The alternative explanation of swordgeek's definition of "Enterprise" software (Star Trek jokes aside) is that, according to his definition, there is currently no enterprise software available anywhere, from anyone, nor has there ever been any.
I'm willing to accept that as a reasonable answer.
Yes, K9 is a fork, and yes it retains Android mail client code. I'm hoping that the K9 guys put out more frequent releases and get more functionality going for it, as it's made a huge difference for me. It works a hell of a lot better than the email client it came with for my work email. And we use exchange, in all of its retarded, well, err, retardedness.
Then again, I'm using IMAP since I'm not living in the stone age. (Yes, I too am making fun of you for using POP)
My bitch about the G1 is the wifi. It works great when its connected, but man it really loves to disconnect repeatedly. I don't mind switching it on and off, and I rarely use it when I'm not plugged into some power source. If I could, I'd hook up an antennae to the damn thing just so I could get a better signal. (no my wifi isn't fucked up, I've tried this in at least 10 different locations)
I doubt that this will get fixed, and it works as is, but it could be so much better. I had low expectations of the G1 going in, expecting another hurr iphone clone (I'm looking at you, blackberry storm, you son of a bitch piece of shit) but I was and still am extremely pleased with the phone, here on week 2 of owning one.
If only I could have loaded the modded R30 build before mine was updated. Here's to hoping that those gents that pulled the bootloader off of it get something useful out of it.
The things that are considered "evidence" of dark matter are things that match prediction models of things that would happen because of dark matter. Fancy stuff like high energy cosmic rays of certain types and the like. The trick is that there are also may be other models that predict similar types of events that are used as evidence of dark matter, but these models are models that exclude the possibility of dark matter
So, the evidence that points towards dark matter could also point towards other conflicting models of our universe, essentially being evidence for many different models at once. The reason discoveries of this kind of evidence is exciting is because it gives us something to look at and test so that we might select or eliminate from the groups of conflicting models.
Cool, thanks for the info.
I've worked my way through most of TOS the past few months, so I look forward to seeing it again as soon as I finish TNG in a couple years.
An electronic reader could be a killer application for education.
So close, yet so far. Education is the "killer application" for electronic readers, in that you meant to say that education is the market that electronic readers will be applied with a level of success that they aren't quite seeing in their current markets. "Killer Application" is a nonsense phrase which I wish people would stop using and stop misusing.
Maybe the war pre-first-contact wasn't a world war... I don't think they ever actually called it WW3 did they?
They did call it the last World War in Space Seed. I just happened to have been watching this episode last week, so it was pretty fresh in my mind. I decided to play it again and double check.
At around 3.5 minutes into the episode Mr. Spock says:
"The mid 1990's was the era of your last so-called World War."
I thought they called it World War 3 later on in the episode, but that might just be me misremembering this beginning part. Regardless, the poster several posts above asserted:
The Third World War was not the Eugenics Wars. The Eugenics Wars happened around the time of the 90s. There's a few non-cannon novels about them and they were mentioned in the TOS Episode Space Seed. The Third World War happened around the middle of the 2000s and ended ten years before the events of First Contact in 2063
According to Space Seed, this cannot be true. If the Eugenics Wars were the "last world war" then World War 3 couldn't have happened after them; any World War happening after them would have to be at the very least World War 4. Maybe this was retconned later somewhere, but all I have to go on is Space Seed.
MS should be sticking to the knitting, and paying dividends. Xbox, online services and Zune are all distractions that will never be worth the time and money spent on them.
-jcr
Why would they shut down a profitable division, and one that they predict will continue to be profitable in the near future? How would shutting this division down be more profitable? Revenue doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. The only thing such a move would do would be to give them immediate liquidity, which would be very stupid in this current market. I've been thinking about this, and I can't think of any occasion where this would actually get them a profit, not to mention the fact that they'd be putting a thousand people out of their jobs.
And as to "paying dividends", where exactly do you think the money to pay dividends comes from? I'll tell you where it comes from, profitable divisions, that's where.
But fine, I'll bite. Let's say MS does shutdown it's games division. What "knitting" would you have them lather with this new-found liquidity, and how would doing that be shown to generate, without incurring an initial loss, more of a profit than an existing profitable division? What you'll find after thinking about this for more than 10 seconds is that they'd be spending this money on existing unprofitable divisions, exactly like how they did with their games division when it was unprofitable.
So you'd have them piss away more billions on a potentially unprofitable division, incurring years of loss for a chance to make a profit instead of having done exactly that, except they've finally gotten through to the profitable era of the division? You wouldn't happen to work for WaMu or something, would you?
Nope, your logic is the same logic Peaker used, and both are fallacies. The phrase "by extension" would properly be understood as "implies".
No it wouldn't, "by extension" is not equivocal to implication, at least not in this case, but you're still missing the point. The argument Peaker and I are making is about the assignment of value, not about the existence or nonexistence of god, which is the point you and the previous arguers have been caught up on.
We have an object that we can assign value to, named "Life". The statement says that if there is another object, named God, the value of Object: "Life" increases. Therefore, if Object: "God" exists, the value of Object: "Life" increases, but without any explanation. If one assumes the existence of God, then you assume the value of Life has increased, or at least has a positive nonzero value. Under the claims of the original statement, if you disprove the existence of God, having previously assumed the existence of God, then the value of Life cannot be said to definitely have a nonzero value, and would be less than the value of Life prior to the assumption of God's existence. This is the part that Peaker and I have been complaining about. Disproving the existence of God should not have a negative effect on the value of Life, directly or "by extension", and claims that it might should be met with ridicule and derision. Furthermore, it could also be shown that proving the existence of god could have an effect of decreasing the value of life, which is not acceptable under the terms of the original argument. Anyway, say whatever you like about how I make my point. The point is still that the original statement is idiotic, regardless.
(The original poster was saying IF there is a god (of any sort, THEN life has value. This seems like a fairly reasonable thing to say.
No it isn't
The reasonability of this statement is exactly what Peaker was calling into question. It seems like an extremely unreasonable thing to say, which Peaker points out, but you completely missed. The original statement says, If there is a god, and then by extension of there being a god, life is granted value, then life is without value or of lesser value if there is no god.
The statement says right there, in the phrase "by extension", that a life without god decreases the value of life, which is insane and ludicrous.
I'll preface this by saying that I fully support and encourage the use of nuclear power.
But this study is relatively meaningless, because the primary risks taken into the assessment are fundamentally different. If I build a nuclear power plant, it will eventually break down, and it will definitely produce toxic waste, and there is no circumstance where this will not happen. On the other hand, if I build a nuclear weapon, it will not definitely eventually self detonate. In fact, statistically speaking, the chances of a particular nuclear warhead being detonated is extremely small (there thousands of nuclear armaments world wide, with only a relatively few number of detonations), and decreases as the warhead ages, due to the likelihood that it will be dismantled for safety reasons or as part of a nonproliferation treaty.
Pretending that these two very different types of risks are comparable is misleading and irresponsible.
However, in my rather limited experience with inadvertently shocking boards, the most common result is that the board resets itself.
11 points, though:
While it is indeed possible for static electricity to jostle bus lines, power supply lines, etc..., I find it rather unlikely that static discharge would add an extra 10111011100 (binary) votes for a candidate. I would find a power of two (such as 2048 or 4096) more plausible, but still unlikely.
Any engineer worth his salt is going to design the board and layout to minimize the possibility of static discharge damage. I'm not sure why any competent engineer would design the case with an electrical path from VCC or data lines to the user interface; regardless, it seems very odd that static is the culprit. Still, those who can remember the Palm cradle fiasco know that such oversights do occasionally make it into commercial products.
I don't for a moment believe static is to blame. Even assuming well-intentioned engineers, it is far more likely that the code has a race condition, or the box was hacked, or it was deliberate sabotage. They're probably saying static because they have no clue what happened.
I think this is all criminally stupid, and wasn't going to comment here, but now I suppose I will to clarify something in your post.
You mention that it is unlikely that static discharge would add an extra 10111011100 votes, more or less, for a candidate. I think that's a fair statement, but chances are that in this case is that the fraudulent votes were cast across multiple machines, and not in one single static event. This just changes the perspective of the problem, and leads the brunt of your conclusion intact, so I suppose its largely a moot point except when you are considering how exactly to reproduce this effect with engineering. I'm not capable of this, but I find it interesting.
Either way, its hard to imagine voters in this district not shitting themselves over this, and not realizing that they're getting seriously boned.
Do people really have time to listen to podcasts unless they are commuting?
Is there a transcript???
To answer your question before I start my tirade: From the blog in question, "The podcast is still the most complete public source of information for these findings." http://blog.robertlee.name/
I know what you mean. Audio or video are pretty poor for the rate of information disseminated compared to text. This is doubly true when the creators aren't formally trained (presenters aren't actors, or the script is not professionally written). Then you wind up with unskilled individuals all over the internet blundering through 5 minutes of speech, or fumbling their way through what would have been an otherwise interesting interview, if only they had just transcribed the whole thing to text and posted it somewhere. Then it'd take the rest of us 30 seconds to get the information, instead of 5 minutes of pain and suffering listening to or watching some horrible recording.
There are obvious exceptions to this, but 9 times out of 10 I just want to read so I can get the most of the experience in the most efficient manner.
He's right that there are problems. His solution is what makes him sound like an irrational lunatic. Boycott all services that don't follow the FLOSS regime's decree! Idiocy. How about instead, we work with service providers like a semi-rational person would to get them to come in line with users privacy concerns. It's actually not that hard to come up with a solution that works for everybody once you kick all the raving nutters out of the room.
Maybe you're right, but according to the article he only launched the website with content a month ago. It's "in use" now, but maybe that's only as a result of Sandusky receiving communications from the Olympic Committee expressing interest in the domain name. He apparently also owns Tokyo2016, and is "in the process" of launching a discussion site there as well. And as per the article, Sandusky is claiming to have no knowledge of the lawsuit. This really smacks of domain squatting, albeit with Sandusky scrambling to cover his ass before the lawsuits start flying. It'd be interesting to sit in on the arbitration for this to see what kind of communications have actually been going on behind the scenes.
I mean, if the Olympic Committee gave him and inkling of an idea that they might try to wrestle control of the site from him around a month ago, and all of the sudden a site pops up at that address to show that the domain is "in use" in preparation for whatever legal action might come about. Well, let's just say that I'm a bit skeptical. Besides, I haven't met a Kellogg MBA student that wasn't out looking for a quick buck (not that there's anything wrong with that per se), and I've met quite a few. I guess that's an admission of my being biased here. (Fucking Evanstonians)::shakes fist::
Slashdot Mirror
I think you won that race, but I think everyone will agree that we all lost something back there.
You underestimate the amount of beer that the 10 Canadian guys who watch the Stanley Cup Playoffs drink.
MAJOR Business killer application.
Why is your application killing businesses?
The alternative explanation of swordgeek's definition of "Enterprise" software (Star Trek jokes aside) is that, according to his definition, there is currently no enterprise software available anywhere, from anyone, nor has there ever been any.
I'm willing to accept that as a reasonable answer.
Yes, K9 is a fork, and yes it retains Android mail client code. I'm hoping that the K9 guys put out more frequent releases and get more functionality going for it, as it's made a huge difference for me. It works a hell of a lot better than the email client it came with for my work email. And we use exchange, in all of its retarded, well, err, retardedness.
Then again, I'm using IMAP since I'm not living in the stone age. (Yes, I too am making fun of you for using POP)
My bitch about the G1 is the wifi. It works great when its connected, but man it really loves to disconnect repeatedly. I don't mind switching it on and off, and I rarely use it when I'm not plugged into some power source. If I could, I'd hook up an antennae to the damn thing just so I could get a better signal. (no my wifi isn't fucked up, I've tried this in at least 10 different locations)
I doubt that this will get fixed, and it works as is, but it could be so much better. I had low expectations of the G1 going in, expecting another hurr iphone clone (I'm looking at you, blackberry storm, you son of a bitch piece of shit) but I was and still am extremely pleased with the phone, here on week 2 of owning one.
If only I could have loaded the modded R30 build before mine was updated. Here's to hoping that those gents that pulled the bootloader off of it get something useful out of it.
It's much make point in sentence words not missing.
The things that are considered "evidence" of dark matter are things that match prediction models of things that would happen because of dark matter. Fancy stuff like high energy cosmic rays of certain types and the like. The trick is that there are also may be other models that predict similar types of events that are used as evidence of dark matter, but these models are models that exclude the possibility of dark matter
So, the evidence that points towards dark matter could also point towards other conflicting models of our universe, essentially being evidence for many different models at once. The reason discoveries of this kind of evidence is exciting is because it gives us something to look at and test so that we might select or eliminate from the groups of conflicting models.
Cool, thanks for the info. I've worked my way through most of TOS the past few months, so I look forward to seeing it again as soon as I finish TNG in a couple years.
An electronic reader could be a killer application for education.
So close, yet so far. Education is the "killer application" for electronic readers, in that you meant to say that education is the market that electronic readers will be applied with a level of success that they aren't quite seeing in their current markets.
"Killer Application" is a nonsense phrase which I wish people would stop using and stop misusing.
Maybe the war pre-first-contact wasn't a world war ... I don't think they ever actually called it WW3 did they?
They did call it the last World War in Space Seed. I just happened to have been watching this episode last week, so it was pretty fresh in my mind. I decided to play it again and double check.
At around 3.5 minutes into the episode Mr. Spock says:
"The mid 1990's was the era of your last so-called World War."
I thought they called it World War 3 later on in the episode, but that might just be me misremembering this beginning part. Regardless, the poster several posts above asserted:
The Third World War was not the Eugenics Wars. The Eugenics Wars happened around the time of the 90s. There's a few non-cannon novels about them and they were mentioned in the TOS Episode Space Seed. The Third World War happened around the middle of the 2000s and ended ten years before the events of First Contact in 2063
According to Space Seed, this cannot be true. If the Eugenics Wars were the "last world war" then World War 3 couldn't have happened after them; any World War happening after them would have to be at the very least World War 4. Maybe this was retconned later somewhere, but all I have to go on is Space Seed.
Thanks AC, whomever you are.
MS should be sticking to the knitting, and paying dividends. Xbox, online services and Zune are all distractions that will never be worth the time and money spent on them.
-jcr
Why would they shut down a profitable division, and one that they predict will continue to be profitable in the near future? How would shutting this division down be more profitable? Revenue doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. The only thing such a move would do would be to give them immediate liquidity, which would be very stupid in this current market. I've been thinking about this, and I can't think of any occasion where this would actually get them a profit, not to mention the fact that they'd be putting a thousand people out of their jobs.
And as to "paying dividends", where exactly do you think the money to pay dividends comes from? I'll tell you where it comes from, profitable divisions, that's where.
But fine, I'll bite. Let's say MS does shutdown it's games division. What "knitting" would you have them lather with this new-found liquidity, and how would doing that be shown to generate, without incurring an initial loss, more of a profit than an existing profitable division? What you'll find after thinking about this for more than 10 seconds is that they'd be spending this money on existing unprofitable divisions, exactly like how they did with their games division when it was unprofitable.
Thank you, and good night!
Yeah, but what about Baidu specifically?
So you'd have them piss away more billions on a potentially unprofitable division, incurring years of loss for a chance to make a profit instead of having done exactly that, except they've finally gotten through to the profitable era of the division? You wouldn't happen to work for WaMu or something, would you?
http://www.gogamer.com/Saitek-Pro-Flight-Rudder-Pedals-CH-Products_stcVVproductId5589593VVcatId480176VVviewprod.htm
Nope, your logic is the same logic Peaker used, and both are fallacies. The phrase "by extension" would properly be understood as "implies".
No it wouldn't, "by extension" is not equivocal to implication, at least not in this case, but you're still missing the point. The argument Peaker and I are making is about the assignment of value, not about the existence or nonexistence of god, which is the point you and the previous arguers have been caught up on.
We have an object that we can assign value to, named "Life". The statement says that if there is another object, named God, the value of Object: "Life" increases. Therefore, if Object: "God" exists, the value of Object: "Life" increases, but without any explanation. If one assumes the existence of God, then you assume the value of Life has increased, or at least has a positive nonzero value. Under the claims of the original statement, if you disprove the existence of God, having previously assumed the existence of God, then the value of Life cannot be said to definitely have a nonzero value, and would be less than the value of Life prior to the assumption of God's existence. This is the part that Peaker and I have been complaining about. Disproving the existence of God should not have a negative effect on the value of Life, directly or "by extension", and claims that it might should be met with ridicule and derision. Furthermore, it could also be shown that proving the existence of god could have an effect of decreasing the value of life, which is not acceptable under the terms of the original argument. Anyway, say whatever you like about how I make my point. The point is still that the original statement is idiotic, regardless.
(The original poster was saying IF there is a god (of any sort, THEN life has value. This seems like a fairly reasonable thing to say.
No it isn't
The reasonability of this statement is exactly what Peaker was calling into question. It seems like an extremely unreasonable thing to say, which Peaker points out, but you completely missed. The original statement says, If there is a god, and then by extension of there being a god, life is granted value, then life is without value or of lesser value if there is no god.
The statement says right there, in the phrase "by extension", that a life without god decreases the value of life, which is insane and ludicrous.
I'll preface this by saying that I fully support and encourage the use of nuclear power.
But this study is relatively meaningless, because the primary risks taken into the assessment are fundamentally different. If I build a nuclear power plant, it will eventually break down, and it will definitely produce toxic waste, and there is no circumstance where this will not happen. On the other hand, if I build a nuclear weapon, it will not definitely eventually self detonate. In fact, statistically speaking, the chances of a particular nuclear warhead being detonated is extremely small (there thousands of nuclear armaments world wide, with only a relatively few number of detonations), and decreases as the warhead ages, due to the likelihood that it will be dismantled for safety reasons or as part of a nonproliferation treaty.
Pretending that these two very different types of risks are comparable is misleading and irresponsible.
Isn't MS doing exactly as suggested in getting involved with ODF to make the format suitable for use with MS Office?
No
The answer is yes, it is possible.
However, in my rather limited experience with inadvertently shocking boards, the most common result is that the board resets itself.
11 points, though:
I think this is all criminally stupid, and wasn't going to comment here, but now I suppose I will to clarify something in your post.
You mention that it is unlikely that static discharge would add an extra 10111011100 votes, more or less, for a candidate. I think that's a fair statement, but chances are that in this case is that the fraudulent votes were cast across multiple machines, and not in one single static event. This just changes the perspective of the problem, and leads the brunt of your conclusion intact, so I suppose its largely a moot point except when you are considering how exactly to reproduce this effect with engineering. I'm not capable of this, but I find it interesting.
Either way, its hard to imagine voters in this district not shitting themselves over this, and not realizing that they're getting seriously boned.
Do people really have time to listen to podcasts unless they are commuting?
Is there a transcript???
To answer your question before I start my tirade: From the blog in question, "The podcast is still the most complete public source of information for these findings." http://blog.robertlee.name/
I know what you mean. Audio or video are pretty poor for the rate of information disseminated compared to text. This is doubly true when the creators aren't formally trained (presenters aren't actors, or the script is not professionally written). Then you wind up with unskilled individuals all over the internet blundering through 5 minutes of speech, or fumbling their way through what would have been an otherwise interesting interview, if only they had just transcribed the whole thing to text and posted it somewhere. Then it'd take the rest of us 30 seconds to get the information, instead of 5 minutes of pain and suffering listening to or watching some horrible recording.
There are obvious exceptions to this, but 9 times out of 10 I just want to read so I can get the most of the experience in the most efficient manner.
He's right that there are problems. His solution is what makes him sound like an irrational lunatic. Boycott all services that don't follow the FLOSS regime's decree! Idiocy. How about instead, we work with service providers like a semi-rational person would to get them to come in line with users privacy concerns. It's actually not that hard to come up with a solution that works for everybody once you kick all the raving nutters out of the room.
Maybe you're right, but according to the article he only launched the website with content a month ago. It's "in use" now, but maybe that's only as a result of Sandusky receiving communications from the Olympic Committee expressing interest in the domain name. He apparently also owns Tokyo2016, and is "in the process" of launching a discussion site there as well. And as per the article, Sandusky is claiming to have no knowledge of the lawsuit. This really smacks of domain squatting, albeit with Sandusky scrambling to cover his ass before the lawsuits start flying. It'd be interesting to sit in on the arbitration for this to see what kind of communications have actually been going on behind the scenes.
::shakes fist::
I mean, if the Olympic Committee gave him and inkling of an idea that they might try to wrestle control of the site from him around a month ago, and all of the sudden a site pops up at that address to show that the domain is "in use" in preparation for whatever legal action might come about. Well, let's just say that I'm a bit skeptical. Besides, I haven't met a Kellogg MBA student that wasn't out looking for a quick buck (not that there's anything wrong with that per se), and I've met quite a few. I guess that's an admission of my being biased here. (Fucking Evanstonians)
Ah yes, the infallible "blah blah blah" argument. Well played, sir.
I guess you haven't played The Longest Journey?