I, from time to time, enjoy Katz's articles. That's why I keep reading them. The last couple in particular, though, I feel could have been written by a Katz-bot. Something like:
Recent event of media attention + [Hollywood | media barons] + cultural revolution + [post-Columbine | geeks] + Internet
Add some filler verbage, some cosmetic details that could be gleaned from 15 minutes of a newswire, and blammo, another cookir-cutter article.
All in all, a pretty week showing by Mr. Katz. Nothing even close to his masterpiece of:
The geeks at Columbine created an Internet culture revolution that forced Hollywood culture to take into account the revolutionary power of geeks on the Internet. (Columbine Columbine Columbine)
Determining the age of rocks is a well-established part of geology, which generally does not rely on C-14 dating, since most rocks are way too old for C-14 dating to be useful.
It's also worth saying that rocks are too...uh...rocky to be carbon dated. C-14 can only be used on organic matter.
The genetics of populations of organisms have changed over time. That is the fact of evolution. It has been observed. There is no disputing that, without getting into some serious semantics about the meaning of "observation". This is what Creationists want to label as "just a theory".
The theory of evolution states that these changes take place and are perpetuated by mutation and environmental selection. This is a theory, and always will be.
To make an analogy to gravity, it is an observed fact that things fall to earth when you drop them from a height. The theory of universal gravitation is an explanation for why that particular event happens.
Well, the rate of kernel release isn't as egregious as you make it out to be. Kernels x.n where n in {1,3,5,7,9} are development kernels, and aren't designed to be released for general consumption. Kernels where n in {2,4,6,8,0} are the release kernels, who are usually based on development kernel n-1.
What was tied up in the bundle of sticks? A piece of Josh? Could we tell what bit? If it was a piece of Josh, did she tell Mike? I didn't think she did. If she did, why would they still be hoping to find him in the house?
Stuff I've read said that it was teeth. That's pretty much straight out of the directors' mouths (the description, not the teeth =) ) As for why they kept expecting to find him...well, they did hear him screaming, and teeth don't mean that he's dead yet.
That was Mike standing in the corner? How did he get there so fast? And why was he just standing there? I didn't understand that bit about the legend. If somebody tells me to stand in a corner while he kills my friend, I would think I'd be trying to get away? Maybe it was Josh standing there (if it wasn't a piece of him that she found). But then where did Mike go? She was right behind him coming down the steps
That was Mike in the corner, as per the legend with the children. That's why that scene messes with me so much. At that moment you see him in the corner, you know the other victim in the room is going to die. And then she does.
As for why he just stands there -- I think at that point, he's not really himself anymore -- doesn't have any will to fight back, just like the men who were disembowled at Coffin Rock. They were alive when they were tied up, but for some reason didn't resist.
What were all the stick figures in the trees? Did they have any connection to anything else we saw in the movie? I would gather that the piles of stones represented the dead -- 7 original disappeared, 7 piles. 3 of them, 3 piles. But all the stick figures were never really explained.
blairWitch.reallyFuckingWith( theKids ) There may have been some more symbology there -- to me, it'd at the very least just be *really* spooky.
If Yahoo/Lilly/whoever can figure out who they are, then they aren't anonymous. Their identity may not be able to be ascertained at a casual glance, but they're by no means anonymous.
Doesn't a good key-length depend on message length? That is to say, a message must be a certain length compared to a key-length (1/2x, 1x, 2x?) to be able to be encrypted by that key?
Granted, anyone whose bothering to encrypt probably knows this, but for those who don't, the crypto software generally pads the message length with pseudo-random data, whose contents can be inferred and used to assist the crack.
Or am I just talking out of my ass here? This really isn't my field.
Yes, it was Niven, in a story called "The Hole Man". It's available in the collection "N Space". The person in question died due to peritonitis from the tidal effects of a molecule-sized black hole passing through him.
I'm not sure how I feel about the words "cheap pulp science fiction" and "Larry Niven" being discussed in the same topic. Granted, not everything he's written has been great, but at the same time, some of it has been.
Sad but true even, I've noticed, on Slashdot. As an aside, I thought that ALT was an argument/option to the IMG tag. OK... Just me being picky before I've had my morning coffee.
The correct term for that thing labelled as ALT is that it is an attribute of IMG.
The biggest problem facing non-graphical clients on the web is not the presence of images and multimedia (which have ways of specifying alternate concent), but the (ab)use of TABLEs-for-layout, which usually break any meaningful flow of a document for clients that must deal with the page in a 1-dimensional, rather than a 2-dimensional fashion.
Whenever possible, web sites should be designed to allow users to contribute material. (I think most of us at slashdot would agree.)
Web views should be personalized for individual users. (Ditto.)
A relational database is the best tool for accomplishing these goals. Greenspun even provides free space on his database server for people to use his collaboration tools on their own sites.
This is one spot that I'm going to disagree a little. Well, first, a prelude:
One of the things Greenspun hammers home is that proven, open technologies exist. One of these is RDBMS. It works, it's worked for a long time, and there's people who know how to make it work, even if they do cost a lot of money.
However (and this may be controversial -- I'm not sure I believe it 100% myself), I think it's worth noting that when content becomes very complex, an RDBMS is no longer the most optimal solution. For even moderately hierarchichal content, XML may be a better answer.
While I understand that XML is still bleeding edge (and will be for the next 10 years or so), the two strengths it has are that it's a standard, and it's open. I guess what I'm trying to say is that RDBMS is always an answer to this problem, it isn't always the best answer, and it's worth finding out whether it really is or not.
Or maybe this is just be being extremely bitter and reactionary after my experiences with MS SQL Server. =)
The Mandelbrot set is most certainly self-similar; if you delve into just about any random point on its boundary, you will find a miniature copy of the Mandelbrot set itself.
No. It has been proven that the Mandelbrot set does not contain any copies of the Mandelbrot set. That is, the figures embedded inside are very similar, but each different from one another.
Slashdot Mirror
Eew! I'm turned off already! =)
Isn't there a book like that out there somewhere? I think it was called Men use vi, Women use emacs. I saw it in a purchasing circle on amazon.
That is a spelling of "licensed" to which I was heretofore unaware.
That's right. Apple paid them to use their technology with some stock that later became very valuable.
Apple and Microsoft cross-licensed technology. MS got TrueType. Apple got something that was (surprise) useless. Or at least never used.
I, from time to time, enjoy Katz's articles. That's why I keep reading them. The last couple in particular, though, I feel could have been written by a Katz-bot. Something like:
Recent event of media attention + [Hollywood | media barons] + cultural revolution + [post-Columbine | geeks] + Internet
Add some filler verbage, some cosmetic details that could be gleaned from 15 minutes of a newswire, and blammo, another cookir-cutter article.
Word/substring counts:
All in all, a pretty week showing by Mr. Katz. Nothing even close to his masterpiece of:
It's also worth saying that rocks are too...uh...rocky to be carbon dated. C-14 can only be used on organic matter.
The genetics of populations of organisms have changed over time. That is the fact of evolution. It has been observed. There is no disputing that, without getting into some serious semantics about the meaning of "observation". This is what Creationists want to label as "just a theory".
The theory of evolution states that these changes take place and are perpetuated by mutation and environmental selection. This is a theory, and always will be.
To make an analogy to gravity, it is an observed fact that things fall to earth when you drop them from a height. The theory of universal gravitation is an explanation for why that particular event happens.
Well, the rate of kernel release isn't as egregious as you make it out to be. Kernels x.n where n in {1,3,5,7,9} are development kernels, and aren't designed to be released for general consumption. Kernels where n in {2,4,6,8,0} are the release kernels, who are usually based on development kernel n-1.
As usual, someone smack me down if I'm wrong.
Stuff I've read said that it was teeth. That's pretty much straight out of the directors' mouths (the description, not the teeth =) ) As for why they kept expecting to find him...well, they did hear him screaming, and teeth don't mean that he's dead yet.
That was Mike in the corner, as per the legend with the children. That's why that scene messes with me so much. At that moment you see him in the corner, you know the other victim in the room is going to die. And then she does.
As for why he just stands there -- I think at that point, he's not really himself anymore -- doesn't have any will to fight back, just like the men who were disembowled at Coffin Rock. They were alive when they were tied up, but for some reason didn't resist.
blairWitch.reallyFuckingWith( theKids ) There may have been some more symbology there -- to me, it'd at the very least just be *really* spooky.
AndrewIf Yahoo/Lilly/whoever can figure out who they are, then they aren't anonymous. Their identity may not be able to be ascertained at a casual glance, but they're by no means anonymous.
I always thought this proverb worked better "Beware of gifts bearing Greeks".
Anonymous Coward, obviously.
Doesn't a good key-length depend on message length? That is to say, a message must be a certain length compared to a key-length (1/2x, 1x, 2x?) to be able to be encrypted by that key?
Granted, anyone whose bothering to encrypt probably knows this, but for those who don't, the crypto software generally pads the message length with pseudo-random data, whose contents can be inferred and used to assist the crack.
Or am I just talking out of my ass here? This really isn't my field.
Yes, it was Niven, in a story called "The Hole Man". It's available in the collection "N Space". The person in question died due to peritonitis from the tidal effects of a molecule-sized black hole passing through him.
I'm not sure how I feel about the words "cheap pulp science fiction" and "Larry Niven" being discussed in the same topic. Granted, not everything he's written has been great, but at the same time, some of it has been.
Party starts early, huh? =)
hahahahahahahahahahahaha...=)
The correct term for that thing labelled as ALT is that it is an attribute of IMG.
The biggest problem facing non-graphical clients on the web is not the presence of images and multimedia (which have ways of specifying alternate concent), but the (ab)use of TABLEs-for-layout, which usually break any meaningful flow of a document for clients that must deal with the page in a 1-dimensional, rather than a 2-dimensional fashion.
This is one spot that I'm going to disagree a little. Well, first, a prelude:
One of the things Greenspun hammers home is that proven, open technologies exist. One of these is RDBMS. It works, it's worked for a long time, and there's people who know how to make it work, even if they do cost a lot of money.
However (and this may be controversial -- I'm not sure I believe it 100% myself), I think it's worth noting that when content becomes very complex, an RDBMS is no longer the most optimal solution. For even moderately hierarchichal content, XML may be a better answer.
While I understand that XML is still bleeding edge (and will be for the next 10 years or so), the two strengths it has are that it's a standard, and it's open. I guess what I'm trying to say is that RDBMS is always an answer to this problem, it isn't always the best answer, and it's worth finding out whether it really is or not.
Or maybe this is just be being extremely bitter and reactionary after my experiences with MS SQL Server. =)
Start lookin' for that stash. AOL wouldn't be funding Mozilla if it didn't expect to get a browser out of it someday.
It should when I don't have a copy of Word available to me.
The Mandelbrot set is most certainly self-similar; if you delve into just about any random point on its boundary, you will find a miniature copy of the Mandelbrot set itself.
No. It has been proven that the Mandelbrot set does not contain any copies of the Mandelbrot set. That is, the figures embedded inside are very similar, but each different from one another.
To be correct, 50% are below median, not below average (mean).
Glial, actually.
I'd love a slashdot shirt, black on white, with just "/." on the front. Nothing else.
I'd like the same kinda thing with copyleft -- with just the copyleft symbol on the front, and not the GPL on the back.