Does an obese cat in a giant hamster wheel count as a flywheel? No? What if I just hooked up a DC generator to it and dangled some liver on a stick? How many Watts could I get?
And do you know what we would call the catastrophic failure event in which Duke Energy might irradiate a large swath of land? Hint: it includes the word Nukem!
Just as CPUs, hard drives, memory, and everything else got more expensive? Economies of scale and improved manufacturing methods would have lowered the price, not raised it (even accounting for inflation).
Also, it would appear that the universe within 380 millions years was not expanding but contracting, at least it appears to have more blue to me than red.
Just a guess: that might be the gravitationally-bound local group. We're in for a collision with Andromeda in a few billion years!
The buckling spring keyboard costs more than the CPU now. That is because the influx of cheap silicon dome keyboards eroded the market away to being very specialty and therefore very expensive. Furthermore, being specialty there is little choice in the market.
I'm typing on a new Ducky with Cherry Browns: a mechanical keyboard but not buckling spring. The difference between this and the silicon dome is amazing. However, I really wanted a split keyboard like my old MS Natural 4000. Guess what: there is only one split mechanical keyboard on the market and it uses awful, heavy switches. If the cheap silicon dome keyboards did not exist then this $100 USD el-cheapo mechanical keyboard would have only cost $20 USD due to economies of scale, and there would be a selection of split ergonomic models.
So yes, having a single vendor or three is in fact a loss. And most people don't even know what they're missing. Try telling an employer that you want a $100 or $300 keyboard, they laugh. They've never even heard of these things.
I'm guessing Google picked up on how several of my family members (and many, many other computer users I'm afraid) actually enter URLs: 1. Click browser home button, arrive at google.com 2. Type URL in search box, then click first link (for advanced users: click "I'm feeling lucky") No matter how I try to explain how backwards this is, they keep doing it. Take away the search bar and I can't even argue the sane alternative.
More hits for google.com - more data, ads and more money for them. Only makes sense, really.
I used to think that this was stupid, until phishing and domain typos became widespread. Now, I actually advise users to do this because Google usually won't link to a malware site it if has been up for any amount of time, and even corrects some common typos.
Wow, thanks. The link 404s but I was able to find the thread. It is mentioned that upstream uids begin from 1000, I didn't even notice when that change happened.
This should probably be it's own/. story, this is an important change and needs to be more widely known.
Nice, thanks! I did not know that the installer gives this option. I had either missed it or it did not exist when I was still installing Fedora Core, up to version 6.
I know that you're kidding, but for those who will try it: You _can_ use the same/home partition in Fedora and *buntu, but remember to chown all your files to user 500 for Fedora or 1000 for *buntu. Same rules for all other RedHat based distros (users start from 500) and Debian-based distros (users start from 1000).
These people do not know how to separate the Gaga album from the Amazon service. I see it all the time on the http://what-is-what.com/ website: people rate the product or service under discussion instead of rating the article, even though the rating form is very clear.
I wouldn't say believe. But, with science, there are experiments to verify those theories, and which have been tested and verified by seemingly independent sources. And anyone with the right resources can replicate the tests and verify the experiments.
In other words, you take it from somebody that you trust that if you just had the right equipment, you too could verify scientific theories. That is the same argument used by religious leaders. And I would attest that the Rabbi, the Priest, and the Imam are pretty much independent sources.
Now, as I can not run all those experiments myself, and also can not know the full theory behind all new knowledge, I can now *know* it is so.
But.. The knowledge and theories behind those experiments are built upon what we already know to exist, and as time passes, the experiments become easier to replicate, and the experimental knowledge more solid.
In my mind, things can be made out of baryonic particles, there may exist one or more gods, this existence can all be a dream, we might be in a matrix-like state, or part of a full simulation of a four-dimensional universe, as an experiment from some existence we can not understand. Maybe ghosts exist. Maybe Odin and Loki really exist. Maybe aliens do visit Earth.
Some of those excludes others. All are a possibility until I can prove it for myself. However, some of those are more likely than others. In my scale of reality, some are closer to Absolute Truth than others. This is by my own judgement and understanding of the knowledge and logic involved, and to some degree, by my respect and trust in other people's judgement and expertise. This is built partially by my knowledge of the subject they speak of and what they have said earlier, and partially from which people also respect / trust their judgement - thus a sort of "web of trust" is built, which I can have a value on people's knowledge outside of my direct area of understanding. Of course, no web of trust can give absolute certainty, and so I can have no absolutes outside of what I can evaluate myself.
But, via this, the wall of my knowledge and world view is built on the fundaments of my logic and understanding. And if a part of that wall proves itself faulty, I will tear down that part and rebuild it.
Does that answer your question?
Yes, that does answer my question. Thanks for you insight.
Then why do you believe in the guy who tells you that matter is composed of baryonic particles who organized in a few way and have a few forces between them? Tell me where you draw the line?
Note that I don't believe in that BS either, but establish a baseline. It's pretty hard to define, especially when there are things that you know that you want to keep (physics) and things that you know that you don't (ghosts, or God, or bigfoot).
"And yet there are those who have seen proof of God"
No their isn't.
Yes their is. You're disbelief does not affect validity of another's proof. Would you suggest that some Christian fundamentalist's disbelief of evolution invalidates proof of the theory (yes, I know that evolution is not yet proven, but for me and you it's pretty much a given).
"many more people would attest that they have seen proof of God" So? a lot of people believing in something doesn't make it true.
Quite the same could be stated about quantum physics. In fact, I would venture that more people believe in a creator than in a specific defined minimum unit of time, matter, or energy.
" You and I learned from the books written by people who did the studies and found the "proof" of the theories, turning them into laws" Maybe you should understand what science is.
Maybe you should know where science came from. Maybe you should understand why there is a schism between Christianity and science. Note: that's not a schism between religion and science, as only Christianity seems to have been at ends with science. But assuming that you live in a Christian nation I would understand you conflating Christianity with religion in general.
"But it was not you who did those studies: it's the same leap of faith." Actually, I have done many experiments to prove. Added toe empirical evidence, clearly they are correct. We couldn't ahve a space ship exiting our solar systme if it wasn't true.
"Clearly they are correct": this is the same argument that you get from the other side. What is clear to you is most certainly wrong to others. By the way, how's that Pioneer Anomaly working out?
1000s of people do these experiments everyday. Even YOU could do it.
The key difference is there are people everyday trying to show theories to be false, and applying new data againsyt current theoroes..everyday. And history show us that when data shows a theory to in wrong, it changes.
That is the fundamental difference on why science can NEVER be a religion.
Science does not haver to be a religion. Neither does Apple. They serve completely different purposes today, though science still has it's roots in religion.
You are right, assuming that there is a God and that he interferes in human activities, he selectively reveals himself. I agree that the logical conclusion for those who have not received proof of existence, is to assume the lack of existence.
Take a look at my post in reply to Jedi Alec. I address that, in fact I support that viewpoint. I'd like your input on the rest of that post, which is what I would have written here had I gotten to this reply first.
You are correct: the fundamental proofs of physics and thermodynamics can be performed at will within reasonable error bars with the correct equipment. The fundamental proofs of the existence of a creator and/or an all-powerful watchdog entity are provided only when that entity decides to reveal himself. I fully expect those to whom the creator and/or extra-mortal entity has not revealed himself not to believe in it's existence.
However, it is the basic leap of faith needed to believe either or both viewpoints that I was addressing. If you personally had not measured C by studying the moons of Jupiter, but you trust the physicist that has, then your basis is no more solid than he who believes in an all-powerful entity that occasionally interferes in human lives, because his priest told him so.
By the way, Stephen Hawking believes in a creator. He is not religious, in fact he refers to science and religion as being opposed. But religion is the worship of an entity and submission to a church. Religion is not necessary to explain an origin for the universe (creator). Nor is the implication of a creator reason to believe that he interferes with human experience.
Slashdot Mirror
while (1){ fork(); ); // Hope derivatives will achieve far more success
That won't compile. You didn't put a closing bracket, and there's an errant close parenthesis in there.
Does an obese cat in a giant hamster wheel count as a flywheel? No? What if I just hooked up a DC generator to it and dangled some liver on a stick? How many Watts could I get?
One, followed by "...the fuck are you doing?"
And do you know what we would call the catastrophic failure event in which Duke Energy might irradiate a large swath of land? Hint: it includes the word Nukem!
Then use Apertium, they also provide an API
Does not support 3 of the four languages that I am interested in. Google supported them all, plus another two that I occasionally dabble in.
You are 100% right. I think that invisible hand is referred to as "race to the bottom", no?
Just as CPUs, hard drives, memory, and everything else got more expensive? Economies of scale and improved manufacturing methods would have lowered the price, not raised it (even accounting for inflation).
Anybody have a list?
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/02/08/roll-call-vote-who-voted-for-and-against-the-patriot-act-282011/
Also, it would appear that the universe within 380 millions years was not expanding but contracting, at least it appears to have more blue to me than red.
Just a guess: that might be the gravitationally-bound local group. We're in for a collision with Andromeda in a few billion years!
You might like this KDE feature request, it asks for exactly this feature in KDE:
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=169043
Please comment there to get the bug reopened. Thanks!
The buckling spring keyboard costs more than the CPU now. That is because the influx of cheap silicon dome keyboards eroded the market away to being very specialty and therefore very expensive. Furthermore, being specialty there is little choice in the market.
I'm typing on a new Ducky with Cherry Browns: a mechanical keyboard but not buckling spring. The difference between this and the silicon dome is amazing. However, I really wanted a split keyboard like my old MS Natural 4000. Guess what: there is only one split mechanical keyboard on the market and it uses awful, heavy switches. If the cheap silicon dome keyboards did not exist then this $100 USD el-cheapo mechanical keyboard would have only cost $20 USD due to economies of scale, and there would be a selection of split ergonomic models.
So yes, having a single vendor or three is in fact a loss. And most people don't even know what they're missing. Try telling an employer that you want a $100 or $300 keyboard, they laugh. They've never even heard of these things.
They know EXACTLY where it is so when we finally get to Mars we can go get it.
Can't be. Because it's stuck, all they know EXACTLY is it's velocity.
I'm guessing Google picked up on how several of my family members (and many, many other computer users I'm afraid) actually enter URLs:
1. Click browser home button, arrive at google.com
2. Type URL in search box, then click first link (for advanced users: click "I'm feeling lucky")
No matter how I try to explain how backwards this is, they keep doing it. Take away the search bar and I can't even argue the sane alternative.
More hits for google.com - more data, ads and more money for them. Only makes sense, really.
I used to think that this was stupid, until phishing and domain typos became widespread. Now, I actually advise users to do this because Google usually won't link to a malware site it if has been up for any amount of time, and even corrects some common typos.
Wow, thanks. The link 404s but I was able to find the thread. It is mentioned that upstream uids begin from 1000, I didn't even notice when that change happened.
This should probably be it's own /. story, this is an important change and needs to be more widely known.
Nice, thanks! I did not know that the installer gives this option. I had either missed it or it did not exist when I was still installing Fedora Core, up to version 6.
I know that you're kidding, but for those who will try it: You _can_ use the same /home partition in Fedora and *buntu, but remember to chown all your files to user 500 for Fedora or 1000 for *buntu. Same rules for all other RedHat based distros (users start from 500) and Debian-based distros (users start from 1000).
These people do not know how to separate the Gaga album from the Amazon service. I see it all the time on the http://what-is-what.com/ website: people rate the product or service under discussion instead of rating the article, even though the rating form is very clear.
I wouldn't say believe. But, with science, there are experiments to verify those theories, and which have been tested and verified by seemingly independent sources. And anyone with the right resources can replicate the tests and verify the experiments.
In other words, you take it from somebody that you trust that if you just had the right equipment, you too could verify scientific theories. That is the same argument used by religious leaders. And I would attest that the Rabbi, the Priest, and the Imam are pretty much independent sources.
Now, as I can not run all those experiments myself, and also can not know the full theory behind all new knowledge, I can now *know* it is so.
But.. The knowledge and theories behind those experiments are built upon what we already know to exist, and as time passes, the experiments become easier to replicate, and the experimental knowledge more solid.
In my mind, things can be made out of baryonic particles, there may exist one or more gods, this existence can all be a dream, we might be in a matrix-like state, or part of a full simulation of a four-dimensional universe, as an experiment from some existence we can not understand. Maybe ghosts exist. Maybe Odin and Loki really exist. Maybe aliens do visit Earth.
Some of those excludes others. All are a possibility until I can prove it for myself. However, some of those are more likely than others. In my scale of reality, some are closer to Absolute Truth than others. This is by my own judgement and understanding of the knowledge and logic involved, and to some degree, by my respect and trust in other people's judgement and expertise. This is built partially by my knowledge of the subject they speak of and what they have said earlier, and partially from which people also respect / trust their judgement - thus a sort of "web of trust" is built, which I can have a value on people's knowledge outside of my direct area of understanding. Of course, no web of trust can give absolute certainty, and so I can have no absolutes outside of what I can evaluate myself.
But, via this, the wall of my knowledge and world view is built on the fundaments of my logic and understanding. And if a part of that wall proves itself faulty, I will tear down that part and rebuild it.
Does that answer your question?
Yes, that does answer my question. Thanks for you insight.
I expect this says a great deal about people. So far, all I've seen is proof of stupidity.
It says that people are being exposed to more of one idea than of another, not incompatible idea. So far as the stupidity goes, I agree all too much.
Then why do you believe in the guy who tells you that matter is composed of baryonic particles who organized in a few way and have a few forces between them? Tell me where you draw the line?
Note that I don't believe in that BS either, but establish a baseline. It's pretty hard to define, especially when there are things that you know that you want to keep (physics) and things that you know that you don't (ghosts, or God, or bigfoot).
"And yet there are those who have seen proof of God"
No their isn't.
Yes their is. You're disbelief does not affect validity of another's proof. Would you suggest that some Christian fundamentalist's disbelief of evolution invalidates proof of the theory (yes, I know that evolution is not yet proven, but for me and you it's pretty much a given).
"many more people would attest that they have seen proof of God"
So? a lot of people believing in something doesn't make it true.
Quite the same could be stated about quantum physics. In fact, I would venture that more people believe in a creator than in a specific defined minimum unit of time, matter, or energy.
" You and I learned from the books written by people who did the studies and found the "proof" of the theories, turning them into laws"
Maybe you should understand what science is.
Maybe you should know where science came from. Maybe you should understand why there is a schism between Christianity and science. Note: that's not a schism between religion and science, as only Christianity seems to have been at ends with science. But assuming that you live in a Christian nation I would understand you conflating Christianity with religion in general.
"But it was not you who did those studies: it's the same leap of faith."
Actually, I have done many experiments to prove. Added toe empirical evidence, clearly they are correct. We couldn't ahve a space ship exiting our solar systme if it wasn't true.
"Clearly they are correct": this is the same argument that you get from the other side. What is clear to you is most certainly wrong to others. By the way, how's that Pioneer Anomaly working out?
1000s of people do these experiments everyday. Even YOU could do it.
The key difference is there are people everyday trying to show theories to be false, and applying new data againsyt current theoroes..everyday. And history show us that when data shows a theory to in wrong, it changes.
That is the fundamental difference on why science can NEVER be a religion.
Science does not haver to be a religion. Neither does Apple. They serve completely different purposes today, though science still has it's roots in religion.
You are right, assuming that there is a God and that he interferes in human activities, he selectively reveals himself. I agree that the logical conclusion for those who have not received proof of existence, is to assume the lack of existence.
Take a look at my post in reply to Jedi Alec. I address that, in fact I support that viewpoint. I'd like your input on the rest of that post, which is what I would have written here had I gotten to this reply first.
You are correct: the fundamental proofs of physics and thermodynamics can be performed at will within reasonable error bars with the correct equipment. The fundamental proofs of the existence of a creator and/or an all-powerful watchdog entity are provided only when that entity decides to reveal himself. I fully expect those to whom the creator and/or extra-mortal entity has not revealed himself not to believe in it's existence.
However, it is the basic leap of faith needed to believe either or both viewpoints that I was addressing. If you personally had not measured C by studying the moons of Jupiter, but you trust the physicist that has, then your basis is no more solid than he who believes in an all-powerful entity that occasionally interferes in human lives, because his priest told him so.
By the way, Stephen Hawking believes in a creator. He is not religious, in fact he refers to science and religion as being opposed. But religion is the worship of an entity and submission to a church. Religion is not necessary to explain an origin for the universe (creator). Nor is the implication of a creator reason to believe that he interferes with human experience.
I just filed a bug on it:
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273674
KDE's Dolphin has this. I use it regularly. Just open Dolphin and press F4 (or View->Panels->Terminal).
The only problem is that cd doesn't update the file manager display. But clicking the file manager does perform cd in the terminal.
The point is that cat would be like a double click: it would just open whatever file in the default application.