"Is your hypothesis testable?" If the answer is "yes", it's science, if the answer is "no", it's religion.
One theory about Jupiter is that it is a failed star. How do you test whether or not this is the case? While testing a hypothesis is a good indicator to determine if something is scientific, it doesn't work for any forms of science that cannot perform experiments.
A better method to determine science is to identify procedures for that hypothesis (e.g. either tests or at least formulas), collect data (from experiments or extensive calculations), and produce conclusions (e.g. what the data predicts), and use the conclusions to form a new hypothesis. This filters out religion (since the only procedure you have is to find anything supernatural, something that returns a positive or negative result) without blocking any science that relies only on observation (e.g. Astronomy).
Had it not been for US sales, they would have been in control of fully operational Su27s or Mig29s.
Which reminds me - is there actual information about "export-grade" weapons used by Russia? Specifically, any weapons or equipment sold to other countries was enough to keep the foreign countries happy, but not powerful enough to be a long-term threat to Russia (e.g. armor-piercing ammo was used with sub-par charging powder, and thus bounces off Main Battle Tanks.)
You certainly don't need pin point precision for rpg games, platformers, action adventure games, ect.
Platformers such as I Wanna be the Guy need pixel-perfect precision. Some more difficult platformers not only require more precision, but also require you to figure out what you need to do to survive while surviving elements of luck, in addition to throwing you back to stage 1 if you run out of lives (i.e. most 8-bit platformers). This will benefit from an analog controller, but only in some instances (it may be better just adding a "slow" button).
Transition to the 3D era didn't change it much. While SM64 may have plausable deniability (e.g. the camera may be one of Bowser's minions), you still need to walk in a straight line that might not be aligned with an X/Y Axis, or the camera may spin while you're doing that line. In this case, you want a mouse, and a guarantee that there isn't going to be a camera screw.
I actually like all those - and do use wikipedia to find out info about such stuff.
But I also want the "old man murray" type of articles because in the future Google might not find anything:
That's why you get links to a few semi-reliable gaming sites that don't inhibit short-term memory. For example, gaming.wikia.com allows you to put in anything about games without too much worry about notability. Another site, bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net, allows you to be as detailed about Pokémon as you want.
In fact, "Wikipedia syndrome" is a bad thing. Some sites packed up thinking that they would be stored on Wikipedia, while Wikipedia was citing them as one of their critical resources. Once the site dropped, [citation needed].
a) The rest of the web often has a short memory
I wonder why... perhaps there's a metric ton of stuff being posted that floods whatever is being discussed, complete with a sub-par archive search. Not even a "random article" or "random date" to scour anything special in the archives.
b) I might get a whole bunch of spam sites instead.
One of the ongoing frustrations with every GUI is constantly seeing a new window pop up, which is positioned back at the root directories, and I have to laboriously poke at things to get down to the directory that I'm working in.
This depends on the GUI. For example, Windows XP and later are getting better at fixing it (e.g. remembering the last used directory), while pre-XP may place you in either the root, the current working directory for the app (e.g. the directory containing the executable), or somewhere else. However, there's still the worst offender, a dialogue box that requires you to manually pick a folder by browsing an extra-small window.
GUIs may have some aesthetic appeal (aka "pretty pictures"), but they remain the slowest, clumsiest way to use a computer that we've yet developed
I've seen worse. In particular, one CLI application treats running in Windows as a "dumb" terminal, simply because I haven't edited some configuration file that requires an excessive amount of hunting, and in spite of me already doing fancy ASCII graphics using the Windows API. End result is that some other CLI utility doesn't treat less as a viable pager and uses a weaker one that doesn't support paging backward.
There's also GUI apps that don't support cut-and-paste (i.e. don't react) for actions where it would be expected.
I''d say it's time to switch paradigms. Perhaps a hybrid GUCLI or CLGUI approach should be much better.
Did you actually type "http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/02/20/1817259/Chrome-May-Drop-the-URL-Bar" to get to this page?
No, but I did type Slashdot in "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot". While I could do the same through the search widgets, it feels inconsistent - sometimes it returns a list of search results (or lack thereof) and other times it goes directly to the page.
In fact, the sites that allow the user to re-write URLs easily are better to use. For example, some webcomics just include the date in the URL (or incrementing strip ID), while others require entering additional text after the date (or worse, have the strip ID non-auto incrementing).
Websites within a private LAN or behind a firewall cannot appear on Google.
Depending on the corporation, you might be able to use the search system to find what you're looking for. If not (e.g. it doesn't turn up on the first link, or if said link is obscured by looking less important), you'll have to tell them to enter the URL manually. Half the time, entering the URL causes them to do a Bing search.
And that's not counting Kiosk systems that don't even have an address bar.
Some_Group: Hey guys, let's attack Anonymous! It'll make us rich if we can hack them, an our security can stop their counterattack, right?
That's the wrong way to attack anonymous, since it's a direct threat.
A better way is to misdirect them, and thus make Anonymous look like those who harass innocent people. It may also reduce the number of "good" activists willing to join Anonymous, or encourage bad elements to continue doing that.
The main one, is that kids just aren't that interested in science. They barely pay attention when we have to derive something, they do not know how to study anymore, and if anything resembles hard work to them, they turn away from it.
In my case, I'll tell you why: to get an acceptable mark, all I needed to do was to do was just attend school and learn stuff on a single continuous run. Why? The material presented throughout highschool was perceived as "easy" enough for me to remember without the need to study; and the assignments weren't that difficult (but still lengthy enough to consume free time). While there was a large scale attempt to get people somewhat interested in Science (e.g. build a "fun machine"), I didn't go for it because that required a level of effort that wasn't worth the extra credit (supplies, transportation, and storage.)
Math contests were also available; but any attempt to complete them required a level of knowledge not presented in the textbooks available at my grade. Do you know how to calculate logarithms using material you've learned only in Grade 10? Even though I'd be ready for a more advanced textbook, I didn't.
The issue was still present in softer courses such as art. They focused on the variety of media rather than technique, including the various one-shot mediums. In hindsight, I'd have preferred drawing freehand circles rather than going through that type of course.
Supose I create a wiki entry with info about an old and obscure game from the 80s. As Wikipedia is not primary source I add references from an obscure forum. Let say 5 years from now the forum is dead and no other info can be found.
Not a major issue:
* archive.org contains snapshots of the web from various points of time. If the forum was archived, then you can switch the link around. * Specialized gaming wikis are more likely to still provide game content if the game becomes old or obscure. gaming.wikia.com is one of them. * Even if it's deleted, you can still request the entire page history from an admin if you want to import it onto another wiki.
Anyone who has ever worked in Information Design can tell you that paper, with it's stunning contrast ratios and 1200 dpi printing is a far more precise medium than screens. WTF?
Let's say you have an 11" monitor - this measures ~10" across, or 8.5" high. Let's say it magically has 2048x1536 resolution, which is beyond current technology.
This screen is still below 300 dpi.
And yes, paper work provides much higher resultion when screens, as demonstrated by M.C. Escher. While you can do the same on a computer screen, the detail will get lost if you zoom out (and you might not recognize that you can zoom further for more detail.)
Level 34; Graduate High School Level 35: Graduate College
These two levels are *massive* time sinks, where most of time is spent waiting doing what some people consider nothing, or perhaps non-helpful grinding. Also, it's faster to complete the "level 36" requirement of getting a job than it is to graduate high school - especially if you haven't done the prior levels yet.
Then again, if you are railroaded into completing college, you generally expect to find an in-field job.
Oh, getting a fast-food position is considered a Level 0 job, and is Level 33 in real life? Well, working that for a few years gives you enough money to fund college long enough to avoid student loans. You also bypass school entirely since you enroll with a GED or as a mature student, and can more quickly obtain the Level 1 job as well. Naturally, this method to skip levels should be on walkthrough sites by now, along with statements that the NPCs are really lying bastards.
Also, any form of malware on a "secure" operating system is just as damaging as one on an insecure one. While your system may be recoverable, your 1TB of beautiful artwork will be waxed because you generally store that as something that can be deleted by regular user privileges.
Seriously, when was the last time that a government science fund produced something worth $24,000,000,000? Every major invention I can think of came from a private company doing research for a specific need, not a government program doing research in order to keep scientists eating from the taxpayers' pork trough.
Governments, just like private corporations, can have specific needs requiring research. Specifically, they can perform research on how to properly scan people at Airports without causing cancer and without missing the ton of nukes that slipped through the tests.
Also, science funds account for more than just magical breakthroughs that produce something new. They also include maintaining the current level of service, such as predicting the 5-day forecast you see on a daily basis. If you want, you can just pull a list of government research organizations and guess what they're trying to do (even if it's verification or quality control of research from private companies.)
The main issue is synchronizing bookmarks across browsers rather than just copying them. While you could copy bookmarks.html between computers, it's a bit of a clumsy way of doing it, and results hoping that you don't obliterate bookmarks between copies. Of course, if you have a metric ton of bookmarks, you probably want to offload them to some other resource.
There's also keeping track of metadata such as visit count, last time visited, or some other things. Specifically, the upgrade from Firefox 2 to Firefox 3 hosed the metadata, which could be just as easily on other sites.
Of course, you could whore karma by pointing out you can import/export bookmarks from Delicious. Click Settings at the top-right, go to the Bookmarks header, then click Export / Backup.
Allegedly, it's the same reason why you don't put stickys on the monitor. However, by the time someone has enough resources to crack into your encrypted password store, your other passwords would probably be compromised by now.
A slightly better option is generating a password constructed from a hash, which basically means you need to carry around a mobile device at all times if you use computers at different places.
Amazon stated why on their blog - Wikileaks doesn't technically "own" the data, and Amazon doesn't want to be involved in distributing unauthorized material. Amazon also mentioned that there wasn't much attempt at redaction for purposes of keeping individuals safe (which is debatable). Why attack them when they aren't comfortable hosting the data?
Also, why not extend this to attacking those who aren't willing to host the data themselves? (e.g. harass random users until they setup a mirror, or at least distribute one page of a document.)
One of the Jurors called him a racial slur and said that they always do stuff like that. I eventually convinced everyone for a 'not guilty' verdict except for that one guy. So, it was a hung jury.
There's ways to make that a not-hung jury. Any sane pre-trial screening asks questions if they have any forms of prejudice that would interfere with justice, and such prejudice appearing blatantly in deliberations qualifies as being an obstructionist (i.e. wasting the courts time). Also, judges have been known to remove the 1 dissenter in the group of 12 even if their reasoning seems plausible. (e.g. any story of some jurors attempting jury nullification)
Slashdot Mirror
"Is your hypothesis testable?" If the answer is "yes", it's science, if the answer is "no", it's religion.
One theory about Jupiter is that it is a failed star. How do you test whether or not this is the case? While testing a hypothesis is a good indicator to determine if something is scientific, it doesn't work for any forms of science that cannot perform experiments.
A better method to determine science is to identify procedures for that hypothesis (e.g. either tests or at least formulas), collect data (from experiments or extensive calculations), and produce conclusions (e.g. what the data predicts), and use the conclusions to form a new hypothesis. This filters out religion (since the only procedure you have is to find anything supernatural, something that returns a positive or negative result) without blocking any science that relies only on observation (e.g. Astronomy).
Had it not been for US sales, they would have been in control of fully operational Su27s or Mig29s.
Which reminds me - is there actual information about "export-grade" weapons used by Russia? Specifically, any weapons or equipment sold to other countries was enough to keep the foreign countries happy, but not powerful enough to be a long-term threat to Russia (e.g. armor-piercing ammo was used with sub-par charging powder, and thus bounces off Main Battle Tanks.)
You certainly don't need pin point precision for rpg games, platformers, action adventure games, ect.
Platformers such as I Wanna be the Guy need pixel-perfect precision. Some more difficult platformers not only require more precision, but also require you to figure out what you need to do to survive while surviving elements of luck, in addition to throwing you back to stage 1 if you run out of lives (i.e. most 8-bit platformers). This will benefit from an analog controller, but only in some instances (it may be better just adding a "slow" button).
Transition to the 3D era didn't change it much. While SM64 may have plausable deniability (e.g. the camera may be one of Bowser's minions), you still need to walk in a straight line that might not be aligned with an X/Y Axis, or the camera may spin while you're doing that line. In this case, you want a mouse, and a guarantee that there isn't going to be a camera screw.
Commodore-Shift, actually. Which is why it took me forever to find that combination again.
I actually like all those - and do use wikipedia to find out info about such stuff.
But I also want the "old man murray" type of articles because in the future Google might not find anything:
That's why you get links to a few semi-reliable gaming sites that don't inhibit short-term memory. For example, gaming.wikia.com allows you to put in anything about games without too much worry about notability. Another site, bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net, allows you to be as detailed about Pokémon as you want.
In fact, "Wikipedia syndrome" is a bad thing. Some sites packed up thinking that they would be stored on Wikipedia, while Wikipedia was citing them as one of their critical resources. Once the site dropped, [citation needed].
a) The rest of the web often has a short memory
I wonder why... perhaps there's a metric ton of stuff being posted that floods whatever is being discussed, complete with a sub-par archive search. Not even a "random article" or "random date" to scour anything special in the archives.
b) I might get a whole bunch of spam sites instead.
That's already happening.
One of the ongoing frustrations with every GUI is constantly seeing a new window pop up, which is positioned back at the root directories, and I have to laboriously poke at things to get down to the directory that I'm working in.
This depends on the GUI. For example, Windows XP and later are getting better at fixing it (e.g. remembering the last used directory), while pre-XP may place you in either the root, the current working directory for the app (e.g. the directory containing the executable), or somewhere else. However, there's still the worst offender, a dialogue box that requires you to manually pick a folder by browsing an extra-small window.
GUIs may have some aesthetic appeal (aka "pretty pictures"), but they remain the slowest, clumsiest way to use a computer that we've yet developed
I've seen worse. In particular, one CLI application treats running in Windows as a "dumb" terminal, simply because I haven't edited some configuration file that requires an excessive amount of hunting, and in spite of me already doing fancy ASCII graphics using the Windows API. End result is that some other CLI utility doesn't treat less as a viable pager and uses a weaker one that doesn't support paging backward.
There's also GUI apps that don't support cut-and-paste (i.e. don't react) for actions where it would be expected.
I''d say it's time to switch paradigms. Perhaps a hybrid GUCLI or CLGUI approach should be much better.
Did you actually type "http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/02/20/1817259/Chrome-May-Drop-the-URL-Bar" to get to this page?
No, but I did type Slashdot in "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot". While I could do the same through the search widgets, it feels inconsistent - sometimes it returns a list of search results (or lack thereof) and other times it goes directly to the page.
In fact, the sites that allow the user to re-write URLs easily are better to use. For example, some webcomics just include the date in the URL (or incrementing strip ID), while others require entering additional text after the date (or worse, have the strip ID non-auto incrementing).
Websites within a private LAN or behind a firewall cannot appear on Google.
Depending on the corporation, you might be able to use the search system to find what you're looking for. If not (e.g. it doesn't turn up on the first link, or if said link is obscured by looking less important), you'll have to tell them to enter the URL manually. Half the time, entering the URL causes them to do a Bing search.
And that's not counting Kiosk systems that don't even have an address bar.
Some_Group: Hey guys, let's attack Anonymous! It'll make us rich if we can hack them, an our security can stop their counterattack, right?
That's the wrong way to attack anonymous, since it's a direct threat.
A better way is to misdirect them, and thus make Anonymous look like those who harass innocent people. It may also reduce the number of "good" activists willing to join Anonymous, or encourage bad elements to continue doing that.
The main one, is that kids just aren't that interested in science. They barely pay attention when we have to derive something, they do not know how to study anymore, and if anything resembles hard work to them, they turn away from it.
In my case, I'll tell you why: to get an acceptable mark, all I needed to do was to do was just attend school and learn stuff on a single continuous run. Why? The material presented throughout highschool was perceived as "easy" enough for me to remember without the need to study; and the assignments weren't that difficult (but still lengthy enough to consume free time). While there was a large scale attempt to get people somewhat interested in Science (e.g. build a "fun machine"), I didn't go for it because that required a level of effort that wasn't worth the extra credit (supplies, transportation, and storage.)
Math contests were also available; but any attempt to complete them required a level of knowledge not presented in the textbooks available at my grade. Do you know how to calculate logarithms using material you've learned only in Grade 10? Even though I'd be ready for a more advanced textbook, I didn't.
The issue was still present in softer courses such as art. They focused on the variety of media rather than technique, including the various one-shot mediums. In hindsight, I'd have preferred drawing freehand circles rather than going through that type of course.
Whenever I see "un" attached to an adjective, I'm inclined to believe it to be false.
Even unstable?
(Affected players did have a workaround, but it wasn't on the official support pages.)
Supose I create a wiki entry with info about an old and obscure game from the 80s. As Wikipedia is not primary source I add references from an obscure forum. Let say 5 years from now the forum is dead and no other info can be found.
Not a major issue:
* archive.org contains snapshots of the web from various points of time. If the forum was archived, then you can switch the link around.
* Specialized gaming wikis are more likely to still provide game content if the game becomes old or obscure. gaming.wikia.com is one of them.
* Even if it's deleted, you can still request the entire page history from an admin if you want to import it onto another wiki.
Anyone who has ever worked in Information Design can tell you that paper, with it's stunning contrast ratios and 1200 dpi printing is a far more precise medium than screens. WTF?
Let's say you have an 11" monitor - this measures ~10" across, or 8.5" high. Let's say it magically has 2048x1536 resolution, which is beyond current technology.
This screen is still below 300 dpi.
And yes, paper work provides much higher resultion when screens, as demonstrated by M.C. Escher. While you can do the same on a computer screen, the detail will get lost if you zoom out (and you might not recognize that you can zoom further for more detail.)
Level 34; Graduate High School
Level 35: Graduate College
These two levels are *massive* time sinks, where most of time is spent waiting doing what some people consider nothing, or perhaps non-helpful grinding. Also, it's faster to complete the "level 36" requirement of getting a job than it is to graduate high school - especially if you haven't done the prior levels yet.
Then again, if you are railroaded into completing college, you generally expect to find an in-field job.
Oh, getting a fast-food position is considered a Level 0 job, and is Level 33 in real life? Well, working that for a few years gives you enough money to fund college long enough to avoid student loans. You also bypass school entirely since you enroll with a GED or as a mature student, and can more quickly obtain the Level 1 job as well. Naturally, this method to skip levels should be on walkthrough sites by now, along with statements that the NPCs are really lying bastards.
Word of God says no.
Besides, where did you hear that he flunked math? He might have had trouble with speaking, but math wasn't a problem for him.
Whats the alternative that doesn't require users to buy something to authenticate themselves?
Many options:
The third option can also be used for legacy sites that only use password authentication, simply by omitting a timestamp from the algorithm.
It's like when the PS3 Slim removed the ability to run Linux. How many people bitched about that?
I'm not sure how many, but the ones running the PS3 project at the US Army did.
You mean this one?
Also, any form of malware on a "secure" operating system is just as damaging as one on an insecure one. While your system may be recoverable, your 1TB of beautiful artwork will be waxed because you generally store that as something that can be deleted by regular user privileges.
Seriously, when was the last time that a government science fund produced something worth $24,000,000,000? Every major invention I can think of came from a private company doing research for a specific need, not a government program doing research in order to keep scientists eating from the taxpayers' pork trough.
Governments, just like private corporations, can have specific needs requiring research. Specifically, they can perform research on how to properly scan people at Airports without causing cancer and without missing the ton of nukes that slipped through the tests.
Also, science funds account for more than just magical breakthroughs that produce something new. They also include maintaining the current level of service, such as predicting the 5-day forecast you see on a daily basis. If you want, you can just pull a list of government research organizations and guess what they're trying to do (even if it's verification or quality control of research from private companies.)
The main issue is synchronizing bookmarks across browsers rather than just copying them. While you could copy bookmarks.html between computers, it's a bit of a clumsy way of doing it, and results hoping that you don't obliterate bookmarks between copies. Of course, if you have a metric ton of bookmarks, you probably want to offload them to some other resource.
There's also keeping track of metadata such as visit count, last time visited, or some other things. Specifically, the upgrade from Firefox 2 to Firefox 3 hosed the metadata, which could be just as easily on other sites.
Of course, you could whore karma by pointing out you can import/export bookmarks from Delicious. Click Settings at the top-right, go to the Bookmarks header, then click Export / Backup.
Not really. It's more like explaining the joke for those who aren't aware that /. was hacked in the past.
Why is a password manager not a good answer?
Allegedly, it's the same reason why you don't put stickys on the monitor. However, by the time someone has enough resources to crack into your encrypted password store, your other passwords would probably be compromised by now.
A slightly better option is generating a password constructed from a hash, which basically means you need to carry around a mobile device at all times if you use computers at different places.
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/09/29/0231248&tid=99
Amazon stated why on their blog - Wikileaks doesn't technically "own" the data, and Amazon doesn't want to be involved in distributing unauthorized material. Amazon also mentioned that there wasn't much attempt at redaction for purposes of keeping individuals safe (which is debatable). Why attack them when they aren't comfortable hosting the data?
Also, why not extend this to attacking those who aren't willing to host the data themselves? (e.g. harass random users until they setup a mirror, or at least distribute one page of a document.)
One of the Jurors called him a racial slur and said that they always do stuff like that. I eventually convinced everyone for a 'not guilty' verdict except for that one guy. So, it was a hung jury.
There's ways to make that a not-hung jury. Any sane pre-trial screening asks questions if they have any forms of prejudice that would interfere with justice, and such prejudice appearing blatantly in deliberations qualifies as being an obstructionist (i.e. wasting the courts time). Also, judges have been known to remove the 1 dissenter in the group of 12 even if their reasoning seems plausible. (e.g. any story of some jurors attempting jury nullification)