Oh so the United States is kind of like the European Union?
No, seriously. The EU is the ironically more successful implementation of the ideals laid out by our founders. It's missing as firm a constitutional backing, which I imagine will be rectified eventually, but cooperation through the EU combined with shared defense forces through NATO has basically given the exact situation the founders wanted the US to become. A large number of varied states with different philosophies under a shared infrastructure for commerce and dealing with legal issues, with minimal overhead over those member states. And the EU "federal government" is tiny, indeed.
No, the purpose is not to annoy users. The purpose is to annoy developers. If, through a chain of causality you can annoy developers by annoying users, then yes, it is "designed to annoy users." But that's not the goal, that's merely the means to an end. The goal is to annoy developers about using more permissions than they need.
If their goal was to annoy users, there are myriad ways they could accomplish that without achieving any goal at all. And in some respects, they've succeeded in annoying users with no foreseeable goal.
But saying that they intended to annoy users is really, really awful. A slip that shouldn't have been made and now will be misinterpreted ad nauseum. This is like saying the goal of the new Office Ribbon menu was designed to annoy users. No, it just -happened- to annoy users. But what it also did was reduce the number of clicks do do even complex actions in Office. It vastly reduced the number of clicks, and it made it incredibly easy to find hotkeys. (Hold down alt while you're in Office 2007 and -be amazed-. It's the best hotkey system ever.) Annoying users just happened to be a side effect. I'm sure they'd rather have been able to implement the Ribbon without annoying users, just as I'm sure they'd like to get developers not use admin permissions without annoying users. Alas, that's hard to do, as people are (a.) stubborn and (b.) don't understand that they should blame the app programmers and not Microsoft programmers for permission problems.
Synaptic on Ubuntu does ask for those permissions when running, and so do several other programs. There's been an ongoing movement to update Ubuntu to not only split out permissions so that you don't have to give a program permission for everything (though this is kind of hackish without better support for ACLs, root is still root) but the goal is to pop up password entry dialogs whenever a program fails to have the permission to do what it wants.
While Debian is understandably not going with that approach, Ubuntu, "Linux for Humans," is.
Have you used Linux recently? Most programs that receive the lack of permission that are GUI based will ask to run with gksudo or provide a means for you to do so.
Programs run within the terminal will usually just tell you that you lack permission, please try again.
The problem was that he misspoke, and that lead to misinterpretation. It isn't designed to annoy users, not at all. Users will be annoyed as collateral damage. It's designed to annoy -developers-, and if that means bugging users into bugging developers, or forcing the developers themselves to endure UAC dialog after UAC dialog because their program does things the wrong way, then so be it.
Last I remember, registering an account on Slashdot didn't give me a user account on the Linux server.
UNIX being "such a good fit for such tasks" is completely off-base and irrelevant to the discussion. The software that runs on the OS determines my interactions, and the "privileges" being imparted to registered users, such as allowing me to post a message and have my account name appear above it, are not at all imparted by the multi-user sensibilities of the OS the web server is running off of.
I guarantee Slashdot could run off Windows or Linux boxes and you or I wouldn't know the difference.
So people who are very near morbidly obese, as I pointed out (people whose BMI is very large) are more likely to be unhealthy or at the very least, file more workers comp claims?
Truly shocking that there would be a correlation there. I wonder if there's a correlation for people whose BMI indicates they are severely underweight?
Show me the corresponding report for people in the range 25.0 to 39.9. That's -my- range. All I'm saying is, the health industry characterizes people as being unhealthy if they're even slightly outside of the "healthy" weight range according to an inaccurate measure that was NEVER intended to perform this purpose.
Exactly. Microsoft has bent over backwards to support backward compatibility across wildly different kernels. Raymond Chen spoke once, I believe, about a SimCity bug that worked fine under DOS as long as you were running only one program, but would crash in Windows. The problem? Memory was freed and then used after it was freed. The solution? Microsoft added a check to see if SimCity was running and fixed the code with a special allocator for only SimCity.
Microsoft has done this for decades, and thankfully we're finally getting a 'different' Microsoft, but it's going to be painful and slow..NET and Windows Presentation Foundation is far better than what it replaces, and it's going to bother a lot of old programmers who are used to it, that's ok, legacy applications won't disappear overnight. But the future looks a lot better, where they -are- starting from scratch with code that implements security policies. Visual Studio lets me set which permissions my code needs to run, whether that be File I/O, Network I/O, etc. There were a dozen or so options.
Fat by what measure? There are a very, very large (haha) number of people who are overweight or obese according to this "BMI" scale that health professionals and health insurance providers are so keen on using, yet all evidence suggests only a very weak correlation between BMI and well-being, hospital visits, etc. I think that only towards the very high end and very low end is there a correlation, which suggests people can be healthy and fat, or healthy and skinny, or unhealthy and either of the above.
I'm within 1 or 2 points of being "normal" on the BMI scale, I think the classification is overweight. It doesn't bother me, I know people more athletic and perhaps more healthy than I am that are a dozen points higher than me, and I know people less healthy than I am about a dozen points lower than me. The health industry says I should force my body to lose weight, that is, I should move my set point, in order to get cheaper insurance and live a healthier life.
I call bullshit.
Unhealthy habits... call me when health professionals have come up with a perfect measure of a person's health based solely on their physical attributes. Height, weight, body fat percentage, etc.
How objects and methods and what-not work is just as important, perhaps more important for computer SCIENCE (as opposed to computer programming) than learning algorithms.
With C++ they have the option of building classes the old way, with structs and manual management of all pointers, or they can start to work on classes, and templates of classes, and with Managed C++, awful as it looks, they can even toy with more general stuff as they implement garbage collection and other concepts.
That path allows them to steadily progress from low level to high level, or the other way around if the teacher likes, and they do it all using one set of very similar languages. C to C++ to Managed C++ is very easy to do in a short time once the syntax is learned.
Honestly, it's BS to me that you can say Java is -just as good- when it obscures the very idea that you're dealing with chunks of memory. It's very much the wrong idea to teach these young students that everything is safe and garbage collected and done for them, and then introduce them to the real world where programs have memory leaks, bugs, are written in esoteric languages or their garbage collector is forcefully disabled because of improper reference use, or in general, the fact that the rest of the world doesn't use Java nearly as much as education.
The problem is, you can stick them with the car and they might be liable for fraud if they renege.
In this case, the bidding was absolutely legit, as it is in your case. If Google ended up "stuck" with the C block, well, they'd probably license it out just as they say, but their intent was clearly just to force certain provisions.
They're not giving away those CDs, they are just making sure their original CD doesn't get damaged by using a digital version (from laptop, burned CD in different format, whatever.) They aren't giving that away to anyone.
Their license to copy ends when it involves other people. As they were given a license to distribute aurally the music in question, then does it matter whether or not the exact, same, identical bits of data came from one CD or another? Heck, if you never saw the CD that the DJ used, how do you have -any proof at all- that it isn't the original? You don't. You -can't-. What's more, it doesn't matter.
You are confusing the properties of virtual particles with the properties of real particles (the regular kind and the anti- kind.) Virtual particles in this case really well and truly are the antithesis pairs of each other, in every aspect. Unlike an anti-particle which still possesses positive rest mass and other properties, the virtual particle pair will actually conserve energy by having quantum properties that truly negate each other. When a regular particle and anti-particle meet, the result is annihilation and an abundance of energy. When virtual particles are created and meet, as happens all the time, nothing happens because energy is being conserved the entire time. (Which is why they are allowed to be created in the first place.)
The physics for why they exist is far beyond me though.
Between your odd sentence structure and capitalization, I would like to remind you that when you say things like "sounds familiar, eh?" you should probably keep the reference you're making vague, subtle, clever, witty, or ironic. Not blatantly obvious.
Because saying "sounds familiar" after using the word tsunami makes it a little obvious.
Also, I think standing wave doesn't mean what you think it means.
Man, I really should hit preview.
I forgot to check my post settings. Every post is a repost is a repost.
Here you are Google Sees Surge in iPhone Traffic
To save you some clicking, here are the relevant facts:
On Christmas, traffic to Google from iPhones surged, surpassing incoming traffic from any other type of mobile device, according to internal Google data made available to The New York Times. A few days later, iPhone traffic to Google fell below that of devices powered by the Nokia-backed Symbian operating system but remained higher than traffic from any other type of cellphone. That's interesting, because it shows that people with iPhones tend to use search websites, which, let's face it, all geeks use dozens, hundreds of times a day. Search is the internet's killer app, and I shouldn't need to extol the virtues of an internet device that makes it so easy to search, and so enjoyable to browse with that they do it more than nearly everyone else. See, Symbian has 63% of the mobile market [NYTimes article, paragraph 3] and the iPhone has 2% of the mobile market [NYT,3]. While the information provided doesn't let us speculate on the ratio between Symbian and iPhone users, it does let us say that the 2% of iPhone users use Google more than the 11% of Windows Mobile users, which may be unfair because I bet MSN is the default search for WM5&6, but it also lets us say that the 2% of the market that uses an iPhone outnumber the 10% on their BlackBerries, and for Opera Mini at least, Google is the default. Hopefully that comparison is Apple to apples enough to make you realize that the iPhone just might be the killer app in the smartphone space. People love to use the internet on their iPhone. I know I do.
That said, I look forward to the competition, hopefully Google forces Apple's SDK to be blown wide open in the spirit of competition. One can only hope.
To save you some clicking, here are the relevant facts: <quote>On Christmas, traffic to Google from iPhones surged, surpassing incoming traffic from any other type of mobile device, according to internal Google data made available to The New York Times. A few days later, iPhone traffic to Google fell below that of devices powered by the Nokia-backed Symbian operating system but remained higher than traffic from any other type of cellphone.</quote>
That's interesting, because it shows that people with iPhones tend to use search websites, which, let's face it, all geeks use dozens, hundreds of times a day. Search is the internet's killer app, and I shouldn't need to extol the virtues of an internet device that makes it so easy to search, and so enjoyable to browse with that they do it more than nearly everyone else. See, Symbian has 63% of the mobile market [NYTimes article, paragraph 3] and the iPhone has 2% of the mobile market [NYT,3]. While the information provided doesn't let us speculate on the ratio between Symbian and iPhone users, it does let us say that the 2% of iPhone users use Google more than the 11% of Windows Mobile users, which may be unfair because I bet MSN is the default search for WM5&6, but it also lets us say that the 2% of the market that uses an iPhone outnumber the 10% on their BlackBerries, and for Opera Mini at least, Google is the default. Hopefully that comparison is Apple to apples enough to make you realize that the iPhone just might be the killer app in the smartphone space. People love to use the internet on their iPhone. I know I do.
That said, I look forward to the competition, hopefully Google forces Apple's SDK to be blown wide open in the spirit of competition. One can only hope.
The ratio between hard disk capacity and the size of the content we put on it is increasing, actually. Look at the trends, the launch date of the CD-ROM and DVD-ROM coincided with fantastically smaller hard disks than we have today, and they could hold proportionally less CD and DVD content without changing the compression. This is not idle speculation, this is cold hard fact.
And this will only get worse. Already 1080P content requires you to be within 6 feet or so of a 100" screen to discern the difference between it and the next highest industry standard (2K resolution used in digital cinematography.) No one sits that close to a screen, they'd have to turn their neck just to see the whole thing. Our eyes simply don't have the resolution to keep increasing the definition, so HD is about as high as 2D pictures will go.
No, I can't predict what will happen if holography becomes the norm, but I can tell you that the gap has historically widened between hard disk capacity and the ability to use that capacity. Hard disks have grown faster, in greater leaps than CPUs or bus speeds or even their own ability to read and write information. We have a wealth of information, and we'll increasingly find our tools inadequate to analyze it as we did before. That's unfortunate, but it's the way things are turning out. We'll have to come up with more and better ways to squeeze every byte and get every bit of value we can from our media because the only way we know of to improve our processing ability is to make the hard disks redundant: mirror the damn things until you have as much throughput as you need.
Go back and look at standard from-the-factory PCs from the time of the creation of the CD-ROM and DVD-ROM. (Good luck with the CD-ROM one.) You'll find yourself lucky if you could store a CD or DVD rip or two on one of those things.
P.S.: Try using a more compact encoding for your HD rips, you don't need all 30GB to have spectacular picture, H.264 can do amazing things.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I imagine they'll have names like "FedEx" and "UPS" or even the "United States Postal Service."
Such parcel delivery services sound very promising indeed.
Care to join me in such a venture, jcr?
Oh so the United States is kind of like the European Union?
No, seriously. The EU is the ironically more successful implementation of the ideals laid out by our founders. It's missing as firm a constitutional backing, which I imagine will be rectified eventually, but cooperation through the EU combined with shared defense forces through NATO has basically given the exact situation the founders wanted the US to become. A large number of varied states with different philosophies under a shared infrastructure for commerce and dealing with legal issues, with minimal overhead over those member states. And the EU "federal government" is tiny, indeed.
No, the purpose is not to annoy users. The purpose is to annoy developers. If, through a chain of causality you can annoy developers by annoying users, then yes, it is "designed to annoy users." But that's not the goal, that's merely the means to an end. The goal is to annoy developers about using more permissions than they need.
If their goal was to annoy users, there are myriad ways they could accomplish that without achieving any goal at all. And in some respects, they've succeeded in annoying users with no foreseeable goal.
But saying that they intended to annoy users is really, really awful. A slip that shouldn't have been made and now will be misinterpreted ad nauseum. This is like saying the goal of the new Office Ribbon menu was designed to annoy users. No, it just -happened- to annoy users. But what it also did was reduce the number of clicks do do even complex actions in Office. It vastly reduced the number of clicks, and it made it incredibly easy to find hotkeys. (Hold down alt while you're in Office 2007 and -be amazed-. It's the best hotkey system ever.) Annoying users just happened to be a side effect. I'm sure they'd rather have been able to implement the Ribbon without annoying users, just as I'm sure they'd like to get developers not use admin permissions without annoying users. Alas, that's hard to do, as people are (a.) stubborn and (b.) don't understand that they should blame the app programmers and not Microsoft programmers for permission problems.
Synaptic on Ubuntu does ask for those permissions when running, and so do several other programs. There's been an ongoing movement to update Ubuntu to not only split out permissions so that you don't have to give a program permission for everything (though this is kind of hackish without better support for ACLs, root is still root) but the goal is to pop up password entry dialogs whenever a program fails to have the permission to do what it wants.
While Debian is understandably not going with that approach, Ubuntu, "Linux for Humans," is.
Ah, you sir have invented a Boeing 747.
Have you used Linux recently? Most programs that receive the lack of permission that are GUI based will ask to run with gksudo or provide a means for you to do so.
Programs run within the terminal will usually just tell you that you lack permission, please try again.
The problem was that he misspoke, and that lead to misinterpretation. It isn't designed to annoy users, not at all. Users will be annoyed as collateral damage. It's designed to annoy -developers-, and if that means bugging users into bugging developers, or forcing the developers themselves to endure UAC dialog after UAC dialog because their program does things the wrong way, then so be it.
But it's mainly to annoy developers, not users.
The nice thing about Linux is that they don't need to offer GNU/Xunil.
No amount of pestering from Microsoft will un-GPL Linux, only a huge and unlikely legal endeavor.
In which case the geeks will all just move to Europe where software patents don't exist.
Last I remember, registering an account on Slashdot didn't give me a user account on the Linux server.
UNIX being "such a good fit for such tasks" is completely off-base and irrelevant to the discussion. The software that runs on the OS determines my interactions, and the "privileges" being imparted to registered users, such as allowing me to post a message and have my account name appear above it, are not at all imparted by the multi-user sensibilities of the OS the web server is running off of.
I guarantee Slashdot could run off Windows or Linux boxes and you or I wouldn't know the difference.
So people who are very near morbidly obese, as I pointed out (people whose BMI is very large) are more likely to be unhealthy or at the very least, file more workers comp claims?
Truly shocking that there would be a correlation there. I wonder if there's a correlation for people whose BMI indicates they are severely underweight?
Show me the corresponding report for people in the range 25.0 to 39.9. That's -my- range. All I'm saying is, the health industry characterizes people as being unhealthy if they're even slightly outside of the "healthy" weight range according to an inaccurate measure that was NEVER intended to perform this purpose.
Exactly. Microsoft has bent over backwards to support backward compatibility across wildly different kernels. Raymond Chen spoke once, I believe, about a SimCity bug that worked fine under DOS as long as you were running only one program, but would crash in Windows. The problem? Memory was freed and then used after it was freed. The solution? Microsoft added a check to see if SimCity was running and fixed the code with a special allocator for only SimCity.
.NET and Windows Presentation Foundation is far better than what it replaces, and it's going to bother a lot of old programmers who are used to it, that's ok, legacy applications won't disappear overnight. But the future looks a lot better, where they -are- starting from scratch with code that implements security policies. Visual Studio lets me set which permissions my code needs to run, whether that be File I/O, Network I/O, etc. There were a dozen or so options.
Microsoft has done this for decades, and thankfully we're finally getting a 'different' Microsoft, but it's going to be painful and slow.
I don't think they need your luck, they seem to be doing well enough selling tiny little ads on their own.
Fat by what measure? There are a very, very large (haha) number of people who are overweight or obese according to this "BMI" scale that health professionals and health insurance providers are so keen on using, yet all evidence suggests only a very weak correlation between BMI and well-being, hospital visits, etc. I think that only towards the very high end and very low end is there a correlation, which suggests people can be healthy and fat, or healthy and skinny, or unhealthy and either of the above.
I'm within 1 or 2 points of being "normal" on the BMI scale, I think the classification is overweight. It doesn't bother me, I know people more athletic and perhaps more healthy than I am that are a dozen points higher than me, and I know people less healthy than I am about a dozen points lower than me. The health industry says I should force my body to lose weight, that is, I should move my set point, in order to get cheaper insurance and live a healthier life.
I call bullshit.
Unhealthy habits... call me when health professionals have come up with a perfect measure of a person's health based solely on their physical attributes. Height, weight, body fat percentage, etc.
Wait, guys, I have a fix!
*unplugs cat-5 from firewall between power control computer and local intranet*
Wait, you were saying something about prevention and deterrence and I rudely interrupted. Please, carry on.
How objects and methods and what-not work is just as important, perhaps more important for computer SCIENCE (as opposed to computer programming) than learning algorithms.
With C++ they have the option of building classes the old way, with structs and manual management of all pointers, or they can start to work on classes, and templates of classes, and with Managed C++, awful as it looks, they can even toy with more general stuff as they implement garbage collection and other concepts.
That path allows them to steadily progress from low level to high level, or the other way around if the teacher likes, and they do it all using one set of very similar languages. C to C++ to Managed C++ is very easy to do in a short time once the syntax is learned.
Honestly, it's BS to me that you can say Java is -just as good- when it obscures the very idea that you're dealing with chunks of memory. It's very much the wrong idea to teach these young students that everything is safe and garbage collected and done for them, and then introduce them to the real world where programs have memory leaks, bugs, are written in esoteric languages or their garbage collector is forcefully disabled because of improper reference use, or in general, the fact that the rest of the world doesn't use Java nearly as much as education.
The problem is, you can stick them with the car and they might be liable for fraud if they renege.
In this case, the bidding was absolutely legit, as it is in your case. If Google ended up "stuck" with the C block, well, they'd probably license it out just as they say, but their intent was clearly just to force certain provisions.
They're not giving away those CDs, they are just making sure their original CD doesn't get damaged by using a digital version (from laptop, burned CD in different format, whatever.) They aren't giving that away to anyone.
Their license to copy ends when it involves other people. As they were given a license to distribute aurally the music in question, then does it matter whether or not the exact, same, identical bits of data came from one CD or another? Heck, if you never saw the CD that the DJ used, how do you have -any proof at all- that it isn't the original? You don't. You -can't-. What's more, it doesn't matter.
You are confusing the properties of virtual particles with the properties of real particles (the regular kind and the anti- kind.) Virtual particles in this case really well and truly are the antithesis pairs of each other, in every aspect. Unlike an anti-particle which still possesses positive rest mass and other properties, the virtual particle pair will actually conserve energy by having quantum properties that truly negate each other. When a regular particle and anti-particle meet, the result is annihilation and an abundance of energy. When virtual particles are created and meet, as happens all the time, nothing happens because energy is being conserved the entire time. (Which is why they are allowed to be created in the first place.)
The physics for why they exist is far beyond me though.
I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!
Whew! I thought you were going to say "well," but you cleared that up!
Between your odd sentence structure and capitalization, I would like to remind you that when you say things like "sounds familiar, eh?" you should probably keep the reference you're making vague, subtle, clever, witty, or ironic. Not blatantly obvious.
Because saying "sounds familiar" after using the word tsunami makes it a little obvious.
Also, I think standing wave doesn't mean what you think it means.
Here you are Google Sees Surge in iPhone Traffic
To save you some clicking, here are the relevant facts:
<quote>On Christmas, traffic to Google from iPhones surged, surpassing incoming traffic from any other type of mobile device, according to internal Google data made available to The New York Times. A few days later, iPhone traffic to Google fell below that of devices powered by the Nokia-backed Symbian operating system but remained higher than traffic from any other type of cellphone.</quote>
That's interesting, because it shows that people with iPhones tend to use search websites, which, let's face it, all geeks use dozens, hundreds of times a day. Search is the internet's killer app, and I shouldn't need to extol the virtues of an internet device that makes it so easy to search, and so enjoyable to browse with that they do it more than nearly everyone else. See, Symbian has 63% of the mobile market [NYTimes article, paragraph 3] and the iPhone has 2% of the mobile market [NYT,3]. While the information provided doesn't let us speculate on the ratio between Symbian and iPhone users, it does let us say that the 2% of iPhone users use Google more than the 11% of Windows Mobile users, which may be unfair because I bet MSN is the default search for WM5&6, but it also lets us say that the 2% of the market that uses an iPhone outnumber the 10% on their BlackBerries, and for Opera Mini at least, Google is the default. Hopefully that comparison is Apple to apples enough to make you realize that the iPhone just might be the killer app in the smartphone space. People love to use the internet on their iPhone. I know I do.
That said, I look forward to the competition, hopefully Google forces Apple's SDK to be blown wide open in the spirit of competition. One can only hope.
The ratio between hard disk capacity and the size of the content we put on it is increasing, actually. Look at the trends, the launch date of the CD-ROM and DVD-ROM coincided with fantastically smaller hard disks than we have today, and they could hold proportionally less CD and DVD content without changing the compression. This is not idle speculation, this is cold hard fact.
And this will only get worse. Already 1080P content requires you to be within 6 feet or so of a 100" screen to discern the difference between it and the next highest industry standard (2K resolution used in digital cinematography.) No one sits that close to a screen, they'd have to turn their neck just to see the whole thing. Our eyes simply don't have the resolution to keep increasing the definition, so HD is about as high as 2D pictures will go.
No, I can't predict what will happen if holography becomes the norm, but I can tell you that the gap has historically widened between hard disk capacity and the ability to use that capacity. Hard disks have grown faster, in greater leaps than CPUs or bus speeds or even their own ability to read and write information. We have a wealth of information, and we'll increasingly find our tools inadequate to analyze it as we did before. That's unfortunate, but it's the way things are turning out. We'll have to come up with more and better ways to squeeze every byte and get every bit of value we can from our media because the only way we know of to improve our processing ability is to make the hard disks redundant: mirror the damn things until you have as much throughput as you need.
Go back and look at standard from-the-factory PCs from the time of the creation of the CD-ROM and DVD-ROM. (Good luck with the CD-ROM one.) You'll find yourself lucky if you could store a CD or DVD rip or two on one of those things.
P.S.: Try using a more compact encoding for your HD rips, you don't need all 30GB to have spectacular picture, H.264 can do amazing things.
Ah, so we shouldn't have -any- patents, because humans can be quite ingenious.