Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:In some ways, it makes a lot of sense (Score 1) 606

Um, I can do all of that now, without PsyStar.

Bought a game that said it was two player; game is not two player, returned it saying the box-art and instructions are wrong, got my money back.

I also get to run the software I bought on anything I like. It's not like Apple or Microsoft walk into my house when I open up OS X or Word.

And woo, I can even sell my box copies. You know, the same way used software gets sold or used games or used DVDs!

Comment Re:Ghosts (Score 1) 550

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear, I thought it obvious since we were talking about spirit, soul, and humans.

It's not life that might be more than a chemical process, it's consciousness that might be more than a chemical process, more than an emergent behavior of a collection of cells.

If consciousness is merely an emergent behavior, then a sufficiently complex computer will eventually become conscious too. That's exciting; but there is still reason to believe (what with higher multiple dimensions and all), that there are physical processes we do not yet know of or understand.

Yes, I understand God of the gaps, but call it a grasped straw for someone who just lost his dad.

Comment Re:Love? (Score 1) 550

I don't think it counts as love when it's dark and twisted. I think it's plenty of other things (obsession, desire, jealousy, etc, but not love.

To be fair, we need to agree to a definition of love to talk about it intelligently, and from all I can tell love is an extension to others the feeling of self valuation one affords the self.

In other words, the generosity and acceptance you give yourself is "love" when you give it to someone else.

Comment Re:Love? (Score 1) 550

Really? It sounds more like the "No true vegetarian eats mean" statement to me.

Love, if defined as wholesome and good, cannot be love if it is negative and destructive.

Someone may call it love as much as they want, but if everyone agrees that love is not negative and destructive then the person who is being negative and destructive is only misleading themselves.

Comment Re:Ghosts (Score 1) 550

There are some theories that say time DOESN'T end after the universe, too. Or rather, our current view of the universe is the wrong perspective.

And by saying "if there is a vital life force", I do not mean to create some kind of circular logic. I am merely saying I don't know if there is or isn't, the same way you can say, "If there is a Higgs boson", "If there is a gravitron", "If there is a tachyon"... there are theories that propose the existence of multiple higher dimensions, etc, that cannot yet be proven (or disproven), so we can still say, "If there exist..."

So the point is life may be more than just a complex chemical process, and we can say that without being unscientific because right now we actually can't define life, we can only categorize it. Which is about where we were a couple hundred years ago with chemistry, biology, and astronomy.

You also misunderstand when I mention branes and quantum mechanics.

Branes, string theory, and quantum mechanics might explain an afterlife (or rather, a continuous spectrum of life that overlaps our current lifespan).

Comment Re:Ghosts (Score 1) 550

1) Except for "conservation of energy". If there is a vital life force and if there does exist higher dimensions than our 3/4, there really is a possibility that our soul exists independently of our bodies and only intermingle briefly for the term of our existence.

2) The fact that life exists leads us to believe in an afterlife. Like postulating, what exists after the universe ends? Most likely, the universe exists after the universe ends, it just happens to have a different formulation.

3) No it doesn't. Not if you study branes and higher dimensions, or quantum mechanics and multiverses!

Comment Re:Differences with vendors, Java, BREW (Score 2, Insightful) 119

Um, those numbers include non-smartphones. If you are including only smartphones (which is more reasonable as I think the market for apps is larger on smartphones), you get:
http://www.canalys.com/pr/2008/r2008112.htm

Nokia 46.6%
Apple 17.3%
RIM 15.2%
Microsoft 13.6%

MIDP may still be the biggest market, now, but by this time next year if Apple continues to grow and expand aggressively they will probably be the bigger market.

Comment Re:The Nigerian scam is no more of a scam than... (Score 1) 857

Except, unlike a Nigerian scam, you CAN make money in the stock market or a casino. In a casino the odds are defined such that you will likely lose half of anything you bet. In the stock market the odds are defined such that you will likely see a modest 8% gain per year if you play the market for 10 years straight without investing more money into it.

Comment Re:Basic feature? (Score 1) 668

1) Turn on the FS on iPodB (an option when it is plugged into PCB)

So it's impossible.

You misunderstand. Perhaps I should have started with:
Ensure mass storage is enabled on both iPods. Once that is true you can copy files off both iPods on any PC you want.

What you're saying is that unless you have access to BOTH the PCs the iPods are synced to you can't transfer music at all.

Nope, not at all. As long as the iPods are visible as a file system to the single PC you care about, you can copy all the files off the iPod.

If you need access to BOTH PCs, why bother? Just move the files PC to PC.

You only need access to "both" PCs in the first place in the same sense you need both PCs in order to populate the iPods in the first place.

This is clearly seems deliberate to me. Apple really doesn't want you to share music.

No, you are just misunderstanding my instructions.

Apple doesn't care if you share music, they just don't make it the primary function of the iPod.

Um, the problem definitely existed seven years ago when this feature was first unveiled, and as a solution it definitely worked.

No it didn't. I had an original Rio PMP300, and MP3Man, the first MP3 players ever made and neither had this problem (they didn't do any metadata though).

Um, those systems couldn't handle 5GB of songs (or roughly 1000 songs). When you need to parse 1000 songs, you need some kind of magic when you have a 60MHz CPU...

I had an original Archos and it didn't have this problem, and it was a slow HD-based player AND did metadata and on-the-fly playlists.

Ugh, when I first got the iPod I could tell it was literally 10x faster than the Nomad and Archos my coworkers had.

For one thing, clicking on a genre/artist/playlist did not spin up the HDD. That is literally a 1/10th second difference between the iPod and most other HDD based players.

Since it was a mass storage device it also meant the filesystem could not contain anything other than straight ASCII (and limited at that), so the files HAD to be mangled if the file had apostrophes, diacriticals, etc.

This makes no sense at all. The filesystem most MP3 players use is FAT32, iPods (I think) originally used HFS+, now they use FAT32. FAT32 supports almost exactly the same character set as NTFS (the only possible 3rd filesystem here) so the filenames on your PC SHOULD work on the iPod, just as they do on EVERY OTHER MP3 PLAYER. Special characters and Unicode are meant to be handled in the metatdata, the ID3 tags.

Um, I had Japanese music files from Japanese music CDs that contained Japanese characters. Experience (and this document) says FAT32 could only store/display 8 bit DBCS characters... unicode was stored in special metadata folders/directories

There is simply no need to mangle the filenames and metadata into ASCII gibberish for "performance" and there never was.

If you say so. My experience was it worked. My training in CS also tells me that a hashtable is going to be faster.

Where did it insert hash data?

Into the tags. Last time I imported MP3 files into iTunes the song, artist, and album names in the ID3 tags were replaced with random ASCII strings (which I assume is hash data). Album art was stripped too.

Bizarre. Never happened to me.

Comment Re:Memory RNA (Score 1) 257

No disagreement from me, but I suspect this doesn't satisfy the original poster wanting to argue that instincts are poorly understood. Everything in the wiki article seems to have a strong evolutionary survival benefit, which means they would have been selected for without any "learning" necessary.

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Working...