Its easier to harness the power of many horses than grow one 100 times as powerful.
No, it is easier to grow 100 horses than one horse 100 times as powerful, and yet we've gone ahead and done it anyway, because, in point of fact, it is easier to harness and control one horse than 100.
I have already answered that question in the affirmative.
A book will come out when it comes out, and I will purchase it when I purchase it. I do not stand in line for them, thus I do not take any particular notice of when the line is scheduled to form. There is plenty of high quality material available that I have not yet read to keep amused and informed in the meantime, and there is no line for such popular, widely published authors such as Twain, Dickens, Swift, Kipling, Conrad, Burton (I have yet to finish all 16 volumes of the Thosand Nights and a Night, et al.
Some people seem to like the standing in line experience in and of itself. Some sort of psuedo "community" thing I guess. They can have it. Waiting a week or 100 hasn't proven fatal, or even mildly discomfiting, to me yet.
I can't recall ever having known the street date for any book I have ever bought, or even cared about it for that matter. I most certainly have never seen any book other than the Harry Potter series have a street date be the subject of the general press, let alone any form of "security" whatsoever.
This whole schmegegy has little to nothing to do with fair competition, but a whole lot to do with marketing, drumming up the fervor of the torch and pitchfork bearing mob that makes it appear the security measures are necessary in the first place.
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza; and it's leaking money into the publisher's pockets.
Nope, you need a medium to transmit vibrations. Whales do just fine with a fluid, in fact a fluid is better, because it's denser. More molecules in closer contact. They "talk" to each other across hundreds of miles using low frequencies. That would be the whales. Molecules don't talk. They don't even "talk." Don't anthropomorphize molecules. They hate that.
Solids work great too. A microphone on the probe would have recorded a sound.
A microphone next to the probe would not, because because an insufficiently dense medium, like a gas, to carry the vibration.
pleasant looking, reserved and classic. I like Shaker furniture too.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Yeah, most UIs suck, but as already noted by other posters, Chris didn't actually give us an example of an interface that sucks. As for apps, I'm afraid I've never had a desire to turn pictures into cartoons, and still don't. That's not how I wish to use my computer.
The interesting thing in this context is that it's the most "innovative" (i.e. with the most chrome and tailfins) interfaces that suck the hardest. What the hell good is "innovation" that has to detract from usability to "innovate"?
"Hey kids, I've got a great idea, let's put a steering triangle in our cars from now on. It's hip. It's cool. Nobody's ever done it before. It's. ..Innovative!"
And so "technology" marches onward. ..to the rear.
"Natural" interfaces are the ones that tend to bug me the most, as they are often natural on a physical device, but quite unnatural on a computer. There are no knobs on an image. Mice are not turning devices like fingers. The monitor is really big, you don't need to make the buttons on the radio as small as the buttons on a car radio (which are universally reviled as a real world interface in the first place).
Most of all, if you are going to use a "natural" interface, don't let the braindead graphic designers loose on it, using the power of the virtual world to make "natural" interfaces that wouldn't exist in real life, insuring that the interface sucks in every possible way, in every possible context, because for some reason they never seem to think the best of both worlds is "cool." Only the worst.
On the whole the most usable computer interface remains the plain window with a menu bar and a couple of big buttons for common functions.
If you wanna paint the big buttons in primary colors and make them weird shapes and call that technogical innovation, well, fine, go ahead, just don't force it on me, because I think it's ugly, sophmoric and uninspired (it's the sort of artistic "innovation" common to beginning art students); and has nothing to do with technology or interface usability.
You did not understand my post. Scientists do not support ideas, they stone them. The ideas that can stand up to the stoning are the ones that, well, stand.
Question all you want. That's the point. That's the scientific method. Your issue is that you seem to want to question without being questioned in returned.
Simply form your question so it is possible to show if it is false or not.
If it is, accept that.
As for Autodynamics, you may find the concepts as "cool" as you like, but theories are not judged by their "coolness," they are judged by whether or not they can be falsified. If you do not personally have the means to determine whether they are false or not it is not the fault of the messanger for pointing out their falsity and your not being able to understand it.
Educate yourself and defend the theory from an educated position.
(Frankly, I've just had a look at some of the stuff and it's blatent crackpot nonsense, but of course you can't trust me, because I've been educated in physics, therefore I must be in on the plot. If you educate yourself then you too will be in on the plot, without even knowing it. Therefore it must be true because it can be shown to be false, but only by people who know how. ..or . ..something. Look, it's crackpot stuff on the order of claiming that things don't fall when you drop them because that implies that unicorns are pink and we all know there are no such things as unicorns. Get thee hence and read Bertrand Russell's The ABC's of Relativity. If you don't like my suggestion because you believe I am stoning you, well, tough. Science really doesn't care about your feelings either. That's part of the beauty of it.)
No scientist has ever won a Nobel Prize by posting [AOL]Me Too![/AOL]
Overthrowing orthodoxy is the career making Holy Grail of every scientist.
All you have to do to collect your Nobel is . ..do it!
Ah, there's the rub. There are these nasty things called "facts" in the way. You're not allowed to make up just any old shit and collect your prize (or chair).
Neither was Newton. That's why we all know about the laws of motion, but the papers on alchemy were hidden.
Yes, I know. In fact I explained all of this to others, in greater detail, including the fact that the web is not the net, all the root domain servers could go down at once and users likely wouldn't even notice because they are actually relying on their ISP's DNS servers which simply use the root servers to sync against, on another forum just a couple of days ago.
I even explained that they could simply set up their own if they really wanted to.
In other words, DNS services are distributed and there is no single point of failure. ..not even at root level.
What about physical security? How can you guarantee that if the root servers are spread out across the world?
The root servers are spread out all over the world. It is that, in fact, that guarantees physical security, because the system is physically distributed. There is no central point of failure to attack.
Slashdot Mirror
Are we talking about Itaniums or horses now?
1960's BRM engines.
KFG
Its easier to harness the power of many horses than grow one 100 times as powerful.
No, it is easier to grow 100 horses than one horse 100 times as powerful, and yet we've gone ahead and done it anyway, because, in point of fact, it is easier to harness and control one horse than 100.
See The Wheel of Reincarnation.
KFG
So all we need to do to get rid of terrorism is to undo the past 1000 or so years of history.
Other than getting picky about the details, exactly.
KFG
Unionists are predominantly Protestant and often descendants of Scottish and English (mainly Scottish) settlement in previous centuries. . .
.and beyond!
Well, it serves as a case in point of how government backed terrorism only leads to more terrorism, unto the seventh generation. .
KFG
I have already answered that question in the affirmative.
A book will come out when it comes out, and I will purchase it when I purchase it. I do not stand in line for them, thus I do not take any particular notice of when the line is scheduled to form. There is plenty of high quality material available that I have not yet read to keep amused and informed in the meantime, and there is no line for such popular, widely published authors such as Twain, Dickens, Swift, Kipling, Conrad, Burton (I have yet to finish all 16 volumes of the Thosand Nights and a Night, et al.
Some people seem to like the standing in line experience in and of itself. Some sort of psuedo "community" thing I guess. They can have it. Waiting a week or 100 hasn't proven fatal, or even mildly discomfiting, to me yet.
It's saved me a shitload of money though.
KFG
The only reason it doesn't make news is because nobody cares. . .
Exactly.
KFG
We do like fair competition here, right?
I can't recall ever having known the street date for any book I have ever bought, or even cared about it for that matter. I most certainly have never seen any book other than the Harry Potter series have a street date be the subject of the general press, let alone any form of "security" whatsoever.
This whole schmegegy has little to nothing to do with fair competition, but a whole lot to do with marketing, drumming up the fervor of the torch and pitchfork bearing mob that makes it appear the security measures are necessary in the first place.
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza; and it's leaking money into the publisher's pockets.
KFG
They're not really your own eyes. They're Tyrrell's niece's.
KFG
A mirocphone would not have worked because space is a vacuum
A probe is not.
A microphone on the probe would have recorded a sound, albeit rather breifly.
KFG
My mother always told me to think positively, so I'm positive I wanted to say liquid. Matter of fact I could use a do-over on the post.
But 'The moving finger writes' and all that crap.
KFG
don't you need a gas to record sound?
Nope, you need a medium to transmit vibrations. Whales do just fine with a fluid, in fact a fluid is better, because it's denser. More molecules in closer contact. They "talk" to each other across hundreds of miles using low frequencies. That would be the whales. Molecules don't talk. They don't even "talk." Don't anthropomorphize molecules. They hate that.
Solids work great too. A microphone on the probe would have recorded a sound.
A microphone next to the probe would not, because because an insufficiently dense medium, like a gas, to carry the vibration.
KFG
Why is it uninhabited?
Because nobody live there. D'oh!
KFG
pleasant looking, reserved and classic. I like Shaker furniture too.
.Innovative!"
.to the rear.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Yeah, most UIs suck, but as already noted by other posters, Chris didn't actually give us an example of an interface that sucks. As for apps, I'm afraid I've never had a desire to turn pictures into cartoons, and still don't. That's not how I wish to use my computer.
The interesting thing in this context is that it's the most "innovative" (i.e. with the most chrome and tailfins) interfaces that suck the hardest. What the hell good is "innovation" that has to detract from usability to "innovate"?
"Hey kids, I've got a great idea, let's put a steering triangle in our cars from now on. It's hip. It's cool. Nobody's ever done it before. It's. .
And so "technology" marches onward. .
"Natural" interfaces are the ones that tend to bug me the most, as they are often natural on a physical device, but quite unnatural on a computer. There are no knobs on an image. Mice are not turning devices like fingers. The monitor is really big, you don't need to make the buttons on the radio as small as the buttons on a car radio (which are universally reviled as a real world interface in the first place).
Most of all, if you are going to use a "natural" interface, don't let the braindead graphic designers loose on it, using the power of the virtual world to make "natural" interfaces that wouldn't exist in real life, insuring that the interface sucks in every possible way, in every possible context, because for some reason they never seem to think the best of both worlds is "cool." Only the worst.
On the whole the most usable computer interface remains the plain window with a menu bar and a couple of big buttons for common functions.
If you wanna paint the big buttons in primary colors and make them weird shapes and call that technogical innovation, well, fine, go ahead, just don't force it on me, because I think it's ugly, sophmoric and uninspired (it's the sort of artistic "innovation" common to beginning art students); and has nothing to do with technology or interface usability.
KFG
Save it, treasure it, love it.
Next Xmas you're getting a brazier. We'll be sure to color it "Blueberry" to inusure that it's the most up to date technology available.
KFG
Yes, that would be the joke.
KFG
The question is not whether or not you are allowed to question. That is what science does.
The question is to what standard are the answers held.
KFG
I don't like being stoned
.or . . .something. Look, it's crackpot stuff on the order of claiming that things don't fall when you drop them because that implies that unicorns are pink and we all know there are no such things as unicorns. Get thee hence and read Bertrand Russell's The ABC's of Relativity. If you don't like my suggestion because you believe I am stoning you, well, tough. Science really doesn't care about your feelings either. That's part of the beauty of it.)
You did not understand my post. Scientists do not support ideas, they stone them. The ideas that can stand up to the stoning are the ones that, well, stand.
Question all you want. That's the point. That's the scientific method. Your issue is that you seem to want to question without being questioned in returned.
Simply form your question so it is possible to show if it is false or not.
If it is, accept that.
As for Autodynamics, you may find the concepts as "cool" as you like, but theories are not judged by their "coolness," they are judged by whether or not they can be falsified. If you do not personally have the means to determine whether they are false or not it is not the fault of the messanger for pointing out their falsity and your not being able to understand it.
Educate yourself and defend the theory from an educated position.
(Frankly, I've just had a look at some of the stuff and it's blatent crackpot nonsense, but of course you can't trust me, because I've been educated in physics, therefore I must be in on the plot. If you educate yourself then you too will be in on the plot, without even knowing it. Therefore it must be true because it can be shown to be false, but only by people who know how. .
KFG
No scientist has ever won a Nobel Prize by posting [AOL]Me Too![/AOL]
.do it!
Overthrowing orthodoxy is the career making Holy Grail of every scientist.
All you have to do to collect your Nobel is . .
Ah, there's the rub. There are these nasty things called "facts" in the way. You're not allowed to make up just any old shit and collect your prize (or chair).
Neither was Newton. That's why we all know about the laws of motion, but the papers on alchemy were hidden.
They didn't work.
KFG
The sharks are claiming that as their intellectual property, and the sharks have the best legal representation.
KFG
Sure, go ahead, mock all you want, but we'll see who has the last laugh when they mount a .57 mm recoilless on that thing.
KFG
Whatever.
KFG
Well, there ya go.
KFG
Yes, I know. In fact I explained all of this to others, in greater detail, including the fact that the web is not the net, all the root domain servers could go down at once and users likely wouldn't even notice because they are actually relying on their ISP's DNS servers which simply use the root servers to sync against, on another forum just a couple of days ago.
.not even at root level.
I even explained that they could simply set up their own if they really wanted to.
In other words, DNS services are distributed and there is no single point of failure. .
Which is where I came in to this movie.
KFG
What about physical security? How can you guarantee that if the root servers are spread out across the world?
The root servers are spread out all over the world. It is that, in fact, that guarantees physical security, because the system is physically distributed. There is no central point of failure to attack.
That's rather the point of the Internet.
KFG
How come there are so many more old people in Japan as compared to the US?
They eat their young.
KFG