What about stun guns, or other effective ways of disabling someone without endangering others? This area needs to be explored.
gene
I made the Dragon's Lair connecton too...
on
The New Zelda
·
· Score: 1
Back when it hit the arcades most people thought it looked great but played like ass. I thought it both looked and played like ass.
I really don't know how to feel about this development. If it plays great then I think I'll get over the graphics. If not, then it will be all ass, like Dragon's Lair.
This was part of the standard testing process:-) I worked support for the manufacturing division at sgi from '93 to about '96. We had lifts at various points in the conveyor to raise systems up to move them to various other places. One lift was notorious for getting confused and once every couple of months or so would just dump a system into space.
Oh god. Getting points at another's expense. Yeah, that's a good solution. (Score 1 for me).
What I've found best in code reviews is not to attack another person for their code (``Were you on crack when you wrote this? Is this really how you do regular expressions?'') but to be constructive: (``I've found it helpful to do...'', ``Have you tried this....'', or just the flat out ``This looks like a bug...'', etc.).
If you make a code review feel collaborative (``This is our code and we will try to perfect it'', not ``This is your code, now defend it.'') you get good results.
You know, here in Europe, i heard a joke:
For space, NASA invented a pen that could write in a 0g environment. The russians just used a pencil.
Not funny and not true. Pencils have a nasty habit of breaking and producing dust and shavings that are difficult to control in zero G and clog equipment.
The way I heard it was when the need arose the Russians used the same pen the Americans had designed.
Back when I was a young sys admin in training at my old school I was sitting in the office working on something. This was a big room which all the support staff shared, and it wasn't odd for someone to shout out ``How do you X'' or where can I find out about Y'' and get a good answer if there was one, or a good laugh if there wasn't or, more usually, both. The head admin was trying to figure out some problem with rlogin and it wasn't going well and he called out ``Does anyone have the source code to rlogin handy?'' probably expecting a round of laughter and general complaints about the Unix we were using at the time. What he probably didn't expect was for one of the students who hung around the office all the time to say, ``Yeah, I have it in my backpack.'' Of course this was insane, and we all gathered around as he pulled a copy of Unix Network Programming out of his backpack, and it has source code to rlogin in it. I was able to spend a little time leafing through the book, and knew then and there that one day I must have it.
Since I live in the valley, I guess I caught a sneak preview of this late one Sunday on the local PBS station (KTEH, who also co-produced the documentary). Normally we get re-runs of documentaries (usually Nova) at that time, so I didn't think it was a special preview.
Reading through the description of the show on the PBS site gave me more information about the people in the documentary than I remember getting from the show (e.g. I don't remember seeing that Michael Toy home schools his children. Maybe I just forgot...). It seems like we saw the start of many stories, but not the end. Somehow it felt incomplete. But then, maybe that was the point. Some of the internal views on the AOL merger were interesting, though. And there was a funny/sad part, when they were trying to drum up publicity for the Mozilla announcement and it seemed like they were getting a lot of ``Netscape who?'' responses.
It was cool seeing places I know. I drive by the Netscape buildings nearly every day on my way to work. They also showed University Avenue and I think it was Fiesta Del Mar where they had a going away party.
I think it was interesting but not compelling television. Because the whole story of Mozilla is not yet done, it just felt incomplete. Maybe it's a little early for this story.
I hate to say it, but from a consumer's point of view, this is an awfully cool feature. I spent some time playing around with it, and I can see a definite value here.
Really? What? I find bestseller lists almost entirely worthless. I'm sure someone is reading all those lousy Grisham novels, but I definately won't. Now we can find out what they're reading in Aberdeen South Dakota. The only people who care about what they're reading in Aberdeen South Dakota are people from Aberdeen South Dakota. As someone else suggested, only if you are part of the community, then you get to see the relevant purchase circles.
That's where all those nice handy "Recommendations" come from. The problem is, well, can I be frank? They're pretty darn useful. That's why they're there. That's why these new features are there.
I like the recommendation feature, too. The debate is not about whether a company gathers data about their customers (all do). The question is about the company's distribution policies. When I get a recommendation, the page doesn't say ``%50 of Intel employees liked this book''. What it does say is ``Customers who bought these items also bought...'' Can you see the difference? Do you think it's relevant? The employees of Intel might. If you don't think this will change company policies or purchasing practices, you're wrong.
As long as there's no way of disaggregating it to an individual level, I think this feature is harmless fun.
Fun? Only in some voyeuristic way, I think. Why is it okay to spy on many but not okay to spy on one person? Where does the cut off come? What's to stop Amazon from deciding one day that 50 is an okay cut off, or 25. Why can't the purchase circles decide if they want to be observed or not? Don't answer ``logistics'' because that misses the bigger issue of whether a puchasing circle has any rights. This matter is much more complex than the harmless fun you and Amazon are trying to paint it as.
Fortunately, of course, individuals can opt out. I'm moving my purchases to B&N and fatbrain.com. I know another person in my company will be dropping Amazon, too. Judging by this thread, a majority of/. readers will be, too.
An enormous number of mutations must occur to produce a comlicated structure (such as an eye) where nothing of the sort previously existed, and none of those mutations are likely to have any inherent value on their own.
Wrong. Being able to move toward and away from light is a useful ability. Light is energy, and where there is energy there is often food. All that is required is a simple cell or two that can distinguish light and dark. From there natural selection would favor variations of these cells that could make out intensity of light (bright light = more food) and then shapes and especially movement and color. If you had thought about it, you'd have seen that there are a lot of useful steps along the way from simple light detecting cells to more complex eyes.
But AFAIK nothing has ever been seen to suggest that something as complex as a cockroach could have evolved from a single-celled organism. As far as I'm concerned, evolutionism has joined religion as something that must be accepted on faith until more convincing evidence comes to light.
The only act of faith is the belief that processes observed today are the same processes that acted in the past (Uniformitarianism, I think). Calling this a belief is a misnomer since it has a lot of evidence behind it, though. If you think that speciation has been observed in the only 100 or so years we've been looking, why don't you think speciation could have created the diversity we see today in the billions of years life has existed?
In my own lifetime I have seen more scientists waffle over the facts of species evolution , black holes, stellar evolution, social engineering and you name it.
You seem to be having some difficulty telling the difference between the Scientific Method and lies and evasions. Science is about challenging beliefs and conclusions. It is not strange that scientists change their opinions. They are not trying to deceive you, they are just trying to find the facts. As for lies and evasions, well, that's what creationists do.
If Kansas wants to remove evolution then good for them. That's your democracy in action after all.
While we're voting on evolution, let's get together and vote on a few other things. Let's get rid of gravity and that nutty speed of light limit. No one needs those things.
Here's a hint. That evolution has happened and continues to happen is as established a fact of nature as both of those things. The major disputes scientists are now having are with the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
If you honestly believe that politics or religion has anything to say about these issues, then with all due respect, you're just not very bright.
Star Wars worked for me when I was 7 years old, too.
The problem is, it still works for me (30 years old now). Not because it's been elevated to some masterpiece in my mind, but because it's still a wonderful piece of escapist fantasy. It has a heart and soul that the sterile Phantom Menace just can't muster.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're in Vegas August 10th or 11th, stop by and meet some of the people who made it happen: cgexpo.
Nothing in this list could replace good dependable PI technology like Jim Rockford. The future has a long way to go before it catches up to the 70s.
If your business dies due to a vulnerability in MS software, can you sue MS for the lost business?
What about stun guns, or other effective ways of disabling someone without endangering others? This area needs to be explored.
gene
Back when it hit the arcades most people thought it looked great but played like ass. I thought it both looked and played like ass.
I really don't know how to feel about this development. If it plays great then I think I'll get over the graphics. If not, then it will be all ass, like Dragon's Lair.
gene
(I like saying ass.)
This was part of the standard testing process:-) I worked support for the manufacturing division at sgi from '93 to about '96. We had lifts at various points in the conveyor to raise systems up to move them to various other places. One lift was notorious for getting confused and once every couple of months or so would just dump a system into space.
Made a great noise.
Oh god. Getting points at another's expense. Yeah, that's a good solution. (Score 1 for me).
What I've found best in code reviews is not to attack another person for their code (``Were you on crack when you wrote this? Is this really how you do regular expressions?'') but to be constructive: (``I've found it helpful to do...'', ``Have you tried this....'', or just the flat out ``This looks like a bug...'', etc.).
If you make a code review feel collaborative (``This is our code and we will try to perfect it'', not ``This is your code, now defend it.'') you get good results.
gene
You know, here in Europe, i heard a joke: For space, NASA invented a pen that could write in a 0g environment. The russians just used a pencil.
Not funny and not true. Pencils have a nasty habit of breaking and producing dust and shavings that are difficult to control in zero G and clog equipment. The way I heard it was when the need arose the Russians used the same pen the Americans had designed.
Back when I was a young sys admin in training at my old school I was sitting in the office working on something. This was a big room which all the support staff shared, and it wasn't odd for someone to shout out ``How do you X'' or where can I find out about Y'' and get a good answer if there was one, or a good laugh if there wasn't or, more usually, both. The head admin was trying to figure out some problem with rlogin and it wasn't going well and he called out ``Does anyone have the source code to rlogin handy?'' probably expecting a round of laughter and general complaints about the Unix we were using at the time. What he probably didn't expect was for one of the students who hung around the office all the time to say, ``Yeah, I have it in my backpack.'' Of course this was insane, and we all gathered around as he pulled a copy of Unix Network Programming out of his backpack, and it has source code to rlogin in it. I was able to spend a little time leafing through the book, and knew then and there that one day I must have it.
Since I live in the valley, I guess I caught a sneak preview of this late one Sunday on the local PBS station (KTEH, who also co-produced the documentary). Normally we get re-runs of documentaries (usually Nova) at that time, so I didn't think it was a special preview.
Reading through the description of the show on the PBS site gave me more information about the people in the documentary than I remember getting from the show (e.g. I don't remember seeing that Michael Toy home schools his children. Maybe I just forgot...). It seems like we saw the start of many stories, but not the end. Somehow it felt incomplete. But then, maybe that was the point. Some of the internal views on the AOL merger were interesting, though. And there was a funny/sad part, when they were trying to drum up publicity for the Mozilla announcement and it seemed like they were getting a lot of ``Netscape who?'' responses.
It was cool seeing places I know. I drive by the Netscape buildings nearly every day on my way to work. They also showed University Avenue and I think it was Fiesta Del Mar where they had a going away party.
I think it was interesting but not compelling television. Because the whole story of Mozilla is not yet done, it just felt incomplete. Maybe it's a little early for this story.
gene
Really? What? I find bestseller lists almost entirely worthless. I'm sure someone is reading all those lousy Grisham novels, but I definately won't. Now we can find out what they're reading in Aberdeen South Dakota. The only people who care about what they're reading in Aberdeen South Dakota are people from Aberdeen South Dakota. As someone else suggested, only if you are part of the community, then you get to see the relevant purchase circles.
I like the recommendation feature, too. The debate is not about whether a company gathers data about their customers (all do). The question is about the company's distribution policies. When I get a recommendation, the page doesn't say ``%50 of Intel employees liked this book''. What it does say is ``Customers who bought these items also bought...'' Can you see the difference? Do you think it's relevant? The employees of Intel might. If you don't think this will change company policies or purchasing practices, you're wrong.
Fun? Only in some voyeuristic way, I think. Why is it okay to spy on many but not okay to spy on one person? Where does the cut off come? What's to stop Amazon from deciding one day that 50 is an okay cut off, or 25. Why can't the purchase circles decide if they want to be observed or not? Don't answer ``logistics'' because that misses the bigger issue of whether a puchasing circle has any rights. This matter is much more complex than the harmless fun you and Amazon are trying to paint it as.
Fortunately, of course, individuals can opt out. I'm moving my purchases to B&N and fatbrain.com. I know another person in my company will be dropping Amazon, too. Judging by this thread, a majority of
gene
Wrong. Being able to move toward and away from light is a useful ability. Light is energy, and where there is energy there is often food. All that is required is a simple cell or two that can distinguish light and dark. From there natural selection would favor variations of these cells that could make out intensity of light (bright light = more food) and then shapes and especially movement and color. If you had thought about it, you'd have seen that there are a lot of useful steps along the way from simple light detecting cells to more complex eyes.
The only act of faith is the belief that processes observed today are the same processes that acted in the past (Uniformitarianism, I think). Calling this a belief is a misnomer since it has a lot of evidence behind it, though. If you think that speciation has been observed in the only 100 or so years we've been looking, why don't you think speciation could have created the diversity we see today in the billions of years life has existed?
In my own lifetime I have seen more scientists waffle over the facts of species evolution , black holes, stellar evolution, social engineering and you name it.
You seem to be having some difficulty telling the difference between the Scientific Method and lies and evasions. Science is about challenging beliefs and conclusions. It is not strange that scientists change their opinions. They are not trying to deceive you, they are just trying to find the facts. As for lies and evasions, well, that's what creationists do.
If Kansas wants to remove evolution then good for them. That's your democracy in action after all.
While we're voting on evolution, let's get together and vote on a few other things. Let's get rid of gravity and that nutty speed of light limit. No one needs those things.
Here's a hint. That evolution has happened and continues to happen is as established a fact of nature as both of those things. The major disputes scientists are now having are with the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
If you honestly believe that politics or religion has anything to say about these issues, then with all due respect, you're just not very bright.
gene
Star Wars worked for me when I was 7 years old, too.
The problem is, it still works for me (30 years old now). Not because it's been elevated to some masterpiece in my mind, but because it's still a wonderful piece of escapist fantasy. It has a heart and soul that the sterile Phantom Menace just can't muster.