If I set out to walk across the country, but take a bus from Pittsburgh to Toledo because it's raining, and I know that I could walk between them, I haven't actually walked across the country, have I?
I think you're missing the point. He didn't set out to build a "telegraph" system. It was basically just a proof-of-concept showing that it's possible using nothing but natural resources and knowledge. This wasn't like a personal challenge for him, like Survivorman or Man-vs-Wild, where he claims to be able to do something personally and then sets out to prove himself. In the context of this being a thought-piece, I don't have any problem with him using a lighter to make an ember because we all know it's entirely possible to create fire from scratch. Considering how much discussion and thought this has generated, I'd say it is a very successful art piece.
Jobs was only trying to change the subject here. The subject was open vs. non-open platform. Jobs quickly turned the conversation to "Android is very fragmented"
Except that he was giving the specific reason for why their platform is more restricted. Essentially he is saying open leads to fragmentation, closed leads to consistency, which I think is true.
it still amazes me that MS is so bashed on/. and Apple so celebrated. You would think the opposite would be true here. Are we still longing to sit at the cool kids' table or something, or have we just bought into that "lifestyle" shit too?
Ignoring your blatant trolling there, Apple may not be perfect, but they are certainly not as evil as M$. Apple wants you to use their hardware, they don't force you to use their software, which I'm ok with. Microsoft on the other hand tries as hard as they possibly can to lock you into their software, using all sorts of evil (and sometimes illegal) strategies. They have no interest in making people's lives easier or more compatible. You can't even read an HFS partition in Windows without special 3rd party software. MacOS has been able to read FAT and NTFS for over a decade. This is not just a technical limitation of Windows, it's deliberate. And that's just a single example. Not to mention the quality issues of M$ software. If M$ didn't exist maybe we would bash Apple, but until that time I will choose to bash M$ over Apple any day of the week. And lifestyle has nothing to do with it -- in my experience Apple products are of a much higher quality both aesthetically and technically, which I value, and thus Apple gets more approval from me than M$.
This just goes to show that people don't really know what numbers are, at least when they are infinite decimal numbers.
As far as I'm concerned, infinite anything doesn't even exist. These are just the math rules we have invented because the answers suit our needs. I could easily invent a math system where 0.999... == pi, and as long as the other rules correlate it's 100% valid. We define the rules about infinite series because the results fit with our other rules. All of our math rules have to fit together or else it's not really a "system" of mathematics. Just like how we say that pi is the ratio of circumference to diameter of a circle. Circles don't even exist. Where is a circle? Can you show me a circle? Maybe in terms of our mathematics system you can define something called a "circle" using a point and a radius, but it only exists in the context of that mathematics system. A point and radius in another mathematics system could end up being a square shape. Everything we do with numbers is purely fiction, a set of rules we invented to describe certain things. And ultimately, everything comes down to an approximation when you try to change contexts from paper math to the real world. Have you ever experienced anything "infinite" that wasn't just on paper described in our set of math rules that we invented? You can create all the complicated infinite equations you want in that system, but it means nothing because you can't make it real. You can use it to approximate real things, and that may be useful to you, but none of it really exists. So it doesn't even matter if 0.999...==1 in our system because once you move into the context of the real world it's going to become an approximation anyway and all that infinite precision that you thought existed ceases to exist...
Would you be pissed if you drove a gasoline-powered vehicle through the desert and got stranded because you failed to consider that your vehicle could not cover the distance? If you have an -powered vehicle, and it can drive 300 miles max, don't try to drive 400 miles.
This is not even close to the first human powered ornithopter. One of the most significant recent attempts is Yves Rousseau who crashed and became a paraplegic as a result of one of his flights.
Well, then it's the first human powered ornithopter that has successfully flown without crashing and rendering its pilot a paraplegic...
it immediately can stop that motion and hopefully just bruise the guy instead of just continuing mindlessly and slicing the guys arm off or crushing him to death.
Why would you leave your $1.3M painting in the hands of a fumbling idiot? Surely if you can afford such a painting, you can afford a reputable courier...
Either way, you're doing what you want. This is how the human brain works. In fact, this is how every single living organism works. You have a single base motive : to find "happiness". For some people, this happiness is derived from following their religion. For others, this happiness is derived from other things. Either way, you never do anything that your brain believes won't lead to happiness. Every single action you take in your life is your brain attempting to achieve happiness. Your conscious mind, if it even exists, can only try to interpret these actions.
And since the spoilers can easily be hidden, only to be revealed by a user interaction (such as a click) there is no reason to not do such. Wikipedia has advantages over a printed publication, and should take advantage of that. Just as the crowd sourcing is taken advantage of.
So should we put the ending of WWII into a "spoilers" section also? I would say that if you're not interested in knowing the ending, don't read a Wikipedia entry about that topic. I don't see why Wikipedia has to play along with AC's stupid game of "tee hee we know the secret but wont tell anyone". It's like how magicians get upset when someone reveals their trick. It's not like it's real magic. It's just a trick designed to entertain people. I find it more entertaining to learn the trick and how it's performed. In fact, if you won't tell me the secret I'm going to figure it out anyway, and tell all my friends, just to spite the magician for being a tool.
Slashdot Mirror
These might be the droids you're looking for...
Why is nobody considering the possibility that the videos are intentionally campy? I thought they were a little fun for exactly that reason...
Maybe he was trying to open windows, and crashed...
VMWare Server, despite its name, works well for desktops. It's basically a server-ization of their workstation product, and is free.
If I set out to walk across the country, but take a bus from Pittsburgh to Toledo because it's raining, and I know that I could walk between them, I haven't actually walked across the country, have I?
I think you're missing the point. He didn't set out to build a "telegraph" system. It was basically just a proof-of-concept showing that it's possible using nothing but natural resources and knowledge. This wasn't like a personal challenge for him, like Survivorman or Man-vs-Wild, where he claims to be able to do something personally and then sets out to prove himself. In the context of this being a thought-piece, I don't have any problem with him using a lighter to make an ember because we all know it's entirely possible to create fire from scratch. Considering how much discussion and thought this has generated, I'd say it is a very successful art piece.
Jobs was only trying to change the subject here. The subject was open vs. non-open platform. Jobs quickly turned the conversation to "Android is very fragmented"
Except that he was giving the specific reason for why their platform is more restricted. Essentially he is saying open leads to fragmentation, closed leads to consistency, which I think is true.
it still amazes me that MS is so bashed on /. and Apple so celebrated. You would think the opposite would be true here. Are we still longing to sit at the cool kids' table or something, or have we just bought into that "lifestyle" shit too?
Ignoring your blatant trolling there, Apple may not be perfect, but they are certainly not as evil as M$. Apple wants you to use their hardware, they don't force you to use their software, which I'm ok with. Microsoft on the other hand tries as hard as they possibly can to lock you into their software, using all sorts of evil (and sometimes illegal) strategies. They have no interest in making people's lives easier or more compatible. You can't even read an HFS partition in Windows without special 3rd party software. MacOS has been able to read FAT and NTFS for over a decade. This is not just a technical limitation of Windows, it's deliberate. And that's just a single example. Not to mention the quality issues of M$ software. If M$ didn't exist maybe we would bash Apple, but until that time I will choose to bash M$ over Apple any day of the week. And lifestyle has nothing to do with it -- in my experience Apple products are of a much higher quality both aesthetically and technically, which I value, and thus Apple gets more approval from me than M$.
Ultimately, I think it has more to do with fluid dynamics and the nature of the water, which perhaps the physicists aren't taking into account.
Why do those morons even bother getting PhDs when they could just read Slashdot instead..
This just goes to show that people don't really know what numbers are, at least when they are infinite decimal numbers.
As far as I'm concerned, infinite anything doesn't even exist. These are just the math rules we have invented because the answers suit our needs. I could easily invent a math system where 0.999... == pi, and as long as the other rules correlate it's 100% valid. We define the rules about infinite series because the results fit with our other rules. All of our math rules have to fit together or else it's not really a "system" of mathematics. Just like how we say that pi is the ratio of circumference to diameter of a circle. Circles don't even exist. Where is a circle? Can you show me a circle? Maybe in terms of our mathematics system you can define something called a "circle" using a point and a radius, but it only exists in the context of that mathematics system. A point and radius in another mathematics system could end up being a square shape. Everything we do with numbers is purely fiction, a set of rules we invented to describe certain things. And ultimately, everything comes down to an approximation when you try to change contexts from paper math to the real world. Have you ever experienced anything "infinite" that wasn't just on paper described in our set of math rules that we invented? You can create all the complicated infinite equations you want in that system, but it means nothing because you can't make it real. You can use it to approximate real things, and that may be useful to you, but none of it really exists. So it doesn't even matter if 0.999...==1 in our system because once you move into the context of the real world it's going to become an approximation anyway and all that infinite precision that you thought existed ceases to exist...
I remember it as "A chain by a furlong". Also, my car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.
Would you be pissed if you drove a gasoline-powered vehicle through the desert and got stranded because you failed to consider that your vehicle could not cover the distance? If you have an -powered vehicle, and it can drive 300 miles max, don't try to drive 400 miles.
I think he's gunning for Admiral
Why do people always immediately go to the restrictive solution? How about speech-to-text instead of forcing a feature disabled...
Well, citizens should all have dashcams too. That would certainly put an end to abuse like this.
This is where I attempt to be humorous by making a reference to double rainbows
Yeah, I'm sure the people who designed and built this thing never thought about looking at birds and modeling it on real avian locomotion.
This is not even close to the first human powered ornithopter. One of the most significant recent attempts is Yves Rousseau who crashed and became a paraplegic as a result of one of his flights.
Well, then it's the first human powered ornithopter that has successfully flown without crashing and rendering its pilot a paraplegic...
it immediately can stop that motion and hopefully just bruise the guy instead of just continuing mindlessly and slicing the guys arm off or crushing him to death.
This sounds like a pretty useless robot to me.
Seriously, the 'all in one' solution you dream of exists - in XBMC
Unless of course your "all" list includes an intelligently-designed UI
Why would you leave your $1.3M painting in the hands of a fumbling idiot? Surely if you can afford such a painting, you can afford a reputable courier...
Either way, you're doing what you want. This is how the human brain works. In fact, this is how every single living organism works. You have a single base motive : to find "happiness". For some people, this happiness is derived from following their religion. For others, this happiness is derived from other things. Either way, you never do anything that your brain believes won't lead to happiness. Every single action you take in your life is your brain attempting to achieve happiness. Your conscious mind, if it even exists, can only try to interpret these actions.
Internet kills you!
The Internet never ceases to amaze me...
And since the spoilers can easily be hidden, only to be revealed by a user interaction (such as a click) there is no reason to not do such. Wikipedia has advantages over a printed publication, and should take advantage of that. Just as the crowd sourcing is taken advantage of.
So should we put the ending of WWII into a "spoilers" section also? I would say that if you're not interested in knowing the ending, don't read a Wikipedia entry about that topic. I don't see why Wikipedia has to play along with AC's stupid game of "tee hee we know the secret but wont tell anyone". It's like how magicians get upset when someone reveals their trick. It's not like it's real magic. It's just a trick designed to entertain people. I find it more entertaining to learn the trick and how it's performed. In fact, if you won't tell me the secret I'm going to figure it out anyway, and tell all my friends, just to spite the magician for being a tool.
it was Colonel Mustard, in the family room, with the morningstar
The jig is up. We never said anything about a morningstar. Only the true killer would have known that!