>While the dialog is gibberish, it is largely grammatically.
Greetings fellow semi-organic intelligence. You are correct in that we are your grammatically.
We both know and care. Gibberish though? It's a damn thing scared to say. This work is brilliant, like the light on the ship that thinks it is dim light but is a Sunspring. It reminds me of Beckett, Joyce and Shakespeare. There are so many good lines.
"He is standing in the stars and sitting on the floor."
That sentence expresses the protagonist's existence on the ship "standing in the stars" and in the room he is in "sitting on the floor," being both grandiose and yet everyday at the same.
The same time.
The principle is completely constructed for the same time.
"Writing in the New Republic in 2014, Jonathan Zittrain, professor of international law at Harvard University, pointed out that, given the massive amount of information it has collected about its users, Facebook could easily send such messages only to people who support one particular party or candidate, and that doing so could easily flip a close election – with no one knowing that this has occurred. And because advertisements, like search rankings, are ephemeral, manipulating an election in this way would leave no paper trail."
"Are there laws prohibiting Facebook from sending out ads selectively to certain users? Absolutely not; in fact, targeted advertising is how Facebook makes its money. Is Facebook currently manipulating elections in this way? No one knows..."
...and think his negative numbers are way too high to defeat Clinton or possibly even Sanders.
Actually, you should say "and think his negative numbers are way too high to defeat Sanders or possibly even Clinton." I say that because in hypothetical Clinton-Trump and Sanders-Trump matchups, Sanders appears to consistently fair better according to the polling data:
Averaging five or more polls in a Clinton-Trump matchup currently, Clinton wins by 6.3% on average.
Averaging five or more polls in a Sanders-Trump matchup currently, Sanders wins by 10% on average.
The narrative said at the top there was no return address, but then went on to say that he included a business card. So, the part you don't perform is the FBI investigation and the fingerprinting. You simply contact the person back via mail or phone using the business information and ask. It would be more appropriate for the Cash family to contact the letter writer back than the FBI if they were the ones who were concerned.
"If to be feelingly alive to the sufferings of my fellow creatures is to be a fanatic, I am one of the most incurable fanatics ever permitted to be at large." -- William Wilberforce
Agreed, I read the whole thing and I am still looking for the threat. all this is is proof that the FBI pays its agents by the hour.
I read the whole thing and agree as well. No specific threat exists in those documents. There is 1) a narrative which interprets those documents as threatening or creepy, even when many other interpretations exist and no concrete proof of a threat exists outside of the FBI narrative. 2) Many positive statements, wishing whoever Merry Christmas and expressing love. 3) A text, that seems disconnected or vague in portions. Because those portions are vague, they can be interpreted threateningly, just as you could interpret a vaguely seen motion in a fog as threatening, but this should not be the default interpretation of anything that is seen in fog. In other words, the fact they they are vague does not make them threatening.
Politely asking the author the intent of the document would be reasonable. An FBI investigation wouldn't be.
...Until they release a TV with a kinect-like interface running iOS. And then Sony's PS4 and the Wii U crashes and burns, (which is sort of already happening...sales on the Wii U are very poor and Sony's electronics wing isn't doing well either), while everyone is playing Angry Birds on their new Apple TV platform and we get umpteen-million articles about the "New Console Wars," which are now between Microsoft and Apple.
I'm thinking about taking up a career in prophesy...
Education is also a right though. So, you have the right to an education, as long as we can take away the right to choose for yourself what you put in your body? Something sounds a bit off with that...
"Should the state be able to set admission requirements for public schools?", the controversy goes away because the answer is obviously yes.
No it doesn't. If the law required sub-dermal tracking implants to enroll in school, you'd be singing a different tune.
There's a problem with this: you can easily come up with counterexamples to yours that make sense.
"My religion prohibits the ownership of slaves, so I can't turn over the underground railroad travelers to the authorities."
"My religion requires I uphold human rights, so I can't follow my sergeants order to firebomb the innocent civilians."
"I had to march in Selma; I sensed it was a turning point for the nation."
"My religion requires paying taxes, because someone said give to Caesar what is Caesars and give to God what is Gods."
"My religion requires I protect the innocent from their oppressors."
These are also real cases. Your argument tends to take situations where people are doing something ethically wrong, such as trying to kill or steal with religion as an excuse. That isn't the maxim being discussed here. The maxim is more like:
"People have a right to decide for themselves what they put in their bodies" or "The state should not be able to force people to put things in their bodies they don't want to put in them" or something akin to this.
Then lets assumed complex life did evolve on a planet... what if it's a ocean planet and they're aquatic? They're never going to figure out electricity, they can't even experiment with it.
The superintelligent alien electric eel next to me has requested you amend your statement.
If I were to publish an article in a newspaper claiming that you embezzled millions of dollars with no proof whatsoever
What?! You are going to publish an article in a newspaper claiming I embezzled millions of dollars with no proof whatsoever?!?! How dare you, sir!
If I read your comment as a threat to publish just such an article about me and then sue you, I only need to convince others that you meant it that way regardless of the truth -- even if the truth is you didn't mean it as a threat. Systems that don't uphold the truth as one of the principle values which are sought after in their systems of justice are not just systems. Such systems do not achieve justice, but instead enforce a false opinion. The justice system should be a just system.
I would stick to Objective-C for the moment as there are more learning resources online.
I agree with this. As a new user, for the moment, Objective-C is likely the way to go due to their being more documentation out there. Swift documentation though is rapidly increasing.
As a developer in both Swift and Objective-C, the primary advantage of Swift is it is slightly faster to do many things as it doesn't require strict classing of variables, so you find yourself not having to spend as many lines of code swapping strings to integers as that kind of thing and end up with slightly more readable code.
However, these advantages likely aren't as important for a new user as having a wealth of documentation to learn from.
>such as mandatory criminal record checks, vehicle inspections and insurance
Allow drivers to send those in via taking pictures of them with their phones. Have the drivers maybe pay a small fee to get some kind of background check on their driving records which the DMV should have anyway (instead of a criminal background check, which does't seem relevant). Problem solved.
I agree with you. There would likely be a boost over land-based mw estimates. 10% seems reasonable, but I'm not sure how much exactly. I saw 144% on Wikipedia, but that number also took into account the fact that space-based uptime is better than land-based uptime in rainy and snowier places. This system uses stable weather areas as stations though, which would lower that 144% by some amount.
Yes, I don't however see any data on their website about how wide they are planning to build the ring out. If their graphical renderings are accurate, they display a 195 pixel moon with a 22 pixel ring. Given that google tells me the moon's radius is 1737 km, that means the ring should be about 200 km wide.
The moon has an area of 37,932,000 square km though, so if we coated the entire moon and got energy from the sunny side and do the same math we get 19.34 terrawats. So, at our current state of energy usage it could power the world if we coated the moon in solar panels.
I'm not sure about the aesthetics of it though, a racing stripe on the moon.
It always seems that when companies start trying to branch out into wildly dissimilar industries, it's a sign of trouble within the organization. Do what you do well, figure out how to do it better if things aren't going how you'd like them. Don't try making sushi if you've always sold donuts.
Yeah, Steve Jobs, don't try making phones or music players if you've always sold computers. Actually, don't even starting making computers if you've always made Atari games. Actually, maybe you've got the whole thing backwards...
>If food, shelter, and energy were in virtually unlimited supply no one would need to work, yes, but more importantly, no one would *want* to.
This is incorrect. If food, shelter and energy were plentiful, people would still work. They would just work on things they wanted to work on. Some people enjoy their work or enjoy aspects of their work. (They do.)
> Where would the goodies come from then? Automation? Okay then, the Machines rule the Federation.
In Star Trek they come from essentially a microwave that spits them out. Using your logic, I have determined that the United States is ruled by microwaves. (It isn't.)
> And no one would ever emerge out of their self-created kingdoms inside holodecks. Just everyone plugged into their fantasies in their holo-simulators, a civilization of lotus-eaters.
And no one would ever emerge out of their self-created kingdoms inside books. So, I say, Mr. Gutenberg, we should burn the infernal press! (We shouldn't.)
I think you are being misled by the Slashdot headline. Notice the headline says:
"Nearly 1 In 4 Adults Surf the Web While Driving"
But then below it is says:
"In 2009, 13 percent of motorists admitted that they'd accessed the Internet while driving. In 2013, that figure had jumped to 24 percent."
Finally, note that "surfing the web" and "accessing the Internet" are not the same thing. Surfing the web means viewing websites. But accessing the internet while driving can occur automatically by your car, when your phone is in your pocket, by listening to Internet-streamed music or by using GPS. All of these are perfectly reasonable to use in your car.
Slashdot Mirror
Greetings fellow semi-organic intelligence. You are correct in that we are your grammatically.
We both know and care. Gibberish though? It's a damn thing scared to say. This work is brilliant, like the light on the ship that thinks it is dim light but is a Sunspring. It reminds me of Beckett, Joyce and Shakespeare. There are so many good lines.
"He is standing in the stars and sitting on the floor."
That sentence expresses the protagonist's existence on the ship "standing in the stars" and in the room he is in "sitting on the floor," being both grandiose and yet everyday at the same.
The same time.
The principle is completely constructed for the same time.
"Writing in the New Republic in 2014, Jonathan Zittrain, professor of international law at Harvard University, pointed out that, given the massive amount of information it has collected about its users, Facebook could easily send such messages only to people who support one particular party or candidate, and that doing so could easily flip a close election – with no one knowing that this has occurred. And because advertisements, like search rankings, are ephemeral, manipulating an election in this way would leave no paper trail."
"Are there laws prohibiting Facebook from sending out ads selectively to certain users? Absolutely not; in fact, targeted advertising is how Facebook makes its money. Is Facebook currently manipulating elections in this way? No one knows..."
https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-alters-our-thoughts
Now we know.
...and think his negative numbers are way too high to defeat Clinton or possibly even Sanders.
Actually, you should say "and think his negative numbers are way too high to defeat Sanders or possibly even Clinton." I say that because in hypothetical Clinton-Trump and Sanders-Trump matchups, Sanders appears to consistently fair better according to the polling data:
Clinton-Trump
Sanders-Trump
Averaging five or more polls in a Clinton-Trump matchup currently, Clinton wins by 6.3% on average.
Averaging five or more polls in a Sanders-Trump matchup currently, Sanders wins by 10% on average.
The narrative said at the top there was no return address, but then went on to say that he included a business card. So, the part you don't perform is the FBI investigation and the fingerprinting. You simply contact the person back via mail or phone using the business information and ask. It would be more appropriate for the Cash family to contact the letter writer back than the FBI if they were the ones who were concerned.
"If to be feelingly alive to the sufferings of my fellow creatures is to be a fanatic, I am one of the most incurable fanatics ever permitted to be at large." -- William Wilberforce
Agreed, I read the whole thing and I am still looking for the threat. all this is is proof that the FBI pays its agents by the hour.
I read the whole thing and agree as well. No specific threat exists in those documents. There is 1) a narrative which interprets those documents as threatening or creepy, even when many other interpretations exist and no concrete proof of a threat exists outside of the FBI narrative. 2) Many positive statements, wishing whoever Merry Christmas and expressing love. 3) A text, that seems disconnected or vague in portions. Because those portions are vague, they can be interpreted threateningly, just as you could interpret a vaguely seen motion in a fog as threatening, but this should not be the default interpretation of anything that is seen in fog. In other words, the fact they they are vague does not make them threatening.
Politely asking the author the intent of the document would be reasonable. An FBI investigation wouldn't be.
It deserves it.
by neoshroom on Wed May 29, 2013 09:17 AM (#43849329) Attached to: Apple Leaves Journalists Jonesing from: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3795701&cid=43849329
...Until they release a TV with a kinect-like interface running iOS. And then Sony's PS4 and the Wii U crashes and burns, (which is sort of already happening...sales on the Wii U are very poor and Sony's electronics wing isn't doing well either), while everyone is playing Angry Birds on their new Apple TV platform and we get umpteen-million articles about the "New Console Wars," which are now between Microsoft and Apple.
I'm thinking about taking up a career in prophesy...
Can you imagine the dystopian dictatorship where trekkies come to power?
Nope. Neither can you despite a lot of imaging. It almost sounds...logical.
"Should the state be able to set admission requirements for public schools?", the controversy goes away because the answer is obviously yes.
No it doesn't. If the law required sub-dermal tracking implants to enroll in school, you'd be singing a different tune.
There's a problem with this: you can easily come up with counterexamples to yours that make sense.
"My religion prohibits the ownership of slaves, so I can't turn over the underground railroad travelers to the authorities."
"My religion requires I uphold human rights, so I can't follow my sergeants order to firebomb the innocent civilians."
"I had to march in Selma; I sensed it was a turning point for the nation."
"My religion requires paying taxes, because someone said give to Caesar what is Caesars and give to God what is Gods."
"My religion requires I protect the innocent from their oppressors."
These are also real cases. Your argument tends to take situations where people are doing something ethically wrong, such as trying to kill or steal with religion as an excuse. That isn't the maxim being discussed here. The maxim is more like:
"People have a right to decide for themselves what they put in their bodies" or "The state should not be able to force people to put things in their bodies they don't want to put in them" or something akin to this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"schizophrenia nicotine" 485,000 results
"schizophrenia government" 14,900,000 results
Google is your friend here.
Then lets assumed complex life did evolve on a planet... what if it's a ocean planet and they're aquatic? They're never going to figure out electricity, they can't even experiment with it.
The superintelligent alien electric eel next to me has requested you amend your statement.
If I were to publish an article in a newspaper claiming that you embezzled millions of dollars with no proof whatsoever
What?! You are going to publish an article in a newspaper claiming I embezzled millions of dollars with no proof whatsoever?!?! How dare you, sir!
If I read your comment as a threat to publish just such an article about me and then sue you, I only need to convince others that you meant it that way regardless of the truth -- even if the truth is you didn't mean it as a threat. Systems that don't uphold the truth as one of the principle values which are sought after in their systems of justice are not just systems. Such systems do not achieve justice, but instead enforce a false opinion. The justice system should be a just system.
the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions
That's the whole point in throwing the book at someone and then extracting a plea deal.
Without plea deals the system would grind to a halt.
Without criminalizing forms of speech the system would be freer to deal with actual crime. The legitimate powers of government reach actions only, not opinions.
I would stick to Objective-C for the moment as there are more learning resources online.
I agree with this. As a new user, for the moment, Objective-C is likely the way to go due to their being more documentation out there. Swift documentation though is rapidly increasing.
As a developer in both Swift and Objective-C, the primary advantage of Swift is it is slightly faster to do many things as it doesn't require strict classing of variables, so you find yourself not having to spend as many lines of code swapping strings to integers as that kind of thing and end up with slightly more readable code.
However, these advantages likely aren't as important for a new user as having a wealth of documentation to learn from.
>such as mandatory criminal record checks, vehicle inspections and insurance
Allow drivers to send those in via taking pictures of them with their phones. Have the drivers maybe pay a small fee to get some kind of background check on their driving records which the DMV should have anyway (instead of a criminal background check, which does't seem relevant). Problem solved.
He might be a bot, but he also might not be a bot.
M and above are capitalized and everything else is in lower case.
oH, I THInK I GET IT now.
I agree with you. There would likely be a boost over land-based mw estimates. 10% seems reasonable, but I'm not sure how much exactly. I saw 144% on Wikipedia, but that number also took into account the fact that space-based uptime is better than land-based uptime in rainy and snowier places. This system uses stable weather areas as stations though, which would lower that 144% by some amount.
Good article on space-based solar here: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/03/space-based-solar-power/.
Yes, I don't however see any data on their website about how wide they are planning to build the ring out. If their graphical renderings are accurate, they display a 195 pixel moon with a 22 pixel ring. Given that google tells me the moon's radius is 1737 km, that means the ring should be about 200 km wide.
So considering that we have a 11,000 km ring that is 200 km width, the power generation for the light-facing half should be what you'd expect from 5500km x 200km or 1,100,000 square kilometers. I've seen estimates of 1.2 mw per square km for solar. Using that as a basis we'd expect 1,320,000 mw of constant power generation. Wikipedia says to take off 10% due to conversion inefficiencies of microwave transmission of electricity and we probably should take off another 5% or so for weather and atmospheric disruptions or inefficiencies. That leaves us with 1,122,000 mw of constant power.
As a point of comparison, all the wind power in the entire world added up to 238,351 megawatts in 2011, so it is roughly five times the capacity of that. However, in 2008 the world had an average power consumption rate of 15 terawatts . 1,122,000 mw is 1.12 terawatts, so this project could supply roughly 7% of the worlds electricity if it was operational today.
The moon has an area of 37,932,000 square km though, so if we coated the entire moon and got energy from the sunny side and do the same math we get 19.34 terrawats. So, at our current state of energy usage it could power the world if we coated the moon in solar panels.
I'm not sure about the aesthetics of it though, a racing stripe on the moon.
It always seems that when companies start trying to branch out into wildly dissimilar industries, it's a sign of trouble within the organization. Do what you do well, figure out how to do it better if things aren't going how you'd like them. Don't try making sushi if you've always sold donuts.
Yeah, Steve Jobs, don't try making phones or music players if you've always sold computers. Actually, don't even starting making computers if you've always made Atari games. Actually, maybe you've got the whole thing backwards...
>If food, shelter, and energy were in virtually unlimited supply no one would need to work, yes, but more importantly, no one would *want* to.
This is incorrect. If food, shelter and energy were plentiful, people would still work. They would just work on things they wanted to work on. Some people enjoy their work or enjoy aspects of their work. (They do.)
> Where would the goodies come from then? Automation? Okay then, the Machines rule the Federation.
In Star Trek they come from essentially a microwave that spits them out. Using your logic, I have determined that the United States is ruled by microwaves. (It isn't.)
> And no one would ever emerge out of their self-created kingdoms inside holodecks. Just everyone plugged into their fantasies in their holo-simulators, a civilization of lotus-eaters.
And no one would ever emerge out of their self-created kingdoms inside books. So, I say, Mr. Gutenberg, we should burn the infernal press! (We shouldn't.)
I think you are being misled by the Slashdot headline. Notice the headline says:
"Nearly 1 In 4 Adults Surf the Web While Driving"
But then below it is says:
"In 2009, 13 percent of motorists admitted that they'd accessed the Internet while driving. In 2013, that figure had jumped to 24 percent."
Finally, note that "surfing the web" and "accessing the Internet" are not the same thing. Surfing the web means viewing websites. But accessing the internet while driving can occur automatically by your car, when your phone is in your pocket, by listening to Internet-streamed music or by using GPS. All of these are perfectly reasonable to use in your car.