Never underestimate the stubbornness of sheer ignorance.
Tea Baggers want to "teach the controversy" of Evolution in School and allow texts of creationism to be taught. Continue to elect enough of them and it's possible in 15 years, kids won't believe in Evolution.
You never saw the earth at the beginning. Thus, all you've got are guesses. Unless you can somehow build a time machine.
Nope, we have more that guesses. We have science. Science makes predictions. For example, if we see a current species and a fossil that we believe is related to a current species, we can scientifically predict (NOT GUESS) that if the current species is actually related, we should be able to find a number of intermediate evolutionary species. These predictions have happened over and over. Predictions are also falsifiable and allow us to MODIFY our SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS to so that it is more factually correct.
Intelligent design and creationism do not allow for falsification or modification of their beliefs. Therefore, they are not science. In fact, they are EXACTLY the same UNCHANGED BELIEFS that some superstitious nomads in the dessert had several thousand years ago....
Creationists cry in a maligned voice "man did not come from apes or chimps". Scientist believe in the more reasonable assumption that the current species had common ancestors (not that one evolved from the other as they are all continuously evolving). And Science predicted we would find remains of human ancestors that had features more common to other hominds.
We can't "see" everything we need to understand. You can't see electrons acting as waveforms in an quantum silicon lattice. It's impossible. But understanding that behavior has led to transistors and modern computers. Science allows us to make extrapolations and discoveries and the same principles which are applied to your TV in the living room, your car in the garage, airplanes flying in the sky, modern medical treatments, are all similar to what is used to explain evolution. But if you want to believe you have people dancing in a little showbox in your living room, a magic chariot that needs no horse, a flying mystical metal bird, etc. then by all means, continue to believe in Creationism.
Kinda wierd to be releasing a product in 2012 that won't play 1080 video. I certainly wouldn't like a desktop on a 1280x720 display.
Some sites say the chip can do 1080, others only claim 720p. And if they are putting it on a *-ITX form factor would a SATA port have killed em to add? Any existing case will have this little guy rattling around in it, might as well have the option to put a small drive in. Sure Android probably won't use it but how many hours does anyone think it will take to get a more normal Linux distro on it?
And if one is naive enough to believe that all they need to do is work hard and they'll be a 1%'er; well, good luck with that.
The Republican model basically works on the idea that the super-rich should pay no taxes (the less a rich person pays the more jobs he creates) in an ideal economy. Or that some crazy flat tax like $5K a year -- If you make $20K a year you should pay $5K in taxes and if you make $100M you should pay $5K a year. In their minds, this is fair.
Approximately 50% of people support Republicans because they believe it is easy to get into the top 1% (or at least 5%) with a little work and effort if the gov't "doesn't interfere". Of course, there is a logical problem with everyone being in the top 1% just like "No Child Left Behind" which requires all children to score "Above Average" on standardized tests.
Perhaps there is a reason why Republicans always vote against funding for education and to water down maths and sciences with stuff like "creationism" classes.
Price-wise, Birang, speaking to Just Press Start, says the NUC will “not be in the hundreds and thousands range,” and that Intel is still looking at “different kinds of SKUs.” It almost certainly won’t be as cheap as the $25 Raspberry Pi, but a price point around $100 would be realistic. Judging by the heatsink and fan assembly, the NUC will probably come with a CPU pre-installed — and hopefully some RAM, too.
Plus from reading the article, it sounds like the $100 price point is what Intel is planning on targetting with some sort of Core-i series CPU included.
Yes, I wonder if they tested results with "organic fertilizer".
Also did they test crop rotation? Organic Sorghum may have lower production if grown without fertilizer unless it's grown the year after Soybeans or Alfalfa (nitrogen fixing) were grown in the same field -- in which case the production is as much as 50% higher.
This is the beauty of AMD, Intel and others going into details of why they are technically superior in a certain way. Then when cornered they say: yeah we're about the same but you can get a "faster" chip from us a little cheaper than the other guy. CPUs have become commodities in most people eyes: how much "make it go" do I get for my $200?
For what an average desktop neeps in gov't, you don't need to spend $200 on a CPU. Intel makes several CPU's that are capable of basic gaming for $80-$100.
Oh sorry... I didn't catch the part where it's an electrophoretic display just using those manufacturing techniques... not that actual type of display.
The main reason I ask this is I can read a number of books on my B&W eInk Kindle without recharging. In fact, it gets recharged only about once a month and I read nearly daily. A device with a display with active power requirements would probably need much more frequent charging.
It mentions a TFT substrate and calls it an eInk display. Correctly me if I'm wrong but TFT requires active power for a display while the idea of eInk is that once a display is "set", you do not use any power until you need to update / change the display.
I have one, the charge times are quite slow. To be honest, too slow.
Try to use a charger or a powered USB port that is rated for "fast" iPad charging -- These chargers/ports supply 1.5-2.0A rather than the USB minimum which is typically 500mA for a powered port but can be as low as 100mA per port on an unpowered hub. That said, simple math will tell you the new iPad takes a long time to charge. The device has a 42Wh battery and charges at 5V which requires 8.4Ah @ 5V to fully recharge. On a 500mA connection, that takes 16.8 hours and on a 100mA connection it takes a whopping 84 hours.
However, on a 2A connection (iPad rated), it takes only 4.2 hours. It's also worth noting that the iPad continues to charge for up to 1hr after it says it's 100% charged so real charging time is actually a little longer than what you might think.
The weight isn't really any different, the reason it's so uncomfortable to hold for long periods is the same as any other iPad, there's simply no good way to hold it without blocking or touching the screen.
FWIW, the iPad is much easier to hold than the smaller Kindle Fire. I have both and the Kindle Fire has such a thin boundary that thumb touches always accidentally register when trying to hold the device.
Amen brother... I wrote the concurrency library at our studio and a multicore memory system used in 2 of the top 10 console games of 2011 and while I'm aware of the issue of locks causing thread yields and have coded around the issue by implementing locks which spin before yielding, I've never heard the term "lock convoy" used to express thread starvation due to lock contention causing shortened processing quantums until now either.
One app at a time. If that app is smart enough to offload background tasks to a 2nd core, I'm already impressed.
Tablet programmers should know a little multithreading. Even if you have only a single core, offloading slower processing tasks to a second thread in the background allows you to have a snappy responsive main / UI thread.
As you mention Jesus spoke Aramaic -- However, that's all long lost oral tradition so it's impossible to know what he said exactly in Aramaic. All the early written accounts are in Greek and that's all we have to go on for actual concrete source material. It's impossible to know exactly how, when or why this was potentially mistranslated.
AAC is a lossy format. That said, it's much better than MP3 for the same data rates if you use a good encoder -- and if you start with a high-bitrate high-quality source, it can sound as good as a CD to 99% of listeners.
You do have to follow a number of guidelines or experiment with variables to get best results from what you are using as source to how you compress things (two-pass / filtering / vbr/cbr / etc).
I've done objective testing using the "best" recommended settings with professional audio guys in our sound department (listening but not knowing the format) for a game about to be released using AAC audio compressors from Quicktime (iTunes AAC), NeroAAC, and FFMpeg, At lower bitrates, Quicktime's AAC encoder was light years better than anything else. And at higher bitrates, it was indistinguishable from NeroAAC in my objective testing. FFMpeg's free AAC is sadly quite lacking. I have heard that FAAC is getting better for a free AAC codec but I did not get a chance to include it in my testing.
I work in the video game industry but this opinion is only my own. I personally don't think the costs are unreasonable.
Microsoft has a pretty stringent testing requirement for patches. It's not as simple as slapping up a new binary to download. It costs them money to test patches against technical requirements. There is bandwidth involved for downloading patches as well. The developers have to pay for the bandwidth and testing costs. Charging for patches also discourages sloppy software with lots of patching after the fact. Not all XBOX 360's even have hard drives so patches have to be relatively minor and fit on memory cards if necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Never underestimate the stubbornness of sheer ignorance.
Tea Baggers want to "teach the controversy" of Evolution in School and allow texts of creationism to be taught. Continue to elect enough of them and it's possible in 15 years, kids won't believe in Evolution.
You never saw the earth at the beginning. Thus, all you've got are guesses. Unless you can somehow build a time machine.
Nope, we have more that guesses. We have science. Science makes predictions. For example, if we see a current species and a fossil that we believe is related to a current species, we can scientifically predict (NOT GUESS) that if the current species is actually related, we should be able to find a number of intermediate evolutionary species. These predictions have happened over and over. Predictions are also falsifiable and allow us to MODIFY our SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS to so that it is more factually correct.
Intelligent design and creationism do not allow for falsification or modification of their beliefs. Therefore, they are not science. In fact, they are EXACTLY the same UNCHANGED BELIEFS that some superstitious nomads in the dessert had several thousand years ago....
Creationists cry in a maligned voice "man did not come from apes or chimps". Scientist believe in the more reasonable assumption that the current species had common ancestors (not that one evolved from the other as they are all continuously evolving). And Science predicted we would find remains of human ancestors that had features more common to other hominds.
We can't "see" everything we need to understand. You can't see electrons acting as waveforms in an quantum silicon lattice. It's impossible. But understanding that behavior has led to transistors and modern computers. Science allows us to make extrapolations and discoveries and the same principles which are applied to your TV in the living room, your car in the garage, airplanes flying in the sky, modern medical treatments, are all similar to what is used to explain evolution. But if you want to believe you have people dancing in a little showbox in your living room, a magic chariot that needs no horse, a flying mystical metal bird, etc. then by all means, continue to believe in Creationism.
Kinda wierd to be releasing a product in 2012 that won't play 1080 video. I certainly wouldn't like a desktop on a 1280x720 display.
Some sites say the chip can do 1080, others only claim 720p. And if they are putting it on a *-ITX form factor would a SATA port have killed em to add? Any existing case will have this little guy rattling around in it, might as well have the option to put a small drive in. Sure Android probably won't use it but how many hours does anyone think it will take to get a more normal Linux distro on it?
This is the chip they are supposedly using: WONDERMEDIA PRIZM WM8750
1080p is in the specs on that page. It doesn't have SATA but it does have USB 2.0 and a USB-to-SATA adapter is $6.99 on Newegg.
Wait - is this it???
Can someone post the 9 infringing lines of code here for us to see?
And if one is naive enough to believe that all they need to do is work hard and they'll be a 1%'er; well, good luck with that.
The Republican model basically works on the idea that the super-rich should pay no taxes (the less a rich person pays the more jobs he creates) in an ideal economy. Or that some crazy flat tax like $5K a year -- If you make $20K a year you should pay $5K in taxes and if you make $100M you should pay $5K a year. In their minds, this is fair.
Approximately 50% of people support Republicans because they believe it is easy to get into the top 1% (or at least 5%) with a little work and effort if the gov't "doesn't interfere". Of course, there is a logical problem with everyone being in the top 1% just like "No Child Left Behind" which requires all children to score "Above Average" on standardized tests.
Perhaps there is a reason why Republicans always vote against funding for education and to water down maths and sciences with stuff like "creationism" classes.
Price-wise, Birang, speaking to Just Press Start, says the NUC will “not be in the hundreds and thousands range,” and that Intel is still looking at “different kinds of SKUs.” It almost certainly won’t be as cheap as the $25 Raspberry Pi, but a price point around $100 would be realistic. Judging by the heatsink and fan assembly, the NUC will probably come with a CPU pre-installed — and hopefully some RAM, too.
CPUs that by themselves notably cost at least $250 right now?
To get to the Raspberry pi functionality, looking at $350 investment.
You can buy a 3.06GHz i3 for $100 from Amazon right now.
Plus from reading the article, it sounds like the $100 price point is what Intel is planning on targetting with some sort of Core-i series CPU included.
Actually shit would be organic fertilizer... :P
Yes, I wonder if they tested results with "organic fertilizer".
Also did they test crop rotation? Organic Sorghum may have lower production if grown without fertilizer unless it's grown the year after Soybeans or Alfalfa (nitrogen fixing) were grown in the same field -- in which case the production is as much as 50% higher.
This is the beauty of AMD, Intel and others going into details of why they are technically superior in a certain way. Then when cornered they say: yeah we're about the same but you can get a "faster" chip from us a little cheaper than the other guy. CPUs have become commodities in most people eyes: how much "make it go" do I get for my $200?
For what an average desktop neeps in gov't, you don't need to spend $200 on a CPU. Intel makes several CPU's that are capable of basic gaming for $80-$100.
"Streisand effect" anyone?
Naw... "Starbucks Effect" ... where anti-Gay protests causes your stocks to rise.
Supposedly Starbucks is doing so well that Microsoft and Apple want the Anti-Gay NOM Group to boycott them as well </satire>.
Oh sorry... I didn't catch the part where it's an electrophoretic display just using those manufacturing techniques... not that actual type of display.
Your link mentions AM-LCD and OLED using TFT. Again, both of those use active power to drive the display.
The main reason I ask this is I can read a number of books on my B&W eInk Kindle without recharging. In fact, it gets recharged only about once a month and I read nearly daily. A device with a display with active power requirements would probably need much more frequent charging.
It mentions a TFT substrate and calls it an eInk display. Correctly me if I'm wrong but TFT requires active power for a display while the idea of eInk is that once a display is "set", you do not use any power until you need to update / change the display.
My password is one, two, three, four, five.
That's amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage.
I have one, the charge times are quite slow. To be honest, too slow.
Try to use a charger or a powered USB port that is rated for "fast" iPad charging -- These chargers/ports supply 1.5-2.0A rather than the USB minimum which is typically 500mA for a powered port but can be as low as 100mA per port on an unpowered hub. That said, simple math will tell you the new iPad takes a long time to charge. The device has a 42Wh battery and charges at 5V which requires 8.4Ah @ 5V to fully recharge. On a 500mA connection, that takes 16.8 hours and on a 100mA connection it takes a whopping 84 hours.
However, on a 2A connection (iPad rated), it takes only 4.2 hours. It's also worth noting that the iPad continues to charge for up to 1hr after it says it's 100% charged so real charging time is actually a little longer than what you might think.
The weight isn't really any different, the reason it's so uncomfortable to hold for long periods is the same as any other iPad, there's simply no good way to hold it without blocking or touching the screen.
FWIW, the iPad is much easier to hold than the smaller Kindle Fire. I have both and the Kindle Fire has such a thin boundary that thumb touches always accidentally register when trying to hold the device.
Even take out the Prez if he threatens to sign any bill that would not be favourable of Microsoft.
Microsoft has a British Counter-Terror Department?
Thank Enron for finding loopholes to legalize oil derivatives in 2006 which led to a rapid doubling of gas prices.
Amen brother... I wrote the concurrency library at our studio and a multicore memory system used in 2 of the top 10 console games of 2011 and while I'm aware of the issue of locks causing thread yields and have coded around the issue by implementing locks which spin before yielding, I've never heard the term "lock convoy" used to express thread starvation due to lock contention causing shortened processing quantums until now either.
One app at a time. If that app is smart enough to offload background tasks to a 2nd core, I'm already impressed.
Tablet programmers should know a little multithreading. Even if you have only a single core, offloading slower processing tasks to a second thread in the background allows you to have a snappy responsive main / UI thread.
As you mention Jesus spoke Aramaic -- However, that's all long lost oral tradition so it's impossible to know what he said exactly in Aramaic. All the early written accounts are in Greek and that's all we have to go on for actual concrete source material. It's impossible to know exactly how, when or why this was potentially mistranslated.
AAC is a lossy format. That said, it's much better than MP3 for the same data rates if you use a good encoder -- and if you start with a high-bitrate high-quality source, it can sound as good as a CD to 99% of listeners.
/cbr / etc).
You do have to follow a number of guidelines or experiment with variables to get best results from what you are using as source to how you compress things (two-pass / filtering / vbr
I've done objective testing using the "best" recommended settings with professional audio guys in our sound department (listening but not knowing the format) for a game about to be released using AAC audio compressors from Quicktime (iTunes AAC), NeroAAC, and FFMpeg, At lower bitrates, Quicktime's AAC encoder was light years better than anything else. And at higher bitrates, it was indistinguishable from NeroAAC in my objective testing. FFMpeg's free AAC is sadly quite lacking. I have heard that FAAC is getting better for a free AAC codec but I did not get a chance to include it in my testing.
According to some scholars, the Greek word camilos (rope) was accidentally miscopied as camelos (camel).
I work in the video game industry but this opinion is only my own. I personally don't think the costs are unreasonable.
Microsoft has a pretty stringent testing requirement for patches. It's not as simple as slapping up a new binary to download. It costs them money to test patches against technical requirements. There is bandwidth involved for downloading patches as well. The developers have to pay for the bandwidth and testing costs. Charging for patches also discourages sloppy software with lots of patching after the fact. Not all XBOX 360's even have hard drives so patches have to be relatively minor and fit on memory cards if necessary.