Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
reall... erm, excuse me. I mean to say REALLY.
Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 4, Funny
It is ALWAYS more efficient to simply state something with capital letters, instead of producing an actual piece of evidence, AND IT'S JUST AS EFFECTIVE!
Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Those that do pay for service get it. I fly enough that I get moved to first class a few times a year, and most of these frustrations go out the window when your ticket is worth 5x the other passengers. The airlines mark your bag with a 'priority' badge to make sure it doesn't go missing; you're the first on the plane (and have coffee in hand before the rest of the seats know if they're being bumped) and the first off; you have one attendant for roughly a dozen people in some cases, while the back of the plane has only two; you're served a full meal that's actually edible (sometimes), instead of paying for pretzels.
And, with pushes for special security lines for the frequent flyers, or just plane rich, the primary frustration of flying will diminish too - all for a cost.
There is that level of service, and you can buy it. To say that there should be no lesser services at a lesser cost, and that the poor should just ride the bus is simply elitist. (Note - parent didn't say this, but it's already popping up in the comments)
But what if this time the predictions are correct, but you're just sore over mistaken hypotheses from the past?
I really don't understand when people of a science or tech background commit that particular fallacy - "I heard something before that turned out to be incorrect, so now I don't trust the entire field". I can see how the general population falls into that trap, but we're supposed to be more rational here.
Twins used to be considered evil in many cultures, so now I don't trust obstetricians?
Yes, there were incorrect hypotheses and predictions in the past. About everything. But, as new ideas/data/insight/observations (as well as thoughts on what failed in previous hypotheses) develop, what is left in common with the previous?
I'm not arguing that you have to listen blindly to the new predictions, simply because they are new - I'm simply saying that disregarding them on that basis is a fallacy.
And I don't mean this solely with respect to the climate - this absurd disregard based on previous scientific or technological failures is everywhere.
Well, that is how Penzias and Wilson got a Nobel for CMB.
They had no idea of the significance of their 3.5 Kelvin noise until it was pointed out to them - up to that point they'd been trying to get rid of it under the assumption that it was error.
it's idiotic to passionately defend actions simply because of how civil laws define things.
law is open to interpretation (job of a lawyer) and by case analysis (job of a judge).
and it's a certainty that if I followed you around at every moment for a long enough time, I would see you too in violation of some particular law. And there's a good chance it would be a criminal act, not a civil one. if you claim to know and understand every single law in your region, you are a delusional nutcase.
so, yeah, she broke the law, and you don't deserve any lenience.
Being that the CS folks that setup the computer were expecting a draw, I think they must have started with the assumption that a top level pro poker player knows the statistics of almost every situation (from experience and intuition) as well as a machine can calculate them. And the truth is they do - the best probably know what their hole cards and flop mean down to the first decimal point every single time it's worth thinking about.
So, then the play comes down to responding to how the other person is playing. And the edge goes to the one that can safely be unreadable/unpredictable/inconsistent.
Now, obviously if you can't figure out any of the statistics involved in a hand you will always get your ass handed to you in the long run by a player/machine that can do the most rudimentary calculation.
And is your statement based on actual science, or simply your need to feel that because you aren't fat then you aren't weak and are therefore superior? You've made all the right decisions then, eh?
Actually, when you when you said "It's what you choose to do. Period." the period really made me think you must be right, and totally disregard the recent studies I read in the journal Nature (21 December 2006, in particular). Afterall, you're so firm in your statement there's no way you can be wrong, even if you have nothing but your 'deep down feelings' to back yourself up.
I'm not yet sure that all the whining about Nintendo "abandoning" the hardcore is any different from the whining about the GC being too "kiddy".
Play the games you want to play, on the systems that they're available. I don't understand what sense of entitlement moves people to argue that Nintendo should be loyal to them as individuals, all the while claiming that what they really want is a conventional controller and long RPG games, which are already available, and the hardcore probably already own, in a 360 or PS3.
The abstract claims that this is the first prosecution of Patriot Act abuse, however, the article claims only that this is an investigation that has the POSSIBILITY to lead to the first prosecution.
And looking at prosecutions of government abuse under the current admin, I wouldn't exactly count on it happening.
I don't understand this reasoning, to be honest. I mean, are we only allowed to speak about published results in fields that we posses a PhD in? Isn't the point of publishing our findings to distribute information? Why do the journals with the highest impact factors have broad science bases, and not just stick to a specialty? Probably because a scientist in another field can find things of interest, eh?
I do soft matter physics. But, when my non-science friends have questions about another field, they still ask me questions. Why? Because I've trained most of my life to understand research methods and analysis, and I regularly read the major journals, like Science, Nature, and PNAS. I'm up to date on way more things than my particular field, and while I'd always have to defer to someone from a particular field, were they present, it's not always the case that I'm in a room of PhDs from every possible background.
Not to mention that a science adviser should be the type that knows when to say that they don't know an answer, and isn't a pretentious prig that fakes it when they need to study up on a particular topic. This seems to be the fear of people claiming that he's out of his depth on climate issues.
As the "science representative" it's his job to keep abreast with the literature and help parse the information for the non-scientists around him. It is not his job to have an advanced degree in every field.
Discuss HIV/AIDS, and mention that proper use of condoms is important = IGNORED.
Discuss masturbation, and mention it's a natural urge = FIRED.
Discuss global warming, and mention there is a threat to our way of life = BANISHED.
But, AIDS was under Reagan, the wanking thing was Clinton, and I thought it was common knowledge that the Bush admin was making their own 'science', so where's the surprise? The SG has seemed an impotent title to me for years, and we don't expect any better from the Rove camp. Even Koop seems to have been reduced to late night infomercials for the elderly who are afraid of falling.
Funny however that the SG is an appointed position and the appointer rarely has the desire to listen.
Frankly, I'm not too surprised of his luck considering that MS sends out refurbished machines as replacements. I normally used to think that refurbished electronics were a safe way to save some money, and often times had a few spanking new parts making them more reliable that some alternatives.
Then a friend of mine bought a refurbished xbox (not a 360 though). Thing crapped out. As did it's replacement. And the one after that. After the 3rd, he just gave up, took a refund, and went to the store to buy a new unit. No problems since.
We ended up deciding that MS must not really be doing comprehensive quality control on it's rebuilds, and that they're only fixing the most easily spotted problem on returned units (if that much) and not looking for deeper failures.
I don't trust the refurbished xbox at all. And, honestly, I'm now a bit weary of buying any refurbished electronics.
So, for all those statisticians quoting 1 in 204 trillion odds, I think it's safer to say that a spanking new unit has that failure rate, while a refurbished unit might have a failure rate much closer to unity. If they'd bothered to send him a new unit at any point for his troubles, my bet is he'd have a much better chance at keeping the thing (and it might not help to dust!)
Check into a hotel - credit card required for damage and incidentals. Rent a car. Take a trip abroad for a month? Just tape a few grand to your ass?
Banks may be out to nickel and dime you with lame fees, but that's FAR safer than never having emergency options and always having a load of cash on you. Remember that if you're robbed of a credit card, it's far easier to see justice down the line than if someone takes all your "legal tender".
And you're likely insane if you're not keeping all your cash in a bank's safety deposit boxes. Gonna prove to your insurance agency that your life's savings was under your bed when your apartment caught fire?
When I was wee, I was pretty much allowed to watch as violent a movie as I wished by age 10 (these were the Rambo and Revenge of the Ninja years), but when I wanted a moderately violent videogame, my dad said no. When I asked why it was any different he gave a fairly long speech about the effects of replaying a scene over and over or trying to complete a level 20 times, versus seeing it on the screen for a minute. That may be totally misled, but it really stuck with me.
The fact is, my parents were involved, and parents are the best first line for appropriate media. Unfortunately, there are a LOT of really bad parents, and I don't think it would hurt to beef up things in a way that doesn't effect adults, but helps cover the gaps of a society with a lot of unaware parenting.
As a university scientist, I can say that he most brilliant researcher I ever worked with, or even encountered ended her own life as a result of suffering from a borderline personality disorder.
Clean up the gene pool my ass. Our field of physics will move more slowly without her.
But then, I wouldn't want to get in the way of you clinging to your unnecessary guns with a religious zealotry.
Anonymous Coward couldn't be more appropriate for that tripe. If you're a total jackass, fine, but have the strength in your blind faith to attach your name, loser.
This is not a ban on violent video games. This is a limitation on content for minors, and frankly, I don't think it's such a bad idea.
I have loved playing GTA over the last few years, but that doesn't mean that I think it's appropriate for 10 year olds to play. I have no interest in the likes of Manhunt, but I see no reason that it shouldn't be made - only reasons that it shouldn't be sold to the wee ones.
If we had something stronger than volunteer parental ratings for an ignorant parental populous, just maybe we wouldn't have to listen to Jack Thompson's tripe any longer. After all, the generation that up until very recently has been buying games for their kids has had NO way of understanding the medium - it's been foreign to parents, and therefore parents have made dubious purchasing decisions.
Why not make retailers check ID as a liquor store does? Some games are simply inappropriate for little kids and should be limited to adult consumption. They shouldn't be "banned" or limited in the production, but the sales should be limited to those who are old enough to have learned what boundaries are.
This immediately reminded me of a talk I saw recently by Guoqiang Li from U. of Arizona. They're using liquid crystal lenses to make glasses with variable focusing power as a function of applied voltage. You could flip a switch to be able to see near or far - so if you're near-sighted but getting to the age where reading glasses would help, you're the touch of a button away.
Liquid zoom is quite cool too, but thought this related enough to pass on.
fyi: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i15/8415lenses.htm l (PNAS citation in article)
A fire, started by a cig, carelessly tossed onto a mattress or any other debris, started a fire, took down the interwebby. What's the relevance to the living conditions of careless smoker? And again, why's it SO relevant that it warrants two mentions in a paragraph?
Slashdot Mirror
reall... erm, excuse me. I mean to say REALLY.
It is ALWAYS more efficient to simply state something with capital letters, instead of producing an actual piece of evidence, AND IT'S JUST AS EFFECTIVE!
Those that do pay for service get it. I fly enough that I get moved to first class a few times a year, and most of these frustrations go out the window when your ticket is worth 5x the other passengers. The airlines mark your bag with a 'priority' badge to make sure it doesn't go missing; you're the first on the plane (and have coffee in hand before the rest of the seats know if they're being bumped) and the first off; you have one attendant for roughly a dozen people in some cases, while the back of the plane has only two; you're served a full meal that's actually edible (sometimes), instead of paying for pretzels.
And, with pushes for special security lines for the frequent flyers, or just plane rich, the primary frustration of flying will diminish too - all for a cost.
There is that level of service, and you can buy it. To say that there should be no lesser services at a lesser cost, and that the poor should just ride the bus is simply elitist. (Note - parent didn't say this, but it's already popping up in the comments)
Sorry, but I ain't buying it this time!
</quote>
But what if this time the predictions are correct, but you're just sore over mistaken hypotheses from the past?
I really don't understand when people of a science or tech background commit that particular fallacy - "I heard something before that turned out to be incorrect, so now I don't trust the entire field". I can see how the general population falls into that trap, but we're supposed to be more rational here.
Twins used to be considered evil in many cultures, so now I don't trust obstetricians?
Yes, there were incorrect hypotheses and predictions in the past. About everything. But, as new ideas/data/insight/observations (as well as thoughts on what failed in previous hypotheses) develop, what is left in common with the previous?
I'm not arguing that you have to listen blindly to the new predictions, simply because they are new - I'm simply saying that disregarding them on that basis is a fallacy.
And I don't mean this solely with respect to the climate - this absurd disregard based on previous scientific or technological failures is everywhere.
Well, that is how Penzias and Wilson got a Nobel for CMB.
They had no idea of the significance of their 3.5 Kelvin noise until it was pointed out to them - up to that point they'd been trying to get rid of it under the assumption that it was error.
it's idiotic to passionately defend actions simply because of how civil laws define things.
law is open to interpretation (job of a lawyer) and by case analysis (job of a judge).
and it's a certainty that if I followed you around at every moment for a long enough time, I would see you too in violation of some particular law. And there's a good chance it would be a criminal act, not a civil one. if you claim to know and understand every single law in your region, you are a delusional nutcase.
so, yeah, she broke the law, and you don't deserve any lenience.
Being that the CS folks that setup the computer were expecting a draw, I think they must have started with the assumption that a top level pro poker player knows the statistics of almost every situation (from experience and intuition) as well as a machine can calculate them. And the truth is they do - the best probably know what their hole cards and flop mean down to the first decimal point every single time it's worth thinking about.
So, then the play comes down to responding to how the other person is playing. And the edge goes to the one that can safely be unreadable/unpredictable/inconsistent.
Now, obviously if you can't figure out any of the statistics involved in a hand you will always get your ass handed to you in the long run by a player/machine that can do the most rudimentary calculation.
Really?
And is your statement based on actual science, or simply your need to feel that because you aren't fat then you aren't weak and are therefore superior? You've made all the right decisions then, eh?
Actually, when you when you said "It's what you choose to do. Period." the period really made me think you must be right, and totally disregard the recent studies I read in the journal Nature (21 December 2006, in particular). Afterall, you're so firm in your statement there's no way you can be wrong, even if you have nothing but your 'deep down feelings' to back yourself up.
I think the answer that creates the most complaints of "being dumped" are:
I'm hardcore, and I started gaming on NES, so therefore the NES was hardcore.
The games I that I'm better than other people at, and take several workweek's worth of hours are the hardcore ones.
Hardcore = Petulant.
Well said!
I'm not yet sure that all the whining about Nintendo "abandoning" the hardcore is any different from the whining about the GC being too "kiddy".
Play the games you want to play, on the systems that they're available. I don't understand what sense of entitlement moves people to argue that Nintendo should be loyal to them as individuals, all the while claiming that what they really want is a conventional controller and long RPG games, which are already available, and the hardcore probably already own, in a 360 or PS3.
The abstract claims that this is the first prosecution of Patriot Act abuse, however, the article claims only that this is an investigation that has the POSSIBILITY to lead to the first prosecution.
And looking at prosecutions of government abuse under the current admin, I wouldn't exactly count on it happening.
Ha! I thought for sure that one would work.
Needed a goatse link, I guess.
I don't understand this reasoning, to be honest. I mean, are we only allowed to speak about published results in fields that we posses a PhD in? Isn't the point of publishing our findings to distribute information? Why do the journals with the highest impact factors have broad science bases, and not just stick to a specialty? Probably because a scientist in another field can find things of interest, eh?
I do soft matter physics. But, when my non-science friends have questions about another field, they still ask me questions. Why? Because I've trained most of my life to understand research methods and analysis, and I regularly read the major journals, like Science, Nature, and PNAS. I'm up to date on way more things than my particular field, and while I'd always have to defer to someone from a particular field, were they present, it's not always the case that I'm in a room of PhDs from every possible background.
Not to mention that a science adviser should be the type that knows when to say that they don't know an answer, and isn't a pretentious prig that fakes it when they need to study up on a particular topic. This seems to be the fear of people claiming that he's out of his depth on climate issues.
As the "science representative" it's his job to keep abreast with the literature and help parse the information for the non-scientists around him. It is not his job to have an advanced degree in every field.
I support the Union of Concerned Scientists, to the same end.
http://www.ucsusa.org/
Glad I'm not looking to be Surgeon General.
Discuss HIV/AIDS, and mention that proper use of condoms is important = IGNORED.
Discuss masturbation, and mention it's a natural urge = FIRED.
Discuss global warming, and mention there is a threat to our way of life = BANISHED.
But, AIDS was under Reagan, the wanking thing was Clinton, and I thought it was common knowledge that the Bush admin was making their own 'science', so where's the surprise? The SG has seemed an impotent title to me for years, and we don't expect any better from the Rove camp. Even Koop seems to have been reduced to late night infomercials for the elderly who are afraid of falling.
Funny however that the SG is an appointed position and the appointer rarely has the desire to listen.
Frankly, I'm not too surprised of his luck considering that MS sends out refurbished machines as replacements. I normally used to think that refurbished electronics were a safe way to save some money, and often times had a few spanking new parts making them more reliable that some alternatives.
Then a friend of mine bought a refurbished xbox (not a 360 though). Thing crapped out. As did it's replacement. And the one after that. After the 3rd, he just gave up, took a refund, and went to the store to buy a new unit. No problems since.
We ended up deciding that MS must not really be doing comprehensive quality control on it's rebuilds, and that they're only fixing the most easily spotted problem on returned units (if that much) and not looking for deeper failures.
I don't trust the refurbished xbox at all. And, honestly, I'm now a bit weary of buying any refurbished electronics.
So, for all those statisticians quoting 1 in 204 trillion odds, I think it's safer to say that a spanking new unit has that failure rate, while a refurbished unit might have a failure rate much closer to unity. If they'd bothered to send him a new unit at any point for his troubles, my bet is he'd have a much better chance at keeping the thing (and it might not help to dust!)
So, how do you do anything?
Check into a hotel - credit card required for damage and incidentals.
Rent a car.
Take a trip abroad for a month? Just tape a few grand to your ass?
Banks may be out to nickel and dime you with lame fees, but that's FAR safer than never having emergency options and always having a load of cash on you. Remember that if you're robbed of a credit card, it's far easier to see justice down the line than if someone takes all your "legal tender".
And you're likely insane if you're not keeping all your cash in a bank's safety deposit boxes. Gonna prove to your insurance agency that your life's savings was under your bed when your apartment caught fire?
Stubborn zealots and Slashdot...
Good point.
When I was wee, I was pretty much allowed to watch as violent a movie as I wished by age 10 (these were the Rambo and Revenge of the Ninja years), but when I wanted a moderately violent videogame, my dad said no. When I asked why it was any different he gave a fairly long speech about the effects of replaying a scene over and over or trying to complete a level 20 times, versus seeing it on the screen for a minute. That may be totally misled, but it really stuck with me.
The fact is, my parents were involved, and parents are the best first line for appropriate media. Unfortunately, there are a LOT of really bad parents, and I don't think it would hurt to beef up things in a way that doesn't effect adults, but helps cover the gaps of a society with a lot of unaware parenting.
As a university scientist, I can say that he most brilliant researcher I ever worked with, or even encountered ended her own life as a result of suffering from a borderline personality disorder.
Clean up the gene pool my ass. Our field of physics will move more slowly without her.
But then, I wouldn't want to get in the way of you clinging to your unnecessary guns with a religious zealotry.
Anonymous Coward couldn't be more appropriate for that tripe. If you're a total jackass, fine, but have the strength in your blind faith to attach your name, loser.
This is not a ban on violent video games. This is a limitation on content for minors, and frankly, I don't think it's such a bad idea.
I have loved playing GTA over the last few years, but that doesn't mean that I think it's appropriate for 10 year olds to play. I have no interest in the likes of Manhunt, but I see no reason that it shouldn't be made - only reasons that it shouldn't be sold to the wee ones.
If we had something stronger than volunteer parental ratings for an ignorant parental populous, just maybe we wouldn't have to listen to Jack Thompson's tripe any longer. After all, the generation that up until very recently has been buying games for their kids has had NO way of understanding the medium - it's been foreign to parents, and therefore parents have made dubious purchasing decisions.
Why not make retailers check ID as a liquor store does? Some games are simply inappropriate for little kids and should be limited to adult consumption. They shouldn't be "banned" or limited in the production, but the sales should be limited to those who are old enough to have learned what boundaries are.
After all, Open Office hasn't yet mastered a Clippy emulator.
(btw - I think GoogleDocs should be considered a broader threat to MS these days... I don't open files emailed to me any other way any longer)
This immediately reminded me of a talk I saw recently by Guoqiang Li from U. of Arizona. They're using liquid crystal lenses to make glasses with variable focusing power as a function of applied voltage. You could flip a switch to be able to see near or far - so if you're near-sighted but getting to the age where reading glasses would help, you're the touch of a button away.
m l
Liquid zoom is quite cool too, but thought this related enough to pass on.
fyi:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i15/8415lenses.ht
(PNAS citation in article)
ah, Slashdot... where I go to remember that the socially incompetent turn to misogyny to justify their incredible sexual frustrations.
My question is: how is it relevant?
A fire, started by a cig, carelessly tossed onto a mattress or any other debris, started a fire, took down the interwebby. What's the relevance to the living conditions of careless smoker? And again, why's it SO relevant that it warrants two mentions in a paragraph?
Sorry, but isn't a little absurd, and likely judgmental, to mention TWICE in the abstract that the fire was started by a homeless person?
If the cig was tossed from a car window would we be hearing repeatedly about how a Toyota driver started this all?