Look, I don't mean to jump on you, but exactly how many copies of the text are available in the library?
At my school, it was one or two copies, often old editions, and they were frequently checked out to other people. Yeah, I like using the library option, but it's not always viable. Is your experience different?
I've got a shelf full of glue-bound books that I paid retail for in the good ol' US of A that are falling apart. So price doesn't buy you quality.
Four separate folios of my hard-bound copy of Cryptonomicon are falling out. Same problem with several other hard-bound books. Many of my paperbacks are disintegrating after one or two readings.
Am I hard on books? Damn skippy. Sure would like to be able to get etexts under reasonable terms. Then I'd shell out for a nice armored, backlit, waterproof ebook reader.
I require PDA functionality all the time. My needs are different from yours. My habits are different from yours. The products I choose will be different from the products you choose. I care much less about screen size than screen resolution. Since the difference between the smallest phone's screen vs. the largest PDA's screen can be eliminated by moving the phone six inches closer to my nose, this is not a substantial problem in my opinion.
Why is this threatening? Why do people insist on there being all-or-nothing solutions? Isn't that precisely what the free market is supposed to route around?
Oh, wait. Nobody likes free markets. Everybody wants everybody else to conform with their own preconceptions. How naive of me.
Certainly. (incidentally, the Wikipedia link also contains good examples)
Fundamentalist: The Bible is the Word of God. Me: How do you know? Fundamentalist: Because the Bible says that it is the Word of God. Me: How do you know that? Fundamentalist: Because the Bible is the Word of God.
If you answer a challenge to one of your axioms by stating that axiom, you are begging the question. See the entire Objectivist philosophy for more examples.
If you don't use a PDA, you won't use a PDA. Therefore, you won't be interested in convergence devices. Nobody's going to take away your tiny tiny phone. Please stop worrying about this non-problem.
If there was a place that needed a great big suspension bridge, any number of steel mills could quickly tool up production on any necessary parts in a big hurry.
You didn't think that you could go to a Parts for a Tunnel Under The English Channel Store, did you? Big projects like that get tools and machines purpose-built for them.
I think that in order for something to be a penis-symbol, there should be an alternative way to design it so that it's NOT a penis symbol.
There's no light without dark, right? Therefore, penis symbology only makes sense if, among several otherwise-equivalent designs, you choose the one that looks like a dick.
Please design a viable rocket-powered vessel that looks like a vagina.
WORLDWIDE (not US only) satellite launch revenue for 2002: $86 billion.
This is sort of apples and oranges. America runs approximately half the worldwide satellite launch industry, so call it $40 odd billion in revenues. (not profits).
So, these are some real hand-wavy statistics I'm showing here. I believe that the launch industry is a tiny fraction of the overall business revenue attributable to satellites. (Think telecom and television)
Now, you could certainly argue "Well, obviously unmanned space flight is profitable! No reason not to keep that up!" I'd answer that argument by saying that we can not estimate the monetary benefits that will come from manned space exploration and exploitation. The cost of a manned space program is small relative to the revenues its research has generated, and there's no reason to suppose that that pattern will not continue.
Just so's you know, there are reputable scientists who think that a continuing series of Mars missions would take ten years and approximately $40 billion dollars (over ten years, mind you) to start. Continuing launches would be pretty darn cheap. If you're not excited by the prospects of colonizing another planet, there's really nothing I can say that could possibly get your attention.
Since Agent Smith's "species" was enslaving another sentient race, they don't get much in the way of a moral high ground. Having said that, The Matrix isn't exactly my barometer for what makes sense in terms of space exploration policy.
Life grows. That's what it does. That's what it's for. Life brings order to chaos.
Survival of the fittest. By definition, that species which survives, wins. If you don't think the human species should survive, well, you get to make that choice for yourself. The rest of us will continue to strive.
Does it make sense for us, as a sentient species, to husband our resources carefully? Absolutely. Are we doing a very good job? No. But, to suggest that somehow we don't "deserve" to survive is absurd.
Incidentally, your spelling and sentence structure atrocious almost to the point of unreadability. You really ought to work on that.
I'm just trying to figure out how the fact that Truman was a democrat had anything whatsoever to do with the price of tea in China. Are you suggesting that a Republican president in 1947 would not have opposed the Soviets?
This is the classic fallacy of partisan politics: If something happens while one party is "in charge", it is the responsibility of that party forever. Silliness.
Slashdot Mirror
I (again) half agree with you, until you install drives.
The Shuttle is fine, I suppose, but it's not what I'd call really elegant and beautiful industrial design.
That said, it's probably the next PC case I'm going to buy...I just don't think it's a Ferrari by any stretch of the imagination.
"Check". What are you people, French?!
: )
Look, I don't mean to jump on you, but exactly how many copies of the text are available in the library?
At my school, it was one or two copies, often old editions, and they were frequently checked out to other people. Yeah, I like using the library option, but it's not always viable. Is your experience different?
I've got a shelf full of glue-bound books that I paid retail for in the good ol' US of A that are falling apart. So price doesn't buy you quality.
Four separate folios of my hard-bound copy of Cryptonomicon are falling out. Same problem with several other hard-bound books. Many of my paperbacks are disintegrating after one or two readings.
Am I hard on books? Damn skippy. Sure would like to be able to get etexts under reasonable terms. Then I'd shell out for a nice armored, backlit, waterproof ebook reader.
But that's not what happens. The drug that sells for $10 in Norway is sold for $100 in Africa. Please explain that to me.
Yeah, so let's rush out a replacement system that'll be even worse. Great.
You understand that the reason Alaska is cold, is because it gets less solar energy than places that are not cold, right?
I require PDA functionality all the time. My needs are different from yours. My habits are different from yours. The products I choose will be different from the products you choose. I care much less about screen size than screen resolution. Since the difference between the smallest phone's screen vs. the largest PDA's screen can be eliminated by moving the phone six inches closer to my nose, this is not a substantial problem in my opinion.
Why is this threatening? Why do people insist on there being all-or-nothing solutions? Isn't that precisely what the free market is supposed to route around?
Oh, wait. Nobody likes free markets. Everybody wants everybody else to conform with their own preconceptions. How naive of me.
Certainly. (incidentally, the Wikipedia link also contains good examples)
Fundamentalist: The Bible is the Word of God.
Me: How do you know?
Fundamentalist: Because the Bible says that it is the Word of God.
Me: How do you know that?
Fundamentalist: Because the Bible is the Word of God.
If you answer a challenge to one of your axioms by stating that axiom, you are begging the question. See the entire Objectivist philosophy for more examples.
I'm looking forward to being able to use the second movement of Hindemith's Symphony in B.
So you get the good with the bad.
...so where do you carry your PDA?
If you don't use a PDA, you won't use a PDA. Therefore, you won't be interested in convergence devices. Nobody's going to take away your tiny tiny phone. Please stop worrying about this non-problem.
...according to whom?
Good for you. You've just figured out why the ARTICLE WAS FUCKING STUPID.
Here's a cookie. (:)
That's a pretty absurd contention.
If there was a place that needed a great big suspension bridge, any number of steel mills could quickly tool up production on any necessary parts in a big hurry.
You didn't think that you could go to a Parts for a Tunnel Under The English Channel Store, did you? Big projects like that get tools and machines purpose-built for them.
I, on the other hand, am willing to spend money on good aesthetic design for something I have to use day in and day out.
And no, the dumb light kits are not good aesthetic design.
So I half agree with you.
Um, there is a BSD port. You can get it with an OS called X.
Right.
Whether your argument is correct or not, it did not beg the question. This phrase does not mean what you think it means.
Not exactly.
Increased complexity!=increased chaos. 100 lbs of dirt is less complex and more chaotic than 100 lbs of pretty girl.
I think that in order for something to be a penis-symbol, there should be an alternative way to design it so that it's NOT a penis symbol.
There's no light without dark, right? Therefore, penis symbology only makes sense if, among several otherwise-equivalent designs, you choose the one that looks like a dick.
Please design a viable rocket-powered vessel that looks like a vagina.
NASA budget this year is $15.3 billion.
WORLDWIDE (not US only) satellite launch revenue for 2002: $86 billion.
This is sort of apples and oranges. America runs approximately half the worldwide satellite launch industry, so call it $40 odd billion in revenues. (not profits).
So, these are some real hand-wavy statistics I'm showing here. I believe that the launch industry is a tiny fraction of the overall business revenue attributable to satellites. (Think telecom and television)
Now, you could certainly argue "Well, obviously unmanned space flight is profitable! No reason not to keep that up!" I'd answer that argument by saying that we can not estimate the monetary benefits that will come from manned space exploration and exploitation. The cost of a manned space program is small relative to the revenues its research has generated, and there's no reason to suppose that that pattern will not continue.
Just so's you know, there are reputable scientists who think that a continuing series of Mars missions would take ten years and approximately $40 billion dollars (over ten years, mind you) to
start. Continuing launches would be pretty darn cheap. If you're not excited by the prospects of colonizing another planet, there's really nothing I can say that could possibly get your attention.
Does that help?
I don't like fake tits, either. Maybe it's just me...
Autoscroll, decent handling of tabs, the Google toolbar, and the ability to use ctrl-mousewheel to change the font size on the site I'm viewing.
I get 3/4. I don't mind installing plugins, but I don't know how to get the last one to work in Firebird, and it's an absolute deal-killer for me.
Fair enough. I was skimming, and missed that post. I shoulda jumped on him instead. Or as well. : )
I still hate party politics. Sloppy thinking.
Since Agent Smith's "species" was enslaving another sentient race, they don't get much in the way of a moral high ground. Having said that, The Matrix isn't exactly my barometer for what makes sense in terms of space exploration policy.
Life grows. That's what it does. That's what it's for. Life brings order to chaos.
Survival of the fittest. By definition, that species which survives, wins. If you don't think the human species should survive, well, you get to make that choice for yourself. The rest of us will continue to strive.
Does it make sense for us, as a sentient species, to husband our resources carefully? Absolutely. Are we doing a very good job? No. But, to suggest that somehow we don't "deserve" to survive is absurd.
Incidentally, your spelling and sentence structure atrocious almost to the point of unreadability. You really ought to work on that.
I'm just trying to figure out how the fact that Truman was a democrat had anything whatsoever to do with the price of tea in China. Are you suggesting that a Republican president in 1947 would not have opposed the Soviets?
This is the classic fallacy of partisan politics: If something happens while one party is "in charge", it is the responsibility of that party forever. Silliness.