Beware using misquotes. What the article actually says is this:
... and is capable of aiming sound precisely for thousands of feet -- like the sonic equivalent of a laser, or spotlight.
That's from the article. Nothing about the technology behind the new device, just a simple comparison of the ability to aim precisely to that available to laser or spotlight.
Re:This guy is retarded!
on
Top 50 DVDs
·
· Score: 1
> my vote for this guy getting the lobotomy > of the year award. What a dumbass.
C'mon. If you disagree, great. Recognize that the folks at UGO made a list that is of some value to them. It is pretty bad when we can't let someone else express an opinion different than our own without calling them names.
My problem is on the other end: when I SEND someone e-mail I don't want someone else to read it. Why should I compromise my privacy so you can get a bigger mailbox?
Um. You think this doesn't happen now for msn, yahoo, etal??
In the *article*, it's people who accept supernatural causes as normal that are making these conclusions. Not magic, but something that - to the people making the conclusions - something normal and everyday. Just happens that the root cause is something most people term "supernatural".
Perhaps the problem is not that we don't write bugless code, but that we expect to. Code has to be delivered at a price-point in the market, and the number of remaining defects is only one of the factors required to make money.
After, MS doesn't make bugless code - they make money.
WindowsCE already covers that area and works much more efficiently
Apparently there are other folks that do this for Win98 and WinME as well. They provide some good arguments (marketing, that is:) for why this is better than WinCE.
The litepc folks also have utility called 98lite professional that removes all web integration from Win98 - just to show it was doable (at about the time MS said it couldn't be done)
If you want to make a real impact, don't shop at Target or Wal-Mart. Those big box stores are blights.
They are also the engine that drives the economy, whether we like it or not. Recall the/. article about Wal-Mart. Without them, CD prices would be much higher. Likewise for most other commodity products.
[U]pscale NYC shoe store acting like confused tourists from Maryland,... converged on the Macy's carpet department to debate the quality of the rugs for sale.... Sounds like a fun, harmless, and Constitutionally-protected way of blowing off a little steam.
I don't think the Constitution allows you to congregate on private property, nor do a DOS attack on the carpet department of a store.
I have to disagree. I think it is this attitude, reflected in some (most?) comments here, that will marginalize open software.
If open source is to compete with closed source, we must approach it with an expectation that it should work for most people most of the time. The phrase "use at your own risk" is required for legal reasons; it should not be a crutch we use to explain away our own disinterest in doing the final 25% of the work - the QA.
I'm surprised, given that Open Source relies on supporting the same laws we see ignored with sharing of copyrighted information. Consider how much anger would appear if there were a file-sharing network for the express purpose of getting versions of, say, gcc, with the copyright stripped out of the source.
Slashdot Mirror
That's from the article. Nothing about the technology behind the new device, just a simple comparison of the ability to aim precisely to that available to laser or spotlight.
Seth? Sith? Coincidence?
I think not!
C'mon. If you disagree, great. Recognize that the folks at UGO made a list that is of some value to them. It is pretty bad when we can't let someone else express an opinion different than our own without calling them names.
Sounds just like standard US politics
It means that really a tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio
This is news how? I thought this was the norm...
... and this is different from other bills how?
Lets
Rather than figuring out how to thwart spam, lets have *everyone* simply do what they ask for every spam email:
Lets
My problem is on the other end: when I SEND someone e-mail I don't want someone else to read it. Why should I compromise my privacy so you can get a bigger mailbox?
Um. You think this doesn't happen now for msn, yahoo, etal??
Um. the preprocessor has allowed that for years...
#define BEGIN {
#define END }
Thought this was a very bad thing because it made a program unmaintainable....
If Google Groups goes it will be a sad day ...
All we need is a few score people with Gmail accounts, and we can archive it all there!
1
2
3
CRUNCH
3
In the *article*, it's people who accept supernatural causes as normal that are making these conclusions. Not magic, but something that - to the people making the conclusions - something normal and everyday. Just happens that the root cause is something most people term "supernatural".
Perhaps the problem is not that we don't write bugless code, but that we expect to. Code has to be delivered at a price-point in the market, and the number of remaining defects is only one of the factors required to make money.
After, MS doesn't make bugless code - they make money.
> However, in a terrible privacy decision, the
> court said video monitoring of the computers
> and patrons was a-ok.
What privacy? It's a service provider, and one
of their terms of service is they get to watch.
Um. This is already done. Review the materials for DARE (Drug Awareness and Resistance Education).
Okay, so they're teaching kids that stealing is wrong. Perhaps not the same way I would, but that's the lesson.
What's the news, other than this flies in the face of saying there are no absolutes?
- B Ewbank
The article also mentions that China rejected MPEG to move away from "the dominance of Western companies and the fees levied by such firms.".
Perhaps open-source has an unexpected supported here.
- B
The text for Neal Stephenson's book "In the Beginning..." can be downloaded here. Haven't read it yet, but when did that stop anyone here :-)
Apparently there are other folks that do this for Win98 and WinME as well. They provide some good arguments (marketing, that is :) for why this is better than WinCE.
The litepc folks also have utility called 98lite professional that removes all web integration from Win98 - just to show it was doable (at about the time MS said it couldn't be done)
They are also the engine that drives the economy, whether we like it or not. Recall the /. article about Wal-Mart. Without them, CD prices would be much higher. Likewise for most other commodity products.
No, there is no such right in the constitution. That right was created out of thin air in the 1960s.
I don't think the Constitution allows you to congregate on private property, nor do a DOS attack on the carpet department of a store.
I have to disagree. I think it is this attitude, reflected in some (most?) comments here, that will marginalize open software.
If open source is to compete with closed source, we must approach it with an expectation that it should work for most people most of the time. The phrase "use at your own risk" is required for legal reasons; it should not be a crutch we use to explain away our own disinterest in doing the final 25% of the work - the QA.
I'm surprised, given that Open Source relies on supporting the same laws we see ignored with sharing of copyrighted information. Consider how much anger would appear if there were a file-sharing network for the express purpose of getting versions of, say, gcc, with the copyright stripped out of the source.