If by "violent video games", you mean "violent fantasies of power and grandeur", your point changes.
I do disagree with banning games, but your analogy doesn't attack the logic they are using. There are people alive in Germany right now who remember being caught up in the mythic ideals leading their nation, willingly and excitedly, into war all across Europe and beyond. You can't use arguments about why banning video games is wrong, because they aren't worried about the games per se. You have to explain why the games are different from the Nazi propaganda which so thoroughly scarred their national psyche that the effects are still felt to this day.
Personally, I'd point out that the games aren't ideological, so they don't really push the same sort of emotional buttons that the Nazi idealism did. Even so, I suspect the nation still has an understandable aversion to the glorification of violence. I guess the counter-argument there is that the people playing the games don't bear those psychological scars, being so far removed in time from the war, sort of like how most Americans today don't really have an emotional connection to the great depression and thus aren't as frugal about money (although current events may be changing that a bit).
You mean the wealthy and powerful are promoting socialized healthcare? Increased minimum wages? Laws which promote unions? Increased regulation of their respective industries?
Or are you just referring to their robbing of the public coffers and increasing only the laws and government agencies which can either be their customers, or limit the rights of We, The People with regards to anything which can adversely affect the wealth of the rich and powerful?
The former, they are definitely fighting against. The latter is not the government that can be recognized as legitimately American in any sense derived from the founding of the nation. It can, however, be derived from the fascist movement that gained traction in America in the 30s. The name changed to "free market" and "economic conservatism", but the goals and ideals have remained the same.
Its best not to try to engage the lunatic fringe here, you are never going to change their minds.
In cases like this, it's not so much for the poster in question as it is for the people who are reading it but have not yet lost their minds. And maybe the poster will finally hear enough evidence that contradicts his mental model of the world that he finally realizes it's his model that's wrong, not reality (like happened to Alan Greenspan recently, albeit he had to decimate the economy to get there).
Yeah, I know, tall order. But if it helps steer someone away from that ideologically insane road, that's one less person who'll be posting this same nonsense tomorrow. And more pragmatically, it will be one less person voting against both his and my self interest next election day, and if I can convince just one person, that's like doubling (or tripling) my vote!
The government is an agent working on your behalf.
Only on a good day. Please consider the DMCA.
The DMCA couldn't exist if we were still a functioning democracy.
Two things happened. First, we equated money with speech, and corporations with personhood, so that those with money have more influence in Congress than those with without, and corporations have loads of money, and (by law!), no morals.
Second, the electorate is too busy either being distracted by toys, tv and sports, too busy hating some group of "others" that is no threat to them, or too busy being scared by the boogeyman, the flu (the flu of all things!), or people who visit Chris Hansen's house to rise up and take back the power and put it where it belongs, which is in the hands of The People. Not "the Money" or "the Corporation".
When did it become no big deal that We, The People, are second class citizens?
Wow, what's with the idiots marking anyone who says anything in favor of the existence of government a troll? No wonder America is so hosed right now.
The monied elite have so thoroughly confounded people to the point that they reflexively recoil from anything that promotes their own best interests with the delusion that by supporting only the wealthy and powerful (which is what you do when you remove government altogether), they are somehow defending a morality that is more important than their own well being and the well being of the overwhelming majority of their neighbors.
Yeah, I'm advocating for the well being of my fellow man. I must be some sort of -1 Troll...
Do some research. At the time Windows was very young, they tried a number of config storage systems, and the binary db was the only one they found that was fast and small enough for the computers of the time.
At the time, Windows had already been around for over a decade and was at version 4.0. And, at that time, the/etc/ convention had been around in Unix for much longer still. The registry was 'WTF?' from day one.
When Apple releases a new OS and says it's not compatible with the old, there's a huge line to suck Steve Jobs' dick. "Support of legacy software has made Windows a bloated piece of shit. Apple's so smart."
When Microsoft makes a similar change people whine about all the hassles they'll have to go through.
Here's the thing, this complaining is all coming from the corporate world.
The biggest problem here for MS is that they are straddling the corporate and the consumer market in such a way that they don't really serve either very well. The corporate world is being pushed to upgrade faster than the bean-counters would like (and really, screw-em. adapt or die, isn't this supposed to be one of the fundamental ideals of capitalism?), and the home users are hit with high prices and onerous anti-piracy measures.
Apple has gotten around this by somewhat ignoring the corporate world (at least, with regards to both the corporate world's desires for long-term roadmaps and aversion to new technology, and the high license prices that can be demanded for corporate software).
Personally, I think MS was much better off when they had a consumer Windows and a workstation Windows. I don't mean the NT vs Win9X kernel side of things, which was a disaster that culminated in Windows ME, but the ability to target two sufficiently unique products to two sufficiently unique markets. There shouldn't be a Home Basic and Home Premium, there should just be one Home with all the bells and whistles of the Premium and Ultimate versions that will make people want the Home version, instead of being seen as the "crippled" version of Windows. And the corporate version should be called Windows Workstation.
As it stands now, home users don't want the home version, and corporations don't even want the most recent version of Windows (soon to be the two most recent versions). This is really a bad situation to be in, pretty much for everyone involved, except for the gamer geeks who will buy Ultimate and pretty much bypass all this nonsense.
But really, if you want people to like your product, don't sell them a crap version. Make the Home version top-notch and full-featured, like Apple does with OS X.
Or, for a more recent example, Democrats bringing up Bush whenever Obama is being criticized.
[citation needed]
And I don't mean from Obama himself. What is Obama doing that people are defending by saying "Bush did it too!". During the Bush Presidency, all you'd ever hear from Republican pundits and right-wing television and radio was "Clinton thought there were WMD's!", "Clinton bombed Iraq too!", "Clinton wiretapped people!" etc. ad nauseam. I don't see anything remotely similar going on in defense of Obama.
Ironically enough, you're engaging in the exact behavior I pointed out initially--diverting the blame to someone else saying "they do it too!".
Furthermore if, in reality, I find a faster and more efficient way of completing my work I don't get fired for "cheating". I get a raise and possibly a promotion if I keep improving things.
Actually, in the real world, you just get more work.
Why would you apply that to the entire population? Some people are going to be good at taking tests without reference under time constraints and some won't (notice you entirely ignored the time constraint aspect of it). Those that don't need references will write the reference books. Those that do need them will work on projects where they use them.
By your argument, the only people who need to take tests would be the reference book writers and no one else, but it gets worse. One needn't take a test to be capable of writing a reference book without the help of a reference book, one only needs to know things about a subject that aren't currently in a reference book. Taking a test isn't going to help you know things that aren't yet in the books.
It's not a red herring. What about the plate thickness makes it significantly different from the thick-plate scenario, and why does that influence the way the system behaves?
It's a red herring with regards to the initial scenario. This is a different scenario with different parameters. That you don't know what part about the difference is significant (nor do I) does not change the facts about the other scenario.
All you've shown is that different shapes react to pressure differently.
The OP basically stated that "speed limit X exists for scenario A". Then you came in and stated "I don't think speed limit X exists, for example, what about scenario B?" He never said it existed for scenario B, just scenario A.
The easiest solution for consumers is to realize that you really can live without an iPhone in your life.
That's like saying dealing with the TSA is such a headache that it's easier for travelers to realize they can really live without flying. Yes, it's technically true, but it's a silly philosophy to live by. Pretty much everything has a downside, an annoyance, etc. The trick is to find the things that have the better mix of upsides and downsides.
True enough, but why not? That's really the whole question.
That really wasn't your initial question. That question was whether there's some sort of information going into the container in the first place.
Why not? Why is the speed of sound the limiting factor?
Because that's essentially the definition of the speed of sound. It's the speed at which pressure waves propagate through a medium.
I return to the thin-plate scenario: a thin plate should still obey your rules. Air is escaping at the speed of sound. If the flow of information is asymptotically limited by the speed of sound, the velocity shouldn't increase beyond that, no matter how thin the plate is. It does.
The thin-plate orifice is an interesting side note note that you've elevated to a red herring. Clearly one system works one way, and the other works a different way. Finding a different scenario doesn't change the way the first one works.
Slashdot Mirror
If by "violent video games", you mean "violent fantasies of power and grandeur", your point changes.
I do disagree with banning games, but your analogy doesn't attack the logic they are using. There are people alive in Germany right now who remember being caught up in the mythic ideals leading their nation, willingly and excitedly, into war all across Europe and beyond. You can't use arguments about why banning video games is wrong, because they aren't worried about the games per se. You have to explain why the games are different from the Nazi propaganda which so thoroughly scarred their national psyche that the effects are still felt to this day.
Personally, I'd point out that the games aren't ideological, so they don't really push the same sort of emotional buttons that the Nazi idealism did. Even so, I suspect the nation still has an understandable aversion to the glorification of violence. I guess the counter-argument there is that the people playing the games don't bear those psychological scars, being so far removed in time from the war, sort of like how most Americans today don't really have an emotional connection to the great depression and thus aren't as frugal about money (although current events may be changing that a bit).
You mean the wealthy and powerful are promoting socialized healthcare? Increased minimum wages? Laws which promote unions? Increased regulation of their respective industries?
Or are you just referring to their robbing of the public coffers and increasing only the laws and government agencies which can either be their customers, or limit the rights of We, The People with regards to anything which can adversely affect the wealth of the rich and powerful?
The former, they are definitely fighting against. The latter is not the government that can be recognized as legitimately American in any sense derived from the founding of the nation. It can, however, be derived from the fascist movement that gained traction in America in the 30s. The name changed to "free market" and "economic conservatism", but the goals and ideals have remained the same.
Its best not to try to engage the lunatic fringe here, you are never going to change their minds.
In cases like this, it's not so much for the poster in question as it is for the people who are reading it but have not yet lost their minds. And maybe the poster will finally hear enough evidence that contradicts his mental model of the world that he finally realizes it's his model that's wrong, not reality (like happened to Alan Greenspan recently, albeit he had to decimate the economy to get there).
Yeah, I know, tall order. But if it helps steer someone away from that ideologically insane road, that's one less person who'll be posting this same nonsense tomorrow. And more pragmatically, it will be one less person voting against both his and my self interest next election day, and if I can convince just one person, that's like doubling (or tripling) my vote!
I.e, blame the victim. Nice...
Only on a good day. Please consider the DMCA.
The DMCA couldn't exist if we were still a functioning democracy.
Two things happened. First, we equated money with speech, and corporations with personhood, so that those with money have more influence in Congress than those with without, and corporations have loads of money, and (by law!), no morals.
Second, the electorate is too busy either being distracted by toys, tv and sports, too busy hating some group of "others" that is no threat to them, or too busy being scared by the boogeyman, the flu (the flu of all things!), or people who visit Chris Hansen's house to rise up and take back the power and put it where it belongs, which is in the hands of The People. Not "the Money" or "the Corporation".
When did it become no big deal that We, The People, are second class citizens?
Wow, what's with the idiots marking anyone who says anything in favor of the existence of government a troll? No wonder America is so hosed right now.
The monied elite have so thoroughly confounded people to the point that they reflexively recoil from anything that promotes their own best interests with the delusion that by supporting only the wealthy and powerful (which is what you do when you remove government altogether), they are somehow defending a morality that is more important than their own well being and the well being of the overwhelming majority of their neighbors.
Yeah, I'm advocating for the well being of my fellow man. I must be some sort of -1 Troll...
Everything I have ever seen indicates that it is a more efficient organization than any government fire department.
Only true due to your lack of experience with a sufficiently large sample of municipal fire departments.
On the other hand, you have the evidence of "it fits with your theory about how things work", so unfounded assertions away!
If it deters people from applying for city jobs, it could prove to be a good thing.
-jcr
Yes, because cities work best when no one runs them. Roads, schools, parks, fire departments... no good can come of them! /sarcasm
Do some research. At the time Windows was very young, they tried a number of config storage systems, and the binary db was the only one they found that was fast and small enough for the computers of the time.
At the time, Windows had already been around for over a decade and was at version 4.0. And, at that time, the /etc/ convention had been around in Unix for much longer still. The registry was 'WTF?' from day one.
Geeze. The Internet is also pretty sarcastic.
Yet, ironically, it never gets its own sarcasm.
Well perhaps you're willing to throw out all your old software, but I am not, and nor are a lot of other people. Nor should we have to.
And you don't have to. Just keep running your old version of Windows to run your old versions of your software.
When Apple releases a new OS and says it's not compatible with the old, there's a huge line to suck Steve Jobs' dick. "Support of legacy software has made Windows a bloated piece of shit. Apple's so smart."
When Microsoft makes a similar change people whine about all the hassles they'll have to go through.
Here's the thing, this complaining is all coming from the corporate world.
The biggest problem here for MS is that they are straddling the corporate and the consumer market in such a way that they don't really serve either very well. The corporate world is being pushed to upgrade faster than the bean-counters would like (and really, screw-em. adapt or die, isn't this supposed to be one of the fundamental ideals of capitalism?), and the home users are hit with high prices and onerous anti-piracy measures.
Apple has gotten around this by somewhat ignoring the corporate world (at least, with regards to both the corporate world's desires for long-term roadmaps and aversion to new technology, and the high license prices that can be demanded for corporate software).
Personally, I think MS was much better off when they had a consumer Windows and a workstation Windows. I don't mean the NT vs Win9X kernel side of things, which was a disaster that culminated in Windows ME, but the ability to target two sufficiently unique products to two sufficiently unique markets. There shouldn't be a Home Basic and Home Premium, there should just be one Home with all the bells and whistles of the Premium and Ultimate versions that will make people want the Home version, instead of being seen as the "crippled" version of Windows. And the corporate version should be called Windows Workstation.
As it stands now, home users don't want the home version, and corporations don't even want the most recent version of Windows (soon to be the two most recent versions). This is really a bad situation to be in, pretty much for everyone involved, except for the gamer geeks who will buy Ultimate and pretty much bypass all this nonsense.
But really, if you want people to like your product, don't sell them a crap version. Make the Home version top-notch and full-featured, like Apple does with OS X.
Had this been a post about Microsoft instead of Apple, I'd imagine there'd be a lot of "ha ha micro$0ft sucks" posts now.
Instead, there's a lot of "ha ha Apple sucks" posts, as one would expect since the story's about Apple and not MS.
Photonic BOOM!
It's an allegation that is too stupid to defend. Find me a successful technology company anywhere that hasn't focused on the marketing side.
Your straw man is too stupid to defend. No one stated that MS was the only company with a marketing department that "focussed on the marketing side".
Or, for a more recent example, Democrats bringing up Bush whenever Obama is being criticized.
[citation needed]
And I don't mean from Obama himself. What is Obama doing that people are defending by saying "Bush did it too!". During the Bush Presidency, all you'd ever hear from Republican pundits and right-wing television and radio was "Clinton thought there were WMD's!", "Clinton bombed Iraq too!", "Clinton wiretapped people!" etc. ad nauseam. I don't see anything remotely similar going on in defense of Obama.
Ironically enough, you're engaging in the exact behavior I pointed out initially--diverting the blame to someone else saying "they do it too!".
"Yes. They're a marketing company that has some tech leanings - it's been this way for as long as I've been into computers (the early 80's)"
Sure, who can forget the famous 1984 commercial and the 16 page insert in Newsweek magazine for Windows 1.0 .. oh wait.
Correct, because the best defense from an allegation is to find an example of someone else doing something similar to the allegation.
Cf. Republicans brining up Clinton whenever Bush is being criticized.
Furthermore if, in reality, I find a faster and more efficient way of completing my work I don't get fired for "cheating". I get a raise and possibly a promotion if I keep improving things.
Actually, in the real world, you just get more work.
Wolfram Alpha has a "Show steps" button.
Why would you apply that to the entire population? Some people are going to be good at taking tests without reference under time constraints and some won't (notice you entirely ignored the time constraint aspect of it). Those that don't need references will write the reference books. Those that do need them will work on projects where they use them.
By your argument, the only people who need to take tests would be the reference book writers and no one else, but it gets worse. One needn't take a test to be capable of writing a reference book without the help of a reference book, one only needs to know things about a subject that aren't currently in a reference book. Taking a test isn't going to help you know things that aren't yet in the books.
It's not a red herring. What about the plate thickness makes it significantly different from the thick-plate scenario, and why does that influence the way the system behaves?
It's a red herring with regards to the initial scenario. This is a different scenario with different parameters. That you don't know what part about the difference is significant (nor do I) does not change the facts about the other scenario.
All you've shown is that different shapes react to pressure differently.
The OP basically stated that "speed limit X exists for scenario A". Then you came in and stated "I don't think speed limit X exists, for example, what about scenario B?" He never said it existed for scenario B, just scenario A.
If by every few months you mean once a year, and by "old version" you mean "two versions (aka two years) back", then yes.
The easiest solution for consumers is to realize that you really can live without an iPhone in your life.
That's like saying dealing with the TSA is such a headache that it's easier for travelers to realize they can really live without flying. Yes, it's technically true, but it's a silly philosophy to live by. Pretty much everything has a downside, an annoyance, etc. The trick is to find the things that have the better mix of upsides and downsides.
VZW is notorious for charging for everything ..
Sometimes they even charge you an additional 99 cents for each penny.
True enough, but why not? That's really the whole question.
That really wasn't your initial question. That question was whether there's some sort of information going into the container in the first place.
Why not? Why is the speed of sound the limiting factor?
Because that's essentially the definition of the speed of sound. It's the speed at which pressure waves propagate through a medium.
I return to the thin-plate scenario: a thin plate should still obey your rules. Air is escaping at the speed of sound. If the flow of information is asymptotically limited by the speed of sound, the velocity shouldn't increase beyond that, no matter how thin the plate is. It does.
The thin-plate orifice is an interesting side note note that you've elevated to a red herring. Clearly one system works one way, and the other works a different way. Finding a different scenario doesn't change the way the first one works.