Imagine if eBay had a VR interface where people could buy and sell real, or virtual, items for Linden dollars.
Sounds like a clunky complicated interface for a system that is already more efficient in 2D. Other than the "wow" factor that would wear off after the first time someone uses the system, what is the benefit of moving to 3D?
I wouldn't expect you'd find very many motivated individuals in a college algebra class. Taking a middle school class in college seems to indicate a rather passive approach to one's own education.
I'd assume this is a troll, but this is the same tripe that I hear on conservative talk radio. What does global warming have to do with liberalism? Perhaps it is the end of an ice age, and much of the warming is natural. Still, how can you really think we don't impact our environment?
Which of the following don't you agree with:
CO2 is a green house gas.
We produce a lot of CO2.
Photosynthesis removes CO2 from the atmosphere.
Humans have significantly contributed to a decrease in plant cover on Earth.
CO2 is now produced faster, and the planet has a lowered ability to remove CO2.
This leads to a CO2 build-up which acts as a blanket trapping more energy from the sun leading to rising average global temperatures.
I'm just curious, because I don't understand what would motivate "liberals" to promote this idea. What do they have to gain? While I've often heard global warming referred to as a liberal conspiracy, I've never heard anyone promoting that idea explain why liberals would do that. Except of course for the standard explanation that liberals are crazy.
Yeah, a bigger more complex version of SpaceShipOne that reaches orbit. Just like SpaceShipOne, a suborbital craft!
Actually, after reading the article it appears that this suposed craft is also suborbital. That said, if the reports are true, then it existed quite a while before SpaceShipOne.
$2 doesn't sound expensive to me at all. If Apple can get a few more shows on iTunes i will happily cancel my cable subscription and actually save money. There are very few shows I actually want to watch. Lets say a given show actually airs 4 new episodes in a month ($8). That means for the $60 I pay for cable I could equivalently get all the episodes of 7 different shows on demand. I'm not sure how many different shows most people watch, but I know I don't watch more than 2 or 3 in a given month.
I ordered my video iPod last week (its my first mp3 player, so that is really my primary motivation). I'm looking forward to its delivery.
I don't understand this push to make web based email clients more like email clients on the desktop, as though that is some lofty goal. The only reason I use gmail is because I tried it out, and loved the fact that it wasn't like my desktop email client. I've never used a mail client I liked, and I was thrilled that Google actually took a step back and attempted to reinvent the wheel. I don't use gmail because it is web based, I use it because I prefer its interface.
That said, I'm not saying everything Google makes is going to always get my vote. What I'd really like to see is some other companies attempt to create some products that actually make computing tasks quicker, and more productive. I don't get any special thrill out of the idea of using the same old thing in a new format (like for instance a tradition email client through the web). If I want a traditional email client, I already have plenty of options.
And NEWSFLASH, that 56k modem ain't 56k, I have looked at over a dozen dial-ups, and the best I EVER saw was 8k a second, most are like 4k or 5k a second. If a 56K modem ever gave a consistant 35k a second, broadband never would have caught on like it did.
That is 56 kilobits per second, not 56 kilobytes. In kilobytes, a 56k modem should be able to do up to 7 kilobytes per second without compression.
First of all, thank you for the compliment. But, do you find it humorous that after I wrote the joke, my comment became flagged as -1 flamebait, but your explanation of my joke shot to +5 Funny? I'm certainly not upset about it, but I think it is rather amusing that people find humor in the comment that explained the joke to them. Regardless, thank you for making my joke more accessible to the masses.
It is no wonder that Fox's brilliant Arrested Development has such lousy ratings. There isn't a funny guy in every living room to explain the jokes and point out when to laugh (no laugh track).
Like I said, I don't think it is a good idea to turn off analog broadcasts (at least not for several more years). I just take exception to the notion that TV is some kind of inalienable right (if you can't afford to watch TV, it shouldn't be part of some kind of welfare package). There are other uses that segment of radio frequencies could be put to, and some day it would be nice to see that happen.
Though I agree that it is probably a bad idea to turn off over the air analog broadcasts, I have a hard time seeing how it will be such a tragedy if people aren't able to watch TV. Is TV a right? Is it even a good thing? It isn't like anyone is suggesting we steal food from the poor. If someone is poor, and they can't afford to upgrade to a new TV source it isn't the end of the world.
On a side note, if TV were gone tomorrow I wouldn't miss it. I suspect that a significant number of the folks in the 33.6 million who don't have cable/satellite, aren't poor, but rather are like me and don't see the value in TV. I admit that there are some shows I enjoy watching, but it wouldn't ruin my life if I was never able to see them again.
I am sure this is true, but I'm betting it wont be supported by Apple, and hence you wont see it embraced in the business world. The only people who will be running these rouge OSX versions will be hobbyists.
I for one am looking forward to such a hack. My G5 is great, but I want OSX on my generic x86 boxes as well.
Those who might be thinking, "yeah, I hate Windows, what are my alternatives?" may not consider Linspire or Xandros once Mac OSX is available.
This is just plain wrong. Mac OSX isn't going to be available unless you buy a Mac (a Mac with an x86 true, but still a Mac). That is the same situation as we have today. If someone wants an alternative to Windows, and they like Mac OSX, they have to buy a Mac. How will this affect people choosing Linspire or Xandros?
I keep reading all of these articles about how Linux is in trouble because Macs are going to be using x86, and to me it sounds like a lot of hot air.
The primary flaw with that line of reasoning is that MacOS is not going to be available for just any x86 system. It isn't like people can go out, and buy OSX to replace their current Linux installation. In reality, because of the hardware lock-in, OSX on x86 wont be any different than the current PowerPC state of affairs. If you want MacOS, you have to buy a Mac.
The only real difference is that now Windows will be able to run on Mac hardware (Linux already could).
The bottom line is that the processor change is going to have little impact outside of the Apple world unless they decide to change their mind about the hardware lock-in.
this "informaiton" that would simply be used to deface websites?
If you have the sort of access that would allow you to deface a website, you likely have access to do a whole lot more. We are talking about compromising a system. The same exploit could potentially be used for any number of other things.
I've never had any formal training but I can guarantee that my understand of CS is broader than yours.
Probably.
What is Computer Science? I'm curious to hear how a self-taught individual answers that question.
Education isn't something you go into a special building to do.
No, it's something you can go into a special building to do. A lot of people have responded to me claiming that they didn't learn anything getting their BS in Computer Science. I have a hard time believing this. I imagine they went to school to become programmers, and were disappointed to find out that Computer Science has very little to do with programming. These are the folks who really did waste their time (if they can't see how all of the other stuff they were "forced" to learn broadens their experience). If they wanted to be taught programming in a structured setting (Personally I'd prefer a book), they should have gone to a tech school.
I very much agree with you. I only take exception to the folks who suggest a degree is worthless/waste of time. Getting a degree isn't the only valid way to learn, but it is a valid way to learn.
That is hardly not having an education. If I could recommend any other degree (other than CS) to an aspiring programmer, it would be Physics. It may even be preferable to a CS degree. There is no question that getting a Physics degree shows that you can think (and it helps develop those skills).
The point is, surely, that a piece of paper is no substitute for skill, talent and passion for the subject matter.
Agreed, but my point was that I often hear people who don't have an education attack education as worthless. I really don't see how they could know that.
College is a waste overall, but even moreso at the grauate level.
Have you been part of a graduate program? I find it to be rather rewarding. If you haven't experienced it, then I question why you feel that way? If on the other hand, you have been to graduate school, I'd be even more interested in why you feel that it was a waste.
I've noticed that people without an education generally seem to view education in one of two ways: Either they wish they had more education, or they denounce education as a waste of money/time. All I can say is that the later opinion is rather short sighted, and I think it stems from a desire to prove that they are every bit as good as someone with an education. But what does it mean to be just as good? In the context of programmers, does that just mean that they are just as good at programming? Programming isn't a difficult task, and if that is all some one wants to do in life, then I admit that a CS degree is probably not going to be necessary.
Maybe you can do what someone with a CS degree is supposed to be able to do, but education isn't just about learning marketable skills. I'm just about done with a Masters in Computer Science, and I can certainly tell you that getting the degree was well worth my time. I really feel like I have a much broader understanding of Computer Science now, and that is worth something to me. Maybe it won't make me more marketable (I think it will), but money isn't everything. I love the subject, and I love learning about it.
I recommend a masters degree to anyone who just wants to know more.
I agree completely. What happens if the kid plays more than one game (highly likely)? Who decides which game actually "made" them do what they did? Maybe Doom3 was violent enough, but Half-Life 2 wasn't quite bad enough, so only id should be sued. Or perhaps it was only because the kid played them both, and either one alone wouldn't have been enough.
Or maybe the kid wasn't effected by the violent games at all, but instead was driven to insanity by being forced to play too many rounds of MS solitaire.
In the end, this is all crazy. Kids shouldn't be playing these games in the first place, and the only people who should be making that decision are their parents.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine if eBay had a VR interface where people could buy and sell real, or virtual, items for Linden dollars.
Sounds like a clunky complicated interface for a system that is already more efficient in 2D. Other than the "wow" factor that would wear off after the first time someone uses the system, what is the benefit of moving to 3D?
I wouldn't expect you'd find very many motivated individuals in a college algebra class. Taking a middle school class in college seems to indicate a rather passive approach to one's own education.
Which of the following don't you agree with:
I'm just curious, because I don't understand what would motivate "liberals" to promote this idea. What do they have to gain? While I've often heard global warming referred to as a liberal conspiracy, I've never heard anyone promoting that idea explain why liberals would do that. Except of course for the standard explanation that liberals are crazy.
Yeah, a bigger more complex version of SpaceShipOne that reaches orbit. Just like SpaceShipOne, a suborbital craft!
Actually, after reading the article it appears that this suposed craft is also suborbital. That said, if the reports are true, then it existed quite a while before SpaceShipOne.
As expensive as $2 sounds for a TV episode sounds
$2 doesn't sound expensive to me at all. If Apple can get a few more shows on iTunes i will happily cancel my cable subscription and actually save money. There are very few shows I actually want to watch. Lets say a given show actually airs 4 new episodes in a month ($8). That means for the $60 I pay for cable I could equivalently get all the episodes of 7 different shows on demand. I'm not sure how many different shows most people watch, but I know I don't watch more than 2 or 3 in a given month.
I ordered my video iPod last week (its my first mp3 player, so that is really my primary motivation). I'm looking forward to its delivery.
I don't understand this push to make web based email clients more like email clients on the desktop, as though that is some lofty goal. The only reason I use gmail is because I tried it out, and loved the fact that it wasn't like my desktop email client. I've never used a mail client I liked, and I was thrilled that Google actually took a step back and attempted to reinvent the wheel. I don't use gmail because it is web based, I use it because I prefer its interface.
That said, I'm not saying everything Google makes is going to always get my vote. What I'd really like to see is some other companies attempt to create some products that actually make computing tasks quicker, and more productive. I don't get any special thrill out of the idea of using the same old thing in a new format (like for instance a tradition email client through the web). If I want a traditional email client, I already have plenty of options.
And NEWSFLASH, that 56k modem ain't 56k, I have looked at over a dozen dial-ups, and the best I EVER saw was 8k a second, most are like 4k or 5k a second. If a 56K modem ever gave a consistant 35k a second, broadband never would have caught on like it did.
That is 56 kilobits per second, not 56 kilobytes. In kilobytes, a 56k modem should be able to do up to 7 kilobytes per second without compression.
First of all, thank you for the compliment. But, do you find it humorous that after I wrote the joke, my comment became flagged as -1 flamebait, but your explanation of my joke shot to +5 Funny? I'm certainly not upset about it, but I think it is rather amusing that people find humor in the comment that explained the joke to them. Regardless, thank you for making my joke more accessible to the masses.
It is no wonder that Fox's brilliant Arrested Development has such lousy ratings. There isn't a funny guy in every living room to explain the jokes and point out when to laugh (no laugh track).
Like I said, I don't think it is a good idea to turn off analog broadcasts (at least not for several more years). I just take exception to the notion that TV is some kind of inalienable right (if you can't afford to watch TV, it shouldn't be part of some kind of welfare package). There are other uses that segment of radio frequencies could be put to, and some day it would be nice to see that happen.
Though I agree that it is probably a bad idea to turn off over the air analog broadcasts, I have a hard time seeing how it will be such a tragedy if people aren't able to watch TV. Is TV a right? Is it even a good thing? It isn't like anyone is suggesting we steal food from the poor. If someone is poor, and they can't afford to upgrade to a new TV source it isn't the end of the world.
On a side note, if TV were gone tomorrow I wouldn't miss it. I suspect that a significant number of the folks in the 33.6 million who don't have cable/satellite, aren't poor, but rather are like me and don't see the value in TV. I admit that there are some shows I enjoy watching, but it wouldn't ruin my life if I was never able to see them again.
I am sure this is true, but I'm betting it wont be supported by Apple, and hence you wont see it embraced in the business world. The only people who will be running these rouge OSX versions will be hobbyists.
I for one am looking forward to such a hack. My G5 is great, but I want OSX on my generic x86 boxes as well.
Those who might be thinking, "yeah, I hate Windows, what are my alternatives?" may not consider Linspire or Xandros once Mac OSX is available.
This is just plain wrong. Mac OSX isn't going to be available unless you buy a Mac (a Mac with an x86 true, but still a Mac). That is the same situation as we have today. If someone wants an alternative to Windows, and they like Mac OSX, they have to buy a Mac. How will this affect people choosing Linspire or Xandros?
I keep reading all of these articles about how Linux is in trouble because Macs are going to be using x86, and to me it sounds like a lot of hot air.
The primary flaw with that line of reasoning is that MacOS is not going to be available for just any x86 system. It isn't like people can go out, and buy OSX to replace their current Linux installation. In reality, because of the hardware lock-in, OSX on x86 wont be any different than the current PowerPC state of affairs. If you want MacOS, you have to buy a Mac.
The only real difference is that now Windows will be able to run on Mac hardware (Linux already could).
The bottom line is that the processor change is going to have little impact outside of the Apple world unless they decide to change their mind about the hardware lock-in.
Actually, the oil used was vegetable oil. It would probably make for some tasty fries.
this "informaiton" that would simply be used to deface websites?
If you have the sort of access that would allow you to deface a website, you likely have access to do a whole lot more. We are talking about compromising a system. The same exploit could potentially be used for any number of other things.
Only in procedural code. That hardly makes sense with method calls.
The solution to bad polls like this is easy. If the pollers refuse to ask more straight forward questions, post their home addresses on your blog.
I bet he didn't use his dragon sabre to do the stabbing.
I've never had any formal training but I can guarantee that my understand of CS is broader than yours.
Probably.
What is Computer Science? I'm curious to hear how a self-taught individual answers that question.
Education isn't something you go into a special building to do.
No, it's something you can go into a special building to do. A lot of people have responded to me claiming that they didn't learn anything getting their BS in Computer Science. I have a hard time believing this. I imagine they went to school to become programmers, and were disappointed to find out that Computer Science has very little to do with programming. These are the folks who really did waste their time (if they can't see how all of the other stuff they were "forced" to learn broadens their experience). If they wanted to be taught programming in a structured setting (Personally I'd prefer a book), they should have gone to a tech school.
I very much agree with you. I only take exception to the folks who suggest a degree is worthless/waste of time. Getting a degree isn't the only valid way to learn, but it is a valid way to learn.
I've got a degree in Physics
That is hardly not having an education. If I could recommend any other degree (other than CS) to an aspiring programmer, it would be Physics. It may even be preferable to a CS degree. There is no question that getting a Physics degree shows that you can think (and it helps develop those skills).
The point is, surely, that a piece of paper is no substitute for skill, talent and passion for the subject matter.
Agreed, but my point was that I often hear people who don't have an education attack education as worthless. I really don't see how they could know that.
College is a waste overall, but even moreso at the grauate level.
Have you been part of a graduate program? I find it to be rather rewarding. If you haven't experienced it, then I question why you feel that way? If on the other hand, you have been to graduate school, I'd be even more interested in why you feel that it was a waste.
I've noticed that people without an education generally seem to view education in one of two ways: Either they wish they had more education, or they denounce education as a waste of money/time. All I can say is that the later opinion is rather short sighted, and I think it stems from a desire to prove that they are every bit as good as someone with an education. But what does it mean to be just as good? In the context of programmers, does that just mean that they are just as good at programming? Programming isn't a difficult task, and if that is all some one wants to do in life, then I admit that a CS degree is probably not going to be necessary.
Maybe you can do what someone with a CS degree is supposed to be able to do, but education isn't just about learning marketable skills. I'm just about done with a Masters in Computer Science, and I can certainly tell you that getting the degree was well worth my time. I really feel like I have a much broader understanding of Computer Science now, and that is worth something to me. Maybe it won't make me more marketable (I think it will), but money isn't everything. I love the subject, and I love learning about it.
I recommend a masters degree to anyone who just wants to know more.
Quite right, my mistake.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
I agree completely. What happens if the kid plays more than one game (highly likely)? Who decides which game actually "made" them do what they did? Maybe Doom3 was violent enough, but Half-Life 2 wasn't quite bad enough, so only id should be sued. Or perhaps it was only because the kid played them both, and either one alone wouldn't have been enough.
Or maybe the kid wasn't effected by the violent games at all, but instead was driven to insanity by being forced to play too many rounds of MS solitaire.
In the end, this is all crazy. Kids shouldn't be playing these games in the first place, and the only people who should be making that decision are their parents.