Dogs have been around for thousands of years, yet I still can't marry one here in Sweden. Hell, I can't even marry a woman under 18 or a man. Yes, I can engage in "partnership" with a man and with special permission from the state, I can marry young women. But no, I can't actually marry them without being investigated by the government. I don't know the exact laws regarding this in the US, but I bet they're similar.
Now, perhaps you think it would be wrong to marry a dog or a 16 year old girl. But I don't see why. I can't prevent either of them from divorcing me. Im not allowed to hurt them or kidnap them just because they're married to me. Being married to someone gives me no special legal rights, except inheritance (and that part should be removed as well). All marriage means is that two individuals promise each other eternal loyalty. Nothing else.
So what's the problem here? People like preventing others from doing what they think is morally wrong. People like to meddle in other peoples business. By 2050, you still won't be able to marry people of the same sex in most countries, you won't be able to marry people under 18 in most western countries, and you sure as hell won't be able to marry machines of any level of intelligence in any country.
As you say, corrections sometimes means deletion. That's why I was wondering if the parent didn't get any comments on why his stuff was deleted. We can speculate all we want, but without more info, it's hard to know who did wrong.
But don't they give reasons why they remove your stuff? If it's lacking in some way, just improve it and try again? It would be interesting to see some examples.
Who says there won't be? This is at least 20 to 30 years in the future...
If there's a catastrophic failure in any system, they'll just head home for earth. Same thing applies here: Spontaneously going from the moon to earth isn't a big deal. Going from mars to earth however is something that require's very careful planning.
There is a very big difference here: In Biosphere 2, the plan was to not import ANYTHING. In this case, its just a matter of reducing imports. Biosphere would probably have gone much better if they were allowed to import 100 kg every 6 months or something like that. For this reason, it can't fail like Biosphere 2. If they fail to grow enough food or if they need some other product, the only problem is that earth has to pay for more supplies.
Besides, building a self sustainable base on the moon IS the test. On the moon, supplies can arrive within days. On mars or other bodies, supplies might take months or even years. Now, as for the reasons this can't be done on earth? Well, there are a number of them, but the biggest one is that tax payers are probably more willing to pay NASA for doing important research on the moon than they are to pay NASA for doing important research on earth, even if the former is much more expensive.
Yeah, all those astronauts who stayed on the moon for a year or more, where are they now? Dead, I tell you!
Muscle and bones can be trained much more easily than on ISS for example, since there is some gravity. Good old weight lifting and running (possibly with weights) will be possible on the moon. Walking and such might need retraining since astronauts might get used to skipping and jumping or whatever, but that's no big deal. So what is it that you think will happen?
Good point. However, mechanical power can be used to transport heat from a colder place to a warmer place. In other words, with batteries, this system could be made more advanced and cool the brain even if the environment is hotter than body temperature.
I would guess the point of filming that period is that it would allow Jackson to make a lot of the content himself. It's probably a lot easier to please everyone that way. The lord of the rings gave him very little room for creativeness.
What about at a party where your not paying attention?
Shut computer down and have a password.
Do you trust every file that anyone EVER gives you?
No, I just trust the files I accept.
Based on, their word? Their knowledge of security?
Based on the fact that some file types can not contain viruses.
Do you have keyloggers running from some unscrupulous voyeur tech you took your pc to 4 years ago?
Hahaha, of course not. How many people on slashdot takes their computer to a tech?
The simple fact is you DO NOT KNOW if you have a virus or not.
And you do not know if the alarms given by your virus software are false or not. I have actually had anti virus software on my computer for years without them detecting anything (that wasn't a false alarm), so I just stopped using them. Sure, it is slightly safer to use them as a final layer of protection, but is it worth it? I don't think so. It slows my computer down and often costs money.
So, if that's the reason w3schools say 3.6% and Net Applications say 0,37% for the same period, I guess 90% of linux users used privoxy at that point... Interesting theory;)
But seriously, you are right, weblogs isn't a perfect way to measure this. But what is your suggestion for a better way? If so, I think all of us would be interested in hearing it, because how can we ever know when people start using linux when estimates vary by an order of magnitude?
"We collect data from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on demand network of small to medium enterprise live stats customers. The sample size for these sites is more than 40,000 urls and growing."
Notice how the graph follows these events quite nicely.
I can agree that these numbers are far from perfect, but my point is, you're not likely to find more accurate numbers. If your evidence is from the logs of a specific website, I don't see how that proves anything. Possibly if that website was Google.com, but otherwise you'd need a large number of websites with varying content to get better statistics than these guys have.
They don't count sales, the count visitors to a selection of websites. I'd say their system is as good as you can get when it comes to counting linux penetration percentage. Besides, come on, do you really think there's more than 1% of PC using linux? Their numbers seem a lot more likely than the 3% w3schools claim. The thing is of course their selection is not representative of all internet users or that they count servers too.
2 and 3 contradict each other. One says immunization by exposure to bacteria/viruses is good, the other says its bad. Admittedly, sterile needles have replaced dirty fingers for the last century. But I don't see why the old method was better than the new one.
Paint? Seems to work for steel, but maybe I'm missing something here.
Re:Beyond the Moon, Looking Toward Mars
on
The New Moon Race
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
That's exactly the kind of thinking that NASA is trying to get away from, because it leads to a very uneven budget.
A direct mars mission would give them lots of cash, and then when its completed, interest will almost drop to zero because NASA has no proposals that are both cheap, fast and interesting enough. Going to the moon will generate a modest interest, and that will give NASA a modest budget. During this time, they can develop a lunar program and at the same time silently develop a mars program. When they've gone to the moon, they can immediately propose going to mars quickly and for a modest sum, since all the basic technology has already been developed. Then the mars mission will work the same way: It will have a current goal, but will also plan ahead for the next goal.
This is really much better than just doing a fast mars mission now, because that will effectively end the current race that we're seeing. We're not even close to having the technology for a manned trip to the outer planets moons for example. Expecting a permanent mars base after a direct mars mission is just silly. It's the same kind of thinking that expected a lunar base after the apollo missions. The moon wasn't interesting anymore, and mars won't be either after we get there. Slow and steady achievements, that's what's good for NASA. Infrastructure and standard procedures are more important than individual projects and missions.
"Most people buy windows pre installed. But anyone who had gone through a full install of Windows knows how difficult it is."
Exactly. Only people who have installed windows knows that it's not very simple, but most people have not. This is why it's completely irrelevant to compare installing linux to installing windows. Installing linux needs to be as simple or simpler than booting up a fresh copy of windows vista for the first time, which incidentally requires no effort beyond pressing the power button. Yes, that's impossible, so you're gonna have to accept that installing linux will ALWAYS be considered hard. What you don't seem to understand is that life is unfair, especially for the linux missionary. It isn't enough to make linux as good as windows, it needs to much, much better.
"Another disappointing thing about the article is that it positions Linux as a "cheap" alternative. The main point of Linux is not that it is cheap, it could be or it might not be. The real power of Linux is avoiding the vendor lock."
Ok, so you're saying that for users who don't give a fuck about vendor lock, linux really has no point? In my experience, what interests the average user about linux is that its cheap. If you can find average windows users who think the cost issue is unimportant and vendor lock in to be a big issue, I must say that is fantastic. Just because that's how you see it doesn't mean the readers of this article will generally agree with you.
Well, what about all those ancient gods we have up there? They're just as distanced from reality as star trek.
And what names should we use in your opinion? I'd much prefer having objects named after celebrities than astronomers naming the rocks after their cat or whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
Dogs have been around for thousands of years, yet I still can't marry one here in Sweden. Hell, I can't even marry a woman under 18 or a man. Yes, I can engage in "partnership" with a man and with special permission from the state, I can marry young women. But no, I can't actually marry them without being investigated by the government. I don't know the exact laws regarding this in the US, but I bet they're similar.
Now, perhaps you think it would be wrong to marry a dog or a 16 year old girl. But I don't see why. I can't prevent either of them from divorcing me. Im not allowed to hurt them or kidnap them just because they're married to me. Being married to someone gives me no special legal rights, except inheritance (and that part should be removed as well). All marriage means is that two individuals promise each other eternal loyalty. Nothing else.
So what's the problem here? People like preventing others from doing what they think is morally wrong. People like to meddle in other peoples business. By 2050, you still won't be able to marry people of the same sex in most countries, you won't be able to marry people under 18 in most western countries, and you sure as hell won't be able to marry machines of any level of intelligence in any country.
Marriage has no place in legal textbooks.
As you say, corrections sometimes means deletion. That's why I was wondering if the parent didn't get any comments on why his stuff was deleted. We can speculate all we want, but without more info, it's hard to know who did wrong.
"Some of these people are people whom I don't doubt; well-spoken experts in the fields they were contributing to."
Isn't the problem here that these experts are used to people taking their word, while on wikipedia, they always need a source for every statement?
But don't they give reasons why they remove your stuff? If it's lacking in some way, just improve it and try again? It would be interesting to see some examples.
Who says there won't be? This is at least 20 to 30 years in the future...
If there's a catastrophic failure in any system, they'll just head home for earth. Same thing applies here: Spontaneously going from the moon to earth isn't a big deal. Going from mars to earth however is something that require's very careful planning.
Yes, that was my point.
There is a very big difference here: In Biosphere 2, the plan was to not import ANYTHING. In this case, its just a matter of reducing imports. Biosphere would probably have gone much better if they were allowed to import 100 kg every 6 months or something like that. For this reason, it can't fail like Biosphere 2. If they fail to grow enough food or if they need some other product, the only problem is that earth has to pay for more supplies.
Besides, building a self sustainable base on the moon IS the test. On the moon, supplies can arrive within days. On mars or other bodies, supplies might take months or even years. Now, as for the reasons this can't be done on earth? Well, there are a number of them, but the biggest one is that tax payers are probably more willing to pay NASA for doing important research on the moon than they are to pay NASA for doing important research on earth, even if the former is much more expensive.
Yeah, all those astronauts who stayed on the moon for a year or more, where are they now? Dead, I tell you!
Muscle and bones can be trained much more easily than on ISS for example, since there is some gravity. Good old weight lifting and running (possibly with weights) will be possible on the moon. Walking and such might need retraining since astronauts might get used to skipping and jumping or whatever, but that's no big deal. So what is it that you think will happen?
Good point. However, mechanical power can be used to transport heat from a colder place to a warmer place. In other words, with batteries, this system could be made more advanced and cool the brain even if the environment is hotter than body temperature.
Now all they need to do is put some electromagnets on it and run it in reverse. Voila, a booster with 100% reusable parts :)
I would guess the point of filming that period is that it would allow Jackson to make a lot of the content himself. It's probably a lot easier to please everyone that way. The lord of the rings gave him very little room for creativeness.
Do you let other people use your pc?
No, I have a guest PC.
What about at a party where your not paying attention?
Shut computer down and have a password.
Do you trust every file that anyone EVER gives you?
No, I just trust the files I accept.
Based on, their word? Their knowledge of security?
Based on the fact that some file types can not contain viruses.
Do you have keyloggers running from some unscrupulous voyeur tech you took your pc to 4 years ago?
Hahaha, of course not. How many people on slashdot takes their computer to a tech?
The simple fact is you DO NOT KNOW if you have a virus or not.
And you do not know if the alarms given by your virus software are false or not. I have actually had anti virus software on my computer for years without them detecting anything (that wasn't a false alarm), so I just stopped using them. Sure, it is slightly safer to use them as a final layer of protection, but is it worth it? I don't think so. It slows my computer down and often costs money.
So, if that's the reason w3schools say 3.6% and Net Applications say 0,37% for the same period, I guess 90% of linux users used privoxy at that point... Interesting theory ;)
But seriously, you are right, weblogs isn't a perfect way to measure this. But what is your suggestion for a better way? If so, I think all of us would be interested in hearing it, because how can we ever know when people start using linux when estimates vary by an order of magnitude?
"We collect data from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on demand network of small to medium enterprise live stats customers. The sample size for these sites is more than 40,000 urls and growing."
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/
The statistics come from Net Applications though.
The release (and hype) of Ubuntu 7.04 in combination with the release (and bad publicity) of windows vista.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5&qpcustom=Linux
Notice how the graph follows these events quite nicely.
I can agree that these numbers are far from perfect, but my point is, you're not likely to find more accurate numbers. If your evidence is from the logs of a specific website, I don't see how that proves anything. Possibly if that website was Google.com, but otherwise you'd need a large number of websites with varying content to get better statistics than these guys have.
They don't count sales, the count visitors to a selection of websites. I'd say their system is as good as you can get when it comes to counting linux penetration percentage. Besides, come on, do you really think there's more than 1% of PC using linux? Their numbers seem a lot more likely than the 3% w3schools claim. The thing is of course their selection is not representative of all internet users or that they count servers too.
2 and 3 contradict each other. One says immunization by exposure to bacteria/viruses is good, the other says its bad. Admittedly, sterile needles have replaced dirty fingers for the last century. But I don't see why the old method was better than the new one.
Paint? Seems to work for steel, but maybe I'm missing something here.
That's exactly the kind of thinking that NASA is trying to get away from, because it leads to a very uneven budget.
A direct mars mission would give them lots of cash, and then when its completed, interest will almost drop to zero because NASA has no proposals that are both cheap, fast and interesting enough. Going to the moon will generate a modest interest, and that will give NASA a modest budget. During this time, they can develop a lunar program and at the same time silently develop a mars program. When they've gone to the moon, they can immediately propose going to mars quickly and for a modest sum, since all the basic technology has already been developed. Then the mars mission will work the same way: It will have a current goal, but will also plan ahead for the next goal.
This is really much better than just doing a fast mars mission now, because that will effectively end the current race that we're seeing. We're not even close to having the technology for a manned trip to the outer planets moons for example. Expecting a permanent mars base after a direct mars mission is just silly. It's the same kind of thinking that expected a lunar base after the apollo missions. The moon wasn't interesting anymore, and mars won't be either after we get there. Slow and steady achievements, that's what's good for NASA. Infrastructure and standard procedures are more important than individual projects and missions.
How hard would it be for developers to make several different packages of each release? I think that's the real issue here.
"Most people buy windows pre installed. But anyone who had gone through a full install of Windows knows how difficult it is."
Exactly. Only people who have installed windows knows that it's not very simple, but most people have not. This is why it's completely irrelevant to compare installing linux to installing windows. Installing linux needs to be as simple or simpler than booting up a fresh copy of windows vista for the first time, which incidentally requires no effort beyond pressing the power button. Yes, that's impossible, so you're gonna have to accept that installing linux will ALWAYS be considered hard. What you don't seem to understand is that life is unfair, especially for the linux missionary. It isn't enough to make linux as good as windows, it needs to much, much better.
"Another disappointing thing about the article is that it positions Linux as a "cheap" alternative. The main point of Linux is not that it is cheap, it could be or it might not be. The real power of Linux is avoiding the vendor lock."
Ok, so you're saying that for users who don't give a fuck about vendor lock, linux really has no point? In my experience, what interests the average user about linux is that its cheap. If you can find average windows users who think the cost issue is unimportant and vendor lock in to be a big issue, I must say that is fantastic. Just because that's how you see it doesn't mean the readers of this article will generally agree with you.
Don't be silly. The ancient greeks and romans were just as religious as the christians.
Hmm, lasers burning the sails... Archimedes would have been proud :)
Well, what about all those ancient gods we have up there? They're just as distanced from reality as star trek.
And what names should we use in your opinion? I'd much prefer having objects named after celebrities than astronomers naming the rocks after their cat or whatever.