Good luck on your non-smoking. It gets easier and easier. Keep yourself from situations where you'll be smoking. Maybe go on a diet and exercise more too. Go all out, some of it will "stick", as they say.
But anyway, you shouldn't complain so much. Just like the great stories have already been told, the game ideas have already been done. They can be improved upon or redone, however, just like movies can be remade or stories can be retold with new novel twists on the characters, situations, or events. Games will continue to improve or maybe just change. But that's okay.
It didn't turn the plastic on the 300D into the magnesium alloy of the 10D. And it didn't change the color from that lame champagne to cool black. And it didn't move the status LCD from the back up to the top. And it didn't add a wheel for changing settings with your thumb instead of using the lame plastic buttons. The 10D was still a much more durable camera and was more comfortable to use. The 300D was just cheaper. The disabled features were things that the hardware should have been able to support (flash exposure compensation and using any auto-focus mode in any shooting mode). Those things were enabled using the firmware hack.
What? People talking out of their asses on the internet? People just making up stuff and trying to sound authoritative? Pfft! That would never happen on a prestigious website like Slashdot.
Seriously though, I agree with you that it is neither healthy nor wise to base one's legal decisions based on anything written on Slashdot. For example, if you were thinking of starting a business selling high-speed bittorrent access, I wouldn't suggest going ahead with it just because "some guy on slashdot" said that it was probably legal.
Well, with regard to your p2p program analogy, that is definately part of the story. Something like Bittorrent is a very good tool for copyright infringement. Similarly, PGP is a very good tool for hiding child porn from law enforcement. Of course, both of those examples are only part of the story. Just like a screwdriver could make a fairly decent stabbing weapon, or a rifle acould make a decent tool for putting holes in plywood from 100 yards away. The problem I see is that in discouraging discussion (ala amateur lawyering), the grandparent poster is discouraging understanding. And that doesn't do anyone any good.
I really wish slashdot would stop encouraging amateur lawyering. The law is a vast, complicated subject, with many non-obvious doctrines.
You might as well say, "I wish slashdot would stop encouraging amateur computer systems engineering. Computers are vast, complicated machines with many non-obvious functions."
Slashdot readers are hackers. Of course they're going to want to discuss how things work.
You weren't paying attention either. NP Complete problems are definately not unsolvable algorithmically. They are problems for which there exists a solution solvable by a non-deterministic machine (a fictional machine which can be in any number of states at a time) in a polynomial amount of time (i.e., O(N^i), where i is some constant integer). NP Complete problems are also such that they can be mapped onto other problems in NP Complete. The problem with these though is that they usually require exponential or even factorial time and/or space in order to solve them. Sometimes these solutions are "try every possible solution, pick the best one". It's a definate algorithm, but as the problem size grows, it will be impractical.
The fundamental question in computability theory is "Does P equal NP?". (Recall that P is the set of problems which can be solved by a deterministic machine (more like a real machine) in polynomial time). NP-Complete is interesting, because if a mapping were found from a P problem to an NP-Complete problem, all of the problems in NP-Complete would be solvable in polynomial time on real machines. Last time I checked, the answer to this question was unknown (no one has been able to proove that P and NP are different). Obviously, P is a subset of NP, but is it a strict subset or could the two be equal?
So, anyway, P and NP both consist of algorithmically solvable problems. For an example of an unsovable problem, look up the "halting problem". The problem basically is, "given an input turning machine A and input I, decide whether or not the machine, if run, would ever halt (finish)." It's generally impossible (other than a few simple examples) to figure out without running or emulating machine A. That problem is unsolvable.
The judges aren't going to care about the technical details of what program transfers what to where and how many levels of indirection there are. The judge is just going to be shown that the defendant is operating a web site where users click on the name of a movie copyrighted by the plaintiff and it downloads to the user's computer. Any other details will be irrelevant.
You seem to think that your personal information is your personal property. It is not. Your Social Security Number is not your property. It is a number the government uses to identify you. Your name is not your property. It is an identifier your parents gave you in order for society to identify you. Et cetera. Those things should be kept private from people who have no business with you, however they are not property and should not be compared to property.
I can write a computer program to generate a number of random 'hypotheses' as you say and then test them, but I can't claim that I've endowed this system with intelligence, it's just a logic system.
The intelligence comes in the organism's choices of whom to reproduce with. That choice is something that is representative of intelligence (only higher animals are discriminating). It is also, strangely, analogous to Eve's "eating the apple from the tree of knowledge" (i.e., woman's choosing whom to reproduce with in order to change the direction of the species). I don't see the creation story as being contradictory to evolution as I see it being a primative description of evolution from the evolved species point of view.
The only logical alternative to infinite recursion is to accept the existence of an universe without a creator.
What's wrong with infinite recursion? Why can't the intelligent creator be a part of the randomly occurring spontaneous-intelligence-generating universe?
If I have a soul inside me that governs my feelings, shouldn't this soul have a meta-soul inside it?
Why can't the soul be the sum effect of your thoughts and actions on the universe? The idea that the "soul is eternal" could merely mean that the actions and effects that you have had on the universe last forever. Our actions, choices, experiences and effects on others define who we are as much as our DNA. Those abstract notions constitute our "soul".
But someday in the next fifty years we will probably have a personal computer that mimics so closely a human being that people will assume naturally that it's as conscious of itself as we assume our fellow humans are conscious of themselves.
This sounds as much like pseudo-science to me as this ID stuff does.
Stories that one editor rejects don't get seen by other editors at all. Some editors would accept stories that another editor would reject. Therefore, the way to get your story posted is to have it seen by all the editors. Repost it after each time it gets rejected. Try to post it at different times of day so it gets hit by different moderators. It'll probably get accepted eventually.
After that, keep posting it. Another editor might like it and then you'll get your own dupe!
Yes, but if you go around doubting or double-checking everything that should be reasonably guessed by a moderately intelligent person, it just makes you an asshole.
Just about everyone needs writing skills. You just now used them when you just typed in your post to Slashdot. You need writing skills on the job too, when you need to write up a proposal for changing the database schema and how it will impact performance or whatever. Poor spelling and grammar distract from your message, whatever that message is.
Slashdot Mirror
Good luck on your non-smoking. It gets easier and easier. Keep yourself from situations where you'll be smoking. Maybe go on a diet and exercise more too. Go all out, some of it will "stick", as they say.
Katamari Damacy http://www.namco.com/games/katamari_damacy/
But anyway, you shouldn't complain so much. Just like the great stories have already been told, the game ideas have already been done. They can be improved upon or redone, however, just like movies can be remade or stories can be retold with new novel twists on the characters, situations, or events. Games will continue to improve or maybe just change. But that's okay.
I never understood sitting in a coffee shop with a laptop for an hour, much less several.
It's all about checking out the cute high/college/grad school girls hanging out there doing their reading.
None of the characters in Star Wars were very original. See the threads on Dune, Kurosawa, et cetera.
It didn't turn the plastic on the 300D into the magnesium alloy of the 10D. And it didn't change the color from that lame champagne to cool black. And it didn't move the status LCD from the back up to the top. And it didn't add a wheel for changing settings with your thumb instead of using the lame plastic buttons. The 10D was still a much more durable camera and was more comfortable to use. The 300D was just cheaper. The disabled features were things that the hardware should have been able to support (flash exposure compensation and using any auto-focus mode in any shooting mode). Those things were enabled using the firmware hack.
What? People talking out of their asses on the internet? People just making up stuff and trying to sound authoritative? Pfft! That would never happen on a prestigious website like Slashdot.
Seriously though, I agree with you that it is neither healthy nor wise to base one's legal decisions based on anything written on Slashdot. For example, if you were thinking of starting a business selling high-speed bittorrent access, I wouldn't suggest going ahead with it just because "some guy on slashdot" said that it was probably legal.
Well, with regard to your p2p program analogy, that is definately part of the story. Something like Bittorrent is a very good tool for copyright infringement. Similarly, PGP is a very good tool for hiding child porn from law enforcement. Of course, both of those examples are only part of the story. Just like a screwdriver could make a fairly decent stabbing weapon, or a rifle acould make a decent tool for putting holes in plywood from 100 yards away. The problem I see is that in discouraging discussion (ala amateur lawyering), the grandparent poster is discouraging understanding. And that doesn't do anyone any good.
You might as well say, "I wish slashdot would stop encouraging amateur computer systems engineering. Computers are vast, complicated machines with many non-obvious functions."
Slashdot readers are hackers. Of course they're going to want to discuss how things work.
aren't judges supposed to care about technical details?
Yeah, but I wasn't talking about how things were supposed to be, I was considering how things probably actually are.
You weren't paying attention either. NP Complete problems are definately not unsolvable algorithmically. They are problems for which there exists a solution solvable by a non-deterministic machine (a fictional machine which can be in any number of states at a time) in a polynomial amount of time (i.e., O(N^i), where i is some constant integer). NP Complete problems are also such that they can be mapped onto other problems in NP Complete. The problem with these though is that they usually require exponential or even factorial time and/or space in order to solve them. Sometimes these solutions are "try every possible solution, pick the best one". It's a definate algorithm, but as the problem size grows, it will be impractical.
The fundamental question in computability theory is "Does P equal NP?". (Recall that P is the set of problems which can be solved by a deterministic machine (more like a real machine) in polynomial time). NP-Complete is interesting, because if a mapping were found from a P problem to an NP-Complete problem, all of the problems in NP-Complete would be solvable in polynomial time on real machines. Last time I checked, the answer to this question was unknown (no one has been able to proove that P and NP are different). Obviously, P is a subset of NP, but is it a strict subset or could the two be equal?
So, anyway, P and NP both consist of algorithmically solvable problems. For an example of an unsovable problem, look up the "halting problem". The problem basically is, "given an input turning machine A and input I, decide whether or not the machine, if run, would ever halt (finish)." It's generally impossible (other than a few simple examples) to figure out without running or emulating machine A. That problem is unsolvable.
The judges aren't going to care about the technical details of what program transfers what to where and how many levels of indirection there are. The judge is just going to be shown that the defendant is operating a web site where users click on the name of a movie copyrighted by the plaintiff and it downloads to the user's computer. Any other details will be irrelevant.
Sorry, but that's just the way it will be.
But then it costs $150 more and doesn't have 802.11.
You can't install an ad-blocker in your head in meatspace
I don't see any ads when I'm wearing my tin-foil sunglasses.
in vita non pacem est
There is no peace in life?
You seem to think that your personal information is your personal property. It is not. Your Social Security Number is not your property. It is a number the government uses to identify you. Your name is not your property. It is an identifier your parents gave you in order for society to identify you. Et cetera. Those things should be kept private from people who have no business with you, however they are not property and should not be compared to property.
I use wget and less. who needs anything else?
At least one Japanese company has sent cease and desist letters regarding distribution of fansubs.
r y.html
http://www.animesuki.com/doc.php/legal/mediafacto
It's BareBacked Blow Job (i.e., no condom).
1 .html
Also seen is BBBJTC (Barebacked Blow Job To Completion).
http://www.encyclopedia-of-sex.com/printarticle43
I can write a computer program to generate a number of random 'hypotheses' as you say and then test them, but I can't claim that I've endowed this system with intelligence, it's just a logic system.
The intelligence comes in the organism's choices of whom to reproduce with. That choice is something that is representative of intelligence (only higher animals are discriminating). It is also, strangely, analogous to Eve's "eating the apple from the tree of knowledge" (i.e., woman's choosing whom to reproduce with in order to change the direction of the species). I don't see the creation story as being contradictory to evolution as I see it being a primative description of evolution from the evolved species point of view.
...it keeps the riff-raff out.
The only logical alternative to infinite recursion is to accept the existence of an universe without a creator.
What's wrong with infinite recursion? Why can't the intelligent creator be a part of the randomly occurring spontaneous-intelligence-generating universe?
If I have a soul inside me that governs my feelings, shouldn't this soul have a meta-soul inside it?
Why can't the soul be the sum effect of your thoughts and actions on the universe? The idea that the "soul is eternal" could merely mean that the actions and effects that you have had on the universe last forever. Our actions, choices, experiences and effects on others define who we are as much as our DNA. Those abstract notions constitute our "soul".
But someday in the next fifty years we will probably have a personal computer that mimics so closely a human being that people will assume naturally that it's as conscious of itself as we assume our fellow humans are conscious of themselves.
This sounds as much like pseudo-science to me as this ID stuff does.
Stories that one editor rejects don't get seen by other editors at all. Some editors would accept stories that another editor would reject. Therefore, the way to get your story posted is to have it seen by all the editors. Repost it after each time it gets rejected. Try to post it at different times of day so it gets hit by different moderators. It'll probably get accepted eventually.
After that, keep posting it. Another editor might like it and then you'll get your own dupe!
There weren't no goddamn oil in Vietnam.
Which may be why we let Vietnam fall to the communists. Seriously though, oil is important. It's worth fighting for.
"To assume, makes an ASS out of U and ME"
Yes, but if you go around doubting or double-checking everything that should be reasonably guessed by a moderately intelligent person, it just makes you an asshole.
Just about everyone needs writing skills. You just now used them when you just typed in your post to Slashdot. You need writing skills on the job too, when you need to write up a proposal for changing the database schema and how it will impact performance or whatever. Poor spelling and grammar distract from your message, whatever that message is.