I think poor academic performance only reflects the irrelavance of the things we require our students to excel in. Spelling in the real word is not a memory test, and no-one is going to ask you what year the magna carta was signed, unless of course you are Ken Jennings. I would be very surprised if the correlation of computer use shows poor student performance in areas of logical understanding like math, science, etc. Whether my child knows the collection of names on the declaration of independence or not, if he is getting A's in math, I'm happy.
I'll second that. I currently run a tomcat server, and it is both a memory hog and has monthly crashes. It seems i mostly get java VM crashes: signal 11 errors for most part...
Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this, but its hard to say that this is good or bad definatively.
You could say that these super-smart shoppers are the modern day robin-hood's if you look at it one way. They are taking advantage of deceptive and sneaky marketing gimics so that the issuing companies bite the bullet of their tactics that prey on the weak minded. It is easy to deify these intelligent buyers by saying they are out-sheistering the sheisters.
On the other hand, you could say they are doing damage to the community as a whole. Lost income from these negative profit sales does not often fall on the share-holder, at least not in the long run. The average customer ultimately makes up the lost profits by paying a higher margin, compensating for their intellectual brethren. You can say this is a modern economic darwinism, but i would say that is kind of cold.
Of course the true testament would be to start a electronics store with absolutely no deceptive techniques and let the market decide a fair price for everything. Of course don't be dissapointed if you find that massive profits really do depend on taking the money of fools, and attacking those intelligent enough to protest.
Like what you said, but wanted to add. The rant on the website said something that struck a nerve with me. It said something that I have heard applied to numerous other examples and I think pepole of slashdot might agree with how I feel on this.
Their little blurb repeated over and over again their self-righteous reason for this little device: Providing a more meaningful life for those that are watching TV. They seem to believe that people watching TV are wasting their lives away in front of the TV when they could be out walking in the park or chatting in a coffee bar or some other "real" activity. I would say, if you like to do these things to occupy your time; great, i won't get in your way, but don't try to fix my life because i would rather play a video game or watch a DVD or watch the news or whatever. I'm glad you found something meaningful in your life, but don't think that your sense of meaning is universal, and don't force me to repent about my personal choices that i find fulfilling and I wouldn't want to give up.
This is more of the same "I know what is best for you" mentality that i think is the biggest problem with my country. I'm sick to death of people telling me that my escapist pleasure of playing a video game is less valid then their escapist pleasure of watching a sports game, or going to get drunk, or getting high, or whatever. My choices make me happy, otherwise, I wouldn't be doing them.
I'm no expert, but I can tell you this much: All the processes you describe have one thing in common. They are all effects of physical interactions, which can be analyzed down to the atomic level. We might not be able to control them now, but every time a more advanced computer simulator is realized, we crawl one step closer to being masters of the physical world.
It's attitudes like this that make me wonder why NASA doesn't propose some of its ideas as up for voluntary funding. I looked around their site and couldn't find even a general fund to donate to. I would throw $100 or so to those boys to build some of the projects that get bounced around on slashdot, I spend more than that on techno junk in a month. I think there would be enough nerds around to get these ideas realized.
Perhaps I'm revealing an intense lack of understanding, but i thought...automata theory and all...that any finite state machine could be realized on another finite state machine. Why have we not been able to build a virtual quantum computer?
The problem with that idea is, that the economics of putting solar panels on your home would be much better served to meet the electricity demands of the house and to power a solar water heater. Using the power of the panels on the house for electrolysis would be way more costly than using it for rolling back the meter.
A good compromise might be:
Next year they run as planned, but after that, 4 year increments. That way all the losing teams that are almost done with their designs still get to compete.
But it is not like it is black and white. We don't go from being an agricultural producer to being a totally exlusive non-producer. There will always be farmers, it is just a matter of the cream rising to the top. If all the people who couldn't cut it are eliminated, suddenly i have access to purchasing their land on the cheap, bringing my prices down even more. There will always be some agricultural need internally, and the need will fluctuate due to external influences.
the important thing to realize is not that a more populous state does not have more votes, its that it does not have proportionately more votes. If my state has 10% of the population, why should it have only 7% of the electoral votes?!
And if the agricultural states started raising prices or halting production, we just tell them to piss off and buy from our foreign neighbors. Just because you feel your trade is more important, does not make it so. The market should determine importance, not the government.
Why employ people to do something, allowing them to feed themselves and their families, when you can build a robot to do it?
But if i don't need to hire someone to make car doors in my factory, they could do another job, possibly a designer of car-door manufacturing robots. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here.
And why not stop wars by building and using a new, abundant energy supply to turn their armies (and everyone else) into dark spots in the wreckage?
By building a fusion power generator we are endangering other countries how? I assume that you are arguing that by devolping advanced technologies we will destroy anyone who doesn't have an advanced technology? Maybe you can clarify.
What you are saying towards the end is true, but if you look at which countries are floundering and which are thriving, you'll notice a stunning correlation between those that excell in science and those that are successful. Maybe I just don't understand your argument?
I would argue that science circumvents morality to some extent. Why risk reproach by having slaves when I can build a robot to do my work. Why fight a war over a non-abundant energy source when i can design my own energy source using abundant materials and new scientific discoveries. I would argue that an eventual utopia will be reached not because of a maturation of societal attitudes, but because the science will make our arguments irrelavant.
Slashdot Mirror
Bush can't win in '08. We've already won.
Right, but in my school, homework counted for 10% of the grade, (and we often had 10pt bonus questions on tests) was yours substantially different?
I think poor academic performance only reflects the irrelavance of the things we require our students to excel in. Spelling in the real word is not a memory test, and no-one is going to ask you what year the magna carta was signed, unless of course you are Ken Jennings. I would be very surprised if the correlation of computer use shows poor student performance in areas of logical understanding like math, science, etc. Whether my child knows the collection of names on the declaration of independence or not, if he is getting A's in math, I'm happy.
I'd like to hear your argument for Half Life 2 not being a learning experience. Not trying to be a prick, just curious
Take a page from the book of fight club:
IF the cost of settlement multiplied by the percentage of computers run amok is less than the cost of hiring drivers, THEN they won't use drivers.
Besides, how many accidents do tired 18 wheeler drivers cause as it is?
Can you provide a link about this reactor?
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. There is a mystical power of double digits wrt the public.
I'll second that. I currently run a tomcat server, and it is both a memory hog and has monthly crashes. It seems i mostly get java VM crashes: signal 11 errors for most part...
Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this, but its hard to say that this is good or bad definatively.
You could say that these super-smart shoppers are the modern day robin-hood's if you look at it one way. They are taking advantage of deceptive and sneaky marketing gimics so that the issuing companies bite the bullet of their tactics that prey on the weak minded. It is easy to deify these intelligent buyers by saying they are out-sheistering the sheisters.
On the other hand, you could say they are doing damage to the community as a whole. Lost income from these negative profit sales does not often fall on the share-holder, at least not in the long run. The average customer ultimately makes up the lost profits by paying a higher margin, compensating for their intellectual brethren. You can say this is a modern economic darwinism, but i would say that is kind of cold.
Of course the true testament would be to start a electronics store with absolutely no deceptive techniques and let the market decide a fair price for everything. Of course don't be dissapointed if you find that massive profits really do depend on taking the money of fools, and attacking those intelligent enough to protest.
Like what you said, but wanted to add. The rant on the website said something that struck a nerve with me. It said something that I have heard applied to numerous other examples and I think pepole of slashdot might agree with how I feel on this.
Their little blurb repeated over and over again their self-righteous reason for this little device: Providing a more meaningful life for those that are watching TV. They seem to believe that people watching TV are wasting their lives away in front of the TV when they could be out walking in the park or chatting in a coffee bar or some other "real" activity. I would say, if you like to do these things to occupy your time; great, i won't get in your way, but don't try to fix my life because i would rather play a video game or watch a DVD or watch the news or whatever. I'm glad you found something meaningful in your life, but don't think that your sense of meaning is universal, and don't force me to repent about my personal choices that i find fulfilling and I wouldn't want to give up.
This is more of the same "I know what is best for you" mentality that i think is the biggest problem with my country. I'm sick to death of people telling me that my escapist pleasure of playing a video game is less valid then their escapist pleasure of watching a sports game, or going to get drunk, or getting high, or whatever. My choices make me happy, otherwise, I wouldn't be doing them.
*Exhale*
I'm no expert, but I can tell you this much: All the processes you describe have one thing in common. They are all effects of physical interactions, which can be analyzed down to the atomic level. We might not be able to control them now, but every time a more advanced computer simulator is realized, we crawl one step closer to being masters of the physical world.
It's attitudes like this that make me wonder why NASA doesn't propose some of its ideas as up for voluntary funding. I looked around their site and couldn't find even a general fund to donate to. I would throw $100 or so to those boys to build some of the projects that get bounced around on slashdot, I spend more than that on techno junk in a month. I think there would be enough nerds around to get these ideas realized.
Perhaps I'm revealing an intense lack of understanding, but i thought...automata theory and all...that any finite state machine could be realized on another finite state machine. Why have we not been able to build a virtual quantum computer?
I think you mean this one
Its definately not impossible to do both, but I'm just assuming we're working with the realities of the panels we have today.
The problem with that idea is, that the economics of putting solar panels on your home would be much better served to meet the electricity demands of the house and to power a solar water heater. Using the power of the panels on the house for electrolysis would be way more costly than using it for rolling back the meter.
A good compromise might be:
Next year they run as planned, but after that, 4 year increments. That way all the losing teams that are almost done with their designs still get to compete.
I understand your point, but what incentive do i have to read a story i don't care about?
But it is not like it is black and white. We don't go from being an agricultural producer to being a totally exlusive non-producer. There will always be farmers, it is just a matter of the cream rising to the top. If all the people who couldn't cut it are eliminated, suddenly i have access to purchasing their land on the cheap, bringing my prices down even more. There will always be some agricultural need internally, and the need will fluctuate due to external influences.
And thus the beauty of capitalism...suddenly there is a huge economic incentive to be a farmer!!!
the important thing to realize is not that a more populous state does not have more votes, its that it does not have proportionately more votes. If my state has 10% of the population, why should it have only 7% of the electoral votes?!
And if the agricultural states started raising prices or halting production, we just tell them to piss off and buy from our foreign neighbors. Just because you feel your trade is more important, does not make it so. The market should determine importance, not the government.
or more appropriately... Blame me, i accidentally voted for Buchanan
What you are saying towards the end is true, but if you look at which countries are floundering and which are thriving, you'll notice a stunning correlation between those that excell in science and those that are successful. Maybe I just don't understand your argument?
I would argue that science circumvents morality to some extent. Why risk reproach by having slaves when I can build a robot to do my work. Why fight a war over a non-abundant energy source when i can design my own energy source using abundant materials and new scientific discoveries. I would argue that an eventual utopia will be reached not because of a maturation of societal attitudes, but because the science will make our arguments irrelavant.