I wasn't exactly sure myself until this comment and this wiki entry. If we focused them on visible spectrums, we'd not notice the most distant emissions. Since attempting to detect obejects that are extremely distant is the apparently the whole bit with the Herschel telescope it starts to make sense.
Well of course, because IE, MSN, Media Player, Word, etc. are all essential parts of the operating system, not applications
I sincerely hope that my sarcasm detector is just on the fritz, and that the mods modding you have functional ones. None of those applications are essential parts of the Operating System. IE being as integrated as it is might be the only picking point, but as shown in the past, there are versions of windows (that few bother to use, granted) that do not require IE.
This is EXACTLY the mentality though that has allowed microsoft to blur the lines as to the whether-or-not-its-anti-competitive to most of society. Those ARE applications, just as gcc is technically just an application used in most linux distros, not an 'essential part of the operating system'.
Granted all of these things are defacto standard applications that most expect to have some sort of equivalent available for their OS's but by no means are they part of the operating system itself, let alone essential parts.
If this was a sarcasm detector failure, then my own self be wooshed.
This is redundant as it appears in a bunch of other comments, but given the amount of redundancy of the error i'll give this one another go.
Note that the problem with the Vista Capable program was that it was labeling systems BEFORE VISTA WAS AVAILABLE.
The hardware vendors did NOT have the means to test anything and although they may have 'bullied' microsoft into lowering the spec requirement, the onus was on microsoft to tell them "uh no, that just wont work.".
Meanwhile, one commentator wonders why the tooth and nail opposition to broadcasting, since the professed aim of the litigations was to 'educate' the public?"
Because they mis-spoke when professing their aims. Or that they mis-spoke/typed/approved from paralegal when they filed this.
This whole ordeal is starting to feel like one of those theological arguments where a side insists on interpreting arbitrarily defined sections of text as immutable and others as requiring human context with themselves as the only interpreter. Interpretation may vary depending on the point they want to drill into peoples minds at the time.
Keep in mind that the procedures and guidelines that began chiropractics is correlational not causal observation. It is done in the sense of "well, people like it and it seems to help".
And in that context, yes chiropractics seems to help many people. The issue is that chiropractics is not Medicine. Chiropractors are not required to be medical doctors (although many medical doctors have become chiropractors as well). It also remains a fairly untested field in terms of long term effects and side effects of spinal alignments.
All these paramedical service professionals are blurring the lines for society it seems. The line dividing chiropractors from physiotherapists from doctors seem to be disappearing in peoples minds. Chiropractics basically boils down to a "it feels good, so we do it" area where the number of negative resulting cases is low enough for few to particularly see a need to stop it. If it helps you, great.
Do not equate it as rigorously tested science or medicine though.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - J . Krishnamurti.
That just nutshell'd my current mental state. Thanks a ton for the quote and the references.
I was about to say that its nice to see someone browsing at 0 or -1 too but i guess thats a like mindedness kind of parallel =). As for the educational system side of things, i put Woodrow Wilson right up front for the blame game. The point i was really wanting to make though is that that is only PART of the systems of "Education". Societal exposure, parental involvement, and media play huge roles apart from just schooling itself.
We exist, so leaving the environment "alone" is a bit of a moot point, unless you happen to be down with just offing all of humanity. The contingencies this story are describing are for the case that we're already fucked and cannot fix the environment insofar as it supports human life simply by changing our emissions and outputs.
We're a parameter in the worlds biosphere, not external observers. The only way to have NO impact on the environment is to not be a part of it, which may end up being the solution for the biosphere in any event. I can think of a lot more cases where life continues but humanity can no longer survive than cases where the whole biosphere is completely destroyed.
The trick is not trying to actively change the environment unless we're in a position that it's that or extinction. If we were completely ethical and apart from the environment i could wish that we would be willing to cease as a species rather than risk destroying the whole kit, but i certainly would not bank on that being considered as a "choice" rather than a worst case scenario.
We exist, so leaving the environment "alone" is a bit of a moot point, unless you happen to be down with just offing all of humanity. The contingencies this story are describing are for the case that we're already fucked and cannot fix the environment insofar as it supports human life simply by changing our emissions and outputs.
We're a parameter in the worlds biosphere, not external observers. The only way to have NO impact on the environment is to not be a part of it.
why have a single, commercial company have censorship of what goes into the app-store
Because a single, commercial company creates and maintains the product which the same single, commercial company is also liable for in terms of company image, damage to devices, even overflow of support calls causing penalties on their service contracts with subcontractors.
If you don't like it, you don't buy an iphone. This is like saying "Why is XBox Live the only XBox 360 online gaming service!". To put it into the overused car analogies, why would Ferrari support third party machined components in their catalogues? At least Apple is allowing for the third party components, it just requires approval first.
Or if you're still strung out over this, going by app popularity and the whole support/liability angle, think of the number of people who STILL install those "magic cursors" and "Bonzo Buddy" type idiocies.
Actually, i'd go so far as to say it is now way more than just that. There has always been a percentage of the population that unable to apply critical thinking simply due to the way they are. The part that frightens me the most is the trend in the past 20 years towards critical thinking being considered a negative thing. Anyone making consistent use of critical thinking will find out very quickly that thinking is no longer popular. There are a large number of people i KNOW are able to approach problems in this fashion, but refuse to do so as that just isn't popular.
I think this is related to peoples sudden inability to read when the words are prefaced with Error, Warning, or anything of the sort.
It kinda sucks, but being well adapted socially requires a high tolerance for statements that make absolutely no sense. It seems to me like this sense of "obvious cognition == bad call" has been on the rise especially in the generations born after 1985. i do not know what happened to overall education in the early 90s in north america (not just schooling but also parental and societal exposures as well), both in canada and the states, but it has destroyed the DESIRE to think critically in a large portion of the younger populace. My only hope is that i just happen to run into a really bad sample set of people during my life to have a proper opinion.
Really when it comes down to it, i'd say the set of possible accidents has a greater probability of one of them occuring than the set of possible conspiracies. Many accidents can be single instance probabilities where any conspiracy would have to involve compounded probabilities to actually BE a conspiracy (IE the [minimum two] conspiring parties have to pull off their own ends for the whole of the conspiracy to be considered successful). In the end this is meaningless though as for all the probability in the world of it being an accident, it is still a non-zero probability of not being an accident, as I certainly cant imagine a world where the unlikely NEVER happens and until we know which is technically a 1 we can not call it fact.
Just thinking in terms of orders of magnitude, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked into.
What does that have to do with anything. Just because other people are going to break a law you think it justifies the initial incident? if obama does so he is being exactly as bad in this case. If you didnt notice, i'm not american so i dont fall into your bi-polar view of every case where everything red or blue.
I guess we can let out all the murderers because someones still going to commit murder in the future.
Sorry about that, hammering out responses every so often between tasks. Welp, as per the last lines there i agree that it wasnt ONLY because of Bush that this was possible to even happen.
You should know quite well by now that the terminology used in your original post made it seem like it was an NSA program that bush merely gave the go ahead to.
True enough though. The democrats lacking any sort of backbone or even cartilagenous support system at the time was part of making it possible to begin with. Not all Bush, but don't try to state that it wasn't a Bush administration idea and that the NSA was the ones who wanted to do it to begin with.
Oh come off it? Those of us outside your country have long enough memories to remember that Bush did not give PERMISSION to the NSA but ORDERED the NSA to perform these wiretaps.
I sincerely hope that was ignorance not spin you were displaying there.
Overcoming earths gravity is not the issue. The issue is maintaining a long enough specific impulse for the craft to continue to accelerate long enough to make interplanetary distances livable. The kind of propulsion needed to break earths gravity is the opposite, it needs to emit much of its thrust in a short period to beat out good old g's negative acceleration.
We need both to power space travel. We're getting pretty good at the latter already. VASIMR is NOT for earth->orbit launches, but for orbit->elsewhere transit.
Where did I assume that? What i'm saying is there IS no way to define a peak, since its variable dependant on the time frame and environmental pressures as to what is considered "optimal".
This is the exact point i'm trying to make that you seem to be missing. Survival in a particular environment does not mean a life form is best at surviving in any environment. If there was a long enough period where the stimuli and environmental pressures involved made RNA/DNA based life the most efficient, then there would be none of the alternative life forms remaining when the pressures change.
Just because a species goes extinct does not mean that that species was not "fit for survival" at all. It simply means that the species was not fit for survival given the pressures and stimuli of the time they went extinct.
The only measuring stick that matters to evolution is procreation, you're right about that. The part people forget is everything else that happens is just rolls of the dice with no specific desired outcome. If it helps the species survive the current pressures, the trait remains. If not, it either dies out or falls recessive within the species gene pool.
you did when you were wondering how PNA could have existed if it wasnt the "best".
Do not forget that time frame is everything. just because PNA didnt survive does not mean that it was less efficient period full stop end of story. All it means is that it may have been less efficient for the pressures of that period in time
We like to think of ourselves as "advanced" creatures. Think how well OUR genes would have done if we had arisen in say...the middle of an Ice age.
Don't make the mistake of anthropomorphizing evolution. There is no committee that considers all possible solutions and states "This is the best one". Evolution is a case of what happens happens and what doesn't die out is what's left and so considered successful.
It is entirely possible that there are much more efficient ways for life to exist or function, but are different than the way life happened to happen here on earth. Or it could be that life DID happen that way but the methodology was not optimal for the environment at the time so the DNA/RNA based forms outlived them.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, i find its more a problem involving the instant it left gibsons pen and was read by someone in the media.
I wasn't exactly sure myself until this comment and this wiki entry. If we focused them on visible spectrums, we'd not notice the most distant emissions. Since attempting to detect obejects that are extremely distant is the apparently the whole bit with the Herschel telescope it starts to make sense.
Well of course, because IE, MSN, Media Player, Word, etc. are all essential parts of the operating system, not applications
I sincerely hope that my sarcasm detector is just on the fritz, and that the mods modding you have functional ones. None of those applications are essential parts of the Operating System. IE being as integrated as it is might be the only picking point, but as shown in the past, there are versions of windows (that few bother to use, granted) that do not require IE.
This is EXACTLY the mentality though that has allowed microsoft to blur the lines as to the whether-or-not-its-anti-competitive to most of society. Those ARE applications, just as gcc is technically just an application used in most linux distros, not an 'essential part of the operating system'.
Granted all of these things are defacto standard applications that most expect to have some sort of equivalent available for their OS's but by no means are they part of the operating system itself, let alone essential parts.
If this was a sarcasm detector failure, then my own self be wooshed.
This is redundant as it appears in a bunch of other comments, but given the amount of redundancy of the error i'll give this one another go.
Note that the problem with the Vista Capable program was that it was labeling systems BEFORE VISTA WAS AVAILABLE.
The hardware vendors did NOT have the means to test anything and although they may have 'bullied' microsoft into lowering the spec requirement, the onus was on microsoft to tell them "uh no, that just wont work.".
Meanwhile, one commentator wonders why the tooth and nail opposition to broadcasting, since the professed aim of the litigations was to 'educate' the public?"
Because they mis-spoke when professing their aims. Or that they mis-spoke/typed/approved from paralegal when they filed this.
This whole ordeal is starting to feel like one of those theological arguments where a side insists on interpreting arbitrarily defined sections of text as immutable and others as requiring human context with themselves as the only interpreter. Interpretation may vary depending on the point they want to drill into peoples minds at the time.
Wow, i hate to think of the bad day someone would ask if one wanted them to define "immoral".
I wouldn't go to a chiropractor either.
Keep in mind that the procedures and guidelines that began chiropractics is correlational not causal observation. It is done in the sense of "well, people like it and it seems to help".
And in that context, yes chiropractics seems to help many people. The issue is that chiropractics is not Medicine. Chiropractors are not required to be medical doctors (although many medical doctors have become chiropractors as well). It also remains a fairly untested field in terms of long term effects and side effects of spinal alignments.
All these paramedical service professionals are blurring the lines for society it seems. The line dividing chiropractors from physiotherapists from doctors seem to be disappearing in peoples minds. Chiropractics basically boils down to a "it feels good, so we do it" area where the number of negative resulting cases is low enough for few to particularly see a need to stop it. If it helps you, great.
Do not equate it as rigorously tested science or medicine though.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - J . Krishnamurti.
That just nutshell'd my current mental state. Thanks a ton for the quote and the references.
I was about to say that its nice to see someone browsing at 0 or -1 too but i guess thats a like mindedness kind of parallel =). As for the educational system side of things, i put Woodrow Wilson right up front for the blame game. The point i was really wanting to make though is that that is only PART of the systems of "Education". Societal exposure, parental involvement, and media play huge roles apart from just schooling itself.
We exist, so leaving the environment "alone" is a bit of a moot point, unless you happen to be down with just offing all of humanity. The contingencies this story are describing are for the case that we're already fucked and cannot fix the environment insofar as it supports human life simply by changing our emissions and outputs.
We're a parameter in the worlds biosphere, not external observers. The only way to have NO impact on the environment is to not be a part of it, which may end up being the solution for the biosphere in any event. I can think of a lot more cases where life continues but humanity can no longer survive than cases where the whole biosphere is completely destroyed.
The trick is not trying to actively change the environment unless we're in a position that it's that or extinction. If we were completely ethical and apart from the environment i could wish that we would be willing to cease as a species rather than risk destroying the whole kit, but i certainly would not bank on that being considered as a "choice" rather than a worst case scenario.
We exist, so leaving the environment "alone" is a bit of a moot point, unless you happen to be down with just offing all of humanity. The contingencies this story are describing are for the case that we're already fucked and cannot fix the environment insofar as it supports human life simply by changing our emissions and outputs.
We're a parameter in the worlds biosphere, not external observers. The only way to have NO impact on the environment is to not be a part of it.
why have a single, commercial company have censorship of what goes into the app-store
Because a single, commercial company creates and maintains the product which the same single, commercial company is also liable for in terms of company image, damage to devices, even overflow of support calls causing penalties on their service contracts with subcontractors.
If you don't like it, you don't buy an iphone. This is like saying "Why is XBox Live the only XBox 360 online gaming service!". To put it into the overused car analogies, why would Ferrari support third party machined components in their catalogues? At least Apple is allowing for the third party components, it just requires approval first.
Or if you're still strung out over this, going by app popularity and the whole support/liability angle, think of the number of people who STILL install those "magic cursors" and "Bonzo Buddy" type idiocies.
Actually, i'd go so far as to say it is now way more than just that. There has always been a percentage of the population that unable to apply critical thinking simply due to the way they are. The part that frightens me the most is the trend in the past 20 years towards critical thinking being considered a negative thing. Anyone making consistent use of critical thinking will find out very quickly that thinking is no longer popular. There are a large number of people i KNOW are able to approach problems in this fashion, but refuse to do so as that just isn't popular.
I think this is related to peoples sudden inability to read when the words are prefaced with Error, Warning, or anything of the sort.
It kinda sucks, but being well adapted socially requires a high tolerance for statements that make absolutely no sense. It seems to me like this sense of "obvious cognition == bad call" has been on the rise especially in the generations born after 1985. i do not know what happened to overall education in the early 90s in north america (not just schooling but also parental and societal exposures as well), both in canada and the states, but it has destroyed the DESIRE to think critically in a large portion of the younger populace. My only hope is that i just happen to run into a really bad sample set of people during my life to have a proper opinion.
Really when it comes down to it, i'd say the set of possible accidents has a greater probability of one of them occuring than the set of possible conspiracies. Many accidents can be single instance probabilities where any conspiracy would have to involve compounded probabilities to actually BE a conspiracy (IE the [minimum two] conspiring parties have to pull off their own ends for the whole of the conspiracy to be considered successful). In the end this is meaningless though as for all the probability in the world of it being an accident, it is still a non-zero probability of not being an accident, as I certainly cant imagine a world where the unlikely NEVER happens and until we know which is technically a 1 we can not call it fact.
Just thinking in terms of orders of magnitude, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked into.
What does that have to do with anything. Just because other people are going to break a law you think it justifies the initial incident? if obama does so he is being exactly as bad in this case. If you didnt notice, i'm not american so i dont fall into your bi-polar view of every case where everything red or blue.
I guess we can let out all the murderers because someones still going to commit murder in the future.
Ack, work blindness!
Sorry about that, hammering out responses every so often between tasks. Welp, as per the last lines there i agree that it wasnt ONLY because of Bush that this was possible to even happen.
Ah, so it was spin then.
You should know quite well by now that the terminology used in your original post made it seem like it was an NSA program that bush merely gave the go ahead to.
True enough though. The democrats lacking any sort of backbone or even cartilagenous support system at the time was part of making it possible to begin with. Not all Bush, but don't try to state that it wasn't a Bush administration idea and that the NSA was the ones who wanted to do it to begin with.
Oh come off it? Those of us outside your country have long enough memories to remember that Bush did not give PERMISSION to the NSA but ORDERED the NSA to perform these wiretaps.
I sincerely hope that was ignorance not spin you were displaying there.
Overcoming earths gravity is not the issue. The issue is maintaining a long enough specific impulse for the craft to continue to accelerate long enough to make interplanetary distances livable. The kind of propulsion needed to break earths gravity is the opposite, it needs to emit much of its thrust in a short period to beat out good old g's negative acceleration.
We need both to power space travel. We're getting pretty good at the latter already. VASIMR is NOT for earth->orbit launches, but for orbit->elsewhere transit.
Cheesy diablo 2 references aside, how on earth was that a troll?
was not optimal for the environment at the time
Into account, that is already taken
Where did I assume that? What i'm saying is there IS no way to define a peak, since its variable dependant on the time frame and environmental pressures as to what is considered "optimal".
in a particular environment, or evolving
This is the exact point i'm trying to make that you seem to be missing. Survival in a particular environment does not mean a life form is best at surviving in any environment. If there was a long enough period where the stimuli and environmental pressures involved made RNA/DNA based life the most efficient, then there would be none of the alternative life forms remaining when the pressures change.
Just because a species goes extinct does not mean that that species was not "fit for survival" at all. It simply means that the species was not fit for survival given the pressures and stimuli of the time they went extinct.
The only measuring stick that matters to evolution is procreation, you're right about that. The part people forget is everything else that happens is just rolls of the dice with no specific desired outcome. If it helps the species survive the current pressures, the trait remains. If not, it either dies out or falls recessive within the species gene pool.
you did when you were wondering how PNA could have existed if it wasnt the "best".
Do not forget that time frame is everything. just because PNA didnt survive does not mean that it was less efficient period full stop end of story. All it means is that it may have been less efficient for the pressures of that period in time
We like to think of ourselves as "advanced" creatures. Think how well OUR genes would have done if we had arisen in say...the middle of an Ice age.
No trees, no tools, no sticks, tiger food.
Don't make the mistake of anthropomorphizing evolution. There is no committee that considers all possible solutions and states "This is the best one". Evolution is a case of what happens happens and what doesn't die out is what's left and so considered successful.
It is entirely possible that there are much more efficient ways for life to exist or function, but are different than the way life happened to happen here on earth. Or it could be that life DID happen that way but the methodology was not optimal for the environment at the time so the DNA/RNA based forms outlived them.
They are the Non, who must become Juffo-Wup or Void.
We are the agents of Juffo-Wup.
We are the Mycon. We respond.
(Thanks for accidentally brightening my day at work! Haven't thought on those lines in years!)