Clearly we should abandon all science and just go with whatever our common sense tells us.
Is symmetry breaking fundamental to the conditions in early universe, or is it just that we don't have big chunk of anti-matter nearby?
If it is indeed fundamental, what causes it? You have a bunch of theories predicting that it is fundamental but the mechanisms of each theory are ever so slightly different. How are we supposed to test which ones are wrong if we don't go about doing these experiments?
Those were just two questions off the top of my head. I am sure there are others.
Maybe you were just going for funny mods but every time there is a story about fundamental physics someone jumps in to say that it is pointless.
I love how people often point out "you can't prove a negative" or "you can't publish negative results". Turns out that you are very wrong if you think that either is true.
At first sight it appears that the idea behind this journal is to share failed attempts. But look at the kind of examples the website would like you to prove: "Prove that method X does not work for problem Y." This is *not* a failed attempt. You succeeded in proving something. Some great papers dealing with P?=NP problem prove exactly this kind of thing. How about the proof that you can't put real numbers into a list and so they are uncountably many?
The usual problem with a "failed attempt" is that something does not work the way you had hoped for. Not that you discover that something won't work generally. Those latter kind of statements require much more sophistication to prove.
Proving the negation of X is not the same as not being able to prove X, and vice-versa.
Google toolbar allowed two "modes" for disable. Users could either disable it permanently or for one specific window. In the latter case, for some versions of the toolbar it didn't disable. Browser restart or opening new windows after activating that mode did in fact disable the toolbar.
Now, even though it doesn't make sense for the "disable this window" to work after a browser restart, it does make it plausible that it was a bug.
I know you are joking but I didn't have to read the article. All I had to do was realize that the headline sounds immensely stupid given that wearable computers are not really a replacement for a netbook as of yet, and then I just had to skim the article to verify that it was the poster and not the original article that was being moronic.
Really? I thought the point of the article was that its death was inevitable, and that wearable computers are the future. How does that translate to "Netbooks are dead already"?
But hey, if you filter out editorial stupidity from slashdot we will have only one or two "news" every week or so.
You know what's a better idea? Leave those damn servers alone and let everyone see for themselves what a nutjob your enemies are. Bringing their servers down won't bring the poor sod in the video back to life, but it might make sure that next time you have something tangible to act on (like invading a "rogue" country) other countries will root for you.
The idea is not to popularize shitty bands. Given perfect AI, this program is supposed to do the following:
1) Listen to all popular music (for various classes of popular). 2) Figure out why that music is popular (for its class). 3) Listen to any *new* track and figure out if it is like those popular tracks (and any popular class).
Now of course we don't have that kind of AI and hence all this research.
The idea is to promote good bands that would have been popular except for the fact that they are not already popular and hence might go unnoticed.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html
And before you ask: yes, you are dead.
And no, you are not in heaven. Your still being on /. should have been clue enough.
This technology will be available to the rest of the planet outside USA too. Not that I share the fear of OP but US laws do not apply to everyone.
Nothing, but that poor guy will have to remember passwords for everyone!
Clearly we should abandon all science and just go with whatever our common sense tells us.
Is symmetry breaking fundamental to the conditions in early universe, or is it just that we don't have big chunk of anti-matter nearby?
If it is indeed fundamental, what causes it? You have a bunch of theories predicting that it is fundamental but the mechanisms of each theory are ever so slightly different. How are we supposed to test which ones are wrong if we don't go about doing these experiments?
Those were just two questions off the top of my head. I am sure there are others.
Maybe you were just going for funny mods but every time there is a story about fundamental physics someone jumps in to say that it is pointless.
I love how people often point out "you can't prove a negative" or "you can't publish negative results". Turns out that you are very wrong if you think that either is true.
At first sight it appears that the idea behind this journal is to share failed attempts. But look at the kind of examples the website would like you to prove: "Prove that method X does not work for problem Y." This is *not* a failed attempt. You succeeded in proving something. Some great papers dealing with P?=NP problem prove exactly this kind of thing. How about the proof that you can't put real numbers into a list and so they are uncountably many?
The usual problem with a "failed attempt" is that something does not work the way you had hoped for. Not that you discover that something won't work generally. Those latter kind of statements require much more sophistication to prove.
Proving the negation of X is not the same as not being able to prove X, and vice-versa.
Rephrasing from FTFA:
Google toolbar allowed two "modes" for disable. Users could either disable it permanently or for one specific window. In the latter case, for some versions of the toolbar it didn't disable. Browser restart or opening new windows after activating that mode did in fact disable the toolbar.
Now, even though it doesn't make sense for the "disable this window" to work after a browser restart, it does make it plausible that it was a bug.
I know you are joking but I didn't have to read the article. All I had to do was realize that the headline sounds immensely stupid given that wearable computers are not really a replacement for a netbook as of yet, and then I just had to skim the article to verify that it was the poster and not the original article that was being moronic.
Really? I thought the point of the article was that its death was inevitable, and that wearable computers are the future. How does that translate to "Netbooks are dead already"?
But hey, if you filter out editorial stupidity from slashdot we will have only one or two "news" every week or so.
Playing the devil's advocate on slashdot without a preamble of "I hate xyz as much as the next guy but.."?
I hope you have enough karma to burn.
Also, around here the only valid objection to an analogy is that it was not a car analogy.
Thank you for your attention.
Yeah, and I don't get why the executable used for jail-breaking an iPhone couldn't either
a) Prompt the user to choose a root password, or
b) Generate a (random) root password for each install.
I mean seriously, what is the idea behind having a default root password?
Hey we don't need to do further testing so everybody let's sign a deal saying no one would.
Fast forward a few years..
Hey our stockpiles are ageing. You know what guys, we would like to reserve the rights to do nuclear tests.
Don't pick the ones that look like somebody threw up all over the screen!
Damn chrome! Mod-point misfired. Commenting to undo.
You know what's a better idea? Leave those damn servers alone and let everyone see for themselves what a nutjob your enemies are. Bringing their servers down won't bring the poor sod in the video back to life, but it might make sure that next time you have something tangible to act on (like invading a "rogue" country) other countries will root for you.
Hah, I don't have to do any of that. I will just use my wifi and claim that you stole my wifi!
Really... why should we have to look up something stated in the summary as "100% useless to us"? Thanks fuck head!
Because:
1) You are wondering what is the damn thing in the first place (like OP did), and
2) You want to make your own opinion.
No one is forcing you to read through the wikipedia entry. I hope, for the sake of people around you, that you don't flip out as easily in real life.
Wikipedia is your friend.
I will also get off of your lawn while doing so. Come to think of it, I would also get off on your lawn while doing so.
Did you buy this account with such a low uid? You sound like you are new here.
Are you generally this obtuse?
The idea is not to popularize shitty bands. Given perfect AI, this program is supposed to do the following:
1) Listen to all popular music (for various classes of popular).
2) Figure out why that music is popular (for its class).
3) Listen to any *new* track and figure out if it is like those popular tracks (and any popular class).
Now of course we don't have that kind of AI and hence all this research.
The idea is to promote good bands that would have been popular except for the fact that they are not already popular and hence might go unnoticed.
I like my elves the way I like my tea: thin and exotic.. served while still hot.
Green Dam?
Damn it! modded you flamebait trying to lose the focus of the moderation field. Commenting to undo the mod.
Hey! Slashdot editors are highly trained professionals. Trained in the art of screwing up summaries that is.
Thank your stars that they just misused one comma. Their talent for grammatical slaughter was underused. Probably they were feeling merciful today.
But what did Monty Python ever do that is worth noting?