Well, kind of, but look at it this way. If the Moon was a lone planet, it'd get craters everywhere equally. But it's not a lone planet, instead it has a bigger body always on the same side of it. Therefore, that there should be more impacts on the opposite side tells you that asteroids are quite attracted to Earth and that the Moon catches a lot of the when its on their way.
Yes, and so is the Moon, as its cratered far side will show you (the far side is much more cratered than the front side which shows how the Earth attracts asteroids towards the far side and away from the near side).
You're the idiot. While energy gets wasted in nature (such as when fresh water mixes with sea water and no one's making anything out of it), in some other cases energy goes into doing something (such as plants, animals, the cycle of water..) and stays as it is for a while. Forests are energy, you can burn the Amazon to a pile of hashes and harness a lot of energy out of it because burning trees releases the energy built up in wood, you can mix a fresh water lake with some sea to obtain a lot of energy (which comes from the cycle of water, in other words, from the sun evaporating fresh water out of the sea)
Energy does not just sit there, it is dissipated gradually over time. Ever heard of radiation ? How much energy is there in a lump of lead compared to a lump of uranium ?
Wow, you're a fucking moron. Of course radioactive stuff loses its energy over time. Oil isn't radioactive, it doesn't lose its energy over time. Same if you keep salt water in a container and fresh water into another, you can mix those after billions of years and all the energy will still be there. Same thing for any fuel and its combustive, you can store the two separately and no energy will be lost.
How long do your batteries stay fully charged when you don't use them ?
Either you're one hell of a retard or you're a lousy troll. Oh and this being said, what's your answer to that? I've found batteries fully charged after 20 years of sitting in a closet.
Idiot. The fact that you have been modded insightful just about sums up this whole forum recently.
No, not really. The fact that he was modded up and you weren't is actually quite reassuring. Face it, you're a blithering cretin.
The main environmental issue would be interfering with fish migration, for the many (very economically valuable) fish that live in the sea but spawn in rivers, like salmon.
We solved that problem a long time ago since we block entire rivers to generate electricity. Ever heard of salmon elevators?
The problem you identify with pragmatism is short-sighted pragmatism. By this I mean seeking the best solution for the near term, while being oblivious to the bigger picture of your situation and projected future.
Idealism is a way to prevent that, in a way. If you follow an ideology that has desirable long term effects, then when short-sighted pragmatism dictates something contrary to your ideology, it tells you that something may be wrong with it. It's kind of like balancing pure cold reason with a heart and guts feeling check.
We are not intelligences of infallible reasoning, and we're particularly susceptible to short-sightedness with that regard, so relying on how you feel about what your cold reason tells you is a sane way to check what you come up with. This being said, ideologies are better off being in the passenger seat telling you where you're going wrong or giving instructions, not being in the driver seat.
So you're saying that computer manufacturers are worth much less than they are because, according to you, the computers are not worth what they're sold for but rather they're worth what you've got left when you take into consideration just what the users "need"?
Sorry but that's utter bullshit, the worth of something is what you can get people to buy it for. A $1000 computer is worth $1000 because it's priced $1000 and that people will buy it for $1000. It's not worth a dollar less because it packs more RAM than most people will use. If you have a point you just happened to use an awful example to illustrate it. Try again with a car analogy.
Unrelatedly, how's a real bubble supposed to happen with bailouts? I could see a mini bubble where some companies would be valued more than they should be worth because they got a bailout, but it can only be a mini bubble, it's called a stimulus. If business resumes as usual with a few regulations we're going to go back to the decade-long cycle of bubbles and bursts we've had from the 19th century until the 1920s, and again since sometime around the 1970s.
I'd also like to say, it's also remarkable how you fail to see that the point you make just turns against itself.
See, a new gen of consoles arrive. You're forced to buy a new machine, unless you wanna stick to the old gen games. At the same time, on PC, you upgrade your machine *once* so it catches up in power with the new generation of consoles. You don't need two machines to play the old and new games, and you don't need to buy a new machine at all to begin with. And on PC the transition is a bit cheaper.
So your point just falls over, and long live PC gaming.
Translation : I bought a Xbox 360 when it came out and since then I never play PC games anymore, which gives me the feeling that the whole world has done the same as I have.
Here's a hint : PC gaming has over the last 15 years been given about as many death knells as Apple.
lol, even if there were such people, they would only see something different in the very darkest conditions, after getting their eyes used to the dark. And even then, at that point they'd probably see individual dots for each photons they receive.
You often hear in that topic "ideas are worthless", "implementation is everything", "maybe it's not that good". I consider that mostly true, but I beg to differ a bit.
While "ideas" may be dime a dozen, some are worth more than others in themselves, without an implementation. There is a world of difference between "an idea that would make something great" and an idea that in itself is great. That's the difference between "that would be so cool to have flying machines with wings and shit" and saying "let's put stations every 10 miles on a 2,000 miles route with horses in them and have horseback riders carry mail from station to station along that route". The first idea is worthless, the second idea is great because that's something you can do out of it. It's practical, realistic, and very importantly the details are worked out.
In a way, it's not the implementation that is worthy, it's the implementation idea, i.e. having anything in the idea needed for one to implement the idea. That's how you can pitch ideas to industrial patrons rather than always implement things first and get paid later. That's how the world works, it needs ideas, pure ideas, relatively complete ideas. Not so much about good vs not so good ideas.
Sometimes, some ideas are just not that good and the people behind them just won't realise that and move on. The world just happens to be full of Don Quixotes...
I once had a great idea. I turned it into a product. Now every once in a while someone who likes the product tells me they had the same idea a while back. Yep, lots of people did, but they never did anything about it, so no one cares.
The important thing isn't even to make the idea into something real, the important thing is working out all the details. That's like, the wrap drive, maybe the Star Trek writers came up with the idea, but it's pretty worthless until someone works out how to make it work, not necessarily build it, but come up with enough to make the thing doable.
This being said, even when you turn your great idea into some real and practical, it can take a while and much demonstrating before anyone gets it. As the first comment in TFA quotes: "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If they're any good, you'll have to ram them down their throats!". You could hardly overestimate other people's inertia to radical new ideas. Ideas directly sway little more than the people who have them. If you have a visionary idea, that's mainly because merely enunciating your ideas just won't suffice to carry your vision.
Sad but true. Now If you'll excuse me I must join the manned vs unmanned debate with a polished version of the same arguments I've been using for years in every previous occurrence of that debate I've participated to.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
The USAF should begin planning it's reintegration with the Army.
Well the important thing to keep in mind is that for all we know it's a temporary condition. We might just find ourselves at war with Iran, who has MiGs, Sukhois, Mirages, F-4s, F-14s, is rumoured to have F-16s, and if we did, then we'd need to kick their ass with some air superiority.
And that's the dilemma, if such a conventional war is going to pop up, we have to be ready to kick some ass in the air, and because of that we have to maintain a form of superior Air Force. Don't get me wrong, I believe that UCAVs are the future, and hopefully in 50 years from now most of the air fighting on our side will be remote controlled/automated. But in the meantime we have to maintain air superiority, even if it seems useless.
So you're saying that obsolete = secure? I sure am glad I still have those old System V floppies lying around! Could come in handy whenever I need to make a super-secure server.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, kind of, but look at it this way. If the Moon was a lone planet, it'd get craters everywhere equally. But it's not a lone planet, instead it has a bigger body always on the same side of it. Therefore, that there should be more impacts on the opposite side tells you that asteroids are quite attracted to Earth and that the Moon catches a lot of the when its on their way.
Yes, and so is the Moon, as its cratered far side will show you (the far side is much more cratered than the front side which shows how the Earth attracts asteroids towards the far side and away from the near side).
Next question?
True, but that's hardly "hip". I mean you wouldn't "hang out" in a computer keyboard store.
What is it, Take Your Slashdot to Work Day?
Yeah, so they make popular consoles. That's it. Nothing else about Microsoft is "cool".
You're the idiot. While energy gets wasted in nature (such as when fresh water mixes with sea water and no one's making anything out of it), in some other cases energy goes into doing something (such as plants, animals, the cycle of water..) and stays as it is for a while. Forests are energy, you can burn the Amazon to a pile of hashes and harness a lot of energy out of it because burning trees releases the energy built up in wood, you can mix a fresh water lake with some sea to obtain a lot of energy (which comes from the cycle of water, in other words, from the sun evaporating fresh water out of the sea)
Energy does not just sit there, it is dissipated gradually over time. Ever heard of radiation ? How much energy is there in a lump of lead compared to a lump of uranium ?
Wow, you're a fucking moron. Of course radioactive stuff loses its energy over time. Oil isn't radioactive, it doesn't lose its energy over time. Same if you keep salt water in a container and fresh water into another, you can mix those after billions of years and all the energy will still be there. Same thing for any fuel and its combustive, you can store the two separately and no energy will be lost.
How long do your batteries stay fully charged when you don't use them ?
Either you're one hell of a retard or you're a lousy troll. Oh and this being said, what's your answer to that? I've found batteries fully charged after 20 years of sitting in a closet.
Idiot. The fact that you have been modded insightful just about sums up this whole forum recently.
No, not really. The fact that he was modded up and you weren't is actually quite reassuring. Face it, you're a blithering cretin.
The main environmental issue would be interfering with fish migration, for the many (very economically valuable) fish that live in the sea but spawn in rivers, like salmon.
We solved that problem a long time ago since we block entire rivers to generate electricity. Ever heard of salmon elevators?
Just one thing, why didn't they use a narrower field then? I mean, you know, to really zoom in on this thing.
Raise your e-hand if you're a programmer and your first language was BASIC. How did that turn out? Great for me.
The problem you identify with pragmatism is short-sighted pragmatism. By this I mean seeking the best solution for the near term, while being oblivious to the bigger picture of your situation and projected future.
Idealism is a way to prevent that, in a way. If you follow an ideology that has desirable long term effects, then when short-sighted pragmatism dictates something contrary to your ideology, it tells you that something may be wrong with it. It's kind of like balancing pure cold reason with a heart and guts feeling check.
We are not intelligences of infallible reasoning, and we're particularly susceptible to short-sightedness with that regard, so relying on how you feel about what your cold reason tells you is a sane way to check what you come up with. This being said, ideologies are better off being in the passenger seat telling you where you're going wrong or giving instructions, not being in the driver seat.
Pragmatists are just ungrateful. Without rms and his insistence on freedom, and the years of work on GNU, there would be no _____
I thought you were going to say HURD.
So you're saying that computer manufacturers are worth much less than they are because, according to you, the computers are not worth what they're sold for but rather they're worth what you've got left when you take into consideration just what the users "need"?
Sorry but that's utter bullshit, the worth of something is what you can get people to buy it for. A $1000 computer is worth $1000 because it's priced $1000 and that people will buy it for $1000. It's not worth a dollar less because it packs more RAM than most people will use. If you have a point you just happened to use an awful example to illustrate it. Try again with a car analogy.
Unrelatedly, how's a real bubble supposed to happen with bailouts? I could see a mini bubble where some companies would be valued more than they should be worth because they got a bailout, but it can only be a mini bubble, it's called a stimulus. If business resumes as usual with a few regulations we're going to go back to the decade-long cycle of bubbles and bursts we've had from the 19th century until the 1920s, and again since sometime around the 1970s.
I'd also like to say, it's also remarkable how you fail to see that the point you make just turns against itself.
See, a new gen of consoles arrive. You're forced to buy a new machine, unless you wanna stick to the old gen games. At the same time, on PC, you upgrade your machine *once* so it catches up in power with the new generation of consoles. You don't need two machines to play the old and new games, and you don't need to buy a new machine at all to begin with. And on PC the transition is a bit cheaper.
So your point just falls over, and long live PC gaming.
Yeah, except this : you stop playing PS2 and buy an Xbox 360, $350. You change your graphics card and buy more RAM, $100.
Everyone else has already moved on to consoles
Translation : I bought a Xbox 360 when it came out and since then I never play PC games anymore, which gives me the feeling that the whole world has done the same as I have.
Here's a hint : PC gaming has over the last 15 years been given about as many death knells as Apple.
lol, even if there were such people, they would only see something different in the very darkest conditions, after getting their eyes used to the dark. And even then, at that point they'd probably see individual dots for each photons they receive.
You often hear in that topic "ideas are worthless", "implementation is everything", "maybe it's not that good". I consider that mostly true, but I beg to differ a bit.
While "ideas" may be dime a dozen, some are worth more than others in themselves, without an implementation. There is a world of difference between "an idea that would make something great" and an idea that in itself is great. That's the difference between "that would be so cool to have flying machines with wings and shit" and saying "let's put stations every 10 miles on a 2,000 miles route with horses in them and have horseback riders carry mail from station to station along that route". The first idea is worthless, the second idea is great because that's something you can do out of it. It's practical, realistic, and very importantly the details are worked out.
In a way, it's not the implementation that is worthy, it's the implementation idea, i.e. having anything in the idea needed for one to implement the idea. That's how you can pitch ideas to industrial patrons rather than always implement things first and get paid later. That's how the world works, it needs ideas, pure ideas, relatively complete ideas. Not so much about good vs not so good ideas.
Sometimes, some ideas are just not that good and the people behind them just won't realise that and move on. The world just happens to be full of Don Quixotes...
I once had a great idea. I turned it into a product. Now every once in a while someone who likes the product tells me they had the same idea a while back. Yep, lots of people did, but they never did anything about it, so no one cares.
The important thing isn't even to make the idea into something real, the important thing is working out all the details. That's like, the wrap drive, maybe the Star Trek writers came up with the idea, but it's pretty worthless until someone works out how to make it work, not necessarily build it, but come up with enough to make the thing doable.
This being said, even when you turn your great idea into some real and practical, it can take a while and much demonstrating before anyone gets it. As the first comment in TFA quotes: "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If they're any good, you'll have to ram them down their throats!". You could hardly overestimate other people's inertia to radical new ideas. Ideas directly sway little more than the people who have them. If you have a visionary idea, that's mainly because merely enunciating your ideas just won't suffice to carry your vision.
Sad but true. Now If you'll excuse me I must join the manned vs unmanned debate with a polished version of the same arguments I've been using for years in every previous occurrence of that debate I've participated to.
That's no laptop CPU.
The forthcoming UCAVs should change that a bit.
The USAF should begin planning it's reintegration with the Army.
Well the important thing to keep in mind is that for all we know it's a temporary condition. We might just find ourselves at war with Iran, who has MiGs, Sukhois, Mirages, F-4s, F-14s, is rumoured to have F-16s, and if we did, then we'd need to kick their ass with some air superiority.
And that's the dilemma, if such a conventional war is going to pop up, we have to be ready to kick some ass in the air, and because of that we have to maintain a form of superior Air Force. Don't get me wrong, I believe that UCAVs are the future, and hopefully in 50 years from now most of the air fighting on our side will be remote controlled/automated. But in the meantime we have to maintain air superiority, even if it seems useless.
So you're saying that obsolete = secure? I sure am glad I still have those old System V floppies lying around! Could come in handy whenever I need to make a super-secure server.
the ability to recharge in about 10 minutes
Woot! I can't wait until electric Formula 1! This will make pit stops so much less stressful!