>What's the delay (speed of light) between moon transmission and earth reception?
I'm not going to calculate the arc traversal and such, but here's the delay: The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. The center of the moon is about 238,700 miles from the center of the earth. Although the light would not have to travel even that far, I will use that as a basis for my calculation.
299,792,458 m/s * (1 mi / 1609.3 m) =~ 186287.5 mi/s
So, 238,700/186287.5 ~= 1.28 s.
My guess is that the beam could traverse a very wide arc in 1.28 s and kill many people--though it would probably be a quick, painless death.
True, Hotdog is nice. On Linux I have used Quanta. I have also used the HTML mode in emacs. That combined with the trusty alt-tab key combination (mileage may vary on non-GNOME/KDE systems) and a Mozilla browser is nice. I have been quite impressed with how the recent releases of Mozilla render HTML, Javascript, CSS, etc.
Even with graphical editors, you can tell which web pages were created by people with no sense of how the web works. How it looks in your local layout window is nothing compared to factors such as load time, accessibility issues, font choices, etc. As someone who has extensive experience with designing web pages and web-enabled database applications in a production environment, I have done rough prototypes of pages to show managers in Dreamweaver or Adobe GoLive. When it comes to fine tuning and ensuring common elements between pages are presented in the same way, ONLY a text editor can provide the control necessary to accomplish the task. It is almost more work to change a WYSIWYG page to fit your needs than it is to start with a text editor in the beginning. Keep in mind that many mistakes are prevented by using web-aware editors that have menus to rapidly insert tags. The value of syntax highlighting for different types of elements can not be overstated either.
Furthermore, why are people who do not know what they are doing creating web pages? If you want your company to be perceived as one that half-asses everything, have one of the business guys make the web page. I don't volunteer to work on the company financial statements. Likewise, the web page should be left to those with expertise. It is a common belief that anyone can make a web page. That is true. However, can just anyone make a web page that presents your company in the light you desire? No.
One may counter that perhaps the web pages made by this new editor would be for personal use. With few exceptions, personal web pages lack significant content and are a waste of bandwidth. For these, the poorly produced HTML code of Microsoft Word are probably sufficient anyway.
The "Sweet Spot" phenomenon is so true. Maybe the sweet spot is really to zoom to e. Hey, it is between 2 and 3, and they call it the natural number for something:)
Re:anyone who uses units like this is a know nothi
on
Build Your Own Mortar
·
· Score: 1
Hey, I know you're getting bashed, but I just thought I'd say I found your last line quite amusing. Very humorous.
I am not contesting that. My reply was in regards to such vehicles as the "Smart" car. The fact that you can back that into a parallel parking spot without sticking out into the road truly speaks for itself. I have great respect for German and European vehicles that still resemble cars. They are probably the best engineered vehicles I've seen.
Well, we may be North Americans, but we travel much more comfortably. Take a look at the weight difference (due to actually having room to put people besides the driver in the car and cargo room as well). It quickly becomes obvious that the extra HP is essential.
> In this case it comes down to how the SCO guy was counting lines Well, it's obvious how the SCO guy was counting lines! He's counting all the whitespace IBM stole from SCO! It was special SCO-proprietary whitespace!:)
I know it may seem like your computer has a mind of it's own, but in reality, it can only do what it is EXPLICITLY told to do.
First, I realize AI is not conditioning. AI is vaporware, the stuff of science fiction. There are a few reasons why. Second, as an experienced programmer, I have never thought my computer had a mind of its own, even when I encountered the most bizarre bugs in my code. My point was not that we could program computers to be like children and learn, but instead that a lack of creativity and imagination in computers prevents us from breaking the AI barrier. Your computer will never say "No" randomly because it has no creativity. Likewise, it will never be able to unify two apparently unrelated concepts. I will believe in AI when it can do well on an SAT analogy test.
Actually, I have spent a great deal of time around little kids, as an older brother, an uncle, and a friend of the family. You are daft if you believe what you just said. So, kids pick everything up through observation... How do you explain them pulling every book off a bookshelf and throwing them across the room? How do you explain them standing in the dog's water dish and jumping up and down? How do you explain them taking a crap on the wall? How do you explain them trying to eat batteries? How do you explain them biting the dog? How do you explain any of the crazy things kids do?
The fact is, kids do all sorts of random things. Only through positive and negative reinforcement are they guided into set behavior patterns. As for your theory that kids are quiet and solemn at a funeral because everyone else is...I must ask...have you ever gone to church, or a funeral, or any sort of conference where there were lots of people being quiet? Kids kick, yell, and otherwise cause a ruckus until someone takes them outside and "reinforces" them. (It was called spanking when I was little--I know it's not PC now. Before you call me old, I'm only 20 myself.) According to your theory, parents could just go effortlessly through life doing whatever they thought right and their little clone child would become just like them. There would be no punishment, no instruction, no guidance. The absurdity of that idea is astounding.
Re:What about my AIBO?
on
AI Going Nowhere?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This may get a little too philosophical, but I'm going to give it a try. What is the key difference between programming and parenting? You explicitly tell your child what they are and are not allowed to do (sometimes they malfunction/misbehave) and do it anyway. You tell them what emotions are appropriate at certain times. At grandma's funeral it is not appropriate to giggle and laugh. It is also not appropriate to look bored, as we are showing respect for the dead. After going through all the disallowed emotions, that leaves a solemn look and maybe some tears.
What about pattern recognition? How long do parents spend holding up pictures of various animals or various shapes for their children to identify?
When it gets right down to it, every one of us has been significantly programmed by our parents, teachers, and government. I am not arguing against the system, just saying that's how it is. I don't believe AI as anticipated will ever truly exist because the degree of creativity and imagination desired exists only in humans either because of an all-knowing, all-powerful creator or millions of years of mutations.
I wasn't trying to be political at all. I was just making the point that Hammurabi's Code is gone, regardless of how good stone is as an archival medium.
RFC stands for "request for comment." They are standards only because people set up software to implement them in order to communicate with others, not because they are some sort of law. So, I don't think any legal action on this matter would be effective.
You have failed to justify a single point you made. Good job! Do some research. Tell me why the Federal Trademark Dilution Act does not apply. Convince me. That's all I'm asking. NO ONE TOOK MR. NISSAN'S NAME. His name is still Uzi Nissan. He can still run Nissan Computers. He can not, however, use "Nissan" as a name by itself (specifically as a domain name) due to the trademark dilution rules.
Having a name gives you absolutely no rights other than the right to call yourself that. By your own declaration, "It's the guy's fucking name, he has every right to use it for whatever the fuck he wants." This would mean that no trademark rules at all applied. It doesn't work that way. You mentioned that Uzi Nissan was okay because he was in a different industry. You also said that he could do whatever he wanted with his name. What's to keep him from selling cars--maybe used cars? Suddenly he is in the same industry. According to you, he's okay because that's his name and he can use it for whatever he wants. No, now he is clearly in trademark violation even without the Trademark Dilution Act. Your logic in this matter is internally inconsistent, and therefore flawed.
The inhabited world is not, and never has been, quite the way you see it. It is not an anarchy where anyone can do whatever they think is good for themselves. This is obviously what you want it to be. I recommend relocating somewhere like a desert island or Antarctica if you want to live like that. Of course you won't have any need for those corporate fuckwits that produce life's luxuries like refrigerators, light bulbs, heaters/air conditioners, flushing toilets, microwaves, water pumps, or automobiles. Damn, they are so freaking evil. We don't need them one bit. I can't believe they want to make so much money that they can afford to stay in business and pay their employees! I'd like to see you reproduce all these things using sticks and stones (because without those evil corporate fuckwits, we definitely wouldn't have easily available power tools or even forged hand tools). A genius like you may be able to reproduce one of these things in a lifetime. I'll put my money on the flushing toilet, since you're full of shit and have a Slashdot username that makes me think "enema".
I'm going to play your game for a while now. I'm an asshat, huh? I have never seen anyone wear a hat on their ass. You're a real creative guy, coming up with new ways of wearing your apparel. Good job with that.
Hmm...slicked open my thick head with a breadknife. If it's so thick, I don't think a bread knife would be the right choice of tool. Maybe a Sawzall like the one mentioned in the Nissan article would be more effective. However, without those corporate fuckwits, a bread knife may be the only tool we have available.
I know what I said. Maybe you should re-read what I said: "...one line stupid remark." What I am looking for here is intelligent discussion on how trademark law, the federal Trademark Dilution Act, and birthnames are all related in the Nissan case (this is of course getting rather off-topic of the original Nissan story by now, but it is an interesting concept). I have no problem at all with being told I am wrong on any of my points as long as the post is backed up with legitimate points from legitimate sources. Examples of illegitimate points are: "you are wrong, fuckwit," "f&*@# you and your mom," or any of the other posts that express displeasure with my ideas without providing a rational debate on the topic. Just curious, did you even read my two long posts higher up in the thread?
Yes, I was aware of that. Thank you for pointing out that extremely obvious point. The reason Mr. Nissan had the opportunity to convert his domain to non-commercial use as opposed to having it confiscated from him was because he did have a legitimate claim to the name. However, the legitimacy of his claim is limited to purely NON-COMMERCIAL use. I love the over-simplicity of the posts on Slashdot. Why is it I can give a multi-paragraph analysis of trademark law, which clearly indicates I am familiar with the Uzi Nissan case, only to have some lowlife come back with a one line stupid remark? You are all familiar with the acronym RTFA. So, RTFP--read my posts in their entirety and think about them before spouting off a one-line retort. Even a paragraph long stupid remark is better because the time spent writing it will give you a chance to tone yourself down and keep from making a fool of yourself.
Of course "reliable" has many different connotations. I think not burning the occupants to a crisp would be one aspect of a car you could rely on.
Re:No matter how you fill out the form its wrong.
on
Tax Tips For Small Folks?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Even more disturbing is the fact that some of the IRS resources have a disclaimer that if they give you bad advice, you will still be liable for the penalties and consequences involved. I am not making this up.
Slashdot Mirror
>What's the delay (speed of light) between moon transmission and earth reception?
I'm not going to calculate the arc traversal and such, but here's the delay: The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. The center of the moon is about 238,700 miles from the center of the earth. Although the light would not have to travel even that far, I will use that as a basis for my calculation.
299,792,458 m/s * (1 mi / 1609.3 m) =~ 186287.5 mi/s
So, 238,700/186287.5 ~= 1.28 s.
My guess is that the beam could traverse a very wide arc in 1.28 s and kill many people--though it would probably be a quick, painless death.
True, Hotdog is nice. On Linux I have used Quanta. I have also used the HTML mode in emacs. That combined with the trusty alt-tab key combination (mileage may vary on non-GNOME/KDE systems) and a Mozilla browser is nice. I have been quite impressed with how the recent releases of Mozilla render HTML, Javascript, CSS, etc.
Even with graphical editors, you can tell which web pages were created by people with no sense of how the web works. How it looks in your local layout window is nothing compared to factors such as load time, accessibility issues, font choices, etc. As someone who has extensive experience with designing web pages and web-enabled database applications in a production environment, I have done rough prototypes of pages to show managers in Dreamweaver or Adobe GoLive. When it comes to fine tuning and ensuring common elements between pages are presented in the same way, ONLY a text editor can provide the control necessary to accomplish the task. It is almost more work to change a WYSIWYG page to fit your needs than it is to start with a text editor in the beginning. Keep in mind that many mistakes are prevented by using web-aware editors that have menus to rapidly insert tags. The value of syntax highlighting for different types of elements can not be overstated either.
Furthermore, why are people who do not know what they are doing creating web pages? If you want your company to be perceived as one that half-asses everything, have one of the business guys make the web page. I don't volunteer to work on the company financial statements. Likewise, the web page should be left to those with expertise. It is a common belief that anyone can make a web page. That is true. However, can just anyone make a web page that presents your company in the light you desire? No.
One may counter that perhaps the web pages made by this new editor would be for personal use. With few exceptions, personal web pages lack significant content and are a waste of bandwidth. For these, the poorly produced HTML code of Microsoft Word are probably sufficient anyway.
The "Sweet Spot" phenomenon is so true. Maybe the sweet spot is really to zoom to e. Hey, it is between 2 and 3, and they call it the natural number for something:)
Hey, I know you're getting bashed, but I just thought I'd say I found your last line quite amusing. Very humorous.
Or reverse steps 1 and 2...
I am not contesting that. My reply was in regards to such vehicles as the "Smart" car. The fact that you can back that into a parallel parking spot without sticking out into the road truly speaks for itself. I have great respect for German and European vehicles that still resemble cars. They are probably the best engineered vehicles I've seen.
Well, we may be North Americans, but we travel much more comfortably. Take a look at the weight difference (due to actually having room to put people besides the driver in the car and cargo room as well). It quickly becomes obvious that the extra HP is essential.
You are copying it if you have a photgraphic memory, or essentially any long-term memory at all...
Exactly. I was going to say the same thing until I read your post.
I did, but I now often wonder why :)
I don't want to nitpick about your subject line, but one of the articles I read said IBM spent $500,000 to obtain the certification.
> In this case it comes down to how the SCO guy was counting lines :)
Well, it's obvious how the SCO guy was counting lines! He's counting all the whitespace IBM stole from SCO! It was special SCO-proprietary whitespace!
First, I realize AI is not conditioning. AI is vaporware, the stuff of science fiction. There are a few reasons why. Second, as an experienced programmer, I have never thought my computer had a mind of its own, even when I encountered the most bizarre bugs in my code. My point was not that we could program computers to be like children and learn, but instead that a lack of creativity and imagination in computers prevents us from breaking the AI barrier. Your computer will never say "No" randomly because it has no creativity. Likewise, it will never be able to unify two apparently unrelated concepts. I will believe in AI when it can do well on an SAT analogy test.
Actually, I have spent a great deal of time around little kids, as an older brother, an uncle, and a friend of the family. You are daft if you believe what you just said. So, kids pick everything up through observation... How do you explain them pulling every book off a bookshelf and throwing them across the room? How do you explain them standing in the dog's water dish and jumping up and down? How do you explain them taking a crap on the wall? How do you explain them trying to eat batteries? How do you explain them biting the dog? How do you explain any of the crazy things kids do?
The fact is, kids do all sorts of random things. Only through positive and negative reinforcement are they guided into set behavior patterns. As for your theory that kids are quiet and solemn at a funeral because everyone else is...I must ask...have you ever gone to church, or a funeral, or any sort of conference where there were lots of people being quiet? Kids kick, yell, and otherwise cause a ruckus until someone takes them outside and "reinforces" them. (It was called spanking when I was little--I know it's not PC now. Before you call me old, I'm only 20 myself.) According to your theory, parents could just go effortlessly through life doing whatever they thought right and their little clone child would become just like them. There would be no punishment, no instruction, no guidance. The absurdity of that idea is astounding.
This may get a little too philosophical, but I'm going to give it a try. What is the key difference between programming and parenting? You explicitly tell your child what they are and are not allowed to do (sometimes they malfunction/misbehave) and do it anyway. You tell them what emotions are appropriate at certain times. At grandma's funeral it is not appropriate to giggle and laugh. It is also not appropriate to look bored, as we are showing respect for the dead. After going through all the disallowed emotions, that leaves a solemn look and maybe some tears.
What about pattern recognition? How long do parents spend holding up pictures of various animals or various shapes for their children to identify?
When it gets right down to it, every one of us has been significantly programmed by our parents, teachers, and government. I am not arguing against the system, just saying that's how it is. I don't believe AI as anticipated will ever truly exist because the degree of creativity and imagination desired exists only in humans either because of an all-knowing, all-powerful creator or millions of years of mutations.
I wasn't trying to be political at all. I was just making the point that Hammurabi's Code is gone, regardless of how good stone is as an archival medium.
I may have heard the news wrong, but wasn't the original of Hammurabi's code looted from a Baghdad museum?
RFC stands for "request for comment." They are standards only because people set up software to implement them in order to communicate with others, not because they are some sort of law. So, I don't think any legal action on this matter would be effective.
Having a name gives you absolutely no rights other than the right to call yourself that. By your own declaration, "It's the guy's fucking name, he has every right to use it for whatever the fuck he wants." This would mean that no trademark rules at all applied. It doesn't work that way. You mentioned that Uzi Nissan was okay because he was in a different industry. You also said that he could do whatever he wanted with his name. What's to keep him from selling cars--maybe used cars? Suddenly he is in the same industry. According to you, he's okay because that's his name and he can use it for whatever he wants. No, now he is clearly in trademark violation even without the Trademark Dilution Act. Your logic in this matter is internally inconsistent, and therefore flawed.
The inhabited world is not, and never has been, quite the way you see it. It is not an anarchy where anyone can do whatever they think is good for themselves. This is obviously what you want it to be. I recommend relocating somewhere like a desert island or Antarctica if you want to live like that. Of course you won't have any need for those corporate fuckwits that produce life's luxuries like refrigerators, light bulbs, heaters/air conditioners, flushing toilets, microwaves, water pumps, or automobiles. Damn, they are so freaking evil. We don't need them one bit. I can't believe they want to make so much money that they can afford to stay in business and pay their employees! I'd like to see you reproduce all these things using sticks and stones (because without those evil corporate fuckwits, we definitely wouldn't have easily available power tools or even forged hand tools). A genius like you may be able to reproduce one of these things in a lifetime. I'll put my money on the flushing toilet, since you're full of shit and have a Slashdot username that makes me think "enema".
I'm going to play your game for a while now. I'm an asshat, huh? I have never seen anyone wear a hat on their ass. You're a real creative guy, coming up with new ways of wearing your apparel. Good job with that.
Hmm...slicked open my thick head with a breadknife. If it's so thick, I don't think a bread knife would be the right choice of tool. Maybe a Sawzall like the one mentioned in the Nissan article would be more effective. However, without those corporate fuckwits, a bread knife may be the only tool we have available.
Have a nice day. I enjoy a good debate.
I know what I said. Maybe you should re-read what I said: "...one line stupid remark." What I am looking for here is intelligent discussion on how trademark law, the federal Trademark Dilution Act, and birthnames are all related in the Nissan case (this is of course getting rather off-topic of the original Nissan story by now, but it is an interesting concept). I have no problem at all with being told I am wrong on any of my points as long as the post is backed up with legitimate points from legitimate sources. Examples of illegitimate points are: "you are wrong, fuckwit," "f&*@# you and your mom," or any of the other posts that express displeasure with my ideas without providing a rational debate on the topic. Just curious, did you even read my two long posts higher up in the thread?
Yes, I was aware of that. Thank you for pointing out that extremely obvious point. The reason Mr. Nissan had the opportunity to convert his domain to non-commercial use as opposed to having it confiscated from him was because he did have a legitimate claim to the name. However, the legitimacy of his claim is limited to purely NON-COMMERCIAL use. I love the over-simplicity of the posts on Slashdot. Why is it I can give a multi-paragraph analysis of trademark law, which clearly indicates I am familiar with the Uzi Nissan case, only to have some lowlife come back with a one line stupid remark? You are all familiar with the acronym RTFA. So, RTFP--read my posts in their entirety and think about them before spouting off a one-line retort. Even a paragraph long stupid remark is better because the time spent writing it will give you a chance to tone yourself down and keep from making a fool of yourself.
Of course "reliable" has many different connotations. I think not burning the occupants to a crisp would be one aspect of a car you could rely on.
Even more disturbing is the fact that some of the IRS resources have a disclaimer that if they give you bad advice, you will still be liable for the penalties and consequences involved. I am not making this up.
Take a look at this thread.