No they don't. "Inflammable" is a word. "Flammable" is not. "Non-inflammable" is a word. "Non-flammable" is not.
Inflammable comes from inflammare. Flammable is a fucked up piece of shit that some retard tried to shoe horn in. It comes from flamma.
Inflammare is the root word, and "inflammable" and "non-inflammable" are the words. Flamma isn't a fucking verb and should not be used as a root to create a word with the same meaning as "inflammable". Further, adding "flammable" only increases confusion (of which there was none among non-retards) because the already valid and correct "inflammable" exists, as well as the valid and correct non-inflammable.
Unicode is largely trash, and I'm glad Slashdot doesn't support it. If your content is encoded and formatted such that you need Unicode for a fucking apostrophe, you're doing it wrong.
Wrong again. The low standards of the volunteer military have been a joke for about a dozen years. Gee, I wonder why the standards dropped in the early 2000s.
The US hasn't been in a real war in said "over 40 years". The shit we've been doing are pointless occupations, not fucking wars. Today, when a soldier is killed or injured it makes headlines. During wartime, you're lucky as a soldier if someone even notices your corpse and puts your name to it.
All 18-25 year old males must still register for "selective service" in the US. Further, war goes back a bit further than 40 years and extends beyond the borders of the US. Throughout all of human history, soldiers have fought wars for someone else and the number of females among them represent a rounding error at most.
Clinton tried to turn war into a gendered issue for women, when it's exactly the fucking opposite. The audacity it takes to claim that women are the primary victims in war rivals is beyond measure.
How about returning Slashdot to what it was supposed to be? Items posted to the firehose that get voted up enough make it to the front page, not things that are picked by "editors" or paid for by other sites.
You are correct, and the three other clowns that responded to you don't understand your post.
In Go, symmetrical board states are identical, and thus, for the beginning several dozen moves of a game, the effective search space is much, much, smaller than a naive approach considering all 361 positions.
The popularity of Chess over Go in the west is absolutely why it was the focus of early publicity stunts and man-vs-machine matches. The corporations building and programming the machines were all western and focused on western markets, and the computational effort to solve Chess was very much aligned to the growth in speed and capacity of the computers they were trying to sell.
The 19x19 board in Go makes it a much wider tree to search, but it is a finite tree. Chess is an infinitely deep tree with very long potential loops. (Though some tournament rules declare a draw if a given position is repeated a certain number of times.) They require different strategies for solving efficiently. Naive Go algorithms will beat any human player on any size board given enough time and enough storage.
I challenge you to prove A. Your first step is defining "consciousness" (good luck).
Even presuming A and B, C does not hold. "Must" should be "may", since you don't know how the consciousness operates. And the qualification can only ever be done by the consciousness itself, never an outside observer. (And there can never be an outside observer and a vacuum scenario.)
That's a pointless measurement, though. A game of checkers has infinite possible games because you can repeat positions. For a player, or an AI trying to win a game, all that matters is the current game state and the possible game states, not how you arrived to that state.
[D] Use all available data as-is and track trends only across the same groups of instruments. [E] Be an actual scientist and control your variables. If you want long-term studies you need long-term data so you need to make sure all measurements are taken reliably and in the same way from the same type of device, if possible.
If you want to be called a "climate scientist" you NEED to do E. If you want to be called anything other than a charlatan you need to at least do D.
Bigotry refers to rejecting someone else's opinions without considering them because they are not your own. It has nothing to do with being mean or hateful. It originated with religion. A bigot is basically someone who says "I'm right, you're wrong, BECAUSE!". However, the media and SJW crowd have turned the word bigot into a weapon and misused it terribly.
I've always been nice to the AC. I frequently post about how AC posts at 0 or -1 are the best posts, while the +4 or +5 are usually karma whoring trash.
Retarded. That requires hacking the host computer. A keylogger would be just as effective. KeePass does NOT protect you from a compromised host. NO password manager does.
His prosecution was bullshit, and was absolutely not justified. I don't know if he's still being harassed, but if he is, that's also bullshit. I don't doubt that the government would harass him.
I don't know if he's a piece of shit, but he has a right to be a piece of shit.
Bram Cohen might be smart about distributed systems (bittorrent), but he's no expert on financial markets. The post you linked to was half a year ago, and it's painful to see just how wrong he was. The proof is all around us; take a look at the most recent blocks in the chain if you don't believe me. I work for a company that's a leader in bitcoin and blockchain technology. The transaction demand is getting too large, and the result isn't an uptick in the fee market, it will become too slow to be viable for businesses (and consumers) to transact. I deal with the fallout of small blocks everyday. The issue is real.
Thanks for pointing out Coinbase's position on BIP101. I didn't read that article previously. Realize that they're saying that it's the best proposal so far, not that they think it's the right way to go.
The major problem is that devs and experts see two different futures for bitcoin: the first camp wants to see it grow and possibly become more mainstream, and the other wants it to stay the fun little project that it has been. Are you in the latter camp?
What does "a leader in bitcoin and blockchain technology" mean? What does it mean to be "a leader in bitcoin" (or possibly "a leader in bitcoin technology")? What does it mean to be "a leader in blockchain technology"?
Hint - it means fucking nothing.
Everything else you're whining about is simply horseshit. If businesses want to use Bitcoin and want their shit processed quickly they can pay a (very small) fee to do so. Bitcoin isn't a free lunch, and it's not supposed to be. Actual USERS of Bitcoin are perfectly fine waiting minutes to hours for a transaction because traditional payment processors can take days or weeks before things are truly settled and confirmed.
It has not been shown that Bitcoin does not scale, it has not been shown that the scaling you're talking about is necessary (or desirable) for Bitcoin, and the fork we're all talking about but not naming has been shown to be controlled by parties who stand to gain massively from its adoption.
That's what we're really arguing over, whether transaction fees rise to a fucking quarter or not.
If they do "rise to a fucking quarter", then Bitcoin is unlikely to be usable as a means for pay-per-page web browsing once ad blocking becomes widespread. So to what low-transaction-fee network should people who desire a low-transaction-fee network switch?
What? You'd just buy a block of 1000 views at once, for some fraction of a Bitcoin.
Slashdot Mirror
As much as I hate it, that ship has sailed.
Touch screens suuuuuuuuuuuuuuck for input.
This has bothered me as well.
What about doing something like this (using whatever font you want)? http://i.imgur.com/EW1h6gy.jpg
Or how about just going with big ol' NWSE?
It's "shabang", not "shebang", and you've only listed the "sha".
# - Sharp
! - Bang
#! - Shabang
"Shebang" is a word unto itself and it has nothing to do with "shabang" beyond people getting them mixed up.
No they don't.
"Inflammable" is a word. "Flammable" is not.
"Non-inflammable" is a word. "Non-flammable" is not.
Inflammable comes from inflammare.
Flammable is a fucked up piece of shit that some retard tried to shoe horn in. It comes from flamma.
Inflammare is the root word, and "inflammable" and "non-inflammable" are the words.
Flamma isn't a fucking verb and should not be used as a root to create a word with the same meaning as "inflammable". Further, adding "flammable" only increases confusion (of which there was none among non-retards) because the already valid and correct "inflammable" exists, as well as the valid and correct non-inflammable.
Unicode is largely trash, and I'm glad Slashdot doesn't support it. If your content is encoded and formatted such that you need Unicode for a fucking apostrophe, you're doing it wrong.
Wrong again. The low standards of the volunteer military have been a joke for about a dozen years. Gee, I wonder why the standards dropped in the early 2000s.
https://youtu.be/5Q9UF0Tstww
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Etc.
The US hasn't been in a real war in said "over 40 years". The shit we've been doing are pointless occupations, not fucking wars. Today, when a soldier is killed or injured it makes headlines. During wartime, you're lucky as a soldier if someone even notices your corpse and puts your name to it.
All 18-25 year old males must still register for "selective service" in the US. Further, war goes back a bit further than 40 years and extends beyond the borders of the US. Throughout all of human history, soldiers have fought wars for someone else and the number of females among them represent a rounding error at most.
Clinton tried to turn war into a gendered issue for women, when it's exactly the fucking opposite. The audacity it takes to claim that women are the primary victims in war rivals is beyond measure.
You're a retard. The soldiers sent to die at the behest of some government are the primary victims in war.
How about returning Slashdot to what it was supposed to be? Items posted to the firehose that get voted up enough make it to the front page, not things that are picked by "editors" or paid for by other sites.
You are correct, and the three other clowns that responded to you don't understand your post.
In Go, symmetrical board states are identical, and thus, for the beginning several dozen moves of a game, the effective search space is much, much, smaller than a naive approach considering all 361 positions.
The popularity of Chess over Go in the west is absolutely why it was the focus of early publicity stunts and man-vs-machine matches. The corporations building and programming the machines were all western and focused on western markets, and the computational effort to solve Chess was very much aligned to the growth in speed and capacity of the computers they were trying to sell.
The 19x19 board in Go makes it a much wider tree to search, but it is a finite tree. Chess is an infinitely deep tree with very long potential loops. (Though some tournament rules declare a draw if a given position is repeated a certain number of times.) They require different strategies for solving efficiently. Naive Go algorithms will beat any human player on any size board given enough time and enough storage.
I challenge you to prove A.
Your first step is defining "consciousness" (good luck).
Even presuming A and B, C does not hold. "Must" should be "may", since you don't know how the consciousness operates. And the qualification can only ever be done by the consciousness itself, never an outside observer. (And there can never be an outside observer and a vacuum scenario.)
Worse than Windows 10 and systemd?
That's a pointless measurement, though. A game of checkers has infinite possible games because you can repeat positions. For a player, or an AI trying to win a game, all that matters is the current game state and the possible game states, not how you arrived to that state.
[D] Use all available data as-is and track trends only across the same groups of instruments.
[E] Be an actual scientist and control your variables. If you want long-term studies you need long-term data so you need to make sure all measurements are taken reliably and in the same way from the same type of device, if possible.
If you want to be called a "climate scientist" you NEED to do E.
If you want to be called anything other than a charlatan you need to at least do D.
Bigotry refers to rejecting someone else's opinions without considering them because they are not your own.
It has nothing to do with being mean or hateful. It originated with religion. A bigot is basically someone who says "I'm right, you're wrong, BECAUSE!".
However, the media and SJW crowd have turned the word bigot into a weapon and misused it terribly.
I've always been nice to the AC. I frequently post about how AC posts at 0 or -1 are the best posts, while the +4 or +5 are usually karma whoring trash.
Retarded.
That requires hacking the host computer. A keylogger would be just as effective. KeePass does NOT protect you from a compromised host. NO password manager does.
Antarctica!
https://youtu.be/9ZlOhSt_qW0
A wallet is a non-executable data file.
You can't get a trojan from on.
Unless you're retarded and use a third party service or program to MANAGE wallets.
Fuck it, we're going to 12 antennas.
His prosecution was bullshit, and was absolutely not justified.
I don't know if he's still being harassed, but if he is, that's also bullshit. I don't doubt that the government would harass him.
I don't know if he's a piece of shit, but he has a right to be a piece of shit.
>> And the miners have flatly rejected it, out of concerns for Bitcoin XT's path of overcentralizing Bitcoin.
Take a look at this open letter from Sam Cole (CEO of KNC Miner) that came out today.
https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitc...
Bram Cohen might be smart about distributed systems (bittorrent), but he's no expert on financial markets. The post you linked to was half a year ago, and it's painful to see just how wrong he was. The proof is all around us; take a look at the most recent blocks in the chain if you don't believe me. I work for a company that's a leader in bitcoin and blockchain technology. The transaction demand is getting too large, and the result isn't an uptick in the fee market, it will become too slow to be viable for businesses (and consumers) to transact. I deal with the fallout of small blocks everyday. The issue is real.
Thanks for pointing out Coinbase's position on BIP101. I didn't read that article previously. Realize that they're saying that it's the best proposal so far, not that they think it's the right way to go.
The major problem is that devs and experts see two different futures for bitcoin: the first camp wants to see it grow and possibly become more mainstream, and the other wants it to stay the fun little project that it has been. Are you in the latter camp?
What does "a leader in bitcoin and blockchain technology" mean?
What does it mean to be "a leader in bitcoin" (or possibly "a leader in bitcoin technology")?
What does it mean to be "a leader in blockchain technology"?
Hint - it means fucking nothing.
Everything else you're whining about is simply horseshit. If businesses want to use Bitcoin and want their shit processed quickly they can pay a (very small) fee to do so. Bitcoin isn't a free lunch, and it's not supposed to be. Actual USERS of Bitcoin are perfectly fine waiting minutes to hours for a transaction because traditional payment processors can take days or weeks before things are truly settled and confirmed.
It has not been shown that Bitcoin does not scale, it has not been shown that the scaling you're talking about is necessary (or desirable) for Bitcoin, and the fork we're all talking about but not naming has been shown to be controlled by parties who stand to gain massively from its adoption.
That's what we're really arguing over, whether transaction fees rise to a fucking quarter or not.
If they do "rise to a fucking quarter", then Bitcoin is unlikely to be usable as a means for pay-per-page web browsing once ad blocking becomes widespread. So to what low-transaction-fee network should people who desire a low-transaction-fee network switch?
What? You'd just buy a block of 1000 views at once, for some fraction of a Bitcoin.
Bitcoin has a scaling problem: we're already maxing out the 1mb block size and transactions are starting to take more and more time to confirm
This is only a problem if you believe you should never have to pay a transaction fee to reward miners doing the work of making Bitcoin possible.