I asked YOU to take one look. I did not say "I know for a fact." I simply asked that you yourself take a look. If you do, I believe you will be shocked and disgusted, and you might even come to conclusions similar to mine. I am not forcing my viewpoints on anyone. I am simply giving a pointer in a certain direction for those who are interested, and letting people draw their own conclusions. If that makes me a moron, so be it, I wear the title with pride. I am not your personal research service. For that, you probably couldn't afford me.
if you want to know what the porn industry is about. This is an industry that takes advantage of desperate, abused, and addicted women. A woman can decide that it's her choice to sell herself to the porn industry, but that doesn't mean it won't destroy her, no matter how she thinks she feels about it.
Hey, I'm as horny as the next guy, and I have no hangups about sex at all. I like a woman who will get freaky with me now and again. But I know that the porn industry destroys women (and men!) time after time after time, and I will not and cannot in good conscience give my own money to support such a thing. Would I like to? Hell yeah, I *like* looking at porn. Who doesn't? But I don't like that it destroys people's lives. And it does.
"Jerry Butler in his book "Raw Talent" discussed the inequity of pay for porn actors versus actresses. He claimed that actresses made in the $1000-1500 range as their day rate, which the male actors made about a third of that, $300-500 a day. "
If you'll notice I put quotes on "below absolute zero" for a reason. If this concept makes sense or not depends on your definition of temperature, which has been clarified elsewhere in this thread.
For some definitions of temperature it may make sense. For other definitions, it may not.
But this argument is not about definitions of words, it is about stating "theoretical limits" as something that is immutable. I say that our understanding of physics is not immutable, and therefore talking about immutable limits based on physics doesn't follow.
You are assuming that we know all the laws of physics. Now, we certainly do know the laws of physics in a more enduring way than we know how to engineer microchips, but to say that we know all the laws of physics is silly. It amuses me how physicists have claimed to be "almost there" forever.
For all you know, there are states "below absolute zero" that we just haven't created so that they could be measured or conceptualized yet. So yes, you're right, it is like saying that - and there's nothing wrong with such a statement at all.
I believe it was Einstein who said that "science" is nothing more than the rationalization of technology.
Bob
I can assure you they didnt do that with duct tape
on
Duct Tape
·
· Score: 1
Miniaturization technology is still one of the most highly guarded secrets surrounding nuclear weapons.
An atomic bomb in a toolbox?
on
Duct Tape
·
· Score: 1
These cops weren't the sharpest tacks, were they?
I guess they haven't seen pictures of the first atomic bomb. It was a *bit* larger than a toolbox.
First of all, this is NO WAY a "spy plane." Spying is done covertly. This was an overt flight - we don't try to hide these flights. And who owns the rights to the electromagnetic spectrum in international waters? The Chinese?! Bah! We can monitor the spectrum in international space just as they can and every other nation in the world can, and DOES. Yes, this is a perfectly ordinary and tolerable activity for a plane.
That's great, except that you only get 2 gigs transfer with that price! In other words, you're gonna pay an arm and a leg for this unless you're just doing a little emailing and checking cnn.com a few times a week.
Relax, man. My point is that "intact, sitting upright on tripod legs" is a hell of a lot of detail for an object which they, at the same time, can't ID as the lander. Comprende?
They can't have it both ways. Either they can see enough detail to see that this is a thing with tripod legs, or they can't. If they can, then its the lander. If they can't, well, then they can't, and making statements about orientation doesn't make sense. Its incongruous to say both things in the same article.
How the hell can they not be sure that they're seeing the polar lander, yet at the same time report that it is "sitting upright on its tripod legs"!?!
"Ok, yeah, see that lander thing there sitting upright on its tripod legs? We suspect that might be one of NASA's craft, maybe even the polar lander that was supposed to land in that spot, which had tripod legs on which it was supposed to sit. But then again, we're just not sure... our crack 'mars lander-type objects sitting on tripod legs' team is working on it right now!"
No person can consider themselves to have a technical education without mastery of calculus.
I don't care that you don't "use it" as in you don't take derivatives of polynomials. The basic concepts are still fundamental.
Every university has a few wack job Emeriti running around spewing garbage about something or other. Emeritus means "ok, you can still hang around, but stop bothering us."
Did his former employer sign away _their_ rights to talk to whomever they please when the hired this guy? Why can't they voice _their_ opinions as well? Where is the lack of reciprocity here?
Without poverty, there is no wealth. If there was no poverty, who would work in the slaughterhouses? Who would deliver your pizza?
Even if there were a way to artificially remove poverty, nobody would like the consequences. Think about it. Some people will always suffer, and some people will always prosper. Its not touchy-feely fair, but its reality. I'm oversimplifying, of course - society should be humane, but there is no such thing as "eliminating poverty."
And getting back on topic, I think the computer idea is a lousy one - if there is a demand for computer skills in any country, then people will find a way to learn the skills. If there isn't, throwing cheap computers at them won't change a thing.
You seemed to imply that refactoring "ruined" everyone's code. Then simply put, whatever happening was not refactoring.
One piece of XP that cannot be severed from refactoring is unit testing. So did they do unit testing or not? If so, how was it possible to "ruin" the code with the unit tests in place?
Flat
A generation of sociopaths?
on
'Snatch'
·
· Score: 1
Brutal killing is now a main element of this style of "comedy." I guess I am old, but I just don't get that.
Wile E. Coyote getting flattened was one thing. Brains and gore all over the screen is another. I find it a little disturbing that kids think this is great, knee-slapping, hilarious stuff.
Flat
Eng is just as "mind expanding" as anything...
on
CS vs CIS
·
· Score: 1
It teaches abstract thought, methodical problem solving, and many other things rather than "just how to do a specific job."
I got the most "mind expanding" education out of my engineering curriculum, and secondly out of philosophy courses, with literature a distant third. Engineering can be and should be Real Education.
You could, but the key to the power of this type of machine is not the number of nodes, its the switch. The switch is the bottleneck, and adding nodes to a machine this size doesn't buy you much for the kinds of problems they're running.
Slashdot Mirror
I asked YOU to take one look. I did not say "I know for a fact." I simply asked that you yourself take a look. If you do, I believe you will be shocked and disgusted, and you might even come to conclusions similar to mine. I am not forcing my viewpoints on anyone. I am simply giving a pointer in a certain direction for those who are interested, and letting people draw their own conclusions. If that makes me a moron, so be it, I wear the title with pride. I am not your personal research service. For that, you probably couldn't afford me.
Flat5
PS1="\[\033]0;\u@\h: \w\007\]\[\033[1m\]\u@\h(\$(pwd | gawk -F '{if (NF>n+1)
{for (i=NF+1-n; i=NF; i++) printf \"/%s\", \$i} else {for (i=2; i=NF; i++) printf \"
/%s\", \$i}}' n=3 | sed -e 's/\/home\/userid/~/'))\$\[\033[0m\] "
userid@machine(tilde abbreviated path trimmed to custom depth)$
The whole thing is bold.
if you want to know what the porn industry is about. This is an industry that takes advantage of desperate, abused, and addicted women. A woman can decide that it's her choice to sell herself to the porn industry, but that doesn't mean it won't destroy her, no matter how she thinks she feels about it.
Hey, I'm as horny as the next guy, and I have no hangups about sex at all. I like a woman who will get freaky with me now and again. But I know that the porn industry destroys women (and men!) time after time after time, and I will not and cannot in good conscience give my own money to support such a thing. Would I like to? Hell yeah, I *like* looking at porn. Who doesn't? But I don't like that it destroys people's lives. And it does.
Flat5
"Jerry Butler in his book "Raw Talent" discussed the inequity of pay for porn actors versus actresses. He claimed that actresses made in the $1000-1500 range as their day rate, which the male actors made about a third of that, $300-500 a day. "
Directly from the adult movie FAQ.
If you'll notice I put quotes on "below absolute zero" for a reason. If this concept makes sense or not depends on your definition of temperature, which has been clarified elsewhere in this thread.
For some definitions of temperature it may make sense. For other definitions, it may not.
But this argument is not about definitions of words, it is about stating "theoretical limits" as something that is immutable. I say that our understanding of physics is not immutable, and therefore talking about immutable limits based on physics doesn't follow.
Bob
You are assuming that we know all the laws of physics. Now, we certainly do know the laws of physics in a more enduring way than we know how to engineer microchips, but to say that we know all the laws of physics is silly. It amuses me how physicists have claimed to be "almost there" forever.
For all you know, there are states "below absolute zero" that we just haven't created so that they could be measured or conceptualized yet. So yes, you're right, it is like saying that - and there's nothing wrong with such a statement at all.
I believe it was Einstein who said that "science" is nothing more than the rationalization of technology.
Bob
Miniaturization technology is still one of the most highly guarded secrets surrounding nuclear weapons.
These cops weren't the sharpest tacks, were they?
I guess they haven't seen pictures of the first atomic bomb. It was a *bit* larger than a toolbox.
First of all, this is NO WAY a "spy plane." Spying is done covertly. This was an overt flight - we don't try to hide these flights. And who owns the rights to the electromagnetic spectrum in international waters? The Chinese?! Bah! We can monitor the spectrum in international space just as they can and every other nation in the world can, and DOES. Yes, this is a perfectly ordinary and tolerable activity for a plane.
That's great, except that you only get 2 gigs transfer with that price! In other words, you're gonna pay an arm and a leg for this unless you're just doing a little emailing and checking cnn.com a few times a week.
Flat5
Relax, man. My point is that "intact, sitting upright on tripod legs" is a hell of a lot of detail for an object which they, at the same time, can't ID as the lander. Comprende?
Flat5
They can't have it both ways. Either they can see enough detail to see that this is a thing with tripod legs, or they can't. If they can, then its the lander. If they can't, well, then they can't, and making statements about orientation doesn't make sense. Its incongruous to say both things in the same article.
Flat5
How the hell can they not be sure that they're seeing the polar lander, yet at the same time report that it is "sitting upright on its tripod legs"!?!
"Ok, yeah, see that lander thing there sitting upright on its tripod legs? We suspect that might be one of NASA's craft, maybe even the polar lander that was supposed to land in that spot, which had tripod legs on which it was supposed to sit. But then again, we're just not sure... our crack 'mars lander-type objects sitting on tripod legs' team is working on it right now!"
Flat5
Flat5
The Guitarist Forum
Every university has a few wack job Emeriti running around spewing garbage about something or other. Emeritus means "ok, you can still hang around, but stop bothering us."
Flat5
Did his former employer sign away _their_ rights to talk to whomever they please when the hired this guy? Why can't they voice _their_ opinions as well? Where is the lack of reciprocity here?
Flat5
Without poverty, there is no wealth. If there was no poverty, who would work in the slaughterhouses? Who would deliver your pizza?
Even if there were a way to artificially remove poverty, nobody would like the consequences. Think about it. Some people will always suffer, and some people will always prosper. Its not touchy-feely fair, but its reality. I'm oversimplifying, of course - society should be humane, but there is no such thing as "eliminating poverty."
And getting back on topic, I think the computer idea is a lousy one - if there is a demand for computer skills in any country, then people will find a way to learn the skills. If there isn't, throwing cheap computers at them won't change a thing.
Flat5
Have you _read_ the freakin' book? Please do so before dismissing it out of hand. This rant makes no sense if you read the book.
You seemed to imply that refactoring "ruined" everyone's code. Then simply put, whatever happening was not refactoring.
One piece of XP that cannot be severed from refactoring is unit testing. So did they do unit testing or not? If so, how was it possible to "ruin" the code with the unit tests in place?
Flat
Brutal killing is now a main element of this style of "comedy." I guess I am old, but I just don't get that.
Wile E. Coyote getting flattened was one thing. Brains and gore all over the screen is another. I find it a little disturbing that kids think this is great, knee-slapping, hilarious stuff.
Flat
It teaches abstract thought, methodical problem solving, and many other things rather than "just how to do a specific job."
I got the most "mind expanding" education out of my engineering curriculum, and secondly out of philosophy courses, with literature a distant third. Engineering can be and should be Real Education.
Sure. That's why I said "for the kinds of problems they're running."
Flat5
so that they can restart if there are any problems. That's a hell of a lot easier than
trying to make some super fault tolerant system.
Flat5
Sure, Red has a good linpack mark. But ask any scientist which machine they would rather run
their actual codes on. The answer is the blue machines.
Flat5
You could, but the key to the power of this type of machine is not the number of nodes, its the switch. The switch is the bottleneck, and adding nodes to a machine this size doesn't buy you much for the kinds of problems they're running.
Flat5