They are also actually judged by results instead of claiming any result obtained verified what they were claiming.
Meteorologists. Weather predictors. The guys who have been the butt of accuracy jokes for hundreds of years. Are judged by results. That, that right there? That is an interesting position to take.
Have you maybe read the huge reams of scientific research that have been published over the course of the last fifty years or so on the topic? That's a pretty good way to get convinced.
The trailer for Real Steel makes me think many explodey thoughts. Admittedly it's because the trailer looks seamless and intimate and doesn't at all look like it's using trickery (as opposed to, say, Transformers, which used a lot of moving bits to hide some flim flammery).
Clearly those people hadn't watched Wing Commander, which did the rotating perspective thing earlier that year without getting lost up its own ass about it.
Exactly my thoughts. One wonders how fair it is to claim collateral damage on single rounds fired by a guy who has no intention of ever checking the target before opening fire.
So you think it's unreasonable to do all the original research on the biggest space station ever built, launch it into orbit, build the support systems for that station, and staff it with some of the best minds available both on the ground and in space, not to mention getting actual work done on that station at 10 times the cost of building a single airplane? You think, moreover, that the guys who spent 11 billion on that plane would somehow not spend anywhere near 100 billion on that station? That would be an interesting case to try to make. Speaking as a programmer who regularly works for private industry, private industry ain't not saint when it comes to on time under budget.
If by figured out you mean didn't work and nearly killed people constantly, sure. The ISS isn't a moldy, constantly broken, jury-rigged nightmare whose crew have to undergo massive rehabilitation when they return to earth. If you don't think those improvements are necessary for further exploration, well, please don't go into the space business.
Are those works incompatible with the basic skills required of an English student? Because if they are not, and if they are not utterly devoid of social, political, and personal themes and context, then perhaps you shouldn't spit on them quite so readily.
That's the best case. It's also not the normal case. Even those of us who love literature and try very hard to connect to it do not do well with literature from more than a hundred years ago, with a very limited set of exceptions. I love Moby Dick, but I find most of Dickens' novels almost unreadable, for example. But you hand me just about any novel from the last 30 years and I'll be able to get through it, and even if its themes are less universal it will almost certainly benefit from that hundred extra years of refinement in use of language and form (19th century novels often turn into either philosophical dialogues or theatrical scripts in the middle of the action), and the people involved will probably share much more in common with me even if the novel is set in a different time period.
Trying to get people to connect with literature on their own level is the very definition of a good English teacher, at least in the pre-grad-school-prep phase of english language study. If you can't understand the subject under study on your own terms there is literally no point in studying it for other reasons.
It's a fallacy to say "There wasn't a financial model therefore he wasn't in it for the money." There's no question he was aware he could make money off of a successful website, although I won't go so far as to say firmly that that was part of his planning it seems pretty straightforward to suggest that someone who is cagey, intelligent, and ambitious would plan at least partially around making some money. Maybe not a billion dollars, but certainly more than server costs.
This is a fallacy. Lots of internet sites don't have a financial model at the outset; that was practically the defining trait for dot-coms during the bubble. That does not mean the people building and running those sites do not have a financial incentive in mind, it simply means they're following a get big fast, Amazon-style growth model.
It does clearly show the trend, you're right. The trend of XP users transitioning directly to Windows 7. You thinking that these were Vista users just shows that you have no idea what that graph is actually demonstrating. Here's a hint: At the start of the steady climb of Vista users, most new systems started coming with certificates for free upgrades to Windows 7. People were buying systems KNOWING they'd be using Windows 7 on them for most of the system lifespan. They just happened to have Vista for a period of a couple of months. Meanwhile the level of XP users was steadily dropping the whole time.
From the article: The Vista line starts around 15% and ends around 13.5%. Admittedly there's some growth and loss in the middle, but it isn't exactly a huge peak, and it certainly doesn't explain. Not sure where you get 12%, and I'm certainly not sure how you peg a 1.5% year-over-year drop in Vista's market share to account for a 20% Windows 7 market share gain. Must be them new maths.
Did you even read the article? The graph lines are there. All your arguments about how shit theoretically works fail against the fact that the ARTICLE FUCKING SAYS SO. Also, fuck your opinion on swearing, sweetie.
Over the past year it looks like XP has lost an absolute share of 20% of the market, Windows 7 has gained an absolute share of 20% of the market, and Vista has remained fairly steady state. There's not even a fucking flat part on the right half of the graph. It's ridiculous to try to say that represents anything other than a steady rate of adoption of Windows 7. Nobody who has a brain is surprised that it's not an instantaneous 100% adoption rate.
Gravity isn't really the attraction between things, no. Theoretically It's the curvature of space-time, it just happens that all matter is "downhill" from other matter due to the particular fashion in which it causes space time to curve. As you can imagine, the shape and nature of the fundamental space in which we live can change quite a lot of things about the universe, not least what exists within it.
Devolution = the handing off of powers as in England has undergone a process of devolution, ceding most of its former state control to the Scottish government
De-evolution = the regression in evolutionary terms from a "more advanced" form to a "less advanced" one
Storing more than 1 bit per atom shouldn't be that hard, really. Atoms have tons of degrees of freedom - discrete excitation levels, spin, charge, the list goes on. Getting a hardware platform to utilize those degrees is a whole 'nother challenge, but saying 1 bit per atom is the hard wall on theoretical grounds is just silly.
Except most of them support TRIM, and the biggest reason why RAID + SSD is a bad idea is the lack of TRIM support. Colossus doesn't support TRIM because it is that much closer to RAID than a normal SSD. It's a limitation of the controller that ties the individual drives together - sound familiar? I don't know what that sounds like to you, but to me it sounds like a boxed RAID package gussied up to look like a SSD. Compare it to, say, my C300 256GB, which admittedly has multiple controller channels working in tandem but sacrifices ZERO functionality to do so, and in fact gains massively in serial read/write situations because of it - there's no comparison, because one behaves like a RAID array and the other behaves like a single drive.
Slashdot Mirror
They are also actually judged by results instead of claiming any result obtained verified what they were claiming.
Meteorologists. Weather predictors. The guys who have been the butt of accuracy jokes for hundreds of years. Are judged by results. That, that right there? That is an interesting position to take.
Have you maybe read the huge reams of scientific research that have been published over the course of the last fifty years or so on the topic? That's a pretty good way to get convinced.
Turns out SoCal isn't the whole world. I know, I was just as shocked as you are.
Your cutting remark would be worth more if it weren't in connection with how I rate action movies.
Yeah, there have been a ton of better SF concepts for boxing, but the effects for this one are definitely on the jaw dropping side.
I don't differentiate between shitty action movies with bad lead characters except chronologically.
The trailer for Real Steel makes me think many explodey thoughts. Admittedly it's because the trailer looks seamless and intimate and doesn't at all look like it's using trickery (as opposed to, say, Transformers, which used a lot of moving bits to hide some flim flammery).
Clearly those people hadn't watched Wing Commander, which did the rotating perspective thing earlier that year without getting lost up its own ass about it.
Exactly my thoughts. One wonders how fair it is to claim collateral damage on single rounds fired by a guy who has no intention of ever checking the target before opening fire.
So you think it's unreasonable to do all the original research on the biggest space station ever built, launch it into orbit, build the support systems for that station, and staff it with some of the best minds available both on the ground and in space, not to mention getting actual work done on that station at 10 times the cost of building a single airplane? You think, moreover, that the guys who spent 11 billion on that plane would somehow not spend anywhere near 100 billion on that station? That would be an interesting case to try to make. Speaking as a programmer who regularly works for private industry, private industry ain't not saint when it comes to on time under budget.
the magic discovery that will justify space industry.
You mean everything outside of the atmosphere?
If by figured out you mean didn't work and nearly killed people constantly, sure. The ISS isn't a moldy, constantly broken, jury-rigged nightmare whose crew have to undergo massive rehabilitation when they return to earth. If you don't think those improvements are necessary for further exploration, well, please don't go into the space business.
Are those works incompatible with the basic skills required of an English student? Because if they are not, and if they are not utterly devoid of social, political, and personal themes and context, then perhaps you shouldn't spit on them quite so readily.
That's the best case. It's also not the normal case. Even those of us who love literature and try very hard to connect to it do not do well with literature from more than a hundred years ago, with a very limited set of exceptions. I love Moby Dick, but I find most of Dickens' novels almost unreadable, for example. But you hand me just about any novel from the last 30 years and I'll be able to get through it, and even if its themes are less universal it will almost certainly benefit from that hundred extra years of refinement in use of language and form (19th century novels often turn into either philosophical dialogues or theatrical scripts in the middle of the action), and the people involved will probably share much more in common with me even if the novel is set in a different time period.
Trying to get people to connect with literature on their own level is the very definition of a good English teacher, at least in the pre-grad-school-prep phase of english language study. If you can't understand the subject under study on your own terms there is literally no point in studying it for other reasons.
It's a fallacy to say "There wasn't a financial model therefore he wasn't in it for the money." There's no question he was aware he could make money off of a successful website, although I won't go so far as to say firmly that that was part of his planning it seems pretty straightforward to suggest that someone who is cagey, intelligent, and ambitious would plan at least partially around making some money. Maybe not a billion dollars, but certainly more than server costs.
This is a fallacy. Lots of internet sites don't have a financial model at the outset; that was practically the defining trait for dot-coms during the bubble. That does not mean the people building and running those sites do not have a financial incentive in mind, it simply means they're following a get big fast, Amazon-style growth model.
It does clearly show the trend, you're right. The trend of XP users transitioning directly to Windows 7. You thinking that these were Vista users just shows that you have no idea what that graph is actually demonstrating. Here's a hint: At the start of the steady climb of Vista users, most new systems started coming with certificates for free upgrades to Windows 7. People were buying systems KNOWING they'd be using Windows 7 on them for most of the system lifespan. They just happened to have Vista for a period of a couple of months. Meanwhile the level of XP users was steadily dropping the whole time.
From the article: The Vista line starts around 15% and ends around 13.5%. Admittedly there's some growth and loss in the middle, but it isn't exactly a huge peak, and it certainly doesn't explain. Not sure where you get 12%, and I'm certainly not sure how you peg a 1.5% year-over-year drop in Vista's market share to account for a 20% Windows 7 market share gain. Must be them new maths.
Did you even read the article? The graph lines are there. All your arguments about how shit theoretically works fail against the fact that the ARTICLE FUCKING SAYS SO. Also, fuck your opinion on swearing, sweetie.
Over the past year it looks like XP has lost an absolute share of 20% of the market, Windows 7 has gained an absolute share of 20% of the market, and Vista has remained fairly steady state. There's not even a fucking flat part on the right half of the graph. It's ridiculous to try to say that represents anything other than a steady rate of adoption of Windows 7. Nobody who has a brain is surprised that it's not an instantaneous 100% adoption rate.
Gravity isn't really the attraction between things, no. Theoretically It's the curvature of space-time, it just happens that all matter is "downhill" from other matter due to the particular fashion in which it causes space time to curve. As you can imagine, the shape and nature of the fundamental space in which we live can change quite a lot of things about the universe, not least what exists within it.
Brief language lesson:
Devolution = the handing off of powers as in England has undergone a process of devolution, ceding most of its former state control to the Scottish government
De-evolution = the regression in evolutionary terms from a "more advanced" form to a "less advanced" one
Storing more than 1 bit per atom shouldn't be that hard, really. Atoms have tons of degrees of freedom - discrete excitation levels, spin, charge, the list goes on. Getting a hardware platform to utilize those degrees is a whole 'nother challenge, but saying 1 bit per atom is the hard wall on theoretical grounds is just silly.
Except most of them support TRIM, and the biggest reason why RAID + SSD is a bad idea is the lack of TRIM support. Colossus doesn't support TRIM because it is that much closer to RAID than a normal SSD. It's a limitation of the controller that ties the individual drives together - sound familiar? I don't know what that sounds like to you, but to me it sounds like a boxed RAID package gussied up to look like a SSD. Compare it to, say, my C300 256GB, which admittedly has multiple controller channels working in tandem but sacrifices ZERO functionality to do so, and in fact gains massively in serial read/write situations because of it - there's no comparison, because one behaves like a RAID array and the other behaves like a single drive.