Slow down there, you are being ridiculous. Planets provide "reasonably good" bio containment, in that it is far better than anything we've ever developed on earth, probabilisitically speaking.
The probability of cross contamination is "tiny".
Not only would a rock have to smack the earth so hard that bits of rock containing bacteria (that can survive deep freeze and unprotected exposure to space radiation for months if not years), but said bits of rock would have to land on Mars, a probability so astronomically small that it defies calculation(by me)
There is global warming, that is a fact. Almost no scientist will deny that fact.
Hearing this line should set off alarm bells. Scientific truth does not heed consensus. It doesn't matter what percentage of scientists agree or disagree about something.
So if you as a reader hear this line, your first instinct should be to ignore the person who told you, because they are just parroting the majority view.
To sum it up, I think (without RTFA, admittedly) I think that it's far to dynamic of a subject to boil down to black-n-whites such as this.
Well that's how science works. We come up with theories, these theories are always too simple, they get refined.
Working in the opposite direction, starting with complex theories, doesn't work. Those people end up spiraling into a futile world of overcomplex models that make no sense to even themselves.
While it can be true since it's posted on the internet, personally I believe they
Whew, I'll toss out the opinion of someone who's just spent the last year collecting data, analyzing the results, and submitting them to Psych Science because a/. poster disagrees.
Me, I'm one of those HWM people, and I fall to absolute pieces under pressure. I suspect you are as well, and your ego just took a bump from this paper.
As a result you get defensive, and rather than accept that there might be some validity in this work, you cop an elitist attitude, shitting on those LWM's. "They're mindless robots, they just follow the rules. Me, I'm better, but I need time to think outside the box".
Let me defuse your ego trip, he's talking about working memory capacity, not "smart". There is a correlation, but it's not that LWM's are less intelligent, they have just less workspace to sketch on. It's like working on a 640x480 screen instead of a 1024x768.
These people are no more or less likely to "think outside the box". They just have less room in their heads to worry about things, so they tend not to.
What's also amazing is that the eye can take this kind of punishment and heal up. It's structurally very delicate and complicated, and you'd think it would be one of those body parts that, like the brain, isn't very good at regenerating from damage.
But no, suck out the juice, pump it full of saline, inject some air, detatch the retina, etc etc...
I'm generally hold strongly leftist ideals, but I can see the truth in this. These sweatshops, while cruel, are at least siphoning money from our economy into theirs. No matter how you slice it, that's a good thing in the long run for their standard of living (provided most of the siphoned money stays there and isn't funneled back into our pockets).
From a perspective of evolutionary theory, this kind of "natural disaster" is about the best thing you could hope for. Some external force comes along and wipes out the top dog every now and then, allowing the also-rans to take its place. This kind of thing may actually accelerate the innovation of PtoP piracy greatly.
I'm no great fan of Windows, I use it because I have to.
But don't tar the entire MS line with the same brush. If MS Office is such shit, why is Open Office practically a feature by feature clone of it? (I'm sure I'll get roasted for that one but from what I've seen of it...)
Face it, MS Office for all the times it makes you want to jump out a window because Excel chart font sizes are determined by a random number generator when you shift the window size, is a very solid suite. The ability to double click on a chart in a power point presentation, open up the underlying excel spreadsheet and fix problems, or just create a new chart, is absolutely fantastic.
Even some academic journals are now allowing.doc submissions as an alternative to latex or pdf.
Although really, of the big trio: Excel, Word and Powerpoint, Word is clearly the worst of them, and by a big margin.
Again I'm not saying they don't have their quirks, but the office suite has certainly revolutionized (to a minor extent) the way many people do publishing and presentations.
Irony: As I type this message praising MS software, the delete key has stopped working in this IE window.
I'm sorry, but the idea of worrying about whether my behaviour on a given day is aberrant enough to start causing my microwave to ask me for my cat's name before it will operate is repugnant.
In a similar vein, suspicion based analysis of behaviour in a computer system is going to red flag certain kinds of legitimate computer use all the time, not because the idea is necessarily a bad one, (ouor immune systems do this to a great extent) but rather the implementation is likely to be badly flawed.
Imagine I'm in a deadline crunch situation and I'm suddenly working nights and weekends for 2 weeks, and accessing computer systems I don't normally need. Night before the deadline, I'm locked out of the entire system and my computer is quarantined because I finally crossed some arbitrary threshold of aberrant usage.
No thanks, I'll keep my passwords.
They may not be perfect, but they don't get in the way, and when they fail, intelligent backing up of my work allows me to deal with the consequences.
Incorrect, spaceplanes are inefficient in general principle. The problem is the fuel required to lift those wings and flight control mechanisms into orbit. They do you no good in space, they are only used in re-entry, so why not use a design for which you get controlled reentry dynamics(ie keeping the heat shields down and the parachute port up) for free?
Look at what you what you need for re-entry:
Wings A hugely increased heat shield Flaps Hydraulic motors for flaps landing gear more hydraulics more sensors more wiring more computer control more everything
The weight just spirals up and up until you have a fuel tank the size of the Good Year and achieve at best a moderately safe vehicle.
Slashdot Mirror
You haven't met the guy who lives upstairs from me, have you?
Slow down there, you are being ridiculous. Planets provide "reasonably good" bio containment, in that it is far better than anything we've ever developed on earth, probabilisitically speaking.
The probability of cross contamination is "tiny".
Not only would a rock have to smack the earth so hard that bits of rock containing bacteria (that can survive deep freeze and unprotected exposure to space radiation for months if not years), but said bits of rock would have to land on Mars, a probability so astronomically small that it defies calculation(by me)
I'm quoting the SNL skit referenced by the GGP.
His alarm clock does read 7:42 when he hits the alarm.
You, there, in the front row, have you ever kissed a girl?
You're good with plot arcs, and managing huge projects.
But you are a *terrible* writer!
Your dialogue is so unsubtle it is akin to be smacked in the face by a hallibut every time someone opens their mouth.
Hire
someone
else
There is global warming, that is a fact. Almost no scientist will deny that fact.
Hearing this line should set off alarm bells. Scientific truth does not heed consensus. It doesn't matter what percentage of scientists agree or disagree about something.
So if you as a reader hear this line, your first instinct should be to ignore the person who told you, because they are just parroting the majority view.
To sum it up, I think (without RTFA, admittedly) I think that it's far to dynamic of a subject to boil down to black-n-whites such as this.
Well that's how science works. We come up with theories, these theories are always too simple, they get refined.
Working in the opposite direction, starting with complex theories, doesn't work. Those people end up spiraling into a futile world of overcomplex models that make no sense to even themselves.
Try not to pull your shoulder patting yourself on the back.
ps. It sure sounds like high school bitterness.
While it can be true since it's posted on the internet, personally I believe they
/. poster disagrees.
Whew, I'll toss out the opinion of someone who's just spent the last year collecting data, analyzing the results, and submitting them to Psych Science because a
Me, I'm one of those HWM people, and I fall to absolute pieces under pressure. I suspect you are as well, and your ego just took a bump from this paper.
As a result you get defensive, and rather than accept that there might be some validity in this work, you cop an elitist attitude, shitting on those LWM's. "They're mindless robots, they just follow the rules. Me, I'm better, but I need time to think outside the box".
Let me defuse your ego trip, he's talking about working memory capacity, not "smart". There is a correlation, but it's not that LWM's are less intelligent, they have just less workspace to sketch on. It's like working on a 640x480 screen instead of a 1024x768.
These people are no more or less likely to "think outside the box". They just have less room in their heads to worry about things, so they tend not to.
You elitism
How is it that things like this get modded to 3?
Yes, it costs money to buy OS maps of the UK for example. You can't just up and slip that into a beta....
How is it that things like this get modded to 4?
What's also amazing is that the eye can take this kind of punishment and heal up. It's structurally very delicate and complicated, and you'd think it would be one of those body parts that, like the brain, isn't very good at regenerating from damage.
But no, suck out the juice, pump it full of saline, inject some air, detatch the retina, etc etc...
wow
True but...
In the great war of ideology that we're now in, Linux and Open Source and non IE browsers are all in the same trench.
To besmirch non IE browsers is to besmirch them all, and claiming otherwises is dishonest.
You can't have it both ways, If Linux victories are good for open source, and vice versa, then so to are open source problems a black eye for Linux.
You sound about as absurd as an MS advocate would be if he tried to claim that IE isn't Windows,
therefore you can't count IE problems against it.
You win some and you lose some, stop trying to play dodgeball and take the red ball in your nuts like a man.
Not if their answer is always yes.
Everything's in the past, starting from right now.
Where do you draw the line? If I killed a friend of yours, it's in the past as soon as I've done it. By your advice, shouldn't you just "let it go?"
The idea of punishment as a deterrant is founded on the principle of NOT letting it go.
After all, one Fippy Darkpaw (who drops a PGT) can feed a family of 4 for a week.
And Jboots? now you're talking about opening your own hotel.
I'm generally hold strongly leftist ideals, but I can see the truth in this. These sweatshops, while cruel, are at least siphoning money from our economy into theirs. No matter how you slice it, that's a good thing in the long run for their standard of living (provided most of the siphoned money stays there and isn't funneled back into our pockets).
You are thinking of cheating as in cheat codes to get god mode or something of that nature.
What he's talking about is cheating that requires skill to do and only provides a modest benefit, and the more skill you have, the better the benefit.
So in a sense it's pitting your skill at cheating against theirs, and it's certainly an interesting way to play.
From a perspective of evolutionary theory, this kind of "natural disaster" is about the best thing you could hope for. Some external force comes along and wipes out the top dog every now and then, allowing the also-rans to take its place. This kind of thing may actually accelerate the innovation of PtoP piracy greatly.
If I am not asked for passwords on a routine basis, I will not remember them. That is a fact.
So if at 3 am my computer asks me for my password for the first time in 8 months, I'll pack up and go home.
I'm no great fan of Windows, I use it because I have to.
.doc submissions as an alternative to latex or pdf.
But don't tar the entire MS line with the same brush. If MS Office is such shit, why is Open Office practically a feature by feature clone of it? (I'm sure I'll get roasted for that one but from what I've seen of it...)
Face it, MS Office for all the times it makes you want to jump out a window because Excel chart font sizes are determined by a random number generator when you shift the window size, is a very solid suite. The ability to double click on a chart in a power point presentation, open up the underlying excel spreadsheet and fix problems, or just create a new chart, is absolutely fantastic.
Even some academic journals are now allowing
Although really, of the big trio: Excel, Word and Powerpoint, Word is clearly the worst of them, and by a big margin.
Again I'm not saying they don't have their quirks, but the office suite has certainly revolutionized (to a minor extent) the way many people do publishing and presentations.
Irony: As I type this message praising MS software, the delete key has stopped working in this IE window.
I'm sorry, but the idea of worrying about whether my behaviour on a given day is aberrant enough to start causing my microwave to ask me for my cat's name before it will operate is repugnant.
In a similar vein, suspicion based analysis of behaviour in a computer system is going to red flag certain kinds of legitimate computer use all the time, not because the idea is necessarily a bad one, (ouor immune systems do this to a great extent) but rather the implementation is likely to be badly flawed.
Imagine I'm in a deadline crunch situation and I'm suddenly working nights and weekends for 2 weeks, and accessing computer systems I don't normally need. Night before the deadline, I'm locked out of the entire system and my computer is quarantined because I finally crossed some arbitrary threshold of aberrant usage.
No thanks, I'll keep my passwords.
They may not be perfect, but they don't get in the way, and when they fail, intelligent backing up of my work allows me to deal with the consequences.
Incorrect, spaceplanes are inefficient in general principle. The problem is the fuel required to lift those wings and flight control mechanisms into orbit. They do you no good in space, they are only used in re-entry, so why not use a design for which you get controlled reentry dynamics(ie keeping the heat shields down and the parachute port up) for free?
Look at what you what you need for re-entry:
Wings
A hugely increased heat shield
Flaps
Hydraulic motors for flaps
landing gear
more hydraulics
more sensors
more wiring
more computer control
more everything
The weight just spirals up and up until you have a fuel tank the size of the Good Year and achieve at best a moderately safe vehicle.