Diving has become such a simple task. You sit comfortably, mostly using your foot a little bit and swinging your wrists side to side, maybe some elbow and arm action when turning corners... driving is hardly doing anything, so it cant't take too much concentration. Driving is about as complex as watching tv. Its unfortunate some barely have enough concentration to complete the task, but most do.
You, and most, are looking at this from the wrong angle. I don't think its that Apple is pushing into the game space (they likely aren't opposed to the idea, and are actually being accomodating to the developers) so much as game developers, whom have successfully saturated every other available platform, are eager to resell games in a previously untapped market.
Apple's USB adoption on iMac is pretty important, historically. Yes, the G3 PowerMac had it, but it also had ADB (the G3 PowerMac is sorta the 'missing link' of Apple hardware evolution), but the iMac only having USB opened the peripherals market for USB. Apple did it first, and once established, PC's followed, but this was after the explosion of available USB peripherals. That its a whole working package has been true of every Mac release... nothing new there with the iMac.
We know this animal. With SP3 being released so close to the XP end of life, isn't there concern that it includes a killswitch, to force users to upgrade to the next OS? Just because I'm paranoid don't mean they're not after me.
You've reminded me that there are people that feel math and experience numbers as shapes or colors (but, of course, I forget what they or their condition is called). It leads me to wonder if math is similar to faith, in the way that sometimes head trauma and lesions on certain areas of the brain can turn athiests into evangelicals, it can also create these weird individuals that feel or even smell numbers. So maybe math is hardwired into brains, like sex drive or respiration. Mathematics then becomes a product of evolution... So, does it make sense to ask if opposible thumbs were invented or discovered? Do we invent our own bodies because we grow, even if not fully conscious of growth because it takes so long? Then... Do we discover our own inventions? Or invent our discoveries? Isn't our language too impovershed to even discuss it scientifically? And isn't true science impossible because objectivity only really exists in language (Heisenberg Principle tells us something of this)? All we know is... there is experience. But after that, after the "I am, I exist, whenever I think it," philosophically, things get a lot muddier. On the one hand, we can't escape math because its everywhere we look ([mathematics] is the world that's been pulled over our eyes...), but on the other hand, math doesn't exist, or rather, only exists in our experience of it. The question even get Berkelian, because we suspect pi would be pi even if humans never existed... All those proofs would still be true, its just that no one would know it if there was no one. If not for human experience, would even the furnace of stars still be hot?
Seems to me the issues here are 2, for why this XP is still desired. 1) OEM installs- most new computers enter consumer hands with a pre-installed XP, which, setting aside the security/privacy issues of the OS, is just fine for most users. 2) Exchange.
Let's forget #1.
Why isn't there more than a few OSS Exchange-type solutions? Why are there countless OS distributions, but hardly, if any, Mail/ Calendar/ Scheduling replacements? Why hasn't the OSS community, which apparently abhores Microsoft, and other lock-in proprietary vendors, focused on a viable Exchange replacement solution? They've duplicated every other Microsoft software functionality, usually within days or weeks of its inception, but Exchange elludes them? I understand there's at least one alternative out there, but I heard its pretty difficult to implement, but I just can't get my head around why the arguably single most usable/functional/essential Microsoft technology escapes OSS.
I see OSS devs as Supermen heros... but it seems like Exchange is their Kryptonite, and they are powerless against it.
I have to agree with parent and grandparent posts... Seems to me the community is thriving. I'm sure I'm missing the point of OSS somewhere, but with OpenSolaris I see it as an attempt or ambition to get the rock-solid stability of Solaris and Sun hardware for free on most any hardware, and the ability to initiate experience with Solaris on the cheap (however, Solaris itself is a free download, just licensed propietary, so why practice street ball when you can play stadium? OK poor analogy).
Then you... were trained by Nick Rivers? I don't have the stomach for deception, but I am easily deceived, so if you need any fake GLG-20s, I think I'd make a good Emmett Fitz-Hume or Austin Millbarge. Are you hiring?
Concerning physics not really working the way I think it works, if its one thing I've learned, its that physicists are often at odds with the real world. Sure, ideally, things should work as you say, the top of the atmosphere is a perfectly smooth surface. But physicist invariably always leave something out... whatever science governs the very top of the atmosphere, we can be assured that it is complex and non-linear, and that it only resembles the ideal in the abstract, but reality is much uglier.
Thank you for obsessively focusing on my obviously poor analogy and completely ignoring any point I was trying to make. If comparing the smoothness of two different things is beyond realistic comprehension for you, well I don't know what. You've basically said, sure, solids aren't really solid or smooth at some other scale, but thats solids, not gasses, which always have smooth surfaces on boundries no matter what the scale." How about we use the surface of the ocean? But that's a boundry between something and something, not a boundry like at the top of the atmosphere, between something and mostly nothing, but I think there are enough similarities that the analogy could be made. The surface of the ocean is smooth... from a distance. But when you're on it, you see that there is a measure of varience even on glass smooth seas. All I'm saying is on such a huge surface, like the boundry of atmosphere to none at the top of the atmosphere, which is a surface much larger than any ocean or even the surface of the earth, that there's likely to be chaotic variations in the exact location of the boundry... that it is jaggy or wavy on some scale, and not some mathematically perfect shaped surface, and that its possible a trajectory could brush against two crests and miss submerging, or that it could appear skip across as though gravity we're pulling and friction repelling even though those forces added negligible energy to the momentum, when it actually just hit a couple high whisps of atmosphere. Its possible that the original story teller biased what we envisioned by using the phrase "bounced off the atmosphere," when what he saw could be explained without any bouncing.
What leads me to the idea is that even solid smooth surfaces aren't really smooth, or solid. If you look at the atmophere as a whole, yeah it looks pretty smooth and the boundries are defined... but what if you change the scale to one foot? Are you saying the boundries of the atmosphere are smooth then? How about an inch? When I imagine jagged edges at the top of the atmosphere I'm not thinking in the scale of, say, a stadium, but the much smaller scale where 'jagginess' surely must exist, and would be potent enough to cause light energy to be released from glancing friction, but not potent enough to change a massive object's trajectory.
Well... I bet the edge of the atmosphere isn't a solid smooth shell, that if an object were passing at a particular angle, it might hit more than one jagged edge... that maybe it wasn't 'bouncing off the atmosphere' so much as shaving the edges of a top thin edge of the atmosphere.
Right... So the use of words as a PR technique, replacing acurate but simple descriptions with lofty ambiguous terms, maybe like adding the word 'engineer' to job titles, such as sanitary engineer for janitor, or sales engineer for sales person, or software engineer for programmer... These kinds of shameless self-stroking marketing tactics can safely be ignored
The top schools have a reputation to protect. That first 2 years is to sweat you, to weed out what they consider rifraf. I went to a technical university and its no different. When you look around the class in those first 2 years, most of the students aren't going to make it, and the ones doing well probably failed the semester before. You will work your ass off to make the curve. Choose a school that promises to teach you what you need to know, not one that promises a label, because they expect you to already know everything and you only learn from them when you fail. The bullshit started piling up when schools moved their CS programs out of the math department where they belong and into Engineering, indignifying engineers everywhere. A computer scientist is not a programmer, but programming is all you will be expected to know for 2 years, this is their shakedown. There is a lot to be said for small classes and individual attention.
Those gov. figures are tidy in their short sightedness. Historically the numbers run 1) Canada 2) Mexico 3) Venezuala 4) Saudi Arabia, and this isn't figuring in that 35-40% comes from the US. Also, Oil most certain IS a cartel, and the price of gas most certainly IS artificially inflated. And a proft of $40 billion is obscene!! You say its only 10% profit, but show me any other industry of big numbers, billions of dollars, that has anywhere near that profit margin. Consider that 100% profit on $.50 of gum isn't even remotely wrong. Once you get into the big numbers, $20 billion here, $20 billion there, you are talking about real money that rivals GNPs of entire nations!
Slashdot Mirror
Slight correction there... Last Crusade was both the earliest prequel (remember River Phoenix) and the latest sequel.
Diving has become such a simple task. You sit comfortably, mostly using your foot a little bit and swinging your wrists side to side, maybe some elbow and arm action when turning corners... driving is hardly doing anything, so it cant't take too much concentration. Driving is about as complex as watching tv. Its unfortunate some barely have enough concentration to complete the task, but most do.
You, and most, are looking at this from the wrong angle. I don't think its that Apple is pushing into the game space (they likely aren't opposed to the idea, and are actually being accomodating to the developers) so much as game developers, whom have successfully saturated every other available platform, are eager to resell games in a previously untapped market.
Apple's USB adoption on iMac is pretty important, historically. Yes, the G3 PowerMac had it, but it also had ADB (the G3 PowerMac is sorta the 'missing link' of Apple hardware evolution), but the iMac only having USB opened the peripherals market for USB. Apple did it first, and once established, PC's followed, but this was after the explosion of available USB peripherals. That its a whole working package has been true of every Mac release... nothing new there with the iMac.
We know this animal. With SP3 being released so close to the XP end of life, isn't there concern that it includes a killswitch, to force users to upgrade to the next OS? Just because I'm paranoid don't mean they're not after me.
You've reminded me that there are people that feel math and experience numbers as shapes or colors (but, of course, I forget what they or their condition is called). It leads me to wonder if math is similar to faith, in the way that sometimes head trauma and lesions on certain areas of the brain can turn athiests into evangelicals, it can also create these weird individuals that feel or even smell numbers. So maybe math is hardwired into brains, like sex drive or respiration. Mathematics then becomes a product of evolution... So, does it make sense to ask if opposible thumbs were invented or discovered? Do we invent our own bodies because we grow, even if not fully conscious of growth because it takes so long? Then... Do we discover our own inventions? Or invent our discoveries? Isn't our language too impovershed to even discuss it scientifically? And isn't true science impossible because objectivity only really exists in language (Heisenberg Principle tells us something of this)? All we know is ... there is experience. But after that, after the "I am, I exist, whenever I think it," philosophically, things get a lot muddier. On the one hand, we can't escape math because its everywhere we look ([mathematics] is the world that's been pulled over our eyes...), but on the other hand, math doesn't exist, or rather, only exists in our experience of it. The question even get Berkelian, because we suspect pi would be pi even if humans never existed... All those proofs would still be true, its just that no one would know it if there was no one. If not for human experience, would even the furnace of stars still be hot?
Seems to me the issues here are 2, for why this XP is still desired. 1) OEM installs- most new computers enter consumer hands with a pre-installed XP, which, setting aside the security/privacy issues of the OS, is just fine for most users. 2) Exchange.
Let's forget #1.
Why isn't there more than a few OSS Exchange-type solutions? Why are there countless OS distributions, but hardly, if any, Mail/ Calendar/ Scheduling replacements? Why hasn't the OSS community, which apparently abhores Microsoft, and other lock-in proprietary vendors, focused on a viable Exchange replacement solution? They've duplicated every other Microsoft software functionality, usually within days or weeks of its inception, but Exchange elludes them? I understand there's at least one alternative out there, but I heard its pretty difficult to implement, but I just can't get my head around why the arguably single most usable/functional/essential Microsoft technology escapes OSS.
I see OSS devs as Supermen heros... but it seems like Exchange is their Kryptonite, and they are powerless against it.
Actually, the concept of race begins and ends with our perceptions. There is no genetic basis for 'race.' None whatsoever.
I have to agree with parent and grandparent posts... Seems to me the community is thriving. I'm sure I'm missing the point of OSS somewhere, but with OpenSolaris I see it as an attempt or ambition to get the rock-solid stability of Solaris and Sun hardware for free on most any hardware, and the ability to initiate experience with Solaris on the cheap (however, Solaris itself is a free download, just licensed propietary, so why practice street ball when you can play stadium? OK poor analogy).
Appears we have some contamination. Better send in the Cleaner (Victor) and activate the asset just in case.
Then you... were trained by Nick Rivers? I don't have the stomach for deception, but I am easily deceived, so if you need any fake GLG-20s, I think I'd make a good Emmett Fitz-Hume or Austin Millbarge. Are you hiring?
Bourne was an assassan, not a spy. But how about DS9's Luther Sloan? Train any like him?
Money is power, power corrupts. Adobe is the new Microsoft, but eBay/PayPal is fast on its heels.
Nice post.
Concerning physics not really working the way I think it works, if its one thing I've learned, its that physicists are often at odds with the real world. Sure, ideally, things should work as you say, the top of the atmosphere is a perfectly smooth surface. But physicist invariably always leave something out... whatever science governs the very top of the atmosphere, we can be assured that it is complex and non-linear, and that it only resembles the ideal in the abstract, but reality is much uglier.
Thank you for obsessively focusing on my obviously poor analogy and completely ignoring any point I was trying to make. If comparing the smoothness of two different things is beyond realistic comprehension for you, well I don't know what. You've basically said, sure, solids aren't really solid or smooth at some other scale, but thats solids, not gasses, which always have smooth surfaces on boundries no matter what the scale." How about we use the surface of the ocean? But that's a boundry between something and something, not a boundry like at the top of the atmosphere, between something and mostly nothing, but I think there are enough similarities that the analogy could be made. The surface of the ocean is smooth... from a distance. But when you're on it, you see that there is a measure of varience even on glass smooth seas. All I'm saying is on such a huge surface, like the boundry of atmosphere to none at the top of the atmosphere, which is a surface much larger than any ocean or even the surface of the earth, that there's likely to be chaotic variations in the exact location of the boundry... that it is jaggy or wavy on some scale, and not some mathematically perfect shaped surface, and that its possible a trajectory could brush against two crests and miss submerging, or that it could appear skip across as though gravity we're pulling and friction repelling even though those forces added negligible energy to the momentum, when it actually just hit a couple high whisps of atmosphere. Its possible that the original story teller biased what we envisioned by using the phrase "bounced off the atmosphere," when what he saw could be explained without any bouncing.
What leads me to the idea is that even solid smooth surfaces aren't really smooth, or solid. If you look at the atmophere as a whole, yeah it looks pretty smooth and the boundries are defined... but what if you change the scale to one foot? Are you saying the boundries of the atmosphere are smooth then? How about an inch? When I imagine jagged edges at the top of the atmosphere I'm not thinking in the scale of, say, a stadium, but the much smaller scale where 'jagginess' surely must exist, and would be potent enough to cause light energy to be released from glancing friction, but not potent enough to change a massive object's trajectory.
I see. But wouldn't the VLA, or any group of radio telescopes using interferometry be superior to Arecibo?
ok, its about time you knew. You're a replicant. You've been living someone else's life, remembering someone else's memories.
Well... I bet the edge of the atmosphere isn't a solid smooth shell, that if an object were passing at a particular angle, it might hit more than one jagged edge... that maybe it wasn't 'bouncing off the atmosphere' so much as shaving the edges of a top thin edge of the atmosphere.
That's awesome, and it sounds like it can track the hell out of radio sources. But are planet busting asteroids known for being good radio sources?
Nice story. Ever considered submitting that to Reader's Digest "All in a Day's Work?"
Right... So the use of words as a PR technique, replacing acurate but simple descriptions with lofty ambiguous terms, maybe like adding the word 'engineer' to job titles, such as sanitary engineer for janitor, or sales engineer for sales person, or software engineer for programmer... These kinds of shameless self-stroking marketing tactics can safely be ignored
that becomes an essential tool for our colonization of black holes (next month's issue).
The top schools have a reputation to protect. That first 2 years is to sweat you, to weed out what they consider rifraf. I went to a technical university and its no different. When you look around the class in those first 2 years, most of the students aren't going to make it, and the ones doing well probably failed the semester before. You will work your ass off to make the curve. Choose a school that promises to teach you what you need to know, not one that promises a label, because they expect you to already know everything and you only learn from them when you fail. The bullshit started piling up when schools moved their CS programs out of the math department where they belong and into Engineering, indignifying engineers everywhere. A computer scientist is not a programmer, but programming is all you will be expected to know for 2 years, this is their shakedown. There is a lot to be said for small classes and individual attention.
Those gov. figures are tidy in their short sightedness. Historically the numbers run 1) Canada 2) Mexico 3) Venezuala 4) Saudi Arabia, and this isn't figuring in that 35-40% comes from the US. Also, Oil most certain IS a cartel, and the price of gas most certainly IS artificially inflated. And a proft of $40 billion is obscene!! You say its only 10% profit, but show me any other industry of big numbers, billions of dollars, that has anywhere near that profit margin. Consider that 100% profit on $.50 of gum isn't even remotely wrong. Once you get into the big numbers, $20 billion here, $20 billion there, you are talking about real money that rivals GNPs of entire nations!