"computers suck at social interactions. Women also excel at spreading their attention"
Computers also suck at thinking, they simply can't at the moment, and if you're spreading your attention you're not focusing.
"you never know which next female will be the one to outdo Newton"
With women having more difficulty focusing, visualising the abstract it's statistically more likely that the scientific geniuses following Newton will be an Einstein, Schroedinger, Bohr or Hawking.
"Men in prison, on the other hand, they just gang up. Women in prison don't gang. When it comes to adapting to prison life, I'd say women are more intelligent."
Males are competitive, agressive, violent. A gang makes perfect sense in that environment, it's the prison equivalent of mutually assured destruction. It works, has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with survival in a particular environment.
Other than that, I'm not saying men are smarter than women, it's a stupid concept. We simply have different and more importantly, complementary strengths. Evolution designed males and females to survive by working in concert, that simple, anything else is hyperbole. There's no point having a team where everyone has the same skills, a team full of goalkeepers or quarterbacks is a losing proposition.
There's also huge infrastructure investment which mean higher taxes, higher costs which push up prices.
The money also kickstarts the internal economy of India, the outsourcers have additional internal customers, demand increases, prices increase. Indian people start importing desirable products as their wealth increases. Guess what, other countries can benefit by selling stuff to India too.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clark
Whether you're advanced enough to appreciate it or not, economics is a science. A complex one to be sure but some people understand how it works. Now, press the button marked "off" on the bright magic rectangle in front of you and read a book or two book on economic theory. Adam Smith would be a good place to start.
As soon as people get tired of typing Linux®
on
Windows 95 Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
"Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries."
Liberalism is all about personal freedom. Personal liberty. The people in the US calling themselves liberals, aren't. They're socialists. Socialism is a dirty word in America so they redefined liberal to fit.
There are many routes to a destination. Given a semi-decently designed network the routing would simply redirect passengers through a different line, very much like packetised data. You could take out lines here and there and it would maybe cause a bit of delay and congestion but it would otherwise continue functioning. I mean you could build a pod which could travel at 100mph, 2,400 miles/day.
The problem with the idea is actually passenger comfort and vehicle weight for very long distance travel. You'd have to have a vehicle a bit like a trailer/caravan with a bed, toilet, shower, TV etc. The weight of the vehicle would be a couple of tonnes which means the infrastructure would have to be able to cope, which means it'd be expensive to build the infrastructure so you're back to the train/sleeper services.
How big are your bucks? A space elevator will cost trillions. It'll require thousands, maybe tens of thousands of individual lifts to pay for it. In the meantime, rocket launches are just getting cheaper and cheaper. The Russians and commercial operations like Sea Launch can launch for a miniscule fraction of the cost of a space elevator.
What? Um, how much do you think it's going to cost to build and run?
The ISS is 35 billion plus so far and that's nothing compared to a space elevator. Multiply it by 10, 100, 1000? What about loading 10,000 vehicles or 100,000 in order to break even.
In the meantime the Russians and others in the private sector are launching equivalent payloads for peanuts comparatively. In order to "work" economically, a space elevator will require government subsidy, just like trains.
And it has absolutely nothing to do with the technology. It's all about the economics.
A space elevator is going to require a truly civilisation shaking level of investment by a country. Then, once it's built that investment has to be amortized over it's lifetime, but wait, it only has two end points and it takes a certain amount of time to load and unload a vehicle of cargo and passengers, it takes a certain amount of time to travel the distance up to orbit. These two fundamental physical limitations will mean that a space elevator will never be able to pay back the investment. It's always going to be cheaper to load a cargo on top of a rocket booster and fire it up.
We're not paying for space travel, or even space exploration. We're paying for programmes. We get a space programme, then another one, then another one.
When we start paying for results, we'll get space travel and space exploration.
"Assuming they're sincere about their intent to support other browsers in the future it's better to have a limited site now rather than no site at all. (Demographically IE does still cater to the largest audience) It would also be a pointless waste of tax dollars to come up with an interim solution for other browsers when it's already slated to happen for the next revision anyway."
They may well be breaking international trade rules or indeed, various local competition laws.
Couldn't that be considered government subsidy, isn't that also how corrupt third world governments work? By requiring a specific company's products you are driving business their way.
By requiring Word doc format, they are requiring that you purchase Microsoft Word, requiring that you use Internet Explorer they are requiring that you use Microsoft Windows.
Start smacking asteroids into Phobos and Deimos, bump them gradually into higher orbits, persuade them to collide. Obviously it'd take a while and lots of asteroids.
Could do the same to Mars itself, gradually slow it down into a lower orbit and add mass.
"Third time in this article I've seen someone make this mistake. It's an epidemic."
It's not an epidemic. It's denial.
I keep hearing people overestimate the efficiency of your typical car. 15% is more realistic for a good one, you might just get 25% efficiency out of a Diesel VW Lupo or Smart Car while traveling at a constant speed below 50mph on a motorway without traffic. Well... you know how likely that is.
Yes, ladies, that means you too! You're not half the scintillating conversationalists you think you are. Just because you're talking doesn't mean you have anything worthwhile to say.
Slashdot Mirror
"computers suck at social interactions. Women also excel at spreading their attention"
Computers also suck at thinking, they simply can't at the moment, and if you're spreading your attention you're not focusing.
"you never know which next female will be the one to outdo Newton"
With women having more difficulty focusing, visualising the abstract it's statistically more likely that the scientific geniuses following Newton will be an Einstein, Schroedinger, Bohr or Hawking.
"Men in prison, on the other hand, they just gang up. Women in prison don't gang. When it comes to adapting to prison life, I'd say women are more intelligent."
Males are competitive, agressive, violent. A gang makes perfect sense in that environment, it's the prison equivalent of mutually assured destruction. It works, has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with survival in a particular environment.
Other than that, I'm not saying men are smarter than women, it's a stupid concept. We simply have different and more importantly, complementary strengths. Evolution designed males and females to survive by working in concert, that simple, anything else is hyperbole. There's no point having a team where everyone has the same skills, a team full of goalkeepers or quarterbacks is a losing proposition.
Live by protectionism. Kill 100 million of the poorest people in the world and get left behind anyway.
Excellent points BTW.
There's also huge infrastructure investment which mean higher taxes, higher costs which push up prices.
The money also kickstarts the internal economy of India, the outsourcers have additional internal customers, demand increases, prices increase. Indian people start importing desirable products as their wealth increases. Guess what, other countries can benefit by selling stuff to India too.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clark
Whether you're advanced enough to appreciate it or not, economics is a science. A complex one to be sure but some people understand how it works. Now, press the button marked "off" on the bright magic rectangle in front of you and read a book or two book on economic theory. Adam Smith would be a good place to start.
"Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries."
When they mention Linux®.
Um, yes. More correctly that'd be "the Linux® War". By using Windowz he isn't in fact using the Windows® trademark.
Yes, lets all talk about blinding stupidity...
Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus
Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.
Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and other countries."
Do any of the Linux® Jabber clients support voice?
Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus
Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.
Liberalism is all about personal freedom. Personal liberty. The people in the US calling themselves liberals, aren't. They're socialists. Socialism is a dirty word in America so they redefined liberal to fit.
HTH.
There are many routes to a destination. Given a semi-decently designed network the routing would simply redirect passengers through a different line, very much like packetised data. You could take out lines here and there and it would maybe cause a bit of delay and congestion but it would otherwise continue functioning. I mean you could build a pod which could travel at 100mph, 2,400 miles/day.
The problem with the idea is actually passenger comfort and vehicle weight for very long distance travel.
You'd have to have a vehicle a bit like a trailer/caravan with a bed, toilet, shower, TV etc. The weight of the vehicle would be a couple of tonnes which means the infrastructure would have to be able to cope, which means it'd be expensive to build the infrastructure so you're back to the train/sleeper services.
Shouldn't that be linux(tm).slashdot.org now?
Yeah, and the international space station (An tin can in space) was going to cost $7 billion. Do you believe everything you're told?
So, it's not about money, it's about control.
How big are your bucks? A space elevator will cost trillions. It'll require thousands, maybe tens of thousands of individual lifts to pay for it. In the meantime, rocket launches are just getting cheaper and cheaper. The Russians and commercial operations like Sea Launch can launch for a miniscule fraction of the cost of a space elevator.
What? Um, how much do you think it's going to cost to build and run?
The ISS is 35 billion plus so far and that's nothing compared to a space elevator. Multiply it by 10, 100, 1000? What about loading 10,000 vehicles or 100,000 in order to break even.
In the meantime the Russians and others in the private sector are launching equivalent payloads for peanuts comparatively. In order to "work" economically, a space elevator will require government subsidy, just like trains.
A space elevator gives you serial access to space. Rockets give you parallel access. Rockets will always be cheaper.
And it has absolutely nothing to do with the technology. It's all about the economics.
A space elevator is going to require a truly civilisation shaking level of investment by a country. Then, once it's built that investment has to be amortized over it's lifetime, but wait, it only has two end points and it takes a certain amount of time to load and unload a vehicle of cargo and passengers, it takes a certain amount of time to travel the distance up to orbit. These two fundamental physical limitations will mean that a space elevator will never be able to pay back the investment. It's always going to be cheaper to load a cargo on top of a rocket booster and fire it up.
We're not paying for space travel, or even space exploration. We're paying for programmes. We get a space programme, then another one, then another one.
When we start paying for results, we'll get space travel and space exploration.
"Assuming they're sincere about their intent to support other browsers in the future it's better to have a limited site now rather than no site at all. (Demographically IE does still cater to the largest audience)
It would also be a pointless waste of tax dollars to come up with an interim solution for other browsers when it's already slated to happen for the next revision anyway."
They may well be breaking international trade rules or indeed, various local competition laws.
Couldn't that be considered government subsidy, isn't that also how corrupt third world governments work? By requiring a specific company's products you are driving business their way.
By requiring Word doc format, they are requiring that you purchase Microsoft Word, requiring that you use Internet Explorer they are requiring that you use Microsoft Windows.
Wonder what the WTO would have to say.
Water turns into steam, steam is a gas. Cool the steam in another, clean drinking vessel.
Offer yourself to the lions. After all, they're natural and wouldn't dream of hurting another living creature would they?
Guess what. It's survival of the fittest.
Tidal stresses.
Start smacking asteroids into Phobos and Deimos, bump them gradually into higher orbits, persuade them to collide. Obviously it'd take a while and lots of asteroids.
Could do the same to Mars itself, gradually slow it down into a lower orbit and add mass.
"Third time in this article I've seen someone make this mistake. It's an epidemic."
It's not an epidemic. It's denial.
I keep hearing people overestimate the efficiency of your typical car. 15% is more realistic for a good one, you might just get 25% efficiency out of a Diesel VW Lupo or Smart Car while traveling at a constant speed below 50mph on a motorway without traffic. Well... you know how likely that is.
Quote some numbers please. "Doesn't really look that good" is meaningless.
Then look up coal gasification on Google.
That's because you were boring me!
Yes, ladies, that means you too! You're not half the scintillating conversationalists you think you are. Just because you're talking doesn't mean you have anything worthwhile to say.