He has a running joke where he gets out-of-control mad and chastises himself, saying "keep it together, Colbert!"--pronounced Cole-burt. It's a bit of meta-humor.
Over the past 8 years I've owned or used laptops from Toshiba, IBM, Dell, HP Compaq (2 of them), and Apple (iBook and new MacBook Pro). The new Macbook Pro is by far the stiffest. Open up a laptop and see how much the bottom half flexes. IME the degree of flex relates directly to how long the laptop will last. The Toshiba and both HPs died when the frame became too flexible and broke the motherboard. 12 inch iBooks had a known defect in this area. The IBM was pretty stiff but the new MacBook is really surprisingly strong.
Also I have to mention sleep/wake. No Windows machine I've ever owned or used had a good sleep/wake capability. They did not respond reliably to the lid open/close, and multiple sleep/wake cycles often created instability that needed a logout/login or sometimes a reboot. Whereas both Macs have had completely reliable sleep/wake using the lid. The only time I log out of my account on the MacBook is to run as admin, and the only time I reboot is after a software update. Otherwise it just sleeps when I'm not using it.
Congratulations on getting your scientific theory published in the comments of Slashdot--a venue noted for its accuracy and rigor. I'm sure our leading scientists and politicians will see it when they log in on Monday morning.:-)
Bolster our economy? Hardly. If we do the things many global warming proponents want, it will destroy our economy through insanely high taxes on current energy, likely resort in massive energy shortages (face it, solar / wind / hydro just don't produce the amount of power that coal / oil does), and cause technology to stagnate for who knows how long.
I love how people who question the predictive ability of a natural science theory (global warming) so readily accept the predictions of economic theory. Because, you know, economists have such a better record with predictions than natural scientists.
Besides, you're begging the question. If climatic changes due to global warming are anything near what is being predicted, then inaction will also have an economic cost, and perhaps higher.
The Al Gore Rule, which I have formulated over the course of years of participating in discussions about global warming, is this:
The degree of a person's fixation on Al Gore is inversely proportional to their expertise in climate science.
Note that this works equally well for either side in the debate.
If you wish to disprove global warming, you do not need to disprove Al Gore's expertise. You need to prove that the data and theory of thousands of highly trained and experienced scientists around the world is incorrect. Best of luck.
He himself sounded off about quantum entanglement, and guess what--despite being Einstein, he was wrong. And scientists discarded his opinions just like they discard all personal opinions that don't have supporting evidence.
Einstein started off as a no-name patent clerk and became "Einstein" not because of his name, but because he was proven right. And although we don't remember their names now, there were prominent scientists who staked their reputations on Einstein being wrong. But over the long run in science, all that matters is what you can prove, not who you are.
The point is not that Bangladesh flooding is caused by global warming. It's simply a good example of how human actions can create expensive and deadly human consequences. Global warming is such a concept writ globally. You're happy to lecture other people about how concrete can't absorb water (duh), but seem completely unwilling to listen to what other people are telling you about the consequences of increasing the heat content of our climate system.
You're right that many more people will die if it gets colder. Yet you're too ignorant to realize that global warming will likely cause some areas of the globe to get colder than they are now, due to shifting climate patterns. You would learn that and many other things if you accorded other people some of the respect you demand for your own statements.
The difference is that I have prior relationship with my employer--aka "a job"--and if this dude wants to get paid by Apple he should get a job with them. My employer and I know ahead of time that I'm going to get paid to build a Web site. I don't go around building Web sites with companies' names on them in my free time, and then complain when they don't pay me for my work.
He said he's not going to go through the trouble of finding and bugs and writing an exploit and then giving it away to Apple for free when they pay others money to do the exact same thing.
I guess I missed the part where someone put a gun to his head and forced him to go through all that trouble. He's right that some people do get paid to find bugs--and if he wants to get paid, he should get one of those jobs. Otherwise, yes, he's a black hat. Dark grey, minimum. It's not like this is the only thing a programmer can choose to do with their skills and time.
The static point is that if you find an exploit, you are under no obligation to inform the vendor. You are not evil if you do not inform the vendor.
I couldn't disagree more. If I walk by a house and see that the door is standing wide open, and then I see the owner on the street a couple minutes later, the ethics are clear. I should tell the guy he left his door open. I'm under no legal obligation but I should because it is the right thing to do. If he gets robbed later I should feel bad because I could have helped prevent it.
Well maybe you say, no, they're a business. Doesn't matter. If I'm in a jewelry store and see that a clerk forgot to put away a diamond ring, which is the more ethical choice of action: ignore it and walk away, or remind the clerk to put it away?
It is NOT ethical to go through life just ignoring what you perceive. Copping out is a choice too. Didn't you see Spiderman??
It's particularly bad if you go around LOOKING for open doors or unlocked jewelry cabinets. You want to try to convince me that it's ok to spend a lot of time and effort looking for flaws, then just walk away when one is found? That seems like a ridiculous argument to me. Who goes through a bunch of effort and trouble to find a weakness, and then just blithely does nothing?
Sorry, but I think you are a scumbag if you find an exploit in a popular OS or piece of software and do not report it to the vendor. Because if you found it, someone else will too and eventually it will get exploited. That will have a real impact on real people and you could have prevented it.
If that doesn't seem fair, here's the way out--don't go looking for exploits unless you're contracted to do it. It's a very fair bargain--you don't waste your time and society doesn't hold you responsible for that choice. But please don't ask me to believe that it's ok to go hunting for exploits, but then it's somehow someone else's fault you don't get paid for the ones you find. That is what consulting contracts are for.
Yes, but one reason it got so many more votes than the other 3 NASA names is the Firefly connection. It was discussed here and on other boards during the voting.
The Xenu ship has sailed. Everyone knows what it is now. For instance Colbert mentions it on his show all the time, and his nightly audience is bigger than the total number of votes in this NASA content.
The vote had nothing to with harming Scientology--naming it Xenu was just a nerd joke, just like Battletoad or Stephen Colbert or Serenity.
You're exactly right, and it proves how stupid philosophy has gotten ever since its divorce from science and the law was finalized.
"Free will" in the philosophical sense does not matter, because the way philosophy defines it, it is some ethereal abstract thing. In practical applications the concept of "free will" can be much more concretely defined as the ability to choose one course of action over another. This is the definition of free will upon which U.S. law is based (because how can you be "guilty" if you could not have chosen any other course of action--see the concept of "mens rea" as well).
In addition a foundation of science is our ability to conduct experiments to test theory. We've not yet been able to reliably and precisely predict the behavior of an individual human over any appreciable span of time.
In terms of particle physics, nothing is alive, let alone possesses consciousness or free will. Electrons work exactly the same way in me as they do in a cloud of smoke. And like a cloud of smoke there is no way to predict the precise movement of me beyond a very short span of time. And yet there is a lot of practical utility in distinguishing between things that are "alive" or not at the level of our everyday experience.
I do bring extra cards but they're not invulnerable. Without a second device there's no way to back up the images. Some cameras now come with dual card slots for that reason (but mine doesn't).
I'm not saying that Apple, as a company, focuses solely on functional design. In addition to function, it's pretty obvious and well-known that they really, really care how their products look and are positioned in the marketplace. Steve Jobs recently canceled a new Apple store in New York because he did not like the neighborhood for instance.
They're just not stupid enough to make that the focus of their marketing videos.
Exactly. Assuming the vehicles are about the same vintage, the number one predictor of survival in a multi-vehicle accident is the mass of your vehicle. But larger vehicles (particularly SUVs) are also more likely to get into single-vehicle accidents--which I note as well.
It's like no one read my post beyond the first couple sentences.
For all the joking about how Apple is for effete fashion victims, the biggest difference I noticed from the Dell video is that the Apple video focuses almost entirely on functional design. In the Apple video, they don't say they use aluminum because it's sexy, they say it's used to provide rigidity for light weight. Instead of a fancy apartment we see industrial manufacturing. There's no spokesmodel (all the speakers are staff/management at Apple), and the only model is seen only for a few seconds at the end. There's no talk of fashion or aphrodisiac or etched patterns for looks.
I think Dell is totally misreading the market if they think there is going to a big demand for the Adamo based just on how hot and fashionable it looks. That's especially true now...I think conspicuous consumption went out as a life goal for most people about 6 months ago. And even if people are willing to spend that much on a notebook, the way to get to their pocketbooks is to focus on the high-end quality of the product. It's the same reason people buy $450 Gore-Tex coats to walk their dog, or $55,000 SUVs to drive the kids to school.
But SUVs are objectively safer in many ways too. Sliding through a major intersection, would you rather be in a big SUV or a small sedan? If you do get t-boned, you're much more likely to survive in a larger, heavier, stiffer vehicle than in a sporty little sedan.
But when it comes to behavior, driver safety is a driver problem, period. I'm a conscious driver (I pay close attention when I'm driving) and in traffic I feel LESS safe in an SUV because I know it is less maneuverable, has a longer stopping distance, and is more likely to slide out or tip over. I know my safety depends first and foremost on my ability to avoid accidents in the first place, and a smaller, more maneuverable car is often better for that. But no matter what I'm driving, I improve my safety just by thinking this way. It's obvious that not everyone does, because they are not taught to.
The path to safer drivers needs to start with better driver training. If you put every driver trainee through skids on wet or icy surfaces, you would have a lot more people understanding the limits of their vehicle. As it is now, U.S. driver training does almost nothing to teach people the limits of their machines. Driver education in the U.S. could much more accurately be called "traffic law and parking" training, because that is what it focuses on primarily. Not actually avoiding or managing situations that could be risky.
Slashdot Mirror
He has a running joke where he gets out-of-control mad and chastises himself, saying "keep it together, Colbert!"--pronounced Cole-burt. It's a bit of meta-humor.
Just posting to say that I don't want the achievement...crap.
Over the past 8 years I've owned or used laptops from Toshiba, IBM, Dell, HP Compaq (2 of them), and Apple (iBook and new MacBook Pro). The new Macbook Pro is by far the stiffest. Open up a laptop and see how much the bottom half flexes. IME the degree of flex relates directly to how long the laptop will last. The Toshiba and both HPs died when the frame became too flexible and broke the motherboard. 12 inch iBooks had a known defect in this area. The IBM was pretty stiff but the new MacBook is really surprisingly strong.
Also I have to mention sleep/wake. No Windows machine I've ever owned or used had a good sleep/wake capability. They did not respond reliably to the lid open/close, and multiple sleep/wake cycles often created instability that needed a logout/login or sometimes a reboot. Whereas both Macs have had completely reliable sleep/wake using the lid. The only time I log out of my account on the MacBook is to run as admin, and the only time I reboot is after a software update. Otherwise it just sleeps when I'm not using it.
What are the bosses going to do, stop by their desk and give them a stern talking-to?
It seems the U.S. should not be antagonizing the Russians, seeing as how we're going to be dependent on them for manned spaceflight pretty soon now...
Congratulations on getting your scientific theory published in the comments of Slashdot--a venue noted for its accuracy and rigor. I'm sure our leading scientists and politicians will see it when they log in on Monday morning. :-)
Bolster our economy? Hardly. If we do the things many global warming proponents want, it will destroy our economy through insanely high taxes on current energy, likely resort in massive energy shortages (face it, solar / wind / hydro just don't produce the amount of power that coal / oil does), and cause technology to stagnate for who knows how long.
I love how people who question the predictive ability of a natural science theory (global warming) so readily accept the predictions of economic theory. Because, you know, economists have such a better record with predictions than natural scientists.
Besides, you're begging the question. If climatic changes due to global warming are anything near what is being predicted, then inaction will also have an economic cost, and perhaps higher.
The Al Gore Rule, which I have formulated over the course of years of participating in discussions about global warming, is this:
The degree of a person's fixation on Al Gore is inversely proportional to their expertise in climate science.
Note that this works equally well for either side in the debate.
If you wish to disprove global warming, you do not need to disprove Al Gore's expertise. You need to prove that the data and theory of thousands of highly trained and experienced scientists around the world is incorrect. Best of luck.
He himself sounded off about quantum entanglement, and guess what--despite being Einstein, he was wrong. And scientists discarded his opinions just like they discard all personal opinions that don't have supporting evidence.
Einstein started off as a no-name patent clerk and became "Einstein" not because of his name, but because he was proven right. And although we don't remember their names now, there were prominent scientists who staked their reputations on Einstein being wrong. But over the long run in science, all that matters is what you can prove, not who you are.
The point is not that Bangladesh flooding is caused by global warming. It's simply a good example of how human actions can create expensive and deadly human consequences. Global warming is such a concept writ globally. You're happy to lecture other people about how concrete can't absorb water (duh), but seem completely unwilling to listen to what other people are telling you about the consequences of increasing the heat content of our climate system.
You're right that many more people will die if it gets colder. Yet you're too ignorant to realize that global warming will likely cause some areas of the globe to get colder than they are now, due to shifting climate patterns. You would learn that and many other things if you accorded other people some of the respect you demand for your own statements.
Yeah seriously--they already bleeped out half of the greatest science TV show of all time.
The difference is that I have prior relationship with my employer--aka "a job"--and if this dude wants to get paid by Apple he should get a job with them. My employer and I know ahead of time that I'm going to get paid to build a Web site. I don't go around building Web sites with companies' names on them in my free time, and then complain when they don't pay me for my work.
He said he's not going to go through the trouble of finding and bugs and writing an exploit and then giving it away to Apple for free when they pay others money to do the exact same thing.
I guess I missed the part where someone put a gun to his head and forced him to go through all that trouble. He's right that some people do get paid to find bugs--and if he wants to get paid, he should get one of those jobs. Otherwise, yes, he's a black hat. Dark grey, minimum. It's not like this is the only thing a programmer can choose to do with their skills and time.
The static point is that if you find an exploit, you are under no obligation to inform the vendor. You are not evil if you do not inform the vendor.
I couldn't disagree more. If I walk by a house and see that the door is standing wide open, and then I see the owner on the street a couple minutes later, the ethics are clear. I should tell the guy he left his door open. I'm under no legal obligation but I should because it is the right thing to do. If he gets robbed later I should feel bad because I could have helped prevent it.
Well maybe you say, no, they're a business. Doesn't matter. If I'm in a jewelry store and see that a clerk forgot to put away a diamond ring, which is the more ethical choice of action: ignore it and walk away, or remind the clerk to put it away?
It is NOT ethical to go through life just ignoring what you perceive. Copping out is a choice too. Didn't you see Spiderman??
It's particularly bad if you go around LOOKING for open doors or unlocked jewelry cabinets. You want to try to convince me that it's ok to spend a lot of time and effort looking for flaws, then just walk away when one is found? That seems like a ridiculous argument to me. Who goes through a bunch of effort and trouble to find a weakness, and then just blithely does nothing?
Sorry, but I think you are a scumbag if you find an exploit in a popular OS or piece of software and do not report it to the vendor. Because if you found it, someone else will too and eventually it will get exploited. That will have a real impact on real people and you could have prevented it.
If that doesn't seem fair, here's the way out--don't go looking for exploits unless you're contracted to do it. It's a very fair bargain--you don't waste your time and society doesn't hold you responsible for that choice. But please don't ask me to believe that it's ok to go hunting for exploits, but then it's somehow someone else's fault you don't get paid for the ones you find. That is what consulting contracts are for.
Yes, but one reason it got so many more votes than the other 3 NASA names is the Firefly connection. It was discussed here and on other boards during the voting.
The Xenu ship has sailed. Everyone knows what it is now. For instance Colbert mentions it on his show all the time, and his nightly audience is bigger than the total number of votes in this NASA content.
The vote had nothing to with harming Scientology--naming it Xenu was just a nerd joke, just like Battletoad or Stephen Colbert or Serenity.
You're exactly right, and it proves how stupid philosophy has gotten ever since its divorce from science and the law was finalized.
"Free will" in the philosophical sense does not matter, because the way philosophy defines it, it is some ethereal abstract thing. In practical applications the concept of "free will" can be much more concretely defined as the ability to choose one course of action over another. This is the definition of free will upon which U.S. law is based (because how can you be "guilty" if you could not have chosen any other course of action--see the concept of "mens rea" as well).
In addition a foundation of science is our ability to conduct experiments to test theory. We've not yet been able to reliably and precisely predict the behavior of an individual human over any appreciable span of time.
In terms of particle physics, nothing is alive, let alone possesses consciousness or free will. Electrons work exactly the same way in me as they do in a cloud of smoke. And like a cloud of smoke there is no way to predict the precise movement of me beyond a very short span of time. And yet there is a lot of practical utility in distinguishing between things that are "alive" or not at the level of our everyday experience.
I do bring extra cards but they're not invulnerable. Without a second device there's no way to back up the images. Some cameras now come with dual card slots for that reason (but mine doesn't).
Ah, thanks, I forgot about those. The word "card" threw me off I guess.
I'm not saying that Apple, as a company, focuses solely on functional design. In addition to function, it's pretty obvious and well-known that they really, really care how their products look and are positioned in the marketplace. Steve Jobs recently canceled a new Apple store in New York because he did not like the neighborhood for instance.
They're just not stupid enough to make that the focus of their marketing videos.
Exactly. Assuming the vehicles are about the same vintage, the number one predictor of survival in a multi-vehicle accident is the mass of your vehicle. But larger vehicles (particularly SUVs) are also more likely to get into single-vehicle accidents--which I note as well.
It's like no one read my post beyond the first couple sentences.
Did you even read my comment beyond the first line? We agree. Don't be an ass.
How do they use Macbook Airs (which have no card slot) with Verizon cards?
For all the joking about how Apple is for effete fashion victims, the biggest difference I noticed from the Dell video is that the Apple video focuses almost entirely on functional design. In the Apple video, they don't say they use aluminum because it's sexy, they say it's used to provide rigidity for light weight. Instead of a fancy apartment we see industrial manufacturing. There's no spokesmodel (all the speakers are staff/management at Apple), and the only model is seen only for a few seconds at the end. There's no talk of fashion or aphrodisiac or etched patterns for looks.
I think Dell is totally misreading the market if they think there is going to a big demand for the Adamo based just on how hot and fashionable it looks. That's especially true now...I think conspicuous consumption went out as a life goal for most people about 6 months ago. And even if people are willing to spend that much on a notebook, the way to get to their pocketbooks is to focus on the high-end quality of the product. It's the same reason people buy $450 Gore-Tex coats to walk their dog, or $55,000 SUVs to drive the kids to school.
Well at least now we know what Hank Paulson is doing with his free time.
But SUVs are objectively safer in many ways too. Sliding through a major intersection, would you rather be in a big SUV or a small sedan? If you do get t-boned, you're much more likely to survive in a larger, heavier, stiffer vehicle than in a sporty little sedan.
But when it comes to behavior, driver safety is a driver problem, period. I'm a conscious driver (I pay close attention when I'm driving) and in traffic I feel LESS safe in an SUV because I know it is less maneuverable, has a longer stopping distance, and is more likely to slide out or tip over. I know my safety depends first and foremost on my ability to avoid accidents in the first place, and a smaller, more maneuverable car is often better for that. But no matter what I'm driving, I improve my safety just by thinking this way. It's obvious that not everyone does, because they are not taught to.
The path to safer drivers needs to start with better driver training. If you put every driver trainee through skids on wet or icy surfaces, you would have a lot more people understanding the limits of their vehicle. As it is now, U.S. driver training does almost nothing to teach people the limits of their machines. Driver education in the U.S. could much more accurately be called "traffic law and parking" training, because that is what it focuses on primarily. Not actually avoiding or managing situations that could be risky.