Ok, I'll go along with that, but I wouldn't be surprised if intelligence does improve after 16, just not nearly as much as it used to. Sort of like how you can learn foreign languages no matter how old you are, but you learn them a lot faster at age 6.
My criticism was aimed at those people who were complaining about how easy it was; I felt they were the ones taking away from the legitimate 16-19 year olds who don't have that CS degree and mathematical training to help them. I have a great deal of respect for those who the problem was aimed at, and managed to solve it.
I can see where you're coming from, but in this case he followed up his negative comment with an actual link to another method of clustering. So it's more than a compare and contrast than just a statement then anti-statement.
Re:blogging and the death of the commons
on
Browsing Alone
·
· Score: 2
Alright, I give up. What's a blogger?
(See, I'm being social! I could just look it up on google but I want to interact...)
The brain is NOT hardwired by the time you're 16. If that were true you'd have trouble learning just about anything in college. The brain continues to make new neural connections throughout most of your life. As for the inane suggestion that I'm just bitter because I couldn't figure it out, that's just plain wrong. I haven't even looked at the problem. At my age I have better things to do than take college entrance exams.
I don't mean to burst your bubble, people, but this was aimed at pre-University 16-19 year olds. Unless you're in this age range I don't think it's a huge deal to have solved it...
Hmmm, at my last job we had it really bad; the AP photos were handled by an OS/2 server. Good lord that was annoying to support. Fortunately it was relatively stable, but it did go down occasionally, requiring nightmarish calls to our datacenter to get them to reboot the damn thing.
The main cost in producing webcomics seems to be bandwidth; a lot of them seem to be struggling with it. What I can definitely see happening is a lot of the smaller, no- or low- profit ones moving to P2P. Release it, send it out to a few people, it'll propagate pretty fast over Morpheus.
Why place all the blame on AMD? If you write pentium-optimized code, what's so surprising if it won't work exactly right on an AMD? Maybe the kernel coders should have caught this?
OH NO QUICK MOD HIM DOWN HE CAN'T CRITICIZE LINUX HE JUST CAN'T
Chess is all about raising one's ego, and dominating the ego of the opponent.
I wouldn't say that. I play GNUChess a lot; I don't expect to win, and even if I somehow do there would be no ego to crush. I just enjoy the actual gameplay.
Paranoia evinced by people from the Soviet Union? Not weird at all...
Re:how is it GNU-based if it has a _BSD_ kernel?
on
Debian NetBSD
·
· Score: 2
I don't see how you can refer to Debian as an "operating system". I mean, they do nice work, but an OS without a kernel is just a bunch of applications and utilities.
Actually, modern China may be closer to fascism than Communism these days, having many of the characteristics of a fascist society:
Intense nationalism, influenced mostly by massive government propaganda.
Socioeconomic controls, including strong links between industry and government. A Communist state basically controls all industry; a Fascist state allows private control, but typically forms close ties with those industries to ensure that they work in the "service of the state".
Totalitarian control over all forms of media, and ruthless suppression of dissent.
Unfortunately, any discussion of what actually defines Communism is instantly buried under the anti-left rants of the slashdot right wing, who believe anyone who does not criticize every aspect of every Communist state explicitly is some sort of commie saboteur.
I'm curious, anyone have any experience with the other x86-based X systems? I know there are a couple of non-free ones, but I've never had the chance to see any of them. How do they measure up?
I've heard (and very occasionally participated) in X bashing, but only when I got really sick of the latency in like moving windows or the ugly fonts, but hey, it's free and it's powerful and it's stable, so I really shouldn't complain. The strange thing is it just doesn't seem that much faster now on new hardware and graphics cards. I remember running it on a 486-50 with 10 megs of RAM; I could run it with an animated desktop background, and it was still usable. But on newer computers it doesn't seem that much faster.
But, linux itself doesn't seem much faster either. Maybe I should go back to the 1.2 kernel...
Beat me to mentioning that. They might want to try mud that hasn't been soaked in 350 years of urban waste, if they're aiming for "ordinary conditions".
No one ever said that there had to be a singularity for there to be a black hole.
Uhhh, I thought most physicists said that.
My first reaction was "fine, an event horizon-less black hole, big deal", but this thing seems to be different enough from the traditional black hole to deserve new terminology. They also seem to emit a lot more energy than black holes do.
Alright, so it's ok if we pollute because the earth will adapt to it. Sure.
The problem is we might not. I've always wondered at the incredible foolishness of people who frantically cling to the idiotic notion that the massive amounts of carbon dioxide we've pumped into the atmosphere, and the disruptive change in global climate over the past few years, are unrelated COINCIDENCES. I mean, what do you think happens to all our pollutants? They magically disappear? Do you believe in the tooth fairy as well? You think all those trees are going to be able to handle all the excess carbon dioxide? Hell, they might have if the same people who insist that they can hadn't chopped so many of them down.
And I thought traditional black holes were wacky enough. According to this, it's possible that our entire universe is contained within one of these gravastars.
I've never heard of this site, but I must admit that was an extremely well-written article; they shoved a lot of physics in it but maintained a really high level of clarity (though it seems to based on a New Scientist article, so they may have just lifted passages from there).
Re:The hicks have been feudin longer they win
on
Million Man LAN
·
· Score: 1
To quote George Washington, "We had quitters in the Revolution, too. We called them Kentuckians!"
Well, George Washington's words as interpreted by the Simpsons.
Hmmm, back to 50 karma, guess I can afford to get modded down by a few irate slashdotters from the Bluegrass State...
Slashdot Mirror
If we're lucky, they'll sue each other into oblivion.
Ok, I'll go along with that, but I wouldn't be surprised if intelligence does improve after 16, just not nearly as much as it used to. Sort of like how you can learn foreign languages no matter how old you are, but you learn them a lot faster at age 6.
My criticism was aimed at those people who were complaining about how easy it was; I felt they were the ones taking away from the legitimate 16-19 year olds who don't have that CS degree and mathematical training to help them. I have a great deal of respect for those who the problem was aimed at, and managed to solve it.
I can see where you're coming from, but in this case he followed up his negative comment with an actual link to another method of clustering. So it's more than a compare and contrast than just a statement then anti-statement.
Alright, I give up. What's a blogger?
(See, I'm being social! I could just look it up on google but I want to interact...)
The brain is NOT hardwired by the time you're 16. If that were true you'd have trouble learning just about anything in college. The brain continues to make new neural connections throughout most of your life. As for the inane suggestion that I'm just bitter because I couldn't figure it out, that's just plain wrong. I haven't even looked at the problem. At my age I have better things to do than take college entrance exams.
I don't mean to burst your bubble, people, but this was aimed at pre-University 16-19 year olds. Unless you're in this age range I don't think it's a huge deal to have solved it...
Free speech not free beer. Isn't that the kneejerk answer to those questions?
Hmmm, at my last job we had it really bad; the AP photos were handled by an OS/2 server. Good lord that was annoying to support. Fortunately it was relatively stable, but it did go down occasionally, requiring nightmarish calls to our datacenter to get them to reboot the damn thing.
I'm picturing him in a big chef's hat...
The main cost in producing webcomics seems to be bandwidth; a lot of them seem to be struggling with it. What I can definitely see happening is a lot of the smaller, no- or low- profit ones moving to P2P. Release it, send it out to a few people, it'll propagate pretty fast over Morpheus.
Why place all the blame on AMD? If you write pentium-optimized code, what's so surprising if it won't work exactly right on an AMD? Maybe the kernel coders should have caught this?
OH NO QUICK MOD HIM DOWN HE CAN'T CRITICIZE LINUX HE JUST CAN'T
Chess is all about raising one's ego, and dominating the ego of the opponent.
I wouldn't say that. I play GNUChess a lot; I don't expect to win, and even if I somehow do there would be no ego to crush. I just enjoy the actual gameplay.
Better do the chess part first, especially if actual boxers and actual chess players will be mixing it up.
You can get hurt through playing a game of chess. But you've got to be ridiculously out of shape to do so.
Paranoia evinced by people from the Soviet Union? Not weird at all...
I don't see how you can refer to Debian as an "operating system". I mean, they do nice work, but an OS without a kernel is just a bunch of applications and utilities.
Unfortunately, any discussion of what actually defines Communism is instantly buried under the anti-left rants of the slashdot right wing, who believe anyone who does not criticize every aspect of every Communist state explicitly is some sort of commie saboteur.
I'm curious, anyone have any experience with the other x86-based X systems? I know there are a couple of non-free ones, but I've never had the chance to see any of them. How do they measure up?
I've heard (and very occasionally participated) in X bashing, but only when I got really sick of the latency in like moving windows or the ugly fonts, but hey, it's free and it's powerful and it's stable, so I really shouldn't complain. The strange thing is it just doesn't seem that much faster now on new hardware and graphics cards. I remember running it on a 486-50 with 10 megs of RAM; I could run it with an animated desktop background, and it was still usable. But on newer computers it doesn't seem that much faster.
But, linux itself doesn't seem much faster either. Maybe I should go back to the 1.2 kernel...
Beat me to mentioning that. They might want to try mud that hasn't been soaked in 350 years of urban waste, if they're aiming for "ordinary conditions".
Fine, I shall rename them.
From now on they will be referred to as Doom Spheres.
No one ever said that there had to be a singularity for there to be a black hole.
Uhhh, I thought most physicists said that.
My first reaction was "fine, an event horizon-less black hole, big deal", but this thing seems to be different enough from the traditional black hole to deserve new terminology. They also seem to emit a lot more energy than black holes do.
Alright, so it's ok if we pollute because the earth will adapt to it. Sure.
The problem is we might not. I've always wondered at the incredible foolishness of people who frantically cling to the idiotic notion that the massive amounts of carbon dioxide we've pumped into the atmosphere, and the disruptive change in global climate over the past few years, are unrelated COINCIDENCES. I mean, what do you think happens to all our pollutants? They magically disappear? Do you believe in the tooth fairy as well? You think all those trees are going to be able to handle all the excess carbon dioxide? Hell, they might have if the same people who insist that they can hadn't chopped so many of them down.
And I thought traditional black holes were wacky enough. According to this, it's possible that our entire universe is contained within one of these gravastars.
I've never heard of this site, but I must admit that was an extremely well-written article; they shoved a lot of physics in it but maintained a really high level of clarity (though it seems to based on a New Scientist article, so they may have just lifted passages from there).
To quote George Washington, "We had quitters in the Revolution, too. We called them Kentuckians!"
Well, George Washington's words as interpreted by the Simpsons.
Hmmm, back to 50 karma, guess I can afford to get modded down by a few irate slashdotters from the Bluegrass State...