Or better, figure out why so many of your users are deliberately installing a browser alongside the one you normally offer. So you force IE6 on them because of some intranet app. Great. Must you really make them suffer with it on everything else? Put another way: what reason is there to want to forcible prevent people from using Chrome (or Firefox or Opera or...) if it makes them happier or more productive?
Oh, you're one of those people who thinks it's IT's job to serve the interests of the rest of the company, rather than the other way around...:p
Personally, I find it kind of disappointing that people think providing a checkbox is evil.
"OMG, they're installing Chrome on the PCs of users who... asked to have Chrome installed on their PCs! How evil is that?"
"But don't you see, they had the checkbox checked by default!"
"..."
I'm sorry, I just don't see how the fact that idiots don't read, even though they can, makes Google evil.
This monopoly funds all their other efforts to dominate other areas, including the search service they give away for free. They are acting much like Microsoft did/does with their desktop dominance.
Not really. First of all, trying to separate their advertising services from their search service is bizarre. It's an integral part, indeed the single most essential part of it. That's like saying television networks make their money by selling advertising, and use that to dominate other areas, such as providing free entertainment. That's not an "other area" they move into to dominate after making money in an unrelated fashion through advertising -- it's precisely the heart of their advertising business.
To attempt to leverage their monopoly here in a Microsoft-like fashion, they would have to do something like make sure their search engine only works with, or only works well with Chrome, forcing everyone to use Chrome whether they want to or not. Except that wouldn't work, it'd turn Bing into the most popular search engine overnight. But that's the idea. How again is Google doing this?
Hmm. He doesn't seem to have been up to much since 2007, and I know they're all getting up there in years. Mind you, this is pure speculation, but I have to wonder if he's well these days. Maybe he just doesn't feel up to it anymore. It does not, otherwise, seem in character for him to pass up an opportunity to further "exploit Monty Python" (his own words).
For that matter, all forms of birth control, including abstinence, deny a person from coming into being who otherwise would. I always love the people who ask children of accidental pregnancies, "Would you like it if your mother had chosen to have an abortion?" as if that constituted a point in their favor. If they ask you that, ask them, "Would you like it if your mother has abstained from sex?" If they're glad she didn't, ask them if this then constitutes an argument in favor of outlawing abstinence.
Bingo. We had a tornado literally go through our yard when I was a kid, and all it did was rip a few loose singles off the roof of the house, while completely demolishing our garage. Had our house been one of those trailers, it would have fared about as well as the garage...
The only thing online games offer over real life is the opportunity to be someone you are not. WoW is successful because people can be rich and famous without actually being rich or famous. Once you allow people with more money to have cooler items in-game, you are destroying the reason people play it.
This is obviously, blatantly false. Most people enjoy these games regardless of whether they become rich or famous. Indeed, people have been playing games like this for the opportunity to kill monsters, do quests, overcome challenges, just plain toss fireballs around because it's cool, and all sorts of other reasons for years, often in games where there are no significant opportunity for accumulating riches or fame. To assert any one thing as the "only thing" is utter stupidity...
Seriously. EvE Online is just Trade Wars with pretty graphics, and I quote,...
Yes, there are similarities. However, there are many, many more similarities between you and a cow than you quoted as between Trade Wars and EVE Online. Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard.
This is not "Not News for Nerds" nor "Stuff That Matters"...
If this were true, no one would have bothered to click the link on the main page to read the article, much less post comments on it. The more comments posted here, the more proof you have that it's news that matters to/. readers. BTW, you've just upvoted this topic to/.'s editors by contributing to the discussion. Expect more such articles in the future...
eve players are a hive. anyways, eve's gameplay environment gets pretty shattered if you can just buy a fleet if you had a nice bailout fund from your company.
New bulletin: This has been true ever since they started selling PLEX. If what you say is also true, then the gameplay environment has been shattered for a long time now. If, on the other hand, the game is playable today, then you're obviously wrong.
Except that in this case, the fuel cell is not more efficient than directly burning the coal. According to the article the efficiency is 50%, and that probably doesn't include the losses incurred in producing coal gas out of coal.
It is more efficient that burning the coal. Read the entire sentence, not just the first half. From TFA:
The fuel cells are also said to capture about half of the energy in the coal gas, as opposed to the third captured by burning.
Here is a fun fact.... the same can happen to the Euro and US dollar. All fake currency suffers from this potential.Hell the Federal Reserve is printing money so fast that the US dollar is going to go flat almost as fast...
GO back to coins made of real copper, nickel, silver and gold. suddenly the currency regains it's value and cant be destroyed...
You're making a common mistake made by people who don't really understand economics: you're confusing "currency" with "commodity". I suspect that, based on your limited understanding of the terms, you would in fact refer to any real currency as "fake currency", as the very thing that separates currency from a commodity used for barter is its nature as an abstraction. It should also be noted that using a commodity (e.g. gold, silver, salt, etc.) does not free you from its value becoming an abstract value not based on its "real" value, all it does it set a floor on how far it can drop (not a solid floor, either, just one that won't dip below the commodity value). In any case, your "solution" doesn't solve any actual problems, it just reintroduces old problems that we got away from years ago when we rejected this silly notion.
You can't resurrect what hasn't died. WebVan and HomeGrocer may have gone belly up, but Gopher Grocery's been doing it successfully, and growing, for years...
I'd be suspect of any answer anyone gives. The event was too far away, and we didn't see the star in question beforehand, so even after we determine how much mass was blasted away in the jets or converted to gamma rays, we have no way of determining what percentage of the original amount that is, since we don't know the original amount. Any answer you get won't help make predictions or refine models, because they'll be obtained by using a model to try to determine the original mass based on how much we saw ejected and what the model predicts the percentage of that would be.
Slashdot Mirror
...are people! :o
Or better, figure out why so many of your users are deliberately installing a browser alongside the one you normally offer. So you force IE6 on them because of some intranet app. Great. Must you really make them suffer with it on everything else? Put another way: what reason is there to want to forcible prevent people from using Chrome (or Firefox or Opera or ...) if it makes them happier or more productive?
Oh, you're one of those people who thinks it's IT's job to serve the interests of the rest of the company, rather than the other way around... :p
Personally, I find it kind of disappointing that people think providing a checkbox is evil.
"OMG, they're installing Chrome on the PCs of users who... asked to have Chrome installed on their PCs! How evil is that?"
"But don't you see, they had the checkbox checked by default!"
"..."
I'm sorry, I just don't see how the fact that idiots don't read, even though they can, makes Google evil.
This monopoly funds all their other efforts to dominate other areas, including the search service they give away for free. They are acting much like Microsoft did/does with their desktop dominance.
Not really. First of all, trying to separate their advertising services from their search service is bizarre. It's an integral part, indeed the single most essential part of it. That's like saying television networks make their money by selling advertising, and use that to dominate other areas, such as providing free entertainment. That's not an "other area" they move into to dominate after making money in an unrelated fashion through advertising -- it's precisely the heart of their advertising business.
To attempt to leverage their monopoly here in a Microsoft-like fashion, they would have to do something like make sure their search engine only works with, or only works well with Chrome, forcing everyone to use Chrome whether they want to or not. Except that wouldn't work, it'd turn Bing into the most popular search engine overnight. But that's the idea. How again is Google doing this?
It also dies when you have 60+ Google Maps tabs open.
I fully support having computers explode in your face if you have more than half a dozen tabs open. :p
Don't be silly. They've had hardware versions of this running since 2006, they just didn't tell anyone. ;)
"Unlimited" meaning "10" in this context. :p
Don't forget "The Greedy Bastard Tour", and, of course, Spamalot.
Hmm. He doesn't seem to have been up to much since 2007, and I know they're all getting up there in years. Mind you, this is pure speculation, but I have to wonder if he's well these days. Maybe he just doesn't feel up to it anymore. It does not, otherwise, seem in character for him to pass up an opportunity to further "exploit Monty Python" (his own words).
Actually, it wouldn't have hit anyone, but it'd have made for an impressive light show as it burned up in the atmosphere.
For that matter, all forms of birth control, including abstinence, deny a person from coming into being who otherwise would. I always love the people who ask children of accidental pregnancies, "Would you like it if your mother had chosen to have an abortion?" as if that constituted a point in their favor. If they ask you that, ask them, "Would you like it if your mother has abstained from sex?" If they're glad she didn't, ask them if this then constitutes an argument in favor of outlawing abstinence.
Bingo. We had a tornado literally go through our yard when I was a kid, and all it did was rip a few loose singles off the roof of the house, while completely demolishing our garage. Had our house been one of those trailers, it would have fared about as well as the garage...
The only thing online games offer over real life is the opportunity to be someone you are not. WoW is successful because people can be rich and famous without actually being rich or famous. Once you allow people with more money to have cooler items in-game, you are destroying the reason people play it.
This is obviously, blatantly false. Most people enjoy these games regardless of whether they become rich or famous. Indeed, people have been playing games like this for the opportunity to kill monsters, do quests, overcome challenges, just plain toss fireballs around because it's cool, and all sorts of other reasons for years, often in games where there are no significant opportunity for accumulating riches or fame. To assert any one thing as the "only thing" is utter stupidity...
Now, how is that similar, again?
I can spend real money to acquire in-game items. Handwave all you like, this is the truth.
Seriously. EvE Online is just Trade Wars with pretty graphics, and I quote, ...
Yes, there are similarities. However, there are many, many more similarities between you and a cow than you quoted as between Trade Wars and EVE Online. Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard.
This is not "Not News for Nerds" nor "Stuff That Matters"...
If this were true, no one would have bothered to click the link on the main page to read the article, much less post comments on it. The more comments posted here, the more proof you have that it's news that matters to /. readers. BTW, you've just upvoted this topic to /.'s editors by contributing to the discussion. Expect more such articles in the future...
eve players are a hive. anyways, eve's gameplay environment gets pretty shattered if you can just buy a fleet if you had a nice bailout fund from your company.
New bulletin: This has been true ever since they started selling PLEX. If what you say is also true, then the gameplay environment has been shattered for a long time now. If, on the other hand, the game is playable today, then you're obviously wrong.
"Inhabit" has no prefix, either.
Coalgas is what you get when you break down coal to things like hydrogen and water and co. you can run anything on that gas. No need for a fuel cell.
But, if you read the article, you know that using the fuel cell will allow you to get more energy from that gas than simply burning it.
Except that in this case, the fuel cell is not more efficient than directly burning the coal. According to the article the efficiency is 50%, and that probably doesn't include the losses incurred in producing coal gas out of coal.
It is more efficient that burning the coal. Read the entire sentence, not just the first half. From TFA:
The fuel cells are also said to capture about half of the energy in the coal gas, as opposed to the third captured by burning.
Oh, don't forget quality of coal. Lignite coal is very polluting.
If you burn it, yes. One assumes you didn't read the article, or else you'd realize that's a moot point here.
Here is a fun fact.... the same can happen to the Euro and US dollar. All fake currency suffers from this potential.Hell the Federal Reserve is printing money so fast that the US dollar is going to go flat almost as fast...
GO back to coins made of real copper, nickel, silver and gold. suddenly the currency regains it's value and cant be destroyed...
You're making a common mistake made by people who don't really understand economics: you're confusing "currency" with "commodity". I suspect that, based on your limited understanding of the terms, you would in fact refer to any real currency as "fake currency", as the very thing that separates currency from a commodity used for barter is its nature as an abstraction. It should also be noted that using a commodity (e.g. gold, silver, salt, etc.) does not free you from its value becoming an abstract value not based on its "real" value, all it does it set a floor on how far it can drop (not a solid floor, either, just one that won't dip below the commodity value). In any case, your "solution" doesn't solve any actual problems, it just reintroduces old problems that we got away from years ago when we rejected this silly notion.
You can't resurrect what hasn't died. WebVan and HomeGrocer may have gone belly up, but Gopher Grocery's been doing it successfully, and growing, for years...
Either that, or the Soviets managed to develop intergalactic weapon systems. ;)
Yeah, we probably would have noticed... probably...
I'd be suspect of any answer anyone gives. The event was too far away, and we didn't see the star in question beforehand, so even after we determine how much mass was blasted away in the jets or converted to gamma rays, we have no way of determining what percentage of the original amount that is, since we don't know the original amount. Any answer you get won't help make predictions or refine models, because they'll be obtained by using a model to try to determine the original mass based on how much we saw ejected and what the model predicts the percentage of that would be.