It's got potential, but the people marketing it seem to have forgotten one important thing: it took YEARS before either Twitter or Facebook was a major presence in social networking. My first tweet is about 3 years older than my second one.
They think that it was the rise of celebrity cachet that made those things, when that celebrity population didn't get there until numerous people around them were already involved.
They're jumping the gun. They should let it build slowly, get the bugs worked out, let the early-adopters tell them what corners to knock off or stretch into spires, and only then push it hard to people who will drag it to the mass market.
No, I don't see why there's such a thing as a Marine Corps computer programmer, and the idea of a Marine with that kind of cognitive capacity makes me think of a dog that can operate a radio, or a fist with a cerebellum.
The whole construction of the military is based on centuries-old organizational principles. We should by now have specialized fighting units of 10 or 12 different types based on tactical capability (bombing, fighters, helo, beachhead, mechanized infantry, area denial, intel, etc.), and one central organization deploying them strategically. The division of labor that we have now just creates a lack of cohesion, duplication of acquisition costs, and conflation of the mission.
I can spend an hour in this checkpoint, or I can drag my shit half an hour to the next one and spend half an hour there, then drag my shit half an hour back here because this is where my gate is...
Facebook's problem is that its interface is ill-designed. It presents information in ways that are hard to understand ("most recent" sorting I understand; the default sorting is a mystery; and Google+ doesn't even have a "most recent" button on the Stream). And certain things just don't seem to work (when a link has a number on it, it means there are that many messages or something waiting at the other end; click it, and the number goes away because it assumes you've read them; except it doesn't on about 10% of those widgets...)
Google+ seems to have inherited several of these problems. And it provides no means for pointing them out to the development team. It's like walking into a half-built building and finding many rooms have no way in or out, there are windows missing, the cold-water faucet shocks you, the kitchen appliances run on diesel, and you're encouraged to invite your family and friends to join you there.
And now they'll be offering carpeted versions of this to people who can tell 40 million of their Facebook friends that it's broken. Not wise.
They probably found anomalies in tracks in other experiments, and didn't figure out what they were until several of them had been observed. 2.5e1 hits out of 5e14 attempts suggests strongly though that someone went looking for any anomaly they could find in old data. It's hard to believe anyone would notice them in any particular plotted screenshot. Or maybe they took the catalog of predicted particles and tried to match it to existing data. Whichever, it's good science.
It's something that was found in data taken by the Tevatron, which we funded on purpose because it could tell us a lot of things.
Given the enormous ratio of attempts to successes, it's likely that they never even did one run trying to cause these to appear. They were probably tiny gaps in tracks taken for other purposes, data-mined and correlated to the theoretical model.
You're right, and to prove it you didn't even make an argument.
Why even have the word "make", since all things were made at the dawn of time and now we don't "make", we just "rearrange". What a stupid word this "make" is made out to be. It makes me so ANGRY.
The folks who could afford full armor could also afford horses.
And they didn't do a lot of running. They mostly stood around a quarter of a mile behind the fighting watching to see if they should get back on their horses.
The folks who did the fighting, if they wore any armor at all, wore small pieces of armor at critical points.
Non-scalable fonts are software, too. The distinction between data and instructions as "computer programs" is somewhat artificial.
And, in some places, everything about typefaces is copyrightable. Which means they might as well be copyrightable everywhere, if your code that emits them doesn't know where not to.
Slashdot Mirror
You do, clearly.
So that I don't have to spend the night in jail because you raped your social worker and we have the same haircut.
Uh, sure. With 10 million extant users and an attempt to bring Lady Gaga and her 50 million FB kiddies into the "trial".
This is no beta test. This is beta-by-deployment. And they're overdoing it.
It's got potential, but the people marketing it seem to have forgotten one important thing: it took YEARS before either Twitter or Facebook was a major presence in social networking. My first tweet is about 3 years older than my second one.
They think that it was the rise of celebrity cachet that made those things, when that celebrity population didn't get there until numerous people around them were already involved.
They're jumping the gun. They should let it build slowly, get the bugs worked out, let the early-adopters tell them what corners to knock off or stretch into spires, and only then push it hard to people who will drag it to the mass market.
I've never seen it until now. But this isn't my usual browser. I've only gone to g+ on the computer where I default to using Chrome.
No, I don't see why there's such a thing as a Marine Corps computer programmer, and the idea of a Marine with that kind of cognitive capacity makes me think of a dog that can operate a radio, or a fist with a cerebellum.
The whole construction of the military is based on centuries-old organizational principles. We should by now have specialized fighting units of 10 or 12 different types based on tactical capability (bombing, fighters, helo, beachhead, mechanized infantry, area denial, intel, etc.), and one central organization deploying them strategically. The division of labor that we have now just creates a lack of cohesion, duplication of acquisition costs, and conflation of the mission.
Salute history and start over.
I'm not sure of the savings.
I can spend an hour in this checkpoint, or I can drag my shit half an hour to the next one and spend half an hour there, then drag my shit half an hour back here because this is where my gate is...
Moot point. Fuck flying.
Isn't he going to replace the Linux Kernel in Ubuntu with Skype, too?
Facebook's problem is that its interface is ill-designed. It presents information in ways that are hard to understand ("most recent" sorting I understand; the default sorting is a mystery; and Google+ doesn't even have a "most recent" button on the Stream). And certain things just don't seem to work (when a link has a number on it, it means there are that many messages or something waiting at the other end; click it, and the number goes away because it assumes you've read them; except it doesn't on about 10% of those widgets...)
Google+ seems to have inherited several of these problems. And it provides no means for pointing them out to the development team. It's like walking into a half-built building and finding many rooms have no way in or out, there are windows missing, the cold-water faucet shocks you, the kitchen appliances run on diesel, and you're encouraged to invite your family and friends to join you there.
And now they'll be offering carpeted versions of this to people who can tell 40 million of their Facebook friends that it's broken. Not wise.
They probably found anomalies in tracks in other experiments, and didn't figure out what they were until several of them had been observed. 2.5e1 hits out of 5e14 attempts suggests strongly though that someone went looking for any anomaly they could find in old data. It's hard to believe anyone would notice them in any particular plotted screenshot. Or maybe they took the catalog of predicted particles and tried to match it to existing data. Whichever, it's good science.
I'm not sure we funded it on purpose.
It's something that was found in data taken by the Tevatron, which we funded on purpose because it could tell us a lot of things.
Given the enormous ratio of attempts to successes, it's likely that they never even did one run trying to cause these to appear. They were probably tiny gaps in tracks taken for other purposes, data-mined and correlated to the theoretical model.
So we probably got it for free.
They're waiting to discover a new strange particle first. Just to fuck with your username.
You are confusing hypothesis and knowledge. Science doesn't.
When were you posted by an AC?
You're right, and to prove it you didn't even make an argument.
Why even have the word "make", since all things were made at the dawn of time and now we don't "make", we just "rearrange". What a stupid word this "make" is made out to be. It makes me so ANGRY.
Zzzzzzzzz.....
Unless you don't consider scoping out the Dallas Cowboy's Cheerleaders on the big-screen to be "analysis".
Yes, they are joking.
The folks who could afford full armor could also afford horses.
And they didn't do a lot of running. They mostly stood around a quarter of a mile behind the fighting watching to see if they should get back on their horses.
The folks who did the fighting, if they wore any armor at all, wore small pieces of armor at critical points.
I call ye olde shenaniganes.
Computer Programmer in the Marine Corps
Man, just the concept of that makes me think that the Dalmatian is on the fire truck to work the radio.
You only vote for them. The MIC hires them to run. And nowhere is there a law stating what their individual job descriptions entail.
Nope. They made them.
It's possible, even likely, that something somewhere else (supernova, the big bang, etc.) made some in olden times. But these were brand-spankin' new.
Favorite quotes from TFA:
"existence of the Xi-sub-b has been predicted for some time"
"the Xi-sub-b was observed in 25 instances among almost 500 trillion proton-antiproton collisions"
He's almost saying the same thing.
Non-scalable fonts are software, too. The distinction between data and instructions as "computer programs" is somewhat artificial.
And, in some places, everything about typefaces is copyrightable. Which means they might as well be copyrightable everywhere, if your code that emits them doesn't know where not to.
If it's 600 meters by 1 mile, I want to know it's 600 meters by 1 mile, because 2400 by 5280 feet is not the same thing.
Keep believing that.
It's a gimmick for a housing development.
Zoom in on the SW corner:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Hamad+Bin+Hamdan+Al+Nahyan&hl=en&ll=24.346862,54.329238&spn=0.033117,0.055747&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=22.087036,57.084961&radius=15000.000000&t=h&z=15
"Tits." - Jack Ryan