I'm only 27, and my maternal grandfather was a WW2 vet, but he was really reticent about discussing his experiences. The only stories he would ever tell me were pretty tame anecdotes about a few humorous events. I think the gruesome things that he saw in terms of blown up, mangled corpses were not only painful for him to recall but I think he thought it was in poor taste to talk about those things. I don't begrudge him his perspective.
I don't know who's dumber, the AC or the people modding him up. In the first place, changing the base photos from color to monochrome would completely violate and nullify the artistic integrity of the images. The whole aesthetic point is that the past images are ghosts, and the monochromatic color palette is the indicator of that status. If you reduced everything to that level, the past portions would cease to be 'special' and would exude less, if any, otherworldly incongruence which is contrasted to the structural congruence of the image as setting/composition. Go back to art class.
Secondly, denigrating the technical simplicity of the task is really uncalled for. It doesn't matter that it is technically rather simple to perform, many great works of art are not necessarily difficult in technique, but their value comes from the unique and meaningful perspective of the artist. In this particular case, I have to say that these are some of the most inspired, evocative, and meaningful photo manipulations I have ever seen or am ever likely to see. I care not for how relatively difficult they may or may not have been to produce.
Yes I know about mechanical logic machines etc. as well, but actually you're wrong, because while typewriters did not, from an engineering standpoint, evolve to become computers, the personal computer inherited the role and function of the typewriter in society. A car is not anything like a horse, but I doubt you would deny that 'lineage'.
The irony here is that you are attempting to hold me in the same contempt that I hold for others in my 'elitism', difference being that the foundation for my 'elitism' is work--years and years of reading, thought, discussion and analysis. Your foundation is mere jealous indignance. You feel you are morally superior to me, an elitist of your own sort, and that this mere feeling somehow trumps all the accrued value that I possess and apply because I dare to actually take pride in my efforts. Yes, certainly, how dare I hold my encyclopedic knowledge and practiced analysis above Joe Dipshit's fascination with beer and football? After all, the time Joe Dipshit sinks into drinking and watching game after meaningless game can so readily and advantageously applied to solving the problems of the human condition. How could I possibly pretend that my knowledge of the interrelationship and influence of Enlightenment philosophers and jurists on the American Revolution was somehow demonstrably more important than Joe Dipshit's ability to spot a 'fumblerooski' during happy hour at the cheapest bar in Bumfuck, Nowhere?
You feel superior to me as mere mental compensation to the reality that I am superior to you and most others.
An intellectual elite is a fact of all human eras. As Marcus Tullius Cicero once said in one of his letters, 'Better one good man than ten thousand imbeciles!' Dr. David Madsen has been known to argue that this is the reason that democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be, as the votes of the meritous are canceled out by those of 'cretins' (his term, and a good one). Reconciling the value of freedom with the vice of ignorance has been an issue I've struggled with all my life, but it seems sound to me that limiting government power limits the effects that the stupid majority can have on the intelligent minority while allowing both the freedom to pursue value or waste time as they see fit.
How does something moving faster than light inherently violate causality? Causality is pretty simple, an effect cannot precede its cause. Big deal. No matter how much you speed something up, that doesn't make one dent in causality. If I could create a machine that could blow up rocks on Pluto with a latency of a second, even though that would require actions to occur at unimaginable speeds, that still wouldn't violate causality unless those rocks exploded before I pressed the button. And before you get your panties in a bunch about observation, do supersonic things violate causation just because we can't hear them until after they've happened?
You're also ignoring something pretty fundamental, that light constitutes a signal by itself. There is no way for either of those experiments or any like them to be conducted if they did not send and receive a signal of some kind, otherwise there would be nothing to observe. That signal may not have contained information, but as I said before "it's only a problem to put information into the signal."
(And the 'waving a laser at the moon' analogy is and always has been silly. There is nothing 'FTL' about arbitrary points of intersection in space. If I point my finger at a galaxy and then point my finger at a different galaxy, that doesn't mean anything at all. The same is true of different spots on the moon being hit by a laser. The laser isn't moving any faster, and the beam at it's terminus is not moving FTL, there are in fact gaps between the beams (as happens with all radial emissions) that increase in size as the beam radiates and account for the "difference" in "speed" between the changing of the emitter angle and the beam terminus. Take home point is that it's NOT THE SAME AT ALL as actually increasing the velocity of the wave itself.)
Just because I am not a physicist and suck at math does not mean that I cannot think and reason through what knowledge I have acquired.
Did you even read the second article? There's a decade of development difference there, and yes, information has and can be transmitted faster than light. It really only makes sense, if ANY signal can be made to travel FTL, it's only a problem to put information into the signal.
People have made the speed of light into some weird sacred thing, and the fact is it's just set value in certain conditions (specifically a vacuum) but under other circumstances light can both speed up or even be slowed down to the speed of your car. People further put too much stock into relativity and treat it like its infallible when the theory is known to be incomplete and irreconcilable with all observable (let alone theorized) phenomena.
Once again, I'm not a physicist, I don't understand these matters mathematically and I don't claim to, but there is a lot more room to maneuver and a lot more developments have been and will be made than people like you and the others I have responded to seem to want to think.
That was sarcasm you idiot. Our ability with orbital mechanics is limited to either diverting an object entirely or not all. We do not possess the technical capacity to decide where something that is 510 meters in diameter will land at the sort of velocities involved in cases like this.
Never mind that Andrew Carnegie donated over 380 million dollars (over 4 billion today adjusted to inflation) and created the public library system practically single handed. Never mind the 28 billion dollars donated by Bill Gates, or the 30 billion dollar endowment of Warren Buffett, or 10 billion donated by Sir Li Ka-shing.
More importantly, what so many anti-capitalists fail to realize, is that money would not exist without these people. Economic growth is a function of organization, planning, and efficient production. Without key individuals with larger goals, the resources of individuals would be used in ways that would have much smaller effects, achieving little if any growth or development. That is why population doesn't by itself presage wealth.
Apparently you're too busy trying to look clever to actually read posts being responded to before criticizing the scope of the responses. I was responding to a person claiming that "At a certain turning point the entire atmosphere will change to make life on this planet entirely impossible. No hiding, no adaptation, no recourse: no one spared, not child, animal or plant." Huh. So apparently the entire thread is not limited to human life, as that post talks about all life, even specifying different kingdoms.
In that context my response was completely warranted and as far from a non sequitur as one can get. So, fuck off you lazy twit. You've been around long enough to know how to use the 'Parent' button.
I'm a historian, not a physicist or engineer. Even if I were, could somebody who made typewriters a century ago tell you how a petaflop supercomputer would work? FFS, exaflop supercomputers are expected in a decade. All I know is that Light Peak exists, and FTL EM researchexists, and that suggests at least a reasonable potential for FTL optical computing.
The wealthiest person who wants to continue living on earth without the threat of being smashed by a giant rock from space can finance a project to deflect the object. Alternately, a consortium of those with means can pool resources to create said project. (And it would probably cost less and be more innovative and more efficient than a government option because people tend to care more when they are spending their own money.)
The funny thing is there really isn't anything special about government that any group of people can't do with an agreed upon framework, because essentially that's all government is in the first place. The difference being that when people who have self-organized for a purpose other than government have accomplished their task, they then go home. If only more people were like Cincinnatus.
Apparently you're unaware that life existed on Earth in radically different atmospheric conditions (prokaryotic life was kickin' it old school in an atmosphere with practically no oxygen at all), that life itself is responsible for changing the atmosphere (photosynthesis caused the oxygen catastrophe killing most of the anaerobic life, but not all of it mark you well, dunce), and that unless all the oceans freeze or boil off into space, it's only a matter of metabolizing different dissolved gases by a new set of micro-organisms right?
Nothing more than a poverty of imagination. Little more than a century ago atoms themselves were an unproven theory. A century from now we may be computing at subatomic scales, perhaps using EM instead of electrical currents, which would eliminate both the problem of transistor density and speed. (Research into EM acceleration may actually lead to FTL optical computing... light peak at warp speed so to speak.)
The users consciously joined facebook, consciously entered data into a service, probably didn't read the terms of that service (which is clearly the service's fault, not lazy users who skip every ToS and EULA as fast as humanly possible), probably don't monitor for changes to those terms (there is even an opt-in method defined in those terms to be auto-notified of all changes), and of course they feel after all this that they are the victims. Bullshit.
Breaking news! Facebook works as designed, public information is public, and it is leaking at all times to all people! More at 11.
You contradict yourself, saying first that thieves care about the owners' motivation, then saying they don't and just go for whatever is easiest. While there may be overlap, one is either the primary reason or it isn't. I think we both know it's opportunity, not subtle purchase motivations, that drive theft. Hence my original criticism of the original post remains valid.
Regardless of the number of cars in the study or the percentage of pink cars, the percentage of pink cars stolen in the study would still be zero. Pink cars may be a statistical minority, but zero is zero is zero.
Awesome. It's too bad it's getting harder and harder to find quality new cars with manual transmissions. I guess I can use it as an excuse to talk my wife into getting some classic 60s muscle car.
That is terrible logic. It assumes that either a) everybody (or a least a majority) cares more about their car getting stolen than its color or b) thieves care more about the motivation of owners' choice of colors than the color itself.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm only 27, and my maternal grandfather was a WW2 vet, but he was really reticent about discussing his experiences. The only stories he would ever tell me were pretty tame anecdotes about a few humorous events. I think the gruesome things that he saw in terms of blown up, mangled corpses were not only painful for him to recall but I think he thought it was in poor taste to talk about those things. I don't begrudge him his perspective.
I don't know who's dumber, the AC or the people modding him up. In the first place, changing the base photos from color to monochrome would completely violate and nullify the artistic integrity of the images. The whole aesthetic point is that the past images are ghosts, and the monochromatic color palette is the indicator of that status. If you reduced everything to that level, the past portions would cease to be 'special' and would exude less, if any, otherworldly incongruence which is contrasted to the structural congruence of the image as setting/composition. Go back to art class.
Secondly, denigrating the technical simplicity of the task is really uncalled for. It doesn't matter that it is technically rather simple to perform, many great works of art are not necessarily difficult in technique, but their value comes from the unique and meaningful perspective of the artist. In this particular case, I have to say that these are some of the most inspired, evocative, and meaningful photo manipulations I have ever seen or am ever likely to see. I care not for how relatively difficult they may or may not have been to produce.
Yes I know about mechanical logic machines etc. as well, but actually you're wrong, because while typewriters did not, from an engineering standpoint, evolve to become computers, the personal computer inherited the role and function of the typewriter in society. A car is not anything like a horse, but I doubt you would deny that 'lineage'.
The irony here is that you are attempting to hold me in the same contempt that I hold for others in my 'elitism', difference being that the foundation for my 'elitism' is work--years and years of reading, thought, discussion and analysis. Your foundation is mere jealous indignance. You feel you are morally superior to me, an elitist of your own sort, and that this mere feeling somehow trumps all the accrued value that I possess and apply because I dare to actually take pride in my efforts. Yes, certainly, how dare I hold my encyclopedic knowledge and practiced analysis above Joe Dipshit's fascination with beer and football? After all, the time Joe Dipshit sinks into drinking and watching game after meaningless game can so readily and advantageously applied to solving the problems of the human condition. How could I possibly pretend that my knowledge of the interrelationship and influence of Enlightenment philosophers and jurists on the American Revolution was somehow demonstrably more important than Joe Dipshit's ability to spot a 'fumblerooski' during happy hour at the cheapest bar in Bumfuck, Nowhere?
You feel superior to me as mere mental compensation to the reality that I am superior to you and most others.
An intellectual elite is a fact of all human eras. As Marcus Tullius Cicero once said in one of his letters, 'Better one good man than ten thousand imbeciles!' Dr. David Madsen has been known to argue that this is the reason that democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be, as the votes of the meritous are canceled out by those of 'cretins' (his term, and a good one). Reconciling the value of freedom with the vice of ignorance has been an issue I've struggled with all my life, but it seems sound to me that limiting government power limits the effects that the stupid majority can have on the intelligent minority while allowing both the freedom to pursue value or waste time as they see fit.
How does something moving faster than light inherently violate causality? Causality is pretty simple, an effect cannot precede its cause. Big deal. No matter how much you speed something up, that doesn't make one dent in causality. If I could create a machine that could blow up rocks on Pluto with a latency of a second, even though that would require actions to occur at unimaginable speeds, that still wouldn't violate causality unless those rocks exploded before I pressed the button. And before you get your panties in a bunch about observation, do supersonic things violate causation just because we can't hear them until after they've happened?
You're also ignoring something pretty fundamental, that light constitutes a signal by itself. There is no way for either of those experiments or any like them to be conducted if they did not send and receive a signal of some kind, otherwise there would be nothing to observe. That signal may not have contained information, but as I said before "it's only a problem to put information into the signal."
(And the 'waving a laser at the moon' analogy is and always has been silly. There is nothing 'FTL' about arbitrary points of intersection in space. If I point my finger at a galaxy and then point my finger at a different galaxy, that doesn't mean anything at all. The same is true of different spots on the moon being hit by a laser. The laser isn't moving any faster, and the beam at it's terminus is not moving FTL, there are in fact gaps between the beams (as happens with all radial emissions) that increase in size as the beam radiates and account for the "difference" in "speed" between the changing of the emitter angle and the beam terminus. Take home point is that it's NOT THE SAME AT ALL as actually increasing the velocity of the wave itself.)
Just because I am not a physicist and suck at math does not mean that I cannot think and reason through what knowledge I have acquired.
Oh no, some random dipshit on /. disapproves! My ego is shattered! Why oh why did I waste all that time immersing myself in knowledge and culture...
Did you even read the second article? There's a decade of development difference there, and yes, information has and can be transmitted faster than light. It really only makes sense, if ANY signal can be made to travel FTL, it's only a problem to put information into the signal.
People have made the speed of light into some weird sacred thing, and the fact is it's just set value in certain conditions (specifically a vacuum) but under other circumstances light can both speed up or even be slowed down to the speed of your car. People further put too much stock into relativity and treat it like its infallible when the theory is known to be incomplete and irreconcilable with all observable (let alone theorized) phenomena.
Once again, I'm not a physicist, I don't understand these matters mathematically and I don't claim to, but there is a lot more room to maneuver and a lot more developments have been and will be made than people like you and the others I have responded to seem to want to think.
Clearly you have failed to realize that an upward trend in temperature means that trend will continue unabated FOREVAR. The "science" is settled.
That was sarcasm you idiot. Our ability with orbital mechanics is limited to either diverting an object entirely or not all. We do not possess the technical capacity to decide where something that is 510 meters in diameter will land at the sort of velocities involved in cases like this.
Never mind that Andrew Carnegie donated over 380 million dollars (over 4 billion today adjusted to inflation) and created the public library system practically single handed. Never mind the 28 billion dollars donated by Bill Gates, or the 30 billion dollar endowment of Warren Buffett, or 10 billion donated by Sir Li Ka-shing.
More importantly, what so many anti-capitalists fail to realize, is that money would not exist without these people. Economic growth is a function of organization, planning, and efficient production. Without key individuals with larger goals, the resources of individuals would be used in ways that would have much smaller effects, achieving little if any growth or development. That is why population doesn't by itself presage wealth.
Yeah, because our ability to control orbital mechanics is so fine tuned that we can land enormous fucking space rocks on a dime. Happens every day.
Apparently you're too busy trying to look clever to actually read posts being responded to before criticizing the scope of the responses. I was responding to a person claiming that "At a certain turning point the entire atmosphere will change to make life on this planet entirely impossible. No hiding, no adaptation, no recourse: no one spared, not child, animal or plant." Huh. So apparently the entire thread is not limited to human life, as that post talks about all life, even specifying different kingdoms.
In that context my response was completely warranted and as far from a non sequitur as one can get. So, fuck off you lazy twit. You've been around long enough to know how to use the 'Parent' button.
I'm a historian, not a physicist or engineer. Even if I were, could somebody who made typewriters a century ago tell you how a petaflop supercomputer would work? FFS, exaflop supercomputers are expected in a decade. All I know is that Light Peak exists, and FTL EM research exists, and that suggests at least a reasonable potential for FTL optical computing.
Actually, when I want to be really insulting I reach back toward the more antiquated (usually Latin-derived) terms that nobody knows.
Irrumate my tumescence, you meretricious tatterdemalion!
Being exceptionally literate kicks ass. H. L. Mencken's chrestomathies are particularly bountiful places for learning obscure but powerful words.
The wealthiest person who wants to continue living on earth without the threat of being smashed by a giant rock from space can finance a project to deflect the object. Alternately, a consortium of those with means can pool resources to create said project. (And it would probably cost less and be more innovative and more efficient than a government option because people tend to care more when they are spending their own money.)
The funny thing is there really isn't anything special about government that any group of people can't do with an agreed upon framework, because essentially that's all government is in the first place. The difference being that when people who have self-organized for a purpose other than government have accomplished their task, they then go home. If only more people were like Cincinnatus.
Apparently you're unaware that life existed on Earth in radically different atmospheric conditions (prokaryotic life was kickin' it old school in an atmosphere with practically no oxygen at all), that life itself is responsible for changing the atmosphere (photosynthesis caused the oxygen catastrophe killing most of the anaerobic life, but not all of it mark you well, dunce), and that unless all the oceans freeze or boil off into space, it's only a matter of metabolizing different dissolved gases by a new set of micro-organisms right?
I swear eco-cultists are fucking retarded.
Nothing more than a poverty of imagination. Little more than a century ago atoms themselves were an unproven theory. A century from now we may be computing at subatomic scales, perhaps using EM instead of electrical currents, which would eliminate both the problem of transistor density and speed. (Research into EM acceleration may actually lead to FTL optical computing... light peak at warp speed so to speak.)
It's Shenzhen, not Shenzen. And note to gweilos: 'zh' is pronounced roughly like a 'j' in 'Benjamin'.
The users consciously joined facebook, consciously entered data into a service, probably didn't read the terms of that service (which is clearly the service's fault, not lazy users who skip every ToS and EULA as fast as humanly possible), probably don't monitor for changes to those terms (there is even an opt-in method defined in those terms to be auto-notified of all changes), and of course they feel after all this that they are the victims. Bullshit.
Breaking news! Facebook works as designed, public information is public, and it is leaking at all times to all people! More at 11.
You, sir, have written the only thing that need be said in this discussion. Congratulations are in order.
You contradict yourself, saying first that thieves care about the owners' motivation, then saying they don't and just go for whatever is easiest. While there may be overlap, one is either the primary reason or it isn't. I think we both know it's opportunity, not subtle purchase motivations, that drive theft. Hence my original criticism of the original post remains valid.
Regardless of the number of cars in the study or the percentage of pink cars, the percentage of pink cars stolen in the study would still be zero. Pink cars may be a statistical minority, but zero is zero is zero.
More importantly, they might depreciate more quickly and have lower residual value unless you're willing to repaint it before you sell it.
Awesome. It's too bad it's getting harder and harder to find quality new cars with manual transmissions. I guess I can use it as an excuse to talk my wife into getting some classic 60s muscle car.
That is terrible logic. It assumes that either a) everybody (or a least a majority) cares more about their car getting stolen than its color or b) thieves care more about the motivation of owners' choice of colors than the color itself.