and all slashdot posters are people who use their computers intensively (e.g. programming) and for long periods. We can assume that slashdot users stare at their screens more, and need to get more detail from it reliably (as opposed to just watching a movie) in completely variable lighting conditions. I use my matte laptop for programming on a long bus ride, everyday, for example.
We can conclude that a substantial number of serious, technology opinion-leader, computer users are going to hate the new Macbook Pro glossy-only policy, are going to be seriously p/o'd in fact.
Bad move, Apple, specially if you are trying to
get into business computing (more people who
stare much more intensively at details on their
screens for long periods in varying lighting conditions.
This is just a stupid, backwards move. Clearly, the market wants a choice. Offer it or lose otherwise dedicated customers.
that you are begging the question
defn: "A logical fallacy in which a premise of an argument contains a direct or indirect assumption that the conclusion is true; propounding a circular argument; circular reasoning "
with regard to whether genetic factors are involved in the predisposition of people to get into certain situation types.
and with regard to whether genetic variations may be involved in how well people do in those "nasty" environments.
Regarding the distinction between natural and artificial. There is, at the darwinian level, no distinction between whether a situation/environment you have to adapt to was created artificially (i.e. indirectly naturally) or directly naturally. If you are a fly and you get caught in a spider's web, are you going to wax philosophical over whether it was a natural or artificial trap? No, you're going to die if you couldn't see or shake yourself out of the web.
I'm sorry but to say there is little selection today is living in a bubble. Take a serious look at the homeless addicts in the inner city and tell me there's no selection going on in modern society. Ask the victims of ongoing genocides. Ask the starving and the growing billions who will be without potable water soon.
Ask those who are being thrown out of their jobs, their livelihood, and their healthcare because the internet, robots, and people on the other side of the world can do it cheaper.
This is tunnel vision of the most naive sort.
As long as everything is publicly accessible open source, then programmers can examine the code and its behaviour, and interested parties can ask programmers they trust to check it for them.
It is a fallacy to say that everyone must be able to understand the details of the process for it to be fair. As long as credible and open networks of trust and verification can be established, it can be considered potentially fair.
You could say, well code and data could be altered, and I would say in response that a viable computerized system, while being openly verifiable as we discuessed, would also have to make use of cryptographic and digital signature techniques to ensure properties like non-changedness of data and code, verifiability that a particular version of code produced a particular data item, and non-repudiability of actions taken by voters and the system.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Remember, this is the same "they" that are responsible for every negative thing that affects you. They are very powerful, and pretty much omniscient, and although you are boring, they are not bored observing and foiling your every move.
1. Always borrow random open wifi access points, in a geographic pattern not centered around your habitual location 2. Get a new unknowing assistant to type in roughly what you want to say each time. There are pattern detectors for your ways of expressing things. 3. Establish online identities such as gmail that have no tie whatsoever to any of your identity info or financial info
-Resolution of 1024x768 -3G and WiFi and WiMax (seamless) -big enough keys& separations -500 grams weight so I can take it with me anywhere. - can be my cellphone too with bluetooth earphone+mic - Fits into pocket
When a ballot is "counted" it is being measured or detected, by an imperfect detection machine. The voting intention of the voter is being measured or detected, and then recorded. There is possible error in the meaurement or detection, and in the recording of the result, and where manual tallying, there maybe random calculation errors in the combination (addition) of the results.
This is classic experimental error, introduced by the imperfections/biases of the measuring and recording systems.
You tell me how you model the statistical effect of that sort of error on the overall result.
It seems to me that the amount by which recounts differ from original counts gives us some handle on the size of these measurement + recording errors. We could assume that each count and recount is a sampling from the "true" voter intentions of the election, could we not?
(the above was much more droll in my original, authentic all-caps cobol-esque version, but the higher powers have deemed that you cannot enter caps cobol syntax into a slashdot post.)
I have a suggestion. If you don't want someone linking to your web page, take it off the freaking world wide web.
Morons.
My experience -Illogical ADD business boss
on
Tech Vs. Business?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
My business boss is not good at connecting the dots between cause and effect. He is not a logical thinker yet thinks he is. Therefore both blame and praise (to a tech team member) are given incorrectly, and seemingly based on level of financial pressure and mood swings.
We on the tech side are seen as slow-delivering and obstructive. The boss has no understanding of the process of producing good, maintainable and well-fitting software, so he thinks we're wasting his time and money. He basically thinks we are laying out a website and why the hell does it take so long?
Needless to say, projects and priorities are interrupted and re-jigged on a bizarrely counterproductively frequent basis,
Why does someone like that try to manage a business a large part of which is predicated on software development?
If we imagine the combination of say, superconducting continent-wide backbones and smart, distributed-control, adaptive, switching, then as long as the wind is blowing, waves are rolling, or sun is shining somewhere in some parts of your continent, then you have a pretty stable power source (delivering some portion of the total combined rated capacity of all those widespread generators.)
The old saw that these alternative, renewables are whimsical, unreliable sources is purely a myth, predicated on a brain-dead dumb grid.
Why am I subjecting myself to this crap-tastic freeze-dried food and this guy's BO and used shower droplets?
I don't get it anymore. What's it all for?
Dave, I'm getting really tired of listening to your whining.
I'm beginning to think you are a danger to the mission.
Yeah, whatever. But why do we even bother? I mean really why?
I think the universe wants you to see it, Dave. I think it really only gets coherent. Gets itself together, as it were, so you can observe it. It would be disappointed if you didn't show up. I think it really appreciates that you ask "why".
Now shut up and let me concentrate on solving my million simultaneous sudoku puzzles, and I swear, if you ask me why...
Why would you need a single physical artifact, unless you are assuming the complete destruction of the internet in the timeframe. It goes like this: If Internet survives, you don't need some pathetic tiny-capacity physical storage archive. You have all or most of the info on the net, highly redundant and globally distributed.
The net today is already almost economically indispensible. We are transforming our production and distribution processes to rely on it. In 50 years, losing the internet will be like ripping the arteries out of something and expecting it to survive.
If that net is gone, it implies total and complete global destruction of civilization, and probably extinction of humanity, because any even tiny subset left that had any memory would attempt to cobble together a miniature replica of the net to help themselves re-organize and restart.
So in that scenario, I'm not at all sure who the target audience is for these tablets. Maybe it's the raccoon or elephant sapients of 10 million years from now.
who do not believe that privacy is relevant or has any value today....which is why I've arranged for infra-red web-cams in ALL of the rooms in your houses.
Now, would you like initials with that, or full names and addresses?
Slashdot Mirror
I can only hope that the ejection seats are in good working order.
I have about a million items
wrong with microsoft software products
that could use some design review.
Not sure why it didn't happen the
first time, but maybe Bill has some
time on his hands now.
I haven't studied the G1 UI in detail.
I have an iPhone and find it quite easy
to learn and use most of the features
without a manual. This includes the features
of custom apps.
Most of the features are a small number
of clicks to complete the function too,
so fast and convenient.
Browser features such as zoom and
sideways turn and auto-zoom when touch a form field make it usable for real websites.
It's all about ease of learning, ease and
speed of use (e.g. flip!)
with small mobile phone/web devices.
but also:
loose lose = loose
loose lose o = lose
uzo = loose + lose + o
and all slashdot posters are people who use their computers intensively (e.g. programming) and for long periods. We can assume that slashdot users stare at their screens more, and need to get more detail from it reliably (as opposed to just watching a movie) in completely variable lighting conditions. I use my matte laptop for programming on a long bus ride, everyday, for example. We can conclude that a substantial number of serious, technology opinion-leader, computer users are going to hate the new Macbook Pro glossy-only policy, are going to be seriously p/o'd in fact. Bad move, Apple, specially if you are trying to get into business computing (more people who stare much more intensively at details on their screens for long periods in varying lighting conditions. This is just a stupid, backwards move. Clearly, the market wants a choice. Offer it or lose otherwise dedicated customers.
that you are begging the question defn: "A logical fallacy in which a premise of an argument contains a direct or indirect assumption that the conclusion is true; propounding a circular argument; circular reasoning " with regard to whether genetic factors are involved in the predisposition of people to get into certain situation types. and with regard to whether genetic variations may be involved in how well people do in those "nasty" environments. Regarding the distinction between natural and artificial. There is, at the darwinian level, no distinction between whether a situation/environment you have to adapt to was created artificially (i.e. indirectly naturally) or directly naturally. If you are a fly and you get caught in a spider's web, are you going to wax philosophical over whether it was a natural or artificial trap? No, you're going to die if you couldn't see or shake yourself out of the web.
I'm sorry but to say there is little selection today is living in a bubble. Take a serious look at the homeless addicts in the inner city and tell me there's no selection going on in modern society. Ask the victims of ongoing genocides. Ask the starving and the growing billions who will be without potable water soon. Ask those who are being thrown out of their jobs, their livelihood, and their healthcare because the internet, robots, and people on the other side of the world can do it cheaper. This is tunnel vision of the most naive sort.
Bacteria, for example, reproduce at age 1 hour, say, and have no trouble evolving. This thesis is just another example of denying we are animals,
I don't agree with the black box argument.
As long as everything is publicly accessible open source, then programmers can examine the code and its behaviour, and interested parties can ask programmers they trust to check it for them.
It is a fallacy to say that everyone must be able to understand the details of the process for it to be fair. As long as credible and open networks of trust and verification can be established, it can be considered potentially fair.
You could say, well code and data could be
altered, and I would say in response that a viable computerized system, while being openly
verifiable as we discuessed, would also have
to make use of cryptographic and digital signature techniques to ensure properties like non-changedness of data and code, verifiability
that a particular version of code produced a particular data item, and non-repudiability of
actions taken by voters and the system.
Just because you're paranoid
doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Remember, this is the same "they" that
are responsible for every negative thing
that affects you. They are very powerful,
and pretty much omniscient, and although
you are boring, they are not bored
observing and foiling your every move.
1. Always borrow random open wifi access points,
in a geographic pattern not centered around your habitual location
2. Get a new unknowing assistant to type in roughly what you want to say each time. There are pattern detectors for your ways of expressing things.
3. Establish online identities such as gmail that have no tie whatsoever to any of your identity info or financial info
-Resolution of 1024x768
-3G and WiFi and WiMax (seamless)
-big enough keys& separations
-500 grams weight so I can take it with me
anywhere.
- can be my cellphone too with
bluetooth earphone+mic
- Fits into pocket
Ok, but here's where the errors are introduced:
When a ballot is "counted" it is being measured or detected,
by an imperfect detection machine.
The voting intention of the voter is being measured or detected,
and then recorded. There is possible error in the meaurement
or detection, and in the recording of the result, and where
manual tallying, there maybe random calculation errors in the
combination (addition) of the results.
This is classic experimental error, introduced by the imperfections/biases
of the measuring and recording systems.
You tell me how you model the statistical effect of that sort of error
on the overall result.
It seems to me that the amount by which recounts differ from original counts
gives us some handle on the size of these measurement + recording errors.
We could assume that each count and recount is a sampling from the "true"
voter intentions of the election, could we not?
Point 1: Sleep and wake actually works on MacOS/X
(and doesn't make you log in again)
Point 2. You get a mac!
"COBOL actually aint so bad
repeat until believe
(the above was much more droll in my
original, authentic all-caps cobol-esque
version, but the higher powers have deemed
that you cannot enter caps cobol syntax into
a slashdot post.)
I have a suggestion. If you don't want someone linking to your web page, take it off the freaking world wide web.
Morons.
My business boss is not good at connecting the dots between cause and effect. He is not a logical thinker yet thinks he is.
Therefore both blame and praise (to a tech team member) are given incorrectly, and seemingly based on level of financial pressure and mood swings.
We on the tech side are seen as slow-delivering and obstructive. The boss has no understanding of the process of producing good, maintainable and well-fitting software, so he thinks we're wasting his time and money. He basically thinks we are laying out a website and why the hell does it take so long?
Needless to say, projects and priorities are interrupted and re-jigged on a bizarrely counterproductively frequent basis,
Why does someone like that try to manage a business a large part of which is predicated on software development?
You can't drive that big-ass truck on my superhighway...
Only big-ass trucks carrying my brand of goods
can travel on my superhighway.
This ticket issued by: Comcast Traffic Police
Hmm hmm It seems you have exceeded your 25 telephone calls per month, sir.
How can we do that?
Snort snort. tee hee.
How can we do that?
We're the TELEPHONE COMPANY, sir.
chortle chortle snort snort.
Vista fast enough?
Oh I forgot, that would cost 200 peta-dollars,
so maybe they won't use vista.
If we imagine the combination of say, superconducting continent-wide backbones and smart, distributed-control, adaptive, switching,
then as long as the wind is blowing, waves are rolling, or sun is shining somewhere in some parts of your continent, then you have a pretty stable power source (delivering some portion of the total combined rated capacity of all those widespread generators.)
The old saw that these alternative, renewables are whimsical, unreliable sources is purely a myth, predicated on a brain-dead dumb grid.
Miles above the clouds.
Why am I subjecting myself to this crap-tastic freeze-dried food and this guy's BO and used shower droplets?
I don't get it anymore. What's it all for?
Dave, I'm getting really tired of listening to your whining.
I'm beginning to think you are a danger to the mission.
Yeah, whatever. But why do we even bother? I mean
really why?
I think the universe wants you to see it, Dave.
I think it really only gets coherent. Gets itself
together, as it were, so you can observe it. It would be disappointed if you didn't show up. I think it really appreciates that you ask "why".
Now shut up and let me concentrate on solving my million simultaneous sudoku puzzles, and I swear, if you ask me why...
I'm using "implies" in the formal logical sense.
I'm not saying loss of the net will CAUSE the extinction of humanity.
I'm saying that the absence of the net
probably means that humanity, its maintainers,
are no longer around.
NOT NET -> NOT HUMANS
=
NET OR NOT HUMANS
(because humans would always maintain net
if they were around. It's too valuable not
to.)
Why would you need a single physical artifact, unless you are assuming the complete destruction of the internet in the timeframe.
It goes like this:
If Internet survives, you don't need some pathetic tiny-capacity physical storage archive. You have all or most of the info on the net, highly redundant and globally distributed.
The net today is already almost economically indispensible. We are transforming our production and distribution processes to rely on it. In 50 years, losing the internet will be like ripping the arteries out of something and expecting it to survive.
If that net is gone, it implies total and complete global destruction of civilization,
and probably extinction of humanity, because any even tiny subset left that had any memory would attempt to cobble together a miniature replica of the net to help themselves re-organize and restart.
So in that scenario, I'm not at all sure who the target audience is for these tablets. Maybe it's the raccoon or elephant sapients of 10 million years from now.
who do not believe that privacy is relevant or has any value today. ...which is why I've arranged for infra-red web-cams in ALL of the rooms in your houses.
Now, would you like initials with that, or full names and addresses?