Automatic transmissions are not the power sappers of the past. Most modern cars get mileage ratings only 1mpg lower with an auto, and that is considering 'perfect' shifting with the manual. In practice, they are likely close to being on par for city driving, as the automatics are all computer controlled for efficiency now. Lots of automatics have locking transmissions for highway driving, which means the mpg should be pretty much the same. The differences are just very minimal nowadays, at least on an engine of any size (V6+)
Piece of cake. They just need people that are not gay, have never smoked marijuana, can code in their sleep, and are willing to work for less than they could in the private sector. And they must not mind having military and bureaucrats for bosses who make 5 times more money for "leading" them in tasks that they themselves are clueless about. And be able to live up to deadlines that are decided by committees of higher up bosses who are new to the interweb.
The PS3 "otherOS" issue doesn't affect me. I quit buying Sony products temporarily when they did the root kit. Funny thing is, every year or two they give me a new reason to not buy their products, so the temporary is looking pretty permanent.
You know, I really don't miss anything. I still play all the games I can stand (Steam and other PC), and there are plenty of other companies making TVs, stereo gear and such. Nope, can't say I miss out on anything worthwhile.
As to the idea of 0 or negative margin, that is absurd enough that debating isn't needed. That sounds really cool on paper, but it doesn't work that way in the real world. You *can* go read the SEC filings and other public financial documentation (net and gross margins, etc.) for any publicly held grocery chain, instead of making shit up and thinking you understand business.
For starters, Creationism is usually quoted with the Earth's actual age as around 6000 years, give or take a begat or two.
This isn't the same as Quantum Theory and the Special Theory of Relativity, where we can use one in some circumstances, the other in some circumstances, and just pretend they don't agree with other yet work. A closer analog would be to use Quantum Theory for some circumstances, and a Ouija board for others. (Not to offend, but the scientific evidence for both Ouija and religion is about the same, zero.) What ever someone believes is fine, but they are polar opposite concepts that are not reconcilable.
Religion is about accepting that a group of "facts" (bible) is right with no physical proof, and the leadership objects when someone doubts or questions the accuracy of the "facts".
Science tries to prove that a "fact" (theory) is wrong and the leadership REQUIRES doubt and questions be testable before accepting as "fact".
This is great news for the gaming industry. Now we have an actual analog to assist in making games like the Fallout series more realistic. Under normal circumstances, society would frown on creating a nuclear accident just to make video games more realistic, so it fortunate that it occurred when it did, with enough time passing for plants to adapt. Thank you Russia.
The lead photograph for the article looks *EXACTLY* like what you would expect in a game like Fallout 3 (my current love). A baby doll sitting next to a gas mask, on a concrete floor, next to a bombed out looking window with dead plants outside in the brightly lit sun. 100% video game shot.
I'm sure this logic could be applied to the atomic bomb? Are we really better off having it?
Yes, because it was inevitable.
What if Russia (thus, Stalin) had figured it out 3 years before us and used it against German aggression, where would be be? Or if Japan has discovered years before and decided that delivering a nuke to Pearl Harbor (or anywhere on the West Coast) would be much safer for their military personel? If it was to be discovered (and it *was* inevitable) in the general era, who would you have rather have doing the discovery? Spain (Francisco Franco)? Italy (Benito Mussolini)? Heaven forbid, Germany? Even if France or the UK had it earlier, they might have been overrun in a single mass push by Germany (It is doubtful that Chamberlin, Philippe Pétain, or even Charles de Gaulle would have used it anyway). Keep in mind, back then, the US wasn't quite so Imperialistic, so everyone was plenty happy we figured it out.
Or you could wish that "no one ever will ever figure out how to make a nuclear bomb", which is downright silly. If any 'thing' is possible, then eventually it will be done, in its own time. The only reason we didn't figure it out even sooner was that the computer industry was in its infancy. Today, using the same math and designs (and people) used back then, you could do the same feat on a smart phone in a fraction of the time.
You can't blame someone for a "method" when it is openly explaining how it is doing what it is doing, using the existing software. Yes, he is pushing it as a "feature", when it is in fact due to a flaw in the overall design of all browsers. It is much better for the information to be released like this than to find out a year after it is fully integrated into every piece of malware.
After reading your post, it is ironic that it is the guy that "hates guns" who is the one who actually is destructive enough to use one to shoot a transformer. Most people who shoot somewhat regularly (be it for game or sport) would not consider doing that. I'm glad you understand and support the 2nd Amendment, but you youthful mistakes definitely prove that the person behind the gun is more dangerous than the gun itself.
You are pretty quick to call someone a fool when you have no idea what they believe in. You are also pretty arrogant to assume that either:
1) You agree with Obama's plan OR 2) You want the status quo
You lack imagination. There are many, many different ideas on how to provide healthcare for everyone that wants it, not just Obama's. You automatically assume that because I deplore Obama's plan, and I don't support forcing people to buy healthcare, that I'm some red state yokel waving a Confederate flag. You aren't the solution. You, and people like you, are the problem. Either we all agree with you (ie: have common sense, in your words), or we are "fools" or equate nationalize healthcare with "evil and of the devil". Maybe if you got off your soapbox, you might actually get invited to the big people table for discussion of the issues.
I am also very put out by this feature. As an example for why it's so terrible, I was searching for some SQL subselect help at work the other day (natch, I'm at work now...). The first search I tried started out "How to insert..." Google instant helpfully popped up image search results for "How to insert a tampon". Google: NSFW (beta).
Ok, that is pretty damn funny, and tests out exactly as you state. Sounds like a new idea for a new blog, all the bad partial searches on Google.
I started with a very, very common quest: "How do you " and my options were:
how do you dougie how do you get pregnant how do you get scabies
So all I conclude is that most people are looking for 'how to' advice on very different stuff than the average nerd.
you don't have to like it, but you have to admit it is clearly positioned to deliver higher quality healthcare cheaper than the bullshit we have right now
Um, the majority of people don't think it will deliver higher quality healthcare cheaper. Even the government's own published information says that it will be more expensive in the short run. They "project" it will cost less in the long run, which (of course) means after they leave office.
This is forcing people to buy a product: healthcare. Forcing everyone to buy a product generally doesn't make the price of the product go down. Car insurance, while a good idea, is also a good example of something that is now forced, used to be optional, and has not dropped in price.
False. Recent polls show over 60% of Americans disapprove of Obama's accomplishments.
I disapprove of his performance(accomplishments) as well. Doesn't mean that I am marching in the streets waving a banner. You missed the entire point of the post. Not everyone that disagrees with Obama is a screaming protester.
And we live in America, where they have the right to express themselves. Rest assured, the majority of Americans are either going to work, or looking for work, and don't have time for panicking or freaking out like a few celeb's and their dominions. Most Americans just want a decent job and time with the family. Throw in reasonable taxes and gas prices, most everyone is happy. The freakshow on TV is a very small minority.
One of the examples was to bury agricultural waste instead of plowing it into the ground. The obvious problem is that the "waste" is what becomes the soil in a few years, putting back minerals, nitrogen and other elements that the plant needs to grow. Without putting this "waste" back into the ground, the only way to get the same full, lush plants that are soaking up all this carbon is to use man made fertilizers, which are a big enough problem with ground water that we don't need to adopt a new agriculture method that requires even MORE of them.
If we could separate out all the carbon from our garbage and bury it in the way he talks about, great, there will be coal in a few millennia. But generally speaking, this sounds incredibly unworkable and naive.
Even in the 486 days, I have seen plenty of 25mhz chips running at 33mhz, which is a significant step up in speed, 50%, and sold as 33mhz for the extra money. There was a lot more hokey stuff going on back in the early 90s by local shops. For them, ignorance was bliss.
I would agree. The fascination with recursive acronyms and "cute" names for mainstream products is not helping acceptance. Gimp is a good example, as it actually a good program that runs fine on Windows, but when people who want a photo editing program ask me for a free "photoshop" and I tell them "Gimp", they look at me like I just farted at the dinner table: Shocked and somewhat disgusted.
Hey, if you code the program, you can call it what you want, but if your goal is to get as many people using your software (which, in the absence of profit, would be the obvious indicated of success), then authors and groups might consider changing some names. Yes, part of the hacker culture is to have obscure names, but most people won't "get it", nor try the product if they think the name is too weird.
Most people wouldn't try "Burp Cola", even if a particular demographic thought the name was funny either.
Correct. And if your choices were to either photocopy the magazine, or don't buy the magazine, then the publisher was never going to make any money of you anyway, so it is difficult to call it theft. The original magazine still exists for someone else to buy, and you have not deprived them of selling it. Should you do that? Well, no, but that doesn't make it the same as if you stole that physical magazine.
As long as people keep comparing piracy to theft of goods, it will fall on deaf ears because they are NOT the same thing. And ironically, there is typically a higher cost/punishment for piracy, even though it often resulted in $0 actual loss. As long as that is the case, then many more are going to take the side of the pirate, purely for sake of fairness.
The number-two reason I don't buy or watch DVDs is that the menu systems are often frustrating and difficult to figure out. I just want to put in the disc and have the movie start in under three seconds with no interaction, just like my VCR did in 1986, and it blows my mind that consumers in 2010 accept a lesser standard.
That is one of the reasons I prefer to download a game or movie that I have legally purchased, as I feel that as long as I have purchased the media, I should be able to view it my way. I have no problem paying for products, but as you say, it should have the functional equivalent of what was available 20 years ago at the least. The sad fact is that the "pirates" are making a better product than the studios, so it should not come as a surprise that people prefer it, whether they paid for it or not.
You pay for the right to view and use their data on their own terms.
That is the flaw in your argument. The content providers have the right to control the distribution of their product, and have a monopoly on the profits from their product, but they don't have the right to limit my fair use of the product. The real pirates are the guys that are copying the DVDs bit for bit and selling them. This is not the same as ripping it to your hard drive to watch on your computer. No one is arguing against punishing those that are profiting from other people's works.
The argument is simple: Once I buy the media, I should be able to watch it any way I want as long as I don't infringe on their rights to profit from it. This means I am not supposed to sell copies, I'm not supposed to show it in a theatre or pub or other public venue. Whether I watch it on my laptop, TV, or work computer doesn't affect them as I have already purchased the item. If I want to include a short clip for commentary or criticism on my blog, the law says I have the absolute RIGHT to do so, but the technology effectively blocks me from doing this.
You are worried about THEIR rights, which are based upon the (valid) idea that they have the right to exclusively profit from their work. Once I have purchased that DVD or BD, they no longer have a vested interest in the profits of that one disk, they already have it.
Slashdot Mirror
Automatic transmissions are not the power sappers of the past. Most modern cars get mileage ratings only 1mpg lower with an auto, and that is considering 'perfect' shifting with the manual. In practice, they are likely close to being on par for city driving, as the automatics are all computer controlled for efficiency now. Lots of automatics have locking transmissions for highway driving, which means the mpg should be pretty much the same. The differences are just very minimal nowadays, at least on an engine of any size (V6+)
Piece of cake. They just need people that are not gay, have never smoked marijuana, can code in their sleep, and are willing to work for less than they could in the private sector. And they must not mind having military and bureaucrats for bosses who make 5 times more money for "leading" them in tasks that they themselves are clueless about. And be able to live up to deadlines that are decided by committees of higher up bosses who are new to the interweb.
What is so difficult about that?
Either give him a few years and make a good citizen out of him, or kick him out of the country.
Prison doesn't make "good citizens". It is, however, very effective for making better criminals.
The PS3 "otherOS" issue doesn't affect me. I quit buying Sony products temporarily when they did the root kit. Funny thing is, every year or two they give me a new reason to not buy their products, so the temporary is looking pretty permanent.
You know, I really don't miss anything. I still play all the games I can stand (Steam and other PC), and there are plenty of other companies making TVs, stereo gear and such. Nope, can't say I miss out on anything worthwhile.
Changes are they won't show up and there is little you can do except get the judgement.
You are an idiot that misses the entire point of the post.
So, you are saying they just need a bigger truck?
As to the idea of 0 or negative margin, that is absurd enough that debating isn't needed. That sounds really cool on paper, but it doesn't work that way in the real world. You *can* go read the SEC filings and other public financial documentation (net and gross margins, etc.) for any publicly held grocery chain, instead of making shit up and thinking you understand business.
For starters, Creationism is usually quoted with the Earth's actual age as around 6000 years, give or take a begat or two.
This isn't the same as Quantum Theory and the Special Theory of Relativity, where we can use one in some circumstances, the other in some circumstances, and just pretend they don't agree with other yet work. A closer analog would be to use Quantum Theory for some circumstances, and a Ouija board for others. (Not to offend, but the scientific evidence for both Ouija and religion is about the same, zero.) What ever someone believes is fine, but they are polar opposite concepts that are not reconcilable.
Religion is about accepting that a group of "facts" (bible) is right with no physical proof, and the leadership objects when someone doubts or questions the accuracy of the "facts".
Science tries to prove that a "fact" (theory) is wrong and the leadership REQUIRES doubt and questions be testable before accepting as "fact".
This is great news for the gaming industry. Now we have an actual analog to assist in making games like the Fallout series more realistic. Under normal circumstances, society would frown on creating a nuclear accident just to make video games more realistic, so it fortunate that it occurred when it did, with enough time passing for plants to adapt. Thank you Russia.
The lead photograph for the article looks *EXACTLY* like what you would expect in a game like Fallout 3 (my current love). A baby doll sitting next to a gas mask, on a concrete floor, next to a bombed out looking window with dead plants outside in the brightly lit sun. 100% video game shot.
I'm sure this logic could be applied to the atomic bomb? Are we really better off having it?
Yes, because it was inevitable.
What if Russia (thus, Stalin) had figured it out 3 years before us and used it against German aggression, where would be be? Or if Japan has discovered years before and decided that delivering a nuke to Pearl Harbor (or anywhere on the West Coast) would be much safer for their military personel? If it was to be discovered (and it *was* inevitable) in the general era, who would you have rather have doing the discovery? Spain (Francisco Franco)? Italy (Benito Mussolini)? Heaven forbid, Germany? Even if France or the UK had it earlier, they might have been overrun in a single mass push by Germany (It is doubtful that Chamberlin, Philippe Pétain, or even Charles de Gaulle would have used it anyway). Keep in mind, back then, the US wasn't quite so Imperialistic, so everyone was plenty happy we figured it out.
Or you could wish that "no one ever will ever figure out how to make a nuclear bomb", which is downright silly. If any 'thing' is possible, then eventually it will be done, in its own time. The only reason we didn't figure it out even sooner was that the computer industry was in its infancy. Today, using the same math and designs (and people) used back then, you could do the same feat on a smart phone in a fraction of the time.
Have you ever heard of an open-source game
Yes. There are plenty of them.
You can't blame someone for a "method" when it is openly explaining how it is doing what it is doing, using the existing software. Yes, he is pushing it as a "feature", when it is in fact due to a flaw in the overall design of all browsers. It is much better for the information to be released like this than to find out a year after it is fully integrated into every piece of malware.
Hacking at its finest.
After reading your post, it is ironic that it is the guy that "hates guns" who is the one who actually is destructive enough to use one to shoot a transformer. Most people who shoot somewhat regularly (be it for game or sport) would not consider doing that. I'm glad you understand and support the 2nd Amendment, but you youthful mistakes definitely prove that the person behind the gun is more dangerous than the gun itself.
You are pretty quick to call someone a fool when you have no idea what they believe in. You are also pretty arrogant to assume that either:
1) You agree with Obama's plan
OR
2) You want the status quo
You lack imagination. There are many, many different ideas on how to provide healthcare for everyone that wants it, not just Obama's. You automatically assume that because I deplore Obama's plan, and I don't support forcing people to buy healthcare, that I'm some red state yokel waving a Confederate flag. You aren't the solution. You, and people like you, are the problem. Either we all agree with you (ie: have common sense, in your words), or we are "fools" or equate nationalize healthcare with "evil and of the devil". Maybe if you got off your soapbox, you might actually get invited to the big people table for discussion of the issues.
I am also very put out by this feature. As an example for why it's so terrible, I was searching for some SQL subselect help at work the other day (natch, I'm at work now...). The first search I tried started out "How to insert..." Google instant helpfully popped up image search results for "How to insert a tampon". Google: NSFW (beta).
Ok, that is pretty damn funny, and tests out exactly as you state. Sounds like a new idea for a new blog, all the bad partial searches on Google.
I started with a very, very common quest: "How do you " and my options were:
how do you dougie
how do you get pregnant
how do you get scabies
So all I conclude is that most people are looking for 'how to' advice on very different stuff than the average nerd.
you don't have to like it, but you have to admit it is clearly positioned to deliver higher quality healthcare cheaper than the bullshit we have right now
Um, the majority of people don't think it will deliver higher quality healthcare cheaper. Even the government's own published information says that it will be more expensive in the short run. They "project" it will cost less in the long run, which (of course) means after they leave office.
This is forcing people to buy a product: healthcare. Forcing everyone to buy a product generally doesn't make the price of the product go down. Car insurance, while a good idea, is also a good example of something that is now forced, used to be optional, and has not dropped in price.
False. Recent polls show over 60% of Americans disapprove of Obama's accomplishments.
I disapprove of his performance(accomplishments) as well. Doesn't mean that I am marching in the streets waving a banner. You missed the entire point of the post. Not everyone that disagrees with Obama is a screaming protester.
But their politics is a politics of fear,
And we live in America, where they have the right to express themselves. Rest assured, the majority of Americans are either going to work, or looking for work, and don't have time for panicking or freaking out like a few celeb's and their dominions. Most Americans just want a decent job and time with the family. Throw in reasonable taxes and gas prices, most everyone is happy. The freakshow on TV is a very small minority.
Time to Google bomb "Dr. Ann De Wees Allen" and "stupid bitch" together. Kind of how we all did SCO with "litigious bastards".
One of the examples was to bury agricultural waste instead of plowing it into the ground. The obvious problem is that the "waste" is what becomes the soil in a few years, putting back minerals, nitrogen and other elements that the plant needs to grow. Without putting this "waste" back into the ground, the only way to get the same full, lush plants that are soaking up all this carbon is to use man made fertilizers, which are a big enough problem with ground water that we don't need to adopt a new agriculture method that requires even MORE of them.
If we could separate out all the carbon from our garbage and bury it in the way he talks about, great, there will be coal in a few millennia. But generally speaking, this sounds incredibly unworkable and naive.
Even in the 486 days, I have seen plenty of 25mhz chips running at 33mhz, which is a significant step up in speed, 50%, and sold as 33mhz for the extra money. There was a lot more hokey stuff going on back in the early 90s by local shops. For them, ignorance was bliss.
I would agree. The fascination with recursive acronyms and "cute" names for mainstream products is not helping acceptance. Gimp is a good example, as it actually a good program that runs fine on Windows, but when people who want a photo editing program ask me for a free "photoshop" and I tell them "Gimp", they look at me like I just farted at the dinner table: Shocked and somewhat disgusted.
Hey, if you code the program, you can call it what you want, but if your goal is to get as many people using your software (which, in the absence of profit, would be the obvious indicated of success), then authors and groups might consider changing some names. Yes, part of the hacker culture is to have obscure names, but most people won't "get it", nor try the product if they think the name is too weird.
Most people wouldn't try "Burp Cola", even if a particular demographic thought the name was funny either.
Correct. And if your choices were to either photocopy the magazine, or don't buy the magazine, then the publisher was never going to make any money of you anyway, so it is difficult to call it theft. The original magazine still exists for someone else to buy, and you have not deprived them of selling it. Should you do that? Well, no, but that doesn't make it the same as if you stole that physical magazine.
As long as people keep comparing piracy to theft of goods, it will fall on deaf ears because they are NOT the same thing. And ironically, there is typically a higher cost/punishment for piracy, even though it often resulted in $0 actual loss. As long as that is the case, then many more are going to take the side of the pirate, purely for sake of fairness.
The number-two reason I don't buy or watch DVDs is that the menu systems are often frustrating and difficult to figure out. I just want to put in the disc and have the movie start in under three seconds with no interaction, just like my VCR did in 1986, and it blows my mind that consumers in 2010 accept a lesser standard.
That is one of the reasons I prefer to download a game or movie that I have legally purchased, as I feel that as long as I have purchased the media, I should be able to view it my way. I have no problem paying for products, but as you say, it should have the functional equivalent of what was available 20 years ago at the least. The sad fact is that the "pirates" are making a better product than the studios, so it should not come as a surprise that people prefer it, whether they paid for it or not.
You pay for the right to view and use their data on their own terms.
That is the flaw in your argument. The content providers have the right to control the distribution of their product, and have a monopoly on the profits from their product, but they don't have the right to limit my fair use of the product. The real pirates are the guys that are copying the DVDs bit for bit and selling them. This is not the same as ripping it to your hard drive to watch on your computer. No one is arguing against punishing those that are profiting from other people's works.
The argument is simple: Once I buy the media, I should be able to watch it any way I want as long as I don't infringe on their rights to profit from it. This means I am not supposed to sell copies, I'm not supposed to show it in a theatre or pub or other public venue. Whether I watch it on my laptop, TV, or work computer doesn't affect them as I have already purchased the item. If I want to include a short clip for commentary or criticism on my blog, the law says I have the absolute RIGHT to do so, but the technology effectively blocks me from doing this.
You are worried about THEIR rights, which are based upon the (valid) idea that they have the right to exclusively profit from their work. Once I have purchased that DVD or BD, they no longer have a vested interest in the profits of that one disk, they already have it.