amazing how the parent is modded informative simply for quoting the article with that most informative of words, "crackpot". seriously, somebody meta-moderate these guys that seem to think that quoting the original article is informative.
anyone else think this "i agree with this poster so i'm going to mod him/her up" is a stupid way to use moderation points? if something is tagged informative, it should actually be informative.
They'll probably have a normal plug-in jack and distribute cat-5 cables for a fee (or possibly free), to those that want it, much like headphones. That way, if you have a bad wire, you can just request another one, no big deal.
Hey, this is a GREAT looking device. But I have this weird feeling it's not a very good phone.
For instance, why is the battery time just 5-16 hours? You mean, you have to keep the thing charged most of the time? Might as well be a laptop, then (and at these prices it pretty much is).
It also seems a little bulky for a phone. It's essentially designed for women with handbags. It's not likely to fit into my pocket without fear it'll break.
My guess is that early adopters will get it and use it, but for the general masses, this won't be something they get for another 6 years, unlike the iPod.
Anyone else think this is the fatal flaw? I currently charge my cell phone very 5 days. If you have to charge every 8 hours, that's going to be a major pain in the butt.
Call me old-fashioned, but I'd rather have a basic phone that works in an emergency than a cool touch-screen/OS X phone that dies when I most need it.
WE HAVE THE SAME CONVERSATIONS EVERY TIME A TOPIC COMES UP PITTING RELIGIOUS VIEWS VS. ATHEISTIC ONES
Isn't that the case with a lot of articles here? The same arguments do come up again and again, slightly modified to fit whatever the article mentions.
It's always interesting how we're trying to predict when scientific breakthroughs will occur. Isn't it the nature of science such that breakthroughs happen when you don't expect them?
hey dude, chill out. i'm actually very environmentally aware. i'm vegetarian, in part because meat wastes so much energy. i buy the best gas-mileage cars i can get and i'm all for alternative energy. i just don't find the global warming argument convincing. but i do find other ones very convincing. pollution is bad in and of itself and i'm all for taxing businesses to clean that stuff up. i also don't think we should deforest so much, not because of global warming, but for more practical reasons, like the fact that it's wasteful.
but global warming, in my opinion, is the wrong thing to attach the hopes of environmentalists. it's not convincing to me and i can easily see it discrediting the environmentalists 20 years from now if none of the doomsday scenarios come to pass. we probably agree on a lot of policy (though i'm probably more concerned with the consumption side of the equation than emission), i'm just arguing why global warmiing isn't the be-all or end-all. it's simply not convincing.
anyway, i'm waiting for some evidence that climatologists can predict things at a rate better than chance.
Let me put it another way, if you were told by your Dr that you had the early stages of Colon Cancer and that you'd die within 2 years if you didn't do something about it...would you wait until you start bleeding profusely before you choose to do something about it? Would you wait for absolute Proof before taking it seriously?
My doctor has a proven track record. He's cured me before and he's also cured lots of other people. Your analogy is simply inaccurate. It would be more accurate if it were somebody like an astrologist telling me I have colon cancer. I would take my doctor seriously, I wouldn't an astrologist. And that's part of being a rational, logical person. You shouldn't listen to the astrologist, especially if they're trying to scare you into giving them more money (though you can, and many do).
The point here is that I don't trust climatologists because they don't have a good track record. You seem to never address this point. They AREN'T good at predicting anything (much like an astrologist) and it's definitely NOT like sticking my head in the sand. It's simply unproven conjecture at this point (though you may choose to believe that it's more than that).
And no, I don't need absolute proof. I just want some reasonable prediction power (even 10% above chance) before I start listening to them.
Aren't you overstating things just a little bit? It's possible we're completely screwed, but it's also possible that we're not. The question is, what are the probabilities?
If you think it's somewhere north of 90% that we're screwed, that's fine. You have a right to your opinion. But climatologists haven't been able to predict much in the past and based on that, I don't consider their current predictions very good, either. Is it so wrong for me to be a little bit skeptical when they yell that the sky is falling?
Consider this scenario. Say twenty guys tell you that a stock is going to go really high. Do you listen to their advice and buy? For some, the sheer number of people telling you to sell is enough reason to buy. That's fine. You have a right to that. But it's not PROOF or even a logical reason. For me, it depends on how good these guys have been at predicting things in the past. If the those guys have never bought or sold a share or researched anything about the market in their lives (like, say a large portion of the media in our analogy), they're definitely not worth listening to. If those guys have never really predicted better than a random guess (like the climatologists in our analogy, IMO), they're not worth listening to either. The point is, we should listen to people that have some track record of success in predicting things. That lends them credibility. To me, climatoligists have very little credibility since they haven't predicted anything that I find compelling. Now, if the FDA told me not to take a drug because it could be harmful, I'd listen to them because they have a very good track record of predicting which drugs will be harmful. Climatologists simply haven't had the same track record.
I've been skeptical of the global warming arguments specifically because of this issue. It's the exact same line of reasoning that justified the holocost and slavery (eugenics). It's not much of a stretch to say that the greenies are really the religious left telling us all that the end is near (because our priests say so).
On another whole topic, it seems to me that the weakness of the climate theories that predict doom is that those theories thus far haven't had much predictive power. Ten years ago, the same group of scientists predicted that the ocean levels would rise 12 inches (actual levels rose something like 1 inch). At least for me, the value of science should be based on predictive power. Given this, these models don't have much value and neither does this branch of science.
Exactly. Remember DVD music discs? They were certainly an improvement over CD but nobody bothered to buy them (despite having 6 channels of sound, etc). The reason? People were happy with the CD.
The executives at these companies have failed to grasp that HD-DVD/BlueRay just isn't that much of an improvement. Going from VHS to DVD or Tapes to CDs, on the other hand, was. We didn't have to deal with scratchy, staticy tapes anymore, but had the same experience with each viewing of DVD or CD. Quality is essentially good enough for the customer at this point. The next improvement has to come in some other form, like say, price, size or more content. To my knowledge, this new technology does none of those.
Which will hopefully cause hacker groups to install adware on THOSE companies' computers.
Re:Comparison with perl??
on
Beyond Java
·
· Score: 1
oh geez... here come the "you can't compare the two" arguments again. programming is a tool. if you can get the same things done using perl and java, then the two can and SHOULD be compared. perl does replace java in many places and can do anything that java can do. same can be said about python, ruby and a host of other languages. you might need to write more libraries, but the actual projects can be done in any language. it's just a matter of how easy and maintainable doing the actual project is that matters
Interesting idea. If you think about what google would want for the future, maybe they want lots of specific web-appliances instead of this all-in-one machine called the desktop pc.
I'd bet they're going to combine this with some sort of desktop recycling program so that you can have different machines do different things.
Slashdot Mirror
amazing how the parent is modded informative simply for quoting the article with that most informative of words, "crackpot". seriously, somebody meta-moderate these guys that seem to think that quoting the original article is informative.
anyone else think this "i agree with this poster so i'm going to mod him/her up" is a stupid way to use moderation points? if something is tagged informative, it should actually be informative.
no, we still have to clean up our act for other reasons... such as pollution, energy conservation and not being a complete energy glutton.
There already is DRM-free music available. It's called CD's.
not just massive changes to the biosphere, there are massive unanticipated socio-economic problems that may result as well.
> Damnit, someone watched Minority Report and went "Heeeeey, good idea....GET ME R&D"
Such bad luck, too! That must have been one of 5 people that actually watched the movie.
They'll probably have a normal plug-in jack and distribute cat-5 cables for a fee (or possibly free), to those that want it, much like headphones. That way, if you have a bad wire, you can just request another one, no big deal.
Hey, this is a GREAT looking device. But I have this weird feeling it's not a very good phone.
For instance, why is the battery time just 5-16 hours? You mean, you have to keep the thing charged most of the time? Might as well be a laptop, then (and at these prices it pretty much is).
It also seems a little bulky for a phone. It's essentially designed for women with handbags. It's not likely to fit into my pocket without fear it'll break.
My guess is that early adopters will get it and use it, but for the general masses, this won't be something they get for another 6 years, unlike the iPod.
Anyone else think this is the fatal flaw? I currently charge my cell phone very 5 days. If you have to charge every 8 hours, that's going to be a major pain in the butt.
Call me old-fashioned, but I'd rather have a basic phone that works in an emergency than a cool touch-screen/OS X phone that dies when I most need it.
WE HAVE THE SAME CONVERSATIONS EVERY TIME A TOPIC COMES UP PITTING RELIGIOUS VIEWS VS. ATHEISTIC ONES
Isn't that the case with a lot of articles here? The same arguments do come up again and again, slightly modified to fit whatever the article mentions.
It's always interesting how we're trying to predict when scientific breakthroughs will occur. Isn't it the nature of science such that breakthroughs happen when you don't expect them?
hey dude, chill out. i'm actually very environmentally aware. i'm vegetarian, in part because meat wastes so much energy. i buy the best gas-mileage cars i can get and i'm all for alternative energy. i just don't find the global warming argument convincing. but i do find other ones very convincing. pollution is bad in and of itself and i'm all for taxing businesses to clean that stuff up. i also don't think we should deforest so much, not because of global warming, but for more practical reasons, like the fact that it's wasteful.
but global warming, in my opinion, is the wrong thing to attach the hopes of environmentalists. it's not convincing to me and i can easily see it discrediting the environmentalists 20 years from now if none of the doomsday scenarios come to pass. we probably agree on a lot of policy (though i'm probably more concerned with the consumption side of the equation than emission), i'm just arguing why global warmiing isn't the be-all or end-all. it's simply not convincing.
anyway, i'm waiting for some evidence that climatologists can predict things at a rate better than chance.
Let me put it another way, if you were told by your Dr that you had the early stages of Colon Cancer and that you'd die within 2 years if you didn't do something about it...would you wait until you start bleeding profusely before you choose to do something about it? Would you wait for absolute Proof before taking it seriously?
My doctor has a proven track record. He's cured me before and he's also cured lots of other people. Your analogy is simply inaccurate. It would be more accurate if it were somebody like an astrologist telling me I have colon cancer. I would take my doctor seriously, I wouldn't an astrologist. And that's part of being a rational, logical person. You shouldn't listen to the astrologist, especially if they're trying to scare you into giving them more money (though you can, and many do).
The point here is that I don't trust climatologists because they don't have a good track record. You seem to never address this point. They AREN'T good at predicting anything (much like an astrologist) and it's definitely NOT like sticking my head in the sand. It's simply unproven conjecture at this point (though you may choose to believe that it's more than that).
And no, I don't need absolute proof. I just want some reasonable prediction power (even 10% above chance) before I start listening to them.
Aren't you overstating things just a little bit? It's possible we're completely screwed, but it's also possible that we're not. The question is, what are the probabilities?
If you think it's somewhere north of 90% that we're screwed, that's fine. You have a right to your opinion. But climatologists haven't been able to predict much in the past and based on that, I don't consider their current predictions very good, either. Is it so wrong for me to be a little bit skeptical when they yell that the sky is falling?
Consider this scenario. Say twenty guys tell you that a stock is going to go really high. Do you listen to their advice and buy? For some, the sheer number of people telling you to sell is enough reason to buy. That's fine. You have a right to that. But it's not PROOF or even a logical reason. For me, it depends on how good these guys have been at predicting things in the past. If the those guys have never bought or sold a share or researched anything about the market in their lives (like, say a large portion of the media in our analogy), they're definitely not worth listening to. If those guys have never really predicted better than a random guess (like the climatologists in our analogy, IMO), they're not worth listening to either. The point is, we should listen to people that have some track record of success in predicting things. That lends them credibility. To me, climatoligists have very little credibility since they haven't predicted anything that I find compelling. Now, if the FDA told me not to take a drug because it could be harmful, I'd listen to them because they have a very good track record of predicting which drugs will be harmful. Climatologists simply haven't had the same track record.
Mod parent up.
I've been skeptical of the global warming arguments specifically because of this issue. It's the exact same line of reasoning that justified the holocost and slavery (eugenics). It's not much of a stretch to say that the greenies are really the religious left telling us all that the end is near (because our priests say so).
On another whole topic, it seems to me that the weakness of the climate theories that predict doom is that those theories thus far haven't had much predictive power. Ten years ago, the same group of scientists predicted that the ocean levels would rise 12 inches (actual levels rose something like 1 inch). At least for me, the value of science should be based on predictive power. Given this, these models don't have much value and neither does this branch of science.
> Technology peaks. It happens.
Exactly. Remember DVD music discs? They were certainly an improvement over CD but nobody bothered to buy them (despite having 6 channels of sound, etc). The reason? People were happy with the CD.
The executives at these companies have failed to grasp that HD-DVD/BlueRay just isn't that much of an improvement. Going from VHS to DVD or Tapes to CDs, on the other hand, was. We didn't have to deal with scratchy, staticy tapes anymore, but had the same experience with each viewing of DVD or CD. Quality is essentially good enough for the customer at this point. The next improvement has to come in some other form, like say, price, size or more content. To my knowledge, this new technology does none of those.
Might fly in Hawaii, not anywhere else, though.
Yes, of course....this incentive is to protect the consumer...
it isn't really even a consumer, it's a potential software pirate.
According to the article, it's more like:
2. Distract yourself
There's our justification for playing Civ IV at work!
immense public exposure and advertising
Which will hopefully cause hacker groups to install adware on THOSE companies' computers.
oh geez... here come the "you can't compare the two" arguments again. programming is a tool. if you can get the same things done using perl and java, then the two can and SHOULD be compared. perl does replace java in many places and can do anything that java can do. same can be said about python, ruby and a host of other languages. you might need to write more libraries, but the actual projects can be done in any language. it's just a matter of how easy and maintainable doing the actual project is that matters
Interesting idea. If you think about what google would want for the future, maybe they want lots of specific web-appliances instead of this all-in-one machine called the desktop pc.
I'd bet they're going to combine this with some sort of desktop recycling program so that you can have different machines do different things.
It's so sad that patents can't have the same standards of rigor
Yep, separate the moronic ISPs who'll be out of business in 5 years and the innovative cost-effective ones that'll be in business for a while.
RIAA maybe? Dinosaurs who think they know how to interact with their fans.
Does the NFL do this? The NBA? Is it coincidence that the two aforementioned sports are more popular and better marketed?
this will lead to even more bargains at fatwallet.
now if only they'd stop shipping it with so much crapware...