So the iPod for those 2 years was only officially compatible with Mac (5-8% market share depending on where you get your stats). Limiting yourself to within that market share isn't a very good idea.
In a way, those initial two years were the period in which iPods established themselves as symbols of exclusivity or elitism. Once established as that, they could then be owned by everybody in the whole world (or so it started to look) whilst still being cool.
Don't know the deliberateness of that, just musing on the ramifications.
One thing you seem not to have a lot of in the USA are Osteopaths. These are very different to chiropractors, more like specialist doctors. In Europe, they're well known and respected and there's a very clear demarcation between them and chiropractors. But I think in the USA, it's more just chiropractors everywhere, yes?
Air is an element . Water is an element . Earth is an element and fire is an element.
Only in the Classical sense. In modern terminology, Water is two elements bonding together to form a molecule called "Water". Fire isn't an element or a molecule - it's a process called "combustion" (though the flame is normally glowing-hot carbon). Air and Earth are both a great big mass of elements.
Today we know what atoms are.
Some people do. Fewer still are those that can give you modern theories as to what the protons, neutrons and electrons that comprise atoms are "made" of.
How do i turn junk into money?
Money is an expression of confidence or faith (lower case) if you like. You merely have to convince people that the junk has value and it can become "money".
How do i live forever
Realise that "I" represents much more than your biological processes, but comprises your beliefs and ideas and actions (unless you really think that by removing these things, the lump of flesh remaining would still be "you"). So long as these non-biological aspects of you are out there being remembered or repeated or continue to influence people's actions at however many degrees of remove, then you persist.
What is the truth about reality ?
There is no more a single "truth" about Reality than there is a single "truth" about my table. There's the truth that my table has four legs, or the one that it's made of wood or that it needs a wipe right now. Which truth you see depends on which question you ask. How could this be true of a table, but not Reality?
alchemy is just science by another name
No. Science is a methodology, an approach. You can approach Alchemy in a Scientific way and once upon a time some people did and they were scientists in that respect. But to say that Alchemy is Science is to say Science is Alchemy. Is doing research on the brain by MRI alchemy? Is splicing foreign genes into plants alchemy? Modern Alchemy is a system of thought and meditation that may or may not be useful to you. But it's not Science any longer. That's Chemistry.
The country's debt was increased for scientists to do research. Scientists accepted the grant which would increase the debt, where grants were disproportionately frequently for research related to offence^Wdefence applications
What are you actually trying to say? Because a post ago, you made a comment that did not in any way take into account whether or not anything was received in exchange for the funding, merely stated that money was given and it was "unsustainable". Without considering what is received in return for the money, you're making only half an argument. Might as well say that I spent money in the supermarket today and that is unsustainable, without making any reference to whether or not I got anything in return for my money and whether or not it was needed / useful.
It is ridiculous for someone who has spent the last 10 years receiving non-existent money in an unsustainable framework for Higher Education to complain that his funding will be cut.
That makes no sense. Scientists were funded for doing research and in return, research was done. You sound as if you think that science funding was just given to people in return for nothing.
I'm getting this scene in my mind like Austen Powers, where Senator McCarthy is unfrozen and keeps rubbing his hands with glee saying "We'll track one million US citizens." His NSA assistant coughs politely. "Uh, [i]billion[/i], sir".
If you understood that just one of our smaller states is larger than your whole country, you'd understand that most of the US is rural and not easily accessible to municipal fire departments.
And yet I'm expected to believe that it's lucrative for private industry to cover such remote areas? Something doesn't add up with that logic.
Familiarity with popular culture is pretty much an unavoidably consequence of being sociable. For comparison, I have seen about six episodes of Star Trek in my life and can vaguely recall having watched Star Wars at some point in my life. And yet by virtue of working in programming and being interested in tech news, I can probably name every fucking member of the crew and tell you what fucking planet Wookies come from. It's a sort of cultural contamination.
I think the idea is to track it when it leaves the building
I don't know. The first thing I thought of when I saw the headline was this guy. I used to think it was funny, but these days I'm getting dangerously close to it myself. if I could just tag all the different power-supplies I have in the house it would be a start. It would be great to go to the hard-drive pile and easily pick out the one that actually corresponds to "used to be stuffed in the beige Sempron box I used as a firewall back in 2005".
To put it in your perspective, should a Swedish fire company cross the border and put out a Finnish house fire?
In that case, the house would be covered by the Finnish fire services. The question would be why in America you have forsaken areas of No Man's Land where no local government will accept responsibility for provinding emergency services.
Not where I live in the UK. Here the small independent cinemas are so squeezed by the big chains that they put on an absurd amount of adverts before the film. After carefully calculating whether or not my friend and I would have time to see a movie before I had to get back for a meeting, I found that there were over half an hour of adverts and trailers before a one and a half-hour film. Needless to say, I wasn't pleased. I'd allowed some leeway but I hadn't expected forty-minutes. And I don't even mind the trailers usually as I like to see them, but this was mainly car ads. I'm unlikely to go there again.
I think at this point, society is seriously messed up. If we have to pay to avoid being monitored and hit with sales pitches, then the world of advertising must be either so desparate or so avaricious, that it's lost all reason. It's tantamount to a protection racket where people pay not to be hassled. And you'd think that if you were an advertiser, your target audience would be the ones that could afford not to see your ads, no?
I don't think it's even the advertising companies that are to blame. Well they are, because they pay for all this, but ultimately they're just driven by the investors with quarterly whips to increase profits higher and higher. It's the market analysts (or whatever they're called these days) who keep offering them this magic ticket whereby the wonderful technique of stripping everyone of the last dregs of their privacy, will connect each seller with an untapped market of people who desparately want their product. They mine every last drop of data they can from us and then try to flog their services to the product manufacturers saying "look - we know who'll buy your goods. Pay ussssss."
Advertising long since stopped being about companies trying to make money off the public. Advertising is now about advertisers trying to make money off the companies.
A motive for "deliberate ambiguity" would be to communicate things differently to different audiences. Modern international politics operates on two levels: the public and the state levels. Behaviour is presented differently according to need. For example, when one country wishes to threaten another, at the state level the threat must be understood or there is no purpose to it. At the public level however, no country wishes to be seen threatening another. The obvious strategy therefore is that sufficient evidence be provided that the state can credibly say: "look what we can do / have done" and to make it seem unlikely that any other party could be credited with the action (more on that momentarily). Whilst at the same time the evidence should be uncertain enough that on the public level it is either deniable or easily drowned in accusations of conspiracy theory.
Whether or not Israel is behind this is unknown. The following factors are things to consider however. Mossad has demonstrated a very advanced level of espionage in Iran and are probably better placed than any other party to know what to target and where except perhaps Russia (who knows?). Israel has both a lot of domestic technical capability as well as both its own Intelligence agencies and, presumably, access to the USA's massive surveillance infrastructure. Any country that intended to "frame" Israel would have to consider the very likely possibility that they would be found out by Israel. You'd have to be a big player to countenance this sort of behaviour. It would certainly do you a great deal of damage in terms of behind the scenes international credibility. And you'd gain little if it were unearthed that Israel had been "framed". On the public level, disinformation is rife. But at the diplomatic level I would think it very likely that if Israel found evidence that they had been framed, they would be able to pass that evidence around in a credible form. Those that wouldn't believe such evidence are already highly opposed to Israel. The rest are privately more open-minded about what might be the truth. And it's the diplomatic level that counts in this case.
I think our main candidates if we are indeed looking at countries, are either Iran, Russia or Israel. Iran's motive would be propaganda. However, they really don't need to do any demonisation of Israel at the public level domestically and I doubt stirring up the IT press is anything they'd consider wildly worthwhile on the public stage. They'd be unlikely to convince big players like the US or Russia (or *obviously* Israel) and there's little to gain from trying to persuade Israel's own enemies not to like Israel. So Iran is a possibility but seems very unlikely to me. Russia has the means and possibly the Intelligence, but I can't see any great motive for them. I don't think they'd actually want more tension between Iran and Israel and unless there's a lot more to the "conn" than just this virus, I can't see them convincing the US over any Israeli denials. Israel obviously wants to strike out at Iran. They do have some military potential in that regard, but that's very far indeed from being without consequences for them.
So if it's a country, we can't rule out some mad scheme by some unsuspected player, but there are considerable reasons to suppose if there is a state actor behind this, that it is Israel. Any "hints" are akin to the kid who smashed your windows winking at you behind the policeman's back because he knows you can't prove he did it. The alternative to a state actor is some very well-resourced group. Either some madly dedicated hackers (which is possible) or there's some criminal organization involved. Organized crime does sometimes get involved in State actions, but usually as proxies. I think they'd be mad to get caught up in something like this. Which returns us to the crazily dedicated hackers, perhaps politically or religiously motivated. It's a bit hard to envisage though. Maybe some strongly Isl
Being Jewish doesn't necessarily have much to do with being Israeli (and vice-versa).
Damn right. There are tonnes of Jewish people who think the actions of the Israeli government are monstrous. But there's a very organised and vocal Israeli lobby that just love trying to make Israel synonymous with Jewish and portray any criticism of themselves as anti-semitic. When of course that strategy actually increases anti-semitism when a country with particularly nasty policies keeps trumpeting "Nuh-uh, we're doing this in the name of Jews everywhere, not just on behalf of a country". It's one of Israel's best cards and they play it to death, leaving Jewish critics of Israel to be ignored at best, or condemned as traitors to their people or grandparents at worst.
While true, your logic could equally be used to support removing the US troops from the game, renaming both groups Force A and Force B. Yet few seem to be clamoring for that.
Of course it's rare. If you have 2,000 workers for one VP, that means that even if every VP is an ex-worker you'd only have a 1 in 2,000 chance of making VP. In what universe could it be any different?
The poster didn't say VP though. They said "equivalent of a senior foreman". And your logic misses the point. The question isn't one of what chance any individual worker has of becoming upper management, but of the chance of that member of upper management having been any one of those individual workers. It's not "did worker X get put in charge" but "did the person in charge have any history as a worker?"
Can't get qualified IT staff? Why should someone who has studied for several years and has worked to gain specialist knowledge, want to work in an environment where people who know less than them and don't have to break their backs to meet arbitrary deadlines are more highly rewarded? When those with the greatest expertise and who have to work hardest to actually create the product get the smallest portion of the credit and the pay, no wonder there are problems encouraging people to work in the field.
I find it semantically ambiguous. I know what they mean to say, but when you say planet A is larger than planet B by X amount, you're saying Planet A = Planet B + X amount. Larger is an inherent comparator that demands a reference. It would be more precise (and quicker) to say planet A is three times the mass of B. Or three times the diameter. Or three times the volume. Three times larger is similar to three times hotter. They're both clumsy.
Maybe he has almost no doubt about the chance of life being 100% in the same way that if I'm almost sure that a bus drove off a cliff then I almost have no doubt that there's a 100% chance of it having fallen due to gravity. I.e. our model says the chance is 100% and I have almost no doubt that the model is correct.
Separately, TFS contradicts TFA. According to TFA, the planet's mass is three times larger than Earth's (I wish they'd just say three times Earth's as three times larger sounds like 1g + 3g to me)
I, for one could care less if the Iranian government spies on me as long as we bomb them back beyond the stone age and turn that garbage pile into a lake.
Leaving aside the non-sensical "could care less" phrasing, you call it a "garbage pile." Why? Been there? Know many Iranians? Any familiarity with Persian history or culture?
Slashdot Mirror
So the iPod for those 2 years was only officially compatible with Mac (5-8% market share depending on where you get your stats). Limiting yourself to within that market share isn't a very good idea.
In a way, those initial two years were the period in which iPods established themselves as symbols of exclusivity or elitism. Once established as that, they could then be owned by everybody in the whole world (or so it started to look) whilst still being cool.
Don't know the deliberateness of that, just musing on the ramifications.
One thing you seem not to have a lot of in the USA are Osteopaths. These are very different to chiropractors, more like specialist doctors. In Europe, they're well known and respected and there's a very clear demarcation between them and chiropractors. But I think in the USA, it's more just chiropractors everywhere, yes?
Air is an element . Water is an element . Earth is an element and fire is an element .
Only in the Classical sense. In modern terminology, Water is two elements bonding together to form a molecule called "Water". Fire isn't an element or a molecule - it's a process called "combustion" (though the flame is normally glowing-hot carbon). Air and Earth are both a great big mass of elements.
Today we know what atoms are.
Some people do. Fewer still are those that can give you modern theories as to what the protons, neutrons and electrons that comprise atoms are "made" of.
How do i turn junk into money?
Money is an expression of confidence or faith (lower case) if you like. You merely have to convince people that the junk has value and it can become "money".
How do i live forever
Realise that "I" represents much more than your biological processes, but comprises your beliefs and ideas and actions (unless you really think that by removing these things, the lump of flesh remaining would still be "you"). So long as these non-biological aspects of you are out there being remembered or repeated or continue to influence people's actions at however many degrees of remove, then you persist.
What is the truth about reality ?
There is no more a single "truth" about Reality than there is a single "truth" about my table. There's the truth that my table has four legs, or the one that it's made of wood or that it needs a wipe right now. Which truth you see depends on which question you ask. How could this be true of a table, but not Reality?
alchemy is just science by another name
No. Science is a methodology, an approach. You can approach Alchemy in a Scientific way and once upon a time some people did and they were scientists in that respect. But to say that Alchemy is Science is to say Science is Alchemy. Is doing research on the brain by MRI alchemy? Is splicing foreign genes into plants alchemy? Modern Alchemy is a system of thought and meditation that may or may not be useful to you. But it's not Science any longer. That's Chemistry.
The Universe is one big holographic game. We discovered an exploit but they fixed it. That is all.
It's okay. He's posting from the Dept. of Defence.
The country's debt was increased for scientists to do research. Scientists accepted the grant which would increase the debt, where grants were disproportionately frequently for research related to offence^Wdefence applications
What are you actually trying to say? Because a post ago, you made a comment that did not in any way take into account whether or not anything was received in exchange for the funding, merely stated that money was given and it was "unsustainable". Without considering what is received in return for the money, you're making only half an argument. Might as well say that I spent money in the supermarket today and that is unsustainable, without making any reference to whether or not I got anything in return for my money and whether or not it was needed / useful.
It is ridiculous for someone who has spent the last 10 years receiving non-existent money in an unsustainable framework for Higher Education to complain that his funding will be cut.
That makes no sense. Scientists were funded for doing research and in return, research was done. You sound as if you think that science funding was just given to people in return for nothing.
It's nice to see that of all the countries in the World, at least one of them is using the standard.
I'm getting this scene in my mind like Austen Powers, where Senator McCarthy is unfrozen and keeps rubbing his hands with glee saying "We'll track one million US citizens." His NSA assistant coughs politely. "Uh, [i]billion[/i], sir".
If you understood that just one of our smaller states is larger than your whole country, you'd understand that most of the US is rural and not easily accessible to municipal fire departments.
And yet I'm expected to believe that it's lucrative for private industry to cover such remote areas? Something doesn't add up with that logic.
Familiarity with popular culture is pretty much an unavoidably consequence of being sociable. For comparison, I have seen about six episodes of Star Trek in my life and can vaguely recall having watched Star Wars at some point in my life. And yet by virtue of working in programming and being interested in tech news, I can probably name every fucking member of the crew and tell you what fucking planet Wookies come from. It's a sort of cultural contamination.
Mod parent +1 The Other Person on /. Who Studied Classics.
I think the idea is to track it when it leaves the building
I don't know. The first thing I thought of when I saw the headline was this guy. I used to think it was funny, but these days I'm getting dangerously close to it myself. if I could just tag all the different power-supplies I have in the house it would be a start. It would be great to go to the hard-drive pile and easily pick out the one that actually corresponds to "used to be stuffed in the beige Sempron box I used as a firewall back in 2005".
To put it in your perspective, should a Swedish fire company cross the border and put out a Finnish house fire?
In that case, the house would be covered by the Finnish fire services. The question would be why in America you have forsaken areas of No Man's Land where no local government will accept responsibility for provinding emergency services.
Not where I live in the UK. Here the small independent cinemas are so squeezed by the big chains that they put on an absurd amount of adverts before the film. After carefully calculating whether or not my friend and I would have time to see a movie before I had to get back for a meeting, I found that there were over half an hour of adverts and trailers before a one and a half-hour film. Needless to say, I wasn't pleased. I'd allowed some leeway but I hadn't expected forty-minutes. And I don't even mind the trailers usually as I like to see them, but this was mainly car ads. I'm unlikely to go there again.
I think at this point, society is seriously messed up. If we have to pay to avoid being monitored and hit with sales pitches, then the world of advertising must be either so desparate or so avaricious, that it's lost all reason. It's tantamount to a protection racket where people pay not to be hassled. And you'd think that if you were an advertiser, your target audience would be the ones that could afford not to see your ads, no?
I don't think it's even the advertising companies that are to blame. Well they are, because they pay for all this, but ultimately they're just driven by the investors with quarterly whips to increase profits higher and higher. It's the market analysts (or whatever they're called these days) who keep offering them this magic ticket whereby the wonderful technique of stripping everyone of the last dregs of their privacy, will connect each seller with an untapped market of people who desparately want their product. They mine every last drop of data they can from us and then try to flog their services to the product manufacturers saying "look - we know who'll buy your goods. Pay ussssss."
Advertising long since stopped being about companies trying to make money off the public. Advertising is now about advertisers trying to make money off the companies.
But, but... I've spent years learning how to read and write iptables configs properly. You can't all change to something simple and intuitive now.
I mean I only needed a couple more years before I had the masquerading down pat.
Deliberate ambiguity.
A motive for "deliberate ambiguity" would be to communicate things differently to different audiences. Modern international politics operates on two levels: the public and the state levels. Behaviour is presented differently according to need. For example, when one country wishes to threaten another, at the state level the threat must be understood or there is no purpose to it. At the public level however, no country wishes to be seen threatening another. The obvious strategy therefore is that sufficient evidence be provided that the state can credibly say: "look what we can do / have done" and to make it seem unlikely that any other party could be credited with the action (more on that momentarily). Whilst at the same time the evidence should be uncertain enough that on the public level it is either deniable or easily drowned in accusations of conspiracy theory.
Whether or not Israel is behind this is unknown. The following factors are things to consider however. Mossad has demonstrated a very advanced level of espionage in Iran and are probably better placed than any other party to know what to target and where except perhaps Russia (who knows?). Israel has both a lot of domestic technical capability as well as both its own Intelligence agencies and, presumably, access to the USA's massive surveillance infrastructure. Any country that intended to "frame" Israel would have to consider the very likely possibility that they would be found out by Israel. You'd have to be a big player to countenance this sort of behaviour. It would certainly do you a great deal of damage in terms of behind the scenes international credibility. And you'd gain little if it were unearthed that Israel had been "framed". On the public level, disinformation is rife. But at the diplomatic level I would think it very likely that if Israel found evidence that they had been framed, they would be able to pass that evidence around in a credible form. Those that wouldn't believe such evidence are already highly opposed to Israel. The rest are privately more open-minded about what might be the truth. And it's the diplomatic level that counts in this case.
I think our main candidates if we are indeed looking at countries, are either Iran, Russia or Israel. Iran's motive would be propaganda. However, they really don't need to do any demonisation of Israel at the public level domestically and I doubt stirring up the IT press is anything they'd consider wildly worthwhile on the public stage. They'd be unlikely to convince big players like the US or Russia (or *obviously* Israel) and there's little to gain from trying to persuade Israel's own enemies not to like Israel. So Iran is a possibility but seems very unlikely to me. Russia has the means and possibly the Intelligence, but I can't see any great motive for them. I don't think they'd actually want more tension between Iran and Israel and unless there's a lot more to the "conn" than just this virus, I can't see them convincing the US over any Israeli denials. Israel obviously wants to strike out at Iran. They do have some military potential in that regard, but that's very far indeed from being without consequences for them.
So if it's a country, we can't rule out some mad scheme by some unsuspected player, but there are considerable reasons to suppose if there is a state actor behind this, that it is Israel. Any "hints" are akin to the kid who smashed your windows winking at you behind the policeman's back because he knows you can't prove he did it. The alternative to a state actor is some very well-resourced group. Either some madly dedicated hackers (which is possible) or there's some criminal organization involved. Organized crime does sometimes get involved in State actions, but usually as proxies. I think they'd be mad to get caught up in something like this. Which returns us to the crazily dedicated hackers, perhaps politically or religiously motivated. It's a bit hard to envisage though. Maybe some strongly Isl
Being Jewish doesn't necessarily have much to do with being Israeli (and vice-versa).
Damn right. There are tonnes of Jewish people who think the actions of the Israeli government are monstrous. But there's a very organised and vocal Israeli lobby that just love trying to make Israel synonymous with Jewish and portray any criticism of themselves as anti-semitic. When of course that strategy actually increases anti-semitism when a country with particularly nasty policies keeps trumpeting "Nuh-uh, we're doing this in the name of Jews everywhere, not just on behalf of a country". It's one of Israel's best cards and they play it to death, leaving Jewish critics of Israel to be ignored at best, or condemned as traitors to their people or grandparents at worst.
While true, your logic could equally be used to support removing the US troops from the game, renaming both groups Force A and Force B. Yet few seem to be clamoring for that.
Of course it's rare. If you have 2,000 workers for one VP, that means that even if every VP is an ex-worker you'd only have a 1 in 2,000 chance of making VP. In what universe could it be any different?
The poster didn't say VP though. They said "equivalent of a senior foreman". And your logic misses the point. The question isn't one of what chance any individual worker has of becoming upper management, but of the chance of that member of upper management having been any one of those individual workers. It's not "did worker X get put in charge" but "did the person in charge have any history as a worker?"
Perhaps. But at least I know where my Shift key is. :)
Can't get qualified IT staff? Why should someone who has studied for several years and has worked to gain specialist knowledge, want to work in an environment where people who know less than them and don't have to break their backs to meet arbitrary deadlines are more highly rewarded? When those with the greatest expertise and who have to work hardest to actually create the product get the smallest portion of the credit and the pay, no wonder there are problems encouraging people to work in the field.
How so? Three times larger can only mean 3 x 1 g.
I find it semantically ambiguous. I know what they mean to say, but when you say planet A is larger than planet B by X amount, you're saying Planet A = Planet B + X amount. Larger is an inherent comparator that demands a reference. It would be more precise (and quicker) to say planet A is three times the mass of B. Or three times the diameter. Or three times the volume. Three times larger is similar to three times hotter. They're both clumsy.
Maybe he has almost no doubt about the chance of life being 100% in the same way that if I'm almost sure that a bus drove off a cliff then I almost have no doubt that there's a 100% chance of it having fallen due to gravity. I.e. our model says the chance is 100% and I have almost no doubt that the model is correct.
Separately, TFS contradicts TFA. According to TFA, the planet's mass is three times larger than Earth's (I wish they'd just say three times Earth's as three times larger sounds like 1g + 3g to me)
I, for one could care less if the Iranian government spies on me as long as we bomb them back beyond the stone age and turn that garbage pile into a lake.
Leaving aside the non-sensical "could care less" phrasing, you call it a "garbage pile." Why? Been there? Know many Iranians? Any familiarity with Persian history or culture?