Well stated. 'Overpopulation' is not a realistic threat to life on the planet; unnecessarily wasting our resources and producing massive amounts of pollution is. Even still, the larger the civilization, the more likely it is to eventually collapse. In the past century, we've found ruins of gigantic societies which completely collapsed with few outside records of their existence (unfortunately, I've been unable to locate a universal database of archaeological sites around the world using a simple Google search). The more resources we waste, without working out a practical means of recycling them, the more likely we will destroy ourselves, much like those ancient gigantic societies of the past.
Very interesting. I, too, am determined to be the last person on the planet to sign up for Facebook, and for the same reasons as you. Provided we can both maintain this attitude, Facebook will never gain 100% worldwide market share; that, in my opinion, would be a true travesty.
That said, I'm not sure there's any kind of feature they can provide me that is likely to lure me in. I don't know about everything they provide, but I doubt they have anything that I might need which is not available, and offered in better quality, somewhere else. Then again, I'm not a particularly social person, so I have no reason to want to be anywhere near Facebook, or any other social networking site, in the first place.
I can't speak for the most recent versions of WordPerfect, but my brother owns a copy of WordPerfect Office 12, and that still has Reveal Codes (the official name for "show codes"). Personally, however, I'm still using WordPerfect Office 9, and I keep reveal codes open all the time; there's no more powerful editing feature, in my opinion.
Even Free w/Activation phones get some kind of calendar app.
Exactly. Even my phone, which is about as basic as a cell phone can get, has a calendar. How can anyone excuse the lack of a calendar on a more powerful phone?
I've seen at least three comments by you that have been modded "Troll" without and viable justification (in my opinion). You have at been succinct in your statements, and are making no offhand accusations, that I can see. I only wish I had points so I could correct this injustice for you. Thank you for the thought provoking statements.
Re:Win95 seemed promising at first, but then...
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
I am absolutely astonished you have not been trolled by Microsoft shills. Well written post! And a great review on all the problems with the Windows registry (the reason I'm surprised you haven't been attacked). I'd suspect the shills have mod points, except that you've been voted +5: Insightful.
Re:Many OS's were better and died or got very vew
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
The general consensus there and in the computer mags was that the 68000 was the best of the lot.
My opinion as well. What I think made the 68000 the top of the line is Motorola designed a 16-bit CPU with a 32-bit ISA and register set, and no memory segmentation with a 24-bit address bus. Neither the Z8000 nor the 8086 had these advantages (the Z8000 did have a non-segmented model, but only had 16-bit addressing, and the 80386 shoehorned its 32-bit architecture onto an ISA only designed to be 16-bit). Oh, how I wish the 8086 had simply been left to die instead of becoming ubiquitous with modern computing.
Very well stated. We should also take into consideration the fact that our DNA is actually little more than a parts list, merely a map of contiguous sequences that will form proteins which, when used properly, form a body. An unlike a computer, where data and code are both structured the same way, as a sequence of bits, the DNA itself contains no actual instructions, so even if half the data in the DNA forms the structure of the brain, as Kurzweil insists, that is still little more than the list of necessary parts for building the brain, and maybe a road map for how those parts are pieced together. Despite its complexity, DNA simply doesn't contain enough information to provide the detailed instructions necessary for building a body.
Well stated. Raffaello provided these same arguments in a different manner, but you both provide a correct analysis of how DNA is the data, not the actual program. Biological cells operate nothing like a computer; there are only mild similarities which some people tend to focus on without considering all the other aspects there are to each system which are not present, via any equivalent, in the other.
GP is correct that the DNA chain does contain all of the information necessary to build an organism (which Raffaello labeled a 'parts' list), but, as you point out, it does not specify the environment, which is why any complex organism (any multi-celled body) requires an ancestor, usually a parent, to instigate growth. It also helps explain why two bodies with exact duplicate DNA (such as identical twins) do not remain identical as they age.
Wordperfect replaced Wordstar because WordPerfect is night and day, leaps and bounds better than Wordstar.
I completely agree with you; WordPerfect is also leaps and bounds better than Word (no 'thinking' for you, reveal codes, one line justification, etc). I still use WordPerfect 9 (now a decade old) for my personal projects (I'm writing a novel, among other things); I tried switching to Open Office, but it just acts too damn much like Word for my tastes, and it completely futzed my documents up. That, and WordPerfect, despite its age, is still far more powerful.
Nicky Flippers: We don't arrest people for being creepy. Tommy: [into walkie-talkie] Yeah, Bruce, you know that guy we got in the tank? Bruce: [over walkie-talkie] Ah, the creepy one? Tommy: Yeah, better let him go.
The solution is: 1) Find out what the problem is in the existing system that people are working around by sharing problems, and 2) Address that problem in a way that removes the incentive to share passwords.
I agree completely. I work for a tech support company, and we implemented an escalation system that requires a supervisor password from the tech's computer. However, when we expanded to a Filipino call center, we instituted a new system that allows us to send links to our escalations to the supervisor, and thus allows the escalation to take place on their system, where there's no need for the supervisor to use his password. It's helped solve a number of problems and now there is no reason for the supervisors to even consider sharing passwords at all (not that they ever did in the first place).
Very well written. While I cannot completely agree with everything you stated, I can say that I enjoy reading comments from people who use rational, thought-provoking, emotionally neutral statements as you have, as opposed to those who feel they are the only ones who could possibly be right about a subject. I may be wrong in my beliefs, and you may be wrong in yours, but at least you have the decency to express yourself without threatening those you disagree with. Thank you.
Not the best idea, unfortunately. A better idea would be for those stockholders to dump their stocks, but that doesn't seem likely to happen; I'm not sure those stock holders are all that bright (I believe they would have sold and bought something else long ago if they were).
Your comments remind me of the Microsoft Kin commercial I watched to understand the following statement: "You have to admire a marketing strategy that takes a product made for idiots, and then essentially tells those idiots that they are idiots." This was posted on this site in a thread connected to the article about Microsoft cutting Kin support after only 45 days, but I can't remember by whom, just that I felt it was worth saving.
Posting this a third time to correct the accidental run-on paragraph (why doesn't HTML recognize carriage returns by default?):
Good comments. I'm sorry to see so many derisive comments about your one mistake, so I thought I'd give you a few tips on the proper use of the pronoun 'who' Hope this helps.
Who is the subject form (i.e. We think this is a person who may be involved in the scandal).
Whom is the object form (i.e. This list is of people whom we believe may be involved in the scandal).
Whose is the possessive form (i.e. We received this list from an informant whose research brought this scandal to light).
Who's is a contraction (used interchangeably for Who is or Who was).
Hope this helps clear a few things up in the future (and don't worry too much, the various forms of who are commonly misused by adult native speakers, likely including many of those who've posted responses to you, and I, myself, am not perfect in this regard either).
Posting this again to correct the accidental run-on paragraph:
Good comments. I'm sorry to see so many derisive comments about your one mistake, so I thought I'd give you a few tips on the proper use of the pronoun 'who' Hope this helps.
Who is the subject form (i.e. We think this is a person who may be involved in the scandal).
Whom is the object form (i.e. This list is of people whom we believe may be involved in the scandal).
Whose is the possessive form (i.e. We received this list from an informant whose research brought this scandal to light).
Who's is a contraction (used interchangeably for Who is or Who was).
Hope this helps clear a few things up in the future (and don't worry too much, the various forms of who are commonly misused by adult native speakers, likely including many of those who've posted responses to you, and I, myself, am not perfect in this regard either).
Good comments. I'm sorry to see so many derisive comments about your one mistake, so I thought I'd give you a few tips on the proper use of the pronoun 'who' Hope this helps.
Who is the subject form (i.e. We think this is a person who may be involved in the scandal).
Whom is the object form (i.e. This list is of people whom we believe may be involved in the scandal).
Whose is the possessive form (i.e. We received this list from an informant whose research brought this scandal to light).
Who's is a contraction (used interchangeably for Who is or Who was).
Hope this helps clear a few things up in the future (and don't worry too much, the various forms of who are commonly misused by adult native speakers, likely including many of those who've posted responses to you, and I, myself, am not perfect in this regard either).
I know exactly what you mean. Furthermore, I received an invite from Facebook from a new user who did not send me the invite himself; I found out about this after he responded to my reply. Then Facebook began spamming me with "reminders" until I blackballed them through Google. As for those whom Facebook suggested I "may know" I remember at least one false positive. Nevertheless, I'm personally boycotting Facebook for this BS, and passing the word on.
This isn't for a 3D engine, and it's bitmap based, not vector based. I know it's not novel, but my graphics system will be based more on old NES/SNES bitmap technology, where a near infinite number of multicolor palettes can be applied to a single graphic image, just with far greater flexibility.
Well stated. I'm working on making one of my game projects potentially compatible with higher resolution DPI than is presently available; sure, getting that to work properly will be a great deal of work, but since I'm designing the graphic system to be a separate component, I shouldn't need to worry about changing the core elements of other parts of the engine.
Actually, unless you're somehow using a bridge rectifier with a much smaller voltage drop across the individual diodes, you're using 1.4V(two diodes on a bridge are always in use, so that's double the voltage drop), or pretty much all the energy supplied of the battery if it's alkaline, and more than the total if it's anything else. Other than that, you are absolutely correct.
For D, C, AA, AAA and N batteries, there really isn't a need for more wires, just a slightly more complicated connector for each cell, which would not necessarily require more space and must be aligned plus to minus, so one end's plus and the other end's minus are connected to the power for the circuit itself. Lithium batteries, however, would have to use a different circuit design for this type of scheme, which wouldn't necessarily require more wiring, but would need to require each battery to have its own seat. I'll agree with you about not being compelling for anything that permits multiple batteries in the same seat.
Slashdot Mirror
Well stated. 'Overpopulation' is not a realistic threat to life on the planet; unnecessarily wasting our resources and producing massive amounts of pollution is. Even still, the larger the civilization, the more likely it is to eventually collapse. In the past century, we've found ruins of gigantic societies which completely collapsed with few outside records of their existence (unfortunately, I've been unable to locate a universal database of archaeological sites around the world using a simple Google search). The more resources we waste, without working out a practical means of recycling them, the more likely we will destroy ourselves, much like those ancient gigantic societies of the past.
Very interesting. I, too, am determined to be the last person on the planet to sign up for Facebook, and for the same reasons as you. Provided we can both maintain this attitude, Facebook will never gain 100% worldwide market share; that, in my opinion, would be a true travesty.
That said, I'm not sure there's any kind of feature they can provide me that is likely to lure me in. I don't know about everything they provide, but I doubt they have anything that I might need which is not available, and offered in better quality, somewhere else. Then again, I'm not a particularly social person, so I have no reason to want to be anywhere near Facebook, or any other social networking site, in the first place.
I can't speak for the most recent versions of WordPerfect, but my brother owns a copy of WordPerfect Office 12, and that still has Reveal Codes (the official name for "show codes"). Personally, however, I'm still using WordPerfect Office 9, and I keep reveal codes open all the time; there's no more powerful editing feature, in my opinion.
Exactly. Even my phone, which is about as basic as a cell phone can get, has a calendar. How can anyone excuse the lack of a calendar on a more powerful phone?
I've seen at least three comments by you that have been modded "Troll" without and viable justification (in my opinion). You have at been succinct in your statements, and are making no offhand accusations, that I can see. I only wish I had points so I could correct this injustice for you. Thank you for the thought provoking statements.
I am absolutely astonished you have not been trolled by Microsoft shills. Well written post! And a great review on all the problems with the Windows registry (the reason I'm surprised you haven't been attacked). I'd suspect the shills have mod points, except that you've been voted +5: Insightful.
My opinion as well. What I think made the 68000 the top of the line is Motorola designed a 16-bit CPU with a 32-bit ISA and register set, and no memory segmentation with a 24-bit address bus. Neither the Z8000 nor the 8086 had these advantages (the Z8000 did have a non-segmented model, but only had 16-bit addressing, and the 80386 shoehorned its 32-bit architecture onto an ISA only designed to be 16-bit). Oh, how I wish the 8086 had simply been left to die instead of becoming ubiquitous with modern computing.
Very well stated. We should also take into consideration the fact that our DNA is actually little more than a parts list, merely a map of contiguous sequences that will form proteins which, when used properly, form a body. An unlike a computer, where data and code are both structured the same way, as a sequence of bits, the DNA itself contains no actual instructions, so even if half the data in the DNA forms the structure of the brain, as Kurzweil insists, that is still little more than the list of necessary parts for building the brain, and maybe a road map for how those parts are pieced together. Despite its complexity, DNA simply doesn't contain enough information to provide the detailed instructions necessary for building a body.
Well stated. Raffaello provided these same arguments in a different manner, but you both provide a correct analysis of how DNA is the data, not the actual program. Biological cells operate nothing like a computer; there are only mild similarities which some people tend to focus on without considering all the other aspects there are to each system which are not present, via any equivalent, in the other.
GP is correct that the DNA chain does contain all of the information necessary to build an organism (which Raffaello labeled a 'parts' list), but, as you point out, it does not specify the environment, which is why any complex organism (any multi-celled body) requires an ancestor, usually a parent, to instigate growth. It also helps explain why two bodies with exact duplicate DNA (such as identical twins) do not remain identical as they age.
I completely agree with you; WordPerfect is also leaps and bounds better than Word (no 'thinking' for you, reveal codes, one line justification, etc). I still use WordPerfect 9 (now a decade old) for my personal projects (I'm writing a novel, among other things); I tried switching to Open Office, but it just acts too damn much like Word for my tastes, and it completely futzed my documents up. That, and WordPerfect, despite its age, is still far more powerful.
From Hoodwinked:
Nicky Flippers: We don't arrest people for being creepy.
Tommy: [into walkie-talkie] Yeah, Bruce, you know that guy we got in the tank?
Bruce: [over walkie-talkie] Ah, the creepy one?
Tommy: Yeah, better let him go.
What do you mean acts like?
I agree completely. I work for a tech support company, and we implemented an escalation system that requires a supervisor password from the tech's computer. However, when we expanded to a Filipino call center, we instituted a new system that allows us to send links to our escalations to the supervisor, and thus allows the escalation to take place on their system, where there's no need for the supervisor to use his password. It's helped solve a number of problems and now there is no reason for the supervisors to even consider sharing passwords at all (not that they ever did in the first place).
Very well written. While I cannot completely agree with everything you stated, I can say that I enjoy reading comments from people who use rational, thought-provoking, emotionally neutral statements as you have, as opposed to those who feel they are the only ones who could possibly be right about a subject. I may be wrong in my beliefs, and you may be wrong in yours, but at least you have the decency to express yourself without threatening those you disagree with. Thank you.
Not the best idea, unfortunately. A better idea would be for those stockholders to dump their stocks, but that doesn't seem likely to happen; I'm not sure those stock holders are all that bright (I believe they would have sold and bought something else long ago if they were).
Your comments remind me of the Microsoft Kin commercial I watched to understand the following statement: "You have to admire a marketing strategy that takes a product made for idiots, and then essentially tells those idiots that they are idiots." This was posted on this site in a thread connected to the article about Microsoft cutting Kin support after only 45 days, but I can't remember by whom, just that I felt it was worth saving.
Posting this a third time to correct the accidental run-on paragraph (why doesn't HTML recognize carriage returns by default?):
Good comments. I'm sorry to see so many derisive comments about your one mistake, so I thought I'd give you a few tips on the proper use of the pronoun 'who' Hope this helps.
Who is the subject form (i.e. We think this is a person who may be involved in the scandal).
Whom is the object form (i.e. This list is of people whom we believe may be involved in the scandal).
Whose is the possessive form (i.e. We received this list from an informant whose research brought this scandal to light).
Who's is a contraction (used interchangeably for Who is or Who was).
Hope this helps clear a few things up in the future (and don't worry too much, the various forms of who are commonly misused by adult native speakers, likely including many of those who've posted responses to you, and I, myself, am not perfect in this regard either).
Posting this again to correct the accidental run-on paragraph: Good comments. I'm sorry to see so many derisive comments about your one mistake, so I thought I'd give you a few tips on the proper use of the pronoun 'who' Hope this helps. Who is the subject form (i.e. We think this is a person who may be involved in the scandal). Whom is the object form (i.e. This list is of people whom we believe may be involved in the scandal). Whose is the possessive form (i.e. We received this list from an informant whose research brought this scandal to light). Who's is a contraction (used interchangeably for Who is or Who was). Hope this helps clear a few things up in the future (and don't worry too much, the various forms of who are commonly misused by adult native speakers, likely including many of those who've posted responses to you, and I, myself, am not perfect in this regard either).
Good comments. I'm sorry to see so many derisive comments about your one mistake, so I thought I'd give you a few tips on the proper use of the pronoun 'who' Hope this helps. Who is the subject form (i.e. We think this is a person who may be involved in the scandal). Whom is the object form (i.e. This list is of people whom we believe may be involved in the scandal). Whose is the possessive form (i.e. We received this list from an informant whose research brought this scandal to light). Who's is a contraction (used interchangeably for Who is or Who was). Hope this helps clear a few things up in the future (and don't worry too much, the various forms of who are commonly misused by adult native speakers, likely including many of those who've posted responses to you, and I, myself, am not perfect in this regard either).
I know exactly what you mean. Furthermore, I received an invite from Facebook from a new user who did not send me the invite himself; I found out about this after he responded to my reply. Then Facebook began spamming me with "reminders" until I blackballed them through Google. As for those whom Facebook suggested I "may know" I remember at least one false positive. Nevertheless, I'm personally boycotting Facebook for this BS, and passing the word on.
This isn't for a 3D engine, and it's bitmap based, not vector based. I know it's not novel, but my graphics system will be based more on old NES/SNES bitmap technology, where a near infinite number of multicolor palettes can be applied to a single graphic image, just with far greater flexibility.
You have to know these things when you're a king.
Well stated. I'm working on making one of my game projects potentially compatible with higher resolution DPI than is presently available; sure, getting that to work properly will be a great deal of work, but since I'm designing the graphic system to be a separate component, I shouldn't need to worry about changing the core elements of other parts of the engine.
Actually, unless you're somehow using a bridge rectifier with a much smaller voltage drop across the individual diodes, you're using 1.4V(two diodes on a bridge are always in use, so that's double the voltage drop), or pretty much all the energy supplied of the battery if it's alkaline, and more than the total if it's anything else. Other than that, you are absolutely correct.
For D, C, AA, AAA and N batteries, there really isn't a need for more wires, just a slightly more complicated connector for each cell, which would not necessarily require more space and must be aligned plus to minus, so one end's plus and the other end's minus are connected to the power for the circuit itself. Lithium batteries, however, would have to use a different circuit design for this type of scheme, which wouldn't necessarily require more wiring, but would need to require each battery to have its own seat. I'll agree with you about not being compelling for anything that permits multiple batteries in the same seat.