Riight, a revolution in physics and technology that would rival quantum mechanics and the USAF is sitting on it and using it to mildly enhance a score of strategic bombers.
It seems pretty crazy to bring down a $2 billion aircraft because a single sensor was fouled. What happened to cross checking and redundancy? Free of errors it may be, but it's certainly not as resilient as I would expect.
On the other hand, you shouldn't just let it go if they break their word just because there's no binding contract with severe penalties. A company should keep their word, and if they break it, pointing that out to people and trying to convince them to take their business elsewhere is fitting punishment.
Because failure in a market where the most expensive component sells for $50 has everything to tell us about a completely unrelated market dealing with equipment costing tens of thousands of dollars.
If you or anyone else knows more about this, could you explain why this is done? If you can bend the wings that far before they break, doesn't that mean that they're extremely overbuilt and that Boeing could save money and weight by making them weaker without compromising safety?
It doesn't help that our country insists on rebuilding the same old, flawed design for nuclear power plants, rather than any one of a dozen or so better designs that are out there which are far safer.
From your listed homepage link, I think I can safely assume that "our country" refers to the US. The US hasn't built any commercial nuclear reactors in decades. These better designs almost universally post-date this total halt on construction.
I don't know who eats more on average, but I do know that, all else being equal, if you start exercising a lot you personally will eat more.
As for materials, I have a very difficult time believing that this question is "just curious". If you really are this stupid, obviously the car requires more.
Lifetime cost is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as cost is not equal to emissions. Obviously the car costs more than the bicycle. I have no idea whether a fit or unfit person costs more, but then again there's not necessarily any correlation between being fit and riding a bicycle.
Please note that I never said bicycles were bad, just that strictly speaking they are not "zero emission".
The steel, rubber, and lubricants required to construct and maintain that bicycle don't just appear out of thin air.
The extra energy you expend in riding it means you have to consume more food, which in turn means more agricultural production, fertilizer, runoff, fuel for the machines, destroyed forest, etc.
Yes, fine, I get it, SMS sucks because you don't get to reject them.
This still does not make it any more sensible to argue against it by making an analogy to not paying for incoming calls, since you do pay for those on most cell phones.
How about the decision to make 8% of the male population color blind, give 0.1% of all babies Down syndrome, make 1 in 4000 babies partially or fully deaf at birth, and give 4% of west Africans sickle-cell anemia?
Natural selection is a dreadful way to choose genetic traits. It is slow, inexact, error-prone, and uncaring. Natural selection will condemn a significant proportion of a population to a short, miserable existence due to a genetic accident which gives other people resistance to a curable disease which may not even exist in the area where this person lives. Natural selection will give you terrible diseases to help you avoid problems which no longer exist, or due to historical accident, or simply because a cellular mechanism in your parents screwed up.
Your comment about humans preferring beauty over intelligence in their mates is particularly amusing. You know what that is, when you prefer a certain trait in your mate, right? You guessed it: that's natural selection! If people prefer beauty to brains then beauty is going to be the result of the survival of the fittest. You can't go and say that survival of the fittest is the reason to avoid genetic tampering, and then use a human preference for certain attributes in their mates as evidence that humans make bad decisions and natural selection should be preferred.
And lastly, natural selection doesn't stop just because you say "boo". If genetic tinkering ends up being poor for your long-term survival, guess what, survival of the fittest means that it won't last too long. It's not like every single person on the planet is going to start ordering designer children the moment it becomes available.
I just don't understand that. Immediately before that question was, "Paying when you receive a message, makes no fucking sense." Well, you pay to receive a phone call, why would you not pay to receive a message?
What is it about total random chance that makes it a superior mechanism for choosing the genetic component of a baby's personality, intelligence, or what have you?
Minor, quibbling difference. I was replying to a post that claimed that the caller does not pay to receive telephone calls. This is false if you're discussing US cell phones. Details about your ability to screen or reject charges are immaterial to that claim.
So as long as you "believe" that somebody is a bad person, and he's not a citizen, that makes it OK to violate one of the foundational rights of western civilization and hold him without a trial indefinitely?
While we're talking about opt-in and opt-out systems, how about a preferences system for Slashdot which allows you to decide whether you'll allow morons to post mangled quotes of your posts followed by inane phrases like "fixed that for you"? There could be three options: "no", "yes", and "yes, as long as he acknowledges that by doing this he is a complete asshole."
Well, it didn't just spring into being out of thin air. By the time it was adopted the war was over but it was still the end product of a line of documents which essentially were glorified suicide pacts.
You don't know if the government is searching you, right now, so does it disrupt you?
Hell frickin yes.
People change their behavior when they know they're being watched. This is particularly true of people who hold unpopular opinions. If people know that their phone calls can be listened to at any time and "flagged", this has a chilling effect on discourse in the country. Said discourse is so important that it's protected by amendment one in the Constitution.
The protection guaranteed by the fourth amendment has been accepted for a very long time to require either a warrant for this kind of search. You can't just toss that out now because you feel like it.
Slashdot Mirror
Riight, a revolution in physics and technology that would rival quantum mechanics and the USAF is sitting on it and using it to mildly enhance a score of strategic bombers.
Tell me another one!
It seems pretty crazy to bring down a $2 billion aircraft because a single sensor was fouled. What happened to cross checking and redundancy? Free of errors it may be, but it's certainly not as resilient as I would expect.
On the other hand, you shouldn't just let it go if they break their word just because there's no binding contract with severe penalties. A company should keep their word, and if they break it, pointing that out to people and trying to convince them to take their business elsewhere is fitting punishment.
Because failure in a market where the most expensive component sells for $50 has everything to tell us about a completely unrelated market dealing with equipment costing tens of thousands of dollars.
Because the $50 cheap-ass miniaturized battery in your laptop has so much in common with large-scale industrial-strength car batteries.
If you or anyone else knows more about this, could you explain why this is done? If you can bend the wings that far before they break, doesn't that mean that they're extremely overbuilt and that Boeing could save money and weight by making them weaker without compromising safety?
It doesn't help that our country insists on rebuilding the same old, flawed design for nuclear power plants, rather than any one of a dozen or so better designs that are out there which are far safer.
From your listed homepage link, I think I can safely assume that "our country" refers to the US. The US hasn't built any commercial nuclear reactors in decades. These better designs almost universally post-date this total halt on construction.
US constitution, Article I, Section 9, guarantees habeas corpus except in certain extreme circumstances which do not apply.
The sixth amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial. It makes it clear that this applies to everybody, not just citizens.
Overall, the constitution is quite clear in the few areas where it talks about citizens as opposed to all people, and this is not one of them.
Questions?
I don't know who eats more on average, but I do know that, all else being equal, if you start exercising a lot you personally will eat more.
As for materials, I have a very difficult time believing that this question is "just curious". If you really are this stupid, obviously the car requires more.
Lifetime cost is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as cost is not equal to emissions. Obviously the car costs more than the bicycle. I have no idea whether a fit or unfit person costs more, but then again there's not necessarily any correlation between being fit and riding a bicycle.
Please note that I never said bicycles were bad, just that strictly speaking they are not "zero emission".
The steel, rubber, and lubricants required to construct and maintain that bicycle don't just appear out of thin air.
The extra energy you expend in riding it means you have to consume more food, which in turn means more agricultural production, fertilizer, runoff, fuel for the machines, destroyed forest, etc.
No such thing as a free lunch!
Hey, he didn't say permanently.
Yes, fine, I get it, SMS sucks because you don't get to reject them.
This still does not make it any more sensible to argue against it by making an analogy to not paying for incoming calls, since you do pay for those on most cell phones.
How about the decision to make 8% of the male population color blind, give 0.1% of all babies Down syndrome, make 1 in 4000 babies partially or fully deaf at birth, and give 4% of west Africans sickle-cell anemia?
Natural selection is a dreadful way to choose genetic traits. It is slow, inexact, error-prone, and uncaring. Natural selection will condemn a significant proportion of a population to a short, miserable existence due to a genetic accident which gives other people resistance to a curable disease which may not even exist in the area where this person lives. Natural selection will give you terrible diseases to help you avoid problems which no longer exist, or due to historical accident, or simply because a cellular mechanism in your parents screwed up.
Your comment about humans preferring beauty over intelligence in their mates is particularly amusing. You know what that is, when you prefer a certain trait in your mate, right? You guessed it: that's natural selection! If people prefer beauty to brains then beauty is going to be the result of the survival of the fittest. You can't go and say that survival of the fittest is the reason to avoid genetic tampering, and then use a human preference for certain attributes in their mates as evidence that humans make bad decisions and natural selection should be preferred.
And lastly, natural selection doesn't stop just because you say "boo". If genetic tinkering ends up being poor for your long-term survival, guess what, survival of the fittest means that it won't last too long. It's not like every single person on the planet is going to start ordering designer children the moment it becomes available.
I just don't understand that. Immediately before that question was, "Paying when you receive a message, makes no fucking sense." Well, you pay to receive a phone call, why would you not pay to receive a message?
Also from the original article:
If you call someone long distance, do they normally pay long distance fees? Of course not.
This is what I was refuting, nothing more. I never even attempted to address the rest of it.
What is it about total random chance that makes it a superior mechanism for choosing the genetic component of a baby's personality, intelligence, or what have you?
Minor, quibbling difference. I was replying to a post that claimed that the caller does not pay to receive telephone calls. This is false if you're discussing US cell phones. Details about your ability to screen or reject charges are immaterial to that claim.
So as long as you "believe" that somebody is a bad person, and he's not a citizen, that makes it OK to violate one of the foundational rights of western civilization and hold him without a trial indefinitely?
It's great that you hate SMS, but I don't see what any of this has to do with my post or the one I was replying to.
You pay for the call. The fact that most plans give you a certain amount as part of your monthly fee does not change this fact.
Many plans also include a certain number of SMSs per month, in which case incoming SMSs are deducted from that, and any excess is charged.
It's exactly the same system in both cases.
I think you're confused. My post was the one with the satire. The one I replied to was just being an asshole.
If you call someone long distance, do they normally pay long distance fees?
Yes, if they have a cell phone. That's how cell phones work in the US: both sides pay. SMS is nothing unusual in this regard.
While we're talking about opt-in and opt-out systems, how about a preferences system for Slashdot which allows you to decide whether you'll allow morons to post mangled quotes of your posts followed by inane phrases like "fixed that for you"? There could be three options: "no", "yes", and "yes, as long as he acknowledges that by doing this he is a complete asshole."
Well, it didn't just spring into being out of thin air. By the time it was adopted the war was over but it was still the end product of a line of documents which essentially were glorified suicide pacts.
You don't know if the government is searching you, right now, so does it disrupt you?
Hell frickin yes.
People change their behavior when they know they're being watched. This is particularly true of people who hold unpopular opinions. If people know that their phone calls can be listened to at any time and "flagged", this has a chilling effect on discourse in the country. Said discourse is so important that it's protected by amendment one in the Constitution.
The protection guaranteed by the fourth amendment has been accepted for a very long time to require either a warrant for this kind of search. You can't just toss that out now because you feel like it.