I really find it funny...
on
What is Perl 6?
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
I really find it funny that even I have better karma on slashdot than chromatic, with a 4 digit user ID.
It doesn't say anything about me.:-)
Maybe it says something about/., since he both posted the story -- and wrote the article it comments on. And what I comments on is both true and informative (-: I don't care for the dig at lisp:-).
I read the comments because I wondered what the grand parent was complaining about.
The Highly unethical was just because they killed a few mice!:-)
The GP ought to be a vegetarian, that refuses to weed his garden from the poor vegetables.:-)
Or he might be a pet shop boy and have better uses for mice?:-)
My favorite story about double standards, otherwise, is this:
There was a "peace camp" here in Sweden a few years ago, where the protestors complained about a military development project. The peaceheads had problems with "short haired elements" (skinheads) visiting the camps and starting fights. So they hired a guard company to protect themselves.
The fun part is that they couldn't see the parallel between getting security for their camp (the police doesn't work that well in Sweden) and a country having a military (there is no police between countries).
I have to agree with the Anon poster. This is quite uninteresting for the general public.
The interesting application is in forensics.
It might be interesting when they find out what the proteins really do that are being transcripted at low oxygen levels (or high anxiety?). Since the energy cycle in the mitochondria is well known, I guess it's just not genes that regulate that?
If a creature dies suddenly the total blood flow stops and so the flow of all chemicals instead of just oxygen (and maybe a few others).
If the heart stops, the blood flow stops. But you can stop the heart for quite a time and restart it. The cells takes time to die.
I would just note that you argue against the economist's view on how monopolies work.
See Firefox as an example. After IE took over, development stopped for years. Now even Microsoft has started to move.
Most of your examples are specialised software, i.e. small niches that won't pay for many developer years. When someone starts to make money and get resources to be a threat, Microsoft historically came in and use monopoly leverage. Like with IE.
(Mathematics software takes a large investment -- and then you have to compete with a few gorillas of that market; try selling that to investors. Data bases have more capabilities, compared to 15 years ago. To get better dependability isn't that sexy, of course.)
Home automation?
No serious tries has been made, yet. Microsoft never tries first in a new niche; it waits until the market is created.
After Microsoft got monopoly over an area of software, development slowed down. Heavy investments were moved to places where Msoft didn't (yet) have monopoly. Office software, Internet Explorer, etc, were quite dormant.
If a competitor showed up in an area, investments would start and newly invented features would be copied. Until the competitor went away.
Personally, I think that the free/open software movement became large earlier than it would without Microsoft; since you can't compete with a monopoly, it was the "only" other game in town...
All this is bad, since it stops development and hurts many people's personal environments.
This is a trivial and obvious answer, so I guess you're a troll.
It's hardly appropriate calling King Crimson 'Symphonic Rock'
I wrote that I knew some "Symphonic rock people" that "like King Crimson". I didn't call KC anything; I used the old classic method of proof called "guilt by association".
It is OK; I also have areas where I have no sense of humor. I'll just explain the joke.
I don't really think that symphonic rock is evil; it is just a fun stereotype that everyone "must" hate progressive rock. I like some quite complex metal and modern jazz myself.
I don't think criminals necessarily are evil, not even Microsoft.
Microsoft is worth hating because it's criminal behaviour has deleterious effects on the software environment which results in lower quality of life for me and many other people.
I also think the concept "evil" is stupid and simplified
If I liked King Crimson I'd never tell anyone because then I couldn't insult the symphonic rock people I know.:-)
Please don't despise me because I know progressive rock people..?:-)
The reason the world is becoming a better place is IMHO that democracy works better than dictatorships.
Otherwise, there would be no reason for democracy to spread, since the people at the top levels of the oppressive regime would rather destroy the place than change it. Now those countries don't have a choice, since they get more and more behind.
What scares me is that China's 1984 model of political control and economic freedom works. I don't lose sleep over some religious criminals that blows up civilians, even if they should get a nuclear bomb or two.
Let me know when it's legal to grab people on the street and inject them with chemicals to suggest irresistable urges to buying my company's project.
Trust me, you'll notice.:-)
Or was your idea to be first, so you could preempt the market?
But consider the way molecules are taken up into the nose and influence the brain... and then how "new car smell" and faked baked bread smells are used to sell things.
The usual definition in biology for "better" is that a gene is increasing it's share in the next generation. I am not at all certain that intelligent people get more children in the area where I live.
Even if so, we have genes with multiple effects. How much trade offs are worth it for intelligence?
I guess we have this to compensate. I wonder how many other positive genes manifest only in males?
Anyone with a teeny bit of biology knowledge can tell you that it doesn't work that way.
Start with Googling for a definition of allele, to understand the concept.
If some gene-dependent trait is "positive" or not depends upon the environment. (See e.g. malaria resistance and red blood cells.)
In general, there are two things influencing wether a trait is on for males/females.
Males only get one copy of the genes on the X chromosome, so a non-dominant trait shows up easily because there is only one copy (e.g. colour blindness).
Also, genes are often regulated differently for between males/females (i.e. what genes are on or not).
The only time I boot into Windows is when I need to print.
Is there a neat, flexible way to get the same control of a Samsung ML-1451N? I want to print 2 and 4 pages onto one page of paper, etc.
(The description said "Linux compatibility", sigh. Wonderful printer, I literally don't know how often paper jams, since I haven't seen it yet. But I won't buy another Samsung product without checking carefully first.)
Unless you have a PHB that won't LET you upgrade at this time. Perhaps that is what they were simulating, after all they were going for "real world" conditions.
Sorry, but that was stupid. For this study to be honest, the Win side should have had idiot rules, too.
Economists got it wrong with downsizing and with business process re-engineering
Besides, those are managerial things about how to organize people. Not really economy.
To expect economists to answers that, is like expecting economic wisdom from me... or you.:-)
Seriously, you don't even argue against that your opinions as conspiracy theories that needs all economists to be idiots. I have read enough on the subject to know that is complete bullshit.
So let us stop this now.. I have better things to do in life than argue with religious people. (-: At least, I should.:-) My honest opinion is that you guys are no different from Bush' religion.
Again you've failed to point me to an argument that making your customers poorer is a good idea when you want to sell them things.
Sigh, I wrote: "I believe an economist would say that the same argument was used by the luddites against Spinning Jenny."
A hundred years ago, steel mills where a big employer and stood for a large part of the national GNP in quite a few nations. Today they make lots of more steel, but don't add a fraction of what they did to the GNP.
In your argument, that is a bad thing. And, yes... in the short term it certainly was a bad change for people working at the steel mills. Fields of industry will be optimized and jobs will move out. Other industries or services will have to be started.
not with some specious article from some guy who has zero clue about the real effects of outsourcing on real people
This was funny!
Krugman is one of the most well known economists in the USA. He has a very widely read column in the NY Times (I stopped reading it when he used it for election propaganda against Bush and it got boring after a dozen columns). Please note, that is what I believe is the prevalent economist position.
Economics is not the exact science you seem to think it is.
I never wrote it is an exact science; all science will update it's position over time. Neither is palaeontology an exact science. A conspiracy theory, like yours, where people want the researchers to be wrong might still be true. But it needs good support.
Asia is working itself up from poverty, now. It sucks to be us caught in the middle, but the world will be a better place when they can solve their worst problems.
Because a monopoly in general gets to reap monopoly profits, which means very high prices for consumers. ....
Software is not a limited resource. Want a copy of Linux? A million copies? Here you go. Granted, there could be a little bitching about what features should be developed for who, but nothing like Soviet.
Good counter arguments. I yield those points.
But you didn't answer on how to keep it effective for a longer period of time.
Private companies are more effective in e.g. health care. (A few years ago, the "responsible" Swedish minister defended that literally half the time for doctors and nurses was administration! If you don't have an acute problem or is an elite athlete, doctors here generally don't bother finding non-obvious problems; they just don't have time.)
But if you had answered that, you'd visit Sweden for a Nobel prize this year.:-)
Just because everyone in a particular field believe something doesn't mean it's true
Creationists read that as: "I can believe anything I want without any basis in reality and claim that it has as much relevance as the consensus among researchers."
The main problem with the argument is that something can be more or less wrong; just because the models of reality will never be perfect doesn't imply that any position choosen at random because of (political) religion have any measurable chance to be a better fit to reality.
I say economists are wrong because they forget that employees are also consumers and that making them poorer and not enriching the third-worlders who now do their jobs is a recipe for disaster.
I am shocked that you really write that you think that the world's collected researchers in economy are idiots that miss very simple connections in their models. That is the definition of a conspiracy theory!
I believe an economist would say that the same argument was used by the luddites against Spinning Jenny.
In the 90s, we had (/have) a monopolist that takes over all businesses that earn money and most people complain.
Why didn't it work for Soviet?
It would hurt too many companies which can afford to buy laws
One reason it didn't work for the communists was bad communication. I had a boss that had done work in the early eighties there. He said that there was no reason for someone to share info; it was better for the boss of e.g. a university or company to build their own little mini-empires. With the net and rules for organizations, that might be avoided this time.
I think another problem would be the "NASA effect", when good people get old and couldn't move anywhere since there was no other place to go, then started to stay around for the paycheck. Or whatever it was that happened to NASA in the Shuttle era, forward.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't say anything about me. :-)
Maybe it says something about /., since he both posted the story -- and wrote the article it comments on. And what I comments on is both true and informative (-: I don't care for the dig at lisp :-).
The Highly unethical was just because they killed a few mice! :-)
The GP ought to be a vegetarian, that refuses to weed his garden from the poor vegetables. :-)
Or he might be a pet shop boy and have better uses for mice? :-)
My favorite story about double standards, otherwise, is this:
There was a "peace camp" here in Sweden a few years ago, where the protestors complained about a military development project. The peaceheads had problems with "short haired elements" (skinheads) visiting the camps and starting fights. So they hired a guard company to protect themselves.
The fun part is that they couldn't see the parallel between getting security for their camp (the police doesn't work that well in Sweden) and a country having a military (there is no police between countries).
The interesting application is in forensics.
It might be interesting when they find out what the proteins really do that are being transcripted at low oxygen levels (or high anxiety?). Since the energy cycle in the mitochondria is well known, I guess it's just not genes that regulate that?
If the heart stops, the blood flow stops. But you can stop the heart for quite a time and restart it. The cells takes time to die.See Firefox as an example. After IE took over, development stopped for years. Now even Microsoft has started to move.
Most of your examples are specialised software, i.e. small niches that won't pay for many developer years. When someone starts to make money and get resources to be a threat, Microsoft historically came in and use monopoly leverage. Like with IE.
(Mathematics software takes a large investment -- and then you have to compete with a few gorillas of that market; try selling that to investors. Data bases have more capabilities, compared to 15 years ago. To get better dependability isn't that sexy, of course.)
Home automation?
No serious tries has been made, yet. Microsoft never tries first in a new niche; it waits until the market is created.
If a competitor showed up in an area, investments would start and newly invented features would be copied. Until the competitor went away.
Personally, I think that the free/open software movement became large earlier than it would without Microsoft; since you can't compete with a monopoly, it was the "only" other game in town...
All this is bad, since it stops development and hurts many people's personal environments.
This is a trivial and obvious answer, so I guess you're a troll.
It is OK; I also have areas where I have no sense of humor. I'll just explain the joke.
And now Fripp works with Microsoft...
Q E D
But if I paid myself -- I'd take a few extra percent's risk.
(The halflife for a normal RNA molecule in the cell kernel is quite short, right?)
If you have a use with controlled temperature (and no hungry bacteria around!) in a given solution, DNA is stable enough to make applications?
(With or without DNA modifications?)
Would it be easy to vary the sequence on the DNA so you could have enzymes cutting up the pyramids in specific places?
The reason the world is becoming a better place is IMHO that democracy works better than dictatorships.
Otherwise, there would be no reason for democracy to spread, since the people at the top levels of the oppressive regime would rather destroy the place than change it. Now those countries don't have a choice, since they get more and more behind.
What scares me is that China's 1984 model of political control and economic freedom works. I don't lose sleep over some religious criminals that blows up civilians, even if they should get a nuclear bomb or two.
Or was your idea to be first, so you could preempt the market?
But consider the way molecules are taken up into the nose and influence the brain... and then how "new car smell" and faked baked bread smells are used to sell things.
We are, more or less, already there!
The problem isn't the GP; the quality of this thread was abysmal.
Do the real space engineers have a vacation? You used to find lots of the people on /. that I saw posting on sci.space.tech in the 90s.
I've been sitting here with mod points -- and ending up complaining instead. :-(
I still find my editing to be faster and neater in Emacs. Takes time to learn, of course. I agree with you, re Vi...
I should add that I don't really take the "Emacs/Vi" wars seriously; it is more like a running joke. An accepted reason to have mock-fights.
If I ever become world dictator, I would not put the Vi users up against the wall (at least, if they got good scores in the reeducation camps).
What are the effects on the heart?
Even if so, we have genes with multiple effects. How much trade offs are worth it for intelligence?
Start with Googling for a definition of allele, to understand the concept.
If some gene-dependent trait is "positive" or not depends upon the environment. (See e.g. malaria resistance and red blood cells.)
In general, there are two things influencing wether a trait is on for males/females.
The only time I boot into Windows is when I need to print.
Is there a neat, flexible way to get the same control of a Samsung ML-1451N? I want to print 2 and 4 pages onto one page of paper, etc.
(The description said "Linux compatibility", sigh. Wonderful printer, I literally don't know how often paper jams, since I haven't seen it yet. But I won't buy another Samsung product without checking carefully first.)
Looks flawed, IMHO.
Have they gotten better since last I looked?
Never wondered about all dictators patting children's heads?
To expect economists to answers that, is like expecting economic wisdom from me... or you. :-)
Seriously, you don't even argue against that your opinions as conspiracy theories that needs all economists to be idiots. I have read enough on the subject to know that is complete bullshit.
So let us stop this now.. I have better things to do in life than argue with religious people. (-: At least, I should. :-) My honest opinion is that you guys are no different from Bush' religion.
A hundred years ago, steel mills where a big employer and stood for a large part of the national GNP in quite a few nations. Today they make lots of more steel, but don't add a fraction of what they did to the GNP.
In your argument, that is a bad thing. And, yes... in the short term it certainly was a bad change for people working at the steel mills. Fields of industry will be optimized and jobs will move out. Other industries or services will have to be started.
This was funny!Krugman is one of the most well known economists in the USA. He has a very widely read column in the NY Times (I stopped reading it when he used it for election propaganda against Bush and it got boring after a dozen columns). Please note, that is what I believe is the prevalent economist position.
I never wrote it is an exact science; all science will update it's position over time. Neither is palaeontology an exact science. A conspiracy theory, like yours, where people want the researchers to be wrong might still be true. But it needs good support.Asia is working itself up from poverty, now. It sucks to be us caught in the middle, but the world will be a better place when they can solve their worst problems.
But you didn't answer on how to keep it effective for a longer period of time.
Private companies are more effective in e.g. health care. (A few years ago, the "responsible" Swedish minister defended that literally half the time for doctors and nurses was administration! If you don't have an acute problem or is an elite athlete, doctors here generally don't bother finding non-obvious problems; they just don't have time.)
But if you had answered that, you'd visit Sweden for a Nobel prize this year. :-)
"I can believe anything I want without any basis in reality and claim that it has as much relevance as the consensus among researchers."
The main problem with the argument is that something can be more or less wrong; just because the models of reality will never be perfect doesn't imply that any position choosen at random because of (political) religion have any measurable chance to be a better fit to reality.
I am shocked that you really write that you think that the world's collected researchers in economy are idiots that miss very simple connections in their models. That is the definition of a conspiracy theory!
I believe an economist would say that the same argument was used by the luddites against Spinning Jenny.
One reason it didn't work for the communists was bad communication. I had a boss that had done work in the early eighties there. He said that there was no reason for someone to share info; it was better for the boss of e.g. a university or company to build their own little mini-empires. With the net and rules for organizations, that might be avoided this time.
I think another problem would be the "NASA effect", when good people get old and couldn't move anywhere since there was no other place to go, then started to stay around for the paycheck. Or whatever it was that happened to NASA in the Shuttle era, forward.