>99% of the time the calculator is idle and could run at a low clockrate. It is the 1% of the time that I find the ti-89 to be too slow. Yes, this would make things complicated, but for 140 dollars TI should be able to do it...
But I agree with your point - it is nice that I don't have to change batteries more often than once a year or so.
TI Calculators break the rules of tech - they don't really get much more powerful, and definetly don't get cheaper with time. I bought my i-89 about 5 years ago, for 140 dollars. I just checked and it's 136 dollars (for titanium - it has some more memory and usb) on Amazon. As far as i know, no TI calculator has come out that is the same size and more powerful, and prices have not come down at all. Does TI really have that much of a monopoly on the high-end calculator market? I thought back then that TI graphing calculators would run 10 times faster and be in color by now, and I know they could be for the price.
"Nice lesson to teach kids. "Don't break the rules unless you can get away with it." Should we vote in a way to not embassess the powerful people? Should we not stand in court and say "No, that officer is wrong"? Should we do what we think is right and not what society tells us is right?"
Actually, this is a very important lesson that most people with strong common sense learn very early (imo). You may have missed my point with your examples, however, so I'll explain further. I think it is one of those unspoken things; something you don't tell your kid and they don't teach you at the end of captain planet: don't take on forces more powerful and vengeful than yourself unless you can handle it. It's not always fair, but part of growing up is learning that life is not always fair.
A friend of a friend got in an argument with a cop when he got pulled over, yelled at the cop, and ended up facing charges of assualt or something (it's on his permenant record, I believe). Did he break a crime he should have gotten in trouble for? Not really. Was the situation fair? Not at all. But in the end, a socially intelligent person would NOT have gotten into that situation. All the cop had to do was go on the stand, swear the kid did whatever he wanted to say, and bam, it's done.
Same deal with the kids. They challenged a force more powerful than themselves, were repeatedly slapped on the wrist (my high school friend got suspended on the first offense for installing an "illegal" program on the school computers, by which I mean IRC, so I'd say the kids got off easy) and then finally dropped the final straw on the camel's back.
Obviously the administration is over-reacting and is in the wrong, but I think my point still stands about the kids. They are fighting hard to win the case, are probably smarter than the administration and stand a chance, but will learn their lesson in the end no matter what the result: don't f@&* with those who are more powerful than you unless you have a reason. Most people have no respect for rebels without a cause.
Or a rational adult would assume the kids would learn their lesson.
"They were punished multiple times and they still continued to do it."
A simple analysis of this sentence indicates who was irrational imo. Obviously the administrators are overreacting a little with felony charges, but the students had more than enough warning. It sounds like they were flaunting their 1337 skillz to the administration, and asking "what are you going to about it?"
Well, they are getting their answer, and learning something very valuable for their futures: don't try to embarrass people who are more powerful than you unless you have an ace up your sleeve. I am all for fighting the man, but in an intelligent manner that gives me a chance of winning. These kids were clearly immature and had no respect for their superiors - hopefully they will come out of all this as better people and with a better understanding about the way the world works (heh, as a 22 year old I just realized I am older than I like to think).
I have read nowhere that OSX is three times faster on a Mac. Do you have any evidence to back this up? If anything, I read somewhere that OSX x86 was faster because it was a more stripped down version.
Anyway, my point is that all else being equal, x86 computers have much more competition, so for the same price they should be faster.
I can't tell if you are a apple worshipper or a troller, but to stay on the safe side i'll keep this brief:
I don't care about the legality of the TOS. MSFT's TOS contains a lot of crap that gets it just as much flack. All my point was that Apple, *through* it's TOS, tries to overly control its user base. Take a 101 class in microeconomics or monopolies and you'll learn why we x86 users have it better than Apple users as far as hardware prices are concerned. All this x86 OS X thing proved is that you can run OS X on a much faster machine for a fraction of the price, something the Apple people didn't want you to know.
This is exactly the same argument that I make against Apple worshippers. I don't mean people who worship their products (they do build very good stuff), I mean people who worship the company, often blindly. What these people don't realize, I think, is the draconian control Apple seeks over its customers. Apple doesn't want people taking apart iPods, adding features to it, or using OS X on their own computers.
Imagine what life would be like if Apple had a monopoly on computers. It would be a lot like their famous advertisement from 1984, except Apple would be the ones on the big screen, yelling down on the masses. Microsoft controls software in a terrible way, but at least they don't control hardware like Apple would like to.
As I always say, if Apple controlled the computer industry today, computers would cost 5000 dollars and run at 200 MHz.
Perhaps this isn't relevant to the list, but not all sequels are unoriginal. Some notable examples I can think of:
Super Mario Brothers 2 Grand Theft Auto 3 Duke Nukem 3D
Of course, for each of these, there are 1000 sequels with nothing at all new. Can anyone think of any other games for this list? I am sure there are plenty more.
Most casinos publish their payout ratio, and if they cheat, that ratio will be low and people won't play at that casino. I still think it kind of ruins the experience, but on the other hand I don't really like any kind of gambling so I don't care.
So the users, whose tax money PAID for the computers, will not be able to use the computers while the they sit in a closet. All for some weird attempt to spite the librarian, who is still getting paid and now has less work? I like it!
I consider what both companies are doing as wrong, so I don't know who to root for.
On one hand, Real is making it easy and accessible to its customers to break Apple's proprietary codec. Apple spent time and money to make the files only play on their players, and Real is trying to use the files without permission. Oh, and I'm still pissed about that who bloated Real Player thing:)
On the other hand, what Apple is doing is very akin to something that M$FT would do. They have a virtual monopoly on music players and online music downloads (to avoid starting an obvious argument, I will stress that I know what Apple has is not an actual monopoly, but imo it basically is. There are alternatives, but many people do not know this.) What Apple is doing is unfairly using this monopoly to sustain the monopoly, something MSFT is notorious for. If I buy a song from iTunes, I should be able to use it on any player. This is a basic sentiment of slashdot - freely using what is yours. Your dollar spent on that song should give you a license to use it however you want to, not a license to go out and buy a 300 dollar iPod just to listen to it.
I think Apple will win this fight and Real was foolish to get into it. Reminds me of MP3.com's downfall.
There are ogg players for cars, as I understand it. You could also get a portable ogg player (if all your music is in ogg format, this isn't such a bad idea) and hook it up to your car directly. I do this with a tape adapter and my iPod.
As someone pointed out earlier, movies are much larger than music so of course p2p traffic will be dominated by video if you only care about bytes. Comparing music and video by bytes is like comparing apples and oranges. A much better figure, which I am sure it hard to figure out, is number of movies vs number of songs or albums.
12.3% are in the open-source OGG file format (almost all of which are exclusively traded on the BitTorrent network, particularly in Asia).
I think part of the reason ogg is bigger in asia is the iPod. The iPod is much bigger in the USA than asia, and it does not play ogg. Asia has players that can handle ogg, so people go with the superior format. I would like to see the day when my iPod can play ogg (i'm not holding my breath, apple isn't exactly known for adding more features to the old iPods) or americans move to other players and oggs become more popular.
My 30 dollar DVD player works better than my 90 dollar DVD player and takes up less space. It has served me well for more than a year now. I think I'll hold on to it, thank you very much.
"Many Apple loyalists are happy to overlook some deficiencies in Apple products"
"I personally see the battery as a natural product limiter. When the battery dies in mine, I'll buy a new one."
That's the problem with Apple worshipers. They overlook Apple's problems to the point that they think Apple is perfect and Apple has no incentive to perfect their products. I'm not saying that Apple doesn't fix their problems (in time!), and I'm not saying that Apple isn't a great company, but why do people irrationally ignore the problems and attack anyone who is critical of an apple product?
The iPod had terible battery life in its first few generations. My iPod mini initially got about 6 hours of normal use (I skipped through songs sometimes). Now after a year of infrequent use, I get about 2-4 hours. This doesn't last me even half my day. I would NOT have bought the ipod mini if I knew this - competing similar products advertised battery lives of close to 20 hours. Sure, I could go out and get a new battery (for 67 dollars, plus they will replace my ipod, not battery!) but that won't really fix my problem.
Anyway, enough complaining. My point is that apple makes products that could be a lot better. Live with it.
Many products that are electronical or computer related return terrible results. I either get a bunch of technical pages or commercial pages. For example, the motherboard on a computer I was fixing was malfunctioning. I was looking for a manual. The manufacturer's site was not on the first site. Instead, I found several pages where I could buy the product.
I think an option in google that excludes sites with large data tables (technical sites) and prices (froogle sites) would be great. It would get me to pure information a lot quicker.
As I understand it, you are saying we will destroy ourselves by changing the ecosystem and allowing previously insignificant but dangerous organisms to become significant and kill us off (normally I would have glossed over your poetic post, but it was modded as insightful so I read it more carefully).
I don't really get how that will happen. Yes, I agree that we treat this planet pretty badly, but I think the planet and humans are tough enough to take it.
You may have a point, though. Many scientists postulate that humans are currently creating a mass extinction, similar to what killed off the dinosaurs (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_e vent). IMO this is probably true, but not as bad as it sounds. Many of the species that are dying off are not important to the big scheme of things, and the complicated interweb of life will compensate. The mass extinction is sad, but probably won't be the end of humans.
Not neccesarily true, the article states that any unburned oxygen is released into the air. You choose how much oxygen gets burned to tweak the color and temperature of the flame.
Anyone detect a hint of jealousy in the writer? He clearly wishes he was treated as well as Google employees. I wish CNet would just die off already after the tv.com fiasco. CNet is part of the (relatively) old-school internet establishment that treats its users like crap and thinks it can become a huge successful company by placing large flash ads everywhere with little information in between.
And just so you know, I am not a huge google fan either, but at least they know how to treat their customers and employees well. I think they are getting too large and are part of the new internet bubble. They have revolutionized the way internet advertising works, but there are numerous copycats and at some point people will realize Google isn't worth whatever ridiculous amount its stock claims it is. Also, its stock holders won't allow them to aimlessly create new products for long, especially when the stock starts to slip.
Slashdot Mirror
>99% of the time the calculator is idle and could run at a low clockrate. It is the 1% of the time that I find the ti-89 to be too slow. Yes, this would make things complicated, but for 140 dollars TI should be able to do it...
But I agree with your point - it is nice that I don't have to change batteries more often than once a year or so.
TI Calculators break the rules of tech - they don't really get much more powerful, and definetly don't get cheaper with time. I bought my i-89 about 5 years ago, for 140 dollars. I just checked and it's 136 dollars (for titanium - it has some more memory and usb) on Amazon. As far as i know, no TI calculator has come out that is the same size and more powerful, and prices have not come down at all. Does TI really have that much of a monopoly on the high-end calculator market? I thought back then that TI graphing calculators would run 10 times faster and be in color by now, and I know they could be for the price.
"Nice lesson to teach kids. "Don't break the rules unless you can get away with it." Should we vote in a way to not embassess the powerful people? Should we not stand in court and say "No, that officer is wrong"? Should we do what we think is right and not what society tells us is right?"
Actually, this is a very important lesson that most people with strong common sense learn very early (imo). You may have missed my point with your examples, however, so I'll explain further. I think it is one of those unspoken things; something you don't tell your kid and they don't teach you at the end of captain planet: don't take on forces more powerful and vengeful than yourself unless you can handle it. It's not always fair, but part of growing up is learning that life is not always fair.
A friend of a friend got in an argument with a cop when he got pulled over, yelled at the cop, and ended up facing charges of assualt or something (it's on his permenant record, I believe). Did he break a crime he should have gotten in trouble for? Not really. Was the situation fair? Not at all. But in the end, a socially intelligent person would NOT have gotten into that situation. All the cop had to do was go on the stand, swear the kid did whatever he wanted to say, and bam, it's done.
Same deal with the kids. They challenged a force more powerful than themselves, were repeatedly slapped on the wrist (my high school friend got suspended on the first offense for installing an "illegal" program on the school computers, by which I mean IRC, so I'd say the kids got off easy) and then finally dropped the final straw on the camel's back.
Obviously the administration is over-reacting and is in the wrong, but I think my point still stands about the kids. They are fighting hard to win the case, are probably smarter than the administration and stand a chance, but will learn their lesson in the end no matter what the result: don't f@&* with those who are more powerful than you unless you have a reason. Most people have no respect for rebels without a cause.
Or a rational adult would assume the kids would learn their lesson.
"They were punished multiple times and they still continued to do it."
A simple analysis of this sentence indicates who was irrational imo. Obviously the administrators are overreacting a little with felony charges, but the students had more than enough warning. It sounds like they were flaunting their 1337 skillz to the administration, and asking "what are you going to about it?"
Well, they are getting their answer, and learning something very valuable for their futures: don't try to embarrass people who are more powerful than you unless you have an ace up your sleeve. I am all for fighting the man, but in an intelligent manner that gives me a chance of winning. These kids were clearly immature and had no respect for their superiors - hopefully they will come out of all this as better people and with a better understanding about the way the world works (heh, as a 22 year old I just realized I am older than I like to think).
I have read nowhere that OSX is three times faster on a Mac. Do you have any evidence to back this up? If anything, I read somewhere that OSX x86 was faster because it was a more stripped down version.
Anyway, my point is that all else being equal, x86 computers have much more competition, so for the same price they should be faster.
I can't tell if you are a apple worshipper or a troller, but to stay on the safe side i'll keep this brief:
I don't care about the legality of the TOS. MSFT's TOS contains a lot of crap that gets it just as much flack. All my point was that Apple, *through* it's TOS, tries to overly control its user base. Take a 101 class in microeconomics or monopolies and you'll learn why we x86 users have it better than Apple users as far as hardware prices are concerned. All this x86 OS X thing proved is that you can run OS X on a much faster machine for a fraction of the price, something the Apple people didn't want you to know.
This is exactly the same argument that I make against Apple worshippers. I don't mean people who worship their products (they do build very good stuff), I mean people who worship the company, often blindly. What these people don't realize, I think, is the draconian control Apple seeks over its customers. Apple doesn't want people taking apart iPods, adding features to it, or using OS X on their own computers.
Imagine what life would be like if Apple had a monopoly on computers. It would be a lot like their famous advertisement from 1984, except Apple would be the ones on the big screen, yelling down on the masses. Microsoft controls software in a terrible way, but at least they don't control hardware like Apple would like to.
As I always say, if Apple controlled the computer industry today, computers would cost 5000 dollars and run at 200 MHz.
Perhaps this isn't relevant to the list, but not all sequels are unoriginal. Some notable examples I can think of:
Super Mario Brothers 2
Grand Theft Auto 3
Duke Nukem 3D
Of course, for each of these, there are 1000 sequels with nothing at all new. Can anyone think of any other games for this list? I am sure there are plenty more.
Most casinos publish their payout ratio, and if they cheat, that ratio will be low and people won't play at that casino. I still think it kind of ruins the experience, but on the other hand I don't really like any kind of gambling so I don't care.
So the users, whose tax money PAID for the computers, will not be able to use the computers while the they sit in a closet. All for some weird attempt to spite the librarian, who is still getting paid and now has less work? I like it!
I consider what both companies are doing as wrong, so I don't know who to root for.
:)
On one hand, Real is making it easy and accessible to its customers to break Apple's proprietary codec. Apple spent time and money to make the files only play on their players, and Real is trying to use the files without permission. Oh, and I'm still pissed about that who bloated Real Player thing
On the other hand, what Apple is doing is very akin to something that M$FT would do. They have a virtual monopoly on music players and online music downloads (to avoid starting an obvious argument, I will stress that I know what Apple has is not an actual monopoly, but imo it basically is. There are alternatives, but many people do not know this.) What Apple is doing is unfairly using this monopoly to sustain the monopoly, something MSFT is notorious for. If I buy a song from iTunes, I should be able to use it on any player. This is a basic sentiment of slashdot - freely using what is yours. Your dollar spent on that song should give you a license to use it however you want to, not a license to go out and buy a 300 dollar iPod just to listen to it.
I think Apple will win this fight and Real was foolish to get into it. Reminds me of MP3.com's downfall.
Well, I think the LAME programmers proved you wrong, because as I understand it they haven't paid a penny to the creators of MP3 :)
But I get your point
There are ogg players for cars, as I understand it. You could also get a portable ogg player (if all your music is in ogg format, this isn't such a bad idea) and hook it up to your car directly. I do this with a tape adapter and my iPod.
As someone pointed out earlier, movies are much larger than music so of course p2p traffic will be dominated by video if you only care about bytes. Comparing music and video by bytes is like comparing apples and oranges. A much better figure, which I am sure it hard to figure out, is number of movies vs number of songs or albums.
Perhaps the OGG decoder bypasses the equalizer or the equalizer is built into the MP3 decoder. I don't see why they would do this though.
12.3% are in the open-source OGG file format (almost all of which are exclusively traded on the BitTorrent network, particularly in Asia).
I think part of the reason ogg is bigger in asia is the iPod. The iPod is much bigger in the USA than asia, and it does not play ogg. Asia has players that can handle ogg, so people go with the superior format. I would like to see the day when my iPod can play ogg (i'm not holding my breath, apple isn't exactly known for adding more features to the old iPods) or americans move to other players and oggs become more popular.
My 30 dollar DVD player works better than my 90 dollar DVD player and takes up less space. It has served me well for more than a year now. I think I'll hold on to it, thank you very much.
Not just a lifetime of learning - eons of natural selection have put a lot of inherent knowledge and intelligence in us.
If this story was about gmail:
/just sayin'
"This is great. Damn spammers!"
"Many Apple loyalists are happy to overlook some deficiencies in Apple products"
"I personally see the battery as a natural product limiter. When the battery dies in mine, I'll buy a new one."
That's the problem with Apple worshipers. They overlook Apple's problems to the point that they think Apple is perfect and Apple has no incentive to perfect their products. I'm not saying that Apple doesn't fix their problems (in time!), and I'm not saying that Apple isn't a great company, but why do people irrationally ignore the problems and attack anyone who is critical of an apple product?
The iPod had terible battery life in its first few generations. My iPod mini initially got about 6 hours of normal use (I skipped through songs sometimes). Now after a year of infrequent use, I get about 2-4 hours. This doesn't last me even half my day. I would NOT have bought the ipod mini if I knew this - competing similar products advertised battery lives of close to 20 hours. Sure, I could go out and get a new battery (for 67 dollars, plus they will replace my ipod, not battery!) but that won't really fix my problem.
Anyway, enough complaining. My point is that apple makes products that could be a lot better. Live with it.
Many products that are electronical or computer related return terrible results. I either get a bunch of technical pages or commercial pages. For example, the motherboard on a computer I was fixing was malfunctioning. I was looking for a manual. The manufacturer's site was not on the first site. Instead, I found several pages where I could buy the product.
I think an option in google that excludes sites with large data tables (technical sites) and prices (froogle sites) would be great. It would get me to pure information a lot quicker.
As I understand it, you are saying we will destroy ourselves by changing the ecosystem and allowing previously insignificant but dangerous organisms to become significant and kill us off (normally I would have glossed over your poetic post, but it was modded as insightful so I read it more carefully).
e vent). IMO this is probably true, but not as bad as it sounds. Many of the species that are dying off are not important to the big scheme of things, and the complicated interweb of life will compensate. The mass extinction is sad, but probably won't be the end of humans.
I don't really get how that will happen. Yes, I agree that we treat this planet pretty badly, but I think the planet and humans are tough enough to take it.
You may have a point, though. Many scientists postulate that humans are currently creating a mass extinction, similar to what killed off the dinosaurs (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_
Not neccesarily true, the article states that any unburned oxygen is released into the air. You choose how much oxygen gets burned to tweak the color and temperature of the flame.
All that oxygen being released into the house is "lost" energy. It will just be released into the atmosphere.
Remember the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy always increases and nothing is 100% efficient (as I understand it at least).
Anyone detect a hint of jealousy in the writer? He clearly wishes he was treated as well as Google employees. I wish CNet would just die off already after the tv.com fiasco. CNet is part of the (relatively) old-school internet establishment that treats its users like crap and thinks it can become a huge successful company by placing large flash ads everywhere with little information in between.
And just so you know, I am not a huge google fan either, but at least they know how to treat their customers and employees well. I think they are getting too large and are part of the new internet bubble. They have revolutionized the way internet advertising works, but there are numerous copycats and at some point people will realize Google isn't worth whatever ridiculous amount its stock claims it is. Also, its stock holders won't allow them to aimlessly create new products for long, especially when the stock starts to slip.