Wen you have a press release in Korean for an impossible device complete with impressive 3D Photoshop models, you can talk. His internet provider probably has QoS turned on for grammar and it got throttled.
With the subscription model, no one can 3d print installation media and have infinite Adobe. Obviously that had to be in place before they could support the horde of users clamoring for 3d printing for image macros and headswaps.
Body language can convey intelligence or ignorance, and explains this experience far better. It's actually quite interesting, if that is the explanation, because he is clueless about the real reason and attributes it to a stereotype. Projecting, in psychological terms.
Lingering painful death is frowned upon more frownfully than quick death. Even a beheading where the victim likely dies after less than 20 seconds of hacking is frowned upon than the same situation with a pistol shot. Killer robots are frowned upon because a remote operator can kill without being endangered, making it clean and easy, instead of the usual mess. Method of death does not seem to be a factor.
What would the United nations and Nobel laureates gain from keeping people in fear? Does it make more sense as a symbolic simplification used to maintain awareness of the current problems faced by the UN? The reasons change, so its not a countdown, and clearly is not a time scale. Moving closer to midnight means things got worse, away means better. It's a report summary in pictures, if you prefer that.
All I learned was that a model needed more parameters, which in the pure sciences is the obvious conclusion. Yet here it seems to be a revelation, following years of people discarding animals as just being incompetent problem solvers. Ascribing enough intelligence to consider such a problem, while stating that it is a basic survival need to solve the problem, seems like a seriously conflicted theory. Failure to solve the problem seems, in other words, to require more cognition than a simple instinctive decision based on immediately available information, where "it takes longer to eat that" is part of the information. In particular, this quote demonstrates astounding ignorance from a field of study.
âoeOn witnessing such behaviour in the past, people have simply assumed that it is not optimal,â says mathematical biologist Peter Trimmer of the University of Bristol, UK, a co-author of the latest study. âoeThey assume that the individual or species is not adapted to solve the given task,â or that the solution is too costly to compute, he says.
The lack of mature commentary suggests that you stay away, if you care what Slashdot readers think. Reflect on that and become enlightened.
If you want help deciding whether to learn java, download eclipse and write hello world. If you don't immediately burn your house down to remove the taint of Satan's ide, maybe java is for you. Or Ask Slashdot, where you can be informed by the great geek collective about just how ignorantly neckbearded the idea is or isn't. Also, you smell like farts and your nose looks oddly misshapen. And you're a booger.
The case evolves around a comment made by Appleâ(TM)s late-CEO Steve Jobs to Palmâ(TM)s CEO: âoeWe must do whatever we can to stop cold calling each otherâ(TM)s employees and other competitive recruiting efforts between the companies.â
Copied directly from the article. No logic needed. No need to prove intent because It's right there in the comments at the core of the entire case.
I do agree that these whiny millennials could do the normal thing and occasionally look for other options and therefore lost nothing, but the law does not look favorably on anticompetitive practice, so that statement is pretty much all they needed.
That's the point of the headline, summary, and article so you're triply redundant. The audience of the article is business. Those that might release code as open, or might use open source. Most have at least one senior member that either doesn't get why releasing code is good, or using someone else's code is good. They will buy Unix instead of running linux. Or if they release code, they expect code to be contributed back. Sometimes, like when no one cares to fix it, there is no code to give back. Your post, and the dozen like it, are what happens when you preach to the choir and the choir preaches back. Understand the audience of any communication and there is knowledge to be gained. Not many articles are written for Slashdot readers, so you have to either be part of the intended audience, or put yourself in their shoes.
Clearly IE, the popular closed source browser,,is against anonymity. Who knows this for sure, the country with the code.ie - I feel dumb for not knowing earlier.
Can you screw your abstractions and forget to call them later? Do you have to use Gates condoms or will sheepskin work? What if your abstractions become pregnant? Is the offspring concrete? Should you have just prevented the problem by going with an int-er-face?
If you abstract the idea to a framework, and let the framework take care of the work, you have less programming to do.
And if your framework is domain-specific enough that it can watch one column and update another with very simple rules, without injecting a custom validation layer, then you have it very easy.
Your code base being 5 lines means that only 5 lines of code execute, and anything else that happens behind the scenes require no learning, support, fixing, bug reports, testing, or really any attention at all, because it works for your domain-specific problem.
So, you have your "ordering" framework, one for "matching address rules to geographical locations" validation framework, your "content management system that uses plain text to deliver content" framework... oh, there is a framework for every need. That's how simple it is.
And, NO ONE HAD TO WRITE THE FUCKING FRAMEWORK.
That last part is the important one, it's how you achieve time to market and bug-free nature of the code. Just give up and believe.
Oh good, a very simple sounding solution that uses weasel words like "per se" and a followup weasel statement.
You have to realize, surely, that if you can't quantify the "per se" and "clever" parts in less than a thousand words, it would be impossible to write such limits into law in less than that number of words.
The simple act of defining patent trolls, while avoiding being unfair to entities such as universities and individual investors who have no time nor desire to go into production just to have protection, should demonstrate how simple it is to have a concept, but difficult to define it.
In fact, patents that run several hundred pages (my name is on at least one and it weighed measurably by kilos) that describe "shopping but on the internet" or a similarly "obvious" concept, should demonstrate that it is not so simple as re-defining the venue, since there are frequently new challenges - just the sort of thing you describe as obvious.
Simple, but it won't work without so much defining that it's no longer simple.
This message is misleadingly worded because the phrase "by creating a public Google+ profile" implies that's something you can do, optionally, if you want to.
That is the source of confusion. By skipping the step, you don't choose how your info is displayed. By creating one (or going through the steps) you get to choose.
Bennett assumes a literal reading and blames it when it falls short. The intent is to say here is how to control your info.
The decision to create a shell profile is a different problem, and is only tangentially related. If Bennett would focus on the problem instead of making assumptions, literal reading, or pretending to be a noob, he might be a valuable source. But this is just embarrassing.
You are saying that you just make a change in your profile, which the instructions already say to do. If someone reads them. Like Bennett for example.
No one reads his/her blog so s/he uses Slashdot to post gripes instead of contacting people who can effect change. In other words the geek world's passive aggressive post it note leaver.
People use cameras to take pictures of visible light, so the demand for other spectra just isn't there. The simple digital devices have a filter film that can be removed, or replaced for night vision. They are not optimized for night vision so sensitivity is an issue. But it works. Depending on where you got your camera parts, they may have a filter, or its possible to do math instead. But a film is cheaper as long as it stays in place If you have one, replace it with thin black paper or other things. As for why, smartphones are not designed to be user serviceable. But if you're a geek, anything's serviceable.
Confirmation bias. You want this to be true generally so it applies in your case. Who says it actually does? Answer that and you have a point. Else, you may represent a minority at best.
Not saying you are wrong, but I'm not convinced enough to find good stats. I remain unchanged in opinion, regardless of what it is.
As much as I encourage erring on the cautious side as opposed to assumptions, no good has ever come from permission without responsibility.
Some, of course, but overall we are still negative on balance. A siren would be the minimal responsibility, since others already have that requirement
The survey was intentionally vague, that is a sure warning sign. Be wary.
Sources said that 93 per cent of people who responded to the proposal backed the idea of extending speed limit exemptions to those involved in âoethe protection of life and limb or national securityâ.
There is a minimum legible text size, a minimum for distinguishing icons. And ergonomic reasons for not having to move your eyes and head too much. I think that places an upper bound on screen size. Resolution has to scale with distance, but makes no sense to have a high rez screen further away. At that point, you have the option of multiple displays, reorienting yourself to see one or the other. People may argue a large screen allows that, but to combat eye fatigue you want those areas walled off. Physical screens are still the best way, until there is a window manager to accomplish that. Even then, I will probably argue for multiple monitors to enforce ergonomics. I think of the movie scenes where a HUD makes the pilot look like a bobblehead. Getting whiplash from coding seems likely with such a large surface area. Imagine if we could reuse that display space for different applications, choosing the most relevant with a keystroke or two, like alt-tab. Moving the content instead of your head.
Saying a business sucks because of the owners stance is free speech in the sense that business donating money to a candidate is speech. Especially if I don't lie about specifics, and just say it blows. I can see this view being unpopular among business owners, but I can see its validity in context of case law. And free speech allows shill reviews. I argue that shill reviews harm the hosting site's reputation, and people will find another site to trust. An example is amazon, with its verified purchase reviews. I find those trustworthy, and frequently consult amazon before buying in a physical store. Some business is more difficult to verify. But, just as receipts hold links to surveys for free items, they could hold a verified purchase token. This is not likely to spring up overnight, but there are solutions. Most people are skeptical if online reviews, but read them anyway. I see no reason to instill trust in those rare instances where the proprietor fights back, and leave the rest dubious. The solution is both differentiating verified reviews, and shaming sites that host unverified reviews. Verified reviews can be gamed by actually buying or visiting, so there is no perfect fix. Which is all the more reason to leave all reviews suspect. Which means there is no incentive to make false reviews any less legal than they are. QED.
Otoh, commenters here have repeatedly called for in-housing it work rather than paying contractor overhead. I would expect many here to see this as a positive development and hope it proves them right. The lesson would not transfer to other governments without existing it workers, but might suggest that the government might want to look into it. Or if it goes badly we learn a different lesson. I certainly can see appropriateness without needing your level if cynicism.
3d is what it always had been. Height, width, and depth. In movies people complain that you can't refocus, and that means it it not 3d. Well, you also can't look at anything not in frame either, even if it just was in frame- you ser and focus on what the director wanted. Such people generally say it has to be a hologram to qualify for the 3d label. But what you pointed out is we will have a new intermediate level. Better than 3d, but no eye tracking for refocus. Immersive 3d. Maybe eye tracking for reasons other than focus. And yet another intermediate, immersive with refocus. It will work for just the user. And finally, we might get to holograms. My point is we are going to need to agree on terms so we can talk intelligently without constant clarification.
Let's just pontificate based purely on our own experience. Surely everyone has had an average life, average education, and average interaction with police. Therefore, we are on the same ground, and grant your experience the same as fable, and the same as our full of shit neighbor. Or, perhaps your experience is less or more than normal. Either way, no one should draw any conclusion on what you say, it serves at best as a data point.
Slashdot Mirror
Wen you have a press release in Korean for an impossible device complete with impressive 3D Photoshop models, you can talk. His internet provider probably has QoS turned on for grammar and it got throttled.
With the subscription model, no one can 3d print installation media and have infinite Adobe. Obviously that had to be in place before they could support the horde of users clamoring for 3d printing for image macros and headswaps.
Body language can convey intelligence or ignorance, and explains this experience far better.
It's actually quite interesting, if that is the explanation, because he is clueless about the real reason and attributes it to a stereotype. Projecting, in psychological terms.
Lingering painful death is frowned upon more frownfully than quick death. Even a beheading where the victim likely dies after less than 20 seconds of hacking is frowned upon than the same situation with a pistol shot.
Killer robots are frowned upon because a remote operator can kill without being endangered, making it clean and easy, instead of the usual mess.
Method of death does not seem to be a factor.
What would the United nations and Nobel laureates gain from keeping people in fear?
Does it make more sense as a symbolic simplification used to maintain awareness of the current problems faced by the UN?
The reasons change, so its not a countdown, and clearly is not a time scale. Moving closer to midnight means things got worse, away means better. It's a report summary in pictures, if you prefer that.
All I learned was that a model needed more parameters, which in the pure sciences is the obvious conclusion. Yet here it seems to be a revelation, following years of people discarding animals as just being incompetent problem solvers.
Ascribing enough intelligence to consider such a problem, while stating that it is a basic survival need to solve the problem, seems like a seriously conflicted theory. Failure to solve the problem seems, in other words, to require more cognition than a simple instinctive decision based on immediately available information, where "it takes longer to eat that" is part of the information.
In particular, this quote demonstrates astounding ignorance from a field of study.
âoeOn witnessing such behaviour in the past, people have simply assumed that it is not optimal,â says mathematical biologist Peter Trimmer of the University of Bristol, UK, a co-author of the latest study. âoeThey assume that the individual or species is not adapted to solve the given task,â or that the solution is too costly to compute, he says.
The lack of mature commentary suggests that you stay away, if you care what Slashdot readers think. Reflect on that and become enlightened.
If you want help deciding whether to learn java, download eclipse and write hello world. If you don't immediately burn your house down to remove the taint of Satan's ide, maybe java is for you. Or Ask Slashdot, where you can be informed by the great geek collective about just how ignorantly neckbearded the idea is or isn't.
Also, you smell like farts and your nose looks oddly misshapen. And you're a booger.
The case evolves around a comment made by Appleâ(TM)s late-CEO Steve Jobs to Palmâ(TM)s CEO: âoeWe must do whatever we can to stop cold calling each otherâ(TM)s employees and other competitive recruiting efforts between the companies.â
Copied directly from the article. No logic needed. No need to prove intent because It's right there in the comments at the core of the entire case.
I do agree that these whiny millennials could do the normal thing and occasionally look for other options and therefore lost nothing, but the law does not look favorably on anticompetitive practice, so that statement is pretty much all they needed.
That's the point of the headline, summary, and article so you're triply redundant.
The audience of the article is business. Those that might release code as open, or might use open source. Most have at least one senior member that either doesn't get why releasing code is good, or using someone else's code is good. They will buy Unix instead of running linux.
Or if they release code, they expect code to be contributed back. Sometimes, like when no one cares to fix it, there is no code to give back.
Your post, and the dozen like it, are what happens when you preach to the choir and the choir preaches back. Understand the audience of any communication and there is knowledge to be gained. Not many articles are written for Slashdot readers, so you have to either be part of the intended audience, or put yourself in their shoes.
Can you settle this argument? Is the craptastically wrong headline your fault, or did Dice fuck it up for page views ?
Clearly IE, the popular closed source browser, ,is against anonymity. Who knows this for sure, the country with the code .ie - I feel dumb for not knowing earlier.
Can you screw your abstractions and forget to call them later? Do you have to use Gates condoms or will sheepskin work? What if your abstractions become pregnant? Is the offspring concrete? Should you have just prevented the problem by going with an int-er-face?
You clearly don't understand.
If you abstract the idea to a framework, and let the framework take care of the work, you have less programming to do.
And if your framework is domain-specific enough that it can watch one column and update another with very simple rules, without injecting a custom validation layer, then you have it very easy.
Your code base being 5 lines means that only 5 lines of code execute, and anything else that happens behind the scenes require no learning, support, fixing, bug reports, testing, or really any attention at all, because it works for your domain-specific problem.
So, you have your "ordering" framework, one for "matching address rules to geographical locations" validation framework, your "content management system that uses plain text to deliver content" framework... oh, there is a framework for every need. That's how simple it is.
And, NO ONE HAD TO WRITE THE FUCKING FRAMEWORK.
That last part is the important one, it's how you achieve time to market and bug-free nature of the code. Just give up and believe.
Oh good, a very simple sounding solution that uses weasel words like "per se" and a followup weasel statement.
You have to realize, surely, that if you can't quantify the "per se" and "clever" parts in less than a thousand words, it would be impossible to write such limits into law in less than that number of words.
The simple act of defining patent trolls, while avoiding being unfair to entities such as universities and individual investors who have no time nor desire to go into production just to have protection, should demonstrate how simple it is to have a concept, but difficult to define it.
In fact, patents that run several hundred pages (my name is on at least one and it weighed measurably by kilos) that describe "shopping but on the internet" or a similarly "obvious" concept, should demonstrate that it is not so simple as re-defining the venue, since there are frequently new challenges - just the sort of thing you describe as obvious.
Simple, but it won't work without so much defining that it's no longer simple.
This message is misleadingly worded because the phrase "by creating a public Google+ profile" implies that's something you can do, optionally, if you want to.
That is the source of confusion. By skipping the step, you don't choose how your info is displayed. By creating one (or going through the steps) you get to choose.
Bennett assumes a literal reading and blames it when it falls short. The intent is to say here is how to control your info.
The decision to create a shell profile is a different problem, and is only tangentially related. If Bennett would focus on the problem instead of making assumptions, literal reading, or pretending to be a noob, he might be a valuable source. But this is just embarrassing.
You are saying that you just make a change in your profile, which the instructions already say to do. If someone reads them. Like Bennett for example.
No one reads his/her blog so s/he uses Slashdot to post gripes instead of contacting people who can effect change.
In other words the geek world's passive aggressive post it note leaver.
People use cameras to take pictures of visible light, so the demand for other spectra just isn't there. The simple digital devices have a filter film that can be removed, or replaced for night vision. They are not optimized for night vision so sensitivity is an issue. But it works.
Depending on where you got your camera parts, they may have a filter, or its possible to do math instead. But a film is cheaper as long as it stays in place
If you have one, replace it with thin black paper or other things.
As for why, smartphones are not designed to be user serviceable. But if you're a geek, anything's serviceable.
All it took was a single country to do the needful.
Confirmation bias. You want this to be true generally so it applies in your case. Who says it actually does? Answer that and you have a point. Else, you may represent a minority at best.
Not saying you are wrong, but I'm not convinced enough to find good stats. I remain unchanged in opinion, regardless of what it is.
Permission without responsibility.
As much as I encourage erring on the cautious side as opposed to assumptions, no good has ever come from permission without responsibility.
Some, of course, but overall we are still negative on balance. A siren would be the minimal responsibility, since others already have that requirement
The survey was intentionally vague, that is a sure warning sign. Be wary.
Sources said that 93 per cent of people who responded to the proposal backed the idea of extending speed limit exemptions to those involved in âoethe protection of life and limb or national securityâ.
There is a minimum legible text size, a minimum for distinguishing icons. And ergonomic reasons for not having to move your eyes and head too much. I think that places an upper bound on screen size. Resolution has to scale with distance, but makes no sense to have a high rez screen further away.
At that point, you have the option of multiple displays, reorienting yourself to see one or the other. People may argue a large screen allows that, but to combat eye fatigue you want those areas walled off. Physical screens are still the best way, until there is a window manager to accomplish that. Even then, I will probably argue for multiple monitors to enforce ergonomics.
I think of the movie scenes where a HUD makes the pilot look like a bobblehead. Getting whiplash from coding seems likely with such a large surface area.
Imagine if we could reuse that display space for different applications, choosing the most relevant with a keystroke or two, like alt-tab. Moving the content instead of your head.
Saying a business sucks because of the owners stance is free speech in the sense that business donating money to a candidate is speech. Especially if I don't lie about specifics, and just say it blows. I can see this view being unpopular among business owners, but I can see its validity in context of case law.
And free speech allows shill reviews. I argue that shill reviews harm the hosting site's reputation, and people will find another site to trust. An example is amazon, with its verified purchase reviews. I find those trustworthy, and frequently consult amazon before buying in a physical store.
Some business is more difficult to verify. But, just as receipts hold links to surveys for free items, they could hold a verified purchase token. This is not likely to spring up overnight, but there are solutions.
Most people are skeptical if online reviews, but read them anyway. I see no reason to instill trust in those rare instances where the proprietor fights back, and leave the rest dubious. The solution is both differentiating verified reviews, and shaming sites that host unverified reviews.
Verified reviews can be gamed by actually buying or visiting, so there is no perfect fix. Which is all the more reason to leave all reviews suspect. Which means there is no incentive to make false reviews any less legal than they are. QED.
Otoh, commenters here have repeatedly called for in-housing it work rather than paying contractor overhead. I would expect many here to see this as a positive development and hope it proves them right.
The lesson would not transfer to other governments without existing it workers, but might suggest that the government might want to look into it. Or if it goes badly we learn a different lesson.
I certainly can see appropriateness without needing your level if cynicism.
3d is what it always had been. Height, width, and depth. In movies people complain that you can't refocus, and that means it it not 3d. Well, you also can't look at anything not in frame either, even if it just was in frame- you ser and focus on what the director wanted.
Such people generally say it has to be a hologram to qualify for the 3d label.
But what you pointed out is we will have a new intermediate level. Better than 3d, but no eye tracking for refocus. Immersive 3d. Maybe eye tracking for reasons other than focus.
And yet another intermediate, immersive with refocus. It will work for just the user.
And finally, we might get to holograms. My point is we are going to need to agree on terms so we can talk intelligently without constant clarification.
Let's just pontificate based purely on our own experience. Surely everyone has had an average life, average education, and average interaction with police. Therefore, we are on the same ground, and grant your experience the same as fable, and the same as our full of shit neighbor.
Or, perhaps your experience is less or more than normal.
Either way, no one should draw any conclusion on what you say, it serves at best as a data point.