You get the "oh god I hate this mod point drought" hat for the day.
Re:It's a bit too fast
on
Linux Radio
·
· Score: 1
I know the feeling—I lucked out and got init/main.c. Check out the text version: it's nothing but includes for the first three minutes.
The "Linux Radio" name should be reserved for something that does, say, interviews with kernel developers, distro maintainers, and summaries of mailing list results. I'm sure there are enough people in the community to garner a worthwhile audience.
The simple fact is that intelligence isn't directly comparable between species that are more than a few hops on the family tree away from each other. The brains are tuned by millions of years of selective evolution to respond to certain stimuli and make certain decision-making processes in certain ways, which is one of the reasons why metrics like social involvement are nonsense; that just means dogs are more like primitive humans. Note that most Oxford researchers aren't very social.
A better way to define intelligence might be as a function of learning speed; how fast you can make those neuronal connections stay put and change the number of neurotransmitter receptors. This is how some humans are capable of being smarter than others despite having roughly the same number of neurons. Training is a good way to test this, but you have to use tests that don't involve humans or any social satisfaction element, because that biases the tests against creatures that don't see social satisfaction as a goal.
You are saying that in order to win an election, a candidate requires money. Read through Wikipedia's entire article on plutocracy, as linked from your Onelook hit. The position you're putting up is that candidates with money (which you just so happen to be giving them!) have a better shot at getting elected.
The fact that this is the case practically is unfortunate, but not something that is a legitimate component of democracy, where candidates should be elected based on their merits as leaders. Any view that accepts or endorses otherwise is cementing the idea that wealth should have an impact on candidate success.
Campaign contributions are simply a means of providing the wealth necessary to create and maintain a plutocracy to candidates who are not independently wealthy.
"Supporting what you like and opposing what you don't like" describes many systems of government. Democracy requires that votes be weighted equally (discarding for a moment the issue of unequal representation of populations via e.g. electoral colleges). What you're describing is plutocracy.
One thing that's worth noting is that the Kinect actually is protected—against fake Kinects, which would actually cut into MS's profit margin, unlike using Kinects in weird ways. It has to do some encrypted handshaking in order to be used with an Xbox; this was mentioned in the story that announced the first output retrieved from it. I think this is a win–win for everyone so far.
It's bribery, patrone. Please remember that as a self-described low-income individual you and any coalition will never be able to overcome the campaign contributions made by high-income individuals, coalitions, and organizations. Influencing your elected representatives should be a simple matter of writing a letter and nothing else.
No, this is not true. We had a story here some time ago about how they've upgraded to the Lenovo T61p Thinkpad. 1680x1050, yeah! I know this because I have a T61. They're damn solid, and pretty contemporary—Core 2 Duos around 2.5 GHz.
I can see how an analogy might be compared to a chicken crossing a busy road, but is it really appropriate to say that analogies don't interrupt the flow of language to an observer?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you said that loudly enough.
You get the "oh god I hate this mod point drought" hat for the day.
I know the feeling—I lucked out and got init/main.c. Check out the text version: it's nothing but includes for the first three minutes.
The "Linux Radio" name should be reserved for something that does, say, interviews with kernel developers, distro maintainers, and summaries of mailing list results. I'm sure there are enough people in the community to garner a worthwhile audience.
Man, there goes a good Astley moment.
Maybe they should call the owl exterminators instead if it's such a big deal.
That's not toxoplasmosis, this is toxoplasmosis!
The simple fact is that intelligence isn't directly comparable between species that are more than a few hops on the family tree away from each other. The brains are tuned by millions of years of selective evolution to respond to certain stimuli and make certain decision-making processes in certain ways, which is one of the reasons why metrics like social involvement are nonsense; that just means dogs are more like primitive humans. Note that most Oxford researchers aren't very social.
A better way to define intelligence might be as a function of learning speed; how fast you can make those neuronal connections stay put and change the number of neurotransmitter receptors. This is how some humans are capable of being smarter than others despite having roughly the same number of neurons. Training is a good way to test this, but you have to use tests that don't involve humans or any social satisfaction element, because that biases the tests against creatures that don't see social satisfaction as a goal.
What?
Tectonic plate movement is exceedly slow, and rarely remembers anniversaries.
You are saying that in order to win an election, a candidate requires money. Read through Wikipedia's entire article on plutocracy, as linked from your Onelook hit. The position you're putting up is that candidates with money (which you just so happen to be giving them!) have a better shot at getting elected.
The fact that this is the case practically is unfortunate, but not something that is a legitimate component of democracy, where candidates should be elected based on their merits as leaders. Any view that accepts or endorses otherwise is cementing the idea that wealth should have an impact on candidate success.
Campaign contributions are simply a means of providing the wealth necessary to create and maintain a plutocracy to candidates who are not independently wealthy.
I heard this mentioned on a Discovery Channel special once. It blamed the typists, whom it said were tasked with the random number generation.
"Supporting what you like and opposing what you don't like" describes many systems of government. Democracy requires that votes be weighted equally (discarding for a moment the issue of unequal representation of populations via e.g. electoral colleges). What you're describing is plutocracy.
That's not democracy.
True enough. But good luck getting them to admit that now! ;)
One thing that's worth noting is that the Kinect actually is protected—against fake Kinects, which would actually cut into MS's profit margin, unlike using Kinects in weird ways. It has to do some encrypted handshaking in order to be used with an Xbox; this was mentioned in the story that announced the first output retrieved from it. I think this is a win–win for everyone so far.
It's bribery, patrone. Please remember that as a self-described low-income individual you and any coalition will never be able to overcome the campaign contributions made by high-income individuals, coalitions, and organizations. Influencing your elected representatives should be a simple matter of writing a letter and nothing else.
You could argue that this works to the best interest of the releasers—after all, this is something the government are doing themselves, not a leak.
Technically the physical relocation involved is via a plane flying east over the Pacific. I mean, westward is really the rest of Eurasia here.
On the contrary: as a C64 fanatic, the humble kilobyte defaults to being the standard "big" denomination for anything.
Pentium 2s clocked at 450 MHz were still being sold in early 1999. I see your Moore's Law and raise you a round of adoption lag!
Exactly. It's slipping in the same way Linux is.
No, this is not true. We had a story here some time ago about how they've upgraded to the Lenovo T61p Thinkpad. 1680x1050, yeah! I know this because I have a T61. They're damn solid, and pretty contemporary—Core 2 Duos around 2.5 GHz.
Indeed, the PS2's main chip clocks at around 300, so GP's analogy is closer to the PS2. Remember that the PS2 was released in 2000.
This sounds way better out of context.
I can see how an analogy might be compared to a chicken crossing a busy road, but is it really appropriate to say that analogies don't interrupt the flow of language to an observer?
Not if you (a) want to go somewhere in particular and (b) get slammed into a cliff/the ground.
ROT25. "that's really quite cool."