Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So they update it, but... (Score 1) 99

by amiga3D (#47448839) Attached to: New Raspberry Pi Model B+

I've tried it and it was beautiful. I have to assume you're trying to do something the hardware isn't capable of. It's fully capable of any sort of light computing tasks. It works well as a media machine. This in spite of the fact it was designed to be neither. It was designed to provide a low cost, low power, small and full featured computer board for educational use. At that purpose it's off the chain. People bitching because it wont transcode blue ray movies on the fly just pisses me off. If you say Raspbian doesn't work you either don't know what you're doing or you're lying.

Comment: Re:So they update it, but... (Score 1) 99

by amiga3D (#47448795) Attached to: New Raspberry Pi Model B+

It does it about as well as anything under 200 dollars will. I've seen an occasional glitch on mine but it's rare. It'll not compete with a full blown media machine of course but it does extremely well. I have to admit I was amazed at what it can do. The only issue I had with mine was solved with a powered USB hub and it looks like the B+ fixes that problem.

Comment: Re:Slow CPU, crippled network, too little RAM (Score 1) 99

by amiga3D (#47448727) Attached to: New Raspberry Pi Model B+

It's a hobbyist and education board. The amazing thing really is that it's used in a lot of industrial projects now which I think surprised the Rpi people. The problems pale beside the flexibility and low cost of the board. It's not perfect, I'm sure for another 100-200 dollars it could have been.

Comment: Re:Actually, the edits look good! (Score 1) 68

by AthanasiusKircher (#47448667) Attached to: Bot Tweets Anonymous Wikipedia Edits From Capitol Hill

I started browsing it looking for anything juicy. The edits seem to be small, good quality, mostly political edits. They look like interns with an interest in politics, history...

Huh. Competent information provided by people who actually might know something about a topic. Who would've guessed?

This is one of the main issues with Wikipedia -- it depends on knowledgeable editors, but those who know the most about a topic are often barred (or at least discouraged) from sharing their knowledge, which might be branded "original research" or (as in this case) automatically assumed to be suspicious or potentially made only in self-interest.

The problem here is NOT contributions from experts -- I imagine those involved in government might be most qualified to know what needs to be added to articles on it. The problem is the continuing Wikipedia mentality that we don't need qualified (but disinterested) experts to authorize edits on good articles... and instead depend on whichever volunteers are best at wikilawyering.

Don't get me wrong: Wikipedia's amazing growth is largely from its early "open door" policy on edits. But new editors have stopped coming to Wikipedia now, because they are greeted with suspicion and faced with the daunting task of fighting a bureaucracy (mostly of people who are not experts on the topic) to suggest any substantial edit. It's time to move into a more "mature" phase on established articles that have been deemed to be reasonably good quality. (My personal suggestion would be a two-stage edit on established articles, with a "stable version" displayed by default and an "experimental" or whatever version that can still have suggested edits by anyone... and those edits can be added to the stable version after review... but that's just one possible system. That would be a better system to prevent abuse as well as random vandalism, rather than a system that is suspicious of any user from the wrong IP or any new user who might just be a shill.)

Comment: Re:Going back to cash (Score 2) 522

by AthanasiusKircher (#47447667) Attached to: Predicting a Future Free of Dollar Bills

And no, the cash is accounted for n withdrawal, it has not "disappeared".

I think you missed my point. Suppose you take $60 out from an ATM to cover miscellaneous cash expenses for a week (or two or whatever). That number is immediately deducted from your balances, so if you look at your checking account to decide what you have to spend for future purposes, the cash is "invisible." Moreover, if you want to track individual cash transactions, you would need to enter and itemize them manually, which frankly most people can't be bothered with unless they do a lot of cash transactions or use large amounts of cash.

So, if you use financial software, cash becomes this untraceable invisible part of your financial total (like credit cards used to be), while every other transaction will automatically update and modify your net worth. I'm NOT saying you CAN'T keep track of cash... I'm saying for people who don't use it very much, it's more difficult, and people don't bother.

The cluster of odd bills in my wallet has become sort of like the "change jar" that people throw their coins into. You don't quite know how much is there, because you don't need it or use it very often,, but it's probably less than $100, and if you ever need some, you can probably dig out a couple quarters as necessary.

That younger people cannot maintain a balance in their heads is no reason to dispose of cash in society for those who can.

I know that this is what TFA is about, but I never argued in my post to get rid of cash. I don't think that would be good at all. My post was simply responding to others who said that cash was easier to track in your wallet -- for previous generations, yeah, today... not so much.

Comment: Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL (Score 1) 94

by GrahamCox (#47447085) Attached to: How To Fix The Shortage of K-5 Scholastic Chess Facilitators

Every minute playing chess would be better spent [fill in your personal alternative here]

Perhaps people like, y'know, playing chess as a game? It's interesting, it passes the time, and it's actually quite challenging to become even moderately good at the game. The fact that algorithms can play chess is irrelevant, playing chess is not an activity that humans play algorithmically - they learn to play it intuitively, using pattern recognition and a bit of analysis, not exhaustive analysis and a whole bunch of rules, tables and a large database of known games to draw on. Chess programs employing 'simple' heuristics don't beat every human player - top players can still beat the top programs, though it's getting close. The programs in typical chess implementations do beat novice players, but in turn they are easily beaten once you get better at the game.

It's like saying there's no point playing soccer because a machine that can fire balls into a net could be easily built that would beat a human goalie every time. It really misses the whole point.

"No problem is so formidable that you can't walk away from it." -- C. Schulz