I completely buy into the possibility that games can be designed well enough to abstract their graphics to a point where the same exact graphics package can be used in even several different types of games.
Brillant! You could call it a graphics engine and sell it to people to make their own games with!
I think if you're splitting atoms, that's a wake of nuclear fission, unless you were expecting them to re-fuse afterward, which is comparatively unlikely.
Ah, that makes so much more sense to me, I was wondering what kind of insane bandwidth was allowing him to receive an entire internet in just a couple of days!
We use an agile methodology for our enterprise code (deriving from SCRUM).
The benefit in terms of reliability and maintainability is that typically multiple engineers are forced to work on any given piece of code before it reaches the maintenance stage. This will tend to force anything that is poorly written to get rewritten along the way.
Specifications (really tight specifications) are a must for this methodology to work right. I can start building you the 1.0 version as soon as you hand over a really detailed specification. When the specifier gets v1.0 (the next day or the next week...), they're then typically allowed to say, okay, freeze development while I respecify, because this isn't what I really wanted. The advantage here is that you don't go through a year's development before discovering that the spec was way off. Instead, you wind up revising the implementation until the spec and the implementation are in agreement, and you wind up with a customer happy with the spec.
Another rather important piece of agile/scrum is testing. Everything has to have lots of testing, and test driven development is the preferred model. From the spec comes the test, from the failed test comes the implementation, from the working implementation comes the passing test, from the passing test the spec is satisfied.
It really can work. Where i'm working we're considered about 2 technology years ahead of our competition by our customers. Our customers do something like $100 billion of business on our software per year. Agile can work, and it can work well, and is a great fit for enterprise development.
We recently hired someone who worked at the LHC, and the company email that went out (small company announces all new hires) made that very obvious misspelling. Much hilarity ensued.
It does set the limit on the maximum instantaneous visual field. If some of the cells aren't in sync and aren't firing, then they aren't part of the immediate field of vision, and the resolution of the immediate field is therefore necessarily lower. The number of inputs definitely determines the maximum instantaneous visual resolution.
Over time of course, the brain could do things like averaging, but I don't think it does... I'd think evolutionarily that would be a waste of resources better used to process deltas in the input.
The eye has around a hundred million nerve inputs, so the per frame resolution can't be higher than that. However, the real resolution of that is actually considerably lower (the signals are essentially downsampled on their way into the brain).
A high speed head mounted display (sufficiently close to the eyes) with only 2-3 megapixels would probably be sufficient to completely satisfy your eyes.
Kudzu is real good for feeding to cows. It's just a hassle that it kills everything else, but in your dark future it might actually be quite a godsend.
A lot of people like to think things are related. That's why we have scientists and statistics. In this particular case, scientists sampling water supplies of the middle/upper classes actually discovered for a fact that polio was less prevalent in the cleaner water supplies of the middle/upper class, and that reduced exposure in early infanthood or through the mother's immune system led to more crippling cases (the greater severity of polio infection after infanthood was also well researched and understood).
My point is that the embryo cannot grow and mature without the help of a womb, as the sperm requires the egg. The steak requires the stomach to render it into proteins, to be constituted into sperm, to join the egg to develop in the womb. The distinction at the embryo is just one of crossing some certain line, as arbitrary as the others.
A sperm cell is not a human being because it lacks the potential to grow and mature any further.
To me you lost the argument right there, because that's just blatantly untrue. All it needs is the right environment, no different from the way a fertilized egg requires the right environment, or a steak requires the right environment.
I wonder if unborn children had their own voice in these matters if they would call Christians(or others) who favor their right to life as "oppressive." It seems to me that forcible termination of an unborn child is "oppressive."
I wonder if sperm could vote just what sort of laws we'd be living under today. Or if children could vote. Or if only the steak you ate before you conceived that provided the protein for your sperm had a voice. We recognize many steps along the road to personhood out of necessity, we could not live at all otherwise. A steak is not a person, a sperm is not a person, a fertilized egg is not a person, a blob of cells with no brain is not a person, a born baby is a person, a child is a person, an adult is a person, an elderly adult is a person, a corpse is not a person, fertilized land is not a person, cow feed is not a person, a cow is not a person, a steak is not a person.
I'm glad to hear you don't think the Republican party is the hope of the nation, unfortunately, their otherwise reasonable and responsible social agenda and financial ideas (not that they stick well to those lately) are significantly coopted by the 'religious right'. Personally, I would love to see the two factions in separate parties, their ideas are essentially unrelated.
But I see a far greater threat to my well being from another source-- a source that defines disagreement with its principles as "hate speech."
As far as I've ever heard it described, hate speech is promoting the unwellbeing of some specific group, not disagreement with liberal principles (assuming thats the group you meant). If, after going to such lengths to press the cause of not killing the unborn, you'd like to advocate for the beating and killing of homosexuals, well, personally I favor your right to free speech, but I can also certainly comprehend the desire not to allow people to agitate for violence against specific religious, ethnic, or cultural groups.
No, they are not synonymous, but quite problematically, the Republican party has taken to pandering to the Christian faith. As a non-Christian, I would prefer if your oppressive religion were kept out of the government. If you want to work privately to influence Universities, do so, the opportunities are there. You can easily see just how successful Christian run Universities are. Personally, I'd rather not see our society sink into another dark age, but that's just me, and unfortunately, you represent more people. Equally unfortunately, a billion dumb people can all be equally wrong, and in a democracy they can rule over a small minority of smart people. Which will turn out quite positively for you in the short run, but you may find yourself wishing things had gone another way when more than 3 times as many Muslims decide to vote in favor of ruling you with sharia law.
I think most liberals would just like to let scientists do their jobs, holding to the ethical codes required by their grants and their universities. I think only the Republican side ties this issue to abortion. Since our side doesn't even think that such research rises to the level of abortion, it's a non-issue for us.
And clearly, a large number of scientists believe that embryonic stem cells hold promise that adult stem cells do not, claiming otherwise is just falsifying the evidence to try to support your side of the argument. But you shouldn't do that, argument from false premises is a meaningless waste of time.
Slashdot Mirror
1993 - 4 MB SIMM $160
2003 - 256 MB DIMM $160
Spitzer should go after real criminals, and stop using threats and publicity to extort big settlements.
That doesn't make much sense.
Suppose I then told you that in the alternate history with no price fixing, the 2003 line looked like this:
2003 - 256 MB DIMM $16
Surely you'd then agree that a >$100 profit per dimm from price fixing wasn't exactly a good situation for the consumer?
Price fixing is bad for the consumer, regardless of other improvements in the technology of memory manufacturing.
Here here, and as another point, there is almost no business with a higher cost of entry than CPU development.
I completely buy into the possibility that games can be designed well enough to abstract their graphics to a point where the same exact graphics package can be used in even several different types of games.
Brillant! You could call it a graphics engine and sell it to people to make their own games with!
I think these guys might be on to something:
http://www.valvesoftware.com/sourcelicense/
http://ftp.idsoftware.com/business/technology/
What's the dullest object ever made?
I've been having a hard time this afternoon cutting bread for my lunch with a ball of silly putty.
I think if you're splitting atoms, that's a wake of nuclear fission, unless you were expecting them to re-fuse afterward, which is comparatively unlikely.
1) run all commercials at 8x slowdown to catch the fast forwarders
2) run commercials for 1 second, 30 seconds apart to catch the 30 second skip crowd
Problem solved!
Ah, that makes so much more sense to me, I was wondering what kind of insane bandwidth was allowing him to receive an entire internet in just a couple of days!
No, sorry, the severe impairment just doesn't generalize quite that far.
Dumping is only if you are selling your product under cost. Intel has big fat profit margins on its chips, and can easily reduce to these prices without falling under the cost.- dumping.htm
http://economics.about.com/library/glossary/bldef
We use an agile methodology for our enterprise code (deriving from SCRUM).
The benefit in terms of reliability and maintainability is that typically multiple engineers are forced to work on any given piece of code before it reaches the maintenance stage. This will tend to force anything that is poorly written to get rewritten along the way.
Specifications (really tight specifications) are a must for this methodology to work right. I can start building you the 1.0 version as soon as you hand over a really detailed specification. When the specifier gets v1.0 (the next day or the next week...), they're then typically allowed to say, okay, freeze development while I respecify, because this isn't what I really wanted. The advantage here is that you don't go through a year's development before discovering that the spec was way off. Instead, you wind up revising the implementation until the spec and the implementation are in agreement, and you wind up with a customer happy with the spec.
Another rather important piece of agile/scrum is testing. Everything has to have lots of testing, and test driven development is the preferred model. From the spec comes the test, from the failed test comes the implementation, from the working implementation comes the passing test, from the passing test the spec is satisfied.
It really can work. Where i'm working we're considered about 2 technology years ahead of our competition by our customers. Our customers do something like $100 billion of business on our software per year. Agile can work, and it can work well, and is a great fit for enterprise development.
We recently hired someone who worked at the LHC, and the company email that went out (small company announces all new hires) made that very obvious misspelling. Much hilarity ensued.
In the context of the article, he actually most likely meant that speed increases as the temperature improves (approaches zero).
It's quite straightforward actually, waste leads to starvation and death before reproduction. And the Evolution God hates death before reproduction.
It does set the limit on the maximum instantaneous visual field. If some of the cells aren't in sync and aren't firing, then they aren't part of the immediate field of vision, and the resolution of the immediate field is therefore necessarily lower. The number of inputs definitely determines the maximum instantaneous visual resolution.
... I'd think evolutionarily that would be a waste of resources better used to process deltas in the input.
Over time of course, the brain could do things like averaging, but I don't think it does
The eye has around a hundred million nerve inputs, so the per frame resolution can't be higher than that. However, the real resolution of that is actually considerably lower (the signals are essentially downsampled on their way into the brain).
A high speed head mounted display (sufficiently close to the eyes) with only 2-3 megapixels would probably be sufficient to completely satisfy your eyes.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/eye2.htm
War won't affect the poles as much as it will the rest of the world. There are no strategically signifigant targets nearby to worry about.
Except for the seed vault. Can't have our surviving enemies getting their hands on that. Better nuke it.
Kudzu is real good for feeding to cows. It's just a hassle that it kills everything else, but in your dark future it might actually be quite a godsend.
A lot of people like to think things are related. That's why we have scientists and statistics. In this particular case, scientists sampling water supplies of the middle/upper classes actually discovered for a fact that polio was less prevalent in the cleaner water supplies of the middle/upper class, and that reduced exposure in early infanthood or through the mother's immune system led to more crippling cases (the greater severity of polio infection after infanthood was also well researched and understood).
x mla ses/polio.html
Here are a couple of resources:
http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/mole/n/nycpolio.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/rxforsurvival/series/dise
So now you don't just have to like to think they were related, you can just say the link was scientifically proven.
My point is that the embryo cannot grow and mature without the help of a womb, as the sperm requires the egg. The steak requires the stomach to render it into proteins, to be constituted into sperm, to join the egg to develop in the womb. The distinction at the embryo is just one of crossing some certain line, as arbitrary as the others.
A sperm cell is not a human being because it lacks the potential to grow and mature any further.
To me you lost the argument right there, because that's just blatantly untrue. All it needs is the right environment, no different from the way a fertilized egg requires the right environment, or a steak requires the right environment.
I think the joke is to use 'Lotus Notes' as an example of technology.
I wonder if unborn children had their own voice in these matters if they would call Christians(or others) who favor their right to life as "oppressive." It seems to me that forcible termination of an unborn child is "oppressive."
I wonder if sperm could vote just what sort of laws we'd be living under today. Or if children could vote. Or if only the steak you ate before you conceived that provided the protein for your sperm had a voice. We recognize many steps along the road to personhood out of necessity, we could not live at all otherwise. A steak is not a person, a sperm is not a person, a fertilized egg is not a person, a blob of cells with no brain is not a person, a born baby is a person, a child is a person, an adult is a person, an elderly adult is a person, a corpse is not a person, fertilized land is not a person, cow feed is not a person, a cow is not a person, a steak is not a person.
I'm glad to hear you don't think the Republican party is the hope of the nation, unfortunately, their otherwise reasonable and responsible social agenda and financial ideas (not that they stick well to those lately) are significantly coopted by the 'religious right'. Personally, I would love to see the two factions in separate parties, their ideas are essentially unrelated.
But I see a far greater threat to my well being from another source-- a source that defines disagreement with its principles as "hate speech."
As far as I've ever heard it described, hate speech is promoting the unwellbeing of some specific group, not disagreement with liberal principles (assuming thats the group you meant). If, after going to such lengths to press the cause of not killing the unborn, you'd like to advocate for the beating and killing of homosexuals, well, personally I favor your right to free speech, but I can also certainly comprehend the desire not to allow people to agitate for violence against specific religious, ethnic, or cultural groups.
Sorry, not sure what post you're referring to, but thanks I guess. :-)
No, they are not synonymous, but quite problematically, the Republican party has taken to pandering to the Christian faith. As a non-Christian, I would prefer if your oppressive religion were kept out of the government. If you want to work privately to influence Universities, do so, the opportunities are there. You can easily see just how successful Christian run Universities are. Personally, I'd rather not see our society sink into another dark age, but that's just me, and unfortunately, you represent more people. Equally unfortunately, a billion dumb people can all be equally wrong, and in a democracy they can rule over a small minority of smart people. Which will turn out quite positively for you in the short run, but you may find yourself wishing things had gone another way when more than 3 times as many Muslims decide to vote in favor of ruling you with sharia law.
I think most liberals would just like to let scientists do their jobs, holding to the ethical codes required by their grants and their universities. I think only the Republican side ties this issue to abortion. Since our side doesn't even think that such research rises to the level of abortion, it's a non-issue for us.
And clearly, a large number of scientists believe that embryonic stem cells hold promise that adult stem cells do not, claiming otherwise is just falsifying the evidence to try to support your side of the argument. But you shouldn't do that, argument from false premises is a meaningless waste of time.