See, the trick of it is, you've had to do a bunch of extra stuff to get your mom running safely.
The point I was trying to make with my flamebait:) was that Windows requires you to do a bunch of shit with your machine as soon as you take it out of the box when you get home from Best Buy... shit that DOESN'T have to be done when you set up your OS X box.
And the apologists will claim that worms and viruses only attack Windows because the writers don't bother attacking Linux or OS X... but I think we can safely say that's nonsense, can't we? I mean, by now, some hot shot Windows dick would have written a virus for at least one of the two, wouldn't he? Just to prove all the Linux weenies that they're wrong?
Fact is, out of the box, Linux and OS X are usable by someone sitting down and not understanding/how/ to go about installing Ad-aware, etc.
This is not insightful. Yet again, the MS apologists crawl out of the woodwork to proclaim that, "But this time (XP) it's way more stable!"
Until your mother-in-law, who doesn't know any better, ends up with a machine so infected with worms, ad-ware and such that it takes 20 minutes to boot and pops up shitty IE ads every couple minutes.
Linux and OS X ARE BETTER. Simple users who "don't know any better" can use those systems without the problems you get with Windows, and you people can't handle it.
Yes yes yes, I hear you all braying about how you can "secure any system", how you have maintain your updates, blah blah blah. The fact is, you can't get a Windows machine from Best Buy and expect to use it for months without issues. You certainly can do that with OS X or a Walmart Linux PC.
You're losing, your ivory tower is crumbling and you dopes can't see it. It's fairly humorous, actually.
The hybrid is fucking brilliant. The way to change is gradual, not abrupt.
Better batteries would, in fact, make hybrids even better than they are now. And sometime in the future, when truly alternative fuel vehicles become economically feasible, better battery tech will probably help them too.
In the meantime, just be happy that better batteries might actually happen sometime soon.
I just wanted to say thanks for your posts in this thread. Very informative and very reasoned. I'm 100% for nuclear power plants and all the "macro" stuff, but I didn't realize "micro" devices had any such tech...
Funny post, but why wouldn't Shell and the gang be the first ones to own the algae farms? It would be foolish of them not to.
Many people seem to think Big Oil/only/ cares about oil, and that's demonstrable nonsense. They/only/ care about money. If something profitable comes along, it's a certainty that they'll be first through the ropes...
Oh please. The GP is not suggesting that everyone who disagrees is a sheep.
He's suggesting, correctly, I believe, that most people just don't care and take whatever they're given without considering the consequences. It's not that they're making any "tradeoff in your principles", they just don't know, don't care, and/or don't care to know.
What if, actually, what I "think" is correct, and as time goes by we'll work our way to better energy efficiency and life will continue to get better, as it has for hundreds of years? What if the doomsayers are full of shit, like they have ALWAYS been?
lol "consumerican", what a joke. Yes, let's find out. 10 years on, everything is the same, and you people will still be whining about something...
Oh get off your high horse. We absolutely have the "luxury" to try any goddamn thing we please.
I can't believe this shit is "insightful". Slash energy demand by a third?? Ooooo ahhhhh, we postpone disaster by a few years! Wheeeee! And just imagine the economic destruction that would have to occur to cut our energy demands by a third or half (if thoroughly blah blah blah).
Bullshit on that article: I own a real, live 04 Prius, commute 36-40 miles per day on 395 in DC, and get 48-50 MPG. Actually, that's my wife. I actually pay attention to the feedback and get in the 52-54 MPG range.
That said, I'd still own an SUV: The Prius can only take on about 875 lbs of weight, including the passengers.
"The SUV syndrome is mob mentality at its utter finest. "If no-body else is going to stop driving SUV's, why should I stop" is really one of the biggest problems with this issue, a typical Consumerican viewpoint, derived directly from the callous mob mentality currently perpetuated by "consumerist" ideals..."
Sorry, this is about the dumbest tripe I've heard in quite a while.
Is it so hard for people like you to accept that many people like the convenience, the look, the style of an SUV? Why must their enjoyment of such vehicles be the result of some kind of moron mentality? Maybe they just don't give a shit what people like you think.
I used to own an Explorer Sport. Most useful vehicle I ever owned.
Not to mention the complete bullshit of the argument. Let's look at it and fake some numbers, shall we? 1. Assume 50% of all vehicles on the road are SUVs. 2. Assume we have 20 years of gas left (bullshit, but just run with it).
Now, let's assume all the SUVs suddenly disappear and are replaced by foreign lunch box cars that get 2x the mileage. Oooo ahhh, now we have 30 years of gas left.
In the big picture: What the hell difference does that 10 years make?
Actually, we DO have the technology. We have people living in space for months at a time already.
You ask a series of silly questions about how long it would take for 'me' to build such a thing. That's just it: It already exists! We went to the moon, and turned around and came back!
Considering the age of the tech used to do that... 35 years on we can't do any better, for much much much cheaper? I don't buy it, except to note that we're over-engineering everything these days (take a look at the JSF noise last week noting that, oops, billions of dollars and a couple years late.)
Neverending bs, these days. I have my hopes pinned, perhaps foolishly, on the X Prize...
Too bad it doesn't seem to be true these days. Seems to me that the U.S. is so risk-averse that any attempt at space travel will be terribly expensive and will take decades. Not because the technology isn't there (remember, we DID go to the moon 35 years ago), but because there might be a.001% chance of something going wrong, and we just can't have that!!
When we DO finally get space travel sorted out, my suggestion is to put the lawyers and insurance CEOs on the first flight and aim it at the sun (Hey, it's Pauly Shore! And Rosie! Ding ding ding goes the trolley!).
The thrill is what Bradbury is really advocating, I think. The idea that there is something bigger than just our own petty concerns.
I can't really argue with your points: I totally agree with the anti-public money part of this. But that doesn't really argue whether or not we should be aiming for the stars or not.
And I disagree that the hurdle is orders of magnitude harder than what we already know. We went to the moon 35 years ago, so we can land on a remote rock... with ancient tech to boot. We can put peeps up in space for months too (ISS. granted the crazy cost overruns etc... we CAN do it).
You're exactly the person Bradbury says we should ignore: cold and calculating.
I'm not one for dreaming, but I also suggest: Why not?
The parallels do work, if you care to make them: Don't you think the first people to set foot on Mars would be heroes forever?
How in the world do you know that the commercial harvest is slimmer? It's unlimited, if you ask me. Technology is never perfect: That's why you take risks. People like you should probably not leave the house...
Any time anyone says "old rules don't apply", they usually do.
Sorry to tell you but the population bomb myth has been shot down. Developed nations are already slowing down their growth or even shrinking. Maybe this is the "correction" you speak of, though I expect you're suggesting a more cataclysmic one.
Too bad, because it'd be fun to watch from the confines of the richest nation on earth.:-P
You're right, we should just keep letting people die from disease that we/could/ cure, just because of some potential problems.
Shit man, you think if we can figure out how to biologically live forever that we won't be able to figure out how to do so politically, geographically, and so on?
What makes you think that we won't be able to set up efficient solar-powered desalination plants, or create who the hell knows what else given our new 120+ year working careers.
LOL Imagine: 93 Years J2EE Experience. Damn, that IS a nightmare!
That's just it. Good science (as opposed to junk science) does not assume anything of the sort.
You observe. You collect evidence. Then you interpret the evidence to see if it matches any posited hypothesis. Usually, you put forth an hypothesis first, and then you test to see if your evidence fits.
You do not massage data to make it fit, unless you have an agenda to fulfill.
Slashdot Mirror
See, the trick of it is, you've had to do a bunch of extra stuff to get your mom running safely.
:) was that Windows requires you to do a bunch of shit with your machine as soon as you take it out of the box when you get home from Best Buy... shit that DOESN'T have to be done when you set up your OS X box.
/how/ to go about installing Ad-aware, etc.
The point I was trying to make with my flamebait
And the apologists will claim that worms and viruses only attack Windows because the writers don't bother attacking Linux or OS X... but I think we can safely say that's nonsense, can't we? I mean, by now, some hot shot Windows dick would have written a virus for at least one of the two, wouldn't he? Just to prove all the Linux weenies that they're wrong?
Fact is, out of the box, Linux and OS X are usable by someone sitting down and not understanding
This is not insightful. Yet again, the MS apologists crawl out of the woodwork to proclaim that, "But this time (XP) it's way more stable!"
Until your mother-in-law, who doesn't know any better, ends up with a machine so infected with worms, ad-ware and such that it takes 20 minutes to boot and pops up shitty IE ads every couple minutes.
Linux and OS X ARE BETTER. Simple users who "don't know any better" can use those systems without the problems you get with Windows, and you people can't handle it.
Yes yes yes, I hear you all braying about how you can "secure any system", how you have maintain your updates, blah blah blah. The fact is, you can't get a Windows machine from Best Buy and expect to use it for months without issues. You certainly can do that with OS X or a Walmart Linux PC.
You're losing, your ivory tower is crumbling and you dopes can't see it. It's fairly humorous, actually.
The only problem with your theory is that the human lifespan has already been extended, by a lot.
What is "normal life span"? 35 years, as it was hundreds of years ago? 50? 75?
The trouble is, they're pirates. They'll just say "Yarrrrr, avast ye whiny land lubber!"
Damn, you people are never happy, are you.
The hybrid is fucking brilliant. The way to change is gradual, not abrupt.
Better batteries would, in fact, make hybrids even better than they are now. And sometime in the future, when truly alternative fuel vehicles become economically feasible, better battery tech will probably help them too.
In the meantime, just be happy that better batteries might actually happen sometime soon.
See, the problem with your theory, as far as I can see, is it requires that would have to more than just look at the pretty pictures. :)
I just wanted to say thanks for your posts in this thread. Very informative and very reasoned. I'm 100% for nuclear power plants and all the "macro" stuff, but I didn't realize "micro" devices had any such tech...
Funny post, but why wouldn't Shell and the gang be the first ones to own the algae farms? It would be foolish of them not to.
/only/ cares about oil, and that's demonstrable nonsense. They /only/ care about money. If something profitable comes along, it's a certainty that they'll be first through the ropes...
Many people seem to think Big Oil
Oh please. The GP is not suggesting that everyone who disagrees is a sheep.
He's suggesting, correctly, I believe, that most people just don't care and take whatever they're given without considering the consequences. It's not that they're making any "tradeoff in your principles", they just don't know, don't care, and/or don't care to know.
In that sense, they're certainly sheep.
The only problem I see with it is, by the time he's done with it, his CPU is way out of date and he has to start over.
Oooooo "Consumerican"... lol ZING!
What if, actually, what I "think" is correct, and as time goes by we'll work our way to better energy efficiency and life will continue to get better, as it has for hundreds of years? What if the doomsayers are full of shit, like they have ALWAYS been?
lol "consumerican", what a joke. Yes, let's find out. 10 years on, everything is the same, and you people will still be whining about something...
Oh get off your high horse. We absolutely have the "luxury" to try any goddamn thing we please.
I can't believe this shit is "insightful". Slash energy demand by a third?? Ooooo ahhhhh, we postpone disaster by a few years! Wheeeee! And just imagine the economic destruction that would have to occur to cut our energy demands by a third or half (if thoroughly blah blah blah).
Please.
Bullshit on that article: I own a real, live 04 Prius, commute 36-40 miles per day on 395 in DC, and get 48-50 MPG. Actually, that's my wife. I actually pay attention to the feedback and get in the 52-54 MPG range.
That said, I'd still own an SUV: The Prius can only take on about 875 lbs of weight, including the passengers.
"The SUV syndrome is mob mentality at its utter finest. "If no-body else is going to stop driving SUV's, why should I stop" is really one of the biggest problems with this issue, a typical Consumerican viewpoint, derived directly from the callous mob mentality currently perpetuated by "consumerist" ideals ..."
Sorry, this is about the dumbest tripe I've heard in quite a while.
Is it so hard for people like you to accept that many people like the convenience, the look, the style of an SUV? Why must their enjoyment of such vehicles be the result of some kind of moron mentality? Maybe they just don't give a shit what people like you think.
I used to own an Explorer Sport. Most useful vehicle I ever owned.
Not to mention the complete bullshit of the argument. Let's look at it and fake some numbers, shall we? 1. Assume 50% of all vehicles on the road are SUVs. 2. Assume we have 20 years of gas left (bullshit, but just run with it).
Now, let's assume all the SUVs suddenly disappear and are replaced by foreign lunch box cars that get 2x the mileage. Oooo ahhh, now we have 30 years of gas left.
In the big picture: What the hell difference does that 10 years make?
Actually, we DO have the technology. We have people living in space for months at a time already.
You ask a series of silly questions about how long it would take for 'me' to build such a thing. That's just it: It already exists! We went to the moon, and turned around and came back!
Considering the age of the tech used to do that... 35 years on we can't do any better, for much much much cheaper? I don't buy it, except to note that we're over-engineering everything these days (take a look at the JSF noise last week noting that, oops, billions of dollars and a couple years late.)
Neverending bs, these days. I have my hopes pinned, perhaps foolishly, on the X Prize...
"Fortune Favors the Bold".
.001% chance of something going wrong, and we just can't have that!!
Too bad it doesn't seem to be true these days. Seems to me that the U.S. is so risk-averse that any attempt at space travel will be terribly expensive and will take decades. Not because the technology isn't there (remember, we DID go to the moon 35 years ago), but because there might be a
When we DO finally get space travel sorted out, my suggestion is to put the lawyers and insurance CEOs on the first flight and aim it at the sun (Hey, it's Pauly Shore! And Rosie! Ding ding ding goes the trolley!).
Just curious, what service are you talking about (I obviously don't remember what you do). I still have my netscape.net address...
The thrill is what Bradbury is really advocating, I think. The idea that there is something bigger than just our own petty concerns.
I can't really argue with your points: I totally agree with the anti-public money part of this. But that doesn't really argue whether or not we should be aiming for the stars or not.
And I disagree that the hurdle is orders of magnitude harder than what we already know. We went to the moon 35 years ago, so we can land on a remote rock... with ancient tech to boot. We can put peeps up in space for months too (ISS. granted the crazy cost overruns etc... we CAN do it).
So what's the real hurdle?
You're exactly the person Bradbury says we should ignore: cold and calculating.
I'm not one for dreaming, but I also suggest: Why not?
The parallels do work, if you care to make them: Don't you think the first people to set foot on Mars would be heroes forever?
How in the world do you know that the commercial harvest is slimmer? It's unlimited, if you ask me. Technology is never perfect: That's why you take risks. People like you should probably not leave the house...
Any time anyone says "old rules don't apply", they usually do.
Sorry to tell you but the population bomb myth has been shot down. Developed nations are already slowing down their growth or even shrinking. Maybe this is the "correction" you speak of, though I expect you're suggesting a more cataclysmic one.
:-P
Too bad, because it'd be fun to watch from the confines of the richest nation on earth.
You're right, we should just keep letting people die from disease that we /could/ cure, just because of some potential problems.
Shit man, you think if we can figure out how to biologically live forever that we won't be able to figure out how to do so politically, geographically, and so on?
What makes you think that we won't be able to set up efficient solar-powered desalination plants, or create who the hell knows what else given our new 120+ year working careers.
LOL Imagine: 93 Years J2EE Experience. Damn, that IS a nightmare!
Man, smell the coffee, it's a great day outside!
You are far, far too gloomy. Amsterdam and London still exist (with plenty of big money action too). I think we'll probably pull through.
Occurs to me that there was even less wealth hundreds of years ago... we always seem to pull through.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/2 9/0328251&mode=thread&tid=134&tid=191
You obviously weren't paying attention. There's a nice little search box at the bottom of the page (you turn it into a real link, I'm lazy).
I think you're wrong. I think it's simple inertia.
Look, what about the UK? You think it's in the UK's psyche to have essentially half-and-half?
The fact is, everyone's grown up on feet, inches and miles, and that's it. Familiarity.
That's just it. Good science (as opposed to junk science) does not assume anything of the sort.
You observe. You collect evidence. Then you interpret the evidence to see if it matches any posited hypothesis. Usually, you put forth an hypothesis first, and then you test to see if your evidence fits.
You do not massage data to make it fit, unless you have an agenda to fulfill.