Re:I've been observing Stratfor since its inceptio
on
Is Stratfor a "Joke"?
·
· Score: 1
As for the figure 20% to 23%, it's based on the accuracy on specific facts - date, location, events, person involved, and so on
S/he wasn't questioning the basis, but the implied precision. 23%? 23's an awfully specific number, which implies you're not saying "oh about 1 in 5" but are instead saying "they were incorrect on 423 of the 1839 facts I carefully recorded in this log here to track their accuracy rate" . Really? I'm making these numbers up, of course, but by saying "23%" you're implying you do have specific numbers like this that aren't made up, and that when you divide one by the other you get 0.23 when rounded to the nearest hundredth.
Not being locked into the Apple ecosystem is worth something to many. It gives the option to buy your hardware from a variety of manufacturers, and the same for your software. You decide the features you want and the software you want to run.
And, after taking a look at what features you want, and what software you want to run, you may find that it's the features offered by and the software that runs on the iPad. Not being locked out of the Apple ecosystem is worth a lot more to many.
Download my recipes for your iStove, only 99c per recipe.
I so would. If someone made an appliance that could cook dinners for me from downloaded recipes, I'd pay through the nose for it and be on the internets browsing recipes every day...
It's possible to design a hack-proof system. It's just so extra-ordinarily difficult to use one that you never, ever see one commercially deployed. The military, on the other hand, is willing to take extra steps beyond what would be commercially viable. This is why the military uses things like true unbreakable ciphers (thanks to use of actual one-time pads, securely physically transported to the endpoints). "There's nothing that can't be hacked" is like saying "there's no cipher that can't be broken" -- factually inaccurate unless you throw the word "practical" in there, and understand that what's impractical for most is something the military is willing to go the extra mile to use.
Because Catholocism pretty much made a whole bunch of shit up, that's why. It's "tradition" - tradition that isn't backed by scripture anywhere.
In other words, it's exactly as backed up as the rest of scripture. But for some reason the stuff they made up and wrote down before the Council of Nicaea is considered canonical by some but the stuff afterwards not. Forgive me if I'm not clear on why the double-standard exists here...
It's generally thought that Paul himself was a widower when he left on his travels, as marriage was a prerequisite for his pre-conversion status as a Pharisee.
Ah, Paul was one a Pharisee. This explains the sour grapes. If you want a somewhat biased opinion of a company, ask an employee. If you want a completely distorted opinion of a company, ask an ex-employee. The latter are even less capable of objectivity than the former...
Indeed. It used to be that only gods could destroy cities in an instant, and took 40 days to destroy the whole world. Now we can do better. We've leveled up beyond that in the last century.
Oh wait... what if the gods have leveled up too? They seem to have been gone for a while, but perhaps they've just be running a particularly long instance for XP and awesome loot? This could be bad...
No, we will not "know that a Higgs particle exists". We may have an incredibly strong indication that it does, enough to strongly believe it exists, but we will not know with 100% certainty that the particle exists, the experiments were infallible, and the data was accurate.
Given that I cannot know with 100% certainty that the keyboard I'm typing on right now exists, I'm willing to allow that there's a certain vernacular usage of the word "know" that does not imply the absolutely impossible: 100% certainty. But thanks for stating the bleeding obvious...
The defense against tyranny is not to hide from lists but to prevent tyrans from rising to power.
Yes, and the defense against thieves is not to lock up your valuables but to prevent people from wanting to steal. Sounds great! Now, until that's actually possible for me, individually to do, the former is still necessary.
Can someone explain why it is referred to as tidal locking? I understand the physics, but the name seems like an odd choice.
My first temptation is to explain the physics, but you claim to already understand that. But if that were the case, you would already understand the answer to your question, too. So I'm confused about what you're actually asking. I'll simply refer you here: Tidal locking. Once you understand what tidal locking is and how it occurs, why it's called that should be completely obvious.
Wow, I thought the SR-71 replaced the U-2 decades ago...
SR-71 wasn't really a U-2 replacement, just a different tool in the toolbox, that made it better suited for some tasks (getting someplace quickly and not getting shot down) and not as good at others (staying airborne in an area for a long time watching, operating within a reasonable budget). It's not surprising the U-2 has lasted so long. It was very well designed for what it does from the start, and much like the same-era B-52s we still keep flying, remains pretty damn good at what it needs to do to this day.
They won't ban driving. Rather, the steering wheel will become an input to the car's computer, letting it know you wish to turn at the next available safe opportunity. You'll still drive the car, it's just the car won't let you drive it unsafely.
...if you're business model is built on selling photographic film and paper, and people don't need that anymore, and you don't change in any way, the company is going to fail.
ftfy
Many companies survive the complete evaporation of their original business model just fine. Did you know Berkshire Hathaway was originally a textile company?
Any company with the resources Kodak once had can survive any possible change in their market, regardless of their business model, as long as they aren't afraid to change. Companies fail when they're run by incompetent management, period.
flickr is a horrible source to do a study like this, it is going to bias towards 'real' cameras because it's more of a photography sharing site then it is a "drunken pics at the bar last night" site.
For the purposes of the point being made, that's precisely why flickr is the perfect site. Kodak's market never was the "drunken pics at the bar" market. Losing a market you never had to begin with has no impact on your bottom line.
If you can't buy it, it's kinda nonsensical to say it has a $100 price. It doesn't have a price at all.
Um, no. There are a lot of things I can't buy, but nevertheless have a price. If anyone at all can buy it, it has a price -- there's no logical implication in the definition of "price" that guarantees that you personally can purchase something. Indeed, it's often the price itself that excludes that possibility, although there are countless other reasons why you may not be able to buy something that nevertheless does have a price and can be purchased by other, qualified individuals or organizations.
That's a bit like suggesting that because I've replaced the individual parts in my car that I no longer have the same car and that it's exactly the same as if I were to just buy a new car. I don't personally agree with that notion, at some point you do have to agree that replacing enough stuff quickly enough and you no longer have the original to work with.
I think you're suffering from a confusion if you think there's a "true" answer to that question. If you want to know which ship is Theseus', ask the Athenian Port Authority. To the extent the question has any answer, it's an answer of arbitrary legal authority. Ultimate it's how you choose to label things. "Theseus' ship" is a legal concept, not a physical object. Whether the car is the "original" is a matter of concepts and language and how to choose to use them. The only people who find the Ship of Theseus a vexing philosophical problem are those who mistakenly assume there's some fundamental metaphysical truth that just isn't there, a "right" answer that's something more than which of the ships the Port Authority arbitrarily says is the original. There ain't no such thing...
I'm not that much of a trekkie to know the workings of the transporter. However, if it'd somehow physically move all my atoms to another place, in the same configuration, I'd go in.
Why is that important? You realize you're not the same atoms in the same configuration as you were yesterday, don't you? If you think that's what makes you you, you've already died countless times...
Slashdot Mirror
As for the figure 20% to 23%, it's based on the accuracy on specific facts - date, location, events, person involved, and so on
S/he wasn't questioning the basis, but the implied precision. 23%? 23's an awfully specific number, which implies you're not saying "oh about 1 in 5" but are instead saying "they were incorrect on 423 of the 1839 facts I carefully recorded in this log here to track their accuracy rate" . Really? I'm making these numbers up, of course, but by saying "23%" you're implying you do have specific numbers like this that aren't made up, and that when you divide one by the other you get 0.23 when rounded to the nearest hundredth.
Not being locked into the Apple ecosystem is worth something to many. It gives the option to buy your hardware from a variety of manufacturers, and the same for your software. You decide the features you want and the software you want to run.
And, after taking a look at what features you want, and what software you want to run, you may find that it's the features offered by and the software that runs on the iPad. Not being locked out of the Apple ecosystem is worth a lot more to many.
Not only can't they take it with them, it suggests they need to unload all their stuff before they even try. Someone who dies rich has failed...
Download my recipes for your iStove, only 99c per recipe.
I so would. If someone made an appliance that could cook dinners for me from downloaded recipes, I'd pay through the nose for it and be on the internets browsing recipes every day...
It's possible to design a hack-proof system. It's just so extra-ordinarily difficult to use one that you never, ever see one commercially deployed. The military, on the other hand, is willing to take extra steps beyond what would be commercially viable. This is why the military uses things like true unbreakable ciphers (thanks to use of actual one-time pads, securely physically transported to the endpoints). "There's nothing that can't be hacked" is like saying "there's no cipher that can't be broken" -- factually inaccurate unless you throw the word "practical" in there, and understand that what's impractical for most is something the military is willing to go the extra mile to use.
Because Catholocism pretty much made a whole bunch of shit up, that's why. It's "tradition" - tradition that isn't backed by scripture anywhere.
In other words, it's exactly as backed up as the rest of scripture. But for some reason the stuff they made up and wrote down before the Council of Nicaea is considered canonical by some but the stuff afterwards not. Forgive me if I'm not clear on why the double-standard exists here...
It's generally thought that Paul himself was a widower when he left on his travels, as marriage was a prerequisite for his pre-conversion status as a Pharisee.
Ah, Paul was one a Pharisee. This explains the sour grapes. If you want a somewhat biased opinion of a company, ask an employee. If you want a completely distorted opinion of a company, ask an ex-employee. The latter are even less capable of objectivity than the former...
Say what you will, I miss Omni, goofy pseudo-science and all. It was usually entertaining, as long as you didn't take it too seriously...
Indeed. It used to be that only gods could destroy cities in an instant, and took 40 days to destroy the whole world. Now we can do better. We've leveled up beyond that in the last century.
Oh wait... what if the gods have leveled up too? They seem to have been gone for a while, but perhaps they've just be running a particularly long instance for XP and awesome loot? This could be bad...
No, we will not "know that a Higgs particle exists". We may have an incredibly strong indication that it does, enough to strongly believe it exists, but we will not know with 100% certainty that the particle exists, the experiments were infallible, and the data was accurate.
Given that I cannot know with 100% certainty that the keyboard I'm typing on right now exists, I'm willing to allow that there's a certain vernacular usage of the word "know" that does not imply the absolutely impossible: 100% certainty. But thanks for stating the bleeding obvious...
The defense against tyranny is not to hide from lists but to prevent tyrans from rising to power.
Yes, and the defense against thieves is not to lock up your valuables but to prevent people from wanting to steal. Sounds great! Now, until that's actually possible for me, individually to do, the former is still necessary.
There is an annoying popup on TFA. Reload to temporarily defeat it.
Hmm, I don't see any popup. I suspect your NoScript settings are set to something insane, like "not installed"...
Yeah, if it was a SPARC tablet, I might actually buy it. I miss my old SPARCstation... /sniff
Um, if a planet is 4.5x more massive than Earth, in order to have a surface gravity of 4.5G, it would need to be super-dense.
Can someone explain why it is referred to as tidal locking? I understand the physics, but the name seems like an odd choice.
My first temptation is to explain the physics, but you claim to already understand that. But if that were the case, you would already understand the answer to your question, too. So I'm confused about what you're actually asking. I'll simply refer you here: Tidal locking. Once you understand what tidal locking is and how it occurs, why it's called that should be completely obvious.
Wow, I thought the SR-71 replaced the U-2 decades ago...
SR-71 wasn't really a U-2 replacement, just a different tool in the toolbox, that made it better suited for some tasks (getting someplace quickly and not getting shot down) and not as good at others (staying airborne in an area for a long time watching, operating within a reasonable budget). It's not surprising the U-2 has lasted so long. It was very well designed for what it does from the start, and much like the same-era B-52s we still keep flying, remains pretty damn good at what it needs to do to this day.
I know I shouldn't tell someone with a 5-digit id to RTFA...
Yeah, you should. These younger users are often hard of reading...
But can it be used as a dessert topping?
It's probably delicious, and cures cancer too. Seriously, this substance is getting ridiculous... what miraculous property will be discovered next?
We should organize them into some sort of federation.
Time for a good Reclaiming! :D
They won't ban driving. Rather, the steering wheel will become an input to the car's computer, letting it know you wish to turn at the next available safe opportunity. You'll still drive the car, it's just the car won't let you drive it unsafely.
...if you're business model is built on selling photographic film and paper, and people don't need that anymore, and you don't change in any way, the company is going to fail.
ftfy
Many companies survive the complete evaporation of their original business model just fine. Did you know Berkshire Hathaway was originally a textile company?
Any company with the resources Kodak once had can survive any possible change in their market, regardless of their business model, as long as they aren't afraid to change. Companies fail when they're run by incompetent management, period.
flickr is a horrible source to do a study like this, it is going to bias towards 'real' cameras because it's more of a photography sharing site then it is a "drunken pics at the bar last night" site.
For the purposes of the point being made, that's precisely why flickr is the perfect site. Kodak's market never was the "drunken pics at the bar" market. Losing a market you never had to begin with has no impact on your bottom line.
If you can't buy it, it's kinda nonsensical to say it has a $100 price. It doesn't have a price at all.
Um, no. There are a lot of things I can't buy, but nevertheless have a price. If anyone at all can buy it, it has a price -- there's no logical implication in the definition of "price" that guarantees that you personally can purchase something. Indeed, it's often the price itself that excludes that possibility, although there are countless other reasons why you may not be able to buy something that nevertheless does have a price and can be purchased by other, qualified individuals or organizations.
That's a bit like suggesting that because I've replaced the individual parts in my car that I no longer have the same car and that it's exactly the same as if I were to just buy a new car. I don't personally agree with that notion, at some point you do have to agree that replacing enough stuff quickly enough and you no longer have the original to work with.
I think you're suffering from a confusion if you think there's a "true" answer to that question. If you want to know which ship is Theseus', ask the Athenian Port Authority. To the extent the question has any answer, it's an answer of arbitrary legal authority. Ultimate it's how you choose to label things. "Theseus' ship" is a legal concept, not a physical object. Whether the car is the "original" is a matter of concepts and language and how to choose to use them. The only people who find the Ship of Theseus a vexing philosophical problem are those who mistakenly assume there's some fundamental metaphysical truth that just isn't there, a "right" answer that's something more than which of the ships the Port Authority arbitrarily says is the original. There ain't no such thing...
I'm not that much of a trekkie to know the workings of the transporter. However, if it'd somehow physically move all my atoms to another place, in the same configuration, I'd go in.
Why is that important? You realize you're not the same atoms in the same configuration as you were yesterday, don't you? If you think that's what makes you you, you've already died countless times...