This explains why intelligent people prefer glossy screens. They can filter out the reflectiions unlike their stupid peers.
Almost. That's why arrogant people who think they're more intelligent than their peers prefer glossy screens. They'd rather by seen coping with unnecessary distractions rather than just eliminating the distractions. Like people who wastefully spend their money to show off rather than investing it wisely. It's conspicuous consumption of "intelligence."
The problem with that argument is that the 97% that were wrong didn't do studies and publish papers to support their view, because clearly if they'd done the actual science relating to the issue they would have discovered they were wrong. They just pooh-poohed the claims of the 3%, disparaged them in correspondence, and argued that their studies were flawed without providing any kind of evidence to prove it.
In other words, they acted just like all the anti-AGW people are acting right now.
There were scientists who believed the continents were static, but there were not thousands of papers "proving" that was true. There were scientists who didn't believe in microorganisms, but there were not thousands of papers "proving" they don't exist. There were scientists who believed in the aether, but there were not thousands of papers "proving" it existed.
In every case of this nature the anti-AGW try to cite, a large number of scientists assumed that something was true when it was not. Then some rebel got up and said "i think it works in some different manner!" and caught a lot of flak for it, which is unfortunate but part of the human condition. However despite the arguments and entrenched positions and pride and stubbornness, when actual science started being done the truth came out. In all the cases once papers started being published the vast majority of them supported the viewpoint that we have not generally come to conclude is the correct one. Microorganisms exist, the continents do move, and there is no aether.
The anti-AGW people seem to be arguing that this is the sole case in history where as more and more science has been done, more and more scientists have apparently faked their results in order to support mistaken beliefs. In some cases they argue that it's because they're being funded by "pro-AGW" bodies, in particular governments, when the corporations who are firmly anti-AGW have far deeper pockets and have actually been caught funding scientists to promote certain views.
In short, it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out. When new ideas come out it doesn't hurt to question them, but the anti-AGW people long since passed the point of reasonable doubts being aired and moved into denialism and conspiracy theories.
"I can see the screen with some twiddling. Glass can end up tipping to the side, and I need to prop it up with my fingers, since the nose piece isn't seated on my nose any longer."
So google has created an incredibly geeky device that only nerds are likely to feel comfortable with at first... and it doesn't work well for people who wear glasses. I'm sure this will turn out great.
Spy/Spying: 2. a person who keeps close and secret watch on the actions and words of another or others.
Look, i'm as concerned with privacy as the next person, but saying that people in public wearing Google Glasses are spying on you is about the same as saying that pirating software is the same as stealing. It's kind of in the same ballpark, and you could argue that both are bad, but they're not exactly the same thing. (Note that if the person is in fact secretly keeping a close watch on you when you're not in public then they are spying, but at that point it doesn't make a practical difference whether they're doing it with Google Glasses or not.)
Before Google Glass if someone saw you do something in public that you didn't want spread around there was nothing stopping them from telling other people about it. The only difference is that now they can show a video or picture instead of writing an article or blog post or making a verbal report.
If it comes up in a legal case it's now gone from "i said/they said" to "i said/they have a video tape", but why were you doing something illegal in public anyways?
If it's just something embarrassing, well, yes it's a lot more likely to go viral if it's on video rather than a written account, and you'll be a lot more identifiable, so that _does_ suck. But it's still not spying.
The one case where it _would_ be spying is if the government hacked (or was given backdoor access to) the system so that they could secretly make copies of all recordings made for future reference. That would be bad, and we should do our best to make sure that the government doesn't do that and gets punished when it gets caught breaking the rules. But that's not the intended use case for Google Glass.
Which i said right in my first post. Apparently we both have trouble catching things on the first read, i just took the time to correct my mistake before posting about it. Otherwise i would have complained about it not being in the summary and looked like a real fool when someone pointed it out to me.
Yeah, i figured it was "Request For" something right away, but my brain had just skimmed over the lower case "request for proposal" a line or two before they started using "RFP". I spent a bit trying to figure out what the "P" would be on my own before thinking to go back and reread the first part slowly and more carefully.
Funny, i work for a government contractor and i had no idea what it means. Of course i'm just a programmer, people in other departments actually talk to the government agencies and deal with the bidding.
They actually used "request for proposal" in the blurb before they started throwing "RFP" all over the place, but because of the lack of capitalization it still took me a minute or two to figure out =P
Yes, that's another valid argument. I could have told him to go read the Hebrew version and get back to me. However he made a claim based on the wording of the English translation which doesn't even hold up just when compared to the rest of the English translation.
That only works if you ignore the literary style of the whole rest of the chapter. The past tense isn't specifically used in 2:18, it's used through tout the whole chapter. "Now the lord god had" is used repeatedly, and the two interpretations are "It's a literary way of saying 'now god is doing this'," or "the ordering of this story is a confused mess."
In 2:18 God says he's going to make a helper for man. Then in 2:19 it talks about making the animals. Then in 2:20 it says that no suitable helper was found among the animals.
Is your argument that God was talking about creating woman in 2:18 but got totally sidetracked in 2:19 and decided to try the animals first instead of creating something new like he had _just_ said he was going to do in the previous sentence?
If you think those are the same account of events, then you're failing at both reading comprehension and history.
As others have already elaborated, it's well established that the two accounts are from two different traditions. But even your own links describe a clearly different order of events, even ignoring whether Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Version 1
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, âoeLet us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.â
Version 2
18 The Lord God said, âoeIt is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.â
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
In the first version it was animals first and then mankind, in the second version it was man first, then animals. (And then woman.)
If you want you can accept them as two stories from two different traditions, one of which is literally true and one of which is metaphor, or you can accept them both as metaphor. But they can't both be literally true.
JMS = doesn't really start to hit his stride until the second season.
Wachowskis = each part of an episodic thing they work on is worse than the one that came before
So either the strengths of one will compensate for the weaknesses of the other, or it's going to start out as on okay show with some promise but a lot of problems to overcome and then go downhill from there.
Yeah! How fare they assume that people on Slashdot read Slashdot and know what Slashdot has been talking about incessantly for the last year.
I'm sorry if you just joined the site or something, but there comes a certain point where you have to stop explaining the really basic stuff in every single article.
Next on Slashdot! General Electric (an American company known for producing a wide range of electric devices) is releasing a new toaster (a device for toasting (browning or melting with the application of heat) bread (a food substance made from baked wheat)) and we seek to answer the question, can it run (synonym for executing code) Linux (a FOSS (free and open source) Unix (OS (abbreviation for operating system, a collection of software that manages computer hardware resources and provides common services for computer programs) originally developed by Bell Labs (a former division of AT&T (another American company)))-like OS)?
I'm sure both the Samsung and Apple versions will be impressive new steps in the technology, but let's not pretend there's anything fundamentally new about the idea.
Twitter _might_ have spread that particular news enough to make a difference, but remember twitter isn't exactly discriminating when it "chooses" which messages to amplify. When the US sequestration happened were people focusing on Boehner's effective dismissal of the US Constitution? Or even just discussing the sequestration itself? Or were they busy tweeting about "Jedi mind melds"?
Look, the consensus seems to be that he was "CEO fired", which involves a lot more politeness and face saving then when the common worker drones are fired.
So if the board did in fact "fire" him, then if his departure is _not_ good for the company then they made the wrong decision. You don't fire any employee, CEO or drone, in the belief that it's going to make things worse for the company (or rather the owners/board of the company) than the alternatives.
Maybe some people are choosing to replace game consoles and such with tablets, but i'm not. I've still got a PS3 and a Wii. I've still got a digital camera that i use to take "important" pictures because it does a much better job than my phone. I admit i haven't used my dedicated mp3 players in awhile, but i think that's the only device that's actually been phased out. Of course that only got phased out because i got a smartphone, so that evens that out i guess. And since then i've also added a Nook, a tablet and a Roku.
Perhaps if you have less electronic devices it's because you decided you wanted less?
Of course going by the sample pictures it looks like you have a lot of redundant pieces of electronics that i never bothered with. I've had one "boombox" type stereo system pretty much my entire life. No need for separate CD players or tuners, and i've certainly never needed a turntable!
They keep removing him, and yet somehow he keeps coming back. Maybe this time it will stick?
Hey, there's something weird going on over in the other corner of my base. Probably just those damn sheep glitching through the fence again, but i better go check it out. brb...
Slashdot Mirror
This explains why intelligent people prefer glossy screens. They can filter out the reflectiions unlike their stupid peers.
Almost. That's why arrogant people who think they're more intelligent than their peers prefer glossy screens. They'd rather by seen coping with unnecessary distractions rather than just eliminating the distractions. Like people who wastefully spend their money to show off rather than investing it wisely. It's conspicuous consumption of "intelligence."
The problem with that argument is that the 97% that were wrong didn't do studies and publish papers to support their view, because clearly if they'd done the actual science relating to the issue they would have discovered they were wrong. They just pooh-poohed the claims of the 3%, disparaged them in correspondence, and argued that their studies were flawed without providing any kind of evidence to prove it.
In other words, they acted just like all the anti-AGW people are acting right now.
There were scientists who believed the continents were static, but there were not thousands of papers "proving" that was true. There were scientists who didn't believe in microorganisms, but there were not thousands of papers "proving" they don't exist. There were scientists who believed in the aether, but there were not thousands of papers "proving" it existed.
In every case of this nature the anti-AGW try to cite, a large number of scientists assumed that something was true when it was not. Then some rebel got up and said "i think it works in some different manner!" and caught a lot of flak for it, which is unfortunate but part of the human condition. However despite the arguments and entrenched positions and pride and stubbornness, when actual science started being done the truth came out. In all the cases once papers started being published the vast majority of them supported the viewpoint that we have not generally come to conclude is the correct one. Microorganisms exist, the continents do move, and there is no aether.
The anti-AGW people seem to be arguing that this is the sole case in history where as more and more science has been done, more and more scientists have apparently faked their results in order to support mistaken beliefs. In some cases they argue that it's because they're being funded by "pro-AGW" bodies, in particular governments, when the corporations who are firmly anti-AGW have far deeper pockets and have actually been caught funding scientists to promote certain views.
In short, it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out. When new ideas come out it doesn't hurt to question them, but the anti-AGW people long since passed the point of reasonable doubts being aired and moved into denialism and conspiracy theories.
Sounds like something from an episose of red Red Dwarf.
Personally i prefer blue Red Dwarf. (That way i don't need to change the bulb.)
"I can see the screen with some twiddling. Glass can end up tipping to the side, and I need to prop it up with my fingers, since the nose piece isn't seated on my nose any longer."
So google has created an incredibly geeky device that only nerds are likely to feel comfortable with at first... and it doesn't work well for people who wear glasses. I'm sure this will turn out great.
By all your battery breakthroughs combined... I am Captain Perpetual Motion!!!
Spy/Spying: 2. a person who keeps close and secret watch on the actions and words of another or others.
Look, i'm as concerned with privacy as the next person, but saying that people in public wearing Google Glasses are spying on you is about the same as saying that pirating software is the same as stealing. It's kind of in the same ballpark, and you could argue that both are bad, but they're not exactly the same thing. (Note that if the person is in fact secretly keeping a close watch on you when you're not in public then they are spying, but at that point it doesn't make a practical difference whether they're doing it with Google Glasses or not.)
Before Google Glass if someone saw you do something in public that you didn't want spread around there was nothing stopping them from telling other people about it. The only difference is that now they can show a video or picture instead of writing an article or blog post or making a verbal report.
If it comes up in a legal case it's now gone from "i said/they said" to "i said/they have a video tape", but why were you doing something illegal in public anyways?
If it's just something embarrassing, well, yes it's a lot more likely to go viral if it's on video rather than a written account, and you'll be a lot more identifiable, so that _does_ suck. But it's still not spying.
The one case where it _would_ be spying is if the government hacked (or was given backdoor access to) the system so that they could secretly make copies of all recordings made for future reference. That would be bad, and we should do our best to make sure that the government doesn't do that and gets punished when it gets caught breaking the rules. But that's not the intended use case for Google Glass.
I guess you haven't heard of Toxoplasma Gondii then?
It's right in the summary.
Which i said right in my first post. Apparently we both have trouble catching things on the first read, i just took the time to correct my mistake before posting about it. Otherwise i would have complained about it not being in the summary and looked like a real fool when someone pointed it out to me.
Yeah, i figured it was "Request For" something right away, but my brain had just skimmed over the lower case "request for proposal" a line or two before they started using "RFP". I spent a bit trying to figure out what the "P" would be on my own before thinking to go back and reread the first part slowly and more carefully.
Funny, i work for a government contractor and i had no idea what it means. Of course i'm just a programmer, people in other departments actually talk to the government agencies and deal with the bidding.
They actually used "request for proposal" in the blurb before they started throwing "RFP" all over the place, but because of the lack of capitalization it still took me a minute or two to figure out =P
Yes, that's another valid argument. I could have told him to go read the Hebrew version and get back to me. However he made a claim based on the wording of the English translation which doesn't even hold up just when compared to the rest of the English translation.
That only works if you ignore the literary style of the whole rest of the chapter. The past tense isn't specifically used in 2:18, it's used through tout the whole chapter. "Now the lord god had" is used repeatedly, and the two interpretations are "It's a literary way of saying 'now god is doing this'," or "the ordering of this story is a confused mess."
In 2:18 God says he's going to make a helper for man. Then in 2:19 it talks about making the animals. Then in 2:20 it says that no suitable helper was found among the animals.
Is your argument that God was talking about creating woman in 2:18 but got totally sidetracked in 2:19 and decided to try the animals first instead of creating something new like he had _just_ said he was going to do in the previous sentence?
As others have already elaborated, it's well established that the two accounts are from two different traditions. But even your own links describe a clearly different order of events, even ignoring whether Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Version 1
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, âoeLet us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.â
Version 2
18 The Lord God said, âoeIt is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.â
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
In the first version it was animals first and then mankind, in the second version it was man first, then animals. (And then woman.)
If you want you can accept them as two stories from two different traditions, one of which is literally true and one of which is metaphor, or you can accept them both as metaphor. But they can't both be literally true.
So just going from past history...
JMS = doesn't really start to hit his stride until the second season.
Wachowskis = each part of an episodic thing they work on is worse than the one that came before
So either the strengths of one will compensate for the weaknesses of the other, or it's going to start out as on okay show with some promise but a lot of problems to overcome and then go downhill from there.
Yeah! How fare they assume that people on Slashdot read Slashdot and know what Slashdot has been talking about incessantly for the last year.
I'm sorry if you just joined the site or something, but there comes a certain point where you have to stop explaining the really basic stuff in every single article.
Next on Slashdot! General Electric (an American company known for producing a wide range of electric devices) is releasing a new toaster (a device for toasting (browning or melting with the application of heat) bread (a food substance made from baked wheat)) and we seek to answer the question, can it run (synonym for executing code) Linux (a FOSS (free and open source) Unix (OS (abbreviation for operating system, a collection of software that manages computer hardware resources and provides common services for computer programs) originally developed by Bell Labs (a former division of AT&T (another American company)))-like OS)?
*Joke about dongle*
*drama*
*Rocks fall, everyone gets fired*
All they need now is services called "Lose" and "Weep".
Judging by the other comments i think they already have that covered. I believe they were codenames for Google Notebook and Google Reader.
"Smart watches" have been around in one form or another for decades.
I'm sure both the Samsung and Apple versions will be impressive new steps in the technology, but let's not pretend there's anything fundamentally new about the idea.
Twitter _might_ have spread that particular news enough to make a difference, but remember twitter isn't exactly discriminating when it "chooses" which messages to amplify. When the US sequestration happened were people focusing on Boehner's effective dismissal of the US Constitution? Or even just discussing the sequestration itself? Or were they busy tweeting about "Jedi mind melds"?
Useful research into vulnerabilities, wasn't used for personal gain, was reported to educate others and so security lapses could be fixed.
They're so going to jail.
local security experts say that this is an example of an advanced persistent threat.
That sounds like an apt description of events.
Look, the consensus seems to be that he was "CEO fired", which involves a lot more politeness and face saving then when the common worker drones are fired.
So if the board did in fact "fire" him, then if his departure is _not_ good for the company then they made the wrong decision. You don't fire any employee, CEO or drone, in the belief that it's going to make things worse for the company (or rather the owners/board of the company) than the alternatives.
Maybe some people are choosing to replace game consoles and such with tablets, but i'm not. I've still got a PS3 and a Wii. I've still got a digital camera that i use to take "important" pictures because it does a much better job than my phone. I admit i haven't used my dedicated mp3 players in awhile, but i think that's the only device that's actually been phased out. Of course that only got phased out because i got a smartphone, so that evens that out i guess. And since then i've also added a Nook, a tablet and a Roku.
Perhaps if you have less electronic devices it's because you decided you wanted less?
Of course going by the sample pictures it looks like you have a lot of redundant pieces of electronics that i never bothered with. I've had one "boombox" type stereo system pretty much my entire life. No need for separate CD players or tuners, and i've certainly never needed a turntable!
They keep removing him, and yet somehow he keeps coming back. Maybe this time it will stick?
Hey, there's something weird going on over in the other corner of my base. Probably just those damn sheep glitching through the fence again, but i better go check it out. brb...