First off, for those of you who have no idea, or only a vague memory; "Chumbawamba are a band from the UK who use their music to promote anarchist ideas."
So the RIAA et al are trying to put an end to P2P, while hypocritically using P2P stats to know what's hot; they have crossed the threshold from tyranny into absurdity. What judge, knowing this, will still side with the RIAA in the future? Does this not set a precedent that the RIAA sees value in P2P?
The RIAA is reacting to a market change; P2P. They are learning that P2P has value to them, perhaps more value than loss, in that they can get a real consensus on what people want. Furthermore, the RIAA can no longer deem P2P as an immoral behaviour that corrupts society, because the fruit from the tree has poisoned their self-professed purity.
Obviously, despite the fact that this is carried by Reuters, you should take some of the 'facts' presented here with some NaCl.
He lit up his office with a 40k static field. What the hell is salt going to do with that? Let's find out. Talk about putting salt in his wounds.
The article says this level of current is just shy of spontaneous combustion. Maybe spontaneous human combustion is a misnomer? How many people actually have scientifically studied people who have combusted, spontaneously, before? I'm thinking that since it appears to be caused by a prolonged rubbing effect, from wool sweaters rubbing against nylon jackets, and charged by static from carpets, there is nothing spontaneous about it at all, and perhaps SHC is therefore no longer a mystery?
My way of proving it was to make GIMP work as close to Photoshop as I possibly could, given my limited programming experience.
With Photoshop weighing in at over a thousand dollars Canadian, let me just say that anything that resembles it moderately, without the strange behaviour of PaintShop, is welcomed. Free too?/passes out
It's funny because I can remember thinking about this the other day, and wondering when companies are going to start investing in the future of office systems, to help reduce their own long-term bottom line. If everyone donates $100 to the Gimp/Gimpshop project(s), just imagine the money saving that would come out of it! I would be willing to bet that if this happened, in less than five years open source would outpace Adobe in quality and reliability. The reason most people use Photoshop is for quality and reliability -- not necessarily features as you might expect. It does what I need better than anything else yet, but with some time, effort and financial backing, we'll see superior products come out of the open source community.
Open source needs a well of cash to draw from. I suggest a foundation be made to fund open source projects better than we've seen. Apply and they bankroll your project if you've got something hot. I'd like to see that work on a large scale and I often wonder why SourceForge doesn't take that approach, in favour of small donations to each project on a case-by-case level. I'd love to apply for financing for my crazy open source ideas! It's the money factor that slows me down. I don't have time to pursue it very well because I have to pay bills.
Is 'frags per round' going to be the batting average of the 21st century?
No. Our generation might be geeks but I think, for myself at least, the beauty of online gaming is not quantity but quality. That is pretty much the same for football for me too... it's the big plays that matter and make a game worth watching. It's awesome to watch a game where some professional gamer goes on a crazy rampage, doing all kinds of freaky/impossible moves and stuff, and that is the main draw to those events (as well as the celebrity factor), not the stats. With baseball, stats have to be the draw because the game is very slow.
I feel that if I see a better value in a product, I will tend to buy it. If I can reuse a product, the product has more value. Therefore, if this policy will prevent me from refilling a certain brand of ink cartridge, I will simply buy a different brand.
Getting down to ownership; if I buy something, I guess it's not really mine, eh? Stop me.
Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... panic!
on
MySQL and SCO Join Forces
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I've worked on MySQL since I started working with PHP, and I've even taught it at the college level, where I praised the database for being free and open. I can't bare to look at myself in the mirror now that they have gone and signed a deal with The Devil -- now I have to go and ammend my upcoming textbook for PostgreSQL! I could never support MySQL again.
I think postgreSQL should change their name to something I can store in my mind without having to "/// ||| \\\" the damn word (if you catch my subtle meaning).
When I first looked at this story, I thought that maybe SCO was trying to buy-in some street cred, but all they have done is ruin MySQL forever, IMHO.
You sleep with dogs, for profit, you deserve to get flees.
...flexibility, portability, and inexpensiveness...
Gas is about $1.35/litre in Ontario right now, and this price (if you convert it to gallons) is approx 3.785 litres in a gallon. That's $5.10 Canadian for a gallon. Converted to USD? $4.30/gallon USD.
The point I'm making is that as gas prices rise, people will want to think about portability of everything, including entertainment. We won't want to go to the store if we don't absolutely have to. We will want to download to our computers, have items delivered with free delivery.... etc.
These all-digital office will truly catch on once people have a piece of digital "paper" that they can use to send emails from, read specifications with, and even watch a movie with on the way home.
I think we could even see some kind of electronic transportation via mollecular rearrangement. There are systems now that can manipulate physical matter, in a crude form. I think that these systems will expand into the entertainment market soon enough.
I know that I won't buy anything unless it's conveniant for me to do so, and the value is there. Going to the movies might be a thing of the past pretty soon... (don't get me started on the price of popcorn, that more than quadrouples our current gas price!)
I am having a hard time with this one. I think the camel's back was broken sometime last week. What person in their right mind would decide that shooting out the eardrums of an already broken people would be of any tactical use at all?
What a clusterfuck NOLA has become. Buncha dimwit politicians can't wrap their heads around the value of human life, the need for expidited aid for refugees (and how not to treat a refugee like a criminal), so they figure it's best to simply treat it as a run-of-the-mill race-riot.
Good luck with that situation, Uncle Sam, you're gonna need all the luck you can get at this point.
With the response thus far, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole south broke into complete chaos. Might not happen this time, but the water is starting to boil, as is the blood of every American, uniformly.
I think it's fairly easy to know where they went. Because they were "different" than modern humans, with lower technology levels, we simply killed them off for trying to take our resources. It's a no-brainer, because it's what we do as humans. We try to related but we destroy people who are not like us. Look at it as an early form of racism, and it's pretty straight forward. I'm not saying it's good, but at the time, we were equally as primative. We are still as primative, generally.
>Whether anything anyone says is right or wrong, it's a matter of opinion first and foremost.
No, it's not.
And that would be your unquantifiable opinion.
Our biology provides us with excellent truth detectors: throughout most of primate evolution, if you were wrong about whether your food was poisonous or whether there was a lion hiding in the bushes, you didn't get to pass on your genes.
Hogwash. There is no evidence that we exist at all.
You didn't get to debate social relativism with the lion before he made a tasty meal out of you.
Yes you did, and he won the argument.
Most of science is still ultimately about matters like that, matters that have good answers, at least in principle.
Science today is still limited by the unknown, which can not be fully dissolved. For everything we know, we discover infinite things we do not know (until some of them prove wrong whatever we thought we knew).
It's cyclical, and it goes nowhere.
Some science has veered off course, however. Every major scientific discipline (physics, biology, chemistry, etc.) has subareas where people start conflating experimental facts with opinion, aesthetics, and prejudice.
Veering off course is exactly how you find out what you don't know.
So, scientific truth is not a matter of opinion, but a lot of what is published in science is not about scientific truth.
Truth is only about opinion. What is the truth of a Iraqi child about America? What is the truth of a soldier shot by an Iraqi child about Iraqui children?
So even if something is wrong with the paper, if they have the kernel of a novel idea, that's something to think about.
Whether anything anyone says is right or wrong, it's a matter of opinion first and foremost. Our biology does not provide us with the ability to view things from a topological perspecitve that extends beyond our fixed notion of an asseblage point; our peepers, the mind's eye, whatever you will call it. Therefore anything that anyone says is simply an opinion. It could be an opinion based on data, or facts long believed, or based on stimulus, but it doesn't prove truth at all and it never will.
The day our species extends beyond the fabric of time, space and matter, is the day we will know something closer to the truth. Not beforehand.
Oh we might get lucky! Let's face it... what are the odds that this planet would exist and support life? I think we won the lottery, really.
I can see where Ionnidis is coming from because I'm wrong half the time. I might be wrong about this comment too, but I'm going with my gut feeling!:-)
It is however, the duty of humanity, to reach. In reaching we may fall, or fail, but it is the effort that rewards and replenishes, not the result.
That's why I like Slashdot... it's the ideas and the thought provoking commentary. Don't mod this funny -- I'm being serious.
Story A is posted, 200 people weigh in on everything from the topic of the story, to the troll of the month. The moderation puts most of the good ideas provided in the first five minutes up to a very high score, and the rest of the comments are buried.
So I don't look at the scores as much as I look at the titles. If the title is thought provoking, I read the comment and reflect on someone else's point of view, which is usually highly debatable.
if you're gonna be stuck with an unhealthy vice then smoking is generally preferable to being badly overweight.
Not to mention that smoking is an appetite surpressant, so it helps me control my eating until I have established a steady routine. As my weight reduces, by eating right first and more and more exercise later, I will reduce smoking until it's gone. That's the plan at least.
Please get real advice from someone that can explain it in real terms instead of made up mumbo-jumbo like new fat destroys old fat.
New fat does destroy old fat. It's not fat intake that's to blame, it's overeating, eating bad foods like: bad fat, sugars and starches. My blood chemistry is fine, and I test it regularly. I don't have high cholesterol or anything else wrong with myself, biochemically. It's just the fat that has to go -- and it is!
I don't eat at McDonald's anymore. *duh!*
Now if the blood chemistry starts to change, I will certainly talk to my family doctor about it.
Nutritionists are practitioners of common sense. They are not miracle workers.
And to reiterate, I lost 40 pounds doing what I'm doing and I feel great!
I think the chef was mostly kidding but somewhat serious about how he feels about having to load nasty ingredients into recipes that call for them. How he's fighting it is by working towards better recipes that taste good, but won't hurt your body. But then again, he has to make the rich food now and then. His problem is that people will eat the rich stuff every day, not like once a week or once every two weeks.
Please get real advice from someone that can explain it in real terms instead of made up mumbo-jumbo like new fat destroys old fat.
Made sense at the time. Ask me the last time I lost 40 pounds... which was... let me guess... never.
That was a very small part of my comment, anyway. Any nutritionist would not say to never eat any fat again because our bodies require some fat. Fad diets all say to avoid fat like the plague, but they are wrong. They say, eat vinegrette dressing on salad, but what's in that anyway? OIL.
Anyway... it might not be a scientific comment that I made, but the method of weight loss seems to be working for me now. I don't avoid carbs either.
New food products are being designed with the help of molecular technology, genetic discoveries or space research before arriving in our kitchens.
This is good because eventually we will all want to have food that is chemically efficient for us to digest, without any of the wrong ingredients, but I question the health side of chemical/altered foods.
I was talking to a chef about a month ago who was complaining about having to put loads of oils, creams, butter and mayo in foods to achieve the taste that the consumer wants, at the expense of their health. "We're paid to kill people," was his complaint, and sadly I think he's right. This same chef was saying how it would be nice if there were alternatives to bad food, that would not jeopardize someone's health. I think that new advancements in science would be the right approach to solving the obesity problem, as long as people are protected from any negative side effects. Natural replacements seem to top this chef's list. He said that the natural foods are the very best for you, so he had little faith in chemicals or engineered food as being healthy for us.
I've stayed away from garbage food for only a short period and lost nearly 40 pounds of flubber! It's really simple, actually. Most people have a small breakfast, a bigger lunch and a huge dinner. I have a huge breakfast, a smaller lunch and a much smaller dinner (before 6pm usually). I eat from each of the four food groups every day.
This one cool salad the chef told me about is:
Veggies (whatever you want)
Salt & Pepper (loads of it unless you have a heart condition)
Squeezed Lemon
The salad tastes like fish & chips with vinegar and salt, so I'm kinda tricking my body into thinking it is getting a load of grease (which all of our bodies crave, because they are stupid bags of carbon and mostly water -- and we all know how well oil and water gets along, don't we?).
I stay away from oils because they can ruin your whole system, and I think they reinforce our current fatty deposits, by feeding it somehow (it's not that much of a mystery). Once a week I have fat with meat, because the chef said that new fat kills old fat. New fat apparently replaces old fat, and then doesn't congreal as quickly if it's in turn replaced a week later. That doesn't mean overdo it... just a little will do. Apparently people who have been overweight for a long time have very dense fat that must be replaced in order for them to empty fatty deposits eventually.
My portions are smaller, and I'm not always hungry. I drink as much water as I can every day too, and it helps. I drink tea & coffee, and smoke regularly. I might not be the picture of health, but I am trying.;-)
Now if we could only get some fat and tar eating nanoprobes... then we'd really be in business.
So what is the point of getting IT Certifications? To have a piece of paper?
People who hire you will not believe you when you say that you posess a certain level of knowledge unless you have a cert to prove it.
It's all a matter of CYOA, and HR people have been doing it for years. Trust is not something large corporations take to the bank, and for good reason.
That said, Certs are over-rated. People can memorize, cheat, or simply lie about having the cert. Memorizing the info for passing a cert actually makes you LESS effective because you can't apply that knowledge, plus it doesn't account for the beauty of hacks and workarounds, which most coders are cheered for, whenever they get the little praise they do.
I'd rather have a cert than not, because it decorates my resume nicely.
But could you rewrite your statement without superfluous language (i.e. "supercedes the facility of overexaggeration") or vague expressions (i.e. "improve development of wisdom")?
Certainly, I will do so for the purpose of clarity.
I am sick of the term next generation: it irks me.
Next generation indicates that there is only progress extended from previous efforts.
I think if you're talking about devoting the next twenty years towards developing true AI, then the focus has to be about the direction that could be taken, the nuts and bolts of it all, and what the setbacks could be.
More than what is normally considered in developing AI models, would be required in the foundation of true AI.
High performance computers are like high performance people, in many ways, or at least they should be.
Driven people show traits that are above and beyond regular people, but somehow each person still has their own intelligence. People excel differently in situations, and high performers in an organization are rewarded. How can you reward a computer simulation? Should rewards not be part of the foundation of true AI?
Incentives must exist for a metrological system to present itself into the true nature of self and this measure supercedes the facility of overexaggeration, to the point where no truly defined system can surpass the narrow view of purpose devoted by the creator, without being heralded as a foolish endeavour. The heavy processing of high performance computing works against the nature of AI.
A new measurement must exist that is based on the nature of self-awareness, which would have to be the cornerstone of true AI. You have to know these measurements in order to perfect them, and the subject (the being using the AI) will also have to have some connection to these measurements. Humans have pain and pleasure. We are rewarded when we are doing things correctly, and we are punished when we are not. We rely on resources to survive. No AI system today has to face limited resources because their power comes from a bigger system. True AI should be forced to experience a similar measurement to enable self-awareness.
The point; "this measure supersedes any facility of overexaggeration," means that the measurements can not be too noticeable or they will fail. How many of you notice every little nuance, every little adjustment in your mood, in your body? I was pointing at the necessity for subtle, subconscious measures, to propel changes in the AI structure.
True AI means that mistakes will be made by the creator and the subject, and emotions will exist in the subject to counter-attack development stumbling blocks, and assist in development, or improve development of wisdom and ultimate self-awareness comes only from experiences of contrast, pain and pleasure (for example).
I am connecting emotions with the measurements of true AI, so that it can self-guage, and assess events adequately.
Improving the development of wisdom, means that a subject must learn from mistakes and develop an underlying, profound understanding of the subject's environment. This is part of true AI. That is also the reason for the measurements I was discussing.
These precepts have never come into cause with a system yet, because each system is built as an object and not a person; each system is built for a financial purpose and not a scientific purpose.
When you look at true AI, there is a price attached to it. When you look at human development, what did it cost our maker? Do we have a maker? Was there a bottom line? Was there a reward?
Theology has to be present in creating something that will use true AI, mostly because without a creator relationship, the lack of purpose in the subject becomes perhaps a motivator for suicide, depression and other negative side-effects. If true AI will exist, then we must assume that the subject will possess at least some of our own negativity, or they cou
Slashdot Mirror
First off, for those of you who have no idea, or only a vague memory; "Chumbawamba are a band from the UK who use their music to promote anarchist ideas."
So the RIAA et al are trying to put an end to P2P, while hypocritically using P2P stats to know what's hot; they have crossed the threshold from tyranny into absurdity. What judge, knowing this, will still side with the RIAA in the future? Does this not set a precedent that the RIAA sees value in P2P?
The RIAA is reacting to a market change; P2P. They are learning that P2P has value to them, perhaps more value than loss, in that they can get a real consensus on what people want. Furthermore, the RIAA can no longer deem P2P as an immoral behaviour that corrupts society, because the fruit from the tree has poisoned their self-professed purity.
I always lose at gambling, so I might as well try any one of these longshots and split the difference in case one of them hits.
Fusion Power: $200
Space Elevator: $200
Microsoft Linux: $200
Perpetual Motion: $200
Duke Nukem Forever: $200
I'll save the rest of the cash you spent for some pizza, smokes and beer.
Obviously, despite the fact that this is carried by Reuters, you should take some of the 'facts' presented here with some NaCl.
He lit up his office with a 40k static field. What the hell is salt going to do with that? Let's find out. Talk about putting salt in his wounds.
The article says this level of current is just shy of spontaneous combustion. Maybe spontaneous human combustion is a misnomer? How many people actually have scientifically studied people who have combusted, spontaneously, before? I'm thinking that since it appears to be caused by a prolonged rubbing effect, from wool sweaters rubbing against nylon jackets, and charged by static from carpets, there is nothing spontaneous about it at all, and perhaps SHC is therefore no longer a mystery?
Did we find bigfoot?
Wikipedia has a cool page about spontaneous human combustion.
My way of proving it was to make GIMP work as close to Photoshop as I possibly could, given my limited programming experience.
/passes out
With Photoshop weighing in at over a thousand dollars Canadian, let me just say that anything that resembles it moderately, without the strange behaviour of PaintShop, is welcomed. Free too?
It's funny because I can remember thinking about this the other day, and wondering when companies are going to start investing in the future of office systems, to help reduce their own long-term bottom line. If everyone donates $100 to the Gimp/Gimpshop project(s), just imagine the money saving that would come out of it! I would be willing to bet that if this happened, in less than five years open source would outpace Adobe in quality and reliability. The reason most people use Photoshop is for quality and reliability -- not necessarily features as you might expect. It does what I need better than anything else yet, but with some time, effort and financial backing, we'll see superior products come out of the open source community.
Open source needs a well of cash to draw from. I suggest a foundation be made to fund open source projects better than we've seen. Apply and they bankroll your project if you've got something hot. I'd like to see that work on a large scale and I often wonder why SourceForge doesn't take that approach, in favour of small donations to each project on a case-by-case level. I'd love to apply for financing for my crazy open source ideas! It's the money factor that slows me down. I don't have time to pursue it very well because I have to pay bills.
Me too. McDonald's is horrible for your body!
To commemorate...
(with the plague)
Is 'frags per round' going to be the batting average of the 21st century?
No. Our generation might be geeks but I think, for myself at least, the beauty of online gaming is not quantity but quality. That is pretty much the same for football for me too... it's the big plays that matter and make a game worth watching. It's awesome to watch a game where some professional gamer goes on a crazy rampage, doing all kinds of freaky/impossible moves and stuff, and that is the main draw to those events (as well as the celebrity factor), not the stats. With baseball, stats have to be the draw because the game is very slow.
Anybody know who has these in Canada? Been waiting on one for some time now... they look totally awesome.
I actually meant flees, as in people running to other products. It was a pun. /ashamed
I feel that if I see a better value in a product, I will tend to buy it. If I can reuse a product, the product has more value. Therefore, if this policy will prevent me from refilling a certain brand of ink cartridge, I will simply buy a different brand.
Getting down to ownership; if I buy something, I guess it's not really mine, eh? Stop me.
Wil, you going? Speaking, perhaps?
I've worked on MySQL since I started working with PHP, and I've even taught it at the college level, where I praised the database for being free and open. I can't bare to look at myself in the mirror now that they have gone and signed a deal with The Devil -- now I have to go and ammend my upcoming textbook for PostgreSQL! I could never support MySQL again.
I think postgreSQL should change their name to something I can store in my mind without having to "/// ||| \\\" the damn word (if you catch my subtle meaning).
When I first looked at this story, I thought that maybe SCO was trying to buy-in some street cred, but all they have done is ruin MySQL forever, IMHO.
You sleep with dogs, for profit, you deserve to get flees.
...flexibility, portability, and inexpensiveness...
Gas is about $1.35/litre in Ontario right now, and this price (if you convert it to gallons) is approx 3.785 litres in a gallon. That's $5.10 Canadian for a gallon. Converted to USD? $4.30/gallon USD.
The point I'm making is that as gas prices rise, people will want to think about portability of everything, including entertainment. We won't want to go to the store if we don't absolutely have to. We will want to download to our computers, have items delivered with free delivery.... etc.
These all-digital office will truly catch on once people have a piece of digital "paper" that they can use to send emails from, read specifications with, and even watch a movie with on the way home.
I think we could even see some kind of electronic transportation via mollecular rearrangement. There are systems now that can manipulate physical matter, in a crude form. I think that these systems will expand into the entertainment market soon enough.
I know that I won't buy anything unless it's conveniant for me to do so, and the value is there. Going to the movies might be a thing of the past pretty soon... (don't get me started on the price of popcorn, that more than quadrouples our current gas price!)
No word on additional busses and shelters...
*sigh*
I am having a hard time with this one. I think the camel's back was broken sometime last week. What person in their right mind would decide that shooting out the eardrums of an already broken people would be of any tactical use at all?
What a clusterfuck NOLA has become. Buncha dimwit politicians can't wrap their heads around the value of human life, the need for expidited aid for refugees (and how not to treat a refugee like a criminal), so they figure it's best to simply treat it as a run-of-the-mill race-riot.
Good luck with that situation, Uncle Sam, you're gonna need all the luck you can get at this point.
With the response thus far, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole south broke into complete chaos. Might not happen this time, but the water is starting to boil, as is the blood of every American, uniformly.
I think anger may be a result of being in close contact with Satan, but it could also be a result of being in contact with God, for that matter.
I think Balmer is an idiot now, more than ever. He wants to destroy anyone who gets in his way, which means he is likely psychotic.
Which brings me to this, a happy little picture I made to commemorate the Massachusetts Office Party.
I think it's fairly easy to know where they went. Because they were "different" than modern humans, with lower technology levels, we simply killed them off for trying to take our resources. It's a no-brainer, because it's what we do as humans. We try to related but we destroy people who are not like us. Look at it as an early form of racism, and it's pretty straight forward. I'm not saying it's good, but at the time, we were equally as primative. We are still as primative, generally.
I Live in New Orleans and I was just planning on staying at Taco's house. This membership is good for something, right?
You can stay there, but you can NEVER LEAVE. (like Slashdot)
>Whether anything anyone says is right or wrong, it's a matter of opinion first and foremost.
No, it's not.
And that would be your unquantifiable opinion.
Our biology provides us with excellent truth detectors: throughout most of primate evolution, if you were wrong about whether your food was poisonous or whether there was a lion hiding in the bushes, you didn't get to pass on your genes.
Hogwash. There is no evidence that we exist at all.
You didn't get to debate social relativism with the lion before he made a tasty meal out of you.
Yes you did, and he won the argument.
Most of science is still ultimately about matters like that, matters that have good answers, at least in principle.
Science today is still limited by the unknown, which can not be fully dissolved. For everything we know, we discover infinite things we do not know (until some of them prove wrong whatever we thought we knew).
It's cyclical, and it goes nowhere.
Some science has veered off course, however. Every major scientific discipline (physics, biology, chemistry, etc.) has subareas where people start conflating experimental facts with opinion, aesthetics, and prejudice.
Veering off course is exactly how you find out what you don't know.
So, scientific truth is not a matter of opinion, but a lot of what is published in science is not about scientific truth.
Truth is only about opinion. What is the truth of a Iraqi child about America? What is the truth of a soldier shot by an Iraqi child about Iraqui children?
Conflict is the understated fact, nothing more.
So even if something is wrong with the paper, if they have the kernel of a novel idea, that's something to think about.
:-)
Whether anything anyone says is right or wrong, it's a matter of opinion first and foremost. Our biology does not provide us with the ability to view things from a topological perspecitve that extends beyond our fixed notion of an asseblage point; our peepers, the mind's eye, whatever you will call it. Therefore anything that anyone says is simply an opinion. It could be an opinion based on data, or facts long believed, or based on stimulus, but it doesn't prove truth at all and it never will.
The day our species extends beyond the fabric of time, space and matter, is the day we will know something closer to the truth. Not beforehand.
Oh we might get lucky! Let's face it... what are the odds that this planet would exist and support life? I think we won the lottery, really.
I can see where Ionnidis is coming from because I'm wrong half the time. I might be wrong about this comment too, but I'm going with my gut feeling!
It is however, the duty of humanity, to reach. In reaching we may fall, or fail, but it is the effort that rewards and replenishes, not the result.
That's why I like Slashdot... it's the ideas and the thought provoking commentary. Don't mod this funny -- I'm being serious.
Story A is posted, 200 people weigh in on everything from the topic of the story, to the troll of the month. The moderation puts most of the good ideas provided in the first five minutes up to a very high score, and the rest of the comments are buried.
So I don't look at the scores as much as I look at the titles. If the title is thought provoking, I read the comment and reflect on someone else's point of view, which is usually highly debatable.
if you're gonna be stuck with an unhealthy vice then smoking is generally preferable to being badly overweight.
Not to mention that smoking is an appetite surpressant, so it helps me control my eating until I have established a steady routine. As my weight reduces, by eating right first and more and more exercise later, I will reduce smoking until it's gone. That's the plan at least.
Please get real advice from someone that can explain it in real terms instead of made up mumbo-jumbo like new fat destroys old fat.
New fat does destroy old fat. It's not fat intake that's to blame, it's overeating, eating bad foods like: bad fat, sugars and starches. My blood chemistry is fine, and I test it regularly. I don't have high cholesterol or anything else wrong with myself, biochemically. It's just the fat that has to go -- and it is!
I don't eat at McDonald's anymore. *duh!*
Now if the blood chemistry starts to change, I will certainly talk to my family doctor about it.
Nutritionists are practitioners of common sense. They are not miracle workers.
And to reiterate, I lost 40 pounds doing what I'm doing and I feel great!
Not sure why you would discourage that.
Thank you for that site -- I will check it out.
I think the chef was mostly kidding but somewhat serious about how he feels about having to load nasty ingredients into recipes that call for them. How he's fighting it is by working towards better recipes that taste good, but won't hurt your body. But then again, he has to make the rich food now and then. His problem is that people will eat the rich stuff every day, not like once a week or once every two weeks.
Please get real advice from someone that can explain it in real terms instead of made up mumbo-jumbo like new fat destroys old fat.
Made sense at the time. Ask me the last time I lost 40 pounds... which was... let me guess... never.
That was a very small part of my comment, anyway. Any nutritionist would not say to never eat any fat again because our bodies require some fat. Fad diets all say to avoid fat like the plague, but they are wrong. They say, eat vinegrette dressing on salad, but what's in that anyway? OIL.
Anyway... it might not be a scientific comment that I made, but the method of weight loss seems to be working for me now. I don't avoid carbs either.
This is good because eventually we will all want to have food that is chemically efficient for us to digest, without any of the wrong ingredients, but I question the health side of chemical/altered foods.
I was talking to a chef about a month ago who was complaining about having to put loads of oils, creams, butter and mayo in foods to achieve the taste that the consumer wants, at the expense of their health. "We're paid to kill people," was his complaint, and sadly I think he's right. This same chef was saying how it would be nice if there were alternatives to bad food, that would not jeopardize someone's health. I think that new advancements in science would be the right approach to solving the obesity problem, as long as people are protected from any negative side effects. Natural replacements seem to top this chef's list. He said that the natural foods are the very best for you, so he had little faith in chemicals or engineered food as being healthy for us.
I've stayed away from garbage food for only a short period and lost nearly 40 pounds of flubber! It's really simple, actually. Most people have a small breakfast, a bigger lunch and a huge dinner. I have a huge breakfast, a smaller lunch and a much smaller dinner (before 6pm usually). I eat from each of the four food groups every day.
This one cool salad the chef told me about is:
- Veggies (whatever you want)
- Salt & Pepper (loads of it unless you have a heart condition)
- Squeezed Lemon
The salad tastes like fish & chips with vinegar and salt, so I'm kinda tricking my body into thinking it is getting a load of grease (which all of our bodies crave, because they are stupid bags of carbon and mostly water -- and we all know how well oil and water gets along, don't we?).I stay away from oils because they can ruin your whole system, and I think they reinforce our current fatty deposits, by feeding it somehow (it's not that much of a mystery). Once a week I have fat with meat, because the chef said that new fat kills old fat. New fat apparently replaces old fat, and then doesn't congreal as quickly if it's in turn replaced a week later. That doesn't mean overdo it... just a little will do. Apparently people who have been overweight for a long time have very dense fat that must be replaced in order for them to empty fatty deposits eventually.
My portions are smaller, and I'm not always hungry. I drink as much water as I can every day too, and it helps. I drink tea & coffee, and smoke regularly. I might not be the picture of health, but I am trying.
Now if we could only get some fat and tar eating nanoprobes... then we'd really be in business.
So what is the point of getting IT Certifications? To have a piece of paper?
People who hire you will not believe you when you say that you posess a certain level of knowledge unless you have a cert to prove it.
It's all a matter of CYOA, and HR people have been doing it for years. Trust is not something large corporations take to the bank, and for good reason.
That said, Certs are over-rated. People can memorize, cheat, or simply lie about having the cert. Memorizing the info for passing a cert actually makes you LESS effective because you can't apply that knowledge, plus it doesn't account for the beauty of hacks and workarounds, which most coders are cheered for, whenever they get the little praise they do.
I'd rather have a cert than not, because it decorates my resume nicely.
But could you rewrite your statement without superfluous language (i.e. "supercedes the facility of overexaggeration") or vague expressions (i.e. "improve development of wisdom")?
Certainly, I will do so for the purpose of clarity.
I am sick of the term next generation: it irks me.
Next generation indicates that there is only progress extended from previous efforts.
I think if you're talking about devoting the next twenty years towards developing true AI, then the focus has to be about the direction that could be taken, the nuts and bolts of it all, and what the setbacks could be.
More than what is normally considered in developing AI models, would be required in the foundation of true AI.
High performance computers are like high performance people, in many ways, or at least they should be.
Driven people show traits that are above and beyond regular people, but somehow each person still has their own intelligence. People excel differently in situations, and high performers in an organization are rewarded. How can you reward a computer simulation? Should rewards not be part of the foundation of true AI?
Incentives must exist for a metrological system to present itself into the true nature of self and this measure supercedes the facility of overexaggeration, to the point where no truly defined system can surpass the narrow view of purpose devoted by the creator, without being heralded as a foolish endeavour. The heavy processing of high performance computing works against the nature of AI.
A new measurement must exist that is based on the nature of self-awareness, which would have to be the cornerstone of true AI. You have to know these measurements in order to perfect them, and the subject (the being using the AI) will also have to have some connection to these measurements. Humans have pain and pleasure. We are rewarded when we are doing things correctly, and we are punished when we are not. We rely on resources to survive. No AI system today has to face limited resources because their power comes from a bigger system. True AI should be forced to experience a similar measurement to enable self-awareness.
The point; "this measure supersedes any facility of overexaggeration," means that the measurements can not be too noticeable or they will fail. How many of you notice every little nuance, every little adjustment in your mood, in your body? I was pointing at the necessity for subtle, subconscious measures, to propel changes in the AI structure.
True AI means that mistakes will be made by the creator and the subject, and emotions will exist in the subject to counter-attack development stumbling blocks, and assist in development, or improve development of wisdom and ultimate self-awareness comes only from experiences of contrast, pain and pleasure (for example).
I am connecting emotions with the measurements of true AI, so that it can self-guage, and assess events adequately.
Improving the development of wisdom, means that a subject must learn from mistakes and develop an underlying, profound understanding of the subject's environment. This is part of true AI. That is also the reason for the measurements I was discussing.
These precepts have never come into cause with a system yet, because each system is built as an object and not a person; each system is built for a financial purpose and not a scientific purpose.
When you look at true AI, there is a price attached to it. When you look at human development, what did it cost our maker? Do we have a maker? Was there a bottom line? Was there a reward?
Theology has to be present in creating something that will use true AI, mostly because without a creator relationship, the lack of purpose in the subject becomes perhaps a motivator for suicide, depression and other negative side-effects. If true AI will exist, then we must assume that the subject will possess at least some of our own negativity, or they cou