Exactly. "Oh, I think I'll put all my important information completely under someone else's control. That way, when it's lost, I can just point the finger at the cloud instead of taking responsibility for my own data."
I think you are out of line *forcing* other users to abide by your view of how the desktop should operate.
Not just am I in full agreement about this, but I've run into a number of non-tech savvy users who accidentally "delete" things and the only thing that saves them big headaches is that the files are in the recycle bin where a friend or tech who's more tech savvy can dig them out.
(directed at the article poster, and others who've done this) One must always understand that your/my/others proficiency in something does not mean that everyone is as proficient. Regardless of whether the name is intuitive or not, in this instance, the function of the Recycle Bin was something Microsoft was spot on with, and had a decent understanding of what the average computer user needs.
Thus a better method of dealing with Recycle Bin bloat would be to train users on the following:
Permanently delete (ie: Shift delete) vs moving to the Recycle Bin
Emptying the Recycle Bin
Pruning content in the Recycle Bin
Doing that would provide your friends/customers/whatever a much greater service than actually disabling a feature of Windows that does indeed serve a valuable purpose. And if you want, show them how to disable it - but only with full explanation of the implications of doing so being provided as well.
Agreed. Don't let the fact that it's been narrowed down to two particular firmware versions on one phone get in the way of the fun!
Actually, an extreme minority of users have been pushed this update. And considering that WP7 users are already an extreme minority, that means a hundred people is probably a big deal. Think about it... take "an extreme minority of smartphone users" (WP7 phone owners) and then take an extreme minority of them (the Samsung users in the limited initial staged rollout who are part of the earlier mentioned extreme minority) and perhaps the problem IS bigger than you allude to.
If people RTFAs, they'd have noted this. This was not a mass rollout. It was a staged rollout to a smaller percentage of people with certain Samsung phones. If this was a mass rollout, (and perhaps if WP7 marketshare wasn't negligible), then I'd agree with you.
What he's doing is completely legal. Quite how much money he makes would be interesting to see, anyone buying a 3d package would surely do a small amount of research. Law of averages will prevail I suppose.
He's been doing this for ages, and does it with various other software packages.
Yeah, he bundles the software with tutorials and such. In this case "300 hours of videos and tutorials included with IllusionMage" - or "IllusionMage & Blender contains the software, a complete 250+ page illustrated digital manual, tutorials, and over 8 hours of video training, tutorials and examples"
I guess, mostly, people need to read and decide if the tutorials are worth the price.
I'm no Apple shill. I dont even own one. But I AM and HAVE BEEN a computer technician for DECADES. You wrote entire nonsense above. Toshibas have a MUCH higher failure rate. Lately (the last 5+ years), so has Dell/Gateway/eMachines. I know... I work on them all the time. HP's failure rate has been absurdly high lately (largely due to major design flaws in hinges in two massive lines). As for Dell, Dell's failure rate is massive too, but Dell doesn't seem to count things like the stupid AC adapter identifier chip burning out.
MANY HP servers, and various IBM servers are NOT rackable easily and numerous DELLs are NOT stackable either.
As for case locks, MANY MANY WinPCs do NOT come with them. Additionally, a screwdriver in place of a key will usually open the ones that DO come with locks (been there, done that dozens if not HUNDREDS of times when a customer loses their keys and wants an upgrade or needs a failed component replaced).
Both Dell and HP/Compaq sell SATA servers (as does IBM). All three sell the SATA drives at a ridiculous premium.
Here's one from from HP that comes with either SATA or SAS depending on how you configure it:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF04a/15351-15351-241434-241646-3328424.html
As a matter of fact, EVERY PRE-CONFIGURED VERSION OF IT IS SATA:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF25a/15351-15351-241434-241646-3328424-3984625.html
Should I post links to Dell, IBM and "Compaq" servers also to prove this point?
You really don't know what you are talking about - but then again, I'm not the only one who's told you that. Guess you could choose to keep on looking even more stupid or more like a shill or a troll - that's up to you.
Ok I just cant take it any longer. It is "toe" the line not "tow"
Fuck me, it not that difficult, simple common sense and comprehension. Where would you tow the line to?
I'd like to tow it to someplace more reasonable than where it currently sits. Wouldn't you? And I guess that makes the use of the word "tow" a lot more applicable for those/. denizens who have responded.:-)
I've admined hundreds of iMacs, a few Xserves, and dozens of Mac pros. The iMacs suck huge donkey balls. They overheat constantly
Kinda like way too numerous Windows machines? Toshibas were (are) notorious for this, as one for instance.
and there is no way to lock them down.
Kinda like Windows?
You can set an nvram password but that is trivially defeated mechanically (in a way that can't be physically locked down).
Kinda like on the PC platform?
The best you can do is use video cameras and restrict physical access to the machine itself with a keycard type system, the review the tapes religiously.
Again, kinda like Windows machines?
The Xserves use cheap sata drives marked up 200%,
Wow, much like much of the "professional" cheapo servers from... Dell, HP and others?
and the Mac pros don't stack well nor fit sideways in a rack (or have redundant power). The only thing driving apple hardware sales is their software, and they know it.
Wow, much like most of the machines out there in the PC world until you go into the 5 digit range (or mid to high 4 digit if you are lucky) or custom build?
I'm not slamming the WinPC world... I am pointing out that what you are posting is irrelevant since it's a relatively even playing field in the areas you mention. Thus, you should be comparing Apples to WinPCs in OTHER areas... you know... the ones where the end results aren't the same for the comparison. Then, perhaps you can troll one side or the other.
Then again, the real world is a lot more stressful...
Stress isn't really linked to actual importance. Like losing your job is not necessarily more stressful than deleting a facebook friend. Stress is more about emotional attachment and an inability to resolve conflict.
Not quite applicable in this scenario. Most people with "tons" of "Facebook Friends" don't even know the people. Having an "emotional attachment" to people you don't even know (causing a situation where deleting them causes emotional stress) would be the problem if your scenario is correct. It's an unreasonable reaction, and would still indicate that real world problems would (or should) be even more stressful to those types of people.
I dont find the amount of FB friends I have stressful, nor do I find deleting any of them stressful. I think people need to start reconnecting with the real world if they suffer stress from such things. Then again, the real world is a lot more stressful... maybe they should keep wasting their time on FB worrying about such "stressful" things - it's a lot less stress than the real world nowadays.
I agree that ALL assumptions should be challenged... but that means the same goes for the Bible. Sadly, as hardly mentioned by those who push creationism, the Bible is contradictory, including TWO stories about it. So, I'd say both sides suffer from that problem (ignoring what information doesn't seem to fit). But as to each contradicting each other, that isn't the case, when one removes nonsense (or perhaps mistranslations) such as 6,000 year old Earth, and equating one of your god's days as 24 hours. After such things are removed from the Biblical account, neither are contradictory, and as I said, it then simply becomes one (the Bible) talking about who did the work with a very very very un-detailed account of what was done, compared to one (the scientific theories) talking about the mechanics of what happened. As per my car example above, there's nothing contradictory in either, and nothing that scientists, creationists, Christians, atheists, agnostics, etc, should be beating each other over their heads with - which just leaves us all distancing ourselves from the right wing nutcases (on BOTH "sides" of the equation).
I dont think a single thing in the Bible is scientific in nature - but that does not mean that I also dont think it's not a retelling (accurate, exaggerated, or something inbetween (depending on the story)) of an event or events. There's no fight from me on that point. Biblical creation (along with any/all other myths held in the past or present by other people), I think, should be taught in philosophy or history class, simply because it does not fit the *definition* of science.
Because the Bible primarily delves into "who did this" and "who did that" and not "how was this done", there's also no conflict. Again, like my car analogy. But that also brings us full circle to my point... even if the Bible is 100% accurate, since science is concerned with the "how" and not the "who", there's virtually nothing in the Bible that's inter-related to science. As a matter of fact, looking solely for the "how" without considering the "who" means everyone can participate in the journey, without feeling like it's a slap in the face against their beliefs... whether atheist, Wiccan, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, or whatever. We can each choose our own "who" while working together to figure out the "how" - assuming we can ALL learn to NOT listen to right wing nut jobs that are trying to divide us apart on what should be a mutual journey.
Google is pushing an open codec while Microsoft is pushing a closed one. It's to Google's benefit to have an open web, and to Microsoft's to close it off as much as possible. Not much has changed.
Not entirely accurate. Microsoft is ALSO pushing Windows Media Player and all the Microsoft support plugins that go along with it on the browser end. I chose Chrome (or Firefox) over IE so I could UNinstall the Microsoft crapware - not so I could install more of it. I do NOT trust their plugins or the security risks they bring along for the ride. Sure, many pieces of software have such issues, but Microsoft is, by and large, the slowest to fix such issues. Heck, as horrendous (in some aspects) as Flash is, there's a new update for it seemingly every few hours to address issues (ok, maybe not quite every few hours, but you get the point). Nor would I want to watch videos via a plugin that calls a massive, bloated and slow app (WMP).
And I wonder when this becomes a back door for pushing Silverlight?
There is no penalty specified in Leviticus 19:19, where it talks about cloth woven with different materials. I am not sure where you got a death penalty for that.
From various of your religious leaders, and when not them, from Jewish religious leaders.
Just a bit of history: every foot of ground in the middle east was Christian or Pagan before Mohammad ~900 AD, so every town he converted with the sword was something else before he killed those that would not convert. The Christian response could be considered self defense and defense of those who could not defend themselves.
No it cant (be considered self defense). Since most of the ground in the Middle East was NOT Christian (or Jewish) a few centuries before that - until your/Jewish religious leaders decided that your god wanted your people to take it.
I just finished Gibbons "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" (downloaded from Gutenberg.org), which covers the rise of Islam.
I sure don't feel like a privileged majority.
In this country, you should. In this country, you still are.
The Christian viewpoint is excluded from all textbooks by Madalyn Murray O'Hair and her legacy.
Even if ID or Creationism had some valid input, it would not be acceptable to atheists on the principal that anything that weakens evolution is unacceptable.
Wrong, that's standard church dogma. No one thinks it weakens evolution. As I discussed earlier, the two can coexist without invalidating each other. Only right wing zealots (and the more normal people they lie to about this) believe that atheists feel that way. But this brings us back to your "Even if" - which is the true crux of the problem. "If" it had some valid input, then by all means, lets fit to have that input included - I'd be right alongside you in that fight. But it does not.
I took the time to review the "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" on Talk origins. Many of the 29+ evidences could support the design hypothesis just as easily as Macroevolution by replacing 'Common Ancestor' with 'Common Designer'.
While that's not really true (replace common...), it still brings us back to my point, that I've repeated a LOT of times. The two CAN coexist. Let's say I design and build a car and leave no notes on how I did it and the engineering marvels I incorporated. It would be SCIENCE to figure out what those things are (with no need to analyze that *I* did the work). It would be HISTORY to look at the fact that *I* did the work. See the point? You're confusing "history" (or myths) with science. This is why neither side is at odds with the other.
So, again, I will repeat. ONLY THE CRAZY, NUTJOB, RELIGIOUS WRONG keep creating this controversy, and SOLELY for their singular agenda of replacing much or all of science AND history with Bible teachings. In the process, they are lying to the normal, religious, sane people; creating a controversy that does NOT exist.
Here's the sad thing... that damage is working on BOTH sides of this. It gets atheists who are misrepresented in the Religious Wrong's nonsense up in arms fighting the normal, sane religious people because they too (like the normal religious people) believe the nonsense spouted by the religious wrong.
See the problem? Both scenarios CAN coexist. As a whole, there's little argument against such, except from the vocal nutjobs. And sadly, both sides (religious/non-religious, creationists/scientists) are falling for the nonsense that the religious wrong are spouting and getting into (and perpetuating) a conflict that does NOT really exist.
The one argument they make that might hold water is the 'vestige organ' argument: Why would God give us 99% of the cure for Scurvy?
The answer is that we live in a fallen, imperfect world.
Yeah, (by your book) that's his fault. He created this wo
I have not been claiming that the bible contains science, but that it can inform science. Further, I am questioning those that present a conclusion without data, and I do not really care whether the conclusion is about something in the bible, or something in Scientific American, I want to see the facts, not some concocted interpretation of the facts. When the facts do not support an interpretation, why should I accept the interpretation?
As far as dabbling is concerned, some very interesting science is done by dabbling, so don't stop. I would encourage you to drive for facts instead of being content with other folks' interpretations, and that holds for bible as well as Science. It is far better to have tracked something down yourself than to just repeat someone else's work.
I would still like to hear your basis for believing the universe to contain measurable quantities.
Well, since informing science isn't science, then it's contents should not be taught AS science, which is the goal of these sorts of laws. I think that concludes that part of the discussion now that we're both on the same page. I've got nothing against using ANYTHING to inform science... but as we both now finally admit to and agree upon, that does not make it science.
As for the rest (dabbling, etc), I agree. They are studies I am very interested on, and almost made into a career (until other things called more strongly).
As for facts and interpretations, I always try to dig for the facts. There are tons of them... problem is, it's generally not the facts that are reported (or when they are, they're buried places where most people never find them). I though, dig for the facts, which is why I am not at odds with the current theories of evolution or the creation of the universe. That doesn't mean I think we have all of the answers (or even most of them), but from what I have seen, it does look like we're on the right track. Dig for them yourself. The interpretations haven't come out of the blue. Numerous colleges and research centers test and try to disprove everything they can in these theories. Theories are just that... the best explanations, based on the facts we have, to explain a situation, and in a way where they can be tested, re-tested, proved and disproved.
As for the universe having measurable quantities, I never said it did or did not. I see no reason why it should not, but I also admit I don't have a sufficient understanding of the universe to say that it is or isn't measurable. I never take scientific theories on faith - or even on the facts that present themselves to create those theories. But on the other hand, I most definitely do not take anything on faith alone (with little to no facts) as an explanation for anything. Science fortunately does not dabble in faith, whether conclusions are right or wrong. Because yes, an interpretation of facts can be wrong, but at least it requires critical thinking, analysis, testing and more... while taking something on faith requires... well... nothing (except faith). That's a great way to stagnate and learn nothing and get nowhere. Funny thing is, as you and I both know (and from what you yourself pointed out about what's said in the Bible) as we are encouraged to delve deeper into this world and universe to learn more, stopping on faith and what's in your book is not the way - and thus we turn to science.
Yes, there is some crackpot science out there... but there are some pretty crackpot ideas in the Bible too (like killing your neighbor for wearing clothes of two different materials; I think that summarizes virtually every guy who wears a pair of socks or underwear, which is composed of "100% cotton" - oh, and those other parts that provide elasticity and stitching)... so, while the Bible shouldn't be discounted because of the numerous passages comprised of vile sickness and nonsense, neither should science be discounted because there are a few people claiming to be scientists who are actually way off their rocker.
Just because you can get something past an idiot judge doesn't mean that it's ethical to do so.
But sadly, just because it isn't ethical to do so, doesn't change the fact that they're trying to get crap past idiot judges. There's the problem. The ethics are irrelevant to the end result in such situations.
IT IS SONY'S FUCKING FAULT. They are the ones that LOBBIED and PAYED politcians Like Joe Biden and Orin Hatch for the fucking DMCA and basically WROTE THE FUCKING LAW along with MPAA/RIAA. SONY CAN GO FUCK ITSELF. Not purchasing anymore Sony products ever ever ever again and will actively warn EVERYONE I KNOW not to buy ANY Sony products.
And finally, I'd have an actual desire to go out and buy the video...;-)
You act like it's Sony's fault that our justice system lets them get away with this crap.
Good point... I'd agree that all the lobbying, bribes, "sponsoring" laws, misusing DHS and "special considerations" given to our representatives that companies like Sony make have no effect on such things.
We're still learning what the core of the Earth is made of. As a matter of fact, it was just recently, we discovered that Yellowstone caldera probably reaches to the core mantle (and is many many times more massive than we thought).
This is where calculating the stuff is very difficult... we're still learning the basics needed to calculate such stuff.
Though calculating the numbers of such things may be easy in itself, let's look at Yellowstone again... 26 million times the explosive force of the Hiroshima bomb...
Fluid dynamics come in when analyzing plate tectonics (and mountain building and such) because of the "fluid" that the Earth's crust floats on. One must also take into account erosion forces (in conjunction with those) when it comes to building mountains or creating valleys (the Grand Canyon, for instance), and the type of rock (back to geology again) and how that is affected by tectonics, erosion and fluid dynamics. There are tons of other factors and inter-related sciences involved as well.
I have only a cursory understanding of such things, and have only dabbled in such studies... but I have dabbled in all the relevant studies. With that understanding, I know it's well beyond my expertise level. My point was, for anyone (and you may or may not fit into this category) who has "dabbled less", it's not even a subject worth speculating on.
As for the definition of scientific theory...
First, an interesting counter-point. You claim that science is a religion (a vast minority viewpoint), and thus you dont think it should be taught, but claim that your religion, classified by EVERYONE as a religion, SHOULD be taught instead? That seems kinda absurd.
But back to the definition - read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Nothing in the Bible fits those criteria. Thus, nothing in the Bible fits the definition of scientific theory. One cannot change the definition simply to fit their desires.
Now, back to this one more time. You write:
I assume by science you mean a statistically significant result of a repeatable experiment regarding a changable phenomena. With that I will agree, with the possible exception of the statistics in the book of numbers, which are enough to cross anyone's eyes. Where the bible can speak is to the question of initial conditions, something that every reputable experiment deals with.
Simply because what's in the Bible matches one TINY aspect of the definition of scientific theory, does not make it scientific theory. That's like saying that a bicycle is a car, because they both have wheels. Nothing in the Bible meets THE REST of the criteria to be considered scientific theory.
And as for the religion aspect. First, Christians are HARDLY a persecuted lot. On the other hand, Christians have OFTEN been the persecutors... NUMEROUS holy wars, burning witches at the stake, wiping out the Indians, gay bashing and killing in the name of your god (to this very day, which is something fortunately the law does not look kindly on). And as for holy wars today, it is the Old Testament (in it's various forms) that is the cause of the ongoing Holy Wars in the middle east... or did you forget that it's that basis, in whatever form they read it, that other religions (Judaism to name only one) use as the basis for their ongoing (to this very day) Holy War?
Science is NOT a religion. Science doesn't even invalidate many of the things in the Bible (except such idiocy as a 6,000 year old flat earth and the likes). The two do NOT overlap. As I mentioned before, the big bang theory, which describes the atomic mechanisms of the creation of the universe are not at odds with the biblical MYTH, (assuming one decides one of your god's days is much longer than ours)... right through the "let there be light"/"BANG" and the creation of stars, planets, animals and such. The difference is, one has no scientific theory and is simply a myth... wh
Ummm, it's OSP or ISP. And Google is both an OSP and ISP. These incidents are ones where Google is protected as an OSP (or ISP) *BY* the DMCA. These letters were written for end-user Internet users, not for an OSP or ISP.
In case you don't understand the difference, an OSP is an online service provider, such as say "gmail" (if it was an entity). Since Google provides such online services to many users, it fits in the OSP category. An ISP is an INTERNET service provider... such as... Google, who also provides internet to numerous users.
In either event, Google is protected. As an OSP, their ISP could be approached... but the problem is, this is an issue with them as an ISP, not an OSP, in which case, they should be approached as the ISP for those people who infringed (and it would be those people who's Internet may be able to be cut off using the DMCA). Even if the OSP definition fit these circumstances, MPAA would have to do the proper legwork first... issue takedown notices, and Google would have to refuse to take them down... but this isn't about content uploaded to Google's online services; it's about people who use Google's internet to download stuff from off-Google-land.
Anyone can quote the law... but fortunately for the sake of this discussion, it's actually been my job to understand this particular law. And now, you do too (at least this part of it);-)
Cinema revenue has been increasing because of the higher price point of 3D movies, and the general increase in ticket prices....
Mostly wrong (and in effect, entirely wrong). Ticket prices have went up in most markets a whopping dollar (maybe $2) in the last 5 years. That's an extra TEN CENTS for the cinema per ticket. And I guarantee you that the rental charge on the movies (paid to the studios) went up and eats that away and then some.
A cinema pays to get the movie, then the cinema also pays usually 90% of the receipts to the studio for a number of weeks. Then that figure goes to 80%, and slowly goes down (at about the point no one is watching the movie).
Now, preferential treatment is also given to theaters with certain setups (this certified sound system, or that certified projection system) - which also means constant upgrade costs to the newest (insert tech here... 5.1-> 5.1 extended -> 7.1 -> on and on... or going to the new digital systems).
There really is a reason why popcorn is so expensive. Take it from someone with inside information into how it works... or go research it yourself.
Lol - I'm not sure where you are getting your information - but
Our basements (though not always basements) are warm, happy places filled with 7.2 surround sound, huge screens (when you take into account seating distance, our home screens be they 50" plasma/lcd or 100" projected are proportionally much larger than the typical megaplex view).
We don't have kids chatting on mobiles, kicking the backs of our seats - and if we have a crying baby - we can pause the movie, care to their needs and then pickup where we left off.
We can have our selection of tasty treats without paying massive markups
We still can share these benefits with our friends, family. And "necking in the back row at the picture show" goes on and on and on:D
Why are you going to the cinema again?
Mine's in the back yard. It's only 17'x13' though (masked for 16:9 and 16:10 content), and run with a Barco projector that does HD. Though, I must admit, we only have a 5.1 surround system. But at 15' away, the screen might as well be a lot bigger.
Google has been buying dark fiber left and right, by now they probably have enough to connect themselves to several major ISPs. Pretty soon those ISPs would be offering you a choice between two internet connections
- The old internet, with the MPAA website on it
- The Google Internet (tm), the one with youtube, google, gmail etc....
1080p is roughly 1/4 of the pixel count of a 2K scanned movie. Big project movies are scanned at 4K for at least some scenes. IMAX uses a 3D domed projection screen to give you close to 180 degrees viewing angle. Try recreating that with a flat screen at home.
Actually, in this order: wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
1080p is 1920 horizontal lines compared to Cinema 2k at 2048. Vertical resolution is about the same (due to aspect ratio differences). Actual number of pixels is generally very close.
Most movies are not scanned at 4k. And of those filmed digitally, most are not filmed at 4k, and are instead filmed at 1080p. Many movies that have 4k scenes have 1080p scenes that are upres'd. And finally, you are mistaking IMAX surround screens (the half domes) with IMAX 3D screens (which are a lot different, and not half domes). And replicating an almost flat screen viewing situation with a flat screen viewing situation isn't that difficult. And that's assuming the homeowner does not have a curved screen.
First, the laws (which have been in place since this country was founded) are not what you think. Second, science isn't an orthodoxy. Third, Christianity, is by far, the most widely practiced religion in this country. It is people like me who do not hold to that faith, that are the small minority and being infringed upon by being forced to learn such things. Fourth, finally, you admit to this being about proving (an impossible thing) that this is about the god of Christianity being the creator of all things - that is a HIGHLY repugnant thought to me in MANY respects. I NEVER EVER wish to believe such a demented creature created life in this universe. He is the biggest mass murderer (from your vaunted book) in the history of humankind. You are free to worship whatever you want, but I *refuse* to be forced to be taught such stuff, nor would I ever let my kids be taught such. That's what Bible School, Sunday School and Catholic schools are for. Oh... and once again, it's against the laws of man and your god. Keep in mind, preaching the word of your god (as encouraged in your Bible) is different than forcibly indoctrinating people into your religion (as discouraged by your Bible).
I do thank you though, for finally admitting, even if it's in a roundabout way, that this is indeed about teaching that your god is the creator of everything, and trying to pass that off as science.
I won't be sad the day the movie industry goes out of business. I've found other ways to find entertainment which does not involve them. Everything does not have to last forever.
Well, sadly, the rest of us are still looking for girlfriends... congrats to you though.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. "Oh, I think I'll put all my important information completely under someone else's control. That way, when it's lost, I can just point the finger at the cloud instead of taking responsibility for my own data."
But what do you do on a cloudless sunny day?
I think you are out of line *forcing* other users to abide by your view of how the desktop should operate.
Not just am I in full agreement about this, but I've run into a number of non-tech savvy users who accidentally "delete" things and the only thing that saves them big headaches is that the files are in the recycle bin where a friend or tech who's more tech savvy can dig them out.
(directed at the article poster, and others who've done this) One must always understand that your/my/others proficiency in something does not mean that everyone is as proficient. Regardless of whether the name is intuitive or not, in this instance, the function of the Recycle Bin was something Microsoft was spot on with, and had a decent understanding of what the average computer user needs.
Thus a better method of dealing with Recycle Bin bloat would be to train users on the following:
Permanently delete (ie: Shift delete) vs moving to the Recycle Bin
Emptying the Recycle Bin
Pruning content in the Recycle Bin
Doing that would provide your friends/customers/whatever a much greater service than actually disabling a feature of Windows that does indeed serve a valuable purpose. And if you want, show them how to disable it - but only with full explanation of the implications of doing so being provided as well.
Agreed. Don't let the fact that it's been narrowed down to two particular firmware versions on one phone get in the way of the fun!
Actually, an extreme minority of users have been pushed this update. And considering that WP7 users are already an extreme minority, that means a hundred people is probably a big deal. Think about it... take "an extreme minority of smartphone users" (WP7 phone owners) and then take an extreme minority of them (the Samsung users in the limited initial staged rollout who are part of the earlier mentioned extreme minority) and perhaps the problem IS bigger than you allude to.
If people RTFAs, they'd have noted this. This was not a mass rollout. It was a staged rollout to a smaller percentage of people with certain Samsung phones. If this was a mass rollout, (and perhaps if WP7 marketshare wasn't negligible), then I'd agree with you.
What he's doing is completely legal. Quite how much money he makes would be interesting to see, anyone buying a 3d package would surely do a small amount of research. Law of averages will prevail I suppose.
He's been doing this for ages, and does it with various other software packages.
Yeah, he bundles the software with tutorials and such. In this case "300 hours of videos and tutorials included with IllusionMage" - or "IllusionMage & Blender contains the software, a complete 250+ page illustrated digital manual, tutorials, and over 8 hours of video training, tutorials and examples"
I guess, mostly, people need to read and decide if the tutorials are worth the price.
I'm no Apple shill. I dont even own one. But I AM and HAVE BEEN a computer technician for DECADES. You wrote entire nonsense above. Toshibas have a MUCH higher failure rate. Lately (the last 5+ years), so has Dell/Gateway/eMachines. I know... I work on them all the time. HP's failure rate has been absurdly high lately (largely due to major design flaws in hinges in two massive lines). As for Dell, Dell's failure rate is massive too, but Dell doesn't seem to count things like the stupid AC adapter identifier chip burning out.
MANY HP servers, and various IBM servers are NOT rackable easily and numerous DELLs are NOT stackable either.
As for case locks, MANY MANY WinPCs do NOT come with them. Additionally, a screwdriver in place of a key will usually open the ones that DO come with locks (been there, done that dozens if not HUNDREDS of times when a customer loses their keys and wants an upgrade or needs a failed component replaced).
Both Dell and HP/Compaq sell SATA servers (as does IBM). All three sell the SATA drives at a ridiculous premium.
Here's one from from HP that comes with either SATA or SAS depending on how you configure it:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF04a/15351-15351-241434-241646-3328424.html
As a matter of fact, EVERY PRE-CONFIGURED VERSION OF IT IS SATA:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF25a/15351-15351-241434-241646-3328424-3984625.html
Should I post links to Dell, IBM and "Compaq" servers also to prove this point?
You really don't know what you are talking about - but then again, I'm not the only one who's told you that. Guess you could choose to keep on looking even more stupid or more like a shill or a troll - that's up to you.
Ok I just cant take it any longer. It is "toe" the line not "tow"
Fuck me, it not that difficult, simple common sense and comprehension. Where would you tow the line to?
I'd like to tow it to someplace more reasonable than where it currently sits. Wouldn't you? And I guess that makes the use of the word "tow" a lot more applicable for those /. denizens who have responded. :-)
I've admined hundreds of iMacs, a few Xserves, and dozens of Mac pros. The iMacs suck huge donkey balls. They overheat constantly
Kinda like way too numerous Windows machines? Toshibas were (are) notorious for this, as one for instance.
and there is no way to lock them down.
Kinda like Windows?
You can set an nvram password but that is trivially defeated mechanically (in a way that can't be physically locked down).
Kinda like on the PC platform?
The best you can do is use video cameras and restrict physical access to the machine itself with a keycard type system, the review the tapes religiously.
Again, kinda like Windows machines?
The Xserves use cheap sata drives marked up 200%,
Wow, much like much of the "professional" cheapo servers from... Dell, HP and others?
and the Mac pros don't stack well nor fit sideways in a rack (or have redundant power). The only thing driving apple hardware sales is their software, and they know it.
Wow, much like most of the machines out there in the PC world until you go into the 5 digit range (or mid to high 4 digit if you are lucky) or custom build?
I'm not slamming the WinPC world... I am pointing out that what you are posting is irrelevant since it's a relatively even playing field in the areas you mention. Thus, you should be comparing Apples to WinPCs in OTHER areas... you know... the ones where the end results aren't the same for the comparison. Then, perhaps you can troll one side or the other.
Spoken like a true troll who never even used* an Apple product before.
* no, using a Mac for 5 minutes at an Apple store isn't nearly enough.
How about for ten minutes?
Then again, the real world is a lot more stressful...
Stress isn't really linked to actual importance. Like losing your job is not necessarily more stressful than deleting a facebook friend. Stress is more about emotional attachment and an inability to resolve conflict.
Not quite applicable in this scenario. Most people with "tons" of "Facebook Friends" don't even know the people. Having an "emotional attachment" to people you don't even know (causing a situation where deleting them causes emotional stress) would be the problem if your scenario is correct. It's an unreasonable reaction, and would still indicate that real world problems would (or should) be even more stressful to those types of people.
I dont find the amount of FB friends I have stressful, nor do I find deleting any of them stressful. I think people need to start reconnecting with the real world if they suffer stress from such things. Then again, the real world is a lot more stressful... maybe they should keep wasting their time on FB worrying about such "stressful" things - it's a lot less stress than the real world nowadays.
I agree that ALL assumptions should be challenged... but that means the same goes for the Bible. Sadly, as hardly mentioned by those who push creationism, the Bible is contradictory, including TWO stories about it. So, I'd say both sides suffer from that problem (ignoring what information doesn't seem to fit). But as to each contradicting each other, that isn't the case, when one removes nonsense (or perhaps mistranslations) such as 6,000 year old Earth, and equating one of your god's days as 24 hours. After such things are removed from the Biblical account, neither are contradictory, and as I said, it then simply becomes one (the Bible) talking about who did the work with a very very very un-detailed account of what was done, compared to one (the scientific theories) talking about the mechanics of what happened. As per my car example above, there's nothing contradictory in either, and nothing that scientists, creationists, Christians, atheists, agnostics, etc, should be beating each other over their heads with - which just leaves us all distancing ourselves from the right wing nutcases (on BOTH "sides" of the equation).
I dont think a single thing in the Bible is scientific in nature - but that does not mean that I also dont think it's not a retelling (accurate, exaggerated, or something inbetween (depending on the story)) of an event or events. There's no fight from me on that point. Biblical creation (along with any/all other myths held in the past or present by other people), I think, should be taught in philosophy or history class, simply because it does not fit the *definition* of science.
Because the Bible primarily delves into "who did this" and "who did that" and not "how was this done", there's also no conflict. Again, like my car analogy. But that also brings us full circle to my point... even if the Bible is 100% accurate, since science is concerned with the "how" and not the "who", there's virtually nothing in the Bible that's inter-related to science. As a matter of fact, looking solely for the "how" without considering the "who" means everyone can participate in the journey, without feeling like it's a slap in the face against their beliefs... whether atheist, Wiccan, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, or whatever. We can each choose our own "who" while working together to figure out the "how" - assuming we can ALL learn to NOT listen to right wing nut jobs that are trying to divide us apart on what should be a mutual journey.
Google is pushing an open codec while Microsoft is pushing a closed one. It's to Google's benefit to have an open web, and to Microsoft's to close it off as much as possible. Not much has changed.
Not entirely accurate. Microsoft is ALSO pushing Windows Media Player and all the Microsoft support plugins that go along with it on the browser end. I chose Chrome (or Firefox) over IE so I could UNinstall the Microsoft crapware - not so I could install more of it. I do NOT trust their plugins or the security risks they bring along for the ride. Sure, many pieces of software have such issues, but Microsoft is, by and large, the slowest to fix such issues. Heck, as horrendous (in some aspects) as Flash is, there's a new update for it seemingly every few hours to address issues (ok, maybe not quite every few hours, but you get the point). Nor would I want to watch videos via a plugin that calls a massive, bloated and slow app (WMP).
And I wonder when this becomes a back door for pushing Silverlight?
There is no penalty specified in Leviticus 19:19, where it talks about cloth woven with different materials. I am not sure where you got a death penalty for that.
From various of your religious leaders, and when not them, from Jewish religious leaders.
Just a bit of history: every foot of ground in the middle east was Christian or Pagan before Mohammad ~900 AD, so every town he converted with the sword was something else before he killed those that would not convert. The Christian response could be considered self defense and defense of those who could not defend themselves.
No it cant (be considered self defense). Since most of the ground in the Middle East was NOT Christian (or Jewish) a few centuries before that - until your/Jewish religious leaders decided that your god wanted your people to take it.
I just finished Gibbons "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" (downloaded from Gutenberg.org), which covers the rise of Islam.
I sure don't feel like a privileged majority.
In this country, you should. In this country, you still are.
The Christian viewpoint is excluded from all textbooks by Madalyn Murray O'Hair and her legacy.
Even if ID or Creationism had some valid input, it would not be acceptable to atheists on the principal that anything that weakens evolution is unacceptable.
Wrong, that's standard church dogma. No one thinks it weakens evolution. As I discussed earlier, the two can coexist without invalidating each other. Only right wing zealots (and the more normal people they lie to about this) believe that atheists feel that way. But this brings us back to your "Even if" - which is the true crux of the problem. "If" it had some valid input, then by all means, lets fit to have that input included - I'd be right alongside you in that fight. But it does not.
I took the time to review the "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" on Talk origins. Many of the 29+ evidences could support the design hypothesis just as easily as Macroevolution by replacing 'Common Ancestor' with 'Common Designer'.
While that's not really true (replace common...), it still brings us back to my point, that I've repeated a LOT of times. The two CAN coexist. Let's say I design and build a car and leave no notes on how I did it and the engineering marvels I incorporated. It would be SCIENCE to figure out what those things are (with no need to analyze that *I* did the work). It would be HISTORY to look at the fact that *I* did the work. See the point? You're confusing "history" (or myths) with science. This is why neither side is at odds with the other.
So, again, I will repeat. ONLY THE CRAZY, NUTJOB, RELIGIOUS WRONG keep creating this controversy, and SOLELY for their singular agenda of replacing much or all of science AND history with Bible teachings. In the process, they are lying to the normal, religious, sane people; creating a controversy that does NOT exist.
Here's the sad thing... that damage is working on BOTH sides of this. It gets atheists who are misrepresented in the Religious Wrong's nonsense up in arms fighting the normal, sane religious people because they too (like the normal religious people) believe the nonsense spouted by the religious wrong.
See the problem? Both scenarios CAN coexist. As a whole, there's little argument against such, except from the vocal nutjobs. And sadly, both sides (religious/non-religious, creationists/scientists) are falling for the nonsense that the religious wrong are spouting and getting into (and perpetuating) a conflict that does NOT really exist.
The one argument they make that might hold water is the 'vestige organ' argument: Why would God give us 99% of the cure for Scurvy?
The answer is that we live in a fallen, imperfect world.
Yeah, (by your book) that's his fault. He created this wo
I have not been claiming that the bible contains science, but that it can inform science. Further, I am questioning those that present a conclusion without data, and I do not really care whether the conclusion is about something in the bible, or something in Scientific American, I want to see the facts, not some concocted interpretation of the facts. When the facts do not support an interpretation, why should I accept the interpretation?
As far as dabbling is concerned, some very interesting science is done by dabbling, so don't stop. I would encourage you to drive for facts instead of being content with other folks' interpretations, and that holds for bible as well as Science. It is far better to have tracked something down yourself than to just repeat someone else's work.
I would still like to hear your basis for believing the universe to contain measurable quantities.
Well, since informing science isn't science, then it's contents should not be taught AS science, which is the goal of these sorts of laws. I think that concludes that part of the discussion now that we're both on the same page. I've got nothing against using ANYTHING to inform science... but as we both now finally admit to and agree upon, that does not make it science.
As for the rest (dabbling, etc), I agree. They are studies I am very interested on, and almost made into a career (until other things called more strongly).
As for facts and interpretations, I always try to dig for the facts. There are tons of them... problem is, it's generally not the facts that are reported (or when they are, they're buried places where most people never find them). I though, dig for the facts, which is why I am not at odds with the current theories of evolution or the creation of the universe. That doesn't mean I think we have all of the answers (or even most of them), but from what I have seen, it does look like we're on the right track. Dig for them yourself. The interpretations haven't come out of the blue. Numerous colleges and research centers test and try to disprove everything they can in these theories. Theories are just that... the best explanations, based on the facts we have, to explain a situation, and in a way where they can be tested, re-tested, proved and disproved.
As for the universe having measurable quantities, I never said it did or did not. I see no reason why it should not, but I also admit I don't have a sufficient understanding of the universe to say that it is or isn't measurable. I never take scientific theories on faith - or even on the facts that present themselves to create those theories. But on the other hand, I most definitely do not take anything on faith alone (with little to no facts) as an explanation for anything. Science fortunately does not dabble in faith, whether conclusions are right or wrong. Because yes, an interpretation of facts can be wrong, but at least it requires critical thinking, analysis, testing and more... while taking something on faith requires... well... nothing (except faith). That's a great way to stagnate and learn nothing and get nowhere. Funny thing is, as you and I both know (and from what you yourself pointed out about what's said in the Bible) as we are encouraged to delve deeper into this world and universe to learn more, stopping on faith and what's in your book is not the way - and thus we turn to science.
Yes, there is some crackpot science out there... but there are some pretty crackpot ideas in the Bible too (like killing your neighbor for wearing clothes of two different materials; I think that summarizes virtually every guy who wears a pair of socks or underwear, which is composed of "100% cotton" - oh, and those other parts that provide elasticity and stitching)... so, while the Bible shouldn't be discounted because of the numerous passages comprised of vile sickness and nonsense, neither should science be discounted because there are a few people claiming to be scientists who are actually way off their rocker.
Just because you can get something past an idiot judge doesn't mean that it's ethical to do so.
But sadly, just because it isn't ethical to do so, doesn't change the fact that they're trying to get crap past idiot judges. There's the problem. The ethics are irrelevant to the end result in such situations.
IT IS SONY'S FUCKING FAULT. They are the ones that LOBBIED and PAYED politcians Like Joe Biden and Orin Hatch for the fucking DMCA and basically WROTE THE FUCKING LAW along with MPAA/RIAA. SONY CAN GO FUCK ITSELF. Not purchasing anymore Sony products ever ever ever again and will actively warn EVERYONE I KNOW not to buy ANY Sony products.
And finally, I'd have an actual desire to go out and buy the video... ;-)
You act like it's Sony's fault that our justice system lets them get away with this crap.
Good point... I'd agree that all the lobbying, bribes, "sponsoring" laws, misusing DHS and "special considerations" given to our representatives that companies like Sony make have no effect on such things.
Oh, wait...
I'll skip to the "geology" portion...
We're still learning what the core of the Earth is made of. As a matter of fact, it was just recently, we discovered that Yellowstone caldera probably reaches to the core mantle (and is many many times more massive than we thought).
This is where calculating the stuff is very difficult... we're still learning the basics needed to calculate such stuff.
Though calculating the numbers of such things may be easy in itself, let's look at Yellowstone again... 26 million times the explosive force of the Hiroshima bomb...
Fluid dynamics come in when analyzing plate tectonics (and mountain building and such) because of the "fluid" that the Earth's crust floats on. One must also take into account erosion forces (in conjunction with those) when it comes to building mountains or creating valleys (the Grand Canyon, for instance), and the type of rock (back to geology again) and how that is affected by tectonics, erosion and fluid dynamics. There are tons of other factors and inter-related sciences involved as well.
I have only a cursory understanding of such things, and have only dabbled in such studies... but I have dabbled in all the relevant studies. With that understanding, I know it's well beyond my expertise level. My point was, for anyone (and you may or may not fit into this category) who has "dabbled less", it's not even a subject worth speculating on.
As for the definition of scientific theory...
First, an interesting counter-point. You claim that science is a religion (a vast minority viewpoint), and thus you dont think it should be taught, but claim that your religion, classified by EVERYONE as a religion, SHOULD be taught instead? That seems kinda absurd.
But back to the definition - read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Nothing in the Bible fits those criteria. Thus, nothing in the Bible fits the definition of scientific theory. One cannot change the definition simply to fit their desires.
Now, back to this one more time. You write:
I assume by science you mean a statistically significant result of a repeatable experiment regarding a changable phenomena. With that I will agree, with the possible exception of the statistics in the book of numbers, which are enough to cross anyone's eyes. Where the bible can speak is to the question of initial conditions, something that every reputable experiment deals with.
Simply because what's in the Bible matches one TINY aspect of the definition of scientific theory, does not make it scientific theory. That's like saying that a bicycle is a car, because they both have wheels. Nothing in the Bible meets THE REST of the criteria to be considered scientific theory.
And as for the religion aspect. First, Christians are HARDLY a persecuted lot. On the other hand, Christians have OFTEN been the persecutors... NUMEROUS holy wars, burning witches at the stake, wiping out the Indians, gay bashing and killing in the name of your god (to this very day, which is something fortunately the law does not look kindly on). And as for holy wars today, it is the Old Testament (in it's various forms) that is the cause of the ongoing Holy Wars in the middle east... or did you forget that it's that basis, in whatever form they read it, that other religions (Judaism to name only one) use as the basis for their ongoing (to this very day) Holy War?
Science is NOT a religion. Science doesn't even invalidate many of the things in the Bible (except such idiocy as a 6,000 year old flat earth and the likes). The two do NOT overlap. As I mentioned before, the big bang theory, which describes the atomic mechanisms of the creation of the universe are not at odds with the biblical MYTH, (assuming one decides one of your god's days is much longer than ours)... right through the "let there be light"/"BANG" and the creation of stars, planets, animals and such. The difference is, one has no scientific theory and is simply a myth... wh
Ummm, it's OSP or ISP. And Google is both an OSP and ISP. These incidents are ones where Google is protected as an OSP (or ISP) *BY* the DMCA. These letters were written for end-user Internet users, not for an OSP or ISP.
In case you don't understand the difference, an OSP is an online service provider, such as say "gmail" (if it was an entity). Since Google provides such online services to many users, it fits in the OSP category. An ISP is an INTERNET service provider... such as... Google, who also provides internet to numerous users.
In either event, Google is protected. As an OSP, their ISP could be approached... but the problem is, this is an issue with them as an ISP, not an OSP, in which case, they should be approached as the ISP for those people who infringed (and it would be those people who's Internet may be able to be cut off using the DMCA). Even if the OSP definition fit these circumstances, MPAA would have to do the proper legwork first... issue takedown notices, and Google would have to refuse to take them down... but this isn't about content uploaded to Google's online services; it's about people who use Google's internet to download stuff from off-Google-land.
Anyone can quote the law... but fortunately for the sake of this discussion, it's actually been my job to understand this particular law. And now, you do too (at least this part of it) ;-)
Cinema revenue has been increasing because of the higher price point of 3D movies, and the general increase in ticket prices....
Mostly wrong (and in effect, entirely wrong). Ticket prices have went up in most markets a whopping dollar (maybe $2) in the last 5 years. That's an extra TEN CENTS for the cinema per ticket. And I guarantee you that the rental charge on the movies (paid to the studios) went up and eats that away and then some.
A cinema pays to get the movie, then the cinema also pays usually 90% of the receipts to the studio for a number of weeks. Then that figure goes to 80%, and slowly goes down (at about the point no one is watching the movie).
Now, preferential treatment is also given to theaters with certain setups (this certified sound system, or that certified projection system) - which also means constant upgrade costs to the newest (insert tech here... 5.1-> 5.1 extended -> 7.1 -> on and on... or going to the new digital systems).
There really is a reason why popcorn is so expensive. Take it from someone with inside information into how it works... or go research it yourself.
Lol - I'm not sure where you are getting your information - but Our basements (though not always basements) are warm, happy places filled with 7.2 surround sound, huge screens (when you take into account seating distance, our home screens be they 50" plasma/lcd or 100" projected are proportionally much larger than the typical megaplex view). We don't have kids chatting on mobiles, kicking the backs of our seats - and if we have a crying baby - we can pause the movie, care to their needs and then pickup where we left off. We can have our selection of tasty treats without paying massive markups We still can share these benefits with our friends, family. And "necking in the back row at the picture show" goes on and on and on :D
Why are you going to the cinema again?
Mine's in the back yard. It's only 17'x13' though (masked for 16:9 and 16:10 content), and run with a Barco projector that does HD. Though, I must admit, we only have a 5.1 surround system. But at 15' away, the screen might as well be a lot bigger.
Google has been buying dark fiber left and right, by now they probably have enough to connect themselves to several major ISPs. Pretty soon those ISPs would be offering you a choice between two internet connections
- The old internet, with the MPAA website on it - The Google Internet (tm), the one with youtube, google, gmail etc....
guess which one i would be signing up for
Not sure... which one will have the most pron?
1080p is roughly 1/4 of the pixel count of a 2K scanned movie. Big project movies are scanned at 4K for at least some scenes. IMAX uses a 3D domed projection screen to give you close to 180 degrees viewing angle. Try recreating that with a flat screen at home.
Actually, in this order: wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
1080p is 1920 horizontal lines compared to Cinema 2k at 2048. Vertical resolution is about the same (due to aspect ratio differences). Actual number of pixels is generally very close.
Most movies are not scanned at 4k. And of those filmed digitally, most are not filmed at 4k, and are instead filmed at 1080p. Many movies that have 4k scenes have 1080p scenes that are upres'd. And finally, you are mistaking IMAX surround screens (the half domes) with IMAX 3D screens (which are a lot different, and not half domes). And replicating an almost flat screen viewing situation with a flat screen viewing situation isn't that difficult. And that's assuming the homeowner does not have a curved screen.
First, the laws (which have been in place since this country was founded) are not what you think. Second, science isn't an orthodoxy. Third, Christianity, is by far, the most widely practiced religion in this country. It is people like me who do not hold to that faith, that are the small minority and being infringed upon by being forced to learn such things. Fourth, finally, you admit to this being about proving (an impossible thing) that this is about the god of Christianity being the creator of all things - that is a HIGHLY repugnant thought to me in MANY respects. I NEVER EVER wish to believe such a demented creature created life in this universe. He is the biggest mass murderer (from your vaunted book) in the history of humankind. You are free to worship whatever you want, but I *refuse* to be forced to be taught such stuff, nor would I ever let my kids be taught such. That's what Bible School, Sunday School and Catholic schools are for. Oh... and once again, it's against the laws of man and your god. Keep in mind, preaching the word of your god (as encouraged in your Bible) is different than forcibly indoctrinating people into your religion (as discouraged by your Bible).
I do thank you though, for finally admitting, even if it's in a roundabout way, that this is indeed about teaching that your god is the creator of everything, and trying to pass that off as science.
I won't be sad the day the movie industry goes out of business. I've found other ways to find entertainment which does not involve them. Everything does not have to last forever.
Well, sadly, the rest of us are still looking for girlfriends... congrats to you though. ;-)