Everywhere I go (NYC subways, PATH trains, stores, etc), people stand on the right on escalators and the left is reserved for people who walk up. Yes, there's an occasional clueless person, but a polite "excuse me" usually gets the message across.
A polite 'excuse me' works in NYC simply because it causes the recipient to die of shock-induced cardiac arrest on the spot.
The US congress declared war for the last time (so far) in June 5, 1942 and this is what it takes for you to be formally in a war. So the president probably can't use anything that can be done only in times of war.
Makes sense. Somebody should probably tell that to Truman, LBJ, and Nixon, because using the draft during those "police actions" (or whatever they called it) would probably apply.
This gets harder if you insert labeling and order, so keep it simple. In fact, I'll give you a version you can replicate yourself. Make three cards, each of which has two faces. Make one card red on front and back, one that's black on front and back, and one that has one red and one black face. Draw a card *and only look at one face*. Let's say you draw one with a black face - what's the odds that the other side is also black?
Hint: it's *not* 50/50. I'll assume you can see the connection between this test that you can replicate and the gender-related problem you addressed.
Yes, so indeed did I. Not just read. I joined, commented, contributed cash, believed the hype, thought I was helping, proofed, supplied corrections blah, blah.
Then saw the insidious, and frankly ugly, nature of the moderation system, plus I couldn't quite reconcile the "open source" rhetoric on the site with the "This is my space, agree with me completely or fuck off"
Oh yes, and the attack dogs. Jeez, disagree & you'd be jelly in a blender. "You dare impugn the God that is Pamela Jones? I will hunt down your children"
You don't exactly see your local plumber driving his supplies in an Escalade, though. GP's point is about SUVs etc owned by people who don't use that extra "utility", not actual utility vehicles used for actual utility.
Neither common theists or atheists have any real comprehension of advanced scientific or theological concepts, yet both are constantly referring to them in an attempt to "prove" their claims
"Prove" is an interesting word choice there. "Prove" seems a very science-oriented word, evokes the whole scientific method and all that. I think bad things happen when religion tries to compete with science on the basis of proof, because it's simply not evidentiary. This is where intelligent design goes wrong, for instance. On the other hand, trying to hold faith up to standards of evidence is pretty stoopid too.
My opinion is that proof is the domain of science, and faith the domain of religion. Whichever camp strays outside those boundaries in an argument is the idjit. In the case of ID folks trying to interject faith into science class, that's their bad. It would be like a scientist disrupting a church service to try to tell them they're all wrong. Everybody stay in your lane, we'll all get along fine.
(the Big Bang seems to fly in the face of the second law of thermodynamics IMO)
Huh? What could generate more entropy than creating a bunch of chaos and heat occupying a huge volume (ie, the known universe) out of a completely symmetric singularity of enormous mass? The big bang is definitely a downhill entropic process and most certainly obeys the 2nd law.
Seriously, this is my problem with your usual creationist (well, one among many). If you want to attack the science, you need to understand it better.
I completely agree, it's surprising how many people think that when they send something to EVERYONE, that they have no ability to tell EVERYONE that "that was a secret. don't tell anybody, K?"
Interestingly, that seems to be DirecTV's business model.
Just find the people from the Movie 2012 to help you figure out how to make the Neutrinos act like Microwaves, then you could totally make this experiment easy!... seriously... did anyone else need a friend to "dumb up" the science dialog for them?
I had the pleasure of (involuntarily) watching that piece of shit this weekend. Sadly, the liberties taken with science were the least of that movie's problems. I'd start with the terrible script, lack of editing (solid hour too long), screwed up pacing, repetitive scenes, 70s-grade CGI, and heavy handed moralizing. Compared to that, they could have said that neutrinos turn into faerie dust and I'd have been fine.
I'm not really understanding these people who are trying to get him to complicate his "project" by adding scripting/programming languages, or arguing that he should switch his infrastructure over to linux (debian-based in your particular case, I assume). Just write the damn batch script in a KISS fashion, and as long as it works, he's set.
Well, I think the whole thing started when he, you know, *asked slashdot* for alternatives.
It's not like we called the guy up to offer unsolicited advice, for fuck's sake.
There are plenty of doges you can use, perl, python, bash, and lots more. But all of them add a level of complexity to this that the batch file doesn't have.
What complexity does python add (for instance)? From the user's standpoint, if the.py file is associated with python (and it will be), double-clicking on the icon will run just like a batch file. And as pointed out, python can execute system commands too.
I can see wanting to avoid cygwin, but python's a breeze.
With an earthquake, at least all of your stuff is in the hole that used to be your house, rather than scattered around the county.
Problem is, so are you.
Hurricanes are predictable days in advance. Flooding generally is too, outside of flash flooding - but even then, given a small amount of common sense, you stay away from moving water and you're OK. So you're left with tornadoes, for which most areas have warning systems that at usually give you 10 minutes at least. So long as you have permanent shelter within that radius, you're OK.
The real risk for tornadoes is if you're driving. Been there, not fun. Still, the relative risk is low.
How can we download an entire movie within, say, one minute? Getting the speed up is more important than deciding how to allocate it.
Is it? Who gets to decide how much speed is allocated to the connection between you and the site you're downloading from? Without net neutrality, the answer will be "whoever pays your ISP". In other words, the only sites that will see decent bandwidth are those to which you've subscribed in some way, probably - because it's those sites that will be able to bribe your ISP.
So where are you getting this movie? Also note, since you made the movie example, that in the absence of net neutrality, the MAFIAA will be even stronger - they'll pay your ISP to throttle non-cartel sources of music/movies in favor of their own offerings.
It was greedy and evil- but the Native Americans were killed to steal from them, not to wipe them out. \
In many cases, that is factually incorrect. Look into the work that was done to eradicate the buffalo, which served as a primary source of food, clothing, and practically everything else to the Native Americans of the plains. This was done with the express intent. Also consider the intentional spread of disease (smallpox) via contaminated materials and exposure - often this was done intentionally once it was realized that the Native Americans had no resistance. Then consider the means of removal - a 1000 mile march with virtually nothing in terms of food, shelter, or otherwise. Yes, this was done with the express intent of killing off as many as possible.
The Trail of Tears was not a genocidal act. It was a greedy act. The Cherokee were on land with gold, and that was that.
And as part of the relocation, one had to give them land. If you can kill a bunch off them, you don't have to provide land for as many. You don't seem to realize the great level of antipathy that white Americans had for native Americans at that time. You seem to believe that these decisions were made dispassionately, when little could be further from the truth.
You also seem to think that motives of greed and genocide are mutually exclusive. They are not. In this case, killing Indians was often the cheapest option. Means to an end.
Manifest Destiny... look it up. Think of it as a democratic jihad. Not a good idea. The British had a similar notion: The White Man's Burden. Well meaning ideas that just result in a lot misfortune.
Misfortune there was. I'd go a step further - Manifest Destiny wasn't even well-meaning, unless you subscribe to the notion that the white man was doing a service to Native Americans by killing them.
The great tragedy to me is that while we as western civilization have done a somewhat serviceable job of preaching the evils of slavery and of the German genocide against the Jews, but we seem to be trying to forget the genocide we practiced against Native Americans. Manifest Destiny was no less than that.
Wonder if these new Texas books teach the Trail of Tears. I have my doubts.
Ok, slightly less mathematical and scientific than you. The article says 10,000+ sq miles surface area slick. Assuming this is 1 molecule thick and assume that each molecule is touching each other and atom size of 1 angstrom and average atomic weight of 9 au, we get total volume of 12 million Ga. Again the article claims this is about 20% of total, so we get total of 60 million Ga. this is about 25 times that of the estimate based on 5000 barrels a day.
Not sure about that. First, you can't assume the molecules pack tightly, because they don't. Second, you can look up the thickness of a monolayer of oil - I found it to be about 1E-9 to 1E-8 m, which seems pretty reasonable for long chain hydrocarbns. Third, since we're talking volume, you don't need the atomic/molecular weight at all. Area * thickness = volume.
Assuming my back of the envelope math is close, 10,000mi2 * 1E-8m gives about 250m3 (assuming upper bound of 1E-8 m thickness) which gives about 65000 gallons, or about 1600 barrels. Using your 20% figure, one arrives at about 8000 barrels.
That seems rather low - perhaps it's not a monolayer of oil floating on the surface because the enormous volume hasn't been able to equilibrate. Either way, I think it's probably dangerous to try to estimate this thing using that sort of method.
Really who copies something from the outputs of their set-top boxes? Anyone here? (legit question)
If I understand, the question is "why record to an external medium when the DVR already has it recorded", correct?
Two reasons: 1) Long term storage of stuff you've recorded but you don't want clogging your DVR. Wouldn't be a problem if I could swap out the hard drive on the damn DVR, but I think it's 40GB or something equally stupid. I've recorded things to DVD that I want to watch again multiple times. 2) Copying of DVR'd stuff to DVD for playing in the car. My fellow breeders will understand.
You really think Apple won't incorporate any of Lala's streaming services into a cloud based version of iTunes? Really?
Might, might not. Did they need to buy Lala to do that? Not likely.
I thought Slashdot users were supposed to be intelligent and rational, instead of spewing hatred at any corporation that dares to try to make some money.
And I thought Slashdot users were supposed to be able to read above a 3rd-grade level. I don't "spew hatred" at Apple. Nor do I begrudge them profit. In fact, had you read a touch more closely - or at all - I pointed out that buying and shutting down Lala was probably a good move by Apple. I stand by that based on the obvious motive of taking out the competition.
Buying and shutting down competitors is incredibly common, even if the competitor is losing money it can still make good business sense.
You do it if they have some IP you want (a patent, for example), or if you're afraid they will set a poor legal precedent that will hurt you (Google buying Youtube), or if you just want their customer list.
Right. But those reasons don't apply well here. There doesn't seem to have been an IP issue. Not aware of any legal issues. I think iTunes has all the customer lists it needs.
Most likely reason here is the obvious - Apple paid Lala "Go away" money. Apple wants to be the predominant online music vendor, and they identified a company with a business model that could potentially threaten iTunes' market share. So they bought them and shut them down. The motive is obvious and there's nothing to be done about it.
Lala's streaming part of their business model may have had problems with paying for streaming rights
Doesn't pass the smell test. Recall that they were bought 6 months ago. Not years, months. How likely is it that their core business, which was worth $80M 6 months ago, is now worth $0? Note that Apple isn't even spinning it off, or selling the unit to someone else. I'm not aware of any IP or other considerations that pushes that current $0 value northward. They're just shutting it down and writing it off.
Again, there's only one reason that isn't completely stupid - the cessation of Lala's operation is worth more than $80M to Apple over the long term. From their standpoint, isn't $80M of insurance worth it if it helps you take out a promising young competitor before it's too late?
Apple may be overly controlling, but it seems to work well for them and their target market. Don't you remember how fast the iPhone grew and how it changed the world of smartphones?
Commercial success doesn't mean they're on the right side of every issue. Change 'Apple' to 'Standard Oil' and the comparison is suddenly less appealing.
In this case, the fact that Steve Jobs has to confront this issue head-on is proof enough that there is a call for them to offer something they're not, and their 'target market' isn't completely pacified.
Slashdot Mirror
Everywhere I go (NYC subways, PATH trains, stores, etc), people stand on the right on escalators and the left is reserved for people who walk up. Yes, there's an occasional clueless person, but a polite "excuse me" usually gets the message across.
A polite 'excuse me' works in NYC simply because it causes the recipient to die of shock-induced cardiac arrest on the spot.
The US congress declared war for the last time (so far) in June 5, 1942 and this is what it takes for you to be formally in a war. So the president probably can't use anything that can be done only in times of war.
Makes sense. Somebody should probably tell that to Truman, LBJ, and Nixon, because using the draft during those "police actions" (or whatever they called it) would probably apply.
This gets harder if you insert labeling and order, so keep it simple. In fact, I'll give you a version you can replicate yourself. Make three cards, each of which has two faces. Make one card red on front and back, one that's black on front and back, and one that has one red and one black face. Draw a card *and only look at one face*. Let's say you draw one with a black face - what's the odds that the other side is also black?
Hint: it's *not* 50/50. I'll assume you can see the connection between this test that you can replicate and the gender-related problem you addressed.
Yes, so indeed did I. Not just read. I joined, commented, contributed cash, believed the hype, thought I was helping, proofed, supplied corrections blah, blah. Then saw the insidious, and frankly ugly, nature of the moderation system, plus I couldn't quite reconcile the "open source" rhetoric on the site with the "This is my space, agree with me completely or fuck off" Oh yes, and the attack dogs. Jeez, disagree & you'd be jelly in a blender. "You dare impugn the God that is Pamela Jones? I will hunt down your children"
I didn't know Pam invented Wikipedia.
In other words, the last 10% only gives you 3% more power?
You win the cookie! Hey, at least the derivative d(power)/d(Ethanol) wasn't *negative*.
You don't exactly see your local plumber driving his supplies in an Escalade, though. GP's point is about SUVs etc owned by people who don't use that extra "utility", not actual utility vehicles used for actual utility.
Never mind the gas-sucking 4WD.
Neither common theists or atheists have any real comprehension of advanced scientific or theological concepts, yet both are constantly referring to them in an attempt to "prove" their claims
"Prove" is an interesting word choice there. "Prove" seems a very science-oriented word, evokes the whole scientific method and all that. I think bad things happen when religion tries to compete with science on the basis of proof, because it's simply not evidentiary. This is where intelligent design goes wrong, for instance. On the other hand, trying to hold faith up to standards of evidence is pretty stoopid too.
My opinion is that proof is the domain of science, and faith the domain of religion. Whichever camp strays outside those boundaries in an argument is the idjit. In the case of ID folks trying to interject faith into science class, that's their bad. It would be like a scientist disrupting a church service to try to tell them they're all wrong. Everybody stay in your lane, we'll all get along fine.
(the Big Bang seems to fly in the face of the second law of thermodynamics IMO)
Huh? What could generate more entropy than creating a bunch of chaos and heat occupying a huge volume (ie, the known universe) out of a completely symmetric singularity of enormous mass? The big bang is definitely a downhill entropic process and most certainly obeys the 2nd law.
Seriously, this is my problem with your usual creationist (well, one among many). If you want to attack the science, you need to understand it better.
I completely agree, it's surprising how many people think that when they send something to EVERYONE, that they have no ability to tell EVERYONE that "that was a secret. don't tell anybody, K?"
Interestingly, that seems to be DirecTV's business model.
Just find the people from the Movie 2012 to help you figure out how to make the Neutrinos act like Microwaves, then you could totally make this experiment easy! ... seriously... did anyone else need a friend to "dumb up" the science dialog for them?
I had the pleasure of (involuntarily) watching that piece of shit this weekend. Sadly, the liberties taken with science were the least of that movie's problems. I'd start with the terrible script, lack of editing (solid hour too long), screwed up pacing, repetitive scenes, 70s-grade CGI, and heavy handed moralizing. Compared to that, they could have said that neutrinos turn into faerie dust and I'd have been fine.
I'm not really understanding these people who are trying to get him to complicate his "project" by adding scripting/programming languages, or arguing that he should switch his infrastructure over to linux (debian-based in your particular case, I assume). Just write the damn batch script in a KISS fashion, and as long as it works, he's set.
Well, I think the whole thing started when he, you know, *asked slashdot* for alternatives.
It's not like we called the guy up to offer unsolicited advice, for fuck's sake.
There are plenty of doges you can use, perl, python, bash, and lots more. But all of them add a level of complexity to this that the batch file doesn't have.
What complexity does python add (for instance)? From the user's standpoint, if the .py file is associated with python (and it will be), double-clicking on the icon will run just like a batch file. And as pointed out, python can execute system commands too.
I can see wanting to avoid cygwin, but python's a breeze.
ignoring you're complete inability to form a sentence
Hey everybody, 'tard fight! Come watch!
Look I cut open a cat and inserted a wifi router... CATS CAN CONNECT TO WIFI!!!! Can I be a scientist? It seems I meet the qualifications.
Hell, with that sort of ingenuity, you should be able to get tenure.
With an earthquake, at least all of your stuff is in the hole that used to be your house, rather than scattered around the county.
Problem is, so are you.
Hurricanes are predictable days in advance. Flooding generally is too, outside of flash flooding - but even then, given a small amount of common sense, you stay away from moving water and you're OK. So you're left with tornadoes, for which most areas have warning systems that at usually give you 10 minutes at least. So long as you have permanent shelter within that radius, you're OK.
The real risk for tornadoes is if you're driving. Been there, not fun. Still, the relative risk is low.
How can we download an entire movie within, say, one minute? Getting the speed up is more important than deciding how to allocate it.
Is it? Who gets to decide how much speed is allocated to the connection between you and the site you're downloading from? Without net neutrality, the answer will be "whoever pays your ISP". In other words, the only sites that will see decent bandwidth are those to which you've subscribed in some way, probably - because it's those sites that will be able to bribe your ISP.
So where are you getting this movie? Also note, since you made the movie example, that in the absence of net neutrality, the MAFIAA will be even stronger - they'll pay your ISP to throttle non-cartel sources of music/movies in favor of their own offerings.
It was greedy and evil- but the Native Americans were killed to steal from them, not to wipe them out. \
In many cases, that is factually incorrect. Look into the work that was done to eradicate the buffalo, which served as a primary source of food, clothing, and practically everything else to the Native Americans of the plains. This was done with the express intent. Also consider the intentional spread of disease (smallpox) via contaminated materials and exposure - often this was done intentionally once it was realized that the Native Americans had no resistance. Then consider the means of removal - a 1000 mile march with virtually nothing in terms of food, shelter, or otherwise. Yes, this was done with the express intent of killing off as many as possible.
The Trail of Tears was not a genocidal act. It was a greedy act. The Cherokee were on land with gold, and that was that.
And as part of the relocation, one had to give them land. If you can kill a bunch off them, you don't have to provide land for as many. You don't seem to realize the great level of antipathy that white Americans had for native Americans at that time. You seem to believe that these decisions were made dispassionately, when little could be further from the truth.
You also seem to think that motives of greed and genocide are mutually exclusive. They are not. In this case, killing Indians was often the cheapest option. Means to an end.
Replacing the vowel in profanity with some other character doesn't fool anyone. Everyone knows still you're swearing.
Not to mention ironic, since the article in question deals with anti-censorship statutes.
Manifest Destiny ... look it up. Think of it as a democratic jihad. Not a good idea. The British had a similar notion: The White Man's Burden. Well meaning ideas that just result in a lot misfortune.
Misfortune there was. I'd go a step further - Manifest Destiny wasn't even well-meaning, unless you subscribe to the notion that the white man was doing a service to Native Americans by killing them.
The great tragedy to me is that while we as western civilization have done a somewhat serviceable job of preaching the evils of slavery and of the German genocide against the Jews, but we seem to be trying to forget the genocide we practiced against Native Americans. Manifest Destiny was no less than that.
Wonder if these new Texas books teach the Trail of Tears. I have my doubts.
Ok, slightly less mathematical and scientific than you. The article says 10,000+ sq miles surface area slick. Assuming this is 1 molecule thick and assume that each molecule is touching each other and atom size of 1 angstrom and average atomic weight of 9 au, we get total volume of 12 million Ga. Again the article claims this is about 20% of total, so we get total of 60 million Ga. this is about 25 times that of the estimate based on 5000 barrels a day.
Not sure about that. First, you can't assume the molecules pack tightly, because they don't. Second, you can look up the thickness of a monolayer of oil - I found it to be about 1E-9 to 1E-8 m, which seems pretty reasonable for long chain hydrocarbns. Third, since we're talking volume, you don't need the atomic/molecular weight at all. Area * thickness = volume.
Assuming my back of the envelope math is close, 10,000mi2 * 1E-8m gives about 250m3 (assuming upper bound of 1E-8 m thickness) which gives about 65000 gallons, or about 1600 barrels. Using your 20% figure, one arrives at about 8000 barrels.
That seems rather low - perhaps it's not a monolayer of oil floating on the surface because the enormous volume hasn't been able to equilibrate. Either way, I think it's probably dangerous to try to estimate this thing using that sort of method.
Really who copies something from the outputs of their set-top boxes? Anyone here? (legit question)
If I understand, the question is "why record to an external medium when the DVR already has it recorded", correct?
Two reasons: 1) Long term storage of stuff you've recorded but you don't want clogging your DVR. Wouldn't be a problem if I could swap out the hard drive on the damn DVR, but I think it's 40GB or something equally stupid. I've recorded things to DVD that I want to watch again multiple times. 2) Copying of DVR'd stuff to DVD for playing in the car. My fellow breeders will understand.
You really think Apple won't incorporate any of Lala's streaming services into a cloud based version of iTunes? Really?
Might, might not. Did they need to buy Lala to do that? Not likely.
I thought Slashdot users were supposed to be intelligent and rational, instead of spewing hatred at any corporation that dares to try to make some money.
And I thought Slashdot users were supposed to be able to read above a 3rd-grade level. I don't "spew hatred" at Apple. Nor do I begrudge them profit. In fact, had you read a touch more closely - or at all - I pointed out that buying and shutting down Lala was probably a good move by Apple. I stand by that based on the obvious motive of taking out the competition.
Buying and shutting down competitors is incredibly common, even if the competitor is losing money it can still make good business sense. You do it if they have some IP you want (a patent, for example), or if you're afraid they will set a poor legal precedent that will hurt you (Google buying Youtube), or if you just want their customer list.
Right. But those reasons don't apply well here. There doesn't seem to have been an IP issue. Not aware of any legal issues. I think iTunes has all the customer lists it needs.
Most likely reason here is the obvious - Apple paid Lala "Go away" money. Apple wants to be the predominant online music vendor, and they identified a company with a business model that could potentially threaten iTunes' market share. So they bought them and shut them down. The motive is obvious and there's nothing to be done about it.
Lala's streaming part of their business model may have had problems with paying for streaming rights
Doesn't pass the smell test. Recall that they were bought 6 months ago. Not years, months. How likely is it that their core business, which was worth $80M 6 months ago, is now worth $0? Note that Apple isn't even spinning it off, or selling the unit to someone else. I'm not aware of any IP or other considerations that pushes that current $0 value northward. They're just shutting it down and writing it off.
Again, there's only one reason that isn't completely stupid - the cessation of Lala's operation is worth more than $80M to Apple over the long term. From their standpoint, isn't $80M of insurance worth it if it helps you take out a promising young competitor before it's too late?
Apple may be overly controlling, but it seems to work well for them and their target market. Don't you remember how fast the iPhone grew and how it changed the world of smartphones?
Commercial success doesn't mean they're on the right side of every issue. Change 'Apple' to 'Standard Oil' and the comparison is suddenly less appealing.
In this case, the fact that Steve Jobs has to confront this issue head-on is proof enough that there is a call for them to offer something they're not, and their 'target market' isn't completely pacified.
You forgot "bigger and harder" in the title. This whole thread is just one big Freudian slit.