and volume is more or less the definition of "size".
From dictionary.com: 1.The physical dimensions, proportions, magnitude, or extent of an object.
2.Any of a series of graduated categories of dimension whereby manufactured articles, such as shoes and clothing, are classified.
3.1.Considerable extent, amount, or dimensions: a debt of enormous size.
2.Relative amount or number, as of population or contents: What size is Cleveland?
4.Character, value, or status with reference to relative importance or the capacity to meet given requirements: Try this proposal on for size.
5.The actual state of affairs: That's about the size of the situation.
It's a loose term that only gains importance in context, so there's no point on nitpicking. It's all relative. And relative to typical computer cases, both the Mac mini and the Dell are very small.
It's not like you look from the side while playing a handheld for fucks sake. It's a one-person experience, and simply relaxing your hands naturally will give you the right position.
Half the Volume != half the size. The new Mac Mini has a bigger footprint, but is a lot thinner. The Dell has about the same footprint as the new Mac, but if much thicker. Similar to say a netbook vs. macbook air.
Have you never tasted distilled water? Even that has a taste! (A pretty bad one) Taste is determined by how your senses react to different substances. The more frequently you drink one kind of water, the more tolerant you become and it appears to have less taste. I'm used to high quality untreated ground water from a tap, so anything other than that tastes weird, even the "natural" spring water they sell in plastic bottles and ship around the world.
I find it astonishing how willingly people will swallow bullshit handwaving out of the desire to avoid conscious guilt. Let's get the facts straight: The civilians didn't have a rocket launcher. It has been shown that the initial reports were clearly fabricated lies. It shows us a policy of prioritizing military propaganda over professional thoroughness. As such, we have no reason at all to believe their other claims and can only draw conclusion from the raw material we have.
The "sensitive" Data is only a small fraction of what happened to be transmitted while the Google car drove by. There would be hardly any value to it at all. And they had been doing it that way for about three years, without anyone at Google themselves ever noticing what was being recorded. The chances of anyone else finding out are rather slim indeed.
Religions are formed by a collective. And all religions tend to impose rules and values on other people, it's certainly not for free-thinkers. Christians are taught to accept the authority of their leaders and the texts, and they can certainly be contradictory.
It's a belief. Some traditions do indeed resemble a religion. There isn't really a destination, especially considering that most religions are littered with the stuff anyway.
Furthermore, you CANNOT prove them wrong.
Astrology predicts events which are observable. Thus if it were true it should generate empirical evidence. If it doesn't, we can assume that it's wrong. That's how science works. God-arguments OTOH always hold that even absent of any effect or result he might exist.
The Bible gives precise family lines from creation to historical events, so the date can be counted with reasonable accuracy. This was in an age before they had a universal dating system, so giving the age of your fathers was as accurate as it gets.
Although you can show quite simply how much of the factoids contained in their sacred books are inconsistent with what science shows us, this does neither prove the religion wrong
Um, what? Of course it does, you just said it. Inconsistent with science == wrong Your weird-ass choice of vocabulary like "factoids" or "what science shows us" doesn't weaken this relation.
By the way, except for the literal creationists, creationism by itself is not incompatible with what science tells us about the universe.
Yes it is. In it's true and original meaning. You can create a compatible version by saying God lit a firecracker and created the Big Bang or whatever, but that really isn't what the word "creationism" means.
when you go look at the substance of the religions, these are not inherently wrong, nor self-contradicting.
The "substance" is merely your selective interpretation which has specifically weeded out contradictions and dissonance. But when you look at the canonical texts, they contradict themselves. Even if you only compare the moral teachings, the canon is full of contradictions. And even the oldest traditions themselves have contradicting views.
What is contradicting (or more specifically substantially hypocrite) is most of the time the behavior of many believers.
Absolutely. But you assume that religion by itself is actually distinct from it's believers, whereas in reality it is actually the behavior of the believers which creates and defines religion. As such all of this inconsistency is utterly unsurprising when you consider that the sacred texts weren't written by divine inspiration but are actually fantasy novels written by people with different political and ethical agendas to push and originated from many very different cultures.
And what about all those "GB" patents in parent's post?
The situation is very ambiguous. European Patents are meant to simplify the patent system. But in reality the national patent offices don't really adhere to common standards. Coupled with extremely low barrier for patents we have seen in recent years has created a situation where owning a patent only half the story. It seems the patent offices think that they should grant patents by default and only check the validity later. In general the risks of being sued outweigh the license fees for commercial operations, so everybody just coughs up. So as long as the MPEGLA demands fees from all European countries, it doesn't really matter if there's some paragraph about software patents that has never really been used anyway.
Well it's completely irrelevant for a start. And I bet that executable is quite the resource hog too, it just comes in a small package.
There are indeed situations where the amount of memory used is too small to really bother caring about. That's when I would rather have more features and faster response than a smaller footprint.
I'm happy that there are programs that actually use the expensive memory in my machine. The whole idea about upgrading RAM is to allow programs to run faster and do more things. Why would I want tons and tons of idle memory doing nothing but draining power? If more programs would figure out how to use my RAM rather than page our hard drive to shreds we'd be a lot better off. I got pissed with Firefox recently because it was unresponsive, then I realized I had a bajillion tabs open, many of them web apps and Youtube videos, and was doing it on a five-year old machine. I had no right to be pissed.
Still not a problem for Firefox (at least not yet). You don't mention that the vast majority of those videos are designed to be decoded by a Flash client. Since they introduced hardware acceleration performance has been top-notch too.
I think it will be more of an issue for HTML5+h264 uptake that one of the most popular browsers has no clean way of supporting it, so most providers will probably stick with the tried and true Flash option. As far as Web design goes it's important that there are free options available. But whether a proprietary codec is decoded by a proprietary plugin, a proprietary browser or a proprietary OS, well most people don't really care.
No, the better analogy is having your car parked on your driveway, and kicking up a fuss when someone decides to do a survey of car models. If you don't want anybody to find out, you shouldn't park your car in plain view. It's not unreasonable to collect such information as long as it's used responsibly. I.e. they can publish "20% of Dullsville Residents drive a Ford", but saying "Joe Blow at number 39 drives a black 2003 BMW 3-series" is inappropriate.
Quad-cores had a lot to do with performance, while this technical innovation is more to do with cost. By using a single dye they have the advantage of more efficient manufacturing process, and might be able to seize those "critical point" markets that bit faster.
The article's plain bull. MPEG patents are upheld in Europe, so if you don't pay you'll get sued pretty fast. Linking to one Wikipedia page, and drawing badly-researched conclusions from it is a joke.
I don't see your point how VHS was supposedly so different from Betamax and smartphones are so similar. Why Betamax lost is pretty clear.
Sony Betamax - quality. VHS - quantity.
Now that is a myth. Even on modern screen, 250 vs 240 lines of horizontal resolution would be pretty much indistinguishable. On a 1970s TV with an RF modulated signal? Not a chance.
Slashdot Mirror
and volume is more or less the definition of "size".
From dictionary.com:
1.The physical dimensions, proportions, magnitude, or extent of an object.
2.Any of a series of graduated categories of dimension whereby manufactured articles, such as shoes and clothing, are classified.
3.1.Considerable extent, amount, or dimensions: a debt of enormous size.
2.Relative amount or number, as of population or contents: What size is Cleveland?
4.Character, value, or status with reference to relative importance or the capacity to meet given requirements: Try this proposal on for size.
5.The actual state of affairs: That's about the size of the situation.
It's a loose term that only gains importance in context, so there's no point on nitpicking. It's all relative.
And relative to typical computer cases, both the Mac mini and the Dell are very small.
It's not like you look from the side while playing a handheld for fucks sake. It's a one-person experience, and simply relaxing your hands naturally will give you the right position.
Half the Volume != half the size.
The new Mac Mini has a bigger footprint, but is a lot thinner. The Dell has about the same footprint as the new Mac, but if much thicker. Similar to say a netbook vs. macbook air.
Have you never tasted distilled water? Even that has a taste! (A pretty bad one) Taste is determined by how your senses react to different substances. The more frequently you drink one kind of water, the more tolerant you become and it appears to have less taste.
I'm used to high quality untreated ground water from a tap, so anything other than that tastes weird, even the "natural" spring water they sell in plastic bottles and ship around the world.
I find it astonishing how willingly people will swallow bullshit handwaving out of the desire to avoid conscious guilt.
Let's get the facts straight: The civilians didn't have a rocket launcher. It has been shown that the initial reports were clearly fabricated lies. It shows us a policy of prioritizing military propaganda over professional thoroughness. As such, we have no reason at all to believe their other claims and can only draw conclusion from the raw material we have.
512 partitions should be enough for anyone.
The "sensitive" Data is only a small fraction of what happened to be transmitted while the Google car drove by. There would be hardly any value to it at all.
And they had been doing it that way for about three years, without anyone at Google themselves ever noticing what was being recorded. The chances of anyone else finding out are rather slim indeed.
relativity FAIL
That's only true if you assume that they would otherwise know nothing about the libraries and always write their own implementations optimally.
But in reality it's perfectly possible to use the libraries and still understand the workings. GCC shouldn't be trying to educate it's programmers.
Religions are formed by a collective. And all religions tend to impose rules and values on other people, it's certainly not for free-thinkers.
Christians are taught to accept the authority of their leaders and the texts, and they can certainly be contradictory.
Astrology and fortune-telling are not religions.
It's a belief. Some traditions do indeed resemble a religion. There isn't really a destination, especially considering that most religions are littered with the stuff anyway.
Furthermore, you CANNOT prove them wrong.
Astrology predicts events which are observable. Thus if it were true it should generate empirical evidence. If it doesn't, we can assume that it's wrong. That's how science works.
God-arguments OTOH always hold that even absent of any effect or result he might exist.
The Bible gives precise family lines from creation to historical events, so the date can be counted with reasonable accuracy. This was in an age before they had a universal dating system, so giving the age of your fathers was as accurate as it gets.
Although you can show quite simply how much of the factoids contained in their sacred books are inconsistent with what science shows us, this does neither prove the religion wrong
Um, what? Of course it does, you just said it.
Inconsistent with science == wrong
Your weird-ass choice of vocabulary like "factoids" or "what science shows us" doesn't weaken this relation.
By the way, except for the literal creationists, creationism by itself is not incompatible with what science tells us about the universe.
Yes it is. In it's true and original meaning. You can create a compatible version by saying God lit a firecracker and created the Big Bang or whatever, but that really isn't what the word "creationism" means.
when you go look at the substance of the religions, these are not inherently wrong, nor self-contradicting.
The "substance" is merely your selective interpretation which has specifically weeded out contradictions and dissonance.
But when you look at the canonical texts, they contradict themselves. Even if you only compare the moral teachings, the canon is full of contradictions. And even the oldest traditions themselves have contradicting views.
What is contradicting (or more specifically substantially hypocrite) is most of the time the behavior of many believers.
Absolutely. But you assume that religion by itself is actually distinct from it's believers, whereas in reality it is actually the behavior of the believers which creates and defines religion.
As such all of this inconsistency is utterly unsurprising when you consider that the sacred texts weren't written by divine inspiration but are actually fantasy novels written by people with different political and ethical agendas to push and originated from many very different cultures.
And what about all those "GB" patents in parent's post?
The situation is very ambiguous. European Patents are meant to simplify the patent system. But in reality the national patent offices don't really adhere to common standards.
Coupled with extremely low barrier for patents we have seen in recent years has created a situation where owning a patent only half the story. It seems the patent offices think that they should grant patents by default and only check the validity later.
In general the risks of being sued outweigh the license fees for commercial operations, so everybody just coughs up. So as long as the MPEGLA demands fees from all European countries, it doesn't really matter if there's some paragraph about software patents that has never really been used anyway.
Well it's completely irrelevant for a start. And I bet that executable is quite the resource hog too, it just comes in a small package.
There are indeed situations where the amount of memory used is too small to really bother caring about. That's when I would rather have more features and faster response than a smaller footprint.
I agree. It's actually one of the oldest tricks in a salesman's book.
Over the years people have been hailed as business or marketing geniuses for the seediest of tricks such as:
1) Lying to people about your product being healthy
2) Making people feel insecure
3) Using market power to target and undermine competitors
And over and over again people fall for it.
I'm happy that there are programs that actually use the expensive memory in my machine. The whole idea about upgrading RAM is to allow programs to run faster and do more things. Why would I want tons and tons of idle memory doing nothing but draining power?
If more programs would figure out how to use my RAM rather than page our hard drive to shreds we'd be a lot better off. I got pissed with Firefox recently because it was unresponsive, then I realized I had a bajillion tabs open, many of them web apps and Youtube videos, and was doing it on a five-year old machine. I had no right to be pissed.
I tried using a infinite fractal as a browser once. Didn't have all the features I hoped for :-(
Still not a problem for Firefox (at least not yet). You don't mention that the vast majority of those videos are designed to be decoded by a Flash client. Since they introduced hardware acceleration performance has been top-notch too.
I think it will be more of an issue for HTML5+h264 uptake that one of the most popular browsers has no clean way of supporting it, so most providers will probably stick with the tried and true Flash option.
As far as Web design goes it's important that there are free options available. But whether a proprietary codec is decoded by a proprietary plugin, a proprietary browser or a proprietary OS, well most people don't really care.
No, the better analogy is having your car parked on your driveway, and kicking up a fuss when someone decides to do a survey of car models. If you don't want anybody to find out, you shouldn't park your car in plain view. It's not unreasonable to collect such information as long as it's used responsibly. I.e. they can publish "20% of Dullsville Residents drive a Ford", but saying "Joe Blow at number 39 drives a black 2003 BMW 3-series" is inappropriate.
Here's a quick tutorial.
http://www.dvd-intelligence.com/display-article.php?article=836
Quad-cores had a lot to do with performance, while this technical innovation is more to do with cost. By using a single dye they have the advantage of more efficient manufacturing process, and might be able to seize those "critical point" markets that bit faster.
The article's plain bull. MPEG patents are upheld in Europe, so if you don't pay you'll get sued pretty fast. Linking to one Wikipedia page, and drawing badly-researched conclusions from it is a joke.
You don't see why Betamax lost to VHS?
I don't see your point how VHS was supposedly so different from Betamax and smartphones are so similar. Why Betamax lost is pretty clear.
Sony Betamax - quality. VHS - quantity.
Now that is a myth. Even on modern screen, 250 vs 240 lines of horizontal resolution would be pretty much indistinguishable. On a 1970s TV with an RF modulated signal? Not a chance.