How did you first post such a long comment? Did you see this in the hose, pre-write your comment and wait? Anyhow, best comment ever, thanks for the laugh.
I made a fake article that has been up for three years and ten months. It has even been brushed up a little bit by a few people. The article is full of fake companies, fake people and fake ideas. Do I win? I'd tell you what it is, but I want to see how long it stays up and if I post it someone will see to taking it down.
Am I the only one that spent 30 seconds trying to figure out why scientists made a correlation between the size of the thing's head and the thing's desire for sex before realizing that it was just a bad pun?
Freedom of Speech, you either have it or you don't... Although, I suppose this particular case is a little sticky. Do you think that when people are actively trying to avoid law enforcement, their speech is still protected? I side with the idea that it should still be protected. If someone posts a list labeled "100 best places to drop dead bodies off where they'll never be found", I don't think they've done anything wrong. At least not by posting the list, their research methods may be in question.
I suppose if it turns out that the tweeter is in fact a cop then they have all the right to fire him as I'm sure it is a breech of contract. But otherwise he/she should have the right. Johannesburg just needs to find better methods and stop their internal leaks, don't take it out on the messenger. Of course, I don't know what the actual laws of Johannesburg are, I'm just considering what they should be.
It is easy to apply to yourself because you already speak english. For foreign language speakers, they often don't have the option of going to a well respected college in their native language, the way you do. If you -had- to speak some other language to get a higher education would you think it fair that your inability to learn another language is hindering your mathematics degree?
My troll detector must be fuzzy from lack of sleep. I've got the mod points but I just can't decide if you're funny or trolling or heaven forbid, serious.
Are you ignoring the fact that in the bible dozens of infractions call for the offenders to be stoned to death? And there are communities of barbaric Cristians out there actually enforcing them sometimes. No religion has a monopoly on atrocities. And there are many manifestations of sharia law. Most Muslims believe in a more moderate version then you are blathering about.
I don't think it matters if you game is open source, just the tools you are using. I think using flash goes against their goal. There are plenty of flash games, they are trying to show games that use open platforms.
Once the system has been opened up it can be analyzed in great detail giving hackers many more tools and insight into the system than when it is closed. From here on out, Sony will be fighting a loosing battle. Computer architecture is designed to do what you tell it to do. Up until the hack, Sony was the only one who knew how to phrase the requests, giving then a firm advantage. After the crack, thousands of people have been able to have a good look at the internal workings. There is no way for Sony to get back to where they were, security-wise, without new hardware. The hackers are just going to learn more and more until they can order the machine around as well as Sony.
There seems to be a lot of lens flare in the image. Almost as if they used a star-cross filter on their lens. But that would be really silly, so I'm sure they didn't. Is it really that hard to stop the light from bleeding everywhere, or did they give the image a little pep before releasing it?
When it comes to national security, nothing is sacred, unfortunately.
Seriously, you just came out and said it out loud? You don't even bother to hedge or attribute the statement to "in times of war" or something. Well, I will admit your bluntness is refreshing, and in turn I will be just as blunt. I disagree with you 100%. National security is not our one and only core value. Many, many other values must come first. This is especially true when you are only talking about a _potential_ threat to national security not even a fully realized one. Anyone who believes otherwise doesn't deserve the freedom and benifits of a modern society because they have a barbaric mindset.
None of this guy's (Godfrey Louis) stuff on the subject seems to be peer reviewed. It is all just up on arXiv. I think he is more interested in getting publicity than getting his facts checked. Now that last statement is an ad hominem, so it doesn't say anything about his research one way or the other. But I think it does give a few clues.
Ah, well. Thank you for your incredible lack of specificity. I'm glad you replied to further insult me, yet didn't clarify yourself. It shows where your priorities are.
When we hit the lithium peak, how will we make more Li-ion batteries?
I guess we won't make more Li-ion batteries. But luckily there are plenty of other ways to store electricity -- many in development. We'll manage. Is that suppose to be some type of argument about why it is pointless to switch to renewable energy sources? If so, it doesn't really have much punch to it.
Thanks for your feedback but I have no idea what exactly you decided doesn't conform to reality. It would help if you provided a little more context for your side of the... I'll call it an argument.
Are you saying it is unlikely we run out because we have so much? Or are you saying it is not necessarily true that we'll run out and that we could easily be shifted away from such a path? Or are you saying that we won't run out because much of it isn't profitable enough to warrant extraction. Or are you going down some other path completely? I have no idea, help me out.
We're going to run out of fossil fuels sooner or later. Environmental concerns aside we should be investing in renewable power sources. The market needs a little nudge in the right direction even without pollution worries. Imagine a world where power is plentiful and cheap. Imagine the technologies that could be implemented, the research that could be done. Imagine grow lights in remote areas for food. Imagine water filtration systems everywhere. Imagine automatic manufacturing on demand. Imagine constant high speed transportation all over the world and beyond. All for 1000th the price it would cost today because power is dirt cheap. This type of progress isn't possible while we remain tethered on fossil fuels. It has a limited supply to it will simply always be too expensive.
I know you're being snarky, but first off, we're probably going to exhaust our entire supply of fossil fuels anyway, the question is just how quickly. Secondly, electric cars are still being powered by fossil fuels, for the most part anyway. Thirdly, any reduction in demand can be easily offset with tax schemes like cap-and-trade.
Random variation as an explanation is currently outside of the 95% confidence interval, and quickly approaching the 99% confidence interval. In layman terms, this particular variation seems very extreme. Even so, if we had no other reasonable explanations I would think random variation was probable. But we do have other persuasive explanations.
Add that in with the fact that climate change was predicted before the data pointed to current warming and you have to start wondering why anyone is doubting man-made global warming at all, besides for scientific rigor of course.
tl;dr If your blackjack dealer gets 21 ten hands in a row, and keeps shuffling under the table, it is time to call security.
Slashdot Mirror
When we've turned all the carbon in to trees?
The human body has a large amount of carbon. Long story short, the trees will start hungering for us!
How did you first post such a long comment? Did you see this in the hose, pre-write your comment and wait? Anyhow, best comment ever, thanks for the laugh.
...but might I inquire what it is you are trying to hide?
kinda defeats the purpose if he tells you...
I made a fake article that has been up for three years and ten months. It has even been brushed up a little bit by a few people. The article is full of fake companies, fake people and fake ideas. Do I win? I'd tell you what it is, but I want to see how long it stays up and if I post it someone will see to taking it down.
Am I the only one that spent 30 seconds trying to figure out why scientists made a correlation between the size of the thing's head and the thing's desire for sex before realizing that it was just a bad pun?
Freedom of Speech, you either have it or you don't... Although, I suppose this particular case is a little sticky. Do you think that when people are actively trying to avoid law enforcement, their speech is still protected? I side with the idea that it should still be protected. If someone posts a list labeled "100 best places to drop dead bodies off where they'll never be found", I don't think they've done anything wrong. At least not by posting the list, their research methods may be in question.
I suppose if it turns out that the tweeter is in fact a cop then they have all the right to fire him as I'm sure it is a breech of contract. But otherwise he/she should have the right. Johannesburg just needs to find better methods and stop their internal leaks, don't take it out on the messenger. Of course, I don't know what the actual laws of Johannesburg are, I'm just considering what they should be.
It is easy to apply to yourself because you already speak english. For foreign language speakers, they often don't have the option of going to a well respected college in their native language, the way you do. If you -had- to speak some other language to get a higher education would you think it fair that your inability to learn another language is hindering your mathematics degree?
My troll detector must be fuzzy from lack of sleep. I've got the mod points but I just can't decide if you're funny or trolling or heaven forbid, serious.
Are you ignoring the fact that in the bible dozens of infractions call for the offenders to be stoned to death? And there are communities of barbaric Cristians out there actually enforcing them sometimes. No religion has a monopoly on atrocities. And there are many manifestations of sharia law. Most Muslims believe in a more moderate version then you are blathering about.
I don't think it matters if you game is open source, just the tools you are using. I think using flash goes against their goal. There are plenty of flash games, they are trying to show games that use open platforms.
Once the system has been opened up it can be analyzed in great detail giving hackers many more tools and insight into the system than when it is closed. From here on out, Sony will be fighting a loosing battle. Computer architecture is designed to do what you tell it to do. Up until the hack, Sony was the only one who knew how to phrase the requests, giving then a firm advantage. After the crack, thousands of people have been able to have a good look at the internal workings. There is no way for Sony to get back to where they were, security-wise, without new hardware. The hackers are just going to learn more and more until they can order the machine around as well as Sony.
There seems to be a lot of lens flare in the image. Almost as if they used a star-cross filter on their lens. But that would be really silly, so I'm sure they didn't. Is it really that hard to stop the light from bleeding everywhere, or did they give the image a little pep before releasing it?
When it comes to national security, nothing is sacred, unfortunately.
Seriously, you just came out and said it out loud? You don't even bother to hedge or attribute the statement to "in times of war" or something. Well, I will admit your bluntness is refreshing, and in turn I will be just as blunt. I disagree with you 100%. National security is not our one and only core value. Many, many other values must come first. This is especially true when you are only talking about a _potential_ threat to national security not even a fully realized one. Anyone who believes otherwise doesn't deserve the freedom and benifits of a modern society because they have a barbaric mindset.
It's kind of the phone that is providing all the intelligence, right? I mean, you have to dig pretty far before you can call an image intelligent.
Your age discrimination is showing. You might want to tuck it back in.
Maybe if the government wasn't five years backlogged on immigration requests, more people would come here legally.
None of this guy's (Godfrey Louis) stuff on the subject seems to be peer reviewed. It is all just up on arXiv. I think he is more interested in getting publicity than getting his facts checked. Now that last statement is an ad hominem, so it doesn't say anything about his research one way or the other. But I think it does give a few clues.
Ah, well. Thank you for your incredible lack of specificity. I'm glad you replied to further insult me, yet didn't clarify yourself. It shows where your priorities are.
Oh I know it won't happen in my lifetime. I just think it is good to keep the end goal in site no matter how far away it is.
When we hit the lithium peak, how will we make more Li-ion batteries?
I guess we won't make more Li-ion batteries. But luckily there are plenty of other ways to store electricity -- many in development. We'll manage. Is that suppose to be some type of argument about why it is pointless to switch to renewable energy sources? If so, it doesn't really have much punch to it.
Thanks for your feedback but I have no idea what exactly you decided doesn't conform to reality. It would help if you provided a little more context for your side of the ... I'll call it an argument.
Are you saying it is unlikely we run out because we have so much? Or are you saying it is not necessarily true that we'll run out and that we could easily be shifted away from such a path? Or are you saying that we won't run out because much of it isn't profitable enough to warrant extraction. Or are you going down some other path completely? I have no idea, help me out.
We're going to run out of fossil fuels sooner or later. Environmental concerns aside we should be investing in renewable power sources. The market needs a little nudge in the right direction even without pollution worries. Imagine a world where power is plentiful and cheap. Imagine the technologies that could be implemented, the research that could be done. Imagine grow lights in remote areas for food. Imagine water filtration systems everywhere. Imagine automatic manufacturing on demand. Imagine constant high speed transportation all over the world and beyond. All for 1000th the price it would cost today because power is dirt cheap. This type of progress isn't possible while we remain tethered on fossil fuels. It has a limited supply to it will simply always be too expensive.
I know you're being snarky, but first off, we're probably going to exhaust our entire supply of fossil fuels anyway, the question is just how quickly. Secondly, electric cars are still being powered by fossil fuels, for the most part anyway. Thirdly, any reduction in demand can be easily offset with tax schemes like cap-and-trade.
Random variation as an explanation is currently outside of the 95% confidence interval, and quickly approaching the 99% confidence interval. In layman terms, this particular variation seems very extreme. Even so, if we had no other reasonable explanations I would think random variation was probable. But we do have other persuasive explanations.
Add that in with the fact that climate change was predicted before the data pointed to current warming and you have to start wondering why anyone is doubting man-made global warming at all, besides for scientific rigor of course.
tl;dr If your blackjack dealer gets 21 ten hands in a row, and keeps shuffling under the table, it is time to call security.
A skeptic. At least until your alternate explanation is even remotely plausible.