OK, I guess I never had a feeling for why there haven't been more MS competitors out there when writing a good OS is not such a big deal. As an outsider, it always seemed like writing linux must have been a bigger deal than maybe it was.
ps: A long long time ago I somehow obtained terrible karma during a period when I never posted (I've never figured out why), and I guess I don't post enough to raise it back up.
Can someone explain, or point to a discussion, of how it is argued that Git could be more important in the long term than Linux? Isn't Git small fish compared to Linux?
Except in this case (despite the fact that the plants endured the quake rather well, considering) "design for 7.9" seems pretty non-conservative. Seems like a textbook example of a Fat Tail risk-assessment fallacy.
It is basic selection bias, plain and simple, and it should be accounted for by any competent researcher. (basically the p-value must be multiplied by the number of places where an effect could have been found). Unfortunately, in the field of medical research, researchers do not appear to be competent.
Think about it like this: particles get mass (ie inertia, a difficulty accelerating) because they are like a person in a crowd being knocked around by other people (Higgs). But the Higgs have the same problem -- they are also getting knocked around and themselves have difficulty accelerating. If you think about it this way there really isn't necessarily anything 'recursive' about the idea. The reason why some particles don't have mass or don't get knocked around (like the photon) is simply because they don't interact with the Higgs.
It makes sense. It 'gives' mass to other particles by interacting with them, 'knocking them back' when they start to move (simplified, but that's the basic idea). It also interacts with itself, giving itself mass in the exact same way it gives mass to other particles.
From wikipedia:...under nominal operating conditions (2,808 bunches per beam, 1.15×10E11 protons per bunch)
And the X TeV is the energy of a single proton in the beam. So we are talking about something like (5 TeV in Joules) x (10E14) = about 100 million joules
Why can't they use a battery-operated GPS-based measure of airspeed as a backup and as a check against the pitot tube-based measurements? Surely it would not be very accurate, but I would think it could be accurate enough for the pilots to know the plane was going too fast and not too slow.
As this "theory" of multiverses proposes (infinitely?) many parallel worlds which we cannot observe in any way, it's not a science at all. It's just another religion made up by people who want to avoid using that word.
Your assessment is overly harsh. First of all, 'multiverse' theory is often misconstrued and misunderstood. I think you are a victim of this. Second of all, while I agree it is not science, it is certainly not 'just another religion made up by people who want to avoid using that word'.
Sure, the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics can sound kind of arbitrary I guess to someone who doesn't understand it, but it is just a sober, logical interpretation of a mathematical restatement of the evolution of the schrodinger equation of quantum mechanics (it is actually less arbitrary than the standard form of quantum mechanics, which is 'schrodinger equation' plus 'observation', which no one understands).
"Merom, the first mobile version of the Core 2, was officially released on July 27, 2006 but quietly began shipping to PC manufacturers in mid-July alongside Conroe."
But I suspect the wikipedia entry might be wrong. Anyone want to update it?
"Merom, the first mobile version of the Core 2, was officially released on July 27, 2006 but quietly began shipping to PC manufacturers in mid-July alongside Conroe."
"And after I get this movie in a format where I can watch it piece by piece I can extract the facts from the implications and get a lot more ammo to use against that corporate asshat."
I am sick and tired of people arguing about the truth in Moore's films, or about what "new facts have come to light" from it. The facts in Moore's film have been around for many years and many average people like myself have known about it and in a far greater depth than as expressed in the film. All you have to do is research the facts yourself to determine who is lying. All you have to do is follow independent media to learn of these things.
I just can't believe how ignorant most people are in this country.
By the way, there are other far better documentaries out right now, such as "Control Room" and "The Corporation" which you would like.
Most of the stories on rense.com are just links to more reputable sites. There are some anti-semitic and silly UFO rantings, but this is not the result of a webmaster with 'no critical thinking ability,' but as far as I know the result of an ideological principle to not censure.
I support this principle because I think that having to sift through a lot of junk to get my news is better than being spoon-fed censored news from the corporate media.
There is no reason why. It is simply an evolutionary fortuitousness that they do.
While you call my viewpoint absolutist, I think you are mistaking 'absolutist' for rational thought. You see, the more evidence that weighs on one side of an issue, the more 'absolutist' someone should be about its truth. It is exactly this sort of 'evidence' I showed in my post that you failed to address, instead using spurious rhetoric. You have only strengthened my point by doing exactly what I have come to expect from people who just can't come to terms with the logic that contradicts there most cherished beliefs.
You can't DISPROVE God, yet you can use sound logic to explain why the idea is absurd. For example (and this is an amazingly obvious point I have yet to hear satisfactorily answered) if you use God to explain the existence of yourself and the universe, then who created God? You are back to square one. This logic is proof enough that the idea of a God is completely superfluous.
Also, suppose God DOES exist. How in the world can you be assured it is a GOOD God, and not an asshole? If there were a God, wouldn't it's moral values be completely arbitrary? Moral absolutism is so ridiculous a stance I won't even touch that one.
ALSO, the study of evolutionary psychology does a fabulous job of explaining WHY humans WANT to believe in God, and does such an amazing job of predicting such human deficiencies, it would be a crime to discard it for something that does a worse job of explaining things and can be cut of by Occam's razor!
MOREOVER, anyone who says they have had 'visions' or 'feelings' about the existence of God shouldn't trust their brain with it's own use of chemicals any more than trust it when it's on LSD. The brain runs on chemicals and natural spikes occur.
When people have a contempt for the viewpoints of others, sometimes it is because the viewpoints of others ARE STUPID! Sometimes its because no matter how good of a logical argument you give them, they give an irrational and evasive answer!
I think that your attitude is naive, because of a couple of reasons:
1) While oil is not our only source of energy, coal and natural gas CANNOT easily make up the energy difference. This is the point of the guy's argument.
2) The change in the economy will be far more consequential than you are imagining. This is actually obvious given that just about every aspect of the economy is heavily dependent on oil (energy), though sometimes indirectly.
3) I think you might be biased toward casting off the argument as 'bad science' because it is not reported in the mainstream media. I have researched 'peak oil' independently, and found to my own satisfaction that this guy is less paranoid than you might think.
"But this has all been worry for nothing. The more any system gets out of whack, the more natural corrections pop up."
People worrying is part of the "natural correction". Often times the things people do because they are worried are the most influential of "natural corrections."
For example, there have always been people who insist that "the world is going to end" for some reason or other. You CANNOT conclude that because the world has yet to end, that these people were wrong. Why? Because their hard work of alerting people to possible dangers may have been what kept the world from disaster.
It is a fact that the earth is currently getting warmer. We may not be able to discern how much, if any, of this warming is due to greenhouse gases. But not knowing is a strong argument for the reduction of greenhouse gases, since it must be admitted that there is a possiblity of unkown probability that we could be setting ourselves up for a catastrophy.
The best we can do is play it safe, asking for the sober guidance of scientists whose job it is to study this kind of phenomena. But alas, we are not playing it safe. Pollution producing industries have strong enough political ties to ensure that environmental regulations are kept far more lax than most objective parties would determine to be safe.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I guess I never had a feeling for why there haven't been more MS competitors out there when writing a good OS is not such a big deal. As an outsider, it always seemed like writing linux must have been a bigger deal than maybe it was.
ps: A long long time ago I somehow obtained terrible karma during a period when I never posted (I've never figured out why), and I guess I don't post enough to raise it back up.
Can someone explain, or point to a discussion, of how it is argued that Git could be more important in the long term than Linux? Isn't Git small fish compared to Linux?
Except in this case (despite the fact that the plants endured the quake rather well, considering) "design for 7.9" seems pretty non-conservative. Seems like a textbook example of a Fat Tail risk-assessment fallacy.
It is basic selection bias, plain and simple, and it should be accounted for by any competent researcher. (basically the p-value must be multiplied by the number of places where an effect could have been found). Unfortunately, in the field of medical research, researchers do not appear to be competent.
Think about it like this: particles get mass (ie inertia, a difficulty accelerating) because they are like a person in a crowd being knocked around by other people (Higgs). But the Higgs have the same problem -- they are also getting knocked around and themselves have difficulty accelerating. If you think about it this way there really isn't necessarily anything 'recursive' about the idea. The reason why some particles don't have mass or don't get knocked around (like the photon) is simply because they don't interact with the Higgs.
It makes sense. It 'gives' mass to other particles by interacting with them, 'knocking them back' when they start to move (simplified, but that's the basic idea). It also interacts with itself, giving itself mass in the exact same way it gives mass to other particles.
From wikipedia: ...under nominal operating conditions (2,808 bunches per beam, 1.15×10E11 protons per bunch)
And the X TeV is the energy of a single proton in the beam. So we are talking about something like (5 TeV in Joules) x (10E14) = about 100 million joules
Why can't they use a battery-operated GPS-based measure of airspeed as a backup and as a check against the pitot tube-based measurements? Surely it would not be very accurate, but I would think it could be accurate enough for the pilots to know the plane was going too fast and not too slow.
As this "theory" of multiverses proposes (infinitely?) many parallel worlds which we cannot observe in any way, it's not a science at all. It's just another religion made up by people who want to avoid using that word.
Your assessment is overly harsh. First of all, 'multiverse' theory is often misconstrued and misunderstood. I think you are a victim of this. Second of all, while I agree it is not science, it is certainly not 'just another religion made up by people who want to avoid using that word'.
Sure, the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics can sound kind of arbitrary I guess to someone who doesn't understand it, but it is just a sober, logical interpretation of a mathematical restatement of the evolution of the schrodinger equation of quantum mechanics (it is actually less arbitrary than the standard form of quantum mechanics, which is 'schrodinger equation' plus 'observation', which no one understands).
The other solution is: ./-rf
rm
So what could have caused this to happen? No explanation?
According the the Wikipedia entry:
"Merom, the first mobile version of the Core 2, was officially released on July 27, 2006 but quietly began shipping to PC manufacturers in mid-July alongside Conroe."
But I suspect the wikipedia entry might be wrong. Anyone want to update it?
According to the Wikidpedia entry:
"Merom, the first mobile version of the Core 2, was officially released on July 27, 2006 but quietly began shipping to PC manufacturers in mid-July alongside Conroe."
So, Merom IS shipping, right?
Sounds like consistency to me. This wikipedia page should be treated just like any other.
Here at slashdot, we do the same for free!!!
"And after I get this movie in a format where I can watch it piece by piece I can extract the facts from the implications and get a lot more ammo to use against that corporate asshat."
I am sick and tired of people arguing about the truth in Moore's films, or about what "new facts have come to light" from it. The facts in Moore's film have been around for many years and many average people like myself have known about it and in a far greater depth than as expressed in the film. All you have to do is research the facts yourself to determine who is lying. All you have to do is follow independent media to learn of these things.
I just can't believe how ignorant most people are in this country.
By the way, there are other far better documentaries out right now, such as "Control Room" and "The Corporation" which you would like.
Most of the stories on rense.com are just links to more reputable sites. There are some anti-semitic and silly UFO rantings, but this is not the result of a webmaster with 'no critical thinking ability,' but as far as I know the result of an ideological principle to not censure.
I support this principle because I think that having to sift through a lot of junk to get my news is better than being spoon-fed censored news from the corporate media.
"Why should anybody care?"
There is no reason why. It is simply an evolutionary fortuitousness that they do.
While you call my viewpoint absolutist, I think you are mistaking 'absolutist' for rational thought. You see, the more evidence that weighs on one side of an issue, the more 'absolutist' someone should be about its truth. It is exactly this sort of 'evidence' I showed in my post that you failed to address, instead using spurious rhetoric. You have only strengthened my point by doing exactly what I have come to expect from people who just can't come to terms with the logic that contradicts there most cherished beliefs.
You can't DISPROVE God, yet you can use sound logic to explain why the idea is absurd. For example (and this is an amazingly obvious point I have yet to hear satisfactorily answered) if you use God to explain the existence of yourself and the universe, then who created God? You are back to square one. This logic is proof enough that the idea of a God is completely superfluous.
Also, suppose God DOES exist. How in the world can you be assured it is a GOOD God, and not an asshole? If there were a God, wouldn't it's moral values be completely arbitrary? Moral absolutism is so ridiculous a stance I won't even touch that one.
ALSO, the study of evolutionary psychology does a fabulous job of explaining WHY humans WANT to believe in God, and does such an amazing job of predicting such human deficiencies, it would be a crime to discard it for something that does a worse job of explaining things and can be cut of by Occam's razor!
MOREOVER, anyone who says they have had 'visions' or 'feelings' about the existence of God shouldn't trust their brain with it's own use of chemicals any more than trust it when it's on LSD. The brain runs on chemicals and natural spikes occur.
When people have a contempt for the viewpoints of others, sometimes it is because the viewpoints of others ARE STUPID! Sometimes its because no matter how good of a logical argument you give them, they give an irrational and evasive answer!
I think that your attitude is naive, because of a couple of reasons:
1) While oil is not our only source of energy, coal and natural gas CANNOT easily make up the energy difference. This is the point of the guy's argument.
2) The change in the economy will be far more consequential than you are imagining. This is actually obvious given that just about every aspect of the economy is heavily dependent on oil (energy), though sometimes indirectly.
3) I think you might be biased toward casting off the argument as 'bad science' because it is not reported in the mainstream media. I have researched 'peak oil' independently, and found to my own satisfaction that this guy is less paranoid than you might think.
Well, actually, no.
Haha, you should see what happened when I put a grenade in my microwave!
"But this has all been worry for nothing. The more any system gets out of whack, the more natural corrections pop up."
People worrying is part of the "natural correction". Often times the things people do because they are worried are the most influential of "natural corrections."
For example, there have always been people who insist that "the world is going to end" for some reason or other. You CANNOT conclude that because the world has yet to end, that these people were wrong. Why? Because their hard work of alerting people to possible dangers may have been what kept the world from disaster.
For those who don't know just how serious the energy problem will be in a few years, read this
It is a fact that the earth is currently getting warmer. We may not be able to discern how much, if any, of this warming is due to greenhouse gases. But not knowing is a strong argument for the reduction of greenhouse gases, since it must be admitted that there is a possiblity of unkown probability that we could be setting ourselves up for a catastrophy.
The best we can do is play it safe, asking for the sober guidance of scientists whose job it is to study this kind of phenomena. But alas, we are not playing it safe. Pollution producing industries have strong enough political ties to ensure that environmental regulations are kept far more lax than most objective parties would determine to be safe.