Seems to me that these chimps were trained to perform this task. They've probably even used the test setup before whereas the humans were probably using it for the first time. I guess I'm not surprised that the chimps were faster than the humans
From the article:
"Even with six months of training, three students failed to catch up to the three young chimps, Matsuzawa said in an e-mail."
It's a heck of a typo because all the math on the sub-capacities works out.
My guess is that it's not a higher capacity iPhone that's being shown here (by mistake) but rather that this style of syncing/reporting will become available for existing iPods and this screen shot slipped in.
You're off by almost as much as the original poster.
1/100 = 1% not 0.1%
The only way to get down to 0.1% is if the iPod only had a 10% share of the overall MP3 player market. I'm pretty sure the iPod's market share is something like 60 or 70 percent.
Isn't radar just radio waves? which in turn are just low frequency light? If this new material retains these properties at radio wavelengths then it would work, no?
Inuit is the general term for the people (it literally means "The people") Inuk is the singular Inuktitut is a general term for the languages of said people (for the Inuit living in northern Canada.. apparently in Greenland it's a different one)
It's a little more complicated than I'm making it out to be.. but it's certainly not correct to say that "such and such is a word in Inuit"
And like *he* said. That behaviour is counterproductive... on *your* part, not theirs. Always letting people in will tend to alleviate traffic problems more than trying to "teach people a lesson".
Umm. you may want to *read* the article at http://amasci.com/amateur/traffic/traffic1.html (posted earlier). His evidence suggests that it *is* helped by people letting others in (in an effort to keep traffic flowing) and is actually *hindered* by behaviour such as yours.
The trouble is that a CD or recorded work isn't a public performance. The work has been laid down to a medium that is for sale.. intended to be sold. It's not like you can just hear it anywhere. You've actively got to go out and get it.
If I want to listen to a band's concert from outside the stadium then noone can stop me. But if I record it and start distributing it that's when I've got a problem. Though I *do* appreciate bands who give permission to record and trade their live concerts (eg the Dave Matthews Band) and I patronize their work accordingly.
No, I don't; you might be making it harder for them to sell newspapers, but you aren't really taking anything away from them. I don't think they should be able to stifle your free speech (i.e. prevent you from sharing the data on those CDs) just because your ability to speak makes it harder for them to sell papers.
I couldn't disagree more. I simply can't see how this is a free speech issue. You're trying to get something for nothing. You've done no work to have the right to the content. It's tantamount to plaigiarism (sp?). At least when the newspaper prints wire-service articles it actually *pays* for them (or has some sort of agreement to that end).
To what end does your reasoning take us? Can I take (no.. not steal) someone's content and put *my* name on it? Can I take the content.. change it subtly and keep *their* name on it? After all the creator has no rights here.. it's just a free speech issue.
But what if the theatre's mostly empty? Then you're not depriving anyone of anything. Sorry.. it just doesn't wash.
re: my newspaper argument.
OK then.. pull a copy out of the box (paid for), take a digital photograph of every page (high res, mind you). Burn a bunch of CDs and start selling/handing them out in front of said newspaper box. You *really* don't think this is a problem that the newspaper should be able to bust you for? (and no.. I *don't* think it's stealing).
No.. recording your broadcast (or photocopying the paper) and distributing it isn't stealing but it damned well *is* copyright infringement and it damned well is illegal, immoral and being a jerk.
I've always said that if you're not willing to pay the price that people are asking for something and unwilling to play by the rules that they set down for its use.. then *don't* consume it. Don't buy it.. don't download it.. don't listen to it. But to think that you actually have a *right* to have that content (or whatever) is just justification for the fact that you *don't want to pay* for it. ie. you're being cheap.
Oh man. I'll ask what I asked someone before. Do you *actually* believe this?
I put.25 into the newspaper box. I take 2 copies.. near the end of the day, mind you.. and the box is nearly full.. so those copies are just gonna be recycled.. I'm not depriving them of any income.
Now.. I give that second copy to someone.. that's advertising.. maybe he'll like the paper so much that he'll start buying it. I mean.. the newspapers themselves give copies away as advertising.. why shouldn't I?
Again.. I repeat what I said to someone else: get your head examined.
Oh for pete's sake... do you *actually* believe this?
There's a huge difference. The street musician is giving his stuff away for free and asking for a kind donation. The label musician is *selling* his stuff. Do you honestly not see a difference?
People give away newspapers all the time (either promotions or actually free papers). Does that mean you're entitled to a copy free of charge from every paper at any time? I mean they're just sitting there in the box.
I don't know about all that. I've always found the Unfinished Tales and the History of Middle Earth series to be a wonderful look behind the scenes -- much like the extras on most DVDs. They're not necessary.. and they're certainly not up to the same standard as the main works.. but I've always found them entertaining and insightful. The depth of analysis and commentary certainly doesn't make it seem like exploitation.. but rather exploration.
Actually.. your previous post made no mention of scalability whatsoever. The point of your previous post was about maintenance of the cars and the viability of the business model in the face of problems arising from its self-serve nature.
In any case.. the point of autoshare isn't to replace full day auto rentals. The point is to provide short term cars for those who don't have them. eg. if I want to go pick up some furniture from Ikea, pick up a massive load of groceries, make a midnight run to Home Depot to get fuses. Car rentals work only on the full day (and sometimes half day). If I only need a car for 1 hour autoshare provides me one for about 8 dollars.
The've been running successfully for something like 8 years. I've been a member for over a year and it works smoothly... *all* the time. Never had a single problem. Not once. Sure the cars can get a bit dirty but you just clean it out and they pay you for your time. Easy as pie. You fill the gas when it goes below 1/2 tank. If you don't.. you get a fine. Easy as pie.
They've got great cars, great prices and good volume rental plans.
Any more thoughts?
As for the self checkout. I tend to agree. But you must be shopping at a store run by morons.. or very trusting people. In my local grocery (Dominion in Downtown Toronto) there's a group of 4 self-serve checkouts. There's *always* (ie 24/7) an attendant standing there to help with problems. Most of the time I go to the regular checkout lanes but I don't see much of a speed difference when I do it myself.
If they set up the company properly this wouldn't be an issue at all. Their shareholder's agreement should have provisions to force the sale of the shares upon death and to handle things like divorce.
As a shareholder in a small company you don't want someone's widow(er) or ex-spouse to suddenly have any amount of control/interest in your company. The shareholder's agreement would outline all of this and then the company would buy insurance policies on each of the shareholders to provide funds for the purchase.
a) disk space is cheap.. we're probably talking on the order of 10s of megabytes here. Maybe low 100s b) at least you don't have to worry about needing two vastly different versions of some library or other installed. ie App A needs neatLib 2.0 and App B needs neatLib 3.0b10. What if the two versions won't co-exist with each other? You never need to think about this with the.app method.
To me dynamically linked libraries are neat in theory and useful for certain things (ie keeping the memory footprint down by sharing code in RAM) but they're kinda like global variables. Dangerous and not always worth the trouble. I don't like to have to worry that my app is suddenly going to break because some dso or another has been upgraded without me knowing it. I prefer to statically link things whenever possible.
Lemmie get this right. Say you're finnish (which, it seems, you are) and say your name is YRJÄNÄ or maybe YRJÖ (which would be an incredible coincidence because I picked those names at random). Now, let's say you go to, oh.. I dunno.. Nicaragua. And, being friendly, you introduce yourself to everyone you meet. Not a single person there is able to pronounce your name. You spell it for them, you pronounce it nice and slow and yet you can't get a single person, young or old, to get it right. In fact, they butcher it so badly that it hurts your ears to hear it.
You've got two choices here. You can get all whiny and indignant and call them arrogant and self centred for not taking the time and effort to get your name right.
OR
You can introduce yourself (in spanish) as Jorge.
Which do you think it more polite and likely to make you some friends?
Just to bring this to reality. My name (Berj) is thoroughly unpronounceable in Spanish. I tried. For months. No-one was able to get it right. Now, sadly, my name has no equivalent in Spanish. Luckily my middle name (Patrick) does... Patricio. Which is how I was known when I was down there for a year. I was also known as el Gringo Loco.. but that's another matter entirely.
In any case, I think it's entirely unfair of *you* you expect that an entire culture twist their tongues around your name rather than just dealing with it and finding a compromise that works.
So all those countries withouth constitutional rights to gun ownership are full of opressed people without the means to defend themselves, according to you?
Where did the IRA get their guns? the Palestinians? the Sandanistas?
For that matter, where did the Mujahadeen get their arms?
Sorry my friend. The *right* to own a gun has nothing whatsoever to do with actually owning one. If that were the case then criminials wouldn't have them (since they are prohibited) and yet.. they do. How do you explain that?
People always use that excuse -- the ownership allows us to rise up in armed resistance against our government. A useful goal I will admit. But I'm thinking that if it becomes necessary to rise up.. finding firearms with with to defend/attack will be the least of your worries.
Also, I might point out that the other side of that hypothetical conflict has fighter planes, laser guided bombs, tanks, submarines, battleships and cruise missiles. Not to mention other technologies of warmaking. The Iraqi reisistance has (twice) received the full brunt of this power (and at least they started with an organized armed force). Guerilla war on a large scale seems to be the only effective defence -- complete with suicide bombings, roadside bombs, hiding among civilians, etc. Are you willing to become the people your country has demonized? Because if you're going to be fighting against "the most powerful military in the world" you're going to need to be.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
"Even with six months of training, three students failed to catch up to the three young chimps, Matsuzawa said in an e-mail."
It's a heck of a typo because all the math on the sub-capacities works out.
My guess is that it's not a higher capacity iPhone that's being shown here (by mistake) but rather that this style of syncing/reporting will become available for existing iPods and this screen shot slipped in.
Did anyone else notice this screenshot in the video?
http://bayimg.com/LAcLFaabd
It shows an iPhone with 75GB of storage. Earlier in the video they show the storage as 8GB.
Any speculation as to a hard drive version becoming available sometime soon?
You're off by almost as much as the original poster.
1/100 = 1% not 0.1%
The only way to get down to 0.1% is if the iPod only had a 10% share of the overall MP3 player market. I'm pretty sure the iPod's market share is something like 60 or 70 percent.
soo..
100/.6 = ~166 million total MP3 players
1/166 = zune market share of 0.6%
Bitch slap!
Isn't radar just radio waves? which in turn are just low frequency light? If this new material retains these properties at radio wavelengths then it would work, no?
A minor nit.. but it bears pointing out:
Inuit is the general term for the people (it literally means "The people")
Inuk is the singular
Inuktitut is a general term for the languages of said people (for the Inuit living in northern Canada.. apparently in Greenland it's a different one)
It's a little more complicated than I'm making it out to be.. but it's certainly not correct to say that "such and such is a word in Inuit"
And like *he* said. That behaviour is counterproductive... on *your* part, not theirs. Always letting people in will tend to alleviate traffic problems more than trying to "teach people a lesson".
Umm. you may want to *read* the article at http://amasci.com/amateur/traffic/traffic1.html (posted earlier). His evidence suggests that it *is* helped by people letting others in (in an effort to keep traffic flowing) and is actually *hindered* by behaviour such as yours.
The trouble is that a CD or recorded work isn't a public performance. The work has been laid down to a medium that is for sale.. intended to be sold. It's not like you can just hear it anywhere. You've actively got to go out and get it.
If I want to listen to a band's concert from outside the stadium then noone can stop me. But if I record it and start distributing it that's when I've got a problem. Though I *do* appreciate bands who give permission to record and trade their live concerts (eg the Dave Matthews Band) and I patronize their work accordingly.
I couldn't disagree more. I simply can't see how this is a free speech issue. You're trying to get something for nothing. You've done no work to have the right to the content. It's tantamount to plaigiarism (sp?). At least when the newspaper prints wire-service articles it actually *pays* for them (or has some sort of agreement to that end).
To what end does your reasoning take us? Can I take (no.. not steal) someone's content and put *my* name on it? Can I take the content.. change it subtly and keep *their* name on it? After all the creator has no rights here.. it's just a free speech issue.
But what if the theatre's mostly empty? Then you're not depriving anyone of anything. Sorry.. it just doesn't wash.
re: my newspaper argument.
OK then.. pull a copy out of the box (paid for), take a digital photograph of every page (high res, mind you). Burn a bunch of CDs and start selling/handing them out in front of said newspaper box. You *really* don't think this is a problem that the newspaper should be able to bust you for? (and no.. I *don't* think it's stealing).
No.. recording your broadcast (or photocopying the paper) and distributing it isn't stealing but it damned well *is* copyright infringement and it damned well is illegal, immoral and being a jerk.
I've always said that if you're not willing to pay the price that people are asking for something and unwilling to play by the rules that they set down for its use.. then *don't* consume it. Don't buy it.. don't download it.. don't listen to it. But to think that you actually have a *right* to have that content (or whatever) is just justification for the fact that you *don't want to pay* for it. ie. you're being cheap.
yes.. I do have an answer for that. It's *their* choice to give away/do with their papers whatever they want. I, however, don't have that right.
Oh man. I'll ask what I asked someone before. Do you *actually* believe this?
.25 into the newspaper box. I take 2 copies.. near the end of the day, mind you.. and the box is nearly full.. so those copies are just gonna be recycled.. I'm not depriving them of any income.
I put
Now.. I give that second copy to someone.. that's advertising.. maybe he'll like the paper so much that he'll start buying it. I mean.. the newspapers themselves give copies away as advertising.. why shouldn't I?
Again.. I repeat what I said to someone else: get your head examined.
Oh for pete's sake... do you *actually* believe this?
There's a huge difference. The street musician is giving his stuff away for free and asking for a kind donation. The label musician is *selling* his stuff. Do you honestly not see a difference?
People give away newspapers all the time (either promotions or actually free papers). Does that mean you're entitled to a copy free of charge from every paper at any time? I mean they're just sitting there in the box.
Please.. get your head examined.
Think again... apparently you get a one-time get out of jail free card.
a pple_gave_me_b.htmlo ad_all_Your_Music_Once_
http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2006/09/
http://digg.com/apple/Itunes_Lets_People_Re-Downl
A call/e-mail to apple's tech support may be in order for you.
Note that I've not verified this but I'll take Wil's word on it. In any case it's worth a try.
I don't know about all that. I've always found the Unfinished Tales and the History of Middle Earth series to be a wonderful look behind the scenes -- much like the extras on most DVDs. They're not necessary.. and they're certainly not up to the same standard as the main works.. but I've always found them entertaining and insightful. The depth of analysis and commentary certainly doesn't make it seem like exploitation.. but rather exploration.
Berj
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Ellis
http://www.warrenellis.com/
Finding these was less work than posting here.
Actually.. your previous post made no mention of scalability whatsoever. The point of your previous post was about maintenance of the cars and the viability of the business model in the face of problems arising from its self-serve nature.
In any case.. the point of autoshare isn't to replace full day auto rentals. The point is to provide short term cars for those who don't have them. eg. if I want to go pick up some furniture from Ikea, pick up a massive load of groceries, make a midnight run to Home Depot to get fuses. Car rentals work only on the full day (and sometimes half day). If I only need a car for 1 hour autoshare provides me one for about 8 dollars.
Well my friend. I've got 1 reason why it's a great idea and *will* fly.
http://www.autoshare.com/
The've been running successfully for something like 8 years. I've been a member for over a year and it works smoothly... *all* the time. Never had a single problem. Not once. Sure the cars can get a bit dirty but you just clean it out and they pay you for your time. Easy as pie. You fill the gas when it goes below 1/2 tank. If you don't.. you get a fine. Easy as pie.
They've got great cars, great prices and good volume rental plans.
Any more thoughts?
As for the self checkout. I tend to agree. But you must be shopping at a store run by morons.. or very trusting people. In my local grocery (Dominion in Downtown Toronto) there's a group of 4 self-serve checkouts. There's *always* (ie 24/7) an attendant standing there to help with problems. Most of the time I go to the regular checkout lanes but I don't see much of a speed difference when I do it myself.
If they set up the company properly this wouldn't be an issue at all. Their shareholder's agreement should have provisions to force the sale of the shares upon death and to handle things like divorce.
As a shareholder in a small company you don't want someone's widow(er) or ex-spouse to suddenly have any amount of control/interest in your company. The shareholder's agreement would outline all of this and then the company would buy insurance policies on each of the shareholders to provide funds for the purchase.
a) disk space is cheap.. we're probably talking on the order of 10s of megabytes here. Maybe low 100s .app method.
b) at least you don't have to worry about needing two vastly different versions of some library or other installed. ie App A needs neatLib 2.0 and App B needs neatLib 3.0b10. What if the two versions won't co-exist with each other? You never need to think about this with the
To me dynamically linked libraries are neat in theory and useful for certain things (ie keeping the memory footprint down by sharing code in RAM) but they're kinda like global variables. Dangerous and not always worth the trouble. I don't like to have to worry that my app is suddenly going to break because some dso or another has been upgraded without me knowing it. I prefer to statically link things whenever possible.
Lemmie get this right. Say you're finnish (which, it seems, you are) and say your name is YRJÄNÄ or maybe YRJÖ (which would be an incredible coincidence because I picked those names at random). Now, let's say you go to, oh.. I dunno.. Nicaragua. And, being friendly, you introduce yourself to everyone you meet. Not a single person there is able to pronounce your name. You spell it for them, you pronounce it nice and slow and yet you can't get a single person, young or old, to get it right. In fact, they butcher it so badly that it hurts your ears to hear it.
You've got two choices here. You can get all whiny and indignant and call them arrogant and self centred for not taking the time and effort to get your name right.
OR
You can introduce yourself (in spanish) as Jorge.
Which do you think it more polite and likely to make you some friends?
Just to bring this to reality. My name (Berj) is thoroughly unpronounceable in Spanish. I tried. For months. No-one was able to get it right. Now, sadly, my name has no equivalent in Spanish. Luckily my middle name (Patrick) does... Patricio. Which is how I was known when I was down there for a year. I was also known as el Gringo Loco.. but that's another matter entirely.
In any case, I think it's entirely unfair of *you* you expect that an entire culture twist their tongues around your name rather than just dealing with it and finding a compromise that works.
Interesting premise.
So all those countries withouth constitutional rights to gun ownership are full of opressed people without the means to defend themselves, according to you?
Where did the IRA get their guns? the Palestinians? the Sandanistas?
For that matter, where did the Mujahadeen get their arms?
Sorry my friend. The *right* to own a gun has nothing whatsoever to do with actually owning one. If that were the case then criminials wouldn't have them (since they are prohibited) and yet.. they do. How do you explain that?
People always use that excuse -- the ownership allows us to rise up in armed resistance against our government. A useful goal I will admit. But I'm thinking that if it becomes necessary to rise up.. finding firearms with with to defend/attack will be the least of your worries.
Also, I might point out that the other side of that hypothetical conflict has fighter planes, laser guided bombs, tanks, submarines, battleships and cruise missiles. Not to mention other technologies of warmaking. The Iraqi reisistance has (twice) received the full brunt of this power (and at least they started with an organized armed force). Guerilla war on a large scale seems to be the only effective defence -- complete with suicide bombings, roadside bombs, hiding among civilians, etc. Are you willing to become the people your country has demonized? Because if you're going to be fighting against "the most powerful military in the world" you're going to need to be.