After years of trying to explain it to people, I finally found something that usually works.
It's like an improv play where you play the part of a member of a group of heroes and we have rules to determine what you can do. If you've ever seen kids playing cops & robbers (cowboys & indians, or whatever), and two of them are arguing if somebody got shot or not, you'll understand why we have rules to determine if you are successful or not. Also, RPGs have a referee (names vary) that acts like the play director, script writer, and also plays the parts for all the non-hero characters.
Ok, for the gamers out there, you could pick at the vagaries and inaccuracies in that description, especially if you look at it from the view of one or two specific games. Well tough, it's not for you, it's for noobs that have no idea what our favored hobby is.:)
Science Fiction has changed the world. Many people, scientists, philosophers, statesmen, engineers, and inventors have been inspired by sci-fi. Many things we have now were first the fanciful writings of authors, until somebody (usually a lot of somebodies) decided to make it real.
Does all sci-fi inspire these advancements? No, but more than enough do, it has a definite effect on our world. Do the warnings that exist in some sci-fi work? Sometimes, but it's a lot harder to identify when something was changed because of the literature someone read, rather than inventions which are concrete and tangible. Although I'm sure you can recall at least a few cases where some form of governmental snooping was fought with the rallying cries of Big Brother and 1984.
So yes, sci-fi can transform the world, but like everything else, it's a slow process and often invisible. Not to mention, like so many other things that might alter the human society, fraught with more misses than successes. Of course, just because sci-fi has the possibility to sway mankind, or a portion of it, most of it was written for entertainment, not political ambitions. It's not "burdened with unnecessary baggage", rather it is recognized for the influence it occasionally has.
Yeah, that'll definitely deflect the nukes when someone decides to turn them into a parking lot.
Besides, those materials have a lot of uses in medicine and aerospace, but the supplies are critically low. Similar issue with Helium, and that's also due to a shutdown of certain portions of the nuclear industry. You don't like the weapons and the wastes, but you do like the rest of the package. Guess you've got some choices to make, after you do the actual research over what will be affected, rather than just listening to anti-nuke propaganda. (Or pro-nuke propaganda. Pretty much all propaganda is garbage.)
The U.K. did storm a middle eastern embassy (Libya keeps coming to mind for some reason) back in the mid 80s after the idiots inside opened fire on the public. They even killed a cop (I think it was a female) before the U.K. government decided to storm them and kick their butts out of the country. It wasn't handled in a fashion I would have, but then again, I have a very low opinion of scum that fire on peaceful civilians.
Close and embassy and storming one are two very different things.
In closing an embassy, you're doing the diplomatic version of saying, "Hey, we don't like the way you're acting, get off my lawn".
Storming an embassy involves sending and armed attack force into another countries sovereign territory.
If you didn't know, closing an embassy is something that happens now and then, but storming an embassy is tantamount to a military invasion and can start a war. Sure, there's no way Ecuador is going to get into a war with the U.K., but they can still cause a buttload of trouble in the U.N. if the U.K. does it.
I have to wonder if your county is violating some regulations as some of that information has to be displayed in a readable format for the populace, and it doesn't matter how much techies or bureaucrats like it, a large percentage of the populace is literally unable to read it as it requires them to have a smartphone and dataplan, something which is definitely expensive and probably qualifies as specialized equipment, not to mention still non-standard equipment.
QR Code is better than what I used to hear people call them when they first came out, 3D Barcodes. Although, non-techies are often confused by the name QR Code, but immediately guess at 'that funny box type barcode thingie' if you say 3D Barcode. Oh well, at least I don't have to deal with the snickers for 'rectenna' yet.
I can't afford a smartphone, or more accurately, I can't afford the mandatory increased phone bill due to the requirement to get a data plan to go with it.
No idea what Mashiki meant, but if it's a poor game, I can't think of a good reason to pay for it. I wouldn't want to play a lousy game or waste storage space on it either.
It was broken up from one large monopoly, to a bunch of local monopolies. Even your cable company has a local monopoly. Go check it out. As long as they can keep the local government renewing their local monopoly, they don't really compete, they just pretend to, and not very well at that.
it's better to play the 'out of service' or 'disconnected' tone for them so their robocaller will automatically remove your number from the list. They don't want to waste time calling invalid numbers, and someone not answering is still a potential call, while a dead number isn't.
A friend of mine had his answering machine set up to play the tone, then do a normal message back when we were being inundated in robocalls here. It's amazing how effective it was. I even borrowed a copy of his tape for a week to 'dissuade' the vast majority of them. Worked like a charm. (Yes, we had tape based answering machines, the digital ones were too expensive and limited at that time.)
The software companies I worked with all did a lot of QA. You have no idea how many times the dev groaned in horror when a new non-cosmetic bug was found. The biggest cause of delayed releases was always due to bug fixes.
If QA had infinite resources and time, they'd be happy, but they don't, so there will always be things that can't be found until after release. That's NOT based on your type of sourcing.
For that matter, fixes are also something that varies. I've seen real issues (non-cosmetic) go for years in both open and closed software without a fix. Then again, I've seen the opposite where they are fixed right away. One thing I will say is that closed tends to be more commercial, and so have a greater incentive to fix bugs quickly if they are either nasty issues or more than a few people are affected since they tend to have a team assigned to fix them. Some open source projects also have teams that will fix bugs, but it seems to be a lot rarer with them and is too often relegated to "someone will get around to it if it bothers them".
Don't get me wrong, I like open source, but let's be realistic here and not go into the usual hyperbole people love to spout so much around slashdot. Software companies, most of which produce closed source software, have a greater incentive and organized structure for finding and dealing with issues with their software than the majority of open source projects.
The use of pricey applications and paid for testers does not necessarily make the QA better, but it definitely does mean there was in fact QA and the company cares enough about it to pay for it.
I've seen open source software that was barely looked at by anyone other than the author. I've also seen open source software that's been gone over with a fine toothed comb by several people I would consider experts in that field. But how does the would be user know anything about who did the QA and how it was done on open source other than just happening to know the people or catch them talking about it on a forum, if it was done at all?
Neither open nor closed software has a monopoly on good QA, but a reputable company will have a good QA process in place.
(QA - Quality Assurance. You know, all that product testing and verification that takes place. Or should take place.)
A good friend of mine is what I consider rich. He doesn't have health insurance. For his family, it's cheaper to do this out of pocket than it is to pay for an insurance plan. He doesn't like the idea of being forced to buy something he feels he doesn't need. I don't know how he falls into that whole percentage thing, but I know this, what he pays for taxes each year is over 10 times what my yearly pre tax gross is. So in my opinion, he's rich. He's also one of the most down to earth and charitable people you could ever know. His main problem is that he's too damn busy. (And a lot of that is with various charitable foundations.)
As to my opinion on the individual mandate. Honestly I haven't decided. I see issues with both sides and want more information, but not in legalese since I am not a lawyer, nor do I have one available to translate that b.s. to something comprehensible.
You should really look into it, you'd be amazed how much of it is paid for by the government, not the corporations that claim patents on it.
For that matter, you might choke if you look back in time to when the DoJ went after Microsoft, if you looked at what the anticompetitive actions the drug companies were doing. There's a reasons your 'generics' are 400+% more expensive now.
Our mineral/seawater separation techniques currently suck. It would be significantly cheaper for most materials to get them from asteroids than from seawater.
News reports are that there actually is a group right now that is planning on snagging some asteroid riches. I'll believe they are serious when they actually bring back a load of minerals.
Pretty much all this stuff is controlled by the market price and cost to extract dynamic.
From the number of lawsuits and things the WTO has engaged in or threatened over the years, I'm pretty sure that Stockpiling non-excess to jack up the prices is against their regulations. I suspect that's why the WTO is getting huffy at China right now.
Haha, old joke:) (And I think you forgot a word between the 'A' and 'Earth'. Something like 'Regular' or 'Common'.) Darn typos get the best of us, you and me included:)
There is falsifiability, but guess what, it came up positive. Now they are just trying to verify that no mistakes were made, and it fits the predicted parameters of the Higgs.
Slashdot Mirror
That has nothing to do with left handed issues.
After years of trying to explain it to people, I finally found something that usually works.
:)
It's like an improv play where you play the part of a member of a group of heroes and we have rules to determine what you can do. If you've ever seen kids playing cops & robbers (cowboys & indians, or whatever), and two of them are arguing if somebody got shot or not, you'll understand why we have rules to determine if you are successful or not. Also, RPGs have a referee (names vary) that acts like the play director, script writer, and also plays the parts for all the non-hero characters.
Ok, for the gamers out there, you could pick at the vagaries and inaccuracies in that description, especially if you look at it from the view of one or two specific games. Well tough, it's not for you, it's for noobs that have no idea what our favored hobby is.
Science Fiction has changed the world. Many people, scientists, philosophers, statesmen, engineers, and inventors have been inspired by sci-fi. Many things we have now were first the fanciful writings of authors, until somebody (usually a lot of somebodies) decided to make it real.
Does all sci-fi inspire these advancements? No, but more than enough do, it has a definite effect on our world.
Do the warnings that exist in some sci-fi work? Sometimes, but it's a lot harder to identify when something was changed because of the literature someone read, rather than inventions which are concrete and tangible. Although I'm sure you can recall at least a few cases where some form of governmental snooping was fought with the rallying cries of Big Brother and 1984.
So yes, sci-fi can transform the world, but like everything else, it's a slow process and often invisible. Not to mention, like so many other things that might alter the human society, fraught with more misses than successes. Of course, just because sci-fi has the possibility to sway mankind, or a portion of it, most of it was written for entertainment, not political ambitions. It's not "burdened with unnecessary baggage", rather it is recognized for the influence it occasionally has.
Yeah, that'll definitely deflect the nukes when someone decides to turn them into a parking lot.
Besides, those materials have a lot of uses in medicine and aerospace, but the supplies are critically low. Similar issue with Helium, and that's also due to a shutdown of certain portions of the nuclear industry. You don't like the weapons and the wastes, but you do like the rest of the package. Guess you've got some choices to make, after you do the actual research over what will be affected, rather than just listening to anti-nuke propaganda. (Or pro-nuke propaganda. Pretty much all propaganda is garbage.)
1 can be a HUGE difference, especially when dealing with elements.
I suspect that you were making a joke, but there are too many people reading these posts that don't know.
The U.K. did storm a middle eastern embassy (Libya keeps coming to mind for some reason) back in the mid 80s after the idiots inside opened fire on the public. They even killed a cop (I think it was a female) before the U.K. government decided to storm them and kick their butts out of the country.
It wasn't handled in a fashion I would have, but then again, I have a very low opinion of scum that fire on peaceful civilians.
Close and embassy and storming one are two very different things.
In closing an embassy, you're doing the diplomatic version of saying, "Hey, we don't like the way you're acting, get off my lawn".
Storming an embassy involves sending and armed attack force into another countries sovereign territory.
If you didn't know, closing an embassy is something that happens now and then, but storming an embassy is tantamount to a military invasion and can start a war. Sure, there's no way Ecuador is going to get into a war with the U.K., but they can still cause a buttload of trouble in the U.N. if the U.K. does it.
I have to wonder if your county is violating some regulations as some of that information has to be displayed in a readable format for the populace, and it doesn't matter how much techies or bureaucrats like it, a large percentage of the populace is literally unable to read it as it requires them to have a smartphone and dataplan, something which is definitely expensive and probably qualifies as specialized equipment, not to mention still non-standard equipment.
QR Code is better than what I used to hear people call them when they first came out, 3D Barcodes.
Although, non-techies are often confused by the name QR Code, but immediately guess at 'that funny box type barcode thingie' if you say 3D Barcode.
Oh well, at least I don't have to deal with the snickers for 'rectenna' yet.
Futurama reference: http://youtu.be/EaHUpWuqNHY
I can't afford a smartphone, or more accurately, I can't afford the mandatory increased phone bill due to the requirement to get a data plan to go with it.
Hey, at least circumcisions weren't on that list.
Wait, does that mean they already do that?
No idea what Mashiki meant, but if it's a poor game, I can't think of a good reason to pay for it. I wouldn't want to play a lousy game or waste storage space on it either.
It was broken up from one large monopoly, to a bunch of local monopolies. Even your cable company has a local monopoly. Go check it out. As long as they can keep the local government renewing their local monopoly, they don't really compete, they just pretend to, and not very well at that.
Minecraft. At least there are a lot of people that like Minecraft. Trolls... Nobody likes trolls.
Maybe, but they're both running on silicon.
it's better to play the 'out of service' or 'disconnected' tone for them so their robocaller will automatically remove your number from the list. They don't want to waste time calling invalid numbers, and someone not answering is still a potential call, while a dead number isn't.
A friend of mine had his answering machine set up to play the tone, then do a normal message back when we were being inundated in robocalls here. It's amazing how effective it was. I even borrowed a copy of his tape for a week to 'dissuade' the vast majority of them. Worked like a charm. (Yes, we had tape based answering machines, the digital ones were too expensive and limited at that time.)
The software companies I worked with all did a lot of QA. You have no idea how many times the dev groaned in horror when a new non-cosmetic bug was found. The biggest cause of delayed releases was always due to bug fixes.
If QA had infinite resources and time, they'd be happy, but they don't, so there will always be things that can't be found until after release. That's NOT based on your type of sourcing.
For that matter, fixes are also something that varies. I've seen real issues (non-cosmetic) go for years in both open and closed software without a fix. Then again, I've seen the opposite where they are fixed right away. One thing I will say is that closed tends to be more commercial, and so have a greater incentive to fix bugs quickly if they are either nasty issues or more than a few people are affected since they tend to have a team assigned to fix them. Some open source projects also have teams that will fix bugs, but it seems to be a lot rarer with them and is too often relegated to "someone will get around to it if it bothers them".
Don't get me wrong, I like open source, but let's be realistic here and not go into the usual hyperbole people love to spout so much around slashdot. Software companies, most of which produce closed source software, have a greater incentive and organized structure for finding and dealing with issues with their software than the majority of open source projects.
The use of pricey applications and paid for testers does not necessarily make the QA better, but it definitely does mean there was in fact QA and the company cares enough about it to pay for it.
I've seen open source software that was barely looked at by anyone other than the author. I've also seen open source software that's been gone over with a fine toothed comb by several people I would consider experts in that field. But how does the would be user know anything about who did the QA and how it was done on open source other than just happening to know the people or catch them talking about it on a forum, if it was done at all?
Neither open nor closed software has a monopoly on good QA, but a reputable company will have a good QA process in place.
(QA - Quality Assurance. You know, all that product testing and verification that takes place. Or should take place.)
A good friend of mine is what I consider rich. He doesn't have health insurance. For his family, it's cheaper to do this out of pocket than it is to pay for an insurance plan. He doesn't like the idea of being forced to buy something he feels he doesn't need.
I don't know how he falls into that whole percentage thing, but I know this, what he pays for taxes each year is over 10 times what my yearly pre tax gross is. So in my opinion, he's rich. He's also one of the most down to earth and charitable people you could ever know. His main problem is that he's too damn busy. (And a lot of that is with various charitable foundations.)
As to my opinion on the individual mandate. Honestly I haven't decided. I see issues with both sides and want more information, but not in legalese since I am not a lawyer, nor do I have one available to translate that b.s. to something comprehensible.
You should really look into it, you'd be amazed how much of it is paid for by the government, not the corporations that claim patents on it.
For that matter, you might choke if you look back in time to when the DoJ went after Microsoft, if you looked at what the anticompetitive actions the drug companies were doing. There's a reasons your 'generics' are 400+% more expensive now.
Our mineral/seawater separation techniques currently suck. It would be significantly cheaper for most materials to get them from asteroids than from seawater.
News reports are that there actually is a group right now that is planning on snagging some asteroid riches. I'll believe they are serious when they actually bring back a load of minerals.
Pretty much all this stuff is controlled by the market price and cost to extract dynamic.
From the number of lawsuits and things the WTO has engaged in or threatened over the years, I'm pretty sure that Stockpiling non-excess to jack up the prices is against their regulations. I suspect that's why the WTO is getting huffy at China right now.
Haha, old joke :) :)
(And I think you forgot a word between the 'A' and 'Earth'. Something like 'Regular' or 'Common'.)
Darn typos get the best of us, you and me included
There is falsifiability, but guess what, it came up positive. Now they are just trying to verify that no mistakes were made, and it fits the predicted parameters of the Higgs.