On top of that, to the best of my knowledge PDA doesn't stand for Pstylus Digital Assistant. A PDA is, by definition, a small portable electronic device to storing and accessing information. This is a PDA turned sideways with an interface that uses large buttons navigable by thumb.
Why not switch to Microsoft's MSN Search then? I hear it's pretty cool.
You've taken the thread out of context if you think I was supporting a specific criticism of Google (though I think your notion that Google is a poor, downtrodden whipping poor is outrageously ridiculous. Google is still living a honeymoon, being a huge megacorp but with much of the public acting like they're the kindly underdog).
My comment was in retort to a comment that proposed that Google can do whatever they please, something which I actually agree with (within reason), and because they can do what they please they should be free of any sober questioning or criticism. That is nonsensical.
If you replace "Google" with "Microsoft" in a paragraph, OF COURSE it's not going to make much sense, but you didn't prove anything.
While you gave some examples, your examples substitute something completely unrelated to the original statement, completely undermining the point you're making with ridiculous examples. Basically it's a strawman of the technique used.
Google and Microsoft, on the other hand, are very similar corporate interests, especially relevant given that this whole discussion tended towards the rights a corporation have to do what they please. As such, I feel that the correlation between the two statements is entirely accurate and valid, and it is a schism in the Slashdotter value system that they seem so judgementally different.
We are talking about Google forcing high rankings on their own content on their own search engine.
Indeed, and honestly this story sounds like much ado about nothing. Having said that, some of the replies implied that Google basically has free reign to do whatever they like without users and consumers having the right to publicly question and criticize, and it was that implication that I was arguing against.
Absolutely. People tend to forget that google is a corporation. They can do whatever they want with their search engine...Google is not making a search engine out of the goodness of their heart.
Right. Other people tend to forget that Google is not immune from oversight and criticism because they are a private corporation, and it is fully justified to call them on their activities if and when they pursue questionable avenues. No one, at least to my knowledge, is calling for government intervention, but are merely spreading the word of potentially hypocritical activities. As a user of search engines I want to hear this public criticism as it may eventually make me switch to whatever the new search engine is.
As a sidenote, I find it remarkable how defensive the general Slashdot community is about Google. Let's try your post in a slightly different light and see what you think about it.
Absolutely. People tend to forget that Microsoft is a corporation. They can do whatever they want with their software. Their goal in life is to keep you buying their goods and using their software so that they can lock you in and sell you more! Its all about money. Google is not making software out of the goodness of their heart.
Did you know that the Canadian Government does NOT allow immigration to Canada by those either physically or menatally disabled?
There are 6 billion people on this planet. Sure it would be nice if Canada could just open her arms and let the world in, and by some bizarre paradox of economics we could still support "free" healthcare and quality education, but that isn't realistic. Boo hoo stories about who Canada won't let in, as if the world has some sacred right to the peaceful society and generous services that we've eaked out here, really are built on a foundation of bullshit.
Absolutely nothing at all. The article that was referenced has to do with refugees, and the problem of so-called refugees who shop between the countries for the best success. This is beneficial to neither country, which is why the agreement was decided upon.
Whichever country wants to idealistically toss rocks is happy to have whoever we turn away.
(Bogus refugees, it should be noted, circumvent the normal immigration process, jumping in front of a lot of dedicated, process-following immigrants. It is a serious problem).
I've never read the writings of Mr. Grimes (or, as he likes to be called, Grimey), however I'm highly suspicious of his chops if this is really the aha moment of his argument. The fact that much of the framework is just a managed veneer over unmanaged code, mostly the Win32 code base, has been known to every half-decent.NET developer since the outself. The reasons are fairly obvious and logical-
-.NET was never about rewriting the entire platform, even though some.NET true believers think this is the only way..NET is about a new, more powerful development paradigm atop the existing infrastructure. Even on a going forward basis there is no concerted push for "100% managed" - appropriate code goes in the unamanged layer, and wrappers are created. It's pragmatic, efficient development.
-Much of the underlying unmanaged code is extremely fast, native code, that has been optimized for years (see the excellent crypo libraries). This is the reason why.NET apps are generally extremely fast. The hard to justify "Pure" campaign, such as that seen in the Java camp, has never flown in the.NET world.
-There is a thin wrapper API, meaning that they can implement the underlying code on another platform, in either managed or unmanaged code, and the API will work. Mono has implemented a lot of the code that is implemented in Windows service code on the Microsoft.NET platform, proving the vision.
Well, it's good you're not going to argue because that's the only part of that sentence that made any sense.
Remarkable how most other people would easily determine that I missed the word "part", but you have trouble with it. Not surprizing.
If you can't deal with the reality that parents DID spend more time
You have an extraordinary inability to read, and the only argument you appear capable of having is against strawmen. My statement was that parents don't, shouldn't, and never have spent every waking minute fawning over their children, and that there are periods of independent learning where children effectively use toys, electronics, books, or whatever. This is very necessary part of development.
Good parents spend time with their children rather than letting an electronic device babysit the kids....The kind of parent you are is demonstrated by your extreme reaction to that and by you having to resort to false dichotomies.
This is just too, to use it in a modernist sense, ironic.
The ability to produce offspring does not, in any way, make you more of an expert of raising them.
The ability to type doesn't make you any more of an expert. Apparently, though, the ability to type doesn't imply the ability to read, as I clearly stated that I was more sensitive to these sorts of comments because of parenthood, not that it made me any more of an expert. I will say this, though - it is absolutely remarkable what high standards people have before they've actually done something, and it's amazing how much those standards change in the real world.
Actually, it was the standard until recently. The babies were looked after until they were old enough to start helping with the chores. They learned what to do by helping their parents.
Ah, the good old days. The days when a dozen children didn't all fight for a moment of attention from parents who were too busy trying to subsist -- instead they all got individual around the clock loving care. They had a real Santa Claus back then too.
Keep believing that.
You see, here's the problem - you're just an idiot with an opinion and a bloated sense of the value of that opinion. I'm not even going to bother arguing with such a blowhard given how absolutely rudimentary of child psychology and early education, pounded home in every tome about childcare.
When will parents stop relegating their childrens' upbringing to toys (including TV) and start giving the children what is rightfully theirs: a human touch? If you can't be bothered to play a central role in your child's life, then don't have a child!
What a load of shit. I'm speaking in generalities as that's how your painted with your righteous brush, rather than specifically about this rather dubious bear.
Perhaps I'm a little sensitive about this given that I actually have a child with another on the way shortly, compared to the countless armchair parents out there espousing their great views on parenting.
This toy, like television, video games, books, puzzles, or whatever, is a part of the complex environment that you can immerse your child in so that they can get the most out of life, learning while enjoying the ride. This absurd ideology that True Parenting(TM) means sitting interacting with your child every waking minute of every day is the height of idiocy, not only psychologically unreasonable but not being based in anything close to reality. Children seek out and love independent play, and it's a critical element of their upbringing.
Money is sometimes a very good incentive, but sometimes things you work for money don't seem as much fun.
When monetary rewards are offered in these sorts of events, it's often the sense of competition rather than the actual purse that draws people in. e.g. You want to win basically because you believe that other people are really motivated by the money, so a win would be that much more legitimate. Of course most of them are playing out the same logic in their heads. Look at the xprize as a good example - for most of the projects the actual win money was a token amount, and a couple of the projects were funded by very deep pockets, yet it created a fierce tournament.
This is the reason why many people get such enjoyment out of card games or bets where small stakes are up for grabs. Real money, even a token amount, seemingly makes it more "real" of a contest.
I'm not really sure, but rather am giving my interpretation. It could have to do with the granularity of the various codecs as well - e.g. When you're playing in realtime, you can't process a minute of the song over 10 seconds (greater than real-time, but in such a coarse chunk) and then send it all through -- you have to continually feed the very shallow play buffer of the airport express. I can see this having specific codec requirements that wouldn't be a concern for FLAC.
Right. And when you play audio from your PC, generally you want it to start playing on the Airport Express immediately, and in real time -- matching the audio playing on your PC. Ergo, realtime.
I'm not really sure how the grandparent post confused you.
Perhaps you missed the news, but the ominous warnings were that the flight would have to be abandoned because of the loss, and they just didn't know how it was going to turn out. Furthermore, apparently it landed on fumes.
In other words your indignant post is a load of shit.
What is unknown is the amount of fuel left when the craft was landed
One would have to presume that they calculated the necessary amount of fuel beforehand to achieve the lightest flight weight possible. It seems inconceivable that they really lost 2,600 lbs of fuel and still completed the journey fine.
I see three possibilities.
-The whole "loss of fuel" thing was a huge publicity stunt that worked wonderfully. Oooh, the anxiety!
-Their inflight measurements were wrong.
-They REALLY overfilled it, and had plenty to slop around.
In case you haven't noticed, the submission was referring to what Steve Jobs titled John Sculley, in reference to the fact that Sculley previously headed Pepsi.
As the other poster indicated, it does run a P4-derived Celeron [as a sidenote, isn't it about time to retire the product name Celeron? It has caused confusion since the days of the Celeron 300a]. Personally I'd rather it ran a low-power processor, such as a Pentium M or Powerstep processor, or even the via processors (formerly Cyrix). A 2.4Ghz Celeron is a ridiculous power hog for something that plays MP3s. Hell I put together a fully capable full-video media player machine with a 2.4Ghz Celeron.
Re:Single video card not going to cut it?
on
SLI Primer
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You do realize, don't you, that super duper hyper mondo killa consoles that will eviscerate PCs and put an end to them for gaming once and for all has been predicted for about two decades now?
Amazing how everything old is new again. Everything under the sun.
Slashdot Mirror
As if some PDAs aren't quirky enough...
On top of that, to the best of my knowledge PDA doesn't stand for Pstylus Digital Assistant. A PDA is, by definition, a small portable electronic device to storing and accessing information. This is a PDA turned sideways with an interface that uses large buttons navigable by thumb.
Woot!
Why not switch to Microsoft's MSN Search then? I hear it's pretty cool.
You've taken the thread out of context if you think I was supporting a specific criticism of Google (though I think your notion that Google is a poor, downtrodden whipping poor is outrageously ridiculous. Google is still living a honeymoon, being a huge megacorp but with much of the public acting like they're the kindly underdog).
My comment was in retort to a comment that proposed that Google can do whatever they please, something which I actually agree with (within reason), and because they can do what they please they should be free of any sober questioning or criticism. That is nonsensical.
Good day Z0mb1eman.
If you replace "Google" with "Microsoft" in a paragraph, OF COURSE it's not going to make much sense, but you didn't prove anything.
While you gave some examples, your examples substitute something completely unrelated to the original statement, completely undermining the point you're making with ridiculous examples. Basically it's a strawman of the technique used.
Google and Microsoft, on the other hand, are very similar corporate interests, especially relevant given that this whole discussion tended towards the rights a corporation have to do what they please. As such, I feel that the correlation between the two statements is entirely accurate and valid, and it is a schism in the Slashdotter value system that they seem so judgementally different.
We are talking about Google forcing high rankings on their own content on their own search engine.
Indeed, and honestly this story sounds like much ado about nothing. Having said that, some of the replies implied that Google basically has free reign to do whatever they like without users and consumers having the right to publicly question and criticize, and it was that implication that I was arguing against.
Indeed this is correct. It was a "spit something out and go do some work" kind of post and I should have previewed. Mea culpa.
Bah. Insert a in there in your brain parse. That's what I get for unitalicizing the continuance periods.
Absolutely. People tend to forget that google is a corporation. They can do whatever they want with their search engine...Google is not making a search engine out of the goodness of their heart.
Right. Other people tend to forget that Google is not immune from oversight and criticism because they are a private corporation, and it is fully justified to call them on their activities if and when they pursue questionable avenues. No one, at least to my knowledge, is calling for government intervention, but are merely spreading the word of potentially hypocritical activities. As a user of search engines I want to hear this public criticism as it may eventually make me switch to whatever the new search engine is.
As a sidenote, I find it remarkable how defensive the general Slashdot community is about Google. Let's try your post in a slightly different light and see what you think about it.
Absolutely. People tend to forget that Microsoft is a corporation. They can do whatever they want with their software. Their goal in life is to keep you buying their goods and using their software so that they can lock you in and sell you more! Its all about money. Google is not making software out of the goodness of their heart.
Did you know that the Canadian Government does NOT allow immigration to Canada by those either physically or menatally disabled?
There are 6 billion people on this planet. Sure it would be nice if Canada could just open her arms and let the world in, and by some bizarre paradox of economics we could still support "free" healthcare and quality education, but that isn't realistic. Boo hoo stories about who Canada won't let in, as if the world has some sacred right to the peaceful society and generous services that we've eaked out here, really are built on a foundation of bullshit.
Absolutely nothing at all. The article that was referenced has to do with refugees, and the problem of so-called refugees who shop between the countries for the best success. This is beneficial to neither country, which is why the agreement was decided upon.
Whichever country wants to idealistically toss rocks is happy to have whoever we turn away.
(Bogus refugees, it should be noted, circumvent the normal immigration process, jumping in front of a lot of dedicated, process-following immigrants. It is a serious problem).
Yes.. But having dissassembly output does...
.NET developer since the outself. The reasons are fairly obvious and logical-
.NET true believers think this is the only way. .NET is about a new, more powerful development paradigm atop the existing infrastructure. Even on a going forward basis there is no concerted push for "100% managed" - appropriate code goes in the unamanged layer, and wrappers are created. It's pragmatic, efficient development.
.NET apps are generally extremely fast. The hard to justify "Pure" campaign, such as that seen in the Java camp, has never flown in the .NET world.
.NET platform, proving the vision.
I've never read the writings of Mr. Grimes (or, as he likes to be called, Grimey), however I'm highly suspicious of his chops if this is really the aha moment of his argument. The fact that much of the framework is just a managed veneer over unmanaged code, mostly the Win32 code base, has been known to every half-decent
-.NET was never about rewriting the entire platform, even though some
-Much of the underlying unmanaged code is extremely fast, native code, that has been optimized for years (see the excellent crypo libraries). This is the reason why
-There is a thin wrapper API, meaning that they can implement the underlying code on another platform, in either managed or unmanaged code, and the API will work. Mono has implemented a lot of the code that is implemented in Windows service code on the Microsoft
There's nothing to see here.
Well, it's good you're not going to argue because that's the only part of that sentence that made any sense.
Remarkable how most other people would easily determine that I missed the word "part", but you have trouble with it. Not surprizing.
If you can't deal with the reality that parents DID spend more time
You have an extraordinary inability to read, and the only argument you appear capable of having is against strawmen. My statement was that parents don't, shouldn't, and never have spent every waking minute fawning over their children, and that there are periods of independent learning where children effectively use toys, electronics, books, or whatever. This is very necessary part of development.
Good parents spend time with their children rather than letting an electronic device babysit the kids....The kind of parent you are is demonstrated by your extreme reaction to that and by you having to resort to false dichotomies.
This is just too, to use it in a modernist sense, ironic.
The ability to produce offspring does not, in any way, make you more of an expert of raising them.
The ability to type doesn't make you any more of an expert. Apparently, though, the ability to type doesn't imply the ability to read, as I clearly stated that I was more sensitive to these sorts of comments because of parenthood, not that it made me any more of an expert. I will say this, though - it is absolutely remarkable what high standards people have before they've actually done something, and it's amazing how much those standards change in the real world.
Actually, it was the standard until recently. The babies were looked after until they were old enough to start helping with the chores. They learned what to do by helping their parents.
Ah, the good old days. The days when a dozen children didn't all fight for a moment of attention from parents who were too busy trying to subsist -- instead they all got individual around the clock loving care. They had a real Santa Claus back then too.
Keep believing that.
You see, here's the problem - you're just an idiot with an opinion and a bloated sense of the value of that opinion. I'm not even going to bother arguing with such a blowhard given how absolutely rudimentary of child psychology and early education, pounded home in every tome about childcare.
When will parents stop relegating their childrens' upbringing to toys (including TV) and start giving the children what is rightfully theirs: a human touch? If you can't be bothered to play a central role in your child's life, then don't have a child!
What a load of shit. I'm speaking in generalities as that's how your painted with your righteous brush, rather than specifically about this rather dubious bear.
Perhaps I'm a little sensitive about this given that I actually have a child with another on the way shortly, compared to the countless armchair parents out there espousing their great views on parenting.
This toy, like television, video games, books, puzzles, or whatever, is a part of the complex environment that you can immerse your child in so that they can get the most out of life, learning while enjoying the ride. This absurd ideology that True Parenting(TM) means sitting interacting with your child every waking minute of every day is the height of idiocy, not only psychologically unreasonable but not being based in anything close to reality. Children seek out and love independent play, and it's a critical element of their upbringing.
Money is sometimes a very good incentive, but sometimes things you work for money don't seem as much fun.
When monetary rewards are offered in these sorts of events, it's often the sense of competition rather than the actual purse that draws people in. e.g. You want to win basically because you believe that other people are really motivated by the money, so a win would be that much more legitimate. Of course most of them are playing out the same logic in their heads. Look at the xprize as a good example - for most of the projects the actual win money was a token amount, and a couple of the projects were funded by very deep pockets, yet it created a fierce tournament.
This is the reason why many people get such enjoyment out of card games or bets where small stakes are up for grabs. Real money, even a token amount, seemingly makes it more "real" of a contest.
I'm not really sure, but rather am giving my interpretation. It could have to do with the granularity of the various codecs as well - e.g. When you're playing in realtime, you can't process a minute of the song over 10 seconds (greater than real-time, but in such a coarse chunk) and then send it all through -- you have to continually feed the very shallow play buffer of the airport express. I can see this having specific codec requirements that wouldn't be a concern for FLAC.
Right. And when you play audio from your PC, generally you want it to start playing on the Airport Express immediately, and in real time -- matching the audio playing on your PC. Ergo, realtime.
I'm not really sure how the grandparent post confused you.
For the sake of maintaining the Utah readership, hopefully this isn't signed into law.
Yep, sounds like a hell of a PR stunt.
Perhaps you missed the news, but the ominous warnings were that the flight would have to be abandoned because of the loss, and they just didn't know how it was going to turn out. Furthermore, apparently it landed on fumes.
In other words your indignant post is a load of shit.
What is unknown is the amount of fuel left when the craft was landed
One would have to presume that they calculated the necessary amount of fuel beforehand to achieve the lightest flight weight possible. It seems inconceivable that they really lost 2,600 lbs of fuel and still completed the journey fine.
I see three possibilities.
-The whole "loss of fuel" thing was a huge publicity stunt that worked wonderfully. Oooh, the anxiety!
-Their inflight measurements were wrong.
-They REALLY overfilled it, and had plenty to slop around.
I will agree with that. In fact was it edited after first appearing? Each time I've read it I've yielded a different conclusion.
In case you haven't noticed, the submission was referring to what Steve Jobs titled John Sculley, in reference to the fact that Sculley previously headed Pepsi.
While it is actually a Celeron, note this benchmark of CPUs encoding MP3s.
As the other poster indicated, it does run a P4-derived Celeron [as a sidenote, isn't it about time to retire the product name Celeron? It has caused confusion since the days of the Celeron 300a]. Personally I'd rather it ran a low-power processor, such as a Pentium M or Powerstep processor, or even the via processors (formerly Cyrix). A 2.4Ghz Celeron is a ridiculous power hog for something that plays MP3s. Hell I put together a fully capable full-video media player machine with a 2.4Ghz Celeron.
You do realize, don't you, that super duper hyper mondo killa consoles that will eviscerate PCs and put an end to them for gaming once and for all has been predicted for about two decades now?
Amazing how everything old is new again. Everything under the sun.
How is that "getting exactly what they want"? Paying out massive settlements isn't exactly what most organizations want.
Of course what you are really saying is "exactly what Sony and Philips want", which is enough money that they're happy to offer a patent license.