Your response is either obtuse or ignorant. The post you're responding to is clearly not seeking an ABI that is merely stable for him, but rather an ABI that is consistent and stable for the entire platform. Suggesting that he sticks to one particular version for himself does nothing to enable him to walk into a store and know that any arbitrary piece of software would work on his system.
You sound very sure. I'm curious, how would a Patriot (traveling at its top speed of Mach 5) overtake and intercept something traveling at the same (or greater) speed given that the latter has a rage of 600 nautical miles and the former has a range of 99 miles?
Are you sure that stealth is a priority given the X-51's intended mission?
It's not like how Lucas was able to squeeze more story out of the Star Wars trilogy by adding in effects that brought it up to modern-day standards (and ruined the story in parts that didn't make sense).
There, I ruined that for ya.
Yes, I'm thinking about Greedo shooting first in the redux.
Yes, I'm certain that javascript is the problem. Slashdot has been unusable for me in mobile Safari on my 1st generation iPhone running version 2.0 of the software. The recent 3.0 upgrade made it usable, but still sluggish and with wierd random behaviour.
I personally think that such a feature sounds great at first, but people will quickly become disenchanted with it. First and foremost, because where you hold a phone to view the screen will give you a particularly unflattering angle of yourself: up your nose. Even relatively fit people are going to look like they have a double-chin when they're looking down at their phone. Ever notice all the myspace kiddies that take pics of themselves from a high angle? People say they want video chat on a phone, but I say "be careful what you ask for; you might get it".
Please don't pretend that it's all about the "A)..multi-touch enabled captive touchscreen".
I think you're shitting me...by mixing the words "haptic" and "capacitive" into one....and don't pretend that you have no ability to grok usability and the beauty of software's architecture. Never mind; I know you're not pretending.
The first shots of the Enterprise in space show it docked at the massive space station with the bridge facing the center of the station. When they show Spock entering the bridge for the first time (when the ship is still docked) you can see the view out of the front viewscreen/window. You should be able to see the huge space station, but all you see is empty space. Submitted by BocaDavie
Isn't it possible that people in that century have figured out that you can have a camera facing backwards and put it on a video screen on a wall facing the other direction?
It really seems like a cop-out designed to silence debate by introducing speculative elements into what was originally a factual discussion.
I couldn't agree more. I think this was a cleverly-engineered meme to do exactly what you suggest: silence debate with assertions that are, for practical purposes, not easily testable.
I'm not suggesting that you are deliberately doing this, only that what you are repeating is not at all an original thought (in fact, it almost always comes up in these discussions) and may have had such an intent behind its actual origin.
:-) My whole post was tongue-in-cheek. It was hard to write it that way, because I get peevish about that meme, too.
But the quote from Esther Dyson said the ISP is responsible, not the monolithic corporation who made the operating system.
And we all know the conventional wisdom that the structure of software doesn't have anything to do with security...it's all about popularity: any operating system would would be equally vulnerable if its market share were to grow to be as large as the one that currently dominates.
And you also forgot that the assumption that we all use the monolithic corporation's system is supposed to be a tacit assumption...which is to say, don't speak about it. Ssssh! It's a fight-club kinda thing.
Actually, in full context, you said "...to get some idea why this is true". The Incompleteness Theorem has absolutely nothing to do with the truth-value of what you said, and it was this that I responded to.
Although I didn't mean to upset you by doing so. Sorry about that.
There is no such thing as a standard that exactly describes in every way every scenario and how to handle it (Google Godel Incompleteness to get some idea why this is true.)
I'm pretty sure you can only appeal to the Incompleteness Theorem as a metaphor in this context, and no more:
The conclusions of Godel's theorems only hold for the formal theories that satisfy the necessary hypotheses. Not all axiom systems satisfy these hypotheses, even when these systems have models that include the natural numbers as a subset. For example, there are first-order axiomatizations of Euclidean geometry and real closed fields that do not meet the hypotheses of Godel's theorems. The key fact is that these axiomatizations are not expressive enough to define the set of natural numbers or develop basic properties of the natural numbers.
I'm not sure why OpenGL doesn't fit within the context jcr used it. Commodity GPUs tend to be optimized for Direct X first, with Open GL as an afterthought layered upon it. It doesn't look like NVidia or ATI are going to invert that priority any time soon, so why not make their own that suits OpenGL well? And OpenCL too, of course.
While Safari doesn't have the same ease of plug-in support as Firefox...
It sounds like you're actually thinking of the Firefox "extension" or "add-on" API. Both Safari and Firefox support plugins. Extensions and plugins are not the same thing. This seems to be a common mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
Your response is either obtuse or ignorant. The post you're responding to is clearly not seeking an ABI that is merely stable for him, but rather an ABI that is consistent and stable for the entire platform. Suggesting that he sticks to one particular version for himself does nothing to enable him to walk into a store and know that any arbitrary piece of software would work on his system.
You sound very sure. I'm curious, how would a Patriot (traveling at its top speed of Mach 5) overtake and intercept something traveling at the same (or greater) speed given that the latter has a rage of 600 nautical miles and the former has a range of 99 miles?
Are you sure that stealth is a priority given the X-51's intended mission?
virii isn't a word.
True, but it makes excellent bait for trapping pedantii...pedanten...pedmata?
It's not like how Lucas was able to squeeze more story out of the Star Wars trilogy by adding in effects that brought it up to modern-day standards (and ruined the story in parts that didn't make sense).
There, I ruined that for ya.
Yes, I'm thinking about Greedo shooting first in the redux.
Ok, if you insist...
"Gosh, I wonder if these strange new objects are dimensionally transcendental, like a Tardis!"
Happy now? ;-)
I'm interested with what they did with the other 27% of her.
Their core developer is a hermaphrodite, you insensitive clod!
I couldn't disagree more. Erik von Markovik serves as a clear counter-example, as do many of the men who benefit from the fruits of his research.
Yes, I'm certain that javascript is the problem. Slashdot has been unusable for me in mobile Safari on my 1st generation iPhone running version 2.0 of the software. The recent 3.0 upgrade made it usable, but still sluggish and with wierd random behaviour.
I personally think that such a feature sounds great at first, but people will quickly become disenchanted with it. First and foremost, because where you hold a phone to view the screen will give you a particularly unflattering angle of yourself: up your nose. Even relatively fit people are going to look like they have a double-chin when they're looking down at their phone. Ever notice all the myspace kiddies that take pics of themselves from a high angle? People say they want video chat on a phone, but I say "be careful what you ask for; you might get it".
Ugh, thank you. Now I have this image of a sweaty Steve Ballmer Sr. saying "...I...love...this..company...YEAH!...come on baby, give me your face"
*clap* *clap* *clap*
"Memories...like the corners of my drive...unlinked and fragmented memories..."
Please don't pretend that it's all about the "A)..multi-touch enabled captive touchscreen".
I think you're shitting me...by mixing the words "haptic" and "capacitive" into one. ...and don't pretend that you have no ability to grok usability and the beauty of software's architecture. Never mind; I know you're not pretending.
Perhaps there are two groups of people with opposite views?
But in the new movie, it's made fairly clear that it is indeed a window and not a screen.
I thought Nero's giant head displayed upon it made it pretty clear that it is a screen. But that's just me.
One of the "goofs" doesn't make sense to me:
The first shots of the Enterprise in space show it docked at the massive space station with the bridge facing the center of the station. When they show Spock entering the bridge for the first time (when the ship is still docked) you can see the view out of the front viewscreen/window. You should be able to see the huge space station, but all you see is empty space.
Submitted by BocaDavie
Isn't it possible that people in that century have figured out that you can have a camera facing backwards and put it on a video screen on a wall facing the other direction?
I think you mean "biennial", which means "every other year". "bi-annual" means twice per year.
It really seems like a cop-out designed to silence debate by introducing speculative elements into what was originally a factual discussion.
I couldn't agree more. I think this was a cleverly-engineered meme to do exactly what you suggest: silence debate with assertions that are, for practical purposes, not easily testable.
I'm not suggesting that you are deliberately doing this, only that what you are repeating is not at all an original thought (in fact, it almost always comes up in these discussions) and may have had such an intent behind its actual origin.
:-) My whole post was tongue-in-cheek. It was hard to write it that way, because I get peevish about that meme, too.
But the quote from Esther Dyson said the ISP is responsible, not the monolithic corporation who made the operating system.
And we all know the conventional wisdom that the structure of software doesn't have anything to do with security...it's all about popularity: any operating system would would be equally vulnerable if its market share were to grow to be as large as the one that currently dominates.
And you also forgot that the assumption that we all use the monolithic corporation's system is supposed to be a tacit assumption...which is to say, don't speak about it. Ssssh! It's a fight-club kinda thing.
There is nothing virtuous about "homogeneous". Quite the opposite
Homogeneous vs. Heterogeneous is an engineering tradeoff. Both have virtues, and both have drawbacks. This is an inescapable truth.
I assume you've heard the expression, "hung like a horse"?
Yes, but for someone even more well endowed I prefer the expression "hung like windows".
Actually, in full context, you said "...to get some idea why this is true". The Incompleteness Theorem has absolutely nothing to do with the truth-value of what you said, and it was this that I responded to.
Although I didn't mean to upset you by doing so. Sorry about that.
There is no such thing as a standard that exactly describes in every way every scenario and how to handle it (Google Godel Incompleteness to get some idea why this is true.)
I'm pretty sure you can only appeal to the Incompleteness Theorem as a metaphor in this context, and no more:
The conclusions of Godel's theorems only hold for the formal theories that satisfy the necessary hypotheses. Not all axiom systems satisfy these hypotheses, even when these systems have models that include the natural numbers as a subset. For example, there are first-order axiomatizations of Euclidean geometry and real closed fields that do not meet the hypotheses of Godel's theorems. The key fact is that these axiomatizations are not expressive enough to define the set of natural numbers or develop basic properties of the natural numbers.
You can't believe everything you read on the internet.
I don't believe you.
I guess you mean OpenCL
I'm not sure why OpenGL doesn't fit within the context jcr used it. Commodity GPUs tend to be optimized for Direct X first, with Open GL as an afterthought layered upon it. It doesn't look like NVidia or ATI are going to invert that priority any time soon, so why not make their own that suits OpenGL well? And OpenCL too, of course.
While Safari doesn't have the same ease of plug-in support as Firefox...
It sounds like you're actually thinking of the Firefox "extension" or "add-on" API. Both Safari and Firefox support plugins. Extensions and plugins are not the same thing. This seems to be a common mistake.