And could you say "culturally" a few more dozen times in your next summary? It really makes you sound smart, and not full of shit at all.
I've seen that a lot at work. One paper I had to slog through had the word "enumerate" five times in a single paragraph, and not once was the word "count" used. It really makes for boring reading, which is a shame.
Just about all the antecdotal experience I have suggests that wealth is negatively correlated with both family size and longevity...
Here's a little antecdotal "evidence" (hah!) for you. My mother was the baby of a large family. Her brother, a businessman who wasn't rich but was very well off, died of a stroke at age 28. Her other brother was quite rich, and died at age 70. Her third brother is a university professor and in his nineties, as are all her sisters. At age 84 she's the youngest. Neither she or her living siblings (all but two) are rich.
(Of course we all know that anecdotes don't prove anything, all they do is illustrate a point)
sleeping your computer is great, they resume so fast.
Another advantage (in Windows, Linux doesn't have this problem) is that when you boot the machine, you have to restart every application. I don't mind booting my Linux box, but I HATE booting Windows. Ironically, I almost never have to boot the Linux box but am forced by its updates to boot the Windows box.
AFAIK there's never been a study showing any correlation between wealth and happiness. Lacking a study, it's been my observation that those I knew whose main goal in life was more and more wealth were seldom happy. If you lust for wealth, no amount is sufficient. OTOH I've known a few people who were both wealthy and happy, but their main goal in life wasn't the pursuit of wealth.
That's why I don't use NetFlix. The computer plugged into the TV runs Linux, and I don't want to watch movies on the notebook (which will likely not have Windows much longer eaither).
Let people watch their favorite shows a week instead of a year after they come out, in their original language without butchering them with dubbing that kills any kind of meaning of the dialogues
You bring to mind the funniest movie I ever saw: the 1969 version of True Grit. I saw it in Thailand, dubbed, and with subtitles in three other languages at the same time! When John Wayne spoke with that squeaky little asian voice ("Chow Duey!!") I laughed my ass off.
I've even seen many people here who say they still prefer to use incandescent lighting. It doesn't take that many bulbs to use as much as a gaming rig, even fewer for a facebook/browsing PC/notebook.
People who refuse to use CFLs because "the color's not right*" or "it takes too long to start up" aren't the kind of folks who are worried about electric bills or global warming. Also, the flourescents are far cooler, so your AC costs drop with them.
* That "the color looks wrong" is scientifically incorrect. Your brain adjusts the color of light unless the difference is really obvious, or you look for it. Natural light is very orange in the early morning or the evening, bluish at noon, and a different color entirely when it's cloudy. I can imagine when electric lighting was first introduced people probably said "I like the nice warm glow of my kerosine lamp, the incandescant is too harsh and the wrong color."
Why the shortened URL? I know you're not a spammer or a troll, but I'm really uncomfortable going to any shortener from slashdot. What's the full address?
I was completely with you until "And remember that JavaScript was originally part of MS' 'embrace, extend, extinguish strategy" (unless you're referring to MS jscript).
JavaScript was originally developed in Netscape, by Brendan Eich. Battling with Microsoft over the Internet, Netscape considered their client-server solution as a distributed OS, running a portable version of Sun Microsystem's Java. Because Java was a competitor of C++ and aimed at professional programmers, Netscape also wanted a lightweight interpreted language that would complement Java by appealing to nonprofessional programmers, like Microsoft's VB.[9] (see JavaScript and Java)
Developed under the name Mocha, LiveScript was the official name for the language when it first shipped in beta releases of Netscape Navigator 2.0 in September 1995, but it was renamed JavaScript in a joint announcement with Sun Microsystems on December 4, 1995,[10] when it was deployed in the Netscape browser version 2.0B3.[11]
The change of name from LiveScript to JavaScript roughly coincided with Netscape adding support for Java technology in its Netscape Navigator web browser. The final choice of name caused confusion, giving the impression that the language was a spin-off of the Java programming language, and the choice has been characterized by many as a marketing ploy by Netscape to give JavaScript the cachet of what was then the hot new web programming language.[12][13] It has also been claimed that the language's name is the result of a co-marketing deal between Netscape and Sun, in exchange for Netscape bundling Sun's Java runtime with its then-dominant browser.
JavaScript very quickly gained widespread success as a client-side scripting language for web pages. Microsoft introduced JavaScript support in its own web browser, Internet Explorer, in version 3.0, released in August 1996.[18][not in citation given] Microsoft's webserver, Internet Information Server, introduced support for server-side scripting in JavaScript with release 3.0 (1996). Microsoft started to promote webpage scripting using the umbrella term Dynamic HTML.
Microsoft's JavaScript implementation was later renamed to JScript to avoid trademark issues. JScript added new date methods to fix the Y2K-problematic methods in JavaScript, which were based on Java's java.util.Date class.
I'm trying to invent a sense of humor so good that I will live forever
When my grandmother was 95 she told me "I don't know why people want to live to be a hundred. It ain't no fun bein' old."
The cause is likely that people who die young usually have maladies like heart disease, diabetes, etc. If your quality of life is bad, you're not likely to be happy and laid back.
...there will always be some sort of black market. Some sort of theft...
If I give you a thing, you have not stolen it. If I buy a thing and give you a copy, you still haven't stolen it but I have infringed copyright. If I sell you that copy than I have committed theft, because I recieved the money that should have gone to the copyright holder.
When you DL that copy of Photoshop that you could in no way afford to buy, Adobe has lost nothing.
I just DLed the last season of Voyager. Had it been for sale when they were selling boxed sets of the first two seasons (the only seeasons I saw for sale) I would have bought them, because I missed that season when the local station changed networks. I have all the rest of Star Trek on tape already. Did I "steal" the content on those tapes, content that was freely handed over the air?
If I can't buy it, there's no way for the copyright holder to lose anything when I DL it.
Attempting pixel-perfect rendering on a web page is ignorant, especially today when so many get their internet on a phone. There's no possible way to know the user's screen's orientation, aspect ratio, size, or resolution. It's not going to look the same on your kindle as it is on your computer.
Blah. At least I know they're putting most of their effort into how it looks; I will have no use for it, and can avoid it.
Indeed. Content is king, how pretty the page is is secondary.
TomTom flames open street maps? Shocking! In other news, Microsoft flames Linux, and RIAA labels flame indies. Does this actually surprise anyone? Are there really that many people who would lend any credence to a commercial company bashing its competitors?
I believe I've read GÃdel, Escher, Bach, but it was half a lifetime ago, I should see if the library has a copy and re-read it. About the only thing I remeber was that it was an interesting book (I used to read a book every day back then).
I'm not saying that the human brain relies on magic tricks (either David Copperfield or Gandalf), I'm saying that Copperfield-like trickery could fool you into thinking that a computer could think.
Re:It's not just specialization, there is also fea
on
Where's HAL 9000?
·
· Score: 1
I don't fear PETA, but I'd be pretty upset if they managed to get eating meat outlawed. What I fear is having rights taken away from me.
FETs are different from plain NPN or PNP transistors, yes.
Re:It's not just specialization, there is also fea
on
Where's HAL 9000?
·
· Score: 1
Silicon is also a chemical.
True, but it isn't chemistry that makes a computer work, it's electricity. The first computers had no silicon, they used vaccuum tubes; the transistor hadn't yet been invented.
Your computer is simply billions of on-off switches. Your brain is billions of different chemical reactions.
Re:It's not just specialization, there is also fea
on
Where's HAL 9000?
·
· Score: 1
Your brain is chemical, just like every other organ. Yes, there are ions and electrical charges, but you have that with any other chemical reaction.
It's likely that some time in the future we'll have Blade Runner-like "replicants" that would be sentient, but not Turing Archetecture electronic computers. If you understand how computers work, down to the level of logic gate circutry, you know that the only intelligence involved is the circut designer's and the programmer's intelligence.
We can currently simulate most aspects of reality, out of the subset of aspects we know of, down to subatomic levels in a large enough area to perform nuclear simulations that match perfectly to the real thing.
Yet they produce no real radiation, the radiation is likewise only a simulation.
Re:It's not just specialization, there is also fea
on
Where's HAL 9000?
·
· Score: 1
Children are born, not built. Your children are a continuation of you.
Slashdot Mirror
And could you say "culturally" a few more dozen times in your next summary? It really makes you sound smart, and not full of shit at all.
I've seen that a lot at work. One paper I had to slog through had the word "enumerate" five times in a single paragraph, and not once was the word "count" used. It really makes for boring reading, which is a shame.
Just about all the antecdotal experience I have suggests that wealth is negatively correlated with both family size and longevity...
Here's a little antecdotal "evidence" (hah!) for you. My mother was the baby of a large family. Her brother, a businessman who wasn't rich but was very well off, died of a stroke at age 28. Her other brother was quite rich, and died at age 70. Her third brother is a university professor and in his nineties, as are all her sisters. At age 84 she's the youngest. Neither she or her living siblings (all but two) are rich.
(Of course we all know that anecdotes don't prove anything, all they do is illustrate a point)
sleeping your computer is great, they resume so fast.
Another advantage (in Windows, Linux doesn't have this problem) is that when you boot the machine, you have to restart every application. I don't mind booting my Linux box, but I HATE booting Windows. Ironically, I almost never have to boot the Linux box but am forced by its updates to boot the Windows box.
AFAIK there's never been a study showing any correlation between wealth and happiness. Lacking a study, it's been my observation that those I knew whose main goal in life was more and more wealth were seldom happy. If you lust for wealth, no amount is sufficient. OTOH I've known a few people who were both wealthy and happy, but their main goal in life wasn't the pursuit of wealth.
Citation? I'm not even sure free will really exists.
That's why I don't use NetFlix. The computer plugged into the TV runs Linux, and I don't want to watch movies on the notebook (which will likely not have Windows much longer eaither).
"Life: hate it or loathe it, you can't ignore it." -- Marvin
Why does it have to be a choice of what rights you give up? Just to make law enforcement easier? To hell with THAT!
Let people watch their favorite shows a week instead of a year after they come out, in their original language without butchering them with dubbing that kills any kind of meaning of the dialogues
You bring to mind the funniest movie I ever saw: the 1969 version of True Grit. I saw it in Thailand, dubbed, and with subtitles in three other languages at the same time! When John Wayne spoke with that squeaky little asian voice ("Chow Duey!!") I laughed my ass off.
I've even seen many people here who say they still prefer to use incandescent lighting. It doesn't take that many bulbs to use as much as a gaming rig, even fewer for a facebook/browsing PC/notebook.
People who refuse to use CFLs because "the color's not right*" or "it takes too long to start up" aren't the kind of folks who are worried about electric bills or global warming. Also, the flourescents are far cooler, so your AC costs drop with them.
* That "the color looks wrong" is scientifically incorrect. Your brain adjusts the color of light unless the difference is really obvious, or you look for it. Natural light is very orange in the early morning or the evening, bluish at noon, and a different color entirely when it's cloudy. I can imagine when electric lighting was first introduced people probably said "I like the nice warm glow of my kerosine lamp, the incandescant is too harsh and the wrong color."
Why the shortened URL? I know you're not a spammer or a troll, but I'm really uncomfortable going to any shortener from slashdot. What's the full address?
I was completely with you until "And remember that JavaScript was originally part of MS' 'embrace, extend, extinguish strategy" (unless you're referring to MS jscript).
I'm trying to invent a sense of humor so good that I will live forever
When my grandmother was 95 she told me "I don't know why people want to live to be a hundred. It ain't no fun bein' old."
The cause is likely that people who die young usually have maladies like heart disease, diabetes, etc. If your quality of life is bad, you're not likely to be happy and laid back.
...there will always be some sort of black market. Some sort of theft...
If I give you a thing, you have not stolen it. If I buy a thing and give you a copy, you still haven't stolen it but I have infringed copyright. If I sell you that copy than I have committed theft, because I recieved the money that should have gone to the copyright holder.
When you DL that copy of Photoshop that you could in no way afford to buy, Adobe has lost nothing.
I just DLed the last season of Voyager. Had it been for sale when they were selling boxed sets of the first two seasons (the only seeasons I saw for sale) I would have bought them, because I missed that season when the local station changed networks. I have all the rest of Star Trek on tape already. Did I "steal" the content on those tapes, content that was freely handed over the air?
If I can't buy it, there's no way for the copyright holder to lose anything when I DL it.
He did say he already DLed it but was too lazy to learn the interface. But I agree, he ought to get off his lazy ass and learn GIMP.
Attempting pixel-perfect rendering on a web page is ignorant, especially today when so many get their internet on a phone. There's no possible way to know the user's screen's orientation, aspect ratio, size, or resolution. It's not going to look the same on your kindle as it is on your computer.
Blah. At least I know they're putting most of their effort into how it looks; I will have no use for it, and can avoid it.
Indeed. Content is king, how pretty the page is is secondary.
TomTom flames open street maps? Shocking! In other news, Microsoft flames Linux, and RIAA labels flame indies. Does this actually surprise anyone? Are there really that many people who would lend any credence to a commercial company bashing its competitors?
I believe I've read GÃdel, Escher, Bach, but it was half a lifetime ago, I should see if the library has a copy and re-read it. About the only thing I remeber was that it was an interesting book (I used to read a book every day back then).
I'm not saying that the human brain relies on magic tricks (either David Copperfield or Gandalf), I'm saying that Copperfield-like trickery could fool you into thinking that a computer could think.
I don't fear PETA, but I'd be pretty upset if they managed to get eating meat outlawed. What I fear is having rights taken away from me.
FETs are different from plain NPN or PNP transistors, yes.
Silicon is also a chemical.
True, but it isn't chemistry that makes a computer work, it's electricity. The first computers had no silicon, they used vaccuum tubes; the transistor hadn't yet been invented.
Your computer is simply billions of on-off switches. Your brain is billions of different chemical reactions.
Your brain is chemical, just like every other organ. Yes, there are ions and electrical charges, but you have that with any other chemical reaction.
It's likely that some time in the future we'll have Blade Runner-like "replicants" that would be sentient, but not Turing Archetecture electronic computers. If you understand how computers work, down to the level of logic gate circutry, you know that the only intelligence involved is the circut designer's and the programmer's intelligence.
We can currently simulate most aspects of reality, out of the subset of aspects we know of, down to subatomic levels in a large enough area to perform nuclear simulations that match perfectly to the real thing.
Yet they produce no real radiation, the radiation is likewise only a simulation.
Children are born, not built. Your children are a continuation of you.