Ideally, you'd have an ethernet connector on your cell-phone, in addition to (a better form of) wireless (than we currently have, see the Freescale option iNTEL squelched in the UWB debacle).
When you need real security, you'd plug the cellphone into the ethernet jack provided by (for example) your bank.
But, of course, you wouldn't want your cellphone to be running random games downloaded from who-knows-where.
The fundamental problem here is conflicting requirements.
The only way, of course, for it to be flat is for it to be very large and (relatively) very round.
Flat in a 3d spherical coordinate system.
But evolution? Again, look to the woof and the weave in the coordinate system, and imperfections in the observation tools.
But I'm not going to claim that any modern view of history is nearly as accurate as our view of the sky and our view looking back on the earth.
Beyond that, trying to claim evolution as evidence that disproves the creation is focusing on one very small (if recently too noisy) class of creationist theory. (Call it pseudo-theory if you want, but if being able to poke holes in a theory makes it not a theory, then what would we do with science?)
The tendency that bothers me here is the tendency to jump to conclusions and paint all faith with one brush. Check your own faith in science when you're done.
Put the brain in idle for a moment. Forget the market dependency on MSWindows. Assume that Linux will actually compete in the games market in a year or two.
PPC core(s) with NVIDIA chipset. Or maybe ARM, multi-core, cranked up to 2GHz and extended to 64 bit. Use their graphics cores instead of the traditional vector units.
I don't find it, but I remember after the blogstorm reading Negroponte's response, that OLPC was not using any of its resources to port MSxp to the XO. My memory was that he said that they were basically just answering Microsoft's porting group's questions, and that they weren't planning on actively attempting to prevent the port. Even with all the avalanche of interpretation, I don't find direct quotes from Negroponte, long enough, and in context, to show that he is doing anything more than being willing to talk with Microsoft.
I do see a lot of unsupported interpretation.
Unfortunately, part of the aftermath of the blogstorm is that the article that contained his response is now buried under the tons of trolls and shills who seem bent on making it look as if Microsoft has already won before the game has begun. Typical Microsoft.
That matters to the minister who wants to see kids make a smooth transition into the higher grades, channel them into secondary education, job training and un-employment.
Get on the lists to find out what the real story is.
I shouldn't spoil the plot, but other people might read this.
Sugar on XP is not scheduled to replace either Sugar or Linux. The only people trying (desperately, per the friendly A) to show how XP runs on the thing (and using a lot of slight-of-hand to do so) are with/from Microsoft.
Don't look at the plan on the wall behind the current. That was from a sales job we did to a different group of people, and they don't need to know the real story. Look over here at this white board that we've been keeping hidden in a top-secret closet and wheeled in just for this meeting.
Ya think?
No, it doesn't really require conspiracy against conspiracy theories, or even seeing through the old shell game here. This is all FUD. Worry the Boards of Education of some poor backwater (in Microsoft's opinion) easily deluded South American countries about advertised performance. Hide the fine print.
Specified values are 50% better than you will obtain.
to quote an old spoof of a Darkness Emitting Arsenic Diode spec sheet that I can't seem to find in my archives any more.)
Sure there are gender biases and cultural biases and racial biases and income level biases.
The source of the social problems from all this is that we refuse to look at the individual differences and insist on making the statistical biases the rule. That's turning statistics, logic, all reason upside down.
We should quit saying, women do poorly at subject C, therefore, Miss Q, you should avoid subject C at school.
Yeah, if we follow this path of logic very far, we end up down a road where standardized schooling becomes impossible. But I think that could be a good thing. Standards shouldn't be used as a straightjacket, they should be used as ladders and ropes for climbing and swinging on.
The ravages of the hormone changes post-puberty do different things to girls than to boys. Definitely makes it harder for them to handle linear logic/math, but surviving the changes seems to give them an advantage in the non-linear stuff.
That much is true in Asia as well. But Asia has this really strange cultural bias against guys being caught doing anything that smacks of WORK, so the girls have a chance to get ahead a bit before their hormones kick in in high school.
I think the fear of work in guys is also hormonal, and the hormones kick in earlier than for girls. But asian culture has this knife that cuts down kids who stick out, which makes it that much harder for the boys to buck the peer pressure to join the soccer or baseball club.
Just asking, because I remember iNTEL has a compiler that some claim to have proven biases its code output against AMD.
It's a little hard to talk about embrace and extend when iNTEL owns the original rights to x86, but is there a possibility that the instability was due to attempting to run opcodes that AMD hadn't emulated?
I know, if you start digging into these sorts of questions, there doesn't seem to be any end, but these are precisely where Microsoft established its monopoly. Sometimes, it's necessary to take a performance (or price/performance) hit, as an investment in the future plurality of the marketplace.
And it was impossible to get the code they put out to pass meaningful tests.
I got to the point that, when one company who had just hired me showed me that that kind of code was what they wanted, I bailed. I don't like that roller-coaster.
Well, this is actually, nearly as I can tell, the entire argument between atheism and, well, serious religion.
If we assume that certain ancient Greek philosophers were correct and God should meet human ideals, the atheists must be right and a person tends to make his Gods in his own image.
But guy called Isaiah and a guy called Benjamin indicated that God is a bit beyond us. This makes sense, if you think about it, if God is immortal. An immortal man would likely have views that mortals would prefer to consider less than sane. A true God would necessarily know already about quarks and dark matter (if such really do exist) and far beyond those.
If sufficiently advanced technology appears to the not-so-advanced as magic, what should we expect the wisdom of any being truly worthy of being called God to appear to us as?
Some question whether such an incomprehensible being could possibly be the object of faith, but you have to look at it the other way -- how could a person possibly be confident in a God that was entirely comprehensible? A perfect match to a set of human ideals would seem to be a dead giveaway that the entity in question must be less than the Absolute.
On the other hand, if God is not inimical to us, He would restrict anything He reveals to that which the revealee could understand, plus a maybe a little to keep us on our toes.
That's the reason faith requires trust. (For my part, I've considered both trusting and not trusting, and it seems to me that refusing to trust can have no advantage over trusting, but trusting might have some advantages.)
Slashdot Mirror
Ideally, you'd have an ethernet connector on your cell-phone, in addition to (a better form of) wireless (than we currently have, see the Freescale option iNTEL squelched in the UWB debacle).
When you need real security, you'd plug the cellphone into the ethernet jack provided by (for example) your bank.
But, of course, you wouldn't want your cellphone to be running random games downloaded from who-knows-where.
The fundamental problem here is conflicting requirements.
And the absolute standard dumps us in the world of monoculture.
The people at your workplace who know you are a fundamentally different method of authentication than passwords/passcodes/tokens/etc.
Watch where you wave that big brush you're painting things. You might miss something important.
gestures are symbols.
Symbols are tokens, like passwords are tokens. (No, I'm not talking about physical tokens, physical tokens are also tokens.)
It doesn't change the essential nature of the problem to just use a different kind of token.
Smoke and mirrors.
Keeping passwords, pins, any kind of digital token, on a general purpose computer is just asking to catch a virus.
What makes you so sure the Aztecs didn't know the earth was round?
The earth is flat.
The only way, of course, for it to be flat is for it to be very large and (relatively) very round.
Flat in a 3d spherical coordinate system.
But evolution? Again, look to the woof and the weave in the coordinate system, and imperfections in the observation tools.
But I'm not going to claim that any modern view of history is nearly as accurate as our view of the sky and our view looking back on the earth.
Beyond that, trying to claim evolution as evidence that disproves the creation is focusing on one very small (if recently too noisy) class of creationist theory. (Call it pseudo-theory if you want, but if being able to poke holes in a theory makes it not a theory, then what would we do with science?)
The tendency that bothers me here is the tendency to jump to conclusions and paint all faith with one brush. Check your own faith in science when you're done.
Put the brain in idle for a moment. Forget the market dependency on MSWindows. Assume that Linux will actually compete in the games market in a year or two.
PPC core(s) with NVIDIA chipset. Or maybe ARM, multi-core, cranked up to 2GHz and extended to 64 bit. Use their graphics cores instead of the traditional vector units.
(Don't nobody wake me up, this is a sweat dream.)
I don't find it, but I remember after the blogstorm reading Negroponte's response, that OLPC was not using any of its resources to port MSxp to the XO. My memory was that he said that they were basically just answering Microsoft's porting group's questions, and that they weren't planning on actively attempting to prevent the port. Even with all the avalanche of interpretation, I don't find direct quotes from Negroponte, long enough, and in context, to show that he is doing anything more than being willing to talk with Microsoft.
I do see a lot of unsupported interpretation.
Unfortunately, part of the aftermath of the blogstorm is that the article that contained his response is now buried under the tons of trolls and shills who seem bent on making it look as if Microsoft has already won before the game has begun. Typical Microsoft.
Anyway, I'm in the wait and see mode.
Do those two letters help the interpretation?
Get on the lists to find out what the real story is.
I shouldn't spoil the plot, but other people might read this.
Sugar on XP is not scheduled to replace either Sugar or Linux. The only people trying (desperately, per the friendly A) to show how XP runs on the thing (and using a lot of slight-of-hand to do so) are with/from Microsoft.
(Sugar says.)
Run over to the sugar and other OLPC mailing lists, if you're worried that somebody has killed sugar off.
Why speak of XO and Sugar in the past tense?
Last I looked, they are nowhere near dead yet.
Ya think?
No, it doesn't really require conspiracy against conspiracy theories, or even seeing through the old shell game here. This is all FUD. Worry the Boards of Education of some poor backwater (in Microsoft's opinion) easily deluded South American countries about advertised performance. Hide the fine print.
to quote an old spoof of a Darkness Emitting Arsenic Diode spec sheet that I can't seem to find in my archives any more.)
Sure there are gender biases and cultural biases and racial biases and income level biases.
The source of the social problems from all this is that we refuse to look at the individual differences and insist on making the statistical biases the rule. That's turning statistics, logic, all reason upside down.
We should quit saying, women do poorly at subject C, therefore, Miss Q, you should avoid subject C at school.
Yeah, if we follow this path of logic very far, we end up down a road where standardized schooling becomes impossible. But I think that could be a good thing. Standards shouldn't be used as a straightjacket, they should be used as ladders and ropes for climbing and swinging on.
The ravages of the hormone changes post-puberty do different things to girls than to boys. Definitely makes it harder for them to handle linear logic/math, but surviving the changes seems to give them an advantage in the non-linear stuff.
That much is true in Asia as well. But Asia has this really strange cultural bias against guys being caught doing anything that smacks of WORK, so the girls have a chance to get ahead a bit before their hormones kick in in high school.
I think the fear of work in guys is also hormonal, and the hormones kick in earlier than for girls. But asian culture has this knife that cuts down kids who stick out, which makes it that much harder for the boys to buck the peer pressure to join the soccer or baseball club.
I see it every day.
Guys in junior high mostly don't dare doing anything uncool.
Soccer? cool. Math? FUZAKERUNA.
So it's far more common to see girls doing anything academic in junior high.
And the funny thing, this even extends to the traditional martial arts. There are more girls than guys in my son's kendo club.
I know this from experience.
Just asking, because I remember iNTEL has a compiler that some claim to have proven biases its code output against AMD.
It's a little hard to talk about embrace and extend when iNTEL owns the original rights to x86, but is there a possibility that the instability was due to attempting to run opcodes that AMD hadn't emulated?
I know, if you start digging into these sorts of questions, there doesn't seem to be any end, but these are precisely where Microsoft established its monopoly. Sometimes, it's necessary to take a performance (or price/performance) hit, as an investment in the future plurality of the marketplace.
Insanity does not preclude useful perspective.
Funny, yeah, but there's a certain inconvenient truth in that comment, as well.
Oh, never mind. You know what I was going to say.
And I'm pretty sure you weren't interested in that opinion.
And it was impossible to get the code they put out to pass meaningful tests.
I got to the point that, when one company who had just hired me showed me that that kind of code was what they wanted, I bailed. I don't like that roller-coaster.
I assume the job requirements or something gave them the context to know you were familiar with the CPU in question?
And I assume the CPU in question was not x86?
Well, this is actually, nearly as I can tell, the entire argument between atheism and, well, serious religion.
If we assume that certain ancient Greek philosophers were correct and God should meet human ideals, the atheists must be right and a person tends to make his Gods in his own image.
But guy called Isaiah and a guy called Benjamin indicated that God is a bit beyond us. This makes sense, if you think about it, if God is immortal. An immortal man would likely have views that mortals would prefer to consider less than sane. A true God would necessarily know already about quarks and dark matter (if such really do exist) and far beyond those.
If sufficiently advanced technology appears to the not-so-advanced as magic, what should we expect the wisdom of any being truly worthy of being called God to appear to us as?
Some question whether such an incomprehensible being could possibly be the object of faith, but you have to look at it the other way -- how could a person possibly be confident in a God that was entirely comprehensible? A perfect match to a set of human ideals would seem to be a dead giveaway that the entity in question must be less than the Absolute.
On the other hand, if God is not inimical to us, He would restrict anything He reveals to that which the revealee could understand, plus a maybe a little to keep us on our toes.
That's the reason faith requires trust. (For my part, I've considered both trusting and not trusting, and it seems to me that refusing to trust can have no advantage over trusting, but trusting might have some advantages.)