In the future, yes, who knows. But not now. Putting someone on Mars is not going to change that. It is not going to increase the survival chances of the human race one little bit.
And how exactly will we advance the state of the art? It's not going to happen by itself, we need to work with what we have now if we want things to evolve. Or is there some magic point where you'll tell us "ok guys, technology is good enough, we can start sending people out to explore the universe now". Where is that point?
High rise buildings??? Sorry, but it doesn't take a genius to look up and go "you know if that building were twice as high we'd have twice the office space per square metre of land"...
And the self-building crane was invented by an aussie.
Absolutely wrong and dangerous! Putting humans on Mars will contaminate the environment to the extent that accurate scienctific results might be forever tainted.
If a mars explorer finds a weird little microcobe living on the outside of his spacesuit, how can he prove it's really a Mars native, and not an Earth organism that's uniquely survivable? (That has prehaps recently mutated, or whatever)
Who cares tho? I don't care if there's microbial life on mars. I would care if evidence was found of some sort of long-extinct primitive animal/vegetable life, but that's about it. Am I alone here in that I think we should send people to mars simply because it's there? It's like Mt Everest. We should send people because we can, and we should start trying to move people out there because it will further science and mankind. There's only two things that have driven technology historically - the desire to kill, and the desire to explore. Since 1945 it's been clear that we've pretty much mastered the ability to kill, so we should concentrate now on the exploration.
What about the starving meeelions and cancer? There's already squillions of dollars going into cancer, because it's worth squillions to whoever cures it first. And there is no technological solution to the starving masses, only political pressure, intervention, and mainly time can help the situation.
On the lighter side, this must be a wonderfull opertunity for the Open Source Software to show that it can deliver somethign just as good for the Mac, right? Given what adobe charges for their software, the opportunity for OSS to create something that's even "almost as good" has always been there.
As for your instructions on how to make a shape, I can do that, sure, but it is not intuitive. In fact, I would never have figured that out, but I can draw a box in photoshop easily enough.
If you never thought to draw a box in this way, then you haven't used photoshop all that long at all. But I agree, gimp blows:) might try it again now 2.0 is out tho...
Because they don't care about a useable interface, they care about a flashy "looks like a movie" interface so people look at it and go "Wow, that's like a movie, those sun guys are really ahead of the game". It's a PR stunt, not an interface.
I don't refuse to consider anything. But in the case of global warming, I have considered it, and I don't believe it. However I agree with most of what's being done to prevent it, wether it's real or not, because in most cases, they're good-things.
Your arguments were good, until your post turned into a global-warming rant. The simple truth is, there'a a lot of people (myself included) who believe that "global warming" is just as believable as saddam's nukes - Not very likely, and being peddled by those after their own gain. The world gets hotter and colder as centuries roll on. Always has, always will... It's just the way it is. And there's NO PROOF AT ALL to the contrary. I find it the height of man's arrogance that people believe that in 300 years our society has had any measurable effect on a process that's been chugging along on a global system for hundreds of millions of years.
Coz here no insurance company ever pays for anything until your car's been looked at by their assessor. And if he says it's a v8 and the computer says you told them it's a 4, you get dick.
Yes, because it's the rules. If they could have bigger engines, they would. And they're also $500,000 grenades that need a replacement/rebuild every race. Not exactly something one can apply to the garage rodder.
You can't work on a V8 engine in your kitchen. A dismantled little 4 banger is very easy to work with. Two guys can easily pick it up. One guy can pick it up dismantled.
All true. But I like to use my kitchen for you know, cooking. If you don't have an engine hoist and a garage, you shouldn't be trying to build your engine.
Do you know what insurance is on a 1600cc engine compared to a 8000cc engine?
If it's a customised 1600 with a turbo? Nothing. In australia at least, insurance companies have a checkbox for "Turbo, rotary, or V8" and most will laugh you out of the office if you tell them it's not factory.
Small engines have better performance per litre than big engines. Not because chevy sucks and honda rocks, just because it's the law of diminishing returns. Adding CCs is a more efficient way to increase power than adding vtec. The most fuel efficient engine in the world is also the most powerful and one of the biggest.
Really, who cares if your car has a 2 litre turbo or a 5 litre v8, if they make similar power? They're both going to use a similar amount of fuel.
When you get down to it, the reason japanese engines make more per litre isn't because they're better, it's because of the wacky restrictions and "agreements" the japanese government enforces on their car makers. So honda can make a 2 litre that puts out 160kw without a turbo. Then why don't they make a 400kw turbo 4 litre v8 for the nsx? Because it would be a grenade.
Bigger engines have more reciprocating mass, so they can't rev as highly, and most of the technological tricks that get more power out of small engines (vtec, vvti-l etc) relies on a much higher rev range.
They certainly can't afford to reproduce Hollywood's version of the Tardis.
Thank christ. God that was the biggest insult of the whole movie. Personally I think McGann did a decent job, and Roberts could have made a great master if the movie had a script, and wasn't just standard hollywood drivel that you get when you let them make a movie of something classic and brittish they could never understand.
More and more computer science departments are teaching using Java. Why? because it helps people to understand how the computer works? no. Simply, because it's what the industry is using.
Good. Because if I coughed up a (large in Australia, obscene in the US) pile of cash to go to UNI, and they teach me something like MODULA-2 that will never help me get a job, I'd be pissed.
I think there really is a parallel between car-modifiers and pc-modifiers. There's really four classes:
a) The "don't know, don't care" crowd. They let a salesman or a "friend who knows about [computers|cars]" tell them what to buy, and they take it to the shop for every bit of maintanence.
b) The DIYers (like myself) who will change their own oil, brakes, and motherboards.
c) The real overclokers, and the hot-rodders, who push the boundaries of their chosen field, and are really into getting the most performance from their machines.
d) Ricers. People with "Type R" stickers, big wings, windows in their cases, clear fans, and who think neon has any place apart from outside a strip-joint.
But seriously, I have never heard anyone explain why a private citizen needs to own a fully automatic assault rifle
Because:
a)For the legal purposes of going to the range/buddy's farm and busting off a few (hundred), it's more fun.
b)99.9% of the population aren't mass murderers. If you flip out and decide to kill 1-5 people, it's just as easy with a pump-action as it is a machine gun. c)Americans love overkill (pun not included). Why have a civic to drive the kids to work, when you can have a canyonero? d)A top of the line ferarri / lambo / turbo porsche is most useful above the speed limits, when you're committing a crime. Should they, therefore be banned? You're much more likely to accidently kill somebody with a car than you are with a gun.
No, apple wouldn't have to write drivers for any hardware they didn't want to, and most desktop pcs have the same hardware as a mac anyway apart from the motherboard. Nvidia/ATI cards, USB scanners/cameras, IDE drives... Saying otherwise is like saying apple is happy there's limited driver support on macs, in case somebody makes a crappy driver.
Er no, OSX would be just as stable on the 86 as it is on power... The reason is that apple is a hardware company, not a software company, all their software exists solely to sell macs and ipods. Some would argue the ipod itself exists solely to sell macs. OSX for x86 doesn't sell macs. It might even stop somebody like me from buying a mac. Hence, no OSX86
Slashdot Mirror
In the future, yes, who knows. But not now. Putting someone on Mars is not going to change that. It is not going to increase the survival chances of the human race one little bit.
And how exactly will we advance the state of the art? It's not going to happen by itself, we need to work with what we have now if we want things to evolve. Or is there some magic point where you'll tell us "ok guys, technology is good enough, we can start sending people out to explore the universe now". Where is that point?
High rise buildings??? Sorry, but it doesn't take a genius to look up and go "you know if that building were twice as high we'd have twice the office space per square metre of land"...
And the self-building crane was invented by an aussie.
Absolutely wrong and dangerous! Putting humans on Mars will contaminate the environment to the extent that accurate scienctific results might be forever tainted.
If a mars explorer finds a weird little microcobe living on the outside of his spacesuit, how can he prove it's really a Mars native, and not an Earth organism that's uniquely survivable? (That has prehaps recently mutated, or whatever)
Who cares tho? I don't care if there's microbial life on mars. I would care if evidence was found of some sort of long-extinct primitive animal/vegetable life, but that's about it. Am I alone here in that I think we should send people to mars simply because it's there? It's like Mt Everest. We should send people because we can, and we should start trying to move people out there because it will further science and mankind. There's only two things that have driven technology historically - the desire to kill, and the desire to explore. Since 1945 it's been clear that we've pretty much mastered the ability to kill, so we should concentrate now on the exploration.
What about the starving meeelions and cancer? There's already squillions of dollars going into cancer, because it's worth squillions to whoever cures it first. And there is no technological solution to the starving masses, only political pressure, intervention, and mainly time can help the situation.
On the lighter side, this must be a wonderfull opertunity for the Open Source Software to show that it can deliver somethign just as good for the Mac, right?
Given what adobe charges for their software, the opportunity for OSS to create something that's even "almost as good" has always been there.
I think Photoshop has always been the least intuitive program
So you've never used illustrator then? Now that's the devil, Bobby Bouche!
As for your instructions on how to make a shape, I can do that, sure, but it is not intuitive. In fact, I would never have figured that out, but I can draw a box in photoshop easily enough.
:) might try it again now 2.0 is out tho...
If you never thought to draw a box in this way, then you haven't used photoshop all that long at all. But I agree, gimp blows
Because they don't care about a useable interface, they care about a flashy "looks like a movie" interface so people look at it and go "Wow, that's like a movie, those sun guys are really ahead of the game". It's a PR stunt, not an interface.
I don't refuse to consider anything. But in the case of global warming, I have considered it, and I don't believe it. However I agree with most of what's being done to prevent it, wether it's real or not, because in most cases, they're good-things.
Your arguments were good, until your post turned into a global-warming rant. The simple truth is, there'a a lot of people (myself included) who believe that "global warming" is just as believable as saddam's nukes - Not very likely, and being peddled by those after their own gain. The world gets hotter and colder as centuries roll on. Always has, always will... It's just the way it is. And there's NO PROOF AT ALL to the contrary. I find it the height of man's arrogance that people believe that in 300 years our society has had any measurable effect on a process that's been chugging along on a global system for hundreds of millions of years.
They got a slap on the wrist?
I was under the impression they laughed (cackled maniacally) and walked away.
Hey man, the heyday didn't end all that long ago. I used to be able to get a crowd going with Mortal Kombat, 1 2 and 3.
On the flip side, it does look like a chick magnet......if you happen to be at a Star Trek convention
Which is about as useful as a regular old magnet in a plastic room filled with sawdust.
Coz here no insurance company ever pays for anything until your car's been looked at by their assessor. And if he says it's a v8 and the computer says you told them it's a 4, you get dick.
F1 cars are only 3.5L for a reason
Yes, because it's the rules. If they could have bigger engines, they would. And they're also $500,000 grenades that need a replacement/rebuild every race. Not exactly something one can apply to the garage rodder.
You can't work on a V8 engine in your kitchen. A dismantled little 4 banger is very easy to work with. Two guys can easily pick it up. One guy can pick it up dismantled.
All true. But I like to use my kitchen for you know, cooking. If you don't have an engine hoist and a garage, you shouldn't be trying to build your engine.
Do you know what insurance is on a 1600cc engine compared to a 8000cc engine?
If it's a customised 1600 with a turbo? Nothing. In australia at least, insurance companies have a checkbox for "Turbo, rotary, or V8" and most will laugh you out of the office if you tell them it's not factory.
Small engines have better performance per litre than big engines. Not because chevy sucks and honda rocks, just because it's the law of diminishing returns. Adding CCs is a more efficient way to increase power than adding vtec. The most fuel efficient engine in the world is also the most powerful and one of the biggest.
Really, who cares if your car has a 2 litre turbo or a 5 litre v8, if they make similar power? They're both going to use a similar amount of fuel.
When you get down to it, the reason japanese engines make more per litre isn't because they're better, it's because of the wacky restrictions and "agreements" the japanese government enforces on their car makers. So honda can make a 2 litre that puts out 160kw without a turbo. Then why don't they make a 400kw turbo 4 litre v8 for the nsx? Because it would be a grenade.
Bigger engines have more reciprocating mass, so they can't rev as highly, and most of the technological tricks that get more power out of small engines (vtec, vvti-l etc) relies on a much higher rev range.
They certainly can't afford to reproduce Hollywood's version of the Tardis.
Thank christ. God that was the biggest insult of the whole movie. Personally I think McGann did a decent job, and Roberts could have made a great master if the movie had a script, and wasn't just standard hollywood drivel that you get when you let them make a movie of something classic and brittish they could never understand.
/me pictures a little disabled kid who's been let loose with a squirt bottle of grilla-dog liquid cheese from erindale servo.
More and more computer science departments are teaching using Java. Why? because it helps people to understand how the computer works? no. Simply, because it's what the industry is using.
Good. Because if I coughed up a (large in Australia, obscene in the US) pile of cash to go to UNI, and they teach me something like MODULA-2 that will never help me get a job, I'd be pissed.
I think there really is a parallel between car-modifiers and pc-modifiers. There's really four classes:
a) The "don't know, don't care" crowd. They let a salesman or a "friend who knows about [computers|cars]" tell them what to buy, and they take it to the shop for every bit of maintanence.
b) The DIYers (like myself) who will change their own oil, brakes, and motherboards.
c) The real overclokers, and the hot-rodders, who push the boundaries of their chosen field, and are really into getting the most performance from their machines.
d) Ricers. People with "Type R" stickers, big wings, windows in their cases, clear fans, and who think neon has any place apart from outside a strip-joint.
But seriously, I have never heard anyone explain why a private citizen needs to own a fully automatic assault rifle
Because:
a)For the legal purposes of going to the range/buddy's farm and busting off a few (hundred), it's more fun.
b)99.9% of the population aren't mass murderers. If you flip out and decide to kill 1-5 people, it's just as easy with a pump-action as it is a machine gun.
c)Americans love overkill (pun not included). Why have a civic to drive the kids to work, when you can have a canyonero?
d)A top of the line ferarri / lambo / turbo porsche is most useful above the speed limits, when you're committing a crime. Should they, therefore be banned? You're much more likely to accidently kill somebody with a car than you are with a gun.
Who gets to set the standards?
ISO. That's what they're for.
Windows has detected a balls-up in kernel32.dll. Would you like to:
(Fuck it)
(Avagoyamug)
(email the lousy poofters that wrote this software)
No, apple wouldn't have to write drivers for any hardware they didn't want to, and most desktop pcs have the same hardware as a mac anyway apart from the motherboard. Nvidia/ATI cards, USB scanners/cameras, IDE drives... Saying otherwise is like saying apple is happy there's limited driver support on macs, in case somebody makes a crappy driver.
Er no, OSX would be just as stable on the 86 as it is on power... The reason is that apple is a hardware company, not a software company, all their software exists solely to sell macs and ipods. Some would argue the ipod itself exists solely to sell macs. OSX for x86 doesn't sell macs. It might even stop somebody like me from buying a mac. Hence, no OSX86
"95% of the market is Windows, so why bother with a poultry 5%"
Er... Cockadoodledoo?