But we needn't worry about those people, because sooner or later they're going to be IMing people while driving, and then they'll be dead; so they can have their dexterity, it just means more hot chicks for me in the long run:)
MODERATORS!!! Are you on crack? This is in no way "off-topic". The shift in allele frequencies to favor this trait through evolution would:
a) not have happened yet, there hasn't been enough time
b) not happen at all. How does scoring more points on your gameboy increase your reproductive fitness?
Thus, the only way to posit that the latest generations have somehow developed a "mutation" which causes their thumbs to be more nimble is to invoke Lamarkism (which is primarily the view that acquired changes in the genetic code are inhereted by the next generation). This view has been refuted in so many ways it's not even funny, and for slashdot and the publication to use the word "mutation" clearly shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental processes of evolution.
Why not try the more obvious approach: those people who have had to use their thumbs in more exacting roles tend to increase their skills in the use of their thumbs.
Would you say it was a mutation that was causing all piano players to have more dextrous hands?
I learned everything I know about computers, math, science, technology, etc. by having the motivation and intelligence to teach MYSELF.
If you're too lazy or stupid to educate yourself, it's not my problem or anyone else's. It's yours.
I mean, we still have millions of people in this country who believe the world was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago. These same people also believe in the powers of John Edwards and Miss Cleo. I have no sympathy, nor do I have a problem getting wealthy off of these people's willful ignorance.
Someone needs a biochemisty and cellular biology lesson. The "body building" process referred to is the biological method of cells multiplying and differentiating to create biological structures, and is essentially the same process among all complex multicellular life forms.
This post should have been moderated Score: -1, Moron
Did you perhaps not read the article? It explicitly says that the eyeball successfuly connected to the optic nerve and showed no signs of rejection.
You are correct on one thing though: How do we know it actually works as it "should"? I guess we'll have to wait until we can do this in a human subject an (s)he can tell us:)
No, I mean F=ma. You know, Force equals mass times acceleration. Force does NOT equal mass times velocity. Perhaps you should read Principia Mathematica:)
The real solution here would be to stay with real world physics. "Real World" physics work on the moon too. If a physics library would allow you to specify mass instead of weight and also the mass of the main body to witch he is on the surface, this library would indeed encompass ANY physical situation. You could even have a "G-Field" which could temporarily change the value of G (the gravitational constant) or even your mass to make you be able to "defy the laws of physics" and jump 20 feet in the air while you have said "G Field" suit on.
I think accurate physics MUST be present in most motion-oriented games so that the control feels more natural (i.e. feels like what would happen in THIS universe). You can change masses, gravitational constants, whatever, to make objects in your world to WHATEVER you want them to do, but F=ma should still apply:)
Guys, guys! Everyone knows by now that anyone who reads Slashdot is of course cultured and rational, hence he must be using the true etymological meaning of the word.
Obviously the author meant he thought the watch possesed a certain degree of exuberance and glee.
(Of course, the author's use of the word as it is seen here in context is irrelevant);)
I just thought of this. I'm sure it's wrong so someone please enlighten me, I love learning about this stuff, but here goes...
In quantum mechanics, a true vacuum with "nothing" there does not seem to exist. Instead, they theorize that a soup of virtual particles randomly pop into existence, combine again (particle/antiparticle), and annihalate each other.
Now, what if, when one of these particles were created, something (rather energy, matter, or a field of some sort) collided with one of the particles in the pair? Would this provide the
"drag"? Could the collision every so often knock a particle so significantly off its course that it failed to reunite with its anti-particle and be destroyed? Would this explain dark matter?
No, I'm obviously not a physicist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night;-)
'Tis possible, but pseudo science tends to be in the affirmative rather than the negative. Why run a story on the alleged non-existence of a very important particle in the Standard Model of physics? Most "pseudo scientists" probably don't even know what the standard model is. Also, if the report had indeed been falsified or exaggerated, I am quite certain we would have heard something from CERN right about now.
This comment has been moderated as "offtopic", but I think it bears more relevence than its moderation would have us believe.
Truly intellectual individuals do not limit themselves to conversation within their own area(s) of interest. If anything, learning about politics and the opinions of people not like ourselves help remind us of who we are. Also, I certainly see nothing wrong with talking about politics on Slashdot, especially as it pertains to all things geek. There is almost a certain meta-geekness involved in talking not only about geeky things, but the nature of "geeky" itself. Political discussions about such things as rediculous patents, DMCA misuse (well, I've never found a good use, but I digress), privacy, freedom, and the endless attempted assassination of rational thinking and individual thought all hinge upon principles that are near and dear to many a Slashdot reader's heart. If anything, political advocacy in traditionaly geeky subject areas such as science and the like could help more of the public understand the virtues (or possibly enlighten us upon hitherto non obvious disadvantages) of our way of thinking and our way of life.
Recent research in the area of human intelligence has shown that even being slightly smarter than the rest of the population has tremendous advantages, because it allows you to step back and view human interaction separate from your involvement in it. Talking about "meta-geeky" subjects is one way to do this. As I like to say, the group model of human behavior is far more apparent when even a small foot stool can place your eyes above the group.
One more objection to this mentality that we should be allowed to speak only of geeky things on Slashot: By mere coincidence I happened to have read Common Sense and Age of Reason by Thomas Paine a few days before Jon Katz' article. I remember thinking just how ahead of his time this man was, and just how well he would have fit in our communications centric culture. Should this view not be allowed to be discussed on Slashdot? Isn't this the very censorship and tunnel vision most Slashdotter's profess to despise? "Why can't that young Earth Creationist just close his Bible for a few moments, open his mind, and take a look at reality?" Shouldn't we be practicing what we preach? Or is this kneejerk response so typical of Jon Katz articles only here because it was written by Jon Katz? Surely those among us who fancy ourselves as rational and intellectual appreciate the dangers and fallacies of ad hominem arguments.
This would be true if it weren't for the fact that in what we sane people call "the real world", peace doesn't come from asking the enemy nicely. I'm sure in whatever world you live in all problems can be resolved by saying "Hey, if we talked about it we could live in peace and understanding." I'd love to live in that place, but that pesky little thing called reality doesn't seem to want me there.
When diplomacy fits, use it, but do I have to rape your wife and murder your your children before you decide maybe it would be a good idea to fight back?
I'm probably in the minority on this opinion, but maybe they should just change their license. Create a new "version" of the software released under a different license and sell it commercially. Some people fail to evaluate their business model before they license their software, this is unfortunate.
Also, maybe they should try a less "viral" license, such as BSD.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the GPL, but I think we've all seen that it's not the best choice in some situations.
If you read Slashdot, you are probably in the enviable position of being "in the know" about technology, but we are but a small percent of the people who represent Microsoft's user base. Let's take a look at two groups of them shall we:
1) People like my mom. She's till using a Pentium 100 with 32 MBs of RAM and a 33.6K modem. All she cares about is that she can read her email and "why does it say there is no dialtone when there clearly is one?" She doesn't care about Microsoft's computer practices. All she wants to be able to do is use her computer.
2) Sure there are IT specialists who are in the know about alternative operating systems, but do they represent the people they support? What about the secretaries who use the computer with Windows telephony products? How about the Graphic designer who is fluent in Page Maker and Photoshop? Are they going to want to take time out of their day to learn an OS? I worked for a networking company, and I remember how much of a hassle it was to migrate from GroupWise to Outlook, or even Windows 98 to Windows 2000. We did a multimillion dollar install at a church once with full remote administration capability, and the most amount of time we spent on support was from frustrated users who couldn't use their old screensavers anymore.
Folks, these people don't care about MS, they don't care that they are a monolopy. Furthermore, most of these people can't separate the concept of the operating system from the computer. The idea of a PC without Windows is unnatural to them. And these are the people to whom microsoft sells all those client licenses and home licenses. It doesn't matter how bad Microsoft gets, as long as they provide the user with a familiar and comfortable computing experience, they will probably always be on top. It would take a MASSIVE PR campaign to convince people otherwise, but it still probably wouldn't work even if you're pushing a superior product or philosophy.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you by any chance referring to the software company?
OH!! "Semantics", now I understand.
But we needn't worry about those people, because sooner or later they're going to be IMing people while driving, and then they'll be dead; so they can have their dexterity, it just means more hot chicks for me in the long run :)
MODERATORS!!! Are you on crack? This is in no way "off-topic". The shift in allele frequencies to favor this trait through evolution would:
a) not have happened yet, there hasn't been enough time
b) not happen at all. How does scoring more points on your gameboy increase your reproductive fitness?
Thus, the only way to posit that the latest generations have somehow developed a "mutation" which causes their thumbs to be more nimble is to invoke Lamarkism (which is primarily the view that acquired changes in the genetic code are inhereted by the next generation). This view has been refuted in so many ways it's not even funny, and for slashdot and the publication to use the word "mutation" clearly shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental processes of evolution.
Why not try the more obvious approach: those people who have had to use their thumbs in more exacting roles tend to increase their skills in the use of their thumbs.
Would you say it was a mutation that was causing all piano players to have more dextrous hands?
Why is Mr. Katz starting to sound suspiciously like Ron Popeil?
I learned everything I know about computers, math, science, technology, etc. by having the motivation and intelligence to teach MYSELF.
If you're too lazy or stupid to educate yourself, it's not my problem or anyone else's. It's yours.
I mean, we still have millions of people in this country who believe the world was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago. These same people also believe in the powers of John Edwards and Miss Cleo. I have no sympathy, nor do I have a problem getting wealthy off of these people's willful ignorance.
- end of rant -
I'm a whiz in calculus, and even I can't tell if this infinite series converges to 1.
Guy sitting at bar talking into his finger:
:)
"No it's not a Cell Phone, it's an IN-VIS-A-BLE PHONE!!!"
("Only 8 bucks a minute too")
Also, it was posted on Fark a couple of days ago, with almost the same wording.
Someone needs a biochemisty and cellular biology lesson. The "body building" process referred to is the biological method of cells multiplying and differentiating to create biological structures, and is essentially the same process among all complex multicellular life forms. This post should have been moderated Score: -1, Moron
Did you perhaps not read the article? It explicitly says that the eyeball successfuly connected to the optic nerve and showed no signs of rejection.
:)
You are correct on one thing though: How do we know it actually works as it "should"? I guess we'll have to wait until we can do this in a human subject an (s)he can tell us
No, I mean F=ma. You know, Force equals mass times acceleration. Force does NOT equal mass times velocity. Perhaps you should read Principia Mathematica :)
The real solution here would be to stay with real world physics. "Real World" physics work on the moon too. If a physics library would allow you to specify mass instead of weight and also the mass of the main body to witch he is on the surface, this library would indeed encompass ANY physical situation. You could even have a "G-Field" which could temporarily change the value of G (the gravitational constant) or even your mass to make you be able to "defy the laws of physics" and jump 20 feet in the air while you have said "G Field" suit on.
:)
I think accurate physics MUST be present in most motion-oriented games so that the control feels more natural (i.e. feels like what would happen in THIS universe). You can change masses, gravitational constants, whatever, to make objects in your world to WHATEVER you want them to do, but F=ma should still apply
Guys, guys! Everyone knows by now that anyone who reads Slashdot is of course cultured and rational, hence he must be using the true etymological meaning of the word.
;)
Obviously the author meant he thought the watch possesed a certain degree of exuberance and glee.
(Of course, the author's use of the word as it is seen here in context is irrelevant)
We need a moderation category called simply: WTF?
I just thought of this. I'm sure it's wrong so someone please enlighten me, I love learning about this stuff, but here goes...
;-)
In quantum mechanics, a true vacuum with "nothing" there does not seem to exist. Instead, they theorize that a soup of virtual particles randomly pop into existence, combine again (particle/antiparticle), and annihalate each other.
Now, what if, when one of these particles were created, something (rather energy, matter, or a field of some sort) collided with one of the particles in the pair? Would this provide the
"drag"? Could the collision every so often knock a particle so significantly off its course that it failed to reunite with its anti-particle and be destroyed? Would this explain dark matter?
No, I'm obviously not a physicist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night
'Tis possible, but pseudo science tends to be in the affirmative rather than the negative. Why run a story on the alleged non-existence of a very important particle in the Standard Model of physics? Most "pseudo scientists" probably don't even know what the standard model is. Also, if the report had indeed been falsified or exaggerated, I am quite certain we would have heard something from CERN right about now.
This comment has been moderated as "offtopic", but I think it bears more relevence than its moderation would have us believe.
Truly intellectual individuals do not limit themselves to conversation within their own area(s) of interest. If anything, learning about politics and the opinions of people not like ourselves help remind us of who we are. Also, I certainly see nothing wrong with talking about politics on Slashdot, especially as it pertains to all things geek. There is almost a certain meta-geekness involved in talking not only about geeky things, but the nature of "geeky" itself. Political discussions about such things as rediculous patents, DMCA misuse (well, I've never found a good use, but I digress), privacy, freedom, and the endless attempted assassination of rational thinking and individual thought all hinge upon principles that are near and dear to many a Slashdot reader's heart. If anything, political advocacy in traditionaly geeky subject areas such as science and the like could help more of the public understand the virtues (or possibly enlighten us upon hitherto non obvious disadvantages) of our way of thinking and our way of life.
Recent research in the area of human intelligence has shown that even being slightly smarter than the rest of the population has tremendous advantages, because it allows you to step back and view human interaction separate from your involvement in it. Talking about "meta-geeky" subjects is one way to do this. As I like to say, the group model of human behavior is far more apparent when even a small foot stool can place your eyes above the group.
One more objection to this mentality that we should be allowed to speak only of geeky things on Slashot: By mere coincidence I happened to have read Common Sense and Age of Reason by Thomas Paine a few days before Jon Katz' article. I remember thinking just how ahead of his time this man was, and just how well he would have fit in our communications centric culture. Should this view not be allowed to be discussed on Slashdot? Isn't this the very censorship and tunnel vision most Slashdotter's profess to despise? "Why can't that young Earth Creationist just close his Bible for a few moments, open his mind, and take a look at reality?" Shouldn't we be practicing what we preach? Or is this kneejerk response so typical of Jon Katz articles only here because it was written by Jon Katz? Surely those among us who fancy ourselves as rational and intellectual appreciate the dangers and fallacies of ad hominem arguments.
Does this jive with the Fox News article?
:-/
Yes, unless of course you don't know what solid state means
This would be true if it weren't for the fact that in what we sane people call "the real world", peace doesn't come from asking the enemy nicely. I'm sure in whatever world you live in all problems can be resolved by saying "Hey, if we talked about it we could live in peace and understanding." I'd love to live in that place, but that pesky little thing called reality doesn't seem to want me there.
When diplomacy fits, use it, but do I have to rape your wife and murder your your children before you decide maybe it would be a good idea to fight back?
Never been achieved on a large scale? What about 1 trillion atoms? Correct me if I'm wrong, but 1 trillion sounds like a pretty large number to me :)
I'm probably in the minority on this opinion, but maybe they should just change their license. Create a new "version" of the software released under a different license and sell it commercially. Some people fail to evaluate their business model before they license their software, this is unfortunate.
Also, maybe they should try a less "viral" license, such as BSD.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the GPL, but I think we've all seen that it's not the best choice in some situations.
Well, at least he's somewhat talented with ASCII-art. Oh wait, that's probably not original either :-\
What does condensation do to a proc when you... say... don't know how to correctly install a Peltier cooler?
Comparing Bill Gates to an Ann Raynd character? At least Howard Roark didn't pretend to be something he wasn't; and at least HE laughed... :)
If you read Slashdot, you are probably in the enviable position of being "in the know" about technology, but we are but a small percent of the people who represent Microsoft's user base. Let's take a look at two groups of them shall we:
1) People like my mom. She's till using a Pentium 100 with 32 MBs of RAM and a 33.6K modem. All she cares about is that she can read her email and "why does it say there is no dialtone when there clearly is one?" She doesn't care about Microsoft's computer practices. All she wants to be able to do is use her computer.
2) Sure there are IT specialists who are in the know about alternative operating systems, but do they represent the people they support? What about the secretaries who use the computer with Windows telephony products? How about the Graphic designer who is fluent in Page Maker and Photoshop? Are they going to want to take time out of their day to learn an OS? I worked for a networking company, and I remember how much of a hassle it was to migrate from GroupWise to Outlook, or even Windows 98 to Windows 2000. We did a multimillion dollar install at a church once with full remote administration capability, and the most amount of time we spent on support was from frustrated users who couldn't use their old screensavers anymore.
Folks, these people don't care about MS, they don't care that they are a monolopy. Furthermore, most of these people can't separate the concept of the operating system from the computer. The idea of a PC without Windows is unnatural to them. And these are the people to whom microsoft sells all those client licenses and home licenses. It doesn't matter how bad Microsoft gets, as long as they provide the user with a familiar and comfortable computing experience, they will probably always be on top. It would take a MASSIVE PR campaign to convince people otherwise, but it still probably wouldn't work even if you're pushing a superior product or philosophy.
Remember the OS/2 Warp campaign?