There is no evidence that Shakespeare attended Stratford Grammar School. It is something assumed by people because whoever wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare must have had an education.
I think you mean DirectX--but that's OK, I don't fault you for a lack of knowledge of Microsoft technology. In fact, it's a good thing. I envy you. Unfortunately, I am compelled by my employers to make ActiveX controls.
In the court room it was not a lie, but he went too far when he said the same thing on television to the American public. That WAS a lie because there was no special legal definition in the minds of the audience.
When he was on television he did not lie to the American people. He said "I did not have sex with that woman." He then pointed to a female reporter in the corner of the room, one who he in fact did not have any kind of sex with. He then said "Monica Lewinski." Any connection between him saying the name of Monica Lewinski and the first sentence was an assumption by anyone who made it, and not the responsibility of Clinton.
Anyone should be able to legally distribute whatever information they have legally purchased to anyone else.
Here's why.
In order to make people stop distributing this information, the government is going to have to do one of two things:
Choice 1: Rein in the wild internet and make it easy to monitor who sends what to whom. They could change the actual architecture of the internet and force people to register with the government in order to get online.
Choice 2: Only catch the biggest and baddest distributors, and the occasional little distributor, but make the punishment so severe that it will discourage everyone else. This was the kind of thinking that led to the British hanging people for stealing loaves of bread in 18th century London. Crime is rampant, you can't catch them all, so scare the pants off the rest.
The government is trying choice 2 right now, but it may eventually move to choice 1 if it (I mean its financial contributors) feel that the people are ripping them off by not paying through the nose for legal entertainment.
What it comes down to is that any legal means to prevent people from distributing information will lead to greater injustice than that of the distribution of copyrighted information. Now, I bet you're saying something like If everyone was running through the streets killing and looting, should killing and looting be allowed to happen because it will take martial law to stop it? My answer is that martial law under those circumstances is (hopefully) a temporary solution, while the loss of freedoms in order to save the money of those with copyrighted material will have to be permanent.
Re:There is no sentient AI
on
AI in Sci-Fi
·
· Score: 1
If there is a sentient AI it will not work like modern computers. It will work more like the human brain, with massive parallelism and complex interactions with the environment that will allow it to have complex behaviors comparable to a human being.
Concurrent Development
on
AI in Sci-Fi
·
· Score: 1
As we learn how to make intelligent, self-aware machines (and believe me we have a long way to go with that) we will also be augmenting our own intelligence with genetic manipulation and cybernetic implants. We're not going to have a situation with "humans versus machines" because human beings, as we understand them today, won't exist anymore when machines do attain sentience and independent purpose. Chunks of our brains will be replaced and improved until pure AI will be indistinguishable from the intelligent entities that are decendents of the humans.
I'm usually a big "horror/fantasy/sci fi fan, but this is my favorite movie. I think the Cohen brother's reached their height with this one. The complexity of the situations and the way Tom Regan was able to handle it was brilliantly done.
I have to agree. It is my favorite zombie picture. When I saw Peter Jackson's skull open up I knew that it was not just any old zombie flick. What he did with virtually no budget is astonishing. Someone smart in Hollywood must have thought "Imagine giving this guy a few hundred million, he could do anything on the screen."
Of the hobbit-maker much is known.
Through piles of papers many scholars peruse
The etymology of ents and the origin of orcs.
In the lore of Grendle-slayer he is steeped in study.
Tolkien sang to us the sound of a heros heart.
The weaving of wonders, the joys of generations
Of the hobbit-maker much is known.
Through piles of papers many scholars peruse
The etymology of ents and the origin of orcs.
In the lore of Grendle-slayer he is steeped in study.
Tolkein sang to us the sound of a hero?s heart?
The weaving of wonders, the joys of generations.
Re:Dude, you forgot Levy's "Hackers"
on
Electronic Life
·
· Score: 2
I'll second that. I read that book when I started programming and I was hooked.
I just wanted to mention that of course, Spock would be able to tell the difference between you and any simulation, and that you would be able to kick its butt!
Computer Simulations of You
on
Ask William Shatner
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
In the near future (10 or 20 years or so) computer graphics are going to be nearly indistiguishable from live-action films. You know when that happens hundreds of Trekkers are going to start using your voice and image and create new episodes of the original Star Trek series. Many will probably do this anonymously just for the fun of it, despite legal issues. How do you feel about the possibility of your voice and image being used this way?
Stan didn't draw Spider-Man. Steve Didko did the art. Let's not forget Steve. Stan just came up with some idea about some kid getting spider powers, so he didn't even dabble with pencils and paper. Just some idea. Like that idea about the Incredible Hulk. And the Fantastic Four. And oh yeah, some bunch of mutants called the X-Men. Just ideas. Just thoughts. Heck I can have ideas. Anyone can have ideas! (Well, just about anyone, I've heard even lawyers have ideas sometimes.)
Most scientist that I know do not say that their faviorte theories about how the universe work "must be true". They are intelligent people aware of the history of science and they know that many theories have been replaced by others that more closely conform to observed reality. With the current evidence they have formulated theories about the creation of the universe. This is a good and intelligent endevour. There are competing theories about the creation and nature of the universe. This is also a good thing, and a properly scientific thing. There is the MOND theory that explains galactic rotation without dark matter. There are many models for the inflation that probably occurred at the big bang.
To say none of these theories are "discoveries" is correct. They are theories. The discoveries are such things as the cosmic background ratiation that seems to originate from a big bang. It is the job of the scientist to interpret empirical observations into explanations of how the universe works.
I gave up my belief in God when I relized that the only reason I believed in him was that I wanted to believe in him. I will not believe in him again until I have an objective reason to do so. Let's apply Occam's razor the the theory that God created the universe. At first look it is the simplist theory. It can be stated in one sentence, "God created the universe". However, it doesn't end there. We (as scientists) have an obligation to find a theory that explains God. How is it possible that an omnicient, omnipotent being happens to exist? While extremely pleasant to believe in such a being, the likelyhood of such a complex entity "just happening to exist" is extremely unlikely as well.
Re:I'd like to know how long AIDS will take
on
Beaming into Space
·
· Score: 2
The spreading of AIDs is dependent on behavior, so the answer to your question varies with the predicted behavior of the population. Plus, as AIDs spreads, it will change the behavior of people who are impacted by it, altering the rates of infection. So, using the current trend to predict the extermination of the entire human race is extremely unrealistic. If AIDs infection reached the unlikely level of, let's say, 20% of the worlds population, most of the rest of the population would be very motivated to avoid activities that would get them infected.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no evidence that Shakespeare attended Stratford Grammar School. It is something assumed by people because whoever wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare must have had an education.
I think you mean DirectX--but that's OK, I don't fault you for a lack of knowledge of Microsoft technology. In fact, it's a good thing. I envy you. Unfortunately, I am compelled by my employers to make ActiveX controls.
In the court room it was not a lie, but he went too far when he said the same thing on television to the American public. That WAS a lie because there was no special legal definition in the minds of the audience.
When he was on television he did not lie to the American people. He said "I did not have sex with that woman." He then pointed to a female reporter in the corner of the room, one who he in fact did not have any kind of sex with. He then said "Monica Lewinski." Any connection between him saying the name of Monica Lewinski and the first sentence was an assumption by anyone who made it, and not the responsibility of Clinton.
1) In Soviet Russia...
2) all your base are belong to YOU!
3) ???
4 Profit!
Anyone should be able to legally distribute whatever information they have legally purchased to anyone else.
Here's why.
In order to make people stop distributing this information, the government is going to have to do one of two things:
Choice 1: Rein in the wild internet and make it easy to monitor who sends what to whom. They could change the actual architecture of the internet and force people to register with the government in order to get online.
Choice 2: Only catch the biggest and baddest distributors, and the occasional little distributor, but make the punishment so severe that it will discourage everyone else. This was the kind of thinking that led to the British hanging people for stealing loaves of bread in 18th century London. Crime is rampant, you can't catch them all, so scare the pants off the rest.
The government is trying choice 2 right now, but it may eventually move to choice 1 if it (I mean its financial contributors) feel that the people are ripping them off by not paying through the nose for legal entertainment.
What it comes down to is that any legal means to prevent people from distributing information will lead to greater injustice than that of the distribution of copyrighted information. Now, I bet you're saying something like If everyone was running through the streets killing and looting, should killing and looting be allowed to happen because it will take martial law to stop it? My answer is that martial law under those circumstances is (hopefully) a temporary solution, while the loss of freedoms in order to save the money of those with copyrighted material will have to be permanent.
If there is a sentient AI it will not work like modern computers. It will work more like the human brain, with massive parallelism and complex interactions with the environment that will allow it to have complex behaviors comparable to a human being.
As we learn how to make intelligent, self-aware machines (and believe me we have a long way to go with that) we will also be augmenting our own intelligence with genetic manipulation and cybernetic implants. We're not going to have a situation with "humans versus machines" because human beings, as we understand them today, won't exist anymore when machines do attain sentience and independent purpose. Chunks of our brains will be replaced and improved until pure AI will be indistinguishable from the intelligent entities that are decendents of the humans.
I think it's time we follow the advice of this guy: NasaCaveDude
If you thought Rutger Hauer was a great villian in Blade Runner, watch this flick. You'll come away from the flick wondering "What the hell was he?".
I'm usually a big "horror/fantasy/sci fi fan, but this is my favorite movie. I think the Cohen brother's reached their height with this one. The complexity of the situations and the way Tom Regan was able to handle it was brilliantly done.
I always thought it was "ooth bod bethude". No wonder why it never worked for me!
I have to agree. It is my favorite zombie picture. When I saw Peter Jackson's skull open up I knew that it was not just any old zombie flick. What he did with virtually no budget is astonishing. Someone smart in Hollywood must have thought "Imagine giving this guy a few hundred million, he could do anything on the screen."
Hehe. Good choices.
Jeez, messed up the html again. Need more coffee.
Of the hobbit-maker much is known. Through piles of papers many scholars peruse The etymology of ents and the origin of orcs. In the lore of Grendle-slayer he is steeped in study. Tolkien sang to us the sound of a heros heart. The weaving of wonders, the joys of generations
Ode to Tolkien
Of the hobbit-maker much is known. Through piles of papers many scholars peruse The etymology of ents and the origin of orcs. In the lore of Grendle-slayer he is steeped in study. Tolkein sang to us the sound of a hero?s heart? The weaving of wonders, the joys of generations.
I'll second that. I read that book when I started programming and I was hooked.
I just wanted to mention that of course, Spock would be able to tell the difference between you and any simulation, and that you would be able to kick its butt!
In the near future (10 or 20 years or so) computer graphics are going to be nearly indistiguishable from live-action films. You know when that happens hundreds of Trekkers are going to start using your voice and image and create new episodes of the original Star Trek series. Many will probably do this anonymously just for the fun of it, despite legal issues. How do you feel about the possibility of your voice and image being used this way?
Stan didn't draw Spider-Man. Steve Didko did the art. Let's not forget Steve. Stan just came up with some idea about some kid getting spider powers, so he didn't even dabble with pencils and paper. Just some idea. Like that idea about the Incredible Hulk. And the Fantastic Four. And oh yeah, some bunch of mutants called the X-Men. Just ideas. Just thoughts. Heck I can have ideas. Anyone can have ideas! (Well, just about anyone, I've heard even lawyers have ideas sometimes.)
Most scientist that I know do not say that their faviorte theories about how the universe work "must be true". They are intelligent people aware of the history of science and they know that many theories have been replaced by others that more closely conform to observed reality. With the current evidence they have formulated theories about the creation of the universe. This is a good and intelligent endevour. There are competing theories about the creation and nature of the universe. This is also a good thing, and a properly scientific thing. There is the MOND theory that explains galactic rotation without dark matter. There are many models for the inflation that probably occurred at the big bang.
To say none of these theories are "discoveries" is correct. They are theories. The discoveries are such things as the cosmic background ratiation that seems to originate from a big bang. It is the job of the scientist to interpret empirical observations into explanations of how the universe works.
I gave up my belief in God when I relized that the only reason I believed in him was that I wanted to believe in him. I will not believe in him again until I have an objective reason to do so. Let's apply Occam's razor the the theory that God created the universe. At first look it is the simplist theory. It can be stated in one sentence, "God created the universe". However, it doesn't end there. We (as scientists) have an obligation to find a theory that explains God. How is it possible that an omnicient, omnipotent being happens to exist? While extremely pleasant to believe in such a being, the likelyhood of such a complex entity "just happening to exist" is extremely unlikely as well.
The spreading of AIDs is dependent on behavior, so the answer to your question varies with the predicted behavior of the population. Plus, as AIDs spreads, it will change the behavior of people who are impacted by it, altering the rates of infection. So, using the current trend to predict the extermination of the entire human race is extremely unrealistic. If AIDs infection reached the unlikely level of, let's say, 20% of the worlds population, most of the rest of the population would be very motivated to avoid activities that would get them infected.
Don't tell Alan Greenspan about the inflationary universe. He'll try to control it with interest rates.
my sister and i used to have a fantasy about going to this event called 'crufts' and doing a streak. but maybe just with bottom halves!
8-)
1) Wear suit to work.
2)???
3) Profit!