While I didn't try sound over my third-party DVI-HDMI cable, I did have issues with the open source Radeon driver and these cables. Once Linux booted, the monitor would keep dropping the video signal and then re-establishing it. At first I thought X was in a crash loop, but the keyboard and mouse seemed to remain responsive. Rather than mess around with it, I just used a VGA cable, but that definitely left a sour taste in my mouth and had me longing for the days when cables just shoved whatever data was pushed to them.
She must sound very robotic in person. Either that, or the engineers that pieced together the phenomes did a very mediocre job. So far, the best text-to-speech synthesis I have heard comes from a recent update of Android. The pronunciation has improved significantly and the tone sounds much more relaxed and less stinted than the previous Android version as well as Siri.
At the end of the day, some agency will spy on you
Yes and you can be sure that most governments are already spying on their own people. The point of using non-US cloud services is to limit the amount of eyes on your data. If your company is based outside of the U.S., your government is likely keeping their own tabs on internet traffic - maybe not to the same extent as the NSA, but it's likely happening nonetheless. Then, if you use U.S.-based cloud services, you have to worry about the U.S. government having access to that data as well. By using a provider in your own country, you limit the number of parties available to snoop on that data to the company offering the cloud services and your local government.
This is typical anti-company behavior by the federal government.
This is part of a class-action lawsuit that was initiated by a group of private citizens, not a government entity.
Regardless of the discussion if they are right or wrong, Google was not bothered in the past, so apparently they pissed someone off at the federal level and now they are out to shut them down. ( and i'm sure extort them on the ride ).
Nobody is going to shut Google down. At worst, they have to pay a relatively small fee and send out a revised Privacy Notice that outlines their data collection methods more explicitly.
I bet they were asked to do something way out of line and declined and now will pay the price with complete shut down. But that is just theory.
No, it is not a theory. Theories are based on evidence and the only thing you've spouted is pure conjecture.
I imagine that the reason Dice Holdings purchased Slashdot is to find ways to maximize profit from the company. Then why is it that they haven't attempted to license out the comment moderation system currently available on Slashdot? Yes, it might cannibalize some of their current readership, but they could limit that by licensing to web sites that do not specialize in technology.
It's not like they would run into a lot of competition either. Right now, the most popular comment hosting site seems to be Disqus. Every site that uses Disqus lists the comments in reverse chronological order. That means that every poster is reading the last few comments and then chiming in with arguments that have already been made and maybe even debunked much earlier in the conversation. And the moderation system has no concept of karma or the capability to moderate posts via categories. Dice, use what you've got and start making money off of it from other web sites already!
Because it still rewards group think and creates a popularity contest rather than a forum for actual discussion
I keep hearing people say this, but I have found the comments on Slashdot to come from quite a diverse group. There's no doubt that there's some deep groupthink such as the anti-Apple and anti-Microsoft sentiments on this site, yet you can still find comments praising both of these companies modded up despite the overall bias against them.
In reality, all they need to do is allow you to block anyone you wish. No points, no popularity contest. Just block the people you dislike and move on. You dont see them, they dont see you, everyones happy in their bubble.
I am strongly against this idea. First of all, there are so many people commenting on the site that it would be nearly impossible to block out all of the noise one commenter at a time. Secondly, there are some people that have very rational viewpoints and make great contributions to the discussion 90% of the time, but there's one or two topics in which they go off the deep end. The current moderation system allows you to mod them up when they're making good points and mod them into oblivion when they go mental.
Microsoft's biggest problem in this area is that they don't know how to be the underdog. They are so drunk on their own KoolAid that they don't realize why the first generation of Surfaces failed, so they continue to make the same mistakes. They are used to a culture of domination on the desktop in which developers have to make apps for their platforms because everyone uses them and everyone continues to use Windows because it has great application support. However, this culture doesn't translate well to a platform which is dominated by two other ecosystems. Microsoft came late to the party and offered little of interest while charging premium prices. And as nice as a 10" tablet that can run all Windows programs seems, there's no way in hell I would pay $900 for it, especially when its flagship feature, the keyboard cover, will cost an extra $100. Microsoft, you're on the brink of pulling a Zune here. You need to move hardware at a break-even point or even a loss in order to break into this market. If you don't, nobody will ever think of you when it comes to tablets.
By that logic, I'd have to pull over every time I wanted to change the radio station, temperature, or turn on/off the defroster. The world may not be as black and white as you think it is.
How does the cop know if the person is texting, changing songs in their music app, or consulting the GPS app? Could I get a ticket for changing songs or rerouting the GPS app while stopped at a traffic light? If so, does the law actually expect me to pull over every time I want to switch songs?
My personal bias is to not spend hundreds of dollars for a device that I would only use to read news on the shitter. With that said, I don't care if other people choose to buy tablets, let alone which brand they choose. The point I was trying to make is that the poster I was responding to attempted to disqualify the OP's numbers with numbers equally meaningless. He made no attempt to quote his source and so we have no idea what methods were used to arrive at that number and therefore the quality of that number can not be determined. In this case, my personal bias is not against the iPad and completely against unverifiable data. Read what the numbers actually tell you - any additional extrapolations you attempt to make are based entirely on unverifiable assumptions and are therefore complete garbage.
That is not the point. The parent was right to smack down the number of units shipped since the number of tablets rotting on shelves is useless. However, that poster was wrong to quote a number without citing the source as well as believe that the number has any meaning since we do not know the method in which that data was collected. That number could have come from a careful analysis that only counted users once via their login credentials or it could have been from some asshole who had a blog that had eight pageviews, seven of which were from an iPad. The point is that we don't know, so his figures are just as useless as the ones in the post in which he was replying.
Apple has traditionally tweaked their latest software to run its best on the latest hardware, sometimes at the cost of running slower on older hardware. In general, most performance tweaks have side effects that will vary based on the underlying hardware. While Apple could create different versions of iOS tuned for different hardware, that would cause another layer of fragmentation, which is something Apple tries to avoid. That, and the obvious fact that they can sell more hardware by focusing on tweaking the OS for the latest hardware.
I experienced that firsthand. Luckily I waited until I went to trade in the phone before loading iOS 4 on my iPhone 3G because it turned out to be unusably slow. All of the articles I read stated that iOS 4 ran great on an iPhone 3G, but I couldn't even scroll through the home screens without severe lag, even with a clean install of iOS with no apps.
However, foregoing the update had negative side effects of its own. I was unable to install many apps because they required the new version of iOS and older versions of those apps were unavailable on the App Store. There's nothing like needing to update iOS to get a new app, update iTunes to update iOS, possibly update Mac OS to get the latest iTunes, and eventually upgrade hardware to get support for the latest version of Mac OS. I'm not sure if all of that is still required, but it certainly didn't seem to live up to Apple's standards for being user-friendly.
I'm definitely not right-wing, but I don't see how a limit to currency means there's a limit to wealth. Currency is only a medium of exchange, it is not the same thing as wealth.
Good point, currency is not the same as wealth but it's pretty hard to acquire wealth without first acquiring a large amount of currency.
Furthermore, the amount of currency in the economy actually does fluctuate because of things like fractional-reserve banking and lines of credit.
True, but notice my original quote stated "at any given point in time". My point is that it is not an infinite resource, even if the Fed prints it like there's no tomorrow.
Right-wing economics (at least the sane, non-theological version of it) says that wealth isn't a zero-sum game, and that wealth is created for both parties
Are there any right-wingers in here that would like to comment on whether or not this is accurate? I'm curious because the fact that there is a limited supply of currency in circulation at any given point in time means that wealth is absolutely a zero-sum game.
Linux Defenders examines the 6,000 new patent applications published each week, attempting to identify those that are potentially threatening to Linux and open source.
I wonder how much work these people could be contributing to open source projects if they didn't have to waste time sifting through mountains of garbage patents to do the jobs that the patent examiners should be doing. Add on to that the advantage that other countries have by not having to waste time on this nonsense and it just seems silly to justify the existence of software patents. But since these patents make big money for powerful companies who bribe legislators, I'm not holding my breath for anything to change.
But generally, the total notional of outstanding derivatives is a better number for scaring the uninformed than for measuring something important about the financial system.
That and the fact that they are the only numbers released by the FDIC's documentation regarding derivatives.
Derivatives are based around completely unregulated insurance, so yes if absolutely everything went tits up at the same time (and sometimes there are bets that it won't go tits up, so it would have to both GO tits up and Not-Go tits up at the same time) then yes, that number would mean something.
FTFY. Also, it doesn't require "absolutely everything" to go tits up. Everything in our economy is so tightly coupled to each other that big waves in one sector are guaranteed to have some effect in most other sectors. And if the waves grow big enough, the whole thing could come down.
In addition to that, your assertion that the number means nothing assumes that the number of bets that it will go tits up are relatively balanced with the number of bets that it will not go tits up. The greater the disparity, the greater the economic effect. And the lack of regulation means that banks don't have to act in a manner that guarantees that they can cover even a majority of their bets, hence the 2008 bailouts. And nothing has been done to change that, so be prepared for it to happen again.
According to this web site, there's $228 trillion in derivatives. I didn't believe that number at first, but then I checked the source of the data and it comes from the FDIC (Schedule RL-C). Oh, and that data was for the end of the 2011 calendar year. Anyone wanna take bets that the number was much higher for 2012 and will be even higher in 2013? Don't worry, though - I'm sure the banks aren't playing fast and loose and we have absolutely nothing to worry about.
It's shit like this that forces me to turn off automatic updates and wait a month before manually applying updates. And it's not just a Microsoft problem - I have also seen similar issues from Apple and Canonical.
Slashdot Mirror
While I didn't try sound over my third-party DVI-HDMI cable, I did have issues with the open source Radeon driver and these cables. Once Linux booted, the monitor would keep dropping the video signal and then re-establishing it. At first I thought X was in a crash loop, but the keyboard and mouse seemed to remain responsive. Rather than mess around with it, I just used a VGA cable, but that definitely left a sour taste in my mouth and had me longing for the days when cables just shoved whatever data was pushed to them.
She must sound very robotic in person. Either that, or the engineers that pieced together the phenomes did a very mediocre job. So far, the best text-to-speech synthesis I have heard comes from a recent update of Android. The pronunciation has improved significantly and the tone sounds much more relaxed and less stinted than the previous Android version as well as Siri.
Yes and you can be sure that most governments are already spying on their own people. The point of using non-US cloud services is to limit the amount of eyes on your data. If your company is based outside of the U.S., your government is likely keeping their own tabs on internet traffic - maybe not to the same extent as the NSA, but it's likely happening nonetheless. Then, if you use U.S.-based cloud services, you have to worry about the U.S. government having access to that data as well. By using a provider in your own country, you limit the number of parties available to snoop on that data to the company offering the cloud services and your local government.
This is part of a class-action lawsuit that was initiated by a group of private citizens, not a government entity.
Nobody is going to shut Google down. At worst, they have to pay a relatively small fee and send out a revised Privacy Notice that outlines their data collection methods more explicitly.
No, it is not a theory. Theories are based on evidence and the only thing you've spouted is pure conjecture.
I imagine that the reason Dice Holdings purchased Slashdot is to find ways to maximize profit from the company. Then why is it that they haven't attempted to license out the comment moderation system currently available on Slashdot? Yes, it might cannibalize some of their current readership, but they could limit that by licensing to web sites that do not specialize in technology.
It's not like they would run into a lot of competition either. Right now, the most popular comment hosting site seems to be Disqus. Every site that uses Disqus lists the comments in reverse chronological order. That means that every poster is reading the last few comments and then chiming in with arguments that have already been made and maybe even debunked much earlier in the conversation. And the moderation system has no concept of karma or the capability to moderate posts via categories. Dice, use what you've got and start making money off of it from other web sites already!
I keep hearing people say this, but I have found the comments on Slashdot to come from quite a diverse group. There's no doubt that there's some deep groupthink such as the anti-Apple and anti-Microsoft sentiments on this site, yet you can still find comments praising both of these companies modded up despite the overall bias against them.
I am strongly against this idea. First of all, there are so many people commenting on the site that it would be nearly impossible to block out all of the noise one commenter at a time. Secondly, there are some people that have very rational viewpoints and make great contributions to the discussion 90% of the time, but there's one or two topics in which they go off the deep end. The current moderation system allows you to mod them up when they're making good points and mod them into oblivion when they go mental.
Microsoft's biggest problem in this area is that they don't know how to be the underdog. They are so drunk on their own KoolAid that they don't realize why the first generation of Surfaces failed, so they continue to make the same mistakes. They are used to a culture of domination on the desktop in which developers have to make apps for their platforms because everyone uses them and everyone continues to use Windows because it has great application support. However, this culture doesn't translate well to a platform which is dominated by two other ecosystems. Microsoft came late to the party and offered little of interest while charging premium prices. And as nice as a 10" tablet that can run all Windows programs seems, there's no way in hell I would pay $900 for it, especially when its flagship feature, the keyboard cover, will cost an extra $100. Microsoft, you're on the brink of pulling a Zune here. You need to move hardware at a break-even point or even a loss in order to break into this market. If you don't, nobody will ever think of you when it comes to tablets.
By that logic, I'd have to pull over every time I wanted to change the radio station, temperature, or turn on/off the defroster. The world may not be as black and white as you think it is.
How does the cop know if the person is texting, changing songs in their music app, or consulting the GPS app? Could I get a ticket for changing songs or rerouting the GPS app while stopped at a traffic light? If so, does the law actually expect me to pull over every time I want to switch songs?
My personal bias is to not spend hundreds of dollars for a device that I would only use to read news on the shitter. With that said, I don't care if other people choose to buy tablets, let alone which brand they choose. The point I was trying to make is that the poster I was responding to attempted to disqualify the OP's numbers with numbers equally meaningless. He made no attempt to quote his source and so we have no idea what methods were used to arrive at that number and therefore the quality of that number can not be determined. In this case, my personal bias is not against the iPad and completely against unverifiable data. Read what the numbers actually tell you - any additional extrapolations you attempt to make are based entirely on unverifiable assumptions and are therefore complete garbage.
That is not the point. The parent was right to smack down the number of units shipped since the number of tablets rotting on shelves is useless. However, that poster was wrong to quote a number without citing the source as well as believe that the number has any meaning since we do not know the method in which that data was collected. That number could have come from a careful analysis that only counted users once via their login credentials or it could have been from some asshole who had a blog that had eight pageviews, seven of which were from an iPad. The point is that we don't know, so his figures are just as useless as the ones in the post in which he was replying.
At these prices, these tablets are guaranteed to sell as well as the first generation!
No, it doesn't. It counts the number of visitors of a particular web site that have content strings that claim they are using an iPad.
CanHasDIY, is that you?
Apple has traditionally tweaked their latest software to run its best on the latest hardware, sometimes at the cost of running slower on older hardware. In general, most performance tweaks have side effects that will vary based on the underlying hardware. While Apple could create different versions of iOS tuned for different hardware, that would cause another layer of fragmentation, which is something Apple tries to avoid. That, and the obvious fact that they can sell more hardware by focusing on tweaking the OS for the latest hardware.
I experienced that firsthand. Luckily I waited until I went to trade in the phone before loading iOS 4 on my iPhone 3G because it turned out to be unusably slow. All of the articles I read stated that iOS 4 ran great on an iPhone 3G, but I couldn't even scroll through the home screens without severe lag, even with a clean install of iOS with no apps.
However, foregoing the update had negative side effects of its own. I was unable to install many apps because they required the new version of iOS and older versions of those apps were unavailable on the App Store. There's nothing like needing to update iOS to get a new app, update iTunes to update iOS, possibly update Mac OS to get the latest iTunes, and eventually upgrade hardware to get support for the latest version of Mac OS. I'm not sure if all of that is still required, but it certainly didn't seem to live up to Apple's standards for being user-friendly.
Good point, currency is not the same as wealth but it's pretty hard to acquire wealth without first acquiring a large amount of currency.
True, but notice my original quote stated "at any given point in time". My point is that it is not an infinite resource, even if the Fed prints it like there's no tomorrow.
Are there any right-wingers in here that would like to comment on whether or not this is accurate? I'm curious because the fact that there is a limited supply of currency in circulation at any given point in time means that wealth is absolutely a zero-sum game.
And that it's small
...
And that it sips power
And that it can interface with robotics sensors
I wonder how much work these people could be contributing to open source projects if they didn't have to waste time sifting through mountains of garbage patents to do the jobs that the patent examiners should be doing. Add on to that the advantage that other countries have by not having to waste time on this nonsense and it just seems silly to justify the existence of software patents. But since these patents make big money for powerful companies who bribe legislators, I'm not holding my breath for anything to change.
That and the fact that they are the only numbers released by the FDIC's documentation regarding derivatives.
FTFY. Also, it doesn't require "absolutely everything" to go tits up. Everything in our economy is so tightly coupled to each other that big waves in one sector are guaranteed to have some effect in most other sectors. And if the waves grow big enough, the whole thing could come down.
In addition to that, your assertion that the number means nothing assumes that the number of bets that it will go tits up are relatively balanced with the number of bets that it will not go tits up. The greater the disparity, the greater the economic effect. And the lack of regulation means that banks don't have to act in a manner that guarantees that they can cover even a majority of their bets, hence the 2008 bailouts. And nothing has been done to change that, so be prepared for it to happen again.
According to this web site, there's $228 trillion in derivatives. I didn't believe that number at first, but then I checked the source of the data and it comes from the FDIC (Schedule RL-C). Oh, and that data was for the end of the 2011 calendar year. Anyone wanna take bets that the number was much higher for 2012 and will be even higher in 2013? Don't worry, though - I'm sure the banks aren't playing fast and loose and we have absolutely nothing to worry about.
That's the beauty of a war on ideology: anyone who opposes your ideological values can be branded a traitor.
It's shit like this that forces me to turn off automatic updates and wait a month before manually applying updates. And it's not just a Microsoft problem - I have also seen similar issues from Apple and Canonical.