Every person under the sun is weak to the effects of an effective brainwash.
<collective drone> I pledge allegiance to the flag... </drone>
Every day of school for twelve years. I now live in Europe, and I intend to let my kids grow up here instead. No trolling intended, just wanted to make a point.
I mean awesome in the original meaning of the word, not the current overused teen lingo nonsense.
The animated 3D X-rays of the ancient device that enabled the reconstruction are particularly geekworthy.
http://www.nature.com/nature/videoarchive/antikythera/index.html
I don't think this is ultimately intended to go up against IE or Firefox - I think they're going head to head with Windows itself. Google Gears, processes...
They may call it a browser now, but not for long. Think about it!
Looks like the verb of being wasn't invented yet, either... He's a French fossil, so he's speaking French: 'est' = 'is'. Not only is the verb of being already invented, THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING!
I actually suspect this guy is the Neanderthal René Descartes formulating the caveman version of "I think, therefore..."
[...] the linguist teamed with McCarthy to simulate Neanderthal speech based on new reconstructions of three Neanderthal vocal tracts. The 50,000-year old fossils all came from France. No wonder then the old frog is pronouncing 'e' as in his native 'et'...
The first public competition was held in an LA gallery for a $50 gift certificate to a local Italian restaurant.
I assume this was because the restaurant owner needed help untangling spaghetti?
The Pirate Bay asserts itself as the self-proclaimed 'World's Largest Tracker' by topping over 10 million peers,...
OMG!!! It's the elusive triple redundant double reflexive superfluous tautology!! (I tried to make that triply redundant and doubly reflexive but failed dismally.)
This kind of construct is quite subtle. According to TFA, The Pirate Bay is not claiming to be the world's largest tracker, but the "self-proclaimed world's largest tracker". Positively Colbertian.
The article wanders off into human-interest territory as the inventor, Steven T. Kirsch, has an incurable disease and an engineer's approach to fighting it. But a description of the anti-spam tech, based on the reputation of the receiver and not the sender, is worth a read. Thank you for warning us about the nasty human-interest traps in the article. Because [Spirit]God[21] knows we Slashdotters aren't interested in humans. Especially fluff about an inventor using an engineer's approach to fight an incurable disease.
That's the thing isn't it? Scientology is bizarre and ridiculous, and yet how can one criticize it without casting doubt on all religions? How can one say that stories about volcanoes, space ships, and H bombs are silly, but being swallowed by a fish and then regurgitated after 3 days is not? Hey, don't mock people's beliefs by distorting the facts! He was swallowed by a mammal.
I don't agree with your claim that they're lazy. I think the evidence points to incompetence. I don't think incompetence explains the data either. To mess up an OS to this extent, you pretty much have to be evil.
The proof may be in the pudding, but a quick look and sniff gives us some hints:
Compared to the standard Bayer sensor, 50% of single-color pixels are replaced by clear pixels, which see the whole RGB spectrum, so they are about 3 times more sensitive to light. So the whole array should be 0.5 + 0.5*3 = 2 times more sensitive to light, or one stop if we speak photographish.
Kodak claims 2x-4x increased sensitivity (1-2 stops) but it's hard to see where this "extra" increase would come from.
The cost is reduced color resolution, but this is relatively unimportant since the human eye mainly sees detail in terms of luminosity, not color. (Incidentally, this is the main insight behind the efficient compression of JPEGs.)
There was also an explanation as to why, with only one progenitor family, it wasn't considered incest for Adam and Eve's children to marry each other. This was no doubt a great consolation to many of the hicks present who actually believe all this crap - they most likely have similar couples among their more immediate incestors.
How do we know daily tech did not take any payola from the reviewers surveyed? I submitted this to/., so I'm one of 3 or so people who RTFA. They mentioned something about this, let's see...
There are approximately 150 circulated English-print technology websites; our team specifically targeted the 35 largest publications. We determined the size of these publications via Alexa's online index and publication-supplied web statistics. DailyTech was included among this list. Yes, there it is! They tempted themselves with payola. No word on whether or not they accepted though.
Also, if you haven't noticed, there's no word about fan noise... Which is extremely important to a lot of people. What good is a couple of degrees difference between cooler A and cooler B, if the latter includes a 4000 fan that sounds like a jet engine while the former is inaudible in a closed case? I posted a comment to that effect on their forum. A staff member replied:
Had the guys done noise, something else would have had to drop. Luckily they found the time to rate the packaging the coolers came in.
Slashdot Mirror
Every person under the sun is weak to the effects of an effective brainwash.
<collective drone> I pledge allegiance to the flag ... </drone>
Every day of school for twelve years. I now live in Europe, and I intend to let my kids grow up here instead. No trolling intended, just wanted to make a point.
Every half-competent photographer knows you should use a flash when taking a picture of a backlit subject.
And he has obviously not played Go with this top-ranked (professional 9 dan) Go player.
Exactly. And then, after endless draws in OXO, the computer finally suggested a nice game of chess.
[Afterthought] Luckily for the computer, chess rarely leads to drawed games. Poor bastard. I imagine it suggested Russian Roulette next.
on the very article you linked to, even OXO was predated by a missile game in 1947
Exactly. And then, after endless draws in OXO, the computer finally suggested a nice game of chess.
I mean awesome in the original meaning of the word, not the current overused teen lingo nonsense. The animated 3D X-rays of the ancient device that enabled the reconstruction are particularly geekworthy. http://www.nature.com/nature/videoarchive/antikythera/index.html
> ping zaphod.betelgeuse.net PING zaphod.betelgeuse.net (42.42.42.42): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 42.42.42.42: icmp_seq=0 ttl=56 time=26931744000042.0 ms
I don't think this is ultimately intended to go up against IE or Firefox - I think they're going head to head with Windows itself. Google Gears, processes ...
They may call it a browser now, but not for long. Think about it!
Be sure to tick the 'Watch in high quality' when the video opens (anyone knows a way to do that automatically in a link?)
Add '&fmt=6' after the link. Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLiX5d3rC6o&fmt=6
I assume this was because the restaurant owner needed help untangling spaghetti?
OMG!!! It's the elusive triple redundant double reflexive superfluous tautology!! (I tried to make that triply redundant and doubly reflexive but failed dismally.)
This kind of construct is quite subtle. According to TFA, The Pirate Bay is not claiming to be the world's largest tracker, but the "self-proclaimed world's largest tracker". Positively Colbertian.
"... and please note that the use of firearms is not permitted during takeoff and landing."
Leave it to Slashdot geeks to first associate a single-digit number to a hot Star Trek character.
The proof may be in the pudding, but a quick look and sniff gives us some hints:
Compared to the standard Bayer sensor, 50% of single-color pixels are replaced by clear pixels, which see the whole RGB spectrum, so they are about 3 times more sensitive to light. So the whole array should be 0.5 + 0.5*3 = 2 times more sensitive to light, or one stop if we speak photographish.
Kodak claims 2x-4x increased sensitivity (1-2 stops) but it's hard to see where this "extra" increase would come from.
The cost is reduced color resolution, but this is relatively unimportant since the human eye mainly sees detail in terms of luminosity, not color. (Incidentally, this is the main insight behind the efficient compression of JPEGs.)