What part is not like how Apple does things? On Microsoft's desktop OS, desktop applications have no distribution restrictions. On their phone and tablet OS, applications have to go through their market. On Apple's desktop OS, desktop applications have no distribution restrictions. On their phone and tablet OS, applications have to go through their market.
The only difference is that applications made for their tablet OS (Metro applications) will also run on desktop computers, though still with the through-the-market requirement.
Seems that most folks passionate about the subject would have the other sided labeled as the OP described.
Probably, but that doesn't make it an apt description.:-)
There certainly are alarmists, grant-whores, and people making money off of the prospect of green technology. There are certainly corporatists. There are also a lot of entirely reasonable scientists. There are also a whole lot of people -- celebrities, journalists, TV persons, and regular people -- who could not science their way out of a paper bag and have some opinion on the matter.
When you're looking for scientific opinions, only one of these groups is worth listening too.
I'm not going to talk at you about how to do data analysis and averaging. Picking 1998 as a starting point is a canary for someone who is measuring "increase" as "difference since start of plot" and then cherry-picking a high value as their start point.
Even if you use that highly-deceptive "analysis" technique, though, it's not true: NASA GISS Global Surface Air Temperature Anomaly 1998: 0.70 C 2010: 0.83 C 2010 is the most recent year for which there is data.
NASA GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index 1998: 0.56 C 2010: 0.63 C
If you look at the tabular data, anyone reasonably familiar with analysis should spot immediately that 1998 is an outlier and that there is an overall positive trend that continues up to 2010.
The false dichotomy suggested is that one side consists solely of "grant-whores and alarmists" and the other side, of "bible-thumping right-wing corporatists". There are certainly people who both (a) have a "side" and (b) say things about global warming that fall under neither description.
Climate science seems like a bit circular---All scientists believe in AGW, but to be accepted as a scientist you need to believe in AGW.
Sure, except that the latter isn't true at all.
And it isn't a "hard" science in that you can experiment and see the results because, well, if AGW is occurring you can't wait till everyone is dead.
Science is all about developing models in order to make useful predictions. You don't need to do full-scale experiments of exactly what you're looking for in order for it to be "science". That's just called "observation" at that point.
On the other hand, we are aware of significant climate change in relatively recent human history (Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, etc) that are not related to humans.
Not surprisingly, climateologists know about these too. It's a logical fallacy, by the way, to suggest that because A causes C, it cannot be the case that B causes C.
And AGW isn't a new idea--Edward Gibbon blamed deforestation for Germany's warming in HISTORY OF THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
Not only is that a different effect, it's also not global.
If you can call putting laundry in a machine and letting the machine do the work "doing", sure. That was invented more than 35 years ago, though.
cleaning my own bathroom
Yes, but not cleaning your own car (unless you want to) or vacuuming your own floors.
driving my own car
True, though your pilot is only sometimes flying the plane and train and subway cars are mostly automated.
cooking my own food (or paying another human to cook it)
Sort of. You don't personally own the robot that makes food, because it turns out robots are still pretty expensive. But you buy packaged foods that didn't exist 35 years ago that are made by robots that significantly reduce your labor. Hell, you may buy frozen meals or ramen that are almost entirely made by robots. If you go to McDonald's, the humans aren't really "cooking" the food, they're just doing some heating and the tricker parts of assembly and service. Now, good food is still a human-run affair, as it's pretty complicated, but even in the past 35 years we've benefited from increased access to raw ingredients because of automation.
People on Slashdot are easily confused by the fact that the group is called "Anonymous", which is the same as an English word with a particular meaning.
It's a practical measurement. Posit that there's a group of people who commit cyberattacks that are then attributed to the label "Anonymous". Functionally, that group of people is Anonymous. If you decided to, could you contact those individuals and work with them in the commision of one of these acts? If you performed a cyberattack and attributed it to "Anonymous", would standard outlets for "information from Anonymous" agree or disagree with your attribution?
No. Liquid nitrogen is easy to use safely. It's common in undergrad-level labs, can be reasonably easily purchased (like dry ice) by just about anyone, and only requires minor safety procedures. Liquid helium is more dangerous, but is common in graduate-level labs and is not particularly hard to work with if you know what you're doing. It is really quite expensive, though, and a complete waste to use for cooling something that's producing ~100W of heat, since it doesn't have a very high heat capacity.
It's probably easier to injure yourself with home power tools than with liquid helium. It's just that fewer people have experience properly handling the latter.
The speed of light is a limitation. Like a sibling commenter says, the speed of light is one foot per nanosecond. Propagation time through transistors is slower than this, but it's a good estimation tool. However, you don't have to have an operation go all the way through the system in a single clock cycle. Hence, pipelining.
It's a many-faceted problem, but yes. Most people just don't have an intuitive grasp of the amounts involved, so cutting $15 million that seems like obvious waste gives them the sense of positive change, even though it's meaningless. Everything that would have to be changed to really balance the budget is sure to annoy some large set of voters. No politician will do that, since the best reward for them comes from doing things that sound good to voters and forcing other politicians to make the unpopular changes. Of course, we're ultimately responsible as voters, but "I wish other people voted smarter and had interests aligned with my own and that the whole system was better" is not a strategy for fixing things.
Raise the Soc/Med age to the average age of mortality for people who live to 18
Since the SSA has historical data on survival probability going back to, roughly, its inception, there's a more clever way of adjusting this. Look at the probability of surviving to the retirement age when SSA was instituted, and pick the age such that you have the same probability of surviving to retirement now. (SSA already provides data limited to people who survive to adulthood.)
There's a bit of drift in men vs. women, but it works out to about 3 years, if I remember correctly. Oddly, that happens to be one of the two popular proposals for extending the Social Security age.
It makes sense to phase this in in some reasonable fashion. If you just make it proportional to time-to-retirement-age, starting at 18, you get that it adds about 3 weeks for every year until you retire, which seems pretty reasonable.
Well, if I scale the federal budget down to the size of a (relatively large) household budget, since "running government spending like household spending" seems to be a popular meme, I get that this program would cost me less than $1 a year.
I think if I was in debt and trying to cut spending, taking any appreciable amount of time to figure out how to cut $1 a year is not going to be a worthwhile investment, especially if that limits my future ability to do useful things. Kind of like saving money by not replacing a broken light bulb. Working out how to save $1 a year is exactly the kind of thing someone does when they want people to think that they're working hard to save money, when in reality they don't want to make the changes necessary to actually balance their budget. It's a money-saving measure for someone who refuses to accept reality. (Alternately, for someone who is really bad at mathematics.)
I'm thinking that the ~10% of my income that I'm willingly giving away to the wealthy is a great place to start if I want to balance my budget.
Most of the e-books I've seen are actually the same price or cheaper than the cheapest available version of the book. (That is, it's at hardback price during the hardback release period and paperback price afterwards.)
No, you're quite right. It's a semantic argument. Infinite sets do have different sizes, and some can be said to be bigger than others. However, the term "infinite" doesn't have varying degrees -- the set is either infinite or finite.
Yes, a countably infinite set is smaller than an uncountably infinite one, but both are equally infinite. They're not the same size, but they are equally infinite, because infinite isn't a measure of size. It's a binary adjective -- a set is either finite or infinite, and that's it.
Exactly. "Infinite" is a binary classification -- a set is either finite or infinite. There is no "more" or "less" infinite. (The same is true of "unique".)
Hence, all things that are infinite are equally infinite, since there are no degrees.
Slashdot Mirror
What part is not like how Apple does things? On Microsoft's desktop OS, desktop applications have no distribution restrictions. On their phone and tablet OS, applications have to go through their market. On Apple's desktop OS, desktop applications have no distribution restrictions. On their phone and tablet OS, applications have to go through their market.
The only difference is that applications made for their tablet OS (Metro applications) will also run on desktop computers, though still with the through-the-market requirement.
Seems that most folks passionate about the subject would have the other sided labeled as the OP described.
Probably, but that doesn't make it an apt description. :-)
There certainly are alarmists, grant-whores, and people making money off of the prospect of green technology. There are certainly corporatists. There are also a lot of entirely reasonable scientists. There are also a whole lot of people -- celebrities, journalists, TV persons, and regular people -- who could not science their way out of a paper bag and have some opinion on the matter.
When you're looking for scientific opinions, only one of these groups is worth listening too.
global temperatures haven't risen since 1998
I'm not going to talk at you about how to do data analysis and averaging. Picking 1998 as a starting point is a canary for someone who is measuring "increase" as "difference since start of plot" and then cherry-picking a high value as their start point.
Even if you use that highly-deceptive "analysis" technique, though, it's not true:
NASA GISS Global Surface Air Temperature Anomaly
1998: 0.70 C
2010: 0.83 C
2010 is the most recent year for which there is data.
NASA GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index
1998: 0.56 C
2010: 0.63 C
If you look at the tabular data, anyone reasonably familiar with analysis should spot immediately that 1998 is an outlier and that there is an overall positive trend that continues up to 2010.
The false dichotomy suggested is that one side consists solely of "grant-whores and alarmists" and the other side, of "bible-thumping right-wing corporatists". There are certainly people who both (a) have a "side" and (b) say things about global warming that fall under neither description.
Not only that, most people who would vote for the Pirate Party in Germany already knew full well what "software piracy" is.
Climate science seems like a bit circular---All scientists believe in AGW, but to be accepted as a scientist you need to believe in AGW.
Sure, except that the latter isn't true at all.
And it isn't a "hard" science in that you can experiment and see the results because, well, if AGW is occurring you can't wait till everyone is dead.
Science is all about developing models in order to make useful predictions. You don't need to do full-scale experiments of exactly what you're looking for in order for it to be "science". That's just called "observation" at that point.
On the other hand, we are aware of significant climate change in relatively recent human history (Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, etc) that are not related to humans.
Not surprisingly, climateologists know about these too. It's a logical fallacy, by the way, to suggest that because A causes C, it cannot be the case that B causes C.
And AGW isn't a new idea--Edward Gibbon blamed deforestation for Germany's warming in HISTORY OF THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
Not only is that a different effect, it's also not global.
It means he doesn't understand the problems inherent in computer security.
I am still doing my own laundry
If you can call putting laundry in a machine and letting the machine do the work "doing", sure. That was invented more than 35 years ago, though.
cleaning my own bathroom
Yes, but not cleaning your own car (unless you want to) or vacuuming your own floors.
driving my own car
True, though your pilot is only sometimes flying the plane and train and subway cars are mostly automated.
cooking my own food (or paying another human to cook it)
Sort of. You don't personally own the robot that makes food, because it turns out robots are still pretty expensive. But you buy packaged foods that didn't exist 35 years ago that are made by robots that significantly reduce your labor. Hell, you may buy frozen meals or ramen that are almost entirely made by robots. If you go to McDonald's, the humans aren't really "cooking" the food, they're just doing some heating and the tricker parts of assembly and service. Now, good food is still a human-run affair, as it's pretty complicated, but even in the past 35 years we've benefited from increased access to raw ingredients because of automation.
But making humans is one of the few things humans excel at and enjoy!
W5649XA
W902XXA
So, just like SHA-2?
People on Slashdot are easily confused by the fact that the group is called "Anonymous", which is the same as an English word with a particular meaning.
It's a practical measurement. Posit that there's a group of people who commit cyberattacks that are then attributed to the label "Anonymous". Functionally, that group of people is Anonymous. If you decided to, could you contact those individuals and work with them in the commision of one of these acts? If you performed a cyberattack and attributed it to "Anonymous", would standard outlets for "information from Anonymous" agree or disagree with your attribution?
No. Liquid nitrogen is easy to use safely. It's common in undergrad-level labs, can be reasonably easily purchased (like dry ice) by just about anyone, and only requires minor safety procedures. Liquid helium is more dangerous, but is common in graduate-level labs and is not particularly hard to work with if you know what you're doing. It is really quite expensive, though, and a complete waste to use for cooling something that's producing ~100W of heat, since it doesn't have a very high heat capacity.
It's probably easier to injure yourself with home power tools than with liquid helium. It's just that fewer people have experience properly handling the latter.
The speed of light is a limitation. Like a sibling commenter says, the speed of light is one foot per nanosecond. Propagation time through transistors is slower than this, but it's a good estimation tool. However, you don't have to have an operation go all the way through the system in a single clock cycle. Hence, pipelining.
It's a many-faceted problem, but yes. Most people just don't have an intuitive grasp of the amounts involved, so cutting $15 million that seems like obvious waste gives them the sense of positive change, even though it's meaningless. Everything that would have to be changed to really balance the budget is sure to annoy some large set of voters. No politician will do that, since the best reward for them comes from doing things that sound good to voters and forcing other politicians to make the unpopular changes. Of course, we're ultimately responsible as voters, but "I wish other people voted smarter and had interests aligned with my own and that the whole system was better" is not a strategy for fixing things.
Raise the Soc/Med age to the average age of mortality for people who live to 18
Since the SSA has historical data on survival probability going back to, roughly, its inception, there's a more clever way of adjusting this. Look at the probability of surviving to the retirement age when SSA was instituted, and pick the age such that you have the same probability of surviving to retirement now. (SSA already provides data limited to people who survive to adulthood.)
There's a bit of drift in men vs. women, but it works out to about 3 years, if I remember correctly. Oddly, that happens to be one of the two popular proposals for extending the Social Security age.
It makes sense to phase this in in some reasonable fashion. If you just make it proportional to time-to-retirement-age, starting at 18, you get that it adds about 3 weeks for every year until you retire, which seems pretty reasonable.
Well, if I scale the federal budget down to the size of a (relatively large) household budget, since "running government spending like household spending" seems to be a popular meme, I get that this program would cost me less than $1 a year.
I think if I was in debt and trying to cut spending, taking any appreciable amount of time to figure out how to cut $1 a year is not going to be a worthwhile investment, especially if that limits my future ability to do useful things. Kind of like saving money by not replacing a broken light bulb. Working out how to save $1 a year is exactly the kind of thing someone does when they want people to think that they're working hard to save money, when in reality they don't want to make the changes necessary to actually balance their budget. It's a money-saving measure for someone who refuses to accept reality. (Alternately, for someone who is really bad at mathematics.)
I'm thinking that the ~10% of my income that I'm willingly giving away to the wealthy is a great place to start if I want to balance my budget.
Last I knew, you couldn't do download-to-PC for free, even if you have Prime -- if you use Prime to get it for free, it's streaming-only.
A lot of people read more because libraries exist.
Most of the e-books I've seen are actually the same price or cheaper than the cheapest available version of the book. (That is, it's at hardback price during the hardback release period and paperback price afterwards.)
No, you're quite right. It's a semantic argument. Infinite sets do have different sizes, and some can be said to be bigger than others. However, the term "infinite" doesn't have varying degrees -- the set is either infinite or finite.
Yes, a countably infinite set is smaller than an uncountably infinite one, but both are equally infinite. They're not the same size, but they are equally infinite, because infinite isn't a measure of size. It's a binary adjective -- a set is either finite or infinite, and that's it.
Exactly. "Infinite" is a binary classification -- a set is either finite or infinite. There is no "more" or "less" infinite. (The same is true of "unique".)
Hence, all things that are infinite are equally infinite, since there are no degrees.
No. Infinite sets can have different sizes, but they're all equally infinite.