Because those test measure one element of a nebulous concept. Because performance in the real world requires asperation, dedication, perperation, luck and, sometimes, intelligence (defined as "whatever IQ tests measure").
Bayesian filters only work for individuals. I learns what you think is spam, and what you think is ham. It simply wouldn't work for multiple users. One man's ham is another man's spam.
Re:What? Are we treating this seriously now?
on
Speculating About Gmail
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Gmail was a fantastic April Fools Day joke. They convinced a lot of people that it wasn't for real by making the press release on April 1st, but then it turned out to be true. Genius. This was the only good April Fool I saw this year.
Why would a geek need an 'advanced' button? Just make the power-user options less visible and the geeks will still find them but the novices won't. There's no need to ask for an experience level and list of qualifications before deciding what options to offer a user.
Besides, how does the user know what the developers consider 'advanced'? I'm sure I'd want some of the advanced options, but I'm new enough to Linux. Which should I choose?
Why ask at all? Just make it possible for power users to change their prefered programs (which I assume it is). Don't bother people with pop-up questions, just let them do what they want to do. Yes, people will usually just pick the default, but it'll make them uneasy. They won't know that they're making the right choice, and they may very well think they're making irreversible descisions. It's better just not to bother them.
First, all distributions have defaults. That's as close as anyone should need to 'use this one'. Second, if I presented someone with ten good applications to suit a single purpose, what the hell is the problem with just closing your eyes and picking one at random? The other nine are there for people with specific needs. They all work.
For the second time in this thread, I'm sitting here with mod points for you, but I don't want to lose all of my comments. The words 'easy', 'simple' and 'quick' are increasingly noticeable in marketing and too much choice (really, too many descisions to make) are the reason.
I read those books from cover to cover in the standard manner. Nice and fractured, like Pulp Fiction for children. Alternatively, I read every possible branching of story. The best ones branched and converged several times in unpredictable ways. My solution to choice is: choose everything. Time is free.
Re:For Linux choice should come with experience
on
The Paradox of Choice
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There's an important insight there that I think needs to be highlighted. That is that, a lot of the time, it's easier to learn than to choose. If I ask "What button do I press?", I want to hear 'F1' or 'ESC', not "What button do you prefer?"
Of course I'll inevitably decide, after some use, that the button that I was forced to use is often out of my normal reach and I want to reassign it. That's why we have defaults and options rather than a host of questions at the outset.
I think that the kind of choice that is lamented is the kind that needs an immediate descision and can't be put off until we descide it needs to change (or forever).
I think it's a subtly funny moderation actually. Either that or the moderator just didn't get it and I have to finish all of my (intended) funny comments with an exclamation mark to make it obvious.
A possible criterion? If its got an atmosphere it's a planet.
Luna has a thin atmosphere. I think we all agree that moons shouldn't be counted as planets. Strangely, Pluto has an atmosphere when it's near its perihelion but not at its aphelion. It's a part-time planet.
I'm not sure, but I imagine that the centre of mass of the whole Pluto/Charon system is not under the surface of Pluto. That would mean that it's a double planet rather than a planet/moon system.
The COM of the Earth/Luna system is under Earth's surface. The COM for the entire solar system is near the centre of the sun. That's why we say the moon orbits Earth and everything orbits the sun. But Pluto/Charon may very well orbit each other (more accurately, a point between them).
Slightly inaccurate. Ceres isn't spherical, so wouldn't fit the description. No-one (that I've read) suggested removing the 'orbits a star' requirement. Mars has two moons, both spherical as far as I know, so counting moons would make Ceres 8th (except for being disqualified by shape).
In any case, Ceres fitting the definition of a planet is fairly good case for saying the definition isn't good enough.
What the hell are you on about? Are you saying it reflects badly on CMU because it was the victim? Also, you should note that most of the bashing isn't of MS this time, it's of Diebold. XP isn't meant for ATMS, so MS isn't to blame. It's Diebold's fault for using the worst available option because it's easier than the better solutions.
'By definition, (the devices) just don't have widespread appeal'
What's that the definition of? I'd like to see his dictionary.
Device
Something that doesn't have widespread appeal
Widespread
A range over which these devices don't have appeal
Appeal
What these devices don't have (not much, anyway)
Slashdot Mirror
Scrubs actually.
No, you're just suffering from 'Woking' according to Douglas Adams' The Meaning Of Liff
Because those test measure one element of a nebulous concept. Because performance in the real world requires asperation, dedication, perperation, luck and, sometimes, intelligence (defined as "whatever IQ tests measure").
Get you page slashdotted -> problem solved
no, RFC0 + RFC0 = RFC0, but RFC0! + RFC0! = RFC2 (= RFC2!)
We'll make our own sequel, with blackjack and hookers. In fact, screw the movie.
You mean the power to destroy a planet is insignificant compared to the power of George Lucas's creative ignorance?
It's obviously nothing to worry about; just look at the top two results for this search: gmail privacy. ;-)
(In case the results have changed since I posted, I got 'Google Responds to Gmail Privacy Concerns' and 'Google Gmail Privacy Issue Overblown')
Don't forget to armour plate the front...
Bayesian filters only work for individuals. I learns what you think is spam, and what you think is ham. It simply wouldn't work for multiple users. One man's ham is another man's spam.
Gmail was a fantastic April Fools Day joke. They convinced a lot of people that it wasn't for real by making the press release on April 1st, but then it turned out to be true. Genius. This was the only good April Fool I saw this year.
Why would a geek need an 'advanced' button? Just make the power-user options less visible and the geeks will still find them but the novices won't. There's no need to ask for an experience level and list of qualifications before deciding what options to offer a user. Besides, how does the user know what the developers consider 'advanced'? I'm sure I'd want some of the advanced options, but I'm new enough to Linux. Which should I choose?
Why ask at all? Just make it possible for power users to change their prefered programs (which I assume it is). Don't bother people with pop-up questions, just let them do what they want to do. Yes, people will usually just pick the default, but it'll make them uneasy. They won't know that they're making the right choice, and they may very well think they're making irreversible descisions. It's better just not to bother them.
First, all distributions have defaults. That's as close as anyone should need to 'use this one'. Second, if I presented someone with ten good applications to suit a single purpose, what the hell is the problem with just closing your eyes and picking one at random? The other nine are there for people with specific needs. They all work.
Yeah that, and it's hard.
For the second time in this thread, I'm sitting here with mod points for you, but I don't want to lose all of my comments. The words 'easy', 'simple' and 'quick' are increasingly noticeable in marketing and too much choice (really, too many descisions to make) are the reason.
I read those books from cover to cover in the standard manner. Nice and fractured, like Pulp Fiction for children. Alternatively, I read every possible branching of story. The best ones branched and converged several times in unpredictable ways. My solution to choice is: choose everything. Time is free.
There's an important insight there that I think needs to be highlighted. That is that, a lot of the time, it's easier to learn than to choose. If I ask "What button do I press?", I want to hear 'F1' or 'ESC', not "What button do you prefer?" Of course I'll inevitably decide, after some use, that the button that I was forced to use is often out of my normal reach and I want to reassign it. That's why we have defaults and options rather than a host of questions at the outset. I think that the kind of choice that is lamented is the kind that needs an immediate descision and can't be put off until we descide it needs to change (or forever).
I think it's a subtly funny moderation actually. Either that or the moderator just didn't get it and I have to finish all of my (intended) funny comments with an exclamation mark to make it obvious.
Slashdot has its first ever story with no moderations other than 'funny'.
Luna has a thin atmosphere. I think we all agree that moons shouldn't be counted as planets. Strangely, Pluto has an atmosphere when it's near its perihelion but not at its aphelion. It's a part-time planet.
I'm not sure, but I imagine that the centre of mass of the whole Pluto/Charon system is not under the surface of Pluto. That would mean that it's a double planet rather than a planet/moon system. The COM of the Earth/Luna system is under Earth's surface. The COM for the entire solar system is near the centre of the sun. That's why we say the moon orbits Earth and everything orbits the sun. But Pluto/Charon may very well orbit each other (more accurately, a point between them).
Slightly inaccurate. Ceres isn't spherical, so wouldn't fit the description. No-one (that I've read) suggested removing the 'orbits a star' requirement. Mars has two moons, both spherical as far as I know, so counting moons would make Ceres 8th (except for being disqualified by shape).
In any case, Ceres fitting the definition of a planet is fairly good case for saying the definition isn't good enough.
What the hell are you on about? Are you saying it reflects badly on CMU because it was the victim? Also, you should note that most of the bashing isn't of MS this time, it's of Diebold. XP isn't meant for ATMS, so MS isn't to blame. It's Diebold's fault for using the worst available option because it's easier than the better solutions.
What's that the definition of? I'd like to see his dictionary.
Device Something that doesn't have widespread appeal Widespread A range over which these devices don't have appeal Appeal What these devices don't have (not much, anyway)