"Nearly" is the operative word here. Repeat a 'near' difference 2000 times and tell me how inconsequential it is, especially when it comes to shifting the weight of a structure over and over again.
While bricks are awesome aesthetically (IMO), they are really only a good idea in very stable areas. If you are near fault lines like the West Coast of the US and are at risk for earthquakes, stay away from brick buildings. When the earth moves, you want to move with it. Smaller wooden structures are very good at that.
You're sure there's no rebar, no iron at all? I doubt it. It's the iron inside the concrete that contributes to its decay, because the metal expands and contracts with seasonal changes in temperature. Concrete without iron in it may be structurally weaker, but it will last a lot longer if kept within proper parameters for loads. (Hence why the Romans' stuff is still around.)
Yeah, too bad that's a gross generalization that doesn't correlate with reality. Besides the fact that the concept of wealth inequality as moral negative is nonsense, it doesn't take too much analysis to see that while the US and Mexico may have similar ratios of rich to poor (which by itself is misleading, as 10^4:10^3 is the same ratio as 10^2:10, but the magnitude is different, so the case really is that the poor in the US are richer than the poor in Mexico, and the rich in Mexico are poorer than the rich in the US. The ratio ultimately is the same, but the magnitude is different, which is expressed in the difference in the quality of life), crime in Mexico is worse. Similarly, in 'more equal' countries according to your favored methodology like Columbia, Nigeria, etc. crime and quality of life is worse than in 'less equal' places such as Hong Kong. Your theory simply does not correlate to reality, but I doubt this will stop you.
We need to move beyond the witch doctor mindset that every medicine is going to be refined from some coincidental protein production in some rare exotic plant somewhere. Once we understand our own cellular genetics well enough, we will be able to use synthetic life to further synthesize specific proteins and compounds necessary to solve diseases and disorders, not to mention gene therapies of our cells themselves.
Many of those varieties were created by cultivation itself. To start worrying about 'endangered varieties' now borders on insane.
Natural selection and manual selection both have huge limitations. Human self-preservation going forward is not likely hinge significantly on either one when we are now facing the dawn of genetic engineering.
You are forgetting that speciation and extinction are separate things, like the difference between birth/fertility rates and the mortality rate. The rate of speciation has increased over geologic time, so it would actually surprise me if the rate of extinctions wasn't directly proportional (more species per unit of time means more extinctions per unit of time, especially given that 99% of species that have ever lived on earth are dead and were dead before we ever existed).
Morality is a simple matter of what the majority of a culture agrees is beneficial or detrimental. This occasionally results in some fucked up shit, like human sacrifice, but for the most part ethical/moral foundations are cross-cultural.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that this reduces in some occasionally quite 'meta' ways. A lot of things a culture may consider objectionable are tolerated precisely because that culture values the conceptual abstract of 'tolerance' more than it actually considers a given objectionable act harmful. Consequently many minor immoral/wasteful/inefficient/superstitious/irrational/etc. behaviors are 'accepted' because a given cultural majority enshrines freedom and/or tolerance.
I find myself referencing that chart a lot with idiots. Environmentalists especially, but it applies to anybody who thinks x is going bad/good at rate y. Therefore x will get worse/better FOREVER at rate y, so we know that at time z, x will be y * z bad/good. It's fucking retarded, and these people exist in this very thread.
What makes it especially retarded in regard to this specific issue is that barring an extra-planetary event, the elimination of life is probably near impossible. If life originated by natural forces through some form of abiogenesis, then it follows that life did exist on raw materials before it proliferated. Even if all the complex species were somehow eradicated, the less/least complex species would matobolize raw materials and sunlight without any help/competition from other species.
So in your mind species only die? Speciation happens all the time. New species are developing to fill new niches created by environmental changes, as it has always happened. Regardless of mass extinctions in (relatively) short periods, in fact arguably because of mass extinctions, the number of species over geologic time has always increased, and the rate of speciation has always increased. There are/were more species in the Holocene than any other period. If we lose a few we might, what, end up in a biosphere more like the Pleistocene? Who cares? We lived back then too. Species we relied on in that period went extinct during climate changes that reached their zenith during the Holocene Climate Optimum, yet somehow everything seems to carry on without the mammoth. If we can live in the Holocene without species from the Pleistocene, chances are better than average that we can live fine in the post-Holocene without species from today, yesterday, or tomorrow.
Natural selection is indeed integral to speciation over time. However because humans are subjective creatures, they get upset when natural selection does select what they want. When species that they think are 'cute' or 'pretty' start to die because the environment doesn't support them, whereas species that they think are 'ugly' or 'gross' proliferate because they use the resources of an environment better than others, they get upset and start whining and blaming each other. It's pretty stupid. They refuse to understand that natural processes don't care about humanity's subjective aesthetic or other qualitative evaluation of different species. Whatever works best now lives, whatever previously worked but now does not dies.
Well, you're half right. I was moving fast and lazy when I tossed out 'temperature', but what I meant of course was the different boiling points of materials (volatility, as you said). Crystallization is just a reverse of the principle. Just as materials differ in volatility and how they boil at different temperatures and pressures, materials of course differ in how they crystallize at different temperatures and pressures. (In fact where ever I say 'temperature' but not 'pressure', assume I mean temperature/pressure, because really temperature by itself is well nigh meaningless.)
Again you're right about whiskey, it is a product of the condensate, but that's not fundamentally different. If this 'beer' is whatever is liquid after removing whatever else is solid at a given temperature, how is that special vs. whiskey being whatever was (at one point) vapor while whatever else was still liquid at a given temperature?
It really is a matter of definition as you say, and as far as I'm concerned if you have to dance 'beer' around in terms of temperature to remove significant portions of its solution, it's nae beer anymore. Further, I think that we're dealing with a difference in definitions of distillation. I think that where it applies to alcoholic beverage preparation, distillation becomes any means by which alcohol is concentrated by removal or decrease of constituent elements. Hence why 'freeze distillation' is so coined when it has none of the elements of true distillation.
It's whisky. Just because it's distilled by freezing instead of heating the principle is the same hence the term 'distilling'. Temperature differences are being used to remove water.
MS was not sued simply for integrating IE with Windows. They were sued because they were using their near monopoly on OSes to gain marketshare in the browser space by distributing IE for free as a bundle with their OS. Netscape didn't have a near monopoly in the OS market, so there was no way they could compete.
However, Google is a minority player in both the browser and OS markets. If they choose to bundle them together, neither provides all that much more leverage to the other, and certainly provides little in terms of barriers to entry for competition.
Well a proper control for that would be to have snails in meth-water which had not previously been poked. Really you need to be doing four tests: poked snails in water, poked snails in meth-water, non-poked snails in water, and non-poked snails in meth water.
Where did I say that the US is blameless? Further, you make very grand use of the pronoun 'you' when in fact I myself am for abolishing patents. I speak only of realities, the world we live in with all its misconceptions and misperceptions. I don't confuse and conflate what I want with what really happens.
Possibly similar? Your rhetorical ambiguity is nothing less than disingenuous. The history of Japanese industrial development is well documented. In the example I cited, the development of the Nakajima J9Y is extremely illustrative. The engines for the plane (the whole airframe of which was a crude copy of the Me-262) were designed directly from photos and schematics of the BMW 003.
You are preaching to the choir (also, as a frame of reference, this is what I'm listening to right now). Though I don't know to which debt you are referring...
The problem is that it used to be true. The Japanese and Koreans started out with nothing more than 1 for 1 copies (the Messerschmitt Me-262 vs the Nakajima J9Y comes to mind). Now they do innovate and come up with unique designs and design improvements, but because of their past it's hard for them to escape the reputation even when it no longer applies. The Chinese are in the same boat.
I'd like to know what universe you get your SSDs from that don't use EEPROMs. Oh, you think the size is a big deal? Let me introduce you to a wild concept known as 'scaling'.
Considering that the context here is Larrabee which didn't publicly exist until after the AMD/ATI merger, the usage is appropriate. Further, that merger was half a decade ago. In the tech world that really doesn't count as 'recent' anymore. You really need to get over it and live in the present.
Intel and nVidia are pretty openly hostile to each other. (Though as represented by Jen-Hsun Huang, nVidia is hostile to just about everybody. nVidia was actually AMD's first choice for their merger to create the Fusion platform, but Jen-Hsun Huang's ego was too huge to compromise and AMD was a little short on the capital necessary at the time to be in a strong bargaining position.) However with Larrabee in the trash heap of history, Intel needs nVidia now more than ever, but unless Intel really comes groveling back to Jen-Hsun with a killer sweetheart deal of some kind, I can't see any kind of productive partnership between the two companies in time to compete with AMD's Fusion.
As painful as the AMD/ATI merger was, I do think that Fusion is poised to be a game changing architecture, just as important if not significantly moreso than the integration of floating point processing and memory controllers
into CPU dies.
Slashdot Mirror
"Nearly" is the operative word here. Repeat a 'near' difference 2000 times and tell me how inconsequential it is, especially when it comes to shifting the weight of a structure over and over again.
While bricks are awesome aesthetically (IMO), they are really only a good idea in very stable areas. If you are near fault lines like the West Coast of the US and are at risk for earthquakes, stay away from brick buildings. When the earth moves, you want to move with it. Smaller wooden structures are very good at that.
You're sure there's no rebar, no iron at all? I doubt it. It's the iron inside the concrete that contributes to its decay, because the metal expands and contracts with seasonal changes in temperature. Concrete without iron in it may be structurally weaker, but it will last a lot longer if kept within proper parameters for loads. (Hence why the Romans' stuff is still around.)
Yeah, too bad that's a gross generalization that doesn't correlate with reality. Besides the fact that the concept of wealth inequality as moral negative is nonsense, it doesn't take too much analysis to see that while the US and Mexico may have similar ratios of rich to poor (which by itself is misleading, as 10^4:10^3 is the same ratio as 10^2:10, but the magnitude is different, so the case really is that the poor in the US are richer than the poor in Mexico, and the rich in Mexico are poorer than the rich in the US. The ratio ultimately is the same, but the magnitude is different, which is expressed in the difference in the quality of life), crime in Mexico is worse. Similarly, in 'more equal' countries according to your favored methodology like Columbia, Nigeria, etc. crime and quality of life is worse than in 'less equal' places such as Hong Kong. Your theory simply does not correlate to reality, but I doubt this will stop you.
Re-reading myself I meant to say 'does not select' in the second sentence.
We need to move beyond the witch doctor mindset that every medicine is going to be refined from some coincidental protein production in some rare exotic plant somewhere. Once we understand our own cellular genetics well enough, we will be able to use synthetic life to further synthesize specific proteins and compounds necessary to solve diseases and disorders, not to mention gene therapies of our cells themselves.
Many of those varieties were created by cultivation itself. To start worrying about 'endangered varieties' now borders on insane.
Natural selection and manual selection both have huge limitations. Human self-preservation going forward is not likely hinge significantly on either one when we are now facing the dawn of genetic engineering.
You are forgetting that speciation and extinction are separate things, like the difference between birth/fertility rates and the mortality rate. The rate of speciation has increased over geologic time, so it would actually surprise me if the rate of extinctions wasn't directly proportional (more species per unit of time means more extinctions per unit of time, especially given that 99% of species that have ever lived on earth are dead and were dead before we ever existed).
Morality is a simple matter of what the majority of a culture agrees is beneficial or detrimental. This occasionally results in some fucked up shit, like human sacrifice, but for the most part ethical/moral foundations are cross-cultural.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that this reduces in some occasionally quite 'meta' ways. A lot of things a culture may consider objectionable are tolerated precisely because that culture values the conceptual abstract of 'tolerance' more than it actually considers a given objectionable act harmful. Consequently many minor immoral/wasteful/inefficient/superstitious/irrational/etc. behaviors are 'accepted' because a given cultural majority enshrines freedom and/or tolerance.
I find myself referencing that chart a lot with idiots. Environmentalists especially, but it applies to anybody who thinks x is going bad/good at rate y. Therefore x will get worse/better FOREVER at rate y, so we know that at time z, x will be y * z bad/good. It's fucking retarded, and these people exist in this very thread.
What makes it especially retarded in regard to this specific issue is that barring an extra-planetary event, the elimination of life is probably near impossible. If life originated by natural forces through some form of abiogenesis, then it follows that life did exist on raw materials before it proliferated. Even if all the complex species were somehow eradicated, the less/least complex species would matobolize raw materials and sunlight without any help/competition from other species.
So in your mind species only die? Speciation happens all the time. New species are developing to fill new niches created by environmental changes, as it has always happened. Regardless of mass extinctions in (relatively) short periods, in fact arguably because of mass extinctions, the number of species over geologic time has always increased, and the rate of speciation has always increased. There are/were more species in the Holocene than any other period. If we lose a few we might, what, end up in a biosphere more like the Pleistocene? Who cares? We lived back then too. Species we relied on in that period went extinct during climate changes that reached their zenith during the Holocene Climate Optimum, yet somehow everything seems to carry on without the mammoth. If we can live in the Holocene without species from the Pleistocene, chances are better than average that we can live fine in the post-Holocene without species from today, yesterday, or tomorrow.
Natural selection is indeed integral to speciation over time. However because humans are subjective creatures, they get upset when natural selection does select what they want. When species that they think are 'cute' or 'pretty' start to die because the environment doesn't support them, whereas species that they think are 'ugly' or 'gross' proliferate because they use the resources of an environment better than others, they get upset and start whining and blaming each other. It's pretty stupid. They refuse to understand that natural processes don't care about humanity's subjective aesthetic or other qualitative evaluation of different species. Whatever works best now lives, whatever previously worked but now does not dies.
Well, you're half right. I was moving fast and lazy when I tossed out 'temperature', but what I meant of course was the different boiling points of materials (volatility, as you said). Crystallization is just a reverse of the principle. Just as materials differ in volatility and how they boil at different temperatures and pressures, materials of course differ in how they crystallize at different temperatures and pressures. (In fact where ever I say 'temperature' but not 'pressure', assume I mean temperature/pressure, because really temperature by itself is well nigh meaningless.)
Again you're right about whiskey, it is a product of the condensate, but that's not fundamentally different. If this 'beer' is whatever is liquid after removing whatever else is solid at a given temperature, how is that special vs. whiskey being whatever was (at one point) vapor while whatever else was still liquid at a given temperature?
It really is a matter of definition as you say, and as far as I'm concerned if you have to dance 'beer' around in terms of temperature to remove significant portions of its solution, it's nae beer anymore. Further, I think that we're dealing with a difference in definitions of distillation. I think that where it applies to alcoholic beverage preparation, distillation becomes any means by which alcohol is concentrated by removal or decrease of constituent elements. Hence why 'freeze distillation' is so coined when it has none of the elements of true distillation.
It's whisky. Just because it's distilled by freezing instead of heating the principle is the same hence the term 'distilling'. Temperature differences are being used to remove water.
MS was not sued simply for integrating IE with Windows. They were sued because they were using their near monopoly on OSes to gain marketshare in the browser space by distributing IE for free as a bundle with their OS. Netscape didn't have a near monopoly in the OS market, so there was no way they could compete.
However, Google is a minority player in both the browser and OS markets. If they choose to bundle them together, neither provides all that much more leverage to the other, and certainly provides little in terms of barriers to entry for competition.
Well a proper control for that would be to have snails in meth-water which had not previously been poked. Really you need to be doing four tests: poked snails in water, poked snails in meth-water, non-poked snails in water, and non-poked snails in meth water.
Where did I say that the US is blameless? Further, you make very grand use of the pronoun 'you' when in fact I myself am for abolishing patents. I speak only of realities, the world we live in with all its misconceptions and misperceptions. I don't confuse and conflate what I want with what really happens.
Possibly similar? Your rhetorical ambiguity is nothing less than disingenuous. The history of Japanese industrial development is well documented. In the example I cited, the development of the Nakajima J9Y is extremely illustrative. The engines for the plane (the whole airframe of which was a crude copy of the Me-262) were designed directly from photos and schematics of the BMW 003.
You are preaching to the choir (also, as a frame of reference, this is what I'm listening to right now). Though I don't know to which debt you are referring...
The problem is that it used to be true. The Japanese and Koreans started out with nothing more than 1 for 1 copies (the Messerschmitt Me-262 vs the Nakajima J9Y comes to mind). Now they do innovate and come up with unique designs and design improvements, but because of their past it's hard for them to escape the reputation even when it no longer applies. The Chinese are in the same boat.
Actually, I rescind my post, as I realize I was confusing EEPROM with NOR/NAND. Your point is actually quite valid.
Oh bleh... AC box checked accidentally. The parent is me.
I'd like to know what universe you get your SSDs from that don't use EEPROMs. Oh, you think the size is a big deal? Let me introduce you to a wild concept known as 'scaling'.
Such epic pedantry does not deserve Troll moderation.
Considering that the context here is Larrabee which didn't publicly exist until after the AMD/ATI merger, the usage is appropriate. Further, that merger was half a decade ago. In the tech world that really doesn't count as 'recent' anymore. You really need to get over it and live in the present.
Intel and nVidia are pretty openly hostile to each other. (Though as represented by Jen-Hsun Huang, nVidia is hostile to just about everybody. nVidia was actually AMD's first choice for their merger to create the Fusion platform, but Jen-Hsun Huang's ego was too huge to compromise and AMD was a little short on the capital necessary at the time to be in a strong bargaining position.) However with Larrabee in the trash heap of history, Intel needs nVidia now more than ever, but unless Intel really comes groveling back to Jen-Hsun with a killer sweetheart deal of some kind, I can't see any kind of productive partnership between the two companies in time to compete with AMD's Fusion.
As painful as the AMD/ATI merger was, I do think that Fusion is poised to be a game changing architecture, just as important if not significantly moreso than the integration of floating point processing and memory controllers into CPU dies.