I'd agree with this. And I can see circumstances in which there'd be few or no problems with apparently immensely complicated algorithms being implemented using crude approximations.
Take audio decoding. Audio decoding is essentially a process where you have to output the sum of a set of waves, with the original file telling you what waves to decode and at what amplitude. Oh, and the end result normally gets converted into an analog voltage and output via some kind of magnetic field.
Doesn't this, as a task, cry out for being processed using cheap analog circuits, rather than painstakingly calculated using discrete values looked up from sine wave tables?
Schubert didn't compose all the classical music in the universe! Even so, 50% isn't that big a range, when you consider the difference between the extremes and the midpoint.
Beethoven is very liable to be conducted at wildly different rates. Even the waltzes of Johann Strauss, which you'd expect to be conducted at similar rates given the fact they're... well, meant to be danced to, differ wildly.
One of the best stories I heard about this issue was that Holst's Planets tended, until recently, to be conducted "in a hurry" with conductors generally having each part be around 3-4 minutes long. Why? Because Holst is young enough to have conducted his own music and had his performances recorded. On gramophone records. That had a maximum length of... three and a half minutes.
Play the same pieces at a more leisurely rate and they sound rather better, like, perhaps they were intended to be. It's unlikely Holst composed the music for the recordings, but he wouldn't be the first artist to accept compromises on a final performance in the name of technological expediency.
I have heard another story, which I'm doubtful to believe: that a lower samplerate was chosen for CDDA, because one of the executives as Sony wanted the entire of Beethoven's 9th Symphony to fit on a single CD, which supposedly would not of been possible at the previous standard rate of 48Khz. I haven't investigated whether this claim has merit.
It doesn't. The problem with it is that different performances are different length. It's possible though highly unlikely the Sony executive was refering to a specific performance, but performances can vary in length by more than 50%, depending on the style of the conductor.
You attended the same morality class as Ted Bundy?
Note I said "generally do all the things a good citizen of a corporation should do", not "generally do all the things a profit-centered corporation should do." And growing, incidentally, is not usually considered a bad thing, even in the corporate world. If close to the end of the year you find you have a surplus, and immediately initiate spending on new departments to develop new products and services, or expend into territories you weren't previously operating within, well, generally the shareholders will love you.
Or it's a little like a hotel manager banning you from his hotel after you took a crap on the room's bed.
Saverin has two points against him, thus far:
1. He co-created Facebook. Not a cure for cancer. Not an amazing new product that resulted in the net creation of jobs (I don't want to hear that Facebook employs people - sure it does, but so did the websites FB competed against. Job creation? nil.) But a privacy sucking website that was a mere incremental improvement on the sites it replaced.
2. He thinks the world owes him simply because that same world gave him a lot of moolah.
If Saverin wants to "Go Galt", let him. He's exactly the kind of whiny overpaid jackass that gives the super-rich a bad name.
There are many super rich assholes I have more respect for. Hell, even the Koch brothers can call themselves job creators with a straight face. The Facebook crew aren't even in the same ballpark.
The easiest way for a corporation to avoid corporate income taxes is to "increase its costs" - that is, hire more people, raise salaries, and generally do all the things a good citizen of a corporation should do.
Corporate income taxes aren't like personal income taxes. The biggest "loopholes" aren't really bad things.
Uh, yeah. I'm sure about that. Google's lawyer's comments really don't relate to the history of this, they're just convenient off-the-cuff wording.
From a copyright point of view, yes, there was copying because the author of the code was not the copyright holder. From an actual copying point of view, there wasn't, because the author of the code was the author of the original.
Which page would that be on? I'm on the first page and see a large list of results that's fairly mixed. First five, for example are: (no browser shown), Chrome, Internet Explorer, Chrome, and "You can't go wrong with any browser these days".
Chrome has a slight edge, but given friends don't recommend IE to friends, Firefox's problems from Firefox 4 to Firefox 9 - it'll probably take years to fix the loss of good will that caused, and the general lack of interest the world has in Opera, I'm not remotely surprised Chrome would have a slight edge.
Once again: nobody copied code. A Google engineer re-used code he'd written. The Google engineer who included this code into the Android libraries had originally written it in his spare time, and made the error of offering it to Sun and assigning copyrights to them so they'd include it in Java.
You're talking about a different copyright infringement.
In the rangeCheck instance, there was actually no copying involved. The author of the piece made the mistake of assigning copyright to Sun for the work after submitting it for inclusion in Java. He later then used the same code - that he'd written - into the Android libraries.
Let that be a lesson to anyone who is willing to assign copyright for unpaid work to a corporation. Even if it's a nice friendly, non-evil one like Sun. The non-evil ones sometimes get eaten by the thoroughly evil.
The textbook case of clean room reverse engineering involved the decompilation (actually disassembly) of the IBM PC BIOS. One team of developers did the decompile and documented exactly what each bit of code did, another team, kept separated from the first group by a wall of lawyers, implemented code that did exactly what the BIOS was documented as doing.
There's nothing wrong or "uncleanroomable" about decompilation.
Interesting. You're saying Google will buy Motorola Mobility (not a bad prediction, given the wheels are in motion and they've declared their intent to), then SEND SERGEY BRIN back to THE YEAR 2011, whereupon he'll meet a dying Steve Jobs and say "Help us out here Jobsie ol' pall, I know you don't like us much, but if you could initiate a lawsuit against HTC, that'd help us bunches. Thank you!"
Now, some obvious questions:
1. What are you smoking?
2. The time travel thing: how does that work then?
3. Why would Jobs agree to help? He hates Google, IIRC.
4. Is James Cameron right? Will Sergey Brin need to steal clothes from someone after travelling back through time? Also: is there any danger of killer robots from the future coming through the same time portal with him?
5. If Google wants to hurt non-Motorola Mobility companies, wouldn't there be easier options, like, say, pulling their licenses to distribute Google Play?
6. I'm sorry, I just have to ask: Is it a wormhole thing? If so, how was it made? Did Google predict they may need this thing and send one end of a wormhole around the galaxy at a speed close to the speed of light, and use time dilation to create a time delta between the two ends, or is there something else they did?
7. Couldn't Google have gone back further in time and simply not licensed Android to HTC?
8. Is there any danger of a paradox being introduced? Is the multiverse theory right, or did Google already know that Steve Jobs would agree to this?
9. What was offered to Jobs? Presumably not a cure for his cancer, but there must have been something.
Other than Larry Page constantly sending me emails consisting of a screen shot of whatever porn site I just browsed, and "LOL!" written below, no evidence whatsoever.
And before you go "Well, that settles it!", Firefox is my primary porn browser.
The reality is there are only two SQL databases in the entire universe: MySQL and Oracle. You might have been told others exist, hell, you might even have worked on something called "SQL Server" in your.NET shop, but in reality: they don't. They're all figments on your imagination. Your imagination is SO determined to find better, more robust, faster, powerful, alternatives to MySQL and Oracle that an entire fantasy world comprised of "a successor to Ingres that makes MySQL look like a piece of crap" and "A Microsoft product that doesn't feel like a thirty year old mainframe product hacked onto a modern platform" develops in your head.
C'mon, if these mythical products actually existed, sites like Slashdot wouldn't ignore them, right? Right?
Leaving aside the fact it's Google's site and Google's browser, why? One of the selling features of Chrome is that it doesn't crash just because a plug-in crashes. Adobe Flash can be as crappy as a company whose name means "A fragile building material made from shit" could possibly make it, and it'd still be Google's fault if it takes down Chrome, just as it's Microsoft's fault if Chrome can take down Windows 7.
GM would have gone bust. During this time they'd have had to shut down a significant number of operations, possibly all significant operations.
Their creditors would have been paid off pennies on the pound. Those creditors include major manufacturing concerns. Concerns that also supply Ford and Chrysler. Chrysler would also have defaulted on their debts as they were suffering the same problem.
Ford, who were completely blameless in this affair, would suddenly find their costs skyrocketing, as suppliers go back to them and say "With only your business coming in, and with our now massive debts thanks to 2/3 of our customers defaulting, we need to put up prices or shut down." Realistically, Ford isn't able to make progress and starts shutting down significant parts of its Detroit based operation.
Result:
- Millions laid off
- GM and Chrysler unable to reorganize because even if they come back in some form, the Detroit infrastructure now has massive holes in it.
Leaving...
OK. "So what?" you argue (yes, you did!) Honda and Toyota can pick up the slack. They'll just make more cars, while hiring lots of people to do the making of cars thing.
No.
You see, that's not how it works. For that to happen, it would have to take a few months and no money at all to:
- Build new factories, and expand the capacity of existing ones
- Have suppliers also build new factories, or expand the capacity of existing factories.
- Recruit new dealerships across the nation to cover the expected increase in sales volume.
So here's what actually happens:
1. Honda, Toyota, Kia, et al, have a temporary spike in demand. They increase prices to dampen demand.
2. The millions of unemployed workers in Detroit don't gain jobs because no industry moves to Detroit, and it's not easy for a million people to suddenly move hundreds of miles south.
3. As people do attempt to move, property prices around auto-plants in the south increase, exacerbating the expansion cost problem of Honda, Toyota, et al.
4. Demand slows, as the effects of the massive increase in unemployment take hold. This includes the effect on the remains of the automotive industry.
5. The remaining manufacturers find themselves finding it harder to sell more vehicles. It's quite possible that the increases in unemployment might kill some of those that remain if their target market included the income levels disproportionately hit by the types of jobs lost.
Basically, there's no way the unmanaged bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM would have been anything other than disastrous for everyone concerned. Which is a major reason why Ford was fully in favor of the government stepping in to provide the bridging loans necessary to make a managed restructuring work.
75dpi was the resolution of most 1980s dot matrix printers.
It was awful. The only way you could get relatively decent quality print out of them was to use an over-printing capability that appeared mid way through that decade that effectively trebled the resolution vertically, and a "condensed" mode that increased it by about 80% horizontally. That would give you something that meant that Times Roman at 15pt or better was just about decent, and at 12pt was just about readable. Anything smaller, and it wasn't.
And, FWIW, most computer monitors are 96dpi or better, AND have extremely fine grained intensity on each pixel - even a "bad" screen has at least 64 levels of light, making credible anti-aliasing possible.
I'm sorry, but 75ppi/dpi/whatever is NOT good enough for an eReader. It's not high enough quality for a decent font at a decent size. Reading a book requires a good, well designed, serif font.
It's a history thing. Objective C started off as a preprocessor that added some object oriented features to C. The different syntax made it easier to preprocess, as it made the "Objective" bit easy to find and parse.
I just wish they'd finished the job. Is it me, or does Objective C feel like a language that would be really good if they weren't using C as a crutch to get around things it doesn't do, and wasn't dependent on C's memory model and all that entails to a degree that makes it hard for Objective C to do the things any modern language should do?
That's complete bollocks. Virtually all science is about trying to disprove theories. The less successful scientists are at disproving theories, the more a theory holds up.
What you meant to say is "Unfortunately if you claim to have disproved an established theory in the scientific orthodoxy, but fail to do so in a convincing way, ignore the counter arguments, and then pretend there's a giant conspiracy against you, you will have problems getting published and funded." That's pretty much the only time what you're trying to describe, badly, happens.
Your are basing the question upon false assumptions and incorrect facts. To simplify my point this is what you are asking: "Why is so much money being on activity X." There is not activity X, no one is spending money as you describe.
Yes, they are. For example, the Cato Institute and the Heartland Institute are both running campaigns promoting a mistrust of science and scientists amongst conservatives.
See, for example, the subject of this very discussion, an attempt to equate scientists with serial killers.
The recent paper that triggered the recent wave among liberal bloggers and media of accusing conservatives of distrusting science was...
...irrelevent to this discussion. You keep bringing it up, despite claiming that it's not what you're talking about.
You are just factually incorrect. There is no widespread calling the actual acts of peer review, or making and testing hypotheses, the scientific method, etc. as hoaxes. What skeptics are pointing out is that a lot of the "science" used to justify political crusades is not science by any objective criteria.
No, you're making things up, probably because you don't want to face the truth. The AGW theory, like tobacco causing cancer before it, is, in fact, science. That is: peer review, studies, hypotheses, testing hypotheses, development of theories from tested hypotheses, etc. That is what conservatives are referring to as hoaxes. You may want to pretend otherwise. But you tell me: what evidence has been posted anywhere that climate scientists are faking any of these? Is Cato seriously claiming that nothing has been peer reviewed, or that the peer reviews are fake? Is the Heartland Institute arguing that climate scientists have not been attempting to test hypotheses?
No. Quite simply, any glance at the anti-science propaganda by these outlets normally boils down to "The scientists say X... BUT LOOK OVER THERE! Mars has a melting glacier! And models are HARD!"
You and I know this. You're trying very hard to pretend otherwise, but you know that... well, look at realclimate.org, a website set up solely because groups like the ones we're talking about keep manufacturing talking points that are bogus: they keep promoting possible explanations for global warming as if these are fantastic new theories nobody has ever thought of and checked out.
Think about that for a moment, a website devoted to "*sigh* Yes, we did check into that."
Why is there a need? Surely if these groups were serious, honest, and not running a campaign that promotes an anti-science agenda, they'd read the fucking science. Because if they had, they wouldn't be coming up with this shit.
Here's a simple study for you to carry out. Go to your local university and conduct a survey to determine the political leanings of various professors and instructors. You'll find that the majority of conservatives are going to be in business, science, engineering and mathematics. The reconsider your assumptions about what conservatives believe.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps I'm not understanding conservatives, and perhaps you're providing the answer, however unintentionally. You don't want to discuss whether the conservative movement is being targeted by pressure groups with anti-science propaganda, so you keep changing the subject, you keep trying to pretend that this is about whether conservatives are anti-science.
Hence you keep bringing up some study that has no bearing on this conversation. Hence you're now asking me to visit a university and do a survey of political opinions (like I have the time or energy or resources to commit to such a project) despite it having nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Could it be that conservatives, as you're demonstrating, get scared of questions they can't answer? And could it be that this makes them a natural target for an anti-science campaign, given science is all about difficult questions?
I've been doing it since 6.0something (for some reason I recall it being something other than 04 but...) and there's been at least two occasions when the "upgrade" failed badly, with a single package upgrade failing and this taking down the entire system.
One, the most recent, I was able to fix using a second apt-get command (I forget which), but the first completely destroyed the system and I had to spend a day copying data across the network to back it up, before re-imaging the entire computer.
Ubuntu's system is mostly great, but quite honestly, I have to admit to some puzzlement as to why they don't do something more like Apple's "mv /
I'm guessing they don't want to fiddle too much with people's system settings, but perhaps migration scripts would be a better approach than simply trusting each package upgrade to never fail...
Despite his online id, I'm with RightWingNutJob on this. And I'm a US immigrant too.
American citizenship isn't about money, it's about a country that values and fights for freedom. It's about a country where the vast majority of people take you for what you are, not for where you came from. (I just wish we could elect a government that actually resembles the US people in some way.)
That said, if Saverin only came here for the money, fuck him. I'm glad to see him go. I just wish all those who got American citizenship without loving this country and its values would go and fuck off.
Most of these jackasses have never created a successful business in their lives. They're Carly Fiorina types, people who worked their way up to the top through manipulation and politics, used "common wisdom" to gut their companies, and then took credit for the fact their businesses survived their own actions, in name at least.
Saverin may - MAY - be an exception, in that he at least joined the company at the beginning, but there's no evidence that he was critical to Facebook's success. Indeed, there's no evidence that anyone really was critical to FB's success or that FB's success was even necessary. FB was a cleaner, more vetted, version of half a dozen websites that existed before it. It succeeded not by bringing something original to the table, but precisely because it wasn't first and therefore had the opportunity to learn from other's mistakes.
If Saverin wants to "do a Galt" and leave, let him, and let all the other Randian jackasses who think the world owes them something simply because they made lots of money living in that same world. If they want, they can whine about how terrible life is because Obama said that it might help a little if those who can afford to paid a few extra dollars in taxes once in a while, which is, like, being critical of them and hating on them or something. Leave Saverin aloooooooooooooooooooooooooone!
Slashdot Mirror
What, you mean fire the 270,000 overpaid managers of the 30,000 people who actually do the work? The horror!
I'd agree with this. And I can see circumstances in which there'd be few or no problems with apparently immensely complicated algorithms being implemented using crude approximations.
Take audio decoding. Audio decoding is essentially a process where you have to output the sum of a set of waves, with the original file telling you what waves to decode and at what amplitude. Oh, and the end result normally gets converted into an analog voltage and output via some kind of magnetic field.
Doesn't this, as a task, cry out for being processed using cheap analog circuits, rather than painstakingly calculated using discrete values looked up from sine wave tables?
Schubert didn't compose all the classical music in the universe! Even so, 50% isn't that big a range, when you consider the difference between the extremes and the midpoint.
Beethoven is very liable to be conducted at wildly different rates. Even the waltzes of Johann Strauss, which you'd expect to be conducted at similar rates given the fact they're... well, meant to be danced to, differ wildly.
One of the best stories I heard about this issue was that Holst's Planets tended, until recently, to be conducted "in a hurry" with conductors generally having each part be around 3-4 minutes long. Why? Because Holst is young enough to have conducted his own music and had his performances recorded. On gramophone records. That had a maximum length of... three and a half minutes.
Play the same pieces at a more leisurely rate and they sound rather better, like, perhaps they were intended to be. It's unlikely Holst composed the music for the recordings, but he wouldn't be the first artist to accept compromises on a final performance in the name of technological expediency.
It doesn't. The problem with it is that different performances are different length. It's possible though highly unlikely the Sony executive was refering to a specific performance, but performances can vary in length by more than 50%, depending on the style of the conductor.
You attended the same morality class as Ted Bundy?
Note I said "generally do all the things a good citizen of a corporation should do", not "generally do all the things a profit-centered corporation should do." And growing, incidentally, is not usually considered a bad thing, even in the corporate world. If close to the end of the year you find you have a surplus, and immediately initiate spending on new departments to develop new products and services, or expend into territories you weren't previously operating within, well, generally the shareholders will love you.
Or it's a little like a hotel manager banning you from his hotel after you took a crap on the room's bed.
Saverin has two points against him, thus far:
1. He co-created Facebook. Not a cure for cancer. Not an amazing new product that resulted in the net creation of jobs (I don't want to hear that Facebook employs people - sure it does, but so did the websites FB competed against. Job creation? nil.) But a privacy sucking website that was a mere incremental improvement on the sites it replaced.
2. He thinks the world owes him simply because that same world gave him a lot of moolah.
If Saverin wants to "Go Galt", let him. He's exactly the kind of whiny overpaid jackass that gives the super-rich a bad name.
There are many super rich assholes I have more respect for. Hell, even the Koch brothers can call themselves job creators with a straight face. The Facebook crew aren't even in the same ballpark.
The easiest way for a corporation to avoid corporate income taxes is to "increase its costs" - that is, hire more people, raise salaries, and generally do all the things a good citizen of a corporation should do.
Corporate income taxes aren't like personal income taxes. The biggest "loopholes" aren't really bad things.
From a copyright point of view, yes, there was copying because the author of the code was not the copyright holder. From an actual copying point of view, there wasn't, because the author of the code was the author of the original.
Which page would that be on? I'm on the first page and see a large list of results that's fairly mixed. First five, for example are: (no browser shown), Chrome, Internet Explorer, Chrome, and "You can't go wrong with any browser these days".
Chrome has a slight edge, but given friends don't recommend IE to friends, Firefox's problems from Firefox 4 to Firefox 9 - it'll probably take years to fix the loss of good will that caused, and the general lack of interest the world has in Opera, I'm not remotely surprised Chrome would have a slight edge.
Once again: nobody copied code. A Google engineer re-used code he'd written. The Google engineer who included this code into the Android libraries had originally written it in his spare time, and made the error of offering it to Sun and assigning copyrights to them so they'd include it in Java.
You're talking about a different copyright infringement.
In the rangeCheck instance, there was actually no copying involved. The author of the piece made the mistake of assigning copyright to Sun for the work after submitting it for inclusion in Java. He later then used the same code - that he'd written - into the Android libraries.
Let that be a lesson to anyone who is willing to assign copyright for unpaid work to a corporation. Even if it's a nice friendly, non-evil one like Sun. The non-evil ones sometimes get eaten by the thoroughly evil.
The textbook case of clean room reverse engineering involved the decompilation (actually disassembly) of the IBM PC BIOS. One team of developers did the decompile and documented exactly what each bit of code did, another team, kept separated from the first group by a wall of lawyers, implemented code that did exactly what the BIOS was documented as doing.
There's nothing wrong or "uncleanroomable" about decompilation.
So you're posting FROM THE FUTURE?
Interesting. You're saying Google will buy Motorola Mobility (not a bad prediction, given the wheels are in motion and they've declared their intent to), then SEND SERGEY BRIN back to THE YEAR 2011, whereupon he'll meet a dying Steve Jobs and say "Help us out here Jobsie ol' pall, I know you don't like us much, but if you could initiate a lawsuit against HTC, that'd help us bunches. Thank you!"
Now, some obvious questions:
1. What are you smoking?
2. The time travel thing: how does that work then?
3. Why would Jobs agree to help? He hates Google, IIRC.
4. Is James Cameron right? Will Sergey Brin need to steal clothes from someone after travelling back through time? Also: is there any danger of killer robots from the future coming through the same time portal with him?
5. If Google wants to hurt non-Motorola Mobility companies, wouldn't there be easier options, like, say, pulling their licenses to distribute Google Play?
6. I'm sorry, I just have to ask: Is it a wormhole thing? If so, how was it made? Did Google predict they may need this thing and send one end of a wormhole around the galaxy at a speed close to the speed of light, and use time dilation to create a time delta between the two ends, or is there something else they did?
7. Couldn't Google have gone back further in time and simply not licensed Android to HTC?
8. Is there any danger of a paradox being introduced? Is the multiverse theory right, or did Google already know that Steve Jobs would agree to this?
9. What was offered to Jobs? Presumably not a cure for his cancer, but there must have been something.
Thanks muchly,
Squiggie.
Other than Larry Page constantly sending me emails consisting of a screen shot of whatever porn site I just browsed, and "LOL!" written below, no evidence whatsoever.
And before you go "Well, that settles it!", Firefox is my primary porn browser.
Because it's an urban myth.
The reality is there are only two SQL databases in the entire universe: MySQL and Oracle. You might have been told others exist, hell, you might even have worked on something called "SQL Server" in your .NET shop, but in reality: they don't. They're all figments on your imagination. Your imagination is SO determined to find better, more robust, faster, powerful, alternatives to MySQL and Oracle that an entire fantasy world comprised of "a successor to Ingres that makes MySQL look like a piece of crap" and "A Microsoft product that doesn't feel like a thirty year old mainframe product hacked onto a modern platform" develops in your head.
C'mon, if these mythical products actually existed, sites like Slashdot wouldn't ignore them, right? Right?
Those H.264 patent licenses aren't going to buy themselves.
A voluntary tax on Windows and Mac users seems, actually, to be a decent way to fund that actually.
Leaving aside the fact it's Google's site and Google's browser, why? One of the selling features of Chrome is that it doesn't crash just because a plug-in crashes. Adobe Flash can be as crappy as a company whose name means "A fragile building material made from shit" could possibly make it, and it'd still be Google's fault if it takes down Chrome, just as it's Microsoft's fault if Chrome can take down Windows 7.
GM would have gone bust. During this time they'd have had to shut down a significant number of operations, possibly all significant operations.
Their creditors would have been paid off pennies on the pound. Those creditors include major manufacturing concerns. Concerns that also supply Ford and Chrysler. Chrysler would also have defaulted on their debts as they were suffering the same problem.
Ford, who were completely blameless in this affair, would suddenly find their costs skyrocketing, as suppliers go back to them and say "With only your business coming in, and with our now massive debts thanks to 2/3 of our customers defaulting, we need to put up prices or shut down." Realistically, Ford isn't able to make progress and starts shutting down significant parts of its Detroit based operation.
Result:
- Millions laid off
- GM and Chrysler unable to reorganize because even if they come back in some form, the Detroit infrastructure now has massive holes in it.
Leaving...
OK. "So what?" you argue (yes, you did!) Honda and Toyota can pick up the slack. They'll just make more cars, while hiring lots of people to do the making of cars thing.
No.
You see, that's not how it works. For that to happen, it would have to take a few months and no money at all to:
- Build new factories, and expand the capacity of existing ones
- Have suppliers also build new factories, or expand the capacity of existing factories.
- Recruit new dealerships across the nation to cover the expected increase in sales volume.
So here's what actually happens:
1. Honda, Toyota, Kia, et al, have a temporary spike in demand. They increase prices to dampen demand.
2. The millions of unemployed workers in Detroit don't gain jobs because no industry moves to Detroit, and it's not easy for a million people to suddenly move hundreds of miles south.
3. As people do attempt to move, property prices around auto-plants in the south increase, exacerbating the expansion cost problem of Honda, Toyota, et al.
4. Demand slows, as the effects of the massive increase in unemployment take hold. This includes the effect on the remains of the automotive industry.
5. The remaining manufacturers find themselves finding it harder to sell more vehicles. It's quite possible that the increases in unemployment might kill some of those that remain if their target market included the income levels disproportionately hit by the types of jobs lost.
Basically, there's no way the unmanaged bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM would have been anything other than disastrous for everyone concerned. Which is a major reason why Ford was fully in favor of the government stepping in to provide the bridging loans necessary to make a managed restructuring work.
75dpi was the resolution of most 1980s dot matrix printers.
It was awful. The only way you could get relatively decent quality print out of them was to use an over-printing capability that appeared mid way through that decade that effectively trebled the resolution vertically, and a "condensed" mode that increased it by about 80% horizontally. That would give you something that meant that Times Roman at 15pt or better was just about decent, and at 12pt was just about readable. Anything smaller, and it wasn't.
And, FWIW, most computer monitors are 96dpi or better, AND have extremely fine grained intensity on each pixel - even a "bad" screen has at least 64 levels of light, making credible anti-aliasing possible.
I'm sorry, but 75ppi/dpi/whatever is NOT good enough for an eReader. It's not high enough quality for a decent font at a decent size. Reading a book requires a good, well designed, serif font.
It's a history thing. Objective C started off as a preprocessor that added some object oriented features to C. The different syntax made it easier to preprocess, as it made the "Objective" bit easy to find and parse.
I just wish they'd finished the job. Is it me, or does Objective C feel like a language that would be really good if they weren't using C as a crutch to get around things it doesn't do, and wasn't dependent on C's memory model and all that entails to a degree that makes it hard for Objective C to do the things any modern language should do?
That's complete bollocks. Virtually all science is about trying to disprove theories. The less successful scientists are at disproving theories, the more a theory holds up.
What you meant to say is "Unfortunately if you claim to have disproved an established theory in the scientific orthodoxy, but fail to do so in a convincing way, ignore the counter arguments, and then pretend there's a giant conspiracy against you, you will have problems getting published and funded." That's pretty much the only time what you're trying to describe, badly, happens.
Yes, they are. For example, the Cato Institute and the Heartland Institute are both running campaigns promoting a mistrust of science and scientists amongst conservatives.
See, for example, the subject of this very discussion, an attempt to equate scientists with serial killers.
No, you're making things up, probably because you don't want to face the truth. The AGW theory, like tobacco causing cancer before it, is, in fact, science. That is: peer review, studies, hypotheses, testing hypotheses, development of theories from tested hypotheses, etc. That is what conservatives are referring to as hoaxes. You may want to pretend otherwise. But you tell me: what evidence has been posted anywhere that climate scientists are faking any of these? Is Cato seriously claiming that nothing has been peer reviewed, or that the peer reviews are fake? Is the Heartland Institute arguing that climate scientists have not been attempting to test hypotheses?
No. Quite simply, any glance at the anti-science propaganda by these outlets normally boils down to "The scientists say X... BUT LOOK OVER THERE! Mars has a melting glacier! And models are HARD!"
You and I know this. You're trying very hard to pretend otherwise, but you know that... well, look at realclimate.org, a website set up solely because groups like the ones we're talking about keep manufacturing talking points that are bogus: they keep promoting possible explanations for global warming as if these are fantastic new theories nobody has ever thought of and checked out.
Think about that for a moment, a website devoted to "*sigh* Yes, we did check into that."
Why is there a need? Surely if these groups were serious, honest, and not running a campaign that promotes an anti-science agenda, they'd read the fucking science. Because if they had, they wouldn't be coming up with this shit.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps I'm not understanding conservatives, and perhaps you're providing the answer, however unintentionally. You don't want to discuss whether the conservative movement is being targeted by pressure groups with anti-science propaganda, so you keep changing the subject, you keep trying to pretend that this is about whether conservatives are anti-science.
Hence you keep bringing up some study that has no bearing on this conversation. Hence you're now asking me to visit a university and do a survey of political opinions (like I have the time or energy or resources to commit to such a project) despite it having nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Could it be that conservatives, as you're demonstrating, get scared of questions they can't answer? And could it be that this makes them a natural target for an anti-science campaign, given science is all about difficult questions?
I've been doing it since 6.0something (for some reason I recall it being something other than 04 but...) and there's been at least two occasions when the "upgrade" failed badly, with a single package upgrade failing and this taking down the entire system.
One, the most recent, I was able to fix using a second apt-get command (I forget which), but the first completely destroyed the system and I had to spend a day copying data across the network to back it up, before re-imaging the entire computer.
Ubuntu's system is mostly great, but quite honestly, I have to admit to some puzzlement as to why they don't do something more like Apple's "mv / I'm guessing they don't want to fiddle too much with people's system settings, but perhaps migration scripts would be a better approach than simply trusting each package upgrade to never fail...
Despite his online id, I'm with RightWingNutJob on this. And I'm a US immigrant too.
American citizenship isn't about money, it's about a country that values and fights for freedom. It's about a country where the vast majority of people take you for what you are, not for where you came from. (I just wish we could elect a government that actually resembles the US people in some way.)
That said, if Saverin only came here for the money, fuck him. I'm glad to see him go. I just wish all those who got American citizenship without loving this country and its values would go and fuck off.
Most of these jackasses have never created a successful business in their lives. They're Carly Fiorina types, people who worked their way up to the top through manipulation and politics, used "common wisdom" to gut their companies, and then took credit for the fact their businesses survived their own actions, in name at least.
Saverin may - MAY - be an exception, in that he at least joined the company at the beginning, but there's no evidence that he was critical to Facebook's success. Indeed, there's no evidence that anyone really was critical to FB's success or that FB's success was even necessary. FB was a cleaner, more vetted, version of half a dozen websites that existed before it. It succeeded not by bringing something original to the table, but precisely because it wasn't first and therefore had the opportunity to learn from other's mistakes.
If Saverin wants to "do a Galt" and leave, let him, and let all the other Randian jackasses who think the world owes them something simply because they made lots of money living in that same world. If they want, they can whine about how terrible life is because Obama said that it might help a little if those who can afford to paid a few extra dollars in taxes once in a while, which is, like, being critical of them and hating on them or something. Leave Saverin aloooooooooooooooooooooooooone!