Yep - I guess Sergey feels that it is hard to feel properly masculine when you are looking at porn on a small screen - those tiny titties just won't do the job.
Much better to use google glass so you can have naked females spread across your entire field of vision, all telling you that you are the man.
But what's his argument for getting women to adopt google glass?
I think the confusion here is the difference between the colloquial use of "depressed" as in "I feel bad" and the clinical use of "depression" meaning "an imbalance of the endocrine system that manifests in pain, discomfort, mental confusion, feelings of severe sadness/lack of self worth, and helplessness."
I agree - I think that this is the confusion some people are having in this thread. I'll go further and say that the survival instinct is pretty much the strongest instinct all humans have, and if you have clinical depression overwhelming the brain such that it is capable of acts of suicide, or even lesser acts of self-harm, then we are no longer talking feelings, and are definitely dealing with mental illness.
You are of course correct - stupid is a much better characterization than insensitive. I was angry at the op, and so chose to tone down my original language to avoid being inflammatory:-)
How about a proven example instead of one that hasn't been proven despite a year of media noise and attempts at legal discovery. It could be true, but I don't know for sure, neither do you and neither do the prancing poodles and other political opportunists scraping the bottom of the barrel without much luck.
Read the fair work australia report on Craig Thomson and HSU. It's here. It contains plenty of findings showing Thomson's actions for what they were. The cops are following through on this, but they are taking their time because the higher ups don't want to destabilize the Oz government further than what it already is. The second the next election is over though, they will hang him.
Dude - read what the GP said again. He wasn't ranting about union members. He was ranting about union administrators. And he has a point.
Take for example Craig Thomson. He was the national secretary of the Health Services Union in Australia, so he was supposed to represent those nurses and ambulance drivers you were talking about. Instead he flew around Australia spending their money on prostitutes and funding his personal political campaign.
Note that he was never a health professional himself, but before getting on the union gravy train he studied to become a lawyer.
This is the type of scum that the GP is talking about - that has infested the top administrative levels of a lot of unions. There are more examples of union corruption than I can be bothered to list here. Anyone who doesn't think that the union movement needs a cleanup is wearing blinkers.
I mean I guess the summary could have been written in a more cunty way, but I don't see how. So high fives all round!
Challenge accepted!
TFS could have made a snide generalization about how dumb typical apple users would have to be to confuse a cider store with a computer store.
Or maybe a bad pun: cider/cyber or apple/app springs to mind...
There is always more cuntiness readily available in the world.
The problem the Norfolk Cider shop will have now is all the people calling them up trying to get pear cider, when they are an apple cider store which no longer has the word apple in their name. Oh the humanity!
Funny you mention this. My Sony smartwatch can't tell time if it loses bluetooth contact to the phone. Incredibly annoying.
Also, the craptacular LCD screen is not readable in normal daylight - making it completely useless for the reason I bought it (pace tracking through my phone's gps when exercising).
I've been boycotting Sony for about a decade, but this bit of tech sucked me in because no one else yet made anything like it. I've learnt my lesson this time though. No more Sony.
Researchers don't generally care about their papers being open access or not.
I'd like to use open access journals, but there are two things stopping me. Other people's money and my money.
1) Other people's money: Most open access journals I've come across in my field charge >$1000 to let you publish in them (as opposed to traditional journals which generally charge nothing). This is pretty much not an option in the current cash-strapped academic environment, funding bodies don't like to see their money spent on things like this, they want to pay for research.
2) My money: Most open access journals are newish, and so have a lower impact factor than traditional journals. The university I do work for remunerates researchers based on a sliding scale based on the impact factor of the journals they publish in, so publishing an article in a lower impact factor journal results in substantially less take-home pay for me.
All things being equal, I would certainly lean towards using open access journals, simply because I prefer my work to get as much exposure as possible, but all things are not equal.
In the late 1990's someone proclaimed that there was nothing more to invent, and he was proven to be very very wrong...
In the late 1890's people were proclaiming that there was hardly any more physics left to study, and universities were starting to actively discourage students from studying physics, as almost everything was solved.
Then Einstein came along with relativity, and quantum physics happened, and physicists are still trying to figure out the impact of all of that.
But one point TFA makes about "it's become much harder for any one scientist to make a mark on the field" is interesting. When you look at papers published about gravity waves, or from the LHC which have >100 contributing authors, it becomes easier to believe that the day of the individual scientist is drawing to an end - and future breakthroughs will be made by large groups of well-funded researchers.
This would be like Microsoft asking OpenOffice not to import Word format.
Actually - it's more like Microsoft asking OpenOffice not to import txt format - Piriform/CCleaner had nothing to do with the design of the winapp2.ini format, they just happen to use it in their application - same as BleachBit does.
Perhaps things would have been much worse without Hitler.
Of course things would have been much worse - if ww2 didn't happen my grandmother would have married the first person she was engaged to rather than my grandfather, and I would never have been born.
Yes, an intelligent person would seek to find reasons why his beliefs diverge from reality. But you are no such person.
As would be expected of someone not so intelligent, you can't tell the difference between bias and reality.
tldr; you're making shit up thinking it makes you match your self perceived notion of being 'intelligent'. It doesn't. Quite the opposite in fact.
Most of your post is made up of personal attacks against me. Why are you so angry dude?
That would explain why the movies not aimed at that demographic fails...
If you are going to accuse someone of being not so intelligent, then you should try to make sure that the grammar in the rest of your post is correct. Otherwise you run the risk of sounding like a sputtering, petulant twelve year old. Hint: the sentence of yours that I quoted above has too many instances of the letter S.
The good news is that when you achieve maturity, your hormonal levels will balance out, and you won't feel this rage quite so strongly.
I generally hate to be a grammar nazi, and would have preferred to criticize the facts and arguments in your post, but unfortunately there weren't any.
I hope this reply was condescending enough, I want you to have a clear understanding of the level of esteem I hold you in.
People are tired of the dross that big entertainment keeps churning out.
That claim keeps being repeated endlessly... but somehow, those the make the claim fail to notice how disconnected it is from reality. People keep flocking in droves to what the soi-disant tastemakers of Slashdot pronounce to be 'dross'.
The intelligent person would notice the disconnect. The dogmatic just screws his blinders on tighter and repeats the claim.
An intelligent person might try to find a reason for the disconnect. In this case, the saving grace for the entertainment industry is that the largest market of concert- and movie-goers is the teenage to early 20s demographic.
Which means they can rehash and resell the same dross: anything sounds good when you are growing up and the last album you owned was from The Wiggles.
The music industry excels at this - targeting the new generation of kids for whom everything is new, whilst also exploiting the teenage needs to be cool/fit in with peers, and the movie industry reboots franchises so often that it becomes ridiculous - look at the incredible hulk movies.
TLDR: It works because there is low hanging fruit born to the market every minute, not because my base claim of dross is incorrect.
I wonder if anyone has designed chocolate through analytics and statistics.
I assume it must have happened some time for some brand. I know for certain that the Heartbrand Magnum ice cream was designed by a team of food scientists.
The goal is money: get more people to buy the game and get more people to buy in-game purchase items.
True. This behaviour isn't just limited to games though, but all commercial "creative" endeavours: music, movies, tv shows, etc. Everyone has seen the hollywood movies that have been run through so many test audiences that it has become just bland pap.
This is the reason that indie music, games and movies can often break through and become a runaway success. People are tired of the dross that big entertainment keeps churning out.
You can patent everything. You dont have to prove it works.
This is true - I once applied for two patents a year and a half before I managed to fabricate a working prototype.
I had run simulations that sort of showed the physics worked, so I wasn't taking too much of a risk, and I had an idea of how I was going to build it, but patent examiners don't actually care about any of that.
Additionally, when doing patent searches, I've also seen examples of patents for micro- and nano-technology which I'm damn sure no one can build with current technology, or even future tech for the next 20 years, but if the ideas are novel, then they will still get the patents awarded to them.
Also it's fucking hot out here. As in - my tyres got sticky in the car park hot out here.
In fact - it is so hot that the Bureau of Meteorology has just added new colours to its weather forecasting chart - because the previous chart colour range capped at 50C and in the coming weeks we are going to need more.
Ugh, quoting a Sci-Fi show in any context for facts and reality - you are excused from the table young man, go to your room and play with your toys.
Science fiction (both literature and tv shows) has a long and noble history of using future scenarios to make in-depth political and social commentary. In fact, I recall one Star Trek OST episode was considered to be too critical of the Vietnam War, and so was censored down to 9 minutes (!) when it was first aired in Australia to make it less subversive.
If you've never seen past the future tech and aliens to understand the underlying themes to be found in good sci-fi, then I pity you.
Should we allow such endeavor to proceed in the first place?
Of course we should. For two reasons.
1. Space exploration won't become more than the sideshow it is now until someone manages to monetize it. If we want real sustainable investment in space and space related technologies, we need someone to be making money off it somehow, otherwise various governments around the world will just continue to drop the ball. It could be from mining, or tourism, or something else, but industry needs to get involved.
2. I own all the real estate on moon (I bought it on eBay), so if anyone went there, they would have to lease the area they are using off my company - it's well past time for that investment to pay off for me.
If you think that enough users do this to make any sort of difference (or even know that it *can* be done), you're even more clueless than the typical user.
The stats in the summary were referring to traffic on the slashdot site.
If you read slashdot, are an android user and *don't* know that this can be done, you should hand in your geek card right now, and find another website to spend your time on.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, let me know if you need a beta tester...
The size of your screen?
Yep - I guess Sergey feels that it is hard to feel properly masculine when you are looking at porn on a small screen - those tiny titties just won't do the job.
Much better to use google glass so you can have naked females spread across your entire field of vision, all telling you that you are the man.
But what's his argument for getting women to adopt google glass?
I think the confusion here is the difference between the colloquial use of "depressed" as in "I feel bad" and the clinical use of "depression" meaning "an imbalance of the endocrine system that manifests in pain, discomfort, mental confusion, feelings of severe sadness/lack of self worth, and helplessness."
I agree - I think that this is the confusion some people are having in this thread. I'll go further and say that the survival instinct is pretty much the strongest instinct all humans have, and if you have clinical depression overwhelming the brain such that it is capable of acts of suicide, or even lesser acts of self-harm, then we are no longer talking feelings, and are definitely dealing with mental illness.
You are of course correct - stupid is a much better characterization than insensitive. I was angry at the op, and so chose to tone down my original language to avoid being inflammatory :-)
Yet at the first sign of adversity he rolls over like a stuck pig.
Suicidal depression is a serious mental disease. You can't just wish it away by smiling and singing a plucky song.
People need to understand that mental diseases are actual diseases, and at least as difficult to cure as any physical disease out there.
The idea that someone suffering severe depression can simply just "stand up for themselves" in adversity is incredibly insensitive.
How about a proven example instead of one that hasn't been proven despite a year of media noise and attempts at legal discovery. It could be true, but I don't know for sure, neither do you and neither do the prancing poodles and other political opportunists scraping the bottom of the barrel without much luck.
Read the fair work australia report on Craig Thomson and HSU. It's here. It contains plenty of findings showing Thomson's actions for what they were. The cops are following through on this, but they are taking their time because the higher ups don't want to destabilize the Oz government further than what it already is. The second the next election is over though, they will hang him.
Dude - read what the GP said again. He wasn't ranting about union members. He was ranting about union administrators. And he has a point.
Take for example Craig Thomson. He was the national secretary of the Health Services Union in Australia, so he was supposed to represent those nurses and ambulance drivers you were talking about. Instead he flew around Australia spending their money on prostitutes and funding his personal political campaign.
Note that he was never a health professional himself, but before getting on the union gravy train he studied to become a lawyer.
This is the type of scum that the GP is talking about - that has infested the top administrative levels of a lot of unions. There are more examples of union corruption than I can be bothered to list here. Anyone who doesn't think that the union movement needs a cleanup is wearing blinkers.
I mean I guess the summary could have been written in a more cunty way, but I don't see how. So high fives all round!
Challenge accepted!
TFS could have made a snide generalization about how dumb typical apple users would have to be to confuse a cider store with a computer store.
Or maybe a bad pun: cider/cyber or apple/app springs to mind...
There is always more cuntiness readily available in the world.
The problem the Norfolk Cider shop will have now is all the people calling them up trying to get pear cider, when they are an apple cider store which no longer has the word apple in their name. Oh the humanity!
Yep. Judge people by their actions not their words.
To quote Stephen Donaldson: "It's easy to say things like that. If you have the voice for it, it's easy to say them with conviction."
Hopefully the ability to accurately tell time.
Funny you mention this. My Sony smartwatch can't tell time if it loses bluetooth contact to the phone. Incredibly annoying.
Also, the craptacular LCD screen is not readable in normal daylight - making it completely useless for the reason I bought it (pace tracking through my phone's gps when exercising).
I've been boycotting Sony for about a decade, but this bit of tech sucked me in because no one else yet made anything like it. I've learnt my lesson this time though. No more Sony.
Researchers don't generally care about their papers being open access or not.
I'd like to use open access journals, but there are two things stopping me. Other people's money and my money.
1) Other people's money: Most open access journals I've come across in my field charge >$1000 to let you publish in them (as opposed to traditional journals which generally charge nothing). This is pretty much not an option in the current cash-strapped academic environment, funding bodies don't like to see their money spent on things like this, they want to pay for research.
2) My money: Most open access journals are newish, and so have a lower impact factor than traditional journals. The university I do work for remunerates researchers based on a sliding scale based on the impact factor of the journals they publish in, so publishing an article in a lower impact factor journal results in substantially less take-home pay for me.
All things being equal, I would certainly lean towards using open access journals, simply because I prefer my work to get as much exposure as possible, but all things are not equal.
In the late 1990's someone proclaimed that there was nothing more to invent, and he was proven to be very very wrong ...
In the late 1890's people were proclaiming that there was hardly any more physics left to study, and universities were starting to actively discourage students from studying physics, as almost everything was solved.
Then Einstein came along with relativity, and quantum physics happened, and physicists are still trying to figure out the impact of all of that.
But one point TFA makes about "it's become much harder for any one scientist to make a mark on the field" is interesting. When you look at papers published about gravity waves, or from the LHC which have >100 contributing authors, it becomes easier to believe that the day of the individual scientist is drawing to an end - and future breakthroughs will be made by large groups of well-funded researchers.
I hope not though.
This would be like Microsoft asking OpenOffice not to import Word format.
Actually - it's more like Microsoft asking OpenOffice not to import txt format - Piriform/CCleaner had nothing to do with the design of the winapp2.ini format, they just happen to use it in their application - same as BleachBit does.
Perhaps things would have been much worse without Hitler.
Of course things would have been much worse - if ww2 didn't happen my grandmother would have married the first person she was engaged to rather than my grandfather, and I would never have been born.
A world without me would suck the big one!
Yes, an intelligent person would seek to find reasons why his beliefs diverge from reality. But you are no such person.
As would be expected of someone not so intelligent, you can't tell the difference between bias and reality.
tldr; you're making shit up thinking it makes you match your self perceived notion of being 'intelligent'. It doesn't. Quite the opposite in fact.
Most of your post is made up of personal attacks against me. Why are you so angry dude?
That would explain why the movies not aimed at that demographic fails...
If you are going to accuse someone of being not so intelligent, then you should try to make sure that the grammar in the rest of your post is correct. Otherwise you run the risk of sounding like a sputtering, petulant twelve year old. Hint: the sentence of yours that I quoted above has too many instances of the letter S.
The good news is that when you achieve maturity, your hormonal levels will balance out, and you won't feel this rage quite so strongly.
I generally hate to be a grammar nazi, and would have preferred to criticize the facts and arguments in your post, but unfortunately there weren't any.
I hope this reply was condescending enough, I want you to have a clear understanding of the level of esteem I hold you in.
People are tired of the dross that big entertainment keeps churning out.
That claim keeps being repeated endlessly... but somehow, those the make the claim fail to notice how disconnected it is from reality. People keep flocking in droves to what the soi-disant tastemakers of Slashdot pronounce to be 'dross'. The intelligent person would notice the disconnect. The dogmatic just screws his blinders on tighter and repeats the claim.
An intelligent person might try to find a reason for the disconnect. In this case, the saving grace for the entertainment industry is that the largest market of concert- and movie-goers is the teenage to early 20s demographic.
Which means they can rehash and resell the same dross: anything sounds good when you are growing up and the last album you owned was from The Wiggles.
The music industry excels at this - targeting the new generation of kids for whom everything is new, whilst also exploiting the teenage needs to be cool/fit in with peers, and the movie industry reboots franchises so often that it becomes ridiculous - look at the incredible hulk movies.
TLDR: It works because there is low hanging fruit born to the market every minute, not because my base claim of dross is incorrect.
I wonder if anyone has designed chocolate through analytics and statistics.
I assume it must have happened some time for some brand. I know for certain that the Heartbrand Magnum ice cream was designed by a team of food scientists.
The goal is money: get more people to buy the game and get more people to buy in-game purchase items.
True. This behaviour isn't just limited to games though, but all commercial "creative" endeavours: music, movies, tv shows, etc. Everyone has seen the hollywood movies that have been run through so many test audiences that it has become just bland pap.
This is the reason that indie music, games and movies can often break through and become a runaway success. People are tired of the dross that big entertainment keeps churning out.
You can patent everything. You dont have to prove it works.
This is true - I once applied for two patents a year and a half before I managed to fabricate a working prototype.
I had run simulations that sort of showed the physics worked, so I wasn't taking too much of a risk, and I had an idea of how I was going to build it, but patent examiners don't actually care about any of that.
Additionally, when doing patent searches, I've also seen examples of patents for micro- and nano-technology which I'm damn sure no one can build with current technology, or even future tech for the next 20 years, but if the ideas are novel, then they will still get the patents awarded to them.
damn, yes.
Seems to be a worst CEO of US-based companies list. Nokia is Finnish. Also, Nokia is Finished :drumroll:.
I would have thought Rupert Murdoch would rate a mention after the recent UK debacle though.
Also it's fucking hot out here. As in - my tyres got sticky in the car park hot out here.
In fact - it is so hot that the Bureau of Meteorology has just added new colours to its weather forecasting chart - because the previous chart colour range capped at 50C and in the coming weeks we are going to need more.
I kid you not.
Ugh, quoting a Sci-Fi show in any context for facts and reality - you are excused from the table young man, go to your room and play with your toys.
Science fiction (both literature and tv shows) has a long and noble history of using future scenarios to make in-depth political and social commentary.
In fact, I recall one Star Trek OST episode was considered to be too critical of the Vietnam War, and so was censored down to 9 minutes (!) when it was first aired in Australia to make it less subversive.
If you've never seen past the future tech and aliens to understand the underlying themes to be found in good sci-fi, then I pity you.
Commercializing the moon is another.
Should we allow such endeavor to proceed in the first place?
Of course we should. For two reasons.
1. Space exploration won't become more than the sideshow it is now until someone manages to monetize it. If we want real sustainable investment in space and space related technologies, we need someone to be making money off it somehow, otherwise various governments around the world will just continue to drop the ball. It could be from mining, or tourism, or something else, but industry needs to get involved.
2. I own all the real estate on moon (I bought it on eBay), so if anyone went there, they would have to lease the area they are using off my company - it's well past time for that investment to pay off for me.
If you think that enough users do this to make any sort of difference (or even know that it *can* be done), you're even more clueless than the typical user.
The stats in the summary were referring to traffic on the slashdot site.
If you read slashdot, are an android user and *don't* know that this can be done, you should hand in your geek card right now, and find another website to spend your time on.