No, I certainly wouldn't complain if they, say, made the device act as a USB drive so I could just copy the damn files or use whatever media player/manager I wanted to.
In what is supposed to be a discussion about iTunes 11, you're now criticising the device, and want to use something other than iTunes. QED. No chance to iTunes would make you happy because you're an Android fanboy.
But fanboys always try to dismiss everyone else as fanboys first, like a kind of pre-emptive strike.
So now you're accusing me of being a fanboy. Way to make a point and condemn yourself with it in a single sentence.
For me it's nothing to do with a preemptive strike. You've just made it plain in every Apple discussion on Slashdot that you are arguing from an Android fanboy perspective. And you're welcome to be an Android fanboy. But it does make your critiques on Apple's products worthless.
I, on the other hand, am simply asking for the first step of the scientific method - the falsifiable hypothesis statement.
And once again you show you have no real understanding of science. That isn't the the first step of the scientific method. Never has been, and isn't now. That's the philosophy of Karl Popper.
Once again showing that education and qualifications do matter. And you're the charletan, not the qualified scientists whose work you don't understand.
Because there are a lot more than five. Android, which uses the same kernel as GNU/Linux, is beating iOS on phones, neck and neck on 7-10" tablets, and about to beat it handily on game consoles this coming April unless Apple gets apps onto Apple TV pronto.
And now the real facts. 1) Android is ahead on phones. 2) Apple is ahead on tablets (55% to Andorid's 44%). 3) Apple is way ahead of Android on games. 4) iOS is actually the biggest games platform there is. Selling more games than any other platform. 5) There's an announcement of an Android console shipping next April. It's effect on the market is entirely unknown. But tepples hopes it turns everything around. 6) Tepples also wants a pony.
Indeed, why shouldn't you, if that is what you dedicate your life to.
Because I've already been persuaded by scientists and artists being government funded. But I haven't been yet persuaded by the concept of the government funding coders. In fact yours is the first suggestion I've come across of such a thing.
That's a non-answer.
No, it's my honest answer. Who are you to decide whether it's acceptable.
And you obviously haven't been paying attention if you haven't seen suggestions that governments should fund Free Software development.
Clearly not. I've visited Slashdot most days for more than a decade, and I've not seen that. So either I haven't been paying attention, or it's not been covered very much. Please, show me.
So who does decide the funding amount? And on what basis do they decide?
In France they need to show they are practicing. So for example a theatre artist would show that they've done more than X hours of professional stage work in the last year. And then they get the funding that means that they can actually afford to live decently. Over and above that, there is of course grants for specific projects, and those are judged on merit. But the basic funding so that an artist can afford to be an artist does not require the work to be judged.
My comment that you replied to consisted or one line with 3 sentences. It appears you are so lazy you didn't get to the third, which pointed out that federalisation is needed.
I never at any point said people prefer coins. Simply that the desire for bills disappears. After a period of a year or two after the change, people simply don't care. The difference is not important.
It's not brainwashing, it's simply knowledge, brought about by the fact that I've seen it already. Twice. I can't persuade the people in the US that think there's some strong reasons for keeping the dollar bill. Before I experienced the change I thought similar things as them. But I was wrong, and so are they. And only experience will change their minds.
Sure you can. Just as you can compare and apple tree and an oak tree. They're not the same, but they have lots of similarities. Indeed there is little point in comparing two things that are exactly the same.
Hrm. Maybe they were rubbish interpreters but no BASIC I ever used back in the late 70s / early 80s supported multiple statements.
What BASIC interpreters did you use? Every BASIC I used back in that era allowed semicolon statement separators. Heck Microsoft BASIC allowed it and the vast majority of microcomputer BASICs back then were Microsoft BASIC. Including Commodore and Apple (after the very fist Integer BASIC).
Really? Have you seen what sometimes gets called art? For that matter, it's possible to call anything art -- doesn't mean it has any value.
Yes really. Value? Who the fuck are you to judge? I'll tell you this, the French government does fund it's artists properly, and without judgement, and it's a better country for it.
Why do you need to be persuaded here and not with respect to science or art? What is the difference?
Because I've already been persuaded by scientists and artists being government funded. But I haven't been yet persuaded by the concept of the government funding coders. In fact yours is the first suggestion I've come across of such a thing.
Again, what is the difference? And your original statement is the very definition of a blank check. You didn't put any constraints or limitations on it whatsoever.
There's a difference between funding without judgement of results and a blank check. A blank cheque means the recipient decides how much money they are going to get. No one is suggesting that.
Public money spent on having artists do art is money well spent.
I couldn't agree more.
Public money spent on having coders write code is money well spent.
There I need to be persuaded. I need to know what long term good they will likely produce that the commercial software industry will not. I'm not saying no, I just want to know what the benefits are in the same way as I know the benefits of scientists and artists being publicly funded.
The fact is that whether or not it's well spent depends on what kind of work is done, how the work is done, and what the results are.
Of course there are no blank cheques. It's not about pre-judging the results. Because often the results cannot be predicted before the work is done. Both in science and the arts. Not so sure about coding though.
Some people aren't afraid of change but rather genuinely prefer not to have coins of significant value so they have to haul...
Yeah, as I say, I've been through this twice in other countries. I know both my own reactions and those about me.
You are simply reacting as most people do before the change. For absolute certain, your view a year after the change will be quite different. You can't see it yet, but I know it, having seen it in everyone around me.
It isn't the place of government to pander to the people. It is the place of government to do what its told by them.
No. In a representative democracy, representatives are elected to do what they believe is right. They don't have to follow what the often ill-informed public think about every issue.
This is a case in point. Your view is ill-informed about this topic because you haven't been through it. You are just imagining. Your politicians would do better to look to the experience in foreign countries that have already actually done it.
"A battery as energy dense as gasoline" is called a nuclear reactor.
No, that's fare more energy dense than gasoline.
Seriously, there's a lot of research going on for batteries, and we're still 2 orders of magnitude away from gasoline density.
Yeah, I'm simplifying. The primary objective is electric cars. The advances don't all have to come from energy density. Converting the energy to motion more efficiently than the internal combustion engine also comes into it. As does other things such as developing lighter vehicles. And we don't have to have the batteries on a vehicle take up as little space as a fuel tank.
So no, strictly speaking as energy dense as gasoline isn't required. Just something close enough to make electric vehicles attractive.
The creatures with the sharpest claws or best weapons survives and reproduces. Evolution therefore essentially promotes violence. Eat or be eaten.
It's far more subtle than that. Evolution works through the selfish gene. If you allow, or indeed help others who share similar genes to survive, then that is evolutionarily positive. Heck, with creatures that hunt in groups, and fight other groups, such as homo sapiens, you don't need to even look down at the gene level to see it's advantageous to let people in your own group survive.
I imagine religions evolutionary benefit was is tied in with tribalism. It was one of the ways that a strong group was held together for hunting, inter-tribe warfare etc.
There's nothing intrinsically non-violent about religions. Some of them, for example the incas religion was very bloodthirsty. Judaism itself has human sacrifice in it's past. And most religions including christianity condone murder when it is committed against another group in combat. And violence against other species - there are few vegetarian religions.
For sure, the reason for religion will be derived evolution. Just as the reason for any other animal behaviour is. I'm only conjecturing the details here because I''m not an expert. But for sure a bit of research into the topic would doubtless find a scientist with some more solid details.
Sure. But all the things you're talking about are products. Potentially innovative ones.
It's far different from basic research in science. Stuff at the level of chemistry and physics. And that's the level that's needed to multiply the energy density of batteries.
With products, companies can lay out a roadmap to create the product and start selling it. Basic research is a big unknown. There's no way of guaranteeing that the work involved will result in a marketable product.
Actually, you're wrong again. What a surprise. If you look at the UAH satellite temperature data, the running average in 2002 was at 0.2 C above the baseline. As of Oct. 2012, it is running about 0.12 C above the baseline. No statistically significant warming - in fact there's been cooling.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha! You just dig yourself deeper in to the pit of stiupidity don't you. Those dots on that chart are months. From the figures you give, you're comparing the single month of January 2012 with the single month of January 2002.
You are by far the stupidest global warming denier of the day.
It's interesting how the warmist alarmists are descending to name calling.
You're a fraud and an idiot. It would be remiss not to point it out.
You're just voicing conservatism, not practicality.
Speaking from experience, people moan before the bills are abolished, and for a short time after. But very soon epople get used to having coins rather than notes. And men don't find it a problem to carry them in their pants, and women don't find it a problem to carry them in their purses.
Trust the voices of experience from other countries that tell you it's not a problem. You think it's a problem now, but truely it's not.
Slashdot Mirror
In case you havent noticed, there are store links all the way down the the individual song level, on stuff you already own.
No, I haven't noticed. And deliberately looking now, I can't find the thing you're referring to.
the entire music player is infested with 'buy now'.
That's really not true.
No, I certainly wouldn't complain if they, say, made the device act as a USB drive so I could just copy the damn files or use whatever media player/manager I wanted to.
In what is supposed to be a discussion about iTunes 11, you're now criticising the device, and want to use something other than iTunes. QED. No chance to iTunes would make you happy because you're an Android fanboy.
But fanboys always try to dismiss everyone else as fanboys first, like a kind of pre-emptive strike.
So now you're accusing me of being a fanboy. Way to make a point and condemn yourself with it in a single sentence.
For me it's nothing to do with a preemptive strike. You've just made it plain in every Apple discussion on Slashdot that you are arguing from an Android fanboy perspective. And you're welcome to be an Android fanboy. But it does make your critiques on Apple's products worthless.
I, on the other hand, am simply asking for the first step of the scientific method - the falsifiable hypothesis statement.
And once again you show you have no real understanding of science. That isn't the the first step of the scientific method. Never has been, and isn't now. That's the philosophy of Karl Popper.
Once again showing that education and qualifications do matter. And you're the charletan, not the qualified scientists whose work you don't understand.
Average payments can be misleading. What was is the median price paid per bundle?
Because there are a lot more than five. Android, which uses the same kernel as GNU/Linux, is beating iOS on phones, neck and neck on 7-10" tablets, and about to beat it handily on game consoles this coming April unless Apple gets apps onto Apple TV pronto.
And now the real facts.
1) Android is ahead on phones.
2) Apple is ahead on tablets (55% to Andorid's 44%).
3) Apple is way ahead of Android on games.
4) iOS is actually the biggest games platform there is. Selling more games than any other platform.
5) There's an announcement of an Android console shipping next April. It's effect on the market is entirely unknown. But tepples hopes it turns everything around.
6) Tepples also wants a pony.
You're an Android fanboy. No matter what Apple did with iTunes you'd complain. Therefore your complaints are worthless.
Michael Mann is a fraud and a charlatan
Michael Mann is the qualified and practicing scientist.
You're the snake oil salesman, operating off the back of a hand-cart. No qualifications and no respect for the facts.
Yep, got my colons and semicolons mixed up. Too much coding in C derived languages for the last 3 decades.
Who are you to judge?
Can you not read? I said "without judgement".
Why shouldn't I?
Indeed, why shouldn't you, if that is what you dedicate your life to.
Because I've already been persuaded by scientists and artists being government funded. But I haven't been yet persuaded by the concept of the government funding coders. In fact yours is the first suggestion I've come across of such a thing.
That's a non-answer.
No, it's my honest answer. Who are you to decide whether it's acceptable.
And you obviously haven't been paying attention if you haven't seen suggestions that governments should fund Free Software development.
Clearly not. I've visited Slashdot most days for more than a decade, and I've not seen that. So either I haven't been paying attention, or it's not been covered very much. Please, show me.
So who does decide the funding amount? And on what basis do they decide?
In France they need to show they are practicing. So for example a theatre artist would show that they've done more than X hours of professional stage work in the last year. And then they get the funding that means that they can actually afford to live decently. Over and above that, there is of course grants for specific projects, and those are judged on merit. But the basic funding so that an artist can afford to be an artist does not require the work to be judged.
My comment that you replied to consisted or one line with 3 sentences. It appears you are so lazy you didn't get to the third, which pointed out that federalisation is needed.
I never at any point said people prefer coins. Simply that the desire for bills disappears. After a period of a year or two after the change, people simply don't care. The difference is not important.
It's not brainwashing, it's simply knowledge, brought about by the fact that I've seen it already. Twice. I can't persuade the people in the US that think there's some strong reasons for keeping the dollar bill. Before I experienced the change I thought similar things as them. But I was wrong, and so are they. And only experience will change their minds.
Sure you can. Just as you can compare and apple tree and an oak tree. They're not the same, but they have lots of similarities. Indeed there is little point in comparing two things that are exactly the same.
Hrm. Maybe they were rubbish interpreters but no BASIC I ever used back in the late 70s / early 80s supported multiple statements.
What BASIC interpreters did you use? Every BASIC I used back in that era allowed semicolon statement separators. Heck Microsoft BASIC allowed it and the vast majority of microcomputer BASICs back then were Microsoft BASIC. Including Commodore and Apple (after the very fist Integer BASIC).
Then the Dartmouth BASIC v2 Manual is wrong. Manuals often have mistakes in them.
In BASIC, lines are lines, statements are statements. They are not synonymous.
10 PRINT CHR$ (205.5 + RND (1)); : GOTO 10
is most definitely a one line, two statement program.
Originally, the semicolon statement terminator did not even exist.
The semicolon statement terminator never existed. In BASIC, the semicolon is a statement separator, not a terminator.
The temps to which I'm referring are the running average
Not with the numbers you gave it wasn't. You really are as stupid as I pointed out.
Really? Have you seen what sometimes gets called art? For that matter, it's possible to call anything art -- doesn't mean it has any value.
Yes really. Value? Who the fuck are you to judge? I'll tell you this, the French government does fund it's artists properly, and without judgement, and it's a better country for it.
Why do you need to be persuaded here and not with respect to science or art? What is the difference?
Because I've already been persuaded by scientists and artists being government funded. But I haven't been yet persuaded by the concept of the government funding coders. In fact yours is the first suggestion I've come across of such a thing.
Again, what is the difference? And your original statement is the very definition of a blank check. You didn't put any constraints or limitations on it whatsoever.
There's a difference between funding without judgement of results and a blank check. A blank cheque means the recipient decides how much money they are going to get. No one is suggesting that.
Public money spent on having artists do art is money well spent.
I couldn't agree more.
Public money spent on having coders write code is money well spent.
There I need to be persuaded. I need to know what long term good they will likely produce that the commercial software industry will not. I'm not saying no, I just want to know what the benefits are in the same way as I know the benefits of scientists and artists being publicly funded.
The fact is that whether or not it's well spent depends on what kind of work is done, how the work is done, and what the results are.
Of course there are no blank cheques. It's not about pre-judging the results. Because often the results cannot be predicted before the work is done. Both in science and the arts. Not so sure about coding though.
Some people aren't afraid of change but rather genuinely prefer not to have coins of significant value so they have to haul...
Yeah, as I say, I've been through this twice in other countries. I know both my own reactions and those about me.
You are simply reacting as most people do before the change. For absolute certain, your view a year after the change will be quite different. You can't see it yet, but I know it, having seen it in everyone around me.
It isn't the place of government to pander to the people. It is the place of government to do what its told by them.
No. In a representative democracy, representatives are elected to do what they believe is right. They don't have to follow what the often ill-informed public think about every issue.
This is a case in point. Your view is ill-informed about this topic because you haven't been through it. You are just imagining. Your politicians would do better to look to the experience in foreign countries that have already actually done it.
"A battery as energy dense as gasoline" is called a nuclear reactor.
No, that's fare more energy dense than gasoline.
Seriously, there's a lot of research going on for batteries, and we're still 2 orders of magnitude away from gasoline density.
Yeah, I'm simplifying. The primary objective is electric cars. The advances don't all have to come from energy density. Converting the energy to motion more efficiently than the internal combustion engine also comes into it. As does other things such as developing lighter vehicles. And we don't have to have the batteries on a vehicle take up as little space as a fuel tank.
So no, strictly speaking as energy dense as gasoline isn't required. Just something close enough to make electric vehicles attractive.
The creatures with the sharpest claws or best weapons survives and reproduces. Evolution therefore essentially promotes violence. Eat or be eaten.
It's far more subtle than that. Evolution works through the selfish gene. If you allow, or indeed help others who share similar genes to survive, then that is evolutionarily positive. Heck, with creatures that hunt in groups, and fight other groups, such as homo sapiens, you don't need to even look down at the gene level to see it's advantageous to let people in your own group survive.
I imagine religions evolutionary benefit was is tied in with tribalism. It was one of the ways that a strong group was held together for hunting, inter-tribe warfare etc.
There's nothing intrinsically non-violent about religions. Some of them, for example the incas religion was very bloodthirsty. Judaism itself has human sacrifice in it's past. And most religions including christianity condone murder when it is committed against another group in combat. And violence against other species - there are few vegetarian religions.
For sure, the reason for religion will be derived evolution. Just as the reason for any other animal behaviour is. I'm only conjecturing the details here because I''m not an expert. But for sure a bit of research into the topic would doubtless find a scientist with some more solid details.
Sure. But all the things you're talking about are products. Potentially innovative ones.
It's far different from basic research in science. Stuff at the level of chemistry and physics. And that's the level that's needed to multiply the energy density of batteries.
With products, companies can lay out a roadmap to create the product and start selling it. Basic research is a big unknown. There's no way of guaranteeing that the work involved will result in a marketable product.
Don't worry, I'm not wasting my time on him. Just winding him up. The troller is trolled.
The time when I'd actually spend time digging up the facts to debunk these idiots is long since gone.
Actually, you're wrong again. What a surprise.
If you look at the UAH satellite temperature data, the running average in 2002 was at 0.2 C above the baseline. As of Oct. 2012, it is running about 0.12 C above the baseline. No statistically significant warming - in fact there's been cooling.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha! You just dig yourself deeper in to the pit of stiupidity don't you. Those dots on that chart are months. From the figures you give, you're comparing the single month of January 2012 with the single month of January 2002.
You are by far the stupidest global warming denier of the day.
It's interesting how the warmist alarmists are descending to name calling.
You're a fraud and an idiot. It would be remiss not to point it out.
You're just voicing conservatism, not practicality.
Speaking from experience, people moan before the bills are abolished, and for a short time after. But very soon epople get used to having coins rather than notes. And men don't find it a problem to carry them in their pants, and women don't find it a problem to carry them in their purses.
Trust the voices of experience from other countries that tell you it's not a problem. You think it's a problem now, but truely it's not.
how do other countries quash this loud ignorant sort?
We don't vote for them.