True. But there are incoming technologies that can help. See for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_paper
No power draw for a static image, no backlight, bendable.
But for now I'll stick with paper.
By the way, my university has a lowish 10GB/week policy for its residence halls, and despite this, most people never even come close to hitting it. They're just not interested.
That presupposes that most Internet users have a taste for bandwidth in the same way that beer factory workers have a taste for beer. Most people just don't know how to use that much, and wouldn't be motivated to anyway.
So heavy use is "abuse," now? Thanks for clarifying that. I was under the false impression that when you pay for access, you're allowed to make the most of it.
Now there's a social problem that does have a social solution. You don't have to worry about him finding that stuff unless he wants to, and by now he knows that poop is gross. Unless he has a really unusual fetish, he'll probably self-regulate based on established social norms.
Warning: IANAP.
[citation needed]
It's not "some people" that claim Islamic science and mathematics were responsible for great advances. It's virtually every historian of science that claims that.
Also... astrology? No. How about astronomy?
Additionally, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-khwarizmi
I'm actually kind of glad that she was shifty about that. Just because they're prepared doesn't mean it's a good idea to call attention to the fact that it could happen.
Of course they were changed back. The whole point of this article is that people found out and weren't pleased with the disinformation being spread. Would they then allow those edits to remain?
Besides, I've been checking, and I've found that yes, the redacted information has been restored. So don't worry.:)
Just for the sake of argument, suppose you assume that I've not yet heard your argument on implicit contracts and explain it one more time. I'm interested to know why I can't pick and choose the content I'm interested in out of all that's available.
Isn't it worth noting that Kasparov modifies his brain constantly as well--before, during, and after every match?
Sure, IBM was wrong to hide the fact that Deep Blue was being 'taught' about Kasparov's game--but it's wrong to conclude that Kasparov did not have the same advantage.
The differing degrees to which each player could modify his or its own software aren't clear (to me, at least), but certainly Kasparov was chasing those goalposts of yours as the IBM engineers were moving them.
But then it wouldn't grow symmetrically--you'd have to rotate it extremely fast, changing direction periodically and quickly, to achieve that sort of effect.
So it turns out that school administrators are willing to compromise the educations of their students in order to make themselves look good.
This behavior is wholly contrary to human nature. How could it possibly happen?
After working with software engineers of all different education levels, I don't see why anybody feels the need to get a first PhD. There's zero correlation between college education level and competency. That would be because you work with software engineers. You don't work with physicists, chemists, or in fact with people of any heavily research-oriented profession. At its heart, programming is a trade, not an academic discipline, so I suppose it makes sense for you to believe that heavy education doesn't help. Nevertheless, there's no excuse for disparaging people in other fields because you've decided the realities of your work must hold for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Hah... as if UMG had class.
True. But there are incoming technologies that can help. See for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_paper No power draw for a static image, no backlight, bendable. But for now I'll stick with paper.
It was musical goatse.
I think you took the joke too f
By the way, my university has a lowish 10GB/week policy for its residence halls, and despite this, most people never even come close to hitting it. They're just not interested.
That presupposes that most Internet users have a taste for bandwidth in the same way that beer factory workers have a taste for beer. Most people just don't know how to use that much, and wouldn't be motivated to anyway.
So heavy use is "abuse," now? Thanks for clarifying that. I was under the false impression that when you pay for access, you're allowed to make the most of it.
"I have met the enemy, and he is us."
Now there's a social problem that does have a social solution. You don't have to worry about him finding that stuff unless he wants to, and by now he knows that poop is gross. Unless he has a really unusual fetish, he'll probably self-regulate based on established social norms. Warning: IANAP.
[citation needed] It's not "some people" that claim Islamic science and mathematics were responsible for great advances. It's virtually every historian of science that claims that. Also... astrology? No. How about astronomy? Additionally, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-khwarizmi
Sounds good. While he's doing that, I'll be off writing my meta-meta-algorithm.
But it's impossible to stop... you just keep clicking and clicking, till eventually you have 1024 MB of tabs open and Firefox starts to despise you.
The hell with it: Me too. -1: Redundant, I know. But sometimes it must be said.
I'm actually kind of glad that she was shifty about that. Just because they're prepared doesn't mean it's a good idea to call attention to the fact that it could happen.
It amuses, yet frightens me that 'teledildonics' is now officially a word.
You do not have free will.
Of course they were changed back. The whole point of this article is that people found out and weren't pleased with the disinformation being spread. Would they then allow those edits to remain? Besides, I've been checking, and I've found that yes, the redacted information has been restored. So don't worry. :)
Just for the sake of argument, suppose you assume that I've not yet heard your argument on implicit contracts and explain it one more time. I'm interested to know why I can't pick and choose the content I'm interested in out of all that's available.
I think a lot of people have that last problem. http://xkcd.com/301/
My question is, How fast is fast enough? And is that speed achievable?
Isn't it worth noting that Kasparov modifies his brain constantly as well--before, during, and after every match? Sure, IBM was wrong to hide the fact that Deep Blue was being 'taught' about Kasparov's game--but it's wrong to conclude that Kasparov did not have the same advantage. The differing degrees to which each player could modify his or its own software aren't clear (to me, at least), but certainly Kasparov was chasing those goalposts of yours as the IBM engineers were moving them.
But then it wouldn't grow symmetrically--you'd have to rotate it extremely fast, changing direction periodically and quickly, to achieve that sort of effect.
So it turns out that school administrators are willing to compromise the educations of their students in order to make themselves look good. This behavior is wholly contrary to human nature. How could it possibly happen?