These people have probably bought Office for Christ's sake. They obviously don't care about bloatware of wasted CPU cycles.
Hey now. Office doesn't consume nearly the memory or CPU on my machine that iTunes does. Only Eclipse with a handful of plug-ins or older versions of Firefox are even really competitive with iTunes in that respect.
Interesting philosophy. I didn't know plants experienced happiness or sadness.
Probably that's why he put happiness in quotes. It's shorthand for a much longer explanation.
Plants seek out things that help them live/prosper. They turn towards light, etc. This doesn't require conscience thought or a brain on their part; they've just evolved in a way such that this is true.
If you disagree, forming a counterargument is more useful than nitpicking the word choice.
Apple has it's strategy right because they are making money from their social network (through music) and can thus outlive the non-profit social networks in existence.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Facebook's made over a billion dollars already this year.
Is that as much as Apple will make this year, no, but in no one's fevered, insane imaginings is it a non-profit social network.
That's not quite accurate -- you said that Ping would kill Facebook. Without really knowing jack about it.
I still think that's funny and/or you're trolling, although I also think an article about Apple coming in through the backdoor is inherently funny and invites numerous lube jokes.
If so, doesn't it at all make you second guess yourself to think that the religion you think is most plausible just happens to be one your parents indoctrinated you into?
Bonus question:
Do you suppose a random ancient Greek person felt any differently about the surety of their faith? After all, their gods were involved in the fall of Troy -- that's just a matter of history.
With that logic you'd have to believe in absolutely everything. Ghosts, Vampires, Aliens, FSM, Unicorns, goblins, drangons, orcs, elves (short and tall), Fraggles, Transformers, ninja turtles, Voltron, Zerg, absolutely anything that anyone could dream of.
For some reason this makes me imagine a person in deadly peril shouting, "Save me, hydralisk!"
I sincerely hope that was a sardonic statement. If that's the condition of people in general today, we're going to have a sticky few decades ahead of us.
I don't think there's anything unreasonable about what he said. If you're having an argument or discussion with someone and you believe a book that you read would convince them that you're correct, the least you can do is give them the gist of what the book is about and why you think it's relevant. If they want to know more or are interested, then they can read the book -- but it's kind of asinine to say, "Oh, just read book X and you'll realize there has to be a God."
If you disagree with me, go ahead and read Don Quixote (again, if necessary) and you'll see I'm right.
Wikileaks is not journalism. It has its value, certainly. In some ways it's complimentary to traditional journalism; in other ways it's essentially supplanted or usurped roles held by traditional journalism. But it's not the same thing.
It has freedoms and advantages journalists don't; conversely, it's in our best interest as a society that journalists have some additional protections that the rest of us that aren't journalists don't need. Hell, dictionary.com publishes a lot of information/documents I find useful, but it's not a journalist and doesn't need this shield law either.
Let's also not forget that the greater freedom Wikileaks enjoys also means less checks on its power. Maybe Julian Assange is the second coming of the religious figure of your choice and he'd never allow anything to be published that isn't true or misleading, but that doesn't mean that (insert name of person associated with political group or religious group that you dislike) won't create WhateverLeaks tomorrow and "leak" a bunch of bogus documents with the same freedoms. Our systems of law need to plan for the worst among us as well as the best.
But this is Slashdot, where anything related to Wikileaks mostly qualifies for knee-jerk support or condemnation, as appropriate, rather than any kind of rational analysis.
You're right. It's for the people you know who live in Brazil who aren't on Facebook. (In my case that's an empty set -- my Brazilians are on Facebook or LinkedIn as appropriate.)
Nah. It's not killing Facebook. It's just a further fragmenting of the social networking world.
You've got Facebook for social networking with most of the people you know.
You've got MySpace for networking with the teenagers you know that are still living in 2005.
You've got Twitter for the people you know who think you'd like a play by play of every meaningless event of their day, or who like to regurgitate political talking points in 140 character form.
You've got LinkedIn for people you know professionally.
Now you'll have Ping for the hipster douchebags you know. Since some people are or know a lot of douchebags, it could be a big success, but I still don't see it overtaking Facebook at this point.
I'm not surprised. But then I'm not surprised you read the history/design of the internet in such a way that it seems to say exactly what you'd like it to say
My post doesn't say what I think it should say, though. You're assuming.:)
Essentially, AT&T is arguing that because the idea of service classes is built into packet headers, the internet is not meant to have net neutrality.
Their opponents argue, essentially, that the service classes are there for a given end user entity to prioritize traffic by class if they choose, not for the telecom companies to do so.
Honestly, who could be surprised that AT&T reads the history/design of the internet in such a way that it seems to say exactly what they'd like it to say? This isn't any different from a corporate version of the phenomena in which a person interprets the holy text of their religion in such a way that it just happens to say that they should hate things or people that they already hate.
Big O is plenty real world; you either implicitly understand it (if maybe not under that name) or you're a terrible architect.
The main point being: let's say I have an operation that takes 10 seconds with the 100 records in my dev databse. If the production database has 10,000 records, will my operation take 1000 seconds to finish? Less than 1000 seconds? Or will it take much, much longer?
Somebody who conceptually understands the Big O concept (even if you can't necessarily crunch the math behind it) will understand when they're implementing something that is not scalable.
Slashdot Mirror
These people have probably bought Office for Christ's sake. They obviously don't care about bloatware of wasted CPU cycles.
Hey now. Office doesn't consume nearly the memory or CPU on my machine that iTunes does. Only Eclipse with a handful of plug-ins or older versions of Firefox are even really competitive with iTunes in that respect.
Which gets sadder the more I think about it.
Interesting philosophy. I didn't know plants experienced happiness or sadness.
Probably that's why he put happiness in quotes. It's shorthand for a much longer explanation.
Plants seek out things that help them live/prosper. They turn towards light, etc. This doesn't require conscience thought or a brain on their part; they've just evolved in a way such that this is true.
If you disagree, forming a counterargument is more useful than nitpicking the word choice.
If Microsoft had called something that isn't ping Ping, it would have been blasphemy. A ton of people would be ranting about it.
Apple gets a pass on that because... I'm not exactly sure why.
I had the same thought.
Another example: that service for syncing an iPhone with your computer. iTunes won't start without that installed and running.
Apple has it's strategy right because they are making money from their social network (through music) and can thus outlive the non-profit social networks in existence.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Facebook's made over a billion dollars already this year.
Is that as much as Apple will make this year, no, but in no one's fevered, insane imaginings is it a non-profit social network.
That's not quite accurate -- you said that Ping would kill Facebook. Without really knowing jack about it.
I still think that's funny and/or you're trolling, although I also think an article about Apple coming in through the backdoor is inherently funny and invites numerous lube jokes.
Serious questions:
Were you raised Christian?
If so, doesn't it at all make you second guess yourself to think that the religion you think is most plausible just happens to be one your parents indoctrinated you into?
Bonus question:
Do you suppose a random ancient Greek person felt any differently about the surety of their faith? After all, their gods were involved in the fall of Troy -- that's just a matter of history.
With that logic you'd have to believe in absolutely everything. Ghosts, Vampires, Aliens, FSM, Unicorns, goblins, drangons, orcs, elves (short and tall), Fraggles, Transformers, ninja turtles, Voltron, Zerg, absolutely anything that anyone could dream of.
For some reason this makes me imagine a person in deadly peril shouting, "Save me, hydralisk!"
consider the possibility that there really is a God but he's a dick.
Yeah, I always thought Decartes' proof to the contrary was dubious, too.
No doubt. I don't think Zeus will think much of their blasphemy.
They live their whole lives doing what they want, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything greater than themselves.
Alternately: Everyone does what they want. Some people choose to rationalize their choices based on a fairy tale.
I sincerely hope that was a sardonic statement. If that's the condition of people in general today, we're going to have a sticky few decades ahead of us.
I don't think there's anything unreasonable about what he said. If you're having an argument or discussion with someone and you believe a book that you read would convince them that you're correct, the least you can do is give them the gist of what the book is about and why you think it's relevant. If they want to know more or are interested, then they can read the book -- but it's kind of asinine to say, "Oh, just read book X and you'll realize there has to be a God."
If you disagree with me, go ahead and read Don Quixote (again, if necessary) and you'll see I'm right.
Good recent example of real journalism in action: the dude from Rolling Stone in Afghanistan.
Basically, it's my opinion that even if 99% of journalism is crap, the 1% that isn't is worth encouraging and protecting.
Committing violence is never the way to gain true followers.
Violence is like XML -- if it's not solving your problem, you're not using enough of it!
(See, naysayers! We can turn anything into News for Nerds.)
This.
Wikileaks is not journalism. It has its value, certainly. In some ways it's complimentary to traditional journalism; in other ways it's essentially supplanted or usurped roles held by traditional journalism. But it's not the same thing.
It has freedoms and advantages journalists don't; conversely, it's in our best interest as a society that journalists have some additional protections that the rest of us that aren't journalists don't need. Hell, dictionary.com publishes a lot of information/documents I find useful, but it's not a journalist and doesn't need this shield law either.
Let's also not forget that the greater freedom Wikileaks enjoys also means less checks on its power. Maybe Julian Assange is the second coming of the religious figure of your choice and he'd never allow anything to be published that isn't true or misleading, but that doesn't mean that (insert name of person associated with political group or religious group that you dislike) won't create WhateverLeaks tomorrow and "leak" a bunch of bogus documents with the same freedoms. Our systems of law need to plan for the worst among us as well as the best.
But this is Slashdot, where anything related to Wikileaks mostly qualifies for knee-jerk support or condemnation, as appropriate, rather than any kind of rational analysis.
Or, maybe they're not cowardly, they just don't believe in the same things that you do.
You forgot Orkut.
You're right. It's for the people you know who live in Brazil who aren't on Facebook. (In my case that's an empty set -- my Brazilians are on Facebook or LinkedIn as appropriate.)
I'll admit I didn't read Anathem yet, and my criticism does not properly include it.
If he's turned a corner I'll pick it up. I've liked his earlier books right about up until the point that literary blue balls set in.
Nah. It's not killing Facebook. It's just a further fragmenting of the social networking world.
You've got Facebook for social networking with most of the people you know.
You've got MySpace for networking with the teenagers you know that are still living in 2005.
You've got Twitter for the people you know who think you'd like a play by play of every meaningless event of their day, or who like to regurgitate political talking points in 140 character form.
You've got LinkedIn for people you know professionally.
Now you'll have Ping for the hipster douchebags you know. Since some people are or know a lot of douchebags, it could be a big success, but I still don't see it overtaking Facebook at this point.
The question is, will this new platform allow the author to add an ending to a novel?
As an author, Stephenson rides the reader hard and puts them away wet, so to speak. It'd be nice if he'd address that first.
If that's what they're arguing, frankly, they're absolutely full of shit.
You have a better handle on this topic than I do, so you might want to read the article and double-check what I wrote.
It's possible I inadvertantly simplified what the article said too far.
I'm not surprised. But then I'm not surprised you read the history/design of the internet in such a way that it seems to say exactly what you'd like it to say
My post doesn't say what I think it should say, though. You're assuming. :)
Man, that's a short summary.
Essentially, AT&T is arguing that because the idea of service classes is built into packet headers, the internet is not meant to have net neutrality.
Their opponents argue, essentially, that the service classes are there for a given end user entity to prioritize traffic by class if they choose, not for the telecom companies to do so.
Honestly, who could be surprised that AT&T reads the history/design of the internet in such a way that it seems to say exactly what they'd like it to say? This isn't any different from a corporate version of the phenomena in which a person interprets the holy text of their religion in such a way that it just happens to say that they should hate things or people that they already hate.
Big O is plenty real world; you either implicitly understand it (if maybe not under that name) or you're a terrible architect.
The main point being: let's say I have an operation that takes 10 seconds with the 100 records in my dev databse. If the production database has 10,000 records, will my operation take 1000 seconds to finish? Less than 1000 seconds? Or will it take much, much longer?
Somebody who conceptually understands the Big O concept (even if you can't necessarily crunch the math behind it) will understand when they're implementing something that is not scalable.
Yeah, great example... rationalize one stupid law by the irrationality of another one.
If you think it's stupid, suggest a better idea. I don't think you can.