I half agree. I had very bad RSI for 2 and a half years. Part of the solution was resuming my work out routine, and using my arms regularly for macro movements instead of micro movements. The other part of the solution was to use an ergonomic keyboard. I used the MS Natural Ergonomic 4000, or whatever it's called, and I have no choice. If I use a normal keyboard I get 2 or 3 hours at most before the pain resumes.
I think the important point is that RSI is a very heterogeneous problem, and may call for very different solutions for different people. If you have it, keep on trying new things until you find something that works for you.
By making ever more complex systems trying to mimic the performance nuanced complexities of human behavior in order to try pass a Turing test or whatever, we're just making dumb rigid algorithims seem smart, by completely missing understanding and recreating the system that give rise to such performance by itself.
The key insight of Computer Science is that an information processing machine is in some important ways independent of the physical machinery which implements it. Your brain is unequivocally composed of neurotransmitters arranged in a network. Put very simply, each neurotransmitter has multiple inputs, and one output. The output fires after enough of the inputs activate to reach the activation threshold. That is the bio-chemical machinery that implements an information processing program which is your mind. There's no magic, and there's no reason why that same program couldn't be implemented on an electro-mechanical machine instead.
In other words, you are just a collection of dumb rigid algorithms that seem smart. Don't worry though, because you're an incredibly complex set of dumb rigid algorithms, and any argument that you only seem smart is missing the point entirely; so far as we know, you are about as smart as it is possible to be. There's no reason to believe that any intelligence anywhere is anything other than simple rules put together in a very complex way, and very good reason to believe there is.
Are you aware that you listed 4 American studios and 4 Japanese studios? It looks to me like you are aware of exactly as many good American studios as Japanese ones.
[Is] it possible to prove there is encrypted data where you claim there's not? If I give someone one file containing random data and another containing data encrypted with AES, will he be able to tell which is which?
TFS is asking precisely whether you can hide your data without getting caught (cf the sentence preceeding the one you quoted). What you quoted is just a hypothetical to highlight the fact that the actual question [Will someone know if I have hidden data?] turns on an adversary's ability to distinguish random data from (for example) AES encrypted data.
Furthermore, everyone here knows you can beat crypto keys out of someone once you suspect they're hiding something. That doesn't need to be said, and if you feel it does, you could at least refer to it as thermorectal cryptanalysis, which is funnier, and less well-known.
People die in crashes because they decelerate too fast. If you're not wearing a seatbelt, all the deceleration will occur when your body hits the front of the driving compartment, all at once. If you're wearing a 5 point harness, all the deceleration will similarly occur when you hit the harness. If you have an airbag, you have the depth of the airbag to decelerate in, which decreases the maximum force being exerted on your body. Having more time to decelerate in is how you survive high speed crashes. That's why there are airbags, and that's why there are crumple zones.
In your F1 racing example, the 5 point harness is to keep you from bouncing around in the compartment. The tire wall is made of tires so that it will give way instead of decelerating the car, and therefore its contents, all at once.
People stealing TVs from an occupied residence thereby demonstrate their willingness to destroy any opposing humans therein.
I wonder, do you believe that evidence for the above is so common and widespread you don't need to mention it, or did it not even occur to that evidence would be required?
The only way I could possibly believe your statement is if the thief is in a society where he expects to be shot upon being discovered in someone's home without permission, and therefore believes he is in a kill-or-be-killed situation. But that hardly supports your [presumed] argument that widespread gun ownership makes people safer, and you'd still need evidence.
The future lies at the feet of whom have energy in [v]ast amounts.
The future lies at the feet of whoever has energy in vast amounts.
Whom is correct in 'the feet of whom', because it is not acting as the subject of a verb phrase. However, in the example above, it also serves as the subject of 'have' in the second part of the sentence. The phrase could be expanded to:
"The future lies at the feet of them who have energy in vast amounts."
Note that there is an objective case pronoun for the 'feet of' prepositional phase, and a subjective case pronoun for the 'have energy in vast amounts' verb phrase. According to this reference, that compiles down to 'whoever'.
I'm not trolling, or trying to be a grammar Nazi. It's a tricky sentence, and an easy mistake to make. I just try to spread the good word of proper grammaticality wherever I go.
[Others doctors] note that [the test] is not reliable enough — results can vary by lab
It sounds like some lab somewhere had 100% accuracy, so they reported that number. Obviously they should have reported on the average accuracy across all trials, but I guess that'd be too much to ask.
Supposing that a great comet destroys the human race in the next 1000 years, humans would exist for, let's say, 100,000 years, which is 1/130,000 of the universe's age (13 billion years).
That's an odd way to measure the importance of anything, much less a species. By that reasoning, you are significantly less important than that, since you will be around probably 80 years or so. Hell, that's so unimportant, I'm sure you wouldn't mind killing yourself tomorrow and donating all your assets to people who have goals and aspirations, right?
I like the word too, but I'm not sure the word's history is particularly good. You may like it, but most people have a knee-jerk "Hidenburg!", or "Blimp!" reaction to the word. Like this one.
‘You go to Richmond Park International. At 11 o’clock on Thursday you get on board the SkyCat200. There are hundreds of staterooms on it and you dinner dance your way across the Atlantic. At two o’clock on Friday afternoon you’re getting off at the East River in New York. You’ve travelled 3,000 miles overnight and there’s no jet lag.
Or, you could get on an airplane, be in New York in a fraction of the time, and spend the rest of the day recovering from jet lag.
According to a quick google search, the fastest flight-time from London to New York is 7 and a half hours. The SkyCat200 flight time should be 15 hours. I think you'd find that very many people prefer 15 hours of comfort to 7.5 hours of cramped hell followed by 7.5 hours of recovery. A lot would depend on the price difference between the airship and the airplane, though. If the price were equal, or close, I'd choose the airship if I were on vacation.
Did the test include shooting at the crew? I'm sure they'll find that sitting nearly motionless over a well-armed enemy does not make airship pilots invincible.
I wondered at that. The article mentions that the airship will be at 20,000 ft, or 3.4 miles, elevation. How many weapons even have that kind of range, straight up?
Those dishonest bastards! Differentiating between similar activities with different motivations and results! Next thing you know they'll try claiming that 'murdering', and 'killing in self defense', actually describe different things! Clearly this is just one step away from double-plus-ungood mind-control through language engineering.
Unless you pointed to an incorrect post, he has not been reporting on the problem mentioned in TFA. Specifically, Denniger is claiming that HFT harms the market (I have no idea if this is true, and don't care). The article is discussing trades which are made at a high frequency, and have no apparent purpose: they are so far from actual ask and bid prices that there is clearly no intent to actually make a transaction.
It should be noted that TFS states this quite clearly. I know, I know, "Are you new here? We don't read article summaries around these parts!". Regardless, I think it is worth pointing out when people are too careless to understand the fucking summary of the article before posting, or moderating. +5 informative indeed.
Last time I went into a B&N store I was looking for something to read on an intercontiental flight, I found something (...) Now I understand having to pay a couple of bucks more for the convenience of walking out of the store with the book, but 50% is just insane.
It's not just the convenience of having the book now. It's also the convenience of having a physical location near you which you can browse through looking for books, which I note you did use.
... except it means exactly the same thing as "regardless", it's just a corruption. Same as "flammable" is to "inflammable".
Irregardless, that there exists a word which expresses the same thought as your favourite word does not bar you from using your favourite word, whatever it may be. Personally, I don't use the word 'irregardless' except in an ironic fashion, because it's slightly redundant, and I'm pedantic enough for that to bother me. But the 'validity' of a word, if such a concept even has meaning, is first and foremost decided by how many other people will interpret it correctly. I argue that almost everyone understands what 'irregardless' is supposed to mean, so any further discussion of whether it is proper to use, or correct, or anything like that, is purely a question of style. Fashion, if you will.
Which 'others' are you referring to? I'm going to assume you aren't referring to the animated characters who were screaming... they do not have feelings. They're just depictions. If you're referring to the Vietnam Vet father-in-law, then the OP has already conceded that he was insensitive to the guy's feelings.
As a tax payer, and therefore, the employer of all police officers, I want to make sure my employees are behaving.
Do you think your employer should have a camera on you at all times, in order to make sure that you are behaving? Furthermore, that you pay taxes which go towards police officer's salaries no more makes you their employer than I am Blizzard's employer because the money I spend on their products is used to pay their salaries.
That being said, I do think squad cars should be equipped with cameras, and that the footage should be available to the prosecution and defense in any relevant legal matter.
I read the first two sentences, and decided to reply explaining why you were abusing Occam's Razor. Then I read the rest of the post to prepare my scathing rebuttal, and realized you were joking. Apparently those who modded you insightful also stopped after the second sentence =/
I worked in a company that made advertising material, including photography. Photoshoping screens was a routine step because the real content of the screens did no photograph well. Unless BP is making specific claims regarding the content of the screens, this is a non-issue.
Re:Strawman based on bastardized belief system
on
The End of Free
·
· Score: 1
If that were true, people would be obligated to justify why information wants to be free rather than be expensive, at least occasionally. Instead people say "Information wants to be free" as though it is some kind of axiomatic truth. If 'Information wants to be free" were really seen as a choice in a dichotomy, people would recognize 'Information wants to be expensive' as a legitimate position to debate from. Instead almost all slashdotters insist that if you don't acknowledge that information wants to be free, you've missed such a fundamental idea that you're not capable of engaging in a meaningful debate on the topic.
It's like a Windows vs Linux flamewar. People disagree on which is better, quite vigorously, and one side of the debate has a massively disproportionate representation in this forum, but nobody claims there is no debate; that Windows doesn't even exist. They just treat is as a long-since-answered question, and therefore uninteresting.
You might have better luck with that if you weren't so busy feeling smugly superior about not being into sports. You cleverly tried to hide it, but we can all still tell it's there.
Slashdot Mirror
I half agree. I had very bad RSI for 2 and a half years. Part of the solution was resuming my work out routine, and using my arms regularly for macro movements instead of micro movements. The other part of the solution was to use an ergonomic keyboard. I used the MS Natural Ergonomic 4000, or whatever it's called, and I have no choice. If I use a normal keyboard I get 2 or 3 hours at most before the pain resumes.
I think the important point is that RSI is a very heterogeneous problem, and may call for very different solutions for different people. If you have it, keep on trying new things until you find something that works for you.
The post you're replying to was talking about Zuckerberg, not Lessig.
By making ever more complex systems trying to mimic the performance nuanced complexities of human behavior in order to try pass a Turing test or whatever, we're just making dumb rigid algorithims seem smart, by completely missing understanding and recreating the system that give rise to such performance by itself.
The key insight of Computer Science is that an information processing machine is in some important ways independent of the physical machinery which implements it. Your brain is unequivocally composed of neurotransmitters arranged in a network. Put very simply, each neurotransmitter has multiple inputs, and one output. The output fires after enough of the inputs activate to reach the activation threshold. That is the bio-chemical machinery that implements an information processing program which is your mind. There's no magic, and there's no reason why that same program couldn't be implemented on an electro-mechanical machine instead.
In other words, you are just a collection of dumb rigid algorithms that seem smart. Don't worry though, because you're an incredibly complex set of dumb rigid algorithms, and any argument that you only seem smart is missing the point entirely; so far as we know, you are about as smart as it is possible to be. There's no reason to believe that any intelligence anywhere is anything other than simple rules put together in a very complex way, and very good reason to believe there is.
Are you aware that you listed 4 American studios and 4 Japanese studios? It looks to me like you are aware of exactly as many good American studios as Japanese ones.
From TFS:
[Is] it possible to prove there is encrypted data where you claim there's not? If I give someone one file containing random data and another containing data encrypted with AES, will he be able to tell which is which?
TFS is asking precisely whether you can hide your data without getting caught (cf the sentence preceeding the one you quoted). What you quoted is just a hypothetical to highlight the fact that the actual question [Will someone know if I have hidden data?] turns on an adversary's ability to distinguish random data from (for example) AES encrypted data.
Furthermore, everyone here knows you can beat crypto keys out of someone once you suspect they're hiding something. That doesn't need to be said, and if you feel it does, you could at least refer to it as thermorectal cryptanalysis, which is funnier, and less well-known.
In your F1 racing example, the 5 point harness is to keep you from bouncing around in the compartment. The tire wall is made of tires so that it will give way instead of decelerating the car, and therefore its contents, all at once.
People stealing TVs from an occupied residence thereby demonstrate their willingness to destroy any opposing humans therein.
I wonder, do you believe that evidence for the above is so common and widespread you don't need to mention it, or did it not even occur to that evidence would be required?
The only way I could possibly believe your statement is if the thief is in a society where he expects to be shot upon being discovered in someone's home without permission, and therefore believes he is in a kill-or-be-killed situation. But that hardly supports your [presumed] argument that widespread gun ownership makes people safer, and you'd still need evidence.
the rest were heart attacks or old age
Were the ones who died from 'old age' not old? How else could it have been a surprise?
The future lies at the feet of whom have energy in [v]ast amounts.
The future lies at the feet of whoever has energy in vast amounts.
Whom is correct in 'the feet of whom', because it is not acting as the subject of a verb phrase. However, in the example above, it also serves as the subject of 'have' in the second part of the sentence. The phrase could be expanded to:
"The future lies at the feet of them who have energy in vast amounts."
Note that there is an objective case pronoun for the 'feet of' prepositional phase, and a subjective case pronoun for the 'have energy in vast amounts' verb phrase. According to this reference, that compiles down to 'whoever'.
I'm not trolling, or trying to be a grammar Nazi. It's a tricky sentence, and an easy mistake to make. I just try to spread the good word of proper grammaticality wherever I go.
[Others doctors] note that [the test] is not reliable enough — results can vary by lab
It sounds like some lab somewhere had 100% accuracy, so they reported that number. Obviously they should have reported on the average accuracy across all trials, but I guess that'd be too much to ask.
Supposing that a great comet destroys the human race in the next 1000 years, humans would exist for, let's say, 100,000 years, which is 1/130,000 of the universe's age (13 billion years).
That's an odd way to measure the importance of anything, much less a species. By that reasoning, you are significantly less important than that, since you will be around probably 80 years or so. Hell, that's so unimportant, I'm sure you wouldn't mind killing yourself tomorrow and donating all your assets to people who have goals and aspirations, right?
I like the word too, but I'm not sure the word's history is particularly good. You may like it, but most people have a knee-jerk "Hidenburg!", or "Blimp!" reaction to the word. Like this one.
‘You go to Richmond Park International. At 11 o’clock on Thursday you get on board the SkyCat200. There are hundreds of staterooms on it and you dinner dance your way across the Atlantic. At two o’clock on Friday afternoon you’re getting off at the East River in New York. You’ve travelled 3,000 miles overnight and there’s no jet lag.
Or, you could get on an airplane, be in New York in a fraction of the time, and spend the rest of the day recovering from jet lag.
According to a quick google search, the fastest flight-time from London to New York is 7 and a half hours. The SkyCat200 flight time should be 15 hours. I think you'd find that very many people prefer 15 hours of comfort to 7.5 hours of cramped hell followed by 7.5 hours of recovery. A lot would depend on the price difference between the airship and the airplane, though. If the price were equal, or close, I'd choose the airship if I were on vacation.
Did the test include shooting at the crew? I'm sure they'll find that sitting nearly motionless over a well-armed enemy does not make airship pilots invincible.
I wondered at that. The article mentions that the airship will be at 20,000 ft, or 3.4 miles, elevation. How many weapons even have that kind of range, straight up?
I think their idea sounds promising.
Those dishonest bastards! Differentiating between similar activities with different motivations and results! Next thing you know they'll try claiming that 'murdering', and 'killing in self defense', actually describe different things! Clearly this is just one step away from double-plus-ungood mind-control through language engineering.
Touché :P
Unless you pointed to an incorrect post, he has not been reporting on the problem mentioned in TFA. Specifically, Denniger is claiming that HFT harms the market (I have no idea if this is true, and don't care). The article is discussing trades which are made at a high frequency, and have no apparent purpose: they are so far from actual ask and bid prices that there is clearly no intent to actually make a transaction.
It should be noted that TFS states this quite clearly. I know, I know, "Are you new here? We don't read article summaries around these parts!". Regardless, I think it is worth pointing out when people are too careless to understand the fucking summary of the article before posting, or moderating. +5 informative indeed.
Last time I went into a B&N store I was looking for something to read on an intercontiental flight, I found something (...) Now I understand having to pay a couple of bucks more for the convenience of walking out of the store with the book, but 50% is just insane.
It's not just the convenience of having the book now. It's also the convenience of having a physical location near you which you can browse through looking for books, which I note you did use.
... except it means exactly the same thing as "regardless", it's just a corruption. Same as "flammable" is to "inflammable".
Irregardless, that there exists a word which expresses the same thought as your favourite word does not bar you from using your favourite word, whatever it may be. Personally, I don't use the word 'irregardless' except in an ironic fashion, because it's slightly redundant, and I'm pedantic enough for that to bother me. But the 'validity' of a word, if such a concept even has meaning, is first and foremost decided by how many other people will interpret it correctly. I argue that almost everyone understands what 'irregardless' is supposed to mean, so any further discussion of whether it is proper to use, or correct, or anything like that, is purely a question of style. Fashion, if you will.
Which 'others' are you referring to? I'm going to assume you aren't referring to the animated characters who were screaming... they do not have feelings. They're just depictions. If you're referring to the Vietnam Vet father-in-law, then the OP has already conceded that he was insensitive to the guy's feelings.
As a tax payer, and therefore, the employer of all police officers, I want to make sure my employees are behaving.
Do you think your employer should have a camera on you at all times, in order to make sure that you are behaving? Furthermore, that you pay taxes which go towards police officer's salaries no more makes you their employer than I am Blizzard's employer because the money I spend on their products is used to pay their salaries.
That being said, I do think squad cars should be equipped with cameras, and that the footage should be available to the prosecution and defense in any relevant legal matter.
I read the first two sentences, and decided to reply explaining why you were abusing Occam's Razor. Then I read the rest of the post to prepare my scathing rebuttal, and realized you were joking. Apparently those who modded you insightful also stopped after the second sentence =/
I worked in a company that made advertising material, including photography. Photoshoping screens was a routine step because the real content of the screens did no photograph well. Unless BP is making specific claims regarding the content of the screens, this is a non-issue.
If that were true, people would be obligated to justify why information wants to be free rather than be expensive, at least occasionally. Instead people say "Information wants to be free" as though it is some kind of axiomatic truth. If 'Information wants to be free" were really seen as a choice in a dichotomy, people would recognize 'Information wants to be expensive' as a legitimate position to debate from. Instead almost all slashdotters insist that if you don't acknowledge that information wants to be free, you've missed such a fundamental idea that you're not capable of engaging in a meaningful debate on the topic.
It's like a Windows vs Linux flamewar. People disagree on which is better, quite vigorously, and one side of the debate has a massively disproportionate representation in this forum, but nobody claims there is no debate; that Windows doesn't even exist. They just treat is as a long-since-answered question, and therefore uninteresting.
I think his contempt is justified.
We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us
Is an old expression from Soviet Russia
You might have better luck with that if you weren't so busy feeling smugly superior about not being into sports. You cleverly tried to hide it, but we can all still tell it's there.