If you tell a human to do something, it might respond or it might do something completely different.
This could happen with a robot, in a literal genie sort of way; computers have a habit of doing what you tell them, not necessarily what you want them to do.
An amusing and improbable little short story. I always wondered what would happen if you declared war on the supra-national organization enforcing the treaty.
People don't get Windows. They get a Dell. They get a Vaio. They get a Samsung. I believe that was the point gp was trying to make.
And I'm not entirely sure how `I did' is in any way an answer to `How many people deliberately went down to...'
What was implied was that no-one deliberately bought Windows, only incidentally got it as part of a pre-built computer. What I'm saying is that this is untrue: I went out and bought boxed versions for my home build and I'm obviously not the only person ever to do this.
Nor how your opting to go for a 3G over a 4 (or before the 4 was out) is relevant. Anecdotes. Useless as answers to questions about broader trends.
You're right, it's not relevant, it's just an aside to saying I bought an iPhone too. What I'm trying to say is that people buy Windows and iPhones deliberately.
Putting aside your citing Yahoo answers as being both an ad hominem (yet still hilarious) I should like to point out the the laws of physics before the big bang - the ones that Yahoo answer was referring to - aren't necessarily the same as the ones that occurred after it in the early Universe - i.e. after the big bang during the bold, quoted period in the post you're trying to correct.
If you want to argue that the laws of nature are mutable then by all means try, but you will also have to show that the ways in which they change during the formation of a universe/the Universe aren't governed by rules otherwise it's turtles all the way down.
IANACS, but this seems different to the halting problem: if the program is a FSM (not the Noodly One) then one that repeatedly enters the same state with a short period is possibly in an infinite loop. The halting problem is more a question of being able to tell if a program given an input ever reaches its end without actually running it
It's an article from the Daily Fail, which means a metric fuckton of salt assuming you're brain-dead enough to buy that rag in the first place. Non-Brits are forgiven for not knowing about the DM... in fact privileged would be a better word.
Here's a rule of thumb, though: "scientists say X" in the DM should be read as "we made up X". This is science we're talking about, so name that boffin or it never happened.
Only half the people that know about it, read it. Only half the people that read it understand it. Only half the people that understand it believe it. Only half the people that believe it will agree with it. Of those six people, maybe one will actually try and persuade others.
The rest are as jaded as me, if not more so. I admire the sentiment behind it, but alas I don't think the general populace will be won over by anything larger than a few tens of words. *sigh* If only we could curtail fear-mongering in the media without impinging on journalistic freedom.
So I did, so I'll repeat it openly: Basil, you're a pompous prick, not only that, you're missing out on every thought-provoking or informative post made by ACs. Like the parent.
Of course with the smooth comes the rough, like the sibling. If you thought sacrificing the former to avoid the latter was a good deal then I whole-heartedly disagree
Most citizens don't even RTFS, figuratively speaking.
Re:Joe Sixpack isn't even using his 1080p right
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 1
So if you think that the resolution is half, then I think that half does not mean what you think it means.1
That depends on your definition of resolution, which I do not think means what you (and, admittedly, most people) think it does. I too used to have a 19" CRT that did 1600x1200 comfortably, can one buy an LCD that can match that number of pixels in that size?
Yes, I know the speed of light is defined as a specific number, but the wording of the headline made me laugh.
I think you may have this backwards. The speed of light is measured*, while things like the second, the metre and the mole are defined (sometimes in terms of c).
*Meaning its value is independant of the system of units used.
If some one creates a way to artifically produce gold on a vast scale, then what? It's already happened with diamonds, but there's no cartel to protect gold prices.
For accuracy's sake I should say that artificial gold is a practical impossibility until we have cheap transmutation; diamonds are just a form of common carbon, while gold is made of precious gold. To answer your specific question of what might happen when we have the technology to cheaply create synthetic gold, I can only imagine: our economies might well have moved past physical scarcity by that point in time.
Perhaps you should have been thinking about cheaply extracting the gold that already exists on Earth. Getting it from seawater is an idea that I've heard mentioned a few times and if that were possible then the price of what is basically just an expensive commodity would plummet, so naturally basing a currency on it would be a Bad Thing. Until that happens I've no idea why the gold standard is bad but then again I don't know how to cast the bones like an economist.
What's the point in modding a post when the poster can just change it after the fact? I think even if the points are nullified it'd still be a pain. As you were told, if you made a mistake, well, that's what preview is for!
I think I agree with your point re positive vs. negative freedom, but not the example you give: there are many things that are bad for society that are rightly criminal but for me the nanny state is exemplified by laws that restrict things that harm the individual only, if anyone at all.
Take seatbelts - the oft-given example - if I don't buckle up I might die in a crash but it doesn't harm anyone else. I suppose it might weigh on the conscience on someone that causes a now lethal accident but if that person can't accept that it was my own dumb fault then it's their problem, no?
There's a reason that Great Britain is also called the Nanny State.
I expect there is, but it has fuck all to do with utility billing. It's actually about laws that try to influence the way people live their lives, like excessive taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, or car seat legislation, or cycle helmets: that sort of thing. I'd have mentioned prohibition but I don't think we ever had that here.
I take it by your u/n you're a Mackem (I don't mean that as an insult; call me a Tackem if you want), so if you want to decide who leads Labour in the next GE it will cost you £41 p.a. and - paradoxically - only £25 p.a. if you're the only tory in the village. The liberals come cheap at twelve quid a year.
We picked EA because they have recast their culture around making great digital games,'
'Recast their culture', hmm? What the fuck does that mean, exactly?
By working with EA, we'll scale our games and services to deliver more social, mobile, casual fun to an even bigger, global audience
Ah! They're 'scaling games' now! Marvellous, whatever the hell it is.
If you want to say you're going to sell more games, say that; if you want to say you can hire more talent and make better games, say that. If it was a choice between saying you picked the buyer with the biggest offer or spewing hot air like this I'd have sooner you kept your mouth shut.
Slashdot Mirror
If you tell a human to do something, it might respond or it might do something completely different.
This could happen with a robot, in a literal genie sort of way; computers have a habit of doing what you tell them, not necessarily what you want them to do.
Don't they rule already?
An amusing and improbable little short story. I always wondered what would happen if you declared war on the supra-national organization enforcing the treaty.
You would lose.
People don't get Windows. They get a Dell. They get a Vaio. They get a Samsung. I believe that was the point gp was trying to make.
And I'm not entirely sure how `I did' is in any way an answer to `How many people deliberately went down to...'
What was implied was that no-one deliberately bought Windows, only incidentally got it as part of a pre-built computer. What I'm saying is that this is untrue: I went out and bought boxed versions for my home build and I'm obviously not the only person ever to do this.
Nor how your opting to go for a 3G over a 4 (or before the 4 was out) is relevant. Anecdotes. Useless as answers to questions about broader trends.
You're right, it's not relevant, it's just an aside to saying I bought an iPhone too. What I'm trying to say is that people buy Windows and iPhones deliberately.
How many people deliberately went down to their local future shop and bought Windows.
I did; XP and 7 worked quite well for me.
How many people deliberately went to their mobile carrier and bought the iPhone?
I did that too, but not an iPhone 4. I'm quite happy with my 3G and I'm in no rush to get a newer model.
People get Windows on accident. People get iPhones on purpose.
One doesn't "accidentally" buy stuff.
Your parent commenter remains correct.
The mods disagree apparently, but what the hell do they know, eh? It's not like there's been much in the way of logical arguments so far.
And you're A. Coward.
Hide behind your given pseudonym all you want.
SMS has been around for over a decade, easily. In technology terms that's pretty damn old.
Err, no.
Putting aside your citing Yahoo answers as being both an ad hominem (yet still hilarious) I should like to point out the the laws of physics before the big bang - the ones that Yahoo answer was referring to - aren't necessarily the same as the ones that occurred after it in the early Universe - i.e. after the big bang during the bold, quoted period in the post you're trying to correct.
If you want to argue that the laws of nature are mutable then by all means try, but you will also have to show that the ways in which they change during the formation of a universe/the Universe aren't governed by rules otherwise it's turtles all the way down.
Terrible, but not unexpected; N.I. are the bad guy of the moment. The sad part is that it will only be for the moment.
I would expect that the earth's "gravity well" (sorry, a more proper term escapes me at the moment) would be more relevant.
Is it the Hill sphere? I think I remember that being the volume where an object's gravitational attraction is the dominant influence on other objects.
IANACS, but this seems different to the halting problem: if the program is a FSM (not the Noodly One) then one that repeatedly enters the same state with a short period is possibly in an infinite loop. The halting problem is more a question of being able to tell if a program given an input ever reaches its end without actually running it
It's an article from the Daily Fail, which means a metric fuckton of salt assuming you're brain-dead enough to buy that rag in the first place. Non-Brits are forgiven for not knowing about the DM... in fact privileged would be a better word.
Here's a rule of thumb, though: "scientists say X" in the DM should be read as "we made up X". This is science we're talking about, so name that boffin or it never happened.
Only half the people that know about it, read it.
Only half the people that read it understand it.
Only half the people that understand it believe it.
Only half the people that believe it will agree with it.
Of those six people, maybe one will actually try and persuade others.
The rest are as jaded as me, if not more so. I admire the sentiment behind it, but alas I don't think the general populace will be won over by anything larger than a few tens of words. *sigh* If only we could curtail fear-mongering in the media without impinging on journalistic freedom.
Except you forgot to be an AC.
So I did, so I'll repeat it openly: Basil, you're a pompous prick, not only that, you're missing out on every thought-provoking or informative post made by ACs. Like the parent.
Of course with the smooth comes the rough, like the sibling. If you thought sacrificing the former to avoid the latter was a good deal then I whole-heartedly disagree
ACs don't bother. You're filtered. I don't even know you're there.
What a pompous prick.
And mods, bear in mind that this is an observation; it's not an insult if the target doesn't hear it, no?
Most citizens don't even RTFS, figuratively speaking.
So if you think that the resolution is half, then I think that half does not mean what you think it means.1
That depends on your definition of resolution, which I do not think means what you (and, admittedly, most people) think it does. I too used to have a 19" CRT that did 1600x1200 comfortably, can one buy an LCD that can match that number of pixels in that size?
Which student's papers? It seems unfair to pick on one of them. Did you mean students' papers?
I'm not trying to be picky (well, I am) but I'm beside myself seeing all the mistakes in replies to the parent!
Yes, I know the speed of light is defined as a specific number, but the wording of the headline made me laugh.
I think you may have this backwards. The speed of light is measured*, while things like the second, the metre and the mole are defined (sometimes in terms of c).
*Meaning its value is independant of the system of units used.
If some one creates a way to artifically produce gold on a vast scale, then what? It's already happened with diamonds, but there's no cartel to protect gold prices.
For accuracy's sake I should say that artificial gold is a practical impossibility until we have cheap transmutation; diamonds are just a form of common carbon, while gold is made of precious gold. To answer your specific question of what might happen when we have the technology to cheaply create synthetic gold, I can only imagine: our economies might well have moved past physical scarcity by that point in time.
Perhaps you should have been thinking about cheaply extracting the gold that already exists on Earth. Getting it from seawater is an idea that I've heard mentioned a few times and if that were possible then the price of what is basically just an expensive commodity would plummet, so naturally basing a currency on it would be a Bad Thing. Until that happens I've no idea why the gold standard is bad but then again I don't know how to cast the bones like an economist.
where's an edit button when you need one ?
It's on boards without /.-style moderation.
What's the point in modding a post when the poster can just change it after the fact? I think even if the points are nullified it'd still be a pain. As you were told, if you made a mistake, well, that's what preview is for!
I think I agree with your point re positive vs. negative freedom, but not the example you give: there are many things that are bad for society that are rightly criminal but for me the nanny state is exemplified by laws that restrict things that harm the individual only, if anyone at all.
Take seatbelts - the oft-given example - if I don't buckle up I might die in a crash but it doesn't harm anyone else. I suppose it might weigh on the conscience on someone that causes a now lethal accident but if that person can't accept that it was my own dumb fault then it's their problem, no?
There's a reason that Great Britain is also called the Nanny State.
I expect there is, but it has fuck all to do with utility billing. It's actually about laws that try to influence the way people live their lives, like excessive taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, or car seat legislation, or cycle helmets: that sort of thing. I'd have mentioned prohibition but I don't think we ever had that here.
I take it by your u/n you're a Mackem (I don't mean that as an insult; call me a Tackem if you want), so if you want to decide who leads Labour in the next GE it will cost you £41 p.a. and - paradoxically - only £25 p.a. if you're the only tory in the village. The liberals come cheap at twelve quid a year.
We picked EA because they have recast their culture around making great digital games,'
'Recast their culture', hmm? What the fuck does that mean, exactly?
By working with EA, we'll scale our games and services to deliver more social, mobile, casual fun to an even bigger, global audience
Ah! They're 'scaling games' now! Marvellous, whatever the hell it is.
If you want to say you're going to sell more games, say that; if you want to say you can hire more talent and make better games, say that. If it was a choice between saying you picked the buyer with the biggest offer or spewing hot air like this I'd have sooner you kept your mouth shut.
English, Mr. Roberts, do you speak it?