I've been nailed this way once. There's a particular light I know with a stop camera and a yellow that lasts a very short period of time. It's obviously designed to trap people and generate money. I paid my ticket. I would have loved to have stuck it to them for the timing, but it didn't even occur to me to challenge based on this.
I also disagree. If sci fi is worse today then it's just due to lazier film making and a desire to turn sci fi movies into vapid blockbusters. It might be true that people were more passionate about technology and science 30 years ago (after all, the moon landings were a much more recent thing then). But I wonder how much better informed they really were.
If you can call Gravity a sci fi movie, then I'd judge it a success. I rather liked Solaris, although that was a remake of a 70s movie which as an adaptation of a 60s book. Unfortunately, there's a lot of disappointing stuff too. I've not seen the original V, but I found the new one really disappointing. It felt like a rather generic action series. I'd love to see a film adaptation of Childhood's End.
I view piracy as a form of civil disobedience protesting inflated prices. If digital content were reduced to 25% I'm pretty sure sales would more than quadruple.
I think most people view it as a way to get free shit. Your assumption that a content price reduction would result in a big sales boost may not end up being true. On the other hand, we do know that people will go to great lengths to get free shit even when it's not in their interest to do it. We have the stampeeds on Black Friday, for instance. I know in the UK most or all of those "deals" aren't any cheaper than random price reductions at other times of year. Plus the good stuff is usually not reduced. Related to this: At one point my wife got really into store coupons and spent ages researching them and driving out of her way to get particular deals at particular times. Eventually she realised it was a waste of time (fucking took two months, she's persistent). She may or may not have saved money (extra gas costs to account for), but she was wasting a lot of time to save a few dollars at most.
In summary, I don't think people behave in logical ways about money. It's very easy to influence people by telling them that something is "free" when it's not, a "deal" when it's not, or to convince people to over-buy bulk goods for (sometimes) tiny savings and then have them end up wasting the over-bought product.
Yes, of course: it's niche and for work. But there are always limits. For my application, local storage space matters as much as speed. No good having super fast drives if they're too small and so I have to keep pushing TB of data back forth across the network to the server. Spinning disks and being smart about the workflow will do for now. SSDs just won't be worthwhile for me until they're at least 2TB.
Yup, likely this is true, but some of us would *love* to replace some HDDs with SSDs but still can't due to cost. I'm currently working with large data sets and I need at least 8 TB of storage locally. 16 TB is better. Access speed matters a lot. Right now I'm on btrfs RAID 1 with 8 spinning disks. It does the job but it could be faster. Setting up anything remotely similar with SSDs is going cost $5 at a minimum. Just can't afford that now. When sizes double and prices halve I may start thinking about it.
If there were suspicions about this person, I'm guessing he had raised flags already, thus negating that aspect of entrapment.
Depends on the evidence for the suspicions, doesn't it? If they have good reason to think he's done it before but need more evidence then it's ok, I suppose. If, on the other hand, they suspect him because of his name and nationality then that's a terrible reason. Whether something is entrapment is also influenced by how readily the person agrees to the under-cover agent's offer. In any case, we don't know since "The documents do not describe why Awwad was targeted."
You would call them developing planets in that case. It's pointless to pick holes in the definition because there is no perfect answer because the boundaries are fuzzy. It makes more sense to embrace that and subdivide things roughly into stuff like exo-planet, developing planet, dwarf planet, gas giant planet, etc. This way you convey information about the body in question. Arguing about the definition of the term "planet" on its own is just semantics and not interesting.
The problem is that "planet" was defined in ancient times as a wondering star; back then there were only 5 of them and so it was a clear-cut definition. Since then, the word has stuck but our knowledge has increased and so it's no longer trivial to decide what is and is not a planet. Thus, any definition will be controversial.
I don't really agree with all your points, though, as I think they're rather nitpicky. For instance, we don't know much about extra-solar planets so it's ok to lump them into one class for now. The class has a descriptive name: "extra-solar planet", so we're good there.
The Trojan Asteriods are in stable orbits created by Jupiter and the Sun. In effect, Jupiter has cleared its path as everything in its orbit is best thought of with respect to it. So Jupiter really isn't violating the spirit of the definition.
It also makes sense to have "dwarf planets." When you look at what orbits the sun you have the inner rocky planets, the outer gas giants, the asteroid belt, the trans-Neptunian objects, and comets. The asteroid belt and the TNOs are known to contain members of substantial size and it's reasonable to call those members dwarf planets. What makes less sense is trying to shoehorn too many disparate objects into one definition. The IAU ruling was trying to move away from that, and in this respect I support it.
Do you consider Ceres a planet? Because until more recently it, and IIRC one or two other asteriods, were considered planets. Today, hardly anyone has hard of Ceres. Ceres got demoted what it was realised that was simply a large object among millions that shared its orbit. It's the same for Pluto.
No it's isn't political correctness. The point is that IQ tests are skewed by schooling and so aren't a good underlying indicator of intelligence per se. e.g. IQ has been rising since the 30s. It can't be because we're getting smarter, so something is wrong. Watson is assuming that IQ==intelligence and therefore Africans are stupid. That's a problem. You also appear to be assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that we have selected (i.e. evolutionarily) for higher IQs in west and other urbansised areas. I don't think there is any evidence of this.
The article says "He said he is selling his prized medallion because he has no income outside of academia, even though for years he had served on many corporate boards. It also says that he will use the money to re-enter public life.
How odd. He still has an office at Cold Spring Harbor and he comes in to work fairly often. He still attends functions, fundraisers, and lectures there. He also has a very nice house on the lab's grounds that overlooks the Long Island sound. I can't imagine the laboratory is ungrateful with his retirement package. So he's still in public life and he's living a very nice life. I don't understand the article.
Often if you Google "ARTICLE TITLE" + PDF you will find a paywalled research somewhere. Researchers want their papers read and will often host them on their websites.
He's built his own tracking mount, which is nice, but many astrophotographers do this and you can also buy gear that will do it for you. This isn't new in any way. What's different is that he's shown he can detect a star's dimming due to an exoplanet pass using cheap detector gear. That's more impressive. You can see his raw data here.
If this device hadn't been found, anyone and I mean ANYONE who dared to suggest that such technology existed in this time-frame would be described, ESPECIALLY on forums like this one, as a complete 'anti-scientific' 'nutter'.
There are records of such devices (or at least related ones), but the Antikythera mechanism is the only surviving one. Cicero, for instance, describes an orrery which shows the motions of the moon and planets. Ancient Rhodes was famous for its automata.
Slashdot Mirror
You shouldn't be torrenting via TOR anyway. Get a suitable encyrpted VPN.
I agree, I found part one to be acceptable so I watched part two. Part two sucked. Even the CGI was worse. Not bothering with part 3.
I've been nailed this way once. There's a particular light I know with a stop camera and a yellow that lasts a very short period of time. It's obviously designed to trap people and generate money. I paid my ticket. I would have loved to have stuck it to them for the timing, but it didn't even occur to me to challenge based on this.
I also disagree. If sci fi is worse today then it's just due to lazier film making and a desire to turn sci fi movies into vapid blockbusters. It might be true that people were more passionate about technology and science 30 years ago (after all, the moon landings were a much more recent thing then). But I wonder how much better informed they really were.
If you can call Gravity a sci fi movie, then I'd judge it a success. I rather liked Solaris, although that was a remake of a 70s movie which as an adaptation of a 60s book. Unfortunately, there's a lot of disappointing stuff too. I've not seen the original V, but I found the new one really disappointing. It felt like a rather generic action series. I'd love to see a film adaptation of Childhood's End.
It's a fair bitch, though.
This, I'm sure, is true. But out of curiosity, what did you see and what tools did you test it with? Just any old malware/virus checker?
I view piracy as a form of civil disobedience protesting inflated prices. If digital content were reduced to 25% I'm pretty sure sales would more than quadruple.
I think most people view it as a way to get free shit. Your assumption that a content price reduction would result in a big sales boost may not end up being true. On the other hand, we do know that people will go to great lengths to get free shit even when it's not in their interest to do it. We have the stampeeds on Black Friday, for instance. I know in the UK most or all of those "deals" aren't any cheaper than random price reductions at other times of year. Plus the good stuff is usually not reduced. Related to this: At one point my wife got really into store coupons and spent ages researching them and driving out of her way to get particular deals at particular times. Eventually she realised it was a waste of time (fucking took two months, she's persistent). She may or may not have saved money (extra gas costs to account for), but she was wasting a lot of time to save a few dollars at most.
In summary, I don't think people behave in logical ways about money. It's very easy to influence people by telling them that something is "free" when it's not, a "deal" when it's not, or to convince people to over-buy bulk goods for (sometimes) tiny savings and then have them end up wasting the over-bought product.
Yes, of course: it's niche and for work. But there are always limits. For my application, local storage space matters as much as speed. No good having super fast drives if they're too small and so I have to keep pushing TB of data back forth across the network to the server. Spinning disks and being smart about the workflow will do for now. SSDs just won't be worthwhile for me until they're at least 2TB.
You call that a sense of humour?
Yup, likely this is true, but some of us would *love* to replace some HDDs with SSDs but still can't due to cost. I'm currently working with large data sets and I need at least 8 TB of storage locally. 16 TB is better. Access speed matters a lot. Right now I'm on btrfs RAID 1 with 8 spinning disks. It does the job but it could be faster. Setting up anything remotely similar with SSDs is going cost $5 at a minimum. Just can't afford that now. When sizes double and prices halve I may start thinking about it.
Read. The. Fucking. Article.
China is more authoritarian than totalitarian. N. Korea would be an example of a totalitarian regime.
What you say is fair, but did this guy agree right away or did they badger him repeatedly until he agreed?
If there were suspicions about this person, I'm guessing he had raised flags already, thus negating that aspect of entrapment.
Depends on the evidence for the suspicions, doesn't it? If they have good reason to think he's done it before but need more evidence then it's ok, I suppose. If, on the other hand, they suspect him because of his name and nationality then that's a terrible reason. Whether something is entrapment is also influenced by how readily the person agrees to the under-cover agent's offer. In any case, we don't know since "The documents do not describe why Awwad was targeted."
You would call them developing planets in that case. It's pointless to pick holes in the definition because there is no perfect answer because the boundaries are fuzzy. It makes more sense to embrace that and subdivide things roughly into stuff like exo-planet, developing planet, dwarf planet, gas giant planet, etc. This way you convey information about the body in question. Arguing about the definition of the term "planet" on its own is just semantics and not interesting.
The problem is that "planet" was defined in ancient times as a wondering star; back then there were only 5 of them and so it was a clear-cut definition. Since then, the word has stuck but our knowledge has increased and so it's no longer trivial to decide what is and is not a planet. Thus, any definition will be controversial.
I don't really agree with all your points, though, as I think they're rather nitpicky. For instance, we don't know much about extra-solar planets so it's ok to lump them into one class for now. The class has a descriptive name: "extra-solar planet", so we're good there.
The Trojan Asteriods are in stable orbits created by Jupiter and the Sun. In effect, Jupiter has cleared its path as everything in its orbit is best thought of with respect to it. So Jupiter really isn't violating the spirit of the definition.
It also makes sense to have "dwarf planets." When you look at what orbits the sun you have the inner rocky planets, the outer gas giants, the asteroid belt, the trans-Neptunian objects, and comets. The asteroid belt and the TNOs are known to contain members of substantial size and it's reasonable to call those members dwarf planets. What makes less sense is trying to shoehorn too many disparate objects into one definition. The IAU ruling was trying to move away from that, and in this respect I support it.
Do you consider Ceres a planet? Because until more recently it, and IIRC one or two other asteriods, were considered planets. Today, hardly anyone has hard of Ceres. Ceres got demoted what it was realised that was simply a large object among millions that shared its orbit. It's the same for Pluto.
Or just post them on their website.
No it's isn't political correctness. The point is that IQ tests are skewed by schooling and so aren't a good underlying indicator of intelligence per se. e.g. IQ has been rising since the 30s. It can't be because we're getting smarter, so something is wrong. Watson is assuming that IQ==intelligence and therefore Africans are stupid. That's a problem. You also appear to be assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that we have selected (i.e. evolutionarily) for higher IQs in west and other urbansised areas. I don't think there is any evidence of this.
The article says "He said he is selling his prized medallion because he has no income outside of academia, even though for years he had served on many corporate boards. It also says that he will use the money to re-enter public life.
How odd. He still has an office at Cold Spring Harbor and he comes in to work fairly often. He still attends functions, fundraisers, and lectures there. He also has a very nice house on the lab's grounds that overlooks the Long Island sound. I can't imagine the laboratory is ungrateful with his retirement package. So he's still in public life and he's living a very nice life. I don't understand the article.
Often if you Google "ARTICLE TITLE" + PDF you will find a paywalled research somewhere. Researchers want their papers read and will often host them on their websites.
He's built his own tracking mount, which is nice, but many astrophotographers do this and you can also buy gear that will do it for you. This isn't new in any way. What's different is that he's shown he can detect a star's dimming due to an exoplanet pass using cheap detector gear. That's more impressive. You can see his raw data here.
I have placed it in another room and run HDMI and USB cables, but the propagation delay caused horrible tearing and lag when playing games
The signals travel at the speed of light. How far away is your room?
Antibiotics are a nice example of serendipity.
If this device hadn't been found, anyone and I mean ANYONE who dared to suggest that such technology existed in this time-frame would be described, ESPECIALLY on forums like this one, as a complete 'anti-scientific' 'nutter'.
There are records of such devices (or at least related ones), but the Antikythera mechanism is the only surviving one. Cicero, for instance, describes an orrery which shows the motions of the moon and planets. Ancient Rhodes was famous for its automata.