Don't bother with RTFA. The article is a complete troll. I feel had for having read it. The gist of the article is, "So two women got in an online argument. What's the big deal?" Dvorak conveniently ignores the central issue behind the uproar - the publishing of PJ and her mother's addresses, complete with photos and (practically) driving directions. He replies to several messages in the forum, but never to one covering this most central of points. So either: A) Dvorak thinks this is within the bounds of ethical journalism, or B) His articles weren't getting much attention lately, and he knew which buttons to push.
I hadn't thought about that approach at all. If the details could be worked out, it definitely would make the 'beta battery' a much more likely source for powering things like cell phones, laptops, etc.
There is no mention of the power delivered by the battery - only its lifetime. It doesn't take much to run a pacemaker, but a laptop might require a battery the size of a loaf of bread, for all we know. Also, while tritium isn't all that dangerous, it IS radioactive, and carries all of the regulatory baggage that goes with that designation, so great care would have to be taken to prevent leakage during its lifetime, which wouldn't be easy.
Let's hope PJ finds a suitable legal avenue to haul O'Gara over the coals and make her really pay...
"Dude, uncool. Maureen is a bitch. There's no question there. But you can't put her life in danger just because she put someone else's life in danger. "
Er, where in there does he advocate going after MOG in anything other than a legal manner?
However, intelligent folks know that simply because something is not repeatable and testable doesn't automatically make it false.
No, it just makes it irrelevent. A theory that cannot be tested is useless. That is not to say that a theory that cannot be tested with available means has no value, if it is indeed possible to test it through some means that can be imagined, and later devised.
Criminal trials do not suffer the same burden of proof that scientific theories do. Not even close.
Evolution is not un-testable. Its progress is evident in the fossil record, its ultimate mechanism (genes) are manipulated in laboratories every day, and its short-term (biologically speaking) effects are obvious to anybody who has compared a Great Dane to a Chihuahua.
I am often puzzled when somebody asks me if I 'believe in' evolution. The question betrays a complete misunderstanding of the scientific method. I do not 'believe in' any theory. A theory has its basis in observable facts, and is supported by the available evidence, or it is not. Evolution meets this criteria. If some evidence comes up that forces the theory of evolution to be modified (likely) or abandoned (unlikely), it will only serve to strengthen the foundations of science, and increase human understanding of the world around us.
This world has too many people in it that want to tell others what to do, and make others see the world as they do. If those people who want to ban the teaching of evolution would simply teach their children as they see fit and leave the rest of us alone, the world would be a much better place.
I remember the civil engineering students demonstrating a flexible concrete snow sled during Engineering Week at my alma mater (UBC) sometime around 1994. They rolled it up and carried it away. (It took four of them to lift it.)
iTunes is a great application, I like the idea of the iTunes music store, and I love the convenience of it, so I tried my first song download from the music store last week. I was extremely disappointed with the audio quality. A 128kbps mp4 just does not have sufficient audio fidelity - not even for the silly pop tune I bought. Considering that I'm paying about the same per track as I would if I'd bought a whole CD, one would think I would be given the option of downloading a track at full CD quality (lossless, or at least a 320kbps mp3 equivalent). Until the audio quality of their music files increases, I will not be buying another track from iTunes again. I'd rather rip my own CDs - at least then I know I'll be getting the full audio quality my ears demand.
If carbon dating us unreliable past a few thousand years, as you say, what's a more reliable dating method past that timeframe?
There are several, depending on the half-life of isotopes that may be present. You can find a very good explanation of radiometric dating methods here. Some responses to some of the creationist's arguments against the validity of these approaches can be found here.
Seriously though, language like that can work. For a Being who isn't bounded by time, all of eternity is an ever-present "now". So from His perspective, He can talk about Rome any way He pleases.:)
I've always wondered how a being that sees time as an "everpresent now" could interact with us 'time-stuck' follks. Isn't our mode of communication dependent on a timeline? Hrm, it could explain a few things about prophets, though...
I hear what you are saying on application design, but I've NEVER met anyone confused by two mouse buttons.
You should see my 77 yeard old father in front of a computer, then. And you'd be even more surprised how many Windows users don't even know about the right-click.
"Unsophisticated' users represent 99.9% of all computer owners, so it makes sense to cater to them."
That was not the case when the decission to go with one button was made. You can't go back and change your reasoning/justification to suit the current climate! Unless you are the US Gov. re. Iraq!!;-)
I remember when first the Lisa and then the first Mac came out. There was much talk about why they went with one button, and Apple's explanation was ease of use for novice computer users. Maybe most users at the time were relatively 'sophisticated', but those weren't the people Apple was trying to sell computers to. They wanted the other 99.9% of the population to want and buy a computer. To quote the man himself: "Working on the Apple I at the time, they weren't interested in human factors. While I was the first PARC-savvy person at Apple, Larry Tesler was the first PARC employee to join the company. At first he was strongly opposed to the Mac's easier-to-use mouse methods, and I eventually wrote a memo that showed, point by point, that the one-button mouse could do everything that PARCs three-button mouse could do and with the same number or fewer user actions. It was faster and more efficient, and much easier to learn and remember how to use."
So therefore all computer mice should be crippled just to remove a button that some users don't use? Good argument...
This is a strawman. What I'm saying (and I think the parent was saying as well) is that Apple is fully justified in shipping single buttoned mice with its computers. This simplifies the use of the computer for those who wish to use it as an information appliance, and forces developers to make the basic apps easy to use. 'Unsophisticated' users represent 99.9% of all computer owners, so it makes sense to cater to them. "Having the button there" confuses them needlesly, especially when the apps are so simple in the first place. Power users who want a mouse with a second or third button are fully capable of getting one at minimal cost and effort.
Perhaps they can use potassium-40 dating, or some other method to directly measure the age of the soft tissue, rather than the traditional method of estimating age by the surrounding rock.
"You don't work in GUI design, do you? Context menus are essential in complex applications, e.g. IDEs, Tech Drawing, UML design."
You quoted the parent, but perhaps you didn't read it first? Let's see it again: "Very few applications have (or should have) the level of feature complexity that would require contextual menus for basic functionality..." Your list represents an almost insignificantly small subset of the applications used by PC owners. Most applications used by people are nowhere near as complex as the ones you cite.
What do you expect me to do, squeal?
on
The Solar Death Ray
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Right, but I can live in my house even if its value goes down. I can't live in my Google stock; it has no practical value beyond the piece of paper (record in a database) that certifies I own it.
A Real Estate crash, if it happens (and I am not saying it will happen), will be precipitated by a rise in interest rates. The cost of borrowing is dirt cheap right now. When the cost of borrowing goes up, people won't be able to afford those huge mortgages, and the prices will crash. It will be worse in countries like Canada with mortgage terms typically set below the financing period (usually 5 years). When the term is up, they have to re-negotiate the rate, and might not be able to afford their home at that new rate. Then again, interest rates may stay pretty well where they've been for the last three years (see page 2). Then again, maybe not.
32-bit processors are limited to addressing 4GB in TOTAL, including paged RAM (swap files or partitions). With a 64-bit operating system, an AMD64 laptop will be able to fully address 2GB of physical RAM and another 20TB or so of paged RAM (if your hard drive is big enough). Also, it gets you by the 2BG per-process limit of 32-bit Windows applications. Not a bad thing, IMHO. I don't know who is likely to need that kind memory in a mobile platform today, but in the not-so-far future it could be a necessity. See this article for an example of the advantages of 64-bit architectures in a photographic manipulation application.
So I guess the amount of electricity that flows out of the CPU to the different busses comes from the hamster pedalling inside the CPU?
Power is not distributed in series on a motherboard. There are separate rails for the CPU, PCI(X) bus, etc. The CPU power rating is the amount of power CONSUMED by the processor. It has nothing to do with the other elements in the system.
I understood that point - and it is a good one, certainly. But again, it's unfair to the makers of an operating system and other large-scale software infrastructures. It's simply not practical to distribute every application through thin or web clients. Good on Amazon for having that advantage for their particular niche. But in the case of operating systems, games, video editing software etc., the network infrastructure isn't there to make this a viable option for delivery to the general public.
Slashdot Mirror
...they don't do something like this already? How does their security team do research, anyway?
Don't bother with RTFA. The article is a complete troll. I feel had for having read it. The gist of the article is, "So two women got in an online argument. What's the big deal?" Dvorak conveniently ignores the central issue behind the uproar - the publishing of PJ and her mother's addresses, complete with photos and (practically) driving directions. He replies to several messages in the forum, but never to one covering this most central of points. So either:
A) Dvorak thinks this is within the bounds of ethical journalism, or
B) His articles weren't getting much attention lately, and he knew which buttons to push.
I vote for (B).
No, take my pants off and you have the world's finest lady-pleasuring device.
You do something special with a belt?
I hadn't thought about that approach at all. If the details could be worked out, it definitely would make the 'beta battery' a much more likely source for powering things like cell phones, laptops, etc.
There is no mention of the power delivered by the battery - only its lifetime. It doesn't take much to run a pacemaker, but a laptop might require a battery the size of a loaf of bread, for all we know. Also, while tritium isn't all that dangerous, it IS radioactive, and carries all of the regulatory baggage that goes with that designation, so great care would have to be taken to prevent leakage during its lifetime, which wouldn't be easy.
"Dude, uncool. Maureen is a bitch. There's no question there. But you can't put her life in danger just because she put someone else's life in danger. "
Er, where in there does he advocate going after MOG in anything other than a legal manner?
Oh I don't know... she's not all that bad.
Ahh! That's worse that goatse!
However, intelligent folks know that simply because something is not repeatable and testable doesn't automatically make it false.
No, it just makes it irrelevent. A theory that cannot be tested is useless. That is not to say that a theory that cannot be tested with available means has no value, if it is indeed possible to test it through some means that can be imagined, and later devised.
Criminal trials do not suffer the same burden of proof that scientific theories do. Not even close.
Evolution is not un-testable. Its progress is evident in the fossil record, its ultimate mechanism (genes) are manipulated in laboratories every day, and its short-term (biologically speaking) effects are obvious to anybody who has compared a Great Dane to a Chihuahua.
I am often puzzled when somebody asks me if I 'believe in' evolution. The question betrays a complete misunderstanding of the scientific method. I do not 'believe in' any theory. A theory has its basis in observable facts, and is supported by the available evidence, or it is not. Evolution meets this criteria. If some evidence comes up that forces the theory of evolution to be modified (likely) or abandoned (unlikely), it will only serve to strengthen the foundations of science, and increase human understanding of the world around us.
This world has too many people in it that want to tell others what to do, and make others see the world as they do. If those people who want to ban the teaching of evolution would simply teach their children as they see fit and leave the rest of us alone, the world would be a much better place.
I remember the civil engineering students demonstrating a flexible concrete snow sled during Engineering Week at my alma mater (UBC) sometime around 1994. They rolled it up and carried it away. (It took four of them to lift it.)
Don't forget memory. Good, fast memory can cost more than twice as much as the regular CAS 2.5 stuff.
...it was pronounced "pay-tent".
iTunes is a great application, I like the idea of the iTunes music store, and I love the convenience of it, so I tried my first song download from the music store last week. I was extremely disappointed with the audio quality. A 128kbps mp4 just does not have sufficient audio fidelity - not even for the silly pop tune I bought. Considering that I'm paying about the same per track as I would if I'd bought a whole CD, one would think I would be given the option of downloading a track at full CD quality (lossless, or at least a 320kbps mp3 equivalent). Until the audio quality of their music files increases, I will not be buying another track from iTunes again. I'd rather rip my own CDs - at least then I know I'll be getting the full audio quality my ears demand.
...why don't the ISPs just tell the IFPI (and the RIAA and the MPAA...) to just fuck off?
If carbon dating us unreliable past a few thousand years, as you say, what's a more reliable dating method past that timeframe?
There are several, depending on the half-life of isotopes that may be present. You can find a very good explanation of radiometric dating methods here. Some responses to some of the creationist's arguments against the validity of these approaches can be found here.
Seriously though, language like that can work. For a Being who isn't bounded by time, all of eternity is an ever-present "now". So from His perspective, He can talk about Rome any way He pleases. :)
I've always wondered how a being that sees time as an "everpresent now" could interact with us 'time-stuck' follks. Isn't our mode of communication dependent on a timeline? Hrm, it could explain a few things about prophets, though...
I hear what you are saying on application design, but I've NEVER met anyone confused by two mouse buttons.
;-)
You should see my 77 yeard old father in front of a computer, then. And you'd be even more surprised how many Windows users don't even know about the right-click.
"Unsophisticated' users represent 99.9% of all computer owners, so it makes sense to cater to them."
That was not the case when the decission to go with one button was made. You can't go back and change your reasoning/justification to suit the current climate! Unless you are the US Gov. re. Iraq!!
I remember when first the Lisa and then the first Mac came out. There was much talk about why they went with one button, and Apple's explanation was ease of use for novice computer users. Maybe most users at the time were relatively 'sophisticated', but those weren't the people Apple was trying to sell computers to. They wanted the other 99.9% of the population to want and buy a computer. To quote the man himself:
"Working on the Apple I at the time, they weren't interested in human factors. While I was the first PARC-savvy person at Apple, Larry Tesler was the first PARC employee to join the company. At first he was strongly opposed to the Mac's easier-to-use mouse methods, and I eventually wrote a memo that showed, point by point, that the one-button mouse could do everything that PARCs three-button mouse could do and with the same number or fewer user actions. It was faster and more efficient, and much easier to learn and remember how to use."
So therefore all computer mice should be crippled just to remove a button that some users don't use? Good argument...
This is a strawman. What I'm saying (and I think the parent was saying as well) is that Apple is fully justified in shipping single buttoned mice with its computers. This simplifies the use of the computer for those who wish to use it as an information appliance, and forces developers to make the basic apps easy to use. 'Unsophisticated' users represent 99.9% of all computer owners, so it makes sense to cater to them. "Having the button there" confuses them needlesly, especially when the apps are so simple in the first place. Power users who want a mouse with a second or third button are fully capable of getting one at minimal cost and effort.
Perhaps they can use potassium-40 dating, or some other method to directly measure the age of the soft tissue, rather than the traditional method of estimating age by the surrounding rock.
"You don't work in GUI design, do you? Context menus are essential in complex applications, e.g. IDEs, Tech Drawing, UML design."
You quoted the parent, but perhaps you didn't read it first? Let's see it again:
"Very few applications have (or should have) the level of feature complexity that would require contextual menus for basic functionality..."
Your list represents an almost insignificantly small subset of the applications used by PC owners. Most applications used by people are nowhere near as complex as the ones you cite.
No, Mister Duck. I expect you to die!
Guantanamo is outside of the US, so it's not officially under US juridiction.
Let me get this straight: you're saying a US naval base is out of US jurisdiction?
Right, but I can live in my house even if its value goes down. I can't live in my Google stock; it has no practical value beyond the piece of paper (record in a database) that certifies I own it.
A Real Estate crash, if it happens (and I am not saying it will happen), will be precipitated by a rise in interest rates. The cost of borrowing is dirt cheap right now. When the cost of borrowing goes up, people won't be able to afford those huge mortgages, and the prices will crash. It will be worse in countries like Canada with mortgage terms typically set below the financing period (usually 5 years). When the term is up, they have to re-negotiate the rate, and might not be able to afford their home at that new rate. Then again, interest rates may stay pretty well where they've been for the last three years (see page 2). Then again, maybe not.
32-bit processors are limited to addressing 4GB in TOTAL, including paged RAM (swap files or partitions). With a 64-bit operating system, an AMD64 laptop will be able to fully address 2GB of physical RAM and another 20TB or so of paged RAM (if your hard drive is big enough). Also, it gets you by the 2BG per-process limit of 32-bit Windows applications. Not a bad thing, IMHO. I don't know who is likely to need that kind memory in a mobile platform today, but in the not-so-far future it could be a necessity. See this article for an example of the advantages of 64-bit architectures in a photographic manipulation application.
So I guess the amount of electricity that flows out of the CPU to the different busses comes from the hamster pedalling inside the CPU?
Power is not distributed in series on a motherboard. There are separate rails for the CPU, PCI(X) bus, etc. The CPU power rating is the amount of power CONSUMED by the processor. It has nothing to do with the other elements in the system.
I understood that point - and it is a good one, certainly. But again, it's unfair to the makers of an operating system and other large-scale software infrastructures. It's simply not practical to distribute every application through thin or web clients. Good on Amazon for having that advantage for their particular niche. But in the case of operating systems, games, video editing software etc., the network infrastructure isn't there to make this a viable option for delivery to the general public.