[...] preventing others from going down the same path with the same methodology is still highly valuable!
Exactly. Thomas Edison "discovered" over 5,000 ways how not to create a light bulb. Had he published each and every one of them, perhaps the light bulb would have been invented sooner -- perhaps by someone else, or perhaps by him, collaborating with someone else who had read his published accounts of "how not to create a light bulb."
The scientific process is bullet proof. The folks who "do science" not necessarily so.
What exactly are you advocating?
That, in battle against an opponent armed with a firearm of some sort, one should adorn one's self with the scientific process, and not the folks who are following it, for greatest effect?
If the Ginko was doing anything, it should have shown a slight improvement over the placebo even at 120mg. If the results come back essentially the same, then it is obviously not the Ginko improving memory.
I don't really understand your reasoning. If a substance is lethal at a certain dose, debilitating at half that dose, and has no side effects at 1/10th the lethal dose, would you say "then it is obviously not this substance that's causing the death at the higher dosage"?
Your other responder mentioned OCR and libraries, but the other issue from the original post was that they would take the entire revision history, which is generally worth considerably more than the head revision (which might not even build at the moment, let alone work correctly!).
Right: a logical place to file suit, sure. But a logical place for the judge in the case to declare jurisdiction over a company somewhere else (like Arizona)? Doesn't seem right.
Those rights were pretty hard to get. The elite at the formation of the United states were so set against given the dirty masses any rights that the only way to get them in was as amendments. Think about that [...]
I have thought about that, and came to the conclusion that you don't know your US history very well.
All rights not given to the federal government in the constitution (and bill of rights, and amendments) are reserved by the states. In other words: our founding documents absolutely do not list the rights that the people have. They list the rights that the government has. The people have all the other rights not listed. So, yes, you have a "right" to free travel, because our founding documents do not state that the government has a "right" to restrict its citizens' travel. We should absolutely not have to show papers to travel, and it's an important point that you brought up because most people here in the US just blindly accept that they need to carry documentation with them.
If you read them clearly, those amendments given the government more power ("rights"), not the people.
Although I've read reports that the terrorist was "sitting dazed in his chair" - he'd probably expected to die right there, and when he didn't he was in shock.
Yeah but the question that's bugging me is, why do these idiots do it in their seats, when they could just as easily breach the outer wall from the toilet!?!??!? (The cynic in me says that the government is behind it, but he says too much anyway...)
To expand on your idea: well before the movie was created, I was convinced that we were living in a simulation. And, one of our goals is to create a perfect simulation of our current reality, so that we can have game machines in which you wouldn't be able to tell whether it was real or artificial. But then, if we could create such a program for our (future) computers, then perhaps everyone will be running one, and that taxes the existing simulation.
And then, let's assume that the existing simulation is just a prototype, running on some grad student's adviser's computer. Once we've achieved sufficient technology to have "a Matrix on every desktop", and the simulation starts to approach 100% of the CPU cycles, the adviser will decide that enough is enough, and pull the plug on his grad student's program (so that the adviser can do useful work with his hardware).
We will then cease to exist.
What I really like about this thought experiment (yeah, like your other responder one could ask, "what the hell were you smoking when you came up with this"), is that we strive for something that will ultimately destroy us. Of course, this theme is rife throughout our art and culture -- it's where Luddites come from, and it's also described in various religions via "hubris", i.e., "his pride was his downfall".
IIRC, an Outer Limits episode from several years back had a similar plot point: we detect something approaching our solar system, then we see that it's coming for Earth, and then at the last moment it slams into the moon. Hysteria erupts, but the space people were just using it to decelerate...
I try not to be pedantic, but slipping and using "wreckless" in the case of earthquake damage is ironic.
I really loved that old game Life when I was kid. You could get married, have babies, get a job -- and there was also a penalty for "wreckless driving". That card always cracked me up.
Slashdot Mirror
(Your parentheses elaborated.) And -- completely agree. :)
Exactly. Thomas Edison "discovered" over 5,000 ways how not to create a light bulb. Had he published each and every one of them, perhaps the light bulb would have been invented sooner -- perhaps by someone else, or perhaps by him, collaborating with someone else who had read his published accounts of "how not to create a light bulb."
That, in battle against an opponent armed with a firearm of some sort, one should adorn one's self with the scientific process, and not the folks who are following it, for greatest effect?
Wait, the chili, or the beer?
Intriguing! How do you figuratively remember? ("She looked good?")
I don't really understand your reasoning. If a substance is lethal at a certain dose, debilitating at half that dose, and has no side effects at 1/10th the lethal dose, would you say "then it is obviously not this substance that's causing the death at the higher dosage"?
Your other responder mentioned OCR and libraries, but the other issue from the original post was that they would take the entire revision history, which is generally worth considerably more than the head revision (which might not even build at the moment, let alone work correctly!).
Well, then I feel GREAT about my most recent phone interview, during which I had a similar echo. I got the job. :)
(Emphasis added.)
Perhaps the SSD is so large because Google expects to make "the cloud" run on the netbooks, as well as being served to them?
Right: a logical place to file suit, sure. But a logical place for the judge in the case to declare jurisdiction over a company somewhere else (like Arizona)? Doesn't seem right.
You had call waiting before you had button dialing? Not how I remember it.
You must be going for Funny, I guess, because that would get you on the sex offenders list -- so would strongly not be recommended.
I have thought about that, and came to the conclusion that you don't know your US history very well.
All rights not given to the federal government in the constitution (and bill of rights, and amendments) are reserved by the states. In other words: our founding documents absolutely do not list the rights that the people have. They list the rights that the government has. The people have all the other rights not listed. So, yes, you have a "right" to free travel, because our founding documents do not state that the government has a "right" to restrict its citizens' travel. We should absolutely not have to show papers to travel, and it's an important point that you brought up because most people here in the US just blindly accept that they need to carry documentation with them.
If you read them clearly, those amendments given the government more power ("rights"), not the people.
Yeah but the question that's bugging me is, why do these idiots do it in their seats, when they could just as easily breach the outer wall from the toilet!?!??!? (The cynic in me says that the government is behind it, but he says too much anyway...)
Didn't Mythbusters prove that even a "hole in the side of a plane" is survivable?
"fiber as programming efficiency?"
+1 Bloodhound Gang reference?
To expand on your idea: well before the movie was created, I was convinced that we were living in a simulation. And, one of our goals is to create a perfect simulation of our current reality, so that we can have game machines in which you wouldn't be able to tell whether it was real or artificial. But then, if we could create such a program for our (future) computers, then perhaps everyone will be running one, and that taxes the existing simulation.
And then, let's assume that the existing simulation is just a prototype, running on some grad student's adviser's computer. Once we've achieved sufficient technology to have "a Matrix on every desktop", and the simulation starts to approach 100% of the CPU cycles, the adviser will decide that enough is enough, and pull the plug on his grad student's program (so that the adviser can do useful work with his hardware).
We will then cease to exist.
What I really like about this thought experiment (yeah, like your other responder one could ask, "what the hell were you smoking when you came up with this"), is that we strive for something that will ultimately destroy us. Of course, this theme is rife throughout our art and culture -- it's where Luddites come from, and it's also described in various religions via "hubris", i.e., "his pride was his downfall".
Ha, reminds me of the "Freudian Slip" that Meg Ryan wore to a costume party in the old movie DOA.
Hint: it may be more fun to use the front (or the back) of her.
<aha>So, you really can prove things with religion! I've been wrong all these years.</aha>
IIRC, an Outer Limits episode from several years back had a similar plot point: we detect something approaching our solar system, then we see that it's coming for Earth, and then at the last moment it slams into the moon. Hysteria erupts, but the space people were just using it to decelerate...
Okay; just don't tell the University of Minnesota mortuary department...
I really loved that old game Life when I was kid. You could get married, have babies, get a job -- and there was also a penalty for "wreckless driving". That card always cracked me up.