My biggest problem is that 75 is such an arbitrary number. If he lived a few hundred years ago, his answer would've probably been closer to 50. Is anyone seriously thinking that 50 is too old these days? For someone in their twenties or thirties or even fifties, saying that is a bit inane, because there's a pretty high likelihood that medicine will have advanced in the meantime. Most of his justifications come from studies that say that now, something happens. But what of then? Perhaps we'll have solved it. Heck, I frankly don't see anything inherent in aging that means we wouldn't be able to completely reverse the effects of aging in the future. Societal issues would be much larger than medicinal ones there.
Alibaba, socialist? The only thing socialist about it is that the Chinese party calls itself communist. Alibaba is a privately owned but state-blessed corporation with heavy state support. The communist party has a hand in pretty much every large Chinese corporation these days, and in the end they have the final call, and they'll be a lot more meddlesome than even the most pedantic of state regulators in the US.
Plus, you can't even buy shares for Alibaba, you only get shares for a Cayman Islands shell corporation which has a contract to receive the profits from Alibaba proper. You get absolutely no decision-making power, no influence, and frankly little in the way of actual worth.
Kepler, hot and noisy? And then you recommend a GCN card? As much as I'll fully agree that you'll get better performance per dollar from AMD, their cards are vastly less efficient than Nvidia's.
When we write about the future, we don't write about a *plausible* future. We write about a future world which is like the present or some familiar historical epoch (e.g. Roman Empire), with conscious additions and deletions. I think a third reason may be our pessimism about our present and cynicism about the past. Which brings us right back to literary fashion.
I'd argue that we do try to write about the future, but the thing is: it's pretty damn hard to predict the future. What people do is take the current point in time and extrapolate it to whatever point they want, be it tens or hundreds or thousands of years into the future. If TV is big rounded cathodic tubes and is starting to get very popular now, then in the future it'll be ubiquitous, you'll have TVs in your bathroom and they'll have created some really fancy cathodic tube designs, with TVs taking up entire floors of buildings to act as animated billboards.
The problem is that if we look at history, we see it littered with disruptive technologies and events which veered us way off course from that mere extrapolation into something new. The computer was such a technology. The internet. The smartphone. There are an incredibly large amount, some which just slightly changed things, others which had a profound and lasting impact. They're also pretty much impossible to predict, since they're not only a technical event but a societal event. The technology has to catch on.
If you were to try to write sci-fi that followed this pattern, you'd run into the issue of massive divergence very quickly. Your imagined future wouldn't match with reality at all, since all those disruptions didn't actually happen, and perhaps never will, while others you hadn't envisioned did. It's therefore far more relatable to just stick to what's here now and extrapolate, because at least people will be able to make a connection and see where the evolution took place. Plus, many times sci-fi is a critique or a commentary on the time period it was written in, so it makes sense to ground it in that same time period.
We can define a photon just fine thank you. It's not because it doesn't fit in a human-scale model of comprehension that there's something inherently fuzzy or mysterious about the wave/particle duality. A photon is both a wave and a particle, exhibiting the properties of the former in certain scenarii and the latter in other scenarii.
Your analogy is also incorrect. A photon is an electromagnetic wave, it's not a vibration propagating through a medium. An ocean wave without the ocean is nothing, it's energy being transmitted through movement of the medium (same as sound). A photon can exist in a vacuum.
Your brother should've sued the living shit out of the county for frivolous accusations and gotten his record cleaned. I doubt the cop would've gotten fired because that's how things work (though he deserves no less), but at least he should've had a suspension.
Except from the looks of it that's not what was asked, and it's possible she plainly didn't know about her acquaintances being in those groups. You know, that presumption of innocence thing?
You got that wrong, this is the US providing heavy stimulus for foreign companies creating their own cloud services. They're basically giving free reign to European providers, who do not own a single server in the US, and telling them to go ahead and dominate the market. Europeans should be thanking them, if anything!
Minecraft is a PC game first and foremost. The console versions are watered down, limited, pale imitations at best. Microsoft is no longer a PC-centric games publisher (long gone are the days of Age of Empires...). The match makes frankly very little sense, which is why it worries me that it just might happen, and it'd probably cause a massive exodus of the modding community. You can bet that MS wouldn't want dirty modders reverse-engineering their new property's code, and yet destroying the modding community would spell the doom for Minecraft.
Not even necessary. Just do what Valve did: make all of the community created work sellable at the maker's choice on an official platform and take a cut from every transaction. The authors are happy because they get to profit from their work, the users are happy because there's a truckload of cosmetics, including some really rare and valuable ones that they can flaunt around, and obviously Valve is happy because they're basically making money by doing nothing. It's working stupidly well for them with Dota 2.
Except obese people don't have to pay for two seats, as ruled by a Canadian court. The rest of your post is a series of non sequiturs, because there is choice in the same price range. I can buy shirts that fit me for the same price as a smaller person. The materials might be a bit cheaper, or the cut might not be as great, or it might not have a brand attached to it, but it'll fit me. I can do the same for cars, and for anything that's property. An airline ticket is a service, and there is NO choice. I can't decide to trade that second carry-on weighting 20 pounds that every person brings but that I don't. I can't decide to downgrade the seat's materials, or not to have food included, or to have to pay extra for every inch more that I want. I don't have an alternative.
Also, your money comment is absurd. Tall people tend, on average, to make more money than shorter people, but that in no way means that I have a few thousands magically floating in my pockets. I generally have less money instead, because between the clothing, food, doctor visits (for back problems, neck problems, knee problems, you name it) and whatever else, my student money isn't going very far. But don't let that get in the way of a nice juicy overgeneralization.
You can get airline tickets in Europe for under $100. That's often equal to or less than a bus or a train, and yet European flights are generally a bit better than American flights despite the latter costing more for similar distances. You're oversimplifying the matter.
Bullshit. Why should I pay more for being taller? This isn't a choice, is it? What the airlines are doing is essentially discrimination.
What infuriates me the most though is that I've heard more and more that obese people get special status and the ability to use two seats while only paying for one, but tall people get nothing. Obesity is not inherent to the person, height is.
I'm 6'5" and I am pretty much restricted to emergency exit rows. In rare cases, I'll strike an old plane that wasn't modified (Air Canada Rouge is AC's cheap brand and they use ancient planes without even TVs) and then I'll have plenty of legroom, but anything recent or "upgraded" means I need the emergency row AND I also need to be extremely wary of the person in front of me trying to recline. I generally manage to block it so solidly that they think it's broken or already at maximum recline, but that really is not enjoyable, and some people fight it for a long time (especially fucking children). I can't afford the 2-5x increase to go first class, that's basically corporate area anyway.
I happily invite you to go back to the living standards of the time where the government was not in schools, limited themselves on the roads, did not deliver water and so on. I think you'll find that economic prosperity does not necessarily mean they were living the good life. I sure as hell would never trust a private corporation with my water supply or education, there are way too many juicy corners to cut.
Meanwhile, in Canada, I paid around $9,000 (significantly less if you also count the scholarships I got) for my full BSc. at a university that usually ranks towards the low end of the top 100 - perhaps not as prestigious as MIT, but more than sufficient for most people. If you're poor, you can also get a lot of financial support, enough to make university basically free.
Mao made the calls himself, with a complete lack of understanding of what the fuck he was doing. Gates largely funds projects he finds interesting; he doesn't have absolute control over the entire country's government and he doesn't actually run the stuff he doesn't understand.
It's also worth noting that Mojang has never contributed code to Bukkit or CraftBukkit. The codebases are therefore entirely separate, except for Bukkit/CB's usage of reverse engineered source, which goes one way only (and not the way that would logically let you assess ownership of Minecraft's server source).
Slashdot Mirror
My biggest problem is that 75 is such an arbitrary number. If he lived a few hundred years ago, his answer would've probably been closer to 50. Is anyone seriously thinking that 50 is too old these days? For someone in their twenties or thirties or even fifties, saying that is a bit inane, because there's a pretty high likelihood that medicine will have advanced in the meantime. Most of his justifications come from studies that say that now, something happens. But what of then? Perhaps we'll have solved it. Heck, I frankly don't see anything inherent in aging that means we wouldn't be able to completely reverse the effects of aging in the future. Societal issues would be much larger than medicinal ones there.
Alibaba, socialist? The only thing socialist about it is that the Chinese party calls itself communist. Alibaba is a privately owned but state-blessed corporation with heavy state support. The communist party has a hand in pretty much every large Chinese corporation these days, and in the end they have the final call, and they'll be a lot more meddlesome than even the most pedantic of state regulators in the US.
Plus, you can't even buy shares for Alibaba, you only get shares for a Cayman Islands shell corporation which has a contract to receive the profits from Alibaba proper. You get absolutely no decision-making power, no influence, and frankly little in the way of actual worth.
Yeah, it's a tweaked 780 using a completely different architecture. Sure, tweaked.
Next you'll say Haswell's just a tweaked NetBurst maybe?
Kepler, hot and noisy? And then you recommend a GCN card? As much as I'll fully agree that you'll get better performance per dollar from AMD, their cards are vastly less efficient than Nvidia's.
Most people don't like the Conservatives. They only had 39% of the vote, after all, and with a heavy bias towards the Midwest.
When we write about the future, we don't write about a *plausible* future. We write about a future world which is like the present or some familiar historical epoch (e.g. Roman Empire), with conscious additions and deletions. I think a third reason may be our pessimism about our present and cynicism about the past. Which brings us right back to literary fashion.
I'd argue that we do try to write about the future, but the thing is: it's pretty damn hard to predict the future. What people do is take the current point in time and extrapolate it to whatever point they want, be it tens or hundreds or thousands of years into the future. If TV is big rounded cathodic tubes and is starting to get very popular now, then in the future it'll be ubiquitous, you'll have TVs in your bathroom and they'll have created some really fancy cathodic tube designs, with TVs taking up entire floors of buildings to act as animated billboards.
The problem is that if we look at history, we see it littered with disruptive technologies and events which veered us way off course from that mere extrapolation into something new. The computer was such a technology. The internet. The smartphone. There are an incredibly large amount, some which just slightly changed things, others which had a profound and lasting impact. They're also pretty much impossible to predict, since they're not only a technical event but a societal event. The technology has to catch on.
If you were to try to write sci-fi that followed this pattern, you'd run into the issue of massive divergence very quickly. Your imagined future wouldn't match with reality at all, since all those disruptions didn't actually happen, and perhaps never will, while others you hadn't envisioned did. It's therefore far more relatable to just stick to what's here now and extrapolate, because at least people will be able to make a connection and see where the evolution took place. Plus, many times sci-fi is a critique or a commentary on the time period it was written in, so it makes sense to ground it in that same time period.
What would you say if Amazon added Fifty Shades of Grey to your Kindle?
10^-5 faster, evidently.
We can define a photon just fine thank you. It's not because it doesn't fit in a human-scale model of comprehension that there's something inherently fuzzy or mysterious about the wave/particle duality. A photon is both a wave and a particle, exhibiting the properties of the former in certain scenarii and the latter in other scenarii.
Your analogy is also incorrect. A photon is an electromagnetic wave, it's not a vibration propagating through a medium. An ocean wave without the ocean is nothing, it's energy being transmitted through movement of the medium (same as sound). A photon can exist in a vacuum.
Your brother should've sued the living shit out of the county for frivolous accusations and gotten his record cleaned. I doubt the cop would've gotten fired because that's how things work (though he deserves no less), but at least he should've had a suspension.
Except from the looks of it that's not what was asked, and it's possible she plainly didn't know about her acquaintances being in those groups. You know, that presumption of innocence thing?
You got that wrong, this is the US providing heavy stimulus for foreign companies creating their own cloud services. They're basically giving free reign to European providers, who do not own a single server in the US, and telling them to go ahead and dominate the market. Europeans should be thanking them, if anything!
Minecraft is a PC game first and foremost. The console versions are watered down, limited, pale imitations at best. Microsoft is no longer a PC-centric games publisher (long gone are the days of Age of Empires...). The match makes frankly very little sense, which is why it worries me that it just might happen, and it'd probably cause a massive exodus of the modding community. You can bet that MS wouldn't want dirty modders reverse-engineering their new property's code, and yet destroying the modding community would spell the doom for Minecraft.
The "time to leak" for those would probably be close to zero, though, which'd defeat the point.
Don't worry, soon you'll be able to pay for your internet piecemeal, if the ISPs have their way.
Not even necessary. Just do what Valve did: make all of the community created work sellable at the maker's choice on an official platform and take a cut from every transaction. The authors are happy because they get to profit from their work, the users are happy because there's a truckload of cosmetics, including some really rare and valuable ones that they can flaunt around, and obviously Valve is happy because they're basically making money by doing nothing. It's working stupidly well for them with Dota 2.
Except obese people don't have to pay for two seats, as ruled by a Canadian court. The rest of your post is a series of non sequiturs, because there is choice in the same price range. I can buy shirts that fit me for the same price as a smaller person. The materials might be a bit cheaper, or the cut might not be as great, or it might not have a brand attached to it, but it'll fit me. I can do the same for cars, and for anything that's property. An airline ticket is a service, and there is NO choice. I can't decide to trade that second carry-on weighting 20 pounds that every person brings but that I don't. I can't decide to downgrade the seat's materials, or not to have food included, or to have to pay extra for every inch more that I want. I don't have an alternative.
Also, your money comment is absurd. Tall people tend, on average, to make more money than shorter people, but that in no way means that I have a few thousands magically floating in my pockets. I generally have less money instead, because between the clothing, food, doctor visits (for back problems, neck problems, knee problems, you name it) and whatever else, my student money isn't going very far. But don't let that get in the way of a nice juicy overgeneralization.
You can get airline tickets in Europe for under $100. That's often equal to or less than a bus or a train, and yet European flights are generally a bit better than American flights despite the latter costing more for similar distances. You're oversimplifying the matter.
If only stockholders and directors were forced to eat their own dog food (and not first class either), you'd see changes happen overnight.
Bullshit. Why should I pay more for being taller? This isn't a choice, is it? What the airlines are doing is essentially discrimination.
What infuriates me the most though is that I've heard more and more that obese people get special status and the ability to use two seats while only paying for one, but tall people get nothing. Obesity is not inherent to the person, height is.
I'm 6'5" and I am pretty much restricted to emergency exit rows. In rare cases, I'll strike an old plane that wasn't modified (Air Canada Rouge is AC's cheap brand and they use ancient planes without even TVs) and then I'll have plenty of legroom, but anything recent or "upgraded" means I need the emergency row AND I also need to be extremely wary of the person in front of me trying to recline. I generally manage to block it so solidly that they think it's broken or already at maximum recline, but that really is not enjoyable, and some people fight it for a long time (especially fucking children). I can't afford the 2-5x increase to go first class, that's basically corporate area anyway.
I happily invite you to go back to the living standards of the time where the government was not in schools, limited themselves on the roads, did not deliver water and so on. I think you'll find that economic prosperity does not necessarily mean they were living the good life. I sure as hell would never trust a private corporation with my water supply or education, there are way too many juicy corners to cut.
Meanwhile, in Canada, I paid around $9,000 (significantly less if you also count the scholarships I got) for my full BSc. at a university that usually ranks towards the low end of the top 100 - perhaps not as prestigious as MIT, but more than sufficient for most people. If you're poor, you can also get a lot of financial support, enough to make university basically free.
Mao made the calls himself, with a complete lack of understanding of what the fuck he was doing. Gates largely funds projects he finds interesting; he doesn't have absolute control over the entire country's government and he doesn't actually run the stuff he doesn't understand.
It's also worth noting that Mojang has never contributed code to Bukkit or CraftBukkit. The codebases are therefore entirely separate, except for Bukkit/CB's usage of reverse engineered source, which goes one way only (and not the way that would logically let you assess ownership of Minecraft's server source).