Disclaimer: i was a student under one of Miller's former post-docs. That doesn't mean I know much more than you.
From my understanding, the problems to be solved had to do with the misconception that organic molecules could only be made "organically." It was well known that life makes amino acids, fats, etc.; however, it was also well known that such things were done by the action of enzymes or other structures within living cells. So the question was more of a "how do we break the chicken-and-egg paradox?" instead of "can we reverse engineer exactly how life was created".
The fact that you could start off with inorganic materials and make organic building blocks without a living system processing them was the ground shaking breakthrough. Once you had that, then it's easy to conjecture that enough organic molecules would eventually build up that some of them would become self-organizing (and eventually resemble life). If some other technique was discovered to make organic molecules from inorganic, then the key missing link would still have been satisfied.
Usually Atlantis gets discovered every six months, but I haven't heard anything for nearly two years!
(Insert usual diatribe about the purpose of Plato's fiction, and the idiocy of anyone who believes it. Sorry, but I'm tired of typing it up everytime a new discovery is announced on Slashdot.)
So I was telling this really bad joke on the Internet, and I heard a lan tis!
And the 7 Cities of Troy didn't exist either right? I thought so. There's been enough things lost through disasters that we could be searching for a very long time.
In this case, it's more like searching for the 7 cities of Gold than the 7 cities of Troy. Just saying.
Today we laugh at the idea knowing it was just a story.
So was Troy.
You're argument has a parallel: since some of the UFOs have indeed been found to be weather balloons, it's irrefutable proof that extra terrestrials exist.
Well, either the ancient historian Strabo is lying when he said that Aristotle said that Atlantis was just "made up" to further examine a hypothetical argument, or Aristotle was a pupil of Plato, but without some "key" knowledge of one of his most important thought experiments, or Plato was telling the truth but he couldn't get his key pupil to agree?
Aristotle's works are many things, but they don't seem to indicate that he had an axe to grind against Plato, at least not one so sharp as to make the argument that Plato was a liar. I'm inclined to believe that Aristotle was right, that his teacher made up Atlantis to flesh out an argument, much like Ann Ryan made up a series of books (and heroes) to flesh out her argument.
The weakness in the above belief is that it's more-than-second-hand information. The works of Aristotle which purport to refute the real existence of Atlantis were destroyed. We only have Strabo's account of what Aristotle said about what Plato meant to go by.
That there is some evidence that Strabo truly believed in Atlantis and that he still bothered to write Aristotle's refutation of it's existence lends me to believe in Strabo's accounting of Aristotle's refutation more.
After reading a description of Atlantis, I doubt you'll ever find it (or that it ever existed). I have a hard time believing that any civilization could be so orderly to get all citizens to build their cities in circles. And building a circular canal means a spoke and ring system of waterways, when any semi-sane engineer would just settle for a spoke and hub system, no need to lay out perfect rings. Even enormously planned communities like Washington, D. C. and Brasilia have less structural control than what's implied.
Begging your pardon, but if you had to write the articles yourself, I'm not sure that your webcomic needed "entire pages of material" written about it.
The webcomic he detailed, not HIS webcomic. Perhaps it was his, but there's nothing he said to indicate it was.
Any article is initially written by one person. The fact that his article was written by him does nothing to validate it was worth or unworthy of inclusion into Wikipedia. I am quite sure that winning an award is not a requirement for inclusion into a printed, bound encyclopaedia, I am baffled that it is required in a non-printed, non-bound encyclopaedia.
if the argument is that the article was too long, well, editing is possible. Even then, it's reasonable to imagine that many not-so-awarded items might need more verbage to describe than other highly-awarded items.
For goodness sakes, even the Hitchhiker's guide managed to edit things down over deletion, "Earth: mostly harmless."
I see a line of lead-lined clothing, or perhaps backscatter resistant underwear.
While I sympathise with the health concerns of backscatter x-ray, lead has it's own health concerns. We shouldn't have to choose from poisoning ourselves with undesirable metal exposure or allowing ourselves to be irradiated without our knowledge.
You realize Assange isn't an EU citizen? Hint: He's Australian.
What he did isn't considered a crime in either Australia nor the UK.
You do realize that foreign nationals are subject to the laws of the country they currently occupy. Being in another country doesn't mean that they get to totally disregard any law that doesn't exist in their homeland.
Actually Assange hasn't committed any crime in Sweden, yet. That's what the trial is about. I know this man is important to society, but either he goes back to Sweden, or we all hold Assange above the law. There are many reasons why I don't want him in Sweden, but none of them are legal reasons. If you are charged with a crime, even a bogus crime, you must be present for that charge to be tried in a court; otherwise, the court would start without you (a much worse solution). Other countries understand this (and it's importance), and if their laws and treaties are written in such a manner that deporting him is the correct legal outcome; he's off to Sweden.
Assange is like the opening scene in "My Cousin Vinny."
Judge Chamberlain Haller: How do your clients plead?
Vinny Gambini: My clients were caught completely by surprise. They thought they were getting arrested for shoplifting a can of tuna.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Huh? What are you telling me? That they plead not guilty?
Vinny Gambini: No. I'm just trying to explain...
Judge Chamberlain Haller: [cutting him off] I don't want to hear explanations. I don't know how you practice law in New York, but the state of Alabama has a procedure. And that procedure is to have an arraignment. Are we clear on this?
Vinny Gambini: Yes, but there seems to be a great deal of confusion here. You see, my clients...
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Uh, Mr. Gambini?
[Motions for him to approach the bench]
Judge Chamberlain Haller: All I ask from you is a very simple answer to a very simple question. There are only two ways to answer it: guilty or not guilty.
Vinny Gambini: But your honor, my clients didn't do anything.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Once again, the communication process has broken down between us. It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directly to trial, skip that, and get a dismissal. Well, I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it.
Re:Yell "Format C ... Yes, Yes, Yes" at work...
on
Talking To Computers?
·
· Score: 1
You don't use one language to communicate in another language. The appropriate command would be "for every text file, say literal something about end literal the file's name end say."
If you have to tell the computer you are speaking to it, it isn't ready yet.
If the computer can't tell you apart from someone else speaking to it, it isn't ready yet.
The great thing about keyboards is a physical direct channel of communications. If I type on my keyboard, the computer already knows the communication is meant for that particular computer and it doesn't confuse other typing based communications (on other devices) as possible input meant for that particular computer.
Until they solve this problem, speech interfaces will be kludgey. You can tell it's a bit of an issue even in science fiction, as everyone needs to proceed the communications destined to the computer with "Computer,...". You can tell it's science fiction as they don't terminate their conversation with the computer with "End Computer."
Yeah, a real tragedy that you have to go switch the side the buttons are in the settings.
They changed it without writing the simplest of gui configurable dialog to set it (or set it back). Instead you had to work around the default configuration with gnome's own command line configuration hacking. Then in the same breath you mention that Ubuntu is a "desktop" distro, meant for the masses while your CEO then takes the time to lambast the complaining user base that "free doesn't mean you get what you want, you get what we want".
Technically, Ubuntu didn't do a thing wrong; however, people go out of their way to avoid such behavior in friends, associates, or even strangers.
While you are true, freedom doesn't have anything to do with wisdom.
What I found telling was the reports about two years ago where Debian developers were complaining about Ubuntu. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
I used to routinely work on systems that had three or more years of uptime. We didn't like that, but not because rebooting had any value. We didn't like the fact that they weren't applying their operating system patches at least yearly.
Really? When your job is entirely about being root, sudo is just getting in the way. I happen to have run systems in a serious environment, and we never used sudo. I would say if you have something to do that ISN'T root, you sir are teh nub.
Real sysadmins eventually have to build something from source. It doesn't matter if they do it in a package manager, or via the trusty autotools chain, or if they just launch a crusty Makefile. Reasons abound from needing exact version X of Y when the distro is ahead, behind, or just doesn't offer it.
Only a great fool of a sysadmin would build any software as root. Install as root is often necessary, but building as root is just a mistake.
They don't know exactly why it works, just that it does.
Either they know why it works, or they are incredibly ignorant. It's called the Observer-expantacy effect, and it's the primary reason why the double-blind experimental procedure was developed. This isn't some obscure bit of Psychology, it's covered in the first intro to Psychology class in detail.
Slashdot Mirror
Because two orders of magnitude is the difference in price between a Honda Civic and a Lamborghini Gallardo.
It's a lot closer between the max speed of a Honda Civic (117 MPH) and something that can cross the Atlantic in 29 minutes.
Disclaimer: i was a student under one of Miller's former post-docs. That doesn't mean I know much more than you.
From my understanding, the problems to be solved had to do with the misconception that organic molecules could only be made "organically." It was well known that life makes amino acids, fats, etc.; however, it was also well known that such things were done by the action of enzymes or other structures within living cells. So the question was more of a "how do we break the chicken-and-egg paradox?" instead of "can we reverse engineer exactly how life was created".
The fact that you could start off with inorganic materials and make organic building blocks without a living system processing them was the ground shaking breakthrough. Once you had that, then it's easy to conjecture that enough organic molecules would eventually build up that some of them would become self-organizing (and eventually resemble life). If some other technique was discovered to make organic molecules from inorganic, then the key missing link would still have been satisfied.
I love these articles, it reminds me that the best reason for using Facebook is the impending arrest.
Lol, I read that as "She might like math too!" :D
I doubt it, her story just doesn't add up.
Hey, that ring on Slashdot looks familiar...
Throw it in the fire just to make sure.
Being charged with a crime isn't being permanently tainted. It's being convicted of a crime that does that.
Usually Atlantis gets discovered every six months, but I haven't heard anything for nearly two years!
(Insert usual diatribe about the purpose of Plato's fiction, and the idiocy of anyone who believes it. Sorry, but I'm tired of typing it up everytime a new discovery is announced on Slashdot.)
So I was telling this really bad joke on the Internet, and I heard a lan tis!
And the 7 Cities of Troy didn't exist either right? I thought so. There's been enough things lost through disasters that we could be searching for a very long time.
In this case, it's more like searching for the 7 cities of Gold than the 7 cities of Troy. Just saying.
Today we laugh at the idea knowing it was just a story.
So was Troy.
You're argument has a parallel: since some of the UFOs have indeed been found to be weather balloons, it's irrefutable proof that extra terrestrials exist.
Well, either the ancient historian Strabo is lying when he said that Aristotle said that Atlantis was just "made up" to further examine a hypothetical argument, or Aristotle was a pupil of Plato, but without some "key" knowledge of one of his most important thought experiments, or Plato was telling the truth but he couldn't get his key pupil to agree?
Aristotle's works are many things, but they don't seem to indicate that he had an axe to grind against Plato, at least not one so sharp as to make the argument that Plato was a liar. I'm inclined to believe that Aristotle was right, that his teacher made up Atlantis to flesh out an argument, much like Ann Ryan made up a series of books (and heroes) to flesh out her argument.
The weakness in the above belief is that it's more-than-second-hand information. The works of Aristotle which purport to refute the real existence of Atlantis were destroyed. We only have Strabo's account of what Aristotle said about what Plato meant to go by.
That there is some evidence that Strabo truly believed in Atlantis and that he still bothered to write Aristotle's refutation of it's existence lends me to believe in Strabo's accounting of Aristotle's refutation more.
After reading a description of Atlantis, I doubt you'll ever find it (or that it ever existed). I have a hard time believing that any civilization could be so orderly to get all citizens to build their cities in circles. And building a circular canal means a spoke and ring system of waterways, when any semi-sane engineer would just settle for a spoke and hub system, no need to lay out perfect rings. Even enormously planned communities like Washington, D. C. and Brasilia have less structural control than what's implied.
Begging your pardon, but if you had to write the articles yourself, I'm not sure that your webcomic needed "entire pages of material" written about it.
The webcomic he detailed, not HIS webcomic. Perhaps it was his, but there's nothing he said to indicate it was.
Any article is initially written by one person. The fact that his article was written by him does nothing to validate it was worth or unworthy of inclusion into Wikipedia. I am quite sure that winning an award is not a requirement for inclusion into a printed, bound encyclopaedia, I am baffled that it is required in a non-printed, non-bound encyclopaedia.
if the argument is that the article was too long, well, editing is possible. Even then, it's reasonable to imagine that many not-so-awarded items might need more verbage to describe than other highly-awarded items.
For goodness sakes, even the Hitchhiker's guide managed to edit things down over deletion, "Earth: mostly harmless."
I see a line of lead-lined clothing, or perhaps backscatter resistant underwear.
While I sympathise with the health concerns of backscatter x-ray, lead has it's own health concerns. We shouldn't have to choose from poisoning ourselves with undesirable metal exposure or allowing ourselves to be irradiated without our knowledge.
You realize Assange isn't an EU citizen? Hint: He's Australian.
What he did isn't considered a crime in either Australia nor the UK.
You do realize that foreign nationals are subject to the laws of the country they currently occupy. Being in another country doesn't mean that they get to totally disregard any law that doesn't exist in their homeland.
Actually Assange hasn't committed any crime in Sweden, yet. That's what the trial is about. I know this man is important to society, but either he goes back to Sweden, or we all hold Assange above the law. There are many reasons why I don't want him in Sweden, but none of them are legal reasons. If you are charged with a crime, even a bogus crime, you must be present for that charge to be tried in a court; otherwise, the court would start without you (a much worse solution). Other countries understand this (and it's importance), and if their laws and treaties are written in such a manner that deporting him is the correct legal outcome; he's off to Sweden.
Assange is like the opening scene in "My Cousin Vinny."
Judge Chamberlain Haller: How do your clients plead?
Vinny Gambini: My clients were caught completely by surprise. They thought they were getting arrested for shoplifting a can of tuna.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Huh? What are you telling me? That they plead not guilty?
Vinny Gambini: No. I'm just trying to explain...
Judge Chamberlain Haller: [cutting him off] I don't want to hear explanations. I don't know how you practice law in New York, but the state of Alabama has a procedure. And that procedure is to have an arraignment. Are we clear on this?
Vinny Gambini: Yes, but there seems to be a great deal of confusion here. You see, my clients...
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Uh, Mr. Gambini?
[Motions for him to approach the bench]
Judge Chamberlain Haller: All I ask from you is a very simple answer to a very simple question. There are only two ways to answer it: guilty or not guilty.
Vinny Gambini: But your honor, my clients didn't do anything.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Once again, the communication process has broken down between us. It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directly to trial, skip that, and get a dismissal. Well, I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it.
You don't use one language to communicate in another language. The appropriate command would be "for every text file, say literal something about end literal the file's name end say."
Agreed, and to continue.
If you have to tell the computer you are speaking to it, it isn't ready yet.
If the computer can't tell you apart from someone else speaking to it, it isn't ready yet.
The great thing about keyboards is a physical direct channel of communications. If I type on my keyboard, the computer already knows the communication is meant for that particular computer and it doesn't confuse other typing based communications (on other devices) as possible input meant for that particular computer.
Until they solve this problem, speech interfaces will be kludgey. You can tell it's a bit of an issue even in science fiction, as everyone needs to proceed the communications destined to the computer with "Computer, ...". You can tell it's science fiction as they don't terminate their conversation with the computer with "End Computer."
Only in an American show would you have to specify HOT Earl Grey tea. After all, you wouldn't ask for "popsicle, lemon, cold"
You have obviously never interacted with the military supply nomenclature.
Open the pod bay doors, Hal.
op enthep o dba y do or shal.
I cannot perform do enthep on your dba at this time, and don't threaten me, Dave
kexec doesn't work for Digital Unix / Tru64 / HPUX.
Yeah, a real tragedy that you have to go switch the side the buttons are in the settings.
They changed it without writing the simplest of gui configurable dialog to set it (or set it back). Instead you had to work around the default configuration with gnome's own command line configuration hacking. Then in the same breath you mention that Ubuntu is a "desktop" distro, meant for the masses while your CEO then takes the time to lambast the complaining user base that "free doesn't mean you get what you want, you get what we want".
Technically, Ubuntu didn't do a thing wrong; however, people go out of their way to avoid such behavior in friends, associates, or even strangers.
Your Linux is just rotten
The command line's long forgotten
Be quirky if you're brave
Burma Shave!
While you are true, freedom doesn't have anything to do with wisdom.
What I found telling was the reports about two years ago where Debian developers were complaining about Ubuntu. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
I used to routinely work on systems that had three or more years of uptime. We didn't like that, but not because rebooting had any value. We didn't like the fact that they weren't applying their operating system patches at least yearly.
Really? When your job is entirely about being root, sudo is just getting in the way. I happen to have run systems in a serious environment, and we never used sudo. I would say if you have something to do that ISN'T root, you sir are teh nub.
Real sysadmins eventually have to build something from source. It doesn't matter if they do it in a package manager, or via the trusty autotools chain, or if they just launch a crusty Makefile. Reasons abound from needing exact version X of Y when the distro is ahead, behind, or just doesn't offer it.
Only a great fool of a sysadmin would build any software as root. Install as root is often necessary, but building as root is just a mistake.
The only drivers that were missing were the ones that corresponded to my portfolio.
They don't know exactly why it works, just that it does.
Either they know why it works, or they are incredibly ignorant. It's called the Observer-expantacy effect, and it's the primary reason why the double-blind experimental procedure was developed. This isn't some obscure bit of Psychology, it's covered in the first intro to Psychology class in detail.