The N800 has an 800x480 screen: the "Touch" has less precisely one third that: 400x320.
The N800 has bluetooth.
The N800 has two SD card slots. (which, combined, have less than the total space on the IPod, but hey, they're removable).
The N800 is, of course, hackable.
The N800 supports flash.
The N800 is typically cheaper.
But I predict the iPod Touch will blow the N800 into little pieces. The N800's interface is primitive and backwards, the product of lazy engineering and inept design. The iPod works with iTunes, an excellent piece of engineering. The N800 is compatible with no external software in particular. The N800 can't do H.264, can't retain sound sync in movie playback of the few formats it does support, and has awful use of its own hardware features (it has a video camera but can do nothing with it except video chat with *other* N800's). And of course, Nokia is completely incompetent in this arena compared to Apple. They're going to get their clocks cleaned.
The point of contention is that the guy also had the RIGHT to refuse to show the receipt, and to walk right the fuck out of the store with his newly purchased property.
This is a strange claim. Let's say I walk into Best Buy, pick up a CD without paying for it, and head for the door. Best Buy didn't see me take the CD on its cameras. You're saying theyy can't confront me at the door to verify that the CD is indeed mine?
Nonsense. The store shouldn't be able to prevent him from walking out the door without a package: but it certainly can prevent him from walking out the door with a package. That's a the crux of this.
The "Law" icon -- or DOJ, or whatever it is -- is being displayed for this article. Every time I see it, I think
"please lady, don't hurt that starfish with your sword!" Perhaps this is not what Slashdot intended.
The icon's a bit crappy.
I am both a chess player *and* an AI researcher, so take my nonsense with a grain of salt.:-)
IBM cheated in the spirit of the game. Who defined the spirit? IBM did. They hailed the game as the demonstration that a computer system could defeat Kasparov in a chess match. But a computer system didn't defeat Kasparov: a half-dozen computer systems beat him, each one different from the last. modified by AI researchers and a team of chess masters. And they didn't tell anyone: so far as I understand, it got leaked after Kasparov discovered that Deep Blue wouldn't make the same move twice and that inspired an investigation.
It's one thing to consult with advisors. It's another thing to have advisors heavily modify your brain mid-match. What did IBM prove with all this? Just that Kasparov could only be beaten if they kept changing the goalposts on him.
This was a game which was supposedly hailed as proof of the intellectual capacity of computers. Deep Blue could have consulted verbally with chess experts just as Kasparov did. Instead, IBM literally modified Deep Blue's brain. I didn't see anyone doing that to Kasparov, did you?
Sure. But Kasparov didn't have access to Deep Blue's "previous games", or indeed any information about the system at all. They kept him in the dark. IBM also insisted that there be no game breaks -- not an issue for Deep Blue of course -- but a very *big* deal for professional chess players. But most importantly, IBM's team of chess masters and coders modified the system between chess games after analyzing Kasparov's strategy the previous game. That is, he wasn't playing Deep Blue: he was playing Deep Blue being adapted in semi-real-time by a bunch of human experts. And crucially, IBM hid this fact, knowing that it'd be (rightly) considered highly suspect.
...Dennett (the man!) started with an acknowledgement of the fact that IBM cheated.
After it was discovered that IBM was tinkering using chess experts (that is, humans) to tinker with its software between matches, they're personae non gratae in the chess world now.
The N800's OMAP2420 has twice the cache, among other things, than the iPhone's S36400. I suspect that half the clock speed doesn't mean half the chip performance here.
The problem I see with water marking with someones account info is it assumes the purchase is for the account holder.
lets take a guy at university buys a number of tracks for his girl friend for her ipod.
Wait, wait, wait. Do you know if giving music, not fixed in a tangible medium (like a CD), is legal? These tracks are licensed, not sold. So are you just complaining that Apple's actions make it less convenient for you to perform a possibly illegal act?
Geez. That website is irritating as all hell. Instead of laying out the article in text and pictures, he requires you to click on the page eight times just to see the various little subareas he's constructed. It's like punishment for reading his page.
To prove that conclusion, you have to break that down into separate pieces- (a) you received an e-mail; (b) the e-mail contained a remove link to FullServices.com; (c) I looked up FullService.com's registration; (d) the registration lists a phone number of XXX-XXX-XXXX; (d) I called that number, and someone answered; (e) I asked that person's name; (f) the person said "Joe Spies"; etc. (Note that each step in the chain refers to something that is proven in the step before it. That's a chain of logic -- it's how things get proved, in geometry, or in court, or anywhere.)
I don't wish to smack around an otherwise fantastic post -- something rarely seen here -- but it's probably not wise for a Lawyer to lecture on logic in a forum full fo computer scientists.:-) What you're describing isn't remotely logic. None of the items are proofs, and none of them relies on proof of a previous lemma. These are simply a string of temporally ordered events with some relationship in the reasons why they occurred. Each may be used as the justification (or excuse) for the next one occurring, and that's about it. If law calls this "a chain of logic" then heaven help the judicial system.
Re:Newton wasn't ahead of its time
on
The Top 21 Tech Flops
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Mmmmmmm. Someone who has never used a Newton before. Behold:
Whereas technically what killed the Newton was :
- ridiculously huge and heavy
0.9 pounds. 7.25x4.5x.75 in. Smaller and lighter than any UMPC on the market. Fit in a coat pocket.
- outrageously expensive
True. $800.
- bad battery life
False. My MP2100 gets about three weeks on a charge. And unlike the Palm Pilot, if the Newton ran out of power, it didn't lose anything (it was all in flash).
* handwriting recognition is something hard, specially given the CPU power available at that form factor
Ah. Someone who's not used HWR on the Newton before, I see.
* a handheld device isn't a desktop computer. user expect quick and short task oriented usage. Not firing up MS-Office and waiting it to boot.
This is the most hilarious one. Thinking that the Newton had PC-style applications! Newton apps are small, specifically task-oriented, and instantaneously available.
What killed the Newton is that Apple misjudged the market: people didn't want a $800 sophisticated PDA. They wanted a $300 crappy PDA. That's what Palm figured out. Apple was moving there too, about to release a small PDA, before it got Steved.
Evolvable Hardware is so old it's got its own acronym (EH), it's own wikipedia entry, and its own conference. In the early '90s a researcher (I forget the name, oops) was using a GA to evolve circuits for an FPGA, which were tested on the FPGA and an oscilliscope directly to assess their fitness. NASA's done lots of evolvable hardware: in particular antenna designs which have flown in space. And there's a whole subfield of evolvable modular robotics.
And if we're talking about hardware simulation, the first significant use of evolutionary computation (GAs etc.) was Larry Fogel's work on evolving finite state automata machines in the 1960s. In the 1990s John Koza was using genetic programming to evolve patentable computer circuits in SPICE.
And do you have any proof for your claim that legalization would increase demand? Do you know anybody --/anybody/ -- who gets up in the morning and says, "You know what would go great with this meal? Crack. Too bad it's illegal!" Hardly.
Mmmm. Someone who's never been near the projects.
My beef with Groovy
on
Groovy in Action
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I believe firmly that new language should appear in the world butt-naked beautiful. Elegant, consistent, and with a good formal footing. They grow warts as they age, though some (like Lisp) have managed the wart stage with much more elegance than others (like C++).
Here's the thing. As I've watched it, Groovy has appeared on the scene as a big giant hack. It's got a piecemeal formalism: it was clearly conceived originally by people who do *not* know how to make programming languages, and then as it somehow squirmed its way into a JSR it gathered the interest of people who *do* know what good languages looke like, and they tried hard to clean it up, but not entirely. And it's got HUGE numbers of ugly inconsistencies, compounded by a need to be approximately backward-compatable with Java for no particularly good reason (interoperability and sermantic compatability != syntactic compatability).
And... it's slow. That's a big deal. Take kawa, for example, the leading Scheme system written in Java. Kawa has optional type declarations, and with them added in, it's about 1.5 times slower than Java. Without them, it's 10-40 times slower, more or less like Groovy. The point is that kawa, a language *totally* *alien* to Java semantics, is decently fast. Groovy, a language which is attempting to be a superset of Java, more or less, is *not* decently fast. It's not like you can't _make_ a fast Java language. Kawa did it. Groovy's a mess.
Microsoft got ECMA standards for C# and the CLI. Not for.NET in general, which is heavily patent-encumbered. Only a fool would bank his application against Mono.
How did this get modded insightful, when you misread both the article AND the slashdot summary? The poor little asian company CAN get away with producing knockoffs.
Having three Dxs, three ATs, and an Amigobot, I may assure you that the most common configuration (a DX with rear and front sonar, no bumpers, no grippers) is about $5K educational.
Slashdot Mirror
The N800 has an 800x480 screen: the "Touch" has less precisely one third that: 400x320. The N800 has bluetooth. The N800 has two SD card slots. (which, combined, have less than the total space on the IPod, but hey, they're removable). The N800 is, of course, hackable. The N800 supports flash. The N800 is typically cheaper. But I predict the iPod Touch will blow the N800 into little pieces. The N800's interface is primitive and backwards, the product of lazy engineering and inept design. The iPod works with iTunes, an excellent piece of engineering. The N800 is compatible with no external software in particular. The N800 can't do H.264, can't retain sound sync in movie playback of the few formats it does support, and has awful use of its own hardware features (it has a video camera but can do nothing with it except video chat with *other* N800's). And of course, Nokia is completely incompetent in this arena compared to Apple. They're going to get their clocks cleaned.
Nonsense. The store shouldn't be able to prevent him from walking out the door without a package: but it certainly can prevent him from walking out the door with a package. That's a the crux of this.
The "Law" icon -- or DOJ, or whatever it is -- is being displayed for this article. Every time I see it, I think "please lady, don't hurt that starfish with your sword!" Perhaps this is not what Slashdot intended. The icon's a bit crappy.
I am both a chess player *and* an AI researcher, so take my nonsense with a grain of salt. :-)
IBM cheated in the spirit of the game. Who defined the spirit? IBM did. They hailed the game as the demonstration that a computer system could defeat Kasparov in a chess match. But a computer system didn't defeat Kasparov: a half-dozen computer systems beat him, each one different from the last. modified by AI researchers and a team of chess masters. And they didn't tell anyone: so far as I understand, it got leaked after Kasparov discovered that Deep Blue wouldn't make the same move twice and that inspired an investigation.
It's one thing to consult with advisors. It's another thing to have advisors heavily modify your brain mid-match. What did IBM prove with all this? Just that Kasparov could only be beaten if they kept changing the goalposts on him.
This was a game which was supposedly hailed as proof of the intellectual capacity of computers. Deep Blue could have consulted verbally with chess experts just as Kasparov did. Instead, IBM literally modified Deep Blue's brain. I didn't see anyone doing that to Kasparov, did you?
Sure. But Kasparov didn't have access to Deep Blue's "previous games", or indeed any information about the system at all. They kept him in the dark. IBM also insisted that there be no game breaks -- not an issue for Deep Blue of course -- but a very *big* deal for professional chess players. But most importantly, IBM's team of chess masters and coders modified the system between chess games after analyzing Kasparov's strategy the previous game. That is, he wasn't playing Deep Blue: he was playing Deep Blue being adapted in semi-real-time by a bunch of human experts. And crucially, IBM hid this fact, knowing that it'd be (rightly) considered highly suspect.
After it was discovered that IBM was tinkering using chess experts (that is, humans) to tinker with its software between matches, they're personae non gratae in the chess world now.
The N800's OMAP2420 has twice the cache, among other things, than the iPhone's S36400. I suspect that half the clock speed doesn't mean half the chip performance here.
Your dad was Winston Churchill?
The tags and attributes in HTML 1.0 were largely based on what Tim Berners-Lee could display using NeXT's Text class.
Geez. That website is irritating as all hell. Instead of laying out the article in text and pictures, he requires you to click on the page eight times just to see the various little subareas he's constructed. It's like punishment for reading his page.
I don't wish to smack around an otherwise fantastic post -- something rarely seen here -- but it's probably not wise for a Lawyer to lecture on logic in a forum full fo computer scientists. :-) What you're describing isn't remotely logic. None of the items are proofs, and none of them relies on proof of a previous lemma. These are simply a string of temporally ordered events with some relationship in the reasons why they occurred. Each may be used as the justification (or excuse) for the next one occurring, and that's about it. If law calls this "a chain of logic" then heaven help the judicial system.
What killed the Newton is that Apple misjudged the market: people didn't want a $800 sophisticated PDA. They wanted a $300 crappy PDA. That's what Palm figured out. Apple was moving there too, about to release a small PDA, before it got Steved.
And if we're talking about hardware simulation, the first significant use of evolutionary computation (GAs etc.) was Larry Fogel's work on evolving finite state automata machines in the 1960s. In the 1990s John Koza was using genetic programming to evolve patentable computer circuits in SPICE.
I believe firmly that new language should appear in the world butt-naked beautiful. Elegant, consistent, and with a good formal footing. They grow warts as they age, though some (like Lisp) have managed the wart stage with much more elegance than others (like C++).
Here's the thing. As I've watched it, Groovy has appeared on the scene as a big giant hack. It's got a piecemeal formalism: it was clearly conceived originally by people who do *not* know how to make programming languages, and then as it somehow squirmed its way into a JSR it gathered the interest of people who *do* know what good languages looke like, and they tried hard to clean it up, but not entirely. And it's got HUGE numbers of ugly inconsistencies, compounded by a need to be approximately backward-compatable with Java for no particularly good reason (interoperability and sermantic compatability != syntactic compatability).
And... it's slow. That's a big deal. Take kawa, for example, the leading Scheme system written in Java. Kawa has optional type declarations, and with them added in, it's about 1.5 times slower than Java. Without them, it's 10-40 times slower, more or less like Groovy. The point is that kawa, a language *totally* *alien* to Java semantics, is decently fast. Groovy, a language which is attempting to be a superset of Java, more or less, is *not* decently fast. It's not like you can't _make_ a fast Java language. Kawa did it. Groovy's a mess.
There's my rant.
Reminds me of an old motto we used to have for WordPerfect. WordPerfect: it may be buggy, but at least it's slow.
Microsoft got ECMA standards for C# and the CLI. Not for .NET in general, which is heavily patent-encumbered. Only a fool would bank his application against Mono.
Interesting you clam this, as OS X's primary language is Objective C.
How did this get modded insightful, when you misread both the article AND the slashdot summary? The poor little asian company CAN get away with producing knockoffs.
C# has practically identical typing semantics to Java. Either this is a misquote or Gary Cornell is much, much stupider than his PhD would suggest.
Having three Dxs, three ATs, and an Amigobot, I may assure you that the most common configuration (a DX with rear and front sonar, no bumpers, no grippers) is about $5K educational.