its just a fancy name for "reasoning" and you do reasoning every single day
And don't forget that this kind of reasoning has very loose checks. It's not like programming where changing a comma for a semicolon will change everything.
In philosophy you can be so obscure that anybody may interpret it their own way, and if somebody challenges the precision of your logic you can answer "oh, you know what I mean" and get away with it.
I could never get the hang of Dolphin, never found anything it could do better than Konqueror.
Konqueror's only problem, IMHO, is the way it handles Javascript. If they backported the improvements done to KHTML into it that would make an awesome product.
For instance, when I browse a directory with Konqueror, in KDE 3.5 I could click on a picture and it sould be shown in full size. OK, I can still do that, but in KDE 3.5 there would be a couple of arrows in the tool bar to move to the next or previous photo. In KDE 4 I must re-open the directory with Gwenview to do that and then I lose all the convenience of Konqueror.
Konqueror until KDE 3 was the greatest desktop app ever created, it was perfect for navigating both local and remote files. I wonder why the hell were they smoking when they thought it would be a good idea to fuck up Konqueror.
Came here to say that. The easiest way to program an EPROM today without a legacy programmer would be to put it into a breadboard and use an Arduino.
I used to have a universal programmer like the one he wants, but it ran off an ISA card in a PC, it stopped working when my last 486 PC gave up the ghost.
By coincidence, it was only last week that I found some old spare EPROMS for a custom-built equipment we used to have where I work. Just for curiosity, I wanted to read their content. I wired an Arduino to read them, just a few minutes work.
There are a couple good videos on youtube, if you want to go digging for them, of pilots demonstrating what happens when a laser hits the acrylic canopy of a helicopter
Now let's see a video showing how do you track a moving aircraft with a laser. You are several miles away, the laser power is a few milliwatts, you'd need a powerful telescope to see the spot it's hitting. Since cheap lasers don't have such a good collimation the spot will increase with distance, it would probably be bigger than the whole helicopter at a distance of a mile. Now consider a power of a few milliwatts spread over that area, even in a perfectly dark night you'd need some sort of night vision equipment to see it.
All that just to know where you are aiming your laser. Now let's get with the task of tracking a moving aircraft.
I don't think any pilot has ever seen more than a very brief flash from a laser. It seems bright because it's coming from a tiny spot, but the intensity and duration are not enough to cause any vision impairment, either instantly or as after effects. The worst that could happen would be to startle the pilot a bit, but if he's easily startled he's not a good pilot to start with.
Mother nature is a bitch. As far as anyone knows, there's no model that could possibly take into account radioactive decay. It's not that a model hasn't been found, but they have almost certainly proved experimentally that no model could possibly exist.
Each atom of any given isotope of rubidium acts the same as any other regardless of circumstances
Tell that to an atom of Rubidium 86. No one knows when a radioactive atom will break apart, but in a large enough number of Rb86 atoms half of them will turn into Sr86 atoms through beta decay during a period of 18.6 days.
Nice analogy, but physicist don't have to worry that the CEO molecule in an apple might die.
That's only because the CEO model isn't accurate enough.
If you replace a tungsten atom for a rubidium atom in a molecule the properties of that molecule will be different. However, once you are aware of the critical difference in atomic number, replacing one rubidium atom by another one will give exactly the same result. Or maybe you even need to use another atom of the exact same isotope, that could happen in some cases. When you have the system correctly modeled you know which parameters you may change and which ones you must preserve.
If economists understood their systems as well as chemists do they would be able to point which characteristics a person must have to be an effective CEO for a given corporation. The fact that they cannot do that only means their current models are wrong or inaccurate, not that it's impossible to use statistical models to study the behavior of people.
The First Amendment says, among other things, "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting... the right of the people peaceably to assemble".
A corporation is an assembly of people. If it's legal for one person to make financial contributions to a politician, or to hold property, be it material or intellectual, it should be legal for a group of people assembled to do the same.
If you aren't satisfied with the way corporations act because they are too powerful, well that's how things happen in life. A group of people united for a purpose are more powerful than a person acting alone.
Corporations do not have personhood or rights by themselves, but they represent their shareholders. It would be insane to say that you have a right to speak whatever you want, but only if you spoke alone, if other people agree with you then your right to free speech does not exist.
A corporation is just that, a group of people who have agreed to act together for a specific purpose.
What you guys don't realize is that there are no activities that aren't regulated today. Everything any company does is subject to regulations at all levels of government.
When you say "activity X should be regulated" what you really mean is that "current regulations for activity X aren't working".
That's true only for very high values of certain point.
If you want to work in the space industry as an engineer, the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation will show you how the odds are stacked. To get anything into orbit with rockets you need a mass ration of something like 40:1, that is the propellant you need to carry weighs forty times everything else: engines, tanks, payload, etc.
You cannot fine tune a system to that level with gut feelings alone, you must do a lot of calculations. It is rocket science, you know.
Of course, practical experience is also a must, but experience will never bring you the theoretical knowledge you need. Without an engineering degree you can still rise to the top of the industry as a manager, of course, but that's not engineering.
Without an engineering degree you may still build great rockets, but they will be rockets designed by someone else. You will not be the creator, only the hired hand labor.
The Beagle board is ARM. I mentioned it just because it was the first that came to my mind, but there's also FriendlyARM and perhaps other systems that I haven't heard of yet. FriendlyARM was created as a development system for Android, so it has a lot of capability.
The only interesting feature I can see for the Jumentum is it being single-chip. The lack of a decent operating system would be a no-go for most users. Without an OS it's nothing more than an Arduino on steroids and without a decent programming language it's actually less than an Arduino.
If you are looking for a small mobo with Linux perhaps your best choice woud be the Beagle board.
For lower capabilities, Arduino would be the obvious choice, it's programmed in C, using gcc.
I don't see too much in this Jumentum, offering a web server in a chip is interesting, but this capability has been available in small chipsets (not single chips) for Atmel or Microchip PICs for years. If I needed that capability right now I'd probably go for an Arduino with ethernet.
Apart from this, Jumentum is a poor name choice, "jumento" means donkey in Portuguese.
You can detect movement with relation to an absolute reference frame, indicated by the cosmic background. The observer who's moving will observe a blue-shifted cosmic radiation towards one side and red-shifted to the opposite side.
The only way this might be possible is to accurately virtualize every atom in a living organism,
What you are saying is that by removing one single atom from your organism you will cease to form any new ideas or concepts.
No, virtualizing atoms is not necessary, virtualizing neurons is enough. The only reason why it hasn't been done until now is because there are about a hundred billion neurons in a human brain.
But we are getting there, you should be more careful with that smug superiority of yours, because it seems like you are the one having trouble in forming new ideas and concepts...
When someone starts a sentence with those words he's almost certainly wrong.
Or do you get off on watching the same tedious old arguments go round and round in circles yet again...
Not me. I just wonder why so many people get off on complaining about the same tedious old problems round and round yet again. Microsoft sucks. Period. Why do you people still wonder How Windows Gets Infected With Malware?
Imagine if in the 1960s everyone knew the reasons people had to drive Chevrolet Corvairs...
The Junkers Jumo engines in WWII had opposed pistons, they were the only diesel aircraft engines that I know of, at least in large production scale. Ironically, the British Napier Deltic engines were licensed technology from Junkers, perhaps one of the last technology transfer agreements between both countries before the war.
Opposed pistons are very interesting in that they can have a large compression ratio without increasing weight too much, because they do not need cylinder heads. That's how they could get a diesel engine lightweight enough to power an aircraft.
However, differently from the engine mentioned in TFA, Junkers and Napier made two-stroke engines. Opposed pistons allow one to build a low-pollution two-stroke engine, because the pistons don't run exactly opposite each other. The piston on the side that has the exhaust port reaches the bottom end before the admission port side piston.
I think that, from an engineering POV, the Junkers Jumo/Napier Deltic is one of the most interesting concepts that have been invented and abandoned. I know the Deltic engine had reliability problems due to its triangular configuration, it was difficult to get proper cooling in the core of the triangle, but the linear Jumo design has no intrinsic faults that I can think of and had lots of advantages. It had two crankshafts, true, but that's nothing compared to the complexity of modern motors.
Slashdot Mirror
its just a fancy name for "reasoning" and you do reasoning every single day
And don't forget that this kind of reasoning has very loose checks. It's not like programming where changing a comma for a semicolon will change everything.
In philosophy you can be so obscure that anybody may interpret it their own way, and if somebody challenges the precision of your logic you can answer "oh, you know what I mean" and get away with it.
Carter had been greatly influenced by a sermon he had heard as a young man, called, "If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?"
Jimmy Carter is a, let's say,"complex" subject.
In the real axis he's a nuclear engineer. In the imaginary axis he's a Baptist preacher.
I could never get the hang of Dolphin, never found anything it could do better than Konqueror.
Konqueror's only problem, IMHO, is the way it handles Javascript. If they backported the improvements done to KHTML into it that would make an awesome product.
kde4 apps matured
And still haven't reached the level of KDE 3.5
For instance, when I browse a directory with Konqueror, in KDE 3.5 I could click on a picture and it sould be shown in full size. OK, I can still do that, but in KDE 3.5 there would be a couple of arrows in the tool bar to move to the next or previous photo. In KDE 4 I must re-open the directory with Gwenview to do that and then I lose all the convenience of Konqueror.
Konqueror until KDE 3 was the greatest desktop app ever created, it was perfect for navigating both local and remote files. I wonder why the hell were they smoking when they thought it would be a good idea to fuck up Konqueror.
Came here to say that. The easiest way to program an EPROM today without a legacy programmer would be to put it into a breadboard and use an Arduino.
I used to have a universal programmer like the one he wants, but it ran off an ISA card in a PC, it stopped working when my last 486 PC gave up the ghost.
By coincidence, it was only last week that I found some old spare EPROMS for a custom-built equipment we used to have where I work. Just for curiosity, I wanted to read their content. I wired an Arduino to read them, just a few minutes work.
kids in the poverty stricken immigrant areas were shining green lasers at policemen and firefighters (after starting fires on purpose).
Kids are committing arson and they worry about 5mW lasers? They got their priorities fucked up in Sweden.
However, hand-held lasers can easily be powerful enough to permanently blind someone
Same as a toothpick if you poke someone in the eye. Are you suggesting we should regulate the sale of toothpicks?
The UK are making great progress on identifying and tracking attacks
They are making great progress in "tracking" a "suspect" in a contrived demonstration. Have they ever actually caught someone?
There are a couple good videos on youtube, if you want to go digging for them, of pilots demonstrating what happens when a laser hits the acrylic canopy of a helicopter
Now let's see a video showing how do you track a moving aircraft with a laser. You are several miles away, the laser power is a few milliwatts, you'd need a powerful telescope to see the spot it's hitting. Since cheap lasers don't have such a good collimation the spot will increase with distance, it would probably be bigger than the whole helicopter at a distance of a mile. Now consider a power of a few milliwatts spread over that area, even in a perfectly dark night you'd need some sort of night vision equipment to see it.
All that just to know where you are aiming your laser. Now let's get with the task of tracking a moving aircraft.
I don't think any pilot has ever seen more than a very brief flash from a laser. It seems bright because it's coming from a tiny spot, but the intensity and duration are not enough to cause any vision impairment, either instantly or as after effects. The worst that could happen would be to startle the pilot a bit, but if he's easily startled he's not a good pilot to start with.
Mother nature is a bitch. As far as anyone knows, there's no model that could possibly take into account radioactive decay. It's not that a model hasn't been found, but they have almost certainly proved experimentally that no model could possibly exist.
Each atom of any given isotope of rubidium acts the same as any other regardless of circumstances
Tell that to an atom of Rubidium 86. No one knows when a radioactive atom will break apart, but in a large enough number of Rb86 atoms half of them will turn into Sr86 atoms through beta decay during a period of 18.6 days.
So you are claiming that the corporations for which people work speak for them, and agree 100% with the employees' views?
Do you speak for your housekeeper and agree 100% with her views? I don't think so.
Corporations are an assembly of their shareholders, not of their employees.
Nice analogy, but physicist don't have to worry that the CEO molecule in an apple might die.
That's only because the CEO model isn't accurate enough.
If you replace a tungsten atom for a rubidium atom in a molecule the properties of that molecule will be different. However, once you are aware of the critical difference in atomic number, replacing one rubidium atom by another one will give exactly the same result. Or maybe you even need to use another atom of the exact same isotope, that could happen in some cases. When you have the system correctly modeled you know which parameters you may change and which ones you must preserve.
If economists understood their systems as well as chemists do they would be able to point which characteristics a person must have to be an effective CEO for a given corporation. The fact that they cannot do that only means their current models are wrong or inaccurate, not that it's impossible to use statistical models to study the behavior of people.
The First Amendment says, among other things, "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble".
A corporation is an assembly of people. If it's legal for one person to make financial contributions to a politician, or to hold property, be it material or intellectual, it should be legal for a group of people assembled to do the same.
If you aren't satisfied with the way corporations act because they are too powerful, well that's how things happen in life. A group of people united for a purpose are more powerful than a person acting alone.
Corporations do not have personhood or rights by themselves, but they represent their shareholders. It would be insane to say that you have a right to speak whatever you want, but only if you spoke alone, if other people agree with you then your right to free speech does not exist.
A corporation is just that, a group of people who have agreed to act together for a specific purpose.
Wouldn't a punishment that's applied only to one form of crime fall under the Eight Amendment?
Chill, dude. The market isn't so bad as that.
What you guys don't realize is that there are no activities that aren't regulated today. Everything any company does is subject to regulations at all levels of government.
When you say "activity X should be regulated" what you really mean is that "current regulations for activity X aren't working".
Schooling is worthless beyond a certain point
That's true only for very high values of certain point.
If you want to work in the space industry as an engineer, the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation will show you how the odds are stacked. To get anything into orbit with rockets you need a mass ration of something like 40:1, that is the propellant you need to carry weighs forty times everything else: engines, tanks, payload, etc.
You cannot fine tune a system to that level with gut feelings alone, you must do a lot of calculations. It is rocket science, you know.
Of course, practical experience is also a must, but experience will never bring you the theoretical knowledge you need. Without an engineering degree you can still rise to the top of the industry as a manager, of course, but that's not engineering.
Without an engineering degree you may still build great rockets, but they will be rockets designed by someone else. You will not be the creator, only the hired hand labor.
Until some genius^H^H^H^H^H^Hhacker photographs a photograph.
Good point. And it dispels any reason to believe film cameras are safe from digital hacking as well.
Do all the photoshopping you want, print it, photograph it. There, you have evidence captured on film.
The Beagle board is ARM. I mentioned it just because it was the first that came to my mind, but there's also FriendlyARM and perhaps other systems that I haven't heard of yet. FriendlyARM was created as a development system for Android, so it has a lot of capability.
The only interesting feature I can see for the Jumentum is it being single-chip. The lack of a decent operating system would be a no-go for most users. Without an OS it's nothing more than an Arduino on steroids and without a decent programming language it's actually less than an Arduino.
If you are looking for a small mobo with Linux perhaps your best choice woud be the Beagle board.
For lower capabilities, Arduino would be the obvious choice, it's programmed in C, using gcc.
I don't see too much in this Jumentum, offering a web server in a chip is interesting, but this capability has been available in small chipsets (not single chips) for Atmel or Microchip PICs for years. If I needed that capability right now I'd probably go for an Arduino with ethernet.
Apart from this, Jumentum is a poor name choice, "jumento" means donkey in Portuguese.
There is a similar effect regarding translation in the Cosmic Microwave Background.
You can detect movement with relation to an absolute reference frame, indicated by the cosmic background. The observer who's moving will observe a blue-shifted cosmic radiation towards one side and red-shifted to the opposite side.
Linear motion isn't relative either.
I was the only survivor as I happened to be exploring some very deep natural caverns at the time.
Liar! I was the only survivor! I was exploring some very deep natural caverns at the time and I found this hot virgin girl down there.
You all are just a natural consequence of that.
The only way this might be possible is to accurately virtualize every atom in a living organism,
What you are saying is that by removing one single atom from your organism you will cease to form any new ideas or concepts.
No, virtualizing atoms is not necessary, virtualizing neurons is enough. The only reason why it hasn't been done until now is because there are about a hundred billion neurons in a human brain.
But we are getting there, you should be more careful with that smug superiority of yours, because it seems like you are the one having trouble in forming new ideas and concepts...
Everyone knows
When someone starts a sentence with those words he's almost certainly wrong.
Or do you get off on watching the same tedious old arguments go round and round in circles yet again...
Not me. I just wonder why so many people get off on complaining about the same tedious old problems round and round yet again. Microsoft sucks. Period. Why do you people still wonder How Windows Gets Infected With Malware?
Imagine if in the 1960s everyone knew the reasons people had to drive Chevrolet Corvairs...
The Junkers Jumo engines in WWII had opposed pistons, they were the only diesel aircraft engines that I know of, at least in large production scale. Ironically, the British Napier Deltic engines were licensed technology from Junkers, perhaps one of the last technology transfer agreements between both countries before the war.
Opposed pistons are very interesting in that they can have a large compression ratio without increasing weight too much, because they do not need cylinder heads. That's how they could get a diesel engine lightweight enough to power an aircraft.
However, differently from the engine mentioned in TFA, Junkers and Napier made two-stroke engines. Opposed pistons allow one to build a low-pollution two-stroke engine, because the pistons don't run exactly opposite each other. The piston on the side that has the exhaust port reaches the bottom end before the admission port side piston.
I think that, from an engineering POV, the Junkers Jumo/Napier Deltic is one of the most interesting concepts that have been invented and abandoned. I know the Deltic engine had reliability problems due to its triangular configuration, it was difficult to get proper cooling in the core of the triangle, but the linear Jumo design has no intrinsic faults that I can think of and had lots of advantages. It had two crankshafts, true, but that's nothing compared to the complexity of modern motors.