Somewhere in there you have a reasonable point i.e. no one should expect a job on a plate and everyone must work hard.
The rest is just nonsense.
Naw, it was just an AC trolling. Fire teachers? I doubt you'd be able to rehire more teachers to replace them without picking up the ones other people fired. I simply know too many teachers. They work long hours for little pay with all sorts of demands such as continuing education that they are made to pay for themselves. They all teach pretty much for one reason, they like teaching. At one point one of them suggested I apply for the physics teaching position at his college, and I asked him what it paid. When I heard the answer I unfortunately laughed in his face as it was sum barely more than what I made delivering pizzas while still in college and half of what I made currently.
But, I wonder, what exactly suggest that 3. is a valid assumption? For example, not all spontaneous fission reactions that we know of are chain reactions.
It's called a false vacuum. The section you want is on bubble nucleation. Basically, the bubble created has a less interior energy than outside so the outside energy flows in which causes the bubble walls to expand until everyplace is now at the new lower energy.
If you look at the tone of Jedi, especially the Ewoks, it is easy to see that Lucas was starting to get no critical feedback of his ideas. Kurtz filled this role. Without him, the franchise falls apart and we wind up with the crap that was the prequels. Lucas is a terrible director on his own. Just awful.
Depends on what you mean by "franchise falls apart". IIRC, from the "making of" Ewoks replaced wookies as they would be better loved by kids and at selling merchandise. This was stated mater of fact by Lucas. Judging by the amount of stuff I saw friend's kids with, I can't really argue with that. True, it might have made a movie that you and I wouldn't like as much, but it probably did make it more appealing to the younger crowd and sell more stuff. SImilarly, I see lots of kids with Anakin Skywalker and Princess Amidala stuff. If you take the Star Wars movies as children's movies for pre-teens, then they probably are very well done.
Well,then...if that's the case...he shouldn't be suing the car manufacturer, but the stupid person/company that modified the car in such a dangerous fashion?!?!?
In TFA, this appears to be the car manufacturer as that is who he has complained to and had inspect it about similar previous malfunctions.
There's also no physical way for the brakes to not stop the car - all modern cars brakes are connected hydraulically to the actual pads, and power-boosted so you can get more braking power. There isn't a mechanical means by which you can push the brake and somehow accelerate the car - unless you're hitting the accelrator.
Or if, as TFA says, the car is non-standard and has been modified for a disabled driver. No telling how it is set up at that point or what is controlling things.
I suppose it never occured to him to take the car out of gear??
I mean, is there such a thing as a car without Neutral?
In TFA, it points out that the car was modified for a disabled driver. Could be that the entire thing including changing gears was controlled by a computer or other electronic device with a simple input for use by a disabled person, but it was on the fritz and the usual controls were either unreachable due to disability or no longer functioned due to modification.
For example, just look at "tree spiking" where a piece of metal or ceramic is hammered in a tree, when the tree is cut down the spike can easily hurt or kill someone when a saw hits the spike.
Usually the case in tree spiking is to mark the tree as being spiked in hopes that they will not cut down the tree out of fear they can not find all the spikes. The goal is to try and keep them from cutting the tree, not hurting people or machinery. Not to say that there isn't attempts to sabotage men and machines but this is usually done against the material that is on site rather than by tree spiking. Again, the usual purpose is to stop the logging of old growth forest before they go to the mill.
But he chose his battles carefully, and didn't offend his core supporter...except that he didn't hold enough support so that when he ran for re-election he had to create a new political party, the Bull Moose Party, to promote him.
"Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth."
State of the Union address (2 December 1902).
As for the election, he had already served two terms and turned over the Presidency and leadership of the Republican party to Taft. He later decided he didn't like Taft's policies and tried to come back from retirement but essentially was going against the standing President he had turned the party over to with the second most powerful guy in the Republican party being the one he worked against in supporting Taft. It was hardly a case of losing support as he evidently had enough to form a new party and affect the election.
I agree, it is too expensive, and not enough payback.
Same could be said for our military adventurism, but we still do it. It's just a sociological problem of how to present space travel to the public so they go along with the spending of the money.
Actually, I think this will be going away in the next 10-15 years. Sure, stupid users will still exist out there, but I see 3 year olds texting now. The idea that you "learn" computers is going away.
It pretty much has already changed as have IT departments along with it. Although there are questions, very little of them have to do with the average user experience with the bare computer. Hardware takes up a small but not insignificant amount of my job. People can already outsource that if they want, it just depends on how important it is to you to keep your workers working. The basic fact is that if you want the sort of support business needs, in most cases it will be cheaper to have in house people do it. Most of my job is training in the particular business applications the workers are using, setting those applications up to meet the needs of our business beyond what the vendors can do, and then administrative work that normal users do not know how to do nor do you want to give them the power to do. This is especially true of inter-application communications and finding out where something zigged when it should have zagged in the under the hood bits of the the user's applications. IT departments have already gone beyond what people think of them as just to keep businesses running. The current implementations will not go away until vendors start creating easy to understand, perfectly meshing computer systems with no bugs that can also read the users minds to write the needed database reports and change the systems to meet changing needs. I suspect that will happen soon after all business decide to move all their computers over to being thin clients, which is to say not in the foreseeable future.
And if they had something better than Radio or Light, then why would they use inefficient slow tech?
Precisely so we could detect it. If they do have such better tech, then we are probably so far behind them that we're not even worth conquering, let alone being a possible market, or intelligent equal. They could be broadcasting such message specifically to help us up to a higher level or the more efficient tech, ether out of some sense of an "advanced alien's burden", simply getting us to a point they could exploit us, or so we could signal back and they could come knock out the competition. Science FIction is full of such thought experiments as to why something like that might exist such as Verner Vinge's Qeng Ho that broadcast such tech instructions so that they know there is a civilization worth trading with when they get there to Reynold's Inhibitors who lay out traps for intelligent life so they can come kill it.
Traditionally, a PC is a _general purpose_ computer. So you could use it for a wide variety of tasks, anything from basic end-user tasks like typing up a research paper right on through to technical stuff like CAD. Indeed, people used 486s for both of those things, back in the day. So why don't you set your camera up on a tripod and make a YouTube video of yourself attempting to perform those tasks on your touchscreen-only phone? I'd like to see that. It would be highly amusing to watch.
As others pointed out, bluetooth keyboards have existed about as long as touchscreen smartphones. If you really want an example, there are docking keyboards for them too. My coworker has a full sized screen and keyboard that his Motorola phone docks into. He actually does a lot of his work on it. Even for the PC of the type you are talking about, you can only use programs that have been written for the thing. Every day I'm more and more surprised at what software is getting written for touchscreen smartphones. There are full blown medical diagnostic apps for doctors who are on call so they can get the info, including Xrays, perform tasks on them, and get back with advice about treatment almost as soon as they get the page. In capability, smartphones are probably more powerful that some of the desktop PCs we still have deployed here at work. More and more, we're only talking about form factor rather than power or use.
FTL implies time travel. Relativity may not strictly prohibit it, but there is the small matter of causality to deal with. And the lack of reports of hordes of strange tourists at major historical events.
Well, when speaking of FTL drive, this implies getting from point A to point B faster than light traveling between them does. There are types of drives that postulate being able to do that without actually traveling at a speed faster than light which is what implies time travel. Hyperspace is one of them because you are no longer in normal space and the normal rules no longer apply even if the two spaces are mapped to each other. Worm holes would be another (although light could travel through the worm hole also presenting two paths for light with different lengths and therefore times of travel). There are several others that might be theoretically possible. On top of that, physics has nothing against time travel or breaking causality. Tippler showed that in "Rotating Cylinders and the Possibility of Global Causality Violation". Physical Review D 9 (8): 2203–2206, at least for General Relativity. (However, I believe that it has since been shown that tachyons are only possible in the early universe because they indicate that the universe is existing at a false vacuum, and their existence quickly causes instabilities that cause change to a lower vacuum state, but I don't have the journal article for that.)
Perhaps we could increase the percentage of women interested in IT by having scantily clad men at the booths as well.
Well, despite that you'd probably have better luck with good looking men dressed in a tailored suit when dealing with women, it still doesn't work that way. Males show a higher degree of impulsive behavior when exposed to scantily clad women which is why it works and that approach is used in advertising. Women might enjoy it but do not show the same impulsive behavior when exposed to sexualized males which is why it is not used as much.
It's Apple. Linux is just a side show as Apple is eating MS's lunch.
I don't think Apple is eating MS's lunch. They might be grabbing a cookie or two out of it but it's still a good sized lunch. The main issue is that for dinner, everybody is heading to this new Mobile Restaurant and MS is having to sit at the bar because Apple and Linux have already gotten all the tables.
Well, if you actually mean "marketing" and not "advertising", then good marketing will figure out what the market wants, how to build that product, how to deliver it to the market, and only then tell the market about it. If "no-one buys cheap, crappy brands", then good marketing will tell them that and they won't try and be a cheap, crappy brand. Bad marketing throws shit at a wall and tries to make it stick with bullet points and advertising.
All I found in the link you provided was retail sales. We'll ignore that it is the "Official Microsoft Blog" posted by the "chief marketing officer" and assume it's true anyway, but I don't see where they say they have recouped all their development cost and the XBox is actually in the red for its entire lifetime. They certainly have sold a lot and have a large market share, but have they actually turned a profit against all their spending, R&D, and operating costs? most places say "no". The best I found with a few minutes of searching was here. They state that it looks like XBox is still $4.1 billion in the hole overall from creation to current. Of course, they admit that MS had swapped the way things are reported by MS at least twice and it was a best estimation they could do. Now, we're looking at a new console which will have similarly large development costs and probably be sold at a loss again till component costs come down, so current profits may not last long enough to cancel out that $4.1 billion plus new costs.
If you have better links, I'd be grateful if you posted them.
Not because you call an iPhone a "disposable toy," but rather because I never thought I'd live in a society where some folks still starve to death in the streets, meanwhile others think throwing a $500 piece of electronic equipment in the trash is no big deal.
The trouble is that when you start talking about having some sort of trained professional in a shop of their own with tools take a look at something and fix it, their base minimum time to do so approaches a certain amount. Once you add in possible parts which in electronics includes entire boards if something goes wrong, then you can quickly have a minimum repair bill that is more than the cost of a new item. That minimum repair price can easily be in the several hundred dollar range. I had this happen with one of my dsrl when a pin that connected to the memory card bent. Repair cost was more than a newer, better (but used) model. This is not new for cameras. I took in my old film slr once which needed some repairs and was told the same thing.
No: this is a completely different issue, it is not about new tech make old tech obsolete. It is as if you could only have your horses shod at a few ''approved'' farriers. Supply & demand would mean that these farriers could charge a lot of money... but to become approved they need to pay bribes\h\h\h\h\h\h 'approval & training fees' to a central body.
Totally missed a chance for a car analogy. It's only as if you could get your car repaired at the dealer's shop and they charged much more than other mechanics.
Karl Marx wasn't perfectly right, either: Specifically, he failed to account for (a) socialist societies becoming authoritarian societies, and (b) socialist ideas getting absorbed by capitalist societies.
I think you have that wrong on both accounts. What he failed to account for were authoritarian societies adopting socialism. There was a reason it was called Marxist-Leninism that that's because it wasn't Marxist. He did predict socialist ideas getting absorbed by capitalist societies, or rather, democratic societies. The idea was that once you had a democratic society, they would eventually decide that the needs of the many outweighed the desires of the few and become socialist and I think we can see that in a good number of counties, US and Northern Europe included. I do think that he had unrealistic expectations in how long that would take, thinking it might even happen in his lifetime.
Slashdot Mirror
Somewhere in there you have a reasonable point i.e. no one should expect a job on a plate and everyone must work hard. The rest is just nonsense.
Naw, it was just an AC trolling. Fire teachers? I doubt you'd be able to rehire more teachers to replace them without picking up the ones other people fired. I simply know too many teachers. They work long hours for little pay with all sorts of demands such as continuing education that they are made to pay for themselves. They all teach pretty much for one reason, they like teaching. At one point one of them suggested I apply for the physics teaching position at his college, and I asked him what it paid. When I heard the answer I unfortunately laughed in his face as it was sum barely more than what I made delivering pizzas while still in college and half of what I made currently.
But, I wonder, what exactly suggest that 3. is a valid assumption? For example, not all spontaneous fission reactions that we know of are chain reactions.
It's called a false vacuum. The section you want is on bubble nucleation. Basically, the bubble created has a less interior energy than outside so the outside energy flows in which causes the bubble walls to expand until everyplace is now at the new lower energy.
If you look at the tone of Jedi, especially the Ewoks, it is easy to see that Lucas was starting to get no critical feedback of his ideas. Kurtz filled this role. Without him, the franchise falls apart and we wind up with the crap that was the prequels. Lucas is a terrible director on his own. Just awful.
Depends on what you mean by "franchise falls apart". IIRC, from the "making of" Ewoks replaced wookies as they would be better loved by kids and at selling merchandise. This was stated mater of fact by Lucas. Judging by the amount of stuff I saw friend's kids with, I can't really argue with that. True, it might have made a movie that you and I wouldn't like as much, but it probably did make it more appealing to the younger crowd and sell more stuff. SImilarly, I see lots of kids with Anakin Skywalker and Princess Amidala stuff. If you take the Star Wars movies as children's movies for pre-teens, then they probably are very well done.
Live in Washington (no income tax) and then drive to Oregon and pay cash for goods.
Well,then...if that's the case...he shouldn't be suing the car manufacturer, but the stupid person/company that modified the car in such a dangerous fashion?!?!?
In TFA, this appears to be the car manufacturer as that is who he has complained to and had inspect it about similar previous malfunctions.
There's also no physical way for the brakes to not stop the car - all modern cars brakes are connected hydraulically to the actual pads, and power-boosted so you can get more braking power. There isn't a mechanical means by which you can push the brake and somehow accelerate the car - unless you're hitting the accelrator.
Or if, as TFA says, the car is non-standard and has been modified for a disabled driver. No telling how it is set up at that point or what is controlling things.
I suppose it never occured to him to take the car out of gear??
I mean, is there such a thing as a car without Neutral?
In TFA, it points out that the car was modified for a disabled driver. Could be that the entire thing including changing gears was controlled by a computer or other electronic device with a simple input for use by a disabled person, but it was on the fritz and the usual controls were either unreachable due to disability or no longer functioned due to modification.
For example, just look at "tree spiking" where a piece of metal or ceramic is hammered in a tree, when the tree is cut down the spike can easily hurt or kill someone when a saw hits the spike.
Usually the case in tree spiking is to mark the tree as being spiked in hopes that they will not cut down the tree out of fear they can not find all the spikes. The goal is to try and keep them from cutting the tree, not hurting people or machinery. Not to say that there isn't attempts to sabotage men and machines but this is usually done against the material that is on site rather than by tree spiking. Again, the usual purpose is to stop the logging of old growth forest before they go to the mill.
But he chose his battles carefully, and didn't offend his core supporter...except that he didn't hold enough support so that when he ran for re-election he had to create a new political party, the Bull Moose Party, to promote him.
"Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth."
State of the Union address (2 December 1902).
As for the election, he had already served two terms and turned over the Presidency and leadership of the Republican party to Taft. He later decided he didn't like Taft's policies and tried to come back from retirement but essentially was going against the standing President he had turned the party over to with the second most powerful guy in the Republican party being the one he worked against in supporting Taft. It was hardly a case of losing support as he evidently had enough to form a new party and affect the election.
I agree, it is too expensive, and not enough payback.
Same could be said for our military adventurism, but we still do it. It's just a sociological problem of how to present space travel to the public so they go along with the spending of the money.
Actually, I think this will be going away in the next 10-15 years. Sure, stupid users will still exist out there, but I see 3 year olds texting now. The idea that you "learn" computers is going away.
It pretty much has already changed as have IT departments along with it. Although there are questions, very little of them have to do with the average user experience with the bare computer. Hardware takes up a small but not insignificant amount of my job. People can already outsource that if they want, it just depends on how important it is to you to keep your workers working. The basic fact is that if you want the sort of support business needs, in most cases it will be cheaper to have in house people do it. Most of my job is training in the particular business applications the workers are using, setting those applications up to meet the needs of our business beyond what the vendors can do, and then administrative work that normal users do not know how to do nor do you want to give them the power to do. This is especially true of inter-application communications and finding out where something zigged when it should have zagged in the under the hood bits of the the user's applications. IT departments have already gone beyond what people think of them as just to keep businesses running. The current implementations will not go away until vendors start creating easy to understand, perfectly meshing computer systems with no bugs that can also read the users minds to write the needed database reports and change the systems to meet changing needs. I suspect that will happen soon after all business decide to move all their computers over to being thin clients, which is to say not in the foreseeable future.
And if they had something better than Radio or Light, then why would they use inefficient slow tech?
Precisely so we could detect it. If they do have such better tech, then we are probably so far behind them that we're not even worth conquering, let alone being a possible market, or intelligent equal. They could be broadcasting such message specifically to help us up to a higher level or the more efficient tech, ether out of some sense of an "advanced alien's burden", simply getting us to a point they could exploit us, or so we could signal back and they could come knock out the competition. Science FIction is full of such thought experiments as to why something like that might exist such as Verner Vinge's Qeng Ho that broadcast such tech instructions so that they know there is a civilization worth trading with when they get there to Reynold's Inhibitors who lay out traps for intelligent life so they can come kill it.
The belief in God has no such basis.
Hrrrm. Possibly. First, define God. Tell me what your definition of God is and we can start from there.
Traditionally, a PC is a _general purpose_ computer. So you could use it for a wide variety of tasks, anything from basic end-user tasks like typing up a research paper right on through to technical stuff like CAD. Indeed, people used 486s for both of those things, back in the day. So why don't you set your camera up on a tripod and make a YouTube video of yourself attempting to perform those tasks on your touchscreen-only phone? I'd like to see that. It would be highly amusing to watch.
As others pointed out, bluetooth keyboards have existed about as long as touchscreen smartphones. If you really want an example, there are docking keyboards for them too. My coworker has a full sized screen and keyboard that his Motorola phone docks into. He actually does a lot of his work on it. Even for the PC of the type you are talking about, you can only use programs that have been written for the thing. Every day I'm more and more surprised at what software is getting written for touchscreen smartphones. There are full blown medical diagnostic apps for doctors who are on call so they can get the info, including Xrays, perform tasks on them, and get back with advice about treatment almost as soon as they get the page. In capability, smartphones are probably more powerful that some of the desktop PCs we still have deployed here at work. More and more, we're only talking about form factor rather than power or use.
FTL implies time travel. Relativity may not strictly prohibit it, but there is the small matter of causality to deal with. And the lack of reports of hordes of strange tourists at major historical events.
Well, when speaking of FTL drive, this implies getting from point A to point B faster than light traveling between them does. There are types of drives that postulate being able to do that without actually traveling at a speed faster than light which is what implies time travel. Hyperspace is one of them because you are no longer in normal space and the normal rules no longer apply even if the two spaces are mapped to each other. Worm holes would be another (although light could travel through the worm hole also presenting two paths for light with different lengths and therefore times of travel). There are several others that might be theoretically possible. On top of that, physics has nothing against time travel or breaking causality. Tippler showed that in "Rotating Cylinders and the Possibility of Global Causality Violation". Physical Review D 9 (8): 2203–2206, at least for General Relativity. (However, I believe that it has since been shown that tachyons are only possible in the early universe because they indicate that the universe is existing at a false vacuum, and their existence quickly causes instabilities that cause change to a lower vacuum state, but I don't have the journal article for that.)
And then of course the 'black leadership' to claim it's spying on all the 'urban' people.
I doubt Obama will admit that the government is spying on people.
And no, "a measure of disorder" doesn't cut it as an explanation, especially since that phrase is actually wrong. Entropy can't be measured.
That's funny. In physics class I was told that Entropy was defined as the natural log of all possible states.
Perhaps we could increase the percentage of women interested in IT by having scantily clad men at the booths as well.
Well, despite that you'd probably have better luck with good looking men dressed in a tailored suit when dealing with women, it still doesn't work that way. Males show a higher degree of impulsive behavior when exposed to scantily clad women which is why it works and that approach is used in advertising. Women might enjoy it but do not show the same impulsive behavior when exposed to sexualized males which is why it is not used as much.
It's Apple. Linux is just a side show as Apple is eating MS's lunch.
I don't think Apple is eating MS's lunch. They might be grabbing a cookie or two out of it but it's still a good sized lunch. The main issue is that for dinner, everybody is heading to this new Mobile Restaurant and MS is having to sit at the bar because Apple and Linux have already gotten all the tables.
What good would marketing do?
Well, if you actually mean "marketing" and not "advertising", then good marketing will figure out what the market wants, how to build that product, how to deliver it to the market, and only then tell the market about it. If "no-one buys cheap, crappy brands", then good marketing will tell them that and they won't try and be a cheap, crappy brand. Bad marketing throws shit at a wall and tries to make it stick with bullet points and advertising.
Wrong.
You don't even have numbers to back that up.
Xbox is a failure in your own mind, MS has actually made billions
http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2012/05/29/xbox-beyond-the-box.aspx
All I found in the link you provided was retail sales. We'll ignore that it is the "Official Microsoft Blog" posted by the "chief marketing officer" and assume it's true anyway, but I don't see where they say they have recouped all their development cost and the XBox is actually in the red for its entire lifetime. They certainly have sold a lot and have a large market share, but have they actually turned a profit against all their spending, R&D, and operating costs? most places say "no". The best I found with a few minutes of searching was here. They state that it looks like XBox is still $4.1 billion in the hole overall from creation to current. Of course, they admit that MS had swapped the way things are reported by MS at least twice and it was a best estimation they could do. Now, we're looking at a new console which will have similarly large development costs and probably be sold at a loss again till component costs come down, so current profits may not last long enough to cancel out that $4.1 billion plus new costs.
If you have better links, I'd be grateful if you posted them.
This makes me sad :(
Not because you call an iPhone a "disposable toy," but rather because I never thought I'd live in a society where some folks still starve to death in the streets, meanwhile others think throwing a $500 piece of electronic equipment in the trash is no big deal.
The trouble is that when you start talking about having some sort of trained professional in a shop of their own with tools take a look at something and fix it, their base minimum time to do so approaches a certain amount. Once you add in possible parts which in electronics includes entire boards if something goes wrong, then you can quickly have a minimum repair bill that is more than the cost of a new item. That minimum repair price can easily be in the several hundred dollar range. I had this happen with one of my dsrl when a pin that connected to the memory card bent. Repair cost was more than a newer, better (but used) model. This is not new for cameras. I took in my old film slr once which needed some repairs and was told the same thing.
No: this is a completely different issue, it is not about new tech make old tech obsolete. It is as if you could only have your horses shod at a few ''approved'' farriers. Supply & demand would mean that these farriers could charge a lot of money ... but to become approved they need to pay bribes\h\h\h\h\h\h 'approval & training fees' to a central body.
Totally missed a chance for a car analogy. It's only as if you could get your car repaired at the dealer's shop and they charged much more than other mechanics.
Karl Marx wasn't perfectly right, either: Specifically, he failed to account for (a) socialist societies becoming authoritarian societies, and (b) socialist ideas getting absorbed by capitalist societies.
I think you have that wrong on both accounts. What he failed to account for were authoritarian societies adopting socialism. There was a reason it was called Marxist-Leninism that that's because it wasn't Marxist. He did predict socialist ideas getting absorbed by capitalist societies, or rather, democratic societies. The idea was that once you had a democratic society, they would eventually decide that the needs of the many outweighed the desires of the few and become socialist and I think we can see that in a good number of counties, US and Northern Europe included. I do think that he had unrealistic expectations in how long that would take, thinking it might even happen in his lifetime.
This is the result of a decision made by Apple Corp. to make this happen.
The Beatles did this? I had no idea their agreement with Apple Computers gave them so much control.