"They don't require you to lock your car door when you park in your parking space. How is this any different?"
Just like how leaving your keys in the ignition could help a criminal steal it and commit a crime, leaving your wireless internet open could let a criminal do anything they want on the internet without being traced (eg. child porn).
I know leaving the keys in the ignition of your car isn't a crime, but it's really stupid and reckless. Same with leaving your wireless network open. Most people aren't aware of this, so perhaps the neighborhood is doing them a favor by making it an issue.
"they bring into the equation user preferences, collaboration, collective intelligence...
Those *could* be useful features. Search is far from perfect at this point. But I envision google perfecting it before some company that needs to resort to using the term "web 2.0" to describe itself.
Can you please explain why the butterfly effect wouldn't mitigate the accuracy of longterm forecasts compared to using statistical analysis of past data? I'm not saying I disagree with you, I just don't understand the reasoning.
This is the least newsworthy story I have seen in a long time. Just because it was on Digg does not mean it is news (I'm not trolling, Im stating the obvious)
"It's sort of like Paypal where you read about all of these horror stories online, but never find any real person who's had trouble with them"
Except the guy who tried to donate 20,000 dollars for Katrina efforts to a charity that competes with another charity affiliated with paypal? I've never had problems with paypal, but I have no doubt that they are evil and innefficient when you actually are in trouble. http://www.geektronica.com/2005-11-01-stupid-netf lix-class-action-lawsuit
OMG how have so many people stumbled into this thread and so badly missed the point? I'll spell it out:
-The original poster said "this isn't funny, why is the slashdot headline and summary calling it funny?" -Someone replied "it's funny because the article is so bad and the guy is stupid" -I replied "it's elitist to derive humor from those who are more igorant or stupider than you." -10 people replied who clearly hadn't read the conversation up to this point
Thanks for the advice on what websites I should visit, troll. And you can be a technical person with good, well-thought-out opinions without being elitist. Maybe you should try it out sometime, you'll be a lot happier and have some more friends.
"If I wrote an article in the news paper saying that G.W. Bush is a communist, then would I be let off because i'm not a political scientist?"
No, but I wouldn't submit into a comedy writing contest either. Recall this thread is arguing whether or not the article is "humorous." I'm not saying let him off, I'm saying get a new sense of humor.
"the funny part is how many mistakes this guy made writing such a short article"
That is not funny. Laughing at non-technical people for making technical mistakes is intellectually elitist, pompous and displays a bad sense of humor.
Sorry for being so harsh, but I hate it when nerds belittle non-nerds to make themselves feel better. Yes, this guy is a bad journalist - should it really be on the front page of slashdot though?
"Marketing is essential in getting a product out there, but counter-marketing never seems to work."
When competition is fierce, counter-marketing is often the best option. When I think of which crappy american beer is winning the advertisement wars, I don't think of the generic "our beer is light and refreshing" crap, I think of the humorous ads that put down the competitors. Frankly, as a young 20-something, I think negative marketing is a lot edgier and often funnier. Perhaps it's an age thing, but I would imagine this is true for the youth market too.
Kids are especially sensitive to what is cool, and are easily influenced by what the TV says. If my generation thought the original nintendo was uncool, it wouldn't have done nearly as well. Nintendo's success came from being THE product to have. If you didn't have one, you were ostracized. Sega could have changed that if they did things right IMO
Re:Rockbox
on
Talking iPods
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"So you go play with your "elegant graceful interface". I prefer to listen to the music."
This seems obvious to me, but no one else has said it: Don't buy an iPod if this is your mentality. You can save some money with another product that has more features but a worse interface. People don't buy iPods for the features, they buy them for the elegant interface that no alternative OS or product has been able to match.
"The very next time you find yourself writing 'cout "current value of', smack yourself and break out the debugger."
Not true - cout can be a great way to complement traditional debugging IMO. Sometimes it's faster than dealing with debugging mode. Usually it's the exact same thing youll want to use a debugger for (watch a variable at a certain point in execution) without all the setup time. Typing in:
if (var1 > 100)
coutvar2" "var3endl;
takes about 10 seconds. It takes me far longer to set up the same thing in a debugger. Please correct me if I am wrong, I am not an expert in debugging.
Microsoft research is actually pretty impressive. I agree a lot of their products suck, but Office, Windows, and Visual Studio - three of their bigger products - do not suck (I'm not a huge fan of them, but if you say they "suck" you are just biased).
Like it or not, Microsoft employs many of the smartest programmers and engineers out there, and they offer a lot more services and products than just Windows.
I don't think they will use Windows for this, but maybe I am underestimating the complexity of what they need in these cars.
My laptop gets 4.5-5 hours of battery life on the second to lowest brightness setting (which is quite usable, especially when people close their windows and the movie starts). With an extended battery that would have been 9-10 hours.
I hate bundled software - I find it annoying, and everynow and then I forget to unclick the box when I am quickly installing something. I know a lot of freeware and toolbar companies do it, but I always thought (hoped?) Google was above that.
I see no reason why the "free" level can't increase at the current rate because the paid levels can be paid entirely by the money they are charging. I thought that was the whole point, but it seems I am the only slashdotter or digger who thinks so.
"The Telcos in their role as backbone providers and as your(the user's) ISP want to stop carrying traffic from you to google and back unless google pays them."
I am inclined to think that is FUD. You are saying the telcos can actually *block* traffic? I thought a tiered internet was about building dedicated reliable channels over the internet, not blocking traffic.
I believe that the telcos will be obligated to build up the infrastructure using the profits from the paid tiers. You make a good point that there is no way for that to happen right away, though.
No, that is not the definition. My understanding of it was that the infrastucture would be built up to handle the additional traffic with the profits from the companies that want it. Again, cite a source instead of talking out of your ass.
"It does. If you have Verizon, and Google refuses to pay Verizon, and you like Google, your access to Google isn't as zippy as it would otherwise be - they've slowed it down."
Please cite a source. I see people saying this a lot, but I don't buy it.
I have repeatedly asked this on forums where the consensus is largely pro-net-neutral, and never get a good answer. I'll try again.
If creating a tiered internet: 1. does not worsen my connection *at all* 2. does not cost me *any* more money (assuming I am not benefiting from it), either directly or indirectly 3. is *entirely* paid for by people or companies that can benefit from it
why should I care? It seems almost as if tiered internet could be a good thing because it would allow many applications of the internet, such as VOIP and video over IP (which were promised to us a long time ago but still not delivered in a good way) to function better.
I would appreciate a well thought out response from someone who is educated in this well enough to not start with "I think..." or "maybe this will happen..." I have, time and time again, seen people make vague claims (eg. "you can't trust the telco companies, anything they do is bad") and repeating what the corporations that will not benefit from this say (eg. google and amazon). But can someone please tell me WHY net neutrality is such a good thing?!?
I think that the statement "I'd guess that Microsoft may soon add google.com to the list of blocked URL's on their intranet" was a joke. Microsoft would never actually do this because it would look so bad - much worse than the employees using google 80% of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
"They don't require you to lock your car door when you park in your parking space. How is this any different?"
Just like how leaving your keys in the ignition could help a criminal steal it and commit a crime, leaving your wireless internet open could let a criminal do anything they want on the internet without being traced (eg. child porn).
I know leaving the keys in the ignition of your car isn't a crime, but it's really stupid and reckless. Same with leaving your wireless network open. Most people aren't aware of this, so perhaps the neighborhood is doing them a favor by making it an issue.
"they bring into the equation user preferences, collaboration, collective intelligence...
Those *could* be useful features. Search is far from perfect at this point. But I envision google perfecting it before some company that needs to resort to using the term "web 2.0" to describe itself.
Can you please explain why the butterfly effect wouldn't mitigate the accuracy of longterm forecasts compared to using statistical analysis of past data? I'm not saying I disagree with you, I just don't understand the reasoning.
This is the least newsworthy story I have seen in a long time. Just because it was on Digg does not mean it is news (I'm not trolling, Im stating the obvious)
"It's sort of like Paypal where you read about all of these horror stories online, but never find any real person who's had trouble with them"
Except the guy who tried to donate 20,000 dollars for Katrina efforts to a charity that competes with another charity affiliated with paypal? I've never had problems with paypal, but I have no doubt that they are evil and innefficient when you actually are in trouble.
http://www.geektronica.com/2005-11-01-stupid-netf lix-class-action-lawsuit
OMG how have so many people stumbled into this thread and so badly missed the point? I'll spell it out:
-The original poster said "this isn't funny, why is the slashdot headline and summary calling it funny?"
-Someone replied "it's funny because the article is so bad and the guy is stupid"
-I replied "it's elitist to derive humor from those who are more igorant or stupider than you."
-10 people replied who clearly hadn't read the conversation up to this point
Thanks for the advice on what websites I should visit, troll. And you can be a technical person with good, well-thought-out opinions without being elitist. Maybe you should try it out sometime, you'll be a lot happier and have some more friends.
"If I wrote an article in the news paper saying that G.W. Bush is a communist, then would I be let off because i'm not a political scientist?"
No, but I wouldn't submit into a comedy writing contest either. Recall this thread is arguing whether or not the article is "humorous." I'm not saying let him off, I'm saying get a new sense of humor.
"the funny part is how many mistakes this guy made writing such a short article"
That is not funny. Laughing at non-technical people for making technical mistakes is intellectually elitist, pompous and displays a bad sense of humor.
Sorry for being so harsh, but I hate it when nerds belittle non-nerds to make themselves feel better. Yes, this guy is a bad journalist - should it really be on the front page of slashdot though?
"Marketing is essential in getting a product out there, but counter-marketing never seems to work."
When competition is fierce, counter-marketing is often the best option. When I think of which crappy american beer is winning the advertisement wars, I don't think of the generic "our beer is light and refreshing" crap, I think of the humorous ads that put down the competitors. Frankly, as a young 20-something, I think negative marketing is a lot edgier and often funnier. Perhaps it's an age thing, but I would imagine this is true for the youth market too.
Kids are especially sensitive to what is cool, and are easily influenced by what the TV says. If my generation thought the original nintendo was uncool, it wouldn't have done nearly as well. Nintendo's success came from being THE product to have. If you didn't have one, you were ostracized. Sega could have changed that if they did things right IMO
"So you go play with your "elegant graceful interface". I prefer to listen to the music."
This seems obvious to me, but no one else has said it:
Don't buy an iPod if this is your mentality. You can save some money with another product that has more features but a worse interface. People don't buy iPods for the features, they buy them for the elegant interface that no alternative OS or product has been able to match.
"The very next time you find yourself writing 'cout "current value of', smack yourself and break out the debugger."
Not true - cout can be a great way to complement traditional debugging IMO. Sometimes it's faster than dealing with debugging mode. Usually it's the exact same thing youll want to use a debugger for (watch a variable at a certain point in execution) without all the setup time. Typing in:
if (var1 > 100)
coutvar2" "var3endl;
takes about 10 seconds. It takes me far longer to set up the same thing in a debugger. Please correct me if I am wrong, I am not an expert in debugging.
Microsoft research is actually pretty impressive. I agree a lot of their products suck, but Office, Windows, and Visual Studio - three of their bigger products - do not suck (I'm not a huge fan of them, but if you say they "suck" you are just biased).
Like it or not, Microsoft employs many of the smartest programmers and engineers out there, and they offer a lot more services and products than just Windows.
I don't think they will use Windows for this, but maybe I am underestimating the complexity of what they need in these cars.
I use jcreator - it's simple and good for people who don't want to do anything complicated or set up anything complicated
GTA 2 introduced just as much to the series as Vice City does.
Incremental upgrades, better graphics, etc.
I agree, the top-down games were great. I loved the multiplayer.
Free legal download:
http://www.rockstargames.com/classics/
My laptop gets 4.5-5 hours of battery life on the second to lowest brightness setting (which is quite usable, especially when people close their windows and the movie starts). With an extended battery that would have been 9-10 hours.
I hate bundled software - I find it annoying, and everynow and then I forget to unclick the box when I am quickly installing something. I know a lot of freeware and toolbar companies do it, but I always thought (hoped?) Google was above that.
I see no reason why the "free" level can't increase at the current rate because the paid levels can be paid entirely by the money they are charging. I thought that was the whole point, but it seems I am the only slashdotter or digger who thinks so.
"The Telcos in their role as backbone providers and as your(the user's) ISP want to stop carrying traffic from you to google and back unless google pays them."
I am inclined to think that is FUD. You are saying the telcos can actually *block* traffic? I thought a tiered internet was about building dedicated reliable channels over the internet, not blocking traffic.
I believe that the telcos will be obligated to build up the infrastructure using the profits from the paid tiers. You make a good point that there is no way for that to happen right away, though.
No, that is not the definition. My understanding of it was that the infrastucture would be built up to handle the additional traffic with the profits from the companies that want it. Again, cite a source instead of talking out of your ass.
"It does. If you have Verizon, and Google refuses to pay Verizon, and you like Google, your access to Google isn't as zippy as it would otherwise be - they've slowed it down."
Please cite a source. I see people saying this a lot, but I don't buy it.
I have repeatedly asked this on forums where the consensus is largely pro-net-neutral, and never get a good answer. I'll try again.
If creating a tiered internet:
1. does not worsen my connection *at all*
2. does not cost me *any* more money (assuming I am not benefiting from it), either directly or indirectly
3. is *entirely* paid for by people or companies that can benefit from it
why should I care? It seems almost as if tiered internet could be a good thing because it would allow many applications of the internet, such as VOIP and video over IP (which were promised to us a long time ago but still not delivered in a good way) to function better.
I would appreciate a well thought out response from someone who is educated in this well enough to not start with "I think..." or "maybe this will happen..." I have, time and time again, seen people make vague claims (eg. "you can't trust the telco companies, anything they do is bad") and repeating what the corporations that will not benefit from this say (eg. google and amazon). But can someone please tell me WHY net neutrality is such a good thing?!?
I think that the statement "I'd guess that Microsoft may soon add google.com to the list of blocked URL's on their intranet" was a joke. Microsoft would never actually do this because it would look so bad - much worse than the employees using google 80% of the time.