Let's not forget that ethnically, the sitting House of Windsor, Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland, Head of the Commonwealth, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Duke of Normandy, Lord of the Isle of Mann, and Paramount Chief of Fiji, is part Danish.
Aside from the Atari 800XL, the other computers were practically unknown in the U.S. Well, the Amstrad wasn't unknown, but the Amstrad never gained a significant following.
The Apple II was one of the best selling "home computers," along with the Commodore 64 and 128 and (later) the Commodore Amiga line.
FWIW, I've never seen an Atari 800XL IRL, either.;) (But I have seen the Amstrad).
I think the reason the Amstrad never caught on in the U.S. is because it was released in 1984, well after the CP/M and the Z80 were considered 'dead'. By that time, the IBM PC and PC/XT and its clones had pretty much taken over the business market and was making significant inroads at home, the Apple II owned the home and education markets, and the Mac had just debuted and was considered one of the coolest new machines ever. Then a year later, you had the 16-bit Atari ST and the Commodore Amiga, along with the the 16-bit IBM PC/AT and EGA graphics, the Amstrad CPC and it's puny 8-bit processor and limited memory just didn't stack up.
You young whippersnappers that modded the parent off-topic can get off of my lawn now.
Re:I Want My iTV
on
Why TV Lost
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Huh? How is the Internet not a digital TV service? Follow my logic here:
Today, I can build or purchase a PVR/Media Center box (what they used to call a 'settop box') and stream video-on-demand purchased from Netflix or a competing service. I can also purchase digital copies of movies and videos using iTunes and/or Apple TV. I can download pirated movies and play them on my media center. I can rip movies I already own, record them from cable, etc.
But, it's also the other way around: I can watch "TV" and movies on my PC.
IOW, the TV has become just another Internet-connected device, unless I have cable or satellite.
But cable and satellite still haven't gone away. How many people on here still watch TV? There's a number of MythBusters fans, for example. I'll wager most of you do. Just remember that if you don't, that's still an anecdote, and the plural of anecdote is not data.
Oh, and one more thing: I get my TV and Internet from the same provider. I'll wager that's true for most of the rest of you, too.
Agreed. Movie theatre tickets are not even assigned by seats like a sporting event. Theatre owners probably sell 80-90% of their tickets as cash transactions, no ID, no credit card. But even if you paid for seat with a credit card, in which case they would know who they sold they ticket to, the seats aren't assigned -- you could sit anywhere in the theatre so they can know where you sat, but not who sat there or even which movie theatre the movie was shot in.
And if they did start requiring IDs and assigning seats, well, let's just say movie theatres won't be getting my business anyway. I won't put up with that when I can purchase the movie and own my own copy for what it costs to go to movie theatre these days.
Besides, most pirated movies aren't shot with digicam these days, they're pirated from DVDs, BDs, etc.
Though I agree that atheism is not a religion, I take exception to your (apparent) definition of religion. People who believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy are not necessarily members of a religion. A religion is not a belief. A religion is:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
So a religion is not simply a belief in a deity or deities.
Though it's a stretch, you might be able to actually make an argument for Santa Clausism and ToothFairieism:
Santa Claus
Santa Claus is this dude who delivers toys to all the children of the world in one night. (superhuman agency)
Santa Claus lives at the North Pole (a statement about the nature of the universe)
Kids put out milk and cookies for Santa, decorate a Christmas tree, etc. (devotional and ritual observance)
Kids know they have to be "good" because Santa is "making his list and checking it twice" (moral code governing the conduct of human affairs)
But what's missing? Well, no one believes that Santa Claus created the universe. There is no discussion concerning the cause or purpose of the Universe either.
OTOH, you could argue that polytheists do not necessarily believe that their superhuman agencies created the universe either. Neither do pantheists or animists.
Tooth Fairy
The Tooth Fairy is a fairy who magically turns your discarded baby teeth into cash. (superhuman agency)
Kids put their teeth under their pillow (devotional and ritual observance)
But there's nothing concerning the universe or a moral code at all.
Like I said: you could make the argument, but it's a stretch at best.
Creationism is just a cover for the real debate amongst Christian sects: Biblical Literalism (Fundamentalists) vs. a more figurative interpretation of the Bible (non-Fundaementalists). (Full disclosure: I'm not Christian)
I did. Whether they are simply advocating the squashing of Dawkins' freedom of speech or are actually squashing, if the University tells Dawkins' to pack it in, the end result is the same.
Let's also not forget that First Amendment also includes the freedom to practice a religion of one's choosing. This also includes the right to practice no religion at all. IOW, Dawkins' has a Constitutional right to be an atheist and to speak about his own beliefs (or non-beliefs) as an atheist.
I'm not an atheist myself, but I will defend the rights of atheists to believe (or not believe) what they choose.
If the majority of the citizens of Oklahoma believed in a vast government conspiracy to cover up the existence of extraterrestrials as a result of watching one too many episodes of The X-Files, would be it okay for them to pass legislation to squash the free speech rights of someone proving that no such conspiracy exists?
C'mon, this is just completely ridiculous.
And why is Rush Limbaugh (or any other controversial figure) allowed to have a radio show? Because of a little thing called 'The First Amendment', which protects his right to speak his own views, no matter whether you agree with them or not.
Has anyone in the Oklahoma heard of the First Amendment? Cultural diversity? WTF does cultural diversity have to to do with science, anyway?
Free speech was intended to protect offensive speech. This should apply especially when said offensive speech is based on solid scientific evidence.
But -- they did it for the children! We wouldn't want children to become confused with Pluto being listed as a planet in their old, out-of-date text books while the general consensus in the scientific community is that Pluto is a big snowball. Declare legislatively that Pluto is a planet and -- poof -- there you go! No more confused children!
Why do you think that people are unintelligent if they can't program?
I don't. I think they're unintelligent if they lend money to people who can't pay it back and then package those loans up as commodities and sell them. I think that's pretty stupid, don't you?
According to Microsoft, they have a better track-record at fixing bugs faster than Linux.
Well, they seem to beat the hell out of OpenOffice.org, anyway. There's a bug in Calc that's been there for like...years now. OTOH, it's not a security bug, at least.;)
'fuck what the rest of the [world] does, it's my way or the high way'
Why does that attitude seem so familiar? There was a guy with that attitude I'd heard about once before...S....t....uart? No....S...t..an? No......S...t...e...
Aw, hell, I can't think of it. Anyhow, last name started with 'J'.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's not forget that ethnically, the sitting House of Windsor, Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland, Head of the Commonwealth, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Duke of Normandy, Lord of the Isle of Mann, and Paramount Chief of Fiji, is part Danish.
The Danes must be held accountable!
Aside from the Atari 800XL, the other computers were practically unknown in the U.S. Well, the Amstrad wasn't unknown, but the Amstrad never gained a significant following.
The Apple II was one of the best selling "home computers," along with the Commodore 64 and 128 and (later) the Commodore Amiga line.
FWIW, I've never seen an Atari 800XL IRL, either. ;) (But I have seen the Amstrad).
I think the reason the Amstrad never caught on in the U.S. is because it was released in 1984, well after the CP/M and the Z80 were considered 'dead'. By that time, the IBM PC and PC/XT and its clones had pretty much taken over the business market and was making significant inroads at home, the Apple II owned the home and education markets, and the Mac had just debuted and was considered one of the coolest new machines ever. Then a year later, you had the 16-bit Atari ST and the Commodore Amiga, along with the the 16-bit IBM PC/AT and EGA graphics, the Amstrad CPC and it's puny 8-bit processor and limited memory just didn't stack up.
Poor Forbin! He will be locked up alnight with that sex female computer scientist.
Parent is a reference to Colossus: The Forbin Project.
You young whippersnappers that modded the parent off-topic can get off of my lawn now.
Huh? How is the Internet not a digital TV service? Follow my logic here:
Today, I can build or purchase a PVR/Media Center box (what they used to call a 'settop box') and stream video-on-demand purchased from Netflix or a competing service. I can also purchase digital copies of movies and videos using iTunes and/or Apple TV. I can download pirated movies and play them on my media center. I can rip movies I already own, record them from cable, etc.
But, it's also the other way around: I can watch "TV" and movies on my PC.
IOW, the TV has become just another Internet-connected device, unless I have cable or satellite.
But cable and satellite still haven't gone away. How many people on here still watch TV? There's a number of MythBusters fans, for example. I'll wager most of you do. Just remember that if you don't, that's still an anecdote, and the plural of anecdote is not data.
Oh, and one more thing: I get my TV and Internet from the same provider. I'll wager that's true for most of the rest of you, too.
Agreed. Movie theatre tickets are not even assigned by seats like a sporting event. Theatre owners probably sell 80-90% of their tickets as cash transactions, no ID, no credit card. But even if you paid for seat with a credit card, in which case they would know who they sold they ticket to, the seats aren't assigned -- you could sit anywhere in the theatre so they can know where you sat, but not who sat there or even which movie theatre the movie was shot in.
And if they did start requiring IDs and assigning seats, well, let's just say movie theatres won't be getting my business anyway. I won't put up with that when I can purchase the movie and own my own copy for what it costs to go to movie theatre these days.
Besides, most pirated movies aren't shot with digicam these days, they're pirated from DVDs, BDs, etc.
Though I agree that atheism is not a religion, I take exception to your (apparent) definition of religion. People who believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy are not necessarily members of a religion. A religion is not a belief. A religion is:
Source
So a religion is not simply a belief in a deity or deities.
Though it's a stretch, you might be able to actually make an argument for Santa Clausism and ToothFairieism:
Santa Claus
But what's missing? Well, no one believes that Santa Claus created the universe. There is no discussion concerning the cause or purpose of the Universe either.
OTOH, you could argue that polytheists do not necessarily believe that their superhuman agencies created the universe either. Neither do pantheists or animists.
Tooth Fairy
But there's nothing concerning the universe or a moral code at all.
Like I said: you could make the argument, but it's a stretch at best.
Creationism is just a cover for the real debate amongst Christian sects: Biblical Literalism (Fundamentalists) vs. a more figurative interpretation of the Bible (non-Fundaementalists). (Full disclosure: I'm not Christian)
I did. Whether they are simply advocating the squashing of Dawkins' freedom of speech or are actually squashing, if the University tells Dawkins' to pack it in, the end result is the same.
Let's also not forget that First Amendment also includes the freedom to practice a religion of one's choosing. This also includes the right to practice no religion at all. IOW, Dawkins' has a Constitutional right to be an atheist and to speak about his own beliefs (or non-beliefs) as an atheist.
I'm not an atheist myself, but I will defend the rights of atheists to believe (or not believe) what they choose.
If the majority of the citizens of Oklahoma believed in a vast government conspiracy to cover up the existence of extraterrestrials as a result of watching one too many episodes of The X-Files, would be it okay for them to pass legislation to squash the free speech rights of someone proving that no such conspiracy exists? C'mon, this is just completely ridiculous.
And why is Rush Limbaugh (or any other controversial figure) allowed to have a radio show? Because of a little thing called 'The First Amendment', which protects his right to speak his own views, no matter whether you agree with them or not.
Has anyone in the Oklahoma heard of the First Amendment? Cultural diversity? WTF does cultural diversity have to to do with science, anyway? Free speech was intended to protect offensive speech. This should apply especially when said offensive speech is based on solid scientific evidence.
computer scientist: "run the bus through the debugger and watch for fence post errors!"
Here you go. You said you didn't mind joke form!
Unless he's Chuck Norris, in which case, it doesn't matter who knows he works in intelligence. Chuck Norris is so stealthy, they'll never catch him!
But -- they did it for the children! We wouldn't want children to become confused with Pluto being listed as a planet in their old, out-of-date text books while the general consensus in the scientific community is that Pluto is a big snowball. Declare legislatively that Pluto is a planet and -- poof -- there you go! No more confused children!
Where there were stupid is their failure to realize that the economy is a bunch of interconnected parts. Screw others and you screw yourself.
Only? No, it's other advantage is that it's readily available in large quantities and it is cheap. Other than that, yeah, you're right.
Hold up! What makes you think he isn't right? What he described is almost exactly what the IBM Cell processor is, except with the Power Architecture.
"Most people"? Please define what "most people" do. Have you seen how crappy Google Earth and Google Sketchup are on integrated Intel graphics?
I don't. I think they're unintelligent if they lend money to people who can't pay it back and then package those loans up as commodities and sell them. I think that's pretty stupid, don't you?
Yeah. Decision makers at banks have proved themselves to really intelligent lately, huh?
According to Microsoft, they have a better track-record at fixing bugs faster than Linux.
Well, they seem to beat the hell out of OpenOffice.org, anyway. There's a bug in Calc that's been there for like...years now. OTOH, it's not a security bug, at least. ;)
'fuck what the rest of the [world] does, it's my way or the high way'
Why does that attitude seem so familiar? There was a guy with that attitude I'd heard about once before...S....t....uart? No....S...t..an? No......S...t...e...
Aw, hell, I can't think of it. Anyhow, last name started with 'J'.
Real admins stick to a proven solution such as Bind.
Yep. We like getting paid. ;)
The Wikipedia article linked to in my post.