RTFA.
This process has nothing to do with electrolysis, they're converting cellulose (loads of carbon) and glucose (C6H12O6) into hydrogen. Neither of those are water.
I don't mean to be a dick or anything, but, don't these people have better things to do with their 8-12 years of schooling? I mean, WoW and MMORPGs are a popular form of entertainment, but they're still just that - entertainment. There are so many more pressing matters in the world than whether or not WoW players are acting tribally.
That being said, is it really that much of a surprise that people on the internet, protected by the shield of semi-anonymity, become more impulsive and return to more primal forms of society?
Yes, well done, Slashdotters. Let's dodge the initial problem of "Corruption in the White House" and "what does it take to convince you about this administration" by screaming OMG HILLARY SUCKS over and over until no one remembers what the original argument was about.
As for the OP's original question - I think you have your answer. They'd rather ignore the scandal and the implications it has and go back to partisan squabbling on the internet.
Go ahead. Mod me down. I dare you.
Sales=Votes If we were talking about PBS or the BBC, it would be different, because those outlets are defined by their (theoretical) mandate of neutrality. Look. If you're going to claim to be a news outlet, you are automatically subject to a "theoretical mandate of neutrality." That's what news is, anything not neutral is supposed to be relegated to the Op-Ed page or equivalent thereof. And, if you paid any attention to some of Murdoch's programming - "fair and balanced" - he does claim to be under such a mandate.
Yet he isn't. He (and most other news corporations) violate the public trust of the media by giving them what they want, rather than what they need. Pulitzer and Hearst are not viewed by the public as "good examples" of business; just because they caused a paradigm shift doesn't mean they were right.
Weird. Same concept, but I'd always heard it abbreviated as FED - Field Emission Displays. Samsung and a few competitors had a bunch of stuff in the works, or at least, they did. Everything seems to have gone silent on that front.
Yes, let's jump on the bandwagon of terror. Al-Qaeda doesn't have the technological prowess to manufacture a nuclear weapon, much less tinker with the human brain. And even if they did, what you're talking about is too cost-ineffective for anyone, much less a terrorist organization, to seriously consider. Think about it. Why would Al-Qaeda want to spend the astronomical amount of money needed to create a hulking, fearless, pain-free warrior when they already have fearless, crafty agents who are willing to die for their cause? Bombs are much more effective than humans, regardless how cyborg-ed they are. Bombs don't think, and bombs don't die.
The only people who might even attempt something like what you're describing are the United States. But we have these wonderful things called "human rights" that tend to get in the way of harebrained mad scientists.
I think the real problem that gamers have with AI that "learns" isn't that it gets harder to play and gets boring. It's that having an AI that learns in a lot of games breaks the illusion and prevents the player from suspending his/her disbelief.
For example. Let's say I'm playing a game like MGS or Splinter Cell, with a "learning" AI. I get the drop on a guard by jumping from the ledge above him and knocking him out. I try this on the next guard, and the guard turns around and sees me as I'm jumping off. Now, every guard I try to take out will either check the ledge or exhibit a strange reflex that catches my tactic.
Now I feel like I'm trying to outsmart a plastic box that has faster reflexes than I do, rather than feeling like I'm a spy attempting to carry out an important mission. It kills the experience. It's less about playability and difficulty as it is a challenge to get a computer to emulate human adaptation times - and to make mistakes like a human would.
More like the planet's crust switched to water-based lubricants after its amino-acid condoms started developing holes and some primordial soup leaked to the surface.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA. This process has nothing to do with electrolysis, they're converting cellulose (loads of carbon) and glucose (C6H12O6) into hydrogen. Neither of those are water.
No lightsaber for you.
That being said, is it really that much of a surprise that people on the internet, protected by the shield of semi-anonymity, become more impulsive and return to more primal forms of society?
"a famous movie director" doesn't quite cut it for Hitchcock. You're better off just being esoteric.
Yes, well done, Slashdotters. Let's dodge the initial problem of "Corruption in the White House" and "what does it take to convince you about this administration" by screaming OMG HILLARY SUCKS over and over until no one remembers what the original argument was about. As for the OP's original question - I think you have your answer. They'd rather ignore the scandal and the implications it has and go back to partisan squabbling on the internet. Go ahead. Mod me down. I dare you.
Weird. Same concept, but I'd always heard it abbreviated as FED - Field Emission Displays. Samsung and a few competitors had a bunch of stuff in the works, or at least, they did. Everything seems to have gone silent on that front.
This technology was developed years ago. If it's in undergraduate research, it's not cutting-edge. http://mrsec.wisc.edu/Edetc/nanolab/TiO2/index.htm l/
Yes, let's jump on the bandwagon of terror. Al-Qaeda doesn't have the technological prowess to manufacture a nuclear weapon, much less tinker with the human brain. And even if they did, what you're talking about is too cost-ineffective for anyone, much less a terrorist organization, to seriously consider. Think about it. Why would Al-Qaeda want to spend the astronomical amount of money needed to create a hulking, fearless, pain-free warrior when they already have fearless, crafty agents who are willing to die for their cause? Bombs are much more effective than humans, regardless how cyborg-ed they are. Bombs don't think, and bombs don't die.
The only people who might even attempt something like what you're describing are the United States. But we have these wonderful things called "human rights" that tend to get in the way of harebrained mad scientists.
I think the real problem that gamers have with AI that "learns" isn't that it gets harder to play and gets boring. It's that having an AI that learns in a lot of games breaks the illusion and prevents the player from suspending his/her disbelief.
For example. Let's say I'm playing a game like MGS or Splinter Cell, with a "learning" AI. I get the drop on a guard by jumping from the ledge above him and knocking him out. I try this on the next guard, and the guard turns around and sees me as I'm jumping off. Now, every guard I try to take out will either check the ledge or exhibit a strange reflex that catches my tactic.
Now I feel like I'm trying to outsmart a plastic box that has faster reflexes than I do, rather than feeling like I'm a spy attempting to carry out an important mission. It kills the experience. It's less about playability and difficulty as it is a challenge to get a computer to emulate human adaptation times - and to make mistakes like a human would.
Pffft. I'm still holding out for Mako infusions.
More like the planet's crust switched to water-based lubricants after its amino-acid condoms started developing holes and some primordial soup leaked to the surface.