Man, picking a fight, no? Check it out. I didn't say that we had most species classified nor did I try to overevangelize evolution. All I said is that its possible, maybe even likely, that we have seen this little guy before (and as others before, perhaps not even on Borneo) and it was mistaken for another animal. Only now, someone identified it as different and therefore a "new" species. The idea "new species" is all relative and categorical. That species has probably existed for some time, and its not even all that unlikely that we've encountered it. What has really happened is that we've established a new classification for this thing. If you read the article, you'd see all we actually have is two pictures, and even other people aren't convinced. It certainly does have a lot of lemur features, so its not impossible that it is a Borneo lemur or a "new" viverrid, too. Either way, do not blame people for evangelizing; instead, avoid the holier-than-thou attitude in order to further discussion instead of hampering it.
Yes, but categories like "species" are things that we have created, not nature. Sure, it is easy to draw some lines like between a bird and a fish, but at others it is not so easy. When does one species no longer count as its former kind, but a new kind? It is feasible that this animal was once classified as something else, or was closely related to something else and avoided attention that way, and it has just now been noticed it has enough characteristics that we decided to call it something new.
If thats the case, isn't this just a headline reading, "Person decides to call something something different!" Not that I'm claiming this is the case, but it could easily be.
What is even more interesting is not only is it a mammal, but it is a carnivore. This means that is relatively high on the food chain, but it has gone unnoticed thus far. This begs the next question: has it really gone unnoticed for so long, or has the species only recently evolved? We discover new insects and bactera all the time, but discovering a new mammal kind of revives that scientific ambition in all of this that there really are some things out there that haven't been found.
Its a matter of evolution. Humans no longer evolve physically, we evolve through technology. Clothing is an extension of our skin, bicycles an extension of our legs, and glasses are an extension of our eyes. Much in this same way, the computer is an extension of our ability to think and the Internet allows us to use that mind to communicate with other minds at extremely high speeds. In this light, it seems that the difference between a person with a problem (being addicted to the Internet) and a person with an advantage (better using technology to further his own understanding) is a very thin line.
-Da3vid-
Its actually not as bad as it sounds. The ocean has what is called buffering capacity. It can handle a certain amount of acid and base without changing its pH. The ocean itself has a very large buffering capacity, but not infinite. Its like our blood. It can handle a good bit of variance without changing pH, but its not invincible.
I think the idea is that Apple said in 1984 they didn't want a computer market that had only one major brand: IBM. So they were introducing their product so you had a choice, IBM or Macintosh. Now, there is a homogeneity among people who listen to mp3s on the go, they mostly all use iPods to do it. So now in the mp3 player market, there is just the iPod. I'm not criticizing anyone here, its just ironic.
I don't know if Firefox is really much more secure in terms of virus/spyware than Internet Explorer or not. My intuition is that the virus/spyware things are just geared towards Internet Explorer users. Either way, I get far far fewer problems using Firefox than IE. Perhaps the more people that use Firefox, the more problems we'll have? Strange side effect if true.
A sidethought: is it even possible to copyright/patent a file format?
On the normal thought, yea I don't see why you wouldn't make your mp3 player play as many applicable file types as possible. The software needed to do so seems minimal compared to the added usability. It doesn't seem that hard to me.
When Apple first entered the mp3 market, there wasn't much competition. There was a hodge podge of this and that, the biggest one that comes to mind was the Rio, and that wasn't all that hot. I think combining style with the first decent mp3 player made a big impact on the younger audience. (At least the younger audience is my view point, I live near a college campus.) I think if someone tried to compete earlier they had a big chance, but now the competitors will have to ride this fad out or release one hell of a product.
I think the 1984 commercial was against IBM and trying to prevent the computer world in 1984 from becoming like 1984 in the book. A bleak and bland world without truth or freedom of choice. I think part of the idea was to create choices- you don't have to get an IBM computer, you can get a Macintosh. Don't mistake me for being anti-iPod inherently, it was just a thought. I do give you that iPod research has made advancements and increased technology and so they follow through on that end, but they're on the other end of the spectrum now. Just a thought.
I think this is great! I absolutely adore Wikipedia in many ways. Its a wonderful project. While the reproduction in print will only be a simulation (not a simulacra) and will in most ways (if not all) be inferior, that doesn't warrant it as bad. Wikipedia is people from all over the world coming together to share information. I'm impressed at how far our collect intelligence and work has come already just in Wikipedia. Now, by sharing the globalized world with the people who don't have access to it, we are branching out even further. I love this, and as a philosopher, this even excites me, maybe not as much as the idea of Wikipedia itself excites me... mmm...
I think going into detail on the arguments against large corporations (which I think would have to be evaluated on a per company basis) is going a bit off track here. I didn't mean literally that people really do think they're bad because of their size, I meant to imply that it seems this way because everyone seems to have an opinion about most large companies, and it is usually a negative one. It just seems that few middle sized or small companies get the finger pointed at them, only the large ones. They're easy targets. I won't deny the possibility that perhaps the only way to become a large and successful company (or by a great length the easiest, and nearly the only way) is to be an evil company. That seems awfully cynical though, and I can't bring myself to believe that.
Pointing out one example does not disprove, I claimed a lot of people dislike most big companies. I did not say slashdotters specifically, or all big companies either. However, I sense a general negative sentiment and suspicion of all big companies in a lot of people that I meet.
That is a good clarification. I guess I meant to imply as well that the CEO of the company also adopts the image of his company, and vice versa, I suppose.
I hate how people seem to dislike most large corporations for the sake of them being large. I personally have no problem with places like Microsoft or Wal-Mart (I used to be an employee of Wal-Mart) and I'm glad that acts like this are shown to skeptics. I'll give you that they aren't perfect, and that some companies are not good companies. However, by virtue of being large, does not make a company bad. However, I fear that many people will point to this as a donation made to gain public support, which I admit is within the realm of possibility, but is in the realm of my doubts. I'll give you that we haven't heard much from ole Bill Gates recently (a bit in the shadow of Mr. Jobs) but this is about as good as thing as I could hear from him, I suppose.
I think its all well and good that they're trying to get a broad range of opinions. I support that. I just don't know about this angle, it seems like its trying to garner too much political support by their question, not by the answer their looking for. We shouldn't care if they're asking a women's group, are they asking an all-male group? (I realize that scientists by and large are, but thats not the point, are they asking an organization based around getting men together in brotherhood or whatnot) The sex of the people involved should be moot if there truly was equality.
Now, I understand that that would be in a more ideal world (in my opinion) and that we are working towards it, and in the meantime we have to make some concessions, but why don't we start working on our point of view right now? I want to know what women have to say, but not because they're women, but because the person is an intelligent human being with a different point of view than mine.
All things change. I think the Internet is a better medium for large scale information. At any rate, on a large scale, information is moving across the world. If anything embodies globalization, its the internet, and what better way to get news about the globe? However, I think that local newspaper may still survive. While they could certainly go to an online medium as well to save on distribution costs, they don't stand to gain as much as a larger scale news society.
Can you imagine receiving a daily Slashdot mailing in your mailbox at home? Ridiculous
They should've put the part about EVDO up there with it. How many phones though can support this type of technology with the music? Aside from models, how many people own phones that can do it?
My point is that all the factors together added up seem to make a small market to me. In order to be a customer, you need to
1) Have Sprint be your cell phone company (which is generally more expensive than other alternatives)
2) Have a phone that is compatible with the technology including sending/receiving as well as a good way to listen to it
3) Want to listen to music on your phone
4) Willing to pay 2.50 for one song
When you cut the market 4 ways, I'm not sure how many people are left. The iPod market is cut into fewer larger segments
1) Be able to afford an iPod
2) Want to listen to music on the go
Not that those are good break downs, its just the general idea. I'm also assuming that most high quality phones (such as one that could download and play this music) probably cost nearly as much as an iPod.
-Da3vid-
That's my point. These boundaries should become more clear. Pluto specifically raises a lot of questions considering the KB, Charon, other asteroids, etc. A clearer terminology would increase understanding.
Barring the price tag of the songs (which you'd think they'd be lower than iTunes to try to compete), does Sprint really think they have the infrastructure necessary to handle this? When I say infrastructure, I mean the combination of enough users and their hardware that could even possibly be interested in this music, and can/are willing to pay 2.50 a song.
has really caused us a lot of grief in classifying heavenly bodies and discovering them. Not only does it interfere with scientific terminology, it hampers understanding of average people. We should just kick Pluto out and accept that we have 8 planets, not 9. Everyone would be happier (except Pluto).
I think somewhere in the original article it actually says that Pluto is the only Kuiper Belt Object confirmed to have more than one satellite, although others are suspected.
Is it really a big deal when we name something a moon? Its just a matter of relativity. A planet, a moon, an asteroid, a rock... they're all the same thing, that varies by degrees. I suppose the things orbital path is of interest, but how much can we really learn just by applying labels? We didn't learn anything about the true scientific nature of those bodies, we just named them. I think I'll name them Susanna, Melinda and Jim.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, picking a fight, no? Check it out. I didn't say that we had most species classified nor did I try to overevangelize evolution. All I said is that its possible, maybe even likely, that we have seen this little guy before (and as others before, perhaps not even on Borneo) and it was mistaken for another animal. Only now, someone identified it as different and therefore a "new" species. The idea "new species" is all relative and categorical. That species has probably existed for some time, and its not even all that unlikely that we've encountered it. What has really happened is that we've established a new classification for this thing. If you read the article, you'd see all we actually have is two pictures, and even other people aren't convinced. It certainly does have a lot of lemur features, so its not impossible that it is a Borneo lemur or a "new" viverrid, too. Either way, do not blame people for evangelizing; instead, avoid the holier-than-thou attitude in order to further discussion instead of hampering it.
-Da3vid-
Haven't you ever heard of the X-Men? Not only did this thing recently evolve, it probably has adamantium claws and super regeneration.
-Da3vid-
Yes, but categories like "species" are things that we have created, not nature. Sure, it is easy to draw some lines like between a bird and a fish, but at others it is not so easy. When does one species no longer count as its former kind, but a new kind? It is feasible that this animal was once classified as something else, or was closely related to something else and avoided attention that way, and it has just now been noticed it has enough characteristics that we decided to call it something new.
If thats the case, isn't this just a headline reading, "Person decides to call something something different!" Not that I'm claiming this is the case, but it could easily be.
-Da3vid-
What is even more interesting is not only is it a mammal, but it is a carnivore. This means that is relatively high on the food chain, but it has gone unnoticed thus far. This begs the next question: has it really gone unnoticed for so long, or has the species only recently evolved? We discover new insects and bactera all the time, but discovering a new mammal kind of revives that scientific ambition in all of this that there really are some things out there that haven't been found.
Its a matter of evolution. Humans no longer evolve physically, we evolve through technology. Clothing is an extension of our skin, bicycles an extension of our legs, and glasses are an extension of our eyes. Much in this same way, the computer is an extension of our ability to think and the Internet allows us to use that mind to communicate with other minds at extremely high speeds. In this light, it seems that the difference between a person with a problem (being addicted to the Internet) and a person with an advantage (better using technology to further his own understanding) is a very thin line. -Da3vid-
Its actually not as bad as it sounds. The ocean has what is called buffering capacity. It can handle a certain amount of acid and base without changing its pH. The ocean itself has a very large buffering capacity, but not infinite. Its like our blood. It can handle a good bit of variance without changing pH, but its not invincible.
-Da3vid-
I think the idea is that Apple said in 1984 they didn't want a computer market that had only one major brand: IBM. So they were introducing their product so you had a choice, IBM or Macintosh. Now, there is a homogeneity among people who listen to mp3s on the go, they mostly all use iPods to do it. So now in the mp3 player market, there is just the iPod. I'm not criticizing anyone here, its just ironic.
-Da3vid-
I don't know if Firefox is really much more secure in terms of virus/spyware than Internet Explorer or not. My intuition is that the virus/spyware things are just geared towards Internet Explorer users. Either way, I get far far fewer problems using Firefox than IE. Perhaps the more people that use Firefox, the more problems we'll have? Strange side effect if true.
-Da3vid-
A sidethought: is it even possible to copyright/patent a file format?
On the normal thought, yea I don't see why you wouldn't make your mp3 player play as many applicable file types as possible. The software needed to do so seems minimal compared to the added usability. It doesn't seem that hard to me.
When Apple first entered the mp3 market, there wasn't much competition. There was a hodge podge of this and that, the biggest one that comes to mind was the Rio, and that wasn't all that hot. I think combining style with the first decent mp3 player made a big impact on the younger audience. (At least the younger audience is my view point, I live near a college campus.) I think if someone tried to compete earlier they had a big chance, but now the competitors will have to ride this fad out or release one hell of a product.
-Da3vid-
I think the 1984 commercial was against IBM and trying to prevent the computer world in 1984 from becoming like 1984 in the book. A bleak and bland world without truth or freedom of choice. I think part of the idea was to create choices- you don't have to get an IBM computer, you can get a Macintosh. Don't mistake me for being anti-iPod inherently, it was just a thought. I do give you that iPod research has made advancements and increased technology and so they follow through on that end, but they're on the other end of the spectrum now. Just a thought.
-Da3vid-
I think this is great! I absolutely adore Wikipedia in many ways. Its a wonderful project. While the reproduction in print will only be a simulation (not a simulacra) and will in most ways (if not all) be inferior, that doesn't warrant it as bad. Wikipedia is people from all over the world coming together to share information. I'm impressed at how far our collect intelligence and work has come already just in Wikipedia. Now, by sharing the globalized world with the people who don't have access to it, we are branching out even further. I love this, and as a philosopher, this even excites me, maybe not as much as the idea of Wikipedia itself excites me... mmm...
-Da3vid-
Oh, well thanks for helping me make that point clearer. :)
-Da3vid-
I think going into detail on the arguments against large corporations (which I think would have to be evaluated on a per company basis) is going a bit off track here. I didn't mean literally that people really do think they're bad because of their size, I meant to imply that it seems this way because everyone seems to have an opinion about most large companies, and it is usually a negative one. It just seems that few middle sized or small companies get the finger pointed at them, only the large ones. They're easy targets. I won't deny the possibility that perhaps the only way to become a large and successful company (or by a great length the easiest, and nearly the only way) is to be an evil company. That seems awfully cynical though, and I can't bring myself to believe that.
-Da3vid-
Pointing out one example does not disprove, I claimed a lot of people dislike most big companies. I did not say slashdotters specifically, or all big companies either. However, I sense a general negative sentiment and suspicion of all big companies in a lot of people that I meet.
That is a good clarification. I guess I meant to imply as well that the CEO of the company also adopts the image of his company, and vice versa, I suppose.
-Da3vid-
I hate how people seem to dislike most large corporations for the sake of them being large. I personally have no problem with places like Microsoft or Wal-Mart (I used to be an employee of Wal-Mart) and I'm glad that acts like this are shown to skeptics. I'll give you that they aren't perfect, and that some companies are not good companies. However, by virtue of being large, does not make a company bad. However, I fear that many people will point to this as a donation made to gain public support, which I admit is within the realm of possibility, but is in the realm of my doubts. I'll give you that we haven't heard much from ole Bill Gates recently (a bit in the shadow of Mr. Jobs) but this is about as good as thing as I could hear from him, I suppose.
-Da3vid-
I think its all well and good that they're trying to get a broad range of opinions. I support that. I just don't know about this angle, it seems like its trying to garner too much political support by their question, not by the answer their looking for. We shouldn't care if they're asking a women's group, are they asking an all-male group? (I realize that scientists by and large are, but thats not the point, are they asking an organization based around getting men together in brotherhood or whatnot) The sex of the people involved should be moot if there truly was equality.
Now, I understand that that would be in a more ideal world (in my opinion) and that we are working towards it, and in the meantime we have to make some concessions, but why don't we start working on our point of view right now? I want to know what women have to say, but not because they're women, but because the person is an intelligent human being with a different point of view than mine.
-Da3vid-
All things change. I think the Internet is a better medium for large scale information. At any rate, on a large scale, information is moving across the world. If anything embodies globalization, its the internet, and what better way to get news about the globe? However, I think that local newspaper may still survive. While they could certainly go to an online medium as well to save on distribution costs, they don't stand to gain as much as a larger scale news society.
Can you imagine receiving a daily Slashdot mailing in your mailbox at home? Ridiculous
-Da3vid-
They should've put the part about EVDO up there with it. How many phones though can support this type of technology with the music? Aside from models, how many people own phones that can do it? My point is that all the factors together added up seem to make a small market to me. In order to be a customer, you need to 1) Have Sprint be your cell phone company (which is generally more expensive than other alternatives) 2) Have a phone that is compatible with the technology including sending/receiving as well as a good way to listen to it 3) Want to listen to music on your phone 4) Willing to pay 2.50 for one song When you cut the market 4 ways, I'm not sure how many people are left. The iPod market is cut into fewer larger segments 1) Be able to afford an iPod 2) Want to listen to music on the go Not that those are good break downs, its just the general idea. I'm also assuming that most high quality phones (such as one that could download and play this music) probably cost nearly as much as an iPod. -Da3vid-
That's my point. These boundaries should become more clear. Pluto specifically raises a lot of questions considering the KB, Charon, other asteroids, etc. A clearer terminology would increase understanding.
Barring the price tag of the songs (which you'd think they'd be lower than iTunes to try to compete), does Sprint really think they have the infrastructure necessary to handle this? When I say infrastructure, I mean the combination of enough users and their hardware that could even possibly be interested in this music, and can/are willing to pay 2.50 a song.
-Da3vid-
Thats what it amounts to. I'm theorizing it would only work in theory.
has really caused us a lot of grief in classifying heavenly bodies and discovering them. Not only does it interfere with scientific terminology, it hampers understanding of average people. We should just kick Pluto out and accept that we have 8 planets, not 9. Everyone would be happier (except Pluto).
I think somewhere in the original article it actually says that Pluto is the only Kuiper Belt Object confirmed to have more than one satellite, although others are suspected.
Is it really a big deal when we name something a moon? Its just a matter of relativity. A planet, a moon, an asteroid, a rock... they're all the same thing, that varies by degrees. I suppose the things orbital path is of interest, but how much can we really learn just by applying labels? We didn't learn anything about the true scientific nature of those bodies, we just named them. I think I'll name them Susanna, Melinda and Jim.
-Da3vid-