You know what's worse than people assuming they know what they're talking about? People who pretend to know what they're talking about, and who lie to boot.
I own all 3 systems
Either you have a lot of money, or your parents have a lot of money, or you're a liar. Considering that adults don't have time to play all 3 systems regularly, that your post doesn't quite strike me as one written by an adolescent (though it is petulant), and, most importantly, that your post does not have a single mention of the Wii, I call bullshit.
it's only $100 more than a 360
The easiest way to spot a shill or a fanboy from a hundred yards out is when he uses his console's lowest price point. Using the competition's highest price point at the same time is just icing on the cake, not to mention hilariously hypocritical.
otherwise, it's $100 cheaper than a 360. Why is this? Because the 360 only comes with a 20 GB HD and no 802.11g support.
Huhbuhduhwuh?? Cheaper than the 360?? I have no idea where you got your numbers, but they're just wrong. The 360 "only" comes with 20GB? You said the PS3 is only $100 more; that means you're gonna have to stick with the lesser package. In case you're forgotten (what with you being busy with your other two consoles and all), the $500 PS3 comes with a 20GB HDD too. And wireless support most certainly does not justify a price bump of $100--if it did, a Wii stripped of the controller, Wii Sports, and wireless would cost $50. I wish.
I realize that the 360 has better online options right now.. but is it $50/yr better? Or $200 - $250 over the life of the console better?
Once again, if you use your PS3 numbers on the Wii, you come out with the Wii being... free? Holy fuck, dude, that number factory up your ass must be malfunctioning. Quit trying to come up with excuses for the price difference; PS3 online is free, and as such, Sony feels to pressure to make the online experience more than half-assed. I suggest you get a Wii and check out Nintendo's free online experience... oh, wait, you already have one! I forgot!
That also needs to be figured in the total cost of ownership of either system.
So do games. 3 guesses as to which console has the cheapest games.
The way I see it, total cost of ownership for my 360 (having gotten it on launch day) is $850. $250 for 5 years worth of XBox Live (assuming I keep it for the life of the system) and $200 for the HD-DVD player (because I really do think high def movies are better) and $400 for the console. Whereas the total cost of ownership for my PS3 (having gotten it on launch day) is still only $600.
B-B-B-B-B-B-B-BUT FEATURES!!!one2! Sorry, but no amount of whining and kicking is going to make a Mac Pro cheaper than a Dell. I'd also like to take the liberty of calling you a dumbass for buying both a Blu-Ray and an HD-DVD player.
I have all 3 systems, and play all 3 systems regularly.
You own them so much, you had to tell us twice. Thanks for reminding me, though, I do seem to have forgotten a couple times.
I couldn't/didn't want to choose one or two out of the three because I knew it would be torture 1-2 years down the road...
Yeah, I'm so afraid of the future "torture" that will ensue when I predict the Wii to be the console leader this generation. My body temperature even changed, almost.
once the big exclusives come out.
I know, right? All those big, big PS3 exclusives, like Assassin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto... oh, wait...
Now if only someone could send a message to their marketing folk that the PS3 would be cheaper than a similarly decked out 360 and play off of that, maybe their sales would start taking off.
So let me get this straight. AT&T says it can't defend itself because it would endanger national security (basically, AT&T is guilty), and because of this, the case should be throw out (a win for AT&T)?
But I guess logic like that is adequate for government work.
The parent makes the same mistake that the article and the summary make: computer science != programming. TFA talks on and on about "longing" for old programming languages, about new programming tools, about the ability of 8-year-olds to program (?), about almost anything programming-related. The only non-programming thing TFA cites is the falling numbers of computer science majors, which, in my opinion, does not indicate the death of anything, but rather reflects the amount of respect that IT jobs get in the private sector--that is, next to none.
But there's so much more to computer science than programming and general software. There's robotics, artificial intelligence, distributed computing, networking, graphics, architecture, and theory, not to mention the overlaps with other fields, such as with electrical engineering (architecture), mechanical engineering (robotics, integration), mathematics (especially statistics), sociology (mass models), and just about any other science or even non-scientific field that could use modeling--multifield modeling requires skills that techie teens do not have. Don't forget that there are uncountable subfields within each field, and I most likely missed one or more fields as it is.
Artifical intelligence and robotics are especially potent because they are both in their infancy and merely budding as fields of study. Their potential is huge. And TFA has the balls to claim that CS is dying? Quite the contrary.
The single most disappointing thing is when uninformed posts like the parent get modded up.
theism - from Greek theos; belief in a supreme being. atheism - a- (without) + theism; a lack of a belief in a supreme being. antitheism - anti- (against or opposite of) + theism; a belief in the nonexistence of a supreme being.
agnosticism - a- + gnosis (knowledge); the belief that we cannot prove the existence of a supreme being. ignosticism - (from ignore and agnosticism); the belief that the question of the existence of a supreme being has no verifiable consequence and thus it should be ignored.
Note that agnosticism is compatible with theism, atheism, and antitheism: it is entirely possible to believe that the existence of a god cannot be proven and concurrently hold an opinion on the matter. Conversely, ignosticism is only compatible with atheism; it makes no sense to believe that the existence of a god should be ignored while believing in its existence or nonexistence.
Also note that antitheism is generally considered a subset of atheism. This is why many theists seem to think that atheism is a belief in the nonexistence of a god. Just as we atheists mostly hear the loudest of the theists, the theists hear the loudest of the atheists, who are nearly always antitheistic.
Lastly, proof has nothing to do with any of the above categories (read: belief), with the exception of agnosticism, which only deals with the lack of proof surrounding the existence of a supreme being. Please don't claim that theists or antitheists do anything without proof, because both belief systems are founded on faith. There is no proof to go either way.
There may be 90 million iPods sold, but not all of them are currently in use.
Okay, but on the other hand, not all owned songs are used in iPods (or used) at all, either. Personally, I've got a couple gigs of music that I don't really listen to, and aren't on my iPod. For example, I have the soundtracks of some video games, which are great when I'm in the mood (read: free time), but generally I listen to my iPod when I'm walking to class. For another example, I've bought one or two CD's for a really good song or two, but I think the rest is terrible. (I'm lookin' at you, Demon Days...)
That's very profound and all, but given their track record, more than likely they'll go back to bickering over abortion and global warming as the rest of the horses jump the fence.
Upon further Googling (I've had enough for a couple months by now), I find it extremely interesting (telling?) that so many of these "sightings" are for sale. If it's small enough to easily ship, it's probably on eBay. Are we to believe that these people really believe their holy savior has sent them a holy sign, only to turn around and sell their very idol through a very unholy site for a couple hundred unholy bucks?
Then again, the two guys responsible for the creation of the linked story make it no secret that they're looking for a job. Come to your own conclusion, but it looks to me like there's some serious doublethink going on here.
[A] monopoly... is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
That's the strict interpretation of a monopoly. It fits government-granted monopolies (such as some public utilities in certain areas), but there also exist de facto monopolies, where one company's market share is so large that the "competition" is negligible and irrelevant. Microsoft is an example and has been sued by the United States government for practicing illegal monopolistic tactics. Apple's iPod is arguably another (but admittedly weaker) example of such a de facto monopoly because of their overwhelming market share.
The large difference, I think, is that it's much more difficult to switch from Windows to an alternate OS; most, if not all, of your applications, and likely much of your data cannot be transferred. Take MS Office, for example. There exists MS Office for Macs, but the Windows version cannot be used, and you would have to buy another software package. Many apps don't even have an adequate equivalent.
iPods are somewhat different in this respect. If only 3% of the average iPod's music is FairPlayed, then 97% of the data can be easily transferred to a competing device. In that respect, there's no lock-in, but then there are the peripherals, which will universally not work on its competitors, and the ever-popular iTunes Music Store, whose music only works on the iPod and whose competitors are basically nonexistent.
So, in my opinion, the iPod is, in fact, a monopoly, if weak. It would be a much more obvious example if its DRM were more of a factor.
Speaking of algorithms, wasn't there a story a little while back that talked about algorithms that took blurred screenshots of checks and rendered them unblurred? Isn't it very possible to do the same thing in this case? How, exactly, is blurring a security measure at all?
I don't quite understand what you want. Do you want that e-mail to claim that DRM will trash users' computers, or to articulate the truth?
I'm asking because the truth is neither exciting nor threatening enough to get the attention of your target audience, and because I, and I think many others "in the know", would not support the fighting of greed and lies with manipulation and more lies.
Don't stoop to their level, or you're just as bad as they are.
Or are they providing the most relevant information according to the ever evolving "hive" mind that is the internet?
But who determines what the most relevant information is?
A shocking number of people here believe that Google should attempt to make decisions regarding what is and is not relevant. This is not the nature of the Internet. Until the telecom corporations win their multitiered internet, the Internet is "the people". Therefore, "the people" should decide what is and what is not relevant. If "the people" decide that George Bush is a miserable failure, then that should be the relevant information.
It's mod rule, you say? Well, I don't see much of a governing body (even the specifications are merely "recommendations"!), so I'd say the Internet itself (and not just Googlebombing) is itself anarchic mob rule, also known as "democracy". And hey, it's seemed to work out pretty damn well so far.
I think Googlebombing is a bit like letting Nazis have free speech in the states. It's not exactly a good thing, but to block free speech would be far, far worse. So I don't think Googlebombing is a good thing--I think it's an intentional abuse of the system--but in my opinion, for what it's worth, it's closer to being a good thing than a bad one.
Slashdot Mirror
Status: OLD
Severity: Major
Reproducible: Always
Description: MySpace is like an ugly hooker; you wonder how she gets so much action when she's so hideous.
Solution: Bring the web designer from the 90's back to the present. Will need: flux capacitor, 1.21 jigawatts.
Us Californians just have to worry about California breaking off from the United States...
Either you have a lot of money, or your parents have a lot of money, or you're a liar. Considering that adults don't have time to play all 3 systems regularly, that your post doesn't quite strike me as one written by an adolescent (though it is petulant), and, most importantly, that your post does not have a single mention of the Wii, I call bullshit.
The easiest way to spot a shill or a fanboy from a hundred yards out is when he uses his console's lowest price point. Using the competition's highest price point at the same time is just icing on the cake, not to mention hilariously hypocritical.
Huhbuhduhwuh?? Cheaper than the 360?? I have no idea where you got your numbers, but they're just wrong. The 360 "only" comes with 20GB? You said the PS3 is only $100 more; that means you're gonna have to stick with the lesser package. In case you're forgotten (what with you being busy with your other two consoles and all), the $500 PS3 comes with a 20GB HDD too. And wireless support most certainly does not justify a price bump of $100--if it did, a Wii stripped of the controller, Wii Sports, and wireless would cost $50. I wish.
Once again, if you use your PS3 numbers on the Wii, you come out with the Wii being ... free? Holy fuck, dude, that number factory up your ass must be malfunctioning. Quit trying to come up with excuses for the price difference; PS3 online is free, and as such, Sony feels to pressure to make the online experience more than half-assed. I suggest you get a Wii and check out Nintendo's free online experience ... oh, wait, you already have one! I forgot!
So do games. 3 guesses as to which console has the cheapest games.
B-B-B-B-B-B-B-BUT FEATURES!!!one2! Sorry, but no amount of whining and kicking is going to make a Mac Pro cheaper than a Dell. I'd also like to take the liberty of calling you a dumbass for buying both a Blu-Ray and an HD-DVD player.
You own them so much, you had to tell us twice. Thanks for reminding me, though, I do seem to have forgotten a couple times.
Yeah, I'm so afraid of the future "torture" that will ensue when I predict the Wii to be the console leader this generation. My body temperature even changed, almost.
I know, right? All those big, big PS3 exclusives, like Assassin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto... oh, wait...
Did you know that a Mac Pro is actu
So let me get this straight. AT&T says it can't defend itself because it would endanger national security (basically, AT&T is guilty), and because of this, the case should be throw out (a win for AT&T)?
But I guess logic like that is adequate for government work.
The parent makes the same mistake that the article and the summary make: computer science != programming. TFA talks on and on about "longing" for old programming languages, about new programming tools, about the ability of 8-year-olds to program (?), about almost anything programming-related. The only non-programming thing TFA cites is the falling numbers of computer science majors, which, in my opinion, does not indicate the death of anything, but rather reflects the amount of respect that IT jobs get in the private sector--that is, next to none.
But there's so much more to computer science than programming and general software. There's robotics, artificial intelligence, distributed computing, networking, graphics, architecture, and theory, not to mention the overlaps with other fields, such as with electrical engineering (architecture), mechanical engineering (robotics, integration), mathematics (especially statistics), sociology (mass models), and just about any other science or even non-scientific field that could use modeling--multifield modeling requires skills that techie teens do not have. Don't forget that there are uncountable subfields within each field, and I most likely missed one or more fields as it is.
Artifical intelligence and robotics are especially potent because they are both in their infancy and merely budding as fields of study. Their potential is huge. And TFA has the balls to claim that CS is dying? Quite the contrary.
It's ironic that an article on a standards group can't seem to decide whether it's "organisation" or "organization".
The single most disappointing thing is when uninformed posts like the parent get modded up.
theism - from Greek theos; belief in a supreme being.
atheism - a- (without) + theism; a lack of a belief in a supreme being.
antitheism - anti- (against or opposite of) + theism; a belief in the nonexistence of a supreme being.
agnosticism - a- + gnosis (knowledge); the belief that we cannot prove the existence of a supreme being.
ignosticism - (from ignore and agnosticism); the belief that the question of the existence of a supreme being has no verifiable consequence and thus it should be ignored.
Note that agnosticism is compatible with theism, atheism, and antitheism: it is entirely possible to believe that the existence of a god cannot be proven and concurrently hold an opinion on the matter. Conversely, ignosticism is only compatible with atheism; it makes no sense to believe that the existence of a god should be ignored while believing in its existence or nonexistence.
Also note that antitheism is generally considered a subset of atheism. This is why many theists seem to think that atheism is a belief in the nonexistence of a god. Just as we atheists mostly hear the loudest of the theists, the theists hear the loudest of the atheists, who are nearly always antitheistic.
Lastly, proof has nothing to do with any of the above categories (read: belief), with the exception of agnosticism, which only deals with the lack of proof surrounding the existence of a supreme being. Please don't claim that theists or antitheists do anything without proof, because both belief systems are founded on faith. There is no proof to go either way.
Shouldn't there be some kind of mechanism in Slashdot to prevent months-old news?
I must be new here.
But does it run Linux?
... that's not right ...
No, wait
The portable hacking device runs Linux.
Okay, but on the other hand, not all owned songs are used in iPods (or used) at all, either. Personally, I've got a couple gigs of music that I don't really listen to, and aren't on my iPod. For example, I have the soundtracks of some video games, which are great when I'm in the mood (read: free time), but generally I listen to my iPod when I'm walking to class. For another example, I've bought one or two CD's for a really good song or two, but I think the rest is terrible. (I'm lookin' at you, Demon Days...)
That's very profound and all, but given their track record, more than likely they'll go back to bickering over abortion and global warming as the rest of the horses jump the fence.
Upon further Googling (I've had enough for a couple months by now), I find it extremely interesting (telling?) that so many of these "sightings" are for sale. If it's small enough to easily ship, it's probably on eBay. Are we to believe that these people really believe their holy savior has sent them a holy sign, only to turn around and sell their very idol through a very unholy site for a couple hundred unholy bucks?
Then again, the two guys responsible for the creation of the linked story make it no secret that they're looking for a job. Come to your own conclusion, but it looks to me like there's some serious doublethink going on here.
That can be applied to sightings of many other things.
The problem is, how does one determine which patterns indicate something and which patterns are just convincing illusions?
The large difference, I think, is that it's much more difficult to switch from Windows to an alternate OS; most, if not all, of your applications, and likely much of your data cannot be transferred. Take MS Office, for example. There exists MS Office for Macs, but the Windows version cannot be used, and you would have to buy another software package. Many apps don't even have an adequate equivalent.
iPods are somewhat different in this respect. If only 3% of the average iPod's music is FairPlayed, then 97% of the data can be easily transferred to a competing device. In that respect, there's no lock-in, but then there are the peripherals, which will universally not work on its competitors, and the ever-popular iTunes Music Store, whose music only works on the iPod and whose competitors are basically nonexistent.
So, in my opinion, the iPod is, in fact, a monopoly, if weak. It would be a much more obvious example if its DRM were more of a factor.
Speaking of algorithms, wasn't there a story a little while back that talked about algorithms that took blurred screenshots of checks and rendered them unblurred? Isn't it very possible to do the same thing in this case? How, exactly, is blurring a security measure at all?
I don't quite understand what you want. Do you want that e-mail to claim that DRM will trash users' computers, or to articulate the truth?
I'm asking because the truth is neither exciting nor threatening enough to get the attention of your target audience, and because I, and I think many others "in the know", would not support the fighting of greed and lies with manipulation and more lies.
Don't stoop to their level, or you're just as bad as they are.
A shocking number of people here believe that Google should attempt to make decisions regarding what is and is not relevant. This is not the nature of the Internet. Until the telecom corporations win their multitiered internet, the Internet is "the people". Therefore, "the people" should decide what is and what is not relevant. If "the people" decide that George Bush is a miserable failure, then that should be the relevant information.
It's mod rule, you say? Well, I don't see much of a governing body (even the specifications are merely "recommendations"!), so I'd say the Internet itself (and not just Googlebombing) is itself anarchic mob rule, also known as "democracy". And hey, it's seemed to work out pretty damn well so far.
I think Googlebombing is a bit like letting Nazis have free speech in the states. It's not exactly a good thing, but to block free speech would be far, far worse. So I don't think Googlebombing is a good thing--I think it's an intentional abuse of the system--but in my opinion, for what it's worth, it's closer to being a good thing than a bad one.
Could Java 6 be affected by the recent Java vulnerability?
No.
They don't want to give up the X in the name. The logo they change with every release.
Oh, sorry, wrong flamewar. Carry on.