He didn't say he was picking a school based upon whether it supported linux or not. He asked whether it has been easy or hard to run linux on a college campus. I don't know about you, but when I went to college I bought my computer BEFORE I got there. It was only AFTER I got there that I was able to judge how well linux was supported. Maybe he is trying to figure out if he should go ahead and spend the $$$ to put windows on her computer, or if it is unnecessary.
Are you saying that Authors shouldn't be taught math. Engineers shouldn't be taught history. Accountants shouldn't be taught english (or how to write). While a lot of the stuff in school I don't use in my work-life, I cannot think of a single thing that I would be better off not knowing (except for maybe Georgia History). I am an Engineer, but I go to plays and read books (English class). I argue with people about politics and make informed decisions when I vote (History). I use math and science. I read articles (a lot of slashdot) so having a grasp of biology and chemistry also helps. A lot of stuff I have forgotten, but I regret learning nothing. I am a well rounded person because of my schooling. And, honestly, if I had been self-taught I would not have learned the English and History. Definitely not chemistry or biology (god i hated learning those subjects). You seem to think that the whole purpose of schooling is to give a person a career. I disagree.
When was the last time you used Greek Mythology at your work?
Greek Mythology is very prevalent in entertainment, especially plays. If I want to sound intelligent while I discuss them with other people, then it helps to know what they are talking about. Also, common idioms in the English language (Pandora's Box).
How about Queen Victoria history?
Hmm... History of other countries. Where could I use that? Maybe in being informed of past mistakes other countries have made so that I don't elect someone who will make the same mistakes.
Or Mohs Scale?
Didn't know what that was. Had to look it up on wikipedia. You might have a point on that one. (No one cares about geology anyway)
Or the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire?
See Queen Victoria. This is even more relevant.
Or your foreign language classes?
The company I work for is partnered with a company that is based in Austria. I took German in high school. It has proven useful. I wish, though, that I had taken Spanish because that would have been very useful when I worked at a restaurant while in college.
But, some consumer electronics don't discharge their capacitors when the power is cut off, so there is risk of electrical shock (and damage to the circuit board) even when it is not plugged in.
You are an engineer and you don't know you multiplication tables. How did you get through physics, calculus, diff eq? Or did you pull out your calculator every time you had to multiply 3x7?
I agree that schools concentrate too hard on memorization and not hard enough on actual understanding but, really? Multiplication Tables? You need to memorize those (at least up to 10 x 10) or you can't do math quickly in your head. I almost never used a calculator in school (because I usually lost it when my mom got me one) so I can do math very quickly in my head. I always finished the tests in my math based courses much quicker than my peers, so had a lot more leeway to check my work or figure out problems I didn't understand. It is like saying that kids don't need to learn how to spell (memorize the spelling of words), and should only learn phonics. Phonics will only get you so far, especially with the english language. There are some things that you just have to memorize or else you will be handicapped for not knowing them.
When I was learning about patents at school (I'm an Engineer), they mentioned that method and said that it was not a legitimate method because you can send yourself an unsealed envelope, then seal documents in it later. This was in the US, though. Might be legit in the UK.
I think the important part of the project was the numbers, not the website. From what I have read, the contract was given to a security company. For all of this stuff to be updated automatically and regularly, the server would have to be pulling information from MANY sources. Security seems like an important aspect in that. I could care less about the pie charts. I care that they compile all of this information (to one spot) with speed, accuracy, and security. Then they should filter out information that should not be available to the public. And then let me see what I am meant to see (and not show me what I am not). I am not sure that they are actually doing this well (so they could have been way overpaid or whatnot), but a stupid pie chart does not prove that they don't.
People around here bash scientist a lot, when they are really reading the media. I had a teacher once who had a favorite saying that it seemed like he said at least once a class... "All models are wrong, but some are useful". The same can be said about simulations. After an experiment is performed, in which something is simulated, conclusions are supposed to be drawn. Then, further experiments are supposed to prove or disprove these conclusions. Are you suggesting that they should not have tried this experiment first (which is probably 1/10 of the cost of doing it in space)? They will probably use this experiment as justification for a grant to actually try it in space.
Science is constrained by fiscal realities. And the honest fact is that even if we do have the experiment done completely in space, it is still being done on mice. We won't know how it affects humans until we send a girl up there to get knocked up and see what happens.
As far as I know, Windows does not tailor it's code to all Dell, Lenovo, Gateway, HP, and Asus laptops.
Come on, you refute your own argument. Hardware manufacturers do design their laptops to play well with Windows, in general. It is only recently that they have even considered installing linux as a feature. Most of them are probably still way behind on making their hardware play well with Linux. The main complaint I always hear about Linux is about having to do fancy things to make drivers work. So all comparisons are valid.
Are you saying that is a bad thing??? You seem to make an argument for cloud computing, but you also use a derogatory term (noob). I think it is an amazing feature that companies using cloud computing can use their employees for doing more company-specific tasks (like managing the services) rather than doing generic IT work that any nerd-monkey could do.
The fact of the matter is that it isn't, most businesses need/want more servers at the same time.
Do you have a citation for that? I would think that there would be a lot of different services which need servers at different times. Most business services would peak during the day, but I would think most consumer based services (entertainment, shopping) would peak in the evening. And then you have to consider that there are other countries in the world and their day is different than yours. So, their peak times would probably be different. I am not saying that cloud computing is the way to go, but there are definitely the potential for a much better server utilization with it. And, the result will probably be that there will be time based pricing, with peak times costing more. But, it will still be more cost effective because they will still be making money on the non-peak times when individual servers would normally be idle. Also, services that would normally run at peak time, but don't need to, would be able to take advantage of the cheaper non-peak times. This is how a market works. Scarcity of resources results in efficiency. And the overall cost of the system decreases.
OK, your county's legal system is broken. Good for you. But you totally missed the point. Proportional Response has nothing to do with which weapon you use to kill him. It means that your response should only take from them what you expect they could take from you. If you feel your life is threatened, then you have the right to take their life. If you can only expect bodily injury then you should only reward bodily injury back. If they are trying to take your property, then there is no reason to come up behind them and hit them in the head. Warn them off. If they come after you, then hit them in the head. Proportional response is generally used for fights between countries, but the definition can be used in other situations as well. Here is the obligatory wikipedia link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)
I would personally stay in my house, call the police, probably load my shotgun and put it next to the door, then open the door and yell at you to leave my car alone. If you made aggressive moves toward me, then I would be justified in using deadly force. If not, then its just property. There are more important things to me than my car. Like being able to live with myself.
What if it was your 15 year old kid getting drunk for the first time? How would you feel then? You would be able to tell someone that it was OK for them to kill this kid that you had spent (wasted) 15 years of your life raising. That his stupid mistake (no malice, no damage done) was worth him losing his life over. I have made a lot of similarly stupid mistakes in my life (though never what that kid did), and I am glad that I did not have cold-hearted bastards like you in my neighborhood.
It is people like you that provide the arguments for gun control. Complete disregard for human life. Because you own a gun, the first solution you think of for any problem is to shoot now and ask questions later. It is legal to kill him, so that is what I will do. I don't think that we need a "right" to bear arms. It should be a privilege for people who have shown they will use them responsibly.
I also am a black belt in karate. One of the most important things that I was taught was how to control a situation and not escalate it. To use the appropriate level of force. That is important, though, because if I do attack someone, I can be charged with "assault with a deadly weapon" because of the black belt. But I am more interested in resolving situations in a way that works out the best for everyone than being able to point at a dead body and say "It was legal for me to kill him". I DO have a conscience and would feel bad about killing anyone, especially a defenseless kid.
Actually, a significant issue in society these days is a lack of respect for the law. Not that I don't break the law myself, I just think that as a society we shouldn't be encouraging the idea that it is OK to break some laws, because that makes people think that maybe other laws can be broken. Break an EULA, subvert DRM. No big deal. Another common example is Marijuana. Kids are told it is bad for you, and that it is illegal, but then they try it and realize that they have been lied to. And if they are lied to about the dangers of marijuana, what else have they been lied to about? Cocaine, heroine, ecstasy (which also is made out to be worse than it is)? The same thing goes for underage drinking. If laws are unjust and unnecessary then it takes away the force of the ones that are just and necessary. If you tell people the truth and let them make their own decisions, the when you say something that is actually important they might actually believe you.
When you do a google search for Paul Revere, how do you, "not knowing any better", separate out the bullshit? Wikipedia is designed to make it easier to get an overview of a subject and then follow the primary sources to check facts. I think that anyone who has used a google search to do research should have their research invalidated, because by your argument it is much worse than wikipedia, and for some reason they will follow the first link and assume that page is written by god.
But you are supposed to link to your sources. If I were using wikipedia to do research, I would go to your page, check its credibility, and then decide whether to use it or not. Are you saying that google is an unacceptable tool to use when you are doing research? Because a google search shows me tons of pages that are probably completely wrong. At least with wikipedia a little bit of the crap is filtered out. All wikipedia does is points you in the right (or occasionally wrong) direction. It is up to you to verify the facts before you present them as such.
Are you still in elementary school? What are you doing research for where it is acceptable to quote an encyclopedia? By the time I was in middle school I was always told to go to primary sources.
You are right, I was thinking gas engines, not diesel. And also, diesels do tend to be more efficient than gas engines while idling. But, you say you get your best fuel economy at 1600 RPM. I don't doubt that. But, what fuel ratio gives you the best efficiency, though? IIRC, diesel's gets its best at a fuel to air ratio of between 0.95 and 1.0. Is that what you cruise at? Because, I very much doubt it. Your engine is going to be oversized so that you can have a decent acceleration. The "throttle" on a diesel is the amount of fuel it injects in the cylinder. My original argument may have been for the wrong fuel, but it is pretty much correct regardless. Combustion engines generally run at their highest efficiency when they are close to full power. Hence, they are not a good design for cars (at least when they are the sole power source) because a car requires a wide range of operating conditions. And, you are correct. Mechanical losses are much less than electrical losses. That is a big argument between series hybrids and parallel hybrids. But either hybrid will be able to use a better sized engine for the car and hence see significant improvements in efficiency, despite the increase in weight of the vehicle. This is because the engine can be set to run at the optimal speed (if you attach it to a CVT) AND the optimal fuel ratio. If it makes too much power, the electric motor puts an additional load on and produces electricity. If it makes too little power, the electric motor boosts it to where it needs to be. Sorry for the confusion, but you are still wrong.
Wrong. A mechanically connected vehicle would be the most efficient if it cruised at WOT (wide open throttle). You accelerate by opening the throttle, so if your car were to cruise at WOT, then you would have no acceleration. Hence, most car engines are way oversized for being efficient. That is why hybrids are more efficient. You can put in a correctly sized motor which (most of the time) runs at WOT in the most efficient range, and then use the electric motor for accelerating.
Slashdot Mirror
He didn't say he was picking a school based upon whether it supported linux or not. He asked whether it has been easy or hard to run linux on a college campus. I don't know about you, but when I went to college I bought my computer BEFORE I got there. It was only AFTER I got there that I was able to judge how well linux was supported. Maybe he is trying to figure out if he should go ahead and spend the $$$ to put windows on her computer, or if it is unnecessary.
???
Are you saying that Authors shouldn't be taught math. Engineers shouldn't be taught history. Accountants shouldn't be taught english (or how to write). While a lot of the stuff in school I don't use in my work-life, I cannot think of a single thing that I would be better off not knowing (except for maybe Georgia History). I am an Engineer, but I go to plays and read books (English class). I argue with people about politics and make informed decisions when I vote (History). I use math and science. I read articles (a lot of slashdot) so having a grasp of biology and chemistry also helps. A lot of stuff I have forgotten, but I regret learning nothing. I am a well rounded person because of my schooling. And, honestly, if I had been self-taught I would not have learned the English and History. Definitely not chemistry or biology (god i hated learning those subjects). You seem to think that the whole purpose of schooling is to give a person a career. I disagree.
When was the last time you used Greek Mythology at your work?
Greek Mythology is very prevalent in entertainment, especially plays. If I want to sound intelligent while I discuss them with other people, then it helps to know what they are talking about. Also, common idioms in the English language (Pandora's Box).
How about Queen Victoria history?
Hmm... History of other countries. Where could I use that? Maybe in being informed of past mistakes other countries have made so that I don't elect someone who will make the same mistakes.
Or Mohs Scale?
Didn't know what that was. Had to look it up on wikipedia. You might have a point on that one. (No one cares about geology anyway)
Or the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire?
See Queen Victoria. This is even more relevant.
Or your foreign language classes?
The company I work for is partnered with a company that is based in Austria. I took German in high school. It has proven useful. I wish, though, that I had taken Spanish because that would have been very useful when I worked at a restaurant while in college.
You got any more?
But, some consumer electronics don't discharge their capacitors when the power is cut off, so there is risk of electrical shock (and damage to the circuit board) even when it is not plugged in.
You are an engineer and you don't know you multiplication tables. How did you get through physics, calculus, diff eq? Or did you pull out your calculator every time you had to multiply 3x7?
I agree that schools concentrate too hard on memorization and not hard enough on actual understanding but, really? Multiplication Tables? You need to memorize those (at least up to 10 x 10) or you can't do math quickly in your head. I almost never used a calculator in school (because I usually lost it when my mom got me one) so I can do math very quickly in my head. I always finished the tests in my math based courses much quicker than my peers, so had a lot more leeway to check my work or figure out problems I didn't understand. It is like saying that kids don't need to learn how to spell (memorize the spelling of words), and should only learn phonics. Phonics will only get you so far, especially with the english language. There are some things that you just have to memorize or else you will be handicapped for not knowing them.
When I was learning about patents at school (I'm an Engineer), they mentioned that method and said that it was not a legitimate method because you can send yourself an unsealed envelope, then seal documents in it later. This was in the US, though. Might be legit in the UK.
I think the important part of the project was the numbers, not the website. From what I have read, the contract was given to a security company. For all of this stuff to be updated automatically and regularly, the server would have to be pulling information from MANY sources. Security seems like an important aspect in that. I could care less about the pie charts. I care that they compile all of this information (to one spot) with speed, accuracy, and security. Then they should filter out information that should not be available to the public. And then let me see what I am meant to see (and not show me what I am not). I am not sure that they are actually doing this well (so they could have been way overpaid or whatnot), but a stupid pie chart does not prove that they don't.
People around here bash scientist a lot, when they are really reading the media. I had a teacher once who had a favorite saying that it seemed like he said at least once a class... "All models are wrong, but some are useful". The same can be said about simulations. After an experiment is performed, in which something is simulated, conclusions are supposed to be drawn. Then, further experiments are supposed to prove or disprove these conclusions. Are you suggesting that they should not have tried this experiment first (which is probably 1/10 of the cost of doing it in space)? They will probably use this experiment as justification for a grant to actually try it in space.
Science is constrained by fiscal realities. And the honest fact is that even if we do have the experiment done completely in space, it is still being done on mice. We won't know how it affects humans until we send a girl up there to get knocked up and see what happens.
That is assuming that they are hitting other cars and not a wall. In which case, the wall usually wins.
Also take into account their propensity to roll over and you have a deathtrap on wheels (maybe a rolling deathtrap?)
Whoosh!!!
Hardware specifically designed for the OS...
As far as I know, Windows does not tailor it's code to all Dell, Lenovo, Gateway, HP, and Asus laptops.
Come on, you refute your own argument. Hardware manufacturers do design their laptops to play well with Windows, in general. It is only recently that they have even considered installing linux as a feature. Most of them are probably still way behind on making their hardware play well with Linux. The main complaint I always hear about Linux is about having to do fancy things to make drivers work. So all comparisons are valid.
Are you saying that is a bad thing??? You seem to make an argument for cloud computing, but you also use a derogatory term (noob). I think it is an amazing feature that companies using cloud computing can use their employees for doing more company-specific tasks (like managing the services) rather than doing generic IT work that any nerd-monkey could do.
The fact of the matter is that it isn't, most businesses need/want more servers at the same time.
Do you have a citation for that? I would think that there would be a lot of different services which need servers at different times. Most business services would peak during the day, but I would think most consumer based services (entertainment, shopping) would peak in the evening. And then you have to consider that there are other countries in the world and their day is different than yours. So, their peak times would probably be different. I am not saying that cloud computing is the way to go, but there are definitely the potential for a much better server utilization with it. And, the result will probably be that there will be time based pricing, with peak times costing more. But, it will still be more cost effective because they will still be making money on the non-peak times when individual servers would normally be idle. Also, services that would normally run at peak time, but don't need to, would be able to take advantage of the cheaper non-peak times. This is how a market works. Scarcity of resources results in efficiency. And the overall cost of the system decreases.
OK, your county's legal system is broken. Good for you. But you totally missed the point. Proportional Response has nothing to do with which weapon you use to kill him. It means that your response should only take from them what you expect they could take from you. If you feel your life is threatened, then you have the right to take their life. If you can only expect bodily injury then you should only reward bodily injury back. If they are trying to take your property, then there is no reason to come up behind them and hit them in the head. Warn them off. If they come after you, then hit them in the head. Proportional response is generally used for fights between countries, but the definition can be used in other situations as well. Here is the obligatory wikipedia link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)
I would personally stay in my house, call the police, probably load my shotgun and put it next to the door, then open the door and yell at you to leave my car alone. If you made aggressive moves toward me, then I would be justified in using deadly force. If not, then its just property. There are more important things to me than my car. Like being able to live with myself.
What if it was your 15 year old kid getting drunk for the first time? How would you feel then? You would be able to tell someone that it was OK for them to kill this kid that you had spent (wasted) 15 years of your life raising. That his stupid mistake (no malice, no damage done) was worth him losing his life over. I have made a lot of similarly stupid mistakes in my life (though never what that kid did), and I am glad that I did not have cold-hearted bastards like you in my neighborhood.
It is people like you that provide the arguments for gun control. Complete disregard for human life. Because you own a gun, the first solution you think of for any problem is to shoot now and ask questions later. It is legal to kill him, so that is what I will do. I don't think that we need a "right" to bear arms. It should be a privilege for people who have shown they will use them responsibly.
I also am a black belt in karate. One of the most important things that I was taught was how to control a situation and not escalate it. To use the appropriate level of force. That is important, though, because if I do attack someone, I can be charged with "assault with a deadly weapon" because of the black belt. But I am more interested in resolving situations in a way that works out the best for everyone than being able to point at a dead body and say "It was legal for me to kill him". I DO have a conscience and would feel bad about killing anyone, especially a defenseless kid.
Actually, a significant issue in society these days is a lack of respect for the law. Not that I don't break the law myself, I just think that as a society we shouldn't be encouraging the idea that it is OK to break some laws, because that makes people think that maybe other laws can be broken. Break an EULA, subvert DRM. No big deal. Another common example is Marijuana. Kids are told it is bad for you, and that it is illegal, but then they try it and realize that they have been lied to. And if they are lied to about the dangers of marijuana, what else have they been lied to about? Cocaine, heroine, ecstasy (which also is made out to be worse than it is)? The same thing goes for underage drinking. If laws are unjust and unnecessary then it takes away the force of the ones that are just and necessary. If you tell people the truth and let them make their own decisions, the when you say something that is actually important they might actually believe you.
When you do a google search for Paul Revere, how do you, "not knowing any better", separate out the bullshit? Wikipedia is designed to make it easier to get an overview of a subject and then follow the primary sources to check facts. I think that anyone who has used a google search to do research should have their research invalidated, because by your argument it is much worse than wikipedia, and for some reason they will follow the first link and assume that page is written by god.
But you are supposed to link to your sources. If I were using wikipedia to do research, I would go to your page, check its credibility, and then decide whether to use it or not. Are you saying that google is an unacceptable tool to use when you are doing research? Because a google search shows me tons of pages that are probably completely wrong. At least with wikipedia a little bit of the crap is filtered out. All wikipedia does is points you in the right (or occasionally wrong) direction. It is up to you to verify the facts before you present them as such.
Are you still in elementary school? What are you doing research for where it is acceptable to quote an encyclopedia? By the time I was in middle school I was always told to go to primary sources.
You should RTFA.
You must be new here
You are right, I was thinking gas engines, not diesel. And also, diesels do tend to be more efficient than gas engines while idling. But, you say you get your best fuel economy at 1600 RPM. I don't doubt that. But, what fuel ratio gives you the best efficiency, though? IIRC, diesel's gets its best at a fuel to air ratio of between 0.95 and 1.0. Is that what you cruise at? Because, I very much doubt it. Your engine is going to be oversized so that you can have a decent acceleration. The "throttle" on a diesel is the amount of fuel it injects in the cylinder. My original argument may have been for the wrong fuel, but it is pretty much correct regardless. Combustion engines generally run at their highest efficiency when they are close to full power. Hence, they are not a good design for cars (at least when they are the sole power source) because a car requires a wide range of operating conditions. And, you are correct. Mechanical losses are much less than electrical losses. That is a big argument between series hybrids and parallel hybrids. But either hybrid will be able to use a better sized engine for the car and hence see significant improvements in efficiency, despite the increase in weight of the vehicle. This is because the engine can be set to run at the optimal speed (if you attach it to a CVT) AND the optimal fuel ratio. If it makes too much power, the electric motor puts an additional load on and produces electricity. If it makes too little power, the electric motor boosts it to where it needs to be. Sorry for the confusion, but you are still wrong.
Wrong. A mechanically connected vehicle would be the most efficient if it cruised at WOT (wide open throttle). You accelerate by opening the throttle, so if your car were to cruise at WOT, then you would have no acceleration. Hence, most car engines are way oversized for being efficient. That is why hybrids are more efficient. You can put in a correctly sized motor which (most of the time) runs at WOT in the most efficient range, and then use the electric motor for accelerating.