Without objecting to the rest of what you said, organic waste isn't all that big a deal, it isn't bulky and it isn't very persistent. Better to burn it as vehicle fuel than have it rot into methane though.
Scientists, in general, do not put abiogenesis(I am assuming this is what you meant...biogenesis is utterly non controversial) under the umbrella of evolution. If you insist on the conflation, you are creating your own problem. I'm sure you could find some scientists that would support each of the concepts that you are using to support the notion that the overall meaning of evolution is vague, but they simply aren't general positions.
Given that speciation has actually been observed, the scientific distinction between micro and macro evolution is tenuous at best, and more likely incoherent.
Also, consider: Your assumption that your post would be modded up only because of its logic and quality, and down only because of its ideology demonstrates a willingness to inject comforting assumptions into your reasoning.
It shows about $7 billion of common stock and equivalents, none of which is categorized as short term, and about $19 billion in various bonds and similar instruments, of which there is about $17 billion that is categorized as short term. None of that $19 billion is Microsoft stock.
None of this mentions the $10 billion in unrecognized revenue that they have lying around. This is money that they have promised to pay themselves later on in the year.
Microsoft enjoys an excellent cash position, and has large amounts of continuing operating income.
Re:Let's think about this for a second...
on
Energy From Raindrops
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The distance that the raindrop falls is irrelevant when calculating the energy available when it hits the ground -- the velocity is what matters. You are imagining that you can capture the entirety of the potential energy that the raindrop contains before it starts falling, when in reality, you are limited to capturing the kinetic energy it contains when it lands. So if air resistance happens to slow the drop down, you are losing energy well before the drop ever gets to your system. Googling says that the terminal velocity for a drop of rain is generally less than 10 meters/second.
From velocity=acceleration*time, you can infer that the rain drop is reaching that velocity in about a second, after falling about 10 meters(OK, so it would be going slightly slower than 10 m/s and have fallen somewhat less than 10 meters, whatever). So your availability calculation should be 2000*9.8*10=196,000 J, a factor of 800 less than what you stated. So if your device is 100% efficient, my still generous estimate is that you would need 800,000 square meters, not 1000, which is more like 900 meters on a side, and more like 200 acres.
How does OOXML in any way even have an effect on the ability of an organization to adopt ODF?
I guess you could argue that people outside the organization preferring to use some other format would make it more difficult for the organization to use the standard they had chosen, but the whole 'available at no cost on multiple platforms' aspect of OO.org limits the difficulty of saying, "No, use ODF". I mean, the people who want to use something other than ODF can't argue financial hardship, or incompatibility, so they are left grasping at things that sound an awful lot like "But I don't wanna". So there goes point 1.
The idea that they attempted to subvert the standards process is the important part, not the idea that they submitted a bad standard(or even, a standard that you, and many others, don't like), so there goes points 2,3, and 4.
That leaves point 5, which is valid. Of course, there are people given to bragging that OO.org has better support for some Office documents than Office itself, so I'm not real sure how far you can take the part about only Microsoft really being able to utilize OOXML(certainly, it will be less effort for Microsoft than anybody else).
I doubt anybody at Microsoft would argue against the idea that they are acting to protect their interests, but the notion that they are doing so in bad faith would likely raise some hackles; they are simply responding to increased interest in open standards in a way that is compatible with their investment in Office and interest in supporting their legacy formats. The response of ISO, to not fast track the standard, and the widespread rejection of OOXML as being open in a way that is useful to other people are the proper way to handle the issue, not litigation against the company.
Is the failure to parse what Linus meant when he said 'OS' willful, or is it ignorance/stupidity?
I actually sort of hope it is ignorance or stupidity, because I see similar stuff all the time, and the idea that it is intentional is a lot more painful than someone not understanding.
The last time I checked, Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin and Larry Page owned more than 50% of voting shares in Google, making it so that they always constitute the largest group of shareholders that might have some objective or another, so it doesn't really matter what anybody else thinks, in terms of responsibility to shareholders.
It can be useful to communicate to other people that you are ignoring a commenter because you think they continually post obnoxious material. So useful that people named the concept.
The problem with demanding that people only communicate with terms that have absolute, universal understanding is that there aren't any, in the interim, it is up to individuals to decide how much weight they decide to give to other peoples labeling of trolls and whatnot.
A simple fix is to think of the moderation as a way of making the particular discussion more readable. Then, when something is funny, you can mod it as funny, so users who like or dislike comments modded as funny can adjust their viewing preferences as they see fit.
Once you embrace this point of view, you will see that/. karma is simply a way of using the information from past conversations to make ongoing conversations more readable to begin with, and not a reward or punishment. I guess funny moderations aren't carried forward because while they are often interesting and add to a discussion, telling jokes isn't really the 'core' of the discussions on slashdot.
It depends a little bit on how close your definition of a long password is to his definition of a long password. If is saying long password in the context of what he thinks is common practice, and he is basing the 2000/5000 on how many would likely be cracked before they were changed, he probably has a point.
It makes more sense to build two along both coasts of the USA, where the population density is higher.
Absolutely. Or even shorter lines that are suggested by current travel patterns. But that lacks the silly grandiosity that they wanted for this article.
I'm not scared. I wouldn't be all that worried about riding such a train(not that I am particularly likely to be traveling from New York to L.A. or vice versa). I do think it would make an attractive target for someone wishing to cause disruption. If the train had just been disrupted(say somebody damaged the track in one spot, without even killing anyone) and there were flights available at similar cost, it would have a problem keeping customers, safe or not. So the integrity of the track is extremely important to the operation of the train as a business, even if the actual train ride is perfectly safe and no one ever dies on it. Not to mention the need for a fence to keep animals and such from taking a nap on the track at the wrong time of day and whatnot.
Also, they seem to have screwed up in the article, as the shortest path between New York and L.A. is 2462 miles (3961 km):
At the cost they give, $25 million per kilometer, that's more like $99 billion, or to put that evil edge on it, 100 billion dollars. Maybe I am missing something.
It basically doesn't make any sense to build it, the shortest transit time for people living at either end would be ~7 hours(or probably worse), and if it stopped anywhere in between, that goes right to hell. With the flight part of flying taking less than 6 hours, you are going to need to off some combination of cheaper tickets and non/low stop service to compete.
Day to day, something like '123456789' is only just a little worse than something like 'ujN7EVkh'. I mean, if the attacker doesn't think to try it right away, it probably isn't going to be at the beginning of an automated search.
And really, if an email host were storing unsalted hashes and that file got stolen, they aren't secure, and if they are allowing thousands of unsuccessful login attempts per day, they aren't secure.
The question becomes, how many providers are left with a connections to the area? If it is 1(or 1 has a majority of the remaining bandwidth), I see a party much more motivated to cut the cables than the US government would ever be.
At most, 500,000 of those deaths are drug related(the others are related to problems endemic to being sick and in the hospital -- bad care, infections, etc). Of those 500,000, if you don't know how many of them were simple allergic reactions, you really can't say much about the safety of the drugs(to the general population -- or is peanut butter not safe?). It would probably also be good to separate out both accidental and intentional overdoses(because the notion of an overdose implies that a safe dosage is known).
Until you do at least that much, you also are hyping.
It doesn't take a lawyer to realize that the sig shouldn't mean all that much. If a lawyer told me they actually meant quite a bit, I would tell him that was stupid and ask how that happened.
Slashdot Mirror
Without objecting to the rest of what you said, organic waste isn't all that big a deal, it isn't bulky and it isn't very persistent. Better to burn it as vehicle fuel than have it rot into methane though.
Scientists, in general, do not put abiogenesis(I am assuming this is what you meant...biogenesis is utterly non controversial) under the umbrella of evolution. If you insist on the conflation, you are creating your own problem. I'm sure you could find some scientists that would support each of the concepts that you are using to support the notion that the overall meaning of evolution is vague, but they simply aren't general positions.
Given that speciation has actually been observed, the scientific distinction between micro and macro evolution is tenuous at best, and more likely incoherent.
Also, consider: Your assumption that your post would be modded up only because of its logic and quality, and down only because of its ideology demonstrates a willingness to inject comforting assumptions into your reasoning.
Clearly, you didn't hate to say it.
Also, Godwin.
You just make shit up.
Here is their balance sheet:
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar07/staticversion/10k_fr_bal.html
It shows that $17 billion in short term investments you are talking about. Here is the breakdown of their investments:
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar07/staticversion/10k_fr_not_02.html
It shows about $7 billion of common stock and equivalents, none of which is categorized as short term, and about $19 billion in various bonds and similar instruments, of which there is about $17 billion that is categorized as short term. None of that $19 billion is Microsoft stock.
None of this mentions the $10 billion in unrecognized revenue that they have lying around. This is money that they have promised to pay themselves later on in the year.
Microsoft enjoys an excellent cash position, and has large amounts of continuing operating income.
The distance that the raindrop falls is irrelevant when calculating the energy available when it hits the ground -- the velocity is what matters. You are imagining that you can capture the entirety of the potential energy that the raindrop contains before it starts falling, when in reality, you are limited to capturing the kinetic energy it contains when it lands. So if air resistance happens to slow the drop down, you are losing energy well before the drop ever gets to your system. Googling says that the terminal velocity for a drop of rain is generally less than 10 meters/second.
From velocity=acceleration*time, you can infer that the rain drop is reaching that velocity in about a second, after falling about 10 meters(OK, so it would be going slightly slower than 10 m/s and have fallen somewhat less than 10 meters, whatever). So your availability calculation should be 2000*9.8*10=196,000 J, a factor of 800 less than what you stated. So if your device is 100% efficient, my still generous estimate is that you would need 800,000 square meters, not 1000, which is more like 900 meters on a side, and more like 200 acres.
It's the analog version of the analog hole, unless you have a very interesting monitor and camera.
How does OOXML in any way even have an effect on the ability of an organization to adopt ODF?
I guess you could argue that people outside the organization preferring to use some other format would make it more difficult for the organization to use the standard they had chosen, but the whole 'available at no cost on multiple platforms' aspect of OO.org limits the difficulty of saying, "No, use ODF". I mean, the people who want to use something other than ODF can't argue financial hardship, or incompatibility, so they are left grasping at things that sound an awful lot like "But I don't wanna". So there goes point 1.
The idea that they attempted to subvert the standards process is the important part, not the idea that they submitted a bad standard(or even, a standard that you, and many others, don't like), so there goes points 2,3, and 4.
That leaves point 5, which is valid. Of course, there are people given to bragging that OO.org has better support for some Office documents than Office itself, so I'm not real sure how far you can take the part about only Microsoft really being able to utilize OOXML(certainly, it will be less effort for Microsoft than anybody else).
I doubt anybody at Microsoft would argue against the idea that they are acting to protect their interests, but the notion that they are doing so in bad faith would likely raise some hackles; they are simply responding to increased interest in open standards in a way that is compatible with their investment in Office and interest in supporting their legacy formats. The response of ISO, to not fast track the standard, and the widespread rejection of OOXML as being open in a way that is useful to other people are the proper way to handle the issue, not litigation against the company.
Is the failure to parse what Linus meant when he said 'OS' willful, or is it ignorance/stupidity?
I actually sort of hope it is ignorance or stupidity, because I see similar stuff all the time, and the idea that it is intentional is a lot more painful than someone not understanding.
That would have been way more insightful had you emphasized corporation.
A cooperation may not even have shareholders.
The last time I checked, Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin and Larry Page owned more than 50% of voting shares in Google, making it so that they always constitute the largest group of shareholders that might have some objective or another, so it doesn't really matter what anybody else thinks, in terms of responsibility to shareholders.
It can be useful to communicate to other people that you are ignoring a commenter because you think they continually post obnoxious material. So useful that people named the concept.
The problem with demanding that people only communicate with terms that have absolute, universal understanding is that there aren't any, in the interim, it is up to individuals to decide how much weight they decide to give to other peoples labeling of trolls and whatnot.
A simple fix is to think of the moderation as a way of making the particular discussion more readable. Then, when something is funny, you can mod it as funny, so users who like or dislike comments modded as funny can adjust their viewing preferences as they see fit.
/. karma is simply a way of using the information from past conversations to make ongoing conversations more readable to begin with, and not a reward or punishment. I guess funny moderations aren't carried forward because while they are often interesting and add to a discussion, telling jokes isn't really the 'core' of the discussions on slashdot.
Once you embrace this point of view, you will see that
It depends a little bit on how close your definition of a long password is to his definition of a long password. If is saying long password in the context of what he thinks is common practice, and he is basing the 2000/5000 on how many would likely be cracked before they were changed, he probably has a point.
Absolutely. Or even shorter lines that are suggested by current travel patterns. But that lacks the silly grandiosity that they wanted for this article.
I'm not scared. I wouldn't be all that worried about riding such a train(not that I am particularly likely to be traveling from New York to L.A. or vice versa). I do think it would make an attractive target for someone wishing to cause disruption. If the train had just been disrupted(say somebody damaged the track in one spot, without even killing anyone) and there were flights available at similar cost, it would have a problem keeping customers, safe or not. So the integrity of the track is extremely important to the operation of the train as a business, even if the actual train ride is perfectly safe and no one ever dies on it. Not to mention the need for a fence to keep animals and such from taking a nap on the track at the wrong time of day and whatnot.
Also, they seem to have screwed up in the article, as the shortest path between New York and L.A. is 2462 miles (3961 km):
http://www.indo.com/cgi-bin/dist?place1=New+York%2C+New+York&place2=Los+angeles%2C+california
At the cost they give, $25 million per kilometer, that's more like $99 billion, or to put that evil edge on it, 100 billion dollars. Maybe I am missing something.
It basically doesn't make any sense to build it, the shortest transit time for people living at either end would be ~7 hours(or probably worse), and if it stopped anywhere in between, that goes right to hell. With the flight part of flying taking less than 6 hours, you are going to need to off some combination of cheaper tickets and non/low stop service to compete.
You have to protect the track though, or you might as not well build it, as you won't have any passengers.
Day to day, something like '123456789' is only just a little worse than something like 'ujN7EVkh'. I mean, if the attacker doesn't think to try it right away, it probably isn't going to be at the beginning of an automated search.
And really, if an email host were storing unsalted hashes and that file got stolen, they aren't secure, and if they are allowing thousands of unsuccessful login attempts per day, they aren't secure.
The question becomes, how many providers are left with a connections to the area? If it is 1(or 1 has a majority of the remaining bandwidth), I see a party much more motivated to cut the cables than the US government would ever be.
What about 'my data is more valuable to me than it is to anyone else'? I'm pretty sure that's a good reason not to bother with encryption.
At most, 500,000 of those deaths are drug related(the others are related to problems endemic to being sick and in the hospital -- bad care, infections, etc). Of those 500,000, if you don't know how many of them were simple allergic reactions, you really can't say much about the safety of the drugs(to the general population -- or is peanut butter not safe?). It would probably also be good to separate out both accidental and intentional overdoses(because the notion of an overdose implies that a safe dosage is known).
Until you do at least that much, you also are hyping.
It doesn't take a lawyer to realize that the sig shouldn't mean all that much. If a lawyer told me they actually meant quite a bit, I would tell him that was stupid and ask how that happened.
Vote Owlnation.
Owlnation will give every citizen free viagra, online degrees and real rolexes with fake certifications!
Vote Owlnation!
It seems worth pointing out that most people who don't get it are also going to die.
I'm pretty sure McCain would dominate the zombie vote.
Taxes. See this file:
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/download/Yearly%20Income%20Statements.xls
(which shows a net income of ~$76 billion since 2000, after taxes and one $375 million accounting charge)
The reason people keep telling you you are wrong could well be that you are wrong...