Given a world population (excluding Microsoft) of 7 000 000 000, you seem to be suggesting that there are up to 0.0000000000000007 people who were okay with it. What a strange number.
It's possible it was captured, but in order to be captured it would have had to have been in an orbit that took it near Jupiter (and so that far from the Sun or more likely in a very eliptical orbit that would mean there'd be siginificant amounts of sunlight only intermittently) or knocked way out of its original orbit. I guess a passing giant object could pull it out toward Jupiter without obliterating it (or maybe it was a collision and Europa used to be twice the size).
I don't study astronomy, so I can't say for certain that these possibilities have been ruled out, but these seem pretty improbable. If we had found complex life on Europa, it would make sense to hypothesize possible causes, but we haven't, so there's not any grounding to them.
It's been hotter, most likely, but we can be pretty sure that it hasn't had the same energy inputs as the Earth. Heat from the initial formation, yes (though more rapidly dissipating than it did from the much more massive Earth). Sustained, fairly consistent sunlight for billions of years? Not so much.
Is this the same logic that says the problem of Mexican drugs being imported into the US is the US's fault? Sure, there needs to be demand, but this is a bit like saying that murderers wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for all of these *living* people around!
No, not really. It's like blaming the problem of assisted suicide on suicidal people. Drugs are bought by people who want drugs. Murders happen to people who don't want to be murdered.
It wasn't satire, but once word got out, it got flooded with trolls. I haven't checked back since its early days, though. It's possible that everything still there is serious.
Outright insulting Apple in this way forces people to decide, Apple or Google
No, it really doesn't. I can still use products from both companies.
Switching away from Google just means typing in "www.bing.com".
I also use Google Reader, Google Docs, Google Voice, Google Calendar, Google Webmaster tools, Adsense, GMail, iGoogle, Blogger, and YouTube. I have a Picasa account, but don't really use it. I occasionally use Google Code Search.
And then there's the more relevant Google Android. I don't have it, but if I did, there's hardware right there.
(Oh, this post is written in Chromium--and at work I use Google Chrome.)
Good point. It it can happen between bordering European nations on comparable levels of development in the early 1900s, it can happen between the US and the middle east today. The current US-Iraq dynamic is pretty much the same as the 1913 Germany-France dynamic.
I work at a high school and we do 'fire' the students. If their behavior is unacceptable, they get expelled. Anything more, though, is a complete cop out. If a student is making it difficult for other students to learn then we have to do something about it, but we're not talking about college here--your university professor comments are a complete red herring. Our job is to educate everyone because it's good for them, it's good for society, and it's their right. Creating a ton of high school drop-outs is going to have a massive social cost that will easily outweigh any short-term benefits. If the students are doing poorly, yeah, it's partly their fault, their parents' fault, dozens of factors' fault, but whining about that and saying we should just give up on education for poor students is antithetical to the whole premise of public education. If you believe that, get out of the field. Teachers at my school get the cruft other schools have kicked out--halt our students have babies, and many are living on their own. Any teacher who refuses to teach 'bad' students is useless.
This is public education, not the university. How about we drop the whining and get some fucking accountability. We've proven that teacher quality makes a difference, yet the teacher's union still resists the idea of basing pay (or employment) on how well they do the job. Time to stop bitching about students and start addressing the issues we can control: who teaches.
Paying more for programmers/engineers/whatevers improves quality because you then can get the good programmers/engineers/whatevers. But we're not allowed to pay more for better teachers. They (unions, etc.) refuse to let us pay based on how well they do their job--only crap like seniority. We have some ways of measuring teacher quality, and the Obama administration is pushing to pay more for the good ones, but there's a massive resistance--for some good reasons (quality measures are still iffy) and some bad.
Right, because creating a free, high-quality web browser and open sourcing the codebase didn't do anything to help customers. Allowing users to use a standards-compliant web browser AND access the systems required by their job didn't do anything to help customers. Shifting to (relatively) open standards won't do anything to help customers.
It almost sounds like your problem is that Google isn't being evil enough. I find myself lacking sympathy.
While youtube is nice for idling away some downtime, it's not the internet-dominating force this article makes out. If it disappeared tomorrow, than apart from instantly increasing corporate productivity and allowing children everywhere to get their homework done on time, there wouldn't be so much of a change.
There are also (sit down, this might be a bit of a shock) lots and lots of people who rarely, if ever visit youtube.
If YouTuber viewers discover that YouTube now works on Perfectly Good Browser and not on their current browser, some of them will switch browsers, at least in their home environment. 100%? No, but when just 10% = 10 000 000 people, it's hardly a trivial issue. Okay, maybe not a 'perish in flames' feature, but it is something of note.
Why would uncertainties follow a normal distribution? (Even if it did, that 'some' could approach 0 without limit, which in a digital world is 0).
If I start taking shots, we can be very certain (99%?) that the vast majority of my apparent drunkenness is caused by alcohol It doesn't at all follow that most of it must (100%) be. It's much more likely that I'm taking shots of another mind-altering substance than that the alcohol is causing 20% of my drunkenness and hormonal imbalance is causing 80%.
This is a hastily constructed hypothetic, so you can throw out things like the placebo effect and mixers, but given more time we could certainly come up with an example that didn't have confounding factors, and without them, it's not significantly more likely that 20% is caused by alcohol than that 100% is. There's no normal distribution in the % attributable to alcohol. It's very much a bimodal distribution. Without knowing the mechanisms, we can't justify assumptions regarding the distribution.
They're not trying to predict how many inches of rain Titusville, Florida will receive on February 13, 2110. Typically, the broader the prediction, the easier. When you get to the climate scale, you can't really extrapolate that predictability from the predictability of daily variations in the local weather.
Even if that weren't the case, giving up on doing science because it's hard is a losing proposition.
Slashdot Mirror
Given a world population (excluding Microsoft) of 7 000 000 000, you seem to be suggesting that there are up to 0.0000000000000007 people who were okay with it. What a strange number.
They didn't lay the fiber--they bought it. Before YouTube came into existence.
It's possible it was captured, but in order to be captured it would have had to have been in an orbit that took it near Jupiter (and so that far from the Sun or more likely in a very eliptical orbit that would mean there'd be siginificant amounts of sunlight only intermittently) or knocked way out of its original orbit. I guess a passing giant object could pull it out toward Jupiter without obliterating it (or maybe it was a collision and Europa used to be twice the size).
I don't study astronomy, so I can't say for certain that these possibilities have been ruled out, but these seem pretty improbable. If we had found complex life on Europa, it would make sense to hypothesize possible causes, but we haven't, so there's not any grounding to them.
It's been hotter, most likely, but we can be pretty sure that it hasn't had the same energy inputs as the Earth. Heat from the initial formation, yes (though more rapidly dissipating than it did from the much more massive Earth). Sustained, fairly consistent sunlight for billions of years? Not so much.
No, not really. It's like blaming the problem of assisted suicide on suicidal people. Drugs are bought by people who want drugs. Murders happen to people who don't want to be murdered.
Here's a helpful infographic as well: http://reason.com/assets/db/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad.jpg
Something to do with cheap labor not being a military threat or something, I guess.
And yet I do like it when the immigrants show up and provide cheap labor. What does this say about your analogy?
...Which would raise the price of produce, hurting Americans more than the much bemoaned loss of American jobs does.
It wasn't satire, but once word got out, it got flooded with trolls. I haven't checked back since its early days, though. It's possible that everything still there is serious.
No, it really doesn't. I can still use products from both companies.
I also use Google Reader, Google Docs, Google Voice, Google Calendar, Google Webmaster tools, Adsense, GMail, iGoogle, Blogger, and YouTube. I have a Picasa account, but don't really use it. I occasionally use Google Code Search.
And then there's the more relevant Google Android. I don't have it, but if I did, there's hardware right there.
(Oh, this post is written in Chromium--and at work I use Google Chrome.)
Good point. It it can happen between bordering European nations on comparable levels of development in the early 1900s, it can happen between the US and the middle east today. The current US-Iraq dynamic is pretty much the same as the 1913 Germany-France dynamic.
Um...that's kind of when the government is supposed to increase spending.
That you corrected only one of three intentionally incorrect statements is very telling.
I work at a high school and we do 'fire' the students. If their behavior is unacceptable, they get expelled. Anything more, though, is a complete cop out. If a student is making it difficult for other students to learn then we have to do something about it, but we're not talking about college here--your university professor comments are a complete red herring. Our job is to educate everyone because it's good for them, it's good for society, and it's their right. Creating a ton of high school drop-outs is going to have a massive social cost that will easily outweigh any short-term benefits. If the students are doing poorly, yeah, it's partly their fault, their parents' fault, dozens of factors' fault, but whining about that and saying we should just give up on education for poor students is antithetical to the whole premise of public education. If you believe that, get out of the field. Teachers at my school get the cruft other schools have kicked out--halt our students have babies, and many are living on their own. Any teacher who refuses to teach 'bad' students is useless.
This is public education, not the university. How about we drop the whining and get some fucking accountability. We've proven that teacher quality makes a difference, yet the teacher's union still resists the idea of basing pay (or employment) on how well they do the job. Time to stop bitching about students and start addressing the issues we can control: who teaches.
Paying more for programmers/engineers/whatevers improves quality because you then can get the good programmers/engineers/whatevers. But we're not allowed to pay more for better teachers. They (unions, etc.) refuse to let us pay based on how well they do their job--only crap like seniority. We have some ways of measuring teacher quality, and the Obama administration is pushing to pay more for the good ones, but there's a massive resistance--for some good reasons (quality measures are still iffy) and some bad.
Right, because creating a free, high-quality web browser and open sourcing the codebase didn't do anything to help customers. Allowing users to use a standards-compliant web browser AND access the systems required by their job didn't do anything to help customers. Shifting to (relatively) open standards won't do anything to help customers.
It almost sounds like your problem is that Google isn't being evil enough. I find myself lacking sympathy.
If YouTuber viewers discover that YouTube now works on Perfectly Good Browser and not on their current browser, some of them will switch browsers, at least in their home environment. 100%? No, but when just 10% = 10 000 000 people, it's hardly a trivial issue. Okay, maybe not a 'perish in flames' feature, but it is something of note.
Not many people have a clue what 'H.264' is either. You're lucky if they know what 'Flash' is.
According to the summary, Bill Gates was impressed by the iPhone. This suggests that he's secretly a different person from Balmer. Who knew?!
Why would uncertainties follow a normal distribution? (Even if it did, that 'some' could approach 0 without limit, which in a digital world is 0).
If I start taking shots, we can be very certain (99%?) that the vast majority of my apparent drunkenness is caused by alcohol It doesn't at all follow that most of it must (100%) be. It's much more likely that I'm taking shots of another mind-altering substance than that the alcohol is causing 20% of my drunkenness and hormonal imbalance is causing 80%.
This is a hastily constructed hypothetic, so you can throw out things like the placebo effect and mixers, but given more time we could certainly come up with an example that didn't have confounding factors, and without them, it's not significantly more likely that 20% is caused by alcohol than that 100% is. There's no normal distribution in the % attributable to alcohol. It's very much a bimodal distribution. Without knowing the mechanisms, we can't justify assumptions regarding the distribution.
I don't think this follows, at least not without also considering the particular causal mechanisms from which we base the assessment.
They're not trying to predict how many inches of rain Titusville, Florida will receive on February 13, 2110. Typically, the broader the prediction, the easier. When you get to the climate scale, you can't really extrapolate that predictability from the predictability of daily variations in the local weather.
Even if that weren't the case, giving up on doing science because it's hard is a losing proposition.
Most people have moral qualms about exploiting bugs to steal from people. They also have non-moral qualms about going to jail.
Looks to me like he understands it quite clearly.
That's terrible! Everyone knows HTML validity is just as important as basic security.