Businesses need to realize people don't, and shouldn't, choose software like they choose a car.
Why not? Performance and safety matters for software just like it matters for cars. If you want a fast, efficient, safe car that doesn't have billowing clouds of black smoke coming from the exhaust, then you don't buy a car from 60 years ago. Similarly, if you want a good, reliable, modern browser, you don't use one that's 10 years old.
No, they deleted it FROM MY TELEPHONE. Not stopped selling it in their store, not rejected it in the review process, not sent me an email telling me that there was something wrong with the app and maybe I might want to delete it. THEY DELETED IT FROM MY TELEPHONE.
That's exactly it. I applaud Google for removing a useless and deceptive app from their marketplace, but they should keep their fucking hands off my phone! I don't even want them to have the ability to remove stuff from my phone without my knowledge. Send me an email, send me some kind of alert on Android, make it very easy for me to remove it. All of that would have been fantastic. But removing stuff from my phone without asking me crosses a line that should not be crossed.
How exactly are they going to turn off the internet? Wasn't it designed specifically to resist such attempts?
Nobody can turn off the entire internet, but the US government is probably able the force the US-based parts of the Net to shut down. That will cause enormous disruption, but it won't stop traffic in Europe, for example.
And even if they succeed, can the economy possibly survive such a move?
But that's the entire point: the browser makers wanted to handle those exceptions, and not present the user with an error message every time it wasn't perfect XML.
Apple wants to kill the Mac OS desktop. Thus far I've been called a Troll, Naive and Insane. Now I am vindicated as developers have said the same thing.
Depends on what kind of developers you talk to, I guess. A lot of developers love OS X because it's a full unix with all the features from a unix system, but with better software support and a better GUI than Linux tends to have.
OS X is the best of both worlds (the full power of a unix, and the slick integration of Apple). If Apple is going to cut down on one of those worlds, it's time to start looking elsewhere.
More likely from the XHTML2 workgroup. I know a guy from that workgroup, and he has nothing good to say about HTML5. He did a really nice XForms presentation on ApacheCon once, though. Apparently, with XForms you can write Google Maps in a day or so. Really cool, but not part of HTML5.
Because XHTML 2 is designed by academics, while HTML 5 is cobbled together by browser makers.
Browser makers apparently have different concerns. They don't care so much about abstractions and separations of concerns, and more about how easy it is to implement a renderer for it and how it will perform. Browser makers are probably less ambitious and more pragmatic. Or maybe they want to mark this out as their territory, instead of having other people tell them what to implement.
Are you trying to imply that Americans are better at languages than Europeans because they all speak the same language?
99% of the Dutch can speak to about 90% of the Dutch in their native language. Beat that! In fact, most Dutch can speak to most North Americans in their native language too.
Oh, well, why we don't see so much innovation on the VHS world? Companies should be urged! VHS is not only stagnating, is even dispearing!
This is exactly it. The mobile market is new, and smartphones even more so. There's a lot of innovation there because there's room for lots of innovation there. The PC market is old and well-established. PCs are easily powerful enough to do everything most people would ever want to do with it. What most people want now is to have them cheaper, smaller and, well, more portable. I want the power of a PC in my pocket.
(By the way, does anyone know what happened to my Slashdot interface? Why am I looking at a crappy interface from 5 years ago? Why can't I mod anymore?)
Fallout Tactics? Please. No, Fallout 2 for me. But really, FO1, FO2, it's a close call. They both had more than their fair share of really cool bits. Maybe FO1 was more fun during the second half of the game. Hm...
In any case, I signed up for the beta (from Netherland).
I didn't know they originally did show up. It makes sense that if somebody sues you in some country where you don't live nor have any legal presence, they can just go screw themselves until they finally decide to sue you on your home turf.
Unfortunately there is no proof that an external event or condition created the statistical and mathematical variations in the results of the experiment. The conditions can be different clouds, temperature, humidity, and other atmospheric conditions. Academically the clouds and atmospheric conditions have to be and I emphasize have to be identical in the control group to be considered valid. There is no way around it.
They have to be identicasl on average. This is accomplished by making your sample sufficiently big. Don't compare one cloud with seeding to another cloud with a non-seeding plane, compare 100 clouds to 100 clouds. Or thousands, if you have to.
Running a plane is expensive and since it can not be proved then no one will want to fund it.
That is a much better argument. You're saying that running a single experiment is expensive, and running 100 experiments is too expensive for people to fund it, considering the limited interest in the subject. The problems in getting a good control group isn't fundamental to clouds, it's economic.
I know you think you're very smart. But you really don't understand how different clouds are, or you don't understand what a control group is.
I don't think you understand how little that difference matters if you have some grasp of statistics and use a sufficiently large sample.
If you want your argument to hold water, clouds or planes flying through them would need to be sufficiently rare that you can't get a big enough sample to compensate for the large differences. They might be. I wouldn't know, because I don't know anything about clouds. I do know something about proper experiments with control groups, though.
If you were going to test a fishing lure, would you use a "control group" consisting of trout, bass, pike, baleen whales, and tiger sharks? Would you then apply the results to all "fish", despite the fact that some of those weren't fish at all? I would hope not.
If you're honestly unable to distinguish between all those "fish" (which is what you seem to be claiming with respect to clouds), then you don't have much choice applying your results to all "fish". And that's not a problem, as long as you make your test group and your control group big enough that both will have the same ratio of trout, bass, whales and sharks. Then your test results will actually say something meaningful about the effectiveness of your lure, despite the amount of noise in your test.
His production company, Boll KG, exploits a German tax loophole, so even when he films an English-language movie in Canada... his financiers get a fat write-off from the German government.
So German taxpayers are funding Uwe Boll's movies? Shouldn't we petition Germany to stop that crime against humanity?
Slashdot Mirror
Businesses need to realize people don't, and shouldn't, choose software like they choose a car.
Why not? Performance and safety matters for software just like it matters for cars. If you want a fast, efficient, safe car that doesn't have billowing clouds of black smoke coming from the exhaust, then you don't buy a car from 60 years ago. Similarly, if you want a good, reliable, modern browser, you don't use one that's 10 years old.
What does that have to do with socialism? It's a capitalist dream. Socialism is about protecting people against corporate domination.
When you know Dutch, the summary sounds really strange:
It also explains why Voorwerps are so rare
Really? Objects are rare?
iPhone ... Apple ... Apple fanboy ... iPhone fanboy
Is this meant as a response to me? I think you're a bit confused.
No, they deleted it FROM MY TELEPHONE. Not stopped selling it in their store, not rejected it in the review process, not sent me an email telling me that there was something wrong with the app and maybe I might want to delete it. THEY DELETED IT FROM MY TELEPHONE.
That's exactly it. I applaud Google for removing a useless and deceptive app from their marketplace, but they should keep their fucking hands off my phone! I don't even want them to have the ability to remove stuff from my phone without my knowledge. Send me an email, send me some kind of alert on Android, make it very easy for me to remove it. All of that would have been fantastic. But removing stuff from my phone without asking me crosses a line that should not be crossed.
How exactly are they going to turn off the internet? Wasn't it designed specifically to resist such attempts?
Nobody can turn off the entire internet, but the US government is probably able the force the US-based parts of the Net to shut down. That will cause enormous disruption, but it won't stop traffic in Europe, for example.
And even if they succeed, can the economy possibly survive such a move?
It'll probably recover eventually.
But that's the entire point: the browser makers wanted to handle those exceptions, and not present the user with an error message every time it wasn't perfect XML.
If you start with nothing, yes. But they had already figured out how approximately to render a random tagsoup.
With thanks to Netscape and IE, which set the standard in supporting random crap.
Apple wants to kill the Mac OS desktop. Thus far I've been called a Troll, Naive and Insane. Now I am vindicated as developers have said the same thing.
Depends on what kind of developers you talk to, I guess. A lot of developers love OS X because it's a full unix with all the features from a unix system, but with better software support and a better GUI than Linux tends to have.
OS X is the best of both worlds (the full power of a unix, and the slick integration of Apple). If Apple is going to cut down on one of those worlds, it's time to start looking elsewhere.
XHTML5 is nowhere near as advanced as XHTML2, however.
More likely from the XHTML2 workgroup. I know a guy from that workgroup, and he has nothing good to say about HTML5. He did a really nice XForms presentation on ApacheCon once, though. Apparently, with XForms you can write Google Maps in a day or so. Really cool, but not part of HTML5.
I wonder how he finds the time to read all that.
Why are we using HTML5 and not XHTML 2?
Because XHTML 2 is designed by academics, while HTML 5 is cobbled together by browser makers.
Browser makers apparently have different concerns. They don't care so much about abstractions and separations of concerns, and more about how easy it is to implement a renderer for it and how it will perform. Browser makers are probably less ambitious and more pragmatic. Or maybe they want to mark this out as their territory, instead of having other people tell them what to implement.
Are you trying to imply that Americans are better at languages than Europeans because they all speak the same language?
99% of the Dutch can speak to about 90% of the Dutch in their native language. Beat that! In fact, most Dutch can speak to most North Americans in their native language too.
Oh, well, why we don't see so much innovation on the VHS world? Companies should be urged! VHS is not only stagnating, is even dispearing!
This is exactly it. The mobile market is new, and smartphones even more so. There's a lot of innovation there because there's room for lots of innovation there. The PC market is old and well-established. PCs are easily powerful enough to do everything most people would ever want to do with it. What most people want now is to have them cheaper, smaller and, well, more portable. I want the power of a PC in my pocket.
(By the way, does anyone know what happened to my Slashdot interface? Why am I looking at a crappy interface from 5 years ago? Why can't I mod anymore?)
From personal anecdotal experience, it seems that people generally tend to like more the one which they've played first.
Could well be. I'm trying to be as objective as possible about it, but I did play FO2 before FO1.
And then get podded by his 100+ friends.
There's no shame in being worse than Planescape Torment. Everything is.
Baldur's Gate was not as good as Fallout either, but still pretty good.
Fallout Tactics? Please. No, Fallout 2 for me. But really, FO1, FO2, it's a close call. They both had more than their fair share of really cool bits. Maybe FO1 was more fun during the second half of the game. Hm...
In any case, I signed up for the beta (from Netherland).
I didn't know they originally did show up. It makes sense that if somebody sues you in some country where you don't live nor have any legal presence, they can just go screw themselves until they finally decide to sue you on your home turf.
Unfortunately there is no proof that an external event or condition created the statistical and mathematical variations in the results of the experiment. The conditions can be different clouds, temperature, humidity, and other atmospheric conditions. Academically the clouds and atmospheric conditions have to be and I emphasize have to be identical in the control group to be considered valid. There is no way around it.
They have to be identicasl on average. This is accomplished by making your sample sufficiently big. Don't compare one cloud with seeding to another cloud with a non-seeding plane, compare 100 clouds to 100 clouds. Or thousands, if you have to.
Running a plane is expensive and since it can not be proved then no one will want to fund it.
That is a much better argument. You're saying that running a single experiment is expensive, and running 100 experiments is too expensive for people to fund it, considering the limited interest in the subject. The problems in getting a good control group isn't fundamental to clouds, it's economic.
I know you think you're very smart. But you really don't understand how different clouds are, or you don't understand what a control group is.
I don't think you understand how little that difference matters if you have some grasp of statistics and use a sufficiently large sample.
If you want your argument to hold water, clouds or planes flying through them would need to be sufficiently rare that you can't get a big enough sample to compensate for the large differences. They might be. I wouldn't know, because I don't know anything about clouds. I do know something about proper experiments with control groups, though.
If you were going to test a fishing lure, would you use a "control group" consisting of trout, bass, pike, baleen whales, and tiger sharks? Would you then apply the results to all "fish", despite the fact that some of those weren't fish at all? I would hope not.
If you're honestly unable to distinguish between all those "fish" (which is what you seem to be claiming with respect to clouds), then you don't have much choice applying your results to all "fish". And that's not a problem, as long as you make your test group and your control group big enough that both will have the same ratio of trout, bass, whales and sharks. Then your test results will actually say something meaningful about the effectiveness of your lure, despite the amount of noise in your test.
The real news (and injustice) in TFA is this:
His production company, Boll KG, exploits a German tax loophole, so even when he films an English-language movie in Canada ... his financiers get a fat write-off from the German government.
So German taxpayers are funding Uwe Boll's movies? Shouldn't we petition Germany to stop that crime against humanity?
It also had Christopher Lambert.
The guy is seriously underrated
Underrated? There can be only one!
I think the theoretical possibility had been coined three years earlier.