I agree about the selection. How hard could it be for them to put a thicker border on the currently selected button, like they do on virtually all other dialog boxes...?
The power icon with a closed circle is for power off; you'll probably find it on your TV's power button. The power icon with the broken circle is for stand by (soft off); you'll find it on your TV's remote control. Usually with no text, in either case.
I don't think there is any generic icon for "restart" (the concept doesn't really apply to most appliances). A spark seems reasonably good to me. Two "turning" arrows could work, too, but it would be too similar to the "switch user" icon.
BTW, personally I would prefer them to put the log off and switch user buttons in the same dialog box as the shutdown, stand by and restart buttons. I'd also like to see a "lock workstation" button that worked even when fast user switching is enabled.
The buttons are fine. The colour alone tells you what they do, and the icons are identical to the ones found on numerous home appliances (ex., DVD players, TVs, etc.).
Red (w/ power button icon): shutdown Yellow (w/ remote power button icon) : stand by Green (w/ spark icon): restart
If you can't associate green with "go", red with "stop" and yellow with "stand by", I hope you don't drive.
John Cleese? Eric Idle? Michael Palin? Terry Jones in drag? Or have they decided to drop the 3D CGI and replace all special effects with Gilliam's cutouts?
If you have to use a special pen... what's the point of having a keyboard? I mean, why doesn't it just do handwriting recognition? The whole point of having a keyboard is being able to type with all (or most of) your fingers. If you're limited to using the "special pen", it's slower than typing with your thumbs (assuming you have two of those).
Unless they can make the virtual keyboard work reliably with people's fingers, I doubt this will be very successful.
If you visit any computer lab you'll find a lot of creatures that clearly aren't quite human. Although I suspect some of them are part vegetable, now that I think about it.
Well, he is now. I walked up to him and he was lying on the ground, covered in blood and with his eyes closed. But I could see was still breathing. So I asked "Are you pretending to be dead, motherfucker? You're fucking pretending you're fucking dead, aren't you?". Since he didn't answer this simple question in plain American, I shot the bastard and put an end to the uncertainty. He's definitely dead now.
Well, I've noticed a vew glitches (disappearing keys, poor AI in girlfriends, crazy presidents in some countries, etc.), but I'd say most of the Earth has been running reasonably well.
No, you are the one "misrepresenting"
on
Flying By Brain
·
· Score: 1
You are grossly misrepresenting the positions of Christians
My message is a direct reply to the parent post.
I have no idea what the "position" of "christians" is. In fact, I believe (I know) that different christians have different positions about different subjects, and I doubt you have any right to speak for them.
And no, sorry to break the news to you, but unless your problem is psychosomatic, prayer doesn't work. A woman with no fallopian tubes won't ovulate, no matter how much you pray for her.
RMN ~~~
From other sources
on
Flying By Brain
·
· Score: 2, Informative
From other sources I've read (magazine articles, SF stories, etc.), I think the neurons will generally try to "stabilise" the input signal. So I suspect a plane flying straight produces no input, or a flat wave, while a change of direction introduces a change in the signal (ex., voltage or frequency increases as the angle gets steeper).
The network eventually "learns" what signal it should output to stabilise its input and either forms separate groups to handle each direction (up, down, left, right), or just one complex network, where changing one input can actually have some impact on unrelated outputs, but things eventually balance themselves by feedback (cybernetics).
Or maybe they just connected a keyboard to some of the neurons and typed "y0u r t3h n00bz0r", whenever it strayed off course.;)
Eat at Milliways
on
Flying By Brain
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Just because a lettuce can't scream that doesn't mean it can't feel. Think about that next time you have a salad. At least some cows want to be eaten.
No, because we want to.
on
Flying By Brain
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I believe in the "sanctity" of "life", and I think it's wrong to put one person's heart inside another person's chest. If you want to give someone a working heart, fine, but grow one "from scratch". I "know" transplants are just "wrong".
I believe in the "sanctity" of "life", and I think it's wrong to give one person the blood of another. If you need blood to save someone's life, then create blood "from scratch". I "know" transfusions are just "wrong".
I believe in the "sanctity" of "life", and I think it's wrong to perform artificial insemination. If you want to help people who are trying to have children, you should er... create a child from scratch? Or maybe just pray for them (a lot)? Anyway, I "know" IVF is just "wrong".
Guess what, creating those things "from scratch" is very, very hard. And assuming someone put the time and effort into it and created them, what then? A neuron would still be a neuron, whether it came from a brain or from a test tube. And if your problem is with the (abstract) "mind", then how do you manage to turn off your PC? A modern computer, running a modern OS, displays more "intelligent" behaviour than many insects. Is a "mind" any less "sacred" if it's silicon-based, instead of carbon-based?
These experiments are very much right, and should have been done a long time ago. Modern medicine can do amazing things with muscle and bone and skin, but nearly all nervous and neural diseases are impossible to cure or even treat. A lot more research is needed.
Neurons are no more "sacred" than any other cell type (spermatozoons, for example). In fact, millions of both are wasted every second.
"Since the article mentions none of the downsides, we should: trusted chips will eventually be used by software manufacturers to make sure the computer's owner does not do anything with the software which the manufacturer does not want to permit."
Then people will start choosing the software that does permit them to do what they want. Might be a downside for uninformed users in the short run, but seems like a good thing in the long run.
- The USA prepares to invade Iraq - AMD is rumoured to be working on a 64-bit chip that runs x86 code - Microsoft releases Windows 3.1 - Hitler invades Poland - Columbus bumps into new continent while looking for India - Giant comet hits the Earth and causes mass extinction
To all the people complaining that the models don't look 100% real:
THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO.
If he wanted to make a real movie, using real people, he would have managed to do so in much less time, with much less effort by using... (surprise) real people.
The movie is about (artistically) capturing the most important elements of facial expression. RTFI(nterview).
Hopper's paintings look "realistic" without looking quite like photographs; if all you can think of when you look at them is "ah, I can see it's not a photograph, that shadow there should be slightly different", then you're missing the point.
Reality does not exist in abstract. Outside of mathematics, everything depends on the point of view. If you want "unfiltered" information, you'll have to go dig it up yourself, straight from the source (and even then, you'll just be seeing your point of view).
And there is no such thing as "Moore's facts" (there's "Moore's law", but that's a different thing). Michael Moore makes films based on real facts, real events and real people (documentaries). Which facts, events and people he decides to show or not show or emphasise or downplay is entirely up to him. But the facts don't stop being facts just because Moore exposes them (or not).
Specifically, the facts exposed in Fahrenheit 9/11 were all known long before Moore made his film. Most of the clips and documents had been shown in several international news networks (ex., BBC), and similar interviews (with Richard Clarke, several congressmen, etc.) had already been shown on TV and included in other documentaries (ex., "Exposed: the Carlyle Group"). There really isn't much new stuff in Fahrenheit 9/11. The only difference was that (finally) those things were shown inside the USA.
And, although most americans probably knew about them already (just as they knew about what went on at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib), they pretended they hadn't happened. But it's a lot harder to keep pretending when the images are right in front of you.
Trying to somehow blame Moore for the facts exposed in Fahrenheit 9/11 (or deny the images in front of your eyes and claim they are lies) is like trying to blame CNN or the BBC for the torture and sexual abuse at Abu Ghraib - if anything, by exposing the problems, they helped put an end to it. A true patriot is not someone who blindly supports his or her government - it's someone who doesn't hesitate to go against that government to protect his country, its image, and its most noble ideals.
Based on real people or real events. Video clips from news networks, quotes from official documents and newspaper articles or interviews are pretty obvious examples.
How about telling half truths?
There is no such thing as "half truths". It's never possible to show the "whole" truth, especially in the limited duration of a film (and, IMO, Fahrenheit 9/11 is too long as it is). If you were making a documentary, you might decide to include some things that I consider irrelevant, and vice-versa. It's Moore's film and he decided to include the elements that (in his opinion) strengthened his point of view. Don't extrapolate and you won't be "deceived".
I'll have to learn to take all future "documentaries" with a grain of salt.
Of course, you always should have. And, nowadays, that extends to a lot of "news" and "reporting". Especially the kind that feels the need to label itself as "fair and balanced" (just as China and Congo feel the need to call themselves "The People's Republic").
He's made an AWFUL lot of money, and he's never been quite honest with the public about it. I want to hear more about his extravagant hotel lifestyle.
As far as I know, all his money was made legally. And personally, I couldn't care less about Moore's private life. If I was into spying celebrities I'd probably go more for Paris Hilton.
But if you think Moore would make an interesting subject for a documentary, by all means make one. I suspect you won't have any problems getting interviews or permission to film him - he loves being in the spotlight (but take a pretty big spotlight, and a wide angle lens).
Slashdot Mirror
I agree about the selection. How hard could it be for them to put a thicker border on the currently selected button, like they do on virtually all other dialog boxes...?
The power icon with a closed circle is for power off; you'll probably find it on your TV's power button. The power icon with the broken circle is for stand by (soft off); you'll find it on your TV's remote control. Usually with no text, in either case.
I don't think there is any generic icon for "restart" (the concept doesn't really apply to most appliances). A spark seems reasonably good to me. Two "turning" arrows could work, too, but it would be too similar to the "switch user" icon.
BTW, personally I would prefer them to put the log off and switch user buttons in the same dialog box as the shutdown, stand by and restart buttons. I'd also like to see a "lock workstation" button that worked even when fast user switching is enabled.
RMN
~~~
The buttons are fine. The colour alone tells you what they do, and the icons are identical to the ones found on numerous home appliances (ex., DVD players, TVs, etc.).
Red (w/ power button icon): shutdown
Yellow (w/ remote power button icon) : stand by
Green (w/ spark icon): restart
If you can't associate green with "go", red with "stop" and yellow with "stand by", I hope you don't drive.
RMN
~~~
John Cleese? Eric Idle? Michael Palin? Terry Jones in drag? Or have they decided to drop the 3D CGI and replace all special effects with Gilliam's cutouts?
If you have to use a special pen... what's the point of having a keyboard? I mean, why doesn't it just do handwriting recognition? The whole point of having a keyboard is being able to type with all (or most of) your fingers. If you're limited to using the "special pen", it's slower than typing with your thumbs (assuming you have two of those).
Unless they can make the virtual keyboard work reliably with people's fingers, I doubt this will be very successful.
RMN
~~~
This is Opera abusing its position as a market leader to try to lock poor Microsoft into those evil open standards!
RMN
~~~
If you visit any computer lab you'll find a lot of creatures that clearly aren't quite human. Although I suspect some of them are part vegetable, now that I think about it.
RMN
~~~
Of course, being called "OASYS", that means all your songs will end up sounding like a mix of two Beatles' songs with a bit played backwards.
Where do you draw the line between human and animal?
At goatse.cx, of course.
Anyway, as far as I'm aware, humans are animals.
And in another typical example of speciesism, the article does not provide the lamb's point of view.
Is The Lone Coder Dead?
Well, he is now. I walked up to him and he was lying on the ground, covered in blood and with his eyes closed. But I could see was still breathing. So I asked "Are you pretending to be dead, motherfucker? You're fucking pretending you're fucking dead, aren't you?". Since he didn't answer this simple question in plain American, I shot the bastard and put an end to the uncertainty. He's definitely dead now.
I'd pay more attention to an ex-smoker.
No, clearly they don't.
> How much Earth was simulated?
Well, I've noticed a vew glitches (disappearing keys, poor AI in girlfriends, crazy presidents in some countries, etc.), but I'd say most of the Earth has been running reasonably well.
You are grossly misrepresenting the positions of Christians
My message is a direct reply to the parent post.
I have no idea what the "position" of "christians" is. In fact, I believe (I know) that different christians have different positions about different subjects, and I doubt you have any right to speak for them.
And no, sorry to break the news to you, but unless your problem is psychosomatic, prayer doesn't work. A woman with no fallopian tubes won't ovulate, no matter how much you pray for her.
RMN
~~~
From other sources I've read (magazine articles, SF stories, etc.), I think the neurons will generally try to "stabilise" the input signal. So I suspect a plane flying straight produces no input, or a flat wave, while a change of direction introduces a change in the signal (ex., voltage or frequency increases as the angle gets steeper).
;)
The network eventually "learns" what signal it should output to stabilise its input and either forms separate groups to handle each direction (up, down, left, right), or just one complex network, where changing one input can actually have some impact on unrelated outputs, but things eventually balance themselves by feedback (cybernetics).
Or maybe they just connected a keyboard to some of the neurons and typed "y0u r t3h n00bz0r", whenever it strayed off course.
Just because a lettuce can't scream that doesn't mean it can't feel. Think about that next time you have a salad. At least some cows want to be eaten.
I believe in the "sanctity" of "life", and I think it's wrong to put one person's heart inside another person's chest. If you want to give someone a working heart, fine, but grow one "from scratch". I "know" transplants are just "wrong".
I believe in the "sanctity" of "life", and I think it's wrong to give one person the blood of another. If you need blood to save someone's life, then create blood "from scratch". I "know" transfusions are just "wrong".
I believe in the "sanctity" of "life", and I think it's wrong to perform artificial insemination. If you want to help people who are trying to have children, you should er... create a child from scratch? Or maybe just pray for them (a lot)? Anyway, I "know" IVF is just "wrong".
Guess what, creating those things "from scratch" is very, very hard. And assuming someone put the time and effort into it and created them, what then? A neuron would still be a neuron, whether it came from a brain or from a test tube. And if your problem is with the (abstract) "mind", then how do you manage to turn off your PC? A modern computer, running a modern OS, displays more "intelligent" behaviour than many insects. Is a "mind" any less "sacred" if it's silicon-based, instead of carbon-based?
These experiments are very much right, and should have been done a long time ago. Modern medicine can do amazing things with muscle and bone and skin, but nearly all nervous and neural diseases are impossible to cure or even treat. A lot more research is needed.
Neurons are no more "sacred" than any other cell type (spermatozoons, for example). In fact, millions of both are wasted every second.
Especially considering it was done in Florida.
imagine a world where your brain is worth more outside your body
Considering the typical body of the average Slashdotter, I'd say that's probably already true.
Software piracy isn't due to expensive hardware; it's due to expensive (or, to be more precise, overpriced) software.
RMN
~~~
"Since the article mentions none of the downsides, we should: trusted chips will eventually be used by software manufacturers to make sure the computer's owner does not do anything with the software which the manufacturer does not want to permit."
Then people will start choosing the software that does permit them to do what they want. Might be a downside for uninformed users in the short run, but seems like a good thing in the long run.
- The USA prepares to invade Iraq
- AMD is rumoured to be working on a 64-bit chip that runs x86 code
- Microsoft releases Windows 3.1
- Hitler invades Poland
- Columbus bumps into new continent while looking for India
- Giant comet hits the Earth and causes mass extinction
To all the people complaining that the models don't look 100% real:
THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO.
If he wanted to make a real movie, using real people, he would have managed to do so in much less time, with much less effort by using... (surprise) real people.
The movie is about (artistically) capturing the most important elements of facial expression. RTFI(nterview).
Hopper's paintings look "realistic" without looking quite like photographs; if all you can think of when you look at them is "ah, I can see it's not a photograph, that shadow there should be slightly different", then you're missing the point.
RMN
~~~
Take each of the letters in its name and add one (ex., A becomes B).
Reality does not exist in abstract. Outside of mathematics, everything depends on the point of view. If you want "unfiltered" information, you'll have to go dig it up yourself, straight from the source (and even then, you'll just be seeing your point of view).
And there is no such thing as "Moore's facts" (there's "Moore's law", but that's a different thing). Michael Moore makes films based on real facts, real events and real people (documentaries). Which facts, events and people he decides to show or not show or emphasise or downplay is entirely up to him. But the facts don't stop being facts just because Moore exposes them (or not).
Specifically, the facts exposed in Fahrenheit 9/11 were all known long before Moore made his film. Most of the clips and documents had been shown in several international news networks (ex., BBC), and similar interviews (with Richard Clarke, several congressmen, etc.) had already been shown on TV and included in other documentaries (ex., "Exposed: the Carlyle Group"). There really isn't much new stuff in Fahrenheit 9/11. The only difference was that (finally) those things were shown inside the USA.
And, although most americans probably knew about them already (just as they knew about what went on at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib), they pretended they hadn't happened. But it's a lot harder to keep pretending when the images are right in front of you.
Trying to somehow blame Moore for the facts exposed in Fahrenheit 9/11 (or deny the images in front of your eyes and claim they are lies) is like trying to blame CNN or the BBC for the torture and sexual abuse at Abu Ghraib - if anything, by exposing the problems, they helped put an end to it. A true patriot is not someone who blindly supports his or her government - it's someone who doesn't hesitate to go against that government to protect his country, its image, and its most noble ideals.
RMN
~~~
Define nonfiction.
Based on real people or real events. Video clips from news networks, quotes from official documents and newspaper articles or interviews are pretty obvious examples.
How about telling half truths?
There is no such thing as "half truths". It's never possible to show the "whole" truth, especially in the limited duration of a film (and, IMO, Fahrenheit 9/11 is too long as it is). If you were making a documentary, you might decide to include some things that I consider irrelevant, and vice-versa. It's Moore's film and he decided to include the elements that (in his opinion) strengthened his point of view. Don't extrapolate and you won't be "deceived".
I'll have to learn to take all future "documentaries" with a grain of salt.
Of course, you always should have. And, nowadays, that extends to a lot of "news" and "reporting". Especially the kind that feels the need to label itself as "fair and balanced" (just as China and Congo feel the need to call themselves "The People's Republic").
He's made an AWFUL lot of money, and he's never been quite honest with the public about it. I want to hear more about his extravagant hotel lifestyle.
As far as I know, all his money was made legally. And personally, I couldn't care less about Moore's private life. If I was into spying celebrities I'd probably go more for Paris Hilton.
But if you think Moore would make an interesting subject for a documentary, by all means make one. I suspect you won't have any problems getting interviews or permission to film him - he loves being in the spotlight (but take a pretty big spotlight, and a wide angle lens).
RMN
~~~