It would be better if everyone on slashdot realized that reasoning by analogy is for cavemen. None of these things are the same. Stop pretending they are.
The problem I have is that people entertain the notion that we have free markets. Airlines, defense, auto, construction, energy [electricity and oil], pharma, agriculture, telecommunications, biomedical, software, banking, etc etc etc. Our entire economy [all major industries] are out of control with monopolists and oligopolists that collude to exploit the system in anyway they can. Its absurd and unfair to clamp down on a single company for doing what a corporation is suppose to do under the current system. The system is broken.
The problem isn't Microsoft, they just serve as a brilliant example. Punishing them accomplishes little except temporarily placating a bunch of narrow minded geeks.. IMO, industry wide collusion between corporations is a much bigger problem and it essentially defines our economy.
Wow, I read some of your other posts on other topics. It is sad to see someone seeminginly so educated behave this way.
Everything I've said is supported by the prevailing opinion in decades of published literature. My challenge stands for you to actually find this out for yourself. I'm not really sure if it has been your intention to troll. Either way, I stand behind my posts and enjoy seeing them contrasted by yours.
Do not let the other response fool you. Stirling designs have been developed for subs. I believe they are the same engines people are now trying to use for solar applications (of course modified).
The other response was partially correct, Stirlings are excellent because they are much quieter and their "white noise" is much less of a concern than the rumble of a diesel. However, the Stirling machines also have similar efficiencies to traditional diesel cycles and of course have a higher theoretical maximum efficiency.
The ones in the technical peer-reviewed papers are around 3%.
This is a blatant falsehood and indicates that you are clearly incapable of an objective assessment.
Yes, many Stirling engines have low efficiencies, but this isn't a technical defect. On the contrary, Stirling cycle is chosen because it offers the highest performance for a given deltaT. The deltaT serves as the constraint. Combine this with the benefits of cheap manufacturing and reliable operation and it becomes clear that Stirling is a research interest for small deltaT endeavors.
Perhaps you should actually check in with the literature, instead of make pretending. You will find numerous examples of Stirling engines of all sizes and types ranging from less than 1% efficiency to well over 30% efficiency. Similarly, you can check the literature for other heat engines and compare performance based on deltaT. If you do this you will see that you are wrong. As I have little stake in whether or not you believe me I will not do this leg work. I present the challenge so that other readers are not mistaken by your mis information
Then of course you could go into the refrigeration/cryocooler literature to discover how successful the Stirling cycle has become for heat pump applications. I again challenge you to make the appropriate efficiency comparisons with other technologies
From the language of your posts it is clear that you are educated. To be this stubborn against something you clearly have not investigated and don't fully understand is alarming and unfortunate. Please take my challenge and be open to the possibility that your superficial assessments, could in fact, be wrong.
I am glad that you can correctly estimate the required hot end temperature. However, you are off by a few degrees. Hint, deep space is cold.
There are no conspiracies needed. It is simple economics. There is no economic incentive to recreate the billions of dollars invested in other technologies for what would be marginal improvements in performance and reliability. At this point, materials limitations are constraining all heat engines... Temperature for temperature, a Stirling device can hit a higher efficiency as evident by any basic thermodynamic analysis.
With that in mind, Stirling devices are probably economicly regulated to niche roles. I'm not deying this and I am not insinuating any conspiracy against science, other than the unfortunate ramifications of our economic system.
Your reliaince on the Internet as a sole source for information is disturbing.
I'm not sure how ignorant you must be to catagorically define radioisotope as 'deadly'. The technology is very mature and has been used for decades to power thermoelectric devices. Furthermore, the beauty of heat as an input means that the Stirling device can aquire that hot end temperature by any means necessary including: concentrated sunlight, nuclear decay, fisson, combustion, or even one day fusion.
To be absolutely clear, my original response was a challenge to your claim that Stirling cycle devices are worthless. This is evidently not the case (unless you are intellectually confined to google searches). Their worth is slowly being realized for specific applications, such as Stirling Dish arrays and distributed CHP systems, and of course for power conversion on space systems. The exploration by NASA should clue you into the fact that the technology is real but economically constrained.
I thought for a moment you knew what you were talking about. After learning you do not have a clue, I no longer feel threatened. But then I guess I could have foreseen this, anyone with a basic understanding of thermodynamics would understand the strength of the Stirling cycle. Couple that with a basic knowledge of manufacturing and materials and you would fully understand the advantages over engines based off other cycles and why development has taken so long to get going (and for economic reasons likely will never challenge other programs).
A short summary!
1) Serious Stirling development did not start until the late 1970s (See, GE, Phillips, MD ( Boeing), NASA )
2) Brayton, otto, rankine, and diesel cycles had a very large head start on this development
3) NASA's radioisotope Stirling engines for deep space have efficiencies exceeding 45% in the package the size of a Diet coke.
All of this can be easily substantiated if you actually visit a library (GASP!), but I understand this concept might be foreign to you. Specifically one in a large University that allowed you access to all the journals, NASA reports, and company/contractor reports that detail these developments.
Even a Stirling engine can do better, and even that is totally useless.
Care to explain? I would argue that a Stirling cycle device can claim a higher efficiency than the venerable modern gas turbine.
A mass produced free piston device would similarly outmatch a gas turbine in reliability & maintenance, manufacturing cost, and lower vibration & sound output. It would do so while burning anything, funny fuel, garbage, or people like you. They could probably not compete on power/mass (e.g. airplanes), but some would even argue that. Of course, gas turbines have enjoyed a nice head start.
Invariably I think most interpersonal problems come from a lack of understanding, which as you have said comes from a "me too" attitude that overrides the simple act of listening (not just accomplished with the ears). This in turn is easily amplified by miscommunication.
It isn't entirely clear to me either how we disagree. I suspect that we don't disagree, just as most of these perceived problems do not exist. In our case, I can't really afford the time to seek out and explain the differences. In the broader sense, most people don't have the patience, we have to compete with unscrupulous agendas, and people generally don't spend their free time reviewing the triumphs and absurdities of humanity.
You initially called me out for focusing our attention on equality today versus the past. Despite our progress one thing is very clear to me. There is little to no distinction between real inequality/discrimination and perceived or thoughtless inequality/oppression. This makes a world of a difference while searching for answers, but incidentally makes no difference to those directly involved. It would be funny if only this discrepancy was itself not a root of so much consternation.
It sounds like your basic arguement is just 'hey, we're doing better than we've ever done before'. Apparently this has been a profound miscommunication on my part. To the contrary, outrage and zealotry are a necessary component to effecting change. It does not however mean these groups of people are ultimately right.
What are you looking for, thankfulness? I am looking for frank discussion about injustice without special distinction.
It cannot be addressed with people like you dismissing everything another section of humanity experiences as invalid, or the same or analagous as what you have experienced...
I squarely aim to address it. I believe it was you who explained how my opinions were irrelevant to the discussion. I insist they are equally relevant. Furthermore, again I point to the primary distinction between my opponents and I in this discussion. My humanity is relentlessly under attack. Presumptions are made about my character and my capacity to understand fundamental human problems.
The lesson to be learned is that... you first have to understand. To understand, you have to listen... and listen hard, and listen long, before you judge. And TO listen, you have to stop talking, and stop shutting people down. Because I guarantee you have not intuitively grasped the perspective of another group of people simply by thinking about it on your own..
You certainly have a very rigid expectation of exactly how I have formed my beliefs and opinions. I don't feel obligated to explain how my personal relationships, experiences, and intellect have combined to put me where I am today (this conversation has taken enough of my time!) Suffice it to say, I am predominantly a listener. I chuckled a bit when I considered your gender challenge. I have a group of friends who's collective behavior might stupefy you. An equal proportioned group completely and utterly dominated by abrasive and pig headed females. The group isn't without its alpha male archetypes either.
...and when you attack people with less power, they stop communicating. Try the mix gender discussion test sometime. It's quite eye opening to realize how blind to your own self absorbed short sightedness you really are, WHEN YOU WANT TO VALUE THE INPUT of people who are being pushed out of the discussion. I understand this and it is my understanding that is critical to allowing change. I have a tremendous capacity to arbitrate around these challenges. I am in a position where such environments occur routinely.
But most of the backlash to this is based in the same old tired shit about how (basically) these people who are trying to express some of the problems facing them because of their color, background, sex, etc... which are better, are improving, and still exist... are whiny victims. Can you please alert me where in my posts I have characterized anyone as a whiny victim?
...Well, to some degree that may be true. But to what degree, very few people on the white male side of the fence are really qualified to judge because very few of us have spent serious energy relating to people in other shoes to try and even understand what they are talking about. Most of us white males are simply knee jerk reacting to a perceived affront against us... just like the "black voice" people here... except we come from a very different point of power. I have attempted to avoid judgement in my posts. Perhaps you can show me where my prejudices dominate. I want it to be clear that the best way to attack these problems is for us to agree on a perspective we can all except. This perspective must necessarily come from some form of detachment from the problem in the larger context. I think you indirectly ask this of me. I think I have demonstrated my ability to do so. The same must be asked of everyone else, including those groups with grievances.
This is utter nonsense. Distinguishing these various examples of 'oppression' as somehow special is counter productive. It is divisive and strengthens existing stereotypes and divisions. Culture and society are evolving concepts and unfortunately we are left with a shit ton of baggage from previous iterations. I agree that exemplifying social injustices for the purpose of avoiding them in the future is a good idea. However, special distinction is inappropriate. A bit ironic because it is probably a trend of any inwardly focused group to reinforce and distinguish itself. But for every person or group of people who have been oppressed there is another who can claim worse.
Seriously.. you have no idea what it's like. Thus, what YOU think about it is completely irrelevant, and it would be good for you to remember that. Maybe you should spend some time finding out how little you know about what it's like.
What planet are you from? I am from earth, America actually, where I participate as a citizen, collaborate as scientist, enrich as an educator, support and guide as a friend, and feel as a human. What I think about "it" is completely relevant because I exist entirely within the context of these problems. This imaginary and incredibly divisive distinction is what I addressed in my previous comment to GP. Further, these various groups will never further their cause by condemning an opinion based on the same superficial differences they deride.
Next time you're in a mixed group of guys and women, for instance, pay attention to how much the guys talk compared to the women. And what's really funny, talk about women's issues. The guys will 9 times out of 10 dominate the discussion.
No, whats really funny is your insistence that this is either universal and/or unchanging. Evidently you are unaware of however many thousands of years of blatant inequality have been "corrected" in a relatively infinitesimal time period. Everything has to be put into context- much like the present radio personality.
Could it be, could it just possibly be that YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, SINCE YOU ARE NOT IN IT?
No it can not be. It can be, however, that people or groups are too inwardly focused on their own problems to not understand the universe, the apparent context of our existence, the evolution of humanity & culture, their place within this society, the intrinsic fairness we all deserve, and whatever future we are willing to strive and collaborate for.
I like the fag analogy a lot. I grew up hanging around gays; many of them stereotypically nasty. Can I call them fags? Can I use their much more foul jargon? If so, does this privilege extend beyond this particular group of homos? who might be unfamiliar with my background? if I leave my orientation ambiguous so they think I'm gay, is it okay then?
If not, what qualifies me to call a gay guy a fag? Although heterosexual, I know all sorts of gay mannerisms that I either inherently possess or could easily mimic. Is this enough? If I have sex with a homo am I then gay enough so that my use of jargon is suddenly unoffensive? Perhaps you should tell me the number of gay guys I need to fuck so that I may do this. Then I will know if I am justified in calling you a fag.
"You only say that because you aren't and never have been on the receiving end of these things.... Maybe, but you're not the one who's been discriminated against, verbally abused, beaten up and sometimes even murdered in cold blood, so who are you to talk?"
What do you know about me? I'm a faceless uname on \. At best and without my help you could only hope to know extremely superficial qualities of my person. You imply there is some monopoly on hate reserved for those 'minority groups' who share a superficial difference. People have been discriminated against, verbally abused, beaten up and sometimes even murdered in cold blood for all sorts of ridiculous reasons and sometimes for no good reason at all. "Minority" groups create added conflict by establishing their own precedence on hate. To say that I can't understand your problems because I don't share your exact set is both an insult to my humanity and patently hypocritical. In all of this what I feel I hear from well represented minority groups is that they want some recognition that their hardships are somehow more deserving of attention. I think the consequences of this interpretation are majorly responsible for the last bastions of generalized discrimination.
"The real reason for that is that it's not the word as such that matters (that is, the collection of letters, or the collection of sounds that make up its pronunciation), it's the meaning - the intent."
Yeah so how about you use context, body language (if applicable), and character to establish intent instead of subverting reason and drawing off your own insecurities to assign meaning. We all have problems and insecurities and perceived divisions that isolate us. I certainly encounter mine on a daily basis. One difference is that mine aren't as visible. I don't know if this is an advantage or disadvantage compared to high visibility. But special distinction is unfair and it just inspires more hate and encourages discrimination.
Yes, follow the revolution!! Let us completely abandon the wisdom of learned men in favor of blind logical truth!!! Then we can sit in our caves and contemplate this vapid intellectual constraint.
It is you who seems to misunderstand the problem. People here are capable of making decisions to avoid DRM. However, this is a minority and future markets are unlikely to develop based on what a small educated group of people think. One can easily imagine a scenario in the future where DRMless options have been all but removed from the market, at least to the extent as to effect your 'choice.'
Yeah I'm sure your wife appreciates your vicarious gloating, but I agree with the engineer. Interesting thing about your definition - it relies heavily on your personal subjectivity. I disagree with your description of his education and your definition. I don't think IT education lacking and we probably disagree on what missing elements constitute a "lacking." What does your wife say have to say about our ability to communicate?
Nor should they be treated the same. The PhD has an enriched skill set and they have also signaled an ability to commit to a difficult and long project, often forgoing immediate gratification (e.g. salary, lifestyle). They have sent signals to a business that a entry level sysadmin with BS or GED is unable to match.
Dedication and education are excellent providers of upward mobility and advanced degrees demonstrate this nicely. Such is life.
I'm going for a graduate degree and at this point I might chose a horrific, untimely death before I have to face a job market.
I don't think there is much point speculating about what they mean with efficiency and power increase numbers. It generally seems like we never get the straight dope about thermodynamic efficiency. Quoting the true fuel to wheel efficiency would just make us look bad in the eyes of a layman. So instead we create clever yet often meaningless metrics to impress people.
oh dear I apologize about the formatting
data analysis tools common spreadsheet functions Charts Track changes commenting true compatibility with other MS office users picture editing tools speed basic drawing tools
Data analysis tools / common spreadsheet functions
Charts
Track changes / commenting
true compatibility with other MS office users
picture editing tools
speed
basic drawing tools
All these features are essential and are either non existent, unstable, poorly implemented, or vastly inferior. I run office03 through cedega and it's still faster and more stable. I find both abiword & gnumeric are better than OO and I use them when I don't need to collaborate and I don't need anything technical. I've been meaning to put more effort into some of the ajax web alternatives, but I don't like the idea of remote storage.
Add to that the nauseating eyesore that is the OO GUI and it is no longer worth considering.
Using windmills to generate hydrogen is hardly his idea, but in fact one that currently occupies many research groups with researchers that most people would probably not identify as stupid. As much as I would love to deride the 'argumenation' of your dutch CEO, may I simply point out that there are other methods for completing each and every step in your proposed scenario. I don't understand how you (or he) feel(s) this case is representative of the generic goal of using wind power to produce hydrogen locally. Furthermore, how is it incompatible with the gentile load[ing] and unload[ing] of hydrogen using metal hydrides? Why exactly can't they be incorporated into your hypothetical scheme to alleviate some of the problems you name? Lastly, don't you think it's a bit silly for you to chastise GP for making criticisms based on incomplete information when you do the exact same thing?
Branding your post with your degrees in some vain search for credibility is embarrassing.
You are probably correct. Perhaps in this journalist's fantasy world microturbines will be so cheap such that the inefficiencies associated with size will be washed away by pure economic goodness. But I doubt it.
This is silly. Very few people have the capacity to read the original research. Virtually none have the time to do it without being paid. Basing conclusions on derivatives and interpretations of this research leads to trouble. The current scenario is a perfect example; sensationalized doomsday claims versus baseless skepticism unfortunately define "the debate."
Or that's a rather weak expression of reading comprehension. GP published a slashdot comment not a PhD dissertation. I fail to see how the comment reflects his entire understanding of the issue given you are in complete agreement, grandstanding insults aside. I would say that setting off that conflict certainly requires that it played a part.
Our "agreeing to be governed" (as you put it) is something that we renew on a continual basis. This is why we have elections. The compact that Americans have with their government comes from one direction: us to them. We give the government the right to govern, the government does not grant us rights.
I'm not convinced of this. The shackles & chains have been in place a long awhile. It will take significant effort (beyond democratic) to alter the way we are governed.
And regarding what you call my "attempts and honorable and emotional rhetoric", I will not apologize for my honor or my emotion. Naturally. I would never be foolish enough to request or expect this.
And if you think the only type of tyranny is where you get "treated as a slave, whipped and beaten", I suggest you pick up a good history of the 20th century.
These were simply the allusions I developed from your diatribe. You sound like a history book, the kind adults force upon children when it's dangerous to endorse children's critical thinking. The US has never been a shining "beacon of freedom." Using terms like this give me significant pause to think about your grip on reality. We were the natural evolution of western thinking society. We have at certain times had good sense, other times had good leaders, and quite frankly gathered our fair share of good fortune. I'm glad there are people with the beliefs you have as a balancing act, but I wish these beliefs were presented within the framework we have to live in. That is within the scope of a democratic government, containing uncertainties, and entailing all the competing beliefs about life, liberty, and happiness.
I'm not a centrist, but I do strive to be objective. I don't think I/we have anything to gain sensationalizing things to the effect of black & white. sic, the snide remarks;-D JAQ
Slashdot Mirror
It would be better if everyone on slashdot realized that reasoning by analogy is for cavemen. None of these things are the same. Stop pretending they are.
The problem I have is that people entertain the notion that we have free markets. Airlines, defense, auto, construction, energy [electricity and oil], pharma, agriculture, telecommunications, biomedical, software, banking, etc etc etc. Our entire economy [all major industries] are out of control with monopolists and oligopolists that collude to exploit the system in anyway they can. Its absurd and unfair to clamp down on a single company for doing what a corporation is suppose to do under the current system. The system is broken.
The problem isn't Microsoft, they just serve as a brilliant example. Punishing them accomplishes little except temporarily placating a bunch of narrow minded geeks.. IMO, industry wide collusion between corporations is a much bigger problem and it essentially defines our economy.
Wow, I read some of your other posts on other topics. It is sad to see someone seeminginly so educated behave this way. Everything I've said is supported by the prevailing opinion in decades of published literature. My challenge stands for you to actually find this out for yourself. I'm not really sure if it has been your intention to troll. Either way, I stand behind my posts and enjoy seeing them contrasted by yours.
Do not let the other response fool you. Stirling designs have been developed for subs. I believe they are the same engines people are now trying to use for solar applications (of course modified).
The other response was partially correct, Stirlings are excellent because they are much quieter and their "white noise" is much less of a concern than the rumble of a diesel. However, the Stirling machines also have similar efficiencies to traditional diesel cycles and of course have a higher theoretical maximum efficiency.
The ones in the technical peer-reviewed papers are around 3%.
This is a blatant falsehood and indicates that you are clearly incapable of an objective assessment.
Yes, many Stirling engines have low efficiencies, but this isn't a technical defect. On the contrary, Stirling cycle is chosen because it offers the highest performance for a given deltaT. The deltaT serves as the constraint. Combine this with the benefits of cheap manufacturing and reliable operation and it becomes clear that Stirling is a research interest for small deltaT endeavors.
Perhaps you should actually check in with the literature, instead of make pretending. You will find numerous examples of Stirling engines of all sizes and types ranging from less than 1% efficiency to well over 30% efficiency. Similarly, you can check the literature for other heat engines and compare performance based on deltaT. If you do this you will see that you are wrong. As I have little stake in whether or not you believe me I will not do this leg work. I present the challenge so that other readers are not mistaken by your mis information
Then of course you could go into the refrigeration/cryocooler literature to discover how successful the Stirling cycle has become for heat pump applications. I again challenge you to make the appropriate efficiency comparisons with other technologies
From the language of your posts it is clear that you are educated. To be this stubborn against something you clearly have not investigated and don't fully understand is alarming and unfortunate. Please take my challenge and be open to the possibility that your superficial assessments, could in fact, be wrong.
I am glad that you can correctly estimate the required hot end temperature. However, you are off by a few degrees. Hint, deep space is cold.
There are no conspiracies needed. It is simple economics. There is no economic incentive to recreate the billions of dollars invested in other technologies for what would be marginal improvements in performance and reliability. At this point, materials limitations are constraining all heat engines... Temperature for temperature, a Stirling device can hit a higher efficiency as evident by any basic thermodynamic analysis.
With that in mind, Stirling devices are probably economicly regulated to niche roles. I'm not deying this and I am not insinuating any conspiracy against science, other than the unfortunate ramifications of our economic system.
Your reliaince on the Internet as a sole source for information is disturbing.
I'm not sure how ignorant you must be to catagorically define radioisotope as 'deadly'. The technology is very mature and has been used for decades to power thermoelectric devices. Furthermore, the beauty of heat as an input means that the Stirling device can aquire that hot end temperature by any means necessary including: concentrated sunlight, nuclear decay, fisson, combustion, or even one day fusion.
To be absolutely clear, my original response was a challenge to your claim that Stirling cycle devices are worthless. This is evidently not the case (unless you are intellectually confined to google searches). Their worth is slowly being realized for specific applications, such as Stirling Dish arrays and distributed CHP systems, and of course for power conversion on space systems. The exploration by NASA should clue you into the fact that the technology is real but economically constrained.
I thought for a moment you knew what you were talking about. After learning you do not have a clue, I no longer feel threatened. But then I guess I could have foreseen this, anyone with a basic understanding of thermodynamics would understand the strength of the Stirling cycle. Couple that with a basic knowledge of manufacturing and materials and you would fully understand the advantages over engines based off other cycles and why development has taken so long to get going (and for economic reasons likely will never challenge other programs). A short summary! 1) Serious Stirling development did not start until the late 1970s (See, GE, Phillips, MD ( Boeing), NASA ) 2) Brayton, otto, rankine, and diesel cycles had a very large head start on this development 3) NASA's radioisotope Stirling engines for deep space have efficiencies exceeding 45% in the package the size of a Diet coke. All of this can be easily substantiated if you actually visit a library (GASP!), but I understand this concept might be foreign to you. Specifically one in a large University that allowed you access to all the journals, NASA reports, and company/contractor reports that detail these developments.
Even a Stirling engine can do better, and even that is totally useless. Care to explain? I would argue that a Stirling cycle device can claim a higher efficiency than the venerable modern gas turbine. A mass produced free piston device would similarly outmatch a gas turbine in reliability & maintenance, manufacturing cost, and lower vibration & sound output. It would do so while burning anything, funny fuel, garbage, or people like you. They could probably not compete on power/mass (e.g. airplanes), but some would even argue that. Of course, gas turbines have enjoyed a nice head start.
Invariably I think most interpersonal problems come from a lack of understanding, which as you have said comes from a "me too" attitude that overrides the simple act of listening (not just accomplished with the ears). This in turn is easily amplified by miscommunication.
It isn't entirely clear to me either how we disagree. I suspect that we don't disagree, just as most of these perceived problems do not exist. In our case, I can't really afford the time to seek out and explain the differences. In the broader sense, most people don't have the patience, we have to compete with unscrupulous agendas, and people generally don't spend their free time reviewing the triumphs and absurdities of humanity.
You initially called me out for focusing our attention on equality today versus the past. Despite our progress one thing is very clear to me. There is little to no distinction between real inequality/discrimination and perceived or thoughtless inequality/oppression. This makes a world of a difference while searching for answers, but incidentally makes no difference to those directly involved. It would be funny if only this discrepancy was itself not a root of so much consternation.
Thanks for the discussion,
Josh
It sounds like your basic arguement is just 'hey, we're doing better than we've ever done before'.
... you first have to understand. To understand, you have to listen... and listen hard, and listen long, before you judge. And TO listen, you have to stop talking, and stop shutting people down. Because I guarantee you have not intuitively grasped the perspective of another group of people simply by thinking about it on your own..
...and when you attack people with less power, they stop communicating. Try the mix gender discussion test sometime. It's quite eye opening to realize how blind to your own self absorbed short sightedness you really are, WHEN YOU WANT TO VALUE THE INPUT of people who are being pushed out of the discussion.
...Well, to some degree that may be true. But to what degree, very few people on the white male side of the fence are really qualified to judge because very few of us have spent serious energy relating to people in other shoes to try and even understand what they are talking about. Most of us white males are simply knee jerk reacting to a perceived affront against us... just like the "black voice" people here... except we come from a very different point of power.
Apparently this has been a profound miscommunication on my part. To the contrary, outrage and zealotry are a necessary component to effecting change. It does not however mean these groups of people are ultimately right.
What are you looking for, thankfulness?
I am looking for frank discussion about injustice without special distinction.
It cannot be addressed with people like you dismissing everything another section of humanity experiences as invalid, or the same or analagous as what you have experienced...
I squarely aim to address it. I believe it was you who explained how my opinions were irrelevant to the discussion. I insist they are equally relevant. Furthermore, again I point to the primary distinction between my opponents and I in this discussion. My humanity is relentlessly under attack. Presumptions are made about my character and my capacity to understand fundamental human problems.
The lesson to be learned is that
You certainly have a very rigid expectation of exactly how I have formed my beliefs and opinions. I don't feel obligated to explain how my personal relationships, experiences, and intellect have combined to put me where I am today (this conversation has taken enough of my time!) Suffice it to say, I am predominantly a listener. I chuckled a bit when I considered your gender challenge. I have a group of friends who's collective behavior might stupefy you. An equal proportioned group completely and utterly dominated by abrasive and pig headed females. The group isn't without its alpha male archetypes either.
I understand this and it is my understanding that is critical to allowing change. I have a tremendous capacity to arbitrate around these challenges. I am in a position where such environments occur routinely.
But most of the backlash to this is based in the same old tired shit about how (basically) these people who are trying to express some of the problems facing them because of their color, background, sex, etc... which are better, are improving, and still exist... are whiny victims.
Can you please alert me where in my posts I have characterized anyone as a whiny victim?
I have attempted to avoid judgement in my posts. Perhaps you can show me where my prejudices dominate. I want it to be clear that the best way to attack these problems is for us to agree on a perspective we can all except. This perspective must necessarily come from some form of detachment from the problem in the larger context. I think you indirectly ask this of me. I think I have demonstrated my ability to do so. The same must be asked of everyone else, including those groups with grievances.
While your critiques of the majority grou
This is utter nonsense. Distinguishing these various examples of 'oppression' as somehow special is counter productive. It is divisive and strengthens existing stereotypes and divisions. Culture and society are evolving concepts and unfortunately we are left with a shit ton of baggage from previous iterations. I agree that exemplifying social injustices for the purpose of avoiding them in the future is a good idea. However, special distinction is inappropriate. A bit ironic because it is probably a trend of any inwardly focused group to reinforce and distinguish itself. But for every person or group of people who have been oppressed there is another who can claim worse.
Seriously.. you have no idea what it's like. Thus, what YOU think about it is completely irrelevant, and it would be good for you to remember that. Maybe you should spend some time finding out how little you know about what it's like.
What planet are you from? I am from earth, America actually, where I participate as a citizen, collaborate as scientist, enrich as an educator, support and guide as a friend, and feel as a human. What I think about "it" is completely relevant because I exist entirely within the context of these problems. This imaginary and incredibly divisive distinction is what I addressed in my previous comment to GP. Further, these various groups will never further their cause by condemning an opinion based on the same superficial differences they deride.
Next time you're in a mixed group of guys and women, for instance, pay attention to how much the guys talk compared to the women. And what's really funny, talk about women's issues. The guys will 9 times out of 10 dominate the discussion.
No, whats really funny is your insistence that this is either universal and/or unchanging. Evidently you are unaware of however many thousands of years of blatant inequality have been "corrected" in a relatively infinitesimal time period. Everything has to be put into context- much like the present radio personality.
Could it be, could it just possibly be that YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, SINCE YOU ARE NOT IN IT?
No it can not be. It can be, however, that people or groups are too inwardly focused on their own problems to not understand the universe, the apparent context of our existence, the evolution of humanity & culture, their place within this society, the intrinsic fairness we all deserve, and whatever future we are willing to strive and collaborate for.
I like the fag analogy a lot. I grew up hanging around gays; many of them stereotypically nasty. Can I call them fags? Can I use their much more foul jargon? If so, does this privilege extend beyond this particular group of homos? who might be unfamiliar with my background? if I leave my orientation ambiguous so they think I'm gay, is it okay then?
If not, what qualifies me to call a gay guy a fag? Although heterosexual, I know all sorts of gay mannerisms that I either inherently possess or could easily mimic. Is this enough? If I have sex with a homo am I then gay enough so that my use of jargon is suddenly unoffensive? Perhaps you should tell me the number of gay guys I need to fuck so that I may do this. Then I will know if I am justified in calling you a fag.
"You only say that because you aren't and never have been on the receiving end of these things.... Maybe, but you're not the one who's been discriminated against, verbally abused, beaten up and sometimes even murdered in cold blood, so who are you to talk?"
What do you know about me? I'm a faceless uname on \. At best and without my help you could only hope to know extremely superficial qualities of my person. You imply there is some monopoly on hate reserved for those 'minority groups' who share a superficial difference. People have been discriminated against, verbally abused, beaten up and sometimes even murdered in cold blood for all sorts of ridiculous reasons and sometimes for no good reason at all. "Minority" groups create added conflict by establishing their own precedence on hate. To say that I can't understand your problems because I don't share your exact set is both an insult to my humanity and patently hypocritical. In all of this what I feel I hear from well represented minority groups is that they want some recognition that their hardships are somehow more deserving of attention. I think the consequences of this interpretation are majorly responsible for the last bastions of generalized discrimination.
"The real reason for that is that it's not the word as such that matters (that is, the collection of letters, or the collection of sounds that make up its pronunciation), it's the meaning - the intent."
Yeah so how about you use context, body language (if applicable), and character to establish intent instead of subverting reason and drawing off your own insecurities to assign meaning. We all have problems and insecurities and perceived divisions that isolate us. I certainly encounter mine on a daily basis. One difference is that mine aren't as visible. I don't know if this is an advantage or disadvantage compared to high visibility. But special distinction is unfair and it just inspires more hate and encourages discrimination.
Yes, follow the revolution!! Let us completely abandon the wisdom of learned men in favor of blind logical truth!!! Then we can sit in our caves and contemplate this vapid intellectual constraint.
It is you who seems to misunderstand the problem. People here are capable of making decisions to avoid DRM. However, this is a minority and future markets are unlikely to develop based on what a small educated group of people think. One can easily imagine a scenario in the future where DRMless options have been all but removed from the market, at least to the extent as to effect your 'choice.'
Don't all countries become rich and powerful by plundering their neighbors and enemies? Whats the deal/?
Yeah I'm sure your wife appreciates your vicarious gloating, but I agree with the engineer. Interesting thing about your definition - it relies heavily on your personal subjectivity. I disagree with your description of his education and your definition. I don't think IT education lacking and we probably disagree on what missing elements constitute a "lacking." What does your wife say have to say about our ability to communicate?
Nor should they be treated the same. The PhD has an enriched skill set and they have also signaled an ability to commit to a difficult and long project, often forgoing immediate gratification (e.g. salary, lifestyle). They have sent signals to a business that a entry level sysadmin with BS or GED is unable to match. Dedication and education are excellent providers of upward mobility and advanced degrees demonstrate this nicely. Such is life.
I'm going for a graduate degree and at this point I might chose a horrific, untimely death before I have to face a job market.
I don't think there is much point speculating about what they mean with efficiency and power increase numbers. It generally seems like we never get the straight dope about thermodynamic efficiency. Quoting the true fuel to wheel efficiency would just make us look bad in the eyes of a layman. So instead we create clever yet often meaningless metrics to impress people.
oh dear I apologize about the formatting data analysis tools
common spreadsheet functions
Charts
Track changes
commenting
true compatibility with other MS office users
picture editing tools
speed
basic drawing tools
Data analysis tools / common spreadsheet functions Charts Track changes / commenting true compatibility with other MS office users picture editing tools speed basic drawing tools All these features are essential and are either non existent, unstable, poorly implemented, or vastly inferior. I run office03 through cedega and it's still faster and more stable. I find both abiword & gnumeric are better than OO and I use them when I don't need to collaborate and I don't need anything technical. I've been meaning to put more effort into some of the ajax web alternatives, but I don't like the idea of remote storage. Add to that the nauseating eyesore that is the OO GUI and it is no longer worth considering.
Using windmills to generate hydrogen is hardly his idea, but in fact one that currently occupies many research groups with researchers that most people would probably not identify as stupid. As much as I would love to deride the 'argumenation' of your dutch CEO, may I simply point out that there are other methods for completing each and every step in your proposed scenario. I don't understand how you (or he) feel(s) this case is representative of the generic goal of using wind power to produce hydrogen locally. Furthermore, how is it incompatible with the gentile load[ing] and unload[ing] of hydrogen using metal hydrides? Why exactly can't they be incorporated into your hypothetical scheme to alleviate some of the problems you name? Lastly, don't you think it's a bit silly for you to chastise GP for making criticisms based on incomplete information when you do the exact same thing? Branding your post with your degrees in some vain search for credibility is embarrassing.
You are probably correct. Perhaps in this journalist's fantasy world microturbines will be so cheap such that the inefficiencies associated with size will be washed away by pure economic goodness. But I doubt it.
This is silly. Very few people have the capacity to read the original research. Virtually none have the time to do it without being paid. Basing conclusions on derivatives and interpretations of this research leads to trouble. The current scenario is a perfect example; sensationalized doomsday claims versus baseless skepticism unfortunately define "the debate."
Or that's a rather weak expression of reading comprehension. GP published a slashdot comment not a PhD dissertation. I fail to see how the comment reflects his entire understanding of the issue given you are in complete agreement, grandstanding insults aside. I would say that setting off that conflict certainly requires that it played a part.
I'm not convinced of this. The shackles & chains have been in place a long awhile. It will take significant effort (beyond democratic) to alter the way we are governed. And regarding what you call my "attempts and honorable and emotional rhetoric", I will not apologize for my honor or my emotion.
Naturally. I would never be foolish enough to request or expect this. And if you think the only type of tyranny is where you get "treated as a slave, whipped and beaten", I suggest you pick up a good history of the 20th century.
These were simply the allusions I developed from your diatribe. You sound like a history book, the kind adults force upon children when it's dangerous to endorse children's critical thinking. The US has never been a shining "beacon of freedom." Using terms like this give me significant pause to think about your grip on reality. We were the natural evolution of western thinking society. We have at certain times had good sense, other times had good leaders, and quite frankly gathered our fair share of good fortune. I'm glad there are people with the beliefs you have as a balancing act, but I wish these beliefs were presented within the framework we have to live in. That is within the scope of a democratic government, containing uncertainties, and entailing all the competing beliefs about life, liberty, and happiness.
I'm not a centrist, but I do strive to be objective. I don't think I/we have anything to gain sensationalizing things to the effect of black & white. sic, the snide remarks