If they are highly similar studies, the one by the independent group is probably a little more reliable. If they are different, you would have to read them to know which is more accurate, because Microsoft might base theirs on 'research', whereas the independent group might base theirs on 'fluffy bunnies'.
I don't expect you would dispute this, but the notion that you can't ever trust somebody that has a chip in the game gets taken to far, when it usually only means that you should select the most independent result from results that are otherwise similarly reliable. That group X did some research is only a reason to impugn the research when group X has proven to be unreliable in the past. Independence is a reason to prefer group Y over group X.
I suppose you would protest restrictions on free speech by not talking?
(I've only flown twice since 9/11, once 4 months later, where people were still pretty freaked out, and once recently, where it wasn't a problem at all, but I'm no so hopelessly myopic that I think that not flying(much) is a viable choice for other people)
About 3/4s of your argument is simple semantics. Cosmology deals with the universe that we are able to perceive(and at the moment, with current knowledge and technology, this is the one that we think started with the big bang). It doesn't try to place any restrictions existence that is somehow beyond that universe.
So if you use universe to mean everything that can exist, yeah, it isn't satisfying, but if you use it to mean everything we have even a smidge of evidence for, it works OK.
Am I correct in assuming that you are basing your argument on the notion that 'a truly egalitarian society' is some sort of desirable end goal?
If so, do you honestly see greater value in egalitarianism than exists in intimacy in interpersonal relationships? Because that's just a special form of 'captive knowledge'.
I guess the counter is that 'all interactions would be intimate', but that's just bullshit(or, I am intellectually lazy and not interested in pursuing that argument, meh, whatever).
I would also say that the Big Bang theory was resisted by atheists who saw its theistic implications.
Why the non sequitur? There are 6.5 billion people on the planet, show me an idea and I'll show you the idiot that believes in it. That some atheists may have a problem with the theistic implications of this or that says nothing about atheists in general, so why even bring it up? If you actually meant all atheists, stop being silly.
The 'glitch' in Experts Exchange is that the answer is available in the page source and their obfuscation is happening client side. This is related to Google in that the answers provide good search words and Googlebot gets upset if you do User-Agent gaming to feed it special pages.
At the moment, I can't find a solution that isn't simply displayed at the bottom of the page(so either the obfuscation is turned off or it isn't working in Firefox 3 Beta 3), but I have zapped their style sheets in the past:
If they agree with an ideal, it isn't reasonable for them to "consider it to belong to someone else". If they "consider it to belong to someone else", it isn't reasonable for them to advocate it.
I don't think this is some sort of incredible insight, but it isn't my main point. My main point is that encouraging people to advocate extreme positions that they don't agree with is a waste of time, so carefully phrasing your advocacy to acknowledge such fine distinctions will result in many less people rejecting it out of hand, increasing the effectiveness of the advocacy without compromising anything.
The problem with allowing hand copying of homework(this is what you are calling scribing, right?) is that the only reason to bother with homework is to give the grade an 'effort' component, and it doesn't really display a great deal of effort to just copy a few pages of paper(or anyway, I don't see that this is the sort of effort that is being measured).
If you aren't going to make that distinction, it would seem better to simply offer to grade problem sets without bothering to track the performance. A bit of a bummer for the type of students who understand the material but run out of time on the exam, but in my opinion, less of a bummer than rewarding people for gaming the system.
I thought that
I can understand voicing support for your own ideals, and then pointing out that they are aligned with such and such major figure addressed what you are calling brand recognition. That leaves
I don't understand why you would voice support for ideals that you consider to belong to someone else which is the part I considered more important.
Why would anybody writing a letter to a government representative, of any sort, voice support for someone else's ideals?
I can understand voicing support for your own ideals, and then pointing out that they are aligned with such and such major figure, but I don't understand why you would voice support for ideals that you consider to belong to someone else.
I'm sorry if you see this as quibbling, but you will get better results if you make statements that make sense to the broadest possible audience.
That's not what the event horizon is. The event horizon is the point at which collisions will no longer matter and is derived from the black hole, not the momentum of a particle approaching it.
The article doesn't say that they sell almost as much music as Walmart. It says that they sell more music than Target and Best Buy(individually) and that they sell less music than Walmart. There is only a #2 in there, not an almost #1.
I looked around to see how much music business Walmart does and I didn't find anything that explicitly reported it.
Disappointed that reality didn't live up to their expectations. I assume you are getting at the fact that Wales and the foundation are different things and shouldn't be confused, but that's just the kind of thing a combination of naivete and idealism is going to lead a person to do. I would also expect such a person to view the world in relatively black and white terms, and to have trouble believing that a person could do both very good things and also more questionable things.
Yes, they can compete. Well, if then can turn a profit on $20 Windows licenses.
For something as useful as a computer, a $20 price difference isn't a significant motivator, especially for someone facing some unknown amount of transition cost.
doesn't break out their income by product group, but it does list $2.5 billion in sales for "Other music related products and services", and I don't see any complaints about costs in operating it, so they are probably at least breaking even.
It could still be a loss leader of sorts, in the sense that it could have much lower margins than their other operations, which would dilute any measure that relies on total operations. This can have a negative impact on stock valuation(setting aside whether it should, the point is it can). So if they have to do $1 of 10% profitable iTunes business for every $1 of 20% profitable iPod business, from the outside, you see $2 of 15% profitable business. As problems go, not a bad one to have, but some investors think it is better to split those sorts of operations off.
Issues with editors is a management issue for the foundation.
The similar problem where the more persistent individual will generally win an edit war is a wiki problem. I don't think it is that big a deal, but it moderates the energy I personally spend worrying about other control issues and policies, because it is more fundamental and nearly impossible to work around without abandoning 'wiki'.
I can see where something like Wikipedia would attract people with a particular combination of idealism and naivete who gave money and are now disappointed and complaining loudly. There's no disappointment like that first one.
Linus isn't trying to tell anybody else what to do. He maintains his tree in a way that some code is marked as being available only to GPL code, out of respect for the people who created that code. He is rejecting the changes from his tree, not claiming anything about the licensing of NDISWrapper.
Depending on what exactly you mean by 'rebound nicely', no.
The 'stimulus' package is too small to actually create any meaningful stimulus, so the only effect it is going to have is to prevent destruction(rather than stimulate production). That can be a good thing, but it doesn't imply a bounce, it implies a shallower slope. The government can only truly stimulate the economy in the long term, by investing in things that are profitable and would otherwise not be done(so, in theory, public education stimulates the economy by increasing the productivity of a peoples lifetimes by a greater amount than it increases costs to educate them, maybe not individually, but at least netted out across society).
Printing money can stimulate production, but it doesn't create growth, because it devalues existing soft assets(anything denominated in the currency), which is what inflation is. It still gets done because people think it is better to keep things moving than it is to let them stop, so that when conditions for growth arise, the baseline amount of activity is higher, so you get more growth(and in the meantime, you hopefully had less destruction).
We can recast the scenario; for some reason, you have decided that pi=3. For some other, stranger reason, I have a gun and have constructed a clever trap that can be solved by using a better approximation of pi. I show you a compelling presentation about 3.14 being a good approximation to the value of pi. I show you how to use pi to exit the trap. You fail to exit the trap. I shoot you.
The gun isn't an argument.
All I am saying is that people who aren't interested in some sort of as-objective-as-possible truth, when faced with a logical contradiction regarding what they consider truth, will reject the logic, not their beliefs. So truth and reason end up being rather ineffective weapons.
If you are going to worry about absurdity, you should start with someone capable of interstellar travel waging wars of control, and the other guy, who is also capable of interstellar travel, doing something other than running away.
Slashdot Mirror
If they are highly similar studies, the one by the independent group is probably a little more reliable. If they are different, you would have to read them to know which is more accurate, because Microsoft might base theirs on 'research', whereas the independent group might base theirs on 'fluffy bunnies'.
I don't expect you would dispute this, but the notion that you can't ever trust somebody that has a chip in the game gets taken to far, when it usually only means that you should select the most independent result from results that are otherwise similarly reliable. That group X did some research is only a reason to impugn the research when group X has proven to be unreliable in the past. Independence is a reason to prefer group Y over group X.
Well woop di fucking do.
I suppose you would protest restrictions on free speech by not talking?
(I've only flown twice since 9/11, once 4 months later, where people were still pretty freaked out, and once recently, where it wasn't a problem at all, but I'm no so hopelessly myopic that I think that not flying(much) is a viable choice for other people)
About 3/4s of your argument is simple semantics. Cosmology deals with the universe that we are able to perceive(and at the moment, with current knowledge and technology, this is the one that we think started with the big bang). It doesn't try to place any restrictions existence that is somehow beyond that universe.
So if you use universe to mean everything that can exist, yeah, it isn't satisfying, but if you use it to mean everything we have even a smidge of evidence for, it works OK.
Am I correct in assuming that you are basing your argument on the notion that 'a truly egalitarian society' is some sort of desirable end goal?
If so, do you honestly see greater value in egalitarianism than exists in intimacy in interpersonal relationships? Because that's just a special form of 'captive knowledge'.
I guess the counter is that 'all interactions would be intimate', but that's just bullshit(or, I am intellectually lazy and not interested in pursuing that argument, meh, whatever).
Why the non sequitur? There are 6.5 billion people on the planet, show me an idea and I'll show you the idiot that believes in it. That some atheists may have a problem with the theistic implications of this or that says nothing about atheists in general, so why even bring it up? If you actually meant all atheists, stop being silly.
The 'glitch' in Experts Exchange is that the answer is available in the page source and their obfuscation is happening client side. This is related to Google in that the answers provide good search words and Googlebot gets upset if you do User-Agent gaming to feed it special pages.
At the moment, I can't find a solution that isn't simply displayed at the bottom of the page(so either the obfuscation is turned off or it isn't working in Firefox 3 Beta 3), but I have zapped their style sheets in the past:
https://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html#zap_style_sheets
(Which is sometimes easier than messing around with the page source)
If they agree with an ideal, it isn't reasonable for them to "consider it to belong to someone else". If they "consider it to belong to someone else", it isn't reasonable for them to advocate it.
I don't think this is some sort of incredible insight, but it isn't my main point. My main point is that encouraging people to advocate extreme positions that they don't agree with is a waste of time, so carefully phrasing your advocacy to acknowledge such fine distinctions will result in many less people rejecting it out of hand, increasing the effectiveness of the advocacy without compromising anything.
The problem with allowing hand copying of homework(this is what you are calling scribing, right?) is that the only reason to bother with homework is to give the grade an 'effort' component, and it doesn't really display a great deal of effort to just copy a few pages of paper(or anyway, I don't see that this is the sort of effort that is being measured).
If you aren't going to make that distinction, it would seem better to simply offer to grade problem sets without bothering to track the performance. A bit of a bummer for the type of students who understand the material but run out of time on the exam, but in my opinion, less of a bummer than rewarding people for gaming the system.
Why would anybody writing a letter to a government representative, of any sort, voice support for someone else's ideals?
I can understand voicing support for your own ideals, and then pointing out that they are aligned with such and such major figure, but I don't understand why you would voice support for ideals that you consider to belong to someone else.
I'm sorry if you see this as quibbling, but you will get better results if you make statements that make sense to the broadest possible audience.
What about services and support?
You can run a steam engine with gasoline.
Google "doble steamer".
E(excel)=0
It can thus be inferred that E(Excel)=0.
That's not what the event horizon is. The event horizon is the point at which collisions will no longer matter and is derived from the black hole, not the momentum of a particle approaching it.
The article doesn't say that they sell almost as much music as Walmart. It says that they sell more music than Target and Best Buy(individually) and that they sell less music than Walmart. There is only a #2 in there, not an almost #1.
I looked around to see how much music business Walmart does and I didn't find anything that explicitly reported it.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=476712&cid=22653784
Disappointed that reality didn't live up to their expectations. I assume you are getting at the fact that Wales and the foundation are different things and shouldn't be confused, but that's just the kind of thing a combination of naivete and idealism is going to lead a person to do. I would also expect such a person to view the world in relatively black and white terms, and to have trouble believing that a person could do both very good things and also more questionable things.
Yes, they can compete. Well, if then can turn a profit on $20 Windows licenses.
For something as useful as a computer, a $20 price difference isn't a significant motivator, especially for someone facing some unknown amount of transition cost.
Their annual report, available here:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=107357&p=irol-reports
doesn't break out their income by product group, but it does list $2.5 billion in sales for "Other music related products and services", and I don't see any complaints about costs in operating it, so they are probably at least breaking even.
It could still be a loss leader of sorts, in the sense that it could have much lower margins than their other operations, which would dilute any measure that relies on total operations. This can have a negative impact on stock valuation(setting aside whether it should, the point is it can). So if they have to do $1 of 10% profitable iTunes business for every $1 of 20% profitable iPod business, from the outside, you see $2 of 15% profitable business. As problems go, not a bad one to have, but some investors think it is better to split those sorts of operations off.
Issues with editors is a management issue for the foundation.
The similar problem where the more persistent individual will generally win an edit war is a wiki problem. I don't think it is that big a deal, but it moderates the energy I personally spend worrying about other control issues and policies, because it is more fundamental and nearly impossible to work around without abandoning 'wiki'.
I can see where something like Wikipedia would attract people with a particular combination of idealism and naivete who gave money and are now disappointed and complaining loudly. There's no disappointment like that first one.
Linus isn't trying to tell anybody else what to do. He maintains his tree in a way that some code is marked as being available only to GPL code, out of respect for the people who created that code. He is rejecting the changes from his tree, not claiming anything about the licensing of NDISWrapper.
Depending on what exactly you mean by 'rebound nicely', no.
The 'stimulus' package is too small to actually create any meaningful stimulus, so the only effect it is going to have is to prevent destruction(rather than stimulate production). That can be a good thing, but it doesn't imply a bounce, it implies a shallower slope. The government can only truly stimulate the economy in the long term, by investing in things that are profitable and would otherwise not be done(so, in theory, public education stimulates the economy by increasing the productivity of a peoples lifetimes by a greater amount than it increases costs to educate them, maybe not individually, but at least netted out across society).
Printing money can stimulate production, but it doesn't create growth, because it devalues existing soft assets(anything denominated in the currency), which is what inflation is. It still gets done because people think it is better to keep things moving than it is to let them stop, so that when conditions for growth arise, the baseline amount of activity is higher, so you get more growth(and in the meantime, you hopefully had less destruction).
We can recast the scenario; for some reason, you have decided that pi=3. For some other, stranger reason, I have a gun and have constructed a clever trap that can be solved by using a better approximation of pi. I show you a compelling presentation about 3.14 being a good approximation to the value of pi. I show you how to use pi to exit the trap. You fail to exit the trap. I shoot you.
The gun isn't an argument.
All I am saying is that people who aren't interested in some sort of as-objective-as-possible truth, when faced with a logical contradiction regarding what they consider truth, will reject the logic, not their beliefs. So truth and reason end up being rather ineffective weapons.
If you are going to worry about absurdity, you should start with someone capable of interstellar travel waging wars of control, and the other guy, who is also capable of interstellar travel, doing something other than running away.
The reason that doesn't work is that the conversations reduce to:
A: You're being irrational.
B: So?
It doesn't matter how compelling an argument is, if you refuse to accept it as a possibility, it isn't going to influence you.