My post was a bit ironical, don't get it too seriously. But I fully agree with you.
The only TV (a PC with a USB receiver) we have is in the parent room and the kids don't have access to it. There uses limited internet access, and we try to educate them about what can be be inappropriate for them. But the fact is that it's became really a full task to avoid heavy artificial violence spread by the medias. And I don't speak about information about real events in the world, the problem is the artificial violence created for the only purpose to project violent images to the mass. At 41 year old, I still don't get what cause to much people to like this excessive violence.
I want that by default, my childrens cannot see violence on the media or on the internet. What's ? Not important at all ? Ah! Only the human sexuality is to be forbidden ? Ouch... It's a bit like some religions when controlled by extremists: sex pleasure is prohibited but you can massacre all the guy that don't think like you.
Sorry you are wrong: I got today the Android 4.04 (ICS) update to my Nexus S, that have a single 1GHz A8 CPU and 512Mo of RAM, and it run perfectly well and smooth. In addition there is already a few hackers that run ICS on a N9, the port is not complete, but the performance is not the problem.
The Atmel 8 bit processor actually emulate a 32 bit ARM processor on a simple PXA255 system. By emulating a 80386 on a basic PC system with the same Atmel 8 bit processor, booting Windows is probably doable, but certainly a bigger work.
Don't rewrite the history: ODF alliance, aside of a comparative document, never tried actively to stop MS to standardize Open XML. MS did try very actively to stop ODF alliance to standardize ODF. Search a bit in the Slashdot archive on how Microsoft have made pressure into many governments bodies.
SIM card is not used only in smartphone and, actually Nokia still sell far far more phones+smartphone than Apple. Well, this will quickly change if there continue there WP crap...
I noticed that I spend less time reading precisely a numerical speedometer that a analogical one. A extremely quick look at a numerical display is enough to get the image of the numbers that the brain decode very quickly into a exact speed. With the analogical one a have to look a bit longer to evaluate the angle ratio between the narrower references, witch still need a brain decoding to only get a approximate speed.
A possible solution is supporting Android apps with Meego/Harmattan. The Swipe UI from Harmattan will be a unique selling point into the Android market.
I love the deeply addictive and beautiful Swipe concept.
The absolute best feature of the N9 is not even Meego but the Harmattan UI. It bring the deeply addictive and beautiful swipe interface witch is certainly the best UI to handle multitasking on a mobile phone. Now that the Android Linux tree start to be merged into the mainline Linux tree, the obvious goal is to make the N9 and his successor able to run Android apps into the Swipe interface. That will make a winner.
Yes, the exclusion below 115 GeV was the only reliable scientific result. At his end, LEP was searching Higg at 120, 130 140 and 150 GeV in his data without success. A search at 125 GeV on the dataset could have show a small hint... I still think that LEP saw the first sign of Higg in his dataset, even if the search was not large enough to identify it. I say that because Tevatron use now a old dataset to search a sign that it should have identify it, only to the glory to make a PR. I am certain that LEP could do the same, but the perception about the PR importance is different at the CERN.
As for the Tevatron contribution, it's not bigger than the CERN contribution to the Tevatron either. For the details you can read starting from here: http://lephiggs.web.cern.ch/LEPHIGGS/www/Welcome.html But I agree that the Tevatron team is more marketing oriented in the why is there PR. Seem to be over important to some.
Well, you actually point out the rot of the problem: "The population [...] barely know the subject matter let alone have an education in the field". Direct democracy make the population more concerned about politic, because the media talk a lot more about it in the way that the population have to take a decision, not only explain what there will face without control.
This is the interesting question ! By "traditional religions", I was talking about the religions that already have build somewhat ostentatious constructions here in the past. The fact is that, actually, all of them are slowly lost interest from a more and more big part of the population. So the consequence is that there will probably not get a good public feeling by making new ostentatious constructions. The minaret was a symbol because there was a small group of extremist that pushed too far there desire to see there power symbolized by ostentatious construction. But this is a warning for the others, including traditional religions. I am pretty certain that now there know that if there don't take the new situation in account, the law will probably get even harder. In fact, while this vote was debated, some already expressed the wish that not only the minaret will be forbidden, but ostentatious construction of any religion too.
Now there is a bit of philosophic consideration that take place. One could take the law in the raw way and try to get everything that is not expressively forbidden. One other can try to understand the context in place and take it in account. The advantage of the direct democracy is that everyone know better was the majority think about a lot of different subjects, so it's more practicable to find a solution that fit in the context without having to make a lot of law with endless details and problematic application. The minaret law, in this regard, is exemplar: this is a single short sentence added in the constitution that forced everyone to talk about a growing fair. Now the fair is mostly gone, witch is a good thing for all parties.
About the minaret interdiction, I think the the vote was a big advantage to show the real problem (fair of invasive Islam culture and/or extremism) that visibly concerned a big part of the population. Why such subject are taboo in adjacent countries ?
The vote have made good progress on some points: * Moderate have realized that the public know only the talk fro the extremist. Now there take more distance from them. * Many acknowledge that the free practice of a religion is still granted and like that, without the need of ostentatious minarets. * Most understand that minaret are really not part of the culture here and respect that. * A side effect is that the traditional religions will probably not make ostentatious construction either.
You should consider the other way: having a direct democracy tend to make the people more concerned about politic.
In Switzerland we have to vote many time per year, usually on multiple questions. The fact the all the people have to vote make a heavy pressure on the media to talk about the subjects to be voted. So it's became virtually impossible to not know the basics facts of the ongoing votes. This make everyone concerned, and if you see this process since even before you are adult, you take it as a part of the culture of the country.
I don't think that it exists a country without a large part of the population very reasonable, even if so many politics like to say the contrary to justify there somewhat outrageous (if not corrupted) power.
I was talking about public information, not private one.
Still a good example of the main point: if your credit card information detail became public, there is no way to erase them. The bank simply invalids his use and create a new private one for you.
It's a pathetic situation. Historians work hard trying to find evidences of past events because retaining information is so hard. Now we have a Internet able to retain virtually everything, making de facto the greatest source of information that ever existed, and those stupids guys are only trying to keep the whole civilization in a obsolete age. The governments must do exactly the opposite: founding Wikipedia and the like to keep the information over the age. There is no way in denying the existing facts, even if so many manipulators have gain profit in shadowing information to others. The only way forward is learning to live with all informations available in detail.
A few moths ago, I have compared a ARM Cortex-A8 and a Atom N450 running the same Linux application using OpenCV to process images. I was surprised that the speed was about the same if I reduce the processing to a single thread and set the two processors at the same clock frequency. This show that the architecture, while very different, yield about the same processing speed. The Atom N450 still have dual cores and higher clock clock capability that explain a higher power drain if fully used.
Probably, ARM and X86 will not produce so different results for a given power envelope and manufacturing process. Compilers and kernels largely reduce the architecture difference from a user point of view. A the end, this is just a new competition, and this is generally good for the end users.
You have to admit that you have basically never objected to a large part of what I have said in details. This is how you have reacted, not an attack from me.
The distribution problem is not related to the availability of roads, this is correct.
The basic economy supply and demand rule is only valid when you have a working economy and a set of stable condition. You ignore the limits of a very simple model. This model is unable to provides a ethical solution when you split the "consumers" is two groups, one very rich and a second very poor. Try by yourself. The poor group will simply be unable to buy anything because there are financially not visible.
Your mathematics model is far far too simple. There is plenty of area in Africa to grow food, as international investors have understand. The fact that this do not profit to most African show that the problem is elsewhere.The argument that land is actually limiting the supply in Africa cam from nowhere. This could be the case in some very local area (see the distribution problem) but globally this is wrong. Africa globally export a LOT of food and this do not solve the stave problem, this increase it. Please read the basic facts about economy in Africa.
I have show to you a lot of possible solution and real examples. I don't know why you don't read them. You can actually search about any subject I have wrote by yourself. You choose a single source in the middle of many others because it fit you view. Don't blame me for that.
How many times I have warn you to not confuse different genetic engineering goals ? You really have no clue about the subject if you don't already know that, so stop attacking me like that, this will go nowhere.
I am not attacking you. I just make yourself observing the fact that you over simplify all aspects of a complex problem to a single and only view that is basically "GMO is the only solution to all the problems without any disadvantages".
Pretending that "Organic farming is a selfish, inefficient abomination" without any analyse is easy,.. and completely wrong. This is actually the kind of products that more and more peoples expect to buy in Europe. Even crisis don't seem to stop it progression, even if it's a slow and long term one. About Africa, most of the GMO culture there are from Asian investors and only for exporting it to there country. There are not contributing at all to the poor in Africa. This is even the opposite because those cultures are loan from the corrupted government without any care about the peoples that lived there since long time before the government exists. Those peoples are getting not only poor, because the never have any money as there lived autonomously from there land and now have simply nothing, but are getting ill by the vast use of pesticides used here. This is just a pillage of resources, nothing related to make there life better. Making GMO food in Europe will not make any help to poor Africa, because this will not solve how the food is distributed, witch is a big problem in Africa. You have to understand the the Africa, as a whole, is full of resources that are mainly exploited for the benefice of a few.
GMO is currently unable to adapted quickly to insects or herbicide (what the point anyway about herbicide ?) as you pretend. You correctly understand that the adaptation is required, but current GMO products don't feature this. As I have said before, Maybe future GMO will be more adequate. Don't confuse the two. Current GMO product is about resisting to highly devastating insecticides. The advantage is only temporary. Poor peoples don't buy food, there have no money to buy. The only solution for them is to be autonomous farmer until a viable economy can make them part of it. GMO is a higher risk for them as there have to make debt to buy the GMO seed every years and the associated pesticides. A few will get rich and the most will lost all there have.
Real life is much much more complex that just "GMO will make more and cheaper food". It's a bit like "Nuclear will make more and cheaper energy": this is only true if you look with a carefully chosen angle. If you look with others angles or more globally, problems are going to rise. Sometimes those problems a commonly view as an acceptable risk, but when disaster occurs, the common view change and can make the risk not acceptable anymore. Perception about nuclear plan have changed, perception about the quality of the food start to change too. Those changes in the perception will probably not make nuclear or GMO disappear, but will make more pressure to stop bad, dangerous, irresponsible usage, and will promote more regulations and controls.
Slashdot Mirror
My post was a bit ironical, don't get it too seriously. But I fully agree with you.
The only TV (a PC with a USB receiver) we have is in the parent room and the kids don't have access to it. There uses limited internet access, and we try to educate them about what can be be inappropriate for them. But the fact is that it's became really a full task to avoid heavy artificial violence spread by the medias. And I don't speak about information about real events in the world, the problem is the artificial violence created for the only purpose to project violent images to the mass. At 41 year old, I still don't get what cause to much people to like this excessive violence.
I want that by default, my childrens cannot see violence on the media or on the internet.
What's ? Not important at all ? Ah! Only the human sexuality is to be forbidden ? Ouch...
It's a bit like some religions when controlled by extremists: sex pleasure is prohibited but you can massacre all the guy that don't think like you.
Sorry you are wrong: I got today the Android 4.04 (ICS) update to my Nexus S, that have a single 1GHz A8 CPU and 512Mo of RAM, and it run perfectly well and smooth. In addition there is already a few hackers that run ICS on a N9, the port is not complete, but the performance is not the problem.
The Atmel 8 bit processor actually emulate a 32 bit ARM processor on a simple PXA255 system. By emulating a 80386 on a basic PC system with the same Atmel 8 bit processor, booting Windows is probably doable, but certainly a bigger work.
Just waiting for the minutes to be redacted into the company Wiki.
Don't rewrite the history: ODF alliance, aside of a comparative document, never tried actively to stop MS to standardize Open XML. MS did try very actively to stop ODF alliance to standardize ODF. Search a bit in the Slashdot archive on how Microsoft have made pressure into many governments bodies.
SIM card is not used only in smartphone and, actually Nokia still sell far far more phones+smartphone than Apple. Well, this will quickly change if there continue there WP crap...
Microsoft, with the ridicule market share of Windows Phone, you are probably not in the position to tell to Google how to do this kind of technology.
The steering wheels is a thing of the past. With a side-stick the pedals as useless too (maybe just a redundant break pedal ?).
I noticed that I spend less time reading precisely a numerical speedometer that a analogical one. A extremely quick look at a numerical display is enough to get the image of the numbers that the brain decode very quickly into a exact speed. With the analogical one a have to look a bit longer to evaluate the angle ratio between the narrower references, witch still need a brain decoding to only get a approximate speed.
A possible solution is supporting Android apps with Meego/Harmattan. The Swipe UI from Harmattan will be a unique selling point into the Android market.
I love the deeply addictive and beautiful Swipe concept.
The absolute best feature of the N9 is not even Meego but the Harmattan UI. It bring the deeply addictive and beautiful swipe interface witch is certainly the best UI to handle multitasking on a mobile phone. Now that the Android Linux tree start to be merged into the mainline Linux tree, the obvious goal is to make the N9 and his successor able to run Android apps into the Swipe interface. That will make a winner.
Yes, the exclusion below 115 GeV was the only reliable scientific result. At his end, LEP was searching Higg at 120, 130 140 and 150 GeV in his data without success. A search at 125 GeV on the dataset could have show a small hint... I still think that LEP saw the first sign of Higg in his dataset, even if the search was not large enough to identify it. I say that because Tevatron use now a old dataset to search a sign that it should have identify it, only to the glory to make a PR. I am certain that LEP could do the same, but the perception about the PR importance is different at the CERN.
As for the Tevatron contribution, it's not bigger than the CERN contribution to the Tevatron either. For the details you can read starting from here: http://lephiggs.web.cern.ch/LEPHIGGS/www/Welcome.html
But I agree that the Tevatron team is more marketing oriented in the why is there PR. Seem to be over important to some.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron%E2%80%93Positron_Collider#An_unfinished_discovery_of_the_Higgs_boson
LEP was able to do 200GeV near the end of his operation. Probably that it could have been hacked to discover the Higg.
Well, you actually point out the rot of the problem: "The population [...] barely know the subject matter let alone have an education in the field". Direct democracy make the population more concerned about politic, because the media talk a lot more about it in the way that the population have to take a decision, not only explain what there will face without control.
I make a big mistake! Sorry for my english.
This is the interesting question ! By "traditional religions", I was talking about the religions that already have build somewhat ostentatious constructions here in the past. The fact is that, actually, all of them are slowly lost interest from a more and more big part of the population. So the consequence is that there will probably not get a good public feeling by making new ostentatious constructions. The minaret was a symbol because there was a small group of extremist that pushed too far there desire to see there power symbolized by ostentatious construction. But this is a warning for the others, including traditional religions. I am pretty certain that now there know that if there don't take the new situation in account, the law will probably get even harder. In fact, while this vote was debated, some already expressed the wish that not only the minaret will be forbidden, but ostentatious construction of any religion too.
Now there is a bit of philosophic consideration that take place. One could take the law in the raw way and try to get everything that is not expressively forbidden. One other can try to understand the context in place and take it in account. The advantage of the direct democracy is that everyone know better was the majority think about a lot of different subjects, so it's more practicable to find a solution that fit in the context without having to make a lot of law with endless details and problematic application. The minaret law, in this regard, is exemplar: this is a single short sentence added in the constitution that forced everyone to talk about a growing fair. Now the fair is mostly gone, witch is a good thing for all parties.
About the minaret interdiction, I think the the vote was a big advantage to show the real problem (fair of invasive Islam culture and/or extremism) that visibly concerned a big part of the population. Why such subject are taboo in adjacent countries ?
The vote have made good progress on some points:
* Moderate have realized that the public know only the talk fro the extremist. Now there take more distance from them.
* Many acknowledge that the free practice of a religion is still granted and like that, without the need of ostentatious minarets.
* Most understand that minaret are really not part of the culture here and respect that.
* A side effect is that the traditional religions will probably not make ostentatious construction either.
You should consider the other way: having a direct democracy tend to make the people more concerned about politic.
In Switzerland we have to vote many time per year, usually on multiple questions. The fact the all the people have to vote make a heavy pressure on the media to talk about the subjects to be voted. So it's became virtually impossible to not know the basics facts of the ongoing votes. This make everyone concerned, and if you see this process since even before you are adult, you take it as a part of the culture of the country.
I don't think that it exists a country without a large part of the population very reasonable, even if so many politics like to say the contrary to justify there somewhat outrageous (if not corrupted) power.
From a Swiss citizen.
Here this is in place since 1848, but I hope that the adoption of the referendum will grow an a accelerated rate in many countries.
I was talking about public information, not private one.
Still a good example of the main point: if your credit card information detail became public, there is no way to erase them. The bank simply invalids his use and create a new private one for you.
It's a pathetic situation. Historians work hard trying to find evidences of past events because retaining information is so hard. Now we have a Internet able to retain virtually everything, making de facto the greatest source of information that ever existed, and those stupids guys are only trying to keep the whole civilization in a obsolete age. The governments must do exactly the opposite: founding Wikipedia and the like to keep the information over the age. There is no way in denying the existing facts, even if so many manipulators have gain profit in shadowing information to others. The only way forward is learning to live with all informations available in detail.
A few moths ago, I have compared a ARM Cortex-A8 and a Atom N450 running the same Linux application using OpenCV to process images. I was surprised that the speed was about the same if I reduce the processing to a single thread and set the two processors at the same clock frequency. This show that the architecture, while very different, yield about the same processing speed. The Atom N450 still have dual cores and higher clock clock capability that explain a higher power drain if fully used.
Probably, ARM and X86 will not produce so different results for a given power envelope and manufacturing process. Compilers and kernels largely reduce the architecture difference from a user point of view. A the end, this is just a new competition, and this is generally good for the end users.
I have addressed all those questions already.
You have to admit that you have basically never objected to a large part of what I have said in details. This is how you have reacted, not an attack from me.
The distribution problem is not related to the availability of roads, this is correct.
The basic economy supply and demand rule is only valid when you have a working economy and a set of stable condition. You ignore the limits of a very simple model. This model is unable to provides a ethical solution when you split the "consumers" is two groups, one very rich and a second very poor. Try by yourself. The poor group will simply be unable to buy anything because there are financially not visible.
Your mathematics model is far far too simple. There is plenty of area in Africa to grow food, as international investors have understand. The fact that this do not profit to most African show that the problem is elsewhere.The argument that land is actually limiting the supply in Africa cam from nowhere. This could be the case in some very local area (see the distribution problem) but globally this is wrong. Africa globally export a LOT of food and this do not solve the stave problem, this increase it. Please read the basic facts about economy in Africa.
I have show to you a lot of possible solution and real examples. I don't know why you don't read them. You can actually search about any subject I have wrote by yourself. You choose a single source in the middle of many others because it fit you view. Don't blame me for that.
How many times I have warn you to not confuse different genetic engineering goals ? You really have no clue about the subject if you don't already know that, so stop attacking me like that, this will go nowhere.
I am not attacking you. I just make yourself observing the fact that you over simplify all aspects of a complex problem to a single and only view that is basically "GMO is the only solution to all the problems without any disadvantages".
Pretending that "Organic farming is a selfish, inefficient abomination" without any analyse is easy, .. and completely wrong. This is actually the kind of products that more and more peoples expect to buy in Europe. Even crisis don't seem to stop it progression, even if it's a slow and long term one. About Africa, most of the GMO culture there are from Asian investors and only for exporting it to there country. There are not contributing at all to the poor in Africa. This is even the opposite because those cultures are loan from the corrupted government without any care about the peoples that lived there since long time before the government exists. Those peoples are getting not only poor, because the never have any money as there lived autonomously from there land and now have simply nothing, but are getting ill by the vast use of pesticides used here. This is just a pillage of resources, nothing related to make there life better. Making GMO food in Europe will not make any help to poor Africa, because this will not solve how the food is distributed, witch is a big problem in Africa. You have to understand the the Africa, as a whole, is full of resources that are mainly exploited for the benefice of a few.
GMO is currently unable to adapted quickly to insects or herbicide (what the point anyway about herbicide ?) as you pretend. You correctly understand that the adaptation is required, but current GMO products don't feature this. As I have said before, Maybe future GMO will be more adequate. Don't confuse the two. Current GMO product is about resisting to highly devastating insecticides. The advantage is only temporary. Poor peoples don't buy food, there have no money to buy. The only solution for them is to be autonomous farmer until a viable economy can make them part of it. GMO is a higher risk for them as there have to make debt to buy the GMO seed every years and the associated pesticides. A few will get rich and the most will lost all there have.
Real life is much much more complex that just "GMO will make more and cheaper food". It's a bit like "Nuclear will make more and cheaper energy": this is only true if you look with a carefully chosen angle. If you look with others angles or more globally, problems are going to rise. Sometimes those problems a commonly view as an acceptable risk, but when disaster occurs, the common view change and can make the risk not acceptable anymore. Perception about nuclear plan have changed, perception about the quality of the food start to change too. Those changes in the perception will probably not make nuclear or GMO disappear, but will make more pressure to stop bad, dangerous, irresponsible usage, and will promote more regulations and controls.