1: learn the difference between profit and profit margin.
2: "millions of people" are not getting losing their homes. You're off by an entire order of magnitude - which makes it pretty clear that you're just spewing hyperbole
2.a: The majority of the people who will lose their homes *lied* on their applications. That's right. They lied so that they could get a $300k McMansion on their 30k salary. Had they been honest, they couldn't have gotten that big a loan, but then they might have had to *gasp* live within their means, and we Americans just can't have that, now can we.
GNU GRUB version 0.95 (638 lower / 288704K upper memory)
Ubuntu, kernel 2.6.12-9-386 Ubuntu, kernel 2.6.12-9-386 (recovery mode) Ubuntu, memtest86+ Other operating systems: Windows NT/2000/XP omfgh4xorz-r00tk1tz3113
Use the up and down keys to select which entry is highlighted. Press enter to boot the selected OS, 'e' to edit the commands before booting, or 'c' for a command-line
There's a way higher premium on female attractiveness.
If you really think about it, you'll find that the premium is on female *youth*
What I said holds true. Among women who appear young enough to bare healthy children, nearly all of will be labeled "attractive" if you were to survey heterosexual males.
How many times have you seen a guy who, on an attractive scale, is average or below, with some woman who's a 9 or a 10?
"Attractive" for the purposes of this discussion means "sexually attractive to the opposite sex." We're speaking in generalizations, but generally, a female is attractive if she appears young. Male attractiveness is much more complicated. This has been my thesis all along. Women are very picky and are looking at a lot of things and using very complex criteria to determine attractiveness.
When you pass two people on the street, you are probably able to accurately judge the woman's attractiveness. So when you say, "some woman who's a 9 or a 10" you're probably right. But you are not able to accurately judge the male's attractiveness.
Well, I think that a lot of it is basic, sexual-species instinct. A male who is too picky leaves fewer offspring than a male that is less picky. Thus, we all have the genes of those less picky males, and thus we are less picky. Conversely, a woman makes a huge investment in a child. At least several months and as much as three or four years. A woman who is less picky might get pregnant by a beta male, and then tomorrow, when that alpha male comes along, she can't take advantage of his genes. She loses. So as a result, the more picky females left more fit offspring, and as a result we all carry the genes for picky females.
Contraceptives and abortion haven't been around long enough to change those instincts.
Layered on top of that is our cultural programming, but its effect seems small, often invisible. Culture tells men to commit to one woman and buy her a giant diamond ring, but most men don't (or they do but they cheat) and women complain that men are "afraid of commitment" but that's like saying a bear is afraid to stay awake all winter. Culture tells women - actually, not even culture, most women are smart enough to realize that an average guy with a steady job and no major vices like alcoholism or violence will give them a happier life, but it's just so hard to resist the instinct that says, "bang the dirty guy from the biker gang." LOL!
It's *very* difficult to overcome instinct, especially when you deny that the instinct exists. That's what we do. We pretend that we're special, that we're the only animal without these instincts.
The conclusion was the more 'average' the woman looked, the more attractive she was.
My unscientific opinion is that men tend to rate nearly all women as attractive, and are not very picky beyond that. It's almost a binary, yes/no kind of thing. If pressed a man might be able to say, "this woman is a 6 and this one is a 7" but that rating has no meaning because few, if any, men will pass up the 6 in order to pursue the 7. The male strategy seems to be a shotgun approach - flirt with every woman.
Women on the other hand, seem to rate very few men as attractive, and do seem very picky. A woman will judge a male as "6" and ignore him completely, because she knows a 7 is out there somewhere, if she keeps looking.
In summary, I think that if you picked 10 males and 10 females at random, and then asked 100 or so males to judge the females and vice versa, you would find that the males ranked the majority of the females as attractive, and "in the field" so to speak, you would find the males flirting with all of them. You would find that the females ranked a minority of males as attractive, and "in the field" you would find that those are the only ones they are interested in.
So like you said, an average female face is indeed attractive. This is good news for women. Most of them (and they know this) are attractive to the opposite sex.
What is the enormous science potential for an as far reaching project like that?
Well three things: 1. As you probably know, bone loss is quite rapid in zero-G. Astronauts who stay in orbit for six months or more have to be pulled out of the capsule and put into a wheelchair when the return to Earth. So far, even after all the time spent on ISS, nobody has come up with an exercise regimen that really helps. There's real concern that we may not be able to go to Mars *ever* (for sufficiently small values of ever) because astronauts are going to be weak and useless when they arrive.
One possible solution is, hang a weight off the space ship and spin it to provide gravity. You would *not* be able to provide full 1G acceleration, but you might be able to do 1/10 or so. Question: will that slow or stop bone loss? Answer: nobody knows. It's not possible to simulate 1/10G. You could build a space ship to do it, but you could also do this test on the moon. You would basically throw away the space ship, but the moon base would last longer.
So it makes sense to go to the moon in order to learn how to live in low G environments without your bones turning to jello.
2. Remember Apollo 13? Stuff like that is going to happen. If it happens between here and the moon, you might be able to make it back alive. If that happened on the way to Mars you're fucked. So it makes sense to develop the technology for interplanetary space travel by taking shorter trips. Actually, a lot of that technology can be (is) developed by going to LEO too.
3. I think it'd be great if we'd go to Mars or to the Moon, but what's better than going is staying. If we can get to the moon in a way that sustainable, vs. a big Apollo-like program that gets us to Mars and then gets canceled, I'm all in favor of the moon.
no, the original landings were filmed in Area 51, but that whole region is now a radioactive wasteland, so now they've actually had to move the *testing* to the moon, so that the public doesn't know Earth has been polluted.
It's easy to see through NASA's lies. Why are there no clouds in the sky in this footage? Answer: it's because they're on the moon, and they added in the blue sky using Adobe Aftereffects, but they couldn't make realistic clouds so they left those out.
Why didn't the rover kick up little clouds of dust? Answer: because there's no air on the moon.
> Name a single real world problem that doesn't parallelize.
Childbirth. Regardless of how many women you assign to the task, it still takes nine months.
(feel free to reply with snark, but that's a quote from Fred Brooks, so if your snarky reply makes it look like you haven't heard the quote before you will seem foolish)
cat and mouse game is too much effort for the pirates
Just to be clear, pirates aren't the ones playing that cat and mouse game. When you see a street vendor selling pirated copies of Star Wars, he's selling actual Blu-ray discs. He made bit-for-bit copies and he didn't need to decrypt anything to do it. The fact that Blu-ray is encrypted didn't do anything to prevent the pirate from stealing the content.
Decryption is needed by people who want to *gasp* watch the discs they legally purchased at BestBuy.
infiltrating hundreds of thousands of computers to work on the solution
The solution isn't to be found through massive computing effort. They are looking for a proof, not a computation. They need creativity, not horsepower.
Intel was arrogantly chasing higher clocks (P4) and awkward architectures (Itanium).
Indeed. And furthermore, for a very long time intel was avoiding actual innovation and instead just arbitrarily segmenting the market. For example, back in the 1990s, they were selling 486SX chips. To make a 486SX, intel had to manufacture a 486DX and then go through the extra step of disabling the math coprocessor. In spite of the fact that they took that extra step - thus necessarily increasing the manufacturing cost, they sold the 486SX for less than the DX (of course, because it was slower).
So, instead of spending their time innovating and coming up with a faster and better chip, they spent their time figuring out how to create an arbitrary market segment. If Ford sold V-8 engines and V-8SX engines where they had gone to the extra step of disabling two of the cylinders, people would feel like they were being ripped off.
Intel has done that more recently with hyperthreading - turning it off in certain chips. But since AMD came along, they can't really get away with it - I mean, they can't sit on their laurels and depend on that. If they do, AMD will pass them again.
no no no, the proper term for journalists to use is library of congresses. Even though I've never been to the library of congress and have no idea how big or small it might be, large amounts of data should always be given in those units.
Columbia's hydrazine tanks survived and were recovered intact on the ground.
The danger is therefore non zero.
On the other hand, is there any downside to attempting to destroy the satellite? If there is a potential advantage, but no disadvantage, the logical thing is to shoot it down.
There was no "three-step hydrazine story." I presented three historical facts to back up my contention that hydrazine was the simplest reason. Let's compare that to what you've presented.
Personally, given the trends in US government behavior the past several years, I wouldn't be surprised if it's some sort of treaty violating and/or constitutional rights abusive technology
That's just speculation. It violates the principle of Occam's Razor and makes you look like a crazy tin-foil hatter. If you're going to be crazy, at least be crazy and interesting. Go ahead and claim that the spy satellite is built with the ground-up bones of women and children and powered by recovered alien warp technology. You're just one step removed from that sort of claim anyway.
As for me, I'll stick with the facts: FACT: this satellite (like most of them) has propellant for maneuvering. FACT: a previous uncontrolled reentry (the Columbia disaster) proved that propellant tanks can survive. FACT: there is no down-side whatsoever to an attempt at shooting it down. If they miss, the projectile they fired at it is suborbital and will fall into the pacific.
So why *wouldn't* they try to shoot it down?? Has anyone bothered to ask this question? No, of course not. Because your line of reasoning is irrational and fueled by the pathetic, anti-american propaganda that you've been lapping up. You think like this: bush is teh terrorast, therefore this satellite is probably used to project Jesus rays into my brain in violation of treety!! that's why the US is shoooting at it! omfg!! I knew it all along!
It's pretty transparent that they're A) trying to upstage the Chinese, and B) prevent any tech from making it into the hands of hostile parties.
the only thing that's transparent is your bias. If they didn't try to shoot it down you'd claim it was "transparent" they didn't want to show the Chinese that they're capable of shooting it down, so they put lives at risk instead. In my opinion, you're one of those people who will criticize the US regardless of what it does.
"A) trying to upstage the Chinese." Here's a test of the system that will be used to shoot it down. As you can see, they've already hit targets in space. So shooting the satellite isn't that much of a stretch. It's hardly fair to characterize it as "upstaging" anyone.
"B) prevent any tech from making it into the hands of hostile parties" yes, because it's a big secret that spy satellites contain (whispers) cameras. shhh, don't tell anyone. It'd be a disaster if Al Queda found out. They might mount the camera on a donkey and fire it into orbit with a catapult.
Come on people. Occam's razor. We know that hydrazine is actually deadly. We know that Columbia's hydrazine tanks survived reentry. Colubia's tanks were empty, but this satellite's tanks will be full. The simplest explanation is that attempting to shoot it down doesn't increase the risk, but may substantially reduce the risk to humans. There's no down side. So that's why they're doing it. Take off your tin foil hat.
The paper trail on a "real" non-military satellite would be hard to reproduce in a convincing way.
Not to mention the size of the actual hardware. Keyhole sats are *huge* You can't just claim that it's a ham radio relay and expect people to believe you. Lots of people (and certainly, every government) have telescopes big enough and fast enough to get a blury image that would reveal that its actual size.
And Linux-o-philes tend to provide helpful replies like "type man find".
Well the linux culture is to teach a man to fish. If someone says, "RTFM you goddamned noob" then I would agree that person is being an ass. But if you tell someone which command does what they want to do, and further, you tell them (in case they didn't know) how to get more info on that command, then I think you're being polite and helpful. After being told which command does what you want to do, you can come back for more info. "I'm typing find myfile but it's still not working" and then someone can come back with, "you probably want to try, find -name myfile" But when you start out with a question like, "How search drive???" then a response that tells you which command to use seems appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
*sign*
1: learn the difference between profit and profit margin.
2: "millions of people" are not getting losing their homes. You're off by an entire order of magnitude - which makes it pretty clear that you're just spewing hyperbole
2.a: The majority of the people who will lose their homes *lied* on their applications. That's right. They lied so that they could get a $300k McMansion on their 30k salary. Had they been honest, they couldn't have gotten that big a loan, but then they might have had to *gasp* live within their means, and we Americans just can't have that, now can we.
GNU GRUB version 0.95 (638 lower / 288704K upper memory)
Ubuntu, kernel 2.6.12-9-386
Ubuntu, kernel 2.6.12-9-386 (recovery mode)
Ubuntu, memtest86+
Other operating systems:
Windows NT/2000/XP
omfgh4xorz-r00tk1tz3113
Use the up and down keys to select which entry is highlighted.
Press enter to boot the selected OS, 'e' to edit the commands
before booting, or 'c' for a command-line
hmm, something's not right here
There's a way higher premium on female attractiveness.
If you really think about it, you'll find that the premium is on female *youth*
What I said holds true. Among women who appear young enough to bare healthy children, nearly all of will be labeled "attractive" if you were to survey heterosexual males.
How many times have you seen a guy who, on an attractive scale, is average or below, with some woman who's a 9 or a 10?
"Attractive" for the purposes of this discussion means "sexually attractive to the opposite sex." We're speaking in generalizations, but generally, a female is attractive if she appears young. Male attractiveness is much more complicated. This has been my thesis all along. Women are very picky and are looking at a lot of things and using very complex criteria to determine attractiveness.
When you pass two people on the street, you are probably able to accurately judge the woman's attractiveness. So when you say, "some woman who's a 9 or a 10" you're probably right. But you are not able to accurately judge the male's attractiveness.
The entire philosophy is completely alien to me.
Well, I think that a lot of it is basic, sexual-species instinct. A male who is too picky leaves fewer offspring than a male that is less picky. Thus, we all have the genes of those less picky males, and thus we are less picky. Conversely, a woman makes a huge investment in a child. At least several months and as much as three or four years. A woman who is less picky might get pregnant by a beta male, and then tomorrow, when that alpha male comes along, she can't take advantage of his genes. She loses. So as a result, the more picky females left more fit offspring, and as a result we all carry the genes for picky females.
Contraceptives and abortion haven't been around long enough to change those instincts.
Layered on top of that is our cultural programming, but its effect seems small, often invisible. Culture tells men to commit to one woman and buy her a giant diamond ring, but most men don't (or they do but they cheat) and women complain that men are "afraid of commitment" but that's like saying a bear is afraid to stay awake all winter. Culture tells women - actually, not even culture, most women are smart enough to realize that an average guy with a steady job and no major vices like alcoholism or violence will give them a happier life, but it's just so hard to resist the instinct that says, "bang the dirty guy from the biker gang." LOL!
It's *very* difficult to overcome instinct, especially when you deny that the instinct exists. That's what we do. We pretend that we're special, that we're the only animal without these instincts.
The conclusion was the more 'average' the woman looked, the more attractive she was.
My unscientific opinion is that men tend to rate nearly all women as attractive, and are not very picky beyond that. It's almost a binary, yes/no kind of thing. If pressed a man might be able to say, "this woman is a 6 and this one is a 7" but that rating has no meaning because few, if any, men will pass up the 6 in order to pursue the 7. The male strategy seems to be a shotgun approach - flirt with every woman.
Women on the other hand, seem to rate very few men as attractive, and do seem very picky. A woman will judge a male as "6" and ignore him completely, because she knows a 7 is out there somewhere, if she keeps looking.
In summary, I think that if you picked 10 males and 10 females at random, and then asked 100 or so males to judge the females and vice versa, you would find that the males ranked the majority of the females as attractive, and "in the field" so to speak, you would find the males flirting with all of them. You would find that the females ranked a minority of males as attractive, and "in the field" you would find that those are the only ones they are interested in.
So like you said, an average female face is indeed attractive. This is good news for women. Most of them (and they know this) are attractive to the opposite sex.
What is the enormous science potential for an as far reaching project like that?
Well three things:
1. As you probably know, bone loss is quite rapid in zero-G. Astronauts who stay in orbit for six months or more have to be pulled out of the capsule and put into a wheelchair when the return to Earth. So far, even after all the time spent on ISS, nobody has come up with an exercise regimen that really helps. There's real concern that we may not be able to go to Mars *ever* (for sufficiently small values of ever) because astronauts are going to be weak and useless when they arrive.
One possible solution is, hang a weight off the space ship and spin it to provide gravity. You would *not* be able to provide full 1G acceleration, but you might be able to do 1/10 or so. Question: will that slow or stop bone loss? Answer: nobody knows. It's not possible to simulate 1/10G. You could build a space ship to do it, but you could also do this test on the moon. You would basically throw away the space ship, but the moon base would last longer.
So it makes sense to go to the moon in order to learn how to live in low G environments without your bones turning to jello.
2. Remember Apollo 13? Stuff like that is going to happen. If it happens between here and the moon, you might be able to make it back alive. If that happened on the way to Mars you're fucked. So it makes sense to develop the technology for interplanetary space travel by taking shorter trips. Actually, a lot of that technology can be (is) developed by going to LEO too.
3. I think it'd be great if we'd go to Mars or to the Moon, but what's better than going is staying. If we can get to the moon in a way that sustainable, vs. a big Apollo-like program that gets us to Mars and then gets canceled, I'm all in favor of the moon.
no, the original landings were filmed in Area 51, but that whole region is now a radioactive wasteland, so now they've actually had to move the *testing* to the moon, so that the public doesn't know Earth has been polluted.
It's easy to see through NASA's lies. Why are there no clouds in the sky in this footage? Answer: it's because they're on the moon, and they added in the blue sky using Adobe Aftereffects, but they couldn't make realistic clouds so they left those out.
Why didn't the rover kick up little clouds of dust? Answer: because there's no air on the moon.
> Name a single real world problem that doesn't parallelize.
Childbirth. Regardless of how many women you assign to the task, it still takes nine months.
(feel free to reply with snark, but that's a quote from Fred Brooks, so if your snarky reply makes it look like you haven't heard the quote before you will seem foolish)
cat and mouse game is too much effort for the pirates
Just to be clear, pirates aren't the ones playing that cat and mouse game. When you see a street vendor selling pirated copies of Star Wars, he's selling actual Blu-ray discs. He made bit-for-bit copies and he didn't need to decrypt anything to do it. The fact that Blu-ray is encrypted didn't do anything to prevent the pirate from stealing the content.
Decryption is needed by people who want to *gasp* watch the discs they legally purchased at BestBuy.
as much hydrogen as the centre Jupiter,
So what you're saying is that you don't understand the difference between density and volume.
From the article:
> theoretical advances
That 10,000 hours of computer time will be available from a wristwatch in two or three years. The key ingredient here is theory, creativity, etc.
infiltrating hundreds of thousands of computers to work on the solution
The solution isn't to be found through massive computing effort. They are looking for a proof, not a computation. They need creativity, not horsepower.
So how many days of the Iraq war did this auction just pay for? Maybe we should auction audio spectrums too.
Intel was arrogantly chasing higher clocks (P4) and awkward architectures (Itanium).
Indeed. And furthermore, for a very long time intel was avoiding actual innovation and instead just arbitrarily segmenting the market. For example, back in the 1990s, they were selling 486SX chips. To make a 486SX, intel had to manufacture a 486DX and then go through the extra step of disabling the math coprocessor. In spite of the fact that they took that extra step - thus necessarily increasing the manufacturing cost, they sold the 486SX for less than the DX (of course, because it was slower).
So, instead of spending their time innovating and coming up with a faster and better chip, they spent their time figuring out how to create an arbitrary market segment. If Ford sold V-8 engines and V-8SX engines where they had gone to the extra step of disabling two of the cylinders, people would feel like they were being ripped off.
Intel has done that more recently with hyperthreading - turning it off in certain chips. But since AMD came along, they can't really get away with it - I mean, they can't sit on their laurels and depend on that. If they do, AMD will pass them again.
what's a tortoise?
how come I be there??
no no no, the proper term for journalists to use is library of congresses. Even though I've never been to the library of congress and have no idea how big or small it might be, large amounts of data should always be given in those units.
Columbia's hydrazine tanks survived and were recovered intact on the ground.
The danger is therefore non zero.
On the other hand, is there any downside to attempting to destroy the satellite? If there is a potential advantage, but no disadvantage, the logical thing is to shoot it down.
Even simpler than the three-step hydrazine story.
There was no "three-step hydrazine story." I presented three historical facts to back up my contention that hydrazine was the simplest reason. Let's compare that to what you've presented.
Personally, given the trends in US government behavior the past several years, I wouldn't be surprised if it's some sort of treaty violating and/or constitutional rights abusive technology
That's just speculation. It violates the principle of Occam's Razor and makes you look like a crazy tin-foil hatter. If you're going to be crazy, at least be crazy and interesting. Go ahead and claim that the spy satellite is built with the ground-up bones of women and children and powered by recovered alien warp technology. You're just one step removed from that sort of claim anyway.
As for me, I'll stick with the facts:
FACT: this satellite (like most of them) has propellant for maneuvering.
FACT: a previous uncontrolled reentry (the Columbia disaster) proved that propellant tanks can survive.
FACT: there is no down-side whatsoever to an attempt at shooting it down. If they miss, the projectile they fired at it is suborbital and will fall into the pacific.
So why *wouldn't* they try to shoot it down?? Has anyone bothered to ask this question? No, of course not. Because your line of reasoning is irrational and fueled by the pathetic, anti-american propaganda that you've been lapping up. You think like this:
bush is teh terrorast, therefore this satellite is probably used to project Jesus rays into my brain in violation of treety!! that's why the US is shoooting at it! omfg!! I knew it all along!
It's pretty transparent that they're A) trying to upstage the Chinese, and B) prevent any tech from making it into the hands of hostile parties.
the only thing that's transparent is your bias. If they didn't try to shoot it down you'd claim it was "transparent" they didn't want to show the Chinese that they're capable of shooting it down, so they put lives at risk instead. In my opinion, you're one of those people who will criticize the US regardless of what it does.
"A) trying to upstage the Chinese." Here's a test of the system that will be used to shoot it down. As you can see, they've already hit targets in space. So shooting the satellite isn't that much of a stretch. It's hardly fair to characterize it as "upstaging" anyone.
"B) prevent any tech from making it into the hands of hostile parties" yes, because it's a big secret that spy satellites contain (whispers) cameras. shhh, don't tell anyone. It'd be a disaster if Al Queda found out. They might mount the camera on a donkey and fire it into orbit with a catapult.
Come on people. Occam's razor. We know that hydrazine is actually deadly. We know that Columbia's hydrazine tanks survived reentry. Colubia's tanks were empty, but this satellite's tanks will be full. The simplest explanation is that attempting to shoot it down doesn't increase the risk, but may substantially reduce the risk to humans. There's no down side. So that's why they're doing it. Take off your tin foil hat.
they would claim inferiority to the Girl Scouts if it got them a budget increase.
Mr. President. We cannot allow a caramel crunch cookie gap!
The paper trail on a "real" non-military satellite would be hard to reproduce in a convincing way.
Not to mention the size of the actual hardware. Keyhole sats are *huge* You can't just claim that it's a ham radio relay and expect people to believe you. Lots of people (and certainly, every government) have telescopes big enough and fast enough to get a blury image that would reveal that its actual size.
Aurora is so 1980.
Even Blackstar has probably already been replaced by something newer and cooler.
they just hang around a couple of hundred yards away from the arcade where the thing's sited.
Some rocket scientist put a device that repels teenagers next to an arcade? Brilliant!
If true, this 6% figure is good news. If it's really this small number of people, then it should be possible to track them down and kill them.
And Linux-o-philes tend to provide helpful replies like "type man find".
Well the linux culture is to teach a man to fish. If someone says, "RTFM you goddamned noob" then I would agree that person is being an ass. But if you tell someone which command does what they want to do, and further, you tell them (in case they didn't know) how to get more info on that command, then I think you're being polite and helpful. After being told which command does what you want to do, you can come back for more info. "I'm typing find myfile but it's still not working" and then someone can come back with, "you probably want to try, find -name myfile" But when you start out with a question like, "How search drive???" then a response that tells you which command to use seems appropriate.