It amazes me how Windows is the only operating system on earth that MUST. HAVE. A. START. MENU. or omg I'mma kill someone.
Anyway, didn't Windows 7 work? That's all you guys have been screaming for the past few years. Then when I would come in and say "just use Windows 7"... crickets. So, if you hate Windows 8 so much then 1) Why are you using it? 2) Why not go back to Windows 7? 3) Why not put your money where your mouth is and support an OS with a great Start menu? (Let me know when you find one.)
As someone who has developed in C# for over a decade, and otherwise mostly programmed in Javascript, Java, Ruby, etc. while only doing very little in Objective-C...
I don't understand all the hatred for brackets. If anything, it makes the intention clearer as it's much easier to spot message passing vs. function calls than it is to do the equivalent in most mainstream languages.
There are other reasons I dislike Objective-C, but brackets isn't one of them.
True, but IT jobs greatly outweigh others at Google. The fact that Google's workforce is around 16% female, and CS graduation rate is around 13% female, that seems reasonably aligned without more knowledge.
I don't think so if you pay a bail bondsman. I assume that is what happened since the bail was much too high for him (college age) to pay completely. Even paying the 10% or so required by bail bondsman was more than he could afford, especially considering he doesn't get it back.
Applying general demographics to a targeted job applicant pool is very misleading anyway. We can't expect Google to hire 51% females when females only make up 13.4% of CS undergraduates.
And what if they do? That means, naturally, that they took more than their fair share of female applicants and now there exist fewer female applicants for other companies to choose from. And then we get articles like this, except moaning that Apple now has fewer females than they should.
Data seems to back this up. According to a Computing Research Association study in 2010, only 13.4% of CS graduates from American universities (that have Ph.D. programs) were female, and only 4.2% were African American. You also have to factor in the demographics of the Mountain View area, where as of 2010 only 2.2% of the population is African American.
And not everyone agrees on the definition of privacy, what qualifies as "inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant", or what to do with misleading information.
A friend was recently arrested for sexual acts on a child at a daycare. Neither the newspaper nor the police department cared that there were witnesses that say it couldn't have happened. They didn't care that it took years for it to come up from a child who almost certainly was too young to even remember what happened that many years ago. They didn't care that the father had some longstanding beef with the daycare he worked at. Nope, they just wanted to plaster my friend's name and face across the internet and newspapers. The result? Death threats, loss of job, losing his and his parents' savings for bail... yeah, basically turning the life around of one of the (morally) best people I've ever known, without justification and without apology.
I'm not sure this will ever truly have a solution.
QM is one of those things I never get around to fully grasping because 1) I use my time for learning many other things that more directly apply to my life, and 2) I have attempted to understand it and just don't get it.
So, could someone please explain why we think that the wave function of a particle is believed to exist in superposition until it is observed (which causes the wave function to collapse)? Why don't quantum physicists assume that the wave function was always collapsed and never in a superposition? What evidence is there that the superposition existed, considering that any observation of such evidence collapses it?
They are different. We observe evolution as it occurs today. That's fact. The belief comes in when we try to fill in the gaps of our knowledge without observation.
This is perfectly fine, because in science it's ok (and expected) to say "I don't know" when it's the truth. And no, we don't know everything that happened in the past. We aren't even terribly sure whether many historic writings are actually true. Believing one side or the other without observable evidence does not make it invalid, and it doesn't make it scientific, but by definition it certainly makes it a belief.
Costs more than the laptop OR tablet it is supposed to replace
FTFY. It costs less than buying both separately. And that's the point.
And it integrates with itself better than two devices that are separate. It is usable as both a tablet and a laptop. It is among the more powerful laptops while being the thinnest/lightest x86 tablet. And it runs all Windows desktop apps.
I'm sorry you don't find value in such a device. As for me, it sounds like pretty much what I've been waiting for (and promised by Microsoft) for years.
Yes, but what fraction of business users have even considered using a touchscreen device? Probably very few so far, because those devices were small tablets that couldn't handle real work.
Microsoft isn't competing with the iPad or with the laptop. Microsoft is attempting to create another market altogether of portable business-class devices. If that market succeeds (which I'd personally like to see happen), the other markets may or may not decline. We don't really know yet.
Right now, it appears some of the revenue from traffic fines pays for the detectives investigating theft, arson, fraud, missing persons, murder, hunting with out a license, public urination, vandalism, and so on.
But what does any of that have to do with traffic? It is very unfair to take the burdens of society in general and redirect the costs to just those who drive. It would be better to use more general revenue like income taxes to support police work.
It's reasonable to argue the opposite, that people should be able to vote for whomever they want and they should be able to reward representatives who do a good job with another term.
Now I would believe that, except I do not trust our electoral system to fairly represent the views of the constituency. This legal bribery we call campaign contributions, along with our plurality voting system, undermine the true will of the people.
I'm not sure whether to be more disgusted by the politicians who took a lot of money to vote against net neutrality, or by those who voted against it anyway.
True if you assume the counterfeit cash is always difficult to detect before the buyer leaves. Counterfeit Bitcoin would be impossible to detect within such time if the buyer is allowed to leave immediately after attempting the transaction.
You definitely haven't bought anything with bitcoin in person. It happens FAST, often faster than a CC auth.
No I haven't, so please enlighten me. I'm basing my assumption on quite a few articles stating that a single confirmation takes minutes (typically under 10). But I doubt many merchants would consider a single confirmation to be adequate. So multiply that time by the number of confirmations the merchant chooses, right?
This also highlights one of the problems of Bitcoin. When receiving goods instantly (such as going to the grocery store or through the drive-thru), Bitcoin is somewhat easier to counterfeit and to get away with.
Either the buyer will be gone before any reasonable suspicion comes about, or the seller will need to force the buyer to wait until some number of confirmations succeed (what that number is depends on the seller who may require a higher number of confirmations for more valuable transactions).
That said, you could play smarter with Bitcoin. A good camera could be setup recording all transactions that occur as well as the exterior of the building (parking lot), and any denied transactions could instantly trigger video to be sent to the manager and the police with full video recordings at the exact times that matter.
1) If your ISP advertises X Mbps, and the ISP makes a deal with Netflix to put in a separate exclusive pipe that provides enough total bandwidth to keep up with demand, and you still get X Mbps to everything else, then I don't know that I have a problem with it.
2) If the ISP advertises X Mbps and suddenly Netflix is the only thing that gets X Mbps and everything else is slower, or specific services have slowed significantly compared with other ISPs, that is a huge problem.
I'm not sure if #1 is possible especially considering that what an ISP advertises is always "up to X Mbps" and they can always secretly throttle so long as it's not enough to cause a lot of complaints. So if we have to sacrifice #1 in order to maintain #2, so be it.
I never said that a computer was all they needed. If you thought for a second, instead of building straw men to attack, you might realize that there are multiple concerns that all need to be resolved and that personal computer tech is just part of the solution.
Why are you attacking someone who is offering part of a larger solution? You do realize that the guy who gets them the tech may not have the expertise to also build up infrastructure? Someone else has to do that part. Besides, in areas that do have the infrastructure, this will help make a case for building other infrastructure and simultaneously help spread the word about abuses of power.
Slashdot Mirror
The main thing to take note of is that many people who work for minimum wage don't work full-time.
Most of these people are called "teenagers".
Somebody's panties are in a wad.
It amazes me how Windows is the only operating system on earth that MUST. HAVE. A. START. MENU. or omg I'mma kill someone.
Anyway, didn't Windows 7 work? That's all you guys have been screaming for the past few years. Then when I would come in and say "just use Windows 7"... crickets. So, if you hate Windows 8 so much then 1) Why are you using it? 2) Why not go back to Windows 7? 3) Why not put your money where your mouth is and support an OS with a great Start menu? (Let me know when you find one.)
As someone who has developed in C# for over a decade, and otherwise mostly programmed in Javascript, Java, Ruby, etc. while only doing very little in Objective-C...
I don't understand all the hatred for brackets. If anything, it makes the intention clearer as it's much easier to spot message passing vs. function calls than it is to do the equivalent in most mainstream languages.
There are other reasons I dislike Objective-C, but brackets isn't one of them.
True, but IT jobs greatly outweigh others at Google. The fact that Google's workforce is around 16% female, and CS graduation rate is around 13% female, that seems reasonably aligned without more knowledge.
I don't think so if you pay a bail bondsman. I assume that is what happened since the bail was much too high for him (college age) to pay completely. Even paying the 10% or so required by bail bondsman was more than he could afford, especially considering he doesn't get it back.
Applying general demographics to a targeted job applicant pool is very misleading anyway. We can't expect Google to hire 51% females when females only make up 13.4% of CS undergraduates.
And what if they do? That means, naturally, that they took more than their fair share of female applicants and now there exist fewer female applicants for other companies to choose from. And then we get articles like this, except moaning that Apple now has fewer females than they should.
Data seems to back this up. According to a Computing Research Association study in 2010, only 13.4% of CS graduates from American universities (that have Ph.D. programs) were female, and only 4.2% were African American. You also have to factor in the demographics of the Mountain View area, where as of 2010 only 2.2% of the population is African American.
And not everyone agrees on the definition of privacy, what qualifies as "inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant", or what to do with misleading information.
A friend was recently arrested for sexual acts on a child at a daycare. Neither the newspaper nor the police department cared that there were witnesses that say it couldn't have happened. They didn't care that it took years for it to come up from a child who almost certainly was too young to even remember what happened that many years ago. They didn't care that the father had some longstanding beef with the daycare he worked at. Nope, they just wanted to plaster my friend's name and face across the internet and newspapers. The result? Death threats, loss of job, losing his and his parents' savings for bail... yeah, basically turning the life around of one of the (morally) best people I've ever known, without justification and without apology.
I'm not sure this will ever truly have a solution.
QM is one of those things I never get around to fully grasping because 1) I use my time for learning many other things that more directly apply to my life, and 2) I have attempted to understand it and just don't get it.
So, could someone please explain why we think that the wave function of a particle is believed to exist in superposition until it is observed (which causes the wave function to collapse)? Why don't quantum physicists assume that the wave function was always collapsed and never in a superposition? What evidence is there that the superposition existed, considering that any observation of such evidence collapses it?
They are different. We observe evolution as it occurs today. That's fact. The belief comes in when we try to fill in the gaps of our knowledge without observation.
This is perfectly fine, because in science it's ok (and expected) to say "I don't know" when it's the truth. And no, we don't know everything that happened in the past. We aren't even terribly sure whether many historic writings are actually true. Believing one side or the other without observable evidence does not make it invalid, and it doesn't make it scientific, but by definition it certainly makes it a belief.
Costs more than the laptop OR tablet it is supposed to replace
FTFY. It costs less than buying both separately. And that's the point.
And it integrates with itself better than two devices that are separate. It is usable as both a tablet and a laptop. It is among the more powerful laptops while being the thinnest/lightest x86 tablet. And it runs all Windows desktop apps.
I'm sorry you don't find value in such a device. As for me, it sounds like pretty much what I've been waiting for (and promised by Microsoft) for years.
But what if the Surface is your employer-supplied computer?
Or what if you are self-employed and you would rather have one device for both work and personal life?
"capable of being used WITHOUT placing the device on a desk or your lap"... lord, I wish Slashdot allowed comment editing.
By "portable", I meant capable of being used placing the device on a desk or your lap.
Yes, but what fraction of business users have even considered using a touchscreen device? Probably very few so far, because those devices were small tablets that couldn't handle real work.
Microsoft isn't competing with the iPad or with the laptop. Microsoft is attempting to create another market altogether of portable business-class devices. If that market succeeds (which I'd personally like to see happen), the other markets may or may not decline. We don't really know yet.
Right now, it appears some of the revenue from traffic fines pays for the detectives investigating theft, arson, fraud, missing persons, murder, hunting with out a license, public urination, vandalism, and so on.
But what does any of that have to do with traffic? It is very unfair to take the burdens of society in general and redirect the costs to just those who drive. It would be better to use more general revenue like income taxes to support police work.
It's reasonable to argue the opposite, that people should be able to vote for whomever they want and they should be able to reward representatives who do a good job with another term.
Now I would believe that, except I do not trust our electoral system to fairly represent the views of the constituency. This legal bribery we call campaign contributions, along with our plurality voting system, undermine the true will of the people.
I'm not sure whether to be more disgusted by the politicians who took a lot of money to vote against net neutrality, or by those who voted against it anyway.
My belief is that all campaign donations can potentially constitute bribery. You're right that this story isn't particularly special in that regard.
No different than counterfeit cash
True if you assume the counterfeit cash is always difficult to detect before the buyer leaves. Counterfeit Bitcoin would be impossible to detect within such time if the buyer is allowed to leave immediately after attempting the transaction.
You definitely haven't bought anything with bitcoin in person. It happens FAST, often faster than a CC auth.
No I haven't, so please enlighten me. I'm basing my assumption on quite a few articles stating that a single confirmation takes minutes (typically under 10). But I doubt many merchants would consider a single confirmation to be adequate. So multiply that time by the number of confirmations the merchant chooses, right?
This also highlights one of the problems of Bitcoin. When receiving goods instantly (such as going to the grocery store or through the drive-thru), Bitcoin is somewhat easier to counterfeit and to get away with.
Either the buyer will be gone before any reasonable suspicion comes about, or the seller will need to force the buyer to wait until some number of confirmations succeed (what that number is depends on the seller who may require a higher number of confirmations for more valuable transactions).
That said, you could play smarter with Bitcoin. A good camera could be setup recording all transactions that occur as well as the exterior of the building (parking lot), and any denied transactions could instantly trigger video to be sent to the manager and the police with full video recordings at the exact times that matter.
What is funny is that nobody likes the politicians but the cable companies get their way.
I read it that way the first time. Eh, still seems right.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Actually this brings up an important distinction.
1) If your ISP advertises X Mbps, and the ISP makes a deal with Netflix to put in a separate exclusive pipe that provides enough total bandwidth to keep up with demand, and you still get X Mbps to everything else, then I don't know that I have a problem with it.
2) If the ISP advertises X Mbps and suddenly Netflix is the only thing that gets X Mbps and everything else is slower, or specific services have slowed significantly compared with other ISPs, that is a huge problem.
I'm not sure if #1 is possible especially considering that what an ISP advertises is always "up to X Mbps" and they can always secretly throttle so long as it's not enough to cause a lot of complaints. So if we have to sacrifice #1 in order to maintain #2, so be it.
I never said that a computer was all they needed. If you thought for a second, instead of building straw men to attack, you might realize that there are multiple concerns that all need to be resolved and that personal computer tech is just part of the solution.
Why are you attacking someone who is offering part of a larger solution? You do realize that the guy who gets them the tech may not have the expertise to also build up infrastructure? Someone else has to do that part. Besides, in areas that do have the infrastructure, this will help make a case for building other infrastructure and simultaneously help spread the word about abuses of power.