Yeah, but the difference is that on Earth, when you say "south", and that's it, nobody questions your reference point. At least Lucas was smart enough ont to include the tangy wooden bits of dialog about what reference point he meant. ("South, with the North/South axis being the line between Tatooine and Naboo on stardate 49152.32 and.03422212 seconds... the North end of the line being Naboo, of course. I have a bad feeling about this.")
No they'd rather record the movie so that they can post it on Kazaa after the show. I'm surprised they even let anyone bring a laptop into the theatre. It seems like just making you turn it off is pretty considerate.
That is also incorrect. The message I got was highlighted in bright blue, unlike any other message I have ever gotten though the Yahoo service. It also had the Y icon by it like other messages from Yahoo. It was pretty evident to me, and I was cleaning out about 500 emails worth of spam at the time.
So I see your point... headlights might be useful for finding keys if you've dropped them. On the other hand, headlights only point in one direction on a car... if you drop your keys behind your car, or somewhere on the side, they do you very little good. If this is the only reason a person might want headlights on without the key in place, it could be better served by a lower power 360-degree light that wouldn't drain your battery so quickly (and even that could turn off on a timer.) Also, if you're in a drunken state, my guess is it's probably better if you can't find your keys. There's your feature.:)
And seeing as how BMW typically markets themselves to the sports car user...
No BMW typically markets themselves to car users who have enough money to buy BMWs. And this useful piece of technology will certainly cost more than your average heater lever and hazard light knob, so BMW will market the iDrive cars to car users who have enough money to buy iDrive cars. And then these users will naturally deselect themselves as they cruise down the road trying to find the submenu for airconditioning. Which will naturally allow the population of car users without enough money for iDrives, but enough money for a standard BMW to grow, due to fewer natural predators. It is really a brilliant marketing strategy on BMW's part.
OK, what is Wawa and why would you go there for milk? We've got these great things called grocery stores here where I live and they have had milk for sale for as long as I have gone there. I often buy milk in large quanties (at a substantial discount!) and bring it home, where I place it in a personal cooling unit known as a refridgerator. The really great thing about this is that I can go get some and not have to wait for my car to boot up.
In my opinion, the worst flaw in automobile user interface design in history is that headlights stay on by default, even with the key removed, unless you explicitly turn them off. Does anyone have a good example why you would want a car's headlights to stay on (permanently until the battery runs out) after you have left the car and taken the keys with you? Please let the discussion begin.
Subarus are the only pre-1992 cars I've seen that do not exhibit this behavior. My next car will most likely be a Subaru, for this (among many other) reasons.:) I still see plenty of 2002 model cars with thier lights on in parking lots, so I know the problem is still not solved.
No doubt this car still does this, and now you have to go though 5 menus or so to turn them off rather than just rotating a dial.:)
Actually, I think Word 97 might have been the one that acted this way. I never really made any use of Word until it hit 2000. Before then, nearly every Microsoft application was single window multiple document. Now they either use multiple window multiple document or "web" style single window.
From time to time i also use Word 2000 and I don't really care for the window behind a window layout of it at all.
Uh, whachoo talkin' 'bout, Willis? My copy of Word 2000 has a separate window for each document. Granted, each Window uses 14MB of RAM, but each document DOES have it's own window.
I think ikekrull was talking about Apple's plans to provide new OSX video acceleration for newer cards. They will *not* be providing drivers for the Rage 128 and older, see the slashdot story of a few days ago. Linux may be fine with the video, and may already have accelerated drivers, but then again Linux is not made by the company that produces the iBook, which happens to be Apple. OSX has never had any acceleration, and even after the X 10.2 comes out, Rage 128 never will (AFAWK).
The source for those OSes still contains plenty of IP that the company is going to want to keep secret. By releasing the source they could provide the information a competitor needs to undercut sales (even if that competitor is Linux.) I think they'd prefer to hold onto the IP and implement it in whatever *nix they feel it is most appropritate.
eh? Name one thing that humans have created that they cannot control... just one
Maybe the explosion of a nuclear bomb? I will give you all the science knowledge currently available, and the knowledge used to create the bomb, and you can see if you can control what it does when it goes off.
It's impossible to just talk about "the existence of God" without explaining the nature of the thing being discussed
Why is that? Science relies heavily on the concept of infinity, and it has no nature to be discussed. There are many mathematical properties that involve it, yet do those express its true nature? Why does discussing God have to involve any particular nature? That seems very narrow minded to me (in the literal sense.)
If G. exists outside the universe, then the universe could act on G., making G. not perfect.
That is an interesting way to think about it (and I agree to some extent with Spinzoa's ideas,) but I'm not sure the above statement makes sense. The universe *could* act on God if God exists outside the universe, but that doesn't mean it does... so it doesn't speak to whether God is perfect or not.
The traditional religious texts have not been rewritten to be more vague. They say the same thing they did 1000 years ago. They've *always* been vague... as metaphorical writing usually is.
Scientists who have a problem with metaphorical thinking have been reading and writing scientific texts for too long. And religious people who think that the first woman was made out of the first man's actual rib should get thier heads out of thier asses. It's one paragraph in a book... and it's going to take us 1000s of years to figure out how it all works. In the meantime, there are things to ponder, and that is (IMHO) at least half of what being religous is all about.
I'm not quite this biased against religious people, but the question does remain, "Why should science be concerned with religion's opinon on anything?".
I don't know that science should be concerned about religion at all. I would prefer it that way.
Infalliable "truth" and the scientific theory are irreconcilable, anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Notice how "god" becomes ever more distant and reserved as science becomes ever more accurate in its measurements?
I'll be out with it... I'm semi-religious, and I have not noticed god becoming distant at all. The base teachings of most religions (even mine) are vague enough that everything I know of that we have discovered as infalliable truth in science does not conflict with those teachings. It may conflict with the teachings of your pastor, your friends at church, or your neighbor, but 50,343,234th person accounts of what religion is about should not mean anything. I'm personally awed that we have come to the point where we can begin to understand these things... it's something of a testament to the greatness and complexity of it all... will we ever figure it all out? If you ask yourself that every once in a while, you might find God staring your right in the face as you look at facts and figures.:)
The problem with reconciling the Big Bang theory to a religious belief (which is something I actually do) is that it is farily obvious that God existed *before* He "let there be light." God was not created by the bang; He was already there before the first day. There's nothing (in the Bible anyway) that says there was not a prexisting work before He decided to chuck it and make a new one... and if there was, why bother telling us? Maybe the point is that we figure that out ourselves?:)
One thing you will learn on any road is that not going at the prevailing speed can also be very dangerous.
The prevailing speed stays too fast if no one slows down. In the case where several drivers run a red light because they were going the prevailing speed, they are *all* at fault. Someone has to take the initiative to do what's right so that others people can too. There are plenty of ways to make slowing down in traffic perfectly safe... the only thing that makes it unsafe is that other people have no problem breaking laws (like minimum following distance, signal times, etc.) The fact that other people are willing to break the law doesn't mean you should go ahead and do it with them.
When a friend is seriously injured by someone who ran a red light by a matter of seconds, you realize that if you continue to have the it's-OK-because-100-other-people-are-doing-it attitude, you're not any more in-the-right than the person who hit your friend.
Imagine if you got fined $270 every time you were one second late for something, anything.
Now put this comment back in context and imagine if you are 3 seconds late for the same thing, you kill someone. What's the legal difference between 1 second and 3 seconds? Nothing. You were told to stop, and you did not.
If you think that being late is OK when a difference of a few seconds can mean the death of innocent people, you should take a remedial traffic law class. One thing you will probably learn is that you don't get tickets for going 5 miles under the speed limit if you have trouble stopping safely at poorly timed yellow lights.
Never mind I did some research and answered my own question. Looks like infrared and "radar" type detectors are pretty common. But I know all the ones I've ever seen are tricked by light falling on them... and some of them are intentionally... like the driveway ones that turn on when you turn the headlights on in your car.
If I were an advertiser, I wouldn't be convinced that no-motion in front of television means anything.
People that are zoned in on the television (and are therefore not moving all that much/often) seem more likely to be imprinted with advertising than are those who are more active while the television is on (indicating that they are probably not paying any attention at all.) I know if I am moving in front of the TV it's usually because I'm not paying any attention at all.
And if the room lights are off, how does the motion sensor not detect the blinking lights of the TV as motion?
Slashdot Mirror
No, sorry, they definitely looked like Jango. And the voices sounded like Jango as well. Maybe the blurry non-digital projection was getting to you. :)
Yeah, but the difference is that on Earth, when you say "south", and that's it, nobody questions your reference point. At least Lucas was smart enough ont to include the tangy wooden bits of dialog about what reference point he meant. ("South, with the North/South axis being the line between Tatooine and Naboo on stardate 49152.32 and .03422212 seconds... the North end of the line being Naboo, of course. I have a bad feeling about this.")
Hey, speak for yourself! I pay $10 to eat popcorn, not watch a movie.
No they'd rather record the movie so that they can post it on Kazaa after the show. I'm surprised they even let anyone bring a laptop into the theatre. It seems like just making you turn it off is pretty considerate.
That is also incorrect. The message I got was highlighted in bright blue, unlike any other message I have ever gotten though the Yahoo service. It also had the Y icon by it like other messages from Yahoo. It was pretty evident to me, and I was cleaning out about 500 emails worth of spam at the time.
So I see your point... headlights might be useful for finding keys if you've dropped them. On the other hand, headlights only point in one direction on a car... if you drop your keys behind your car, or somewhere on the side, they do you very little good. If this is the only reason a person might want headlights on without the key in place, it could be better served by a lower power 360-degree light that wouldn't drain your battery so quickly (and even that could turn off on a timer.) Also, if you're in a drunken state, my guess is it's probably better if you can't find your keys. There's your feature. :)
And seeing as how BMW typically markets themselves to the sports car user...
No BMW typically markets themselves to car users who have enough money to buy BMWs. And this useful piece of technology will certainly cost more than your average heater lever and hazard light knob, so BMW will market the iDrive cars to car users who have enough money to buy iDrive cars. And then these users will naturally deselect themselves as they cruise down the road trying to find the submenu for airconditioning. Which will naturally allow the population of car users without enough money for iDrives, but enough money for a standard BMW to grow, due to fewer natural predators. It is really a brilliant marketing strategy on BMW's part.
OK, what is Wawa and why would you go there for milk? We've got these great things called grocery stores here where I live and they have had milk for sale for as long as I have gone there. I often buy milk in large quanties (at a substantial discount!) and bring it home, where I place it in a personal cooling unit known as a refridgerator. The really great thing about this is that I can go get some and not have to wait for my car to boot up.
In my opinion, the worst flaw in automobile user interface design in history is that headlights stay on by default, even with the key removed, unless you explicitly turn them off. Does anyone have a good example why you would want a car's headlights to stay on (permanently until the battery runs out) after you have left the car and taken the keys with you? Please let the discussion begin.
:) I still see plenty of 2002 model cars with thier lights on in parking lots, so I know the problem is still not solved.
:)
Subarus are the only pre-1992 cars I've seen that do not exhibit this behavior. My next car will most likely be a Subaru, for this (among many other) reasons.
No doubt this car still does this, and now you have to go though 5 menus or so to turn them off rather than just rotating a dial.
Actually, I think Word 97 might have been the one that acted this way. I never really made any use of Word until it hit 2000. Before then, nearly every Microsoft application was single window multiple document. Now they either use multiple window multiple document or "web" style single window.
From time to time i also use Word 2000 and I don't really care for the window behind a window layout of it at all.
Uh, whachoo talkin' 'bout, Willis? My copy of Word 2000 has a separate window for each document. Granted, each Window uses 14MB of RAM, but each document DOES have it's own window.
I think ikekrull was talking about Apple's plans to provide new OSX video acceleration for newer cards. They will *not* be providing drivers for the Rage 128 and older, see the slashdot story of a few days ago. Linux may be fine with the video, and may already have accelerated drivers, but then again Linux is not made by the company that produces the iBook, which happens to be Apple. OSX has never had any acceleration, and even after the X 10.2 comes out, Rage 128 never will (AFAWK).
The source for those OSes still contains plenty of IP that the company is going to want to keep secret. By releasing the source they could provide the information a competitor needs to undercut sales (even if that competitor is Linux.) I think they'd prefer to hold onto the IP and implement it in whatever *nix they feel it is most appropritate.
eh? Name one thing that humans have created that they cannot control... just one
Maybe the explosion of a nuclear bomb? I will give you all the science knowledge currently available, and the knowledge used to create the bomb, and you can see if you can control what it does when it goes off.
It's impossible to just talk about "the existence of God" without explaining the nature of the thing being discussed
Why is that? Science relies heavily on the concept of infinity, and it has no nature to be discussed. There are many mathematical properties that involve it, yet do those express its true nature? Why does discussing God have to involve any particular nature? That seems very narrow minded to me (in the literal sense.)
If G. exists outside the universe, then the universe could act on G., making G. not perfect.
That is an interesting way to think about it (and I agree to some extent with Spinzoa's ideas,) but I'm not sure the above statement makes sense. The universe *could* act on God if God exists outside the universe, but that doesn't mean it does... so it doesn't speak to whether God is perfect or not.
The traditional religious texts have not been rewritten to be more vague. They say the same thing they did 1000 years ago. They've *always* been vague... as metaphorical writing usually is.
Scientists who have a problem with metaphorical thinking have been reading and writing scientific texts for too long. And religious people who think that the first woman was made out of the first man's actual rib should get thier heads out of thier asses. It's one paragraph in a book... and it's going to take us 1000s of years to figure out how it all works. In the meantime, there are things to ponder, and that is (IMHO) at least half of what being religous is all about.
That is one of the most excellent statements I have ever seen on Slashdot. Very nice.
I'm not quite this biased against religious people, but the question does remain, "Why should science be concerned with religion's opinon on anything?".
:)
I don't know that science should be concerned about religion at all. I would prefer it that way.
Infalliable "truth" and the scientific theory are irreconcilable, anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Notice how "god" becomes ever more distant and reserved as science becomes ever more accurate in its measurements?
I'll be out with it... I'm semi-religious, and I have not noticed god becoming distant at all. The base teachings of most religions (even mine) are vague enough that everything I know of that we have discovered as infalliable truth in science does not conflict with those teachings. It may conflict with the teachings of your pastor, your friends at church, or your neighbor, but 50,343,234th person accounts of what religion is about should not mean anything. I'm personally awed that we have come to the point where we can begin to understand these things... it's something of a testament to the greatness and complexity of it all... will we ever figure it all out? If you ask yourself that every once in a while, you might find God staring your right in the face as you look at facts and figures.
The problem with reconciling the Big Bang theory to a religious belief (which is something I actually do) is that it is farily obvious that God existed *before* He "let there be light." God was not created by the bang; He was already there before the first day. There's nothing (in the Bible anyway) that says there was not a prexisting work before He decided to chuck it and make a new one... and if there was, why bother telling us? Maybe the point is that we figure that out ourselves? :)
One thing you will learn on any road is that not going at the prevailing speed can also be very dangerous.
The prevailing speed stays too fast if no one slows down. In the case where several drivers run a red light because they were going the prevailing speed, they are *all* at fault. Someone has to take the initiative to do what's right so that others people can too. There are plenty of ways to make slowing down in traffic perfectly safe... the only thing that makes it unsafe is that other people have no problem breaking laws (like minimum following distance, signal times, etc.) The fact that other people are willing to break the law doesn't mean you should go ahead and do it with them.
When a friend is seriously injured by someone who ran a red light by a matter of seconds, you realize that if you continue to have the it's-OK-because-100-other-people-are-doing-it attitude, you're not any more in-the-right than the person who hit your friend.
Imagine if you got fined $270 every time you were one second late for something, anything.
Now put this comment back in context and imagine if you are 3 seconds late for the same thing, you kill someone. What's the legal difference between 1 second and 3 seconds? Nothing. You were told to stop, and you did not.
If you think that being late is OK when a difference of a few seconds can mean the death of innocent people, you should take a remedial traffic law class. One thing you will probably learn is that you don't get tickets for going 5 miles under the speed limit if you have trouble stopping safely at poorly timed yellow lights.
Never mind I did some research and answered my own question. Looks like infrared and "radar" type detectors are pretty common. But I know all the ones I've ever seen are tricked by light falling on them... and some of them are intentionally... like the driveway ones that turn on when you turn the headlights on in your car.
because a motion detector doesnt use light
Ok... sorry, I must be totally misinformed. What does it use? Gravitons?
If I were an advertiser, I wouldn't be convinced that no-motion in front of television means anything.
People that are zoned in on the television (and are therefore not moving all that much/often) seem more likely to be imprinted with advertising than are those who are more active while the television is on (indicating that they are probably not paying any attention at all.) I know if I am moving in front of the TV it's usually because I'm not paying any attention at all.
And if the room lights are off, how does the motion sensor not detect the blinking lights of the TV as motion?