Back in the day, I used to skip an assload of homework. In addition to leaving me unprepared for having work that I, you know, actually had to do, it occasionally embarassed me in front of teachers and parents in a big way.
You think this is bad? Try having to carry a little book around with you that your teacher signs every time you turn in an assignment, then having your folks look at that.
(Your privacy concerns over a system like Pinnacle are legitimate, but your carping about folks making sure that you actually do your homework will get you no sympathy here.;) )
The problem with referring to the Netcraft statistics to "prove" that Apache has eaten IIS' lunch is that the statistics don't take into account any differences between types of sites:
The Netcraft Web Server Survey is a survey of Web Server software usage on Internet connected computers. We collect and collate as many hostnames providing an http service as we can find, and systematically poll each one with an HTTP request for the server name. - from the linked Netcraft survey
As a result, there's no accounting for how many hostnames support "little" sites and "this domain name for sale" placeholders, and how many see a substantial amount of traffic. It's like saying that there are more people driving 2002 Honda Civics than there are driving 2002 Porsche Boxsters - it's true, but it doesn't at all mean that the Civic corners better.
And gold doesn't have an instrinsic value? It is a critical component in the manufacture of electronics and telecommunications - it is used for medical purposes because it is non-reactive and hypo-allergenic.
Silly, and perhaps a bit disingenuous. Gold formed the cornerstone of every Western monetary system far before thre were electronics, communications, chemistry, or anything even resembling modern medicine. Gold may have an "intrinsic" (read: practical) value, but it's negligable in terms of its monetary use.
1. Unscrupulous OEMs may overclock chips, then sell them at an inflated price.
2. There's usually a big price differential between the top of the line in any of Intel's processor line, and the next best thing. If you can get top of the line performance by overclocking the next lower chip, why would you blow the money for the latest and greatest?
Indeed. Cisco's decision to make a jump from the networking and datacom market to the networking and datacom market will surely result in their having fingers in too many pies.
Re:Separating Content from Presentation a Good Thi
on
Office 2003 and XML
·
· Score: 1
Technically, nothing stops you from inventing your own tag, it's just frowned upon.
The preferred way would be to define an element - say, <strong> - and leave the formatting to CSS or XSL. So in your stylesheet, it would say something like strong: { font-weight: bold; }
It's not an officially sanctioned term per se. It's just something you get so used to saying and hearing that it becomes almost like mantra. Like when you were learning at the feet of the guy who taught you Perl and he said, "there's more than one way to do it" the nth time.
Searle was our favorite whipping boy, and his arguments are really about as sophmoric as can be and still be taken seriously by anyone.
His code word for "wetness," in the context you use, is "intentionality." That is, a computer can simulate intelligence, but even if it can make up a whole narrative to tell you (which some programs can), it can't really mean any of what it says. In one example, he compared a calculator to a brain - sure, a calculator can tell you that 2 + 2 = 4, but it doesn't really know it like we do.
The obvious response to this is, what does it mean to "know" that two plus two equals four? Either you've memorized that fact (one would hope), in which case that's just rote repitition, or you're applying an algorithim to a pair of numbers, in which case, calculators do that too. We don't have any deeper understanding of the number two. We can't - it's an abstraction, it doesn't have a deeper meaning to get.
Back in the day when I was studying to be a cognitive scientist (whatever that means), we did a lot of talking about what the nature of intelligence / mind actually is. There was a "strong anti-AI" camp which believed that Artificial Intelligence couldn't happen - even if you created a perfect simulation of a brain, you'd just be "simulating" intelligence, whatever that means.
So, we proposed an experiment. Let's say you took a guy who had completely lost function in a very small, localized area of the brain, and built a machine capable of reproducing its function entirely. You stuck it inside the guy's head, and he was magically fixed.
Now, make the area affected progressively larger - lets say, by replacing the whole hippocampus. Or the entire left hemisphere of the brain. Or, what the hell, the whole thing. At what point do you say that it's no longer a mind, and is "just" a machine?
So, that's the first thing I thought of when I saw this story. Once we can perfectly replicate the functionality of every last bit of the brain, do we just have a really nifty toy, or a genuine mind?
The flash animation is one of the lamest things I've ever seen. It's actually pretty funny.
The vulnerability arises from a classic buffer overflow condition. Instead of illustrating how the different components of the Sendmail package interact, or what a buffer overflow is, the illustration shows an "evil e-mail" traveling across the wire to the poor defenseless server, which is then rendered helpless to the predations of the evil hacker dude. Other than the fact that hackers have desktop backgrounds with skulls on them, what is anyone going to learn from that?
(note: the author does get bonus points for using the canonical subject line, "owned!", although he could have gained more if he'd used proper L337-5p3@k and said "0wnz0rED!")
Oh, the lawsuit was completely ridiculous. However, there was a perception that BG was capitalizing on the success of Star Wars and a re-awakening of interest in the space opera genre, so Lucas must've thought there was money to be sued for somewhere.
Funny you should say that. Battlestar Galactica was, at the time, the most expensive series to produce per-episode on the air, due largely to its huge special effects budget. In fact, the production costs got to be so bad that when the show's budget was slashed, they took to re-using the same dogfighting sequences over and over again, frequently in the same episode, as Simetra notes in another post.
If memory serves, a good portion of the filming of the show (not to mention the special effects) were done by Industrial Light and Magic. This created more than a little tension later when George Lucas initiated a lawsuit against the producers of the show for being too similar to Star Wars! ("Hey guys, great job on the effects for the "Ice Planet Zero" episode. Loved that death-ray. By the way, any chance you could stop suing us?) By the time the courts ruled in favor of BG, the budget for the show was razed, and production had stopped anyway.
Warby -- who is the chief information officer at Seattle Metropolitan Credit Union -- believes that the terms for the end user license agreement (EULA) for Microsoft's Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 (SP3) and XP Service Pack 1, might well put the credit union in violation of new federal privacy laws... To use the "auto update" feature, according to the Microsoft Windows 2000 SP3 license, "it is necessary to use certain computer system, hardware, and software information..." By using these features, users authorize Microsoft or its designated agent to access and utilize the necessary information for updating purposes."
Slashdot Mirror
Back in the day, I used to skip an assload of homework. In addition to leaving me unprepared for having work that I, you know, actually had to do, it occasionally embarassed me in front of teachers and parents in a big way.
;) )
You think this is bad? Try having to carry a little book around with you that your teacher signs every time you turn in an assignment, then having your folks look at that.
(Your privacy concerns over a system like Pinnacle are legitimate, but your carping about folks making sure that you actually do your homework will get you no sympathy here.
Just a suggestion.
The problem with referring to the Netcraft statistics to "prove" that Apache has eaten IIS' lunch is that the statistics don't take into account any differences between types of sites:
As a result, there's no accounting for how many hostnames support "little" sites and "this domain name for sale" placeholders, and how many see a substantial amount of traffic. It's like saying that there are more people driving 2002 Honda Civics than there are driving 2002 Porsche Boxsters - it's true, but it doesn't at all mean that the Civic corners better.
It isn't more money, for two reasons:
1. Unscrupulous OEMs may overclock chips, then sell them at an inflated price.
2. There's usually a big price differential between the top of the line in any of Intel's processor line, and the next best thing. If you can get top of the line performance by overclocking the next lower chip, why would you blow the money for the latest and greatest?
Heh. If you ever remember playing on "Sigil's Haus" - well, that's me. Sigil, that is.
I used to run a Q2 server. People would log in, spend hours chatting, then get pissed off at me when I shot them.
"Less talking. More fragging," was my customary response.
Indeed. Cisco's decision to make a jump from the networking and datacom market to the networking and datacom market will surely result in their having fingers in too many pies.
(WTF?)
Eeeenteresting. Does anyone know if it's possible to do something similar using Exim?
"TRON - fighting for the users."
Tee hee.
"Not to say that we didn't try..."
Ah, Milo. How I've missed you & your friends.
Technically, nothing stops you from inventing your own tag, it's just frowned upon.
The preferred way would be to define an element - say, <strong> - and leave the formatting to CSS or XSL. So in your stylesheet, it would say something like strong: { font-weight: bold; }
It's not an officially sanctioned term per se. It's just something you get so used to saying and hearing that it becomes almost like mantra. Like when you were learning at the feet of the guy who taught you Perl and he said, "there's more than one way to do it" the nth time.
Searle was our favorite whipping boy, and his arguments are really about as sophmoric as can be and still be taken seriously by anyone.
His code word for "wetness," in the context you use, is "intentionality." That is, a computer can simulate intelligence, but even if it can make up a whole narrative to tell you (which some programs can), it can't really mean any of what it says. In one example, he compared a calculator to a brain - sure, a calculator can tell you that 2 + 2 = 4, but it doesn't really know it like we do.
The obvious response to this is, what does it mean to "know" that two plus two equals four? Either you've memorized that fact (one would hope), in which case that's just rote repitition, or you're applying an algorithim to a pair of numbers, in which case, calculators do that too. We don't have any deeper understanding of the number two. We can't - it's an abstraction, it doesn't have a deeper meaning to get.
Bleah. Don't get me started about Searle.
Back in the day when I was studying to be a cognitive scientist (whatever that means), we did a lot of talking about what the nature of intelligence / mind actually is. There was a "strong anti-AI" camp which believed that Artificial Intelligence couldn't happen - even if you created a perfect simulation of a brain, you'd just be "simulating" intelligence, whatever that means.
So, we proposed an experiment. Let's say you took a guy who had completely lost function in a very small, localized area of the brain, and built a machine capable of reproducing its function entirely. You stuck it inside the guy's head, and he was magically fixed.
Now, make the area affected progressively larger - lets say, by replacing the whole hippocampus. Or the entire left hemisphere of the brain. Or, what the hell, the whole thing. At what point do you say that it's no longer a mind, and is "just" a machine?
So, that's the first thing I thought of when I saw this story. Once we can perfectly replicate the functionality of every last bit of the brain, do we just have a really nifty toy, or a genuine mind?
There is a Unix equivalent to InstallShield. It's called InstallShield.
The flash animation is one of the lamest things I've ever seen. It's actually pretty funny.
The vulnerability arises from a classic buffer overflow condition. Instead of illustrating how the different components of the Sendmail package interact, or what a buffer overflow is, the illustration shows an "evil e-mail" traveling across the wire to the poor defenseless server, which is then rendered helpless to the predations of the evil hacker dude. Other than the fact that hackers have desktop backgrounds with skulls on them, what is anyone going to learn from that?
(note: the author does get bonus points for using the canonical subject line, "owned!", although he could have gained more if he'd used proper L337-5p3@k and said "0wnz0rED!")
Oh, the lawsuit was completely ridiculous. However, there was a perception that BG was capitalizing on the success of Star Wars and a re-awakening of interest in the space opera genre, so Lucas must've thought there was money to be sued for somewhere.
Funny you should say that. Battlestar Galactica was, at the time, the most expensive series to produce per-episode on the air, due largely to its huge special effects budget. In fact, the production costs got to be so bad that when the show's budget was slashed, they took to re-using the same dogfighting sequences over and over again, frequently in the same episode, as Simetra notes in another post.
If memory serves, a good portion of the filming of the show (not to mention the special effects) were done by Industrial Light and Magic. This created more than a little tension later when George Lucas initiated a lawsuit against the producers of the show for being too similar to Star Wars! ("Hey guys, great job on the effects for the "Ice Planet Zero" episode. Loved that death-ray. By the way, any chance you could stop suing us?) By the time the courts ruled in favor of BG, the budget for the show was razed, and production had stopped anyway.
I think the working title for that show is "We Will Be As Gods."
You mean, except for this one?
And I quote:
Full article can be found here.
According to the story, "No, we don't know why she did it, but we are attempting to find out." Tune in next time, I suppose.
Do Scientologists really even qualify as Christians? I really doubt it.