I can get 1.5 - 2 days of light usage off its battery.
If that's what's considered to be a good battery life, you've just put me off buying a smartphone forever.
If you get a smartphone, forget about going without recharging for a week or more as you were used to with "dump" phones. 2 days is sadly actually a pretty good battery life for "smart" phones, where 24-30 hrs are the typical durations. Although comparing it to the dum phones battery life makes it look abysmal, consider that it's easily 3 or 4 times longer than the best you get even from the most power-efficient netbook.
To clarify: the sequence asymptotically approaches 100%, but you'll not get there in a finite number of steps (of course, this is the purely mathematical side of things, to which you have to add the fact that the number of vandalism is discrete, on one hand, so if the percentage has to be rounded to the nearest integer you _would_ get 100% in a finite number of steps, but not if it rounds by defect; also, the vandalism cleanup takes time, so even if the number of steps is finite you would have more vandalism getting created in the mean time...)
Doesn't work. It's multiplicative, not additive, meaning that the second time you only get 20% of the 80% you had left, i.e. 16%, for a 36% cumulative cleansing, thus remaining with 64% of the original, etc.
The versions used for tests were quite debatable. For IE and FF they put up both the final version and the current beta, while for the other browsers they only show the results for the current release... mostly: the latest released Opera version is 10.60. A fair comparison should have included Chrome 7 and Opera 10.70 and replaced Opera 10.53 with 10.60.
I guess the actual selection of versions shows how the point of the article was more about bashing FF4 compared to IE9 (in which it also failed, given the very small difference between them) rather than doing a honest comparison of all of the browsers.
Comparing the FF4 nightly builds against the latest released versions of the other browsers is quite unfair. So I tried this thing on my Intel Core2 Duo T9400 @ 2.53GHz laptop, and Opera 10.70.9046 (the most recent alpha available from Opera) and that gives me 12841.5 ms +/- 2.5%. OTOH I don't have FF4 nightly builds here... can somebody actually run a comparison on the _same_ hardware to check all the most recent available builds of all browsers?
However, what one person considers an absolutely needed piece of functionality another will find useless... I find that greasemonkey, and firebug + yslow are invaluable. I don't really get that with Opera...
What is it you don't get with Opera? Opera has UserJS, which is more sophisticated than GreaseMonkey and can in fact support most GreaseMonkey scripts as long as they are written cross-browser (I tend to write my userjs scripts in such a fashion). Opera also has DragonFly, which at least for the usage I have matches firebug (no idea what yslow is).
(And of course, they come with the browser and need not be installed, as opposed to the FF extensions.)
At work we have at least five different computers with nvidia cards running the closed-source drivers because that's the only way we can fully exploit the hardware for GPGPU. (nouveau does not support CUDA nor OpenCL yet). Do these open source drivers have support for the OpenCL/FireStream coding?
Exactly. The main problem I have with Firefox is that by the time I've customized it to my liking, it's unusably slow.
Maybe you should consider a browser that doesn't need to be bogged down to death to be useable. One of the reasons why I use Opera, for example, it's precisely that it does all the stuff I want it to do without me needing to scrape around the web to get extensions that kill it.
Judging by what happened to most of the iPod killers and what Microsoft is looking likely to do I'd say he'll be sleeping soundly. I'd be more worried about Android based tablets, ChromeOS on the other hand is IMHO a joke.
What is contradicting (or more specifically substantially hypocrite) is most of the time the behavior of many believers.
Absolutely. But you assume that religion by itself is actually distinct from it's believers, whereas in reality it is actually the behavior of the believers which creates and defines religion.
In which case there are as many religions as there are believers, since in practice no two believers behave the same way
I NEED you to explain to me how the following passage can be translated from this 'figurative' to 'literal' while still staying 'moral' or 'ethical':
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
Exodus 21:2-6 NLT:
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.
Exodus 21:7-11 NLT:
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
Exodus 21:20-21 NAB:
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
Ephesians 6:5 NLT:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT:
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.
Luke 12:47-48 NLT:
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."
Is any of the above good or ethical or moral?
Perfectly in tune with the ethics and morals of the time and place.
can anybody claim that religious texts do not try to control the poor people by creating mentality of slavery in them?
I'm not familiar with all the religious texts of all the religions, but much of teachings of Christ are _against_ the established powers of the time. It's actually interesting to see how a religion which was born as a revolutionary concept, so much "by the side of the poor and derelict" that it managed to gain widespread diffusion despite the slaughterings against its followers, was then turned into a further mechanism of control by making it the 'official' religion and thus letting its revolutionary message run out of steam and be turned in practice into the opposite of what it initially was.
That being the case, why can we not then choose to divest ourselves of this irrational and dangerous practice of "religion" and simply test and confirm our hypothesis that selflessness and brotherhood lead to more stable societies? Why can we not weigh and practice our own moral codes based on realworld data from today, and transcribe our stories and our findings as humble data points and anecdotes instead of forging mandates to frighten future generations into following?
Because that doesn't work. There's this little problem with human nature that in many if not most cases actually prevents it from choosing the path of critical, analytical thinking with well-documented and researched data: stuff that may work pretty well on people with a scientific attitude, but is otherwise found boring (in the best case) or 'too complex' or, even worse, 'too in contrast with my beliefs' to be even worth looking at.
And when I talk about beliefs I'm not talking only about religions: for example, the knee-jerk reactions many US citizens have against 'socialist' ideas, which no amount of hard data showing how much healthier welfare societies are will change.
The point is that when the ideas you want to propose go deeply against the most essential characteristics of natural behavior (which is generally tuned for 'tactical self-interest') you need most of the time something _very_ strong to show how a tactical sacrifice will lead to strategical improvement of general conditions, especially when (and this is most of the tie) the self-sacrifice does not guarantee even a parity in the long-term ROI for the individual committing the sacrifice. It's very hard to do even with hard data on scientifically-inclined people. Can you just imagine what would work with the average populace?
The only requirement for being a Christian is following (the example set by) Christ
Actually, "Christian" refers to followers of Christ, and not simply following his example (there is a difference). Problem is, Christ quoted exclusively from the Old Testament, not the new, so clearly he believed it.
Not only we don't actually know what Jesus believed, but even by looking at what he was reported (in the NT) saying about the OT was more often than not that the OT was superseded by new teachings about piety, compassion and self-sacrifice.
If the whole thing were merely about "being a good person", there would be no reason to refer to him as Christ, aka messiah, aka annointed one, rather than simply rabbi or teacher.
Which is, interesting, how Jesus is seen in Islam.
Its really rather hard to get "just be a good person" out of either testament without being intentionally blind to 80% of the text.
Actually, most of the NT is mostly about "just being a good person". As for the OT (which, for Christianity, is essentially superseded by the NT, see above), it's a thorough mix of mythical reports of historical facts AND of ethical teachings, and most of that 80% one should, according to you, be intentionally blind is essentially a description of all the bad sides of human nature, often appropriately castized by a vengeful God. I'd say that's a pretty good incentive to being a good person, if you believe in that stuff.
The only requirement for being a Christian is following (the example set by) Christ.
You mean Christ, they guy who hated the corruption of organized religion and wanted his followers to have a private, personal God. I sure hope you don't go to church, as this would make you a BAD Christian.
I'm a non-believer. But in contrast to other non-believers, my lack of belief does not prevent me from looking at religions (and their followers) without preconcieved hatred or criticism.
The makers of Scarabeo had to change the game. It's a bigger board, and a different number of tile. the board is now 17x17. There are also 14 A instead of 12 As as well as a variety of other changes. Those changes were made because of the mattel suit. The original Scarabeo franchise was 'returned' to Mattel.
The mechanics of the game (which is what I mean by 'gameplay') are exactly the same.
You can patent gameplay. WoTC owns the patent on "tapping" in a collectible card game, and monopoly was patented in 1920 or some such.
In the US, and neither of these patents where ever challenged in court to test their validity.
Slashdot Mirror
If that's what's considered to be a good battery life, you've just put me off buying a smartphone forever.
If you get a smartphone, forget about going without recharging for a week or more as you were used to with "dump" phones. 2 days is sadly actually a pretty good battery life for "smart" phones, where 24-30 hrs are the typical durations. Although comparing it to the dum phones battery life makes it look abysmal, consider that it's easily 3 or 4 times longer than the best you get even from the most power-efficient netbook.
because they cover "big" breasts...
I thought what they did with them was quite the opposite?
(For those that missed the reference, this is it)
The last version of Opera is toolkit-agnostic, and it integrates with both gtk and qt visuals, afaik
Catch that Rabbit
Yes they can. Opera's UserJS can interact with the page at any moment, allowing you even to change the markup as the page downloads.
To clarify: the sequence asymptotically approaches 100%, but you'll not get there in a finite number of steps (of course, this is the purely mathematical side of things, to which you have to add the fact that the number of vandalism is discrete, on one hand, so if the percentage has to be rounded to the nearest integer you _would_ get 100% in a finite number of steps, but not if it rounds by defect; also, the vandalism cleanup takes time, so even if the number of steps is finite you would have more vandalism getting created in the mean time ...)
Doesn't work. It's multiplicative, not additive, meaning that the second time you only get 20% of the 80% you had left, i.e. 16%, for a 36% cumulative cleansing, thus remaining with 64% of the original, etc.
I guess the actual selection of versions shows how the point of the article was more about bashing FF4 compared to IE9 (in which it also failed, given the very small difference between them) rather than doing a honest comparison of all of the browsers.
Damn, where're my +5 Funny mod points when you need them
Comparing the FF4 nightly builds against the latest released versions of the other browsers is quite unfair. So I tried this thing on my Intel Core2 Duo T9400 @ 2.53GHz laptop, and Opera 10.70.9046 (the most recent alpha available from Opera) and that gives me 12841.5 ms +/- 2.5%. OTOH I don't have FF4 nightly builds here ... can somebody actually run a comparison on the _same_ hardware to check all the most recent available builds of all browsers?
However, what one person considers an absolutely needed piece of functionality another will find useless... I find that greasemonkey, and firebug + yslow are invaluable. I don't really get that with Opera...
What is it you don't get with Opera? Opera has UserJS, which is more sophisticated than GreaseMonkey and can in fact support most GreaseMonkey scripts as long as they are written cross-browser (I tend to write my userjs scripts in such a fashion). Opera also has DragonFly, which at least for the usage I have matches firebug (no idea what yslow is).
(And of course, they come with the browser and need not be installed, as opposed to the FF extensions.)
At work we have at least five different computers with nvidia cards running the closed-source drivers because that's the only way we can fully exploit the hardware for GPGPU. (nouveau does not support CUDA nor OpenCL yet). Do these open source drivers have support for the OpenCL/FireStream coding?
Exactly. The main problem I have with Firefox is that by the time I've customized it to my liking, it's unusably slow.
Maybe you should consider a browser that doesn't need to be bogged down to death to be useable. One of the reasons why I use Opera, for example, it's precisely that it does all the stuff I want it to do without me needing to scrape around the web to get extensions that kill it.
Steve can sleep at night.
Judging by what happened to most of the iPod killers and what Microsoft is looking likely to do I'd say he'll be sleeping soundly. I'd be more worried about Android based tablets, ChromeOS on the other hand is IMHO a joke.
So, like the weTab, previously known as wePad?
Looks more like a follow-up
The question is, how good is the performance for, say, intensive numerical computations? Is the gigaflop per watt convenient?
I get "peak wood" looking at Natalie Portman.
I doubt she classifies as _virgin_ timber, however.
What is contradicting (or more specifically substantially hypocrite) is most of the time the behavior of many believers.
Absolutely. But you assume that religion by itself is actually distinct from it's believers, whereas in reality it is actually the behavior of the believers which creates and defines religion.
In which case there are as many religions as there are believers, since in practice no two believers behave the same way
Ethical and moral but not literal?
I NEED you to explain to me how the following passage can be translated from this 'figurative' to 'literal' while still staying 'moral' or 'ethical':
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
Exodus 21:2-6 NLT: If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.
Exodus 21:7-11 NLT: When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
Exodus 21:20-21 NAB: When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
Ephesians 6:5 NLT: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT: Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.
Luke 12:47-48 NLT: The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."
Is any of the above good or ethical or moral?
Perfectly in tune with the ethics and morals of the time and place.
can anybody claim that religious texts do not try to control the poor people by creating mentality of slavery in them?
I'm not familiar with all the religious texts of all the religions, but much of teachings of Christ are _against_ the established powers of the time. It's actually interesting to see how a religion which was born as a revolutionary concept, so much "by the side of the poor and derelict" that it managed to gain widespread diffusion despite the slaughterings against its followers, was then turned into a further mechanism of control by making it the 'official' religion and thus letting its revolutionary message run out of steam and be turned in practice into the opposite of what it initially was.
That being the case, why can we not then choose to divest ourselves of this irrational and dangerous practice of "religion" and simply test and confirm our hypothesis that selflessness and brotherhood lead to more stable societies? Why can we not weigh and practice our own moral codes based on realworld data from today, and transcribe our stories and our findings as humble data points and anecdotes instead of forging mandates to frighten future generations into following?
Because that doesn't work. There's this little problem with human nature that in many if not most cases actually prevents it from choosing the path of critical, analytical thinking with well-documented and researched data: stuff that may work pretty well on people with a scientific attitude, but is otherwise found boring (in the best case) or 'too complex' or, even worse, 'too in contrast with my beliefs' to be even worth looking at.
And when I talk about beliefs I'm not talking only about religions: for example, the knee-jerk reactions many US citizens have against 'socialist' ideas, which no amount of hard data showing how much healthier welfare societies are will change.
The point is that when the ideas you want to propose go deeply against the most essential characteristics of natural behavior (which is generally tuned for 'tactical self-interest') you need most of the time something _very_ strong to show how a tactical sacrifice will lead to strategical improvement of general conditions, especially when (and this is most of the tie) the self-sacrifice does not guarantee even a parity in the long-term ROI for the individual committing the sacrifice. It's very hard to do even with hard data on scientifically-inclined people. Can you just imagine what would work with the average populace?
Practice is what matters in superstition, not theory.
"It's the believers, my nonsense is LOVE!" is bullshit. RTFBs about all the bloodthirsty stuff that is encouraged or condoned.
No one not religious defends religion. Declare YOUR religion, as a matter of integrity, so we can see what you are selling.
I am a non-believer, but I'm not a fanatic.
The only requirement for being a Christian is following (the example set by) Christ
Actually, "Christian" refers to followers of Christ, and not simply following his example (there is a difference). Problem is, Christ quoted exclusively from the Old Testament, not the new, so clearly he believed it.
Not only we don't actually know what Jesus believed, but even by looking at what he was reported (in the NT) saying about the OT was more often than not that the OT was superseded by new teachings about piety, compassion and self-sacrifice.
If the whole thing were merely about "being a good person", there would be no reason to refer to him as Christ, aka messiah, aka annointed one, rather than simply rabbi or teacher.
Which is, interesting, how Jesus is seen in Islam.
Its really rather hard to get "just be a good person" out of either testament without being intentionally blind to 80% of the text.
Actually, most of the NT is mostly about "just being a good person". As for the OT (which, for Christianity, is essentially superseded by the NT, see above), it's a thorough mix of mythical reports of historical facts AND of ethical teachings, and most of that 80% one should, according to you, be intentionally blind is essentially a description of all the bad sides of human nature, often appropriately castized by a vengeful God. I'd say that's a pretty good incentive to being a good person, if you believe in that stuff.
You mean Christ, they guy who hated the corruption of organized religion and wanted his followers to have a private, personal God. I sure hope you don't go to church, as this would make you a BAD Christian.
I'm a non-believer. But in contrast to other non-believers, my lack of belief does not prevent me from looking at religions (and their followers) without preconcieved hatred or criticism.
The makers of Scarabeo had to change the game. It's a bigger board, and a different number of tile. the board is now 17x17. There are also 14 A instead of 12 As as well as a variety of other changes. Those changes were made because of the mattel suit. The original Scarabeo franchise was 'returned' to Mattel.
The mechanics of the game (which is what I mean by 'gameplay') are exactly the same.
You can patent gameplay. WoTC owns the patent on "tapping" in a collectible card game, and monopoly was patented in 1920 or some such.
In the US, and neither of these patents where ever challenged in court to test their validity.