That wouldn't happen because it's not money stolen from the US, but corporations, or property stolen by the same entities the US is indebted to in the first place.
It'd be like me demanding a free burger at McDonalds because I forgot to take my change from Burger King last week.
I disagree for two reasons, one, a bad connection to the map really drives the point home and secondly, for those who simply can't access it, the problem is out of sight and so out of mind. Ignorance is bliss after all!
Besides, we all know that those 10 people are probably responsible for 99% of the internet's traffic so they don't deserve to see the map.
Why don't they just install cell phone signal jammers where there shouldn't be any cell phones. Without the ability to use the phones, the market will just disappear.
That's like my kids demanding that I tell them what we're eating for dinner next July. Not only would answering that question be silly because it'd be purely guesswork, many things will change between now and then and the decision will ultimately change, drastically, based on what's in the fridge at that time. It just seems like such a useless question to ask; I mean it's in their best interest to choose the best person for the job at the time, shareholders should know and fully agree with that.
They are the future in the sense that most users don't need the processing power of a desktop in a portable device. The internet has made dumb terminals extremely useful again and a much smarter choice for financial and efficiency reasons. Why have a multi-gigaflop processor in a tiny device that you're not going to use the render graphics or the likes anyway?
As far as Honeycomb is considered, I'm assuming the major issues are power consumption and overall architecture. You don't need your phone to do everything, just a few things really well, whereas tablets are the jack of all trades, and can fit that larger chipset and battery.
An application is '[something] that can be used to accomplish [something]", and 'app' is the abbreviation thereof... so by that definition which is pretty general but also common agreed upon, the abbreviation 'app' is used as properly as any other word.
I think the average Joe will understand it to mean 'a computer based tool', and so really it's quite accurate. Those who have defined it in their own minds to mean a PC standalone program are guilty of defining it improperly in the first place, but those same people will also likely understand exactly what Google, Apple, etc... are describing. In any case, language is not a science, you're not supposed to have 100% black or white definitions. As long as people understand what's being put forward, there's no problem, in fact, that is a sign of success for a language.
It's because in previous years there was no commercially accessible GPS solution. And we all know that 5 must be an infinite times larger than 0; heck I can't even find the number to multiply 0 by to get 5!
Classic propaganda from someone who obviously has no direct contact with anyone who actually consumes the stuff. The people I know who do consume it are more caring and intelligent than those I see constantly opposing it's existence.
but.... haters gonna hate.
If your 'code' was a 'paper', and your IDE (Word) would catch 98% of the structural and grammar mistakes. You wouldn't be describing english as having a fundamental flaw just because because a machine can help us type....
Computational power is definitely growing, but so are the requirements of the software that runs on them. Microsoft Word isn't any faster today than it was ten years ago, yet our computers are many times more powerful and more capable.
Isn't it amazing to think that ten years ago, it was the year 2000. Time really does fly.
"2. Make a camera with multiple 2D sensors placed at different focal lengths, and somehow transparentified, perhaps with half silvered mirrors.
This more complex camera can shorten the exposure time significantly, if there is enough light."
You want them to create a lens designed to capture light AND be transparent? I think you missed a few physics classes back in high school.
The right to travel and the right to privacy can co-exist just fine even with these new regulations. Don't forget that you can travel using your own two feet, a bike, a car, a boat, etc... all without being groped.
because the world has a population problem. Somehow, by some evil logic, it makes way more sense to create weapons than to save the poor and starving only to have twice their numbers needing to be saved in 20 years time.
How in the world are you going to achieve security if you don't at least take some basic measures to protect your users. The internet should remain open but I applaud Facebook for protecting users who don't know well enough to protect themselves. I've been doing research recently into phishing attacks and it's as simple as getting any user to surf to a webpage that you point him to in order to gain complete control over their machine.
The main counter argument anyway is that no one is forced to use facebook for their messaging needs, but given the amount of users already on facebook, it'll be rare to see people NOT use the service... this is a win-win for facebook and for users. Finally an organization is taking responsibility for protecting their users instead of expecting everybody to be a security and privacy expert.
Slashdot Mirror
That wouldn't happen because it's not money stolen from the US, but corporations, or property stolen by the same entities the US is indebted to in the first place. It'd be like me demanding a free burger at McDonalds because I forgot to take my change from Burger King last week.
I disagree for two reasons, one, a bad connection to the map really drives the point home and secondly, for those who simply can't access it, the problem is out of sight and so out of mind. Ignorance is bliss after all! Besides, we all know that those 10 people are probably responsible for 99% of the internet's traffic so they don't deserve to see the map.
Anyone with enough money has business to use a computer, how else they going to access Slashdot?
What? Are you serious?
what's so wrong with being dead?
Why don't they just install cell phone signal jammers where there shouldn't be any cell phones. Without the ability to use the phones, the market will just disappear.
That's like my kids demanding that I tell them what we're eating for dinner next July. Not only would answering that question be silly because it'd be purely guesswork, many things will change between now and then and the decision will ultimately change, drastically, based on what's in the fridge at that time. It just seems like such a useless question to ask; I mean it's in their best interest to choose the best person for the job at the time, shareholders should know and fully agree with that.
They are the future in the sense that most users don't need the processing power of a desktop in a portable device. The internet has made dumb terminals extremely useful again and a much smarter choice for financial and efficiency reasons. Why have a multi-gigaflop processor in a tiny device that you're not going to use the render graphics or the likes anyway? As far as Honeycomb is considered, I'm assuming the major issues are power consumption and overall architecture. You don't need your phone to do everything, just a few things really well, whereas tablets are the jack of all trades, and can fit that larger chipset and battery.
An application is '[something] that can be used to accomplish [something]", and 'app' is the abbreviation thereof... so by that definition which is pretty general but also common agreed upon, the abbreviation 'app' is used as properly as any other word. I think the average Joe will understand it to mean 'a computer based tool', and so really it's quite accurate. Those who have defined it in their own minds to mean a PC standalone program are guilty of defining it improperly in the first place, but those same people will also likely understand exactly what Google, Apple, etc... are describing. In any case, language is not a science, you're not supposed to have 100% black or white definitions. As long as people understand what's being put forward, there's no problem, in fact, that is a sign of success for a language.
It's because in previous years there was no commercially accessible GPS solution. And we all know that 5 must be an infinite times larger than 0; heck I can't even find the number to multiply 0 by to get 5!
geeks with strange science projects still not getting any.
Classic propaganda from someone who obviously has no direct contact with anyone who actually consumes the stuff. The people I know who do consume it are more caring and intelligent than those I see constantly opposing it's existence. but.... haters gonna hate.
which rock are you living under? Apple already has a very successful player app called Quicktime, ever heard of it?
It's called OpenID, http://www.openid.net./ move along, nothing to see here.
what "Desktop" user needs that much, or even runs an operating system that can address it?
If your 'code' was a 'paper', and your IDE (Word) would catch 98% of the structural and grammar mistakes. You wouldn't be describing english as having a fundamental flaw just because because a machine can help us type....
Computational power is definitely growing, but so are the requirements of the software that runs on them. Microsoft Word isn't any faster today than it was ten years ago, yet our computers are many times more powerful and more capable. Isn't it amazing to think that ten years ago, it was the year 2000. Time really does fly.
Giant colored font batman!
"2. Make a camera with multiple 2D sensors placed at different focal lengths, and somehow transparentified, perhaps with half silvered mirrors. This more complex camera can shorten the exposure time significantly, if there is enough light." You want them to create a lens designed to capture light AND be transparent? I think you missed a few physics classes back in high school.
The right to travel and the right to privacy can co-exist just fine even with these new regulations. Don't forget that you can travel using your own two feet, a bike, a car, a boat, etc... all without being groped.
cinagold or goldamon? hmm, the second one sounds like a Pokemon...
I guess the best hiding place is right out in public.
because the world has a population problem. Somehow, by some evil logic, it makes way more sense to create weapons than to save the poor and starving only to have twice their numbers needing to be saved in 20 years time.
How in the world are you going to achieve security if you don't at least take some basic measures to protect your users. The internet should remain open but I applaud Facebook for protecting users who don't know well enough to protect themselves. I've been doing research recently into phishing attacks and it's as simple as getting any user to surf to a webpage that you point him to in order to gain complete control over their machine. The main counter argument anyway is that no one is forced to use facebook for their messaging needs, but given the amount of users already on facebook, it'll be rare to see people NOT use the service... this is a win-win for facebook and for users. Finally an organization is taking responsibility for protecting their users instead of expecting everybody to be a security and privacy expert.
and what percentage do the Chinese represent of the internet? I'd bet it's more than 15%.