Ha ha, have you been paying attention to physics over the last 50 years? "Produces nothing testable" is pretty much the dictionary definition of modern physics.
Quarks were testable. Neutrino oscillation was testable. Relativistic frame dragging was testable. Quantum teleportation was testable. Electroweak unification was testable. Vacuum polarization was testable. Shall I continue?
So, the kid seems to be great at math. Question is, is he great at physics? Manipulating equations in startling ways is cool and all, but if the result doesn't agree with reality, or if it produces nothing testable, then you're just messing around. Period.
Einstein always struggled with the mathematics and didn't consider himself to be very good at it. Einstein's contribution was the physical insight behind relativity.
If and when Google actually implements the patent everyone is commenting on, then you can worry. Until then, a patent isn't a product. It's just an idea on a piece of paper.
More than that, the patent is a piece of paper that PREVENTS other people from doing this. Patenting evil ideas is actually a pretty clever way of making sure those ideas are never implemented (not that I place all that much faith in Google).
I'm fine with all that. I draw the line at setting up a fucking roadblock to physically prevent me from moving in the direction I want to be moving in order to do those things.
Uh, that isn't what I said. What I'm saying is if your goal is to funnel money into a humanitarian organization there are less labyrinthine ways of going about it. Yeah -- let's not pay soldiers -- clearly what I meant there.
If we restricted our news to "things which are utterly unrelated to anything else in the universe" we wouldn't be reading much. Everything is built on something else, and this is kind of nifty. Nobody said it was gonna change the world.
Government gives money to soldiers. Soldiers give money to Red Cross. Red Cross gives money to coffee vendor. Coffee vendor gives money to coffee grower. At each step of the process, the government (well, *A* government somewhere) gets a cut, the vendors get a cut in the form of profit, etc etc.
Wouldn't it be more economically EFFICIENT for the government to just, ya know, give money to the Red Cross?
How is it a fundamental freedom to not have an officer ask you to say your name to an alcohol measurement device? If that's an "unreasonable search", I'd hate to see how you think the police should do their job.
How do I think the police should do their job? Well, I think they should base their inquiries on, you know, EVIDENCE. For one thing.
As they say, freedom isn't free. Sometimes something bad happens. That's the trade.
Some people really love this argument. It's bullshit. If somebody close to me was killed by a drunk driver, I'd hardly be in a position to be objective about it, would I?
Ahh, think of the children! Ahh, think of the drunk driving victims! It just goes on and on. Getting drunks off the road is important, let's stop everyone. Finding illegal aliens is important, let's require the police to check everyone's papers. We need to stop terrorism, let's irradiate everyone who tries to get on an airplane. Next up, stopping drug dealers -- let's grab people at random and search them. Anything, anything at all to prevent crime, even if it means giving up the most fundamental freedoms we supposedly hold to be important.
So the possibility that a completely sober driver might want this information in order to avoid a pointless traffic stop, just doesn't cross your mind? I drive sober, period. I'd love this app. I'm not fucking obliged to drive through checkpoints if I can avoid it.
Why anyone would want to use the closed / proprietary version (with Google's late-night secret sauce added), when there's a clean open source version available is beyond me.
By the Chromium team's own admission, there is no such thing as a "stable release" of Chromium. And they don't seem interested in making it so. Basically, you download top-of-tree and build it. Sorry, I don't use stuff like that for daily work.
When I download software, open source or not, I tend to want it in binary form. At least then I have a hope in hell that maybe the thing has been tested somewhat. Open source developers are way too squishy with this kind of thing. "The latest stable is 1.2.3, go get it and build." Uh, no. The latest stable is some particular binary that YOU built and YOU tested and YOU found to be adequate. My compiler might (very well may be) different. My dependencies may be different. My system is certainly different. This is not the definition of "testing" or "stable." Build a binary, test it on a variety of environments, bless it, and put it out there. You CAN be open source and professional at the same time.
Well, everyone knows that version numbers are a measurement of how many featuritons are included in the product. A featuriton is a fundamental subatomic particle which represents the basic unit of innovation. For every version number, an additional 3.82e26 featuritons is included in the product. So really, the version number is just measuring the total featuriton level and comparing version numbers is a completely valid way to compare the development of two products.
Let's not bother getting into the quantum developodynamics of it, just take my word for it.
I already said, quite clearly, that I don't want to ban things. Given that you couldn't have possibly missed that, it appears you're just trying to criticize me for exercising my right to express my own viewpoint, which is that this shit is unbelievably sick.
This has been discussed and well documented. Firefox will gobble RAM when it has a chance, but it also does a good job of freeing up that RAM in tight environments. If you've got 4 gigs of RAM free, it's going to use it. Why shouldn't it.
Let's distinguish here between RAM and address space. There's nothing wrong with filling most of your address space with cached data -- the OS will just swap out any rarely-used pages if it has to. But actively using all available RAM is not being a good citizen on a multitasking machine. So long as you're not always touching pages that you don't need to be touching, the OS can do its job and swap out pages on an LRU basis. But if you're needlessly hitting those pages and freshening them, the OS will prioritize your pages over the pages of other processes, even if you don't really need that RAM as badly as somebody else might.
It's possible that Firefox does something that's reasonable, but that's something I'm going to study empirically rather than give hand-waving arguments, now that it's officially out.
And, as I said before, if the child is one of the few who needs to be told that it's not real, the parent can do exactly that. Unless they're not good parents, of course.
It's the case with bad parents that is the problem. I'd really like you to address my main argument. Say you're a ten year old kid whose dad beats both you and your mom. You pick up this game, which seems to include woman-beating as a theme. What sort of thought processes do you think will go through this kid's mind? If you're a kid who gets beat, well, you live to get beat another day. If you're a kid who gets shot, well, you're dead.
I'm not worried about the crime -- as if this is going to cause the kid to go out and start beating people, that's ridiculous. But you've gotta be seriously blind if you think that sort of thing is not going to fuck up that kid's head in a major way.
AC is much easier to transport. DC resistance in the AC world is impedance. As impedance is complex, If you choose the correct frequency and voltage, you can move power very very far distances with extremely little loss. You cant do that with DC.
Impedance is resistance plus reactance. You don't magically get rid of good old Ohmic loss by using AC.
The amount of children that view/play violent media is likely staggeringly high. How many of them are actually insane enough actually imitate the violence and try it on others? Most of them know that it's fiction.
Killing aliens and other bad guys who are themselves trying to kill YOU is obviously fiction, and even justifiable under the concept of self-defense. Smacking a woman? Dude, that happens in real life. Some kids who will play this game have fathers who've done it to their mothers. Maybe the kid himself has been smacked. Now the video game shows that this might be okay -- if he hits mom and it's okay, I guess it's okay that he hits me, too. I support free speech and ultimately the right of a game company to produce whatever sort of filth they want, but guess what? I have free speech too. I'm using that freedom to say that this is fucking sick and morally depraved.
Also, you have no fucking clue how children's minds work. Obviously.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha ha, have you been paying attention to physics over the last 50 years? "Produces nothing testable" is pretty much the dictionary definition of modern physics.
Quarks were testable. Neutrino oscillation was testable. Relativistic frame dragging was testable. Quantum teleportation was testable. Electroweak unification was testable. Vacuum polarization was testable. Shall I continue?
So, the kid seems to be great at math. Question is, is he great at physics? Manipulating equations in startling ways is cool and all, but if the result doesn't agree with reality, or if it produces nothing testable, then you're just messing around. Period.
Einstein always struggled with the mathematics and didn't consider himself to be very good at it. Einstein's contribution was the physical insight behind relativity.
Nations aren't supposed to enforce moral standards.
Because you say so, I guess?
A sovereign nation taking steps to enforce their own moral and legal standards. What is the world coming to?
So it's not worth it because it only really helps the tetraplegic, not the people caring for the tetraplegic? What the hell?
If and when Google actually implements the patent everyone is commenting on, then you can worry. Until then, a patent isn't a product. It's just an idea on a piece of paper.
More than that, the patent is a piece of paper that PREVENTS other people from doing this. Patenting evil ideas is actually a pretty clever way of making sure those ideas are never implemented (not that I place all that much faith in Google).
I'm fine with all that. I draw the line at setting up a fucking roadblock to physically prevent me from moving in the direction I want to be moving in order to do those things.
Uh, that isn't what I said. What I'm saying is if your goal is to funnel money into a humanitarian organization there are less labyrinthine ways of going about it. Yeah -- let's not pay soldiers -- clearly what I meant there.
If we restricted our news to "things which are utterly unrelated to anything else in the universe" we wouldn't be reading much. Everything is built on something else, and this is kind of nifty. Nobody said it was gonna change the world.
Government gives money to soldiers. Soldiers give money to Red Cross. Red Cross gives money to coffee vendor. Coffee vendor gives money to coffee grower. At each step of the process, the government (well, *A* government somewhere) gets a cut, the vendors get a cut in the form of profit, etc etc.
Wouldn't it be more economically EFFICIENT for the government to just, ya know, give money to the Red Cross?
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 full of $100 bills...
How is it a fundamental freedom to not have an officer ask you to say your name to an alcohol measurement device? If that's an "unreasonable search", I'd hate to see how you think the police should do their job.
How do I think the police should do their job? Well, I think they should base their inquiries on, you know, EVIDENCE. For one thing.
As they say, freedom isn't free. Sometimes something bad happens. That's the trade.
Some people really love this argument. It's bullshit. If somebody close to me was killed by a drunk driver, I'd hardly be in a position to be objective about it, would I?
Ahh, think of the children! Ahh, think of the drunk driving victims! It just goes on and on. Getting drunks off the road is important, let's stop everyone. Finding illegal aliens is important, let's require the police to check everyone's papers. We need to stop terrorism, let's irradiate everyone who tries to get on an airplane. Next up, stopping drug dealers -- let's grab people at random and search them. Anything, anything at all to prevent crime, even if it means giving up the most fundamental freedoms we supposedly hold to be important.
Sorry, no.
So the possibility that a completely sober driver might want this information in order to avoid a pointless traffic stop, just doesn't cross your mind? I drive sober, period. I'd love this app. I'm not fucking obliged to drive through checkpoints if I can avoid it.
Or maybe I'm not "sober enough," I'm completely sober and I would like to avoid being repeatedly stopped for no damn reason.
Then I got an Android phone and moved on with my fucking life.
"Shut the fuck up" -- what a committed proponent of free speech you are.
Why anyone would want to use the closed / proprietary version (with Google's late-night secret sauce added), when there's a clean open source version available is beyond me.
By the Chromium team's own admission, there is no such thing as a "stable release" of Chromium. And they don't seem interested in making it so. Basically, you download top-of-tree and build it. Sorry, I don't use stuff like that for daily work.
When I download software, open source or not, I tend to want it in binary form. At least then I have a hope in hell that maybe the thing has been tested somewhat. Open source developers are way too squishy with this kind of thing. "The latest stable is 1.2.3, go get it and build." Uh, no. The latest stable is some particular binary that YOU built and YOU tested and YOU found to be adequate. My compiler might (very well may be) different. My dependencies may be different. My system is certainly different. This is not the definition of "testing" or "stable." Build a binary, test it on a variety of environments, bless it, and put it out there. You CAN be open source and professional at the same time.
Well, everyone knows that version numbers are a measurement of how many featuritons are included in the product. A featuriton is a fundamental subatomic particle which represents the basic unit of innovation. For every version number, an additional 3.82e26 featuritons is included in the product. So really, the version number is just measuring the total featuriton level and comparing version numbers is a completely valid way to compare the development of two products.
Let's not bother getting into the quantum developodynamics of it, just take my word for it.
I already said, quite clearly, that I don't want to ban things. Given that you couldn't have possibly missed that, it appears you're just trying to criticize me for exercising my right to express my own viewpoint, which is that this shit is unbelievably sick.
This has been discussed and well documented. Firefox will gobble RAM when it has a chance, but it also does a good job of freeing up that RAM in tight environments. If you've got 4 gigs of RAM free, it's going to use it. Why shouldn't it.
Let's distinguish here between RAM and address space. There's nothing wrong with filling most of your address space with cached data -- the OS will just swap out any rarely-used pages if it has to. But actively using all available RAM is not being a good citizen on a multitasking machine. So long as you're not always touching pages that you don't need to be touching, the OS can do its job and swap out pages on an LRU basis. But if you're needlessly hitting those pages and freshening them, the OS will prioritize your pages over the pages of other processes, even if you don't really need that RAM as badly as somebody else might.
It's possible that Firefox does something that's reasonable, but that's something I'm going to study empirically rather than give hand-waving arguments, now that it's officially out.
And, as I said before, if the child is one of the few who needs to be told that it's not real, the parent can do exactly that. Unless they're not good parents, of course.
It's the case with bad parents that is the problem. I'd really like you to address my main argument. Say you're a ten year old kid whose dad beats both you and your mom. You pick up this game, which seems to include woman-beating as a theme. What sort of thought processes do you think will go through this kid's mind? If you're a kid who gets beat, well, you live to get beat another day. If you're a kid who gets shot, well, you're dead.
I'm not worried about the crime -- as if this is going to cause the kid to go out and start beating people, that's ridiculous. But you've gotta be seriously blind if you think that sort of thing is not going to fuck up that kid's head in a major way.
AC is much easier to transport. DC resistance in the AC world is impedance. As impedance is complex, If you choose the correct frequency and voltage, you can move power very very far distances with extremely little loss. You cant do that with DC.
Impedance is resistance plus reactance. You don't magically get rid of good old Ohmic loss by using AC.
The amount of children that view/play violent media is likely staggeringly high. How many of them are actually insane enough actually imitate the violence and try it on others? Most of them know that it's fiction.
Killing aliens and other bad guys who are themselves trying to kill YOU is obviously fiction, and even justifiable under the concept of self-defense. Smacking a woman? Dude, that happens in real life. Some kids who will play this game have fathers who've done it to their mothers. Maybe the kid himself has been smacked. Now the video game shows that this might be okay -- if he hits mom and it's okay, I guess it's okay that he hits me, too. I support free speech and ultimately the right of a game company to produce whatever sort of filth they want, but guess what? I have free speech too. I'm using that freedom to say that this is fucking sick and morally depraved.
Also, you have no fucking clue how children's minds work. Obviously.