Actually, I don't care about his answer. It was an attempt to get him to re-examine his beliefs, which we all need to do now and then, and to help him understand the definition of "faith". Cause he was getting it wrong.
See the ellipses? That's me not caring. Regardless of the answer, he provided his own evidence for what he believes. Apparently his beliefs depend on his blog.
Which is awesome. It's probably more beneficial to society then all the crap I've given to charity over the years. This is the exact sort of work that is needed, but no one wants to do. Because really, separating small-time officials from money sources is like squeezing a stone for blood.
For all the seething hate against Kdawson, and admittedly, that's pretty bad english,
Doing the underrated work of shedding sunshine on the sort of things that 'sunshine laws' may make legally accessible, but that often are not practically accessible
Really, that's all you needed. But anyway, for all that hatred, I'm still glad for the article. It's nice to see people doing good in the world.
Re:It's about time someone starts thinking clearly
on
Washington's IT Guy
·
· Score: 1
Uh, I full and well recognize how sue-happy the USA is, but I think the reason that they're strict with the rules and blare their horns is because people do really stupid things and get themselves chopped up by trains. Not because they get sued afterward. Remove litigation entirely, and they'll still blare their horns because they do not want to kill you.
The scenario you describe has certainly played out, and there are playgrounds that have been castrated, but it doesn't apply here. Also, trains have ALWAYS blared when passing through residential. It's not new. And the people who live by the tracks know that. There was a reason the house was so cheap.
Re:One of the most un-American things I've ever re
on
The Real Science Gap
·
· Score: 1
You're shitting me right?
You're making a big deal about the distinction between working for someone and making your own job, ie, starting a business. These are science jobs, for scientists. They are not MBAs, they are not going to start their own business.
How many people start up a fabrication lab? Who splices DNA in their garage? Who launches satellites into space on their own dime? (other then this guy)
I'm all for good 'ole 'mericun gumption, but scientists work for people. Most engineers do too. I have, in short, planed my life around developing valuable skills that people will pay me for. I'm dependent on them. Not any one in particular, but the group of people that need bit twiddled. I've also planned on the sun rising tomorrow. I'm not, you know, "entitled" to the sun rising tomorrow, but we're all fucked if it doesn't.
if there is this connection between education and job opportunities, why do we have art history departments?
Because people are stupid, wealthy, and/or willing to be poor.
Re:NASA shutting down manned exploration doesn't h
on
The Real Science Gap
·
· Score: 1
Well your sex-bots may be fucking in a boring manner, but that's no reason to lambaste the probes shooting up to Uranus.
No, faith is not the belief in something without evidence. It is the belief in something based upon personal experience [(and to a limited degree, the experience of people I trust)].
What have you personally experienced, or heard from others, that causes you to believe in whatever it is you're faithful about?
...
There is your evidence that makes you to believe in it. If it's good evidence, then you don't really need your faith, you can simply believe it based on the evidence. If the evidence is lacking, then you need faith to believe in it.
Anyway, if copyright laws didn't exist for software? Well, you'd see companies like Microsoft fall apart and companies like Red Hat thrive.
Well, yes the COMPANIES, if they maintained their current business model, would meet those fates. But who cares about the companies? I care about the code, productivity, and getting things done. You know, progress. But as for the actual product, businesses would probably go get windows and all MS's products, because they're now free. The best argument for Linux is now gone.
In time, sure, microsoft might go bankrupt, and the windows line phased out. But more likely, they'd release a new version with their best attempt at a restrictive DRM to force people to pay for their product.
You're logic wasn't flawed, you just decided to put on a suit when you got old.
No. And neither is "Chinese lead farmer", because it hasn't developed into a stereotype. It takes a little bit of popularity. But it is racist, because it mentions race. ...unless you're referencing the nation of China.
So you seem like an ultra-green idealist. The sort that thinks we should go back to living in mud huts and killing our food with spears. You probably like sustenance farming and would prefer an agrarian society. I had hoped that you were a fringe extremist, but the fact that you're modded up there scares me. But let's be clear, you're rallying AGAINST alternative energy research because you WANT a post-apocalyptic earth scenario.
There are a few problems with this. Transitioning to such a state is tricky. I've heard of two ways of doing it. The first being through a mass kill-off of the surplus humanity. A chaotic sudden-stop of oil would produce this one way or another. This seems to be what you're jonesing for. If so this puts you squarely in the "Evil Mad-man" category occupied by so many comic book villains. The second way of transitioning to a "reduced income" society I've heard of is gradually over a few generations. Now, you could sterilize the masses you deem unfit, or you could draconianlly enforce one-child laws. Those also put you in the evil category, but more of a real world sort of evil. Now, you could try simply asking people to have less kids and use less, but let's stick to methods that have at least some chance of success.
Then you have the problem of staying there. I know the first thing I want to do after a massive die-off is to repopulate the earth. It's like we're pre-programmed for this or something. But the problem is deeper then that. You're going to have suppress innovation and people who strive for better things. You are fighting progress itself. Unless you can expect all of humanity to be content, in which case all sorts of ideas become viable, then this idea of living sustainably in mudhuts isn't itself sustainable. Another example is when push comes to shove and there's a bad winter. People will die. Before the last of them die, they're going to go take the food from their neighbors. Specifically the ones who have the shortest sticks and the smallest clubs. This is one of those things that encourages people to develop bigger and better weapons and progress in general.
And not to be too big of a downer, let me suggest some alternatives. The oil economy will assuredly fail. We'll always have some oil, but it won't always be the main source of transportation. Coal will one day follow the path that oil went, although that day is farther off. But before we run out and need to fend off wasteland bandits, how about we get some alternatives? There is a lot of freaking energy sources out there. Some don't have bad side-effects, some are plentiful, some are renewable, and some are cheap. How about we try to make the world a better place instead of sending progress back a few thousand years?
Heh, we had a sharepoint guy come in and try to sell us the 2010 version. "And 2010 will include the ribbon, which is a big hit, right guys?" And the room just kind of froze in a spacial timesink with no one even breathing. There was a good, bad, ugly moment and eventually one of the older guys broke the cacophony of silence with an uncomfortable "uh..." footshuffle.
yep, and it was supposed to be funny. Swing and a miss I guess.
Should have help it shorter and simpler. Like "Well your initial argument just proves your bias". But no, I always have to go full bore when the satire sluice gates open up.
Well thanks for pointing out MEMS gyroscopes. That is indeed spiffy. So it's not a rotational accelerometer like I thought, but I'm not sure what the functional differences are.
It's a little sad that everyone leaped at my mistake while ignoring the point I was trying to make: measuring rotation isn't comparable to measuring linear movement so you can't say one is more precise then the other. It's like "liters is better then meters". So that line is just marketing fluff. I guess I need to work on that whole "communication" thing. Of course, if I take my time and make everything clear, my posts are left in the dust as old and busted.
Of course it's not the end of the world bad. That's just silly.
But it's might be bad enough to kill some industries of the area, cause a multiple-state economic depression (during a low point), devastate ecosystems, ruin property for generations, and double the market price of shrimp. Because a company broke the law trying to increase profits.
So don't get carried away by the media-hype, but don't dismiss it all.
Honestly, I don't if we'll be able to gauge exactly how bad it is until after it's all over, and that could take decades. Anything until then is an educated guess, and probably lean one way or the other.
I don't think having more blame pinned on the president would really help the situation. It'd be better for BP and their bottom line, but fuck'em. But dragging Palin out in front of cameras and sinking her authority like an oil rig wouldn't remove oil from the ocean. Actually, I could see McCain trying to micromanage this thing. Demanding answers, hunting the people that cut corners, making the command to attempt a top-kill. From the technical side I don't think that would help either. Although hunting down execs would be a good thing.
Or maybe he'd try to stand by the oil industry. The traditional stereotype certainly puts him there. As news came out about BP, all that would happen is that he'd lose face and we'd have another lame duck republican president.
BP screws up on such a colossal scale and they're still in the black? This might be the media hyper-izing machine talking but it sounds like the environmental worst-case scenario has been going on for a month. Beach, ecosystems, fishing, and tourism across multiple states are impacted. Possibly devastated. I dunno, that's something that no one is sanely talking about yet.
I would have thought that something like this, especially for an industry that works on "such small margins", that they might actually lose money for a while. And you'd think that spending a buck now to help with cleanup would save them a couple of bucks later when they have to pay for the damages.
Whoa now, let's not go down THAT path. Stereotypes get started for a reason. First, there is a question about what an "accurate term" means. There's a difference between: Every/most/some Y is performed by racialGroup_X and every/most/some racialGroup_X performs Y. But the truth of the statement doesn't matter much. At one time, paddy wagons were full of the Irish more often then not. But the defense that there is a statistical trend should not rule out the racist nature of a statement.
But uh... why did wmbetts play the race card anyway?
Any argument or thought of argument degrading, diminishing, or refuting the article or any part of the article instantly and unequivocally proves your bias against the article. We shall have no deviation from the ranks here at slashdot. There shall be no moderation. Every statement either proves or disproves the entire post. You're either with us or against us!
a three-axis gyroscope, which allows rotation and precision that accelerometers can't match
Uh... So the thing obviously doesn't have an actual gyroscope, so I'm assuming he means rotational accelerometers... which is better then regular accelerometers how? They measure different things. Am I or the summary getting some lingo wrong?
Yeah, I think don't know what Guatemalans were thinking when built a city directly over the underdark. It's just asking for driders to make slaving runs.
Except that he did win by a landslide. 365 to 173.
Bush and the Republicans are the only ones who are considered able to protect this country.
From what?
Financial ruin? HAHahahaa sure dude. Deregulation will save us all. The deficit is a problem, but Obama didn't nuke the economy.
Tewwowists? Were never really a threat. A lot of people died in the world trade towers, but a lot also died in Iraq. The biggest risk from terrorist is the terror they inflict.
Teh gay? *Pat pat* There there, you'll get over it. It's perfectly natural for 3% freak minority.
Yeah, I'd more or less agree. I'd also like to point out one of my fears that ties into this. Corporations are arguably more powerful then the federal government. Their lobbyists can pretty much write bills at this point. And part of that power comes from being international. Microsoft can simply up and leave to Ireland to avoid taxes. Only the really big boys can even hope to threaten with that sort of tactic however. But if you were to fragment the federal government, and leave it all to state rights, then every national company would hold the states hostage. When the businessmen are more powerful then the politicians, then we've lost our democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
I cannea take it no more cap'tin
To damp - to reduce
To dampen - to make moist
So unless you got some quantum sponge or something, yer getting it wrong! Please use "inertia dampers" instead.
Actually, I don't care about his answer. It was an attempt to get him to re-examine his beliefs, which we all need to do now and then, and to help him understand the definition of "faith". Cause he was getting it wrong.
See the ellipses? That's me not caring. Regardless of the answer, he provided his own evidence for what he believes. Apparently his beliefs depend on his blog.
For all the seething hate against Kdawson, and admittedly, that's pretty bad english,
Doing the underrated work of shedding sunshine on the sort of things that 'sunshine laws' may make legally accessible, but that often are not practically accessible
Really, that's all you needed. But anyway, for all that hatred, I'm still glad for the article. It's nice to see people doing good in the world.
Uh, I full and well recognize how sue-happy the USA is, but I think the reason that they're strict with the rules and blare their horns is because people do really stupid things and get themselves chopped up by trains. Not because they get sued afterward. Remove litigation entirely, and they'll still blare their horns because they do not want to kill you.
The scenario you describe has certainly played out, and there are playgrounds that have been castrated, but it doesn't apply here. Also, trains have ALWAYS blared when passing through residential. It's not new. And the people who live by the tracks know that. There was a reason the house was so cheap.
You're making a big deal about the distinction between working for someone and making your own job, ie, starting a business. These are science jobs, for scientists. They are not MBAs, they are not going to start their own business.
How many people start up a fabrication lab? Who splices DNA in their garage? Who launches satellites into space on their own dime? (other then this guy)
I'm all for good 'ole 'mericun gumption, but scientists work for people. Most engineers do too. I have, in short, planed my life around developing valuable skills that people will pay me for. I'm dependent on them. Not any one in particular, but the group of people that need bit twiddled. I've also planned on the sun rising tomorrow. I'm not, you know, "entitled" to the sun rising tomorrow, but we're all fucked if it doesn't.
if there is this connection between education and job opportunities, why do we have art history departments?
Because people are stupid, wealthy, and/or willing to be poor.
Well your sex-bots may be fucking in a boring manner, but that's no reason to lambaste the probes shooting up to Uranus.
No, faith is not the belief in something without evidence. It is the belief in something based upon personal experience [(and to a limited degree, the experience of people I trust)].
What have you personally experienced, or heard from others, that causes you to believe in whatever it is you're faithful about?
...
There is your evidence that makes you to believe in it. If it's good evidence, then you don't really need your faith, you can simply believe it based on the evidence. If the evidence is lacking, then you need faith to believe in it.
Anyway, if copyright laws didn't exist for software? Well, you'd see companies like Microsoft fall apart and companies like Red Hat thrive.
Well, yes the COMPANIES, if they maintained their current business model, would meet those fates. But who cares about the companies? I care about the code, productivity, and getting things done. You know, progress. But as for the actual product, businesses would probably go get windows and all MS's products, because they're now free. The best argument for Linux is now gone.
In time, sure, microsoft might go bankrupt, and the windows line phased out. But more likely, they'd release a new version with their best attempt at a restrictive DRM to force people to pay for their product.
You're logic wasn't flawed, you just decided to put on a suit when you got old.
No. And neither is "Chinese lead farmer", because it hasn't developed into a stereotype. It takes a little bit of popularity. But it is racist, because it mentions race.
...unless you're referencing the nation of China.
Well for what it's worth, the rest of the world that needs this sort of thing appreciates it.
So you seem like an ultra-green idealist. The sort that thinks we should go back to living in mud huts and killing our food with spears. You probably like sustenance farming and would prefer an agrarian society. I had hoped that you were a fringe extremist, but the fact that you're modded up there scares me. But let's be clear, you're rallying AGAINST alternative energy research because you WANT a post-apocalyptic earth scenario.
There are a few problems with this. Transitioning to such a state is tricky. I've heard of two ways of doing it. The first being through a mass kill-off of the surplus humanity. A chaotic sudden-stop of oil would produce this one way or another. This seems to be what you're jonesing for. If so this puts you squarely in the "Evil Mad-man" category occupied by so many comic book villains. The second way of transitioning to a "reduced income" society I've heard of is gradually over a few generations. Now, you could sterilize the masses you deem unfit, or you could draconianlly enforce one-child laws. Those also put you in the evil category, but more of a real world sort of evil. Now, you could try simply asking people to have less kids and use less, but let's stick to methods that have at least some chance of success.
Then you have the problem of staying there. I know the first thing I want to do after a massive die-off is to repopulate the earth. It's like we're pre-programmed for this or something. But the problem is deeper then that. You're going to have suppress innovation and people who strive for better things. You are fighting progress itself. Unless you can expect all of humanity to be content, in which case all sorts of ideas become viable, then this idea of living sustainably in mudhuts isn't itself sustainable. Another example is when push comes to shove and there's a bad winter. People will die. Before the last of them die, they're going to go take the food from their neighbors. Specifically the ones who have the shortest sticks and the smallest clubs. This is one of those things that encourages people to develop bigger and better weapons and progress in general.
And not to be too big of a downer, let me suggest some alternatives. The oil economy will assuredly fail. We'll always have some oil, but it won't always be the main source of transportation. Coal will one day follow the path that oil went, although that day is farther off. But before we run out and need to fend off wasteland bandits, how about we get some alternatives? There is a lot of freaking energy sources out there. Some don't have bad side-effects, some are plentiful, some are renewable, and some are cheap. How about we try to make the world a better place instead of sending progress back a few thousand years?
Heh, we had a sharepoint guy come in and try to sell us the 2010 version. "And 2010 will include the ribbon, which is a big hit, right guys?" And the room just kind of froze in a spacial timesink with no one even breathing. There was a good, bad, ugly moment and eventually one of the older guys broke the cacophony of silence with an uncomfortable "uh..." footshuffle.
And then time resumed.
Sort of, that pitch went on for hours.
yep, and it was supposed to be funny. Swing and a miss I guess.
Should have help it shorter and simpler. Like "Well your initial argument just proves your bias". But no, I always have to go full bore when the satire sluice gates open up.
Well thanks for pointing out MEMS gyroscopes. That is indeed spiffy. So it's not a rotational accelerometer like I thought, but I'm not sure what the functional differences are.
It's a little sad that everyone leaped at my mistake while ignoring the point I was trying to make: measuring rotation isn't comparable to measuring linear movement so you can't say one is more precise then the other. It's like "liters is better then meters". So that line is just marketing fluff. I guess I need to work on that whole "communication" thing. Of course, if I take my time and make everything clear, my posts are left in the dust as old and busted.
Of course it's not the end of the world bad. That's just silly.
But it's might be bad enough to kill some industries of the area, cause a multiple-state economic depression (during a low point), devastate ecosystems, ruin property for generations, and double the market price of shrimp. Because a company broke the law trying to increase profits.
So don't get carried away by the media-hype, but don't dismiss it all.
Honestly, I don't if we'll be able to gauge exactly how bad it is until after it's all over, and that could take decades. Anything until then is an educated guess, and probably lean one way or the other.
See East India Company for a supporting example of such a private power contending with the state.
I don't think having more blame pinned on the president would really help the situation. It'd be better for BP and their bottom line, but fuck'em. But dragging Palin out in front of cameras and sinking her authority like an oil rig wouldn't remove oil from the ocean. Actually, I could see McCain trying to micromanage this thing. Demanding answers, hunting the people that cut corners, making the command to attempt a top-kill. From the technical side I don't think that would help either. Although hunting down execs would be a good thing.
Or maybe he'd try to stand by the oil industry. The traditional stereotype certainly puts him there. As news came out about BP, all that would happen is that he'd lose face and we'd have another lame duck republican president.
HOLY BALLS!
BP screws up on such a colossal scale and they're still in the black? This might be the media hyper-izing machine talking but it sounds like the environmental worst-case scenario has been going on for a month. Beach, ecosystems, fishing, and tourism across multiple states are impacted. Possibly devastated. I dunno, that's something that no one is sanely talking about yet.
I would have thought that something like this, especially for an industry that works on "such small margins", that they might actually lose money for a while. And you'd think that spending a buck now to help with cleanup would save them a couple of bucks later when they have to pay for the damages.
It's not a racist term, it's an accurate term.
Whoa now, let's not go down THAT path. Stereotypes get started for a reason. First, there is a question about what an "accurate term" means. There's a difference between: Every/most/some Y is performed by racialGroup_X and every/most/some racialGroup_X performs Y. But the truth of the statement doesn't matter much. At one time, paddy wagons were full of the Irish more often then not. But the defense that there is a statistical trend should not rule out the racist nature of a statement.
But uh... why did wmbetts play the race card anyway?
Some people have souls.
Any argument or thought of argument degrading, diminishing, or refuting the article or any part of the article instantly and unequivocally proves your bias against the article. We shall have no deviation from the ranks here at slashdot. There shall be no moderation. Every statement either proves or disproves the entire post. You're either with us or against us!
a three-axis gyroscope, which allows rotation and precision that accelerometers can't match
Uh... So the thing obviously doesn't have an actual gyroscope, so I'm assuming he means rotational accelerometers... which is better then regular accelerometers how? They measure different things. Am I or the summary getting some lingo wrong?
Yeah, I think don't know what Guatemalans were thinking when built a city directly over the underdark. It's just asking for driders to make slaving runs.
Bush and the Republicans are the only ones who are considered able to protect this country.
From what?
Financial ruin? HAHahahaa sure dude. Deregulation will save us all. The deficit is a problem, but Obama didn't nuke the economy.
Tewwowists? Were never really a threat. A lot of people died in the world trade towers, but a lot also died in Iraq. The biggest risk from terrorist is the terror they inflict.
Teh gay? *Pat pat* There there, you'll get over it. It's perfectly natural for 3% freak minority.
Yeah, I'd more or less agree. I'd also like to point out one of my fears that ties into this. Corporations are arguably more powerful then the federal government. Their lobbyists can pretty much write bills at this point. And part of that power comes from being international. Microsoft can simply up and leave to Ireland to avoid taxes. Only the really big boys can even hope to threaten with that sort of tactic however. But if you were to fragment the federal government, and leave it all to state rights, then every national company would hold the states hostage. When the businessmen are more powerful then the politicians, then we've lost our democracy.