Agreed, I used to read The Onion religiously, but now I don't bother anymore. The new site is a disaster, and it's all about generating revenue through obtrusive ads.
The "new" Onion is a corporate shill. I'd be ashamed to be associated with that site, let alone advertise that I created that trainwreck of a perfectly good (great!) site.
The problem is that ID has already been shown to be false in many, many ways.
Are you suggesting that for every well-supported theory taught in school, we also teach every competing theory, even those that are false/off the wall/completely wrong? When students learn about the motion of the planets, should we also teach them that the earth might actually be flat? Or that the stars could possibly be pinholes in a blanket thrown over the earth? Or that... or that...
We barely have enough time in school to learn what's important. If we have to teach poor religious-based claptrap in addition to that, I feel sorry for modern-day students.
Now, whatever you say about the benefits to poor people for joining the military, is it really fair that during wartime our most disadvantaged citizens are the ones who get killed? That's not a very nice option... "Be poor, or risk your life."
Wow, you just described about 99% of movies produced with your amazing anime formula. I challenge you to find a move where the follow three things DON'T happen:
1. Protagonist(s) go somewhere they've never been before Wow, how uniquely Anime! Or not... for a movie to be interesting, the prot. needs to grow/change/ "go somewhere new." Whether it be a cop action flick ("new" = new partner, new city) or a romantic comedy ("new" = new boyfriend, job, etc), this is a generic concept.
2. Various unrelated showy magical stuff happens. Showmanship in a movie? Good thing nothing "magical" and showy didn't happen in any non-Anime children's movies. Like Snow White, Dumbo, Emperr's New Groove... oh wait...
3. The end For the sake of argument, let's say you *meant* to say that nothing actually happens. This is so obviously a misconception, I don't need examples.
you try to dismiss all Anime as unoriginal, when it's no less so than other movies. In fact I feel the case could be made that it has better "fundamentals" than "classic" animated movies.
Actually, there is no "copy" of this gene anywhere in the genome of the plants the research was done on. This was intentional, both in selection of the plant (Arabidopsis), and the study group.
So no, in this case, it's not another "backup" copy kicking in. This is why the research is such big news.
An interesting fact that none of the news articles mention is the fact that Bob (Dr. Pruitt) was the one who first suggested using Arabidopsis as the model organism for plants. Now you Know! (tm)
Maybe the reason you found it dry and poorly written is because you're not a highly literate reader. I find that people who complains about the writing quality of books tend to do so because they aren't well read. br But, you're most likely a troll. The fact is that OSC is a very good writer, and his books are not targeted for the same audience as Harry Potter. If you can't distinguish between the two, I recommend reading less/. and more books;)
Let me get this right... AOL, hwo is losing customers, is closing down segments of their broadband operations while keeping dialup?
They better know what they're doing... broadband is the future. Although there are still many people on dialup, it's not a good direction to move the company.
There are some limitations to clusters that "supercomputers" don't have. Even if your network were exactly as fast as the internal bus of one of the Cray supercomputers (which I highly doubt it is), you still have a logical layer on top of it (TCP/IP/UDP etc). This slows it down.
For some applications, a cluster of slow PCs is ok. Bu if you want to do real time-intensive computation, you really can't beat a good internal bus.
So you admit that you're making two assumptions, both of which are incorrect. And I don't need anecdotal evidence, statistics are showing that fewer women are going into CS now than any time in the previous 20 years, out of proportion to the number of people overall. This is the problem.
I suggest you argue with someone who knows as little as you do about gender studies.
No, it's not total bullshit. You're makking two BIG assumptions here, and that is that every woman who has technical talent is going into a technical field, and that technical talent for one field automagically transfers to another.
So no, you're wrong.
What we need to do is make sure that women who have ability in the field of CS have the opportunity to pursue the field if they choose, and that's simply not happening.
It's actually quite simple. Accepted studies show that there is no gender "benefit" to being a male and studying compuer science. Hence, if women aren't going into computer science or related fields, the profession is losing valuable insight and talent that it otherwise should have had.
Or look at it this way... everyone who enters the field has a chance of doing something that benefits society at large (like develop the Linux kernel, or develop an efficient algorithm, write Tripwire, etc). If we're losing women in the field, we're also losing knowledge and development. If we want the best computer programs, we want as many women and men in the field as possible.
You're missing the main point. The point is that looking at syntactic clues to block Spam (which include keyword, spelling, etc) are all bound to fail. This includes bayesian filters, keyword, etc.
There is research being done in semantic analysis, which looks at the *meaning* of a text, not the syntax. These methods are potentially much more powerful, and some solutions exist that block better than 99.9% of spam with almost no false positives. Of course this is very language dependent, and requires a large database of knowledge, but such things do exist and would be very useful on e-mail servers (not so much do on clients).
Your aproach won't work. Sure, it might throttle "v.i.a.g.r.a" but what about "v.I.a.g.r.a" or "V.i.agra" or the other billions of possible, human-parseable variations?
You can either throttle *all* e-mail, or none. Unless you have a person sitting next to a server, manually reading every single e-mail...
That seems a bit short. Considering you can buy a 15" scrren laptop that gets 4 hours life. I guess they have a tiny battery powering that thing. Too bad, it looks like a nice halfway between PDA and laptop.
I somehow doubt he's still on MS's payroll anymore. Maybe the fact that he's been defending Microsoft will give him good insight into just how they've handled things (well or poorly).
And wouldn't a lawyer with a lot of antitrust expereince make the ideal candidate for this position?
After all, there are more cases out there than Microsoft.
(Not to mention, are there any antitrust lawyers out there who, at one point, *didn't* work for MS?;)
That is the typical wisdom... more muscles, more weight loss. However, most people don't look at this solution for the long run. More muscle also means more maintenance. If you can bench press 300, you'd better be at the gym 5 days a week to maintain that muscle. If you don't, you'll lose the muscle and it'll just turn into... fat.
On the other hand, if you are relatively slim with good cardiovascular health and few muscles, running/jogging/biking can help you lose some fat and not gain muscle that has to be maintained. You can do what I do, and start running when you want to drop 10 or so pounds, and then stop and not have to worry about it all coming back.
Of course, both of those situations assume no significant change in diet. You can always lose/gain weight by changing diet!
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, I used to read The Onion religiously, but now I don't bother anymore. The new site is a disaster, and it's all about generating revenue through obtrusive ads. The "new" Onion is a corporate shill. I'd be ashamed to be associated with that site, let alone advertise that I created that trainwreck of a perfectly good (great!) site.
I agree wholeheartedly! It is clear that PL/1 is the way of the future.
The problem is that ID has already been shown to be false in many, many ways.
Are you suggesting that for every well-supported theory taught in school, we also teach every competing theory, even those that are false/off the wall/completely wrong? When students learn about the motion of the planets, should we also teach them that the earth might actually be flat? Or that the stars could possibly be pinholes in a blanket thrown over the earth? Or that... or that...
We barely have enough time in school to learn what's important. If we have to teach poor religious-based claptrap in addition to that, I feel sorry for modern-day students.
Now, whatever you say about the benefits to poor people for joining the military, is it really fair that during wartime our most disadvantaged citizens are the ones who get killed? That's not a very nice option... "Be poor, or risk your life."
Wow, you just described about 99% of movies produced with your amazing anime formula. I challenge you to find a move where the follow three things DON'T happen:
1. Protagonist(s) go somewhere they've never been before
Wow, how uniquely Anime! Or not... for a movie to be interesting, the prot. needs to grow/change/ "go somewhere new." Whether it be a cop action flick ("new" = new partner, new city) or a romantic comedy ("new" = new boyfriend, job, etc), this is a generic concept.
2. Various unrelated showy magical stuff happens. Showmanship in a movie? Good thing nothing "magical" and showy didn't happen in any non-Anime children's movies. Like Snow White, Dumbo, Emperr's New Groove... oh wait...
3. The end For the sake of argument, let's say you *meant* to say that nothing actually happens. This is so obviously a misconception, I don't need examples.
you try to dismiss all Anime as unoriginal, when it's no less so than other movies. In fact I feel the case could be made that it has better "fundamentals" than "classic" animated movies.
Check out the next issue.. it's the cover story.
Actually, there is no "copy" of this gene anywhere in the genome of the plants the research was done on. This was intentional, both in selection of the plant (Arabidopsis), and the study group.
So no, in this case, it's not another "backup" copy kicking in. This is why the research is such big news.
An interesting fact that none of the news articles mention is the fact that Bob (Dr. Pruitt) was the one who first suggested using Arabidopsis as the model organism for plants. Now you Know! (tm)
My wife was second author on this paper, and did quite a lot of the research! I guess that blows my cover ;)
This really is no joke, these results are really exciting! I suggest everyone read the article.
Maybe the reason you found it dry and poorly written is because you're not a highly literate reader. I find that people who complains about the writing quality of books tend to do so because they aren't well read. /. and more books ;)
br
But, you're most likely a troll. The fact is that OSC is a very good writer, and his books are not targeted for the same audience as Harry Potter. If you can't distinguish between the two, I recommend reading less
Let me get this right... AOL, hwo is losing customers, is closing down segments of their broadband operations while keeping dialup?
They better know what they're doing... broadband is the future. Although there are still many people on dialup, it's not a good direction to move the company.
Actually that's not me :) I don't care about karma, obviously, but you certainly seem to.
Also I never post anonymous... too cowardly.
Borg!
There are some limitations to clusters that "supercomputers" don't have. Even if your network were exactly as fast as the internal bus of one of the Cray supercomputers (which I highly doubt it is), you still have a logical layer on top of it (TCP/IP/UDP etc). This slows it down.
For some applications, a cluster of slow PCs is ok. Bu if you want to do real time-intensive computation, you really can't beat a good internal bus.
Ah, counter my argument with one of your beliefs.
So you admit that you're making two assumptions, both of which are incorrect. And I don't need anecdotal evidence, statistics are showing that fewer women are going into CS now than any time in the previous 20 years, out of proportion to the number of people overall. This is the problem.
I suggest you argue with someone who knows as little as you do about gender studies.
No, it's not total bullshit. You're makking two BIG assumptions here, and that is that every woman who has technical talent is going into a technical field, and that technical talent for one field automagically transfers to another. So no, you're wrong. What we need to do is make sure that women who have ability in the field of CS have the opportunity to pursue the field if they choose, and that's simply not happening.
It's actually quite simple. Accepted studies show that there is no gender "benefit" to being a male and studying compuer science. Hence, if women aren't going into computer science or related fields, the profession is losing valuable insight and talent that it otherwise should have had. Or look at it this way... everyone who enters the field has a chance of doing something that benefits society at large (like develop the Linux kernel, or develop an efficient algorithm, write Tripwire, etc). If we're losing women in the field, we're also losing knowledge and development. If we want the best computer programs, we want as many women and men in the field as possible.
Any chance they're going to release the code to their products? Would that increase their legal liability at this point?
You're missing the main point. The point is that looking at syntactic clues to block Spam (which include keyword, spelling, etc) are all bound to fail. This includes bayesian filters, keyword, etc. There is research being done in semantic analysis, which looks at the *meaning* of a text, not the syntax. These methods are potentially much more powerful, and some solutions exist that block better than 99.9% of spam with almost no false positives. Of course this is very language dependent, and requires a large database of knowledge, but such things do exist and would be very useful on e-mail servers (not so much do on clients).
Your aproach won't work. Sure, it might throttle "v.i.a.g.r.a" but what about "v.I.a.g.r.a" or "V.i.agra" or the other billions of possible, human-parseable variations? You can either throttle *all* e-mail, or none. Unless you have a person sitting next to a server, manually reading every single e-mail...
DIRK-A DOO!
In prison, they'll just learn how to be better at pirating music online!
That seems a bit short. Considering you can buy a 15" scrren laptop that gets 4 hours life. I guess they have a tiny battery powering that thing. Too bad, it looks like a nice halfway between PDA and laptop.
I somehow doubt he's still on MS's payroll anymore. Maybe the fact that he's been defending Microsoft will give him good insight into just how they've handled things (well or poorly). And wouldn't a lawyer with a lot of antitrust expereince make the ideal candidate for this position? After all, there are more cases out there than Microsoft. (Not to mention, are there any antitrust lawyers out there who, at one point, *didn't* work for MS? ;)
That is the typical wisdom... more muscles, more weight loss. However, most people don't look at this solution for the long run. More muscle also means more maintenance. If you can bench press 300, you'd better be at the gym 5 days a week to maintain that muscle. If you don't, you'll lose the muscle and it'll just turn into... fat. On the other hand, if you are relatively slim with good cardiovascular health and few muscles, running/jogging/biking can help you lose some fat and not gain muscle that has to be maintained. You can do what I do, and start running when you want to drop 10 or so pounds, and then stop and not have to worry about it all coming back. Of course, both of those situations assume no significant change in diet. You can always lose/gain weight by changing diet!