Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Impressive (Score 1) 148

by ShakaUVM (#48219017) Attached to: Mark Zuckerberg Speaks Mandarin At Tsinghua University In Beijing

>Yes, his accent was horrible.

Yeah. I flinched at it. And his sentences were pretty basic. (Wo tai tai shi zhong guo ren, for example.)

That said, it's a nice gesture. When I went to China, people were constantly surprised at seeing a foreigner speak their language. It's a really diplomatic move on his part.

Comment: Re:To speak Chinese is not to know China (Score 1) 148

by phantomfive (#48218489) Attached to: Mark Zuckerberg Speaks Mandarin At Tsinghua University In Beijing

"They may have learned their Chinese shut up in their study reading the Analects."

I had a professor who literally did learn his Chinese reading the Analects. He couldn't speak a word of the language. When he took a taxi in China, he had to write on paper to communicate with the driver.

Comment: Re:His main points (Score 1) 200

by phantomfive (#48218241) Attached to: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

This all might sound like something that would come out of a conspiracy nut, but time and again these past two decades, the conspiracy nuts have been proven right.

To avoid being a 'nut', base your opinions on evidence. That way you will be right more often than a stopped clock (which is right two times a day).

Comment: Re:Wrong on all accounts! (Score 1) 200

by phantomfive (#48218225) Attached to: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

Your last statement is a complete farce, and I'd suggest reading the article and actually studying what the Bilderberg conference is about, as opposed to the blanket dismissal without evidence.

The Bilderberg conference is almost a shibboleth for people who think reading naturenews or similar counts as research.

Comment: Even more than that (Score 1) 175

by Sycraft-fu (#48218129) Attached to: How Sony, Intel, and Unix Made Apple's Mac a PC Competitor

Want to know a big reason people have been getting Macs, that Apple doesn't like to admit? You can run Windows on them now. The Intel switch made it viable to run Windows on them, natively if you wanted, and good virtualization tech means it runs fast in OS-X. That lets people get their shiny status symbol, but still use the programs they need.

We've seen that at work (an Engineering college). Prior to the Intel conversion, there were almost no Mac users. The thing is engineering software just isn't written for the Mac. There is actually some stuff now, but even so the vast majority is Windows or Linux. Back in the PPC days, there was almost nothing. So we had only really two stubborn faculty that used Macs, one because he did no research and just played around, and one because he wrote his own code and was stubborn. However that was it, you just couldn't do your work on them.

Now? All kinds of faculty and students have Macs. PCs are still dominant, but we see a lot more Macs. However every one has Windows on it. Some it is all they have. Seriously, we have two guys who buy Macs, but have us install Windows on it, they don't use MacOS they just want the shiny toy. A number have bootcamp, and many have VMWare. Regardless, I've yet to see one, faculty, staff, or student, that didn't put Windows on it to be able to do the work they need to.

So that is no small part of how Intel helped Apple gain market share.

Comment: Re:So 1 x F35 = 60 million x vaccinations? (Score 1) 93

by phantomfive (#48217777) Attached to: Leaked Documents Reveal Behind-the-Scenes Ebola Vaccine Issues
The vaccine probably wouldn't go to everyone, it would go to high-risk people, such as nurses, doctors, and people traveling to west africa (much like visitors to some countries get vaccines for yellow fever).

In my case, I would be more likely to die driving to the hospital for the vaccine, than I would be of Ebola.

Comment: Re:His main points (Score 1) 200

by phantomfive (#48217297) Attached to: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

in the same way that George Washington set a precedent by stepping down after two terms as President (he could very well have crowned himself if he wanted), I'm waiting to see if Larry Page's Google will set a precedent before I pass final judgment on Google's corporate existence

What kind of precedent are you hoping Larry Page will set?

Comment: Re:The Internet is our best weapon (Score 1) 200

by phantomfive (#48217099) Attached to: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

Even so, a number of governments have already fallen or been pressured by it; we see repressive regimes like China throwing all kinds of defenses up against it. I don't see how even China can stand against it for very long. Assange gets this, at least on some level. That would mean America wins

I don't think that follows. If a country ends up with a better government because of the internet, the citizens of that country win.

Comment: Re:How hard is it to recognize a stoplight? (Score 1) 279

by phantomfive (#48216787) Attached to: Will the Google Car Turn Out To Be the Apple Newton of Automobiles?

I'm curious: why do you think that's at all relevant to any other part of this thread?

Well, if you're curious, I believe this conversation was started with this earlier point of mine:

"And that is even before getting to the engineering problem of reliable software. When Boeing built their recent airline software package, it took 5-8 years to get something that was reliable enough for air travel."

Which is a comment on the difficulty of making reliable software. It's referring to the engineering aspect of the matter, that making software without (serious) bugs is very difficult and takes time. Since the software for self-driving cars will be much more complicated than the software for air travel, it follows naturally that making the software reliable will be even more difficult.

My point being, that even if the car could already drive itself anywhere, it would still be many years away from production.

Comment: His main points (Score 5, Informative) 200

by phantomfive (#48216399) Attached to: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems
His main points, as I understand them:

1) Eric Schmidt is getting involved in politics, and is becoming influential.
2) Google doesn't always follow "do no evil" but fanboys love Google anyway
3) Google is getting involved in government more than is healthy.

He has some other rambles about the Bilderbergs, and how the governments are secretly controlling world events, but his main points seam reasonable enough.

Comment: Re:Oh yeah, that guy (Score 4, Insightful) 200

by phantomfive (#48216367) Attached to: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.

Seriously? I'm not sure you read the same thing I did. I especially found his attempts to understand his interviewers (in the opening paragraphs) to be unusually analytical and.....rational.

Certainly Assange holds different viewpoints than I do, but his points seemed more logic based than your post, for example.

There are running jobs. Why don't you go chase them?