I wasn't thinking about the power consumption of the screen itself, but about the cpu and gpu power needed to drive it. But those with a pb retina can easily try adopting a smaller screen size gaming a little and see what difference it makes.
Because control over a device means it is you, and not the manufacturer or the carrier or the os maker, that decides when it's getting obsolete.
This is the first reason for google, apple, microsoft, to do the same "mistakes" at the same time, forfeiting an established base of pc users.
The subtle reason is that under the labels "mobile" and "cloud" there is a movement to end the personal computing era, and return to a client/server model. I don't think the reasons for that are exclusively commercial. Think about 1984, with the added bonus that even the proles buy portable telescreens for themselves and are proud to show off the more capable models.
I guess the feat is not to redo some porting of code to arm, which debian has done, but to configure the system/add drivers to support the chromebook. IMHO if chromebook wants to sell more than a tablet it must work as a real laptop, and a linux distro is at the moment the only way to have a complete personal computing experience on arm.
In 15+ years of internet I have never seen porn that resembled the way sex between man and woman is, when they love each other.
Wait till the kid discovers some porn on his own (the browser cache will tell) and then tell him: "nice stuff you looked at, yesterday. If you let that sh*t teach you about sex, I'm afraid you will never have the real thing. Do the things your way instead, you have better chances; oh, and learn what venereal disease means".
I'm also all for putting a sign over the TV set: "Indoctrinated zombie maker: to use, please stare at the sh*t below for 2+ hours a day".
> That does not follow. The existence of a supposed Creator and the existence of a Universe could easily be derived from two different causes.
It's worse than that. Creating implies cause, cause implies time, or you couldn't distinguish cause from effect, among other problems. Does time ( a different time, ours is part of the creation) exist in the domain of god? Fat assumption. If it doesn't, arguing about a god's creator is like arguing about the smell of temperatures, devoid of meaning.
But it's worse than that. The god above us could be the nth product of a chain of creators, so you should be able to prove there is a compatible concept of time in all of them, before proclaiming the impossibility of infinite regress.
But it's worse than that. Time is only one prob. You first should prove that any concept or logic system compatible with ours has any validity in the hypothetical domain of a creator. E.g. a banal "write-only" system doesn't have the principle of no contradiction, because the concept "is", that is data retrieval, is undefined. You have a bit that is either 0 or non 0, it becomes ??? after you put it in/dev/null. Since the principle of no contradiction is not inherent in every possible universe, no logic implication holds necessarily when applied outside the plane that we call reality. So "God needs a creator" contains 3 potentially meaningless terms out of 4.
This shouldn't stop people from reasoning about god, but putting our way to understand the universe in charge of understanding the plane that possibly "caused" it, is a matter of faith.
Atheists should simply say, "sorry but I don't believe you", instead of building a faith that basically awaits "extraordinary evidence", because some sufficiently advanced guy could provide just that, and us mere mortals are not able to prove it's valid, from the inside.
> You take an invisible dude in a toga and put him in control of morality!!!!
A control which He is not exercising. This is a problem.
Religions tell stuff about God, then some man thinks he is above that God who don't restrain people and steps in God's shoes and forces rules on others. Fine, it's under his responsibility.
But following him, trusting a man above a god is the opposite of religion. Morality is how YOU read the religion, or your own set of rules, into your everyday life.
For Christians, Mt. 4:9, the entity who likes to play God is the bad guy, I would assume that control freaks are more on the bad side.
If there is a God resembling the Christian one, "I was following orders" is not going to cut it, He would reply something like: "Sacrificing the freedom I gave you by following another man's order is one more sin you committed; and now let's talk about what you did when following those orders..."
IMHO the android model of "give the requested privileges up or the app won't install" is far from ideal (from the POV of the user).
I should be able to download an app, run it in a unionfs- aufs- chroot with default or bogus values for contacts, email, and so on. App developers are running the app on MY cellphone, so ME and not you, nor Google, decide what data you should be allowed to extract.
If only smartphones were not marketed to spy on the buyer instead of working for him:)
This is not a test whether the universe is a simulation. This is a test about the possibility that one kind of simulation can model the (known) behavior of the universe.
I keep repeating that "the universe is a simulation" vs. "the universe is real" does not make sense as a dichotomy. The question, unanswerable from the inside, is whether the universe is the last level of abstraction or the product of a meta-universe.
Let's take a game of chess as an example. A particular game of chess is an abstraction. A reality on its own. It is not some pieces on a checkerboard, it is something in the minds of those who know what those pieces mean. It depends on our reality for its existence (you gotta keep the moves recorded somewhere) so we say it's one level of recursion below ours. At the same level of dreams, laws, and so on.
Asking whether this universe is a simulation is like showing the transcript of a game of chess (the abstraction called a game of chess has a 1:1 mapping with the transcript of the game) and ask who was playing that game. Impossible question, because it's outside the level of abstraction represented by the game of chess. I need some meta information. But if my reality is constrained by the game of chess itself, like science is constrained by observation and human logic, I cannot perceive nor understand that meta information. If I try to process that meta information, like when we enter the field of religion, I can't tell whether that meta information is true or whether I understood it at all.
Sure, it's good to try, to reason about a game: "this move seems silly so white is probably a pc with some primitive algorhithm". But it could be a human rookie. Dramatic difference in the meta reality, irrelevant for the game.
> It simply does not work that way. Especailly on ARM phones and tablets. Most vendors support secure ROM...
That's like having an unwritable BIOS, that's ok, it's a corner case of my solution, when you lose the jumper:)
But not in desktops where you might want to reflash the bios for particular hardware support or bugs triggered by particular hardware configuration. If you want secure boot all bootloader signing comes later, first you secure the firmware that does the first stages of booting.
LOL, trolling is a lost art. But let's play along.
Rootkit hunter is GPL exactly like GNU/Linux. I can install, no wait, include in any distro, where I find it useful. Not 3rd party in any way. If that's your argument against the billion dollars market of commercial AV for windows.
> Secure boot is not about the BIOS, it is about bootkits. You don't know what you're talking about.
LOL it's called secure boot then it must secure the boot process. Who can safely check the boot sector for modifications by viruses? The BIOS. Then the viruses might try to reflash the BIOS. So protecting the BIOS (the firmware in general) is the key to secure boot. A signed bios is safe until encryption is cracked - see blu-ray or root CAs snafus. An unmodifiable bios is safe without bothering with encryptions schemes.
Hmmm, but "the world" always fight back fiercely against things it doesn't like. If muslims are tolerated and can settle into western countries and so on, then they are considered useful.
IMHO the last centuries have been mostly about the depletion of any system competing with the raw power of money. Even nationalistic movements and intolerant application of religions is meant to ultimately make people sick of it all.
And it's happening now. The sons of muslim immigrants are more enslaved by the western media than the natives, which have often begun to see through the bluff.
Slashdot Mirror
You read headlines and summaries? You must be new here.
the voice of the telepresence bot
like rustling autumn leaves
it's your mother in law
I think that the sinclair zx line was even worse than the PET.
I fear you don't always have the luxury of giving out your position by shooting at random birds.
I agree, it cannot be a meme because it was never before reported in neuroscience.
I wasn't thinking about the power consumption of the screen itself, but about the cpu and gpu power needed to drive it. But those with a pb retina can easily try adopting a smaller screen size gaming a little and see what difference it makes.
Ok but...
More resolution -> more computing to render frames -> more battery drainage.
Or maybe people will learn to switch res to save battery.
A lot of people didn't worry about committing their work to closed document formats in the nineties too, and people are still paying for it.
there, fixed that for you.
Ship on sea, danger for the crew.
Ship in port, danger for whatever is near the ship.
Solution: get the crew on land, sink the ship.
C'mon slashdot engineers, this was an easy one.
The best variant of the answer involved explosives and putting the result on youtube.
Because control over a device means it is you, and not the manufacturer or the carrier or the os maker, that decides when it's getting obsolete.
This is the first reason for google, apple, microsoft, to do the same "mistakes" at the same time, forfeiting an established base of pc users.
The subtle reason is that under the labels "mobile" and "cloud" there is a movement to end the personal computing era, and return to a client/server model. I don't think the reasons for that are exclusively commercial. Think about 1984, with the added bonus that even the proles buy portable telescreens for themselves and are proud to show off the more capable models.
Well if freenet manages not to build upon flawed releases of the JVM, I guess it is unbeatable for this kind of applications.
I guess the feat is not to redo some porting of code to arm, which debian has done, but to configure the system/add drivers to support the chromebook.
IMHO if chromebook wants to sell more than a tablet it must work as a real laptop, and a linux distro is at the moment the only way to have a complete personal computing experience on arm.
And before someone *points out* that PHB stands for pointy haired boss: under that hair there are horns.
Pointy head is acute, by definition...
In 15+ years of internet I have never seen porn that resembled the way sex between man and woman is, when they love each other.
Wait till the kid discovers some porn on his own (the browser cache will tell) and then tell him: "nice stuff you looked at, yesterday. If you let that sh*t teach you about sex, I'm afraid you will never have the real thing. Do the things your way instead, you have better chances; oh, and learn what venereal disease means".
I'm also all for putting a sign over the TV set: "Indoctrinated zombie maker: to use, please stare at the sh*t below for 2+ hours a day".
> That does not follow. The existence of a supposed Creator and the existence of a Universe could easily be derived from two different causes.
It's worse than that.
Creating implies cause, cause implies time, or you couldn't distinguish cause from effect, among other problems.
Does time ( a different time, ours is part of the creation) exist in the domain of god? Fat assumption. If it doesn't, arguing about a god's creator is like arguing about the smell of temperatures, devoid of meaning.
But it's worse than that.
The god above us could be the nth product of a chain of creators, so you should be able to prove there is a compatible concept of time in all of them, before proclaiming the impossibility of infinite regress.
But it's worse than that. Time is only one prob. /dev/null.
You first should prove that any concept or logic system compatible with ours has any validity in the hypothetical domain of a creator.
E.g. a banal "write-only" system doesn't have the principle of no contradiction, because the concept "is", that is data retrieval, is undefined. You have a bit that is either 0 or non 0, it becomes ??? after you put it in
Since the principle of no contradiction is not inherent in every possible universe, no logic implication holds necessarily when applied outside the plane that we call reality.
So "God needs a creator" contains 3 potentially meaningless terms out of 4.
This shouldn't stop people from reasoning about god, but putting our way to understand the universe in charge of understanding the plane that possibly "caused" it, is a matter of faith.
Atheists should simply say, "sorry but I don't believe you", instead of building a faith that basically awaits "extraordinary evidence", because some sufficiently advanced guy could provide just that, and us mere mortals are not able to prove it's valid, from the inside.
In fact, Apple official response to Foxconn is: you're building it wrong.
> You take an invisible dude in a toga and put him in control of morality!!!!
A control which He is not exercising. This is a problem.
Religions tell stuff about God, then some man thinks he is above that God who don't restrain people and steps in God's shoes and forces rules on others. Fine, it's under his responsibility.
But following him, trusting a man above a god is the opposite of religion. Morality is how YOU read the religion, or your own set of rules, into your everyday life.
For Christians, Mt. 4:9, the entity who likes to play God is the bad guy, I would assume that control freaks are more on the bad side.
If there is a God resembling the Christian one, "I was following orders" is not going to cut it, He would reply something like: "Sacrificing the freedom I gave you by following another man's order is one more sin you committed; and now let's talk about what you did when following those orders..."
IMHO the android model of "give the requested privileges up or the app won't install" is far from ideal (from the POV of the user).
I should be able to download an app, run it in a unionfs- aufs- chroot with default or bogus values for contacts, email, and so on.
App developers are running the app on MY cellphone, so ME and not you, nor Google, decide what data you should be allowed to extract.
If only smartphones were not marketed to spy on the buyer instead of working for him :)
This is not a test whether the universe is a simulation.
This is a test about the possibility that one kind of simulation can model the (known) behavior of the universe.
I keep repeating that "the universe is a simulation" vs. "the universe is real" does not make sense as a dichotomy. The question, unanswerable from the inside, is whether the universe is the last level of abstraction or the product of a meta-universe.
Let's take a game of chess as an example. A particular game of chess is an abstraction. A reality on its own. It is not some pieces on a checkerboard, it is something in the minds of those who know what those pieces mean. It depends on our reality for its existence (you gotta keep the moves recorded somewhere) so we say it's one level of recursion below ours. At the same level of dreams, laws, and so on.
Asking whether this universe is a simulation is like showing the transcript of a game of chess (the abstraction called a game of chess has a 1:1 mapping with the transcript of the game) and ask who was playing that game. Impossible question, because it's outside the level of abstraction represented by the game of chess. I need some meta information. But if my reality is constrained by the game of chess itself, like science is constrained by observation and human logic, I cannot perceive nor understand that meta information. If I try to process that meta information, like when we enter the field of religion, I can't tell whether that meta information is true or whether I understood it at all.
Sure, it's good to try, to reason about a game: "this move seems silly so white is probably a pc with some primitive algorhithm". But it could be a human rookie. Dramatic difference in the meta reality, irrelevant for the game.
> It simply does not work that way. Especailly on ARM phones and tablets. Most vendors support secure ROM...
s
That's like having an unwritable BIOS, that's ok, it's a corner case of my solution, when you lose the jumper :)
But not in desktops where you might want to reflash the bios for particular hardware support or bugs triggered by particular hardware configuration.
> It simply does not work that way. Especailly on ARM phones and tablets. Most vendors support secure ROM...
That's like having an unwritable BIOS, that's ok, it's a corner case of my solution, when you lose the jumper :)
But not in desktops where you might want to reflash the bios for particular hardware support or bugs triggered by particular hardware configuration. If you want secure boot all bootloader signing comes later, first you secure the firmware that does the first stages of booting.
LOL, trolling is a lost art. But let's play along.
Rootkit hunter is GPL exactly like GNU/Linux. I can install, no wait, include in any distro, where I find it useful. Not 3rd party in any way.
If that's your argument against the billion dollars market of commercial AV for windows.
> Secure boot is not about the BIOS, it is about bootkits. You don't know what you're talking about.
LOL it's called secure boot then it must secure the boot process. Who can safely check the boot sector for modifications by viruses? The BIOS. Then the viruses might try to reflash the BIOS. So protecting the BIOS (the firmware in general) is the key to secure boot. A signed bios is safe until encryption is cracked - see blu-ray or root CAs snafus. An unmodifiable bios is safe without bothering with encryptions schemes.
Hmmm, but "the world" always fight back fiercely against things it doesn't like. If muslims are tolerated and can settle into western countries and so on, then they are considered useful.
IMHO the last centuries have been mostly about the depletion of any system competing with the raw power of money. Even nationalistic movements and intolerant application of religions is meant to ultimately make people sick of it all.
And it's happening now. The sons of muslim immigrants are more enslaved by the western media than the natives, which have often begun to see through the bluff.