But then, doesn't this just encourage me to cut off my adversary's head?
I didn't RTFA, but I suspect this method requires the head to be alive. Now, if you can detach a head without killing the person you may get a pass on the murder charge and instead get a Nobel prize, but don't come crying to me when it doesn't pan out and you wind up in jail.
Regardless, I may actually agree somewhat with the wiretapping. At the very least I don't join the hand-wringing "they took our rights!" masses. For starters, this situation falls under the "we all know" umbrella of information (i.e., we all know that Bush violated our civil rights...). And we all know that any statement which starts with "we all know" really means "we all want to believe" or "we all have been convinced" I doubt you all know anything close to what you think you know.
But Twitter doesn't profit. Somehow they will have to monetize all those eyes, or rely on charitable giving. It's only time before a visit to Twitter yields the flashing "You are our one millionth visitor. Claim your free iPod now!" banner ad.
More likely, it may get snatched by a Google, or bring about the next dot-com bubble with a highly-touted IPO.
Either way, users have to realize that the ubiquity of the Internet stops at a web sites ability to handle the traffic it generates. We take for granted that facebook, et al, should be free, not putting much thought in the fact that managing a user base in the tens of millions costs (tens of?) thousands of dollars per month in bandwidth, maintenance, security, etc.
lawn mowers that cut grass BY ITSELF with NO HUMAN INTERVENTION
You are just asking for gangs of autonomous lawn mowers roving the streets at night with no regard for the law.
On a related note, isn't it ironic that we become more passive as we develop means to automate such tasks? I am not referring to a lack of exercise, but rather a disaffected lifestyle.
The building of Navy vessels most certainly has greater unintended/unwanted consequences than occasional deafening of advanced marine life. But either of those compared to a lack of preparedness on the part of our military to defend against threats foreign and domestic...Well, I guess it is all a matter of perspective.
While I disagree that alternate life-choice for these scientists is hairdressing, there is one potential flaw in this research: the assumption about the meaning of a math problem to chicken.
This test would be hard for many pre-teen humans. It seems to me that there is a more basic instinct at work then adding and subtracting, at least in the abstracted sense.
I read the article, but not the paper. I assume the paper contains more detail and insight.
The recent (6-8 years) trend puts conservatives on the defensive, with liberals in the position of being able to recite "facts" (when the tables are turned, the conservatives facts are similarly quoted) and watch them squirm. Conservatives and republicans have been high on their horse since Reagan took everyone's eyes off Nixon and reestablished the right as a viable party.
Meanwhile, the liberals/democrats slowly grew their roots, and now reap the benefits with a generation hooked on NPR - which is biased - and ready to believe the worst about republicans without any cajoling.
In the short history of our country, the shifting of power between the parties has worked in our favor, but I fear this time it is swinging a little too far left. But chances are every time it has swung in the past people thought is was swinging too far.
Maybe instead of shooting your mouth off you can make the observation that liberals and conservatives think the media is biased against their respective positions. Both sides dutifully drink the Kool Aid served up to them by whomever they consider a trustworthy source.
There is liberal and conservative bias, predominantly on cable news, but it most often is in the form of very vocal editorial (O'Reilly, Olberman, etc.) rather than true journalism. Perhaps what we are seeing is the polarizing effect of editorial jousting combined with the decline of true journalistic integrity. The 'chicken-or-the-egg' argument can deal with which came first: a lack of education on the part of the viewers or the coercion of viewers by media moguls.
There is lots of information out there, but if people stop looking once they get the answer that reaffirms what they already believe we will never be able to engage in a rational discourse.
Yes, once we have wide-scale, open access WiFi. And since all signs point to that, I agree. Personally, I would much rather have a telemetry-enabled PDA with the slick iPod Touch interface than a Palm anything. (Rosie palm, hairy palm, whatever.)
Whoa, chief. I did not advocate shaking a Polaroid instant photo. I just wanted to clear up the use of the phrase for the parent post. I was taught to flip them over and wait.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't RTFA, but I suspect this method requires the head to be alive. Now, if you can detach a head without killing the person you may get a pass on the murder charge and instead get a Nobel prize, but don't come crying to me when it doesn't pan out and you wind up in jail.
My religious childhood in the early 1980s taught me that having a chip buried under my skin is really the mark of the beast.
Sometimes the term 'computer' does not literally mean the electronic thing plugged into the wall under your desk running Linux.
Awesome! My faith in humanity is restored! I never got the "brickbreaker" easter egg in Excel 95 to work, but that doesn't matter anymore.
Thank you, RebootKid!
Until you get herpes, HIV, syphilis, etc. Just because you may have had a jimmy-wrap on your peckerwood doesn't make it safe.
You are still blaming Bush.
Regardless, I may actually agree somewhat with the wiretapping. At the very least I don't join the hand-wringing "they took our rights!" masses. For starters, this situation falls under the "we all know" umbrella of information (i.e., we all know that Bush violated our civil rights...). And we all know that any statement which starts with "we all know" really means "we all want to believe" or "we all have been convinced" I doubt you all know anything close to what you think you know.
Yes, that was purposeful self-reference.
But Twitter doesn't profit. Somehow they will have to monetize all those eyes, or rely on charitable giving. It's only time before a visit to Twitter yields the flashing "You are our one millionth visitor. Claim your free iPod now!" banner ad.
More likely, it may get snatched by a Google, or bring about the next dot-com bubble with a highly-touted IPO.
Either way, users have to realize that the ubiquity of the Internet stops at a web sites ability to handle the traffic it generates. We take for granted that facebook, et al, should be free, not putting much thought in the fact that managing a user base in the tens of millions costs (tens of?) thousands of dollars per month in bandwidth, maintenance, security, etc.
It's not a "dry" paste you apply, but more like a silicone glove you wear. There is no loose anything to stick to you.
So, when Bush does it, Bush is bad. When Obama does it, Bush is bad.
It is already happening. Look at how much more crap on which there is to click compared with prior to the most recent update.
How about the period of 2 trillion days before they ever started sampling? I bet that would shed light on things.
It's like showing up to a street race in a rickety-looking Ford Escort which secretly houses a small block V8 with nitrous.
It's like a porn star showing up to a naked pool party for men with erectile dysfunction.
It's like bringing a gun to a knife fight.
The cries of innocent children (COIC) is already recognized in many countries. We just need COICML standardized by the ISO.
Possibilities, misspellings, regional preconceptions, etc. The idea is doomed.
The building of Navy vessels most certainly has greater unintended/unwanted consequences than occasional deafening of advanced marine life. But either of those compared to a lack of preparedness on the part of our military to defend against threats foreign and domestic...Well, I guess it is all a matter of perspective.
A giant UPS?
While I disagree that alternate life-choice for these scientists is hairdressing, there is one potential flaw in this research: the assumption about the meaning of a math problem to chicken.
This test would be hard for many pre-teen humans. It seems to me that there is a more basic instinct at work then adding and subtracting, at least in the abstracted sense.
I read the article, but not the paper. I assume the paper contains more detail and insight.
Disco.
If I could transfer my mod points to you I would.
Try the em tag.
The recent (6-8 years) trend puts conservatives on the defensive, with liberals in the position of being able to recite "facts" (when the tables are turned, the conservatives facts are similarly quoted) and watch them squirm. Conservatives and republicans have been high on their horse since Reagan took everyone's eyes off Nixon and reestablished the right as a viable party.
Meanwhile, the liberals/democrats slowly grew their roots, and now reap the benefits with a generation hooked on NPR - which is biased - and ready to believe the worst about republicans without any cajoling.
In the short history of our country, the shifting of power between the parties has worked in our favor, but I fear this time it is swinging a little too far left. But chances are every time it has swung in the past people thought is was swinging too far.
Time will tell.
Maybe instead of shooting your mouth off you can make the observation that liberals and conservatives think the media is biased against their respective positions. Both sides dutifully drink the Kool Aid served up to them by whomever they consider a trustworthy source.
There is liberal and conservative bias, predominantly on cable news, but it most often is in the form of very vocal editorial (O'Reilly, Olberman, etc.) rather than true journalism. Perhaps what we are seeing is the polarizing effect of editorial jousting combined with the decline of true journalistic integrity. The 'chicken-or-the-egg' argument can deal with which came first: a lack of education on the part of the viewers or the coercion of viewers by media moguls.
There is lots of information out there, but if people stop looking once they get the answer that reaffirms what they already believe we will never be able to engage in a rational discourse.
Yes, once we have wide-scale, open access WiFi. And since all signs point to that, I agree. Personally, I would much rather have a telemetry-enabled PDA with the slick iPod Touch interface than a Palm anything. (Rosie palm, hairy palm, whatever.)
Whoa, chief. I did not advocate shaking a Polaroid instant photo. I just wanted to clear up the use of the phrase for the parent post. I was taught to flip them over and wait.
As in, shake the instant photo to help it develop.