Outliers are early indicators in any process of discovery.
Agreed. But they, in of themselves, do not create a discovery.
For example, the 9 hottest years on record have occurred in the last ten years. That's a pretty encouraging sign that something is off a bit with the climate. The fact that it snowed someplace for the first time in 20 years is not evidence of climate change. It is a funny weather story. If it snows again next year and the year after, then we're seeing a trend. Until then, equating it with climate change is a bit premature.
The GP is right to a certain degree. All of these occurrences may or may not be evidence of climate change. The problem is that every odd weather thing that happens becomes evidence that something is "wrong." Strong hurricanes? Climate change. Weak hurricanes? Climate change. More hurricanes? Climate change. Less hurricanes? Climate change. More rain? Climate change. Less rain? Climate change. Heavier snow pack? Climate change. Lighter snow pack? Climate change. Hotter than normal? Climate change. Colder than normal? Climate change.
See, for the last millennia, we've had years where it's been hotter than average. We've had years where it's colder than average. We've had years with more hurricanes than average. We've had years with fewer hurricanes than average. We've had years with more snowfall/rainfall than average. We've had years with less snowfall/rainfall than average. That's why it's called an "average." With climate change, what we're seeing is that those years that are hotter than average are more prevalent than years that are colder than average. These are scary statistics.
The problem is, statistics don't work well to convince people. So we try to grab something dramatic--the first snow in some place in 20 years, flooding in the midwest, tornadoes, etc. and equate it to climate change. It's more dramatic that way--video of people digging out under 20 foot snow drifts is far more compelling than a graph showing a radical increase in global temperatures. The problem is, it's not evidence. It's an anecdote. Just like the anecdotes that have existed for millennia. Hell, I've seen pictures from the 1930s of people digging out from under snow drifts. Is that climate change?
Just look at the melted polar ice cap.
Yes, but the polar ice cap didn't melt in a day. It took years. This is a one-time event. Heck, it's not even all that strange--it happened 20 years ago.
You plant it, make sure it's watered, make sure it's weeded, and it produces nearly all of the time.
True. But if you were going to actually feed yourself from the garden, there are other issues. What do you plant? How do you optimize a particular area so that you grow the most food for the least amount of space? How much will you need to plant? How do you keep bugs off the plants?
There's a difference between a backyard garden so you can have fresh cucumbers in the summer and actually trying to supply all your vegetable needs indefinitely. You're right that having fresh cucumbers is pretty easy. But the amount of planning involved in really feeding yourself gets complicated.
iTunes currently controls around 70% of the market for downloading music. That's definitely monopoly territory. So the argument could be made that because you can only download music on iOS devices via iTunes, that Apple is using it's music monopoly to expand into phone sales.
My issue with automatic transmissions is that they never shift when I think they should and, since I grew up driving a stick-shift and listening to the engine, I find it very distracting. There's also, sometimes, some "magic" that the engineer threw in thinking themselves clever.
Two examples:
First, back in the late-80s I had a rental car for a bit after I moved from a place that didn't require owning a car to a place that did. It was a brand new Chrysler Lebaron. Nice car--kinda sporty. The problem I had with the car was it's automatic transmission occasionally decided I that, when I stepped down on the accelerator, I wanted to accelerate quickly so it would downshift. Then it would decide that I was over-revving so it would shift back up. Then it would decide that I wanted to accelerate quickly so it would downshift. Then it would decide that I was over-revving so it would shift back up.
So I would go to pass someone, I'd step on the gas, and the car would hesitate for a bit until it figured out what gear I wanted to be in. It took me a few weeks to figure out "the rules" of how far to press the accelerator so that it would accelerate and not do this annoying dance.
Second, about 7 or 8 years ago, I rented a turbo-Beetle while my car was in the shop for the day. So I'm cruising along the freeway doing about 70 and the engine is running at about 5000 RPM. Well, that struck me as a bit high so I accelerated to about 80 and then it finally decided to shift down to a more reasonable 3500 RPMs. Then I dropped back to 70 and cruised along quite happily. Why burn the extra gas at 5000 RPM if I don't need to? I'm cruising down the highway, not racing at LeMans.
So the reason I don't like automatic transmissions is that they can only guess at what I'm doing or want to do.
Part of this, of course, is that I grew up with manual transmissions. So I notice things like that. My sister, for example, grew up with automatics and she never notices these things. But if you dislike being picked on, just remember that "Real men are confident enough that they don't need to shift their own gears."
Actually, it is not LEGAL to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk [...]
Depends on where you live.
Here in California, riding on the sidewalk may be legal depending on where you live. It is not decided at the state level. So, for example, it may illegal to ride your bike on sidewalk in San Francisco but perfectly legal to ride your bike on the sidewalk in Garden Grove. It might be legal to ride on the sidewalks of Newport Beach, but not the ones on Main Street.
Why should either Samsung or Apple have exclusive rights over what's ultimately a rectangular grid of icons?
The question is, when is it copying?
You're right. A rectangular grid of icons is certainly not copyrightable/patentable/trademarkable. But, suppose the ordering of the apps, by default, happens to mirror what is on the iPhone? Suppose the icons have been changed to look very similar to the ones on the iPhone? Suppose the dock has the same items, in the same order, as those on the iPhone and the dock itself looks similar? And let's say it's all placed on a device that looks something like an iPhone 3GS?
I agree that any one of those might be legitimate. But when it all comes together, in my opinion, it comes out like someone said, "Make it look like the iPhone." And that's copying.
10.7 can be burned to a DVD or dumped to a USB Flash Key and installed off of. It does NOT require an existing installation of 10.6.8 to INSTALL.
Uh...doesn't there need to be a Mac OS X installation somewhere if you want to install Mac OS X 10.7 Lion? Otherwise, what's going to magically read your DVD or USB Flash Key? And I rashly assume that you can't run the installer if your machine has booted into 10.5.x...
Well, the rash assumption is that you're going to want to move stuff from the old hard drive to the new one. So, at least briefly, you'll have two hard drives. Run the installer and tell it to install Mac OS X 10.7 Lion on the new hard drive.
Have your hard drive partition table lose a leg?
Take it to the local Apple Store and have them fix it. And, while you're there, consider throwing out your flaky machine and getting teh new shiny or, at least, a cool cover for your iPad...;^D
They all used to be in the applications and utilities folder. What could possibly be simpler than that?
Go to the the "Spotlight" menu and type the first few letters of the application name.
That said, I'm not convinced that LaunchPad is going to be all that useful when you have a few dozen applications installed--kind of like how the iPhone tends to get messy when you have a few dozen applications installed.
But don't worry--you can still go to the Applications and Utilities folders.
Actually, there's less tar in a marijuana cigarette than in a tobacco cigarette. That said, it depends on the blend you're using. Marijuana leaves have less tar, but stalks have considerably more and many marijuana sellers will "cut" the leaves to varying degrees by adding in the stalks and grinding them both together.
As an aside, this is one of those issues I have with legalizing marijuana. Yes, smoking marijuana leaves is less hazardous than smoking tobacco leaves. But if you mix in the stalks, it can be as bad or worse than tobacco. Who's job is it to verify that people are buying marijuana cigarettes that won't be giving them lung cancer in 40 years?
Protip: Smokers are in the minority. Any business that pushed for the needs of its smoking customers over its non-smoking customers would take a huge financial hit.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
One thing to consider is whether non-smokers actually choose not to frequent a bar or club because it allows smoking. There's a spectrum of "acceptance." There are those non-smokers who absolutely positively will not go someplace where smoking is permitted. There are those non-smokers who won't go to a particular place, unless something worthwhile is happening (For example, they won't go to a smelly smoky club on a Saturday Night unless there's a really good band playing.) There are those non-smokers who don't care (those are the ones that end up bumming cigarettes off of me halfway through the night). Banning smoking will mix up your customer base--you may lose customers or your regular smoking customers may come less frequently. But these losses may be made-up for by the people who will now consider going into your bar or club because it bans smoking. But you can't say that for certain and uncertainty is not a good thing in business.
You also need to consider not just the population at large but the people you attract or want to attract. Suppose you have a restaurant located near a college campus. You might find that 10% of your customers smoke. Suppose you have a restaurant which caters to truck drivers. You might find that close to 40% of your customers smoke. Needless to say, losing 40% of your customers might be considered a "huge financial hit."
Think of it this way: Imagine 25% of your customers are smokers. Are you willing to give up 25% of your customers in the hopes that you'll end up with more customers? Are more than 25% of your potential customers ardent non-smokers? Will you see more business from those who will only come on "special occasions"? That's a pretty big risk for a business to take.
Before the smoking bans around the country, there was a local bar/restaurant where I grew up that had "smokeless Tuesdays." It was so successful that they decided to go smoke-free and it worked fine for them. Another local business decided to try the same thing and it became a disaster for both--the smokers went somewhere else and there weren't enough ardent non-smokers to make up for the business between the two places.
Besides the other comments, one interesting idea is that this is relatively small and unobtrusive.
A few years back, someone wanted to put up a cell tower. The complaint wasn't with the radiation or any of that. The complaint was that the tower was ugly and a destroy the local scenic beauty. While I certainly admit that I think five bars on my cellphone is pretty attractive, I can see the argument.
So something like this could be useful: A building with a fiber optic cable going up a few hundred feet to a small quiet helicopter might make a nice replacement for a cell tower.
Of course, the NIMBYs well find something else to complain about...
Same here. I'm always reminded of an old IBM commercial(?) which featured this businessman in his office where some tech was installing a new video conferencing system and explaining how great it was and how it was going to save the company lots of money because they wouldn't have to pay for this guy to travel all over the place. Meanwhile, he's looking at the pictures on his wall of all of his trips around the world and obviously thinking, "This sucks."
Trust me: There will still be "fact-finding" trips to Afghanistan (with a stop-over in Fiji, of course)...
Well, part of the advantage of having these things done at a local level is that it's reasonable to consider moving.
Would you move to a different city that has better Internet? Perhaps. Would you move to a different state that has better Internet? Probably not. Would you move to a different country that has better Internet? No.
Slashdot Mirror
It also happens less when I can actually lock my luggage with a lock for which the TSA doesn't have a key.
Outliers are early indicators in any process of discovery.
Agreed. But they, in of themselves, do not create a discovery.
For example, the 9 hottest years on record have occurred in the last ten years. That's a pretty encouraging sign that something is off a bit with the climate. The fact that it snowed someplace for the first time in 20 years is not evidence of climate change. It is a funny weather story. If it snows again next year and the year after, then we're seeing a trend. Until then, equating it with climate change is a bit premature.
The GP is right to a certain degree. All of these occurrences may or may not be evidence of climate change. The problem is that every odd weather thing that happens becomes evidence that something is "wrong." Strong hurricanes? Climate change. Weak hurricanes? Climate change. More hurricanes? Climate change. Less hurricanes? Climate change. More rain? Climate change. Less rain? Climate change. Heavier snow pack? Climate change. Lighter snow pack? Climate change. Hotter than normal? Climate change. Colder than normal? Climate change.
See, for the last millennia, we've had years where it's been hotter than average. We've had years where it's colder than average. We've had years with more hurricanes than average. We've had years with fewer hurricanes than average. We've had years with more snowfall/rainfall than average. We've had years with less snowfall/rainfall than average. That's why it's called an "average." With climate change, what we're seeing is that those years that are hotter than average are more prevalent than years that are colder than average. These are scary statistics.
The problem is, statistics don't work well to convince people. So we try to grab something dramatic--the first snow in some place in 20 years, flooding in the midwest, tornadoes, etc. and equate it to climate change. It's more dramatic that way--video of people digging out under 20 foot snow drifts is far more compelling than a graph showing a radical increase in global temperatures. The problem is, it's not evidence. It's an anecdote. Just like the anecdotes that have existed for millennia. Hell, I've seen pictures from the 1930s of people digging out from under snow drifts. Is that climate change?
Just look at the melted polar ice cap.
Yes, but the polar ice cap didn't melt in a day. It took years. This is a one-time event. Heck, it's not even all that strange--it happened 20 years ago.
Mmm...hospital staff soup...
You plant it, make sure it's watered, make sure it's weeded, and it produces nearly all of the time.
True. But if you were going to actually feed yourself from the garden, there are other issues. What do you plant? How do you optimize a particular area so that you grow the most food for the least amount of space? How much will you need to plant? How do you keep bugs off the plants?
There's a difference between a backyard garden so you can have fresh cucumbers in the summer and actually trying to supply all your vegetable needs indefinitely. You're right that having fresh cucumbers is pretty easy. But the amount of planning involved in really feeding yourself gets complicated.
If Apple were leveraging their monopoly (in online music sales) to expand into phone sales, you'd only be able to play iTunes tracks on iOS devices.
No, you'd only be able to purchase music on your iOS device. Which is the case.
I think Apple's problem will come with iTunes.
iTunes currently controls around 70% of the market for downloading music. That's definitely monopoly territory. So the argument could be made that because you can only download music on iOS devices via iTunes, that Apple is using it's music monopoly to expand into phone sales.
Indeed, and breaking their own rules: No Kernel Extensions and No Installers.
My issue with automatic transmissions is that they never shift when I think they should and, since I grew up driving a stick-shift and listening to the engine, I find it very distracting. There's also, sometimes, some "magic" that the engineer threw in thinking themselves clever.
Two examples:
First, back in the late-80s I had a rental car for a bit after I moved from a place that didn't require owning a car to a place that did. It was a brand new Chrysler Lebaron. Nice car--kinda sporty. The problem I had with the car was it's automatic transmission occasionally decided I that, when I stepped down on the accelerator, I wanted to accelerate quickly so it would downshift. Then it would decide that I was over-revving so it would shift back up. Then it would decide that I wanted to accelerate quickly so it would downshift. Then it would decide that I was over-revving so it would shift back up.
So I would go to pass someone, I'd step on the gas, and the car would hesitate for a bit until it figured out what gear I wanted to be in. It took me a few weeks to figure out "the rules" of how far to press the accelerator so that it would accelerate and not do this annoying dance.
Second, about 7 or 8 years ago, I rented a turbo-Beetle while my car was in the shop for the day. So I'm cruising along the freeway doing about 70 and the engine is running at about 5000 RPM. Well, that struck me as a bit high so I accelerated to about 80 and then it finally decided to shift down to a more reasonable 3500 RPMs. Then I dropped back to 70 and cruised along quite happily. Why burn the extra gas at 5000 RPM if I don't need to? I'm cruising down the highway, not racing at LeMans.
So the reason I don't like automatic transmissions is that they can only guess at what I'm doing or want to do.
Part of this, of course, is that I grew up with manual transmissions. So I notice things like that. My sister, for example, grew up with automatics and she never notices these things. But if you dislike being picked on, just remember that "Real men are confident enough that they don't need to shift their own gears."
Actually, it is not LEGAL to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk [...]
Depends on where you live.
Here in California, riding on the sidewalk may be legal depending on where you live. It is not decided at the state level. So, for example, it may illegal to ride your bike on sidewalk in San Francisco but perfectly legal to ride your bike on the sidewalk in Garden Grove. It might be legal to ride on the sidewalks of Newport Beach, but not the ones on Main Street.
Why should either Samsung or Apple have exclusive rights over what's ultimately a rectangular grid of icons?
The question is, when is it copying?
You're right. A rectangular grid of icons is certainly not copyrightable/patentable/trademarkable. But, suppose the ordering of the apps, by default, happens to mirror what is on the iPhone? Suppose the icons have been changed to look very similar to the ones on the iPhone? Suppose the dock has the same items, in the same order, as those on the iPhone and the dock itself looks similar? And let's say it's all placed on a device that looks something like an iPhone 3GS?
I agree that any one of those might be legitimate. But when it all comes together, in my opinion, it comes out like someone said, "Make it look like the iPhone." And that's copying.
10.7 can be burned to a DVD or dumped to a USB Flash Key and installed off of. It does NOT require an existing installation of 10.6.8 to INSTALL.
Uh...doesn't there need to be a Mac OS X installation somewhere if you want to install Mac OS X 10.7 Lion? Otherwise, what's going to magically read your DVD or USB Flash Key? And I rashly assume that you can't run the installer if your machine has booted into 10.5.x...
What happens if you buy a new hard drive?
Well, the rash assumption is that you're going to want to move stuff from the old hard drive to the new one. So, at least briefly, you'll have two hard drives. Run the installer and tell it to install Mac OS X 10.7 Lion on the new hard drive.
Have your hard drive partition table lose a leg?
Take it to the local Apple Store and have them fix it. And, while you're there, consider throwing out your flaky machine and getting teh new shiny or, at least, a cool cover for your iPad... ;^D
They all used to be in the applications and utilities folder. What could possibly be simpler than that?
Go to the the "Spotlight" menu and type the first few letters of the application name.
That said, I'm not convinced that LaunchPad is going to be all that useful when you have a few dozen applications installed--kind of like how the iPhone tends to get messy when you have a few dozen applications installed.
But don't worry--you can still go to the Applications and Utilities folders.
I'll be right there by your side telling them to fuck right off and do it in their own homes or outside.
Which I'll appreciate. Will you be by my side telling them to fuck off when they start lighting up in parks, beaches, apartments, hotels, and college campuses?
Actually, there's less tar in a marijuana cigarette than in a tobacco cigarette. That said, it depends on the blend you're using. Marijuana leaves have less tar, but stalks have considerably more and many marijuana sellers will "cut" the leaves to varying degrees by adding in the stalks and grinding them both together.
As an aside, this is one of those issues I have with legalizing marijuana. Yes, smoking marijuana leaves is less hazardous than smoking tobacco leaves. But if you mix in the stalks, it can be as bad or worse than tobacco. Who's job is it to verify that people are buying marijuana cigarettes that won't be giving them lung cancer in 40 years?
Protip: Smokers are in the minority. Any business that pushed for the needs of its smoking customers over its non-smoking customers would take a huge financial hit.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
One thing to consider is whether non-smokers actually choose not to frequent a bar or club because it allows smoking. There's a spectrum of "acceptance." There are those non-smokers who absolutely positively will not go someplace where smoking is permitted. There are those non-smokers who won't go to a particular place, unless something worthwhile is happening (For example, they won't go to a smelly smoky club on a Saturday Night unless there's a really good band playing.) There are those non-smokers who don't care (those are the ones that end up bumming cigarettes off of me halfway through the night). Banning smoking will mix up your customer base--you may lose customers or your regular smoking customers may come less frequently. But these losses may be made-up for by the people who will now consider going into your bar or club because it bans smoking. But you can't say that for certain and uncertainty is not a good thing in business.
You also need to consider not just the population at large but the people you attract or want to attract. Suppose you have a restaurant located near a college campus. You might find that 10% of your customers smoke. Suppose you have a restaurant which caters to truck drivers. You might find that close to 40% of your customers smoke. Needless to say, losing 40% of your customers might be considered a "huge financial hit."
Think of it this way: Imagine 25% of your customers are smokers. Are you willing to give up 25% of your customers in the hopes that you'll end up with more customers? Are more than 25% of your potential customers ardent non-smokers? Will you see more business from those who will only come on "special occasions"? That's a pretty big risk for a business to take.
Before the smoking bans around the country, there was a local bar/restaurant where I grew up that had "smokeless Tuesdays." It was so successful that they decided to go smoke-free and it worked fine for them. Another local business decided to try the same thing and it became a disaster for both--the smokers went somewhere else and there weren't enough ardent non-smokers to make up for the business between the two places.
Besides the other comments, one interesting idea is that this is relatively small and unobtrusive.
A few years back, someone wanted to put up a cell tower. The complaint wasn't with the radiation or any of that. The complaint was that the tower was ugly and a destroy the local scenic beauty. While I certainly admit that I think five bars on my cellphone is pretty attractive, I can see the argument.
So something like this could be useful: A building with a fiber optic cable going up a few hundred feet to a small quiet helicopter might make a nice replacement for a cell tower.
Of course, the NIMBYs well find something else to complain about...
($29 adapter required)
($39 adapter required)
Sorry. Just adding those pesky "truth in advertising" asterisks...
Same here. I'm always reminded of an old IBM commercial(?) which featured this businessman in his office where some tech was installing a new video conferencing system and explaining how great it was and how it was going to save the company lots of money because they wouldn't have to pay for this guy to travel all over the place. Meanwhile, he's looking at the pictures on his wall of all of his trips around the world and obviously thinking, "This sucks."
Trust me: There will still be "fact-finding" trips to Afghanistan (with a stop-over in Fiji, of course)...
Dude, the leash and collar were for my wife I swear!
Well, this is San Francisco... :^D
whose primary diet consists of cigarettes, Coke and Funyuns [...]
You say this like it's a bad thing...
...or karma.
I'm curious if that's the old Cancer (June 22nd to July 21st) or the new Cancer (July 20 to August 10)?
Oh yeah. And the iPhone will work so well with his Ubuntu desktop...
Well, part of the advantage of having these things done at a local level is that it's reasonable to consider moving.
Would you move to a different city that has better Internet? Perhaps. Would you move to a different state that has better Internet? Probably not. Would you move to a different country that has better Internet? No.