I haven't gone so far as to +6 the trolls. But I have put ACs to +1 and Karma to +0. I think I will be putting off topic and flamebait to +6. If it weren't for the goddamn ASCII art, I'd do the same for trolls. Can anyone else imagine an alternate dimension where slashdot trolls were dedicated to publishing images of Pam Anderson's boobs instead of the goatse guy's ass? I mean, goddamn.
When I first heard of the foam analysis, it immediately reminded me of something that Feynman wrote in his Challenger report. This story seems to confirm the connection. I've typed out an excerpt from Feynman's report. It's worth reading. Feynman's brutalization of one of NASA's mathematical safety models in the third paragraph is the really relevant part.
The phenomenon of accepting for flight seals that had shown erosion and blow-by in previous flights is very clear. The Challenger flight is an excellent example. There are several references to flights that had gone before. The acceptance and success of these flights is taken as evidence of safety. But erosion and blow-by are not what the design expected. They are warnings that something is wrong. The equipment is not operating as expected, and therefore there is a danger that is can operate with even wider deviations in this unexpected and not thoroughly understood way. The fact that this danger did not lead to a catastrophe before is no guarantee that it will not the next time, unless it is completely understood. When playing Russian roulette the fact that the first shot got off safely is little comfort for the next. The origin and consequences of the erosion and blow-by were not understood. They did not occur equally on all flights and all joints; sometimes more, and sometimes less. Why not sometime, when whatever conditions determined it were right, still more, leading to catastrophe?
In spite of these variations from case to case, officials behaved as if they understood it, giving apparently logical arguments to each other often depending on the "success" of previous flights. For example, in determining if flight 51-L was safe to fly in the face of ring erosion in flight 51-C, it was noted that the erosion depth was only one-third of the radius. It had been noted in an experiment cutting the ring that cutting it as deep as one radius was necessary before the ring failed. Instead of being very concerned that variations of poorly understood conditions might reasonably create a deeper erosion this time, it was asserted, there was "a safety factor of three." This is a strange use of the engineer's term "safety factor." If a bridge is built to withstand a certain load without the beams permanently deforming, cracking, or breaking, it may be designed for the materials used to actually stand up under three times the load. This "safety factor" is to allow for uncertain excesses of load, or unknown extra loads, or weaknesses in the material that might have unexpected flaws, etc. If now the expected load comes on to the new bridge and a crack appears in a beam, this is a failure of the design. There was no safety factor at all; even though the bridge did not actually collapse because the crack only went one-third of the way through the beam. The O-rings of the Solid Rocket Boosters were not designed to erode. Erosion was a clue that something was wrong. Erosion was not something from which safety can be inferred.
There was no way, without full understanding, that one could have confidence that conditions the next time might not produce erosion three times more severe than the time before. Nevertheless, officials fooled themselves into thinking they had such understanding and confidence, in spite of the peculiar variations from case to case. A mathematical model was made to calculate erosion. This was a model based not on physical understanding but on empirical curve fitting. To be more detailed, it was supposed a stream of hot gas impinged on the O-ring material, and the heat was determined at the point of stagnation (so far, with reasonable physical, thermodynamic laws). But to determine how much rubber eroded it was assumed this depended only on this heat by a formula suggested by data on a similar material. A logarithmic plot suggeste3d a straight line, so it was supposed that the erosion varied as the.58 power of the heat, the.58 being determined by a nearest fit.
You dumbass. You clearly don't understand the system. Learn a little bit about a subject before you call troll.
Licensing and royalties are paid, but they are often offset by promotion fees that the stations receive to play the song. You see, the record labels need the stations to make their songs popular so they can sell CDs. The stations don't need particular songs nearly as much.
You mean millions of people hear the song on the radio without paying for it? Sounds like piracy. There could obviously never be any benefit to lots of people hearing a song without paying.
Yet another rabid open sourcenik making unfounded allegations. Hint: What matters isn't the philosophy of the programmers, it's the results. And Microsoft's results kick Java's ass here.
I installed Java's shitty VM and I had to uninstall it because it made my internet browser into a dog. It slows down everything. Microsoft's version is fast and lean. Sorry, but I don't want the court system to rule that I have to use Java's.
You've pointed out the main problems. We need to create the tools to be able to do this. But like I said, I imagine that those tools we create or modify will be organic (DNA based). Organisms already do so much of those error checking and construction tasks that I think it will be easiest that way.
This is the real nano-technology. First we bio-engineer the tools we need to create whole genomes quickly. At that point, we can make designer bacteria or other organisms. The potential of that sort of technology is nearly unlimited.
Pointing out a spelling error on slashdot--useless.
Using the '/sarcasm' cliché in a dismal attempt at geek humor--even more useless.
Implying that bad spelling is a form of self-righteousness--kind of weird.
But pointing out to the world that you are a troll so they can add you to their enemies list--now that's priceless.
If you click on the 'topics' link on the left, you'll see that slashdot has one icon for Microsoft (the borg) and another for Windows (this shitty one.) If you click on the Windows icon, you'll find that this is the only story ever posted with it. So we can probably rule out Bill using his mind control ray to control Taco's mind, and chalk it up to the usual slashdot incompetance.
Oh, better far to live and die
Under the brave black flag I fly,
Than play a sanctimonious part
With a pirate head and a pirate heart.
Away to the cheating world go you,
Where pirates all are well-to-do;
But I'll be true to the song I sing,
And live and die a Pirate King.
For I am a Pirate King!
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King!
For I am a Pirate King!
ALL:
You are!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
KING:
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King.
ALL:
It is!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
You managed to completely miss what I said. I feel that Jackson spent too much time trying to replicate the books on screen and did come up with something excruciatingly tedious.
Jackson did try to make this particular toaster wash dishes, as you put it. He failed for preciously that reason. It's not an adaptation that he has created, it's a replication.
King's 'The Shining' was a very popular book when Kubrick made the movie. And the fans did scream bloody murder after Kubrick massacred it. They were wrong. Kubrick's version was one of the greatest horror movies ever made.
Jackson has pleased the Tolkien fans. However, 'Middle Earth experts' do an atmosphere make. I've seen the spirit of Tolkien in surrealist science fiction movies and in history textbooks. It goes so far because his work had real elements of greatness. I don't see that spirit in most fantasy novels or D&D games even if they do have elves and trolls. I don't see it in Jackson's movies no matter how correctly he got the pronunciation of elvish names or the color of Ent-bark.
Frankly, I don't see Jackson taking any risks with the material. His movies are popular. But they aren't great. The original Star Wars was popular. The first, and maybe even the second Star Wars movie, were great. They changed the way people think. Their ideas and motifs penetrated the national psyche. That didn't happen with Titanic, even though that was just as popular. And we don't and won't see that with Jackson's movies.
In fact, the movies are considerably less than great. I can't find any particular good about the movies beyond their fantasy setting. And that doesn't impress me so much--I can slap a costume on a chair.
And, no, I'm not about to watch the 'making of' movie. A work stands on its own.
----As an aside, what's up with moderators misusing the flamebait rating?
Here is sllort's moderation guideline on flamebait:
Flamebait: It is noteworthy to point out that the Jargon File entry for Flamebait reads 'See also: troll'. Flamebait is actually more specific than Troll, as it is a moderation label for troll posts which are designed to start an angry discussion or 'flamewar'. Because flamewars are universally stupid, Flamebait and Troll both meet the general requirement of attempting to humiliate anyone who replies. Flamebait is even harder to use than Troll, and requires not only the psychic ability to read the intent of the original poster, but also the ability to determine that the author was attempting to provoke a flamewar. This is a double-diamond super-expert moderation label. If you can use it correctly, you're probably either psychic or God. Keyword: correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
He's complaining about too much errata? Knuth's $2.56 checks were my goddamn college beer budget!
German law is funky. Help to murder 3,000 people and all you get is 15 years. Then again, that's probably just small fry around there.
I haven't gone so far as to +6 the trolls. But I have put ACs to +1 and Karma to +0. I think I will be putting off topic and flamebait to +6. If it weren't for the goddamn ASCII art, I'd do the same for trolls. Can anyone else imagine an alternate dimension where slashdot trolls were dedicated to publishing images of Pam Anderson's boobs instead of the goatse guy's ass? I mean, goddamn.
Best comment on the whole damn page. If there is justice, this will get an immediate +5.
Oh god, that's so awesome. Leisure Suit Larry was truly the cultural achievement of that decade.
You dumbass. You clearly don't understand the system. Learn a little bit about a subject before you call troll.
Licensing and royalties are paid, but they are often offset by promotion fees that the stations receive to play the song. You see, the record labels need the stations to make their songs popular so they can sell CDs. The stations don't need particular songs nearly as much.
You mean millions of people hear the song on the radio without paying for it? Sounds like piracy. There could obviously never be any benefit to lots of people hearing a song without paying.
Yet another rabid open sourcenik making unfounded allegations. Hint: What matters isn't the philosophy of the programmers, it's the results. And Microsoft's results kick Java's ass here.
I installed Java's shitty VM and I had to uninstall it because it made my internet browser into a dog. It slows down everything. Microsoft's version is fast and lean. Sorry, but I don't want the court system to rule that I have to use Java's.
April Fool!
...all year long.
This IS double jeopardy--but double jeopardy wasn't outlawed in Norway like it was in the U.S.
Bit-torrent has MD5 checking built in.
No....Tony Blair's the dupe.
You've pointed out the main problems. We need to create the tools to be able to do this. But like I said, I imagine that those tools we create or modify will be organic (DNA based). Organisms already do so much of those error checking and construction tasks that I think it will be easiest that way.
This is the real nano-technology. First we bio-engineer the tools we need to create whole genomes quickly. At that point, we can make designer bacteria or other organisms. The potential of that sort of technology is nearly unlimited.
+5 this one!
Pointing out a spelling error on slashdot--useless.
Using the '/sarcasm' cliché in a dismal attempt at geek humor--even more useless.
Implying that bad spelling is a form of self-righteousness--kind of weird.
But pointing out to the world that you are a troll so they can add you to their enemies list--now that's priceless.
If you click on the 'topics' link on the left, you'll see that slashdot has one icon for Microsoft (the borg) and another for Windows (this shitty one.) If you click on the Windows icon, you'll find that this is the only story ever posted with it. So we can probably rule out Bill using his mind control ray to control Taco's mind, and chalk it up to the usual slashdot incompetance.
This just makes me want to burst out singing.
KING:
Oh, better far to live and die
Under the brave black flag I fly,
Than play a sanctimonious part
With a pirate head and a pirate heart.
Away to the cheating world go you,
Where pirates all are well-to-do;
But I'll be true to the song I sing,
And live and die a Pirate King.
For I am a Pirate King!
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King!
For I am a Pirate King!
ALL:
You are!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
KING:
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King.
ALL:
It is!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
Hurrah for the Pirate King!
Well, this story reminds me what a nut Hoyle was.
It brings joy to my heart to remember space-bourne viruses and the extra long nasal passages tree-dwelling monkeys have to defend against them.
What this article really needs now is a creationist to start quoting Hoyle to prove that the chances of evolution happening are 1 in a gawdzillion.
Hey, wouldn't a 'mozillion' be a cool number? We could make it equal to the number of ink droplets in the Library of Congress or something.
Heh.
Hence my original post about said fans.
You managed to completely miss what I said. I feel that Jackson spent too much time trying to replicate the books on screen and did come up with something excruciatingly tedious.
Jackson did try to make this particular toaster wash dishes, as you put it. He failed for preciously that reason. It's not an adaptation that he has created, it's a replication.
King's 'The Shining' was a very popular book when Kubrick made the movie. And the fans did scream bloody murder after Kubrick massacred it. They were wrong. Kubrick's version was one of the greatest horror movies ever made.
Jackson has pleased the Tolkien fans. However, 'Middle Earth experts' do an atmosphere make. I've seen the spirit of Tolkien in surrealist science fiction movies and in history textbooks. It goes so far because his work had real elements of greatness. I don't see that spirit in most fantasy novels or D&D games even if they do have elves and trolls. I don't see it in Jackson's movies no matter how correctly he got the pronunciation of elvish names or the color of Ent-bark.
Frankly, I don't see Jackson taking any risks with the material. His movies are popular. But they aren't great. The original Star Wars was popular. The first, and maybe even the second Star Wars movie, were great. They changed the way people think. Their ideas and motifs penetrated the national psyche. That didn't happen with Titanic, even though that was just as popular. And we don't and won't see that with Jackson's movies.
In fact, the movies are considerably less than great. I can't find any particular good about the movies beyond their fantasy setting. And that doesn't impress me so much--I can slap a costume on a chair.
And, no, I'm not about to watch the 'making of' movie. A work stands on its own.
----As an aside, what's up with moderators misusing the flamebait rating? Here is sllort's moderation guideline on flamebait:
Flamebait: It is noteworthy to point out that the Jargon File entry for Flamebait reads 'See also: troll'. Flamebait is actually more specific than Troll, as it is a moderation label for troll posts which are designed to start an angry discussion or 'flamewar'. Because flamewars are universally stupid, Flamebait and Troll both meet the general requirement of attempting to humiliate anyone who replies. Flamebait is even harder to use than Troll, and requires not only the psychic ability to read the intent of the original poster, but also the ability to determine that the author was attempting to provoke a flamewar. This is a double-diamond super-expert moderation label. If you can use it correctly, you're probably either psychic or God. Keyword: correctly.