yohui

43 ms·

361.
by yohui 15y ago
http://db.tt/fatt9cV Thanks!
362.
by yohui 15y ago
> Is that the same ui view that Samsung put on the Galaxy Tab packaging? Ex: http://www.photokina-show.com/news_images/00812_samsung-gala... That's the older 7-inch Galaxy Tab. Which looks even less like the iPad; more like the Kindl
363.
by yohui 15y ago
> "What is the probability, across the space of all possible continuations of the world from the dawn of humanity, that the world would end up in a state that includes me?" Not particularly more or less probable than most particular s
364.
by yohui 15y ago
People seem to habitually miss point #3. See, for example, many hypotheticals that ask you to imagine yourself in another person's shoes. (Not sure what a succinct alternative would be, though.)
365.
by yohui 15y ago
That seems to be the plan: " Linux is a possibility - PC. Mac and iOS would come first though."
366.
by yohui 15y ago
> Everyone else selling online in CA with similar areas (Zappos, Barnes and Noble, etc) still needs to pay the tax this year. As Amazon owns Zappos, I would have assumed that they'd be covered by such a deal as well.
367.
by yohui 15y ago
Though it would appear easier most "everywhere else" to voice dissent regarding "the rules". That and the prospect of redressing such grievances seem to be important distinctions.
368.
by yohui 15y ago
You need to click on "divine (verb)", third on the list of "entries found". Or the direct URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/divine[3]
369.
by yohui 15y ago
And their Hybrid Assistive Limb is called "HAL". I would be surprised if they did not have some system named "Skynet".
370.
by yohui 15y ago
> It does cost Google a lot of money to make, yet it gives phone manufacturers licenses for cheap, just to make phones cheap enough so that users chose them over iPhones. Google wants it so bad they are willing to lose a lot of money no
371.
by yohui 15y ago
Microsoft et al. don't want Google to have the patents usuable against them . Either outbidding or co-owning works. Microsoft had enough patents that it was more important Google did not have the patents for itself than for Microsoft to
372.
by yohui 15y ago
Couldn't it be that Google wanted these patents for their defensive value against Microsoft et al.'s existing patents? IANAL, but it seems to me that co-owning them would be, at best, a wash, as neither company could leverage the patent por
373.
by yohui 15y ago
Without going into the rest, I would note that even if you're right, you haven't refuted onemoreact. If it is ”known” that men are at a disadvantage in custody battles, you might expect men to only contest if they had significant other adva
374.
by yohui 15y ago
Halfway through my response to this, I realized that someone had already written it, and in a much more entertaining fashion. So I'll just point you to his post instead: Three Worlds Collide , by Yudkowsky http://lesswrong.com/lw/y5/the_
375.
by yohui 15y ago
Google Notebook (google.com/notebook) is still available, they just stopped working on it. I wouldn't consider it an act of "force" to stop developing a product. And regardless, they're not obligated to even continue offering it. Regardin
376.
by yohui 15y ago
First of all, Ebert actually attributes the quote to David Poland of MovieCityNews.com. To put that 60-40 split for 2D vs 3D into context, I'd need to know: a) what the proportion of 2D vs 3D showtimes were (perhaps weighted by the historic
377.
by yohui 15y ago
There are some appealing aspects of the future portrayed (an apparently efficient legal system), but taking a step back this does not quite look like where we want to head (the death of privacy and fair-use). It makes the scenario scarier,