Considering the unsustainable growth rate of the human species it is only a matter of time before (...)
Considering that Malthus and his disciples have always been wrong so far, what you are saying counts as an extraordinary claim. And as you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What is your extraordinary proof that those who have said what you just said have been *completely* wrong for 200 years, yet now, at this very moment, things are different?
So my question is this: For a theory to be Science it must be falsifiable; so what would it take for one of you True Believers to reconsider your theory?
Higher living standards and better health outcomes for regular people living in other economic systems. Next question, please.
Surely there must be room for something between "the complete anarchy of Somalia" and "let's regulate the volume of TV ads", don't you think? In fact, I would argue that the gap is huge.
If they started showing porn during the day, yeah, there'd be plenty outrage, and lots of new subscriptions.
FYP.
On a more serious note, some Swedish film channels stopped showing porn after some campaigns. Subscriptions dropped badly, and wasn't even remotely matched by new subscriptions. Very few people refrain from subscribing to film channels because they have porn. Loads of people subscribe precisely because there is porn.
If you suggest that invading another country requires planning and coherent thoughts about the future, I would argue that you have learnt little from Iraq. Or Vietnam. Or maybe you have actually learnt something, and the military hasn't? I'm getting confused here...
As I noted in another reply, the site works perfectly well with Firefox, and that is what I use. I can't guarantee that it works with other browsers, but there isn't anything fancy about it, really, so I definitely expect it to work well enough not to force people to switch away from their standard browser.
I should probably have called my post "Wildly different at my particular place of employment". As also noted above, it is a fair assumption that a very large share of users come from environments that are very much locked down. (I was going to say "secured", but that word and IE would just give most/. users a seizure.) And in locked down environments, IE has a market share that is orders of magnitude above other browsers.
Quite a lot (or even most?) of our visitors are big industrial companies, utilities, government agencies etc. It is quite accurate to describe them as working in tightly controlled environments.
I know for a fact that the website does work in FF, as that is what I use. The relatively high number of Wgets is from automated "screen scrapers" and similar applications. We have quite a lot of data that some organizations probably get this way. Also, we use awstats for the stats, but I can't guarantee that it is quite updated. Thus, I would guess that "Unknown" is almost 0% IE.
I know this data is a complete outlier, that's why I thought it was moderately interesting. What it seems to indicate is that in locked down environemnts, non-IE browsers (and, for that matter, non-Windows desktops) are almost nonexistent.
Here are the stats for the company web site for the company I work for. It's a smallish Nordic company, and it's a safe bet that 95% of all visits are from other people at work. (I have no proof of that figure, obviously, but trust me when I say that looking at our site isn't something people do on their free time.)
MS Internet Explorer 2920837 96 %
Unknown 56869 1.8 %
Wget 32632 1 %
Firefox 18582 0.6 %
Safari 4934 0.1 %
Opera 2970 0 %
Mozilla 2532 0 %
LibWWW 148 0 %
Netscape 92 0 %
Nokia Browser (PDA/Phone browser) 12 0 %
Others 7 0 %
These figures are just incredibly different from those in TFA. Figures are page hits for the month of November, i.e. a little more than three days, but the percentages always look like this.
"Web 2.0" AJAX has been revolutionary, from my prospective as an end-user. Compare AJAX Gmail with the HTML-only version of Gmail. It's pretty dramatic. Meebo, Google Docs, Google Wave, etc. These are very different ways of interacting with the Internet than plain old HTML.
This is setting the bar awfully low. Compare instead to full client versions of e-mail and other office applications. They are miles and miles ahead on usability. The web, great as it is, should really get a terrible mark for pulling usability 10-15 years back. It has improved, and by a lot. But it's still behind, and not closing up very quickly.
Is it really patients that dislike the medical expert systems? I'd bet good money it's the doctors who dislike them. If we are talking about systems that the patients use themselves, you are surely right. These systems are doomed to fail, as it actually takes knowledge and experience to answer most medical questions properly. But systems used by doctors to aid in coming up with a diagnosis are quite successful and quite detested by doctors correctly understanding that their market value just tanked.
To qualify as a thin client in my book, the device has to be thin "all the time", i.e. not a PC used mainly for browsing. Once regular PCs sold for regular office jobs have worse performance/fewer features than the previous generation, I will consider thin clients a success. Until then, I still laugh at Oracle and the "NC".
and as anyone with even the smallest amount of financial intelligence can tell you, renting is throwing your money down the drain
Huh? Are you kidding? Do you buy a car when you go on vacation or do you rent it? (But I get a feeling you think that going on vacation is a waste of money in the first place.)
I see no problems with "renting" books, just as long as you know that's what you are doing. I have read about 1000 books in my life. Number of books I have read twice: 1. Number of books I enjoyed rereading: 0. This may be extreme, but I really doubt that most people reread more than 10% of all the books they buy. Renting them should be perfectly fine. After all, more movies are rented than bought.
2) the fact that the e-book costs more than the paperback (...) 4) I want to read news papers on it (particularly the WSJ), but so far Amazon is the only one I know of who offers this AND it does not include charts / graphs with the newspaper (which is rather essential to certain parts of the WSJ).
Agreed on both counts, but do note that this is as of today a problem in Europe, not in the US. Note to Amazon: I'm in Europe. I will buy a Kindle when you solve these two issues, and reenable the browser.
The "too much work" only needs to be done once, by the pirates.
Patently untrue. The Wii, for instance, is hacked, and you all can take it from good authority (namely me) that it's quite possible to download pirated stuff through your favorite torrent site. Yet I don't think anyone else of the 20+ people I know IRL who have a Wii are using homebrew. It's still too complicated, and if you think it isn't, you have lost contact with reality.
For the Wii, the effort Nintendo has put into DRM and making copying difficult has paid off. You may all wish this isn't true, but wishing it's false doesn't make it so. Similarly, suggesting that ebooks with no DRM at all would lead to no more illegal sharing is just plain wrong.
Good point, but then have two shoes and an automatic reshuffling of the shoe not currently in use. Then there will be no time lost to shuffling at all, which is even better than today.
Yes, for Texas Hold'em you should count two cards in your hand and up to five community cards, whereas in Omaha, you should count four cards in your hand, but still up to five community cards. But I'm not quite sure that's enough to make you a winning player.
On a more serious note, what are you talking about? Are you suggesting that poker is played without reshuffling the deck between each hand?
So? Most times through the decks, there will be no opportunities to exploit the count. Thus, it could easily take five or ten turns through the entire shoe before a card counter would play differently from someone who just plays each single hand statistically correct. I call BS on the claim in the article.
The person asking you to leave often isn't burly. However, that matters little. The three people he will call on if you don't follow his directions will be. And you are right that it is a supremely bad idea to try to "take them on".
Slashdot Mirror
(NASA's budget is a tiny drop in the federal budget!)
NASA's budget is about $20B/year. I'd say that is just a tad more than a tiny drop.
Considering the unsustainable growth rate of the human species it is only a matter of time before (...)
Considering that Malthus and his disciples have always been wrong so far, what you are saying counts as an extraordinary claim. And as you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What is your extraordinary proof that those who have said what you just said have been *completely* wrong for 200 years, yet now, at this very moment, things are different?
So my question is this: For a theory to be Science it must be falsifiable; so what would it take for one of you True Believers to reconsider your theory?
Higher living standards and better health outcomes for regular people living in other economic systems. Next question, please.
Surely there must be room for something between "the complete anarchy of Somalia" and "let's regulate the volume of TV ads", don't you think? In fact, I would argue that the gap is huge.
If they started showing porn during the day, yeah, there'd be plenty outrage, and lots of new subscriptions.
FYP.
On a more serious note, some Swedish film channels stopped showing porn after some campaigns. Subscriptions dropped badly, and wasn't even remotely matched by new subscriptions. Very few people refrain from subscribing to film channels because they have porn. Loads of people subscribe precisely because there is porn.
If you suggest that invading another country requires planning and coherent thoughts about the future, I would argue that you have learnt little from Iraq. Or Vietnam. Or maybe you have actually learnt something, and the military hasn't? I'm getting confused here...
As I noted in another reply, the site works perfectly well with Firefox, and that is what I use. I can't guarantee that it works with other browsers, but there isn't anything fancy about it, really, so I definitely expect it to work well enough not to force people to switch away from their standard browser.
I should probably have called my post "Wildly different at my particular place of employment". As also noted above, it is a fair assumption that a very large share of users come from environments that are very much locked down. (I was going to say "secured", but that word and IE would just give most /. users a seizure.) And in locked down environments, IE has a market share that is orders of magnitude above other browsers.
Quite a lot (or even most?) of our visitors are big industrial companies, utilities, government agencies etc. It is quite accurate to describe them as working in tightly controlled environments.
I know for a fact that the website does work in FF, as that is what I use. The relatively high number of Wgets is from automated "screen scrapers" and similar applications. We have quite a lot of data that some organizations probably get this way. Also, we use awstats for the stats, but I can't guarantee that it is quite updated. Thus, I would guess that "Unknown" is almost 0% IE.
I know this data is a complete outlier, that's why I thought it was moderately interesting. What it seems to indicate is that in locked down environemnts, non-IE browsers (and, for that matter, non-Windows desktops) are almost nonexistent.
Here are the stats for the company web site for the company I work for. It's a smallish Nordic company, and it's a safe bet that 95% of all visits are from other people at work. (I have no proof of that figure, obviously, but trust me when I say that looking at our site isn't something people do on their free time.)
MS Internet Explorer 2920837 96 %
Unknown 56869 1.8 %
Wget 32632 1 %
Firefox 18582 0.6 %
Safari 4934 0.1 %
Opera 2970 0 %
Mozilla 2532 0 %
LibWWW 148 0 %
Netscape 92 0 %
Nokia Browser (PDA/Phone browser) 12 0 %
Others 7 0 %
These figures are just incredibly different from those in TFA. Figures are page hits for the month of November, i.e. a little more than three days, but the percentages always look like this.
"Web 2.0" AJAX has been revolutionary, from my prospective as an end-user. Compare AJAX Gmail with the HTML-only version of Gmail. It's pretty dramatic. Meebo, Google Docs, Google Wave, etc. These are very different ways of interacting with the Internet than plain old HTML.
This is setting the bar awfully low. Compare instead to full client versions of e-mail and other office applications. They are miles and miles ahead on usability. The web, great as it is, should really get a terrible mark for pulling usability 10-15 years back. It has improved, and by a lot. But it's still behind, and not closing up very quickly.
Is it really patients that dislike the medical expert systems? I'd bet good money it's the doctors who dislike them. If we are talking about systems that the patients use themselves, you are surely right. These systems are doomed to fail, as it actually takes knowledge and experience to answer most medical questions properly. But systems used by doctors to aid in coming up with a diagnosis are quite successful and quite detested by doctors correctly understanding that their market value just tanked.
To qualify as a thin client in my book, the device has to be thin "all the time", i.e. not a PC used mainly for browsing. Once regular PCs sold for regular office jobs have worse performance/fewer features than the previous generation, I will consider thin clients a success. Until then, I still laugh at Oracle and the "NC".
Yes, this is why the Office suite isn't selling anymore. No, wait a minute...
While more people are using their PCs as thin clients all the time, we are a *very* long way away from being there completely.
When all is said and done, usually more is said than done.
over 12,000 emails in my inbox
I know I'm hijacking the thread, but buy, read and implement "Getting Things Done". Seriously. You will thank me later.
and as anyone with even the smallest amount of financial intelligence can tell you, renting is throwing your money down the drain
Huh? Are you kidding? Do you buy a car when you go on vacation or do you rent it? (But I get a feeling you think that going on vacation is a waste of money in the first place.)
I see no problems with "renting" books, just as long as you know that's what you are doing. I have read about 1000 books in my life. Number of books I have read twice: 1. Number of books I enjoyed rereading: 0. This may be extreme, but I really doubt that most people reread more than 10% of all the books they buy. Renting them should be perfectly fine. After all, more movies are rented than bought.
2) the fact that the e-book costs more than the paperback (...) 4) I want to read news papers on it (particularly the WSJ), but so far Amazon is the only one I know of who offers this AND it does not include charts / graphs with the newspaper (which is rather essential to certain parts of the WSJ).
Agreed on both counts, but do note that this is as of today a problem in Europe, not in the US. Note to Amazon: I'm in Europe. I will buy a Kindle when you solve these two issues, and reenable the browser.
The "too much work" only needs to be done once, by the pirates.
Patently untrue. The Wii, for instance, is hacked, and you all can take it from good authority (namely me) that it's quite possible to download pirated stuff through your favorite torrent site. Yet I don't think anyone else of the 20+ people I know IRL who have a Wii are using homebrew. It's still too complicated, and if you think it isn't, you have lost contact with reality.
For the Wii, the effort Nintendo has put into DRM and making copying difficult has paid off. You may all wish this isn't true, but wishing it's false doesn't make it so. Similarly, suggesting that ebooks with no DRM at all would lead to no more illegal sharing is just plain wrong.
I have to laugh at how the /. crowd tries so hard to turn anything into their point of view. Seriously, do you even believe this yourself?
Yes, and that is why no one plays roulette or slots. No, wait a minute...
Good point, but then have two shoes and an automatic reshuffling of the shoe not currently in use. Then there will be no time lost to shuffling at all, which is even better than today.
Yes, for Texas Hold'em you should count two cards in your hand and up to five community cards, whereas in Omaha, you should count four cards in your hand, but still up to five community cards. But I'm not quite sure that's enough to make you a winning player.
On a more serious note, what are you talking about? Are you suggesting that poker is played without reshuffling the deck between each hand?
So? Most times through the decks, there will be no opportunities to exploit the count. Thus, it could easily take five or ten turns through the entire shoe before a card counter would play differently from someone who just plays each single hand statistically correct. I call BS on the claim in the article.
The person asking you to leave often isn't burly. However, that matters little. The three people he will call on if you don't follow his directions will be. And you are right that it is a supremely bad idea to try to "take them on".
you go in the "face book" and are banned
Now this is a system I would like to see in real life too!
The casinos themselves try to have croupiers that are skilled at tipping the odds in the casinos favor
Huh? Care to elaborate?