Re: Odd statement
I'd like to know which species tried and failed to decode their own genomes.
5902 posts • joined 28 May 2010
I'd like to know which species tried and failed to decode their own genomes.
Is to MSPaint what NotePad++ is to notepad.
I was going to mention Tog Gear too, though I couldn't remember the details.
Anyway, fascinating. Like Scrapheap Challenge on crack.
Maybe you should read the article again, a bit more carefully (the issue isn't the TV).
Although it does raise the question, when you use Netflix et al on a regular TV, does the TV know to switch the right frequency to avoid the same problem? How do you even find out what FPS iPlayer, NetFlix, Amazon, etc, use for their streaming content in the first place.
I don't even follow why the price is high. They have done brilliantly with the Kindle by keeping the cost low and the Kindle Fire range also offers a great spec for the cash. The idea with both being, you then buy content from Amazon. So why not follow the same patter with the phone, especially after they saw it tanked in the US?
Forget this WoW crap, Warcraft was a great game and WC2 was a pure diamond of a game. I don't want to look now as I'll probably be dismayed, but at the time it was also very pretty, I loved the variation of forest and ice.
Potato, cheese, bacon... perfect
DDG 'steals'/scrapes results from other search engines so I rather suspect choosing it as a default search engine would be a risky move both politically and pragmatically.
They will be now :)
Rather than Mozilla depending on Google to survive, suddenly Yahoo! is depending on Mozilla?!
You know, they might have improved it since 1998.
So if you try to electrolyse sea water this just happens, you can't prevent it as a by-product?
So if we wanted to use sea-water (I suppose only because there is so much of it) we'd have to desalinate it first? Is that feasible or would situating the plants near major rivers/lakes make more sense?
Wikipedia claims seawater is about 3.5% NaCl by mass. Since NaCl is heavier than H2O, that means the molar ratio i.e. the volume of gasses produced is surely lower than 3.5%, not higher?
But none of that even matters. If you fully electrolysed 10% of a volume of water and dissolve chlorine/sodium back in, the remaining water's salt content is only increased by 10% regardless how much chlorine you have in terms of pure volume.
That's assuming you can dissolve the Cl+Na back in once they've been decomposed, of course.
>>There's a lot of everything in seawater, including gold. The problem is getting it out. Very low concentration, thus very high processing costs.
Hydrogen is fairly prevalent in water on the other hand :)
As for releasing nasty gasses you could just dissolve them straight back in, without noticeably affecting the concentrations. I'd rather suspect even in the immediate vicinity, the differences would be very small though I don't have a clue how many mega-litres of water would be processed per day.
It doesn't eat very much of it though. We are not in short supply of the most prevalent element in the universe.
Everybody knows about them because they promote the brand so heavily.
If they take money from your CC, wouldn't you immediately go to the CC company and complain about an unauthorised payment?
>>"Two years from now, spam will be solved." - Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, 2004
When did gmail come out? Since then, it has been 99% 'solved' for me (not only gmail but filters in general).
I've always held that King simply can't write endings. I'm a huge fan but even his best books - even the 8 volume Dark Tower epic - either tail off or basically end with "The End?"
Speaking of TV adaptations, "Storm of the Century" was a great mini-series that never got massive publicity. I don't know if it was a book too but it's classic King, AND fits the TV very well. I only ever watched it on Chinese VCD!
The thing about King is that even if you only like 10% of his books, that's still about 5x more than most authors write in total.
I had found more recent stuff a little tired (Duma Key) but Under The Dome was proper King to me - long, slow but somehow gripping regardless.
Out of interest how are you measuring fps on your consoles?
Yes, it is a shame. They haven't understood it properly, and are partly responsible for the mainstream view of Christianity being preachy and judgemental; the "Dot from Eastenders" stereotype. But it's again unfair to use that generalisation, when so many others are out feeding the poor and advocating for the helpless at the grassroots level. But of course you only want to mention negatives as that supports your viewpoint. In fact, "The Church" has caused great good and great harm throughout history.
You might as well say all IT folk are arrogant borderline autism sufferers based on stereotypes and vocal minorities on internet forums - in reality most are fairly normal.
Um, I AM speaking for others... based on things they've said, not based on me not liking Dawkins myself. On geeky IT forums, where religion discussions are generally pretty one sided, he normally attracts more criticism than praise.
Those two points weren't linked? You weren't suggesting others who read it wouldn't reach the same conclusion?
If not, fair enough my mis-comprehension.
Although becoming an atheist because you don't believe one religion's teachings seems a little narrow. That sounds more like "I don't WANT it to be true" rather than "I strongly believe it's not"?
"I have to wonder if this is true. The book is so obviously just bad folklore and contradictory nonsense mixed with flat out lies"
Oh yes, it's "obvious". And clearly I'm just lying, because nobody could possibly have a different viewpoint than you based on the same facts. All those centuries of debate, and some IT nerd has the arrogance to suggest "it's obvious".
I rather doubt you bothered to read the thing or read books around the subject because it's so obvious that would be a waste of time, right?
This reminds me of a non-technical person "what do you mean it will take 2 weeks for this feature, you just have to do this one thing. It's obvious"
While I commend you for reading it and making an informed decision, it's reaching to suggest your experience speaks for others. For instance I approached it as an atheist determined to analyse what it actually taught, and went the opposite direction to you... but I don't claim that would happen to everyone.
I think quite a lot of people set out to read it to prove their pre-determined ideas about religion - from either side - are right. It's actually quite hard to read it from a neutral/objective point of view - because like it or not things that resonate jump out at you.
But I agree most people who would say the bible is important have no idea what it says!
Really? Even most of the atheists I know find him and his works irritating biased and smug!
As an actual 'bible-bashing' Christian, "contains principles and guidelines to be a good person” is not what the bible is about. That's a massively watered down, namby-pamby don't-want-to-offend-anyone interpretation tied to the middle-England idea of Jesus as a friendly white bloke with flowing blond locks who went round telling people nice things about themselves.
Having said that, "seriously awful things in the bible" is also rather disingenuous.
Neither of those are in the bible. At the very least you have paraphrased them. And you've done the usual thing of make some statement about the bible without providing references, knowing most people will blindly believe you (ironic in the circumstances).
That aside, you can play that game - cherry-picking sentences or shorter out of context - with just about any source. The papers like to do it all the time, as do politicians.
It wasn't insightful the first time either :)
I'd bet the majority commenting about the morality of the bible (whether in a positive or negative light) are doing so primarily based on what they remember from religious studies lessons as children.
Considering the majority of Christians haven't read the whole thing, and most lay-people people will happily believe just about anything you tell them about the bible/Christianity if you sound certain, I think it's a safe bet. Certainly most of what I thought the bible taught before I read it was either incorrect or came from somewhere else entirely.
It's hard to say the bible's place in the best-seller lists. Leaving aside bulk orders (which I think count?) there are so many versions. Probably a dozen or so 'mainstream' (NIV, NKJV, American standard, etc) of which many are published in different formats (plain bible, study bible, bible in a year, amplified bible). And that's before you get on to less rigid translations like The Message which are very popular but cannot really be classed as translations.
You'd have to combine the sales of dozens of different books to get a meaningful figure. Maybe this is done as a matter of course, I have no idea?
What about the fact many of the 'books' are letters and one is only one page long? I think you need to be more pedantic.
Of books that affected me and shaped my world view:
- Brief History of Time
- The bible
- Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman
Of course since you suggest you haven't read it (or maybe either) it's a completely stupid supposition.
Interesting point. The goal of distributing the bible to as many people as possible must have driven advances in technologies such as printing, as well as in understanding many many languages... people learning obscure languages purely so they can provide a translation to those people.
It's had WAY more impact.
I'd rate it as pretty important too and I haven't ever read it, and I'm a Christian. I don't agree with Islam's teachings but it's a very important book merely because so many people do - similar to the bible in that respect. Together they have shaped our world (for better or worse is for each individual to decide).
I've worked in offices where anyone might need to do scanning. We didn't have a scanner on every PC. We had one PC with a scanner, which you'd jump on if you needed to scan something. If we'd been a business who did a lot of scanning it would've been different but then that's a special case in which case your whole argument is meaningless because we're talking about general IT, not any number of niches (programmers, architects, artists, scientists, etc)
Yes but in your example, you need one person with a PC used for such things, you don't need everyone to have a PC just in case they need to do some scanning.
Of course some people need a full PC interface either for performance or input/usability reasons - just as some people actually need 4-wheel drive or a pickup truck to drive around in day-to-day.
Yeah because clearly a)those are the ONLY two options and b)experiences online don't affect perception of the real world or vice versa.
Looking at a photo of a naked lady online circa 1995 dialup is very different from what is available now. And it's not like extreme/hard porn is any harder to find, potentially even easier, than soft stuff. If finding the hard stuff required special effort it might be different but kids are likely to stumble across pretty extreme stuff right off the bat.
I like that analogy.
While it's an important issue "it's all the parents' fault" is a bit of a glib, automatic generalisation.
My mum can (just about) figure how to install FireFox or Chrome - she had it on her old PC which my late father set up and knew she wanted it on the new one. But anything past that she has no idea - the settings menu is intrinsically a scary place to most people remember. :)
I'm sure there is truth in what you say but I think you overstate things. Many people are savvy enough to install FireFox (or Chrome) but simply install it and consider it installed. The proportion who know how to set their preferred search engine is likely higher on FF/Chrome than IE but I'd suggest is definitely not more than 50%.
Still worth a chunk of cash to MS, definitely.
It might hurt them but if as suggested, Mozilla couldn't function without Google's cash, would Google like to kill FF? Or do they not care what browser people use as long as all browsers are fast and support stadnards well - i.e. do they care about browser share or only that people are doing everything online?
Well they surely pay a similar level of royalties, but on a far smaller scale.
It's not really the reality though. WP8 is a nice, easy to use OS. It's not particularly exciting but it works well enough for most people's needs.
That rather depends on your circle of friends.
I'm surprised they so boldly brand it "Microsoft" rather than put the MS logo with "Lumia", which has gained some brand awareness and is not (IIRC) owned by Nokia.
I lived with one for over a year and then bought another one. So I have about 30X more experience than you and therefore my opinion is 30X more valuable.