"So you honestly want the web to be a static, non-interactive system?"
I see you've never heard of a common gateway interface. This is how we used to interact with the internet, for live chats, forums, picture posting, and more, including 'interactive' sites.
.cgi didn't scale to facebook, amazon, etc. because we didn't have the hardware yet. ECMAscript, oh excuse me javascript was a kludge that was necessary at the time. Sort of like cookies.
And Google is caught, constantly, repeatedly, and without remorse, doing bad things with people's private data.
Oh, now, that's simply not true. Google may not feel any remorse about what they've been caught doing, sure, but they clearly feel great remorse over being constantly and repeatedly caught.
You can date the introduction of agriculture in a population by the age of the skulls with cavities. No agriculture = no cavities. This is not news; fermentable carbohydrates rot your teeth.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that bitcoins were real money. I just thought you'd be interested in the recent overturn of Knapp's long-accepted definition of currency.
My own definition of currency is stuff with little or no intrinsic value that I can trade nearly anywhere for significant amounts of beer, sex or cheeseburgers. This is probably not a widely popular definition, but it works for me!
Over the last 20 years Knapp's State Theory of Money (also called the chartal theory of currency, well stated by you and still taught in Economics classes nearly everywhere) has been empirically disproven by the continued existence, acceptance and convertibility of the Somali shilling within recognizable free markets. See Luther & White (2011). Somalian currency is not permissible for tax payment anywhere in the world, but you can buy food with it so it is money and has value.
There's a lot to ponder in regards to the reasons chartalism turned out to be wrong - I don't think anybody's proven the why of it - but it's definitely been proven wrong. See here for a somewhat Austrian-slanted but interesting discussion of unbacked fiat currencies with a focus on Somalia.
Have to agree with that! It makes no sense to focus on the corporate culture after they've are already become dominant as though that culture was what brought them to dominance. Startups always have a distinctly separate culture from huge successful enterprises, and Google is no exception.
Google used to be able to do exact string searches (case sensitive and everything) at the time they were competing against Alta Vista. I'm not sure when they lost the capability - sometime between 2000 and 2006 CE according to this thread.
But I remember when it used to work (and like you, I am annoyed that it no longer does!).
Well, I can reveal the one thing you need to be as successful as Google: Have an effective monopoly on internet searches. Or Operating systems. Or computers.
Nonsense! Alta Vista dominated search, there were a half dozen smaller competitors, and Google had nothing. Nothing, not even name recognition. Fast forward eight years, nobody even remembers what Alta Vista was, and "googling" something is synonymous with searching the verb.
The smartest thing Google did was understand Dijkstra's observations about fitting computing strategies to human capacities. Google's nearly blank search screen was vastly preferable to Yahoo, Alta Vista, et al., because it wasn't covered with distracting crap. You can pretend they were magically granted a monopoly but in reality they earned their dominance of internet searching.
Given that Struts 2 was 6 years old in February, developers had plenty of time to switch to Struts 2.
I don't think you have never made professional software development in healthcare, banking or commerce. In those fields, the developers don't just "switch to Struts 2". In fact, in most cases, there will never be a switch
Your comment is 10 years or more out of date.
If you're HIPAA/HITECH or SOX regulated and you're running EOL'd software, don't expect to pass your next audit.
And if your plan is to lie to the auditors, well, be aware that the CEO is unlikely to be the one who goes to jail - it's more likely to be you, regardless of what your boss might tell you now.
Been hearing this for so long that I think I'll be dead long before hydrogen or nuclear fusion is commercially viable.
Maybe the idea is that in the meantime you won't be wondering why we don't just use sustainable biofuels that could easily be made commercially viable today, if we just redirected the tax dollars being continuously spent to prop up the petrofuel, nuclear and war industries.
But hey, if we went with distributed agriculturally produced energy there would be a lot less concentrated oil wealth available to buy "luggage lifters" and "entertainment consultants" for politicians, so that's probably not a strategy that's going to go over well with the two major parties.
1. Just how much energy would it take to recombine hydrogen with carbon and oxygen to make hydrocarbons?
1) I dunno. Sorry.
2. Hydrogen still delivers more bang per unit of measure than any hydrocarbon.
2) false. Energy per unit volume of H2 in real use is pitiful, absolutely awful. There has been a lot of systematic misinformation circulated about this by existing energy vendors that stand to benefit from a so-called "hydrogen economy" fueled by burning petroleum. They do it by focusing on the energy per unit mass, and pretending there are not any great difficulties associated with using and storing H2 at extremely high pressure. Look at the circle-jerk on Wikipedia for example - right now the most important table is miniaturized while the most misleading table leads the article. The automotive engineer's usage of energy density is recategorized as specific energy (and no tables are presented on that page!). Compared to gasoline or biodiesel, hydrogen totally sucks as a fuel - and that's before you subtract the energy cost of creating the hydrogen, which you really should do since exploitable H2 doesn't occur in nature. But most people aren't going to figure that out from reading Wikipedia.
3. Burning hydrocarbons creates greenhouse gases.
3) True, but re-releasing greenhouse gases taken from the atmosphere in the first place (no net change) is vastly different from digging up sequestered carbon and injecting it into your breathing air. This is a major reason why sustainable biofuels are better than petroleum - plants get over 99% of their carbon directly from the air. Nearly all current H2 production is conventionally fueled, so it releases geologically sequestered carbon to make it.
I don't have time to dig up the exact surah, but I recall one that gives men an explicit pass on beating their wives.
That would be 4:34
And in the Bible, Ephesians 5:22, it says men can do anything they want to their wives (and of course the bible also endorses slavery explicitly in several places, especially Leviticus 25:44). So all those Abrahamic desert monotheisms suck, amirite? Secularism rules!
Oh, wait, it was legal to beat your wife in pretty much every damn place in the world until around 1970... how 'bout that?
Maybe, just maybe, these endorsements of wife beating and slavery have more to do with the time and place the books were written and less to do with religion(s) or lack thereof?
Oh, this was not an argument based on logic or reason? Carry on, then!
(that all matter we can detect appears to be expanding outwards from a point)
Um, fail.
Your brilliant explanation of the shortcomings of my brief gloss on modern cosmology fills me with admiration. Your fantastic powers of critical exposition must be admired by all your cowardly peers! Surely nothing further need ever be written in English, since your terse yet fantastically informative post has forever exhausted the possibilities of that language.
You need to recognize that your own knowledge of the past is at least as bad as hers (if you didn't already know about Paluxy) so that you won't come across to her as some kind of paternally condescending authority figure. That's bad for your love life!
And you know, if her grandfather was involved in the discovery or documentation of Paluxy, that's awesome and you should celebrate that. Take her to the site! The two of you can look at the actual real life data personally and come to some sort of conclusion together. That would be a lot less stupid than fostering discord because "my authority figures contradict your authority figures" which is what you are looking at doing right now. Have you seen the tracks? I think not, so her opinion (which was possibly passed from a person who actually saw them) is at least as valid as your hearsay beliefs.
Most likely, when you both visit the site, you will find that one or the other explanation is more likely, and you'll both benefit regardless of who is right. Real Science is Fun.
But how is it possible to prove beyond a doubt that a rock came from a particular planet/moon in the solar system?
Well, there's only one way, really. You go to that planet or moon, pick up a rock, and bring it home. We can prove beyond a doubt that the moon rocks the astronauts brought home did, in fact, come from Earth's moon. At least, that's where they most recently came from before coming to Earth.
However, in "Science Journalism" which is something loosely inspired by sloppy research and egregious overstatements made by scientists while pumping for grants and attention, if a rock has characteristics that resemble the characteristics of rocks found on some other planet or moon, we confidently state that it came from there. It's called "leaping to conclusions", and misrepresenting hypotheses in this way is a big industry that forms the basis of Science Journalism.
Take the Big Bang theory for an example. We have a working theory, based on a real observation (that all matter we can detect appears to be expanding outwards from a point) and nobody has come up with a better explanation (yet) so in the world of Science Journalism it's an incontrovertible fact that all matter was once contained in a single point. See how that works? You just jump straight from "this is an idea that represents a possibility, which we can work with" to "this is absolute truth that only heretics and savages don't worship".
It's this kind of abandonment of logic and reason, and the substitution of pseudo-scientific dogma for true skepticism or conditional belief, that allows stuff like global warming denialism to prosper. You deflect the conversation from what's reasonable and logically provable to a discussion of the relative stature of the priests, er, I meant scientists, and their religious, er, I meant political affiliations. Evidence be damned, I have magazines.
All machines should have firewalls. All of them, virtualized or not.
Defense in depth is easier than mopping up the blood after something gets past a brittle outer shell and into the soft guts of unprotected internal hosts.
Slashdot Mirror
Hypocrisy doesn't necessarily enter into this; you don't have to agree with the method used to obtain some information in order to use it ethically.
.cgi didn't scale to facebook, amazon, etc. because we didn't have the hardware yet. ECMAscript, oh excuse me javascript was a kludge that was necessary at the time. Sort of like cookies.
We still don't have a "whoosh" mod, unfortunately.
I want to be able to mod your post "ZING!"
A moderation value of WHOOSH would be useful around here too.
3D movies involve tricking your brain into seeing something (depth) which isn't there. If your brain is not so easily fooled, you will suffer.
Scarcity, conductivity, high mass, low melting point and imperishability... but mostly the first and last in the list.
William Shatner? Or the Japanese guy?
Oh, now, that's simply not true. Google may not feel any remorse about what they've been caught doing, sure, but they clearly feel great remorse over being constantly and repeatedly caught.
It's definitely not an ocean, a moon or the floating head of Ayn Rand.
You can date the introduction of agriculture in a population by the age of the skulls with cavities. No agriculture = no cavities. This is not news; fermentable carbohydrates rot your teeth.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that bitcoins were real money. I just thought you'd be interested in the recent overturn of Knapp's long-accepted definition of currency.
My own definition of currency is stuff with little or no intrinsic value that I can trade nearly anywhere for significant amounts of beer, sex or cheeseburgers. This is probably not a widely popular definition, but it works for me!
Categorizing whatever you don't truly understand as "junk" is the most perfect demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect possible.
Over the last 20 years Knapp's State Theory of Money (also called the chartal theory of currency, well stated by you and still taught in Economics classes nearly everywhere) has been empirically disproven by the continued existence, acceptance and convertibility of the Somali shilling within recognizable free markets. See Luther & White (2011). Somalian currency is not permissible for tax payment anywhere in the world, but you can buy food with it so it is money and has value.
There's a lot to ponder in regards to the reasons chartalism turned out to be wrong - I don't think anybody's proven the why of it - but it's definitely been proven wrong. See here for a somewhat Austrian-slanted but interesting discussion of unbacked fiat currencies with a focus on Somalia.
Have to agree with that! It makes no sense to focus on the corporate culture after they've are already become dominant as though that culture was what brought them to dominance. Startups always have a distinctly separate culture from huge successful enterprises, and Google is no exception.
Google used to be able to do exact string searches (case sensitive and everything) at the time they were competing against Alta Vista. I'm not sure when they lost the capability - sometime between 2000 and 2006 CE according to this thread.
But I remember when it used to work (and like you, I am annoyed that it no longer does!).
Nonsense! Alta Vista dominated search, there were a half dozen smaller competitors, and Google had nothing. Nothing, not even name recognition. Fast forward eight years, nobody even remembers what Alta Vista was, and "googling" something is synonymous with searching the verb.
The smartest thing Google did was understand Dijkstra's observations about fitting computing strategies to human capacities. Google's nearly blank search screen was vastly preferable to Yahoo, Alta Vista, et al., because it wasn't covered with distracting crap. You can pretend they were magically granted a monopoly but in reality they earned their dominance of internet searching.
Your comment is 10 years or more out of date.
If you're HIPAA/HITECH or SOX regulated and you're running EOL'd software, don't expect to pass your next audit.
And if your plan is to lie to the auditors, well, be aware that the CEO is unlikely to be the one who goes to jail - it's more likely to be you, regardless of what your boss might tell you now.
Maybe the idea is that in the meantime you won't be wondering why we don't just use sustainable biofuels that could easily be made commercially viable today, if we just redirected the tax dollars being continuously spent to prop up the petrofuel, nuclear and war industries.
But hey, if we went with distributed agriculturally produced energy there would be a lot less concentrated oil wealth available to buy "luggage lifters" and "entertainment consultants" for politicians, so that's probably not a strategy that's going to go over well with the two major parties.
1) I dunno. Sorry.
2) false. Energy per unit volume of H2 in real use is pitiful, absolutely awful. There has been a lot of systematic misinformation circulated about this by existing energy vendors that stand to benefit from a so-called "hydrogen economy" fueled by burning petroleum. They do it by focusing on the energy per unit mass, and pretending there are not any great difficulties associated with using and storing H2 at extremely high pressure. Look at the circle-jerk on Wikipedia for example - right now the most important table is miniaturized while the most misleading table leads the article. The automotive engineer's usage of energy density is recategorized as specific energy (and no tables are presented on that page!). Compared to gasoline or biodiesel, hydrogen totally sucks as a fuel - and that's before you subtract the energy cost of creating the hydrogen, which you really should do since exploitable H2 doesn't occur in nature. But most people aren't going to figure that out from reading Wikipedia.
3) True, but re-releasing greenhouse gases taken from the atmosphere in the first place (no net change) is vastly different from digging up sequestered carbon and injecting it into your breathing air. This is a major reason why sustainable biofuels are better than petroleum - plants get over 99% of their carbon directly from the air. Nearly all current H2 production is conventionally fueled, so it releases geologically sequestered carbon to make it.
And in the Bible, Ephesians 5:22, it says men can do anything they want to their wives (and of course the bible also endorses slavery explicitly in several places, especially Leviticus 25:44).
So all those Abrahamic desert monotheisms suck, amirite? Secularism rules!
Oh, wait, it was legal to beat your wife in pretty much every damn place in the world until around 1970... how 'bout that?
Maybe, just maybe, these endorsements of wife beating and slavery have more to do with the time and place the books were written and less to do with religion(s) or lack thereof?
Oh, this was not an argument based on logic or reason? Carry on, then!
Your brilliant explanation of the shortcomings of my brief gloss on modern cosmology fills me with admiration. Your fantastic powers of critical exposition must be admired by all your cowardly peers! Surely nothing further need ever be written in English, since your terse yet fantastically informative post has forever exhausted the possibilities of that language.
She's got to be talking about Paluxy.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/tsite.htm
You need to recognize that your own knowledge of the past is at least as bad as hers (if you didn't already know about Paluxy) so that you won't come across to her as some kind of paternally condescending authority figure. That's bad for your love life!
And you know, if her grandfather was involved in the discovery or documentation of Paluxy, that's awesome and you should celebrate that. Take her to the site! The two of you can look at the actual real life data personally and come to some sort of conclusion together. That would be a lot less stupid than fostering discord because "my authority figures contradict your authority figures" which is what you are looking at doing right now. Have you seen the tracks? I think not, so her opinion (which was possibly passed from a person who actually saw them) is at least as valid as your hearsay beliefs.
Most likely, when you both visit the site, you will find that one or the other explanation is more likely, and you'll both benefit regardless of who is right. Real Science is Fun.
Well, there's only one way, really. You go to that planet or moon, pick up a rock, and bring it home. We can prove beyond a doubt that the moon rocks the astronauts brought home did, in fact, come from Earth's moon. At least, that's where they most recently came from before coming to Earth.
However, in "Science Journalism" which is something loosely inspired by sloppy research and egregious overstatements made by scientists while pumping for grants and attention, if a rock has characteristics that resemble the characteristics of rocks found on some other planet or moon, we confidently state that it came from there. It's called "leaping to conclusions", and misrepresenting hypotheses in this way is a big industry that forms the basis of Science Journalism.
Take the Big Bang theory for an example. We have a working theory, based on a real observation (that all matter we can detect appears to be expanding outwards from a point) and nobody has come up with a better explanation (yet) so in the world of Science Journalism it's an incontrovertible fact that all matter was once contained in a single point. See how that works? You just jump straight from "this is an idea that represents a possibility, which we can work with" to "this is absolute truth that only heretics and savages don't worship".
It's this kind of abandonment of logic and reason, and the substitution of pseudo-scientific dogma for true skepticism or conditional belief, that allows stuff like global warming denialism to prosper. You deflect the conversation from what's reasonable and logically provable to a discussion of the relative stature of the priests, er, I meant scientists, and their religious, er, I meant political affiliations. Evidence be damned, I have magazines.
All machines should have firewalls. All of them, virtualized or not.
Defense in depth is easier than mopping up the blood after something gets past a brittle outer shell and into the soft guts of unprotected internal hosts.
I say we take off and nuke the place from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.