> For heavens sake, why is everyone so arrogant to think that our species is capable of uprooting >the climate cycle of a [b]planet[/b]?...because the idea that we cannot do anything at all--that humans can only sit back and watch the planet change--is scarier than the thought that we might be causing it.
I recently attended a conference for a large project that mutliple companies are involved in. While there, I listed my email address with the express intent of having an individual contact me later with the minutes from the meeting and any additional information that may come along.
If I had a default-deny system, I would need know what email address I would be mailed from, which I don't think they were organized enough to know ("someone loosely affiliated on some level with MITRE" isn't a valid whitelist criteria). When the emails did go out, many people hit "reply-all" and I was included in the discussion. I would need a client that was smart enough to figure out that I wanted to receive any replies to those messages.
Then there is the ever-present problem of "oh yeah, everyone, I switched email addresses" after someone has moved. It would require the foresight of everyone to send those notifications *before* moving or keeping an offline contact list.
Two other instances that come to mind are that a while back a senior engineer emailed me from his cell phone to tell me he wasn't coming in that day along with some brief instructions. Having never received email from that address, using a default-deny there wouldn't have been a good way for him to reach me at that time. I also have a bit of a website. That gets occasional email, and that is generally email I want to see.
Some of the things that make email attractive to me--open communication, many people can reach me from a variety of sources, people who don't know me can reach me with legitimate reason--are the very things that make it attractive to phishers, spammers, and scam artists. There is no good solution to the latter without removing a large part of the utility of the medium.
Why is it that when people name a price they like to pull a number out of their ass with absolutely no research into the market or what is being offered?
If I.E. 6 for Windows is a 5-year-old browser that runs on 10-year-old operating systems, why can't Apple's 6-month-old browser run on a 5-year-old operating system?
Probably because elements of the underlying APIs changed and Safari uses those elements.
In the past few years, since Safari was released (with 10.3, really), there have been a few huge steps that Safari may or may not take advantage of. Safari uses Foundation URL Loading System, which was introduced with Panther, Quartz and Interface Builder have both added features that safari may or may not use, etc.
While I don't know what kind of study they were doing, it should be noted that in survival studies, this kind of thing is routine.
If you have a 30 day mouse study, and a mouse dies on day 31, when it goes to publication the mouse "survived the study."
Now I don't know what kind of study merck was doing, and I don't know that they had this cut-off date pre-specified, but the possibility that there was such a cutoff date and that these heart attacks just happened to fall after and were therefore excluded it is entirely possible and, AFAIK, are not illegitimate scientifically.
My question: "Please tell me, how is using allofmp3 different--*morally or legally* in the United States--from downloading the audio files from a P2P network?"
Your answer: "It's easier, the files are higher-quality, and, at least in Russia, MediaServices has the rights to distribute the music that they are selling."
It being easier and higher-quality has absolutely nothing to do with morality and legality, and what is legal in Russia with respect to this service has pretty much nothing to do with what is legal in the United States.
First. Please tell me, how is using allofmp3 different--morally or legally in the United States--from downloading the audio files from a P2P network?
Second, what divinatory powers are you using to find that the security hole somehow relates to the iTunes Music Store? I'm not saying that it isn't, but that information is nowhere to be found in the security bulletin and iTunes has more network features than just the ability to hook up to the iTMS.
I utterly botched the formatting mode on the last one (must... learn... to... preview...).
But you don't have the ability to end world hunger.
By that standard, this guy lacks even the potential you are talking about. Let's assume, for a moment, that it turns out something is there and some company is willing to throw the billions of dollars into development into this. Some fifteen-to-twenty years down the road it might lead to results that could potentially help some people.
Spreading it around the world is not free, and not everyone is going to respond to it, even if it does work. This guy can't single-handedly provide a miracle for HIV anymore than I can stop world hunger. I could donate money to the cause (hello Harding's Ratchet Effect), or eat more frugally and send the proceeds, and save potentially many people from starvation or death from a lack of iodine in their diet or similar.
You could as well, so long as we are on the topic.
Sure, this guy is in a unique position compared to us, but you are asking him to "give himself up to the cause."
Moreover, those millions of people weren't infected because of a choice they made, but because of a choice their parents made! But those million's suffering apparently pales in insignificance next to this guy's trauma....
Earthquake in Pakistan vs. Hurricane in New Orleans. Which one should I care about more?
I'll give you a hint: my hometown is not anywhere near Pakistan.
Nevermind the fact that he does nothing, it's that he does nothing and sues someone! He knows first hand the trauma of this disease, but he's so self centered that he can't look out at the world and see all the good he could do with a little self sacrifice.
Then create a fund to compensate him sufficiently that he will be willing to participate and donate to that fund yourself.
But you don't have the ability to end world hunger.
<p>By that standard, this guy lacks even the potential you are talking about. Let's assume, for a moment, that it turns out something is there and some company is willing to throw the billions of dollars into development into this. Some fifteen-to-twenty years down the road it <em>might</em> lead to results that could <em>potentially</em> help <em>some</em> people.</p>
<p>Spreading it around the world is not free, and not everyone is going to respond to it, even if it does work. This guy can't single-handedly provide a miracle for HIV anymore than I can stop world hunger. I could donate money to the cause (hello Harding's Ratchet Effect), or eat more frugally and send the proceeds, and save potentially many people from starvation or death from a lack of iodine in their diet or similar.</p>
<p>You could as well, so long as we are on the topic.</p>
<p>Sure, this guy is in a unique position compared to us, but you are asking him to "give himself up to the cause." </p>
<p><em> Moreover, those millions of people weren't infected because of a choice they made, but because of a choice their parents made! But those million's suffering apparently pales in insignificance next to this guy's trauma....</em></p>
Earthquake in Pakistan vs. Hurricane in New Orleans. Which one should I care about more?
I'll give you a hint: my hometown is not anywhere near Pakistan.
<p><em> Nevermind the fact that he does nothing, it's that he does nothing and sues someone! He knows first hand the trauma of this disease, but he's so self centered that he can't look out at the world and see all the good he could do with a little self sacrifice.</em></p>
Then create a fund to compensate him sufficiently that he will be willing to participate, and donate to that fund yourself.
Obviously he had unprotected sex with someone somewhere
So has most of the non/. adult population of the world
Besides, it's not even necessarily true. I'll agree that it is the most likely, but it doesn't take much of a hole viral particles to slip through a condom.
And yeah, this is a bitter post. But think about it, this asshole's been spared by the cosmos while a million innocent children in Africa will die in the next few years.
...and I eat well every day and am finicky about food when children are starving all over the world. Oh no, the horror.
Sorry if that came across as callous, but in almost any situation you can find someone worse off than you are and someone better off. I just went through a bloody hurricane, the last thing I need is for people to be telling me that "oh, but that wasn't so bad compared to that earthquake in Pakistan" or "It is your fault for living below sea level."
Occam's Razor simply indicates which possibility is the *most likely* to be correct. It could have a probability of 1.5% when the next most likely outcome, which is more complicated, is at 1.49%. Further, it assumes that *everything else is equal*. If there were multiple tests, what percentage accuracy do you want across those tests before something else occurring becomes a more probable solution?
Yes, there is a chance that the original test was wrong, but there's also a chance of a true remission. Without more information than what was contained in the article, its hard to tell which is which, and it certainly warrants further tests.
I'm in a contract with Sprint. In order to use a ROKR I would have to break contract, buy a new phone, enter a new contract, etc. Its not even worth the time it would take me to figure out the benefit:loss ratio of switching.
If/when I do switch, it would probably be to verizon simply because I know a lot of people on it and it would be nice not to worry about costs when I talk to them. My network choice is dictated less by phone technology and more by utility of the network/plan.
That said, am I the only one out there who wants a cell phone that acts... like a cell phone?
Slashdot Mirror
> For heavens sake, why is everyone so arrogant to think that our species is capable of uprooting ...because the idea that we cannot do anything at all--that humans can only sit back and watch the planet change--is scarier than the thought that we might be causing it.
>the climate cycle of a [b]planet[/b]?
I recently attended a conference for a large project that mutliple companies are involved in. While there, I listed my email address with the express intent of having an individual contact me later with the minutes from the meeting and any additional information that may come along.
If I had a default-deny system, I would need know what email address I would be mailed from, which I don't think they were organized enough to know ("someone loosely affiliated on some level with MITRE" isn't a valid whitelist criteria). When the emails did go out, many people hit "reply-all" and I was included in the discussion. I would need a client that was smart enough to figure out that I wanted to receive any replies to those messages.
Then there is the ever-present problem of "oh yeah, everyone, I switched email addresses" after someone has moved. It would require the foresight of everyone to send those notifications *before* moving or keeping an offline contact list.
Two other instances that come to mind are that a while back a senior engineer emailed me from his cell phone to tell me he wasn't coming in that day along with some brief instructions. Having never received email from that address, using a default-deny there wouldn't have been a good way for him to reach me at that time. I also have a bit of a website. That gets occasional email, and that is generally email I want to see.
Some of the things that make email attractive to me--open communication, many people can reach me from a variety of sources, people who don't know me can reach me with legitimate reason--are the very things that make it attractive to phishers, spammers, and scam artists. There is no good solution to the latter without removing a large part of the utility of the medium.
Upon reading the title I was immediately reminded of Paranoia Agent, and now have that song stuck in my head...
" MSIE 7 has already caused more requests than Opera/8, "
So.... 2? *rimshot*
You do realize there is a *reason* no one has tried such, right?
Why is it that when people name a price they like to pull a number out of their ass with absolutely no research into the market or what is being offered?
You've seen Star Wars too many times, haven't you?
It was like beep beep beep... *ducks*
We shall see of Microsoft's shareholders agree with that sentiment that the $876 million/year drain would be "more expensive to them."
If I.E. 6 for Windows is a 5-year-old browser that runs on 10-year-old operating systems, why can't Apple's 6-month-old browser run on a 5-year-old operating system?
Probably because elements of the underlying APIs changed and Safari uses those elements.
In the past few years, since Safari was released (with 10.3, really), there have been a few huge steps that Safari may or may not take advantage of. Safari uses Foundation URL Loading System, which was introduced with Panther, Quartz and Interface Builder have both added features that safari may or may not use, etc.
Welcome to slashdot. You must be new here!
While I don't know what kind of study they were doing, it should be noted that in survival studies, this kind of thing is routine.
If you have a 30 day mouse study, and a mouse dies on day 31, when it goes to publication the mouse "survived the study."
Now I don't know what kind of study merck was doing, and I don't know that they had this cut-off date pre-specified, but the possibility that there was such a cutoff date and that these heart attacks just happened to fall after and were therefore excluded it is entirely possible and, AFAIK, are not illegitimate scientifically.
Of course, it was too much trouble to remove the trailing / that crept in, so you had to post the error message?
A while back I read an article in The Atlantic titled "Caring for Your Introvert" by Jonathan Rauch. Absolutely great piece.
Reading Comprehension(TM).
My question:
"Please tell me, how is using allofmp3 different--*morally or legally* in the United States--from downloading the audio files from a P2P network?"
Your answer:
"It's easier, the files are higher-quality, and, at least in Russia, MediaServices has the rights to distribute the music that they are selling."
It being easier and higher-quality has absolutely nothing to do with morality and legality, and what is legal in Russia with respect to this service has pretty much nothing to do with what is legal in the United States.
First. Please tell me, how is using allofmp3 different--morally or legally in the United States--from downloading the audio files from a P2P network?
Second, what divinatory powers are you using to find that the security hole somehow relates to the iTunes Music Store? I'm not saying that it isn't, but that information is nowhere to be found in the security bulletin and iTunes has more network features than just the ability to hook up to the iTMS.
4294967296 bigger, actually.
I utterly botched the formatting mode on the last one (must... learn... to... preview...).
But you don't have the ability to end world hunger.
By that standard, this guy lacks even the potential you are talking about. Let's assume, for a moment, that it turns out something is there and some company is willing to throw the billions of dollars into development into this. Some fifteen-to-twenty years down the road it might lead to results that could potentially help some people.
Spreading it around the world is not free, and not everyone is going to respond to it, even if it does work. This guy can't single-handedly provide a miracle for HIV anymore than I can stop world hunger. I could donate money to the cause (hello Harding's Ratchet Effect), or eat more frugally and send the proceeds, and save potentially many people from starvation or death from a lack of iodine in their diet or similar.
You could as well, so long as we are on the topic.
Sure, this guy is in a unique position compared to us, but you are asking him to "give himself up to the cause."
Moreover, those millions of people weren't infected because of a choice they made, but because of a choice their parents made! But those million's suffering apparently pales in insignificance next to this guy's trauma....
Earthquake in Pakistan vs. Hurricane in New Orleans. Which one should I care about more?
I'll give you a hint: my hometown is not anywhere near Pakistan.
Nevermind the fact that he does nothing, it's that he does nothing and sues someone! He knows first hand the trauma of this disease, but he's so self centered that he can't look out at the world and see all the good he could do with a little self sacrifice.
Then create a fund to compensate him sufficiently that he will be willing to participate and donate to that fund yourself.
But you don't have the ability to end world hunger.
<p>By that standard, this guy lacks even the potential you are talking about. Let's assume, for a moment, that it turns out something is there and some company is willing to throw the billions of dollars into development into this. Some fifteen-to-twenty years down the road it <em>might</em> lead to results that could <em>potentially</em> help <em>some</em> people.</p>
<p>Spreading it around the world is not free, and not everyone is going to respond to it, even if it does work. This guy can't single-handedly provide a miracle for HIV anymore than I can stop world hunger. I could donate money to the cause (hello Harding's Ratchet Effect), or eat more frugally and send the proceeds, and save potentially many people from starvation or death from a lack of iodine in their diet or similar.</p>
<p>You could as well, so long as we are on the topic.</p>
<p>Sure, this guy is in a unique position compared to us, but you are asking him to "give himself up to the cause." </p>
<p><em> Moreover, those millions of people weren't infected because of a choice they made, but because of a choice their parents made! But those million's suffering apparently pales in insignificance next to this guy's trauma....</em></p>
Earthquake in Pakistan vs. Hurricane in New Orleans. Which one should I care about more?
I'll give you a hint: my hometown is not anywhere near Pakistan.
<p><em> Nevermind the fact that he does nothing, it's that he does nothing and sues someone! He knows first hand the trauma of this disease, but he's so self centered that he can't look out at the world and see all the good he could do with a little self sacrifice.</em></p>
Then create a fund to compensate him sufficiently that he will be willing to participate, and donate to that fund yourself.
Obviously he had unprotected sex with someone somewhere
So has most of the non /. adult population of the world
Besides, it's not even necessarily true. I'll agree that it is the most likely, but it doesn't take much of a hole viral particles to slip through a condom.
And yeah, this is a bitter post. But think about it, this asshole's been spared by the cosmos while a million innocent children in Africa will die in the next few years.
...and I eat well every day and am finicky about food when children are starving all over the world. Oh no, the horror.
Sorry if that came across as callous, but in almost any situation you can find someone worse off than you are and someone better off. I just went through a bloody hurricane, the last thing I need is for people to be telling me that "oh, but that wasn't so bad compared to that earthquake in Pakistan" or "It is your fault for living below sea level."
But does he weigh more than a duck?
Occam's Razor simply indicates which possibility is the *most likely* to be correct. It could have a probability of 1.5% when the next most likely outcome, which is more complicated, is at 1.49%. Further, it assumes that *everything else is equal*. If there were multiple tests, what percentage accuracy do you want across those tests before something else occurring becomes a more probable solution?
Yes, there is a chance that the original test was wrong, but there's also a chance of a true remission. Without more information than what was contained in the article, its hard to tell which is which, and it certainly warrants further tests.
"Archaeological Uncovers a New Name"
Sorry, the reader's brain was unable to parse this title. Please try again with something written in the English language.
The question is "are they features I care about more than having twice the storage."
Receives FM? Not useful to me.
Records? Nice in the abstract, but honestly I'd never use it.
Plays MPEG 1/2/2.5 Layer 3, WMA, ASF, OGG? All of my songs are in AAC or mpeg 1 layer 3.
etc.
I think a lot of people fall in the same kind of boat.
Exactly.
I'm in a contract with Sprint. In order to use a ROKR I would have to break contract, buy a new phone, enter a new contract, etc. Its not even worth the time it would take me to figure out the benefit:loss ratio of switching.
If/when I do switch, it would probably be to verizon simply because I know a lot of people on it and it would be nice not to worry about costs when I talk to them. My network choice is dictated less by phone technology and more by utility of the network/plan.
That said, am I the only one out there who wants a cell phone that acts... like a cell phone?