Codswallup. Camping is very high tech. It may not typically have many electronic parts, but it is very high tech in almost every other way. Heck ever when it comes to transistors GPS and two-ways are devices many wouldn't care to do without.
*And* you've missed (or made light of) the entire point. Get away from the office and chat with your peers about the work that makes you peers. They happened to do it camping. Sounds fun to me!
Maybe we should have slashstock at a national park somewhere.
Other than as a way to make money for the authors, I just don't see any real sustainable benefit ever coming out of these books.
1) Writing a book like this to make money is a big loser compared to working and making money.
2) Just because there are a lot of flavors doesn't mean they don't work. It is useful to be aware of several different methodologies and chose the one which best matches the culture of the project when organizing a project. Agile is not cool for a typical IBM mainframe project. Waterfall is not cool for a typical open source team. Calling these different but useful things "flavors of the month" does a diservice to the value they both bring to the table when used appropriately.
The article also mentioned that to reach this theoretical limit indicated by "fundimental[sic] physics", another material would be needed at some point, as silicon was reaching its limit of viability.
So you are saying that diamonds prevent electron tunnelling at the scale the article speaks of?
(Hint, the answer is no. The article mentioned silicon only to state that it wasn't silicon they were talking about. It is assumed that silicons limitations will be worked around as other substances will be needed to even get to the scale that the artcle addressed. I would have assumed as a person with your implied attention to detail (good to see the spelling nazis are still around) you would have noticed this.)
So in short, the draw happened because the computer wasn't stronger than the human over the match?
You can imply that it was a single goof that ruined the computer, but we've twenty years of single goofs. These kinds of things are why the human mind is still in contention even after this many years of moores law.
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/content/2003/ ja nfeb/digtlhorizon.html
I printed my image at 360, 300, 240, 200 and 180 dpi. I began with a digital camera file and set the resolution to 360, then decreased the resolution to each number, but always starting from 360. I kept the images the same size, which meant they were resampled--essentially, data was thrown out, meaning image quality should have dropped. All were printed on Epson Premium Glossy paper, using the very good standard Epson settings.
[...]
Blind test. I had my colleagues line up the images from highest to lowest quality. These are photographers/editors who are very critical in looking at photos. No one came close to lining up the prints correctly in the order of dpi, plus they couldn't agree on a "best" print. The images were just too similar. Some of our staff even used a magnifier, but only a few slight differences could be found.
Targetted pricing is a way for companies to supply goods at prices the market will bear.
This will allow them to charge the wealthy what they are willing to pay for a product (more) and charge everyone else what they can afford to pay for a product (less).
So, capitalism will, due to targetted pricing, become the self regulating thing that it should be and finally narrow the gap if not between the rich and the poor, at least between the haves and the have nots with more equal distribution of goods due to pricing pressures.
(seems kind of ridiculous, eh? This is the logical conclusion of what people are paniced about. The fact is that targetted pricing is a fad and will amount to nothing because markets work at a macro level and will force *all* prices to competetive levels)
You have more leverage when you still have your money in your pocket.
With my last two dell laptops I negotiated a discount off the web price and *then* asked for an addition $189 or so (whatever the price was on their website at the time) as a discount for the Windows I wouldn't be using.
The first time I got a full discount. The second I got $140.
The time to get a vendors attention is when you still have the money.
Boy this is a very subtle point and not really interesting.
The question is whether the consitution 'grants' or 'acknowledges' rights?
Bah, who cares.
They are still put together by people and if they are enumerated in the amendments they are a right the government cannot take away if they aren't they can.
The question of whether they are intrinsic rights to the human experience is a silly rabbit hole.
Why do I bother mentioning this?
Your head seems to be in the right place, but the basic reasoning behind your statement is what is so dangerous. It is lack of knowledge and understanding of these issues by everday people that will eventually lead to major curtailing of rights, followed by an extended and bloody revolution.
This statement is just utter rubbish. Whether the rights are intrinsic to humanity or granted by the government matters not one little bit. If, for example, the right to free speech is intrinsic to humanity and the government (and the populace) ammend the consitution to remove it *you still lose that right*. You can rant all you want about how God/Allah/Physics *gave* you that right and the government can't take it away, but you'll still be doing so from the wrong side of a prison door.
The converse is also true. If you have no intrinsic human right to free speech the government still cannot take it away from you without ammending the constitution (or, even less likely, just pitching the thing and starting over).
The whole debate doesn't matter in the slightest and, contrary to your insulting accusation of ignorance on the part of the grandparent, is actually harmful because it causes people to think about things that don't matter instead of concentrating on what the law (is in all the law including the constitution) should be written to say in the opinion of this self governing democracy. (oh, and *please* don't tell me we live in a republic. The two aren't mutually exclusive)
Slashdot Mirror
Camping is the anti-tech
Codswallup. Camping is very high tech. It may not typically have many electronic parts, but it is very high tech in almost every other way. Heck ever when it comes to transistors GPS and two-ways are devices many wouldn't care to do without.
*And* you've missed (or made light of) the entire point. Get away from the office and chat with your peers about the work that makes you peers. They happened to do it camping. Sounds fun to me!
Maybe we should have slashstock at a national park somewhere.
You're a manager, aren't you? I don't think I've met a programmer who's ever mentioned anything about bring "value to the table"
;-)
Close. I'm a consultant, so I bring the worst of all worlds with me when I pan handle at your door.
(I'm also available for contracts right now. Companies getting into grid software should contact me. Resume)
Other than as a way to make money for the authors, I just don't see any real sustainable benefit ever coming out of these books.
1) Writing a book like this to make money is a big loser compared to working and making money.
2) Just because there are a lot of flavors doesn't mean they don't work. It is useful to be aware of several different methodologies and chose the one which best matches the culture of the project when organizing a project. Agile is not cool for a typical IBM mainframe project. Waterfall is not cool for a typical open source team. Calling these different but useful things "flavors of the month" does a diservice to the value they both bring to the table when used appropriately.
Right.
The mode will need to change.
The problem is that if you don't conintue to shrink your parts, you will have to increase the size of your parts.
Think about how big the CPU would be if, instead of shrinking transistor size, we had instead used 3d stacking starting in 1975.
Maybe that would buy us a few years, but not a ton more than that.
Such a low user number and you expect moderators to mod somebody down because you say so and they didn't read the article.
*shrugs*
It's worked before. Guess not this time though.
My daughter has been using dreamweaver for over a year to maintain her personal website.
She is even using templates to give the whole site a uniform look and feel.
Does she ask questions whenever she wants to do something new or different? Yup.
Do I think dreamweaver is too complicated for an 11 year old.
The article also mentioned that to reach this theoretical limit indicated by "fundimental[sic] physics", another material would be needed at some point, as silicon was reaching its limit of viability.
So you are saying that diamonds prevent electron tunnelling at the scale the article speaks of?
(Hint, the answer is no. The article mentioned silicon only to state that it wasn't silicon they were talking about. It is assumed that silicons limitations will be worked around as other substances will be needed to even get to the scale that the artcle addressed. I would have assumed as a person with your implied attention to detail (good to see the spelling nazis are still around) you would have noticed this.)
The article wasn't about silicons limitations!
It *assumed* something else would get us past silicons limitations in order to even *get to the point* that the article addressed.
Mod parent down. He didn't read the article.
The article wasn't based on silicon or anyother substance, but fundimental physics.
You are thinking of nuclear weapons. I'm refering to partical physics.
That's what the folks alive during the nuclear research said, but they are probably happy to have MRI's to diagnose their various issues now.
So in short, the draw happened because the computer wasn't stronger than the human over the match?
You can imply that it was a single goof that ruined the computer, but we've twenty years of single goofs. These kinds of things are why the human mind is still in contention even after this many years of moores law.
Updating and patching: Use automatic update
That only updated windows, not applications.
Virus eradication: All antivirus programs download updates automatically.
Unless your family has broken the virus guard and then clicked on the email from microsoft with the latest patch.
I do know jackshit about windows, my family doesn't. Let's not confuse the two again, eh?
1) A single screw up isn't enough. Between the avionics and the co-pilot it takes several screw ups.
2) There are lots of jobs where making mistakes kills people (mining? driving a greyhound? cops/firemen?). How come they don't make 250K a year?
Just don't think that you will be able to eradicate spam without governmental help.
The problem isn't lack of government enforcement. The problem is lame standards for passing email.
We don't need a legislative solution, we need a technical one.
This is one I support.
Just don't think that you will be able to eradicate spam without governmental help.
The problem isn't lack of government enforcement. The problem is lame standards for passing email.
We don't need a legislative solution, we need a technical one.
This is one I support.
The drives we use to backup our systems write at a sustained rate of 30-40Mb/second each. The fast drives are expensive though.
Expensive should be in bold or something. Fast drives cost as much as cars.
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/content/2003
I printed my image at 360, 300, 240, 200 and 180 dpi. I began with a digital camera file and set the resolution to 360, then decreased the resolution to each number, but always starting from 360. I kept the images the same size, which meant they were resampled--essentially, data was thrown out, meaning image quality should have dropped. All were printed on Epson Premium Glossy paper, using the very good standard Epson settings.
[...]
Blind test. I had my colleagues line up the images from highest to lowest quality. These are photographers/editors who are very critical in looking at photos. No one came close to lining up the prints correctly in the order of dpi, plus they couldn't agree on a "best" print. The images were just too similar. Some of our staff even used a magnifier, but only a few slight differences could be found.
Even most Photographers (capital P) agree that 200-250DPI is sufficient for production quality prints at normal viewing distances.
2MP still doesn't get you there, but 300DPI is more than one needs.
I reject your tautological argument.
Targetted pricing is a way for companies to supply goods at prices the market will bear.
This will allow them to charge the wealthy what they are willing to pay for a product (more) and charge everyone else what they can afford to pay for a product (less).
So, capitalism will, due to targetted pricing, become the self regulating thing that it should be and finally narrow the gap if not between the rich and the poor, at least between the haves and the have nots with more equal distribution of goods due to pricing pressures.
(seems kind of ridiculous, eh? This is the logical conclusion of what people are paniced about. The fact is that targetted pricing is a fad and will amount to nothing because markets work at a macro level and will force *all* prices to competetive levels)
You have more leverage when you still have your money in your pocket.
With my last two dell laptops I negotiated a discount off the web price and *then* asked for an addition $189 or so (whatever the price was on their website at the time) as a discount for the Windows I wouldn't be using.
The first time I got a full discount. The second I got $140.
The time to get a vendors attention is when you still have the money.
how are morals subjective, but natural rights not? What is the definition of a natural right?
We need to establish a vocabulary before this conversation can have any value.
That slavery was ever legal is probably sufficient for you to understand that the law and moral code are different things.
You're reasoning is flawed if you are trying to make them equivilent.
As you say, the words in the law *are* important. Why? Because *they* are what make the law, not some elusive moral code or instrinsic human right.
Your own argument corrects your original supposition.
Boy this is a very subtle point and not really interesting.
The question is whether the consitution 'grants' or 'acknowledges' rights?
Bah, who cares.
They are still put together by people and if they are enumerated in the amendments they are a right the government cannot take away if they aren't they can.
The question of whether they are intrinsic rights to the human experience is a silly rabbit hole.
Why do I bother mentioning this?
Your head seems to be in the right place, but the basic reasoning behind your statement is what is so dangerous. It is lack of knowledge and understanding of these issues by everday people that will eventually lead to major curtailing of rights, followed by an extended and bloody revolution.
This statement is just utter rubbish. Whether the rights are intrinsic to humanity or granted by the government matters not one little bit. If, for example, the right to free speech is intrinsic to humanity and the government (and the populace) ammend the consitution to remove it *you still lose that right*. You can rant all you want about how God/Allah/Physics *gave* you that right and the government can't take it away, but you'll still be doing so from the wrong side of a prison door.
The converse is also true. If you have no intrinsic human right to free speech the government still cannot take it away from you without ammending the constitution (or, even less likely, just pitching the thing and starting over).
The whole debate doesn't matter in the slightest and, contrary to your insulting accusation of ignorance on the part of the grandparent, is actually harmful because it causes people to think about things that don't matter instead of concentrating on what the law (is in all the law including the constitution) should be written to say in the opinion of this self governing democracy. (oh, and *please* don't tell me we live in a republic. The two aren't mutually exclusive)