Yes, but the designers included a fatal flaw. When the super robot is pleased with its combat and is almost certainly assured victory, it smiles ^_^ automatically, closing its optical sensors and leaving itself completely vulnerable.
Yes, but in it's defense, the female Boulder aliens are purrrrdy! As an example... though not by any means a true sample of the entire hottie population there.
I'm an engineering grad student from Boulder (currently interning in Dallas, though), and Boulder is a really pretty place, but it's dangerous too. It has this air of calm about it that's like a productivity black hole.
Bah! Why go to the lab when there are those gorgeous mountains just up the road? Or, who needs homework when you can gaze upon row after row of tanned, toned, short-shorts and tight tank tops wearing Boulder Barbies?
In short, great place to visit, but don't get sucked in unless you want to turn into a nympho-rock climbing Buddhist hippie.
Amen!:) I wasn't referencing that ant twilight zone episode, but I'll take credit for it you like.
Quite honestly, I just started my non AC/.ing a few days ago, and just wanted to see if I could get a +5 Funny. Apparently, not quite yet.
Strangely, the 2 replies that others have posted in regards to my attempt are outscoring me. This whole "no longer an AC" thing isn't all it was cracked up to be.
Just blanket the olympics in high levels of EM radiation and you'll spot the cyborgs easily. As a bonus, those/. spectators present will be protected via their tinfoil hats.
This explains all of/.'s readers! We've been naturally selected to suppress the muscle gene, in favor of the intelligence gene. Perhaps our 60 km long ant colony overlords mean for us to be some sort of ruling cast over the lesser humans?/trying for my first +5 funny
Because the question isn't who best represents my views, the question is who would be the best for the majority of the people.
This is a great point, but it's a dangerous one too. The problem is in special interests and fracturing the country.
Let's say 51% of the country wants a Shiny New Car (TM) from their presidential candidate. The danger comes in if you mistake giving people what they want for giving them what they need. If you make the mistake and give them what they want, you'll vote for the candidate who promises new cars. Four years rolls around, and now 13% want Red Cars, 13% want Blue Cars, 13% want Green Cars, and 12% want Yellow Cars. These are special interests. They all still want cars, just different types. Maybe red paint lasts better in the Texas summer heat, but then Texans who wanted blue cars will complain about their Shiny New Cars fading because of government bias to the red paint folks. Maybe policemen pull over red painted cars more frequently than other colors for traffic violations and the red paint people want to enact new laws to ensure equal tickets for all paint colors.
The problems mount quickly when we confuse wants and needs. Vote for what your country needs and things will be fine because the majority opinion on needs can theoretically make the majority happy on most things. Just don't think that what the public wants is what it needs.
The founders of this country might have lived over two hundred years ago, but they were far more insightful than ANYONE is today. The protections built into the Constitution are what they saw at the time to be the rights necessary for a Democracy to flourish.
This is exactly what I mean. On what basis do you claim that the founders were "far more insightful than ANYONE is today"? Beside, of course, the assertion from grade school onward that the Founders were somehow mystical, I see no reason to assume them to be much more than educated men who wanted change. Furthermore, you prove my point, because the protections they built in were appropriate "at the time". This leads me to believe that we should give up the stigma and accept that THIS time is different than THAT time, and not be so weak hearted about changing the Constitution if need be.
I agree w/ both the replies, but the fundamental assumption still remains that there's something wrong and scary about changing the constitution too often or too much. It just seems to me that the balance between the Constitution being a wise and well trusted source of advice and insight written by sages, and the maleable will of the US citizenry is too far toward the former. When the "law of the land" cannot be changed for fear of breaking some presumed plan by Founders from 2 centuries ago, then I say we're all a bit too locked in to one document.
First off, I think that privacy is good and agree w/ the spirit of the parent.
However, who's to say that the US Constitution is some magically ordained super-document that is completely infallible and utterly trustworthy? It was written by men. Smart men, true, but still just men. It's great to have a common root for our legal/government practices, and to keep a (relatively) clear and concise record, but why this continual return to "the Constitution from 225 years ago says so!"? If we dropped some of the stigma around the Constitution, it could be _changed_ and actually be a living document that helps the US develop into the future./rant
In my Phys III class ages ago, we did the calculation for the resolvable limit for the human eye given a certain distance from 2 points. I can't recall the formula, but it seems that at some point in the near future a 8000 x 6000 screen will look exactly like a 80,000 x 60,000 screen unless your 2 cm away from it.
The point that once other engines like your site, Google starts to take notice is a good one. You don't need the credentials as the authority on the subject, so long as you can get some street cred w/ other, less discerning engines first.
Same argument as the CAN-SPAM act in the US. Writing a new law does not mean the referenced action is suddenly stopped or seriously reduced. It just makes legal penalties easier to prosecute after the fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Some scary stuff there! Who knew a reciprocating saw could be so dirrrrty?
No thx. I went to Rose-Hulman for undergrad, so I already know what a no-girls-on-campus experience is like. CU is the antithesis of RHIT :)
Yes, but the designers included a fatal flaw. When the super robot is pleased with its combat and is almost certainly assured victory, it smiles ^_^ automatically, closing its optical sensors and leaving itself completely vulnerable.
Domo arigoto, Mr. Fighting Roboto!
Yes, but in it's defense, the female Boulder aliens are purrrrdy! As an example... though not by any means a true sample of the entire hottie population there.
I'm an engineering grad student from Boulder (currently interning in Dallas, though), and Boulder is a really pretty place, but it's dangerous too. It has this air of calm about it that's like a productivity black hole.
Bah! Why go to the lab when there are those gorgeous mountains just up the road? Or, who needs homework when you can gaze upon row after row of tanned, toned, short-shorts and tight tank tops wearing Boulder Barbies?
In short, great place to visit, but don't get sucked in unless you want to turn into a nympho-rock climbing Buddhist hippie.
My name is Kane. I will help you.
Amen! :) I wasn't referencing that ant twilight zone episode, but I'll take credit for it you like.
Quite honestly, I just started my non AC /.ing a few days ago, and just wanted to see if I could get a +5 Funny. Apparently, not quite yet.
In the opening credits, don't they show how the name GATTACA was derived? Flashing G's, C's, A's, and T's?
Strangely, the 2 replies that others have posted in regards to my attempt are outscoring me. This whole "no longer an AC" thing isn't all it was cracked up to be.
Hey, at least I'm honest about it :)
Just blanket the olympics in high levels of EM radiation and you'll spot the cyborgs easily. As a bonus, those /. spectators present will be protected via their tinfoil hats.
This explains all of /.'s readers! We've been naturally selected to suppress the muscle gene, in favor of the intelligence gene. Perhaps our 60 km long ant colony overlords mean for us to be some sort of ruling cast over the lesser humans? /trying for my first +5 funny
Because the question isn't who best represents my views, the question is who would be the best for the majority of the people.
This is a great point, but it's a dangerous one too. The problem is in special interests and fracturing the country.
Let's say 51% of the country wants a Shiny New Car (TM) from their presidential candidate. The danger comes in if you mistake giving people what they want for giving them what they need. If you make the mistake and give them what they want, you'll vote for the candidate who promises new cars. Four years rolls around, and now 13% want Red Cars, 13% want Blue Cars, 13% want Green Cars, and 12% want Yellow Cars. These are special interests. They all still want cars, just different types. Maybe red paint lasts better in the Texas summer heat, but then Texans who wanted blue cars will complain about their Shiny New Cars fading because of government bias to the red paint folks. Maybe policemen pull over red painted cars more frequently than other colors for traffic violations and the red paint people want to enact new laws to ensure equal tickets for all paint colors.
The problems mount quickly when we confuse wants and needs. Vote for what your country needs and things will be fine because the majority opinion on needs can theoretically make the majority happy on most things. Just don't think that what the public wants is what it needs.
This will positively affect your sex life. Just think, no more popups blocking your NataliewithGrits.com browser windows!
Can someone in the know answer me this:
Since a solar sail needs light pressure to accelerate, can it only accelerate in a direct line away from a star?
also
Isn't there a problem, once the sail gets far enough from its original star, that pressure from other stars will interfere w/ the path?
The founders of this country might have lived over two hundred years ago, but they were far more insightful than ANYONE is today. The protections built into the Constitution are what they saw at the time to be the rights necessary for a Democracy to flourish.
This is exactly what I mean. On what basis do you claim that the founders were "far more insightful than ANYONE is today"? Beside, of course, the assertion from grade school onward that the Founders were somehow mystical, I see no reason to assume them to be much more than educated men who wanted change. Furthermore, you prove my point, because the protections they built in were appropriate "at the time". This leads me to believe that we should give up the stigma and accept that THIS time is different than THAT time, and not be so weak hearted about changing the Constitution if need be.
I agree w/ both the replies, but the fundamental assumption still remains that there's something wrong and scary about changing the constitution too often or too much. It just seems to me that the balance between the Constitution being a wise and well trusted source of advice and insight written by sages, and the maleable will of the US citizenry is too far toward the former. When the "law of the land" cannot be changed for fear of breaking some presumed plan by Founders from 2 centuries ago, then I say we're all a bit too locked in to one document.
First off, I think that privacy is good and agree w/ the spirit of the parent. However, who's to say that the US Constitution is some magically ordained super-document that is completely infallible and utterly trustworthy? It was written by men. Smart men, true, but still just men. It's great to have a common root for our legal/government practices, and to keep a (relatively) clear and concise record, but why this continual return to "the Constitution from 225 years ago says so!"? If we dropped some of the stigma around the Constitution, it could be _changed_ and actually be a living document that helps the US develop into the future. /rant
In my Phys III class ages ago, we did the calculation for the resolvable limit for the human eye given a certain distance from 2 points. I can't recall the formula, but it seems that at some point in the near future a 8000 x 6000 screen will look exactly like a 80,000 x 60,000 screen unless your 2 cm away from it.
The point that once other engines like your site, Google starts to take notice is a good one. You don't need the credentials as the authority on the subject, so long as you can get some street cred w/ other, less discerning engines first.
Same argument as the CAN-SPAM act in the US. Writing a new law does not mean the referenced action is suddenly stopped or seriously reduced. It just makes legal penalties easier to prosecute after the fact.