That's what I have. (It's supposed to be 24Mb/s, but that's my de facto top speed downstream right now.) Just saying, you don't need fiber to go a lot quicker than 1.4Mb. Otherwise, if the backbone actually makes communication at the speed that you have between your personal gateway and the router station impossible, this is highly relevant information to customers, and if they decide they don't care and want the useless extra bandwidth anyway they are dumb.
I'm not sure you should post seeing "as if" you can't write. Anyway, your examples confirm what I said, it is _a_ missing link, between homo erectus and homo sapiens, and no one seems to be claiming anything else.
It's the OP that is in error, not TFA. There is a big difference between the missing link and a missing link. The former is a 19th century semi-religious concept that has no scientific value. The article however uses the latter phrase, which just means that we had no knowledge of the species that was intermediary between homo erectus and homo sapiens, and now we do, which is scientifically interesting.
"Sometimes futurists get the future right." Yes, and twice a day a broken clock shows the right time. Here are just a few hopefully perspective-inducing observations...
First, a mistake so common among Wired futurists and theorists: they confuse the relatively tiny group of well-off, young nerds who are in with the latest gadgets with humanity. "People" are by no means living in cyberspace. Humanity is in approximately the same place it was 30 years ago, i.e., a majority of people don't own a telephone. No one "predicted" that a tiny group of the wealthiest nerds would live in The Matrix, they "predicted" that humanity would, which means that they are way, WAY off.
Secondly, about the merging of online worlds. I see the point, sadly development is not driven by convenience but by economics (which to an ever increasing degree proves to _not_ converge very often). Differentiation is what drives innovation. Just look at Linux distributions. Why on Earth would MMORPG producers want to create a standard format for avatars, attributes, and inventories? It would be unbelievably cool to bring my BS/Invuln scrapper from CoH to WoW and take on an army, but really. It ain't gonna happen. Game characters are designed into the world as a whole. To create a standard you would have to standardize attributes (super powers, magic, etc), experience points, loot, and therefore also combat, mobs, missions... Not only it is a hell of a lot of work with little or no economic payoff, but it sounds pretty boring too.
Language is defined by how it is used, not by how conservative old farts think it should be.
The need and basic requirements for communication ensures that language conforms to a minimum standard. Aesthetic criteria are added by old farts after the fact.
That said, business jargon is so much noise, but to anyone who has ever heard of Dilbert, this is hardly breaking news...
I've programmed Perl for a living for several years (mostly web applications), but my C skillz are highly limited. Only once have I ever come across a problem where memory needed to be precisely calculated in advance, so perl's autovivifying variables wouldn't do. Apart from that, C hasn't been a very useful tool for me. Obviously I haven't made any graphically intensive games, but I'm pretty good at shuffling text around.;-)
I never managed to own any of the common machines, until I got a PC. I think it has had a serious impact on my personality...
1. Philips G7000 (Magnavox) This was actually a game console, but it had a (horrible) membrane keyboard, and there was a programming cartridge! Some variant of Intel 8048 assembler was my first attempt at programming. It didn't go so well, I was nine. http://www.sothius.com/hypertxt/welcome.html?g7000 .html
2. ZX81 My first "real" computer. 1KB of memory. I had no tape recorder, so if I wanted to run a program, I had to type it in first... Programming Sinclair computers was odd, since you every command was printed on a button, and pressing that one button entered the whole command. http://www.honneamise.u-net.com/zx81/
3. TI 99/4A Okay, if you're American, this is not a very odd home computer. But here in Europe it was rare. Everyone had a Commodore 64 or a Sinclair Spectrum. Except me. I got beat up a lot by the other nerds for that. Well, they can blow themselves, my computer was 16 bit! (It was the first 16b personal computer.) Coming from the ZX81, I was blown away by its awesome color graphics (16 colors!) and huge memory (16KB). With the Extended Basic cartridge, sprites and sound could be programmed using high-level Basic commands, which rocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI-99/4A
4. Commodore plus/4 Again I manage to find the odd duck. The +4 was big brother to the Commodore 16, and descendant of the C64. "Plus/4" referred to four built-in office applications. They of course sucked frozen goats through a straw. What was really cool though was that it had a built-in machine code monitor with a mini-assembler/disassembler. I actually learned some 6510 assembler this time around. And I knew I had entered the Space Age when I saw the +4's 128 colors(!!). It also had a better Basic than the C64, you could program graphics using what we called "Logo" commands, or "turtle graphics," basically vector drawing commands. http://www.myoldcomputers.com/museum/comp/plus4.ht m
5. Ericsson PC My first PC was an Ericsson 286 with a 9-pin printer in matching color. Since then I have owned and built countless PCs.
6. DECpc AXP/150 I still have the Jensen with some old Red Hat version on it. This was the first Alpha PC, and it was 64 bit even back then. Pretty cool stuff. http://john.ccac.rwth-aachen.de:8000/alf/axp150/
7. Tandem Integrity s/2 This is the undisputed king of the computers I have owned. It cost around $250,000 when it was new in '91. Yes, that's two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. It consisted of a system cabinet and a disk cabinet (you could add up to four) with 6 1GB SCSI-2 disks. Every piece of hardware in it was doubled (except the CPU board which was tripled, one running checksums on the other two), including the fans and built-in battery backup. It was completely modular and every module could be changed while the machine was running (including CPU modules). It had a console with "smooth scrolling." It ran Tandem's Nonstop UX. It ran for four years without reboot before I got it from an insurance company. What can I tell you? It's cooler than any computer you've had.;-) http://www.speed-pac.com/i_shook/comp.jpg
Okay, after reading a little further, I suspect the author is not much better than Sarfatti. Even if you don't understand Gödel's incompleteness theorem for first-order logics, it should appear unlikely that a stupid person waving his arms around a lot would be able to bring David Hilbert to his knees...
LOL Why is Jack Sarfatti on the list of scientists? Anyone who has hung at sci.physics or any remotely related Usenet group has come across his ramblings about quantum non-locality and how it grants the human mind magical properties (a belief he admittedly shares with Roger Penrose, but he is at least published and doesn't make nutty crossposts on Usenet).
Its not a paradox, its just demonstrates a breakdown in a common beliefe that god is somehow seperate from everything. The assumption is god creates a rock (maybe for our relative view) but if you beleive god becomes the rock, the answer is clear.
Although I don't see what this clear answer would be, I'd simply ask if God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift, without becoming the rock. Can he?
The only way it's not a paradox is if God is not omnipotent, which of course is the point of the exercise. If we assume that God is omnipotent, it really is a paradox. The statement A, "God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift," is either true or false. If A is true, then God can not lift the rock, which contradicts our assumption of omnipotence, if A is false then God can not create such a rock, which again contradicts our assumption.
Claims that basic rules of logic are not always applicable will be treated accordingly.
Claiming someone is credible or not based on authority or lack thereof isn't valid debate in scientific matters.
Okay, let me put it this way. I could care less what Michael Crichton thinks of second hand smoking and global warming, just as I care what Tom Cruise thinks of modern psychiatry, or about Madonna's metaphysical theories. If you don't think my position is valid, I care about that too.:-)
If the speaker isn't claiming authority, you have to debunk the argument, not the speaker's credentials.
The problem is that there are no arguments. Only assertions of the form, "I can tell you that..." That only works if you are an authority, otherwise it's just noise.
...or you could say that the fact that he resigned is a sign that fascism is not taking hold in America. Funny how there's two opposite interpretations to everything...
Maybe that's a reflection of the fact He's a figment of our imagination...
Haha, nice twist at the end.
The question of whether God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift is a bigger problem for God's omnipotence than the knowledge maximum theorem of QM is for his omniscience (since the first involves a paradox but the latter can be saved by some random ad hoc theory).
All scientific evidence is indirect to some degree. No one has actually seen the earth circle the sun. No one has even seen the moon circle the earth, although it takes a more complicated model of epicycles and epi-epicycles to show how our observations are compatible with a lunarcentric version. (But it can be done.) What convinces us of heliocentrism as well as the Big Bang is the multitude of consistent, indirect evidence for the theory, the simplicity of the theory, and so on. There is no difference in principle between the two.
"At first glance, you would think that Practical Mono is yet another introductory book about C# and Mono..."
No, at first glance I thought it was a book on retro sound systems. There is a programming language called Mono? Wow, it's nice to be out of the loop...
"It's pretty bad. There are lots of errors, the date formats are wrong, there are elements that are not in RSS that aren't in a namespace," said Winer.
The ElectriClerk, a retro build inspired by the computers in Brazil, including old typewriter keyboard and freznel lens, and made for a game Chtulhu Lives! It's a fully functional Macintosh, and does it ever look sweet.
Who are you talking to? Obviously not me since I have never made any of the claims you criticise.
The difference in this thread between me and my opposition is that I make observations of facts about how things work here in this actual society where I live and where there are very strict gun control laws, while the opposition speculates about what such a world "must" look like and why it couldn' work. Hence the endless line of straw men coming my way. It's quite enlightening in itself.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I have. (It's supposed to be 24Mb/s, but that's my de facto top speed downstream right now.) Just saying, you don't need fiber to go a lot quicker than 1.4Mb. Otherwise, if the backbone actually makes communication at the speed that you have between your personal gateway and the router station impossible, this is highly relevant information to customers, and if they decide they don't care and want the useless extra bandwidth anyway they are dumb.
I'm not sure you should post seeing "as if" you can't write. Anyway, your examples confirm what I said, it is _a_ missing link, between homo erectus and homo sapiens, and no one seems to be claiming anything else.
It's the OP that is in error, not TFA. There is a big difference between the missing link and a missing link. The former is a 19th century semi-religious concept that has no scientific value. The article however uses the latter phrase, which just means that we had no knowledge of the species that was intermediary between homo erectus and homo sapiens, and now we do, which is scientifically interesting.
Also, see this:
Human - apes, transitional forms
"Sometimes futurists get the future right." Yes, and twice a day a broken clock shows the right time. Here are just a few hopefully perspective-inducing observations...
First, a mistake so common among Wired futurists and theorists: they confuse the relatively tiny group of well-off, young nerds who are in with the latest gadgets with humanity. "People" are by no means living in cyberspace. Humanity is in approximately the same place it was 30 years ago, i.e., a majority of people don't own a telephone. No one "predicted" that a tiny group of the wealthiest nerds would live in The Matrix, they "predicted" that humanity would, which means that they are way, WAY off.
Secondly, about the merging of online worlds. I see the point, sadly development is not driven by convenience but by economics (which to an ever increasing degree proves to _not_ converge very often). Differentiation is what drives innovation. Just look at Linux distributions. Why on Earth would MMORPG producers want to create a standard format for avatars, attributes, and inventories? It would be unbelievably cool to bring my BS/Invuln scrapper from CoH to WoW and take on an army, but really. It ain't gonna happen. Game characters are designed into the world as a whole. To create a standard you would have to standardize attributes (super powers, magic, etc), experience points, loot, and therefore also combat, mobs, missions... Not only it is a hell of a lot of work with little or no economic payoff, but it sounds pretty boring too.
Choo-choo BLAM!
And if you're not a linguist, I guess you'll just have to accept this as fact. :-)
Language is defined by how it is used, not by how conservative old farts think it should be.
The need and basic requirements for communication ensures that language conforms to a minimum standard. Aesthetic criteria are added by old farts after the fact.
That said, business jargon is so much noise, but to anyone who has ever heard of Dilbert, this is hardly breaking news...
Why is this modded Troll?? I thought it was pretty informative.
I've programmed Perl for a living for several years (mostly web applications), but my C skillz are highly limited. Only once have I ever come across a problem where memory needed to be precisely calculated in advance, so perl's autovivifying variables wouldn't do. Apart from that, C hasn't been a very useful tool for me. Obviously I haven't made any graphically intensive games, but I'm pretty good at shuffling text around. ;-)
I never managed to own any of the common machines, until I got a PC. I think it has had a serious impact on my personality...
0 .html
t m
;-)
1. Philips G7000 (Magnavox)
This was actually a game console, but it had a (horrible) membrane keyboard, and there was a programming cartridge! Some variant of Intel 8048 assembler was my first attempt at programming. It didn't go so well, I was nine.
http://www.sothius.com/hypertxt/welcome.html?g700
2. ZX81
My first "real" computer. 1KB of memory. I had no tape recorder, so if I wanted to run a program, I had to type it in first... Programming Sinclair computers was odd, since you every command was printed on a button, and pressing that one button entered the whole command.
http://www.honneamise.u-net.com/zx81/
3. TI 99/4A
Okay, if you're American, this is not a very odd home computer. But here in Europe it was rare. Everyone had a Commodore 64 or a Sinclair Spectrum. Except me. I got beat up a lot by the other nerds for that. Well, they can blow themselves, my computer was 16 bit! (It was the first 16b personal computer.) Coming from the ZX81, I was blown away by its awesome color graphics (16 colors!) and huge memory (16KB). With the Extended Basic cartridge, sprites and sound could be programmed using high-level Basic commands, which rocked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI-99/4A
4. Commodore plus/4
Again I manage to find the odd duck. The +4 was big brother to the Commodore 16, and descendant of the C64. "Plus/4" referred to four built-in office applications. They of course sucked frozen goats through a straw. What was really cool though was that it had a built-in machine code monitor with a mini-assembler/disassembler. I actually learned some 6510 assembler this time around. And I knew I had entered the Space Age when I saw the +4's 128 colors(!!). It also had a better Basic than the C64, you could program graphics using what we called "Logo" commands, or "turtle graphics," basically vector drawing commands.
http://www.myoldcomputers.com/museum/comp/plus4.h
5. Ericsson PC
My first PC was an Ericsson 286 with a 9-pin printer in matching color. Since then I have owned and built countless PCs.
6. DECpc AXP/150
I still have the Jensen with some old Red Hat version on it. This was the first Alpha PC, and it was 64 bit even back then. Pretty cool stuff.
http://john.ccac.rwth-aachen.de:8000/alf/axp150/
7. Tandem Integrity s/2
This is the undisputed king of the computers I have owned. It cost around $250,000 when it was new in '91. Yes, that's two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. It consisted of a system cabinet and a disk cabinet (you could add up to four) with 6 1GB SCSI-2 disks. Every piece of hardware in it was doubled (except the CPU board which was tripled, one running checksums on the other two), including the fans and built-in battery backup. It was completely modular and every module could be changed while the machine was running (including CPU modules). It had a console with "smooth scrolling." It ran Tandem's Nonstop UX. It ran for four years without reboot before I got it from an insurance company. What can I tell you? It's cooler than any computer you've had.
http://www.speed-pac.com/i_shook/comp.jpg
Okay, after reading a little further, I suspect the author is not much better than Sarfatti. Even if you don't understand Gödel's incompleteness theorem for first-order logics, it should appear unlikely that a stupid person waving his arms around a lot would be able to bring David Hilbert to his knees...
LOL Why is Jack Sarfatti on the list of scientists? Anyone who has hung at sci.physics or any remotely related Usenet group has come across his ramblings about quantum non-locality and how it grants the human mind magical properties (a belief he admittedly shares with Roger Penrose, but he is at least published and doesn't make nutty crossposts on Usenet).
Its not a paradox, its just demonstrates a breakdown in a common beliefe that god is somehow seperate from everything. The assumption is god creates a rock (maybe for our relative view) but if you beleive god becomes the rock, the answer is clear.
Although I don't see what this clear answer would be, I'd simply ask if God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift, without becoming the rock. Can he?
The only way it's not a paradox is if God is not omnipotent, which of course is the point of the exercise. If we assume that God is omnipotent, it really is a paradox. The statement A, "God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift," is either true or false. If A is true, then God can not lift the rock, which contradicts our assumption of omnipotence, if A is false then God can not create such a rock, which again contradicts our assumption.
Claims that basic rules of logic are not always applicable will be treated accordingly.
Claiming someone is credible or not based on authority or lack thereof isn't valid debate in scientific matters.
:-)
Okay, let me put it this way. I could care less what Michael Crichton thinks of second hand smoking and global warming, just as I care what Tom Cruise thinks of modern psychiatry, or about Madonna's metaphysical theories. If you don't think my position is valid, I care about that too.
If the speaker isn't claiming authority, you have to debunk the argument, not the speaker's credentials.
The problem is that there are no arguments. Only assertions of the form, "I can tell you that..." That only works if you are an authority, otherwise it's just noise.
And I can tell you that Michael Chricton is not an authority on any of these things, despite writing excellent science fiction stories.
...or you could say that the fact that he resigned is a sign that fascism is not taking hold in America. Funny how there's two opposite interpretations to everything...
Maybe that's a reflection of the fact He's a figment of our imagination...
Haha, nice twist at the end.
The question of whether God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift is a bigger problem for God's omnipotence than the knowledge maximum theorem of QM is for his omniscience (since the first involves a paradox but the latter can be saved by some random ad hoc theory).
All scientific evidence is indirect to some degree. No one has actually seen the earth circle the sun. No one has even seen the moon circle the earth, although it takes a more complicated model of epicycles and epi-epicycles to show how our observations are compatible with a lunarcentric version. (But it can be done.) What convinces us of heliocentrism as well as the Big Bang is the multitude of consistent, indirect evidence for the theory, the simplicity of the theory, and so on. There is no difference in principle between the two.
"At first glance, you would think that Practical Mono is yet another introductory book about C# and Mono..."
No, at first glance I thought it was a book on retro sound systems. There is a programming language called Mono? Wow, it's nice to be out of the loop...
It's "grammar." ;-)
"It's pretty bad. There are lots of errors, the date formats are wrong, there are elements that are not in RSS that aren't in a namespace," said Winer.
It seems Slashdot is doomed to have a silly relationship to moondust for all time. "Exploding moondust bounces like a toxic canonball."
The ElectriClerk, a retro build inspired by the computers in Brazil, including old typewriter keyboard and freznel lens, and made for a game Chtulhu Lives! It's a fully functional Macintosh, and does it ever look sweet.
Who are you talking to? Obviously not me since I have never made any of the claims you criticise.
The difference in this thread between me and my opposition is that I make observations of facts about how things work here in this actual society where I live and where there are very strict gun control laws, while the opposition speculates about what such a world "must" look like and why it couldn' work. Hence the endless line of straw men coming my way. It's quite enlightening in itself.