I've had the dubious pleasure to learn LSE almost 3 decades ago, an atrocious language with keywords all in french. If a bastardization of Basic is even possible, this is it ! Oh, and its creator was one of my computer science professors a good decade later... It was hard not to scoff when he was going on a tangent 'that's why when we conceived LSE we did it that way...'
People take millions of contracts with their insurances every year. The one time such a thing happens, everybody remembers it forever. All the other times are ignored. When you actually spend time running a statistics on it, there's no surprise.
Seriously, who the fuck actually uses water bongs with tobacco?
I once smoked tobacco through a traditional narghile and it is actually enjoyable: there's no smoke so it doesn't feel like you are trying to breathe through a forest fire, tar and most cancer crap stays in water and the nicotine kick is powerful (but I'm not a smoker). Apparently a lot of people use those for tobacco (which needs to be of a special kind for best enjoyment).
Do they only simulate neurones using the old classical methods used by all neural network models and that has proved less than adequate ?
We are only now beginning to figure out that there were some missing pieces in our understanding of how the brain works at it's 'bit level', for instance it is now proven that dendrites act on the neurons and have an influence on memory. There may be other cells, so far classified as 'irrelevant' that show up to have a crucial importance in the simulation of a 'real' brain... Who knows. But if they can backup my brain on that thing, I'm all for it.
My vector field maths are not up to par anymore, but I get your point. It's similar to an EM wave not being able to create a charged particle, be it virtual or real. At best you can extract energy from an EM wave (=light) when it bumps an electron out of its 'orbit' and thus creates a photoelectric effect. I wonder if there is an analogy with gravity waves. Anyway, I'd never heard of gravitomagnetism, thanks for the info.
This is about gravitational waves, not about gravitational fields.
I understand that when you agitate or rotate a mass (= gravitational field), you get gravity waves. But admitting that this effect is real and that you can reflect/refract gravity waves, could you use it to make a gravity field ?
Factories should ONLY produce bent and dent cells!
Actually your little jest is not entirely wrong. Most silicium manufacturing is geared towards making electronic components, and as such need something like 99.9999% purity which is very expensive.
But solar cells work fine with only 99.9% pure Si, which is a lot cheaper to produce but unfortunately not being done very much yet. There was actually a/. article about this about a year ago.
About the fine tuning of the universe, the simplest explanation is the anthropic principle, but really it doesn't explain anything ("it is so because it is so" sounds close to many a religion's theogony). But maybe it's simpler to say that since we cannot experiment changing the speed of light or the charge of the electron, maybe the whole question is wrong or purposeless.
Yes, they are so terrified of death that they will use any crutch they can to postpone it, be it religion, advanced or crackpot medicine. Personally I go extreme skiing in the (early) morning before making it to the office in order to cure me of such delusions.
In particular, how SUVs separate the driver's experience from the road in a dangerous way.
After a (US) friend had been hit by an SUV and his car totaled, you know his reaction ? He went out and bought one so he would be the one doing the damage next time... This kind of logic reminds me of the cold war stockpiles.
Anytime you increase the spread of speed between drivers, you increase the chances for an accident
Having lived (and driven) in several countries, I can't overstate how much this is true. In the US, everybody drives at exactly the same speed (I'm talking highways here). In most of Europe there is a 10~20kph variation, but Italy... Italy was insane (it's gotten better): you have two narrow lanes of highway with no emergency lane and concrete walls, filled with Fiat 500 going 60kph on the right lane and Ferraris coming at 200kph in your rearview mirror in the fast lane. Which lane do you chose ? It was like a videogame. And it did end with 'game-over' twice for me.
the computers would not have allowed that car to pull out in front of me, and further would have prioritized my vehicle
What makes you think people would design a automated driving system with efficiency in mind ? It could be a whole other target, like reducing pollution.
Case in point, I live in a city where there are lights everywhere (sometimes 10m apart for no better reason than a crosswalk), and they are purposely not synchronized even in spots where it would be trivial. The reason is that they want people to not use their car when coming downtown: there's a fast tram system and a great bikepaths, and indeed it is much faster to use any of those than to take your car.
The net result is that I have never seen so many people run red lights, something I'd seen happen maybe twice in my lifetime I now see as an almost daily occurrence.
I'm currently trying to used a hardware watchdog on a card design... but the watchdog proves less reliable than the main hardware itself ! Kind of defeats the purpose... C:-(
Yeah, I've known several such dangerous assholes. One had a passion for a certain exit ramp, trying to find the max speed for it. Every day he would try it 1kph faster. Then one day he arrived at the university a bit shaken up: "apparently the max speed in the curve is 128kph"... That was one of my best laugh ever.
Like a friend said, the best auto safety device is a giant spike in the middle of the steering wheel and removal of seat belts. Just _watch_ how safely people will drive...
First of all, take a look at what you can do when you have not just a puny 12MPix but 10 times more, and a lens that allows you to do that (which doesn't exist on either compact or SLR cameras).
Then let me tell you what I want on the next generation cameras: more dynamic range, the Fuji S5 paved the way but they can do better. Then a better signal / noise. Then a raw file format with at least some (lossless) compression (Jpeg2000 anyone). Then full 24x36 frame sensors on a tiny compact cameras (they used to fit such a film sensor, plus a roll, plus the winding space in much smaller cameras than the current crop of 7x9mm sensors). Then a self-detection when there is dust on the sensor and a warning on the camera. Then physical buttons to change the settings, not just menu functions. A hyperfocal distance setting (I've been claiming for that ever since the start of the 'D' line of Nikkors 2 decades ago and it's only a fucking simple software fix). Enough ? Get crankin'
Slashdot Mirror
23
$ dog --help | wc -l
43
It seems like there are many more ways to manage a dog than a cat... No surprise here.
I've had the dubious pleasure to learn LSE almost 3 decades ago, an atrocious language with keywords all in french. If a bastardization of Basic is even possible, this is it ! Oh, and its creator was one of my computer science professors a good decade later... It was hard not to scoff when he was going on a tangent 'that's why when we conceived LSE we did it that way...'
People take millions of contracts with their insurances every year. The one time such a thing happens, everybody remembers it forever. All the other times are ignored. When you actually spend time running a statistics on it, there's no surprise.
Seriously, who the fuck actually uses water bongs with tobacco?
I once smoked tobacco through a traditional narghile and it is actually enjoyable: there's no smoke so it doesn't feel like you are trying to breathe through a forest fire, tar and most cancer crap stays in water and the nicotine kick is powerful (but I'm not a smoker). Apparently a lot of people use those for tobacco (which needs to be of a special kind for best enjoyment).
Yes, I don't understand why 'screensavers' are still implemented in modern OSes. Remove those fucking things and set the screen off by default !
Me, I save electricity simply by walking around the apt behind my wife to turn off all the lights she leaves on...
I've never heard this one. Do you have a article to point to ? And where would the original species be now ? Extinct ?
We are only now beginning to figure out that there were some missing pieces in our understanding of how the brain works at it's 'bit level', for instance it is now proven that dendrites act on the neurons and have an influence on memory. There may be other cells, so far classified as 'irrelevant' that show up to have a crucial importance in the simulation of a 'real' brain... Who knows. But if they can backup my brain on that thing, I'm all for it.
no amount of breeding of dogs has produced a non-dog
But breeding of wolves has produced a non-wolf. It's called a dog.
My vector field maths are not up to par anymore, but I get your point. It's similar to an EM wave not being able to create a charged particle, be it virtual or real. At best you can extract energy from an EM wave (=light) when it bumps an electron out of its 'orbit' and thus creates a photoelectric effect. I wonder if there is an analogy with gravity waves. Anyway, I'd never heard of gravitomagnetism, thanks for the info.
This is about gravitational waves, not about gravitational fields.
I understand that when you agitate or rotate a mass (= gravitational field), you get gravity waves. But admitting that this effect is real and that you can reflect/refract gravity waves, could you use it to make a gravity field ?
That's why I don't trust a DNS returned by any intermediary. I'd rather use OpenDNS.
I thought remote access was only possible from the local network on all (most?) adsl router/modems...
It's an international operation but they only write in engrish ?!? And people trust those asswipes ?
Factories should ONLY produce bent and dent cells!
Actually your little jest is not entirely wrong. Most silicium manufacturing is geared towards making electronic components, and as such need something like 99.9999% purity which is very expensive.
But solar cells work fine with only 99.9% pure Si, which is a lot cheaper to produce but unfortunately not being done very much yet. There was actually a /. article about this about a year ago.
What does it mean to mean?
Now you are beginning to sound like Bill Clinton... C;-)
Anyway the GP brought a point about the anthropic principle that is worth repeating.
About the fine tuning of the universe, the simplest explanation is the anthropic principle, but really it doesn't explain anything ("it is so because it is so" sounds close to many a religion's theogony). But maybe it's simpler to say that since we cannot experiment changing the speed of light or the charge of the electron, maybe the whole question is wrong or purposeless.
Yes, they are so terrified of death that they will use any crutch they can to postpone it, be it religion, advanced or crackpot medicine. Personally I go extreme skiing in the (early) morning before making it to the office in order to cure me of such delusions.
In particular, how SUVs separate the driver's experience from the road in a dangerous way.
After a (US) friend had been hit by an SUV and his car totaled, you know his reaction ? He went out and bought one so he would be the one doing the damage next time... This kind of logic reminds me of the cold war stockpiles.
Anytime you increase the spread of speed between drivers, you increase the chances for an accident
Having lived (and driven) in several countries, I can't overstate how much this is true. In the US, everybody drives at exactly the same speed (I'm talking highways here). In most of Europe there is a 10~20kph variation, but Italy... Italy was insane (it's gotten better): you have two narrow lanes of highway with no emergency lane and concrete walls, filled with Fiat 500 going 60kph on the right lane and Ferraris coming at 200kph in your rearview mirror in the fast lane. Which lane do you chose ? It was like a videogame. And it did end with 'game-over' twice for me.
the computers would not have allowed that car to pull out in front of me, and further would have prioritized my vehicle
What makes you think people would design a automated driving system with efficiency in mind ? It could be a whole other target, like reducing pollution.
Case in point, I live in a city where there are lights everywhere (sometimes 10m apart for no better reason than a crosswalk), and they are purposely not synchronized even in spots where it would be trivial. The reason is that they want people to not use their car when coming downtown: there's a fast tram system and a great bikepaths, and indeed it is much faster to use any of those than to take your car.
The net result is that I have never seen so many people run red lights, something I'd seen happen maybe twice in my lifetime I now see as an almost daily occurrence.
I'm currently trying to used a hardware watchdog on a card design... but the watchdog proves less reliable than the main hardware itself ! Kind of defeats the purpose... C:-(
twice the posted speed minus ten
Yeah, I've known several such dangerous assholes. One had a passion for a certain exit ramp, trying to find the max speed for it. Every day he would try it 1kph faster. Then one day he arrived at the university a bit shaken up: "apparently the max speed in the curve is 128kph"... That was one of my best laugh ever.
Like a friend said, the best auto safety device is a giant spike in the middle of the steering wheel and removal of seat belts. Just _watch_ how safely people will drive...
Then let me tell you what I want on the next generation cameras: more dynamic range, the Fuji S5 paved the way but they can do better. Then a better signal / noise. Then a raw file format with at least some (lossless) compression (Jpeg2000 anyone). Then full 24x36 frame sensors on a tiny compact cameras (they used to fit such a film sensor, plus a roll, plus the winding space in much smaller cameras than the current crop of 7x9mm sensors). Then a self-detection when there is dust on the sensor and a warning on the camera. Then physical buttons to change the settings, not just menu functions. A hyperfocal distance setting (I've been claiming for that ever since the start of the 'D' line of Nikkors 2 decades ago and it's only a fucking simple software fix). Enough ? Get crankin'