Regex? Filters jokes your friends send you.
Filter bad companies? Lose info you might ever want from them.
Filter things that match a spamming template AND are from a company that (intentionally or not) generates a lot of spam? Lose greeting cards your friends send you.
No, my friends, there is one and only one solution.
Own your domain. Make a mail account for each time you give out an email address, and forward that mail account to your secret in-box. You might be tempted to make a "family" account that you give out to family -- resist it! When your "family" account somehow gets spammed, who's responsible? You can't just delete the account!
But if you only give out each account name to ONE person, then the moment spam hits your account, you look at the logs, and see what in-box it came from: bam, you know who gave out that e-mail address. Want to receive something from amazon.com, to see how you order's going, but not any spam? Make an amazon-com account, and filter anything not coming into it that's from amazon.com. This way, you don't need to READ privacy statements. If a company sells your email address, you let them know that you know, and you cancel whatever accounts you had with them.
You don't NEED to do any filtering when each account is associated with one and only one person/company. If you get spam in an account, look back at your description of when you generated it, and unsubscribe through the web site. After that, you can just nix the account and bounce all email, losing NO valuable email -- only ones that a particular company sent you after you asked to be removed from its list.
Need to sign up for something when you're away from your computer, or give out an email address? No problem: you're carrying around a business card-size list of 7 "spares", which you cross out when you've given them out and put a description in the blank line to the right of them. If you're John Doe, and a strange company asks for your email at the mall in order to receive information about a cellular plan they're offering, you just take out your business card, read that the next account is JohnDoe23235228@johndoe.com, and give it to them. Naturally, there is no straight johndoe@johndoe.com account name. And, just as naturally, since these numbers are random, no one can just "guess" an account and start spamming it. Not unless they "guess" several million, and guess how many ISPs let that slip by?
You know your duty: do it duly. You'll never complain of SPAM again, or spend a minute adding another regex filter, praying you won't filter anything important or something for which you asked.
If you want to be really full-on about it, you can even post email addresses in a "dynamic" way -- my slashdot email is "redirector at jdoe dot com", and the redirector replies to all emails with:
IMPORTANT:
Your email, of which a copy is attached, has NOT been delivered. In order to ensure that emails to this account are not unsolicited/spam, you must first reply to this email, in the format:
"Robert Wayne, a friend of your sister Nichole's"
(In other words, characters that specify your name, a comma, characters that specify a description of you.)
You will then immediately be mailed back the actual email account, to which you should address any future email. If you want it to be delivered, you must also resend the email that generated this autoreply, which you will find attached.
To avoid having to go through this process in the future, use the account name you will receive in your reply to this email.
Spamming companies very rarely reply, or even get YOUR replies.
anything that's projected in 3d to begin with, like a hologram, is automatically only in focus for the part of it that your eye's are looking at. (Just like "real" 3D things are). Of course the problem with this is that if you want to show the grand canyon, you need a display the size of the grand canyon:]. On the other hand, HMDs can ALSO show everything level of focus, but I don't see why they would need to adjust at all as you suggest. the real world doesn't "adjust" what light shines through the square inch in front of my eyes when I refocus them, and in the same way, a head-mounted display doesn't need to adjust what it shines through. The problem is that the HMD can't shine things perpendicular to your field of vision -- it has to shine them as they would actually come, so that something in the center-right of your vision would shine from one angle at your right eye and a slightly smaller angle (small means close to your right ear) at your left eye. If you think about it, this allows your eye to focus on something (turn the eyes to meet the angle of something) at various distances. Look at your eyes when your nose is pressed against the mirror, and you'll see them converge. Look at something at ~infinite distance (the sun) and your eyes will diverge so they see paralell. In the same way, something 100% real can be simulated by having light coming from different angles, be that from a hologram which actually "produces" a real-live version of what it holds (and therefore needs a space as large as what it produces) or a HMD that somehow can generate light from different directions. I don't know now of how the HMD would do that. Current technology, it would seem, can only have a HMD do what you suggest - look at the eyes/cornea and calculate what image they should see relative to direction x, and then produce that image from a static direction x, as opposed to producing "all focuses" (foci) by producing light from all directions, slightly different for each eye (with the difference being different for each object, and based on its distance from the eye, and direction.) ~
Drawback of course is that the Grape only computes things similar to the gravitational N-body problem (also useful for pharmaceutical industries).
So? If it's Turing-complete I can read slashdot on it -- or any other app.[1] Just a question of how long...
after all, linux itself was a hack to get unix onto x86...
[1] of course Slashdot will run equally slowly. But imagine your {FPS title} frame rate! ~
The site is down (Warning: Too many connections in db_mysql.inc on line 73, etc.) and it's going to stay down. Mod the above post up, please, so we have something to read. Please keep it at "+3, off-topic but mildly amusing." ~
no equivilant to the verb "to have"
So?
"I have no child."
"There's no child unto me."
You can understand that, although we wouldn't say it that way. So, too, for other meanings of the verb "to have":
"You have my stuff."
"My stuff is with you."
"I have to go."
"I need to go."
"I've never gone."
"I never went."
There is no particularly compelling reason that a language should use "to have". In fact, if English/does/ use the word "to have", then objectively speaking it's probably less sensible to say "That's my book" than "I have that book", since you're stressing the fact that you're the one whose it is (ie "who has it") rather than that that is a book. It doesn't really matter though -- constructs are whatever people make of them over many generations. ~
Please explain to me why "needed" is not in your opinion synonymous with "necessary". If I need something, it is needed by me, and if it is a skill which anyone needs in real life then it is "a needed skill in real life." Is it wrong to say I need a skill? Why don't you object to the idiom "real life" instead, since what is real is not life (there is, after all, no "false life") but rather the "use" (since there is a false use, being that use which is theoretical and contrary to how methodology is applied actually.) ~
a side note, the first modem I had from them started to billow smoke at one point, I called them up and told them it had started to smoke and that they needed to send me a new one. To which the woman replied "Was it just a few puffs of smoke or was it continuous, because sometimes the modems will let off a few puffs of smoke and they are still ok." Sorry, but my equipement smoking shouldn't be 'normal'. From then on I never left there modem on when I left to go to work out of fear of it burning down my house.
I wonder if there's an open-source NOSMOKE.EXE you can compile for it... ~
AP - Internet streaming giant RealNetworks has announced that it is working on a new server technology it calls RealSpecific Streaming, which allows servers running the software to serve advertisements based on the IP (internet address) of the connecting party, its connection speed, the referring web site, and other information the server transparently receives from the streaming users. Streaming content allows end users to receive continuous broadcasts (either audio or audio and video) without having to download a large file.
Philip Rosedale, CTO of RealNetworks, says "We are very excited about this new technology. It makes a lot of sense to serve very different content to someone connecting from a T1 (which indicates they're at work) and to someone on a 56K dialup. People on the AOL subnet can be served very different advertisements from people coming off the slashdot site [a forum for expert professionals in the information technology field]. It is a very sensible way of targeting ads, and is good for both the company, which gets more profit from the higher click-through rates, and for the consumers, who get interesting ads without needing to give up any personal information."
Rosedale also said that the new technology should make consumers less uneasy about receiving custom advertisements than when they are asked to give up private information directly. "Consumers are very wary of sharing private information with companies, and frequently would rather not receive custom content at all than give up private information."
When asked whether this new technology was a strategic defense against upstart Clear Channel Communications, which has recently announced that it will be targeting ads based on demographic information supplied by users, Rosedale replied "Who?"
There is no release date scheduled yet for the RealSpecific Streaming server. More information can be found on RealNetworks's web site, http://www.real.com. ~
...the article doesn't mention, but I bet they can even get a patent on that "replacing terrestrial advertisements with commercials targeted specifically at Internet audiences."
when I was 10 I learnt qbasic, and I remember not needing line numbers, but then also that when I used them having been able to go by fractional numbers. (10 CLS / 20 PRINT "HELLO WORLD" / 20.1 PRINT "HA. 20.1" or something.) ~
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going out to enjoy a bloody, freshly-killed dead cow. I like my meat fresh, so that I can still taste the fear in the quaking muscles. Mmmmm.
haha, nice. Say "atrophy" for "fear" though -- I don't think animals are afraid at all in the animal industry. They don't know that they're going to be killed, and they wouldn't care if they did. I have no problem with killing animals. I just don't like how most of them are raised -- barely able to turn around, etc.
Enjoy your hormones. ~
HaHa, Your IQ, Uh oh Vegan the Genius is here stop animal suffering. So you go out and pick all your food in the forest? No? Then what do you think happens when they make farm land to grow your crap? Animals suffer. What happens when they destroy forest to build highways, animals suffer. What happens when you drive your car and emit toxic fumes into the air, animals suffer. Do you think there where no animals living in the forest that was torn down so some capitalist can grow coffee to sell to wanna be hippies at a coffee shop? You seem to waste alot of time thinking about this for someone who claims to have a big IQ, but regardless i really hope your not one of those _really_ pathetic vegans that spouts on about saving the poor animals while wearing some oh so stylish leather hiking boots while in a cofee shop in downtown San Fransisco.
Vegans are on about the same level as bible thumpers, but hey, if that's what it takes to fill your empty life, go for it.
I can take your argument and adapt it against not producing slave-produced goods 200 years ago: "HaHa, Your IQ, Uh oh Mr. Compassionate the Genius is here to stop slavery by not buying slave-produced goods! So what, will you go live in a country where there are no slaves? Anything you contribute to the economy will be changed (via money) in exchange for slave-produced goods, so you'd better either go live in a country where there are no slaves (and doesn't import from countries with slaves), or make everything you need yourself so you won't contribute to the economy!"
Your argument is as childish to me as if you were to tell me "you can't draw a one-to-one mapping of positive integers to positive rational numbers, because there are more rational numbers, since there are some between every consecutive integer!" (this is false. taking the set of all integers, you CAN draw them one to one to the set of all positive rational numbers). The fact that you can't UNDERSTAND this, even when it's explained to you is just something that aggravates me. The fact is, if there were a group of people that decided not to buy slave-produced goods two hundred years ago, then I would be directly decreasing the amount of slavery in the world by joining it. If there is a group of people who decide not to buy things from the animal industry, then if you believe that the animal industry is cruel, and insitutionally cruel (not just because of a few isolated incidents), then you are decreasing the amount of that cruelty by joining that group of people. It's as simple as that, but you just don't understand it.
As for "filling my life" -- you're the ones who started insulting my choice not to support animal suffering directly, by buying the flesh of its results. I have never mentioned my veganism on slashdot before this came up now, because someone started insulting my intelligence for being vegan, which I mentioned in relation to my coffee-making post (since I don't drink milk). If someone insults my intelligence, it implies that they are able to grasp fundamental facts if given to them, so I thought I would share.
The fact is, there are a billion animals raised in the animal industry every year for food in the US. You cannot compare collateral damage to animals from the things you mention in your post with those kinds of numbers. I don't support this industry, and you do. You think if you didn't you wouldn't be changing anything, and that's a childish rationalization, because if you really cared about how much you changed you would do some research. (After which, incidentally, you would probably agree with me that it's better not to buy meat.)
And no, I don't wear animal products.
~.
ps.
While we're on insulting intelligence, "your" from your post doesn't even/sound/ like "you're" (what you meant). "Your" rimes with "more" (or "for"), "you're" with "moor" (or "tour" [not "tore"])
and yes, rhyme is spelled rime.
Every positive rational number can be expressed as a over b where a and b are both positive integers [this is from the definition of "rational number"]. Therefore, if you make a grid whose columns are a and whose rows are b, and extend it infinitely in both directions, you will have expressed every positive rational number. At the upper-left corner you have:
A
12
3456789
1
B2
3
4
5
6
Now starting in the upper left corner, we can fill this whole grid like so:
A
1234
56789
1abfg
op
B2cehnq
3dimr
4jls
5kt
6u
And you see how there is a single line going a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u? Well, you have to modify it a bit by skipping any numbers you've already mapped to (like two over two after you've already done one over one) but at that point, if you extend the series a,b,c... infinitely in the same pattern then for any place you can point to on the big (infinite) grid of all positive rational numbers, I can give you an exact positive integer that represents that number, and only that number. Since this is true for ANY rational number, it's true for ALL rational numbers. (the converse is true too. you could give me any integer and I could follow the trail starting in the upper left until I came to it, then divide the column by the row and get the corresponding rational number.)
Yeah you could say "but there are more rational numbers than integers! You can't map them 1:1!!" but because we're dealing with infinite values, your argument would be wrong. I can't stand when people say "but 0.9999 repeating isn't exactly 1 because it's always 1/10^some power LESS than 1!" No, not if it repeats infinitely. Again, a proof:
x = 0.9999etc.
10x = 9.9999etc
10x-x = 9.9999etc - 0.999etc.
9x = 9.0 (since even if you subtract one from infinity, there are still infinite nines after the decimal point, so they ALL cancel out).
x = 1.0
But noooo, "0.999etc CAN'T equal one, because then it would be 1.0 and not 0.999etc. We can't have two different decimals represent the same number, that's not how our number system works!!!"
This is what I meet with on a daily basis. Your closedmindedness is of the same caliber. Punk. ~
I know, and Lincoln, too, wanting to emancipate the slaves -- he just needs a good psychotherapist that can help him understand things and put them in perspective. I think he just has issues and can't understand that slaves aren't people like he's a person -- they're african savages. end satire.
animals aren't people, but they can feel pain and are made institutionally to suffer. why support that? ~
I have every right to be arrogant and elitist, because you are not willing to educate yourself, and when I mention some facts to you, you come up with haphazard refutations like "oh but animals suffer anyway". I suppose you wouldn't mind supporting even those kinds of sweat-shops which are illegal now to import from, because, well, people suffer anyway. Man, people are such closed-minded things. ~
I did better. I counted how many spaces I would need after the newline, then put "Are you sure? All information will be erased from drive C! [Y/N]:y" and then enough spaces for a newline again. "working..." The quoted part "Are you sure..." I copied verbatim (as opposed to my guess at it just now) from a format I had just tried.:) Man, good times. ~
I meant lucky in a long-term way, which is tantamount to 'luck' (beating the odds) by a non-mystical method, like card-counting. luck is luck is luck is bad for them. Of course, shoplifting is a lot different from "counting cards", which is something you do in your head, a strategy. You can use any information they give you. If the dealer accidentally shows you his hand, it's not cheating to take it into/consideration./
BTW Annie I'm really sorry you haven't been posting more lately. We miss you, troll or no. ~
I agree with your first point that anyone can write a book about anything. However, unless they publish it themselves, which is not the kind of book you're likely to stumble upon, there is some level of researchedfulness you can expect before a publishing house will publish something. I'm saying that the facts are so blatant, even an idiot can convince you of them with the few references he bothers to put in. I do not think that if you read two web sites on the subject, you will defer to my point of view. But my point stands that any two such books you will most immediately find will draw a convincing argument.
Every single one of your other points (properly restated) may be applied to slavery, if I were advocating two hundred years ago that we not buy goods produced by harsh slave labor down in the south.
Let me draw it quite clearly for you:
"
I know exactly where my slave-produced food comes from and how, and I don't care. I would prefer if some of the sources changed, but the world is rarely as I would prefer it.
HI! I like to eat the fruits of the agricultural industry, and yes, it comes from down south and gets to me through the cruel whipping of slaves. It tastes good. I'm happy with my life, just as I am. Why should I deprive myself of slave goods?
Sure, slaves suffer in the slave industry. And lawyers suffer in the law industry. But by halting your consumption of slave-produced goods, you're no longer slavery's customer, so it DOESN'T CARE what you think, and you really don't do a darn thing to stop the cruelty to slaves--so stop pretending.
If no one bought slave-produced goods, the slave industry would disappear -- and slaves, who aren't exactly man's best friend, would quickly starve to death, being unsupported by their plantations. Do you think a slave could have 8 children and support them, if they weren't sold into slavery themselves? Of course not! And by not having another 5 children, he is causing their DEATHS, just as you cause the DEATH of a child when you choose to use a condom for the purpose of contraception. Having cows or pigs "go down in number" is just as immoral as using a condom -- and you know what? It's wrong to whip your child, but it's not wrong to decide not to have it. It's wrong to abuse slaves, but it it's not wrong not to support their increasing numbers. It's wrong to treat animals cruelly, but it's not wrong not to breed them in the first place.
Life is suffering. Man, either rightly or wrongly, has achieved domination over the earth and all its creatures -- the african not least of all. Given the choice between making africans suffer and making men suffer, man (from his heights) causes africans to suffer. (What suffering? Why denial of man's craving for the fruits of the plantation, of course -- and at a reasonable price. Do you think we could eat most of the foods from the slave industry if we had to buy them at minimum wage for all its workers? And then there is the craving among slave-owners for control and domination, they get a cute pleasure from whipping their slaves. Read "A Narrative Life of Frederick Douglass" [a slave]). It is a fact that someone shall have to suffer. Shall we make it the civilized white person or the african savage, who if returned to the wild would have a much more miserable time anyway, starving in the cold, than he does as now, given all of civilized society's amenities, albeit with the occasional whipping.
You do have a point that suffering among slaves is wrong -- but as I said before, you dont' do a SINGLE DARN THING to stop it. Everyone will not decide to boycott the slave industry. The industry will not listen to you if you are not a customer."
Okay, enough of that. For your last point though, I reiterate: I do do something to stop the suffering of animals. I don't promote it. Each dollar I don't spend, as well as each dollar of the >3,000,000 other vegetarians in America, harms the industry's bottom line. There is a critical mass of vegetarians, and the meat industry has had to spread all kinds of misimplication to get the public to believe that its animals are not treated unfairly, lest more of them become vegetarian. But the fact is, people are becoming vegetarian every day. I don't know whether you live in the city, but here in Boston most restaurants have specifically labeled vegetarian offerings. What do you think that means? That means that enough people don't buy meat that the restaurant buys fewer pounds of meat and more of other raw materials. This translates 100% directly into fewer pounds of tortured flesh being produced in the industry. Sure, it may not stop by what we're doing, but would you say "It's okay to kill Timothy McVeigh because there are people dying everyday, and we have a reason?" No: you would have to draw the connection between the reason (he did something we don't like, killed people, etc) and the action (we kill him), not between the action (we kill him) and similar things that already happen whether we like it or not (other people dying every day). In the same way, when you decide to buy of tortured carcass, you are increasing the amount to be produced -- all purchasing is scaled so that there is no waste, and the reason there is less meat in the grocery store than there was 25 years ago is because fewer people buy it. Think about this. It doesn't matter how much meat is produced otherwise, just as it doesn't matter how many people are killed otherwise. That doesn't make your specific support of the industry any better. Therefore, you must focus again on the true point of the debate, of which there is one and only one: do you believe animals suffer in the industry. The answer, clear with the most cursory of research, is a resounding yes. ~
I realize you're a troll, but I figure some people might learn a thing or two, so I'll address:
Vegans are super cheesy. Same with vegetarians. It's all a load of crap. Bunch of fuckin losers. Being vegeterian or vegan is just their excuse for being a skinny out of shape fucker. Did you ever meet any elderly vegans in their 80 or 90s? Ummm no, why, becuase eating nothing but leaves and grass is not healthy.
Well first of all I'm under 25, and second of all I'm quite buff (I lift), and I have a high-protein diet. (~120 grams a day. that's two large slices of steak.) There are elderly vegetarians, in fact vegetarians tend to live quite long, but considerably more so today, taking proper vitamins (b12 gets you, and some other ones do too, that are in very few plants. but I take vitamins so that's taken care of). "eating nothing but leaves and grass is not healthy" -- I respond " the human mouth does not show carnivorous eating patterns. It is more akin to the cow with flat teeth that are not for the purpose of tearing flesh but rather for the mastication of dense materials like grains and fibers. Our intestinal tracts are also 36 feet in length which is the intestinal tract of a herbivore and/or vegetarian by nature. Animals who are carnivorous have intestinal tracts of less than seven feet to facilitate the quick absorption of flesh before it rots in their systems."
So if we're unhealthy being vegetarian, then so are cows.
I forgot where I got the preceding quoted thing (I had just saved it in a text file for a use such as this one), but I read it in various incarnations in many different places.
The FDA backs vegetarianism as healthy absolutely, provided some important vitamins and minerals are supplemented that it would take more careful vegetarian selection to acquire. (I take iron in my vitamin pill every day, which is a lot simpler than making sure to eat some spinach every week, for instance, which is one of the few rich-in-iron sources.) And now:
My reasons for being vegan.
There is no food I eat for which you can spoil my
appetite by telling me where it came from.
In other words, I don't have to LIE TO MYSELF in
order to justify my dietary habit.
I can fulfil my dietary philosophy (high protein)
just as well if not better with my selection of
plant-based foods, (hint: lots of soy.) but have
a much lower level of cholesterol. I lift.
I believe animals suffer in the animal industry,/as a rule/, and have met no one who has researched
the industry and now says otherwise. Picture a
small farm. It has nothing to do with your meat.
Your meat (unless you're paying 5 times as much
as everyone else) comes from sheds filled with
animals, that you can drive by and not notice
them to be so filled. The animals suffer. Having
done any research into the matter, you cannot declare
otherwise. (Or if you can, you'll be the first I'll
have come across, though I actively looked for pro-meat
arguments for more than 2 months.).
I believe that if all vegetarians became non-vegetarians,
more animals would suffer. Therefore I am part of a group
that actively stops animal suffering. The reason I am
vegan is the same reason I do not shop-lift small candies.
Although the effects of my choice are negligible,
I am choosing to act categorically in the way that all
people should act, and am part of sizable group of people
so acting.
It is wrong to make an animal to suffer, although he is
not human, just as it is wrong to make a jew to suffer,
though he is not aryan. Yes, but jewish people are human.
Yes, but animals are feeling-beings. What matters, the
fact that you are intellectual, or the fact that you
can suffer? How much more would you suffer/because
you can make more rational deductions/ than an animal
suffers in its stall although it cannot so deduce? Pain is pain is pain is dogfood.
Oh, and PS. I'm posting at +2 cuz' I'm at 50 karma. Off-topic? Hell yes. Don't even ask about my IQ. And you are...let me get this straight...an a/c who needs to use words like "cheesy". You could not read two books upon the subject without deferring to my point of view. Although I doubt you read. Man, I've already won. ~
Slashdot Mirror
I can see the ThinkGeek adverts now: "(Not for swedes or other demi-programmers.)"
(Linus only speaks Swedish, people. Here's where it's at.)
~
Filter bad companies? Lose info you might ever want from them.
Filter things that match a spamming template AND are from a company that (intentionally or not) generates a lot of spam? Lose greeting cards your friends send you.
No, my friends, there is one and only one solution.
Own your domain. Make a mail account for each time you give out an email address, and forward that mail account to your secret in-box. You might be tempted to make a "family" account that you give out to family -- resist it! When your "family" account somehow gets spammed, who's responsible? You can't just delete the account! But if you only give out each account name to ONE person, then the moment spam hits your account, you look at the logs, and see what in-box it came from: bam, you know who gave out that e-mail address. Want to receive something from amazon.com, to see how you order's going, but not any spam? Make an amazon-com account, and filter anything not coming into it that's from amazon.com. This way, you don't need to READ privacy statements. If a company sells your email address, you let them know that you know, and you cancel whatever accounts you had with them.
You don't NEED to do any filtering when each account is associated with one and only one person/company. If you get spam in an account, look back at your description of when you generated it, and unsubscribe through the web site. After that, you can just nix the account and bounce all email, losing NO valuable email -- only ones that a particular company sent you after you asked to be removed from its list.
Need to sign up for something when you're away from your computer, or give out an email address? No problem: you're carrying around a business card-size list of 7 "spares", which you cross out when you've given them out and put a description in the blank line to the right of them. If you're John Doe, and a strange company asks for your email at the mall in order to receive information about a cellular plan they're offering, you just take out your business card, read that the next account is JohnDoe23235228@johndoe.com, and give it to them. Naturally, there is no straight johndoe@johndoe.com account name. And, just as naturally, since these numbers are random, no one can just "guess" an account and start spamming it. Not unless they "guess" several million, and guess how many ISPs let that slip by?
You know your duty: do it duly. You'll never complain of SPAM again, or spend a minute adding another regex filter, praying you won't filter anything important or something for which you asked.
If you want to be really full-on about it, you can even post email addresses in a "dynamic" way -- my slashdot email is "redirector at jdoe dot com", and the redirector replies to all emails with:
Spamming companies very rarely reply, or even get YOUR replies.
Make sense? Good. Get to it.
anything that's projected in 3d to begin with, like a hologram, is automatically only in focus for the part of it that your eye's are looking at. (Just like "real" 3D things are). Of course the problem with this is that if you want to show the grand canyon, you need a display the size of the grand canyon :]. On the other hand, HMDs can ALSO show everything level of focus, but I don't see why they would need to adjust at all as you suggest. the real world doesn't "adjust" what light shines through the square inch in front of my eyes when I refocus them, and in the same way, a head-mounted display doesn't need to adjust what it shines through. The problem is that the HMD can't shine things perpendicular to your field of vision -- it has to shine them as they would actually come, so that something in the center-right of your vision would shine from one angle at your right eye and a slightly smaller angle (small means close to your right ear) at your left eye. If you think about it, this allows your eye to focus on something (turn the eyes to meet the angle of something) at various distances. Look at your eyes when your nose is pressed against the mirror, and you'll see them converge. Look at something at ~infinite distance (the sun) and your eyes will diverge so they see paralell. In the same way, something 100% real can be simulated by having light coming from different angles, be that from a hologram which actually "produces" a real-live version of what it holds (and therefore needs a space as large as what it produces) or a HMD that somehow can generate light from different directions. I don't know now of how the HMD would do that. Current technology, it would seem, can only have a HMD do what you suggest - look at the eyes/cornea and calculate what image they should see relative to direction x, and then produce that image from a static direction x, as opposed to producing "all focuses" (foci) by producing light from all directions, slightly different for each eye (with the difference being different for each object, and based on its distance from the eye, and direction.)
~
Drawback of course is that the Grape only computes things similar to the gravitational N-body problem (also useful for pharmaceutical industries).
So? If it's Turing-complete I can read slashdot on it -- or any other app.[1] Just a question of how long...
after all, linux itself was a hack to get unix onto x86...
[1] of course Slashdot will run equally slowly. But imagine your {FPS title} frame rate!
~
you moron it's a joke. Yeesh, even the a/c sees that.
~
"Windhall! On this site we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
~
The site is down (Warning: Too many connections in db_mysql.inc on line 73, etc.) and it's going to stay down. Mod the above post up, please, so we have something to read. Please keep it at "+3, off-topic but mildly amusing."
~
no equivilant to the verb "to have"
/does/ use the word "to have", then objectively speaking it's probably less sensible to say "That's my book" than "I have that book", since you're stressing the fact that you're the one whose it is (ie "who has it") rather than that that is a book. It doesn't really matter though -- constructs are whatever people make of them over many generations.
So?
"I have no child."
"There's no child unto me."
You can understand that, although we wouldn't say it that way. So, too, for other meanings of the verb "to have":
"You have my stuff."
"My stuff is with you."
"I have to go."
"I need to go."
"I've never gone."
"I never went."
There is no particularly compelling reason that a language should use "to have". In fact, if English
~
Please explain to me why "needed" is not in your opinion synonymous with "necessary". If I need something, it is needed by me, and if it is a skill which anyone needs in real life then it is "a needed skill in real life." Is it wrong to say I need a skill? Why don't you object to the idiom "real life" instead, since what is real is not life (there is, after all, no "false life") but rather the "use" (since there is a false use, being that use which is theoretical and contrary to how methodology is applied actually.)
~
~
Guys, it is a joke. Who mod'd the AC down? More important yet, why is my post still at "informative"?
~
AP - Internet streaming giant RealNetworks has announced that it is working on a new server technology it calls RealSpecific Streaming, which allows servers running the software to serve advertisements based on the IP (internet address) of the connecting party, its connection speed, the referring web site, and other information the server transparently receives from the streaming users. Streaming content allows end users to receive continuous broadcasts (either audio or audio and video) without having to download a large file.
Philip Rosedale, CTO of RealNetworks, says "We are very excited about this new technology. It makes a lot of sense to serve very different content to someone connecting from a T1 (which indicates they're at work) and to someone on a 56K dialup. People on the AOL subnet can be served very different advertisements from people coming off the slashdot site [a forum for expert professionals in the information technology field]. It is a very sensible way of targeting ads, and is good for both the company, which gets more profit from the higher click-through rates, and for the consumers, who get interesting ads without needing to give up any personal information."
Rosedale also said that the new technology should make consumers less uneasy about receiving custom advertisements than when they are asked to give up private information directly. "Consumers are very wary of sharing private information with companies, and frequently would rather not receive custom content at all than give up private information."
When asked whether this new technology was a strategic defense against upstart Clear Channel Communications, which has recently announced that it will be targeting ads based on demographic information supplied by users, Rosedale replied "Who?"
There is no release date scheduled yet for the RealSpecific Streaming server. More information can be found on RealNetworks's web site, http://www.real.com.
~
...the article doesn't mention, but I bet they can even get a patent on that "replacing terrestrial advertisements with commercials targeted specifically at Internet audiences."
Unless, of course, Amazon has that one too...
~
damnit, I said gigabauds. stupid submission form.
~
This is news? My roughest calculations show that copper line should be able to support one-point-twenty-one megabauds!
Oh wait, you mean the copper in my telephone line? Yes, well that's a little different story, isn't it? Now who's stupid?
joke man, joke.
~
when I was 10 I learnt qbasic, and I remember not needing line numbers, but then also that when I used them having been able to go by fractional numbers. (10 CLS / 20 PRINT "HELLO WORLD" / 20.1 PRINT "HA. 20.1" or something.)
~
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going out to enjoy a bloody, freshly-killed dead cow. I like my meat fresh, so that I can still taste the fear in the quaking muscles. Mmmmm.
haha, nice. Say "atrophy" for "fear" though -- I don't think animals are afraid at all in the animal industry. They don't know that they're going to be killed, and they wouldn't care if they did. I have no problem with killing animals. I just don't like how most of them are raised -- barely able to turn around, etc.
Enjoy your hormones.
~
Your argument is as childish to me as if you were to tell me "you can't draw a one-to-one mapping of positive integers to positive rational numbers, because there are more rational numbers, since there are some between every consecutive integer!" (this is false. taking the set of all integers, you CAN draw them one to one to the set of all positive rational numbers). The fact that you can't UNDERSTAND this, even when it's explained to you is just something that aggravates me. The fact is, if there were a group of people that decided not to buy slave-produced goods two hundred years ago, then I would be directly decreasing the amount of slavery in the world by joining it. If there is a group of people who decide not to buy things from the animal industry, then if you believe that the animal industry is cruel, and insitutionally cruel (not just because of a few isolated incidents), then you are decreasing the amount of that cruelty by joining that group of people. It's as simple as that, but you just don't understand it.
As for "filling my life" -- you're the ones who started insulting my choice not to support animal suffering directly, by buying the flesh of its results. I have never mentioned my veganism on slashdot before this came up now, because someone started insulting my intelligence for being vegan, which I mentioned in relation to my coffee-making post (since I don't drink milk). If someone insults my intelligence, it implies that they are able to grasp fundamental facts if given to them, so I thought I would share. The fact is, there are a billion animals raised in the animal industry every year for food in the US. You cannot compare collateral damage to animals from the things you mention in your post with those kinds of numbers. I don't support this industry, and you do. You think if you didn't you wouldn't be changing anything, and that's a childish rationalization, because if you really cared about how much you changed you would do some research. (After which, incidentally, you would probably agree with me that it's better not to buy meat.)
And no, I don't wear animal products.
~. ps. While we're on insulting intelligence, "your" from your post doesn't even
and yes, rhyme is spelled rime.
Every positive rational number can be expressed as a over b where a and b are both positive integers [this is from the definition of "rational number"]. Therefore, if you make a grid whose columns are a and whose rows are b, and extend it infinitely in both directions, you will have expressed every positive rational number. At the upper-left corner you have:
A
12 3456789
1
B2
3
4
5
6
Now starting in the upper left corner, we can fill this whole grid like so:
A
1234 56789
1abfg op
B2cehnq
3dimr
4jls
5kt
6u
And you see how there is a single line going a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u? Well, you have to modify it a bit by skipping any numbers you've already mapped to (like two over two after you've already done one over one) but at that point, if you extend the series a,b,c... infinitely in the same pattern then for any place you can point to on the big (infinite) grid of all positive rational numbers, I can give you an exact positive integer that represents that number, and only that number. Since this is true for ANY rational number, it's true for ALL rational numbers. (the converse is true too. you could give me any integer and I could follow the trail starting in the upper left until I came to it, then divide the column by the row and get the corresponding rational number.)
Yeah you could say "but there are more rational numbers than integers! You can't map them 1:1!!" but because we're dealing with infinite values, your argument would be wrong. I can't stand when people say "but 0.9999 repeating isn't exactly 1 because it's always 1/10^some power LESS than 1!" No, not if it repeats infinitely. Again, a proof:
x = 0.9999etc.
10x = 9.9999etc
10x-x = 9.9999etc - 0.999etc.
9x = 9.0 (since even if you subtract one from infinity, there are still infinite nines after the decimal point, so they ALL cancel out).
x = 1.0
But noooo, "0.999etc CAN'T equal one, because then it would be 1.0 and not 0.999etc. We can't have two different decimals represent the same number, that's not how our number system works!!!"
This is what I meet with on a daily basis. Your closedmindedness is of the same caliber. Punk.
~
I know, and Lincoln, too, wanting to emancipate the slaves -- he just needs a good psychotherapist that can help him understand things and put them in perspective. I think he just has issues and can't understand that slaves aren't people like he's a person -- they're african savages. end satire.
animals aren't people, but they can feel pain and are made institutionally to suffer. why support that?
~
I have every right to be arrogant and elitist, because you are not willing to educate yourself, and when I mention some facts to you, you come up with haphazard refutations like "oh but animals suffer anyway". I suppose you wouldn't mind supporting even those kinds of sweat-shops which are illegal now to import from, because, well, people suffer anyway. Man, people are such closed-minded things.
~
I did better. I counted how many spaces I would need after the newline, then put "Are you sure? All information will be erased from drive C! [Y/N]:y" and then enough spaces for a newline again. "working..." The quoted part "Are you sure..." I copied verbatim (as opposed to my guess at it just now) from a format I had just tried. :) Man, good times.
~
I meant lucky in a long-term way, which is tantamount to 'luck' (beating the odds) by a non-mystical method, like card-counting. luck is luck is luck is bad for them. Of course, shoplifting is a lot different from "counting cards", which is something you do in your head, a strategy. You can use any information they give you. If the dealer accidentally shows you his hand, it's not cheating to take it into /consideration./
BTW Annie I'm really sorry you haven't been posting more lately. We miss you, troll or no.
~
Let me draw it quite clearly for you:
"
You do have a point that suffering among slaves is wrong -- but as I said before, you dont' do a SINGLE DARN THING to stop it. Everyone will not decide to boycott the slave industry. The industry will not listen to you if you are not a customer."
Okay, enough of that. For your last point though, I reiterate: I do do something to stop the suffering of animals. I don't promote it. Each dollar I don't spend, as well as each dollar of the >3,000,000 other vegetarians in America, harms the industry's bottom line. There is a critical mass of vegetarians, and the meat industry has had to spread all kinds of misimplication to get the public to believe that its animals are not treated unfairly, lest more of them become vegetarian. But the fact is, people are becoming vegetarian every day. I don't know whether you live in the city, but here in Boston most restaurants have specifically labeled vegetarian offerings. What do you think that means? That means that enough people don't buy meat that the restaurant buys fewer pounds of meat and more of other raw materials. This translates 100% directly into fewer pounds of tortured flesh being produced in the industry. Sure, it may not stop by what we're doing, but would you say "It's okay to kill Timothy McVeigh because there are people dying everyday, and we have a reason?" No: you would have to draw the connection between the reason (he did something we don't like, killed people, etc) and the action (we kill him), not between the action (we kill him) and similar things that already happen whether we like it or not (other people dying every day). In the same way, when you decide to buy of tortured carcass, you are increasing the amount to be produced -- all purchasing is scaled so that there is no waste, and the reason there is less meat in the grocery store than there was 25 years ago is because fewer people buy it. Think about this. It doesn't matter how much meat is produced otherwise, just as it doesn't matter how many people are killed otherwise. That doesn't make your specific support of the industry any better. Therefore, you must focus again on the true point of the debate, of which there is one and only one: do you believe animals suffer in the industry. The answer, clear with the most cursory of research, is a resounding yes.
~
So if we're unhealthy being vegetarian, then so are cows.
I forgot where I got the preceding quoted thing (I had just saved it in a text file for a use such as this one), but I read it in various incarnations in many different places.
The FDA backs vegetarianism as healthy absolutely, provided some important vitamins and minerals are supplemented that it would take more careful vegetarian selection to acquire. (I take iron in my vitamin pill every day, which is a lot simpler than making sure to eat some spinach every week, for instance, which is one of the few rich-in-iron sources.) And now:
My reasons for being vegan.
Oh, and PS. I'm posting at +2 cuz' I'm at 50 karma. Off-topic? Hell yes. Don't even ask about my IQ. And you are...let me get this straight...an a/c who needs to use words like "cheesy". You could not read two books upon the subject without deferring to my point of view. Although I doubt you read. Man, I've already won.
~
or a fucking JOKE you fucking LOSER!!!!!
~