I think you've really hit the nail on the head here. I believe this to be the main reason why myself and others like me (I see a few in this thread) loathe it. I want to be able to organize my music myself in a way that makes sense to me (and often, only me).
You must really hate file systems then. Do you have any idea which set of clusters did it put your song? It's an organizer's nightmare, I tell you.
iTunes is a database. You can use a database, or you can use plain text files. You can anything you want with either, even if it makes sense to nobody but you.
Except that the system in which those things are possible (and indeed likely) has been set up by guess who - the congress, virtually all of whom are lawyers.
However, if you search for "spreadsheet" on google, there isn't even a link to Microsoft in the first 10 UNPAID links. 4 of the first 10 results link to sites about google spreadsheet, and 3 of the first 10 to sites about Excel
Maybe it's because Google called their spreadsheet "Spreadsheet" and Microsoft called theirs "Excel"? I searched for "car" and didn't find a single car maker in the top 10.
As I already said in my original post (#16495627), we ARE getting more efficient. But we also do more, so energy use still goes up in the *aggregate*.
Or course, as energy resources become more scarce, this trend should reverse.
Energy resources are not scarce (ie, the Sun). What is scarce is the energy resources we currently have the technology to harness (ie, oil, coal, gas and, eventually, uranium). We live in a very primitive age still, energy-wise.
Why even have the planet earth if we either a) are all dead or b) don't live on it.
Think of it as a natural preserve. You preserve it by getting out of it. You can still visit, though that is usually regulated. There are many uses that are not abuses, such as studying. But if you want to generate 10^27KW you pretty much have to do it elsewhere.
I think perhaps the Kardashev scale if fundamentally flawed.
Positive correlation between technological advancement and energy generation/consumption has been true throughout human history as well as when you compare different countries today.
Using less and less power to do the same task? Sure. However, technological progress necessitates using more and more power in aggregate. In fact, the level of advancement of a civilization is defined in terms of how much power it consumes - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale. So, in the long run there are only two ways of "saving" (ie, preserving) the Earth. One is having us dead. Another is having us get off the Earth.
The more people talk about "the stock market bubble" and upcoming crash, the more people start expecting it and theb selling their stocks, which makes it more likely to happen.
This is generally incorrect. Market peaks when there virtually no pessimists left. Markets peaks not so much because sellers come in, but because buyers disappear - every potential buyer is already holding a position. Majority of sellers actually sell much further down the road, long after the peak, in disgust, after months and years of waiting/hoping for a recovery that would never come. That point usually makes the market bottom (ie, no more sellers left).
I bet if AG Gonzales had his way, the feds would have been able to intercept the hack searches and nab the bastard researcher before he revealed the secrets to the world. What a boon for security that would be!/sarcasm
You're right, of course. The tissues break down all the time, whether you're 1 or 100. The difference is that if you're 100, they break down and stay broken as opposed to being constantly regenerated. TFA suggests that this balance is controlled by the INK4 gene through the release of the protein to control cell division (gross simplification, i know). The gene is programmed to suppress cell division more and more heavily with age. On the upside that reduces risk of cancer, on the downside it also prevents regeneration of tissues which then break down and you die. The main question is can the good effects of cell division (regeneration) be separated from the bad ones (cancer). Evolution did not provide a good answer, because it didn't have to. Evolution does not "care" about individuals, only species as a whole (for which its solution is good enough). Once you have offspring, it doesn't matter what happens to you as far as evolution is concerned. In the age of genetic engineering, I don't see why it's a fundamentally unsolvable problem to ensure that cells reliably maintain and migrate the information that is "you". Cells, after all, is just a stroage medium.
So, if I understand it correctly, if we were able to prevent cancer (by finding a root cause or otherwise), then that would change the risk equation balanced by this gene. This gene could then be turned off, the effect of which would be unabated rejuvenation of body organs, leading to indefinite lifespan.
Slashdot Mirror
I am determined to be the last person on the planet to sign up for Facebook.
Get in line!
Oh wait...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp
I think you've really hit the nail on the head here. I believe this to be the main reason why myself and others like me (I see a few in this thread) loathe it. I want to be able to organize my music myself in a way that makes sense to me (and often, only me).
You must really hate file systems then. Do you have any idea which set of clusters did it put your song? It's an organizer's nightmare, I tell you.
iTunes is a database. You can use a database, or you can use plain text files. You can anything you want with either, even if it makes sense to nobody but you.
>One hit.
That proves that his girlfriend is an alien and is trying to tell us something.
Except that the system in which those things are possible (and indeed likely) has been set up by guess who - the congress, virtually all of whom are lawyers.
May still be vulnerable to comet cursor...
However, if you search for "spreadsheet" on google, there isn't even a link to Microsoft in the first 10 UNPAID links. 4 of the first 10 results link to sites about google spreadsheet, and 3 of the first 10 to sites about Excel
Maybe it's because Google called their spreadsheet "Spreadsheet" and Microsoft called theirs "Excel"? I searched for "car" and didn't find a single car maker in the top 10.
I predict the next year's hot gadgets will be a fax-enabled rice cooker closely followed by a rice cooking fax machine.
From the home page:
Sloppy deliberately slows the transfer of data between client and server.
So basically a straight proxy then - only in Java!
I was replying to my own post and correcting myself where I had used 'ie' instead of 'eg'. Yes, I know about periods, italicizing and all that.
s/ie/eg/g
As I already said in my original post (#16495627), we ARE getting more efficient. But we also do more, so energy use still goes up in the *aggregate*.
Or course, as energy resources become more scarce, this trend should reverse.
Energy resources are not scarce (ie, the Sun). What is scarce is the energy resources we currently have the technology to harness (ie, oil, coal, gas and, eventually, uranium). We live in a very primitive age still, energy-wise.
Why even have the planet earth if we either a) are all dead or b) don't live on it.
Think of it as a natural preserve. You preserve it by getting out of it. You can still visit, though that is usually regulated. There are many uses that are not abuses, such as studying. But if you want to generate 10^27KW you pretty much have to do it elsewhere.
I think perhaps the Kardashev scale if fundamentally flawed.
Positive correlation between technological advancement and energy generation/consumption has been true throughout human history as well as when you compare different countries today.
So what you're saying is this is the version of IE for the post-9/11 world we live in. I miss Katz.
Using less and less power to do the same task? Sure. However, technological progress necessitates using more and more power in aggregate. In fact, the level of advancement of a civilization is defined in terms of how much power it consumes - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale. So, in the long run there are only two ways of "saving" (ie, preserving) the Earth. One is having us dead. Another is having us get off the Earth.
The more people talk about "the stock market bubble" and upcoming crash, the more people start expecting it and theb selling their stocks, which makes it more likely to happen.
This is generally incorrect. Market peaks when there virtually no pessimists left. Markets peaks not so much because sellers come in, but because buyers disappear - every potential buyer is already holding a position. Majority of sellers actually sell much further down the road, long after the peak, in disgust, after months and years of waiting/hoping for a recovery that would never come. That point usually makes the market bottom (ie, no more sellers left).
Which is why the encoded disc sent with the Voyager contains a calibration frame - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record
I bet if AG Gonzales had his way, the feds would have been able to intercept the hack searches and nab the bastard researcher before he revealed the secrets to the world. What a boon for security that would be! /sarcasm
The human body breaks down, it doesn't wear out.
You're right, of course. The tissues break down all the time, whether you're 1 or 100. The difference is that if you're 100, they break down and stay broken as opposed to being constantly regenerated. TFA suggests that this balance is controlled by the INK4 gene through the release of the protein to control cell division (gross simplification, i know). The gene is programmed to suppress cell division more and more heavily with age. On the upside that reduces risk of cancer, on the downside it also prevents regeneration of tissues which then break down and you die. The main question is can the good effects of cell division (regeneration) be separated from the bad ones (cancer). Evolution did not provide a good answer, because it didn't have to. Evolution does not "care" about individuals, only species as a whole (for which its solution is good enough). Once you have offspring, it doesn't matter what happens to you as far as evolution is concerned. In the age of genetic engineering, I don't see why it's a fundamentally unsolvable problem to ensure that cells reliably maintain and migrate the information that is "you". Cells, after all, is just a stroage medium.
So, if I understand it correctly, if we were able to prevent cancer (by finding a root cause or otherwise), then that would change the risk equation balanced by this gene. This gene could then be turned off, the effect of which would be unabated rejuvenation of body organs, leading to indefinite lifespan.
They don't stick with voice menus. If they did I wouldn't have to "listen to all the options since our menus have recently changed"
Seventh, it's only the (generally) law-abiding western military that will be prevented from using it while their adversaries may still benefit.
I just read the title and wondered if I woke up in the year 3000...
If someone tried to put a leash on you, would you accept it provided it was sufficiently long for you to roam?
5% of the population are lording over the other 95%
I bet you anything most of those card-carrying 5% are driven by pragmatism rather than idealism.