They were skeptical within the context of what they believed.
That's not skepticism.
Just because you have different beliefs, doesn't change the course you'd take if you came across something new. You would verify against what you already believe.
See, you don't really get what skepticism is. If you reject something because it conflicts with what you already believe, that's every bit as unskeptical an attitude as if you accept it. A skeptic who comes across something that conflicts which what he or she believes questions those beliefs as well as the new bit.
Technically, anyone who has strongly held beliefs to begin with is unskeptical. A skeptic is more likely to accept information that conflicts with what he or she already believes precisely because he or she is a skeptic, and therefore doubts these provisionally held beliefs.
All being military or former military... we all voted the human race as generally despicable and that it was about time there was some event to clean the slate.
Does it disturb anyone to know that the people whose job is to protect us are of the opinion that we ought to be killed off? o.O Not saying they won't do their jobs, it's just... interesting.
Even the "wholesome" teenage role model Miley Cyrus
Stop right there.
Exactly what part of Miley Cyrus is "wholesome"? There's so much psycho-sexual pathology going on in the whole Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus phenomena that I'm betting there will entire textbooks written on the topic.
There will be an entire appendix just on Billy Ray Cyrus' uber-mullet vs Hannah's hooker wig.
The Miley Cyrus sex tape will be released in 3...2...1...
I'm just curious if you realize how deeply misogynistic a person you are? Most people like you aren't aware of it, I get the impression, in fact they're argue rather strenuously that they're the exact opposite, but I curious if I'm right in that or if you're actually aware of and comfortable with the fact of your misogyny.
Oh my. Well, as least you called it "amerikkka". If you're going to populate an imaginary nation with straw-men, it's best to not pretend your absurd fantasy corresponds with any real-world nation.
This may come as a surprise to you, but slashdot has readers that don't live in the United States.
Yes, and when an American reader doesn't know something about something from outside the US, this is due to American arrogance, whereas when a non-American reader doesn't know something about something from the US, the fact that they were expected to is due to American arrogance. No matter who doesn't know something about what, the problem is American arrogance...
This is one of those changes that makes me lose confidence in Google. It seems that Google wants to control all the resources instead of being part of an internet.
Eh? It's still pulling its stuff from the internet. It's just cut out the useless middleman. Instead of linking to another site that just pulls its info from other sites, adding no value of its own, just aggregating that info into one (cluttered, poorly formatted) page, Google now links directly to those other sites and presents the info much more cleanly. It's really what they should have done from the start, this being exactly what Google has done with its core service (search) from the get-go.
I wish Acts 17:11 would get preached more: "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
Healthy skepticism is part of a noble character.
I don't think examining the Scriptures to see if something is true can be reasonably considered "healthy skepticism". This would more properly be described as an unhealthy skewing of the meaning of "skepticism". Someone with a healthy level of skepticism would not consider examining the scriptures as a means of verifying truth. At best it can uncover contradictions, but proving that what Paul said was consistent would in no way indicate whether what Paul said was true. The Bereans, it appears, suffered from some very unhealthy misconceptions
Yeah , but what effect does this have on the wildlife that lives in that ecosystem? I've heard that these kinds of problems happen in dams, and also in places where nuke plants dump their cooling water, which is actually warmer than the stream they feed into.
If done carelessly, it could kill all the marine life near the plant. If done carefully, it could have no impact at all, since what it's doing is what's being done already anyway (mixing fresh and salt water). The trick would be to discharge the brackish water (which is just water saltier than freshwater but not as salty as ocean water) in a place where the water was already brackish (which shouldn't be too far away, since we're locating the plant at the mouth of a river where freshwater is mixing with saltwater anyway).
Actually, that could work, not in the perpetual energy sense obviously, but certainly you could take the concentrated salt product from your desalinization process and recoup some of the energy by using it for osmotic fuel in this process.
No. Well, you could, but it'd be really stupid. You could save even more energy by NOT doing that. Doing what you suggest would simply consume more energy and/or cut down on the amount of fresh water and salt you're producing (requiring more energy be spent to make up for the loss than was gained by doing so).
Desalination plant will consumer more energy than the water it produces can generate, because in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
Why is it that every time anything power related is posted to/. there are a bunch of people who suggest perpetual motion machines? What happened to/. being for nerds? Nerds would know perpetual motion when they see it, and know that it's not possible. This is the fourth comment I've read in this thread that has fallen foul of this so far.
Alas, not all nerds know a joke when they see it...
No, not depending on that at all. The fresh water used, if not taken by the plant, just goes directly into the ocean to become saltwater anyway. And WTF are you talking about with this "downstream" thing? There's nothing downstream from the mouth of a river...
The programming world seems to run in about a 30 year cycle.
Java = Pascal reinvented (pointers are too hard)
Java bytecodes = UCSD Pascal p-system reinvented
picoJava hardware = Intel i432 reinvented
Revolution 4.0 = COBOL reinvented - similar claims
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
And those who don't know history are doomed to post idiotic shit about it. (BTW, Pascal has pointers, and as a language is about ten times closer to C than to Java. Code translates between the two pretty easily, mostly all the same concepts, types, and structures, Pascal just has a more verbose syntax and C has looser type-coercion rules.)
Pretty much, yes. Anyone can read the code, but only programmers can write it.
If someone suggests this can allow non-coders to code, they're over hyping it. Still, it's nice for the sake of actual programmers trying to read and maintain other people's code. But, programmers can read code anyhow, so if you think it makes maintenance more than just a tad bit easier, you're also over hyping it.
In other words, it's kinda nice, but if you expect any sort of big benefit from it, you'll be disappointed.
I prefer to say one will prove to be a better model. I suppose "more accurate" works too, although it begs the question of what "accurate" means in the context. Scientists of course understand that means it produces correct predictions more often, but laymen are likely to interpret it to mean something more vis a vie it's status as a "description" of reality. Which may indeed be true, but ultimately that's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. In science, the "better description of reality" is "better" only in the sense that it produces better predictions. "Closer to the truth" is a question outside the scientific realm. "Right" is right out...
The printer will indeed print them much faster, way faster than you can read them. You're making arguments as to why the scribes win, not the printer. (If you think otherwise, reread the article -- you're missing something...)
I'm sorry, but just because WoW has "war" in the title does not mean it can be equated to actual war.
...
LOL! *Whoosh*
In the context of the story, it was a very appropriate comparison. You just missed the point. The rest of your post is a bunch of examples of why it was a very good comparison, assuming you understood the article to begin with.
Good luck with that. We can raise a stink about the state of our infrastructure, but we vote for politicians who rail against "earmarks" (i.e. spending money on infrastructure projects). We can raise a stink about the state of our schools, but we vote against any measure to increase school spending. Corruption isn't getting in the way. What's in the way is the majority of voters being against government spending. Since the government can't just point guns at people and get them to work for free, being against government spending means the same thing as being against government doing anything at all. You can't support better infrastructure while being against government spending. You can't support support education while being against government spending. You can't support our troops while being against government spending. A lot of people will say otherwise, but they're either liars or idiots...
but its not like I make periodic inspections of Mansfield damn or check the undercarriage of the upper deck of the freeway for damage.
If you saw concrete chunks falling off the freeway for years,
If you saw news reports for decades saying the freeways were unsafe,
If you saw a big sign saying "freeway unsafe - do not use",
If you were stopped by a cop on the onramp who told you "if you use this freeway you will die",
you would still use the freeway?
Fucking moron. Willful ignorance like that gets you killed. Lack of responsibility coupled with shitty judges makes everyone pay for the mistakes of the stupid.
And lack of responsibility is exactly what this is all about. Yes, the motorists who die when this freeway collapses under the circumstances you cite are idiots and in some way responsible for their own deaths. However, let's also posit that there's some agency whose responsibility is to make sure the freeway never reaches that state of collapse. When it collapses, are you saying they suddenly are no longer to be held responsible for doing their jobs? The fact that the motorist is an idiot does not magically releave the people who were responsible for preventing the freeway of collapsing from their responsibility when it collapses. Just because you've found one person you can blame does not mean no one else is to blame. Alas, there are too many "fucking morons" in the world who don't understand anything unless its simplified to absurdity, so the idea of anything having multiple causes or multiple responsible parties is unable to be grasped by them. Thus, you see spurious arguments where, because they can reasonably place blame on one party, they illogically thing this is an argument for not blaming someone else. Saying person or agency A is responsible does NOT mean B is not. That's a shoddy bit of pseudo-logic that you need to be a "fucking moron" to buy. Personally, I think it's a good idea for everyone who's responsible to be blamed when they fail in their responsibilities, and the fact that you've found at least one of them does not mean everyone else gets a free pass.
Get this through your head. The Army Corps of Engineers failed in their responsibilities. The fact that other people also failed or were just plain stupid does NOT in ANY WAY justify not holding the ACE responsible for their failures to live up to their responsibilities. You can argue until you're blue in the face that there are other people who also did stupid things, it won't change the fact that the ACE failed to do their job properly, and should be held responsible for their failures.
One of the stated requirements of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is that nations that sign it that don't already have nukes don't develop them, and nations that do work towards phasing their own out of existence. If we want to restart nuclear weapons testing to work on replacement nukes, then we need to stop pressuring Iran and other nations to not develop their own, because it would be very hypocritical for us to demand other nations stick to the terms of the NPT when we ourselves are blatantly violating it. Alternately, if we are serious about the NPT, then we have no need to be working on the next generation bombs -- we should be instead working on making sure the current generation is the last generation.
There are arguments to be made either way, but make up your minds, people. Don't talk out both sides of your mouths on this one. Let's either start working on new bombs and bless Iran on its quest to make its own, or let's take the NPT seriously and both press Iran on compliance, and comply with it ourselves.
Slashdot Mirror
They were skeptical within the context of what they believed.
That's not skepticism.
Just because you have different beliefs, doesn't change the course you'd take if you came across something new. You would verify against what you already believe.
See, you don't really get what skepticism is. If you reject something because it conflicts with what you already believe, that's every bit as unskeptical an attitude as if you accept it. A skeptic who comes across something that conflicts which what he or she believes questions those beliefs as well as the new bit.
Technically, anyone who has strongly held beliefs to begin with is unskeptical. A skeptic is more likely to accept information that conflicts with what he or she already believes precisely because he or she is a skeptic, and therefore doubts these provisionally held beliefs.
All being military or former military... we all voted the human race as generally despicable and that it was about time there was some event to clean the slate.
Does it disturb anyone to know that the people whose job is to protect us are of the opinion that we ought to be killed off? o.O Not saying they won't do their jobs, it's just... interesting.
Stop right there.
Exactly what part of Miley Cyrus is "wholesome"? There's so much psycho-sexual pathology going on in the whole Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus phenomena that I'm betting there will entire textbooks written on the topic.
There will be an entire appendix just on Billy Ray Cyrus' uber-mullet vs Hannah's hooker wig.
The Miley Cyrus sex tape will be released in 3...2...1...
I'm just curious if you realize how deeply misogynistic a person you are? Most people like you aren't aware of it, I get the impression, in fact they're argue rather strenuously that they're the exact opposite, but I curious if I'm right in that or if you're actually aware of and comfortable with the fact of your misogyny.
I think it's more of a news story that DARPA is apparently terrified of the Dakotas, or perhaps Minnesota.
DARPA is no match for UFFDA.
Oh my. Well, as least you called it "amerikkka". If you're going to populate an imaginary nation with straw-men, it's best to not pretend your absurd fantasy corresponds with any real-world nation.
This may come as a surprise to you, but slashdot has readers that don't live in the United States.
Yes, and when an American reader doesn't know something about something from outside the US, this is due to American arrogance, whereas when a non-American reader doesn't know something about something from the US, the fact that they were expected to is due to American arrogance. No matter who doesn't know something about what, the problem is American arrogance...
I'm 35 and was using the word "ginormous" as a kid. Sure enough, it's in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary.
Indeed. I believe the word "ginormous" predates the Internet. Al Gore coined the term when describing the idea before it ever got implemented. ;)
This is one of those changes that makes me lose confidence in Google. It seems that Google wants to control all the resources instead of being part of an internet.
Eh? It's still pulling its stuff from the internet. It's just cut out the useless middleman. Instead of linking to another site that just pulls its info from other sites, adding no value of its own, just aggregating that info into one (cluttered, poorly formatted) page, Google now links directly to those other sites and presents the info much more cleanly. It's really what they should have done from the start, this being exactly what Google has done with its core service (search) from the get-go.
A piece of glass you can open when it gets too hot outside. Come on people
Actually, the "piece of glass" would be a windowpane. The window itself is the opening in which such panes are frequently (but not always) found.
Interesting.
RTT to my ISP's (Comcast) resolver: ~50ms
RTT to Google's resolver: ~30ms
No-brainer here, too. Also, Comcast sucks... (but you already knew that...)
I wish Acts 17:11 would get preached more: "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Healthy skepticism is part of a noble character.
I don't think examining the Scriptures to see if something is true can be reasonably considered "healthy skepticism". This would more properly be described as an unhealthy skewing of the meaning of "skepticism". Someone with a healthy level of skepticism would not consider examining the scriptures as a means of verifying truth. At best it can uncover contradictions, but proving that what Paul said was consistent would in no way indicate whether what Paul said was true. The Bereans, it appears, suffered from some very unhealthy misconceptions
Yes, can we scour the editors?
Yeah , but what effect does this have on the wildlife that lives in that ecosystem? I've heard that these kinds of problems happen in dams, and also in places where nuke plants dump their cooling water, which is actually warmer than the stream they feed into.
If done carelessly, it could kill all the marine life near the plant. If done carefully, it could have no impact at all, since what it's doing is what's being done already anyway (mixing fresh and salt water). The trick would be to discharge the brackish water (which is just water saltier than freshwater but not as salty as ocean water) in a place where the water was already brackish (which shouldn't be too far away, since we're locating the plant at the mouth of a river where freshwater is mixing with saltwater anyway).
Actually, that could work, not in the perpetual energy sense obviously, but certainly you could take the concentrated salt product from your desalinization process and recoup some of the energy by using it for osmotic fuel in this process.
No. Well, you could, but it'd be really stupid. You could save even more energy by NOT doing that. Doing what you suggest would simply consume more energy and/or cut down on the amount of fresh water and salt you're producing (requiring more energy be spent to make up for the loss than was gained by doing so).
Desalination plant will consumer more energy than the water it produces can generate, because in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
Why is it that every time anything power related is posted to /. there are a bunch of people who suggest perpetual motion machines? What happened to /. being for nerds? Nerds would know perpetual motion when they see it, and know that it's not possible. This is the fourth comment I've read in this thread that has fallen foul of this so far.
Alas, not all nerds know a joke when they see it...
depending of course how much fresh water you take
No, not depending on that at all. The fresh water used, if not taken by the plant, just goes directly into the ocean to become saltwater anyway. And WTF are you talking about with this "downstream" thing? There's nothing downstream from the mouth of a river...
The programming world seems to run in about a 30 year cycle. Java = Pascal reinvented (pointers are too hard) Java bytecodes = UCSD Pascal p-system reinvented picoJava hardware = Intel i432 reinvented Revolution 4.0 = COBOL reinvented - similar claims Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
And those who don't know history are doomed to post idiotic shit about it. (BTW, Pascal has pointers, and as a language is about ten times closer to C than to Java. Code translates between the two pretty easily, mostly all the same concepts, types, and structures, Pascal just has a more verbose syntax and C has looser type-coercion rules.)
Pretty much, yes. Anyone can read the code, but only programmers can write it.
If someone suggests this can allow non-coders to code, they're over hyping it. Still, it's nice for the sake of actual programmers trying to read and maintain other people's code. But, programmers can read code anyhow, so if you think it makes maintenance more than just a tad bit easier, you're also over hyping it.
In other words, it's kinda nice, but if you expect any sort of big benefit from it, you'll be disappointed.
I prefer to say one will prove to be a better model. I suppose "more accurate" works too, although it begs the question of what "accurate" means in the context. Scientists of course understand that means it produces correct predictions more often, but laymen are likely to interpret it to mean something more vis a vie it's status as a "description" of reality. Which may indeed be true, but ultimately that's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. In science, the "better description of reality" is "better" only in the sense that it produces better predictions. "Closer to the truth" is a question outside the scientific realm. "Right" is right out...
The printer will indeed print them much faster, way faster than you can read them. You're making arguments as to why the scribes win, not the printer. (If you think otherwise, reread the article -- you're missing something...)
destroyer661 vs. small shell script
destroyer661: Ability to manipulate text, but lack of understanding of the deeper meaning.
small shell script: Same, but operates 24/7 and does not require salary or benefits.
Winner: small shell script
I'm sorry, but just because WoW has "war" in the title does not mean it can be equated to actual war.
...
LOL! *Whoosh*
In the context of the story, it was a very appropriate comparison. You just missed the point. The rest of your post is a bunch of examples of why it was a very good comparison, assuming you understood the article to begin with.
Good luck with that. We can raise a stink about the state of our infrastructure, but we vote for politicians who rail against "earmarks" (i.e. spending money on infrastructure projects). We can raise a stink about the state of our schools, but we vote against any measure to increase school spending. Corruption isn't getting in the way. What's in the way is the majority of voters being against government spending. Since the government can't just point guns at people and get them to work for free, being against government spending means the same thing as being against government doing anything at all. You can't support better infrastructure while being against government spending. You can't support support education while being against government spending. You can't support our troops while being against government spending. A lot of people will say otherwise, but they're either liars or idiots...
but its not like I make periodic inspections of Mansfield damn or check the undercarriage of the upper deck of the freeway for damage.
If you saw concrete chunks falling off the freeway for years, If you saw news reports for decades saying the freeways were unsafe, If you saw a big sign saying "freeway unsafe - do not use", If you were stopped by a cop on the onramp who told you "if you use this freeway you will die",
you would still use the freeway?
Fucking moron. Willful ignorance like that gets you killed. Lack of responsibility coupled with shitty judges makes everyone pay for the mistakes of the stupid.
And lack of responsibility is exactly what this is all about. Yes, the motorists who die when this freeway collapses under the circumstances you cite are idiots and in some way responsible for their own deaths. However, let's also posit that there's some agency whose responsibility is to make sure the freeway never reaches that state of collapse. When it collapses, are you saying they suddenly are no longer to be held responsible for doing their jobs? The fact that the motorist is an idiot does not magically releave the people who were responsible for preventing the freeway of collapsing from their responsibility when it collapses. Just because you've found one person you can blame does not mean no one else is to blame. Alas, there are too many "fucking morons" in the world who don't understand anything unless its simplified to absurdity, so the idea of anything having multiple causes or multiple responsible parties is unable to be grasped by them. Thus, you see spurious arguments where, because they can reasonably place blame on one party, they illogically thing this is an argument for not blaming someone else. Saying person or agency A is responsible does NOT mean B is not. That's a shoddy bit of pseudo-logic that you need to be a "fucking moron" to buy. Personally, I think it's a good idea for everyone who's responsible to be blamed when they fail in their responsibilities, and the fact that you've found at least one of them does not mean everyone else gets a free pass.
Get this through your head. The Army Corps of Engineers failed in their responsibilities. The fact that other people also failed or were just plain stupid does NOT in ANY WAY justify not holding the ACE responsible for their failures to live up to their responsibilities. You can argue until you're blue in the face that there are other people who also did stupid things, it won't change the fact that the ACE failed to do their job properly, and should be held responsible for their failures.
One of the stated requirements of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is that nations that sign it that don't already have nukes don't develop them, and nations that do work towards phasing their own out of existence. If we want to restart nuclear weapons testing to work on replacement nukes, then we need to stop pressuring Iran and other nations to not develop their own, because it would be very hypocritical for us to demand other nations stick to the terms of the NPT when we ourselves are blatantly violating it. Alternately, if we are serious about the NPT, then we have no need to be working on the next generation bombs -- we should be instead working on making sure the current generation is the last generation.
There are arguments to be made either way, but make up your minds, people. Don't talk out both sides of your mouths on this one. Let's either start working on new bombs and bless Iran on its quest to make its own, or let's take the NPT seriously and both press Iran on compliance, and comply with it ourselves.