Actually, no. The premise of ARPAnet was simply to create a network.
the ARPAnet came out of our frustration that there were only a limited number of large, powerful research computers in the country, and that many research investigators who should have access to them were geographically separated from them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#The_ARPANET_a nd_nuclear_attacks
Do you realize what might happen if people thought about how fearmongering, in the form of rediculous "what if?" scenarious, is used to influence the barely concious masses?
Exactly! If people had woken up the first time diculous scenarious were used, we might be fully concious by now.
I agree that the GP's post turned into a irrelevant rant, and his logic was flawed at that, however:
Bend the car analogy into an angry, frothing rant against SUVs... or rather, against the people who drive them... or rather, against the people who can afford them.
Implying that people arguing against SUVs are simply jealous poor people and/or that something is okay just because you can afford it is ridiculous. If I can afford a nuke, does that make it okay to use it?
Obviously most people, SUV owners included, can and will rationalize their decisions, and are unlikely to change their position in the face of facts. I accept that. But that doesn't make them right, it just makes them obtuse.
I wonder if this is related to the recent findings that people who work longer hours and feel like they have little personal time are more likely to buy Blackberries?
Classic like Chicken Little. The truth is that it doesn't much matter one way or the other whether or not ratings are standardized, mandatory, or enforced. Life will go on pretty much the same, and nobody will pay much attention to them except the people who care.
Therefore, they will work on making another, possibly more toxic or less effective, formula rather than pushing for a human trial.
Or possibly less toxic or more effective. The argument is not that they have to keep working -- they should do that anyway -- but rather that unused patents should be revoked.
Maybe *you* would (although, if you would, I suspect it's only to keep your word), but the rest of us probably wouldn't, especially if someone else was selling them for less, which is *exactly* what would happen if they tried to do what you suggest. Instead of keeping their laptops, people would sell them for the equivelant of a month/year's salary in their country. In fact, I think this is highly likely to happen as it stands. I think it will go something like this:
Laptops are distributed to villiage in Africa. Local warlord offers $5 per laptop and/or just takes them. Nobody has a laptop, and thousands of them spring up on eBay.
Nobody will buy an OLPC for $900 when they can get one on eBay for $50.
Until the potential recipients have their basic needs met, they're not going to care about these laptops. The best thing to do, IMHO, is to simply sell them to anyone at the same price, rather than trying to create some sort of artificial market (by trying to sell them to others for $900), especially when it's already going to be highly tempting for people to sell these things on the grey market.
If you read a novel, you'll have to start at the beginning and read all the pages until the end. If you want to climb a mountain and brag about it, you're not going to take the lift.
I think you're missing the point. He's not saying he wants to skip to the end, he's saying he's already read from the beginning. He's already climbed the mountain. He's already worked his way up from the mail room to middle management. He's saying, "let's move on."
Now it's possible -- perhaps even likely -- that he's simply ahead of the curve. It could be that he's been playing longer, or gets bored more quickly, whereas most other people are just discovering RPGs and/or still on the way to the top of that mountain, if you will. The market won't move on until there are a substantial number of (potential) customers demanding something more.
According to Steven Levitt, there's no statistical difference between the academic performance of children who watch lots of television, and those who don't (in contrast to the "television rots the brain" theory). Nor is there a difference in the performance of children with computers in the home, and those without (in contrast to the "computers make kids smart" theory). If accurate, and I haven't heard any rebuttals, it's food for thought for both you and the OP.
I agree that a well-rounded experience is beneficial, however kids (as adults) are inclined to gravitate toward whatever activity they enjoy regardless of what parents do or say. Of course limits are always important, because anything in excess can have deleterious effects.
And I'm sure if the search failed they'd probably think cnn was gone. There's absolutely no chance that they'd think of typing it into the address bar directly.
The promise -- a Linux-based system that handles queries 100 times faster than traditional relational database management systems......using the power of oxygen!
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, Slashdot limits sigs to .120 characters.
You may want to check your math.
I've already found the hidden message. Actually, once I learned of the technique, I was surprised at just how many of these hidden messages exist.
****SPOILER WARNING****
01000010 01100101 00100000 01110011 01110101 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01100100 01110010 01101001 01101110 01101011 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01001111 01110110 01100001 01101100 01110100 01101001 01101110 01100101 00101110
Whether or not they hit that target, or if that target can resist making a quick buck, remains to be seen.
itn tyg h myxbl cd
Do you realize what might happen if people thought about how fearmongering, in the form of rediculous "what if?" scenarious, is used to influence the barely concious masses?
Exactly! If people had woken up the first time diculous scenarious were used, we might be fully concious by now.
I agree that the GP's post turned into a irrelevant rant, and his logic was flawed at that, however:
Bend the car analogy into an angry, frothing rant against SUVs... or rather, against the people who drive them... or rather, against the people who can afford them.
Implying that people arguing against SUVs are simply jealous poor people and/or that something is okay just because you can afford it is ridiculous. If I can afford a nuke, does that make it okay to use it?
Obviously most people, SUV owners included, can and will rationalize their decisions, and are unlikely to change their position in the face of facts. I accept that. But that doesn't make them right, it just makes them obtuse.
You're right. I bet nobody else would take advantage of widespread poverty except warlords. Thanks for finding the deep-seated flaw in my logic.
Good news folks: I was mistaken and everything will be fine!
I wonder if this is related to the recent findings that people who work longer hours and feel like they have little personal time are more likely to buy Blackberries?
Because they're feeling lucky?
They are, now that Google has updated its algorithms.
Considering that it was evaluating small parts of adults, I respectfully disagree.
Classic like Chicken Little. The truth is that it doesn't much matter one way or the other whether or not ratings are standardized, mandatory, or enforced. Life will go on pretty much the same, and nobody will pay much attention to them except the people who care.
Even better: He sprays his roof with an MP-5.
...when it was learned that it contains small parts, not suitable for children under three.
Therefore, they will work on making another, possibly more toxic or less effective, formula rather than pushing for a human trial.
Or possibly less toxic or more effective. The argument is not that they have to keep working -- they should do that anyway -- but rather that unused patents should be revoked.
Illinois, Georgia, and George Lucas.
Heh.. I pay $95 for a 3.3Mb/600Kb cable connection. And they wonder why I don't subscribe to even basic cable TV..
"You don't enter a console war with the hardware you want. You enter a console war with the hardware you have."
Exactly. Lowered expectations worked for me.
Maybe *you* would (although, if you would, I suspect it's only to keep your word), but the rest of us probably wouldn't, especially if someone else was selling them for less, which is *exactly* what would happen if they tried to do what you suggest. Instead of keeping their laptops, people would sell them for the equivelant of a month/year's salary in their country. In fact, I think this is highly likely to happen as it stands. I think it will go something like this:
Laptops are distributed to villiage in Africa.
Local warlord offers $5 per laptop and/or just takes them.
Nobody has a laptop, and thousands of them spring up on eBay.
Nobody will buy an OLPC for $900 when they can get one on eBay for $50.
Until the potential recipients have their basic needs met, they're not going to care about these laptops. The best thing to do, IMHO, is to simply sell them to anyone at the same price, rather than trying to create some sort of artificial market (by trying to sell them to others for $900), especially when it's already going to be highly tempting for people to sell these things on the grey market.
If you read a novel, you'll have to start at the beginning and read all the pages until the end. If you want to climb a mountain and brag about it, you're not going to take the lift.
I think you're missing the point. He's not saying he wants to skip to the end, he's saying he's already read from the beginning. He's already climbed the mountain. He's already worked his way up from the mail room to middle management. He's saying, "let's move on."
Now it's possible -- perhaps even likely -- that he's simply ahead of the curve. It could be that he's been playing longer, or gets bored more quickly, whereas most other people are just discovering RPGs and/or still on the way to the top of that mountain, if you will. The market won't move on until there are a substantial number of (potential) customers demanding something more.
Crack is not a synonym for destroy. Next troll.
that's rich
According to Steven Levitt, there's no statistical difference between the academic performance of children who watch lots of television, and those who don't (in contrast to the "television rots the brain" theory). Nor is there a difference in the performance of children with computers in the home, and those without (in contrast to the "computers make kids smart" theory). If accurate, and I haven't heard any rebuttals, it's food for thought for both you and the OP.
I agree that a well-rounded experience is beneficial, however kids (as adults) are inclined to gravitate toward whatever activity they enjoy regardless of what parents do or say. Of course limits are always important, because anything in excess can have deleterious effects.
And I'm sure if the search failed they'd probably think cnn was gone. There's absolutely no chance that they'd think of typing it into the address bar directly.
The promise -- a Linux-based system that handles queries 100 times faster than traditional relational database management systems... ...using the power of oxygen!