You have no idea what it will or will not address. When the first scientists were mucking around with electricity in the 18th century they were giving people shocks and making frogs legs jump. Within a hundred years they were rolling out the world's first global high speed communication's system.
So take your contrarianism and stick it up your ass. Your type would have us still beating each other with sticks, because, you know, what good does that shiny shit in the ground do us?
The usefulness of gravitational waves to society will probably not be on the equivalent of electricity. Electricity always existed. However, prior to being able to generate it for ourselves, it was random in occurrence (lightning), much like gravitational waves. So, unless you think we are on the verge of being able to generate our own gravitational waves, it is unlikely that the confirmation of Einstein's theory of their existence will have a practical application any time soon and almost certainly, not in the next 100 years.
That's not a bad thing. Historically, knowledge for the sake of knowledge was a good thing. It is only a recent trend in human history that it must be able to be monetized to be useful.
Fuck you -- how dare you try to dictate the good of humanity
You are a vile and clueless piece of shit that would hold humanity back in your asshole attempt to tell us how to think and live our lives
Let me guess -- you're a progressive liberal. Probably want to tell me what to eat as well
Isn't your condemnation of whomever you were responding to, just another example of of somebody trying to tell others how to think and live their lives?
And the only reason we achieved so much in such a little amount of time is because the INFORMATION WAS SHARED FREELY. each scientist was able to use the work of the previous.
Now the stupidity of copyright and patents are slowing down progress at an alarming rate.
And who is stopping the free sharing of information? It's not the government. It's not the public. It's the universities. Why? so they can capitalize on the monetization of their findings. This was less of a problem before there was large scale public funding (government grants).
One way to fix it is by having any royalties go back to the public coffers in proportion to the public spending on the research. If 10% of the funding is from the government, then 10% of the resulting royalties go back to the government. If the funding is 80%, then 80% goes. Government funded research should benefit the public, not the private company the university sells the rights to.
Scientists that where mucking around with electricity in the 18th century was not government funded...
If society, today, practiced the same amount of philanthropy and charitable given as in the 18th (and 19th) century, the government wouldn't need to fund research today.
Doesn't all technology that we know of depend on gravity in some form or another?
Technology does not exist in nature, it is created. For people to exist to create the technology, they need a planet capable of sustaining life. To have a planet with an atmosphere or even to have a planet at all, requires gravity.
FB better start putting security controls and sincerely limiting access to minors or they will be in a world of hurt of having videos of minors online. FB will become a pedophiles wet dream.
The will allow advertisers to see in real time which Facebook ads are turning into actual sales.
If this is allowed, then I will intentionally go to the direct competitor of those advertisers and purchase goods and services there, instead. It's ironic that if the authorities wanted that type of data for an investigation, Apple and Google would fight turning it over, but seem quite content with FB using it for whatever invasion of privacy they want.
Terabyte SSD's are cheap, you can get some for $250. Samsung recently released a 16TB SSD, 32-bit pointers with 4kb blocks has your size pegged at ~16TB, 64-bit "limits" your size to a few zettabytes (10^10 terabyte).
I already have a file system with more objects than a 32-bit pointer can hold, a major issue when considering object storage like OpenStack because no object storage is yet built for holding billions of objects per container.
Is not OpenStack a server application? I see how this can be useful in such a scenario, although XFS or ZFS would seem to be more marketable with enterprise data centers. The majority of Apple hardware sales, however are not enterprise systems, but end user systems. Forcing a bunch of Macbooks and Mac Mini's to the new file system doesn't seem to be beneficial to anybody. Apple doesn't even sell user hardware approaching those limits.
What would be interesting is if there was found a chiral molecule in space that was significantly biased to one enantiomer. Depending on the context of what was found this would be proof of either extraterrestrial life, or a cosmic enantiomeric enrichment process that would have huge implications for understanding the origin of life.
It would most certainly not be proof of either extraterrestrial life. It would only prove that there is some process going on in space producing a biased enantiomer. Could life be the process doing it? Yes, but unless we are claiming to know everything that occurs at the center of the galaxy where these enantiomers have been found, it would not be scientifically valid to claim it as proof of life.
As for an enantiomeric enrichment process and the implication for understanding the origin of life, that too is pretty far fetched. It could help explain why there is a bias such as the immense gravitational fields, or heat or radiation or any number of things known and unknown. But, whatever that cause is, it would need to be determined if the bias had been the other way, would it had prohibited the formation of life? In otherwords, do all of our enantiomer exist in their current direction because the other direction would not be conducive to life (as we know it) or do they exist in their current direction because they are just made up of what happened to be the dominant version?
If the answer of that question is the former, then there may be huge implications for understanding the origin of life. But only if we could determine what caused the bias in the beginning and whether or not that force still exists or the bias seen now is just an artifact (replicating molecules tend to replicate in the same pattern).
They are saying it is the "worst mass shooting" So that should be verifiable. Were the other mass shootings that had greater numbers shot? If so, then it is not the worst mass shooting. If not, then it is. Of they said it was the "worst day in US history," then I agree, that would be subjective. But in this case, they are specifically applying the measure ("worst") to a particular type of event ("mass shooting") as such, it is objective, not subjective. If the object of the statement is objective and quantifiable, then so is the term worst. If it is subjective, as in the worst taste or worst smell, then the use of the word worst, is improper, but as used would be subjective.
No matter how one phrases it, words like least, most and worsts are absolute measures of something. For something to be measured, means it must be objective. By their very nature, they require a context, or set of data to work from. That does not make them any less objective than any other valuation based on set theory. They only become subjective when they are used for inferences outside their data set, which is actually a fallacy.
The statement "The worst mass shooting in US history" is a restatement of "Of all of the mass shootings in the history of the US, this one is the worst." That statement excludes all non-mass shootings in the US and outside and all mass shootings other than in the US. From there, the data set is well defined and readily determinable if this is in fact the worst or not. It isn't a feeling. It isn't subjective. It is an observation of fact and therefore objective.
Really, terabyte SSDs? Today's SSDs, in terms of storage capabilities are more like mechanical drives of 20 years ago. Yes, data centers may have large SSDs, but not users. Will average users benefit from this new file system or will things like 64bit pointers on a drive less than a gigabyte simply consume more of the drive for little benefit?
Finally, are not there already file systems available that meet whatever this new need of Apple's is that would not require the recreation of the wheel (or disk)? If the goal is secure Apple a spot in the enterprise, wouldn't a main stream file system like ZFS be more likely to achieve that goal?
Everything is subjective if you change the context. Of course doing so is really just a strawman tactic. Keeping on topic and in context, worst is a measure of degree. Particularly in the context of this story. Put differently, in the United States, has there been a mass shooting that is worse than the Orlando shooting. The answer is yes, several of them, ergo the Orlando shooting is not the worst.
With regards to what may or may not be perceived as worst for me versus you or even PETA, it is still objective as it is based on the view of the subject (you, me, PETA, etc.). What is worst for me has no impact on what is worst for you. If we are in agreement as to what is worst for either of us, it is merely a coincidence. What is worst can even change at time, because when the valuation is made conditions have changed. So what is worst for me today, may be replaced by something else, tomorrow. This is no different than the use of the words least or most and nobody would argue that they are subjective.
Words like worst imply absolutes to measure against, but in a society that is drunk with the Kool-Aid of relativism, absolutes are taboo and therefore, words like worst must be redefined to no longer be an absolute measure. So, while it is objectively not the worst mass shooting in the United States, for the many who only view the world in their own self centered reality, it is the worst.
(NOTE: I am not saying that you fall into this category)
Worst has always been subjective. The worst thing that could happen to me is different from the worst thing that could happen to you.
Worst is quantitative, like least and most. The worst thing that could happen to you is not dependent on the worst thing that could happen to me. The worst mass shooting in US history is not dependent on shootings that occur anywhere else, so in the US, what mass shootings have their been and from that, which is the worst?
Yup, the guy in the sky says "Thou shalt not kill", and then goes on to give justifications, reasons and lots of examples of when it's perfectly okay to kill others. Talking about bipolarity...
I don't think the guy in the sky went on to say it's okay to kill others, I think people of the time did that. As a matter of fact, I think he sent another guy in the sky to point that out and the people added another reason when it's okay.
Oh..., you meant that religious extremism has nothing to do with mental illness? Well, in that case... yes, it does. If you believe that the invisible man in the sky wants you to do things to [insert definition of "the other" here], you are insane.
Usually that invisible man in the sky says "Thou shalt not kill." Yeah, religious belief is insane.
You don't have to be dangerous to be mentally ill.
Reports have alleged that he beat his former wife. And, coworkers indicated that he wouldn't even acknowledge a hello from them. Just a couple of red flags that mental illness may have played a role, but that's TBD from what I've read so far.
No flag as red as the clinical diagnoses of bipolar disorder, which he suffered from.
Arguably, this piece of filth used the 2A to buy his guns after being twisted and encouraged because someone else exercised their 1A rights. Should we prohibit the free exercise of speech and religion, since it was what drove him to his action?
More likely, it was his mental illness that drove him to this action as he was diagnosed with severe bipolar disorder. The real question to be asked is how did somebody with mental illness so easily get a hold of the guns used?
That was some natives, that was another time, that weren't people who have disposable income... I am sure we find other reasons, too.
Oh, and we did it. Not some towelhead that we can now use as an excuse for whatever we wanna do.
So the adjective "worst" is now a subjective instead of objective term? As for the "towelhead" comment, he was a US citizen born in the state of New York.
While not to diminish the tragedy and horror of what happened in Orlando, one only needs to review the history of the US to see that there have been many mass shootings. Some notable ones dealt with the shooting of Native Americans, African Americans, Mormons, striking miners, troops vs civilians and troops vs prisoners (Civil War and American Revolution) and the list goes on.
Using violence against people and groups you disagree with is, unfortunately, nothing new.
How is this a robot? It is a crudely machine that pricks one's finger. I have a glucose monitor that serves the same function and nobody would consider it a robot. By the definition used here, the automatic toilet flusher used in many public restrooms is a robot.
The fall in M$ stock price after this announcement indicates that investors don't see this as strengthening M$'s position. It makes sense for LinkedIn stock price to rise as there is now a public offer on the table and the price rises to meet that. Normally, though, you would expect the buyers stock price to rise if the acquisition was seen as being favorable. As it stands right now, investors are saying M$ is worth less with LinkedIn than with it.
The brave new world 10 years or 20 years from now we will have
* Driverless Cars * Connected Cars * Smart Bots * Deep Learning Computers in Everything * Smart Road * Smart Drones * Smart City * Smart Swarming of Drones * Smart Appliances with Embedded Deep Learning Capabilities
Can anyone spare a crystal ball?
I sure like to know how the brave new world might pan out
Probably not. Such a scenario requires working capital to produce such things. Working capital requires the sale of goods and services. The sale of goods and services requires consumers. Consumers require jobs with good wages. Average household income in most parts of the US is under $50,000. Most of that income is going towards housing, food and other basic necessities.
If shareholders want to profit by producing these things, then they need to have their businesses pay wages that support the purchase of the products. Henry Ford paid is workers above the going rate at the time, so that they could afford to purchase the vehicles they were producing. This created an instant market for the vehicles and is one of the major reasons that Ford succeeded in the early days compared to its competition.
It's basic economics. Economies rise and fall based on the ability of the middle class to purchase goods and services. Decimate the middle class and you ultimately decimate the economy.
Slashdot Mirror
You have no idea what it will or will not address. When the first scientists were mucking around with electricity in the 18th century they were giving people shocks and making frogs legs jump. Within a hundred years they were rolling out the world's first global high speed communication's system.
So take your contrarianism and stick it up your ass. Your type would have us still beating each other with sticks, because, you know, what good does that shiny shit in the ground do us?
The usefulness of gravitational waves to society will probably not be on the equivalent of electricity. Electricity always existed. However, prior to being able to generate it for ourselves, it was random in occurrence (lightning), much like gravitational waves. So, unless you think we are on the verge of being able to generate our own gravitational waves, it is unlikely that the confirmation of Einstein's theory of their existence will have a practical application any time soon and almost certainly, not in the next 100 years.
That's not a bad thing. Historically, knowledge for the sake of knowledge was a good thing. It is only a recent trend in human history that it must be able to be monetized to be useful.
Fuck you -- how dare you try to dictate the good of humanity
You are a vile and clueless piece of shit that would hold humanity back in your asshole attempt to tell us how to think and live our lives
Let me guess -- you're a progressive liberal. Probably want to tell me what to eat as well
Isn't your condemnation of whomever you were responding to, just another example of of somebody trying to tell others how to think and live their lives?
And the only reason we achieved so much in such a little amount of time is because the INFORMATION WAS SHARED FREELY. each scientist was able to use the work of the previous.
Now the stupidity of copyright and patents are slowing down progress at an alarming rate.
And who is stopping the free sharing of information? It's not the government. It's not the public. It's the universities. Why? so they can capitalize on the monetization of their findings. This was less of a problem before there was large scale public funding (government grants).
One way to fix it is by having any royalties go back to the public coffers in proportion to the public spending on the research. If 10% of the funding is from the government, then 10% of the resulting royalties go back to the government. If the funding is 80%, then 80% goes. Government funded research should benefit the public, not the private company the university sells the rights to.
Scientists that where mucking around with electricity in the 18th century was not government funded...
If society, today, practiced the same amount of philanthropy and charitable given as in the 18th (and 19th) century, the government wouldn't need to fund research today.
Doesn't all technology that we know of depend on gravity in some form or another?
Technology does not exist in nature, it is created. For people to exist to create the technology, they need a planet capable of sustaining life. To have a planet with an atmosphere or even to have a planet at all, requires gravity.
Ergo, all technology depends on gravity.
FB better start putting security controls and sincerely limiting access to minors or they will be in a world of hurt of having videos of minors online. FB will become a pedophiles wet dream.
The will allow advertisers to see in real time which Facebook ads are turning into actual sales.
If this is allowed, then I will intentionally go to the direct competitor of those advertisers and purchase goods and services there, instead. It's ironic that if the authorities wanted that type of data for an investigation, Apple and Google would fight turning it over, but seem quite content with FB using it for whatever invasion of privacy they want.
Terabyte SSD's are cheap, you can get some for $250. Samsung recently released a 16TB SSD, 32-bit pointers with 4kb blocks has your size pegged at ~16TB, 64-bit "limits" your size to a few zettabytes (10^10 terabyte).
I already have a file system with more objects than a 32-bit pointer can hold, a major issue when considering object storage like OpenStack because no object storage is yet built for holding billions of objects per container.
Is not OpenStack a server application? I see how this can be useful in such a scenario, although XFS or ZFS would seem to be more marketable with enterprise data centers. The majority of Apple hardware sales, however are not enterprise systems, but end user systems. Forcing a bunch of Macbooks and Mac Mini's to the new file system doesn't seem to be beneficial to anybody. Apple doesn't even sell user hardware approaching those limits.
What would be interesting is if there was found a chiral molecule in space that was significantly biased to one enantiomer. Depending on the context of what was found this would be proof of either extraterrestrial life, or a cosmic enantiomeric enrichment process that would have huge implications for understanding the origin of life.
It would most certainly not be proof of either extraterrestrial life. It would only prove that there is some process going on in space producing a biased enantiomer. Could life be the process doing it? Yes, but unless we are claiming to know everything that occurs at the center of the galaxy where these enantiomers have been found, it would not be scientifically valid to claim it as proof of life.
As for an enantiomeric enrichment process and the implication for understanding the origin of life, that too is pretty far fetched. It could help explain why there is a bias such as the immense gravitational fields, or heat or radiation or any number of things known and unknown. But, whatever that cause is, it would need to be determined if the bias had been the other way, would it had prohibited the formation of life? In otherwords, do all of our enantiomer exist in their current direction because the other direction would not be conducive to life (as we know it) or do they exist in their current direction because they are just made up of what happened to be the dominant version?
If the answer of that question is the former, then there may be huge implications for understanding the origin of life. But only if we could determine what caused the bias in the beginning and whether or not that force still exists or the bias seen now is just an artifact (replicating molecules tend to replicate in the same pattern).
They are saying it is the "worst mass shooting" So that should be verifiable. Were the other mass shootings that had greater numbers shot? If so, then it is not the worst mass shooting. If not, then it is. Of they said it was the "worst day in US history," then I agree, that would be subjective. But in this case, they are specifically applying the measure ("worst") to a particular type of event ("mass shooting") as such, it is objective, not subjective. If the object of the statement is objective and quantifiable, then so is the term worst. If it is subjective, as in the worst taste or worst smell, then the use of the word worst, is improper, but as used would be subjective.
No matter how one phrases it, words like least, most and worsts are absolute measures of something. For something to be measured, means it must be objective. By their very nature, they require a context, or set of data to work from. That does not make them any less objective than any other valuation based on set theory. They only become subjective when they are used for inferences outside their data set, which is actually a fallacy.
The statement "The worst mass shooting in US history" is a restatement of "Of all of the mass shootings in the history of the US, this one is the worst." That statement excludes all non-mass shootings in the US and outside and all mass shootings other than in the US. From there, the data set is well defined and readily determinable if this is in fact the worst or not. It isn't a feeling. It isn't subjective. It is an observation of fact and therefore objective.
Really, terabyte SSDs? Today's SSDs, in terms of storage capabilities are more like mechanical drives of 20 years ago. Yes, data centers may have large SSDs, but not users. Will average users benefit from this new file system or will things like 64bit pointers on a drive less than a gigabyte simply consume more of the drive for little benefit?
Finally, are not there already file systems available that meet whatever this new need of Apple's is that would not require the recreation of the wheel (or disk)? If the goal is secure Apple a spot in the enterprise, wouldn't a main stream file system like ZFS be more likely to achieve that goal?
Everything is subjective if you change the context. Of course doing so is really just a strawman tactic. Keeping on topic and in context, worst is a measure of degree. Particularly in the context of this story. Put differently, in the United States, has there been a mass shooting that is worse than the Orlando shooting. The answer is yes, several of them, ergo the Orlando shooting is not the worst.
With regards to what may or may not be perceived as worst for me versus you or even PETA, it is still objective as it is based on the view of the subject (you, me, PETA, etc.). What is worst for me has no impact on what is worst for you. If we are in agreement as to what is worst for either of us, it is merely a coincidence. What is worst can even change at time, because when the valuation is made conditions have changed. So what is worst for me today, may be replaced by something else, tomorrow. This is no different than the use of the words least or most and nobody would argue that they are subjective.
Words like worst imply absolutes to measure against, but in a society that is drunk with the Kool-Aid of relativism, absolutes are taboo and therefore, words like worst must be redefined to no longer be an absolute measure. So, while it is objectively not the worst mass shooting in the United States, for the many who only view the world in their own self centered reality, it is the worst.
(NOTE: I am not saying that you fall into this category)
Worst has always been subjective. The worst thing that could happen to me is different from the worst thing that could happen to you.
Worst is quantitative, like least and most. The worst thing that could happen to you is not dependent on the worst thing that could happen to me. The worst mass shooting in US history is not dependent on shootings that occur anywhere else, so in the US, what mass shootings have their been and from that, which is the worst?
Yup, the guy in the sky says "Thou shalt not kill", and then goes on to give justifications, reasons and lots of examples of when it's perfectly okay to kill others. Talking about bipolarity ...
I don't think the guy in the sky went on to say it's okay to kill others, I think people of the time did that. As a matter of fact, I think he sent another guy in the sky to point that out and the people added another reason when it's okay.
I'm sorry, I am not up to date with the current PC bullshit. What skin color matters currently? And what can we currently condemn as the big evil?
It changes so fast, and I really have better shit to deal with than keeping up to date with who may hate whom.
Don't know what any of that has to do with the definition of "worst" or not. Please explain.
This has nothing to do with mental illness.
Yes, it does. Mateen was bi-polar.
Oh..., you meant that religious extremism has nothing to do with mental illness? Well, in that case... yes, it does. If you believe that the invisible man in the sky wants you to do things to [insert definition of "the other" here], you are insane.
Usually that invisible man in the sky says "Thou shalt not kill." Yeah, religious belief is insane.
You don't have to be dangerous to be mentally ill.
Reports have alleged that he beat his former wife. And, coworkers indicated that he wouldn't even acknowledge a hello from them. Just a couple of red flags that mental illness may have played a role, but that's TBD from what I've read so far.
No flag as red as the clinical diagnoses of bipolar disorder, which he suffered from.
This has nothing to do with mental illness.
He was clinically diagnosed as having severe bipolar disorder.
Arguably, this piece of filth used the 2A to buy his guns after being twisted and encouraged because someone else exercised their 1A rights. Should we prohibit the free exercise of speech and religion, since it was what drove him to his action?
More likely, it was his mental illness that drove him to this action as he was diagnosed with severe bipolar disorder. The real question to be asked is how did somebody with mental illness so easily get a hold of the guns used?
That was some natives, that was another time, that weren't people who have disposable income... I am sure we find other reasons, too.
Oh, and we did it. Not some towelhead that we can now use as an excuse for whatever we wanna do.
So the adjective "worst" is now a subjective instead of objective term? As for the "towelhead" comment, he was a US citizen born in the state of New York.
While not to diminish the tragedy and horror of what happened in Orlando, one only needs to review the history of the US to see that there have been many mass shootings. Some notable ones dealt with the shooting of Native Americans, African Americans, Mormons, striking miners, troops vs civilians and troops vs prisoners (Civil War and American Revolution) and the list goes on.
Using violence against people and groups you disagree with is, unfortunately, nothing new.
How is this a robot? It is a crudely machine that pricks one's finger. I have a glucose monitor that serves the same function and nobody would consider it a robot. By the definition used here, the automatic toilet flusher used in many public restrooms is a robot.
The fall in M$ stock price after this announcement indicates that investors don't see this as strengthening M$'s position. It makes sense for LinkedIn stock price to rise as there is now a public offer on the table and the price rises to meet that. Normally, though, you would expect the buyers stock price to rise if the acquisition was seen as being favorable. As it stands right now, investors are saying M$ is worth less with LinkedIn than with it.
why is this news?
Because Ubuntu is a brand and Canonical actively advertises its brand every chance it gets, whether it is newsworthy or not.
The brave new world 10 years or 20 years from now we will have
* Driverless Cars
* Connected Cars
* Smart Bots
* Deep Learning Computers in Everything
* Smart Road
* Smart Drones
* Smart City
* Smart Swarming of Drones
* Smart Appliances with Embedded Deep Learning Capabilities
Can anyone spare a crystal ball?
I sure like to know how the brave new world might pan out
Probably not. Such a scenario requires working capital to produce such things. Working capital requires the sale of goods and services. The sale of goods and services requires consumers. Consumers require jobs with good wages. Average household income in most parts of the US is under $50,000. Most of that income is going towards housing, food and other basic necessities.
If shareholders want to profit by producing these things, then they need to have their businesses pay wages that support the purchase of the products. Henry Ford paid is workers above the going rate at the time, so that they could afford to purchase the vehicles they were producing. This created an instant market for the vehicles and is one of the major reasons that Ford succeeded in the early days compared to its competition.
It's basic economics. Economies rise and fall based on the ability of the middle class to purchase goods and services. Decimate the middle class and you ultimately decimate the economy.