Of course, you could argue that these are only things that matter to the cognoscenti; they don't explain why Feynman is more recognized by the general public.
Feynman also gained a bit of public recognition because of his work on the commission investigating the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.
While you're at it, why not also suggest that they have their typing classes teach Dvorak? And stop using English, instead have half of the classes taught in Mandarin Chinese! Their maps are North-centric too, why not a little diversity there, as well? The metric system is fine too, but there are some important places that customarily use Imperial units, so there's another place to diversify! Good Luck!
One thing to remember is that we have evidence of Mars having volcanic activity, but we have no evidence of Mars supporting life. It makes no sense to uncritically accept an unprecedented explanation. There are several interesting things that could be explained by life, but there is no reason why that has to be the ONLY explanation.
Gee, and I thought that when demand drops that prices were supposed to follow.
In an elastic market, this is true. However, the movie-going audience is not completely elastic, meaning that demand is not directly proportional to price. In this particular case, some people will go to the movies, despite a higher cost, because there is no substitute for certain aspects of the movie-going experience.
The rise in revenue is due solely to increased ticket prices, not because more people are seeing movies. In fact, movie attendance has dropped in three of the last five years. The fact is, there will always be a market for movies, as few non-slashdotters consider watching a bootlegged movie on your computer to be a "good date", but tickets will instead become even more expensive.
As reductions in abstraction, all definitions are artificial. You mean 'arbitrary'. Regardless, the distinction is irrelevant here.
No, I mean that Pi is a natural constant that is true no matter if you define it in a certain way or not. Whether you name it "Pi", "DynaSoar", or "Bob", the ratio of a circle's circumference to diameter is 3.14159...
The "meter", however, is artificial, because it has been defined in various (different) ways over the years, each with different values. Arguing that the US shouldn't define the meter makes no sense when it is just another group in France who is just making up definitions.
Note that I wasn't commenting on past attempts to legislate a definition of Pi. In the case of the meter, it truly is a case of clarifying definitions.
In the same way that Coca-Cola removed the most interesting stuff from the extract of the coca plant.
Re:THIS IS NOT FUNNY 1.0 inch = 2.540000cm
on
Our Friend, The Meter
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Pass a "law" and redefine reality. We tried it with pi, too.
Pi is a natural constant, defined as the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter.
A "meter" is an artificial definition. And, in particular, the "definition" of a meter has changed many times over the year, starting with the first adoption in 1791, being re-defined many times over the years, and only ending (for the moment) with the current definition in terms of c, the speed of light, in 1983. This article gives a history
Nobody was trying to legislate reality, just clarify definitions.
I have always though moores law to be crap, I mean its just some marketing scan to force us to upgrade slowly...
Think of it as "Moore's Observation" instead. It wasn't meant to be a "Law" or a "Theory".
Minge for example predicts that computing something will become instant,
Computing something instantly may be possible, but transmitting the information necessary for that computation won't be. And that fact is the basis for this paper. Even if you could instantly perform every computation on every piece of information available to you forever, eventually the expanding universe will remove that information from your grasp. That puts a limit on what you can theoretically accomplish.
And how is any random voter going to be reassured that their pencil-and-paper ballot ever gets counted, rather than, say, floating in San Francisco Bay?
Personally, I'm more worried about the very real troubles with a physical ballot being lost/stolen/miscounted than I am with a theoretical hardware/software exploit. For example, given that the names/positions on a ballot are different from election to election, and even from district to district, it seems that the ballot machine would be technically a very difficult place to change votes from. And why do that, when normal political dirty-tricks work so much better?
And the "instant-win" problem isn't a result of media coverage, but instead is a result of the fact that the west coast states aren't really in contention. So while their polls may be open, it is already a pretty easy to tell who they will vote for. The presidential candidates, for the most part, don't even bother to campaign here in California, as it's pretty much given that our 54 electoral votes will go Democratic. So I don't think your idea of casting away the 1st Amendment will really solve anything.
Sun and Apple's business models are vastly different to mention their equipment and strategies. It's not a valid comparison.
Except that they are both companies that develop their own proprietary hardware and operating systems. That's a big similarity. Apple, like Sun, depends on niche markets, and both are finding those niche markets to be shrinking over time. There are quite a few valid comparisons to be made.
Of course there is no quick answer, but let me suggest a few guidelines. The original poster pointed out that making Government, like writing code, is not trivial, and is prone to error. In light of this (and to stretch a metaphor even further), I propose:
Memory Management/Scheduling:Government should not have the unrestricted ability to allocate resources for itself.
Garbage Collection:Government should regularly be checked and cleaned of resources that have been allocated, but are not being used.
Functionality:Government programs should be checked for correctness and efficiency. Those that do not accomplish the stated purpose should be terminated.
Currently, in the United States, we have a government where failed programs are rewarded with more money, useless (pork) programs are everywhere, and even where the Government doesn't fail, the only area that it seems to excel is in creating more Government.
Even worse is the fact that we have it better off than most other countries around the world.
However, I submit that expecting perfect decision-making 100% of the time from leaders is akin to expecting coders to write non-trivial code that works perfectly on first execution.
Exactly the reason why government should be kept as small as possible. Just as a reasonable operating system doesn't give every user super-user access, we shouldn't entrust the people's freedoms and rights to the government.
142 miles across a completely barren plain, with very few obstacles.
Here's a very good.pdf slideshow that shows what type of terrain is on the course. I've driven off-road through the California desert many times, and it's pretty rugged stuff, lots of ravines, gullies, brush, and sand. Although one time I managed 40mph in an '83 Honda Accord. Not to mention that I had been up all night, was half-stoned, and had a car full of people tripping on LSD. Ah, those good old college days.
It has nothing to do with Microsoft being a monopoly. Most companies try to get customers into some sort of long-term contract, to even out revenue, and to lock those customers into your product.
This has more to do with Microsoft's customers becoming unhappy, and in a way that may damage Microsoft's bottom line, as the customers think twice before negotiating their next service contract. These service contracts are very important to Microsoft's revenue stream, especially since there isn't a lot of market growth left in their core business. Microsoft is usually a very well run business, but it's always interesting to see when they screw something up.
I thought you guys had freedom of speech in the US. In many other nations, we have no such restrictions at all on what you can or can't say on the radio or TV. People are just expected to be sensible.
The restrictions on TV only apply to general broadcast stations. Essentially it's a tradeoff that a broadcaster makes in exchange for being able to broadcast over a public resource (the airwaves). Channels that broadcast over privately owned channels (like cable or satellite) have fewer restrictions, although most don't go wild with it in consideration of their audiences.
What about nudity?
On regular broadcast ("free" channels), no. On "premium" channels, sure.
"Computer Science is about computers like Astronomy is about telescopes." I think Djikstra said that.
For most jobs, however, you don't need an Astronomer. You need an Astronaut. In other words, you need someone who doesn't just sit around and theorize about a problem, but you need someone who can write code on time and to specifications.
I think you can be a good Computer Scientist without being a Programmer. I do not think the reverse is true.
You don't know what you're talking about. Some of the best programmers I know (and I'm talking in terms of creating code for successful projects) have never taken a Computer Science class in their life. I've also interviewed a lot of "Computer Science" graduates who couldn't code a simple distance algorithm in half an hour even when given a program skeleton.
Of course, I've also known some very good Computer Scientists who had deity-like programming skills. My point is that being a Computer Scientist means very little when it comes to evaluating value as a programmer.
You must be a US CITIZEN to expect to exercise these rights.
Actually, within the borders of the United States (not including territories such as Puerto Rico), non-citizens have pretty much the same rights as citizens do. Once you go overseas the picture becomes a lot murkier, with different supreme court decisions pointing in different directions.
Essentially the US Government is using the fact that Guantanamo is technically Cuban territory as reason to deny the Gitmo prisoners any rights at all.
There's an interesting article at CNN that discusses some of the constitutional aspects of the war on terror.
Personally, I'm not comfortable with the fact that a number of people are being held prisoner, potentially forever and without trial, solely on the basis of a loophole. While the US Government may be technically in the right, I see it as going against the principles that the US is supposed to stand for.
If someone elses religion is offensive to you, then you have problems.
I'm not offended by a particular religion. I'm offended by the concept of religion. We live in the 21st century now. We have explored other planets, we've set foot on the moon. We've discovered the presence of other planets around other stars. We have determined the secrets of life, and can now clone living organisms, and are now very close to creating life forms directly from base organic molecules.
Isn't it about time that we stop believing in some invsible man/woman/beings in the sky who will send us to some mysterious hidden place depending on our conduct here on earth?
Oh, and if I failed to accurately describe your particular flavor of voodoo, I apologize.
Whatever happened to religious tolerance?
Hey, you are free to believe in anything you want. That doesn't mean that I have to believe that you are particularly clever for doing so.
This 'holiday' has gotten so far away from the original meaning that it shouldn't be called 'Christmas' anymore.
No kidding! "Christmas" used to be a fun celebration of the winter solstice, something especially important for those people living in Northern Europe, where the winter nights are especially long and dark. A good reason to get together with friends and family, exchange gifts, and cheer up the season.
And then those stupid mystical religious people had to come along and appropriate it for themselves by connecting it with the supposed birthday of their "prophet". Bleah.
God, I hope so. Flash is the absolute worst thing to hit the web since the blink tag. And no, stupid little animations don't make it better.
My browsing experience improved considerably the day I uninstalled (thanks for making it so non-easy, macromedia!) flash.
Now if only web designers around the world would realize that I go to their website for information, not to see their cute little flash animation intro. I know you're a frustrated movie/art student. Deal with it and let me get the info I need.
My only problem with this is that if Microsoft's integrated toolset takes off, then they'll make it completely impossible to remove.
The United States has gone from a reserved confident country that will stike only when striked upon to a country that will knock down any country that does not agree with "the American" way.
That's because after the experience of WW2, the US realized that isolationism didn't work. If we just sat on our hands and let everyone else fight it out, eventually they would come around and hit us.
Your say "(Some would call that a sign of weakness)". I should remind you that the US's isolationism was regarded as a sign of weakness. That's why the Empire of Japan believed that it could knock out the US in a single blow. Hit us hard at Pearl Harbor, and the US would quickly concede.
"...however when we [...] write the rules as we go, well... some people tend to look at that as rather bully-ish."
Rules? What rules? The UN? The same organization that made the rules that Saddam Hussein violated again and again and again, breaking the peace treaty that he signed to end the first gulf war? Those rules? Remember, invading Iraq was not done on the spur of the moment. It's easily forgotten now, but Saddam could have stayed in power by just letting weapons inspectors in to the country without trying to play games. Saddam was betting that the US would not have the guts to enforce the same rules that he was thumbing his nose at. And he bet wrong.
Sure, we haven't found any WMDs. Maybe he never had them. If then, he should have opened up his doors and shown it to everyone. But instead he calculated that he could show his "strength" by standing up to the US, because, of course, the US would never invade. Because he felt that we were too weak of a country.
Slashdot Mirror
Feynman also gained a bit of public recognition because of his work on the commission investigating the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.
While you're at it, why not also suggest that they have their typing classes teach Dvorak? And stop using English, instead have half of the classes taught in Mandarin Chinese! Their maps are North-centric too, why not a little diversity there, as well? The metric system is fine too, but there are some important places that customarily use Imperial units, so there's another place to diversify! Good Luck!
One thing to remember is that we have evidence of Mars having volcanic activity, but we have no evidence of Mars supporting life. It makes no sense to uncritically accept an unprecedented explanation. There are several interesting things that could be explained by life, but there is no reason why that has to be the ONLY explanation.
Gee, and I thought that when demand drops that prices were supposed to follow.
In an elastic market, this is true. However, the movie-going audience is not completely elastic, meaning that demand is not directly proportional to price. In this particular case, some people will go to the movies, despite a higher cost, because there is no substitute for certain aspects of the movie-going experience.
The rise in revenue is due solely to increased ticket prices, not because more people are seeing movies. In fact, movie attendance has dropped in three of the last five years. The fact is, there will always be a market for movies, as few non-slashdotters consider watching a bootlegged movie on your computer to be a "good date", but tickets will instead become even more expensive.
Bandwidth it supposed to be roughly 1900 kbps. And that's b, not B.
Ahh... I remember downloading pr0n at speeds slower than that. Good old 1200 baud days!
As reductions in abstraction, all definitions are artificial. You mean 'arbitrary'. Regardless, the distinction is irrelevant here.
No, I mean that Pi is a natural constant that is true no matter if you define it in a certain way or not. Whether you name it "Pi", "DynaSoar", or "Bob", the ratio of a circle's circumference to diameter is 3.14159...
The "meter", however, is artificial, because it has been defined in various (different) ways over the years, each with different values. Arguing that the US shouldn't define the meter makes no sense when it is just another group in France who is just making up definitions.
Note that I wasn't commenting on past attempts to legislate a definition of Pi. In the case of the meter, it truly is a case of clarifying definitions.
Just as they have done with most soft drinks.
In the same way that Coca-Cola removed the most interesting stuff from the extract of the coca plant.
Pass a "law" and redefine reality. We tried it with pi, too.
Pi is a natural constant, defined as the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter.
A "meter" is an artificial definition. And, in particular, the "definition" of a meter has changed many times over the year, starting with the first adoption in 1791, being re-defined many times over the years, and only ending (for the moment) with the current definition in terms of c, the speed of light, in 1983. This article gives a history
Nobody was trying to legislate reality, just clarify definitions.
I have always though moores law to be crap, I mean its just some marketing scan to force us to upgrade slowly...
Think of it as "Moore's Observation" instead. It wasn't meant to be a "Law" or a "Theory".
Minge for example predicts that computing something will become instant,
Computing something instantly may be possible, but transmitting the information necessary for that computation won't be. And that fact is the basis for this paper. Even if you could instantly perform every computation on every piece of information available to you forever, eventually the expanding universe will remove that information from your grasp. That puts a limit on what you can theoretically accomplish.
And how is any random voter going to be reassured that their pencil-and-paper ballot ever gets counted, rather than, say, floating in San Francisco Bay?
Personally, I'm more worried about the very real troubles with a physical ballot being lost/stolen/miscounted than I am with a theoretical hardware/software exploit. For example, given that the names/positions on a ballot are different from election to election, and even from district to district, it seems that the ballot machine would be technically a very difficult place to change votes from. And why do that, when normal political dirty-tricks work so much better?
And the "instant-win" problem isn't a result of media coverage, but instead is a result of the fact that the west coast states aren't really in contention. So while their polls may be open, it is already a pretty easy to tell who they will vote for. The presidential candidates, for the most part, don't even bother to campaign here in California, as it's pretty much given that our 54 electoral votes will go Democratic. So I don't think your idea of casting away the 1st Amendment will really solve anything.
No problem: he's the /. subscriber...
I always wondered who that sucker was.
Sun and Apple's business models are vastly different to mention their equipment and strategies. It's not a valid comparison.
Except that they are both companies that develop their own proprietary hardware and operating systems. That's a big similarity. Apple, like Sun, depends on niche markets, and both are finding those niche markets to be shrinking over time. There are quite a few valid comparisons to be made.
Of course there is no quick answer, but let me suggest a few guidelines. The original poster pointed out that making Government, like writing code, is not trivial, and is prone to error. In light of this (and to stretch a metaphor even further), I propose:
Memory Management/Scheduling:Government should not have the unrestricted ability to allocate resources for itself.
Garbage Collection:Government should regularly be checked and cleaned of resources that have been allocated, but are not being used.
Functionality:Government programs should be checked for correctness and efficiency. Those that do not accomplish the stated purpose should be terminated.
Currently, in the United States, we have a government where failed programs are rewarded with more money, useless (pork) programs are everywhere, and even where the Government doesn't fail, the only area that it seems to excel is in creating more Government.
Even worse is the fact that we have it better off than most other countries around the world.
However, I submit that expecting perfect decision-making 100% of the time from leaders is akin to expecting coders to write non-trivial code that works perfectly on first execution.
Exactly the reason why government should be kept as small as possible. Just as a reasonable operating system doesn't give every user super-user access, we shouldn't entrust the people's freedoms and rights to the government.
Here's a very good
It's okay, the Chinese got us back by using their 1st-generation guided-missile technology on our surveillance plane.
It's just more typical behavior from monopoly.
It has nothing to do with Microsoft being a monopoly. Most companies try to get customers into some sort of long-term contract, to even out revenue, and to lock those customers into your product.
This has more to do with Microsoft's customers becoming unhappy, and in a way that may damage Microsoft's bottom line, as the customers think twice before negotiating their next service contract. These service contracts are very important to Microsoft's revenue stream, especially since there isn't a lot of market growth left in their core business. Microsoft is usually a very well run business, but it's always interesting to see when they screw something up.
I thought you guys had freedom of speech in the US. In many other nations, we have no such restrictions at all on what you can or can't say on the radio or TV. People are just expected to be sensible.
The restrictions on TV only apply to general broadcast stations. Essentially it's a tradeoff that a broadcaster makes in exchange for being able to broadcast over a public resource (the airwaves). Channels that broadcast over privately owned channels (like cable or satellite) have fewer restrictions, although most don't go wild with it in consideration of their audiences.
What about nudity?
On regular broadcast ("free" channels), no. On "premium" channels, sure.
"Computer Science is about computers like Astronomy is about telescopes." I think Djikstra said that.
For most jobs, however, you don't need an Astronomer. You need an Astronaut. In other words, you need someone who doesn't just sit around and theorize about a problem, but you need someone who can write code on time and to specifications.
I think you can be a good Computer Scientist without being a Programmer. I do not think the reverse is true.
You don't know what you're talking about. Some of the best programmers I know (and I'm talking in terms of creating code for successful projects) have never taken a Computer Science class in their life. I've also interviewed a lot of "Computer Science" graduates who couldn't code a simple distance algorithm in half an hour even when given a program skeleton.
Of course, I've also known some very good Computer Scientists who had deity-like programming skills. My point is that being a Computer Scientist means very little when it comes to evaluating value as a programmer.
You must be a US CITIZEN to expect to exercise these rights.
Actually, within the borders of the United States (not including territories such as Puerto Rico), non-citizens have pretty much the same rights as citizens do. Once you go overseas the picture becomes a lot murkier, with different supreme court decisions pointing in different directions.
Essentially the US Government is using the fact that Guantanamo is technically Cuban territory as reason to deny the Gitmo prisoners any rights at all.
There's an interesting article at CNN that discusses some of the constitutional aspects of the war on terror.
Personally, I'm not comfortable with the fact that a number of people are being held prisoner, potentially forever and without trial, solely on the basis of a loophole. While the US Government may be technically in the right, I see it as going against the principles that the US is supposed to stand for.
If someone elses religion is offensive to you, then you have problems.
I'm not offended by a particular religion. I'm offended by the concept of religion. We live in the 21st century now. We have explored other planets, we've set foot on the moon. We've discovered the presence of other planets around other stars. We have determined the secrets of life, and can now clone living organisms, and are now very close to creating life forms directly from base organic molecules.
Isn't it about time that we stop believing in some invsible man/woman/beings in the sky who will send us to some mysterious hidden place depending on our conduct here on earth?
Oh, and if I failed to accurately describe your particular flavor of voodoo, I apologize.
Whatever happened to religious tolerance?
Hey, you are free to believe in anything you want. That doesn't mean that I have to believe that you are particularly clever for doing so.
This 'holiday' has gotten so far away from the original meaning that it shouldn't be called 'Christmas' anymore.
No kidding! "Christmas" used to be a fun celebration of the winter solstice, something especially important for those people living in Northern Europe, where the winter nights are especially long and dark. A good reason to get together with friends and family, exchange gifts, and cheer up the season.
And then those stupid mystical religious people had to come along and appropriate it for themselves by connecting it with the supposed birthday of their "prophet". Bleah.
Is this the beginning of the end for Macromedia?
God, I hope so. Flash is the absolute worst thing to hit the web since the blink tag. And no, stupid little animations don't make it better.
My browsing experience improved considerably the day I uninstalled (thanks for making it so non-easy, macromedia!) flash.
Now if only web designers around the world would realize that I go to their website for information, not to see their cute little flash animation intro. I know you're a frustrated movie/art student. Deal with it and let me get the info I need.
My only problem with this is that if Microsoft's integrated toolset takes off, then they'll make it completely impossible to remove.
The United States has gone from a reserved confident country that will stike only when striked upon to a country that will knock down any country that does not agree with "the American" way.
That's because after the experience of WW2, the US realized that isolationism didn't work. If we just sat on our hands and let everyone else fight it out, eventually they would come around and hit us.
Your say "(Some would call that a sign of weakness)". I should remind you that the US's isolationism was regarded as a sign of weakness. That's why the Empire of Japan believed that it could knock out the US in a single blow. Hit us hard at Pearl Harbor, and the US would quickly concede.
"...however when we [...] write the rules as we go, well... some people tend to look at that as rather bully-ish."
Rules? What rules? The UN? The same organization that made the rules that Saddam Hussein violated again and again and again, breaking the peace treaty that he signed to end the first gulf war? Those rules? Remember, invading Iraq was not done on the spur of the moment. It's easily forgotten now, but Saddam could have stayed in power by just letting weapons inspectors in to the country without trying to play games. Saddam was betting that the US would not have the guts to enforce the same rules that he was thumbing his nose at. And he bet wrong.
Sure, we haven't found any WMDs. Maybe he never had them. If then, he should have opened up his doors and shown it to everyone. But instead he calculated that he could show his "strength" by standing up to the US, because, of course, the US would never invade. Because he felt that we were too weak of a country.