Slashdot Mirror

Yep, I noticed that right away also, it seems that the meaning of vaporware is getting lost. In fact, IIRC, the source code leaked from HL2 sometime last year which proves that it isn't vaporware. I suppose it could be possible for games like DN2 not to exist at all, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense in the computer game software industry to use marketing tactics like that.

Yes, you really wouldn't want to traverse the bridge of asses more than once. ;)

Personally I'll agree with the poster of the parent. It's about time that Rick Berman and co. had to learn the lesson of quality over quantity.

Without going into which series or movie was the best, let's take a look at the timeline. We have the original series, wait for about 10 years and we start getting movies. After another 10 years, we get TNG. Before it is done, we get DS9, during which we get TNG movies starting. Before DS9 is done, we get Voyager. Shortly after, we get Enterprise. TNG, DS9 and Voyager (I believe, I stopped V after 3 episodes) all went for 7 seasons, whereas TOS went for 3 out of the planned 5. Since TNG started, we have had 6 movies. In other words, out of the 35 years that we have had the show, 23 out of 26 seasons and 6 out of 10 movies have been in the past 15 years.

I'd like to have Mr. Berman take a look at this link.

$.02
MHP

I've always thought there was a difference between "advertising" and "marketing". The purpose of advertisment is to let people know that you are selling something so they know where to get it. Informative without being pushy. The purpose of marketing is to convince you that you should buy what they are hawking whether you really need it or not.

Clearly this person was only in it for the programming -- if they were a real gamer, they could've TOTALLY strifed out of the way of the feds.

Er, don't you mean strafe? Strife is more like what the guy went through.

NGO's are INCREDIBLY annoying...

NGO = Non-Governmental Organization.

The logical conclusion from your post is that all Organizations should be Governmental.

My church is a Non-Governmental Organization.

So is the company who happens to pay my bills.

Obviously, you must live in a country where private ownership of property has been abolished, and you like it there.

WTF does propagandize mean.

Just what you think it means, assuming you have the abilitity to discern meaning from context.

Incidently this kind of defeat your own argument, I mean you are admitting that your view is not a fact but biased opinion.

I am admitting nothing of the kind. Rather, I am merely poking fun at the absurdity of your post, made in earnest I suspect, which makes it all the more comical.

If true, how badly will NASA's scientific mission be effected (wrong! should be "affected") if it becomes a conduit for giving research and development money to defense contractors?

This usage note for the reference manual for the word affect indicates the "effect" and "affect" have different meanings:

Usage Note: "Affect" and "effect" have no senses in common. As a verb "affect" is most commonly used in the sense of "to influence" (how smoking affects health). "Effect" means "to bring about or execute": layoffs designed to effect savings. Thus the sentence These measures may affect savings could imply that the measures may reduce savings that have already been realized, whereas These measures may effect savings implies that the measures will cause new savings to come about.

Oh, I'm sure it will be effected like a son of a gun!

their mishoministic rage

It took me a while to find the opposite of misogyny the first time I wanted to find out, but the word you're looking for is misandry or misandristic, I guess.

No, it can mean the "group who has the most power". It doesn't necessarily mean greater then 50%:

4 : the group or political party whose votes preponderate.

The political party, group, or faction having the most power by virtue of its larger representation or electoral strength.

If you're a professional astronomer, then I weep for the field. Here is the definition of 'fundamental'. Here is the definition of flaw. Here is a NASA newsletter talking about the corrective optics and using software to correct the flawed mirror.

So, to carry forth your moronic and logically flawed analogy, if you bought a car, and the engine didn't run very well because it was defective from the manufacturer, and you took it to a mechanic who wrapped the carbeurator with duck tape, and it ran better, then does it cease to be flawed? More to the point, would you keep that car, or would you insist the dealer replace it?

Hubble is flawed. it is antiquated. It is no longer worth the investment which could be better spent on a newer space telescope or network of telescopes.

Not only are you a troll, you're an arrogant and concieted troll.

If you're a professional astronomer, then I weep for the field. Here is the definition of 'fundamental'. Here is the definition of flaw. Here is a NASA newsletter talking about the corrective optics and using software to correct the flawed mirror.

So, to carry forth your moronic and logically flawed analogy, if you bought a car, and the engine didn't run very well because it was defective from the manufacturer, and you took it to a mechanic who wrapped the carbeurator with duck tape, and it ran better, then does it cease to be flawed? More to the point, would you keep that car, or would you insist the dealer replace it?

Hubble is flawed. it is antiquated. It is no longer worth the investment which could be better spent on a newer space telescope or network of telescopes.

Not only are you a troll, you're an arrogant and concieted troll.

In this context it refers to how well you can tell two pieces of information apart at a distance (there's probably a correct definition, but I can't be bothered finding it).

dictionary.com: 6. The fineness of detail that can be distinguished in an image, as on a video display terminal.

Like a lot of other terms, the original meaning has been taken by computers and placed somewhat out of the context it was originally used for.

It is an error to think of them as anything other than trains because they meet the definition of a train.

However, thinking of them as locomotives may be a bit off.

It is an error to think of them as anything other than trains because they meet the definition of a train.

However, thinking of them as locomotives may be a bit off.

Irony's a bitch, innit?

in soviet russia you freeze over hell

1)hell freezes over
2)???
3)PROFIT!

i work for a VERY large fortune 500 company and you just have to consider the facts, hell is dying

does hell run linux?

looks like hell really did freeze over, there webserver anyways, its giving me 404s

imagine a beowulf cluster of dragons in hell

i bet i get to hell before ipv6 is adopted!

--
Swallow and chew
Eat you alive
All of us food that hasn't died
And the light says

Thanks for providing a link to The Supreme Court. Now I can visit its site to find out what it is. Good thing posters on on Slashdot privide hyperlinks to every page on the World Wide Web that they reference. Otherwise we'd all be confused idiots.

Well, there it is - my first rudely sarcastic post.

I have listened to a lot of Chris Rock, and I've never considered him to be racist. He makes fun of people. He discusses a lot of racial issues. He weaves skewering social commentary throughout his jokes. That does not make him racist.

He's a comedian. He's funny.

In addition to your spelling lesson, I am going to spend some additional time on my soapbox. People like me who follow grammar and spelling conventions are considered to be plagiarizing because we write fluid, coherent sentences! This is not purely a theoretical matter for me as I have had teachers show suspicion as to the origin of my papers. Sure, they can go on-line and check to see if I am indeed cheating. However, a law school student like you should realize that copyright can apply to two parties who independently created the same thing. Provided correct usage of the English language is observed, there are only a limited number of ways to express an idea on a given topic. What would prevent two people from explaining the same event or idea in identical wording? I will not go so far as to say papers would be identical, but an entire sentence or two may well be. If all professors shared the ideology of one of my high school English teachers, who narrowly defined plagiarism as using three words in the exact same order from an uncited source, many students could be falsely accused and punished. This is something about which a law school student should be very concerned.

Ummm no it is not. And this says so.

glow

"Some consumers, initially seeking Playboy's sites, may initially believe that unlabeled banner advertisements are links to Playboy's sites...Once they follow the instructions to 'click here,' and they access the site, they may well realize that they are not at a Playboy-sponsored site."

"Some consumers" - What percentage of people doing search for "playboy" or "playmate" are really looking for www.playboy.com ?

When I do searches, sometimes I use some word as a "seed." The intention is not to see sites with that keyword precisely, but to see under what category of Google they fall under, or to see what are the other related sites to my keyword. This then allows me to do a more thorough search of the various possibilities.

For example, if I had to do research on inexpensive or free email I would do a search for "Yahoo email" because I know Yahoo provides free emails. The Google category that it falls under is Computers/Internet/E-mail/Free/Web-Based/Y/Yahoo/ Once I get the directory path, I can trim it to get Computers/Internet/E-mail/Free/

Now the list that I see Computers/Internet/E-mail/Free/ is what I was looking for. I can now select "free email" providers that might provide more space than Yahoo, or better pop3 or imap facilities, or more features like throw-away emails.

My point is that even though I started off with "Yahoo" in my search, I was not looking for Yahoo per se.

So, when I type in "playboy" or "playmate" or "Playboy" or "Playmate" in the search box, I think it is presumptuous of Playboy.com and the Hefners to think I was looking for their site.

And this is why I think they have made a very weak assertion. Look at the wording of their assertion - It is littered with initially ...

"Some consumers,initially seeking Playboy's sites, may initially believe that ....

I think Playboy.com should be nailed on why they think everyone typing in playboy or playmate is looking for their site. And then, they must be made to prove that they are loosing revenue that might have come to them. Otherwise they are no different from RIAA which makes the assumption that every song that is freely downloaded would have been purchased by the downloader, and hence RIAA adds up the dollar values of the downloaded songs to come up with their "piracy related losses." BS. If I couldn't have downloaded the song for free, I wouldn't have even looked for it - let alone pay for the damn thing. To me, the situation for "playboy" and "playmate" searches is very similar.

"Some consumers, initially seeking Playboy's sites, may initially believe that unlabeled banner advertisements are links to Playboy's sites...Once they follow the instructions to 'click here,' and they access the site, they may well realize that they are not at a Playboy-sponsored site."

"Some consumers" - What percentage of people doing search for "playboy" or "playmate" are really looking for www.playboy.com ?

When I do searches, sometimes I use some word as a "seed." The intention is not to see sites with that keyword precisely, but to see under what category of Google they fall under, or to see what are the other related sites to my keyword. This then allows me to do a more thorough search of the various possibilities.

For example, if I had to do research on inexpensive or free email I would do a search for "Yahoo email" because I know Yahoo provides free emails. The Google category that it falls under is Computers/Internet/E-mail/Free/Web-Based/Y/Yahoo/ Once I get the directory path, I can trim it to get Computers/Internet/E-mail/Free/

Now the list that I see Computers/Internet/E-mail/Free/ is what I was looking for. I can now select "free email" providers that might provide more space than Yahoo, or better pop3 or imap facilities, or more features like throw-away emails.

My point is that even though I started off with "Yahoo" in my search, I was not looking for Yahoo per se.

So, when I type in "playboy" or "playmate" or "Playboy" or "Playmate" in the search box, I think it is presumptuous of Playboy.com and the Hefners to think I was looking for their site.

And this is why I think they have made a very weak assertion. Look at the wording of their assertion - It is littered with initially ...

"Some consumers,initially seeking Playboy's sites, may initially believe that ....

I think Playboy.com should be nailed on why they think everyone typing in playboy or playmate is looking for their site. And then, they must be made to prove that they are loosing revenue that might have come to them. Otherwise they are no different from RIAA which makes the assumption that every song that is freely downloaded would have been purchased by the downloader, and hence RIAA adds up the dollar values of the downloaded songs to come up with their "piracy related losses." BS. If I couldn't have downloaded the song for free, I wouldn't have even looked for it - let alone pay for the damn thing. To me, the situation for "playboy" and "playmate" searches is very similar.

He was. Impeached doesn't mean removed from office, it means brought to trial.

insightful: exhibiting insight or clear and deep perception; "an insightful parent"; "the chapter is insightful and suggestive of new

thanks for correcting my spelling error, but it seems my point was obvious. (somehow dictionary.com didn't have inciteful, but did have incite and lists the synonyms as: Syn: Excite; stimulate; instigate; spur; goad; arouse; move; urge; rouse; provoke; encourage; prompt; animate.)

from my perception, i only saw inciteful type remarks in the op, and not really anything that portrayed a clear and deep perception.

Is it me, or do all of these terms mean different things?

"Modularizing" doesn't mean anything.

"Integrating" is used all the time in test processes. (not to mention "process")

Organic computing seems to me to be some sort of carbon-based machine, rather than the Silicon-based computers of today.

Not to nitpick, but that's not an oxymoron


--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor?

American Weblog in London

3. One who infringes the law of copyright, or publishes the work of an author without permission.

It's an accepted dictionary definition and one that I am happy with. Theft is the word I'm really against, but pirate I can sort of let it get by. However the article wasn't about that anyway and I'm glad it wasn't mentioned, for reasons other than those for which I'm glad that theft was not mentioned. I hope this is clear now.

Thank you AC, I stand corrected and have every intention of remembering this lesson.
Please, log in and say hi, so I can add you to my friends list. It would be interesting to see if you can teach me anything else.

1. To lessen the force or intensity of; moderate: To his dying day he bated his breath a little when he told the story (George Eliot). See Usage Note at bait1.
2. To take away; subtract.

bated

\Bat"ed\, a. Reduced; lowered; restrained; as, to speak with bated breath. --Macaulay.

Thank you AC, I stand corrected and have every intention of remembering this lesson.
Please, log in and say hi, so I can add you to my friends list. It would be interesting to see if you can teach me anything else.

1. To lessen the force or intensity of; moderate: To his dying day he bated his breath a little when he told the story (George Eliot). See Usage Note at bait1.
2. To take away; subtract.

bated

\Bat"ed\, a. Reduced; lowered; restrained; as, to speak with bated breath. --Macaulay.

Thank you AC, I stand corrected and have every intention of remembering this lesson.
Please, log in and say hi, so I can add you to my friends list. It would be interesting to see if you can teach me anything else.

1. To lessen the force or intensity of; moderate: To his dying day he bated his breath a little when he told the story (George Eliot). See Usage Note at bait1.
2. To take away; subtract.

bated

\Bat"ed\, a. Reduced; lowered; restrained; as, to speak with bated breath. --Macaulay.

Thank you AC, I stand corrected and have every intention of remembering this lesson.
Please, log in and say hi, so I can add you to my friends list. It would be interesting to see if you can teach me anything else.

1. To lessen the force or intensity of; moderate: To his dying day he bated his breath a little when he told the story (George Eliot). See Usage Note at bait1.
2. To take away; subtract.

bated

\Bat"ed\, a. Reduced; lowered; restrained; as, to speak with bated breath. --Macaulay.

Thank you AC, I stand corrected and have every intention of remembering this lesson.
Please, log in and say hi, so I can add you to my friends list. It would be interesting to see if you can teach me anything else.

1. To lessen the force or intensity of; moderate: To his dying day he bated his breath a little when he told the story (George Eliot). See Usage Note at bait1.
2. To take away; subtract.

bated

\Bat"ed\, a. Reduced; lowered; restrained; as, to speak with bated breath. --Macaulay.

Dictionary: use it. It says something about you when you consistently misspell a common freaking word.

My spelling of time as "tyme" is correct. The full edition of Oxford English Dictionary lists that spelling as a correct Old English spelling. If it was correct then it's correct now. I bet you can learn a lot on etymology if you get the OED, all 20 something volumes and read it. I'd include the link to OED's online listing of "tyme" however it's a paid subscription service.

petrol

Jesus Christ on a stake! People, figure it out already!

to the same extend

Proud owner of a Mensa membership card

Obviously, said Mensa membership card was lost by someone else and you found it on the sidewalk. Someone who really belonged to Mensa wouldn't use "extend" in the above phrase because they would know the correct word is "extent."

to the same extend

Proud owner of a Mensa membership card

Obviously, said Mensa membership card was lost by someone else and you found it on the sidewalk. Someone who really belonged to Mensa wouldn't use "extend" in the above phrase because they would know the correct word is "extent."

= 9J =

= 9J =

Fear not gentle troon, you can watch Duel without trepidation for flammable is a perfectly cromulent word.

Bad enough that my Cartesian Doubt unit was going, but now I have to have my Epistemology out too! This robot is recursive in *so* many ways wrt scientific thought that I'm kind of boggled for the rest of the morning, so I'll bbl.

Bad enough that my Cartesian Doubt unit was going, but now I have to have my Epistemology out too! This robot is recursive in *so* many ways wrt scientific thought that I'm kind of boggled for the rest of the morning, so I'll bbl.

Yes, we *are* talking about giving children speed, and it is by no means an unjustified decision. It has long been suspected that ADHD symptoms are the result of defects in dopaminergic pathways, most likely reduced levels of dopamine production. Dopamine is a very important neurotransmitter, you can Google for yourself if you want more details. Ritalin (methylphenidate) acts by blocking dopamine reuptake, effectively increasing its concentration in the brain tissues.

Considering that deficiencies in dopamine levels are also strongly associated with Parkinson's Disease, would you want your child, if positively diagnosed with a rather severe case of ADHD to grow up not having had at least the opportunity to feel the difference the medication could make (I know they're unrelated, but the mention of Parkinson's makes for good drama)?

Click here. I found that page to be both informative and amusing, because I wasn't able to finish reading that first paragraph. Really. I was diagnosed in my late twenties after a lifetime of debilitating "memory problems" that effectively killed a career in molecular biology labwork that I started when I was fourteen, and now...

...now I look back and really wish my parents had at least considered treatments, because I am on ritalin now and am suddenly finding myself able to do the things I had always wanted to do. I can keep tabs on multiple sets of data, I can perform multiple tasks independently, I can remember to turn the burners off when I'm done, only now I'm fucking fifteen years behind and extremely saddened by the fact that I had not had this opportunity earlier.

Please understand. It's not haphazard prescription of amphetamines for the purposes of taming children, it's giving children a chance to function in ways that benefit them.

> most of the tyme
> a waste of tyme!

Dictionary: use it. It says something about you when you consistently misspell a common freaking word.

luddite (2) - One who opposes technical or technological change. You are a luddite, because you oppose the change. You don't mind technology, as long as it doesn't really change anything. You may accept bigger TV, faster and more efficient car, cheaper computers, but you don't want change, you are afraid of it, you hate uncertainty. That is normal, most people feel this way, but that is because they are weak, stupid and cowardly.

This technology has the potential to change the world. It will change the world, or rather one of it's next iterations. The exponential growth in the number of people connected to computers and in total brain-computer traffic has already started. We don't notice it, like we didn't notice Internet in 1970s, but it is here. Expect brain-computer networking to be a bigger hit in 2015 than Wi-Fi was in 2000.

The argument was not about whether HCI research is needed, the argument was about whether or not HCI is about preference. The article being about what a UI designer thinks about the Human-Computer Interaction of Mac OS X, it seems completely relevant to point out competing statements from two published HCI authors and UI designers.

Once again someone who says, "I won't waste my time telling you why you're wrong, just that you're wrong."

The argument was not about whether HCI research is needed, the argument was about whether or not HCI is about preference. The article being about what a UI designer thinks about the Human-Computer Interaction of Mac OS X, it seems completely relevant to point out competing statements from two published HCI authors and UI designers.

Once again someone who says, "I won't waste my time telling you why you're wrong, just that you're wrong."