Oh shut up. Seriously, "wage slavery"? You've got to be trolling.
Unless you want to supply your own means to live - farming crops, building and repairing your house, getting your own water, making your own clothes - then you have to get a job for money so you can pay other people to do those things. This is not slavery, it's an almost-universally adopted alternative to self-sufficiency.
Property ownership and medical attention are not rights. We have the freedom to PURSUE life, liberty and happiness, not the right to them. You work in exchange for modern conveniences. It's a very, very complex barter system, but it most certainly not slavery. Suck it up.
Unless of course you're going into academia or industry in a science field, where having an M.S. or Ph.D. is basically an entry requirement if you don't want to be a lab monkey for 8 years.
This experiment isn't some sweeping revolution in chemistry. It doesn't say "chemistry was wrong" - it only says "chemistry was wrong above 1.5 million atmospheres." It affects geologists and geochemists who attempt to run processes and/or simulations at those pressures, and no one else.
The large majority of chemistry and chemists will be completely unaffected by this discovery, because it doesn't matter to anyone not working in the Earth's core or working on artificial gemstone synthesis. Most pertinent of all, any effects discovered at these conditions can't be exploited in any sort of device or process, because the pressures necessary to bring them out are nearly impossible and astronomically expensive to reproduce.
I'm not quite sure I understand the Google hate. They return consistently relevant results, and a lot of them - I've never been truly disappointed with a Google search - their ads are tasteful and (with the exception of Gmail ads) also relevant.
Why is everyone apparently desperate for an alternative? Google isn't Windows, it's a low-clutter, streamlined, and effective search engine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I'm not sure I buy that. Even if they're using an H2/O2 mix, I really doubt that it's less expensive than gasoline, if only due to the quantity they'd have to buy.
Uhhh... does anyone care about the massive waste of rocket fuel that this is? I mean, that's the number one reason I hate NASCAR. It's just downright wasteful. We could be using that gas, instead of burning it to drive in a circle 500 times.
This whole auto-racing thing is an artifact of a world where energy is plentiful and can be freely squandered.
As much as I enjoy reading a Steve Jobs HandJob, you're giving Apple way too much credit. You're not buying a machine when you buy a Mac, you're buying an image. You're paying roughly double what you'd pay for equivalent hardware because it looks sleek, has a less clunky OS, and is trendy.
I'm going to go with your car analogy for a second - the problem with Apple is that they build their machines like sports cars. That is, highly specialized parts that are only produced by one manufacturer. Have you ever tried to service a Ferrari? You have to take it to a Ferrari mechanic/dealership, because nobody else can deal with or replace the parts in the car. And sure, it looks flashy, but you'll get the same effective performance (getting from point A to point B) out of a Corolla, which costs a whole lot less and lasts a whole lot longer.
And that's just it. Apple doesn't have anything to offer me (and, considering the market share, others) that I/they can't buy for $1,500 less.
As far as Apple's service goes... well, with the glowing praise you're giving, I can't bring myself to believe you've ever used iTunes. Or tried to replace a piece of hardware. Or run into any problems with a Mac ever. Because Apple's service is really great, until you run into a problem that's outside the mainstream set of "I forgot my password," "My screen went blank," "I had a kernel panic," errors.
Lastly, I'm not really sure I see the difference between a corporate computing machine and a personal computer. Corporate doesn't do anything that Personal doesn't - they just need spreadsheets, word processing, e-mail, and maybe the odd specialized app or two. Personal just needs media added on to that, and Windows (with the exception of Vista) handles that just fine. And if you don't like the way Windows handles media, there are 300 third-party applications waiting to handle it in a variety of ways.
When you buy Apple, you have to like everything about Apple, because Apple's all you're ever going to get. When you buy PC, you're free to easily customize, both on the hardware AND software ends.
Dude. If you don't want Mac customer service, don't buy a Mac. The machines are non-customizable, they always have been and probably always will be. If you want a better Mac, you have to buy a new Mac. That's Apple's MO.
Answer me this then: how exactly are you "mining" the data for "answers"? And once you've explained that, explain how it differs from the scientific method.
His example about Venter is particularly offensive, too. He's saying Venter's discovery of theoretical species is somehow analogous to the discovery and classification of an existing species, and because Venter didn't classify his "species" and used genome-sized data piles to model them, it somehow proves that classification is worthless.
Sure, models are "wrong." That's why they're MODELS. I don't look at a 1/50 scale model of an experimental aircraft and say "Well, geez, how is this thing useful? It's made out of wood! It doesn't fly! You'll never get any useful information out of this!" The model helps us, the experimenters, wrap our heads around exactly what we're doing. When scientists create models, they're not really trying to replicate the universe, they're trying to make the complexity of it make sense to them. That's why we have multiple models of the same damn thing - look at the atom: the Bohr model, the Rutherford model, the Quantum Mechanical model. Sure, some are more accurate than others, but each are useful to us in understanding the phenomena that occur.
We, humanity, are the ones doing science. The computers are tools. If the computer understands what all the petabytes mean, good for it - but WE still need to understand, and the way we understand is by fitting the data to a model. Then we test the model and find where it's incorrect. The size of the data set is completely irrelevant, because the data will always be used to confirm or reject a hypothesis.
I don't think that LimitNone has a case. Sure, they can claim that their migration software was a "trade secret" - but they, of their own volition, SHARED that trade secret with Google. It wasn't like Google had trenchcoat-wearing, fedora'd agents sneak into their company and copy all the source code onto flash drives and then inconspicuously sneak out the garbage chute. They asked LimitNone if they wanted to become part of a program to help with Google Apps, and as part of that program, LimitNone divulged their "trade secret." I don't see the coercion.
Suing someone else for your own stupid mistakes seems really... well, stupid. But I guess that's the name of the game these days.
Yeah, they really are. About 75% of the market share is XP machines. And sure, the Linux numbers could increase drastically - but doubling, tripling, or quadrupling.12% or whatever it is probably won't topple the giant. Microsoft just happens to have established themselves so fully that they can get by with mediocrity. Vista isn't terrible. It isn't great, either. But until Microsoft creates something so horrible that the public can't stomach it, they're going to stay where they are.
What are you trying to say? Virtually every sale of a computer involves the simultaneous sale of an operating system. That isn't a Windows phenomenon, that's a "computer market" phenomenon. The only people who buy OS's off the shelf are people who want to dual-boot, or people who build their own systems.
What companies has MS helped to bring to the top of their field without trying to take over that part of the market?
I was replying to this. It is not a reasonable thing to expect a company to "bring another to the top of their field" without having some sort of profit interest in it. A joint venture implies sharing the spoils of war, as it were. What the original poster described was not that.
But congratulations on your apparent mastery of sarcasm. Do you have a degree in that as well?
Companies don't help other companies unless one of them owns the other. Microsoft is not particularly unique in this respect.
I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that Microsoft is a corporation, but, you can't go arguing that their intents are somehow more evil than other corporations. Every one of them is out for its own gain, and its own expansion of its profits.
From the bill:
`SEC. 899F. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES WHILE PREVENTING IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.
`(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
The fact that this clause is present makes the bulk of your post a rant about a non-existent Patriot Act II. Honestly, this bill is of virtually no consequence. It's the House of Representatives trying to act like they're doing something about terrorism.
Don't naysay people who worry just because your myopic view of the writing on the wall is all blurry. As a person who worries, I'd like to think that we aren't people who spread FUD. This summary was written by someone who "has an agenda" or "had a knee-jerk reaction."
Michael Crichton already wrote the book, I guess it's only a matter of time before PREY: THE MOVIE hits the theaters and causes a media firestorm before fading into relative obscurity.
Slashdot Mirror
E85 is 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline. Not the other way around. Thus, 100% ethanol would probably lead to a 35% drop in mileage or something like that.
Oh shut up. Seriously, "wage slavery"? You've got to be trolling.
Unless you want to supply your own means to live - farming crops, building and repairing your house, getting your own water, making your own clothes - then you have to get a job for money so you can pay other people to do those things. This is not slavery, it's an almost-universally adopted alternative to self-sufficiency.
Property ownership and medical attention are not rights. We have the freedom to PURSUE life, liberty and happiness, not the right to them. You work in exchange for modern conveniences. It's a very, very complex barter system, but it most certainly not slavery. Suck it up.
Nowhere else in the world is politics so uniquely American.
Unless of course you're going into academia or industry in a science field, where having an M.S. or Ph.D. is basically an entry requirement if you don't want to be a lab monkey for 8 years.
That's... exactly what he was saying. Thus "always" 6 months away.
Just for the record, the ellipsis is not a comma.
I prefer to say that Chemistry is just interesting physics. Because physics is boring.
This experiment isn't some sweeping revolution in chemistry. It doesn't say "chemistry was wrong" - it only says "chemistry was wrong above 1.5 million atmospheres." It affects geologists and geochemists who attempt to run processes and/or simulations at those pressures, and no one else.
The large majority of chemistry and chemists will be completely unaffected by this discovery, because it doesn't matter to anyone not working in the Earth's core or working on artificial gemstone synthesis. Most pertinent of all, any effects discovered at these conditions can't be exploited in any sort of device or process, because the pressures necessary to bring them out are nearly impossible and astronomically expensive to reproduce.
I'm not quite sure I understand the Google hate. They return consistently relevant results, and a lot of them - I've never been truly disappointed with a Google search - their ads are tasteful and (with the exception of Gmail ads) also relevant.
Why is everyone apparently desperate for an alternative? Google isn't Windows, it's a low-clutter, streamlined, and effective search engine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I'm not sure I buy that. Even if they're using an H2/O2 mix, I really doubt that it's less expensive than gasoline, if only due to the quantity they'd have to buy.
Uhhh... does anyone care about the massive waste of rocket fuel that this is? I mean, that's the number one reason I hate NASCAR. It's just downright wasteful. We could be using that gas, instead of burning it to drive in a circle 500 times.
This whole auto-racing thing is an artifact of a world where energy is plentiful and can be freely squandered.
I'm going to go with your car analogy for a second - the problem with Apple is that they build their machines like sports cars. That is, highly specialized parts that are only produced by one manufacturer. Have you ever tried to service a Ferrari? You have to take it to a Ferrari mechanic/dealership, because nobody else can deal with or replace the parts in the car. And sure, it looks flashy, but you'll get the same effective performance (getting from point A to point B) out of a Corolla, which costs a whole lot less and lasts a whole lot longer.
And that's just it. Apple doesn't have anything to offer me (and, considering the market share, others) that I/they can't buy for $1,500 less.
As far as Apple's service goes... well, with the glowing praise you're giving, I can't bring myself to believe you've ever used iTunes. Or tried to replace a piece of hardware. Or run into any problems with a Mac ever. Because Apple's service is really great, until you run into a problem that's outside the mainstream set of "I forgot my password," "My screen went blank," "I had a kernel panic," errors.
Lastly, I'm not really sure I see the difference between a corporate computing machine and a personal computer. Corporate doesn't do anything that Personal doesn't - they just need spreadsheets, word processing, e-mail, and maybe the odd specialized app or two. Personal just needs media added on to that, and Windows (with the exception of Vista) handles that just fine. And if you don't like the way Windows handles media, there are 300 third-party applications waiting to handle it in a variety of ways.
When you buy Apple, you have to like everything about Apple, because Apple's all you're ever going to get. When you buy PC, you're free to easily customize, both on the hardware AND software ends.
Dude. If you don't want Mac customer service, don't buy a Mac. The machines are non-customizable, they always have been and probably always will be. If you want a better Mac, you have to buy a new Mac. That's Apple's MO.
Answer me this then: how exactly are you "mining" the data for "answers"? And once you've explained that, explain how it differs from the scientific method.
Sure, models are "wrong." That's why they're MODELS. I don't look at a 1/50 scale model of an experimental aircraft and say "Well, geez, how is this thing useful? It's made out of wood! It doesn't fly! You'll never get any useful information out of this!" The model helps us, the experimenters, wrap our heads around exactly what we're doing. When scientists create models, they're not really trying to replicate the universe, they're trying to make the complexity of it make sense to them. That's why we have multiple models of the same damn thing - look at the atom: the Bohr model, the Rutherford model, the Quantum Mechanical model. Sure, some are more accurate than others, but each are useful to us in understanding the phenomena that occur.
We, humanity, are the ones doing science. The computers are tools. If the computer understands what all the petabytes mean, good for it - but WE still need to understand, and the way we understand is by fitting the data to a model. Then we test the model and find where it's incorrect. The size of the data set is completely irrelevant, because the data will always be used to confirm or reject a hypothesis.
How could they? On the contrary, how could they not copy the look and feel of gMove when it looks and feels like that?
Suing someone else for your own stupid mistakes seems really... well, stupid. But I guess that's the name of the game these days.
Yeah, they really are. About 75% of the market share is XP machines. And sure, the Linux numbers could increase drastically - but doubling, tripling, or quadrupling .12% or whatever it is probably won't topple the giant. Microsoft just happens to have established themselves so fully that they can get by with mediocrity. Vista isn't terrible. It isn't great, either. But until Microsoft creates something so horrible that the public can't stomach it, they're going to stay where they are.
What are you trying to say? Virtually every sale of a computer involves the simultaneous sale of an operating system. That isn't a Windows phenomenon, that's a "computer market" phenomenon. The only people who buy OS's off the shelf are people who want to dual-boot, or people who build their own systems.
Switching the transmitter off was just NASA's way of telling Ulysses that the cake is a lie.
I was replying to this. It is not a reasonable thing to expect a company to "bring another to the top of their field" without having some sort of profit interest in it. A joint venture implies sharing the spoils of war, as it were. What the original poster described was not that.
But congratulations on your apparent mastery of sarcasm. Do you have a degree in that as well?
Companies don't help other companies unless one of them owns the other. Microsoft is not particularly unique in this respect. I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that Microsoft is a corporation, but, you can't go arguing that their intents are somehow more evil than other corporations. Every one of them is out for its own gain, and its own expansion of its profits.
Terrible modding. Please, someone reading at -1 bump this up for funny.
The fact that this clause is present makes the bulk of your post a rant about a non-existent Patriot Act II. Honestly, this bill is of virtually no consequence. It's the House of Representatives trying to act like they're doing something about terrorism.
Don't naysay people who worry just because your myopic view of the writing on the wall is all blurry. As a person who worries, I'd like to think that we aren't people who spread FUD. This summary was written by someone who "has an agenda" or "had a knee-jerk reaction."Michael Crichton already wrote the book, I guess it's only a matter of time before PREY: THE MOVIE hits the theaters and causes a media firestorm before fading into relative obscurity.