All experimental evidence suggests that the transfer of information faster than the speed of light in a vacuum is impossible. Scientists understand full well that there is always a possibility some new discovery could upend even the most fundamental view of the universe, but until evidence to suggest otherwise comes along, scientists can only work with the experimental data they have -- and so far, all of that suggests FTL transfer of information is impossible.
Therefore, drawing from the incredible amount of experimental data, it is reasonable to conclude that such stars could not have conspired with phenomenon on Earth, since the information would need to have left Earth, reached the star, then returned. The universe simply isn't old enough for such a round trip to have happened. If the max speed you can travel is 1,000 miles in an hour, and the universe is one hour old, then it is impossible to make a round trip to a destination 1,000 miles away. Therefore, if someone arrives from that destination, we know it is impossible for them to have conspired with someone from where you are at, since such a round trip would have taken at least two hours, and the universe is only one hour old.
This isn't entirely accurate. The 3D printing is important because it enabled a custom tailored design which prevents injury. Hence the "more fluid components" were 3D printed -- They just scan the person, and the computer prints an appropriately fitting shell. This is a major boon, since otherwise engineers would need to create custom molds everytime a new shaped leg came into the office.
My first Android device was a G1. Honestly, it was junk. The iPhone of the day blew it out of the water. It served as a showcase in the broader market for what Android could do, and helped Google gather real world usage data. This is arguably a "public beta" of sorts, from a development perspective.
There's always "those two" who start posting on each other's walls, obviously as just an excuse to chat, and then when they finally hookup they stop posting because they're too busy making out. Usually the Facebook mingling accelerates slowly -- The guy posts, the girl responds (or doesn't respond, so the guy takes a hint.) Etc. When marriage finally ensues, and the two live together, they leave Facebook almost entirely. Of course this is a reflection of the general social behavior of people. When we're young, we mingle with a lot of people until we find a mate, then drop out of the social sphere partially or fully. I've long suspected the highly social nature of teenagers and young adults is (partially) a social function to find romance, even if it's unintentional. Most people who have ran in various social circles will find there's some pseudodating within coed friend groups, where one pair will spend a bit more time with each other, which then either escalates into a real relationship, or the peliminary psuedodating fails and never progresses to real dating -- I.e. they start "posting on each others walls" a lot, until they drop out of the social circle (Facebook.)
I used to really enjoy coming to/. -- even with Beta, even though it stinks. Now the entire comments section has just devolved into complaints. The real threat to/. isn't Evil Corporate Overlords, it's/tivism gone wrong. R.I.P. awesome comment community, you will be missed.:(
The problem is that a single company has control over the Olympics, and they are using that position to promote unreasonably priced services. The Olympics is a global event meant to bring nations together, and NBC has a strangle hold on watching that event -- And they have misused that privilege. It's pretty twisted to think that you can pay off the Olympics so people can only watch it on your overpriced Cable station. That's like Verizon paying off Facebook so you can't access their site from other cell carries. "Who said you're owed free service?" No one! It's just twisted a company can get away "owning" the Olympics in the first place, and more twisted they would abuse that power.
Lets be real. Some of the users on/. are serious computer experts. It doesn't take a genius to setup a bunch of ACs across a botnet and spam a site. It just takes "that guy" who happens to have a botnet, and too much spare time, and bam.
The primary problems are not in the overall look of the new site -- honestly, the new site looks pretty similar to the old one. Green, black text, white backgrounds, nested comments, different stories. In my personal use with the beta, it wouldn't be so bad if the width-spacing, and comment management were more like the old system. (And the horrendous frame needs to rot.) The actual look and aesthetic, as well as many of the new features, are not actually all that bad. If the comment rating, UID, sort order, and screen real estate usage were tweeked, the Beta site would be very similar to the current site. The addition of Javascript may make some older browser users unhappy, but realistically speaking, at this point even cell phones can run it without choking. The current site codebase has long standing issues which needed a rewrite, and it's reasonable to take that opportunity to introduce updates. As much as I hate some of the new changes, it isn't so bad it needs to be thrown out the window.
With the original whistle-blowing, I could understand that his actions may be interpreted as ethical. Now he keeps pushing it, he's gone from "good citizen" to "he's probably a Russian Spy." And I'm not with the U.S. Government making this claim. It's just, a lot of what he's doing no longer looks like run of the mill whistle-blowing. Either he's basking in the glory of attention, or he's a Spy. Eitherway, the buggar needs to be extradited to face the criminal court he deserves. He has broken multiple federal laws, and at this point has razor thin justification in doing so. There are much more appropriate channels to go about doing what he did.
ORGANIC FOODS ARE NOT MORE NUTRITIOUS. Good gravy on a stick. Unless you take a really weird definition of "nutrition" that means the "extra nutrition" comes in the form of "less pesticides on food." There is no additional vitamin, mineral, or other such content. The only difference is one has more pesticide residue. "That" is what is being hailed as "more nutritious." Which is a load of bollox. Just go wash your damn fruit and they're both be equally "nutritious."
Hypothetically speaking, Google probably could let an individual read your personal information. But these targeted ads essentially just issue ads to gmail accounts which fit a specific set of criteria, which is entirely machine automated. If/. wants to see which users use the letter "a" the most, they would just have an algorithm which inspects each user's post in search for a's. It would be absolutely silly to think that this is violating our privacy *until* a person goes and reads the results. But Google employee's aren't supposed to be doing that. If they decide to though, all the machine automation or not it won't stop them, because your info is already on their servers. If an MS employee wants to snoop on you, their lack (or presence) of aggregate info will not change a damn thing.
In otherwords, a machine is reading your email, not a person. And a person can read your email whether or not a machine is scanning your crap.
They find ways to make billions of dollars off of foreign companies.
I bet all of you my hat, big record penalties are going to be imposed. Just in time to fund some bailouts (how lucky!)
Lets make a more accurate analogy. Someone steals my computer, flees to the UK, and then sells it. The UK decides to keep the money. The EU has a debt crisis, and conveniently they start making billions off of foreign companies.
"The Eurozone needs a good windfall so we'll just help ourselves to those profits."
The only bigger parasite than the RIAA/MPAA: European courts sucking money from foreign companies.
I browse/. on my Nexus 4 and iPad, both of which display the full/. site perfectly. The layout of the site downscales rather nicely, and I've never had an issues with it. The "mobile" site, on the otherhand, is not my cup of tea. It just doesn't feel very slashdotty.
I'm more inclined to cry "Cognitive bias!" For example, I recall reading a Wired article on cognitive bias, which essentially proclaimed "And that's why some people don't want to vote for Obama!" Nearly everytime I see someone discuss thinking biases, they almost always try to link it to their pet ideology that's a hot topic. "And now we know why some people don't vote Democrat, like me!" "And now we know why some people want to ban guns, when clearly that's stupid!" etc etc. The researcher's have made a huge fowl by trying to tie their research to a hot-button issue like Climate Change. But of course, suggesting the authors of an article talking about conspiracy theories might actually let a cognitive bias slip into their work -- well, I must just be a conspiracy theorist to suggest that, further proving their work!
Lets see an international law that says a corporation's country of origin is allowed to choose a charity to donate the money to. Taking billions from foreign countries is far too tempting, especially when you're having money problems. This is much like in ancient Rome, where tax collectors were given their pay as part of the taxes they collected, and they were responsible for deciding how much tax to take -- and we wonder why no one trusted tax collectors! This isn't much different. An appropriate law enforcement scheme would see sentences that directly impact the governing bodies of the corporations, while not creating a conflict of interest with fines that are exacted.
In more recent times it has become apparent that people have an extraordinary capacity to deceive themselves. A couple of short examples include the argumentative theory of reason and the concept that social interactions can change how we remember events. Given this, how do you resolve Biblical scriptures which ultimately say, if you [yourself] were genuinely confused, only divine intervention would be able to resolve the issue. E.g. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."[John 6:44]
From 2nd grade to 12th grade, my primary curriculum was based on the "PACE" system. The way PACE works is, each subject (math, science, etc) is broken down into individual sub-subjects called a "PACE." Each PACE has reading sections, exercises, and a final test, all of which cover a very specific topic. I clearly remember that my one of my PACE physics books (devoted to gases) used the second law of thermodynamics to "disprove" evolution. The "evidence against evolution" was even on the test at the end of the PACE. I also remember one of my early science PACE books covering the "hydrosphere" -- a sphere of frozen hydrogen which covered the Earth in ancient times -- which supposedly collapsed during Noah's flood. Despite some of these quirks, the PACE system was actually pretty solid. The explanations, questions, etc, were all very well structured. Honestly, looking at some of my niece's/nephew's course work in my local public school system, the PACE system was bread-and-butter by comparison.
When you "steal" a movie online, the studio only loses "potential" sales. Likewise, when you do (or do not) watch a movie, the resources used to produce the movie remain constant. When 100,000,000 people watch the same movie, the production costs of the movie to the studios are the same as if 10 people watch it. In otherwords, supply and demand does not apply when we have infinitely reproducible units of trade. You do not "steal" a movie, rather you "unfairly take advantage" of someone else's hard work. It's similar to the stolen valor act. You can't actually "steal" valor, but you can take credit for something you don't deserve credit for. Movies expected to "make more money" are given bigger budgets -- they have more "viewers" which distributes the production costs. Movies expected to make less money are given smaller budgets, and the distributed viewership shares the lower production cost of the movie. Finally, "gambles" are factored into other movies, so a movie that loses money is compensated for elsewhere.
It's not really "greed," if you're demanding to see the biggest explosions. If you want cheap movies go order a low budget foreign film online -- and you'll pay for the corresponding lower budget. Or, you know, stop watching movies. No one is twisting your arm to shell out $$$ on overpriced movies. If Hollywood loses enough viewers, they'll scale back production costs, until the average viewer feels the cost is worth it. As long as people shell out premium $$$, movies will have premium production costs. Big fat corporate greed problems don't apply to ridiculous luxuries like big budget movies. The MPAA is not "forcing" you to consume their products, and it won't hurt you one bit if you don't buy their stuff. If you expect them to lower their costs, as if you're entitled to that, then you're the one being greedy.
I swore to never buy an Apple product, lo and behold I ended up with an iPad 2. Ultimately, the aspect ratio of the Android horde was the deal breaker, the only one to successfully tempt me has been the Tab 10. The iPad 2 is smooth, sleek, works great, and most importantly works in portrait and landscape mode (I find myself using it in portrait more than landscape, since most web pages are vertical.) But the iPad 2 is not "magically better" than the other tablets. Having fiddled around with the Tab 10, I can say it's just as solid of an experience as an iPad 2. The problem is mentality. People have this strange idea in their head that Apple products are "the best" simply because of a logo. And honestly, the iPad 2 is top notch, and will stay top notch, until other designers are willing to go balls-to-the-wall and compete on equal grounds. That means getting over the "Apple is better by default" mentality. And this CEO literally just said "The iPad 2 is better than our product!" Which is even stupider than Motorola overpricing the Xoom.
Slashdot Mirror
I said faster than light transfer of information. Learn your damn science before you run your mouth.
All experimental evidence suggests that the transfer of information faster than the speed of light in a vacuum is impossible. Scientists understand full well that there is always a possibility some new discovery could upend even the most fundamental view of the universe, but until evidence to suggest otherwise comes along, scientists can only work with the experimental data they have -- and so far, all of that suggests FTL transfer of information is impossible.
Therefore, drawing from the incredible amount of experimental data, it is reasonable to conclude that such stars could not have conspired with phenomenon on Earth, since the information would need to have left Earth, reached the star, then returned. The universe simply isn't old enough for such a round trip to have happened. If the max speed you can travel is 1,000 miles in an hour, and the universe is one hour old, then it is impossible to make a round trip to a destination 1,000 miles away. Therefore, if someone arrives from that destination, we know it is impossible for them to have conspired with someone from where you are at, since such a round trip would have taken at least two hours, and the universe is only one hour old.
This isn't entirely accurate. The 3D printing is important because it enabled a custom tailored design which prevents injury. Hence the "more fluid components" were 3D printed -- They just scan the person, and the computer prints an appropriately fitting shell. This is a major boon, since otherwise engineers would need to create custom molds everytime a new shaped leg came into the office.
My first Android device was a G1. Honestly, it was junk. The iPhone of the day blew it out of the water. It served as a showcase in the broader market for what Android could do, and helped Google gather real world usage data. This is arguably a "public beta" of sorts, from a development perspective.
There's always "those two" who start posting on each other's walls, obviously as just an excuse to chat, and then when they finally hookup they stop posting because they're too busy making out. Usually the Facebook mingling accelerates slowly -- The guy posts, the girl responds (or doesn't respond, so the guy takes a hint.) Etc. When marriage finally ensues, and the two live together, they leave Facebook almost entirely. Of course this is a reflection of the general social behavior of people. When we're young, we mingle with a lot of people until we find a mate, then drop out of the social sphere partially or fully. I've long suspected the highly social nature of teenagers and young adults is (partially) a social function to find romance, even if it's unintentional. Most people who have ran in various social circles will find there's some pseudodating within coed friend groups, where one pair will spend a bit more time with each other, which then either escalates into a real relationship, or the peliminary psuedodating fails and never progresses to real dating -- I.e. they start "posting on each others walls" a lot, until they drop out of the social circle (Facebook.)
Of course I get moderated as "offtopic," meanwhile the floods of "fbeta" are all +5. Even the moderation system is becoming a joke.
I used to really enjoy coming to /. -- even with Beta, even though it stinks. Now the entire comments section has just devolved into complaints. The real threat to /. isn't Evil Corporate Overlords, it's /tivism gone wrong. R.I.P. awesome comment community, you will be missed. :(
Big Mean Userbase Presses /. To Quash Superior Affordable Site Production For Women's Rights
The problem is that a single company has control over the Olympics, and they are using that position to promote unreasonably priced services. The Olympics is a global event meant to bring nations together, and NBC has a strangle hold on watching that event -- And they have misused that privilege. It's pretty twisted to think that you can pay off the Olympics so people can only watch it on your overpriced Cable station. That's like Verizon paying off Facebook so you can't access their site from other cell carries. "Who said you're owed free service?" No one! It's just twisted a company can get away "owning" the Olympics in the first place, and more twisted they would abuse that power.
Lets be real. Some of the users on /. are serious computer experts. It doesn't take a genius to setup a bunch of ACs across a botnet and spam a site. It just takes "that guy" who happens to have a botnet, and too much spare time, and bam.
The primary problems are not in the overall look of the new site -- honestly, the new site looks pretty similar to the old one. Green, black text, white backgrounds, nested comments, different stories. In my personal use with the beta, it wouldn't be so bad if the width-spacing, and comment management were more like the old system. (And the horrendous frame needs to rot.) The actual look and aesthetic, as well as many of the new features, are not actually all that bad. If the comment rating, UID, sort order, and screen real estate usage were tweeked, the Beta site would be very similar to the current site. The addition of Javascript may make some older browser users unhappy, but realistically speaking, at this point even cell phones can run it without choking. The current site codebase has long standing issues which needed a rewrite, and it's reasonable to take that opportunity to introduce updates. As much as I hate some of the new changes, it isn't so bad it needs to be thrown out the window.
With the original whistle-blowing, I could understand that his actions may be interpreted as ethical. Now he keeps pushing it, he's gone from "good citizen" to "he's probably a Russian Spy." And I'm not with the U.S. Government making this claim. It's just, a lot of what he's doing no longer looks like run of the mill whistle-blowing. Either he's basking in the glory of attention, or he's a Spy. Eitherway, the buggar needs to be extradited to face the criminal court he deserves. He has broken multiple federal laws, and at this point has razor thin justification in doing so. There are much more appropriate channels to go about doing what he did.
ORGANIC FOODS ARE NOT MORE NUTRITIOUS. Good gravy on a stick. Unless you take a really weird definition of "nutrition" that means the "extra nutrition" comes in the form of "less pesticides on food." There is no additional vitamin, mineral, or other such content. The only difference is one has more pesticide residue. "That" is what is being hailed as "more nutritious." Which is a load of bollox. Just go wash your damn fruit and they're both be equally "nutritious."
Hypothetically speaking, Google probably could let an individual read your personal information. But these targeted ads essentially just issue ads to gmail accounts which fit a specific set of criteria, which is entirely machine automated. If /. wants to see which users use the letter "a" the most, they would just have an algorithm which inspects each user's post in search for a's. It would be absolutely silly to think that this is violating our privacy *until* a person goes and reads the results. But Google employee's aren't supposed to be doing that. If they decide to though, all the machine automation or not it won't stop them, because your info is already on their servers. If an MS employee wants to snoop on you, their lack (or presence) of aggregate info will not change a damn thing.
In otherwords, a machine is reading your email, not a person. And a person can read your email whether or not a machine is scanning your crap.
They find ways to make billions of dollars off of foreign companies. I bet all of you my hat, big record penalties are going to be imposed. Just in time to fund some bailouts (how lucky!)
Lets make a more accurate analogy. Someone steals my computer, flees to the UK, and then sells it. The UK decides to keep the money. The EU has a debt crisis, and conveniently they start making billions off of foreign companies.
"The Eurozone needs a good windfall so we'll just help ourselves to those profits." The only bigger parasite than the RIAA/MPAA: European courts sucking money from foreign companies.
At least then something funny might come of all of this.
I browse /. on my Nexus 4 and iPad, both of which display the full /. site perfectly. The layout of the site downscales rather nicely, and I've never had an issues with it. The "mobile" site, on the otherhand, is not my cup of tea. It just doesn't feel very slashdotty.
I'm more inclined to cry "Cognitive bias!" For example, I recall reading a Wired article on cognitive bias, which essentially proclaimed "And that's why some people don't want to vote for Obama!" Nearly everytime I see someone discuss thinking biases, they almost always try to link it to their pet ideology that's a hot topic. "And now we know why some people don't vote Democrat, like me!" "And now we know why some people want to ban guns, when clearly that's stupid!" etc etc. The researcher's have made a huge fowl by trying to tie their research to a hot-button issue like Climate Change. But of course, suggesting the authors of an article talking about conspiracy theories might actually let a cognitive bias slip into their work -- well, I must just be a conspiracy theorist to suggest that, further proving their work!
Lets see an international law that says a corporation's country of origin is allowed to choose a charity to donate the money to. Taking billions from foreign countries is far too tempting, especially when you're having money problems. This is much like in ancient Rome, where tax collectors were given their pay as part of the taxes they collected, and they were responsible for deciding how much tax to take -- and we wonder why no one trusted tax collectors! This isn't much different. An appropriate law enforcement scheme would see sentences that directly impact the governing bodies of the corporations, while not creating a conflict of interest with fines that are exacted.
In more recent times it has become apparent that people have an extraordinary capacity to deceive themselves. A couple of short examples include the argumentative theory of reason and the concept that social interactions can change how we remember events. Given this, how do you resolve Biblical scriptures which ultimately say, if you [yourself] were genuinely confused, only divine intervention would be able to resolve the issue. E.g. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."[John 6:44]
From 2nd grade to 12th grade, my primary curriculum was based on the "PACE" system. The way PACE works is, each subject (math, science, etc) is broken down into individual sub-subjects called a "PACE." Each PACE has reading sections, exercises, and a final test, all of which cover a very specific topic. I clearly remember that my one of my PACE physics books (devoted to gases) used the second law of thermodynamics to "disprove" evolution. The "evidence against evolution" was even on the test at the end of the PACE. I also remember one of my early science PACE books covering the "hydrosphere" -- a sphere of frozen hydrogen which covered the Earth in ancient times -- which supposedly collapsed during Noah's flood. Despite some of these quirks, the PACE system was actually pretty solid. The explanations, questions, etc, were all very well structured. Honestly, looking at some of my niece's/nephew's course work in my local public school system, the PACE system was bread-and-butter by comparison.
When you "steal" a movie online, the studio only loses "potential" sales. Likewise, when you do (or do not) watch a movie, the resources used to produce the movie remain constant. When 100,000,000 people watch the same movie, the production costs of the movie to the studios are the same as if 10 people watch it. In otherwords, supply and demand does not apply when we have infinitely reproducible units of trade. You do not "steal" a movie, rather you "unfairly take advantage" of someone else's hard work. It's similar to the stolen valor act. You can't actually "steal" valor, but you can take credit for something you don't deserve credit for. Movies expected to "make more money" are given bigger budgets -- they have more "viewers" which distributes the production costs. Movies expected to make less money are given smaller budgets, and the distributed viewership shares the lower production cost of the movie. Finally, "gambles" are factored into other movies, so a movie that loses money is compensated for elsewhere.
It's not really "greed," if you're demanding to see the biggest explosions. If you want cheap movies go order a low budget foreign film online -- and you'll pay for the corresponding lower budget. Or, you know, stop watching movies. No one is twisting your arm to shell out $$$ on overpriced movies. If Hollywood loses enough viewers, they'll scale back production costs, until the average viewer feels the cost is worth it. As long as people shell out premium $$$, movies will have premium production costs. Big fat corporate greed problems don't apply to ridiculous luxuries like big budget movies. The MPAA is not "forcing" you to consume their products, and it won't hurt you one bit if you don't buy their stuff. If you expect them to lower their costs, as if you're entitled to that, then you're the one being greedy.
I swore to never buy an Apple product, lo and behold I ended up with an iPad 2. Ultimately, the aspect ratio of the Android horde was the deal breaker, the only one to successfully tempt me has been the Tab 10. The iPad 2 is smooth, sleek, works great, and most importantly works in portrait and landscape mode (I find myself using it in portrait more than landscape, since most web pages are vertical.) But the iPad 2 is not "magically better" than the other tablets. Having fiddled around with the Tab 10, I can say it's just as solid of an experience as an iPad 2. The problem is mentality. People have this strange idea in their head that Apple products are "the best" simply because of a logo. And honestly, the iPad 2 is top notch, and will stay top notch, until other designers are willing to go balls-to-the-wall and compete on equal grounds. That means getting over the "Apple is better by default" mentality. And this CEO literally just said "The iPad 2 is better than our product!" Which is even stupider than Motorola overpricing the Xoom.