What are the two biggest complaints with smart-phones? Download speeds and battery life. Download speeds are not processor restricted. Battery life, however, would seem to suffer with dual core.
Smartphones need dual core to compete with pads and netbooks. However, they, being larger devices, can pack more batteries inside. What good will the fastest smartphone be if you have to recharge it every hour?
"...which likens Google's adoption of WebM instead of H.264 to an attempt to force a new language on the entire world. Internet Explorer 9, of course, supports the H.264 codec,...
People should listen to Microsoft! What better expert is there with regards to forcing things on the entire world?
Astonishingly, they work. I'm wearing them right now. I couldn't have continued computer work without them.
I searched and read everything, and decided to try them: good company, full 100% refund for 30 days when I bought them (and they pay shipping both ways).
I'm getting so I use them for many other things -- woodworking, reading small print on physical manuals.
They're 50% heavier than normal glasses. But the bottom line is: they work. I can adjust to any distance just by touching the slider. I wear them 8 hours a day; have for about six months now. If I broke them I'd buy another pair immediately.
Couldn't a pair of progressive lenses for a third the price do the same thing? I ask this as a serious question, as I have to replace my old glasses (which are progressive lenses).
I suggest you check carefully the credits and contributors to said series. But again, how any of this deals with a response to a flippant Hitler remark on slashdot is beyond me.
Shouldn't that read "Hubble telescope allows astronomers to confirm nature of mysterious green blob?" Unless, that is, there was a really big upgrade to the telescope that has been kept secret!
It's only that it is tycoons, politicians and lawyers the ones that *really* decide that, not philosophers.
That may be true, however, they are using philosophy when they do decide that, so in effect they are trying to be philosophers.
Unfortunately most tycoons, politicians and lawyers have never really studied philosophy, so when they try and be philosophers, they fail miserably at it.
Hey nice straw man you built there, please ignore the match...WHOOSH! Where did I say they had NO impact? show me the quote please?
Your own words:
If the USA stayed out of the war in Europe the only changes would most likely be that Hitler might have taken England (which even then would have been doubtful as the "cash and carry" would have still allowed England to use the USA for manufacturing) but would have still fallen ultimately to Stalin
My mistake was saying "no" impact. A more accurate word, based on your comment would have been "minimal" or "insignificant" impact.
The war was over, the only question was how long would it take.
So the war was over in '41. To bad nobody told the rest of the world. Seems like a lot of people died in vain fighting a war that was over. Especially all those Americans, Canadians, etc. who arrived after it was already finished!
Whether Hitler had a chance of winning or not is the real strawman argument as it has nothing to do with any of this. The whole thread was about whether or not Americans, today, had the wherewithal to make the sacrifices for a cause, like against Hitler, as they did during WWII. That sacrifice also includes those who did not go to Europe, but were in the US dealing with shortages and rationing all for a war cause.
You have turned that original thread into your own thread regarding the impact that the America had in the war in Europe.
Nothing that you have posted, however, regarding Hitler or the US involvement in Europe or the Russians or anything else, is related to that or the OP. So before you accuse others of strawman arguments, please review your own arguments.
What you experienced in your philosophy class compared to classical philosophy is what the study of post-modern music (ie sound of marbles dropping in tin cans) is to classical music. Both serve their purpose, but in each case, one has become so esoteric that it ceases to be useful (as in your well put mental masturbation).
While the greek word philosophia literally means "friend of wisdom", the common-day philosopher tends to stare at their naval and wonder if they even exist more than they use anything which might resemble wisdom.
Meanwhile, the engineer is creating ways to save lives, feed millions, and travel to Mars.
I - personally - find it frustrating that we listen to the naval-staring philosopher, and forget what wisdom is in the same moment.
But is it not the philosopher that tells us whether we should be doing something or not? Science in and of itself can do all kinds of things. But it cannot answer the question of whether it should do those things. Science by it's very nature is amoral.
The splitting of an atom is something of science, whether it is used to harness energy or whether it is used to destroy something is where the philosophers come in.
Science cannot give wisdom, only knowledge. Wisdom comes from the philosopher.
The USA could have never set a single boot on the grounds of Europe and simply kept selling to the allies and I doubt anything would have come out differently, and this is coming from an American that had multiple family members fight in WWII in Europe. The simple fact is reading his communiques and plans Hitler bet everything on Russia being another France and Stalin proved him DEAD wrong. Hell the man didn't even have adequate winter gear for his troops! He was SO fucked!
Your "doubt" does not mean diddly squat as to how anything in the war would have turned out. You are free to believe that the US had no impact and if your only source of that believe is how misguided Hitler was, then so be it.
Bin Laden is pretty misguided, too, and yet his minions continue to fight on his behalf. Hitler, misguided as he might have been, still had troops and a war machine in Europe. They sure seemed pretty intent on fighting a war.
Japan's leaders were misguided, too. Even after their leaders new the war was lost, their soldiers continued to fight to the death.
Everyone I knew/know in the military will tell you time and time again, that battles are won or lost in the trenches, many times in spite of their general's f*ck'd up plans.
You, sir, do a disservice to the many Americans who gave their lives and limbs fighting a foreign war on a foreign soil.
Go fight Hitler? Did you miss History, or were you misinformed? The Americans basically sat back saying "meh. Not our business." for two years.
I know my history, what about you? Yes, the US sat out the first two years -- their own version of the Prime Directive, however, the next three and a half years, they made a major push in Europe that did change the outcome of the war.
It wasn't until the Japanese attacked the US that the Americans became involved - indeed, were it not for the pact whereby Germany and Italy were obliged to defend to Japan by declaring war on the US immediately after the US attacked Japan, there's a good chance we'd be speaking German in most of Europe today.
And how/why the US got there doesn't change the fact that, as you state, without them, we would all be speaking German in Europe.
We're all willing to kick Hitler's ass or storm Washington DC with torches and sidearms in our heads, but the moment there's any risk -- even just the risk of losing our internet access or having a hassle at the airport security line -- we're all bitches. We're not really in a situation where we can afford to be anything else, I guess. No matter how justified we are in our principals and should do something, most of us really do have something to lose. It's not like we're mining "blood diamonds" and have nowhere to go but up.
WWII was 70 years ago. People in the US today are a lot different than back then. I'm not so sure they would make the sacrifices needed to go kick Hitler's ass, unless it was somehow threatening their consumeristic lifestyle. Even in their elections, the driving theme is are you better off today than you were four years ago, when the real question is where to we need to be tomorrow.
That said, Anonymous has done some things I thoroughly support (Scientology related, in particular) and some things that make me grin, even though I know it probably isn't helping things, over all. Some of their recent actions seem to have definitely risked the real cause, on which their actions sometimes reflect.
Anyway, if there is any time in your life where you can afford to be a snotty, spoiled, idealistic person rebelling against stuff, it's when you're a snotty little teen (and if you think these guys are even mostly teens, I think you're wrong). As soon as you're of age to be truly held accountable or persecuted and you have responsibilities and things to lose (your physical freedom, access to your cash, your home, your family, your job, your reputation, etc) -- you start falling into line. Idealism is a young man's game. As is just being an ass (though I, personally, have far exceeded the average years in which most people pursue that one!).
Anonymous is winning small battles in what they are doing, but ultimately will lose the war in whatever their perceived purpose is. The more they attack business interests, the more there will be laws enacted to crack down on actions like theirs. Before long, they will be labeled cyber terrorists with all of the negative government attention that will bring.
It's good to stand up for what you believe. It's even better to choose your fights carefully. Otherwise, you are really just being irresponsible because the consequences set in motion by indiscriminate action affect a lot more people than than the ones that signed on for your cause.
The real question that needs to be answered by the original poster is "What are you going to use it for?" Tablets look nice and all, but any real typing on them is problematic. I've used both a tablet and a netbook and writing papers or working on coding is an order of magnitude better on the netbook with a real keyboard vs a tablet. You simply cannot touch type on one.
If all you want to do is browse the net, check some emails and use facebook/twitter, then a tablet would be okay. But if you need to do real work, a reak keyboard wins every time. That's before even looking at the price difference. Most netbooks are 1/3 the cost of a tablet.
A tablet might make you feel cool, but a netbook means you are smart. In the long run, smart trumps cool.
While the story indicates that a motive has not yet been determined, it also states that she recently won a close and hotly contested race with a Tea Party candidate. Hopefully, it will not be found that the teenage shooter was not responding to the Tea Party rhetoric of if we can't win in the ballot box, we will win in the streets.
It is truly a shame, but something angered the shooter enough that he took it upon himself to "fix" a problem. I wonder if election campaigning were more civil and less mud slinging/hate mongering if this shooting would have occurred.
While many people on slashdot are of many different political views and seem to be able to discuss issues civilly (for the most part), there seem to be pockets of society in the US that are not able to do that. How does anyone expect to solve any of the issues in the US or world, when there isn't even enough respect of the human person to allow for differing opinions?
Whatever the cause of the shooting, it is truly a sad day.
I remember. And what I remember is that the request for information was a lot different in the Yahoo case and this subpoena. Comparing the two is like comparing the grilling of steroid using baseball players by the US Congress and China's human rights violations. All important things, but unfortunately not related.
The geatest risk to US innovation and continued dominance in Internet business is NOT regulation. It is the DoJ. In the future start ups are going to avoid the US because they can present the increased privacy as a selling point to consumers.
This is simply not true. The greatest risk is US policy that borderlines on fascism. The DOJ is just the legal enforcement arm of the US government. In otherwords, they are tasked with carrying out the enforcement of those policies which are set by others.. They, the DOJ, are not the problem themself and focussing on them as the problem allows for the real erosion of rights and privacy to occur unabated.
Before everybody jumps to conclusions, from the actual subpoena, the information being turned over is contact information - names, mailing addresses, methods of payment, if applicable, ip addresses, etc., specifically excluded is the content of the tweets. In short, it appears they are 1) trying to see where the data came from -- if US, then US laws pervail, 2) how to contact individuals and 3) if money exchanged hands, from what countries did that occur.
These are all things that any investigation would look at. If this were 30 years ago, the subpoena would be to the phone companies instead of Twitter.
Since it was announced some time ago that the DOJ was investigating the leaks, there isn't any news here. If they had hacked Twitter to get the information, then that would have been newsworthy, but as it stands, it appears that the DOJ is following the laws in the US to obtain the information they are wanting in their investigation.
So do potatoes. But what both cockroaches and potatoes do not have is human DNA. Since you cannot be human without human DNA, that seems a pretty significant difference.
I'm not really wanting to discuss abortion. My point being, though, that at some point in the womb, whether at the beginning or just before birth, there is an unborn human and that unborn human has more human characteristics than a cockroach (as outlined in the original post).
I am not saying human DNA is the only factor of what gives us human characteristics, but it is an important one. That 4%-5% difference with chimps shows a lot of difference with just a small change. A cockroach is significantly further removed in genetic code.
I would posit, however, that it's not human characteristics = DNA but human DNA = human characteristics. Something other than human DNA gives something other than human characteristics, even though they may be similar. And that would be expected as there is much overlap in the DNA sequencing of all life.
[humming "Every sperm is sacred"]...this stuff which is ~95% identical in chimps? "95% of human" - that's still more rights than adolescents, I think? Not to mention zygotes. [/humming "Every sperm is sacred"]
Whether one holds that life begins at conception or sometime later, at some point before exiting the birth canal there is an unborn human, able to survive outside the womb.
The fact that chimps and humans share 96% (not 95) of their DNA and chimps are not human and cockroaches share even less DNA would seem to say that cockroaches do not have more human characteristics than an unborn human which has 100% human DNA.
This isn't a religious observation, but observable, measurable fact.
Slashdot Mirror
What are the two biggest complaints with smart-phones? Download speeds and battery life. Download speeds are not processor restricted. Battery life, however, would seem to suffer with dual core.
Smartphones need dual core to compete with pads and netbooks. However, they, being larger devices, can pack more batteries inside. What good will the fastest smartphone be if you have to recharge it every hour?
"...which likens Google's adoption of WebM instead of H.264 to an attempt to force a new language on the entire world. Internet Explorer 9, of course, supports the H.264 codec,...
People should listen to Microsoft! What better expert is there with regards to forcing things on the entire world?
I have the Superfocus "Truefocals"
Astonishingly, they work. I'm wearing them right now. I couldn't have continued computer work without them.
I searched and read everything, and decided to try them: good company, full 100% refund for 30 days when I bought them (and they pay shipping both ways).
I'm getting so I use them for many other things -- woodworking, reading small print on physical manuals.
They're 50% heavier than normal glasses. But the bottom line is: they work. I can adjust to any distance just by touching the slider. I wear them 8 hours a day; have for about six months now. If I broke them I'd buy another pair immediately.
Couldn't a pair of progressive lenses for a third the price do the same thing? I ask this as a serious question, as I have to replace my old glasses (which are progressive lenses).
I'd love a practical pair of variable magnification glasses for work.
Progressive lenses - about $60.
I suggest you check carefully the credits and contributors to said series. But again, how any of this deals with a response to a flippant Hitler remark on slashdot is beyond me.
Like Hitler, this story is over.
Shouldn't that read "Hubble telescope allows astronomers to confirm nature of mysterious green blob?" Unless, that is, there was a really big upgrade to the telescope that has been kept secret!
It's only that it is tycoons, politicians and lawyers the ones that *really* decide that, not philosophers.
That may be true, however, they are using philosophy when they do decide that, so in effect they are trying to be philosophers.
Unfortunately most tycoons, politicians and lawyers have never really studied philosophy, so when they try and be philosophers, they fail miserably at it.
Hey nice straw man you built there, please ignore the match ...WHOOSH! Where did I say they had NO impact? show me the quote please?
Your own words:
If the USA stayed out of the war in Europe the only changes would most likely be that Hitler might have taken England (which even then would have been doubtful as the "cash and carry" would have still allowed England to use the USA for manufacturing) but would have still fallen ultimately to Stalin
My mistake was saying "no" impact. A more accurate word, based on your comment would have been "minimal" or "insignificant" impact.
The war was over, the only question was how long would it take.
So the war was over in '41. To bad nobody told the rest of the world. Seems like a lot of people died in vain fighting a war that was over. Especially all those Americans, Canadians, etc. who arrived after it was already finished!
Whether Hitler had a chance of winning or not is the real strawman argument as it has nothing to do with any of this. The whole thread was about whether or not Americans, today, had the wherewithal to make the sacrifices for a cause, like against Hitler, as they did during WWII. That sacrifice also includes those who did not go to Europe, but were in the US dealing with shortages and rationing all for a war cause.
You have turned that original thread into your own thread regarding the impact that the America had in the war in Europe.
Nothing that you have posted, however, regarding Hitler or the US involvement in Europe or the Russians or anything else, is related to that or the OP. So before you accuse others of strawman arguments, please review your own arguments.
What you experienced in your philosophy class compared to classical philosophy is what the study of post-modern music (ie sound of marbles dropping in tin cans) is to classical music. Both serve their purpose, but in each case, one has become so esoteric that it ceases to be useful (as in your well put mental masturbation).
Me thinks you missed Feyerabend's point.
While the greek word philosophia literally means "friend of wisdom", the common-day philosopher tends to stare at their naval and wonder if they even exist more than they use anything which might resemble wisdom.
Meanwhile, the engineer is creating ways to save lives, feed millions, and travel to Mars.
I - personally - find it frustrating that we listen to the naval-staring philosopher, and forget what wisdom is in the same moment.
But is it not the philosopher that tells us whether we should be doing something or not? Science in and of itself can do all kinds of things. But it cannot answer the question of whether it should do those things. Science by it's very nature is amoral.
The splitting of an atom is something of science, whether it is used to harness energy or whether it is used to destroy something is where the philosophers come in.
Science cannot give wisdom, only knowledge. Wisdom comes from the philosopher.
The USA could have never set a single boot on the grounds of Europe and simply kept selling to the allies and I doubt anything would have come out differently, and this is coming from an American that had multiple family members fight in WWII in Europe. The simple fact is reading his communiques and plans Hitler bet everything on Russia being another France and Stalin proved him DEAD wrong. Hell the man didn't even have adequate winter gear for his troops! He was SO fucked!
Your "doubt" does not mean diddly squat as to how anything in the war would have turned out. You are free to believe that the US had no impact and if your only source of that believe is how misguided Hitler was, then so be it.
Bin Laden is pretty misguided, too, and yet his minions continue to fight on his behalf. Hitler, misguided as he might have been, still had troops and a war machine in Europe. They sure seemed pretty intent on fighting a war.
Japan's leaders were misguided, too. Even after their leaders new the war was lost, their soldiers continued to fight to the death.
Everyone I knew/know in the military will tell you time and time again, that battles are won or lost in the trenches, many times in spite of their general's f*ck'd up plans.
You, sir, do a disservice to the many Americans who gave their lives and limbs fighting a foreign war on a foreign soil.
Actually, I think we are very much in agreement and I would mod you up, if I had any mod points left.
Go fight Hitler? Did you miss History, or were you misinformed? The Americans basically sat back saying "meh. Not our business." for two years.
I know my history, what about you? Yes, the US sat out the first two years -- their own version of the Prime Directive, however, the next three and a half years, they made a major push in Europe that did change the outcome of the war.
It wasn't until the Japanese attacked the US that the Americans became involved - indeed, were it not for the pact whereby Germany and Italy were obliged to defend to Japan by declaring war on the US immediately after the US attacked Japan, there's a good chance we'd be speaking German in most of Europe today.
And how/why the US got there doesn't change the fact that, as you state, without them, we would all be speaking German in Europe.
Soylent Green: Why not get rid of the largest producers of green house gases, lower world population and have a new food source?
We're all willing to kick Hitler's ass or storm Washington DC with torches and sidearms in our heads, but the moment there's any risk -- even just the risk of losing our internet access or having a hassle at the airport security line -- we're all bitches. We're not really in a situation where we can afford to be anything else, I guess. No matter how justified we are in our principals and should do something, most of us really do have something to lose. It's not like we're mining "blood diamonds" and have nowhere to go but up.
WWII was 70 years ago. People in the US today are a lot different than back then. I'm not so sure they would make the sacrifices needed to go kick Hitler's ass, unless it was somehow threatening their consumeristic lifestyle. Even in their elections, the driving theme is are you better off today than you were four years ago, when the real question is where to we need to be tomorrow.
That said, Anonymous has done some things I thoroughly support (Scientology related, in particular) and some things that make me grin, even though I know it probably isn't helping things, over all. Some of their recent actions seem to have definitely risked the real cause, on which their actions sometimes reflect.
Anyway, if there is any time in your life where you can afford to be a snotty, spoiled, idealistic person rebelling against stuff, it's when you're a snotty little teen (and if you think these guys are even mostly teens, I think you're wrong). As soon as you're of age to be truly held accountable or persecuted and you have responsibilities and things to lose (your physical freedom, access to your cash, your home, your family, your job, your reputation, etc) -- you start falling into line. Idealism is a young man's game. As is just being an ass (though I, personally, have far exceeded the average years in which most people pursue that one!).
Anonymous is winning small battles in what they are doing, but ultimately will lose the war in whatever their perceived purpose is. The more they attack business interests, the more there will be laws enacted to crack down on actions like theirs. Before long, they will be labeled cyber terrorists with all of the negative government attention that will bring.
It's good to stand up for what you believe. It's even better to choose your fights carefully. Otherwise, you are really just being irresponsible because the consequences set in motion by indiscriminate action affect a lot more people than than the ones that signed on for your cause.
The real question that needs to be answered by the original poster is "What are you going to use it for?" Tablets look nice and all, but any real typing on them is problematic. I've used both a tablet and a netbook and writing papers or working on coding is an order of magnitude better on the netbook with a real keyboard vs a tablet. You simply cannot touch type on one.
If all you want to do is browse the net, check some emails and use facebook/twitter, then a tablet would be okay. But if you need to do real work, a reak keyboard wins every time. That's before even looking at the price difference. Most netbooks are 1/3 the cost of a tablet.
A tablet might make you feel cool, but a netbook means you are smart. In the long run, smart trumps cool.
While the story indicates that a motive has not yet been determined, it also states that she recently won a close and hotly contested race with a Tea Party candidate. Hopefully, it will not be found that the teenage shooter was not responding to the Tea Party rhetoric of if we can't win in the ballot box, we will win in the streets.
It is truly a shame, but something angered the shooter enough that he took it upon himself to "fix" a problem. I wonder if election campaigning were more civil and less mud slinging/hate mongering if this shooting would have occurred.
While many people on slashdot are of many different political views and seem to be able to discuss issues civilly (for the most part), there seem to be pockets of society in the US that are not able to do that. How does anyone expect to solve any of the issues in the US or world, when there isn't even enough respect of the human person to allow for differing opinions?
Whatever the cause of the shooting, it is truly a sad day.
I remember. And what I remember is that the request for information was a lot different in the Yahoo case and this subpoena. Comparing the two is like comparing the grilling of steroid using baseball players by the US Congress and China's human rights violations. All important things, but unfortunately not related.
The geatest risk to US innovation and continued dominance in Internet business is NOT regulation. It is the DoJ. In the future start ups are going to avoid the US because they can present the increased privacy as a selling point to consumers.
This is simply not true. The greatest risk is US policy that borderlines on fascism. The DOJ is just the legal enforcement arm of the US government. In otherwords, they are tasked with carrying out the enforcement of those policies which are set by others.. They, the DOJ, are not the problem themself and focussing on them as the problem allows for the real erosion of rights and privacy to occur unabated.
The article sounds like they are after info from key people known to be affiliated with Wikileaks.
The headline makes it sound like they wanted information on everybody on Twitter who has ever posted anything supportive of Wikileaks.
There is a rather significant difference between the two.
That is because if the headline were accurate, nobody would read the article.
BTW, I already commented on this article or I would have modded your post up (even though you are an Anonymous Coward).
Before everybody jumps to conclusions, from the actual subpoena, the information being turned over is contact information - names, mailing addresses, methods of payment, if applicable, ip addresses, etc., specifically excluded is the content of the tweets. In short, it appears they are 1) trying to see where the data came from -- if US, then US laws pervail, 2) how to contact individuals and 3) if money exchanged hands, from what countries did that occur.
These are all things that any investigation would look at. If this were 30 years ago, the subpoena would be to the phone companies instead of Twitter.
Since it was announced some time ago that the DOJ was investigating the leaks, there isn't any news here. If they had hacked Twitter to get the information, then that would have been newsworthy, but as it stands, it appears that the DOJ is following the laws in the US to obtain the information they are wanting in their investigation.
Uhhh... cockroaches have DNA
So do potatoes. But what both cockroaches and potatoes do not have is human DNA. Since you cannot be human without human DNA, that seems a pretty significant difference.
I'm not really wanting to discuss abortion. My point being, though, that at some point in the womb, whether at the beginning or just before birth, there is an unborn human and that unborn human has more human characteristics than a cockroach (as outlined in the original post).
I am not saying human DNA is the only factor of what gives us human characteristics, but it is an important one. That 4%-5% difference with chimps shows a lot of difference with just a small change. A cockroach is significantly further removed in genetic code.
I would posit, however, that it's not human characteristics = DNA but human DNA = human characteristics. Something other than human DNA gives something other than human characteristics, even though they may be similar. And that would be expected as there is much overlap in the DNA sequencing of all life.
[humming "Every sperm is sacred"] ...this stuff which is ~95% identical in chimps? "95% of human" - that's still more rights than adolescents, I think? Not to mention zygotes.
[/humming "Every sperm is sacred"]
Whether one holds that life begins at conception or sometime later, at some point before exiting the birth canal there is an unborn human, able to survive outside the womb.
The fact that chimps and humans share 96% (not 95) of their DNA and chimps are not human and cockroaches share even less DNA would seem to say that cockroaches do not have more human characteristics than an unborn human which has 100% human DNA.
This isn't a religious observation, but observable, measurable fact.