Very true in many cases... maybe that's the reason I have always liked the working/sporting breeds, since they were traditionally selected more for their practicality than their "interesting" physical traits.
And though dysplasia has in the past been a problem in those working breeds, it's now testable and no reputable breeder will breed a carrier (and non-breeding owners should spay or neuter their dog so a carrier can't pass down the gene).
I didn't say that they didn't have worms at any point. A reputable breeder will have wormed them already and have detailed records of this and all vaccinations and a vet schedule and records for the parents as well. . I've never heard of any good breeder that would send puppies home that have not been wormed. You sure as hell aren't going to take a dog home from a good breeder and have to go to a vet to discover it has worms.
Well, that depends on how old the puppy is. Most breeders will let (and encourage) you pick up a puppy at 8-10 weeks (once it's weaned) at which point it will have had max 1 deworming (2-3 are required) and 1 DHPP shot (of 3 required). And you have to wait longer before giving other required or optional ones like rabies, lyme, lepto, etc.
Not only have I had several dogs over the years and have family friends who raise and train/show dogs, my Dad is a veterinarian with 40 years of experience. The conventional wisdom is "all puppies have worms" and since that's true 90%+ of the time, it's not really even worth bothering to test for them before deworming (better safe than a false negative, so the test would just needless add to the cost though the owner is always welcome to search their poop for free:).
Lots of other pets and livestock don't get the same levels of medical care and do quite fine
THIS is not particularly good reasoning. The human race survived a long time without modern medical care, but a lot more babies survive to adulthood with proper modern medicine. The same is true for puppies.
Sure, deworming (and you don't need a second opinion on *that*, almost all puppies have roundworms and they will be a lot more likely to thrive if you treat them, just look it up), monthly flea and tick medication (possibly with antiparasitics to prevent heartworm or reinfestation of roundworm), vaccinations, etc are going to cost you, but the alternative is basically leaving it all up to a game of "survival of the fittest" with your new puppy. Why would anyone want to go through all of the effort of raising a puppy only to leave some simple but effective basic health maintenance up to chance?
Not to mention, some of these parasites are transmittable to *you*. While fleas or even ticks might just be highly annoying in your home, you really don't want to get roundworms.
If you do this, I assume you also provide appropriate fruits and vegetables? (i.e. not one of many that are toxic, but enough that the dog gets a well-rounded nutrition).
Dogs are not like cats who live mostly on protein - they are omnivores that can benefit from foods like carrots, pumpkin//sweet potatoes, cantaloupe, some greens, blueberries, apples, etc (but not onions, garlic, grapes, avocados, etc which vary from mildly GI toxic to potentially deadly anemia).
2.) My dog isn't from a puppy mill; she's from a reputable breeder
You previously stated your dog had worms. If this is the case, then it's not a reputable breeder. Or perhaps you have found a crappy vet. It can't hurt to go to another for a second opinion. At least you'll know.
Wrong. Most puppies, no matter where or how they are born, have roundworms. They are fairly endemic in small numbers and transmitted by the mother in the womb. It's normal, and not a big deal to treat. You can leave it alone and hope your puppy manages to gets enough nutrition to thrive and fight them off, or you can spend a bit and deworm. But why anyone would want to get a new puppy and play survival of the fittest with it is beyond me (and pretty horrible). Not to mention roundworms can potentially spread to people is it worth a bit of money to *you* not to get worms?:)
Sorry, but that statement is just not an absolute, and never will be. All it takes is one example to disprove something an absolute. Without the layout and formatting the poems of ee cummings really would be missing significant meaning. Not all poetry (or prose) is created only for the words they contain. And neither has to fit cleanly into some arbitrary document model.
Aha! Then make sure it's circularly polarized! (and I suppose, tape the glasses to their heads and tie their hands behind their backs)
And since it's an absurd amount of effort and expense just to create a simple one-way window, the US DHS is sure to demand its large scale implementation right away. Time to patent it and make billions! And as a bonus, with everyone wearing these shades Guantanamo will be the new height of style in secret detention centers...
Actually, this was the first thing I thought of when I read "'if you can hear, you can also be heard" in the summary.
It's also my explanation to my girlfriend as to why I can't hear her when she tries to talk to me through the bathroom door while I'm in the shower, but she can hear me;)
Wait, so building a concrete wall is more expensive than building a wall filled with thousands (or millions?) of tiny fans? Not only is that not EVER likely to be true, but the latter will always require significant maintenance and electricity costs...
True. I guess it's hard to separate arrogance from leadership. A surprising number of CEOs are literally borderline sociopathic:)
I think my biggest complaint of Musk is that after accepting almost $500M in loans from the government for Tesla (not to mention the billions on battery research and $7500 credit per Tesla sold), $100M in grants for Solar City (and untold billions on solar panel research), and who knows how much money for Space X (over $1B, I think? Plus nearly a trillion dollars in space research over the years), he has the gall to claim the government should not be in the business of providing subsidies to companies. Shameless opportunist and dickhead, indeed. But a brilliant shameless opportunist and dickhead...
You forgot "helped drive the consumer solar industry in the US".
Man, that dude is just plan LUCKY. There can't be any other explanation. No matter how many lottery tickets *I* buy they don't seem to lead to a string of successful multibillion dollar businesses that all practically revolutionized their respective industries. But maybe next week...
I guess it depends on whether you play console games *with* your kid (and which ones). It's important to keep the skills up so as not to be too humiliatingly crushed;)
That said, RTS games on a console is heresy (as is FPS on a tablet).
It's a start - but they have a couple thousand (and most of those are PSOne/PS2/PSP "classics") compared to over 100k on Android and an absurd number on iOS.
Currently it's still orders of magnitude more difficult and expensive to get a game published on PS or Xbox - even the "simple" ones. Basically, most indies can't afford to make a console their first platform because of the price. They have to strike it rich (relatively speaking) on iOS/Android, and then they have the means to expand to consoles...
When one gets to a certain age, it's time to put aside childish things (like gaming consoles), and be an adult. In nothing but tattoos, a cowboy hat and high heels.
Game consoles are surprisingly cyclic in life. I would wager you don't have kids;)
Actually, given the above sentence I desperately hope you don't have kids.
One of the features that all the current streaming boxes/sticks are missing is a dedicated control interface, separate from the TV itself. I'm know I'm in a very small minority here - my primary TV is a projector. If I want to turn on some tunes, I don't want to have my 100" display fired up wasting bulb life, lots of power, and displaying nothing of real value. My phone, while home, is usually in the kitchen charging
Actually, this is already doable with any Airplay capable device (not just AppleTV & Airport, but *many* cheap receivers, etc now) + iPhone/iPad/iPod. Or if you prefer Android devices, Chomecast + any Android phone/tablet. Why would you need a $300 "game" console to solve this when a $35 Chromecast will do it?
Same thing goes for TV/movies... If I just want to see what's on, I don't want to fire up everything. If there was just a little screen next to the TV, or on the entertainment stand, or on the end table, etc..
Um, yeah, they have those, too, they are called tablets;) And both Xbox One and PS4 now have "companion" apps (Smartglass, PS Companion, whatever) to do this. Same with the previously mentioned Chromecast, that's exactly how it works (i.e. no controls to the TV, you use a mobile device or computer).
Speaking of streaming... why are almost all of the current devices so horribly limited? Many don't allow you to stream from other devices on your own home network. If they do, they usually require DLNA, and only DLNA. Why can't they support CIFS/SMB/NFS/etc? For example, the PS3 has WAY more than enough horsepower to be a simple mp3 jukebox, but the interface is absolute garbage for any collection more than a handful of cc's.
Because it doesn't really benefit Sony. It's a huge niche. They just won't sell enough extra consoles to make it worthwhile. And the trend it getting away from giant media jukeboxes in the home, anyway. Not to say a tiny minority doesn't use them, but when you sell 50M+ consoles they just don't move the bottom line.
Now add in games... who's to say this thing won't have some real guts behind it? A high end video card and some nice controllers, and they'd be able to stage themselves for some serious titles.
Then it has become a full-fledged console. Sony and Microsoft have sunk MANY BILLIONS of dollars down that insanely expensive console business trying to get traction. The point of a basic "mobile game console" is it will be dirt cheap and play simple games using the existing Android (or Amazon) app store. No way Amazon is going to shell out the billions necessary to compete head to head with MS, Sony, and Nintendo on the "big consoles"
Anyway, my guess is if it does happen it's going to be in the $100-$150 range. There is no display or capacitive touch, which are most of the cost of tablets - and you can get full Android tablets for $150 these days.
Even if you call Android a Linux platform, it's still WAY behind on what drives game development - revenue. The Xboxen, PS[34], GameBoy(s), Wii, iOS, etc are all orders of magnitude ahead on that front. Linux as a gaming platform is currently totally irrelevant, and with SteamOS will transition to mostly irrelevant.
But, please don't let that stop you! If availability of games on Linux allows just one more guy to jump around in a cowboy hat and high heels, it's still a net gain to society...
$300 *is* pointless for an Android console (especially if as you say they are going after the console crowd) when you can add $100 to what you said and get the PS4 price curve.
And I don't understand why people keep saying "but Android consoles will have simple games that people want". Making games *simpler* seems like the worst barrier to entry I've ever heard of. If Sony and Microsoft expand their online stores and make "simple" games easier to develop/publish on their consoles, then they will be a complete superset with the additional ability to play discs and AAA titles.
Technical articles are for journals. Glossy magazines with artistic layout are a completely different animal - their *point* is style as much as substance, for whatever that is worth.
And while I agree it's possible (and relatively common) to hurt usability with too much "fancy layout", it't still just plain incorrect to categorically state that "layout is not content, period." Period.
Why? If I want magazine style layout, I'll open a fucking magazine. When I go to a website, I want to see text and as few images as possbile, period.
And when I want to watch a movie, I'll go to the theater! If I'm viewing it on my tablet I'd prefer it delivered as a screenplay and unmixed mp3s for the soundtrack.
Yeah, totally! Presentation and artistic design can never be content in themselves! Da Vinci should have just painted The Last Supper attendees in alphabetical order and left it to the viewer to do the rest.
None of the posts above actually said anything about USD. Go back and read them. *You* added that part, and then spent 4 sentences being sarcastic about how USD are not useful in your country even though it was irrelevant to the discussion. Hence, a troll.
Just seems like you were looking for an excuse to go on a "not all slashdot readers are from the US" rant when it really didn't apply here.
Well, we were talking about *series* hybrids, not parallel hybrids like the Prius and Peugeot. They have very different designs and different optimal uses. Series hybrids (like the Chevy Volt) generally have larger electric motors and small ICEs (I think like 140hp and 80hp respectively in the Volt?), with large batteries that are capable of significant range (~30-40 miles for the Volt?) The Peugeot is basically the opposite - 160hp diesel and 37hp electric, with a tiny battery that can only get a 2-3 miles at low speeds (like 35mph?) and that doesn't even include accelerating to that speed from a stop. The big selling point of the series hybrids is with commuting distances you don't need to burn fuel at *all*, so they don't want to waste money on a turbodiesel (especially in the US).
But anyway, I never said that even series diesel hybrids wouldn't be more efficient, just that they would be more expensive and the diminishing returns may not be worth it. And in fact if you look up why there are so few series diesel hybrids (even though in theory, as the OP said, being able to run the diesel at a low RPM constant speed would be very efficient) the big reason right now is that they are just too expensive for what they are good at, which is commuter cars that rarely use their ICE. The Volt is already pretty pricey for what you get. And if you want to spend significantly more than that you are almost in Tesla territory
Slashdot Mirror
Very true in many cases... maybe that's the reason I have always liked the working/sporting breeds, since they were traditionally selected more for their practicality than their "interesting" physical traits.
And though dysplasia has in the past been a problem in those working breeds, it's now testable and no reputable breeder will breed a carrier (and non-breeding owners should spay or neuter their dog so a carrier can't pass down the gene).
I didn't say that they didn't have worms at any point. A reputable breeder will have wormed them already and have detailed records of this and all vaccinations and a vet schedule and records for the parents as well. . I've never heard of any good breeder that would send puppies home that have not been wormed. You sure as hell aren't going to take a dog home from a good breeder and have to go to a vet to discover it has worms.
Well, that depends on how old the puppy is. Most breeders will let (and encourage) you pick up a puppy at 8-10 weeks (once it's weaned) at which point it will have had max 1 deworming (2-3 are required) and 1 DHPP shot (of 3 required). And you have to wait longer before giving other required or optional ones like rabies, lyme, lepto, etc.
Not only have I had several dogs over the years and have family friends who raise and train/show dogs, my Dad is a veterinarian with 40 years of experience. The conventional wisdom is "all puppies have worms" and since that's true 90%+ of the time, it's not really even worth bothering to test for them before deworming (better safe than a false negative, so the test would just needless add to the cost though the owner is always welcome to search their poop for free :).
Lots of other pets and livestock don't get the same levels of medical care and do quite fine
THIS is not particularly good reasoning. The human race survived a long time without modern medical care, but a lot more babies survive to adulthood with proper modern medicine. The same is true for puppies.
Sure, deworming (and you don't need a second opinion on *that*, almost all puppies have roundworms and they will be a lot more likely to thrive if you treat them, just look it up), monthly flea and tick medication (possibly with antiparasitics to prevent heartworm or reinfestation of roundworm), vaccinations, etc are going to cost you, but the alternative is basically leaving it all up to a game of "survival of the fittest" with your new puppy. Why would anyone want to go through all of the effort of raising a puppy only to leave some simple but effective basic health maintenance up to chance?
Not to mention, some of these parasites are transmittable to *you*. While fleas or even ticks might just be highly annoying in your home, you really don't want to get roundworms.
If you do this, I assume you also provide appropriate fruits and vegetables? (i.e. not one of many that are toxic, but enough that the dog gets a well-rounded nutrition).
Dogs are not like cats who live mostly on protein - they are omnivores that can benefit from foods like carrots, pumpkin//sweet potatoes, cantaloupe, some greens, blueberries, apples, etc (but not onions, garlic, grapes, avocados, etc which vary from mildly GI toxic to potentially deadly anemia).
2.) My dog isn't from a puppy mill; she's from a reputable breeder
You previously stated your dog had worms. If this is the case, then it's not a reputable breeder. Or perhaps you have found a crappy vet. It can't hurt to go to another for a second opinion. At least you'll know.
Wrong. Most puppies, no matter where or how they are born, have roundworms. They are fairly endemic in small numbers and transmitted by the mother in the womb. It's normal, and not a big deal to treat. You can leave it alone and hope your puppy manages to gets enough nutrition to thrive and fight them off, or you can spend a bit and deworm. But why anyone would want to get a new puppy and play survival of the fittest with it is beyond me (and pretty horrible). Not to mention roundworms can potentially spread to people is it worth a bit of money to *you* not to get worms? :)
Sorry, but that statement is just not an absolute, and never will be. All it takes is one example to disprove something an absolute. Without the layout and formatting the poems of ee cummings really would be missing significant meaning. Not all poetry (or prose) is created only for the words they contain. And neither has to fit cleanly into some arbitrary document model.
Aha! Then make sure it's circularly polarized! (and I suppose, tape the glasses to their heads and tie their hands behind their backs)
And since it's an absurd amount of effort and expense just to create a simple one-way window, the US DHS is sure to demand its large scale implementation right away. Time to patent it and make billions! And as a bonus, with everyone wearing these shades Guantanamo will be the new height of style in secret detention centers...
Actually, this was the first thing I thought of when I read "'if you can hear, you can also be heard" in the summary.
It's also my explanation to my girlfriend as to why I can't hear her when she tries to talk to me through the bathroom door while I'm in the shower, but she can hear me ;)
Just polarize a window between two rooms and then make everyone in one room wear complementary polarized glasses :)
Wait, so building a concrete wall is more expensive than building a wall filled with thousands (or millions?) of tiny fans? Not only is that not EVER likely to be true, but the latter will always require significant maintenance and electricity costs...
True. I guess it's hard to separate arrogance from leadership. A surprising number of CEOs are literally borderline sociopathic :)
I think my biggest complaint of Musk is that after accepting almost $500M in loans from the government for Tesla (not to mention the billions on battery research and $7500 credit per Tesla sold), $100M in grants for Solar City (and untold billions on solar panel research), and who knows how much money for Space X (over $1B, I think? Plus nearly a trillion dollars in space research over the years), he has the gall to claim the government should not be in the business of providing subsidies to companies. Shameless opportunist and dickhead, indeed. But a brilliant shameless opportunist and dickhead...
You forgot "helped drive the consumer solar industry in the US".
Man, that dude is just plan LUCKY. There can't be any other explanation. No matter how many lottery tickets *I* buy they don't seem to lead to a string of successful multibillion dollar businesses that all practically revolutionized their respective industries. But maybe next week...
I guess it depends on whether you play console games *with* your kid (and which ones). It's important to keep the skills up so as not to be too humiliatingly crushed ;)
That said, RTS games on a console is heresy (as is FPS on a tablet).
It's a start - but they have a couple thousand (and most of those are PSOne/PS2/PSP "classics") compared to over 100k on Android and an absurd number on iOS.
Currently it's still orders of magnitude more difficult and expensive to get a game published on PS or Xbox - even the "simple" ones. Basically, most indies can't afford to make a console their first platform because of the price. They have to strike it rich (relatively speaking) on iOS/Android, and then they have the means to expand to consoles...
When one gets to a certain age, it's time to put aside childish things (like gaming consoles), and be an adult. In nothing but tattoos, a cowboy hat and high heels.
Game consoles are surprisingly cyclic in life. I would wager you don't have kids ;)
Actually, given the above sentence I desperately hope you don't have kids.
One of the features that all the current streaming boxes/sticks are missing is a dedicated control interface, separate from the TV itself.
I'm know I'm in a very small minority here - my primary TV is a projector. If I want to turn on some tunes, I don't want to have my 100" display fired up wasting bulb life, lots of power, and displaying nothing of real value. My phone, while home, is usually in the kitchen charging
Actually, this is already doable with any Airplay capable device (not just AppleTV & Airport, but *many* cheap receivers, etc now) + iPhone/iPad/iPod. Or if you prefer Android devices, Chomecast + any Android phone/tablet. Why would you need a $300 "game" console to solve this when a $35 Chromecast will do it?
Same thing goes for TV/movies... If I just want to see what's on, I don't want to fire up everything. If there was just a little screen next to the TV, or on the entertainment stand, or on the end table, etc..
Um, yeah, they have those, too, they are called tablets ;) And both Xbox One and PS4 now have "companion" apps (Smartglass, PS Companion, whatever) to do this. Same with the previously mentioned Chromecast, that's exactly how it works (i.e. no controls to the TV, you use a mobile device or computer).
Speaking of streaming... why are almost all of the current devices so horribly limited? Many don't allow you to stream from other devices on your own home network. If they do, they usually require DLNA, and only DLNA. Why can't they support CIFS/SMB/NFS/etc? For example, the PS3 has WAY more than enough horsepower to be a simple mp3 jukebox, but the interface is absolute garbage for any collection more than a handful of cc's.
Because it doesn't really benefit Sony. It's a huge niche. They just won't sell enough extra consoles to make it worthwhile. And the trend it getting away from giant media jukeboxes in the home, anyway. Not to say a tiny minority doesn't use them, but when you sell 50M+ consoles they just don't move the bottom line.
Now add in games... who's to say this thing won't have some real guts behind it? A high end video card and some nice controllers, and they'd be able to stage themselves for some serious titles.
Then it has become a full-fledged console. Sony and Microsoft have sunk MANY BILLIONS of dollars down that insanely expensive console business trying to get traction. The point of a basic "mobile game console" is it will be dirt cheap and play simple games using the existing Android (or Amazon) app store. No way Amazon is going to shell out the billions necessary to compete head to head with MS, Sony, and Nintendo on the "big consoles"
Anyway, my guess is if it does happen it's going to be in the $100-$150 range. There is no display or capacitive touch, which are most of the cost of tablets - and you can get full Android tablets for $150 these days.
Linux is already the #2 gaming platform.
No, it's definitely not.
Even if you call Android a Linux platform, it's still WAY behind on what drives game development - revenue. The Xboxen, PS[34], GameBoy(s), Wii, iOS, etc are all orders of magnitude ahead on that front. Linux as a gaming platform is currently totally irrelevant, and with SteamOS will transition to mostly irrelevant.
But, please don't let that stop you! If availability of games on Linux allows just one more guy to jump around in a cowboy hat and high heels, it's still a net gain to society...
$300 *is* pointless for an Android console (especially if as you say they are going after the console crowd) when you can add $100 to what you said and get the PS4 price curve.
And I don't understand why people keep saying "but Android consoles will have simple games that people want". Making games *simpler* seems like the worst barrier to entry I've ever heard of. If Sony and Microsoft expand their online stores and make "simple" games easier to develop/publish on their consoles, then they will be a complete superset with the additional ability to play discs and AAA titles.
Why does it have to be a "technical article"?
Technical articles are for journals. Glossy magazines with artistic layout are a completely different animal - their *point* is style as much as substance, for whatever that is worth.
And while I agree it's possible (and relatively common) to hurt usability with too much "fancy layout", it't still just plain incorrect to categorically state that "layout is not content, period." Period.
Why? If I want magazine style layout, I'll open a fucking magazine. When I go to a website, I want to see text and as few images as possbile, period.
And when I want to watch a movie, I'll go to the theater! If I'm viewing it on my tablet I'd prefer it delivered as a screenplay and unmixed mp3s for the soundtrack.
Who gives a shit what graphic designers want besides graphic designers and pointy-hairs?
And... this is why Linux on the desktop is still a niche for developers...
Yeah, totally! Presentation and artistic design can never be content in themselves! Da Vinci should have just painted The Last Supper attendees in alphabetical order and left it to the viewer to do the rest.
None of the posts above actually said anything about USD. Go back and read them. *You* added that part, and then spent 4 sentences being sarcastic about how USD are not useful in your country even though it was irrelevant to the discussion. Hence, a troll.
Just seems like you were looking for an excuse to go on a "not all slashdot readers are from the US" rant when it really didn't apply here.
So, if you don't live in the US, your post is just a troll, and if you do, it's just incorrect. So what was your point?
Well, we were talking about *series* hybrids, not parallel hybrids like the Prius and Peugeot. They have very different designs and different optimal uses. Series hybrids (like the Chevy Volt) generally have larger electric motors and small ICEs (I think like 140hp and 80hp respectively in the Volt?), with large batteries that are capable of significant range (~30-40 miles for the Volt?) The Peugeot is basically the opposite - 160hp diesel and 37hp electric, with a tiny battery that can only get a 2-3 miles at low speeds (like 35mph?) and that doesn't even include accelerating to that speed from a stop. The big selling point of the series hybrids is with commuting distances you don't need to burn fuel at *all*, so they don't want to waste money on a turbodiesel (especially in the US).
But anyway, I never said that even series diesel hybrids wouldn't be more efficient, just that they would be more expensive and the diminishing returns may not be worth it. And in fact if you look up why there are so few series diesel hybrids (even though in theory, as the OP said, being able to run the diesel at a low RPM constant speed would be very efficient) the big reason right now is that they are just too expensive for what they are good at, which is commuter cars that rarely use their ICE. The Volt is already pretty pricey for what you get. And if you want to spend significantly more than that you are almost in Tesla territory