As to an OS specific interface? What would you prefer? A web interface makes cross-platform accessibility a lot simpler. Or am I missing your implication?
And the misunderstanding goes back to education, primarily run by politics (on the social side), so the viscous cycle will continue as along as that behemoth continues to spew ignorance to the upcoming generations. Some are impervious to the aftermath of politacracy, but the majority are not, I fear.
The public doesn't necessarily have to understand science. It's not their job
I have to wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. The society we live in naturally conducive to the populace focusing on trends, fads, social errata, media sway, political jargon, boisterous uneducated opinions, bad mouthing, violence, theft, self-destruction, and the list goes on. I am not downplaying the aspects of society, but I am emphasizing what exist on the large hump of the civilized bell curve.
Civilization was not created by the public. The amenities we enjoy are the fruits of science so that the public monetize, enjoy, and leisure in the mental pursuits of others. Seeing as the general voting public gets to enjoy the benefits of science every single day, inherantly enjoying the fruits of scientific method, I only think it is fair that for the public to be hands on with science (in terms of funding, policy), they should first have an understanding of science.
In an idealistic yet improbable world, everybody could understand science. Imagine if everybody had a Baccalaureate level understanding of physics, math, philosophy, and psychology. I conjecture in that scenario the world we live in would be a much, shall we say, quieter place, and by that I mean a much better signal to noise ratio.
To summarize my response, I believe it is the public's job to understand science. The majority has a unfortunately gratuitous effect on our future, and without brining them up to speed intellectually, I believe we will see much more of the likes of the word 'idiocracy', as I have been seeing much around here as of late.
The human race will not be able to sustain itself if the populace is left at their own accord to learn science purely through pop-culture and the media, if at all. And yes, it is alright to point your less dominant finger at the scientist for their inability to convey their research to the public. But can we really blame them?
Look at how our culture (I am speaking as an American) is setup. Public education does not enforce curiosity and creative thinking. Public education is not a by product of science. It is a bureaucratic monster mostly run by non-scientist. Look at the mainstream media. The shows your children watch everyday. The commercials. The music. Look at all the channels of information from which people are barraged with. I would venture to say that a larger than 3/4ths majority of those channels are own, ran, and propagated by those whose motivations are not scientific. What good is science when nobody will listen? Is is not the scientist who should be responsible for making you open your eyes and read a book, science doesn't have that kind of societal power. You may disagree with me on this, but I believe science is propelled into the mainstream solely buy non-scientific individuals. Yes, science does change the world, drastically, but only when those with the capital, power, and motivation want the fruits of their labor. You could counter with LHC, FermiLab, and countless other examples, but I believe the Disney establishment is what sells with the youth, and where the emphasis is place. Again, science can be faulted with not 'mainstreaming' their findings enough for a public too ignorant to understand much of it, but here we are working on a symptom, not the cause.
Instead of dumbing down science, lets just teach science, pure science.
You will say, well, this will lead to a dry, boring, flat uncultured race of people with no 'substance', but I say, what are the alternatives too longstanding sustainability of an intelligent race if they are not intelligent enough to propagate their centuries of advancements to the general populace. And again, I believe true prorogation of true science is hindered not by the scientist, but by the uneducated mainstream, in a perpetuating cycle.
To summarize my response, I believe it is in fact the general publics responsibility to understand science, because they unfortunately have a gratuitous pull in the future of a civilization, and if they are not intellectually brought up to speed soon, on their own accord, we will see the likes of the word 'idiocracy' around here much more than we have lately.
Either lack of funding, or fear of repercussions. I personally don't know what is worse, having the world's government spooks on your ass for propagating their no-no's publicly, or having Islamic radicals after you for propagating 'heresy'. Either way, people want you dead.
They are either afraid of, or in cooperation with the groups whose documents they leak, or are truly out of funds. I am placing my faith of judgement in one of the former.
I don't really understand how this is patentable. It is essentially a patent covering 'charging for computer time' or 'charging for computer resources'? The credibility of patents is eroded day by day, diluted into pure paperwork used for litigation fodder.
And in poor taste, I must also mention that the oval tracks were all done by a drunk guy twirling a compass, and the road tracks were done on his son's etch-a-sketch.
Here is a good infographic of all the "different" tracks. Their franchise track designer must have a bit of stifled creativity, except for the four road tracks. Oh, and the word 'infographic' is fucking stupid.
I initially read that as 'Teleporting in Formula 1'. And after realizing my err in judgement, I came to the conclusion that my original interpretation will still probably come true before we get flying cars (if they ever to arrive).
Even funnier is the bloke who misreads it as 'Teleconferencing in Formula 1', those would be some badass conference calls, ones I might actually look forward to. It might make some of the mush-mouths get to the point fairly quickly when they have 700+ hp under their testicles, and are responsible for not decimating them in a fiery collision! Now thats synergy!
I will have to give that a shot, thanks AC. Always looking for a new way to quit. I hate the habit, but enjoy the sensation, sounds like a good approach.
As a 5+ year smoker, they just don't cut it. With current medical technology it is vain of me to assume I can healthily continue the habit, yet I have tried a couple of the E-Cigarette brands, such as Njoy, Blu, and they are just not the same. Not only are the chemicals in actual cigarettes addicting, along with the oral fixation, but the actual burning sensation in the lungs itself can be euphoric in times of stress, and that is something the E-Cigarettes fail to convey.
Of course, doing anything that causes your lungs to burn should be a sign to quit said activity, and yet the fallibility of the will succumbs to continual puff-puff-drag, again, and again. Your results may vary.
Honesty, as a dirty cigarette smoker, I would love the applications of this in the future. Seeing as smoking cigarettes is mostly consensual (granted your not encroaching on other peoples relative airspace, being tarnished with smoke on a crowded bus, or throwing your butts all over the damned place), I think this would be cool for the average person who enjoys cigarettes. The psychology of the previous statement (the enjoys portion) could obviously be argued, under the wing of the psychological / biological additions department.
But if I am smoker that participates in my habit respectful of the wishes of other, courteous in my carcinogen ingestion, would it be such a travesty if there were an abundant supply (IE, people who haven't consensually and knowingly destroyed their lungs getting first priority, and the excess up for auction / sale), giving the smoker the ability to purchase new lungs. This understandably does not counteract the hundreds of other detriments to the body smoking yields, but at least of the the major concern of many.
Of coarse any medical procedure that encourages a habit so vocally hated (yet balance book loved **tax revenue**), the average politician would have nothing of it the eyes of an irrational voter not seeing all sides of the argument for pay-per-lung adoption schemes, despite the process doling out fair opportunities to those in genuine need, I believe political rhetoric of fire-and-brimstone proportions would kill such a proposition before it even hit the table.
If I had $1 for every time the weather forecast was wrong I'd be a rich man...
Carry umbrellas for sale during clear-sky forecast, jackets for moderately warm forecast, and snow shovels for cloudy but no snow forecast. At 1$ each, on a long enough timeline, you too could own your own oil well in the middle east!
If predicting weather in space is anything like my local stations ability to successfully "predict" statistical patterns (hint: throws dart at spinning wheel, bam, "Sunny with a chance of rain!"), well, space travelers might as well never forget their x-ray'ne coats and sun screen (pun intended), because it will be anyones guess./facetious & dry humor
I think the reason Miracles was so infamous is due to a couple factors, as follows,
A. Many people hate ICP.
B. Many people are on the internet.
C. ICP made a video metaphorically referring to some phenomenal (yet understandable) facts of nature (albeit explainable, to an extent) as miracles.
D. Said intertards took them literally, espousing their hate on a fantastical new platform.
E. Or it was an epic trolling, and 2,000,000+ got got.
Point to take away: people like to criticize, act snarky, and show disdain towards those they dislike. ICP is no different. The real miracle is that 2,000,000 cumulatively made fun of about an ICP video.
And as an aside, I highly doubt many of the critics of that video on the net could fully understand electromagnetism, such as the fact that relativistic transformations of transverse EM waves can swap the E & M field, for they are two sides of the same coin depending on the Lorenz transformation, or perhaps give a full analysis of Lenz's law and its implications.
+1 Insightful. If I am a 3rd world citizen, lacking food or means to purchase it, and I have some potatoes, and I am hungry and I have a flashlight or radio or whatever that needs juice, well, they are going to remain without power as I gobble down. Now if it was something like a person with an iPad, even if they are starving and impoverished, I think they would choose differently due to reality distortion fields. How they got the iPad I don't know, that is an exercise for the reader, and that reality distortion field is strong enough these days that there should be some sort of energy harvester for it in the works anyways.
Wish I had mod points, parent is absolutely correct. Stop complaining and trying to find some panacea for your architecture problems. It seems you want to have something you can show your client 'There! it works on THAT browser!' instead of thinking about the common denominator. There's no way I'd be happy having to use not just a particular browser, but a particular version of that browser - who are you trying to kid? The client and the user, it seems. Sorry if this seems harsh but that's my opinion.
+1 Insightful. Browsers make decent end user solutions for light web apps, but finding an enterprise class solution that will only work for one build on one browser is like telling golfers they all have to use the same set of clubs to complete a course. It will not go over. No matter how 'great' it looks in X build of Y browser. Don't tie your application down to a specific environment; understandably web design is like trying to make a shoe that fits everybody, but making everybody else lop off toes to fit your shoe only pleases you, and pisses of scores of users in the process.
Standards are only a guideline these days unfortunately, and one of the required skill-sets of an, dare I use a synergy-istic word, 'agile' developer is the ability to transcend the difficulties despite the simplicity of choosing the easier route for yourself, and designing a solution that fits a general environment.
You wouldn't purchase the most bad-ass truck in the world, but on the stipulation that it could only go off-roading on Sundays between 2-8pm, during full moons, on the first Tuesday of every month. On the other hand, if your employer / client would purchase this truck, well, get-in, get-out, and get-paid, unless you want the possibility of feature creep out the ass and the maintainability nightmare of supporting a specific platform on a specific day of the week.
Slashdot Mirror
Make a Beowulf cluster of them.
Why a web interface? seriously...
As to an OS specific interface? What would you prefer? A web interface makes cross-platform accessibility a lot simpler. Or am I missing your implication?
.. as if millions of trolls suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
Youtube's comments were disabled?
And the misunderstanding goes back to education, primarily run by politics (on the social side), so the viscous cycle will continue as along as that behemoth continues to spew ignorance to the upcoming generations. Some are impervious to the aftermath of politacracy, but the majority are not, I fear.
The public doesn't necessarily have to understand science. It's not their job
I have to wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. The society we live in naturally conducive to the populace focusing on trends, fads, social errata, media sway, political jargon, boisterous uneducated opinions, bad mouthing, violence, theft, self-destruction, and the list goes on. I am not downplaying the aspects of society, but I am emphasizing what exist on the large hump of the civilized bell curve.
Civilization was not created by the public. The amenities we enjoy are the fruits of science so that the public monetize, enjoy, and leisure in the mental pursuits of others. Seeing as the general voting public gets to enjoy the benefits of science every single day, inherantly enjoying the fruits of scientific method, I only think it is fair that for the public to be hands on with science (in terms of funding, policy), they should first have an understanding of science.
In an idealistic yet improbable world, everybody could understand science. Imagine if everybody had a Baccalaureate level understanding of physics, math, philosophy, and psychology. I conjecture in that scenario the world we live in would be a much, shall we say, quieter place, and by that I mean a much better signal to noise ratio.
To summarize my response, I believe it is the public's job to understand science. The majority has a unfortunately gratuitous effect on our future, and without brining them up to speed intellectually, I believe we will see much more of the likes of the word 'idiocracy', as I have been seeing much around here as of late. The human race will not be able to sustain itself if the populace is left at their own accord to learn science purely through pop-culture and the media, if at all. And yes, it is alright to point your less dominant finger at the scientist for their inability to convey their research to the public. But can we really blame them?
Look at how our culture (I am speaking as an American) is setup. Public education does not enforce curiosity and creative thinking. Public education is not a by product of science. It is a bureaucratic monster mostly run by non-scientist. Look at the mainstream media. The shows your children watch everyday. The commercials. The music. Look at all the channels of information from which people are barraged with. I would venture to say that a larger than 3/4ths majority of those channels are own, ran, and propagated by those whose motivations are not scientific. What good is science when nobody will listen? Is is not the scientist who should be responsible for making you open your eyes and read a book, science doesn't have that kind of societal power. You may disagree with me on this, but I believe science is propelled into the mainstream solely buy non-scientific individuals. Yes, science does change the world, drastically, but only when those with the capital, power, and motivation want the fruits of their labor. You could counter with LHC, FermiLab, and countless other examples, but I believe the Disney establishment is what sells with the youth, and where the emphasis is place. Again, science can be faulted with not 'mainstreaming' their findings enough for a public too ignorant to understand much of it, but here we are working on a symptom, not the cause.
Instead of dumbing down science, lets just teach science, pure science.
You will say, well, this will lead to a dry, boring, flat uncultured race of people with no 'substance', but I say, what are the alternatives too longstanding sustainability of an intelligent race if they are not intelligent enough to propagate their centuries of advancements to the general populace. And again, I believe true prorogation of true science is hindered not by the scientist, but by the uneducated mainstream, in a perpetuating cycle.
To summarize my response, I believe it is in fact the general publics responsibility to understand science, because they unfortunately have a gratuitous pull in the future of a civilization, and if they are not intellectually brought up to speed soon, on their own accord, we will see the likes of the word 'idiocracy' around here much more than we have lately.
Does the public understand science? That doesn't take a scientist to answer.
Either lack of funding, or fear of repercussions. I personally don't know what is worse, having the world's government spooks on your ass for propagating their no-no's publicly, or having Islamic radicals after you for propagating 'heresy'. Either way, people want you dead.
They are either afraid of, or in cooperation with the groups whose documents they leak, or are truly out of funds. I am placing my faith of judgement in one of the former.
How is that any different than say ... hotels charging more for a room during times
Do hotels patent that practice?
+1 Like
Gaping Privacy Holes
while plugging some privacy holes
your wife
your old girlfriend....... your wife's logs
she will see that you and your old girlfriend 'are now friends.
you want your...... 'Private.'"
I don't really understand how this is patentable. It is essentially a patent covering 'charging for computer time' or 'charging for computer resources'? The credibility of patents is eroded day by day, diluted into pure paperwork used for litigation fodder.
And in poor taste, I must also mention that the oval tracks were all done by a drunk guy twirling a compass, and the road tracks were done on his son's etch-a-sketch.
Here is a good infographic of all the "different" tracks. Their franchise track designer must have a bit of stifled creativity, except for the four road tracks. Oh, and the word 'infographic' is fucking stupid.
"700+ hp"
Who else had to double/triple take on that to read hp as horsepower instead of hit points?
Leeroy Jenkins, probably.
...see if I can track the IP address! **i'm retarted'**
I initially read that as 'Teleporting in Formula 1'. And after realizing my err in judgement, I came to the conclusion that my original interpretation will still probably come true before we get flying cars (if they ever to arrive).
Even funnier is the bloke who misreads it as 'Teleconferencing in Formula 1', those would be some badass conference calls, ones I might actually look forward to. It might make some of the mush-mouths get to the point fairly quickly when they have 700+ hp under their testicles, and are responsible for not decimating them in a fiery collision! Now thats synergy!
I will have to give that a shot, thanks AC. Always looking for a new way to quit. I hate the habit, but enjoy the sensation, sounds like a good approach.
As a 5+ year smoker, they just don't cut it. With current medical technology it is vain of me to assume I can healthily continue the habit, yet I have tried a couple of the E-Cigarette brands, such as Njoy, Blu, and they are just not the same. Not only are the chemicals in actual cigarettes addicting, along with the oral fixation, but the actual burning sensation in the lungs itself can be euphoric in times of stress, and that is something the E-Cigarettes fail to convey.
Of course, doing anything that causes your lungs to burn should be a sign to quit said activity, and yet the fallibility of the will succumbs to continual puff-puff-drag, again, and again. Your results may vary.
Honesty, as a dirty cigarette smoker, I would love the applications of this in the future. Seeing as smoking cigarettes is mostly consensual (granted your not encroaching on other peoples relative airspace, being tarnished with smoke on a crowded bus, or throwing your butts all over the damned place), I think this would be cool for the average person who enjoys cigarettes. The psychology of the previous statement (the enjoys portion) could obviously be argued, under the wing of the psychological / biological additions department.
But if I am smoker that participates in my habit respectful of the wishes of other, courteous in my carcinogen ingestion, would it be such a travesty if there were an abundant supply (IE, people who haven't consensually and knowingly destroyed their lungs getting first priority, and the excess up for auction / sale), giving the smoker the ability to purchase new lungs. This understandably does not counteract the hundreds of other detriments to the body smoking yields, but at least of the the major concern of many.
Of coarse any medical procedure that encourages a habit so vocally hated (yet balance book loved **tax revenue**), the average politician would have nothing of it the eyes of an irrational voter not seeing all sides of the argument for pay-per-lung adoption schemes, despite the process doling out fair opportunities to those in genuine need, I believe political rhetoric of fire-and-brimstone proportions would kill such a proposition before it even hit the table.
If I had $1 for every time the weather forecast was wrong I'd be a rich man...
Carry umbrellas for sale during clear-sky forecast, jackets for moderately warm forecast, and snow shovels for cloudy but no snow forecast. At 1$ each, on a long enough timeline, you too could own your own oil well in the middle east!
If predicting weather in space is anything like my local stations ability to successfully "predict" statistical patterns (hint: throws dart at spinning wheel, bam, "Sunny with a chance of rain!"), well, space travelers might as well never forget their x-ray'ne coats and sun screen (pun intended), because it will be anyones guess. /facetious & dry humor
I think the reason Miracles was so infamous is due to a couple factors, as follows,
A. Many people hate ICP.
B. Many people are on the internet.
C. ICP made a video metaphorically referring to some phenomenal (yet understandable) facts of nature (albeit explainable, to an extent) as miracles.
D. Said intertards took them literally, espousing their hate on a fantastical new platform.
E. Or it was an epic trolling, and 2,000,000+ got got.
Point to take away: people like to criticize, act snarky, and show disdain towards those they dislike. ICP is no different. The real miracle is that 2,000,000 cumulatively made fun of about an ICP video.
And as an aside, I highly doubt many of the critics of that video on the net could fully understand electromagnetism, such as the fact that relativistic transformations of transverse EM waves can swap the E & M field, for they are two sides of the same coin depending on the Lorenz transformation, or perhaps give a full analysis of Lenz's law and its implications.
Or they could just eat them...
+1 Insightful. If I am a 3rd world citizen, lacking food or means to purchase it, and I have some potatoes, and I am hungry and I have a flashlight or radio or whatever that needs juice, well, they are going to remain without power as I gobble down. Now if it was something like a person with an iPad, even if they are starving and impoverished, I think they would choose differently due to reality distortion fields. How they got the iPad I don't know, that is an exercise for the reader, and that reality distortion field is strong enough these days that there should be some sort of energy harvester for it in the works anyways.
I think he's talking about weed. Weed makes Big Pharma paranoid.
They must be high.
Wish I had mod points, parent is absolutely correct. Stop complaining and trying to find some panacea for your architecture problems. It seems you want to have something you can show your client 'There! it works on THAT browser!' instead of thinking about the common denominator. There's no way I'd be happy having to use not just a particular browser, but a particular version of that browser - who are you trying to kid? The client and the user, it seems. Sorry if this seems harsh but that's my opinion.
+1 Insightful. Browsers make decent end user solutions for light web apps, but finding an enterprise class solution that will only work for one build on one browser is like telling golfers they all have to use the same set of clubs to complete a course. It will not go over. No matter how 'great' it looks in X build of Y browser. Don't tie your application down to a specific environment; understandably web design is like trying to make a shoe that fits everybody, but making everybody else lop off toes to fit your shoe only pleases you, and pisses of scores of users in the process.
Standards are only a guideline these days unfortunately, and one of the required skill-sets of an, dare I use a synergy-istic word, 'agile' developer is the ability to transcend the difficulties despite the simplicity of choosing the easier route for yourself, and designing a solution that fits a general environment.
You wouldn't purchase the most bad-ass truck in the world, but on the stipulation that it could only go off-roading on Sundays between 2-8pm, during full moons, on the first Tuesday of every month. On the other hand, if your employer / client would purchase this truck, well, get-in, get-out, and get-paid, unless you want the possibility of feature creep out the ass and the maintainability nightmare of supporting a specific platform on a specific day of the week.