Wind farms do less damage to the environment than any other form of power generation other than solar, and kill fewer birds than the windowed office building that would be built to house the adiminstration for any form of power plant.
This is a serious issue and needs to be addressed! How did solar power get away with causing so little damage?? I propose that all solar arrays be built slightly concave, and reflect most of the light they don't absorb (we don't want to reduce efficiency), creating giant death rays. This way we can ignite birds that fly through the kill zone and correct this serious deficiency.
In an unrelated issue, I'd also like some serious effort to be put into breeding chickens that can fly.
Seeing how both of your examples require outside intervention in order to be created or improve. Nice to see that ignorance and ineptitude isn't restricted to the supporters of intelligent design.
P.S. To all you Flying Spaghetti Monster posters, the horse is dead, flogging is no longer required. Pointing and laughing is still okay, but perhaps it's time to start using a TLA to encapsulate all the wittiness that has preceded your post.
The old flat Earth idea is a useful way to demonstrate how incorrect theories can still be supported by the evidence, and even used in real world applications.
And even be used effectively after they are known to be wrong. After all, pi (3.14159...) equals 22/7 (3.1428...) for many applications, and we never use the complete value of pi. There's a lot to be said for "close enough" when close enough allows us to easily grasp the mechanics of a situation in order to use it correctly.
It, like all scientific knowledge, could be superceded by something else, but that something would have to be very, very, VERY well supported and undergo a huge amount of scrutiny.
Nothing goes further to disprove a theory as something that shouldn't work, based on that theory, actually working.
Anonymity is a key part of freedom. It allows you to vote without coercion, to perform your daily tasks untraceably, and it allows you to speak without retaliation. That said, much of what is posted on Slashdot wouldn't incite retaliation by the powers-that-be anyway.
It's like a great big book of usefull spells, but they are written in invisble ink
Clearly, you've never expanded the VS-created code elements, or opened the source files in a text editor (which VS isn't). At least that solves half of the questions you might have. The trick with using something like VS is realizing what a fair portion of its automated processes do for you. This is not unlike using libraries, especially those which are closed-source. The big problem I have with VS is when expected behaviour doesn't occur. This happens at least once per day, and I don't doubt is due to the complexity they add for the "intelligent" behaviour. It's only slightly better than not having it at all, and having to do everything it does for you.
When you don't know what technology will be like in even 10 years, how can you possibly plan 35 years ahead?
How ironic, given this is a discussion about the Shuttle, a decades-old technology whose primary upgrades were prompted by catastrophic failures. Which is not to say that tried-and-true is bad. So the answer is probably something alongs the lines of "Fundamentally similar to what we could build at the time of completion, only more quaint."
Exactly. And if Apple wants to sell "iPod Certified" logos to companies, that's fine, too. But give up the idea that you have a right to say how people use your stuff once they buy it.
Thanks for the info about web apps. It's worth knowing. And my idea of a superior product is one that is the right tool for the most jobs, and secondarily the right tool for the jobs I do most often. From what you're saying, mySQL may be the superior product for web apps, but not in other areas. And that's okay, if you primarily do web apps.
I take you do all the maintenance on your car. How about your house? Do you do all the repairs? Did you build it? How about your medical care? All self-serve?
There comes a time when you have to turn to professionals in various fields to meet needs of yours that you aren't sufficiently trained in. And yes, when that time comes it helps to be fairly knowledgeable in that field so you don't get taken for a ride. That isn't always possible. When it isn't, being able to identify what the problem is, and getting a price to solve it (a solution?!?) isn't a bad thing.
When my car keeps stalling on warm days, I don't know what exactly the problem is. But if the mechanic gives me some car-speak I know enough to tell if he's really bullshitting me, and I can always get a second opinion on the issue.
When a client needs a solution where their 3D modelling application needs to be passed a set of parameters and configure the model based on those in a timely manner and provide a complete parts list on demand, they don't need to know which language I programmed it in, or which parts are handled by the modelling application. They need to know how much it's going to cost, and we need to agree upon success criteria. They can then prove they weren't taken for a ride, and we don't have to educate the client more than is needed to use the new functionality. And their problem has a solution.
Please give me an example where mySQL is a better choice for an application as opposed to PostgreSQL. I can only think of two, neither of which point to mySQL being a superior product.
Actually, thanks to Slashdot, I'm considering subscribing to Pandora for a year. It costs $36/year (US currency, I presume), some of which no doubt goes to the RIAA groups. Here's a site that's maintained by music professionals, categorizing music based on far more criteria than I'm qualified to describe, yet selects music that I've heard and like as well as a lot of stuff that's brand new which I like. Now I can look at those new artists, identify which labels they're from (and if they're affiliated with RIAA), and acquire more music from those artists (either second-hand if they're hooked into RIAA or directly if they aren't).
I think of the subscription as severance pay. Sure, RIAA gets one last piece of me, but I get a valuabe resource to learn other places where I can get what I want without having to support them again.
P.S./., get these damned CSS layouts or whatnot fixed. It would be nice to be able to preview.
Sightings are generally not considered as evidence. Based on your criteria, Elvis is certaily still living and the aliens are with us. The good news is, Jesus and the Virgin Mary are also here to stop those pesky aliens.
Exactly. Now try hitting my web server. Oh wait, I don't have one. Or try hitting Google from pretty much anywhere in China. Hmm, not the easiest task, either. So what exactly is your point?
What I think you'll see in the end is something like the international phone system. That, too, started in the U.S., but I don't think they have much say about what happens in other countries. The model for that should be looked at, and may be the direction that the internet takes for how various finite resources (ip addresses, tlds, etc.) are handled.
Please explain to me how this guy being ignored and downplayed for 20 years by people who claim to be searching for knowledge is any different than a group of people who may not claim to be searching for scientific truth not beleiving something which may contradict what they see with their own eyes (Galileo)? Looks like dogma rises in all classes of society, not just religion.
Besides, if you're looking for anti-intellectual property types, look in the BSD camp.
What makes you think this? Those who like the BSD license aren't dissimilar to those who like the GPL or standard copyright law. They had desires and requirements, and found a license which supported it. I'm personally in favour of the BSD license since it has fewer restrictions to the developer than standard copyright or the GPL. There may be situations where I would prefer to exercise those restrictions, and if the situation arises, I will.
Oh, and the BSD doesn't give you ownership of any of the intellectual property it covers, either. What it gives you is pretty much unlimited use, including within your own licensed products. That distinction is critical.
I think the mistake you're making is in assuming that people from any cross-section of society can't be hypocrites.
You need to watch more discovery channel. Most herd animals that rely on speed as a defense won't turn back for those members which are slower. This is the case for horses, deer, zebras, etc. Animals that live on their own tend to be more protective - bears, moose, porcupines, skunks. There are doubtless exceptions to this rule, but the short answer is it's generally a safe bet to attack the young. If they aren't a predator species, the parents will either run away, or will be too few to be a real threat.
I agree with most of what you said, except for the capsule being a step back. Frankly, the one thing the shuttle design (and SpaceShipOne) really proved is that wings are a dangerous feature for atmospheric departure/re-entry. I'm of the opinion that any capsule is not a step back, but an acknowledgement of this. That said, a lifting body without (larger) wings could be feasible. It seems that both of the directions you mentioned move away from having full-fledged wings, opting instead for a lifting body with much smaller wings (Lockheed's) or a capsule with a deployable lifting surface (BG's parawing).
Personally, I'm in favour of the second option. Its design facilitates upgrading from the standard capsule to something more advanced without losing anything on the way, or taking all the risks at once. There's no reason a smaller capsule couldn't use a parawing, which would allow a smaller design change to get the benefits of it. Also, there's the consideration of crew size and mass. There are no technical challenges to making a bigger capsule, just more of the same. But it takes more mass (which limits mission parameters), whether you send up 6 or 12 people. So you're better off growing into the larger requirements, assuming that we aren't going to stick with one design for the next 30 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn. I've raised chickens, and never seen them get more than 5 feet off the ground. Apparently different breeds have different capabilities.
Wind farms do less damage to the environment than any other form of power generation other than solar, and kill fewer birds than the windowed office building that would be built to house the adiminstration for any form of power plant.
This is a serious issue and needs to be addressed! How did solar power get away with causing so little damage?? I propose that all solar arrays be built slightly concave, and reflect most of the light they don't absorb (we don't want to reduce efficiency), creating giant death rays. This way we can ignite birds that fly through the kill zone and correct this serious deficiency.
In an unrelated issue, I'd also like some serious effort to be put into breeding chickens that can fly.
Seeing how both of your examples require outside intervention in order to be created or improve. Nice to see that ignorance and ineptitude isn't restricted to the supporters of intelligent design.
P.S. To all you Flying Spaghetti Monster posters, the horse is dead, flogging is no longer required. Pointing and laughing is still okay, but perhaps it's time to start using a TLA to encapsulate all the wittiness that has preceded your post.
The old flat Earth idea is a useful way to demonstrate how incorrect theories can still be supported by the evidence, and even used in real world applications.
And even be used effectively after they are known to be wrong. After all, pi (3.14159...) equals 22/7 (3.1428...) for many applications, and we never use the complete value of pi. There's a lot to be said for "close enough" when close enough allows us to easily grasp the mechanics of a situation in order to use it correctly.
It, like all scientific knowledge, could be superceded by something else, but that something would have to be very, very, VERY well supported and undergo a huge amount of scrutiny.
Nothing goes further to disprove a theory as something that shouldn't work, based on that theory, actually working.
Anonymity is a key part of freedom. It allows you to vote without coercion, to perform your daily tasks untraceably, and it allows you to speak without retaliation. That said, much of what is posted on Slashdot wouldn't incite retaliation by the powers-that-be anyway.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Yes, and be sure to make that clear to your project managers.
It's like a great big book of usefull spells, but they are written in invisble ink
Clearly, you've never expanded the VS-created code elements, or opened the source files in a text editor (which VS isn't). At least that solves half of the questions you might have. The trick with using something like VS is realizing what a fair portion of its automated processes do for you. This is not unlike using libraries, especially those which are closed-source. The big problem I have with VS is when expected behaviour doesn't occur. This happens at least once per day, and I don't doubt is due to the complexity they add for the "intelligent" behaviour. It's only slightly better than not having it at all, and having to do everything it does for you.
When you don't know what technology will be like in even 10 years, how can you possibly plan 35 years ahead?
How ironic, given this is a discussion about the Shuttle, a decades-old technology whose primary upgrades were prompted by catastrophic failures. Which is not to say that tried-and-true is bad. So the answer is probably something alongs the lines of "Fundamentally similar to what we could build at the time of completion, only more quaint."
Exactly. And if Apple wants to sell "iPod Certified" logos to companies, that's fine, too. But give up the idea that you have a right to say how people use your stuff once they buy it.
Thanks for the info about web apps. It's worth knowing. And my idea of a superior product is one that is the right tool for the most jobs, and secondarily the right tool for the jobs I do most often. From what you're saying, mySQL may be the superior product for web apps, but not in other areas. And that's okay, if you primarily do web apps.
I take you do all the maintenance on your car. How about your house? Do you do all the repairs? Did you build it? How about your medical care? All self-serve?
There comes a time when you have to turn to professionals in various fields to meet needs of yours that you aren't sufficiently trained in. And yes, when that time comes it helps to be fairly knowledgeable in that field so you don't get taken for a ride. That isn't always possible. When it isn't, being able to identify what the problem is, and getting a price to solve it (a solution?!?) isn't a bad thing.
When my car keeps stalling on warm days, I don't know what exactly the problem is. But if the mechanic gives me some car-speak I know enough to tell if he's really bullshitting me, and I can always get a second opinion on the issue.
When a client needs a solution where their 3D modelling application needs to be passed a set of parameters and configure the model based on those in a timely manner and provide a complete parts list on demand, they don't need to know which language I programmed it in, or which parts are handled by the modelling application. They need to know how much it's going to cost, and we need to agree upon success criteria. They can then prove they weren't taken for a ride, and we don't have to educate the client more than is needed to use the new functionality. And their problem has a solution.
P.S. Feel free to use my sig.
Please give me an example where mySQL is a better choice for an application as opposed to PostgreSQL. I can only think of two, neither of which point to mySQL being a superior product.
Cradle-to-grave protection, ensured by armies of well-intentioned and socially-responsible attorneys -- that's the sure way to economic success!
It sure works for the attorneys...
Battlestar Galactica, Farscape, Star Trek, Babylon 5, and even Futurama were made for the expressed purpose of tricking you into watching commercials.
Well I tricked them! I bought the Futurama DVDs - now I can skip all the ads. They're not even interleaved in the episodes.
Actually, thanks to Slashdot, I'm considering subscribing to Pandora for a year. It costs $36/year (US currency, I presume), some of which no doubt goes to the RIAA groups. Here's a site that's maintained by music professionals, categorizing music based on far more criteria than I'm qualified to describe, yet selects music that I've heard and like as well as a lot of stuff that's brand new which I like. Now I can look at those new artists, identify which labels they're from (and if they're affiliated with RIAA), and acquire more music from those artists (either second-hand if they're hooked into RIAA or directly if they aren't).
/., get these damned CSS layouts or whatnot fixed. It would be nice to be able to preview.
I think of the subscription as severance pay. Sure, RIAA gets one last piece of me, but I get a valuabe resource to learn other places where I can get what I want without having to support them again.
P.S.
Sightings are generally not considered as evidence. Based on your criteria, Elvis is certaily still living and the aliens are with us. The good news is, Jesus and the Virgin Mary are also here to stop those pesky aliens.
Exactly. Now try hitting my web server. Oh wait, I don't have one. Or try hitting Google from pretty much anywhere in China. Hmm, not the easiest task, either. So what exactly is your point?
What I think you'll see in the end is something like the international phone system. That, too, started in the U.S., but I don't think they have much say about what happens in other countries. The model for that should be looked at, and may be the direction that the internet takes for how various finite resources (ip addresses, tlds, etc.) are handled.
Please explain to me how this guy being ignored and downplayed for 20 years by people who claim to be searching for knowledge is any different than a group of people who may not claim to be searching for scientific truth not beleiving something which may contradict what they see with their own eyes (Galileo)? Looks like dogma rises in all classes of society, not just religion.
Besides, if you're looking for anti-intellectual property types, look in the BSD camp.
What makes you think this? Those who like the BSD license aren't dissimilar to those who like the GPL or standard copyright law. They had desires and requirements, and found a license which supported it. I'm personally in favour of the BSD license since it has fewer restrictions to the developer than standard copyright or the GPL. There may be situations where I would prefer to exercise those restrictions, and if the situation arises, I will.
Oh, and the BSD doesn't give you ownership of any of the intellectual property it covers, either. What it gives you is pretty much unlimited use, including within your own licensed products. That distinction is critical.
I think the mistake you're making is in assuming that people from any cross-section of society can't be hypocrites.
You need to watch more discovery channel. Most herd animals that rely on speed as a defense won't turn back for those members which are slower. This is the case for horses, deer, zebras, etc. Animals that live on their own tend to be more protective - bears, moose, porcupines, skunks. There are doubtless exceptions to this rule, but the short answer is it's generally a safe bet to attack the young. If they aren't a predator species, the parents will either run away, or will be too few to be a real threat.
Your employment contract can't require you to be a heroin mule for instance.
And now we know why drug runners have remained with the honorable tradition of exchanging your word, a firm handshake, and a wad of cash.
That's a really interesting, and possibly even valid, assumption. The problem is, we don't know.
I agree with most of what you said, except for the capsule being a step back. Frankly, the one thing the shuttle design (and SpaceShipOne) really proved is that wings are a dangerous feature for atmospheric departure/re-entry. I'm of the opinion that any capsule is not a step back, but an acknowledgement of this. That said, a lifting body without (larger) wings could be feasible. It seems that both of the directions you mentioned move away from having full-fledged wings, opting instead for a lifting body with much smaller wings (Lockheed's) or a capsule with a deployable lifting surface (BG's parawing).
Personally, I'm in favour of the second option. Its design facilitates upgrading from the standard capsule to something more advanced without losing anything on the way, or taking all the risks at once. There's no reason a smaller capsule couldn't use a parawing, which would allow a smaller design change to get the benefits of it. Also, there's the consideration of crew size and mass. There are no technical challenges to making a bigger capsule, just more of the same. But it takes more mass (which limits mission parameters), whether you send up 6 or 12 people. So you're better off growing into the larger requirements, assuming that we aren't going to stick with one design for the next 30 years.