While I appreciate the rare occurrence of people apologising, it worries me that this is the only part of your little discussion rated "interesting: 5". How is this this apology more interesting than the contemplation about the future of NASA?
A true libertarian would say that parents shouldn't be infringing on the child's liberty
True libertarians want to be acknowledged as independent persons, mind their own business and do not welcome any paternalistic interference from others. I would imagine them raising their children in the same way, with respect for their individuality, BUT, as long as they are minor, protecting them from influences the parents deem undesirable.
I understand that people don't agree with a price setting of goods, be it software or whatever. In this case, $60 may be outrageous. Or not. Doesn't really matter.
What I don't understand is how this mysteriously translates into "I will just make my own copy, because I am entitled to it because of... reasons".
People don't sneak into theaters or concerts (okay, maybe a minority does). People don't sneak into theme parks. People don't steal apples. But for some reason, in the case of software, this is all okay, because I don't agree with the price setting.
What ever happened to: I think it is too expensive, I am not having it?
Do no evil..........“Four legs good, two legs bad.”
Do the right thing..............“Four legs good, two legs BETTER!"
Military AI............"already it was impossible to say which was which."
In other words vinyl's sound quality or lack thereof has mostly to do with the quality of the original recording
No, if everything comes from the same digital master, then vinyl's difference in sound quality comes from imperfections in the medium itself.
TBH, the complete quote was:
In other words vinyl's sound quality or lack thereof has mostly to do with the quality of the original recording, and the choices made by the recording, mixing, and mastering engineers.
In other words: the quality of vinyl has mostly to do with any step involved in the creation of said vinyl, which sounds reasonable, but also meaningless.
We owe our current (declining, if you're an American) life expectancy to two advances occurring well after the industrial revolution proper: urban sanitation (water & sewer) systems, and antibiotics.
... and antiseptics.
It is a common misunderstanding that a life expectancy of e.g. 35 years implies that most people die around that age, and e.g. sexagenarians are extremely rare. In reality, people in e.g. the Middle Ages regularly reached "old age" as well. That is: if they survived birth and infancy. Child mortality and childbed fever (killing the mother) used to be very high until Ignace Semmelweiss introduced hand disinfection before assisting in childbirth. At that time, it was not uncommon for doctors to perform autopsies and then go on to deliver babies without so much as washing their hands. Even though he saved thousands of lives, Semmelweiss did not fare well and ended up in the loony bin
Something similar happened in the world of surgery. Nineteenth century surgeons were unaware of microbes and did not work under sterile conditions. Here it was Joseph Lister who realised the importance of antiseptics and eventually changed medical practices.
Lol. Another pruitt botslave. Yeah, CO2 is not a big threat to the planet, as long as you don't care about human survival.
On the contrary. According to Pruitt, CO2 is not a consequence of human activity, whereas I explicitly say people don't care enough to do something, implying that they have an influence. Moreover, *any* of these things is only a problem insofar as one cares about humans. The point you don't seem to be getting is that -at least in principle- fixing CO2 is easy. Just stop using coal fired plants etc. I am very interested to hear your solution -even just theoretically- to remove (micro-)plastics from the environment.
GP is correct: the threat of plastic is much worse than the threat of CO2. For one, the CO2 would disappear naturally through the growth of vegetation. The only reason why CO2 appears to be a bigger problem is that, apparently, we don't care enough to really do something about it. The fundamental problem of plastics,e.g. in the ocean is much bigger than that of CO2.
It seems to me that the congressman had a particular narrative he wanted to fit.
"Shadow profiles" sounds scary and mysterious.
And quite rightly so. Whetever you may have liked to call it, this boils down to unwantedly and unknowingly collection data about other persons. Moreover, afaik the profiles involved are identifiable.
UV light conditions, the question is: where does one find such an environment?
The answer can also be: under twilight conditions. At dusk and dawn, the relative amount of UV -as compared to visible light- is much higher. You can easily check this by looking at e.g. a flurescent marker, which is much more pronounced at that time of day.
Rule number one of investing: only invest money you don't need. Borrowing money to invest is a complete contradiction. In the case of student loans that may not be such a problem (not living in the US I have no idea how well protected you are).
Rule number two of investing: only invest in what you understand. Debatable in this case.
Rule number three of investing (as opposed to speculation): do value investing. No investment whatsoever could be further away from value investing than crypto currency. I am a sufficiently old fart to know that what went up yesterday and the day before may go down tomorrow, especially if it has no intrinsic value.
Steel and aluminum in particular are NOT "easily recycled" - in fact that's a much more expensive process than creating engineered wood of any type by a factor nearing 100x
To use a French term: bullshit. Recycling aluminum is as easy as tossing it into the furnace. Unless you're going to claim mining the bauxite, transporting it, refining it, THEN heating it into ingots is somehow less expensive than transporting flattened cans to a mill and dumping them in the furnace.
While the thing you say -i.e. that recycling aluminium is much cheaper than creating it from bauxite- may be true, and the OP may be wrong, you are not replying to the OP's statement, which is that the recycling of aluminium is more expensive than the creation of the "engineered wood".
With all of the geniuses on Slashdot, it's hard to understand why they aren't the most wealthy people in the world.
Not participating may not make you "the wealthiest people in the world", but it prevents you from becoming the poorest. I imagine Slashdotters don't participate in lotteries and pyramid schemes either, for the same reason.
The single best thing you can do to help prevent climate change (that doesn't involve murder / suicide) is to not have children.
The biggest impact on climate change is if idiots like the US americans reduce their personal carbon emissions. Using 4 times as much energy per person as an European, and ten times as much as an African is not necessary, you can easily solve that, but you don't want to.
Agreed 100%.
However... if they don't have children, all of this will certainly end within 100 years. I therefore do not feel impressed by "green" hippies with a large offspring. They may live ecologically on their moral high ground -though typically even that is debatable- but who guarantees their children or grandchildren will? Moreover, if they have more than two children, they have lost their climate case completely, because that leads to an exponential growth that can never be sustainable. Unless, of course -the classic argument- other people have less children. But that is not the "hippie's" merit.
This situation becomes even more embarrassing if following George Carlin's take on this, which is that "green" parents don't give a f*ck about the planet. They just want a nice place for their children to live. All of this is very opportunistic. But because children are today's Holy Cow, none of this can be mentioned by "selfish childless misanthropes".
This is basically a society of "You young whipper snappers, get off my lawn with your fancy 'wheel'. In our days...", so the older they get the more they prove their point.
... I was under the impression that certain astronomical measurements would imply the existence of a sim, but are not required for us to be in a sim.
No. Certain measurements could suggest the existence of a sim. They don't imply the existence of a sim. Most likely they indicate we have an incomplete understanding of the thing we are measuring and no sims are in the story at all.
Honestly I am getting a bit tired of all this "what if?"-new-age talk. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If AI finally is beginning to get somewhere -and nowhere near where we want to be- theories about the universe being a sim are popping up constantly, even though there is no good reason whatsoever for this assumption. At some point, science was about Occam's razor shaving off all unnecessary fluff. Now we are just inventing new fluff because... why actually?
Slashdot Mirror
i think a monolithic concrete house made with a 3D printer would be able to build a house capable of withstanding a tornado
Edison -or, more precisely, his Portland cement company was building such houses over 100 years ago. It was no success.
While I appreciate the rare occurrence of people apologising, it worries me that this is the only part of your little discussion rated "interesting: 5". How is this this apology more interesting than the contemplation about the future of NASA?
A true libertarian would say that parents shouldn't be infringing on the child's liberty
True libertarians want to be acknowledged as independent persons, mind their own business and do not welcome any paternalistic interference from others. I would imagine them raising their children in the same way, with respect for their individuality, BUT, as long as they are minor, protecting them from influences the parents deem undesirable.
I understand that people don't agree with a price setting of goods, be it software or whatever. In this case, $60 may be outrageous. Or not. Doesn't really matter.
What I don't understand is how this mysteriously translates into "I will just make my own copy, because I am entitled to it because of ... reasons".
People don't sneak into theaters or concerts (okay, maybe a minority does). People don't sneak into theme parks. People don't steal apples. But for some reason, in the case of software, this is all okay, because I don't agree with the price setting.
What ever happened to: I think it is too expensive, I am not having it?
Do no evil..........“Four legs good, two legs bad.”
Do the right thing..............“Four legs good, two legs BETTER!"
Military AI............"already it was impossible to say which was which."
The diamond industry for wedding rings is bullshit -- it was created in by US advertisers in the 1930s to prop up South Africa's failing economy.
Indeed. The story is well known. Here is a good account from 1982(!).
In other words vinyl's sound quality or lack thereof has mostly to do with the quality of the original recording
No, if everything comes from the same digital master, then vinyl's difference in sound quality comes from imperfections in the medium itself.
TBH, the complete quote was:
In other words vinyl's sound quality or lack thereof has mostly to do with the quality of the original recording, and the choices made by the recording, mixing, and mastering engineers.
In other words: the quality of vinyl has mostly to do with any step involved in the creation of said vinyl, which sounds reasonable, but also meaningless.
We owe our current (declining, if you're an American) life expectancy to two advances occurring well after the industrial revolution proper: urban sanitation (water & sewer) systems, and antibiotics.
... and antiseptics.
It is a common misunderstanding that a life expectancy of e.g. 35 years implies that most people die around that age, and e.g. sexagenarians are extremely rare. In reality, people in e.g. the Middle Ages regularly reached "old age" as well. That is: if they survived birth and infancy. Child mortality and childbed fever (killing the mother) used to be very high until Ignace Semmelweiss introduced hand disinfection before assisting in childbirth. At that time, it was not uncommon for doctors to perform autopsies and then go on to deliver babies without so much as washing their hands. Even though he saved thousands of lives, Semmelweiss did not fare well and ended up in the loony bin
Something similar happened in the world of surgery. Nineteenth century surgeons were unaware of microbes and did not work under sterile conditions. Here it was Joseph Lister who realised the importance of antiseptics and eventually changed medical practices.
Lol. Another pruitt botslave. Yeah, CO2 is not a big threat to the planet, as long as you don't care about human survival.
On the contrary. According to Pruitt, CO2 is not a consequence of human activity, whereas I explicitly say people don't care enough to do something, implying that they have an influence. Moreover, *any* of these things is only a problem insofar as one cares about humans. The point you don't seem to be getting is that -at least in principle- fixing CO2 is easy. Just stop using coal fired plants etc. I am very interested to hear your solution -even just theoretically- to remove (micro-)plastics from the environment.
Pro tip. The OP (the "troll") may have been joking...
GP is correct: the threat of plastic is much worse than the threat of CO2. For one, the CO2 would disappear naturally through the growth of vegetation. The only reason why CO2 appears to be a bigger problem is that, apparently, we don't care enough to really do something about it. The fundamental problem of plastics,e.g. in the ocean is much bigger than that of CO2.
Batteries Prices Keep On Going and Going Up.... Demand Is Shrinking
Sounds reasonable.
It seems to me that the congressman had a particular narrative he wanted to fit.
"Shadow profiles" sounds scary and mysterious.
And quite rightly so. Whetever you may have liked to call it, this boils down to unwantedly and unknowingly collection data about other persons. Moreover, afaik the profiles involved are identifiable.
UV light conditions, the question is: where does one find such an environment?
The answer can also be: under twilight conditions. At dusk and dawn, the relative amount of UV -as compared to visible light- is much higher. You can easily check this by looking at e.g. a flurescent marker, which is much more pronounced at that time of day.
Rule number one of investing: only invest money you don't need. Borrowing money to invest is a complete contradiction. In the case of student loans that may not be such a problem (not living in the US I have no idea how well protected you are).
Rule number two of investing: only invest in what you understand. Debatable in this case.
Rule number three of investing (as opposed to speculation): do value investing. No investment whatsoever could be further away from value investing than crypto currency. I am a sufficiently old fart to know that what went up yesterday and the day before may go down tomorrow, especially if it has no intrinsic value.
This seems like problems in the making...
This guy was already doing that in 2014?
Steel and aluminum in particular are NOT "easily recycled" - in fact that's a much more expensive process than creating engineered wood of any type by a factor nearing 100x
To use a French term: bullshit. Recycling aluminum is as easy as tossing it into the furnace. Unless you're going to claim mining the bauxite, transporting it, refining it, THEN heating it into ingots is somehow less expensive than transporting flattened cans to a mill and dumping them in the furnace.
While the thing you say -i.e. that recycling aluminium is much cheaper than creating it from bauxite- may be true, and the OP may be wrong, you are not replying to the OP's statement, which is that the recycling of aluminium is more expensive than the creation of the "engineered wood".
good customer service is cheaper than advertising and far more profitable
Says who?
Good for you. I ignore anyone that complains over things like this.
Apparently not.
With all of the geniuses on Slashdot, it's hard to understand why they aren't the most wealthy people in the world.
Not participating may not make you "the wealthiest people in the world", but it prevents you from becoming the poorest. I imagine Slashdotters don't participate in lotteries and pyramid schemes either, for the same reason.
If bitcoin is not currency, what is the driving force behind owning it?
In one word: greed.
Your karma, Sir.
The single best thing you can do to help prevent climate change (that doesn't involve murder / suicide) is to not have children.
The biggest impact on climate change is if idiots like the US americans reduce their personal carbon emissions. Using 4 times as much energy per person as an European, and ten times as much as an African is not necessary, you can easily solve that, but you don't want to.
Agreed 100%.
However... if they don't have children, all of this will certainly end within 100 years. I therefore do not feel impressed by "green" hippies with a large offspring. They may live ecologically on their moral high ground -though typically even that is debatable- but who guarantees their children or grandchildren will? Moreover, if they have more than two children, they have lost their climate case completely, because that leads to an exponential growth that can never be sustainable. Unless, of course -the classic argument- other people have less children. But that is not the "hippie's" merit.
This situation becomes even more embarrassing if following George Carlin's take on this, which is that "green" parents don't give a f*ck about the planet. They just want a nice place for their children to live. All of this is very opportunistic. But because children are today's Holy Cow, none of this can be mentioned by "selfish childless misanthropes".
This is basically a society of "You young whipper snappers, get off my lawn with your fancy 'wheel'. In our days...", so the older they get the more they prove their point.
... I was under the impression that certain astronomical measurements would imply the existence of a sim, but are not required for us to be in a sim.
No. Certain measurements could suggest the existence of a sim. They don't imply the existence of a sim. Most likely they indicate we have an incomplete understanding of the thing we are measuring and no sims are in the story at all.
Honestly I am getting a bit tired of all this "what if?"-new-age talk. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If AI finally is beginning to get somewhere -and nowhere near where we want to be- theories about the universe being a sim are popping up constantly, even though there is no good reason whatsoever for this assumption. At some point, science was about Occam's razor shaving off all unnecessary fluff. Now we are just inventing new fluff because... why actually?