Flip the left hand image about its vertical axis, and place it next to the other image. Then hold a small mirror held perpendicularly to the screen with your nose resting on the edge of the mirror so that your right eye looks directly at the right-hand image, and your left eye looks into the mirror at the virtual image of the left-hand picture. Jiggle the mirror about a bit until the images coincide. It worked for me using a couple of digital photos of my front room taken from a few inches apart, and I found it alarmingly successful at inducing a headache.
Ray Bradbury's 'The Silver Locusts' aka 'The Martian Chronicles' is pretty cool. They made a quite spooky TV series of it. There's also 'War of the Worlds', which I haven't read, so I can't comment on it, and Heinlein's 'Red Planet'. Oh no, sorry, that last one sucked badly.
' tag. No that's not right, I mean you just use the letter P in angle brackets. There might be a key to do it, I tHINK IT@S THIS ONE. nOTHAT@S NOT RIGHT+MAYBE IT@S
++
NO CARRIER
Where's that? I'm on St Mary Axe overlooking the site of the old Baltic Exchange which was destroyed by an IRA bomb. They are currently laying the foundations for the 'Erotic Gherkin' and this building is ~vibrating~.
Luckily this slashdot *feature* can be circumvented by reading at -1. I agree with the AC, and though I take your point about the sensitivity of comparing/. moderation with Nazi crimes, isn't that what the poem is about? These things happen gradually, ya gotta watch out for 'em. Slashdot moderation can be an ugly sight. osm roolz btw.
My professor pointed out that you could find a large group of atoms in any given object whose random subatomic behaviors, if mapped to some output algorithm, could supply appropriate responses in a Turing test.
I guess the output algorithm would be the tricky bit. Maybe something like:
1. Get information on subatomic behaviours.
2. Discard information obtained in step 1.
3. Insert Turing test-passing AI algorithm here.
4. Output (+1, Insightful) comments generated by step 3.
I think that about covers it. Maybe step 3 needs fleshing out a bit, I don't know.
How are they ruining the product? It still works, does it not?
Some people who were sent the scanner are choosing not to use it as DC intended. This was kinda to be expected.
The only harm being done to DC is the harm they are doing themselves by proclaiming their cluelessness.
Why is it that anyone with a hare-brained idea and idiotic business plan feels that they are due massive profits, just because It's On The Internet (TM);
You're right that there are more real numbers than integers, but your proof is way off.
There are also an infinite number of rational numbers between any two integers, yet the sets Z(the integers) and R (the rationals) have the same cardinality.
is covering up several acres per person with plants that are then fermented and distilled to make alcohol for burning better than digging it out a hole in the ground? Mmmm, alcohol from a hole in the ground...
The difference is that fossil fuels contain carbon captured from the atmosphere by plants, some millions of years ago (Plants photosynthesise atmospheric CO2 -> sugar -> plant stuff). Burning fossil fuels returns carbon to the atmosphere, which is bad for global warming-type reasons. If you are using plants grown last week, the CO2 produced was in the atmosphere a fortnight ago anyway, so there is no net gain in atmospheric carbon.
Would the obfuscator have to produce code that produces the same output as the original?
The obfuscator would have to produce the same output, after all the point of an obfuscator program is just to alter the code while keeping the same functionality. But if you fed the output into the obfuscator, it mightn't be the same code. If you keep doing it, you can either:
A) reach a program which is unchanged by the obfuscator
B)reach a closed loop, like A->B->...->X->A
C)not end up in a loop at all. In the last case you might get Strange Attractors in perlcode-space:-)
Chances of the technician contaminating the samples || mistake in labelling results || other incompetence || malicious substitution of results || a fit up ? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000? 1 in 1,000,000? Still smaller than 1 in 37,000,000.
The guy from mission control who Dave talks to, refers to their "twin Aitch Ay Ell Niner Triple Zero" computers as disagreeing with HAL's assessment of the imminent failure of the AE-35 module. I can't remember the exact wording, so it must be time to watch the film again.
It's just as much fun if you don't buy a ticket. You just pick your numbers, and sit down in front of the TV as usual. Try it, it's just as exciting (if not more so), and cheaper.
I don't see any point in buying losing tickets. The only ticket worth buying is the winning one, so I'm gonna wait for that:-)
Slashdot Mirror
...this is from someone who uses 32-bit encryption. I hope that's not your *private* key ;-)
Something I was playing with last weekend:
Flip the left hand image about its vertical axis, and place it next to the other image. Then hold a small mirror held perpendicularly to the screen with your nose resting on the edge of the mirror so that your right eye looks directly at the right-hand image, and your left eye looks into the mirror at the virtual image of the left-hand picture. Jiggle the mirror about a bit until the images coincide. It worked for me using a couple of digital photos of my front room taken from a few inches apart, and I found it alarmingly successful at inducing a headache.
And no, that's not all I was playing with.
Ray Bradbury's 'The Silver Locusts' aka 'The Martian Chronicles' is pretty cool. They made a quite spooky TV series of it. There's also 'War of the Worlds', which I haven't read, so I can't comment on it, and Heinlein's 'Red Planet'. Oh no, sorry, that last one sucked badly.
My proposed law:
"Shall be illegal to quine" shall be illegal to quine.
There should be individual domains for each fetish. I bags registration authority for .goat
tag. Darn it, I mean a '
' tag. No that's not right, I mean you just use the letter P in angle brackets. There might be a key to do it, I tHINK IT@S THIS ONE. nOTHAT@S NOT RIGHT+MAYBE IT@S
++
NO CARRIER
A bit further along, No.33. A small world, indeed.
Where's that? I'm on St Mary Axe overlooking the site of the old Baltic Exchange which was destroyed by an IRA bomb. They are currently laying the foundations for the 'Erotic Gherkin' and this building is ~vibrating~.
Luckily this slashdot *feature* can be circumvented by reading at -1. I agree with the AC, and though I take your point about the sensitivity of comparing /. moderation with Nazi crimes, isn't that what the poem is about? These things happen gradually, ya gotta watch out for 'em.
Slashdot moderation can be an ugly sight. osm roolz btw.
XJesus? Somebody forked him?
I don't know why they bothered spending so much money to bring back those Russian guys. They were MIR astronauts.
Includes such gems as (from the Gutenburg text)
the skillful fighter puts himself into a position which makes defeat impossible, and does not miss the moment for defeating the enemy.
Whether to concentrate or to divide your troops, must be decided by circumstances.
Ponder and deliberate before you make a move.
The US Air Force is wasting taxpayer's money on these fancy-shmancy 'simulations', a copy of this book for every man will surely ensure victory.
My professor pointed out that you could find a large group of atoms in any given object whose random subatomic behaviors, if mapped to some output algorithm, could supply appropriate responses in a Turing test.
I guess the output algorithm would be the tricky bit. Maybe something like:
1. Get information on subatomic behaviours.
2. Discard information obtained in step 1.
3. Insert Turing test-passing AI algorithm here.
4. Output (+1, Insightful) comments generated by step 3.
I think that about covers it. Maybe step 3 needs fleshing out a bit, I don't know.
How are they ruining the product? It still works, does it not?
Some people who were sent the scanner are choosing not to use it as DC intended. This was kinda to be expected.
The only harm being done to DC is the harm they are doing themselves by proclaiming their cluelessness.
Why is it that anyone with a hare-brained idea and idiotic business plan feels that they are due massive profits, just because It's On The Internet (TM);
You're right that there are more real numbers than integers, but your proof is way off.
There are also an infinite number of rational numbers between any two integers, yet the sets Z(the integers) and R (the rationals) have the same cardinality.
Here's an explanation .
This is the only comment a sane person could make on this story. I salute you, sir.
OT:I would have posted as AC, but the 'Post Anonymously' button has disappeared. How queer!
is covering up several acres per person with plants that are then fermented and distilled to make alcohol for burning better than digging it out a hole in the ground?
Mmmm, alcohol from a hole in the ground...
The difference is that fossil fuels contain carbon captured from the atmosphere by plants, some millions of years ago (Plants photosynthesise atmospheric CO2 -> sugar -> plant stuff). Burning fossil fuels returns carbon to the atmosphere, which is bad for global warming-type reasons.
If you are using plants grown last week, the CO2 produced was in the atmosphere a fortnight ago anyway, so there is no net gain in atmospheric carbon.
carnivore was originally written in grep, but is now fgrep for performance reasons.
Would the obfuscator have to produce code that produces the same output as the original?
:-)
The obfuscator would have to produce the same output, after all the point of an obfuscator program is just to alter the code while keeping the same functionality.
But if you fed the output into the obfuscator, it mightn't be the same code. If you keep doing it, you can either:
A) reach a program which is unchanged by the obfuscator
B)reach a closed loop, like A->B->...->X->A
C)not end up in a loop at all.
In the last case you might get Strange Attractors in perlcode-space
I think that just about covers everyone :-)
what's the rush?
Chances of the technician contaminating the samples || mistake in labelling results || other incompetence || malicious substitution of results || a fit up ? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000? 1 in 1,000,000? Still smaller than 1 in 37,000,000.
The guy from mission control who Dave talks to, refers to their "twin Aitch Ay Ell Niner Triple Zero" computers as disagreeing with HAL's assessment of the imminent failure of the AE-35 module. I can't remember the exact wording, so it must be time to watch the film again.
It's just as much fun if you don't buy a ticket. You just pick your numbers, and sit down in front of the TV as usual. Try it, it's just as exciting (if not more so), and cheaper.
:-)
I don't see any point in buying losing tickets. The only ticket worth buying is the winning one, so I'm gonna wait for that
Easy on the bold, tiger ;-)
What exactly is a "Visual Basic Weenie", anyway? Is anyone who knows VB automatically a "weenie", or is there some qualifying characteristic?