But even without such a special frame, we can certainly give a precise timeline between any two events no matter how separated they are or how they move. I understood that this wasn't always the case.
Does that mean that cat I ran over last night in my car was not necessarily born yet so I didn't really run over it ? Phew, I was having a bit of a guilt trip.... Disclaimer: IANAP (I am not a physicist; in fact I'm very, very far from being one).
My understanding is that according to the theory of relativity it's perfectly feasible for two separate events to be seen occurring in different orders, depending on where they were viewed from.
Why doesn't this affect causality, nor apply to your cat? Because this can only happen in cases where neither event could have caused the other. Nothing can travel faster than light, including the effects of a given event. And in such cases, regardless of the perceived order of events, the distance between them is too great for the effects of the "first" to reach the position of the "second" before that happens.
So, you're probably thinking "Which one *really* happened first?" But there's no absolute "correct" answer. A viewer at one point may have seen "A" before "B"; someone at another viewpoint may have seen "B" before "A". Relativity tells us that there is no "correct" frame of reference and that both perceptions are equally valid. I assume that this is what the GP meant by there being no universal timeline.
I cant think of any words spawned by the internet which I really dislike but one internet phenomena that irritates me are people who reply to the first comment just to get their post near the top even though they have no intention to actually reply to the parent. I agree.;-) Some of the words in the list are just worthless "Day Today" style neologisms. (Pet hate, "blogosphere", which sounds like something made up by a nerdy and pretentious 14-year-old who isn't half as smart as he likes to think he is. "Podcast" falls into that category too, and "Web 2.0" is similarly loathsome).
However, some of the other words are okay in themselves (e.g. "meme", "cookie".... actually, I'm surprised that cookie was in the list at all). I think that a lot of them have been soiled by association with pretentious twats who wanted to get their name in Wired and overused them.
So you can take nekkid pics of a chimpanzee, but if you photograph a human, that classifies the picture as adult material how? Because human beings live in a society with, interact with and are sexually attracted to other human beings; not chimpanzees in general. I'm not condoning prudishness, but I don't see any contradiction or hypocrisy in our different attitudes towards humans and chimpanzees. We're *not* chimpanzees, it's that simple.
What about a picture of a playing naked kid (your usual 3-year-old)? Nothing in itself, although I'd be far more questioning of the photographer if he wasn't related to- or at least a family friend of- the kid in question. That having been said, there's been at least one case in the UK where fuckwitted overzealous photo lab employees seized upon such images (as part of a perfectly normal roll of family photos) as evidence of paedophilia.
Okay, I know someone's going to say that they're damned if they do and damned if they don't, but I'd say they're damned if they abandon their common sense.
Mod parent TROLL for not pointing out that the link contains porn. In my defence, it was meant to explain what Page 3 was for non-Brits who hadn't heard of it. Linking to WP (as *everyone* does) saved having to include a distracting and longish comment. I checked that I had the right article, and didn't put any more thought into it. Although I must have seen the photo, I can honestly say that it just didn't register that some people might consider it risqué.
My later comment about Page 3 being topless was to make the point that it didn't count as "hardcore" porn; it wasn't a NSFW warning on the article.
I don't know if the parent AC was trolling about it being "porn"- I think that's overreacting a bit. However, although mild, I'll admit that having thought about it, the photo was clearly NSFW by the standards of some more prudish employers, and apologise to anyone who was caught out.
It depends what you're talking about; the age of consent in England *is* 16, but I believe that to appear in adult material you have to be at least 18. (I remember hearing that apparently Samantha Fox - a 1980s "page 3" star- was 16 when she did her first shoots, and they commented that this would not be legal nowadays. Note that page three is topless, and no more).
Nice... thanks for letting us know.. a lie. I guess. [..] That's a lie, deducing from your first lie... Stop being a smartass. You know damn well that what he meant (and admittedly should have said) was "for the sake of argument, assume that".
I've been alone with you inside my mind
And in my dreams I've kissed your lips a thousand times
I sometimes see you pass outside my door
Halo, is it bees you're looking for?
I can see it in your eyes
I can see it in your smile
You're all I've ever wanted, and my arms are open wide
'Cause you know just what to say
And you know just what to do
And I want to tell you so much, I love bees...
wish I could have been born earlier so i could have been a nazi. If you'd been born earlier, you'd have been killed as part of the Nazis' eradication of the mentally feeble.
My point was that Apple were the first to release a non-hobbyist "proper" microcomputer; essentially it was the first personal computer as we know them today. They had an industrial designer do the case and intentionally chose beige.
The hobbyist microcomputers which came before were aimed at a different market, likely hadn't had much thought put into their aesthetic case "design" (if they had cases!), and so probably didn't influence people trying to design the next Apple II. The mainframes and minicomputers weren't the same size or shape, and didn't fulfil the same niche; if they were printing presses, the personal computer was a typewriter. Okay, that was a really bad analogy.
the ethics and morals things has nothing to do with the joke. You don't joke about bait and switch on customers. Well, I just did. You talk like it's a taboo subject or something.
Really, it was just a cynical "devils advocate" comment. To be honest, I'd have doubted that MS would deliberately do that, purely because the bad publicity would outweigh any benefits for them. (Though I'm sure there are businesses out there who would). But beyond straightforward incompetence, I can't think up any other reasons why they'd do this, and I don't think they're incompetent.
So in all sincerity, I don't know what MS were thinking with that one.
You are making a stupid point. Apple Owns Mac OS and sells Macs with Mac OS pre-installed. Dell only sells boxes, dosent own Windows so shouldnt care what the end user wants on it. This comment says exactly the same thing, so please read my reply to that.
This is amazing, yet the scientist and all the kings men STILL cannot:
1) Keep my bluetooth headset connected to its base station an amazingly 3 feet away
2) Keep my cellphone connected with a tower a mere 1 mile away. 3) Put Humpty Dumpty together again.
I am not sure if you fell off the turnip truck yesterday Good to see that you started out with the most intellectually compelling aspect of your argument.
but Apple is the creator of Mac OS X. Thanks for pointing that out Captain Obvious.
It has a vested interest in bundling its software with its hardware. Dell is not the creator of Microsoft Windows version X. Now go back and find a better analogy. It's a fine analogy. The fact that Apple may or may not have a vested interest is irrelevant as far as my original point goes.
Sogoodsofarsowhat made out that Apple were superior because they didn't dictate what the user did with their computer; but if we say that Dell are dictating behaviour by not selling without Windows bundled (or *whatever*), then Apple are doing the same. Whether they or Dell have a reason to or not.
Trick question for you. How much is a license of OS X? No, you clearly don't understand. You can't buy Mac OS separately; as I already said, "it's probably more accurate to say that the hardware and OS are included in the price".
You want to know why it's a trick question? Because you can't buy a license of OS X. Oh, I get it! You *did* understand, you were just trying to score smartass points.
Despite the fact that my previous post revolved around the fact that you couldn't buy Mac OS X separately from the hardware!!
You can buy upgrades but you cannot buy a license of OS X to install on your Dell box. Well, duh. That's precisely why (and I quote myself again) "the reason people buy [Mac hardware] is so it can run the Mac OS".
Go ahead and look around on the web for a place that you can get a license of OS X to install on non-Apple hardware. No, no.... I already told you in the previous post that this wasn't possible.
I'll wait here for you. You really don't get this, do you?
Would YOU go back and read the post. Dell is selling computers with Ubuntu INSTALLED!! However they won't let you purchase it as a business. You have to purchase it as an individual user. You don't say. That was the point of the story.
Now do you get it??? Dell is telling you how to use the computer. Pedantically speaking, they're not telling you how to use it at all, they're just not selling Linux boxes to business customers in the first place.
But either way this isn't really any worse than Apple effectively bundling Mac OS with Mac computers. As I said elsewhere, anyone who implies that the Mac OS is a freebie and not part of the package needs to consider whether people would buy Macs if (a) they didn't come with the OS and/or (b) the hardware wasn't a requirement to run the Mac OS.
Not too mention they are refusing a business credit card for that purchase. Probably because that would make it a business transaction that has to go through the business channels. I'm not defending Dell, just trying to explain their actions.
Moron. Nice argument. According to the technical definition, that still means my IQ is higher than yours, imbecile.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this. Apple sells hardware primarily. Whereas Dell's business revolves around selling dreams and pixie dust, I suppose?
Thank you for the deliberately patronising lesson, but I'm well aware of how Apple work, and your assertion that they're a hardware business is questionable. Why? Because although they may make their money on the hardware, that same hardware is nowadays near-identical to generic x86 PCs and the reason people buy it is so it can run the Mac OS.
Disagree? I'd be interested to find out whether your average Mac fanatic- if forced to- would rather use Mac OS on a half-decent generic PC or Windows running on Mac hardware.
The OS is considered free with the purchase of the hardware. That's a matter of perspective, don't quote it like it's gospel. Apple certainly charge for upgraded versions of the software, and so it's probably more accurate to say that the hardware and OS are included in the price. As I said, no-one would buy the hardware alone.
I doubt Dell is doing any real business support for FreeDOS. This is probably some contract thing with MS, IMO. If you mean installing FreeDOS purely as a token gesture so that the machine has an "OS" on it (when it's effectively being sold as "bare"), as a loophole round some agreement MS bullied them into signing, you're probably right. Mind you, if MS didn't like that, they'd probably just change the agreement or abuse their power to force Dell into line anyway.
Exactly. For all i care Dell can DIAF!! Slam Apple all you want they pretty much dont give a DAMN what you do with thier systems. [..] So for all you dell fan boys heres one more case of why Dell should not be purchased from... Go back and consider what the original point of the story was, and answer this question: Will Apple sell you a Macintosh *without* Mac OS and/or with Linux? No? Enough said.
Yes, I'm sure Apple will graciously let you replace Mac OS with a Mac-compatible Linux. Just like Dell will let you replace Windows with Linux.
Yes, but then again so does blood pudding and an inbred monarchy. We restrict our inbred idiots to figurehead roles only; we wouldn't do something as stupid as voting one of them to become our leader:-P
Vista home is a joke, who on earth came to the idea that it was wise to add a backup function and then once you want to restore the backups you have to buy ultimate, this person should be immediately fired. Actually, sounds like a very clever decision if you don't give a toss what people think about your company.
Personally I can't remember the last time I touched a bank note - I do everything on credit or debit cards (or online, natch). I have a small pot of change for carparks etc. but that's about it. Are you entirely serious? Where do you live? I believe that the U.S. still has dollar bills in wide circulation, and by today's standards that's a small amount you're likely to get in your change. Assuming you use the change to pay for (e.g.) cans of Coke and the like. If not... Don't some shops refuse or surcharge credit cards for small amounts?
Luckily the UK is a bit smarter and coin is only valid up to a surprisingly low amount. Yes; in England and Wales, only UK coins of £1 and above (i.e. £1 and £2) and Bank of England notes (i.e. £5 and above) are legal tender for unlimited amounts.
Interestingly, in Scotland apparently only Bank of England notes *under* £5 and coins in varying amounts are (strictly speaking) legal tender. Since there are no longer any Bank of England notes under £5, this means that only £1 and £2 UK coins are legal tender for unlimited amounts(!).
That is misleading however, as Scottish courts enforce "reasonable" settlement of debts, which in practice would allow any BoE note and privately-issued Scottish banknotes.
Slashdot Mirror
I've absolutely no idea.
My understanding is that according to the theory of relativity it's perfectly feasible for two separate events to be seen occurring in different orders, depending on where they were viewed from.
Why doesn't this affect causality, nor apply to your cat? Because this can only happen in cases where neither event could have caused the other. Nothing can travel faster than light, including the effects of a given event. And in such cases, regardless of the perceived order of events, the distance between them is too great for the effects of the "first" to reach the position of the "second" before that happens.
So, you're probably thinking "Which one *really* happened first?" But there's no absolute "correct" answer. A viewer at one point may have seen "A" before "B"; someone at another viewpoint may have seen "B" before "A". Relativity tells us that there is no "correct" frame of reference and that both perceptions are equally valid. I assume that this is what the GP meant by there being no universal timeline.
Relativity is cool.
However, some of the other words are okay in themselves (e.g. "meme", "cookie".... actually, I'm surprised that cookie was in the list at all). I think that a lot of them have been soiled by association with pretentious twats who wanted to get their name in Wired and overused them.
Okay, I know someone's going to say that they're damned if they do and damned if they don't, but I'd say they're damned if they abandon their common sense.
My later comment about Page 3 being topless was to make the point that it didn't count as "hardcore" porn; it wasn't a NSFW warning on the article.
I don't know if the parent AC was trolling about it being "porn"- I think that's overreacting a bit. However, although mild, I'll admit that having thought about it, the photo was clearly NSFW by the standards of some more prudish employers, and apologise to anyone who was caught out.
Grandparent: In England 17 is legal.
Parent: actually its 16
It depends what you're talking about; the age of consent in England *is* 16, but I believe that to appear in adult material you have to be at least 18. (I remember hearing that apparently Samantha Fox - a 1980s "page 3" star- was 16 when she did her first shoots, and they commented that this would not be legal nowadays. Note that page three is topless, and no more).
I've been alone with you inside my mind
And in my dreams I've kissed your lips a thousand times
I sometimes see you pass outside my door
Halo, is it bees you're looking for?
I can see it in your eyes
I can see it in your smile
You're all I've ever wanted, and my arms are open wide
'Cause you know just what to say
And you know just what to do
And I want to tell you so much, I love bees...
My point was that Apple were the first to release a non-hobbyist "proper" microcomputer; essentially it was the first personal computer as we know them today. They had an industrial designer do the case and intentionally chose beige.
The hobbyist microcomputers which came before were aimed at a different market, likely hadn't had much thought put into their aesthetic case "design" (if they had cases!), and so probably didn't influence people trying to design the next Apple II. The mainframes and minicomputers weren't the same size or shape, and didn't fulfil the same niche; if they were printing presses, the personal computer was a typewriter. Okay, that was a really bad analogy.
But Apple *did* kick-start the beige craze.
Really, it was just a cynical "devils advocate" comment. To be honest, I'd have doubted that MS would deliberately do that, purely because the bad publicity would outweigh any benefits for them. (Though I'm sure there are businesses out there who would). But beyond straightforward incompetence, I can't think up any other reasons why they'd do this, and I don't think they're incompetent.
So in all sincerity, I don't know what MS were thinking with that one.
1) Keep my bluetooth headset connected to its base station an amazingly 3 feet away
2) Keep my cellphone connected with a tower a mere 1 mile away. 3) Put Humpty Dumpty together again.
Sogoodsofarsowhat made out that Apple were superior because they didn't dictate what the user did with their computer; but if we say that Dell are dictating behaviour by not selling without Windows bundled (or *whatever*), then Apple are doing the same. Whether they or Dell have a reason to or not.
That's all there is to it.
Despite the fact that my previous post revolved around the fact that you couldn't buy Mac OS X separately from the hardware!! You can buy upgrades but you cannot buy a license of OS X to install on your Dell box. Well, duh. That's precisely why (and I quote myself again) "the reason people buy [Mac hardware] is so it can run the Mac OS". Go ahead and look around on the web for a place that you can get a license of OS X to install on non-Apple hardware. No, no.... I already told you in the previous post that this wasn't possible. I'll wait here for you. You really don't get this, do you?
But either way this isn't really any worse than Apple effectively bundling Mac OS with Mac computers. As I said elsewhere, anyone who implies that the Mac OS is a freebie and not part of the package needs to consider whether people would buy Macs if (a) they didn't come with the OS and/or (b) the hardware wasn't a requirement to run the Mac OS. Not too mention they are refusing a business credit card for that purchase. Probably because that would make it a business transaction that has to go through the business channels. I'm not defending Dell, just trying to explain their actions. Moron. Nice argument. According to the technical definition, that still means my IQ is higher than yours, imbecile.
Thank you for the deliberately patronising lesson, but I'm well aware of how Apple work, and your assertion that they're a hardware business is questionable. Why? Because although they may make their money on the hardware, that same hardware is nowadays near-identical to generic x86 PCs and the reason people buy it is so it can run the Mac OS.
Disagree? I'd be interested to find out whether your average Mac fanatic- if forced to- would rather use Mac OS on a half-decent generic PC or Windows running on Mac hardware. The OS is considered free with the purchase of the hardware. That's a matter of perspective, don't quote it like it's gospel. Apple certainly charge for upgraded versions of the software, and so it's probably more accurate to say that the hardware and OS are included in the price. As I said, no-one would buy the hardware alone.
Yes, I'm sure Apple will graciously let you replace Mac OS with a Mac-compatible Linux. Just like Dell will let you replace Windows with Linux.
Interestingly, in Scotland apparently only Bank of England notes *under* £5 and coins in varying amounts are (strictly speaking) legal tender. Since there are no longer any Bank of England notes under £5, this means that only £1 and £2 UK coins are legal tender for unlimited amounts(!).
That is misleading however, as Scottish courts enforce "reasonable" settlement of debts, which in practice would allow any BoE note and privately-issued Scottish banknotes.