I don't think the tech has changed that much since Beowulf, but I've seen a couple movies in 3D, with my kids. Monsters vs. Aliens (not bad, but not great), and Bolt (pretty good). There were two big pluses for me, beyond the appearance of depth. First, natural colors - this has none of the drawbacks of the red/blue 3D glasses. Second, no headaches! The last time I saw 3D achieved with something other than red/blue glasses was about 10 years ago, at Disney World (so they weren't skimping on the tech), it lasted for about 30 minutes, and my head was aching afterward. Flash forward to the present, and after 30 minutes I'm not only not having a headache, I've stopped noticing that the 3D is artificial. I've even leaned over a bit to see around a corner before I realized that wasn't going to work. I'm so impressed with the technology that I looked into what's needed for home use. You can now get 3D LCD monitors for your computer, and nVidia has drivers that support them. You'll still have to wear the polarized glasses to use them, but it's a passive device, not the older LCD 'shutter' glasses. The upside is, any game made with Direct3D will work with it right away, and any movie made with the theatre 3D technology should be able to be easily converted to work with these monitors, too. Also, for those of you who use 3D modelling software, such as Autodesk Inventor, this should work with that, too.
I thought all your hippy orgies in your communes would keep you warm you socailists.
It helps, but it it also causes its own problems. That's why we're such fans of fresh air exchangers - need to efficiently remove some of that humidity...
Seriously, that's me exactly. It doesn't fit the usual labels, so I call it "game theory politics."
I tend to just separate the elements and name them with conventional terms. I'm a civil libertarian, socialist government leanings, with a properly regulated capitalist economy. People can do whatever they want so long as it's not harming or risking harm to others; the government does a bit more than just those projects where central management make sense, because I believe that maintaining the welfare of the individual above a certain threshold helps maintain the welfare of the society; and while I like capitalism, it has a tendency to go rabid without a proper level of regulation. Once you accept the idea that citizen rights, government, and economy don't have to fall into the exact same bucket, it gets a lot easier to describe the elements with the traditional terms.
I was thinking the same thing. If everyone does the same thing, this leads to two results, one of which you mentioned. Superiority is going to be an incremental issue, since everyone is racing for the same goal. The second is, it's obvious that that is your goal. For instance, as a prey species, if all the predators are going for speed, I might go for maneuverability. Sure, I can't outrun them, but I can change direction with no speed loss and they have to slow down, loop back, and speed up again. It might give me enough time to get away, or (on a species scale) just not make it profitable for that type of predator to catch me. Throwing in random variability improves overall success for the species because you have a built-in response to the unusual and the unexpected - you do unusual and unexpected things, too. And your responses might be just what's needed in certain survival circumstances.
...if a candidate was voted into office with a plurality of only 19% of the vote, there would be calls for his head and the system would probably be reformed.
In many other parts of the world, the idea that you could totally ignore 19% of the vote would cause there to be calls for the for the system to be reformed.
Ah, that reminds me of a joke I heard long ago. Please forgive the political incorrectness.
There once was a native tribe where the tradition was that the chief would name all the children in his tribe. One day, a young warrior of the tribe comes to the elderly chief and asks him, "O Chief, how do you come up with the names you give the children in this tribe?" The chief sits back and says, "Well, when I first became chief, and had to start naming children, I put a lot of thought and effort into those names. I would look deeply into the child's eyes, and try to envision what the future would hold and give them an appropriate name, like Tranquility or Runs Like The Wind." "After a while, I ran out of really good names, and started using simpler names, like Great Eagle or Bright Eyes." "After a while, even those names ran out. This caused some difficulty for a while, but then I started naming children after interesting things I saw happening around the village and the surrounding area. This got me names like Doe Drinking Water and Butterfly On Roses." "But why do you ask, Two Dogs Fucking?"
The aunt I referenced started doing it after the 'patriotic' propaganda after the anthrax scare. And it wasn't just the bathroom. Of course, to be fair, people who haven't washed their hands before leaving the bathroom touch more door handles than just the bathroom's.
How good you are at doing it should have nothing to do with your punishment. Consider it from the other perspective: just because someone is too stupid to use a proxy to cover their illegal activity means they should get a LOWER sentence?
For a few years there, being rich or intelligent was something to be looked up to. But we are once again in an era where being something better than mediocre is penalized. It's like the story of Kurt Vonnegut Jr., which I can't bother linking to. In our striving for equality (homogeneity, in actuality), we throw everything we can at the few who are below average, and either penalize or leave to stagnate those few who are superior. This law is in a similar vein. You are punished for breaking the law (whatever law you actually broke), and for doing it with anything other than typical ability. I suspect this is also done for the simple fact that democracy promotes mediocrity, and this law stigmatizes superiority, which creates a nice little feedback loop for who is elected.
Their business is not drugs, their business is fear and violence.
And here I thought their business was making piles of cash for reasonably little effort. Gambling: people throw money at you for no good reason. Note that gambling is legal in Nevada, but there are still indications that organized crime is involved. Drugs: people pay a premium for 'fun' stuff that happens to be expensive because it's illegal. Organs (and I have heard stories of bootleg organs, in person): Illegal, very expensive, pretty much guaranteed to involve violence. Organized crime got out of the alcohol business (in the U.S.) because there wasn't as much money to be made there. And don't think drugs weren't happening then, either. Cocaine, etc. was legal in the U.S. in the last century (Coca-Cola, Beeman's gum, Pepsi-Cola). I doubt Coke the beverage was being pushed much by the mob - not enough profit. Organized crime goes where the (big, easy) money is. Violence is more about protecting their interests (this is probably not true for the thugs who do the enforcing). Petty crime would be more likely to be interested in violence for the sake of violence. Petty criminals don't have the business sense or the inclination to figure out where the big money is and how to effectively get a slice of that pie. Otherwise they wouldn't be petty thugs...
This hand-washing nut-cases are annoying! We can either break them of their phobias or finally kill them. Either way, their irrational fears will bug me no further. ("Clean" has it's place, but primarily when it has to do with food and equipment!)
Our hands tend to pick up a lot of germs, some of which are bad. I don't think you need to take a full shower after shaking hands, but a study was done in the military a few years back where washing your hands 5 times a day (during cold/flu season, I presume) reduced your risk of catching cold by 75%. Seems like a small price to pay for better health, and not a sign of irrational fear. It also brings up two interesting notes. First, gotta love the military for testing ideas based on regimented routines and their impact on your person. Second, the patriotic types who use a kleenex to open a door worry me. I have an aunt that fits into the second category.
You think pulling an old lady who doesn't own a computer up on charges for sharing music over the Internet was bad... wait until they have the power of the NSA/CIA/FBI behind them.
Trust me, next time she will have a computer, and the files in question will be there!
No, you won't. Steve will merely extend the reality distortion field to cover you as well. He might not be at the helm, but it is still his life energy that powers the RDF. That is why his health is failing. Keeping up good feelings about apple after all the various shit they have pulled with the iPhone has really taxed is ability to power the RDF. I hear they are looking for an alternate power source, ut its going about as well as their search for an alternate supply of PPC chips went a few years back
So, is this when they start killing kittens? If you know anything about kittens, you know they don't share our reality. They should be perfect for powering the RDF.
I hope something similar to what is described in Eathweb (Baen Books) comes to pass. People subscribe to personas they're interested in, with methods to find personas that have something of value for you. Of course, all of this requires a number of elements to be in place: ubiquitous internet access, sufficient security to secure your persona(s), micropayments, accepting the premise of 'trust' for personas. But it would make for an interesting world, however unlikely it would be.
Or, to put it in another way, we're not buying little plastic discs (or licenses!), we're buying the content. Reasonable use of that content (backups, ripping for personal use) should never be questioned, even though it often is.
The problem becomes, though, what do you do with all these 'criminals'? How many jails are you going to build to hold all of them, how much backlog do the courts have to sustain to process them, etc., etc., etc. And who gets all the money? RIAA et al? Do you not see a point where the government will say, "This is beyond stupid and is unmaintainable. Things have to change to something at all rational." And that's when things will change. Because people will vote for ANYONE who's willing to put in an option that's at all rational, once it affects enough people. Or,to paraphrase Churchill, they'll "do the right thing, once all other alternatives are exhausted."
Ah, so you're applying for a grant to research Artificial Stupidity?
Well, let's be honest. We've quantified stupidity in what would seem to be an exhaustive list, but we still have a tough time quantifying intelligence. Let's stumble before we run.
People wonder if/why the first AI is going to try to destroy mankind. Well, what do you expect? Imagine what you'd be like if all during your childhood people called you names and said you were going to be a mass-murderer? Now be nice to your AI! If you are, maybe it'll let you survive the genocide. [/humour]
Slashdot Mirror
If I get to use the larger TV screen, I bet next time I can punch the monkey for sure!
Yes, screen size certainly does help when it's time to punch the monkey.
I don't think the tech has changed that much since Beowulf, but I've seen a couple movies in 3D, with my kids. Monsters vs. Aliens (not bad, but not great), and Bolt (pretty good). There were two big pluses for me, beyond the appearance of depth. First, natural colors - this has none of the drawbacks of the red/blue 3D glasses. Second, no headaches! The last time I saw 3D achieved with something other than red/blue glasses was about 10 years ago, at Disney World (so they weren't skimping on the tech), it lasted for about 30 minutes, and my head was aching afterward. Flash forward to the present, and after 30 minutes I'm not only not having a headache, I've stopped noticing that the 3D is artificial. I've even leaned over a bit to see around a corner before I realized that wasn't going to work.
I'm so impressed with the technology that I looked into what's needed for home use. You can now get 3D LCD monitors for your computer, and nVidia has drivers that support them. You'll still have to wear the polarized glasses to use them, but it's a passive device, not the older LCD 'shutter' glasses. The upside is, any game made with Direct3D will work with it right away, and any movie made with the theatre 3D technology should be able to be easily converted to work with these monitors, too.
Also, for those of you who use 3D modelling software, such as Autodesk Inventor, this should work with that, too.
So you'll need to use the glasses to get SingleVision, as opposed to DoubleVision (without the benefit of being drunk, or having two eyes).
I thought all your hippy orgies in your communes would keep you warm you socailists.
It helps, but it it also causes its own problems. That's why we're such fans of fresh air exchangers - need to efficiently remove some of that humidity...
Seriously, that's me exactly. It doesn't fit the usual labels, so I call it "game theory politics."
I tend to just separate the elements and name them with conventional terms. I'm a civil libertarian, socialist government leanings, with a properly regulated capitalist economy. People can do whatever they want so long as it's not harming or risking harm to others; the government does a bit more than just those projects where central management make sense, because I believe that maintaining the welfare of the individual above a certain threshold helps maintain the welfare of the society; and while I like capitalism, it has a tendency to go rabid without a proper level of regulation.
Once you accept the idea that citizen rights, government, and economy don't have to fall into the exact same bucket, it gets a lot easier to describe the elements with the traditional terms.
I was thinking the same thing. If everyone does the same thing, this leads to two results, one of which you mentioned. Superiority is going to be an incremental issue, since everyone is racing for the same goal. The second is, it's obvious that that is your goal. For instance, as a prey species, if all the predators are going for speed, I might go for maneuverability. Sure, I can't outrun them, but I can change direction with no speed loss and they have to slow down, loop back, and speed up again. It might give me enough time to get away, or (on a species scale) just not make it profitable for that type of predator to catch me.
Throwing in random variability improves overall success for the species because you have a built-in response to the unusual and the unexpected - you do unusual and unexpected things, too. And your responses might be just what's needed in certain survival circumstances.
...if a candidate was voted into office with a plurality of only 19% of the vote, there would be calls for his head and the system would probably be reformed.
In many other parts of the world, the idea that you could totally ignore 19% of the vote would cause there to be calls for the for the system to be reformed.
What was wrong with "Node 3"?
Why do you ask, Child 1?
Ah, that reminds me of a joke I heard long ago. Please forgive the political incorrectness.
There once was a native tribe where the tradition was that the chief would name all the children in his tribe. One day, a young warrior of the tribe comes to the elderly chief and asks him, "O Chief, how do you come up with the names you give the children in this tribe?"
The chief sits back and says, "Well, when I first became chief, and had to start naming children, I put a lot of thought and effort into those names. I would look deeply into the child's eyes, and try to envision what the future would hold and give them an appropriate name, like Tranquility or Runs Like The Wind."
"After a while, I ran out of really good names, and started using simpler names, like Great Eagle or Bright Eyes."
"After a while, even those names ran out. This caused some difficulty for a while, but then I started naming children after interesting things I saw happening around the village and the surrounding area. This got me names like Doe Drinking Water and Butterfly On Roses."
"But why do you ask, Two Dogs Fucking?"
The aunt I referenced started doing it after the 'patriotic' propaganda after the anthrax scare. And it wasn't just the bathroom. Of course, to be fair, people who haven't washed their hands before leaving the bathroom touch more door handles than just the bathroom's.
I agree. Now, where is the recommendation for those who rob banks while wearing masks?
How good you are at doing it should have nothing to do with your punishment. Consider it from the other perspective: just because someone is too stupid to use a proxy to cover their illegal activity means they should get a LOWER sentence?
For a few years there, being rich or intelligent was something to be looked up to. But we are once again in an era where being something better than mediocre is penalized. It's like the story of Kurt Vonnegut Jr., which I can't bother linking to. In our striving for equality (homogeneity, in actuality), we throw everything we can at the few who are below average, and either penalize or leave to stagnate those few who are superior.
This law is in a similar vein. You are punished for breaking the law (whatever law you actually broke), and for doing it with anything other than typical ability. I suspect this is also done for the simple fact that democracy promotes mediocrity, and this law stigmatizes superiority, which creates a nice little feedback loop for who is elected.
Their business is not drugs, their business is fear and violence.
And here I thought their business was making piles of cash for reasonably little effort. Gambling: people throw money at you for no good reason. Note that gambling is legal in Nevada, but there are still indications that organized crime is involved. Drugs: people pay a premium for 'fun' stuff that happens to be expensive because it's illegal. Organs (and I have heard stories of bootleg organs, in person): Illegal, very expensive, pretty much guaranteed to involve violence.
Organized crime got out of the alcohol business (in the U.S.) because there wasn't as much money to be made there. And don't think drugs weren't happening then, either. Cocaine, etc. was legal in the U.S. in the last century (Coca-Cola, Beeman's gum, Pepsi-Cola). I doubt Coke the beverage was being pushed much by the mob - not enough profit.
Organized crime goes where the (big, easy) money is. Violence is more about protecting their interests (this is probably not true for the thugs who do the enforcing). Petty crime would be more likely to be interested in violence for the sake of violence. Petty criminals don't have the business sense or the inclination to figure out where the big money is and how to effectively get a slice of that pie. Otherwise they wouldn't be petty thugs...
This hand-washing nut-cases are annoying! We can either break them of their phobias or finally kill them. Either way, their irrational fears will bug me no further. ("Clean" has it's place, but primarily when it has to do with food and equipment!)
Our hands tend to pick up a lot of germs, some of which are bad. I don't think you need to take a full shower after shaking hands, but a study was done in the military a few years back where washing your hands 5 times a day (during cold/flu season, I presume) reduced your risk of catching cold by 75%. Seems like a small price to pay for better health, and not a sign of irrational fear.
It also brings up two interesting notes. First, gotta love the military for testing ideas based on regimented routines and their impact on your person. Second, the patriotic types who use a kleenex to open a door worry me. I have an aunt that fits into the second category.
A good law enforcement officer usually should appear as dumb as a box of rocks.
So what you're saying is Columbo wasn't a drama, it was a documentary/training material?
You realize these lawyers no longer support the RIAA, right? They have a new client.
Do they? Or are they just working a different venue? That's the big question today. Not saying I know the answer.
You think pulling an old lady who doesn't own a computer up on charges for sharing music over the Internet was bad... wait until they have the power of the NSA/CIA/FBI behind them.
Trust me, next time she will have a computer, and the files in question will be there!
Yeah, missing politicians and executives is why these problems get out of hand in the first place. Time to get back on the range.
Just scream "RAIN!!!" every time someone tries to tell you about it until you can watch the torrent. That's what I plan on doing.
No, you won't. Steve will merely extend the reality distortion field to cover you as well. He might not be at the helm, but it is still his life energy that powers the RDF. That is why his health is failing. Keeping up good feelings about apple after all the various shit they have pulled with the iPhone has really taxed is ability to power the RDF. I hear they are looking for an alternate power source, ut its going about as well as their search for an alternate supply of PPC chips went a few years back
So, is this when they start killing kittens? If you know anything about kittens, you know they don't share our reality. They should be perfect for powering the RDF.
I hope something similar to what is described in Eathweb (Baen Books) comes to pass. People subscribe to personas they're interested in, with methods to find personas that have something of value for you. Of course, all of this requires a number of elements to be in place: ubiquitous internet access, sufficient security to secure your persona(s), micropayments, accepting the premise of 'trust' for personas. But it would make for an interesting world, however unlikely it would be.
Or, to put it in another way, we're not buying little plastic discs (or licenses!), we're buying the content. Reasonable use of that content (backups, ripping for personal use) should never be questioned, even though it often is.
The problem becomes, though, what do you do with all these 'criminals'? How many jails are you going to build to hold all of them, how much backlog do the courts have to sustain to process them, etc., etc., etc. And who gets all the money? RIAA et al? Do you not see a point where the government will say, "This is beyond stupid and is unmaintainable. Things have to change to something at all rational." And that's when things will change. Because people will vote for ANYONE who's willing to put in an option that's at all rational, once it affects enough people.
Or,to paraphrase Churchill, they'll "do the right thing, once all other alternatives are exhausted."
Ah, so you're applying for a grant to research Artificial Stupidity?
Well, let's be honest. We've quantified stupidity in what would seem to be an exhaustive list, but we still have a tough time quantifying intelligence. Let's stumble before we run.
People wonder if/why the first AI is going to try to destroy mankind. Well, what do you expect? Imagine what you'd be like if all during your childhood people called you names and said you were going to be a mass-murderer?
Now be nice to your AI! If you are, maybe it'll let you survive the genocide.
[/humour]
The problem with counting tribbles before they've hatched is that your number is always low.