I'm still trying to figure out what the whole ridiculous blowjob hulabaloo was manufacture to cover up by diverting public attention to a meaningless matter.
I'd say it was just meant to taint the last portion of the presidency for the 2000 elections. No real coverup for that particular hulabaloo.
It's weird though - the movie *did* make me want to play the game. I can see how that crappy movie could translate into a great game (plus I've heard nothing but good things)
The really sad part here is that Silent Hill the movie is probably the best game-based movie I've seen yet.
As someone who has played neither Silent Hill or TombRaider, I'd beg to differ. Without knowledge of the game, Silent Hill was not only bad, but made little sense. No one's natural reaction to "Dare you Dare you...whatever" above a dead man is to reach into their mouth to pull out the next clue. The movie played like a game.
And the acting was more horrifying than the monsters.
When I saw it, the audience burst out laughing at all of the "dramatic" points. A complete and utter failure in terms of inspiring fear, drama, or any other emotion but contempt.
Well, with all due respect, science is about being fair to all viewpoints. Notice all the people upthread judging ID by the same criteria they judge evolution? Can't get more fair than that.
I've often thought the same thing. The increase in mutations hadn't really entered my mind, but it seems to me that all of the greatest leaps in evolution would be a massive die-off situation. If 0.01% of the population has some quality that helps them escape the danger, then that trait goes from being an extremely rare deformity to being a full part of the species - overnight.
If the species can recover before the next great die-off, then they gain/lose more traits, until they're an entirely different species. == Your point about being in control of our genes is well-taken. I think if we were to maintain our current level of technology for a thousand years, the resulting species would have noticable differences - most likely behavioural. But while I think evolution is still going quite strong for a non-dieoff period, it probably won't last.
As long as we're having this discussion, I'll throw this one out there too: Mutating for mutability. You don't often hear people talk about this one either, but some traits seem to be more mutable than others. It makes sense that a species' appearance could change drastically in relatively few generations, since its environment may change quickly (a dieoff of a dominant plant), or they may emmigrate to a different area. Other aspects such as chemical controls in our bodies have probably been the same for millions of years.
I've become quite interested in the mechanisms of genetic success since I've started geeking it out with genetic algorithms recently. I'd like to test various mechanisms to see which produce the best results (massive die-off, segregating a subspecies and then reintegrating later, etc)
The only way I can see POST being more secure is that web-apps that display HTML content may strip out a lot of tags and javascript, but pass image/link urls through without validation.
An image or link can't send information to a script that only accepts POSTs.
I think we've just moved beyond the point where disease is a factor in our evolutionary path, not that evolution has stopped. It's basically come down to reproductive fitness now. If you can ensure that your children's children's children's...etc can survive long enough to reproduce, you're a successful specimen.
This means for selection for large numbers of children (if you can support them, so they don't die/get incarcerated before reproducing). It means selection for attractiveness and for athletes. It means selection for people with social skills - some might even say sociopaths.
I'd wager a number of genes are still dropping out of the human race, but now it's left more to social factors than physical ones.
Death is simply a required mechanism of evolution.
Quick nitpick - death really isn't a required mechanism - it's optional. Evolution merely requires change over time and means of selecting for certain attributes. There's no rule that limits the amount of time that a given entity can remain in the evolutionary pool. Consider an infinite environment, in which nothing ever "dies", but descendents control larger areas based on the success of their predecessors.
Disproportionately high penalties tend to do little to deter, rather they actually push such activity underground and make it *more* of a harm to society. Look at drug/prohibition laws.
More importantly, disproportionately high penalties are unjust. Throwing one kid in jail for 10 years is not the same as throwing 520 kids in jail for a week.
But our current technology *will* cut it, if we simply cut back on what needs cutting back on, and conserve what is becoming increasingly rare. It won't last *forever*, but it can certainly increase our sustainability by orders of magnitude.
What if the advanced technologies we require take centuries to emerge - and require that we sustain our current level of advancement for that long? We have to consider that "lifestyle change" may be the only way we'll get this right, and that future technologies cannot be relied upon as a Deus Ex Machina for when the going gets really tough.
I meant don't rely on "soon-to-be-invented" technological innovations to prevent a predicted disaster. Don't assume we'll have anti-hurricane pills next summer, strengthen the levies instead. Don't trust in a non-existant missile defense shield to protect you from nukes - work at non-proliferation. And don't trust that new fossil/uranium detection and refining methods will solve all of our energy needs 50 years from now - we need alternative sources of energy.
If we get a working fusion reactor, missile defense shield, or anti-hurricane pill, good for us, but to rely on anything other than worst-case (or at least very-below-average case) scenarios is to be very disappointed - perhaps when it's already too late.
Our main sources of energy are still those that were used 50 years ago. For all the technology we've created in the meantime, we are still dependent on those types of energy (fossil and uranium).
The amount of uranium readily available in the earth's crust is pretty much unknown at this time, but I've never heard an estimate anywhere near "thousands of years" worth - especially considering that energy use is increasing everywhere in the world. If India and China start to use the same amount of energy per capita that we do, we've got a fraction of the time you might expect.
My main point - don't rely on technology. We have one chance - and one chance only - to get this right. We all hope you're right. We all hope the sky isn't falling, and we all hope that we have thousands of years of cheap energy.
ImageMagick is anything but obscure in the programmatic-image-processing field. Just because you're not in the field doesn't mean it's fading into obscurity.
Maybe the reason arbitrary devices work better is that there's no second-guessing? I'm absolutely certain that "30 days has September". So much of what we learn is uncertain, or has exceptions. When you can succinctly file away a piece of information you can be sure will always be valid, maybe the brain is better able to "paste" it, without having to add mechanisms for "unpasting" it if future information invalidates it.
In many cases, that can be even better in the long run. It's an excellent interview talking point, and if they ever need an upgrade/bugfix, they know exactly who has the most experience (you).
And when learning a language, the most important factor is being able to communicate. Worry about verb conjugation after they know how to say "need toilet".
Teaching Java to a beginning programmer is like teaching someone who doesn't speak a lick of english exclusively in Haiku. They'll spend a lot of time wondering why this (to them) arbitrary style is enforced on them.
Completely agree. Perl has what beginners want - instant gratification. The commands are so simple and easy to learn, and most of the complaints about 90% punctuation disappear when it's introduced in a student environment where students go with what they know until they need something more powerful.
It's also good for tacking on new concepts as they learn. Pass-by-value vs pass-by-reference is completely natural in Perl.
I'd probably have them learn OOP in another language though - at least until 6.0 comes along.
Slashdot Mirror
Are any other real geeks worried about that "Informative" rating?
I'm still trying to figure out what the whole ridiculous blowjob hulabaloo was manufacture to cover up by diverting public attention to a meaningless matter.
I'd say it was just meant to taint the last portion of the presidency for the 2000 elections. No real coverup for that particular hulabaloo.
It's weird though - the movie *did* make me want to play the game. I can see how that crappy movie could translate into a great game (plus I've heard nothing but good things)
The really sad part here is that Silent Hill the movie is probably the best game-based movie I've seen yet.
As someone who has played neither Silent Hill or TombRaider, I'd beg to differ. Without knowledge of the game, Silent Hill was not only bad, but made little sense. No one's natural reaction to "Dare you Dare you...whatever" above a dead man is to reach into their mouth to pull out the next clue. The movie played like a game.
And the acting was more horrifying than the monsters.
THANK you.
When I saw it, the audience burst out laughing at all of the "dramatic" points. A complete and utter failure in terms of inspiring fear, drama, or any other emotion but contempt.
Well, with all due respect, science is about being fair to all viewpoints. Notice all the people upthread judging ID by the same criteria they judge evolution? Can't get more fair than that.
I've often thought the same thing. The increase in mutations hadn't really entered my mind, but it seems to me that all of the greatest leaps in evolution would be a massive die-off situation. If 0.01% of the population has some quality that helps them escape the danger, then that trait goes from being an extremely rare deformity to being a full part of the species - overnight.
If the species can recover before the next great die-off, then they gain/lose more traits, until they're an entirely different species.
==
Your point about being in control of our genes is well-taken. I think if we were to maintain our current level of technology for a thousand years, the resulting species would have noticable differences - most likely behavioural. But while I think evolution is still going quite strong for a non-dieoff period, it probably won't last.
As long as we're having this discussion, I'll throw this one out there too: Mutating for mutability. You don't often hear people talk about this one either, but some traits seem to be more mutable than others. It makes sense that a species' appearance could change drastically in relatively few generations, since its environment may change quickly (a dieoff of a dominant plant), or they may emmigrate to a different area. Other aspects such as chemical controls in our bodies have probably been the same for millions of years.
I've become quite interested in the mechanisms of genetic success since I've started geeking it out with genetic algorithms recently. I'd like to test various mechanisms to see which produce the best results (massive die-off, segregating a subspecies and then reintegrating later, etc)
The only way I can see POST being more secure is that web-apps that display HTML content may strip out a lot of tags and javascript, but pass image/link urls through without validation.
An image or link can't send information to a script that only accepts POSTs.
Check out this link for more information.
I think we've just moved beyond the point where disease is a factor in our evolutionary path, not that evolution has stopped. It's basically come down to reproductive fitness now. If you can ensure that your children's children's children's...etc can survive long enough to reproduce, you're a successful specimen.
This means for selection for large numbers of children (if you can support them, so they don't die/get incarcerated before reproducing). It means selection for attractiveness and for athletes. It means selection for people with social skills - some might even say sociopaths.
I'd wager a number of genes are still dropping out of the human race, but now it's left more to social factors than physical ones.
Given an appropriately-complex apparatus, could one devise a device to utilize the computing power of cockroaches for opimization problems?
The potential of this cock-puter is mind-blowing...
Death is simply a required mechanism of evolution.
Quick nitpick - death really isn't a required mechanism - it's optional. Evolution merely requires change over time and means of selecting for certain attributes. There's no rule that limits the amount of time that a given entity can remain in the evolutionary pool. Consider an infinite environment, in which nothing ever "dies", but descendents control larger areas based on the success of their predecessors.
Not to nitpick or anything, but I recently read a study that debunks your claims.
I have "given be brief..."???
Fix your sig.
I also have to disagree - on different grounds.
Disproportionately high penalties tend to do little to deter, rather they actually push such activity underground and make it *more* of a harm to society. Look at drug/prohibition laws.
More importantly, disproportionately high penalties are unjust. Throwing one kid in jail for 10 years is not the same as throwing 520 kids in jail for a week.
But our current technology *will* cut it, if we simply cut back on what needs cutting back on, and conserve what is becoming increasingly rare. It won't last *forever*, but it can certainly increase our sustainability by orders of magnitude.
What if the advanced technologies we require take centuries to emerge - and require that we sustain our current level of advancement for that long? We have to consider that "lifestyle change" may be the only way we'll get this right, and that future technologies cannot be relied upon as a Deus Ex Machina for when the going gets really tough.
I meant don't rely on "soon-to-be-invented" technological innovations to prevent a predicted disaster. Don't assume we'll have anti-hurricane pills next summer, strengthen the levies instead. Don't trust in a non-existant missile defense shield to protect you from nukes - work at non-proliferation. And don't trust that new fossil/uranium detection and refining methods will solve all of our energy needs 50 years from now - we need alternative sources of energy.
If we get a working fusion reactor, missile defense shield, or anti-hurricane pill, good for us, but to rely on anything other than worst-case (or at least very-below-average case) scenarios is to be very disappointed - perhaps when it's already too late.
Our main sources of energy are still those that were used 50 years ago. For all the technology we've created in the meantime, we are still dependent on those types of energy (fossil and uranium).
The amount of uranium readily available in the earth's crust is pretty much unknown at this time, but I've never heard an estimate anywhere near "thousands of years" worth - especially considering that energy use is increasing everywhere in the world. If India and China start to use the same amount of energy per capita that we do, we've got a fraction of the time you might expect.
My main point - don't rely on technology. We have one chance - and one chance only - to get this right. We all hope you're right. We all hope the sky isn't falling, and we all hope that we have thousands of years of cheap energy.
But would you bet the future of mankind on it?
ImageMagick is anything but obscure in the programmatic-image-processing field. Just because you're not in the field doesn't mean it's fading into obscurity.
Interesting stuff.
Maybe the reason arbitrary devices work better is that there's no second-guessing? I'm absolutely certain that "30 days has September". So much of what we learn is uncertain, or has exceptions. When you can succinctly file away a piece of information you can be sure will always be valid, maybe the brain is better able to "paste" it, without having to add mechanisms for "unpasting" it if future information invalidates it.
If that's not already a Dilbert, it should be.
Head ye over to an Abandonware site and find out. It was one of the best LucasArts games of the 386 era.
<reality>Of course, that's probably just nostalgia talking and you'll hate it, </reality> but I still pick it up and play occasionally.
In many cases, that can be even better in the long run. It's an excellent interview talking point, and if they ever need an upgrade/bugfix, they know exactly who has the most experience (you).
My personal favourite:
If false and go_kill_yourself() Then
print "You've just killed yourself!"
End If
VB's the only language I know that's not smart enough to know that 0 & X = 0
And when learning a language, the most important factor is being able to communicate. Worry about verb conjugation after they know how to say "need toilet".
Teaching Java to a beginning programmer is like teaching someone who doesn't speak a lick of english exclusively in Haiku. They'll spend a lot of time wondering why this (to them) arbitrary style is enforced on them.
Completely agree. Perl has what beginners want - instant gratification. The commands are so simple and easy to learn, and most of the complaints about 90% punctuation disappear when it's introduced in a student environment where students go with what they know until they need something more powerful.
It's also good for tacking on new concepts as they learn. Pass-by-value vs pass-by-reference is completely natural in Perl.
I'd probably have them learn OOP in another language though - at least until 6.0 comes along.