Damn use google, or better yet read the news once in a while.
Or maybe you could have given specifics in the first place. Lazy bastard.
Your replies are just as I suspected. Very limited actions taken by France or the US, mostly in places where each country still had a significant number of its citizens living there. Comparing a few hundred troops in the Ivory Coast to an overt war with 150,000 troops deployed is simply preposterous. In the case of the Ivory coast France still had 20,000 french nationals living there. The US invasion of Panama did involve a lot of troops, but there were 35,000 americans living in Panama. Civilian casualty in Panama estimates vary, but they range from hundreds to a thousand. Defending your citizens is something all countries engage in. I don't think there were tens of thousands of Americans living in Iraq. I also don't think any of the actions you listed ultimately turned out to be based on completely innacurate justifications.
What's undeniably different about these actions is one of scale. Iraq has no comparison to any of the wars you listed. George Bush himself has said that Iraqi casualties are "30,000 more or less". It's larger in terms of troop deployment, in terms of continued presence, massively more Iraqi casualties, and the involvement within the country. Call me when you come up with something that's comparable in size, scope, and false justifications.
Your point is clear. You deceived the customer into thinking that a 64 bit processor is somehow better than a 32 bit processor. The customer already had a wrong idea that Intel was superior to AMD, so you corrected that wrong idea with another wrong idea.
The customer saved a little money in the process, but they still don't understand the truth. What you should have done is tell them in your expert opinion the AMD processor is a bit better value, and is in no way inferior to the Intel processor. If they still want to believe the marketing of Intel over you, that's their choice.
Because it isn't a beta. It is a build out of CVS that the developer has released on his home page. It is not official, it is exactly the same as if YOU pulled from CVS development and built a binary and posted it.
Thanks for re-stating the obvious. It's not an official beta, but it DOES become the de-facto beta. That's why I'm calling it an "under the table" beta. As to "they don't need it" I think it's obvious you've never done software development before. You ALWAYS need test releases. With something as big as Firefox I think you need a official beta release. Otherwise you're not going to get wide enough testing to uncover any bugs that creep up.
France has done this sort of thing in Africa for years... The US has done this sort of thing in Latin America for years. How is Iraq suddenly provoking outrage that CAR, Panama, and Ivory Coast did not?
Please give specific instances of both France and the US doing this. Then we can have a discussion about the differences between your examples and Iraq rather than relying on vague "has been doing this for years" descriptions.
Why is the beta release this kind of "under the table" beta release from one of the developers? It seems like it'd be a better idea to make the build they have now more widely available in a more prominent spot, especially considering the scarcity of x86 Macs at the moment. Is the problem one of public perception of releasing (even a beta) of a product that's not feature complete? Will there be a more official beta before the march release?
It's funny that your post only seems to concentrate on the past, and some unknown future. I believe the poster is refering to the present, and the fact that the US has attacked a country based on intelligence data that the President should have known was faulty. It's slowly coming out that the CIA knew that the intelligence supporting WMD was hardly conclusive, and likely bad data. That didn't make any difference though, as the Bush administration only wanted to hear one thing.
I certainly don't think it's unreasonable for other countries to be a bit more leary of the US under the current administration. Who's the next country that Bush wants to attack, and will only look at the evidence in favor of attacking it? This kind of behaviour is simply terrible for maintaining allies, which is what the US needs to do to do all the things you're talking about. Saying "you shouldn't be uneasy about the US because of our past behaviour" really misses the point.
But even in a society full of PhDs, some people have to do the menial jobs.
The original point I'm trying to make isn't to eliminate menial jobs. There's nothing wrong with a menial job. The goal of education is to eliminate people ONLY being able to do menial jobs, and thus their job being eliminated by technology.
Which would you rather have? An iPod, or a phone with an iPod built in?
Phones and iPods are both electronic devices, and they're both things you carry around with you all the time, but the synergy mostly ends there. My point is that the merging of the two together creates design compromises for both, so you wind up with a crappy phone and a crappy iPod. A good example of technology integration that's only a niche product is the combined TV/DVD player or VCR. The DVD player/VCR is useless without a TV, so here's an example of two product that's even more integrated than a music player and cell phone. But yet this combo has never really taken off and occupies a small segment of the market.
There's many good reasons to put different functions in different devices. Combining functions together in one device isn't always a great idea unless the technologies complement each other more than they represent design constraints.
There's always going to be a bottom rung of people who really can't do much more than run a cash register. What happens to them?
The society works hard to shrink them to a smaller and smaller percentage of the populace through education. Fify years ago I'll bet you the percentage of unskilled labor was much higher in the US than it is now.
So, a 2,500 year old technological advance cost some poor guy his job....sigh...
That's one way to look at it. There's no denying that technology replaces some low level jobs. But on the other end the boss guy now has more money to spend on something else. He might pocket the money, or he might fire another guy and use the combined money to hire a more skilled helper. Then take on jobs that require more skill than simply staking out building sites.
If technology simply eliminated jobs without creating new ones, we'd all have been out of work a few thousand years ago.
Re:Technical Solutions solves all problems
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 1
Or rather what I am saying is that all social and political problems can be solved with technology. It just depends on your application of the technology and how far you are willing to go with the application.
Well, I guess if you count destroying the source of the problem through murder or suicide, you're correct. How do you solve any problem with technology? Shoot anyone who thinks the situation is a problem.
While you're technically correct, you've really stretched the definition of "solving the problem" to the point of absurdity and pointlessness. This serves no end other than making it obvious the problem wasn't rigidly defined.
At what percent of remaing human genes does a creature retain its civil rights?
I certainly don't claim to be an expert in genetics, but I don't think there is such a thing as a "human gene". It's like saying something is made of "car factory bricks". The researchers aren't at fault here, it's your understanding of animal genetics.
No, not because it's actually going to work. It's obviously just a crappy battery, and taking energy from the metals. It's brilliant because it's not crazy enough to sound completely ridiculous, it has a grain of truth in it, involves everyday simple things so it sounds plausible enough to the typical member of the public with no science background, and it has a "feel good" message. Who doesn't want to believe we can generate power from something as common as a tree?
We should all be so smart to be able to dupe the public into giving us funding for "more research". If only I had less scrupples I'd try something like this myself. Swine morality.. bested me again.
science mentions several things which it will never be able to explain: For example what happens in a black hole or what was before the big bang.
Not to be pedantic, but that's a limitation of our current theories (mostly general relativity) and not a limitation of science itself. We may one day have better understandings of both of those phenomenon, but we don't today.
There are questions that science can't answer of course. Mostly these are questions of values and morality. Science can't tell you what the purpose of life is, or if a war is just or not.
Evolutionist crowd should be more open to the possibility that all things in the known world had a start initiated by intelligence rather than "it just magically happened." That's just as ingenuous as saying God just magically controls everything.
Ahh yes, the god of the gaps argument. Carefull with that one, because science tends to close those gaps. That's why this whole nonsense even started because some people chose to look for god in the gaps of knowledge. Science has closed that gaps in the case of evolution, and now we've got all these whiners whose religion is threatened. Sorry about that, maybe try a better religion next time? The Cathlogic church was pretty pissed too when Galileo found out the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around. They eventually got over it though.
I suggest to the religious crowd that they stay out of the "explaining natural phenonmenon" business, as you've proven so very very bad at it. Maybe you should stay inside the more traditional roles of religion, like say morality. Not that people have been really happy with what religion has come up with their either.. but at least you can't be provably wrong.
Yah, whaterer you say Forrest...my generation invented rock and roll music, went to the moon, and stopped an unjust war. Your generation...wrote a web page and invented rap music? Ya have a lot to be proud of...
I think you're maybe still a little strung out on the drugs you all took in the 60s. "Your Generation" didn't do any of that crap, unless you're a member of the Silent Generation. Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins were all born in 1930. I doubt there were many boomer engineers either that worked on the project, seeing how they'd all be in their 20s. Elvis Presley was born in 1935, Little Richard was born in 1932, and Chuck Berry was born in 1926. None of them is even CLOSE to being a baby boomer. If you really think a bunch of hippy protesters stopped Vietnam, you're sadly mistaken.
The contribution of YOUR generation to the society is only an inflated sense of self worth. You seem to be a prime example of that, trying to claim the accomplishments of others for your own generation. Our idiot president is a perfect example of a boomer who thinks he can do no wrong.
I'm sure in hindsight it's a dumb thing to try, but sometimes you can get unexpected results. I think there was probbably enough garbage on the motherboard to provide enough ions to establish a current. I wonder what would have happened if they had rinsed the motherboard first.
1969 is dead. As I understand it, generations grow older and don't live in one single time period. Baby boomers like to think of themselves as the flower-power-hippy-free-love generation, but they've all grown up and become corporate drones wanting a paycheck. Don't try to sell me that old Easy Rider story, because it ain't 1969 anymore.
My generations defining film.. One guy thinks he's two guys, has sex with a beautiful (but very messed up) woman, realizes the pointlesness of consumerism, forms a para-military organization, and blows up credit card company buildings (Fight Club). Your generations defining movie?... Forrest Gump.
Three years ago, you probably could have said, "I can't imagine the VHS section at Best Buy going away within the next three years."
What planet do you live on? 3 years ago was only 2003. It was obvious that VHS was on the way out at early as 2000. In 2003 VHS was on its last legs and if you weren't betting on the VHS section at Best Buy going away in 2 or 3 years, you weren't paying attention.
You fail logic. Unless of course it was your intention to imply that Ghandi's and King's actions were "detrimental". I've always thought of them as positive actions.
And you fail philosophy and politics. Did you think the people Ghandi and King were acting against thought their actions were positive? I'm pretty sure the British Government, and many US State governments (as well as many people of the time) didn't hold your view that these were positive actions. These are also the people with the power to prosecute. Get it?
He didn't abide by a contract, and NO, it's not an illegal contract either,
I don't think that's altogether clear. Contract law is far from clear cut. Unless there's a specific statement about making statements about un-named students you don't like, then it's also not clear if he violated the conduct code. Some adminstrator saying he did doesn't make it so.
So what reason do you have to think you're an above average driver? Has your driving instruction, practice, and knowledge grossly eclipsed that of the average driver?
Your question wasn't directed at me, but it did make me think. I think I've I'm a better driver than most, but not because I have super-duper reflexes or racecar driver training. I think I'm a better driver because I see many people drive with poor habbits. MANY people follow to closely, which reduces reaction times. I see a lot of people slam on the brakes at stop signs, which is a bad habbit. My eyesight is fine, and I'm under say 60 when reaction times slow down. It doesn't take a lot of skill to be better than MOST people at driving. All you have to do is be better than 50% of the people, and you're better than average (assuming a normal distribution of driving skills).
That's not to say I'm an expert driver either. Simply being better than most people at driving isn't going to save you.
0c is just an arbitrary number that most electronics are tested to work at. Electronics don't work the same at extreme temperatures like 43k as they do at our normal earth temperatures. Voltage and resistance can vary, so the design of the electronics has to reflect the temperature it's working at. But, if you design something to work at 43K, what happens when it's near the earth and a few hundred degrees hotter? One approach to the problem is to insulate everything and have some kind of heat source that regulates the temperature. I don't know if anyone designs electronics to operate at temperature extremes of 43K to room temperature or so, but I don't think it'd be easy (or even cheap) to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn use google, or better yet read the news once in a while.
Or maybe you could have given specifics in the first place. Lazy bastard.
Your replies are just as I suspected. Very limited actions taken by France or the US, mostly in places where each country still had a significant number of its citizens living there. Comparing a few hundred troops in the Ivory Coast to an overt war with 150,000 troops deployed is simply preposterous. In the case of the Ivory coast France still had 20,000 french nationals living there. The US invasion of Panama did involve a lot of troops, but there were 35,000 americans living in Panama. Civilian casualty in Panama estimates vary, but they range from hundreds to a thousand. Defending your citizens is something all countries engage in. I don't think there were tens of thousands of Americans living in Iraq. I also don't think any of the actions you listed ultimately turned out to be based on completely innacurate justifications.
What's undeniably different about these actions is one of scale. Iraq has no comparison to any of the wars you listed. George Bush himself has said that Iraqi casualties are "30,000 more or less". It's larger in terms of troop deployment, in terms of continued presence, massively more Iraqi casualties, and the involvement within the country. Call me when you come up with something that's comparable in size, scope, and false justifications.
Your point is clear. You deceived the customer into thinking that a 64 bit processor is somehow better than a 32 bit processor. The customer already had a wrong idea that Intel was superior to AMD, so you corrected that wrong idea with another wrong idea.
The customer saved a little money in the process, but they still don't understand the truth. What you should have done is tell them in your expert opinion the AMD processor is a bit better value, and is in no way inferior to the Intel processor. If they still want to believe the marketing of Intel over you, that's their choice.
Because it isn't a beta. It is a build out of CVS that the developer has released on his home page. It is not official, it is exactly the same as if YOU pulled from CVS development and built a binary and posted it.
Thanks for re-stating the obvious. It's not an official beta, but it DOES become the de-facto beta. That's why I'm calling it an "under the table" beta. As to "they don't need it" I think it's obvious you've never done software development before. You ALWAYS need test releases. With something as big as Firefox I think you need a official beta release. Otherwise you're not going to get wide enough testing to uncover any bugs that creep up.
France has done this sort of thing in Africa for years... The US has done this sort of thing in Latin America for years. How is Iraq suddenly provoking outrage that CAR, Panama, and Ivory Coast did not?
Please give specific instances of both France and the US doing this. Then we can have a discussion about the differences between your examples and Iraq rather than relying on vague "has been doing this for years" descriptions.
Why is the beta release this kind of "under the table" beta release from one of the developers? It seems like it'd be a better idea to make the build they have now more widely available in a more prominent spot, especially considering the scarcity of x86 Macs at the moment. Is the problem one of public perception of releasing (even a beta) of a product that's not feature complete? Will there be a more official beta before the march release?
It's funny that your post only seems to concentrate on the past, and some unknown future. I believe the poster is refering to the present, and the fact that the US has attacked a country based on intelligence data that the President should have known was faulty. It's slowly coming out that the CIA knew that the intelligence supporting WMD was hardly conclusive, and likely bad data. That didn't make any difference though, as the Bush administration only wanted to hear one thing.
I certainly don't think it's unreasonable for other countries to be a bit more leary of the US under the current administration. Who's the next country that Bush wants to attack, and will only look at the evidence in favor of attacking it? This kind of behaviour is simply terrible for maintaining allies, which is what the US needs to do to do all the things you're talking about. Saying "you shouldn't be uneasy about the US because of our past behaviour" really misses the point.
But even in a society full of PhDs, some people have to do the menial jobs.
The original point I'm trying to make isn't to eliminate menial jobs. There's nothing wrong with a menial job. The goal of education is to eliminate people ONLY being able to do menial jobs, and thus their job being eliminated by technology.
Which would you rather have? An iPod, or a phone with an iPod built in?
Phones and iPods are both electronic devices, and they're both things you carry around with you all the time, but the synergy mostly ends there. My point is that the merging of the two together creates design compromises for both, so you wind up with a crappy phone and a crappy iPod. A good example of technology integration that's only a niche product is the combined TV/DVD player or VCR. The DVD player/VCR is useless without a TV, so here's an example of two product that's even more integrated than a music player and cell phone. But yet this combo has never really taken off and occupies a small segment of the market.
There's many good reasons to put different functions in different devices. Combining functions together in one device isn't always a great idea unless the technologies complement each other more than they represent design constraints.
There's always going to be a bottom rung of people who really can't do much more than run a cash register. What happens to them?
The society works hard to shrink them to a smaller and smaller percentage of the populace through education. Fify years ago I'll bet you the percentage of unskilled labor was much higher in the US than it is now.
So, a 2,500 year old technological advance cost some poor guy his job.
That's one way to look at it. There's no denying that technology replaces some low level jobs. But on the other end the boss guy now has more money to spend on something else. He might pocket the money, or he might fire another guy and use the combined money to hire a more skilled helper. Then take on jobs that require more skill than simply staking out building sites.
If technology simply eliminated jobs without creating new ones, we'd all have been out of work a few thousand years ago.
Or rather what I am saying is that all social and political problems can be solved with technology. It just depends on your application of the technology and how far you are willing to go with the application.
Well, I guess if you count destroying the source of the problem through murder or suicide, you're correct. How do you solve any problem with technology? Shoot anyone who thinks the situation is a problem.
While you're technically correct, you've really stretched the definition of "solving the problem" to the point of absurdity and pointlessness. This serves no end other than making it obvious the problem wasn't rigidly defined.
At what percent of remaing human genes does a creature retain its civil rights?
I certainly don't claim to be an expert in genetics, but I don't think there is such a thing as a "human gene". It's like saying something is made of "car factory bricks". The researchers aren't at fault here, it's your understanding of animal genetics.
No, not because it's actually going to work. It's obviously just a crappy battery, and taking energy from the metals. It's brilliant because it's not crazy enough to sound completely ridiculous, it has a grain of truth in it, involves everyday simple things so it sounds plausible enough to the typical member of the public with no science background, and it has a "feel good" message. Who doesn't want to believe we can generate power from something as common as a tree?
We should all be so smart to be able to dupe the public into giving us funding for "more research". If only I had less scrupples I'd try something like this myself. Swine morality.. bested me again.
Quantitatively weighing the human cost against the abstract political gain.
Science may allow you to give you better information, but it's your value system that ultimately decides what's right and wrong.
science mentions several things which it will never be able to explain: For example what happens in a black hole or what was before the big bang.
Not to be pedantic, but that's a limitation of our current theories (mostly general relativity) and not a limitation of science itself. We may one day have better understandings of both of those phenomenon, but we don't today.
There are questions that science can't answer of course. Mostly these are questions of values and morality. Science can't tell you what the purpose of life is, or if a war is just or not.
Evolutionist crowd should be more open to the possibility that all things in the known world had a start initiated by intelligence rather than "it just magically happened." That's just as ingenuous as saying God just magically controls everything.
Ahh yes, the god of the gaps argument. Carefull with that one, because science tends to close those gaps. That's why this whole nonsense even started because some people chose to look for god in the gaps of knowledge. Science has closed that gaps in the case of evolution, and now we've got all these whiners whose religion is threatened. Sorry about that, maybe try a better religion next time? The Cathlogic church was pretty pissed too when Galileo found out the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around. They eventually got over it though.
I suggest to the religious crowd that they stay out of the "explaining natural phenonmenon" business, as you've proven so very very bad at it. Maybe you should stay inside the more traditional roles of religion, like say morality. Not that people have been really happy with what religion has come up with their either.. but at least you can't be provably wrong.
Yah, whaterer you say Forrest...my generation invented rock and roll music, went to the moon, and stopped an unjust war. Your generation...wrote a web page and invented rap music? Ya have a lot to be proud of...
I think you're maybe still a little strung out on the drugs you all took in the 60s. "Your Generation" didn't do any of that crap, unless you're a member of the Silent Generation. Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins were all born in 1930. I doubt there were many boomer engineers either that worked on the project, seeing how they'd all be in their 20s. Elvis Presley was born in 1935, Little Richard was born in 1932, and Chuck Berry was born in 1926. None of them is even CLOSE to being a baby boomer. If you really think a bunch of hippy protesters stopped Vietnam, you're sadly mistaken.
The contribution of YOUR generation to the society is only an inflated sense of self worth. You seem to be a prime example of that, trying to claim the accomplishments of others for your own generation. Our idiot president is a perfect example of a boomer who thinks he can do no wrong.
I'm sure in hindsight it's a dumb thing to try, but sometimes you can get unexpected results. I think there was probbably enough garbage on the motherboard to provide enough ions to establish a current. I wonder what would have happened if they had rinsed the motherboard first.
1969 is dead. As I understand it, generations grow older and don't live in one single time period. Baby boomers like to think of themselves as the flower-power-hippy-free-love generation, but they've all grown up and become corporate drones wanting a paycheck. Don't try to sell me that old Easy Rider story, because it ain't 1969 anymore.
More like..
My generations defining film.. One guy thinks he's two guys, has sex with a beautiful (but very messed up) woman, realizes the pointlesness of consumerism, forms a para-military organization, and blows up credit card company buildings (Fight Club). Your generations defining movie?... Forrest Gump.
Three years ago, you probably could have said, "I can't imagine the VHS section at Best Buy going away within the next three years."
What planet do you live on? 3 years ago was only 2003. It was obvious that VHS was on the way out at early as 2000. In 2003 VHS was on its last legs and if you weren't betting on the VHS section at Best Buy going away in 2 or 3 years, you weren't paying attention.
You fail logic. Unless of course it was your intention to imply that Ghandi's and King's actions were "detrimental". I've always thought of them as positive actions.
And you fail philosophy and politics. Did you think the people Ghandi and King were acting against thought their actions were positive? I'm pretty sure the British Government, and many US State governments (as well as many people of the time) didn't hold your view that these were positive actions. These are also the people with the power to prosecute. Get it?
He didn't abide by a contract, and NO, it's not an illegal contract either,
I don't think that's altogether clear. Contract law is far from clear cut. Unless there's a specific statement about making statements about un-named students you don't like, then it's also not clear if he violated the conduct code. Some adminstrator saying he did doesn't make it so.
So what reason do you have to think you're an above average driver? Has your driving instruction, practice, and knowledge grossly eclipsed that of the average driver?
Your question wasn't directed at me, but it did make me think. I think I've I'm a better driver than most, but not because I have super-duper reflexes or racecar driver training. I think I'm a better driver because I see many people drive with poor habbits. MANY people follow to closely, which reduces reaction times. I see a lot of people slam on the brakes at stop signs, which is a bad habbit. My eyesight is fine, and I'm under say 60 when reaction times slow down. It doesn't take a lot of skill to be better than MOST people at driving. All you have to do is be better than 50% of the people, and you're better than average (assuming a normal distribution of driving skills).
That's not to say I'm an expert driver either. Simply being better than most people at driving isn't going to save you.
0c is just an arbitrary number that most electronics are tested to work at. Electronics don't work the same at extreme temperatures like 43k as they do at our normal earth temperatures. Voltage and resistance can vary, so the design of the electronics has to reflect the temperature it's working at. But, if you design something to work at 43K, what happens when it's near the earth and a few hundred degrees hotter? One approach to the problem is to insulate everything and have some kind of heat source that regulates the temperature. I don't know if anyone designs electronics to operate at temperature extremes of 43K to room temperature or so, but I don't think it'd be easy (or even cheap) to do so.