Surely that's a great way to continue to sound totally unappealing to the American electorate. Lose the 2000 election, claim it was stolen because you apparently didn't pay attention in sixth grade civics class -- and continue whining about it to this very day. Lose the 2004 election in a contest that no one at the time had any qualms about, and invent charges after the fact that it was stolen from you too -- just in time for the 2006 midterms. Surely Americans won't see through this one, right?
There's no such thing as proof of a scientific theory, so talking about how a theory is "almost proven" is just plain wrong.
And trying to quantify the "provenness" of a theory with a figure also shows a deep misunderstanding of how science works. There are any number of quantifiable tests that have matched general relativity's predictions, and each of these have different error bars. So picking one at random and using it as the measure of how "proven" general relativity is doesn't make any sense at all.
If looking terrible means every shot of every scene isn't filled with computer animted crap like in his remasterings, then that'll do just fine. Just leave well enough alone, already.
Why does this keep coming up? Natural ultra-high energy (UHE) cosmic rays have vastly higher energies and do no such thing. The highest-energy cosmic ray recorded is 300 EeV (that's exaelectron-volts -- 3 x 1020 eV. We get showered by these cosmic rays all the time; if high-energy particle collisions were going to make miniature black holes which somehow don't evaporate and kill us all, then it would have happened long before the Earth finished forming.
How is that backfiring? Yes, you can protect certain Wikipedia pages from vandalism -- at least temporarily -- by blocking modifications to them. And only people in power can choose to do that. Some areas of Wikipedia have gotten so bad that this needs to be done routinely.
So how does this not demonstrate that there is something fundamentally silly about having it be a collaborative free-for-all? The only way you can prevent abuse effectively is by making it non-collaborative by blocking edits and a non-free-for-all since only admins can call for such blocks. Quite frankly, it demonstrates the inherent nonsensical nature of Wikipedia quite nicely. And we're not getting into the area of libel, and the lack of responsibility therein...
Why would he hire you to rewrite the software in Visual Basic if you're not familiar with Visual Basic? Moreover, if that were to happen, why would you take the job?
I fail to see why bloggers are perennially shocked by this. It really has nothing to do with blogging -- if you talk about company business in public, you're in danger of being fired. It's that simple.
The fact that bloggers seem more inclined to blab publicly doesn't really affect anything to do with this. You talk about company business, you risk being fired. It doesn't matter whether or not you do it by leaking it to a reporter, talk about it in a bar, or post it on the Web for all to see.
The moral indignation of bloggers on this issue is really quite laughable. The very same features of a blog that allow you to get your word out to a wide (but willing) audience easily are precisely the same features that mean it'll be easy for your company to find out you're talking out of turn. That you can do it easily and reach a lot of people quickly doesn't really change the fact that you shouldn't be doing it -- blog or no.
This is the standard group velocity vs. phase velocity that has had people insisting they could send information travelling faster than light that has been debunked over and over again. There is nothing travelling faster than light, it's just playing games with waveforms. As another commenter pointed out, even the researcher involved explicitly said that nothing is travelling faster-than-light:
Einstein said information can't travel faster than light, and in this case, as with all fast-light experiments, no information is truly moving faster than light," says Boyd.
Why is this kind of story so popular? How many times has a similar list of embarassing dot com failures shown up on Slashdot already? Three or four times?
Which part about that didn't you understand? Since there is no authority responsible for content, it means that anyone can change it to be what they please. If there are two opposing viewpoints, then the content will seesaw back and forth between those two points in an edit war until someone gets bored. Neutrality is inherently subjective, and so therefore if there is disagreement -- in good faith or not, it doesn't matter -- then nothing will be properly resolved until a authority steps in and decides: But then that's against the whole idea of Wikipedia in the first place. You can't really have it both ways, here.
It has nothing to do with interactive games vs. noninteractive movies. It has with movies based on games being simply attempts to monopolize on a brand and make money on it. It's exactly the same reason that most movies based on games tend to be bad. And, for that matter, the same reason that most movie sequels suck, as well, or even cookie-cutter copies of movies that follow common trends (like the flurry of buddy cop movies, or disaster movies, or Mars movies, etc.). The studios are trying to invoke name recognition, and so they're guaranteed to make at least a fair amount of money with little risk. You're guaranteed that fans of Doom are likely to see the movie made for it, for instance -- and in fact many are likely to see if it even if they heard it was terrible, because they want to experience it for themselves and compare and contrast.
No, that's not what the article says. It says that the government researched key technologies which made the creation iPod (among other things) possible. That's not the same thing as claiming that they developed the iPod, except for fools with an agenda to push.
P.S. Can no one on Slashdot spell the word cue properly?
That seems an ironic comment. Pretty much all throughout the System 7 days, System 6 was still supported. And when they made their switch over to the PowerPC hardware, overwhelmingly large sections of the operating system code ran emulated, making them far slower.
Well that's really clever. Next I'll be making the game Nuance, where if you're an individual or a labor union or an activist of any type, you automatically win, and if you're a corporation or the government or a capitalist then you automatically lose.
At least games will be shorter than his droning crap.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank. God.
Surely that's a great way to continue to sound totally unappealing to the American electorate. Lose the 2000 election, claim it was stolen because you apparently didn't pay attention in sixth grade civics class -- and continue whining about it to this very day. Lose the 2004 election in a contest that no one at the time had any qualms about, and invent charges after the fact that it was stolen from you too -- just in time for the 2006 midterms. Surely Americans won't see through this one, right?
There's no such thing as proof of a scientific theory, so talking about how a theory is "almost proven" is just plain wrong.
And trying to quantify the "provenness" of a theory with a figure also shows a deep misunderstanding of how science works. There are any number of quantifiable tests that have matched general relativity's predictions, and each of these have different error bars. So picking one at random and using it as the measure of how "proven" general relativity is doesn't make any sense at all.
If looking terrible means every shot of every scene isn't filled with computer animted crap like in his remasterings, then that'll do just fine. Just leave well enough alone, already.
Of course they're going to name Gates specifically in the suit. That doesn't really mean anything at all.
How dare we use non-lethal methods on our own citizens. Instead we should stick to lethal ones, right?
Because if you think global warming is a serious danger, then making your CPU more "green-friendly" will make one whit of difference, right?
Why does this keep coming up? Natural ultra-high energy (UHE) cosmic rays have vastly higher energies and do no such thing. The highest-energy cosmic ray recorded is 300 EeV (that's exaelectron-volts -- 3 x 1020 eV. We get showered by these cosmic rays all the time; if high-energy particle collisions were going to make miniature black holes which somehow don't evaporate and kill us all, then it would have happened long before the Earth finished forming.
The end? Isn't this already long past the end? The Star Trek franchise has been six feet under for quite a while ...
Say what you want, but more and more people are seriously attempting to cite Wikipedia as source material. It's quite a disturbing trend.
How is that backfiring? Yes, you can protect certain Wikipedia pages from vandalism -- at least temporarily -- by blocking modifications to them. And only people in power can choose to do that. Some areas of Wikipedia have gotten so bad that this needs to be done routinely.
So how does this not demonstrate that there is something fundamentally silly about having it be a collaborative free-for-all? The only way you can prevent abuse effectively is by making it non-collaborative by blocking edits and a non-free-for-all since only admins can call for such blocks. Quite frankly, it demonstrates the inherent nonsensical nature of Wikipedia quite nicely. And we're not getting into the area of libel, and the lack of responsibility therein ...
Why would he hire you to rewrite the software in Visual Basic if you're not familiar with Visual Basic? Moreover, if that were to happen, why would you take the job?
Yeah, having to work for a living is slavery! You're totally not illustrating my point or anything!
Capitalism sucks!!!! Boo hoo, I can't do everything I want all the time with no restrictions! Nice naunced analysis, there.
I fail to see why bloggers are perennially shocked by this. It really has nothing to do with blogging -- if you talk about company business in public, you're in danger of being fired. It's that simple.
The fact that bloggers seem more inclined to blab publicly doesn't really affect anything to do with this. You talk about company business, you risk being fired. It doesn't matter whether or not you do it by leaking it to a reporter, talk about it in a bar, or post it on the Web for all to see.
The moral indignation of bloggers on this issue is really quite laughable. The very same features of a blog that allow you to get your word out to a wide (but willing) audience easily are precisely the same features that mean it'll be easy for your company to find out you're talking out of turn. That you can do it easily and reach a lot of people quickly doesn't really change the fact that you shouldn't be doing it -- blog or no.
You can't have it both ways.
The false story leads in an article; the retraction is hidden at the bottom of trash day. Nice.
Why is this kind of story so popular? How many times has a similar list of embarassing dot com failures shown up on Slashdot already? Three or four times?
Duh? It's a product name, by definition it's a marketing gimmick.
Which part about that didn't you understand? Since there is no authority responsible for content, it means that anyone can change it to be what they please. If there are two opposing viewpoints, then the content will seesaw back and forth between those two points in an edit war until someone gets bored. Neutrality is inherently subjective, and so therefore if there is disagreement -- in good faith or not, it doesn't matter -- then nothing will be properly resolved until a authority steps in and decides: But then that's against the whole idea of Wikipedia in the first place. You can't really have it both ways, here.
It has nothing to do with interactive games vs. noninteractive movies. It has with movies based on games being simply attempts to monopolize on a brand and make money on it. It's exactly the same reason that most movies based on games tend to be bad. And, for that matter, the same reason that most movie sequels suck, as well, or even cookie-cutter copies of movies that follow common trends (like the flurry of buddy cop movies, or disaster movies, or Mars movies, etc.). The studios are trying to invoke name recognition, and so they're guaranteed to make at least a fair amount of money with little risk. You're guaranteed that fans of Doom are likely to see the movie made for it, for instance -- and in fact many are likely to see if it even if they heard it was terrible, because they want to experience it for themselves and compare and contrast.
No, that's not what the article says. It says that the government researched key technologies which made the creation iPod (among other things) possible. That's not the same thing as claiming that they developed the iPod, except for fools with an agenda to push.
P.S. Can no one on Slashdot spell the word cue properly?
That seems an ironic comment. Pretty much all throughout the System 7 days, System 6 was still supported. And when they made their switch over to the PowerPC hardware, overwhelmingly large sections of the operating system code ran emulated, making them far slower.
This strikes me as cherry-picking data.
Well, there's a shocker. A musical version of Lord of the Rings might not be good?
Well that's really clever. Next I'll be making the game Nuance, where if you're an individual or a labor union or an activist of any type, you automatically win, and if you're a corporation or the government or a capitalist then you automatically lose.
At least games will be shorter than his droning crap.