Superman is an alien, brought to Earth on a spaceship, and has super powers. WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?
How about playing the evil guy to unite the Earth governments under a single goal and thus avoid the general destruction of humanity? Hmm, that sounds familiar.
Ok, I got it! Fight AGAINST the destruction of OTHER impressive things like the Great Wall of China, the Everest, Iguassu Falls and such, instead of DESTRUCTING a Manhattan-like city while fighting the enemy.
Thank you for putting into words what I have been feeling since I watched it.
What I kept from the film was interminable mass-destruction scenes with little care to a believable script. A waste of good character canon. I can't imagine why any significant number of (new) fans would look for any other merchandising or media after that.
Road maintenance is already a problem on many a government's budget. I have the impression that adding a complex system of energy delivery which includes encryption and selective power-up seems too complex.
No, because it puts an end to "long term". To maximize entropy over time, one needs to keep as many options open as possible, so that one pushes the "end" to as far as possible.
Isn't it interesting, though, that if the Universe really follows this principle, that such a system would evolve into finite lives?
he took the design of the wright flyer and bolted wheels onto the bottom of it
The only thing the two designs have in common is that they both have wings. This is the model that Santos Dumont successfully presented in 1906. And this is the model that the Wright Brothers used to be the first to fly an airplane.
Note that Santos Dumont's model takes off on its own and lands, while the Wrights' model is launched by an external device and cannot land without crashing (since it doesn't have wheels).
I suppose the 30kg Roman welfare might have changed also. But if we take the GP's hypothesis at face value and consider the outcome of the Roman Empire, I wouldn't say they were such a good example:)
I refuse to read an article where the summary leads me to believe that the writer doesn't understand what subsides and import taxes are for, which is, to promote local development in detriment to imports.
On the other hand, it could have taken 40m (1h if we want to be really pessimistic) to drive back home on the same weather conditions instead of 20min under normal conditions.
The best explanation I can come up with is that the class of physical theories the human mind can conceive is actually quite limited (or, our priors are very good), and that it is evolution, over millions of years, that has gathered the necessary data to build a brain capable of conceiving of only the right theories, and that the role of conscious experimentation is only to narrow things down within this already-restricted set.
No need to go too far. Just watch how animals can overcome physical challenges without seemly being able to think about it. For example, take two baby cats of opposite sex away from cathood until they are adults and they will still know how to eat, drink, mate, give birth and raise their pups like cats are supposed to.
Most of the programming needed for life to move on is already there, provided that the environment remains fairly stable. Our conscience is needed to allow us to travel from one "closed" system to another, like from Earth to Mars, so we don't go extinct if a huge meteor crashes against us.
Conscience comes at a cost. It raises our flexibility by orders of magnitude, but makes us more dependent on our own achievements.
I find that "science failing us" is not a very realistic affirmation and that the article concentrates on the wrong perspective.
I have serious reservations to link a blog that only seems to cite its own articles, never real sources. Easiest example: for Nokia's Q4 2011 results, there's no link anywhere but to its own take on it. No link to important claims such as the 1.3 million units target.
It's a shame, because I too find it obvious that the decisions during the Elop era go in the opposite direction of what Nokia used to stand for and of profit or even survival.
Lunar Base Foe Romney Endorsed By Lunar Base Supporters
While what the article says is:
While laying out four principles that his space policy would follow, Romney declined to state what his space policy or goals would be. He reiterated his desire for a committee to experts from across NASA, the military, the commercial sector, and academic to determine what that policy might be. He did not reiterate his opposition to a moon colony, however.
So what about this summary instead:
Romney holds space plans for later; enjoys support from space heavyweights
"The defendants are free if they wish to create a red on grey London icon image. They can even have a Routemaster before the Houses of Parliament. As their own evidence shows, these can be depicted in all sorts of different ways. But what they cannot have is a southbound Routemaster on Westminster Bridge before the Houses of Parliament at the same angle as the claimant's work on a greyscale background and a white sky, in circumstances where they have admitted seeing the claimant's work."
An amazing lack of fact in today's discussion, isn't there?
That it's possible to establish the line between infringement and non infringement by considering the direction the bus is going and the angle from where the picture was taken?
That the judge was stoned?
Or that all the process is perfectly correct and people should now fear copyright infringement every time they hope to publish a neat picture?
- Taking a picture of London's double-deck red bus: common place. - Taking a picture of London's double-deck red bus in front of the Big Ben: common place. - Doing selective desaturation with Photoshop: common place. - THINKING about taking a picture of the red bus in front of the big Ben and selectively decolorizing the picture: common place (only takesasemi-professionalphotographer). - But DOING it is now Copyright Justin Fielder, thank you very much.
I'm sure the NASA people will be glad to hear that there is an infinite number of possible alternatives to the main Earth model of life. That is, considering they didn't think about that already.
Now suppose you had two possibilities:
1- Most life is Earth-like, anywhere in the Universe.
2- Most life is NOT Earth-like in the Universe.
Now, we're trying to find life in a neighbor planet. Which of the above possibilities would you think make up for a more reachable goal?
Slashdot Mirror
Superman is an alien, brought to Earth on a spaceship, and has super powers. WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?
How about playing the evil guy to unite the Earth governments under a single goal and thus avoid the general destruction of humanity? Hmm, that sounds familiar.
Ok, I got it! Fight AGAINST the destruction of OTHER impressive things like the Great Wall of China, the Everest, Iguassu Falls and such, instead of DESTRUCTING a Manhattan-like city while fighting the enemy.
Thank you for putting into words what I have been feeling since I watched it.
What I kept from the film was interminable mass-destruction scenes with little care to a believable script. A waste of good character canon. I can't imagine why any significant number of (new) fans would look for any other merchandising or media after that.
Road maintenance is already a problem on many a government's budget. I have the impression that adding a complex system of energy delivery which includes encryption and selective power-up seems too complex.
I can understand why a group interested in justice and equality would expose the sensitive details of people in the databases.
I understand that as meaning "this group doesn't know how to pick their targets".
And it's not like there's not already a whole lot of danger and unfairness in South Africa -- the "net condition" will not really change.
So let's put people trying to make things better at risk?
(...)Pubic awareness and especially global public awareness will have been raised
The awareness I get from this is that hackers can give a huge blow against whistle blowers with no real "net gain" to any cause.
No, because it puts an end to "long term". To maximize entropy over time, one needs to keep as many options open as possible, so that one pushes the "end" to as far as possible.
Isn't it interesting, though, that if the Universe really follows this principle, that such a system would evolve into finite lives?
he took the design of the wright flyer and bolted wheels onto the bottom of it
The only thing the two designs have in common is that they both have wings. This is the model that Santos Dumont successfully presented in 1906. And this is the model that the Wright Brothers used to be the first to fly an airplane.
Note that Santos Dumont's model takes off on its own and lands, while the Wrights' model is launched by an external device and cannot land without crashing (since it doesn't have wheels).
By the time the Great War had started, European aviation was greatly ahead of the USA's efforts.
Thanks to a Santos Dumont's invention, the Demoiselle (Google translation), which was released to the public domain by the author.
(...) and you could pile on as many statements into that line as was sensible (...)
Actually, I seem to remember my MSX-Basic 1.1 to be limited to 255 characters per line of code.
I can't think of any particular ulterior motive that they could have to withholding a digital release.
Ok, what about "digital release makes it extremely easy for the consumer to decide which songs are worth buying"?
I suppose the 30kg Roman welfare might have changed also. But if we take the GP's hypothesis at face value and consider the outcome of the Roman Empire, I wouldn't say they were such a good example :)
I refuse to read an article where the summary leads me to believe that the writer doesn't understand what subsides and import taxes are for, which is, to promote local development in detriment to imports.
Funny that you would think every town works exactly like Minneapolis and that people having different experiences must be liars.
In Montréal, Québec, the monthly transit pass costs $ 75.50. When there's a snow storm, some buses simply disappear. It's not what I'd call a pleasant return home to wait 1h+ under -20oC for a bus that won't come. And there's no service status information for buses. When I depended on that service, I decided to walk 40 min to get to the subway instead of waiting.
On the other hand, it could have taken 40m (1h if we want to be really pessimistic) to drive back home on the same weather conditions instead of 20min under normal conditions.
Sorry, you're wrong. Here's the PROOF.
Because you would ignore a world-wide defamatory campaign claiming that you are a child molester unless it's true?
If that's your notion of judgment, I'll stick to the justice system.
Source codes:
http://drdobbs.com/windows/226700457 (2010)
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=667 (2009)
Raw data:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20739-ok-climate-sceptics-heres-the-raw-data-you-wanted.html (July 28 2011)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/07/28/climategate-researchers-release-long-sought-raw-data-on-global-temperatures/
No need for a public apology for failing Google search.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/24/case-closed-climategate-was-manufactured/
SCIENCE is FAILING us! Oh, wait...
The best explanation I can come up with is that the class of physical theories the human mind can conceive is actually quite limited (or, our priors are very good), and that it is evolution, over millions of years, that has gathered the necessary data to build a brain capable of conceiving of only the right theories, and that the role of conscious experimentation is only to narrow things down within this already-restricted set.
No need to go too far. Just watch how animals can overcome physical challenges without seemly being able to think about it. For example, take two baby cats of opposite sex away from cathood until they are adults and they will still know how to eat, drink, mate, give birth and raise their pups like cats are supposed to.
Most of the programming needed for life to move on is already there, provided that the environment remains fairly stable. Our conscience is needed to allow us to travel from one "closed" system to another, like from Earth to Mars, so we don't go extinct if a huge meteor crashes against us.
Conscience comes at a cost. It raises our flexibility by orders of magnitude, but makes us more dependent on our own achievements.
I find that "science failing us" is not a very realistic affirmation and that the article concentrates on the wrong perspective.
I have serious reservations to link a blog that only seems to cite its own articles, never real sources. Easiest example: for Nokia's Q4 2011 results, there's no link anywhere but to its own take on it. No link to important claims such as the 1.3 million units target.
It's a shame, because I too find it obvious that the decisions during the Elop era go in the opposite direction of what Nokia used to stand for and of profit or even survival.
The summary reads:
Lunar Base Foe Romney Endorsed By Lunar Base Supporters
While what the article says is:
While laying out four principles that his space policy would follow, Romney declined to state what his space policy or goals would be. He reiterated his desire for a committee to experts from across NASA, the military, the commercial sector, and academic to determine what that policy might be. He did not reiterate his opposition to a moon colony, however.
So what about this summary instead:
Romney holds space plans for later; enjoys support from space heavyweights
"The defendants are free if they wish to create a red on grey London icon image. They can even have a Routemaster before the Houses of Parliament. As their own evidence shows, these can be depicted in all sorts of different ways. But what they cannot have is a southbound Routemaster on Westminster Bridge before the Houses of Parliament at the same angle as the claimant's work on a greyscale background and a white sky, in circumstances where they have admitted seeing the claimant's work."
An amazing lack of fact in today's discussion, isn't there?
So, what are you implying?
That the defendants are innocent? (If not, are these the wrong pictures? Source: the article referenced by the article referenced by this /. article)
That it's possible to establish the line between infringement and non infringement by considering the direction the bus is going and the angle from where the picture was taken?
That the judge was stoned?
Or that all the process is perfectly correct and people should now fear copyright infringement every time they hope to publish a neat picture?
- Taking a picture of London's double-deck red bus: common place.
- Taking a picture of London's double-deck red bus in front of the Big Ben: common place.
- Doing selective desaturation with Photoshop: common place.
- THINKING about taking a picture of the red bus in front of the big Ben and selectively decolorizing the picture: common place (only takes a semi-professional photographer).
- But DOING it is now Copyright Justin Fielder, thank you very much.
[Insert your worst insult here] you!
Oh, ok then, keep your ideas to yourself. I'm sure you'll have lots of fun inside your head.
I'm sure the NASA people will be glad to hear that there is an infinite number of possible alternatives to the main Earth model of life. That is, considering they didn't think about that already.
Now suppose you had two possibilities:
1- Most life is Earth-like, anywhere in the Universe.
2- Most life is NOT Earth-like in the Universe.
Now, we're trying to find life in a neighbor planet. Which of the above possibilities would you think make up for a more reachable goal?
That's not what the patent grants either. If it were, it could have had a stronger ground...