On that note, I bought a first-generation Mac-Mini in order to switch from Windows, circa 2005, and only replaced it this year. During the four years I owned it, it worked swimmingly well. I was able to keep up with the latest OS X version, and it seemed that each new iteration ran better and faster than the previous one.
The only upgrade I performed on the Mac-Mini was to increase the memory to the maximum 1GB. All my software run well, even some games, and I was very happy with it. I had no problems with the machine, and although it didn't have the best frame-rate ever, I was able to play WoW without much trouble in it too. Soundtrack Pro was slow and choppy, but usable still.
My new computer is now a Mac Pro, which I intend to keep for at least twice as long as the Mac-Mini. It was rather pricey, but I figured that the upgradability will allow me to make use of it for a long, long time. Besides, Sountrack Pro runs like dream now.
Last I read, they have consistently increased their market-share and profits--all while introducing new products in a bad economy. In the meantime, "successfull" companies like Google and Microsoft are looking desperately into cutting costs, shutting down services and eliminating product lines, and even culling their workforce.
Do you mean that, while in the process of simulating human intellect, the simulator itself becomes self-aware? Then what if the simulacrum becomes aware of the simulator? Would it create a metaphysical singularity, or just blow the stack?
It's not so incomprehensible. These "Feds", after all, are individuals; just regular people. These are not high-tech über-spies, but pencil-pushing bureaucrats. They probably thought, much like most of the unsavvy masses, that if the technology was adopted for sensitive data, then at some level, some "experts" must have vouched for their security. After all, they're experts, they must know what they are doing.
Is it odd then that their confidence is shaken when their assumptions are invalidated? It's the same as a regular private citizen just discovering that their social security number--the one they give away freely to whomever asks for it (to verify their identity only, of course)--can be used to "steal" their identity by the very entities asking for it.
No, it's very comprehensible. If we are to have a chance at fixing the system we must make sure to educate everyone, including those in positions of authority who we assume know better.
Sure, the first truly polished, and moderately bug-free game release in a decade, which depends on a rushed-to-market, barely-tested, new online multiplayer platform that is so complex it has delayed the entire project. Good times!
Because Wikipedia managed to efficiently store--at the time of this writing--all human knowledge, speed and scalability weren't a problem. Finally, the price (free) was acceptable.
No, I'm not being dishonest. I truthfully said that I was not aware of such claims, and that nobody I knew who was into organic foods thought that either. I have just been made aware (by you and others in Slashdot) that this seems to be a grand claim made by organic foods proponents in the U.K. and Europe, so perhaps it's just a cultural difference of which I wasn't aware (I live in the U.S.A).
The thing that annoys me the most is that people get all flustered over this. Why not just eat what you want to eat and leave others to do the same?
The problem is not with the article or the study but from morons like yourself who extrapolate meaning outside the scope of the study and determine that because the study found there was the same nutritional value from organic and conventional foods that they were stating that conventionally produced food was just as healthy as organic.
Actually, that's what the article claimed. The title of the BBC article was "Organic 'has no health benefits'", not "Organic 'has no better nutritional value'". Furthermore, the article states:
There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.
So you claim there is no evidence that pesticides, growth hormones, antibiotics and other food enhancements may have negative effects on the health of the consumer?
But it does. The study is a review of other studies. It considered only those focusing on nutritional value since, at it claims, there is not enough evidence or comprehensive studies on the risks or benefits of chemical enhancements on foods, or the lack thereof in organic products.
How convenient, to quote my words out of their context. Why the four paragraphs preceding it? for precisely the reason I mentioned on the sentence following the very statement you quoted:
"To be sure, I don't think the study is wrong--I do not disagree with its outcome nor its methods. I only have a problem with its narrow focus (and the consequences of it taken at a simplistic face value); it should be taken in context with other studies which consider other potential health benefits apart from nutritional value alone."
You see, that is precisely the problem with the article and the study: that the focus is so narrow as to be misunderstood. The study states that they looked at "nutritional value" exclusively. The article even expressly states that "[t]he review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices."
So the study is not supposed to give a verdict on the health benefits of organically grown products overall, but only on a single factor of such benefits, nutritional value.
Slashdot Mirror
Sort of like Calligrassandra?
-dZ.
They do! It was all that weed and LSD. Oh, and the free love didn't hurt either.
-dZ.
Interestingly, this is the only comment which is not modded funny!
-dZ.
On that note, I bought a first-generation Mac-Mini in order to switch from Windows, circa 2005, and only replaced it this year. During the four years I owned it, it worked swimmingly well. I was able to keep up with the latest OS X version, and it seemed that each new iteration ran better and faster than the previous one.
The only upgrade I performed on the Mac-Mini was to increase the memory to the maximum 1GB. All my software run well, even some games, and I was very happy with it. I had no problems with the machine, and although it didn't have the best frame-rate ever, I was able to play WoW without much trouble in it too. Soundtrack Pro was slow and choppy, but usable still.
My new computer is now a Mac Pro, which I intend to keep for at least twice as long as the Mac-Mini. It was rather pricey, but I figured that the upgradability will allow me to make use of it for a long, long time. Besides, Sountrack Pro runs like dream now.
-dZ.
Apple's downfall?
Last I read, they have consistently increased their market-share and profits--all while introducing new products in a bad economy. In the meantime, "successfull" companies like Google and Microsoft are looking desperately into cutting costs, shutting down services and eliminating product lines, and even culling their workforce.
Downfall indeed.
-dZ.
Finally, a voice of reason.
-dZ.
Do you mean that, while in the process of simulating human intellect, the simulator itself becomes self-aware? Then what if the simulacrum becomes aware of the simulator? Would it create a metaphysical singularity, or just blow the stack?
Inquiring minds want to know.
-dZ.
Uh, wrong site...
Over here it's more like:
Posted by kdawson? Mod -5 Troll!!!
-dZ.
It's not so incomprehensible. These "Feds", after all, are individuals; just regular people. These are not high-tech über-spies, but pencil-pushing bureaucrats. They probably thought, much like most of the unsavvy masses, that if the technology was adopted for sensitive data, then at some level, some "experts" must have vouched for their security. After all, they're experts, they must know what they are doing.
Is it odd then that their confidence is shaken when their assumptions are invalidated? It's the same as a regular private citizen just discovering that their social security number--the one they give away freely to whomever asks for it (to verify their identity only, of course)--can be used to "steal" their identity by the very entities asking for it.
No, it's very comprehensible. If we are to have a chance at fixing the system we must make sure to educate everyone, including those in positions of authority who we assume know better.
-dZ.
Yeah, that's the only problem alright.
-dZ.
Sure, the first truly polished, and moderately bug-free game release in a decade, which depends on a rushed-to-market, barely-tested, new online multiplayer platform that is so complex it has delayed the entire project. Good times!
-dZ.
>> "Who says it has to be a satellite photo."
mcnazar:
"intrigued to see aerial/satellite images of this"
you:
"If this "island" is that big, it should be easy to get satellite images."
-dZ.
Mod +1 Extra-sensorially insightful
Yeah, and good luck making your SMTP server (or any other IP service other than HTTP agents) understand cookies!
-dZ.
From the article:
Because Wikipedia managed to efficiently store--at the time of this writing--all human knowledge, speed and scalability weren't a problem. Finally, the price (free) was acceptable.
"All human knowledge". Really?
-dZ.
So where's the original (it's been years since I last saw it).
-dZ.
No, I'm not being dishonest. I truthfully said that I was not aware of such claims, and that nobody I knew who was into organic foods thought that either. I have just been made aware (by you and others in Slashdot) that this seems to be a grand claim made by organic foods proponents in the U.K. and Europe, so perhaps it's just a cultural difference of which I wasn't aware (I live in the U.S.A).
The thing that annoys me the most is that people get all flustered over this. Why not just eat what you want to eat and leave others to do the same?
I agree.
-dZ.
Oh, what the heck, I got karma to spare.
Here, have a nice day:
http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/
-dZ.
The problem is not with the article or the study but from morons like yourself who extrapolate meaning outside the scope of the study and determine that because the study found there was the same nutritional value from organic and conventional foods that they were stating that conventionally produced food was just as healthy as organic.
Actually, that's what the article claimed. The title of the BBC article was "Organic 'has no health benefits'", not "Organic 'has no better nutritional value'". Furthermore, the article states:
There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.
(my emphasis)
I did read the article, but I wonder if you did.
-dZ.
So you claim there is no evidence that pesticides, growth hormones, antibiotics and other food enhancements may have negative effects on the health of the consumer?
-dZ.
But it does. The study is a review of other studies. It considered only those focusing on nutritional value since, at it claims, there is not enough evidence or comprehensive studies on the risks or benefits of chemical enhancements on foods, or the lack thereof in organic products.
-dZ.
How convenient, to quote my words out of their context. Why the four paragraphs preceding it? for precisely the reason I mentioned on the sentence following the very statement you quoted:
"To be sure, I don't think the study is wrong--I do not disagree with its outcome nor its methods. I only have a problem with its narrow focus (and the consequences of it taken at a simplistic face value); it should be taken in context with other studies which consider other potential health benefits apart from nutritional value alone."
-dZ.
Touché. I should have said artificially enhanced with extraneous chemicals.
-dZ.
The article states that the report did not consider at pesticides, expressly.
-dZ.
You see, that is precisely the problem with the article and the study: that the focus is so narrow as to be misunderstood. The study states that they looked at "nutritional value" exclusively. The article even expressly states that "[t]he review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices."
So the study is not supposed to give a verdict on the health benefits of organically grown products overall, but only on a single factor of such benefits, nutritional value.
-dZ.