Comment Re:Aliens are so stupid (Score 1) 244
Crashing is the easy part. Really, everything we put on Mars is just a controlled crash, and that's when everything goes right.
Crashing is the easy part. Really, everything we put on Mars is just a controlled crash, and that's when everything goes right.
Cranks *ARE* their base.
"The wealthy don't pay taxes" isn't a winning campaign message.
Where would you get the meteor? How would you direct it?
If you were an alien, and you managed to make it across interstellar space to another solar system, maybe you are at the very limit of your civilization's technological advancement, and you have spent 30 years on a one-man one-way mission and after all that just landing "successfully" (not dead) was the best you could manage.
*IF* there are aliens, and *IF* interstellar travel is possible, the first beings to do it are going to be coming in on the space equivalent of a Viking longship, not an aircraft carrier or 787.
First contact isn't going to be with a ship capable of doing anything other than just barely getting there.
If anything, quite the opposite - you wouldn't expect a divinely inspired document to conflict with testable reality nearly so often..
Oh, you mean our scientific "reality" where:
- We have to posit the existence of 96% of the mass-energy of the universe because of the missing mass needed to explain star velocities in galaxies (dark matter) and to force-equate distances with a constant of integration (dark energy) -- when we have no direct observation of either of these.
- We pretend everything is ok (for GR and the SM to coexist) when they have yet to be reconciled for 50+ years.
- Where an expanding earth model fits geological data better than floating plate tectonics (but contradicts energy conservation under the same laws that don't explain the above 96%)
- Where the strength-to-weight ratio of dinosaur bones is impossibly too weak to support animals like the T-Rex, let alone Brontosaurus
- We have no explanation for the natural matter-to-antimatter ratio or that we have a "particle zoo" rather than anything elegant
- The speed of light has has gyrated (slightly) over the decades -- but nonetheless significantly outside error bars given at the time.
- The best explanation is that everything as we know it appeared in basically an instant, from nothing -- but that the idea of God isn't even part of the discussion?
"Modern" scientific instruments have only existed for ~300 years to be generous meanwhile quantum theory shows us up and down that understating exactly how observations integrate with the universe is entirely up for grabs.
A more likely scenario is that we really have no idea what is going on -- that time and/or mass energy doesn't work the way we think it does. In short: that the further you go back, the more mystical the timeline gets. Further, I don't know if you've ever read the Bible, but it is chuck full of prophesy that has come to pass, including a man who raised the dead, who walked on water, fed thousands from a lunch box, who was confirmed dead by hundreds, and who appeared again to over 500 eye-witnesses -- all documented exhaustively.
Be careful what you consider an authority of truth -- or at least be logical and favor the explanation that requires less of a leap of faith.
As an atheist, swearing on any religious book would be silly for me, because it would hold no meaning. In fact, I can't think of any text that I consider to be sacred.
Well how about your integrity then?
Not long ago, your word was your bond. The practice of "swearing in" reflected this formally, so as if you were you break your oath -- your bond -- then others could rightfully accuse you of falling out of integrity with yourself (and your higher beliefs). In harsher times, losing your credibility was one worst consequences for someone who wanted his family to survive and be prosperous. A man with no honor or integrity and could not be trusted and was useful for little -- and still holds true.
This is more like selling lifeboats to those flailing from the already sunk ship.
You mean lifeboat futures and options!
Buy a used Xbox 360 Kinect ($20-$30 on eBay), and use the free K2VR (https://k2vr.tech/). Boom, done. Leg tracking. You don't need a fancy headset that keeps track of your legs, and you don't need to buy additional hardware trackers for your hips and your ankles.
Seriously, I don't know why more VR solutions aren't going with depth camera tracking instead of trying to guess where your limbs are.
I just want a new 15" Mac laptop for less than $1500 USD.
MacBook Air 15" would be fine. They can call it whatever they want. I don't need all the bells and whistles, I'm not going to be editing video on it.
The Business School does it's own thing, it doesn't dictate what the rest of the University does and often doesn't go along with the rest. The Business School is unusual in that it gives students accounts on Exchange, most of the rest of the University uses Exchange for only faculty/staff, not because the B-School did but because a University is an "enterprise" and Exchange is useful enterprise software.
And for many years, the Exchange instances I was aware of did have SMTP and IMAP gateways enabled, no need to set up one's own. I configured pine as an email client to Exchange, just to see if I could.
I don't think you need a Harvard email address to use any of the exploited platforms, you just need an active account in the single-sign-on system called HarvardKey.
Harvard email addresses are not all @harvard.edu, most include the School in the domain name, as your university did. I know faculty/staff can get @harvard.edu aliases, I don't know if any students can.
Anyone taking an Extension School course can request a Google Apps for Harvard account, which includes a @g.harvard.edu Gmail address, but it's only active while you're registered for a course (semester ends, account access ends unless you're registered for a course in the next semester).
Faculty, staff, and students in some other parts of Harvard can also have a @g.harvard.edu account in addition to their School account. Some may prefer to use it because they prefer Gmail over Outlook and/or because it integrates better with Google Calendar, Drive, etc. This fact makes the email address domain name not a great way to differentiate people signed up for one Extension course from "real" students or people employed by the University. So what? An email address is not a validation tool and attending or working at Harvard does not mean someone is great, or even good.
I don't think you need a Harvard email address to use any of the exploited platforms, you just need an active account in the single-sign-on system called HarvardKey.
You're leaving out a few details and getting the order wrong. First there was this:
"Microsoft proposed a division of the browser market between our companies: if Netscape would agree not to produce a Windows 95 browser that would compete with Internet Explorer, Microsoft would allow Netscape to continue to produce cross-platform versions of its browser for the relatively small market of non-Windows 95 platforms: namely, Windows 3.1, Macintosh, and UNIX. Moreover, Microsoft made clear that if Netscape did not agree to its plan to divide the browser market, Microsoft would crush Netscape, using its operating system monopoly, by freely incorporating all the functionality of Netscape’s products into Windows." - James Barksdale's testimony, as quoted in the antitrust trial's Findings of Fact
Netscape declined, Microsoft licensed NCSA code, and then Microsoft did exactly what they had threatened to do.
It was a few years later that Netscape, in an attempt to survive, attempted to push a web-based OS strategy (similar to Google Docs today). Note, though, that they used open standards for this (HTTP, HTML, LDAP, and so forth). Unfortunately this was too little too late.
Netscape died *because* Microsoft played dirty: using Windows revenues to develop IE and give it away for free, doing the same with lots of server products that copied ones Netscape was selling, threatening to stop selling Windows licenses to PC vendors if they preinstalled Netscape.
If the major sources of revenue for your company have been cut off by a competitor who can then afford to litigate you until you run out of money, how can you compete?
Just don't call it an investment. It's a gamble.
Those are mutable subsets of each other.
Truth, however, speculation is the key word. Whereas growth from genuine in investment is a maturing or fruition of value that was known to be there all along.
Fast, cheap, good: pick two.