Who needs 64bit? Today, all Vista users that are gamers.
so like 5 people on the entire Earth? who the hell puts Vista on their game-playing machine when the driver support is so abysmal? i totally agree with your larger point (that they should say they support "32bit only" and that they should really be supporting both with a new product), but making it sound like 64-bit Vista is a product that a lot of people actually use is disingenuous
I considered this when I chose the example. Alchemy included a lot of wasted effort. It 'became' chemistry as a kind of by-product. A lot of wasteful research generates useful by-products of knowledge, and I suspect that if we devoted a massive percentage of our resources and effort to a failed attempt to colonize another system, we would probably still get some useful inventions and discoveries on the side. It probably wouldn't be the best use of our resources. i gather that you haven't sampled the fruity goodness that is Tang
i'm more interested in how these investors expect to profit from this. the experiment that he's doing now is only to prove or disprove a fundamental fact about the universe in order to attract funding for future experiments. it'd be followup experiments that possibly result in a workable product that would be sellable, so i suppose these initial investors are securing a place in that followup funding? it'd be great if they're investing in science that they think is good science and needs to be done, but from all the interviews in the article it seems that they're clearly envisioning the possibility to make a ton of money off this investment. in order for that to happen doesn't that mean that the results of this experiment will be locked up in some sort of patent system, and if that's the case: how do they intend to patent or keep secret a basic fact of how our universe works, and why do they get tax deductions for investing in a discovery whose results are encumbered?
Remember the days when a kernel and root filesystem would comfortably fit on a 1.4MB floppy? it's probably been a similar amount of time since i've even seen a 1.4MB floppy
The beef is that he is his own personal shill. Nearly every story he submits is a link to his own blog.
Whether they're interesting stories or not, and whether his stories are worse than having no Roland at all, it's the sort of blatant self-promotion that people on Slashdot are finely attuned toward hating. It is an affront to the sort of chaotic diversity that we've grown accustomed to having here, and folks don't like it.
those two questions i bolded are the entire debate, how can you throw a "whether" in front of them and move on with the conversation as though the issue is worth discussing aside from those two points?
Don't laugh - I once used 127 floppies to back up a 350meg hd. You can buy a computer nowadays for what that drive cost me. (Of course, the same can be said for the 80 meg hd a few years before, or the ad lib 8-bit sound card, or the 14" vga monitor... or the dual external 5-14 floppy drives before that...) you could *build* a computer in the time it takes to swap 127 floppies
"I got fucked out of a $100 million box office movie script" isn't bragging rights, it's suicide watch. i'm curious how much the people that actually write scripts for a living earn for writing a "$100 million box office movie script"
There is a huge problem with the argument made in the article - one which is plainly visible in the "Palladium" example. The meaning of "Palladium" is related to an internal state (i.e. my internal state). What am *I* thinking about when I write "Palladium"? Am I referring to the element Palladium? Am I referring to the DRM technologies from Microsoft? This is dependent on three things primarily:
1: my "role". What am I? Am I a journalist at a newspaper? Am I a private citizen with a large collection of illgotten mp3s?
2: my "context". Am I discussing something? Is this a query related to a conversation I am having with someone else? God only knows how many Google queries actually stem from ongoing IM-conversations where a, to the reader, previously unknown term/subject is brought forward.
3: my "personality". What am I primarily interested in? What is my preferred format of consumtion? If I am 7 years old - what the hell does "Palladium" really mean? the main point of the article is that semantics offers improved searching over link statistics, and i'm not sure how any of this relates to that since none of this context is being supplied or used by a search engine like Google either. but like you said it's interesting that a lot of the questions above could be answered with a semantic search of the user's own hard drive, which would be probably more useful than a link statistics index of that same device.
but doing a search on your own machine and providing that context to the search engine to help it identify context is a huge privacy issue. my browser could aid the search engine in establishing the context by transferring 1. information about me to establish what my "role" is, 2. information about ongoing conversations to establish my "context" for the search terms, and 3. information about other things that i've been browsing to determine my "personality". but do you really want your browser to convey any of that to the search engine? and if you're not going to be passing that information to the server, how can your computer use that information locally to match up against various server-supplied choices to make a more exact match while keeping your privacy intact?
unfortunately none of this relates to automatic versus manual tagging and indexing of documents semantically, which i figured would be the focus of an article by someone with a stake in that argument. how the web of relations gets built isn't really based on your personal situation. this all has to do with how we decide which part of that semantic web we want to offer the user as the most useful starting points for finding more information on a topic.
what do you think happens when it gets the page rank? you think google doesn't keep track of that page after you requested it's rank? that's why i said "the old google toolbar only connected to home base if you did a google search with it or if you turned on the pagerank display." in configuration for that toolbar pageranking of pages was defaulted to OFF and in the place where you enabled it they clearly mentioned that it works by contacting their servers.
There's an interesting solution to this problem -- the "scientist at Carnegie Mellon" is Luis von Ahn who was recently awarded a MacArthur genius award. In optical recognition tasks like this where the "true" answer is not known, how do you verify that a human agent correctly did the recognition? Just see if a bunch of other users type the same thing. It's a clever twist on consensus voting, and was recently snatched up by Google as "Google image labeler" here. it was also previously available as The ESP Game, from...(wait for it)...Carnegie Mellon
no, a toolbar is just a place to locate lots of tools and usually a nice visible logo for the company that made it, nothing more is implied. in some cases using browser tools causes interaction with the hosting site, but this is not the same as saying that the toolbar should necessarily be involved in other web browser functions such as intercepting bad domains. the old google toolbar only connected to home base if you did a google search with it or if you turned on the pagerank display
That is because MythTV is only available in Linux running on the only card worse than an ATI tv card, the WinTV card. That sucker crashes more often than my All In Wonder Card.
But yeah, why use Microsoft when you can use ATI's software. my Media Center PC that i just replaced was known to randomly not carry-out scheduled recordings and randomly stop recording hour-long shows 8-10 seconds into the recording. it happened quite a bit actually, and the only remedy was to regularly reboot the machine on a weekly schedule (rebooting was the only thing that brought it out of a cycle of 8-10 second recordings, and was somewhat reliable at preventing them) and to be home when recordings were set to start just in case the reboot didn't cover it. it seems like every recording method has its problems
good luck with your new crush. if you're looking to sell all your old pin-up posters of firewalls i'm sure that there is a market for that sort of thing on this very site
If you think the US military has time to review all of a soldier's private emails, you're seriously misinformed. The military is struggling to recruit and attrition is at an all-time high. The only time this will be used is to nail someone to the cross who screwed up in some other way.
This gives the command the authority to enforce certain necessary restrictions. It's highly unlikely that any commander will feel his/her troops have the time or inclination to enforce this rule to the full extent, and even more unlikely that a commander would bother. This will be reserved for trouble makers or people who can't keep their mouths shut (which was already against the UCMJ) nothing more. it doesn't take any time at all to say "don't blog and you can send one email a week." this gives them a guideline to block the activity altogether whereas the Uniform Code of Military Justice only gives them the ability to punish people after the fact for things that they already said )and therefore does require them to review the activity whereas this rule can be used to stop or slow it). also this rule applies to contractors as pointed out in TFA, whereas the UCMJ doesn't.
the whole subject is really sad when you have people on one side of the Iraq war debate saying "if you think this war is going poorly, why don't you ask the troops?" while they know full well that with the UCMJ in place they can prosecute soldiers that are critical of the war (though some are finding work arounds), and now they're doing even more to shutdown the free flow of information.
What would be cool is if everyone put the key in their sig. or maybe if we accelerated signups to the point that someone actually had the Slashdot ID of 13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,640
Slashdot Mirror
this is what happens when Sesame Street kids grow up to be engineers
exactly! they should just post something like "no 3G, no zoom on the camera, lame" and be done with it
Who needs 64bit? Today, all Vista users that are gamers.
so like 5 people on the entire Earth? who the hell puts Vista on their game-playing machine when the driver support is so abysmal? i totally agree with your larger point (that they should say they support "32bit only" and that they should really be supporting both with a new product), but making it sound like 64-bit Vista is a product that a lot of people actually use is disingenuousif they're only living to 55 on average it's probably not worth investing in Viagra adwords
i'm more interested in how these investors expect to profit from this. the experiment that he's doing now is only to prove or disprove a fundamental fact about the universe in order to attract funding for future experiments. it'd be followup experiments that possibly result in a workable product that would be sellable, so i suppose these initial investors are securing a place in that followup funding? it'd be great if they're investing in science that they think is good science and needs to be done, but from all the interviews in the article it seems that they're clearly envisioning the possibility to make a ton of money off this investment. in order for that to happen doesn't that mean that the results of this experiment will be locked up in some sort of patent system, and if that's the case: how do they intend to patent or keep secret a basic fact of how our universe works, and why do they get tax deductions for investing in a discovery whose results are encumbered?
Whether they're interesting stories or not, and whether his stories are worse than having no Roland at all, it's the sort of blatant self-promotion that people on Slashdot are finely attuned toward hating. It is an affront to the sort of chaotic diversity that we've grown accustomed to having here, and folks don't like it.
those two questions i bolded are the entire debate, how can you throw a "whether" in front of them and move on with the conversation as though the issue is worth discussing aside from those two points?
1: my "role". What am I? Am I a journalist at a newspaper? Am I a private citizen with a large collection of illgotten mp3s?
2: my "context". Am I discussing something? Is this a query related to a conversation I am having with someone else? God only knows how many Google queries actually stem from ongoing IM-conversations where a, to the reader, previously unknown term/subject is brought forward.
3: my "personality". What am I primarily interested in? What is my preferred format of consumtion? If I am 7 years old - what the hell does "Palladium" really mean? the main point of the article is that semantics offers improved searching over link statistics, and i'm not sure how any of this relates to that since none of this context is being supplied or used by a search engine like Google either. but like you said it's interesting that a lot of the questions above could be answered with a semantic search of the user's own hard drive, which would be probably more useful than a link statistics index of that same device.
but doing a search on your own machine and providing that context to the search engine to help it identify context is a huge privacy issue. my browser could aid the search engine in establishing the context by transferring 1. information about me to establish what my "role" is, 2. information about ongoing conversations to establish my "context" for the search terms, and 3. information about other things that i've been browsing to determine my "personality". but do you really want your browser to convey any of that to the search engine? and if you're not going to be passing that information to the server, how can your computer use that information locally to match up against various server-supplied choices to make a more exact match while keeping your privacy intact?
unfortunately none of this relates to automatic versus manual tagging and indexing of documents semantically, which i figured would be the focus of an article by someone with a stake in that argument. how the web of relations gets built isn't really based on your personal situation. this all has to do with how we decide which part of that semantic web we want to offer the user as the most useful starting points for finding more information on a topic.
witness the birth of the Purple-Ray using non-reflective discs
no, a toolbar is just a place to locate lots of tools and usually a nice visible logo for the company that made it, nothing more is implied. in some cases using browser tools causes interaction with the hosting site, but this is not the same as saying that the toolbar should necessarily be involved in other web browser functions such as intercepting bad domains. the old google toolbar only connected to home base if you did a google search with it or if you turned on the pagerank display
i don't know, but once we've gathered together a list i say we make an .untrustworthy TLD and force them all to switch-over to that
But yeah, why use Microsoft when you can use ATI's software. my Media Center PC that i just replaced was known to randomly not carry-out scheduled recordings and randomly stop recording hour-long shows 8-10 seconds into the recording. it happened quite a bit actually, and the only remedy was to regularly reboot the machine on a weekly schedule (rebooting was the only thing that brought it out of a cycle of 8-10 second recordings, and was somewhat reliable at preventing them) and to be home when recordings were set to start just in case the reboot didn't cover it. it seems like every recording method has its problems
Protected Ontology for Networked Interactive Entertainment Services, because everyone loves PONIES!
good luck with your new crush. if you're looking to sell all your old pin-up posters of firewalls i'm sure that there is a market for that sort of thing on this very site
fortunately, MacGyver only seems Canadian, he's actually on our side
and both files balloon up to 16k+ once you've added the requisite tentacles and hot grits to make them actually enticing
I'm certain they would be fairly pissed-off. just give them some time to unwind with their Swedish Enlarger Pumps (i heard that's their bag, baby)
This gives the command the authority to enforce certain necessary restrictions. It's highly unlikely that any commander will feel his/her troops have the time or inclination to enforce this rule to the full extent, and even more unlikely that a commander would bother. This will be reserved for trouble makers or people who can't keep their mouths shut (which was already against the UCMJ) nothing more. it doesn't take any time at all to say "don't blog and you can send one email a week." this gives them a guideline to block the activity altogether whereas the Uniform Code of Military Justice only gives them the ability to punish people after the fact for things that they already said )and therefore does require them to review the activity whereas this rule can be used to stop or slow it). also this rule applies to contractors as pointed out in TFA, whereas the UCMJ doesn't.
the whole subject is really sad when you have people on one side of the Iraq war debate saying "if you think this war is going poorly, why don't you ask the troops?" while they know full well that with the UCMJ in place they can prosecute soldiers that are critical of the war (though some are finding work arounds), and now they're doing even more to shutdown the free flow of information.
or maybe if we accelerated signups to the point that someone actually had the Slashdot ID of 13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,64