While the screen's glare and lack of contrast can be annoying, it's actually not really much worse than reading on recycled paper.
I willingly sacrificed screen contrast for the notetaking, highlighting and especially the more powerful hardware and therefore faster PDF rendering.
Now if there only were more dictionaries to choose from...
I recently used an iRex Iliad and a Sony PRS-600 side by side.
Those cater to very different markets. The Iliad's display is better, as it's larger, can display more shades of gray, and Sony sacrificed contrast for touch sensitivity. The Iliad has an inductive touch screen, so no loss of contrast there. No touch sensitivity without the stylus though.
The Iliad has a lot more features and more powerful hardware, but a lot less battery life. Also, there's no standby mode and it takes forever to boot. Also, it reads MMCs and CF cards - no SD support. Can be a turnoff, seeing how everything else takes SD and MS.
I'd prefer an Iliad for newspapers, magazines, and text books, but due to its not all that stable casing and its size, I rarely would take it outside. For everything else, I'd prefer the Sony Reader.
E-Readers are light. A lot lighter than books are, and of similar size.
The battery life is a bonus when you use it like a book - you keep it in your bag, and almost never take it out unless you want to read something. Rarely do you have to take it out just for charging the battery, and for me, that happens to coincide with wanting to upload new books.
More functional devices have their place too of course, but I often take my E-Reader places I wouldn't take any device that's larger.
Ah, I see now the insult wasn't directed at me. Red wine doesn't agree with slashdots commenting system it seems. Sorry for the uncalled for belittling of your language skills then.
Still, the main purpose of informal language, the kind that's appropriate for this setting, is the communication of ideas.
Abbreviating "through" does not hinder communication at all.
I'm sure I know your language way better than you know mine. So much for the "illiterate bastard".
Now, if you'd care to enlighten me, whatever do you mean, oh great defender of the English language, last line of defense before its inevitable succumbing to the dark forces of illiteracy?
You're basing your resentment towards fatties on their health care costs?
Okay, that's hard to refute. Maybe even impossible. But see how many things people do, that are just accepted as their right in their "pursuit of happiness", that costs society dearly.
Driving your car to get to the other side of the road (okay, that was reduced by economics I guess)?
Drinking, smoking?
Playing Golf (extreme ecological impact)?
Watching sporting events, like football, Nascar, etc. (very expensive, ecologically)?
I'm sure I could come up with many more, those are from the top of my head. Why would you single out "being fat"?
Your argument is valid only when the person is unhappy with his state.
I'm not sure that necessarily has to be the case. I can imagine people that don't mind being fat, except for the fact that society gives them a hard time for it.
While I'm sure there are medical conditions that could lead to people being more inclined to become addicted (to drugs or food or whatever), sexually abnormal or excessively violent, I would not, under any circumstances, compare people that intentionally harm others with fat people.
That's just wrong. Also, it kills your credibility and therefore your argument. Kind of like Godwin's Law.
That's a different point you're making. Little Jimmy should of course not be allowed to eat whatever he wants, he's a kid. His supervisors, parents preferably, should be responsible for his diet.
When that doesn't work there's something wrong, yes, but it's not his fault.
I was talking about adults, self conscious, responsible people.
Hm. I fail to see the contradiction. Aside from the horrible grammar, but it's late where I live.
Also, not that it matters, but it does refute your preconception, I'm far from fat.
I didn't make excuses for them, I said there is no reason for any excuses. It's their choice, and that's that.
"Visual pollution", wow. Did some fat kid bully you on the schoolyard or something, scarring you for life?
I don't know if emergency exits are large enough for those people, I expect them to be though. And those seats are too small for me to be comfortable, and I'm way underweight. They're probably the bare minimum of what airlines can get away with and still be allowed to carry people. As opposed to livestock.
What is it with the animosity towards large people?
Sure, most of the time they themselves are to blame for the state they're in. So what? It's their choice, and they shouldn't have to endure getting frowned upon, let alone being openly insulted.
I mean, c'mon, when the seats in an airliner are too small for the person, it's the person's fault? How so? Because he's larger than most others? A quick google search says that the average person in the US weighs 7 kg more than "ideal", so the airlines should of course have to adjust their seats accordingly. They're way too small anyway.
IMO, the airline is to blame when a large person inconveniences someone else due to the size of the seats. Don't ignore their failing just because big people are such easy targets =)
Even though I wouldn't argue against your assessment of the article's motivation, it does fuel further speculation. Even though armed UAVs might never be seen in Britain, the technology won't go away and people will be tempted to use it. Most likely against people lacking the means to defend themselves.
Dictatorships come to mind.
I don't know, how does the UK stand on supplying weapons to dictatorships? Same as every other "developed" country I'd guess...
To achieve a UAV that can safely fly within civilian airspace, BAE Systems is developing a "sense and avoid" system for HERTI, utilising a radar and electro-optical systems.
100 cm in an m, 1000 m in a km.
Thus, 1.0*10^5 cm in a km.
According to Wikipedia (as I said, I never used this system myself):
12 in per a foot, 3 feet per yard, 220 yards in a furlong, 8 furlongs in a mile.
12*3*220*8=63360 => 63360 inches in a mile.
Honestly, I find neither very intuitive. But I do find dividing 1.0*10^5 by 3 to be harder than dividing 63360 by 3, as integers feel more natural to me, and I'd guess to most people. So in that regard, yes, I think it's computationally more convenient.
It's not like there's anything intuitive about multiplying 100 by 1000 to get from one very common unit to another, as is the case with cm and km (sure, centi means 100, kilo means 1000. but who knows that?).
I am not at all advocating replacing SI units with the imperial system, but I do see uses for both and don't think the imperial system necessarily has to be replaced.
Oh c'mon. While you're technically correct in saying Linux is "just the kernel", it's a distinction that doesn't help the discussion. Your just being pedantic.
Get a life;-P
You cannot assume other people's experiences to match yours, especially based on so little information.
Of course it's not my place to criticize your social interactions, but when you act almighty towards others, don't complain when others do the same to you.
KB? SI units are meant to be computationally convenient, not arbitrarily assigned
They are? I thought they first and foremost need to be independently verifiable. Sure, the kg isn't, but afaik all others are.
Also, an argument could be made that base 12 unit systems, e.g. inches/feet/miles, are computationally more convenient. I think.
Never used that system myself.
There rooms at my university are way to big, the diagrams way to small. I'd have to get out a real camera to take pics of those, and that takes monger than drawing them.
Also, drawing diagrams is an important skill in science.
Not according to my experience. For example, neither low level graphics developers or high level Java UI developers necessarily know, or need to know, how to administer their own machines.
It's just not their area of interest, and why would it be?
And yes, those were very competent people in their respective fields.
Slashdot Mirror
While the screen's glare and lack of contrast can be annoying, it's actually not really much worse than reading on recycled paper.
I willingly sacrificed screen contrast for the notetaking, highlighting and especially the more powerful hardware and therefore faster PDF rendering.
Now if there only were more dictionaries to choose from...
I recently used an iRex Iliad and a Sony PRS-600 side by side.
Those cater to very different markets. The Iliad's display is better, as it's larger, can display more shades of gray, and Sony sacrificed contrast for touch sensitivity. The Iliad has an inductive touch screen, so no loss of contrast there. No touch sensitivity without the stylus though.
The Iliad has a lot more features and more powerful hardware, but a lot less battery life. Also, there's no standby mode and it takes forever to boot. Also, it reads MMCs and CF cards - no SD support. Can be a turnoff, seeing how everything else takes SD and MS.
I'd prefer an Iliad for newspapers, magazines, and text books, but due to its not all that stable casing and its size, I rarely would take it outside. For everything else, I'd prefer the Sony Reader.
E-Readers are light. A lot lighter than books are, and of similar size.
The battery life is a bonus when you use it like a book - you keep it in your bag, and almost never take it out unless you want to read something. Rarely do you have to take it out just for charging the battery, and for me, that happens to coincide with wanting to upload new books.
More functional devices have their place too of course, but I often take my E-Reader places I wouldn't take any device that's larger.
Now if they'd only make them waterproof...
Ah, I see now the insult wasn't directed at me. Red wine doesn't agree with slashdots commenting system it seems. Sorry for the uncalled for belittling of your language skills then.
Still, the main purpose of informal language, the kind that's appropriate for this setting, is the communication of ideas.
Abbreviating "through" does not hinder communication at all.
I'm sure I know your language way better than you know mine. So much for the "illiterate bastard".
Now, if you'd care to enlighten me, whatever do you mean, oh great defender of the English language, last line of defense before its inevitable succumbing to the dark forces of illiteracy?
You're basing your resentment towards fatties on their health care costs?
Okay, that's hard to refute. Maybe even impossible. But see how many things people do, that are just accepted as their right in their "pursuit of happiness", that costs society dearly.
Driving your car to get to the other side of the road (okay, that was reduced by economics I guess)?
Drinking, smoking?
Playing Golf (extreme ecological impact)?
Watching sporting events, like football, Nascar, etc. (very expensive, ecologically)?
I'm sure I could come up with many more, those are from the top of my head. Why would you single out "being fat"?
Your argument is valid only when the person is unhappy with his state.
I'm not sure that necessarily has to be the case. I can imagine people that don't mind being fat, except for the fact that society gives them a hard time for it.
While I'm sure there are medical conditions that could lead to people being more inclined to become addicted (to drugs or food or whatever), sexually abnormal or excessively violent, I would not, under any circumstances, compare people that intentionally harm others with fat people.
That's just wrong. Also, it kills your credibility and therefore your argument. Kind of like Godwin's Law.
That's a different point you're making. Little Jimmy should of course not be allowed to eat whatever he wants, he's a kid. His supervisors, parents preferably, should be responsible for his diet.
When that doesn't work there's something wrong, yes, but it's not his fault.
I was talking about adults, self conscious, responsible people.
Hm. I fail to see the contradiction. Aside from the horrible grammar, but it's late where I live.
Also, not that it matters, but it does refute your preconception, I'm far from fat.
I didn't make excuses for them, I said there is no reason for any excuses. It's their choice, and that's that.
"Visual pollution", wow. Did some fat kid bully you on the schoolyard or something, scarring you for life?
I don't know if emergency exits are large enough for those people, I expect them to be though. And those seats are too small for me to be comfortable, and I'm way underweight. They're probably the bare minimum of what airlines can get away with and still be allowed to carry people. As opposed to livestock.
What is it with the animosity towards large people?
Sure, most of the time they themselves are to blame for the state they're in. So what? It's their choice, and they shouldn't have to endure getting frowned upon, let alone being openly insulted.
I mean, c'mon, when the seats in an airliner are too small for the person, it's the person's fault? How so? Because he's larger than most others? A quick google search says that the average person in the US weighs 7 kg more than "ideal", so the airlines should of course have to adjust their seats accordingly. They're way too small anyway.
IMO, the airline is to blame when a large person inconveniences someone else due to the size of the seats. Don't ignore their failing just because big people are such easy targets =)
They'll implement adaptive difficulty levels, I'm sure.
Seems schematic enough to be done by a bot. So why not?
Even though I wouldn't argue against your assessment of the article's motivation, it does fuel further speculation. Even though armed UAVs might never be seen in Britain, the technology won't go away and people will be tempted to use it. Most likely against people lacking the means to defend themselves.
Dictatorships come to mind.
I don't know, how does the UK stand on supplying weapons to dictatorships? Same as every other "developed" country I'd guess...
Most of the time you just need to let people know that the police are watching, and they'll behave.
To behave, to submit, fine line there..
To achieve a UAV that can safely fly within civilian airspace, BAE Systems is developing a "sense and avoid" system for HERTI, utilising a radar and electro-optical systems.
Sounds like autonomous decision making to me.
100 cm in an m, 1000 m in a km.
Thus, 1.0*10^5 cm in a km.
According to Wikipedia (as I said, I never used this system myself):
12 in per a foot, 3 feet per yard, 220 yards in a furlong, 8 furlongs in a mile.
12*3*220*8=63360 => 63360 inches in a mile.
Honestly, I find neither very intuitive. But I do find dividing 1.0*10^5 by 3 to be harder than dividing 63360 by 3, as integers feel more natural to me, and I'd guess to most people. So in that regard, yes, I think it's computationally more convenient.
It's not like there's anything intuitive about multiplying 100 by 1000 to get from one very common unit to another, as is the case with cm and km (sure, centi means 100, kilo means 1000. but who knows that?).
I am not at all advocating replacing SI units with the imperial system, but I do see uses for both and don't think the imperial system necessarily has to be replaced.
You're funny.
Either a complete moron or lacking reading comprehension, but really funny.
Feel free to feel criticized. Not patronized though.
Oh c'mon. While you're technically correct in saying Linux is "just the kernel", it's a distinction that doesn't help the discussion. Your just being pedantic. ;-P
Get a life
You cannot assume other people's experiences to match yours, especially based on so little information.
Of course it's not my place to criticize your social interactions, but when you act almighty towards others, don't complain when others do the same to you.
KB? SI units are meant to be computationally convenient, not arbitrarily assigned
They are? I thought they first and foremost need to be independently verifiable. Sure, the kg isn't, but afaik all others are.
Also, an argument could be made that base 12 unit systems, e.g. inches/feet/miles, are computationally more convenient. I think.
Never used that system myself.
It would also need people in the background belittling your computer skills. This thread provides sufficient input.
There rooms at my university are way to big, the diagrams way to small. I'd have to get out a real camera to take pics of those, and that takes monger than drawing them.
Also, drawing diagrams is an important skill in science.
Not according to my experience. For example, neither low level graphics developers or high level Java UI developers necessarily know, or need to know, how to administer their own machines.
It's just not their area of interest, and why would it be?
And yes, those were very competent people in their respective fields.