You somehow simultaneously displayed a lack of understanding for the mechanisms of evolution (mutation and natural selection), and obliviousness to the point of the mathematics being discussed: using prime numbers to reduce periodicty of a given set of cycles.
Also, your third and fourth paragraphs display utter ignorance of biology.
Why are you even here? This article was very well articulated, and more important, useful, unlike your reply.
I was stating a fact. It requires less code and less time to create a uniform experience on all iOS than all Android. Go ahead and rage, call me incompetent. All that tells me is you don't know what you're talking about.
I was pretty sure Apple's contention was that it lowers the quality of the user experience, not necessarily that it decreases sales.
As a dev that works on iOS and Android apps, they are entirely correct... I can ensure much easier a uniform and high-quality experience for my apps on iOS than on an arbitrary Android device.
Allegedly, the "ghosts" represent a sapient consciousness. Which makes reproducible experiments even in reoccurring hauntings troublesome, ensuring that no real science can be done on them. It's the same reason most psychology science is done through case studies and statistical studies, because true reproducibility is difficult when your test subject involves a being that can (allegedly) make judgmental decisions.
So... why exactly does that matter? That logic, applied equally, gives moral authority to all religious crazies to simply ignore any science they don't like because they're "non-believers" and can use whatever terminology they want.
Since when is non-belief in any specific topic an excuse to willfully misuse established terminology then become indignant when people point out your error? Do non-string theorists get to abuse and misuse string terminology just because they don't believe in it?
No, because even if they got a video of a sit-down conversation the process wouldn't be reproducible, which is what the "scientific" types want.
The scientific process limits science from being able to possibly consider certain topics, at least with current technology, which is not necessarily a criticism of science, simply a fact.
I presume the answer would be something along the lines of "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence", as that's generally the justification for not considering novel points of view that may or may not fit a given situation, but lack any scientific rigor.
The smart ones will say, "Yes, but the Miller Experiments never produced anything but racemates, which while interesting makes it difficult to show how an organized process could arise from something like this."
To which most smart scientists will probably grin and keep looking for more answers, since that's what new questions represent...
Distance from the star and magnitude of the star are both independently important for photosynthetic processes, which depend not on the temperature of the atmosphere, but on the radiation received. There is nothing "padding" about adding those stats, and any 8th grade biology student should be able to see that.
"Yes sir, I have the distance traveled, the time it took, the sp--"
"Why did you collect all that information!? I just wanted your average speed!"
"Uh... sir to calculate my average speed I need to--"
"Why are you even talking to me about distance or time! I want speed!"
"But I--"
"Stop wasting all that time and space recording down that other shit! If I find out you are keeping track of anything else again I'll have you reassigned to janitorial duty!"
"...Alright sir..."
(And this is about what you sound like right now.)
Sci-Fi? This isn't fiction... our study of the Universe has directly led to realizations of many aspects of physics that are directly applicable to our lives. It is through the study of the stars that we had the proper information background for Einstein to formulate general and special relativity for instance, which impact things such as our ability to keep satellites in orbit, or our ability to calculate GPS coordinates.
People who see the value in knowledge simply because the unknown is unknown are not childish, and your rant only reveals your lack of imagination and general understanding of human history.
This is the result of our economics clashing with a reality of information: a free-market economy (and through more hidden means all other kinds of economies) determines price based on a supply-demand curve. A supply-demand curve shows the number of willing purchasers and amount of supply at a given price, and is used to help determine the point on the curve where the most *profit* (not sales) can be made.
The problem is that information, or anything that can be entirely represented as information, has what is essentially in infinite supply at no marginal cost. This COMPLETELY flattens a supply-demand curve into a right-angle "L" shaped graph, where you are essentially paying for packaging and method/ease of delivery (like in the iTunes story for instance with apps).
Because of these things, the information industries do not use supply at all to determine price. They look at only two factors: what people are willing to pay (the demand side of the supply-demand curve), and the cost of producing the information.
Unfortunately for the information sellers of the world, this method of determining price is only effective in an economically homogeneous zone, and for information, all "zones" are artificial constructs limited only by technology compatibilities (which are tied to artificial DRM and to local legislation) and by language barriers (which can often be broken through community assisted efforts).
Essentially, this screws the entire developing world out of high quality "legal" information economies, and in some sense is a self-feeding cycle that perpetuates its own existence.
Christ, the things some slashdotters get passionate about. You win, I don't care enough to argue if I'm just going to deal with logical fallacies for the whole discussion.
Net Neutrality is a common term, not a technical one, and if you can't be arsed enough to consider that being a network engineer doesn't make one a God, you'd realize that I don't give a flying fuck what the technicals are. Net Neutrality absolutely has to do with discrimination by protocol, and just because network techs don't like, doesn't mean that the English becomes different. You fucking work with computers, you're not fucking Merriam-Webster.
Net Neutrality is indeed different than QoS... and if their data shows that the QoS for BT drops off by 80% while HTTP drops off by 40%, then you ALSO have a Net Neutrality issue, as Net Neutrality has to do with discriminating with types of data or origin of data, instead of capacity.
If that is how you conclude that it is reasonable Assange is guilty of rape, I hope you never get Jury Duty. And if you do, I hope your recuse yourself for being incapable of being impartial.
Oh, I dunno. I worked for this place once where they had an OSHA violation that was actually causing me to be ill. I asked them to fix it, and said that I wouldn't care except that I was getting headaches. They fired me the next day. Guess what I did? That's right, that day I got home and the first thing I did is call OSHA and report them for violations, and explain I'd been fired for mentioning it to my superiors. They got in some deep shit over that.
Generally, and I know software piracy is a bit different, the rules for businesses about what to do and not do are there for good reason. Ignore them at your employees risk, and they are unlikely to "take one for the team".
So I'm bigoted because I see a difference in someone designing a bomb then detonating it upon innocents and someone who's teachings lead someone to draw their own (unacceptable) conclusions that lead to murder? You sir, are in desperate need of perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, the "I'm right because I say so" defense. Clever. It doesn't require you to actually know anything about application development.
You somehow simultaneously displayed a lack of understanding for the mechanisms of evolution (mutation and natural selection), and obliviousness to the point of the mathematics being discussed: using prime numbers to reduce periodicty of a given set of cycles.
Also, your third and fourth paragraphs display utter ignorance of biology.
Why are you even here? This article was very well articulated, and more important, useful, unlike your reply.
???
I was stating a fact. It requires less code and less time to create a uniform experience on all iOS than all Android. Go ahead and rage, call me incompetent. All that tells me is you don't know what you're talking about.
I was pretty sure Apple's contention was that it lowers the quality of the user experience, not necessarily that it decreases sales.
As a dev that works on iOS and Android apps, they are entirely correct... I can ensure much easier a uniform and high-quality experience for my apps on iOS than on an arbitrary Android device.
Allegedly, the "ghosts" represent a sapient consciousness. Which makes reproducible experiments even in reoccurring hauntings troublesome, ensuring that no real science can be done on them. It's the same reason most psychology science is done through case studies and statistical studies, because true reproducibility is difficult when your test subject involves a being that can (allegedly) make judgmental decisions.
So... why exactly does that matter? That logic, applied equally, gives moral authority to all religious crazies to simply ignore any science they don't like because they're "non-believers" and can use whatever terminology they want.
Since when is non-belief in any specific topic an excuse to willfully misuse established terminology then become indignant when people point out your error? Do non-string theorists get to abuse and misuse string terminology just because they don't believe in it?
Your logic, sir, is flawed.
No, because even if they got a video of a sit-down conversation the process wouldn't be reproducible, which is what the "scientific" types want.
The scientific process limits science from being able to possibly consider certain topics, at least with current technology, which is not necessarily a criticism of science, simply a fact.
I presume the answer would be something along the lines of "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence", as that's generally the justification for not considering novel points of view that may or may not fit a given situation, but lack any scientific rigor.
Is a word play that simply displays your knowledge of English in place of your knowledge of your chosen topic supposed to be taken seriously?
The smart ones will say, "Yes, but the Miller Experiments never produced anything but racemates, which while interesting makes it difficult to show how an organized process could arise from something like this."
To which most smart scientists will probably grin and keep looking for more answers, since that's what new questions represent...
Distance from the star and magnitude of the star are both independently important for photosynthetic processes, which depend not on the temperature of the atmosphere, but on the radiation received. There is nothing "padding" about adding those stats, and any 8th grade biology student should be able to see that.
"Have you arrived at the checkpoint?"
"Yes sir, I have the distance traveled, the time it took, the sp--"
"Why did you collect all that information!? I just wanted your average speed!"
"Uh... sir to calculate my average speed I need to--"
"Why are you even talking to me about distance or time! I want speed!"
"But I--"
"Stop wasting all that time and space recording down that other shit! If I find out you are keeping track of anything else again I'll have you reassigned to janitorial duty!"
"...Alright sir..."
(And this is about what you sound like right now.)
Sci-Fi? This isn't fiction... our study of the Universe has directly led to realizations of many aspects of physics that are directly applicable to our lives. It is through the study of the stars that we had the proper information background for Einstein to formulate general and special relativity for instance, which impact things such as our ability to keep satellites in orbit, or our ability to calculate GPS coordinates.
People who see the value in knowledge simply because the unknown is unknown are not childish, and your rant only reveals your lack of imagination and general understanding of human history.
Wait, you were being serious? I thought for sure you were being facetious...
I can see why you posted as an AC...
Just to extend your logic, within the context of the Westboro Baptist Church's teachings, their actions and claims also make sense.
Context rarely disproves stupidity.
This is the result of our economics clashing with a reality of information: a free-market economy (and through more hidden means all other kinds of economies) determines price based on a supply-demand curve. A supply-demand curve shows the number of willing purchasers and amount of supply at a given price, and is used to help determine the point on the curve where the most *profit* (not sales) can be made.
The problem is that information, or anything that can be entirely represented as information, has what is essentially in infinite supply at no marginal cost. This COMPLETELY flattens a supply-demand curve into a right-angle "L" shaped graph, where you are essentially paying for packaging and method/ease of delivery (like in the iTunes story for instance with apps).
Because of these things, the information industries do not use supply at all to determine price. They look at only two factors: what people are willing to pay (the demand side of the supply-demand curve), and the cost of producing the information.
Unfortunately for the information sellers of the world, this method of determining price is only effective in an economically homogeneous zone, and for information, all "zones" are artificial constructs limited only by technology compatibilities (which are tied to artificial DRM and to local legislation) and by language barriers (which can often be broken through community assisted efforts).
Essentially, this screws the entire developing world out of high quality "legal" information economies, and in some sense is a self-feeding cycle that perpetuates its own existence.
Christ, the things some slashdotters get passionate about. You win, I don't care enough to argue if I'm just going to deal with logical fallacies for the whole discussion.
Net Neutrality is a common term, not a technical one, and if you can't be arsed enough to consider that being a network engineer doesn't make one a God, you'd realize that I don't give a flying fuck what the technicals are. Net Neutrality absolutely has to do with discrimination by protocol, and just because network techs don't like, doesn't mean that the English becomes different. You fucking work with computers, you're not fucking Merriam-Webster.
Net Neutrality is indeed different than QoS... and if their data shows that the QoS for BT drops off by 80% while HTTP drops off by 40%, then you ALSO have a Net Neutrality issue, as Net Neutrality has to do with discriminating with types of data or origin of data, instead of capacity.
Not sure why you're having trouble grasping that.
If that is how you conclude that it is reasonable Assange is guilty of rape, I hope you never get Jury Duty. And if you do, I hope your recuse yourself for being incapable of being impartial.
Nice try, I've never participated or talked with anyone who does any anon ops.
Yeah yeah. I haven't worked on that in a while. Been working on another pet project: fanfictionrecs.net
False. You do not speak for the "rest of the world".
Oh, I dunno. I worked for this place once where they had an OSHA violation that was actually causing me to be ill. I asked them to fix it, and said that I wouldn't care except that I was getting headaches. They fired me the next day. Guess what I did? That's right, that day I got home and the first thing I did is call OSHA and report them for violations, and explain I'd been fired for mentioning it to my superiors. They got in some deep shit over that.
Generally, and I know software piracy is a bit different, the rules for businesses about what to do and not do are there for good reason. Ignore them at your employees risk, and they are unlikely to "take one for the team".
So I'm bigoted because I see a difference in someone designing a bomb then detonating it upon innocents and someone who's teachings lead someone to draw their own (unacceptable) conclusions that lead to murder? You sir, are in desperate need of perspective.