I have no mod points, so I can't give you an Insightful.
Entrapment is exactly what they are doing.
Re:Apple had some of the first truly 'silent' desk
on
A Truly Silent Desktop PC
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
And that is exactly why Apple should re-release the G4 cube. If they keep the specs where they were when they canceled it with the possible exception of adding Bluetooth and other more modern options, they would have a pretty good media hub that doesn't cost too much and runs with no fans.
As long as they only use lower end G4s or the PPC 970 clocked pretty low, they should be able to get away with convection. As long as they don't use too many newer parts, the price should be low enough to rival iMac sales.
Well, that 120 GB hard drive can't fit into my iPod.
Currently, I encode 192 kbps VBR MP3s. I can fit quite a few onto my portable devices and no one that I've spoken with can tell the difference between them and CDs. However, if there is a smaller format that has comparable quality, then I would switch to it in a heartbeat.
Also, the word is spelled "balk". That is probably the second time that I've seen anyone other than myself use it.
It tells me that he's trying to eliminate all of the possible variables and test the three formats objectively. To get a truly objective test, he should burn the CD and give it to someone else without either of them knowing which track is which.
I know all of that. I was just pointing out what my original post's grandparent was trying to say.
As for the part about me not having disposable income, how else do you think that I got a hideously expensive audio system? I have plenty of money that I could spend on DVD players, but I don't want them. I simply have no reason to own one.
Well, if all of the companies that produce Windows DVD player software decided not to make it, then there would be tremendous market pressure on the MPAA to retract their opposition to DeCSS. I dont know about everyone else, but several of my friends and I never watch DVDs using dedicated players. We all use our computers because our computers have much better soound systems.
Anyway, getting back to the topic, if all of those companies had done that, then they wouldn't have to deal with MPAA licensing, and would, therefore, have higher profits or lower costs.
Well, it says in the patent "12. A mouse for moving a cursor or pointer on a display screen, comprising: a mouse housing; and a disk coupled to the mouse housing and rotatable about an axis, the disk being configured to facilitate a control function on the display screen, the disk having a touchable surface for rotating the disk about the axis, the touchable surface being completely accessible to a finger of the user such that the disk can be continuously rotated by a simple swirling motion of the finger."
In claim one, they say that the rotary dial provides a control function, in claim two, they say that it performs an action on the display and in claim three, they say that the action is scrolling.
That seems like a device that can be used to scroll continuously with one finger to me.
Modifier-clicking is actually very intuitive. It's like Command-Q to quit. However, the reason for that is that only a small percentage of Apple's user base actually needs the extra mouse buttons. They add more confusion than they add functionality.
Holding the button longer seems to be an idea from the Newton. To select things, you had to hold the stylus down for about two seconds and then you could draw a selection.
Well, you never need more than one button in the actual UI. It was designed for that. The only reason that I don't use the pro mouse is that Maya requires three buttons to function properly. Or, at least, the version that I have does.
I never rest my hand on a mouse. I move the thing with my fingertips and rest my wrist on the desk. It's much easier than moving my whole arm. I never had a problem with the round iMac mice. In fact, I rather liked them.
As for why you would go to an Apple store, know thy enemy. To effectively bash Macs, you can't spout falsehoods all the time. If you do, you just end up looking like an idiot to everyone. I go to various stores that sell only x86 hardware just so that I can see the latest stuff. In fact, I have Windows xp set up on a virtual machine inside my Mac so that I can more effectively compare the two (that and the copy of xp cost me $6).
Look, Alienware computers coming with just an ATI Radeon 9500 means that they don't come with professional graphics cards, in not just mine, but in lots of people's opinions. Crappy hardware is a legitimate gripe. I shouldn't have to pay to get this graphics card that I'll never use! No serious Maya modeler that I know would be caught dead with anything less than one of the latest Quadros. I want that to come standard so that I don't have to pay extra for a graphics card that I won't use. I shouldn't have to eBay it to get rid of it.
(for the humor impaired, that last paragraph was a parody of the parent's next-to-last)
This isn't just a hat. It's a wheel. It has an additional degree of freedom (roll) that joysticks and hats don't have.
As for accidentaly tripping the sides when trying to press the center, I would imagine that since the action of the center and the main mouse button are the same, they would make the wheel directions a bit harder to press. That way, you have to hold the mouse open to press the wheel. That would prevent accidental clicks.
Well, there is the problem of him being dead. Somehow, I doubt that he could be nearly as funny as a rotting corpse when it was his actions that amused us so.
Really, typing and making DNA aren't very comparable. There are only a few ways in which atoms can combine and our amino acids happen to be a rather low energy form. Much lower than, say, buckminsterfullerenes. Those take 60 carbon atoms in a very precise formation to make. Surely you don't deny that they are produced quite often by chance.
The two would be more comparable if the monkeys had 114 keys and they could only hit them in particular combinations. Last I heard that was how many we had, and that includes elements not found in nature. If you only use the natural elements, it's more like 70.
Carbon triple bonding is very rare, so it would have a much smaller chance of being hit than double or single bonds. Oxygen is extremely electronegative, so it bonds readily and it creates a very polar covalent bond. That attracts yet more reactive material. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, so it would be hit approximately 95% of the time, but it can bond with almost anything.
There are a great many rules governing these basic reactions. Similarly, there are a great many rules governing the creation of sentences. A better analogy than the monkey one might be taking humans and having them type complete phrases (out of a possible vocabulary of 114 words with very specific grammar) until you get the phrase 'On the Origin Of Species'. Chemical reactions are most certainly NOT random.
Now, as for the tornado analogy, I agree, it seems rather impossible. I've always seen it with 747s instead of B52s, but there isn't much difference. It is flawed in that metal parts can be broken down whereas atoms cannot (at least, not under natural circumstances) and a junkyard can contain an almost infinite variety of parts, whereas the universe only has 114 known to us, many of which are man-made and do not exist for more than a few billionths of a second.
Again, assume only 114 parts from which a B52 is built. Each part can only attach to another in a particular way. You would almost surely get small machines that performed some useful function. These are roughly equivalent to our molecules.
I am not trying to demonstrate that complex organisms will inevitably arise from such reactions, I am just trying to point out that DNA (or something like it) is actually fairly likely to appear given the raw materials and plenty of time.
How is DNA a demonstration against macroevolution?
With billions upon billions of years and billions upon billions of joules of energy flying every which way, I would be very surprised if life didn't start.
DNA is actually a very simple molecule, and I am speaking as a student of molecular biology, here. It's just _very_ large, so it seems much more complex than it is.
It consists of four basic units, each of which is simpler than the simplest protein of which I know. In fact, they are about as complex chemically as amino acids, which suggests that the two developed together.
We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology where each worker may bloom secure from the pests purveying contradictory and confusing truths. Our unification of thought is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people. With one will. One resolve. One cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death, and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail.
Oops. It seems that I wasn't clear enough. I meant the $98 billion lawsuit against those college students who wrote an indexing service. It absolves those particular college students from any wrongdoing. In fact, it gives them a very strong case against the RIAA for defamation and malicious prosecution.
Well, if they couldn't prove contributory infringment here, then I don't see how they could possibly win against people who wrote an indexing service. In fact, this makes the students' case for defamation much stronger, too.
They wouldn't kill all of us. They would make us slaves.
They would play music all of the time and get laws passed such that we had to pay them for every second of music that we heard. Then, they would get laws passed declaring deafness to be a form of mental illness of perhaps criminal behavior.
Well, it would be awfully hard to kill someone with a bullet without using a gun. The things aren't heavy enough to do any real damage when you throw them.
This sets a wonderful precedent for that nasty RIAA suit against the college students.
Now that people are finally admitting that car manufacturers aren't liable for every drunk driver, we should see a lot more wins against the RIAA member companies. Or, at least, we should see the RIAA start to go after the real 'pirates' instead of companies that write legitimately useful software.
No, it could work for single individuals, but you would get wildly inaccurate results. It's a lot like quantum mechanics. It yields waveforms of probabilities. The more people that you put into the equation, the more accurate the predictions were.
Really, that kind of thing is already being used to predict stocks. Ray Kurzweil has yet another company that actually sends stock tips based on overall trends. It's pretty cool.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no mod points, so I can't give you an Insightful.
Entrapment is exactly what they are doing.
And that is exactly why Apple should re-release the G4 cube. If they keep the specs where they were when they canceled it with the possible exception of adding Bluetooth and other more modern options, they would have a pretty good media hub that doesn't cost too much and runs with no fans.
As long as they only use lower end G4s or the PPC 970 clocked pretty low, they should be able to get away with convection. As long as they don't use too many newer parts, the price should be low enough to rival iMac sales.
Well, that 120 GB hard drive can't fit into my iPod.
Currently, I encode 192 kbps VBR MP3s. I can fit quite a few onto my portable devices and no one that I've spoken with can tell the difference between them and CDs. However, if there is a smaller format that has comparable quality, then I would switch to it in a heartbeat.
Also, the word is spelled "balk". That is probably the second time that I've seen anyone other than myself use it.
It tells me that he's trying to eliminate all of the possible variables and test the three formats objectively. To get a truly objective test, he should burn the CD and give it to someone else without either of them knowing which track is which.
It's called the scientific method.
I know all of that. I was just pointing out what my original post's grandparent was trying to say.
As for the part about me not having disposable income, how else do you think that I got a hideously expensive audio system? I have plenty of money that I could spend on DVD players, but I don't want them. I simply have no reason to own one.
If nothing else, you could use a simulated CD burner and drive. Do it entirely in software with CD images.
Come to think of it, that would be pretty cool.
Well, if all of the companies that produce Windows DVD player software decided not to make it, then there would be tremendous market pressure on the MPAA to retract their opposition to DeCSS. I dont know about everyone else, but several of my friends and I never watch DVDs using dedicated players. We all use our computers because our computers have much better soound systems.
Anyway, getting back to the topic, if all of those companies had done that, then they wouldn't have to deal with MPAA licensing, and would, therefore, have higher profits or lower costs.
Really? You have all of my songs?
If you don't get it, look at my nick.
Well, it says in the patent "12. A mouse for moving a cursor or pointer on a display screen, comprising: a mouse housing; and a disk coupled to the mouse housing and rotatable about an axis, the disk being configured to facilitate a control function on the display screen, the disk having a touchable surface for rotating the disk about the axis, the touchable surface being completely accessible to a finger of the user such that the disk can be continuously rotated by a simple swirling motion of the finger."
In claim one, they say that the rotary dial provides a control function, in claim two, they say that it performs an action on the display and in claim three, they say that the action is scrolling.
That seems like a device that can be used to scroll continuously with one finger to me.
Modifier-clicking is actually very intuitive. It's like Command-Q to quit. However, the reason for that is that only a small percentage of Apple's user base actually needs the extra mouse buttons. They add more confusion than they add functionality.
Holding the button longer seems to be an idea from the Newton. To select things, you had to hold the stylus down for about two seconds and then you could draw a selection.
Is it infinitely rotateable with just one finger? If not, then I would say that this is still novel.
It might help if you posted photos of the device instead of a text description of it. Frankly, I don't really have the patience to read all of that.
Well, you never need more than one button in the actual UI. It was designed for that. The only reason that I don't use the pro mouse is that Maya requires three buttons to function properly. Or, at least, the version that I have does.
I never rest my hand on a mouse. I move the thing with my fingertips and rest my wrist on the desk. It's much easier than moving my whole arm. I never had a problem with the round iMac mice. In fact, I rather liked them.
As for why you would go to an Apple store, know thy enemy. To effectively bash Macs, you can't spout falsehoods all the time. If you do, you just end up looking like an idiot to everyone. I go to various stores that sell only x86 hardware just so that I can see the latest stuff. In fact, I have Windows xp set up on a virtual machine inside my Mac so that I can more effectively compare the two (that and the copy of xp cost me $6).
Look, Alienware computers coming with just an ATI Radeon 9500 means that they don't come with professional graphics cards, in not just mine, but in lots of people's opinions. Crappy hardware is a legitimate gripe. I shouldn't have to pay to get this graphics card that I'll never use! No serious Maya modeler that I know would be caught dead with anything less than one of the latest Quadros. I want that to come standard so that I don't have to pay extra for a graphics card that I won't use. I shouldn't have to eBay it to get rid of it.
(for the humor impaired, that last paragraph was a parody of the parent's next-to-last)
This isn't just a hat. It's a wheel. It has an additional degree of freedom (roll) that joysticks and hats don't have.
As for accidentaly tripping the sides when trying to press the center, I would imagine that since the action of the center and the main mouse button are the same, they would make the wheel directions a bit harder to press. That way, you have to hold the mouse open to press the wheel. That would prevent accidental clicks.
This isn't just a hat, it's also a scroll wheel like the iPod's.
Well, there is the problem of him being dead. Somehow, I doubt that he could be nearly as funny as a rotting corpse when it was his actions that amused us so.
Really, typing and making DNA aren't very comparable. There are only a few ways in which atoms can combine and our amino acids happen to be a rather low energy form. Much lower than, say, buckminsterfullerenes. Those take 60 carbon atoms in a very precise formation to make. Surely you don't deny that they are produced quite often by chance.
The two would be more comparable if the monkeys had 114 keys and they could only hit them in particular combinations. Last I heard that was how many we had, and that includes elements not found in nature. If you only use the natural elements, it's more like 70.
Carbon triple bonding is very rare, so it would have a much smaller chance of being hit than double or single bonds. Oxygen is extremely electronegative, so it bonds readily and it creates a very polar covalent bond. That attracts yet more reactive material. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, so it would be hit approximately 95% of the time, but it can bond with almost anything.
There are a great many rules governing these basic reactions. Similarly, there are a great many rules governing the creation of sentences. A better analogy than the monkey one might be taking humans and having them type complete phrases (out of a possible vocabulary of 114 words with very specific grammar) until you get the phrase 'On the Origin Of Species'. Chemical reactions are most certainly NOT random.
Now, as for the tornado analogy, I agree, it seems rather impossible. I've always seen it with 747s instead of B52s, but there isn't much difference. It is flawed in that metal parts can be broken down whereas atoms cannot (at least, not under natural circumstances) and a junkyard can contain an almost infinite variety of parts, whereas the universe only has 114 known to us, many of which are man-made and do not exist for more than a few billionths of a second.
Again, assume only 114 parts from which a B52 is built. Each part can only attach to another in a particular way. You would almost surely get small machines that performed some useful function. These are roughly equivalent to our molecules.
I am not trying to demonstrate that complex organisms will inevitably arise from such reactions, I am just trying to point out that DNA (or something like it) is actually fairly likely to appear given the raw materials and plenty of time.
How is DNA a demonstration against macroevolution?
With billions upon billions of years and billions upon billions of joules of energy flying every which way, I would be very surprised if life didn't start.
DNA is actually a very simple molecule, and I am speaking as a student of molecular biology, here. It's just _very_ large, so it seems much more complex than it is.
It consists of four basic units, each of which is simpler than the simplest protein of which I know. In fact, they are about as complex chemically as amino acids, which suggests that the two developed together.
We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology where each worker may bloom secure from the pests purveying contradictory and confusing truths. Our unification of thought is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people. With one will. One resolve. One cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death, and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail.
Did they actually share any files with it? I never read anything about that in the story. Perhaps I need to read it again.
Oops. It seems that I wasn't clear enough. I meant the $98 billion lawsuit against those college students who wrote an indexing service. It absolves those particular college students from any wrongdoing. In fact, it gives them a very strong case against the RIAA for defamation and malicious prosecution.
Well, if they couldn't prove contributory infringment here, then I don't see how they could possibly win against people who wrote an indexing service. In fact, this makes the students' case for defamation much stronger, too.
They wouldn't kill all of us. They would make us slaves.
They would play music all of the time and get laws passed such that we had to pay them for every second of music that we heard. Then, they would get laws passed declaring deafness to be a form of mental illness of perhaps criminal behavior.
Well, it would be awfully hard to kill someone with a bullet without using a gun. The things aren't heavy enough to do any real damage when you throw them.
This sets a wonderful precedent for that nasty RIAA suit against the college students.
Now that people are finally admitting that car manufacturers aren't liable for every drunk driver, we should see a lot more wins against the RIAA member companies. Or, at least, we should see the RIAA start to go after the real 'pirates' instead of companies that write legitimately useful software.
No, it could work for single individuals, but you would get wildly inaccurate results. It's a lot like quantum mechanics. It yields waveforms of probabilities. The more people that you put into the equation, the more accurate the predictions were.
Really, that kind of thing is already being used to predict stocks. Ray Kurzweil has yet another company that actually sends stock tips based on overall trends. It's pretty cool.