Good point! Though images might look pixellated (this is the main reason, besides price of course, that I'm a bit skeptical of the Retina MacBook Pro).
I can't speak for others, but 1080p on an 11.6" screen sounds next to impossible to read on without magnifying everything. It sounds like a good system, but the apparently lousy trackpad might be a deal-killer if I were in the market.
They really need good screens though, as someone that wants to actually do work, I want higher res screens, I'm perfectly content to move my face closer to see the details, I want to read full pages in the height of a monitor, I really need at least 900px of height.
Actually, the 13" MacBook Air does have 900px of height--it's 1440x900. Kind of interesting, because the 13" MBP is only 1280x800.
I suppose I should mention I'm using the definition of "imply" that means "suggest"; as has been mentioned below me, "imply" has different meaning in mathematics.
It does imply causation. It doesn't prove it, which is why saying that cause is there is irresponsible. Correlation merely states that one thing might cause another, so further study may be warranted.
You also need the right materials. Not just anything can be a gun barrel. I'm not a fan of bans, but perhaps the best compromise in this situation is to ban the 3D printable materials that could be formed into guns, not the printers, plans, and other 3D printable materials.
I'm pretty sure that the "3D printable materials that could be formed into guns" have many other uses outside of firearms.
Because a baby falling a distance of one or two feet at 1 mph does not pose the same risk as a bicyclist falling six feet at 20 mph. Also, if you want to get "technical", falling plays an important role in children learning balance, as well as some other stuff I'm not qualified to comment on.
I would also like to point out that I don't advocate helmet requirements for adults. A reckless rider will be reckless regardless of whether they're wearing a helmet or not.
If primers are too difficult, it would be relatively simple to make a muzzle-loader. Your firing rate will obviously suffer, but if all you need is one shot anyway...
It is essentially impossible to make it so that no person can possess a gun. Even in the absence of available guns (including black market), someone determined enough can manufacture both the gun and the ammunition.
This is ignoring the fact that there are 88 guns per 100 people in the US. Simply banning sales isn't going to get rid of them. Requiring people to turn in their guns to the police won't do it. Sending police (or even the military) to physically take the guns wouldn't even do it, when you consider the number of unregistered guns out there.
I really question whether helmets are the main reason people don't ride (no, I did not RTFA). Many states (almost half, I believe) don't require helmet use after 18. Three other reasons seem more likely:
1. You are more exposed to the elements (extreme heat, extreme cold, rain, etc.) 2. You are going shopping, and need more storage space than a backpack or basket 3. You are too damned lazy
I've worked (and previously lived) in a university town that bills itself as the "bike capital of the world", apparently never having heard of Amsterdam. In a given day, I will pass around a dozen bicyclists while driving to work. More than half don't wear helmets. The thing I've noticed is that the people who don't wear helmets are precisely the ones that should, as they tend to act like blithering idiots.
I cannot count the number of times I've seen a helmetless rider race through a busy intersection out-of-turn. Even more alarming, I can't count the number of times I've had to swerve to avoid a bicyclist who, at night on a street without street lights, decided it was a great idea to dart in front of my car without even a light or reflectors (my brother actually hit someone that did this; luckily, the guy wasn't hurt and didn't press charges).
Riders that wear helmets, on the other hand, tend to be much more courteous. They wait their turn at intersections and generally follow the law better than those who don't wear them. For myself, I wear a helmet simply because I don't see a reason not to. It's like seat belts in cars. I'd rather wear a helmet and not need it than not wear one and need it.
The moment I realized how seriously messed up the non-unlimited texting system was was when I was in senior year of high school. I sent a friend of mine a small (think four or five) string of short texts, just goofing off. He then got mad at me because "I just cost him a dollar". Ridiculous. I have unlimited texting, so I'm unsure if it's still this bad, but I assume it is.
Interestingly, Apple's iMessages thing bypasses texting if you're messaging another iOS device. I can actually text my sister now that she has an iPhone (she's never paid for unlimited texting and thus never wanted people to text her). Does Android have an equivalent? It would be awesome if Apple and Google could agree on a cross-platform texting system that used data plans, so we could get rid of SMS fees altogether. I'm sure there are cross-platform apps that let you do this, but it'd be nice to have built-in without convincing everyone you know to download and use some random app.
I'm not super well-versed in my eBook formats, but I was under the impression that the common formats, such as ePub and MOBI/AZW, use combinations of XML (such as ePub's manifest files) and HTML. From the summary, it sounds as if this is yet another eBook format we'll have to contend with, which won't be supported by the popular eReaders out there.
When I say I want an eBook, I mean I want to be able to read it on my Kindle or Nook. E-Ink, not LCD. It seems to me that the best option would be to follow the Project Gutenberg model and provide pure HTML, ePub, MOBI, and other common formats. Yes, since it's "open source" we will probably be able to convert the books, but how many people are going to know how to do that?
At least it should be cheaper and available sooner than the no-longer-bullet train we're supposedly getting in the next 30 years. Aw, who am I kidding?
Anyway, I'm currently attending a California city college, and I've attended state university before. In my experience, many professors (especially at the city college level, where average incomes are lower) are concerned about textbook prices. They put them in the library reserve for students to use, they allow you to use previous editions, and they'll even look for cheaper alternatives. My current professors also claim they do not receive commission for textbook sales, and that the school essentially breaks even on textbook sales once you consider the costs of running the bookstore.
In the past, many of my computer science courses had complimentary eBooks available online. This year, two of my classes have eBook versions available via CourseSmart which, while cheaper than physical textbooks, can't be used on dedicated eReaders (currently computer, iOS, and Android, with Android devices being limited somehow). They also have the issue of essentially being rentals instead of outright purchases--but still, it's better than nothing.
Finally, two professors I had a while back decided that the existing course books were too expensive, so they wrote their own books and sold them for $10 and $30. Yeah, they obviously get a commission there, but that's better than paying $150.
I imagine there are other schools that are much worse than my personal experiences, but it isn't all bad.
Re:what does that idiotic red banner mean?
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 2
I believe you can also see it if your karma is high enough. I frequently see red articles, and I'm not a subscriber.
Yelling "fire" and making this video are two different things. In the former case, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater tells other theatergoers that they may be in immanent danger of physical harm or death. Thus, a panicked response by those present is expected, and that is why it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't a fire.
Making a film that ridicules a religion should not incite violent response by rational, normal people. There are plenty of examples of people recognizing attacks like this for what they are. All you have to do is look at South Park. The creators of South Park have insulted just about every modern religion possible, and yet the nation isn't embroiled in holy war.
The creator of the video should not face consequences merely because some members of the Islamic world are apparently so insane as to think that this poorly done video, which would never have seen widespread viewership had this incident not happened, will somehow damage their supreme deity and/or prophet who's been dead for 1,000 years.
(As an aside, rioting over something as trivial as this video seems hypocritical as well as insane. What does Allah care about some idiot's film? Doesn't Allah will everything? So Allah willed the video to be made. Also, "all-powerful" presumably means that Allah isn't so weak as to be hurt by the video he had commissioned. Then again, it would mean Allah willed people to riot over the video he willed to be created, which means... You know what? Predestination is stupid.)
PS - The guy was arrested for violating parole, not for making the video.
In that very article you linked, it says that "mere offensiveness does not qualify as 'fighting words'." I've only skimmed through the video, so it may be what I'm about to say next is wrong, but that's all it looked like it was--offensive.
It is a fact. However, that doesn't mean we need to "blame" Google. Google has every right to demand whatever they wanted for the technology, just as Apple has every right to show them the door. A poor map solution was inevitable--the old Maps app was already bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point! Though images might look pixellated (this is the main reason, besides price of course, that I'm a bit skeptical of the Retina MacBook Pro).
I can't speak for others, but 1080p on an 11.6" screen sounds next to impossible to read on without magnifying everything. It sounds like a good system, but the apparently lousy trackpad might be a deal-killer if I were in the market.
They really need good screens though, as someone that wants to actually do work, I want higher res screens, I'm perfectly content to move my face closer to see the details, I want to read full pages in the height of a monitor, I really need at least 900px of height.
Actually, the 13" MacBook Air does have 900px of height--it's 1440x900. Kind of interesting, because the 13" MBP is only 1280x800.
I suppose I should mention I'm using the definition of "imply" that means "suggest"; as has been mentioned below me, "imply" has different meaning in mathematics.
It does imply causation. It doesn't prove it, which is why saying that cause is there is irresponsible. Correlation merely states that one thing might cause another, so further study may be warranted.
You also need the right materials. Not just anything can be a gun barrel. I'm not a fan of bans, but perhaps the best compromise in this situation is to ban the 3D printable materials that could be formed into guns, not the printers, plans, and other 3D printable materials.
I'm pretty sure that the "3D printable materials that could be formed into guns" have many other uses outside of firearms.
Because a baby falling a distance of one or two feet at 1 mph does not pose the same risk as a bicyclist falling six feet at 20 mph. Also, if you want to get "technical", falling plays an important role in children learning balance, as well as some other stuff I'm not qualified to comment on.
I would also like to point out that I don't advocate helmet requirements for adults. A reckless rider will be reckless regardless of whether they're wearing a helmet or not.
Thank you. I knew I was doing something wrong. I had originally written "musket", but tried to make it more general.
I agree. I don't find helmets annoying, so I wear one when I go cycling. I would rather "needlessly" wear one than wind up in an accident without one.
However, I don't think helmets should be mandatory.
If primers are too difficult, it would be relatively simple to make a muzzle-loader. Your firing rate will obviously suffer, but if all you need is one shot anyway...
It is essentially impossible to make it so that no person can possess a gun. Even in the absence of available guns (including black market), someone determined enough can manufacture both the gun and the ammunition.
This is ignoring the fact that there are 88 guns per 100 people in the US. Simply banning sales isn't going to get rid of them. Requiring people to turn in their guns to the police won't do it. Sending police (or even the military) to physically take the guns wouldn't even do it, when you consider the number of unregistered guns out there.
I really question whether helmets are the main reason people don't ride (no, I did not RTFA). Many states (almost half, I believe) don't require helmet use after 18. Three other reasons seem more likely:
1. You are more exposed to the elements (extreme heat, extreme cold, rain, etc.)
2. You are going shopping, and need more storage space than a backpack or basket
3. You are too damned lazy
I've worked (and previously lived) in a university town that bills itself as the "bike capital of the world", apparently never having heard of Amsterdam. In a given day, I will pass around a dozen bicyclists while driving to work. More than half don't wear helmets. The thing I've noticed is that the people who don't wear helmets are precisely the ones that should, as they tend to act like blithering idiots.
I cannot count the number of times I've seen a helmetless rider race through a busy intersection out-of-turn. Even more alarming, I can't count the number of times I've had to swerve to avoid a bicyclist who, at night on a street without street lights, decided it was a great idea to dart in front of my car without even a light or reflectors (my brother actually hit someone that did this; luckily, the guy wasn't hurt and didn't press charges).
Riders that wear helmets, on the other hand, tend to be much more courteous. They wait their turn at intersections and generally follow the law better than those who don't wear them. For myself, I wear a helmet simply because I don't see a reason not to. It's like seat belts in cars. I'd rather wear a helmet and not need it than not wear one and need it.
DNT doesn't stop anyone from having ads on their sites.
The moment I realized how seriously messed up the non-unlimited texting system was was when I was in senior year of high school. I sent a friend of mine a small (think four or five) string of short texts, just goofing off. He then got mad at me because "I just cost him a dollar". Ridiculous. I have unlimited texting, so I'm unsure if it's still this bad, but I assume it is.
Interestingly, Apple's iMessages thing bypasses texting if you're messaging another iOS device. I can actually text my sister now that she has an iPhone (she's never paid for unlimited texting and thus never wanted people to text her). Does Android have an equivalent? It would be awesome if Apple and Google could agree on a cross-platform texting system that used data plans, so we could get rid of SMS fees altogether. I'm sure there are cross-platform apps that let you do this, but it'd be nice to have built-in without convincing everyone you know to download and use some random app.
Until that filthy Bagginses comes around, at least...
Why not just cover the lens with some black tape?
Who really knows what will really happen when we hit December 21 this year?
According to my math, the 2410528768 B install disk for the 64-bit version would take 1654 floppy disks.
So, things haven't changed much, despite the intervening years...
I've gotta admit...though I dislike sports games, I would so buy a Tigger golf game.
I'm not super well-versed in my eBook formats, but I was under the impression that the common formats, such as ePub and MOBI/AZW, use combinations of XML (such as ePub's manifest files) and HTML. From the summary, it sounds as if this is yet another eBook format we'll have to contend with, which won't be supported by the popular eReaders out there.
When I say I want an eBook, I mean I want to be able to read it on my Kindle or Nook. E-Ink, not LCD. It seems to me that the best option would be to follow the Project Gutenberg model and provide pure HTML, ePub, MOBI, and other common formats. Yes, since it's "open source" we will probably be able to convert the books, but how many people are going to know how to do that?
Don't all colleges now include wifi access in the tuition price?
At least it should be cheaper and available sooner than the no-longer-bullet train we're supposedly getting in the next 30 years. Aw, who am I kidding?
Anyway, I'm currently attending a California city college, and I've attended state university before. In my experience, many professors (especially at the city college level, where average incomes are lower) are concerned about textbook prices. They put them in the library reserve for students to use, they allow you to use previous editions, and they'll even look for cheaper alternatives. My current professors also claim they do not receive commission for textbook sales, and that the school essentially breaks even on textbook sales once you consider the costs of running the bookstore.
In the past, many of my computer science courses had complimentary eBooks available online. This year, two of my classes have eBook versions available via CourseSmart which, while cheaper than physical textbooks, can't be used on dedicated eReaders (currently computer, iOS, and Android, with Android devices being limited somehow). They also have the issue of essentially being rentals instead of outright purchases--but still, it's better than nothing.
Finally, two professors I had a while back decided that the existing course books were too expensive, so they wrote their own books and sold them for $10 and $30. Yeah, they obviously get a commission there, but that's better than paying $150.
I imagine there are other schools that are much worse than my personal experiences, but it isn't all bad.
I believe you can also see it if your karma is high enough. I frequently see red articles, and I'm not a subscriber.
Yelling "fire" and making this video are two different things. In the former case, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater tells other theatergoers that they may be in immanent danger of physical harm or death. Thus, a panicked response by those present is expected, and that is why it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't a fire.
Making a film that ridicules a religion should not incite violent response by rational, normal people. There are plenty of examples of people recognizing attacks like this for what they are. All you have to do is look at South Park. The creators of South Park have insulted just about every modern religion possible, and yet the nation isn't embroiled in holy war.
The creator of the video should not face consequences merely because some members of the Islamic world are apparently so insane as to think that this poorly done video, which would never have seen widespread viewership had this incident not happened, will somehow damage their supreme deity and/or prophet who's been dead for 1,000 years.
(As an aside, rioting over something as trivial as this video seems hypocritical as well as insane. What does Allah care about some idiot's film? Doesn't Allah will everything? So Allah willed the video to be made. Also, "all-powerful" presumably means that Allah isn't so weak as to be hurt by the video he had commissioned. Then again, it would mean Allah willed people to riot over the video he willed to be created, which means... You know what? Predestination is stupid.)
PS - The guy was arrested for violating parole, not for making the video.
In that very article you linked, it says that "mere offensiveness does not qualify as 'fighting words'." I've only skimmed through the video, so it may be what I'm about to say next is wrong, but that's all it looked like it was--offensive.
It is a fact. However, that doesn't mean we need to "blame" Google. Google has every right to demand whatever they wanted for the technology, just as Apple has every right to show them the door. A poor map solution was inevitable--the old Maps app was already bad.