Using just the signature, it would be more correct to say: Nothing Exploded, then, it was the beginning. The explosion marked the beginning. Before that, as far as anyone can tell, there was nothing at all - though of course nothing is much harder to define when all the laws of physics we use to try to explain things were batshit crazy at that relative time - and at that point, even time didn't exist.
Yes, but the recent few weeks seems to be US looking out for US - by trumpeting an ever-growing tirade against China across a number of political fields - manufacture, technology (hacking) and a bunch of others. The last time the US seemed to do this with such fervor, they invaded Iraq a few months later. The time before that, it built up to the war in Afghanistan. I typically don't worry too much about the US bitching about this or that, but when it reaches a critical level, bad things seem to happen in quick succession - and that makes me worried.
To me, this sort of win, the power that it gives them to promote and further the gains that they stand for is likely to have a MUCH bigger impact on the actual lives of their constituents than all the Occupy movements put together. Recently in Australian politics, the Green Senators have shown themselves to be a wonderful constant badgering voice calling Bullshit when needed and keeping the government here in check. I can't help but hope that the Pirate Party in Australia has similar success.
why build one when you can have two at twice the price?
Because this isn't a Jodie Foster movie based on a book by Carl Sagan, and because in the scientific world we generally have to make do with less money than we want and do twice as much with it. Secondly, because you are not doubling the chances to succeed. To use a car analogy, you don't need two cars to drive you from here to the shops, in fact you can't drive both cars there. Whether the SKA is in Australia or in South Africa doesn't mean that we would get "twice as much data" or "twice as good" data. We would get the same data twice, which is a terrific waste of money.
I sort of agree, but have this to add - From the article, the scientific panel had "no enormous preference for one over the other". To me, it means that both sites are good, fit the needs of the SKA and would work well. While I haven't read the recommendations in all their lengthy glory, I sort of get the feeling that both locations are well suited to the needs.
Given that, it is actually political correctness that comes down to the final choice being made. You are absolutely right in the fact that this is a 50 year project. If both geographic locations fit the needs, then the final choice will rely on what political aspects of the locations can cause problems somewhere in the next fifty years. Will both countries be politically stable for the next half century? Will there be religious stability, will there be stability in infrastructure, are political relations with all the SKA members likely to stay on friendly terms?
Given the large financial investment in the SKA, you really need to ensure the place you build it will be the best overall location, not just the one that has a fraction better INSERT SOMETHING that makes the scientics go "Ooohhhh" just that little touch longer. They need to be able to use the facilities for the entire length of the project in the best possible means. Having a location that is 0.12% better in terms of measurable 3 doesn't mean that much if the folks running the show have to be evacuated due to a political influence, or they run out of electricity, or some other potentially foreseeable event occurs.
I can't help but think that this is wonderful that the Hebrew University of Jerusalem went out and did this. I am sure that they are riding the good PR wave and all, but it is a wonderful thing to have someone in this day and age find funds to make something and give it away for free. Truly wonderful.
they were the rudest bunch of people i've ever met for interviews. was told i'd be contacted for a second interview, but it never came...... but i was expecting to either hear that i was turned down, or given an offer to turn down myself.
I don't think that this is indicative of just this company, but a trend of many companies who are mismanaged. If the senior management is not able to ensure that senior staff are higly motivated and proactive, then this sadly cannot be passed further down the structure. I have noticed this happening in a number of companies and think it is a case of focusing too much on the unimportant (but visible/KPI-able) things and not worrying too much about the actual business/greater good. I see more and more governments/politicians/businesses thinking short term, tracking their KPIs and really having no-one at the helm or taking strong leadership. I think this trend in the last few years has become more and more visible where the measure of a person's ability to do their job is split up into little bite size chunks that can be measured - and people work on making them look good, but the overall business/government/etc suffers as there isn't really a simple KPI to measure overall performance.
I also think that this same problem lies with Elsevier. Too much focus has been placed on making sure that profits go up each quarter and too little is placed on long term viability. Being jerks like this, in the short term will generate more money as people will have less and less options to get access to data/journals, however in the long term, they are alienating their users and by the looks of it, the folks that are publishing these papers. I would bet that if you looked at individual KPIs for the folks at Elsevier, they are all meeting their targets and look fantastic on paper even though they are potentially killing the company.
Indeed, it seems to be too blatant an abuse for Apple to do. Then again, considering some of the rank amatuer moves done by big music, I can't say that I would be totally stunned if it were indeed that blatant a move on Apples part.
I think he's the real life version of Gaius Baltar. Do whatever will get you popular and get you women.
That might be the case, but even though Baltar was a whore for popularity and generally spineless, he served humanity well when it was needed and although not all people liked him for the most part (in the show and in the audience) he played an important part in making things better.
I don't care if the guy sleeps with a newly imported Swedish prostitue (sorry, friend) each night. If he brings some accountability and causes the Australian government to go in a better direction, then I can't say that I am anything but delighted. I don't care what the hell politicians do once they are off the clock - I want my politicians to work and do their best for me as a faceless, anonymous member of the public.
I recall seeing a show on the space race where the US boys were scheduled to have become the first men in space, but the launch was postponed for a week or so over safety concerns. In that time the Russians launched their own ship and beat the US to a man in space.
The United States called their space travelers astronauts ("star sailors" from the Greek), and it was 3 weeks later, on 5 May 1961, when Alan Shepard became the first one in space, launched on a suborbital mission Mercury-Redstone 3, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7.
Is there any advantage to sending a person? Does that accomplish anything more than just doing it? I'm all for research and exploration I just don't see the point in wasting resources on sustaining a person until we have technology which makes it more practical.
Well, given the time frame that they are setting, and the work that they are doing towards manned flight such as the Mars500 there does seem to be some hope for getting a small "colony" working and fairly self reliable. Would it be better if they had a precanned fusion reactor to go with it, ready to accept He3 and provide all the power they could ever use? Sure - although they can still go there without it.
But who knows what you will find out when you send folks to places that you wouldn't find out by sending a robot.
It will be good to finally get back to the moon. Can't wait to find out in what ways it's changed since the last time we visited.
Actually a lot has changed since we last visited - sort of. When the first moon landings happened, the technology that folks were able to take down to the surface was exceptionally limited. This means that any landings in the future will be able to carry out experiments that could have only been dreamed about in the 60s. SO, while things on the moon itself may not have changed, we are probably still going to learn a vast amount for the first time.
Besides, perhaps this is just the embarassment that the US space program needs to get some funding again.
Consumers don't get a fucking choice of carriers in most of the USA.
I hear this all the time. How come there is so little choice in the US? Is there some legal reason that stops a company opening shop and selling bandwidth? I mean even in Australia there is a LOT of choice when it comes to who you get your internet from. Here, I can have my phone with one company, but have DSL on the line with another company - is that not the case in the US?
Having said that, Cable is very limited, due to the low quantity of physical cable connections, most pay TV here is sold via a satellite service.
Can anyone find any other sources on this? I used to believe teens had the fastest raw reaction time of any age group, but I'm unable to find any support for this.
I don't have any links to references, but I can tell you that my mindest has changed competely in gaming from when I was a youngster in the early days, to now when I am in my early thirties. In terms of game theory, you might say that as a gamer I have become more "FTW". If I see someone in a group, be it a party in an online game, or a teammate in a fps, who is doing something stupid and will die - but not cost the team too much, I will let them die, happily knowing that their death didn't cause the group to fold, where in my youth I would have probably gone running off to save them - and likely cost our group/team two members.
I used to think that a successful raid/game was one where no teammates died when I was young. Now I look on a successful raid/game as one where my side meets the objectives (whether it be killing all the other players or performing the right strategy to kill the boss encounter). Yes, somewhat older folks have a different outlook - I think we play the game to win the game rather than being so engaged in the game to be emotionally connected enough to do dumb shit.
Full Disclosure: I was part of a server leading World of Warcraft guild for a number of years (I have since quit to focus on the real world), I played Conan Online, LoTR Online, Warhammer Online. Star Wars Galaxies, D&D Online, Ultima Online, Quake 2+ Unreal + UT and have been a developer working for Epic designing environments.
Older is colder, but often better and almost always craftier. Younger is faster, but often doing dumb shit - and unpredictable. If you learn that for yourself, you will do well in life.
11pm or 11am? What time zone? What channel? Don't they have an online feed? Why film?
See, if you knew the other AC personally, you would know that it was 11PM, on 102 and it was EST. You would also know that there is no online feed and that it is a film because it is film night - time to cozy down on the lounge with the significant other.
However, seeing as you are new to the team here, keep wasting time asking those stupid questions and making our team lose. Thanks for you effort.
Nice, haven't had a laugh listening to bollocks like that for a while. I would hate to stand between him and an episode of Ancient Aliens though, I reckon he would hit pretty hard and hustle like a pro.
I guess the geek side of me went "cool, I want to talk to these guys".
The geek side of me thinks that if you truly are a geek, chances are that these folks would give you a wedgie, take your lunch money and play "Why did you smack yourself?" with you.
Haven't you always wondered if Neanderthals would see you as a fellow (albeit weird) "person"?
Two things come to mind, one serious and one funny. Firstly, if you want to meet a Neanderthal, start following Rugby and try to chat to this french player heh. Secondly, if you do a google search for sub-human, you will find a multitude of articles (especially around WW2) where one bunch thought another bunch was sub-human. You even end up with folks like "Shiro Ishii. We already see enough differences between us and we are the same species to do horrid things to one another. I would hate to see what we would do if we had a scientific basis for actually being different. (I use we here as a general humanity, not individuals.)
You see that as evil. Most see it as proper application of the free market.
Oh no, I wasn't posting that saying that it was "evil" as such. In fact, I think it a wonderful strategy on the part of the Chinese. It might not be particularily "playing nice" but world trade and playing nice are not supposed to be said in the same speech.
I only posted that to provide more information to the posts above, which were lacking in any sort of meat but seemed full of condiments.
China is just a little bitch that doesn't have the balls to float their currency.
That is the stupidest comment I have read in a while. China is not floating its currency due to the fact that if it did, it would rise much much higher than it currently is. In fact, the Chinese currency is holding up the US dollar due to being tied to it.
China doesn't want to float its currency as a much higher value would be very detrimental to their current position as "cheap". There are numerous estimates online that their currency is significantly (warning, PDF) undervalued by as much as 50%. If you want to see what happened the last time that China uncoupled fro the US Dollar, see Fig 1 on page 7 of the PDF. It doesn't paint a pretty picture for the US dollar at all.
So no offence, but rather than mocking the Chinese, you should be thanking them for keeping their currency tied to the US dollar.
The first part involved the actual dumping and eliminating competition.
Indeed. For many years there were multiple export nations selling Rare Earth Minerals. For many years, as the demand was quite low they all sold their goods to a small market. However, when the demand started to rise, China did something that the other players didn't see coming. They started to seriously undercut the prices of competitors. Other mines such as Mountain Pass were run out of business - and due to political pressures on the environmental damage that was being caused. When China became pretty much the only place left selling any reasonable quantities of REM, they bumped the price up by orders of magnitude. This coupled with much higher (and still growing) demand for them makes it a wonderful masterstroke. They then further used it when an incident with Japan caused political turmoil between the two nations - by blocking sales to Japan completely.
While it is possible (and being done) to re-open the old mines and cease the monopoly that is currently held, it takes time to get these things up and running. Even then, China does hold a very major share of known REM reserves, so unless another (very) major deposit is found, it is likely that China will continue to hold an interesting political/trade card to play whenever it wants to.
even if it's then ignored, is a huge step forwards.
That depends on the purpose of putting him into that role. If the purpose is to get input from someone who is actually trying to make things better, then it is a good thing. If the purpose is merely to appease the masses by putting in someone and then not listening to a thing they say - just to have the appearance of trying to make things better, then it is worse than not putting him into that role at all.
Sorry for the half empty tone here, it's been a frustrating day for me.
I find some of the timelines funny. Altavista returned better search results by far than Yahoo did (early mid nineties) but it ended up being gobbled up by Yahoo anyhow, due to the vast cash they had. Now, Yahoo is a long way down struggle street and they are suing Facebook for lack of other straws to clutch at.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what was there prior to the Big Bang?
Using just the signature, it would be more correct to say: Nothing Exploded, then, it was the beginning. The explosion marked the beginning. Before that, as far as anyone can tell, there was nothing at all - though of course nothing is much harder to define when all the laws of physics we use to try to explain things were batshit crazy at that relative time - and at that point, even time didn't exist.
China looks out for China, nobody else.
Yes, but the recent few weeks seems to be US looking out for US - by trumpeting an ever-growing tirade against China across a number of political fields - manufacture, technology (hacking) and a bunch of others. The last time the US seemed to do this with such fervor, they invaded Iraq a few months later. The time before that, it built up to the war in Afghanistan. I typically don't worry too much about the US bitching about this or that, but when it reaches a critical level, bad things seem to happen in quick succession - and that makes me worried.
To me, this sort of win, the power that it gives them to promote and further the gains that they stand for is likely to have a MUCH bigger impact on the actual lives of their constituents than all the Occupy movements put together. Recently in Australian politics, the Green Senators have shown themselves to be a wonderful constant badgering voice calling Bullshit when needed and keeping the government here in check. I can't help but hope that the Pirate Party in Australia has similar success.
why build one when you can have two at twice the price?
Because this isn't a Jodie Foster movie based on a book by Carl Sagan, and because in the scientific world we generally have to make do with less money than we want and do twice as much with it. Secondly, because you are not doubling the chances to succeed. To use a car analogy, you don't need two cars to drive you from here to the shops, in fact you can't drive both cars there. Whether the SKA is in Australia or in South Africa doesn't mean that we would get "twice as much data" or "twice as good" data. We would get the same data twice, which is a terrific waste of money.
I sort of agree, but have this to add - From the article, the scientific panel had "no enormous preference for one over the other". To me, it means that both sites are good, fit the needs of the SKA and would work well. While I haven't read the recommendations in all their lengthy glory, I sort of get the feeling that both locations are well suited to the needs.
Given that, it is actually political correctness that comes down to the final choice being made. You are absolutely right in the fact that this is a 50 year project. If both geographic locations fit the needs, then the final choice will rely on what political aspects of the locations can cause problems somewhere in the next fifty years. Will both countries be politically stable for the next half century? Will there be religious stability, will there be stability in infrastructure, are political relations with all the SKA members likely to stay on friendly terms?
Given the large financial investment in the SKA, you really need to ensure the place you build it will be the best overall location, not just the one that has a fraction better INSERT SOMETHING that makes the scientics go "Ooohhhh" just that little touch longer. They need to be able to use the facilities for the entire length of the project in the best possible means. Having a location that is 0.12% better in terms of measurable 3 doesn't mean that much if the folks running the show have to be evacuated due to a political influence, or they run out of electricity, or some other potentially foreseeable event occurs.
I can't help but think that this is wonderful that the Hebrew University of Jerusalem went out and did this. I am sure that they are riding the good PR wave and all, but it is a wonderful thing to have someone in this day and age find funds to make something and give it away for free. Truly wonderful.
they were the rudest bunch of people i've ever met for interviews. was told i'd be contacted for a second interview, but it never came. ..... but i was expecting to either hear that i was turned down, or given an offer to turn down myself.
I don't think that this is indicative of just this company, but a trend of many companies who are mismanaged. If the senior management is not able to ensure that senior staff are higly motivated and proactive, then this sadly cannot be passed further down the structure. I have noticed this happening in a number of companies and think it is a case of focusing too much on the unimportant (but visible/KPI-able) things and not worrying too much about the actual business/greater good. I see more and more governments/politicians/businesses thinking short term, tracking their KPIs and really having no-one at the helm or taking strong leadership. I think this trend in the last few years has become more and more visible where the measure of a person's ability to do their job is split up into little bite size chunks that can be measured - and people work on making them look good, but the overall business/government/etc suffers as there isn't really a simple KPI to measure overall performance.
I also think that this same problem lies with Elsevier. Too much focus has been placed on making sure that profits go up each quarter and too little is placed on long term viability. Being jerks like this, in the short term will generate more money as people will have less and less options to get access to data/journals, however in the long term, they are alienating their users and by the looks of it, the folks that are publishing these papers. I would bet that if you looked at individual KPIs for the folks at Elsevier, they are all meeting their targets and look fantastic on paper even though they are potentially killing the company.
I can't imagine Apple itself just stole that IP.
Indeed, it seems to be too blatant an abuse for Apple to do. Then again, considering some of the rank amatuer moves done by big music, I can't say that I would be totally stunned if it were indeed that blatant a move on Apples part.
I think he's the real life version of Gaius Baltar. Do whatever will get you popular and get you women.
That might be the case, but even though Baltar was a whore for popularity and generally spineless, he served humanity well when it was needed and although not all people liked him for the most part (in the show and in the audience) he played an important part in making things better.
I don't care if the guy sleeps with a newly imported Swedish prostitue (sorry, friend) each night. If he brings some accountability and causes the Australian government to go in a better direction, then I can't say that I am anything but delighted. I don't care what the hell politicians do once they are off the clock - I want my politicians to work and do their best for me as a faceless, anonymous member of the public.
I recall seeing a show on the space race where the US boys were scheduled to have become the first men in space, but the launch was postponed for a week or so over safety concerns. In that time the Russians launched their own ship and beat the US to a man in space.
The United States called their space travelers astronauts ("star sailors" from the Greek), and it was 3 weeks later, on 5 May 1961, when Alan Shepard became the first one in space, launched on a suborbital mission Mercury-Redstone 3, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7.
From The Space Race.
While there are always volunteers to do things, they have a pretty decent record of only letting them do it if they feel it is safe enough.
Is there any advantage to sending a person? Does that accomplish anything more than just doing it? I'm all for research and exploration I just don't see the point in wasting resources on sustaining a person until we have technology which makes it more practical.
Well, given the time frame that they are setting, and the work that they are doing towards manned flight such as the Mars500 there does seem to be some hope for getting a small "colony" working and fairly self reliable. Would it be better if they had a precanned fusion reactor to go with it, ready to accept He3 and provide all the power they could ever use? Sure - although they can still go there without it.
But who knows what you will find out when you send folks to places that you wouldn't find out by sending a robot.
It will be good to finally get back to the moon. Can't wait to find out in what ways it's changed since the last time we visited.
Actually a lot has changed since we last visited - sort of. When the first moon landings happened, the technology that folks were able to take down to the surface was exceptionally limited. This means that any landings in the future will be able to carry out experiments that could have only been dreamed about in the 60s. SO, while things on the moon itself may not have changed, we are probably still going to learn a vast amount for the first time.
Besides, perhaps this is just the embarassment that the US space program needs to get some funding again.
Consumers don't get a fucking choice of carriers in most of the USA.
I hear this all the time. How come there is so little choice in the US? Is there some legal reason that stops a company opening shop and selling bandwidth? I mean even in Australia there is a LOT of choice when it comes to who you get your internet from. Here, I can have my phone with one company, but have DSL on the line with another company - is that not the case in the US?
Having said that, Cable is very limited, due to the low quantity of physical cable connections, most pay TV here is sold via a satellite service.
No, Maury was after my time there. I was there in the late nineties and early naughties.
Can anyone find any other sources on this? I used to believe teens had the fastest raw reaction time of any age group, but I'm unable to find any support for this.
I don't have any links to references, but I can tell you that my mindest has changed competely in gaming from when I was a youngster in the early days, to now when I am in my early thirties. In terms of game theory, you might say that as a gamer I have become more "FTW". If I see someone in a group, be it a party in an online game, or a teammate in a fps, who is doing something stupid and will die - but not cost the team too much, I will let them die, happily knowing that their death didn't cause the group to fold, where in my youth I would have probably gone running off to save them - and likely cost our group/team two members.
I used to think that a successful raid/game was one where no teammates died when I was young. Now I look on a successful raid/game as one where my side meets the objectives (whether it be killing all the other players or performing the right strategy to kill the boss encounter). Yes, somewhat older folks have a different outlook - I think we play the game to win the game rather than being so engaged in the game to be emotionally connected enough to do dumb shit.
Full Disclosure: I was part of a server leading World of Warcraft guild for a number of years (I have since quit to focus on the real world), I played Conan Online, LoTR Online, Warhammer Online. Star Wars Galaxies, D&D Online, Ultima Online, Quake 2+ Unreal + UT and have been a developer working for Epic designing environments.
Older is colder, but often better and almost always craftier. Younger is faster, but often doing dumb shit - and unpredictable. If you learn that for yourself, you will do well in life.
11pm or 11am? What time zone? What channel? Don't they have an online feed? Why film?
See, if you knew the other AC personally, you would know that it was 11PM, on 102 and it was EST. You would also know that there is no online feed and that it is a film because it is film night - time to cozy down on the lounge with the significant other.
However, seeing as you are new to the team here, keep wasting time asking those stupid questions and making our team lose. Thanks for you effort.
Nice, haven't had a laugh listening to bollocks like that for a while. I would hate to stand between him and an episode of Ancient Aliens though, I reckon he would hit pretty hard and hustle like a pro.
I guess the geek side of me went "cool, I want to talk to these guys".
The geek side of me thinks that if you truly are a geek, chances are that these folks would give you a wedgie, take your lunch money and play "Why did you smack yourself?" with you.
Haven't you always wondered if Neanderthals would see you as a fellow (albeit weird) "person"?
Two things come to mind, one serious and one funny. Firstly, if you want to meet a Neanderthal, start following Rugby and try to chat to this french player heh. Secondly, if you do a google search for sub-human, you will find a multitude of articles (especially around WW2) where one bunch thought another bunch was sub-human. You even end up with folks like "Shiro Ishii. We already see enough differences between us and we are the same species to do horrid things to one another. I would hate to see what we would do if we had a scientific basis for actually being different. (I use we here as a general humanity, not individuals.)
And nothing of value was lost..
Nothing to us, the sensible masses, but to the folks that invested half a million dollars, around a half million dollars of value was lost.
Chalk one up for the good guys.
I don't understand how adding a peripheral can make the machine "worse"?
The same way that a Mercedes with an attachment on the front to allow it to be pulled by horses isn't as good as one with a normal bumper bar.
Car Analogy, Check. Snideness, Check. Condescension, Check. Now time to get that coffee I deserve...
You see that as evil. Most see it as proper application of the free market.
Oh no, I wasn't posting that saying that it was "evil" as such. In fact, I think it a wonderful strategy on the part of the Chinese. It might not be particularily "playing nice" but world trade and playing nice are not supposed to be said in the same speech.
I only posted that to provide more information to the posts above, which were lacking in any sort of meat but seemed full of condiments.
China is just a little bitch that doesn't have the balls to float their currency.
That is the stupidest comment I have read in a while. China is not floating its currency due to the fact that if it did, it would rise much much higher than it currently is. In fact, the Chinese currency is holding up the US dollar due to being tied to it.
China doesn't want to float its currency as a much higher value would be very detrimental to their current position as "cheap". There are numerous estimates online that their currency is significantly (warning, PDF) undervalued by as much as 50%. If you want to see what happened the last time that China uncoupled fro the US Dollar, see Fig 1 on page 7 of the PDF. It doesn't paint a pretty picture for the US dollar at all.
So no offence, but rather than mocking the Chinese, you should be thanking them for keeping their currency tied to the US dollar.
The first part involved the actual dumping and eliminating competition.
Indeed. For many years there were multiple export nations selling Rare Earth Minerals. For many years, as the demand was quite low they all sold their goods to a small market. However, when the demand started to rise, China did something that the other players didn't see coming. They started to seriously undercut the prices of competitors. Other mines such as Mountain Pass were run out of business - and due to political pressures on the environmental damage that was being caused. When China became pretty much the only place left selling any reasonable quantities of REM, they bumped the price up by orders of magnitude. This coupled with much higher (and still growing) demand for them makes it a wonderful masterstroke. They then further used it when an incident with Japan caused political turmoil between the two nations - by blocking sales to Japan completely.
While it is possible (and being done) to re-open the old mines and cease the monopoly that is currently held, it takes time to get these things up and running. Even then, China does hold a very major share of known REM reserves, so unless another (very) major deposit is found, it is likely that China will continue to hold an interesting political/trade card to play whenever it wants to.
even if it's then ignored, is a huge step forwards.
That depends on the purpose of putting him into that role. If the purpose is to get input from someone who is actually trying to make things better, then it is a good thing. If the purpose is merely to appease the masses by putting in someone and then not listening to a thing they say - just to have the appearance of trying to make things better, then it is worse than not putting him into that role at all.
Sorry for the half empty tone here, it's been a frustrating day for me.
I find some of the timelines funny. Altavista returned better search results by far than Yahoo did (early mid nineties) but it ended up being gobbled up by Yahoo anyhow, due to the vast cash they had. Now, Yahoo is a long way down struggle street and they are suing Facebook for lack of other straws to clutch at.