Maybe the world will separate out into good looking but dumb Eloi who use technology and smart but ugly Morlocks who create it. Which would explain why IT support people are so horrible to their users - they need to start dehumanising them now so they can eat them in a few thousand years time and still consider themselves vegetarian.
No, I'm pretty sure that only happens if you're raped by a robot. Judging by the cartoons I've seen, that's quite a surprisingly common occurrence in Japan.
That's great, except for the fact that shadows don't have crisp edges in the real world. Unless it's illuminated by a point-source (which immediately excludes the sun, lamps, flashlights, and pretty much every other light source you're likely to encounter), there will be a penumbra. The DX9 image here: http://www.hothardware.com/articleimages/item1031/big_stateofdx10_wic_shad.jpg is more realistic.
Even better teachers would have to compete globally.
So the marketing lecturer who told us we'd be competing with Indians and Chinese will now have to compete with some celebrity from Harvard Business School.
The problem with your analogy is that all of your examples harm or don't harm the person who's doing or not doing them (if correct), whereas screwing with the environment enough harms everyone.
Which, by your logic:
But of course you're free to believe in anything you like and observe what rituals you like provided they don't directly harm anyone else.
means that we actually should force people to not screw with the environment.
There's a reason why I said directly. The liberal (small l) rule is that only things that directly harm people can be made illegal. Damaging the ozone layer doesn't directly harm anyone really. If catastophic global warming really started to harm people it's too late to do anything about which seems to be a case for limiting freedom but I've seen nothing that convinces me that it will actually happen. I think the next 100 years will warm about the same as the last 100 so there's no case for forcing people to do anything.
If we were on Easter Island and people were chopping down literally all the trees to build yet more statues I could see that in theory you'd have a case for banning them doing so, but that's a very rare case.
And I think morally you basically have to accept this rule, otherwise worshippers of the Aztec sun god could demand people sacrifice their animals and even children to make sure the sun rises.
I actually think this is the invisible pink unicorn counter argument to environmentalists and the precautionary principle.
Once you start forcing people to act on some things based on the precautionary principe you end up forcing them to act on everything and the costs of doing that is infinite. You can kind of see it happening already - people have banned CFCs, DDT (people died of malaria in Africa because spraying with DDT to kill mosquitos stopped), and are trying to severely limit CO2 emissions which must have some human cost.
The only reason someone would want to use the champagne name is for marketing, which I think would probably benefit cheap knock-offs but hardly the consumer...
Champagne is a method which the Australians use it and actually make better wine. There are cheap knock offs, but they're very easy to spot and some consumers probably prefer them anyway.
If you read the article, this protection doesn't apply in the US because it never ratified the Treaty of Versailles which was a shortsigthed attempt to punish Germany at the end of WWI. So the reason for the legal limit on what you can call champagne is to protect the French producers not consumers.
Finally there's already trademark law to protect people from cheap knock offs, we don't need regional monopolies too.
The thing about not believing in God is that you burn in hell if he exists. If he doesn't then it cost you nothing. And you should avoid breaking mirrors too, since doing so may bring you bad luck. And maybe sacrifice some animals to the Aztec Sun God. If he exists then doing so will keep the sun rising - if it stops doing so then our collective wang would be well and truly in the blender.
Though I don't care what the "scientific acceptance" level is. Lots of beliefs have had a high acceptance level in the past and have proved to be false. Risk assesment, and not over estimating what you actual know for sure is essential.
Incidentally with the ozone hole my Dad told me that in the UK CFC were banned completely from fridges. Now it would have been possible to use them but make sure that someone removed them and stop them escaping into the atmosphere where they might damage the ozone layer. But a banned was decided on instead. Unfortunately new CFC free fridges fail much more quickly - they need to be junked after only a year and a half instead of every decade. My parents rent houses to students and need to replace them when this happens so they can see the increased fail rate. So getting rid of CFCs does have an environmental cost, just like sacrificing animals to the presumably non existent Aztec Sun God does.
And I'm sure I could find an even more pathological case where the precautionary principle would lead to an even more drastic cost. Come to think of it, Easter Islanders possibly destroyed their environment when they cut down trees for religious rituals. So a precautionary belief in a falsehood is bad, but the costs of the rituals may well be disasterous.
But of course you're free to believe in anything you like and observe what rituals you like provided they don't directly harm anyone else. What I object to is people trying to put their questionable beliefs into law - i.e. force other people to take part in your rituals.
Very strange effect. It seems like lots of studies are done. The ones that show drastic environmental collapse are reported very widely. In this case the news seems good and there isn't an alternative study so we get the comment 'Although the hole is somewhat smaller than usual, we cannot conclude from this that the ozone layer is recovering already'. So the studies may be ok scientfically but picking the outliers which show immininent catastrophe and if that is impossible adding comments that the catastrophe might still be present is not.
So bad news is bad news. Good news means we can't conclude anything.
It reminds me of the 'worst headline ever' : 'Small earthquake : not many killed'. If you want to attract attention, I guess you need a bit of drama.
But maybe I'm complacent and we'll all die of avian flu or global warming or a meltdown in the financial markets causing a collapse of our civilisation.
I once went to a non double blind champagne tasting. It was actually pretty interesting - some obscure Australian ones were actually rated best by most people. Not that they can call them champagne in Europe though - they have to be called 'sparkling wine' or 'sparkling chardonnay' because a spiteful clause in the Treaty of Versailles that gives the French a monopoly on labelling wines 'champagne'.
We name the nearest traversable worm hole to Earth goatse, because I like the idea of the teacher of Interstellar Travel 101 in a couple of hundred year's time having to explain it.
Exactly. I've always wondered if the people that get really annoyed with spelling errors have some fault in the error correction in their brains. It's sort of plausible, some autistic spectrum people are annoyed inordinately by inconsistency.
So when they see someone misspell something they get angry whereas normal people just filter it out subconsciously. If some aspie points it out, us neurotypicals can see it too, but up to that point it was forward error corrected away beneath our conscious processing level so we don't need to worry about them.
Which would mean that grammar Nazis are actually cognitively challenged as well as pendantic. Yeah, I just said pendant. Hurts don't it?
Most modern environmentalists now believe it's not enough to run school computers off solar power. The only way to appease Gaia is to sacrifice the school children, burn down the school and plant a forest there instead.
If they worked together they could repair discarded gorillas and install GorillaBuntu on them and program them pick to up litter from Mount Fuji and use it to bury the mountaintop miners. And get 100% of the votes.
It's quite possible on this Chinese ISP the majority of users are spammers, scammers, malware writer and blackhats. And they probably all wish the Chinese Internet Security Response Team would stop posting spoilers about their hard work.
My UK ISP Demon has had a clause like this for ages
http://www.demon.net/helpdesk/producthelp/aup/thusaup/ Demon cannot tolerate any behaviour by customers which negatively impacts upon its own equipment or network, or upon the use by other customers of the Internet, or which damages Demon's standing in the wider Internet community.
It's a bit broad, like most consumer contracts - essentially they can stop you being a customer if you piss them off. But as far as I know they use it to get read of spammers, scammers and so on, not to get rid of people who criticize them.
I dunno really. But I do know if you went to court and a judge ordered you to hand over evidence and you tried to baffle him with your superior knowledge of an obscure language or encrytion he would most likely send you to jail for contempt of court and/or obstruction of justice.
Careful dude, some ACs are Klingons and would KILL YOU WHERE YOU STAND for saying that.
Some random university's network didn't have traffic shaping set up correctly. So? This is somehow newsworthy?
It's revenge. In the good old days slashdot reading admins could get a unlimited network connection and download torrents 24/7. Then undocumented download came in and they had to limit themselves to 90GB less a hard to determine safety margin. Some ISPs did shaping too, so unfavoured applications like torrents got crippled. This spoiled their fun.
Then Halo 3 came out and they see loads of people having fun playing it. But Halo is released by Microsoft and so must have a downside. And sure enough it does - the network has been slow recently and it therefore must be to blame. The solution is to cripple its network connection. The fact their users with XBox 360s got a taste of disappointment the admins felt when Comcase limited their downloads is an added bonus.
The really funny thing is that whenever anything Microsoft does anything that in anyway stops people using Linux the people that do this sort of thing would be outraged.
unless you want to include abiogenesis, but evolutionists insist that abiogenesis is not evolution--it just isn't!
Abiogenesis is an unsolved problem. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if some sort of evolutionary mechanism wasn't involved somehow. E.g. some primitive form of life which has a primitive mechanism for heredity instead of DNA and which would act as sort of bootstrap between chemistry and biology by synthesizing lots of organic chemicals.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the world will separate out into good looking but dumb Eloi who use technology and smart but ugly Morlocks who create it. Which would explain why IT support people are so horrible to their users - they need to start dehumanising them now so they can eat them in a few thousand years time and still consider themselves vegetarian.
Simple flash example: http://www.goalfinder.com/Downloads/Shadows.swf That's because reality doesn't yet support SM3.0.
Even better teachers would have to compete globally.
So the marketing lecturer who told us we'd be competing with Indians and Chinese will now have to compete with some celebrity from Harvard Business School.
Brass Eye is a very good parody of media hysteria.
http://www.tv-links.co.uk/listings/1/940
There's a reason why I said directly. The liberal (small l) rule is that only things that directly harm people can be made illegal. Damaging the ozone layer doesn't directly harm anyone really. If catastophic global warming really started to harm people it's too late to do anything about which seems to be a case for limiting freedom but I've seen nothing that convinces me that it will actually happen. I think the next 100 years will warm about the same as the last 100 so there's no case for forcing people to do anything.
If we were on Easter Island and people were chopping down literally all the trees to build yet more statues I could see that in theory you'd have a case for banning them doing so, but that's a very rare case.
And I think morally you basically have to accept this rule, otherwise worshippers of the Aztec sun god could demand people sacrifice their animals and even children to make sure the sun rises.
I actually think this is the invisible pink unicorn counter argument to environmentalists and the precautionary principle.
Once you start forcing people to act on some things based on the precautionary principe you end up forcing them to act on everything and the costs of doing that is infinite. You can kind of see it happening already - people have banned CFCs, DDT (people died of malaria in Africa because spraying with DDT to kill mosquitos stopped), and are trying to severely limit CO2 emissions which must have some human cost.
The only reason someone would want to use the champagne name is for marketing, which I think would probably benefit cheap knock-offs but hardly the consumer...
Champagne is a method which the Australians use it and actually make better wine. There are cheap knock offs, but they're very easy to spot and some consumers probably prefer them anyway.
If you read the article, this protection doesn't apply in the US because it never ratified the Treaty of Versailles which was a shortsigthed attempt to punish Germany at the end of WWI. So the reason for the legal limit on what you can call champagne is to protect the French producers not consumers.
Finally there's already trademark law to protect people from cheap knock offs, we don't need regional monopolies too.
So I guess you believe in God?
The thing about not believing in God is that you burn in hell if he exists. If he doesn't then it cost you nothing. And you should avoid breaking mirrors too, since doing so may bring you bad luck. And maybe sacrifice some animals to the Aztec Sun God. If he exists then doing so will keep the sun rising - if it stops doing so then our collective wang would be well and truly in the blender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
What you're talking about is the precautionary principle.
and I think I agree with this idea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Risk_assessment_is_smarter
Though I don't care what the "scientific acceptance" level is. Lots of beliefs have had a high acceptance level in the past and have proved to be false. Risk assesment, and not over estimating what you actual know for sure is essential.
Incidentally with the ozone hole my Dad told me that in the UK CFC were banned completely from fridges. Now it would have been possible to use them but make sure that someone removed them and stop them escaping into the atmosphere where they might damage the ozone layer. But a banned was decided on instead. Unfortunately new CFC free fridges fail much more quickly - they need to be junked after only a year and a half instead of every decade. My parents rent houses to students and need to replace them when this happens so they can see the increased fail rate. So getting rid of CFCs does have an environmental cost, just like sacrificing animals to the presumably non existent Aztec Sun God does.
And I'm sure I could find an even more pathological case where the precautionary principle would lead to an even more drastic cost. Come to think of it, Easter Islanders possibly destroyed their environment when they cut down trees for religious rituals. So a precautionary belief in a falsehood is bad, but the costs of the rituals may well be disasterous.
But of course you're free to believe in anything you like and observe what rituals you like provided they don't directly harm anyone else. What I object to is people trying to put their questionable beliefs into law - i.e. force other people to take part in your rituals.
Very strange effect. It seems like lots of studies are done. The ones that show drastic environmental collapse are reported very widely. In this case the news seems good and there isn't an alternative study so we get the comment 'Although the hole is somewhat smaller than usual, we cannot conclude from this that the ozone layer is recovering already'. So the studies may be ok scientfically but picking the outliers which show immininent catastrophe and if that is impossible adding comments that the catastrophe might still be present is not.
So bad news is bad news. Good news means we can't conclude anything.
It reminds me of the 'worst headline ever' : 'Small earthquake : not many killed'. If you want to attract attention, I guess you need a bit of drama.
But maybe I'm complacent and we'll all die of avian flu or global warming or a meltdown in the financial markets causing a collapse of our civilisation.
I once went to a non double blind champagne tasting. It was actually pretty interesting - some obscure Australian ones were actually rated best by most people. Not that they can call them champagne in Europe though - they have to be called 'sparkling wine' or 'sparkling chardonnay' because a spiteful clause in the Treaty of Versailles that gives the French a monopoly on labelling wines 'champagne'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_(wine)#Champagne_and_the_law
http://shopping.yahoo.com/s:Champagne:15605-Region=Australian
We name the nearest traversable worm hole to Earth goatse, because I like the idea of the teacher of Interstellar Travel 101 in a couple of hundred year's time having to explain it.
Exactly. I've always wondered if the people that get really annoyed with spelling errors have some fault in the error correction in their brains. It's sort of plausible, some autistic spectrum people are annoyed inordinately by inconsistency.
So when they see someone misspell something they get angry whereas normal people just filter it out subconsciously. If some aspie points it out, us neurotypicals can see it too, but up to that point it was forward error corrected away beneath our conscious processing level so we don't need to worry about them.
Which would mean that grammar Nazis are actually cognitively challenged as well as pendantic. Yeah, I just said pendant. Hurts don't it?
What is the world coming to when Slashdot articles have "zomg" in the title. Idiocracy was a prophecy.
Being an idiot is cool if you're doing it ironically.
Most modern environmentalists now believe it's not enough to run school computers off solar power. The only way to appease Gaia is to sacrifice the school children, burn down the school and plant a forest there instead.
If they worked together they could repair discarded gorillas and install GorillaBuntu on them and program them pick to up litter from Mount Fuji and use it to bury the mountaintop miners. And get 100% of the votes.
But he used the inverted slash of the DEVIL! BURN HIM!
It's quite possible on this Chinese ISP the majority of users are spammers, scammers, malware writer and blackhats. And they probably all wish the Chinese Internet Security Response Team would stop posting spoilers about their hard work.
The guy shouldn't have to assign copyright. As long as he's LGPL'ed the code, what's the big deal?
If he assigns copyright Sun can change license later on. So Sun could do a closed source Open Office if they wanted to at a later date.
If he just LGPLs it they can't do that.
My UK ISP Demon has had a clause like this for ages
http://www.demon.net/helpdesk/producthelp/aup/thusaup/
Demon cannot tolerate any behaviour by customers which negatively impacts upon its own equipment or network, or upon the use by other customers of the Internet, or which damages Demon's standing in the wider Internet community.
It's a bit broad, like most consumer contracts - essentially they can stop you being a customer if you piss them off. But as far as I know they use it to get read of spammers, scammers and so on, not to get rid of people who criticize them.
I'm very happy wirh Demon. But I think Laurence Godfrey is a nutter
As far as I can tell from the extraordinarily sparse FA, that's all we know. The article made less sense than the summary
Isn't that the slashdot equivalent of dividing by zero?
OH SHI-
I dunno really. But I do know if you went to court and a judge ordered you to hand over evidence and you tried to baffle him with your superior knowledge of an obscure language or encrytion he would most likely send you to jail for contempt of court and/or obstruction of justice.
I must agree with this Coward
Careful dude, some ACs are Klingons and would KILL YOU WHERE YOU STAND for saying that.
Some random university's network didn't have traffic shaping set up correctly. So? This is somehow newsworthy?
It's revenge. In the good old days slashdot reading admins could get a unlimited network connection and download torrents 24/7. Then undocumented download came in and they had to limit themselves to 90GB less a hard to determine safety margin. Some ISPs did shaping too, so unfavoured applications like torrents got crippled. This spoiled their fun.
Then Halo 3 came out and they see loads of people having fun playing it. But Halo is released by Microsoft and so must have a downside. And sure enough it does - the network has been slow recently and it therefore must be to blame. The solution is to cripple its network connection. The fact their users with XBox 360s got a taste of disappointment the admins felt when Comcase limited their downloads is an added bonus.
It's a bit like when Vista came out, some Linux sysadmin decided not to support the deprecated feature of DHCP it relied on, with the happy side effect of not allowing customers to use Vista.
The really funny thing is that whenever anything Microsoft does anything that in anyway stops people using Linux the people that do this sort of thing would be outraged.
1. You are assuming they are using MLC Flash (as opposed to SLC)
Hmm true. MLC is about twice as cheap in the most recent generation.
Presumably two bits per cell halves the die size. Actually it's more complex than that - the SLC cost / MLC cost varies with the generation.
Gb SLC cost/ MLC cost
16 2,1
8 2,6
4 1,4
But MLC has 1/10 the maximum erase cycles
http://www.datalight.com/products/download.php?type=public&resourceid=416
So it's not really suitable for a massive storage array. It would be great for an MP3 player though.
No one is going to stuff flash chips on a board like this and sell it for cost.
Yeah, I know - that's what I meant by 'That's the spot price on the chips too, a device with them in will be more expensive'
unless you want to include abiogenesis, but evolutionists insist that abiogenesis is not evolution--it just isn't!
Abiogenesis is an unsolved problem. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if some sort of evolutionary mechanism wasn't involved somehow. E.g. some primitive form of life which has a primitive mechanism for heredity instead of DNA and which would act as sort of bootstrap between chemistry and biology by synthesizing lots of organic chemicals.