Really? When fibre optic came along here internet access became a lot cheaper per Mbps. And for those that were happy with their existing speeds, it became a lot cheaper in absolute terms.
I love that artist's impression. Have there ever been any giant ring systems like this in sci-fi? If not, there should be. Maybe when I get the funding for my re-imagining of Forbidden Planet...
Did he remember not to correct the article on the incorrect use of "comprised of"?
This one doesn't bother me much. It's always pretty obvious what's being said, and it's not like you're losing a useful meaning of something in the process, as is the case with "literally" and "begging the question."
Eating lots [emphasis mine] of peanuts, avocados, and cheese, for example, probably decreases your appetite and keeps you thin.
No, eating the right amount of peanuts, avocados, and cheese might (I have no idea, this is the first I've heard of it) decrease your appetite and make you thinner than you otherwise would be, but eating lots of them will still make you fat.
I used to think drinking one glass of alcohol a day is good for health, but now I think that idea is probably just a correlation found in studies.
What is that supposed to mean? "just a correlation found in studies"? What other kind correlation would a) convince you that an effect was real and b) you expect from science?
Is anyone else getting the page I'm getting? A giant black box autoplaying - autoplaying! - the interview (but audio only on Firefox), then the summary, and then a Flash video of the same thing?
Autoplaying makes it look like you don't care that the user might want to make their own choice as to if or when he watches the video (or that you think they're incapable of making the video play by choice). Doubling it up just makes you look like you don't know what you're doing.
Yellow everybody. Let's hope those who lost out in this auction aren't feeling blue about it. It'd be understandable to be green with envy, sure, but I hope no-one's seeing red, because the last thing we want is for things to turn violet. Orange you glad this hasn't happened? Best just to heave a cy-an move on.
Yes, the PIN part alone would be sufficient to protect against signature fraud.
As for skimming, you might be right about lightning, but that doesn't mean it's automatically nothing worth fixing. I found the following, although it's possibly a couple of years old:
ATM skimming costs U.S. banks almost $1 billion annually. Cases reported to the Secret Service has grown 10% for the past 3 years. Total annual loss of ATM and credit card skimming is $8 billion.
Remembering one news report certainly isn't any way to get a handle on the figures. In 2010 there was a case involving $1.8m taken from 1400 victims thanks to skimming. Anecdote Top Trumps!
When you're measuring properties of pool balls by bouncing other pool balls off them, why can't people just accept the limitations of what we're working with without turning to this strange philosophy that the particles wont "let" us look at them.
Because it's the "philosophy" which best explains what is observed. If you've got a better one, present it to the world (with evidence) and claim your Nobel prize.
You can sort of simulate one. Build a device that flashes a light when you press the button - but slowly increase the delay from 0 to... well, I'm not sure exactly, 0.25s? Something like that.
Anyway, if you do this right, your brain will "edit out" the delay (something it does all the time to reconcile differences between the senses).
Then at some point, the device resets the delay to 0. Next time you press the button, your brain will convince you that the light came on before you pressed.
Just because quantum mechanics doesn't make intuitive sense to you, doesn't mean you can come up with any old analogy and dismiss the work of people far more qualified in the field than you. Well, you can, obviously, but it doesn't make you right.
It's amazing, that if you know the starlings are flying east to west, and you can only detect a starling as a complete *flock* of starlings, and not see the individual birds, then the flock can jump back east, i.e. back in time, interacting with the previous version of itself.
How is "jumping back" analogous to "interacting with the previous version of itself"?
Gosh!
How about, instead of being condescending, you perform some experiments - or even just provide more than a half-baked analogy - to disprove the last 100 years of quantum mechanics? Obviously all the devices we've been able to create based on this hard-won understanding must be figments of our imagination...
So the thing you know as a photon, is actually a flock of something smaller that is sufficient in density to promote an electron.
Isn't that completely incompatible with the photoelectric effect? You know, the very phenomenon which lead to the concept of the photon in the first place?
Slashdot Mirror
the lieutenant Linux developer Greg Kroah-Hartman
The what? Did he develop "lieutenant Linux," with a small L? Or is he a lieutenant like Columbo?
Other than that, what should I know about who this guy is? Because the summary (which is, I'm told, also the article) tells me nothing.
I don't know, but I heard that all of Bennett Haselton's submissions sync up with it.
Giggidy.
That word should appear in more scientific papers than it does.
JavaScript, PHP Top Most Popular Languages
Not just most popular, but top most popular!
Really? When fibre optic came along here internet access became a lot cheaper per Mbps. And for those that were happy with their existing speeds, it became a lot cheaper in absolute terms.
I love that artist's impression. Have there ever been any giant ring systems like this in sci-fi? If not, there should be. Maybe when I get the funding for my re-imagining of Forbidden Planet...
Did he remember not to correct the article on the incorrect use of "comprised of"?
This one doesn't bother me much. It's always pretty obvious what's being said, and it's not like you're losing a useful meaning of something in the process, as is the case with "literally" and "begging the question."
Eating lots [emphasis mine] of peanuts, avocados, and cheese, for example, probably decreases your appetite and keeps you thin.
No, eating the right amount of peanuts, avocados, and cheese might (I have no idea, this is the first I've heard of it) decrease your appetite and make you thinner than you otherwise would be, but eating lots of them will still make you fat.
I used to think drinking one glass of alcohol a day is good for health, but now I think that idea is probably just a correlation found in studies.
What is that supposed to mean? "just a correlation found in studies"? What other kind correlation would a) convince you that an effect was real and b) you expect from science?
but I haven't heard anything
You just need to turn the gain up on the mics.
You allow ANYTHING to autoplay?
Why?
I am running Flashblock, thank you very much. That covers most cases. This is not one of them.
you should have solved the autoplay shit problem years ago.
No, I shouldn't have to.
Is anyone else getting the page I'm getting? A giant black box autoplaying - autoplaying! - the interview (but audio only on Firefox), then the summary, and then a Flash video of the same thing?
Autoplaying makes it look like you don't care that the user might want to make their own choice as to if or when he watches the video (or that you think they're incapable of making the video play by choice). Doubling it up just makes you look like you don't know what you're doing.
Prigger warning.
...just remember that everything you know about this story is based on a few paragraphs written by a journalist.
There just might be more to it than what's been distilled down to a few paragraphs with the express intent of drawing your eye.
Most real-life problems don't work that way.
[Morbo] Goodnight!
Yes, folks, there are blind programmers.
Did anyone particularly think there weren't?
Yellow everybody. Let's hope those who lost out in this auction aren't feeling blue about it. It'd be understandable to be green with envy, sure, but I hope no-one's seeing red, because the last thing we want is for things to turn violet. Orange you glad this hasn't happened? Best just to heave a cy-an move on.
Yes, the PIN part alone would be sufficient to protect against signature fraud.
As for skimming, you might be right about lightning, but that doesn't mean it's automatically nothing worth fixing. I found the following, although it's possibly a couple of years old:
ATM skimming costs U.S. banks almost $1 billion annually.
Cases reported to the Secret Service has grown 10% for the past 3 years.
Total annual loss of ATM and credit card skimming is $8 billion.
Remembering one news report certainly isn't any way to get a handle on the figures. In 2010 there was a case involving $1.8m taken from 1400 victims thanks to skimming. Anecdote Top Trumps!
When you're measuring properties of pool balls by bouncing other pool balls off them, why can't people just accept the limitations of what we're working with without turning to this strange philosophy that the particles wont "let" us look at them.
Because it's the "philosophy" which best explains what is observed. If you've got a better one, present it to the world (with evidence) and claim your Nobel prize.
Possibly just you. I noticed the headline font changed after I loaded up the page - maybe it went bananas on you for some reason.
In other news, the LHC routinely almost breaks the fundamental speed limit of the universe!
These maniacs must be stopped.
It's a long time for 99.999% reliability.
PS You've already apologised more than enough for this. Sorry to compound it!
100,000 hours = 273 years. Does anyone believe that?
I don't, because 100,000 hours is 11.4 years.
273 (much closer to 274) years is 100,000 days.
You can sort of simulate one. Build a device that flashes a light when you press the button - but slowly increase the delay from 0 to... well, I'm not sure exactly, 0.25s? Something like that.
Anyway, if you do this right, your brain will "edit out" the delay (something it does all the time to reconcile differences between the senses).
Then at some point, the device resets the delay to 0. Next time you press the button, your brain will convince you that the light came on before you pressed.
Just because quantum mechanics doesn't make intuitive sense to you, doesn't mean you can come up with any old analogy and dismiss the work of people far more qualified in the field than you. Well, you can, obviously, but it doesn't make you right.
It's amazing, that if you know the starlings are flying east to west, and you can only detect a starling as a complete *flock* of starlings, and not see the individual birds, then the flock can jump back east, i.e. back in time, interacting with the previous version of itself.
How is "jumping back" analogous to "interacting with the previous version of itself"?
Gosh!
How about, instead of being condescending, you perform some experiments - or even just provide more than a half-baked analogy - to disprove the last 100 years of quantum mechanics? Obviously all the devices we've been able to create based on this hard-won understanding must be figments of our imagination...
So the thing you know as a photon, is actually a flock of something smaller that is sufficient in density to promote an electron.
Isn't that completely incompatible with the photoelectric effect? You know, the very phenomenon which lead to the concept of the photon in the first place?