Careful. This was not a racist statement. The poster was making reference to an extremely competitive market. This kind of thing makes folks do nasty things (in every country).
The fact is, many asian countries (especially Japan) have a HUGE market for consumer electronics, and some realy nastiness is inevitable.
Had the poster made a reference to an intrinsic quality of the asian people (whatever that means, lots of cultures over there), you'd be right.
I was told by a fellow from O'Reilly that the person who decides such things has final say, so while some connections are obvious (perl=camel), some (JavaScript=rhino?) will stay a mystery.
Heh, it was for its time, but with the new browser versions, the 2nd edition is about twice the size as the old ones. 'tis the problem with client side web stuff, new browsers don't mean that you can stop supporting the older ones.
I have this book, and it's neither cheap nor light, but definitely worth having as a reference.
The analogy isn't quite right... it'd be more like, blow up cars when they are stolen... but it'd still never fly (the idea... the car might go BOOM and fly).
Yeah, the wings were more for steering than lift, in truth. But the aircraft had to be lifted by a B-52 and did not travel anything like a traditional rocket.
4-1 is a very very poor ratio for a glider.
280,000 feet? I don't think it flew that high... that's even higher than the blackbird.
The X Rocket planes were very advanced and fast, but they were still held aloft by aerodynamic lift (at least as much as a F-16 is now). A rocket has zero aerodynamic lift, but a massive amount of thrust.
I will give you that the X-planes advanced rocketry, but they were completely different vehicles than a Saturn V.
Also, the shuttle doesn't generate significant lift either. Re-entry is essentially a controlled fall used to bleed off speed. It has a 4-1 glide ratio, which is pretty poor. If a landing is blown, there is no way of pulling up and trying again.
So? Set your tolerance higher... If you read at 2 or 3, most of the blatant trolls/flamebait/slurs will not be visible, and you don't have to be offended.
An alternate theory is that you recognize that racism exists in the world, and give it the attention it deserves, none.
Russia has lost crews (dunno how many men. no more than 3 each) on reentry I think. One accidently vented his air to space (the capsule landed automatically) and one had a heater failure and had an ice cube for a parachute... impacted siberia at about 400 mph.
The SU has had some spectacular failures on launch (big boosters make big explosions), but supposedly no deaths on launch.
Eh, faith may be very popular, it isn't the default. If you don't teach the kid language (skills, faith, whatever), he/she just won't have them. It IS true that this untrained person won't fit very well into a group of trained individuals, however.
I'll meet you halfway and say that _questioning_ is inherent. Some folks choose to get the answers from holy books, some from their own observations, and some decide that they'll never know.
Unfortunately, most (not all) organized religions claim tolerance, but believe they are the only correct one (I always laugh at a catholic mocking a baptist for "thinking he's got the only true religion... fool, WE do", for example). It's not a long way from "I know the true nature of god/life/whatever" to "Why don't you know the true nature" to "I'll kill you for not knowing".
If I understood _why_ this happened, I'd be posting it somewhere more mainstream than slashdot.:)
Atheism isn't a matter of faith folks, at least not for all atheists. I understand the gut reaction to something that refutes your beliefs, but you're confused.
I won't bother fanning the flames, but you might be interested in Douglas Adams (an atheist) essay on why he does not 'believe there is no god' but rather is 'convinced that there is no god'. It's a good read, in his very last book, "The Salmon of Doubt"
Not true. There are (by my observation) 2 main types of atheists:
1) The ones who for some reason are upset (angry, afraid, whatever) with "God", and thus deny the existence thereof. Many of these folks are unhappy and a bit hostile. A lot of atheists get a bad rap because of this.
2) Those of us who simply see no conclusive evidence for a god (or if you're afraid of commitment, you call yoursef agnostic:)), and so don't believe. These type of people are typically quieter about their lack of faith.
The logic that 'you must believe to deny' is flawed... it assumes that faith is the default.
I maintain that faith is trained into people, the default is probably to believe nothing (in the sense that we don't know language, social skills, etc. before we are trained.)
Slashdot Mirror
It's kinda like a firmware update, except they call is "flimsy(reasonoing)ware"
Careful. This was not a racist statement. The poster was making reference to an extremely competitive market. This kind of thing makes folks do nasty things (in every country).
The fact is, many asian countries (especially Japan) have a HUGE market for consumer electronics, and some realy nastiness is inevitable.
Had the poster made a reference to an intrinsic quality of the asian people (whatever that means, lots of cultures over there), you'd be right.
I was told by a fellow from O'Reilly that the person who decides such things has final say, so while some connections are obvious (perl=camel), some (JavaScript=rhino?) will stay a mystery.
The problem with the first edition is that it doesn't cover recent browsers (and the &^@#% DOM keeps changing).
And that doesn't include the cost of beefing up the suspension in the car, to get the book home...
Heh, it was for its time, but with the new browser versions, the 2nd edition is about twice the size as the old ones. 'tis the problem with client side web stuff, new browsers don't mean that you can stop supporting the older ones.
I have this book, and it's neither cheap nor light, but definitely worth having as a reference.
The analogy isn't quite right... it'd be more like, blow up cars when they are stolen... but it'd still never fly (the idea... the car might go BOOM and fly).
yipe, I stand corrected (and impressed)!
Yeah, the wings were more for steering than lift, in truth. But the aircraft had to be lifted by a B-52 and did not travel anything like a traditional rocket.
4-1 is a very very poor ratio for a glider.
280,000 feet? I don't think it flew that high... that's even higher than the blackbird.
Ok.
The X Rocket planes were very advanced and fast, but they were still held aloft by aerodynamic lift (at least as much as a F-16 is now). A rocket has zero aerodynamic lift, but a massive amount of thrust.
I will give you that the X-planes advanced rocketry, but they were completely different vehicles than a Saturn V.
Also, the shuttle doesn't generate significant lift either. Re-entry is essentially a controlled fall used to bleed off speed. It has a 4-1 glide ratio, which is pretty poor. If a landing is blown, there is no way of pulling up and trying again.
Sorry man, but you're wrong. Can we let it go?
Sorry slick, that pretty poor logic. That 2 events occur in succession does not mean that one naturally led to the other.
Boy, that's a good point. Nowhere else in the world has racially influenced conflicts.
:)
Except europe.
and asia.
and africa.
and south america.
Aussies can't be bothered to fight, and antarctica is too cold
So? Set your tolerance higher... If you read at 2 or 3, most of the blatant trolls/flamebait/slurs will not be visible, and you don't have to be offended.
An alternate theory is that you recognize that racism exists in the world, and give it the attention it deserves, none.
There's a slight difference between a 100 foot flight in a light aircraft, and launching a 7 million pound rocket, I think.
I am still amazed that we went from 'can't fly' to 'can land on other astronomical bodies' in less than a lifetime.
Hell, my F-150 could cost that much when gas prices spiked... granted, I have a 38 gallon tank, but still.
Diesel engines don't use spark plugs, they use compression (and a glow plug).
Fortune had this for LOTR:
"some guys take a long vacation and throw a ring in a volcano"
Perl doesn't force bad habits. It does allow them, and it also allows you to use very strict rules, depends on how you want to do it.
:)
It's part of the culture. The only culture I've seen stronger is the 'java-is-new-java-is-good-all-hail-java' zombies
No I am not dead. I am having my rights slowly eroded, however.
Russia has lost crews (dunno how many men. no more than 3 each) on reentry I think. One accidently vented his air to space (the capsule landed automatically) and one had a heater failure and had an ice cube for a parachute... impacted siberia at about 400 mph.
The SU has had some spectacular failures on launch (big boosters make big explosions), but supposedly no deaths on launch.
probably everyone except the guy who gets mocked :)
then again, a whole lot of "MS SUCKS" posts might qualify.
heh, we need a new mod level, -1, CheapShot
Eh, faith may be very popular, it isn't the default. If you don't teach the kid language (skills, faith, whatever), he/she just won't have them. It IS true that this untrained person won't fit very well into a group of trained individuals, however.
:)
I'll meet you halfway and say that _questioning_ is inherent. Some folks choose to get the answers from holy books, some from their own observations, and some decide that they'll never know.
Unfortunately, most (not all) organized religions claim tolerance, but believe they are the only correct one (I always laugh at a catholic mocking a baptist for "thinking he's got the only true religion... fool, WE do", for example). It's not a long way from "I know the true nature of god/life/whatever" to "Why don't you know the true nature" to "I'll kill you for not knowing".
If I understood _why_ this happened, I'd be posting it somewhere more mainstream than slashdot.
Atheism isn't a matter of faith folks, at least not for all atheists. I understand the gut reaction to something that refutes your beliefs, but you're confused.
I won't bother fanning the flames, but you might be interested in Douglas Adams (an atheist) essay on why he does not 'believe there is no god' but rather is 'convinced that there is no god'. It's a good read, in his very last book, "The Salmon of Doubt"
Not true. There are (by my observation) 2 main types of atheists:
:)), and so don't believe. These type of people are typically quieter about their lack of faith.
1) The ones who for some reason are upset (angry, afraid, whatever) with "God", and thus deny the existence thereof. Many of these folks are unhappy and a bit hostile. A lot of atheists get a bad rap because of this.
2) Those of us who simply see no conclusive evidence for a god (or if you're afraid of commitment, you call yoursef agnostic
The logic that 'you must believe to deny' is flawed... it assumes that faith is the default.
I maintain that faith is trained into people, the default is probably to believe nothing (in the sense that we don't know language, social skills, etc. before we are trained.)