Non-white players were not allowed in the league until Jackie Robinson in 1947. It took several more years for all teams to consider/accept non-white players.
Minor note: non-white players were not banned until around 1900. During the 19th century some teams did have black players. Worth noting, I think, because it's another sign of how race relations actually deteriorated in the late 19th/early 20th century in America.
So this Ken Brown fellow with the 0.500 rating is doing rather splendidly then?
I think it was meant as a joke. Because not only is Tanenbaum arguing that Linus DID invent Linux, but he also states that this guy was one of the worst interviewers of all time. So saying he's batting five hundred (that's how it's said out loud, not "point five" or whatever) when he's an incompetent idiot, is meant to be funny.
Yeah, this is what generally happens with government regulations. What was originally set up to keep a monopoly from exploiting the people eventually becomes a tool of that monopoly. This is exactly like how the railroads used the Interstate Commerce Commission to repress the trucking industry for decades on end. Bah!
How about: hot water mixed with cold water is lukewarm. White paint mixed with black paint is grey. Why do you emphatically declare that force auras layer on top of each other, instead of mixing? Let Lucas decide that force auras work however he damn well pleases. There's a lot of stuff to be annoyed about in Star Wars, but that ain't one of them.
The OP is not explicity insulting Ptolemy's intellect. What he's saying is that it seems like way too much effort is being put into adding more and more exceptions and special cases, just like Ptolemy's increasingly complex epicycles. There's no question that Ptolemy did an incredible job in mapping out the motion of the planets as accurately as he did. Indeed, as you say, with Relativity, one could even argue that he was "right." Likewise, there's no question that modern theoretical physicists are doing an incredible job of refining the Standard Model, measuring predicted quantities of dark matter/energy, and so forth. However, Newtonian orbits are a hell of a lot simpler (and, in the long run, allow for greater degrees of accuracy) than epicycles, the hope is that there's a "grand unified theory" that will be similarly simplified and more accurate.
I know what neo means. My point was that 4 years is not a very big gap. I'd consider it more or less contemporary to 1984, not some kind of next generation successor.
When humans first migrated from the warm climates of Africa, the cold climates of the north (eg. Europe) and south were quite hostile. But humans managed to colonize those areas, using their cutting-edge technologies of fire, shelter, clothing, agriculture, etc.
All of this can be produced locally. Moreover, there was never any great barrier. People could spread outwards at whatever rate was convenient (and generally migrated in order to follow herds of animals; migrating was actually safer than staying put). With Mars, on the other hand, there is essentially nothing in the way of natural resources. Everything has to be brought with us. Moroever this is not an organic expansion but a conciously planned and very difficult expansion.
It is expensive for an individual, but is it expensive for a nation? The world?
Yes and yes. Conservative estimates place even a single expedition in the hundreds of billions. An attempt to extablish a permanent base would have to be well into the trillions. The US economy is 1/3rd of the world's economy, so what is expensive for America is expensive for the world.
NASA's current budget is less than 1 percent of the Federal budget.
NASA's current budget is also totally insignificant compared to what would be needed for a Mars expedition.
Humans expanded from the continent of Africa to live all over the world, for a better future for their children, and their children's children, and the generations after them, which includes us. Humans will expand from the planet of Earth to live all over the solar system, for the same reason.
No, humans expanded from Africa for a better life for themselves. No caveman said "I'm going to head north 100 miles because even though it'll be hard, my children will be better off." Migrations occured when people were crowded out of a given area, making it better to move than compete for dwindling resources. Mars will NOT provide a better life for the current generation, and most likely will not provide a better life for ANY generation barring a radical improvment in terraforming. Bradbury was correct about one thing: the Moon and Mars are merely stopping points on the way to the stars.
I'd argue back that there were already people living there! Saying that the first waves of settlers were unprepared for the challenges of colonization is not the same as saying the land was uninhabitable.
I'm amused at how Fahrenheit 451 is described as "a neo-Orwellian tale." NEO-Orwellian?!? It was published 4 years after 1984! I guess this is why people don't read Playboy for the articles.
But if we go to Mars, the first two expeditions will be slaughtered by the Martians, and the third will arrive to find that the Martians have been wiped out by chicken pox carried by the first two waves of astronauts.
Seriously, I enjoy Bradbury's books as much as the next guy, but he's not exactly a scientist. His testimony is more of the same philosophy expressed in The Martian Chronicles, that Mars is no different from the New World. Unfortunately, it IS very different, because whereas the Americas are perfectly habitable, Mars is quite hostile, to say nothing of the unbelievable expense of getting even a single person out of Earth's gravity well. His only real argument is "if we want to do it, we can." He's right of course, but he fails to give a convincing explanation for why we should want to. For us here on Slashdot, he's preaching to the choir, but he's going to have to do a lot better than that if he wants to convince the population at large.
I don't think anyone had a problem with the idea of combining a cell phone with a gaming system. Convergence of electronics is certainly nothing new, and for handheld electronics, where portability is a big issue, there's an even bigger convergence push. People just didn't like it because it was a BAD gaming system (remove batteries to change games) combined with a WORSE phone (Sidetalkin', anyone?). These are problems which can be fixed with a hardware redesign.
I don't know about you, but I have no problem picking up a single grain of rice with a fork. In fact, I'd say it's just the opposite: I can do everything with a fork that I can with chopsticks, and more.
He meant "they" as in the troops. Soldiers are not automatons who will automatically fight whoever the President tells them to. Indeed, for a large number of revolutions throughout history, the turning point was when the soldiers refused to fire on their countrymen.
Bingo. I'm not a linguist, but I think what you say about communication vs. language is important. I'd take it even a step further: for there to be meaningful communication between intelligent species, we have to be able to exchange abstract concepts (at least beyond your examples of "good cat" and "bad cat"), mainly because the cat would be unable to comprehend them. What I've read about dolphins suggests that they are no more intelligent than, say, chimps, and our inabillity to communicate with them is not causing us to miss out on any deep philisophical insights.
As an aside, if you think that cats are impressive, try owning a dog sometime. Both I and one of my brothers go to college, and yet when my mother says one of our names, the dog immediately stands up and wags her tail. This is after not seeing us for months. Yes, household pets are quite adept at recognizing words, but can they string those words together to form more elaborate concepts? I would argue no. In the example of my dog, she can relate names to individuals (when we are actually present, saying "go to [name]" will produce the correct response), but she can't understand that a name can refer to someone who is not present. She certainly understands "would you like to go for a walk?" but can't understand "walk" in any context that does not involve taking her outside. Likewise with your cat, would it be able to understand it if you said something else was good or bad? Probably not.
I'm certainly not going to defend the idiocy of the drag to trashcan idea, but I did once get the file directory portion of a floppy disk overwritten under windows because the previous disk had not been properly unmounted. So my disk now thought it had the last person's files, and everything was garbage.
Movie age restrictions are voluntary. There are some theatres now that are allowing parents to get a pass for their children that allow them to see R rated movies on their own.
For TV, govt. restrictions exist only for broadcast TV, cable censoring is purely voluntary.
Very interesting, thank you. I had heard that Japan has a conviction rate around 99%, but never seen an explanation for why (for those too lazy to read the link, probably because prosecutors are underfunded, and so only go after the low hanging fruit). One thing that was implied that I just want to clear up: do judges issue verdicts in Japan? Is there no jury system?
On the other hand, it would be disingenious to seperate the man from his money. RMS considers closed source software to be antithetical to a free society. Whether you agree with him or not, he makes some reasonable points, and he's certainly entitled to that view. Gates, as a man who has enriched himself through the sale of closed source software, is considered by RMS to be an enemy of freedom. Why shouldn't he be upset by having to work in a building funded by, in his view, ill gotten gains. How happy would you be about working in the Alfonse Capone building, say?
The difference between you and RMS is that whereas you "despise Bill Gates' operating philosophy and business tactics," RMS despises the very foundation of commercial software. I'm not saying he's right (in fact, I'd even say that he's wrong), but given his philisophical views, I don't believe his behavior is totally inappropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
Lack of Kate Capshaw and Jonathan Ke Quan.
Minor note: non-white players were not banned until around 1900. During the 19th century some teams did have black players. Worth noting, I think, because it's another sign of how race relations actually deteriorated in the late 19th/early 20th century in America.
This kind of thing has always made me wonder why Giants and A's fans have such an amiable relationship.
Isn't the Goat Rule the reason the Cubs can't win, and the Curse of the Bambino the reason the Red Sox can't win? So you've got those up twice.
I think it was meant as a joke. Because not only is Tanenbaum arguing that Linus DID invent Linux, but he also states that this guy was one of the worst interviewers of all time. So saying he's batting five hundred (that's how it's said out loud, not "point five" or whatever) when he's an incompetent idiot, is meant to be funny.
Yeah, this is what generally happens with government regulations. What was originally set up to keep a monopoly from exploiting the people eventually becomes a tool of that monopoly. This is exactly like how the railroads used the Interstate Commerce Commission to repress the trucking industry for decades on end. Bah!
The raw anger of this rant has always appealed to me.
How about: hot water mixed with cold water is lukewarm. White paint mixed with black paint is grey. Why do you emphatically declare that force auras layer on top of each other, instead of mixing? Let Lucas decide that force auras work however he damn well pleases. There's a lot of stuff to be annoyed about in Star Wars, but that ain't one of them.
The OP is not explicity insulting Ptolemy's intellect. What he's saying is that it seems like way too much effort is being put into adding more and more exceptions and special cases, just like Ptolemy's increasingly complex epicycles. There's no question that Ptolemy did an incredible job in mapping out the motion of the planets as accurately as he did. Indeed, as you say, with Relativity, one could even argue that he was "right." Likewise, there's no question that modern theoretical physicists are doing an incredible job of refining the Standard Model, measuring predicted quantities of dark matter/energy, and so forth. However, Newtonian orbits are a hell of a lot simpler (and, in the long run, allow for greater degrees of accuracy) than epicycles, the hope is that there's a "grand unified theory" that will be similarly simplified and more accurate.
I know what neo means. My point was that 4 years is not a very big gap. I'd consider it more or less contemporary to 1984, not some kind of next generation successor.
All of this can be produced locally. Moreover, there was never any great barrier. People could spread outwards at whatever rate was convenient (and generally migrated in order to follow herds of animals; migrating was actually safer than staying put). With Mars, on the other hand, there is essentially nothing in the way of natural resources. Everything has to be brought with us. Moroever this is not an organic expansion but a conciously planned and very difficult expansion.
It is expensive for an individual, but is it expensive for a nation? The world?
Yes and yes. Conservative estimates place even a single expedition in the hundreds of billions. An attempt to extablish a permanent base would have to be well into the trillions. The US economy is 1/3rd of the world's economy, so what is expensive for America is expensive for the world.
NASA's current budget is less than 1 percent of the Federal budget.
NASA's current budget is also totally insignificant compared to what would be needed for a Mars expedition.
Humans expanded from the continent of Africa to live all over the world, for a better future for their children, and their children's children, and the generations after them, which includes us. Humans will expand from the planet of Earth to live all over the solar system, for the same reason.
No, humans expanded from Africa for a better life for themselves. No caveman said "I'm going to head north 100 miles because even though it'll be hard, my children will be better off." Migrations occured when people were crowded out of a given area, making it better to move than compete for dwindling resources. Mars will NOT provide a better life for the current generation, and most likely will not provide a better life for ANY generation barring a radical improvment in terraforming. Bradbury was correct about one thing: the Moon and Mars are merely stopping points on the way to the stars.
I'd argue back that there were already people living there! Saying that the first waves of settlers were unprepared for the challenges of colonization is not the same as saying the land was uninhabitable.
I'm amused at how Fahrenheit 451 is described as "a neo-Orwellian tale." NEO-Orwellian?!? It was published 4 years after 1984! I guess this is why people don't read Playboy for the articles.
Seriously, I enjoy Bradbury's books as much as the next guy, but he's not exactly a scientist. His testimony is more of the same philosophy expressed in The Martian Chronicles, that Mars is no different from the New World. Unfortunately, it IS very different, because whereas the Americas are perfectly habitable, Mars is quite hostile, to say nothing of the unbelievable expense of getting even a single person out of Earth's gravity well. His only real argument is "if we want to do it, we can." He's right of course, but he fails to give a convincing explanation for why we should want to. For us here on Slashdot, he's preaching to the choir, but he's going to have to do a lot better than that if he wants to convince the population at large.
RI appears to tax food. Being a student, my local supermarket gives me a discount which largely offsets this, but most are stuck paying the tax.
I don't think anyone had a problem with the idea of combining a cell phone with a gaming system. Convergence of electronics is certainly nothing new, and for handheld electronics, where portability is a big issue, there's an even bigger convergence push. People just didn't like it because it was a BAD gaming system (remove batteries to change games) combined with a WORSE phone (Sidetalkin', anyone?). These are problems which can be fixed with a hardware redesign.
I don't see how the U fits. If the word was "you," that'd be lame but acceptable. I don't think U can be used for "your" though.
I don't know about you, but I have no problem picking up a single grain of rice with a fork. In fact, I'd say it's just the opposite: I can do everything with a fork that I can with chopsticks, and more.
He meant "they" as in the troops. Soldiers are not automatons who will automatically fight whoever the President tells them to. Indeed, for a large number of revolutions throughout history, the turning point was when the soldiers refused to fire on their countrymen.
As an aside, if you think that cats are impressive, try owning a dog sometime. Both I and one of my brothers go to college, and yet when my mother says one of our names, the dog immediately stands up and wags her tail. This is after not seeing us for months. Yes, household pets are quite adept at recognizing words, but can they string those words together to form more elaborate concepts? I would argue no. In the example of my dog, she can relate names to individuals (when we are actually present, saying "go to [name]" will produce the correct response), but she can't understand that a name can refer to someone who is not present. She certainly understands "would you like to go for a walk?" but can't understand "walk" in any context that does not involve taking her outside. Likewise with your cat, would it be able to understand it if you said something else was good or bad? Probably not.
I'm certainly not going to defend the idiocy of the drag to trashcan idea, but I did once get the file directory portion of a floppy disk overwritten under windows because the previous disk had not been properly unmounted. So my disk now thought it had the last person's files, and everything was garbage.
Movie age restrictions are voluntary. There are some theatres now that are allowing parents to get a pass for their children that allow them to see R rated movies on their own.
For TV, govt. restrictions exist only for broadcast TV, cable censoring is purely voluntary.
Very interesting, thank you. I had heard that Japan has a conviction rate around 99%, but never seen an explanation for why (for those too lazy to read the link, probably because prosecutors are underfunded, and so only go after the low hanging fruit). One thing that was implied that I just want to clear up: do judges issue verdicts in Japan? Is there no jury system?
I agree though, the connection between Battle Royale and 2ch seems tenuous at best.
The difference between you and RMS is that whereas you "despise Bill Gates' operating philosophy and business tactics," RMS despises the very foundation of commercial software. I'm not saying he's right (in fact, I'd even say that he's wrong), but given his philisophical views, I don't believe his behavior is totally inappropriate.