Fortunately it's not Facebook that changed to Circles.
Otherwise, to avoid being put down by the copyright army, we'd have to refer to circular shapes as poligons with an freakishly large number of sides. Or with the shorter, albeit somewhat harder to pronounce, PFLNS.
And it would take a lot of effort to remake the Lion King to include the hit song "The pfln of life".
Wouldn't it make more sense to remove the class than the computer?
Put the teacher inside the screen and let the students decide where and when they want to study. Those who aren't able to manage the responsability will fail, as they should.
It's time to start treating people as adults and also to demand to be treated as such.
The headline should be "Cheaters Exposed By Analyzing Statistical Anomalies"? I thought the cheaters themselves were doing the analyzing, to get ahead of the cheat detection.
I thought a new branch of Statictical Anomaly Analysis had managed to replicate the effect of airport porn-o-matics.
A guy dressed in a white lab coat, doing an experiment, gives you some medicine and tells you: "This is a placebo. Trust me, there is no active component of any kind.". Then, as soon as you swallow the medicine he, and three other lab coated investigators watch you attentively for an hour, asking if you feel strange in any way.
What would be the chances of you believing them and having no doubts about the placebo nature of what you had taken?
"In a classical interferometer, first developed in the late 1800s, a laser beam in a vacuum hits a mirror called a beamsplitter, which breaks it in two".
And elsewhere: "In 1917, Albert Einstein established the theoretic foundations for the LASER"
So what laser did they use in the 1800's?
A candle and a lense.
Yes, seriously.
The method was first developed by sir Archibald Bradley, who... No, silly, I wasn't being serious.
And as long as you didn't fit the CCTV footage, have a record for that type of crime, find it hard to show evidence of the spraying, had a remotely plausible alibi, leave any DNA or fingerprint evidence at the site etc I'm sure you might have a chance with that defence.
You mean criminals have a hard time finding a single friend who owns any kind of spraying bottle and a hooded sweatshirt?
1 - Buy spray synthesiser machine. 2 - Make it known that you offer a safety service to bank robbers: they come to you once sprayed and you make 100l of the substance for them to spray on the streets for a week. 3 - Profit. 4 - ???
Answering "How did you come to have a UV marker solution on the clothes you wore last night that is ONLY issued to Company X, when there was a burglary at Company X last night, when you claim to have been at home and never near Company X?" is a bit more tricky
A: Yesterday, a guy in the street sprayed me with a substance I didn't identify. I tried to chase down the guy to ask for an explanation but he ran faster than me.
unless society takes on seti, parallel computing etc as hobbies, we wont need more processing power in our daily lives.
Have you considered that most the dificulty of modern graphics comes from the limitations of not being able to simply tell the computer: "Take these math defined objects and represent them by simply raytracing everything from this PoV"?
We're still very far (many decades) from the point where we don't need more computing power to represent graphics in a way that doeson't get between the concept of what we want to represent and the reality of what we're forced to accept as the most we can do.
Actually, I'd bet that before we reach a point where we can generate real looking movies in real time, from pure math, we'll have discovered a way of comunicating with the brain bypassing the eyes, and then we'll probably need much more computing power to render those real looking movies into something the brain can interpret.
And the most retarded part is that just about everyone in any technical community can tell them why the idea is idiotic, useless and dangerous. I mean, there are pretty few things the internet does better than highlight your stupidity; they should learn to use that wonderful virtue.
Can someone send them a simple email explaining how to first post their new ideas in a tiny forum so children can tell them why it won't work, before talking to the news?
Bill Clinton said it best (and I'm paraphrasing here) "The most shocking thing I discovered about the Presidency is that people don't do what you say."
I don't think he was referring to exactly the same scenario as you are. Your "people" is composed of long term government employees, his is composed of females.
I wonder the proportion between stops on bus lanes for personal reasons and stops to allow an emergency vehicle to pass.
Then I wonder the relation between that first proportion and the proportion of incarcerated innocents of murder.
Finally I wonder if you're implying we should abolish murder incarceration because of the innocents incarcerated, much more common than the fined for stopping in the bus lanes to let emergency vehicles pass.
tl;dr: If your argument about country wide policies starts with "A friend of mine", "I know one guy" or similar constructs, it's probably not a very important reason to push the decision in any sense.
Welcome to the quid pro quod real world, asshole. One of these days, you will have to stop one minute to drop something off.
No, I won't. You can keep telling that to yourself to justify your uncivilized actions but it's just not true. Most people never stop their can in an illegal place just because there are no cameras to fine them.
I wonder if you ignore red lights when you're in a hurry, surpass the speed limit, overcome cars in low visibility two directional lanes, etc. and excuse your actions thinking that I'll someday do the same things.
And you can come with extreme cases like "what if you had to take someone to the hospital and they would die if you go to the parking?" but the reality is that people like you will leave their car in a bus stop for a minute just because you really, really have to go to that shop to very quickly but whatever. Or simply because you didn't even consider it a problem and told someone to wait for you in the middle of a street with no stopping zone, and then stop there while you wait if they come a minute late.
"because of his unthinking attitude that we get such draconian restrictions"
This reminds me of the very poor argument for why DRM in software exists. Pirates exist, therefore everyone should suffer, not just the pirate. What happens is that these policies just end up harming the average citizen and not the people they're intended to hurt.
Except in that case nobody bothered to prove the line of events, which is kind of the main point.
i.e.: You can argue the "stops are forbidden" law by stating that "stops have less of an influence in people than the traffic law that concerns them has on the general public; just as many of us argue DRM by stating that "piracy has less of an influence in affected people than DRM on the general public". Were you to use that argument you'd be wrong, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately it's not Facebook that changed to Circles.
Otherwise, to avoid being put down by the copyright army, we'd have to refer to circular shapes as poligons with an freakishly large number of sides. Or with the shorter, albeit somewhat harder to pronounce, PFLNS.
And it would take a lot of effort to remake the Lion King to include the hit song "The pfln of life".
Every ending is a new beginning.
Your favourite Disney character is none.
Your favourite color is DEAD.
Wouldn't it make more sense to remove the class than the computer?
Put the teacher inside the screen and let the students decide where and when they want to study. Those who aren't able to manage the responsability will fail, as they should.
It's time to start treating people as adults and also to demand to be treated as such.
The headline should be "Cheaters Exposed By Analyzing Statistical Anomalies"? I thought the cheaters themselves were doing the analyzing, to get ahead of the cheat detection.
I thought a new branch of Statictical Anomaly Analysis had managed to replicate the effect of airport porn-o-matics.
Heavens, no.
They clearly made a secret deal with Facebook to promote their game while keeping the "good will" for being small.
Deals like this one are creating a virtual monopoly that cripple the smaller, more honest, dev teams that really maintain a fresh gaming environment.
I must be especially stupid today as I got almost no information about the title topic from that quote.
Is there a new trend about forcing the reader to RTFA that I should know about?
When comparing the actual results to the predictions, the brief analysis given by the lead investigator Dr. Sunny M. Sparks was:
"The fuck?!"
Assestion to which the closer grad student, not fully comprehending the ramifications of such discovery, replied:
"Not my fault! I swear! ... It was Jackson! He was playing WoW in the lab computer not two days ago."
A guy dressed in a white lab coat, doing an experiment, gives you some medicine and tells you: "This is a placebo. Trust me, there is no active component of any kind.". Then, as soon as you swallow the medicine he, and three other lab coated investigators watch you attentively for an hour, asking if you feel strange in any way.
What would be the chances of you believing them and having no doubts about the placebo nature of what you had taken?
I fail to see where does the complexity of those rules lay. It seems that the only need for complexity starts exactly where net neutrality ends.
"In a classical interferometer, first developed in the late 1800s, a laser beam in a vacuum hits a mirror called a beamsplitter, which breaks it in two".
And elsewhere:
"In 1917, Albert Einstein established the theoretic foundations for the LASER"
So what laser did they use in the 1800's?
A candle and a lense.
Yes, seriously.
The method was first developed by sir Archibald Bradley, who... No, silly, I wasn't being serious.
And as long as you didn't fit the CCTV footage, have a record for that type of crime, find it hard to show evidence of the spraying, had a remotely plausible alibi, leave any DNA or fingerprint evidence at the site etc I'm sure you might have a chance with that defence.
You mean criminals have a hard time finding a single friend who owns any kind of spraying bottle and a hooded sweatshirt?
1 - Buy spray synthesiser machine.
2 - Make it known that you offer a safety service to bank robbers: they come to you once sprayed and you make 100l of the substance for them to spray on the streets for a week.
3 - Profit.
4 - ???
Answering "How did you come to have a UV marker solution on the clothes you wore last night that is ONLY issued to Company X, when there was a burglary at Company X last night, when you claim to have been at home and never near Company X?" is a bit more tricky
A: Yesterday, a guy in the street sprayed me with a substance I didn't identify. I tried to chase down the guy to ask for an explanation but he ran faster than me.
unless society takes on seti, parallel computing etc as hobbies, we wont need more processing power in our daily lives.
Have you considered that most the dificulty of modern graphics comes from the limitations of not being able to simply tell the computer: "Take these math defined objects and represent them by simply raytracing everything from this PoV"?
We're still very far (many decades) from the point where we don't need more computing power to represent graphics in a way that doeson't get between the concept of what we want to represent and the reality of what we're forced to accept as the most we can do.
Actually, I'd bet that before we reach a point where we can generate real looking movies in real time, from pure math, we'll have discovered a way of comunicating with the brain bypassing the eyes, and then we'll probably need much more computing power to render those real looking movies into something the brain can interpret.
The SmartWater liquid carries DNA
So now we're calling it smart water?
Also, eeeeew! eeew! God why! eeeew!
And also, the marketing concept of "smart drink" has just gone to hell.
And finally. "Smart water? Who came with that idea?"
It's a nice theory but if that was the case, wouldn't they get a higher level response by presenting an idea with less obvious flaws?
Or you mean they didn't have in the vicinity anyone technically able to help them correct some of the most obvious problems.
And the most retarded part is that just about everyone in any technical community can tell them why the idea is idiotic, useless and dangerous. I mean, there are pretty few things the internet does better than highlight your stupidity; they should learn to use that wonderful virtue.
Can someone send them a simple email explaining how to first post their new ideas in a tiny forum so children can tell them why it won't work, before talking to the news?
Quite honestly, I hope this is the last one
I regretfully inform you that you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
Controlling everything that your child does is not good parenting.
Unless you want your children to become great liars, a necessary skill for any management position.
Or spies.
Or ninja!
Bill Clinton said it best (and I'm paraphrasing here) "The most shocking thing I discovered about the Presidency is that people don't do what you say."
I don't think he was referring to exactly the same scenario as you are. Your "people" is composed of long term government employees, his is composed of females.
Furthermore, Square-Enix needs to do some serious market research and learn what players actually want from a game.
Please elaborate.
I wonder the proportion between stops on bus lanes for personal reasons and stops to allow an emergency vehicle to pass.
Then I wonder the relation between that first proportion and the proportion of incarcerated innocents of murder.
Finally I wonder if you're implying we should abolish murder incarceration because of the innocents incarcerated, much more common than the fined for stopping in the bus lanes to let emergency vehicles pass.
tl;dr: If your argument about country wide policies starts with "A friend of mine", "I know one guy" or similar constructs, it's probably not a very important reason to push the decision in any sense.
Welcome to the quid pro quod real world, asshole. One of these days, you will have to stop one minute to drop something off.
No, I won't. You can keep telling that to yourself to justify your uncivilized actions but it's just not true. Most people never stop their can in an illegal place just because there are no cameras to fine them.
I wonder if you ignore red lights when you're in a hurry, surpass the speed limit, overcome cars in low visibility two directional lanes, etc. and excuse your actions thinking that I'll someday do the same things.
And you can come with extreme cases like "what if you had to take someone to the hospital and they would die if you go to the parking?" but the reality is that people like you will leave their car in a bus stop for a minute just because you really, really have to go to that shop to very quickly but whatever. Or simply because you didn't even consider it a problem and told someone to wait for you in the middle of a street with no stopping zone, and then stop there while you wait if they come a minute late.
"because of his unthinking attitude that we get such draconian restrictions"
This reminds me of the very poor argument for why DRM in software exists. Pirates exist, therefore everyone should suffer, not just the pirate. What happens is that these policies just end up harming the average citizen and not the people they're intended to hurt.
Except in that case nobody bothered to prove the line of events, which is kind of the main point.
i.e.: You can argue the "stops are forbidden" law by stating that "stops have less of an influence in people than the traffic law that concerns them has on the general public; just as many of us argue DRM by stating that "piracy has less of an influence in affected people than DRM on the general public". Were you to use that argument you'd be wrong, though.
The government's deception in order to take money is not capitalism, it's robbery.
That's precisely the point I was disagreeing with.
I don't think there's such a thing as "non money-driven government capitalism".