Feature complete? Given all the various directions that Emacs has been taken... you mean when it finally develops AI and takes control of all the computers on an planet and such, right?
I admit a great huge deal of ignorance about the details of this too, but I'll repeat some gloss material. One helpful question to ponder is this: "When you are at the north pole, can you go further north?"
Not all games are made to give you twitchyness. Some are made to promote happier emotions (e.g. the Damacy games). So slowing down when the player is nervous would have its uses. Of course, speeding up then would also have some uses. Personally, I look forward to both types of games.
So what are they supposed to do? Check people's geek badge number?
The Nokia 770 is for geeks who are willing to tweak it to do what they want. Another iteration or two and it will likely have evolved into something that "just works" for more average people. However, just because it isn't there now, doesn't mean that Nokia shouldn't sell it to people that can use it.
3) Extreme Bug-eyed alien tamer. Unfriendly invaders might think twice before tangling with a species capable of focusing better than 100 Gigawatts of energy at inbound bogies.
If they can do interstellar travel using high-velocity travel through normal space, then they could just hit us with a very fast space-rock.
All those events happened in the movie. Which makes even more strange the consensus that it wasn't a dark movie. I blame the comically dumb dialog and character motivations. Perhaps together they null out the events and leave the bland impression. Or maybe those negatives also needed our knowing just what had to happen and nothing at all being surprising (except in how poorly it was executed). Whatever combination did it, the consensus was formed.
Also, the other linked article claims that "Novelty could be challenged at any point by someone submitting prior art and paying a small fee."
I'm sure the line of people willing/wanting to pay in order to do the patent office's job will be long indeed.
As a grad student, I wonder if I could use this same trick. I'll just write up anything into a thesis and then charge people a fee for the chance to tell me which parts are false.
Good comparision. Someone should automate that process so everyone can easily see just the results that are being filtered. Naturally any such site would be banned in China, but perhaps when they vacation to other countries it would be of interest to them.
It happened after I first watched the movie Pi one night. I was walking around wondering how much brain-time I've wasted, what I could do if I tried, etc. I saw that someone in the apartment complex had a cube. I asked nicely and borrowed it.
First, I did an algorithm for one layer, that was done and written out before I slept that night. The next couple of days I fiddled around with it constantly (carried it around everywhere) and came up with various notations, trying to get a grip on the large space.
Then upon advice from a friend to simplify the search down and not branch so much, I narrowed my focus on a 7 turn sequence that I came to call "the basic". Using repetitions of the basic intermixed with other simple to remember alterations, I was able to whittle the space of arrangements down bit by bit until my algorithm could walk me from random to solved.
Over the next months, I learned when reverse and mirror-image versions of my canned-moves would be faster than the canned-moves themselves, cutting my time down to a reliable minute and a half.
Only after teaching some friends my method did one of them later look up a more elegant set of canned-moves and teach those back to me. That elegant solution is the one that I use now (unless I'm feeling nostalgic). But those notes and explorations in notation I made those first few days were about half the fun of the whole thing. Which I why I have taken up and solved numerous other permutation puzzles using the same approach.
That is my story. I solved the Rubik's Cube in a few days by developing my own algorithm. I'm not ashamed of that humble boast; I earned it. Apply yourself, and you can too.
Also, once cars can drive themselves at night, I envision (and totally want) a "sleeper" model car. Good for a long commute, but even better in that you can spend your weekends in cities 8 hours distant without having to remember the hassle of travel. Wake up there saturday, fun, fun, wake up back at work monday.
And dishwashers can't clean hardened gunk nor load themselves. Nor unload themselves and stack plates away. Vacuum cleaners don't push themselves (don't even bring up that roomba toy).
Instead of asking "how can I get the dishes unloaded from the washer?" and basing a product on that, it might be interesting to base a new product on the question "why is the washer separate from where the dishes are stored?".
I have a simpler solution that is well within the realm of making spectrum private property. It would clear up any confusing disputes about who got to which part first and made "real" use of it. Give it all to me.
See any problems with this proposal?
If not, cool, I'm happy to have your support on this.
If yes, then what makes you think that giving the spectrum away through "homesteading" is any different?
I don't think you understood the thrust of my post. A universal statement may have no counterexamples and it may still not acurately describe its domain of discourse. I think a common way to express my point is "if your theory predicts everything, then it says nothing."
The fact that any action admits of an explaination involving a net-selfish-benefit calculation, doesn't necessarily tell you anything about why the actions where done. In particular it doesn't imply that all action are done because of such a calculation (implicit, explicit, whatever). It may be that such explainations are simply very easy to construct. So easy, I would suggest you to consider, that constructing them can slip into vacuousness without the one constructing them noticing.
With a few of the right assumptions, this hypothetical bacteria process might allow for thinner waffers than typical etching processes. That is, it could end up being less mechanically stressful than the etching-polishing cycles currently done.
Cancer probably won't be an issue once we have highly developed bioengineering capabilities. And it wouldn't even come up if our evolution had given us super good genetic error checking/correcting, which other intelligent life may well have.
"Faith" and "trust" are different words with different concepts behind them. Imho, you seem to have blurred them together. Science is built on trust, not faith.
Simply because you can always produce a rationale of type S for any action that anyone does, it does not prove that rationales of type S are all and only what leads to all actions by all people. Imho, you should try turning around your perspective. The expressive expansiveness of type S explainations doesn't necessitate anything about the world, but it can tell you about something(s) about type S constructions.
Slashdot Mirror
Feature complete? Given all the various directions that Emacs has been taken... you mean when it finally develops AI and takes control of all the computers on an planet and such, right?
Oh, so it's only three clicks longer than most people will ever do.
The Nokia 770 is for geeks who are willing to tweak it to do what they want. Another iteration or two and it will likely have evolved into something that "just works" for more average people. However, just because it isn't there now, doesn't mean that Nokia shouldn't sell it to people that can use it.
All those events happened in the movie. Which makes even more strange the consensus that it wasn't a dark movie. I blame the comically dumb dialog and character motivations. Perhaps together they null out the events and leave the bland impression. Or maybe those negatives also needed our knowing just what had to happen and nothing at all being surprising (except in how poorly it was executed). Whatever combination did it, the consensus was formed.
I wish I had a mod point for you.
Google says it is 11.8028527 inches per nanosecond.
As a grad student, I wonder if I could use this same trick. I'll just write up anything into a thesis and then charge people a fee for the chance to tell me which parts are false.
Good comparision. Someone should automate that process so everyone can easily see just the results that are being filtered. Naturally any such site would be banned in China, but perhaps when they vacation to other countries it would be of interest to them.
It happened after I first watched the movie Pi one night. I was walking around wondering how much brain-time I've wasted, what I could do if I tried, etc. I saw that someone in the apartment complex had a cube. I asked nicely and borrowed it.
First, I did an algorithm for one layer, that was done and written out before I slept that night. The next couple of days I fiddled around with it constantly (carried it around everywhere) and came up with various notations, trying to get a grip on the large space.
Then upon advice from a friend to simplify the search down and not branch so much, I narrowed my focus on a 7 turn sequence that I came to call "the basic". Using repetitions of the basic intermixed with other simple to remember alterations, I was able to whittle the space of arrangements down bit by bit until my algorithm could walk me from random to solved.
Over the next months, I learned when reverse and mirror-image versions of my canned-moves would be faster than the canned-moves themselves, cutting my time down to a reliable minute and a half.
Only after teaching some friends my method did one of them later look up a more elegant set of canned-moves and teach those back to me. That elegant solution is the one that I use now (unless I'm feeling nostalgic). But those notes and explorations in notation I made those first few days were about half the fun of the whole thing. Which I why I have taken up and solved numerous other permutation puzzles using the same approach.
That is my story. I solved the Rubik's Cube in a few days by developing my own algorithm. I'm not ashamed of that humble boast; I earned it. Apply yourself, and you can too.
See any problems with this proposal?
If not, cool, I'm happy to have your support on this.
If yes, then what makes you think that giving the spectrum away through "homesteading" is any different?
The fact that any action admits of an explaination involving a net-selfish-benefit calculation, doesn't necessarily tell you anything about why the actions where done. In particular it doesn't imply that all action are done because of such a calculation (implicit, explicit, whatever). It may be that such explainations are simply very easy to construct. So easy, I would suggest you to consider, that constructing them can slip into vacuousness without the one constructing them noticing.