Did DeNiro already forget about Brazil? How many truly great science fiction movies does he think one actor deserves to be in?;) Maybe SF isn't exactly what he is looking for:
DeNiro: I'm looking to get a part in one of those movies like Memento or "A beautiful mind" Agent: You mean a science related movie? DeNiro: No, I mean an Oscar winner - it's been a while
Pi is only superficially about science (actually, mathematics), especially since the goal is not accurate portrayal of scientific ideas. What Pi is really about (like all great movies) is madness. And a fucking killer soundtrack.
Yeah - since the name Morris is just as recognized and culturally loaded as the name Einstein is. Maybe the name is Morris is so common that the situation that occured in the book is far more realistic that the one you hoped for?
But that's so cliche, after all - morris is such a common name that it would be far more likely to meet someone in the past that had nothing to do with the principle. Kudos to the author for not following the set formula for doing time travel!!
Linux already is a "mainstream OS" for any reasonable definition of that vague phrase.
If you think reading slashdot gives you some special insight into the mind of the average linux user, you are woefully wrong. Just about every developer and manager at my company reads slashdot, but most of those people are not linux users.
That's a really strange usage of the word "chance" within the context of games. In tic-tac-toe, there is a chance your opponent will make a mistake, and then you could win. Of course, your opponent would have to be pretty stupid.
Furthermore, if most of the people the poster knows have such a relationship with this book, he has an extremely limited range of acquaintenances. The poster would be served well to meet and socialize with people outside the computer field.
If you write code that will only live in the Windows world, you owe it to yourself to check out C#/.NET.
If you write code that you think will only live in a windows world, you should always consider carefully using cross-platform or portable solutions. I've seen the windows-only assumption fail many times: the developers were stuck with the difficult and tedious task of gettin their built-for-ms code to be cross-platform.
It's just one consideration. If vendor lock in doesn't bother you or your clients, or you will never need to reach other platforms or scale your solution,.MicroSoft might be right for you.
Jesus, lighten the fuck up man, that joke may be old, but there is a certain humor in using an old joke at the right time. Everthing that comes out of your brilliant mind is witty and original, so maybe you don't have to resort to timing for your humor. Well for "fuck's sake", have some pitty on those of us who aren't nearly the fine specimen of the human race that you are.
Here's a free clue for you: if you think that by blessing us with your advice to "shut the fuck up" you will in anyway reduce the number of times "hammer time" or any other lame slashdot joke is repeated, or that you will increase the caliber of discussion around here in any way, you are seriously fucking deluded. The only effect your little frothing at the mouth has is to contribute to the general inane posturing that goes on around here.
PS. take the stick out of your ass.
PPS. nice hand waiving to dismiss the objections with the inaccuracies in your first little hissy fit
PPPS. get over yourself, you are not so fucking brilliant that others' stupidity can cause you pain
If you want somebody to start with, try this site for Mazda. You'll have to make your browser ID to get in, but then they have a feedback form where you can tell them about how you had to jump through hoops to view their site.
Would you PLEASE stop telling everyone what to do?
You were amusing with your cooler-than-thou attitude for about three syllables, but then it got old. I've never posted that joke BEFORE, so for fuck's sake take the stick out of your ass, get off your goddamn high horse, and get over yourself!
I read the section on the receding moon. The creationist argument is basically that the earth-moon system can't be older than 2.3 billion years. Both the author and a critic acknoledge that there are many unkown factors that would affect this calculation. Yet that is only a factor of 2 off of the age of the earth as estimated by geologists.
So the question is: what kind of argument for creationism is this? Not one at all. It's merely a very weak argument against a fact supported by modern science (upon which evolution rests) - that is that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
The problem with creation science is that there's no theory and no support for that theory. Even if these caclculations were rock solid an all the variables were known, the only conclusion you can reach from this supposed creationist evidence is that the moon is less than 2.3 billion years old. That conclusion is barely damning to evolution, and in no way supports creationism, especially when the standard form asserts an age of the earth less than 10,000 years old. 2.3 billion is much closer to 4.5 billion than it is to 10,000.
Again, no evidence, no theory, therefore, creation science ain't no science.
Please. You make it sound like creationism and evolution are on equal scientific footing. This is simply not true. There is a mountain of evidence that supports evolution. For creationism, there is hardly even any definitive statement of what the "theory of creationism" is. Most evidence creationists cite is actually supposed evidence against evolution, not support for creationism. Just check the web - there are dozens of bad arguments out there - once they are introduced, they never die, arm chair "creation scientists" keep repeating them. My favorites are the onces involving the moon recession rates and the amount of dust on the moon - real gems.
Calling evolution a religion is either dishonest or an exercise in destroying the meaning of "religion" and making the word so vague that you can call anything a religion. Take your pick.
Slashdot Mirror
YMMV
DeNiro: I'm looking to get a part in one of those movies like Memento or "A beautiful mind"
Agent: You mean a science related movie?
DeNiro: No, I mean an Oscar winner - it's been a while
Thanks, I'll be here all week.
HTH
Yeah - since the name Morris is just as recognized and culturally loaded as the name Einstein is. Maybe the name is Morris is so common that the situation that occured in the book is far more realistic that the one you hoped for?
But that's so cliche, after all - morris is such a common name that it would be far more likely to meet someone in the past that had nothing to do with the principle. Kudos to the author for not following the set formula for doing time travel!!
The Mazda USA site is another one. Hammer away, skew their stats. Be a hero.
If you think reading slashdot gives you some special insight into the mind of the average linux user, you are woefully wrong. Just about every developer and manager at my company reads slashdot, but most of those people are not linux users.
Right. So you're agreeing with me. Thank you for the support.
That's a really strange usage of the word "chance" within the context of games. In tic-tac-toe, there is a chance your opponent will make a mistake, and then you could win. Of course, your opponent would have to be pretty stupid.
Furthermore, if most of the people the poster knows have such a relationship with this book, he has an extremely limited range of acquaintenances. The poster would be served well to meet and socialize with people outside the computer field.
That's a pretty narrow definition of scalable.
If you write code that you think will only live in a windows world, you should always consider carefully using cross-platform or portable solutions. I've seen the windows-only assumption fail many times: the developers were stuck with the difficult and tedious task of gettin their built-for-ms code to be cross-platform.
It's just one consideration. If vendor lock in doesn't bother you or your clients, or you will never need to reach other platforms or scale your solution, .MicroSoft might be right for you.
HAND
PS. shut the fuck up
Here's a free clue for you: if you think that by blessing us with your advice to "shut the fuck up" you will in anyway reduce the number of times "hammer time" or any other lame slashdot joke is repeated, or that you will increase the caliber of discussion around here in any way, you are seriously fucking deluded. The only effect your little frothing at the mouth has is to contribute to the general inane posturing that goes on around here.
PS. take the stick out of your ass.
PPS. nice hand waiving to dismiss the objections with the inaccuracies in your first little hissy fit
PPPS. get over yourself, you are not so fucking brilliant that others' stupidity can cause you pain
You were amusing with your cooler-than-thou attitude for about three syllables, but then it got old. I've never posted that joke BEFORE, so for fuck's sake take the stick out of your ass, get off your goddamn high horse, and get over yourself!
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 9
model : 11
model name : Pentium XI (SmeltTown)
stepping : 61
cpu MHz : 40094.670
cache size : 4096 KB
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 2
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse
bogomips : 7605.97
The only thing you got wrong is thinking "Friends" ever got any better. One of the most unoriginal, trite, predictable shows ever to make it so big.
So the question is: what kind of argument for creationism is this? Not one at all. It's merely a very weak argument against a fact supported by modern science (upon which evolution rests) - that is that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
The problem with creation science is that there's no theory and no support for that theory. Even if these caclculations were rock solid an all the variables were known, the only conclusion you can reach from this supposed creationist evidence is that the moon is less than 2.3 billion years old. That conclusion is barely damning to evolution, and in no way supports creationism, especially when the standard form asserts an age of the earth less than 10,000 years old. 2.3 billion is much closer to 4.5 billion than it is to 10,000.
Again, no evidence, no theory, therefore, creation science ain't no science.
I couldn't find anything good on that site, but it might because the site is hard to navigate. Can you give me a deep link?
Calling evolution a religion is either dishonest or an exercise in destroying the meaning of "religion" and making the word so vague that you can call anything a religion. Take your pick.