This does make me think of Marshall Mcluhan's work actually. The older lowres screens/images achieve better involvement because they reduce the information stream they deliver(cold media). Hires information is less involving(hot media).
Is this a bug or an autoimmunity problem? Since there's some similarity between this event and autoimmunity problems, there's an easy step from here to trying to trigger autoimmune attacks of the antivirus with the appropriate virus tags.
Does an antivirus only use a database of bad things to recognize, or does it also have a database of 'false positives' to ignore?
The article mentions that they named a crater after the first man who did the first more or less successful tests with a flying machine(glider). Someone was a tad sceptical about the story?
Apparently nobody ever thinks of the risks of terrorists infiltrating the voters and distorting the election results. With smart voting software these terrorist votes could be flagged and filtered out at an early stage, before they do any damage. (pauses, savoring the lopsidedness)
yup. and if you realize that the source of the explosion was an interstellar spaceship accellerating to lightspeed, then you know that it's going to start braking near this solar system any minute now.
That would be cute. There is a huge difference between making a document available - only you have to ask for exactly the right document in exactly right place, and whatever other obstruction possible - and providing an additional search engine for it.
With Google it would also be private enterprise doing what should be a government service.
I wouldn't be surprised if in some countries it actually is done by government. Sweden maybe. Any confirmations anyone?
Google doesn't have to limit itself to one country either.
I would boldly state that performance differences of a factor 2 shouldn't matter that much(just for the bleeding edge stuff).
That said, it's not that hard to create code that is 50 times slower on WINE and poses a real problem. But it's just as well possible to adapt the code and work around the problem.
Instead of one big asteroid we now have 20 smaller ones, and they all want to have a word with you.
The key point is control. Intercept the asteroid long enough in advance, then nudge it slowly and gently to a new orbit , keeping it in one piece.
When you start to rough it up, you don't know exactly what will happen. Nuclear weapons certainly aren't useful, they're heat pulse generators.
A big disadvantage about the gravity towing mechanism that doesn't land, is they'll have to bring the mass that they want to throw away. They'll have to throw the little they have much harder than they otherwise would.
The nice thing about installing a mass driver on an asteroid, is that the asteroid can be mined for mass.
Maybe in the end they will have to use the gravity towing design for extremely brittle asteroids.
It's easier to just use many not too large mirrors. The main issue is to coordinate the mirrors. You can aim them all in one spot and then wait till a ship passes that spot and holds still, no wind and all that, but that doesn't look very practical. So I'd put the main challenge as how to make an aiming device for the mirrors so the people who held the mirrors could keep them adjusted. If you think about that, it's simple too to make such a device.
Could Archimedes have done it? Sure. Did he have a feasible plan? Maybe. Did he actually try it ? Who knows. Did he get the chance to try it several times and succeed ? Don't ask me... Maybe he tried and it worked, but the men on the boats kept putting out the flames faster than that and no boat was sunk.
But seriously, if I skip the references to the mechanics of fame, you describe an interesting -and general- effect, but its impact is easily overestimated. In principle a lot can go wrong, and maybe wikipedia can go sour at some stage, but at the moment it works well. Good quality on average.
Apart from the statistics of errors, there is also the weight an error carries. Note that the error your friend inserted was really not blatant. In fact it had no adverse effect. The link is valid.
no, you'll need the anti-antisniper kit from the same company.
It'll sell real well. In the end, you won't want to be lighting a cigarette in the vicinity of the antisniper drone, but snipers at least will be safe.
There's this persistent idea that you can't do science(and even communication in general) unless everything is frozen into precise definitions. Sure you can.
You use the word 'planet' when its meaning is clear in the context of a specific communication. In other instances when the word generates confusion, you avoid the word and use another one. If on occasion more clarification is needed, you add clarification. Usage doesn't even have to be consistent. If you start from the idea that planets are big, what's the problem if scientists declare they found a "tiny planet". Who wants to know if a 50 foot chair is still a chair? It's clear enough.
Sure, you can always claim we're already in the confusion zone and the word does need extra refinement - or since upgrading the formal definition rarely reduces confusion, the word has to be dumped. It happens, but not here, not yet. The big problem is that people don't understand language. (heh heh)
In practice, you're going to end up writing schoolbooks. And in those books there will be the sentence "Our sun has X planets.", and you have to make a decision about X because you can't leave that space empty. Really, this sentence indicates you started off on the wrong foot. Who of us didn't think at some early stage that space around the sun was nice clean and empty, except for some planets and their moons? You get a better representation of the situation if you modify that sentence in such a way that X doesn't matter that much anymore.
Amongst the rubble out there orbiting the sun, there are about ten big balls that stand out enough from their surroundings to call them planets, although some astronomers think that only eight of those objects are worthy of the grandiose title of 'Planet' and the other two are too small and boring.
Slashdot Mirror
This does make me think of Marshall Mcluhan's work actually. The older lowres screens/images achieve better involvement because they reduce the information stream they deliver(cold media). Hires information is less involving(hot media).
Still working it out for myself tho...
Is this a bug or an autoimmunity problem?
Since there's some similarity between this event and autoimmunity problems, there's an easy step from here to trying to trigger autoimmune attacks of the antivirus with the appropriate virus tags.
Does an antivirus only use a database of bad things to recognize, or does it also have a database of 'false positives' to ignore?
The article mentions that they named a crater after the first man who did the first more or less successful tests with a flying machine(glider). Someone was a tad sceptical about the story?
Apparently nobody ever thinks of the risks of terrorists infiltrating the voters and distorting the election results.
With smart voting software these terrorist votes could be flagged and filtered out at an early stage, before they do any damage. (pauses, savoring the lopsidedness)
yup. and if you realize that the source of the explosion was an interstellar spaceship accellerating to lightspeed, then you know that it's going to start braking near this solar system any minute now.
In fact, better check outside the window...
Apparently history is like onions and ogres. It has lay-ers!
That would be cute. There is a huge difference between making
a document available - only you have to ask for exactly the right document in exactly right place, and whatever other obstruction possible -
and providing an additional search engine for it.
With Google it would also be private enterprise doing what should be a government service.
I wouldn't be surprised if in some countries it actually is done by government. Sweden maybe. Any confirmations anyone?
Google doesn't have to limit itself to one country either.
instead of 'more effective, 24-hour propaganda machine' read
'more effective 24-hour propaganda machine'.
Yet another reason for switching from IP4 to IP6 addresses.
I remember sort of a flying pig in Duke Nukem. It shot grenades out of its ass.
It would be appropriate if the new Duke Nukem had flying pigs,
phenixes rising from their ashes, vaporware enemies, and hm, well you get the idea.
I would boldly state that performance differences of a factor 2 shouldn't matter that much(just for the bleeding edge stuff).
That said, it's not that hard to create code that is 50 times slower on WINE and poses a real problem.
But it's just as well possible to adapt the code and work around the problem.
tried to make dark bubbles by mixing chinese ink with soap. It didn't color one bit. The layer was too thin. I skipped the '11 year' part tho.
a Beowulf cluster of misreadings. And all of them leading to a reply.
Instead of one big asteroid we now have 20 smaller ones,
and they all want to have a word with you.
The key point is control. Intercept the asteroid long enough in advance,
then nudge it slowly and gently to a new orbit , keeping it in one piece.
When you start to rough it up, you don't know exactly what will happen.
Nuclear weapons certainly aren't useful, they're heat pulse generators.
A big disadvantage about the gravity towing mechanism that doesn't land,
is they'll have to bring the mass that they want to throw away.
They'll have to throw the little they have much harder than they otherwise would.
The nice thing about installing a mass driver on an asteroid, is that the asteroid can be mined for mass.
Maybe in the end they will have to use the gravity towing design for extremely brittle asteroids.
Anyway, face it Buddy, after 7800 years it's all public domain.
I always thought that the AHA-erlebnis had a missing H. Somewhere.
Cool business idea. Who'll want to buy glass if they can buy our transparent silicon.
Caught on after the first roll.
If the really smart folks find this a tough riddle, I wonder what that makes me. No, don't tell.
But you have to be quick.
The moment you see them, they're gone, so it's hard to get a good look.
It's easier to just use many not too large mirrors.
The main issue is to coordinate the mirrors.
You can aim them all in one spot and then wait till a ship passes that spot and holds still, no wind and all that, but that doesn't look very practical.
So I'd put the main challenge as how to make an aiming device for the mirrors so the people who held the mirrors could keep them adjusted.
If you think about that, it's simple too to make such a device.
Could Archimedes have done it? Sure.
Did he have a feasible plan? Maybe.
Did he actually try it ? Who knows.
Did he get the chance to try it several times and succeed ? Don't ask me...
Maybe he tried and it worked, but the men on the boats kept putting out the flames faster than that and no boat was sunk.
But seriously, if I skip the references to the mechanics of fame, you describe an interesting -and general- effect, but its impact is easily overestimated. In principle a lot can go wrong, and maybe wikipedia can go sour at some stage, but at the moment it works well. Good quality on average.
Apart from the statistics of errors, there is also the weight an error carries. Note that the error your friend inserted was really not blatant. In fact it had no adverse effect. The link is valid.
You just demonstrated that you're famous now.
You're going to blame them now for being unusually farsighted?
no, you'll need the anti-antisniper kit from the same company.
It'll sell real well. In the end, you won't want to be lighting a cigarette in the vicinity of the antisniper drone, but snipers at least will be safe.
There's this persistent idea that you can't do science(and even communication in general) unless everything is frozen into precise definitions. Sure you can.
You use the word 'planet' when its meaning is clear in the context of a specific communication. In other instances when the word generates confusion, you avoid the word and use another one. If on occasion more clarification is needed, you add clarification. Usage doesn't even have to be consistent. If you start from the idea that planets are big, what's the problem if scientists declare they found a "tiny planet". Who wants to know if a 50 foot chair is still a chair? It's clear enough.
Sure, you can always claim we're already in the confusion zone and the word does need extra refinement - or since upgrading the formal definition rarely reduces confusion, the word has to be dumped. It happens, but not here, not yet. The big problem is that people don't understand language. (heh heh)
In practice, you're going to end up writing schoolbooks. And in those books there will be the sentence "Our sun has X planets.", and you have to make a decision about X because you can't leave that space empty. Really, this sentence indicates you started off on the wrong foot. Who of us didn't think at some early stage that space around the sun was nice clean and empty, except for some planets and their moons?
You get a better representation of the situation if you modify that sentence in such a way that X doesn't matter that much anymore.
Amongst the rubble out there orbiting the sun, there are about ten big balls that stand out enough from their surroundings to call them planets, although some astronomers think that only eight of those objects are worthy of the grandiose title of 'Planet' and the other two are too small and boring.
the article doesn't talk about 'posturing' as in showing off,
but about 'postural support' as in crutches.
The world isn't ready yet for geek gorrillas.