The computer animated movies coming out these days (e.g. Shrek 2, The Incredibles, Polar Express) have realistically rendered humans that are very impressive. Quite a leap from the old days (e.g. Toy Story) where the animation of human characters felt so wrong.
Linus Torvalds, for example, didn't actually try to write Linux from scratch. Instead, he started by reusing code and ideas from Minix, a tiny Unix-like operating system for PC clones. Eventually all the Minix code went away or was completely rewritten -- but while it was there, it provided scaffolding for the infant that would eventually become Linux.
I think that ESR is simply wrong about this. The analysis of Linux v0.1 (commissioned by AdTI itself) found no code taken from Minix.
Nope, that's not it either. I'm sitting here in a chair. Everything around me has a velocity of 0 and an acceleration of 0 -- i.e. we're not moving. And yet I am not weightless.
Right. And if I cared enough to stop you from doing this, I wouldn't use "password" in the first place. You can be the proud new owner of my Washington Post account if you can figure out what its name is.
If you are experienced in C++ or Java programming, Cocoa development will seem familiar enough. Objective-C is used throughout the book.
Are you saying that familiarity with C++ or Java is sufficient to learn Objective-C with no further effort? Or perhaps you're saying that the book teaches me how Objective-C along with Cocoa?
Without some sort of clarification, the two sentences above seem rather contradictory.
My point is that your brain already does these things (e.g. use focus and motion cues to provide an illusion of depth). All you're going to do is create a distraction by over-emphasizing these cues.
I haven't RTFA, but I'm dubious about this claim. There simply isn't enough information in a 2D image to construct a 3D image. If there were, your brain would already do it (and, in fact, already does to a limited extent). I don't see how computer technology is going to improve on what your brain can already do.
Most of the time, people just don't care. And why should they?
I probably have 200 passwords floating around in cyberspace, and 90% of them are "password". For example, I have to supply uid/pwd in order to read the Washington Post (my local newspaper). Is it important to keep this password secret? No, because I'm not very worried about someone reading the newspaper under my name.
Unless I have confidential personal information at stake, I am not usually motivated to create a strong password.
So, sysadmins, if the security of your overall network is more important than Joe User's individual data, you need to enforce strong password rules. Relying on users to create strong passwords voluntarily under such conditions is foolish.
Maybe I just don't get it, but Looking Glass looks pretty silly to me. Who the heck really wants to see the back of a window, anyway? It sounds more like a clever parody than a real business model.
Engineers don't have special rights in this situation, but artists do. This special right is called... wait for it... copyright, and it's enshrined in the Constitution.
Re:Logic, Logic -- Who's Got the Logic?
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: 1
Archie: Do you have your bike with you? Betty: I walked in today.
Archie: I'm gonna flunk this course. Betty: Sure, just like you flunk every course you take.
Archie: Boys will be boys.
Re:Logic, Logic -- Who's Got the Logic?
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: 1
You are completely missing the point: the food in the fridge is there regardless of your personal state. From a purely semantic point of view, the extra information provided by "in case you're hungry" is irrelevant. You need to look at the sentence pragmatically in order to understand its intended meaning.
Linguistics gives us the ability to look at utterances at multiple levels: Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. Many smart people (such as the OP) are familiar with Syntax and Semantics, but surprisingly ignorant about Pragmatics.
Re:Logic, Logic -- Who's Got the Logic?
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: 1
Thanks, but context-sensitive programming languages almost completely irrelevant to the point at hand. They really pale in comparison to natural languages in this regard.
Pragmatics is all about trying to understand what someone intends to mean (vs. what the words literally mean). Computers are positiviely famous for not being able to do this. At this point in history, this ability is a uniquely human trait.
Re:Logic, Logic -- Who's Got the Logic?
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, but "in case" is semantically equivalent to "if", and is thus equally redundant. Proof: There's also food in the fridge in case you're NOT hungry.
You need to look at sentences like this from a pragmatic point of view in order to make sense of them.
Oh my god, I thought that was hilarious until I got to the bottom and realized that it's not a joke!
Re:Logic, Logic -- Who's Got the Logic?
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: 3, Informative
This is perfectly legitimate linguistic construct. It's not at all illogical once you have an understanding of pragmatics.
Of course, being a native speaker of English, I presume that you already have a very good intuitive sense of pragmatics, and are just conflating the rigid semantics of computers (which have no pragmatics) with the much more expressive power of human languages.
Another common example: "There's some food in the fridge if you're hungry." Of course, there's also food in the fridge if you're not hungry, but that's not the point.
Slashdot Mirror
The computer animated movies coming out these days (e.g. Shrek 2, The Incredibles, Polar Express) have realistically rendered humans that are very impressive. Quite a leap from the old days (e.g. Toy Story) where the animation of human characters felt so wrong.
I use Proxim.
Velocity AND acceleration have to be the same.
Nope, that's not it either. I'm sitting here in a chair. Everything around me has a velocity of 0 and an acceleration of 0 -- i.e. we're not moving. And yet I am not weightless.
Right. And if I cared enough to stop you from doing this, I wouldn't use "password" in the first place. You can be the proud new owner of my Washington Post account if you can figure out what its name is.
If you are experienced in C++ or Java programming, Cocoa development will seem familiar enough. Objective-C is used throughout the book.
Are you saying that familiarity with C++ or Java is sufficient to learn Objective-C with no further effort? Or perhaps you're saying that the book teaches me how Objective-C along with Cocoa?
Without some sort of clarification, the two sentences above seem rather contradictory.
My point is that your brain already does these things (e.g. use focus and motion cues to provide an illusion of depth). All you're going to do is create a distraction by over-emphasizing these cues.
I haven't RTFA, but I'm dubious about this claim. There simply isn't enough information in a 2D image to construct a 3D image. If there were, your brain would already do it (and, in fact, already does to a limited extent). I don't see how computer technology is going to improve on what your brain can already do.
Most of the time, people just don't care. And why should they?
I probably have 200 passwords floating around in cyberspace, and 90% of them are "password". For example, I have to supply uid/pwd in order to read the Washington Post (my local newspaper). Is it important to keep this password secret? No, because I'm not very worried about someone reading the newspaper under my name.
Unless I have confidential personal information at stake, I am not usually motivated to create a strong password.
So, sysadmins, if the security of your overall network is more important than Joe User's individual data, you need to enforce strong password rules. Relying on users to create strong passwords voluntarily under such conditions is foolish.
Unlike, say, riding in a car or even walking across a busy street?
Okay, but it's still possible that the two effects tend to balance each other out (somewhat).
Our solution was to deploy a centeralized controlled distributed firewall system inside our internal network.
Aren't "centralized" and "distributed" opposites?
I am a 37 year old man and I'm here to say that I like these Haikus. So there.
Maybe I just don't get it, but Looking Glass looks pretty silly to me. Who the heck really wants to see the back of a window, anyway? It sounds more like a clever parody than a real business model.
Yep, we agree. We can't let the Valentis of the world separate "engineers" into a separate class of people distinct from "citizens".
That's all fabulous but it does nothing to explain why engineers need special rights.
The trap here is that we let Valenti define engineers as a special group in the first place. Once he did that, we lost the argument.
We should insist that engineer = citizen. Then his argument goes away.
(try to imagine a reasonable response to this)
... wait for it ... copyright, and it's enshrined in the Constitution.
How about this:
Engineers don't have special rights in this situation, but artists do. This special right is called
Please show me a computer programmer that can apply Grice's maxims of conversational implicature. See http://www.stanford.edu/class/linguist230a/grice.p df for examples, such as:
Archie: Do you have your bike with you?
Betty: I walked in today.
Archie: I'm gonna flunk this course.
Betty: Sure, just like you flunk every course you take.
Archie: Boys will be boys.
You are completely missing the point: the food in the fridge is there regardless of your personal state. From a purely semantic point of view, the extra information provided by "in case you're hungry" is irrelevant. You need to look at the sentence pragmatically in order to understand its intended meaning.
Linguistics gives us the ability to look at utterances at multiple levels: Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. Many smart people (such as the OP) are familiar with Syntax and Semantics, but surprisingly ignorant about Pragmatics.
Thanks, but context-sensitive programming languages almost completely irrelevant to the point at hand. They really pale in comparison to natural languages in this regard.
Pragmatics is all about trying to understand what someone intends to mean (vs. what the words literally mean). Computers are positiviely famous for not being able to do this. At this point in history, this ability is a uniquely human trait.
Sorry, but "in case" is semantically equivalent to "if", and is thus equally redundant. Proof: There's also food in the fridge in case you're NOT hungry.
You need to look at sentences like this from a pragmatic point of view in order to make sense of them.
That's not the one I use. The one I use is called GSPlayer2 and looks like a mini-Winamp.
Oh my god, I thought that was hilarious until I got to the bottom and realized that it's not a joke!
This is perfectly legitimate linguistic construct. It's not at all illogical once you have an understanding of pragmatics.
Of course, being a native speaker of English, I presume that you already have a very good intuitive sense of pragmatics, and are just conflating the rigid semantics of computers (which have no pragmatics) with the much more expressive power of human languages.
Another common example: "There's some food in the fridge if you're hungry." Of course, there's also food in the fridge if you're not hungry, but that's not the point.
I've been doing this for months using a little WinAmp knockoff called GSPlayer2 that runs on my Pocket PC and can handle any Shoutcast stream.
I don't recall where I found GSPlayer2 -- it seems to be an orphan now that I'm searching for it with Google.