So the atheists are trying to beat on the theists by proving that a really smart guy was one of them?
Frankly, considering the off-kilter nature of genius as we know it, I wouldn't want to lay too much value on having some of the same ideals of other geniuses, or many other people for that matter.
There is a pretty large community of hardware tinkerers and overclockers that know lots and lots about cache sizes and bus widths but fairly little about software.
Linux may be obscure to Joe Sixpack but it's simply not that obscure. Anyone who has the ability (let alone the desire) to build their own PCs that doesn't already know about Linux are few and far between.
This is a terrible incident and it's hard to imagine that up to a quarter of a million can be dead in an incident that had no real target. It gives real scope to the size of the tragedy. Much like the tsunami a couple of years ago, it shows how little we have mastered.
But hopefully these people will work it out. They don't have much choice but to put their best foot forward. It's something that most of us will probably never be able to truely get our heads around in terms of the number dead and the devastation that it carries with it.
And if you go back and look at your numbers you'll see that enough Dems voted on the side of "Yeas" to pass this legislation. I already made a statement about the numbers of any party that will take a token vote to look as if their party is offset versus another. Stop skirting that issue.
And you're acting like votes are done independently. These votes could be tallied by those on the inside before the votes ever happen. This way they get to put up a sound-bite that they didn't vote for this and that but ignore the fact that it's all prearranged.
You may be able to talk up all these facts and figures but the bottom line is that you're missing the common sense side of it all. I hate to accuse people but you're really coming off like a Democratic party shill.
And BTW, I've NEVER been a member of either party nor have I voted for members of either party in the case of a third party candidate.
The current administration? Given the current balance of power this isn't as much a move by the current administration but by both parties working in unison. Sure, some will use it as a token "it's not me" vote but in the long run this isn't just Bush & Co or even the Republicans...
Wake up from your dreaded party politics dream and you'll see the real nightmare.
I feel your pain on this. Not that I planned on seeing the film but Speed Racer is part of my childhood so I did bother to seek out the trailer and...
CRICKEY! WTF was that all about?
Seriously, I felt that something went dreadfully wrong. I'm not going to ballyhoo on about my childhood memories, I know this is a new day and age. The fact that it was live action alone pretty much meant that I was going to have an issue with it. But this was truely terrible.
Just my two cents too, don't get bent out of shape.
Someone at work was recently showing off their N800 model and it looks like a nice little gizmo. Unfortunately I have too many gizmos and just can't justify adding another when I have tons of tech doing virtually nothing for me.
Without knowing your provider it's hard to say but there is the Verizon Wireless CDM 8905 which is pretty bare bones in comparison with most of today's offerings.
But would he even be selected for the interview if he's from middle-of-nowhere-college while most of the other candidates come from MIT, CALTECH or similar?
Not to offset what you're saying but in my 10+ years in the field I have yet to ever meet anyone from MIT or CalTech. I have met a few CMU graduates but since I'm in Pittsburgh....
Worrying about the high-end of tech graduates from prestigious schools like MIT when you're not one is like worrying about the guy next to you being a millionaire when all you have is a lottery ticket.
Not to say that the poster of the original question is not MIT material but let's be honest; if he was really that advanced he wouldn't be asking our advice.
So you're saying that 100 miles of towers and lines is a good enough reason to simply thumb your nose at a real solution? Good God. And you're acting like the only place that we can put this is somewhere 100 miles off the grid. I highly doubt that there are many areas that are 100 miles off the grid and if they are we could certainly build something larger than the 100 square mile station that you mentioned in a previous post.
As for environmental concerns? How many environmental concerns do you really think there are going to be involving 100 square miles? Not very many. There are strip mines that are larger than this and if you can strip mine it you can certainly build one of these plants on the same ground. The question of environmental impact are laughable when you consider how many times we've done just what they're proposing but with less to gain when it's all said and done.
Stop trying to make light of the truth here. It's insulting and it makes you look like a 12 year old who isn't getting everything he wanted for Christmas.
If this didn't elude you why did you make an issue out of what is a non-problem? It seems like little more than nitpicking to me.
Also, these wouldn't have to be regulated to just the south west. The could be built across the entire southern US. The sunlight doesn't shine any brighter in the deserts. It's simply choice land for this kind of project because of the relatively low cost of land. Building this in downtown San Antonio doesn't make sense. But areas between San Antonio and Brownsville are probably just as good as, if not better than, many locations in New Mexico.
They still made the headway with such vendor lock-in? Even more reason to see what they did right because they're obviously against the grain of everything everyone around here said about why the Linux revolution would happen. They obviously did something so right that all the things that people claim were going to be the death of MS appears to be working out fine for Apple and even under harsher conditions.
And why exactly shouldn't Apple count? Don't get me wrong, I'm not fanboi and I've never been tempted to "swing on that side" except for my iPod, but Apple should be counted.
Granted, it's a different business model and a different product offering from Linux but if anything Apple should show that the mythical Windows stranglehold on the desktop is just that, mythical. Apple has gotten to the places that I heard that Linux was going to be in 5 years ago. They've actually done it, it's not a lot of talk and hype. For Apple it's as real as the dollars in their bank account. If anything the target users that Linux was suppose to rope in went Apple. I think that it's important for the Linux community to understand why and how.
I personally only had a minor interest in Linux and it went south for several reasons that I've ranted on about before. If I were forced to take up a new machine running either OSX or Linux today I would give Apple a try. Linux for me has turned into the "been there, done that" bad experience of computing for me. And even in the years that I've been following Linux both as an interested bystander and for a while as a user I still see the desktop Linux revolution as a bunch of vaporware.
Maybe something will happen, maybe I'll change my mind. But I wouldn't place bets on it. And turning away from Apple as not counting is a grave mistake in understanding what it's going to take to get Linux the kind of marketshare that Apple has proven to be available.
Windows will not dominate forever, no. But I don't think it will be Linux that will take it's place on the desktop.
Firstly, thanks to Bush, we really aren't going to be doing anything interesting in space anytime soon. Sure we could putter around and send some probes, but we aren't going to have the resources to do something really extraordinary for awhile.
Why thanks to Bush? And why think that even if he is the root of today's space programs problems that the next president can't do something better? Why this idea that he bruised the space program and there is no way to put it back on it's feet? Sound more like spin than fact.
In the meantime, the US is slipping. We aren't the smartest, we aren't the biggest economy and we slowly shifting away from the center of the world. Like Egypt, China and Europe before, it is possible that the world's reins may slip from our hands unless we do something. Now whether that is a bad thing or not, I don't know, but as a government, I'm assuming a main goal is to retain influence.
This is likely an impossible goal. Not because we're slipping but rather that we're such a bulky society that we have a hard time maintaining. China and India are easy to raise their cultures and that alone is going to bring the US down on the global scene. It's ok, the world isn't going to end if "we're" not the biggest and baddest.
One of the best ways to maintain our influence is through education. If we really go all out on the next generation, then in 30 years, we'll still be the center of the modern world. If not, then in 30 years, China, Japan, Europe and India are going to stop sending us their smartest people and keep them for themselves, and then we'll just have the brain-deads over here watching American Idol.
While I may agree with the overall sentiment about the failure of education I fail to understand how funding for manned space flight plays into this at all. It seems that you're trying to weigh your argument with unrelated facts. I'm surprised no one has called bullshit on you for it. Obama is not going to stop people from being pop culture drones and he sure as hell isn't going to put a dent in the problem by diverting funding.
Getting off of the planet, to a different solar system is going to take hundreds and hundreds of years of dedicated work and research. Furthermore, throughout those hundreds of years, society will have to be intelligent enough in general to realize the need for such a project and support it (which they aren't now). Possibly, before we dive straight for space flight, we need to raise the intellectual level of society high enough that they aren't looking at their own wallets so hard that we'll never get off the ground.
Wrong again, bucko. First off, the Star Trek fantasy will not exist. It's not a matter of education, it's a matter of being a fucking human being. This utopian society where people work towards common goals to resolve the suffering of others and the advancement of knowledge isn't being held back by technology, it's being held back by human nature. It's human nature to be angry, greedy and resentful. As individuals we can defeat it but I see no mechanism that is going to solve it on a global scale. Secondly, there is the potential that we may need to mine lunar resources within our lifetime. So why should we sit on our hands? Let's show that we can do it and that the resources are available on hand and not a few decades from the time that they would be useful. As it currently stands fission and mining the moon for Helium-3 can happen right around the same time. Or would you rather have another 20 years of coal and oil problems plaguing us?
Yeah, God forbid that a company keep a product that the public wants. Ford! Bring back the Edsel!
Granted, they seem to have fumbled the ball with Vista but let's not get out of hand about their decision to keep XP. I don't think it was meant to fool anyone. You can loosen up your tin foil cap for the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
So the atheists are trying to beat on the theists by proving that a really smart guy was one of them?
Frankly, considering the off-kilter nature of genius as we know it, I wouldn't want to lay too much value on having some of the same ideals of other geniuses, or many other people for that matter.
There is a pretty large community of hardware tinkerers and overclockers that know lots and lots about cache sizes and bus widths but fairly little about software.
Linux may be obscure to Joe Sixpack but it's simply not that obscure. Anyone who has the ability (let alone the desire) to build their own PCs that doesn't already know about Linux are few and far between.
Why don't they have some kind of method to stop the "swimming"? At least I didn't see one. It's kind of annoying to be frank about it.
This is a terrible incident and it's hard to imagine that up to a quarter of a million can be dead in an incident that had no real target. It gives real scope to the size of the tragedy. Much like the tsunami a couple of years ago, it shows how little we have mastered.
But hopefully these people will work it out. They don't have much choice but to put their best foot forward. It's something that most of us will probably never be able to truely get our heads around in terms of the number dead and the devastation that it carries with it.
From the blurb: John Ellis with 'The Large Hadron Collider,'
That sounds dirty.
Would you like some Grok-amole on your taco?
And if you go back and look at your numbers you'll see that enough Dems voted on the side of "Yeas" to pass this legislation. I already made a statement about the numbers of any party that will take a token vote to look as if their party is offset versus another. Stop skirting that issue.
And you're acting like votes are done independently. These votes could be tallied by those on the inside before the votes ever happen. This way they get to put up a sound-bite that they didn't vote for this and that but ignore the fact that it's all prearranged.
You may be able to talk up all these facts and figures but the bottom line is that you're missing the common sense side of it all. I hate to accuse people but you're really coming off like a Democratic party shill.
And BTW, I've NEVER been a member of either party nor have I voted for members of either party in the case of a third party candidate.
Your blurry lens can only see two parties. No wonder it's not going to change.
There isn't but most Americans are too lunkheaded to see beyond the politics of their parents and their parents parents, so on and so forth.
I love how smug Democrats and Republicans are when we've seen the damage that both parties do.
The current administration? Given the current balance of power this isn't as much a move by the current administration but by both parties working in unison. Sure, some will use it as a token "it's not me" vote but in the long run this isn't just Bush & Co or even the Republicans...
Wake up from your dreaded party politics dream and you'll see the real nightmare.
Why should we just accept crap at 10+ USD a head? Or are you one of those people who goes to every film that plays at your local movie house?
I feel your pain on this. Not that I planned on seeing the film but Speed Racer is part of my childhood so I did bother to seek out the trailer and...
CRICKEY! WTF was that all about?
Seriously, I felt that something went dreadfully wrong. I'm not going to ballyhoo on about my childhood memories, I know this is a new day and age. The fact that it was live action alone pretty much meant that I was going to have an issue with it. But this was truely terrible.
Just my two cents too, don't get bent out of shape.
Three words: Microsoft Virtual Machine.
Someone at work was recently showing off their N800 model and it looks like a nice little gizmo. Unfortunately I have too many gizmos and just can't justify adding another when I have tons of tech doing virtually nothing for me.
I have the phone for you!
Without knowing your provider it's hard to say but there is the Verizon Wireless CDM 8905 which is pretty bare bones in comparison with most of today's offerings.
But would he even be selected for the interview if he's from middle-of-nowhere-college while most of the other candidates come from MIT, CALTECH or similar?
Not to offset what you're saying but in my 10+ years in the field I have yet to ever meet anyone from MIT or CalTech. I have met a few CMU graduates but since I'm in Pittsburgh....
Worrying about the high-end of tech graduates from prestigious schools like MIT when you're not one is like worrying about the guy next to you being a millionaire when all you have is a lottery ticket.
Not to say that the poster of the original question is not MIT material but let's be honest; if he was really that advanced he wouldn't be asking our advice.
So you're saying that 100 miles of towers and lines is a good enough reason to simply thumb your nose at a real solution? Good God. And you're acting like the only place that we can put this is somewhere 100 miles off the grid. I highly doubt that there are many areas that are 100 miles off the grid and if they are we could certainly build something larger than the 100 square mile station that you mentioned in a previous post.
As for environmental concerns? How many environmental concerns do you really think there are going to be involving 100 square miles? Not very many. There are strip mines that are larger than this and if you can strip mine it you can certainly build one of these plants on the same ground. The question of environmental impact are laughable when you consider how many times we've done just what they're proposing but with less to gain when it's all said and done.
Stop trying to make light of the truth here. It's insulting and it makes you look like a 12 year old who isn't getting everything he wanted for Christmas.
If this didn't elude you why did you make an issue out of what is a non-problem? It seems like little more than nitpicking to me.
Also, these wouldn't have to be regulated to just the south west. The could be built across the entire southern US. The sunlight doesn't shine any brighter in the deserts. It's simply choice land for this kind of project because of the relatively low cost of land. Building this in downtown San Antonio doesn't make sense. But areas between San Antonio and Brownsville are probably just as good as, if not better than, many locations in New Mexico.
Uh, maybe we can break it up so it's not all in one area? Why does this simple solution seem to elude Slashdotters?
Use your head to solve problems instead of being a simple naysayer.
They still made the headway with such vendor lock-in? Even more reason to see what they did right because they're obviously against the grain of everything everyone around here said about why the Linux revolution would happen. They obviously did something so right that all the things that people claim were going to be the death of MS appears to be working out fine for Apple and even under harsher conditions.
And why exactly shouldn't Apple count? Don't get me wrong, I'm not fanboi and I've never been tempted to "swing on that side" except for my iPod, but Apple should be counted.
Granted, it's a different business model and a different product offering from Linux but if anything Apple should show that the mythical Windows stranglehold on the desktop is just that, mythical. Apple has gotten to the places that I heard that Linux was going to be in 5 years ago. They've actually done it, it's not a lot of talk and hype. For Apple it's as real as the dollars in their bank account. If anything the target users that Linux was suppose to rope in went Apple. I think that it's important for the Linux community to understand why and how.
I personally only had a minor interest in Linux and it went south for several reasons that I've ranted on about before. If I were forced to take up a new machine running either OSX or Linux today I would give Apple a try. Linux for me has turned into the "been there, done that" bad experience of computing for me. And even in the years that I've been following Linux both as an interested bystander and for a while as a user I still see the desktop Linux revolution as a bunch of vaporware.
Maybe something will happen, maybe I'll change my mind. But I wouldn't place bets on it. And turning away from Apple as not counting is a grave mistake in understanding what it's going to take to get Linux the kind of marketshare that Apple has proven to be available.
Windows will not dominate forever, no. But I don't think it will be Linux that will take it's place on the desktop.
Firstly, thanks to Bush, we really aren't going to be doing anything interesting in space anytime soon. Sure we could putter around and send some probes, but we aren't going to have the resources to do something really extraordinary for awhile.
Why thanks to Bush? And why think that even if he is the root of today's space programs problems that the next president can't do something better? Why this idea that he bruised the space program and there is no way to put it back on it's feet? Sound more like spin than fact.
In the meantime, the US is slipping. We aren't the smartest, we aren't the biggest economy and we slowly shifting away from the center of the world. Like Egypt, China and Europe before, it is possible that the world's reins may slip from our hands unless we do something. Now whether that is a bad thing or not, I don't know, but as a government, I'm assuming a main goal is to retain influence.
This is likely an impossible goal. Not because we're slipping but rather that we're such a bulky society that we have a hard time maintaining. China and India are easy to raise their cultures and that alone is going to bring the US down on the global scene. It's ok, the world isn't going to end if "we're" not the biggest and baddest.
One of the best ways to maintain our influence is through education. If we really go all out on the next generation, then in 30 years, we'll still be the center of the modern world. If not, then in 30 years, China, Japan, Europe and India are going to stop sending us their smartest people and keep them for themselves, and then we'll just have the brain-deads over here watching American Idol.
While I may agree with the overall sentiment about the failure of education I fail to understand how funding for manned space flight plays into this at all. It seems that you're trying to weigh your argument with unrelated facts. I'm surprised no one has called bullshit on you for it. Obama is not going to stop people from being pop culture drones and he sure as hell isn't going to put a dent in the problem by diverting funding.
Getting off of the planet, to a different solar system is going to take hundreds and hundreds of years of dedicated work and research. Furthermore, throughout those hundreds of years, society will have to be intelligent enough in general to realize the need for such a project and support it (which they aren't now). Possibly, before we dive straight for space flight, we need to raise the intellectual level of society high enough that they aren't looking at their own wallets so hard that we'll never get off the ground.
Wrong again, bucko. First off, the Star Trek fantasy will not exist. It's not a matter of education, it's a matter of being a fucking human being. This utopian society where people work towards common goals to resolve the suffering of others and the advancement of knowledge isn't being held back by technology, it's being held back by human nature. It's human nature to be angry, greedy and resentful. As individuals we can defeat it but I see no mechanism that is going to solve it on a global scale. Secondly, there is the potential that we may need to mine lunar resources within our lifetime. So why should we sit on our hands? Let's show that we can do it and that the resources are available on hand and not a few decades from the time that they would be useful. As it currently stands fission and mining the moon for Helium-3 can happen right around the same time. Or would you rather have another 20 years of coal and oil problems plaguing us?
Funny. I didn't have computers in every classroom when I was in school and somehow I advanced...
Ever wonder if the solution to the education problem isn't money and materials? Just think about it. Money is not the solution to every problem.
Actually, it's called "Drrrrraaaaiiinnnaaaggeeee!!!!"
Yeah, God forbid that a company keep a product that the public wants. Ford! Bring back the Edsel!
Granted, they seem to have fumbled the ball with Vista but let's not get out of hand about their decision to keep XP. I don't think it was meant to fool anyone. You can loosen up your tin foil cap for the moment.