This is the problem for higher education in general. Universities are producing too many degrees. People waste a lot of time and school learning facts and information they will never use (or even talking classes where they don't learn anything) to vie for high-paying jobs that don't exist.
In the meantime, people don't learn the basic information that may be useful to them (like how to fix their car, how to do basic calculations and general problem solving). Nor do they learn useful job skills (universities leave this up to the their students' future employers). Pondering this, one may ask: "what exactly is school good for?" It is stupid to waste 4 (or more) years earning a degree just to fill a check-mark on some corporate recruiter's checklist? Yes. Yes it is.
It's an economies of scale thing. If you had decent capacity on the train things may be different, but the travel time really kills it, so not enough people are willing to ride it to make it worthwhile.
if . . . you really believe that a piece of classified information should be released, and you're going to unilaterally decide to do release it because of your own personal beliefs or convictions, you should be willing to pay your society's consequences for it.
His comment is not a troll, and this level of moderation is clearly and abuse of the moderator system. Ironically, it seems to have been perpetrated by people who believe information should not be obstructed! Hey, assholes, if you really believe in it, how about you prove it by not shouting down or drowning out opposing viewpoints! If you modded this down, and you're reading this post, please comment in this thread to undo it. If isn't fair to mod him down just because you disagree with him.
That said, what does it say about the government of the US that they failed to release the Collateral Murder video on their own? How many other incidents like this have happened in Iraq that the government has covered up? Don't the people of the US have a need to know how their tax dollars are being spent? How would these videos hurt our military effort? Don't the people of Iraq know they've been given the shaft? And don't the other nations in the region assume the same anyway? Anyway, food for thought. It does bother me that he wasn't willing to come out in the first place, but I don't know all the details either.
Look at the alternatives. A train ticket cost as much as a plane ticket (I just checked to make sure), but travel times are significantly longer. And the train ticket does not cover all the costs, hence the government subsides. The cost is not worth the benefit, if you're measuring it with money. If you have a different way of comparing them that is fine, but my claim is justified.
Subsidization of road travel makes subsidization of Amtrak look like a speck of dust in the cosmos.
Yes, but people actually use roads, so that makes them seem a little less silly. The benefit generated by Amtrak can not justify the cost. That's why people point it out instead of the highways. Amtrak is a smaller problem, but it's a lot more obvious.
The Merlin vacuum engine had never been used before, and it was successful in the Falcon 9. Also, strapping 9 engines together for the first stage is more complex than using one single engine.
You have to give them credit for the Falcon 9. Things almost never go right with your first try when you're talking about rockets. I certainly didn't expect their launch to be successful. I assume they didn't either since they didn't send anything but a dummy dragon module up with it. This rocket failure does underscore the magnitude of Space X's success.
It's not right to cynically down play the success of the Falcon 9 by pointing out their failures on the Falcon 1 (which were to be expected). And the fact that they were able to avoid a failure in a much larger (and more expensive) rocket by working out those problems with smaller rockets and then scaling up to a bigger one should be credited to them as well. Their idea for how to make rockets cheaper played out, they were right to do things the way they did!
A lot of people have been saying that they put too many engines on the Falcon 9. They point to the failed Russian moon rocket (which had 30) and say that many small engines is the wrong approach. However, the Falcon 9 was successful, so that should prove that it's okay to use many smaller engines in place of one larger one.
I sometimes use it to analyze soil samples in the field. Since you aren't necessarily shooting a homogeneous substance, you sometimes get results that don't reflect the overall concentration. To get meaningful data you have to send it to a fixed lab where they will extract it and get an analytical result that is more likely to reflect the real concentration.
I'd agree that such money is not actually invested, however that's what most people talk about when they are talking about investment (certainly it's what the parent was talking about). Real investment involves risk, most people can't stomach that, even if they really can afford the risk.
But if you invest your money only to keep it, you haven't spent it. Most billionaires have their money in these kind of investments (real estate, stocks, bonds, things like that). Using the money to start a technology company, on the other hand, is spending it. I approve. I think everyone should spend all their money this way (you know, to the extant it's possible I mean, obviously you have to buy food and other essential things).
Anyway, just to elaborate on my earlier point: Most people don't make these kind of risky investments because they are afraid to lose their money. They have failed to realize that money has no intrinsic value and is only good for spending. It's crazy to get caught up worrying about money, and yet most people seem to think the opposite (especially in the US).
I think Apple feels that it is their job to guarantee a consistent user experience on their product. It's good business, because as long as users feel safe downloading the apps, they will keep buying them and keep buying iPhones. Sure, it sucks for the few who would be willing to wade through dozens of bad apps to find one good one, but for everyone else it works great. Developers need to learn that it's not all about them, Apple is genuinely trying to keep its users happy.
This article is about Iridium changing the situation for data on it's network. Even so, 2400bps is fast enough for a lot of telemetry applications where data is gathered daily or hourly.
Many textbooks put forth theories for the origin of life, claiming that it arose out of random chance. They claim this is a "scientific" explanation, but it is not a testable scientific hypothesis so there really is nothing scientific about it. Just read the other guy's explanation, it makes sense.
The Bible in it's original language(s) of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Ancient Greek is still around today. When they dug up the dead-sea scrolls, they compared the accepted modern Hebrew books of the old testament to the manuscripts they found and they were virtually (although not completely) identical. That means they remained essentially unchanged for at least the last 2000 years (of course, the books themselves are much older than that). Scholars possess manuscripts of the new testament which were transcribed between 100 and 400 AD. Modern translations of the Bible have been made from the earliest available Greek manuscripts.
No serious scholar, knowledgeable in such matters, would say "that book that was . . . translated and re-transcribed God only knows how many times (pun intended)." because a lot is known about it. The text is available in its original language(s) today and is subject to constant scrutiny.
It bothers me that so many people think what you do about how the text of the Bible has been maintained. There is a lot of historical evidence that the modern Bible is a faithful representation of the original works contained in it. And with certainty we know it hasn't changed in the last 1600 years (the old testament certainly hasn't changed in the last 2000 years). As far as historical documents go, there's no other text so well preserved and so heavily scrutinized. If you don't believe me, you should look into it for yourself. If you don't believe the Bible is accurate on account of it's age, you shouldn't hold faith in other historical texts for that same reason.
The theoretical underpinnings of "chance" are shaky. All scientific theories assume that things happen in a predictable way (theories must make testable predictions). Due to complexities of small-scale phenomena, chance has been presented as an alternative partial assumption (quantum mechanics).
Some think that the randomness in quantum mechanics is actually brought on by unmeasurable or unknown variables. Others think that things are actually happening in a partially unpredictable way. Since the truth about chance isn't known, we shouldn't be teaching children that the universe, and all life in it, arose through random chance. It is only appropriate to present that as an idea.
What? Free speech sometimes means offending people! You don't support all free speech, you don't support free speech at all! What's next? Should Slashdot automatically delete this post for calling you out as the freedom-hating douche-bag you are?
Do you think I'm being deliberately offensive? The words you have said here are much more offensive than mine. But I haven't been dishonest by covering up my harsh words with flowery language. You don't want to protect people from offense, you want to prevent people from openly expressing their honest opinions in favor of your sanitized version of communication.
I don't think so, they've been continually developing new and improved batters for that entire time, and in very significant quantities. Today, batteries are still too expensive. There is no good reason to believe that anything would be any different if they'd continued to produce the EV1 (except maybe GM needing a bail-out even sooner).
People don't trust intellectuals because intellectuals think they're so smart they can control everyone else. How can you trust someone who thinks they can manipulate you by lying to you? Forget intellectuals. They're just a bunch of smooth talking hypocrites, liars, thieves, megalomaniacs, and wannabe saviors. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know you shouldn't trust people like that.
Indeed. Actually scientists and engineers are much more in touch with religious thought than most because they have to deal with the truth every day and failure to do so is catastrophic. It's lawyers and entertainers who are always saying "things can be however you imagine". They are the ones who believe words make reality, rather than inform it. Getting into that kind of thinking is what separates you form God.
I thought the problem with the EV1 was that it was too expensive to be worthwhile.
Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started
on
Gulf Oil Leak Plugged?
·
· Score: 1
I was pointing how impossible the claim was. No reason to investigate it, really. But of course, I can't claim it's a fact if I haven't done any checking.
Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started
on
Gulf Oil Leak Plugged?
·
· Score: 1
I don't think that's true. It seems like requiring a 24 hour shift would rarely get your cargo where it's headed.
I'd imagine they're wanting to use the technology to propel missals through the atmosphere. In that regard, it is not a diversion. The claim that it's a step on the way to orbit is misleading, but you can't blame them for trying to come up with some pleasant sounding purposes for this technology.
Also, it seems like you could use this for sub-orbital space flight. Mach 6 is still really fast, and there's no friction in space.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the problem for higher education in general. Universities are producing too many degrees. People waste a lot of time and school learning facts and information they will never use (or even talking classes where they don't learn anything) to vie for high-paying jobs that don't exist.
In the meantime, people don't learn the basic information that may be useful to them (like how to fix their car, how to do basic calculations and general problem solving). Nor do they learn useful job skills (universities leave this up to the their students' future employers). Pondering this, one may ask: "what exactly is school good for?" It is stupid to waste 4 (or more) years earning a degree just to fill a check-mark on some corporate recruiter's checklist? Yes. Yes it is.
It's an economies of scale thing. If you had decent capacity on the train things may be different, but the travel time really kills it, so not enough people are willing to ride it to make it worthwhile.
He is right on the money in saying that:
His comment is not a troll, and this level of moderation is clearly and abuse of the moderator system. Ironically, it seems to have been perpetrated by people who believe information should not be obstructed! Hey, assholes, if you really believe in it, how about you prove it by not shouting down or drowning out opposing viewpoints! If you modded this down, and you're reading this post, please comment in this thread to undo it. If isn't fair to mod him down just because you disagree with him.
That said, what does it say about the government of the US that they failed to release the Collateral Murder video on their own? How many other incidents like this have happened in Iraq that the government has covered up? Don't the people of the US have a need to know how their tax dollars are being spent? How would these videos hurt our military effort? Don't the people of Iraq know they've been given the shaft? And don't the other nations in the region assume the same anyway? Anyway, food for thought. It does bother me that he wasn't willing to come out in the first place, but I don't know all the details either.
Look at the alternatives. A train ticket cost as much as a plane ticket (I just checked to make sure), but travel times are significantly longer. And the train ticket does not cover all the costs, hence the government subsides. The cost is not worth the benefit, if you're measuring it with money. If you have a different way of comparing them that is fine, but my claim is justified.
Yes, but people actually use roads, so that makes them seem a little less silly. The benefit generated by Amtrak can not justify the cost. That's why people point it out instead of the highways. Amtrak is a smaller problem, but it's a lot more obvious.
The Merlin vacuum engine had never been used before, and it was successful in the Falcon 9. Also, strapping 9 engines together for the first stage is more complex than using one single engine.
You have to give them credit for the Falcon 9. Things almost never go right with your first try when you're talking about rockets. I certainly didn't expect their launch to be successful. I assume they didn't either since they didn't send anything but a dummy dragon module up with it. This rocket failure does underscore the magnitude of Space X's success.
It's not right to cynically down play the success of the Falcon 9 by pointing out their failures on the Falcon 1 (which were to be expected). And the fact that they were able to avoid a failure in a much larger (and more expensive) rocket by working out those problems with smaller rockets and then scaling up to a bigger one should be credited to them as well. Their idea for how to make rockets cheaper played out, they were right to do things the way they did!
A lot of people have been saying that they put too many engines on the Falcon 9. They point to the failed Russian moon rocket (which had 30) and say that many small engines is the wrong approach. However, the Falcon 9 was successful, so that should prove that it's okay to use many smaller engines in place of one larger one.
There's nothing more depressing than a child spending money he didn't earn.
I sometimes use it to analyze soil samples in the field. Since you aren't necessarily shooting a homogeneous substance, you sometimes get results that don't reflect the overall concentration. To get meaningful data you have to send it to a fixed lab where they will extract it and get an analytical result that is more likely to reflect the real concentration.
I'd agree that such money is not actually invested, however that's what most people talk about when they are talking about investment (certainly it's what the parent was talking about). Real investment involves risk, most people can't stomach that, even if they really can afford the risk.
But if you invest your money only to keep it, you haven't spent it. Most billionaires have their money in these kind of investments (real estate, stocks, bonds, things like that). Using the money to start a technology company, on the other hand, is spending it. I approve. I think everyone should spend all their money this way (you know, to the extant it's possible I mean, obviously you have to buy food and other essential things).
Anyway, just to elaborate on my earlier point: Most people don't make these kind of risky investments because they are afraid to lose their money. They have failed to realize that money has no intrinsic value and is only good for spending. It's crazy to get caught up worrying about money, and yet most people seem to think the opposite (especially in the US).
Actually, the crazy ones are the ones who hold on to their wealth. Money is for spending, it has no other worthwhile purpose.
I think Apple feels that it is their job to guarantee a consistent user experience on their product. It's good business, because as long as users feel safe downloading the apps, they will keep buying them and keep buying iPhones. Sure, it sucks for the few who would be willing to wade through dozens of bad apps to find one good one, but for everyone else it works great. Developers need to learn that it's not all about them, Apple is genuinely trying to keep its users happy.
This article is about Iridium changing the situation for data on it's network. Even so, 2400bps is fast enough for a lot of telemetry applications where data is gathered daily or hourly.
Many textbooks put forth theories for the origin of life, claiming that it arose out of random chance. They claim this is a "scientific" explanation, but it is not a testable scientific hypothesis so there really is nothing scientific about it. Just read the other guy's explanation, it makes sense.
The Bible in it's original language(s) of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Ancient Greek is still around today. When they dug up the dead-sea scrolls, they compared the accepted modern Hebrew books of the old testament to the manuscripts they found and they were virtually (although not completely) identical. That means they remained essentially unchanged for at least the last 2000 years (of course, the books themselves are much older than that). Scholars possess manuscripts of the new testament which were transcribed between 100 and 400 AD. Modern translations of the Bible have been made from the earliest available Greek manuscripts.
No serious scholar, knowledgeable in such matters, would say "that book that was . . . translated and re-transcribed God only knows how many times (pun intended)." because a lot is known about it. The text is available in its original language(s) today and is subject to constant scrutiny.
It bothers me that so many people think what you do about how the text of the Bible has been maintained. There is a lot of historical evidence that the modern Bible is a faithful representation of the original works contained in it. And with certainty we know it hasn't changed in the last 1600 years (the old testament certainly hasn't changed in the last 2000 years). As far as historical documents go, there's no other text so well preserved and so heavily scrutinized. If you don't believe me, you should look into it for yourself. If you don't believe the Bible is accurate on account of it's age, you shouldn't hold faith in other historical texts for that same reason.
The theoretical underpinnings of "chance" are shaky. All scientific theories assume that things happen in a predictable way (theories must make testable predictions). Due to complexities of small-scale phenomena, chance has been presented as an alternative partial assumption (quantum mechanics).
Some think that the randomness in quantum mechanics is actually brought on by unmeasurable or unknown variables. Others think that things are actually happening in a partially unpredictable way. Since the truth about chance isn't known, we shouldn't be teaching children that the universe, and all life in it, arose through random chance. It is only appropriate to present that as an idea.
What? Free speech sometimes means offending people! You don't support all free speech, you don't support free speech at all! What's next? Should Slashdot automatically delete this post for calling you out as the freedom-hating douche-bag you are?
Do you think I'm being deliberately offensive? The words you have said here are much more offensive than mine. But I haven't been dishonest by covering up my harsh words with flowery language. You don't want to protect people from offense, you want to prevent people from openly expressing their honest opinions in favor of your sanitized version of communication.
If this is true, I will have to delete my Facebook account :(
I don't think so, they've been continually developing new and improved batters for that entire time, and in very significant quantities. Today, batteries are still too expensive. There is no good reason to believe that anything would be any different if they'd continued to produce the EV1 (except maybe GM needing a bail-out even sooner).
People don't trust intellectuals because intellectuals think they're so smart they can control everyone else. How can you trust someone who thinks they can manipulate you by lying to you? Forget intellectuals. They're just a bunch of smooth talking hypocrites, liars, thieves, megalomaniacs, and wannabe saviors. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know you shouldn't trust people like that.
Indeed. Actually scientists and engineers are much more in touch with religious thought than most because they have to deal with the truth every day and failure to do so is catastrophic. It's lawyers and entertainers who are always saying "things can be however you imagine". They are the ones who believe words make reality, rather than inform it. Getting into that kind of thinking is what separates you form God.
I thought the problem with the EV1 was that it was too expensive to be worthwhile.
I was pointing how impossible the claim was. No reason to investigate it, really. But of course, I can't claim it's a fact if I haven't done any checking.
I don't think that's true. It seems like requiring a 24 hour shift would rarely get your cargo where it's headed.
I'd imagine they're wanting to use the technology to propel missals through the atmosphere. In that regard, it is not a diversion. The claim that it's a step on the way to orbit is misleading, but you can't blame them for trying to come up with some pleasant sounding purposes for this technology.
Also, it seems like you could use this for sub-orbital space flight. Mach 6 is still really fast, and there's no friction in space.