If science is unpopular today it is because of the arrogant, dogmatic and privileged folks who stand at its door. Add to that the people who embark on regular crusades, telling people they are stupid and ignorant for not listening to them, it's no wonder students shy away from science.
Sounds like someone is a bitter creationist.
People are status-conscious, and they know the advantages intelligence provides, advantages they can't possibly acquire. They have been taught that it is correct to hate the intellectual, that their envy of the successful is justified, but that envy has been carefully directed away from the wealthy and onto the merely smart and well-educated. After all, you don't have to be smart to get rich.
The only thing standing in the way of anyone becoming a scientist is their innate intelligence and ability to afford the schooling.
Anyone with the intellectual capacity to become a scientist has likely already solidified their conception of religion by the time they reach college. Those that are seriously religious tend to be fundamentalists, at least in my acquaintance, as they can no more pick and choose what tenets to believe than can they alter the nature of reality. For them, it really is all or nothing, unlike the humanities and soft "sciences" like sociology and economics, where there is plenty of room for wishy-washy agnosticism and "spiritual but not religious".
And releasing GCD, gentlemen, is another master stroke by Apple, just like WebKit, Bonjour, LLVM, the list goes on, to share knowledge and advance technology by merit, not by forcing it down your throat thanks to the monopoly you have been handed.
Or because all of those things were originally developed outside of Apple, and even they don't have enough magic fanboy dust to deflect the bad karma that comes from appropriating open source software without giving it back. I'll consider Apple part of the community when people can actually do whatever they want with the Apple hardware they own.
There's a lot of garbage and Microsoft apologists nowadays.
You people are like the people who believe that criticizing Christianity equates to appeasing to Islam.
You have no idea. Someone could have hand-written a BASIC program that could download a BASIC virus off the Internet that could spread to other phones running BASIC and it would have taken down the AT&T network!
No, his gripe is about "cloud computing", because "software as a service" is actually useful. He himself mentions using Amazon as a backup service. What he is saying is that "the cloud" is snake oil that provides no value to the typical consumer, but stands to lock them in to being nickle-and-dimed once all their information is relegated to third parties with an interest into keeping them hooked.
Every one of us has on their desk more computing power than existed in the world when we landed people on the moon. We individually have more storage capacity than all the books in all but the largest libraries. Hell, our phones could land the space shuttle. But these people want us to believe that the better value proposition is to keep all of our data and run all of our applications on someone else's property, all through a browser window limited by the capabilities of Javascript and HTML? As if!
You know what the real "cloud" is? It is when we can harvest all of the cycles we don't use, put all that energy to productive use, or not use it at all. It is when we use the Internet as it was originally designed, with no privileged machines, every participant a peer that can serve data as well as request it. That is when we can make a grid where computation happens "magically" wherever the cycles are available and the rates are cheapest. But that does not figure into the business model of the people who own the core infrastructure, so getting the real "cloud" will probably never happen.
To what purpose? To force those in power to bend to the will of the people. To break them the way they broke one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century. To remind them of who is really in charge.
The evil of a bureaucracy does not spontaneously generate, it begins with the individual, and yet it has inertia. It exists long after those who imprinted their wills upon it are long gone. Forcing this kind of action on the government can excise those lingering demons.
And besides, you can't believe in the traditions of a nation and not inherit the debt of that nation's past atrocities. You can't cherry pick your history.
Disconnect bloggers that criticize his health-reform?
I think people who believe this level of stupidity deserve to be disconnected from the Internet. They are fucking damage, and I'm getting tired of routing around them.
It is because people are ashamed of and/or intimidated by their ignorance of basic science and technology, so they cope by inventing excuses to devalue those endeavors.
When Flickr only allowed real-life photos, an image like this would have been removed regardless of the content.
He is not the author of the photograph. He does not have copyright for the photograph. He does not have permission to use Time trademarks.
You can fair use all you want on your own resources.
After the legal flap over the HOPE painting for using an AP source image, yeah, Flickr might want to avoid the mess altogether. Between having to lawyer up against Time-Warner and earning the indignation of right-wingers, it's no contest, you piss off the impotent right-wingers.
You did understand that Christopher was withholding the truth from Wickus, that he played on Wickus' desperation to get the fluid? That that's what got him clobbered? And despite his failure and distrust, Wickus still went back to rescue him? He accepted his situation as hopeless and was sacrificing himself for the more noble cause, and Christopher, being the clever bug that he is, recognized that?
I'm not saying it was good writing, but there is nothing wrong with the motivations of the characters. It was refreshing to see a movie where people act like actual human beings in a ridiculous crisis situation, both panicky and smart, both selfish and selfless.
What is with the hostility toward this movie? It strains credulity in certain parts, but so what? It is no less absurd than The Matrix, or Blade Runner, or Aliens, or Terminator 2, or Firefly, or Babylon 5, or... have I slaughtered your sacred cow yet? This is one of the best science fiction movies of all time. Whine all you want, that consensus is already forming, and there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop it.
I think the apartheid metaphor actually made certain people of certain political persuasions fairly uncomfortable.
Good movies don't do that, because real people don't do that.
Real people don't panic as they realize nothing is going to stop them from turning into a bug, but only because real people don't turn into bugs.
The only actual flaw with the movie is the stupid McGuffin that is the magic fluid. All these other complaints are just a bunch of autistics whining about how the protagonist doesn't behave like a video game character.
Slashdot Mirror
If science is unpopular today it is because of the arrogant, dogmatic and privileged folks who stand at its door. Add to that the people who embark on regular crusades, telling people they are stupid and ignorant for not listening to them, it's no wonder students shy away from science.
Sounds like someone is a bitter creationist.
People are status-conscious, and they know the advantages intelligence provides, advantages they can't possibly acquire. They have been taught that it is correct to hate the intellectual, that their envy of the successful is justified, but that envy has been carefully directed away from the wealthy and onto the merely smart and well-educated. After all, you don't have to be smart to get rich.
The only thing standing in the way of anyone becoming a scientist is their innate intelligence and ability to afford the schooling.
Anyone with the intellectual capacity to become a scientist has likely already solidified their conception of religion by the time they reach college. Those that are seriously religious tend to be fundamentalists, at least in my acquaintance, as they can no more pick and choose what tenets to believe than can they alter the nature of reality. For them, it really is all or nothing, unlike the humanities and soft "sciences" like sociology and economics, where there is plenty of room for wishy-washy agnosticism and "spiritual but not religious".
So deal with it already, and quit with the hysterics. There's been Nothing New To See Here for years now.
"The pot is comfortably warm, and has been for quite a while. No need to get upset." said the frog in boiling water.
Damn right! I don't know why people think Borlaug was so great. He wasted his life because the Malthusian Catastrophe is a myth!
And releasing GCD, gentlemen, is another master stroke by Apple, just like WebKit, Bonjour, LLVM, the list goes on, to share knowledge and advance technology by merit, not by forcing it down your throat thanks to the monopoly you have been handed.
Or because all of those things were originally developed outside of Apple, and even they don't have enough magic fanboy dust to deflect the bad karma that comes from appropriating open source software without giving it back. I'll consider Apple part of the community when people can actually do whatever they want with the Apple hardware they own.
There's a lot of garbage and Microsoft apologists nowadays.
You people are like the people who believe that criticizing Christianity equates to appeasing to Islam.
Because then the stupid decision to use square brackets to simplify the parsing of Smalltalk syntax in C code would bite them on the ass.
It's not a goddamn authentication chip. It's a goddamn control chip
Oh, so it's a DRM chip.
So, you are claiming that the lawsuits referenced on that page are complete fabrications? Why don't you correct it, then?
You have no idea. Someone could have hand-written a BASIC program that could download a BASIC virus off the Internet that could spread to other phones running BASIC and it would have taken down the AT&T network!
No, his gripe is about "cloud computing", because "software as a service" is actually useful. He himself mentions using Amazon as a backup service. What he is saying is that "the cloud" is snake oil that provides no value to the typical consumer, but stands to lock them in to being nickle-and-dimed once all their information is relegated to third parties with an interest into keeping them hooked.
Every one of us has on their desk more computing power than existed in the world when we landed people on the moon. We individually have more storage capacity than all the books in all but the largest libraries. Hell, our phones could land the space shuttle. But these people want us to believe that the better value proposition is to keep all of our data and run all of our applications on someone else's property, all through a browser window limited by the capabilities of Javascript and HTML? As if!
You know what the real "cloud" is? It is when we can harvest all of the cycles we don't use, put all that energy to productive use, or not use it at all. It is when we use the Internet as it was originally designed, with no privileged machines, every participant a peer that can serve data as well as request it. That is when we can make a grid where computation happens "magically" wherever the cycles are available and the rates are cheapest. But that does not figure into the business model of the people who own the core infrastructure, so getting the real "cloud" will probably never happen.
And after Wednesday, it is at most 99.98%.
So get off of your bloody high horses and realise that this is all about ENTERTAINMENT, not CREATIVITY.
Yeah, so how many songs have you written, buddy?
Say goodbye to a lot of software inventions.
And say hello to the far greater number of inventions so far unrealized because of the legal expense and danger.
To what purpose? To force those in power to bend to the will of the people. To break them the way they broke one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century. To remind them of who is really in charge.
The evil of a bureaucracy does not spontaneously generate, it begins with the individual, and yet it has inertia. It exists long after those who imprinted their wills upon it are long gone. Forcing this kind of action on the government can excise those lingering demons.
And besides, you can't believe in the traditions of a nation and not inherit the debt of that nation's past atrocities. You can't cherry pick your history.
Disconnect bloggers that criticize his health-reform?
I think people who believe this level of stupidity deserve to be disconnected from the Internet. They are fucking damage, and I'm getting tired of routing around them.
Ironically, the teaser trailer has done its job: its got everyone talking. So little an investment for so much publicity.
Irony doesn't work that way!
And you know, everyone was talking about how awful Pluto Nash was going to be, too.
I never understood why Democrats get so bent over that usage. What's the deal?
A dog does not understand why it should not shit on the rug, but you must still rub the dumb animal's nose in it. So too it is with freepers.
I merely question your grasp of adjectives versus nouns.
since the Democrat party
Holy retard shibboleth Batman!
Shouldn't you be at a town hall meaning, screaming about birth certificates or something?
It is because people are ashamed of and/or intimidated by their ignorance of basic science and technology, so they cope by inventing excuses to devalue those endeavors.
I submitted this a couple days ago but it looks like they went with someone who doesn't completely fail at basic reading comprehension.
Fixed that for you.
When Flickr only allowed real-life photos, an image like this would have been removed regardless of the content.
He is not the author of the photograph.
He does not have copyright for the photograph.
He does not have permission to use Time trademarks.
You can fair use all you want on your own resources.
After the legal flap over the HOPE painting for using an AP source image, yeah, Flickr might want to avoid the mess altogether. Between having to lawyer up against Time-Warner and earning the indignation of right-wingers, it's no contest, you piss off the impotent right-wingers.
Have you considered the possibility that you're just getting dumber?
You did understand that Christopher was withholding the truth from Wickus, that he played on Wickus' desperation to get the fluid? That that's what got him clobbered? And despite his failure and distrust, Wickus still went back to rescue him? He accepted his situation as hopeless and was sacrificing himself for the more noble cause, and Christopher, being the clever bug that he is, recognized that?
I'm not saying it was good writing, but there is nothing wrong with the motivations of the characters. It was refreshing to see a movie where people act like actual human beings in a ridiculous crisis situation, both panicky and smart, both selfish and selfless.
You can't tell me what I can't dismiss.
I think he just did.
What is with the hostility toward this movie? It strains credulity in certain parts, but so what? It is no less absurd than The Matrix, or Blade Runner, or Aliens, or Terminator 2, or Firefly, or Babylon 5, or... have I slaughtered your sacred cow yet? This is one of the best science fiction movies of all time. Whine all you want, that consensus is already forming, and there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop it.
I think the apartheid metaphor actually made certain people of certain political persuasions fairly uncomfortable.
Good movies don't do that, because real people don't do that.
Real people don't panic as they realize nothing is going to stop them from turning into a bug, but only because real people don't turn into bugs.
The only actual flaw with the movie is the stupid McGuffin that is the magic fluid. All these other complaints are just a bunch of autistics whining about how the protagonist doesn't behave like a video game character.