Nobody's even close to having moved in, spirit-wise.
Excellent! I was wondering when they'd get around to proving the existence of the "soul", and here you're telling me they've already gotten as far as an estimate of when, exactly, "ensoulment" occurs! This is great news! I'd like to learn more; what's your source?
So? These are the same people who already filter or ignore banner ads anyway. It ends up being a clear message: "We own the Web. Don't bother coming here if you don't plan to watch the commercials."
And that is when the long awaited Gibsonian cyberpunk dystopia will really get started, so at least you'll have something to look forward to:)
(1) Websites need to pay for bandwidth. (2) Advertisers are waiting for a sure-fire eyball lock-in. (3) Websites will stop rendering for non-Ooqa-compliant browsers, in order to guarantee the lock-in the advertisers desire. (4) Opera, Mozilla, Galeon, Konq, Lynx, &c. will no longer be able to get you anywhere interesting on the web.
These problems are nothing new, of course, but there's been no resolution yet. As a result, any progress towards (a) clarifying the issues or (b) codifying a solution, is definitely new, and newsworthy.
Given the opportunity, would you have opted to ignore the Manhattan Project because the suspected relationship between matter and energy was "nothing new" (what with Einstein's theories and all)?
It's/.ed right now, but you could try reading his own site some time. Then you wouldn't have to wonder any longer if his arrogance and presumption have been paving the way for his succesful career.
Seriously, though, I imagine/. would care, seeing as how ST is part of the geek canon, and how Wesley is a highly controversial and historically despised character.
I hate to break it to you, but organdy appears to be a type of cloth, and not a color at all.
If these multicolored pillows don't convince her, may I suggest a trip to this dictionary, which returns the following:
One entry found for organdy.
Main Entry: organdy
Variant(s): also organdie/'or-g&n-dE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -dies
Etymology: French organdi
Date: 1835
: a very fine transparent muslin with a stiff finish
In fact even Emily Dickinson seems to think it's a type of cloth.
It is ofcourse true, the human body is far from perfect.
Logically, your comment seems to parse out to:
(1) If there is a Designer, it is either
(a) Incompetent
or
(b) Using a yet-undiscovered value system for judging successful designs
(2) It is impossible that the Designer is incompetent.
(3) Therefore, if there is a Designer, we have not yet understood its design.
How, exactly, is the human body "far from perfect"? You mention the human eye as an example of something "with bugs that any competent engineer would iron out". What bugs are these? How would they be ironed out? What, pray tell, are the efficiency tradeoffs you would have to make to eliminate these bugs? Where is your proof that this "bug-free" design would be better optimized for the stated design goal?
Come to think of it, what is the stated design goal?
Not to mention the possibility that the stated design goal wasn't similitude of physical forms at all. Do we say "the only true AI is the AI whose physical form accurately mimics our own"? Of course not: the AI we're looking for will mimic our thought processes. Its physical form will be incidental.
And that's just a reasonable, logical approach to your arguments, without resorting to blind faith or rabid zealotry.
I was noting the (to me) obvious similarity between a single [manga] artist's distinctive mechanical designs. You seem to be implying that all I do all day is watch Sailor Moon, while at the same time claiming the same familiarity with the works of Frank Frazetta that I claim for Masamune Shirow. Do we have to get into a flamewar, or can we stop the name-calling now?
So let me get this straight: I cite one of the premiere comic book writer/artists of all time, and you tell me to "go pick up a comic book some time"?
And no-one besides you is debating where "the good stuff" comes from (although Masamune Shirow, Katsuhiro Otomo, Kazuo Koike, Terry Moore, Moebius, and others do seem to be making a significant contribution)--I merely pointed out the obvious relationship between the artist's rendition and the characteristic mechanical designs of Masamune Shirow. I mentioned Shirow specifically because his designs are fairly unique, and look substantially different from more mainstream designs. It's easy to tell when someone is copying Shirow, as opposed to one of an infinite number of "typical" anime artists.
But now I'm curious: who, in your opinion, is producing the "good stuff" here in the U.S.?
The reference is in the artist's rendition. The weapon in the soldier's left hand is obviously plagiarized from Masamune Shirow's mechanical designs in Appleseed and Ghost in the Shell.
And the suit design itself bears a startling resemblance to the ORC suits, also in Shirow's Appleseed.
Did you look at the artist's rendition? The guy is clearly ripping off Masamune Shirow. And the actual suit concepts (which are really unrelated to the artist's rendition) aren't that much different from the hard Japanese SF anyway.
But seriously, look at the gun in that picture. It's obviously a Seburo!
Originally, Turing (and others before him), hit upon the idea that a mechanical system of levers, relays, punch-cards, whatever could be built to solve a particular equation: "find the circumference of a circle of radius X", or whatever. The machine was a mechanical implementation of the formula for finding the answer--you could plug in your variable at one end, turn the crank (or pull the lever, &c.), and it would spit out the answer at the other.
But only the answer to that one question. What Turing (and others) did was attempt to prove in theory that it was possible to build a single mechanical device that could answer any question in a formal system (give or take Godel's theorem, of course); that is, a single machine that could solve any mathematical problem.
This theoretical mechanical device was known as a "Turing Machine", and represented an incredible breakthrough in math theory.
Now, of course, we all have one on our desk: the bulky mechanics have been replaced by much more efficient electronics, but the theory (and the functionality) is the same.
The current desire of the content industry is to make the Universal Turing Machine illegal--they want to replace our current transistor arrays (which, by nature, can do anything) with new arrays that are limited to doing only those things which the content industry approves of.
It's funny, but everybody seems to forget the "well regulated militia" part of this article.
See if you can follow the steps:
1. We want a free state. 2. A free state needs to be secure. 3. A well-regulated militia guarantees that security. 4. A well-regulated militia needs to be armed. 5. Therefore, the right of citizens to bear arms is guaranteed, so that they may form a well-regulated militia for the purpose of guaranteeing the security of a free state.
Then, whenever the government cracks down on unregulated militias, these groups complain that their right to bear arms has been abridged.
And what about the National Guard? Guard units fall under the jurisdiction of the states, and certainly fill the role of a well-regulated militia.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent! I was wondering when they'd get around to proving the existence of the "soul", and here you're telling me they've already gotten as far as an estimate of when, exactly, "ensoulment" occurs! This is great news! I'd like to learn more; what's your source?
Actually, I'm not too sure about Vinge yet, having only just discovered him, but so far he's incredible.
HTH!
And that is when the long awaited Gibsonian cyberpunk dystopia will really get started, so at least you'll have something to look forward to :)
I imagine that if enough people used Opera, the Ooqa-Loompas would be motivated to trivially counter this kind of spoofing.
How about this:
(1) Websites need to pay for bandwidth.
(2) Advertisers are waiting for a sure-fire eyball lock-in.
(3) Websites will stop rendering for non-Ooqa-compliant browsers, in order to guarantee the lock-in the advertisers desire.
(4) Opera, Mozilla, Galeon, Konq, Lynx, &c. will no longer be able to get you anywhere interesting on the web.
At which point every website with any hope of receiving revenue from this scheme will promptly stop rendering for any non-compliant browser.
Given the opportunity, would you have opted to ignore the Manhattan Project because the suspected relationship between matter and energy was "nothing new" (what with Einstein's theories and all)?
"Titney Spears", maybe?
Seriously, though, I imagine /. would care, seeing as how ST is part of the geek canon, and how Wesley is a highly controversial and historically despised character.
All of them.
cjpez: And what exactly is this "Slashdot experience?" that's being ruined here?
saintlupus: Why, "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." of course.
You're new here, aren't you?
Trust Microsoft to acquire somebody else's moon, fit it out with a couple plasma lasers, and market it as a "fully operational battle station".
If these multicolored pillows don't convince her, may I suggest a trip to this dictionary, which returns the following:
One entry found for organdy.
/'or-g&n-dE/
Main Entry: organdy
Variant(s): also organdie
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -dies
Etymology: French organdi
Date: 1835
: a very fine transparent muslin with a stiff finish
In fact even Emily Dickinson seems to think it's a type of cloth.
Logically, your comment seems to parse out to:
(1) If there is a Designer, it is either
(a) Incompetent
or
(b) Using a yet-undiscovered value system for judging successful designs
(2) It is impossible that the Designer is incompetent.
(3) Therefore, if there is a Designer, we have not yet understood its design.
How, exactly, is the human body "far from perfect"? You mention the human eye as an example of something "with bugs that any competent engineer would iron out". What bugs are these? How would they be ironed out? What, pray tell, are the efficiency tradeoffs you would have to make to eliminate these bugs? Where is your proof that this "bug-free" design would be better optimized for the stated design goal?
Come to think of it, what is the stated design goal?
Not to mention the possibility that the stated design goal wasn't similitude of physical forms at all. Do we say "the only true AI is the AI whose physical form accurately mimics our own"? Of course not: the AI we're looking for will mimic our thought processes. Its physical form will be incidental.
And that's just a reasonable, logical approach to your arguments, without resorting to blind faith or rabid zealotry.
Don't you mean, "All Europa are belong to us. Take off no zig there"?
That's what the rabid flying monkeys are for. Duh.
You 50's pop culture people need to get out more.
I was noting the (to me) obvious similarity between a single [manga] artist's distinctive mechanical designs. You seem to be implying that all I do all day is watch Sailor Moon, while at the same time claiming the same familiarity with the works of Frank Frazetta that I claim for Masamune Shirow. Do we have to get into a flamewar, or can we stop the name-calling now?
Terry's American, Alan is not.
So let me get this straight: I cite one of the premiere comic book writer/artists of all time, and you tell me to "go pick up a comic book some time"?
And no-one besides you is debating where "the good stuff" comes from (although Masamune Shirow, Katsuhiro Otomo, Kazuo Koike, Terry Moore, Moebius, and others do seem to be making a significant contribution)--I merely pointed out the obvious relationship between the artist's rendition and the characteristic mechanical designs of Masamune Shirow. I mentioned Shirow specifically because his designs are fairly unique, and look substantially different from more mainstream designs. It's easy to tell when someone is copying Shirow, as opposed to one of an infinite number of "typical" anime artists.
But now I'm curious: who, in your opinion, is producing the "good stuff" here in the U.S.?
And the suit design itself bears a startling resemblance to the ORC suits, also in Shirow's Appleseed.
Did you look at the artist's rendition? The guy is clearly ripping off Masamune Shirow. And the actual suit concepts (which are really unrelated to the artist's rendition) aren't that much different from the hard Japanese SF anyway.
But seriously, look at the gun in that picture. It's obviously a Seburo!
Nitpick: "segment of the people who want the product"=="market".
Loosely defined, a Turing machine is a computer.
Originally, Turing (and others before him), hit upon the idea that a mechanical system of levers, relays, punch-cards, whatever could be built to solve a particular equation: "find the circumference of a circle of radius X", or whatever. The machine was a mechanical implementation of the formula for finding the answer--you could plug in your variable at one end, turn the crank (or pull the lever, &c.), and it would spit out the answer at the other.
But only the answer to that one question. What Turing (and others) did was attempt to prove in theory that it was possible to build a single mechanical device that could answer any question in a formal system (give or take Godel's theorem, of course); that is, a single machine that could solve any mathematical problem.
This theoretical mechanical device was known as a "Turing Machine", and represented an incredible breakthrough in math theory.
Now, of course, we all have one on our desk: the bulky mechanics have been replaced by much more efficient electronics, but the theory (and the functionality) is the same.
The current desire of the content industry is to make the Universal Turing Machine illegal--they want to replace our current transistor arrays (which, by nature, can do anything) with new arrays that are limited to doing only those things which the content industry approves of.
It's funny, but everybody seems to forget the "well regulated militia" part of this article.
See if you can follow the steps:
1. We want a free state.
2. A free state needs to be secure.
3. A well-regulated militia guarantees that security.
4. A well-regulated militia needs to be armed.
5. Therefore, the right of citizens to bear arms is guaranteed, so that they may form a well-regulated militia for the purpose of guaranteeing the security of a free state.
Then, whenever the government cracks down on unregulated militias, these groups complain that their right to bear arms has been abridged.
And what about the National Guard? Guard units fall under the jurisdiction of the states, and certainly fill the role of a well-regulated militia.