You're confused about what I'm confused about. And I have no interest in an "article" on Shroedinger's paradox written by a bunch of geeks who think "research" means regurgitating what they think they know.
Your reference to that stupid cat is both redundant and irrelevent (see my response to the person who posted just ahead of you). As for all that mystical stuff: you have me confused with someone who actually takes Philosophy seriously. I was just trying to shoot down a lame misuse of Berkeley's argument, which is itself pretty lame.
Nonsense. The uncertainty principle, which places fundamental limits on what you can know, has nothing to do with things you don't know because you weren't around when they happened. You can draw analogies between the quantum-level physical stuff (the uncertainty principle; the observer effect) and macrophysical phenomena: (nobody knows exactly how many trees are in Yellowstone; people change their behavior if they know you're watching them) but they're still fundamentally different.
Everybody who quotes the "if a tree falls" chestnut (at least those who quote it without making a joke) totally misunderstands what Bishop B was trying to say. He wasn't arguing that there is no noise in the forest — that's a silly idea. He was arguing that since events don't occur without an observer, there must be somebody observing all the events that demonstrably occur, but don't have a human observer. In other words, he's arguing that there must be a God.
So the trees do fall, and the FBI does indeed know about your dial-a-porn addiction. Unless you're going to argue that trees don't fall until somebody finds the rotten log, or the FBI doesn't know what it knows until they access their database. And if you're going to make that kind of convoluted rationalization, you need to get out more.
I'm not sure I agree with you, but at least your arguments are based on inferences about what the target audience of this stuff is. I was just objecting to the usual "I would never use this product, there fore nobody would" nonsense.
Yeah, but she probably knows that oil needs to be changed, and she maybe even understands why. It's easy to understand WTF engine oil is for because "oil" is a word every native English-speaker is familiar with. If Jiffy Lube talked like geeks they'd rename oil "petroleum-based automotive lubricant" and engine wear "friction-induced damage" and take out ads saying "Reinitialize your PBAL before FID occurs!" Nobody would know what they were talking about, just as nobody understands most of the unnecessary jargon in geekspeak.
You've got the story slightly muddled. Paramount dates back to the silent movie era. The CBS radio network was founded in 1927, partly with backing from Paramount.
The company that CBS created was Viacom itself. Viacom started out as CBS's syndication division, and got spun off in 1971. Somehow, Viacom became this massive media conglomerate, buying up dozens (literally!) of companies, including both Paramount and its former parent CBS. When it bought CBS it renamed itself CBS.
And that why's CBS owns Star Trek. I'm looking forward to the crossover episode with Lost in Space!
But eventually they will be. And in the meantime there are tens of millions of folks who do have broadband access — most PC users, in fact. That's a big market, and they typically have a lot more disposable income than rural Coloradans. They're the ones whose needs drive the development of new software applications, not some Bubba with dialup.
Geeks certainly do create computing environments for their own needs.
And drag racing enthusiasts create cars for drag racing. So what? Neither your custom-hacked PC nor the custom-built drag racer have anything to do with most PCs or cars on the street.
Anyways, I don't knock myself out worrying about the mythical "Joe Blow" and his supposed needs and wants.
And which software company are you CEO of? Believe it or not, most software is not used by people like you. It's used by those "mythical" Joe Blows. And if you really think he's mythical, you need to get out more.
I sure as hell won't be running apps online rather than on my own machine for a lot reasons. Just to name a few:
1) Bandwidth
2) Keeping apps under MY control, not somebody elses
3) I don't like being required to have an internet connection to type an f'n paper.
I seem to says this once in every ten Slashdot posts: Your personal wants and needs do not determine the future of computing. Just because you want/need to do things a certain way doesn't mean everybody does. Possibly many computer geeks are different from you and almost all other computer users are different from you.
Most computer users are not hacker/geeks who need personal control of their systems. In fact, they need somebody to manage their system for them. That's why there are millions of adware-infested zombie computers out there that plague their users with popups and everybody else with spam. To them, renting a platform from a service provider is a good alternative to spending big bucks on a self-administered system they just don't have the background to manage.
And what's this crap about bandwidth and needing an internet connection? Broadband connections are cheap and ubiguitous.
Am I the only one who sees the irony here? This is the guy who invented expensive, overhyped blockbusters.
And if he thinks he knows how to make good TV shows, he's deluding himself. (But then, he's good at that.) Until everybody has a 30-inch plasma, TV will be driven by storytelling and acting, not by the whiz-bang thud and blunder Lucas is known for.
Everybody has a favorite "overrated filmmaker" and Lucas is mine. Even before the prequel fiasco, Lucas had worn out my patience with hackneyed storytelling, childish plots, and an excessive dependence on special effects. He owes his success to two things: he's good at "mining the archetypes" (which is fancy way of saying "rips off old films that most of his audience has never seen") and he's good at satisfying the brainless moviegoer who just wants a cinematic carnival ride.
Give me a break. How many men suddenly die of prostate cancer in their 30s? Very few. It's something you tend to get as you get older, and it takes a long time to kill you. Breast cancer attacks younger women (and, don't forget, a fair number of men), and can kill them in just a few years. The loss of lifespan for prostate cancer is nothing like that for breast cancer.
Here's something else wrong with your logic: you seem to assume that somebody sits down and says, "This diseases deserves a big campaign, that one doesn't matter." Wrong. Breast cancer gets the attention it gets because a lot of people who give a shit went out and did a lot of work. If your favorite disease doesn't get the attention you think it deserves, you're free to do the same.
What, you think do-gooders are lame? A lot you know. When I was born, people were still afraid of polio. My mother tells me that she couldn't see an ordinary fly without being afraid for her kids. As well she might be: thousands of Americans were killed or crippled by that disease in the early 50s. So a bunch of people got together, raised some money (mostly by going door to door!), got a vaccine developed, and eradicated the sucker, at least in industrial countries.
So please, either stop whining and show you give fuck — or just stop whining.
Either your reading interests are very narrow or Hungarian bookstores are very good. Half the books I order from Amazon are limited-interest titles that local bookstores never carry.
Does it matter who holds the screwdriver? The thing you were whining about was Google's presumption in telling people how to design computers. Which they clearly have a lot of expertise at. Why don't you just pretend you're a grownup and admit you were wrong?
We were talking about the hypotethical standardization of voltage and plugs. Which you would know if you were trying to participate in the conversation, instead of just hassling me.
Slashdot Mirror
"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know!" --Ralph Waldo Emerson
You're confused about what I'm confused about. And I have no interest in an "article" on Shroedinger's paradox written by a bunch of geeks who think "research" means regurgitating what they think they know.
Your reference to that stupid cat is both redundant and irrelevent (see my response to the person who posted just ahead of you). As for all that mystical stuff: you have me confused with someone who actually takes Philosophy seriously. I was just trying to shoot down a lame misuse of Berkeley's argument, which is itself pretty lame.
Nonsense. The uncertainty principle, which places fundamental limits on what you can know, has nothing to do with things you don't know because you weren't around when they happened. You can draw analogies between the quantum-level physical stuff (the uncertainty principle; the observer effect) and macrophysical phenomena: (nobody knows exactly how many trees are in Yellowstone; people change their behavior if they know you're watching them) but they're still fundamentally different.
Yes to both questions.
Everybody who quotes the "if a tree falls" chestnut (at least those who quote it without making a joke) totally misunderstands what Bishop B was trying to say. He wasn't arguing that there is no noise in the forest — that's a silly idea. He was arguing that since events don't occur without an observer, there must be somebody observing all the events that demonstrably occur, but don't have a human observer. In other words, he's arguing that there must be a God.
So the trees do fall, and the FBI does indeed know about your dial-a-porn addiction. Unless you're going to argue that trees don't fall until somebody finds the rotten log, or the FBI doesn't know what it knows until they access their database. And if you're going to make that kind of convoluted rationalization, you need to get out more.
I'm not sure I agree with you, but at least your arguments are based on inferences about what the target audience of this stuff is. I was just objecting to the usual "I would never use this product, there fore nobody would" nonsense.
Not all discussion. Just discussion about what you sell to people. Most of who are in the majority.
Thanks for coming forward. You owe $300,000 in operating losses!
True, but it's still fraud. It's just that Canadian law is a tad sloppy in protecting fraud victims.
Yeah, but she probably knows that oil needs to be changed, and she maybe even understands why. It's easy to understand WTF engine oil is for because "oil" is a word every native English-speaker is familiar with. If Jiffy Lube talked like geeks they'd rename oil "petroleum-based automotive lubricant" and engine wear "friction-induced damage" and take out ads saying "Reinitialize your PBAL before FID occurs!" Nobody would know what they were talking about, just as nobody understands most of the unnecessary jargon in geekspeak.
You've got the story slightly muddled. Paramount dates back to the silent movie era. The CBS radio network was founded in 1927, partly with backing from Paramount.
The company that CBS created was Viacom itself. Viacom started out as CBS's syndication division, and got spun off in 1971. Somehow, Viacom became this massive media conglomerate, buying up dozens (literally!) of companies, including both Paramount and its former parent CBS. When it bought CBS it renamed itself CBS.
And that why's CBS owns Star Trek. I'm looking forward to the crossover episode with Lost in Space!
But eventually they will be. And in the meantime there are tens of millions of folks who do have broadband access — most PC users, in fact. That's a big market, and they typically have a lot more disposable income than rural Coloradans. They're the ones whose needs drive the development of new software applications, not some Bubba with dialup.
I seem to says this once in every ten Slashdot posts: Your personal wants and needs do not determine the future of computing. Just because you want/need to do things a certain way doesn't mean everybody does. Possibly many computer geeks are different from you and almost all other computer users are different from you.
Most computer users are not hacker/geeks who need personal control of their systems. In fact, they need somebody to manage their system for them. That's why there are millions of adware-infested zombie computers out there that plague their users with popups and everybody else with spam. To them, renting a platform from a service provider is a good alternative to spending big bucks on a self-administered system they just don't have the background to manage.
And what's this crap about bandwidth and needing an internet connection? Broadband connections are cheap and ubiguitous.
Am I the only one who sees the irony here? This is the guy who invented expensive, overhyped blockbusters.
And if he thinks he knows how to make good TV shows, he's deluding himself. (But then, he's good at that.) Until everybody has a 30-inch plasma, TV will be driven by storytelling and acting, not by the whiz-bang thud and blunder Lucas is known for.
Everybody has a favorite "overrated filmmaker" and Lucas is mine. Even before the prequel fiasco, Lucas had worn out my patience with hackneyed storytelling, childish plots, and an excessive dependence on special effects. He owes his success to two things: he's good at "mining the archetypes" (which is fancy way of saying "rips off old films that most of his audience has never seen") and he's good at satisfying the brainless moviegoer who just wants a cinematic carnival ride.
Give me a break. How many men suddenly die of prostate cancer in their 30s? Very few. It's something you tend to get as you get older, and it takes a long time to kill you. Breast cancer attacks younger women (and, don't forget, a fair number of men), and can kill them in just a few years. The loss of lifespan for prostate cancer is nothing like that for breast cancer.
Here's something else wrong with your logic: you seem to assume that somebody sits down and says, "This diseases deserves a big campaign, that one doesn't matter." Wrong. Breast cancer gets the attention it gets because a lot of people who give a shit went out and did a lot of work. If your favorite disease doesn't get the attention you think it deserves, you're free to do the same.
What, you think do-gooders are lame? A lot you know. When I was born, people were still afraid of polio. My mother tells me that she couldn't see an ordinary fly without being afraid for her kids. As well she might be: thousands of Americans were killed or crippled by that disease in the early 50s. So a bunch of people got together, raised some money (mostly by going door to door!), got a vaccine developed, and eradicated the sucker, at least in industrial countries.
So please, either stop whining and show you give fuck — or just stop whining.
Kid's show? I've never met a fan under 15. But "don't overthink it" is still good advice, because the writers already follow it!
Either your reading interests are very narrow or Hungarian bookstores are very good. Half the books I order from Amazon are limited-interest titles that local bookstores never carry.
Yeah, I'm tired of it too. It used to be funny, but now it's achieved the same worn-out status that "automagically" always had.
Besides, it wasn't even the funniest insect line in the episode. Which was: "Freedom! Horrible, horrible freedom!"
Does it matter who holds the screwdriver? The thing you were whining about was Google's presumption in telling people how to design computers. Which they clearly have a lot of expertise at. Why don't you just pretend you're a grownup and admit you were wrong?
We were talking about the hypotethical standardization of voltage and plugs. Which you would know if you were trying to participate in the conversation, instead of just hassling me.
So instead of squinting at a tiny thumbnail on your taskbar, you squint at a tiny thumbnail on your keyboard. Terribly useful!
Good point. Indeed, you'd see 12V plugs in vehicles and other places where it isn't practical to provide AC.
the
fucking
article.