Yuo have to hand it to Apple's ability to control the discussion. Thousands of comments about the name, and not one about the fact that the laptop has only one mouse button built in.
RE: the people who work at Microsoft. They're not crass masses. Crass masses don't really give a shit what you give them. They just know how to turn it on and change the channel. People who work at Microsoft are the kind of people who LIKE having 39 buttons on their remote, even if they only "need" 6. They're the kind of people who, when seeing a one button mouse, or a six button remote, want to cringe because of its limited functionality, instead of doing a dance at its minimal sophistication. In short they're technophile geeks.
That's why when Microsoft tries to do "sophisticated" or "minimalist" they always screw it up, because they're like "ok, what would a total fucking moron who was afraid of having 39 buttons on his remote want," instead of the Apple approach, which is more in line with "what would someone who really didn't give a shit about any of this stuff want."
The Microsoft approach gives you MS Bob and terrible wizards. The Apple approach gives you the iPod, and a totally shitty, useless mouse. (Not to mention a million rabid apologists who'll claim that hitting the command key is somehow better than having a second mouse button and a scroll wheel.)
(PS yeah yeah, I know all about the new, big-boy, "mighty mouse." Call me when there are three buttons on an powerbook, and I'll be ready to switch back.)
According to Lego, you should never call legos "legos" or "lego." They are LEGO bricks. From their company info pdf:
* The LEGO brand name should always be
written in capital letters.
* LEGO must never be used as a generic
term or in the plural or as a possessive pronoun,
e.g. "LEGO's".
* When the LEGO brand name is used as
part of a noun, it must never appear on its
own. It should always be accompanied by a
noun. For example, LEGO set, LEGO
products, LEGO Group, LEGO play
materials, LEGO bricks, LEGO universe,
etc.
For me, I don't care what you call them, but I'd appreciate it if LEGO tried to out-do Mega Bloks' space shuttle .
Spoken like someone who's never known anyone with a mental illness! What description would you use? I agree that mental illness may be over-diagnosed, or that some people may try to claim mental illness as a crutch to avoid dealing with problems, but if you've ever known someone who is actually manic-depressive, or suffers from true clinical depression, you know it's as real as heart disease.
But, if someone distributed 77 pirated games with an Xbox, and it's important for us to presume these guys are innocent, of course, that could be taken as evidence that the mod chips' entire purpose was to circumvent legitimate copyright protections, versus, say, if someone had included 77 homebrew games.
There really is a launch window as a distinct phase in a console's lifecycle!
The distinction to consumers and civilians may be fuzzy, because they expect "launch" to mean "when the system launches," but to developers and publishers, the sales boost "launch" games gets extends throughout the "launch window," and more importantly, the rules you need to abide to (technical requirements for menu structures, etc) are generally relaxed for "launch window" games, before becoming more rigorously standardized for later games.
So, I know it may sound like marketing fluff, but it is a real, distinct phase. That said, I haven't seen anything in the 360 launch window that would come even close to the Dreamcast's launch window in terms of relative quality...
IWAE (I was an editor) and I can say that when writing about a technical subject, it's rare to find a copy-editor (proof reader) who is as technically knowledgeable (for a variety of reasons). This inevitably results in small errors -- and sometimes large ones -- entering the text, as the copy editor tries to make the orginal text flow more in line with the english language, hit certain word counts, avoid widows and orphans, etc. If the author, or a technical editor, doesn't have time to carefully reread the text (which is almost always the case), you end up with errors.
This isn't just a problem with encyclopaedias, of course. Most PhD dissertations are riddled with errors, some very obvious, even though the author may have spent years on the document. (I mean errors that result from trying to convey information, not intentionally included wrong information -- missing words that change the meaning of a sentence to the opposite of what the author intended, dates the contradict other dates on the same page, etc.) The world's an imperfect place.
But... this is the slashdot comments section. If we required arguments to be based in fact, or backed up with links to legitimate sources (that is, not wikipedia), where would we be?
Anyway, while Wikipedia may have fewer errors per word, it is possible to say that EB is probably written more concisely, and therefore may have a greater fact density per word, rendering the comparsion invalid.
More importantly, though, I want to know about the QUALITY of the errors. Are the Wiki erros typos, and the EB errors the result of new data not being incorporated fast enough into the books? Or are the Wiki errors pointless political tangents, while the EB errors tend towards not always crediting everyone involved in a discovery. Just saying "errors" doesn't really give a good enough analysis, but it's interesting nonetheless.
lol... I once was speaking to a friend who received a $500 bonus the same day her boyfriend received $30,000. I was like "you got more, because your boyfriend has to save this huge, serious, amount of money for your eventual house, and you get to go blow the $500 shopping."
Dude, yes, chimps are vicious. They ate the guy's face. And his fingers. And his lips. And his foot. And his testicles. You can tell me all you want about how peaceful Bonobo Chimps are, but I will take being in a room for five minutes with any random human on the planet before I spend five minutes with one of your peaceful, loving, chimps.
To your point: Habitat destruction, urban sprawl, SUVs, needless vivisection... these are all moronic things that we should argue against and work to stop and reverse. But these are MORAL judgements that you (and I) are making, and there's no evidence I've seen that chimps have any moral elements to their culture. And the fact that humans do bad things to chimps doesn't make chimps cuddly or good. They're no more good or bad than rats, but they are way more likely to successfully kill you than a single rat is, and, I'd argue, they're way more likely to kill you than some random human is.
Anyway, that's my view from the top of the food chain.
It would probably eat the human child because chimps are vicious wild animals, not the cute, cuddly animals people think they are.
Also, the fact that humans are more likely to do unnecessary steps may indicate a greater willingness on the part of humans to experiment, which is why we have computers, and keep chimps in cages, and not the other way around.
I think it would be awesome to do a 5 day simulation of a space flight, even if I knew it was fake. It would just be cool to do, and probably stressful as hell (if Mission Control decided to make it so); think of how involved you can get in a computer game you can walk away from. Now add social dynamics and the immersion factor of being in a giant space-ship mock up! It would be rad!
While most species on the reserve show no physiological indications of mutation, many, particularly lactating mammals and amphibians, have undergone astonishing genetic changes.
"In certain cases, chromosomal mutation of the animals has accelerated by a factor of 30," says Mikhail Pikulik, director of the Minsk Institute of Zoology. "The same species just 30km away remain practically unchanged. At the moment, these changes have been confined to the area of chromosomes and genes."
One particularly interesting example is that of voles, a kind of field mouse now thriving. While they look exactly the same as before, an analysis of their DNA has revealed a phenomenally high rate of mutation. Under normal circumstances, a gene found in the cell's mitochondria called cytochrome b changes at a rate of one mutation in every million letters of genetic code per generation. However, voles on the exclusion zone are producing one new mutation for every 10,000 letters of DNA code per generation. The genetic differences between these voles and others living outside the exclusion zone are greater than those normally found between mice and rats, species which diverged around 15m years ago. Evolution has been shunted into overdrive.
Why these changes haven't resulted in abnormalities and sickness on a massive scale may be an indication that nature is far more adaptable than previously imagined. It might also signify that the limits of its resilience have yet to be fully tested, though scientists on the reserve readily admit that even they don't know what is really happening deep in the forests: "If an animal dies of cancer in the wild," says Mikhail Pikulik, "it is simply eaten by wolves. The deaths of two or three animals of the population is not a grave matter. The health of an animal population is reflected in overall numbers."
Man, that hits my buttons. Only a self-absorbed, dumbfcuk with no fscking clue how being a parent works would talk to a kid like that ("I rufuse to let you grow up to be a jerk").
I have a five year old. I don't let him play many games, because, well, a) he sucks at them and it's frustrating to watch, and b) games are *my* hobby, and while I love sharing things I like with him, most of the games I like are totally inappropriate for a five-year-old.
That all said, when I do let him play a game, or hang out while I'm playing, he gets totally amped up and runs around like crazy. Of course, he also does this if he watches an action-themed cartoon, if he is read an action-orientated book, if he sees a Batman comic, if he wears a piece of clothing with a super-hero image on it, or, god forbid, if he is left alone by himself, or left alone with a friend.
Point is: little kids act all crazy, because they are little kids! They don't have good impulse control. Everything is new and exciting to them in ways adults can't even fathom. These people who want to blame games for making little kids act like little kids must either be the products of the most stunted development ever, or they just have no clue how kids act. Kids see stuff. They get too excited about it. They run around. The end.
Here's an example: The other day I accidently dropped a sock on his head and said "uh-oh, I just socked you," which spawned 40 minutes of him throwing socks at things, saying he "socked" them, and laughing maniacially until his mother and I were about to crawl out of our skins. First he threw socks until we told him to stop. Then he snuck around and stealthily placed socks on us. Then he left sock "mines" for us to step on. It was nuts. We must BAN SOCKS to keep our kids from acting this way!
Wikipedia being inherently anonymous (by social, technical *and* legal design), it's easier to libel and gossip on Wikipedia than it is in regular press.
Am I the only one who would respect wikipedia tons more if editors/authors were required to sign their entries? Even if the sigs. weren't publicly viewable, but could be seen in a situation such as this?
If it's not vetted, and not supposed to be, people should stop citing it as a legitimate source.
I like Wikipeadia, and sometimes go to it for a quick overview, after which I immediately go to other sites to try and verify what it said. It's usally as accurate as a guy at a bar. 80% right on the big stuff, 20% right on the details, with occaisional giant whoppers here and there.
ThinkPads typically ship with 5400RPM drives, but the difference when you upgrade to a 7200RPM drive is still *stunning.* This is the number one change you can make to increase the speed of running your system, and IMHO is well worth the loss in maximum battery life. I can't even imagine a 4200RPM drive...
Trust me, in daily use, the nipple -- call it a pencil eraser if you want to be PC -- is tiny, doesn't get in the way of typing, unless you are actively trying to hit the top of the B, lower-left of the H or lower right of the G, and even if you do so, and I will do now, [nothing happened] it doesn't affect the typing at all. Plus, she may finds she actually likes it. I viewed it as a minus when I bought my ThinkPad, but I eventually disabled the trackpad and use it exclusively now.
If keyboard quality is a factor at all, ThinkPads are far and away the best possible choices. They also still make small and reasonable laptops.
I can deal with the dim screen. I suppose I could even get used to the track pad, versus the pencil eraser thing I prefer now. But until they put TWO BUTTONS on the PowerBooks, the editors, artists, and poets can keep 'em. Common Apple -- you released a two button mouse... now fix the laptops!
I disagree. It was cool to see what a pioneer finds interesting today. Anyone with Google can find a ton of interviews w/ SA about the old days, so for me, even though I don't play MMORPG (too addictive) it was still an interesting read.
What can I say? Brains are consistant and logical. Word isn't. Anyway, making good looking documents is an ongoing process; every doc you do should be very slightly better than the last, either in looks or in speed of creation.
Slashdot Mirror
Worst. Decision. Ever.
That's why when Microsoft tries to do "sophisticated" or "minimalist" they always screw it up, because they're like "ok, what would a total fucking moron who was afraid of having 39 buttons on his remote want," instead of the Apple approach, which is more in line with "what would someone who really didn't give a shit about any of this stuff want."
The Microsoft approach gives you MS Bob and terrible wizards. The Apple approach gives you the iPod, and a totally shitty, useless mouse. (Not to mention a million rabid apologists who'll claim that hitting the command key is somehow better than having a second mouse button and a scroll wheel.)
(PS yeah yeah, I know all about the new, big-boy, "mighty mouse." Call me when there are three buttons on an powerbook, and I'll be ready to switch back.)
* The LEGO brand name should always be written in capital letters.
* LEGO must never be used as a generic term or in the plural or as a possessive pronoun, e.g. "LEGO's".
* When the LEGO brand name is used as part of a noun, it must never appear on its own. It should always be accompanied by a noun. For example, LEGO set, LEGO products, LEGO Group, LEGO play materials, LEGO bricks, LEGO universe, etc.
For me, I don't care what you call them, but I'd appreciate it if LEGO tried to out-do Mega Bloks' space shuttle .
That's funny; I didn't get any RSI from my PS1/PS2 controller like I did from that keyboard and mouse...
Spoken like someone who's never known anyone with a mental illness! What description would you use? I agree that mental illness may be over-diagnosed, or that some people may try to claim mental illness as a crutch to avoid dealing with problems, but if you've ever known someone who is actually manic-depressive, or suffers from true clinical depression, you know it's as real as heart disease.
But, if someone distributed 77 pirated games with an Xbox, and it's important for us to presume these guys are innocent, of course, that could be taken as evidence that the mod chips' entire purpose was to circumvent legitimate copyright protections, versus, say, if someone had included 77 homebrew games.
There really is a launch window as a distinct phase in a console's lifecycle!
The distinction to consumers and civilians may be fuzzy, because they expect "launch" to mean "when the system launches," but to developers and publishers, the sales boost "launch" games gets extends throughout the "launch window," and more importantly, the rules you need to abide to (technical requirements for menu structures, etc) are generally relaxed for "launch window" games, before becoming more rigorously standardized for later games.
So, I know it may sound like marketing fluff, but it is a real, distinct phase. That said, I haven't seen anything in the 360 launch window that would come even close to the Dreamcast's launch window in terms of relative quality...
This isn't just a problem with encyclopaedias, of course. Most PhD dissertations are riddled with errors, some very obvious, even though the author may have spent years on the document. (I mean errors that result from trying to convey information, not intentionally included wrong information -- missing words that change the meaning of a sentence to the opposite of what the author intended, dates the contradict other dates on the same page, etc.) The world's an imperfect place.
Anyway, while Wikipedia may have fewer errors per word, it is possible to say that EB is probably written more concisely, and therefore may have a greater fact density per word, rendering the comparsion invalid.
More importantly, though, I want to know about the QUALITY of the errors. Are the Wiki erros typos, and the EB errors the result of new data not being incorporated fast enough into the books? Or are the Wiki errors pointless political tangents, while the EB errors tend towards not always crediting everyone involved in a discovery. Just saying "errors" doesn't really give a good enough analysis, but it's interesting nonetheless.
lol... I once was speaking to a friend who received a $500 bonus the same day her boyfriend received $30,000. I was like "you got more, because your boyfriend has to save this huge, serious, amount of money for your eventual house, and you get to go blow the $500 shopping."
To your point: Habitat destruction, urban sprawl, SUVs, needless vivisection... these are all moronic things that we should argue against and work to stop and reverse. But these are MORAL judgements that you (and I) are making, and there's no evidence I've seen that chimps have any moral elements to their culture. And the fact that humans do bad things to chimps doesn't make chimps cuddly or good. They're no more good or bad than rats, but they are way more likely to successfully kill you than a single rat is, and, I'd argue, they're way more likely to kill you than some random human is.
Anyway, that's my view from the top of the food chain.
Also, the fact that humans are more likely to do unnecessary steps may indicate a greater willingness on the part of humans to experiment, which is why we have computers, and keep chimps in cages, and not the other way around.
Assuming it's a task that takes less than or equal to 5 days to complete!
I think it would be awesome to do a 5 day simulation of a space flight, even if I knew it was fake. It would just be cool to do, and probably stressful as hell (if Mission Control decided to make it so); think of how involved you can get in a computer game you can walk away from. Now add social dynamics and the immersion factor of being in a giant space-ship mock up! It would be rad!
Source is here
I have a five year old. I don't let him play many games, because, well, a) he sucks at them and it's frustrating to watch, and b) games are *my* hobby, and while I love sharing things I like with him, most of the games I like are totally inappropriate for a five-year-old.
That all said, when I do let him play a game, or hang out while I'm playing, he gets totally amped up and runs around like crazy. Of course, he also does this if he watches an action-themed cartoon, if he is read an action-orientated book, if he sees a Batman comic, if he wears a piece of clothing with a super-hero image on it, or, god forbid, if he is left alone by himself, or left alone with a friend.
Point is: little kids act all crazy, because they are little kids! They don't have good impulse control. Everything is new and exciting to them in ways adults can't even fathom. These people who want to blame games for making little kids act like little kids must either be the products of the most stunted development ever, or they just have no clue how kids act. Kids see stuff. They get too excited about it. They run around. The end.
Here's an example: The other day I accidently dropped a sock on his head and said "uh-oh, I just socked you," which spawned 40 minutes of him throwing socks at things, saying he "socked" them, and laughing maniacially until his mother and I were about to crawl out of our skins. First he threw socks until we told him to stop. Then he snuck around and stealthily placed socks on us. Then he left sock "mines" for us to step on. It was nuts. We must BAN SOCKS to keep our kids from acting this way!
Heroin?
Am I the only one who would respect wikipedia tons more if editors/authors were required to sign their entries? Even if the sigs. weren't publicly viewable, but could be seen in a situation such as this?
I like Wikipeadia, and sometimes go to it for a quick overview, after which I immediately go to other sites to try and verify what it said. It's usally as accurate as a guy at a bar. 80% right on the big stuff, 20% right on the details, with occaisional giant whoppers here and there.
Right, you're citing wikipedia for unbiased views on a military system?
ThinkPads typically ship with 5400RPM drives, but the difference when you upgrade to a 7200RPM drive is still *stunning.* This is the number one change you can make to increase the speed of running your system, and IMHO is well worth the loss in maximum battery life. I can't even imagine a 4200RPM drive...
If keyboard quality is a factor at all, ThinkPads are far and away the best possible choices. They also still make small and reasonable laptops.
I can deal with the dim screen. I suppose I could even get used to the track pad, versus the pencil eraser thing I prefer now. But until they put TWO BUTTONS on the PowerBooks, the editors, artists, and poets can keep 'em. Common Apple -- you released a two button mouse... now fix the laptops!
What can I say? Brains are consistant and logical. Word isn't. Anyway, making good looking documents is an ongoing process; every doc you do should be very slightly better than the last, either in looks or in speed of creation.