There is no way that any alien civilization could ever itself get into space, much less travel to other stars, without an extremely good understanding of mathematics and number systems.
The chances of an alien race not understanding integers is infinitesimally small.
Didn't Steve Jobs say publicly that a tablet any smaller than the iPad is useless as a tablet and if its bigger than the iPhone its useless as a phone, aiming directly at the 7" Android tablets hitting the market?
You do realize you just further emphasized his point, right?
Not at all. His point was calling the iPad a toy — which is absolutely is not.
An iPad is good for consuming content, not creating content... what you mention here is the consumption of content in the form of an ebook. Try typing a document on your iPad.
Typing on an iPad sucks, IMHO, using the on-screen keyboard. Typing on it using a BlueTooth keyboard isn't bad. At that point, you're probably better off having a laptop computer, though. However, this still doesn't make an iPad a toy. Nor is the Kindle a toy. The issue of consumption vs. creation has nothing to do with whether or not a device is a toy.
You obviously can't play dvd or bluray, and unless you've jailbroken it you can't connect a usb hard drive to play your movies off.
Correct. You can't directly play DVD or Blu-Ray movies on an iPad. However, they play quite nicely on an iPad after transcoding them with HandBrake. It's not difficult.
Then you haven't used very good LCDs. The color gamut is noticeably inferior next to my 5 year old LCD and is laughable next to my sub $200 LED monitor.
What make/model? I'd like to go check one out in the store and see for myself.
By the way, when you say "LED" do you mean LED-backlit LCD display, or actual LED display?
Yes, I am talking about the iPad "3". Maybe you are comparing it to the mac displays that are 5 years behind in technology but priced like they are 5 years ahead.
I'm comparing the color gamut to other Apple displays, yes. Also the iPad 3 to the iPad 2. The iPad 3 has significantly better colors than the iPad 2.
I would never read a book on a nasty glossy screen like that.
I notice absolutely no glare when I'm reading on my iPad. That's because the background "paper" is bright white. I also don't try to read outdoors.
They should impose sin taxes on these screens to compensate for the higher insurance rates everyone has to pay because of the eye cancer.
Ha. Eye cancer, huh? Care to back up that claim with a citation?
I forgot to say that if you were talking about the iPad 2, then I would totally agree with you... The iPad 2 sucks for reading. The iPad 3, however, is heavenly.
This is what I can never get about this "great media consumption device". At best, it does a lot of different media consumption quite badly, meaning that you still can't replace all the dedicated devices.
The iPad is actually quite good at playing videos. The problem, in my personal opinion, is that it doesn't support very many media types. For example, I have to transcode any MKV file into an M4V file to play it on my iPad. But it does play quite nicely — and using the HDMI output to send it to a TV is quite nice too. (Damn adapter is too expensive, though.)
It'll play MP3s, but you can't exactly use it down a gym. It'll play movies, but a 10" screen with no stand isn't as good as a laptop, let alone a 32" TV. It'll give you eBooks but a kindle is far easier to read
In terms of screen size, it all depends on your viewing distance. The iPad 3 plays 1080p content in all its glory — no downsizing. If you view that from 18" away, it's the same as viewing a 32" TV from 5 feet away, in terms of picture size. I was surprised how comfortable it felt for me to watch movies on my iPad on an airplane, for example.
A laptop is actually a better "media consumption device". Larger screen, self-supporting. Every single service that can give you content on an iPad is also available on a PC, and a PC allows you to watch a load of internet media that you can't get on an iPad. You can watch a Blu-Ray or DVD. You can plug in your movie library via USB. You have far more storage space. If you want to put it on a TV, you need nothing more than an HDMI cable.
You can do all this with an iPad. You can output video with an HDMI cable to a tv from an iPad. I've done it.
You can also watch Blu-Ray and DVD movies on an iPad — after transcoding them. They play quite nicely.
Unless you want eye cancer iPads are terrible for reading books
Well, I strenuously disagree with you on that. I love my iPad 3 for reading books. I use the GoodReader app — it's awesome. I like it better than my Kindle and actually I like it better than physical books.
An eReader with an e-Ink display is a million times better.
I have to disagree with you on that. All the e-ink displays I've ever seen have rather poor resolution, and even the best ones have lower contrast than a paper page. For reading text, the iPad 3 smokes the pants off any e-ink display I've seen. If you're worried about brightness, you can simply turn the brightness down. In my experience, it's just as comfortable as paper for reading if the brightness is adjusted to match the ambient light reflection levels of paper.
And the "retina display" isn't all that special either. The resolution is good but that is it. The color gamut and contrast are mediocre at best.
I vehemently disagree on that. My iPad 3's color gamut is amazing. It's the crispest, most colorful LCD screen I've ever had the pleasure to use. The colors are incredible. Deep blues, bright reds, gorgeous purples and greens. Extremely high contrast.
Multi-touch applications for painting and arranging photos? You really are going to drag individual photos with your fingers to arrange them or navigate through some other gimmicky interface to arrange your photos? It doesn't feel more natural it feels like inefficient grunt work.
I myself haven't done this, but I know people who have, and they seem to enjoy it. It's more intuitive for some people than using a mouse.
I disagree with you —mostly. I agree with you that they were foolish to trade their laptops for iPads, given their apparent requirements. However, an iPad is most certainly not a toy. It might not be a tool in the same sense as a laptop, but it's much better than a laptop for certain types of things. For example, reading books on an iPad (version 3 with retina display) is a far, far better experience than reading on a laptop or desktop screen. There's just no comparison. Also consider multi-touch applications like painting or arranging photos. It just feels more natural on the iPad.
It's 4 times the 1-dimensional resolution (in each of the two dimensions horizontal and vertical) and it's 16 times the 2-dimensional resolution. Yes, it's also 16 times the total pixel count.
"Resolution" is not inherently 1-dimensional. In fact, resolution is quite often a 2-dimensional quantity, e.g., 1920x1080 (note the multiplication of two 1-dimensional scalar quantities). Resolution of display screens is typically quoted as a 1-dimensional number because it is assumed that the horizontal and vertical resolutions are the same, but it is more accurate to state the resolution as the product of both.
Don't use cp.
cp doesn't preserve hard links and symlinks. When cp copies a symlink, it follows the link and copies that file, rather than copying the symlink.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no way that any alien civilization could ever itself get into space, much less travel to other stars, without an extremely good understanding of mathematics and number systems.
The chances of an alien race not understanding integers is infinitesimally small.
Of course he did. It's called misdirection.
Discriminated against based on wage??? I think you mean discriminated against based on gender.
You know what? I'll tell you something... Every person is different. Just because it isn't of value to you doesn't mean it's not of value to others.
Not at all. His point was calling the iPad a toy — which is absolutely is not.
Typing on an iPad sucks, IMHO, using the on-screen keyboard. Typing on it using a BlueTooth keyboard isn't bad. At that point, you're probably better off having a laptop computer, though. However, this still doesn't make an iPad a toy. Nor is the Kindle a toy. The issue of consumption vs. creation has nothing to do with whether or not a device is a toy.
Correct. You can't directly play DVD or Blu-Ray movies on an iPad. However, they play quite nicely on an iPad after transcoding them with HandBrake. It's not difficult.
What make/model? I'd like to go check one out in the store and see for myself. By the way, when you say "LED" do you mean LED-backlit LCD display, or actual LED display?
I'm comparing the color gamut to other Apple displays, yes. Also the iPad 3 to the iPad 2. The iPad 3 has significantly better colors than the iPad 2.
I notice absolutely no glare when I'm reading on my iPad. That's because the background "paper" is bright white. I also don't try to read outdoors.
Ha. Eye cancer, huh? Care to back up that claim with a citation?
I forgot to say that if you were talking about the iPad 2, then I would totally agree with you... The iPad 2 sucks for reading. The iPad 3, however, is heavenly.
The iPad is actually quite good at playing videos. The problem, in my personal opinion, is that it doesn't support very many media types. For example, I have to transcode any MKV file into an M4V file to play it on my iPad. But it does play quite nicely — and using the HDMI output to send it to a TV is quite nice too. (Damn adapter is too expensive, though.)
In terms of screen size, it all depends on your viewing distance. The iPad 3 plays 1080p content in all its glory — no downsizing. If you view that from 18" away, it's the same as viewing a 32" TV from 5 feet away, in terms of picture size. I was surprised how comfortable it felt for me to watch movies on my iPad on an airplane, for example.
You can do all this with an iPad. You can output video with an HDMI cable to a tv from an iPad. I've done it.
You can also watch Blu-Ray and DVD movies on an iPad — after transcoding them. They play quite nicely.
Well, I strenuously disagree with you on that. I love my iPad 3 for reading books. I use the GoodReader app — it's awesome. I like it better than my Kindle and actually I like it better than physical books.
I have to disagree with you on that. All the e-ink displays I've ever seen have rather poor resolution, and even the best ones have lower contrast than a paper page. For reading text, the iPad 3 smokes the pants off any e-ink display I've seen. If you're worried about brightness, you can simply turn the brightness down. In my experience, it's just as comfortable as paper for reading if the brightness is adjusted to match the ambient light reflection levels of paper.
I vehemently disagree on that. My iPad 3's color gamut is amazing. It's the crispest, most colorful LCD screen I've ever had the pleasure to use. The colors are incredible. Deep blues, bright reds, gorgeous purples and greens. Extremely high contrast.
I myself haven't done this, but I know people who have, and they seem to enjoy it. It's more intuitive for some people than using a mouse.
> An ipad is a toy. A laptop is a tool. Idiots.
I disagree with you —mostly. I agree with you that they were foolish to trade their laptops for iPads, given their apparent requirements. However, an iPad is most certainly not a toy. It might not be a tool in the same sense as a laptop, but it's much better than a laptop for certain types of things. For example, reading books on an iPad (version 3 with retina display) is a far, far better experience than reading on a laptop or desktop screen. There's just no comparison. Also consider multi-touch applications like painting or arranging photos. It just feels more natural on the iPad.
Or subject other people to maintaining his code for a year and see how many questions arise.
Let's see a sample of your code, there, cowboy.
Wrong. It concludes that the difference in pesticide levels has an RD (Risk Difference) of 30%, which is statistically significant.
> However, the study did find that organic foods have 31 percent lower levels of pesticides,
No, no, no, no, no, no no.
A difference of 38% and 7% is not a 31% decrease — it is an 81.5% decrease.
The organic foods had an 81.5% lower chance of having at least one pesticide detected.
Up and Funny.
I wish I had mod points right now.
It's 4 times the 1-dimensional resolution (in each of the two dimensions horizontal and vertical) and it's 16 times the 2-dimensional resolution. Yes, it's also 16 times the total pixel count.
"Resolution" is not inherently 1-dimensional. In fact, resolution is quite often a 2-dimensional quantity, e.g., 1920x1080 (note the multiplication of two 1-dimensional scalar quantities). Resolution of display screens is typically quoted as a 1-dimensional number because it is assumed that the horizontal and vertical resolutions are the same, but it is more accurate to state the resolution as the product of both.
It's 4x the resolution in each of the two dimensions (horizontal and vertical); it's 16x the resolution overall.
No, it's because the drives are natively capable of that speed over FireWire. Not using RAID of any sort.
> Because downloading 3.6Tb to restore from a backup for just one day is pretty ridiculous for someone on a home broadband?
3.6 terabits isn't that much.
> Hell, the school I work for try to back up 10Gb to a remote server each night and it often fails because it took too long
100 gigabits isn't that much.
I get ~80 MB/sec read/write on my WD Green drives over FireWire 800.
Don't use cp.
cp doesn't preserve hard links and symlinks. When cp copies a symlink, it follows the link and copies that file, rather than copying the symlink.
cp is a very bad idea for archiving.
rsync or tar are what you want.
Electron volts per eye roll?