Therein lies the lesson. Craftsmanly usually defeats sophisticated. It is pompous to assume otherwise. (And yes, the comparison of the American and Russian space programs bears this out.)
How do you figure that the russian space program is any better than the American one? Sheesh, what is it with this story to bring all of the russians out of the woodwork to proclaim the power of their space program?
You might not have been purposely trolling but it felt like it....
The Soyuz and the Shuttle are 2 completely different spacecrafts designed for 2 completely different purposes. There is no _winner_ nor is there a race (in the sense of who can build the best launch shuttle). The Soyuz may be craftsmanly and we may not have anything comperable, but that's just because we don't want to build anything like that.:)
That situation sounds good, except you need to throw in a DVD drive and a harddrive. Also, whatever motherboard you have is going to be pretty old and not have an ethernet controller or decent sound. You'll probably need a scan converter to hook your vga output to your monitor too.
I think it's silly for people to spend so much effort on a non-upgradable box(except the HD) but the money issue is there, and they want to, so let them play:)
I'm not an expert on quantum mechanincs, but why would the "Bohme" interpretation be more unlikely? To me,(excluding God from this argument for simplicity) if there was an underlying reality of QM, we would never be able to study it. Since we can't very well produce the _exact_ same inputs to the "Quantum Equations", and since we can't study the output without much certainty (Heisinburg would come into play at the scales we would be measuring). I think it would be physically impossible to ever understand what goes on at that deeper level. That said...
They claim there is a part of physics that can't be studied, measured, etc (the hidden variables). This violates the very definition of natural science Isn't it also possible that our view of natural science is too narrow for the world it tries to describe? Not to knock you one bit, but that argument sounds like, "We have this really neat hypothesis, unfortunately we have to throw it out the window because it's not the type of hypothesis we're looking for."
They are non-local, they allow distant particals to interact simultaniously. This violates relativity, there is information exchange faster then the speed of light. This is a lot harder of an argument to deal with my limited knowledge of GR but I'll take a shot: a)GR doesn't apply to whatever magic stuff we're talking about. It sounds like a copout, but how unreasonable is it that something which is different than any other object we've observed, and we havn't studied very much(relative to normal, classical mechanics) doesn't obey previous laws we created? b)Once again, my naivity comes into play but, isn't it possible for information to be transferred at faster than the speed of light, just the underlying medium is prohibited from doing so? If I could remember the name of the article(I read it here). Someone had succeded in transferring information across copper at something like 14x the speed of light. They gave the analogy that it was like filling a cardboard tube up with ping pong balls, and then pushing one into the end. A ball comes out the other side in a shorter time than what would normally occur if you just looked at the speed of the ping pong balls.
This leaves you with two choices:.....or God is truly unknowable and screws up fundamental physics, so you can't really think or talk about him, but you have to rethink important parts of physics instead I think that God is truly unknowable(on a physical level). To me, it seems like fallacy to try to try to describe the underlying physics of God when we can't even begin to describe the things he does. Not even speaking from a Christian or Monotheistic viewpoint. Most _any_ god would fall under that umbrella. That said, I don't think that one would have to modify physics to allow any god existense. It's possible that some of the current laws we believe the universe holds itself to are due to a god, we just can't notice it because that law is applied uniformly.
Not to jump in too much on you two's argument but this line confounded me
In our objective observations, a theist God (a God that constantly interferes with nature) plays no part. The laws/theories we derive from those observations to the best of our abilities function better without a deist God (a God that creates the universe, but that's about all he does).
These are very strong arguments for the absence of a physical God, and since God plays no active part in our observations, and we can describe those observations coherently without introducing God (but we have difficulties if we do introduce him), the burden lays with the party that claims there is such a God anyway.
Couldn't one argue that the non-determinism of quantum physics is the 'portal' if you will, which allows whatever 'God' there is to control the physical world from the metaphysical realm?
That may be poorly explained(it's late!) but hear me out... 1)God desides to influence the universe 2)God tweaks the solutions to the quantum mechanical equations to line up with his will. 3)The summation of all the various tweaks he has done to the universe at the quantum mechanical level causes the universe as we observe it to line up properly 4)God's existence can never be proven or denied since quantum mechanics holds a certain amount of improbability anyway.
Ooops, my bad. I could've sworn I remembered Rambus doing that to RDRAM and then getting away with it, which caused the industry to move towards the more-cheaper (yes, I know) DDRAM
Well, unfer your analogy, would it be fair to do this?
The ultra-cool band X is releasing it's highly anticipated album, "Album X". Hundreds of thousands of people wait out in front of the record store at midnight to get the new album. Just before midnight, however a man says that he will sell people burned copies of CD's for $3 a piece. Of the 100,000 people who were sitting outside the store waiting to purchase the CD, 99,000 people chose the burned CD because it's cheaper.
Instead of grossing 100k x They receive 1k x Is that fair to the artist or the record store?
Please reply because i'm wanting to understand the logic that went on in your post
I'm at million man lan, and I can say that there are plenty of the female folk here.
Re:US vs French vacation packages
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
That sounds like a pretty sweet deal, but there is a downside to all that which I have a bit of personal experience from.
Brazil has a similar system set up. Everyone, no matter what the job, must be offered by law 1 month of vacation time. Furthermore, the employee must be paid for 13 months of work. Numerous other laws such as a mandatory 1 year (paid) vacation for any woman who gets pregnant, mandatory 3 (I think) month vacation to the father of a new child, the president has the authority to close down the entire country if they win the world cup, etc...
Anyway, it's a pretty sweet deal for the employee, but it's very crappy for employers. Several major companies including nabisco have closed up shop and moved on because Brazillian law mandates labor to be expensive, even though there are _TONS_ of unemployed workers who would kill to get to a job that has a steady paycheck.
I guess what I'm saying is that benifits which you and I have mentioned are very nice. But...it cripples many people's lives in a horrible way. I don't know if you've seen squalor like there is in Rio de Janeiro, but it's nothing that anyone living in a developed nation like France or the US could understand....I can't justify putting people in that situation just so that everyone can get a couple more days of vacation.
Actually, it law here in Tennessee. As a matter of fact, I think the letter of the law says that the parent has to watch the movie with you (i.e. you'r mom can't just buy the ticket for you and leave)
Well, I don't know if any of these ideas would realistically work but a good fix would be to have several different ID numbers, one for financial information, one for health information etc... so it would at least 'partition off' any damage that a malicius person could cause.
Of course, the best and most ideal solution would to be to distribute RSA secureID cards to everyone. (They are little cards or keychains that display a number on a lcd screen that changes every minute or so) That way, the only way someone could steal your identity would for them to both steal the card from you and somehow figure out the pinnumber you memorised.
It might be different where you live, but my liscense is tied to my SSN (I live in TN). Actually, a little while ago, some groups lobbied to remove that restriction to help illegal aliens get liscenses.
The problem is that in the US (I'm not sure how it works where you live) if I have your SSN, I can basically ruin your life. I can open a credit card in your name and run up thousands of dollars of charges with your SSN. 'Identity fraud' as it's called is a serious problem which ruins thousands of people's lives every year. This bill (as I understand it) limits how much the government can throw around your SSN to try and keep it out of thieve's hands.
First off, _any_ police force won't deal with petty theft. My friend had his car broken into but the cops won't invest any time in it because the damage/loss doesn't meet a certain value. Law enforcement only has a certain, finite amount of time/resorces they can spend investigating anything, so it's necessary (unfortunately) for them to prioritize what they can and can't look at.
What does that have to do with anything? The FBI is probably manned with people from Clinton's first term or longer. It's not like the FBI gets rechosen every time an administration rolls around, and theyre the ones making the choices.
I disagree on the resourse hoggedness on linux compared to windows. I am your typical linux newb and when I first installed linux (last month), I installed KDE and OO. On an athlon 2100, 512megs of ram, load times were horrid. OpenOffice took nearly 2 minutes to load the writing program and KDE took it's time loading up at the beginning. I'm sure that there's ways to optimise it, but I generally came away with a bloated feel with it.
Not to detract from an otherwise interesting post, but...
you forgot the Russians in WW2, most of what they did against the Germans was without outside help. Hitler was insane enough to attack them and that alone sealed his death-warrant. They got to Berlin first.
it was my understanding that the allies had purposely halted their advance to let the russians in first To sort-of repay them for the massive losses they incurred, they let the russians serve the death-blow
So, unlike all military dictators in history this one destroys his most potent weapons just as he is about to be invaded? Let's think about this - he knows he will loose, he doesn't care what happens to his people (as proved many times) and he always wanted to go down in history as a great Arab hero by hurting the US. So why would he destroy his WMD? He doesn't care about retaliation by the US on his people and he could still hide whilst they nuke Baghdad. It makes no sense whatsoever.
I think it's perfectly likely that he held back for political reasons. France and other nations said that they would join us (America) if they used WMD on us. Since fighting our army is such a futile situation, he had to choose between lobbing a couple nukes and incur the wrath of the whole world, or hiding his weapons to put all kinds of egg in the American's face.
His good buds the Syrians?
You'r right, I think I had a bit of a brain-fart there. Although, now that I think about it, Iraqi-Syrian coperation could happen assuming that their mutual hatred for us was greater than their hatred for each other.
Slashdot Mirror
Therein lies the lesson. Craftsmanly usually defeats sophisticated. It is pompous to assume otherwise. (And yes, the comparison of the American and Russian space programs bears this out.)
How do you figure that the russian space program is any better than the American one?
Sheesh, what is it with this story to bring all of the russians out of the woodwork to proclaim the power of their space program?
You might not have been purposely trolling but it felt like it....
:)
The Soyuz and the Shuttle are 2 completely different spacecrafts designed for 2 completely different purposes. There is no _winner_ nor is there a race (in the sense of who can build the best launch shuttle). The Soyuz may be craftsmanly and we may not have anything comperable, but that's just because we don't want to build anything like that.
That situation sounds good, except you need to throw in a DVD drive and a harddrive. Also, whatever motherboard you have is going to be pretty old and not have an ethernet controller or decent sound. You'll probably need a scan converter to hook your vga output to your monitor too.
:)
I think it's silly for people to spend so much effort on a non-upgradable box(except the HD) but the money issue is there, and they want to, so let them play
I'm not an expert on quantum mechanincs, but why would the "Bohme" interpretation be more unlikely? To me,(excluding God from this argument for simplicity) if there was an underlying reality of QM, we would never be able to study it. Since we can't very well produce the _exact_ same inputs to the "Quantum Equations", and since we can't study the output without much certainty (Heisinburg would come into play at the scales we would be measuring). I think it would be physically impossible to ever understand what goes on at that deeper level. That said...
.....or God is truly unknowable and screws up fundamental physics, so you can't really think or talk about him, but you have to rethink important parts of physics instead
:)br.
They claim there is a part of physics that can't be studied, measured, etc (the hidden variables). This violates the very definition of natural science
Isn't it also possible that our view of natural science is too narrow for the world it tries to describe? Not to knock you one bit, but that argument sounds like, "We have this really neat hypothesis, unfortunately we have to throw it out the window because it's not the type of hypothesis we're looking for."
They are non-local, they allow distant particals to interact simultaniously. This violates relativity, there is information exchange faster then the speed of light.
This is a lot harder of an argument to deal with my limited knowledge of GR but I'll take a shot:
a)GR doesn't apply to whatever magic stuff we're talking about. It sounds like a copout, but how unreasonable is it that something which is different than any other object we've observed, and we havn't studied very much(relative to normal, classical mechanics) doesn't obey previous laws we created?
b)Once again, my naivity comes into play but, isn't it possible for information to be transferred at faster than the speed of light, just the underlying medium is prohibited from doing so? If I could remember the name of the article(I read it here). Someone had succeded in transferring information across copper at something like 14x the speed of light. They gave the analogy that it was like filling a cardboard tube up with ping pong balls, and then pushing one into the end. A ball comes out the other side in a shorter time than what would normally occur if you just looked at the speed of the ping pong balls.
This leaves you with two choices:
I think that God is truly unknowable(on a physical level). To me, it seems like fallacy to try to try to describe the underlying physics of God when we can't even begin to describe the things he does. Not even speaking from a Christian or Monotheistic viewpoint. Most _any_ god would fall under that umbrella. That said, I don't think that one would have to modify physics to allow any god existense. It's possible that some of the current laws we believe the universe holds itself to are due to a god, we just can't notice it because that law is applied uniformly.
See ya
Not to jump in too much on you two's argument but this line confounded me
In our objective observations, a theist God (a God that constantly interferes with nature) plays no part. The laws/theories we derive from those observations to the best of our abilities function better without a deist God (a God that creates the universe, but that's about all he does).
These are very strong arguments for the absence of a physical God, and since God plays no active part in our observations, and we can describe those observations coherently without introducing God (but we have difficulties if we do introduce him), the burden lays with the party that claims there is such a God anyway.
Couldn't one argue that the non-determinism of quantum physics is the 'portal' if you will, which allows whatever 'God' there is to control the physical world from the metaphysical realm?
That may be poorly explained(it's late!) but hear me out...
1)God desides to influence the universe
2)God tweaks the solutions to the quantum mechanical equations to line up with his will.
3)The summation of all the various tweaks he has done to the universe at the quantum mechanical level causes the universe as we observe it to line up properly
4)God's existence can never be proven or denied since quantum mechanics holds a certain amount of improbability anyway.
What do you think?
Ooops, my bad. I could've sworn I remembered Rambus doing that to RDRAM and then getting away with it, which caused the industry to move towards the more-cheaper (yes, I know) DDRAM
Thanks for the correction.
Well, unfer your analogy, would it be fair to do this?
The ultra-cool band X is releasing it's highly anticipated album, "Album X". Hundreds of thousands of people wait out in front of the record store at midnight to get the new album. Just before midnight, however a man says that he will sell people burned copies of CD's for $3 a piece. Of the 100,000 people who were sitting outside the store waiting to purchase the CD, 99,000 people chose the burned CD because it's cheaper.
Instead of grossing 100k x
They receive 1k x
Is that fair to the artist or the record store?
Please reply because i'm wanting to understand the logic that went on in your post
It doesnt make much sense that Rambus could patent some technologies in RDRAM, considering it was a standard and all... /sarcasm
Does it matter at all that the congress during the Reagan administration was democratic?
& cid=6416 528
Look at this post, it's really well written on the topic:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70738
Well, unfortunately, due to obstructionism in the senate, NO judges are being chosen at all.
Not to be pedantic, but brazillians don't speak spanish, they speak portugueese. :)
I'm at million man lan, and I can say that there are plenty of the female folk here.
That sounds like a pretty sweet deal, but there is a downside to all that which I have a bit of personal experience from.
Brazil has a similar system set up. Everyone, no matter what the job, must be offered by law 1 month of vacation time. Furthermore, the employee must be paid for 13 months of work. Numerous other laws such as a mandatory 1 year (paid) vacation for any woman who gets pregnant, mandatory 3 (I think) month vacation to the father of a new child, the president has the authority to close down the entire country if they win the world cup, etc...
Anyway, it's a pretty sweet deal for the employee, but it's very crappy for employers. Several major companies including nabisco have closed up shop and moved on because Brazillian law mandates labor to be expensive, even though there are _TONS_ of unemployed workers who would kill to get to a job that has a steady paycheck.
I guess what I'm saying is that benifits which you and I have mentioned are very nice. But...it cripples many people's lives in a horrible way. I don't know if you've seen squalor like there is in Rio de Janeiro, but it's nothing that anyone living in a developed nation like France or the US could understand....I can't justify putting people in that situation just so that everyone can get a couple more days of vacation.
Actually, it law here in Tennessee. As a matter of fact, I think the letter of the law says that the parent has to watch the movie with you (i.e. you'r mom can't just buy the ticket for you and leave)
-- Fact is, other than watching video files and ripping cd's, why is it that you need an OS that requires more RAM than you had HD space years ago for
Pixmaps? Harddrive caching?
just a thought-
Well, I don't know if any of these ideas would realistically work but a good fix would be to have several different ID numbers, one for financial information, one for health information etc... so it would at least 'partition off' any damage that a malicius person could cause.
Of course, the best and most ideal solution would to be to distribute RSA secureID cards to everyone. (They are little cards or keychains that display a number on a lcd screen that changes every minute or so) That way, the only way someone could steal your identity would for them to both steal the card from you and somehow figure out the pinnumber you memorised.
I don't think there's really an easy fix.
It might be different where you live, but my liscense is tied to my SSN (I live in TN). Actually, a little while ago, some groups lobbied to remove that restriction to help illegal aliens get liscenses.
Well, it's called an election, but noone seems to be motivated to employ (meaningful) reform to the system :(
The problem is that in the US (I'm not sure how it works where you live) if I have your SSN, I can basically ruin your life. I can open a credit card in your name and run up thousands of dollars of charges with your SSN. 'Identity fraud' as it's called is a serious problem which ruins thousands of people's lives every year. This bill (as I understand it) limits how much the government can throw around your SSN to try and keep it out of thieve's hands.
First off, _any_ police force won't deal with petty theft. My friend had his car broken into but the cops won't invest any time in it because the damage/loss doesn't meet a certain value. Law enforcement only has a certain, finite amount of time/resorces they can spend investigating anything, so it's necessary (unfortunately) for them to prioritize what they can and can't look at.
What does that have to do with anything? The FBI is probably manned with people from Clinton's first term or longer. It's not like the FBI gets rechosen every time an administration rolls around, and theyre the ones making the choices.
Gah.
I disagree on the resourse hoggedness on linux compared to windows. I am your typical linux newb and when I first installed linux (last month), I installed KDE and OO. On an athlon 2100, 512megs of ram, load times were horrid. OpenOffice took nearly 2 minutes to load the writing program and KDE took it's time loading up at the beginning. I'm sure that there's ways to optimise it, but I generally came away with a bloated feel with it.
Just my 2 cents.
Why are you including .c files? Headers I could understand, but other source files?? :)
Not to detract from an otherwise interesting post, but...
you forgot the Russians in WW2, most of what they did against the Germans was without outside help. Hitler was insane enough to attack them and that alone sealed his death-warrant. They got to Berlin first.
it was my understanding that the allies had purposely halted their advance to let the russians in first To sort-of repay them for the massive losses they incurred, they let the russians serve the death-blow
Does anyone else remember that?
So, unlike all military dictators in history this one destroys his most potent weapons just as he is about to be invaded? Let's think about this - he knows he will loose, he doesn't care what happens to his people (as proved many times) and he always wanted to go down in history as a great Arab hero by hurting the US. So why would he destroy his WMD? He doesn't care about retaliation by the US on his people and he could still hide whilst they nuke Baghdad. It makes no sense whatsoever.
I think it's perfectly likely that he held back for political reasons. France and other nations said that they would join us (America) if they used WMD on us. Since fighting our army is such a futile situation, he had to choose between lobbing a couple nukes and incur the wrath of the whole world, or hiding his weapons to put all kinds of egg in the American's face.
His good buds the Syrians?
You'r right, I think I had a bit of a brain-fart there. Although, now that I think about it, Iraqi-Syrian coperation could happen assuming that their mutual hatred for us was greater than their hatred for each other.