Where have YOU been lately? Watching Fox? These tax cuts are almost exclusively to the most wealthy of Americans. The top 10% gets hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax cuts per year while we poor scmucks who live down on earth may get $50-100! In addition, the lowest of wage earners won't get ANYTHING.
I make a pretty good salary but even I won't be getting much out of this giveaway because I don't earn $250,000+/year and don't have any significant stock dividend income.
That's not paint on Mars - it's the atmosphere. There simply happens to be a planet-wide dust storm in progress. That might not be as lame as it sounds if the paint pigment is iron oxide.
Heh heh. Obviously W did not read the safety label when he choked on that pretzel a few months ago. (No, no W - it's chew then swallow!). Oops, I mean he didn't have someone read the safety label for him.
That can be a big waste of time. Suppose you have 6 people - you have now have six people writing complete papers.
This viewpoint sounds really efficient, but efficiency isn't what you want to focus on when you are learning. It seems to me that the purpose and value of assignments such as research papers is learning how to do it, not getting it done with the least amount of work possible. Six people writing papers isn't a problem for me - each learns everything from concept stage to the final period on the page - and the structure and thought process in between.
It's better to have people focus on what they are good at - some at editing, some at researching, etc.
I think this is totally wrong. It seems to me that you don't want the students to focus on what they are good at doing - you want them to focus on what they are bad at doing! They are trying to learn how to do it, after all! When a person gets into the job market he or she will not be able to write a coherent paper or report from start to finish if all he ever did was edit other people's work, no matter how good an editor he is.
In my opinion this technique misses the point of writing papers entirely. The object is not to get a good paper (as controversial as that sounds), but to TEACH people how to write a good paper, on their own, using all the tools and techniques needed. I don't minimize the value of teaching collaboration, but let's face it - students will let an expert in their group do what is hard for the others to do and as a result will have a difficult time learning how to do it on their own.
You clearly don't have a Tivo and have never used one. You _can_ bypass the subscription service and tell a Tivo box to record whatever channel whenever you want. You don't need the subscription at all. I wouldn't call it bypass though - it is just not using the subscription service.
A lot of people who don't own Tivos just don't understand that it is the combination of the box and the listings that really make Tivo great. If Tivo were to go out of business I would probably keep te box and use it as you want to, but what a dissapointment it would be as just another VCR.
Some of you are more wrong than others on this series of posts, but you are all way wrong about this velocity stuff. The 25,000 mph velocity of the Apollo craft you are all quoting was due almost entirely to the rotational speed of the earth and not from Earth's gravity. It is no accident that 25,000 mph is both the escape velocity AND the re-entry velocity of spacecraft. The spacecraft approached an earth spinning at 25,000 mph and therefore took the relative speed of 25,000 mph only in relation to the surface of the planet! Gravitational acceleration "toward earth" had almost nothing to do with it.
If the spacecraft were indeed traveling at 25,000 mph between the moon and earth then it would have taken only 9.6 hours to reach earth (240,000 miles/25,000 mph)! The actual velocity of a typical Apollo spacecraft on its return was 4,000 mph relative to the earth. This velocity was chosen by NASA to give a 60 hour return flight.
As an interesting aside: Although some limited velocity choice was available depending on how aggressively the spacecraft left its moon orbit, the maximum velocity for any Apollo spacecraft was achieved by Apollo XIII because of its emergency situation and the need to get the astronauts back to earth as quickly as possible. A very aggressive slingshot around the moon (requiring a previously unheard of 5-minute mid-course rocket burn) resulted in a flight that took only 142 hours - at an average speed of 3,380 mph. I could find no information on how long the very fast moon to earth leg took.
You aren't done yet. Exactly how are you going to constantly accelerate that mass all the way from the moon to earth? To do it you would have to have a very, very large rocket to hold the fuel, and very large rockets hve a lot of mass so you would need even more fuel, etc. And don't forget you are sending this from the MOON where there is no atmosphere from which you can extract rocket fuel - you would have to ship it all from earth which would require huge amounts of fuel and even larger rockets. Get the point?
Your comment about "DO try thinking these things out" is pretty funny attached to such a mindless post. You should get modded up for humor.
I've been reading all this sillyness and just shook my head at the 10 kilogram rock's supposed disastrous impact, but your last two comments are just beyond stupidity. Acceleration doesn't have anything to do with the force of impact - its velocity and mass, period.
Also, how bloody FAR a meteor or moon rock has come has nothing to do with the price of eggs either. Our "insiginificant" atmosphere shields us from tons of space rocks annually you idiot, and those rocks came from millions of miles away.
But diving close to those bounds is not "dumb" it is simply using your equipment to the limits you are comfortable with.
Being comfortable and being dumb are two very different things. Pushing the absolute limit set by your dive computer IS DUMB, and if you are comforatable with that then it is VERY dumb. You give the reasons not to push the limits yourself. 1)Every person is different, 2)the dive tables that the PC programming is based upon is an approximation, 3)as is the programming itself.
You have a pretty fine-tuned bullshit detector if you can tell the difference safe and not safe when pushing the limits of a dive computer. One problem with this particular computer was that it gave the right results MOST of the time, but in certain situations it gave very wrong results (short, frequent dives). No one's bullshit meter would have detected the problem with these dive computers that gave reasonable results 99% of the time and then totally screwed you the other 1%. Neither is there any way you could have "researched" the algorithms in this particular computer to determine its accuracy because the error came from a hidden programmning error. So I think we return to the original idea - pushing the limits of any dive computer is very dumb.
The bigger issue here for/.ers is that because of its digital readout too much importance was probably given to the dive computer's implied precision. I'm sure it said it something like it was safe to fly after 6 hours and 18 minutes. Digital readouts imply greater accuracy than is often actually present, whether it is regarding a safe number of minutes to fly displayed on a dive computer or milliseconds until your cake is ready on the microwave. Placing one's life on th eline using this implied but non-existent accuracy is very dumb. All that apparent accuracy is totally useless given your original parameters were wild-ass guesses and approximations to begin with.
I have lived in NYC for eight years and there are a lot of free things here. There are also a lot of fine people. There are also large parts of everyone's days that are not spent committing or being victim's of crime, or trying to wring money out of life. Your ignorance is monumental.
I suppose wherever you live you have established free WiFi for the entire community plus you gave laptops to all the homeless people in your town so they can google interesting stuff. And then you gve them housing and food so the primary focus in their lives was no longer housing and food, but MP3s and cool/. stuff. Cool!
HEY! I have an idea - if you want free, mobile, anonymous WiFi for everyone in your community why don't you go out and do it? You seem to think that because it is free to users it cost nothing to build and maintain. So nothing is stopping you. But don't complain that the nasty New Yorkers haven't done it out of greed and criminality.
I guess you haven't heard, but these are hard economic times. The mayor just had to lay off 2,000 city employees and close 9 fire houses; but New York has chosen to continue giving beds to every homeless person who wants one every night of the year. Which would you prefer - that the available money be spent on beds for the homeless or a useless global WiFi system so homeless people who don't have laptops anyway have access to free WiFi?
It is only going to take one criminal negligence charge and the slew of lawsuits when a segway rider kills or cripples someone on a sidewalk to put a stop to Segways on sidewalks. Allowing these heavy fast machines to run on sidewalks with pedestrians is the stupidest most irresponsible thing I think I have ever heard of. Who will be sued when it eventually happens? The driver, the municipality that allowed such stupidity in the face of common sense, Segway, and Rich Kamens personally. It might be worth getting hit by one if the risk of permanaent disability wasn't so great.
Sheesh - that is absolute baloney. First, its a two-bit whore not a two dollar whore; and second, US politicians are often ridiculous, but they're not stupid enough to think that a lack of $2 bills is going to do anything at all to prostitution. Hundred dollar bills are the lingua franca of the drug trade, but don't expect them to be recalled anytime soon. Two-dollar bills were phased out because inflation decreased the value of the dollar to the point where there simply wasn't enough difference between a $1 and $2 amount. It wasn't worth the cost or effort to make them or sort them.
Solar panels aren't really a viable solution to no electricity for pay phones in this situation. They could use solar if they had a perfectly located phone sitting out in a field. However they are doing this in metropolitan New York where fields are not common while shade from trees, buildings and awnings are (yes, trees).
ALso you have to consider cost. There are 100,000 of these powerless phones, and the cost of putting solar cells and storage batteries on each one of them them would be astronomical. You would also have to put them high up (i.e. not cheaply on the top of the phone) to prevent vandalism, adding a big cost. Batteries and solar panels would have to be replaced periodicaly, adding to both hardware and servicing costs. Far from being "cheaper in the long run" solar powered payphone WiFi would be a money and resource pit for the phone company.
I hire programmers all the time and be assured that coding is NOT all that is needed. I have found that in general very young coders and programmers don't really know much of anything else. It takes a lot of skills to work in any organizations that have nothing to do with programming, including just knowing how organizations and project creation work.
It is a rare manager that just needs some code pounded out. What managers need is someone who can understand what the project is, help in the planning, coordinate with others, actually write waht was asked for, offer ideas on how to make it better, and interact with customers to understand their needs. Managers also want someone who is likely to stay with the company for longer than six months - hiring people is hard work.
Older workers generally have those skills from having had to learn them in previous work situations while younger workers are still developing their skills in those areas.
There are exceptions of course - there are younger workers who can do those things just are there are totally clueless older workers.
All in all I would think that older programmers would find it easier to get jobs.
Cropping the top and the bottom of a 4:3 screen would have the added advntage of elliminating those annoying scrolling messages on all the news channels that take up 20% of the screen with useless graphics while repeating the same headlines ad nauseum.
Star Trek - not the one you are thinking of but the one that ran on the giant IBM 360 that took up half the basement of the Math building at UNC. You used teletype terminals to interact with the game (a BIG improvement and very cool considering the best alternative was punch cards which made for a VERY slow game). It was a turn-based game between you and a Klingon warship. You would type "fire phasers" and between 2 and 30 seconds later you would get the results typed on the paper roll: "hit" or "miss". Then the computer would play... "Klingon fired energy weapon - hit! Shields 80%". You had to make sure you tore off the paper at the end of the game so the "operators" wouldn't find out you were wasting $40/hour research-grant "computer time" money.
It doesn't sound like much now, but in 1970 this was simply amazing and began my lifelong fascination with computers.
Re:available bandwidth?
on
Hamvention
·
· Score: 1
Do you have live entertainment? Then it really would be Bandwidth. Get it? Band-width? Get it? Huh? Get it? Heh heh... Sorry.
I hereby make notice that I will never re-visit any site that co-ops my screen for 15 seconds with an ad.
As I think about it that may not be true. Everyone should re-visit these sites periodically to gather a list of all their advertisers. Each and every one of the advertisers should be contacted with a message stating they advertise on a site that abuses its customers (even if they are not the ones with the 15 second ad) and until this practice stops you will not buy their products. That will get the advertisers attention, and they will get the web site administrators attention. The people with the money have a lot more power over these sites than do you or I.
Or AIDS, or most other infectious diseases I've heard of for that matter. Are you sure that's correct?
Yes, I am sure, or at least that's what they taught us in the biohazard and microbiology courses in grad school. You left out my parenthetical "(but not all)".
Sorry I didn't see the italics - you are right I incorrectly attributed that statement to you - sorry.
Actually viruses don't "target" anyone. Thinking that way imparts them with a purpose they don't have. They have hosts. I think you are reaching too far when you argue that the old and young will not be more adversely effected if they acquire SARS.
I frankly have not heard your stats that 20-40 year olds were preferentially infected in 1914. If true, perhaps greater total number of fatailities among that demographic had something to do with WWI and the military camps that put hundreds of thousands of 20-40 year olds in close proximity to each other. I suspect that you have interpreted the gross fatality numbers and come up with the incorrect conclusion that the fatality RATE was higher for 20-40 year olds when it was just total number killed that was higher. It would be very hard to convice me that 1000 20 year olds infected with Spanish Flu would have a higher mortality rate than 1000 infected 70 year olds. I would bet a lot that the mortality RATE was higher among the old and the young in 1914.
Slashdot Mirror
I make a pretty good salary but even I won't be getting much out of this giveaway because I don't earn $250,000+/year and don't have any significant stock dividend income.
That's not paint on Mars - it's the atmosphere. There simply happens to be a planet-wide dust storm in progress. That might not be as lame as it sounds if the paint pigment is iron oxide.
Models are frequently on a 1:1 scale. I think what you mean is that the original can't be a model of itself.
The real thing isn't a model, not even a 1:1 model.
Some brands of safety razor blades come with 6-step instructions, starting with "open package".
Heh heh. Obviously W did not read the safety label when he choked on that pretzel a few months ago. (No, no W - it's chew then swallow!). Oops, I mean he didn't have someone read the safety label for him.
This viewpoint sounds really efficient, but efficiency isn't what you want to focus on when you are learning. It seems to me that the purpose and value of assignments such as research papers is learning how to do it, not getting it done with the least amount of work possible. Six people writing papers isn't a problem for me - each learns everything from concept stage to the final period on the page - and the structure and thought process in between.
It's better to have people focus on what they are good at - some at editing, some at researching, etc.
I think this is totally wrong. It seems to me that you don't want the students to focus on what they are good at doing - you want them to focus on what they are bad at doing! They are trying to learn how to do it, after all! When a person gets into the job market he or she will not be able to write a coherent paper or report from start to finish if all he ever did was edit other people's work, no matter how good an editor he is.
In my opinion this technique misses the point of writing papers entirely. The object is not to get a good paper (as controversial as that sounds), but to TEACH people how to write a good paper, on their own, using all the tools and techniques needed. I don't minimize the value of teaching collaboration, but let's face it - students will let an expert in their group do what is hard for the others to do and as a result will have a difficult time learning how to do it on their own.
It never was sir, it never was.
A lot of people who don't own Tivos just don't understand that it is the combination of the box and the listings that really make Tivo great. If Tivo were to go out of business I would probably keep te box and use it as you want to, but what a dissapointment it would be as just another VCR.
If the spacecraft were indeed traveling at 25,000 mph between the moon and earth then it would have taken only 9.6 hours to reach earth (240,000 miles/25,000 mph)! The actual velocity of a typical Apollo spacecraft on its return was 4,000 mph relative to the earth. This velocity was chosen by NASA to give a 60 hour return flight.
As an interesting aside: Although some limited velocity choice was available depending on how aggressively the spacecraft left its moon orbit, the maximum velocity for any Apollo spacecraft was achieved by Apollo XIII because of its emergency situation and the need to get the astronauts back to earth as quickly as possible. A very aggressive slingshot around the moon (requiring a previously unheard of 5-minute mid-course rocket burn) resulted in a flight that took only 142 hours - at an average speed of 3,380 mph. I could find no information on how long the very fast moon to earth leg took.
Your comment about "DO try thinking these things out" is pretty funny attached to such a mindless post. You should get modded up for humor.
Also, how bloody FAR a meteor or moon rock has come has nothing to do with the price of eggs either. Our "insiginificant" atmosphere shields us from tons of space rocks annually you idiot, and those rocks came from millions of miles away.
Being comfortable and being dumb are two very different things. Pushing the absolute limit set by your dive computer IS DUMB, and if you are comforatable with that then it is VERY dumb. You give the reasons not to push the limits yourself. 1)Every person is different, 2)the dive tables that the PC programming is based upon is an approximation, 3)as is the programming itself.
You have a pretty fine-tuned bullshit detector if you can tell the difference safe and not safe when pushing the limits of a dive computer. One problem with this particular computer was that it gave the right results MOST of the time, but in certain situations it gave very wrong results (short, frequent dives). No one's bullshit meter would have detected the problem with these dive computers that gave reasonable results 99% of the time and then totally screwed you the other 1%. Neither is there any way you could have "researched" the algorithms in this particular computer to determine its accuracy because the error came from a hidden programmning error. So I think we return to the original idea - pushing the limits of any dive computer is very dumb.
The bigger issue here for /.ers is that because of its digital readout too much importance was probably given to the dive computer's implied precision. I'm sure it said it something like it was safe to fly after 6 hours and 18 minutes. Digital readouts imply greater accuracy than is often actually present, whether it is regarding a safe number of minutes to fly displayed on a dive computer or milliseconds until your cake is ready on the microwave. Placing one's life on th eline using this implied but non-existent accuracy is very dumb. All that apparent accuracy is totally useless given your original parameters were wild-ass guesses and approximations to begin with.
I suppose wherever you live you have established free WiFi for the entire community plus you gave laptops to all the homeless people in your town so they can google interesting stuff. And then you gve them housing and food so the primary focus in their lives was no longer housing and food, but MP3s and cool /. stuff. Cool!
HEY! I have an idea - if you want free, mobile, anonymous WiFi for everyone in your community why don't you go out and do it? You seem to think that because it is free to users it cost nothing to build and maintain. So nothing is stopping you. But don't complain that the nasty New Yorkers haven't done it out of greed and criminality.
I guess you haven't heard, but these are hard economic times. The mayor just had to lay off 2,000 city employees and close 9 fire houses; but New York has chosen to continue giving beds to every homeless person who wants one every night of the year. Which would you prefer - that the available money be spent on beds for the homeless or a useless global WiFi system so homeless people who don't have laptops anyway have access to free WiFi?
It is only going to take one criminal negligence charge and the slew of lawsuits when a segway rider kills or cripples someone on a sidewalk to put a stop to Segways on sidewalks. Allowing these heavy fast machines to run on sidewalks with pedestrians is the stupidest most irresponsible thing I think I have ever heard of. Who will be sued when it eventually happens? The driver, the municipality that allowed such stupidity in the face of common sense, Segway, and Rich Kamens personally. It might be worth getting hit by one if the risk of permanaent disability wasn't so great.
My Roomba self-charges - All I have to do is plug it in the wall. Its not like I have to turn a crank for eight hours.
Sheesh - that is absolute baloney. First, its a two-bit whore not a two dollar whore; and second, US politicians are often ridiculous, but they're not stupid enough to think that a lack of $2 bills is going to do anything at all to prostitution. Hundred dollar bills are the lingua franca of the drug trade, but don't expect them to be recalled anytime soon. Two-dollar bills were phased out because inflation decreased the value of the dollar to the point where there simply wasn't enough difference between a $1 and $2 amount. It wasn't worth the cost or effort to make them or sort them.
ALso you have to consider cost. There are 100,000 of these powerless phones, and the cost of putting solar cells and storage batteries on each one of them them would be astronomical. You would also have to put them high up (i.e. not cheaply on the top of the phone) to prevent vandalism, adding a big cost. Batteries and solar panels would have to be replaced periodicaly, adding to both hardware and servicing costs. Far from being "cheaper in the long run" solar powered payphone WiFi would be a money and resource pit for the phone company.
It is a rare manager that just needs some code pounded out. What managers need is someone who can understand what the project is, help in the planning, coordinate with others, actually write waht was asked for, offer ideas on how to make it better, and interact with customers to understand their needs. Managers also want someone who is likely to stay with the company for longer than six months - hiring people is hard work.
Older workers generally have those skills from having had to learn them in previous work situations while younger workers are still developing their skills in those areas.
There are exceptions of course - there are younger workers who can do those things just are there are totally clueless older workers.
All in all I would think that older programmers would find it easier to get jobs.
Cropping the top and the bottom of a 4:3 screen would have the added advntage of elliminating those annoying scrolling messages on all the news channels that take up 20% of the screen with useless graphics while repeating the same headlines ad nauseum.
Sorry but yo are wrong. Copyright infringement is by legal definition theft of intellectual property.
It doesn't sound like much now, but in 1970 this was simply amazing and began my lifelong fascination with computers.
Do you have live entertainment? Then it really would be Bandwidth. Get it? Band-width? Get it? Huh? Get it? Heh heh... Sorry.
I hereby make notice that I will never re-visit any site that co-ops my screen for 15 seconds with an ad.
As I think about it that may not be true. Everyone should re-visit these sites periodically to gather a list of all their advertisers. Each and every one of the advertisers should be contacted with a message stating they advertise on a site that abuses its customers (even if they are not the ones with the 15 second ad) and until this practice stops you will not buy their products. That will get the advertisers attention, and they will get the web site administrators attention. The people with the money have a lot more power over these sites than do you or I.
Yes, I am sure, or at least that's what they taught us in the biohazard and microbiology courses in grad school. You left out my parenthetical "(but not all)".
Sorry I didn't see the italics - you are right I incorrectly attributed that statement to you - sorry.
Actually viruses don't "target" anyone. Thinking that way imparts them with a purpose they don't have. They have hosts. I think you are reaching too far when you argue that the old and young will not be more adversely effected if they acquire SARS.
I frankly have not heard your stats that 20-40 year olds were preferentially infected in 1914. If true, perhaps greater total number of fatailities among that demographic had something to do with WWI and the military camps that put hundreds of thousands of 20-40 year olds in close proximity to each other. I suspect that you have interpreted the gross fatality numbers and come up with the incorrect conclusion that the fatality RATE was higher for 20-40 year olds when it was just total number killed that was higher. It would be very hard to convice me that 1000 20 year olds infected with Spanish Flu would have a higher mortality rate than 1000 infected 70 year olds. I would bet a lot that the mortality RATE was higher among the old and the young in 1914.