No, I agree with jbolden's posts that are ancestor to this post. That does NOT include "a future in which we will all be magically rich and presumably living in luxury", nor "don't do mitigation of CO2 emissions".
It does include that this is false - "if we don't reduce CO2 humans will face mass death a few centuries out because farms are in the wrong place". I agree this is false as jbolden claimed.
The VAST MAJORITY of what they did, did nothing, A few times they got lucky.
Well, some of them wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S..., and described cataract surgery of the eye around 2600 years ago. He detected and diagnosed diabetes and linked it to sugar and obesity.
Probably afraid of being killed in fire, but ok with being killed by an impact. The religions that don't practice cremation or other kinds of fiery activities with dead bodies presumably have some belief about burning dead bodies causing soul deprivation from heaven.
The economics are easy to model using some fermi-like methodology, which indicates that any large scale adaption is going to be more expensive that mitigation.
But the GP isn't saying do no mitigation. In fact saying the opposite.
There have already comments by others about how in many jurisdictions the crimes that have a sure death penalty, keep getting committed regardless of the punishment it attracts.
Clearly, people either think they will not get caught, or they just don't think it through.
If this is so with a clear fear - death, that most people share, the time slowing is something most people won't even understand. How does an unknown / poorly understood punishment deter other people from crime, when a immensely easier to understand punishment (death) doesn't do extremely well?
Have you tried updating Adobe products to other company's products on 5000 computers because Adobe started pushing you on subscription model which doesn't suit you?
Sometimes the price of owning something isn't the price you pay up front. It costs a certain amount until it doesn't.
Hint : Modern multi-user OS does give all cycles to the program that asks for it, but not exactly WHEN the program asks for it. It makes all the difference.
Well, I don't use data upload software. That does not absolve the OS from a responsibility of elementary fairness among processes, nor routers from the same among connected devices. This is a primary function of OS and router.
That you admit through silence the same lack of features in CPU throttling, is proof enough.
Google drive might not be justified in omitting a feature that is necessary because of limitations of YOUR OS and router, but I wouldn't have the fundamental responsibilities of different software blurred.
Ok, Google drive awaits the same fate then. I don't see a problem. But that is irrelevant because I was talking about expectations from software in general, which don't include throttling as universally as you claimed.
Obviously a screwed up (read greedy) banking/financial system will cost the economy something.
For reasonable credit card companies - unspent amount should go back to your account, loading fee should be comparable to costs the company incurred on providing which is somewhere in the vicinity of $0. (Though I am not saying around 0 cents.)
In that regard, it is great because 1 GB restore per month is free. So you could test for free, provided the "test" is crafted such that it results in less than 1 GB data download.
But default settings is for no rate controls on the OS or router side...meaning that both the OS and the router expect applications to play nice and manage themselves, or be user-adjustable at the very least.
Then your OS is not very fair about allocating network resources among running programs, is it? If it is across machines, your router is not fair about allocating network resources among connected machines.
For Linux, nice, ionice work well enough so that you could manipulate if you don't want fairness, though default behaviour is kind of "fair". Other operating systems would have their own mechanisms.
I am curious if CPU using software (e.g. spreadsheet, calculators etc.) come with CPU throttling settings.
More importantly, when something is very important it is impossible for general people to know of its truths through the traditional investigation and media mechanism.
At every stage of the fact copying process between persons, there is a huge incentive to distort facts. Distortion could be in any direction.
Given this, it is a waste of the time by the "critical" thinkers to worry too much about learning the truth. There can be no hope of the truth in really important matters. That is why such people are nutjobs - like people believing in fairies.
But then market economics isn't a great way to popularize these devices. The person who pays (passenger) is not the one who benefits (passenger in following years). Making the devices mandatory appears to be the only way.
Though the airline does say this particular aircraft had 4 independent ELT devices, of 2 different types each, at least one of which should have croaked.
Likely, you think that my question is a statement. It wasn't it was a question. You somehow seem obsessed with saying my question was a statement.
You admitted, nay boasted, in your last post, that your question was a statement. I am done with ping pong. If there is any other matter you want to discuss I would love to partake in it.
Certainly there is no correlation to the ongoing discussion about Apple and the nature of a downward slide postulated the the OP.
Downward slide could be of losses, profits, marketshare, negative marketshare, wavelength of dominant colour of product logo etc. Since it was unqualified, your statements about Apples finances were presumptuous in the context. That is all.
Firsty, asking a question and making the question a statement is a great technique
Yes, but then it makes it impossible to avail of the defence that the comment was only a question and not a statement. Which you tried to avail of, here : question I was asking which was what metrics was the OP using to make the determination that Apple is on a downhill slide.
Now you accept that you were not asking a question but making a statement, but in this post you were completely hiding behind the facade of your first post here that I replied to being a "question".
You can make a replacement post that does not harp on "question", and I will gladly consider it. But I refuse to play in this ping-pong between "it was just a question not a statement" and "nothing wrong in making a statement".
doesn't pertain to anything about the question I was asking which was what metrics was the OP using to make the determination
Ok, so you harp about your "question". I was not replying to your question. You said "When exactly do you expect Apple to suddenly go into the red?", which aside from being a question, is a statement that the commenter expects Apple to suddenly go into the red now or in the future. (Read this for how it is wrong). Followed by straight statements, undisguised as questions, like "People like to say Apple is declining, but there really isn't any financial indication this is so".
So your post to which I originally replied did not come across as a question at all and was full of statements made in the forms of explicit statements or questions.
In short, no, you cannot pretend you were asking a question.
What does arbitrarily multiplying things by -1 prove exactly?
Already explained. "Proof that unqualified downward slide need not mean financial woes, or any woes in general. "
Then the qualifier to your statement must be 'downward can never apply to all aspects (of Apple)? First off this could be false and so your statement has a fallacy.
No. Profit and loss are definitely aspects of (slides of) Apple. If downward slide is of profits, it is by definition, an upward slide of losses. Losses could be negative in a particular instance, but unquestionably, slides of profits and losses must be in the opposite directions. Hence all aspects, which include both profit and loss, cannot have a downward slide. QED.
Second, my question never involved all aspects of Apple, but was a simply question of what metrics led the OP to make the statement Apple is on downhill slide.
I replied to your statements that the downward slide must mean financial woes as explained above - e.g. asking when the commenter expects Apple to post losses.
How more wide open can a question be than what metrics are you using to come to the conclusion you have stated?
If you actually just asked a question to the commenter, you would have let the question remain wide open, but you are not correct in retrospective conversion of your own post as a question.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I agree with jbolden's posts that are ancestor to this post. That does NOT include "a future in which we will all be magically rich and presumably living in luxury", nor "don't do mitigation of CO2 emissions".
It does include that this is false - "if we don't reduce CO2 humans will face mass death a few centuries out because farms are in the wrong place". I agree this is false as jbolden claimed.
You can't not prove something.
I can. By not even trying to prove Newton's first law of motion, I have hereby not proved Newton's first law of motion.
In fact so have you, at least in the post I am replying to, since you didn't even address Newton's first law of motion in this post.
The VAST MAJORITY of what they did, did nothing, A few times they got lucky.
Well, some of them wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S..., and described cataract surgery of the eye around 2600 years ago. He detected and diagnosed diabetes and linked it to sugar and obesity.
No, I just said it's not ruled out, not it necessarily will be.
Burden of proving someone invoked magic lies squarely on your shoulders.
Probably afraid of being killed in fire, but ok with being killed by an impact. The religions that don't practice cremation or other kinds of fiery activities with dead bodies presumably have some belief about burning dead bodies causing soul deprivation from heaven.
He also imagines a future in which we will all be magically rich and presumably living in luxury
I don't see how it is "magically" from his posts, but yes richness and luxury isn't ruled out. Why would it be?
Fantasy stories are not my domain I'm afraid
Neither is reading comprehension, I see.
The economics are easy to model using some fermi-like methodology, which indicates that any large scale adaption is going to be more expensive that mitigation.
But the GP isn't saying do no mitigation. In fact saying the opposite.
There have already comments by others about how in many jurisdictions the crimes that have a sure death penalty, keep getting committed regardless of the punishment it attracts.
Clearly, people either think they will not get caught, or they just don't think it through.
If this is so with a clear fear - death, that most people share, the time slowing is something most people won't even understand. How does an unknown / poorly understood punishment deter other people from crime, when a immensely easier to understand punishment (death) doesn't do extremely well?
Have you tried updating Adobe products to other company's products on 5000 computers because Adobe started pushing you on subscription model which doesn't suit you?
Sometimes the price of owning something isn't the price you pay up front. It costs a certain amount until it doesn't.
Ok, learn something about scheduling.
Hint : Modern multi-user OS does give all cycles to the program that asks for it, but not exactly WHEN the program asks for it. It makes all the difference.
Well, I don't use data upload software. That does not absolve the OS from a responsibility of elementary fairness among processes, nor routers from the same among connected devices. This is a primary function of OS and router.
That you admit through silence the same lack of features in CPU throttling, is proof enough.
Google drive might not be justified in omitting a feature that is necessary because of limitations of YOUR OS and router, but I wouldn't have the fundamental responsibilities of different software blurred.
Ok, Google drive awaits the same fate then. I don't see a problem. But that is irrelevant because I was talking about expectations from software in general, which don't include throttling as universally as you claimed.
How does MS Excel allow the user to specify that 20% or 600 MHz of CPU is available for it? I couldn't find the setting.
I suspect your OS is better in fairness about CPU allocation than network. Foreground vs background heuristics are easier for CPU, I guess.
Obviously a screwed up (read greedy) banking/financial system will cost the economy something.
For reasonable credit card companies - unspent amount should go back to your account, loading fee should be comparable to costs the company incurred on providing which is somewhere in the vicinity of $0. (Though I am not saying around 0 cents.)
In that regard, it is great because 1 GB restore per month is free. So you could test for free, provided the "test" is crafted such that it results in less than 1 GB data download.
Or, buy better power supplies. They last an eternity so don't amount to much extra cost, typically.
But default settings is for no rate controls on the OS or router side...meaning that both the OS and the router expect applications to play nice and manage themselves, or be user-adjustable at the very least.
Then your OS is not very fair about allocating network resources among running programs, is it? If it is across machines, your router is not fair about allocating network resources among connected machines.
For Linux, nice, ionice work well enough so that you could manipulate if you don't want fairness, though default behaviour is kind of "fair". Other operating systems would have their own mechanisms.
I am curious if CPU using software (e.g. spreadsheet, calculators etc.) come with CPU throttling settings.
More importantly, when something is very important it is impossible for general people to know of its truths through the traditional investigation and media mechanism.
At every stage of the fact copying process between persons, there is a huge incentive to distort facts. Distortion could be in any direction.
Given this, it is a waste of the time by the "critical" thinkers to worry too much about learning the truth. There can be no hope of the truth in really important matters. That is why such people are nutjobs - like people believing in fairies.
But if you make it illegal for planes to fly on water, only illegal planes will fly on water!!
Possibly they are American. Cellphone doesn't cost anything, monthly data plan costs $300.
But then market economics isn't a great way to popularize these devices. The person who pays (passenger) is not the one who benefits (passenger in following years). Making the devices mandatory appears to be the only way.
Though the airline does say this particular aircraft had 4 independent ELT devices, of 2 different types each, at least one of which should have croaked.
No, these percentages are for native (aka first) language. Not directly related to the percentages of people who speak English.
Likely, you think that my question is a statement. It wasn't it was a question. You somehow seem obsessed with saying my question was a statement.
You admitted, nay boasted, in your last post, that your question was a statement. I am done with ping pong. If there is any other matter you want to discuss I would love to partake in it.
Certainly there is no correlation to the ongoing discussion about Apple and the nature of a downward slide postulated the the OP.
Downward slide could be of losses, profits, marketshare, negative marketshare, wavelength of dominant colour of product logo etc. Since it was unqualified, your statements about Apples finances were presumptuous in the context. That is all.
Firsty, asking a question and making the question a statement is a great technique
Yes, but then it makes it impossible to avail of the defence that the comment was only a question and not a statement. Which you tried to avail of, here : question I was asking which was what metrics was the OP using to make the determination that Apple is on a downhill slide.
Now you accept that you were not asking a question but making a statement, but in this post you were completely hiding behind the facade of your first post here that I replied to being a "question".
You can make a replacement post that does not harp on "question", and I will gladly consider it. But I refuse to play in this ping-pong between "it was just a question not a statement" and "nothing wrong in making a statement".
doesn't pertain to anything about the question I was asking which was what metrics was the OP using to make the determination
Ok, so you harp about your "question". I was not replying to your question. You said "When exactly do you expect Apple to suddenly go into the red?", which aside from being a question, is a statement that the commenter expects Apple to suddenly go into the red now or in the future. (Read this for how it is wrong). Followed by straight statements, undisguised as questions, like "People like to say Apple is declining, but there really isn't any financial indication this is so".
So your post to which I originally replied did not come across as a question at all and was full of statements made in the forms of explicit statements or questions.
In short, no, you cannot pretend you were asking a question.
What does arbitrarily multiplying things by -1 prove exactly?
Already explained. "Proof that unqualified downward slide need not mean financial woes, or any woes in general. "
Then the qualifier to your statement must be 'downward can never apply to all aspects (of Apple)?
First off this could be false and so your statement has a fallacy.
No. Profit and loss are definitely aspects of (slides of) Apple. If downward slide is of profits, it is by definition, an upward slide of losses. Losses could be negative in a particular instance, but unquestionably, slides of profits and losses must be in the opposite directions. Hence all aspects, which include both profit and loss, cannot have a downward slide. QED.
Second, my question never involved all aspects of Apple, but was a simply question of what metrics led the OP to make the statement Apple is on downhill slide.
I replied to your statements that the downward slide must mean financial woes as explained above - e.g. asking when the commenter expects Apple to post losses.
How more wide open can a question be than what metrics are you using to come to the conclusion you have stated?
If you actually just asked a question to the commenter, you would have let the question remain wide open, but you are not correct in retrospective conversion of your own post as a question.