A lot of good science fiction by significant authors made its first appearance in Playboy, sometimes because other presses wouldn't touch it (times were different then; with Bret Easton Ellis around, it's hard to believe JG Ballard's Crash got him labeled as a nutcase and temporarily blacklisted from the publishing world). Apart from Ballard, Playboy writers include Ellison, Vonnegut, Phil Dick. Even le Guin and (I believe) Asimov.
Although I am kind of amused that, by the pic, the braille Playboy is apparently provided by the Library of Congress. I whole-heartedly approve of this use of my tax dollars.
It's an interesting analysis, involving the sample size of a study as a predictor of its correctness, and the fact that most studies have a small sample size.
Assuming that his study itself is, in fact, true, should I still approach a paper with initial credibility? The right thing to do is I suppose, look at the sample size and if it is below the median cut-off, suppose it's false; otherwise, suppose it's true.
Seriously. Not a single freeper even suggesting that it might be bullshit (let alone suggesting that even if it's true, it's not "hate speech"). Many leaps of logic to connect it to Obama (maybe a joke, maybe not, it's hard to tell).
Sometimes I think that the world is improving; freep helps me disabuse myself of that notion, therefore it is good in its own way. Reminds me: it's time to reread Shockwave Rider.
-- Space is a tough place, where wimps eat flaming plasma death.
Have you tried changing and then immediately changing back? This works surprisingly often, and it's the sort of solution that a geek wouldn't think of (probably because it's fucking retarded to allow it).
Good call. I was thinking of the immediate impression I got, the "blanket of silence" which he felt as a weight. Shortly afterward you start hearing your biology.
Re:How do you smell space?
on
The Smell of Space
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It has a smell likely because we perceive sensations by association, in a relative manner. It's a cute (though somewhat frivolous) trick to simulate this association by engineering.
If you've ever been in an acoustically-isolated chamber, the silence is so overwhelming that it almost has its own sound. We're just not used to such near-perfect silence, so we try to interpret the novelty as a sound.
Similarly, if you put near-pure (95%) alcohol on your tongue, it will feel greasy because it is so dry that it dehydrates your tongue. The absence of water feels greasy.
I agree completely, but if it is his posted office hours, that is an exception no matter what. I would just assume that he forgot (which is actually much more likely than the alternative, often).
I just wrote a haiku the other day. It's immensely meaningful to me, and I wrote it to summarize six months of my life (which I lived six years ago) and connect it to my recent break-up. Nonetheless, from an objective point-of-view, it could just as well have been randomly generated.
Needless to say, although I am an intelligent person and spent a bit over a half-hour going over it and reviewing the traditions of haiku to make sure it was "along the right lines", it wouldn't be as captivating to a (modern, average) thirteen-year-old as even the most inane chatterbot.
Just a thought. I think part of Turing's test was to get us to realize that maybe it shouldn't be taken too seriously as a test.
Yeah, the rational kind of people you're talking about are called "econometricians". From what I've heard, there is now a renewed interest in hiring them.
Not all photons have the same energy (wavelength), and this is for precision imaging not power generation. Note it's more "sensitive" not more efficient.
Again, it seems that all of the "brilliance" is imported talent. In business school, you just "learn" how to implement it most cynically and to maximum personal gain. This "learning" is mostly by spending 2 or 3 years running up a debt partying with other self-styled genius entrepreneurs, knowing that once you have your foot in the door, you can make it all back.
Where does the whole "give away the razors, sell the blades" thing factor into this? It's the only innovation I've noticed in business, which is not just an application of statistics or machine learning, and it does nothing except exploit people's inability to gauge long-term payouts.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of good science fiction by significant authors made its first appearance in Playboy, sometimes because other presses wouldn't touch it (times were different then; with Bret Easton Ellis around, it's hard to believe JG Ballard's Crash got him labeled as a nutcase and temporarily blacklisted from the publishing world). Apart from Ballard, Playboy writers include Ellison, Vonnegut, Phil Dick. Even le Guin and (I believe) Asimov.
Although I am kind of amused that, by the pic, the braille Playboy is apparently provided by the Library of Congress. I whole-heartedly approve of this use of my tax dollars.
Well then you get gouged on it, just as you get gouged on every other service a university provides.
Someone could preload a system with a drive full of shows where the copyrights have run out.
In that case, the television screen would be the color of the sky above the port in Chiba City.
This "meta-study" suggests that most studies are more than 50% likely to be wrong: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124&ct=1
It's an interesting analysis, involving the sample size of a study as a predictor of its correctness, and the fact that most studies have a small sample size.
Assuming that his study itself is, in fact, true, should I still approach a paper with initial credibility? The right thing to do is I suppose, look at the sample size and if it is below the median cut-off, suppose it's false; otherwise, suppose it's true.
Seriously. Not a single freeper even suggesting that it might be bullshit (let alone suggesting that even if it's true, it's not "hate speech"). Many leaps of logic to connect it to Obama (maybe a joke, maybe not, it's hard to tell).
Sometimes I think that the world is improving; freep helps me disabuse myself of that notion, therefore it is good in its own way. Reminds me: it's time to reread Shockwave Rider.
--
Space is a tough place, where wimps eat flaming plasma death.
As is often the problem with these matters, someone with that background gets it in their head to tell other people.
Not that it matters anyway; people will hear whatever they want to.
And to think about how we missed out: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyMhwroFlOgzPE61X3P0AVEmxCHA
Yet another win-win situation, denied by our democratic ideals.
Maybe. It sounded different to me.
No, he's just using an unjustified induction, that we are, today, just as ignorant of our crypto weaknesses as were Vigenere et al., of theirs.
This is of course ridiculous.
Have you tried changing and then immediately changing back? This works surprisingly often, and it's the sort of solution that a geek wouldn't think of (probably because it's fucking retarded to allow it).
Uh, I think you missed the first "N" for "not".
Or is this what they call a Freudian slip...?
Good call. I was thinking of the immediate impression I got, the "blanket of silence" which he felt as a weight. Shortly afterward you start hearing your biology.
It has a smell likely because we perceive sensations by association, in a relative manner. It's a cute (though somewhat frivolous) trick to simulate this association by engineering.
If you've ever been in an acoustically-isolated chamber, the silence is so overwhelming that it almost has its own sound. We're just not used to such near-perfect silence, so we try to interpret the novelty as a sound.
Similarly, if you put near-pure (95%) alcohol on your tongue, it will feel greasy because it is so dry that it dehydrates your tongue. The absence of water feels greasy.
Shhh... my +4 Funny is dependent on the invalidity of my corollary. I am savoring this.
retchdog's corollary to Gat0r30y's law: Nothing is funny on slashdot.
Buying, selling or dieting?
I could use all three I think.
Thanks for pointing that out. If he kept on contracting himself, he'd form a singularity.
I agree completely, but if it is his posted office hours, that is an exception no matter what. I would just assume that he forgot (which is actually much more likely than the alternative, often).
Maybe not "linux-native", but Firefox/Iceweasel/whatever is at least "linux-naturalized".
I just wrote a haiku the other day. It's immensely meaningful to me, and I wrote it to summarize six months of my life (which I lived six years ago) and connect it to my recent break-up. Nonetheless, from an objective point-of-view, it could just as well have been randomly generated.
Needless to say, although I am an intelligent person and spent a bit over a half-hour going over it and reviewing the traditions of haiku to make sure it was "along the right lines", it wouldn't be as captivating to a (modern, average) thirteen-year-old as even the most inane chatterbot.
Just a thought. I think part of Turing's test was to get us to realize that maybe it shouldn't be taken too seriously as a test.
Yeah, the rational kind of people you're talking about are called "econometricians". From what I've heard, there is now a renewed interest in hiring them.
What do you get if you put four libertarians in the same room?
Six contradictory theories about the optimal minarchy.
Not all photons have the same energy (wavelength), and this is for precision imaging not power generation. Note it's more "sensitive" not more efficient.
Again, it seems that all of the "brilliance" is imported talent. In business school, you just "learn" how to implement it most cynically and to maximum personal gain. This "learning" is mostly by spending 2 or 3 years running up a debt partying with other self-styled genius entrepreneurs, knowing that once you have your foot in the door, you can make it all back.
Where does the whole "give away the razors, sell the blades" thing factor into this? It's the only innovation I've noticed in business, which is not just an application of statistics or machine learning, and it does nothing except exploit people's inability to gauge long-term payouts.