From the point of view of the person whom you are cautious of, what is the difference that they can see between you being cautious and you being tolerant? Your motivations might be different, but the effect that they see is the same - and it is that effect that they see that makes it a bad idea, in my opinion.
Running vs walking is a totally different situation:
Walking X miles instead of Running X miles means: Takes longer, but at a lesser energy rate. Same energy overall is spent.
Bike with high drag for X miles instead of bike with low drag for X miles means: Still takes longer to finish, but at the SAME energy rate. The slowdown is caused by drag, not by lessened effort. More overall energy is spent.
As an aside, in general, when it comes to excercising, the goal isn't just the number of calories burned while excercising. That's not really the important part. The important part is that if you excercise at a high output at frequent intervals, you end up training your body to change how it burns calories the rest of the time, even when at rest. Your body's metabolism changes depending on what kind of activities it is asked to fufill. If you never raise your heart rate, and don't move around, your stupid body ends up believing it should go into low-power mode and efficiently store up as much energy as possible, like you're heading into winter hibernation. This is that state that most modern people are in all the time. If you subject your body to the regular need for bursts of speed, it responds by changing your metabolism into a more wasteful, but higher-output setting. This is actually the goal of excercise.
(So, back to the start - although walking and running burn the same calories per mile WHILE you do them, running causes you to burn more calories afterward when you are just resting on the couch.)
What you say would only be true if I was saying "I will ride for x number of minutes today", and then I would get the same workout whether I travelled in a harder bike at a slower speed, or an easier bike at a higher speed."
But what I'm doing is commuting to work on it, and getting exercise as a side-effect. That means I am NOT working out for a fixed amount of time. I am working out for a fixed amount of *distance*. And thus if I use the bike that gives me the same workout at a slower speed, I end up working out for a longer time to cover that same fixed distance. If I use a bike where it's easy to go fast, then I end up finishing too soon.
I don't think it's a good idea to give out extra tolerance to people as a reward for them being oversensitive intolerent people themselves - just like it's a bad idea to give in to the demands of a hijacker - because it teaches the lesson that being a bad person is a "winning" strategy.
The day a major popular television show is made in the middle east that can make jokes about Islam that are as raunchy and irreverent as the kinds of things you see about Christianity on the Simpsons or Family Guy over here, without fear, then maybe I'll have more empathy for them.
As an atheist, I've often wished that people around the world would just give up religious styles of thought (which exist in things other than just religions - the way some people approach politics have the same sorts of problems), but I don't think that's ever going to happen. Now I'd just be happy if people would be more tolerant of opposing viewpoints. The splintering of Christianity into many different little factions really helped transform it into mostly being the religion of peace and tolerance it claims to be (when it really wasn't before that, with major church doctrine being tied to political machinations). My only hope for Islam is that it ends up having the same sort of thing happen to it soon. The biggest concern I have over it is that it is a religious tenet in Islam that religion must rule over government - so it would be hard to have a secular government in an islamic country like the many secular democratic governments that exist in christian countries. Turkey has managed to pull it off, but I can't think of any other good examples. (Pakistan would have been but it's still operating from the results of a military coup).
Anybody remember exhoribitant long distance prices in the era of the government mandated telco monopoly?
I was too young to be the one paying the phone bills. But I *do* remember my parents complaining about having to lease the phone from Ma Bell and not being allowed to hook up a third-party telephone to the network. Thus the prices of physical phones was excessive, and the technology was stagnant.
If the data isn't fed through a third party, then what reason do you have to believe it is accurate? It would be as believable as a company's own press release, and have just as much lack of accountability.
This does not help business. It helps previously established businesses. (Keeping the little guy from competeing is a form of harming business, in the long run.)
Yes, that is a hallmark of a republican administration, though - to act as if past business success gives you an entitlement to future business success indefinitely, and if your business model starts to fail because the world is a changing place, then pass laws to make the world change more slowly.
An orbiting craft (like the shuttle) is not on a ballistic path that brings it back into the atmosphere all by itself. The SS1 is. Thus the SS1 doesn't need any ability to thrust to slow itself down in space. It just has to wait and let gravity bring it back (which is part of what would make it useless as an orbiter - once in space it's just going on momentum and can't really control itself much.) An orbiter, on the other hand, needs the ability to slow itself down while still out in space, before it will even drop down to the atmosphere in the first place. Therefore, the trick of just using the areodynamics of the shuttlecock don't help - because an orbiter needs to be able to maneuver itself while still outside the atmosphere, in order to be able to even *reach* the atmosphere. And that means small thrusters to orient itself, and enough fuel to fire a big engine to slow itself down.
By "equivilent ballast" of two other humans, do they have to take up just the mass, or do they also need to take up the volume? (I could easily see a one-seater craft with a bunch of lead ingots for the mass being a way to sort of cheat around this requirement otherwise.)
The same slashdotters who were rooting for SS1 invariably turn out to be the ones to immediately whine about it when SS1 lands
And you came by this information how?
Slashdot is not a single hive mind. Never accuse an eclectic group of engaging in hypocracy when you haven't yet figured out whom in the group is making which statements.
1. Marketshare for servers shouldn't be measured by number of units sold, but by number of people served by the units sold. I serve 100 people with a big machine and you serve 80 people with 4 smaller machines, the marketshare ratio is 100:80 ( = 5:4), not 1:4.
2. OS preinstalled with machine != OS actually in use after installation. Why bother buying a server with Linux on it when you can just install the OS afterward for the same price, and probably would want to *anyway* to make the setup conform to your local company standards? When one OS is typically distributed by shipping it with the machine, and the other one is typically distributed by applying it afterward, to assume that the preinstalled OS comparasins is an accurate measure of marketshare is a bullshitter's tactic.
Yes, but I don't see this as a good thing. It's an unfortunately unavoidable evil that knowlege has to rest on unproven axioms at some point. It's not something to celebrate.
One very valid reason to NOT pick an efficient bike is that your goal in choosing to bike to work might be to get excercise. Yes, you'll have to work harder on a mountain bike than a road bike - but that might actually be the whole point.
The poster probably intended you to read it as if the subject line was the start of the sentence (I hate it when people do that, BTW), so it should read:
The road ahead did not have Internet.
And, yes this is evidnece of Bill's inability to predict anything.
But you were right that in this particular case, what people are claiming Bill said isn't what he actually said. He said Linux and Windows would be the only *LEADING* OS's, not that they would be the only OS's at all. Now of course, since what it means to be a "leading" OS is a jumbled, undefined mess, What Bill said is fairly vague and meaningless.
By "unix", do you mean it the way people in the computer industry normally use the term, or do you mean the way people talk about it when they know lawyers are listening? I ask because your statement only makes sense if Linux isn't included in your term "UNIX" - and really the only people who view it that way are the old guard who don't want to let go of the old days, lawyers who have to watch out about the use of trademarked words, or people trying to spread fud about the death of unix, which is easier if your stats don't include linux.
But he's right about the death of MacOS if not the company that produced it. Now Apple is selling a fork of BSD with a lot of their custom application code on top of it. That they call it version 10 of MacOS is a lie. It would have been more honest to call it by a totally new name, and reset the release number to 1.0. If OSX on BSD is a release of MacOS than Wine on Linux is a release of Windows.
There were very good reasons to predict the death of MacOS. It had a *LOT* of problems that were not fixable such that the only real fix was to start over with something new - which is exactly what Apple ended up doing. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great product, and the magnitude of the task they did proved that people at Apple do in fact know how to do more than just make pretty interfaces that impress artists, and that they really do have people with impressive skills on staff (which surprised me, frankly). I like what they've done in their new OS. I just don't like that they did a marketing lie by calling it another release of MacOS.
Christianity's stance on this is self-contradictory, such that one could be a Christian and still be offended by being ordered to pray like this, since this type of prayer is contrary to the Christian description of god's personality. To say that god needs your help to notice that a person is suffering and in need of help doesn't seem to agree with Christianity itself.
This sort of thing happens a lot in Christianity - since the religion is self-contradictory there can, and do, exist people with very strongly opposed viewpoints who both think they are following the religion.
I think you'd have to believe in extreme omnipotence to think that your plea on behalf of yourself or another would be heard and acted upon amongst the host of other pleas.
Actually the problem is the exact opposite of that. By assuming God needs you to help remind him that there is someone in need of help, you would be assuming God to be *less* powerful than he's alleged to be.
It's an act of kindness that makes one feel better.
If it has no effect on anyone but the pray-er, then to whom is this "kindness" being given? Yes, it maybe makes one feel better, but the only reason it makes people feel better is because they believe it has an effect on the person being prayed for. If it doesn't, then it's all a hollow meaningless gesture.
Slashdot Mirror
From the point of view of the person whom you are cautious of, what is the difference that they can see between you being cautious and you being tolerant? Your motivations might be different, but the effect that they see is the same - and it is that effect that they see that makes it a bad idea, in my opinion.
Running vs walking is a totally different situation:
Walking X miles instead of Running X miles means:
Takes longer, but at a lesser energy rate. Same energy overall is spent.
Bike with high drag for X miles instead of bike with low drag for X miles means:
Still takes longer to finish, but at the SAME energy rate. The slowdown is caused by drag, not by lessened effort. More overall energy is spent.
As an aside, in general, when it comes to excercising, the goal isn't just the number of calories burned while excercising. That's not really the important part. The important part is that if you excercise at a high output at frequent intervals, you end up training your body to change how it burns calories the rest of the time, even when at rest. Your body's metabolism changes depending on what kind of activities it is asked to fufill. If you never raise your heart rate, and don't move around, your stupid body ends up believing it should go into low-power mode and efficiently store up as much energy as possible, like you're heading into winter hibernation. This is that state that most modern people are in all the time. If you subject your body to the regular need for bursts of speed, it responds by changing your metabolism into a more wasteful, but higher-output setting. This is actually the goal of excercise.
(So, back to the start - although walking and running burn the same calories per mile WHILE you do them, running causes you to burn more calories afterward when you are just resting on the couch.)
I'm not interested in continuing.
What you say would only be true if I was saying "I will ride for x number of minutes today", and then I would get the same workout whether I travelled in a harder bike at a slower speed, or an easier bike at a higher speed."
But what I'm doing is commuting to work on it, and getting exercise as a side-effect. That means I am NOT working out for a fixed amount of time. I am working out for a fixed amount of *distance*. And thus if I use the bike that gives me the same workout at a slower speed, I end up working out for a longer time to cover that same fixed distance. If I use a bike where it's easy to go fast, then I end up finishing too soon.
I don't think it's a good idea to give out extra tolerance to people as a reward for them being oversensitive intolerent people themselves - just like it's a bad idea to give in to the demands of a hijacker - because it teaches the lesson that being a bad person is a "winning" strategy.
The day a major popular television show is made in the middle east that can make jokes about Islam that are as raunchy and irreverent as the kinds of things you see about Christianity on the Simpsons or Family Guy over here, without fear, then maybe I'll have more empathy for them.
As an atheist, I've often wished that people around the world would just give up religious styles of thought (which exist in things other than just religions - the way some people approach politics have the same sorts of problems), but I don't think that's ever going to happen. Now I'd just be happy if people would be more tolerant of opposing viewpoints. The splintering of Christianity into many different little factions really helped transform it into mostly being the religion of peace and tolerance it claims to be (when it really wasn't before that, with major church doctrine being tied to political machinations). My only hope for Islam is that it ends up having the same sort of thing happen to it soon. The biggest concern I have over it is that it is a religious tenet in Islam that religion must rule over government - so it would be hard to have a secular government in an islamic country like the many secular democratic governments that exist in christian countries. Turkey has managed to pull it off, but I can't think of any other good examples. (Pakistan would have been but it's still operating from the results of a military coup).
Anybody remember exhoribitant long distance prices in the era of the government mandated telco monopoly?
I was too young to be the one paying the phone bills. But I *do* remember my parents complaining about having to lease the phone from Ma Bell and not being allowed to hook up a third-party telephone to the network. Thus the prices of physical phones was excessive, and the technology was stagnant.
If the data isn't fed through a third party, then what reason do you have to believe it is accurate? It would be as believable as a company's own press release, and have just as much lack of accountability.
This does not help business. It helps previously established businesses. (Keeping the little guy from competeing is a form of harming business, in the long run.)
Yes, that is a hallmark of a republican administration, though - to act as if past business success gives you an entitlement to future business success indefinitely, and if your business model starts to fail because the world is a changing place, then pass laws to make the world change more slowly.
An orbiting craft (like the shuttle) is not on a ballistic path that brings it back into the atmosphere all by itself. The SS1 is. Thus the SS1 doesn't need any ability to thrust to slow itself down in space. It just has to wait and let gravity bring it back (which is part of what would make it useless as an orbiter - once in space it's just going on momentum and can't really control itself much.) An orbiter, on the other hand, needs the ability to slow itself down while still out in space, before it will even drop down to the atmosphere in the first place. Therefore, the trick of just using the areodynamics of the shuttlecock don't help - because an orbiter needs to be able to maneuver itself while still outside the atmosphere, in order to be able to even *reach* the atmosphere. And that means small thrusters to orient itself, and enough fuel to fire a big engine to slow itself down.
By "equivilent ballast" of two other humans, do they have to take up just the mass, or do they also need to take up the volume? (I could easily see a one-seater craft with a bunch of lead ingots for the mass being a way to sort of cheat around this requirement otherwise.)
The same slashdotters who were rooting for SS1 invariably turn out to be the ones to immediately whine about it when SS1 lands
And you came by this information how?
Slashdot is not a single hive mind. Never accuse an eclectic group of engaging in hypocracy when you haven't yet figured out whom in the group is making which statements.
Does that mean they should have a permanent monopoly on space?
No, it means, just as was originally pointed out, that it is misleading to compare budgets when one group is using the research of the other.
1. Marketshare for servers shouldn't be measured by number of units sold, but by number of people served by the units sold. I serve 100 people with a big machine and you serve 80 people with 4 smaller machines, the marketshare ratio is 100:80 ( = 5:4), not 1:4.
2. OS preinstalled with machine != OS actually in use after installation. Why bother buying a server with Linux on it when you can just install the OS afterward for the same price, and probably would want to *anyway* to make the setup conform to your local company standards? When one OS is typically distributed by shipping it with the machine, and the other one is typically distributed by applying it afterward, to assume that the preinstalled OS comparasins is an accurate measure of marketshare is a bullshitter's tactic.
Mac OS X *IS* BSD, with a lot of extra stuff on top - just like, say, putting out a version of BSD with Xfree86 on it is still putting out BSD.
But that's exactly what I was talking about when I called it a "marketing lie".
you have to have faith in something.
Yes, but I don't see this as a good thing. It's an unfortunately unavoidable evil that knowlege has to rest on unproven axioms at some point. It's not something to celebrate.
One very valid reason to NOT pick an efficient bike is that your goal in choosing to bike to work might be to get excercise. Yes, you'll have to work harder on a mountain bike than a road bike - but that might actually be the whole point.
The poster probably intended you to read it as if the subject line was the start of the sentence (I hate it when people do that, BTW), so it should read:
The road ahead
did not have Internet.
And, yes this is evidnece of Bill's inability to predict anything.
But you were right that in this particular case, what people are claiming Bill said isn't what he actually said. He said Linux and Windows would be the only *LEADING* OS's, not that they would be the only OS's at all. Now of course, since what it means to be a "leading" OS is a jumbled, undefined mess, What Bill said is fairly vague and meaningless.
By "unix", do you mean it the way people in the computer industry normally use the term, or do you mean the way people talk about it when they know lawyers are listening? I ask because your statement only makes sense if Linux isn't included in your term "UNIX" - and really the only people who view it that way are the old guard who don't want to let go of the old days, lawyers who have to watch out about the use of trademarked words, or people trying to spread fud about the death of unix, which is easier if your stats don't include linux.
A nonfactor, eh - so BG doesn't care about Apple anymore, then? They're the biggest distributer of BSD out there.
But he's right about the death of MacOS if not the company that produced it. Now Apple is selling a fork of BSD with a lot of their custom application code on top of it. That they call it version 10 of MacOS is a lie. It would have been more honest to call it by a totally new name, and reset the release number to 1.0. If OSX on BSD is a release of MacOS than Wine on Linux is a release of Windows.
There were very good reasons to predict the death of MacOS. It had a *LOT* of problems that were not fixable such that the only real fix was to start over with something new - which is exactly what Apple ended up doing. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great product, and the magnitude of the task they did proved that people at Apple do in fact know how to do more than just make pretty interfaces that impress artists, and that they really do have people with impressive skills on staff (which surprised me, frankly). I like what they've done in their new OS. I just don't like that they did a marketing lie by calling it another release of MacOS.
correcting myself here: technically that sould be "omniscient", not "omnipresent".
Christianity's stance on this is self-contradictory, such that one could be a Christian and still be offended by being ordered to pray like this, since this type of prayer is contrary to the Christian description of god's personality. To say that god needs your help to notice that a person is suffering and in need of help doesn't seem to agree with Christianity itself.
This sort of thing happens a lot in Christianity - since the religion is self-contradictory there can, and do, exist people with very strongly opposed viewpoints who both think they are following the religion.
I think you'd have to believe in extreme omnipotence to think that your plea on behalf of yourself or another would be heard and acted upon amongst the host of other pleas.
Actually the problem is the exact opposite of that. By assuming God needs you to help remind him that there is someone in need of help, you would be assuming God to be *less* powerful than he's alleged to be.
In that alternate universe where advocacy is nothing useful at all, your statement would have actually been true.
It's an act of kindness that makes one feel better.
If it has no effect on anyone but the pray-er, then to whom is this "kindness" being given? Yes, it maybe makes one feel better, but the only reason it makes people feel better is because they believe it has an effect on the person being prayed for. If it doesn't, then it's all a hollow meaningless gesture.