OK, I don't want to be critical because I like to see a diverse ecosystem in software with lots of developers all working on different ideas. Some will be a success. But as a developer myself I think if you can't explain the problem this is a solution for, it's going to be hard to persuade people they should use it. Of course coding something just for the pleasure you get from doing so is also a kind-of justification in itself.
Good effort but I really don't see the point. What you have here is a scripting language sitting on top of a 3D engine. It would be more useful to produce a rich interface to a 3D engine that could be used by existing scripting languages, like JS, than to create a whole different one.
IANAP but haven't they just constrained the distribution of probability somehow? I mean how it's distributed in space. Don't we do this every morning when we put our pants on?
No I don't think it's about ethics in journalism. It's partly about that and indeed corruption in journalism is one of the things that's annoyed me most about it, especially game promotions masquerading as reviews but it's not exclusively about that. Christina Sommers articulates it far better than I can. You can wear an "I'm a feminist!" t-shirt and affect a slightly desperate look walking down the street if you want of course.
All of these things require something like dark matter to make any sense at all.
They do within the existing framework of physics. But you're not giving both sides of the story here. There's no evidence of dark matter in our local vicinity yet theory suggests our galaxy must be composed of at least 80% dark matter. The gravitational effects of such a huge amount of invisible mass should be obvious to us. So far no evidence for its existence has been found, despite increasingly accurate measurements (ranging measurements to Cassini and so on).
It's an attitude that seems to indicate that they are trying to protect their private enclave and are worried that it's being dismantled
Don't over think this. It's just a fact that he hasn't got the first clue what it's about. The evidence is in his original comment. You, the mighty Darinbob, seem to be suffering from the same affliction.
So it seems to me you have 3 choices: (1) Shut the fuck up, (2) Go and educate yourself, (3) Carry on with your ignorant wittering. You seem to have chosen option 3.
But the "effects" of which you speak aren't "effects" are such. They're deviations from current theory. That is to say, theory and observation do not match at these very large scales. The orbit of Mercury deviated from the predictions of Newtonian mechanics etc. Was it being perturbed by another body in the inner solar system that we haven't yet managed to see?
I think the main difference is that various hypothesis today are promoted in the popular scientific literature, quite often by the marketing departments of the institutions wanting funding (from the tax payer of course). Although the scientist himself may be quite circumspect about his or her hypothesis, by the time the press release ends up in NS or SA, or indeed the Daily Mail, it becomes a "fact".
IANAP but wouldn't you phrase this somewhat differently? I wouldn't be able to decide between the theory hypothesising the extra matter being wrong and the existence of some invisible and so far undetected source of mass. I understand why physicists don't want to throw General Relativity away of course.
Ignoring the sexist nature of your comment for a moment
You don't believe that "traits" exist? You don't believe that men and women are different on average in many ways? You believe the idea that the Human genome is capable of creating two different sexes with associated physiological differences, but completely incapable or wiring behavioural changes to go along with them? I have to say that seems spectacularly absurd to me.
The one thing that impresses me most about the female sex is their unending ability to think up new ways to undermine each other. So I think you'll find plenty of women busy trolling other women.
If you look at Audible website you'll see there are a few dozen books on astronomy and over 100 on "gender theory". I still think astronomy is much more interesting than gender theory.
I expect it's instrument error. This is becoming a regular thing: (1) Make measurement, (2) form hypothesis, (3) send to marketing department, (4) great new discovery reported in the media, (5) discover error in calculation/instrument calibration/methodology, (6) secure tenure, (7) retract previously hyped assertion, (8) go to (1).
But the statistical comparison is invalid. You're much more likely to die because your plane has exploded than because one of the passengers in your car detonated a bomb. If you're talking about general safety, that's a different thing completely.
I wasn't talking about optimal ways to prevent people dying, I was talking specifically about aircraft security. That is to say how to stop terrorists from blowing up aircraft. There are a million different ways to die and a million different probabilities at any given time that you will do so. You may survive a car crash, but it's very unlikely you'll survive your plane being blown up at 30,000 feet over the Atlantic. If you multiply the risk by the certainty of death, you will see it in an entirely different light.
There must be an optimal level of security for any given threat beyond which additional measures don't lower the probability of it succeeding. You could quantify this for known threats but not for unknown ones (you don't have an appropriate prior). That is why security tends to involve shutting stable doors after horses have bolted. Bomb in luggage? Put luggage in blast-proof containers in the hold and screen it with x-ray equipment. Bomb in your shoe? Take your shoes off, put them onto a tray and pass them through an x-ray camera. Bomb in a cosmetic bottle? Limit the amount of fluids (to a theoretical maximum) and put everything into clear plastic bags so security can see them.
There are probably a hundred people out there right now trying to think up new ways to blow up an aircraft but at least they're being made to think about it. Without security everyone and their mother would be packing C4 into their underpants.
Though I agree, the only problem is that things like this have a habit of being extended and changed under Common Law, over time, into something completely different to the original intention of those drafting the bill.
The UK didn't oppose Hitler when it could make a difference
Do yourself a favour. If you own a gun, go and get it, make sure it's loaded, put the barrel into your mouth pointing vaguely towards the back of your head, and pull the trigger.
The reader of the information is in a position to consider the totality of the circumstances and decide what's relevant and not.
What a load of cock you're writing here. Google doesn't discriminate between what is relevant and what isn't. When someone googles you, they only get notable facts not relevant or irrelevant ones. The irrelevant ones ("loves his mum, is good with children and animals, reads widely") isn't there. "used to binge drink in his 20's at the weekend" can be discovered, but "now in his 30's just has a glass of wine with dinner on Saturdays" isn't.
And how often have you known a newspaper or media company go back and revisit a story it got wrong to re-release it with all of the correct information? ALMOST NEVER unless threatened with a law suit and very few people can afford those. Controls on information are sorely needed if only for the simple reason that people change over time but the information available out there about them may not.
Slashdot Mirror
No. The subtext is he just doesn't like wealthy people. So anything wealthy people do is by definition wrong.
OK, I don't want to be critical because I like to see a diverse ecosystem in software with lots of developers all working on different ideas. Some will be a success. But as a developer myself I think if you can't explain the problem this is a solution for, it's going to be hard to persuade people they should use it. Of course coding something just for the pleasure you get from doing so is also a kind-of justification in itself.
Good effort but I really don't see the point. What you have here is a scripting language sitting on top of a 3D engine. It would be more useful to produce a rich interface to a 3D engine that could be used by existing scripting languages, like JS, than to create a whole different one.
IANAP but haven't they just constrained the distribution of probability somehow? I mean how it's distributed in space. Don't we do this every morning when we put our pants on?
No I don't think it's about ethics in journalism. It's partly about that and indeed corruption in journalism is one of the things that's annoyed me most about it, especially game promotions masquerading as reviews but it's not exclusively about that. Christina Sommers articulates it far better than I can. You can wear an "I'm a feminist!" t-shirt and affect a slightly desperate look walking down the street if you want of course.
They do within the existing framework of physics. But you're not giving both sides of the story here. There's no evidence of dark matter in our local vicinity yet theory suggests our galaxy must be composed of at least 80% dark matter. The gravitational effects of such a huge amount of invisible mass should be obvious to us. So far no evidence for its existence has been found, despite increasingly accurate measurements (ranging measurements to Cassini and so on).
Don't over think this. It's just a fact that he hasn't got the first clue what it's about. The evidence is in his original comment. You, the mighty Darinbob, seem to be suffering from the same affliction.
So it seems to me you have 3 choices: (1) Shut the fuck up, (2) Go and educate yourself, (3) Carry on with your ignorant wittering. You seem to have chosen option 3.
But the "effects" of which you speak aren't "effects" are such. They're deviations from current theory. That is to say, theory and observation do not match at these very large scales. The orbit of Mercury deviated from the predictions of Newtonian mechanics etc. Was it being perturbed by another body in the inner solar system that we haven't yet managed to see?
I think the main difference is that various hypothesis today are promoted in the popular scientific literature, quite often by the marketing departments of the institutions wanting funding (from the tax payer of course). Although the scientist himself may be quite circumspect about his or her hypothesis, by the time the press release ends up in NS or SA, or indeed the Daily Mail, it becomes a "fact".
IANAP but wouldn't you phrase this somewhat differently? I wouldn't be able to decide between the theory hypothesising the extra matter being wrong and the existence of some invisible and so far undetected source of mass. I understand why physicists don't want to throw General Relativity away of course.
I'm talking about a population of individuals on average. It's an overlapping continuum though and you're quite right to point it out.
It's simple advice to prevent you from embarrassing yourself.
You don't believe that "traits" exist? You don't believe that men and women are different on average in many ways? You believe the idea that the Human genome is capable of creating two different sexes with associated physiological differences, but completely incapable or wiring behavioural changes to go along with them? I have to say that seems spectacularly absurd to me.
Of course men and women are different.
The one thing that impresses me most about the female sex is their unending ability to think up new ways to undermine each other. So I think you'll find plenty of women busy trolling other women.
If that's what you think you probably shouldn't discuss it at all because you clearly haven't got the first fucking clue what it's about.
If you look at Audible website you'll see there are a few dozen books on astronomy and over 100 on "gender theory". I still think astronomy is much more interesting than gender theory.
I expect it's instrument error. This is becoming a regular thing: (1) Make measurement, (2) form hypothesis, (3) send to marketing department, (4) great new discovery reported in the media, (5) discover error in calculation/instrument calibration/methodology, (6) secure tenure, (7) retract previously hyped assertion, (8) go to (1).
But the statistical comparison is invalid. You're much more likely to die because your plane has exploded than because one of the passengers in your car detonated a bomb. If you're talking about general safety, that's a different thing completely.
I wasn't talking about optimal ways to prevent people dying, I was talking specifically about aircraft security. That is to say how to stop terrorists from blowing up aircraft. There are a million different ways to die and a million different probabilities at any given time that you will do so. You may survive a car crash, but it's very unlikely you'll survive your plane being blown up at 30,000 feet over the Atlantic. If you multiply the risk by the certainty of death, you will see it in an entirely different light.
There must be an optimal level of security for any given threat beyond which additional measures don't lower the probability of it succeeding. You could quantify this for known threats but not for unknown ones (you don't have an appropriate prior). That is why security tends to involve shutting stable doors after horses have bolted. Bomb in luggage? Put luggage in blast-proof containers in the hold and screen it with x-ray equipment. Bomb in your shoe? Take your shoes off, put them onto a tray and pass them through an x-ray camera. Bomb in a cosmetic bottle? Limit the amount of fluids (to a theoretical maximum) and put everything into clear plastic bags so security can see them.
There are probably a hundred people out there right now trying to think up new ways to blow up an aircraft but at least they're being made to think about it. Without security everyone and their mother would be packing C4 into their underpants.
The US didn't lose a million killed in the First World War.
Though I agree, the only problem is that things like this have a habit of being extended and changed under Common Law, over time, into something completely different to the original intention of those drafting the bill.
This new bill only need extend existing law to internet communication. It's already illegal to threaten or stalk someone.
Do yourself a favour. If you own a gun, go and get it, make sure it's loaded, put the barrel into your mouth pointing vaguely towards the back of your head, and pull the trigger.
What a load of cock you're writing here. Google doesn't discriminate between what is relevant and what isn't. When someone googles you, they only get notable facts not relevant or irrelevant ones. The irrelevant ones ("loves his mum, is good with children and animals, reads widely") isn't there. "used to binge drink in his 20's at the weekend" can be discovered, but "now in his 30's just has a glass of wine with dinner on Saturdays" isn't.
And how often have you known a newspaper or media company go back and revisit a story it got wrong to re-release it with all of the correct information? ALMOST NEVER unless threatened with a law suit and very few people can afford those. Controls on information are sorely needed if only for the simple reason that people change over time but the information available out there about them may not.