My first rule of Star Wars Done Right is: cut out the CGI. It's crap. It never works. There isn't one movie I can think of, in fact, where CGI actually works to complement the actors doing their thing, ever.
There's something about actual models and props that makes the interaction with humans so much more lifelike and realistic than _any_ greenscreen "let's pretend we're talking/holding/prodding something imaginary" type of activity. And don't get me started with painting over scenes with computer generated, always so slightly wrong, enhancements.
The original Star Wars trilogy, before stuff was retconned in, had no CGI.
Well the conclusion for non scientists is obvious. There's going to be a market to extract Julia Roberts' gut bacteria and reinject them into a bunch of fat one percenters for millions of dollars a pop.
When I'm trying to learn something new, I don't like reading documentation, I prefer reading a textbook written just for me. So please, when you're writing documentation at the work place, think about me! On the off chance that I could become your colleague, and furthermore, in the event that I should have to maintain some of your software, I will be very pleased to read a texbook you wrote for me. I may even kiss you (if you're a girl), and you will definitely get a gold star drawn in crayon on your scrapbook (regardless). That's how committed I am to having an excellent personal learning experience.
In other words, 50% of papers are pirated copies downloaded by researchers. (*)
This is not a good thing in the long run, because it doesn't help solve the journal problem.
(*) the pirates who distribute them are often the original authors (**)
(**) the original authors are not the copyright holders.
Chinese hackers just have to hack Google, and 40% of the internet can be down on demand. The original visionaries at DARPA must be rolling in their grave...
It's because of outdated beliefs about gods. For some reason, the most
common religions that people like to worship all teach that suicide is
some kind of sin. Thus the laws were conceived to reflect this view at a time when being an atheist would certainly get you killed.
Physicists are irrational. They ask stupid questions that make no sense to anyone else. They use
jargon that confuses the communication. They have horrible grammar and
spelling. And overseeing it all is a physics language fraught with multiple meanings and everyday words used in highly technical ways.
Any sufficiently advanced group of people are indistinguishable from an irrational group to anyone else, human OR robot.
To put the above in technical language: knowing the rules of propositional calculus alone is useless without knowing the axioms, for proving theorems.
Not to rain on your argument, but given the direction Google's headed in for the last 8 years, I am intensely comfortable with the idea that they should stagnate, and let someone else innovate - hopefully innovate in a direction that serves the people for a change. After all, you'd think that free enterprise is all about serving the interests of customers.
Which is how it should all be done. Relying on Google's honesty, or some
Google employee who doesn't want his fingers broken one by one, is just false
security.
No.
That is not how it should be done.
It should be done as follows:
You DO NOT give Google your data IN THE FIRST PLACE.
They have no business keeping your data for you. The sooner you learn this, the sooner you can start on the path to become a free man.
If they were truly serious, they would talk about harnessing the power of porn.
Horny people will go to great lengths to get their fix, and they have no problem doing microchallenges on the internet. Any task you can convince an internet gamer to do for Mankind is also a task you can convince an internet fapper to do for Mankind (and Womankind).
Actually, the solution is to pass a law. Supermarkets shouldn't be allowed to invade people's privacy just because they can, and people shouldn't have to be on the lookout for privacy breaking dirty tricks from every possible place they might visit.
Let's ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. For every N people, there is 1 supermarket. It's more utilitarian to make it easy for N people to live their lives in peace and add a burden to 1 supermarket, than it is to make it easier for 1 supermarket to increase their profit and add a burden of vigilance to N people.
of when I use my "these aren't the droids you're looking for" sound/hand wave to levitate flies. They shoot straight off. Unfortunately, flies have a very short memory, and two seconds later they're back for more. Definitely too short to be stormtroopers, flies.
It's not quite that stark a comparison. People would normally ask their friends about a topic first, to see if they know something about it. This isn't that uncommon even today, as topics of interest tend to come up in conversations, which usually involve people who might be friends or colleagues. Then there's the difficulty for many people to find stuff on the internet even now - you need to know how to use a computer at a minimum. Finally, if you have the resolve to go to a library to research a topic, you'll have it again. And you only need to learn how to navigate the place the first few times, after that it's as easy as googling.
But you are largely right about progress, provided you can actually trust some of the drivel that ends written all over the Internet.
Sorry, but that's bullshit. Anyone who's done two years of math study can tell you homomorphic encryption is an oxymoron.
Yes 1) you can encrypt numbers, and 2) you can perform some mathematical operations directly in the encrypted domain, BUT (and I cannot emphasise this enough) you cannot perform all 4 mathematical operations (+,-,*,/) without making the encryption TRIVIAL. That's because any ring homomorphism allows you to discover the encryption codes for zero and one, and you can then generate all the encryption codes for all the other integers very simply.
No it's not. A classical networked system belongs to a single company, and there's a clear separation between the inside (which is mostly trusted) and the outside (which is not trusted). A cloud system blurs the distinction, so you never know if the stuff you're accessing is actually being used by untrusted people who are going to steal your secrets, blackmail you, etc.
Nonsense. Kids who do *not* make online mistakes are smarter and more mature than their peers. So companies who prefer to hire kids like that will have the cream of the crop, so to speak. They'll move ahead, whereas the companies that don't discriminate will just be average.
Natural selection follows from basic
principles of logic. It's so close to first principles that it always amazes
me that we had to wait so long for Darwin to show up and slap humanity on the
face with the simple truth of it. Living things exist because they inherited
what it takes to exist from their ancestors. The ones that didn't have what
it took to stay in existence...didn't.
Unfortunately not. For a long time, humanity had no idea that children inherited anything from their ancestors. Think about it, it's a lot simpler to suppose that different people merely represent certain archetypes: If there was a big factory that somehow produces humans, there might only be models A-Z, and every human being is one of these models. That would especially explain why children are similar to one of their parents - they're just the same model.
To discover natural selection, you can't use logic alone. You have to have a concept that the blueprints of offspring are entirely carried by the parents. That's quite a radical idea, especially in a superstitious, religious world.
Forget about the cost to the company, the cost to the employee of getting an extra $30 instead of free soda is a substantial lowering of their standard of living. It's not like you can just get up 10 times a day from your work desk when you feel like it, and drive all the way to the convenience store to spend your extra $30 on drinks. So those extra $30 are pretty much nonexistent, as you can't spend them when you want to, and you can't get drinks during the day. You could spend them after work, but $30 isn't a lot and anyway lots of shops will be closed by then.
Much better to have a freshly stocked fridge right in the office.
Slashdot Mirror
There's something about actual models and props that makes the interaction with humans so much more lifelike and realistic than _any_ greenscreen "let's pretend we're talking/holding/prodding something imaginary" type of activity. And don't get me started with painting over scenes with computer generated, always so slightly wrong, enhancements.
The original Star Wars trilogy, before stuff was retconned in, had no CGI.
Well the conclusion for non scientists is obvious. There's going to be a market to extract Julia Roberts' gut bacteria and reinject them into a bunch of fat one percenters for millions of dollars a pop.
When I'm trying to learn something new, I don't like reading documentation, I prefer reading a textbook written just for me. So please, when you're writing documentation at the work place, think about me! On the off chance that I could become your colleague, and furthermore, in the event that I should have to maintain some of your software, I will be very pleased to read a texbook you wrote for me. I may even kiss you (if you're a girl), and you will definitely get a gold star drawn in crayon on your scrapbook (regardless). That's how committed I am to having an excellent personal learning experience.
So slashdotters, now you know! Make it happen!
(*) the pirates who distribute them are often the original authors (**)
(**) the original authors are not the copyright holders.
Chinese hackers just have to hack Google, and 40% of the internet can be down on demand. The original visionaries at DARPA must be rolling in their grave...
That's weird, because in my county, dead children are 20% more likely to vote than living children. Maybe it's something in the soda?
It's because of outdated beliefs about gods. For some reason, the most common religions that people like to worship all teach that suicide is some kind of sin. Thus the laws were conceived to reflect this view at a time when being an atheist would certainly get you killed.
Any sufficiently advanced group of people are indistinguishable from an irrational group to anyone else, human OR robot.
To put the above in technical language: knowing the rules of propositional calculus alone is useless without knowing the axioms, for proving theorems.
Not to rain on your argument, but given the direction Google's headed in for the last 8 years, I am intensely comfortable with the idea that they should stagnate, and let someone else innovate - hopefully innovate in a direction that serves the people for a change. After all, you'd think that free enterprise is all about serving the interests of customers.
No.
That is not how it should be done.
It should be done as follows:
You DO NOT give Google your data IN THE FIRST PLACE.
They have no business keeping your data for you. The sooner you learn this, the sooner you can start on the path to become a free man.
If they were truly serious, they would talk about harnessing the power of porn. Horny people will go to great lengths to get their fix, and they have no problem doing microchallenges on the internet. Any task you can convince an internet gamer to do for Mankind is also a task you can convince an internet fapper to do for Mankind (and Womankind).
What does he think he is? Australian or something? Foreigners should not meddle in Australian internal politics.
Duh, the point is obviously Randall can end Time whenever he likes. So he's a kind of Lord of Time, or, Time Lord, as they are sometimes called...
(*) Just an important safety tip, to prevent you from waking up one day and finding out the hard way.
Let's ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. For every N people, there is 1 supermarket. It's more utilitarian to make it easy for N people to live their lives in peace and add a burden to 1 supermarket, than it is to make it easier for 1 supermarket to increase their profit and add a burden of vigilance to N people.
of when I use my "these aren't the droids you're looking for" sound/hand wave to levitate flies. They shoot straight off. Unfortunately, flies have a very short memory, and two seconds later they're back for more. Definitely too short to be stormtroopers, flies.
Whoa, me too! The last time I needed a fleshlight it was only for a few minutes as well! Oh wait, wrong site.
But you are largely right about progress, provided you can actually trust some of the drivel that ends written all over the Internet.
Yes 1) you can encrypt numbers, and 2) you can perform some mathematical operations directly in the encrypted domain, BUT (and I cannot emphasise this enough) you cannot perform all 4 mathematical operations (+,-,*,/) without making the encryption TRIVIAL. That's because any ring homomorphism allows you to discover the encryption codes for zero and one, and you can then generate all the encryption codes for all the other integers very simply.
Mmm. Any movie execs reading this?
No it's not. A classical networked system belongs to a single company, and there's a clear separation between the inside (which is mostly trusted) and the outside (which is not trusted). A cloud system blurs the distinction, so you never know if the stuff you're accessing is actually being used by untrusted people who are going to steal your secrets, blackmail you, etc.
No.
Nonsense. Kids who do *not* make online mistakes are smarter and more mature than their peers. So companies who prefer to hire kids like that will have the cream of the crop, so to speak. They'll move ahead, whereas the companies that don't discriminate will just be average.
Unfortunately not. For a long time, humanity had no idea that children inherited anything from their ancestors. Think about it, it's a lot simpler to suppose that different people merely represent certain archetypes: If there was a big factory that somehow produces humans, there might only be models A-Z, and every human being is one of these models. That would especially explain why children are similar to one of their parents - they're just the same model.
To discover natural selection, you can't use logic alone. You have to have a concept that the blueprints of offspring are entirely carried by the parents. That's quite a radical idea, especially in a superstitious, religious world.
Much better to have a freshly stocked fridge right in the office.