Probably the only smart decision this man has made. I offer into evidence a line from "From the Earth to the Moon" series. "Pumping that much cash into the private sector could be very popular"...of course, ironically, that's tempered by that douchebag Al Franken who is supposed to be the science adviser but who has less than zero ability to dream.
Point #1: I can simulate anything in Google Earth too. Hell, Hollywood does it all the time. Doesn't mean it can or will happen. #2: Assuming that the premise is accurate then I submit to you that THERE is the reason for global CO2 levels rising because less carbon is being stored in trees because there are fewer trees. Who has been cutting down forests like crazy in the last 15 years or so? South America. #3: turning forest land into farm land is nothing new and it often reverses. Case in point, upstate New York has millions of acres of what was once farm land as is evidenced by stone walls everywhere. Walls don't happen by themselves. 18th century farmers cut down the forest and moved the rocks to make crop and grazing land. Now, much of that has been abandoned and is returning back to forests.
Which is why human intelligence is much more useful than signal intelligence (data mining). You can't get a sense of a person's thoughts by reading something nearly as well as you can by talking to them. IMHO, fighting any war remotely will last much longer than one fought with boots on the ground.
I've read in several disparate sources that the Corps repeatedly informed the powers-that-be in Louisiana and New Orleans that the levies were insufficient but were regularly ignored.
IMHO, the media is mostly to blame for this. Next time you're bored, start counting how many commercials and sitcoms on TV (and even movies) portray the husband/boyfriend as a complete neanderthal moron and the wife/girlfriend as a level-headed rocket scientist. And can anyone remember when TLC had stuff worth watching? Now you are told what not to wear, that gay men know what women want in a straight guy, that it's okay to have eight or more ankle-biters and yet still have a completely dysfunctional family.
This is nothing new. I remember a biology professor who used an overhead projector with rolls of acetate attached. The guy used a marker in one hand and cranked the roll with the other so fast you couldn't copy everything. Students would bitch and the guy would actually say "Don't worry about it.". GAH!!! It got so bad that people were stealing the roll after class to copy it.
Despite what the entire diet & exercise industry would have you believe, genetics is a major factor. Your metabolic rate is set genetically. Sure you can increase it temporarily but eventually it readjusts to whatever you're activity and food intake level is (starvation notwithstanding) and the weight loss rate flattens out. Personally, every time some schmuck who has NEVER had to lose an ounce in their entire lives tells me to eat less or work out more, I tell them to go eff themselves because they have no goddamn clue what they're talking about. Okay so you go on a diet and three months later you're still on it and not losing or even gaining. That's NOT living. IMHO, the entire diet & exercise industry is predicated on you NOT losing weight and keeping it off because if it worked, you would stop buying what they're selling. IMHO, this is an engineering problem and the solution is not to keep doing something (and paying money for it) for the rest of your life. The proper solution is to change the metabolic rate once and permanently. But of course that isn't the best foundation for making money.
IMHO, wikipedia isn't supposed to be a blog yet unsubstantiated statements can and do appear and even though they are tagged as needing a source it may not matter. An unsubstantiated statement can be copy&pasted instantly by some entity that has a following e.g. a newspaper. Most people wouldn't bother to fact-check it themselves especially if their own belief coincides with the author's. Eventually a dubious statement becomes fact and it's next to impossible to reverse it. IMHO, the difference is the speed at which internet-based statements spread and there's never a fact-check before it's posted.
True but if a blogger can say "Eff you, my source is confidential." even if they made the whole thing up, how can anyone ever sue for libel and slander? Wouldn't it make more sense for a judge or grand jury to ascertain the existence of the source?
How about a hypothetical case: Take Angie's List or any review site. What if you had a business and some competitor made completely false statements about your business? What means do you have to go to that site and demand that false information be pulled? After all, that's hurting your business.
It's different when you can't go after them for liable and viral falsehoods become fact. Case in point: Rush Limbaugh says that the media wants McNabe to do well because he's African American. That statement of opinion then gets distorted by false and unsubstantiated statements on his wikipedia entry. Now, too many people these are all facts and plaster a racist label on him.
I don't disagree with you but a blogger can't be fired or reprimanded especially with the 1st Amendment on their side. However, there have been several high-profile incidents of mainstream media personnel getting appropriately reprimanded. Dan Rather is a recent example.
Does the radar reading have a time stamp? If not, then the case should have gone to the GPS since the accuracy of both were brought into question. That being said, what kind of crappy GPS only samples every 30 seconds? That's useless.
IMHO, this is dangerous. These days, if people see it on the internet, it's true until proven false. Of course in many newspapers that's also the case but it's much easier to come down on them like a ton of bricks and get people fired for spreading lies. Not so with a blogger. They aren't employed by a company generally who can reprimand them for not fact-checking and even if you get a court order to shut them down they'll just move the content to a different place.
Herein lies the essence of the problem: Any idea or piece of technology can be used for both good and evil. However, government rarely takes that into account when creating legislation. Oh, some moron chose not to wear a helmet while riding his motorcycle and splattered his brains all over the road? Well then clearly every motorcycle rider is an idiot and we must save them from themselves and have a law requiring people to wear helmets and fine them if they don't. Look! I did something. Re-elect me. Oh and the government makes money on the deal! How cool is that?
I don't know any computer that uses a 0.1 second tick period. Even crappy Linux 2.4 has a 100 Hz tick rate. I seriously doubt a system like the Patriot would have less than half a mile resolution.
Just go down to your local watering hole any Friday night and you'll see herds of neanderthals hitting on our human women. The real question is why human women go for them. Now if I could just get a couple million dollars of grant money I'd be happy to research the issue.
A) If a trial (IMHO, this isn't a race) doesn't include twisty turny roads it's pointless. B) 300 miles is nothing. I'll regularly drive 700 miles a day and it takes about 10 minutes to refill my tank, empty my other tank and get back on the road. Until THAT problem is solved, don't bore me with this stuff.
When I was in grad school I asked one of the few practical, real-world professors I had about headhunters. He said "Do you mean the guys who kill you and shrink your head or do you mean the guys that get you a job?" I said the latter. He said "Well, you know when you have a barrel of apples?" Umm...yeah... "Well, you empty out that barrel and there's this layer of crud on the bottom." Um....yeah... "You scrape off that layer and underneath are headhunters." Oh, great. He then told me that headhunters will work hard to get you a job but they will work just as hard to make you take a job. Bottom line is that they're in it for their own interests i.e. they get paid by the employer, not for yours. I took a stab at a couple of headhunters over the years and they all were hell-bent on making me take the first job that came down the pike. One required me (in my early 20s) to move to Grass Valley, CA. Not exactly a hotbed of technology or young single women. I turned it down and never heard from that headhunter again. Another wanted me to interview for a company who told him that they didn't want a "Mac bigot". I being a Macintosh programmer at the time decided that what they really wanted was someone who would eventually switch over to the PC version of their product once they sh*tcanned the Mac version. It also told me that they were more "PC bigots" who would poo poo the Mac the first chance they got. Again I turned it down and told the headhunter that I didn't want to go into a hostile work environment from day one. Again, the headhunter blew me off. I never used one again.
Sure, 500 mile range sounds great but unless the thing can be recharged in, say 5-10 minutes, it'll be useless for cross-country travel. One should be able to drive about 700-800 miles solo before calling it a day and getting a hotel. If you're going non-stop with multiple drivers across the U.S., you have to be able to recharge quickly. This is all dependent on the existence of the power-distribution infrastructure too. And then there's the question of load-carrying capability. Four adults plus luggage comfortably seated is probably average. And what about long-term storage of the charge? What's the self-discharge rate of the battery? Can you leave the vehicle sitting unconnected for a month or more without having to charge it? And what about an emergency situation where you run out of schlitz? Will there be a tow-truck-ish mobile charging system that can give you a gallon of electricity?
This concept, like so many others, is a double-edged sword. I personally have seen some brilliant programmers show me some amazing stuff but refused to release it or sell it for nebulous reasons. That having been said, releasing a product that is poorly designed under the hood makes it a nightmare to maintain and can quite easily paint you into a corner. For example, IMHO, nobody should build their own application framework nor should anyone use only what Microsoft or Apple creates. Qt is the right solution because you can concentrate on developing the application and not have to worry about the plumbing. IMHO, this is one major reason why Quickbooks sucks. Intuit should have switched to Qt long ago. The product would have been much better and they'd have the added benefit of true feature parity between the Windows and Mac versions.
When an app offers free voice phone calling over a network infrastructure that makes its money by charging for the same thing, it's pretty clear to me who killed it. Apple only cares about killing something when it directly competes with its own product e.g. Mac clones.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah...so Franken is a method actor.
Probably the only smart decision this man has made. I offer into evidence a line from "From the Earth to the Moon" series. "Pumping that much cash into the private sector could be very popular"...of course, ironically, that's tempered by that douchebag Al Franken who is supposed to be the science adviser but who has less than zero ability to dream.
Point #1: I can simulate anything in Google Earth too. Hell, Hollywood does it all the time. Doesn't mean it can or will happen. #2: Assuming that the premise is accurate then I submit to you that THERE is the reason for global CO2 levels rising because less carbon is being stored in trees because there are fewer trees. Who has been cutting down forests like crazy in the last 15 years or so? South America. #3: turning forest land into farm land is nothing new and it often reverses. Case in point, upstate New York has millions of acres of what was once farm land as is evidenced by stone walls everywhere. Walls don't happen by themselves. 18th century farmers cut down the forest and moved the rocks to make crop and grazing land. Now, much of that has been abandoned and is returning back to forests.
Which is why human intelligence is much more useful than signal intelligence (data mining). You can't get a sense of a person's thoughts by reading something nearly as well as you can by talking to them. IMHO, fighting any war remotely will last much longer than one fought with boots on the ground.
I've read in several disparate sources that the Corps repeatedly informed the powers-that-be in Louisiana and New Orleans that the levies were insufficient but were regularly ignored.
IMHO, the media is mostly to blame for this. Next time you're bored, start counting how many commercials and sitcoms on TV (and even movies) portray the husband/boyfriend as a complete neanderthal moron and the wife/girlfriend as a level-headed rocket scientist. And can anyone remember when TLC had stuff worth watching? Now you are told what not to wear, that gay men know what women want in a straight guy, that it's okay to have eight or more ankle-biters and yet still have a completely dysfunctional family.
This is nothing new. I remember a biology professor who used an overhead projector with rolls of acetate attached. The guy used a marker in one hand and cranked the roll with the other so fast you couldn't copy everything. Students would bitch and the guy would actually say "Don't worry about it.". GAH!!! It got so bad that people were stealing the roll after class to copy it.
Despite what the entire diet & exercise industry would have you believe, genetics is a major factor. Your metabolic rate is set genetically. Sure you can increase it temporarily but eventually it readjusts to whatever you're activity and food intake level is (starvation notwithstanding) and the weight loss rate flattens out. Personally, every time some schmuck who has NEVER had to lose an ounce in their entire lives tells me to eat less or work out more, I tell them to go eff themselves because they have no goddamn clue what they're talking about. Okay so you go on a diet and three months later you're still on it and not losing or even gaining. That's NOT living. IMHO, the entire diet & exercise industry is predicated on you NOT losing weight and keeping it off because if it worked, you would stop buying what they're selling. IMHO, this is an engineering problem and the solution is not to keep doing something (and paying money for it) for the rest of your life. The proper solution is to change the metabolic rate once and permanently. But of course that isn't the best foundation for making money.
IMHO, wikipedia isn't supposed to be a blog yet unsubstantiated statements can and do appear and even though they are tagged as needing a source it may not matter. An unsubstantiated statement can be copy&pasted instantly by some entity that has a following e.g. a newspaper. Most people wouldn't bother to fact-check it themselves especially if their own belief coincides with the author's. Eventually a dubious statement becomes fact and it's next to impossible to reverse it. IMHO, the difference is the speed at which internet-based statements spread and there's never a fact-check before it's posted.
True but if a blogger can say "Eff you, my source is confidential." even if they made the whole thing up, how can anyone ever sue for libel and slander? Wouldn't it make more sense for a judge or grand jury to ascertain the existence of the source?
How about a hypothetical case: Take Angie's List or any review site. What if you had a business and some competitor made completely false statements about your business? What means do you have to go to that site and demand that false information be pulled? After all, that's hurting your business.
It's different when you can't go after them for liable and viral falsehoods become fact. Case in point: Rush Limbaugh says that the media wants McNabe to do well because he's African American. That statement of opinion then gets distorted by false and unsubstantiated statements on his wikipedia entry. Now, too many people these are all facts and plaster a racist label on him.
Clearly, but that's also pretty lame since there are many inexpensive GPS chipsets that have greater than a 1 Hz update rate.
I don't disagree with you but a blogger can't be fired or reprimanded especially with the 1st Amendment on their side. However, there have been several high-profile incidents of mainstream media personnel getting appropriately reprimanded. Dan Rather is a recent example.
Does the radar reading have a time stamp? If not, then the case should have gone to the GPS since the accuracy of both were brought into question. That being said, what kind of crappy GPS only samples every 30 seconds? That's useless.
IMHO, this is dangerous. These days, if people see it on the internet, it's true until proven false. Of course in many newspapers that's also the case but it's much easier to come down on them like a ton of bricks and get people fired for spreading lies. Not so with a blogger. They aren't employed by a company generally who can reprimand them for not fact-checking and even if you get a court order to shut them down they'll just move the content to a different place.
My guess is that because the user has to walk very slowly to use these things, they notice stuff on the ground that they wouldn't normally see.
Herein lies the essence of the problem: Any idea or piece of technology can be used for both good and evil. However, government rarely takes that into account when creating legislation. Oh, some moron chose not to wear a helmet while riding his motorcycle and splattered his brains all over the road? Well then clearly every motorcycle rider is an idiot and we must save them from themselves and have a law requiring people to wear helmets and fine them if they don't. Look! I did something. Re-elect me. Oh and the government makes money on the deal! How cool is that?
I don't know any computer that uses a 0.1 second tick period. Even crappy Linux 2.4 has a 100 Hz tick rate. I seriously doubt a system like the Patriot would have less than half a mile resolution.
Just go down to your local watering hole any Friday night and you'll see herds of neanderthals hitting on our human women. The real question is why human women go for them. Now if I could just get a couple million dollars of grant money I'd be happy to research the issue.
A) If a trial (IMHO, this isn't a race) doesn't include twisty turny roads it's pointless. B) 300 miles is nothing. I'll regularly drive 700 miles a day and it takes about 10 minutes to refill my tank, empty my other tank and get back on the road. Until THAT problem is solved, don't bore me with this stuff.
When I was in grad school I asked one of the few practical, real-world professors I had about headhunters. He said "Do you mean the guys who kill you and shrink your head or do you mean the guys that get you a job?" I said the latter. He said "Well, you know when you have a barrel of apples?" Umm...yeah... "Well, you empty out that barrel and there's this layer of crud on the bottom." Um....yeah... "You scrape off that layer and underneath are headhunters." Oh, great. He then told me that headhunters will work hard to get you a job but they will work just as hard to make you take a job. Bottom line is that they're in it for their own interests i.e. they get paid by the employer, not for yours. I took a stab at a couple of headhunters over the years and they all were hell-bent on making me take the first job that came down the pike. One required me (in my early 20s) to move to Grass Valley, CA. Not exactly a hotbed of technology or young single women. I turned it down and never heard from that headhunter again. Another wanted me to interview for a company who told him that they didn't want a "Mac bigot". I being a Macintosh programmer at the time decided that what they really wanted was someone who would eventually switch over to the PC version of their product once they sh*tcanned the Mac version. It also told me that they were more "PC bigots" who would poo poo the Mac the first chance they got. Again I turned it down and told the headhunter that I didn't want to go into a hostile work environment from day one. Again, the headhunter blew me off. I never used one again.
Sure, 500 mile range sounds great but unless the thing can be recharged in, say 5-10 minutes, it'll be useless for cross-country travel. One should be able to drive about 700-800 miles solo before calling it a day and getting a hotel. If you're going non-stop with multiple drivers across the U.S., you have to be able to recharge quickly. This is all dependent on the existence of the power-distribution infrastructure too. And then there's the question of load-carrying capability. Four adults plus luggage comfortably seated is probably average. And what about long-term storage of the charge? What's the self-discharge rate of the battery? Can you leave the vehicle sitting unconnected for a month or more without having to charge it? And what about an emergency situation where you run out of schlitz? Will there be a tow-truck-ish mobile charging system that can give you a gallon of electricity?
This concept, like so many others, is a double-edged sword. I personally have seen some brilliant programmers show me some amazing stuff but refused to release it or sell it for nebulous reasons. That having been said, releasing a product that is poorly designed under the hood makes it a nightmare to maintain and can quite easily paint you into a corner. For example, IMHO, nobody should build their own application framework nor should anyone use only what Microsoft or Apple creates. Qt is the right solution because you can concentrate on developing the application and not have to worry about the plumbing. IMHO, this is one major reason why Quickbooks sucks. Intuit should have switched to Qt long ago. The product would have been much better and they'd have the added benefit of true feature parity between the Windows and Mac versions.
I dare the pilot to do a barrel roll on reentry.
When an app offers free voice phone calling over a network infrastructure that makes its money by charging for the same thing, it's pretty clear to me who killed it. Apple only cares about killing something when it directly competes with its own product e.g. Mac clones.