Re:Obsolete? Hardly.
on
Hope for Hubble
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The issue is whether something exists on Earth that can replace an orbitting satelite for a fraction of the cost. The answer is YES. There have been an enormous amount of progress in adaptive optics since Hubble went into orbit. So much so that land-based telescopes can correct atmospheric distortion.
The only benefit for an orbiting telescope now is to observe at wavelengths that the atmosphere naturally filters out.
Speaking as someone who has a measured IQ over 150 (top 0.1%), you couldn't be more wrong. IQ is worth very little. Mensa is full of washouts with entitlement complexes.
Speaking as someone who has a measured IQ of over 750, you couldn't be more wrong. No wait a second...
Speaking as someone who has a measured SAT score of 750, you couldn't be more wrong.
Thats just too expensive for something that has very little computing power. Yeah the size is small and wonderful and all, but give me a call when its $30. Thats when I'd be willing to spend money on it and do some cool shit.
A placebo will often show around ~30% effectiveness for a scientific experiment. In the case of snake oil, its effectiveness is equivalent to a placebo. In other words, snake oil is a placebo. It makes the user think that it is effective. In the same sense as the snake oil, the sticker is a placebo.
2 batteries is the bare minimum he could've used to demonstrate that the sticker is bullshit. If he had averaged his test over N batteries, then that would be statistical data. The data he's got now is nonsense.
That in itself does mean that his data doesn't support the fact that the sticker is bullshit. He just didn't do the proper test on it.
I hate to say it, but he has flawed results that do not demonstrate that the sticker is a placebo.
He used only one battery to do his test. He should have used two; one with the sticker and one without. By only using one battery, running 3 tests, then putting the sticker on and running a 4th test, he's introduced an additional variable into the equation. It could thereofre be argued that his graph (http://www.dansdata.com/images/batterylife/activa ted.gif) showed that the sticker IMPROVED the battery life (because it WAS an improvement over his 3rd test run).
If only VB were a F/OSS project instead of a proprietary customers could be assured of continued support as long as there was demand.
If there were demand for VB6, MS would not be cutting support of it. The reason they are cutting support is specifically because there is no demand and therefore no money in it. Especially when there are more solid runtimes, such as a CLR.
In theory, yes. In reality, no. Taxes balance out a good majority of income to the point where making 60k and making 80k have little to no noticable difference, where as making 60k or 180k is an enormous difference. You can also couple this with the likelyhood that someone who is making $20k is still living with their parents or on some sort of subsidy.
Brig. Gen O'Neil: Good news! We have found a planet capable of sustaining life that is a considerable distance from Caprica. We can relocate your people through the Stargate and you will be rid of the Cylons forever.
My Research team broke RSA!
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
The only problem is that I can't show you the paper or demonstrate it for you. OH yeah, I also have a lottery drawing app that'll give you the powerball numbers for Friday...
Don't let my domain (*.berkeley.edu) cloud your eyes---otherwise, my predecessors would have fought for free speech in vain.
Free Speech doesn't protect you from being branded an idiot for making statements without any working knowledge or experience about a given topic. I'm sure your predecessors would agree.
I don't have the time to quote you, so I'll let you figure it out on your own.
I was not criticizing all academics. I was criticizing Stallman for being an academic who leaches an income off of university funds and donations. Your problem isn't with me criticizing academia. Your problem is with capitalism. You're assuming that all academics hate capitalism and therefore I would be criticizing them as well. Not every PhD is stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds them.
When you leave school and get a real job, then you can comment on free software and the economic forces that pay your rent. You cannot offer a credible opinnion until you've held a job outside of the utopian bubble that is the University. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just expressing a transition I see in people when they leave academics for "the real world".
Imagine what would happen to physics if every physicist patented every experimental technique, theoretical derivation they discovered.
Software patents have nothing to do with proprietary software or OSS.
PS. BTW, know the distinction between "capitalist" and "monopoly": ask any economist---capitalism, good, monopoly, bad (by default---there are, of course, special cases where monopoly is desirable).
This was never a discussion about monopolies. The ironic thing is that if all software were free, there would be no software market and therefore no monopoly, so I don't understand why OSS advocates piss and moan about monopolies when the system they are advocating has no economic market.
I'm not criticizing academics. I am criticizing an academic who criticizes the fundamental economic principals that puts food in the mouths of software developers. On top of that, comparing Stallman to Pauling or any other scientist is a farce because all Stallman did was take socialist principals and apply them to the software industry. He criticizes the capitalist forces that provide developers with jobs while at the same time sitting comfortably in his academic bubble collecting a paycheck for picking his ass and debating about how Linux should really be named "GNU/Linux".
I think Bill could learn a lot from Stallman and by examining his own past and the way MS and Apple took the computer industry off of IBM in the early days.
How would Bill learn from Stallman if he's examining his own past?
Bill could learn a lot from Stallman. For example, how to live off of academic endowments then criticize people who create proprietary software.
Two galaxies colliding is about as spectacular an event as watching grass grow. Galaxies are very spacious; there probably would be no kinetic interaction between the two if they were to "collide".
Slashdot Mirror
The issue is whether something exists on Earth that can replace an orbitting satelite for a fraction of the cost. The answer is YES. There have been an enormous amount of progress in adaptive optics since Hubble went into orbit. So much so that land-based telescopes can correct atmospheric distortion.
The only benefit for an orbiting telescope now is to observe at wavelengths that the atmosphere naturally filters out.
Speaking as someone who has a measured IQ over 150 (top 0.1%), you couldn't be more wrong. IQ is worth very little. Mensa is full of washouts with entitlement complexes.
Speaking as someone who has a measured IQ of over 750, you couldn't be more wrong. No wait a second...
Speaking as someone who has a measured SAT score of 750, you couldn't be more wrong.
Yet another freaking window manager for Linux. Why not improve on the existing ones instead of trying to fill bogus niches.
Thats just too expensive for something that has very little computing power. Yeah the size is small and wonderful and all, but give me a call when its $30. Thats when I'd be willing to spend money on it and do some cool shit.
The problem is that they're advertising a pill for "male enhancement", not "penis enlargement".
A placebo will often show around ~30% effectiveness for a scientific experiment. In the case of snake oil, its effectiveness is equivalent to a placebo. In other words, snake oil is a placebo. It makes the user think that it is effective. In the same sense as the snake oil, the sticker is a placebo.
2 batteries is the bare minimum he could've used to demonstrate that the sticker is bullshit. If he had averaged his test over N batteries, then that would be statistical data. The data he's got now is nonsense.
That in itself does mean that his data doesn't support the fact that the sticker is bullshit. He just didn't do the proper test on it.
I hate to say it, but he has flawed results that do not demonstrate that the sticker is a placebo.
He used only one battery to do his test. He should have used two; one with the sticker and one without. By only using one battery, running 3 tests, then putting the sticker on and running a 4th test, he's introduced an additional variable into the equation. It could thereofre be argued that his graph (http://www.dansdata.com/images/batterylife/activ
The brain itself has no pain receptors, so that's the one place in the body where absolutely no pain originates ever.
Remind me of that the next time I have a headache!
If only VB were a F/OSS project instead of a proprietary customers could be assured of continued support as long as there was demand.
If there were demand for VB6, MS would not be cutting support of it. The reason they are cutting support is specifically because there is no demand and therefore no money in it. Especially when there are more solid runtimes, such as a CLR.
In theory, yes. In reality, no. Taxes balance out a good majority of income to the point where making 60k and making 80k have little to no noticable difference, where as making 60k or 180k is an enormous difference. You can also couple this with the likelyhood that someone who is making $20k is still living with their parents or on some sort of subsidy.
Whats your current salary? 3x $20k isn't as significant as 3x $60k...
Holy shit, you're right. Even correctly quoted him too...
Their complaint is that they were out-voted. Boo-hoo, they can't establish a totaletarian dictatorship on standards...
... or are you just happy to see me?
Brig. Gen O'Neil: Good news! We have found a planet capable of sustaining life that is a considerable distance from Caprica. We can relocate your people through the Stargate and you will be rid of the Cylons forever.
American Revolution?
War of 1812?
Pearl Harbor?
The only problem is that I can't show you the paper or demonstrate it for you. OH yeah, I also have a lottery drawing app that'll give you the powerball numbers for Friday...
Don't let my domain (*.berkeley.edu) cloud your eyes---otherwise, my predecessors would have fought for free speech in vain.
Free Speech doesn't protect you from being branded an idiot for making statements without any working knowledge or experience about a given topic. I'm sure your predecessors would agree.
I don't have the time to quote you, so I'll let you figure it out on your own.
I was not criticizing all academics. I was criticizing Stallman for being an academic who leaches an income off of university funds and donations. Your problem isn't with me criticizing academia. Your problem is with capitalism. You're assuming that all academics hate capitalism and therefore I would be criticizing them as well. Not every PhD is stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds them.
When you leave school and get a real job, then you can comment on free software and the economic forces that pay your rent. You cannot offer a credible opinnion until you've held a job outside of the utopian bubble that is the University. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just expressing a transition I see in people when they leave academics for "the real world".
Imagine what would happen to physics if every physicist patented every experimental technique, theoretical derivation they discovered.
Software patents have nothing to do with proprietary software or OSS.
PS. BTW, know the distinction between "capitalist" and "monopoly": ask any economist---capitalism, good, monopoly, bad (by default---there are, of course, special cases where monopoly is desirable).
This was never a discussion about monopolies. The ironic thing is that if all software were free, there would be no software market and therefore no monopoly, so I don't understand why OSS advocates piss and moan about monopolies when the system they are advocating has no economic market.
I'm not criticizing academics. I am criticizing an academic who criticizes the fundamental economic principals that puts food in the mouths of software developers. On top of that, comparing Stallman to Pauling or any other scientist is a farce because all Stallman did was take socialist principals and apply them to the software industry. He criticizes the capitalist forces that provide developers with jobs while at the same time sitting comfortably in his academic bubble collecting a paycheck for picking his ass and debating about how Linux should really be named "GNU/Linux".
I think Bill could learn a lot from Stallman and by examining his own past and the way MS and Apple took the computer industry off of IBM in the early days.
How would Bill learn from Stallman if he's examining his own past?
Bill could learn a lot from Stallman. For example, how to live off of academic endowments then criticize people who create proprietary software.
Now we can finally get rid of all those fucking white people!
Two galaxies colliding is about as spectacular an event as watching grass grow. Galaxies are very spacious; there probably would be no kinetic interaction between the two if they were to "collide".