Conflating the unfounded conjecture (AKA WAG) that QM has something to do with consciousness with a claim that QM "explains" consciousness.
Yes, but it sounds very impressive to those without a background in philosophy.
Or biology, or neuroscience, or any of a hundred other disciplines requiring a basic grounding in scientific method. This is yet another "the nature of consciousness is unknowable" argument, which just leads to the idea that only a supreme being could possibly impart it to inanimate matter. Wait until the first true AI of significant power makes its appearance. Assuming it doesn't start out like Skynet and wipe us off the face of the planet, it's going to make for a lot of very red faces.
I was rather smugly informed by a gentleman a few years ago that "there can be no spontaneous rise to intelligence." I told him to look in the mirror.
Which one - iOS or Android - is the one you choose to keep pictures of your grandkids on?
That's obvious. Android. I want to be sure that I'll always be able to get to those pictures, and not have them under the thumb of a megalomaniacal sociopath.
Right. JPEG, TIFF, UNIX - all products of a megolomaniacal sociopath. Calm down. Have some Kool Aid. Relax.
Hey, he started it. Funny though... usually it's the Apple fanboys that get accused of drinking the Kool Aid.
Then please explain why it takes 10 seconds for my new tv sets to boot up with "The please wait..." message.
Oh, it's also has upgradable firmware via the USB port
(Hint: it's a cheapy store brand, under $300, 2 years ago)
Yeah. My Samsung DLP is Linux-based (source is available online even: hurray for GPL compliance) and you can upgrade the firmware the same way. Might even be able to do it over the Internet, but I haven't tried that.
The generally low-cost and quick access encourages trying out software.
Not really: if you have to buy your product in order to try it out, it's not really a trial... it's a purchase. That doesn't encourage trying out software: it makes you nervous that you're wasting your money. You might have to wade through a half dozen competing programs to find one that suits you, which multiplies the effective cost of the software you actually do use. You can't return the ones that didn't stack up, you can't resell them: you're stuck. Reviews aren't sufficient either: just because someone else thinks an app is "killer" doesn't mean it will serve your needs properly. All reviews do is help you weed out the really bad ones.
Google had it right, originally... 24 hours to try out your purchase. Not long enough to review some more complex/expensive applications, to be sure, but it was better than the way Apple runs their App Store. Now, Google has it down to 15 minutes (ostensibly because developers complained about people who would use the app for a day and then return it) but for me, the net effect is that I now buy fewer apps. Might as well just drop it down to zero and be done with it: 15 minutes is just insulting. Really, it is, and I give Apple credit for not spitting in their users faces in quite that way.
Other than yet another fart app or another Arnold Schwarzenegger sound board. you can't properly evaluate an application of reasonable sophistication in a quarter hour. In some cases, you're lucky to get it installed and configured in that time, must less actually checking it out. It's ridiculous, and Google lost a major marketing point by doing that. I realize that there's something of a balancing act involved (the needs of the developers vs. the needs of the users) but they handled that very badly, from a PR and customer satisfaction perspective.
I was on a couple of developer forums, and it was amazing the naked greed and arrogance exhibited by a number of developers. A few were more reasoned, but most copped the "we must stop those thieves from stealing our software" attitude. Some people never learn that dissing one's customers is rarely a good idea, and that trying to force users to pay for software that may not do what they want is even stupider. The devs who got it understood that, if they have a quality product, they'll make money because happy customers keep their apps. Those that don't have a good product don't deserve any revenue anyway.
The truth is, much as I love my G2 with Cyanogenmod 7, Google is perfectly capable of mucking this whole thing up. At that point I'm not sure where I'll go: I do not want anything to do with Apple, and even less to do with Windows 7 Mobile. Ah well... time will tell.
I'd put an additional qualifier, that they didn't drag the process out so that the technology would be embedded in society before the patent was granted. It shouldn't take more than a few years under normal circumstances for a patent to be granted once the application starts.
Judges tend to dislike submarine patents, in general. Unless you're in a certain jurisdiction down in Texas...
Ignore the haters. I, and many others, concur. Android is a deathtrap of viruses, harvesting, trojans and misinformation. Fear, uncertainty and doubt. The opposite of a walled garden is surely an entirely open one, and unless you go round with the hoe, the weeds will grow. Apologies for rhyming; 'cause it's true. Equip Gran with a new 'droid tablet, and watch her money slowly be sapped from her account, or give her a new iPad and watch her shop at the App Store. Super stuff - no credit card drainage, no worries about trojans, no viruses. Sorted.
Uh... what? Honestly, why are you even in a discussion about Android if you're not a hater? Go back to your walled garden and bask in the glow of Steve. The rest of us will continue to get things done.
Which one - iOS or Android - is the one you choose to keep pictures of your grandkids on?
That's obvious. Android. I want to be sure that I'll always be able to get to those pictures, and not have them under the thumb of a megalomaniacal sociopath.
Take-off and landing is the most dangerous part of a flight. They don't want you to be tripped up by a trailing headphone cable if you have to exit the plane quickly.
"With France's economy of scale and a waste management infrastructure within it's own borders it has comparative advantage for nuclear power generation."
France builds reactors 1 mile from the border (Chooz, Cattenom, Fessenheim...), so in case of an accident, half of the damage goes to a foreign country. Sneaky.
Some might say, "brilliant", but I guess it depends upon which side of the fence, uh, border, you're sitting on.
Interesting but I believe the server was in the US "I could be wrong" so then US laws are probably the ones that apply.
Yes, but is that the only way that jurisdiction can be determined? If people outside the U.S. had their data stolen, other countries laws may apply. I've never used Sony's network, but I'm assuming that it was delivered to users outside the continental U.S. as well.
You make a good point. Wasn't there a recent kerfuffle about how inaccurate ISP metering is (which is an issue now that caps are being put in place)?
If they can't get the billing data right, what chance that they will get these logs right when they are only kept because they are mandated by the legislation?
Like anything else, some will do it right and some won't, the problem being that there's no way to tell the difference when it gets to court.
I have read it, twit. You might have a technical argument, but the first politician to suggest that we make our laws subservient to international treaties will be run out of town on a rail. It's a non-starter, it amounts to yielding sovereignty to someone else, and Americans *will not stand for that* under almost any circumstances.
Yes, well, you should a. not call people twits and b. look into things like ACTA.
Slashdot Mirror
Conflating the unfounded conjecture (AKA WAG) that QM has something to do with consciousness with a claim that QM "explains" consciousness.
Yes, but it sounds very impressive to those without a background in philosophy.
Or biology, or neuroscience, or any of a hundred other disciplines requiring a basic grounding in scientific method. This is yet another "the nature of consciousness is unknowable" argument, which just leads to the idea that only a supreme being could possibly impart it to inanimate matter. Wait until the first true AI of significant power makes its appearance. Assuming it doesn't start out like Skynet and wipe us off the face of the planet, it's going to make for a lot of very red faces.
I was rather smugly informed by a gentleman a few years ago that "there can be no spontaneous rise to intelligence." I told him to look in the mirror.
Which one - iOS or Android - is the one you choose to keep pictures of your grandkids on?
That's obvious. Android. I want to be sure that I'll always be able to get to those pictures, and not have them under the thumb of a megalomaniacal sociopath.
Right. JPEG, TIFF, UNIX - all products of a megolomaniacal sociopath. Calm down. Have some Kool Aid. Relax.
Hey, he started it. Funny though ... usually it's the Apple fanboys that get accused of drinking the Kool Aid.
Their replacement launcher, TouchWiz,...
Eeew.
No shit. Somebody in Samsung's marketing department ought to be demoted for that one.
Then please explain why it takes 10 seconds for my new tv sets to boot up with "The please wait..." message. Oh, it's also has upgradable firmware via the USB port
(Hint: it's a cheapy store brand, under $300, 2 years ago)
Yeah. My Samsung DLP is Linux-based (source is available online even: hurray for GPL compliance) and you can upgrade the firmware the same way. Might even be able to do it over the Internet, but I haven't tried that.
Nobody but hardcore fanboys* are going to ditch their current TV to buy an Apple-branded television.
Sounds lucrative to me...
Really. AC just described, rather succinctly I might add, Apple's entire business model
all it guards against is Apple possibly taking queues from the Sammy's next iterations.
Cue the grammar nazis.
(Rings bell) Good Morning.
Sniveling git.
The generally low-cost and quick access encourages trying out software.
Not really: if you have to buy your product in order to try it out, it's not really a trial ... it's a purchase. That doesn't encourage trying out software: it makes you nervous that you're wasting your money. You might have to wade through a half dozen competing programs to find one that suits you, which multiplies the effective cost of the software you actually do use. You can't return the ones that didn't stack up, you can't resell them: you're stuck. Reviews aren't sufficient either: just because someone else thinks an app is "killer" doesn't mean it will serve your needs properly. All reviews do is help you weed out the really bad ones.
... 24 hours to try out your purchase. Not long enough to review some more complex/expensive applications, to be sure, but it was better than the way Apple runs their App Store. Now, Google has it down to 15 minutes (ostensibly because developers complained about people who would use the app for a day and then return it) but for me, the net effect is that I now buy fewer apps. Might as well just drop it down to zero and be done with it: 15 minutes is just insulting. Really, it is, and I give Apple credit for not spitting in their users faces in quite that way.
... time will tell.
Google had it right, originally
Other than yet another fart app or another Arnold Schwarzenegger sound board. you can't properly evaluate an application of reasonable sophistication in a quarter hour. In some cases, you're lucky to get it installed and configured in that time, must less actually checking it out. It's ridiculous, and Google lost a major marketing point by doing that. I realize that there's something of a balancing act involved (the needs of the developers vs. the needs of the users) but they handled that very badly, from a PR and customer satisfaction perspective.
I was on a couple of developer forums, and it was amazing the naked greed and arrogance exhibited by a number of developers. A few were more reasoned, but most copped the "we must stop those thieves from stealing our software" attitude. Some people never learn that dissing one's customers is rarely a good idea, and that trying to force users to pay for software that may not do what they want is even stupider. The devs who got it understood that, if they have a quality product, they'll make money because happy customers keep their apps. Those that don't have a good product don't deserve any revenue anyway.
The truth is, much as I love my G2 with Cyanogenmod 7, Google is perfectly capable of mucking this whole thing up. At that point I'm not sure where I'll go: I do not want anything to do with Apple, and even less to do with Windows 7 Mobile. Ah well
Yup, everything is obvious once someone has invented it. Hence, patents.
More like "everything obvious is profitable once some greedy sociopath has patented it." Hence the modern patent system.
would be laughable if it weren't for the USPS actually granting patents on crap like this
I think you meant the USPTO. The Postal Service generally doesn't get involved in patent disputes (except for sending legal documents around.)
I'd put an additional qualifier, that they didn't drag the process out so that the technology would be embedded in society before the patent was granted. It shouldn't take more than a few years under normal circumstances for a patent to be granted once the application starts.
Judges tend to dislike submarine patents, in general. Unless you're in a certain jurisdiction down in Texas ...
Ignore the haters. I, and many others, concur. Android is a deathtrap of viruses, harvesting, trojans and misinformation. Fear, uncertainty and doubt. The opposite of a walled garden is surely an entirely open one, and unless you go round with the hoe, the weeds will grow. Apologies for rhyming; 'cause it's true. Equip Gran with a new 'droid tablet, and watch her money slowly be sapped from her account, or give her a new iPad and watch her shop at the App Store. Super stuff - no credit card drainage, no worries about trojans, no viruses. Sorted.
Uh ... what? Honestly, why are you even in a discussion about Android if you're not a hater? Go back to your walled garden and bask in the glow of Steve. The rest of us will continue to get things done.
I've never heard someone complain that source code wasn't released for Windows software.
Are you actually that ignorant of the subject we're discussing? Because if you are, you're in way over your head. And if you're not, you're a troll.
Which one - iOS or Android - is the one you choose to keep pictures of your grandkids on?
That's obvious. Android. I want to be sure that I'll always be able to get to those pictures, and not have them under the thumb of a megalomaniacal sociopath.
If you're charging a rate that you're happy with, then offer to give them a discount for equity. Whatever you do, don't overplay your hand.
-jcr
Yes, because it's not really that strong a hand to begin with. People often overestimate their own value. By his own admission he's well paid already.
Forget it. I'm not watching movies when I fly. I'm drinking over-priced booze and groping flight attendants.
Of course, captain.
Kirk.
Take-off and landing is the most dangerous part of a flight. They don't want you to be tripped up by a trailing headphone cable if you have to exit the plane quickly.
What cable? My headphones are bluetooth.
"With France's economy of scale and a waste management infrastructure within it's own borders it has comparative advantage for nuclear power generation."
France builds reactors 1 mile from the border (Chooz, Cattenom, Fessenheim...), so in case of an accident, half of the damage goes to a foreign country. Sneaky.
Some might say, "brilliant", but I guess it depends upon which side of the fence, uh, border, you're sitting on.
The current nuclear power plants are not built for an quake, not even a moderate one. One of then is seriously broken.
Actually hydroelectric plants are quite green, in many times they improve the landscape.
Unless, of course, you already happened to be living there.
That said, if he doesn't know how to set up a Web server and wants to focus on building a product, hosted and managed cloud is the way to go.
Seems to work for Dropbox, if you're into that.
Interesting but I believe the server was in the US "I could be wrong" so then US laws are probably the ones that apply.
Yes, but is that the only way that jurisdiction can be determined? If people outside the U.S. had their data stolen, other countries laws may apply. I've never used Sony's network, but I'm assuming that it was delivered to users outside the continental U.S. as well.
You make a good point. Wasn't there a recent kerfuffle about how inaccurate ISP metering is (which is an issue now that caps are being put in place)? If they can't get the billing data right, what chance that they will get these logs right when they are only kept because they are mandated by the legislation?
Like anything else, some will do it right and some won't, the problem being that there's no way to tell the difference when it gets to court.
clock synchronizations
Especially important in cases involving dynamic IPs.
That's fine, LTE is faster than DSL anyway. :P
FedEx and a CD burner is faster than most DSL.
I have read it, twit. You might have a technical argument, but the first politician to suggest that we make our laws subservient to international treaties will be run out of town on a rail. It's a non-starter, it amounts to yielding sovereignty to someone else, and Americans *will not stand for that* under almost any circumstances.
Yes, well, you should a. not call people twits and b. look into things like ACTA.