I need you to explain to me why "convergence devices" are necessarily bad, but PCs are not.
Badly designed convergence devices are bad. But if a phone already has a screen, a battery, and a data connection, why not get your email on it too? What's the drawback? Conversely, what's the drawback of having a phone that can check email, but you don't run the email checking program?
I don't get the argument.
Bad design is bad design, but convergence in and of itself isn't bad design.
Do you have a choice of which banks get bailed out by your government? Or which businesses are making a line outside the Free Money Office in Washington, DC right now?
Because I don't. My choice would be "None of them."
If the entry level Macbook had an ExpressCard slot, that would a) solve the problem and b) be awesome. But it doesn't, so there is a legitimate beef here.
It would be more accurate to say that stall is a function of airspeed and attitude. It's not dependent ONLY on airspeed or attitude, but you can induce stall by varying either.
People who live in mountainous areas would be wise to disregard Ethanol-Fueled's advice, or they will overheat their brakes and need to use one of those runaway truck lanes.
By that argument, it would be perfectly acceptable to sell beef contaminated with mad cow prions, with "Tested for Mad Cow!" sticker on the front. After all, it was tested! The fact that it tested positive is just a flaw in the test, and we shouldn't have to disclose that, right?
Your point may be technically accurate, but it's misleading. The only difference between a parabolic flight and an elliptical orbit is that one intersects the Earth, and one does not. Of course, that whole hitting the Earth part kinda sucks, so that's why the airplane pulls out of its dive.
In orbit, the acceleration due to gravity is still substantial. The only difference is, the velocity tangent to that vector is sufficient that you're always falling towards Earth, but you always miss hitting it. You're falling over the horizon.
"(Note that "in orbit" is still inside the event horizon of Earth's gravitational well.) "
Event horizon has a specific meaning, and none whatsoever when not talking about black holes. There is no "event horizon" of Earth's gravitational well. It simply gets arbitrarily small with increasing distance.
"Where experiments would become fascinating is in a satellite in an orbit above Earth that matches the angle and period of the moon's, at a distance that would cause an equal gravitational pull from both Earth and the Moon, and see what happens with two equal but opposite gravity sources effecting the experiment!"
That's not really an orbit, that's a Lagrange point. The effects will be indistinguishable from orbit. Inertial frames of reference are indistinguishable.
I spent more on my suit for the rehearsal than my wife spent on her wedding dress. Our wedding cost about half what you spent, and it was in a gorgeous church with 150 people.
It's all about knowing what you want, and communicating it to one another.
Not really. That's exactly the sort of wedding I had, and my marriage is stupendous. It's a matter of each person knowing what they want, and communicating it to the other. Both my wife and I have everything we want.
Maybe the Democrats think that your moral principles are your business, and not that of the Government. Frankly, I'd like them better if they thought that more often...
You know, most of the grognards who cry about how lego "used to be" haven't played with some of the more recent kits. There's some seriously clever design in some of them, and I find it inspiring to see how other people do things to incorporate them into my own design.
I think that cleverness acts as a force multiplier for the big tub o' bricks.
It's a bad thing to give people a disproportionate fear of getting cancer from things that pose trivial risks. As long as you don't eat three square meals a day of LEDs, you're probably not going to get cancer from LEDs.
Informing people of actual risks is good. Informing people of trivial risks dilutes the notion of risk.
OK, there's some sort of bizarro-world where a bunch of people think that they're disagreeing with me.
The Founders (including Thomas Jefferson) explicitly intended the 2nd Amendment as a check on the United States Government. Anybody who thinks it's about militias defending the homeland, or hunting, is not a good student of history.
Slashdot Mirror
Pursuing a good goal by lying and misleading is not good.
I need you to explain to me why "convergence devices" are necessarily bad, but PCs are not.
Badly designed convergence devices are bad. But if a phone already has a screen, a battery, and a data connection, why not get your email on it too? What's the drawback? Conversely, what's the drawback of having a phone that can check email, but you don't run the email checking program?
I don't get the argument.
Bad design is bad design, but convergence in and of itself isn't bad design.
Do you have a choice of which banks get bailed out by your government? Or which businesses are making a line outside the Free Money Office in Washington, DC right now?
Because I don't. My choice would be "None of them."
"Obama may view himself as a totalitarian dictator"
What could you possibly mean by that? Do you have some sort of translation table that maps what he says to what you want to hear?
Is there a basis for your assertion?
If the entry level Macbook had an ExpressCard slot, that would a) solve the problem and b) be awesome. But it doesn't, so there is a legitimate beef here.
It would be more accurate to say that stall is a function of airspeed and attitude. It's not dependent ONLY on airspeed or attitude, but you can induce stall by varying either.
You can't possibly believe that, just because you spend time on something, you're entitled to a paycheck, can you?
Let me tell you, there are LOTS of things people do, and few things people get paid for. I'll leave the mapping as an exercise for the class.
If I invite you into my home for dinner, you don't get to keep the place setting. Or the chair.
"It's intellectual property."
Even if you pre-suppose that intellectual property is a meaningful concept, it's not your intellectual property.
People who live in mountainous areas would be wise to disregard Ethanol-Fueled's advice, or they will overheat their brakes and need to use one of those runaway truck lanes.
Retarded? Seriously?
Over time? All of them.
By that argument, it would be perfectly acceptable to sell beef contaminated with mad cow prions, with "Tested for Mad Cow!" sticker on the front. After all, it was tested! The fact that it tested positive is just a flaw in the test, and we shouldn't have to disclose that, right?
A lie of omission is still a lie.
Difficult? No. Tedious? Yes.
Your point may be technically accurate, but it's misleading. The only difference between a parabolic flight and an elliptical orbit is that one intersects the Earth, and one does not. Of course, that whole hitting the Earth part kinda sucks, so that's why the airplane pulls out of its dive.
In orbit, the acceleration due to gravity is still substantial. The only difference is, the velocity tangent to that vector is sufficient that you're always falling towards Earth, but you always miss hitting it. You're falling over the horizon.
"(Note that "in orbit" is still inside the event horizon of Earth's gravitational well.) "
Event horizon has a specific meaning, and none whatsoever when not talking about black holes. There is no "event horizon" of Earth's gravitational well. It simply gets arbitrarily small with increasing distance.
"Where experiments would become fascinating is in a satellite in an orbit above Earth that matches the angle and period of the moon's, at a distance that would cause an equal gravitational pull from both Earth and the Moon, and see what happens with two equal but opposite gravity sources effecting the experiment!"
That's not really an orbit, that's a Lagrange point. The effects will be indistinguishable from orbit. Inertial frames of reference are indistinguishable.
Not all of the surface of the Earth is at sea level.
I spent more on my suit for the rehearsal than my wife spent on her wedding dress. Our wedding cost about half what you spent, and it was in a gorgeous church with 150 people.
It's all about knowing what you want, and communicating it to one another.
Not really. That's exactly the sort of wedding I had, and my marriage is stupendous. It's a matter of each person knowing what they want, and communicating it to the other. Both my wife and I have everything we want.
Shocking revelation.
Come on, you're being silly. Your right to do as you wish ends when it impinges on someone else's right to do the same.
Maybe the Democrats think that your moral principles are your business, and not that of the Government. Frankly, I'd like them better if they thought that more often...
Or, maybe, your son is different from you.
Seems to me that the instructions in the mindstorms kits are just like the instructions in the regular kits: Good places to start.
Good ideas create other good ideas. Creativity doesn't happen in a vacuum, and other peoples' cleverness can be a good catalyst for one's own.
You know, most of the grognards who cry about how lego "used to be" haven't played with some of the more recent kits. There's some seriously clever design in some of them, and I find it inspiring to see how other people do things to incorporate them into my own design.
I think that cleverness acts as a force multiplier for the big tub o' bricks.
Water poses a health risk. So does sunlight.
It's a bad thing to give people a disproportionate fear of getting cancer from things that pose trivial risks. As long as you don't eat three square meals a day of LEDs, you're probably not going to get cancer from LEDs.
Informing people of actual risks is good. Informing people of trivial risks dilutes the notion of risk.
OK, there's some sort of bizarro-world where a bunch of people think that they're disagreeing with me.
The Founders (including Thomas Jefferson) explicitly intended the 2nd Amendment as a check on the United States Government. Anybody who thinks it's about militias defending the homeland, or hunting, is not a good student of history.
Did I state that clearly enough?
you are aware that you're agreeing with me, not the other thing, right?
Generally, it undermines one's argument if you call the assertions of people who agree with you "nonsense".
Thomas Jefferson disagrees with you.