The egg is an adaptation to help sexual reproduction. Simplier organisms reproduce asexually or sexually but without eggs (the shelled kind or the gamete). Thus, the organism (chicken) came first.
Now, in creation, the chicken obviously came first. Prior to the fall, there was no such thing as mating, and hence there wouldn't be eggs. But there were chickens.
Yeah, but support comes in many forms. For example, how we "support" Pakistan or "support" Taiwan or "support" Israel.
I wouldn't be surprised if we set up a (semi-) permanent base there as a launchpad for future middle east and east asia operations. We have bases in Germany and Japan.
Tl;dr, pulling the troops out and continuing to support them are not mutually exclusive.
Power refers to the power that one person holds over another. Guns are this great power. They can inflict, in less than a second, what the next most lethal commonplace weapon cannot inflict in two seconds. It takes two seconds to reach someone and stab them with a knife. It takes someone with a gun less than a second to aim and shoot. That extra second and a half is huge. It is made possible by a huge difference in power on the order of several magnitudes. It is the difference between a situation that's out of control, and regaining control over the situation.
People fail to appreciate just how much additional power a gun has over a knife. They don't understand what they've put into their own hands.
And so it gets misused, abused. Accidents happen. Tragedies occur. These things don't happen because people enjoy causing harm to others. They happen because they don't understand the sheer magnitude of their ability to do harm that they now suddenly possess.
The antidote of this is not to ban guns, or to impose significant restrictions. It is education. Education encompasses more than just usage. Education also includes exploring the ethics and morality of gun usage. But if guns are a taboo subject, then there is and will ever only be ignorance. Of course, it's necessary to restrict them from the incompetent (young children, mentally disabled, and mentally unstable, e.g. sociopathic). Those people cannot be educated. But everyone else can and should be taught what it means to be holding a gun.
Yeah, we haven't had a P-Tr event since, well, the Permian-Triassic boundary some 250 million years ago. The planet's quite due for another one of those.
Who wants to bet that humans will be in that 30% of surviving vertebrates?
In other news, scientists have concluded that the P-Tr event was caused by a highly advanced ancient life form that burned vast reservoirs of coal for energy and denied the negative effects of global warming up until the very end. Oh, and they were trying to mine asteroids too.
You Brits and your modicums of sophistication, like your Monarchy, Obamacare on steroids, Fish and Chips, and Education.
We simple folks living on this side of the pond don't believe in that kind of stuff. The only thing we'll ever want and need to know here is "America, Fuck Yeah!"
Truecrypt. It's not completely secure since they probably have copies of your container elsewhere they can use to do a bitwise comparison against. But it's more work for them to decrypt than plaintext, and practically necessitates a determined attacker.
Assuming they don't already securely encrypt your data during transit and in storage.
You guys are lucky you have a functioning democracy.
Some of us are not nearly as lucky, as we live under one in name only. We're also louder about being one than everyone else despite being otherwise (can you hazard a guess as to why?).
I get what he's saying. I get what you're saying too.
In an ideal situation, the product is the movie itself, with the cost of the overhead distributed over the entire product.
But in reality, the movie is just content. The product is the film, the DVD, the air rights, etc. GP is saying that most people are too focused on one product, in particular the film that gets shipped to theaters (or really, the right to show the film), because it's the most visible and has the biggest numbers associated with it, and neglect the numerous other products using the same content.
The accounting works the same. All the products utilize the same or similar content (e.g. the TV versions are edited). The costs for creating the initial product (the theatrical release) is high. The cost for creating the other derivative products is low.
Hollywood accounting is infamous for a bit more than splitting a movie's cost and revenue apart like that. They're more like, if a set burns down during the filming of some movie, it comes out of the profits of a completely unrelated movie (see GGP for the specific reference).
While one is just accounting and a bit shady, the other is completely ridiculous and over the top, bordering on fraud.
Not only that, but they can audit the code for potential security problems. It's hard to find very obscure security issues, but at least it's possible. With a closed-source OS (Windows), you're pretty much shit outta luck unless you're the U.S. government.
The root cause is a complete lack of respect for users: a view that users are nothing more than exploitable sources of money that need to be controlled.
These are two separate things. One does not follow the other.
Personally, I tend to agree with the former sentiment. The problem exists between the keyboard and chair. Apple is attempting to remove or at least marginalize that problem.
The latter I would disagree with. They don't necessarily (or have to) see users as exploitable sources of income. But they certainly are making tons of money as a result of this abusive but seemingly successful relationship. People don't have to give Apple money if they don't like the way they're treated. There are alternatives. Yet, they still do.
Ultimately, Apple (Jobs, really) realized one fundamental sociological thing: Most people don't want freedom. It's too much for them to handle.
Not sure who modded you up, but you're really, really wrong about how the legal system is supposed to work.
The prosecutor's job is not to determine whether to file charges or not. The prosecutor's job is to determine whether there's enough evidence, if the evidence is clean, etc. to file charges.
Guilty or not, liable or not, responsible or not, is for the jury to decide. It is not for the prosecutor, nor for the police for that matter, to determine guilt.
However--and this is a big however--since it is technically part of the prosecutor's job to bring something to court, if the prosecutor chooses not to bring something to court, neither judge nor jury nor the police can do anything about it. So the prosecutor does, from a practical sense, have a hand in determining the criminality of a situation.
It's the same with the police. Their actual job is to prevent crime, to stop criminal activity in progress, and to investigate any (and only certain) potential criminal behavior. As a part of their investigation, they gather evidence, collect witness statements, etc. and file them in a report. They aren't supposed to determine whether a crime has been committed or not either. But as a part of their responsbilities, they need to make the judgment call of whether an action can be considered criminal or not. So they too have a hand in determining criminality.
The entire sequence of events that leads to a conviction is largely a chain of events that pretty much begins with the police and the police report, and ends with the jury. If that chain is broken in any part, the person walks away scott free. But that's not how the system is supposed to work. It's just how the system ended up working.
It's certainly easier to see under streetlights. But you're not looking for your set of keys that you lost under these streetlights. To look for keys you lost is making the presumption that the keys exist, and that you lost them under the streetlight. In your analogy, you're looking for something specific, a thing you can attach a proper noun to.
What they're doing is more like looking for dicarded chewing gum. You think it exists. You're not looking for any specific piece of chewing gum (though you may be limiting your search by only looking for the red ones). You're looking under the streetlights because it's easier to find what you're looking for there.
That's because each level is newer than the previous. The challenges specific to each level are greater and less understood as you go up the levels.
We've been using the same manufacturing process and techniques for centuries. We know the most efficient, effective process to do what we need to do. We know what problems can arise, what we can do beforehand to prevent it, and what we can do once it happens, as well as what problems to address proactively and what to address reactively. We are now able to adapt to new requirements quickly. In short, we collectively have had a lot of experience in every aspect of manufacturing.
We've been circuit designing for decades. We know most of the pitfalls, and the best practices. We have a good grasp of the potential problems. We don't have a solution for all of them. But we can usually identify and work around the problems we can't resolve. There are a good number of competent designers, and a few really, really good designers.
APIs and toolkits have only been around for half that time. The GUI has been around for only three decades. Most users haven't had a computer for more than fifteen years. Each one is less and less mature, more and more experimental.
It's completely natural. What's unnatural is expectations that things mature quicker today than yesterday. We'd like to think we're smarter than people five thousand years ago, and hence we're not subject to their standards and limitations, but that kind of thinking is just delusions of the arrogant.
All we can say is very low level exposure to the neonicontinoids isn't acutely dangerous for humans. Everything else is up for grabs.
You can say that about everything. That risk is the cost of progress.
To study effects over a long term, you need to do it over generations. And they need to be sufficiently isolated to prevent data contamination.
In this day and age, when progress doubles in 18 months, that kind of time frame not even on the same level of existence, much less inside the ballpark.
Slashdot Mirror
The chicken came first in both scenarios.
The egg is an adaptation to help sexual reproduction. Simplier organisms reproduce asexually or sexually but without eggs (the shelled kind or the gamete). Thus, the organism (chicken) came first.
Now, in creation, the chicken obviously came first. Prior to the fall, there was no such thing as mating, and hence there wouldn't be eggs. But there were chickens.
That's RMA to all the lay people.
Yeah, but support comes in many forms. For example, how we "support" Pakistan or "support" Taiwan or "support" Israel.
I wouldn't be surprised if we set up a (semi-) permanent base there as a launchpad for future middle east and east asia operations. We have bases in Germany and Japan.
Tl;dr, pulling the troops out and continuing to support them are not mutually exclusive.
I quote Spider-man:
With great power comes great responsibility.
Power refers to the power that one person holds over another. Guns are this great power. They can inflict, in less than a second, what the next most lethal commonplace weapon cannot inflict in two seconds. It takes two seconds to reach someone and stab them with a knife. It takes someone with a gun less than a second to aim and shoot. That extra second and a half is huge. It is made possible by a huge difference in power on the order of several magnitudes. It is the difference between a situation that's out of control, and regaining control over the situation.
People fail to appreciate just how much additional power a gun has over a knife. They don't understand what they've put into their own hands.
And so it gets misused, abused. Accidents happen. Tragedies occur. These things don't happen because people enjoy causing harm to others. They happen because they don't understand the sheer magnitude of their ability to do harm that they now suddenly possess.
The antidote of this is not to ban guns, or to impose significant restrictions. It is education. Education encompasses more than just usage. Education also includes exploring the ethics and morality of gun usage. But if guns are a taboo subject, then there is and will ever only be ignorance. Of course, it's necessary to restrict them from the incompetent (young children, mentally disabled, and mentally unstable, e.g. sociopathic). Those people cannot be educated. But everyone else can and should be taught what it means to be holding a gun.
GP's WWII: Dalvik vs. JVM.
Yeah, we haven't had a P-Tr event since, well, the Permian-Triassic boundary some 250 million years ago. The planet's quite due for another one of those.
Who wants to bet that humans will be in that 30% of surviving vertebrates?
In other news, scientists have concluded that the P-Tr event was caused by a highly advanced ancient life form that burned vast reservoirs of coal for energy and denied the negative effects of global warming up until the very end. Oh, and they were trying to mine asteroids too.
Public radio and TV are also good places to start.
Of course, reality is known to have a liberal bias, so it's Fox News for me.
The year 2000 called. They want their election results back.
You Brits and your modicums of sophistication, like your Monarchy, Obamacare on steroids, Fish and Chips, and Education.
We simple folks living on this side of the pond don't believe in that kind of stuff. The only thing we'll ever want and need to know here is "America, Fuck Yeah!"
America, Fuck Yeah!
China had their Great Leap Forward. Looks like we're about to take the plunge ourselves.
Truecrypt. It's not completely secure since they probably have copies of your container elsewhere they can use to do a bitwise comparison against. But it's more work for them to decrypt than plaintext, and practically necessitates a determined attacker.
Assuming they don't already securely encrypt your data during transit and in storage.
You guys are lucky you have a functioning democracy.
Some of us are not nearly as lucky, as we live under one in name only. We're also louder about being one than everyone else despite being otherwise (can you hazard a guess as to why?).
I get what he's saying. I get what you're saying too.
In an ideal situation, the product is the movie itself, with the cost of the overhead distributed over the entire product.
But in reality, the movie is just content. The product is the film, the DVD, the air rights, etc. GP is saying that most people are too focused on one product, in particular the film that gets shipped to theaters (or really, the right to show the film), because it's the most visible and has the biggest numbers associated with it, and neglect the numerous other products using the same content.
The accounting works the same. All the products utilize the same or similar content (e.g. the TV versions are edited). The costs for creating the initial product (the theatrical release) is high. The cost for creating the other derivative products is low.
Hollywood accounting is infamous for a bit more than splitting a movie's cost and revenue apart like that. They're more like, if a set burns down during the filming of some movie, it comes out of the profits of a completely unrelated movie (see GGP for the specific reference).
While one is just accounting and a bit shady, the other is completely ridiculous and over the top, bordering on fraud.
Not only that, but they can audit the code for potential security problems. It's hard to find very obscure security issues, but at least it's possible. With a closed-source OS (Windows), you're pretty much shit outta luck unless you're the U.S. government.
The root cause is a complete lack of respect for users: a view that users are nothing more than exploitable sources of money that need to be controlled.
These are two separate things. One does not follow the other.
Personally, I tend to agree with the former sentiment. The problem exists between the keyboard and chair. Apple is attempting to remove or at least marginalize that problem.
The latter I would disagree with. They don't necessarily (or have to) see users as exploitable sources of income. But they certainly are making tons of money as a result of this abusive but seemingly successful relationship. People don't have to give Apple money if they don't like the way they're treated. There are alternatives. Yet, they still do.
Ultimately, Apple (Jobs, really) realized one fundamental sociological thing: Most people don't want freedom. It's too much for them to handle.
I see you're a native Californian.
how can anyone be sure that there is a rational explanation for everything?
You can't, because it is factually untrue.
Proof: women.
Not to mention as someone else said before: SQL.
That's Oracle's bread and butter.
She's blind, not dumb.
Not sure who modded you up, but you're really, really wrong about how the legal system is supposed to work.
The prosecutor's job is not to determine whether to file charges or not. The prosecutor's job is to determine whether there's enough evidence, if the evidence is clean, etc. to file charges.
Guilty or not, liable or not, responsible or not, is for the jury to decide. It is not for the prosecutor, nor for the police for that matter, to determine guilt.
However--and this is a big however--since it is technically part of the prosecutor's job to bring something to court, if the prosecutor chooses not to bring something to court, neither judge nor jury nor the police can do anything about it. So the prosecutor does, from a practical sense, have a hand in determining the criminality of a situation.
It's the same with the police. Their actual job is to prevent crime, to stop criminal activity in progress, and to investigate any (and only certain) potential criminal behavior. As a part of their investigation, they gather evidence, collect witness statements, etc. and file them in a report. They aren't supposed to determine whether a crime has been committed or not either. But as a part of their responsbilities, they need to make the judgment call of whether an action can be considered criminal or not. So they too have a hand in determining criminality.
The entire sequence of events that leads to a conviction is largely a chain of events that pretty much begins with the police and the police report, and ends with the jury. If that chain is broken in any part, the person walks away scott free. But that's not how the system is supposed to work. It's just how the system ended up working.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that Slashdot is "News for Nerds" OR "Stuff that Matters".
FTFY.
Your analogy still fails.
It's certainly easier to see under streetlights. But you're not looking for your set of keys that you lost under these streetlights. To look for keys you lost is making the presumption that the keys exist, and that you lost them under the streetlight. In your analogy, you're looking for something specific, a thing you can attach a proper noun to.
What they're doing is more like looking for dicarded chewing gum. You think it exists. You're not looking for any specific piece of chewing gum (though you may be limiting your search by only looking for the red ones). You're looking under the streetlights because it's easier to find what you're looking for there.
Damnit, why is your incredibly informative post so damn far down? Nobody reads this far...
That's because each level is newer than the previous. The challenges specific to each level are greater and less understood as you go up the levels.
We've been using the same manufacturing process and techniques for centuries. We know the most efficient, effective process to do what we need to do. We know what problems can arise, what we can do beforehand to prevent it, and what we can do once it happens, as well as what problems to address proactively and what to address reactively. We are now able to adapt to new requirements quickly. In short, we collectively have had a lot of experience in every aspect of manufacturing.
We've been circuit designing for decades. We know most of the pitfalls, and the best practices. We have a good grasp of the potential problems. We don't have a solution for all of them. But we can usually identify and work around the problems we can't resolve. There are a good number of competent designers, and a few really, really good designers.
APIs and toolkits have only been around for half that time. The GUI has been around for only three decades. Most users haven't had a computer for more than fifteen years. Each one is less and less mature, more and more experimental.
It's completely natural. What's unnatural is expectations that things mature quicker today than yesterday. We'd like to think we're smarter than people five thousand years ago, and hence we're not subject to their standards and limitations, but that kind of thinking is just delusions of the arrogant.
All we can say is very low level exposure to the neonicontinoids isn't acutely dangerous for humans. Everything else is up for grabs.
You can say that about everything. That risk is the cost of progress.
To study effects over a long term, you need to do it over generations. And they need to be sufficiently isolated to prevent data contamination.
In this day and age, when progress doubles in 18 months, that kind of time frame not even on the same level of existence, much less inside the ballpark.