It's not about whether it's good or not - it's that this guy obviously is shilling because of the way he talks, and the speed with which he responded to the story.
I've never used WP7, and only used iOS briefly. WP7 did look like it had a nice smooth flashy interface from the videos I've seen, but I don't base my choice of OS purely on how flashy it looks. Having said that, it's kind of funny how shit even Windows 7 (the desktop version) looks whenever I have to use it. I'm guessing Ubuntu does a lot more anti-aliasing on its interface than Win7.
No shit, 1 minute after the story is posted no less. Saw something similar happen around the end of last year too, but it probably happens more often than that and I just have missed it.
If it wasn't for the "best possible tools" crack then it wouldn't have been quite so obvious, but the rest of it is just another "part of a campaign by Microsoft to keep Nokia from choosing Google's Android operating system" as the summary says. Interesting that they'd rather see people buy iPhones than Android. And that they think that they can change our opinions just from some noob saying how great MS is. Slashdot does have a lot of groupthink, but it doesn't quite work like that.
It's not the graphics output speed that would be the limiting factor, it would be calculation of the actual 3D scenes. I expect even running Wolfenstein would be pushing it to its limits. With the memory limitations you'd probably have to do with very very basic textures if any, and without an FPU it would be very slow to calculate the movement and rotation of a lot of vertexes.
You say you're only happy to debate with people over facts, yet you happily base your worldview on the teachings of a book which even you think is not based on fact. To me this seems slightly incongruous..
Just because something is so far "totally consistent" with some other thing, does not mean that it will always be, or that either are true. The fossil record is a good indicator of evolution, but it was experiments done with thousands of bacteria cultures, freezing them at certain points in time and "re-playing" them, that finally convinced me of the validity of evolution, even when I was still religious (I no longer am).
It's hardly "a huge amount of evidence" though. It could also mean that the earth is going around the sun, or the two are stationary and the earth is simply rotating on the spot, or the two are revolving around each other while both spin (which is actually our closest understanding of the truth I suppose), etc.
I didn't say that deities must exist as a person. Though as a Christian you by definition have to believe in the incarnation of "god the son" as Christ.
I also am a disagreeable person, it's fun to challenge people to actually use their brains, even when you agree with most of what they say.:p
Where did I even mention intelligent design? I said it can only be the case that species either evolve, or they don't. You can say you don't have an opinion if you wish, but if you did hold an opinion, there can't be any middle ground on such a basic issue.
There can be plenty of debate over the mechanisms driving evolution, but ideas like "intelligent design" are based on the concept that animals evolve, so I really don't get what you're trying to say here.
I'm sure some biologists care. The human ability to blindly ignore real evidence in the face of beliefs can be rather disheartening. Even worse, in religious circles this is a trait to be admired. In fact, even one of my non religious friends said he admired the way I stood up for my beliefs. I still stand up for what I believe to be true, but currently my "belief" is in agnosticism..
And why do you assume there are only two available explanations? What if neither is correct, but some alternative is?
With evolution, it can only be the case that animals do evolve, or they don't. With religion, the deities involved either exist or they don't. Of course the two are not mutually exclusive, but with evolution it is indeed one way or the other. You accept the evidence that species evolve, or you deny it because of some act of "faith".
people here are just as ignorant and closed-minded because they believe anything from a person labeled "scientist" as true and inerrant. So it's like faith, but it's faith in the works and claims of people.
People here are always looking for holes in scientific studies. The whole point in science is that you think critically, you observe, you test, you repeat tests that others have done to confirm their results. Even if you can't repeat the tests yourself, the idea is that other researchers can repeat and confirm or deny results. Not all scientific facts are guaranteed as inerrant, because our understanding of the universe may be flawed in places, but scientific facts are sure as hell closer to "inerrant" than vague, superstitious bullshit.
Can the vending machine customise your order with extra cheese, etc? Does it have fresh salad? I know some can cook your food, but they're not exactly at the level of competing with Burger King..
Capitalism will fail? Fail to be replaced by what exactly? I think it more likely that society will just have to adjust, perhaps doing as Japan did and cutting down on the number of allowed children, etc.
Anyone know of anyone replacing front facing staff at fast food places with touch-screen terminals yet?
I'm thinking they could save a lot of money on staff, and improve customer satisfaction because any messed-up orders will actually be their own fault.
In fact, the kitchen could probably become more automated too, with just one or two guys to make sure everything's running smoothly, but that would be a lot more expensive in the short term than a few terminals.
Spam has not been solved, just covered up. It is a pointless waste of incoming bandwidth and server power (if you do your own filtering). This would do nothing to stop spam either, it doesn't matter if you know the identity of the sender if the sender's machine is a zombie. There will always be more idiots with compromised machines.
Not all sequels are crappy. Not all original movies are good.
There has been a large jumping off bandwagons in terms of superhero movies and remakes of graphic novels in the last decade. Of course some stuff sucks, but there have also been some amazing movies as a result of it. I find this vastly preferable to no "geeky" movies being made. There will always be shitty movies, just as there are shitty books and shitty music, whether the MPAA/RIAA exist or not..
The reason sequels make so much money is because by then people have found out via word of mouth that the first movie was good. Sometimes the sequels are just cheap cash ins, but sometimes they're worth it. Just look at The Dark Knight. Amazing sequel. Even Toy Story 3 was pretty damn good, even though it had so much to live up to. We shouldn't be complaining about lack of originality, we should be criticising individual movies on their own merits. I'm quite happy for existing franchises to be given their own movie, as long as the movie is good.
You're saying it's the cheaters who are the victims here? Gimme a break. It's entirely a matter of choice. Even if someone's the most beautiful woman in the world offered herself naked on a plate, a married man who actually cared about his wife (not to mention his own honour) would turn her down. If you're ready to cheat on your wife or even your girlfriend, you should already be divorced/split up.
Fair enough if you were joking. I suppose she'd have to actually be a rock to be so stupid that she couldn't set up a Facebook account, judging from some of the comments on Failbook etc..
Things are only interesting as long as they're surprising.
“Look at the population of the people who are your online friends,” Kimmons said. “Is it a good mixture of men and women? Do you spend more time talking to females versus males or do you favor a certain type of friend over another? That can tell you something about how you’re using social networks. You may not even be aware that you’re heading down a road that can get quickly get pretty dangerous, pretty fast to your marriage.”
Another safeguard is to spell out from the beginning with your online contacts what your expectations are of social networking relationships. Also, it’s a good idea to not engage in intimate conversation with someone who is not your spouse.
“If you’re doing this at 2 o’clock in the morning with no one watching because you don’t want anyone else to know about it, that should be a signal to you that this is something approaching a boundary line or you’re at least moving in that direction,” Kimmons said.
Do they really think they have to spell this stuff out to people? The only way relationships can get "dangerous" to your marriage is if you let them, whether online or not.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about whether it's good or not - it's that this guy obviously is shilling because of the way he talks, and the speed with which he responded to the story.
I've never used WP7, and only used iOS briefly. WP7 did look like it had a nice smooth flashy interface from the videos I've seen, but I don't base my choice of OS purely on how flashy it looks. Having said that, it's kind of funny how shit even Windows 7 (the desktop version) looks whenever I have to use it. I'm guessing Ubuntu does a lot more anti-aliasing on its interface than Win7.
No shit, 1 minute after the story is posted no less. Saw something similar happen around the end of last year too, but it probably happens more often than that and I just have missed it.
If it wasn't for the "best possible tools" crack then it wouldn't have been quite so obvious, but the rest of it is just another "part of a campaign by Microsoft to keep Nokia from choosing Google's Android operating system" as the summary says. Interesting that they'd rather see people buy iPhones than Android. And that they think that they can change our opinions just from some noob saying how great MS is. Slashdot does have a lot of groupthink, but it doesn't quite work like that.
It's not the graphics output speed that would be the limiting factor, it would be calculation of the actual 3D scenes. I expect even running Wolfenstein would be pushing it to its limits. With the memory limitations you'd probably have to do with very very basic textures if any, and without an FPU it would be very slow to calculate the movement and rotation of a lot of vertexes.
Gee thanks, now I finally get it!
Whatever would we do without you, Captain Obvious?
You say you're only happy to debate with people over facts, yet you happily base your worldview on the teachings of a book which even you think is not based on fact. To me this seems slightly incongruous..
I will be happy to debate anything you provide based on the facts
my faith does not rely on the bible being completely factually accurate
*facepalm*
Just because something is so far "totally consistent" with some other thing, does not mean that it will always be, or that either are true. The fossil record is a good indicator of evolution, but it was experiments done with thousands of bacteria cultures, freezing them at certain points in time and "re-playing" them, that finally convinced me of the validity of evolution, even when I was still religious (I no longer am).
It's hardly "a huge amount of evidence" though. It could also mean that the earth is going around the sun, or the two are stationary and the earth is simply rotating on the spot, or the two are revolving around each other while both spin (which is actually our closest understanding of the truth I suppose), etc.
I didn't say that deities must exist as a person. Though as a Christian you by definition have to believe in the incarnation of "god the son" as Christ.
I also am a disagreeable person, it's fun to challenge people to actually use their brains, even when you agree with most of what they say. :p
Where did I even mention intelligent design? I said it can only be the case that species either evolve, or they don't. You can say you don't have an opinion if you wish, but if you did hold an opinion, there can't be any middle ground on such a basic issue.
There can be plenty of debate over the mechanisms driving evolution, but ideas like "intelligent design" are based on the concept that animals evolve, so I really don't get what you're trying to say here.
I'm sure some biologists care. The human ability to blindly ignore real evidence in the face of beliefs can be rather disheartening. Even worse, in religious circles this is a trait to be admired. In fact, even one of my non religious friends said he admired the way I stood up for my beliefs. I still stand up for what I believe to be true, but currently my "belief" is in agnosticism..
And why do you assume there are only two available explanations? What if neither is correct, but some alternative is?
With evolution, it can only be the case that animals do evolve, or they don't. With religion, the deities involved either exist or they don't. Of course the two are not mutually exclusive, but with evolution it is indeed one way or the other. You accept the evidence that species evolve, or you deny it because of some act of "faith".
people here are just as ignorant and closed-minded because they believe anything from a person labeled "scientist" as true and inerrant. So it's like faith, but it's faith in the works and claims of people.
People here are always looking for holes in scientific studies. The whole point in science is that you think critically, you observe, you test, you repeat tests that others have done to confirm their results. Even if you can't repeat the tests yourself, the idea is that other researchers can repeat and confirm or deny results. Not all scientific facts are guaranteed as inerrant, because our understanding of the universe may be flawed in places, but scientific facts are sure as hell closer to "inerrant" than vague, superstitious bullshit.
Can the vending machine customise your order with extra cheese, etc? Does it have fresh salad? I know some can cook your food, but they're not exactly at the level of competing with Burger King..
People don't need to "believe" in evolution. It is an observable and testable phenomenon.
Capitalism will fail? Fail to be replaced by what exactly? I think it more likely that society will just have to adjust, perhaps doing as Japan did and cutting down on the number of allowed children, etc.
Anyone know of anyone replacing front facing staff at fast food places with touch-screen terminals yet?
I'm thinking they could save a lot of money on staff, and improve customer satisfaction because any messed-up orders will actually be their own fault.
In fact, the kitchen could probably become more automated too, with just one or two guys to make sure everything's running smoothly, but that would be a lot more expensive in the short term than a few terminals.
Spam has not been solved, just covered up. It is a pointless waste of incoming bandwidth and server power (if you do your own filtering). This would do nothing to stop spam either, it doesn't matter if you know the identity of the sender if the sender's machine is a zombie. There will always be more idiots with compromised machines.
Not all sequels are crappy. Not all original movies are good.
There has been a large jumping off bandwagons in terms of superhero movies and remakes of graphic novels in the last decade. Of course some stuff sucks, but there have also been some amazing movies as a result of it. I find this vastly preferable to no "geeky" movies being made. There will always be shitty movies, just as there are shitty books and shitty music, whether the MPAA/RIAA exist or not..
The reason sequels make so much money is because by then people have found out via word of mouth that the first movie was good. Sometimes the sequels are just cheap cash ins, but sometimes they're worth it. Just look at The Dark Knight. Amazing sequel. Even Toy Story 3 was pretty damn good, even though it had so much to live up to. We shouldn't be complaining about lack of originality, we should be criticising individual movies on their own merits. I'm quite happy for existing franchises to be given their own movie, as long as the movie is good.
Actually the proper spelling is "Tolkien". I wonder if he did that on purpose to avoid copyright lawsuits :)
It's not that nothing is happening. The applications still run, just with added malware in the background.
FFS. I only have 2 market apps on my phone. One of them is Chess.. don't think I've actually run it yet, but this makes me want to not even try..
You're saying it's the cheaters who are the victims here? Gimme a break. It's entirely a matter of choice. Even if someone's the most beautiful woman in the world offered herself naked on a plate, a married man who actually cared about his wife (not to mention his own honour) would turn her down. If you're ready to cheat on your wife or even your girlfriend, you should already be divorced/split up.
Fair enough if you were joking. I suppose she'd have to actually be a rock to be so stupid that she couldn't set up a Facebook account, judging from some of the comments on Failbook etc..
my wife is too stupid
Uh.. yeah. This makes me wonder how many divorces have been instigated by Slashdot posts..
Things are only interesting as long as they're surprising.
“Look at the population of the people who are your online friends,” Kimmons said. “Is it a good mixture of men and women? Do you spend more time talking to females versus males or do you favor a certain type of friend over another? That can tell you something about how you’re using social networks. You may not even be aware that you’re heading down a road that can get quickly get pretty dangerous, pretty fast to your marriage.”
Another safeguard is to spell out from the beginning with your online contacts what your expectations are of social networking relationships. Also, it’s a good idea to not engage in intimate conversation with someone who is not your spouse.
“If you’re doing this at 2 o’clock in the morning with no one watching because you don’t want anyone else to know about it, that should be a signal to you that this is something approaching a boundary line or you’re at least moving in that direction,” Kimmons said.
Do they really think they have to spell this stuff out to people? The only way relationships can get "dangerous" to your marriage is if you let them, whether online or not.