We can never go back because just like (most)everything that's wrong with this country it's not about what's right. It's about what makes profit for the rich.
That's what confuses me about this. Why haven't airline lobbyists stopped this yet? Do they not realize that everyone hates flying now?
Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles seemed to run out of ideas halfway through the first season. Another season would've just prolonged its death. I bet they only did the last season they way they did because they knew they wouldn't have to figure out the next episode.
Stargate Universe was a bad idea from the beginning, but I admit it's getting better. I hope whoever thought we needed a series of Stargate: Relationship Drama and No Action got fired. Not to mention that the plot of almost every episode in the first season was "We're going to die, let's cry and/or have sex!... Yay! The ship saved us.. again!" With the introduction of aliens and a way of controlling the ship, it looks like it has a chance. I hope they didn't blow it with the first season.
School chairs could be improved without getting "nice" chairs. For example, all of those one-piece desks would be infinitely more comfortable if they weren't one piece. Similarly, moving chairs slightly farther apart, and keeping chairs from squeaking.
The chairs at my college aren't particularly uncomfortable except for the problems I mentioned above, and they're all cheap wood and plastic.
So instead of getting into trouble in the afternoons, kids would get into trouble in the morning,
Yeah, I remember waking up early all the time when I was in high school. Oh wait. No.. never.
I think we should just make the school day to 9-5, and use the extra time to add back the art, music, exercise, etc. that's been cut to make more time for test prep
Or even better, we could give kids free time so they can explore things they like rather than shoving things you like down their throats.
Otherwise we are gonna end up with another IPV4 situation where by the time we realize we need to get on the ball everything is gonna be so far behind it'll cost 20 times more and be a giant mess.
I don't see how not upgrading older lines is going to make things any worse down the line. In fact, it seems more likely that it'll make future upgrading cheaper. Consider this: If we upgraded the entire communication infrastructure of the U.S. every time we thought of something faster, how much more money would've been spent on it?
That's not to say that it doesn't suck for people who can't get cable/fiber, but it's not like some day in the future we'll all be wishing we had upgraded our old phone lines sooner.
All those connections is worth a hell of a lot more than just for watching youtube. There is eCommerce, new markets and new businesses, eLearning and a thousand other uses.
And how fast do you really need that connection to be for e-things? I have a fairly fast connection, and the main reasons I think it's worth what I pay are (in order): 1. Watching Hulu. 2. Downloading packages/source code. 3. Uploading files to my webserver (remember, this is Slashdot, most people don't do this).
Everything else I do (Slashdot, blogs, web comics, shopping) are perfectly usable on much slower connections. If I had a slower connection, I probably wouldn't watch TV online, and downloading things would be annoying, but I don't see how it would be so terrible.
But to compete we are gonna have to step up to the plate and realize something this big needs actual planning and execution, not just hoping AT&T or one of the other providers will actually build all this for us.
Hope you realize what country you're in. If our government says it'll roll out national broadband, what it means is that Comcast or Qwest or someone will get a huge paycheck with very few strings and we'll never see the result.
Do YOU want to learn from a professor that's sat in a lab for 20 years (but worked for Nasa launching the Moon rocket) or do you want to learn from a Sales guy that teaches in between meetings with customers right now? Or how about learning business from a guy that actually started his own business and uses it to feed his family?
But going to school is all about the experience! You know, proving you're willing to waste years of your life listening to people who've never done anything practical talk about things that don't interest you so you can get a piece of paper that proves you're one of the elite. Why would businesses possibly want to hire someone who finds that too boring to finish? It's important that managers never hire someone who would challenge their nice, safe ideas about how the world should work.
What if the point of going to a university was to actually learn something rather than to get a piece of paper? How I see it, these kinds of changes would make colleges less useful for hiring decisions, but far FAR more interesting for people who actually want to learn something. I don't see that as a bad thing. Most degrees should mean very little anyway. The idea that having a degree means someone can do a specific job better than someone with it is popular but seems to be wrong in most cases. Why not get rid of the BS and make universities actually worth going to?
What does this have to do with facilitating trade with foreign nations, the several states, or the Indian tribes?
What does growing your own pot and smoking it have to do with facilitating trade with foreign nations? The point of my post is that the Commerce Clause is used as an excuse for everything. I doubt they would actually use it for this because it would hurt the legitimacy of the argument more than usual, but there are plenty of arguments in the form:
- X is within the United States. - All things that are within the United States are effected by trade with other states somehow. - The Commerce Clause says we can regulate interstate commerce. - Therefore the Commerce Clause says we can regulate X.
It's fairly obvious that the Constitution wasn't meant to be taken that way, because it would made the 10th amendment superfluous:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Why bother writing that if there are no such things as "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution"?
It's even less surprising when you read who they asked: "2,300 developers who use Appcelerator's Titanium cross-platform compiler to produce iOS and Android native apps".
Why doesn't the headline read "People who use cross compilers have a reason for that choice". Despite what the title suggests, my guess is that Appcelerator users aren't the majority of mobile developers.
On the other hand, this is a lot more confusing. Let's say you own a hotel on a beach, but I own the property between you and the beach. I decide I like trees, so I plant some. They grow. They ruin your hotel's view of the beach.
Obvious answer: You own the property between the hotel and beach, BP doesn't own the Gulf of Mexico.
My thought is that the encrypted one will be the one that asks for a password when you try to open it.
That would be neither. I've never written encryption software, but here's a trivial example: My theoretical encryption program creates a file with random data in it. It creates a header at the beginning of the data to identify it ("This is data encrypted with x program"). You add whatever you want in the remaining space. When it's time to encrypt, we encrypt the whole thing (including the header). When you want to decrypt the data, you enter a password and my program decrypts the data (whether the password is right or not). Then we check to make sure the header matches. If it doesn't, then the password was wrong. The interesting thing is that you can't prove that the data is encrypted without successfully decrypting it (well that's the goal at least).
Of course, there are a bunch of potential problems like: * A big "random" file on your hard drive is really obvious * Maybe it's not as random as you hope it is (there's some pattern that occurs in your encrypted data) * A big "random" partition is less obvious than a "random" file, but my guess is that real empty partitions don't usually look very random
Or a more related example, trying to tell the difference between a hard drive with nothing on it ("random data"), and a hard drive with something encrypted. I'm not sure what the point would be with a normal file, since most people don't have large files containing random data, but empty partitions are somewhat believable.
I'm betting that, at some point, the curve for pigeons will either asymptote or turn over (e.g., when the mass of 32GB microSD cards begins to exceed the flight capacity of the bird).
Ah, but you can always upgrade your bandwidth by getting more pigeons.
Reviews. A quick look at Amazon.com shows that all there are currently are the shill review and people making fun of the shill review. The conclusion? None. We know almost nothing about the contents of the book. Until there are real reviews, the best we can say is that we don't know how good it is. If it was written by a famous scientist it would probably improve my opinion of the book, but the fact that he's not doesn't mean it's automatically bad.
Are you claiming that someone with a PhD can't write a bad book, or that someone without a PhD can't write a good one?
What does this stupid strawman have to do with anything?
As far as I can tell, that's your actual argument, except you phrased it more like "I don't need to read the book to form an opinion of it. If he doesn't have a PhD, his book is shit." What I'm suggesting is that it's possible for someone without a formal education to understand and write about physics and math.
No need. If the only review of a book one can find is a paid-for, shill review it can pretty easily be written off as nothing but tripe.
I agree it's a bad sign, but it could be that his publisher is just greedy and stupid. It's worth noting that the only bad reviews are from people who haven't read the book. It's not hard to find things on Amazon.com with no reviews, so I don't see how the shill review means anything. I could understand not buying the book because you don't want to support that publisher, but assuming that the book is bad based on the guy's education* is just stupid.
* I don't actually know what level of education he has completed, I'm just assuming "not a PhD" for the sake of the argument.
Why does it matter what his qualifications are? Are you claiming that someone with a PhD can't write a bad book, or that someone without a PhD can't write a good one? Why not judge the book by it's contents? I'm not claiming you should trust everything in the book automatically, but if you're worried about accuracy you should get another physicist's opinion of the book, not some school's opinion of the author.
I'm sure having access to a very effective search engine makes us "dumber" at the "find useful data in a mass of disorganized crap" problem.
It's not even that everyone is getting worse at this, we're just specializing. Instead of a bunch of people who are "just ok" at finding useful data in a mass of disorganized crap, we have a smaller number of people who are exceptionally good at it. We do this in pretty much every aspect of our lives, and in fact we've had a specialized group of people doing this for a while now (researchers). The only difference I see is that in some cases we can build experts now rather than training them (search engines, robots, etc.), and they're much cheaper to hire.
Slashdot Mirror
We can never go back because just like (most)everything that's wrong with this country it's not about what's right. It's about what makes profit for the rich.
That's what confuses me about this. Why haven't airline lobbyists stopped this yet? Do they not realize that everyone hates flying now?
Seems like a decent analogy to me. Just because we discover something new, it doesn't mean it will replace everything that does anything similar.
No, no, no.. It's space-evolved!
Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles seemed to run out of ideas halfway through the first season. Another season would've just prolonged its death. I bet they only did the last season they way they did because they knew they wouldn't have to figure out the next episode.
Stargate Universe was a bad idea from the beginning, but I admit it's getting better. I hope whoever thought we needed a series of Stargate: Relationship Drama and No Action got fired. Not to mention that the plot of almost every episode in the first season was "We're going to die, let's cry and/or have sex! ... Yay! The ship saved us.. again!" With the introduction of aliens and a way of controlling the ship, it looks like it has a chance. I hope they didn't blow it with the first season.
You get plenty of free time after college.
Yeah, since your "childhood" is only ~1/4th of your life. Wasting that is no problem at all.
Yes, I'm still bitter I didn't stick with piano lessons.
I, on the other hand, am bitter than I wasted so much time in pointless classes when I could've been learning to program.
School chairs could be improved without getting "nice" chairs. For example, all of those one-piece desks would be infinitely more comfortable if they weren't one piece. Similarly, moving chairs slightly farther apart, and keeping chairs from squeaking.
The chairs at my college aren't particularly uncomfortable except for the problems I mentioned above, and they're all cheap wood and plastic.
So instead of getting into trouble in the afternoons, kids would get into trouble in the morning,
Yeah, I remember waking up early all the time when I was in high school. Oh wait. No.. never.
I think we should just make the school day to 9-5, and use the extra time to add back the art, music, exercise, etc. that's been cut to make more time for test prep
Or even better, we could give kids free time so they can explore things they like rather than shoving things you like down their throats.
Otherwise we are gonna end up with another IPV4 situation where by the time we realize we need to get on the ball everything is gonna be so far behind it'll cost 20 times more and be a giant mess.
I don't see how not upgrading older lines is going to make things any worse down the line. In fact, it seems more likely that it'll make future upgrading cheaper. Consider this: If we upgraded the entire communication infrastructure of the U.S. every time we thought of something faster, how much more money would've been spent on it?
That's not to say that it doesn't suck for people who can't get cable/fiber, but it's not like some day in the future we'll all be wishing we had upgraded our old phone lines sooner.
All those connections is worth a hell of a lot more than just for watching youtube. There is eCommerce, new markets and new businesses, eLearning and a thousand other uses.
And how fast do you really need that connection to be for e-things? I have a fairly fast connection, and the main reasons I think it's worth what I pay are (in order):
1. Watching Hulu.
2. Downloading packages/source code.
3. Uploading files to my webserver (remember, this is Slashdot, most people don't do this).
Everything else I do (Slashdot, blogs, web comics, shopping) are perfectly usable on much slower connections. If I had a slower connection, I probably wouldn't watch TV online, and downloading things would be annoying, but I don't see how it would be so terrible.
But to compete we are gonna have to step up to the plate and realize something this big needs actual planning and execution, not just hoping AT&T or one of the other providers will actually build all this for us.
Hope you realize what country you're in. If our government says it'll roll out national broadband, what it means is that Comcast or Qwest or someone will get a huge paycheck with very few strings and we'll never see the result.
Do YOU want to learn from a professor that's sat in a lab for 20 years (but worked for Nasa launching the Moon rocket) or do you want to learn from a Sales guy that teaches in between meetings with customers right now? Or how about learning business from a guy that actually started his own business and uses it to feed his family?
But going to school is all about the experience! You know, proving you're willing to waste years of your life listening to people who've never done anything practical talk about things that don't interest you so you can get a piece of paper that proves you're one of the elite. Why would businesses possibly want to hire someone who finds that too boring to finish? It's important that managers never hire someone who would challenge their nice, safe ideas about how the world should work.
What if the point of going to a university was to actually learn something rather than to get a piece of paper? How I see it, these kinds of changes would make colleges less useful for hiring decisions, but far FAR more interesting for people who actually want to learn something. I don't see that as a bad thing. Most degrees should mean very little anyway. The idea that having a degree means someone can do a specific job better than someone with it is popular but seems to be wrong in most cases. Why not get rid of the BS and make universities actually worth going to?
...with the turbine only running when the vehicle needs a lot of power...
It may be efficient, but I think people would find it disconcerting to have their engine turning on and off all the time.
What does this have to do with facilitating trade with foreign nations, the several states, or the Indian tribes?
What does growing your own pot and smoking it have to do with facilitating trade with foreign nations? The point of my post is that the Commerce Clause is used as an excuse for everything. I doubt they would actually use it for this because it would hurt the legitimacy of the argument more than usual, but there are plenty of arguments in the form:
- X is within the United States.
- All things that are within the United States are effected by trade with other states somehow.
- The Commerce Clause says we can regulate interstate commerce.
- Therefore the Commerce Clause says we can regulate X.
It's fairly obvious that the Constitution wasn't meant to be taken that way, because it would made the 10th amendment superfluous:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Why bother writing that if there are no such things as "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution"?
I think you're forgetting the commerce clause. Specifically the part that says "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!".
I would guess that they are interested in using yeast for vitamin synthesis on long missions.
If it was me, I'd be more interested in beer for the long missions.
It's even less surprising when you read who they asked: "2,300 developers who use Appcelerator's Titanium cross-platform compiler to produce iOS and Android native apps".
Why doesn't the headline read "People who use cross compilers have a reason for that choice". Despite what the title suggests, my guess is that Appcelerator users aren't the majority of mobile developers.
On the other hand, this is a lot more confusing. Let's say you own a hotel on a beach, but I own the property between you and the beach. I decide I like trees, so I plant some. They grow. They ruin your hotel's view of the beach.
Obvious answer: You own the property between the hotel and beach, BP doesn't own the Gulf of Mexico.
My thought is that the encrypted one will be the one that asks for a password when you try to open it.
That would be neither. I've never written encryption software, but here's a trivial example: My theoretical encryption program creates a file with random data in it. It creates a header at the beginning of the data to identify it ("This is data encrypted with x program"). You add whatever you want in the remaining space. When it's time to encrypt, we encrypt the whole thing (including the header). When you want to decrypt the data, you enter a password and my program decrypts the data (whether the password is right or not). Then we check to make sure the header matches. If it doesn't, then the password was wrong. The interesting thing is that you can't prove that the data is encrypted without successfully decrypting it (well that's the goal at least).
Of course, there are a bunch of potential problems like:
* A big "random" file on your hard drive is really obvious
* Maybe it's not as random as you hope it is (there's some pattern that occurs in your encrypted data)
* A big "random" partition is less obvious than a "random" file, but my guess is that real empty partitions don't usually look very random
Or a more related example, trying to tell the difference between a hard drive with nothing on it ("random data"), and a hard drive with something encrypted. I'm not sure what the point would be with a normal file, since most people don't have large files containing random data, but empty partitions are somewhat believable.
Say hello to cheap phones that break after a few months.
I can't wait. Right now all I can get are expensive phones that break every couple months.
I'm betting that, at some point, the curve for pigeons will either asymptote or turn over (e.g., when the mass of 32GB microSD cards begins to exceed the flight capacity of the bird).
Ah, but you can always upgrade your bandwidth by getting more pigeons.
How do I know how good the book actually is?
Reviews. A quick look at Amazon.com shows that all there are currently are the shill review and people making fun of the shill review. The conclusion? None. We know almost nothing about the contents of the book. Until there are real reviews, the best we can say is that we don't know how good it is. If it was written by a famous scientist it would probably improve my opinion of the book, but the fact that he's not doesn't mean it's automatically bad.
Are you claiming that someone with a PhD can't write a bad book, or that someone without a PhD can't write a good one?
What does this stupid strawman have to do with anything?
As far as I can tell, that's your actual argument, except you phrased it more like "I don't need to read the book to form an opinion of it. If he doesn't have a PhD, his book is shit." What I'm suggesting is that it's possible for someone without a formal education to understand and write about physics and math.
No need. If the only review of a book one can find is a paid-for, shill review it can pretty easily be written off as nothing but tripe.
I agree it's a bad sign, but it could be that his publisher is just greedy and stupid. It's worth noting that the only bad reviews are from people who haven't read the book. It's not hard to find things on Amazon.com with no reviews, so I don't see how the shill review means anything. I could understand not buying the book because you don't want to support that publisher, but assuming that the book is bad based on the guy's education* is just stupid.
* I don't actually know what level of education he has completed, I'm just assuming "not a PhD" for the sake of the argument.
Why does it matter what his qualifications are? Are you claiming that someone with a PhD can't write a bad book, or that someone without a PhD can't write a good one? Why not judge the book by it's contents? I'm not claiming you should trust everything in the book automatically, but if you're worried about accuracy you should get another physicist's opinion of the book, not some school's opinion of the author.
What peer reviewed papers has he authored? Where is his PhD from? How do I know he's not just some crank?
Since when does having a PhD mean you can write an easily understood book? In my experience, it's exactly the opposite.
Also, why does it matter? A degree is a piece of paper, judge the guy by how good the book actually is.
I'm sure having access to a very effective search engine makes us "dumber" at the "find useful data in a mass of disorganized crap" problem.
It's not even that everyone is getting worse at this, we're just specializing. Instead of a bunch of people who are "just ok" at finding useful data in a mass of disorganized crap, we have a smaller number of people who are exceptionally good at it. We do this in pretty much every aspect of our lives, and in fact we've had a specialized group of people doing this for a while now (researchers). The only difference I see is that in some cases we can build experts now rather than training them (search engines, robots, etc.), and they're much cheaper to hire.