Why the hell would you just dismiss a conclusion automatically for no reason at all? Empirical observation says, in all likelihood, your workspace does limit your creativity in some way. It's not like the study participants were deliberately choosing to be more detail-oriented when the ceiling was short.
No, it's surprising. Digg users never care about anything intelligent like this. I'm utterly surprised that they're not in open revolt about all the stories being about that dumb number and not high-larious Youtube videos.
When the tubes of the internet get clogged, it's not because of the tubes, it's because of the machines at the end. When tubes are clogged due to too much toilet paper passing through, you have to dig up the tubes and replace them. When a fiber-optic cable is clogged due to too many movies, you put faster routers at the ends - not at all like digging up a cable network all over the world. That's the problem with the analogy, it broke down *exactly* at the place he invented it for.
The problem is that he not only took it too far in explaining bandwidth shortage, but invented it specifically to justify that bandwidth shortage, which it so miserably failed to do. The "series of tubes" metaphor says that bandwidth is inherently limited by the tubes, which are for the most part difficult to replace, when in reality it's limited by the machines connected by the tubes, which even a layman understands can be replaced without digging up cables all around the world.
Not only that, but this sort of thing encourages the view of Wikipedians that they're working toward a final goal, which causes serious problems with article ownership and forced stagnation. It's near impossible to get an entrenched fact out of an article. Took me three or four tries to get Black Sabbath off a short list of proto-heavy-metal bands who are considered "hard rock" in the heavy metal article a few months ago. All the guy had to do was click the link to their article and see they're always called the first heavy metal band after a string of hard rock bands, but nope. It had been in the article for as long as he remembered, so there was no way in hell a snot-nosed anonymous editor was changing it. He's probably still there, reverting all changes to the article without even reading them. Not to pick on that guy personally, whoever he is; he's just an example of this problem.
There's no reason not to suspect that; as such, it should be assumed to be true. Anthropocentric science is *never* right. We're not at the center of the solar system, which isn't at the center of the universe. If we assume we're special shit doesn't work out.
Oh, I don't mind him, I kinda like him. He's asking questions, isn't he? Thinking outside the box. Even if he's wrong, that's still a good thing. He's polite and reasonable about it too. Not like some of these dickheads you get around here jumping on people whenever they're in a bad mood. *innocent whistling*
The problem boils down to carbon. Of all the elements on the periodic table, there is one (1) which acts like carbon. Other molecules like nitrogen and silicon can form long chains and rings like carbon, but they don't like it. Carbon _loves_ forming itself into complicated molecules that cooperate to reproduce. There might be some non-carbon-based form of life out there, but it's very unlikely, and even if it does exist wouldn't easily evolve to macroscopic scales. It's just so unlikely there's no point looking for it.
Once you accept that life is carbon-based, the rest follows. All we know about organic chemistry, and the temperatures and conditions it requires for optimum function, apply everywhere. Heat that breaks down carbon chains and makes life unlivable in the lab makes life unlivable on a planet orbiting too close to its sun, too. Water, which is pretty much the ultimate solvent here, allowing acid-base chemistry to exist, hydrolysis and dehydration synthesis to take place, protein microdomains to move diffusively.... it all happens on other planets too. While we shouldn't look for pretty blue centaurs with eye stalks or humans with funny ears, carbon-based life is a pretty good bet fi we're looking for anything.
Looking for liquid water isn't just human arrogance. Water is an effective and stable polar solvent, and there aren't many chemical processes as widely applicable as hydrolysis. In addition, the presence of liquid water indicates temperatures cool enough to allow organic molecules to stay stable, but warm enough to undergo the reactions necessary for life. These things are true throughout the universe, not just here.
Fairness has absolutely nothing to do with algorithmic complexity. O(1) means the scheduler runs in the same amount of time, every time, and says nothing about how fair the scheduling is. Jackass.
You've gotta be kidding. Is this another joke? I got the mooninite one in the summary, but I don't understand this one. Could someone elucidate it for me, please?
Exactly, you do have to act on your desires before being arrested. That's why people aren't arrested for pedophilia, they're arrested for child porn viewing, or having sex with children. I can't stand when the media uses "pedophilia" as a blanket term, as you're perfectly correct: pedophilia is thoughtcrime, and really shouldn't be a crime at all.
You hit the nail on the head with the Blaster comment; this discussion is moot. Wasn't it 3 or 4 days ago that we all read (the summary of) a story saying most botnets are built with two well-known worms? It might make sense for a few system administrators with enemies to worry about this 'sploit, but 99% of people have bigger things to worry about.
But the discussion was about dicking around with laws for the specific purpose of changing their research methods. That's not a competitive market working better.
Oh, but their research methods *do* work. I know it's fun to bash pharmaceutical companies, but the fact remains that if you get infected with MRSA, you'll be damned glad all those lab mice died to bring you vancomycin and linezolid, won't you?
they'd have to >gasp investigate and learn things, working smarter to produce designed drugs.
And in the meantime, people would DIE.
Maybe they wouldn't. Maybe you're right, maybe drugs would be produced faster that way. Would you be willing to risk your life? How abou your mother's life? Or your arthritic grandfather, would you be willing to risk increasing his pain, just to make their research methods more scientifically pleasing?
Well, thanks for the heads-up. Never visit the aviation articles myself; I tend to stick with math articles (they usually have proofs, very helpful) and music (all opinion anyway). But that's good to know, I'll avoid aviation.
No, you're about as wrong as it's possible to be (and that's pretty wrong). If there's no double standard, than (to use an example that's 110% guaranteed to hit home with/.ers) the RIAA can raid homes. Right? I mean, we wouldn't allow law enforcement to break burglary laws, just because they have a "warrant", right? So, we either have to take away the right of the police to make arrests on private property, or allow record labels to hire security personnel to do the same to suspected file sharers.
But science has shown us that it's one thing to watch the Merch fuck someone's dad, and another thing entirely to fuck that dad yourself while the controller shudders with each unwelcome thrust.
Slashdot Mirror
This is one of the worst comments I've ever read on slashdot. Why couldn't you have posted a GNAA troll instead? Die painfully, as soon as possible.
Why the hell would you just dismiss a conclusion automatically for no reason at all? Empirical observation says, in all likelihood, your workspace does limit your creativity in some way. It's not like the study participants were deliberately choosing to be more detail-oriented when the ceiling was short.
Shit... "nuclear catalyst" - there's a phrase to put fear into the heart of anyone who knows what a catalyst is.
No, it's surprising. Digg users never care about anything intelligent like this. I'm utterly surprised that they're not in open revolt about all the stories being about that dumb number and not high-larious Youtube videos.
When the tubes of the internet get clogged, it's not because of the tubes, it's because of the machines at the end. When tubes are clogged due to too much toilet paper passing through, you have to dig up the tubes and replace them. When a fiber-optic cable is clogged due to too many movies, you put faster routers at the ends - not at all like digging up a cable network all over the world. That's the problem with the analogy, it broke down *exactly* at the place he invented it for.
The problem is that he not only took it too far in explaining bandwidth shortage, but invented it specifically to justify that bandwidth shortage, which it so miserably failed to do. The "series of tubes" metaphor says that bandwidth is inherently limited by the tubes, which are for the most part difficult to replace, when in reality it's limited by the machines connected by the tubes, which even a layman understands can be replaced without digging up cables all around the world.
Not only that, but this sort of thing encourages the view of Wikipedians that they're working toward a final goal, which causes serious problems with article ownership and forced stagnation. It's near impossible to get an entrenched fact out of an article. Took me three or four tries to get Black Sabbath off a short list of proto-heavy-metal bands who are considered "hard rock" in the heavy metal article a few months ago. All the guy had to do was click the link to their article and see they're always called the first heavy metal band after a string of hard rock bands, but nope. It had been in the article for as long as he remembered, so there was no way in hell a snot-nosed anonymous editor was changing it. He's probably still there, reverting all changes to the article without even reading them. Not to pick on that guy personally, whoever he is; he's just an example of this problem.
There's no reason not to suspect that; as such, it should be assumed to be true. Anthropocentric science is *never* right. We're not at the center of the solar system, which isn't at the center of the universe. If we assume we're special shit doesn't work out.
Oh, I don't mind him, I kinda like him. He's asking questions, isn't he? Thinking outside the box. Even if he's wrong, that's still a good thing. He's polite and reasonable about it too. Not like some of these dickheads you get around here jumping on people whenever they're in a bad mood. *innocent whistling*
The problem boils down to carbon. Of all the elements on the periodic table, there is one (1) which acts like carbon. Other molecules like nitrogen and silicon can form long chains and rings like carbon, but they don't like it. Carbon _loves_ forming itself into complicated molecules that cooperate to reproduce. There might be some non-carbon-based form of life out there, but it's very unlikely, and even if it does exist wouldn't easily evolve to macroscopic scales. It's just so unlikely there's no point looking for it.
Once you accept that life is carbon-based, the rest follows. All we know about organic chemistry, and the temperatures and conditions it requires for optimum function, apply everywhere. Heat that breaks down carbon chains and makes life unlivable in the lab makes life unlivable on a planet orbiting too close to its sun, too. Water, which is pretty much the ultimate solvent here, allowing acid-base chemistry to exist, hydrolysis and dehydration synthesis to take place, protein microdomains to move diffusively.... it all happens on other planets too. While we shouldn't look for pretty blue centaurs with eye stalks or humans with funny ears, carbon-based life is a pretty good bet fi we're looking for anything.
Looking for liquid water isn't just human arrogance. Water is an effective and stable polar solvent, and there aren't many chemical processes as widely applicable as hydrolysis. In addition, the presence of liquid water indicates temperatures cool enough to allow organic molecules to stay stable, but warm enough to undergo the reactions necessary for life. These things are true throughout the universe, not just here.
Fairness has absolutely nothing to do with algorithmic complexity. O(1) means the scheduler runs in the same amount of time, every time, and says nothing about how fair the scheduling is. Jackass.
Out of business. People don't want an "Everything is OK" alarm. You can start one if you'd like, but nobody will watch.
You've gotta be kidding. Is this another joke? I got the mooninite one in the summary, but I don't understand this one. Could someone elucidate it for me, please?
Exactly, you do have to act on your desires before being arrested. That's why people aren't arrested for pedophilia, they're arrested for child porn viewing, or having sex with children. I can't stand when the media uses "pedophilia" as a blanket term, as you're perfectly correct: pedophilia is thoughtcrime, and really shouldn't be a crime at all.
Boy, you sure are stupid. Pedo- (meaning child) + -phile (meaning love) = sex? No, pedophilia is a *desire* to have sex with children.
You hit the nail on the head with the Blaster comment; this discussion is moot. Wasn't it 3 or 4 days ago that we all read (the summary of) a story saying most botnets are built with two well-known worms? It might make sense for a few system administrators with enemies to worry about this 'sploit, but 99% of people have bigger things to worry about.
But the discussion was about dicking around with laws for the specific purpose of changing their research methods. That's not a competitive market working better.
Oh, but their research methods *do* work. I know it's fun to bash pharmaceutical companies, but the fact remains that if you get infected with MRSA, you'll be damned glad all those lab mice died to bring you vancomycin and linezolid, won't you?
Maybe they wouldn't. Maybe you're right, maybe drugs would be produced faster that way. Would you be willing to risk your life? How abou your mother's life? Or your arthritic grandfather, would you be willing to risk increasing his pain, just to make their research methods more scientifically pleasing?
Well, thanks for the heads-up. Never visit the aviation articles myself; I tend to stick with math articles (they usually have proofs, very helpful) and music (all opinion anyway). But that's good to know, I'll avoid aviation.
Can you name some of the inaccuracies you found? It'd be good to know for the future; never know when I'll come across one of those articles.
Ah, yes, I see. Probably shouldn't have jumped on him like that. Ah well, what's life for if not to attack other people with?
No, you're about as wrong as it's possible to be (and that's pretty wrong). If there's no double standard, than (to use an example that's 110% guaranteed to hit home with /.ers) the RIAA can raid homes. Right? I mean, we wouldn't allow law enforcement to break burglary laws, just because they have a "warrant", right? So, we either have to take away the right of the police to make arrests on private property, or allow record labels to hire security personnel to do the same to suspected file sharers.
But science has shown us that it's one thing to watch the Merch fuck someone's dad, and another thing entirely to fuck that dad yourself while the controller shudders with each unwelcome thrust.