Author Jack Williamson wrote a book about such an occurance.
It involved a project to set up a recovery base on the moon. When Earth gets bashed back to the microscopic organism age by an asteroid, the rescue team returns to rebuild.
It's not that great of a read, but it is an interesting concept.
If you can afford it, get two machines. One for window for them, one for other for you.
I have two kids. My four year old has her own PC for games. But most of the time she wants to sit with me and watch what I am doing on my machine. When she does, I try to explain how it works.
Kids are very inquisitive. Just having the Linux machine around, and working it yourself will bring out the curiocity in them. They will gravitate to it in their own time simply because "Daddy is using it".
"Therefore they are evil" is not a fact. Evil is something created by storytellers
I agree. The quote was a direct copy from the comment I was replying to. I don't agree with it either. I put it in for relative affect.
In the history of humanity, it's always about us and them.
Also agree. But I wish people would acknowledge that rather than claim hypocritical superiority based on "Good" and "Evil".
But as globalism progresses, while it's not all picnics and roses, it expands on 'us', until maybe the world can be at peace.
One can only hope, But I have doubts. Even when people unite in one cause, they divide on another. We are united in America but divided in religion, politics, and culture. For the disruptors (or even just the proud), it is rarely the cause itself that drives the division. It is the desire to distinguish oneself from the masses by creating artificial measures with which one can presume superiority. When one measure is shown false, another is created to replace it.
Please, this is only an opinion question. The examples you and the previous poster give are all foreign references.
How would you feel about telling kids how the United States Army carried out genocide attacks and slaughtered most of the Native American Indians in North America for several decades in the late 1800's? Would you say "Al Qaeda^H^H^H^H^H^H^HThe US Army is bent on the destruction of the United States^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HNative American Indians and the western way of life. Therefore they are evil and that is a FACT that kids can be taught. It has nothing to do with "hate speech"." It all happened so long ago that it really is just history.
So what do you think? Is hate speech about good and evil, or is it about right and wrong, or is it about us and them?
I recall the trend towards being paid in percent of profit started back in Batman ('89) when Jack Nicholson demanded a percent of profit rather than flat fee (anyone confirm this?) He got a bundle because the film did better than expected. Now the industry is starting to catch on to the game and hide the profit.
The next step should probably be for creators to demand 1% of the gross take rather than 10% of the profit. It would be a lot harder to hide the gross than it is to hide the profit.
Back and forth, back and forth. It will be interesting to see what kind of games they play to hide the gross?
Here is a page that has something. Look for "The evil urn", with a pic of the bottle and a description. The show was "Hakusshon Dai Maou". Sorry no pic of the Genie.
I recall having watched a japanese cartoon in the early 70's where some kids found a genie in a bottle. The genie was large, blue, a bit on the wild and crazy side, and sneezed a lot. (Somewhere, I have the series theme song on an old cassette tape. I'll have to go dig it up and get the name of the show.)
When I watched Aladin, this is the first thing I thought of.
Disney, the great protector of Intellectual property rights, is also one of the greatest users of the public domain and abusers of other peoples property rights.
It's not the plane that costs money, its the delivery, installation, plumbing, electricity, safety inspections, and whatever else goes into getting a building permit.
If all you do is drop it and open the door, it's not much of a home.
B727s have all three engines in the tail. (One in the rear of the body, two side mounted, with a T-tail arrangement. There are no engines on the wings.
Re:Straight line vs. cornering
on
Landshark
·
· Score: 1
Since braking tends to be stronger (in terms of lateral G-forces) than accelerating, lateral forces are not the same decelerating and accelerating. I.E. You can accelerate on full gas in situations that you could not brake on full brakes.
Race cars will decelerate into the beginning of the corner, but switch to acceleration before apex and pull though the majority of the corner on the gas. This is also because steering is more difficult (less control) while braking. So they do most of the deepest steering (apex) on the gas.
But either way, Yes, there will be some turn while braking.
Re:Straight line vs. cornering
on
Landshark
·
· Score: 2
Good point, Fair enough.
If you are breaking hard, or breaking in a turn, the pressure goes forward and can be unstable. A typical manouver if you are offroading.
If you are accelerating in a turn, a common manouver while racing, then the pressure goes to the rear of the vehicle.
Straight line vs. cornering
on
Landshark
·
· Score: 2
That speed record is straight line speed. No compalint there.
From what I can see, this three wheel design looks less stable at high speeds in a corner. The non-steering wheels take more lateral pressure in a corner, so should be spread wider. This thing appears to have the front wheels stearing and the back not.
Tricycles (1 front wheel, two back) are quite stable because cornering puts pressure to the side and rear of the vehicle, on the non-stearing wheels. Front only has to apply lateral force to turn. The back has to hold it up.
There were some expriments with three wheel vehicles, two front one rear where the rear wheel steared, like a reverse tricycle. It was considered to be a good preformer but difficult to handle intuitively. The rear wheel gave to lateral force by steering, so was not supporting as much pressure as this thing will be. Various accidents gave it a bad name and the design was dropped. There are still some proponents, but the design has not returned to the main stream.
Re:Wake-up Call for OSS
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"stay the course" means "keep doing the good work that you are already doing". It does not mean "rest on it's laurels" or "sit on your duff doing nothing" or even "make some radical change in how we are dealing with MS".
That good work already includes respond to verbal, legal and whatever other action comes along, be adaptable, and continue to make good software.
If you want to encourage supporters to do MORE OF THE SAME GOOD WORK, then "Stay the course"!
[This is about the interpretation of "Stay the course", not the rest. Encouraging more work and action is always good.]
"An infinite number of Monkeys with typewriters will eventually get the document out correctly, but For version 1.0, we only have 37 Monkeys, and they are limited to 3 hours run time. Expect later version to include more Monkeys"
We get to see the first "friction" here between the Atreides and Harkonnen, the Sorceresses of Rossak with their telepathic and telekinetic powers are the beginnings of the Bene Gesserit. The foundation is laid for the Suk doctors.
Why so long? They setup family names, institutions, types of government, nations. All of this is supposed to last 10,000 years?
Very little of any of these last more than a few hundred years just here on earth. Unless their universe goes absolutley stagnant for 10,000 years, what do they expect to be the same?
The rest of the history sounds interesting, but it would be more reasonable to set it less than a thousand years past. At least you could have some expectation that something would last to the "Dune" era in recognizable form.
Sorry to double respond, but this is just too good to pass up.
Thank you for clearifying my point so well. I just suspected that you were inflating your numbers, but you have shown how you really did it, how you use inflative calculations
(No, I don't work a 2,000-hour year. But that's how you do the math.) and arbitrary factors
so I-- as I said-- arbitrarily set the value at $500 per hour to buff up your numbers, just like the RIAA does.
Now that you have made my point for me, I'll go to my next point.
Do you track your free time in a ledger? How much does it cost you to sleep? to eat?
Time is only worth money if someone is paying you for your time or you are paying someone for their time. If money is not happening, then time is not worth money.
So, you could claim that the time you are spending on your PC is time that you could otherwise be spending doing something billable. But then we are talking about the time you " can spend an extra hour with my family, with whom I spend too little time as it is.
" I agree family time is valuable, but it is not money. You might say that someone would have to pay you 500/hr to get you away from your family, but how often do you really do it?
I'm not claiming that TCO of a Mac is too high. I'm not claiming personal time is not valuable. I'm not claiming that tinker time on a PC is good or bad. (I like tinkering, so I don't mind the time). I'm claiming that your hourly calculation is way out of reality (at least for mere mortals) and not relevant to the discussion at hand.
I find that about $250 an hour is a good number for me during the week; since I value my weekends more, I arbitrarily assign a value of $500 an hour to Saturdays and Sundays.
When I read that, it sounds just like the RIAA claiming Billions of dollars of lost revenue due to P2P and pirating. They claim anyone who copied music would have purchased it at full price, and they probably claim full album price in each individual song, even though some people copy many songs from an album. Bottom line, they claim lost income for something that would never have become income dispite the situatiion, and they inflate the amount that it would have been even if it had worked the way they say it should.
You on the other hand claim that you would be making $250 to $500 if you were doing something other than tinker with your PC, or that you are losing that much by tinkering rather than doing something else. On a weekend no less.
However patenting gene sequences also fall under this category. Many people say that they should not be patentable, but it can be argued that they should, due to the large amount of effort involved in finding and exploiting interesting gene sequences.
There is a big difference with genetics. Genes already exist in nature. The people who are patenting genes are FINDING them, not INVENTING the. The result is that they are using the patent to prevent other people from performing research on naturally occuring bio functions.
Simply having a lot of work and money involved in something does not justify enabling patents on it. You are still FINDING something that already existed. The patent system is for developing something that does not already exist.
One group patented genes that they thought were related to breast cancer. Then they prevented other groups from researching various cures for breast cancer. THAT SUCKS.
If someone developes a gene sequence from nothing, let them patent it. But if they just find an existing sequence in nature, then it should qualify as prior art and prevent the patent.
Slashdot Mirror
Or better yet, what's a Far Hit?
I think of a near miss as a miss that was close enough to be scary. A far miss is like passing by at a safe distance.
It sounds like you are/he is treating "Near" as "Nearly" or "Almost". I think of "Near" as close distance.
It involved a project to set up a recovery base on the moon. When Earth gets bashed back to the microscopic organism age by an asteroid, the rescue team returns to rebuild.
It's not that great of a read, but it is an interesting concept.
I have two kids. My four year old has her own PC for games. But most of the time she wants to sit with me and watch what I am doing on my machine. When she does, I try to explain how it works.
Kids are very inquisitive. Just having the Linux machine around, and working it yourself will bring out the curiocity in them. They will gravitate to it in their own time simply because "Daddy is using it".
Shatner gets off an airplane and comments how he thought he saw something outside on the wing. Lithgow says Yeah, the same thing happened to him.
For that and much more, it was all around one of the best 3rd Rock episodes.
"Therefore they are evil" is not a fact. Evil is something created by storytellers
I agree. The quote was a direct copy from the comment I was replying to. I don't agree with it either. I put it in for relative affect.
In the history of humanity, it's always about us and them.
Also agree. But I wish people would acknowledge that rather than claim hypocritical superiority based on "Good" and "Evil".
But as globalism progresses, while it's not all picnics and roses, it expands on 'us', until maybe the world can be at peace.
One can only hope, But I have doubts. Even when people unite in one cause, they divide on another. We are united in America but divided in religion, politics, and culture. For the disruptors (or even just the proud), it is rarely the cause itself that drives the division. It is the desire to distinguish oneself from the masses by creating artificial measures with which one can presume superiority. When one measure is shown false, another is created to replace it.
How would you feel about telling kids how the United States Army carried out genocide attacks and slaughtered most of the Native American Indians in North America for several decades in the late 1800's? Would you say "Al Qaeda^H^H^H^H^H^H^H The US Army is bent on the destruction of the United States^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Native American Indians and the western way of life. Therefore they are evil and that is a FACT that kids can be taught. It has nothing to do with "hate speech"." It all happened so long ago that it really is just history.
So what do you think? Is hate speech about good and evil, or is it about right and wrong, or is it about us and them?
No. Bill Wyman is what all the lawyers will do.
The next step should probably be for creators to demand 1% of the gross take rather than 10% of the profit. It would be a lot harder to hide the gross than it is to hide the profit.
Back and forth, back and forth. It will be interesting to see what kind of games they play to hide the gross?
Here is a page that has something. Look for "The evil urn", with a pic of the bottle and a description. The show was "Hakusshon Dai Maou". Sorry no pic of the Genie.
I'll keep looking.
When I watched Aladin, this is the first thing I thought of.
Disney, the great protector of Intellectual property rights, is also one of the greatest users of the public domain and abusers of other peoples property rights.
Go Figure.
If all you do is drop it and open the door, it's not much of a home.
B727s have all three engines in the tail. (One in the rear of the body, two side mounted, with a T-tail arrangement. There are no engines on the wings.
Race cars will decelerate into the beginning of the corner, but switch to acceleration before apex and pull though the majority of the corner on the gas. This is also because steering is more difficult (less control) while braking. So they do most of the deepest steering (apex) on the gas.
But either way, Yes, there will be some turn while braking.
If you are breaking hard, or breaking in a turn, the pressure goes forward and can be unstable. A typical manouver if you are offroading.
If you are accelerating in a turn, a common manouver while racing, then the pressure goes to the rear of the vehicle.
From what I can see, this three wheel design looks less stable at high speeds in a corner. The non-steering wheels take more lateral pressure in a corner, so should be spread wider. This thing appears to have the front wheels stearing and the back not.
Tricycles (1 front wheel, two back) are quite stable because cornering puts pressure to the side and rear of the vehicle, on the non-stearing wheels. Front only has to apply lateral force to turn. The back has to hold it up.
There were some expriments with three wheel vehicles, two front one rear where the rear wheel steared, like a reverse tricycle. It was considered to be a good preformer but difficult to handle intuitively. The rear wheel gave to lateral force by steering, so was not supporting as much pressure as this thing will be. Various accidents gave it a bad name and the design was dropped. There are still some proponents, but the design has not returned to the main stream.
I'm gonna make this server squeel like a pig.
That good work already includes respond to verbal, legal and whatever other action comes along, be adaptable, and continue to make good software. If you want to encourage supporters to do MORE OF THE SAME GOOD WORK, then "Stay the course"!
[This is about the interpretation of "Stay the course", not the rest. Encouraging more work and action is always good.]
"An infinite number of Monkeys with typewriters will eventually get the document out correctly, but For version 1.0, we only have 37 Monkeys, and they are limited to 3 hours run time. Expect later version to include more Monkeys"
Why so long? They setup family names, institutions, types of government, nations. All of this is supposed to last 10,000 years?
Very little of any of these last more than a few hundred years just here on earth. Unless their universe goes absolutley stagnant for 10,000 years, what do they expect to be the same?
The rest of the history sounds interesting, but it would be more reasonable to set it less than a thousand years past. At least you could have some expectation that something would last to the "Dune" era in recognizable form.
As I like to ask my boss:
You can have it
1. Better.
2. Faster (sooner).
3. Cheaper.
Pick any two.
Thank you for clearifying my point so well. I just suspected that you were inflating your numbers, but you have shown how you really did it, how you use inflative calculations
(No, I don't work a 2,000-hour year. But that's how you do the math.)
and arbitrary factors
so I-- as I said-- arbitrarily set the value at $500 per hour
to buff up your numbers, just like the RIAA does.
Now that you have made my point for me, I'll go to my next point.
Do you track your free time in a ledger? How much does it cost you to sleep? to eat?
Time is only worth money if someone is paying you for your time or you are paying someone for their time. If money is not happening, then time is not worth money.
So, you could claim that the time you are spending on your PC is time that you could otherwise be spending doing something billable. But then we are talking about the time you " can spend an extra hour with my family, with whom I spend too little time as it is. "
I agree family time is valuable, but it is not money. You might say that someone would have to pay you 500/hr to get you away from your family, but how often do you really do it?
I'm not claiming that TCO of a Mac is too high. I'm not claiming personal time is not valuable. I'm not claiming that tinker time on a PC is good or bad. (I like tinkering, so I don't mind the time). I'm claiming that your hourly calculation is way out of reality (at least for mere mortals) and not relevant to the discussion at hand.
Cheers.
How can a Mac possibly have a lower TCO for the home user?
You are trying to convince him with a TCO calculation based on your inflated numbers. Just how realistic do you think that will be to him?
2. Miss Congeniality was thrown out long before I entered this thread.
When I read that, it sounds just like the RIAA claiming Billions of dollars of lost revenue due to P2P and pirating. They claim anyone who copied music would have purchased it at full price, and they probably claim full album price in each individual song, even though some people copy many songs from an album. Bottom line, they claim lost income for something that would never have become income dispite the situatiion, and they inflate the amount that it would have been even if it had worked the way they say it should.
You on the other hand claim that you would be making $250 to $500 if you were doing something other than tinker with your PC, or that you are losing that much by tinkering rather than doing something else. On a weekend no less.
The RIAA needs to get realistic and so do you.
Thank you for not saying Semi-Nerds.
I would have been really insulted If you thought I wasn't the real thing.
There is a big difference with genetics. Genes already exist in nature. The people who are patenting genes are FINDING them, not INVENTING the. The result is that they are using the patent to prevent other people from performing research on naturally occuring bio functions.
Simply having a lot of work and money involved in something does not justify enabling patents on it. You are still FINDING something that already existed. The patent system is for developing something that does not already exist.
One group patented genes that they thought were related to breast cancer. Then they prevented other groups from researching various cures for breast cancer. THAT SUCKS.
If someone developes a gene sequence from nothing, let them patent it. But if they just find an existing sequence in nature, then it should qualify as prior art and prevent the patent.