Unless things have advanced rapidly since four years ago when I was doing my animal physiology class, the answer is "no".
Our school had the option to do dissections digitally if you had a good reason. Watching people do it I can say that it was terribly useless. There's a big difference between the neatness of a digital model and the realities of fluids and membranes and the huge physical variations shown across different individual aninals.
Nothing like lowering the bar in order to remain "competitive".
Well I guess it depends. How much is the extra warranty costing them, and how much is it worth it to people? If 5 year warranties are forcing them to price their drives $10 higher than the competition, but the percieved value of those warranties is only $2 to the customer, then no one will buy their drives. There is nothing "competetive" about selling features that customers don't value.
Games don't just stop being fun because they're old
Not 100% true. I just discovered www.abandonia.com, which is basically a collection of pre-2001 games for free. I was super excited about all the classics from my childhood on there. But when I tried to play a lot of them I just couldn't do it for more than a few minutes. Back in those days I guess we were just more accepting of bad control schemes and interfaces. Now I've been spoiled.
But yes, I do agree with your statement in general. There are quite a few old games out there that are just as fun to play now as they were 5 - 15 years ago. My SNES collection is a big example.
whilst being oblivious on how many millions of lives have been saved because of it
Except the summary quite clearly says, "Those guidelines require that the research be necessary for human health." So we can continue saving lives. They're not banning chimps, they're just putting conditions on their use. Seems reasonable to me.
You've obviously decided my family (and every family in Canada) can afford the $3,800 we're putting toward the new F-35s. But thank you, thank you, for saving me the money that would be wasted doing my part for the world.
I am aware of that possibility. However, the fact that this has happened in the past only allows a rational, logical person to conclude "in the past I (or others I know) have been burned by cheap Indian outsourcing, I should investigate to see if that is the case with Adobe." It may very well be the case, or it may be as others have mentioned here where many of the staff in American offices are Indian. After all, there was a lot of mention in the other news stories about Indian outsourcing how the good programmers there move on to better jobs. Who's to say it's not a move to work in American offices?
To make a conjecture that the problem with Adobe's software is Indian programmers without during further research is lazy, assumptive, and borderline racist. It's just as wrong to conclude, "I've heard about bad Indian programmers, ergo Indian programmers are bad" just as much as it's wrong to conclude, "the man who mugged me was black, ergo blacks are muggers."
Because there is an assumption implicit in his post that that Indian names = outsourced, two-bit programmers in an Indian code sweatshop. The statement that names in the credits are Indian is indeed true. The broad assumption that follows is wild conjecturing with weak evidence and is thus deserving of a down mod.
I think the idea is that it solves the chicken and egg problem: people won't buy fuel cell cars until there's a network of hydrogen supply stations, and it's not worth having a network of hydrogen supply stations until people buy fuel cell cars. With this invention people don't have to worry about having a hydrogen network, because they can just put gas in it. Then we can develop an appropriate hydrogen network because there are cars on the road with fuel cells in them.
But I'm not sure there are plenty of agencies or companies willing to spend billions of dollars on the necessary equipment to sustain a human en route to Mars only to have the experiment conclude with, "yep, it does seem that the conditions on Mars kill humans."
I just re-read my post and realized that it looks like I am suggesting this average is not deserved. I am not. I think it's great to see averages and I was just pointing out that this seems to be the case here.
I'm amazed at the high average donation this time around. IIRC the last few Humble Bundles I bought into had an average of around $2. At the time of writing the average on this bundle is $3.98. I guess these games offer pretty good value.
And use it to subsidize flights throughout California for the next 20 years
(I recognize that it's a number pulled out of your ass) 20 years isn't that long. So great, we get 20 years of cheap flights. Or you can invest in the infrastructure now and get 80 years (number equally puled out of my ass) of train travel.
and the athletes who love bumming off others taxes and sponsorship instead of getting a job.
Most athletes, at least here in Canada, do have a job. Being an Olympic athlete does not pay. Well, the government does pay you a tiny bit. But if you want to live above the poverty line and be able to afford your training you need to have a job here. Or you become really lucky and land a sponsorship, but I don't see how that's "not having a job" -- someone is paying you money, and you give them a service (advertising recognition) in return.
The things that make life living are these extra "frivolities". For some people it's opera, for some people it's video games, for some people it's antique auctions, for some people it's sports.
I do recall a study a few years back that determined you'd have to cover the landmass of the USA in turbines before you'd start affecting weather patterns. I may be guilty of spreading rumors though. I'll see if I can dig that study up.
Waa waa this gets mentioned every time renewable energy comes up, and it's a poor excuse for not developing renewables.
I don't think anyone thinks it's simplistic as running out and replacing all of our power plants with turbines. In the short term we will need traditional base-load capacity. But in the long term it's quite possible that renewables coupled with energy storage systems will make up a major chunk of our energy needs. Until you start making the investment in renewable energy it's not worth developing the needed storage systems. Since our grid can take around 20% renewabels with no storage, it sure makes a lot of sense to me to make that investment and at the same time start researching storage systems.
This isn't necessarily true. While there certainly is a place for decentralization, it isn't the ideal for our complete energy future. Large-scale wind turbines are much more efficient on a resources-used:energy-gained ratio because the energy gather increases by the square of your blade length. And for current solar systems it's much more efficient to generate power at a large concentrated solar plant than it is to build a puch of PV panels and stick them on houses.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless things have advanced rapidly since four years ago when I was doing my animal physiology class, the answer is "no".
Our school had the option to do dissections digitally if you had a good reason. Watching people do it I can say that it was terribly useless. There's a big difference between the neatness of a digital model and the realities of fluids and membranes and the huge physical variations shown across different individual aninals.
Nothing like lowering the bar in order to remain "competitive".
Well I guess it depends. How much is the extra warranty costing them, and how much is it worth it to people? If 5 year warranties are forcing them to price their drives $10 higher than the competition, but the percieved value of those warranties is only $2 to the customer, then no one will buy their drives. There is nothing "competetive" about selling features that customers don't value.
Games don't just stop being fun because they're old
Not 100% true. I just discovered www.abandonia.com, which is basically a collection of pre-2001 games for free. I was super excited about all the classics from my childhood on there. But when I tried to play a lot of them I just couldn't do it for more than a few minutes. Back in those days I guess we were just more accepting of bad control schemes and interfaces. Now I've been spoiled.
But yes, I do agree with your statement in general. There are quite a few old games out there that are just as fun to play now as they were 5 - 15 years ago. My SNES collection is a big example.
This is the hardest I've laughed in a while.
whilst being oblivious on how many millions of lives have been saved because of it
Except the summary quite clearly says, "Those guidelines require that the research be necessary for human health." So we can continue saving lives. They're not banning chimps, they're just putting conditions on their use. Seems reasonable to me.
Or 1/50th of an olympic swimming pool.
Fucking. Hate. Forced. Acronyms.
but what could go wrong!?
Dear Stephen Harper:
Fuck you.
You've obviously decided my family (and every family in Canada) can afford the $3,800 we're putting toward the new F-35s. But thank you, thank you, for saving me the money that would be wasted doing my part for the world.
I am aware of that possibility. However, the fact that this has happened in the past only allows a rational, logical person to conclude "in the past I (or others I know) have been burned by cheap Indian outsourcing, I should investigate to see if that is the case with Adobe." It may very well be the case, or it may be as others have mentioned here where many of the staff in American offices are Indian. After all, there was a lot of mention in the other news stories about Indian outsourcing how the good programmers there move on to better jobs. Who's to say it's not a move to work in American offices?
To make a conjecture that the problem with Adobe's software is Indian programmers without during further research is lazy, assumptive, and borderline racist. It's just as wrong to conclude, "I've heard about bad Indian programmers, ergo Indian programmers are bad" just as much as it's wrong to conclude, "the man who mugged me was black, ergo blacks are muggers."
Sorry for the self-reply. If I'm going to post on a geek site it should say "...Indian names == outsourced, two..."
Because there is an assumption implicit in his post that that Indian names = outsourced, two-bit programmers in an Indian code sweatshop. The statement that names in the credits are Indian is indeed true. The broad assumption that follows is wild conjecturing with weak evidence and is thus deserving of a down mod.
I think the idea is that it solves the chicken and egg problem: people won't buy fuel cell cars until there's a network of hydrogen supply stations, and it's not worth having a network of hydrogen supply stations until people buy fuel cell cars. With this invention people don't have to worry about having a hydrogen network, because they can just put gas in it. Then we can develop an appropriate hydrogen network because there are cars on the road with fuel cells in them.
Doesn't help that I'd never heard of them.
But I'm not sure there are plenty of agencies or companies willing to spend billions of dollars on the necessary equipment to sustain a human en route to Mars only to have the experiment conclude with, "yep, it does seem that the conditions on Mars kill humans."
I just re-read my post and realized that it looks like I am suggesting this average is not deserved. I am not. I think it's great to see averages and I was just pointing out that this seems to be the case here.
I'm amazed at the high average donation this time around. IIRC the last few Humble Bundles I bought into had an average of around $2. At the time of writing the average on this bundle is $3.98. I guess these games offer pretty good value.
Beautiful stuff. Flawless operation. Drains your bank account.
They gotta make their money now before the business model evaporates in 10 years.
And use it to subsidize flights throughout California for the next 20 years
(I recognize that it's a number pulled out of your ass) 20 years isn't that long. So great, we get 20 years of cheap flights. Or you can invest in the infrastructure now and get 80 years (number equally puled out of my ass) of train travel.
and the athletes who love bumming off others taxes and sponsorship instead of getting a job.
Most athletes, at least here in Canada, do have a job. Being an Olympic athlete does not pay. Well, the government does pay you a tiny bit. But if you want to live above the poverty line and be able to afford your training you need to have a job here. Or you become really lucky and land a sponsorship, but I don't see how that's "not having a job" -- someone is paying you money, and you give them a service (advertising recognition) in return.
And if what they wrote was the intention, it should be "fewer than 60% of graduates"
The things that make life living are these extra "frivolities". For some people it's opera, for some people it's video games, for some people it's antique auctions, for some people it's sports.
I do recall a study a few years back that determined you'd have to cover the landmass of the USA in turbines before you'd start affecting weather patterns. I may be guilty of spreading rumors though. I'll see if I can dig that study up.
Waa waa this gets mentioned every time renewable energy comes up, and it's a poor excuse for not developing renewables.
I don't think anyone thinks it's simplistic as running out and replacing all of our power plants with turbines. In the short term we will need traditional base-load capacity. But in the long term it's quite possible that renewables coupled with energy storage systems will make up a major chunk of our energy needs. Until you start making the investment in renewable energy it's not worth developing the needed storage systems. Since our grid can take around 20% renewabels with no storage, it sure makes a lot of sense to me to make that investment and at the same time start researching storage systems.
This isn't necessarily true. While there certainly is a place for decentralization, it isn't the ideal for our complete energy future. Large-scale wind turbines are much more efficient on a resources-used:energy-gained ratio because the energy gather increases by the square of your blade length. And for current solar systems it's much more efficient to generate power at a large concentrated solar plant than it is to build a puch of PV panels and stick them on houses.