It seems that most people agree with you, but I don't, and it's the reason I don't use Gnome. You could say I'm strange and eccentric because no one else is like me, but on the other hand, I don't have a problem configuring KDE apps to behave the way I want them to. It's not like KDE is some strange niche product that only appeals to geeks, so I don't think that's the issue here. Good usability is about making a program usable. If devs make a program annoying to use for a significant chunk of their users, then the program is less usable, end of story. I find it extremely difficult to believe that having an extra checkbox in the settings menu is more troublesome to people that like the default, than leaving it out is to people that don't like the default.
Light is just a self-propogating electromagnetic wave. It has particle properties as well, but for this question, I think it's best to ignore that. Materials are usually bound by electromagnetic interactions, so it makes sense that when an electromagnetic wave passes through the material, it affects the material in some way; basically, it moves some charges around in the material. Now that the charges are in different places, the fields are different, and this changes the e+m wave, which shifts the charges... and so on. For linear materials, these interactions are captured in the permeability and permittivity.
Anyway, long story short, the wavefront is actually moving slower. If you insist on thinking about light as lots of photons... I think that makes it more complicated than you want it to be.
It's not the mass that slows it down; it's an electromagnetic property, not a relativistic one. If it were, the index of refraction would only be a function of density, which it clearly is not. v=1/sqrt(mu*epsilon), where mu is permeability and epsilon is permittivity. Nothing to do with mass.
Patent comes from the latin patens, meaning "open" (notice our usage of the adverb, "patently": patently absurd, patently obvious). A patent is supposed to be you "opening" your product up so that other people can understand how it works. In return for increasing the greater good (by not making it difficult to reverse engineer) you got a brief monopoly. Using this metric, if something is obvious upon inspection, it doesn't deserve a patent, regardless of how innovative or original it is.
The key difference is that, today, patents are seen as a carrot to promote innovation. As originally conceived, the system assumed (correctly in my opinion) that innovation will always happen, and that what we really needed was a carrot to promote the "opening" of the technology (in the same sense that opensource is open).
Interesting... I guess I never noticed this because I tend to use non-KDE text editors on account of my inability to get emacs key-bindings in KDE. I have emacs bindings in vim, but not KDE...
So... I preferred KDE back when I figured I'd give GNOME a second chance... about 5 years ago? Something like that. I couldn't figure out how to make GNOME behave like KDE. I'm stupid like that.
I had this recollection of GNOME being about choice? Like how they said you could use any one of something like 8 window managers? That appealed to me, but the last time I tried it, they seemed to think that if you didn't think their HIG made sense, you ought to be "power-user" enough to figure out how to override their settings without documentation. Like I said, I'm stupid, so I couldn't figure it out.
So then, on to my question. I am assuming here that they've gotten this stuff figured out. So what do I do to enable focus-follows mouse, and to make the cursor disappear when I start typing (yes, I do realize that my second request is not available under KDE, and I fake it with unclutter)? There are some other things that I'd probably want to configure, but they don't come readily to mind (it's been 5 years).
One thing I do like about GNOME is that they have a built-in emacs key-binding option, which I can't figure out how to get in KDE... I've tried changing the shortcuts, but this usually just ends up breaking them. Remember, I'm stupid, so the only way I can get shit like this to work is if there's a built-in option.
On the other hand, I run Gentoo (I'm stupid), and I hate compiling stuff I rarely use, so I pretty much need to stick with the DE that has the applications I want to use, and... well, I need a lot more KDE stuff than GNOME stuff, so I'm not actually willing to switch to GNOME anyway.
Oddly enough, my first impression was that the Iranian government was trying to cut its people off from the outside world (perhaps the firewalls weren't enough?). The biggest threat to a dictatorship is an informed populace (well, in my opinion, anyway). I'm probably way off mark anyway.
My read of the article (which is second hand, since I didn't read the actual paper, but rather this news article commenting on the paper) was that the researchers proved that natural selection is a driven process, which to be honest, no one is contesting. Yes, the mutations are not driven, which is why they usually result in cancer. Another way to arrive at this conclusion is that evolution refers to populations, whereas only individuals can mutate. When a specie changes, that's evolution, and it's fairly independent of individual mutations, although it relies on them.
If you had read the posts that I was replying to, this point is covered there. The paper is saying that the selection process is deterministic. That is to say, that natural selection is a driven process, not that the mutations are deterministic (which, as you so adeptly pointed out, is clearly false). But you know all this, because you read the article carefully, right?
I screwed up the html, apparently, and when I went to comment on how I had screwed it up, slashdot wouldn't let me post because I had just posted. So I waited, and tried again, but this time, it wouldn't let me post because I typed my entry too fast (I pasted the text in since I'm lazy and didn't want to retype it). At that point I said fuck it; people can figure this shit out on their own. I guess they can't.
While it's good to verify things, you do realize that this proves nothing, right? It is merely in line with the one theory that we have for this sort of thing. It doesn't go anywhere near proving it. To prove that evolutionary selection is deterministic, you'd have to show that it was true for all cases, and that's a bit difficult. What this experiment shows is that for the species tested, traits considered, over the time analyzed, nothing abnormal was observed.
There is no "competing theory", just Darwin's. There are those of us that believed that it the selection of traits was deterministic, and then there are... creationists. Those that are in between don't make up a significant population in the scientific community. Also note that this study is irrelevant for the evolution/ID debate, since this is supposed to determine how evolution goes about, not whether it goes about.
While I don't think that this experiment wasn't worth doing, I don't think it's news. It's like going out to measure the mass of a photon and discovering that it's less than you can measure (yes, I know this has been done; it wasn't very exciting). It doesn't break anything we thought was fine, and doesn't prove anything we didn't already know: it simply puts limits on how wrong our theory can possibly be.
Are you trolling? You know, fishing for angry responses? Or do you actually think that what you've written is a reasonable argument?
Isn't gravity demonstrable? If I understand correctly, there's still a lot of uncertainty in the scientific community about how gravity works exactly, but it's clearly an observable and demonstrable fact that it does.
Newtonian gravity (you know, Newton's Law of Gravity?) is demonstrably wrong. Proving that it's wrong is non-trivial, but it's a well-established fact that Newtonian gravity is wrong. General Relativity is more correct, but, we're fairly certain that it's also wrong. In you're curious, we're also fairly certain that all of the quantum theories are likewise wrong, but for now they're all we have. There are very few measurements that break the Standard Model, and any new theory that comes up must be consistent with everything we've already measured that supports the standard model, so don't think that because we know something is wrong means that it isn't worth using.
Maybe I'm living under a rock here, but I've never really seen evolution demonstrated. I've heard plenty of explanations and leaps of logic attached to it, but I've never actually seen anything evolve. And even if I did, that still wouldn't demonstrate that evolution is the origin of life. That's why it's a theory, because we can only infer, we can't demonstrate, and unfortunately no one actually witnessed it.
I think this has been pretty well covered already.
Neither group actually "knows" how these things came to be, they've just adopted a view of it that they are comfortable with. What I don't understand is how the evolutionists, who are supposed to be the more objective and open minded of the two groups, can be so "holier than thou" as to suggest that the creationists' theory doesn't even deserve a place.
Nice choice of words; I'm curious, was that on purpose? "Intelligent Design" doesn't deserve mention in a science course because it isn't science. The key facet in science is verifiability. You observe something, you propose a mechanism for that observation, you find an as-yet-unobserved phenomenon which is predicted by your proposed mechanism, you observe the phenomenon (or not, as the case may be), others verify your findings. There is nothing verifiable about intelligent design. There isn't even anything to test! Right or not, it has no place in a science curriculum. If you have issues with evolution being taught, then you should be arguing that science should not be part of the students' curriculum.
To be perfectly frank, there is nothing in all of Biology with as robust supporting data (observations) as the theory of evolution. I'm sure there are problems with the details, but the general idea of evolution is so simple and beautiful that it's one of those "how could it possibly be wrong" kinds of things. Now I know that the reason you religious folks take such issue with evolution is that it hits so close to home with you, but in all honesty, I'm not sure whether or not you'd stand a better chance trying to knock down thermodynamics. Think on this: there is nothing in experimental science that proves the laws of thermodynamics, not even close (in fact, it's not possible), and yet it is the one branch in Physics which Albert Einstein was convinced would stand forever, unassailable. Such is the power of theories based solely on "logic".
No one else seemed to point this out, but "Chuck Norris Facts" aren't satire. From dictionary.com:
satire: the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
It was my impression that people weren't using Chuck Norris Facts to expose, denounce, or deride vice or folly. I would argue that they mock the stereotype of manliness (and Chuck is simply used as the embodiment of manliness), but that it does not go so far as to suggest that those stereotypes are fundamentally flawed (flawed though they may be). I feel that the overwhelming majority of the time people throw that word (satire) around here on slashdot don't really understand what satire is.
The issue is that people reading the book might think that the "facts" are actually associated with Chuck Norris in some way (they aren't, really), which I think is a valid concern, especially since he finds some of them objectionable. As to whether or not people might think the facts are real, I find that difficult to believe, but there are a lot of truly gullible people out there.
Lo and behold, at the end of that rather short article, the researcher speculates that the bees' performance is due to a fixed-action-pattern. Insects are very difficult to train, though it can be done, and only for extremely simple things (like this example, if the bees are, in fact, using a FAP).
I'm pretty sure that this behavior is a "fixed-action pattern". I could be wrong, but if I'm not, then the behavior is hard-coded in the genes, and not learned. Capacity for learning in insects is extremely small, and wasps are fairly solitary animals (the kinds with behaviors like this, anyway), so I don't think your analogy to bees is apt. But like I said, I could be wrong.
I remember this lecture in that psych class I took in college. I thought it was dumb then, and I think it's dumb now. Or maybe it's just semantics. I'm hoping someone can explain this to me (although, my hopes are low given my tardiness posting). I define intelligence as adaptability, and proficiency in learning; i.e., one's abilitiy to assimilate new information and then apply it. I'm a scientist, which is why it's biased in this direction; my idea of intelligence is lacking in that it does not take creativity into account. Ignoring that failing for now, I think that intelligence is fixed, and failure to complete a certain task (at least, at first) is little sign of intelligence. It turns out that task completion is skill based, and skill is the product of experience and intelligence (e.g., exp*int, although I'm not so naive as to think it's that simple). Smart people fail all the time (geniuses, tend not to, but that's because they require very little experience). When I fail, it isn't because I'm stupid, and it's not because practicing is going to make me less stupid, it's because I don't have enough experience. Practicing will give me more experience and make me better at completing that task. The idea that intelligence = skill is a corruption of those words, in my opinion.
Sure that's sort of important to the user experience, but to me that's a trivial thing. More important to me is whether or not they keep the information and for how long. If they scan the email, figure out what kind of ads to send me, and then throw that info away, then that's fine. If they store it and use for something other than advertising, or give it to other people (say, the government), then I have issues with it. Not because I think that something bad would happen to me as a result, but because something bad could happen, and it sets a horrible precedent. The fundamental problem is simply that I don't know what they do with it, and Google won't tell me (trade secrets, you know). On the other hand, David Brin tells us that privacy is gone, but I'm still waiting for the government to open its information to everyone, or at least, to those of us paying taxes.
Who are those alleged people you speak of? I use "fascist" as an insult, and I am totally with you on China being the archetypal Fascist state. You're even nice enough to explain why I think fascism is evil:
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
That is as good and succinct a definition of Fascism as I have ever seen, and it makes me sick every time I read it. It's the antithesis of democracy, and I, for one, quite enjoy my freedom thank you very much.
I don't know if you've been paying attention to the console wars lately, but there's no way it's going to achieve the success of its predecessors. The PS3 is a failure. Even if it somehow manages parity with the 360 globally (as opposed to just in NA), that's a failure given its heritage. Sony sacrificed their biggest cashcow (the gaming division used to pull in 50% of their profits is the PS2's heyday) to get a stranglehold on the next big movie format; if blu-ray fails, it's likely that they'll have a difficult time just staying in the black.
The difference between HD and SD is light and day.
I know that you're just confused (typo?), but I found it entertaining nonetheless. I agree that the difference is obvious, but even given that, I don't think a lot of people care. My wife, for instance, was the one that pointed out to me the huge difference between HD and SD broadcasts (we don't watch TV, typically, but when I was on a trip she ended up doing a lot of watching to pass the time). She has also told me that the difference in picture quality has no effect on her enjoyment of movies (when I asked if she wanted an HD player). My impression is that most people share her ambivalence.
Just so you know, every once in awhile the Toshiba HD-A2 goes on sale for $100 (everyone seems to agree that it's better than the newer and more expensive HD-A3). And there's a standing 5-free-movies mail-in rebate for Toshiba and MS HD-DVD players. The real surprise (to me, anyway) was that I actually wanted movies on the list! Doesn't play VHS, though... I've never owned a VHS player, so it isn't something I usually think about.
HD video sales are a fraction of a percent of SD DVD sales. At the moment 2:1 is irrelevant; the relative difference is large-ish, but in absolute terms, the difference in sales are meaningless so far. The winner will be the first to become mainstream, and for that I would pay attention to standalone player sales. Right now, it's a just battle for mindshare.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that most people agree with you, but I don't, and it's the reason I don't use Gnome. You could say I'm strange and eccentric because no one else is like me, but on the other hand, I don't have a problem configuring KDE apps to behave the way I want them to. It's not like KDE is some strange niche product that only appeals to geeks, so I don't think that's the issue here. Good usability is about making a program usable. If devs make a program annoying to use for a significant chunk of their users, then the program is less usable, end of story. I find it extremely difficult to believe that having an extra checkbox in the settings menu is more troublesome to people that like the default, than leaving it out is to people that don't like the default.
What are you, a windows user? File extensions? I thought we used mimetypes to decide what a file was?
Light is just a self-propogating electromagnetic wave. It has particle properties as well, but for this question, I think it's best to ignore that. Materials are usually bound by electromagnetic interactions, so it makes sense that when an electromagnetic wave passes through the material, it affects the material in some way; basically, it moves some charges around in the material. Now that the charges are in different places, the fields are different, and this changes the e+m wave, which shifts the charges ... and so on. For linear materials, these interactions are captured in the permeability and permittivity.
Anyway, long story short, the wavefront is actually moving slower. If you insist on thinking about light as lots of photons ... I think that makes it more complicated than you want it to be.
It's not the mass that slows it down; it's an electromagnetic property, not a relativistic one. If it were, the index of refraction would only be a function of density, which it clearly is not. v=1/sqrt(mu*epsilon), where mu is permeability and epsilon is permittivity. Nothing to do with mass.
Patent comes from the latin patens, meaning "open" (notice our usage of the adverb, "patently": patently absurd, patently obvious). A patent is supposed to be you "opening" your product up so that other people can understand how it works. In return for increasing the greater good (by not making it difficult to reverse engineer) you got a brief monopoly. Using this metric, if something is obvious upon inspection, it doesn't deserve a patent, regardless of how innovative or original it is.
The key difference is that, today, patents are seen as a carrot to promote innovation. As originally conceived, the system assumed (correctly in my opinion) that innovation will always happen, and that what we really needed was a carrot to promote the "opening" of the technology (in the same sense that opensource is open).
Interesting ... I guess I never noticed this because I tend to use non-KDE text editors on account of my inability to get emacs key-bindings in KDE. I have emacs bindings in vim, but not KDE ...
So ... I preferred KDE back when I figured I'd give GNOME a second chance ... about 5 years ago? Something like that. I couldn't figure out how to make GNOME behave like KDE. I'm stupid like that.
I had this recollection of GNOME being about choice? Like how they said you could use any one of something like 8 window managers? That appealed to me, but the last time I tried it, they seemed to think that if you didn't think their HIG made sense, you ought to be "power-user" enough to figure out how to override their settings without documentation. Like I said, I'm stupid, so I couldn't figure it out.
So then, on to my question. I am assuming here that they've gotten this stuff figured out. So what do I do to enable focus-follows mouse, and to make the cursor disappear when I start typing (yes, I do realize that my second request is not available under KDE, and I fake it with unclutter)? There are some other things that I'd probably want to configure, but they don't come readily to mind (it's been 5 years).
One thing I do like about GNOME is that they have a built-in emacs key-binding option, which I can't figure out how to get in KDE ... I've tried changing the shortcuts, but this usually just ends up breaking them. Remember, I'm stupid, so the only way I can get shit like this to work is if there's a built-in option.
On the other hand, I run Gentoo (I'm stupid), and I hate compiling stuff I rarely use, so I pretty much need to stick with the DE that has the applications I want to use, and ... well, I need a lot more KDE stuff than GNOME stuff, so I'm not actually willing to switch to GNOME anyway.
Oddly enough, my first impression was that the Iranian government was trying to cut its people off from the outside world (perhaps the firewalls weren't enough?). The biggest threat to a dictatorship is an informed populace (well, in my opinion, anyway). I'm probably way off mark anyway.
My read of the article (which is second hand, since I didn't read the actual paper, but rather this news article commenting on the paper) was that the researchers proved that natural selection is a driven process, which to be honest, no one is contesting. Yes, the mutations are not driven, which is why they usually result in cancer. Another way to arrive at this conclusion is that evolution refers to populations, whereas only individuals can mutate. When a specie changes, that's evolution, and it's fairly independent of individual mutations, although it relies on them.
If you had read the posts that I was replying to, this point is covered there. The paper is saying that the selection process is deterministic. That is to say, that natural selection is a driven process, not that the mutations are deterministic (which, as you so adeptly pointed out, is clearly false). But you know all this, because you read the article carefully, right?
I screwed up the html, apparently, and when I went to comment on how I had screwed it up, slashdot wouldn't let me post because I had just posted. So I waited, and tried again, but this time, it wouldn't let me post because I typed my entry too fast (I pasted the text in since I'm lazy and didn't want to retype it). At that point I said fuck it; people can figure this shit out on their own. I guess they can't.
Two points:
While I don't think that this experiment wasn't worth doing, I don't think it's news. It's like going out to measure the mass of a photon and discovering that it's less than you can measure (yes, I know this has been done; it wasn't very exciting). It doesn't break anything we thought was fine, and doesn't prove anything we didn't already know: it simply puts limits on how wrong our theory can possibly be.
Are you trolling? You know, fishing for angry responses? Or do you actually think that what you've written is a reasonable argument?
Newtonian gravity (you know, Newton's Law of Gravity?) is demonstrably wrong. Proving that it's wrong is non-trivial, but it's a well-established fact that Newtonian gravity is wrong. General Relativity is more correct, but, we're fairly certain that it's also wrong. In you're curious, we're also fairly certain that all of the quantum theories are likewise wrong, but for now they're all we have. There are very few measurements that break the Standard Model, and any new theory that comes up must be consistent with everything we've already measured that supports the standard model, so don't think that because we know something is wrong means that it isn't worth using.
I think this has been pretty well covered already.
Nice choice of words; I'm curious, was that on purpose? "Intelligent Design" doesn't deserve mention in a science course because it isn't science. The key facet in science is verifiability. You observe something, you propose a mechanism for that observation, you find an as-yet-unobserved phenomenon which is predicted by your proposed mechanism, you observe the phenomenon (or not, as the case may be), others verify your findings. There is nothing verifiable about intelligent design. There isn't even anything to test! Right or not, it has no place in a science curriculum. If you have issues with evolution being taught, then you should be arguing that science should not be part of the students' curriculum.
To be perfectly frank, there is nothing in all of Biology with as robust supporting data (observations) as the theory of evolution. I'm sure there are problems with the details, but the general idea of evolution is so simple and beautiful that it's one of those "how could it possibly be wrong" kinds of things. Now I know that the reason you religious folks take such issue with evolution is that it hits so close to home with you, but in all honesty, I'm not sure whether or not you'd stand a better chance trying to knock down thermodynamics. Think on this: there is nothing in experimental science that proves the laws of thermodynamics, not even close (in fact, it's not possible), and yet it is the one branch in Physics which Albert Einstein was convinced would stand forever, unassailable. Such is the power of theories based solely on "logic".
I thought that diamonds were beautiful because they had a high index of refraction? Or was I mistaken?
No one else seemed to point this out, but "Chuck Norris Facts" aren't satire. From dictionary.com:
It was my impression that people weren't using Chuck Norris Facts to expose, denounce, or deride vice or folly. I would argue that they mock the stereotype of manliness (and Chuck is simply used as the embodiment of manliness), but that it does not go so far as to suggest that those stereotypes are fundamentally flawed (flawed though they may be). I feel that the overwhelming majority of the time people throw that word (satire) around here on slashdot don't really understand what satire is.
The issue is that people reading the book might think that the "facts" are actually associated with Chuck Norris in some way (they aren't, really), which I think is a valid concern, especially since he finds some of them objectionable. As to whether or not people might think the facts are real, I find that difficult to believe, but there are a lot of truly gullible people out there.
Lo and behold, at the end of that rather short article, the researcher speculates that the bees' performance is due to a fixed-action-pattern. Insects are very difficult to train, though it can be done, and only for extremely simple things (like this example, if the bees are, in fact, using a FAP).
Thanks for the enlightenment! I know I shouldn't extrapolate small amounts of data, but it's often hard to avoid the temptatation.
I'm pretty sure that this behavior is a "fixed-action pattern". I could be wrong, but if I'm not, then the behavior is hard-coded in the genes, and not learned. Capacity for learning in insects is extremely small, and wasps are fairly solitary animals (the kinds with behaviors like this, anyway), so I don't think your analogy to bees is apt. But like I said, I could be wrong.
I remember this lecture in that psych class I took in college. I thought it was dumb then, and I think it's dumb now. Or maybe it's just semantics. I'm hoping someone can explain this to me (although, my hopes are low given my tardiness posting). I define intelligence as adaptability, and proficiency in learning; i.e., one's abilitiy to assimilate new information and then apply it. I'm a scientist, which is why it's biased in this direction; my idea of intelligence is lacking in that it does not take creativity into account. Ignoring that failing for now, I think that intelligence is fixed, and failure to complete a certain task (at least, at first) is little sign of intelligence. It turns out that task completion is skill based, and skill is the product of experience and intelligence (e.g., exp*int, although I'm not so naive as to think it's that simple). Smart people fail all the time (geniuses, tend not to, but that's because they require very little experience). When I fail, it isn't because I'm stupid, and it's not because practicing is going to make me less stupid, it's because I don't have enough experience. Practicing will give me more experience and make me better at completing that task. The idea that intelligence = skill is a corruption of those words, in my opinion.
Sure that's sort of important to the user experience, but to me that's a trivial thing. More important to me is whether or not they keep the information and for how long. If they scan the email, figure out what kind of ads to send me, and then throw that info away, then that's fine. If they store it and use for something other than advertising, or give it to other people (say, the government), then I have issues with it. Not because I think that something bad would happen to me as a result, but because something bad could happen, and it sets a horrible precedent. The fundamental problem is simply that I don't know what they do with it, and Google won't tell me (trade secrets, you know). On the other hand, David Brin tells us that privacy is gone, but I'm still waiting for the government to open its information to everyone, or at least, to those of us paying taxes.
Who are those alleged people you speak of? I use "fascist" as an insult, and I am totally with you on China being the archetypal Fascist state. You're even nice enough to explain why I think fascism is evil:
That is as good and succinct a definition of Fascism as I have ever seen, and it makes me sick every time I read it. It's the antithesis of democracy, and I, for one, quite enjoy my freedom thank you very much.
I don't know if you've been paying attention to the console wars lately, but there's no way it's going to achieve the success of its predecessors. The PS3 is a failure. Even if it somehow manages parity with the 360 globally (as opposed to just in NA), that's a failure given its heritage. Sony sacrificed their biggest cashcow (the gaming division used to pull in 50% of their profits is the PS2's heyday) to get a stranglehold on the next big movie format; if blu-ray fails, it's likely that they'll have a difficult time just staying in the black.
I know that you're just confused (typo?), but I found it entertaining nonetheless. I agree that the difference is obvious, but even given that, I don't think a lot of people care. My wife, for instance, was the one that pointed out to me the huge difference between HD and SD broadcasts (we don't watch TV, typically, but when I was on a trip she ended up doing a lot of watching to pass the time). She has also told me that the difference in picture quality has no effect on her enjoyment of movies (when I asked if she wanted an HD player). My impression is that most people share her ambivalence.
Just so you know, every once in awhile the Toshiba HD-A2 goes on sale for $100 (everyone seems to agree that it's better than the newer and more expensive HD-A3). And there's a standing 5-free-movies mail-in rebate for Toshiba and MS HD-DVD players. The real surprise (to me, anyway) was that I actually wanted movies on the list! Doesn't play VHS, though ... I've never owned a VHS player, so it isn't something I usually think about.
HD video sales are a fraction of a percent of SD DVD sales. At the moment 2:1 is irrelevant; the relative difference is large-ish, but in absolute terms, the difference in sales are meaningless so far. The winner will be the first to become mainstream, and for that I would pay attention to standalone player sales. Right now, it's a just battle for mindshare.