> Explain this 'teaching of hate' you proclaim. Some examples perhaps? B/c I don't see that in the show, so either you're getting a message out of it that you WANT to see in it, or I'm missing something.
Don't mind Brenda. The trans "community" is rife with a vocal minority of knee-jerk reactionists who feign offense at every possible turn, and alienate potential allies/advocates by flaming them into oblivion for simple mis-use of terms, let alone making jokes. That's why the LGBT "community" is an epic fail at being an actual community.
Unless it works with migraines, cluster headaches, stress, anxiety, depression/grief, happiness, exhaustion, pain, and a slew of other conditions that affect brainwave patterns (heck, even caffeine can throw off brainwave patterns) this is too error prone to be reliably used.
Does Slashdot really need to carry this story? It has nothing to do with science, tech, gaming, or anything relevant.
It has everything to do with homophobic, misogynistic, pedophilic, and racist organization which puts on airs of setting out to do good but in reality protects child diddlers and extorting money from gullible followers while ignoring the bible which it purports to follow, nothing to do with science or tech. Why again is this on slashdot?
. . . or a dad is out hunting elk or bear to feed his family, or his son is shooting tin cans not hurting anyone. There are peaceful uses for those rifles, you know.:-)
There are pilots who can do 10 or 12 G anyhow (see red bull air race).
There are, but the red bull pilots are single-tasking on avoiding an unintended landing, not monitoring one or more bogeys around them, communicating with squadron members, their commanding officer, tweaking ECM systems, balancing afterburner use and fuel conservation (need to save enough to get to the tanker or to the airfield), evading hostile fire and acquiring enemy targets all at once while at the same time avoiding that painful unintended landing. Also, the red bull pilots are typically operating at higher atmospheric pressure (lower altitudes) where you don't also need to keep a close eye on your oxygen system, and on top of all that, they have much better visual range than one constrained by what amounts to a space suit inside an aircraft where the view is often further limited. The red bull pilots are also not on multi-hour missions hundreds (or thousands) of miles from their airfield so fatigue hasn't even begun to set in for them at race time, whereas an AF pilot might already be experiencing fatigue (consciously or not) by the time they are in their target zone. It's a world of difference you are not taking into account, with a million variables racers do not ever have to think about. All the race pilots need to worry about is keeping the shiny side up when landing, and hopefully avoid unintentional landings.;)
[...]That only costs money, and the military has as much of that as it wants.
First, that simply isn't true. Although the military budget is huge, most of it goes to personnel and administrative overhead. Second, even if money were no object (it is), time would be. You just can't throw away 30 F-35s and replace them like you can a roll of toilet paper - or heck, an F-16. What is the build time of an F-35 or F-22? It's many months, and unfortunately you can't just speed it up by throwing more technicians at it because the airframe is comprised largely of composites which require an extended cure time, including time in a huge-assed precision-controlled autoclave, of which only a few large enough exist.
Even though they might be able to be flown as drones, the F-35 is not expendable; your grasp on the reality (including financial constraints -don't forget the reason the heavily-compromised F-35 exists in the first place is that the vastly superior F-22 was deemed "too costly") of the situation is pretty lacking.
anyone who has been here for a while knows I am rarely if ever politically correct. However I see a very easy way to defuse this "controversial" matter in a way which should satisfy both sides:
Teach logical thinking and the scientific process. Present the evidence for both arguments to the class - and even highlight the "airbrushed" photos of various embryos and explain why the original researchers did that (to highlight similarities), and discard that "evidence" based on the alteration, but point out the multitude of other examples which are unaltered in any way. Present the evidence concerning sendimentary layers and the conditions required for those to form, carbon dating and the (reasomable) assumptions made, and present what evidence may be there for intelligent design as well, as well as the evidence against it. Split the class in half (randomly), flip a coin, and assign a platform to each team (one for intelligent design, one for evolution) and have those teams formulate arguments supporting their assigned platform (whether they believe it or not - remember, we are teaching logical reasoning here) and then have them debate it. Let each student learn to think for themselves, and I'm sure they will come to the correct conclusion.
This way, both sides are presented, neither carrying more weight than the other, students are taught to think logically (in other words, teach students TO THINK rather than just memorize propaganda), and to present their view in a coherent, well-reasoned matter and arrive at their conclusions based on the scientific method.
Politicizing this is stupid. Teach logical reasoning, the scientific method and the evidence, and people will naturally arrive at the correct conclusion. I don't know why this isn't already done since it's a stupid-easy way to end this stupid debate.
Windows never made any serious inroads into the server market until IIS matured, and Active Directory made Servers a little more bearable.
It was actually the NT family's interoperability with Novell Netware and the ability to offer Netware-compatible services, bypassing Netware licensing costs that helped Microsoft gain inroads into the server market - and it was a very inexpensive (if resource-intensive) server solution until they got that pesky Netware competition out of the way.
It's not that the formerly-known-as-metro UI is bad, it's that it is misplaced on the desktop/laptop/notebook, regardless of the presence or not of a touch screen. It would be nice if it were an option the user can choose to enable or disable. If it were optional, and the Aero interface were retained (looking back, network performance and UAC glitches aside, Vista really wasn't all that bad and Windows 7 perfected it!), and if you could overlap Windows (which was the huge selling point of Windows 2.0;)) regardless of application architecture, it would have carried on Windows 7's success. Also, Windows 8 is downright corporate-hostile with its foolish UI.
Instead, Microsoft is forcing the touch interface and workflow-hostile maximized-only UI design on all devices in effort to gain inroads into the tablet and phone market. Why? Why? Because Apple and Google' partners are succeeding in those markets? Please.
Microsoft essentially OWNED the smartphone market with the PocketPC-based phones for a brief while, before other smartphones really existed (even before the crackberry). Granted, the market was a niche but it was there and WinCE, for all its faults (and leading to the obvious joke of calling it "wince") but it was a very corporate-friendly platform allowing for integration with Exchange. They even got smart and required vendors to make their devices flash-upgradable. Unfortunately, they let the platform languish, did not follow through on the promise of continued upgrades and did not push the issue with device vendors. Microsoft was clearly not interested in maintaining that business, and never really got serious about integrating the PDA and phone aspects of their platform.so others..
RIM, then later Google and Apple filled in the gaps. Crackberry had some initial success, along with "feature phones" that could run java apps (and in many cases even be sideloaded just like the PocketPC-based phones) but app availability was extremely limited and corporate features were exorbitantly expensive. The real phone revolution was spawned by Apple with iOS, and Google with Android. Ironically, it appears that Apple really didn't know what they had on their hands prior to the first jailbreak (which allowed installation of third-party native apps - prior to that Apple was insistent on keeping the iPhone an iPod phone that could run some web apps), which is what really be credited with the smartphone revolution.
Both iPhone and Android offer push notifications, push email, tight integration with Exchange, gmail, and other services right out of the box. iPhone works really well, is reliable, and user friendly. It's not as corporate friendly due to the nonexistent-to-limited sideloading and deployment capabilities. Android is a lot more friendly in that area, but it is somewhat fragmented, with no assurance of whether or not any given app will run on a given device. Both are very upgradable though, and the iPhone in particular enjoys great support and remarkable "future-proofing" via OS upgrades.
Microsoft, having lost their edge with their software platform being costly and resource-intensive compared to Linux (and not scaling well on big iron on the other extreme), are grasping at straws to stay on top. They see Apple and Google succeeding in areas where they have failed repeatedly (media, tablets, smartphones) so it seems like Windows 8 is a hare-brained scheme to market their me-too smartphone and tablet apps. The problem is, both iOS and Android devices enjoy such an entrenched userbase that the idea of forcing the Microsoft Surface UI on everyone, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. Plus, Apple is seen as the premium/prestige product, and Microsoft is trying to penetrate the market with an inferior product with vastly fewer available apps at a much higher price point? Really? Way to go, Microsoft.
Microsoft, I have a better idea: shit-can the formerly-kno
1. chiefly British past and past participle of spell
2. Subspecies (Triticum aestivum spelta) of wheat that has lax spikes and spikelets containing two light red kernels. A related species, Triticum dicoccon, commonly known as emmer wheat or farro, was cultivated by the ancient Babylonians and the ancient Swiss lake dwellers; it is now grown for livestock forage and used in baked goods and cereals.
Yes I realize you made a pun. hahaha Macs don't really have a cult following.
But yes, Mac Pros have cooling fans that are really loud - when idling or running every day tasks you don't ever hear them, but if you compile a large project or start a large rendering or transcoding job that tasks the CPU and GPU, yes, the fans will be LOUD - rivaling even Supermicro servers in loudness.
As far as fan guards are concerned: the fans are internal and unless you do something stupid you'll never touch them. No internal guards? Who gives a crap. Unless you have the Mac opened up while running AND are a total klutz, there is zero chance of injury. I fail to see the issue. I do like that EU regs are more consumer-minded than corporate-welfare-minded in nature, but this is ridiculous. Internal guards are minimal, intended to keep wires out of the fans rather than protect from digits. Why? Fan guards usually reduce airflow, which decreases cooling efficiency and long-term reliability.
What's next - targeting auto manufacturers because an under-hood fan might cut the hand off of a really stupid, klutzy mechanic, even though there is zero risk to a driver, because there is a chance a really stupid owner might open the hood, leave the engine running and let a toddler climb into the engine bay?
Hey regulators, do you realize that if someone opens a chassis of a power supply and licks the circuit boards, they'll get electrocuted with line voltage? What if some boneheaded moron leaves a power supply plugged in while the case is opened? How about requiring all circuit boards to be dippped in epoxy in order to be certified for the market? Sure, they will be rendered irreparable and long-term reliability will be compromised (due to increased operating temps), but think of the children here.
I'm all for practical safety regulations, but not fanatical ones based in paranoia. Personal responsibility and common sense needs to balance this out.
* SBSettings (it provides the UI that iOS ought to have had from day 1) * Shell prompt with BSD userland and a mobile terminal * OpenSSH * Autolock settings * five icon dock * activator * remove background
Slashdot Mirror
> Explain this 'teaching of hate' you proclaim. Some examples perhaps? B/c I don't see that in the show, so either you're getting a message out of it that you WANT to see in it, or I'm missing something.
Don't mind Brenda. The trans "community" is rife with a vocal minority of knee-jerk reactionists who feign offense at every possible turn, and alienate potential allies/advocates by flaming them into oblivion for simple mis-use of terms, let alone making jokes. That's why the LGBT "community" is an epic fail at being an actual community.
Unless it works with migraines, cluster headaches, stress, anxiety, depression/grief, happiness, exhaustion, pain, and a slew of other conditions that affect brainwave patterns (heck, even caffeine can throw off brainwave patterns) this is too error prone to be reliably used.
"Sure, give me your password first, and also the username and passwords to your bank accounts so I can verify the company is financially sound."
Somehow when it's turned around on them, I don't think they would like it too much.
FTFA: "Adobe’s US software can be used in Australia but not covered by warranty, he said."
Really? Since when do they have a real warranty on software anyhow?
Oh right, that bug an Intel rep laughably claimed one would only encounter once every 2,500 years or so. I'd forgotten about that.
FTFS:
HTH
You should have sprung for the BMW 335d when it was available. Unfortunately it was discontinued when the ActiveHybrid was announced.
I have nothing against the people in the church. I believe they are deceived, misled, and lost.
I have everything against the clergy. I'd rather someone be overtly evil than covertly evil.
. . . and espouse the good news of salvation by grace which was promised by the one they claim to follow?
Of course not. That would end Catholic guilt, and eliminate the need for indulgences.
Does Slashdot really need to carry this story? It has nothing to do with science, tech, gaming, or anything relevant.
It has everything to do with homophobic, misogynistic, pedophilic, and racist organization which puts on airs of setting out to do good but in reality protects child diddlers and extorting money from gullible followers while ignoring the bible which it purports to follow, nothing to do with science or tech. Why again is this on slashdot?
Don't like it? Fork it. It's like the typical copycat bullshit China usually does, only better. Others have already taken the initiative:
http://news.yahoo.com/three-android-forks-exist-today-135000744.html
I'm loathe to admit this, but Windows 8 + classic shell isn't terribly bad.
. . . or a dad is out hunting elk or bear to feed his family, or his son is shooting tin cans not hurting anyone. There are peaceful uses for those rifles, you know. :-)
There are, but the red bull pilots are single-tasking on avoiding an unintended landing, not monitoring one or more bogeys around them, communicating with squadron members, their commanding officer, tweaking ECM systems, balancing afterburner use and fuel conservation (need to save enough to get to the tanker or to the airfield), evading hostile fire and acquiring enemy targets all at once while at the same time avoiding that painful unintended landing. Also, the red bull pilots are typically operating at higher atmospheric pressure (lower altitudes) where you don't also need to keep a close eye on your oxygen system, and on top of all that, they have much better visual range than one constrained by what amounts to a space suit inside an aircraft where the view is often further limited. The red bull pilots are also not on multi-hour missions hundreds (or thousands) of miles from their airfield so fatigue hasn't even begun to set in for them at race time, whereas an AF pilot might already be experiencing fatigue (consciously or not) by the time they are in their target zone. It's a world of difference you are not taking into account, with a million variables racers do not ever have to think about. All the race pilots need to worry about is keeping the shiny side up when landing, and hopefully avoid unintentional landings. ;)
First, that simply isn't true. Although the military budget is huge, most of it goes to personnel and administrative overhead.
Second, even if money were no object (it is), time would be. You just can't throw away 30 F-35s and replace them like you can a roll of toilet paper - or heck, an F-16. What is the build time of an F-35 or F-22? It's many months, and unfortunately you can't just speed it up by throwing more technicians at it because the airframe is comprised largely of composites which require an extended cure time, including time in a huge-assed precision-controlled autoclave, of which only a few large enough exist.
Even though they might be able to be flown as drones, the F-35 is not expendable; your grasp on the reality (including financial constraints -don't forget the reason the heavily-compromised F-35 exists in the first place is that the vastly superior F-22 was deemed "too costly") of the situation is pretty lacking.
anyone who has been here for a while knows I am rarely if ever politically correct. However I see a very easy way to defuse this "controversial" matter in a way which should satisfy both sides:
Teach logical thinking and the scientific process. Present the evidence for both arguments to the class - and even highlight the "airbrushed" photos of various embryos and explain why the original researchers did that (to highlight similarities), and discard that "evidence" based on the alteration, but point out the multitude of other examples which are unaltered in any way. Present the evidence concerning sendimentary layers and the conditions required for those to form, carbon dating and the (reasomable) assumptions made, and present what evidence may be there for intelligent design as well, as well as the evidence against it. Split the class in half (randomly), flip a coin, and assign a platform to each team (one for intelligent design, one for evolution) and have those teams formulate arguments supporting their assigned platform (whether they believe it or not - remember, we are teaching logical reasoning here) and then have them debate it. Let each student learn to think for themselves, and I'm sure they will come to the correct conclusion.
This way, both sides are presented, neither carrying more weight than the other, students are taught to think logically (in other words, teach students TO THINK rather than just memorize propaganda), and to present their view in a coherent, well-reasoned matter and arrive at their conclusions based on the scientific method.
Politicizing this is stupid. Teach logical reasoning, the scientific method and the evidence, and people will naturally arrive at the correct conclusion. I don't know why this isn't already done since it's a stupid-easy way to end this stupid debate.
. . . or, just present the factual pastafarian story of creation. ;)
Well, in general we are ape-descended life forms who are amazingly primitive that we still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea...
"it's just zeroes and ones"
okay, so if I start downloading MP3 and video files, the RIAA and MPAA will not object, because it's just zeroes and ones, right?
Hmm, hotmail offers spam filtering and also targeted ads. How does Microsoft do that if they aren't "reading" emails the same way Gmail does?
It was actually the NT family's interoperability with Novell Netware and the ability to offer Netware-compatible services, bypassing Netware licensing costs that helped Microsoft gain inroads into the server market - and it was a very inexpensive (if resource-intensive) server solution until they got that pesky Netware competition out of the way.
Microsoft has only themselves to blame.
I've set up and used Windows 8 - and I hate it.
It's not that the formerly-known-as-metro UI is bad, it's that it is misplaced on the desktop/laptop/notebook, regardless of the presence or not of a touch screen. It would be nice if it were an option the user can choose to enable or disable. If it were optional, and the Aero interface were retained (looking back, network performance and UAC glitches aside, Vista really wasn't all that bad and Windows 7 perfected it!), and if you could overlap Windows (which was the huge selling point of Windows 2.0 ;)) regardless of application architecture, it would have carried on Windows 7's success. Also, Windows 8 is downright corporate-hostile with its foolish UI.
Instead, Microsoft is forcing the touch interface and workflow-hostile maximized-only UI design on all devices in effort to gain inroads into the tablet and phone market. Why? Why? Because Apple and Google' partners are succeeding in those markets? Please.
Microsoft essentially OWNED the smartphone market with the PocketPC-based phones for a brief while, before other smartphones really existed (even before the crackberry). Granted, the market was a niche but it was there and WinCE, for all its faults (and leading to the obvious joke of calling it "wince") but it was a very corporate-friendly platform allowing for integration with Exchange. They even got smart and required vendors to make their devices flash-upgradable. Unfortunately, they let the platform languish, did not follow through on the promise of continued upgrades and did not push the issue with device vendors. Microsoft was clearly not interested in maintaining that business, and never really got serious about integrating the PDA and phone aspects of their platform.so others..
RIM, then later Google and Apple filled in the gaps. Crackberry had some initial success, along with "feature phones" that could run java apps (and in many cases even be sideloaded just like the PocketPC-based phones) but app availability was extremely limited and corporate features were exorbitantly expensive. The real phone revolution was spawned by Apple with iOS, and Google with Android. Ironically, it appears that Apple really didn't know what they had on their hands prior to the first jailbreak (which allowed installation of third-party native apps - prior to that Apple was insistent on keeping the iPhone an iPod phone that could run some web apps), which is what really be credited with the smartphone revolution.
Both iPhone and Android offer push notifications, push email, tight integration with Exchange, gmail, and other services right out of the box. iPhone works really well, is reliable, and user friendly. It's not as corporate friendly due to the nonexistent-to-limited sideloading and deployment capabilities. Android is a lot more friendly in that area, but it is somewhat fragmented, with no assurance of whether or not any given app will run on a given device. Both are very upgradable though, and the iPhone in particular enjoys great support and remarkable "future-proofing" via OS upgrades.
Microsoft, having lost their edge with their software platform being costly and resource-intensive compared to Linux (and not scaling well on big iron on the other extreme), are grasping at straws to stay on top. They see Apple and Google succeeding in areas where they have failed repeatedly (media, tablets, smartphones) so it seems like Windows 8 is a hare-brained scheme to market their me-too smartphone and tablet apps. The problem is, both iOS and Android devices enjoy such an entrenched userbase that the idea of forcing the Microsoft Surface UI on everyone, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. Plus, Apple is seen as the premium/prestige product, and Microsoft is trying to penetrate the market with an inferior product with vastly fewer available apps at a much higher price point? Really? Way to go, Microsoft.
Microsoft, I have a better idea: shit-can the formerly-kno
So technically speaking, Switzerland which is very well developed economically and socially, is third-world?!
The dictionary disagrees with you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spelt
spelt1 [spelt] verb
a simple past tense and past participle of spell1 .
spelt2 [spelt] noun
a wheat, Triticum aestivum spelta, native to southern Europe and western Asia, used chiefly for livestock feed.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spelt
1. chiefly British past and past participle of spell
2. Subspecies (Triticum aestivum spelta) of wheat that has lax spikes and spikelets containing two light red kernels. A related species, Triticum dicoccon, commonly known as emmer wheat or farro, was cultivated by the ancient Babylonians and the ancient Swiss lake dwellers; it is now grown for livestock forage and used in baked goods and cereals.
Yes I realize you made a pun. hahaha Macs don't really have a cult following.
But yes, Mac Pros have cooling fans that are really loud - when idling or running every day tasks you don't ever hear them, but if you compile a large project or start a large rendering or transcoding job that tasks the CPU and GPU, yes, the fans will be LOUD - rivaling even Supermicro servers in loudness.
As far as fan guards are concerned: the fans are internal and unless you do something stupid you'll never touch them. No internal guards? Who gives a crap. Unless you have the Mac opened up while running AND are a total klutz, there is zero chance of injury. I fail to see the issue. I do like that EU regs are more consumer-minded than corporate-welfare-minded in nature, but this is ridiculous. Internal guards are minimal, intended to keep wires out of the fans rather than protect from digits. Why? Fan guards usually reduce airflow, which decreases cooling efficiency and long-term reliability.
What's next - targeting auto manufacturers because an under-hood fan might cut the hand off of a really stupid, klutzy mechanic, even though there is zero risk to a driver, because there is a chance a really stupid owner might open the hood, leave the engine running and let a toddler climb into the engine bay?
Hey regulators, do you realize that if someone opens a chassis of a power supply and licks the circuit boards, they'll get electrocuted with line voltage? What if some boneheaded moron leaves a power supply plugged in while the case is opened? How about requiring all circuit boards to be dippped in epoxy in order to be certified for the market? Sure, they will be rendered irreparable and long-term reliability will be compromised (due to increased operating temps), but think of the children here.
I'm all for practical safety regulations, but not fanatical ones based in paranoia. Personal responsibility and common sense needs to balance this out.
Why I jailbreak:
* SBSettings (it provides the UI that iOS ought to have had from day 1)
* Shell prompt with BSD userland and a mobile terminal
* OpenSSH
* Autolock settings
* five icon dock
* activator
* remove background