No, it's not the same thing. When the govt. gives a financial lifeline to a failing company, it's doing so to prevent hundreds of thousands of "consumers" being unable to consume because they have no jobs to earn enough to buy anything. This has an effect on other areas of the economy further down the line who had nothing to do with the actions of the failing business. It is only right that the govt. specifies some positive changes in behaviour from the companies in return. If they had changed before they failed, they probably wouldn't have failed.
Judging by your responses to various topics recently, you really are a cock aren't you. Presumably in your opinion, maps are a crutch for people who lack the analytical ability to understand and implement a functioning GPS system. Here's a clue, sometimes things are useful because they are simple. They are not 2nd best to something designed to be used in an entirely different way. A map can help you determine where you are, with the minimum of cost and outside dependency. A GPS system can give greater accuracy at the cost of massive overheads, political interference, and complexity of devices needed to access the data.
Except there was nothing wrong with Thalidomide. Giving it to pregnant women was a mistake, but when used for the purpose it was designed for (a sedative), it was and still is very successful. It was due to that success that it was considered useful for pregnant women with morning sickness. It had "remarkably few" side effects, unfortunately the big one wasn't discovered due to only being tested on rodents, who metabolise the drug differently from humans.
Thalidomide does not affect your DNA, doesn't cause mutations in any way. It had a purely chemical effect on developing foetuses:
Lead researcher Dr Neil Vargesson said the fact that thalidomide was taken by mothers-to-be at an early stage in their pregnancy was crucial to the deformities because that is when the limbs of babies are still forming. 'The blood vessels involved in this process, at this stage of pregnancy, are still at an immature stage when they rapidly change and expand to accommodate the outgrowing limb,' she [sic] explained.
'But the antiangiogenic activity of the drug stops the growth of these blood vessels and that results in limb defects. 'Now we understand which property of the drug causes limb defects, it remains possible that we could make a safer form of the drug that has the clinical benefits for sufferers of leprosy but does not cause limb defects.'
Found here, which is reporting this. The mere fact that it has taken 50 years to find out why it caused birth defects, shows that it wasn't a trivial problem that they could have prevented. How many drugs/chemicals/cosmetics are tested on pregnant apes these days ?
Humans have evolved over quite a long while to fit onto this rock and its environment, the chance that you will find a better one are pretty much zero.
No not zero at all. Nowhere near zero in fact. Chance is probability, and the probability is defined by the number of planets, which mathematically works out to "quite a lot". The chances of YOU finding a habitable planet are of course zero because you are not even interested in looking. So far we have a sample size of 8 (9 if you still appreciate Pluto), so to say there is no chance is premature. Not to mention of course the way we evolved to fly at 35000 feet at -50 C at twice the speed of sound.
Space is for most part just empty room that will try to kill you and non-earth planets aren't really much better.
Space does not "try" to do anything. Water does not "try" to drown you, in fact if you take your own air, it can be fun. How many "non-earth" planets do you know of ? How many of them have tried to kill you ? When you last crossed the road, how many cars "tried to kill you" ? What did you do to mitigate this risk ? Or did you see it as inescapable fate and stick to your original side of the road ? Oceans for the most part are just empty space with storms that try to kill you, and any non-european continents aren't really much better either. Oh wait...
But they didn't destroy the annotations, they are claiming they will be intact. What's wrong with that picture ? It's one thing to remove access to a work, but for them to even have access to your private annotations is the bigger worry.
I will never own a device like this either. Ooops, apparently you don't own the content anyway, so I should really say, I will never purchase a device like this.
Seriously, "so long as we have enough food and oxygen, all is good" ? Where the fuck does that food come from, idiot ? What processes combine to create that food ? Which lifeforms are necessary to provide those processes ? Which out of the millions of bacteria is it safe to eliminate before we are unable to digest food at all ?
I suppose you think fossil fuels are good because they are effectively free, all you have to do is dig them up. And that is relevant, as without fossil fuels, there is not enough energy on the planet to sustain our current food supply. We are using stored solar energy to grow food more quickly than nature can alone. When that stored energy runs out, we'd better have a new source lined up or a large number of people will starve.
But apparently we don't need other life forms at all. Instead of pesky insects eating plants or each other, we'll just eat plants or each other. Except there will be no plants without other forms of life to pollinate, spread seeds, provide nutrients and generally be part of the whole process.
From my perspective, a test is a perfectly acceptable way to weed out the losers. I have been using computers since the early 80s, never really had to take any tests in an IT related subject, and I don't currently work in IT anyway. But there are many job openings for people who have experience in certain areas, Java, MSQL, Oracle, UNIX, etc. I have experience but no qualifications, or working experience. I see a test as affirming that I am in a position to do the job, that I know what I claim to know. I recently applied for a first line support role, where candidates needed to have a "complete knowledge of microsoft operating systems, and computer hardware and the ability to diagnose down to component level". I used to build, maintain, and troubleshoot computers as a business over 10 years ago. I still know enough to eclipse a lot of younger people. But I was asked to supply my salary expectations and I put 17K as it was only a first level position, and I'm trying to get back in to the business. I was turned down because I asked for too much. I replied saying I would accept 15K and they responded with "This position is paying less than 15K".
So how likely are the successful candidates to know what they are supposed to know ? I'm happy with any trial and have stated as much, but I can't live on air.
BTW, I know what a class is and I've never used C++ or Java. How many people do you know, that know what a nybble is ? Or what hex is, or how your net connection actually works (at any level of knowledge) ? But many of these people are in relatively good IT based jobs. There are many positions for PHP "Programmers" that are paying well over first level support pay levels, but PHP is a functional equivalent of using word macros to create a document. Hardly programming is it. I could probably hack a few scripts together to demonstrate my ability in PHP, but why bother - I hate the language, and I'm looking to stretch my brain not pickle it. I see myself as more analyst programmer than codemonkey, I enjoy solving problems not pumping out streams of data in a way conducive to advertising execs.
So how do you prove an ability to solve problems when you have no working experience as evidence ? Without a test it's impossible.
So a potential employer asks a question and all you can do is argue that the question isn't relevant ? Great way to start a working relationship. How about asking them to redefine the question, or offering as many different definitions as you know about ? Show some willing FFS, you are supposed to be able to solve problems not argue the semantics of the question. Saying either "I don't know" or "there are many different options" does not even attempt to answer the question, it's just being evasive. If you were asked to describe what a class is you go with the most basic definition you can. If they want more they will ask for it. Correctly using terms that are significant, like encapsulation or inheritance in your description hints at a wider understanding of what a class is, and may forestall further questions in that vein. Saying it's where you learned to program is likely to be off-topic. Seriously, have you got a brain, or do you over-analyse everything ?
Q. How do I get to the train station ? A. Well if you start from the city centre you go... Q. But I'm not in the city centre ! A. Oh well you didn't define the question properly, don't waste my time ! Q. ??? {asshole}
Digital books are damn convenient and once these readers start hitting 99 dollars its really over for the paper book. What a waste of resources they are: The growing and cutting of trees. The inks. The printing, etc. And all the room they take up!
You missed "the permanence". ebooks are fine for quick reference on the move, but they don't actually exist in the real world. They are just the latest representation of what was once reliable and dependable. You can't in good faith supply references to ebooks, because the content could easily have changed by the time somebody reads your reference. Sometimes this is for good reasons, but a lot of times it is for bad. How can you prove libel if the document no longer exists in that state ? Screenshots and printouts can be faked, all the power is with the publisher of the work. At least with a real paper book, there are thousands of them in the wild that can be referred to and cannot be edited later without issuing a whole new print run, which doesn't negate the existence of the original.
If you want 1984, make information malleable, impermanent and arbitrary by only publishing electronic versions. This is why DRM is necessary, to prevent 3rd parties from altering the content. Note that this doesn't prevent the author/publisher from altering the content, just the end user. This does not help the pursuit of knowledge, it helps the authoritarian control of information.
Future civilisations will not find any sacred scrolls, or early works of genius, or even an accurate account of history. It will all have been edited to fuck right up to the apocalypse that wiped it out. You can't beat actual physical writing on a relatively permanent medium for ease of use and access. Sneakernet is more reliable long term, and if you're going to transmit the information by hand anyway, why make its access dependant on electricity or technical gadgetry ?
Remember, we have ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.
Arguing for a paperless society is akin to arguing for credit cards over cash. Yes credit cards are more convenient, but they can be turned off at the source. It is not real money, it is dependent on the goodwill of the provider. Cash or gold or gems will always have more real use than credit, simply because they physically exist, and do not disappear if the power goes down. All you need are a few strategically placed EMPs or a cunning virus and your whole electronic library is, somewhat ironically, history. Real books might suffer from termites or water but they exist in sufficient numbers to mitigate that risk.
OK this time Amazon gave access back to those customers whose copies of 1984 were revoked, but imagine if it had been deleted from their servers too. Without a paper copy, that work would have ceased to exist in an authoritative form. You can defend corporations as much as you like, but they should not have control over our history.
The waste heat is currently lost to the atmosphere in the cooling towers. There is no reason not to be running the cold input water through a heat exchanger to recapture some of that waste heat. This is how efficiency works.
The mechanical work comes from superheating the water and letting the steam turn turbines. In other words, you ADD heat - it makes no difference what the exhaust is used for as the work has already been done. There is no useful work being done by having the steam condense back to water other than helping to draw the steam into the turbine. By recapturing some of that waste heat you make the system more efficient. The process does not rely on having ice cold water as an input, just water in a liquid phase. You seem to be confusing a steam turbine with a closed system steam engine, where you need to condense to create a vacuum that actually works on the piston.
To be honest your last statement doesn't make sense anyway. You don't "*need*" waste heat to condense the steam, it is the very thing you are trying to get rid of. In fact you want as little heat as possible to make the phase change quicker. Whether the "waste" heat is lost to the atmosphere or to the incoming cold water makes no difference to the process. In an ideal system you would be getting water out of the exhaust not steam, but as that doesn't work, you need to let the steam condense, but only when you have extracted all the energy you can from it. This is why they reheat steam and admit it to several subsequent turbines before they cut their losses and send it to the cooling towers. Notice that they reheat the steam. It is more efficient to reheat than to heat from cold. The closer the input water is to phase change, then the less energy you need to make that phase change happen. Otherwise there would be no point to this article.
"The MPAA is once again trying to badger the FCC into approving Selectable Output Control, which would plug the 'analog hole' during broadcasts of some prerelease HD movies. "
Which prerelease HD movies are those ? They never release to the TV networks before the cinema release, so there is no hole to plug. Unless they are using some obscure meaning of the word "broadcast" which nobody else uses. If they are talking about the release of disks then why not release the disks first. Oh, but then they wouldn't be able to screw the TV stations for payment.
Which were both taken from the word - Patent, meaning, err, definitive. When would you open source the mechanism you used to create the first anti-gravity device ? immediately - or hold onto it as long as possible ?
So even though you just lost that argument, the mere fact you lost means you win ? Get a life. Big words and pidgin grammar don't prove anything. You seem to belong the the same school who believe words only mean what you want them to mean when you accidentally misspell them instead of something else. "Language changes" you cry, but just coz you say it, doesn't make it so. You should work for an advertising agency.
BTW, this has got to be my new sig:
Prove me wrong and I'll win the argument, for the one whom convinces the other leaves the argumentation no wiser, only the other does. Unfortunately I feel that I have learned nothing.
So it's only a word but don't use it ? Get a grip. Your whole justification speech winds up saying corporations are evil. Have you never seen the devil in a movie ? He spends most of the first hour showing people how to do shitty things and get away with it. Maybe you fell asleep but THAT NEVER WORKS OUT !
Which acronym ? I'm thinking NASA, as I'm pretty sure it used to mean National Aeronautic and Space Agency. But here they are fucking around in the desert. Is that their purview ? Surely they should concentrate on flying and getting between planets ?
I Robot isn't about Robots, it's about the inadequacy of the rules.
No, it isn't, it's about applying the rules equally. Whether that shows up how bad the rules are is secondary. Logic versus human interaction. Counterpoint. All the Robot stories were detective stories, the point being to prove logic, not relative inadequacies between humans and robots. Robots were a good literary foil at the time, that's all.
You could have picked any criminal for those stories, and had the same result. What made the plot was the fact that the robots in most cases were incapable of committing the act they were accused of, but the general perception was they were not to be trusted. Bias and polemics. Nothing new there then.
If anybody ever says to me "asimov was a racist" I will cheerfully lay them out. Just for being a philistine.
Lets just say its an acquired taste. Its obviously pretty heavily influenced by social conventions at the time. The entire landing sequence is more or less an homage to the drug-heavy counter-culture at the time.
This.
You realise that this was released before the Apollo landings ? There was nothing other than satellites and grainy B&W photos of earth. Then you associate lack of knowledge with drug use.But you treat the imagination of others like shit because they were too early ! Just you wait, grasshopper !
(Before you bang on, let me explain that when the moon landing was on, I was watching it on about a 12" B&W tv. And that was a decent screen for the proles back then. Watching 2001 on a BIG screen back then made me jump. Literally. Apparently my parents had to take me out when the airlock opened when dave gets back in to the ship. )
What many people don't get these days, is that we were already thinking in a futuristic direction, and 2001 was part of that. Then we actually made a start on the mechanics of the plot and found real life is a lot harder. That makes us look like we failed. No, we attempted to realise a dream. Fuck me if you don't appreciate it.
The past need no excuses. Prove us wrong.
[mumble}{mumble} I should really bang on about how history is a lot closer to you than you imagine right now, but you won't listen. You pooh pooh stories about how it used to be without realising that we're talking about yesterday. Think about it.
Some of the finest minds in the world were working for Hitler ! and these days, many people are learning about computers by being led (badly) through the inconsistent minefield that is Office 2007. What has a badly laid out app got to do with computing ? You must be gay. ( ooh, was that un-PC ?)
And as for the "ribbon" - hah. Adobe had that functionality 10 years ago, is this supposed to be new ? Ooh we'll stick a couple of references to this on the menu, make it look intelligent. Try using Fireworks or Dreamweaver from 2000 and see how "revolutionary" this is.
IMHO, this is what's up with/. these days. It used to be people who built and made computers do something, now it's people who build computers and expect something. this is why open source exists, fuckers - to show you how to take control of your own life. But you would rather your destiny was decided by MS or the govt. Sucks to be you.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not the same thing. When the govt. gives a financial lifeline to a failing company, it's doing so to prevent hundreds of thousands of "consumers" being unable to consume because they have no jobs to earn enough to buy anything. This has an effect on other areas of the economy further down the line who had nothing to do with the actions of the failing business. It is only right that the govt. specifies some positive changes in behaviour from the companies in return. If they had changed before they failed, they probably wouldn't have failed.
Judging by your responses to various topics recently, you really are a cock aren't you.
Presumably in your opinion, maps are a crutch for people who lack the analytical ability to understand and implement a functioning GPS system.
Here's a clue, sometimes things are useful because they are simple. They are not 2nd best to something designed to be used in an entirely different way. A map can help you determine where you are, with the minimum of cost and outside dependency. A GPS system can give greater accuracy at the cost of massive overheads, political interference, and complexity of devices needed to access the data.
Thalidomide does not affect your DNA, doesn't cause mutations in any way. It had a purely chemical effect on developing foetuses
Found here, which is reporting this. The mere fact that it has taken 50 years to find out why it caused birth defects, shows that it wasn't a trivial problem that they could have prevented. How many drugs/chemicals/cosmetics are tested on pregnant apes these days ?
No not zero at all. Nowhere near zero in fact. Chance is probability, and the probability is defined by the number of planets, which mathematically works out to "quite a lot". The chances of YOU finding a habitable planet are of course zero because you are not even interested in looking. So far we have a sample size of 8 (9 if you still appreciate Pluto), so to say there is no chance is premature. Not to mention of course the way we evolved to fly at 35000 feet at -50 C at twice the speed of sound.
Space does not "try" to do anything. Water does not "try" to drown you, in fact if you take your own air, it can be fun. How many "non-earth" planets do you know of ? How many of them have tried to kill you ? When you last crossed the road, how many cars "tried to kill you" ? What did you do to mitigate this risk ? Or did you see it as inescapable fate and stick to your original side of the road ? ...
Oceans for the most part are just empty space with storms that try to kill you, and any non-european continents aren't really much better either. Oh wait
But they didn't destroy the annotations, they are claiming they will be intact. What's wrong with that picture ? It's one thing to remove access to a work, but for them to even have access to your private annotations is the bigger worry.
I will never own a device like this either. Ooops, apparently you don't own the content anyway, so I should really say, I will never purchase a device like this.
This has to be a troll right ?
Seriously, "so long as we have enough food and oxygen, all is good" ? Where the fuck does that food come from, idiot ? What processes combine to create that food ? Which lifeforms are necessary to provide those processes ? Which out of the millions of bacteria is it safe to eliminate before we are unable to digest food at all ?
I suppose you think fossil fuels are good because they are effectively free, all you have to do is dig them up. And that is relevant, as without fossil fuels, there is not enough energy on the planet to sustain our current food supply. We are using stored solar energy to grow food more quickly than nature can alone. When that stored energy runs out, we'd better have a new source lined up or a large number of people will starve.
But apparently we don't need other life forms at all. Instead of pesky insects eating plants or each other, we'll just eat plants or each other. Except there will be no plants without other forms of life to pollinate, spread seeds, provide nutrients and generally be part of the whole process.
From my perspective, a test is a perfectly acceptable way to weed out the losers. I have been using computers since the early 80s, never really had to take any tests in an IT related subject, and I don't currently work in IT anyway. But there are many job openings for people who have experience in certain areas, Java, MSQL, Oracle, UNIX, etc. I have experience but no qualifications, or working experience. I see a test as affirming that I am in a position to do the job, that I know what I claim to know. I recently applied for a first line support role, where candidates needed to have a "complete knowledge of microsoft operating systems, and computer hardware and the ability to diagnose down to component level". I used to build, maintain, and troubleshoot computers as a business over 10 years ago. I still know enough to eclipse a lot of younger people. But I was asked to supply my salary expectations and I put 17K as it was only a first level position, and I'm trying to get back in to the business. I was turned down because I asked for too much. I replied saying I would accept 15K and they responded with "This position is paying less than 15K".
So how likely are the successful candidates to know what they are supposed to know ? I'm happy with any trial and have stated as much, but I can't live on air.
BTW, I know what a class is and I've never used C++ or Java. How many people do you know, that know what a nybble is ? Or what hex is, or how your net connection actually works (at any level of knowledge) ? But many of these people are in relatively good IT based jobs. There are many positions for PHP "Programmers" that are paying well over first level support pay levels, but PHP is a functional equivalent of using word macros to create a document. Hardly programming is it. I could probably hack a few scripts together to demonstrate my ability in PHP, but why bother - I hate the language, and I'm looking to stretch my brain not pickle it. I see myself as more analyst programmer than codemonkey, I enjoy solving problems not pumping out streams of data in a way conducive to advertising execs.
So how do you prove an ability to solve problems when you have no working experience as evidence ? Without a test it's impossible.
So a potential employer asks a question and all you can do is argue that the question isn't relevant ? Great way to start a working relationship. How about asking them to redefine the question, or offering as many different definitions as you know about ? Show some willing FFS, you are supposed to be able to solve problems not argue the semantics of the question. Saying either "I don't know" or "there are many different options" does not even attempt to answer the question, it's just being evasive. If you were asked to describe what a class is you go with the most basic definition you can. If they want more they will ask for it. Correctly using terms that are significant, like encapsulation or inheritance in your description hints at a wider understanding of what a class is, and may forestall further questions in that vein. Saying it's where you learned to program is likely to be off-topic. Seriously, have you got a brain, or do you over-analyse everything ?
...
Q. How do I get to the train station ?
A. Well if you start from the city centre you go
Q. But I'm not in the city centre !
A. Oh well you didn't define the question properly, don't waste my time !
Q. ??? {asshole}
You missed "the permanence". ebooks are fine for quick reference on the move, but they don't actually exist in the real world. They are just the latest representation of what was once reliable and dependable. You can't in good faith supply references to ebooks, because the content could easily have changed by the time somebody reads your reference. Sometimes this is for good reasons, but a lot of times it is for bad. How can you prove libel if the document no longer exists in that state ? Screenshots and printouts can be faked, all the power is with the publisher of the work. At least with a real paper book, there are thousands of them in the wild that can be referred to and cannot be edited later without issuing a whole new print run, which doesn't negate the existence of the original.
If you want 1984, make information malleable, impermanent and arbitrary by only publishing electronic versions. This is why DRM is necessary, to prevent 3rd parties from altering the content. Note that this doesn't prevent the author/publisher from altering the content, just the end user. This does not help the pursuit of knowledge, it helps the authoritarian control of information.
Future civilisations will not find any sacred scrolls, or early works of genius, or even an accurate account of history. It will all have been edited to fuck right up to the apocalypse that wiped it out. You can't beat actual physical writing on a relatively permanent medium for ease of use and access. Sneakernet is more reliable long term, and if you're going to transmit the information by hand anyway, why make its access dependant on electricity or technical gadgetry ?
Remember, we have ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.
Arguing for a paperless society is akin to arguing for credit cards over cash. Yes credit cards are more convenient, but they can be turned off at the source. It is not real money, it is dependent on the goodwill of the provider. Cash or gold or gems will always have more real use than credit, simply because they physically exist, and do not disappear if the power goes down. All you need are a few strategically placed EMPs or a cunning virus and your whole electronic library is, somewhat ironically, history. Real books might suffer from termites or water but they exist in sufficient numbers to mitigate that risk.
OK this time Amazon gave access back to those customers whose copies of 1984 were revoked, but imagine if it had been deleted from their servers too. Without a paper copy, that work would have ceased to exist in an authoritative form. You can defend corporations as much as you like, but they should not have control over our history.
The waste heat is currently lost to the atmosphere in the cooling towers. There is no reason not to be running the cold input water through a heat exchanger to recapture some of that waste heat. This is how efficiency works.
The mechanical work comes from superheating the water and letting the steam turn turbines. In other words, you ADD heat - it makes no difference what the exhaust is used for as the work has already been done. There is no useful work being done by having the steam condense back to water other than helping to draw the steam into the turbine. By recapturing some of that waste heat you make the system more efficient. The process does not rely on having ice cold water as an input, just water in a liquid phase. You seem to be confusing a steam turbine with a closed system steam engine, where you need to condense to create a vacuum that actually works on the piston.
To be honest your last statement doesn't make sense anyway. You don't "*need*" waste heat to condense the steam, it is the very thing you are trying to get rid of. In fact you want as little heat as possible to make the phase change quicker. Whether the "waste" heat is lost to the atmosphere or to the incoming cold water makes no difference to the process. In an ideal system you would be getting water out of the exhaust not steam, but as that doesn't work, you need to let the steam condense, but only when you have extracted all the energy you can from it. This is why they reheat steam and admit it to several subsequent turbines before they cut their losses and send it to the cooling towers. Notice that they reheat the steam. It is more efficient to reheat than to heat from cold. The closer the input water is to phase change, then the less energy you need to make that phase change happen. Otherwise there would be no point to this article.
Which prerelease HD movies are those ? They never release to the TV networks before the cinema release, so there is no hole to plug. Unless they are using some obscure meaning of the word "broadcast" which nobody else uses. If they are talking about the release of disks then why not release the disks first. Oh, but then they wouldn't be able to screw the TV stations for payment.
Which were both taken from the word - Patent, meaning, err, definitive.
When would you open source the mechanism you used to create the first anti-gravity device ?
immediately - or hold onto it as long as possible ?
Hear, hear.
fumble
straw man
?
???
BTW, ROLF is the state of ROFL when you upchuck and catch it before it leaves your person.
So even though you just lost that argument, the mere fact you lost means you win ? Get a life. Big words and pidgin grammar don't prove anything. You seem to belong the the same school who believe words only mean what you want them to mean when you accidentally misspell them instead of something else. "Language changes" you cry, but just coz you say it, doesn't make it so. You should work for an advertising agency.
BTW, this has got to be my new sig
Prove me wrong and I'll win the argument, for the one whom convinces the other leaves the argumentation no wiser, only the other does. Unfortunately I feel that I have learned nothing.
ROLF
I can't prove gravity ergo it doesn't exist, knobhead.
So it's only a word but don't use it ?
Get a grip. Your whole justification speech winds up saying corporations are evil. Have you never seen the devil in a movie ? He spends most of the first hour showing people how to do shitty things and get away with it. Maybe you fell asleep but THAT NEVER WORKS OUT !
Nice.
Which acronym ? I'm thinking NASA, as I'm pretty sure it used to mean National Aeronautic and Space Agency. But here they are fucking around in the desert. Is that their purview ?
Surely they should concentrate on flying and getting between planets ?
No, it isn't, it's about applying the rules equally. Whether that shows up how bad the rules are is secondary. Logic versus human interaction. Counterpoint. All the Robot stories were detective stories, the point being to prove logic, not relative inadequacies between humans and robots. Robots were a good literary foil at the time, that's all.
You could have picked any criminal for those stories, and had the same result. What made the plot was the fact that the robots in most cases were incapable of committing the act they were accused of, but the general perception was they were not to be trusted. Bias and polemics. Nothing new there then.
If anybody ever says to me "asimov was a racist" I will cheerfully lay them out. Just for being a philistine.
Sorry, it will be transmitted via nerve endings in your anus, future guy on your future toilet. Makes me shit ...
This.
You realise that this was released before the Apollo landings ? There was nothing other than satellites and grainy B&W photos of earth. Then you associate lack of knowledge with drug use.But you treat the imagination of others like shit because they were too early ! Just you wait, grasshopper !
(Before you bang on, let me explain that when the moon landing was on, I was watching it on about a 12" B&W tv. And that was a decent screen for the proles back then. Watching 2001 on a BIG screen back then made me jump. Literally. Apparently my parents had to take me out when the airlock opened when dave gets back in to the ship. )
What many people don't get these days, is that we were already thinking in a futuristic direction, and 2001 was part of that. Then we actually made a start on the mechanics of the plot and found real life is a lot harder. That makes us look like we failed. No, we attempted to realise a dream. Fuck me if you don't appreciate it.
The past need no excuses. Prove us wrong.
[mumble}{mumble}
I should really bang on about how history is a lot closer to you than you imagine right now, but you won't listen. You pooh pooh stories about how it used to be without realising that we're talking about yesterday. Think about it.
I'm sorry, did you say Jesus ?
fuck off prick
/. these days. It used to be people who built and made computers do something, now it's people who build computers and expect something. this is why open source exists, fuckers - to show you how to take control of your own life. But you would rather your destiny was decided by MS or the govt. Sucks to be you.
Some of the finest minds in the world were working for Hitler !
and these days, many people are learning about computers by being led (badly) through the inconsistent minefield that is Office 2007. What has a badly laid out app got to do with computing ?
You must be gay. ( ooh, was that un-PC ?)
And as for the "ribbon" - hah. Adobe had that functionality 10 years ago, is this supposed to be new ? Ooh we'll stick a couple of references to this on the menu, make it look intelligent. Try using Fireworks or Dreamweaver from 2000 and see how "revolutionary" this is.
IMHO, this is what's up with