Yet more pointless hardware, that drives up the cost of laptops, how hard is it to boot a laptop?
In my estimation, this feature will probably only be implemented on high-end laptops at first, like all other new technologies. Therefore, if you don't need the technology, this will probably drive down the cost of laptops without supplemental displays, making non-2-display laptops cheaper. So quit whining.
VB is by far the easiest, and simplest way to get into windows GUI programming. However, if you want to go with a non-Microsoft solution, both Borland Delphi and the extremely outdated Borland C++ Builder should work. If you already know C++, this is an added bonus towards using the Builder, however it should be known that the Builder is basically a wrapper around Delphi's PASCAL ide, most of the components are duplicated in source even.
If the interface doesn't have to be really complicated, Borland C++ Builder should work. If you know C++, it shouldn't be hard at all to pick up on Builder. Delphi is more up-to-date, but Microsoft VB would have the most native looking and easily producable solution.
I can get a bunch of "victims" together who claim that they lost 75% of their hearing from listening at REALLY low levels. They'll cry. They'll force the lawyers to yell the questions. They'll spend the court's time fiddling with hearing aids. They'll talk about how they lost their jobs and how their babies were run over by a bus because they couldn't hear the bus until it was too late. It'll be really tragic. And there's no way to prove they can still hear just as well as before.
Everyone with this "low level" thing. Does Apple's Ipod even come with warnings against hearing loss should you turn the volume up to its highest extent. To make a legal argument. Legality != common sense, that's where everyone gets it wrong. Everyone knows that coffee is hot, but the coffee suit wins in court, why? Because common sense doesn't win in court. Technically, if you want to make this argument legally speaking you probably can with ease. The Ipod and the earbuds are sold as a set, there's probably nothing in the documentation that says hearing loss could result from any volume level, and even if there is something in the manual somewhere they'd probably argue that it's not full disclosure cuz the text is too small or something. But honestly, I've never read a hearing loss warning on most of my electronic items, so the argument, legally, seems valid to me. As long as there is no warning.
Now, common sense is right, you stuck a little speaker into your ear, turned it up way too loud and then expected no hearing loss? We all know that loud stuff causes hearing loss, and you should've known better, but that's not really a legal argument. (I do, however, agree with common sense). Either way it's another interesting case involving absolving people from all personal responsibility for their own poor choices.
So (serious question to those more knowledgeable) does this mean that the Google filters are simple keyword matches then? I'm surprised because I would have though that they might have used something more complicated like cluster analysis.
I'm sure Google is aware of how to more properly filter their search engine. However, given the fact that they didn't want to filter results at all to begin with, why would they invest a lot of time and effort into filtering for the Chinese government?
Any way I see to get past the (what seems like) weak filters is a good thing anyway and I say even talking about this on slashdot is probably hurting China. It would be better for Google and the people if both just pretended like the filters worked fine, as this would allow China some of the freedom it needs to start getting angry.
Ah, so that's the problem. Other people (iPod owners) are ignornant/ stupid, is all. Can't say I'm surprised to see you post that.
Not so much stupid, but unwilling to put up with a learning curve, for one thing. Another thing is that they have a lot of the keeping up with the Jones' in them, and want to get an iPod cuz everyone else has one. Another thing is that most people won't take the time to research an alternative and will just pay the price. Simply cuz it's not a priority, or the alternative isn't well advertised. Just because something leads the market doesn't make it absolutely spectacular, look at MS Windows.
XHTML is HTML, it's HTML formatted so that it is in the form of any other XML language. What the summary is saying is that phones can immediately support this new, cleaner version of HTML because they have no need to transfer over existing content as much as a regular web browser. Regular web browsers have to be more tolerant of errors in code in order for the web to serve any real purpose (because there's so many errors). For a cell phone web browser, however, there are only so many websites that really support cell phone connectivity to begin with, and a lot of them are already, or on their way to being XHTML 2.0 complaint.
It really is a decent standard, and it also is the reason why I do a </p> for every <p> on all of my posts here (not required by HTML) =).
What I don't understand is why EVERYONE is so desperate to find a big name competitor.
*shrug* I'm not, I got my player and it's fine. What do I care even if it stops being supported with updates due to lack of popularity? It works fine as it is. I don't feel the need to be part of the "winning team", as long as I have a device that does what I want.
People aren't tired of feature creep, they just aren't even knowing of an alternative. Ipod will eventually falter when someone else comes out with a killer app. If you like DRM go nuts with your bad self, at least with my player I can turn it off.
And I bet that archos is really easy to use, right? And it ties in tightly with a really slick music, photo and video jukebox/store? And it automatically keeps in synch with your computer? And it's really small and light? Right?
I'm not going to drum up an advertisement here, but most of what you said about it is in fact true, despite your sarcasm. It uses playsforsure, so those who love to shop online for music can do that, and it syncs with media player and there is an available plugin for Itunes (I don't use that anyway but whatever). Also, you can enable the device to be connected as a simple USB hard drive, allowing simple drag and drop from anything that supports USB class mass-storage. It's about the size of the original Ipod, a little bit longer than a pack of playing cards but thinner depth wise. The size was actually smaller than I imagined, which actually, I wouldn't really want a device any smaller than it is cuz I'd probably lose it. As far as easy to use, probably not the easiest to use, I'll give you that, but I can't imagine it would confuse the average person anymore than their ipod already does.
Isn't anyone even mildly annoyed by the fact that right after you buy a Nintendo product they come out with a lighter, better version making yours look like an eyesore in comparison? I mean, did we really need to go through the Game Boy to the Game Boy Pocket, to the Game Boy Color to the Game Boy Advance, to the Game Boy advance that finally had back lighting, to the Game Boy DS, and now the Game Boy DS Lite? Couldn't they have cut out some of those product lines before they were even made? The need for a backlight on the GBA was obvious, why wasn't it there from the start? It seems like they are just draining their customers pockets in the one market in which they are still successful. Nobody needs to release 4 new versions of a handheld game in 4 years.
Even an executive said the iPod was better then what their hardware partners offered.
In my opinion the reason the iPod is and remains on top has nothing to do with hardware. It's a trendy thing to have, everyone has heard of it and wants one. Most of the people that got one for Christmas don't even know how to use it. There are better products on market. It's not the hardware, it's the name recognition.
I bought an archos player for $250 that plays xvid movies, mp3s, games, displays photos, can link up to other USB devices, records wav files from line in or built in microphone and has RCA out capability (comes complete with cables). The ipod has hardly any of these features and retails for almost double the price. People buy ipods cuz they are hipsters.
I understand that some people would like to see more than one 'theory' taught (the old 'teach the controversy' BS), but displaying the results in this manner is misleading in the extreme.
I don't understand this mentality in this particular case, simply because from all my research and my reading on the topic, the answer is simple: within the scientific community there simply is no "controversy."
People seem to confuse the debate here, we are talking about science class, science class is teaching what the scientific community presents as its best theories on a certain subject. Now the word "theory" doesn't mean an indisputable fact, but it doesn't mean, as people in layterms think of it a hypothesis or an idea. Theories are founded upon and are used to unite empirical facts observed by the community and are the subject of intense scrutiny. To put it in more eloquent words, "in science, facts change more often than theories."
I think there is a great danger in presenting this as a serious controversy to students. The theory of evolution is not under serious debate within the scientific community, it is generally accepted. It is what the scientific community tells us that really should be the subject of a science class, isn't that about right?
If we are going to teach the controversy about evolution, then we should teach students about the people opposing other generally accepted scientific theories with little or no evidence as well. We should present every yahoo with an argument against anything if we want to be fair. (I realize that we don't have the time for that, but that's precisely the point. We don't have the time to be teaching this "controversy" either.) I don't understand why evolution needs to be singled out.
Christianity or being pious has really nothing to do with the debate either. A lot of scientists that work in the field of biology are churchgoing Christians. If they see the ability for duality here, why should we let the extremists run the debate?
We are dealing here with a serious issue that has to do with public ignorance. Most people simply do not understand what science is at a philosophical level or how it operates.
I can't tell you how many times I've typed in "chicken" (or whatever) and been presented with a top-10 list of "results" for web sites that have absolutely nothing to do with chicken - they've just paid someone to make sure their web site/appeared/ to be associated with chicken.
I know I'm going to kind of play devil's advocate here, but have you searched for chicken on Google before you suggested it? I actually found the results to be a lot better than you imply in your post here.
There are some things people simply don't remember I think, about what Google does and has done for the search industry...
Everyone talks about altavista, well let me tell you gentlemen that altavista was probably awful from the day of its inception. I can remember plainly when altavista dominated the search market and let me tell you, you could never even find relevant search results at all most times. You'd be lucky if you didn't get offered about 10 different types of virii in the first few results.
It was only when Google decided to innovate, I find, that using a main search engine for tasks and for research took less time than doing the actual research the old fashion way, or using an offline encyclopedia or reference source.
PS: A search for chicken gives you recipes for chicken nuggets, a picture of a chicken, a link to a website regarding chicken little, etc etc. I cannot see how any of these results are even the slightest bit tainted.
All of that aside, I can see how some people can complain about certain sets of search results. I tend to have problems with Google searches sometimes, but it is only when I am searching for what is an extremely unpopular item, or perhaps *cough* a not-so-legal one. You can hardly blame Google for results in these cases, where even relevant links have pages chalked full of garbage, or when the only reference it can find is on some archaic page with a bunch of blabbing text. Sometimes you conduct a search so strange you even stump that.
Anyone that seriously thinks Google is a bad search engine, I defy you to go back to looking at what altavista was, or what Yahoo was for that matter. Google deserves its position still today.
Services like these have been around for a long time. In fact, so long that I was dissatisfied with the few existing services and decided to try my own hand at something similar for my senior seminar project.
I'm quite sure that this service is more complicated and sophisticated and things, but I needed a simple solution for listening to music from my home PC while I was commuting to school with my laptop. I looked at existing solutions but they seemed to either be too sophisticated, not work, or cost more than I was willing to pay for such a service.
I always thought it was a tad bit redundant to host another whole collection of MP3s when all I really wanted was to listen to my own music while away from the computer. I didn't need a lot of bandwidth to pull this off, because it was only me listening.
My solution was a program I wrote that is basically a HTTP server modified to send playlist files containing the URLs of music, and will also zip up files if you have to get a whole album during a visit somewhere.
I know that most broadband has not enough upload speed for a real server, but if you are just serving yourself your own files and you don't mind leaving your computer on, why not just do it that way? I noticed that the 30k/sec I get in upload speed is more than enough to stream most MP3 files without a hitch. You definitely don't need a dedicated service to accomplish these goals.
Nooo! Poor Emos! I can just see them shivering in a cold, dank corner, cutting themselves because their journal was hi-jacked. What is becoming of this world?!
It was my understanding that they'd be doing that either way. =P
I still don't get the whole MacOS Photoshop thing. I am pretty sure I have heard of Adobe specifically beefing up their Photoshop on MacOS performance wise, but the truth is that I've used Photoshop on Windows for years, I've even used them interchangeably when I had to work on things in a Mac lab and I don't see any real difference in the way they run at all. In fact I noticed sometimes my PC would be able to process an effect faster. Can someone do like Craig David and fill me in here?
Slashdot Mirror
In my estimation, this feature will probably only be implemented on high-end laptops at first, like all other new technologies. Therefore, if you don't need the technology, this will probably drive down the cost of laptops without supplemental displays, making non-2-display laptops cheaper. So quit whining.
VB is by far the easiest, and simplest way to get into windows GUI programming. However, if you want to go with a non-Microsoft solution, both Borland Delphi and the extremely outdated Borland C++ Builder should work. If you already know C++, this is an added bonus towards using the Builder, however it should be known that the Builder is basically a wrapper around Delphi's PASCAL ide, most of the components are duplicated in source even.
If the interface doesn't have to be really complicated, Borland C++ Builder should work. If you know C++, it shouldn't be hard at all to pick up on Builder. Delphi is more up-to-date, but Microsoft VB would have the most native looking and easily producable solution.
Everyone with this "low level" thing. Does Apple's Ipod even come with warnings against hearing loss should you turn the volume up to its highest extent. To make a legal argument. Legality != common sense, that's where everyone gets it wrong. Everyone knows that coffee is hot, but the coffee suit wins in court, why? Because common sense doesn't win in court. Technically, if you want to make this argument legally speaking you probably can with ease. The Ipod and the earbuds are sold as a set, there's probably nothing in the documentation that says hearing loss could result from any volume level, and even if there is something in the manual somewhere they'd probably argue that it's not full disclosure cuz the text is too small or something. But honestly, I've never read a hearing loss warning on most of my electronic items, so the argument, legally, seems valid to me. As long as there is no warning.
Now, common sense is right, you stuck a little speaker into your ear, turned it up way too loud and then expected no hearing loss? We all know that loud stuff causes hearing loss, and you should've known better, but that's not really a legal argument. (I do, however, agree with common sense). Either way it's another interesting case involving absolving people from all personal responsibility for their own poor choices.
Maybe Google can get my laptop to support over 800x600 in X-server...
I'm sure Google is aware of how to more properly filter their search engine. However, given the fact that they didn't want to filter results at all to begin with, why would they invest a lot of time and effort into filtering for the Chinese government?
Any way I see to get past the (what seems like) weak filters is a good thing anyway and I say even talking about this on slashdot is probably hurting China. It would be better for Google and the people if both just pretended like the filters worked fine, as this would allow China some of the freedom it needs to start getting angry.
Not so much stupid, but unwilling to put up with a learning curve, for one thing. Another thing is that they have a lot of the keeping up with the Jones' in them, and want to get an iPod cuz everyone else has one. Another thing is that most people won't take the time to research an alternative and will just pay the price. Simply cuz it's not a priority, or the alternative isn't well advertised. Just because something leads the market doesn't make it absolutely spectacular, look at MS Windows.
Now can nailing fat girls can give you a venerial disease, amd also make you fat? I gotta stop drinking.
How about neither?
That's like asking "What's your favorite food? Turd sandwiches or turd burgers?"
XHTML is HTML, it's HTML formatted so that it is in the form of any other XML language. What the summary is saying is that phones can immediately support this new, cleaner version of HTML because they have no need to transfer over existing content as much as a regular web browser. Regular web browsers have to be more tolerant of errors in code in order for the web to serve any real purpose (because there's so many errors). For a cell phone web browser, however, there are only so many websites that really support cell phone connectivity to begin with, and a lot of them are already, or on their way to being XHTML 2.0 complaint.
It really is a decent standard, and it also is the reason why I do a </p> for every <p> on all of my posts here (not required by HTML) =).
People aren't tired of feature creep, they just aren't even knowing of an alternative. Ipod will eventually falter when someone else comes out with a killer app. If you like DRM go nuts with your bad self, at least with my player I can turn it off.
Considering some of the things I've read (look at my VW! it's so german), definitely trendy...
Everyone wants to be like look at me I got an ipod, I'm hip and cool.
I'm not going to drum up an advertisement here, but most of what you said about it is in fact true, despite your sarcasm. It uses playsforsure, so those who love to shop online for music can do that, and it syncs with media player and there is an available plugin for Itunes (I don't use that anyway but whatever). Also, you can enable the device to be connected as a simple USB hard drive, allowing simple drag and drop from anything that supports USB class mass-storage. It's about the size of the original Ipod, a little bit longer than a pack of playing cards but thinner depth wise. The size was actually smaller than I imagined, which actually, I wouldn't really want a device any smaller than it is cuz I'd probably lose it. As far as easy to use, probably not the easiest to use, I'll give you that, but I can't imagine it would confuse the average person anymore than their ipod already does.
Isn't anyone even mildly annoyed by the fact that right after you buy a Nintendo product they come out with a lighter, better version making yours look like an eyesore in comparison? I mean, did we really need to go through the Game Boy to the Game Boy Pocket, to the Game Boy Color to the Game Boy Advance, to the Game Boy advance that finally had back lighting, to the Game Boy DS, and now the Game Boy DS Lite? Couldn't they have cut out some of those product lines before they were even made? The need for a backlight on the GBA was obvious, why wasn't it there from the start? It seems like they are just draining their customers pockets in the one market in which they are still successful. Nobody needs to release 4 new versions of a handheld game in 4 years.
In my opinion the reason the iPod is and remains on top has nothing to do with hardware. It's a trendy thing to have, everyone has heard of it and wants one. Most of the people that got one for Christmas don't even know how to use it. There are better products on market. It's not the hardware, it's the name recognition.
I bought an archos player for $250 that plays xvid movies, mp3s, games, displays photos, can link up to other USB devices, records wav files from line in or built in microphone and has RCA out capability (comes complete with cables). The ipod has hardly any of these features and retails for almost double the price. People buy ipods cuz they are hipsters.
I don't understand this mentality in this particular case, simply because from all my research and my reading on the topic, the answer is simple: within the scientific community there simply is no "controversy."
People seem to confuse the debate here, we are talking about science class, science class is teaching what the scientific community presents as its best theories on a certain subject. Now the word "theory" doesn't mean an indisputable fact, but it doesn't mean, as people in layterms think of it a hypothesis or an idea. Theories are founded upon and are used to unite empirical facts observed by the community and are the subject of intense scrutiny. To put it in more eloquent words, "in science, facts change more often than theories."
I think there is a great danger in presenting this as a serious controversy to students. The theory of evolution is not under serious debate within the scientific community, it is generally accepted. It is what the scientific community tells us that really should be the subject of a science class, isn't that about right?
If we are going to teach the controversy about evolution, then we should teach students about the people opposing other generally accepted scientific theories with little or no evidence as well. We should present every yahoo with an argument against anything if we want to be fair. (I realize that we don't have the time for that, but that's precisely the point. We don't have the time to be teaching this "controversy" either.) I don't understand why evolution needs to be singled out.
Christianity or being pious has really nothing to do with the debate either. A lot of scientists that work in the field of biology are churchgoing Christians. If they see the ability for duality here, why should we let the extremists run the debate?
We are dealing here with a serious issue that has to do with public ignorance. Most people simply do not understand what science is at a philosophical level or how it operates.
I know I'm going to kind of play devil's advocate here, but have you searched for chicken on Google before you suggested it? I actually found the results to be a lot better than you imply in your post here.
There are some things people simply don't remember I think, about what Google does and has done for the search industry...
Everyone talks about altavista, well let me tell you gentlemen that altavista was probably awful from the day of its inception. I can remember plainly when altavista dominated the search market and let me tell you, you could never even find relevant search results at all most times. You'd be lucky if you didn't get offered about 10 different types of virii in the first few results.
It was only when Google decided to innovate, I find, that using a main search engine for tasks and for research took less time than doing the actual research the old fashion way, or using an offline encyclopedia or reference source.
PS: A search for chicken gives you recipes for chicken nuggets, a picture of a chicken, a link to a website regarding chicken little, etc etc. I cannot see how any of these results are even the slightest bit tainted.
All of that aside, I can see how some people can complain about certain sets of search results. I tend to have problems with Google searches sometimes, but it is only when I am searching for what is an extremely unpopular item, or perhaps *cough* a not-so-legal one. You can hardly blame Google for results in these cases, where even relevant links have pages chalked full of garbage, or when the only reference it can find is on some archaic page with a bunch of blabbing text. Sometimes you conduct a search so strange you even stump that.
Anyone that seriously thinks Google is a bad search engine, I defy you to go back to looking at what altavista was, or what Yahoo was for that matter. Google deserves its position still today.
Services like these have been around for a long time. In fact, so long that I was dissatisfied with the few existing services and decided to try my own hand at something similar for my senior seminar project.
I'm quite sure that this service is more complicated and sophisticated and things, but I needed a simple solution for listening to music from my home PC while I was commuting to school with my laptop. I looked at existing solutions but they seemed to either be too sophisticated, not work, or cost more than I was willing to pay for such a service.
I always thought it was a tad bit redundant to host another whole collection of MP3s when all I really wanted was to listen to my own music while away from the computer. I didn't need a lot of bandwidth to pull this off, because it was only me listening.
My solution was a program I wrote that is basically a HTTP server modified to send playlist files containing the URLs of music, and will also zip up files if you have to get a whole album during a visit somewhere.
I know that most broadband has not enough upload speed for a real server, but if you are just serving yourself your own files and you don't mind leaving your computer on, why not just do it that way? I noticed that the 30k/sec I get in upload speed is more than enough to stream most MP3 files without a hitch. You definitely don't need a dedicated service to accomplish these goals.
It was my understanding that they'd be doing that either way. =P
I still don't get the whole MacOS Photoshop thing. I am pretty sure I have heard of Adobe specifically beefing up their Photoshop on MacOS performance wise, but the truth is that I've used Photoshop on Windows for years, I've even used them interchangeably when I had to work on things in a Mac lab and I don't see any real difference in the way they run at all. In fact I noticed sometimes my PC would be able to process an effect faster. Can someone do like Craig David and fill me in here?
Almost a full house? Awesome! DO DO DO BAH BAH DOW
Did he win wikipedia.de in a hot hand of dice? Three hours straight, clickity clackity!
Funny I was thinking the same thing about their products...
Cue the robocop references
Thank you, for your cooperation.