Did you miss the part where they said it's a "mud volcano"? That means it spews mud, not lava. A different process is responsible. Usually, the mud is 2-3 degrees Centigrade warmer than ambient. Definitely cool enough to bathe in, for instance.
No, this case highlights exactly why Rand-style laisssez-faire capitalism can't work. Let's say company A gets sued has has to raise the price of their widgets by $5. Company B won't stop at $2 just to maintain a competitive advantage. You see, both companies' goals are to make money, not competitive advantage. So Company B will convert their advantage into as much money as they possibly can. The lawsuit's conclusion gives Companies B-G a price to price fix on. The price will settle at the new price, even when Company A finishes paying restitution.
You see this all the time, especially in low priced commodities, where having money around for R&D isn't particularly important, and where market share is simply a matter of irrational preference.
BTW it hasn't been proven that he's dead. So why the assumption? Maybe the only thing that's dead is hope.
I have no idea if he's dead or alive. The joke happened to be funnier if he was dead. On the other hand, barring silly scenarios like the one you mentioned, logic and reason will not bring him back. If he is alive, his only plausible hope is to do something about his situation himself.
Let's put that to a test. I dare you to go over to his families house and tell those jokes, and if they complain, yell. Get over it!
Meh, different audience. They wouldn't think it's very funny, sure. But a good comedian plays for his audience.
Yes, but they agreed to restrictions limiting the kinds of adware they can peddle. If they violate them, they will be violating an injunction and can face very steep penalties.
Fair enough. I just take exception to the "true", "modern", and "philosopher" in your original post. ("[Berra is] not nearly close to being a true modern philosopher, such as Ayn Rand or Buckminster Fuller.")
I would class both of those in the pop/pseudo philosophy realm. Ayn Rand might have thought very hard about ethics, but she had no insight. She barely understood philosphical language. For instance, her "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" is in fact a book on the Problem of Universals. A metaphysical problem, not an epistemological one. She describes nominalists as "subjectivists" -- of course, nominalism is a (proposed) solution to the Problem of Universals, and orthogonal to the object/subject divide. That is, one can be a skeptical nominalist or be a nominalist who believes the truth of true sentences of the form S(x). I don't remember the details (it has been several years since I've looked at this book), but I recall her seriously misinterpreting the existentialists. And Nietzsche of all people.
It's a wishy-washy foundation for, as she puts it, the rest of her work.
I don't mind Fuller much, but he didn't claim to be a philosopher (as far as I know).
Pop philosopher or pseudo philosopher, but not nearly close to being a true modern philosopher, such as Ayn Rand or Buckminster Fuller. These are names that will be associated with serious thought and focus on science, math, humanity, and theory for centuries.
Ayn Rand and Fuller? Barf.
Names strongly associated with
Philosophy of Science: Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn.
Philosophy of Language: Peter Geach, Wittgenstein, W.V.O. Quine, Frege, Dummett, Saul Kripke, Hilary Putnam, Kit Fine, many others
Philosophy of Mathematics: Wittgenstein, W.V.O. Quine, Frege, Russell, Carnap, Godel, Brouwer, Hartry Field, Alfred Tarski, Skolem, Lowenstein, Dummett, Stewart Shapiro, Imre Lakatos, too many more to mention.
Epistemology: Gettier, lots of people responding to the so-called Gettier Cases.
Ethics: Sartre (especially in relation to phenominalist epistemology). Many many others, not including Ayn Rand or Fuller.
Fuller was a dilettante, and Rand was just a shrill nutjob.
FreeBSD and Perl don't belong together in a hosting environment. I ran into limitations due to this combination, and finally decided to set up my own (local) Perl environment. The owner ("Jeff") found out and went ballistic. To their credit, they were trying to solve the limitation and finally succeeded. But they broke my environment in the process. Not good for my productivity or sanity. But what good is a shell account if you can't fix your environment?
Like Chick Corea and the Pope meeting to discuss the merits of bungie jumping for relationship building.
Apple certainly will not support Linux or Windows. Their responsibility ends at the EFI bootloader. But Apple is not hostile towards Linux. In the PPC days, when installing Linux on a Mac could be kind of hairy, they even allowed VARs to sell machines with Linux pre-installed.
Sure, but[1] a computationally intensive algorithm to find hash collisions isn't going to be much help cracking the hash's corresponding Snuffle. I mean, take MD5, for instance. The hash space has 2^128 elements, meaning that the MD5 Snuffle effectively has 2^128 possible keys. Enumerating them will be faster than trying to come up with a string such that MD5(string) is the right hash (since the space of strings is unbounded).
[1] Keep in mind, this is an off hand comment. I will freely admit that I haven't thought of all the ramifications.
The biggest fallacy in the book is thinking that gold has any intrinsic value outside of its industrial uses. And copper alloys are superior for most applications.
The price of gold is just as arbitrary as the 'price' of a dollar. Having no intrinsic value means that extrinsic value -- price -- is its only value.
I used to do a lot of work with Catalyst. I still haven't seen anything as flexible and easy to use. Rails is nice, but it's a bit too "write and drool"[1] for my taste. Oddly enough, it isn't as straight forward as it could be, either.
I highly recommend anyone interested in The Intro. The The Tutorial goes into a lot more depth.
[1] I don't mean to be pretentious. Ruby is a fantastic language for creating domain specific languages, as Rails shows. But Rails' greatest strength is also a major weakness. For the record, my professional work currently involves prototyping number crunching applications with Ruby.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you miss the part where they said it's a "mud volcano"? That means it spews mud, not lava. A different process is responsible. Usually, the mud is 2-3 degrees Centigrade warmer than ambient. Definitely cool enough to bathe in, for instance.
In that case, you'd want your X10 system to control a relay that controls the CFL -- probably a solid state relay in your case.
No, this case highlights exactly why Rand-style laisssez-faire capitalism can't work. Let's say company A gets sued has has to raise the price of their widgets by $5. Company B won't stop at $2 just to maintain a competitive advantage. You see, both companies' goals are to make money, not competitive advantage. So Company B will convert their advantage into as much money as they possibly can. The lawsuit's conclusion gives Companies B-G a price to price fix on. The price will settle at the new price, even when Company A finishes paying restitution.
You see this all the time, especially in low priced commodities, where having money around for R&D isn't particularly important, and where market share is simply a matter of irrational preference.
BTW it hasn't been proven that he's dead. So why the assumption? Maybe the only thing that's dead is hope.
I have no idea if he's dead or alive. The joke happened to be funnier if he was dead. On the other hand, barring silly scenarios like the one you mentioned, logic and reason will not bring him back. If he is alive, his only plausible hope is to do something about his situation himself.
Let's put that to a test. I dare you to go over to his families house and tell those jokes, and if they complain, yell. Get over it!
Meh, different audience. They wouldn't think it's very funny, sure. But a good comedian plays for his audience.
lulz abound. the moderators are so stupid. your post was insightful. i just made some shit up on the spot and got karma. please mod me down, idiots.
Logic and reason -- at least on the part of slashdotters -- aren't going to bring Gray back. Jokes are fun. Get over it.
In any event, I wish Linus were on the boat with Jim. Just for the lulz.
I'd rather use a Hans held knife.
Preeeetty good troll there. Trying to admit something?
Yes, but they agreed to restrictions limiting the kinds of adware they can peddle. If they violate them, they will be violating an injunction and can face very steep penalties.
Fair enough. I just take exception to the "true", "modern", and "philosopher" in your original post. ("[Berra is] not nearly close to being a true modern philosopher, such as Ayn Rand or Buckminster Fuller.")
I would class both of those in the pop/pseudo philosophy realm. Ayn Rand might have thought very hard about ethics, but she had no insight. She barely understood philosphical language. For instance, her "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" is in fact a book on the Problem of Universals. A metaphysical problem, not an epistemological one. She describes nominalists as "subjectivists" -- of course, nominalism is a (proposed) solution to the Problem of Universals, and orthogonal to the object/subject divide. That is, one can be a skeptical nominalist or be a nominalist who believes the truth of true sentences of the form S(x). I don't remember the details (it has been several years since I've looked at this book), but I recall her seriously misinterpreting the existentialists. And Nietzsche of all people.
It's a wishy-washy foundation for, as she puts it, the rest of her work.
I don't mind Fuller much, but he didn't claim to be a philosopher (as far as I know).
Ayn Rand and Fuller? Barf.
Names strongly associated with
Fuller was a dilettante, and Rand was just a shrill nutjob.
Hello Reedie.
Sincerely,
poopdeville
PS - Yes, I am that poopdeville. The one you hear rumors about. The one holding the owl hostage.
All true, if a bit soft. Details for the interested:
a l.html
http://users.rowan.edu/~polikar/WAVELETS/WTtutori
A philosopher would never say that.
Yogi Berra did. And it actually goes "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."
Decimation.
Blah blah blah.
Do what you want. No one cares about your rationalizations.
They really suck.
FreeBSD and Perl don't belong together in a hosting environment. I ran into limitations due to this combination, and finally decided to set up my own (local) Perl environment. The owner ("Jeff") found out and went ballistic. To their credit, they were trying to solve the limitation and finally succeeded. But they broke my environment in the process. Not good for my productivity or sanity. But what good is a shell account if you can't fix your environment?
To quote Master Shake, "Highlander was a documentary, and the events happened in real time."
Because of the Service Pack troll.
It's old meme and dumb.
I can imagine a lot of implausible scenarios.
Like Chick Corea and the Pope meeting to discuss the merits of bungie jumping for relationship building.
Apple certainly will not support Linux or Windows. Their responsibility ends at the EFI bootloader. But Apple is not hostile towards Linux. In the PPC days, when installing Linux on a Mac could be kind of hairy, they even allowed VARs to sell machines with Linux pre-installed.
Yes.
Sure, but[1] a computationally intensive algorithm to find hash collisions isn't going to be much help cracking the hash's corresponding Snuffle. I mean, take MD5, for instance. The hash space has 2^128 elements, meaning that the MD5 Snuffle effectively has 2^128 possible keys. Enumerating them will be faster than trying to come up with a string such that MD5(string) is the right hash (since the space of strings is unbounded).
[1] Keep in mind, this is an off hand comment. I will freely admit that I haven't thought of all the ramifications.
The biggest fallacy in the book is thinking that gold has any intrinsic value outside of its industrial uses. And copper alloys are superior for most applications.
The price of gold is just as arbitrary as the 'price' of a dollar. Having no intrinsic value means that extrinsic value -- price -- is its only value.
Oh, right.
Sincerely,
Bearded Nitwit
Catalyst FTW.
I used to do a lot of work with Catalyst. I still haven't seen anything as flexible and easy to use. Rails is nice, but it's a bit too "write and drool"[1] for my taste. Oddly enough, it isn't as straight forward as it could be, either.
I highly recommend anyone interested in The Intro. The The Tutorial goes into a lot more depth.
[1] I don't mean to be pretentious. Ruby is a fantastic language for creating domain specific languages, as Rails shows. But Rails' greatest strength is also a major weakness. For the record, my professional work currently involves prototyping number crunching applications with Ruby.