I hadn't seen that xkcd so I was one that didn't, but so, so glad you pointed it out. There does seem to be a sub-sub-culture of the "if it's new or popular, I hate it" that does nothing but yell "fake" or "photoshop" to every posted picture or video. I'm not sure if it's more irritating to me the people that believe anything or those that believe nothing (and then act all smug about it). Maybe that says more about me though...
I suspect that if Screaming Monkey Boy, errr, Ballmer, were going to make a truly astoundingly bad decision, he'd get at least a friendly call from Bill.
That may be true, but law != fact. Too, and I know I'm simplifying this far, far too much, but anyone that USED the 2 browsers at the time realized Netscape was going out of its way to suck. IE was genuinely better in terms of speed and render quality. That seesawed back and forth a bit, but overall, IE really was quite a bit better.
Then, when competition was no more, it languished and sucked more each release, where it continues to stay. I don't know if they can pull it out this time with Chrome, Opera, hell, even Safari is better.
He's obviously read "Psychology of Everyday Things" (later reprinted as "Design of..."), where this door UI issue is discussed in several case studies. "POET" is a classic must-read for anyone that designs anything that anyone might be expected to use.
Intertia may be strong, but at least with mail, sticking Outlook is not necessarily some emotional anti-response to change. Though it is a bloaty, slow, crash-prone steaming pile, no other mail system really comes close to it (that I've been able to find). Mail systems have various features that are better, yes, but none of them has it all particularly the integration of calendaring, contacts, filtering (with SpamBayes), GUI ease of use; and the degree of seamlessness between them.
I run Ubuntu but my company runs Exchange 2007, so I can't hook into all that; the most I can get is IMAP, which is a poor second choice. I'm really debating whether to keep a VirtualBox going JUST for Outlook.
20% on a Bayesian filter is ridiculously low; so low in fact I believe you are stretching the truth to make or point, or you're not training it.
My gmail account is quite old (gotten when only google employees were giving out beta requests), using an extraordinary common firstname.lastname account name, and since Jun 17, I've gotten 2247 spams. So that's what, 19 days? Gmail has *let through* probably fewer than 10 actual spam in that time frame (0.44%), and I haven't checked for any false positives.
Perhaps I was unclear, but I wasn't saying Clear was frivolous (I was also a user) but rather that flying around for meetings often is. And that it will start back up in earnest when the money is flowing.
This filter is nice because it doesn't require you to remember all the values that you want to average together
Why would you need to remember all the values? As long as you remember the number of values and their total you're fine.
Because it's a MOVING average [that the poster to whom you're replying is talking about]. You only use the last "n" numbers in a SIMPLE moving average, so you need to remember them all so you know which ones to drop off.
With an exponentially smoothed moving average, you only need to know the last calculated MA, the new input, and (as he puts it) the alpha value. (I've heard that term labelled epsilon, but tomato, tomahto.)
Slashdot Mirror
I hadn't seen that xkcd so I was one that didn't, but so, so glad you pointed it out. There does seem to be a sub-sub-culture of the "if it's new or popular, I hate it" that does nothing but yell "fake" or "photoshop" to every posted picture or video. I'm not sure if it's more irritating to me the people that believe anything or those that believe nothing (and then act all smug about it). Maybe that says more about me though...
Thanks
... after Bad Astronomer pimped them a bit. Good cause, all that.
They're decent enough scopes, and VERY good for the price.
The delivery time is atrocious, however. I think mine took around 3-4 months to arrive. As cheap as they were, I'd about written them off as a scam.
I suspect that if Screaming Monkey Boy, errr, Ballmer, were going to make a truly astoundingly bad decision, he'd get at least a friendly call from Bill.
I'd love to hear that conversation, too.
That may be true, but law != fact. Too, and I know I'm simplifying this far, far too much, but anyone that USED the 2 browsers at the time realized Netscape was going out of its way to suck. IE was genuinely better in terms of speed and render quality. That seesawed back and forth a bit, but overall, IE really was quite a bit better.
Then, when competition was no more, it languished and sucked more each release, where it continues to stay. I don't know if they can pull it out this time with Chrome, Opera, hell, even Safari is better.
He's obviously read "Psychology of Everyday Things" (later reprinted as "Design of ..."), where this door UI issue is discussed in several case studies. "POET" is a classic must-read for anyone that designs anything that anyone might be expected to use.
http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/0465067107/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1248908564&sr=1-1
Yeah, you're probably right.
I've always wanted ACTUAL REAL LIFE haggling to work how it worked in that game.
M. U. L. E.
You /can/, sure...
Ugh, Outlook how I hate and love thee.
Intertia may be strong, but at least with mail, sticking Outlook is not necessarily some emotional anti-response to change. Though it is a bloaty, slow, crash-prone steaming pile, no other mail system really comes close to it (that I've been able to find). Mail systems have various features that are better, yes, but none of them has it all particularly the integration of calendaring, contacts, filtering (with SpamBayes), GUI ease of use; and the degree of seamlessness between them.
I run Ubuntu but my company runs Exchange 2007, so I can't hook into all that; the most I can get is IMAP, which is a poor second choice. I'm really debating whether to keep a VirtualBox going JUST for Outlook.
... people developing applications often use libraries that have already been written.
And Fansy before him. http://www.notaddicted.com/fansythefamous.php
20% on a Bayesian filter is ridiculously low; so low in fact I believe you are stretching the truth to make or point, or you're not training it.
My gmail account is quite old (gotten when only google employees were giving out beta requests), using an extraordinary common firstname.lastname account name, and since Jun 17, I've gotten 2247 spams. So that's what, 19 days? Gmail has *let through* probably fewer than 10 actual spam in that time frame (0.44%), and I haven't checked for any false positives.
I am rapidly starting to think that "marketing" (and purveyors thereof) might well surpass the "evil quotient" of lawyers.
Depends on your point of view; considering the story was about the gov't OF CHINA restricting its population, it's not such a great leap.
Yes, I agree with you.
Perhaps I was unclear, but I wasn't saying Clear was frivolous (I was also a user) but rather that flying around for meetings often is. And that it will start back up in earnest when the money is flowing.
Unfortunately, "when this economy turns around" is precisely when what is wasteful vs. not will CEASE to be recognized.
I've probably misunderstood you (and/or are misquoting you), so apologies for that, but...
> ...the simplest thing is to probably just start counting primes, ...
> Call out one, then wait. Call out three, then wait.
Since when is 1 prime, and 2 not?
"Come Get Some"
This filter is nice because it doesn't require you to remember all the values that you want to average together
Why would you need to remember all the values? As long as you remember the number of values and their total you're fine.
Because it's a MOVING average [that the poster to whom you're replying is talking about]. You only use the last "n" numbers in a SIMPLE moving average, so you need to remember them all so you know which ones to drop off.
With an exponentially smoothed moving average, you only need to know the last calculated MA, the new input, and (as he puts it) the alpha value. (I've heard that term labelled epsilon, but tomato, tomahto.)
Correct. The articles mis-interpret the math; the weighting is too far to the last reading, not the first.
I'm with you there.
Dvorak was saying 6 months ago exactly this was going to happen (not that it took any great leap, given the history of these events).
I'm glad it works for you. I've had it crash no fewer than 20 times in 6 months. BSOD's.
Maybe it's something I've installed, who knows. But *MY* Vista is not as stable as *MY* XP was.
That said, I don't mind it from a visual and user experience point of view. I like the way it does some things.
So, if Windows 7 proves to be more stable, I'm jumping.
> and it is unlikely that short bursts produced in a storm would suffice. "If we're wrong, it was one heck of a storm," says Goodbred.
And this is what makes science, science. The fact that it COULD be wrong and (good) scientists not only recognize it, but relish the possibility.
Don't forget to hold your shotgun sideways while huntin', and scowl at your prey. Yo.
Never saw this site before but bookmarked now. I haven't shopped around but these seem to be really good prices.
I trust you've shopped there before?