If they didn't release the code then I'd say that a good old fashioned crucifixion would be in order but as it is, there's no real reason to hit them any more. The code is free like it should have been and that's that. In so far as a double standard, I think it would be far more sensible to advocate for sane copyright reform rather than resorting to the same tactics the RIAA and MPAA use.
which is something the original starcraft had so the AI would know whether to rush you or not.
It may have just been my limited experience with the AIs but most of the time it seemed that the AI was on a pretty fixed schedule in terms of attacks. If the AI had any comprehension of what the human player had built then I'd say that the AIs were very very poorly designed. They'd attack massive defense with a dozen zealots when a human player that knew the defense was there would have known it was futile to have done so. Their attacks were fairly predictable to the point where the game could effectively be repeated several times without much variety.
Everyone knows that your customers will go to your websites without any help from search engines!
Considering who actually consumes Murdoch's media, it wouldn't surprise me if they instinctively seek out his biased media by name. Kind of like how most Slashdotters probably don't google stories from Slashdot; they just click the bookmark and read the site.
Birds do this all the time. If it didn't benefit the flock to form these cooperative formations then it would not have been selected for as strongly as it obviously was.
Well considering the internet evolved from a government project I'd say there isn't going to be any heads exploding over this. Especially if it has military applications which it probably does. Reducing fuel expenditure is a tactical advantage and the vast majority of free market types still support the idea of the government fulfilling the role of national defense to some degree.
Accessibility isn't required, reasonable accommodations are. Now to debate the definition of "reasonable" and whether or not the feds should even be involved is another matter.
Even if Sony loses the suit, there's nothing stopping Sony from accepting mods for the sole purpose of aiding accessibility while still forbidding other kinds of mods. Perhaps a certification process for third party mods.
I'm sure there are many people who hold both to be true. However, there are also people on Slashdot that realise that the two positions are to some extent, exclusive of one another.
It's better news than hearing that China decided to just shoot them in the head instead. It's true China is extremely bad when it comes to maintaining human rights but really this kind of "treatment" needed to be banned.
It's too bad that hardware built today has little to no ability to just add or remove components as needed instead of designing a sepate piece of hardware for every possible combination. Imagine instead of buying a mouse with 18 buttons and tons of things you may or may not need; you could get a bare bones mouse that you could just clip on new components as you needed. As an analogy, it'd be like snapping lego blocks together to make different things yourself is better than having to buy a specific configuration of blocks that can not be modified. Want a 10 button mouse? get the components together and snap the pieces into place. Hate that trackball after all? swap it out for a laser tracking component instead. The possibilities are nearly endless. Of course, there's already something liek this just not for mice and such yet... Open hardware.
California is trying to do just that. The legislation was supposed to mandate a coating on windows to reduce accidents caused by the sun but it also had the effect of blocking cell phone signals too.
1) limit the data to one person's account. If someone wants the data out there they could export it themselves. 2) presumably someone would only have this if they really wanted to track their pets and putting something like this on someone else's pet without permission would most likely be illegal as it is.
Using relativistic mechanics, the fit is an exact match to observed galaxies.
I can tell from that quote that you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Even a sophomore physics student can see that these stars are no where near in the conditions where relativistic equations even matter. Jesus christ man, don't you think that if it was that simple a fix physicists would know about it?
If you're talking about newton being the known-wrong theory then you're not understanding the fact that the discrepancy is tiny under the conditions which these stars orbit. If you're claiming that something like MOND is correct then you're going to have to support that position a little better. As for the so called simplified equations that cause "errors" I'd like you to explain how that comes even close to this. Believe it or not, most physicists aren't idiots. Most of them use equations that are a little more accurate than the ones you used in introductory physics class in college.
How do you propose that we expand our knowledge without acquiring more evidence? How would you test a hypothesis or a theory without searching for more evidence for or against it?
Simulations of stars in galaxies are approximations because: 1) there isn't an equation for an exact solution to any gravitationally bound system containing more than 5 objects. 2) stars in a typical galaxy are not uniform so the simulations must take this into account as a best guess. br/>3) newton's equations are indeed incorrect however, Einstein's equations only dominate to a significant degree under unusual conditions.
In so far as dark matter is concerned, you are incorrect. Experiments like the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search are attempting to detect dark matter particles directly, we've got neutrino detectors looking for evidence of annihilation events... Particle accelerator experiments attempting to actually synthesize dark matter candidates.. To claim that there isn't a way to test the dark matter hypothesis would be grossly inaccurate. Disclaimer: Physics isn't my major but I did study quite a bit of it in high school and college.
It looks like they're claiming that the radiation from these electrons indicates that a process of higher energy than a supernova caused the phenomena. I presume that the process they're talking about is the decay of WIMPs and other dark matter candidates. The dark matter its self hasn't been directly detected unless you're counting this paper as an example of the contrary. The problem is that this is a very new paper in arxiv and as such requires much more peer review before we can say with reasonable confidence that their claim is plausible or not.
Close. Black holes emit hawking radiation in so far as physics is concerned however, the more massive a black hole is the less bright it is. A black hole with twice the mass of another black hoel will be 1/8th as bright as the smaller black hole. For blackholes largers than the sun, the hawking radiation is so miniscule that the lifetime of the black hole is on the order of 10^60+ years before it "evaporates." Dark matter O.T.O.H. is merely undetectable with current instrumentation outside of indirect gravitational effects.
The difference is that dark matter and dark energy can be tested for in various ways; a deity can't be. When physicists can't explain something they may use a place holder at times but there's no chance of just giving up like the "god did it" explanation does.
Slashdot Mirror
If they didn't release the code then I'd say that a good old fashioned crucifixion would be in order but as it is, there's no real reason to hit them any more. The code is free like it should have been and that's that.
In so far as a double standard, I think it would be far more sensible to advocate for sane copyright reform rather than resorting to the same tactics the RIAA and MPAA use.
Not if the government regulates competitors out of existence. What exists today in no way resembles a free market.
It may have just been my limited experience with the AIs but most of the time it seemed that the AI was on a pretty fixed schedule in terms of attacks. If the AI had any comprehension of what the human player had built then I'd say that the AIs were very very poorly designed. They'd attack massive defense with a dozen zealots when a human player that knew the defense was there would have known it was futile to have done so. Their attacks were fairly predictable to the point where the game could effectively be repeated several times without much variety.
Considering who actually consumes Murdoch's media, it wouldn't surprise me if they instinctively seek out his biased media by name. Kind of like how most Slashdotters probably don't google stories from Slashdot; they just click the bookmark and read the site.
Birds do this all the time. If it didn't benefit the flock to form these cooperative formations then it would not have been selected for as strongly as it obviously was.
Well considering the internet evolved from a government project I'd say there isn't going to be any heads exploding over this. Especially if it has military applications which it probably does. Reducing fuel expenditure is a tactical advantage and the vast majority of free market types still support the idea of the government fulfilling the role of national defense to some degree.
Don't forget the open source Clamwin antivirus program.
Accessibility isn't required, reasonable accommodations are. Now to debate the definition of "reasonable" and whether or not the feds should even be involved is another matter.
Simple. Use audio cues instead of visual ones. TFA mentioned an audio compass and voice-over as being examples.
Even if Sony loses the suit, there's nothing stopping Sony from accepting mods for the sole purpose of aiding accessibility while still forbidding other kinds of mods. Perhaps a certification process for third party mods.
I'm sure there are many people who hold both to be true. However, there are also people on Slashdot that realise that the two positions are to some extent, exclusive of one another.
It's better news than hearing that China decided to just shoot them in the head instead. It's true China is extremely bad when it comes to maintaining human rights but really this kind of "treatment" needed to be banned.
It's too bad that hardware built today has little to no ability to just add or remove components as needed instead of designing a sepate piece of hardware for every possible combination. Imagine instead of buying a mouse with 18 buttons and tons of things you may or may not need; you could get a bare bones mouse that you could just clip on new components as you needed. As an analogy, it'd be like snapping lego blocks together to make different things yourself is better than having to buy a specific configuration of blocks that can not be modified. Want a 10 button mouse? get the components together and snap the pieces into place. Hate that trackball after all? swap it out for a laser tracking component instead. The possibilities are nearly endless. Of course, there's already something liek this just not for mice and such yet... Open hardware.
ACTA. If legislation makes them more money than actually producing stuff that's what they'll go for.
Car accidents shold put the fear of death into people too but that doesn't stop them from doing stupid things while driving.
California is trying to do just that. The legislation was supposed to mandate a coating on windows to reduce accidents caused by the sun but it also had the effect of blocking cell phone signals too.
1) limit the data to one person's account. If someone wants the data out there they could export it themselves.
2) presumably someone would only have this if they really wanted to track their pets and putting something like this on someone else's pet without permission would most likely be illegal as it is.
I can tell from that quote that you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Even a sophomore physics student can see that these stars are no where near in the conditions where relativistic equations even matter. Jesus christ man, don't you think that if it was that simple a fix physicists would know about it?
If you're talking about newton being the known-wrong theory then you're not understanding the fact that the discrepancy is tiny under the conditions which these stars orbit. If you're claiming that something like MOND is correct then you're going to have to support that position a little better. As for the so called simplified equations that cause "errors" I'd like you to explain how that comes even close to this. Believe it or not, most physicists aren't idiots. Most of them use equations that are a little more accurate than the ones you used in introductory physics class in college.
How do you propose that we expand our knowledge without acquiring more evidence? How would you test a hypothesis or a theory without searching for more evidence for or against it?
Simulations of stars in galaxies are approximations because: />3) newton's equations are indeed incorrect however, Einstein's equations only dominate to a significant degree under unusual conditions.
1) there isn't an equation for an exact solution to any gravitationally bound system containing more than 5 objects.
2) stars in a typical galaxy are not uniform so the simulations must take this into account as a best guess. br
In so far as dark matter is concerned, you are incorrect. Experiments like the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search are attempting to detect dark matter particles directly, we've got neutrino detectors looking for evidence of annihilation events... Particle accelerator experiments attempting to actually synthesize dark matter candidates.. To claim that there isn't a way to test the dark matter hypothesis would be grossly inaccurate.
Disclaimer: Physics isn't my major but I did study quite a bit of it in high school and college.
It looks like they're claiming that the radiation from these electrons indicates that a process of higher energy than a supernova caused the phenomena. I presume that the process they're talking about is the decay of WIMPs and other dark matter candidates. The dark matter its self hasn't been directly detected unless you're counting this paper as an example of the contrary. The problem is that this is a very new paper in arxiv and as such requires much more peer review before we can say with reasonable confidence that their claim is plausible or not.
Close. Black holes emit hawking radiation in so far as physics is concerned however, the more massive a black hole is the less bright it is. A black hole with twice the mass of another black hoel will be 1/8th as bright as the smaller black hole. For blackholes largers than the sun, the hawking radiation is so miniscule that the lifetime of the black hole is on the order of 10^60+ years before it "evaporates." Dark matter O.T.O.H. is merely undetectable with current instrumentation outside of indirect gravitational effects.
The difference is that dark matter and dark energy can be tested for in various ways; a deity can't be.
When physicists can't explain something they may use a place holder at times but there's no chance of just giving up like the "god did it" explanation does.
1,5,6 and 7 were broken by Obama. Never under-estimate the power neocons had in completely destroying the GOP and alienating most of the populace.