Except, they don't need to convict everyone. Just a few people. These are a bunch of teenagers who think they're invincible, they see some of their buddies dragged into court and they're going to stop.
What's the difference between this and High Frequency Trading? In both cases you're using very fast computers to give you an edge over normal people in buying items that you will then sell a short time later for a higher price to people willing to buy them.
You've got the right idea, but you're blaming the wrong people. Do you really think that all those high school boys would wake up at 7 am for football practices in the mud if the girls weren't crazy over it?
i.e. the solution to all our problems is to get nerds laid more.
That's not an environmental impact at all. Hardly. What you're asking is: "What's the environmental impact of employing more programmers?"
Sure, let's say worst-case, facebook hires programmers that would have got another job elsewhere, that other company must now hire different programmers and it trickles down eventually until some people who were going to be unemployed get a job programming somewhere. Okay, so now those people have a job. Let's ignore the fact that you're essentially saying that we should cut down emissions by making people unemployed.
It's true that having a job will probably cause them to contribute a bit carbon emissions than if they were unemployed, but studies have shown that the large amount of our personal environmental impact is non-reducable (around 50%), even if you were to go homeless and live on the streets, we might see maybe a 10-20% increase of their personal carbon emissions. For even a couple dozen programmers that's nothing compared to running 20,000 more servers per year and that's absolute worst case.
What you're arguing is the economic cost for facebook, whether it's worth all the man-hours to make their severs more efficient. That's debatable, but if you want an example, you just have to look at Google where they have a team that is devoted to increasing efficiency, despite the fact that they are already running some of the most power-efficient servers in the country.
Note that a typewriter is synonymous with writing, there is nothing else you can do on it. A type writer which has written a great piece of writing is like a sword used at a famous battle or the hockey stick that belonged to a famous hockey player. It is symbolic.
A computer is not so in the same way, because it is not exclusive to writing. While you can write on a computer, it's not just limited to that. In fact there are almost infinite uses for a computer. However they are especially associated with coding and programming. So while you might expect that Linus's original computer would fetch a handsome price, you would not, for example, expect his telephone too. It's just not symbolic of what he does.
Sampling is right. I know people who've jail broken their i-phones and they've downloaded every app they might even be remotely interested in. Sometimes they don't even know all the apps they have, never mind using them.
In fact, this whole 60% figure is inflated because people who can get apps for free are going to download a lot more than people who pay for them. I really doubt that there are 6 pirates for every 4 people who buy their apps.
I highly doubt this would work. Smell works in combination of a lot of different factors. We are not programmed to judge the compatibility of a mate based solely on smell, but once they pass the other checks, smell adds some unconscious warning or encouragement. Asking people to judge someone in the dark would be asking for them to consciously judge the smell, which would result in a totally different effect.
The better test would be to somehow have 1 person for each sex and somehow make them give off scents of others, then see if their ratings go up on average depending on the smell. Of course this is also flawed, you'd never really be able to replicate the entire smell and the signs the brain is looking for are incredibly small. It wouldn't be surprising if a difference in immune system proteins and anitbodies manifests itself in some other signs as well, voice, appearance, skin tone and complexion.
Basically, there are too many factors. But I suppose that's true for all social sciences, and that's never stopped them yet!
I really hope you're not an engineer, because your solution to a problem should never be:
"Screw the most efficient solution, we'll just go out and buy more and waste more energy!"
These incremental increases in efficiency will drastically change a product overtime, look at cars for example. The countless engineers working at GM, Toyota, Ford, etc. could have easily said: "meh whatever, just make them buy more gas". The modern combustion engine is only about 30% efficient, but that's far better than when the combustion engine was first thought of, which was somewhere around 0.4%.
I think the main problem is not just that top talent is no longer going into science and engineering, but that poorer talent is entering. Every university you can think of now has a program where you can graduate with a bachelors in science. It used to be that top schools were the only ones producing anyone who can reasonably call themselves scientists, but now everyone is doing it.
It's even worse for engineering. Here in Canada we have very strict regulations on the certification of our engineers to make sure that they all have the same basic knowledge, but I know people who went into engineering programs that had required entrance averages a full 20% lower than mine! I wouldn't trust them to engineer a toaster, but they're in fields with a lot more responsibility, like aerospace for example. And that's/with/ our strict regulations, I know places in the U.S. have lower standards and the people who graduate from those programs will one day call themselves engineers.
I've been running the windows 7 RC for about 4 months on my HP tablet tx2500z. All the drivers installer automatically, except for one of the HP ones to deal with the extra buttons like the sound and rotate buttons (never experienced a crash due to rotation even before I installed the driver). The only other problem was a minor issue in getting the adobe flash debugger to work, took like 2 seconds to fix though. Never had a blue screen. It runs just fine for me and I'm still using the RC.
You choose that hypothesis because you believe that at some point there has been a divine message giving us information that will never be able to be proved false. How do you know whether the message was divine or not or that there is even a divine being to send down such a message? Well that's largely your call based on whether you believe the pattern of messengers claiming to be from god are fictitious creations preying on a human psychological need or that they have been sent down from God himself.
I don't see how you could really know for certain either way, so why ridicule people?
Also, what claims in Buddhism are even falsifiable? How could we disprove reincarnation for example?
Slashdot Mirror
This video was uploaded in January, and it's on slashdot NOW?
Except, they don't need to convict everyone. Just a few people. These are a bunch of teenagers who think they're invincible, they see some of their buddies dragged into court and they're going to stop.
What's the difference between this and High Frequency Trading? In both cases you're using very fast computers to give you an edge over normal people in buying items that you will then sell a short time later for a higher price to people willing to buy them.
I just bring my princess leia outfit.
if only we could do that for the opposite gender.
The real headline should be: Programmers at Rockstar have wives.
How much do you want to bet that the student is a Muslim or looked like one?
You've got the right idea, but you're blaming the wrong people. Do you really think that all those high school boys would wake up at 7 am for football practices in the mud if the girls weren't crazy over it? i.e. the solution to all our problems is to get nerds laid more.
That's not an environmental impact at all. Hardly. What you're asking is: "What's the environmental impact of employing more programmers?" Sure, let's say worst-case, facebook hires programmers that would have got another job elsewhere, that other company must now hire different programmers and it trickles down eventually until some people who were going to be unemployed get a job programming somewhere. Okay, so now those people have a job. Let's ignore the fact that you're essentially saying that we should cut down emissions by making people unemployed. It's true that having a job will probably cause them to contribute a bit carbon emissions than if they were unemployed, but studies have shown that the large amount of our personal environmental impact is non-reducable (around 50%), even if you were to go homeless and live on the streets, we might see maybe a 10-20% increase of their personal carbon emissions. For even a couple dozen programmers that's nothing compared to running 20,000 more servers per year and that's absolute worst case. What you're arguing is the economic cost for facebook, whether it's worth all the man-hours to make their severs more efficient. That's debatable, but if you want an example, you just have to look at Google where they have a team that is devoted to increasing efficiency, despite the fact that they are already running some of the most power-efficient servers in the country.
Perhaps now they will receive a first hand lesson in why some of us consciously refuse to participate in social networking sites.
As opposed to refusing while being unconscious? :P
Note that a typewriter is synonymous with writing, there is nothing else you can do on it. A type writer which has written a great piece of writing is like a sword used at a famous battle or the hockey stick that belonged to a famous hockey player. It is symbolic. A computer is not so in the same way, because it is not exclusive to writing. While you can write on a computer, it's not just limited to that. In fact there are almost infinite uses for a computer. However they are especially associated with coding and programming. So while you might expect that Linus's original computer would fetch a handsome price, you would not, for example, expect his telephone too. It's just not symbolic of what he does.
Who needs to get laid when you have slashdot?
Sampling is right. I know people who've jail broken their i-phones and they've downloaded every app they might even be remotely interested in. Sometimes they don't even know all the apps they have, never mind using them. In fact, this whole 60% figure is inflated because people who can get apps for free are going to download a lot more than people who pay for them. I really doubt that there are 6 pirates for every 4 people who buy their apps.
I highly doubt this would work. Smell works in combination of a lot of different factors. We are not programmed to judge the compatibility of a mate based solely on smell, but once they pass the other checks, smell adds some unconscious warning or encouragement. Asking people to judge someone in the dark would be asking for them to consciously judge the smell, which would result in a totally different effect. The better test would be to somehow have 1 person for each sex and somehow make them give off scents of others, then see if their ratings go up on average depending on the smell. Of course this is also flawed, you'd never really be able to replicate the entire smell and the signs the brain is looking for are incredibly small. It wouldn't be surprising if a difference in immune system proteins and anitbodies manifests itself in some other signs as well, voice, appearance, skin tone and complexion. Basically, there are too many factors. But I suppose that's true for all social sciences, and that's never stopped them yet!
I really hope you're not an engineer, because your solution to a problem should never be: "Screw the most efficient solution, we'll just go out and buy more and waste more energy!" These incremental increases in efficiency will drastically change a product overtime, look at cars for example. The countless engineers working at GM, Toyota, Ford, etc. could have easily said: "meh whatever, just make them buy more gas". The modern combustion engine is only about 30% efficient, but that's far better than when the combustion engine was first thought of, which was somewhere around 0.4%.
How long before it decides that human existence is a bug?
I think the main problem is not just that top talent is no longer going into science and engineering, but that poorer talent is entering. Every university you can think of now has a program where you can graduate with a bachelors in science. It used to be that top schools were the only ones producing anyone who can reasonably call themselves scientists, but now everyone is doing it. It's even worse for engineering. Here in Canada we have very strict regulations on the certification of our engineers to make sure that they all have the same basic knowledge, but I know people who went into engineering programs that had required entrance averages a full 20% lower than mine! I wouldn't trust them to engineer a toaster, but they're in fields with a lot more responsibility, like aerospace for example. And that's /with/ our strict regulations, I know places in the U.S. have lower standards and the people who graduate from those programs will one day call themselves engineers.
but if they /really/ cared for the poor children and their eyes, they would get them nooks.
I've been running the windows 7 RC for about 4 months on my HP tablet tx2500z. All the drivers installer automatically, except for one of the HP ones to deal with the extra buttons like the sound and rotate buttons (never experienced a crash due to rotation even before I installed the driver). The only other problem was a minor issue in getting the adobe flash debugger to work, took like 2 seconds to fix though. Never had a blue screen. It runs just fine for me and I'm still using the RC.
You choose that hypothesis because you believe that at some point there has been a divine message giving us information that will never be able to be proved false. How do you know whether the message was divine or not or that there is even a divine being to send down such a message? Well that's largely your call based on whether you believe the pattern of messengers claiming to be from god are fictitious creations preying on a human psychological need or that they have been sent down from God himself. I don't see how you could really know for certain either way, so why ridicule people? Also, what claims in Buddhism are even falsifiable? How could we disprove reincarnation for example?