You know how you can retain your good memories of Star Wars? Don't watch the movies.
Note, by the way, that that includes rewatching the originals. Rewatching them as an adult pretty much killed any interest in Star Wars in me. I find myself wondering why I ever thought they were great. Then I remember I also loved Knight Rider. Children have no standards, and I was no exception.
Honestly, I barely even noticed the lens flares. They're hard to see over the much larger, more glaring travesties being committed to the Trek-franchise during the film.
If someone burned down Congress today, half the country would be cheering...
But yes. It's quite amusing what they teach American kids about the War of 1812.
When they started negotiating the treaty to end the war, the British, having won it (Canadian troops did much of the winning, but they were still part of the Empire back then), started by demanding territorial concessions, as is the usual case when winning a war. The Americans asserted that the British couldn't hold the territory they'd taken and refused to give it up, and the British were tired of fighting several wars at once (they were busy fighting Napoleon for most of the war and didn't devote much effort to the minor sideshow that was the war with the USA) so they gave in and agreed to simply return to status quo ante bellum, i.e. the state of affairs before the war began. Some would try to spin that as a "draw", but the British were fine with the state of affairs before the war, it was the US that declared the war in the first place, claiming that the state of affairs prior to the war were intolerable. Although no territory was lost, it was, in fact, a unequivocal defeat for the US. However, several of the reasons the US declared war to begin with were over measures the British were using to fight Napoleon. With Napoleon defeated, those measures came to an end (not because the British gave in, they continued to assert they had the right to do as they did -- they just had no more need to continue doing them). That plus some battlefield victories that occurred after the war was over but before news reached America of the signing of the peace treaty enabled the politicians in Washington to spin the defeat into an illusion of victory, and to this day, you will find many Americans who think they never lost a war before Vietnam, that we actually achieved our objectives in the War of 1812, and that the major victories weren't pointlessly fought after the war was already over but news hadn't reached us yet. Some of this comes from a slanted and incomplete way the story is taught in American classrooms, and some from flat-out misinformation. But in any case, don't be surprised if most Americans are completely incredulous when you try to remind us of the fact that we actually fought a war with the Canadians once... and they kicked our asses.
Unfortunately, deregulated markets also lead to centralized planning, and it doesn't cease to be a problem when the central planning occurs in a corporate boardroom instead of a politburo. I find it ironic that since the collapse of the Soviet system, America has been moving closer and closer to centrally planned economies, with power consolidating in a few (sometimes even one) corporation in every major market sector, while the supposed anti-communist party cheers on and aids in the deregulation, forgetting that a true free market requires regulation, or it soon is captured by the biggest fish and ceases to be a free market in any meaningful sense.
Well, I don't know what they teach you kids in schools these days, but in my time, words used to have definitive meaning that would pass through generations.
Ah yes, I remember being taught that myth too. Alas, the reality of language has never been that simple, in any time.
When asked for advice, I usually start with a "best practices" answer, and then follow up with "but if that's too much, at least do..." Basically, the best answer, followed by the answer that's most likely to be followed if they decide the best answer is too difficult/time-consuming/more effort than it's worth/whatever.
It is a bad summary, but only because the wording is ambiguous, not that it's factually incorrect. The statement you're objecting to is perfectly correct in one interpretation, and dead wrong in another. Your own counter-statement, "it is not required of the opponent to play rock 50% of the time," is equally ambiguous. In fact, 50% of the time (assuming a fair coin), the opponent is required to play rock, so it's true that "it is required of the opponent to play rock, 50% of the time". Leaving out the comma yields a true sentence (assuming the correct interpretation is chosen of the now even more ambiguous sentence) that contradicts the quoted sentence of yours, assuming you parse your sentence as "it is not required: that the opponent play rock 50% of the time", but does not contradict it at all if your sentence is parsed "it is not required that the opponent play rock, 50% of the time", since 50% of the time, the opponent can choose freely, and thus is 50% of the time, is not required to make any particular choice. So, both the summary and your explanation of what's wrong with it contain statements that not factually incorrect, just ambiguously worded such that a reader might interpret it to mean something that is incorrect rather than something that is correct.
This is a textbook example of why programming computers in plain English would be a monstrously bad idea.
No. Acceleration is change in velocity. That's what it is measuring. If velocity is not changing, acceleration = 0.
No experiment can distinguish between gravity and uniform acceleration, so if acceleration is what it's measuring, it can't possibly tell the difference between 9.8m/s^2 of acceleration and Earth-normal gravity. Indeed, just as Special Relatively is based on the fact that rest and uniform motion are the same thing, General Relativity is based on the fact that gravity and acceleration are the same thing. If you are sitting still on Earth's surface, you are undergoing 9.8m/s^2 of gravitational acceleration. In order for the accelerometer to read zero, you would have to be in free-fall.
An accelerometer doesn't measure speed but acceleration, if it was moving on earth at a perfectly constant pace (and perfectly smoothly) the accelerometer would likewise not measure anything, right?
If it measures acceleration, then whether at rest or undergoing smooth, constant motion, it should measure an acceleration of 9.8m/s straight down.
Understanding of basic vocabulary seems to have gone out the window today.
anonymous: without a name attached to the work/deed/etc. cf. greek/latin "an-" (without) prefix and "onym" (name)
pseudonymous: with a false name attached. cf. greek/latin "pseudo-" (false)
What's being described here is not pseudonymous, unless a note is being attached to each transaction saying "This transaction was made by Mark Twain" (assuming the actual person conducting the transaction isn't actually named Mark Twain).
By that absurd definition, anonymous posts aren't anonymous because they are posted, anonymous letters aren't anonymous because they're printed, etc. You fundamentally fail at understanding what "anonymous" means if you think being logged makes it not anonymous. What makes anonymous things anonymous is not the fact that they're not recorded, because indeed they all are, and have been for the thousands of years of anonymous writing/deeds/etc. What unites all the things we've described as "anonymous" for millennia is that what isn't recorded alongside the various things that are is the author's name.
Another mission to a world we've been to before will yield more interesting science that one to a world we've never been to before? That seems unlikely. Not saying there isn't a heck of a lot more to learn on Titan, but your reasoning here is bizarre.
The fact of the matter is, we don't know what we'll find if we go looking at Europa. One of the things about science is, instead of trying to find the answers to questions like that by just thinking about it (i.e. the philosophical method), the scientific method involves actually looking instead of merely guessing. If we want to know what we'll find on Europa, we'll have to send a probe and actually see.
You could fill a book full of perfectly reasonable statements about what we'd find on planets before we sent probes to them, all as reasonable as what you've saying, based on what we thought we knew at the time, and all dead wrong.
A mission to Europa is far more likely to yield scientifically interesting results than another mission to anywhere we've been before.
It should be noted that life almost certainly started in Earth's oceans (where the vast majority of it remains to this day -- life outside the oceans is practically a footnote). I do believe are hydrosphere is approximately two-thirds hydrogen, one-third oxygen (by atom count -- by mass, of course, the one oxygen atom outweighs the two hydrogen atoms).
Nonsense. ARM didn't design anything in 1983, as ARM didn't exist at the time. ARM was founded in 1990 to continue development of the already existing design.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do people insist on studying, helping, fixing the mentally ill or the drug abusers?
Healthy human compassion.
What about those who are "healthy" but run into unfortunate events (car crash, cancer, getting laid off)?
We care for them too.
If we're going to treat society as a single organism, wouldn't we want to give to the most capable rather than the least?
That would be a false dilemma. If the two options were mutually exclusive, what you said would make sense. As it is, what you said is just idiotic.
Where is this constant need to fix people coming from?
Again, basic human compassion. You should try it sometime...
This is why I put at least a Clamp-O-Tron Jr. on everything I launch.
You know how you can retain your good memories of Star Wars? Don't watch the movies.
Note, by the way, that that includes rewatching the originals. Rewatching them as an adult pretty much killed any interest in Star Wars in me. I find myself wondering why I ever thought they were great. Then I remember I also loved Knight Rider. Children have no standards, and I was no exception.
Honestly, I barely even noticed the lens flares. They're hard to see over the much larger, more glaring travesties being committed to the Trek-franchise during the film.
Empire and Jedi are both better then than Ep. 4
That's not saying much...
If someone burned down Congress today, half the country would be cheering...
But yes. It's quite amusing what they teach American kids about the War of 1812.
When they started negotiating the treaty to end the war, the British, having won it (Canadian troops did much of the winning, but they were still part of the Empire back then), started by demanding territorial concessions, as is the usual case when winning a war. The Americans asserted that the British couldn't hold the territory they'd taken and refused to give it up, and the British were tired of fighting several wars at once (they were busy fighting Napoleon for most of the war and didn't devote much effort to the minor sideshow that was the war with the USA) so they gave in and agreed to simply return to status quo ante bellum, i.e. the state of affairs before the war began. Some would try to spin that as a "draw", but the British were fine with the state of affairs before the war, it was the US that declared the war in the first place, claiming that the state of affairs prior to the war were intolerable. Although no territory was lost, it was, in fact, a unequivocal defeat for the US. However, several of the reasons the US declared war to begin with were over measures the British were using to fight Napoleon. With Napoleon defeated, those measures came to an end (not because the British gave in, they continued to assert they had the right to do as they did -- they just had no more need to continue doing them). That plus some battlefield victories that occurred after the war was over but before news reached America of the signing of the peace treaty enabled the politicians in Washington to spin the defeat into an illusion of victory, and to this day, you will find many Americans who think they never lost a war before Vietnam, that we actually achieved our objectives in the War of 1812, and that the major victories weren't pointlessly fought after the war was already over but news hadn't reached us yet. Some of this comes from a slanted and incomplete way the story is taught in American classrooms, and some from flat-out misinformation. But in any case, don't be surprised if most Americans are completely incredulous when you try to remind us of the fact that we actually fought a war with the Canadians once... and they kicked our asses.
Unfortunately, deregulated markets also lead to centralized planning, and it doesn't cease to be a problem when the central planning occurs in a corporate boardroom instead of a politburo. I find it ironic that since the collapse of the Soviet system, America has been moving closer and closer to centrally planned economies, with power consolidating in a few (sometimes even one) corporation in every major market sector, while the supposed anti-communist party cheers on and aids in the deregulation, forgetting that a true free market requires regulation, or it soon is captured by the biggest fish and ceases to be a free market in any meaningful sense.
Indeed. No system ever lives up to its ideals, but they still matter. They can make a difference even when they aren't ever realized.
Well, I don't know what they teach you kids in schools these days, but in my time, words used to have definitive meaning that would pass through generations.
Ah yes, I remember being taught that myth too. Alas, the reality of language has never been that simple, in any time.
Maybe... but Gallente ships prefer with melee-range weapons. :p
When asked for advice, I usually start with a "best practices" answer, and then follow up with "but if that's too much, at least do ..." Basically, the best answer, followed by the answer that's most likely to be followed if they decide the best answer is too difficult/time-consuming/more effort than it's worth/whatever.
there is a factual problem with the summary...
It is a bad summary, but only because the wording is ambiguous, not that it's factually incorrect. The statement you're objecting to is perfectly correct in one interpretation, and dead wrong in another. Your own counter-statement, "it is not required of the opponent to play rock 50% of the time," is equally ambiguous. In fact, 50% of the time (assuming a fair coin), the opponent is required to play rock, so it's true that "it is required of the opponent to play rock, 50% of the time". Leaving out the comma yields a true sentence (assuming the correct interpretation is chosen of the now even more ambiguous sentence) that contradicts the quoted sentence of yours, assuming you parse your sentence as "it is not required: that the opponent play rock 50% of the time", but does not contradict it at all if your sentence is parsed "it is not required that the opponent play rock, 50% of the time", since 50% of the time, the opponent can choose freely, and thus is 50% of the time, is not required to make any particular choice. So, both the summary and your explanation of what's wrong with it contain statements that not factually incorrect, just ambiguously worded such that a reader might interpret it to mean something that is incorrect rather than something that is correct.
This is a textbook example of why programming computers in plain English would be a monstrously bad idea.
You seriously think that each player in RPS has a 33% chance of winning each round? Think a little bit about that. Oh, I forgot, this is /.
What do you think the odds are for each player? Keep in mind that there are three possible outcomes for each round: win, lose, or draw.
Maybe I should look at this implementation for my upcoming MMO, which will likely go live somewhere in 2030 :)
But getting three random passwords for an MMO is easy. Just send out three emails to users claiming they've been caught selling gold...
No. Acceleration is change in velocity. That's what it is measuring. If velocity is not changing, acceleration = 0.
No experiment can distinguish between gravity and uniform acceleration, so if acceleration is what it's measuring, it can't possibly tell the difference between 9.8m/s^2 of acceleration and Earth-normal gravity. Indeed, just as Special Relatively is based on the fact that rest and uniform motion are the same thing, General Relativity is based on the fact that gravity and acceleration are the same thing. If you are sitting still on Earth's surface, you are undergoing 9.8m/s^2 of gravitational acceleration. In order for the accelerometer to read zero, you would have to be in free-fall.
Oops, make that "up". /bonk
An accelerometer doesn't measure speed but acceleration, if it was moving on earth at a perfectly constant pace (and perfectly smoothly) the accelerometer would likewise not measure anything, right?
If it measures acceleration, then whether at rest or undergoing smooth, constant motion, it should measure an acceleration of 9.8m/s straight down.
Is there nothing he couldn't do?
Withhold certain information while talking to cops.
Understanding of basic vocabulary seems to have gone out the window today.
anonymous: without a name attached to the work/deed/etc. cf. greek/latin "an-" (without) prefix and "onym" (name)
pseudonymous: with a false name attached. cf. greek/latin "pseudo-" (false)
What's being described here is not pseudonymous, unless a note is being attached to each transaction saying "This transaction was made by Mark Twain" (assuming the actual person conducting the transaction isn't actually named Mark Twain).
By that absurd definition, anonymous posts aren't anonymous because they are posted, anonymous letters aren't anonymous because they're printed, etc. You fundamentally fail at understanding what "anonymous" means if you think being logged makes it not anonymous. What makes anonymous things anonymous is not the fact that they're not recorded, because indeed they all are, and have been for the thousands of years of anonymous writing/deeds/etc. What unites all the things we've described as "anonymous" for millennia is that what isn't recorded alongside the various things that are is the author's name.
Another mission to a world we've been to before will yield more interesting science that one to a world we've never been to before? That seems unlikely. Not saying there isn't a heck of a lot more to learn on Titan, but your reasoning here is bizarre.
The fact of the matter is, we don't know what we'll find if we go looking at Europa. One of the things about science is, instead of trying to find the answers to questions like that by just thinking about it (i.e. the philosophical method), the scientific method involves actually looking instead of merely guessing. If we want to know what we'll find on Europa, we'll have to send a probe and actually see.
You could fill a book full of perfectly reasonable statements about what we'd find on planets before we sent probes to them, all as reasonable as what you've saying, based on what we thought we knew at the time, and all dead wrong.
A mission to Europa is far more likely to yield scientifically interesting results than another mission to anywhere we've been before.
s/are/our/
It should be noted that life almost certainly started in Earth's oceans (where the vast majority of it remains to this day -- life outside the oceans is practically a footnote). I do believe are hydrosphere is approximately two-thirds hydrogen, one-third oxygen (by atom count -- by mass, of course, the one oxygen atom outweighs the two hydrogen atoms).
A peer reviewed science fair project? I'm not sure if "Ken has cooties" and similar reviews from his peers would have contributed significantly.
Nonsense. ARM started designing chips in 1983
Nonsense. ARM didn't design anything in 1983, as ARM didn't exist at the time. ARM was founded in 1990 to continue development of the already existing design.