You don't even need to set up an OpenID server. Set up a url, put the delegate tags to point to some other server that handles all the delegation. When stackoverflow.com starting using OpenID for authentication, MyOpenID was their recommended provider. I read up a bit before signing up and figured out how to do delegation from my own domain name. Now that OpenID is shutting down, I could set up my own server, but I could also just point the delegate information to another OpenID server, or point it to StackExchange, which has become it's own OpenID provider.
Only 7 games? personally, I think that's plenty of games. I don't get much time to play, but even when I do, I continually go back to the same games. Games cost $60, and there's no reason for me to spend $60 on a game that I'm only going to get 3 hours of entertainment out of. I only own the Wii from the previous generation, and I probably only play about 6 games. Mario Party 8, Mario Kart, Mario Galaxy, Mario Galaxy 2, New Super Mario Bros., Zelda Skyward Sword (had Twilight Princess for GCN). I have a few other games that I play once in a while, but those 5 games take up 80%+ of my gaming time. Even when I had more time to play, I only ever had about 7 games for my NES when I was a kid, and I played those games endlessly. I really don't understand people who have 40+ games. If a game doesn't provide an experience you can keep coming back to years later, it's not worth buying in the first place.
Care to list some specifics here? I haven't seen anything to like. More expensive, less powerful, more restrictive than the PS4. Only possible advantage is that it comes with Kinect.
I agree. Almost nobody I've talked to is interested in buying the new XBox. Even the guy I know who took the day off work to pick up and play the Wii U, and owns all 3 consoles from the previous generation is not planning on buying the XBOne. I suppose that they'll be a lot of clueless parents/grandparents who will buy it, but nobody who is really interested in gaming seems to care about the new XBox.
I think how fast you can charge a battery (or super-capacitor) is really limited by the charger/power-source anyway. Sure the super capacitor might be able to handle being fully charged in 30 seconds, but what would the charging cable look like for that. And even then, it would only be an option at quick charge stations. Charging at home would be limited by the amount of power supplied to your house. Which is actually quite low. Swapping the battery for an already charged would probably be the only choice for actually getting fully charged batteries in under 10 minutes.
The problem is, it doesn't even work out to lunch money. Amortize that $300 over the year, and you're left with $11.50 every pay check (assuming paid every 2 weeks). Assume 10 days per 2 week period, and, that's an extra $1.15 a day. But don't forget, this counts as income, so you have to subtract taxes. So, even assuming a ridiculously low tax rate of 25%, you're left with 86 cents a day, or 8.63 on each paycheck. Hardly worth complaining about. I find people tend to get just as angry over such a small raise as they would over no raise.
Exactly. This kind of thing always bothers me. Even if you cut the CEOs salary in half, you aren't going to get much extra money in the hands of the employees. There's only one CEO, and thousands, or tens of thousands of employees. And extra $12.50 minus taxes on your paycheck (assuming paid every 2 weeks, 325/26) isn't even going to be noticed by the employees. I find the same thing about people complaining about how much senators or congress people are paid. The way I see it, the less they are paid, the more likely they will have to find other sources of money (corporate donations) and the less likely they will give the actual voters what they are asking for. There aren't that many of them, even if you paid them zero, very few tax dollars would actually be saved. Much more money gets wasted on less important things than a few people's salaries.
Well, it only works if your employees are living in impoverished places to begin with. Like they said, it's only about $300 each. To a factory worker in China, that's a big deal. If Steve Ballmer did the same thing, it probably wouldn't be such a big deal, as they are a software company (mostly) and the majority of their workers probably don't see $300 as such a big deal. I mean, as a developer I would like an extra $300 at the end of the year, but it's not really going to change my life that much, especially after you subtract taxes.
The thing is, nobody is buying AMD because they are the best of the best. Their most expensive (non-server) chip is only $200. People buying their stuff aren't looking for the latest greatest thing. They just want a computer that performs reasonably well, without breaking the bank. The fact that you can get an 8 core, 4 GHz CPU for $200 is a big plus for some people. Plus AMD motherboards seem to have more features for less money. And they have a better track record for not switching sockets every time they change something, which leaves more room for upgrading your machine later.
I've heard of other stuff related to this. Children who grow up in an abusive or unstable home are basically in "fight or flight" mode all day long. They never get a chance to relax. A lot of these kids end up with symptoms similar to PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder), which is what soldiers or other people living in warzones usually get.
Gamers usually have graphics cards taking up all the PCIe lanes. Usually the way they are designed, they are big enough to cover the next slot (or 2). Motherboards are even designed with 2 (seldom used) smaller PCIe slots below the top PCIe slot because they know that the graphics card will take up more than a single row. Also, PCIe has disadvantages, such as not being easily hot swappable. It costs very little for a hot-swap tray, I've used them at work, and I'm definitely putting one in my next build. In a single 5.25 inch slot you can fit 4, 2.5 inch drives.
Except that's usually not how it works in practice. If they win, the lawyers get actual real cash money, and the people harmed by the company's actions usually end up getting coupons for use at the business, or something equally stupid. Why would they want to use the business services if they are suing the business. The people the lawyer is defending should have to get paid in the same currency as the lawyer. If the lawyer gets money, so should the plaintiffs, if the plaintiffs get coupons for store services, so should the lawyers.
I think that the source code should have to be included as part of the patent application process. So that it can be examined to verify how novel the "invention" really is. And also to ensure that the code really does what the patent claims. The code should then be held in escrow (so as to allow them to keep it closed source for the time of the patent) and after the patent expires, the code should be available along with all the other patent documentation. A patent is of no use to the public good if nobody can actually use it after the patent expires.
What's the point of having a self driving car if I have to pay attention? Sorry, but i'm not paying for my car to drive itself unless I can sit in the back seat and play gameboy while the car drives me to my destination. Without that, it's just an added cost with no benefit. Also, how much will people really be paying attention, ready to take over, if the car actually is driving itself. If you haven't had to take control in the last 10,000 km, are you really going to be paying close attention when something goes wrong? What about after 50,000 km? Or 100,000 km? People will become so complacent if these self driving vehicles actually do their job, that the small percentage of the time the person is supposed to take over, they won't even remember how to operate thing thing in the first place.
In Canada (Ontario at least), there are no standardized exams whatsoever. You get into university based on your marks obtained in high school classes. The universities and the application center know which schools give out easier grades than others, and take this into account when deciding who to accept. Some universities (Waterloo for example) do have exams you can take to show that you are among the elite, but they aren't required, and they aren't the only thing considered to get you into the programme of your choice. This means that schools aren't "teaching to the test" but are actually trying to provide you with real skills that will allow you to succeed in university.
I'm still perplexed by the fact that they cancelled Reader. It had been around for 8 years. I'm sure it wasn't their most popular service, but then again, there probably didn't cost them much to run. The code didn't really need updating as nothing has changed in RSS in the past 5 years, and less users just means fewer server resources to handle the traffic. After they announced they were closing, 3 million people joined Feedly. That's not a very small number of people by any means. Personally, I went to Tiny-Tiny RSS, which I host on my own (shared host) server. That way I'm not reliant on some company deciding to shut down service.
Re:What's good for others apparently is no good fo
on
Break Microsoft Up
·
· Score: 2
I probably was at one time. Before iOS and Android came along, there wasn't much in the way of smart phones. The first gen iPhone didn't come out until 2007, and Windows mobile had been released since 2000. There really wasn't much out in the smartphone market at that time. Their problem was their failure to innovate and stay current. Similar to IE6. Most people forget that when IE6 came out, it was a really good browser. The problem is that they didn't change it for 10 years, even when there was clear evidence that it was being left behind by better competition.
The problem is how you go from "driver-assist", to "driver-no-longer-responsible". That's quite a big leap. Even this Google car requires that you be paying attention, and ready to take control if something goes wrong with the auto-pilot. And if you add on so much automation that the car can effectively drive itself, but the person is still expected to be paying attention, you run into a whole bunch of other problems, because most likely after driving 10,000 km and nothing bad happening, the driver will get lazy and stop paying attention. And that's when things get dangerous. A bunch of people relying on cars to handle every situation, when they were never designed to.
Your amount really only includes worst case scenario. Plenty of accidents happen where the damage is less than $25,000. I would say the vast majority of people have cars that are worth less than $10,000. Also, $300,000 for liability might be right in some cases, but most of the time that won't happen. I guess in the US it's more likely, as they don't have universal health care, but I still don't see the average payout being anywhere over $10,000. Many accidents will simply go unreported because people don't want their premiums to go up, or get demerit points on their license.
I find I had pretty much the same experience. We didn't have any "reserved" seats for women, and I took Software Engineering, but I can really relate to what you are saying. There was only a handful of women in my programme. At least 2 dropped out/ switch programs after first year, We had them pegged from the beginning. They simply had no interest in computers and only were in it because they thought there were good job prospects, and their parents pushed it on them. Of the other women I know who graduated, one (who was one of the highest achievers in the class, and had some of the best co-op placements) went on to teacher's college and went into teaching. The other as far as I'm aware stayed in the field and did pretty well. There was a 2-3 other women in my class that I recall, but they were very similar to the first two, who only seems to be in it because it was a good job, but they didn't do very well either. There wasn't really any barriers to entry into the programme, but I just found that there was a complete dis-interest in the entire field among the women I met. Only a couple seemed genuinely interested in computers. I don't think there's anything in the work field, or even the colleges holding women back from doing well. Whatever the reason for women not being interested in computer science (and STEM in general) it starts much earlier in life.
Regardless, the Norse were probably the first Europeans to discover America. They are thought to have landed around 985, which is over 500 years before Columbus.
What's interesting is that they represented it as per 100,000 people, and not something more useful, like per 100,000 miles driven. People drive a lot more miles in the US than people in the Jamaica, which has almost the same death rate. Also Things get kind of interesting once you start looking at the breakdown as well. In Jamaica, only 36% involve cars, while in the US, 70% involved cars. In the Netherlands, 25% of accidents involved a bicycle, whereas in the US, it's only 2%. Kind of gives you an idea of who people get around in different countries.
But how could you be expected to react appropriately if you haven't had to touch the steering wheel in the past 3 years? It's not like drivers are highly trained like airline pilots. Drivers get little-to-no instruction up to the point they get their license, at which point they never have to take another test for the next 50 years. If they don't actually have control of the car for a not-insignificant amount of time, then how would they even know how to react (or even notice) when something is going wrong. In my view, anything that encourages the driver to pay less attention to what is going on is a bad idea. Instead of making cars more automatic, they should be putting in systems so that people can be made more alert to what is actually happening on the road. Radar and heat sensors with heads up displays, along with visual recognition to help make the driver aware of what's going on around them. Things like back-up cameras are a good idea, because the driver can use them to assess the situation on their own, and make the best decision. Cars parking themselves is a bad idea in my mind, because it's something even a moderately competent beginner driver should be able to do on their own, and we shouldn't have cars compensating for people with absolutely no driving skill.
Yeah, but driving just kind of gets in the way of enjoying the journey. If you had a self-driving car, you could do anything you wanted to do on the journey. Including look out the front windshield if you wanted to. But you'd also be free to sit and read a book if there was nothing particularly interesting going on outside your window. You could stare out the side window without looking forward for minutes on end if you wanted to, they way you did when you were a kid. Sure there's some roads that a "fun to drive" but those roads are very few and far between, and given the choice, I'd rather have my car drive my everywhere, and optionally go to closed tracks if I wanted to do any driving of my own.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't even need to set up an OpenID server. Set up a url, put the delegate tags to point to some other server that handles all the delegation. When stackoverflow.com starting using OpenID for authentication, MyOpenID was their recommended provider. I read up a bit before signing up and figured out how to do delegation from my own domain name. Now that OpenID is shutting down, I could set up my own server, but I could also just point the delegate information to another OpenID server, or point it to StackExchange, which has become it's own OpenID provider.
It stands for FAB Assembly Building
Only 7 games? personally, I think that's plenty of games. I don't get much time to play, but even when I do, I continually go back to the same games. Games cost $60, and there's no reason for me to spend $60 on a game that I'm only going to get 3 hours of entertainment out of. I only own the Wii from the previous generation, and I probably only play about 6 games. Mario Party 8, Mario Kart, Mario Galaxy, Mario Galaxy 2, New Super Mario Bros., Zelda Skyward Sword (had Twilight Princess for GCN). I have a few other games that I play once in a while, but those 5 games take up 80%+ of my gaming time. Even when I had more time to play, I only ever had about 7 games for my NES when I was a kid, and I played those games endlessly. I really don't understand people who have 40+ games. If a game doesn't provide an experience you can keep coming back to years later, it's not worth buying in the first place.
Care to list some specifics here? I haven't seen anything to like. More expensive, less powerful, more restrictive than the PS4. Only possible advantage is that it comes with Kinect.
I agree. Almost nobody I've talked to is interested in buying the new XBox. Even the guy I know who took the day off work to pick up and play the Wii U, and owns all 3 consoles from the previous generation is not planning on buying the XBOne. I suppose that they'll be a lot of clueless parents/grandparents who will buy it, but nobody who is really interested in gaming seems to care about the new XBox.
I think how fast you can charge a battery (or super-capacitor) is really limited by the charger/power-source anyway. Sure the super capacitor might be able to handle being fully charged in 30 seconds, but what would the charging cable look like for that. And even then, it would only be an option at quick charge stations. Charging at home would be limited by the amount of power supplied to your house. Which is actually quite low. Swapping the battery for an already charged would probably be the only choice for actually getting fully charged batteries in under 10 minutes.
The problem is, it doesn't even work out to lunch money. Amortize that $300 over the year, and you're left with $11.50 every pay check (assuming paid every 2 weeks). Assume 10 days per 2 week period, and, that's an extra $1.15 a day. But don't forget, this counts as income, so you have to subtract taxes. So, even assuming a ridiculously low tax rate of 25%, you're left with 86 cents a day, or 8.63 on each paycheck. Hardly worth complaining about. I find people tend to get just as angry over such a small raise as they would over no raise.
Exactly. This kind of thing always bothers me. Even if you cut the CEOs salary in half, you aren't going to get much extra money in the hands of the employees. There's only one CEO, and thousands, or tens of thousands of employees. And extra $12.50 minus taxes on your paycheck (assuming paid every 2 weeks, 325/26) isn't even going to be noticed by the employees. I find the same thing about people complaining about how much senators or congress people are paid. The way I see it, the less they are paid, the more likely they will have to find other sources of money (corporate donations) and the less likely they will give the actual voters what they are asking for. There aren't that many of them, even if you paid them zero, very few tax dollars would actually be saved. Much more money gets wasted on less important things than a few people's salaries.
Well, it only works if your employees are living in impoverished places to begin with. Like they said, it's only about $300 each. To a factory worker in China, that's a big deal. If Steve Ballmer did the same thing, it probably wouldn't be such a big deal, as they are a software company (mostly) and the majority of their workers probably don't see $300 as such a big deal. I mean, as a developer I would like an extra $300 at the end of the year, but it's not really going to change my life that much, especially after you subtract taxes.
The thing is, nobody is buying AMD because they are the best of the best. Their most expensive (non-server) chip is only $200. People buying their stuff aren't looking for the latest greatest thing. They just want a computer that performs reasonably well, without breaking the bank. The fact that you can get an 8 core, 4 GHz CPU for $200 is a big plus for some people. Plus AMD motherboards seem to have more features for less money. And they have a better track record for not switching sockets every time they change something, which leaves more room for upgrading your machine later.
I've heard of other stuff related to this. Children who grow up in an abusive or unstable home are basically in "fight or flight" mode all day long. They never get a chance to relax. A lot of these kids end up with symptoms similar to PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder), which is what soldiers or other people living in warzones usually get.
Gamers usually have graphics cards taking up all the PCIe lanes. Usually the way they are designed, they are big enough to cover the next slot (or 2). Motherboards are even designed with 2 (seldom used) smaller PCIe slots below the top PCIe slot because they know that the graphics card will take up more than a single row. Also, PCIe has disadvantages, such as not being easily hot swappable. It costs very little for a hot-swap tray, I've used them at work, and I'm definitely putting one in my next build. In a single 5.25 inch slot you can fit 4, 2.5 inch drives.
Except that's usually not how it works in practice. If they win, the lawyers get actual real cash money, and the people harmed by the company's actions usually end up getting coupons for use at the business, or something equally stupid. Why would they want to use the business services if they are suing the business. The people the lawyer is defending should have to get paid in the same currency as the lawyer. If the lawyer gets money, so should the plaintiffs, if the plaintiffs get coupons for store services, so should the lawyers.
I think that the source code should have to be included as part of the patent application process. So that it can be examined to verify how novel the "invention" really is. And also to ensure that the code really does what the patent claims. The code should then be held in escrow (so as to allow them to keep it closed source for the time of the patent) and after the patent expires, the code should be available along with all the other patent documentation. A patent is of no use to the public good if nobody can actually use it after the patent expires.
What's the point of having a self driving car if I have to pay attention? Sorry, but i'm not paying for my car to drive itself unless I can sit in the back seat and play gameboy while the car drives me to my destination. Without that, it's just an added cost with no benefit. Also, how much will people really be paying attention, ready to take over, if the car actually is driving itself. If you haven't had to take control in the last 10,000 km, are you really going to be paying close attention when something goes wrong? What about after 50,000 km? Or 100,000 km? People will become so complacent if these self driving vehicles actually do their job, that the small percentage of the time the person is supposed to take over, they won't even remember how to operate thing thing in the first place.
In Canada (Ontario at least), there are no standardized exams whatsoever. You get into university based on your marks obtained in high school classes. The universities and the application center know which schools give out easier grades than others, and take this into account when deciding who to accept. Some universities (Waterloo for example) do have exams you can take to show that you are among the elite, but they aren't required, and they aren't the only thing considered to get you into the programme of your choice. This means that schools aren't "teaching to the test" but are actually trying to provide you with real skills that will allow you to succeed in university.
I'm still perplexed by the fact that they cancelled Reader. It had been around for 8 years. I'm sure it wasn't their most popular service, but then again, there probably didn't cost them much to run. The code didn't really need updating as nothing has changed in RSS in the past 5 years, and less users just means fewer server resources to handle the traffic. After they announced they were closing, 3 million people joined Feedly. That's not a very small number of people by any means. Personally, I went to Tiny-Tiny RSS, which I host on my own (shared host) server. That way I'm not reliant on some company deciding to shut down service.
I probably was at one time. Before iOS and Android came along, there wasn't much in the way of smart phones. The first gen iPhone didn't come out until 2007, and Windows mobile had been released since 2000. There really wasn't much out in the smartphone market at that time. Their problem was their failure to innovate and stay current. Similar to IE6. Most people forget that when IE6 came out, it was a really good browser. The problem is that they didn't change it for 10 years, even when there was clear evidence that it was being left behind by better competition.
The problem is how you go from "driver-assist", to "driver-no-longer-responsible". That's quite a big leap. Even this Google car requires that you be paying attention, and ready to take control if something goes wrong with the auto-pilot. And if you add on so much automation that the car can effectively drive itself, but the person is still expected to be paying attention, you run into a whole bunch of other problems, because most likely after driving 10,000 km and nothing bad happening, the driver will get lazy and stop paying attention. And that's when things get dangerous. A bunch of people relying on cars to handle every situation, when they were never designed to.
Your amount really only includes worst case scenario. Plenty of accidents happen where the damage is less than $25,000. I would say the vast majority of people have cars that are worth less than $10,000. Also, $300,000 for liability might be right in some cases, but most of the time that won't happen. I guess in the US it's more likely, as they don't have universal health care, but I still don't see the average payout being anywhere over $10,000. Many accidents will simply go unreported because people don't want their premiums to go up, or get demerit points on their license.
I find I had pretty much the same experience. We didn't have any "reserved" seats for women, and I took Software Engineering, but I can really relate to what you are saying. There was only a handful of women in my programme. At least 2 dropped out/ switch programs after first year, We had them pegged from the beginning. They simply had no interest in computers and only were in it because they thought there were good job prospects, and their parents pushed it on them. Of the other women I know who graduated, one (who was one of the highest achievers in the class, and had some of the best co-op placements) went on to teacher's college and went into teaching. The other as far as I'm aware stayed in the field and did pretty well. There was a 2-3 other women in my class that I recall, but they were very similar to the first two, who only seems to be in it because it was a good job, but they didn't do very well either. There wasn't really any barriers to entry into the programme, but I just found that there was a complete dis-interest in the entire field among the women I met. Only a couple seemed genuinely interested in computers. I don't think there's anything in the work field, or even the colleges holding women back from doing well. Whatever the reason for women not being interested in computer science (and STEM in general) it starts much earlier in life.
Regardless, the Norse were probably the first Europeans to discover America. They are thought to have landed around 985, which is over 500 years before Columbus.
What's interesting is that they represented it as per 100,000 people, and not something more useful, like per 100,000 miles driven. People drive a lot more miles in the US than people in the Jamaica, which has almost the same death rate. Also Things get kind of interesting once you start looking at the breakdown as well. In Jamaica, only 36% involve cars, while in the US, 70% involved cars. In the Netherlands, 25% of accidents involved a bicycle, whereas in the US, it's only 2%. Kind of gives you an idea of who people get around in different countries.
But how could you be expected to react appropriately if you haven't had to touch the steering wheel in the past 3 years? It's not like drivers are highly trained like airline pilots. Drivers get little-to-no instruction up to the point they get their license, at which point they never have to take another test for the next 50 years. If they don't actually have control of the car for a not-insignificant amount of time, then how would they even know how to react (or even notice) when something is going wrong. In my view, anything that encourages the driver to pay less attention to what is going on is a bad idea. Instead of making cars more automatic, they should be putting in systems so that people can be made more alert to what is actually happening on the road. Radar and heat sensors with heads up displays, along with visual recognition to help make the driver aware of what's going on around them. Things like back-up cameras are a good idea, because the driver can use them to assess the situation on their own, and make the best decision. Cars parking themselves is a bad idea in my mind, because it's something even a moderately competent beginner driver should be able to do on their own, and we shouldn't have cars compensating for people with absolutely no driving skill.
Yeah, but driving just kind of gets in the way of enjoying the journey. If you had a self-driving car, you could do anything you wanted to do on the journey. Including look out the front windshield if you wanted to. But you'd also be free to sit and read a book if there was nothing particularly interesting going on outside your window. You could stare out the side window without looking forward for minutes on end if you wanted to, they way you did when you were a kid. Sure there's some roads that a "fun to drive" but those roads are very few and far between, and given the choice, I'd rather have my car drive my everywhere, and optionally go to closed tracks if I wanted to do any driving of my own.