Put down the crack pipe. There's no citation for "Experience it for yourself." I'm telling you to BECOME the citation. Loosen up your tie or something, either your brain has become so completely deprived of oxygen, you've found yourself incapable of believing a first-hand experience over a google search, or you're so hell-bent on proving someone wrong, you've lost all reading comprehension in the quest to become the world's biggest prick.
The internet has been a wonderful thing for billions of people since it's inception. Why on earth are legislators trying to make it a quagmire like anything else they touch? Really it's a great example of market based forces and what they can accomplish. Please, for all our sakes, leave it alone.
They have their thumbs in every pie but one. You think that letting it sit there, unregulated and unmolested, is even an option in their little iRule brains?
From just reading the summary, I guessed that the light went on when the robot found food, and that other robots would move towards those lights, because they indicate food, and that some robots evolved to not turn on the light when they found food, so they didn't attract other robots, so they had it all to themselves, which would be an advantage.
The summary didn't include enough information to describe what was going on. The lights flashed randomly. The robots would stay put when they had found food, and so if there were lights flashing in one spot for long enough, the other robots would realize the first robots had found something and go to the area and bump away the original robot. The robots were eventually bred to flash less often when on their food, and then not flash at all. By the end, robots would see the flashing as a place "not to go for food" because by that point, none of the robots would flash when parked on the food.
Is there something inherently wrong with a desert canyon?
Not neccessarily, but they are spectacularly bad at providing electricity, water, and biodiversity compared to a reservoir. Draining it will not fix the canyon, it will be the equivalent of spitting out, then stomping a chewed piece of gum, as far as restoring the original to its former glory and structure. Yet there you go...
You think this is funny, but check out the controversy surrounding the Glen Canyon Dam... because having a desert canyon instead of a lake is "environmentally consciencious."
The current location of your daughter is in the attached file. Unfortunately for you, this file can only be read by the latest software version of Word we're commercially releasing next week.
No one wants to live on the moon. Use our research dollars on something that actually helps our real problems here on earth.
There will always be problems here on earth. There will always be war, hunger, poverty, sickness, greed, apathy, and polarization (racism, jingoism, gangs, ect.) Despite what your delusions tell you, throwing money at these problems does not make them go away. If you solve one problem, two will come to bury it.
Throwing money at community programs does not work. Dumping loads of cash into fighting crime will not extinguish it. If you give a free home to all the homeless, within a year, half will be burned out, molded apart, ripped down, sold for scrap. Those who would cultivate those homes would have found their own way out of the gutter, without you blowing $200,000.
Sometimes, you have to have the balls to ignore the problems that will ALWAYS BE in order to focus on doing something difficult, interesting, and may actually help humanity progress, rather than focus on the distraction. "Getting caught up in the thick of thin things" is what causes great men to fritter their lives away. Sometimes you have to let people face the consequences of their own actions so that you can have your hands free to shape your own future.
Let a black Democrat come in, one who actually budgets honestly instead of trying to hide the costs of the Iraq War with budget games and all of a sudden you're whining about the irresponsible spending of Barack Obama and the Democrats.
I dunno. I mean the Government collects taxes and they better spend it. What a better way to spend it by giving it to small companies. And was there a mention of how long the contract was? Or how many folks are involved? I think there are more then just a couple of web developers pushing this product.
It's a 5-year contract, and it's not helping the small, it's helping the greedy insiders. They're not supporting workers, they're spending $18,000,000 on a $2,000 website! That doesn't improve any situation, it just sends a bunch of lazy bastards to the Bahamas, while one guy cranks out a $1,000 design and the other guy copy/pastes his data management console from a hundred other websites he's done. Stealing 30% of my money to do fund these crooks makes me angry. And yes, they are crooks, because they're charging the government approximately ten thousand times more than the site is worth, and they're getting away with it.
What I don't understand is why didn't they use the perfect control group? Blind people.
The same way they know that many songbirds have a language and apes don't is that a deaf songbird will not sing the same way as its parents, whereas a normal songbird will. Apes, however, make the same grunting whether deaf or not.
Ask a few blind people, cross-culturally, to make expressions depicting puzzlement, concern, frustration, fatigue, pride, lust etc -- things a little more complex than a smile, frown, or laugh. Many (if not most) blind people have been acquainted with facial expressions, through touch, so finding blind people in cultures who tend to cast out their disabled and exclude them from education would probably show the least-skewed results.
It would be fascinating to see such an experiment -- considering our pets often make the same facial expressions (a dog will turn its head with thinking or confused, while we tend to twist up our faces) -- are we mimicking them, or is it something that we actually do on our own -- and then the next question: Why?
An online banking site. Possibly also betting sites. Mostly because they deal with money and any security breach is fatal. That's the only examples I can think of excluding megasites like google, facebook and amazon.
Those sites could be built for a few hundred thousand + server costs. $18M to make a site that lists sales receipts is a huge middle-finger to taxpayers.
I don't think that the general public really has a need to know which exact people are working on each team. There are arguably privacy concerns there.
Well, this argument seems to be watertight, I'll just have to agre-- oh wait wait wait wait wait... hm... except for one problem, I can't think of any human with a 4-page-long name whose privacy would be protected by blacking it out... There is no one with a 4-page-long-name, is there?
They didn't hide the costs for the project. They hid the cost per job type. They probably don't want their employees knowing what the others are getting paid.
You seem to have a good point there just let me... oh wait wait wait wait wait... since when has a programmer been paid in equivalence to how much the company charges for something to be done? Never?
Retroactive TOS's, though, are not legal. You cannot say "This contract can only be viewed when accepted" therefore, the exchange of money to get the TOS means that's not your consent -- just like when a software tells me "You cannot do the following with the product you've already purchased:" I laugh it off because my contract to own my copy of the software, rather than lease it, was accepted when I purchased it. Their TOS is the breach of contract, and if they want it to be valid, they need to send my money back. I'll accept that I don't own a copy of their software if I never had to pay for it.
Would the courts agree with me on this? I don't know. I'd go to jail for a few weeks (refusing to pay a fine) to make the point, though. "My taking down these pictures binds you to the agreement that 40% of the gross proceeds made by BMF will go straight to my bank account as payment to remove the pictures from my blog. You accept this contract by reading it." How's that for a post-contract TOS?
Wikipedia needs people who say "no", and if those people are a bunch of elitist editors, then fine.
Perhaps I would agree with you if surfing wikipedia was still as fun today as it was 3 years ago. Today, it's nothing but "Citation Needed" and comment sections full of some idiotic quasi-language. Anything INTERESTING has been neutered out of most articles, to leave you with dictionary definitions, lists, and a sterile taste in your mouth. Sometimes I'll stumble on some article that hasn't removed everything outside of what some full-of-himself editor's college textbook contained, and I shortly remember why I enjoyed getting lost in wikipedia, then I click on a link in that article to find "This article has yet to be written!" and realize I was reading on borrowed time.
But decisions like that are not the domain of judges, nor should they be, unless the law is unconstitutional, which the DMCA, despite its many flaws, is not.
Slashdot Mirror
Put down the crack pipe. There's no citation for "Experience it for yourself." I'm telling you to BECOME the citation. Loosen up your tie or something, either your brain has become so completely deprived of oxygen, you've found yourself incapable of believing a first-hand experience over a google search, or you're so hell-bent on proving someone wrong, you've lost all reading comprehension in the quest to become the world's biggest prick.
Get sick in another country and check out their hospitals. You will kiss the dirt when you get back to the States.
The internet has been a wonderful thing for billions of people since it's inception. Why on earth are legislators trying to make it a quagmire like anything else they touch? Really it's a great example of market based forces and what they can accomplish. Please, for all our sakes, leave it alone.
They have their thumbs in every pie but one. You think that letting it sit there, unregulated and unmolested, is even an option in their little iRule brains?
It's designed and programmed in Web 2.0
From just reading the summary, I guessed that the light went on when the robot found food, and that other robots would move towards those lights, because they indicate food, and that some robots evolved to not turn on the light when they found food, so they didn't attract other robots, so they had it all to themselves, which would be an advantage.
The summary didn't include enough information to describe what was going on. The lights flashed randomly. The robots would stay put when they had found food, and so if there were lights flashing in one spot for long enough, the other robots would realize the first robots had found something and go to the area and bump away the original robot. The robots were eventually bred to flash less often when on their food, and then not flash at all. By the end, robots would see the flashing as a place "not to go for food" because by that point, none of the robots would flash when parked on the food.
They why don't they figure out a way to put a roof on top of the reservoir to limit the evaporation?
I don't think you're familiar with the size of Lake Powell. It's 26,000 sq mi, or roughly 27 million Libraries of Congress.
Is there something inherently wrong with a desert canyon?
Not neccessarily, but they are spectacularly bad at providing electricity, water, and biodiversity compared to a reservoir. Draining it will not fix the canyon, it will be the equivalent of spitting out, then stomping a chewed piece of gum, as far as restoring the original to its former glory and structure. Yet there you go...
You think this is funny, but check out the controversy surrounding the Glen Canyon Dam... because having a desert canyon instead of a lake is "environmentally consciencious."
The current location of your daughter is in the attached file. Unfortunately for you, this file can only be read by the latest software version of Word we're commercially releasing next week.
--
File attached: clownfart.wdoc
That the next mission, you'll be assaulted every 4 minutes'30 seconds by infected terrans who are a different color?
No one wants to live on the moon. Use our research dollars on something that actually helps our real problems here on earth.
There will always be problems here on earth. There will always be war, hunger, poverty, sickness, greed, apathy, and polarization (racism, jingoism, gangs, ect.) Despite what your delusions tell you, throwing money at these problems does not make them go away. If you solve one problem, two will come to bury it.
Throwing money at community programs does not work. Dumping loads of cash into fighting crime will not extinguish it. If you give a free home to all the homeless, within a year, half will be burned out, molded apart, ripped down, sold for scrap. Those who would cultivate those homes would have found their own way out of the gutter, without you blowing $200,000.
Sometimes, you have to have the balls to ignore the problems that will ALWAYS BE in order to focus on doing something difficult, interesting, and may actually help humanity progress, rather than focus on the distraction. "Getting caught up in the thick of thin things" is what causes great men to fritter their lives away. Sometimes you have to let people face the consequences of their own actions so that you can have your hands free to shape your own future.
didn't "Star Trek" count as sci-fi, at least to most people?
No, FTWinston, Star Trek was a documentary, and the events happened in realtime.
Let a black Democrat come in, one who actually budgets honestly instead of trying to hide the costs of the Iraq War with budget games and all of a sudden you're whining about the irresponsible spending of Barack Obama and the Democrats.
This is what democrats really believe.
I dunno. I mean the Government collects taxes and they better spend it. What a better way to spend it by giving it to small companies. And was there a mention of how long the contract was? Or how many folks are involved? I think there are more then just a couple of web developers pushing this product.
It's a 5-year contract, and it's not helping the small, it's helping the greedy insiders. They're not supporting workers, they're spending $18,000,000 on a $2,000 website! That doesn't improve any situation, it just sends a bunch of lazy bastards to the Bahamas, while one guy cranks out a $1,000 design and the other guy copy/pastes his data management console from a hundred other websites he's done. Stealing 30% of my money to do fund these crooks makes me angry. And yes, they are crooks, because they're charging the government approximately ten thousand times more than the site is worth, and they're getting away with it.
What I don't understand is why didn't they use the perfect control group? Blind people.
The same way they know that many songbirds have a language and apes don't is that a deaf songbird will not sing the same way as its parents, whereas a normal songbird will. Apes, however, make the same grunting whether deaf or not.
Ask a few blind people, cross-culturally, to make expressions depicting puzzlement, concern, frustration, fatigue, pride, lust etc -- things a little more complex than a smile, frown, or laugh. Many (if not most) blind people have been acquainted with facial expressions, through touch, so finding blind people in cultures who tend to cast out their disabled and exclude them from education would probably show the least-skewed results.
It would be fascinating to see such an experiment -- considering our pets often make the same facial expressions (a dog will turn its head with thinking or confused, while we tend to twist up our faces) -- are we mimicking them, or is it something that we actually do on our own -- and then the next question: Why?
It was a cynical remark
Is that your final answer?
I don't see what's being blacked out!
That's the point...
An online banking site. Possibly also betting sites. Mostly because they deal with money and any security breach is fatal. That's the only examples I can think of excluding megasites like google, facebook and amazon.
Those sites could be built for a few hundred thousand + server costs. $18M to make a site that lists sales receipts is a huge middle-finger to taxpayers.
You think THOSE typos were bad? This was supposed to be a contract for $18,000!
I don't think that the general public really has a need to know which exact people are working on each team. There are arguably privacy concerns there.
Well, this argument seems to be watertight, I'll just have to agre-- oh wait wait wait wait wait... hm... except for one problem, I can't think of any human with a 4-page-long name whose privacy would be protected by blacking it out... There is no one with a 4-page-long-name, is there?
They didn't hide the costs for the project. They hid the cost per job type. They probably don't want their employees knowing what the others are getting paid.
You seem to have a good point there just let me... oh wait wait wait wait wait... since when has a programmer been paid in equivalence to how much the company charges for something to be done? Never?
Retroactive TOS's, though, are not legal. You cannot say "This contract can only be viewed when accepted" therefore, the exchange of money to get the TOS means that's not your consent -- just like when a software tells me "You cannot do the following with the product you've already purchased:" I laugh it off because my contract to own my copy of the software, rather than lease it, was accepted when I purchased it. Their TOS is the breach of contract, and if they want it to be valid, they need to send my money back. I'll accept that I don't own a copy of their software if I never had to pay for it.
Would the courts agree with me on this? I don't know. I'd go to jail for a few weeks (refusing to pay a fine) to make the point, though. "My taking down these pictures binds you to the agreement that 40% of the gross proceeds made by BMF will go straight to my bank account as payment to remove the pictures from my blog. You accept this contract by reading it." How's that for a post-contract TOS?
Wikipedia needs people who say "no", and if those people are a bunch of elitist editors, then fine.
Perhaps I would agree with you if surfing wikipedia was still as fun today as it was 3 years ago. Today, it's nothing but "Citation Needed" and comment sections full of some idiotic quasi-language. Anything INTERESTING has been neutered out of most articles, to leave you with dictionary definitions, lists, and a sterile taste in your mouth. Sometimes I'll stumble on some article that hasn't removed everything outside of what some full-of-himself editor's college textbook contained, and I shortly remember why I enjoyed getting lost in wikipedia, then I click on a link in that article to find "This article has yet to be written!" and realize I was reading on borrowed time.
I took a leak outside the bar one night when I was drunk and now I'm banned from Facebook for life.
What's wrong with this picture?
The government shouldn't reward public urination?
But decisions like that are not the domain of judges, nor should they be, unless the law is unconstitutional, which the DMCA, despite its many flaws, is not.
Yes it is. The 9th amendment.