I think the point T-Bone-T was trying to make was that, often enough, Flash makes use of tracking the position of your mouse cursor. When it comes to touch screens, your cursor doesn't have a position except when "clicking". Depending on the application, that may be a problem.
Flash didn't really solve "can everyone watch my video?" It is entirely possible for a computer to not have Flash installed, and so not everyone can watch your video. Only the people who have, though one means or another, installed a proprietary plugin can watch your video. Flash is common, but there's no particular reason why it's easier to install Flash than another plugin-- say a video codec.
At first Flash solved, "Can I integrate my video directly into the webpage in a slick way?" and then later, "Can I as a content owner make it difficult for viewers to download my video?" HTML 5 solves the first thing.
Well in a certain way of looking at things, nominating the Internet includes nominating all of those other things at the same time. Essentially you're nominating "the state of the art in mass communication", which includes sending signals over wire and mass reproduction of text.
I still don't think there's a distinction between laptops and notebooks. Those terms are synonymous in my head. I thought it was just a marketing distinction of which term the company who produced it thought sounded better.
The for some reason you have "desktop" computers even though they usually sit under the desk, and laptops usually sit on the desktop. I don't know, I'm not going to go back and reinvent terms, but I don't see the point in claiming "netbook" as a distinct class if it's just an ultraportable which is good at using the Internet. There have been laptops of various sizes that have built-in cellular data access.
And yet you posted just to say that...? Seems like you have to have the last word even when you don't have an argument.
I'm not saying theoretical work is "not science", I'm saying that science works within an ontological framework, whereas natural philosophy is the development of that framework. If someone is rewriting that framework with thought experiments and abstract reasoning rather than going through the process that we call "the scientific method", then though many people might call him a "scientist", in a much stricter sense he's not.
It's not a novel distinction that I'm making. Look it up.
So you're saying that he only became famous *outside of scientific circles*. So a guy develops an amazing theory that completely changes the way we look at the world, though people who understand the theory is blown away and accepts that it's probably right, the laymen who don't understand wait for harder evidence. That's hardly arguing with me.
I can think of two benefits: Google Docs is generally quicker than OpenOffice and it takes up less space. If you're talking about a relatively underpowered computer with a small hard drive, then I can imagine preferring a lightweight, quick office suite rather than a fully-featured one.
most netbooks come with at least 20 gigs of storage (even the SSD based ones) and performance is only increasing... with faster and faster netbooks, I just don't see the point.
With faster and faster netbooks, I start to wonder whether "netbook" is a meaningful classification anymore. When people started talking about netbooks, I asked, "What's the difference between a netbook and an ultraportable laptop?" The answer came back, "It's only really powerful enough to run a web browser and has almost no internal storage. The idea is that you'll mostly only use it to run web applications." As netbooks get faster, have bigger hard drives, and are running full desktop operating systems, I'd like to re-ask my question.
Yeah, if I have to install something to watch Theora movies, I'd rather not install Silverlight. I can just as easily install the Theora codec from xiph.
Maybe we should start distributing browsers and hosting websites only from countries that don't recognize those patents. Move enough commerce offshore, and maybe we'll get some patent reform.
I don't understand what the hell is going on, but it seems to me that if you can send energy someplace faster than the speed of light, that could be used to transmit "information".
Assuming the energy increase is detectable and measurable, I could pre-arrange a system where a particular increase in energy constituted a discrete signal. All you need to do is to be able to detect the difference between "increase in energy" and "no increase in energy", and you basically have a bit. Find a way to have a lot of bits, and suddenly you can have conventional data transmission.
Sounds like you're making up stuff. I said, "Once you have a single clear goal, then cooperation is often more productive." So just based on that sentence, it requires that you assume we all have the same clearly defined goal, and then I only said it would "often" be more productive.
Microsoft had many goals, including collecting ad revenue, enforcing vendor lock-in, and controlling the future of computing. Those goals are different from (and even opposed to) the goals of many of the people in the FOSS community as well as end-users themselves. Therefore competition makes a lot of sense.
But then take a look at what has happened with Mozilla, Apple, KDE, and Chrome. They share many of the same goals, and so you see some kinds of cooperation and it works out well. However, each of them has their own goals and so they compete to some degree. Still, you get cooperation at least in developing new HTML and CSS standards.
My main complaint is that it's a little too violent. I don't mean in the "I don't want my kids to play violent games" sense, nor do I mean, "Ewwww... blood and guts, I don't want to see that!" What I mean is, my recollection of the previous fallout games was that you could go from town to town without really fighting anyone. When you did run across some kind of adversary, you could usually find some way around actually fighting them. Often enough, if your character's communication skills were good enough, you could just persuade them to do what you wanted.
I haven't finished Fallout 3 yet, but I feel like there were a bunch of situations where I didn't have much of an option except to fight. It's a minor complaint, I guess, but it added to a vague sense that I had of Fallout 3 somehow not having the depth of the previous games. What you were complaining about with the humor probably also added to that feeling.
There are lots of facts that ARE known, such as the way sub-atomic particles behave. He refused to accept this.
AFAIK he didn't refuse to believe that they behaved the way that they did, but rather he refused to believe a hypothesis put forward as an explanation for why they behaved that way.
The irony is that Einsteins own theories weren't accepted because people believed they didn't make sense. However when it was found that the world behaved in accordance to his theory, the theory was accepted.
Well that's not quite what happened. People who didn't read his work or didn't understand it didn't accept it because they didn't think it made sense. However, his arguments were quite good, and they do make a lot of sense if you understand them. His theories were accepted (and even praised) well before they were proven with any kind of experiment.
Yet when he was presented with evidence of the world behaving as he did not expect it he came out with drivel like "God does not play dice" and called it "spooky action at a distance".
He wasn't merely presented with evidence of the world behaving as he didn't expect it. Some of his work helped create the field of quantum mechanics. He didn't refuse to believe the phenomena that were observed in these experiments, he merely disagreed with certain hypotheses of what the reality behind the phenomena might be.
And those hypotheses still aren't proven. It's not unscientific to disbelieve unproven hypotheses. It's certainly not "denying reality".
On a side note, I find it funny that the idea of "denying reality" seems to offend you so much while you're in the process of espousing a theory that, if you look closely enough, there is no single "reality" to the universe-- that it's all probability.
Oh no, public opinion isn't with me? That must mean that I'm wrong, because public opinion is always right.
His work resulted in testable predictions, but he didn't really do any of the testing. The "scientific method" as we normally talk about it doesn't consist entirely of making a hypothesis.
Finally, competition is a motivator. How many people would argue that IE8 is worse than IE6, even among Linux fans? Well, IE8 would never have happened if it weren't for competition from Firefox. That's the only thing that drove MS to just stick with IE6.
Right, but Microsoft's "single clear goal" with IE has never been to make a good browser.
Along these lines, no one's going to watch a sports game that only involves cooperation, instead of competition.
Two problems with this analogy: First, sports are watched for entertainment, and not because they're productive. That competition is more entertaining than cooperation isn't terrifically important when you're not interested in entertaining viewers.
Second, a lot of sports involve an awful lot of cooperation. Yes, they have competition between teams, but any team sport requires cooperation within the team. Once you have a single clear goal, then cooperation is often more productive.
Depends on the level that they're theorizing. Are they working within the framework of "modern science working the way we think it works"? Or are they completely rewriting the way we think it works on a fundamental level?
I'm not saying a scientist's work all takes place in a lab, but Einstein's most famous achievement wasn't so much in his reworking of a mathematical equation, tweaking an existing theory, working in a lab, or going through anything that we would call "the scientific method". His achievement was in taking a step back and asking, "What do we mean when we say two things a 5 miles apart? What are we really doing when we measure things?"
Now you can call that science, but really it fits more into a particular branch of philosophy.
Known facts? You just acknowledged that Einstein may have been right. The facts still aren't known, so I don't see how his view was supposed to be "based on science".
Good scientists base their views on what they think makes sense. Evidence and scientific studies serve to educate that sensibility of "what makes sense," but scientists aren't supposed to go, "Oh, this makes no sense to me, but someone proposed a theory that hasn't been proven yet, so I have to accept it."
Saying "God does not play dice," is a bit theatrical, but his statement wasn't a crazy faith-based assertion. What he's saying is that he can't make sense of a universe based on probability rather than actual existence, and so he doesn't believe that we live in such a universe.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the point T-Bone-T was trying to make was that, often enough, Flash makes use of tracking the position of your mouse cursor. When it comes to touch screens, your cursor doesn't have a position except when "clicking". Depending on the application, that may be a problem.
But will it stop crashing?
Flash didn't really solve "can everyone watch my video?" It is entirely possible for a computer to not have Flash installed, and so not everyone can watch your video. Only the people who have, though one means or another, installed a proprietary plugin can watch your video. Flash is common, but there's no particular reason why it's easier to install Flash than another plugin-- say a video codec.
At first Flash solved, "Can I integrate my video directly into the webpage in a slick way?" and then later, "Can I as a content owner make it difficult for viewers to download my video?" HTML 5 solves the first thing.
Well in a certain way of looking at things, nominating the Internet includes nominating all of those other things at the same time. Essentially you're nominating "the state of the art in mass communication", which includes sending signals over wire and mass reproduction of text.
Awarding the Peace Prize to a thing? Ugh.
They already gave it to Al Gore already. As far as animatronics go, he isn't even very life-like.
At least the Internet has some personality.
who would get the cash prize? Please don't tell me it's "anonymous". I hate that guy.
I still don't think there's a distinction between laptops and notebooks. Those terms are synonymous in my head. I thought it was just a marketing distinction of which term the company who produced it thought sounded better.
The for some reason you have "desktop" computers even though they usually sit under the desk, and laptops usually sit on the desktop. I don't know, I'm not going to go back and reinvent terms, but I don't see the point in claiming "netbook" as a distinct class if it's just an ultraportable which is good at using the Internet. There have been laptops of various sizes that have built-in cellular data access.
And yet you posted just to say that...? Seems like you have to have the last word even when you don't have an argument.
I'm not saying theoretical work is "not science", I'm saying that science works within an ontological framework, whereas natural philosophy is the development of that framework. If someone is rewriting that framework with thought experiments and abstract reasoning rather than going through the process that we call "the scientific method", then though many people might call him a "scientist", in a much stricter sense he's not.
It's not a novel distinction that I'm making. Look it up.
So you're saying that he only became famous *outside of scientific circles*. So a guy develops an amazing theory that completely changes the way we look at the world, though people who understand the theory is blown away and accepts that it's probably right, the laymen who don't understand wait for harder evidence. That's hardly arguing with me.
Yeah, because the great firewall is working so well for China.
I can think of two benefits: Google Docs is generally quicker than OpenOffice and it takes up less space. If you're talking about a relatively underpowered computer with a small hard drive, then I can imagine preferring a lightweight, quick office suite rather than a fully-featured one.
most netbooks come with at least 20 gigs of storage (even the SSD based ones) and performance is only increasing... with faster and faster netbooks, I just don't see the point.
With faster and faster netbooks, I start to wonder whether "netbook" is a meaningful classification anymore. When people started talking about netbooks, I asked, "What's the difference between a netbook and an ultraportable laptop?" The answer came back, "It's only really powerful enough to run a web browser and has almost no internal storage. The idea is that you'll mostly only use it to run web applications." As netbooks get faster, have bigger hard drives, and are running full desktop operating systems, I'd like to re-ask my question.
Yeah, if I have to install something to watch Theora movies, I'd rather not install Silverlight. I can just as easily install the Theora codec from xiph.
Maybe we should start distributing browsers and hosting websites only from countries that don't recognize those patents. Move enough commerce offshore, and maybe we'll get some patent reform.
I don't understand what the hell is going on, but it seems to me that if you can send energy someplace faster than the speed of light, that could be used to transmit "information".
Assuming the energy increase is detectable and measurable, I could pre-arrange a system where a particular increase in energy constituted a discrete signal. All you need to do is to be able to detect the difference between "increase in energy" and "no increase in energy", and you basically have a bit. Find a way to have a lot of bits, and suddenly you can have conventional data transmission.
So according to all the socialists here...
???
Sounds like you're making up stuff. I said, "Once you have a single clear goal, then cooperation is often more productive." So just based on that sentence, it requires that you assume we all have the same clearly defined goal, and then I only said it would "often" be more productive.
Microsoft had many goals, including collecting ad revenue, enforcing vendor lock-in, and controlling the future of computing. Those goals are different from (and even opposed to) the goals of many of the people in the FOSS community as well as end-users themselves. Therefore competition makes a lot of sense.
But then take a look at what has happened with Mozilla, Apple, KDE, and Chrome. They share many of the same goals, and so you see some kinds of cooperation and it works out well. However, each of them has their own goals and so they compete to some degree. Still, you get cooperation at least in developing new HTML and CSS standards.
My main complaint is that it's a little too violent. I don't mean in the "I don't want my kids to play violent games" sense, nor do I mean, "Ewwww... blood and guts, I don't want to see that!" What I mean is, my recollection of the previous fallout games was that you could go from town to town without really fighting anyone. When you did run across some kind of adversary, you could usually find some way around actually fighting them. Often enough, if your character's communication skills were good enough, you could just persuade them to do what you wanted.
I haven't finished Fallout 3 yet, but I feel like there were a bunch of situations where I didn't have much of an option except to fight. It's a minor complaint, I guess, but it added to a vague sense that I had of Fallout 3 somehow not having the depth of the previous games. What you were complaining about with the humor probably also added to that feeling.
There are lots of facts that ARE known, such as the way sub-atomic particles behave. He refused to accept this.
AFAIK he didn't refuse to believe that they behaved the way that they did, but rather he refused to believe a hypothesis put forward as an explanation for why they behaved that way.
The irony is that Einsteins own theories weren't accepted because people believed they didn't make sense. However when it was found that the world behaved in accordance to his theory, the theory was accepted.
Well that's not quite what happened. People who didn't read his work or didn't understand it didn't accept it because they didn't think it made sense. However, his arguments were quite good, and they do make a lot of sense if you understand them. His theories were accepted (and even praised) well before they were proven with any kind of experiment.
Yet when he was presented with evidence of the world behaving as he did not expect it he came out with drivel like "God does not play dice" and called it "spooky action at a distance".
He wasn't merely presented with evidence of the world behaving as he didn't expect it. Some of his work helped create the field of quantum mechanics. He didn't refuse to believe the phenomena that were observed in these experiments, he merely disagreed with certain hypotheses of what the reality behind the phenomena might be.
And those hypotheses still aren't proven. It's not unscientific to disbelieve unproven hypotheses. It's certainly not "denying reality".
On a side note, I find it funny that the idea of "denying reality" seems to offend you so much while you're in the process of espousing a theory that, if you look closely enough, there is no single "reality" to the universe-- that it's all probability.
Oh no, public opinion isn't with me? That must mean that I'm wrong, because public opinion is always right.
His work resulted in testable predictions, but he didn't really do any of the testing. The "scientific method" as we normally talk about it doesn't consist entirely of making a hypothesis.
Finally, competition is a motivator. How many people would argue that IE8 is worse than IE6, even among Linux fans? Well, IE8 would never have happened if it weren't for competition from Firefox. That's the only thing that drove MS to just stick with IE6.
Right, but Microsoft's "single clear goal" with IE has never been to make a good browser.
13b. Invest more in the XBOX dept.
Right, because the XBox couldn't possibly lose money.
Along these lines, no one's going to watch a sports game that only involves cooperation, instead of competition.
Two problems with this analogy: First, sports are watched for entertainment, and not because they're productive. That competition is more entertaining than cooperation isn't terrifically important when you're not interested in entertaining viewers.
Second, a lot of sports involve an awful lot of cooperation. Yes, they have competition between teams, but any team sport requires cooperation within the team. Once you have a single clear goal, then cooperation is often more productive.
Since when is a theoretician not a scientist?
Depends on the level that they're theorizing. Are they working within the framework of "modern science working the way we think it works"? Or are they completely rewriting the way we think it works on a fundamental level?
I'm not saying a scientist's work all takes place in a lab, but Einstein's most famous achievement wasn't so much in his reworking of a mathematical equation, tweaking an existing theory, working in a lab, or going through anything that we would call "the scientific method". His achievement was in taking a step back and asking, "What do we mean when we say two things a 5 miles apart? What are we really doing when we measure things?"
Now you can call that science, but really it fits more into a particular branch of philosophy.
Known facts? You just acknowledged that Einstein may have been right. The facts still aren't known, so I don't see how his view was supposed to be "based on science".
Good scientists base their views on what they think makes sense. Evidence and scientific studies serve to educate that sensibility of "what makes sense," but scientists aren't supposed to go, "Oh, this makes no sense to me, but someone proposed a theory that hasn't been proven yet, so I have to accept it."
Saying "God does not play dice," is a bit theatrical, but his statement wasn't a crazy faith-based assertion. What he's saying is that he can't make sense of a universe based on probability rather than actual existence, and so he doesn't believe that we live in such a universe.
Great movie.
Little Bill: You are a cowardly son of a bitch. You just shot an unarmed man!
Will Munny: Well he shoulda armed himself...
And you thought I was attempting a serious rebuttal?