...Steve Jobs take credit for other people's work in this video, just like always.
Where? I didn't see him claiming at any point to have single-handedly developed it. Are you claiming he didn't play any part at all in it? If not, then you're just plain wrong and you know it.
Or perhaps the reports here have a bigger clue than you. Yes, jet fuel is kerosene, but not all kerosene is jet fuel. If they were, in fact, using jet fuel, using the more specific term would be more accurate. Do you have some reason for thinking they got their facts wrong here?
Jet fuel is liquid, too. They could have reported that they used liquid, which would be equally true... but even less specific and thus less informative. The more specific you can be, the better.
Only that was what was said. They said they were the same size as a basketball court...
Actually, that's not what they said. They said that the probe would not have been able to power itself even with solar panels the size of a basketball court. It's a hypothetical statement. My car would not be able to lift itself, even if it was filled with hydrogen. This is true, but in saying this, I'm not saying my car is actually filled with hydrogen, just pointing out that it wouldn't have enough lift even if it was.
Granted the way they said it unfortunately implied what you said. But it's not what they actually said.
. (And then there's the environmental advantage of mining asteroids over terrestrial mining.)
What, pray tell, might the advantage be? I dare say that creating a rocket and fuel to launch tones of stuff far enough into space to reach an asteroid is going to be pretty rough on the local environment. Then add the ability to return at least some recovered mass and I'm thinking we are nowhere near an environmental wash for quite some time.
You are either overestimating the environmental impact of a rocket, or way, way, way underestimating the environmental impact of mining on Earth. Also, "far enough into space to reach an asteroid"? The fact that you thought this worth mentioning, rather than simply saying "launch tons of stuff into space", makes it sound like you mistakenly believe it takes a lot more effort to send something to an asteroid than it does to get it into orbit, which is pretty much the exact opposite of the case. Get to orbit, and you're nearly done. The amount of fuel you'll expend getting to an asteroid is just a few extra percent on top of what it took to get to orbit. In any case, you'd have a near impossible task to design a rocket that had as much environmental impact as a mine.
"Most mammals normally cease to produce lactase, becoming lactose intolerant, after weaning,[4] but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6]"
70% would mean that 7 out of every 10 people I know would be lactose intolerant. However, that ratio for me is more like 1 in every 100.
So either I'm an extreme statistical outlier or you're spouting bullshit. Guess which one I'm betting it is?
Do not try to generalize from personal experience: you are not the center of the universe. (You are, in fact, a moron.) The human mutation that allows some adult humans to continue to tolerate lactose into adulthood, an extremely abnormal trait for mammals, is only common among those of northern European descent, becoming an increasing smaller minority the further afield you get from northern Europe or its colonies.
Of course you pay for the brand, what do you think Apple is, a charity?
Are you saying other businesses are charities, or are you misunderstanding what people mean when they talk about "paying for the brand" (i.e. paying more for a machine with the "Apple" logo than you would for an equivalent machine from someone else)?
And these comparisons are always stupid. You can get incredibly cheap hardware for windows/linux, or you can get really expensive hardware.
They have a point. It's often claimed that you're paying extra just for that little Apple logo on the computer, but whenever anyone attempts to justify this, they point to a barebones machine missing half the features and note it's half the price. Well, yes, comparing Apples and oranges... when you actually compare equivalent machines, you get roughly equivalent prices. You're not paying extra for the Apple sticker, you're paying for that particular collection of components, the same as you would if you bought them from someone else. Sure, you could buy something cheaper, but that's not the same thing. You could buy a pen and paper for much cheaper, but also not the same, and equally utterly beside the point.
Precisely. My Nokia is a much better phone by virtue of the fact that it doesn't try to be anything but a phone. It has one job to do, and it does it well with a much more compact and energy efficient package than a "smartphone" that is neither as good a phone as my Nokia nor as good a computer as my PC, compromising its ability to do either well by trying to be both at once.
Nice article, but that only says how they get the age of a star. I suppose that puts an upper limit on the age of the planet.
More than an upper limit. Unless the planet is a captured rogue, knowing the age of the star gives you the age of the planet, pretty much. If you know the age of someone's heart, you know the age of their head, too (transplant patients excepted).
You have absolutely no idea of the expenses involved in operating a company, obviously. A quarter of a million per employee is not absurd, understanding that only a fraction of that is salary.
Are you aware that most human accountants use... tax software?
I assume most experts in their field use software that is relevant to their field of expertise. I also assume they use it more effectively than I would, given the fact that I use the software relevant to my profession far more effectively than a non-expert possibly could. I assume I'm not a special snowflake in that regard, and thus this is a reasonable generalization.
If you spend a day studying tax law and reading your software's manual, you will save more money than you earn at your job in a month. It is time well spent.
Wrong analysis. If we assume (and this is a big assumption) that I save as much as the professional I could hire would, then it doesn't matter how much I save, it's the same either way. If doing it myself is going to require me spending a day studying tax law, the relevant question is, will it cost more or less than a day's earnings for me to just pay someone else do it for me? If you get paid enough, that seems unlikely. The time would be better spent doing your actual job, and using the money earned to pay the accountant.
Tell me, when is the last time you knowingly were infected with malware?
A few years ago. Rebooting into Windows and deliberately plugging into a client's network was (for various reasons) the quickest/easiest way to determine what exactly was infecting their computers and if it was really spreading across the LAN rather than being transmitted by some emailed word document or promiscuous USB-stick user. It was.
I've actually never been unknowingly infected with malware. It's always been deliberate, although I didn't always know exactly what sample I'd be collecting...
It's the only motivator I can think of for congress to do this
Do what? They haven't done anything. All they've done is talk. And politicians don't seem to need much in the way of motivation to spend lots of time emitting hot air...
Nvidia drivers are shittier than AMD. End of story. AMD drivers implement the graphics API's to the letter.
Yeah, my personal experience is that that's completely bullshit you're slewing there. AMD drivers fail to implement graphics API's properly, and thus are more fragile when something unexpected happens, like a call to a deprecated OpenGL function, and when you point out to AMD that their driver is breaking, they point out that the function is deprecated, failing utterly to grasp the meaning of the term -- yes, new software is not supposed to call it anymore, but it's supposed to continue working anyway until it's dropped from the spec completely. "Your software is old" is not an excuse for violating the API.
Admittedly, I haven't tried porting graphical apps across platforms before, so for all I know, getting the UI widgetry right could very well be 90% of the work.
Yeah, writing the UI code is 90% of the work. Debugging it to work consistently across all platforms is the other 90%...
It's as if a bunch of bank robbers took all their known-serial bills and threw them in a big pit mixed with people's savings accounts, then took out the exact same amount of money.
No. The first important point is that the one taking the money out isn't the same person (or, in this case, bitcoin address) as the one putting it in. If one bank robber throws his money in a bit, and his accomplice comes by later and takes it out, it's really easy for Mr. Police Detective watching the hole to see who the accomplice is. But if the bank robber and a hundred other people throw money into the pit, then a hundred and one completely different people come by and take money out... who's the accomplice? This is what the mixing accomplishes.
Slashdot Mirror
...Steve Jobs take credit for other people's work in this video, just like always.
Where? I didn't see him claiming at any point to have single-handedly developed it. Are you claiming he didn't play any part at all in it? If not, then you're just plain wrong and you know it.
Or perhaps the reports here have a bigger clue than you. Yes, jet fuel is kerosene, but not all kerosene is jet fuel. If they were, in fact, using jet fuel, using the more specific term would be more accurate. Do you have some reason for thinking they got their facts wrong here?
Jet fuel is liquid, too. They could have reported that they used liquid, which would be equally true... but even less specific and thus less informative. The more specific you can be, the better.
Old habits die hard. Don't forget about other fun gas-related units, such as the hundred (standard) cubit feet, ccf.
That's "cubic" feet. You're going really old school when you start talking about cubits.
Only that was what was said. They said they were the same size as a basketball court...
Actually, that's not what they said. They said that the probe would not have been able to power itself even with solar panels the size of a basketball court. It's a hypothetical statement. My car would not be able to lift itself, even if it was filled with hydrogen. This is true, but in saying this, I'm not saying my car is actually filled with hydrogen, just pointing out that it wouldn't have enough lift even if it was.
Granted the way they said it unfortunately implied what you said. But it's not what they actually said.
...and if it's not written in assembler, it's probably not three lines. I think the entirety of the code in memcpy looks something like:
while ( n-- ) *d++ = *s++;
That's extraordinarily unlikely. There are bits of OS code that get executed millions of times more often than a new program gets launched.
. (And then there's the environmental advantage of mining asteroids over terrestrial mining.)
What, pray tell, might the advantage be? I dare say that creating a rocket and fuel to launch tones of stuff far enough into space to reach an asteroid is going to be pretty rough on the local environment. Then add the ability to return at least some recovered mass and I'm thinking we are nowhere near an environmental wash for quite some time.
You are either overestimating the environmental impact of a rocket, or way, way, way underestimating the environmental impact of mining on Earth. Also, "far enough into space to reach an asteroid"? The fact that you thought this worth mentioning, rather than simply saying "launch tons of stuff into space", makes it sound like you mistakenly believe it takes a lot more effort to send something to an asteroid than it does to get it into orbit, which is pretty much the exact opposite of the case. Get to orbit, and you're nearly done. The amount of fuel you'll expend getting to an asteroid is just a few extra percent on top of what it took to get to orbit. In any case, you'd have a near impossible task to design a rocket that had as much environmental impact as a mine.
Once you have your own 'coin,' you just need to convince people that it is worth something.
And if you succeed, it will be worth something.
One error is excusable, but three or more glaring errors are absolutely unacceptable.
Absolutely. You should ask for your money back.
[Citation needed]
"Most mammals normally cease to produce lactase, becoming lactose intolerant, after weaning,[4] but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6]"
70% would mean that 7 out of every 10 people I know would be lactose intolerant. However, that ratio for me is more like 1 in every 100.
So either I'm an extreme statistical outlier or you're spouting bullshit. Guess which one I'm betting it is?
Do not try to generalize from personal experience: you are not the center of the universe. (You are, in fact, a moron.) The human mutation that allows some adult humans to continue to tolerate lactose into adulthood, an extremely abnormal trait for mammals, is only common among those of northern European descent, becoming an increasing smaller minority the further afield you get from northern Europe or its colonies.
Other than cost savings though, I wouldn't call it a eco benefit. It's still going to wash away into the ground and local water...
There ought to be an eco benefit, given that you can achieve the same result with 30% less.
Of course you pay for the brand, what do you think Apple is, a charity?
Are you saying other businesses are charities, or are you misunderstanding what people mean when they talk about "paying for the brand" (i.e. paying more for a machine with the "Apple" logo than you would for an equivalent machine from someone else)?
And these comparisons are always stupid. You can get incredibly cheap hardware for windows/linux, or you can get really expensive hardware.
They have a point. It's often claimed that you're paying extra just for that little Apple logo on the computer, but whenever anyone attempts to justify this, they point to a barebones machine missing half the features and note it's half the price. Well, yes, comparing Apples and oranges... when you actually compare equivalent machines, you get roughly equivalent prices. You're not paying extra for the Apple sticker, you're paying for that particular collection of components, the same as you would if you bought them from someone else. Sure, you could buy something cheaper, but that's not the same thing. You could buy a pen and paper for much cheaper, but also not the same, and equally utterly beside the point.
I need a phone not a damned computer.
Precisely. My Nokia is a much better phone by virtue of the fact that it doesn't try to be anything but a phone. It has one job to do, and it does it well with a much more compact and energy efficient package than a "smartphone" that is neither as good a phone as my Nokia nor as good a computer as my PC, compromising its ability to do either well by trying to be both at once.
Nice article, but that only says how they get the age of a star. I suppose that puts an upper limit on the age of the planet.
More than an upper limit. Unless the planet is a captured rogue, knowing the age of the star gives you the age of the planet, pretty much. If you know the age of someone's heart, you know the age of their head, too (transplant patients excepted).
You have absolutely no idea of the expenses involved in operating a company, obviously. A quarter of a million per employee is not absurd, understanding that only a fraction of that is salary.
Ah yes, Windows. Consistently inconsistent...
Are you aware that most human accountants use ... tax software?
I assume most experts in their field use software that is relevant to their field of expertise. I also assume they use it more effectively than I would, given the fact that I use the software relevant to my profession far more effectively than a non-expert possibly could. I assume I'm not a special snowflake in that regard, and thus this is a reasonable generalization.
If you spend a day studying tax law and reading your software's manual, you will save more money than you earn at your job in a month. It is time well spent.
Wrong analysis. If we assume (and this is a big assumption) that I save as much as the professional I could hire would, then it doesn't matter how much I save, it's the same either way. If doing it myself is going to require me spending a day studying tax law, the relevant question is, will it cost more or less than a day's earnings for me to just pay someone else do it for me? If you get paid enough, that seems unlikely. The time would be better spent doing your actual job, and using the money earned to pay the accountant.
Tell me, when is the last time you knowingly were infected with malware?
A few years ago. Rebooting into Windows and deliberately plugging into a client's network was (for various reasons) the quickest/easiest way to determine what exactly was infecting their computers and if it was really spreading across the LAN rather than being transmitted by some emailed word document or promiscuous USB-stick user. It was.
I've actually never been unknowingly infected with malware. It's always been deliberate, although I didn't always know exactly what sample I'd be collecting...
Took me way too long to realize what four-digit ID you were talking about. *sigh*
noob :p
And slushfunds ?
It's the only motivator I can think of for congress to do this
Do what? They haven't done anything. All they've done is talk. And politicians don't seem to need much in the way of motivation to spend lots of time emitting hot air...
Nvidia drivers are shittier than AMD. End of story. AMD drivers implement the graphics API's to the letter.
Yeah, my personal experience is that that's completely bullshit you're slewing there. AMD drivers fail to implement graphics API's properly, and thus are more fragile when something unexpected happens, like a call to a deprecated OpenGL function, and when you point out to AMD that their driver is breaking, they point out that the function is deprecated, failing utterly to grasp the meaning of the term -- yes, new software is not supposed to call it anymore, but it's supposed to continue working anyway until it's dropped from the spec completely. "Your software is old" is not an excuse for violating the API.
Admittedly, I haven't tried porting graphical apps across platforms before, so for all I know, getting the UI widgetry right could very well be 90% of the work.
Yeah, writing the UI code is 90% of the work. Debugging it to work consistently across all platforms is the other 90%...
There wasn't even one Columbus, his actual name was Cristóbal Colón.
Cristoforo Colombo
It's as if a bunch of bank robbers took all their known-serial bills and threw them in a big pit mixed with people's savings accounts, then took out the exact same amount of money.
No. The first important point is that the one taking the money out isn't the same person (or, in this case, bitcoin address) as the one putting it in. If one bank robber throws his money in a bit, and his accomplice comes by later and takes it out, it's really easy for Mr. Police Detective watching the hole to see who the accomplice is. But if the bank robber and a hundred other people throw money into the pit, then a hundred and one completely different people come by and take money out... who's the accomplice? This is what the mixing accomplishes.
So, your typical bitcoin fan then...