Why would they translate spam to themselves?? No, the real answer is much more likely to be....they were cybersexing. (you're still right about Starbucks)
You want to do gravity relavtivistically (i.e. correctly, in agreement with actual, modern-level observations) you'll have to use general relativity. Which just so happens to work just fine. You'll find that there's no "force" (or other absolute vector) in there at all. The whole thing is essentially geometry-free, only the differential of any vector ever plays a role. As it should be, in a properly relativistic physics.
I'm guessing all that went right over the average slashdotter's head.
If your statement is true, then I'm back to square one on understanding this "entanglement" thingie. Actually, I never really quite made it to square one, but still...
Also it was extremely difficult to multitask. If you were running both Word and Excel for example, you had to first minimize the Word window, then locate the icon representing Excel, followed by clicking it. Then if you wanted to switch back, minimize Excel, find the Word icon, and click it. Royal pain in the ass.
...or you could hit Alt-Esc or Alt-Tab. Granted, I didn't know about either of these until after Win95 came out, but they were supported in 3.0-3.11. You and I both should have RTFM sooner.
Windows 3.0 came with Solitaire and Hearts, and everybody yawned.
Windows 3.1 came with Solitaire and Minesweeper, and all of a sudden whenever somebody saw a Windows PC they went, "You have Windows? Ooh, can I play Minesweeper??" I am convinced that silly little game is what really made Windows take off.
Having recently read your piece on exploring the boundary conditions of privacy, I have come to agree with your stance that it is better for internet services to push users to far and then recover, than to just say that matters of privacy should be the user's choice. But my thought is, why limit that to personal privacy? I have some other suggestions for irreversible actions that companies could experiment with without their users' consent or foreknowledge, in order to test them out and discover the value they add:
1. Facebook and other online companies could cut off customers' toes
2. Google employees could sneak into users' beds and have sex with their spouses when the users in question get up to use the bathroom
3. Microsoft could publish customers' credit card and bank account numbers
I think it is vital to see what value these and similar actions could create by conducting an experiment, and if the experiment fails, then at least we will know that these are bad ideas. Furthermore, customers who object to these policies could always opt-out, and protest, and these protests will hopefully lead to changes. On the other hand, who knows, users might end up liking these changes, which we will never know unless we try! Of course, all of these are potentially dangerous to the user, but let's not treat them as a third rail, pillorying any company that makes a mistake with user safety. I hope you will consider including these recommendations in your next article.
Don't worry about refuting a zealot, the two technologies have pretty much nothing in common anyway.
I don't think the difference in technologies is actually relevant to his point. If company X is known to make unreliable products for reasons relating to corporate culture, then "use tech A from company X" and "use tech B from company X" are essentially the same mistake even if tech A and tech B are automobiles and recombinant gene therapies. I think that was more of his point. Having used Visual Studio fairly extensively (in the pre-.Net days) I'm also inclined not to use ASP or.Net based on my experiences even if they bear nothing in common with old VS other than company of origin.
I was just taking issue with the Einstein citation, which bugs me every time I see it because it's so blatantly false and it contributes to spreading ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
Half of it nobody understands anyway.
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." --Richard Feynman
Or maybe you are just too scared of losing that prosperity that you decide not to rock the boat.
It would be way better if you posted a link that didn't say, "You are not authorized to view this page."
Why would they translate spam to themselves?? No, the real answer is much more likely to be....they were cybersexing. (you're still right about Starbucks)
Who modded this "interesting"? It is nonsense.
Probably an average slashdotter.
You want to do gravity relavtivistically (i.e. correctly, in agreement with actual, modern-level observations) you'll have to use general relativity. Which just so happens to work just fine. You'll find that there's no "force" (or other absolute vector) in there at all. The whole thing is essentially geometry-free, only the differential of any vector ever plays a role. As it should be, in a properly relativistic physics.
I'm guessing all that went right over the average slashdotter's head.
(the guy that creates the entanglement and distributes the 2 photons to Alice and Bob)
Man, under Obama's socialism, they're even rationing photons now.
Why is TFA contradicting itself?
Because it's Schrödinger's TFA.
If your statement is true, then I'm back to square one on understanding this "entanglement" thingie. Actually, I never really quite made it to square one, but still...
You're barking up the wrong tree if you're trying to understand....even the master himself said, "nobody understands quantum mechanics."
Unfortunately, my proof is too large to fit in this forum post.
Is it really too large, or are you just afraid that once your theory is observed it will no longer hold?
Also it was extremely difficult to multitask. If you were running both Word and Excel for example, you had to first minimize the Word window, then locate the icon representing Excel, followed by clicking it. Then if you wanted to switch back, minimize Excel, find the Word icon, and click it. Royal pain in the ass.
...or you could hit Alt-Esc or Alt-Tab. Granted, I didn't know about either of these until after Win95 came out, but they were supported in 3.0-3.11. You and I both should have RTFM sooner.
If you visit Bing you can run a Windows 3.0 emulator written in Javascript. Even has sound.
Yay! Between the two of them, my two favorite games!
because it had minesweeper.
There, fixed that for you. (see below)
The day Microsoft release a product that doesn't suck will be the day they release their first vacuum cleaner!
It's rather a pity the geek's jokes aren't stamped with an expiration date like a gallon of milk.
Hey, it's a nostalgic thread, so expired-joke nostalgia is fair game here.
Windows 3.0 came with Solitaire and Hearts, and everybody yawned.
Windows 3.1 came with Solitaire and Minesweeper, and all of a sudden whenever somebody saw a Windows PC they went, "You have Windows? Ooh, can I play Minesweeper??" I am convinced that silly little game is what really made Windows take off.
Having recently read your piece on exploring the boundary conditions of privacy, I have come to agree with your stance that it is better for internet services to push users to far and then recover, than to just say that matters of privacy should be the user's choice. But my thought is, why limit that to personal privacy? I have some other suggestions for irreversible actions that companies could experiment with without their users' consent or foreknowledge, in order to test them out and discover the value they add:
1. Facebook and other online companies could cut off customers' toes
2. Google employees could sneak into users' beds and have sex with their spouses when the users in question get up to use the bathroom
3. Microsoft could publish customers' credit card and bank account numbers
I think it is vital to see what value these and similar actions could create by conducting an experiment, and if the experiment fails, then at least we will know that these are bad ideas. Furthermore, customers who object to these policies could always opt-out, and protest, and these protests will hopefully lead to changes. On the other hand, who knows, users might end up liking these changes, which we will never know unless we try! Of course, all of these are potentially dangerous to the user, but let's not treat them as a third rail, pillorying any company that makes a mistake with user safety. I hope you will consider including these recommendations in your next article.
Best Regards,
fishexe (slashdot user 168879)
Several years ago, someone posted an insight in a Slashdot comment (can't find it now)...
An insight?? Are you sure it was in a Slashdot comment?
...with "private" or even "classified" data being lost every day (at least on average)...
Man, with people dying every day there's not much point in trying to save lives, is there?
It's easy to say that this should always be the user's choice
It should always be the user's choice.
This shoud always be the user's choice.
Don't worry about refuting a zealot, the two technologies have pretty much nothing in common anyway.
I don't think the difference in technologies is actually relevant to his point. If company X is known to make unreliable products for reasons relating to corporate culture, then "use tech A from company X" and "use tech B from company X" are essentially the same mistake even if tech A and tech B are automobiles and recombinant gene therapies. I think that was more of his point. Having used Visual Studio fairly extensively (in the pre-.Net days) I'm also inclined not to use ASP or .Net based on my experiences even if they bear nothing in common with old VS other than company of origin.
I was just taking issue with the Einstein citation, which bugs me every time I see it because it's so blatantly false and it contributes to spreading ignorance.
I tried to C&P the link contents in but /. said "Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters."
Real artists ship.
Just do these basica things and it'll work out.
Fixed that for you.
3. When it was written in a mid-90s WYSIWIG bastard child of a mid-80s interpreted language.
In what universe is a language developed in 1964 and first marketed by Microsoft in 1975 a "mid-80s interpreted language"?
Einstein said something about making the same mistake and expecting different results ...
No he didn't. That was Rita Mae Brown in her book Sudden Death , but that never sounds as dramatic or important as claiming it was Einstein.
But I'm lexdyxic you bartless heastard!
But it's ok, 'cause I'm arguing semantics, not spelling!
They need to invent a disease for that too now, it would make life much easier. "But I have dyssignia!"
And what I was inferring is those attempting to create legislation may well be those attempting to profit on the legislation.
FAIL! You just said "infer" to mean "imply"! I believe there's a Weird Al song about people like you. You get 1,000 semantic-usage demerits.