...already know what your children look like and probably don't need to see your latest 250 image homage to "Our Trip to Chuck E. Cheese".
The mention of children leads me to believe you are not a university student.
I take a lot of pictures. A lot of pictures. As in, I've taken 12 gigabytes of photographs since March 2006. And every time I'm at a party or barbeque or Frosh Week or some audition, taking pictures as I'm wont to do, people always say the same thing. "You're going to put these pictures on Facebook, right?"
I don't know if its our age or our culture, but all the friends my age (admittedly, also university students) love posting and seeing photos of the latest goings-on. But that's just it. They're called social networking sites for a reason. It's not a news site like Slashdot, nor should it be implemented as one.
Please don't berate the photo-sharing features of Facebook. The UI is well designed, the implementation is good, and the feature is quite useful.
I partially agree with your statement, though I don't think there are two forces in the world, there are seven.
Microsoft office isn't distributed for money, it's distributed because of greed.
OpenOffice isn't distribuited for love, it's distributed because of pride.
As for this new contender? I'd go with envy.
(No, I'm not a crazy religious zealot freak or anything. I honestly beleive this explains a lot about software development. For instance, Facebook and Myspace exist because of lust. As JWZ once famously said, "'How will this software get my users laid' should be on the minds of anyone writing social software")
The inclusion of a distinctive logo doesn't change the need to turn the box over and read the fine print for "required" and "reccomended" hardware to play the game. Console gaming works because a Wii is a Wii is a Wii.
I disagree, I think this will work. Running Vista will take more RAM and hardware acceleration than the next generation of video games.
If you can't see the difference between a girl hitting her head, and her parent whacking her on the head as hard as he can, you shouldn't have kids.
He said that he hit her, unintentially. I don't see anywhere where he said he "hit her as hard as he could". If you lack the reading comprehension to see the difference, you shouldn't be on Slashdot.
See, the problem with that is it works only so long as you're around. I think the point is that the archives are supposed to be both zero-maintanence and they're supposed to outlive you. Who's going to push your bits around when you're gone?
RiData sucks. Seriously, I'm not trolling, I've been backed up on this. Not to mention I've personaly had RiData discs fail on me within a month of burning, their double layer DVDs are good for nothing but coasters, and I have an entire spindle of RiData CDs with visible defects on them. How the hell did that get past quality control?
"For a long time now, researchers and scientists have used computer simulations in the physical sciences: physics, chemistry, and engineering. But what about biology?
What about protein folding? That's a biological problem, one computers have been attacking for a while now.
I did the math and the difference between the two figures are 0.3%.
I'm inclined also to say that's "Not a big difference" because I doubt their measurements have that kind of resolution. From that standpoint, "13,657" and "13,711" are essentially the same number. To the layman it might look like, "Hey, that means people are driving 54 fewer miles per year!" but anyone with a science background will look at that and say, "Pfft. That's statistical noise. Where's your error analysis?"
In short, these figures are no indication that people are actually driving less.
I did the math and the difference is 0.3%. There's a word for that: statistical noise. It's a shame there's no one over at CNN with enough of a mathematical / scientific background to pick up on that and nix this story.
What's more is I don't trust the numbers themselves. Numbers like "13,657" and "13,711" imply a degree of precision, whereas "14 kilo-miles" (you guys should really switch to metric) does not. Given that there's no measurement error analysis I'm inclined to think these numbers are essentially the same.
The main difference between this Creationist Museum and the ones I mentioned is that the religion this one is based on is alive and well, while the other ones are, how to say, fringe? Niche religions?
And you think that's irrelevant because...?
See, here's the difference: Christianity has clout. If I actually did open an Inuit Creation museum as I suggested (or Huron, or Babylonian, etc.), it would be seen as quaint at least and an educational experience in mythology at most. I suspect the same is true of the Australian Aboriginals' museums to which you refer. But that's not what this group of Christians is up to. They're not trying to build "an educational experience in mythology", they're trying to pass their creation myth off as fact. Therein lies the difference.
It must be because I like freedom.
As it so happens, I like freedom too.
Yet if you were to joke about them you'd be labeled a bigoted fascist or some such utter crap.
See? That's why I like freedom. I see others doing something patently stupid, and I exercise my freedom to make fun of them.
The museum is costing $25m (£13m) and all but $3m has already been raised from private donations.
I read that to mean that there's currently a $3 deficit, not that the government shelled out $3 million for this. As theocratic as some claim the current administration to be (or as much as it actually is), there's no way they'd ever go this far - there'd be too much hell to pay.
Using the same reasoning, why do we still have porn mags? Those seem to exist alongside digital media without being driven to extinction.
"No one who is really interested in boobs is without an internet connection, so they can go to... sites that [are] totally ad supported and thus free. The web also has videos, which are superior to screen shots."
That's not even taking into account site licences. Any computer I have ever bought on behalf of the university I worked for was purchased without an operating system. The university has an academic site licence for Windows, and students can get a legit copy for free as well. Why then would I shell out $200 for the convenience of having Windows preinstalled?
But man does that have the potential to screw up the piracy stats!
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes the best defense isn't a good offense, it's a good sense of humour.
I take a lot of pictures. A lot of pictures. As in, I've taken 12 gigabytes of photographs since March 2006. And every time I'm at a party or barbeque or Frosh Week or some audition, taking pictures as I'm wont to do, people always say the same thing. "You're going to put these pictures on Facebook, right?"
I don't know if its our age or our culture, but all the friends my age (admittedly, also university students) love posting and seeing photos of the latest goings-on. But that's just it. They're called social networking sites for a reason. It's not a news site like Slashdot, nor should it be implemented as one.
Please don't berate the photo-sharing features of Facebook. The UI is well designed, the implementation is good, and the feature is quite useful.
I always wear my watch when I leave the house, but that's mostly because my watch doubles as a USB flash drive.
For the win!
Faster isn't always better. "Efficient" should not be the word one uses to describe your sexual performance.
Oh, I was referring to the seven sins.
Your office parties sound interesting, but how do you work Wrath into them?
I partially agree with your statement, though I don't think there are two forces in the world, there are seven.
Microsoft office isn't distributed for money, it's distributed because of greed.
OpenOffice isn't distribuited for love, it's distributed because of pride.
As for this new contender? I'd go with envy.
(No, I'm not a crazy religious zealot freak or anything. I honestly beleive this explains a lot about software development. For instance, Facebook and Myspace exist because of lust. As JWZ once famously said, "'How will this software get my users laid' should be on the minds of anyone writing social software")
Well, fuck me, there it is. Argh. I need sleep. I'm right at home.
Wait, I take that back. You're right at home.
Besides, who wouldn't want to dominate the world for seven years of darkness? I call Marilyn Manson as my right hand man!
See, the problem with that is it works only so long as you're around. I think the point is that the archives are supposed to be both zero-maintanence and they're supposed to outlive you. Who's going to push your bits around when you're gone?
RiData sucks. Seriously, I'm not trolling, I've been backed up on this. Not to mention I've personaly had RiData discs fail on me within a month of burning, their double layer DVDs are good for nothing but coasters, and I have an entire spindle of RiData CDs with visible defects on them. How the hell did that get past quality control?
For me, it's Verbatim all the way.
All your data points have low times compared to one I have.
Windows 95 on a 486-DX2, 66 MHz - three minutes.
He's not gay. If he were gay, he'd be telling us to buy a Mac.
I did the math and the difference between the two figures are 0.3%.
I'm inclined also to say that's "Not a big difference" because I doubt their measurements have that kind of resolution. From that standpoint, "13,657" and "13,711" are essentially the same number. To the layman it might look like, "Hey, that means people are driving 54 fewer miles per year!" but anyone with a science background will look at that and say, "Pfft. That's statistical noise. Where's your error analysis?"
In short, these figures are no indication that people are actually driving less.
I agree wholeheartedly
I did the math and the difference is 0.3%. There's a word for that: statistical noise. It's a shame there's no one over at CNN with enough of a mathematical / scientific background to pick up on that and nix this story.
What's more is I don't trust the numbers themselves. Numbers like "13,657" and "13,711" imply a degree of precision, whereas "14 kilo-miles" (you guys should really switch to metric) does not. Given that there's no measurement error analysis I'm inclined to think these numbers are essentially the same.
In short, this is bullshit.
Seriously everyone, this is great news. I bet shutting down AllOfMp3.com does for music stores what shutting down Napster did for P2P.
Ten imitation sites coming in 3...2...1...
As it so happens, I like freedom too.
See? That's why I like freedom. I see others doing something patently stupid, and I exercise my freedom to make fun of them.
Wow.
If it's true because it's a story that has been passed down for generations and people believe it, I guess all of these are true too.
Who wants to help me open an Inuit Creation museum?
That's not even taking into account site licences. Any computer I have ever bought on behalf of the university I worked for was purchased without an operating system. The university has an academic site licence for Windows, and students can get a legit copy for free as well. Why then would I shell out $200 for the convenience of having Windows preinstalled?
But man does that have the potential to screw up the piracy stats!
I submit that the "great TV ads" were the ones that are a pleasure to watch, not the ones that cost a lot of money.
Here's to advertisers who have a sense of humour!