I had both Intel processor and GPU too, I didn't see any problem. Is there any bug for this?
Seeing that Intel GPU necessarily means an Intel processor because Intel GPUs are only available onboard, that too only for motherboards that are for Intel processors. So it must be a bug with an huge impact.
On the contrary, please do downplay the developer issue.
Why? Do you think "developers, developers, developers" was not a significant part of Microsoft's success?
If enough customers want a device that requires the developers to read documentation in cuneiform and write code in assembly language, then we'll be reading documentation in cuneiform and writing code in assembly language
How? By working 200 hours a day?
, or the software companies will find someone who will.
You think software companies can find non-existent people? Enough customers would want a stone which converts anything to gold by touching it. Have the companies found "someone who will" build such a stone?
But nobody but us cares about these issues or what we think about them.
That's right. But it is not that a developer just "thinks" that fragmentation is bad. Developers have only 24 hours a day. There can only be a limited number of developers employed in a given amount of total salary. If developers can't do something, the company employing them can't do it. If the company can't do it, it doesn't matter whether there are enough customers for it or not.
Maybe the journalists that are serious about their careers should look harder before agreeing to write such crap.
Quite like whores, there are 2 kinds of journalists - cheap and classy. While only the classy ones reach the pinnacle of their careers, but many classy whores/journalists get lost in their classiness and reach nowhere. Whereas being a cheap journalist/whore is a low-risk way of reaching medium success with some hardwork and a lot less conscience, and zero self-respect. So I wouldn't totally agree with the career advice you gave.
So, writing controversy causing crap might be a reasonably good risk-adjusted move for a journalist.
When you went into a rant about slashdotters towards the end of your GGGGP post, I thought it was simply cathartic. But there was the exact "nit-picky while missing the point" response from SEE. Just awesome.
My "you" was rhetoric, meaning anyone who has problems with xyz should himself boycott xyz rather than expect others to block access to xyz for everyone. Since Google does not have a problem with flash, Google does not boycott flash.
Why would Google make a choice?
To provide a better experience for their customers going forward and to help promote the progress of Web technologies using the free market instead of allowing a single company to determine the rate of that progress.
Provide better experience by not providing an option to experience a popular web-content-delivery mechanism? Funny.
Free market? In what sense is flash not free, as compared to its competitors, if any? It is much freer than Apple's app-store policy - flash developers can develop for 1 platform, make minor UI changes for UI paradigm, and run the application on an overwhelming number of platforms. Customers get cheap apps, developers get a large customer base. On the other hand, Apple's app-store like policies cause software to be written once for every device, increasing the cost and bugginess of software in general. Who is the friend of "free market" here?
And if the free market is based on lack of freedom for customers to choose flash, what kind of "free" market is it?
How does allowing flash mean "single company to determine the rate of that progress"? When flash is allowed, others are allowed too. Allowing McDonalds means single company to feed everyone? If Apple is allowed to sell iphones, it causes Apple monopoly?
One could say the same thing about IE only sites. No one is making you look at them on Windows. You can disable IE and continue the cross-platform experience. This, of course, ignores that your having access to IE influences Web developers and results in more IE only pages being created.
So you stop looking at IE-only pages. You stop using IE.
I just wish they made a different choice and would exclude it by default from Android and Chrome as a way of trying to push it out of the market and provide incentive for a more rapid move towards open standards.
Why would Google make a choice? It is your time/battery that is wasted while looking at flash videos/applications, your "principle"s are being insulted, so you "boycott" flash. Google is not here to make value judgements. It just wants to give the best device, make some money on the side, and maybe most of all - popularize mobile internet usage and make a shitload of more money from its primary competency. "Boycott"ing flash doesn't help Google in any way.
Must you look up to your device/software makers to make value judgements for you?
Unless you're saying the bankruptcy is not public knowledge
It is not public knowledge, but a small investor (and even always every large institutional investor) cannot react at a milli-second's notice. Milli-seconds tradeability make it necessary to react to news in milli-seconds. What value to society does this milli-seconds trade provide?
No, your stocks will be worthless, period. People won't magically be willing to pay more money for stock in a bankrupt company because they weren't allowed to trade the stock for a while
The stocks may not be literally worthless. Even if the company is given up by the regulators as a gone case, in a well regulated market, after liquidating the assets of a company minus its secured liabilities, remaining stake-holders will be compensated. So the people who have higher opinion of quick-ness of this process, or a higher estimate of per-share distributable surplus after liquidation, will still buy if the price is reasonable. The government can step in to save votes from thousands of employees as well as investors, and prop-up the company and hence something can be salvaged from the company.
When milli-second trades are allowed, a few dedicated people who know about it first sell the shares before anyone else realizes the issue. This has increased the information asymmetry between super-computer-endowed firms and small investor. Note that even after the declaration has come, a small investor will never come to know about it within a milli-second, but the super-computer-endowed firm will. But giving 23 hours makes it simpler to monitor one's investments and take appropriate action when needed.
You are using a different meaning of liquidity here than the GP. He was asking about the utility of milli-second sellable liquidity - the notion that the shorter the time needed to sell, the higher the liquidity.
Whereas the liquidity you are talking about is "the probability of someone buying it at a good price at any given time". It might take an hour or a day, but the higher the probability of someone buying it off me when I want to sell, the higher the liquidity I would deem the instrument to have.
So you are right that we need high liquidity from the latter definition, but a higher liquidity (within certain limits) by the former definition does not serve much purpose to society. Especially considering its dangers.
Now you have come to the word "investment". Maybe you are unaware of the difference between the 2, but in financial parlance, trading and investment are as different as chalk and cheese. So learn about the difference. Meanwhile, just know that trading is (almost) a zero sum game.
Maybe she was, but any reason why this guy is trustworthy? I am not saying he is not trustworthy, but such information is invariably so controversial, large stakes on all sides of it, I wonder at your stating it as a fact rather than the opinion of this Hitchens.
My weighing scale shows higher and higher weight everyday. For a brief while I thought I might have to go on a diet, but w0mprat has allayed my fears. Long live w0mprat.
I use firefox, with a lot of privacy enhancing extensions, and I generally do not feel that the advertisers have a lot of information about me. But for a brief while, I used google chrome browser. For about 2-3 weeks after that, I was stumped by advertisers' (especially google) intricate knowledge of my person. I say this principally on the basis of gmail advertisements.
Though the good news is that if you start using a privacy enhanced browser, advertisers soon (seem to) forget all about you.
Well chaos is cool, but don't you think you observe earth's chaos because you observe it from close quarters? Someone watching from even a single AU would find earth relatively quiet as compared to, say, Venus. Venus has huge hurricanes which are planet-wide rather than concentrated to a few areas.
So if you were, say, around a few AU away from earth and followed this advice, you would give more attention to Venus as a potential-life-carrier rather than earth. With a fair bit of certainty, I can say that it would have been a mistake.
So the general assumption is at times somewhat like - water is needed to have a good chance of life existing somewhere. Somewhat easy to figure out if water exists (or, more like, existed a bazillion years ago) on a remote, newly discovered rock floating around a thermonuclear device.
But no, you must generalize - "Not water, but any liquid solvent... blah blah..". Unfortunately, this "any liquid solvent" does not have a particular spectral pattern from which it is simple to figure out if the planet consists of this "any liquid solvent". So mostly, some scientists with limited means, rely on "water" for now. Your generalization is cool.
Since we are theorizing anyway, I generalized it further, especially as a response to your
Of course, a completely arid and barren planet probably wouldn't have the necessary conditions for life to begin (primordial soup and all), so let's not focus there.
But no, absolutely bullshit. I don't have the license to generalize. At this point, you must start talking about "probability" of finding life".
Though I like your "waste of time either way". It is fun only as a purely intellectual pursuit.
First you need to understand why it is there - to control what can an cannot get in or out of the cell (for lack of a better word - without the membrane it wouldn't be a cell).
I understand why it is needed here on earth. But you are refusing to imagine life in the least unlike as we know on earth.
The better for spreading the life to a large volume of an ecosystem, so that sparseness of "nutrition" / consumable energy, is not a problem.
That only works if the life can form in the first place.
This is only a problem if the life cannot form in the first place {end of poor joke}.
Also, if you think that non-solid life is possible, please provide an explanation on how it would work and why it should be considered life
The various constituents, lets say molecules, (if it is in plasma form, there are implausibilities in this scenario that I am about to describe) should stay together. This is because traditionally, "structure" has been considered an important criterion for life. And one good way of having a structure is to start with some adhesion, however loose. Now I think a very vague "structure" should qualify as being sufficient for "life" because the very requirement for having a "structure" was seemingly done to adjust for "life as we know it".
Now, if the "organism" is bathed in a radiation which has a mild ionizing influence upon it such that electrons are knocked off from different constituents and keep getting stuck to other constituents of the same "organism". This would exert a vague electrostatic attraction and we get the cohesion. Occasionally, due to randomness effects, aided by a bit of "wind"/"predator"/shortage of salubrious ionizing radiation, this organism would split, causing "death" / the equivalent of reproduction by something analogous to "cell division".
Surrounding atmosphere is not affected by the radiation because of its chemical composition, but some part of the surrounding atmosphere is "food" / "nutrition", which the organism by some effort, can assimilate into itself. Some molecules always keep getting dropped from the organism due to randomness effects, serving as kind of "humus" / "top soil", though this is all in gaseous form. This is easy food for the next organism of similar kind that strolls by.
Since the organism is assimilating other kinds of molecules into itself, there will some-times be errors/mutations/imperfections in this assimilation process leading to "variation". So somewhat unlike life on earth, reproduction is not the instant when variation from parent(s) happens, but during the lifetime of an "individual", he keeps varying. Metaphorically, the guy is "born a hyacinth and died a zebra".
It's unlikely enough to assemble genetic material (DNA/RNA on Earth) in a protective sheath (lipid bilayer here) in a liquid, how much more unlikely in a gas?
Why is "a protective sheath" necessary (except for your lack of imagination) ?
It also means that unlike a small pool which could collect the necessary elements to create compounds in necessary quantities, these components disperse quickly in a gas.
The better for spreading the life to a large volume of an ecosystem, so that sparseness of "nutrition" / consumable energy, is not a problem.
It's also possible extra-terrestrial intelligence could be in the form of beings made from pure energy and living in the center of stars, but it doesn't seem like the place we should start to look for them...
So? Why is this relevant?
Anyway, if it lives in the center of stars, and since humans can't go / send probes to such places yet, of course. Finding life is not important enough to spend many orders of magnitude more money than we are already spending, so no need to accelerate efforts to send humans/probes to center of stars either. But so what?
Why do we need solvents? Because solids react slowly. Gases have no such restrictions, and arguably are even more "free" than liquids to react. Gaseous life would have no dependency on "liquid solvents".
1. Much of defence industry creates stuff which is able to destroy other things. 2. Paper shredder 3. DRM, in a twisted way, though it doesn't deal with physical substance.
Also, destruction of the material by particle accelerators leads to creation of other things - radiation for instance. This radiation might be of some use.
Slashdot Mirror
If you feel LaTeX is superior, let her use Office and you use LaTeX. Or would she insist that you use Office for your work?
Though, I have nothing against Office and if it works for your work and your marital life, great.
I had both Intel processor and GPU too, I didn't see any problem. Is there any bug for this?
Seeing that Intel GPU necessarily means an Intel processor because Intel GPUs are only available onboard, that too only for motherboards that are for Intel processors. So it must be a bug with an huge impact.
You say as if this ritual were a bad thing. These rituals give some meaning to the life of a geek.
That is why it is optional.
On the contrary, please do downplay the developer issue.
Why? Do you think "developers, developers, developers" was not a significant part of Microsoft's success?
If enough customers want a device that requires the developers to read documentation in cuneiform and write code in assembly language, then we'll be reading documentation in cuneiform and writing code in assembly language
How? By working 200 hours a day?
, or the software companies will find someone who will.
You think software companies can find non-existent people? Enough customers would want a stone which converts anything to gold by touching it. Have the companies found "someone who will" build such a stone?
But nobody but us cares about these issues or what we think about them.
That's right. But it is not that a developer just "thinks" that fragmentation is bad. Developers have only 24 hours a day. There can only be a limited number of developers employed in a given amount of total salary. If developers can't do something, the company employing them can't do it. If the company can't do it, it doesn't matter whether there are enough customers for it or not.
Maybe the journalists that are serious about their careers should look harder before agreeing to write such crap.
Quite like whores, there are 2 kinds of journalists - cheap and classy. While only the classy ones reach the pinnacle of their careers, but many classy whores/journalists get lost in their classiness and reach nowhere. Whereas being a cheap journalist/whore is a low-risk way of reaching medium success with some hardwork and a lot less conscience, and zero self-respect. So I wouldn't totally agree with the career advice you gave.
So, writing controversy causing crap might be a reasonably good risk-adjusted move for a journalist.
Wow! Can you look into the future, or what?
When you went into a rant about slashdotters towards the end of your GGGGP post, I thought it was simply cathartic. But there was the exact "nit-picky while missing the point" response from SEE. Just awesome.
If porn stories count, this one would do splendidly : food porn
I'd love to and mostly I have,
My "you" was rhetoric, meaning anyone who has problems with xyz should himself boycott xyz rather than expect others to block access to xyz for everyone. Since Google does not have a problem with flash, Google does not boycott flash.
Why would Google make a choice?
To provide a better experience for their customers going forward and to help promote the progress of Web technologies using the free market instead of allowing a single company to determine the rate of that progress.
Provide better experience by not providing an option to experience a popular web-content-delivery mechanism? Funny.
Free market? In what sense is flash not free, as compared to its competitors, if any? It is much freer than Apple's app-store policy - flash developers can develop for 1 platform, make minor UI changes for UI paradigm, and run the application on an overwhelming number of platforms. Customers get cheap apps, developers get a large customer base. On the other hand, Apple's app-store like policies cause software to be written once for every device, increasing the cost and bugginess of software in general. Who is the friend of "free market" here?
And if the free market is based on lack of freedom for customers to choose flash, what kind of "free" market is it?
How does allowing flash mean "single company to determine the rate of that progress"? When flash is allowed, others are allowed too. Allowing McDonalds means single company to feed everyone? If Apple is allowed to sell iphones, it causes Apple monopoly?
One could say the same thing about IE only sites. No one is making you look at them on Windows. You can disable IE and continue the cross-platform experience. This, of course, ignores that your having access to IE influences Web developers and results in more IE only pages being created.
So you stop looking at IE-only pages. You stop using IE.
I just wish they made a different choice and would exclude it by default from Android and Chrome as a way of trying to push it out of the market and provide incentive for a more rapid move towards open standards.
Why would Google make a choice? It is your time/battery that is wasted while looking at flash videos/applications, your "principle"s are being insulted, so you "boycott" flash. Google is not here to make value judgements. It just wants to give the best device, make some money on the side, and maybe most of all - popularize mobile internet usage and make a shitload of more money from its primary competency. "Boycott"ing flash doesn't help Google in any way.
Must you look up to your device/software makers to make value judgements for you?
Unless you're saying the bankruptcy is not public knowledge
It is not public knowledge, but a small investor (and even always every large institutional investor) cannot react at a milli-second's notice. Milli-seconds tradeability make it necessary to react to news in milli-seconds. What value to society does this milli-seconds trade provide?
No, your stocks will be worthless, period. People won't magically be willing to pay more money for stock in a bankrupt company because they weren't allowed to trade the stock for a while
The stocks may not be literally worthless. Even if the company is given up by the regulators as a gone case, in a well regulated market, after liquidating the assets of a company minus its secured liabilities, remaining stake-holders will be compensated. So the people who have higher opinion of quick-ness of this process, or a higher estimate of per-share distributable surplus after liquidation, will still buy if the price is reasonable. The government can step in to save votes from thousands of employees as well as investors, and prop-up the company and hence something can be salvaged from the company.
When milli-second trades are allowed, a few dedicated people who know about it first sell the shares before anyone else realizes the issue. This has increased the information asymmetry between super-computer-endowed firms and small investor. Note that even after the declaration has come, a small investor will never come to know about it within a milli-second, but the super-computer-endowed firm will. But giving 23 hours makes it simpler to monitor one's investments and take appropriate action when needed.
You are using a different meaning of liquidity here than the GP. He was asking about the utility of milli-second sellable liquidity - the notion that the shorter the time needed to sell, the higher the liquidity.
Whereas the liquidity you are talking about is "the probability of someone buying it at a good price at any given time". It might take an hour or a day, but the higher the probability of someone buying it off me when I want to sell, the higher the liquidity I would deem the instrument to have.
So you are right that we need high liquidity from the latter definition, but a higher liquidity (within certain limits) by the former definition does not serve much purpose to society. Especially considering its dangers.
You said
Also, stock trading is not a zero sum game:
Now you have come to the word "investment". Maybe you are unaware of the difference between the 2, but in financial parlance, trading and investment are as different as chalk and cheese. So learn about the difference. Meanwhile, just know that trading is (almost) a zero sum game.
Maybe she was, but any reason why this guy is trustworthy? I am not saying he is not trustworthy, but such information is invariably so controversial, large stakes on all sides of it, I wonder at your stating it as a fact rather than the opinion of this Hitchens.
My weighing scale shows higher and higher weight everyday. For a brief while I thought I might have to go on a diet, but w0mprat has allayed my fears. Long live w0mprat.
snowpack reflects more IR back into space than the trees' CO2 sequestration offsets.
Source for this information?
I use firefox, with a lot of privacy enhancing extensions, and I generally do not feel that the advertisers have a lot of information about me. But for a brief while, I used google chrome browser. For about 2-3 weeks after that, I was stumped by advertisers' (especially google) intricate knowledge of my person. I say this principally on the basis of gmail advertisements.
Though the good news is that if you start using a privacy enhanced browser, advertisers soon (seem to) forget all about you.
It was the other guy who was saying any liquid solvent works. Maybe you have jumped into this thread without understanding what is going on?
Well chaos is cool, but don't you think you observe earth's chaos because you observe it from close quarters? Someone watching from even a single AU would find earth relatively quiet as compared to, say, Venus. Venus has huge hurricanes which are planet-wide rather than concentrated to a few areas.
So if you were, say, around a few AU away from earth and followed this advice, you would give more attention to Venus as a potential-life-carrier rather than earth. With a fair bit of certainty, I can say that it would have been a mistake.
So the general assumption is at times somewhat like - water is needed to have a good chance of life existing somewhere. Somewhat easy to figure out if water exists (or, more like, existed a bazillion years ago) on a remote, newly discovered rock floating around a thermonuclear device.
But no, you must generalize - "Not water, but any liquid solvent ... blah blah ..". Unfortunately, this "any liquid solvent" does not have a particular spectral pattern from which it is simple to figure out if the planet consists of this "any liquid solvent". So mostly, some scientists with limited means, rely on "water" for now. Your generalization is cool.
Since we are theorizing anyway, I generalized it further, especially as a response to your
Of course, a completely arid and barren planet probably wouldn't have the necessary conditions for life to begin (primordial soup and all), so let's not focus there.
But no, absolutely bullshit. I don't have the license to generalize. At this point, you must start talking about "probability" of finding life".
Though I like your "waste of time either way". It is fun only as a purely intellectual pursuit.
First you need to understand why it is there - to control what can an cannot get in or out of the cell (for lack of a better word - without the membrane it wouldn't be a cell).
I understand why it is needed here on earth. But you are refusing to imagine life in the least unlike as we know on earth.
The better for spreading the life to a large volume of an ecosystem, so that sparseness of "nutrition" / consumable energy, is not a problem.
That only works if the life can form in the first place.
This is only a problem if the life cannot form in the first place {end of poor joke}.
Also, if you think that non-solid life is possible, please provide an explanation on how it would work and why it should be considered life
The various constituents, lets say molecules, (if it is in plasma form, there are implausibilities in this scenario that I am about to describe) should stay together. This is because traditionally, "structure" has been considered an important criterion for life. And one good way of having a structure is to start with some adhesion, however loose. Now I think a very vague "structure" should qualify as being sufficient for "life" because the very requirement for having a "structure" was seemingly done to adjust for "life as we know it".
Now, if the "organism" is bathed in a radiation which has a mild ionizing influence upon it such that electrons are knocked off from different constituents and keep getting stuck to other constituents of the same "organism". This would exert a vague electrostatic attraction and we get the cohesion. Occasionally, due to randomness effects, aided by a bit of "wind"/"predator"/shortage of salubrious ionizing radiation, this organism would split, causing "death" / the equivalent of reproduction by something analogous to "cell division".
Surrounding atmosphere is not affected by the radiation because of its chemical composition, but some part of the surrounding atmosphere is "food" / "nutrition", which the organism by some effort, can assimilate into itself. Some molecules always keep getting dropped from the organism due to randomness effects, serving as kind of "humus" / "top soil", though this is all in gaseous form. This is easy food for the next organism of similar kind that strolls by.
Since the organism is assimilating other kinds of molecules into itself, there will some-times be errors/mutations/imperfections in this assimilation process leading to "variation". So somewhat unlike life on earth, reproduction is not the instant when variation from parent(s) happens, but during the lifetime of an "individual", he keeps varying. Metaphorically, the guy is "born a hyacinth and died a zebra".
It's unlikely enough to assemble genetic material (DNA/RNA on Earth) in a protective sheath (lipid bilayer here) in a liquid, how much more unlikely in a gas?
Why is "a protective sheath" necessary (except for your lack of imagination) ?
It also means that unlike a small pool which could collect the necessary elements to create compounds in necessary quantities, these components disperse quickly in a gas.
The better for spreading the life to a large volume of an ecosystem, so that sparseness of "nutrition" / consumable energy, is not a problem.
It's also possible extra-terrestrial intelligence could be in the form of beings made from pure energy and living in the center of stars, but it doesn't seem like the place we should start to look for them...
So? Why is this relevant?
Anyway, if it lives in the center of stars, and since humans can't go / send probes to such places yet, of course. Finding life is not important enough to spend many orders of magnitude more money than we are already spending, so no need to accelerate efforts to send humans/probes to center of stars either. But so what?
It could have gaseous life.
Why do we need solvents? Because solids react slowly. Gases have no such restrictions, and arguably are even more "free" than liquids to react. Gaseous life would have no dependency on "liquid solvents".
Not correct. Counter examples
1. Much of defence industry creates stuff which is able to destroy other things.
2. Paper shredder
3. DRM, in a twisted way, though it doesn't deal with physical substance.
Also, destruction of the material by particle accelerators leads to creation of other things - radiation for instance. This radiation might be of some use.