You complain about "being branded with poverty-net", but how would people know? Are they going to check the IP you're connecting from and link it up with your plan to see whether you're on the free service?
They probably would. I'll bet Google will use it when considering what ads to serve to people.
By the time this kind of material could be mass produced, let alone used as material in clothing, the amount of energy necessary to power a smart phone might have dropped considerably. It wasn't too long ago when you couldn't get more than a few hours worth of charge from a laptop and now we've got portables that can make it through a day of regular use on a single charge. Hell, by then we might not even be using phones anymore, or they'll be so unrecognizable that if we could see them now we wouldn't call them phones.
Even if it's not commercially viable, I'd like to think that there are a few nerds in the future who hack something like this together just because it sounds cool.
They already do undergo testing. You can read about it on the FDA's website.
The studies that are being done have overwhelmingly shown that GMO crops are not harmful. Also, it's not something that's being done and monopolized by corporations either. I suggest you read up about Golden Rice which was engineered to help deal with Vitamin A deficiency in impoverished nations that was killing or debilitating millions of people every year.
We have the internet now and once something gets published it tends to stick around, especially something like that. Are you going to try to tell me that Monsanto can silence and suppress information better than the governments of the world that have actual spy agencies?
Either the evidence doesn't exist at all or it's so crap that it shouldn't be taken seriously. Anything else doesn't make sense in world that has Wikileaks that's reporting on illegal government spying and other shady activity by world governments. Monsanto may be a shitty company, but there's no way they could keep serious evidence quiet.
If he's concerned about sound quality does he prohibit people who are hard of hearing from listening to his music as well?
Joking aside, I'll admit I'm a Neil Young fan and I enjoy a lot of his music, but this is just silly. The quality difference between a lossless and compressed stream isn't going to be noticeable at all to most people because of the low quality earbuds or headphones that they're wearing.
I wouldn't think so. If the climate scientists are right about there being a mini ice age, that would lead credibility to the notion that they know what they're talking about or at least that's how I would perceive it.
But really, it doesn't matter anyways as some people have just convinced themselves that they have the answer and would rather dismiss all claims and evidence otherwise and argue with reality that it's wrong for not distorting itself to fit their point of view.
Limits to moderation is what makes Slashdot great. Look at Reddit where everyone can essentially moderate at all times and it's an utter mess.
Slashdot's system works as well as it does because the site's creators realized that people will not be responsible with the system and it's far better to design a moderation system that accounts for that rather than assuming that people will be on their best behavior.
Also, plain text makes implication and inference difficult on the internet, which can lead to inappropriate moderation. If you or I were to make a sarcastic or facetious post, and someone with mod points completed missed the sarcasm, they very well may believe it's a troll or flame; or someone else makes a post that we think is off-topic only because we don't get the reference.
That's why the only reasonable way is to browse at -1 and just accept that we'll have to scroll past a few comments that aren't worth reading.
In the 1950's the United States was one of the few countries that wasn't completely devastated from the recent War. If so much of Europe wouldn't have been so ravaged by the war and focusing on rebuilding, the prosperity Americans experienced at that time wouldn't have existed. There were also a lot fewer (approximately about half the current population) people, which also means lower demand for housing in prime real-estate areas. Medically speaking, there was no treatment for many of the diseases or conditions that are either manageable or completely curable today. Medicine is so much better now that the average life expectancy is up over five years even though our country has a massive obesity problem. In the past, you'd just get your diagnosis and die for a lot of things, whereas now we can keep you alive, albeit expensively.
The 50's are gone and the world has changed so much that it's probably impossible to get back to that point without massive amounts of wealth redistribution or a significant investment in changing education to be capable of producing the kind of work force that can lead that lifestyle.
Actually, several years ago there was some article posted to a part of CNN that allowed for user submitted content that claimed a person had seen Jobs being taken to a hospital after having a heart attack. Other sites started to run wild with the rumor and it caused Apple's stock to take a rather large plunge. Here's an article covering it that turned up after a quick Google search.
You can either use increases in productivity to reduce the amount of work done or use it to increase the amount of stuff a person can have. Automation could very well allow us to have 10 hour work weeks, but we'd probably have to change back to a standard of living similar to what we had a century ago.
It's a bit like computer chips. With Moore's law we could have had incredibly inexpensive CPUs because with modern lithography, the chips would be beyond tiny (the 8086 only had about ~30,000 transistors in it), but we wanted more powerful computers so now we've got chips that have billions of transistors in our phones.
With any productivity increase you can either take a reduction in cost for what you already have or you can have more than you had before. As you point out, man is a creature of limitless want so our choices are not surprising.
Many branches of science have produced theories that turned out not to work, but that doesn't make biology, chemistry, or physics non-scientific. One could probably state that those fields are less prone to turning out "bad science" than the soft sciences like sociology, economics, and politics, but that doesn't mean that they can't have the scientific method applied to them, although given that the problems some of these fields seek to tackle aren't easy to test in a controlled experimental design and you can see why the results aren't anywhere near as rigorous as physics.
One could argue that those economic theories that you've listed are testable and that a case study of the real world suggests that they don't work as described on a large scale. Most of the grand sweeping economic theories make assumptions about human behavior that aren't true or require people to act against their nature, but that doesn't exclude the areas of those fields where they have been able to scientifically validate their results.
We don't need to understand why the placebo effect occurs, merely that any treatment should be more effective in order to be considered valid. Homeopathic approaches don't yield better results than a control group, which is why they aren't considered medically valid.
Mind over matter (or something very similar to our notion of it) may well exist, but if it cannot be reproduced in a controlled manner, it's useless are far as medicine goes.
It reminds me of the book Fashionable Nonsense by Sokal and Bricmont where a lot of the nonsensical philosophy they looked at incorporated advanced scientific and mathematical concepts that aren't well-understood by the common person. My guess is that the people who do this think it makes it harder to be called on their bullshit, but invariably the run into someone who's an expert in the field and points out that the emperor has no clothes.
It's rather disturbing that the university would keep this course. They might as well teach faith-based approaches to medicine that involve praying, which is always effective if the person was worthy of Bog's mercy, which is a better outcome than any of the other approaches.
I think it's more so Lucas being lazy and just wanting the aliens to sound different than the main characters. In the original series we would have just had some random buzz or hiss (or Wookie howl) where the meaning was mostly clear based on the scene or how the character was acting, but Lucas is a hack and we get lazy caricatures.
He was also a model CEO in that he cut his pay last year when the company was not doing well instead of bailing out with a giant golden parachute. He believed in Nintendo and was willing to stick with them through the good and the bad.
Basically party loyalty is the root of the problem.
It has nothing to do with party loyalty and everything to do with the system itself. A winner-take all system will devolve into a two party system and stay that way. Game theory is in agreement with that. No matter how much one group wants to splinter, doing so would ensure the success of the other group, which is usually viewed as worse than sticking with ones own group, even if you dislike a lot of their policies.
We won't get anything else until we fix that basic element of our political system, but neither of the current parties have any interest in doing so because both realize that neither will ultimately die with the current system in place. At worst, they shift position slightly, change names, and reach near equilibrium within a few election cycles.
The government is the entity that grants patents and the entity that hands out most of the funding, so they don't have to care at all if they don't want to. Some might even argue that since it's the people's tax money that funds the grants, any research that comes from them should also belong to the people.
Assuming this isn't a troll, what the hell are you doing that you need something like a Fury X for on Linux. This type of card is only typically useful for the newest games with bleeding edge graphics on multiple or high-resolution monitors, which typically don't have Linux support.
I'm just curious what your use case is that it would necessitate using this kind of hardware? Otherwise this ticks off so many boxes in the troll checklist that I can't take it seriously.
I don't know if they'd be able to easily do that as the information that has come out has suggested they're already giving something like $.72 of every dollar to the record companies, so the only way to pay another division $.30 of every dollar would be to operate at a loss, which would likely lead to a different investigation for what amounts to dumping.
The easier approach would be for Apple to have their service follow the same guidelines where it can't have in-app sign-up which would preclude it from paying the other department and place it squarely within the same set of rules as its competitors.
In reality it's far more legally complicated than that as some non-Apple entity wouldn't have gotten the same deal as any entity that is or is some sub-part of Apple itself.
It does seem rather unlikely that a copy of Windows is being billed/valued at $185.11 or that Microsoft would even charge anywhere near that much, especially considering how much they've been lowering their product cost in order to stay price competitive lately.
The current seating arrangement is already inadequate. I'm not overly tall, but the seating outside of first class is already cramped, and realistically I'm just happy if I'm not next to someone who's spilling into my seat because they can't fit in their own.
Slashdot Mirror
You complain about "being branded with poverty-net", but how would people know? Are they going to check the IP you're connecting from and link it up with your plan to see whether you're on the free service?
They probably would. I'll bet Google will use it when considering what ads to serve to people.
By the time this kind of material could be mass produced, let alone used as material in clothing, the amount of energy necessary to power a smart phone might have dropped considerably. It wasn't too long ago when you couldn't get more than a few hours worth of charge from a laptop and now we've got portables that can make it through a day of regular use on a single charge. Hell, by then we might not even be using phones anymore, or they'll be so unrecognizable that if we could see them now we wouldn't call them phones.
Even if it's not commercially viable, I'd like to think that there are a few nerds in the future who hack something like this together just because it sounds cool.
They already do undergo testing. You can read about it on the FDA's website.
The studies that are being done have overwhelmingly shown that GMO crops are not harmful. Also, it's not something that's being done and monopolized by corporations either. I suggest you read up about Golden Rice which was engineered to help deal with Vitamin A deficiency in impoverished nations that was killing or debilitating millions of people every year.
the other sounds like a high pass filter output played underwater behind a misfiring outboard.
Some might say all of the newfangled music of today sounds like that anyways.
We have the internet now and once something gets published it tends to stick around, especially something like that. Are you going to try to tell me that Monsanto can silence and suppress information better than the governments of the world that have actual spy agencies?
Either the evidence doesn't exist at all or it's so crap that it shouldn't be taken seriously. Anything else doesn't make sense in world that has Wikileaks that's reporting on illegal government spying and other shady activity by world governments. Monsanto may be a shitty company, but there's no way they could keep serious evidence quiet.
Considering that approximately one-third of Americans adults are obsese, I don't think that Americans care much about such things anyways.
If he's concerned about sound quality does he prohibit people who are hard of hearing from listening to his music as well?
/. story from several years ago about research that found young people who grew up with digital music prefer the compressed versions of songs. The people who grew up listening to Young's music probably prefer listening to his music on old vinyl albums. Are those still okay? Apparently so because he's still selling those on his store or at least the store he links to from his website, which I presume he owns.
Joking aside, I'll admit I'm a Neil Young fan and I enjoy a lot of his music, but this is just silly. The quality difference between a lossless and compressed stream isn't going to be noticeable at all to most people because of the low quality earbuds or headphones that they're wearing.
What makes it even funnier is a previous
I wouldn't think so. If the climate scientists are right about there being a mini ice age, that would lead credibility to the notion that they know what they're talking about or at least that's how I would perceive it.
But really, it doesn't matter anyways as some people have just convinced themselves that they have the answer and would rather dismiss all claims and evidence otherwise and argue with reality that it's wrong for not distorting itself to fit their point of view.
Limits to moderation is what makes Slashdot great. Look at Reddit where everyone can essentially moderate at all times and it's an utter mess.
Slashdot's system works as well as it does because the site's creators realized that people will not be responsible with the system and it's far better to design a moderation system that accounts for that rather than assuming that people will be on their best behavior.
Also, plain text makes implication and inference difficult on the internet, which can lead to inappropriate moderation. If you or I were to make a sarcastic or facetious post, and someone with mod points completed missed the sarcasm, they very well may believe it's a troll or flame; or someone else makes a post that we think is off-topic only because we don't get the reference.
That's why the only reasonable way is to browse at -1 and just accept that we'll have to scroll past a few comments that aren't worth reading.
In the 1950's the United States was one of the few countries that wasn't completely devastated from the recent War. If so much of Europe wouldn't have been so ravaged by the war and focusing on rebuilding, the prosperity Americans experienced at that time wouldn't have existed. There were also a lot fewer (approximately about half the current population) people, which also means lower demand for housing in prime real-estate areas. Medically speaking, there was no treatment for many of the diseases or conditions that are either manageable or completely curable today. Medicine is so much better now that the average life expectancy is up over five years even though our country has a massive obesity problem. In the past, you'd just get your diagnosis and die for a lot of things, whereas now we can keep you alive, albeit expensively.
The 50's are gone and the world has changed so much that it's probably impossible to get back to that point without massive amounts of wealth redistribution or a significant investment in changing education to be capable of producing the kind of work force that can lead that lifestyle.
Actually, several years ago there was some article posted to a part of CNN that allowed for user submitted content that claimed a person had seen Jobs being taken to a hospital after having a heart attack. Other sites started to run wild with the rumor and it caused Apple's stock to take a rather large plunge. Here's an article covering it that turned up after a quick Google search.
You can either use increases in productivity to reduce the amount of work done or use it to increase the amount of stuff a person can have. Automation could very well allow us to have 10 hour work weeks, but we'd probably have to change back to a standard of living similar to what we had a century ago.
It's a bit like computer chips. With Moore's law we could have had incredibly inexpensive CPUs because with modern lithography, the chips would be beyond tiny (the 8086 only had about ~30,000 transistors in it), but we wanted more powerful computers so now we've got chips that have billions of transistors in our phones.
With any productivity increase you can either take a reduction in cost for what you already have or you can have more than you had before. As you point out, man is a creature of limitless want so our choices are not surprising.
They could change their motto to "Google remembers" but I think Pepperidge Farm already has that one taken.
Many branches of science have produced theories that turned out not to work, but that doesn't make biology, chemistry, or physics non-scientific. One could probably state that those fields are less prone to turning out "bad science" than the soft sciences like sociology, economics, and politics, but that doesn't mean that they can't have the scientific method applied to them, although given that the problems some of these fields seek to tackle aren't easy to test in a controlled experimental design and you can see why the results aren't anywhere near as rigorous as physics.
One could argue that those economic theories that you've listed are testable and that a case study of the real world suggests that they don't work as described on a large scale. Most of the grand sweeping economic theories make assumptions about human behavior that aren't true or require people to act against their nature, but that doesn't exclude the areas of those fields where they have been able to scientifically validate their results.
We don't need to understand why the placebo effect occurs, merely that any treatment should be more effective in order to be considered valid. Homeopathic approaches don't yield better results than a control group, which is why they aren't considered medically valid.
Mind over matter (or something very similar to our notion of it) may well exist, but if it cannot be reproduced in a controlled manner, it's useless are far as medicine goes.
It reminds me of the book Fashionable Nonsense by Sokal and Bricmont where a lot of the nonsensical philosophy they looked at incorporated advanced scientific and mathematical concepts that aren't well-understood by the common person. My guess is that the people who do this think it makes it harder to be called on their bullshit, but invariably the run into someone who's an expert in the field and points out that the emperor has no clothes.
It's rather disturbing that the university would keep this course. They might as well teach faith-based approaches to medicine that involve praying, which is always effective if the person was worthy of Bog's mercy, which is a better outcome than any of the other approaches.
I think it's more so Lucas being lazy and just wanting the aliens to sound different than the main characters. In the original series we would have just had some random buzz or hiss (or Wookie howl) where the meaning was mostly clear based on the scene or how the character was acting, but Lucas is a hack and we get lazy caricatures.
He was also a model CEO in that he cut his pay last year when the company was not doing well instead of bailing out with a giant golden parachute. He believed in Nintendo and was willing to stick with them through the good and the bad.
Basically party loyalty is the root of the problem.
It has nothing to do with party loyalty and everything to do with the system itself. A winner-take all system will devolve into a two party system and stay that way. Game theory is in agreement with that. No matter how much one group wants to splinter, doing so would ensure the success of the other group, which is usually viewed as worse than sticking with ones own group, even if you dislike a lot of their policies.
We won't get anything else until we fix that basic element of our political system, but neither of the current parties have any interest in doing so because both realize that neither will ultimately die with the current system in place. At worst, they shift position slightly, change names, and reach near equilibrium within a few election cycles.
The government is the entity that grants patents and the entity that hands out most of the funding, so they don't have to care at all if they don't want to. Some might even argue that since it's the people's tax money that funds the grants, any research that comes from them should also belong to the people.
Assuming this isn't a troll, what the hell are you doing that you need something like a Fury X for on Linux. This type of card is only typically useful for the newest games with bleeding edge graphics on multiple or high-resolution monitors, which typically don't have Linux support.
I'm just curious what your use case is that it would necessitate using this kind of hardware? Otherwise this ticks off so many boxes in the troll checklist that I can't take it seriously.
I don't know if they'd be able to easily do that as the information that has come out has suggested they're already giving something like $.72 of every dollar to the record companies, so the only way to pay another division $.30 of every dollar would be to operate at a loss, which would likely lead to a different investigation for what amounts to dumping.
The easier approach would be for Apple to have their service follow the same guidelines where it can't have in-app sign-up which would preclude it from paying the other department and place it squarely within the same set of rules as its competitors.
In reality it's far more legally complicated than that as some non-Apple entity wouldn't have gotten the same deal as any entity that is or is some sub-part of Apple itself.
So a growing gay population is a decline in diversity? What?
It does seem rather unlikely that a copy of Windows is being billed/valued at $185.11 or that Microsoft would even charge anywhere near that much, especially considering how much they've been lowering their product cost in order to stay price competitive lately.
The current seating arrangement is already inadequate. I'm not overly tall, but the seating outside of first class is already cramped, and realistically I'm just happy if I'm not next to someone who's spilling into my seat because they can't fit in their own.