My god those are hideous tag suggestions. Do you work for Microsoft? (Just kidding. But seriously, that looks dangerously like Office HTML.)
Anyway, we have these cool things called CSS classes. A simple <span class="wiki-species">Homo sapiens slashdottus</span> should do it. Maybe an HTML5 data-date parameter if you really want to go the extra mile.
But, anyway, this approach quickly runs into a branching factor issue. How do you present an interface that lets you pick between all possible semantic uses of a given typeface style? Species, court case, book/magazine/story/movie, poem, ship name, emphasis, foreign word, mathematical symbol, character's internal thought process, literal representation of a word, introduction of jargon... I'm probably missing a few thousand, although that's all Wikipedia lists.
This is more or less how we ended up with bold and italics in the first place, with bold replacing an earlier practice of small caps. HTML 2.0 had special tags for a variety of occasions, and a lot of them were deprecated and ignored in the HTML 4 era, and are replaced with makeshift classes in later usage. Even if you had a nice, clean, structured menu to select from, I expect that most contributors would just use the default "emphasis" style instead of finding the actual semantic tag they should be using.
For what it's worth, this story is from the "distinct-vs-difference dept." The topic of conversation supposed to be about the impact Larson-Green will have on MS's future, particularly given the differences in education, but alas the submitter is far too incisive to actually prompt any incision.
Compare what is emphasized in each curriculum. Whoever is contemplating this needs to seriously RTFM. The terms have very long and precise histories. The question may as well be "what is the difference between physics and structural engineering?" and the response would still be "why don't you use an encyclopedia?"
...Or we could get down to the actual question that the submitter was insinuating, which is "It is most likely that Sinofsky and his replacement will have different mentalities about how the Windows department at MS should be run. But will having a software engineer replace a computer scientist yield results that are better or worse for the company's bottom line?"
Failing that, you could make a collector that ships need to aim their build-up into. All it would take is a static warp bubble at the destination, which could then be relaxed under more controlled circumstances to recover the high-energy particles.
While the parallels are amusing, the issue in Star Trek was that subspace itself got damaged because of warp engines. There doesn't seem to be word yet on whether or not Alcubierre drives make any equivalent damage to the fabric of the universe, such as leaving a permanent distortion in spacetime once they've passed. (But it might be hilarious if they did.)
It's funny, because isn't this exactly the list of companies that have bought into SecureBoot? Maybe it's just a beta implementation. Guess it's not so secure if it can be spoofed this easily though.
You're missing a few, which are more important to evolution:
- lack of natural predators
- low diversity in diseases
- abundantly available shelter
- no physical fitness required to obtain food
This basically amounts to little or no evolutionary pressure. As with any organism, their chromosomes are free to mutate and diversify as long as it doesn't get them killed, and there's a lot more leeway for livestock than wild animals.
No matter how unhealthy it is, factory farming doesn't involve predators, running, or starvation. Moreover, that's way too recent of a change for it to have an appreciable impact on the course of evolution.
It's not the eating, it's the living conditions. We've kept pigs sheltered enough that they can experience the same problems as us, and suffer the same consequences. In a less safe environment, avoiding defects like obesity would be a much stronger selective pressure—but that's not a big deal in a pig pen.
And that's not all! Instead of being a way to classify atoms that have a given combination of protons and neutrons, isotopes are now the actual atoms themselves! This, friends, is truly the premium form of misused scientific terminology. Nothing like synecdoche to start off your morning. (And by synecdoche, I mean a cup of synecdoche, by which I mean...)
Anyway, all you've really proven is that the submission sucks, not that it reflects on the viewers. We're very proud of our complaints about poor editing, you know that.
While coal plants burning trees may be a little sketchy, don't dismiss biomass combustion out of hand. Newer, purpose-built reactors are quite efficient and very clean.
No, a chemical patent has to be very specific about the range of structures that are patented. A good chemical patent may contain sentences that are over a hundred words in length, just listing out alternative functional groups that could be at a given spot on the backbone. They're very technical and extremely detailed; you can't just patent a cause-and-effect relationship like that. In software, maybe, but not in pharmacology.
Profoundly useless unless they're collecting actual mouse input. "Oh, Bob uses Button 6 for Fireball when he plays World of Warcraft. It would sure be great if we had a dataset in which we could identify Bob... except Bob already uses Synapse on all of the computers he plays WoW on, so we already have the answers to all possible questions we could use this data to solve! Go us!"
This was the first question that popped into my head when I saw Razer pushing Synapse (I have a Naga, which is now dead): "What the hell are they going to do with the information they're collecting?" It's useless. Mindbogglingly, completely useless. Unless they're stealing other data, mouse button assignments have no possible marketing utility. It's bizarre.
It was NBC in general, not SNL. Also, this may surprise you, but Anonymous is not generally known for having a conservative bias, given their extremely anti-authoritarian core moral values. And four years is an awful long time to remember something like that—did you think they were elephants or something?;)
It's not whitewashing—science was not yet widely accepted. All forms of mysticism, theology, and philosophy are merely attempts to understand the world; some are misguided, certainly, especially when the scientific method directly refutes them, but I think you underappreciate the philosophical immaturity of that period in history. Intent here matters much more than outcomes or method.
Alchemy and occultism in Newton's sense meant "I'm a scientist but I don't know what science is." He wanted to understand the world, even though the methods for doing so weren't worked out very well yet. In an era when we didn't have any clue how causality actually worked, sometimes that meant entertaining bizarre notions which we know only in hindsight were superstitious.
Right, which is why I said 'guarantee'. The problem gets profoundly worse when you're dealing with a program that has an obscured region outside of scrutiny, i.e. a photo app that uploads to a server, or a phonebook app that receives instructions to place calls or text messages in response to a remote command (e.g. because it uses a web-based interface). Coding practices and the buzzword power of the web are so abysmal these days that I don't think static analysis would be reliable more than half the time. (Although I have an iOS device, not an Android. Maybe developers actually stick to Java there instead of relying unnecessarily on web browser controls so much.)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it occasionally indicates complicity in miscommunication, such as this case. Or reveals a bias.
My god those are hideous tag suggestions. Do you work for Microsoft? (Just kidding. But seriously, that looks dangerously like Office HTML.)
Anyway, we have these cool things called CSS classes. A simple <span class="wiki-species">Homo sapiens slashdottus</span> should do it. Maybe an HTML5 data-date parameter if you really want to go the extra mile.
But, anyway, this approach quickly runs into a branching factor issue. How do you present an interface that lets you pick between all possible semantic uses of a given typeface style? Species, court case, book/magazine/story/movie, poem, ship name, emphasis, foreign word, mathematical symbol, character's internal thought process, literal representation of a word, introduction of jargon... I'm probably missing a few thousand, although that's all Wikipedia lists.
This is more or less how we ended up with bold and italics in the first place, with bold replacing an earlier practice of small caps. HTML 2.0 had special tags for a variety of occasions, and a lot of them were deprecated and ignored in the HTML 4 era, and are replaced with makeshift classes in later usage. Even if you had a nice, clean, structured menu to select from, I expect that most contributors would just use the default "emphasis" style instead of finding the actual semantic tag they should be using.
For what it's worth, this story is from the "distinct-vs-difference dept." The topic of conversation supposed to be about the impact Larson-Green will have on MS's future, particularly given the differences in education, but alas the submitter is far too incisive to actually prompt any incision.
Compare what is emphasized in each curriculum. Whoever is contemplating this needs to seriously RTFM. The terms have very long and precise histories. The question may as well be "what is the difference between physics and structural engineering?" and the response would still be "why don't you use an encyclopedia?"
...Or we could get down to the actual question that the submitter was insinuating, which is "It is most likely that Sinofsky and his replacement will have different mentalities about how the Windows department at MS should be run. But will having a software engineer replace a computer scientist yield results that are better or worse for the company's bottom line?"
...I hadn't thought of that. Quite a lot like the Soliton wave, in fact!
Failing that, you could make a collector that ships need to aim their build-up into. All it would take is a static warp bubble at the destination, which could then be relaxed under more controlled circumstances to recover the high-energy particles.
While the parallels are amusing, the issue in Star Trek was that subspace itself got damaged because of warp engines. There doesn't seem to be word yet on whether or not Alcubierre drives make any equivalent damage to the fabric of the universe, such as leaving a permanent distortion in spacetime once they've passed. (But it might be hilarious if they did.)
It's funny, because isn't this exactly the list of companies that have bought into SecureBoot? Maybe it's just a beta implementation. Guess it's not so secure if it can be spoofed this easily though.
You're missing a few, which are more important to evolution:
- lack of natural predators
- low diversity in diseases
- abundantly available shelter
- no physical fitness required to obtain food
This basically amounts to little or no evolutionary pressure. As with any organism, their chromosomes are free to mutate and diversify as long as it doesn't get them killed, and there's a lot more leeway for livestock than wild animals.
No matter how unhealthy it is, factory farming doesn't involve predators, running, or starvation. Moreover, that's way too recent of a change for it to have an appreciable impact on the course of evolution.
It's not the eating, it's the living conditions. We've kept pigs sheltered enough that they can experience the same problems as us, and suffer the same consequences. In a less safe environment, avoiding defects like obesity would be a much stronger selective pressure—but that's not a big deal in a pig pen.
And that's not all! Instead of being a way to classify atoms that have a given combination of protons and neutrons, isotopes are now the actual atoms themselves! This, friends, is truly the premium form of misused scientific terminology. Nothing like synecdoche to start off your morning. (And by synecdoche, I mean a cup of synecdoche, by which I mean...)
Anyway, all you've really proven is that the submission sucks, not that it reflects on the viewers. We're very proud of our complaints about poor editing, you know that.
While coal plants burning trees may be a little sketchy, don't dismiss biomass combustion out of hand. Newer, purpose-built reactors are quite efficient and very clean.
No, a chemical patent has to be very specific about the range of structures that are patented. A good chemical patent may contain sentences that are over a hundred words in length, just listing out alternative functional groups that could be at a given spot on the backbone. They're very technical and extremely detailed; you can't just patent a cause-and-effect relationship like that. In software, maybe, but not in pharmacology.
Profoundly useless unless they're collecting actual mouse input. "Oh, Bob uses Button 6 for Fireball when he plays World of Warcraft. It would sure be great if we had a dataset in which we could identify Bob... except Bob already uses Synapse on all of the computers he plays WoW on, so we already have the answers to all possible questions we could use this data to solve! Go us!"
Ew, ew, ew. Fortunately if you dig a little, you can still get the pre-Synapse (presynaptic?) software.
This was the first question that popped into my head when I saw Razer pushing Synapse (I have a Naga, which is now dead): "What the hell are they going to do with the information they're collecting?" It's useless. Mindbogglingly, completely useless. Unless they're stealing other data, mouse button assignments have no possible marketing utility. It's bizarre.
Usually there's a "click the read more link below to learn about Vanderhoth's amazing investment opportunities!" link. Bad samzenpus!
It was NBC in general, not SNL. Also, this may surprise you, but Anonymous is not generally known for having a conservative bias, given their extremely anti-authoritarian core moral values. And four years is an awful long time to remember something like that—did you think they were elephants or something? ;)
What is this world coming to, with people who RTFA but not RTFS? It's a disruption of the natural order!
It's not whitewashing—science was not yet widely accepted. All forms of mysticism, theology, and philosophy are merely attempts to understand the world; some are misguided, certainly, especially when the scientific method directly refutes them, but I think you underappreciate the philosophical immaturity of that period in history. Intent here matters much more than outcomes or method.
Alchemy and occultism in Newton's sense meant "I'm a scientist but I don't know what science is." He wanted to understand the world, even though the methods for doing so weren't worked out very well yet. In an era when we didn't have any clue how causality actually worked, sometimes that meant entertaining bizarre notions which we know only in hindsight were superstitious.
Right, which is why I said 'guarantee'. The problem gets profoundly worse when you're dealing with a program that has an obscured region outside of scrutiny, i.e. a photo app that uploads to a server, or a phonebook app that receives instructions to place calls or text messages in response to a remote command (e.g. because it uses a web-based interface). Coding practices and the buzzword power of the web are so abysmal these days that I don't think static analysis would be reliable more than half the time. (Although I have an iOS device, not an Android. Maybe developers actually stick to Java there instead of relying unnecessarily on web browser controls so much.)
Nokia's recent history is more like "kidnap, ravage, dump." Extending? Embracing? Nope, nope.
ie, we should treat each app as rogue and untrusted until it proves itself. and continues to.
When does that occur, exactly?