I can see this being both good and bad - we'll only get ads served to us based on subjects that we are interested in, but on the other hand we'll only get ads served to us based on subjects that we are interested in. The marketing people will be able to play on peoples insecurities a lot more efficiently.
I can also see embarassing times ahead for people who look up a lot of porn too...
Reminds me of a dilbert cartoon I saw once. I can't remember the exact text, but it was something like this.
Computer Salesman: "And this is our newest user friendly model." Dilbert: "It only has one button." Computer Salesman: "Yes, and we press it before it leaves the factory."...
Ok, you seem to have trouble understanding what I said. I wasn't referring to the fact that the discussion has gone offtopic (this is slashdot after all), I was saying that your analysis is wrong.
There is nothing to stop these companies selling single units, at least not based on your arguments.
All of what you said is true except for the fact that it's completly irrelevant. The company making the LCD screens is presumably going to be making a pretty big run of them (as in enough to cover all the costs you mentioned).
These things aren't (entirely) made from scratch for each order you know. All they would need to do is make a few extra in the run for individual customers.
I don't think that the snide remark at the end of your comment was really necessary either.
Well, this quote from the article "In June at our analyst day in Sunnyvale, AMD introduced "Torrenza" and reinforced our commitment to an open architecture for third-party innovation" would seem to suggest that this is good news for the Linux (and other) drivers, assuming that this open architecture philosophy spreads to the GPU section of the new company.
Unbelievable! How the hell can this be moderated as insightful? Did anyone actually read this post?
"Except in cases of rape, people can easily avoid getting infected with HIV/AIDS. Abstinence or safe sex cost nothing, and they have the additional benefit of reducing population growth."
Eh, no. I don't know if you know this or not, but no one actually wants to contract AIDS. This is probably the stupidest argument I've ever read on slashdot, and believe me that's saying something.
Sure your argument about microsoft taking money from the economy is fine, the complete lack of free trade in third world countries is what causes most of the deaths in the world at the moment, but this isn't about microsoft or free trade - we're talking about curing a disease for god's sake!
Just because you don't have a high opinion of Gates or his companies practices doesn't mean that this is a "sad" developement. There is a huge difference between curing a disease and the operation of a private company.
Despite what a lot of people in the "the market will solve it" crowd here think certain things should not be privatised, medical research being one of them.
You could easily counter the gravity effect by applying an electric field upwards, and as for shaking the lens, if the container is completly full it would be impossible to mix the liquids.
I really like this idea, just imagine how small you could make digital cameras with proper zooms.
I think that you've completly missed the point - The reason you should walk after 5% is so the casino won't throw you out (as they like to do to anyone who happens to be up at black jack).
Before you start criticising people and saying they are ".. so bad at math..." you should take 5 minutes to actually read what they said.
To be honest, I'm pretty surprised to see all the "Is Math dying?" or "This isn't real maths" type comments here on slahdot.
I would have thought that the slashdot crowd would be the first group to realise that computers are an excellent aid to mathematics. Not every maths problem can be solved by hand, and there is often quite a bit of inginuity involved in these computer soloutions.
I see comments like this as people being afraid of technology - The computer can potentiall be one of the mathematicican's most useful tools in the future, if they let it. The thing to bear in mind is that it is just that a tool.
I don't think you'll have to worry too much about that - water has such a high specific heat and conductivity it works pretty well as an energy buffer.
If you don't believe me look at the climate of island states compared to land locked states. For example I live in Ireland, and the annual temperature range is ~20 degrees celcius maximum. It can be *way* more than that even in places in continental europe at the same lattitude.
I accept your point, perhaps I should have been a bit more diplomatic in my post. Maybe I shouldn't have used hyperbole like pseudoscience in my post, but I do recognise the importance of behavioral science and other scientific fields.
The point I was trying to make is that this article is part of what gives people views like the ones you disagree so much with. When I said there were plenty of science stories worth writing about I didn't just have math and physics in mind. If the only behavioral science stories people read are ones like these I dont think it will help the public's impression of the field.
The journalists have a responsibility to the comunity to publish realistic scientific stories - There are plenty more interesting scientific stories they could publish, but from what I've seen they always go for fringe/crackpot ideas and studies like this.
This is just another in the long series of sensationalist stories about studies that show *** increases ***, or doing X makes you better at Y.
What annoys me about these stories is that they are always based on small (eg 45) groups and they basically amount to pseudoscience and they give a bad view of the scientific community in general.
For example, how many times have you read stories about either possible cures or causes of cancer? Journalists should stop coming out with this crap and cover real scientific stories.
I really don't think that the institute of physics needs your help to prevent slashdotting, there have been many articles linked there from slashdot before, and I never noticed any effect, so that leaves 2 possibilities:
1) You have crusaded to protect their servers every other time a story on slashdot linked to one of their articles. Good work!
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly what i thought.
Still though, more relevant ads are probably a good thing.
I wonder if this post is flamebait.
Regardless of whether you are serious it will be treated so on slashdot. Seriously though - are there no tools for this on linux?
Cringely has been predicting this for quite a while now.
I can see this being both good and bad - we'll only get ads served to us based on subjects that we are interested in, but on the other hand we'll only get ads served to us based on subjects that we are interested in. The marketing people will be able to play on peoples insecurities a lot more efficiently.
I can also see embarassing times ahead for people who look up a lot of porn too...
I can think of one - the citroen dancing car (C5 I think).
That was a cool ad.
Reminds me of a dilbert cartoon I saw once. I can't remember the exact text, but it was something like this.
...
Computer Salesman: "And this is our newest user friendly model."
Dilbert: "It only has one button."
Computer Salesman: "Yes, and we press it before it leaves the factory."
Ok, my memory isn't the best..
Ok, you seem to have trouble understanding what I said. I wasn't referring to the fact that the discussion has gone offtopic (this is slashdot after all), I was saying that your analysis is wrong.
There is nothing to stop these companies selling single units, at least not based on your arguments.
All of what you said is true except for the fact that it's completly irrelevant. The company making the LCD screens is presumably going to be making a pretty big run of them (as in enough to cover all the costs you mentioned).
These things aren't (entirely) made from scratch for each order you know. All they would need to do is make a few extra in the run for individual customers.
I don't think that the snide remark at the end of your comment was really necessary either.
Well, this quote from the article "In June at our analyst day in Sunnyvale, AMD introduced "Torrenza" and reinforced our commitment to an open architecture for third-party innovation" would seem to suggest that this is good news for the Linux (and other) drivers, assuming that this open architecture philosophy spreads to the GPU section of the new company.
Lets hope it does.
Unbelievable! How the hell can this be moderated as insightful? Did anyone actually read this post?
"Except in cases of rape, people can easily avoid getting infected with HIV/AIDS. Abstinence or safe sex cost nothing, and they have the additional benefit of reducing population growth."
Eh, no. I don't know if you know this or not, but no one actually wants to contract AIDS. This is probably the stupidest argument I've ever read on slashdot, and believe me that's saying something.
Sure your argument about microsoft taking money from the economy is fine, the complete lack of free trade in third world countries is what causes most of the deaths in the world at the moment, but this isn't about microsoft or free trade - we're talking about curing a disease for god's sake!
What? Of course we should be happy.
Just because you don't have a high opinion of Gates or his companies practices doesn't mean that this is a "sad" developement. There is a huge difference between curing a disease and the operation of a private company.
Despite what a lot of people in the "the market will solve it" crowd here think certain things should not be privatised, medical research being one of them.
Don't be stupid, leave it on if you must but no one is going to back you up on that reasoning.
You could easily counter the gravity effect by applying an electric field upwards, and as for shaking the lens, if the container is completly full it would be impossible to mix the liquids.
I really like this idea, just imagine how small you could make digital cameras with proper zooms.
Technically then you should never use the word less, since everything is comprised of discrete quanta at the fundamental level :P
Seriously though, These 'Spelling Nazi' and 'Grammar Nazi' people really piss me off - If you know you are being banal, why post in the first place?
Write a comment if you have something worthwhile to contribute.
Eh, calm down there budddy.
I think that you've completly missed the point - The reason you should walk after 5% is so the casino won't throw you out (as they like to do to anyone who happens to be up at black jack).
Before you start criticising people and saying they are ".. so bad at math..." you should take 5 minutes to actually read what they said.
Nice backpeddaling there son.
To be honest, I'm pretty surprised to see all the "Is Math dying?" or "This isn't real maths" type comments here on slahdot.
I would have thought that the slashdot crowd would be the first group to realise that computers are an excellent aid to mathematics. Not every maths problem can be solved by hand, and there is often quite a bit of inginuity involved in these computer soloutions.
I see comments like this as people being afraid of technology - The computer can potentiall be one of the mathematicican's most useful tools in the future, if they let it. The thing to bear in mind is that it is just that a tool.
The point is that when the water is in the form of ice it won't absorb the CO2, whereas in water form it will.
So, I hope that answers your question.
I don't think you'll have to worry too much about that - water has such a high specific heat and conductivity it works pretty well as an energy buffer.
If you don't believe me look at the climate of island states compared to land locked states. For example I live in Ireland, and the annual temperature range is ~20 degrees celcius maximum. It can be *way* more than that even in places in continental europe at the same lattitude.
I accept your point, perhaps I should have been a bit more diplomatic in my post. Maybe I shouldn't have used hyperbole like pseudoscience in my post, but I do recognise the importance of behavioral science and other scientific fields.
The point I was trying to make is that this article is part of what gives people views like the ones you disagree so much with. When I said there were plenty of science stories worth writing about I didn't just have math and physics in mind. If the only behavioral science stories people read are ones like these I dont think it will help the public's impression of the field.
"..the reporters, in theory, know much less about the science than those reviewing for the journal..."
If the reporters know so little about the subject in question, why do they publish an article like this acting as authorities on the subject?
Completly apart that the peer review process isn't completly foolproof (look at this story if you need convincing).
The journalists have a responsibility to the comunity to publish realistic scientific stories - There are plenty more interesting scientific stories they could publish, but from what I've seen they always go for fringe/crackpot ideas and studies like this.
This is just another in the long series of sensationalist stories about studies that show *** increases ***, or doing X makes you better at Y.
What annoys me about these stories is that they are always based on small (eg 45) groups and they basically amount to pseudoscience and they give a bad view of the scientific community in general.
For example, how many times have you read stories about either possible cures or causes of cancer? Journalists should stop coming out with this crap and cover real scientific stories.
I really don't think that the institute of physics needs your help to prevent slashdotting, there have been many articles linked there from slashdot before, and I never noticed any effect, so that leaves 2 possibilities:
1) You have crusaded to protect their servers every other time a story on slashdot linked to one of their articles. Good work!
2) You are karma whoreing (sp?).
I'm guessing 2.
Ah yes, but what happens if someone tampers with your brakes and then you go on to run over someone - because that's the car analogy of a virus.
I'm pretty sure in that case that you aren't responsible for the accident.
(well, maybe in texas)
Shouldn't this whole story be modded to -1 Flamebait?
He's talking about a console with game included offer.