This isn't news for nerds. It's a promotion for a marketing guy's book. The post merely summarizes the book and says that it's topic is REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT.
How many enemy combatants have been slain by French military since 1946?
Tens of thousands. And that's counting the mess we inherited at Dien Bien Phu.
What about by Americans?
Several million.
Arguing that the France's military (or any single nation's military) is anywhere near a match for the United States' since 1949 is absurd. Based on 2010 numbers, the US Armed forces had 3x more troops and 10x the budget of France. Just because we speak English in the United States doesn't mean England has military supremacy over us. Similarly, France has very little global power outside of North Africa. It is an old nation that has withered since the 19th century. Is the US on the decline now? Certainly, but our trailer parks are still protected by the most powerful military in the world.
I've never been to France, but I do have a lot of friends and family in England and New Zealand. How many of them have seen combat? Zero. How many close friends/family of mine in US that have seen active combat (as in people shooting directly at you)? Four.
Hell, the guy sitting next to me was a marine. Semper-fi and all that bullcrap.
So what I'm getting at is Americans have seen France as a pushover, military-wise, since WWII and that isn't likely to change as long as the United States has the world's strongest (and most active) military and is running all over the planet killing people in the name of democracy and freedom. Taking offense to a little quip like the parent posted just shows how sensitive the pro-French crowd is. Perhaps you see the truth in the jest and that's why it stings so much...
Well he certainly takes an "ahem" unpopular view when it comes to the ICE and his idea of modern conveyance. Personally I'm more like Clarkson, and I am usually dubious of any "green" claims about efficiency. I'm not particularly familiar with the train stuff you're talking about but I will say that trains are awesome for cargo, especially in a large country like the USA. But when it comes to people, not so much, other than trollies and subways in urban areas (I so ride the trolly in San Diego a couple times a week, and I like it).
The difference in pollution between a 2 stroke ICE sans any sort of carbon capture (millions of these in China), and a modern 4 stroke ICE with a catalytic converter is HUGE when compared to say the difference in emissions between a 2011 hybrid Pius and a 2011 V-8 Mustang. And give me that mustang any day man! There is nothing like the feeling of a rumbling American V-8 underfoot.:)
I say all this knowing full well that the rapture of efficiency from the/. crowd may well come crashing down on my head at any second...
I didn't read this particular article but was following the case before and I thought the issue was that the car Top Gear tested did not meet the manufacturer claims regarding miles per charge.
Oh, and the capabilities of electric cars ARE way lame right now. I hope they get better, but manufacturers lying about their performance metrics isn't going to make me like them more.
Libraries lend DVDs that have advertisements for other movies etc on them. If I owned a blockbuster I'd be pissed about that too. Just playing devil's advocate...
The metrics were using different raid types from one solution to the next, some say RAID10, some RAID2, etc... The "Intel file copy" test was basically unexplained and it doesn't make sense that a file copy (sequential write/read operation) would have less throughput than random reads/writes (and wtf does he talk about 256k block size in teh legend instead of how big the read/writes are?) as the other test claims to be. Also, the author calls RAID-10 and RAID-6 as modes for someone with more technical knowledge that wants to "dig in." Ugh. Lame article on several levels. I couldn't read the whole thing because it was making me stupider.
Yeah, that's not politicized. Not. At. All. The comments are full of conjecture, and like the article... more soft science! I'd prefer to make my prediction (ice sheets will be back in 2-3 years in Northwest passage) then wait and see, rather than argue on the internets with a bunch of other armchair climatologists.
Actually, I did/do understand what they were/are saying. And I appeared to be one of a very small minority at the conference that were actually listening to the so-called science behind climatology. That is why I'm so skeptical.
All I hear "real" climatologists talk about are possible doomsday scenarios, collusion with their seemingly arbitrary algorithms/results, and demands for more grant money from our tax base. After attending an Al Gore sponsored (he didn't show up) climate change symposium at UN headquarters in 2008, and seeing the soft science being thrown around along with heavy doses of group-think, I'm at the point where I prefer armchair analysis of climate change...
The armchair climatologist in me expects the ice sheets will return in the next 2-3 years and this will, once again, not be a shipping lane. The earth may be warming slightly, but without a high level of solar activity I don't think it will be enough to drive off the ice sheets.
Western science, for hundreds of years, insisted such a fanciful creature not only didn't exist, but also couldn't exist.
Citation?
As I recall, biologists weren't sure whether or not to classify Giant Squid as a new species or jsut write them off as just larger versions of already classified species up until the 1990s. It wasn't a matter of biologists saying "There's no, nor could there ever be, such thing as a squid over 10 feet long!" Rather, it was some scientists doubting if the deep ocean in today's world could provide enough food for creatures to grow that large. And do you really think that giant squid attacked Japanese fishing boats? Seriously?
This is a really good example of what I'm talking about in my previous post. You are obfuscating real science (should these rarely occurring larger than normal squid that live in deeper water be classified as a new species?) with mythology (ZOMG, we finally found the giant squid that were fighting whales and attacking ships 500 years ago!). By continuing down this path, you only serve to confuse people (yourself included) and obfuscate the real science.
Ugh. Dude, I'm not gonna argue with you about the existence of Bigfoot. If you wanna believe, go ahead and believe.
Just try not to make yourself sound like a scientist because that tarnishes the real science going on things like dark energy and curing cancer. Bigfoot people provide ammo to creationists. And that is lame.
I think my logic was more like:
Until 1983 the words "cryptid" and "cryptozoologist" did not exist, and I'm pretty sure lowland gorillas and orangutans were well known by the western scientific community before that.
Some people who refer to themselves as "cryptozoologists" think they are scientists.
The only scientists who changed their field to "cryptozoology" lost any respect they held previously in the scientific community.
You can play word games all you want but that won't make the lochness monster or a yeti show up in your front yard. By trying to make soft science sound like real science, you only serve to confuse the public and obfuscate stuff that, you know, really matters.
It hasn't been discovered because it doesn't exist. The wiki article you linked talks about, at length, how nobody has ever gotten anything beyond some footprint castings and hair samples that were inconclusive. Thanks for the link though. Crackpots are fun to laugh at...
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't news for nerds. It's a promotion for a marketing guy's book. The post merely summarizes the book and says that it's topic is REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT.
Book review FAIL. Slashdot FAIL. I miss you taco.
Yeah maybe it was. Maybe not. I guess we'll never know...
What doesn't it work that way? I thought the parent post was insightful. Yours is more of a troll.
When has the government ever not teamed up with corporations?
How many enemy combatants have been slain by French military since 1946?
Tens of thousands. And that's counting the mess we inherited at Dien Bien Phu.
What about by Americans?
Several million.
Arguing that the France's military (or any single nation's military) is anywhere near a match for the United States' since 1949 is absurd. Based on 2010 numbers, the US Armed forces had 3x more troops and 10x the budget of France. Just because we speak English in the United States doesn't mean England has military supremacy over us. Similarly, France has very little global power outside of North Africa. It is an old nation that has withered since the 19th century. Is the US on the decline now? Certainly, but our trailer parks are still protected by the most powerful military in the world.
I've never been to France, but I do have a lot of friends and family in England and New Zealand.
How many of them have seen combat?
Zero.
How many close friends/family of mine in US that have seen active combat (as in people shooting directly at you)?
Four.
Hell, the guy sitting next to me was a marine. Semper-fi and all that bullcrap.
So what I'm getting at is Americans have seen France as a pushover, military-wise, since WWII and that isn't likely to change as long as the United States has the world's strongest (and most active) military and is running all over the planet killing people in the name of democracy and freedom. Taking offense to a little quip like the parent posted just shows how sensitive the pro-French crowd is. Perhaps you see the truth in the jest and that's why it stings so much...
Well he certainly takes an "ahem" unpopular view when it comes to the ICE and his idea of modern conveyance. Personally I'm more like Clarkson, and I am usually dubious of any "green" claims about efficiency. I'm not particularly familiar with the train stuff you're talking about but I will say that trains are awesome for cargo, especially in a large country like the USA. But when it comes to people, not so much, other than trollies and subways in urban areas (I so ride the trolly in San Diego a couple times a week, and I like it).
:)
/. crowd may well come crashing down on my head at any second...
The difference in pollution between a 2 stroke ICE sans any sort of carbon capture (millions of these in China), and a modern 4 stroke ICE with a catalytic converter is HUGE when compared to say the difference in emissions between a 2011 hybrid Pius and a 2011 V-8 Mustang. And give me that mustang any day man! There is nothing like the feeling of a rumbling American V-8 underfoot.
I say all this knowing full well that the rapture of efficiency from the
Yeah. I like the show. They are car guys with a tendency towards the old school... Like me.
If they don't like something, they say so. I appreciate that, even if I don't always agree with them (but I usually do...:)
Don't forget time to charge. Having to wait 8 hours every time you need more energy sucks... :(
I didn't read this particular article but was following the case before and I thought the issue was that the car Top Gear tested did not meet the manufacturer claims regarding miles per charge.
Oh, and the capabilities of electric cars ARE way lame right now. I hope they get better, but manufacturers lying about their performance metrics isn't going to make me like them more.
Libraries lend DVDs that have advertisements for other movies etc on them. If I owned a blockbuster I'd be pissed about that too. Just playing devil's advocate...
The metrics were using different raid types from one solution to the next, some say RAID10, some RAID2, etc... The "Intel file copy" test was basically unexplained and it doesn't make sense that a file copy (sequential write/read operation) would have less throughput than random reads/writes (and wtf does he talk about 256k block size in teh legend instead of how big the read/writes are?) as the other test claims to be. Also, the author calls RAID-10 and RAID-6 as modes for someone with more technical knowledge that wants to "dig in." Ugh. Lame article on several levels. I couldn't read the whole thing because it was making me stupider.
"Getting skeptical about global warming skeptism"
Yeah, that's not politicized. Not. At. All. The comments are full of conjecture, and like the article... more soft science! I'd prefer to make my prediction (ice sheets will be back in 2-3 years in Northwest passage) then wait and see, rather than argue on the internets with a bunch of other armchair climatologists.
Actually, I did/do understand what they were/are saying. And I appeared to be one of a very small minority at the conference that were actually listening to the so-called science behind climatology. That is why I'm so skeptical.
All I hear "real" climatologists talk about are possible doomsday scenarios, collusion with their seemingly arbitrary algorithms/results, and demands for more grant money from our tax base. After attending an Al Gore sponsored (he didn't show up) climate change symposium at UN headquarters in 2008, and seeing the soft science being thrown around along with heavy doses of group-think, I'm at the point where I prefer armchair analysis of climate change...
Are we not coming off a solar activity peak?
The armchair climatologist in me expects the ice sheets will return in the next 2-3 years and this will, once again, not be a shipping lane. The earth may be warming slightly, but without a high level of solar activity I don't think it will be enough to drive off the ice sheets.
Viva Mexico!
-Pinche guero loco
Western science, for hundreds of years, insisted such a fanciful creature not only didn't exist, but also couldn't exist.
Citation?
As I recall, biologists weren't sure whether or not to classify Giant Squid as a new species or jsut write them off as just larger versions of already classified species up until the 1990s. It wasn't a matter of biologists saying "There's no, nor could there ever be, such thing as a squid over 10 feet long!" Rather, it was some scientists doubting if the deep ocean in today's world could provide enough food for creatures to grow that large. And do you really think that giant squid attacked Japanese fishing boats? Seriously?
This is a really good example of what I'm talking about in my previous post. You are obfuscating real science (should these rarely occurring larger than normal squid that live in deeper water be classified as a new species?) with mythology (ZOMG, we finally found the giant squid that were fighting whales and attacking ships 500 years ago!). By continuing down this path, you only serve to confuse people (yourself included) and obfuscate the real science.
Ugh. Dude, I'm not gonna argue with you about the existence of Bigfoot. If you wanna believe, go ahead and believe.
Just try not to make yourself sound like a scientist because that tarnishes the real science going on things like dark energy and curing cancer. Bigfoot people provide ammo to creationists. And that is lame.
I think my logic was more like:
Until 1983 the words "cryptid" and "cryptozoologist" did not exist, and I'm pretty sure lowland gorillas and orangutans were well known by the western scientific community before that.
Some people who refer to themselves as "cryptozoologists" think they are scientists.
The only scientists who changed their field to "cryptozoology" lost any respect they held previously in the scientific community.
You can play word games all you want but that won't make the lochness monster or a yeti show up in your front yard. By trying to make soft science sound like real science, you only serve to confuse the public and obfuscate stuff that, you know, really matters.
It hasn't been discovered because it doesn't exist. The wiki article you linked talks about, at length, how nobody has ever gotten anything beyond some footprint castings and hair samples that were inconclusive. Thanks for the link though. Crackpots are fun to laugh at...
Wikipedia begs to differ:
"Cryptozoology is not a recognized branch of zoology or a discipline of science." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoological
Cryptozoologists are not scientists (there is no such thing as a cryptozoology degree). They are ALL crackpots.
Hahaha. Exactly!
Ugh. The "you don't need TV" guy. Seems like every department I ever worked in had one of you. ;)
Nice. :)
Obviously you don't have the right app... http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/wheres-jesus/id422565786?mt=8