I'm convinced that some people jump on the beta just to complain about it. "I used it for 15 minutes and it is the $!@#$ most ugly-@#$ buggy $@#% piece of !#@$#@!% horse $#@# I've ever seen!"
Gees dude do you know your mathematics at all 1%. Population of the US 311,591,917 - Jul 2011, now that's 311,592 people
Mathematics: 3,115,919 people.
More mathematics: Those people combined make 13.3% of the wealth and pay 22.3% of the federal income taxes (source). This indicates the complete opposite of your use of the term "parasite", regardless of whether you look at the dollar value or the percentage.
you'll see that the "alarmists" are actually some of the most respected researchers in climatology. And note they are not focused on telling people to "buy a new Prius".
(I never said the alarmists are the researchers. I said the alarmists are people who claim that the specific action of purchasing a fuel-efficient vehicle will save the world.)
That article I linked talks about wind powered ships. It claims what is probably obvious, that most of the fuel is used near the ports to get the ships up to speed and to slow them down. Another reply below mentions kite-based "hybrid" ships that claim to reduce 20% of fuel consumption emissions.
I'll put these numbers together: 20% savings over 90,000 ships is equivalent to taking 18,000 container ships out of the ocean. That is the equivalent of 900 billion cars. Since there are just over one billion cars in the world, I'd say there couldn't be a more obvious solution.
And these hybrid ships don't cost any more or take longer to sail across the ocean. With $2000 in fuel savings, we could see the price of shipped goods reduced instead of increased.
And it's really too bad because an individual has far more power to do something about global warming than any of those problems you listed.
Bullshit.
You want to know why conservatives push back on global warming? Because the alarmists are claiming just what you are saying, that I (a hard working taxpayer who doesn't have the money to buy a new Prius) needs to go completely out of my way to do something that will make practically ZERO change to the current situation.
I heard the other day that our oil exports now exceed our oil imports. My question: why aren't we just using the oil we have, instead of shipping it across the ocean? Economics aside for a minute... this is having a huge impact to global warming, yet I'm the one being blamed?
Actually, that is not so much an observation as a thought experiment. The real observation came via the Michelson-Morley experiment.
The Earth revolves around the Sun. Over the course of 180 days, its velocity relative to the sun (around 30 km/s) reverses direction. The difference is 60 km/s. Of course, the Sun revolves around the galaxy, which is itself moving.
The Michelson-Morley experiment was created to measure the speed of light at one point in the year, and then measure it again a half year later when the earth is travelling the other direction. And because no artificial device in the late 1800s could travel 60 km/s, this allowed the best measurements relative to light-speed possible at the time.
The expectation was that light travels at an absolute speed relative to some invisible space ether, and that we would be able to determine the nature of that ether by noting the differences in light speed throughout the year. But the difference was very small, within error of zero difference. This result (along with similar experiments) led to the theory of special relativity.
I take "general public" as meaning non-hacker types. Unless they are being distinguished in a different way, such as citizens vs. government (which I doubt anyone means to imply, since that would then imply that the government has a back door into the technology).
Packet sniffing is not what I would deem accessible to the general public, since they don't understand it.
It's not illegal to intercept communications "made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public."
Just who is included in the general public here? This is like saying that most everyone who has a Wi-Fi capable computer typically runs a packet analyzer.
Also importantly, the mass of the entire steel rod is immense. I calculate a one-cm square rod from Earth to Pluto, at its minimum distance, would have a mass of over 3.3 trillion kg. Unless my physics is too rusty, that means it would take 3.3 terawatts to accelerate it to 1 m/s in a second (or about 1/4 of the world's average power output).
Imagine for a minute what would be required to deliver 3.3 TW into a steel bar. I certainly can't. The best military railgun prototypes only deliver 1/100,000th of that kind of energy. In other words, the earth-side of the steel bar would certainly disintegrate upon such an impact, due to the shock wave you noted.
Just to accomplish such an experiment, even on much smaller scales (like a space elevator) would probably require materials so flexible that being able to create a pressure wave in such a material would be obvious upon quick inspection.
I disagree. Biometrics can pose a safety and security risk when used to secure very important data. It is often as easy or easier to detach a finger or an eyeball than it is to remove knowledge from someone's brain. And detaching fingers and eyeballs tend to be permanent solutions.
It's not unfair to the company. If there is a manufacturing defect that is the cause of an accident, then the manufacturer should be liable. They will have insurance for such an occurance. If it was operator error (such as the human intervenes and causes the accident), then they will be accountable and will have insurance for that circumstance.
The cars passed the alpha test. There needs to be a beta test, testing real conditions with real drivers on real roads. Otherwise there will never be a build worthy of release.
Your assumption is that the car would make the incorrect decision and go off the cliff. What you forget is that the car isn't blind at night, and could see that there is no shoulder on the road. How many times might humans make the wrong decision based on our limited sensory input?
.NET 4.x is a great development platform even without Entity Framework (which I don't use or need to use). It stands heads and shoulders over Java in probably every way except cross-platform compatibility, which is not a use case for which I develop.
When reading the Bible, we often forget that death on earth can lead to eternal life in heaven.
So perhaps this wasn't the punishment you interpret it to be. It doesn't say she suffered when she turned to salt. Maybe she went instantly to heaven. But back on earth, Lot had to live a long life of regret and fear.
Yet here I am, thousands of years later, and people following this crap are teaching their kids to doubt science, that if the Bible is interpreted as A and science says B, you'd better go with A.
Some people do. Not nearly all. I personally say that we should question our interpretations if the two don't line up. It is usually, if not always, incorrect interpretation of the Biblical texts or incorrect interpretation of the scientific results that causes the conflict.
More importantly, comparing the USA today with Nazis during WW2 is like saying the Nazis weren't all that bad, and that the genocide of millions of people is comparable to modern Western civilization.
The USA isn't perfect by any means, and there have been innocent lives lost due to unnecessary wars. But Nazi Germany? Get real. This is more like "hindsight is 20/20" than "the USA is specifically targeting millions of a particular race for death due solely to their race". And the USA promotes freedoms that are nearly as good as, if not often much better, than most other nations today.
Er, I don't see why you couldn't say, "Killing adults is wrong, and killing babies is also wrong."
Now you're getting my point. You could just as well say, "Killing a baby is wrong, and killing an unborn fetus is also wrong."
Whether or not the fetus is the same thing as a child doesn't mean that it follows that the same protections should not be offered. Just like babies and adults.
So they're not saying that a baby comes into existence at this time and therefore prior to that abortion is okay, they're saying that this thing is clearly not a baby so... what's the big deal?
But that logic breaks down at some level. This is like claiming that babies are clearly not adults, and since killing adults is wrong, killing babies must be OK.
they hate anything to do with helping other people
And leftist politicians love helping other people? Oh wait, they love helping the majority of people, since a democratic society puts into power those that are loved by the majority.
The other side loves helping the people with the majority of money, since a capitalistic society puts into power those that have the majority of the money.
In the case of the United States, you have both types of society. And it's all about power, and who you pander to in order to gain more of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm convinced that some people jump on the beta just to complain about it. "I used it for 15 minutes and it is the $!@#$ most ugly-@#$ buggy $@#% piece of !#@$#@!% horse $#@# I've ever seen!"
Or, every other Slashdot post on Windows 8.
Gees dude do you know your mathematics at all 1%. Population of the US 311,591,917 - Jul 2011, now that's 311,592 people
Mathematics: 3,115,919 people.
More mathematics: Those people combined make 13.3% of the wealth and pay 22.3% of the federal income taxes (source). This indicates the complete opposite of your use of the term "parasite", regardless of whether you look at the dollar value or the percentage.
you'll see that the "alarmists" are actually some of the most respected researchers in climatology. And note they are not focused on telling people to "buy a new Prius".
This is an example of a strawman argument.
(I never said the alarmists are the researchers. I said the alarmists are people who claim that the specific action of purchasing a fuel-efficient vehicle will save the world.)
I love the idea of individual responsibility. Corporations are individuals, and they need to be held responsible.
That article I linked talks about wind powered ships. It claims what is probably obvious, that most of the fuel is used near the ports to get the ships up to speed and to slow them down. Another reply below mentions kite-based "hybrid" ships that claim to reduce 20% of fuel consumption emissions.
I'll put these numbers together: 20% savings over 90,000 ships is equivalent to taking 18,000 container ships out of the ocean. That is the equivalent of 900 billion cars. Since there are just over one billion cars in the world, I'd say there couldn't be a more obvious solution.
And these hybrid ships don't cost any more or take longer to sail across the ocean. With $2000 in fuel savings, we could see the price of shipped goods reduced instead of increased.
And it's really too bad because an individual has far more power to do something about global warming than any of those problems you listed.
Bullshit.
You want to know why conservatives push back on global warming? Because the alarmists are claiming just what you are saying, that I (a hard working taxpayer who doesn't have the money to buy a new Prius) needs to go completely out of my way to do something that will make practically ZERO change to the current situation.
Yet removing one container ship from the shipping industry would be the equivalent of removing 50 million automobiles.
I heard the other day that our oil exports now exceed our oil imports. My question: why aren't we just using the oil we have, instead of shipping it across the ocean? Economics aside for a minute... this is having a huge impact to global warming, yet I'm the one being blamed?
Actually, that is not so much an observation as a thought experiment. The real observation came via the Michelson-Morley experiment.
The Earth revolves around the Sun. Over the course of 180 days, its velocity relative to the sun (around 30 km/s) reverses direction. The difference is 60 km/s. Of course, the Sun revolves around the galaxy, which is itself moving.
The Michelson-Morley experiment was created to measure the speed of light at one point in the year, and then measure it again a half year later when the earth is travelling the other direction. And because no artificial device in the late 1800s could travel 60 km/s, this allowed the best measurements relative to light-speed possible at the time.
The expectation was that light travels at an absolute speed relative to some invisible space ether, and that we would be able to determine the nature of that ether by noting the differences in light speed throughout the year. But the difference was very small, within error of zero difference. This result (along with similar experiments) led to the theory of special relativity.
I take "general public" as meaning non-hacker types. Unless they are being distinguished in a different way, such as citizens vs. government (which I doubt anyone means to imply, since that would then imply that the government has a back door into the technology).
Packet sniffing is not what I would deem accessible to the general public, since they don't understand it.
It's not illegal to intercept communications "made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public."
Just who is included in the general public here? This is like saying that most everyone who has a Wi-Fi capable computer typically runs a packet analyzer.
And how long did the Great Depression last?
Also importantly, the mass of the entire steel rod is immense. I calculate a one-cm square rod from Earth to Pluto, at its minimum distance, would have a mass of over 3.3 trillion kg. Unless my physics is too rusty, that means it would take 3.3 terawatts to accelerate it to 1 m/s in a second (or about 1/4 of the world's average power output).
Imagine for a minute what would be required to deliver 3.3 TW into a steel bar. I certainly can't. The best military railgun prototypes only deliver 1/100,000th of that kind of energy. In other words, the earth-side of the steel bar would certainly disintegrate upon such an impact, due to the shock wave you noted.
Just to accomplish such an experiment, even on much smaller scales (like a space elevator) would probably require materials so flexible that being able to create a pressure wave in such a material would be obvious upon quick inspection.
I disagree. Biometrics can pose a safety and security risk when used to secure very important data. It is often as easy or easier to detach a finger or an eyeball than it is to remove knowledge from someone's brain. And detaching fingers and eyeballs tend to be permanent solutions.
Yes.
(Stupid question deserves stupid answer.)
It's not unfair to the company. If there is a manufacturing defect that is the cause of an accident, then the manufacturer should be liable. They will have insurance for such an occurance. If it was operator error (such as the human intervenes and causes the accident), then they will be accountable and will have insurance for that circumstance.
The cars passed the alpha test. There needs to be a beta test, testing real conditions with real drivers on real roads. Otherwise there will never be a build worthy of release.
Your assumption is that the car would make the incorrect decision and go off the cliff. What you forget is that the car isn't blind at night, and could see that there is no shoulder on the road. How many times might humans make the wrong decision based on our limited sensory input?
.NET 4.x is a great development platform even without Entity Framework (which I don't use or need to use). It stands heads and shoulders over Java in probably every way except cross-platform compatibility, which is not a use case for which I develop.
When reading the Bible, we often forget that death on earth can lead to eternal life in heaven.
So perhaps this wasn't the punishment you interpret it to be. It doesn't say she suffered when she turned to salt. Maybe she went instantly to heaven. But back on earth, Lot had to live a long life of regret and fear.
Yet here I am, thousands of years later, and people following this crap are teaching their kids to doubt science, that if the Bible is interpreted as A and science says B, you'd better go with A.
Some people do. Not nearly all. I personally say that we should question our interpretations if the two don't line up. It is usually, if not always, incorrect interpretation of the Biblical texts or incorrect interpretation of the scientific results that causes the conflict.
The point is Godwin's law.
More importantly, comparing the USA today with Nazis during WW2 is like saying the Nazis weren't all that bad, and that the genocide of millions of people is comparable to modern Western civilization.
The USA isn't perfect by any means, and there have been innocent lives lost due to unnecessary wars. But Nazi Germany? Get real. This is more like "hindsight is 20/20" than "the USA is specifically targeting millions of a particular race for death due solely to their race". And the USA promotes freedoms that are nearly as good as, if not often much better, than most other nations today.
Er, I don't see why you couldn't say, "Killing adults is wrong, and killing babies is also wrong."
Now you're getting my point. You could just as well say, "Killing a baby is wrong, and killing an unborn fetus is also wrong."
Whether or not the fetus is the same thing as a child doesn't mean that it follows that the same protections should not be offered. Just like babies and adults.
So they're not saying that a baby comes into existence at this time and therefore prior to that abortion is okay, they're saying that this thing is clearly not a baby so... what's the big deal?
But that logic breaks down at some level. This is like claiming that babies are clearly not adults, and since killing adults is wrong, killing babies must be OK.
But this is a democracy/republic. I thought we were supposed to be influencing the President, not the other way around.
they hate anything to do with helping other people
And leftist politicians love helping other people? Oh wait, they love helping the majority of people, since a democratic society puts into power those that are loved by the majority.
The other side loves helping the people with the majority of money, since a capitalistic society puts into power those that have the majority of the money.
In the case of the United States, you have both types of society. And it's all about power, and who you pander to in order to gain more of it.
The idea that "modern" apps are all going to be Windowed and mouse optimized (ie, only interacts on click, no text-only interface) is asinine.
Sorry, I was off daydreaming of yesteryear. I think I might have heard you wrong. Psst, whatever, I dare defend my command-line interface!!!
ESC :wq
The real problem is taking these numbers and making a case from them. The sample size is much too small for any statistical comparison.
I mostly agree with you, but refusal to do anything different--simply because the money doesn't require it--can lead your team into obsolescence.
I like living on the cutting edge because tomorrow, some of that will be the standard and what I'm doing today will be the mainframe.