Notably, this study doesn't say anything about the total market share of Windows or any other operating system, as seems to be implied in the headline and most of the summary.
Does anyone really care about the "non-online" market share anymore? I mean, it's kinda academically interesting, but basically irrelevant otherwise.
We are talking about home computers here, aka the "web/email box".
Re:I see what they did there
on
Evolving Rocks
·
· Score: 1
"Changing over time" is the very definition of evolution.
No it's not, that's just the definition of "change". Evolution, even "small e" evolution, implies change in a certain direction, or at least an increase in complexity - it's development, not just change.
Here, they are just talking about changes in Earth's mineralogy as a byproduct of organic processes, which I would've thought was interesting enough, but they felt the need to sex it up a bit with overly dramatic terms.
I see what they did there
on
Evolving Rocks
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
'Mineral evolution is obviously different from Darwinian evolution -- minerals don't mutate, reproduce or compete like living organisms,' said Hazen in a statement announcing the study's findings.
Thereby neatly summarizing why it's idiotic to call this process "evolution".
But, holy shit! Earth's mineral composition changes over time? And here I thought that the obvious hypothesis was that it has remained completely unchanged over the last couple of billion years.
That's in interesting Hypothesis, your paper has been published, where...?
What kind of a ridiculous thing to say is that? Do you normally expect people to have published papers on everything they mention in conversation? Seems somewhat unreasonable.
Are you really so convinced of the Neanderthals' mental abilities that you won't admit a "good chance" that they aren't the same as modern humans? Based on what evidence?
I was going by the whole "inability to keep it together enough to still be around", given that they were otherwise extremely similar to Cro-Magnon; certainly far from solid evidence, but it didn't seem like "good chance" needed to meet a terribly high burden of proof.
Why yes, let's clone us up a species that has a good chance of being (a) sentient, and for all intents and purposes "human", and (b) mentally inferior to Homo sapiens humans.
Clearly, we as a society are very well equipped to deal with such things.
I am not the most religious of people, but does this not sound eerily like Revelation? The dead of past ages coming to life is quite creepy.
You are purposefully misreading irrelevant scripture to tenuously link it to the current situation - I'd say you are more religious than you give yourself credit for.
You want me to click through two idiotic blogs to read about how someone did a grep -iv [yuiophjklnm]/usr/share/dict/words | wc -L? Just, wow, freaking story of the year, right there! If ever there was a time that putting the damn word in the summary would save some wasted clicks...
Also, what happened to 'tesseradecade'? The plural is 14 letters. (Look at that, I have grep too!)
Yeah, I was wondering about that too - do they normally give command of a starship to 20 year-olds because of their killer highlights? I'm probably missing some subtle plot device.
All of this bitching about continuity being broken and stuff going against canon: jesus christ, who cares? It's fiction, people. It's not immutable.
I think continuity nitpicking is just a time-honored nerd pastime, it's not the main problem most people have with this movie. I think the bitterness comes from the suspicion that they made the usual "let's have some kids blow some shit up and flash some side-boob" movie and just attached it to a random franchise in the hope of selling more tickets.
I saw the trailer after the one for the latest Fastest/Furiousiest... thing, and got the impression that if they switched the titles on those two movies, nobody would even fucking notice! Add to that the disappointment of Quantum of Solace not being that far off from those two, and you get the bitterness. At least Trek tried back in the day.
So I don't think it's so much a "What are they doing to my precious Trek?" as a "Ooh, I'm gonna get a new Trek movie! Oh no, wait, no I'm not." kind of thing.
You do realize that Abrams' "writing staff," in this case, consists entirely of Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci?
For the record, these guys had nothing to do with Lost or Cloverfield (for whatever that's worth), though they've certainly made a significant contribution to Alias and its wig-based story-lines. They cut their teeth on "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" (and later "Jack of All Trades", no less), and gave us such gems as The Island, Transformers, and currently The Fringe (where you have people going from embryo to adult in a matter of a few hours, gaining some 150lb of mass out of thin air, because someone fucked with some cell cycle regulators a bit - I hate it when that happens).
I'd like to say I'm surprised that these guys keep getting work, but I think it's just the idealist in me that wants to think I should be surprised. It's not that they are bad writers, really; they've just elevated "formulaic hackery" to such an art form that I'm pretty sure the whole process could be completely automated by now, and summer blockbusters could be cranked out with no human involvement whatsoever, with similar results to what we get now.
Still, I might have to see this just for the hilarious casting: Simon Pegg, Carl Urban, John Cho, and Sylar as Sylar - just, WTF?
Well then I'm sure the elephant community has a strong stance against using DC power.
There's a big difference between not using the inventions of douchebags past, and not financially supporting current douchebags. Hey, I don't usually care either, but it's not such an insane position to take.
The point I'm trying to make is that no single subject can really be used as a criterion to determine whether or not an education is broad. I think the suggestion is a kind of funny.
I kinda thought the idea of a broad education was that it included at least some minimal amount of a broad range of subjects, including the ones mentioned. Didn't really think of psychology, philosophy, history, and literature as an either/or kind of deal. And yes, if you haven't had a single class in one of those subjects, "broad" isn't necessarily the right term for your educational experience (hey, nothing wrong with that). Maybe I'm just being too literal about it. Anyway, isn't that what the first couple of years are all about, anyway, giving the swine a taste of the variety of the false pearls?
I definitely agree with the first two statements. Can you even make it through university without taking at least one class of each?
The last one's a little more specialized, or rather "applied" - it doesn't really represent a significant research area. I think the closest I came to that was a fairly broad intro level economics class.
I'll do you one better: even without all the stuff you brought up (and thank you for being so thorough) the fact that a bunch of dorks didn't leave their mothers' basements for three days to beat some expansion pack, would still not be news.
Most students buy their books used and sell most of them back to the bookstore at the end of the semester.
Yeah, you buy them used at 90% of the original cost and sell them back at 10%.
But yeah, I agree with both points: the Kindle can't handle the requirements of text books, and the publishers have no interest in changing the status quo (especially not by making things easier for the students).
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I'm far more interested in sticking with Terminator: TSCC so long as it maintains sufficient ratings to avoid cancellation.
Did that get better or something? I remember watching a few episodes when it just started, and it was pretty dreadful.
Notably, this study doesn't say anything about the total market share of Windows or any other operating system, as seems to be implied in the headline and most of the summary.
Does anyone really care about the "non-online" market share anymore? I mean, it's kinda academically interesting, but basically irrelevant otherwise.
We are talking about home computers here, aka the "web/email box".
"Changing over time" is the very definition of evolution.
No it's not, that's just the definition of "change". Evolution, even "small e" evolution, implies change in a certain direction, or at least an increase in complexity - it's development, not just change.
Here, they are just talking about changes in Earth's mineralogy as a byproduct of organic processes, which I would've thought was interesting enough, but they felt the need to sex it up a bit with overly dramatic terms.
'Mineral evolution is obviously different from Darwinian evolution -- minerals don't mutate, reproduce or compete like living organisms,' said Hazen in a statement announcing the study's findings.
Thereby neatly summarizing why it's idiotic to call this process "evolution".
But, holy shit! Earth's mineral composition changes over time? And here I thought that the obvious hypothesis was that it has remained completely unchanged over the last couple of billion years.
That's in interesting Hypothesis, your paper has been published, where ...?
What kind of a ridiculous thing to say is that? Do you normally expect people to have published papers on everything they mention in conversation? Seems somewhat unreasonable.
Are you really so convinced of the Neanderthals' mental abilities that you won't admit a "good chance" that they aren't the same as modern humans? Based on what evidence?
I was going by the whole "inability to keep it together enough to still be around", given that they were otherwise extremely similar to Cro-Magnon; certainly far from solid evidence, but it didn't seem like "good chance" needed to meet a terribly high burden of proof.
Neanderthals don't strike me as big experts in the whole "not going extinct" area...
Yeah, acromegaly is hilarious.
Why yes, let's clone us up a species that has a good chance of being (a) sentient, and for all intents and purposes "human", and (b) mentally inferior to Homo sapiens humans.
Clearly, we as a society are very well equipped to deal with such things.
I am not the most religious of people, but does this not sound eerily like Revelation? The dead of past ages coming to life is quite creepy.
You are purposefully misreading irrelevant scripture to tenuously link it to the current situation - I'd say you are more religious than you give yourself credit for.
Damn, "As bad as Heinlein" - that's pretty harsh!
You want me to click through two idiotic blogs to read about how someone did a grep -iv [yuiophjklnm] /usr/share/dict/words | wc -L? Just, wow, freaking story of the year, right there! If ever there was a time that putting the damn word in the summary would save some wasted clicks...
Also, what happened to 'tesseradecade'? The plural is 14 letters. (Look at that, I have grep too!)
That's nothing, judging by that picture they can also reconstruct hair styles and generic period costumes!
Fringe is awesome.
Clearly we disagree.
You do need to realize its a fictional account of mad scientists and there creations running amok.
I realize that. It also happens to be a fictional account of mad scientists with lazy writing.
I mean really, are we going to talk about scientific plausibility during a Star Trek thread?
Most Trek is quite plausible, it may not be possible, but it's plausible - it's an important distinction.
I'm pretty sure the music is all Muse - Muse just like to rip off Philip Glass (hey, I like Muse, that's not a bad choice for someone to rip off).
Yeah, I was wondering about that too - do they normally give command of a starship to 20 year-olds because of their killer highlights? I'm probably missing some subtle plot device.
I, Mudd - a planet completely populated with androids.
Chapek 9?
(And yeah, I don't think two of the main characters in two major series counts as a "rare exception", either)
I noticed something wrong too: if you watch the trailer closely, you'll notice that it looks like this movie is shit.
All of this bitching about continuity being broken and stuff going against canon: jesus christ, who cares? It's fiction, people. It's not immutable.
I think continuity nitpicking is just a time-honored nerd pastime, it's not the main problem most people have with this movie. I think the bitterness comes from the suspicion that they made the usual "let's have some kids blow some shit up and flash some side-boob" movie and just attached it to a random franchise in the hope of selling more tickets.
I saw the trailer after the one for the latest Fastest/Furiousiest... thing, and got the impression that if they switched the titles on those two movies, nobody would even fucking notice! Add to that the disappointment of Quantum of Solace not being that far off from those two, and you get the bitterness. At least Trek tried back in the day.
So I don't think it's so much a "What are they doing to my precious Trek?" as a "Ooh, I'm gonna get a new Trek movie! Oh no, wait, no I'm not." kind of thing.
You do realize that Abrams' "writing staff," in this case, consists entirely of Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci?
For the record, these guys had nothing to do with Lost or Cloverfield (for whatever that's worth), though they've certainly made a significant contribution to Alias and its wig-based story-lines. They cut their teeth on "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" (and later "Jack of All Trades", no less), and gave us such gems as The Island, Transformers, and currently The Fringe (where you have people going from embryo to adult in a matter of a few hours, gaining some 150lb of mass out of thin air, because someone fucked with some cell cycle regulators a bit - I hate it when that happens).
I'd like to say I'm surprised that these guys keep getting work, but I think it's just the idealist in me that wants to think I should be surprised. It's not that they are bad writers, really; they've just elevated "formulaic hackery" to such an art form that I'm pretty sure the whole process could be completely automated by now, and summer blockbusters could be cranked out with no human involvement whatsoever, with similar results to what we get now.
Still, I might have to see this just for the hilarious casting: Simon Pegg, Carl Urban, John Cho, and Sylar as Sylar - just, WTF?
Well then I'm sure the elephant community has a strong stance against using DC power.
There's a big difference between not using the inventions of douchebags past, and not financially supporting current douchebags. Hey, I don't usually care either, but it's not such an insane position to take.
The point I'm trying to make is that no single subject can really be used as a criterion to determine whether or not an education is broad. I think the suggestion is a kind of funny.
I kinda thought the idea of a broad education was that it included at least some minimal amount of a broad range of subjects, including the ones mentioned. Didn't really think of psychology, philosophy, history, and literature as an either/or kind of deal. And yes, if you haven't had a single class in one of those subjects, "broad" isn't necessarily the right term for your educational experience (hey, nothing wrong with that). Maybe I'm just being too literal about it. Anyway, isn't that what the first couple of years are all about, anyway, giving the swine a taste of the variety of the false pearls?
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.
I definitely agree with the first two statements. Can you even make it through university without taking at least one class of each?
The last one's a little more specialized, or rather "applied" - it doesn't really represent a significant research area. I think the closest I came to that was a fairly broad intro level economics class.
This story is not news.
I'll do you one better: even without all the stuff you brought up (and thank you for being so thorough) the fact that a bunch of dorks didn't leave their mothers' basements for three days to beat some expansion pack, would still not be news.
Most students buy their books used and sell most of them back to the bookstore at the end of the semester.
Yeah, you buy them used at 90% of the original cost and sell them back at 10%.
But yeah, I agree with both points: the Kindle can't handle the requirements of text books, and the publishers have no interest in changing the status quo (especially not by making things easier for the students).
Seems whatever happens people just want to hate Microsoft whatever moves the company makes...
This isn't a "move", this is just talk, so of course we are skeptical.