While I appriciate you drudging up evidence that kinda sortof almost sounds somewhat like what you claimed in your first post, you are still missing the point.
To answer the last part, if your point was that china is changing economic systems then you must really suck at making points. Your post was semi-coherent rambling at best. Read a book.
I think you mean highest profit OR lowest risk. Rarely in any financial situation will the highest profit be gained from taking the option with the least risk. In fact, the opposite is almost always the case. Of course, least risk doesn't even mean "lose the most money", it has to do with volatility also.
These things can be very complicated, this is *why* there are professional bean counters all over the place.
Read a book dope. Germany was nearly BANKRUPT at the beginning of WW2. They had stimulated the economy using gold reserves which were about to run out, leaving them no ability to pay for the large army/navy/airforce they had built. The economy under Hitler was fantastic, and it would have continued to be fantastic for about another four months until the gold ran out, then it would have been a very devistating depression, with huge inflation as the government moved to fiat currency to pay for things.
It's amazing that people continue to repeat the same crap over and over without ever wondering if it is factual. "Hitler did wonders for the economy, but was bad for killing the Jews." -- This statement is FALSE, Hitler was bad at running everything except the propaganda machine (run for him) and he also killed millions of innocent people.
I think the problem is that people get they're "information" from TV. Guess what guys, TV only gives you the sensation of being informed, the data density of TV is so low that you could watch it all day every day for a year and learn about as much as a trip to the library for an afternoon. The history channel is neat, it's cool to see the footage and keep an eye out for your grandpa or whatever, but honestly the "history" part is a bunch of shit.
You are talking out your ass. Did you learn all your "facts" about marxism from web discussion boards? Marx does not discuss a dissolution of the central government into a form of anarchism. Neither does Lenin. If there is another source of "classic theory" please fill me in.
Here is the (uninteresting) difference between Marx's socialism and Russia's. Marx said that a society has to go through a period of industrialization and reach a state of capitalism FIRST, then the inhuman forces of capitalism would force the workers to sieze the factories. Lenin beleived that Russia could skip this part and go straight to dictatorship of the prol. However, it is never really made clear why you would need to go to socialism if you aren't responding to the excesses of capitalism.
But like I said, you're just talking out your ass anyway, so screw off.
Tragic that the average slashdotter (and thus, the 1st world citizen) doesn't really understand these distinctions.
Is this irony? I'm not sure, but I think head-up-ass-man bemoaning the lack of understanding of entire continents HAS to be some kind of irony, or the word has no meaning.
Bullcrap. You get one big box with everything but a monitor, and you get another box for the monitor. If you get an LCD (or an AOL PC) then it is just ONE BIG ASS BOX. You are a liar. The exception is the Mac Mini, or if you build a computer yourself.
Blogs are not a replacement for books. Check. Blogs are not a replacement for news. Check.
What are blogs good for then? Mostly as a sort of news-filter. I can't imagine sitting down and reading an entire newspaper every day. It might be worthwhile, but frankly I doubt it. Most newspapers have alot of filler, and I'm just not interested in whatever they "put in front of" me most of the time.
However, I do read slashdot alot, since it generally grabs stories that I am interested in. Then I read the posts, because every once and awhile someone knowledgable adds something, or relates a story which is interesting.
I completely understand what he is saying about blogs as direct sources of news. Bloggers either go out and investigate stories (very rarely) or they just pull information off of established news sources (somewhat common) or they actually seek out and find sources that agree with their views, and then they use it as a sort of evidence in favor of those views (almost always).
This last bit is the really perverse part, although there doesn't seem to be much danger. Rush Limbaugh has been lying three hours every weekday for 15 years and the world isn't melting quite yet, and now there is Air America to give the inverse lie to Rush's 24 hours a day.
The REAL problem with political blogging is many-fold. The first is that they do not attempt anything like a NPOV in selecting stories. If you use blogs as a primary source for information you are effectively screwing yourself over. It goes something like this: 1. You are interested in the World and what is going on. 2. You seek out news to fulfill that curiosity. 3. You find a blog or blogs, and use them for your day to day news. 4. Profit! (Blogs, not you) 5. You read one sided news guided by the political philosophy of the blogger(s).
Thus you defeat 1. since you are not finding out about the world and what is going on, rather you are finding out exactly the facts about the world that reinforce the political view held by the blogger.
Another thing that is REALLY wrong with blogs is that they are at best tertiary sources of information. They don't generally interview news makers, or investigate outside of what can be found on the internet. So nothing new is contributed, they just repackage someone else's work, or give you their straightup opinion and analysis, which is really likely to be crap.
Some people will say that their political beliefs are made up, so it doesn't matter that they only see news that reinforces those beliefs. These people are complete idiots. If you cannot possibly imagine a world where evidence could come along that would cause you to modify your political beliefs then your imagination is broke.
Finally, there is the gruesome twosome of political discourse, Confidence and Understanding. Most political hacks (including bloggers) truely believe that they understand what is wrong with the world and given the chance to run it, the world would run smoothly and happily, wheras the other side either doesn't 'get it' or knows they (the hacks) are right and intentionally ruins things for personal gain.
That is to say, most political idealogs believe in the incompetence of everyone but their side, or in a conspiracy of ignorance, where everyone who disagrees is just refusing to admit the truth for some reason. If you don't believe me read some of the right wing blogs where they actually say that "the left intentionally ruined education in america to produce a dependant welfare class who would then have to vote for Democrats" or in left wing blogs where they say "the right intentionally created the national debt so that the interest payments would force the government to cut spending in other areas". These statements are actually very common, and are but a selection from the insanity of each side.
But the "understanding" of these hacks is apparently so developed that they can analyze any problem anywhere, and the analysis never reads (which it almost always should if they are being honest or weren't blinded by ideology) "we just don't know, it's really really complicated".
He probably isn't going to have to pay any money. The publicity is going to do exactly what Apple hoped to do with the fine, convince people it isn't worth it to release beta Apple software into the wild. Once all the publicity dies down Apple will probably just let him off the hook (although now that he has this defense fund they'll probably want that, he certainly has no right to it if the case is dropped).
I have never understood the Warez mentality. Oh, sure, I'll gladly download from bittorrent all day, but why would someone put themselves at risk just to let other people download software?
Perhaps it is because they have a philosophy where charging for software, or charging too much for software is wrong. They would have to be pretty retarded for this to be the reason though, since Warez certainly HELPS non-free software compete against free software in the long run. Every person who downloads Photoshop, who wouldn't have gone out and bought it, is actually helping Adobe. They are learning a propriatary program. At worst they get free use out of it. At best they will become skilled at it and someday use it at a job. When they are employed they will want to use Photoshop, and the business will purchase it (or if the business already uses it then there will be more available skilled people, driving the wage down, which encourages them to keep using it).
If Warez weren't available, then this person would probably use The Gimp or something, now repeat the above argument, except The Gimp gets wider use. Plus this guy will show all his friends how he got this awesome peice of software, and it's free!
I guess Warez is best explained by some kind of nerd fetish for getting software, and the 'leetness' of letting people download it.
Despite this being demonstrated as rediculous and stupid over 2 thousand years ago (before the birth of Christ even) by Socrates, I'll try to explain why it is to those of you who think this post makes some sort of sense.
Either God hates sin because it is wrong, OR sin is wrong because God hates it.
Something cannot both be the cause and the consequence of something else.
So if God hates sin because it is wrong, then there is some higher authority beyond God which dictates wrongness, and God hates based on this authority. This contridicts our conception of God, so...
If things are wrong because God hates them then wrongness is totally arbitrary. If "sin" is arbitrary then God might have chosen the exact opposite values for morality. Thus if God had decided that boiling babies was a good idea, then it would be the best thing you could do (and NOT boiling babies would land you in hell). God might have decided that, say, that for a woman to speak in church is an abomination (actually, he did if you believe the bible).
The second issue with Authority driven morality is that of whether or not it is binding.
God says "do such and such". Now, you have to do this, IF you have to listen to God. But why do you have to listen to God? Because God says you have to listen to God. See how this is circular? Now, thankfully God has given us an additional reason. If you decide not to listen, you can burn in hell. Any appeal to authority in morality must end with a threat, or there is really no reason to pay attention to it at all. (There still isn't, since the threat is empty, but empty threats seem to have worked well so far)
Now, this is why you are an idiot. Why are things that are harmful to you a sin? Is fasting a sin? What about mortification of the flesh. How about eating a Big Mac. Is refusing medical treatment a sin? What about LETTING YOURSELF GET CRUSIFIED?
You are even more of an idiot, though, because you don't critisize homosexuality AT ALL. You critisize promiscuous behavior, regardless of who is screwing who.
Does it hurt to be so stupid? Or does your cult shield you with promises of crackers and grape juice which turn into Jesus when you eat them?
Hello? Did linus write X11 too? We might be using command line linux, if it weren't for the completely different alternate timeline. While we're playing "what if" I might as well point out that no gui => no desktop computer revolution => no need for a cheap minix clone to replace expensive unix, and also less computer demand => less CS majors => linus the electrical engineer.
No. Microsoft would have been stuck with dos until about 2000 ish, in any case would be out of business by now. Everybody would be using some sort of Xerox/IBM/Apple cludgomatic though (with gui).
Quick Basic is compiled in the same sense that early versions of visual basic were compiled, that is to say, not at all. It had a "create.exe" option which just wrapped your code up in an executible with the interpreter. Quick Basic was entirely garbage and an insult. (I remember that you couldn't create an array larger than some rediculously small size, like 7 elements or something)
This is garbage. By choosing the proper time interval you can make virtually any company beat any other company you like. For example:
Apple beats Dell: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=2y&l=off&z= m&q=l&c=Dell
Apple beats Microsoft: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=2y&l=off&z= m&q=l&c=msft
Apple beats GE: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=2y&l=off&z= m&q=l&c=GE
Or to really prove the point: Lucent beats Dell!!: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=LU&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q =l&c=dell
So this is just a bunch of crap. Besides, since when is stock price a valid indicator of the quality of a company's product (SCO)?
That being said, apples stock has certainly failed to perform. BUT if you (smart guy) predicted the performance of Dell you wouldn't be posting to slashdot, you would be lounging with beautiful women on your 100 foot yacht. Anybody can make money on the stock market, on paper, once they know how it already performed.
It does NOT adjust to constant steady motion. Constant steady motion IS EXACTLY THE SAME as sitting still. It is acceleration that it detects. Sudden acceleration (like the several hundred G's it would experience for a short time when it hits the ground after you drop it) is what causes the heads to smack the platters on the disk, causing damage and data loss.
It is a sad day when the 'innovators' at Apple have to resort to imitation of the PC world.
What a load of crap. And I notice you didn't give your source credit for the preceding paragraph.
Do you mean like when the lisa came out and it had a monitor? And a keyboard? Why would they imitate technology that already exists and is the best there is when they could have done something new, original, and totally pointlessly bad?
Microsoft isn't using it's monopoly in OS to get monopolies in media players, web browsers etc. It is using it's web browsers and media players to force proprietary standards, like WMF, WMA, ms java, etc, which will only work on windows. This then reinforces the windows monopoly.
For example, microsoft licensed java, then added extensions to intentionally break compatability with any other OS. They created internet explorer to kill netscape, because netscape was the killer app at the time, and was available on every platform under the sun. Then you have a situation where IE is at version 5, meanwhile the only reasonable browser on other OS's is netscape 4. This is before Mozilla and Firefox came along, and greatly hurt the competitiveness of alot of platforms, as using netscape 4 is just slightly better than eating razor blades.
Of course it is. But then again, WATER IS EVERYWHERE. This is Earth. That blue stuff you see from space? That's water. If you actually believe that water released into the atmosphere by humans can have any effect at all, then we:
have to ban tea and coffee spagetti macoroni and cheese in fact, ovens microwaves
since all cooking requires you get something that is wet very hot.
Are you people actually stupid enough to believe that we need to be concerned with releasing water vapor into the atmosphere? Because that is pretty damn stupid.
This is what evolutionary theorists would call a "just so" story. It is too easy to come up with an evolutionary story to explain the way things are. The test would be if the story made predictions which are independant of the data used to produce the story.
Despite the warm fuzzy feeling I got from your post...
Women didn't 'gain' the 'right' to vote. They convinced men to let them vote, and now they get to vote (not that it was ever just for them not to have that 'right'). Sufferagettes were pretty agressive. However, if you really want to talk about the right to vote then you should consider that question. Women gained the right to vote after men, BOTH gained the right to vote as a result of the revolution. If they had 'asked' king george I can imagine that his response would have been different.
As for the people around you not deciding to kill you, you are brushing aside a significant milestone in men's relationship with one another. A few thouasand years ago it would have been highly significant to consider whether or not those around you might have a reason to do you in. Now this is not worth while for them because you can call upon the leviathan of government to protect you, or punish your killers. (you are probably dumb enough, having read that, to think "why would my friends and family want to kill me? "What percentage of the people you come in contact with in any given day are your friends and family? Most people in the world would benifit from killing you and taking your stuff, and given the opportunity to do it without getting caught, most would take your head off with a machete for $.50.)
The idea that gods exist because we believe in them is something straight out of fantasy land. Gods don't exist regardless of belief. Never have invisible spirits interceded on behalf of man, regardless of what cretins believe. (if you happen to believe that invisible spirits do exist, then what I meant to say was YES! AMEN! The spirits request that you send me money.)
I understand that you mean that they only effect men's actions if they are believed in. But this is only true in the most literal sense. Men only act on ANYTHING if they beleive it to be true.
the same way everyone else ever has. By shooting at anyone who prevents the expression of those rights. Rights aren't given out by any body or entitiy, nor are they something abstract. A right and the expression of a right in an action is the same thing. Rights (power) come from the end of a gun, and the threat of physical violence, ONLY. Anyone who says otherwise is blowing sunshine up your ass.
There is a world of difference between programming something to *act* as though it has emotions, and something actually having an emotional or original response.
No. Emotions are not something that can be handed over to an other to be analyzed, double checked, or confirmed. There is absolutely no difference if the performance is ouwardly the same. See "The Cyberiad" by Stanislaw Lem.
he didn't present any facts. he just bemoaned the fact that global warming isn't 'proven' without following the logic to the conclusion, as though that was an argument for the status quo. as I said, uncertainty is and always will be an argument for caution.
Slashdot Mirror
Not so fast, hotshot.
While I appriciate you drudging up evidence that kinda sortof almost sounds somewhat like what you claimed in your first post, you are still missing the point.
To answer the last part, if your point was that china is changing economic systems then you must really suck at making points. Your post was semi-coherent rambling at best. Read a book.
I think you mean highest profit OR lowest risk. Rarely in any financial situation will the highest profit be gained from taking the option with the least risk. In fact, the opposite is almost always the case. Of course, least risk doesn't even mean "lose the most money", it has to do with volatility also.
These things can be very complicated, this is *why* there are professional bean counters all over the place.
Read a book dope. Germany was nearly BANKRUPT at the beginning of WW2. They had stimulated the economy using gold reserves which were about to run out, leaving them no ability to pay for the large army/navy/airforce they had built. The economy under Hitler was fantastic, and it would have continued to be fantastic for about another four months until the gold ran out, then it would have been a very devistating depression, with huge inflation as the government moved to fiat currency to pay for things.
It's amazing that people continue to repeat the same crap over and over without ever wondering if it is factual. "Hitler did wonders for the economy, but was bad for killing the Jews." -- This statement is FALSE, Hitler was bad at running everything except the propaganda machine (run for him) and he also killed millions of innocent people.
I think the problem is that people get they're "information" from TV. Guess what guys, TV only gives you the sensation of being informed, the data density of TV is so low that you could watch it all day every day for a year and learn about as much as a trip to the library for an afternoon. The history channel is neat, it's cool to see the footage and keep an eye out for your grandpa or whatever, but honestly the "history" part is a bunch of shit.
You are talking out your ass. Did you learn all your "facts" about marxism from web discussion boards? Marx does not discuss a dissolution of the central government into a form of anarchism. Neither does Lenin. If there is another source of "classic theory" please fill me in.
Here is the (uninteresting) difference between Marx's socialism and Russia's. Marx said that a society has to go through a period of industrialization and reach a state of capitalism FIRST, then the inhuman forces of capitalism would force the workers to sieze the factories. Lenin beleived that Russia could skip this part and go straight to dictatorship of the prol. However, it is never really made clear why you would need to go to socialism if you aren't responding to the excesses of capitalism.
But like I said, you're just talking out your ass anyway, so screw off.
Tragic that the average slashdotter (and thus, the 1st world citizen) doesn't really understand these distinctions.
Is this irony? I'm not sure, but I think head-up-ass-man bemoaning the lack of understanding of entire continents HAS to be some kind of irony, or the word has no meaning.
But mostly you're an idiot.
Bullcrap. You get one big box with everything but a monitor, and you get another box for the monitor. If you get an LCD (or an AOL PC) then it is just ONE BIG ASS BOX. You are a liar. The exception is the Mac Mini, or if you build a computer yourself.
Blogs are not a replacement for books. Check.
Blogs are not a replacement for news. Check.
What are blogs good for then? Mostly as a sort of news-filter. I can't imagine sitting down and reading an entire newspaper every day. It might be worthwhile, but frankly I doubt it. Most newspapers have alot of filler, and I'm just not interested in whatever they "put in front of" me most of the time.
However, I do read slashdot alot, since it generally grabs stories that I am interested in. Then I read the posts, because every once and awhile someone knowledgable adds something, or relates a story which is interesting.
I completely understand what he is saying about blogs as direct sources of news. Bloggers either go out and investigate stories (very rarely) or they just pull information off of established news sources (somewhat common) or they actually seek out and find sources that agree with their views, and then they use it as a sort of evidence in favor of those views (almost always).
This last bit is the really perverse part, although there doesn't seem to be much danger. Rush Limbaugh has been lying three hours every weekday for 15 years and the world isn't melting quite yet, and now there is Air America to give the inverse lie to Rush's 24 hours a day.
The REAL problem with political blogging is many-fold. The first is that they do not attempt anything like a NPOV in selecting stories. If you use blogs as a primary source for information you are effectively screwing yourself over. It goes something like this:
1. You are interested in the World and what is going on.
2. You seek out news to fulfill that curiosity.
3. You find a blog or blogs, and use them for your day to day news.
4. Profit! (Blogs, not you)
5. You read one sided news guided by the political philosophy of the blogger(s).
Thus you defeat 1. since you are not finding out about the world and what is going on, rather you are finding out exactly the facts about the world that reinforce the political view held by the blogger.
Another thing that is REALLY wrong with blogs is that they are at best tertiary sources of information. They don't generally interview news makers, or investigate outside of what can be found on the internet. So nothing new is contributed, they just repackage someone else's work, or give you their straightup opinion and analysis, which is really likely to be crap.
Some people will say that their political beliefs are made up, so it doesn't matter that they only see news that reinforces those beliefs. These people are complete idiots. If you cannot possibly imagine a world where evidence could come along that would cause you to modify your political beliefs then your imagination is broke.
Finally, there is the gruesome twosome of political discourse, Confidence and Understanding. Most political hacks (including bloggers) truely believe that they understand what is wrong with the world and given the chance to run it, the world would run smoothly and happily, wheras the other side either doesn't 'get it' or knows they (the hacks) are right and intentionally ruins things for personal gain.
That is to say, most political idealogs believe in the incompetence of everyone but their side, or in a conspiracy of ignorance, where everyone who disagrees is just refusing to admit the truth for some reason. If you don't believe me read some of the right wing blogs where they actually say that "the left intentionally ruined education in america to produce a dependant welfare class who would then have to vote for Democrats" or in left wing blogs where they say "the right intentionally created the national debt so that the interest payments would force the government to cut spending in other areas". These statements are actually very common, and are but a selection from the insanity of each side.
But the "understanding" of these hacks is apparently so developed that they can analyze any problem anywhere, and the analysis never reads (which it almost always should if they are being honest or weren't blinded by ideology) "we just don't know, it's really really complicated".
He probably isn't going to have to pay any money. The publicity is going to do exactly what Apple hoped to do with the fine, convince people it isn't worth it to release beta Apple software into the wild. Once all the publicity dies down Apple will probably just let him off the hook (although now that he has this defense fund they'll probably want that, he certainly has no right to it if the case is dropped).
I have never understood the Warez mentality. Oh, sure, I'll gladly download from bittorrent all day, but why would someone put themselves at risk just to let other people download software?
Perhaps it is because they have a philosophy where charging for software, or charging too much for software is wrong. They would have to be pretty retarded for this to be the reason though, since Warez certainly HELPS non-free software compete against free software in the long run. Every person who downloads Photoshop, who wouldn't have gone out and bought it, is actually helping Adobe. They are learning a propriatary program. At worst they get free use out of it. At best they will become skilled at it and someday use it at a job. When they are employed they will want to use Photoshop, and the business will purchase it (or if the business already uses it then there will be more available skilled people, driving the wage down, which encourages them to keep using it).
If Warez weren't available, then this person would probably use The Gimp or something, now repeat the above argument, except The Gimp gets wider use. Plus this guy will show all his friends how he got this awesome peice of software, and it's free!
I guess Warez is best explained by some kind of nerd fetish for getting software, and the 'leetness' of letting people download it.
Despite this being demonstrated as rediculous and stupid over 2 thousand years ago (before the birth of Christ even) by Socrates, I'll try to explain why it is to those of you who think this post makes some sort of sense.
Either God hates sin because it is wrong,
OR sin is wrong because God hates it.
Something cannot both be the cause and the consequence of something else.
So if God hates sin because it is wrong, then there is some higher authority beyond God which dictates wrongness, and God hates based on this authority. This contridicts our conception of God, so...
If things are wrong because God hates them then wrongness is totally arbitrary. If "sin" is arbitrary then God might have chosen the exact opposite values for morality. Thus if God had decided that boiling babies was a good idea, then it would be the best thing you could do (and NOT boiling babies would land you in hell). God might have decided that, say, that for a woman to speak in church is an abomination (actually, he did if you believe the bible).
The second issue with Authority driven morality is that of whether or not it is binding.
God says "do such and such". Now, you have to do this, IF you have to listen to God. But why do you have to listen to God? Because God says you have to listen to God. See how this is circular? Now, thankfully God has given us an additional reason. If you decide not to listen, you can burn in hell. Any appeal to authority in morality must end with a threat, or there is really no reason to pay attention to it at all. (There still isn't, since the threat is empty, but empty threats seem to have worked well so far)
Now, this is why you are an idiot. Why are things that are harmful to you a sin? Is fasting a sin? What about mortification of the flesh. How about eating a Big Mac. Is refusing medical treatment a sin? What about LETTING YOURSELF GET CRUSIFIED?
You are even more of an idiot, though, because you don't critisize homosexuality AT ALL. You critisize promiscuous behavior, regardless of who is screwing who.
Does it hurt to be so stupid? Or does your cult shield you with promises of crackers and grape juice which turn into Jesus when you eat them?
Pure Hilarity! Truly the jest of the season!
Hello? Did linus write X11 too? We might be using command line linux, if it weren't for the completely different alternate timeline. While we're playing "what if" I might as well point out that no gui => no desktop computer revolution => no need for a cheap minix clone to replace expensive unix, and also less computer demand => less CS majors => linus the electrical engineer.
No. Microsoft would have been stuck with dos until about 2000 ish, in any case would be out of business by now. Everybody would be using some sort of Xerox/IBM/Apple cludgomatic though (with gui).
Yes.
Quick Basic is compiled in the same sense that early versions of visual basic were compiled, that is to say, not at all. It had a "create .exe" option which just wrapped your code up in an executible with the interpreter. Quick Basic was entirely garbage and an insult. (I remember that you couldn't create an array larger than some rediculously small size, like 7 elements or something)
This is garbage. By choosing the proper time interval you can make virtually any company beat any other company you like. For example:
= m&q=l&c=Dell
= m&q=l&c=msft
= m&q=l&c=GE
q =l&c=dell
Apple beats Dell: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=2y&l=off&z
Apple beats Microsoft: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=2y&l=off&z
Apple beats GE: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=2y&l=off&z
Or to really prove the point:
Lucent beats Dell!!: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=LU&t=2y&l=on&z=m&
So this is just a bunch of crap. Besides, since when is stock price a valid indicator of the quality of a company's product (SCO)?
That being said, apples stock has certainly failed to perform. BUT if you (smart guy) predicted the performance of Dell you wouldn't be posting to slashdot, you would be lounging with beautiful women on your 100 foot yacht. Anybody can make money on the stock market, on paper, once they know how it already performed.
It does NOT adjust to constant steady motion. Constant steady motion IS EXACTLY THE SAME as sitting still. It is acceleration that it detects. Sudden acceleration (like the several hundred G's it would experience for a short time when it hits the ground after you drop it) is what causes the heads to smack the platters on the disk, causing damage and data loss.
It is a sad day when the 'innovators' at Apple have to resort to imitation of the PC world.
What a load of crap. And I notice you didn't give your source credit for the preceding paragraph.
Do you mean like when the lisa came out and it had a monitor? And a keyboard? Why would they imitate technology that already exists and is the best there is when they could have done something new, original, and totally pointlessly bad?
You totally miss the point, like most people.
Microsoft isn't using it's monopoly in OS to get monopolies in media players, web browsers etc. It is using it's web browsers and media players to force proprietary standards, like WMF, WMA, ms java, etc, which will only work on windows. This then reinforces the windows monopoly.
For example, microsoft licensed java, then added extensions to intentionally break compatability with any other OS. They created internet explorer to kill netscape, because netscape was the killer app at the time, and was available on every platform under the sun. Then you have a situation where IE is at version 5, meanwhile the only reasonable browser on other OS's is netscape 4. This is before Mozilla and Firefox came along, and greatly hurt the competitiveness of alot of platforms, as using netscape 4 is just slightly better than eating razor blades.
Creationists should wear stickers warning possible employers and associates that their brain does not work.
Of course it is. But then again, WATER IS EVERYWHERE. This is Earth. That blue stuff you see from space? That's water. If you actually believe that water released into the atmosphere by humans can have any effect at all, then we:
have to ban
tea and coffee
spagetti
macoroni and cheese
in fact, ovens
microwaves
since all cooking requires you get something that is wet very hot.
Are you people actually stupid enough to believe that we need to be concerned with releasing water vapor into the atmosphere? Because that is pretty damn stupid.
You dope. Water vapor as a greenhouse gas? CRAP. We had better get a big pool cover for the ocean.
This is what evolutionary theorists would call a "just so" story. It is too easy to come up with an evolutionary story to explain the way things are. The test would be if the story made predictions which are independant of the data used to produce the story.
Despite the warm fuzzy feeling I got from your post...
.)
Women didn't 'gain' the 'right' to vote. They convinced men to let them vote, and now they get to vote (not that it was ever just for them not to have that 'right'). Sufferagettes were pretty agressive. However, if you really want to talk about the right to vote then you should consider that question. Women gained the right to vote after men, BOTH gained the right to vote as a result of the revolution. If they had 'asked' king george I can imagine that his response would have been different.
As for the people around you not deciding to kill you, you are brushing aside a significant milestone in men's relationship with one another. A few thouasand years ago it would have been highly significant to consider whether or not those around you might have a reason to do you in. Now this is not worth while for them because you can call upon the leviathan of government to protect you, or punish your killers. (you are probably dumb enough, having read that, to think "why would my friends and family want to kill me? "What percentage of the people you come in contact with in any given day are your friends and family? Most people in the world would benifit from killing you and taking your stuff, and given the opportunity to do it without getting caught, most would take your head off with a machete for $.50
The idea that gods exist because we believe in them is something straight out of fantasy land. Gods don't exist regardless of belief. Never have invisible spirits interceded on behalf of man, regardless of what cretins believe. (if you happen to believe that invisible spirits do exist, then what I meant to say was YES! AMEN! The spirits request that you send me money.)
I understand that you mean that they only effect men's actions if they are believed in. But this is only true in the most literal sense. Men only act on ANYTHING if they beleive it to be true.
the same way everyone else ever has. By shooting at anyone who prevents the expression of those rights. Rights aren't given out by any body or entitiy, nor are they something abstract. A right and the expression of a right in an action is the same thing. Rights (power) come from the end of a gun, and the threat of physical violence, ONLY. Anyone who says otherwise is blowing sunshine up your ass.
There is a world of difference between programming something to *act* as though it has emotions, and something actually having an emotional or original response.
No. Emotions are not something that can be handed over to an other to be analyzed, double checked, or confirmed. There is absolutely no difference if the performance is ouwardly the same. See "The Cyberiad" by Stanislaw Lem.
he didn't present any facts. he just bemoaned the fact that global warming isn't 'proven' without following the logic to the conclusion, as though that was an argument for the status quo. as I said, uncertainty is and always will be an argument for caution.