Do I get to register preferences about what messages I will want to receive, or will some wanker with authority decide that for me? The last thing I want is for the person who decides which messages are important being of the same mindset as the nimrod who thought passengers at an airport need to be reminded every 5 minutes exactly what the list of banned items on airplanes are - again and again and again and again while you wait for your flight. (What's really dumb about that recorded TSA message is that it interrupts other PA messages that are NOT repetitive and thus should have higher priority. What's more important - the message that is identical to the one you heard 5 minutes ago and will hear again 5 minutes from now, or the message that's unique and you'll only hear once? You should never stifle the one-off message with the repeated one, and yet that's what airports do. (I just returned from a trip where I heard my name on the PA trying to tell me something and it got interrupted like this and I never found out what it was about until it was too late. It turns out I had gotten a standby slot on a flight, but missed the chance because the PA system was designed by morons who think recorded repeated messages take precedence.))
Anyway, I don't want the same sort of moron deciding what messages come to my phone (or worse yet, which ones are allowed to interrupt a phone call) without my say-so.
I don't think the concern is an after-market cracker doing it. I think the concern is that if it can be done after-market then that proves it can also be done by the original manufacturer of the hardware. I don't put it past OEM's to make backdoors for themselves.
The alternate universe you live in is interesting. It would have been nice to see this IE 6 that actually had a better look than its contemporary competitors. It's too bad that the only IE I ever got to see was the ugly-looking one that existed here on earth where the rest of us live.
No sympathy here. They get what they deserve. These are the myopic idiots that didn't care about the detrimental effects of vendor-tie-ins when they were hurting OTHERs with this garbage. They get no sympathy from me now that it's come full circle to bit themselves in the ass.
I don't agree because I think games will always expand to fill the available clock cycles - in sort of the same way that software bloats to fill the available disk space. People making the cutting edge games will make them fill ALL available CPU usage. If it's not using it all up, then that means features that were trimmed out can be left in instead of being cut.
By thinking that the human's reflexes are the limiting factor in how much CPU usage the computer needs, it shows you're not really thinking about all the work the computer does under the hood. Say you're playing a graphics-intensive driving game like GTA. Having more CPU cycles means the NPC's can be smarter. The drivers can drive more realistically. The machine can track the motion of all the cars in the city instead of having them leave memory when they get far enough away. (Current generation GTA games have the "peeka-boo" effect where things don't exist when you can't see them. More CPU cycles would mean better object permanence and people and cars can be doing things "off screen".)
Games will expand to fill the available CPU cycles.
I can't see 3D movies for a reason that is not due to my vision (well not directly anyway). That is that I can't get the damn 3D glasses to fit over my normal eyeglasses without falling off, and when I do devise a jerry-rig to get them to stay on (usually involving rubber bands that I now know to bring with me to the theatre when it's a 3D movie), the 3D glasses are now too far away from my eyes to have the correct effect. (I keep seeing the frames and my eyes want to focus in on them instead of the movie because the frames are now no longer on the periphery but are now more toward the center of vision since they're further forward than they're supposed to be.)
It seems that if I want to see 3D movies I'll have to get LASIK first to ditch the eyeglasses.
Then again, I'm one of those people who can never get the Magic Eye (tm) pictures to come out right so maybe that won't be enough. I understand the optics of Magic Eye and I know perfectly well why it works, from a mathematical point of view. But where I fail is that I can't decouple my conscious control of my eyeball focus from the conscious control of my eyeball's inward aiming angle, which is a necessary step to making Magic Eye work. You have to *focus* your eyes close at the nearby paper while *aiming* them far away far into the distance past the paper instead of converging their aim to a point on he paper. For me those two things are not seperable commands my brain knows how to issue to my body. It's like asking me to move my pinkie without also moving my ring-finger. The pathway from my brain to the muscles to make that happen isn't available. They're wired together whether I like it or not. For me, the muscles that control eyeball shape (focus) and the muscles that control eyeball aim are mentally grouped together and respond to one single thought. The thought of "look close" or "look far" triggers BOTH motions, no matter how hard I try to separate the two into independantly controlled actions. (When you think about this, it makes sense for a brain to build up that behavior from birth since there is no natural situation where you would ever want to separate them OTHER than the man-made illusion of Magic Eye. A clever cerebellum can learn that these muscle motions always seem to go together and it can develop the learned behavior to marry them together into one single "command" even in a crude brute-force fashion that destroys the ability to command them seperately, as has happened in me.)
[...] Atheists and religious are both based on faith, although opposite ends of the faith spectrum.
Fail. Sure, in the imaginary universe where you were correct about what "atheism" means that would be true, but why don't you try acting like an honest person and use the actual meaning of the word that exists over here in the real world.
VM's introduce a huge slowdown unless they're able to use the hardware natively because the emulated machine is hardware-compatible with the host machine. So, the reason VMware works so well is that it emulates intel machines... on intel machines. If it had to emulate a different CPU, it would be quite a bit slower than the native hardware.
VM's are good for backward-compatibility with previous generation machines, where you can accept the slowdown of a VM because the new machine is faster than the emulated one. But as a way to compete with a competitor's machine of the same generation, both cutting edge, it won't be fast enough unless everyone's using the same hardware architecture under the hood.
I am 100% convinced that every game will depend on a platform. Nobody's going to be writing self contained all-in-one games where the game embeds the whole platform (what, is this 1975, with embedded "pong" consoles.?)
You will need something to run it on.
What he probably meant to say was "don't depend on any particular specific platform."
Wouldn't the amount of recharging during the day from solar energy not be sufficient to power a light all night? Wouldn't it take many times longer to charge it than it does to drain it?
People generally use an iPod while doing something else. Wearing headphones doesn't make it hard to walk around and navigate. Wearing a pair of movie glasses kind of does. I think a portable video player has less of a reason to exist than a portable audio player. That doesn't mean it won't be made, but it won't have as large a market of buyers.
In 99% of the cases, education and responsibility on the part of CITIZENS would negate the need for regulation or government oversight. Yes. It would. But that's a moot point since it will never happen. Turn on any typical cable TV service. Cycle through the channels. Make a note of how many of the shows or ads you see are designed to appeal to stupidity. Then cry for the human race. Your solution, which would be ideal, will never, ever, happen.
So the more interesting question is, given the real world, and given that stupidity exists, what is the next-best solution that might actualyl work?
Punishment is most effective in situations where there isn't any logic behind why the rule should be obeyed. Those are precisely the situations where it shouldn't be a rule in the first place.
don't rely on technology Don't put in a disincentive to use it, though. When I was going through public school, it was the age when home word processors were still a brand new idea. I had a program called EasyWriter on a Commodore 64. I ended up really hating the utterly technologically backward requirement of FIRST handing in a handwritten rough-draft and then a day or two later handing in the final version (that could be typed on typewriter or computer). That pattern no longer made any sense and I could tell people weren't going to be working like that anymore by the time I got out of school. I kept trying to ask teachers to let me hand in the rough draft as a computer printout just like the final one would be, instead of requiring it to be handwritten. I tried to explain that the handwriting as a seperate task was no longer needed since with a computer you could edit the file and print it again - so you might as well make your first rough draft on the computer in the first place and then edit it there until it becomes the final draft. That saves the pointless extra step of writing it twice (once with pen, and again by typing).
They would have none of it. I had to waste the time doing it twice.
Don't rely on technology, but don't be a luddite about it either.
Sure, if that was how it's pronounced. But it's not. It 's pronounced "houses".
One difference between British and American pronounciation is that the 'z' is harsher in American pronounciation so that the subtle slight harshness of the 's' in "houses" isn't quite enough to qualify it as a "z" to the American listener. To the American listener, that still sounds more like an 's' than a 'z'. (As opposed to "organization" which has a very harsh 'z' sound in it.)
It's like the fact that to an American listener, it sounds like British people don't pronounce the 'r' at the end of a word. To the American, the way British poeple pronounce "far" it sounds like it should be spelled "fah".
This is not what I was taught. Throughout my grammar school years I kept trying to do it exactly how you show and teachers kept marking me wrong for it.
If you want to make a point, it would help if you gave examples that supported your point instead of contradicted it.
The difference between the meaning of 1 and 2 is purely because of where the pause is put, which is what the comma denotes. So your example supports my point.
In your original post, you make the argument that formatting doesn't matter In the alternate universe where I had done so, your reply would have actually made sense. But here in the real world, I didn't say formatting doesn't matter. Just the opposite, in fact.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not the GPL is good, isn't this a pointless moot thing anyway given that extricating Linux out of GPL and putting it into something else isn't possible anymore?
Firstly there's the problem with all the little itty bitty utility programs that are GPLed that while technically not part of linux since linux is just the kernel, are still rather necessary for a distro of Linux to behave like a Unix - things like "grep" and "cat" and "bash" and so on. To un-GPL a distro of linux would require finding replacements from the ground-up for all of those tools. Secondly, the kernel itself is GPL'ed anyway, with masses of developers adding their own code into it under the understanding that it is GPL. To legally produce a new version of the the kernel at this point under a different license would require either the express consent of ALL THOSE DEVELOPERS WHO EVER ADDED A LINE OF CODE to the kernel, or a way to cut out just those bits contributed by the developers who refuse to put their code under a different license, and then replace them with something that isn't just an exact copy of the same code. There's just no way that is going to be practical. That's just not going to happen. And even then you'd be leaving behind the GPL version of the kernel that I'm sure would grow on its own and become its own fork of the kernel.
So in other words, the whole debate is moot. Like it or not, Linux is GPL to stay.
Whooosh - right over your head. That was the whole POINT. The poster brought up the way the US English has altered spelling from the British English, and then serendipitously used an example of just such a word in the very next sentence.
now most of the words you typed aren't really SPELLED wrong, but just typed very poorly (same letters, just mixed up
Given that the order of the letters IS part of the spelling, that seems like a strange statement to make. After all, I don't think you could claim that "war" and "raw" are two words that are spelled the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Do I get to register preferences about what messages I will want to receive, or will some wanker with authority decide that for me? The last thing I want is for the person who decides which messages are important being of the same mindset as the nimrod who thought passengers at an airport need to be reminded every 5 minutes exactly what the list of banned items on airplanes are - again and again and again and again while you wait for your flight. (What's really dumb about that recorded TSA message is that it interrupts other PA messages that are NOT repetitive and thus should have higher priority. What's more important - the message that is identical to the one you heard 5 minutes ago and will hear again 5 minutes from now, or the message that's unique and you'll only hear once? You should never stifle the one-off message with the repeated one, and yet that's what airports do. (I just returned from a trip where I heard my name on the PA trying to tell me something and it got interrupted like this and I never found out what it was about until it was too late. It turns out I had gotten a standby slot on a flight, but missed the chance because the PA system was designed by morons who think recorded repeated messages take precedence.))
Anyway, I don't want the same sort of moron deciding what messages come to my phone (or worse yet, which ones are allowed to interrupt a phone call) without my say-so.
I don't think the concern is an after-market cracker doing it. I think the concern is that if it can be done after-market then that proves it can also be done by the original manufacturer of the hardware. I don't put it past OEM's to make backdoors for themselves.
The alternate universe you live in is interesting. It would have been nice to see this IE 6 that actually had a better look than its contemporary competitors. It's too bad that the only IE I ever got to see was the ugly-looking one that existed here on earth where the rest of us live.
No sympathy here. They get what they deserve. These are the myopic idiots that didn't care about the detrimental effects of vendor-tie-ins when they were hurting OTHERs with this garbage. They get no sympathy from me now that it's come full circle to bit themselves in the ass.
I don't agree because I think games will always expand to fill the available clock cycles - in sort of the same way that software bloats to fill the available disk space. People making the cutting edge games will make them fill ALL available CPU usage. If it's not using it all up, then that means features that were trimmed out can be left in instead of being cut.
By thinking that the human's reflexes are the limiting factor in how much CPU usage the computer needs, it shows you're not really thinking about all the work the computer does under the hood. Say you're playing a graphics-intensive driving game like GTA. Having more CPU cycles means the NPC's can be smarter. The drivers can drive more realistically. The machine can track the motion of all the cars in the city instead of having them leave memory when they get far enough away. (Current generation GTA games have the "peeka-boo" effect where things don't exist when you can't see them. More CPU cycles would mean better object permanence and people and cars can be doing things "off screen".)
Games will expand to fill the available CPU cycles.
I can't see 3D movies for a reason that is not due to my vision (well not directly anyway). That is that I can't get the damn 3D glasses to fit over my normal eyeglasses without falling off, and when I do devise a jerry-rig to get them to stay on (usually involving rubber bands that I now know to bring with me to the theatre when it's a 3D movie), the 3D glasses are now too far away from my eyes to have the correct effect. (I keep seeing the frames and my eyes want to focus in on them instead of the movie because the frames are now no longer on the periphery but are now more toward the center of vision since they're further forward than they're supposed to be.)
It seems that if I want to see 3D movies I'll have to get LASIK first to ditch the eyeglasses.
Then again, I'm one of those people who can never get the Magic Eye (tm) pictures to come out right so maybe that won't be enough. I understand the optics of Magic Eye and I know perfectly well why it works, from a mathematical point of view. But where I fail is that I can't decouple my conscious control of my eyeball focus from the conscious control of my eyeball's inward aiming angle, which is a necessary step to making Magic Eye work. You have to *focus* your eyes close at the nearby paper while *aiming* them far away far into the distance past the paper instead of converging their aim to a point on he paper. For me those two things are not seperable commands my brain knows how to issue to my body. It's like asking me to move my pinkie without also moving my ring-finger. The pathway from my brain to the muscles to make that happen isn't available. They're wired together whether I like it or not. For me, the muscles that control eyeball shape (focus) and the muscles that control eyeball aim are mentally grouped together and respond to one single thought. The thought of "look close" or "look far" triggers BOTH motions, no matter how hard I try to separate the two into independantly controlled actions. (When you think about this, it makes sense for a brain to build up that behavior from birth since there is no natural situation where you would ever want to separate them OTHER than the man-made illusion of Magic Eye. A clever cerebellum can learn that these muscle motions always seem to go together and it can develop the learned behavior to marry them together into one single "command" even in a crude brute-force fashion that destroys the ability to command them seperately, as has happened in me.)
Because Agnosticism is "Weak Atheism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
[...]
Atheists and religious are both based on faith, although opposite ends of the faith spectrum.
Fail.
Sure, in the imaginary universe where you were correct about what "atheism" means that would be true, but why don't you try acting like an honest person and use the actual meaning of the word that exists over here in the real world.
VM's introduce a huge slowdown unless they're able to use the hardware natively because the emulated machine is hardware-compatible with the host machine. So, the reason VMware works so well is that it emulates intel machines... on intel machines. If it had to emulate a different CPU, it would be quite a bit slower than the native hardware.
VM's are good for backward-compatibility with previous generation machines, where you can accept the slowdown of a VM because the new machine is faster than the emulated one. But as a way to compete with a competitor's machine of the same generation, both cutting edge, it won't be fast enough unless everyone's using the same hardware architecture under the hood.
I am 100% convinced that every game will depend on a platform. Nobody's going to be writing self contained all-in-one games where the game embeds the whole platform (what, is this 1975, with embedded "pong" consoles.?)
You will need something to run it on.
What he probably meant to say was "don't depend on any particular specific platform."
The lights you describe are not particularly bright. They don't seem like they'd be worth it.
I thought the article was talking about a USEFUL amount of light. A LED won't be adequete.
Those would have to be some HUGE solar collectors.
Wouldn't the amount of recharging during the day from solar energy not be sufficient to power a light all night? Wouldn't it take many times longer to charge it than it does to drain it?
People generally use an iPod while doing something else. Wearing headphones doesn't make it hard to walk around and navigate. Wearing a pair of movie glasses kind of does. I think a portable video player has less of a reason to exist than a portable audio player. That doesn't mean it won't be made, but it won't have as large a market of buyers.
In 99% of the cases, education and responsibility on the part of CITIZENS would negate the need for regulation or government oversight.
Yes. It would. But that's a moot point since it will never happen. Turn on any typical cable TV service. Cycle through the channels. Make a note of how many of the shows or ads you see are designed to appeal to stupidity. Then cry for the human race. Your solution, which would be ideal, will never, ever, happen.
So the more interesting question is, given the real world, and given that stupidity exists, what is the next-best solution that might actualyl work?
Punishment is most effective in situations where there isn't any logic behind why the rule should be obeyed. Those are precisely the situations where it shouldn't be a rule in the first place.
don't rely on technology
Don't put in a disincentive to use it, though. When I was going through public school, it was the age when home word processors were still a brand new idea. I had a program called EasyWriter on a Commodore 64. I ended up really hating the utterly technologically backward requirement of FIRST handing in a handwritten rough-draft and then a day or two later handing in the final version (that could be typed on typewriter or computer). That pattern no longer made any sense and I could tell people weren't going to be working like that anymore by the time I got out of school. I kept trying to ask teachers to let me hand in the rough draft as a computer printout just like the final one would be, instead of requiring it to be handwritten. I tried to explain that the handwriting as a seperate task was no longer needed since with a computer you could edit the file and print it again - so you might as well make your first rough draft on the computer in the first place and then edit it there until it becomes the final draft. That saves the pointless extra step of writing it twice (once with pen, and again by typing).
They would have none of it. I had to waste the time doing it twice.
Don't rely on technology, but don't be a luddite about it either.
Sure, if that was how it's pronounced. But it's not. It 's pronounced "houses".
One difference between British and American pronounciation is that the 'z' is harsher in American pronounciation so that the subtle slight harshness of the 's' in "houses" isn't quite enough to qualify it as a "z" to the American listener. To the American listener, that still sounds more like an 's' than a 'z'. (As opposed to "organization" which has a very harsh 'z' sound in it.)
It's like the fact that to an American listener, it sounds like British people don't pronounce the 'r' at the end of a word. To the American, the way British poeple pronounce "far" it sounds like it should be spelled "fah".
This is not what I was taught. Throughout my grammar school years I kept trying to do it exactly how you show and teachers kept marking me wrong for it.
Could this be a British/American difference?
If you want to make a point, it would help if you gave examples that supported your point instead of contradicted it.
The difference between the meaning of 1 and 2 is purely because of where the pause is put, which is what the comma denotes. So your example supports my point.
In your original post, you make the argument that formatting doesn't matter
In the alternate universe where I had done so, your reply would have actually made sense. But here in the real world, I didn't say formatting doesn't matter. Just the opposite, in fact.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not the GPL is good, isn't this a pointless moot thing anyway given that extricating Linux out of GPL and putting it into something else isn't possible anymore?
Firstly there's the problem with all the little itty bitty utility programs that are GPLed that while technically not part of linux since linux is just the kernel, are still rather necessary for a distro of Linux to behave like a Unix - things like "grep" and "cat" and "bash" and so on. To un-GPL a distro of linux would require finding replacements from the ground-up for all of those tools. Secondly, the kernel itself is GPL'ed anyway, with masses of developers adding their own code into it under the understanding that it is GPL. To legally produce a new version of the the kernel at this point under a different license would require either the express consent of ALL THOSE DEVELOPERS WHO EVER ADDED A LINE OF CODE to the kernel, or a way to cut out just those bits contributed by the developers who refuse to put their code under a different license, and then replace them with something that isn't just an exact copy of the same code. There's just no way that is going to be practical. That's just not going to happen. And even then you'd be leaving behind the GPL version of the kernel that I'm sure would grow on its own and become its own fork of the kernel.
So in other words, the whole debate is moot. Like it or not, Linux is GPL to stay.
Whooosh - right over your head. That was the whole POINT. The poster brought up the way the US English has altered spelling from the British English, and then serendipitously used an example of just such a word in the very next sentence.
I have no clue what the hell you're talking about becasue all your link says is "This article does not exist".
now most of the words you typed aren't really SPELLED wrong, but just typed very poorly (same letters, just mixed up
Given that the order of the letters IS part of the spelling, that seems like a strange statement to make. After all, I don't think you could claim that "war" and "raw" are two words that are spelled the same.