It'll only take you five minutes. Get the email address for the other big ISP you don't use. (In Chicago, for example, if you use Comcast, email AT&T, if you use AT&T, email Comcast.) Tell them the reason you don't use them is that they use Cisco gear and that you don't support the supporters of corporate malfeasance. Tell them to email you when they've eliminated Cisco gear from their network.
You can protest to Cisco to change their ways all you like, and they won't give a crap. But if AT&T tells them to clean up their act, or QWEST, or Comcast or COX, etc, they'll listen.
This kind of looks like a completely different device. If it were essentially the same, then that would indeed be fantastic, as it looks like putting whatever you want on it would already be essentially done to the point of being sealed up with a bow.
This is an Android-based device for $139. It has an e-Ink display and a touch screen. I'm buying one the day after it's rooted.
Does anyone know enough about the touch-screen method this uses to tell me whether it can present two datapoints at a time? (Can the hardware be used to do multi-touch?)
"The C.S. degree isn't even needed for finding work." You are partly correct.
What you should have said was "A C.S. degree, unless it's from a fairly well regarded program, has nothing to do with you getting hired for a programming job." Any good shop will make you code as part of the interview, and most people from lower-end schools CS programs come out not being able to code at all.
I would say that it in fact hurts you in your attempt to get a job, but not because people see it and are repelled. The problem is that CS is a job degree. It's not science. It's like going to a technical school and studying wielding or diesel truck repair. It implies that
a. you were worried about getting a job after college, which implies a lack of self confidence in the first place, which is an indicator (though not a perfect indicator) that you were substandard in the first place.
b. you spent 4 years in a college or university, where you should have been learning to think and write and popping around subjects learning about the world, and instead you spent the bulk of your classes learning about something which comes easily to people who do well in the field. That wasn't very clever, and points back to item a, and means that in the interview, you're not a very interesting person.
CS is a white-collar job, and so it's important that the people who do it go to college. Instead, CS grad from lower-tier schools come out with "a college degree" which is only really a third of a college degree.
You're right that the forest is burning. The problem is that we're trying to turn colleges into vocational schools. They're not. They're supposed to tech you to be a Renaissance man, or at least to be smart and to think and write and know about a lot of things in the world. Vocational schools are different. Primary education is a vocational school. The fact that we're destroying our colleges and universities is directly related to the collapse of our primary education: we're expecting higher ed to pick up the slack, which means that it can't do what it's supposed to do.
Bach knew sugar was toxic in the 1700s!
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
Vatican II is the most obvious point where the Church left ideas which had been entrenched since the middle ages and entered modernity. Vatican II (among other things) established that people have the right to not be Catholics.
I know that sounds absurd, but think about how different that is from how things were in the middle ages.
You have to remember that this is a historical aspect of Catholicism. The modern church thinks people can and should think and read. But not everyone on the Church is modern.
They're not protestants. You don't read about religion. That's not your role. You go to church and get information from a priest, who has a greater connection to God through the hierarchy of the Church, which has at it's head God, and right below that the pope, with whom he has conversations daily.
OK, it's a pre-Vatican-two sort of world-view, but it's historically that of the Catholic church.
I can't believe there's so much conversation above about "individual freedom" with respect to your cars: People willing to trade more deaths for the right to be irresponsible and people willing to actually try to have a measured conversation with them on that topic.
You can't drive a rocket car on a city street. Why not? Why can't you mount knives on your bumper? If you don't hit anything, it's safe, right?
Screw 'em. Nowhere in the constitution are they granted the right to risk the lives of others. If the autonomous cars are much, much safer than you driving, then hitting someone will quickly get you sued completely into oblivion for negligence and endangering others. The autonomous cars will dominate due to the insurance costs of non-autonomous ones.
And that's good. People in non-autonomous cars will cost us vast quantities of money due to gas costs, time delays and health issues due to exhausts and accidents. They deserve no support at all.
No, if we did that, all the Blue States would follow suit and leave to form the CSSA (the Confederation of Slightly Smarter Americans), leaving the US a shell of a country: A poor society with only an army. And nukes. Lots of nukes.
Dennis Frailey makes a distinction between CS research and applied CS: 'For too long, we have taught computer science as an academic discipline (as though all of our students will go on to get PhDs and then become CS faculty members) even though for most of us, our students are overwhelmingly seeking careers in which they apply computer science.'
Universities have to contend with the huge proportion of society trying to turn them into trade schools. They are not trade schools. They are Universities. (Well, SMU may be a trade school masquerading as a University, for all I know.) They are not in the business of teaching people to do a trade. They attempt to prepare people to do any job. Putting up with the uneducated masses try to destroy our institutions of higher learning is bad enough, having adjunct professors try the same is an admission that they are in the wrong place. While academia is a place where we can have conflicting ideas, we can't have dumb-asses. Fire him.
'Since the objective is a kernel identical to RH's, there's no need to obsessively worry about which of RH's patches were applied or not, because the correct answer is "all of them".'
Ah, but for Oracle, that's not necessarily the aim. They may want to apply some patches and not others. That makes them able to say that their version is different from Red Hat's, and thus the right one to run for Oracle. Now they either have to do their own patching or rework their own patches on top of every new Red Hat patch, which is a bit more of a pain that just not applying some of Red Hat's. Either that, or simply stay exactly the same as RHEL, in which case why run their Linux at all?
OK, I have often thought making an ad-hoc case for a mini-itx board with no cards would be easy (think a small sheet of plywood, some glue, blocks, and some of those brass-coloured screw-posts), but I've been worried about the RF interference the system would put out. This cardboard solution seems to provide nothing at all for shielding.
How much RF do these motherboards put out? What would it interfere with? What do you need to surround the thing with to block those wavelengths? Would chicken wire do? Is it necessary at all?
I've seen nothing on Slashdot about Nufront's 2GHZ dual core A9 chip. I know it's early days for that, but I would have liked to see that in any benchmarks which can be done on non-windows boxes. I suspect that at 2 watts (1/7th the power -- at least for the chip itself) the Nufront demo boxes are quite competitive with the Atom and the AMD Fusion systems. But I need to see the benchmarks to see my suspicions confirmed or stomped.
No, I'm arguing against the parent which suggests that science needs to be open-minded (ie. let the creationist drivel in in order to do better science). Your comment is out of context.
OMAP 5 is scheduled for release in the second half of 2011. Has anyone seen one of these in action? Not minority report whatever, just dual A15 cores running anything?
And is this the first product to reach even early production with an A15 core or cores? Is there any A15 presence around other than this? I see NVidia is planning something, but it's still vapour, right?
Agreed. I want the graphics power of a card of two years ago in a $35 card with no fan.
I know I can't get that, that I'm being cheap and expecting too much. But if games stopped always demanding more and more GPU oomph, there'd be enough people just like me to make it worthwhile to aim for such hardware.
We are moving more and more away from the big loud box which everyone associates with gaming. Now would be a great time to step back and work on making graphics cards run cool without expensive heat sinks or fans.
"If students cannot test their preconceived beliefs, they cannot find out that they are faulty. Students often challenge what they are hearing in class with what they've been taught at home or at church. "
This is not about students repeating arguments, it's about teachers repeating them. The law is designed to protect teachers who spread disinformation.
"And doesn't it make a stronger case for evolution when you have considered and dismissed the counter-arguments? Wouldn't that make for a better student to not just be told how something is, but to learn how to debate the way things are to consider future issues too?"
Repeating arguments long since shot down is not valuable questioning in class.
This bill is not about protecting science and systematic thought. It's about protecting incompetence.
Freedom of speech is fine. Yea! So an engineer who says a bridge need only support its own weight plus the weight of a duck shouldn't be fired. Doctors who say the best treatment for cancer is to place cabbages on your head shouldn't be dismissed. Let's make a bill to protect them. This is not a freedom of speech issue.
You're not describing science, you're describing religion. By definition, if you're doing science, you're seeking to disprove wrong ideas. Being nasty and critical and vicious is often good for science. Scientists fight. The truth comes out of it. Closed-minded bastards who look to shoot down things they don't like are good for science.
They need only be open-minded enough to see that they themselves are wrong. That said, they should accept proof that their hypothesizes are wrong only after arguing about methodology. Other than that, they can be as closed-minded as they like.
We like open-minded people. We like open-mindedness in society. Let's not assume things are necessary just because we like them.
Slashdot Mirror
It'll only take you five minutes. Get the email address for the other big ISP you don't use. (In Chicago, for example, if you use Comcast, email AT&T, if you use AT&T, email Comcast.) Tell them the reason you don't use them is that they use Cisco gear and that you don't support the supporters of corporate malfeasance. Tell them to email you when they've eliminated Cisco gear from their network.
You can protest to Cisco to change their ways all you like, and they won't give a crap. But if AT&T tells them to clean up their act, or QWEST, or Comcast or COX, etc, they'll listen.
You imply that the system will ever be changed.
This kind of looks like a completely different device. If it were essentially the same, then that would indeed be fantastic, as it looks like putting whatever you want on it would already be essentially done to the point of being sealed up with a bow.
This is an Android-based device for $139. It has an e-Ink display and a touch screen. I'm buying one the day after it's rooted.
Does anyone know enough about the touch-screen method this uses to tell me whether it can present two datapoints at a time? (Can the hardware be used to do multi-touch?)
"The C.S. degree isn't even needed for finding work." You are partly correct.
What you should have said was "A C.S. degree, unless it's from a fairly well regarded program, has nothing to do with you getting hired for a programming job." Any good shop will make you code as part of the interview, and most people from lower-end schools CS programs come out not being able to code at all.
I would say that it in fact hurts you in your attempt to get a job, but not because people see it and are repelled. The problem is that CS is a job degree. It's not science. It's like going to a technical school and studying wielding or diesel truck repair. It implies that
a. you were worried about getting a job after college, which implies a lack of self confidence in the first place, which is an indicator (though not a perfect indicator) that you were substandard in the first place.
b. you spent 4 years in a college or university, where you should have been learning to think and write and popping around subjects learning about the world, and instead you spent the bulk of your classes learning about something which comes easily to people who do well in the field. That wasn't very clever, and points back to item a, and means that in the interview, you're not a very interesting person.
CS is a white-collar job, and so it's important that the people who do it go to college. Instead, CS grad from lower-tier schools come out with "a college degree" which is only really a third of a college degree.
You're right that the forest is burning. The problem is that we're trying to turn colleges into vocational schools. They're not. They're supposed to tech you to be a Renaissance man, or at least to be smart and to think and write and know about a lot of things in the world. Vocational schools are different. Primary education is a vocational school. The fact that we're destroying our colleges and universities is directly related to the collapse of our primary education: we're expecting higher ed to pick up the slack, which means that it can't do what it's supposed to do.
Remember, he wrote Komm, süßer Tod.
Webmistressrachel, what this document says is that an FBI agent interviewed someone who heard a rumor.
They did that a lot. They should be many, many documents just like this one, all mutually contradictory. It's to be expected.
If what he's holding is the engine, it looks nothing like a Wankel.
It's circular. That's the cause of any very superficial resemblance.
Vatican II is the most obvious point where the Church left ideas which had been entrenched since the middle ages and entered modernity. Vatican II (among other things) established that people have the right to not be Catholics.
I know that sounds absurd, but think about how different that is from how things were in the middle ages.
You have to remember that this is a historical aspect of Catholicism. The modern church thinks people can and should think and read. But not everyone on the Church is modern.
They're not protestants. You don't read about religion. That's not your role. You go to church and get information from a priest, who has a greater connection to God through the hierarchy of the Church, which has at it's head God, and right below that the pope, with whom he has conversations daily.
OK, it's a pre-Vatican-two sort of world-view, but it's historically that of the Catholic church.
I can't believe there's so much conversation above about "individual freedom" with respect to your cars: People willing to trade more deaths for the right to be irresponsible and people willing to actually try to have a measured conversation with them on that topic.
You can't drive a rocket car on a city street. Why not? Why can't you mount knives on your bumper? If you don't hit anything, it's safe, right?
Screw 'em. Nowhere in the constitution are they granted the right to risk the lives of others. If the autonomous cars are much, much safer than you driving, then hitting someone will quickly get you sued completely into oblivion for negligence and endangering others. The autonomous cars will dominate due to the insurance costs of non-autonomous ones.
And that's good. People in non-autonomous cars will cost us vast quantities of money due to gas costs, time delays and health issues due to exhausts and accidents. They deserve no support at all.
No, if we did that, all the Blue States would follow suit and leave to form the CSSA (the Confederation of Slightly Smarter Americans), leaving the US a shell of a country: A poor society with only an army. And nukes. Lots of nukes.
No, it seems to protect that right from the start. Go for it. That should be protected under this law.
Dennis Frailey makes a distinction between CS research and applied CS: 'For too long, we have taught computer science as an academic discipline (as though all of our students will go on to get PhDs and then become CS faculty members) even though for most of us, our students are overwhelmingly seeking careers in which they apply computer science.'
Universities have to contend with the huge proportion of society trying to turn them into trade schools. They are not trade schools. They are Universities. (Well, SMU may be a trade school masquerading as a University, for all I know.) They are not in the business of teaching people to do a trade. They attempt to prepare people to do any job. Putting up with the uneducated masses try to destroy our institutions of higher learning is bad enough, having adjunct professors try the same is an admission that they are in the wrong place. While academia is a place where we can have conflicting ideas, we can't have dumb-asses. Fire him.
'Since the objective is a kernel identical to RH's, there's no need to obsessively worry about which of RH's patches were applied or not, because the correct answer is "all of them".'
Ah, but for Oracle, that's not necessarily the aim. They may want to apply some patches and not others. That makes them able to say that their version is different from Red Hat's, and thus the right one to run for Oracle. Now they either have to do their own patching or rework their own patches on top of every new Red Hat patch, which is a bit more of a pain that just not applying some of Red Hat's. Either that, or simply stay exactly the same as RHEL, in which case why run their Linux at all?
OK, I have often thought making an ad-hoc case for a mini-itx board with no cards would be easy (think a small sheet of plywood, some glue, blocks, and some of those brass-coloured screw-posts), but I've been worried about the RF interference the system would put out. This cardboard solution seems to provide nothing at all for shielding.
How much RF do these motherboards put out? What would it interfere with? What do you need to surround the thing with to block those wavelengths? Would chicken wire do? Is it necessary at all?
Anybody have a good answer to these questions?
Thanks
I've seen nothing on Slashdot about Nufront's 2GHZ dual core A9 chip. I know it's early days for that, but I would have liked to see that in any benchmarks which can be done on non-windows boxes. I suspect that at 2 watts (1/7th the power -- at least for the chip itself) the Nufront demo boxes are quite competitive with the Atom and the AMD Fusion systems. But I need to see the benchmarks to see my suspicions confirmed or stomped.
No, I'm arguing against the parent which suggests that science needs to be open-minded (ie. let the creationist drivel in in order to do better science). Your comment is out of context.
I don't care at all about the interface.
OMAP 5 is scheduled for release in the second half of 2011. Has anyone seen one of these in action? Not minority report whatever, just dual A15 cores running anything?
And is this the first product to reach even early production with an A15 core or cores? Is there any A15 presence around other than this? I see NVidia is planning something, but it's still vapour, right?
Agreed. I want the graphics power of a card of two years ago in a $35 card with no fan.
I know I can't get that, that I'm being cheap and expecting too much. But if games stopped always demanding more and more GPU oomph, there'd be enough people just like me to make it worthwhile to aim for such hardware.
We are moving more and more away from the big loud box which everyone associates with gaming. Now would be a great time to step back and work on making graphics cards run cool without expensive heat sinks or fans.
"If students cannot test their preconceived beliefs, they cannot find out that they are faulty. Students often challenge what they are hearing in class with what they've been taught at home or at church. "
This is not about students repeating arguments, it's about teachers repeating them. The law is designed to protect teachers who spread disinformation.
"And doesn't it make a stronger case for evolution when you have considered and dismissed the counter-arguments? Wouldn't that make for a better student to not just be told how something is, but to learn how to debate the way things are to consider future issues too?"
Repeating arguments long since shot down is not valuable questioning in class.
This bill is not about protecting science and systematic thought. It's about protecting incompetence.
Freedom of speech is fine. Yea! So an engineer who says a bridge need only support its own weight plus the weight of a duck shouldn't be fired. Doctors who say the best treatment for cancer is to place cabbages on your head shouldn't be dismissed. Let's make a bill to protect them. This is not a freedom of speech issue.
You're not describing science, you're describing religion. By definition, if you're doing science, you're seeking to disprove wrong ideas. Being nasty and critical and vicious is often good for science. Scientists fight. The truth comes out of it. Closed-minded bastards who look to shoot down things they don't like are good for science.
They need only be open-minded enough to see that they themselves are wrong. That said, they should accept proof that their hypothesizes are wrong only after arguing about methodology. Other than that, they can be as closed-minded as they like.
We like open-minded people. We like open-mindedness in society. Let's not assume things are necessary just because we like them.
I voted for him, and you're RIGHT.