I agree with you to an extent -- consciousness is processing sensory information and stored memories -- but what is unconsciousness? It's more than being "off"/dead, but it's less than being conscious. I'd love to be able to sleep only when I wanted (and always when I wanted, for that matter), but we don't really know much about what sleep is, and yet most living creatures spend a significant amount of time doing it.
Outside of gamers, only in one or two countries do people other than gamers know anything about them.
You could make the same argument against many baseball hall-of-famers. Unless you're a baseball enthusiast, there are probably many inductees with low name recognition in the general public.
Or Donkey Kong, Q-bert, Centipede, Zork (any Infocom game, really), Oregon Trail, Pirates!, Sim City, Civilization, Lemmings, Prince of Persia, or Golden Axe, Tomb Raider, or Street Fighter II. I could go on.
Even if we're going to talk about multiplayer RPGs, I think Ultima Online and Diablo were more noteworthy. WoW was a "me too" offering, and while it was a financial success, it didn't really bring anything new to the table.
Haha.:) Well then, this irony shan't be lost on you: "...the now-standard pedantry about less/fewer is in fact one of the many false 'rules' that have recently precipitated out of the over-saturated solution of linguistic ignorance where most usage advice is brewed."
"As far as we have been able to discover, the received rule originated in 1770 as a comment on less:
This Word is most commonly used in speaking of a Number; where I shoudl think Fewer would do better. No Fewer than a Hundred appears to me not only more elegant than No less than a Hundred, but strictly proper. --Baker 1770
Baker's remarks about fewer express clearly and modestly -- "I should think," "appears to me" -- his own taste and preference. [...]"
The OED shows that less has been used of countables since the time of King Alfred the Great -- he used it that way in one of his own translations from Latin -- more than a thousand years ago (in about 888). So essentially less has been used of countables in English for just about as long as there has been a written English language. After about 900 years Robert Baker opined that fewer might be more elegant and proper. Almost every usage writer since Baker has followed Baker's lead, and generations of English teachers have swelled the chorus. The result seems to be a fairly large number of people who now believe less used of countables to be wrong, though its standardness is easily demonstrated.
Strongly typed languages do not support weakly typed variables at all. They will either refuse to compile or throw an error at runtime. OTOH, implicit type conversion is the hallmark of weak typing, so despite the first few words in those two quotes, Swift is NOT strongly typed. Of course, a type *must* be defined under the hood, because... computers, but if it's not a mandate for the programmer to define, then it's not strongly typed.
I wish that were true, but "less" is used interchangeably and, in language, common use trumps abstract rules. It's not entirely incorrect either -- less has been used with countables for as long as modern English has existed, and only later did someone try to create a distinction.
Exactly.. Additionally, any developer worth his salt is multilingual when it comes to programming languages. And it's almost impossible to avoid learning SQL these days, which is a portable skill.
String immutability in Java is a "feature, not a bug," and it will never change. Java references strings with cached hash codes, and if they were mutabile, then the hash code would have to be calculated every time to check for changes, which would be a huge performance hit. If you need mutability, use a StringBuilder.
I have no idea what "industrial strength," means in your context, but Swift is not strongly typed. It was developed to be approachable, allegedly without sacrificing performance. How well it succeeds in that goal remains to be seen, of course.
Yes, I understand the point you're trying to make, but it doesn't reflect the reality that keeping up with inflation -- especially with no work -- is valuable. If it was not, then CDs and other guaranteed but low-return investments would not exist!
First of all, let's be honest: Servicing a loan is extremely cheap. A competent loan officer and underwriter can close tens of loans per day, which is less than an hour per loan, on average. The rest is automated, until the loan is paid, and then there's 5 minutes of paperwork. The first interest payment will more than cover those costs.
Second, inflation is a damned good ROI. It's averaged at about 3.2% for the past 100 years, which is above what any guaranteed investment pays. It's higher than mortgage rates. Of course, those are front-loaded with origination fees, but clearly the cost of servicing it is worthwhile, otherwise banks would not offer them, and there would be no secondary market.
Every time someone says the name "Kim," I now say "Dotcom." But nobody ever gets it, because nobody has heard of you. Then I have to explain it, and they're like "file sharing what?" and it's all very confusing and anti-climatic. Much like this post. Please gain more publicity so that people laugh at my nerdy references.
The missing subtitle is, "and why it doesn't matter." You can't just "default" on your student loans. They can't be discharged through bankruptcy and the money will be taken from income tax refunds and/or wage garnishment. Also, since your mother cosigned, you just fucked your mom. The author seems to have missed that minor point.
But then, he seems to have missed the point of student loans as well, which is not to have a good time pursuing a liberal arts degree, but an investment. Like any investment, one must consider if the returns are worthwhile. That's not to say that liberal art degrees are worthless, but they're not a good return on investment. The author knowingly made a poor life choice and then thumbed his nose at the consequences. He seems to believe that he deserved to go to an expensive private school because... they exist? It's not really clear.
The insane part is that he doesn't even realize his entitled attitude. Instead of taking responsibility for his choices, and the consequences to himself and his mother, he blames everyone else. I grant that, in a capitalistic society, people want to get other people's money. That's life. But, aside from the government, nobody forces you to give it to them. But he didn't learn that lesson. He wants to walk away from his debt with the same carefree attitude that he seems to have had when he took it on. In his mind, he is a victim. Life happened to him, not the other way around.
Now, all of that said, I believe that higher education should be provided without cost wherever someone gets accepted. I would love to see that chance. Our society would benefit from more educated people without debt. But that's not the current situation. The author would have a lot more credibility if, instead of willingly accepting a student loan (and getting his mother involved to boot), he had said "I couldn't afford to go to school, and it's bullshit." Of course, he did afford to go to school, apparently, since he ended up at a public school that he *could* afford, so even that argument doesn't hold much water.
The moral of this story is: Nobody can protect you from yourself.
Sigh. My point is that LoS is not a measure of capacity, and that absolute numbers can be increased while congestion is decreased with driverless vehicles. You haven't provided anything that refutes any of my claims.
Disney deserves negative publicity for this, but let's be honest -- if the employees have been laid off, then nobody's making them do anything. Personally, I would tell them to piss off. Or train them wrong.
If you can't stick to the facts without personal insults, I'm not interested in the conversation.
You are correct, I meant to say "don't want," not "don't need."
I used the example of Shark Tank because it's an easily approachable and widely available example for the lay person, and your original post was written as a lay person, as is your reply.
Corporations market things all the time, but if people don't want it, the products and/or companies are ultimately unsuccessful. The conspiracy -- and that's what it is -- that people are purely told what to want disregards all of the massive market failures for every one success.
Capacity is measured in vehicles/hr, and it's a function of speed and packing. Traffic is not a function of capacity at all. You can have a traffic jam without exceeding capacity (v/hr), and you can hit capacity without traffic.
SDCs increase v/hr because they allow both higher safe speed AND better packing. And since most traffic is actually caused by aggressive and timid drivers, though mostly the latter, we can eliminate that factor as well!
The scientists [...] found that timid drivers had the biggest impact because they "shied away" when the car in front started slowing down, and deliberately started driving even more slowly to increase the gap between them.
What about red lights? Surely even the smoothest of commutes will eventually terminate at a light, and traffic will start to accumulate there. Well, we can eliminate those as well.
I love driving, but as a society, we needs SDCs, and we need to transition as soon as possible. If I slam on the brakes, I can waste thousands of man-hours as traffic behind me slows to a crawl. And if I get in an accident, I can easily waste thousands of man-lifetimes in an urban area while people wait for my mess to get cleaned up. If I have a good excuse, I can probably walk away without even getting a ticket. Autonomous, unilateral decisions that can negatively impact so many others must be reduced or eliminated where possible, and driving is really the most power one person has to negatively impact so many others with such little consequence. SDCs are the only opportunity for the sea change necessary to modify driving behavior to the degree necessary to allow personal transportation to be pleasant and efficient.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you to an extent -- consciousness is processing sensory information and stored memories -- but what is unconsciousness? It's more than being "off"/dead, but it's less than being conscious. I'd love to be able to sleep only when I wanted (and always when I wanted, for that matter), but we don't really know much about what sleep is, and yet most living creatures spend a significant amount of time doing it.
"Some of the mice have lived as long as a day after the operations according to Ren and he hopes to have similar success with primates."
Or, put another way, 100% of the mice died within a day.
Probably work on extending that before moving to primates.
Outside of gamers, only in one or two countries do people other than gamers know anything about them.
You could make the same argument against many baseball hall-of-famers. Unless you're a baseball enthusiast, there are probably many inductees with low name recognition in the general public.
Or Donkey Kong, Q-bert, Centipede, Zork (any Infocom game, really), Oregon Trail, Pirates!, Sim City, Civilization, Lemmings, Prince of Persia, or Golden Axe, Tomb Raider, or Street Fighter II. I could go on.
Even if we're going to talk about multiplayer RPGs, I think Ultima Online and Diablo were more noteworthy. WoW was a "me too" offering, and while it was a financial success, it didn't really bring anything new to the table.
Haha. :) Well then, this irony shan't be lost on you: "...the now-standard pedantry about less/fewer is in fact one of the many false 'rules' that have recently precipitated out of the over-saturated solution of linguistic ignorance where most usage advice is brewed."
(Quotes from the article previously linked.)
Strongly typed languages do not support weakly typed variables at all. They will either refuse to compile or throw an error at runtime. OTOH, implicit type conversion is the hallmark of weak typing, so despite the first few words in those two quotes, Swift is NOT strongly typed. Of course, a type *must* be defined under the hood, because... computers, but if it's not a mandate for the programmer to define, then it's not strongly typed.
I wish that were true, but "less" is used interchangeably and, in language, common use trumps abstract rules. It's not entirely incorrect either -- less has been used with countables for as long as modern English has existed, and only later did someone try to create a distinction.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl...
Exactly.. Additionally, any developer worth his salt is multilingual when it comes to programming languages. And it's almost impossible to avoid learning SQL these days, which is a portable skill.
String immutability in Java is a "feature, not a bug," and it will never change. Java references strings with cached hash codes, and if they were mutabile, then the hash code would have to be calculated every time to check for changes, which would be a huge performance hit. If you need mutability, use a StringBuilder.
I have no idea what "industrial strength," means in your context, but Swift is not strongly typed. It was developed to be approachable, allegedly without sacrificing performance. How well it succeeds in that goal remains to be seen, of course.
Yes, I understand the point you're trying to make, but it doesn't reflect the reality that keeping up with inflation -- especially with no work -- is valuable. If it was not, then CDs and other guaranteed but low-return investments would not exist!
It would be more interesting if it matched a database of photos to find doppelgangers... although there may be identity theft liabilities.
I have an ethical objection to considering universities as jobs factories. They are not. They never have been.
Right... all those law and medical degrees just exist to expand human knowledge.
First of all, let's be honest: Servicing a loan is extremely cheap. A competent loan officer and underwriter can close tens of loans per day, which is less than an hour per loan, on average. The rest is automated, until the loan is paid, and then there's 5 minutes of paperwork. The first interest payment will more than cover those costs.
Second, inflation is a damned good ROI. It's averaged at about 3.2% for the past 100 years, which is above what any guaranteed investment pays. It's higher than mortgage rates. Of course, those are front-loaded with origination fees, but clearly the cost of servicing it is worthwhile, otherwise banks would not offer them, and there would be no secondary market.
Every time someone says the name "Kim," I now say "Dotcom." But nobody ever gets it, because nobody has heard of you. Then I have to explain it, and they're like "file sharing what?" and it's all very confusing and anti-climatic. Much like this post. Please gain more publicity so that people laugh at my nerdy references.
The missing subtitle is, "and why it doesn't matter." You can't just "default" on your student loans. They can't be discharged through bankruptcy and the money will be taken from income tax refunds and/or wage garnishment. Also, since your mother cosigned, you just fucked your mom. The author seems to have missed that minor point.
But then, he seems to have missed the point of student loans as well, which is not to have a good time pursuing a liberal arts degree, but an investment. Like any investment, one must consider if the returns are worthwhile. That's not to say that liberal art degrees are worthless, but they're not a good return on investment. The author knowingly made a poor life choice and then thumbed his nose at the consequences. He seems to believe that he deserved to go to an expensive private school because... they exist? It's not really clear.
The insane part is that he doesn't even realize his entitled attitude. Instead of taking responsibility for his choices, and the consequences to himself and his mother, he blames everyone else. I grant that, in a capitalistic society, people want to get other people's money. That's life. But, aside from the government, nobody forces you to give it to them. But he didn't learn that lesson. He wants to walk away from his debt with the same carefree attitude that he seems to have had when he took it on. In his mind, he is a victim. Life happened to him, not the other way around.
Now, all of that said, I believe that higher education should be provided without cost wherever someone gets accepted. I would love to see that chance. Our society would benefit from more educated people without debt. But that's not the current situation. The author would have a lot more credibility if, instead of willingly accepting a student loan (and getting his mother involved to boot), he had said "I couldn't afford to go to school, and it's bullshit." Of course, he did afford to go to school, apparently, since he ended up at a public school that he *could* afford, so even that argument doesn't hold much water.
The moral of this story is: Nobody can protect you from yourself.
Two words: Because marketing.
Siri launches Waze. Is this an old problem, or a problem on other platforms?
Sigh. My point is that LoS is not a measure of capacity, and that absolute numbers can be increased while congestion is decreased with driverless vehicles. You haven't provided anything that refutes any of my claims.
Eh, how would they be boned? They'd have to transition an entire department, but clearly that's not a problem for them. And now they have practice.
Disney deserves negative publicity for this, but let's be honest -- if the employees have been laid off, then nobody's making them do anything. Personally, I would tell them to piss off. Or train them wrong.
If you can't stick to the facts without personal insults, I'm not interested in the conversation.
You are correct, I meant to say "don't want," not "don't need."
I used the example of Shark Tank because it's an easily approachable and widely available example for the lay person, and your original post was written as a lay person, as is your reply.
Corporations market things all the time, but if people don't want it, the products and/or companies are ultimately unsuccessful. The conspiracy -- and that's what it is -- that people are purely told what to want disregards all of the massive market failures for every one success.
Exactly. Traffic is not a function of capacity, rather capacity is a function of traffic, among other things.
http://www.aboutcivil.org/high...
Ok, an accident with a 4 hour delay that affects 50k people would "only" be several man-years, not man-lifetimes, but that's still a lot of time.
Capacity is measured in vehicles/hr, and it's a function of speed and packing. Traffic is not a function of capacity at all. You can have a traffic jam without exceeding capacity (v/hr), and you can hit capacity without traffic.
SDCs increase v/hr because they allow both higher safe speed AND better packing. And since most traffic is actually caused by aggressive and timid drivers, though mostly the latter, we can eliminate that factor as well!
What about red lights? Surely even the smoothest of commutes will eventually terminate at a light, and traffic will start to accumulate there. Well, we can eliminate those as well.
I love driving, but as a society, we needs SDCs, and we need to transition as soon as possible. If I slam on the brakes, I can waste thousands of man-hours as traffic behind me slows to a crawl. And if I get in an accident, I can easily waste thousands of man-lifetimes in an urban area while people wait for my mess to get cleaned up. If I have a good excuse, I can probably walk away without even getting a ticket. Autonomous, unilateral decisions that can negatively impact so many others must be reduced or eliminated where possible, and driving is really the most power one person has to negatively impact so many others with such little consequence. SDCs are the only opportunity for the sea change necessary to modify driving behavior to the degree necessary to allow personal transportation to be pleasant and efficient.