Ok, that was a bit of a flamebait, bad me. However, that buys you an 11 inch display. That might possibly make sense as an external display for iPod (assuming latest and greatest iPod has an HDMI output?), but TFA is about iMac.
That's not real LED screen, that's LCD screen with LED backlighting.
There are real LED screens too, such a Sony XEL-1 OLED display, but their cost is way out of the budget of most iPeople, not to mention they're also a bit small for iMacs... And by "real" I mean, actually displays the image using LEDs.
The whole fad of marketing LCD displays with LED backlight as "LED displays" is really confusing for the consumer. Many less-clueful buyers believe they really got a LED panel on their "LED display".
I disagree, mistakes like this should not happen at all.
If you believe there are companies who haven't and/or will not do mistakes as bad as this, you're naive.
So, when it's a given that mistakes like this happen, basically to every large organization, every once in a while, do you rather trust an organization that communicates about it, and you can be reasonably certain you know their screw up rate, or the one who tries to hide the mistake, and you don't know how many mistakes they've managed to hide already?
Reduce population growth by limiting the availability of basic living necessities such as electricity and power plants?
Not sure what you mean here, as I actually said the exact opposite, that having these will reduce population growth (in a very small way!) by offering... alternative evening/night activities at home.
I suppose you're part of the Malthusian crowd that is suggesting we should rid of the less advantaged for some pseudo-altruistic belief that we'd be much better off if we could just have less of ourselves.
Not at all. However, I'm with the crowd that thinks that evolution will unfortunately take care of any short term population reduction due to improved standard of living. Those that breed despite any obstacles (high standard of living is obstacle in this context) will spread their "advantageous" genes. There's no nice way to limit population growth, there are only more or less ugly ways. "Laws" of evolution are merciless.
I don't know what it is about people these days really having some hatred towards our own species that we would openly and willingly suggest to people that they do NOT reproduce and live out their lives how they see fit, and restrain their human nature to engage in family building.
Yes, naught resources, limiting people from having as much as they want of everything and anything... Only thing that can sustain growth is improving technology, and I very much doubt it'll keep up. But let's hope it does.
The fact that most of the industrialized nations across the globe have a birth-rate below that what is necessary sustain a society seems to trouble no one, and is given very little discussion time. Instead, we are fed the factually wrong idea that there's an over population problem.
As already pointed out by others, the numbers you quote don't mean what you think they mean... You're off by a factor of about two.
good for population control because they can put condoms on better when there is light?
Uh, the "theoretical group of people" was there to indicate that that part was a joke. So, I think I'm allowed to say "Woooosh".
The only thing that reduces population is education. Those who are better educated have fewer children. Being able to study after dark increases one's odds to further their education. It's not rocket science.
Education undoubtedly has a much large effect. However, if you've ever spent a long time with a wife/girlfriend/"friend with benefits" in an environment where there's nothing else to do, and nothing actually stopping you from having sex... Trust me, pretty soon you'll even be willing to take chances with lack of proper contraception...;-)
You still sound like a moron though.
Hmm mm. It's hard to judge based on just one post of yours (didn't check others), but based on that, this actually feels more like a compliment.
I suspect this also will help reduce population growth, with people able to do also other things after dark. And this isn't meant just as a joke.
Also, condoms are easier to use when there's light, for that theoretical group of people who do know what they are, do have them, are actually willing to use them, but do not have enough light to put them on.
Where've you been the last decade. Attacking is the new defense. It's called "pre-emptive strike". In other words, blow up someone you think could probably some day maybe consider thinking about attacking you.
"New"?
Well, ok, yeah. I guess more traditional approach would be to slaughter and enslave to keep them down, to minimize the need to to actually attack in a military sense...
So you're saying... if ISPs were allowed to freely limit the most bandwidth-intensive uses as they please, then they'd be able to invest in infrastructure to provide more bandwidth for the... uses that don't use a lot of bandwidth, and won't be paying anything extra if they get more bandwidth?
Also, government regulation doesn't change the inherent need of a company to maximize their profits, even if it means "ass-f*cking" their customers. But regulations can make it go in less deep, especially if competition isn't up to the task (eg. duopoly/monopoly situation).
The internet is a worldwide network. If one country banned or censored it, it would make almost no difference to everyone else - expect that the amount of spam might be down a little.
Now it is. What about in its infancy? Without the US, would Finland house the ICANN lookalike?
Most likely, yes (well, maybe not Finland precisely, but not impossible). The need to network computers is real (or as real as any IT related thing can be). As an example of technology rising to meet this need was FidoNet. Universities would have networked, drawing in technology companies, drawing in regular people and other kinds of companies, and being linked to hobbyist systems (like that fidonet). HTML/Web-type hypertext-based information sharing system would also have risen naturally as soon as home and office computers became able to display decent graphics. There might have been a protocol war, but most likely one protocol family would have triumphed, or possibly the difference would have become transparent, so that computers could access data in all public networks using some kind of transparent proxies. Latter is more probable if a strong ICANN-like thing would have been formed, able to coordinate interfacing different networks.
There might have been more closed, proprietary networks, but their ultimate fate would have been the same as fate of AOL/Compuserve: they would have turned into public "internet" providers with very limited special services.
Conversation using typed text is the most important communication method in any engineering. E-mail, irc channels, instant messages, corporate MS Office Communicator, bug reports, version control commit messages, source code comments, plain old SW design document, meeting minutes...
Almost any professional (meaning getting paid to do it, not referring to quality in any way) software development involves more writing normal text than source code.
Typing speed for normal text matters, and if it's satisfactory, then typing speed for source code follows from that, and will be adequate.
Oh, and "normal text" means understandable normal text. It doesn't allow too many typos, nor too shaky grammar, before that'll start to hamper communication.
This isn't even close to the manned aircraft record. In the 50s some nuts kept a Cessna 172 flying for more than 2 months. When the generator gave out they hoisted up a small wind generator, taped it to a struct, and ran the power in through the cigarette lighter. Now that's what I call a record!
I was so sure you were just joking, but it's real, and honestly, compared to today's "hoist a camcorder up in a balloon or RC plane" stunts... Well, there's no comparison:-)
Not even close. What about "Five Weeks in a Balloon"?
And there have been astronauts and cosmonauts on Mir and ISS for 6 months at a time...
I think they're referring to heavier-than-air atmospheric flying machines here. And if you were just trying to be funny, it didn't work...
But if we accept any flying contraption, then the Moon has been flying for about 4 billion years already. Those clever Swiss, they sure know how to make cheese that works like a clockwork!
Quite honestly, I'm surprised this didn't cause some sort of panic...
It's only matter of time before terrorists get their hands on miniature false vacuum destabilizer bomb , attach one to an RC plane, fly it to the Wall Street, and destroy our universe.
Time to panic is now, because when they eventually pull that off, you'll just cease to exist with no time to panic.
Everyone knows this is caused by people driving their SUV's and destroying the environment. Save the Sun! Go green today!
No no, SUV drivers are the saviors of future tropical paradise. Without their valiant effort, we would have no hope. But as we see this year, despite the Ancient Enemy, the feared Day Star trying to thwart the future tropical paradise, like TFA describes, this year was still record warm.
I can't wait for the tropical paradise to come true. It's -13 F outside now, when it should be 77 F.
Yet another monthly recurring charge that I'll never use, nor ever get around to cancelling. At least my idle gym membership won't feel so lonely now...
Indeed, but don't feel bad. Things like that are what keeps the economy running. Like gyms, how else could they afford to keep gym equipment factory workers (in China) fed, if not for all the generous people with idle gym memberships?
Learning math is just as difficult as learning any other subject or content material. Deciphering poetry, learning programming, studying psychological theory, and learning calculus all involve concentration, study, and struggle from the learner
Learning (advanced) math takes a lot more concentration, study and struggle, than most other things. Therefore learnig math is not equally difficult than these other things, it's much harder.
After certain level of complexity and abstraction, it also requires the kind of abstract thinking not everybody is capable of. IOW, after certain level, learning math becomes exponentially more difficult, until ultimately it becomes impossible to learn a new and yet more complex thing. Not so with most other things, learning new things is not exponentially more difficult.
Because of course every gene in existence can be traced back to a few, possibly even just one, orignal gene (or soup of short pieces of xNA, or whatever the first successful drop of self-replicating chemical soup was like).
Had I not just read in depth enough to know how mistaken you are, I would have believed this statement from you. It represents the increasing complexity I said most people understand to have occurred.
In actuality, the complex functionality and genes that enable it are nearly unchanged. Nothing like what you portray here.
Can you give an example of such an unchanged gene? Some genes related to DNA handling proteins should be a good example. How unchanged they really are between archae, bacteria and a few lines of eukaroytes? Any references?
Because I'm under the impression, that even though the genes work pretty much the same (as they have to, since chemical stucture of DNA and the information coding are the same), the DNA sequences have actually changed quite a bit, actually about as much as it could have changed without breaking the functionality.
If you have an online link to something which discusses the difference of genes doing identical functions in archae, bacteria and eukaryotes, and includes actual quantative data about the difference, I'd be thrilled.
So... Just as an example, how many homeobox genes were around back then, and doing the functions they do now?
I sure hope you're not saying you think evolution means new genes popping out of nothingness... Because of course every gene in existence can be traced back to a few, possibly even just one, orignal gene (or soup of short pieces of xNA, or whatever the first successful drop of self-replicating chemical soup was like). So in a sense nothing new has appeared since then, it has been just this original xNA specializing... But this specialization certainly is evolution.
I figure it probably has something do with Dropbear and BusyBox. I mean, if it's not, why on earth did they choose name "DropBox", which is clearly combination of these two names?
(Yes, I do know what DropBox is at least superficially, so the "why on earth..." question above is actually valid, at least if you take the position that everybody should now every well known software package name.)
No. Simply, no. At least I make the decision to find out more about it (with Google) or not based on what information the writer cares to give to me immediately. If he doesn't care enough about it to even try to get me interested by just telling what it is, I'm not going to waste my time on it either. It can't be anything very interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
If the first thing that enters your mind when reading "QT" is QuickTime, you're on the wrong website I'm afraid.
Well, QT is QuickTime. Qt is the toolkit. And he's just assuming that slashdot summary got it wrong.
$1,799.00 isn't out of budget for most iPeople.
Ok, that was a bit of a flamebait, bad me. However, that buys you an 11 inch display. That might possibly make sense as an external display for iPod (assuming latest and greatest iPod has an HDMI output?), but TFA is about iMac.
So it is. I suppose I'm ahead of the times.
That's not real LED screen, that's LCD screen with LED backlighting.
There are real LED screens too, such a Sony XEL-1 OLED display, but their cost is way out of the budget of most iPeople, not to mention they're also a bit small for iMacs... And by "real" I mean, actually displays the image using LEDs.
The whole fad of marketing LCD displays with LED backlight as "LED displays" is really confusing for the consumer. Many less-clueful buyers believe they really got a LED panel on their "LED display".
10 comefrom 30
20 print "hello"
30 rem this line is for compatiblity with different comefrom implementations
I disagree, mistakes like this should not happen at all.
If you believe there are companies who haven't and/or will not do mistakes as bad as this, you're naive.
So, when it's a given that mistakes like this happen, basically to every large organization, every once in a while, do you rather trust an organization that communicates about it, and you can be reasonably certain you know their screw up rate, or the one who tries to hide the mistake, and you don't know how many mistakes they've managed to hide already?
Reduce population growth by limiting the availability of basic living necessities such as electricity and power plants?
Not sure what you mean here, as I actually said the exact opposite, that having these will reduce population growth (in a very small way!) by offering... alternative evening/night activities at home.
I suppose you're part of the Malthusian crowd that is suggesting we should rid of the less advantaged for some pseudo-altruistic belief that we'd be much better off if we could just have less of ourselves.
Not at all. However, I'm with the crowd that thinks that evolution will unfortunately take care of any short term population reduction due to improved standard of living. Those that breed despite any obstacles (high standard of living is obstacle in this context) will spread their "advantageous" genes. There's no nice way to limit population growth, there are only more or less ugly ways. "Laws" of evolution are merciless.
I don't know what it is about people these days really having some hatred towards our own species that we would openly and willingly suggest to people that they do NOT reproduce and live out their lives how they see fit, and restrain their human nature to engage in family building.
Yes, naught resources, limiting people from having as much as they want of everything and anything... Only thing that can sustain growth is improving technology, and I very much doubt it'll keep up. But let's hope it does.
The fact that most of the industrialized nations across the globe have a birth-rate below that what is necessary sustain a society seems to trouble no one, and is given very little discussion time. Instead, we are fed the factually wrong idea that there's an over population problem.
As already pointed out by others, the numbers you quote don't mean what you think they mean... You're off by a factor of about two.
good for population control because they can put condoms on better when there is light?
Uh, the "theoretical group of people" was there to indicate that that part was a joke. So, I think I'm allowed to say "Woooosh".
The only thing that reduces population is education. Those who are better educated have fewer children. Being able to study after dark increases one's odds to further their education. It's not rocket science.
Education undoubtedly has a much large effect. However, if you've ever spent a long time with a wife/girlfriend/"friend with benefits" in an environment where there's nothing else to do, and nothing actually stopping you from having sex... Trust me, pretty soon you'll even be willing to take chances with lack of proper contraception... ;-)
You still sound like a moron though.
Hmm mm. It's hard to judge based on just one post of yours (didn't check others), but based on that, this actually feels more like a compliment.
I suspect this also will help reduce population growth, with people able to do also other things after dark. And this isn't meant just as a joke.
Also, condoms are easier to use when there's light, for that theoretical group of people who do know what they are, do have them, are actually willing to use them, but do not have enough light to put them on.
Where've you been the last decade. Attacking is the new defense. It's called "pre-emptive strike". In other words, blow up someone you think could probably some day maybe consider thinking about attacking you.
"New"?
Well, ok, yeah. I guess more traditional approach would be to slaughter and enslave to keep them down, to minimize the need to to actually attack in a military sense...
So you're saying... if ISPs were allowed to freely limit the most bandwidth-intensive uses as they please, then they'd be able to invest in infrastructure to provide more bandwidth for the... uses that don't use a lot of bandwidth, and won't be paying anything extra if they get more bandwidth?
Also, government regulation doesn't change the inherent need of a company to maximize their profits, even if it means "ass-f*cking" their customers. But regulations can make it go in less deep, especially if competition isn't up to the task (eg. duopoly/monopoly situation).
The internet is a worldwide network. If one country banned or censored it, it would make almost no difference to everyone else - expect that the amount of spam might be down a little.
Now it is. What about in its infancy? Without the US, would Finland house the ICANN lookalike?
Most likely, yes (well, maybe not Finland precisely, but not impossible). The need to network computers is real (or as real as any IT related thing can be). As an example of technology rising to meet this need was FidoNet. Universities would have networked, drawing in technology companies, drawing in regular people and other kinds of companies, and being linked to hobbyist systems (like that fidonet). HTML/Web-type hypertext-based information sharing system would also have risen naturally as soon as home and office computers became able to display decent graphics. There might have been a protocol war, but most likely one protocol family would have triumphed, or possibly the difference would have become transparent, so that computers could access data in all public networks using some kind of transparent proxies. Latter is more probable if a strong ICANN-like thing would have been formed, able to coordinate interfacing different networks.
There might have been more closed, proprietary networks, but their ultimate fate would have been the same as fate of AOL/Compuserve: they would have turned into public "internet" providers with very limited special services.
Didn't India get most of its rocket technology from the USSR?
And do you know where the USSR got most of their rocket technology? Yes, it was from the same source as the US got theirs.
Conversation using typed text is the most important communication method in any engineering. E-mail, irc channels, instant messages, corporate MS Office Communicator, bug reports, version control commit messages, source code comments, plain old SW design document, meeting minutes...
Almost any professional (meaning getting paid to do it, not referring to quality in any way) software development involves more writing normal text than source code.
Typing speed for normal text matters, and if it's satisfactory, then typing speed for source code follows from that, and will be adequate.
Oh, and "normal text" means understandable normal text. It doesn't allow too many typos, nor too shaky grammar, before that'll start to hamper communication.
This isn't even close to the manned aircraft record. In the 50s some nuts kept a Cessna 172 flying for more than 2 months. When the generator gave out they hoisted up a small wind generator, taped it to a struct, and ran the power in through the cigarette lighter. Now that's what I call a record!
I was so sure you were just joking, but it's real, and honestly, compared to today's "hoist a camcorder up in a balloon or RC plane" stunts... Well, there's no comparison :-)
Not even close. What about "Five Weeks in a Balloon"?
And there have been astronauts and cosmonauts on Mir and ISS for 6 months at a time...
I think they're referring to heavier-than-air atmospheric flying machines here. And if you were just trying to be funny, it didn't work...
But if we accept any flying contraption, then the Moon has been flying for about 4 billion years already. Those clever Swiss, they sure know how to make cheese that works like a clockwork!
Quite honestly, I'm surprised this didn't cause some sort of panic...
It's only matter of time before terrorists get their hands on miniature false vacuum destabilizer bomb , attach one to an RC plane, fly it to the Wall Street, and destroy our universe.
Time to panic is now, because when they eventually pull that off, you'll just cease to exist with no time to panic.
Everyone knows this is caused by people driving their SUV's and destroying the environment. Save the Sun! Go green today!
No no, SUV drivers are the saviors of future tropical paradise. Without their valiant effort, we would have no hope. But as we see this year, despite the Ancient Enemy, the feared Day Star trying to thwart the future tropical paradise, like TFA describes, this year was still record warm.
I can't wait for the tropical paradise to come true. It's -13 F outside now, when it should be 77 F.
Yet another monthly recurring charge that I'll never use, nor ever get around to cancelling. At least my idle gym membership won't feel so lonely now...
Indeed, but don't feel bad. Things like that are what keeps the economy running. Like gyms, how else could they afford to keep gym equipment factory workers (in China) fed, if not for all the generous people with idle gym memberships?
Learning math is just as difficult as learning any other subject or content material. Deciphering poetry, learning programming, studying psychological theory, and learning calculus all involve concentration, study, and struggle from the learner
Learning (advanced) math takes a lot more concentration, study and struggle, than most other things. Therefore learnig math is not equally difficult than these other things, it's much harder.
After certain level of complexity and abstraction, it also requires the kind of abstract thinking not everybody is capable of. IOW, after certain level, learning math becomes exponentially more difficult, until ultimately it becomes impossible to learn a new and yet more complex thing. Not so with most other things, learning new things is not exponentially more difficult.
Because of course every gene in existence can be traced back to a few, possibly even just one, orignal gene (or soup of short pieces of xNA, or whatever the first successful drop of self-replicating chemical soup was like).
Had I not just read in depth enough to know how mistaken you are, I would have believed this statement from you. It represents the increasing complexity I said most people understand to have occurred.
In actuality, the complex functionality and genes that enable it are nearly unchanged. Nothing like what you portray here.
Can you give an example of such an unchanged gene? Some genes related to DNA handling proteins should be a good example. How unchanged they really are between archae, bacteria and a few lines of eukaroytes? Any references?
Because I'm under the impression, that even though the genes work pretty much the same (as they have to, since chemical stucture of DNA and the information coding are the same), the DNA sequences have actually changed quite a bit, actually about as much as it could have changed without breaking the functionality.
If you have an online link to something which discusses the difference of genes doing identical functions in archae, bacteria and eukaryotes, and includes actual quantative data about the difference, I'd be thrilled.
Nothing has evolved, it has only specialized.
So... Just as an example, how many homeobox genes were around back then, and doing the functions they do now?
I sure hope you're not saying you think evolution means new genes popping out of nothingness... Because of course every gene in existence can be traced back to a few, possibly even just one, orignal gene (or soup of short pieces of xNA, or whatever the first successful drop of self-replicating chemical soup was like). So in a sense nothing new has appeared since then, it has been just this original xNA specializing... But this specialization certainly is evolution.
o-+-[
You just looked at ASCII Child porn. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I'm sorry if this bursts the fantasy bubble of some readers, but... ASCII was born in 1963.
But man, Unicode porn... And it's already legal in many jurisdictions!
How does anyone not know what DropBox is?
I figure it probably has something do with Dropbear and BusyBox. I mean, if it's not, why on earth did they choose name "DropBox", which is clearly combination of these two names?
(Yes, I do know what DropBox is at least superficially, so the "why on earth..." question above is actually valid, at least if you take the position that everybody should now every well known software package name.)
Welcome to the age of google. Try not to hurt yourself.
http://www.google.ca/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=dropbox
No. Simply, no. At least I make the decision to find out more about it (with Google) or not based on what information the writer cares to give to me immediately. If he doesn't care enough about it to even try to get me interested by just telling what it is, I'm not going to waste my time on it either. It can't be anything very interesting.
Seeing your back is only a bit more of a stretch from having your head up your ass, you know.
How does mirror fit in that scenario?
Wouldn't it hurt?