"You could reasonably assume that whatever group came up with the technical innovation of machine guns has some advantage over those still using muskets."
Yes.
It is the little point about such advantage coming from a genetic trait what is lacking in your argument.
"Most introductory biology courses focus on the mechanics of organisms, and while learning about evolution can be helpful there, I don't see it as being required."
Why all vertebrates have exactly four limbs with five chiridiums each, except those that don't?
Try to give a minimally reasonable explanation about that without restorting to evolution, if you can.
"Honestly, I don't see that it's necessary for a high school biology course."
Honestly, you are stupid.
"most introductory biology courses focus on what they do"
Well then, why a frog has a liver and a cow has a liver too? Why a frog's heart has three chambers, a crocodile's has "three and a half" and a cow's has four? Why Mendel's pea flowers were either white or purple but not something in between -except when they were?
"In any case, I'm not saying that evolution should not be taught. I'm saying that the fact that people fixate on evolution, when there are more relevant topics that are being ignored, is indicative of the fact that the driving force behind the debate is not a desire to improve children's education."
Wrong!!! It is the fixation to teach *anything else but evolution* which is indicative of a driving force away of a desire to improve children's education. It's only the obnoxious notion that obvious lies need to be stuffed into children's education what made others to push forward teaching evolution like a landmark saying "not beyond this line".
"Many atheists do have a specific belief that is worth mentioning"
I never found one.
What I found is atheist thinking their position is worth mention it *after* having to hear the stupid things others want to people to profese about unicorns, flying spagetti monsters and other fictional creatures.
Atheism is "a specific belief that is worth mentioning" as much as aunicornism is "a specific belief that is worth mentioning" in a world were the powers that be insist in unicorns being a reality.
"But the mass is not distributed over that volume. inside the black hole the mass is actually contained in an infintesimal point"
Ahh! the old problem... equations versus reality!
All that the Einstenian equations tell us is that they don't know how to manage black holes beyond the event horizon (and that they are wrong about them because of that).
Given that the event horizon neatly divides the universe in two, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the black hole density (from the outer univese perspetive) averages its overall percieved mass by its volume.
At the very least it's clear that a black hole must have "density significantly higher than that of a neutron star."
Because?
All you can say is that *if* (a big if) black holes behave more or less like all the physics we know about, there must be something within the black hole with densities above those we can find on a neutron star because by all we "common sense" know, black holes are like neutron stars, only more so.
"Saying it's less dense than the air is misleading in that respect."
What's misleading about saying density is defined as mass against volume?
"Does "alpha" and "beta" mean anything other than greek letters to you?"
But KDE base software was *not* beta at all. While certainly quite a lot has changed since, i.e. kdelibs is basically what it was.
When you deal with a whole distribution, how would you say "Hey, the basic internals are good enough, but now all the applications running on top of this foundations will have to be reviewed". Hint: this has happened before, just look out Qt versioning to understand.
After the fact it is obvious KDE guys failed at marketing their position. But it is equally true that they clearly explained what the software state was for those that wanted to hear (and with this I mean "the foundations are settled, time to work on the applications" was basically on their front page and was a clear statement on all their public channels. What some Linux distributions and/or bloggers wanted to "sell" is absolutly a different issue, but just to make a point, look at KDE on Debian Stable -and wheezy, which is to be published "quite soon now": you will see what a difference makes understanding what it is said versus wanting to hear what it is not said).
"Thus, I have two mobile phones, two phone numbers, two e-mail inboxes. Work and play are two different spheres, and it stays that way."
Meanwhile I recently bought a cheap chinese dual SIM phone (a JIAYU JY-G2) that rides circles around my previous Samsung Galaxy S and allows those two phone numbers and e-mail inboxes for two different spheres without the hassle of two phones.
Your problem is marketing. Why Apple products are percieved in a way that similar competing brands don't? Marketing.
You have a succeeding product that reaches many people and you are finding that such many people "build" their own mind with regards to your company. It happens what they build in their minds is not what you'd want them to build... marketing.
Let's see it from a different perspective: it is not because it is "free". This very same people probably pay darely for products, say, from Microsoft and even if they pay, I'm sure they don't expect any kind of supportt, because nobody expects any kind of support from Microsoft out of the basic license they pay: they managed to build the perception that license fee is just for the right to run the product, not to get support from Redmond. Again, marketing.
-Advertising is obnoxious -No, it isn't: my advertisements are not obnoxious -Well, your advertisements are not the real class of advertisements we are talking here.
Isn't it the very definition of the "no true scotsman" falacy?
That end up being at least "A" or "no A" -or "A" or "B" (if there were just one message that could be recieved, you wouldn't need to get the text at all). As long as there're two messages that renders the same lenght, you won't be able to decypher by "cluing" it, not at all.
Just my previous message proves the point: if you are meant to attack, I'll send you a message telling just "option A", if I want you to retreat, I'll tell you "option B" -which is the most proper way to act if you are relying on OTP *because* of the fact that it can't be guessed at all unless you get your hands on the key (they already knew that by the war).
In other words: "Order 66" can't be set appart from the other 99 ones.
"Why would they have needed to migrate to Office 2010? Office 2003 with the compatibility packs can read and write the newer office formats with the same UI that they would be familiar with."
What makes you think they were using Office 2003 previous to this? When this project started they were talking about migrating away from Windows NT 4.
"Seems they are just inflating the costs"
Even if they could manage to stay with whatever Office version they started the migration from, there *will* be a license migration any time in the near future. Regarding windows licensing, "saving" is merely jumping over one version.
"1. You can't staff experts unless you're willing to pay expert rates.
Oh yes you can, in an economy like this one, unemployment what it is. You're selling your labor, and it's a buyers market."
You should review your statistics 101. Unemployment may be what it is but it is far from 95% in any IT/IS field, so if you really want/need the top 5%, it's difficult you will find them unemployed. On a side note, if it's about just mere "experts", not necessarily top notch, well, it could be true that it's easier to find them at lower wages than in better times, but that doesn't mean you won't need to pay "expert rate" for experts, just that "expert rate" will be lower (but still higher than "entry level rate").
"Just as important is that you can provide that product or service at a price they're willing to pay for it without taking a loss. Everything else is tertiary and simply a matter of efficiency and margins."
And you should review your economics 101 too. Being able to sell at a profit instead of at a loss is "simply a matter of efficiency and margins" too.
" I'm currently fixing problems caused by an idiot who for 2 years was the company's only developer"
And the developer was the idiot, you say?
The idiot is obviously the manager that, not having developing experience, hires a single developer lacking the experience to discern a good hiring from a bad one. And the boss on top of that manager that allowed an unexperienced manager to deal with the IT thingie.
"Then they hired a new manager who'd previously worked in IT and he fired the guy within a few weeks"
"companies are made up of people, how can they be evil, if the people in them are not?"
A company is a complex system with emergent properties.
I'd say, anyway, that for true evil to arise there must be evil people somewhere in the organization. In order to be just underperforming or mildly evilesque, you just need your typical corporate organization and it will arise by itself out of goals misalignment and partial information.
Slashdot Mirror
"You could reasonably assume that whatever group came up with the technical innovation of machine guns has some advantage over those still using muskets."
Yes.
It is the little point about such advantage coming from a genetic trait what is lacking in your argument.
"Most introductory biology courses focus on the mechanics of organisms, and while learning about evolution can be helpful there, I don't see it as being required."
Why all vertebrates have exactly four limbs with five chiridiums each, except those that don't?
Try to give a minimally reasonable explanation about that without restorting to evolution, if you can.
"Honestly, I don't see that it's necessary for a high school biology course."
Honestly, you are stupid.
"most introductory biology courses focus on what they do"
Well then, why a frog has a liver and a cow has a liver too? Why a frog's heart has three chambers, a crocodile's has "three and a half" and a cow's has four? Why Mendel's pea flowers were either white or purple but not something in between -except when they were?
"In any case, I'm not saying that evolution should not be taught. I'm saying that the fact that people fixate on evolution, when there are more relevant topics that are being ignored, is indicative of the fact that the driving force behind the debate is not a desire to improve children's education."
Wrong!!! It is the fixation to teach *anything else but evolution* which is indicative of a driving force away of a desire to improve children's education. It's only the obnoxious notion that obvious lies need to be stuffed into children's education what made others to push forward teaching evolution like a landmark saying "not beyond this line".
"Many atheists do have a specific belief that is worth mentioning"
I never found one.
What I found is atheist thinking their position is worth mention it *after* having to hear the stupid things others want to people to profese about unicorns, flying spagetti monsters and other fictional creatures.
Atheism is "a specific belief that is worth mentioning" as much as aunicornism is "a specific belief that is worth mentioning" in a world were the powers that be insist in unicorns being a reality.
"But the mass is not distributed over that volume. inside the black hole the mass is actually contained in an infintesimal point"
Ahh! the old problem... equations versus reality!
All that the Einstenian equations tell us is that they don't know how to manage black holes beyond the event horizon (and that they are wrong about them because of that).
Given that the event horizon neatly divides the universe in two, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the black hole density (from the outer univese perspetive) averages its overall percieved mass by its volume.
At the very least it's clear that a black hole must have "density significantly higher than that of a neutron star."
Because?
All you can say is that *if* (a big if) black holes behave more or less like all the physics we know about, there must be something within the black hole with densities above those we can find on a neutron star because by all we "common sense" know, black holes are like neutron stars, only more so.
"Saying it's less dense than the air is misleading in that respect."
What's misleading about saying density is defined as mass against volume?
"I thought you were going to tell us it's a space station."
Well, we know for a stater that's no moon.
"Does "alpha" and "beta" mean anything other than greek letters to you?"
But KDE base software was *not* beta at all. While certainly quite a lot has changed since, i.e. kdelibs is basically what it was.
When you deal with a whole distribution, how would you say "Hey, the basic internals are good enough, but now all the applications running on top of this foundations will have to be reviewed". Hint: this has happened before, just look out Qt versioning to understand.
After the fact it is obvious KDE guys failed at marketing their position. But it is equally true that they clearly explained what the software state was for those that wanted to hear (and with this I mean "the foundations are settled, time to work on the applications" was basically on their front page and was a clear statement on all their public channels. What some Linux distributions and/or bloggers wanted to "sell" is absolutly a different issue, but just to make a point, look at KDE on Debian Stable -and wheezy, which is to be published "quite soon now": you will see what a difference makes understanding what it is said versus wanting to hear what it is not said).
"working on bullshit projects sucks out your soul."
Absolutly right. But still...
Working on real bullshit projects pays your bills, great still-to-be-seen unreal ones, do not.
"If employer believes candidate A will do more work for less pay than candidate B, then hiring candidate A is a perfectly legitimate hiring decision"
And that, boys and girls, is the problem with management: they misunderstand "more work" for "more productivity".
Don't work harder, work smarter.
"Until they can have dual SIM cards and run on two networks at the same time, it will be useless."
If only it were somehow possible... http://www.pandawill.com/mobile-phone-c1/android-os-phone-c551.html
"Thus, I have two mobile phones, two phone numbers, two e-mail inboxes. Work and play are two different spheres, and it stays that way."
Meanwhile I recently bought a cheap chinese dual SIM phone (a JIAYU JY-G2) that rides circles around my previous Samsung Galaxy S and allows those two phone numbers and e-mail inboxes for two different spheres without the hassle of two phones.
Your problem is marketing. Why Apple products are percieved in a way that similar competing brands don't? Marketing.
You have a succeeding product that reaches many people and you are finding that such many people "build" their own mind with regards to your company. It happens what they build in their minds is not what you'd want them to build... marketing.
Let's see it from a different perspective: it is not because it is "free". This very same people probably pay darely for products, say, from Microsoft and even if they pay, I'm sure they don't expect any kind of supportt, because nobody expects any kind of support from Microsoft out of the basic license they pay: they managed to build the perception that license fee is just for the right to run the product, not to get support from Redmond. Again, marketing.
"Bringing the government into it (in the form of a lawsuit) isn't "libertarian", it's "authoritarian"."
So what's the libertarian way of settling disputes, then?
Uh...
-Advertising is obnoxious
-No, it isn't: my advertisements are not obnoxious
-Well, your advertisements are not the real class of advertisements we are talking here.
Isn't it the very definition of the "no true scotsman" falacy?
"a libertarian would support both the business right to embed the ad AND the consumer right to block it on his equipment"
Truly.
*AND* they would support the right of both parties to sue the heck out of the other to make their point prevalent too, so back to square one.
"The expected message has certain bounds."
That end up being at least "A" or "no A" -or "A" or "B" (if there were just one message that could be recieved, you wouldn't need to get the text at all). As long as there're two messages that renders the same lenght, you won't be able to decypher by "cluing" it, not at all.
Just my previous message proves the point: if you are meant to attack, I'll send you a message telling just "option A", if I want you to retreat, I'll tell you "option B" -which is the most proper way to act if you are relying on OTP *because* of the fact that it can't be guessed at all unless you get your hands on the key (they already knew that by the war).
In other words: "Order 66" can't be set appart from the other 99 ones.
I think you still don't get it: with OTP there's no way to tell appart "we must attack" from "I'll miss you.".
"Why would they have needed to migrate to Office 2010? Office 2003 with the compatibility packs can read and write the newer office formats with the same UI that they would be familiar with."
What makes you think they were using Office 2003 previous to this? When this project started they were talking about migrating away from Windows NT 4.
"Seems they are just inflating the costs"
Even if they could manage to stay with whatever Office version they started the migration from, there *will* be a license migration any time in the near future. Regarding windows licensing, "saving" is merely jumping over one version.
I hope the numbers hold water because that would make a great research case (all info has been public from the begining)
"Do you mean look how much they destroyed."
No. I meant what I meant, you obvious troll.
As per Wikipedia, Germany deployed on Barbarossa:
Divisions 166
Personnel 4,306,800
Guns and mortars 42,601
Tanks (incl assault guns) 4,171
Aircraft 4,389
75% off all German casualites are bound to the East front.
Don't fool yourself: Germany lost the war in the East, not the West.
Good story. Now have a look at the German inventory expended against USSR and awake.
"1. You can't staff experts unless you're willing to pay expert rates.
Oh yes you can, in an economy like this one, unemployment what it is. You're selling your labor, and it's a buyers market."
You should review your statistics 101. Unemployment may be what it is but it is far from 95% in any IT/IS field, so if you really want/need the top 5%, it's difficult you will find them unemployed. On a side note, if it's about just mere "experts", not necessarily top notch, well, it could be true that it's easier to find them at lower wages than in better times, but that doesn't mean you won't need to pay "expert rate" for experts, just that "expert rate" will be lower (but still higher than "entry level rate").
"Just as important is that you can provide that product or service at a price they're willing to pay for it without taking a loss. Everything else is tertiary and simply a matter of efficiency and margins."
And you should review your economics 101 too. Being able to sell at a profit instead of at a loss is "simply a matter of efficiency and margins" too.
" I'm currently fixing problems caused by an idiot who for 2 years was the company's only developer"
And the developer was the idiot, you say?
The idiot is obviously the manager that, not having developing experience, hires a single developer lacking the experience to discern a good hiring from a bad one. And the boss on top of that manager that allowed an unexperienced manager to deal with the IT thingie.
"Then they hired a new manager who'd previously worked in IT and he fired the guy within a few weeks"
See my point?
"companies are made up of people, how can they be evil, if the people in them are not?"
A company is a complex system with emergent properties.
I'd say, anyway, that for true evil to arise there must be evil people somewhere in the organization. In order to be just underperforming or mildly evilesque, you just need your typical corporate organization and it will arise by itself out of goals misalignment and partial information.
"A bad (as in lazy, surly, abusive) sysadmin who left traps will leave them in places not detectable by an audit."
The point of an audit is not to uncover and clean all the traps but to gain legal security.