Maybe something along the same lines of using a Bayesian filter for words could help. Your friend (and most of us) may misspell things, but I bet that there are patterns to how he does so. By training it on a bunch of messages, you could find the patterns.
For instance, I commonly see spam now with punctuation randomly inserted into words -- presumably to defeat Bayesian filters which generally work on a full-word basis. However, I never receive real mail with that characteristic -- so it seems like an obvious choice of something to filter.
No, by his logic, no project should be called a " Killer" until it comes to within a reasonable distance of the Evil Non-Free Software. You can talk about Dillo all you want -- it's a pretty cool program -- but referring to it as an IE-killer would be pretty stupid. Same with calling the windows calculator a Mathematica-killer.
To be fair, I don't know how close Inkscape is to Illustrator; though from the comments here it sounds like there's quite a way to go.
The entire thread is context when considering a redundant moderation. Sometimes it's easy to determine that it actually is redundant, sometimes it's easy to determine that it's not, and often you have to spend a few minutes on it. You don't neccessarily have to reread every comment in the discussion; a few well-chosen searches can narrow it down immensely. It's not futile, it just takes people who are willing to spend more than thirty seconds metamoderating.
The real problem is the assumption that moderation is time-consuming and difficult, while metamoderation is quick and easy, while the opposite is probably closer to the truth. Of course, fixing that assumption would involve drastic changes to the moderation system.
When meta-modding, how are you supposed to know if a redundant moderation is fair or not without reading way too much?
Metamoderators should always read the context of the post they are meta-moderating. I've gotten enough "unfair" metamods to know that most metamoderators make no effort to determine whether or not a moderation is fair or unfair. If you don't have time for that, you probably should leave the metamoderation to someone else. (Doing it occasionally, but well is far more useful than doing it frequently, but badly.)
Well, you generally don't die of "old age," but when you get older your susceptibility to certain diseases / conditions increases dramatically. Presumably, part of getting people to live forever would be to keep them in good health -- for instance, if you could halt the aging process at forty, people would be unlikely to fall prey to diseases that primarily affect the very old.
Just because you found one doesn't mean that it will always be easy or even possible. I wasn't making any sort of value judgement: if you enjoy playing games that much, then maybe you should be doing it. However, the number of women who don't mind being ignored because you're playing games all the time is limited.
Also, your analogy is flawed because the problem at hand isn't that the man is buying every game he sees -- the problem is that he's spending all his time playing them. If a woman was spending all of her time shopping for shoes, trying them on, and organizing them in the closet, while ignoring everything else, then you might have a point. However, I think that such a woman would be seen to have just as little self-control as the man who spends all his time playing games.
That's fine, as long as you realize that your chances of finding someone else who is "accepting" of someone with no self-control are not all that great.
What, it's bunk because you would never watch the pirate copy rather than go to the theatre? Are you of the opinion that every other person in the world feels exactly the same way that you do about going to the theatre?
Yes but its might 6 for a ticket to get in: I get a say in what the rules are.
You are absolutely right. And the way that you excersize that "say" is to not watch their movies. Of course, the typical slashdotter only believes in freedom if it doesn't inconvenience them.
Language is a special case -- there's good evidence that the capacity to learn language is hard-wired into the brains of children, and much of that ability is lost later in life. Older people's lack of success in learning things like programming are almost certainly due to not having the correct experience rather than lacking the mental capacity to learn how to do it.
Well, you could have said "no CPU fans or power supply fans," among many other choices of varying awkwardness.
Truth be told, however, I probably would have stated it exactly as you did. I was just kidding; ambiguity is a fact of life in all languages, and your intent was clear enough once I considered the context.
If you're going to post something redundant, you're taking the chance that the mods won't think that you're as clever as you think you are and mod you down. There's no use complaining about it. (And the moderators certainly weren't wrong to do it.) If you really don't care about your karma, then why the whine?
Hint to drinkypoo: if there are six posts already pointing out that it's a dupe, it's redundant. Should the moderators allow dozens of posts saying the exact same thing dominate the thread?
You've already got the karma bonus, why bother playing karma roulette by dupe-spotting?
An arithmetic progression of primes is a set of primes of the form p1 + kd for fixed p1 and d and consecutive k, i.e., {p1, p1 + d, p1 + 2d,...}. For example, 199, 409, 619, 829, 1039, 1249, 1459, 1669, 1879, 2089 is a 10-term arithmetic progression of primes with difference 210.
In a recently published in preprint, Green and Tao (2004) use an important result known as Szemerédi's theorem in combination with recent work by Goldston and Yildirim, a clever "transference principle," and 48 pages of dense and technical mathematics, to apparently establish the fundamental theorem that the prime numbers do contain arithmetic progressions of length k for all k (Weisstein 2004).
Take it for what it's worth. This stuff is way over my head.
There's been a trend on slashdot in the last year to talk about "slippery slope" arguments as if it's a valid thing to do. A slippery slope argument is fallacious, by definition.
Although I'm not going to bother replying to everyone who responded to me (as they all say approximately the same things, and yours was the only reasonably-stated one of the bunch), none of the things mentioned require (or are neccessarily made easier) by the tracking of individual items after they leave the store. In fact, they already have a much more powerful tool in credit cards -- because those allow them to link purchasers with everything they bought.
Think about it... even if we accept that they have the ability to read every RFID tag on someone's person remotely, link into a database that hopefully matches what they have on file, and then somehow use it for targetted advertising -- much of which is probably hard or impossible with current technology -- all they learn is what clothes you wear on the day you went shopping, and perhaps the identities of a few items carried in your pockets. Going to all this trouble for such a small return doesn't make much sense at all.
I've always got to laugh when people talk about protecting their privacy by giving false information for those grocery store club cards. Virtually nobody pays with cash anymore; don't they realize that if the store is interested in compiling a list of who buys what, they would just identify you by the name on your credit card? RFID paranoia falls into the same category. The stores have good reasons for using it, but as a tool to track you, there's no reason for it.
Re:While RFID tags have anti-theft applications, .
on
RFID Leaders Talk Privacy
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
track you and the items you've purchased after you consider your interaction with the store to be done.
Do we have any evidence of that besides the raving of tinfoil-hat loonies? I haven't even heard a convincing argument why companies might want to track items after they leave the store.
The gamecube is barely holding even with the Xbox, and has been thoroughly demolished by the PS2. (I didn't check the last few months, which might show an increase in GC sales because they are now priced at $100, but it's not going to make that big a difference in the overall numbers.) Even if you subtract out the 20 million PS2 units (roughly) that sold before the launch of the other two, it's still no contest. Obviously, there is a large subset of people that don't mind the fact that the PS2 is also a DVD player.
At first, PS2 software sales were extremely slow because people were buying PS2 consoles to use solely as a cheap DVD player...
I don't understand. Doesn't this support my point? People were buying the PS2 because they were getting a game console+DVD player for the price of just one. I'm suggesting that people will buy a new XBox because they'll be getting a game console+PC for the price of just a PC.
Thinking like this is why the GameCube doesn't play DVD Video.
If you haven't noticed, the GC wasn't exactly trouncing its competitors. It's certainly not the only reason, but there were quite a few people that bought a PS2 because they could use it as a DVD player instead.
You're still thinking like a slashdotter. We think it's important that everybody have access to a computer gizmo at all times. Many people of the "average Joe" variety don't think like that -- they're perfectly content to share in order to save a few hundred dollars. This will target them, not you.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe something along the same lines of using a Bayesian filter for words could help. Your friend (and most of us) may misspell things, but I bet that there are patterns to how he does so. By training it on a bunch of messages, you could find the patterns.
For instance, I commonly see spam now with punctuation randomly inserted into words -- presumably to defeat Bayesian filters which generally work on a full-word basis. However, I never receive real mail with that characteristic -- so it seems like an obvious choice of something to filter.
I know that it's considered bad form to read the article, but couldn't you at least read the post you're replying to?
Given that you're still here, I take it that the use of Flash is the primary reason?
No, by his logic, no project should be called a " Killer" until it comes to within a reasonable distance of the Evil Non-Free Software. You can talk about Dillo all you want -- it's a pretty cool program -- but referring to it as an IE-killer would be pretty stupid. Same with calling the windows calculator a Mathematica-killer.
To be fair, I don't know how close Inkscape is to Illustrator; though from the comments here it sounds like there's quite a way to go.
You "felt you'd make a point" with your sig, I felt I'd make a point by replying to it. Why is there anything wrong with that?
And if you think that my reply was trolling, flaming, or an attack, you're an idiot. (Now that is a flame, albeit a minor one. See the difference?)
The entire thread is context when considering a redundant moderation. Sometimes it's easy to determine that it actually is redundant, sometimes it's easy to determine that it's not, and often you have to spend a few minutes on it. You don't neccessarily have to reread every comment in the discussion; a few well-chosen searches can narrow it down immensely. It's not futile, it just takes people who are willing to spend more than thirty seconds metamoderating.
The real problem is the assumption that moderation is time-consuming and difficult, while metamoderation is quick and easy, while the opposite is probably closer to the truth. Of course, fixing that assumption would involve drastic changes to the moderation system.
They're not lying; nothing in that contradicts what the original poster said.
Metamoderators should always read the context of the post they are meta-moderating. I've gotten enough "unfair" metamods to know that most metamoderators make no effort to determine whether or not a moderation is fair or unfair. If you don't have time for that, you probably should leave the metamoderation to someone else. (Doing it occasionally, but well is far more useful than doing it frequently, but badly.)
Well, you generally don't die of "old age," but when you get older your susceptibility to certain diseases / conditions increases dramatically. Presumably, part of getting people to live forever would be to keep them in good health -- for instance, if you could halt the aging process at forty, people would be unlikely to fall prey to diseases that primarily affect the very old.
Just because you found one doesn't mean that it will always be easy or even possible. I wasn't making any sort of value judgement: if you enjoy playing games that much, then maybe you should be doing it. However, the number of women who don't mind being ignored because you're playing games all the time is limited.
Also, your analogy is flawed because the problem at hand isn't that the man is buying every game he sees -- the problem is that he's spending all his time playing them. If a woman was spending all of her time shopping for shoes, trying them on, and organizing them in the closet, while ignoring everything else, then you might have a point. However, I think that such a woman would be seen to have just as little self-control as the man who spends all his time playing games.
That's fine, as long as you realize that your chances of finding someone else who is "accepting" of someone with no self-control are not all that great.
That's all very nice, but the real question is: what's the bandiwdth of a station wagon full of telephones barrelling down the highway?
What, it's bunk because you would never watch the pirate copy rather than go to the theatre? Are you of the opinion that every other person in the world feels exactly the same way that you do about going to the theatre?
You are absolutely right. And the way that you excersize that "say" is to not watch their movies. Of course, the typical slashdotter only believes in freedom if it doesn't inconvenience them.
Language is a special case -- there's good evidence that the capacity to learn language is hard-wired into the brains of children, and much of that ability is lost later in life. Older people's lack of success in learning things like programming are almost certainly due to not having the correct experience rather than lacking the mental capacity to learn how to do it.
Well, you could have said "no CPU fans or power supply fans," among many other choices of varying awkwardness.
Truth be told, however, I probably would have stated it exactly as you did. I was just kidding; ambiguity is a fact of life in all languages, and your intent was clear enough once I considered the context.
English needs parentheses. Upon reading this, my first thought was "maybe it will be completely silent, but it won't be doing much without a CPU."
If you're going to post something redundant, you're taking the chance that the mods won't think that you're as clever as you think you are and mod you down. There's no use complaining about it. (And the moderators certainly weren't wrong to do it.) If you really don't care about your karma, then why the whine?
Hint to drinkypoo: if there are six posts already pointing out that it's a dupe, it's redundant. Should the moderators allow dozens of posts saying the exact same thing dominate the thread?
You've already got the karma bonus, why bother playing karma roulette by dupe-spotting?
'erer3' ?
Perhaps you meant:
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 41
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 48
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 41
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 48
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 21
ASCII in decimal? Abomination.
Take it for what it's worth. This stuff is way over my head.
There's been a trend on slashdot in the last year to talk about "slippery slope" arguments as if it's a valid thing to do. A slippery slope argument is fallacious, by definition.
Although I'm not going to bother replying to everyone who responded to me (as they all say approximately the same things, and yours was the only reasonably-stated one of the bunch), none of the things mentioned require (or are neccessarily made easier) by the tracking of individual items after they leave the store. In fact, they already have a much more powerful tool in credit cards -- because those allow them to link purchasers with everything they bought.
Think about it
I've always got to laugh when people talk about protecting their privacy by giving false information for those grocery store club cards. Virtually nobody pays with cash anymore; don't they realize that if the store is interested in compiling a list of who buys what, they would just identify you by the name on your credit card? RFID paranoia falls into the same category. The stores have good reasons for using it, but as a tool to track you, there's no reason for it.
Do we have any evidence of that besides the raving of tinfoil-hat loonies? I haven't even heard a convincing argument why companies might want to track items after they leave the store.
At the end of 2003:
Playstation 2 sales: 70 million
XBox sales: 13.7 million
Gamecube sales: 13.94 million
(Source)
The gamecube is barely holding even with the Xbox, and has been thoroughly demolished by the PS2. (I didn't check the last few months, which might show an increase in GC sales because they are now priced at $100, but it's not going to make that big a difference in the overall numbers.) Even if you subtract out the 20 million PS2 units (roughly) that sold before the launch of the other two, it's still no contest. Obviously, there is a large subset of people that don't mind the fact that the PS2 is also a DVD player.
I don't understand. Doesn't this support my point? People were buying the PS2 because they were getting a game console+DVD player for the price of just one. I'm suggesting that people will buy a new XBox because they'll be getting a game console+PC for the price of just a PC.
If you haven't noticed, the GC wasn't exactly trouncing its competitors. It's certainly not the only reason, but there were quite a few people that bought a PS2 because they could use it as a DVD player instead.
You're still thinking like a slashdotter. We think it's important that everybody have access to a computer gizmo at all times. Many people of the "average Joe" variety don't think like that -- they're perfectly content to share in order to save a few hundred dollars. This will target them, not you.