Poor example. Yeah, that list you just made is yours, but that doesn't mean the things the list refers to are yours. Likewise, the company owns the list of contacts, but in no way does the company own the people whom the contacts represent.
All of the ideas you mentioned changed the course of history. However, the reason those ideas changed the course of history, is that they were executed very well. There are thousands of other ideas out there that could have changed history just as much or more. However, they didn't because of poor/non-execution.
You are right... ideas are very important. But the worst idea executed brilliantly will beat the greatest idea executed poorly any day. You have to have an idea, but the quality of the execution is way more important than the quality of the idea, and that's what the GP was talking about.
could not find any other instances of scientists being able to replicate Taleyarkhan's results without Taleyarkhan having direct involvement with the experiments
So... very poor point, but I don't think that was a troll; I just don't think you are as smart as you think you are.
Unfortunately, the article comes to miserably faulty conclusions, and nobody seems to have noticed it.
One thing everybody needs to note is this: the test that Tom's ran was designed to run a program to completion over and over again. All that Tom's came up with, thanks to that test, is that the computer with the SSD ran out of power faster. What they SHOULD have noticed, and what any sane and logical tester would have done, is counted the number of times the program RAN. A system with an SSD will run the program a significantly higher number of times because of its increased speed and lack of moving parts. With the higher number of runs, the CPU STAYS MORE ACTIVE, sucking more power out of the system and thus causing it to power down earlier. The only reason the HDD system died later is because the CPU idles waiting for it to retrieve data.
The SSD may have chewed up your battery faster, but it did, comparatively, run through that program a BUNCH more times. I am willing to bet the work per watt was much better out of the SSD system than the HDD - and once again, Tom's Hardware's scientific testing system proves itself anything but.
Ok, I'll give you "crappy operating system" but you'll have to work a little harder to convince me that Office is crappy. Office might be over prices, but it certainly isn't crappy. What would you propose is better? Open Office? The only reason Open Office even comes close to Office is because it is free.
Ok, let's try this again...
To avoid implicating the Church in legal matters to which it is not a party, leaders should avoid testifying in civil or criminal cases or other proceedings involving abuse. For specific guidelines, see "Legal Matters," page 151.
Which we can correctly interpret to say that a Church leader testifying in an abuse case, even though it has nothing to do with the Church, will likely be misconstrued (see your post) to make it look like the Church is involved.
Although HIV and AIDS can afflict innocent victims, the principal safeguards are chastity before marriage, total fidelity in marriage, abstinence from any homosexual relations, avoidance of illegal drugs, and reverence and care for the body. Which can be correctly interpreted to say that to avoid HIV you should:
Not have sex before marriage
Not cheat on your spouse
Not have gay sex
Not be a druggie
Take care of your body
Only brethren who hold the necessary priesthood and are worthy may perform an ordinance or blessing or stand in the circle. Those who participate are usually limited to priesthood leaders, close family members, and close associates such as home teachers.
Which can be correctly interpreted to mean that:
Only someone with the proper authority (which any man can obtain) can perform a blessing, just like only a qualified surgeon can perform surgery.
It's better to have relatives and close friends to give blessings than random people
And to drive the point home...
I'm a commercial writer, not an 'author'. Can be "interpreted" to mean that you write television commercials, which is obviously not what you are trying to convey.
John Smith has a great little religion going based on hearsay information too. Do you believe his religion? John Smith as in the Pocahontas guy or did you mean Joseph Smith, a Prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? And me and 13.2 million(ish) other people resoundingly say "Yes".
"Going to heaven" is very different than most people think. Lol. And you know because?
People like you say, "Your religion is wrong, because you have no proof." Well, first of all I have a ton of anecdotal evidence that supports what my religion says. Is my personal anecdotal evidence enough to convince anyone else of the truth? Of course not. You'll have to find your own evidence.
Secondly, I say to you, where is the proof that my religion is wrong?
Also, I want to point out that I am Mormon (aka. I go to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), and I believe that the earth was created in 7 "days", though I don't believe that said day was defined as one revolution of the earth. (Why would God define time by the rotation of a celestial body that wasn't yet created?)
I believe that the account of the creation of the Earth in Genesis supports scientific findings of evolution.
Also, let it be known, that when I say Religion, I mean denomination. Mormons are Christian.
No, you have that wrong... Doing a web search on the subject is a waste of time - 99% of the time those same pages come up as references on Wikipedia.
But seriously, digging into references in Wikipedia is no more of a waste of time than looking at the first few links after a search. In fact, it might save you some time if you are already at the Wikipedia page to get a general idea on the subject.
Are you serious? I can download that same 'entire season of Lost or 24 or Galactica' in less than 2 hours if you can download it in a day. What's even better, is that I don't have to click 'download' and then watch it tomorrow, I can *stream* it right now. That is, i can download it in less time than it takes to watch it, and therefore, i can watch it while it is downloading (via Netflix).
You can't say something is fast just because it is faster than it was at one time. My windows 3.1 machine has more processing power than the ENIAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eniac/). Does that mean that my windows 3.1 machine is at all powerful? No.
Your internet sucks. Yeah, it's faster than dial-up, but that's about it.
Lets look at the numbers:
There were 17,034 murders in 2006 in the United States. (source)
We don't know how many of these were gun related, and the same gun could be used for more than one death. But for the sake of argument (and to make you look just a little less like a moron) we'll assume that 17,034 different guns killed 17,034 people.
"The net of civilian guns made available for use is about 68.6 million guns over a 14 year period, for an average of 4.9 million guns per year." (source)
That's just how many new guns were made and given to civilians. That doesn't count the tens of millions of guns that were purchased years before.
So if, as you say, "95% of guns kill people illegally", then last year about 4,655,000 people in the U.S. died from being shot by a gun. Which is odd, because I thought there were about 17,000 people murdered... hmmm...
From my calculations, a very, very high estimate of the percentage of guns that are used to kill people is 0.34%, as in about 1/3 of 1%.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and "atom" means "indivisible." Therefore, "atom smasher" is an oxymoron
Because you can't smash things you can't see?
Poor example. Yeah, that list you just made is yours, but that doesn't mean the things the list refers to are yours. Likewise, the company owns the list of contacts, but in no way does the company own the people whom the contacts represent.
All of the ideas you mentioned changed the course of history. However, the reason those ideas changed the course of history, is that they were executed very well. There are thousands of other ideas out there that could have changed history just as much or more. However, they didn't because of poor/non-execution.
You are right... ideas are very important. But the worst idea executed brilliantly will beat the greatest idea executed poorly any day. You have to have an idea, but the quality of the execution is way more important than the quality of the idea, and that's what the GP was talking about.
Well, if it had the degree symbol between the 2 and the K.
He didn't put the degree symbol between the 2 and the K because it isn't "2 degrees kelvin" it's "2 kelvin", like "2 kilograms" or "2 meters"
DigDuality: it's the people's
AC: So the people who created it have indefinite right to control it?
Huh?
Me: I like apples.
Guy-who-likes-to-misconstrue-my-words: You're a vegan?
could not find any other instances of scientists being able to replicate Taleyarkhan's results without Taleyarkhan having direct involvement with the experiments
So... very poor point, but I don't think that was a troll; I just don't think you are as smart as you think you are.
yes
The GP is not talking about letting random users post videos to YouTube. He is talking about Viacom posting their own videos online, with ads.
Unfortunately, the article comes to miserably faulty conclusions, and nobody seems to have noticed it. One thing everybody needs to note is this: the test that Tom's ran was designed to run a program to completion over and over again. All that Tom's came up with, thanks to that test, is that the computer with the SSD ran out of power faster. What they SHOULD have noticed, and what any sane and logical tester would have done, is counted the number of times the program RAN. A system with an SSD will run the program a significantly higher number of times because of its increased speed and lack of moving parts. With the higher number of runs, the CPU STAYS MORE ACTIVE, sucking more power out of the system and thus causing it to power down earlier. The only reason the HDD system died later is because the CPU idles waiting for it to retrieve data. The SSD may have chewed up your battery faster, but it did, comparatively, run through that program a BUNCH more times. I am willing to bet the work per watt was much better out of the SSD system than the HDD - and once again, Tom's Hardware's scientific testing system proves itself anything but.
Ok, I'll give you "crappy operating system" but you'll have to work a little harder to convince me that Office is crappy. Office might be over prices, but it certainly isn't crappy. What would you propose is better? Open Office? The only reason Open Office even comes close to Office is because it is free.
Flaimbait at it's finest.
Which we can correctly interpret to say that a Church leader testifying in an abuse case, even though it has nothing to do with the Church, will likely be misconstrued (see your post) to make it look like the Church is involved.
Although HIV and AIDS can afflict innocent victims, the principal safeguards are chastity before marriage, total fidelity in marriage, abstinence from any homosexual relations, avoidance of illegal drugs, and reverence and care for the body.
Which can be correctly interpreted to say that to avoid HIV you should:
Only brethren who hold the necessary priesthood and are worthy may perform an ordinance or blessing or stand in the circle. Those who participate are usually limited to priesthood leaders, close family members, and close associates such as home teachers.
Which can be correctly interpreted to mean that:
And to drive the point home...
I'm a commercial writer, not an 'author'.
Can be "interpreted" to mean that you write television commercials, which is obviously not what you are trying to convey.
If AIM/ICQ actually did block YouTube links, then you would have a valid point. BUT THEY DONT!
You can't just say that you are SOL because some company could do something.
Oh, yes. Little Bobby Tables, we call him.
People like you say, "Your religion is wrong, because you have no proof." Well, first of all I have a ton of anecdotal evidence that supports what my religion says. Is my personal anecdotal evidence enough to convince anyone else of the truth? Of course not. You'll have to find your own evidence.
Secondly, I say to you, where is the proof that my religion is wrong?
Also, I want to point out that I am Mormon (aka. I go to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), and I believe that the earth was created in 7 "days", though I don't believe that said day was defined as one revolution of the earth. (Why would God define time by the rotation of a celestial body that wasn't yet created?)
I believe that the account of the creation of the Earth in Genesis supports scientific findings of evolution.
Also, let it be known, that when I say Religion, I mean denomination. Mormons are Christian.
No, you have that wrong... Doing a web search on the subject is a waste of time - 99% of the time those same pages come up as references on Wikipedia. But seriously, digging into references in Wikipedia is no more of a waste of time than looking at the first few links after a search. In fact, it might save you some time if you are already at the Wikipedia page to get a general idea on the subject.
Are you serious? I can download that same 'entire season of Lost or 24 or Galactica' in less than 2 hours if you can download it in a day. What's even better, is that I don't have to click 'download' and then watch it tomorrow, I can *stream* it right now. That is, i can download it in less time than it takes to watch it, and therefore, i can watch it while it is downloading (via Netflix).
You can't say something is fast just because it is faster than it was at one time. My windows 3.1 machine has more processing power than the ENIAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eniac/). Does that mean that my windows 3.1 machine is at all powerful? No.
Your internet sucks. Yeah, it's faster than dial-up, but that's about it.
Are you on crack?
Lets look at the numbers:
There were 17,034 murders in 2006 in the United States. (source)
We don't know how many of these were gun related, and the same gun could be used for more than one death. But for the sake of argument (and to make you look just a little less like a moron) we'll assume that 17,034 different guns killed 17,034 people.
"The net of civilian guns made available for use is about 68.6 million guns over a 14 year period, for an average of 4.9 million guns per year." (source)
That's just how many new guns were made and given to civilians. That doesn't count the tens of millions of guns that were purchased years before.
So if, as you say, "95% of guns kill people illegally", then last year about 4,655,000 people in the U.S. died from being shot by a gun. Which is odd, because I thought there were about 17,000 people murdered... hmmm...
From my calculations, a very, very high estimate of the percentage of guns that are used to kill people is 0.34%, as in about 1/3 of 1%.