The universe is not infinite, just simply unbounded, according to most modern astronomers. So the real ratio, while still likely to be small, is not so small as to be insignificant.
They've cracked the DES-I, DES-III, RC5-56, and CSC encyption contests, and now they're alternating between cracking RC5-64 and finding optimal golomb rulers.
...and if we augment his vocabulary with a few key phrases (hot grits, Natalie Portman, first post, *BSD is dying, Linux is gay), we could have him posting some pretty convincing trolls!
And if at some point he generates more flames in response than a human troll, I'd say he could be the first AI to pass the turing test!
Why is that most AC postings are usually the product of spineless idiots?
FYI, if they had put the actual STORY first, and then given their one-sided political commentary, your cowardly reply would have had some grounds. Also, I am far from being right-wing.
No matter which side of the missile-defense debate you're on, you really have to laugh at the way it is written.
Look: First paragraph: 1-sentence summary. Second paragraph:
The errors will add to concerns over George W. Bush's plans to place weapons in space. If today's satellite orbits cannot be trusted, opponents reason, how will we verify the numbers of future space-based anti-missile lasers and anti-satellite weapons?
And that quote comes unattributed, apparently the product of the author of the story at New Scientist. WTF happened to objectivity in journalism?
On the other hand, since it lets us know its bias straight-off, we can dismiss it without having to wade through the crap that follows.
Look Mr Harvard-Liberal-Academic-Kennedy-Wannabe, we all know you hate Bush. But are you really that naive to think that any nation capable of putting a satellite in space wouldn't be able to make the same kinds of observations you did? I have a feeling most nations understand that spy satellites are, well, for spying, and that unless they want to start a war they'll let us have ours and we let them have theirs. The U.S. Space Command is more than capable of keeping track of all man-made satellites in earth-orbit, so arguments about collisions are irrelevant. And the fact is that the treaty says that contents of each country's satellite registry is comnpletely up to that country, so the U.S. is not in violation of the treaty.
The only way I can explain this article is that this "respected space analyst" is either extremely arrogant and naive, or (more likely) an anti-Bush liberal democrat. The other thing to remember is that New Scientist is based in Europe (in G.B. I believe), and to fill a weekly magazine with "cutting-edge scientific journalism" they have to choose a few dodgy topics as filler, the more controversial, the better.
"Or have you not yet figured out the difference..." "Any idiot can..."
Wow man, those are some harsh words, particularly from you, since judging from your.sig you have no compunctions about satirizing other users yourself.
I still can't imagine that anyone would've emailed you thinking you were me. I mean, I racked up 50 karma on my first account without ever having anyone email me in reply to my comments or my stories. And I wasn't planning on using this account to troll or anything like that.
I do understand the "Here on Slashdot" comment, though.
No one in their right mind would mistake me for you.
Have you no sense of humor?
Or if really feel strongly about it, I'll change it to something suitably fake. But I used that address for the purpose of satire only, not to hide.
It is a generalization, I'll give you that. But could you tell me why it's naive?
I could have said "any politician", but I do realize that there are some third parties who believe in reducing the size of the federal government and returning the power closer to the people.
But besides that, any congressman who goes to Washington thinking he'll do nothing but serve his constituency is the naive one. This whole computers in schools business is a classic example:
1. Politician annouces funding for computers in every classroom. "Oh boy!" shout the voters.
2. Schools get $$ and buy computers.
3. Politician passes law that says all computers in schools have to have filtering software. Since they can't legally do this, they threaten to cut off funding to any schools that don't comply. "Oh shit, this doesn't sound so great, but we don't want to lose all that free money, and we sure don't want to look like a bunch of smut peddlers!" cry the educators.
4. But politician is already extremely popular, got to impose his beliefs on his subjects, and is looking forward to many more terms on the gravy train...
Can you tell me which cases do not work in this manner?
Half the shit congress passes is unconstitutional. Remember how anything not specifically given to the feds in the constitution belongs to the states?
The goal of any republican or democrat is to gain more political power for themselves. That's what fuels bills like these, not any real concern over "hacking." He'll appear proactive, and tough on crime to his constituents, and when they reelect him maybe he'll get an important seat in an important committee.
rock, simply put. If you've ever wanted to fool around with video editing, they're a low-cost way to get into it. Plus you have the cable-in for the TV tuner, DVD decoding, compsite and S-video out so you can watch the DVDs on a real TV. Have you ever played Quake on 52" screen?
Their 3D capabilities have always been respectable. Not the TOP, but what's a few FPS between the Geforce and Radeon, especially when there's also a few hundred dollars difference. Heck, my Rage 128 still gets "good-enough-for-me" frame rates in Q3A (typically in the 60s).
Slashdot Mirror
The universe is not infinite, just simply unbounded, according to most modern astronomers. So the real ratio, while still likely to be small, is not so small as to be insignificant.
http://www.distributed.net
And if at some point he generates more flames in response than a human troll, I'd say he could be the first AI to pass the turing test!
FYI, if they had put the actual STORY first, and then given their one-sided political commentary, your cowardly reply would have had some grounds. Also, I am far from being right-wing.
On the other hand, since it lets us know its bias straight-off, we can dismiss it without having to wade through the crap that follows.
Look Mr Harvard-Liberal-Academic-Kennedy-Wannabe, we all know you hate Bush. But are you really that naive to think that any nation capable of putting a satellite in space wouldn't be able to make the same kinds of observations you did? I have a feeling most nations understand that spy satellites are, well, for spying, and that unless they want to start a war they'll let us have ours and we let them have theirs. The U.S. Space Command is more than capable of keeping track of all man-made satellites in earth-orbit, so arguments about collisions are irrelevant. And the fact is that the treaty says that contents of each country's satellite registry is comnpletely up to that country, so the U.S. is not in violation of the treaty.The only way I can explain this article is that this "respected space analyst" is either extremely arrogant and naive, or (more likely) an anti-Bush liberal democrat. The other thing to remember is that New Scientist is based in Europe (in G.B. I believe), and to fill a weekly magazine with "cutting-edge scientific journalism" they have to choose a few dodgy topics as filler, the more controversial, the better.
I know I'd like to see them as 7,8, and 9. They were my childhood; I read them long before I ever saw any of the movies.
"Any idiot can..."
Wow man, those are some harsh words, particularly from you, since judging from your .sig you have no compunctions about satirizing other users yourself.
I still can't imagine that anyone would've emailed you thinking you were me. I mean, I racked up 50 karma on my first account without ever having anyone email me in reply to my comments or my stories. And I wasn't planning on using this account to troll or anything like that.
I do understand the "Here on Slashdot" comment, though.
No one in their right mind would mistake me for you.
Have you no sense of humor?
Or if really feel strongly about it, I'll change it to something suitably fake. But I used that address for the purpose of satire only, not to hide.
I could have said "any politician", but I do realize that there are some third parties who believe in reducing the size of the federal government and returning the power closer to the people.
But besides that, any congressman who goes to Washington thinking he'll do nothing but serve his constituency is the naive one. This whole computers in schools business is a classic example:
1. Politician annouces funding for computers in every classroom. "Oh boy!" shout the voters.
2. Schools get $$ and buy computers.
3. Politician passes law that says all computers in schools have to have filtering software. Since they can't legally do this, they threaten to cut off funding to any schools that don't comply. "Oh shit, this doesn't sound so great, but we don't want to lose all that free money, and we sure don't want to look like a bunch of smut peddlers!" cry the educators.
4. But politician is already extremely popular, got to impose his beliefs on his subjects, and is looking forward to many more terms on the gravy train...
Can you tell me which cases do not work in this manner?
The goal of any republican or democrat is to gain more political power for themselves. That's what fuels bills like these, not any real concern over "hacking." He'll appear proactive, and tough on crime to his constituents, and when they reelect him maybe he'll get an important seat in an important committee.
might interest you.
Their 3D capabilities have always been respectable. Not the TOP, but what's a few FPS between the Geforce and Radeon, especially when there's also a few hundred dollars difference. Heck, my Rage 128 still gets "good-enough-for-me" frame rates in Q3A (typically in the 60s).