That's part of the reason I added the bit about being able to change out the engine.
You can't do that without voiding the warranty, though. If you are going in that direction, then you can just root the Kindle HD. You can't unlock the bootloader, but AFAIK that is not a real impediment, since you have root you just boot "twice" and load whatever code you want.
I don't know why anyone would object to someone wanting a more open tablet.
I don't object to that. I object to every story about a proprietary toy getting polluted with "but it's not open!". Yeah, we know, but if it doesn't impact our use of the tablet then it isn't even a mark in the "negative" column. And historically, the Kindles seem to get rooted so it REALLY is immaterial.
Seems like pretty straightforward fraud to me, and in addition it probably violates many consumer protection statutes. Besides, it's the NY Attorney General, not the federal government. People in NY like this kind of action from the Attorney General... it's what gets them elected.
Yeah, but the review can't be in typical bilingual "English": "The yogurts are very nice in these establishment. I hunger for yogurts from such good flavours."
The reviews would read like a Nigerian email scam.
No problems with that report, but 3 observations: 1. Total tablet volume shrank. 2. Apple's year-on-year iPad sales were down, but compared with an absolutely stellar quarter in which the retina display was brand new. 3. Most Android market share is in the low end where Apple has no presence at all. Most non-Apple market share is for "Others", followed by Samsung. Samsung does have some tablets which compete directly with Apple.
I don't think anyone expects apple to return to the 70% market share days. I'd be far more concerned if Apple were having trouble with margins. As it is, I think they account for almost 100% of the profit in the tablet space. At the bottom of the market, you can pick up an Android tablet for $50!
They can't do that for more than 15 or 20 years, though - and that's assuming that no one else figures out a way around the patent. Eventually, this will be great for everyone.
The "fun" part isn't just getting entertaining teachers - that might certainly help slog through the coursework, but it won't make you stick with it. The "fun" part is when you learn to solve problems in an easier way. For example, maybe someone loves to play Sudoku? Teach them how to program a computer to solve (or even better, create) a Sudoku puzzle. Someone who is an avid golfer might like to create his own handicapping program. A sailor might have fun trying to solve for the best route around some buoys given a wind speed and direction. Most people work - maybe their job has a task that can be automated. For me, the Python Challenge was a hoot. I think that most people probably have some kind of a "fun" (to them) problem to solve. The key to sticking with programming is keeping it relevant - you simply will abandon it if it doesn't pertain to your life. It's kind of like taking Latin in high school - most of us didn't retain much of it, even if we thought that maybe it helped us on our SATs.
You laugh, but in 50 years the atmosphere gets so hot that it excites the molecules to light speed, at which point it creates a rift in space time that tears back through time, sending hot jets of atmospheric gases ripping through the atmosphere and extinguishing life at periods in the past.
Also, the midwest will be completely covered in 200ft of popcorn.
Because I have observed mine working just fine day after day.
You are a (probably youngish) sample of one. Hip replacements are the most common orthopedic operation. I might be biased as a mechanical engineer, but if I designed something that looked like that I'd be mocked. You can tell the stresses are going to be a mess visually. If you view it as the byproduct of evolution, then you can start to understand how we got there. It leads you down an inexhaustible path of learning about the natural world If you view it as the creation of a supreme being, you need to start asking questions about why the supreme being would do such a thing - which invariably seems to lead to "we cannot know God's plan", which as I said is unsatisfying to me.
No they weren't and things didn't look good either.
What do you mean? They had something like 60% market share. If they were afraid of anyone, it would have been Blackberry. At the time, they probably thought they were in a pretty good position.
No, of course not. I was just trying to illustrate a point.
If I had a family to worry about, this might not be such an easy commitment to make, let alone the added cost of taking care of a homeless person no matter who they are with potentially no foreseeable fix in sight.
Agreed. But most functional people have more than one friend to lean on. I mean, it is possible that this guy just had an amazing run of bad luck. And, if you were going to find people with amazing strings of bad luck, checking homeless populations would be a good place to start... but that bit about all of his roommates moving out set off little alarm bells:)
on which particular argument an atheist is discussing.
First of all, I'm not an atheist. I do not rule out the possibility of the supernatural. It's just that I do not see the need for a supernatural explanation here. Even if took you for your word and accepted that "God did it", it would still be fun to explore other avenues of possibility.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is much simpler than the Everett Interpretation, and it is completely false to say that Copenhagen is therefore more likely, and even more so to claim that Occam's Razor ever said or indicated that.
I think we are talking past one another. Pardon me and allow me to abandon Occam for a moment, because while I invoked his name, simplifying things is not really necessary or valuable here.
I'm curious. I like to ask questions. I start with an observation: "Our hips seem non-optimal to our environment." One possibility is that my observation is correct, the other is that it is not. Evolution provides a canned, well vetted natural explanation for my observation. The other possibility, that my observation is incorrect, also may have some explanation. You suggest that the explanation is that my observation is flawed because of a supernatural effect. This supernatural effect cannot be investigated further, because there is no way of interacting with the supernatural force in any falsifiable way.
So really you leave me with two choices*: stop asking questions and believe your explanation, or continue my exploration of the natural world. I won't go so far as to say you are wrong, but I will say that choice leaves my curious mind very unsatisfied.
*There is of course a third choice - that you and science both have it wrong. I'm all ears to any theory that does not rule out further inquiry.
the conceptual economy of keeping models as simple as possible when -all else is equal-
And if I'm exploring the natural world, am I going to go with the complicated "unknowable" answer that invokes a deity or the simple one that leads to my next question? Worst case, I can return to the deity line of inquiry. But you did tell me that was a dead end.
Occam was theist.
He was a monk who lived 500 years before Darwin and almost 600 before there was any sort of formal set of pragmatic scientific criteria. I'll give him a pass:)
Those "apps" were hard to find, didn't work on half the phones, buying them (if for-pay) was real achievement, and for a lot of things they would do less than a web app could have done.
Yes, one of the things Apple got right when they added Apps was the App Store. It took all of the hard work out of finding and installing apps. I suspect that even on Android, most people use the Google Play store. On Slashdot, we view the App Store with disinterest because we've been using repositories and package management systems forever, but to most of the public the concept was pretty new.
While I'd _never_ have spent the price of an iPhone on it, a proper, useable browser was something rather new and significant.
It really was something. It blew away anything else at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
That's part of the reason I added the bit about being able to change out the engine.
You can't do that without voiding the warranty, though. If you are going in that direction, then you can just root the Kindle HD. You can't unlock the bootloader, but AFAIK that is not a real impediment, since you have root you just boot "twice" and load whatever code you want.
I don't know why anyone would object to someone wanting a more open tablet.
I don't object to that. I object to every story about a proprietary toy getting polluted with "but it's not open!". Yeah, we know, but if it doesn't impact our use of the tablet then it isn't even a mark in the "negative" column. And historically, the Kindles seem to get rooted so it REALLY is immaterial.
Your truck almost certainly has a computer running the show, and that computer is almost certainly not open.
I only just replaced my Athlon 64 motherboard and processor this spring. It was a good product, but not quite up to running Windows 8 IMHO.
You mean a millennial? Yeah, they can't spell.
That used to be true.
And with "464,764 users", even if they were ALL using it to set their UA to "iPad", that would significantly skew the statistics how, exactly?
I assumed it would be clear that I was talking about the RT.
tablet that has no software to run on it.
I wonder why they don't have an Android compatibility layer on it, just to get the apps. Something like Bluestacks does on the Mac and PC.
Seems like pretty straightforward fraud to me, and in addition it probably violates many consumer protection statutes. Besides, it's the NY Attorney General, not the federal government. People in NY like this kind of action from the Attorney General... it's what gets them elected.
Yeah, but the review can't be in typical bilingual "English": "The yogurts are very nice in these establishment. I hunger for yogurts from such good flavours."
The reviews would read like a Nigerian email scam.
No problems with that report, but 3 observations:
1. Total tablet volume shrank.
2. Apple's year-on-year iPad sales were down, but compared with an absolutely stellar quarter in which the retina display was brand new.
3. Most Android market share is in the low end where Apple has no presence at all. Most non-Apple market share is for "Others", followed by Samsung. Samsung does have some tablets which compete directly with Apple.
I don't think anyone expects apple to return to the 70% market share days. I'd be far more concerned if Apple were having trouble with margins. As it is, I think they account for almost 100% of the profit in the tablet space. At the bottom of the market, you can pick up an Android tablet for $50!
(Disclosure: I own AAPL)
They can't do that for more than 15 or 20 years, though - and that's assuming that no one else figures out a way around the patent. Eventually, this will be great for everyone.
That's a cool case, but... how do you hold the phone up to your ear?
It's a shame that they ruin it with that - the rest of the story is totally plausible.
The "fun" part isn't just getting entertaining teachers - that might certainly help slog through the coursework, but it won't make you stick with it. The "fun" part is when you learn to solve problems in an easier way. For example, maybe someone loves to play Sudoku? Teach them how to program a computer to solve (or even better, create) a Sudoku puzzle. Someone who is an avid golfer might like to create his own handicapping program. A sailor might have fun trying to solve for the best route around some buoys given a wind speed and direction. Most people work - maybe their job has a task that can be automated. For me, the Python Challenge was a hoot. I think that most people probably have some kind of a "fun" (to them) problem to solve. The key to sticking with programming is keeping it relevant - you simply will abandon it if it doesn't pertain to your life. It's kind of like taking Latin in high school - most of us didn't retain much of it, even if we thought that maybe it helped us on our SATs.
So your Fleshlight is a tool. Grand.
You laugh, but in 50 years the atmosphere gets so hot that it excites the molecules to light speed, at which point it creates a rift in space time that tears back through time, sending hot jets of atmospheric gases ripping through the atmosphere and extinguishing life at periods in the past.
Also, the midwest will be completely covered in 200ft of popcorn.
Because I have observed mine working just fine day after day.
You are a (probably youngish) sample of one. Hip replacements are the most common orthopedic operation. I might be biased as a mechanical engineer, but if I designed something that looked like that I'd be mocked. You can tell the stresses are going to be a mess visually. If you view it as the byproduct of evolution, then you can start to understand how we got there. It leads you down an inexhaustible path of learning about the natural world If you view it as the creation of a supreme being, you need to start asking questions about why the supreme being would do such a thing - which invariably seems to lead to "we cannot know God's plan", which as I said is unsatisfying to me.
No they weren't and things didn't look good either.
What do you mean? They had something like 60% market share. If they were afraid of anyone, it would have been Blackberry. At the time, they probably thought they were in a pretty good position.
Suing charities is rarely a successful tactic.
Who hit him with microwaves when he's trying to sleep?
Is it really that simple, though?
No, of course not. I was just trying to illustrate a point.
If I had a family to worry about, this might not be such an easy commitment to make, let alone the added cost of taking care of a homeless person no matter who they are with potentially no foreseeable fix in sight.
Agreed. But most functional people have more than one friend to lean on. I mean, it is possible that this guy just had an amazing run of bad luck. And, if you were going to find people with amazing strings of bad luck, checking homeless populations would be a good place to start... but that bit about all of his roommates moving out set off little alarm bells :)
on which particular argument an atheist is discussing.
First of all, I'm not an atheist. I do not rule out the possibility of the supernatural. It's just that I do not see the need for a supernatural explanation here. Even if took you for your word and accepted that "God did it", it would still be fun to explore other avenues of possibility.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is much simpler than the Everett Interpretation, and it is completely false to say that Copenhagen is therefore more likely, and even more so to claim that Occam's Razor ever said or indicated that.
I think we are talking past one another. Pardon me and allow me to abandon Occam for a moment, because while I invoked his name, simplifying things is not really necessary or valuable here.
I'm curious. I like to ask questions. I start with an observation: "Our hips seem non-optimal to our environment." One possibility is that my observation is correct, the other is that it is not. Evolution provides a canned, well vetted natural explanation for my observation. The other possibility, that my observation is incorrect, also may have some explanation. You suggest that the explanation is that my observation is flawed because of a supernatural effect. This supernatural effect cannot be investigated further, because there is no way of interacting with the supernatural force in any falsifiable way.
So really you leave me with two choices*: stop asking questions and believe your explanation, or continue my exploration of the natural world. I won't go so far as to say you are wrong, but I will say that choice leaves my curious mind very unsatisfied.
*There is of course a third choice - that you and science both have it wrong. I'm all ears to any theory that does not rule out further inquiry.
the conceptual economy of keeping models as simple as possible when -all else is equal-
And if I'm exploring the natural world, am I going to go with the complicated "unknowable" answer that invokes a deity or the simple one that leads to my next question? Worst case, I can return to the deity line of inquiry. But you did tell me that was a dead end.
Occam was theist.
He was a monk who lived 500 years before Darwin and almost 600 before there was any sort of formal set of pragmatic scientific criteria. I'll give him a pass :)
Those "apps" were hard to find, didn't work on half the phones, buying them (if for-pay) was real achievement, and for a lot of things they would do less than a web app could have done.
Yes, one of the things Apple got right when they added Apps was the App Store. It took all of the hard work out of finding and installing apps. I suspect that even on Android, most people use the Google Play store. On Slashdot, we view the App Store with disinterest because we've been using repositories and package management systems forever, but to most of the public the concept was pretty new.
While I'd _never_ have spent the price of an iPhone on it, a proper, useable browser was something rather new and significant.
It really was something. It blew away anything else at the time.