We really shouldn't answer. You've spent your $14. But more importantly, you've clearly made an emotional investment in your $14 hub. If anyone were to point out that this new type of hub was better, you'd feel hurt, and you'd probably start thinking that your $14 was wasted. So I think it's best if we leave you with your $14 hub and the rest of us will keep quiet about the benefit we derive from these new hubs.
Um...the standard for making TV these days is HD at 1920x1080. I waited 10 years to buy a TV since my last one because I was waiting for a consumer TV to meet that standard at an affordable price - partly because I work in the film industry and consider NTSC to be too poor an approximation to film to make it pleasurable to watch. So please spare me all the lectures on consumerism, the next shiny thing and the meaning of "standard". It's amazing how much crap the average/. reader extrapolates from a small comment. And it's amazing how some people identify owning a TV with watching pabulum (though that isn't necessarily directed at you).
I think you should just go back to your classroom where you can join the other kids in your class in playing at raging against the system, it just looks stupid here. Oh, and hold the dictionary the right way up so at least it looks like you know how to read it.
This is just plain wrong as I discovered when I decided to upgrade a couple of games I originally wrote for 160x160 Palms for modern Palms. My attention span eventually ran out before I could get to the bottom of what exactly I had to do to make my trivial little apps work on a Tungsten T|3 (other than in 160x160 emulation mode). (Just so you know, I have experience writing code for a wide variety of devices from pure functional languages on high end graphics workstations down to assembler on embedded systems with a few bytes of RAM, so I don't need no lecture on not being able to adapt to a new environment.) PalmOS is just plain crap though it was tolerably decent when Palm devices first appeared.
I also take issue with the whole "feature rich" thing. A modern Palm device, in terms of pure computing power, could blow the socks off the desktop machines I used a decade ago, and yet the desktop machine had a real OS and Palms come only with a toy OS that struggles to manage with a modern features like phone networking, bluetooth and so on. Those real OSes that were created decades ago could deal with these kinds of hardware issues in their stride. The whole "Zen of application design" philosophy is nothing but a cover for the PalmOS developers not bothering to get off their lazy asses and write a quality operating system.
History has played out exactly as I expected. Years ago people complained that Windows CE was a bloated overcomplicated OS that was a stripped down desktop OS, inappropriate for a handheld. I think the people who said this were the same people who thought that nobody would ever need more than 640k. Palm had a good solution for a window of opportunity of a few years while handheld CPUs were in their infancy. But that's no way to plan a long term business.
I still love my Palm Z22. But that's because it's prettier than any other PDA, cheap, and I don't write code for Palms any more.
I was boycotting Sony until they released the best rear-projection TV on the market. What can I say? Should I watch substandard TV just to make a point?
I don't think that all programmers have the ability to program two CPUs - most can only get about one-and-a-half times the speed you can get from one SH-2. I think only one out of 100 programmers is good enough to get that kind of speed out of the Saturn. --Yu Suzuki Regarding the Sega Saturn's complicated architecture.
'Flatus', that's a useful word.
Anyway, I read a bit more at Wikipedia. I've always wondered about those nerve endings that can distinguish between flatus and solid material. What properties of the materials are used to distinguish between them. Are they detecting a mechanical or chemical difference? And what exactly causes the confusion associated with...OK...that's enough for now...
--
Dan
No, that won't do at all. What you're saying here is that smells coming up directly from the digestive tract (implausible, but let's allow it for now) can knock out certain smell sensors in the nose so that you can still smell other people's doings. But think about it. That still requires a highly selective nasal system - one where you can selectively knock out one very specific smell. If the nose wasn't discriminating, smells coming up directly would knock out all fartlike smells. That doesn't happen. So your argument doesn't show that the nose isn't super-discriminating.
That's subsumed into the scary possibility that I pointed out: that you can't actually distinguish some farts. Scary, because it's possible that you might breathe deeply of what you think is your own but is actually someone else's silent emission...ew...ew...enough of this subject already...
OK, I'm going to have to say some disgusting stuff in the service of science.
There's an easy experiment to demonstrate that humans have the ability to distinguish smells very finely. The point is, humans (at least the ones I know) don't mind the smell of their own farts, but can't stand the smell of others. This means that humans have the ability to distinguish between their own farts and the farts of everyone else. Now there are three obvious classes of mechanism for this:
(1) Humans can distinguish between their own farts and every else's - ie. they can partition fart smells into self and non-self
OR
(2) Humans can distinguish between everyone's farts.
OR
(3) Various shades in between.
Now consider hypothesis (1). This is pretty preposterous. Chemical sensors in our nose that can only distinguish fart smells into two classes, self and non-self, would be ridiculously specialised. So we're left with (2) or (3).
Now consider (3). To the extent that you can't distinguish self from non-self, there are people's whose farts you can't distinguish from your own. In other words, (3) implies there are other people whose farts you don't mind. This is simply too disgusting to contemplate and no benevolent deity could have created a universe like this.
So we are led to conclusion (2).
Anyway, I think more experiments are needed. I think this is an example of low hanging fruit if someone is seeking an Ig Nobel prize.
Just because you don't want your kids exposed to something doesn't mean that they should't.
Well, that's a point of view. But it's not a reply to what I said.
So stop trying to impose your morality on me,
Morality is about interpersonal relationships. Asking someone to stop imposing their morality on someone is like asking someone to eat without ingesting food. Any time a bunch of people need to share some space to exist there are going to be interpersonal conflicts with different sides having different views. Again "imposing morality" is just another/. mantra that doesn't mean what it says. What it really does mean is "I want to have my way even if it comes into conflict with you so I'm going to describe what you want to do as 'imposing morality' so that from some vaguely libertarian point of view I can take the moral high ground."
Even in Iran parents don't want to take responsibility for raising their own children.
It's very easy to repeat this popular/. mantra. But if you, as a parent, believe that it is wrong for your children to be exposed to pornography, then it is complete fucking impossible to bring them up right in modern liberal society without enclosing them in a solid steel cube and burying them 20 feet underground. So the fact that some parents would like a little help from the government in bringing up their kids is hardly people failing to take responsibility for their own kids. The truth is that you repeat this mantra, not because you care about how anyone brings up their kids, but because you'd like free access to various materials on the web. I certainly won't hold that against you, but please don't dress up your wishes as anything other than what they are.
My assumption isn't wrong. Electron microscopists simply abused the millennia old word 'image' to include 'images' produced by electrons.
An electron based 'imager' of photons would be a cool thing to see though:-) And don't forget that when you start including loop terms from QED you find that photons do scatter off photons. But that's getting silly.
Sounds to me like using a GPS means there is more space in your skull for your brain to expand to deal with interesting tasks rather than mundane crap like how to get from A to B. I think I'll get one today.
Maybe navigation in New York is easy. In San Francisco you have to act as navigator yourself for taxi drivers, but for some reason they don't pay you for your work. In London I can step in a cab unprepared and know that I can get to even obscure little streets with the minimum of hassle.
Every logic needs its axioms. We Vulcans use those axioms that have served us well in the past. Logic dictates that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we should continue to use those principles.
If I'd found out they were actually grappling with the philosophical problems of the putative Vulcan philosophy...
Unfortunately, Gene Roddenberry and his fellow historians chose to simplify things in his retellings of events. It's a pity, exposure to Vulcan philosophy could be valuable to Humans.
I believe you are talking about a restricted form of logic such as mathematical logic. I believe one of your Earth philosophers, Betrtrand Russell, gave a better description. I don't remember the exact words but it was something like: given a set of goals, rationality is choosing the best way to achieve those goals. Vulcan logic corresponds to this kind of rationality. But we also consider those goals to be part of Vulcan logic, as axioms. So a Vulcan might say "logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". This isn't an expression of truth or falisty, but an expression of Vulcan values. Similarly Vulcans value family. This is an axiom of Vulcan logic. (Actually, this is a simplification but it will do for now.)
Slashdot Mirror
We really shouldn't answer. You've spent your $14. But more importantly, you've clearly made an emotional investment in your $14 hub. If anyone were to point out that this new type of hub was better, you'd feel hurt, and you'd probably start thinking that your $14 was wasted. So I think it's best if we leave you with your $14 hub and the rest of us will keep quiet about the benefit we derive from these new hubs.
Um...the standard for making TV these days is HD at 1920x1080. I waited 10 years to buy a TV since my last one because I was waiting for a consumer TV to meet that standard at an affordable price - partly because I work in the film industry and consider NTSC to be too poor an approximation to film to make it pleasurable to watch. So please spare me all the lectures on consumerism, the next shiny thing and the meaning of "standard". It's amazing how much crap the average /. reader extrapolates from a small comment. And it's amazing how some people identify owning a TV with watching pabulum (though that isn't necessarily directed at you).
I think you should just go back to your classroom where you can join the other kids in your class in playing at raging against the system, it just looks stupid here. Oh, and hold the dictionary the right way up so at least it looks like you know how to read it.
I also take issue with the whole "feature rich" thing. A modern Palm device, in terms of pure computing power, could blow the socks off the desktop machines I used a decade ago, and yet the desktop machine had a real OS and Palms come only with a toy OS that struggles to manage with a modern features like phone networking, bluetooth and so on. Those real OSes that were created decades ago could deal with these kinds of hardware issues in their stride. The whole "Zen of application design" philosophy is nothing but a cover for the PalmOS developers not bothering to get off their lazy asses and write a quality operating system.
History has played out exactly as I expected. Years ago people complained that Windows CE was a bloated overcomplicated OS that was a stripped down desktop OS, inappropriate for a handheld. I think the people who said this were the same people who thought that nobody would ever need more than 640k. Palm had a good solution for a window of opportunity of a few years while handheld CPUs were in their infancy. But that's no way to plan a long term business.
I still love my Palm Z22. But that's because it's prettier than any other PDA, cheap, and I don't write code for Palms any more.
I was boycotting Sony until they released the best rear-projection TV on the market. What can I say? Should I watch substandard TV just to make a point?
...prize for the biggest bribe paid to a gaming magazine to get it to award a prize to a game?
'Flatus', that's a useful word. Anyway, I read a bit more at Wikipedia. I've always wondered about those nerve endings that can distinguish between flatus and solid material. What properties of the materials are used to distinguish between them. Are they detecting a mechanical or chemical difference? And what exactly causes the confusion associated with...OK...that's enough for now... -- Dan
No, that won't do at all. What you're saying here is that smells coming up directly from the digestive tract (implausible, but let's allow it for now) can knock out certain smell sensors in the nose so that you can still smell other people's doings. But think about it. That still requires a highly selective nasal system - one where you can selectively knock out one very specific smell. If the nose wasn't discriminating, smells coming up directly would knock out all fartlike smells. That doesn't happen. So your argument doesn't show that the nose isn't super-discriminating.
That's subsumed into the scary possibility that I pointed out: that you can't actually distinguish some farts. Scary, because it's possible that you might breathe deeply of what you think is your own but is actually someone else's silent emission...ew...ew...enough of this subject already...
OK, I'm going to have to say some disgusting stuff in the service of science.
There's an easy experiment to demonstrate that humans have the ability to distinguish smells very finely. The point is, humans (at least the ones I know) don't mind the smell of their own farts, but can't stand the smell of others. This means that humans have the ability to distinguish between their own farts and the farts of everyone else. Now there are three obvious classes of mechanism for this:
(1) Humans can distinguish between their own farts and every else's - ie. they can partition fart smells into self and non-self
OR
(2) Humans can distinguish between everyone's farts.
OR
(3) Various shades in between.
Now consider hypothesis (1). This is pretty preposterous. Chemical sensors in our nose that can only distinguish fart smells into two classes, self and non-self, would be ridiculously specialised. So we're left with (2) or (3).
Now consider (3). To the extent that you can't distinguish self from non-self, there are people's whose farts you can't distinguish from your own. In other words, (3) implies there are other people whose farts you don't mind. This is simply too disgusting to contemplate and no benevolent deity could have created a universe like this.
So we are led to conclusion (2).
Anyway, I think more experiments are needed. I think this is an example of low hanging fruit if someone is seeking an Ig Nobel prize.
It'll save me the time I spend doing 'vanity' web searches.
Real geeks find their way around using the LEDs on their gadgets, boosted, when it's really needed, by the backlight on their PDAs.
An electron based 'imager' of photons would be a cool thing to see though :-) And don't forget that when you start including loop terms from QED you find that photons do scatter off photons. But that's getting silly.
Sounds to me like using a GPS means there is more space in your skull for your brain to expand to deal with interesting tasks rather than mundane crap like how to get from A to B. I think I'll get one today.
Maybe navigation in New York is easy. In San Francisco you have to act as navigator yourself for taxi drivers, but for some reason they don't pay you for your work. In London I can step in a cab unprepared and know that I can get to even obscure little streets with the minimum of hassle.
This should be modded up. Photons are the tools by which things are imaged, not things to be imaged themselves. I really hate pop science articles...
The world would be a better place and the Creationists would get the martyrdom they crave. Everyone wins.
I believe you are talking about a restricted form of logic such as mathematical logic. I believe one of your Earth philosophers, Betrtrand Russell, gave a better description. I don't remember the exact words but it was something like: given a set of goals, rationality is choosing the best way to achieve those goals. Vulcan logic corresponds to this kind of rationality. But we also consider those goals to be part of Vulcan logic, as axioms. So a Vulcan might say "logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". This isn't an expression of truth or falisty, but an expression of Vulcan values. Similarly Vulcans value family. This is an axiom of Vulcan logic. (Actually, this is a simplification but it will do for now.)