And on the first goal of "...preserve the legacy of the ship by enhancing the story of the Titanic itself..." It's been done. A lot. The last damn movie was in the theaters for over a year, I think the "legacy" has been "embraced" and even had a terrible theme song sung by that canadian harpy. Let's, you know, move on to other shipwrecks if that's our thing... without a song by Celine Dion this time, please.
Seems like that would be easy enough to sort out. If someone moves their cursor toward something, then away that might be a potential interest. If they leave the cursor in one place for an extended period of time, probably not interest, it's probably "reading." Seems like it wouldn't be too hard to tell if the page had a lot of text as well. Similarly, if you walk away from the computer, the cursor is going to be in one place for a comparatively long time, they'd presumably be able to tell that it was idle.
Perhaps they realized the enemy would come out wearing tin foil hats, and bounce signal back at them with pizza pans?
Tinfoil hats you say? Aha, clear proof that this death heat ray was developed specifically to be used against the slashdot protest crowd when ACTA is signed into law!
Indeed, with blackra1n in my experience, it involves installing and opening blackra1n, plugging in the phone, then clicking the button. There's more of a learning curve for itunes.
Yes, but have you forgotten Isaac Asimov's corollary? "When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right".
Forgotten or never heard of, yes, and possibly misunderstanding now. I don't see the lay public rallying behind the idea that SSDs will overtake hard drives: I don't see how Asimov's corollary applies here.
In fact, he nailed it spot on. The GP doesn't like the conclusions of the study, so he just assumes the study or the researchers are wrong. It's an excellent illustration of confirmation bias (or, in this case, its inverse).
Maybe it was actually confirmation bias from the said Apple fan, that Android was so disliked and hence he got taken in by the false report?
Or maybe gyrogeerloose's reaction of "This poll result can't be right because I don't believe it" was an illogical one even though it was ultimately correct.
While the reasoning is interesting, and valid for all I know, why are we trying to say some bit of technology isn't going to work out ever? What's the point? Either it won't work out and that will be something the market will handle independent of whether you foresaw it or not, or a solution will be found and you'll just be wrong.
I'm reminded of an Arthur C. Clarke quote: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
I don't know, have you seen the latest security measures?
"Thou shalt not bring liquids over 3 oz in thine carry-on luggage, for it is an abomination and potentially a bomb (anation).
Thou shalt remove thine shoes from thine feet, for thee art in a place of holy security, and also we want it to look like we learned something from that shoe bomber incident.
Thou shalt not bring hammers onto the plane, for in the face of a terrorist wielding a hammer all are paralyzed with fear and would not be able to stop him from hammering out the windows and depressurizing the cabin, causing extreme discomfort for all therein.
Thou shalt not question TSA rules, for they keep you safe so long as terrorists continue to be inconceivably stupid and incapable of lighting the bombs they hath smuggled aboard the airplane"
Pretty sure God works for TSA and doesn't take his job very seriously.
I think the end shot was amazingly well done: I walked out and thought it was a little too obvious the top was about to fall over for a truly ambiguous ending, I wanted the end to be that he was awake and that was reality.
My wife thought it was obvious that the top didn't wobble at all and the end shot was proof it was a dream. She thought it being a dream fit with the movie better, and that Cobb was okay with it being a dream or didn't notice. She wanted it to be a dream. To that end, the top could have been wobbling over crumbs or imperfections in the table, not slowing down.
I think that's an extremely well done ambiguous ending if we both walked out of the movie utterly convinced of opposite interpretations that we wanted, over a top wobbling of all things. It was completely brilliant. I wonder how many times they shot that top, or how many tops they tried before it was completely ambiguous.
(we briefly thought my interpretation of it not being a dream had something with the "In a dream, you don't know how you got from one place to the next, and he knew how he got from the airport to his house: his father in law drove him" but then realized that wasn't actually shown)
Or, what would have been even more clever, was to have it start to wobble and then have his dad (?) walk by and snatch it off the table before it could fall.
To me, that would have implied he was controlling Cobb's dream, and I'd be asking myself "Would he have had an interest in keeping Cobb suspended in a purgatory-like dream state?"
Tic-tac-toe isn’t unwinnable, it’s unlosable. Much different from global thermonuclear war.
Another difference is that with tic-tac-toe, people rarely get vaporized. I mean, sure, it has happened, and will happen again, and tic-tac-toe sometimes does lead to global thermonuclear war, but generally speaking, your chances of annihilation are less with tic-tac-toe.
The way the government historically gains power is to grant you rights you already have, then modify them later.
As it relates to private corporations, that's slightly better than the government -not- saying you have a right. If they don't do that, you really only have that right as long as it's profitable to the company. To take a small example, see the "rights on airlines." We lose many of those "rights" as soon as airlines think you won't say "I have to pay extra for this bag you won't let me carry on with me? Fuck it, let's drive instead."
Some definitely react when you say their name, some cats come trotting over when you call them.
Whether it's that they identify with the word and know you're talking about them, or they merely associate you saying that word with you giving them food or attention and as a consequence of that become more alert, or they just notice the tone of voice and you looking at them, I don't know. Animal behavior is often difficult to understand. Most cats don't seem to do that in my experience.
I'm not skeptical that such a cat exists and reacts when it's owner says "Missy." At the very least, it's entirely believable that this one owner -believes- the cat knows it's name.
I try not to anticipate future technology that seems right around the corner, because otherwise I'll just get depressed thinking about where I am now: in an apartment, most appliances in which are not connected to the internet to manage themselves as I fly to Hawaii in my flying car, playing Duke Nukem Forever on my VR headset.
And no that wouldn't be unsafe because cars today are supposed to be driving themselves, I'm assuming that would work for flying cars too.
Anyway, if molten salt solar plats really do become obsolete because of whatever not-here-yet power source you're talking about, we'll have a good mass-popcorn maker.
There's are in my estimation several reasons it was "Only Nixon could go to China" and not "Only a republican could go to China." One reason of which being Nixon was a leader who his party would follow. I'm not the most informed on leaders waiting in the tea party, but so far I haven't seen anyone who could actually lead like that. Seems to me there are plenty of people who could say what the tea party was thinking for a minute or two, but to get it moving in a direction it wasn't already moving AKA legalizing something many of them think is immoral and somehow anti-american? It might be a while before someone like that comes along.
Slashdot Mirror
And on the first goal of "...preserve the legacy of the ship by enhancing the story of the Titanic itself..." It's been done. A lot. The last damn movie was in the theaters for over a year, I think the "legacy" has been "embraced" and even had a terrible theme song sung by that canadian harpy. Let's, you know, move on to other shipwrecks if that's our thing... without a song by Celine Dion this time, please.
Seems like that would be easy enough to sort out. If someone moves their cursor toward something, then away that might be a potential interest. If they leave the cursor in one place for an extended period of time, probably not interest, it's probably "reading." Seems like it wouldn't be too hard to tell if the page had a lot of text as well. Similarly, if you walk away from the computer, the cursor is going to be in one place for a comparatively long time, they'd presumably be able to tell that it was idle.
So if you use the wrong tool for the job and it doesn't work wouldn't you call that failing?
A powerdrill is the wrong tool for hammering a nail, but it doesn't fail at the job. Damages the powerdrill though.
Perhaps they realized the enemy would come out wearing tin foil hats, and bounce signal back at them with pizza pans?
Tinfoil hats you say? Aha, clear proof that this death heat ray was developed specifically to be used against the slashdot protest crowd when ACTA is signed into law!
And which one did we try to impeach?
They actually impeached Clinton, there was no try.
I -tried- to impeach Bush, but no one took me seriously. Maybe if I hadn't been drunk...
The ever present question remains: how long until we can see a viable product on the market?
Maybe never. Science is at least partially driven by curiosity, not just "what useful things can we get out of it."
Indeed, with blackra1n in my experience, it involves installing and opening blackra1n, plugging in the phone, then clicking the button. There's more of a learning curve for itunes.
Yes, but have you forgotten Isaac Asimov's corollary? "When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right".
Forgotten or never heard of, yes, and possibly misunderstanding now. I don't see the lay public rallying behind the idea that SSDs will overtake hard drives: I don't see how Asimov's corollary applies here.
It's as if millions of fanboys suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced
and replaced by the cries of millions of opposing fanboys.
In fact, he nailed it spot on. The GP doesn't like the conclusions of the study, so he just assumes the study or the researchers are wrong. It's an excellent illustration of confirmation bias (or, in this case, its inverse).
Maybe it was actually confirmation bias from the said Apple fan, that Android was so disliked and hence he got taken in by the false report?
Or maybe gyrogeerloose's reaction of "This poll result can't be right because I don't believe it" was an illogical one even though it was ultimately correct.
While the reasoning is interesting, and valid for all I know, why are we trying to say some bit of technology isn't going to work out ever? What's the point? Either it won't work out and that will be something the market will handle independent of whether you foresaw it or not, or a solution will be found and you'll just be wrong.
I'm reminded of an Arthur C. Clarke quote: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
Thank God that the US are prude or they would have learned something from the underwear bomber too.
Alternatively, it's too bad we're prudish and not in better shape physically.
I don't know, have you seen the latest security measures?
"Thou shalt not bring liquids over 3 oz in thine carry-on luggage, for it is an abomination and potentially a bomb (anation).
Thou shalt remove thine shoes from thine feet, for thee art in a place of holy security, and also we want it to look like we learned something from that shoe bomber incident.
Thou shalt not bring hammers onto the plane, for in the face of a terrorist wielding a hammer all are paralyzed with fear and would not be able to stop him from hammering out the windows and depressurizing the cabin, causing extreme discomfort for all therein.
Thou shalt not question TSA rules, for they keep you safe so long as terrorists continue to be inconceivably stupid and incapable of lighting the bombs they hath smuggled aboard the airplane"
Pretty sure God works for TSA and doesn't take his job very seriously.
No - the top was wobbling and about to fall.
I think the end shot was amazingly well done: I walked out and thought it was a little too obvious the top was about to fall over for a truly ambiguous ending, I wanted the end to be that he was awake and that was reality.
My wife thought it was obvious that the top didn't wobble at all and the end shot was proof it was a dream. She thought it being a dream fit with the movie better, and that Cobb was okay with it being a dream or didn't notice. She wanted it to be a dream. To that end, the top could have been wobbling over crumbs or imperfections in the table, not slowing down.
I think that's an extremely well done ambiguous ending if we both walked out of the movie utterly convinced of opposite interpretations that we wanted, over a top wobbling of all things. It was completely brilliant. I wonder how many times they shot that top, or how many tops they tried before it was completely ambiguous.
(we briefly thought my interpretation of it not being a dream had something with the "In a dream, you don't know how you got from one place to the next, and he knew how he got from the airport to his house: his father in law drove him" but then realized that wasn't actually shown)
Or, what would have been even more clever, was to have it start to wobble and then have his dad (?) walk by and snatch it off the table before it could fall.
To me, that would have implied he was controlling Cobb's dream, and I'd be asking myself "Would he have had an interest in keeping Cobb suspended in a purgatory-like dream state?"
The "real story" here depends on what you're more interested in. I'd wager more people have iphones than remix videos, hence the bias in the title.
Tic-tac-toe isn’t unwinnable, it’s unlosable. Much different from global thermonuclear war.
Another difference is that with tic-tac-toe, people rarely get vaporized. I mean, sure, it has happened, and will happen again, and tic-tac-toe sometimes does lead to global thermonuclear war, but generally speaking, your chances of annihilation are less with tic-tac-toe.
The way the government historically gains power is to grant you rights you already have, then modify them later.
As it relates to private corporations, that's slightly better than the government -not- saying you have a right. If they don't do that, you really only have that right as long as it's profitable to the company. To take a small example, see the "rights on airlines." We lose many of those "rights" as soon as airlines think you won't say "I have to pay extra for this bag you won't let me carry on with me? Fuck it, let's drive instead."
Cats don't answer to names.
Some definitely react when you say their name, some cats come trotting over when you call them.
Whether it's that they identify with the word and know you're talking about them, or they merely associate you saying that word with you giving them food or attention and as a consequence of that become more alert, or they just notice the tone of voice and you looking at them, I don't know. Animal behavior is often difficult to understand. Most cats don't seem to do that in my experience.
I'm not skeptical that such a cat exists and reacts when it's owner says "Missy." At the very least, it's entirely believable that this one owner -believes- the cat knows it's name.
Anybody can go to the state's court website and look it up, in perpetuity.
I need some tech support: I'm having a very difficult time finding "Anonymous Coward" in any state's court website.
Shird hates Apple.
Better to disparage the research than admit they might have been incorrect.
Nothing really unique about that, creationists have been practicing that for about 200 years.
LFTR's will render these things irrelevant.
I try not to anticipate future technology that seems right around the corner, because otherwise I'll just get depressed thinking about where I am now: in an apartment, most appliances in which are not connected to the internet to manage themselves as I fly to Hawaii in my flying car, playing Duke Nukem Forever on my VR headset.
And no that wouldn't be unsafe because cars today are supposed to be driving themselves, I'm assuming that would work for flying cars too.
Anyway, if molten salt solar plats really do become obsolete because of whatever not-here-yet power source you're talking about, we'll have a good mass-popcorn maker.
Because developers have nothing better to do than waste their time on features they hate and never want anyone to use.
Explains why they insist on putting motion controls in games that don't need it.
There's are in my estimation several reasons it was "Only Nixon could go to China" and not "Only a republican could go to China." One reason of which being Nixon was a leader who his party would follow. I'm not the most informed on leaders waiting in the tea party, but so far I haven't seen anyone who could actually lead like that. Seems to me there are plenty of people who could say what the tea party was thinking for a minute or two, but to get it moving in a direction it wasn't already moving AKA legalizing something many of them think is immoral and somehow anti-american? It might be a while before someone like that comes along.
Who seriously thinks this isn't going to end with FBI agents with flamethrowers and some farmers going to jail forever?
The people approving this obviously. And the hundreds of farmers who already grow and sell pot already and have been doing so for years.