"Prove what was said in the papyrus can be done" was the challenge [...]..you are asking a different question "Prove they did it"
I said, rather explicitly
"It could possibly have been done this way" is not the same as "proved it can be done"
The papyrus said so....that's all you get from archaeology.
Yeah, I think I'll look elsewhere for insight in to archaeology. Reading doesn't seem to be your strong suit, and I doubt you could have made it through half a semester at your local community college.
I keep one in the house, one in each car, and one on my desk at work.
They're inexpensive, often less than $20, and could very well prove invaluable in an emergency.
It's the same reason you likely keep a first aid kit all of those places, like I do.
Of course, unlike the first aid kit, the hand-crank/solar radio doesn't require regular replacement. They're essentially a one-time cost. The one I have next to me is more than 10 years old and still works as well as the day I bought it. It just seems foolish not to make those a part of your normal emergency planning.
That doesn't mean you should give up your phone. After all, you can charge it with your emergency radio.
Which is odd, as the reverse has been true for a while now. Chrome is the memory hog these days. FireFox has been the only real choice for low-end systems for several years.
My primary objection to the ribbon isn't related to using it personally, but to telling others how to perform some action. Helping someone find an little-used feature by walking them through the menu tree seemed to be simpler than doing the same with the ribbon.
Hence, my claim that you are glorifying drugs is correct
You seem to think that's a bad thing. Why?
Perhaps you can read up on the definition and meaning of "Spiritual" while brushing up on basic logic.
Fun fact: I've never seen anyone who goes on and on about "logical fallacies" who has any background in logic. (Though many who are under the mistaken impression that they do! Like programmers who fancy themselves mathematicians, it's just self-delusion.)
Google "EEG computer mouse" or "Star Wars Force Trainer". If you can't stand Google, find anyone with an EE undergrad degree. Chances are, they or one of their former classmates has done something similar.
Yes, this technology is with us today, and has been with us for ages.
No, it's not reading your mind. That's just what marketing wants you to believe.
I've used Java for more than 20 years. I loved it at first, I even advocated it. I can't stand it today, and hate it more the longer I use it.
Javascript, I've used for a little over 10 years or so. I hated it at first, but now I think it's a pretty nice language. The exact opposite of my experience with Java.
C, which I've used longer than either language, I'm still pretty neutral about. I feel about the same way about it now that I did when I first started using it.
If what you're saying was true, I'd love C more than life itself and prefer Java over JavaScript.
Now, had you bothered learning the language before declaring it unsuitable for any purpose then you'd be able to offer legitimate insight in to the languages design, rather than pointless platitudes and allusions to amorous pigs.
If harder is better, why don't we all switch to whitespace or brainfuck? All systems development will be in raw machine code and we'll use base 3 for added complexity.
We'll also start calling loops 'cycles' in honor of your great insight...
PHP is and was popular, because it was better than the alternatives. Imagine a world where JSP or ColdFusion came out on top...
Whatever warts the language might have, it's trivial to write, debug, and deploy. Those three things are more important than ideological purity or whatever it is that informs your opinion on the language when it comes to adoption and longevity.
To replace PHP, you need a language that is at least as trivial to write, debug, and deploy.
NodeJS, while it's the hot new trend, isn't likely to replace PHP as it's more difficult to write, debug, and deploy. Whatever benefits it might have, without those three factors, it's not likely to knock PHP out of it's little niche.
What an odd thing to say. I'm guessing you're not very familiar with the language.
See, everyone hates JavaScript when they first use it. I suspect it's because they're trying to use the language like they'd use Java or C#. That's not a good idea. Once you learn the language, you'll find it's has very simple design that allows for a lot of depth. The biggest "warts" in the language come from where it's been unnaturally extended to make it look more like Java (the new keyword, for example).
It's unusual in that the language seems to get better the more you learn about it. Contrast this with Java, which seems to get worse the longer you use it.
At the moment, I'm wading through an unholy amalgam of C and Java that should never have been, so I might be a jaded today. Still, I'll stand by my comment. JavaScript isn't a bad language at all. Though if you're an inexperienced developer that tries to treat the language like Java or C#, it can certainly seem that way.
Print is cheaper than ever, thanks to countless print-on-demand services. You don't need to worry about over or under production, managing stock, or even fulfilling orders.
You could start your own monthly print journal, say The New World Journal of Slashdotic Trolldontia, and produce it for less than the cost of a domain and hosting. IIRC, with Amazon, it won't cost you a penny to have print copies of your journal (including an ISBN) available for purchase.
Junk, super-low-cost, hosting and domain will set you back $45/year.
what do the costs of a print journal work out to per paper carried? Now compare the cost of online publication.
Looking only at distribution costs, not production costs (which should be identical), that works out to $0.00 vs $45.00, for any reasonable number of articles per journal.
While readers would pay more for the print version, they could still get the entire journal, in print, for less than the cost of a single article, in PDF, from SpringerLink.
Slashdot Mirror
The only ones I've found that work at all, for me at least, require a chest strap.
"Prove what was said in the papyrus can be done" was the challenge [...] ..you are asking a different question "Prove they did it"
I said, rather explicitly
"It could possibly have been done this way" is not the same as "proved it can be done"
The papyrus said so....that's all you get from archaeology.
Yeah, I think I'll look elsewhere for insight in to archaeology. Reading doesn't seem to be your strong suit, and I doubt you could have made it through half a semester at your local community college.
BTW the helical inclined plane is used day in day out by us, we call them the threads in nuts and bolts.
I'm so glad you were paying attention in 3rd grade when they taught us about simple machines. Good for you.
"It could possibly have been done this way" is not the same as "proved it can be done".
As for your specifc "proof" by "basic physics" well... that's another matter entirely. I don't even know where to begin.
It would have been easier to just say: "Sorry, I can't. I was just repeating something I heard 10 years ago."
That's a very good thing! As you said earlier:
I wish you were correct
Well, wish granted.
I keep one in the house, one in each car, and one on my desk at work.
They're inexpensive, often less than $20, and could very well prove invaluable in an emergency.
It's the same reason you likely keep a first aid kit all of those places, like I do.
Of course, unlike the first aid kit, the hand-crank/solar radio doesn't require regular replacement. They're essentially a one-time cost. The one I have next to me is more than 10 years old and still works as well as the day I bought it. It just seems foolish not to make those a part of your normal emergency planning.
That doesn't mean you should give up your phone. After all, you can charge it with your emergency radio.
Please, present some evidence to that effect. You'll be pleasantly surprised by what you learn in your search.
You're many, many, years out of date.
Which is odd, as the reverse has been true for a while now. Chrome is the memory hog these days. FireFox has been the only real choice for low-end systems for several years.
It's amazing how these sorts of myths persist.
Tell us how Chrome managed to replace the functionality that you found essential.
My primary objection to the ribbon isn't related to using it personally, but to telling others how to perform some action. Helping someone find an little-used feature by walking them through the menu tree seemed to be simpler than doing the same with the ribbon.
Let's ask Mr. Owl
Hence, my claim that you are glorifying drugs is correct
You seem to think that's a bad thing. Why?
Perhaps you can read up on the definition and meaning of "Spiritual" while brushing up on basic logic.
Fun fact: I've never seen anyone who goes on and on about "logical fallacies" who has any background in logic. (Though many who are under the mistaken impression that they do! Like programmers who fancy themselves mathematicians, it's just self-delusion.)
Google "EEG computer mouse" or "Star Wars Force Trainer". If you can't stand Google, find anyone with an EE undergrad degree. Chances are, they or one of their former classmates has done something similar.
Yes, this technology is with us today, and has been with us for ages.
No, it's not reading your mind. That's just what marketing wants you to believe.
Good for you. Now try to do what I said you should try to do.
What about JS is harder to write, debug, and deploy?
This is the only point with any detail:
deployment seems to be more or less identical, just copy the file where you need it.
That's not how it works. Try this: Set up two different php applications on the same server, then do the same for node. You'll see what I mean.
it's a variant of Forth
!
People who barely know the language and are learning by Googling are in for a world of hurt.
Indeed. Look at what that did to you.
"Stockholm syndrome"? Ridiculous.
I've used Java for more than 20 years. I loved it at first, I even advocated it. I can't stand it today, and hate it more the longer I use it.
Javascript, I've used for a little over 10 years or so. I hated it at first, but now I think it's a pretty nice language. The exact opposite of my experience with Java.
C, which I've used longer than either language, I'm still pretty neutral about. I feel about the same way about it now that I did when I first started using it.
If what you're saying was true, I'd love C more than life itself and prefer Java over JavaScript.
Now, had you bothered learning the language before declaring it unsuitable for any purpose then you'd be able to offer legitimate insight in to the languages design, rather than pointless platitudes and allusions to amorous pigs.
Because being easy to use is a bad thing?
If harder is better, why don't we all switch to whitespace or brainfuck? All systems development will be in raw machine code and we'll use base 3 for added complexity.
We'll also start calling loops 'cycles' in honor of your great insight...
PHP is and was popular, because it was better than the alternatives. Imagine a world where JSP or ColdFusion came out on top...
Whatever warts the language might have, it's trivial to write, debug, and deploy. Those three things are more important than ideological purity or whatever it is that informs your opinion on the language when it comes to adoption and longevity.
To replace PHP, you need a language that is at least as trivial to write, debug, and deploy.
NodeJS, while it's the hot new trend, isn't likely to replace PHP as it's more difficult to write, debug, and deploy. Whatever benefits it might have, without those three factors, it's not likely to knock PHP out of it's little niche.
JavaScript isn't even a real language.
What an odd thing to say. I'm guessing you're not very familiar with the language.
See, everyone hates JavaScript when they first use it. I suspect it's because they're trying to use the language like they'd use Java or C#. That's not a good idea. Once you learn the language, you'll find it's has very simple design that allows for a lot of depth. The biggest "warts" in the language come from where it's been unnaturally extended to make it look more like Java (the new keyword, for example).
It's unusual in that the language seems to get better the more you learn about it. Contrast this with Java, which seems to get worse the longer you use it.
At the moment, I'm wading through an unholy amalgam of C and Java that should never have been, so I might be a jaded today. Still, I'll stand by my comment. JavaScript isn't a bad language at all. Though if you're an inexperienced developer that tries to treat the language like Java or C#, it can certainly seem that way.
Firefox added a warning a while ago. It's no surprise Google would follow suit.
Chrome is really turning in to a slow, bloated, spyware-ridden Firefox clone.
Where Nelson Mandela died in prison, kids read The Berenstein Bears, and
Breakout was created as a successor to "Pong" by Apple founders, Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs
Print is cheaper than ever, thanks to countless print-on-demand services. You don't need to worry about over or under production, managing stock, or even fulfilling orders.
You could start your own monthly print journal, say The New World Journal of Slashdotic Trolldontia, and produce it for less than the cost of a domain and hosting. IIRC, with Amazon, it won't cost you a penny to have print copies of your journal (including an ISBN) available for purchase.
Junk, super-low-cost, hosting and domain will set you back $45/year.
what do the costs of a print journal work out to per paper carried? Now compare the cost of online publication.
Looking only at distribution costs, not production costs (which should be identical), that works out to $0.00 vs $45.00, for any reasonable number of articles per journal.
While readers would pay more for the print version, they could still get the entire journal, in print, for less than the cost of a single article, in PDF, from SpringerLink.
That's a matter of perspective, isn't it?
If we say that the system detects fraud, a false positive would be the system detecting a real result as fraudulent.