f you're just looking to keep friends up-to-date with your life, why not just use plain ol' HTML? Easy to write; the [p] and [hr] and tags should be enough to do most of your formatting, and the server load your page generates will be orders of magnitude below what large perl based systems would create. As my math teacher always said, KISS.
If you're just looking to keep friends up-to-date with your life, why not just use plain ol' HTML? Easy to write; the
and tags should be enough to do most of your formatting, and the server load your page generates will be orders of magnitude below what large perl based systems would create. As my math teacher always said, KISS.
Offshoring has been going on for ages; offshoring in the tech industry went on throughout the bubble. It's only now, when the industry is in a slump, that people have started complaining. Which, in my eyes, makes offshoring look very much like a scapegoat for the economic downturn. That, too, is nothing new: foreigners and foreign powers are almost invariably when the fit hits the economic shan.
I do tech support for a dialup service. Just spoke with a technophile today who compained that 'The internet made his computer slow'. I asked him if he saw a speed mentioned when he was connecting, and he replied that the speed of the connection wasn't the problem, it was that his computer was slow when he was on the internet. After several attempts at explaining the fine distinction between establishing a connection and the speed of a connection, I gave up.
Another good one from this week was a user who called in to complain that she conneted to the internet fine, but didn't get any webpages after connecting. I asked what she clicked on to connect, and she said the shortcut to her connection. What did she click after that? Nothing. I advised her to open Internet Explorer and click on things.
I don't really mind users who are ignorant, but competent. I do mind users for whom I have to repeat SMTP, not SMPT ad infinitum, or who phone in to basically have me read error messages back to them. Willful ignorance is what is bad, be it in regards to computers or anything else one deals with. At least attempt to understand what's going on with the device you paid $2000 for. Don't assume that just because you pay your $20 monthly fee that you'll have your hand held everytime you are too lazy to read the message that pops up in bold text a foot in front of your eyes.
I've been there several times myself over the past few months.
The first time, it had the right region of the right country. I told it where I was, and every time after that it was perfect. I was using different computers on a dhcp network.
I just tried it from an entiery different network, and it got the country right. I can try it out to prove it to you, but believe me: If I set the city name now, it'll be correct from now on, not just for me, but for everyone else on my local sever, if not better.
It's a good site.
does anyone here know what advances would be necessary to send probes & recover data about nearby star systems? Ion drives seem to be moving in the right direction, to use a phrase, but would they be sufficient in longevity & speed to make a multi-light year journey? And what sort of remote communication would be possible at such distances?
A corollory to this is, does anyone know what (if any) systems the Voyager spacecraft are going to encounter, and when?
If there really is no good or bad in our relative and indeterminate universe, then why don't you buy a datcha near a former soviet nuclear sub base, or get an aparment in a high rise in mexico city, or live in any one of the places, in space or time, you used as arguemnts to prove your point that environmental wastelands are really just fine, relative to the earth in its first 500m years of existance.
You rest on a truism, while I attempt to come to a useful conclusion. Yes, it is true that oxygen was toxic to life on earth when it first came about. Yes, things have undoubtledly been worse in the past, and will probably be worse in the future. BUT. But. Maintaining conditions favourable to the current life on earth is a good thing. Moreso, it is essential for our future existance as a species. If you find the prosepect of humans dying out to be of no consequence, then you lack the instinct for survival necessary for any discussion of such matters.
So, you accept my point. Lomberg is being the postmodernist of environmental science - everything is relative! There is no reference point! Things arn't good or bad, they just are!
But. Yellow smog clouds over cities _is_ bad, and clear skies _are_ good. Extiction of species (and, though some hyperventilate about the extinction of nonexistant species, the fact remains that many extant species have and are dying out) _is_ bad, and preservation of the same _is_ good. And so on.
There may be no reference point - I would even be inclined to accept that point - but it is illogical to proceed from that idea to the idea that there is nothing to correct, nothing to be concerned about, and nothing to preserve. Relativity, and lack of reference point, are simply conecpts of the mind. They say nothing whatsoever about the actual state of the planet, the quality of life or the future prospect of life.
And this is why I find Lomberg to be limited in scope. His only relavent point can be the office politics of environmental science, and a sociological point about the position of science in government policy, and the relationship between science and the media. He says little of interest about environmental science as a science, nor the actual state of the planet.
lornberg has always seemed like a bit of a paper tiger to me.
first, a large part of his argument just that the scientsts are basically hyping the problem, and making it seem worse than it is. he's not, however, saying that the problem is not bad.
second, much of his commentary about the actual state of the environment addresses the fact that it was worse in the past, or that control measures have curtailed the worst of a particular environmental problem. again, he is not addressing the problem itself - he's comparing it to the past.
in both cases, he does not address the problem, but rather says 'relative to ________, it's not that bad'. the question that actually matters, however, is if the conditions to support life and, in particular, human life, will be maintained; if not, what damage will be done to life on earth.
1) a) The article that started this all was half an explanation of how the bomb works, half a request for further funding of the project. Thus, it is inconceivable that we would have a discussion about this article without considering if or if not it is a good idea to continue with bomb development in the first place.
b) If you are going to maintain that one should not consider the morality of a technical device in 'every discussion', it is incumbant upon you to mention in what discussions such a consideration should take place. If it can't take place on slashdot, a - for better or for worse - bastion of strongly held beliefs and free expression, then where/when can it take place?
2) It's the Dead Kennedys. They never sold many songs in the first place, and the lyrics are the songs. Read them.
Consider, when you've finished replying, how history may have been different if the scientists who worked on the original atom bomb projects (in the US and Nazi Germany) had to consider the morality of their work in every discussion.
1) Scientists are too busy wondering whether it can be done to consider whether it should be done;
2)DEAD KENNEDYS
"Well Paid Scientist"
You're a well paid scientist
You only talk in facts
You know you're always right
'Cause you know how to prove it
Step by step
A PhD to show you're smart
With textbook formulas
But you're used up
Just like a factory hand
[Chorus:]
Something is wrong here
You won't find it on a shelf
You're well paid
You're well trained
You're tied to a rack
Company cocktails - gotta go
Say the right thing
Don't fidget, jockey for position
Be polite
In the pyramid you hate
Sip that scotch
Get that raise
This ain't no party at all::Chorus::LyricsCafe.com::
Cringe and tense up
Grind your teeth
And wipe your sweaty palms
Close your windows driving past
The low life company bar
They're making fun of you
Ahhh Even you
You've gotta punch the clock
Too scared to punch your boss
When will you crack
When will you crack
When will you crack
When will you open your eyes
Pull up to your sterile home
You're drained
Bite the heads off of your kids
Chew them well, they taste like you
Just slam the door
Assigned here cause your company owns the land
All your colleagues live here too
Private guards in golf carts
Keep you safe at home?::Chorus::LyricsCafe.com::
When will you crack
When will you crack
When will you crack
When will you crack
The dark shattered underbelly
Of the American dream
Avoid it like the plague
It stares you from the bathroom mirror
Drown
The idea that a simulation would only need to compute what we observe seems quite wrong.. the simulation would only need to display what we observe, but it would need an internally consistent set of rules, an internal physics if you will, to govern the whole affair. Cause and effect require prediction. It is not enought to sipmly make up a more detailed image/information set on the fly every time someone looks through a telescope or microscope. The person looking through the device will have expectations as to what tghings will look like and where things will be, and if the observed information dosen't fit that prediction, then the laws get thrown out the window. If this happens every time someone looks through a 'scope, then randomness will be expected for anything lower-res than what is observable with the naked eye. As this is not the case - the sciences have made quite a habit of prediction - it seems to follow that any program we're in is calculating down to the level of that which is observable with instruments today.
I've been thinking about buying a new system, and my bias is towards nintendo (they've always had the best games, in my opinion). The only thing holding me back is that there's no GTA for the gamecube to my knowledge. Does anyone know if this is a possibility?
Cheers,
T.H.
You presume that all or most journalists arrested were arrested in cases involving charges of slander against said journalists. I would submit that many if not most cases would be when journalists refused to reveal sources which were useful in convicting third parties: e.g. a journalist who refused to reveal an underworld source whose information would be useful in the conviction an accused criminal. Case in point: this case of a Dutch journo.
Further, aside from technicalities, there arn't that many different types of cases. Either the journalist has a source who could give information useful to a trial of a third party, or a journalist is accused of slander. In the former, the only variable is the sevarity of the crime. In the latter, there are no variables - either the journo has to reveal or they don't.
Lastly, if you accept the premise of the original post that all or most journalists arrested for not revealing sources were released soon afterwards, don't you think that in itself is enough precedent to limit such arrests to all but the most abbarent cases?
Journalists being arrested (and, most likely, promptly released on bail) because they refuse to release their sources. That's fine. That means our legal system is still working to determine the precise weight of journalistic freedom against a victim's right to a fair trial.
Excuse me? Aside from your hopeful presumtion that all, or even most, journalists arrested in that way were promptly released, your argument is wrong-headed. It would be fine if they arrested one journalist for not reavealing his sources, acquited him of it, and then stopped because of the legal precedent set. It is most certainly not fine to essentailly harass reporters for doing their job.
On your second point, I am more inclined to agree, but remember to ask yourself: why wern't the reporters given access to 'offical buildings' in the first place? Remember the pentagon papers: sometimes (often, if you ask me) the public right to know outweighs the state's right to secracy.
Mr. Burns - "Hello. We want to bury our nuclear waste in your backyard. I will compensate you generously for your acceptance."
Homer - "Sounds dangerous..."
B. - "Hardly! In but the blink of an eye all the radioactivity will be down to the most natural of levels!"
H. - "Sounds great! We move out for two weeks and I'll be living like Duff-Man"
Smithers - "Well, more like two billi-"
B. - "[Hush, Smithers!] Exactly."
H. - "Sign me up"
B. - "Exxcelent. Oh, your check should arrive in three weeks or so..."
H. - "Woo-hoo!"
"Apple: Mac OS X rumored to get a JFS in 10.2.2" - which is what your report is - would be far more acurate, and acceptable of a title.
The same complaint you make about the slashdot headline can be made about the eWeek headline, which is "Look Out Enterprise: Mac OS X to Get Journaling".
The first three words of the slashdot story are 'According to eWeek'. In fact, the eWeek article only mentions that Apple Computer hasn't confirmed the announcment in the second paragraph.
What's more, the slashdot headline makes no indication either way about whether the announcement is official; all slashdot headlines in the Apple category are preceded by "Apple:"
If you feel that eWeeks handleing of unconfirmed nature of this story is appropriate, you must also feel that slashdot's handleing is appropriate.
Posting complaints about slashdot's shoddy journalism is about as original as remarking on the potential of beowulf clusters. Get over it.
It's already happened, sort of
on
The Coming Air Age
·
· Score: 4, Informative
In Sao Paulo, Brazil, there are somewhere around 300 private helicopters that those who can afford them use to avoid traffic and crime. They use them just like the plebes use cars. The best article I found on the topic is at aviation today (here).
Of course, having 300 'copters in a city of unpteen million isn't exactly what the man predicted, but the patter of use is consistent.
STS-112 will be 21st launch for RocketCam (if you don't count the first demo launch in 1997). All of the RocketCam's have worked so far. A total of about three dozen cameras have been flown.
...
The view of the Earth falling away will be familiar to anyone who has watched a Delta rocket launch lately - but will be a first for the Space Shuttle program.
The oil producers want the money and they'll keep selling it no matter what. No matter whether it's Iraq in control or Kuwait, we'll get our oil.
The oil crises of the 70s seem to contradict this. Considering the degree to which the US economy relies on cheap oil, it is conceivable that the US would (and has) gone to war over oil. In the case of the gulf war, If Iraq had kept Kuwait, it would have had double its previous slice of the piped-oil supply. Its likely and probable that the US did go to war over oil in that case.
Slashdot Mirror
f you're just looking to keep friends up-to-date with your life, why not just use plain ol' HTML? Easy to write; the [p] and [hr] and tags should be enough to do most of your formatting, and the server load your page generates will be orders of magnitude below what large perl based systems would create. As my math teacher always said, KISS.
and tags should be enough to do most of your formatting, and the server load your page generates will be orders of magnitude below what large perl based systems would create. As my math teacher always said, KISS.
Offshoring has been going on for ages; offshoring in the tech industry went on throughout the bubble. It's only now, when the industry is in a slump, that people have started complaining. Which, in my eyes, makes offshoring look very much like a scapegoat for the economic downturn. That, too, is nothing new: foreigners and foreign powers are almost invariably when the fit hits the economic shan.
You are describing wage slavery. Even the worst job can be defended with 'it's better than no job'.
Damn good idea.
Another good one from this week was a user who called in to complain that she conneted to the internet fine, but didn't get any webpages after connecting. I asked what she clicked on to connect, and she said the shortcut to her connection. What did she click after that? Nothing. I advised her to open Internet Explorer and click on things.
I don't really mind users who are ignorant, but competent. I do mind users for whom I have to repeat SMTP, not SMPT ad infinitum, or who phone in to basically have me read error messages back to them. Willful ignorance is what is bad, be it in regards to computers or anything else one deals with. At least attempt to understand what's going on with the device you paid $2000 for. Don't assume that just because you pay your $20 monthly fee that you'll have your hand held everytime you are too lazy to read the message that pops up in bold text a foot in front of your eyes.
I've been there several times myself over the past few months. The first time, it had the right region of the right country. I told it where I was, and every time after that it was perfect. I was using different computers on a dhcp network. I just tried it from an entiery different network, and it got the country right. I can try it out to prove it to you, but believe me: If I set the city name now, it'll be correct from now on, not just for me, but for everyone else on my local sever, if not better. It's a good site.
How is that obvious?
does anyone here know what advances would be necessary to send probes & recover data about nearby star systems? Ion drives seem to be moving in the right direction, to use a phrase, but would they be sufficient in longevity & speed to make a multi-light year journey? And what sort of remote communication would be possible at such distances?
A corollory to this is, does anyone know what (if any) systems the Voyager spacecraft are going to encounter, and when?
You rest on a truism, while I attempt to come to a useful conclusion. Yes, it is true that oxygen was toxic to life on earth when it first came about. Yes, things have undoubtledly been worse in the past, and will probably be worse in the future. BUT. But. Maintaining conditions favourable to the current life on earth is a good thing. Moreso, it is essential for our future existance as a species. If you find the prosepect of humans dying out to be of no consequence, then you lack the instinct for survival necessary for any discussion of such matters.
But. Yellow smog clouds over cities _is_ bad, and clear skies _are_ good. Extiction of species (and, though some hyperventilate about the extinction of nonexistant species, the fact remains that many extant species have and are dying out) _is_ bad, and preservation of the same _is_ good. And so on.
There may be no reference point - I would even be inclined to accept that point - but it is illogical to proceed from that idea to the idea that there is nothing to correct, nothing to be concerned about, and nothing to preserve. Relativity, and lack of reference point, are simply conecpts of the mind. They say nothing whatsoever about the actual state of the planet, the quality of life or the future prospect of life.
And this is why I find Lomberg to be limited in scope. His only relavent point can be the office politics of environmental science, and a sociological point about the position of science in government policy, and the relationship between science and the media. He says little of interest about environmental science as a science, nor the actual state of the planet.
lornberg has always seemed like a bit of a paper tiger to me. first, a large part of his argument just that the scientsts are basically hyping the problem, and making it seem worse than it is. he's not, however, saying that the problem is not bad. second, much of his commentary about the actual state of the environment addresses the fact that it was worse in the past, or that control measures have curtailed the worst of a particular environmental problem. again, he is not addressing the problem itself - he's comparing it to the past. in both cases, he does not address the problem, but rather says 'relative to ________, it's not that bad'. the question that actually matters, however, is if the conditions to support life and, in particular, human life, will be maintained; if not, what damage will be done to life on earth.
2) It's the Dead Kennedys. They never sold many songs in the first place, and the lyrics are the songs. Read them.
Consider, when you've finished replying, how history may have been different if the scientists who worked on the original atom bomb projects (in the US and Nazi Germany) had to consider the morality of their work in every discussion.
1) Scientists are too busy wondering whether it can be done to consider whether it should be done; ::Chorus::LyricsCafe.com::
Cringe and tense up
Grind your teeth
And wipe your sweaty palms
Close your windows driving past
The low life company bar
They're making fun of you
Ahhh Even you
You've gotta punch the clock
Too scared to punch your boss
When will you crack
When will you crack
When will you crack
When will you open your eyes
Pull up to your sterile home
You're drained
Bite the heads off of your kids
Chew them well, they taste like you
Just slam the door
Assigned here cause your company owns the land
All your colleagues live here too
Private guards in golf carts
Keep you safe at home? ::Chorus::LyricsCafe.com::
When will you crack
When will you crack
When will you crack
When will you crack
The dark shattered underbelly
Of the American dream
Avoid it like the plague
It stares you from the bathroom mirror
Drown
2)DEAD KENNEDYS
"Well Paid Scientist"
You're a well paid scientist You only talk in facts You know you're always right 'Cause you know how to prove it Step by step A PhD to show you're smart With textbook formulas But you're used up Just like a factory hand [Chorus:] Something is wrong here You won't find it on a shelf You're well paid You're well trained You're tied to a rack Company cocktails - gotta go Say the right thing Don't fidget, jockey for position Be polite In the pyramid you hate Sip that scotch Get that raise This ain't no party at all
I've been thinking about buying a new system, and my bias is towards nintendo (they've always had the best games, in my opinion). The only thing holding me back is that there's no GTA for the gamecube to my knowledge. Does anyone know if this is a possibility? Cheers, T.H.
Yep. While I do think MacOSX has the best UI of all *nixes, I also think that OS 8 has the best UI of all MacOS*s.
Further, aside from technicalities, there arn't that many different types of cases. Either the journalist has a source who could give information useful to a trial of a third party, or a journalist is accused of slander. In the former, the only variable is the sevarity of the crime. In the latter, there are no variables - either the journo has to reveal or they don't.
Lastly, if you accept the premise of the original post that all or most journalists arrested for not revealing sources were released soon afterwards, don't you think that in itself is enough precedent to limit such arrests to all but the most abbarent cases?
Excuse me? Aside from your hopeful presumtion that all, or even most, journalists arrested in that way were promptly released, your argument is wrong-headed. It would be fine if they arrested one journalist for not reavealing his sources, acquited him of it, and then stopped because of the legal precedent set. It is most certainly not fine to essentailly harass reporters for doing their job.
On your second point, I am more inclined to agree, but remember to ask yourself: why wern't the reporters given access to 'offical buildings' in the first place? Remember the pentagon papers: sometimes (often, if you ask me) the public right to know outweighs the state's right to secracy.
Mr. Burns - "Hello. We want to bury our nuclear waste in your backyard. I will compensate you generously for your acceptance."
Homer - "Sounds dangerous..."
B. - "Hardly! In but the blink of an eye all the radioactivity will be down to the most natural of levels!"
H. - "Sounds great! We move out for two weeks and I'll be living like Duff-Man"
Smithers - "Well, more like two billi-"
B. - "[Hush, Smithers!] Exactly."
H. - "Sign me up"
B. - "Exxcelent. Oh, your check should arrive in three weeks or so..."
H. - "Woo-hoo!"
The same complaint you make about the slashdot headline can be made about the eWeek headline, which is "Look Out Enterprise: Mac OS X to Get Journaling".
The first three words of the slashdot story are 'According to eWeek'. In fact, the eWeek article only mentions that Apple Computer hasn't confirmed the announcment in the second paragraph.
What's more, the slashdot headline makes no indication either way about whether the announcement is official; all slashdot headlines in the Apple category are preceded by "Apple:"
If you feel that eWeeks handleing of unconfirmed nature of this story is appropriate, you must also feel that slashdot's handleing is appropriate. Posting complaints about slashdot's shoddy journalism is about as original as remarking on the potential of beowulf clusters. Get over it.
In Sao Paulo, Brazil, there are somewhere around 300 private helicopters that those who can afford them use to avoid traffic and crime. They use them just like the plebes use cars. The best article I found on the topic is at aviation today (here).
Of course, having 300 'copters in a city of unpteen million isn't exactly what the man predicted, but the patter of use is consistent.
STS-112 will be 21st launch for RocketCam (if you don't count the first demo launch in 1997). All of the RocketCam's have worked so far. A total of about three dozen cameras have been flown.
...
The view of the Earth falling away will be familiar to anyone who has watched a Delta rocket launch lately - but will be a first for the Space Shuttle program.
It's a 4000-year-old weed stash
The oil crises of the 70s seem to contradict this. Considering the degree to which the US economy relies on cheap oil, it is conceivable that the US would (and has) gone to war over oil. In the case of the gulf war, If Iraq had kept Kuwait, it would have had double its previous slice of the piped-oil supply. Its likely and probable that the US did go to war over oil in that case.