Ah, but even if your stats are reasonable, that 1% is really, really good. And ubiquitous. And supported by developers *and* community. And probably handles what the other 99% are trying to work towards in their own way.
I don't know where to start with this, but I'd like to see the conversation happen: how is this similar or different from the power the government has to impose emergency control over radio and television? The Emergency Broadcast System, for example. Can someone with knowledge address this? Is there a precedent for this kind of control in other forms of media?
Just declare it a Cyberpolice Netaction. It's the handiest tool a president can have. Police actions over the past decades have kept America involved in dozens of countries fighting under warlike conditions without congressional approval at all. Usually, they'll roll over and provide the budget for it, too.
Also, VLC can handle conversions from one codec to another. If you're snappy with your CLI, it's easier to script a batch of files from the command line.
My hope is that they will drop both the submarine and the fighter pilot analogies and figure out something that actually takes the potential of space combat somewhere interesting. Somewhere strange and new, if I may borrow a previously coined phrase.
It's a vast, 3D battlefield with infinite visibility. Huge distance are involved, along with big guns and hyper-accurate computer targeting systems. Starships are mammoth, solid, semi-intelligent beasts that can take a pounding; the people inside are fragile, clever, and require very specific environmental tolerances. Vessels can move really damn fast in some ways and really damn slow in others. Individuals can carry hand weapons capable of vaporizing boulders, and space suits are practically recreational vehicles at this point.
Surely we can come up with better battle tactics than Evasive Pattern Omega.
I've never actually understood the economy of Star Trek. Sometimes stuff they want magically appears out of thin air. Sometimes they talk about exchanging credits. Other times it's gold pressed latinum. And there is still demand for scarce items like antique baseball cards, fulfilled by taking a dip in the Great Material River.
Star Trek is -- in the words of Nomad -- "a mass of conflicting impulses." The focus has always been on the humanity of the characters anyway; we are meant to take for granted that everything just all works out on broader levels like economy. It's not a way of life. It's a fairy tale.
It's foolish to aspire to a fairy tale. At some point, the system needs definition. The future: some assembly required.
I'm not just talking Republican National Convention playing the chorus over and over. Seriously. Born in the USA is not a shining example of feel-good patriotism. It's an ironic intervention against an America that's forgotten its defenders.
"Now you'll argue with my post and prove I'm right. Sometimes you just gotta admit you're wrong and move on."
Putting aside the blatant rhetorical error you just reveled in there, you have it all backward anyway. The burden of proof is on YOU prove that the dominant paradigm is actually wrong. That means constructing an argument with observation and experimentation, not blathering screed about the worthiness of your radical thinking.
If you're invested in the correctness of science, demonstrate your theory. If it holds up, it holds up, and you'll be the next Galileo, or Einstein, or Bohr. If you can't demonstrate it, then you're outside the realm of science and exposed for the rhetorical fraud that observation indicates you are.
I'd hardly call the CMB an assumption -- at least as far as the word linguistically implies guesswork.
The understanding of the CMB is based on observations correlated with data from elsewhere. It all stands up well with what we know from other fields of study. It makes predictions about seemingly unrelated phenomena that can be observed to conform with expectations. That's much more than an assumption. (It doesn't resoundingly land on "indisputable," but science thrives on a constant state of doubt.)
Slashdot Mirror
When I set up regular non-touch workstations for new employees at my workplace, I'm tempted to hang a sign that says "do not use."
It's the only way I can guarantee the continued integrity of the system.
Ah, but even if your stats are reasonable, that 1% is really, really good. And ubiquitous. And supported by developers *and* community. And probably handles what the other 99% are trying to work towards in their own way.
You make a good argument. I'll sit back and watch. My decision to re-elect him primarily depends on whether the trains run on time.
And when you smile, it'll look great thanks to that wonderful tube of toothpaste.
Oh you DID NOT.
(Removes jacket, cracks knuckles) Now there's gonna be some. Hope you're wearing your Nikes.
I don't know where to start with this, but I'd like to see the conversation happen: how is this similar or different from the power the government has to impose emergency control over radio and television? The Emergency Broadcast System, for example. Can someone with knowledge address this? Is there a precedent for this kind of control in other forms of media?
It's not the start. It's the continuance.
Every president accrues power to the office, and no president gives us the power of his predecessor, whatever side of the aisle they come from.
The longer it goes, the worse it will get. It's the nature of the beast.
Neither does using bold type! And lots of exclamation points!!!!
Oh lord, for the blink tag.
Just declare it a Cyberpolice Netaction. It's the handiest tool a president can have. Police actions over the past decades have kept America involved in dozens of countries fighting under warlike conditions without congressional approval at all. Usually, they'll roll over and provide the budget for it, too.
Also, VLC can handle conversions from one codec to another. If you're snappy with your CLI, it's easier to script a batch of files from the command line.
Explain your sig?
"Latinum (which, being a liquid, is typically stored in gold bars for exchange) can not be replicated..."
But couldn't they remodulate the resonance of the ... Oh, no, that only works against the Borg.
What about nutating the tachyon matrix of the ... Oh, no, wait, I think that's for recovering weak transporter signals.
Oh! I know! They could repolarize the distribution of the plasma manifold in the ... Hmm. Nope. That's when the warp engines throw a rod.
I guess you're right. Replicating latinum is far beyond the means of Star Trekian science.
^_^
My hope is that they will drop both the submarine and the fighter pilot analogies and figure out something that actually takes the potential of space combat somewhere interesting. Somewhere strange and new, if I may borrow a previously coined phrase.
It's a vast, 3D battlefield with infinite visibility. Huge distance are involved, along with big guns and hyper-accurate computer targeting systems. Starships are mammoth, solid, semi-intelligent beasts that can take a pounding; the people inside are fragile, clever, and require very specific environmental tolerances. Vessels can move really damn fast in some ways and really damn slow in others. Individuals can carry hand weapons capable of vaporizing boulders, and space suits are practically recreational vehicles at this point.
Surely we can come up with better battle tactics than Evasive Pattern Omega.
I've never actually understood the economy of Star Trek. Sometimes stuff they want magically appears out of thin air. Sometimes they talk about exchanging credits. Other times it's gold pressed latinum. And there is still demand for scarce items like antique baseball cards, fulfilled by taking a dip in the Great Material River.
Star Trek is -- in the words of Nomad -- "a mass of conflicting impulses." The focus has always been on the humanity of the characters anyway; we are meant to take for granted that everything just all works out on broader levels like economy. It's not a way of life. It's a fairy tale.
It's foolish to aspire to a fairy tale. At some point, the system needs definition. The future: some assembly required.
Who are the .0001% of the people who respond, therefore making spam economically viable?
*They're* the ones who need to be named and shamed.
Assembler.
"Sheer" is about 100 Libraries of Congress worth of agony. I also have a car metaphor if you think that'll help.
They are?
Some folks do write the good stuff, even under 140 chars. *You* need to find a better class of twitter-folk.
It doesn't sound like anyone's going to write to win *your* favor, either way. Quit'cher bitchin'.
Roll 4 Time Cubes and beat DC orange!
Foolish! You lose!
'"Born in the USA" will likely get binned...'
Have you listened to the lyrics?
Like, REALLY listened to the lyrics?
I'm not just talking Republican National Convention playing the chorus over and over. Seriously. Born in the USA is not a shining example of feel-good patriotism. It's an ironic intervention against an America that's forgotten its defenders.
Worst haiku ever.
"Now you'll argue with my post and prove I'm right. Sometimes you just gotta admit you're wrong and move on."
Putting aside the blatant rhetorical error you just reveled in there, you have it all backward anyway. The burden of proof is on YOU prove that the dominant paradigm is actually wrong. That means constructing an argument with observation and experimentation, not blathering screed about the worthiness of your radical thinking.
If you're invested in the correctness of science, demonstrate your theory. If it holds up, it holds up, and you'll be the next Galileo, or Einstein, or Bohr. If you can't demonstrate it, then you're outside the realm of science and exposed for the rhetorical fraud that observation indicates you are.
I'd hardly call the CMB an assumption -- at least as far as the word linguistically implies guesswork.
The understanding of the CMB is based on observations correlated with data from elsewhere. It all stands up well with what we know from other fields of study. It makes predictions about seemingly unrelated phenomena that can be observed to conform with expectations. That's much more than an assumption. (It doesn't resoundingly land on "indisputable," but science thrives on a constant state of doubt.)