To be fair, those people also expect that they won't be disappointed by that $2 cup of coffee. And if they are, they can pitch it. Out of sight out of mind. Sure, you can just delete that mobile app, but then it still sits in your purchase history taunting you. People don't like being made a fool or taken advantage of unless they can easily get it off their minds. Think what you will, but there is definitely an emotional cost (albeit small) to any purchase. I believe that makes all the difference to most people.
Fuck that guy. I've written a program that models Wall Street with a high degree of accuracy, and it's for sale now. Equally accurate results, with no bannanas necessary, and no monkey shit to clean up.
No, GP had it right. Queue is to enter something into a sequence, to be served sequentially in order of insertion. Cue is an action or event that signals something to occur. This coming to fruition (event) would cue the protests to begin. Queuing the protests would be asking them to stand in a line and complain indivually one after the other.
Hey! Biology has tubes, and so does Computers! It's only natural that we combine the two! Now get back to work on emailing me that genetically engineered sex-slave we talked about!
Pantheists tend to be a little more tolerant; after all the gods can be wrong so hey... maybe these other people who believe in other gods could be right.
It's almost amazing how much respect a little humility can garner a person isn't it?:-)
At best though, a rationally thinking person can only be 99.9% Atheist. I count myself to be one of those 99.9% Athesists.
The problem (to rational thinkers) and advantage (to believers) of modern gods is their inherent absence in our lives. If the Christian god were to just pop down to Earth tomorrow and say "Sup dudes, came for a visit, free beer for everyone" there isn't a person on the planet that could deny his existence. Supposing of course he followed through and spirited a beer into everyone's hand all at once. But no-one that has ever claimed to have seen or spoken with a god has corrobrator for that experience. It's a singular experience and as such no one person has verifiable proof that he/she/it exists as they would if said god were to appear before everyone.
So that's where logic steps in for rational thinkers. As you're sitting here in front of your computer reading this post, can you actually see the air in front of you? Barring some smoke or fuzz or something else floating in the air, no, you can't actually see the air. But we do know it exists because we have other tools at our disposal (our tactile sense) that allows us to detect its presence. But our bodies only have a limited tool set from the get-go, so we have invented many more to help us understand our world. We invented gaussmeters to allow ourselves to detect and measure magnetic fields (without seeing the object 'magically' stick to another.) So, simply because you lack the tools to detect something does not mean that it (decisively) is not there. It could eventually happen that we develop some radio that literally allows us to communicate with a god. Given current technology and the ways that modern religions describe gods however, it seems astronomically unlikely that such an event will ever occur.
This is why Atheists that unwaveringly deny the existence of gods are either ignorant, or despicibly arrogant, just the same as any religious person that unwaveringly supports the existence of one. Until you can positively confirm the existence (or inexistence) of a god, you make yourself out to be something of an asshole by claiming your position is absolute and correct. Unfortunately this makes Atheists out to be bigger assholes than religious folk, simply due to the fact that you can never scientifically prove something does not exist. You can keep searching and searching until you find it or give up, but failing to find it proves nothing.
So religious, Atheist, or somewhere in between, remember this simple fact the next time you discuss the topic with someone else. No matter what you believe to be true, you could be wrong. You'll be better respected if you learn to admit this.
But I guess recovering some amount of power is superior to not recovering anything, it's just never going to be as efficient as using less power in the first place.
Were it not for the added entropy from generating heat, recapturing energy from the display would be exactly as efficient as using less energy in the first place. However if they implement this technology well, they could have it capturing energy from external sources as well as the screen. Efficiency wouldn't need to be terribly high for it to actually extend battery life better than decreased expediture would. It could even go as far as to recharge your device provided your device saw enough downtime.
So while it would also be a good idea to cut down the inital energy expediture, don't underestimate the potential of this technology. I can see this one going places.
Upfront disclaimer: I don't, never have, and probably never will listen to Rihanna. Just not my kind of music. That said...
In the cover it just falls flat. Rihanna on the other hand manages to drive through and the repetition only makes it more powerful.
[...] she uses auto-tune.
Doesn't that defeat your entire argument? If Rihanna uses Auto-tune, how can she be said to have any singing skill? Auto-tune takes vocals sung out of tune and bends them to the nearest true semitone. So a person can sing consistently off key and Auto-tune will make it sound perfect.
All her songs are perfectly in tune, can't you hear that?
So aparently you can hear that. And you state she uses Auto-tune. What makes you so certain the original tracks are as perfect? Unless you actually work in the recording studio with Rihanna, I'm not certain that's a claim you can make. I'm just confused how you can claim so adamantly that she has any singing talent.
In line with what Stuarticus is saying, you have to find a balance. Where I work, IT gives the devs and QA local admin privileges, but the people over in billing, sales, and the BAs are limited users. They realize that the devs are intelligent enough (and grown up enough) to judge what can, or should be installed on our own computers, and that the rest of the lot would probably fuck their box over something fierce if allowed to. They also don't want to have to come answer 'support calls' every time a dev needs something, which is often; it would be a waste of time for them to come do something we can easily handle ourselves.
A little forethought and added effort up front really can save you time and money down the road.
Please explain why a prosecutor who ruins someone's life by getting them convicted, even though they were innocent and there was evidence they chose to ignore (because they were more worried about winning their case than finding the truth), shouldn't be executed.
Because it's too merciful. I get why you want them executed, being that they have fundamentally wronged us and we have no further use for them. Sure, get rid of them, but no, don't kill them. Exile them. Tattoo the words "Exiled Offender:" followed by a country code (US) and an offender number, boldly on their forehead. Keep offender records with the DoJ, public to any person or entity that requests them on the face of the planet. Allow them to correct their lives and stop being douchebags. But never allow them to escape that black mark in their past. And make the the ink used lethal if heated (blocking tattoo removal.) Maybe even etch the words onto their skull for insurance in case they try skin grafts.
I may not agree with pretty much everything modern religion preaches, but attoning for one's sins is something I think we can all agree upon. Executing them just lets them take the easy way out.
In the GP's defense, knowledge isn't tangible either. Though it is an arguably more productive outcome than many other choices for spending one's time.
Please bear in mind that your $15 a month pays for server maintenance and the development of additional content which is provided to you at no charge. If I had the choice between paying WoW with low ping and regular content updates, versus getting it for free with shitty server reliability and content I can exhaust in a month, I'll take the pay option. As long as the product has a good quality to price ratio, I have no problem supporting it monthly.
Also, the bit about the virtual goods you can't keep if you stop playing isn't completely true. I have acquired many items in WoW that I would be saddened to lose access to, if only for posterity's sake. I fully intend to 'export' my character(s) from WoW once Blizzard announces the imminent EOL of their servers, and set up my own private server. Then I can just fire it up and log in to remember the good ol' days whenever I wish. No money required.:-)
Um... How do you think God did it? By crossing his arms and squinting really hard while nodding his head? No, he did it the hard way, by programming it from scratch directly in binary. You should have seen how fast His tentacles moved typing out those ones and zeroes! You also should see the pile of burned out keyboards he has in his garage. Designing an entire universe in six days directly in binary is no small feat for any deity.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, those people also expect that they won't be disappointed by that $2 cup of coffee. And if they are, they can pitch it. Out of sight out of mind. Sure, you can just delete that mobile app, but then it still sits in your purchase history taunting you. People don't like being made a fool or taken advantage of unless they can easily get it off their minds. Think what you will, but there is definitely an emotional cost (albeit small) to any purchase. I believe that makes all the difference to most people.
Fuck that guy. I've written a program that models Wall Street with a high degree of accuracy, and it's for sale now. Equally accurate results, with no bannanas necessary, and no monkey shit to clean up.
FTFY
The secretary. Man, you should have seen what this lady wore to work!
I wondered this myself -- first thought was I hope they are using hydrogen, or at least not venting the helium. Nope, helium, and they vent it.
Dude, just tether the balloon with a cable and tow it back down at the end of the ride. Simple, cheap, effective, and safe.
No, GP had it right. Queue is to enter something into a sequence, to be served sequentially in order of insertion. Cue is an action or event that signals something to occur. This coming to fruition (event) would cue the protests to begin. Queuing the protests would be asking them to stand in a line and complain indivually one after the other.
Rocky Rodent
Yo dawg! We heard you like simulating rats, so we put a rodent in your rodent so you can simulate while you simulate!
Hey! Biology has tubes, and so does Computers! It's only natural that we combine the two! Now get back to work on emailing me that genetically engineered sex-slave we talked about!
If we create a fully virtual human, is it ethical to subject it to inhumane treatment?
Almost but not quite. It's virtually inhumane.
I still anticipate the actualization of Suckdisk.
You and I both friend! Unfortunately, my girlfriend just doesn't seem to love me quite enough.
I was going to rib you for leaving out a word yourself, before I realized that simply hadn't gotten the joke.
BTW, they have pills for Tourette's now.
I've seen those! They're red, and round, and usually have a strap that goes around the back of your head.
Not if you're in a post apocalyptic world with zombies running amok.
God-Damn Sno Balls!
Pantheists tend to be a little more tolerant; after all the gods can be wrong so hey... maybe these other people who believe in other gods could be right.
It's almost amazing how much respect a little humility can garner a person isn't it? :-)
At best though, a rationally thinking person can only be 99.9% Atheist. I count myself to be one of those 99.9% Athesists.
The problem (to rational thinkers) and advantage (to believers) of modern gods is their inherent absence in our lives. If the Christian god were to just pop down to Earth tomorrow and say "Sup dudes, came for a visit, free beer for everyone" there isn't a person on the planet that could deny his existence. Supposing of course he followed through and spirited a beer into everyone's hand all at once. But no-one that has ever claimed to have seen or spoken with a god has corrobrator for that experience. It's a singular experience and as such no one person has verifiable proof that he/she/it exists as they would if said god were to appear before everyone.
So that's where logic steps in for rational thinkers. As you're sitting here in front of your computer reading this post, can you actually see the air in front of you? Barring some smoke or fuzz or something else floating in the air, no, you can't actually see the air. But we do know it exists because we have other tools at our disposal (our tactile sense) that allows us to detect its presence. But our bodies only have a limited tool set from the get-go, so we have invented many more to help us understand our world. We invented gaussmeters to allow ourselves to detect and measure magnetic fields (without seeing the object 'magically' stick to another.) So, simply because you lack the tools to detect something does not mean that it (decisively) is not there. It could eventually happen that we develop some radio that literally allows us to communicate with a god. Given current technology and the ways that modern religions describe gods however, it seems astronomically unlikely that such an event will ever occur.
This is why Atheists that unwaveringly deny the existence of gods are either ignorant, or despicibly arrogant, just the same as any religious person that unwaveringly supports the existence of one. Until you can positively confirm the existence (or inexistence) of a god, you make yourself out to be something of an asshole by claiming your position is absolute and correct. Unfortunately this makes Atheists out to be bigger assholes than religious folk, simply due to the fact that you can never scientifically prove something does not exist. You can keep searching and searching until you find it or give up, but failing to find it proves nothing.
So religious, Atheist, or somewhere in between, remember this simple fact the next time you discuss the topic with someone else. No matter what you believe to be true, you could be wrong. You'll be better respected if you learn to admit this.
But I guess recovering some amount of power is superior to not recovering anything, it's just never going to be as efficient as using less power in the first place.
Were it not for the added entropy from generating heat, recapturing energy from the display would be exactly as efficient as using less energy in the first place. However if they implement this technology well, they could have it capturing energy from external sources as well as the screen. Efficiency wouldn't need to be terribly high for it to actually extend battery life better than decreased expediture would. It could even go as far as to recharge your device provided your device saw enough downtime.
So while it would also be a good idea to cut down the inital energy expediture, don't underestimate the potential of this technology. I can see this one going places.
In the cover it just falls flat. Rihanna on the other hand manages to drive through and the repetition only makes it more powerful.
[...] she uses auto-tune.
Doesn't that defeat your entire argument? If Rihanna uses Auto-tune, how can she be said to have any singing skill? Auto-tune takes vocals sung out of tune and bends them to the nearest true semitone. So a person can sing consistently off key and Auto-tune will make it sound perfect.
All her songs are perfectly in tune, can't you hear that?
So aparently you can hear that. And you state she uses Auto-tune. What makes you so certain the original tracks are as perfect? Unless you actually work in the recording studio with Rihanna, I'm not certain that's a claim you can make. I'm just confused how you can claim so adamantly that she has any singing talent.
In line with what Stuarticus is saying, you have to find a balance. Where I work, IT gives the devs and QA local admin privileges, but the people over in billing, sales, and the BAs are limited users. They realize that the devs are intelligent enough (and grown up enough) to judge what can, or should be installed on our own computers, and that the rest of the lot would probably fuck their box over something fierce if allowed to. They also don't want to have to come answer 'support calls' every time a dev needs something, which is often; it would be a waste of time for them to come do something we can easily handle ourselves.
A little forethought and added effort up front really can save you time and money down the road.
Guess which class of computing devices more closely resembles that familiar paradigm?
Ooh! Ooh! I got this one! AN ABACUS!
Well, I guess that's better than being down on the Count for years. I hear his dick tastes like cocoa puffs.
It'd be awesome of Deaf Leopard did a cover of it.
I find it hard to believe a leopard could hold a guitar to do the cover, much less so if he were deaf.
Def Leppard on the other hand would totally kick ass.
Please explain why a prosecutor who ruins someone's life by getting them convicted, even though they were innocent and there was evidence they chose to ignore (because they were more worried about winning their case than finding the truth), shouldn't be executed.
Because it's too merciful. I get why you want them executed, being that they have fundamentally wronged us and we have no further use for them. Sure, get rid of them, but no, don't kill them. Exile them. Tattoo the words "Exiled Offender:" followed by a country code (US) and an offender number, boldly on their forehead. Keep offender records with the DoJ, public to any person or entity that requests them on the face of the planet. Allow them to correct their lives and stop being douchebags. But never allow them to escape that black mark in their past. And make the the ink used lethal if heated (blocking tattoo removal.) Maybe even etch the words onto their skull for insurance in case they try skin grafts.
I may not agree with pretty much everything modern religion preaches, but attoning for one's sins is something I think we can all agree upon. Executing them just lets them take the easy way out.
In the GP's defense, knowledge isn't tangible either. Though it is an arguably more productive outcome than many other choices for spending one's time.
Please bear in mind that your $15 a month pays for server maintenance and the development of additional content which is provided to you at no charge. If I had the choice between paying WoW with low ping and regular content updates, versus getting it for free with shitty server reliability and content I can exhaust in a month, I'll take the pay option. As long as the product has a good quality to price ratio, I have no problem supporting it monthly.
:-)
Also, the bit about the virtual goods you can't keep if you stop playing isn't completely true. I have acquired many items in WoW that I would be saddened to lose access to, if only for posterity's sake. I fully intend to 'export' my character(s) from WoW once Blizzard announces the imminent EOL of their servers, and set up my own private server. Then I can just fire it up and log in to remember the good ol' days whenever I wish. No money required.
Too bad I didn't spend enough money on her and I lost my last gf.
How many times must I remind you people? Hookers only continue rendering services if you keep paying them... Sheesh
Um... How do you think God did it? By crossing his arms and squinting really hard while nodding his head? No, he did it the hard way, by programming it from scratch directly in binary. You should have seen how fast His tentacles moved typing out those ones and zeroes! You also should see the pile of burned out keyboards he has in his garage. Designing an entire universe in six days directly in binary is no small feat for any deity.