Are you honestly trying to defend leaving your cell phone on when you're in the theater?
People go there to watch a movie, not to get interrupted by people like you whose phones are left on to alert them of every text message or phone call they get.
Be considerate and turn the phone OFF when you're in the theater.
Individual conflict is not war, war is a group behaviour that has only been observed in humans and (possibly) chimps.
Actually, warfare (conflict as a group behavior) has been observed in many social lifeforms, including ants, wasps, etc.
The benefit of being social animals is that we can work together to accomplish things that we can't accomplish ourselves. The drawback is that we also use this team cooperation for battle, too.
I think war is just a side-effect of being a social animal. Every animal fights, some species just fight in groups.
The answer to this paradox, IMO, is that war is simply incompatible with civil society.
That's a bit overoptimistic and utopian. As long as somebody has what someone else wants, there will be conflict. And as long as there is conflict, there will be war.
Just because we as humans are aware of it doesn't mean we can change it. From bacteria to humans, competition breeds conflict. That's not about to change.
I'm sick of marketers encroaching into my personal space with their advertising. Putting ads on racecars or on the sides of their buildings is one thing, but when my email box is filled with spam, my fax machine is printing out pages I don't want, and my phone is receiving ads I don't want they're going too far.
I'm so used to Windows that I can't imagine doing it any other way. When I try to use a Mac I find it too awkwards since I don't have much experience with it. Maybe if I used it more my opinion would change, who knows. Thanks for replying with an honest answer.
So if I tell you that I am measurably less productive doing my job on a PC - I have a PC and a Mac on my desk - you will tell me that it is all in my head?
It's funny how every time a person on a forum wants to push their favorite product over another product, they claim to use both regularly and have conclusive evidence that their favorite one is better. Feel free to produce the measurements of you being "measurably less productive" doing your job on a PC verses a Mac.
So you cannot possibly consider 'Crucial' to be 'generic' as 'Crucial' IS the name of the brand.
Really, there isn't any truly "generic" memory. Only a few companies make memory chips, smaller companies couldn't possibly build a fab to produce memory chips.
The "generic" companies use the same Samsung, Toshiba, or Hynix, etc chips that most other companies do, and build them according to the reference design produced by the chipmakers. They also buy the PCB that the memory chips are soldered to from a company that makes PCBs and sells them to OEMs. In addition, the SPD on the memory chip isn't made from them either, they buy that.
In fact, many "generic" computer parts are actually OEM produced parts sold in the gray market from oversupply. You might find a motherboard/memory stick that is completely identical to the product of a big name motherboard/memory stick producer.
For instance, I used to work for a motherboard manufacturer and one of our competitors was PC Chips, a huge OEM. They produced huge volumes of motherboards and sold them under their name, sold them to manufacturers who sold them under their own names, and also produced boards that were sold under "house" names like Tiger Direct or even by smaller retailers under the term "generic". Yet they were all produced on the same assembly line.
You can go ahead and put your hoity-toity words into my mouth about my supposedly irrational choice of hardware and software, if it make you feel like a big boy. Speaking as a hardcore PC user who "switched" to an Apple PowerBook four years ago and has enjoyed every minute of it, my Mac fanboy opinion is that you should shut the hell up. >:)
Wow, you don't seem like an emotional, irrational Mac fanboy at all.
A Mac zealot will never accept anything other than a Mac even if you built two identical machines on the same assembly line and took the badge off at the end.
Mac users are emotional thinkers, not logical thinkers. The "reasoning" used in their replies speaks for itself. They believe there is something unable to be measured that makes Macs great. It is a belief... no rationale necessary. Just like how Mac users believed that the G5 was faster than an Athlon64, no benchmark stating the obvious can make them believe otherwise.
Once you pick apart their reasoning and prove their examples wrong, the belief remains. They will always remain a Mac fanboy.
The point I am trying to make is that people are willing to believe the politically correct reason given for blacks' low IQ and SAT scores, and they're not willing to believe that there may, in fact, be inate differences in intelligence just as there are inate differences in appearance and athletic capability.
It would be silly to think that some groups look different, are built different, are colored different, yet have absolutely no difference in their mental structure. We can see that through evolution, drastic physical changes have occurred in the bodies of people that comprise different races. Would it be far-fetched to think that maybe mental changes have occurred also?
People like to use blacks in the USA as an example of poor performance because it gives an easy excuse- slavery. But that's conveniently disregarding the fact that the blacks in Africa score similarly to than the blacks in the USA.In fact, they score similarly in every country they live in. There isn't a country on Earth where they have been able to outscore their non-black counterparts on tests which require cognitive skill. Whether if it's in the USA, England, Brazil, or Africa itself, people of African descent score more poorly than people who aren't of African descent. Conversely, Asians score high no matter where they go. Many people in Asia grew up in poverty also, but they seem to excel no matter where you place them.
As another example, in sports, different races seem to excel at certain areas. People of Western African descent excel at sports which require quick, explosive bursts of power like sprinting. At first, one might say that it's because of their lack of other opportunities in the USA. But then when you look at the fastest humans in other countries, you find that they all are usually of Western African descent also. Even "white" countries in Europe such as England and Germany adhere to the same trend. On the other hand, people of Eastern African descent have drastically different genetics. They don't hold as much muscle and instead do well at endurance activities. Once again, a very small group of people completely dominate a particular realm of athletic performance.
Is this just a coincidence? Is it really possible for the various reasons to all come to the same conclusion? Or is it more believable to accept the simple fact that capability does in fact vary by race as a result of evolution, and people of that race on average will score at a certain level regardless of where they are? Just look at the percentages and see how silly it is to believe that everyone's the same and nobody has a genetic advantage.
But if you look at the people in Africa, that were not enslaved by Americans, their IQ is about the same. As are the blacks in other countries.
A difference excuse is given for each example because people are afraid to admit that there really might be a common underlying factor.
Also, most Asians came over here poor, yet they were able to quickly excel in cognitive tests. There was a study done about this and they found that while poverty does account for a slight difference in SAT scores, poor whites still score higher than rich blacks.
OS X is blingzilla, but it also functions like a beast under the hood, as long as it is on hardware that allows it to. So, for all of those people who are hacking OS X together to run on crap hardware, Apple will try to stop you as best as they can, but in the end, you're still retarded. Upgrade the engine, and the whole package will fly.
How is an Athlon 64 4000 considered "crap" compared to the lower-end PC hardware that Apple is now going to use?
I hate to break it to you, but much of the hardware in a PC is higher grade than what's in Apples. But Apple fans will never see the light.
The available evidence suggests that on average the innate ability of black/hispanic children is just as high as that of white children, but they tend to have a poorer education (and of course there's a multidude of other social/cultural factors getting in the way of their progress)
Actually, the available evidence suggests that your IQ largely depends on your race. I know it's not politically correct to state that humans are diverse and have differences, but it is the truth. Because it's not PC, people often choose to throw out evidence that disagrees with their opinion.
But look up IQ scores based on race- you'll see a trend.
This is a sneaky attempt by anarchists to push the deviant operating system known as "linux".
It is immoral, unproductive, and un-American to support such a dangerous operating system. People who recommend this film to their friends are probably goddamn communists who want to destroy democracy!
(For you oblivious geeks who can't spot a joke without an accompanying instruction manual, the joke started on line 1)
Hell, the Cuban missile crisis is nothing compared to some serious strike capabilities in space with a far greater range than some archaic missiles on a carribean island.
How are space based weapons any worse than nuclear missiles stationed 90 miles off your country? Nuclear weapons are the most powerful weapons we have, and they're capable of hitting anywhere on Earth already. How would weapons being stationed in space be any worse?
Besides, who appointed the USA to be the supreme ruler of space? Surely disabling a satellite orbiting some other nation's (high) air space could be construed as an act of war similar to say, spyplanes in a foreign country's airspace?
Who said we're the supreme ruler of space? Did the US tell anyone else that they cannot put satellites there? I hate to break a little reality to you, but both the US and the Soviet union had the capability to knock out each other's satellites decades ago. This really isn't anything new.
And as far as knocking out an enemy Satellite being considered an act of war, you'd be doing that during a war, so it's a moot point.
Whatever advantage you can give yourself could possibly turn the tide of a battle.
Imagine being able to blind an enemy in a war by knocking out its surveillance and communications capabilities. How is this a bad thing?
People make it sound like it's a bad thing by starting a space arms race, but there could be worse things- such as your enemy being able to knock out your satellites and you have no ability to do the same. If you're able to develop such technology, do it.
It is so sad and unfortunate that these days the words "national security" and "terrorist" are almost guarenteed to get you the results and press coverage you want. You can just accuse someone of being a terrorist or undermining national security and you have half the battle won against that person/entity.
First of all, the writing is less than stellar. Second, all of it is opinion based without any sort of facts to back it up, or in depth explanation of his point... Gee, I remember something called the Apple II doing this long before microsoft was the force it was. What a maroon.
The value of one's opinion is judged by the listeners.
If a preacher is preaching to the choir, nobody in that audience is going to disagree with him. You'll just see a lot of heads nodding in agreement. Nobody is going to ask for proof, since you're telling them what they came to hear.
This site is rabidly anti-Microsoft/pro-Apple. Not many people ask for evidence when one makes a statement that's pro-Apple. However, when one makes a pro-Microsoft statement, the clueless yet opinionated people jump on the person, asking for supporting evidence to justify the statements made against their beloved platform. They don't really want proof, for their opinion is already made. What they're really doing is simply complaining that a statement was made that they don't agree with.
I've been in computers for 20 years and Apple didn't play much role in my learning. My original computer was a Commodore 64, and I moved on to a 10 mhz PC. I used the original Macs with the small B&W screen but I didn't like them. The user interface turned me off. I've tried subsequent Macs and the same thing that turned me off about the original Macs turn me off now. I also find Mac enthusiasts to be filled with too much zeal. They seem willing to throw away logic in favor of raw emotion- not the kind of people I like to be associated with.
No, I do not "love" Microsoft, but I certainly don't like Apple, and it's not due to inexperience. I don't understand the enthusiasm and I think much of the userbase on Slashdot is a bit misguided.
This is a pretty interesting insight into the different attitudes of the U.S. and Britain, as reflected in our different grammars. Over here, we recognise that an organisation is made up of people, and as such when that organisation acts we think of the people that make it up and pluralise the name. "NASA are" is shorthand for "the members of NASA are". Whereas in the U.S. the concept of a corporation as a legal entity with comparable status to a person is apparently so ingrained that you accord them that privilege in your grammar! It makes me wonder how you perceive the employees - perhaps as mere tools operated by the corporation.
That's just the way we handle collective nouns. It doesn't have anything to do with the workers' value vs. the corporation's value, it's about following the rules of grammar.
For instance, if you used another collective noun such as "group", you'd say, "The group was", since collective nouns are handled as singular entities. Even though a group is made up of people, you still refer to that group as a single unit. A group of people, a flock of geese, a bunch of apples, a team of athletes, etc. We refer to the set as a singular noun.
I don't know why the US speaks a different form of English than England does, that makes no sense to me.
English, as spoken in England, says "NASA are". People from Europe, also known as "Europeans" speak a wide variety of languages other than English, and when they speak English, they generally use the British pronunciation. Of course, none of those people have internet access, or post on slashdot.
Thanks for the brilliant insight.
I should have probably said something like, "I can understand if the person is from Europe where the grammar rules are different". Oh, that's right, I *did* say that.
Also, if you RTFA, which is from the BBC (which is from England, a place in Europe where they speak English), you'll see that TFA says, "Nasa is concerned the dangling material..." Strange, the BBC, speaking British English, used "NASA is" instead of "NASA are".
My lesson of the day would be when to use "is" and "are".
NASA is the name of an organization. It's a singular noun, not a plural noun. You'd say, "NASA is", not "NASA are".
I can understand if the person is from Europe where the grammar rules are different, but I see many Americans not being able to speak their primary language.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you honestly trying to defend leaving your cell phone on when you're in the theater?
People go there to watch a movie, not to get interrupted by people like you whose phones are left on to alert them of every text message or phone call they get.
Be considerate and turn the phone OFF when you're in the theater.
Individual conflict is not war, war is a group behaviour that has only been observed in humans and (possibly) chimps.
Actually, warfare (conflict as a group behavior) has been observed in many social lifeforms, including ants, wasps, etc.
The benefit of being social animals is that we can work together to accomplish things that we can't accomplish ourselves. The drawback is that we also use this team cooperation for battle, too.
I think war is just a side-effect of being a social animal. Every animal fights, some species just fight in groups.
The answer to this paradox, IMO, is that war is simply incompatible with civil society.
That's a bit overoptimistic and utopian. As long as somebody has what someone else wants, there will be conflict. And as long as there is conflict, there will be war.
Just because we as humans are aware of it doesn't mean we can change it. From bacteria to humans, competition breeds conflict. That's not about to change.
That was pretty funny.
I don't know if you're joking or not (because the date is too coincidental for it to be a joke), but Linux turned 10 on this day in 2001.
Or, it's possible that it really is about prevention of attacks. NYC is a very likely target and everyone just saw what happened in London
London already had cameras everywhere, but that didn't seem to stop the bombings there, did it?
I'm sick of marketers encroaching into my personal space with their advertising. Putting ads on racecars or on the sides of their buildings is one thing, but when my email box is filled with spam, my fax machine is printing out pages I don't want, and my phone is receiving ads I don't want they're going too far.
Good points.
I'm so used to Windows that I can't imagine doing it any other way. When I try to use a Mac I find it too awkwards since I don't have much experience with it. Maybe if I used it more my opinion would change, who knows. Thanks for replying with an honest answer.
So if I tell you that I am measurably less productive doing my job on a PC - I have a PC and a Mac on my desk - you will tell me that it is all in my head?
It's funny how every time a person on a forum wants to push their favorite product over another product, they claim to use both regularly and have conclusive evidence that their favorite one is better. Feel free to produce the measurements of you being "measurably less productive" doing your job on a PC verses a Mac.
PC chips was only an example. Sorry if you didn't like it.
IBM does the same thing.
Generic: Not having a brand name.
So you cannot possibly consider 'Crucial' to be 'generic' as 'Crucial' IS the name of the brand.
Really, there isn't any truly "generic" memory. Only a few companies make memory chips, smaller companies couldn't possibly build a fab to produce memory chips.
The "generic" companies use the same Samsung, Toshiba, or Hynix, etc chips that most other companies do, and build them according to the reference design produced by the chipmakers. They also buy the PCB that the memory chips are soldered to from a company that makes PCBs and sells them to OEMs. In addition, the SPD on the memory chip isn't made from them either, they buy that.
In fact, many "generic" computer parts are actually OEM produced parts sold in the gray market from oversupply. You might find a motherboard/memory stick that is completely identical to the product of a big name motherboard/memory stick producer.
For instance, I used to work for a motherboard manufacturer and one of our competitors was PC Chips, a huge OEM. They produced huge volumes of motherboards and sold them under their name, sold them to manufacturers who sold them under their own names, and also produced boards that were sold under "house" names like Tiger Direct or even by smaller retailers under the term "generic". Yet they were all produced on the same assembly line.
You can go ahead and put your hoity-toity words into my mouth about my supposedly irrational choice of hardware and software, if it make you feel like a big boy. Speaking as a hardcore PC user who "switched" to an Apple PowerBook four years ago and has enjoyed every minute of it, my Mac fanboy opinion is that you should shut the hell up. >:)
Wow, you don't seem like an emotional, irrational Mac fanboy at all.
A Mac zealot will never accept anything other than a Mac even if you built two identical machines on the same assembly line and took the badge off at the end.
Mac users are emotional thinkers, not logical thinkers. The "reasoning" used in their replies speaks for itself. They believe there is something unable to be measured that makes Macs great. It is a belief... no rationale necessary. Just like how Mac users believed that the G5 was faster than an Athlon64, no benchmark stating the obvious can make them believe otherwise.
Once you pick apart their reasoning and prove their examples wrong, the belief remains. They will always remain a Mac fanboy.
My last post to you was poorly written, sorry.
The point I am trying to make is that people are willing to believe the politically correct reason given for blacks' low IQ and SAT scores, and they're not willing to believe that there may, in fact, be inate differences in intelligence just as there are inate differences in appearance and athletic capability.
It would be silly to think that some groups look different, are built different, are colored different, yet have absolutely no difference in their mental structure. We can see that through evolution, drastic physical changes have occurred in the bodies of people that comprise different races. Would it be far-fetched to think that maybe mental changes have occurred also?
People like to use blacks in the USA as an example of poor performance because it gives an easy excuse- slavery. But that's conveniently disregarding the fact that the blacks in Africa score similarly to than the blacks in the USA.In fact, they score similarly in every country they live in. There isn't a country on Earth where they have been able to outscore their non-black counterparts on tests which require cognitive skill. Whether if it's in the USA, England, Brazil, or Africa itself, people of African descent score more poorly than people who aren't of African descent. Conversely, Asians score high no matter where they go. Many people in Asia grew up in poverty also, but they seem to excel no matter where you place them.
As another example, in sports, different races seem to excel at certain areas. People of Western African descent excel at sports which require quick, explosive bursts of power like sprinting. At first, one might say that it's because of their lack of other opportunities in the USA. But then when you look at the fastest humans in other countries, you find that they all are usually of Western African descent also. Even "white" countries in Europe such as England and Germany adhere to the same trend. On the other hand, people of Eastern African descent have drastically different genetics. They don't hold as much muscle and instead do well at endurance activities. Once again, a very small group of people completely dominate a particular realm of athletic performance.
Is this just a coincidence? Is it really possible for the various reasons to all come to the same conclusion? Or is it more believable to accept the simple fact that capability does in fact vary by race as a result of evolution, and people of that race on average will score at a certain level regardless of where they are? Just look at the percentages and see how silly it is to believe that everyone's the same and nobody has a genetic advantage.
But if you look at the people in Africa, that were not enslaved by Americans, their IQ is about the same. As are the blacks in other countries.
A difference excuse is given for each example because people are afraid to admit that there really might be a common underlying factor.
Also, most Asians came over here poor, yet they were able to quickly excel in cognitive tests. There was a study done about this and they found that while poverty does account for a slight difference in SAT scores, poor whites still score higher than rich blacks.
OS X is blingzilla, but it also functions like a beast under the hood, as long as it is on hardware that allows it to. So, for all of those people who are hacking OS X together to run on crap hardware, Apple will try to stop you as best as they can, but in the end, you're still retarded. Upgrade the engine, and the whole package will fly.
How is an Athlon 64 4000 considered "crap" compared to the lower-end PC hardware that Apple is now going to use?
I hate to break it to you, but much of the hardware in a PC is higher grade than what's in Apples. But Apple fans will never see the light.
The available evidence suggests that on average the innate ability of black/hispanic children is just as high as that of white children, but they tend to have a poorer education (and of course there's a multidude of other social/cultural factors getting in the way of their progress)
Actually, the available evidence suggests that your IQ largely depends on your race. I know it's not politically correct to state that humans are diverse and have differences, but it is the truth. Because it's not PC, people often choose to throw out evidence that disagrees with their opinion.
But look up IQ scores based on race- you'll see a trend.
This is a sneaky attempt by anarchists to push the deviant operating system known as "linux".
It is immoral, unproductive, and un-American to support such a dangerous operating system. People who recommend this film to their friends are probably goddamn communists who want to destroy democracy!
(For you oblivious geeks who can't spot a joke without an accompanying instruction manual, the joke started on line 1)
Hell, the Cuban missile crisis is nothing compared to some serious strike capabilities in space with a far greater range than some archaic missiles on a carribean island.
How are space based weapons any worse than nuclear missiles stationed 90 miles off your country? Nuclear weapons are the most powerful weapons we have, and they're capable of hitting anywhere on Earth already. How would weapons being stationed in space be any worse?
Besides, who appointed the USA to be the supreme ruler of space? Surely disabling a satellite orbiting some other nation's (high) air space could be construed as an act of war similar to say, spyplanes in a foreign country's airspace?
Who said we're the supreme ruler of space? Did the US tell anyone else that they cannot put satellites there? I hate to break a little reality to you, but both the US and the Soviet union had the capability to knock out each other's satellites decades ago. This really isn't anything new.
And as far as knocking out an enemy Satellite being considered an act of war, you'd be doing that during a war, so it's a moot point.
is never a bad thing.
Whatever advantage you can give yourself could possibly turn the tide of a battle.
Imagine being able to blind an enemy in a war by knocking out its surveillance and communications capabilities. How is this a bad thing?
People make it sound like it's a bad thing by starting a space arms race, but there could be worse things- such as your enemy being able to knock out your satellites and you have no ability to do the same. If you're able to develop such technology, do it.
It is so sad and unfortunate that these days the words "national security" and "terrorist" are almost guarenteed to get you the results and press coverage you want. You can just accuse someone of being a terrorist or undermining national security and you have half the battle won against that person/entity.
Well said, comrade.
(yes, it's a joke)
First of all, the writing is less than stellar. Second, all of it is opinion based without any sort of facts to back it up, or in depth explanation of his point... Gee, I remember something called the Apple II doing this long before microsoft was the force it was. What a maroon.
The value of one's opinion is judged by the listeners.
If a preacher is preaching to the choir, nobody in that audience is going to disagree with him. You'll just see a lot of heads nodding in agreement. Nobody is going to ask for proof, since you're telling them what they came to hear.
This site is rabidly anti-Microsoft/pro-Apple. Not many people ask for evidence when one makes a statement that's pro-Apple. However, when one makes a pro-Microsoft statement, the clueless yet opinionated people jump on the person, asking for supporting evidence to justify the statements made against their beloved platform. They don't really want proof, for their opinion is already made. What they're really doing is simply complaining that a statement was made that they don't agree with.
I've been in computers for 20 years and Apple didn't play much role in my learning. My original computer was a Commodore 64, and I moved on to a 10 mhz PC. I used the original Macs with the small B&W screen but I didn't like them. The user interface turned me off. I've tried subsequent Macs and the same thing that turned me off about the original Macs turn me off now. I also find Mac enthusiasts to be filled with too much zeal. They seem willing to throw away logic in favor of raw emotion- not the kind of people I like to be associated with.
No, I do not "love" Microsoft, but I certainly don't like Apple, and it's not due to inexperience. I don't understand the enthusiasm and I think much of the userbase on Slashdot is a bit misguided.
This is a pretty interesting insight into the different attitudes of the U.S. and Britain, as reflected in our different grammars. Over here, we recognise that an organisation is made up of people, and as such when that organisation acts we think of the people that make it up and pluralise the name. "NASA are" is shorthand for "the members of NASA are".
Whereas in the U.S. the concept of a corporation as a legal entity with comparable status to a person is apparently so ingrained that you accord them that privilege in your grammar! It makes me wonder how you perceive the employees - perhaps as mere tools operated by the corporation.
That's just the way we handle collective nouns. It doesn't have anything to do with the workers' value vs. the corporation's value, it's about following the rules of grammar.
For instance, if you used another collective noun such as "group", you'd say, "The group was", since collective nouns are handled as singular entities. Even though a group is made up of people, you still refer to that group as a single unit. A group of people, a flock of geese, a bunch of apples, a team of athletes, etc. We refer to the set as a singular noun.
I don't know why the US speaks a different form of English than England does, that makes no sense to me.
English, as spoken in England, says "NASA are". People from Europe, also known as "Europeans" speak a wide variety of languages other than English, and when they speak English, they generally use the British pronunciation. Of course, none of those people have internet access, or post on slashdot.
Thanks for the brilliant insight.
I should have probably said something like, "I can understand if the person is from Europe where the grammar rules are different". Oh, that's right, I *did* say that.
Also, if you RTFA, which is from the BBC (which is from England, a place in Europe where they speak English), you'll see that TFA says, "Nasa is concerned the dangling material..." Strange, the BBC, speaking British English, used "NASA is" instead of "NASA are".
My lesson of the day would be when to use "is" and "are".
NASA is the name of an organization. It's a singular noun, not a plural noun. You'd say, "NASA is", not "NASA are".
I can understand if the person is from Europe where the grammar rules are different, but I see many Americans not being able to speak their primary language.
That is all.