Perhaps if you take such serious offense to grammatical errors, I do not want to be your friend. I am human and do make mistakes. How can I or anyone take anything you say seriously when you publicly display that your emotions and ego are truly in command of you and not your intellect?